Peter Witkowski Discipleship

Lessons from Nathan’s Rebuke: Effective Strategies for Christian Confrontation

Nathan’s rebuke of David in 2 Samuel 12:1-14 establishes both the need for rebuke (see: Rebuke: An Overlook and Yet Necessary Means of Grace) and the structural framework through which rebuke is most effective.

Don’t Tell Stories (Maybe)

To argue that Christian’s should model their rebukes on Nathan’s rebuke of David is not to claim that every rebuke should be built around a moving morality tale. God divinely inspired Nathan’s narrative. Our imaginations and our AI algorithms are not so inspired. For example, when Joab takes his turn at story telling in 2 Samuel 14 seeking to restore David’s relationship with Absalom, the general spawns a civil war.

Moreover, when Elijah confronts King Ahab, the prophet employs only imperatives, telling Ahab, “I have not troubled Israel, but you have, and your father’s house, because you have abandoned the commandments of the Lord and followed the Baals (1 Kg 18:18).”  Nathan’s introductory story proves to be descriptive instead of normative.  Thus, a story could be both helpful and unhelpful.

However, the principles behind imbedded in Nathan’s rebuke can and should be replicated by Christians seeking to restore their fallen brothers and sisters. As Nathan before them, believers should do the following four things when issuing a rebuke: they should identify sin as “sin”, affirm the goodness of God, warn of sin’s consequences, and offer mercy.

Identify Sin as “Sin”

In confronting David’s sin, Nathan drives for a hard edge. He does not suggest that David did something wrong nor ask him to mull over what he did and see if he will do something different next time. Nathan dispenses with all nuance and labels King’s adultery and murder as “sin.” The prophet tells David, “You have despised the word of the Lord to do what is evil in his sight…You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife (2 Sam 12:9-10).”

For our rebukes to be both just and effective, we must show the David’s in our lives that he or she has transgressed not only our sensibilities but the very words of God. Moreover, where the Bible proves clear and unnuanced, the followers of Christ must also be clear and unnuanced. Sleeping with someone other than your spouse (Eph 5:5-6), disobeying one’s parents (6:1), or telling crude jokes (Eph 4:29) are not misjudgments or the byproducts of biology. They are sins. And if we hope to see a sinner repent, we must help the sinner grasp the sinfulness of their actions. Men who see no sin will see no need to turn from his sin. To quote C.S. Lewis, “A man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness.”

Affirm the Goodness of God

After establishing sin as sin, the believer should disarm the sinner’s primary defense mechanism with a refresher course in God’s character. Since the beginning of time, humans have been blaming God for their failings. Adam said God was the one responsible for humanity’s fall because after all Eve was God’s idea (and not Adam’s). Adam lamented, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate (Gen 3:12).”

Before David can join Adam in the blame game, Nathan reminds King that God has giving David everything he could ask for and more. The prophet declares on God’s behalf, “‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more (2 Sam 12:7b-8).” David did not sin because the Lord failed to keep his promises. He did not sin because his other wives had neglected him or lost their youthful sex appeal. He did not sin because he had a hard upbringing or had suffered trauma on the battlefield. God had protected him, sustained him, and blessed him at every turn and been with him in every hardship. David sinned not because God had forgotten him but because David had forgotten God.

What was true of David is true of every believer overrun with sin. God has withheld nothing good from us nor anything essential for our spiritual well being. Psalm 84:11 reminds us, “For the Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord bestows favor and honor. No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly.” We have no excuse for surrendering to temptation.

I am not arguing that the Lord gives us all that we desire. We often desire wrong things and good things in wrong ways. Moreover, life is ultimately not found in earthly blessings such as marriage and financial security but in being with Christ. Jesus will give us everything that we need to be with him in paradise if we will but ask. As Paul reminds us, he “is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us (Eph 3:20).” In other words, we fall into sin not because God is deficient but because our faith is deficient. The Lord is good.

Warn of Sin’s Consequences

Though the Lord will forgive David and all who repent, Nathan still reminds David of the consequences of his sin: “because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die (2 Sam 12:14).”  At first glance, this punishment appears unjust. The son should not die for the sins of the father. But such a reading grants David far too much power.

