Why do we love? Our motives for loving can be divided into two categories: (1) “I love you because of…” and (2) “I love you in spite of…” The first we could call merited love and the second merciful love. Merited love is earned and deserved. Merciful love is not. It stems from grace.

Every loving relationship finds its motive in one or the other, or a mix of the two, including marriage relationships. However, before I reveal the 14 words that can fix or upgrade your marriage, let’s first make sure we sufficiently understand merited and merciful love.

I suspect some readers might object to the idea of merited love due to the overabundance of teaching about “God’s unconditional love.” I can imagine them protesting, “The phrase ‘merited love’ is an oxymoron! Love is not something that is earned. At least not in God’s kingdom!”

So we must start by addressing that misconception.

Merited love is biblical. Very biblical.

For example, Jesus said, “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again” (John 10:17). The Father loves Jesus for a reason, and that reason—at least in part—is because Jesus was willing to lay down His life. That is merited love. Jesus earned it, and He deserved it.

And of course, how could it be said that the Father has any “merciful love” for Jesus? Would the Father ever say of Jesus, “I love Jesus in spite of…”? Of course not. The Father was and is “well pleased” with Jesus (Matt. 3:17).

Similarly, the love that all of us have for Jesus is merited love. We don’t love Him “in spite of,” we love Him “because of.” There are perhaps an infinite number of reasons to love Him!

More Proof

Here’s another proof that merited love is biblical: Speaking to His disciples, Jesus once said, “For the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father” (John 16:27).

The Father loves people because they love Jesus. He is, of course, pleased when people love His Son (which is demonstrated by their obedience to Him; see John 14:15).

So, although God showered merciful love upon us prior to our repentance (and many times since then when we’ve sinned), He not only loves us in spite of what He may see in us that displeases Him (merciful love) but also because of what He sees that pleases Him (merited love). I’m concerned that the idea of merited love from God is completely off the spiritual radar of many Christians—again, due to an overemphasis of “God’s unconditional love.”

May I point out that there is a difference between what is often referred to as “God’s unconditional love” and what I am referring to as merciful love. The truth is, God doesn’t love anyone unconditionally. If He did, such an “unconditionally loved” person would not need to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved and escape damnation. Yes, God extends merciful love towards unrepentant sinners, but even that is temporary, lasting only until death.

To explain this further, if someone said to you, “I love you unconditionally, but if you don’t change, I will no longer love you,” you would rightly reply, “Then you don’t really love me unconditionally.” Obviously, God does not love people unconditionally, because He doesn’t love those whom He has cast into hell, as they didn’t meet His conditions.

But back to the concept of merited love. If you are a parent, isn’t your love for your own children a mix of both merited and merciful love? Chances are, you love your children because of things about them that please you. But they aren’t perfect, and they don’t always please you. Yet you still love them, mercifully, “in spite of.”

Here’s yet another passage of Scripture that teaches us that merited love is not foreign to Jesus’ relationship with believers:

Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love (John 15:9-10, emphasis added).

Clearly, and in spite of all the contrary teaching that is so prevalent within Christendom, there is something we must do to “abide” in Jesus’ love, and that is to keep His commandments. Although it sounds like heresy to the unbalanced “hyper-grace” crowd, the fact is, there are things we can do to please God. The foremost ambition of those who are truly born again is to please God through their obedience:

Therefore also we have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him (2 Cor. 5:9; see also Eph. 5:10; Col. 1:10; 1 Thes. 2:4, 4:1; Heb. 13:16, 21; 1 John 3:22).

Having a relationship with God necessitates some merited love. Again, I realize that sounds like heresy to the hyper-grace crowd, but it is irrefutable biblical truth.

Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I am not saying that God does not also love His children with a merciful love. Of course He loves us “in spite of” our imperfections. But which kind of love would you prefer that God had for you? Would you prefer to be tolerated, or esteemed, by Him? Would you rather Him say of you: “Your life grieves me, and there is nothing about you that is admirable or praiseworthy, but I love you anyways” or, “I am well-pleased with you, and I have a list of reasons why I love you”?

