David ServantBlog Archives - David Servant

admin — Sat, 28 Mar 2026 10:00:57 +0000

In case you didn’t realize it, we’ve started our ascent, and you’ve already left the crowds behind. In fact, just by reading the previous lesson—in which I enumerated Jesus’ three requirements for discipleship (found in Luke 14:25-33)—you started on an upward path that most avoid. I didn’t mention it in that previous lesson, but when Jesus enumerated those three requirements, He told His audience to first count the cost:

For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, “This man began to build and was not able to finish.” Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace (Luke 14:28-32).

Clearly, Jesus was not promising an easy path. There is a cost to being His disciple, one that should be carefully considered beforehand. Jesus implied in Luke 14:25-33 that it could cost one his family members, his comfort and convenience, his money and possessions, and even his life. But He also promised that there would be a reward at the end that would far exceed any earthly price paid: “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great” (Matt. 5:12). The apostle Paul echoed: “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom. 8:18). If you stay with me on this journey, you will be glad you did. Guaranteed.

This may shock you, but the truth is, those whom you’ve left behind are unbelievers. Those who truly believe in Jesus follow Him, regardless of the cost. Believers obey. It is that simple. That is why Paul wrote about “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). That is why Jesus’ message was a consistent call to obedience. He preached repentance, which is the initial step of obedience (Matt. 4:17; 11:20; 12:41; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10). He called people to take His yoke upon themselves, an obvious metaphor for making Him Master. He warned that “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter” (Matt. 7:21). All that I have just described is the essence of believing in Jesus. Living faith results in committed obedience (Jas. 2:14-26).

How does inviting people to “accept Jesus” harmonize with all I have just described? It doesn’t. That is why A.W. Tozer wrote:

If your Christian conversion did not reverse the direction of your life, you are simply a victim of the “accept Jesus” heresy… The Lord will not save those whom He cannot command. He will not divide His offices. You cannot believe on a half-Christ.

This is why the most difficult group to evangelize is “born-again Christians.” I am speaking, of course, of those who are convinced that they are safe in God’s grace because they once prayed a prayer for salvation in some form. They imagine that saving faith consists of mentally acknowledging (and not actually believing) some theological facts that revolve around Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Saving faith, however, is faith in a divine Person. Jesus said, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

It is those who believe in Jesus who will inherit eternal life. To believe in Him is to believe, not only what He said, but also in who He is. And who is He? More than anything else, He is Lord. He is referred to as Lord over 600 times in the New Testament. Compare that with the mere 16 times that He is referred to as “Savior.”

When the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), they did not respond, “Just accept Jesus as your personal Savior.” No, they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31, emphasis added). Praise God, that jailer did believe in the Lord Jesus, and his genuine faith soon became evident as he washed Paul and Silas’ wounds and prepared a meal for them (Acts 16:33-34). Faith works through love (see Gal. 5:6.)

All of this is to say, your continuing on this journey is a good indication of what has happened and is still happening in your heart. So let us “press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:14).

Two Kinds of Greed

By way of brief review, we’ve previously learned that we can’t serve two masters. Specifically, according to Jesus, we can’t serve God and money. In a practical sense, that means we must obey God in money matters, both in money’s acquisition and use.

To obey God in money matters is to serve and love Him as Master. To disobey God in money matters is to serve and love money, which makes money one’s master. That is no doubt why the apostle Paul equated greed with idolatry (Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5). Here again is the equation I shared in our first lesson:

Disobeying God in regard to money/possessions = God is not loved and is not master = Money is loved and is master = Greed = Idolatry

We’ve also learned that there are at least two forms of greed. One revolves around how money is acquired. The other revolves around how money is used. Theft is a form of greed because it is a transgression of God’s commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself in regard to the acquisition of money. Similarly, not sharing with the poor is a form of greed because it is a transgression of God’s commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself in regard to the use of money.

In this lesson, we are going to take a look at a man who was guilty of both forms of greed and repented of both. His name was Zaccheus, and only Luke recorded his story:

[Jesus] entered Jericho and was passing through. And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich. Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable because of the crowd, for he was small in stature. So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way. When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, “Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly. When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, “He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

As a chief tax collector for the hated, occupying Roman Empire, Jewish Zaccheus would have acquired his position by out-bidding others in Jericho for the right to collect a fixed amount for Rome with the knowledge that any surplus could be kept as profit for himself. He would have hired other tax collectors to help him reach his quota, which could have been achieved only by means of some form of enforcement by local Roman soldiers. The whole system incentivized over-collection and corruption, so Zaccheus would not only have been considered to be a traitor by his countrymen, but also a thief. And he was wealthy because of it.

Jesus, however, came “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10), and Zaccheus certainly fit the description. Prior to Jesus’ arrival in Jericho, he was a lover of money. It was his god and master. He was guilty of both forms of greed. He not only acquired his money through illicit means but he also neglected the poor. Had he died prior to his encounter with Jesus, he would have been rightly condemned to hell with all other greedy people (Eph. 5:3-5; Col. 3:5-6). He was four feet eleven—and not going to heaven.

Zaccheus only hoped to see Jesus as He passed by. He never expected that Jesus would call him by name, much less inform him that He and his disciples would be staying at his house—which may well have been the biggest house in Jericho. I wonder if the fact that Jesus didn’t ask Zaccheus if he could lodge at his house, but rather acted like He had the right to stay—as only an owner would—helped Zaccheus think about his stewardship before God? Or, had Zaccheus heard something of what Jesus had been teaching, and that is what brought him to repentance? Or could it simply have been that his conscience had been speaking to him all of his life, convicting him of his greed? Did Jesus’ healing of blind Bartimaeus just a short time earlier grip his heart?

Regardless, Zaccheus was quite happy about Jesus’ decision to lodge at his house. Not understanding much about God’s grace, everyone else in the crowd who knew something about Zaccheus grumbled that Jesus was about to “be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” Momentarily, however, that would all change when Zaccheus publicly repented of his greed. He repented of both forms, saying, “Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much” (Luke 19:8).

Although the Mosaic Law did stipulate that thieves who were caught pay additional restitution, the only fourfold restitution required was in the case of stolen sheep that had been killed or resold (Ex. 22:1). Nevertheless, Zaccheus certainly displayed his sincere repentance regarding his former fraud.

Neither was giving half of one’s possessions to the poor stipulated in the Mosaic Law. But again, Zaccheus was demonstrating his change of heart towards those whom he had previously ignored. Whatever remained after that liquidation, along with what remained after the fourfold restitution of that which he had gained fraudulently, Zaccheus was a lot less wealthy. He was, however, finally “rich toward God” (Luke 12:21) and ready to stand before Him.

True Salvation

I’m sure you noticed that Jesus didn’t discourage Zaccheus in his zeal. On the contrary, Jesus saw Zaccheus’ change of heart as a sign of his salvation.

Zaccheus was saved “by grace through faith,” which is the only way anyone has ever been saved in the history of humanity. He believed in Jesus so he repented, just as Jesus had been telling everyone to do.

God’s grace forgave all his former sins, but it didn’t grant Zaccheus a license to continue sinning. How do you suppose Jesus would have responded if Zaccheus had said, “Jesus, I accept you as my personal Savior. Thank you for your amazing grace which allows me to continue defrauding my countrymen and neglecting widows and orphans!”? I can assure you that Jesus would not have affirmed his salvation, and for one simple reason—because Zaccheus’ words and actions would have demonstrated that he didn’t actually believe in Jesus.

That being so, what are we to think of those today who “pray a sinner’s prayer for salvation” yet who make no attempt to make restitution for former wrongs or who continue to ignore the plight of the poor? The person who keeps what he has knowingly stolen is still a thief, and the New Testament warns that no thief will inherit God’s kingdom:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

And the person who continues to ignore the plight of the poor is still guilty of another form of greed, as he disobeys God in regard to the use of his money, indicating that he loves and serves, not God, but money. John wrote:

We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death…. We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth (1 John 3:14-18).

Perhaps you, like most of us who live in what I often refer to as “Disney World,” don’t know or have contact with anyone, much less any Christian, who is so poor that they lack basic necessities like food or covering. But are you aware that such people exist outside of Disney World? You probably are. In a later lesson, I will share how you can best connect with them to help them.

John’s Baptism of Repentance

Since we are on the subject of sincere repentance and subsequent salvation, let’s ascend just a little further up the stewardship path and pause to take a look at the ministry of John the Baptist. His baptism was a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). That is, God was offering forgiveness to those who would repent. (That has always been God’s gracious offer.)

John didn’t believe that baptism alone, or even that confession of sin was sufficient. Genuine repentance—a change of behavior—was essential. He boldly preached to those who were lining up to be baptized:

You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham for our father,” for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Luke 3:7-9, emphasis added).

John, speaking on behalf of God, called for fruit, that is, an observable change of behavior. He wanted disobedience replaced with obedience. Those whose behavior didn’t change would be “thrown into the fire,” a clear reference to hell.

Matthew recorded a part of John’s preaching that Luke did not, and it certainly underscored this same message:

As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matt. 3:11-12).

After the harvest, chaff is the lightweight outer husks that surround the edible wheat kernels. In ancient times, farmers separated the worthless chaff from the valuable wheat kernels through a process called winnowing. After threshing (beating or trampling the harvested stalks to loosen the grains), they would toss the mixture into the air with a fork or fan, allowing the wind to blow away the light chaff while the heavier wheat grains fell back down. Again, John’s message was clear. God is looking for fruit. Chaff is destined for the fire.

When the convicted crowds asked John what they should do to show the sincerity of their repentance with fruit, he responded with six directives that targeted different groups:

And the crowds were questioning him, saying, “Then what shall we do?” And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.” And some tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to.” Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And what about us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:10-14).

Did you notice that five of John’s six directives concerned money?

Three had to do with the selfish (greedy) acquiring of money. He told the repentant tax collectors (1) not to collect more than they had been ordered to collect.^[1]. He told the repentant soldiers (2) not to take money from anyone by force (theft) and (3) to be content with their wages. Their discontentment was the likely cause of their theft.^[2].

Two of John’s directives had to do with the selfish (greedy) use of money. John told everyone who owned two tunics to (1) share with someone who had no tunic. He told everyone who had food to (2) share with someone who had no food. So even those who had very little were expected to help those with nothing.

Obviously, John’s six directives did not comprise everything that all of John’s convicted audiences could have done, or would do in the future as they matured in their faith. But John gave them some basic, initial behavioral changes to make to authenticate their profession of repentance, and it is noteworthy that at least five of those six directives revolved around forms of greed. For that reason, it is to be regretted that many who are reading these words have professed to be Christians for years, but they are only now being exposed to truth that John’s converts heard on Day 1. But better late than never!

The All-Important Questions: Have I “accepted Jesus” or “believed in the Lord Jesus”? Have I repented of both forms of greed, and is there fruit in my life to prove it? Have I made restitution, if possible, for anything I knowingly gained fraudulently? Am I sharing some of what God has entrusted to me with the poor?

^[1]^{It is noteworthy that John did not tell tax collectors or soldiers to quit their jobs. Jesus also did not expect Zaccheus to quit his job.}
^[2]^{And perhaps John’s directive to soldiers not to “accuse anyone falsely” also had something to do with their means of theft. If it did, then six out of six directives had something to do with money.}

The post appeared first on David Servant.

Kevin Evans — Sat, 21 Mar 2026 10:00:20 +0000

If Jesus wasn’t already your Master as you read Lesson 1, I trust that He has since become your Master. If He’s still not your Master, there is no sense making any attempt to continue on The Stewardship Journey. The first step is to believe in Jesus, which is synonymous with becoming His follower.

Many professing Christians will tell you that they have “accepted Jesus,” but if you’ve ever read the four Gospels, you know that Jesus never encouraged anyone to accept Him. He wasn’t looking for “accepters.” He was looking for followers. He said, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me” (Luke 9:23). Clearly, following Him requires self-denial.

