Does God expect us to deny our conscience by accepting the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac?

This is my fifth and final post addressing Rachel Held Evans’s October 2014 blog post, “I would fail Abraham’s test (and I bet you would too).” Her main argument (as I understand it) is this:

The conscience “God … imprinted us all with” tells her “that I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion” as Abraham (in her opinion) almost did; therefore, either God’s “real test is in whether you refuse,” or “stories” such as these are not “historical realities,” or the “deity you were taught to worship does evil things” so “question the deity’s very existence.”

This is clearly a faulty dilemma because there are at least two more alternatives: we’re missing facts about the story which clear up the dilemma, and/or our conscience misinforms us. My last three posts explained missing facts that should clarify the passage and resolve conscience issues.

“Abraham’s Sacrifice” by Rembrandt, 1655

But what if our conscience still bothers us about this story? This appears to be an important question to Rachel Held Evans—she uses the word “conscience” eleven times in this blog. Here’s an example:

But why would the very God I believe imprinted us all with a conscience—with a deep sense of right and wrong—ask me to deny that conscience by accepting [God’s command in another Bible story] as just? … And how could I ever bring myself to worship a God who, if these accounts are true, ordained and derived glory from actions I believe are evil?

I agree with Evans that God gives people a conscience. But accepting these Bible passages as historically true does not require one to “deny that conscience.” We’ll look in a moment at how Jesus addressed people whose consciences disagreed with his words. But first we must understand why people’s consciences differ.

Why do people’s consciences differ?

Our political system shows a nation deeply divided on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and gun laws with people on both sides claiming the moral high ground. How can this be if all our consciences come from God?

Let’s look at two facts about conscience.

Moral convictions are learned

Talbot Seminary theology professor Klaus Issler calls the conscience “moral sensitivity and moral reasoning.” He says:

The particular convictions within our conscience … are not set and fully formed at birth. “The biblical notion of conscience does not imply that we are given an innate moral code common to all human beings, as popular usage sometimes suggests. It is rather a conscious sensitivity … that needs to be informed, sharpened, and directed.” Like a personal computer, our conscience must be programmed with appropriate input for it to be useful. Since our convictions are learned throughout life … we will acquire both good and sinful values. Thus, the urgency arises for growing believers to regularly evaluate and educate their conscience toward righteousness.[ref]Klaus Issler, “Conscience: Moral Sensitivity and Moral Reasoning,” in Christian Perspectives on Being Human: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Integration, ed. J. P. Moreland and David J. Ciocchi (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1993), 268. Issler quotes Arthur F.Holmes, Shaping Character: Moral Education in the Christian College (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 27. [/ref]

For example, the Apostle Paul testified, “I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day” (Acts 23:1). Yet for a time his conscience told him it was right to kill Christians (Acts 22:3-4). Once the risen Lord appeared to him, he became one of the Christians he formerly thought deserved death. New information informed his conscience and he realized what he formerly judged right (killing Christians) was actually wrong.

Martha’s and Mary’s consciences differed. St. Nicholas Church, Orebro, Sweden. Public domain photo by David Castor.

While God gave us our conscience, he did not fully form it. Instead, it’s shaped by influences such as parents, teachers, culture, religious texts, persuasion, reason, fear, and desires—including the desire for praise from others. Because it’s subject to such influences, people differ in what they think is right or wrong and their moral convictions can change, as Paul’s did.

Conscience is not fully reliable

If there are absolute moral truths (and I agree with Evans that there are), then because conscience is shaped by outside forces and because it can change, it is a guide, but it’s not fully reliable. Indeed, the Scripture warns that “The heart is deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9), and experience shows us humans are adept at justifying in themselves actions they normally condemn in others.

The Apostle Paul recognized that conscience can mislead: “My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Corinthians 4:4). Therefore, while we must keep our conscience clear, we must also properly inform it.

How did Jesus address faulty consciences?

God asks us to keep a clear conscience, but he also asks us to change mistaken beliefs that affect our conscience.

• Jesus corrected those who said wrong things were right. Jesus told the scribes that seeking places of honor and praying long public prayers for a pretense—things they thought right and honorable—were wrong and would bring them condemnation (Mark 12:38-40).
• Jesus corrected those who said right things were wrong. When the Pharisees told Jesus that healing on the Sabbath was wrong based on their traditions, Jesus explained why their rules contradicted God’s commands and, when they persisted, pointed out that the reason they rejected his arguments was they were people-pleasers rather than God pleasers (Matthew 12:10-13; John 5:15-17, 44).
• Jesus condemned hypocrisy. Jesus said those who condemn others for behaviors they excuse in themselves would be judged by the standards by which they judged others (Matthew 7:2).