The Key to a Strong Marriage

All of this being so, we see that merited love is not an inferior love in the least. While merciful love might be the most praiseworthy love to give, merited love is the most praiseworthy love to gain. All of us would prefer that others love us “because of” rather than “in spite of.” And hopefully, this brief consideration of the biblical (and experiential) validity of merited love will now allow me to tie the concept to the 14 words that can fix or upgrade any marriage.

Early on, marriages typically are based on a large percentage of merited love. Engaged couples are often heard to passionately say, “Oh, I love him/her because…!” After a few years, however, married couples are more likely to say, with a sigh, “I love him/her even though…” And that is a very telling revelation.

Of course, when you marry someone, you really don’t know that person as well as you will. Most of us tend to put our best foot forward during the dating/courting/engagement period. Plus, “love is blind.” But sooner or later everyone’s dark side surfaces, and marriage opens blind eyes. If the marriage is to survive, merciful love must make its entrance.

The simple truth is that all marriages, from day one, are a mixture of merited and merciful love. I’ve noticed, however, that marriages that depend heavily on merciful love are marriages that are in trouble. They range from “bland marriages” to “combat marriages” to “truce marriages.” Life anywhere within that spectrum is no fun, and what a tragedy such marriages are in light of God’s magnificent intention for life’s most intimate human relationship.

Good marriages are enjoyed by couples who aren’t depending on large volumes of merciful love to keep them together. Rather, they understand that merited love keeps marriages strong, healthy, and fun. In fact, as the years go by, and as marriage partners work to give their spouses more reasons to say “I love you because of…”, their marriages become increasingly more rich and rewarding.

However, when a husband or wife effectively says to his or her spouse, “You be the Christian and show me merciful love while I focus on other priorities besides pleasing you,” that can signal the beginning of the end, at least emotionally, for that relationship.

Pity the poor Christian couple in which one or both think their marriage will make it on “unconditional love.” Pity them even more when one or both actually think that is how God designed marriage, as one yells at the other, “God loves me unconditionally, and if you love me, so would you! So stop telling me what I need to change!”

The marriage partner who does not care about pleasing his or her spouse, and who expects merciful love without any effort to gain merited love sends a clear message: “I expect you to love me, but don’t expect me to love you!” And that is pure hypocrisy. Such a relationship is far from the mutually-beneficial bond God intended for husbands and wives. Rather, it reveals a relationship that is analogous to a parasite and its host.

The 14 Words

So in light of all this, what are the 14 words that can fix or upgrade your marriage? They are 14 words that comprise a question to ask your spouse every morning:

What can I do today to let you know that I really love you?

When you hear the answer, simply do what your spouse says. And earn some merited love!

Don’t wait for your spouse to ask you that question! Just start asking your spouse that question every morning, and even if you are married to Frankenstein or the Wicked Witch of the West, you can be assured that, before long, your spouse will catch on and start asking the same question of you. Then tell him or her how to gain some merited love!

If you don’t think you are quite ready for a daily question, here’s another 14-word question that can be used with less frequency and that can also begin to fix or upgrade your marriage:

If there was one thing you could change about me, what would it be?

Once you know what it is (and as long as it doesn’t require you to disobey God), get to work on it. Show your spouse how much you love him or her by changing. Your spouse will appreciate it, naturally, and you will begin to reap what you’ve sown.

Sounds so simple, doesn’t it? It is! And those two questions can not only fix or upgrade your marriage, they can fix or upgrade your relationship with anyone, including God!

The post Fourteen Words to Fix or Upgrade Your Marriage appeared first on David Servant.

