Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
LostWanderer

Conscience

Recommended Posts

What does it mean for our soul when no matter which choice we make on a matter, our conscience isn't clear?

 

... If even not choosing (being inactive) offends our conscience?

Share this post


Link to post

Hi LW, since you've given us no specifics, I can only answer in the general sense. If your conscience isn't clear, and an immediate decision is not required on your part, then it seems to me that patience and prayer are the way to go until you have a better understanding of the matter from God (even if waiting is somehow offensive to you as well).

 

Yours and His,

David

quote-of-two-evils-choose-neither-charles-spurgeon-28-4-0429.jpg.f199939ab8e7329496e37236a9adfbcc.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure if this will help, but it's great advice that, if followed, will always keep you out of hot water, especially where your immortal "soul" is concerned anyway :RpS_smile:

Be obedient even when you do not know where obedience may lead you. -- Sinclair B. Ferguson

 

--David

Share this post


Link to post

David,

 

I'll give specifics, but I'm hesitant to do so because I expect this thread to become a debate about the specifics instead of the principle of obeying conscience. No offense, but most Christians are ignorant on the topic - it's one I posted about earlier: modesty (I posted about it on ... 8? forums. The responses in most places were pathetic.)

 

I'm disabled, and either I do photography or I do nothing. It's a sin for me to not work (clear command), so I must do photography if I'm able to.

----------

However, the concept of modesty gets in the way. My conscience (not scripture) makes me ask: should I shoot pictures if the person (male or female, makes little difference to me) isn't wearing long, heavy, loose fitting clothing that reveals nothing but the hands and face? This would eliminate every customer, no one dresses this way except muslims, some IFB girls, and amish. Thus, it leaves me not working and not providing for myself.

 

You'll probably be inclined to respond by telling me that my standard is absurd, and I agree. My conscience gets in the way even though I think this view is nearly indefensible (I was in an IFB church; they misused scripture to drill this concept.)

----------

It gets even more tricky here: what about doing fitness shots: shirtless men? Okay, that's more revealing, but when is "more" enough to say it's wrong? I don't believe this is wrong, either - but again, my conscience gets in the way and tells me I shouldn't do this. Again, though - I'm required to work.

 

To make matters even more complicated, my conscience also tells me that I should stand up for women's rights and support the same freedom for them - especially because they have the added function of feeding their babies... It was 105f one day in my city last month, can you imagine covering a baby for it to feed?... It's illegal to leave dogs in hot vehicles! .. How much more should we say "poor baby?".. Of course, it's for womens' benefit also: they shouldn't have to suffer in the heat; if there's shade and wind, and it's too hot to stay outside, taking off more clothing allows you to continue your task instead of going home to your A/C (if you live in a first world country... what are others supposed to do?)

 

More relevantly, perhaps: I believe it's wrong to discriminate. Either I shoot neither gender topless, or I shoot both (another difficulty!)

 

This one will really inflame people: it's a VERY offensive concept to many, if not most christians, in our country. So, here's another point where it may move to changing my view of modesty rather than dealing with the conscience issue... I'm willing to listen to scripture, but the conscience issue should also be addressed: what happens when another situation comes along and I'm stuck in the middle? This isn't rare, for me.

 

Note: this goes beyond business. Conversations happen where the idea of modesty comes up; if I'm silent, I let the typical church view dominate people in an unhealthy way, and I'm not okay with that. If I speak up, then the possibility of giving wrong advice sears my conscience.

 

.......

 

So, regarding your last post about being obedient - what *is* obedience for me? Do I follow the clearest command which tells me to work, or do I sit on the side and let everyone else provide for my needs?

Share this post


Link to post

Hi again LW, first off, where matters of conscience are concerned, you should take the time to resolve the matter in your heart and mind before you act against what your conscience is telling you.

 

That said, this thought comes to mind. Now I realize that this is FAR more difficult to do than it is to talk about, but is there anyway you could choose to do a different kind of photography? For instance, I doubt you'd run into matters of conscience if you did tabletop and/or architectural photography :RpS_smile: There's the wedding photography business too, of course, but along with your disability being a possible problem for that, I suspect that you are not insane enough to go in that direction (however, people are normally dressed from head to toe at weddings, and if you have a personality that can survive the insanity, the $$ is great).

 

Whoops, gotta go. I'll be back (Dv).

 

--David

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Hi again LW, first off, where matters of conscience are concerned, you should take the time to resolve the matter in your heart and mind before you act against what your conscience is telling you.