The child’s death was not caused by David’s sin. The child would have died no matter what David did or did not do because the child descends from another father: Adam. As the Apostle Paul notes in Romans 5:12, “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” David’s son, like all sons of Adam, dies because he had a nature like Adam. David’s sin does not create death. It shortens life.

The same proves true of sin today. It’s consequences reach far beyond the sinner’s immediate life. For example, Children of divorce are 33% more like to live in poverty than those with intact families (Get Married). Children with parents in prison are more than 40% more likely to struggle with anxiety, depression, PTSD, and a wide spectrum of health issues from migraines to obesity. Sin always produces the fruit of sorrow and destruction.

To effectively rebuke others, we must help them appreciate the deadly consequences of their sin so that they can grasp depth and width of their sin’s true cost. Confession can and does prove costly. Confessing fraud could lead to one’s firing, confessing an affair could wreck one’s marriage, and confessing abuse could lead to imprisonment. An effective rebuke will lay out the full cost of one’s sin so that the believer can appreciate the wickedness of their sin and thereby be turned from it. The goal of rebuke is for the David in our lives to understand that they have “sinned against the Lord (2 Sam 12:13).”

Offer Mercy

Lastly, Nathan offers David the hope of divine forgiveness. Though the consequences of David’s sin remain, the Lord’s judgement does not. Nathan reports, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die (2 Sam 12:13b).” God’s forgiveness explains both why Christians should use rebuke and why those in sin should heed those rebukes. Everything David lost because of his sin and its consequences will be regained in heaven. In other words, David will go to his son because a future heir of David will be born in a manger, resist all temptation, and then die on the cross and rise again thereby canceling the record of sin and death.

Like, Nathan we too should remind the David’s in our lives of the goodness of God’s mercy. Though our sins maybe large, complicated, gross, and intricate, Christ blood is more powerful still. James the brother of Jesus offers the following comfort to the contrite soul, “Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you (James 4:8-11).” All who turn from their sin will be exalted to live with Christ. Like Nathan before us, we should infuse every rebuke with the promise of forgiveness and restoration.

Final Thoughts

Though these principles of confrontation come the Scriptures, their power lies not in our use of them but in Spirit working through them. David repents because the Lord opened his eyes. We cannot restore anyone in our strength. But we can faithfully apply the truth of God’s word to the David’s in our life, calling sin “sin,” affirming the goodness of God, warning of sin’s consequences, and offering mercy.

Peter Witkowski Discipleship

The Best and Worst of Times: Thoughts on the 2025 Annual Meeting

Despite its overuse, I cannot help but once again trod out Charles Dicken’s line to describe my time at the 2025 Annual Meeting (SBC Convention). “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

The Best of Times

With respect to renewed friendships and the general tenor of the platform, the 2025 Convention was the best of times. The convention facilitated reunions with faithful brothers who played basketball with me during my MDiv days at Southern Seminary and who pushed through mounds of books with me as we worked on our PhD’s at Midwestern Seminary. I rejoiced to see my brothers and sisters steadfastly advancing the gospel through their homes, local churches, and seminaries.

Moreover, the 9Marks at Nine forums, and the Midwestern Seminary lunches refreshed and encouraged my heart. In addition to offering insights into how messengers should think about the SBC’s financial struggles, men such as Dr. Mohler, Dr. Allen, Dr. Leeman, Dr. Akin, and Dr. Dever steadfastly stood for the gospel as they called for the SBC to adopt more Scriptural mission’s strategies, to recognize the need for doctrinal fidelity, and to pass the Law/Sanchez amendment which affirms that the office of pastor is restricted to qualified men. Similarly, Dr. Mark Dever should be commended for leading the attendees at the 9Marks at Nine events to loudly praise the Lord through the singing of hymns. I enjoyed circling about the 9Marks and the Seminary booths.  