Some attempt to persuade us that there are actually two categories of Christians—the believers and the disciples. Believers, they claim, are born again, secure in God’s saving grace, and guaranteed eternal salvation, but they are not necessarily committed to obey Jesus. Disciples, they claim, are also believers, but they are committed to follow and obey Jesus, and they will thus receive greater reward in heaven.

The New Testament, however, makes no distinction between believers and disciples. Rather, it clearly portrays all true believers as being disciples, that is, committed followers. There are about 260 verses in the Gospels and Acts that contain the word disciple or disciples. There are only 3 verses in those same New Testament books that contain the word believer or believers and only 2 verses that contain the word Christian or Christians. What does that tell us?

Once when Jesus was preaching to a crowd of Jews, John tells us that “many came to believe in Him” (John 8:30, emphasis added). Jesus immediately called them to question if their faith was genuine:

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:31-32, emphasis added).

Did you notice that Jesus spoke to professing believers as if they were professing disciples? That is because the two were synonymous in His mind. Anyone who truly believes in Jesus will “continue in His Word” and thus progressively be set free from the slavery of sin as they learn His Word and obey it.

Jesus’ Demands of Discipleship

Luke records that, as Jesus once addressed “large crowds” that were “going along with Him” (Luke 14:25), He enumerated three requirements for those who wanted to be His disciples. Those who were unwilling to meet His three conditions disqualified themselves.

First, they must love Him supremely—more than father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even their own life (Luke 14:26). Jesus used the strong term “hate” to drive home His point. Allegiance to Him must eclipse every other attachment, including even the closest family ties and self-preservation.

Second, they must deny themselves, take up their cross daily, and follow Him (Luke 14:27; cf. 9:23). That figuratively describes a willingness to embrace suffering, shame, and self-renunciation for His sake—bearing the cost of discipleship without reservation.

Third, they must renounce ownership of all their possessions (Luke 14:33). No one, Jesus said, can be His disciple who does not “give up” (or “renounce”) everything he has, placing all material goods under His lordship.

Jesus’ demands were not just suggestions. They were the non-negotiable marks of genuine commitment. Clearly, He was not content being a “mega-church pastor,” nor was He satisfied with large crowds of spectators. Rather, He wanted committed followers. He deliberately thinned the crowds. True discipleship requires total allegiance—heart, life, and possessions—to Jesus alone.

Regarding Jesus’ third requirement for discipleship (giving up all of one’s possessions), I’ve softened it as much as the immediate and wider biblical context would seem to allow. Rather than paraphrasing Jesus’ words, “No one can be My disciple who does not liquidate all his assets, distribute the proceeds to the poor, and thereafter live in perpetual poverty while serving others with any surplus,” I’ve rendered it, “No one can be My disciple who does not renounce everything He has, placing all material goods under His lordship.”

It is quite easy, however, to fool ourselves into thinking that we’ve placed all material goods under Jesus’ lordship “in our hearts” while making no material adjustments in our lives. Mental relinquishment is obviously not the same as actual relinquishment. The fact is, greed may not only be manifested by how we gain wealth, but also by what we do with it once it is gained. In this lesson, we are going to take a look at a man who was guilty of that second form of greed. His story was recorded only in Luke’s Gospel.

The Victim

Luke tells us that, as Jesus was once preaching to a crowd of thousands (see Luke 12:1), a man said to Him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me” (Luke 12:13). I think it is safe to assume the man’s brother was also in the crowd. The defrauded victim hoped that Jesus would take his side, publicly correct his brother, and he would then gain his rightful share of the family inheritance.

Jesus was not, however, willing to render a judgment. He said, “Man, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?” (Luke 12:14). This was a case for the courts, or at least for someone whom both brothers trusted and who had the time and inclination to carefully examine all the relevant facts. Perhaps the man was not the victim he portrayed himself to be. We don’t know.

Jesus did, however, seize the opportunity to address a more important issue that could affect not just the two brothers’ net worth, but their eternal destiny. He said to them, “Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions” (Luke 12:15).

The danger that was surfacing in their dispute was the danger of greed. Both men were potentially focused too much on possessions. The brother who felt defrauded was so obsessed with material wealth that he not only made it a public issue in front of a large crowd, but he also attempted to involve the Messiah right during His public ministry. That was highly inappropriate, and it revealed his fixation. Moreoever, if his brother was indeed defrauding him of his rightful inheritance, then his selfish brother was revealing that money, rather than God, was his master. Because greed is a damning sin (as we saw in our first lesson), both men were potentially in grave danger.

From Jesus’ words to the crowd that day, we learn several things. The first is that there are different forms of greed. Jesus said, “Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed.” Obviously, the two men’s dispute revealed at least one form, and it would seem to be in the category of greed associated with how one gains wealth rather than how one uses it. In this case, if either brother was attempting to defraud the other, it was an attempt to gain wealth through theft. Again, theft reveals that money, not God, is one’s master. It’s a form of greed.

Jesus indicated that the root of all greed is a false valuation of material things: “Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions.”

Material possessions, of course, are a necessary part of everyone’s life. At bare minimum, we all need food and clothing. But there is something even more important than possessions. What is it? It is a relationship with God that is marked by obedience to Him. When that is usurped by a focus on material possessions, greed is rearing its ugly head. Another god is competing for mastership. Time to beware!

Jesus elaborated by telling the crowd a parable about a wealthy man:

The land of a rich man was very productive. And he began reasoning to himself, saying, “What shall I do, since I have no place to store my crops?” Then he said, “This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, ‘Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink and be merry.’ But God said to him, “You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?” So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God” (Luke 12:16-21).

Note that there is no indication that the wealthy man in Jesus’ parable was guilty of greed in regard to how he obtained his wealth. It appears that he gained it legitimately through farming. In fact, his success had a lot to do with God’s blessing, as crops need rain and sun.

That being so, the form of greed of which he became guilty revolved around what he did with his God-granted wealth. Jesus said that he “stored up treasure for himself” (Luke 12:21). We know exactly what Jesus meant by that expression from what He said at other times about storing treasures in heaven by caring for the poor (see Matt. 6:20; 19:21; Luke 12:33).

We can all store treasure on earth or in heaven. That is where the rich man failed. He stored all his treasure on earth. Money, not God, was his god. He was greedy, and thus an idolater. And his greed stemmed from his overvaluation of material possessions. They were more important to him than a relationship with God marked by obedience. He was, as Jesus said, “not rich toward God” because he didn’t obey God in regard to the use of his wealth. He was a poor rich man.

Moreover, he was also a foolish poor rich man, as God Himself said, because his entire reason for storing up treasure for himself was so that he could enjoy his future years living in ease. His life, however, ended within hours. It was a grave miscalculation on his part.

Jesus left us no reason to think that the rich man, being so foolish and “not rich toward God,” found himself in heaven after his unexpected death. In light of all Jesus taught, it seems more reasonable to think that the rich man found himself in hell. He had expected many future years of an easy earthly life made possible by his earthly store of treasure, but within hours he was living in agony and regret, having forever forfeited any access to his treasure. He was indeed a fool. And we are no different than him if we only store our treasure on earth and neglect to store any in heaven. We show ourselves to be servants, not of God, but of money.

Application to Rich and Poor Alike

But Jesus’ words in Luke 12 not only have application to those who are wealthy, but to everyone. Because directly after His parable of the rich fool, Jesus turned to His disciples and said:

For this reason I say to you, do not worry about your life, as to what you will eat; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; they have no storeroom nor barn, and yet God feeds them; how much more valuable you are than the birds! And which of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life’s span? If then you cannot do even a very little thing, why do you worry about other matters? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; but I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass in the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will He clothe you? You men of little faith! And do not seek what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not keep worrying. For all these things the nations of the world eagerly seek; but your Father knows that you need these things. But seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you. Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom (Luke 12:22-32, emphasis added).

I’m sure you noticed Jesus’ consistent message in this entire passage in Luke 12. He had earlier said, “for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions. Now He says, “life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.” It is the same message. Jesus wants His disciples focused on what is most important, and what is most important is not material possessions, whether they be many or few. What is most important is their relationship with God as revealed by their obedience to Him.

For that reason, Jesus’ disciples should not be worried about even basic necessities, but rather should be “seeking His kingdom,” or as Matthew recorded in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, they should “seek first His kingdom and righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). If they will, their Father in heaven will take care of all their needs.

If they are properly focused on spiritual, kingdom matters rather than material things, not only will they have no reason to worry about not having what they need, but they will be doing the opposite of what the rich fool did. Unlike him, they will be storing treasures in heaven. That is exactly what Jesus told them to do in His next sentence:

Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Luke 12:33-34).

The rich fool in Jesus’ story lost everything he owned when he died, but it is not death alone that results in the loss of earthly material wealth. It is, as Jesus said, thieves and moths. It is also rust (see Matt. 6:19), mold, insects, weather, stock market downturns, bad luck, lawsuits, time, and a host of other depreciating phenomena.

All that being so, the wise thing is to store as little treasure as possible on earth and as much as possible in heaven. That is accomplished, Jesus said, by “giving to charity.” The Greek word translated charity is eleemosune. It is found 13 times in the New Testament, and it refers to giving alms to the poor (see its use in Matt. 6:2-4; Acts 3:2-3, 10; 24:17), something that is not on the radar of many professing Christians. But it should be on their radar, and that is one reason I’m writing these ten lessons on stewardship.

Finally, take note that Jesus said, “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” That divine fact exposes the falsehood that God looks only at our hearts rather than at our actions. Our actions reveal our hearts. So, when a preacher says, “Thank God He doesn’t look at our checkbooks but rather looks at our hearts,” he’s misleading his congregation and contradicting Jesus. The truth is that God looks at our checkbooks and then knows what is in our hearts. That is why He promises to repay all of us, not “according to our hearts” but “according to our deeds” (Ps. 62:12; Prov 24:12; Jer. 17:10; 32:19; Mat. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; 1 Cor. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 6:7-8; Rev. 20:12-13; 22:12). God knows whether our hearts are on earth or in heaven by looking at where we are storing our treasure.

That Conviction

There is, I know, a good chance that this lesson has raised some conviction in your heart. That is good, as long as that conviction is not actually condemnation. Conviction offers hope of blessing that follows repentance, whereas condemnation begets only despair. Don’t allow yourself to be condemned. God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6).

Had the rich fool been “rich toward God,” his joy would have increased exponentially as he devoted himself to using his God-granted blessing to bless those who had little or nothing. He could have enjoyed putting many smiles on the faces of needy widows and orphans. He could have grown in his faith as he obeyed God, trusting that God would continue blessing his farm so that he could continue to bless more needy people every year of his life. He could have even used part of his windfall to expand his farm in order to bless more people through offering them employment, plus increase his profit to care for more orphans and widows.

Beyond all that, he could have stored immense treasure in heaven that would have been waiting for him in his next life. He would have been a truly rich man. But he valued earthly wealth above eternal wealth.

The clear lesson of Jesus’ parable? Don’t be a fool like the rich man. As martyred missionary Jim Elliot so famously said: “He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”

The All-Important Questions: Am I rich toward God, as indicated by my practice of storing treasure in heaven? Is my heart in heaven or on earth?

The post appeared first on David Servant.

The Stewardship Journey Lesson 1: The Bottom Basics

admin — Sat, 14 Mar 2026 10:00:20 +0000

by David Servant

Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord?
And who may stand in His holy place?
He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
Who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood
And has not sworn deceitfully.
He shall receive a blessing from the Lord
And righteousness from the God of his salvation (Ps. 24:3-5).