 

That said, this thought comes to mind. Now I realize that this is FAR more difficult to do than it is to talk about, but is there anyway you could choose to do a different kind of photography? For instance, I doubt you'd run into matters of conscience if you did tabletop and/or architectural photography :RpS_smile: There's the wedding photography business too, of course, but along with your disability being a possible problem for that, I suspect that you are not insane enough to go in that direction (however, people are normally dressed from head to toe at weddings, and if you have a personality that can survive the insanity, the $$ is great).

 

Whoops, gotta go. I'll be back (Dv).

 

--David

 

 

 

 

Negative on doing a different kind of photography.

DSLRs nearly killed the market - everyone has a camera. Just look at the prices of stock photography on shutterstock, etc.

 

As for weddings - that would be far worse. Can't discriminate - so I have to shoot gay weddings too - and that's not happening. But I'm curious about your head to toe comment, because a lot of wedding dresses are more revealing than girls' standard clothing. That's pretty normal around here, I believe.

In any case, it'll go great when I remind the bride: "you must not wear a dress that shows anything below the collar bone!" And if that's not in our contract, she can sue me for bailing at the last moment when she doesn't follow that rule. Even if she doesn't sue me, no one would hire me after she complains - and rightfully so.

 

In addition, I don't believe that's what scripture teaches about dress - so, I'd object to doing this on the grounds that it'll make myself and the faith look legalistic and unreasonable.

 

----

 

I find the concept of conscience frequently difficult to apply. For example, in my school work (I'm working toward another field, but my school will take ~9 years) I'm required to take general studies (the u.s. education system is a joke) and part of that includes a class on health, which talks about sexuality. It's not pornographic, but it has pictures of anatomy. Should I refuse to take this class, because I feel uncomfortable and have some doubt whether it's acceptable for me to look at that?

Share this post


Link to post
As for weddings - that would be far worse. Can't discriminate - so I have to shoot gay weddings too - and that's not happening. But I'm curious about your head to toe comment, because a lot of wedding dresses are more revealing than girls' standard clothing. That's pretty normal around here, I believe.

 

Ah yes, I forgot how the industry has changed. And I also forgot about the low-cut tops that are common on many wedding bodices (which is silly since the beautiful dress that my wife wore at our wedding was anything but neck high).

 

I figured changing the kind of photography you do probably wasn't possible, but I thought I'd ask.

 

I used to do photography for a living as well, but it was in the old days, prior to DSLR's and Photoshop. Back then it took a pro with a light meter to even get consistently decent exposures, and retouching was done with dyes and pencils and knives. I got out of the business at the right time, as I'm pretty certain I would not be able to work under the conditions that commercial photographers, like you, are faced with today.

 

One of the two people the Lord used most directly to lead me to Him was one of my principle models. She did a number of national ads, but when an art director asked her to pose in a way that would have made her "appear" as if she was topless, she refused as a matter of conscience. If memory serves, they changed their minds and allowed her to appear in the shot (which was of the back of her shoulder, upper arm, and neck) wearing a towel, but that was the last shoot they hired her for (so you are not the first person I've run into in the industry that's faced a crisis of conscience).

 

There's still more that I wanted to talk to you about, but I've gotta run again.

 

I'll be back (Dv)

 

--David

Edited by David Lee

Share this post


Link to post

 

Ah yes, I forgot how the industry has changed. And I also forgot about the low-cut tops that are common on many wedding bodices (which is silly since the beautiful dress that my wife wore at our wedding was anything but neck high).

 

I figured changing the kind of photography you do probably wasn't possible, but I thought I'd ask.

 

I used to do photography for a living as well, but it was in the old days, prior to DSLR's and Photoshop. Back then it took a pro with a light meter to even get consistently decent exposures, and retouching was done with dyes and pencils and knives. I got out of the business at the right time, as I'm pretty certain I would not be able to work under the conditions that commercial photographers, like you, are faced with today.

 

One of the two people the Lord used most directly to lead me to Him was one of my principle models. She did a number of national ads, but when an art director asked her to pose in a way that would have made her "appear" as if she was topless, she refused as a matter of conscience. If memory serves, they changed their minds and allowed her to appear in the shot (which was of the back of her shoulder, upper arm, and neck) wearing a towel, but that was the last shoot they hired her for (so you are not the first person I've run into in the industry that's faced a crisis of conscience).

 

There's still more that I wanted to talk to you about, but I've gotta run again.