Good things also occurred on the platform.  Dr. Andrew Walker of Southern Seminary graciously and yet resolutely led the convention to adopt a “a very conservative slate of resolutions,” These resolutions affirmed the moral evils and dangers of chemical abortion pills; the need to affirm God’s design for gender, marriage, and the family; the need to ban pornography; and, the harmful and predatory nature of sports betting. Throughout the debates leading up to the passage of these resolutions by almost universal assent, Dr. Walker listened intently to the various amendments put forward by the messengers. He responded graciously to all their concerns, rejecting those amendments that would have weakened the resolutions and accepting the one that strengthened the resolution on sexuality. The interactions between Dr. Walker and the messengers (as well as those between President Clint Pressley – who was elected to a second term as SBC President – and the messengers) displayed the very best of SBC polity: leaders determined to lead the convention yet open to conversation with and biblical correction from the floor. It was the best of times!

But while the platform accomplished much good, it also brought about harm…the worst of times.

The Worst of Times

With the Law/Sanchez Amendment speeding towards a vote, Dr. Jeff Iorg (President of the Executive Committee) walked to the convention microphone at its most electric moment. But instead of calling the messengers to submit their consciences and their votes to the clear teaching of Scripture, Dr. Iorg told them to fear lawsuits. He encouraged them to shy away from the implications of their Scripture-infused doctrinal statement . He claimed that such fidelity to truth would lead to lawsuits that could further drain the Executive Committee’s depleted budget. Dr. Iorg’s statement proved as monumental as it was erroneous.  

To begin with, his argument misconstrued the SBC’s legal standing. The SBC can no more be sued for limiting the office of pastor to qualified men than it can be sued for affirming the practice of believers’ baptism. Constitutional lawyer and ERLC Fellow Mathew Martens’ bluntly said of Dr. Iorg’s argument, “It’s hard to overstate how moronic such a claim is.”

Moreover, Dr. Iorg’s argument opposes Jesus’ claim that the persecution of one’s faith is a sign of blessing. Jesus says: “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you (Rev. 5:11-12).” Though no Christian should long for persecution, every Christian should recognize that all forms of persecution (even lawsuits) are not something to be avoided through doctrinal compromise but welcomed as a signs of saving faith.  To quote Psalm 119:51: “The insolent utterly deride me, but I do not turn away from your law.”

Secondly and more importantly, Dr. Iorg’s claim proves theologically erroneous and destructive. Denominations and churches that base their doctrine upon the approval of their secular culture will increasingly find themselves at odds with the totality of Scripture. The culture surrounding the SBC that has turned some SBC churches against the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 will not retreat once the SBC welcomes women into their pulpits. The culture will in short order pressure SBC churches to abandon their commitment to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the doctrine of the exclusivity of Christ, the doctrine that marriage is limited to men and women, and any other doctrine the culture deems problematic. Once a denomination begins down the slippery slope of cultural appeasement, it will be almost impossible to break its fall.

Instead of listening to the messengers whose impulse for biblical fidelity led them to bring the Law/Sanchez Amendment to the floor for a vote, Dr. Iorg opposed them and opposed them in such a way that he placed himself not only at odds with messengers but with the Scriptures. 

In the end, the Law/Sanchez Amendment fell short of the super majority (66%) needed to pass. Only 60% of the messengers voted for it. Though the influence of Dr. Iorg’s two-and-a-half-minute speech upon the outcome of the vote was ultimately unmeasurable, I still believe it influenced the vote. Dr. Iorg won the day, and the majority of messengers lost. It was the worst of times.

And The Next Time?

Though I and many other biblically minded Southern Baptist mourn the outcome of the Law/Sanchez Amendment vote, I do not believe the 2025 Convention marks the end of the SBC or even the beginning of its end. In short, I am still bullish on the SBC’s future.

As long as the conservatives keep their 60% majority, they can control the SBC presidency and the appointments to the various SBC boards, including the Executive Committee. Though the cleansing of the SBC’s roles (so to speak) will take time, the conservatives can still stop and eventually repeal the advances of this next generation of moderates and liberals who champion numbers and cultural ideologies instead of the more common errors of traditional theological liberalism.

Now is not the time for conservatives and reform mined Baptist to retreat.  Now is the time to for us to rally around men such as Dr. Lambert, Dr. Leeman, Dr. Burke, Dr. Mohler and Dr. Allen as they fight to keep the SBC moored to the Scriptures. In other words, now is the time to book our flights to 2026 convention in Orlando.  

