Peter Witkowski Discipleship

Rebuke: An Overlooked and Yet Essential Means of Grace

Though the idea of “rebuke” makes many evangelicals queasy, the discipline is not an archaic tool of yesteryear. Nor is it the exclusive domain of those discernment blogger types the crawl around twitter and Tik Tok. It is an essential means of grace. As the fall of King David makes clear, even the most faithful of Christians can become desensitized to their sin and stand in need of a rebuke.

David and Nathan

At the conclusion of 2 Samuel 11, the readers find King David moving in with Bathsheba and at peace with having had an affair with her and with having had orchestrated the murder of her husband – one of the David’s mighty men. David no longer thinks of his sins and encourages his conspirator in Uriah’s murder, Joab. to do the same. He tells the anxious general: “Don’t let this displease you (2 Sam 11:25).” Despite David’s self-assurances, God is still displeased with his sins.

Though a reader of 2 Samuel might assume that David stumbled into the muck because he had allowed the Scriptural wall around his heart to fall into decay, the text asserts the opposite to be true. When Nathan tells the story of a wealthy man who had stolen a poor farmer’s only beloved sheep, David correctly applies the Old Testament law which declares that “If a man steals…a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay…four sheep for a sheep (Ex 22;1).” David tells Nathan that the rich man, “shall restore the lamb fourfold (2 Sam 12:6).” And in that reference of Scripture, David reveals the insidious and blinding nature of sin. David can quickly and correctly apply the Scriptures to the thefts of others but cannot see the adultery and murder that he committed. Well did Jesus warn us: “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye (Matt 7:5).” Thus, the Lord mercifully sends Nathan to show David the tree in his eye and to declare, “You are the man (2 Sam 12:7)!” Apart from Nathan, David could not have grasped that he had sin, would not have sought repentance, and could have perished for his sins. Nathan’s rebuke delivered David from the fog of deception that had enveloped his heart so that he could once again see the brilliance of his Lord and pursue holiness. To quote the words of King Solomon – David next son with Bathsheba, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend (Prov 27:6).”

A Pastoral Responsibility

Though no pastor or elder should delight in the need for rebuke, all must be prepared to both offer and accept rebuke. To neglect rebuke is to neglect the foundations of soul care and discipleship. Paul tells Titus that pastors must “rebuke those who contradict” sound doctrine (Ti. 1:9, 13) and Timothy that, “the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will (Tim 2:24-25). The pastor who loves his sheep neither ignores their sin nor wishes it away. He preaches the warning of Scripture from the pulpit and shares them with those sitting opposite his desk. As with Nathan, obedience and love compels the faithful pastor or elder to rebuke his congregants so that they too may be rescued from their sins.  

A Congregational Responsibility

But what proves true of the church’s pastors and elders also proves true of those in the pew. Jesus invites the whole church to engage in rebuke when he says in Luke 17:3b that, “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” When we encounter a brother drunk at work, a sister dating an unbeliever, or a teenager disrupting her class with vulgar jokes, we must tell them that they too are the man or the woman so that they will not be lost to sin. As the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer noted, “Nothing can be more cruel than the tenderness that consigns another to his sin. Nothing can be more compassionate than the severe rebuke that calls a brother back from his sin.” Or to quote the Old Testament law: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him (Lev. 19:17.” If we love our fellow church members, we will rebuke them.

Your Responsibility

In addition to giving rebukes, we must also accept them. Because as Bonhoeffer noted all evangelical are prone to turning the “justification of sinners…into the justification of sin,” we all stand in need of rebuke. Spiritual health depends upon it. To foster such a spirit, Christians must ground their lives in local church. It exists in-part to foster relationships between future Davids and Nathans so that when the time comes for rebuke someone from your small group, Sunday school class, or book club will lovingly tell you, “You are the man…You are the woman.”