 

I'll be back (Dv)

 

--David

 

It's very interesting that you did photography! I'd like to hear / see more. :)

 

Yeah, at this point I'm just going by my best judgement of scripture. No choice I have leaves my conscience clear... :\ ... I was asked once to shoot portraits where the girl would be wearing a semi-transparent bottom. I told her no, that topless is as far as I'll go; and I'm willing to do that primarily because I think discrimination is wrong. I mentioned in my other thread: men couldn't show their nipples in public until 1937. Via exposure, it became "rated G." Now almost no one is really bothered by a man's chest. Yay for patriarchy *sigh.*

Edited by LostWanderer

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • The FAQs: New Government Rules Protect Conscience Rights in Health Insurance

      What just happened? Earlier this week the Trump administration released two final rules to provide conscience protections for Americans who have a religious or moral objection to health insurance that covers contraception or abortifacients. The new rules—one religious-based exemption and one moral-based exemption—provide broad protections for individuals, organizations, and businesses that opposed the Obama administration’s contraceptive-abortifacient mandate because of their religious or moral beliefs. What exactly is this contraceptive-abortifacient mandate? Under the Affordable Care Act (often referred to as “Obamacare”), employer-provided health insurance plans are required to cover certain “preventative services”—which were defined through guidance by the Obama administration as including all contraception methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including abortifacients and sterilization procedures. What is the religious-based exemption, and who qualifies for it? The first of the final rules provides an exemption from the coverage mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. Entities that have sincerely held religious beliefs against providing contraceptive or abortifacient services would be exempt from the mandate and no longer be required to provide such coverage. Entities that object to covering some, but not all, contraceptive items would be exempt with respect to only those methods to which they object. The exemption is applicable to nonprofits and for-profit entities, including both those that are closely held (such as Hobby Lobby and most small businesses) and also those that are not closely held (such as most publicly traded companies). The exemption is also applicable to institutions of higher education, insurance issuers to the extent they provide a plan to otherwise exempt entities, and individuals whose employers and issuers are willing to provide them a plan compliant with the individuals’ beliefs. These rules also apply to institutions of education, issuers, and individuals. Government entities are not eligible for the exemption. Churches and similar religious organizations were always exempt. Additionally, exempt entities do not need to file notices or certifications of their exemption, an issue that was of concern for some groups, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor. What is the moral-based exemption, and who qualifies for it? The second of the final rules provides an exemption from the coverage mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of sincerely held moral convictions. Entities that have sincerely held moral convictions against providing contraceptive or abortifacient services would be exempt from the mandate and no longer be required to provide such coverage. Entities that object to covering some, but not all, contraceptive items would be exempt with respect to only those methods to which they object. The exemption is applicable to nonprofits, institutions of education, issuers, individuals, and closely held for-profit entities. However, the exemption is not allowed for for-profit entities that are not closely held, such as publicly traded companies. Government entities are also not eligible for this exemption. Why aren’t publicly traded companies eligible for the moral exemption? The primary reason is because no publicly traded entities were identified that sought an exemption because of non-religious moral objections. The only entities known to express non-religious moral objections are pro-life organizations whose employees share the objections. The government, however, has said it will reconsider the matter if companies  not closely held seek such an exemption. What are all the entities allowed some form of exemption from the mandate? The entities that are allowed some form of exemption include: • Churches, integrated auxiliaries, and religious orders with religious objections; • Nonprofit organizations with religious or moral objections; • For-profit entities that are not publicly traded, with religious or moral objections; • For-profit entities that are publicly traded, with religious objections; • Other non-governmental employers with religious objections; • Non-governmental institutions of higher education with religious or moral objections; • Individuals with religious or moral objections, with employer-sponsored or individual-market coverage, where the plan sponsor and/or issuer (as applicable) are willing to offer them a plan omitting contraceptive coverage to which