Over the past few decades, I’ve found myself often addressing the large segment of professing Christians whose lives reflect very little validation of a genuine, saving faith. Just like Paul, I’ve challenged such professors to “test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!” (2 Cor. 13:5a). There is no shortage of New Testament scriptures that specifically speak about the kind of fruit that always grows from the hearts of those whom Christ has genuinely come to live within.[1] As Paul wrote in his very next sentence to the Corinthians: “Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?” (2 Cor. 13:5b).

“Christ in you” is what true Christianity is all about. He not only died for us, but He lives for us, and He also lives in us and through us. And He doesn’t come to live inside believers just to be a spiritual hitchhiker!

I have many Christian friends in vocational ministry who carry the same burden as I do. We often feel like “voices in the wilderness,” but unlike John the Baptist, we’re alone in our deserts. The masses are not streaming to us. For comfort, we read Jeremiah, a man chosen by God but rejected by men, who prophesied and preached for 40 years without seeing a single person soften their heart.

Thank God for the Jeremiahs and John the Baptists today who continue to faithfully proclaim a biblical gospel of repentance, living faith, and moral transformation, and who are able to keep loving those who ignore or reject them. They are some of the finest saints I know, and their reward is great in heaven.

Among those particular saints, however, I’ve found a segment who may have swung with the pendulum a little too far. They are those who are bearing fruit, but who wallow in condemnation because, in their minds, they “just aren’t doing enough.” When they read the stories of the Bible’s preachers and prophets and compare themselves, they come up short. The same is true when they read the biographies of other spiritual “heroes” in Christian history. “I must not be as devoted as I should be, otherwise my ministry would be more anointed and effective, just like _______’s ministry was.”

I’m certainly not wanting to discourage anyone from deeper devotion or higher consecration to the Lord. The key to fruitfulness for any Christian is abiding in Christ:

Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. (John 15:4-5).

And holy consecration is what makes us useful to the Lord:

Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work (2 Tim. 2:20).

In vocational ministry, however, there are divine limitations to our fruitfulness. Those limitations are often intuitively understood, but not as often well defined. We may subconsciously realize that the large majority of God-called ministers will never have the impact of the Apostle Paul, yet we sometimes talk as if all ministers could attain to Paul’s level of spiritual success, if only “we were as dedicated as the apostle Paul.”

Let me qualify what I just wrote by emphasizing that it would be a good thing if all ministers imitated Paul’s devotion. Part of the secret to his success was his devotion. Imitating Paul’s devotion, however, does not guarantee his success, because there are divine limitations for fruitfulness in ministry. It is not God’s will that all ministers be equally fruitful. Even Jesus’ familiar saying, “To whom much is given, much is required” (Luke 12:4), supports that truth. Some are given more than others.

Apostles

Let’s unpack this idea, first by considering the ministry office of the apostle.

The Greek word translated “apostle” is apostolos, and it simply means “one who is sent” or “messenger.” Generally speaking, apostles are sent to plant churches in unreached places. I believe that God still calls, anoints and sends apostles, just as He did in New Testament times. But just as in New Testament times, He sends them where they are needed.

We must understand that there are plenty of apostles mentioned in the New Testament besides the original twelve. Judas forfeited his apostleship, but he was replaced by Matthias, whom Scriptures says “was added to the eleven apostles” (Acts. 1:26). Matthias followed Jesus along with the Twelve from the beginning, but he was never mentioned in the Bible before he was selected to replace Judas.

Paul, of course, was an apostle (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1). So was at least one of his early traveling companions, Barnabas, named as apostle in Acts 14:14. Some think, based on 1 Thes. 1:1 and 2:6, that two of Paul’s other traveling companions, Timothy and Silas, were also apostles.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul mentions two people who were “outstanding among the apostles” (Rom. 16:7) named Andronicus and Junias.

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul identifies James, “the Lord’s brother” as an apostle (who should not to be confused with the apostle James who was one of the original Twelve).

