There’s been a horrible meme circulating about how God used David–so we should rejoice when God uses evil men.
I’ve seen it myself; it’s been shared and debated in our Patreon group; and so many of you have sent it to me.
While it does have immediate American political implications, I do like to steer clear of partisan politics here. But I think this idea–that we should rejoice that God can use an evil man–permeates not just politics but our church structures as well.
It’s used to defend sex abusers being allowed back in the pulpit. It’s used to silence victims. It’s used to diminish the gravity of abuse in the first place.
I don’t want to share the meme because I don’t want to give it more oxygen, but basically it was saying that God ordained an adulterous, filthy-minded man to lead, and then that man gave us the Psalms.
Mary Hudson, a reader of this blog and social media follower, wrote a great rebuttal that I’d like to share with you today.
From Mary Hudson
David is described to us as a man after God’s own heart.
This meme makes it look like God is okay with an evil heart and evil behavior.
God did not elevate David to King in spite of the evil in David’s heart. God does not overlook sin in order to accomplish His purposes.
God removed evil King Saul (who actually started off as a fairly decent guy that slowly descended into a murderous psychopath) and gave the kingdom to David because of David’s upright heart. His shepherd’s heart.
“And Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you.” 1 Sam 15:8
God can, and does use evil men.
I think of Joseph’s brothers.
“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” Genesis 50:20
But He does not condone their evil deeds. Pharoah, Saul, Nabal, Ahab, Jezebel, Herod all came to gruesome ends because of their persistence in evil.
David was truly a noble and honorable man, a man after God’s own heart, who over time became weak, lazy and entitled.
He committed the horrific sins of rape and murder. Even though he repented, he still faced the consequences of his sin through the loss of his infant son. And again, when he sinned by conducting a census of military aged males against his general’s advice and the explicit instructions of God, he faced the consequences of seeing the people he was responsible for taking care of hurting, sick and dying. That hurt his shepherd’s heart more than anything, because he truly cared about the people who were entrusted to his leadership and protection.
That is not the story that this meme promotes.
It is a distortion of God and His heart for justice, holiness and love.
It is a distortion of the truth of David’s life and the consequences he faced a a result of his sin.
It is a distortion of the standard that reasonable people should expect and hold their leaders accountable to.
God is so outraged at sin that He sent His Son to deliver us from the evil in our hearts so that we do not remain “filthy minded, adulterous… with evil in our hearts”.
He gives us a new heart, a new identity and a mission to go and be the light in a dark world.
There are fruits of Love, Joy, Peace, Kindness, Gentleness, Faithfulness and Self-Control that will be in evidence in our life. And we will still sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes we sin grievously and hurt others. We might have to experience the dreadful consequences of that sin, even while comforted in knowing that we are forgiven.
Heaven help us if we call good evil and evil good.
Heaven help us if we look the other way when people are oppressed and celebrate ungodliness under the guise of “look at how horrible King David was. This person is just like him and it’s okay. God put them in power so that is a stamp of divine approval. “
“God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, he will reap.” Galatians 6:7
If anything, I think Nebuchadnezzar could be a better point of comparison for certain leaders. No one is beyond the reach of God’s amazing grace!
“Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, will praise, honor, and give glory to the King of Heaven. Everything he does is true, his ways are right, and he can humiliate those who act arrogantly.”
Daniel 4:37
This sort of testimony, with corresponding actions of personal responsibility and repentance would be welcomed by me.
It just doesn’t fit into a pithy meme.
God cares about abuse.
And when we tell narratives about Bible characters that gloss over the abuse and make it sound like the abuse doesn’t matter, we malign God.
David was dedicated to God, but over time he fell. His morals fell. His family, and the nation, paid the price.
His morality once he became king is not something we should be emulating–except perhaps his repentance in Psalm 51.
But when we use his example to say, “God chose him, even though he did these horrible things, so the horrible things shouldn’t disqualify someone”, we miss the heart of God entirely.
Thank you, Mary for speaking up on social media, and may all of us reject this narrative about David!
Abuse matters. It has consequences. And abusers should not be permitted in leadership positions ever again.
We should rejoice in forgiveness, that an evil person can be cleansed and become good (although sometimes there are and should be consequences that last even if you are forgiven).
But no, that is NEVER an excuse to justify bad behavior ourselves.
Anyone who thinks that the Bible excuses or condones David’s actions has to win ‘Cherry Picker of the Year’ award.
Exactly!
I agree that anyone who has abused those under their leadership should never be allowed to be in that position again. I have a cosmetology license and if I purposely ruined someone’s hair or continued to give terrible service, I could permanently lose my cosmetology license from the state I live in. Same goes with doctors, lawyers, psychologists, and those in certain professions. Yes, we can repent and turn from our ways, but there are consequences to ill behavior.
King David may have been a man after God’s heart and repented of his wicked ways, but he reaped the consequences of his actions. I guess a lot of fallen leaders seem to forget that they reap what they sow.
Sheila, have you considered having Lundy Bancroft on your podcast? He has a great book called “Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men”. He says it comes down to two things: does a man feel entitled to have what he wants, and feel he has the right to enforce it? It really helped me to think about abusive men in those terms. (I know it’s not exactly pertinent to today’s post, but it didn’t fit in other ones and I’ve been meaning to ask).
I really appreciate Mary Hudson’s words.
I wonder how much of these come from people who have learned or been trained to proof text scriptures? I was taught that growing up, and it has been a struggle to relearn how to take in the Bible as a whole entity, to read stories instead of over-focusing on specific verses. There’s a time and place for that- I’m thinking right now of Marg Mowczho- but we need to grasp the story as a greater entity before exploring it in smaller batches.
I think David can be used to help those who have done bad things know that they can be forgiven, and that having done bad things doesn’t mean they are evil at heart. They can still have a heart after God. That doesn’t make them free from their choices though, so there is a balance between being treated as who they *want* to be and how they *have* behaved.
I think that David’s story is one that does force us to wrestle with the fact that God’s justice does not always make sense to us with our human perspective. You cannot describe it as consistent or predictable from a human point of view. Some people in the Bible faced very serious divine consequences for what we might deem lesser infractions, such as greed, or even mistakes (such as the stories found in 1 Kings 13 or 2 Kings 5), while David’s sin did not result in his own death or illness. The prescribed consequences of the law of Moses were not applied to him- he should have faced the death penalty. Even the loss of his infant son seems like more of a punishment for Bathsheba than for him: she was young, this was apparently her first and only child, she was post partum and also likely traumatized by rape, the murder of her first husband, and her whirlwind change in circumstances, which were likely clouded by rumor and speculation. David already had many children. I don’t see the justice of punishing David by taking away a child that was as much Bathsheba’s as it was his.
Chapter 21 of Job is an eloquent expression of the dilemmas and unanswered questions I am left with.