Peter Witkowski Apologetics, Discipleship, Ecclesiology

Renewed Congregationalism: A Cure for What Ails the SBC

To reverse the decline of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), I believe the platform (the leaders of the SBC) needs to rediscover the goodness of congregational piety.

Of Messengers and Leaders

To date, many of the SBC’s leaders seem to be distrustful and dismissive of the messengers who elected them or perhaps more accurately stated they distrust the messengers who elected the committee members who elected them.

The President of the SBC’s Executive Committee which runs the convention when it’s not in session, Jeff Iorg, recently blamed the decline in Cooperative Program giving and the “reshuffling of sectarian loyalties in the SBC” on the messengers. He laments that the messengers have been taken captive by the “fracturing influence of expressive individualism.” Or as Iorg notes elsewhere, they have fallen prey to “Our cultural proclivity for tribalism and sectarianism rooted in the sins of selfishness and self-promotion.” He then calls the messengers to return to their Baptist roots and embrace his vision for “messy cooperation.” He writes, “Part of doing this successfully is tolerating considerable diversity in our movement – doctrinal, methodological, strategic, and practical.”

And while readers might assume that Iorg thinks messiness would be confined within the doctrinal boundaries of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Iorg’s actions indicate the opposite. Over the last few years, he (as well as other SBC leaders such as Kevin Ezell, the President of the North American Mission Board – NAMB) worked to defeat the Law Amendment which sought to strengthen the long-held Baptist belief that the office of pastor was reserved for qualified men. Iorg writes, “Let’s keep debating the issue of gender leadership roles in churches with the goal of persuading churches to change their position or practices rather than removing them from the SBC.” In other words, he invites churches to openly debate elements of the SBC’s doctrinal statement. Despite his embrace of doctrinal confusion, Iorg still blames the messengers for the state of the SBC. He calls them to embrace his undefined vision of messy cooperation or else be guilty of the sin of expressive individualism.

Similarly, a letter written in the defense the Ethics and Liberty Commission (ERLC) by ten former SBC presidents calls on the messengers to abide by the will of the platform and not to divisively vote for the disbandment of the ERLC. The presidents admit that the ERLC (the political wing of the SBC) lacks a clear mission. Still, the letter goes on to proclaim that the undefine mission of the ERLC is still “an important mission and should be kept in place.” The presidents then ask the messengers to trust that the ERLC’s trustees and its president will get this undefined mission right. Recall this is the same organization that has worked with George Soros funded foundations, opposed the abolition of abortion, and whose executive board recently fired its president only to then reinstate said president and force its chairman of the board to resign. Nonetheless, the presidents ask messengers to trust them, embrace the ERLC, and avoid the sin of being divisive.  

The Nature of Trust

While the leaders of the SBC should invite the messengers to trust them, the basis of that trust comes not from the possession of that office but from the faithful stewardship of that office in accordance with Scripture. As Jonathan Leeman notes, “our submission is never finally owed to other people. It’s exclusively and uniquely owed to God.” To quote the apostle Paul, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ (1 Cor 11:1).” In other words, the messengers should trust the leaders of the SBC entities in much the same way they trust their pastors and elders.

Trust & the Congregation

When Christians join a local congregation, they should anticipate that their elder board (or in some cases their deacon board) will hold itself to the teaching of Scripture, correcting one another’s sins and asking the congregation to only vote on wise motions and nominations. As Paul tells Titus, “For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach (Ti. 1:7).” If church members disagree with their elders over matters lacking biblical warrant, the members should usually submit to their elders, understanding that the “bar should be pretty high before disobeying an elder.”

Still, the elders of that church should recognize that the congregation’s trust is not ultimately given but won through preaching truth, calling for wise votes that align with Scripture or its principles, and through abandoning error and those programs that would harm the church. In other words, elders should invite the congregation to vet their nominations of church officers as well as their other motions to ensure that the elders’ vision for the church wisely aligns with the Scriptures. To quote Baptist Father J.L. Dagg, “The only rule which they [the pastors] have a right to apply is that of God’s word; and the only obedience which they have a right to exact, is voluntary.”