And, of course, Paul indicated in Ephesians 4:11 that God would be calling and anointing pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets and apostles for as long as there is a need ^“for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:12).

Apostolic Classes

There are, however, for a lack of a better way to say it, “classes” of apostles, who are more or less gifted and anointed. Obviously, that is something that is determined by God, and which thus divinely limits every apostle’s fruitfulness.

For example, the original twelve apostles (with Matthias replacing Judas) were among a special class identified in Scripture as the “apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14). All were supernaturally gifted with signs and wonders:

Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles (Acts 2:43)

At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico (Acts 5:12).

It is obvious, however, that among the Twelve, Peter was the most anointed. It was Peter who delivered an inspired sermon on the day of Pentecost that resulted in 3,000 new believers (Acts 2:41). Not long after, the Holy Spirit used Peter to instantly heal a beggar who was lame from birth, and to preach another convicting sermon to the crowd attracted by that miracle. 5,000 men were added to the church as a result (Acts 4:4). And it was Peter whom God used to supernaturally discern the deception of Ananias and Sapphira and pronounce divine judgment upon them, a miracle that caused “great fear” to come “upon all that heard of it” (Acts 5:5).

It seems reasonable to think that if God used any of the other Twelve to a greater degree than Peter, Luke would have focused on that in his account in Acts.

Directly after we read in Acts 5:12 that “at the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people,” Luke tells us:

And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number, to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any one of them. Also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all being healed (Acts 5:14-16, emphasis added).

While God used the hands of all the Twelve to do signs and wonders, He apparently uniquely used Peter’s shadow as well.

All of this is to say that Peter was clearly in a class by himself. And that was not due to Peter’s superior devotion. Rather, it was due to God’s manifold grace, of which Peter was just a steward (1 Pet. 4:10).

So here is my main point: God uses whom He uses. When ministers think to themselves, “If I was as devoted as Peter,” or “If I had faith like Peter, then I would lift crippled people and command them to walk,” they needlessly condemn themselves. Think about it. When a crowd gathered because they saw a crippled beggar walking and leaping, Peter confessed, “Men of Israel…why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk?” (Acts 3:12, emphasis added). Peter was certainly aware of the fact that it had not been too long ago when Jesus said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan!” And he also remembered how, even more recently, he’d denied Jesus three times—and worse, after claiming he would never abandon Him, but was willing to die for Him! (And it would not be too long before Peter would be messing up again, even compromising the gospel, which necessitated a public rebuke by Paul [Gal. 2:14]).

Peter knew that God used him to heal a lame man because of GRACE towards him, the lame man, and the gathered crowd, and nothing more. The healing of the lame man at the temple gate was a sudden impartation to Peter of one (or more) of the nine gifts of the Spirit listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, perhaps the gift of special faith, healings or miracles. Peter was just as surprised as anyone else about what had occurred. Keep in mind that John was right beside him when it all happened, but God did not appear to have anointed him, either to speak prophetically to the lame man or to lift him up. Why? God uses whom He uses.

And the fact is, we can’t heal people “if we just have enough faith.” Even Jesus didn’t heal people that way. He never said to anyone, “My faith has healed you.” No, when he credited faith for healing, it was generally the faith of the person who needed healing (or, as in the case of paralyzed man lowered through a ceiling, the faith of the group that was involved, which included the paralyzed man). And gifts of healings (1 Cor. 12:9) operate as the Spirit wills (1 Cor. 12:11), and that was true even for Jesus (Mark 6:5; John 5:1-19; Acts 10:38; Phil. 2:5-7).

Another Specially-Anointed Saint

Of some comparison to Peter’s sovereign calling and anointing was Stephen’s, whom Luke tells “was full of grace and power,” and which resulted in him “performing great wonders and signs among the people” (Acts 6:8). It stands to reason that, although the apostles recognized that Stephen was well respected and “full of the Spirit and of wisdom” (Acts 6:3) when they selected him—along with six other men of similar qualification—to administer the daily feeding of Jerusalem’s widows, he was not yet “performing great wonders and signs among the people.” Had that been that case, Stephen would have been in the same category as the apostles, and they would have likely said of him, “It is not desirable for us or Stephen to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables” (Acts 6:2).