And when they risk the relationship for our good, we should also welcome the rebuke and repent.  We should not recoil at our pastor’s words nor excuse our sins to the small group member. Rather, we should thank them for seeking to help us and ponder the merits of their rebuke against the Scripture. We should have the mindset of David who wrote in Psalm 141:5, “Let a righteous man strike – me it is a kindness; let him rebuke me – it is oil for my head; let my head not refuse it.” Though rebukes can be painful in the moment, we should view those faithful corrections as acts of God’s mercy for the Lord has not surrendered us to the power sin and judgment. When confronted about our sins, may God give us to grace to confess as David did, “I have sinned against the Lord (2 Sam 12:13).”

Moreover, we should not despair because someone had to rebuke us for even in the darkest hours Jesus is at work in us. Jeremiah Burrough helpfully notes, “the art of arts and the science of sciences…[is] to understand…that God…will bring life out of death, joy out of sorrow…and many times…grace out of sin, that is make uses of sin to work the furtherance of grace.” Do not sulk about the need for rebuke. Rather praise God for using even your rebellion to grow your faith through repentance and its resulting restoration.

Final Thoughts

The tool of rebuke is neither antiquated nor useless. Its use proves essential to the well being of our churches and our souls. Christian growth cannot happen without it. May God give us the grace to both give and accept rebuke.

Peter Witkowski Book Reviews

The Sin of Empathy: A Mislabeled and Yet Timely Book

In The Sin of Empathy, Joe Rigney reveals that evangelism most prominent sacred cow is not an innocuous beast to be snuggled up to but rather a violent bull to be vanquished from evangelicalism. Without apology, Rigney pursues this sacred cow of empathy in a provocative manner. One needs only to read the book’s cover. That being said, readers passionate about the church and the health of evangelicalism should press beyond the kneejerk reactions of some reviewers and give Rigney’s argument a fair hearing.

The Danger of Untethered Empathy

When Rigney labels empathy a sin, he is not criticizing all expressions of empathy (or what he prefers to label compassion) but rather the most prevalent popular abuse of the term. Rigney candidly declares, “this book is not primarily interested in the “‘true definition of empathy, but rather its use and influence in our culture (5-6).”’ He is concerned with how men and women misuse the following definition of empathy: “feeling with people (6).” Again, Rigney sees some merit in the work of Brené Brown who introduced this idea of empathy to western culture. Rigney believes that the Scriptures call us not to apathy but to compassion…to weep with those who weep. Rigney writes, “Often the best immediate response to deep suffering is a simple and heartfelt acknowledgement that the pain is real and deep. Or perhaps no words at all, just presence (9).” As Rigney notes in Leadership and Emotional Sabotage, a companion volume to The Sin of Empathy, “Empathy or emotion-sharing, is in itself a good and natural thing (41).”

But Rigney also sees danger in what he calls “untethered empathy” or “untethered feeling,” understanding that “vices typically hide within virtues (122).” When men and women eliminate the boundary between the comforter and the sufferer to such a point that the sufferer’s feelings, inclinations, and desires trump the truths of Scripture, empathy becomes dangerous and deadly. Rigney offers the following illustration:

After we’ve climbed down into the pit with them [those swallowed by grief and distress], they demand that we agree there is no way out. They may even demand that we destroy the ladder we are offering them. And empathy, in its zeal to stay out of the judgment, is often willing to burn the ladder in the name of fueling connection (11-12).

Because of empathy, the evangelical church has become enamored with the approval of the urban and cultural left, has uncritically listened to the voices of “She-wolves.” Both actions have pushed evangelicals to water-down or to ignore essential biblical truth with increasing frequency over the last fifteen years or so.

Instead of heeding the progressive and “she-wolves” call to burn their ladders, Rigney encourages Christians going down into the hole to keep their ladders anchored to the truth of Scripture so that they both feel with and rescue the hurting. He calls Christians to have “their passions governed by what is true and good through the habitual exercise of trained emotions (103).” In other words, sober minded compassion consists of recognizing the sufferer’s hardship, acknowledging the sufferer’s feelings, identifying with the sufferer’s emotions, and finally offering spiritual truth to the sufferer.  As Rigney concludes, “The ultimate goal of the emotional connection is to bring the sufferer to Christ so that he can comfort and heal them (104).”