If there’s one hobby that’s stayed with me my entire life, it’s hiking. I’ve always been drawn to scenic beauty, and the finest trails deliver it in generous doses, with sweeping mountain vistas along the way. The very best hikes promise a spectacular summit payoff. There is nothing like a breathtaking, panoramic view achieved through determination and perseverance.

A few summers ago, my wife and I were blessed to spend a week exploring some of Western Canada’s iconic national parks. Our most unforgettable hike was the Plain of Six Glaciers Trail in Banff. It begins on the shore of glacier-fed Lake Louise, whose turquoise waters—milky from glacial silt—draw awed visitors from around the world. The shoreline path is usually bustling with tourists, but the crowds thin quickly once the trail begins its ascent up the valley.

Over the next five miles or so, with roughly 1,800 feet of elevation gain, we pressed through pristine alpine forests, anticipation (and weariness) growing with every switchback. Those who, like us, reached the trail’s end found a quiet, rocky perch to sit and absorb the grandeur: close-up views of Victoria Glacier clinging to the peaks, the vast moraine stretching below, and—far in the distance—tiny Lake Louise shimmering like a distant jewel.

There, amid a sacred silence, fellow hikers share a wordless camaraderie. Foot-weary and fatigued, they know they’ve earned a sublime privilege, enjoyed only by those willing to climb.

The Stewardship Journey—on which we are about to embark—parallels that hike in at least three ways. First, only a committed minority chooses to break from the crowds and fix their eyes on a higher aspiration. Second, the ascent isn’t easy—but it’s filled with unexpected beauty and surprising revelations along the path. And third, the payoff at the peak is spectacular, and even more so than the overlook of Victoria Glacier. It is heavenly!

With all of that in mind, let’s begin our ascent.

God’s View

The Bible consistently presents all of humanity as divided into two fundamental groups—and often by using stark contrasts in moral, spiritual, and eternal terms.

For example, Scripture speaks of the righteous and the wicked, children of God and children of the devil, believers and unbelievers, spiritual persons and natural persons, those in light and those in darkness (Matt. 13:49; Acts 24:15; 1 John 3:10; 2 Cor. 6:15; 1 Cor. 2:14–15; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 5:8).

Jesus Himself illustrated this same division through parables and a foretelling: wheat and tares, the lost and the found, good fish and bad fish, sheep and goats (Matt. 13:24–43; Luke 15:1–32; Matt. 13:47–50; 25:31–46).

Ultimately, every person falls eternally into one category or the other—welcomed into heaven or cast into hell. There is no middle or third category.

This biblical dichotomy does not deny that there are degrees of righteousness or wickedness; the Bible clearly affirms some variation within each group. Wealthy Job stands out as the most righteous man of his day, of whom God declared, “There is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil” (Job 1:8). Likewise, King Ahab of Israel is singled out for exceptional wickedness: he “did evil in the sight of the Lord more than all who were before him” (1 Kin. 16:30).

Still, Scripture leaves no room for ambiguity: every person falls into one category or the other.

We are either wicked or righteous. We are either children of God or children of the devil. The apostle John wrote that it isn’t difficult to determine into which category we, and others, belong:

By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10).

The two telling tests are straightforward and unmistakable. They are based on obedience and love. It is so simple that only a theologian could misunderstand. Yet John anticipated that there would be misunderstanding on this very point because of deceptive teachers. Just moments earlier he warned:

Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. (1 John 3:7, emphasis added).

This plain teaching, and so many others like it in the New Testament, contradicts the claim that one can somehow be righteous in God’s sight through Christ while continuing in unrighteous living. That ancient and modern heresy is soundly debunked throughout the Bible, as we will see.

The Initial Test

The Stewardship Journey starts by determining if we are children of God or children of the devil. To make that determination, we only need to ask ourselves a simple question in light of John’s two tests (referenced above in 1 John 3:10): Is my life characterized by obedience to God and love for fellow believers?

If your honest self-examination leads you to answer “yes,” then you pass the test.

This does not mean you must claim perfection. If you are like me, you realize that you still have room to grow. We all could be more obedient and loving. The New Testament’s many admonitions to obedience—directed at believers—imply there is room to improve. That is also why John wrote these reassuring words:

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).

Righteous people may still need cleansing from occasional unrighteousness. The test in 1 John 3:10 is not about flawless performance but about the direction and pattern of life that separates us from those who have not repented and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Writing about his own journey towards perfect obedience that he had not yet attained, Paul wrote:

Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:12-14).

On the other hand, if your honest self-examination based on 1 John 3:10 leads you to answer “no,” then you have failed the test. You can, however, immediately fix that by doing what we all once had to do—repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. If you will, you will be immediately transferred from the category of the wicked to the righteous, because God will not only forgive every sin you’ve ever committed, but He will also deposit His Holy Spirit in you to lead, guide and empower you to obey Him. It’s the best deal you’ve ever been offered. Take it! And then join the rest of us as we ascend together on our Stewardship Journey.

God or Mammon?

Jesus mentioned one other scriptural contrast that divides people—that of serving God or money. According to Him, it is impossible to serve both:

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth (Matt. 6:24).

Let’s carefully consider those two sacred sentences.

First, notice Jesus portrayed God as a master to be loved and devotedly to serve. That is Christianity 101. Any portrayal of God that suggests He is anything less than a master who is worthy to be loved and served is heretical and blasphemous. Anyone who advocates that one can have a relationship with God apart from devoted obedience to Him is a false teacher.

Second, don’t allow the word wealth, as it is translated in the New American Standard Version, to lead you to think that Jesus was speaking only about large sums of money. Both the NIV and ESV use the word money instead of wealth. The Ancient Greek word Jesus used, mamōnas, is a transliteration of an Aramaic word which, in everyday Aramaic usage simply meant wealth, riches, money, possessions, or material gain.

Jesus personified mamōnas, portraying it as a rival master to God. Obviously, inanimate money does not decree commandments as God does. That being so, the only way money could be considered to be one’s master is if one disobeys any of God’s commandments in relation to money or possessions. That is important to grasp.

For example, because God forbids theft, one who steals money disobeys God, and this reveals that money, not God, is his master.

Or, because God forbids deception, one who deceives in order to gain money disobeys God and reveals that money, not God, is his master.

Both of those examples are also examples of a form of greed, which Paul, taking his cue from Jesus, twice labeled as idolatry (Col. 3:5; Eph. 5:5).

Greed is revealed by any disobedience of God’s commandments regarding money and possessions. All of this will become clearer in future lessons, but for now just remember the formula below that is simply a paraphrase of Jesus’ and Paul’s words that I’ve just referenced above:

Disobeying God in regard to money/possessions = God is not loved and is not master, but rather is hated and despised = Money is loved and is master = Greed = Idolatry

Our Stewardship Journey must begin with an examination of ourselves in this regard. If gaining money, whether it be a little or much, requires any moral compromise or disobedience of God, it is idolatrous, because money, not God, is master. This is no small matter. Paul solemnly warned that greedy persons—who are inherently idolatrous—will not inherit God’s kingdom:

But immorality or any impurity or greed (Greek noun: pleonexia) must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints…. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous (Greek adjective: pleonektes) man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God (Eph. 5:3-5, emphasis added).

Note that Paul was warning Christian believers, indicating that he not only believed that they could act greedily, but that by being greedy they could forfeit inheriting the kingdom of God. To honest readers, both of those facts are indisputable.

Dishonest preachers, however, often attempt to persuade their gullible audiences that Paul’s warning about not “inheriting God’s kingdom” has nothing to do with heaven or ultimately being saved. Yet in other epistles, Paul undeniably used the phrase “inherit the kingdom” in reference to heaven and ultimate salvation (see 1 Cor. 6:9; 15:50; Gal. 5:21).

Moreover, so did Jesus in His foretelling of the judgment of the sheep and goats. To the sheep on His right He will say, “Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34, emphasis added). They will inherit “eternal life” (Matt. 25:46).

Some may object with the claim that “salvation is by grace, so there cannot be any behavioral requirement for heaven.” Such people certainly haven’t been reading the New Testament very closely, nor do they understand biblical grace, which is never unconditional, but always conditional. Paul wrote that we are saved “by grace through faith.” This proves that saving grace is conditional. The condition of saving grace is faith. If saving grace was unconditional, not requiring faith, everyone would be automatically saved.

God’s conditional saving grace was illustrated in Jesus’ encounter with the woman caught in the act of adultery as told by the apostle John in his Gospel. Jesus said to her, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more” (John 8:11). Even though she deserved to die, He graciously gave her an opportunity to repent. I hope that she seized that opportunity before she did eventually die, because the New Testament warns that no adulterer will inherit God’s kingdom (see 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:3-5). The grace that Jesus offered her was conditional, and it was the same grace offered to everyone through the gospel. Paul wrote:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds (Tit. 2:11-14, emphasis added).

If greed can prevent us from inheriting eternal life, self-examination in that regard is certainly in order. So, before you continue to the next lesson, please take time for that self-examination. I also recommend memorizing and meditating on Jesus’ solemn warning in Matthew 6:24:

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

The Stewardship Journey begins with making Jesus one’s Master, which requires the forsaking of all other masters. No one can serve two masters. If Jesus is not your Master, you don’t actually believe in Him yet, because He is both Lord and Master (Jude 4). You may think you believe in Him, but all you have actually done is carved an idol and named it “Jesus.” The apostle Jude warned about “ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness [a license to sin].” In so doing, they “deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4).

So you must settle this, and there is no sense taking another step on our journey until you do!

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living (Rom. 14:9).

The post The Stewardship Journey Lesson 1: The Bottom Basics appeared first on David Servant.

You Have a Dream!

admin — Sat, 07 Mar 2026 14:30:04 +0000

by David Servant

I’ll bet you have a dream. And I’ll bet that your and my dreams share a common spiritual and eternal thread.

Please click on the video below to find out how our mutual dreams are coming true!

The post You Have a Dream! appeared first on David Servant.

The End of Abortion, Part 2

admin — Sat, 28 Feb 2026 10:55:22 +0000

by David Servant

Currently (in 2025), 51% of Americans identify as being “pro-choice,” while 43% consider themselves “pro-life.” The pro-life and pro-choice labels, however, fall short of identifying the more specific stances people hold regarding abortion. The truth is, many people who consider themselves to be pro-choice actually hold views that are pro-life to a degree, and vice versa.

For example, according to recent Gallup Polls, only 22% of Americans believe that abortion should generally be legal during the last three months of pregnancy. That means 78% believe abortion should be illegal during the third trimester.

And only 37% believe that abortion should be legal during the 2nd trimester. That means 63% believe that abortion should be illegal during the 1st and 2nd trimesters.

Interestingly—and strangely—69% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal during the 1st three months of pregnancy. If 43% of Americans consider themselves pro-life, yet 69% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal during the first trimester, as many as one-third of pro-life people aren’t as pro-life as we might have hoped (as they believe abortion should be legal during the 1st three months of pregnancy).

Followers of Christ, of course, believe that life begins at conception (see Ex. 21:22-25; Is. 44:2, 24, 49:5; Jer. 1:4-5; Ps. 139:13-16; Luke 1:41, 44), and thus abortion at any stage of pregnancy is the taking of a human life, an act of murder. If we could only convince everyone to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, they would all be born again, and abortion would be a thing of the past.

Admitting, however, that the conversion of everyone on earth is unlikely, the second-best way to reduce the number of abortions is to persuade people that abortion is wrong at any stage of pregnancy. And that is not an impossible hope, due to the fact that 78% of Americans already believe that abortion is morally wrong at any time during the third trimester, and 63% already believe that abortion is morally wrong at any time during or after the second trimester.

Just as an aside, unregenerate people have free wills, and they continually make moral choices, all predicated on the degree that they heed or suppress their consciences. Unregenerate people with moral convictions helped turn the tide against slavery and segregation, in part by persuading other unregenerate people to heed their consciences. Don’t ever think for a moment that the tide can’t be turned against abortion. Just the fact that 78% of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong in the third trimester is an indication that unregenerate people are yielding to their God-given consciences to a degree.