All of that is to say that Stephen obviously found himself suddenly anointed by the Holy Spirit to stand in a special place of ministry. We might be tempted to think God promoted Stephen because he was faithful in his service to widows, and that if we are faithful to serve in some capacity, we will also be promoted to be used by God in some more miraculous way. But the fact is that there were six other men just like Stephen, and God only used one of them, Philip, similarly to Stephen. There is no record that God used any of the other five as He did those two. God uses whom He uses.

Stephen had a vision of Jesus standing at the right hand of God as he was being stoned (Acts 7:55-56). God gives visions to whom He gives visions. (Although many of us have tried to drum up some visions, a more accurate word to describe most of them is “imaginations.”)

Yet Another Specially-Anointed Saint

Although every believer is called to love his neighbor as himself and thus spread the gospel to his neighbors, only a few are called to serve in the ministry office of “evangelist.” Evangelists are specially-called and equipped to proclaim the gospel.

After highlighting the ministries of Peter and Stephen in the book of Acts narrative, the Holy Spirit next focuses on Philip, identified in the New Testament as an evangelist (Acts 21:8), and who was also one of the seven men who were first appointed to serve Jerusalem’s widows. Philip was obviously anointed not only to preach (which requires an anointing, not only for public speaking, but also for boldness), but also to heal certain kinds of physical infirmities and to deliver the demonized:

Philip went down to the city of Samaria and began proclaiming Christ to them. The crowds with one accord were giving attention to what was said by Philip, as they heard and saw the signs which he was performing. For in the case of many who had unclean spirits, they were coming out of them shouting with a loud voice; and many who had been paralyzed and lame were healed. So there was much rejoicing in that city (Acts 8:5-8).

Philip is actually the only New Testament example we have of an evangelist. Surely there were others in New Testament times (see Eph. 4:11). Were all the early evangelists used consistently in gifts of healings and miracles as was Philip? There is some reason to think so. When we compare Paul’s two lists of ministry gifts in 1 Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:11, we note that in both, he lists apostles, prophets and teachers. He only mentions evangelists, however, in Ephesians, while in 1 Corinthians he uniquely mentions “miracles, then gifts of healings.” For that reason, it seems reasonable to think that Paul was describing evangelists in 1 Corinthians as those whom God consistently uses in miracles and gifts of healings, which is exactly what we see in the ministry of the only person in the New Testament who is identified as an evangelist, that is, Philip.

Just as with apostles, however, there are apparently different classes of evangelists, as not all who proclaim the gospel to the lost have ministries that are characterized by miracles and healings. Some, like the late Billy Graham, are only anointed to preach.

Tragically some (whom we refer to as cessationists), who are only familiar with evangelists whose ministries do not included healings or miracles, have wrongly concluded that God stopped doing miracles after the apostolic age. If they would only study historical or global Christianity, however, they would realize God has never stopped calling and anointing certain evangelists with supernatural power, just like Philip. Those evangelists are in a different class of calling (for lack of a better way to say it), and are obviously better equipped to convince sinners to repent.

Why are some modern evangelists apparently only anointed to preach the gospel while others are anointed to preach and to heal and/or deliver the demonized? Because God uses whom He uses. Interestingly, back in the 1950s during America’s “healing revival,” when scores of “healing evangelists” were holding large revival meetings all over the nation, it was observed that some evangelists were more anointed than others in regard to certain diseases or infirmities. That is, the Holy Spirit would use one evangelist consistently in gifts of healings for cancer, whereas He would use another evangelist more consistently in gifts of healings for blindness or deafness.

