Who Has the Authority to Define Repentance?

Steven Lawson, Pastoral Disqualification, and the Limits of Human Judgment

If you haven't read or heard of it yet, Dr. Steven Lawson has released a new book, Mercy in the Wilderness: How I Fell and What I Found, and it's causing quite a stir. As a pastor who began his theological training because of this man, was mentored through his books and teachings, and eventually sat under his instruction as a doctoral candidate, I felt it was proper to offer my opinion amid the many opinions about its release currently circulating on the internet.

First, let me begin by making something clear: I am not attempting to justify Steven Lawson’s decision to write or publish the book. There are legitimate questions about whether the book should have been written, released to the public, and sold. Further, many proper considerations remain about Lawson’s reconciliation in his marriage, what accountability currently exists in his life, and the wisdom behind this recent decision. I pray this was done with the blessing of his current elders, of whom I am not one, nor have backroom knowledge of the process.

Secondly, I am not arguing that Steven Lawson should return to a teaching-pastoral position in the local church. He should not. The qualifications for an elder are not optional suggestions. Scripture requires an overseer to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, self-controlled, respectable, able to teach, possess a good reputation, and be sound in doctrine (Read 1 Timothy 3:1-16, Titus 1:5-9).

Thirdly, with some repetition, again, Lawson’s moral failure is a legitimate expression of breaching the pastoral qualifications, therefore from pastoral ministry. Further, what seems to be expressed in his book is that his theological gifts do not exempt him from these established boundaries for Jesus’ under-shepherds.

This is why I feel I must respond to the many comments and reviews on Lawson’s recent book, which addresses a man’s gifts exceeding godliness. Yet another shadow looms over what has become a movement of internet evangelicalism, where many men step up to express their discernment on such matters. Often, it is the same men who feel obliged to be the first to beat the drum and declare, with a blanket statement, a lack of the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of Jesus' lambs. This, for me, is the question that has surfaced in all this: who gets to determine what repentance must look like? To answer this, I believe we must distinguish disqualification from condemnation.

Brothers and sisters, as a pastor, let me be clear: though a man can be disqualified from the office, he is never beyond the reach of the Father’s grace. Jesus makes it clear: seventy times seven (Matthew 18:22), and all Christians are justified people; all their sins, past, present, and future, have been addressed at Calvary’s cross. This means that, though a person may experience the consequences of their sin, they never go beyond the place of grace, restoration, or losing usefulness to Jesus. Specifically, with warning others who are currently standing on or desiring the same pedestal Lawson fell from.

As a confessional Baptist, the 1689 is dear to my heart. It helps me process doctrinal positions and always points me back to the Word. It speaks of the perseverance of the saints, depending on the immutable decree of election, not our own will. Upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus, the oath of God, and the abiding Spirit.[1] It speaks of temptation, corruption, and how hearts can be hardened, conscience wounded, and scandalizing sin yet the Holy Spirit “shall renew our repentance.”[2]  In fact, chapter 17 of this confession drives us to many verses in Scripture to remind us of such truth (Read it here). In sharing this conviction, let me also be clear that not every claim of repentance should be automatically accepted. However, and I stress this, repentance must be discerned through its fruits rather than defined according to the personal expectations of an individual on the internet who has not walked with, prayed with, functioned as an overseer, or knows the heart of any individual. We all must learn to slow ourselves down from getting on these discernment bandwagons. There is a difference between saying, “I have serious concerns about whether the fruit of repentance has been sufficiently demonstrated,” and saying, “This is not repentance!” The first is an expression of godly discernment, while the second statement crosses the line of judgment about the spiritual condition of another man’s heart.

It is understandable that opinions are present in this specific situation; there is residual pain and broken trust issues over Lawson, yet all believers must be careful before making those statements that cross the line. A lesson I have had to learn. Again, I am not defending the book or Lawson. Please do not misunderstand this post. There are many things we could all discuss, such as,

• Perhaps he should not have written it.

• Perhaps the timing was unwise.

• Perhaps publishing it was ill-advised.

• Perhaps the proceeds should be directed elsewhere.

• Perhaps his marriage needs additional time.

• Perhaps privacy and healing are still required.

• Perhaps the book is one-sided.

• Perhaps someone else should have written it.

• Perhaps those shepherding Lawson should have pulled him in before its release.

  
  

All of these considerations and more are legitimate questions or observations. But here is the thing. Christians are not being forced to purchase the book! They are not being asked to promote it or recommend it. Believers, including ministry leaders, do not have to agree with its conclusions, nor do they need to believe every claim Lawson makes about his repentance. And, at the same time, and this is a must-state statement, regardless of the “He sinned publicly, he must repent publicly” crowd, no believer is required to restore him to a place of spiritual advisor over such matters. His restoration, and even perhaps to author again, which is not pastoral, rests with his overseers, which we are not. We lack their insight, awareness, and authority. To beat the drum again, he wrote a book; he did not become a pastor. The focus has to be consistent, and no one can say that since he wrote a book, he is not repentant. Let us ask two more questions.