J.L. Dagg
J.L. Dagg

When elders violate the Scriptures or enact unwise policies that harm the church and the bar for disobedience is reached, the church’s members should speak up. Leeman writes, “Good loyalty says, “I’m committed to you and your successes as a leader and that means I cannot follow you into folly or unrighteousness.” This speaking up is not a defect of congregationalism but its glory. As Dagg notes the best way to prevent a church from falling into error is to have congregations “well instructed in the truth.” Since even the best elders and elder boards can err, the congregation must be prepared to stand for truth and wisdom even if their elders do not.

To quote Leeman again, “the final judicial court of appeal is the whole congregation.” And when the whole congregation speaks on behalf of the Lord and rejects the elders’ poor leadership, the elders should listen, repent, and correct their course. Like King David who at the behest of his troops refrained from battling Absalom, elders should heed the biblical wisdom of their congregation (2 Sam 18:2-4), recognizing that the Holy Spirit resides in the pew just as assuredly as he resides in the elder board.  

Congregationalism in Action

Caleb Morell’s book A Light on the Hill helpfully demonstrates the preservative power of congregationalism in the face of erring leadership. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Agnes Shankle, a long time Sunday school teacher a Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC), raised concerns about her church’s pulpit committee’s recommendation to install a moderate as the church’s next pastor. After she spoke, others joined her opposition. United in their defense of the truth, the congregation of CHBC defeated their leaders’ recommendation and thereby saved their church from theological ruin. CHBC continues “as a Bible-believing, Gospel-preaching church” in-part because a faithful member challenged her leaders’ unbiblical and unwise recommendation.  

Trust and the SBC

SBC Leadership Flow Chart

Similarly, the willingness of the messengers to challenge the unbiblical and unwise actions of their leaders is neither a defect nor a rejection of Baptist polity but one of its truest expressions. The SBC entity heads should listen to their boards as pastors listen to their fellow elders or deacons. Moreover, there is a good deal to be said for bringing about reform through the SBC trustee process (the process by which messengers elect the SBC President who nominates other men and women who upon their election by the messengers to the nominating committee nominate other men and women who upon their election to the various SBC boards then elect SBC entity presidents). But that level of accountability does not absolve the leaders of the SBC from being accountable to the messengers. The biblical concerns of the messengers should be heard and not dismissed as (to quote Vance Pittman, the President of the Send Network), “100% BS.” Moreover, no number of Baptist Press editorials in support of the platform will convince messengers to trust those leaders who have led the executive committee into financial ruin, who have muddled the witness of the SBC to the broader culture, and who have undermined the theological integrity of the SBC.

The Path Forward

If the trajectory of the convention remains unchanged, I suspect there will be more division…more need for groups like The Baptist Review, The Center for Baptist Leadership, and The Association of Churches for Missions and Evangelism (ACME) to form and more churches withdrawing from the convention. To quote Leeman, “If one belongs to a church where he cannot trust the elders to make biblical decisions, he should find another church.”

And in such cases, the fault will lie not with the messengers nor with expressive individualism but with the SBC’s leadership…with the platform. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones aptly says of the Reformation, the cause of the church’s division at that time (and I would argue that of the SBC today) was not the reformers like Luther but the “state of the Roman Church that was the tragedy.” Speaking of voluntary Baptist associations, Baptist father Edward T. Hoscox concurs. He writes that the only option left for those who disagree with the trajectory of their association is to “refuse to affiliate, and withdraw.” In other words, messengers who do not trust the platform should not and will not forever remain with the platform.

If the SBC is to reverse its decline, its leaders must win the trust of the messengers and once again embrace congregationalism. They must hear the concerns of the Agnes Shankle’s in their midst and allow the wisdom of the Scriptures to triumph.

At the 2025 Annual Meeting, I encourage the stage to abandon its criticism of the messengers and to welcome their biblical corrections. I encourage the stage to join with the messengers and to help us pass the Law Amendment, the motions for increased transparency, and any other reform that will better align the SBC with the Scriptures. In short, I encourage the platform to renew its commitment to congregationalism.