A Strategy for Turning the Tide

Obviously, in light of the spectrum of views on abortion, the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are inadequate. In fact, they pit those of us who are truly pro-life against some people with whom we hold some common ground. So, may I suggest four new labels that more accurately define four common stances? They would, by themselves, help people think more clearly about the abortion issue, identify where they stand on it, and consider if their stance is defensible. Here they are:

“Pro-Baby 1” (PB1) could label those of us who believe that abortion is morally wrong at any time during or after the first trimester.

“Pro-Baby 2” (PB2) could label those who believe that abortion is morally wrong at any time during or after the 2nd trimester.

“Pro-Baby 3” (PB3) could label those who believe that abortion is morally wrong at any time during the 3rd trimester.

And “Non-Human” (NH) could be the label for those who don’t believe the “fetus” is a human being until after it is born, and who thus believe abortion is morally acceptable at any time during pregnancy.

I like those first three labels because (1) they force everyone who believes that abortion is morally wrong at some point in pregnancy to identify when they believe that point is, and (2) all three labels affirm some areas of common ground among those who hold some moral conviction regarding the unborn. All acknowledge that, at least at some point in pregnancy, there is a baby, not just a “fetus.” And those three groups together comprise 78% of all Americans.

I like the fourth label, “non-human,” because it very accurately describes the minority stance and forces those who embrace it to admit to themselves what they actually believe. 22% of Americans do not believe that the unborn are human beings at any stage of their growth. If they did believe it, they would have to admit that abortion is morally wrong.

Moreover, that fourth label could be interpreted as applying, not to just a minority belief about the unborn, but to those who actually hold that minority belief. That is, to hold to the belief that a baby, two minutes before it is born, is not a human, and thus it is morally OK to kill it, one surely cannot be a human being! Such people must be “non-humans.”

Admittedly, to label someone as being non-human is derogatory. But it might give those who hold to their minority view a chance to relate to the babies whom they’ve labeled as “non-human,” and whom they believe are of no value and OK to murder…a little taste of their own medicine.

In keeping with that thought, adopting these four labels might at least help unite the three pro-baby groups against the non-human group, which could at least pave the way for stricter state regulations on third-trimester abortions.

Our Logical Message

Quoting Bible verses to persuade unregenerate people that abortion is wrong is like yelling at Chinese people in Spanish. Thankfully, we don’t need to employ such a strategy regarding the abortion issue. We only need to ask people which of the four groups they identify with, and then confront them with a little bit of logic that appeals to the moral conviction they already hold.

For example, even those in the “non-human” category hold to the conviction that it is morally wrong to murder a baby outside the womb. So what is the difference between a newborn baby and a baby in its mother’s womb one hour before it is born? There is no difference. Logically, if it is morally wrong to kill a baby minutes after it has been born, it is morally wrong to kill a baby minutes before it is born. Anyone who denies that is only fooling himself.

And if it is morally wrong to kill a baby minutes before it is born, how could it be morally OK to kill a baby a day before it is born? And if it is morally wrong to kill a baby a day before it is born, how could it be morally OK to kill a baby a week before it is born?

Of course, you can apply this same logic all the way back to conception, and so it can also be employed to help those in the “Pro-Baby 3” and “Pro-Baby 2” categories realize that the arbitrary date they use to split pregnancy into the “fetus (non-human) stage” and “baby (human) phase” has zero logical basis. If it is morally wrong to kill a baby who has just begun the third trimester, how could it be morally OK to kill a baby one day before the third trimester? If it is morally wrong to kill a baby who has just begun the second trimester, how could it be morally OK to kill a baby one hour, one day, or one week before the second trimester?

Nothing Else Can Become a Human Baby

Here’s another bit of logic that can’t be refuted: If left alone, the “fetus” is the only thing in the world that has any chance of becoming what everyone agrees is a human baby. And everyone agrees that the fetus is alive from the moment of conception. It is itself the product of two living things, a sperm and an egg.

And everyone agrees that to stop something that is alive from continuing to live, you must kill it. Thus everyone—PB1s, PB2s, PB3s and NHs—must agree that abortion is the killing of a living thing that if not killed will become what is indisputably a baby, a human being by everyone’s measure.

So, what makes it morally OK to kill, at any stage of its growth, what is the only thing in the world that can become what everyone indisputably agrees is a human baby? To kill a 2-week-old “fetus” is to kill what would have become a 3-month-old “fetus,” which 69% of Americans believe is morally wrong, and it is to kill a 6-month-old “fetus,” which 78% of American believe is morally wrong, and it is to kill a newborn baby, a toddler, an adolescent, and an adult, all of which 100% of Americans believe is morally wrong.

In the United States, it is a federal crime to crush a bald or golden eagle egg. The simple reason is because, as everyone knows, to crush an eagle egg is to kill an unborn eagle, which is to kill an eagle. The same logic applies to human beings in the womb.

Again, this cannot be logically refuted. And that is why, as I pointed out in Part 1 of this series, the murder of a pregnant woman, at any stage of her pregnancy, is considered double homicide by our federal government and 38 states. To murder a pregnant woman is to murder two human beings.

One other point that comes to light in all of this: To identify one’s self with either the “PB2″ or PB3” groups is to be somewhat hypocritical, because those in both groups condemn others outside their group for a moral infraction of which everyone in their group is also guilty. For example, those who identify with the “Pro-Baby 2” group are declaring, by their identification with their group, that all those in the “Pro-Baby 3” group are baby killers due to an arbitrary date within pregnancy that the Pro-Baby 2 Group has set. But that is exactly what everyone in the Pro-Baby 2 group has done as well, only with an earlier arbitrary date.

A Final Question

As you would expect, and for various reasons, most abortions occur within the first trimester. In fact, 93% of abortions occur within the first 13 weeks of gestation. (40% occur within the first 6 weeks and 53% occur between weeks 7 to 13.) Yet as many as 10,300 American babies are aborted each year after they’ve reached 21 weeks or greater gestational age. (Yes, this includes the small percentage of abortions that are preformed purely because of maternal medical risks.)

Obviously, the closer to conception, the less the embryo resembles a newborn baby. But from the time of fertilization, a unique set of human DNA is created, one that never existed before and will never be duplicated. Every genetic detail is determined once and for all. That of course includes gender, height, hair, eye and skin color, and much, much more.

Anyone who looks at a baby in its 13th week of gestation (see illustration below) has no doubts they are looking at a developing human baby that very much resembles a newborn. Although only 3 inches long, at 13 weeks the baby is already forming fingerprints and fingernails on its tiny fingers. The heart is pumping, and it has had four chambers for four weeks. If a girl, she already has more than 2 million eggs in her ovaries…the only eggs in the mammalian world that have the potential to become human beings themselves.

Yet, those who identify with the PB2, PB3 and NH groups all believe that there is a time period when the “fetus” is just a clump of cells, either prior to 13, 27 or 40 week’s gestation. But do they really believe that? I suggest we ask them this question: “Since a ‘fetus’ is not a human being until after 13 (or 27 or 40) week’s gestation, but rather just a clump of cells, would you be willing to feed your dogs a dead aborted ‘fetus’ at 13 (or 27 or 40) week’s gestation? Would that be morally acceptable to you? If not, why not?”

By the way, here is what 13, 27, and 40-week “fetuses” look like:

In summary, perhaps the simplest way to end abortion is to persuade more people that it is immoral. And that is not an impossible task in light of the fact that so many people already believe that abortion is immoral after a certain point in pregnancy, and all people (just about) believe that killing a newborn baby is immoral.

Women who are thus persuaded would become more highly motivated to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and if they do find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy, will not consider abortion to be an option. Men who are thus persuaded are also more motivated to avoid impregnating women who are not similarly persuaded. Citizens and politicians who are thus persuaded will push for legislation that makes abortion less accessible, but that makes education, contraception and adoption more accessible, and that reduces social ills that contribute to the abortion problem.

It all starts with logical moral convictions.

The post The End of Abortion, Part 2 appeared first on David Servant.

The End of Abortion, Part 1

admin — Sat, 21 Feb 2026 14:55:13 +0000

by David Servant

If someone had written an article in the London Times during its first year of publication, 1785, titled, “The End of the Slave Trade,” no reader would have taken it seriously. Britain had dominated the Atlantic slave trade for 200 years. Slavery was an entrenched institution.

In 1787, however, a tiny Quaker and Anglican abolitionist society began working to influence public opinion. They were eventually joined by a born-again politician named William Wilberforce, and in 1791 he introduced his first bill before Parliament to abolish England’s slave trade. That bill was soundly defeated.

Just about every year thereafter for the next 20 years, Wilberforce introduced a motion for abolition that was voted down, a drawn-out battle that is well dramatized in one of my favorite movies, Amazing Grace. Wilberforce’s persistence was finally rewarded in 1807, when Parliament voted in favor of abolishing the slave trade. Slavery itself was not abolished by Parliament for another 26 years, in 1833.

It was a 46-year struggle. During the first 45 of those 46 years, the consciences of every British Parliamentarian sided with Wilberforce, but the majority clung to their justifications for slavery—all based on the various lies they employed to suppress the truth. In the end however, the truth—which had been just as true all of those 46 years—prevailed.

Obviously, the abolition of slavery in England in 1833 morally condemned everyone who had opposed abolition during the previous 46 years. It marked them all as having been on the wrong side of history.

In North America, slavery was legal in all Thirteen Colonies when the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, but soon after, abolitionist laws were passed in most of the Northern states. You are probably familiar with the rest of the story. In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation, legally freeing 4 million black slaves, and a civil war that cost 750,000 lives ended two-and-a-half years later.

The entire abolitionist struggle in the United States lasted about 85 years. All American citizens who stood against abolition during those 85 years suppressed the inward voice that continually instructs everyone to “treat others just as you want to be treated.” Today virtually every one of their descendants are embarrassed—and some horrified—that their ancestors stood on the wrong side of history. It boggles our minds to think that Americans once owned slaves.

Within a few years of America’s Civil War, the 13th, 14th and 15th constitutional amendments were passed, which formally ended slavery, gave former slaves citizenship, and offered men of African ancestry the right to vote. But laws written on papers don’t transform racist hearts, and discrimination and segregation still prevailed. It was during those same years that the Ku Klux Klan first reared its ugly, sheet-enshrouded head.

It could be said that the struggle for civil rights lasted for a minimum of 100 years, if one counts from the end of the Civil War to the 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act (which obviously didn’t end discrimination or transform racist hearts). During those entire 100 years, all white racists suppressed truth that was just as self-evident to them as it is to us.

Can you imagine living during a time when the lynching of blacks was fairly commonplace and acceptable? When large crowds of white people would gather, often numbering in the thousands, including elected officials and prominent citizens, to witness pre-planned killings that may have featured prolonged torture, mutilation, dismemberment, or burning of black victims at carnival-like events, with vendors selling food, and people posing for commemorative photographs taken beside hanging corpses?

Don’t believe it? See here.

Can you imagine living where the law required separate public bathrooms and water fountains for “whites” and “coloreds”? Where restaurants and theaters had separate seating areas for different skin colors? Where schools were segregated? Where public buses required blacks to sit in the back? Today we are shocked by what was once widely accepted in some parts of the U.S.

Again, the progress that has been made against racism stands as a testimony against those who resisted that progress. They’ve all found themselves on the wrong side of history. Any of them could have been on the right side had they simply followed their consciences.

What is so ironic about our horror over our nation’s racist past is that our nation today allows, by law, a horror that is even worse than the enslavement of 4 million people with dark skin or the lynching of 4,000 of that same group during an 86-year stretch of American history. I’m speaking, of course, of the murder of 67 million unborn American babies of all races since 1973, when abortion was legalized.