they object; • Issuers with religious or moral objections, to the extent they provide coverage to a plan sponsor or individual that is also exempt. When do the final rules take affect? The rules take effect 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register, the official journal of the federal government of the United States that contains government agency rules, proposed rules, and public notices. Since the rules are scheduled to be published on November 15, the estimated date they will take effect is January 14, 2019. How many companies will be affected by these rules? The Department of Health and Human Services estimates the exemptions should affect no more than approximately 200 employers with religious or moral objections. Why is the executive branch modifying a law made by Congress? Regulations, like the contraceptive-abortifacient mandate, are rules that have the force of law and that are issued by various federal government departments and agencies to carry out the intent of legislation enacted by Congress. The executive branch, through the various regulatory agencies, carries out most interpretation of legislation. Regulatory agencies handle administrative law, primarily by codifying and enforcing rules and regulations. When Congress passes a new law it usually goes to a regulatory agency to determine how the law will be put in place. When did the government begin requiring employer-insurance programs to pay for contraceptives? According to Becket Law, the trend toward state-mandated contraceptive coverage in employee health insurance plans began in the mid-1990s and was accelerated by the decision of Congress in 1998 to guarantee contraceptive coverage to employees of the federal government through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). After FEHBP—the largest employer-insurance benefits program in the country—set this precedent, the private sector followed suit, and state legislatures began to make such coverage mandatory. Why is the federal government dictating that contraceptives should be covered by insurance? In 2000, the EEOC issued an opinion stating that the refusal to cover contraceptives in an employee prescription health plan constituted gender discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). That law was added by Congress in 1978 in response to a Supreme Court decision holding that an employer’s selective refusal to cover pregnancy-related disability was not sex discrimination within the meaning of Title VII, the primary federal law addressing employment discrimination. As Becket Law notes, “Although this opinion is not binding on federal courts, it is influential, since the EEOC is the government body charged with enforcing Title VII. This opinion led to many lawsuits against non-religious employers who refused to cover prescription contraceptives.” While the federal district courts have split over the issue of whether the PDA requires employers to provide contraception, the only federal court of appeals to reach the issue held that the PDA did not include a contraceptive mandate. Why should evangelicals care about the HHS Mandate? In a 2013 interview with TGC, Daniel Blomberg, the legal counsel for Becket Law provided this answer: On one level, simply because other evangelicals are being harmed by the HHS Mandate. Wheaton College, Colorado Christian University, and Hobby Lobby (which is owned by David Green, a devout evangelical)—among others—have gone to court so that they won’t have to do what the Mandate says they must do: provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs like ella and Plan B. As institutions, they share the evangelical commitment to cherishing the God-given worth of human beings from the earliest stages of their lives. But the Mandate coerces them to provide life-taking drugs, on pain of crushing fines—fines that would shut them down. Thus, evangelicals should care about the HHS Mandate because it coerces fellow evangelicals to violate their duty to obey God and protect human life. On another level, evangelicals should care because of the unprecedented nature of the HHS Mandate’s threat. Our nation’s Founders made religious liberty our first political liberty because they recognized that it was the foundational political liberty. As recently as last January, in the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church case, members of the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that religious groups are the critical shields between the individual and the power of the State, between liberty and tyranny. If the State can broadly force individuals and private institutions to directly violate core religious beliefs, then liberty itself—not just religious liberty—is threatened. For that reason, evangelicals should support the conscience claims of, for instance, Catholic institutions who oppose the Mandate both on sanctity-of-life grounds and because of the Mandate’s contraception-coverage requirement. Even though most evangelicals do not agree with Catholic doctrine on contraception, they can and should support the claims of Catholic individuals and institutions to freedom of conscience. Anything less signals a weak commitment to both religious liberty and personal liberty. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • 7 Ways to Teach Children About the Conscience