A Few Criticisms

Though Rigney draws on his knowledge of C.S. Lewis’ essays and writings, Rigney makes little use of other theologians. He cites John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and a handful of other authors a time or two. He also fails to interact with the church fathers or the reformers on this topic. While Rigney aptly uses Lewis’ The Great Divorce to show his readers that one does not make demons out of mice or fleas but out of archangels, appeals to other interred theologians could have both strengthened his argument and expanded its appeal. The historical depth of his thought on this topic seemingly comes at the expense of his historical breadth.  

Conversely, the fourth and fifth chapters of Rigney’s book designed to show “how professing Christians have used empathy, credibility, and respectability to sabotage the church over the last fifteen years or so (xix)” proved so broad that they lacked the citations needed to sway his critics. Admittedly, Rigney did encourage his readers wanting more information on the transformation within evangelicalism to read Megan Basham’s book Shepherds for Sale. But in so doing, he missed an opportunity to provide his readers with more evidence they would need to answer the critics of this book.

Moreover, such evidence does exist.  A few years ago, many well-meaning pastors within my own denomination embraced reforms compiled by those who had been abused without stopping to compare those reforms and their outworkings to the text of Scripture. I knew one person who voted for the reforms though he opposed the counseling practices embedded in the reforms. He was persuaded by the emotion of the moment. After all, who wants to be against abuse.

When interviewing Rigney on his Thinking in Public podcast, Dr. Albert Mohler shared a similar experience. Mohler said he was once asked to address something not because it was true but because his audience felt it was true. I wish Rigney had made use of such evidence, especially given the provocative nature of his argument and the vitriol of his opponents.  

Lastly while I applaud Rigney’s attempt to replace empathy with compassion as the latter term possesses the biblical foundation that empathy lacks, I also wish Rigney had added the adjective “untethered” to his thesis. This slight nuance would not only more accurately reflect his argument in this book as well as his argument in Leadership and Emotional Sabotage but also may have won him more readers. Seemingly some reviewers of his book have gotten no further than his title. They falsely accuse Rigney of having argued for apathy or for the removal of anything emotional or female from evangelicalism. I fear that some of those who would benefit most from this volume may never pick it up because they feel the title alone is enough to condemn it. We may all argue that it’s ridiculous to judge a book by its cover but the discussion around The Sin of Empathy seems to evidence that readers make this judgement far more than we might otherwise think. In short, the author who advocated for “tethered compassion” should also argue against “untethered empathy” instead of “empathy (104).”

A Book Worth Reading

Though Rigney’s book is plagued by the challenges that come with being a shorter volume and could use a touch more nuance in its thesis, its content proves timely and helpful. He has demonstrated that the sacred cow of untethered empathy will harm evangelicalism if it is permitted to freely wonder about evangelism churches and institutions. I hope the readers of this volume take its argument to heart, keep one hand on their ladders, and slay this sacred cow upon the altar of biblical truth before it does more harm.

Peter Witkowski Discipleship

David and Jonathan: The Illusion of Sex and the Nature of True Friendship

While those who adhere to the historic Christian faith love to champion the shepherd boy’s bold defeat of Goliath, they are much less comfortable with David and Jonathan’s relationship. In 2 Samuel 1:26, David famously pens the following oration for his dead friend, “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary surpassing the love of women.” Finding some parallels between David’s language above and that of the various sexual revolutions, some theologians have concluded that David had a romantic relationship with Jonathan. Such claims rightfully trouble those who defend the historic understanding of the Scripture’s sexual ethics. But do the such claims have merit?

Context Matters

While the hypothesis that Jonathan and David were friends with benefits makes sense of the modern belief that unrestrained sexual expression is the highest good, it does not make sense of David’s world or of adherence to Biblical morality. The ancient Jews believed that communion with the Lord and not sex proved to be man’s greatest good. David said of himself in Psalm 16:9 that, “My heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure” because “The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup (Ps 16:5).” David found his validation not in the bedroom with his latest lover but in the Lord’s sanctuary worshiping. As David wrote in Psalm 145:16, The Lord satisfies “the desire of every living thing.”