It is also possible that some God-called evangelists, who theologically reject modern miracles (and even preach against them), have “quenched the Spirit” [1 Thes. 5:19], and for that reason their ministries are not as empowered by the Holy Spirit as God might prefer. God is pleased by faith, and it is clear from Scripture that He doesn’t bless doubt and unbelief. I can understand why God would not grant signs and wonders to evangelists who believe and preach that miracles ceased with the original apostles.

And Finally, Super-Apostle Paul

Finally, in the book of Acts narrative, we come to the apostle Paul’s story, which dominates Acts chapters 9 through 28. If there was ever a story that illustrates that God uses whom He uses, and that there are different “classes” of ministries, his is it.

As I’m sure you know, Paul wasn’t a faithful follower of Christ whom God promoted for His faithfulness. Paul was a persecutor of Jesus and His church, and he later referred to himself as “chief of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15). Incredibly, God decided to make the chief of sinners the foremost apostle of his day and perhaps the past 2,000 years. Obviously, God uses whom He uses.

Like Isaiah, Jeremiah and John the Baptist (Is. 49:5; Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:15), Paul was called from his mother’s womb (Gal. 1:15). He was predestined to “bear [Jesus’] name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15).

How God is able to execute such predestined callings without violating the free will of those He calls certainly contains much mystery. Could Paul have said “no” to Jesus when he was struck down by a blinding light and audibly heard he voice of God on the road to Damascus? I suppose he could have, but I think the chances were slim that he would have.

Interestingly, every Christian has been predestined for a unique ministry according to Ephesians 2:10:

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

But back to the apostle Paul. Very few whom God calls does He call by knocking them down with a blinding light and speaking to them audibly. In fact, in the history of the early church as recorded in the book of Acts, there is only one example of such a dramatic calling. Right from the start, we see the uniqueness of Paul’s calling.

Paul’s primary calling was to preach the gospel to Gentiles, as he himself testified to the Roman believers, “I am an apostle of Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13). As an apostle, he was called to plant Jesus’ church in unreached places, and he was only able to do it because of God’s anointing. His ministry was characterized by miracles that drew attention to his message. He could claim what very few God-called ministers can:

My message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God (1 Cor. 2:4).

According to Paul, it seems one really can’t claim to be a New Testament apostle unless one’s ministry is characterized by New Testament miracles:

The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles (2 Cor. 12:12).

At one point in his ministry, Paul was miraculously anointed beyond what might be considered to be an “ordinary” apostolic anointing:

God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out (Acts 19:11-12, emphasis added).

So, we see that Paul was in a class by himself among apostles, which is why none of the Corinthian believers would have accused him of pride when he wrote to them: “For in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody” (2 Cor. 12:11). His readers knew his claim was an understatement. His claim also reveals that, in his day, there were more eminent and less eminent apostles, or we could say “different classes” of apostles. God uses whom He uses, and He uses them as much or as little as He desires.

Beyond all these things, God used Paul to pen letters that even in his own day were considered worthy to be referred to as “scripture” (2 Pet. 3:16). Although we may look to teachers and prophets today for revelations that help us understand the Bible, no one is going to be contributing any additional books to the Bible, one more element of Paul’s ministry that set him in a special class among apostles.

Some Common Questions

A question that is often asked is, “Should we consider modern missionaries to be apostles?” The answer is yes—if God has supernaturally equipped them by means of signs and wonders to plant churches. Those who plant churches without the aid of signs and wonders perhaps could be considered to be apostles of a “lower class,” and I say that with the deepest respect, as anyone who “has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for Jesus’ sake” (Matt. 19:29) will be proportionately rewarded by God and deserves our deepest respect.

Of course, not all missionaries are planting churches in unreached regions, but rather are functioning as teachers, pastors, evangelists, prophets or some other capacity that helps advance Jesus’ kingdom. Thank God for them all.