      “Ramona’s conscience was hurt, and a hurting conscience is the worst feeling in the world.” My wife recently discovered that insightful line in the whimsical children’s book Ramona the Brave when she was reading it to our daughters. Books for children sometimes mention the conscience in passing, but they usually don’t explain what it is and how it works. That’s understandable, because it’s a complex topic. A couple years ago my friend J. D. Crowley and I attempted to address it [read TGC’s review], but our target audience was adults, not children. Then my daughter Kara, who was 8 years old at the time, asked me if I would write a book on the conscience for children. How could I say no to that? So I attempted to write my first children’s book (which releases this month): That Little Voice in Your Head: Learning About Your Conscience. Before I suggest how parents can teach their children about the conscience, I want to qualify upfront that I’m not a parenting expert. My confidence level in my parenting ability has consistently decreased as my children have aged; I’m increasingly desperate for God’s help to do what I cannot do on my own—transform the hearts of my children. I get in the way. I sin against God and my children by being impatient, irritable, and unkind, so I regularly ask God and them to forgive me. I don’t want to sound like I’ve got it all together and that you can too if you simply follow my advice. With that caveat in place, here are seven ways parents can teach their children about the conscience. 1. Talk to Your Children About the Conscience Often the best way to teach children about something is to informally talk about it when it naturally arises. If you’re reading a book or watching a show together, you can stop and talk about how a character is or isn’t following their conscience—and why that matters. My children’s book on the conscience is basically a series of conversations between a mom and her little daughter. It’s unrealistic to think that all your conversations will sound like the ones in the book, but the back-and-forth in the book models how some conversations might go. 2. Listen to Your Children Talk About Their Conscience “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matt. 12:34). Listen carefully to what your children say, because their words are a window into their heart. Listen to what they think is right and wrong. When do they think others are guilty of sin? When do they sense they are guilty of sin? Why? What do they think they should do about it? Do they need help calibrating their conscience in a certain area? 3. Encourage Your Children When They Listen to Their Conscience Sometimes children are convinced that something is wrong when it’s not inherently sinful, and they might confess such a “sin” to you. For example, your child might think that it’s sinful to walk in someone’s home while wearing “outside shoes” if you have a family rule about it. Your child might have a hard time visiting a home where they keep their shoes on. Maybe your child decided to keep their shoes on in the other house but felt terribly about it, and they might confess to you in tears. How should you respond? At minimum, affirm your child for listening to their conscience and for sharing that with you. Encourage them. Praise them. Don’t scold them. To go against your conscience when you think it’s warning you correctly is always a sin in God’s eyes. As Mark Dever says, “Conscience cannot make a wrong thing right, but it can make a right thing wrong.” But then go on to help them recalibrate their conscience for their next visit. 4. Exhort Your Children Not to Ignore Their Conscience When you train and discipline your children, appeal to their conscience. “Listen to that little voice in your head.” “When that little voice in your head warns you not to do something, don’t do it.” “When that little voice in your head makes you feel sad for something you did, tell Mommy or Daddy about it. Don’t ignore that voice.” “How do you feel after you ________ [fill in the blank with a particular sin]? Does that little voice in your head tell you that was bad?” (Not every child would describe their conscience as an actual voice in their head. Some just have a strong sense that something’s right or wrong. It’s an unshakeable impression or conviction.) Tell your children that the conscience is a priceless gift from God they must not ignore. It can be a warning system that saves them from great harm. If your finger brushes the top of a hot stove, your nervous system reflexively compels you to pull back your hand to avoid more pain and harm. Similarly, the guilt your conscience makes you feel should lead you to turn from your sin to Jesus. God gave you that sense of guilt for your good. Don’t ignore or suppress it. 5. Model Listening to Your Conscience by Asking for Forgiveness When You Sin Against Your Children Parents are sinners, too. We regularly sin against our children—sometimes directly (e.g., being sinfully angry or impatient with them) and sometimes indirectly (e.g., sinning against someone else while they are looking on). Every time we sin, it’s an opportunity for us to model repentance. You might say to your children, “Daddy was sinfully impatient with you. God convicted me, and my conscience won’t leave me alone. I feel sorry for what I’ve done. I’ve asked God to forgive me, and now I’m asking you. Would you please forgive me for being impatient with you?” 6. Explain to Your Children Why Consciences Differ No two people have exactly the same conscience. That’s why passages such as Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 exist. We tend to assume our own conscience is the standard that perfectly lines up with God’s will, but we all have blind spots where we need to recalibrate our conscience so that it functions more accurately. It was complicated enough explaining all that in a book for adults. How do you explain that to kids? In my children’s book, I attempt to do that by contrasting the rules of one family with those of another. One family might require the children to wash their hands before a meal or to make their bed in the morning, and another family might not. The actions themselves aren’t inherently righteous or sinful. For family rules, a child simply must obey Ephesians 6:1: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” 7. Keep Reminding Your Children That Only Jesus Can Cleanse Their Conscience Talking about the conscience can be a way to celebrate the gospel, because the blood of Christ purifies our conscience (Heb. 9:14). Jesus lived, died, and rose for sinners, and when we turn from our sins and trust him, we can draw near to God “with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). My favorite way to exult in that truth is to sing a stanza from the hymn “Before the Throne of God Above.” Here’s what that looks like in my children’s book (the mommy is talking to her little daughter): What can make my conscience clean? Nothing but the blood of Jesus. May God help you point your children to Jesus as you teach them about the conscience. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Trump Administration Opens Office to Protect Healthcare Workers' Conscience Rights

      The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) unveiled a new division Thursday to help ensure healthcare workers can do their jobs without being forced to violate their faith.       More...

      in Christian Current Events

    • Abortion Doctor Sears Conscience With Hot Iron Before Beginning Day’s Procedures

      ATLANTA, GA—According to sources from within a local Planned Parenthood clinic, Dr. Lucy Redding washed her hands, prepped her equipment, and then calmly produced a hot iron and seared her conscience numb before beginning the day’s procedures. The doctor melts the nerves on her God-given conscience before each work day, to ensure she doesn’t feel […]   . . . finish reading Abortion Doctor Sears Conscience With Hot Iron Before Beginning Day’s Procedures.       More...

      in Christian Satire

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.