Close the open bathroom: A Biblical warning against temptation, abuse of power, concealment

By Rev. BROWN OKWII

In many African communities, a bathroom is a private space where personal dignity, cleanliness and privacy should be protected. Yet some facilities lack adequate walls, doors or other safeguards, exposing users to unwanted public attention. The open bathroom therefore provides a useful illustration of the areas of our lives where neglected boundaries, irresponsibility and a lack of accountability create opportunities for harm.

An open bathroom may represent the undisciplined leader whose authority is unchecked, the Christian whose private conduct contradicts public holiness, the family whose relationships lack healthy boundaries, or the institution that protects influential offenders at the expense of vulnerable people.

The story of David, Bathsheba and Uriah in 2 Samuel 11 provides a powerful Biblical foundation for this message. David, Israel’s king, saw Bathsheba bathing, learnt that she was married to Uriah the Hittite, and nevertheless summoned her and slept with her.

When she became pregnant, he attempted to conceal his wrongdoing by recalling Uriah from the battlefield and encouraging him to spend the night with his wife. When Uriah refused, David arranged for him to be placed in the fiercest fighting and abandoned to die.

After Uriah’s death, David took Bathsheba as his wife, apparently bringing the crisis to an end. Yet Scripture records the divine verdict: “But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.”

The moral burden of this narrative falls on David, whose royal authority enabled him to manipulate a loyal soldier and arrange his death. Scripture does not accuse Uriah of neglecting his domestic responsibilities, nor does it establish that Bathsheba deliberately sought to attract the king. We must not invent accusations against them to excuse David’s conduct.

The central question is, therefore, not simply who has an open bathroom, but what we have left unguarded that could destroy us, harm another person or dishonour God.

The open bathroom of temptation, neglected responsibility

The narrative begins with David remaining in Jerusalem while Joab and the army go to war (2 Samuel 11:1–2). The Bible does not explicitly condemn the king merely for remaining at home. Rather, the significance of the passage emerges from the choices that follow. David allows desire to override responsibility and proceeds despite knowing that Bathsheba is another man’s wife.

Proverbs 4:23 commands believers to guard their hearts, while James 1:14–15 describes how desire can develop into sin and ultimately produce death. In contemporary society, temptation may take the form of secret relationships, inappropriate messages, pornography, financial dishonesty or the misuse of authority. The problem is not every interaction between people, but the deliberate cultivation of secrecy and behaviour that violates moral boundaries.

This lesson is particularly important in pastoral counselling. Ministers may legitimately counsel vulnerable members, but such relationships require appropriate safeguards, transparency and accountability to prevent exploitation.

Bathsheba must not be made the scapegoat for David’s actions. The Biblical account does not establish that she intended to seduce him, and the unequal relationship between a king and a woman summoned to his palace raises serious questions about the exercise of power. The Church must never transform a warning against male wrongdoing into an accusation against women.

The narrative subsequently contrasts David’s manipulation with Uriah’s integrity. When recalled from the battlefield, Uriah refuses to enjoy domestic comfort while his fellow soldiers remain exposed to the hardships of war. He explains that the ark, Israel, Judah, Joab and the soldiers are in temporary shelters or the open field, and he cannot justify going home to eat, drink and sleep with his wife.

His response reveals loyalty and solidarity, while David, the king who should exemplify righteousness, attempts to manipulate him. Uriah’s example reminds the church that spiritual integrity is not determined by seniority, ethnicity, wealth or length of membership. A new convert or socially disadvantaged person may demonstrate greater faithfulness than an established leader.

David then invites Uriah to eat and drink in his presence and makes him drunk, hoping to achieve through intoxication what his earlier persuasion failed to accomplish. Yet Uriah still refuses to go home.

When power becomes a weapon

David’s most serious wrongdoing follows when he sends Uriah back to the battlefield carrying a letter addressed to Joab. The letter instructs the commander to place Uriah where the fighting is fiercest and withdraw support so that he will be killed (2 Samuel 11:14–17).

The episode exposes the danger of power without accountability. In contemporary Nigeria and across Africa, its moral lessons apply wherever influential people manipulate official procedures to silence witnesses, intimidate critics, eliminate rivals or sacrifice innocent people to protect their reputations.

A church that transfers a victim instead of investigating an offender, an official who uses security agencies to intimidate a critic, or an administrator who falsifies financial records to conceal corruption demonstrates the dangers of institutions being used to protect wrongdoing. These are applications of the biblical principle, not claims that every modern situation is identical to David’s actions.

Joab’s role also raises an important question of responsibility. A subordinate is not automatically innocent simply because a superior issues an order. Obedience cannot turn an unjust command into a righteous act. Military personnel, civil servants and church administrators must exercise moral judgement rather than treat rank as an excuse to abandon conscience.