Currently, about 1.1 million unborn babies are aborted annually in the U.S. (3,000 per day, 125 per hour, 1 every 30 seconds…see numberofabortions.com for up-to-the-minute stats). Perhaps more ironic is that almost 1/3rd of those 67 million aborted babies were black, while blacks comprise just 13% of the total U.S. population.

And it gets worse. We’re not speaking of some humane attempt to end the lives of serial murderers, remembering that “cruel and unusual punishment” is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We’re speaking of the savage act of killing living babies by injecting Digoxin into their hearts, which induces a heart attack. We’re speaking of injecting saline solution into a mother’s uterus, which burns her baby’s skin and lungs as it breathes the solution, initiating the process of an agonizing death that can take an hour or more. We’re speaking of dismembering living babies piece by piece, literally slicing, ripping and crushing them to death in their mothers’ wombs. It is barbaric.

And EVERYONE knows that abortion is morally wrong. It is murder of a human being. That is precisely why both Federal Law and the law in 38 states declare that anyone who kills a pregnant mother is guilty of double homicide.

And that is precisely why fetal surgery treats the unborn as children and patients. High-risk pregnancy specialist Dr. Steve Calvin wrote, “There is inescapable schizophrenia in aborting a perfectly normal 22-week fetus while at the same hospital, performing intrauterine surgery on its cousin.” John Piper astutely commented, “When the unborn are wanted, they are treated as children and patients. When they are not wanted, they are not children.”

Yet, after 67 million children have been murdered in their mothers’ wombs, some pro-life advocates have grown “weary in well doing” (Gal. 6:9). Many have even stopped voting for pro-life candidates. “There is little chance of winning the abortion battle, so my vote will be based on other life issues,” they say. “Think of how long we’ve waged this battle. We’ve elected plenty of pro-life candidates since Roe v. Wade in 1973, and abortion is still legal.”

Some Christians are even more pessimistic: The world is only becoming more wicked, and there is nothing we can do to slow or stop it. You are dreaming if you think that something so embedded in our evil culture could be eliminated.

Those hopeless sentiments among Christians seemed especially strong prior to the 2016 presidential election. It seemed a foregone conclusion that the next president was going to appoint a pro-abortion supreme court justice whose addition to the court would soon make unconstitutional any laws restricting abortion. Similarly, the Hyde amendment, which restricted taxpayer-funded elective abortions for Medicaid recipients, would surely be repealed.

Thanks to moral people who voted, however, the political tide has begun to turn. There is renewed hope about the fight against abortion. So please allow me to encourage every pro-life advocate with an undeniable historical truth: Moral movements can take decades.

It took at least 46 years of struggle before slavery was abolished in England. In the U.S. it took almost twice as long. Significant progress for civil rights required a century. But it has been only 52 years since Roe v. Wade. Lots of progress restricting abortion has already been made. It is not time to throw in the towel. It is time to renew our resolve to eliminate the most evil scourge and shame of our society.

There isn’t any doubt that morality is on the side of the pro-life movement just as much as it was with the Anti-Slavery Movement and the Civil Rights Movement. And it is very possible that, 5, 10, 15 or 20 years from now, when the murder of the unborn is illegal, and when most unwanted pregnancies result in baby adoptions, our grandchildren will view documentaries and movies about our savage era that will horrify them, just as much as we are horrified when we view documentaries and movies that show past practices of slavery and segregation.

Just imagine your grandchildren looking at old news photos of crowds of women unashamedly marching in public for the “right” to continue murdering their unborn children. They may well be even more horrified than we are now when we see old photos of Black lynchings. Surely they will be dumbfounded that our society tolerated such savagery on such a broad scale and swallowed such obvious lies to prop up its self-deception.

And when that day arrives, everyone who was pro-abortion during those barbaric decades (or who opted out of the political process “because Jesus never involved Himself in politics”), will be exposed as having been on the wrong side of history.

Legalized abortion is the greatest human rights violation of our time. It is going the way of slavery and segregation, sooner or later. Don’t be on the wrong side of history.

The post The End of Abortion, Part 1 appeared first on David Servant.

The End of Misogyny, Part 2

admin — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 14:55:53 +0000

by David Servant

Charles Darwin concluded that women were inferior to men. He wrote in The Descent of Man, “males are more evolutionarily advanced than females,” and he believed that children and women had smaller brains and therefore were led more by instinct and less by reason. Darwin concluded: “Men attain a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands… We may also infer from the law of the deviation from averages, that the average mental power in man must be above that of women.”

In Darwin’s evolutionary-advanced brain, such thinking was obviously justified. If you are a member of the “more intelligent gender,” you naturally have an advantage over the “less-intelligent gender” to know that your gender is inherently more intelligent!

In my previous article, however, I tried to show that the Bible is not so misogynistic. On the contrary, the first female whom God created was custom designed to rescue the first male, turning his “not good” predicament into something “good.” Eve was the original Superwoman. (In fact, when Adam first laid his eyes on her, surely he gasped, saying, “Whoo, man!” No doubt it is from Adam’s stunned reaction, repeated every time he looked at his wife, that the modern word, “woman,” evolved…)

Misogynists who try to pin the Fall on Eve need to read their New Testaments more closely, particularly passages such as the following, which were all penned by alleged misogynist Paul the Apostle:

Therefore, just as through one man [not “one woman”] sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned (Rom. 5:12).

For as in Adam [not Eve] all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive (Cor. 15:22).

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one [clearly Adam, not Eve] the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many (Rom. 5:15).

As I pointed out in my previous article. Paul certainly advocated differing gender roles in the family and to some degree in the church. Yet gender superiority or inferiority was a non-issue. It was Paul again who wrote:

In the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God (1 Cor. 11:11-12).

And:

There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).

Jesus and Women

Those who find fault with the Bible as being misogynistic sometime cite facts such as, “Men are named in the Bible at a ratio of 6 to 1 over women.” But they never point out that, even though some biblical men are heroes or saints, many are portrayed as villains and sinners. For example, consider the fact that, although there are scores of men mentioned in the Bible who were persecutors of Jesus—from the time of His birth to the time of His death—there is not a single mention of a woman who lifted a finger against Him. Should uber-feminists be upset about that? (By the way, did you know that men are incarcerated in the U.S. at a ratio of about 14 to 1 over women? Is anyone accusing our prison system of being misogynistic?)

Perhaps the greatest honorary distinction ever given to women is the fact that God sent His Son to enter the world through one of them. One might suspect that the Son of God would make His entry by descending from the stars in a blaze of glory to touch down on a mountaintop. But Jesus mysteriously entered into Mary’s womb and stayed there for nine months before making His humble appearance.

He shamelessly grew from babyhood to manhood under a mother’s care, and we are told in the Gospels that, not only did Jesus serve women, He had good female friends, like Mary and Martha.

Jesus’ friends also included a group of women who traveled with Him and His apostles whom Scriptures say contributed “to their support out of their private means” (Luke 8:1-3). Although Jesus chose no women to serve in His band of 12 apostles (and there may have been some very good reasons for that which have nothing to do with female ability), the indisputable fact remains that God used women who had money to fund the expenses of Jesus and the 12 apostles. Incidentally, that is something not said of any men.

I should also add that, when Jesus was resurrected, He initially appeared to women, and it was women whom He first commissioned to announce, to cowering and confused men, the grand news of His victory over death. (Apparently men still desperately need the help of women, and it was OK, at least in that case, for some women to teach some men a spiritual truth they didn’t know.)

Women in Ministry

Although the Bible prescribes differing roles for men and women, it never states that women are incapable of performing certain roles that are normally filled by men. In fact, the Bible sometimes surprises us with examples that prove women are every bit as capable of filling men’s roles as men are, should God will it, as if to send a message to misogynists. Think, for example, of women like Miriam, Deborah and Huldah, all prophetesses, through whom God spoke to the people of Israel—both men and women.

Deborah was not only a prophetess, but also a judge over all of Israel, just as much as Gideon, Jeptha and Samson were judges during their lives. We read that “the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment” (Judg. 4:5). So she rendered decisions for men, not just women.

Deborah faced at least one misogynist during her administration, an army general named Barak, who had difficulty receiving God’s word through a female vessel. And because Barak was skeptical about Deborah’s prophetic command for him to go to war against the Canaanites, she informed him that the honor of killing the Canaanite general, Sisera, would go to a woman.

And Deborah’s prophecy came to pass. A woman named Jael drove a tent peg through sleeping Sisera’s head (see Judg. 4). The story ends with Barak singing a duet with Deborah that includes lyrics that are full of praises for both Deborah and Jael (see Judg. 5). Barak apparently became a believer in “women’s ministry”!

These were not the only women whom God used in biblical days as His mouthpiece to men and women. In the New Testament, we read of the prophetess Anna, who also become an evangelist of sorts, speaking of Jesus to all those “who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38).

Jesus’ mother, Mary, prophesied at least once, and we hear God’s words through a woman every time we read the Magnificat (see Luke 1:46-55).

We are told that Philip the Evangelist had four daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:8-9). That should not be too much of a surprise, as God foretold by the mouth of the prophet Joel that when God poured out His Spirit, both sons and daughters in Israel would prophesy (see Joel 2:28). Beyond that, Paul wrote of women prophesying in church gatherings (see 1 Cor. 11:5). It is clear from the context that men were present.

It is sad, in light of these scriptural examples and others that could be cited, that Paul’s apparent prohibitions against women teaching men are so often interpreted apart from the greater context of the Bible. When a passage of Scripture seems to contradict a recurring biblical theme, that passage deserves more thought, because God is not confused. If you are interested in exploring various interpretations of 1 Cor. 14:34-36 and 1 Tim. 2:11-14, I recommend my friend Felicity Dale’s concise overview (see http://simplychurch.com/a-simple-guide-to-the-challenging-scriptures-for-women/).

Roman Sisters

And there is even more biblical evidence for the validity of women serving in ministry, including ministry that affects men. It is enlightening to read Paul’s salutations in Romans 16 where he praises at least 10 women who served in ministry. One may even have been listed as an apostle. In the three consecutive quotations that follow, I’ve italicized all the female names:

I commend to you [the entire church at Rome] our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the [entire] church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself [Paul, a man] as well (Rom. 16:1-2, emphasis added).

What an endorsement! We don’t know exactly what ministry Phoebe fulfilled, but whatever she was doing for the Lord, it must have been quite significant to warrant Paul’s endorsement of her to the entire church in Rome.

Next we will read about Prisca (Priscilla), who, along with her husband, Aquila, had such a significant ministry that all the Gentile churches appreciated them:

Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles; also greet the church that is in their house. Greet Epaenetus, my beloved, who is the first convert to Christ from Asia. Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junias [or Junia, as the KJV translates it, which is feminine] my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me (Rom. 16:3-7, emphasis added).

It is interesting that Paul lists Prisca before her husband Aquila in his greeting, something he does again in 2 Tim. 4:19. Prisca, along with her husband, both are mentioned in Acts as explaining to Apollos “the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). There’s another case of a woman teaching a man.

Regarding Junias, it would seem logical to think that a person who is “outstanding among the apostles” could only be an apostle. If the correct translation is Junia, then she was a female apostle. Prisca and Mary were both workers for the Lord.

Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord. Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and Stachys my beloved. Greet Apelles, the approved in Christ. Greet those who are of the household of Aristobulus. Greet Herodion, my kinsman. Greet those of the household of Narcissus, who are in the Lord. Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa, workers in the Lord. Greet Persis the beloved, who has worked hard in the Lord. Greet Rufus, a choice man in the Lord, also his mother and mine. Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the brethren with them. Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them (Rom. 16:8-15, emphasis added).

Paul’s acknowledgment and commendation of the service of so many women hardly makes him look like the misogynist that he is often portrayed as being. Clearly, in Paul’s mind, women played valuable roles in the early church.