This is not to say that David forever found joy in the Lord. He did transgress God’s sexual ethic. A few pages over in 2 Samuel 3:2-5, the author of Scripture reveals that David had six wives. Moreover in 2 Samuel 11-12, the author explores David’s affair with Bathsheba and resulting judgment in detail. In other words, the Scriptures never whitewashed David’s sins or violations of God’s commands, presenting and condemning them as sin. Had David’s funeral oration implied a sexual relationship with Jonathan, a violation of Leviticus 18:22 which declared that laying with “a man as a woman” was “an abomination,” readers would expect the author of 2 Samuel to have offered an editorial condemnation of David’s actions. But no such condemnation exists.

David was not discussing a sexual connection. To imply otherwise, readers must negate both the historical setting of David’s words and the witness of David’s other Scriptural writings. They must give the text a meaning that David did not intend and that his original readers would never have seen. In short, the homosexual reading of this text so transforms David’s words that they come mean the very opposite of what author originally intended to convey.

What was David Saying?

Rather than exhorting the glories of male sexuality, David was championing the glories of faith-based friendship. In other words, David is answering the question of “what is better than sex?” His answer is: “Friendship that is built upon a shared trust in the Lord.” In 1 Samuel 14, readers meet Jonathan scaling up a mountain to almost single-handedly defeat a garrison of philistines. He does so because he believes that “The Lord has given them into the hand of Israel.” Similarly, David burst onto the scene against Goliath declaring, “This day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, I will strike you down and cut off your head…that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel (1 Sam 17:46-47).” The men bonded over their shared love for and trust in the Lord. Jonathan famously testified to the nature of their relationship when by faith in God’s future promises he asked the then fugitive David to care for him and his family, saying, “If I am still alive, show me the steadfast love of the Lord, that I may not die; and do not cut off your steadfast love from my house forever, when the Lord cuts off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth (1 Sam 20:14-15).” Jonathan’s friendship proved better than sex for it pointed David to the Lord who satisfies every desire through the keeping of his promises.

Like David and Jonathan, Jesus also affirms that humans find their greatest fulfillment in worship and not sex. Commenting on an odd question from the Sadducees about marital relations in heaven, Jesus said, “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven (Mk 12:25).” At death, sex ends. However, the worship of the Lord and relationship with both God and man continue. Thus, for the Christian, the greatest friendships are not tied inherently to sex or to procreation but to the unity built upon a shared trust in the Lord. Thus, Paul can say that he wished all believers were single as he was (1 Cor 7:7). Sex ends. Our love for God and those who love God does not.

So What About Marriage?

Though David praises Jonathan for his friendship, the shepherd’s friendship with the crown prince does not negate the beauties of marriage. The Bible exhorts men and women to marry because the institution pictures Christ’s love for the church (Eph. 5). Moreover, sex should not be a joyless, professional duty for the purpose of procreation. As Solomon says of his bride, “For your love is better than wine (1:2).” Rather God designed it to be a joyful expression of a unity built upon a shared faith in Christ whose fruit can produce both children and salvation. The biblical ideal is for couples to experience both spiritual and physical oneness.

But David’s relationship with Jonathan also warns against pursuing sex apart from a shared embrace of God’s Word. A single man or woman in a god-fearing asexual relationship with someone of the same gender can achieve a greater sense unity, love, and fulfillment with a believing friend than a believer can achieve with an unbeliever in the marriage bed. Sex cannot satisfy or make up for a lack of spiritual unity. Sex will fade and then disappear at death. But friendships built on a shared love for the Lord will last forever. May we never exchange eternal relationship for momentary gratification.

Final Thoughts

Though the secular mind declares most every sexual impulse to be a good and a rightful means of fulfillment, the Scriptures present a different narrative. They declare that man’s chief end is found in glorifying God. The truest and best relationships end not in sex but in worship. Though a Christian marriage should result in both spiritual and physical oneness providing the world with a beautiful picture of Christ and his church and a new generation of children, spiritual unity can be achieved outside the bonds of marriage. In other words, David was not a homosexual but a heterosexual man who delighted in the eternal joy that comes from having a friend who pointed him to the Lord. May we all (single and married) find such a friend and be such a friend!