What does conscience tell us about human sacrifice?

Rachel Held Evans appears to believe that “everyone person with a conscience” would agree all human sacrifice wrong. But that’s not so.

People’s consciences differ regarding human sacrifices

As I explained in Part 2, people in Abraham’s culture considered human sacrifice to be morally good because they believed that unconcerned deities were behind the forces of nature and that they could manipulate these deities through human sacrifices in times of need (such as famine).

Today, however, people in our Western culture typically believe most human sacrifices are wrong because (a) our laws have a Judeo-Christian heritage that forbids people sacrificing humans (Leviticus 18:21); and (b) we do not believe idols who grant blessings for human sacrifices exist.

Note that a belief against sacrificing children to attain blessing is not universal, however, even in our culture. Ethicist Peter Singer argues that parents should be allowed to kill infants up to thirty days old if it will increase the family’s happiness to do so.[ref]Scott Klusendorf, “Peter Singer’s Bold Defense of Infanticide,” Christian Research Journal (Charlotte: Christian Research Institute, April 16, 2009), accessed January 5, 2015, http://www.equip.org/article/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/. [/ref] Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” [ref]Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race (New York: Truth Publishing, 1920), page 63, accessed January 5, 2016, http://books.google.com/books?id=a-skAAAAYAAJ&dq=The%20most%20merciful%20thing%20that%20a%20large%20family%20does%20to%20one%20of%20its%20infant%20members%20is%20to%20kill%20it.&client=firefox-a&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=&f=false. [/ref] And many see no problem with partial birth abortion, which is the killing of an infant whose living body has been birthed feet-first to the neck.

Human sacrifice is not always wrong

Was it wrong for the Allied generals to send troops to the Normandy beaches on D-day knowing there would be great human sacrifice in order to accomplish the defeat of Hitler and the saving of other human lives?

Was it wrong to scramble F-16 fighter jets to down “an airliner full of kids and salesmen and girlfriends” on September 11, 2001, in order to accomplish the saving of human lives on the ground?[ref]Steve Hendrix, ”F-16 pilot was ready to give her life on Sept. 11,” The Washington Post (DC: Washington Post, September 8, 2011), accessed January 5, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2015/09/06/7c8cddbc-d8ce-11e0-9dca-a4d231dfde50_story.html. [/ref]

The ultimate human sacrifice. “The Three Crosses,” by Rembrandt, 1653

Was it wrong for the Father to send his Son Jesus to earth knowing he would be sacrificed in order to accomplish the defeat of sin and death and the saving of human souls?

Definitely not.

Then was it wrong for God to ask the prophets Abraham and Isaac to be portents of that event by acting it out at a time in history in which such deeds were not considered wrong?

No. God was showing what love looks like: It looks like sacrifice.

Does God expect us to deny our conscience?

Rachel Held Evans asked, “Why would … God … ask me to deny … conscience by accepting” God’s commands in certain Bible stories “as just?”

God doesn’t ask anyone to deny conscience; rather, he asks us to change the mistaken beliefs that misinform our conscience.

Rachel Held Evans says, “I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion.” God isn’t asking her to sacrifice her child: he made it clear when he stopped Abraham and when he gave the Law of Moses that he does not want humans sacrificing humans on altars.

And she doesn’t need to “turn my back on everything I know to be true”; she can accept the New Testament’s testimony of the historicity of this story by simply turning from the belief that because she “would have failed Abraham’s test,” nothing could justify Abraham’s test. Her situation—and ours—has little in common with Abraham’s. His was

• At a different time: a time when human sacrifice was considered morally good
• To two unique people: two prophets who had seen unmistakable miraculous evidence of God’s power and love and intention to create a nation from Isaac
• For a unique purpose: to prophetically portend a momentous future event

At the same time, Abraham’s test has one important thing to do with us: it demonstrates what the Father did when he sent his Son as a sacrifice to save us. Hallelujah.

Related Posts

• Was Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 1: Does conscience require us to stamp the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac as unhistorical or Abraham wrong and a failure?
• Abraham & Human Sacrifice? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 2: Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts?
• What made Abraham Different? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 3: Rachel Held Evans says she’d sooner be struck dead than obey, so why did Abraham nearly sacrifice Isaac?
• Do God’s Motives Matter? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4: If God’s defining characteristic is love, why would he ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac? Do motives matter?
• Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice: A short version of this series
• Jesus in the Old Testament