As a postscript, regardless of what you or I may believe about women’s roles in teaching and leadership in the church, in my travels around the world over the past 35 years interfacing with Christian leaders, I’ve met many female pastors whom God seems to be using to make disciples for His glory. I once met a woman in China who was responsible for planting over 500 churches and who was highly respected by her male peers. Although such women don’t fit so well into everyone’s theology, they do fit into my thesis that women are every bit as capable of filling men’s roles as men are, should God will or allow it.

Another Objection

It is noted by some critics that a few famous Bible characters were men who were polygamists. Since polygamy devalues women and is a form of misogyny, does not God’s selection of polygamists make Him a misogynist?

The most famous biblical polygamist is probably Solomon, who took 700 wives and 300 concubines (see 1 Kings 11:3). I suspect that Solomon would have had trouble just remembering all of his wives’ names. And how much time could he have possibly devoted to each one? Surely many were virtual strangers. They might all have had access to his wealth, but not one of them enjoyed the blessing of being cherished and loved by a man who was uniquely devoted to her. Polygamy similarly robs children of a devoted father, not to mention all of the single men who are mathematically robbed of having wives.

But I don’t believe Solomon’s selfishness and misogyny make God a misogynist. Before Solomon was born, God commanded concerning any future king of Israel, “He shall not multiply wives for himself” (Deut. 17:17). Solomon knew what God commanded, disobeyed and ultimately suffered the consequences. Although Solomon was divinely granted great wisdom, he is perhaps history’s greatest proof that possessing divine wisdom and applying it are two different things. And God didn’t stop Solomon from having 700 wives for the same reason that He doesn’t stop you or me from doing stupid things. He’s given us free will.

I submit that any already-married man who has ever taken a second wife (including those mentioned in the Bible) has had a hard time looking both wives in the eye. Surely his God-given conscience condemned him as he made his second set of vows, and surely he knew he was not treating his first and second wife as he would want to be treated. And surely every biblical polygamist knew that the book of Genesis did not include a story of God’s creation of Adam and Eve and Veronica and Bertha.

We should also note that, according to the apostle Paul, polygamy disqualifies one from leadership in the church (see 1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). It sets a bad example for husbands who are trying to obey Jesus, husbands whom Paul instructed to love their wives “as Christ loves the church.”

What About “Wives Submitting to Their Husbands”?

Perhaps the greatest criticism leveled at the Bible for promoting misogyny is based on Paul’s instructions to wives to “be subject to their husbands as the church is subject to Christ” (Eph. 5:22-24). At first glance, such instructions certainly appear to promote gender inequality. It sounds as if Paul advocates wives being subservient to their husbands.

It should be noted, however, that Paul’s instructions to wives are preceded by identical instructions to all believers: “Be subject to one another in the fear of Christ” (Eph. 5:21, emphasis added).

Paul is clearly calling for a universal subjection. Thus it is not the kind of submission that implies that anyone is giving out orders or is subordinate. Rather, it is a mutual submission that is based on reciprocal respect, humility and love. That would include, of course, wives submitting to their husbands and husbands submitting to their wives. The idea is to get along with each other.

And it is directly after his exhortation for universal mutual submission that Paul follows with a specific application to wives, literally saying, “Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:22). The words “be subject to” aren’t actually found in that sentence, but are of course implied by the context. But the context must be read, or the sentence is meaningless.

So the kind of subjection Paul expects of wives towards their husbands is in the same category of subjection he expects of everyone towards everyone else. Wives should be respectful, humble and loving towards their husbands, just as they are towards the Lord.

And that brings us to the context that follows Paul’s often-misused admonition to wives. He continues:

For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph. 5:23-25).

Obviously the kind of subjection to which Paul is referring is not of the doormat variety; nor is it analogous to anything found within an abusive relationship. Rather, the example Paul uses is of the church subjecting itself to Christ who loves the church and who literally gave His life for it. In the Christian family, husbands are to serve as loving leaders, not as tyrants.

So, taken in context, Paul’s instructions to wives do not appear to be nearly as misogynistic as they are often twisted to be. True Christians gladly subject themselves to Christ, as they know He cares about them infinitely. Similarly, wise Christian women who desire strong, stable marriages subject themselves to their husbands with honor, humility and love. And wise Christian husbands love their wives “as Christ loves the church.” That simile is certainly not a misogynist sentiment, but rather a mandate that holds husbands to the highest possible standard of love and calls them to imitate the example of Jesus, history’s greatest women’s liberator.

Note that Paul never says, “Husbands, make sure your wife submits to you, reminding her often that you are the head.” No, husbands have one job, and that is to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Any husband who says to his wife, “I’m the head, and so you better submit to me as the Bible commands you” is indeed a head…a pinhead. He is violating the Golden Rule, not treating his wife as he would want to be treated if their roles were reversed.

So wise up misogynist pinheads! Start loving your wife as Scripture commands you and see what happens to your “unsubmissive wife”! If you aren’t granting your wife “honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life” (1 Pet. 3:7), God is not happy about it, and He’s much less likely, according to Peter, to answer your prayers. (Including your prayers for a more submissive wife.)

And to those women who’ve rejected the Bible because of its alleged misogyny, you may want to reconsider. Jesus has been liberating women for 2,000 years, and there is no misogyny in heaven. In fact, there won’t be any men in heaven! (See Matt. 22:30.)

The post The End of Misogyny, Part 2 appeared first on David Servant.

The End of Misogyny, Part 1

admin — Sat, 07 Feb 2026 13:55:17 +0000

by David Servant

Misogyny is a word it seems we’re hearing more often these days. It is derived from two Greek words, miso, meaning “hatred,” and gunē, meaning “women.” But you don’t have to hate women to be a misogynist, as the modern definition has been expanded to include “the dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women (or girls).”

Misogyny is a pervasive evil that has existed from very early in human history, and it is alive and well in the world today. I’ll shortly provide you with some examples.

The good news is that misogyny is something that Jesus is in the process of eradicating from the earth. At present, that eradication is limited, because Jesus only transforms those who believe in Him.

Eventually however, misogyny, like all other hatred and prejudices, will no longer exist. Scripture promises that, in the future, God will create a “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet. 3:13). Only those who have repented, believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, and been transformed by His Holy Spirit will inhabit that new world.

Moreover, Jesus revealed that there will be no marriage in His future kingdom, but that His followers will be “like angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:30). From that we surmise that believers’ future bodies will be genderless, something that will make misogyny impossible. Then will be the ultimate fulfillment of what is already true in Christ, that “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

So if you long for an end to misogyny in the world (as well as all other forms of unrighteousness), Jesus is your answer. He promised, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (Matt. 5:6). As I wrote in my previous article about racism, it is tragic that so many on our planet long for an end to all evil and selfishness, but they reject the only proven solution.

Take note that Jesus’ plan for a future righteous utopia begins with changing me and you. Before we fix the whole world, we need to first have ourselves fixed.

Two Examples of Misogyny

I’d like to first explore some true and false examples of misogyny. If we can accurately identify it, we have a better chance of standing against it. We also have a better chance of not being fooled by those who wrongly label others as misogynists, and even come to realize that some who are so quick to mislabel others as misogynists are actually misogynists themselves. Let’s start with an example of misogyny from U.S. history.

Although it seems difficult for us to fathom today, for 144 years—between 1776 and 1920—American women did not have the right to vote. In 1878, Senator Aaron Sargent introduced to Congress a women’s suffrage amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So obviously, women’s suffrage was an issue as early as 1878.

It took 42 additional years, however, of brave women organizing and fighting for the right to vote before Senator Sargent’s amendment was adopted as the 19th Amendment. And what they were fighting against and overcame was misogyny, an ingrained prejudice against women.

A more current example of misogyny is the legality for a man to have more than one wife coupled with the illegality for a woman to have more than one husband. There are about 57 nations where such misogyny exists today, and most are Muslim-majority nations located in Africa and Asia. (The Quran allows men to have as many as four wives.)

How could such a cultural/religious practice be viewed as anything but a devaluation of women? How would most men react if their wives informed them that they were marrying an additional man? I suspect most would consider it grounds for divorce.

A World of Misogyny

Tragically, sometimes culture, economics, or government policy force people, even women, to be misogynists. Female infanticide in India, due in part to India’s dowry system, or in China, due to China’s former disastrous one-child policy, are examples. In the former, poor, rural parents kill newborn females because they fear ultimately being unable to raise a suitable dowry for marriage. In the latter, Chinese parents—who, until a few years ago, were restricted by law to having only one child preferred males, who would not only carry on the family name, but would provide for them in their elderly years. So female babies had a higher risk of being aborted (or murdered as newborns). Today in China there are millions more men than women.

There are so many other ways that women/girls around the world are subject to discrimination, hatred, and violence that are unique to their gender. They include legal “wife punishment” (Iraq), legal divorce of an infertile wife (Ghana and other African countries…even though medical evidence shows that men and women usually have the same rates of infertility), former prohibition from driving a car (Saudi Arabia), breast ironing (Cameroon), bride burning/dowry death (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan), acid attacks (Bangladesh and South Asia), genital mutilation (Africa, Asia and the Middle East), forced marriage (South Asia and Africa), child marriage (Africa, Asia, Latin America, Oceania), confiscation of all of a widow’s property by her husband’s family (Kenya and elsewhere), honor killing (worldwide, but mostly in the Middle East and South Asia), and rape (worldwide).

Although not strictly limited to women, it is women who are most often victims of domestic abuse, human trafficking/slavery, wage discrimination, and sexual objectification. Only misogynists could read the lists above and be unmoved.

What Misogyny is Not

Now for a few examples of what misogyny is not.

To say something negative about someone who happens to be a woman is not misogyny. It may be thoughtless or unkind, but it does not prove that a person possesses an ingrained prejudice against women, especially if the critical speaker also speaks positively at times about women (or negatively about men).

Allowing one’s wife to serve him coffee every morning is not misogynistic. Couples who love each other love to serve each other and serving should, of course, be mutual. (Demanding that one’s wife serve him coffee because “that is the woman’s place,” however, would certainly seem misogynistic.)

Voting for a male political candidate over a female candidate is not misogynistic. (Believing that no woman could possibly govern as well as a man is misogynistic.)

Being opposed to abortion is not misogynistic (as is sometimes claimed by pro-abortionists). Only women can have babies, so only they can have abortions. To be opposed to abortion is, of course, to be opposed to women who are planning abortions, to be opposed to boyfriends and husbands who encourage women to have abortions, and to be opposed to male and female doctors who perform abortions. Being opposed to abortion is not a prejudice against women. Abortionists, by the way, are misopedists (those who hate children), because abortion stops the beating hearts of both male and female babies.

Laws prohibiting women from publicly going topless—as men can do without legal consequence—is not misogynistic. Rather, such laws are for the protection of women from men who, seeing them topless, might view them purely as sexual objects (a form of misogyny). The claim that women are discriminated against by means of laws that prohibit them from going topless in public is like claiming that a prohibition against men using women’s locker rooms is discriminatory.

Since I’ve broached the subject, of course most women are offended when viewed purely as sexual objects. But the reason women are often viewed as sex objects is not purely due to misogyny. Two contributing factors are (1) men are sexually stimulated visually (a biological function), and (2) there is no shortage of immodest women. So women can contribute to the problem they despise. Women who dress as sexual objects should not complain when they are treated like sexual objects.

Scripture’s Anti-Misogyny

Although the Bible contains its share of misogynist stories, the Bible itself certainly does not advocate misogyny. On the contrary, the Bible is anti-misogyny. Every example of misogyny included in my previous list is condemned by the Bible, if not explicitly, then certainly in general. Jesus taught that we should treat others as we want to be treated. Misogynists do not.