1.     Is He Profiting from his Sin?

This is a fair question, as long as it is a question. Financial gain from sin is problematic and a deeper sin, but does any person really know where the funds may be going? Here is the better question: where in the Bible does it say a repentant person may not receive financial compensation for writing a book about his sin? Yes, the Bible condemns greed, exploitation of ministry, and pursuing financial gain at the expense of godliness. But the price for a book does not establish any of those heart issues. Yes, let us ask the questions, but simply assuming that since there is a price tag, there is no repentance.

2.     Is He establishing Ministry Prominence?

It is possible. I do not know; therefore, I cannot even go down this path. Only Lawson and Jesus know his true motives and heart. Even his presence before his overseers, who are accountable for shepherding his soul, could be presented with one thing, yet his heart may be opposite to that appearance. Time will reveal his true motive, and until then, wisdom stays silent and observes.

I know other allegations have been raised over the integrity of authorship, yet I find those distractions from another key focus. Did Lawson use AI? We must remember he is a professional orator and a polished author, and he can use alliteration, grammar, and other writing techniques that could appear AI. It is a known fact that graduate-postgraduate writing style, repetitive language, or specific sentence structures can be tagged by checkers as AI, as it often happens. Here is the real heart of the matter of all the online chatter,

Who has the Authority to Define Repentance?

We live in a day with many Reformed-Theo Popes and Cardinals all weighing in that their opinion legitimately sets the standard to this question. The bottom line is, Scripture defines repentance, period! The local church holds the authority to walk with a repentant person into restoration. Para-church organizations, bloggers, discernment ministry leaders, and others, including myself, do not. I fully understand and appreciate that believers are called to examine fruit, exercise discernment, protect doctrine and the church, to take sin seriously, and to walk rightly with our Lord, but no person, regardless of their following on X, Facebook, preaching circuit, or armchair battlegrounds, is permitted to pronounce infallibility on the secret work of the Holy Spirit in another person’s heart. Repentance has never aimed to satisfy the expectation of others. Yes, godly sorrow produces repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10), and we should look for fruit of such, but the Bible does not give us permission to make checklists of opinions or preferences in this regard. This leads to another issue,

Disqualification is Not the Same as Condemnation.

It is possible I have already lost some readers, with the possibility of placing a target on my back and on my intentions with others. So I will repeat myself again: I am not minimizing the seriousness of Lawson’s disqualification from pastoral ministry. He is a forgiven man, not a requalified man; that ship has sailed. However, forgiveness and qualification are separate categories. My position is this: I am not arguing Lawson should be given a pass, a platform, or a pulpit, any more than I am arguing for book tours, endorsements, or anything else. But what if, what if, he actually wrote the book because he truly wants to protect brothers in the pulpit and is broken enough to warn, even at the cost of public scorn and ridicule?  I stand by my statement that we do not have the right to declare a man unrepentant because, after two years, he chose to write a book.

What can we Say Then?

Well, we can say

• “Publishing the book was unwise,”

• “We have serious questions about its timing,”

• “The commercial sale and publication raise concern,” and we can even say,

• “I am not certain repentance has been sufficiently demonstrated,”

We cannot cross that judgment line of, “Because he wrote and sold the book, it demonstrates a lack of repentance.” As this moves beyond discernment into judgment.

In closing, perhaps there is a value in this book? Lessons on collapse, lessons in living foolishly, living beyond your character, preaching what is not practiced, gifts above conduct? The reality of a man who had the rug removed from under his feet and face-planted because of sin. So in all the questions of his motive, character, repentance, publishing, costs, the real reflections should be,

Lord, help me learn, and please keep me from falling like this man. Help me fight against pride; increase in me a heart of humility.

This is a good start! For those who followed Lawson, sat under his preaching, and attended his lectures as students, we know how serious this fall was. If you do not know Lawson, let me stress that his sin was serious. His pastoral disqualification is serious. And his future interaction with the Christian church as a teacher and authority should be approached with serious discernment and accountability. But none of us can place ourselves in the position of the Holy Spirit and know his true status of repentance simply because we disapprove of how he chose to share his story. Test the fruit, love the church, honor Scripture, take sin seriously, refuse premature restoration to ministry, demand accountability always, but remember in all this leave room for the Sovereign Grace of our Lord to do what only He can do. For Lawson, his days of teaching and preaching in the pulpit are over, and his local church is charged with walking with him, healing him, and more, so we must not be the judge of whether the Lord is capable of redeeming a fallen man, or use that man's testimony as a warning sign that the path some are on

is the path that leads to destruction.

Remember, the pulpit belongs to Jesus; He will protect it, and conviction and sanctification are His as well. Let us then reflect on how we respond to such controversial matters.

In His Merciful Arms,

P/Steve

______________________________________

[1] The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, chap. 17, para 2, “Of the Perseverance of the Saints,” accessed September 22, 2026 https://www.the1689confession.com/1689/chapter-17

[2] The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, chap. 17, para 3