David’s wrongdoing develops from sexual misconduct into deception, manipulation and murder because he chooses concealment instead of repentance. Rather than acknowledge his failure, he increasingly involves other people in his attempt to protect himself. James 1:15 warns that sin, when fully grown, brings forth death.

The same principle applies to churches and families. A young minister who reports misconduct must not be abandoned to intimidation. A member who reports sexual abuse must not be sacrificed to protect a senior pastor’s reputation. A whistle-blower must not be treated as an enemy merely because the truth is uncomfortable.

Jesus teaches in John 10:11–13 that the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep, while the hired hand abandons them when danger comes. Godly leadership protects people; corrupt leadership sacrifices them to preserve itself.

After Uriah’s death, David takes Bathsheba into his household as his wife. Outwardly, the crisis appears resolved, but the Biblical account concludes that the Lord is displeased with what David has done (2 Samuel 11:26–27).

This is a crucial warning against using respectable appearances to conceal wrongdoing. A marriage ceremony, bride-price payment, religious title or public endorsement cannot retrospectively make exploitation, deception or murder righteous.

Scripture does not provide details of the traditional marriage procedures or any bride-price payment in David’s case, so we should not invent such details. The essential point is that his subsequent marriage did not erase his earlier wrongdoing.

Repentance, accountability, closing the open bathroom

The story of David, Bathsheba and Uriah is ultimately a confrontation between human power and divine authority. David’s position does not exempt him from God’s law. Deuteronomy 17:18–20 describes the king’s responsibility to obey God’s commandments and avoid exalting himself above others.

The lesson applies to pastors, bishops, politicians, traditional rulers, wealthy donors and public officials. Anointing, popularity and authority do not confer moral immunity. Churches must encourage personal holiness while establishing systems that make abuse more difficult and accountability possible.

In 2 Samuel 12, the prophet Nathan confronts David through a parable about a rich man who takes a poor man’s beloved ewe lamb. David condemns the injustice before Nathan declares, “Thou art the man” (2 Samuel 12:7, KJV). David then confesses, “I have sinned against the LORD” (2 Samuel 12:13, KJV).

Psalm 51, traditionally associated with David’s repentance, expresses the plea for mercy, cleansing and a renewed heart. His story demonstrates that repentance is possible, but forgiveness does not mean that harm never occurred or that consequences automatically disappear.

A repentant leader must not use God’s mercy to silence victims, avoid legitimate investigations or demand immediate reinstatement. Genuine repentance requires truthful confession, responsibility, appropriate restitution and respect for those who have been harmed. Reconciliation must never be forced upon victims.

Today’s churches must, therefore, examine the open bathrooms in their pulpits, marriages, finances, digital lives and leadership structures. Secret relationships, financial irregularities, misuse of private information and unchecked authority can expose people to harm. Transparent financial records, appropriate pastoral boundaries, fair investigations and trusted accountability mechanisms help protect congregations.

Families must cultivate honesty, fidelity and mutual respect. Leaders must welcome correction, while members must distinguish respect for godly authority from unquestioning loyalty to individuals. Society must also address corruption, unsafe sanitation, violence against women and the neglect of vulnerable people. Christians are called to practise justice, defend human dignity and demand accountability from those entrusted with public responsibilities.

The warnings of Scripture are clear. First Corinthians 10:12 urges those who think they stand to take heed lest they fall. God’s patience must not be mistaken for approval, and spiritual language must never be used to silence legitimate questions. Equally, forgiveness must not be confused with exemption from consequences, and the wounded must not be abandoned to protect institutional reputations.

As we reflect on this message, each person should privately examine areas requiring correction. We may need to confess a hidden wrong, repair a neglected responsibility, establish a healthy boundary, seek wise counsel or report misconduct through appropriate channels. Such examination is not an invitation to condemn ourselves or others without evidence, but an opportunity to pursue integrity and protect those entrusted to our care.

The story ends with a dead soldier, a grieving widow and a king whose actions have displeased God. Its central tragedy is that David places personal desire above moral responsibility and then uses his authority to protect himself. Uriah’s death exposes the cost of that decision, Bathsheba’s experience reveals the danger of unequal power, and Nathan’s confrontation demonstrates that human concealment cannot defeat divine judgement.

Let no church member leave believing that every exposed person is guilty. Let no leader imagine that authority removes the obligation to answer for wrongdoing. Let no victim conclude that another person’s misconduct was their fault merely because they were vulnerable.

Instead, let each of us ask: What must I close? What must I repair? What must I confess? Whom must I stop harming? Whom must I protect? What truth must I stop concealing?

The bathroom may be open, but the greater danger is a heart that refuses correction. While practical safeguards protect our privacy and dignity, our hearts must also be surrendered to God.

Rev. Prof. John Brown Okwii, the
Serving Pastor, Assemblies of God Church, Hwolshe, opposite Model Academy, along Yakubu Gowon Way, Jos, writes via johnbrownokwii@gmail.com