You may have also noticed from my previous list of examples of misogyny around the world that the places where there are the most grievous forms of misogyny are those places where the Bible has had the least influence. If you are a woman living in a nation that has a Christian heritage, you should think twice before criticizing the Bible as being misogynistic. You are benefiting, to some degree, from the Bible’s influence in your culture.

But to further prove that the Bible is not misogynistic (as some claim), let’s begin at the beginning. Scripture reveals that the first woman was created by God in His image just as much as was the first man: “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). That puts women on an equal plane with men from the first pages of Genesis.

But doesn’t the Genesis account teach that God created Eve to help Adam (see Gen. 2:18)? Does that not prove that the Bible teaches women are inherently inferior to men? Actually, not at all. Rather, it proves that men need help.

I need help every day of my life from many people who are far more skilled or knowledgeable than I am, helpers who are superior to me in various ways. One of them, of course, is my wife.

God apparently thought that men acutely needed help, as throughout the stages of the creation story we repeatedly read the words, “God saw that it was good.” But only after God created man do we read that there was something He saw that was not good: “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18). Surely that was no afterthought. Of course, if God created a male, a female was in the plan. She was the predestined creation that turned “not good” into “good.”

I might also add that God gives His Holy Spirit to believers in order to help them do what they could not do without Him. He is referred to by Jesus as “the Helper” (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7). No one would argue that the Holy Spirit because He is our Helper, proves that He is inferior to human beings. In fact, just the opposite is true.

Inescapable Gender Roles

In keeping with the idea of the creation of the first woman to help the first man, Scripture clearly assigns some differing roles for men and women in marriage and ministry. Those roles are often pointed out as evidence that the Bible is misogynistic. Differing gender roles, however, do not presuppose any gender superiority or inferiority. Clearly, for example, God created men to fit roles as husbands and fathers and women as wives and mothers. Being a husband is not superior to being a wife. Being a father is not superior to being a mother.

Even if you don’t believe in God or in biblical revelation, you have to face up to the obvious biological differences between men and women and the ramifications of those differences. As long as there have been male and female human beings, it has only been the biological females who can have babies and nurse babies. And those biological facts fit women into roles that men cannot fill.

Let us imagine traveling back to a time before there were all the means that exist today to mitigate the inevitable consequences of those biological facts—a time before contraception, abortion services, baby formula, breast pumps, daycare, preschool, primary and secondary school. Let’s consider the historical role of women as directed by biological facts.

Obviously, in more simple times (and still in less-developed places today), both men and woman would be married not too long after reaching puberty. Marriage would have soon been followed by a 15- to 20-year succession of pregnancy and babies whom only the mother could nurse. So a married woman’s role for at least the first two decades of marriage was self-evident.

Of course, older children could help with caring for younger children, especially before there was such a thing as outside schooling. And it was not as if the father couldn’t also have been very involved in the household, as he would have been working the field just outside or running his shop next door.

Now, couple the biologically-directed roles of women with the biologically-directed roles of men during most of human history. Men are generally physically stronger than women, and in the past especially, many jobs and responsibilities were best suited for male strength (like plowing fields, chopping firewood, or repelling barbarians). So just as the roles of women were historically self-evident, so were those of men.

Mothers would train their girls for their biologically-directed roles and fathers would train their sons for their biologically-directed roles.

But the world has changed, a lot. Pregnancy can be limited through birth control. Unwanted pregnancy can be terminated through abortion. Mothers and fathers can split the responsibility of nighttime feedings through breast pumps, bottles and baby formula. Mothers can be freed from the burden of 24-hour baby/child care through daycare and preschool. Many mothers can be away from home all day because their older children attend school. Suddenly, in the long span of human history, it is possible for women to adopt roles outside their traditional ones that historically were biologically directed.

And as the world has changed for women, it has also changed for men. Instead of chopping firewood, plowing fields, harvesting crops, and hunting wild boars close to home, they’re far away from home most of the day. The stay-at-home mother is a one-parent family much of the time. And in our modern age, men are involved in doing all kinds of things that women can do equally as well, as they require more brains than brawn. They fly airplanes, design things that never existed, teach in schools and colleges, drive buses, run companies, play professional sports, shoot nail guns, wait on customers, harvest grain while sitting in combines, live in space stations, and thousands of other things that no one ever did for most of human history. Suddenly, for many women, staying home for 15 or 20 years—to cook meals, clean house, wipe runny noses and little rear ends—understandably doesn’t seem quite as attractive.

In the past, women would have had no desire to adopt men’s roles. It would have been much easier to be content taking care of a household when the alternative was plowing fields and battling barbarians. But now women also have a world of opportunities. Many of those opportunities offer reward and fulfillment, which is why men pursue them. So husbands, put yourself in your wife’s shoes. Given her options, what would you choose?

The net result of all this “progress” is tension between the old and new, as women are still the only ones who can have babies and nurse babies, but now both wives and their husbands have options that force them to make decisions they’ve historically never had to make, such as: Will we delay having children so that wife can realize some return on her college degree and we can enjoy a higher income? Will we limit the number of children we will have? If yes, how many will we have? Will mother take maternity leave and then we’ll put our baby in daycare so she can go back to work? Or will she pause her career until preschool, or maybe first grade, or maybe for 20 years? Should dad be the one who stays home for a few years while mom, who has a better job, goes back to work? Will we send our children to public or private school, or will we homeschool? Should father take that job offer that promises more money but that will take him out of town for extended periods of time? (These are all wise topics of discussion before marriage, by the way.)

Every married couple has to work through the answers to these questions for themselves. My recommendation is to order your priorities in light of eternity. Our decisions in this life have eternal consequences.

Not only are there many new options, but there are also many voices trying to influence our decisions regarding those options. Our culture certainly seems to have devalued children and motherhood. It constantly tells us that fulfillment is acquired through the accumulation of more material things. Plus there is the misogyny of uber-feminists that denigrates women who find fulfillment devoting themselves, in any degree, to their traditional, biologically-directed roles.

A Woman’s Worth

Let me conclude part 1 of this 2-part teaching by encouraging Christian mothers to consider the value of their special, God-given roles as revealed by biological facts and the Bible. Those roles are nothing to be ashamed of. Rather, in the eyes of God and those who love Him, they are roles that are clothed with honor.

A woman who devotes herself to her husband and children—when she is perfectly capable of pursuing other rewarding options—is making a praiseworthy sacrifice that will pay rich dividends in her life, her husband’s life, and her children’s lives. Godly husbands know and affirm this frequently, and they not only share child-raising and domestic responsibilities as much as possible, but also understand when their wives, who are so devoted to their families, express the desire to spread their wings and use their abilities and talents in other pursuits. Behind every great woman, there is a good man!

Let Christian husbands not forget that even in ancient biblical days before there was any industrial or technological revolution, one quality of an excellent wife was that, “She considers a field and buys it; from her earnings, she plants a vineyard” (Prov. 31:16). That doesn’t sound misogynistic to me.

The post The End of Misogyny, Part 1 appeared first on David Servant.

The End of Racism

admin — Sat, 31 Jan 2026 14:55:02 +0000

by David Servant

Have you ever observed a fly trapped behind your car’s windshield, fighting futilely to find a way through? All of your car’s side windows might be wide open, but it never occurs to that frustrated fly to try anything different than continuing to search for a way through an invisible, impenetrable barrier.

You can’t help but feel sorry for such a fly and, if you are bent towards mercy, you might try to swish him towards an open side window. Most flies, however, will resist your effort to help them, and your attempts only make them more determined to do the impossible. Eventually, they’re lying dead on your dashboard.

The pity we all feel for such frustrated flies is analogous to what followers of Christ feel every day for everyone else. We observe people’s recurring misery and frustration, and we know full well that so many of their problems could be resolved if they would only submit to Jesus. He would forgive them, open their eyes and set them free, fill them with His Spirit, and teach them His ways.

We try our best to let unbelievers see the ways that Jesus has changed us. We even tell them—if we dare—about the solution we’ve found, hoping to improve their temporal and eternal state. But alas, we’re often hated for loving them. And they continue struggling to fly through windshields. Sadly, we know how it will all end.

According to Scripture, divine wisdom—full of the solutions humanity craves—is freely accessible to all, but it goes mostly ignored:

Wisdom shouts in the street,
She lifts her voice in the square;
At the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
At the entrance of the gates in the city she utters her sayings:
“How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded?
And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing
And fools hate knowledge?” (Prov. 1:20-22).

God is calling everyone, all the time, to turn from their foolishness. And surely He shakes His head every day, wondering at how most people use the free will He’s so graciously granted them. Although most people have identified the world’s most common problems, they’ve rejected His solutions.

Two of those common human problems are racism and prejudice, topics we’ve been hearing a lot about lately. Although few believe it, the truth is, Jesus solves both in the lives of those who truly turn to Him.

Before we look at how Jesus does that, it would be worthwhile to first consider what racism and prejudice actually are.

Racism and Prejudice Contorted

In contemporary America, many accusations of racism are groundless judgments. I wonder, for example, how talking heads on TV know my inward reasons for voting for one candidate over another. I’m Caucasian, but I roomed with a Black man in college. I asked him to be the best man at my wedding. I have many Black friends. I thank God for the fine Black followers of Christ whom I’ve been blessed to employ over the years. The nonprofit I direct serves very poor people all over the world, including people of color. I have Black grandchildren by adoption. My wife and I have taken in a homeless Black woman who lived with us for five months. But because I disagree with some Black person’s political views, I’m allegedly racist! Really?

The very word racist has been redefined. By definition, a racist is a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another race.

Racism is not observing that certain people are of a certain race. It is not disagreeing with someone who happens to be of another race. It is not making an informed character appraisal of someone who happens to be of another race. Yet people who do those things are often labeled “racist.”

Take note that the word is “race-ist.” Yet the obvious meaning of the word has been broadened to even include, not just prejudice against another race, but against just about any group. These days, you can be labeled racist if you are perceived as being prejudiced against Muslims, women, or gays, none of whom are races, but who are in fact found within all races.

So beware: you might be labeled racist if you simply point out politically-incorrect verses from the Quran, are opposed to abortion, or don’t think Christian bakers and photographers should be forced to violate their consciences in order to placate litigious, greedy gays. The reason, of course, is because the emotionally-charged label of racist is so much more effective in denigrating one’s opponent than simply referring to him or her as “one who holds a different opinion.”

Prejudice is another word that has been redefined. Prejudice, by true definition, is “a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.” It is to “pre-judge.”

Thus prejudice is not the same as having an opinion based on reason or actual experience, that is, to “after-judge.” But it is common to be accused of prejudice even when your opinion is undeniably based on reason or actual experience, an “after-judgement.”

For example, people are labeled as being prejudiced if they express a wariness regarding random people of another race. But what if that person has experienced only repeated negative experiences with members of that race? Such a person is not actually being prejudiced. Rather, he is being reasonable, having been conditioned by his previous experiences.

Of course, if he was to say about a member of another race whom he randomly encounters, “That person is undoubtedly just like the others of his race with whom I’ve had negative experiences,” that is a “pre-judgment.” That is not based on sound reason. That is prejudice (and racism).

If you are Black, and all your life you’ve only experienced harassment and injustice from White police, how could you not be wary of any and all White policemen? It would be unfair to accuse you of being racist or prejudiced. You are being reasonable.

The same goes if you are a White policeman, and all of your career you’ve only ever experienced disrespect, and several of your colleagues have recently been ambushed by Black men, how could you not be wary of Black men in the neighborhood you patrol? It would be unfair to accuse you of being racist or prejudiced. You are being reasonable.

These two examples are analogous to that of a woman who has suffered abuse at the hands of her former husband. Her wariness of men isn’t prejudice. It is caution based on reason. However, if such a woman were to claim, “All men are jerks,” that would be unreasonable. That is prejudice.

Incidentally, when we condemn someone for being prejudiced by presenting one piece of circumstantial evidence that stands in contradiction to a lifestyle that indicates otherwise, we reveal our own prejudice against that person. And we thus make ourselves hypocrites, accusing others of that which we are guilty of ourselves. It is somewhat like putting a bumper sticker on your car that says, “I Hate People Who Hate People.” It certainly seems hypocritical for people to express their hatred of injustice by committing injustice, something we’ve been seeing a lot of lately.

The Cure

The wonderful thing is that Jesus can cure racism and prejudice, as well as dissension. Racism and prejudice can be cured instantly, as there are really only two parties involved, God and the person who is racist or prejudice. Curing dissension is obviously not guaranteed because three parties are involved, but the likelihood for a cure certainly increases when Jesus is added to the equation.

How does Jesus instantly cure racism and prejudice? By doing at least four things:

First, by impartially condemning every rebel. Both racism and prejudice are rooted in pride, but the truth of the gospel is quite humbling. We’re all sinners. There is no inherently morally superior race or person. The playing field has been leveled. And we’re all worms.

Second, by impartially offering forgiveness. The gospel extends equal access to salvation. Jesus loves every member of every race. He bore the sins of everyone.

Third, by granting equal status to all those who believe. “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). In the true body of Christ, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). That is, the ethnic, economic and gender alienation that the world universally suffers from evaporates in Christ. “Red and Yellow, Black and White, they are precious in His sight!”

Fourth, by empowering His children. Jesus fills believers with His Holy Spirit, and His love is shed abroad in their hearts (Rom. 5:5). That love causes them to love one another, overcoming all former racism and prejudice. Many former bigots can testify of a supernatural transformation they experienced when they came to Christ that caused them to suddenly love those whom they formerly unjustly hated.

Moreover, that same inward love provides the potential for the healing of relationships that have understandably been broken by sin. Believers are taught to love even those who hate them, to overcome evil with good, to be merciful, to forgive, and to believe the best about those who they would have formerly believed the worst. All of that helps pave the way for potential reconciliation, even with unbelievers.

Jesus works by changing hearts and minds. That is the only way to end racism, prejudice and division. Passing laws can’t change hearts.

Did you know that every human shares 99.9% identical DNA? There really is only one race—the human race.

When Racism and Prejudice Will be Totally Eradicated

Scripture tells us that one day, neither racism, prejudice or division will plague the earth any longer. That is because the earth will only be inhabited by lovers—people transformed by God’s grace. Only they will be citizens of Jesus’ kingdom when He rules the earth.

It is tragic that so many on planet Earth long for an end to racism, prejudice and dissension, but they reject the only proven solution.

One of Heaven’s Family’s former partners in Rwanda, pastor Deo Gashagaza, is known in his country as a type of Mother Teresa figure. God has used him, perhaps more than anyone else in Rwanda, to bring reconciliation between Hutus and Tutsis since the 1994 genocide during which at least 800,000 Tutsis (and moderate Hutus) were massacred by rampaging Hutus. 45 of the 800,000 who perished were members of pastor Deo’s own family.

Pastor Deo has established what are now known as “Reconciliation Villages,” where Hutu genocide perpetrators live together in harmony with Tutsi victims. Such an arrangement was, of course, conditioned upon Hutu perpetrators first asking forgiveness of surviving Tutsi—whose family members they had slaughtered—and upon surviving Tutsis granting them forgiveness. And all of that was, of course, dependent on both perpetrators and victims coming to Christ. It is an amazing experience to visit, as I have, any of the Reconciliation Villages in Rwanda and witness the forgiveness, peace and harmony that exist among these two ethnic groups that once passionately hated each other.

Pastor Deo told us that he is continually asked by international visitors to explain the secret of getting Hutu murderers and Tutsi victims to live together in harmony. His visitors want to know how they too, can solve the racial problems that divide and plague their own countries. Pastor Deo always explains that the secret is Jesus but, sadly, he said his visitors rarely believe him. They are always looking for some psychological, sociological, or political explanation.

Whether anyone believes it or not, Jesus is the answer! The cure to all selfishness is the transformation that is only available to those who repent and believe in Him. And one day there is going to be an unprecedented multiracial gathering that will testify of His transforming grace, a grace that turns haters of every tongue, nation and tribe into lovers! I hope you will be joining them!

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in White robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.” (Rev. 7:9-10).

The post The End of Racism appeared first on David Servant.

The Inherent Conflict Between Modern Psychology and Christianity

admin — Fri, 16 Jan 2026 16:59:40 +0000

by David Servant

Psychology is the scientific study of how people think, feel, and behave, as well as the biological, social and environmental factors that influence those processes.

I have no doubt that people have benefited from academic psychology, as contrasted with “pop psychology,” which is not validated by a rigorous application of the scientific method. Pop psychology oversimplifies the complexities of academic (or clinical) psychology.

You can find pop psychology in abundance all over the internet, and it can be harmful to those who innocently employ it to self-diagnose. Tragically, pop psychology has also infiltrated what is often palmed off as clinical psychology by credentialed psychologists who adopt therapeutic techniques that lack empirical support.[1]

That being said, I have personally benefited from evidence-based psychology. I learned, for example, from the late Dr. James Dobson—who always described himself as a “Christian psychologist”—that “behavior that is rewarded tends to recur.” So, my wife and I were careful that we didn’t reward our young children for behavior that we didn’t want to recur. For example, when they wanted something and kept whining to get it, we didn’t reward them by ultimately giving them what they were whining for, as that would only result in more future whining. Had we given in, we would have been teaching them that the way to get what they want is by continued whining. Conversely, we always tried to reward good behavior with praise and sometimes other rewards. And it worked, just like Dr. Dobson said it would. (By the way, it works on adults as well, and God uses that same principle to motivate His own children.)

There is, however, one very grave danger that I’ve observed regarding modern psychology, and Dr. Dobson would have agreed with me. Because psychology’s fundamental premise is that people’s behavior is shaped by a combination of genetics, environment, and social interaction (which is all undeniably true to some extent), personal responsibility is mitigated and accountability to God doesn’t exist. No secular psychologist ever said to someone whom he was counseling, “Your problem is that you aren’t doing what Jesus commanded.” Yet in so many cases, that would be God’s diagnosis.

There is no such thing as “sin” in modern psychology, and guilt is often viewed negatively. That makes it fundamentally godless, and thus something which Christians ought to approach with acute caution. The closest thing to sin in psychology is “anti-social behavior.” And psychologists place the blame for it on genetic, environmental and social factors. The solutions they offer to those they counsel don’t include the word “repentance.”

For these reasons, the danger exists for life-altering self-deception among those who seek help from psychologists. “I’m a victim!” can become the dominating thought—a thought that Satan loves to feed. “My troubles are not my fault. The blame for my negative thinking, feelings, and behaviors lies outside of me.” Once that conclusion is reached, it becomes easy to think that the solution is to negate those blameworthy external influences.

Dr. Dobson warned about that very thing. He routinely told his listeners: “Secular counselors treat symptoms; biblical counselors treat the heart.” Any system that lets people blame parents, society, or “low self-worth” instead of confessing sin was, to him, dangerous counterfeit help.

Please allow me to interject that the pendulum can sometimes swing to the other extreme—when people who are victims of some form of abuse become wrongly convinced (usually by their abuser) that they are to blame. A wise counselor can be an invaluable help to those who are caught in that web of deception, helping them to see more clearly.

Personally, I’ve suffered both extremes. I can recall one very difficult time in my life when I was certain I was a victim, but I realized at a later time that I was mostly to blame. And I can recall another time when I was confused in just the opposite way, thinking that I must be blind to my faults that others could see, but later realized my fault-finders had been misled by a treacherous mutual friend.

In any case, we all can use help from others when we struggle to see clearly. If you are currently in the midst of such a struggle, I encourage you to seek biblical counsel from a caring friend, rather than the counsel of a therapist or psychologist who is apt to ignore your responsibility and accountability to God. Paid therapists have a financial incentive to avoid saying anything to you that would keep you from returning for another session. When we need clarity, we are best served by wise friends who love us enough to tell us the truth. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov. 27:6).

As a side note, I can’t help but wonder why, among high-paid professions (those who earn at least $100,000 per year), psychologists have the highest divorce rate. The folks who are supposed to be the experts regarding human behavior and relationships have the highest rate of failure in the closest human relationship that exists. Could it be because they are apt to place blame on their spouses rather than themselves?

I also can’t help but wonder if godless psychology is what is confusing so many people on basic issues of justice. What is influencing so many people to view criminals as the victims and victims as the criminals? When God is removed from your worldview, something perverse is bound to replace Him.

In any case, if you are a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, I think you can see the inherent contradiction between modern psychology and Christianity. The Bible emphasizes personal responsibility and accountability to God over any other factors that might contribute to negative (sinful) behavior. Just a cursory reading of Scripture reveals that. Murder is murder, regardless of your skin color, neighborhood, or what anyone has done to you in the past. The same is true for adultery, fornication, greed, hatred, idolatry, unforgiveness, and any and every other moral sin listed in the Bible.

Think about this: What are the chances a psychologist will counsel you to “love your enemies” or warn you that, if you don’t forgive your brothers from your heart, God won’t forgive you of your sins, but rather will reinstate your formerly-forgiven sins and turn you over to the torturers (as Jesus solemnly warned in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant). Pretty slim chance, I suspect. You are more likely to be offered counsel that is based on some psychological theory which may or may not have any scientific basis or real therapeutic value. What is tragic about all of this is that Jesus offers everyone who is “weary and heavy-laden” the opportunity to take His yoke upon themselves and “find rest for their souls” (Matt. 11:29-30). He offers emotional health and freedom, not by giving us justifications for our wrong behavior or by shifting blame, but through confession and forgiveness. It is wonderful grace.

In my humble opinion, those particular words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 11:29-20 are some of the best the Bible has to offer for anyone struggling under the weight of emotional burdens. Taking Jesus’ yoke is of course symbolic of making Him your master and submitting to His will. The remedy for so many ills is simply obeying Jesus. And lest anyone misunderstand His metaphor, Jesus quickly added that His “yoke is easy and His burden is light.” His point is that we all have our choice of burdens. We can choose His light and easy burden or the heavy and wearisome burden of disobedience. It’s a no-brainer!

May I also ask, what are the chances a secular psychologist will acknowledge that Satan or evil spirits might be lying to you or oppressing your mind in some way? There is no chance. Neither will he point you to the Word of God to help you recognize and identify Satan’s lies. Nor will he show you that the New Testament instructs Christians to only think about what is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, excellent and worthy of praise (see Phil. 4:8). (What an emotional difference is made in the lives of those who obey those instructions!) Nor will he point out that those who are indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit have the potential to enjoy all the Spirit’s beautiful fruit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. The only thing that can stop that fruit from manifesting and maturing in believers is disobedience.

Secular psychologists may indeed help some people understand why they think, feel and behave as they do, and in turn help them overcome negative thinking, feelings and behaviors. But God offers so much more.

But what about Christian counselors who are psychologists, like the late James Dobson?

If they are Christians, as Dr. Dobson was, God’s unchanging Word will take precedence over the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is the “Bible” of all secular psychologists. Dr. Dobson hated godless psychology, and so should anyone hate what contradicts God’s Word. To believe in God is to believe His Words. To love God is to love His Words. To please God is to obey His Words.

God made us. God knows us. God has told us what to do. It is His will that anyone and everyone who is “weary and heavy laden” “find rest for their souls” by “taking His yoke.” But the choice is always ours. He won’t force us. So just do it!

[1] For proof, see House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth, by Robyn M. Dawes, who served for many years as head of the Department of Social and Decision Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University.

The post The Inherent Conflict Between Modern Psychology and Christianity appeared first on David Servant.