And since I’m mentioning teachers, pastors and evangelists and prophets, I’m persuaded from observation to note that there are also different classes and anointings related to those ministries just as there are with apostles. There are divine limitations assigned to all of us, and that is God’s business, not ours. We may think that surely God wants us to have a “big” ministry that touches millions of people, but the truth may be that God wants us to have a small ministry that touches a handful of people—but perhaps much more deeply.

One final question that is often asked is, “Should those who are called to vocational ministry pray for a greater anointing?”

I think we should all pray that the Lord of the harvest will send laborers into the harvest, just as Jesus directed (Luke 10:2), but we should allow the Lord to call whom He wills and to anoint them as He wills. Very few, if any, vocational ministers were initially called or anointed because they prayed to be called and anointed. Our calling and anointing was because of God’s sovereign decision. So it stands to reason that any changes in our calling, or any increases in our anointing, should be the result of the sovereign will of God.

Our job is to be faithful in whatever the Lord has called us to do, stewarding His manifold grace, regardless if our ministry is large or small, anointed more or anointed less. When we pray for God to increase our anointing, we presume that is something He desires, and our presumption may be wrong. Moreover, such prayers often hide a motive that is less than pure:

“God, please use ME for your glory!”

The desire for self-exaltation can be hidden so deep within one’s heart that it is fully hidden from its possessor.

I also think we should pray that God would raise up ministers who are anointed with signs, wonders, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, without caring if He ever uses us in those ways. One is a candidate to be exalted by God only if one does not want to be exalted. God exalts the humble, and humble people don’t want to be exalted.

Keeping all of this in balance, I’m also persuaded that those of us who are called to vocational ministry can hinder the anointing God has bestowed on us through carnality, as well as by neglect of prayer and meditation in God’s Word. If we want to walk in the maximum anointing that God desires for us, we need to be consecrated and devoted.

I should also note that Paul encouraged all the believers at Corinth: “Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy” (1Cor. 14:1). Only in the context of unselfish love is it safe to even desire spiritual gifts.

Finally, I realize that there is some danger in what I’ve written if it is used as an excuse for lazy contentment and spiritual mediocrity. I am in no way advocating a hyper-sovereign view of God or Christian fatalism. Like Paul, we should all be saying, “I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:14). There is an upward call upon all of us. Whatever your specific calling might be, your job is fulfill it and “finish your course” (Acts 20:24). We will all be judged by God regarding the stewardship of our calling and anointing, and not someone else’s. – David

[1] I wrote a book that includes most of those passages titled, The Great Gospel Deception: Exposing the False Hope of Heaven Without Holiness.

The post The Divine Limitations to Fruitfulness in Ministry appeared first on David Servant.

You have, perhaps, heard of the “tiny house movement.” If you haven’t, a quick search on the internet for “tiny house” will yield about 55 million results. One could say that tiny houses are quite big these days.

The folks who are living in tiny houses seem to love them, elated over the benefits of simplified living. They speak of how nice it is to live in just a few hundred square feet of space and being free of debt, clutter, major maintenance and so on.

Of course, as much as those of us in the “not-so-tiny-house movement” (still the majority) might admire tiny-house enthusiasts, we can think of a few disadvantages to tiny houses. Like “you can’t have any kids,” and “it’s kind of nice to live in more than one room,” and “forget about having friends come for dinner during inclement weather,” or “can’t let visitors stay overnight.”

In any case, there are definitely “different strokes for different folks.” And although I’m an unlikely candidate for scaling down into a tiny house, I have surprised myself by scaling down into a tiny church (which meets in my not-so-tiny house).

The reason I’ve surprised myself is because during past decades I’ve planted and pastored churches that eventually consisted of hundreds of congregants. And my goal was always to grow to thousands. I dreamed of the day I would be a megachurch pastor. In my mind, the bigger the better and the more successful. (Which is one reason why I counted pregnant women twice.)

But having done it all—that is, rented public school auditoriums, remodeled an old theater, constructed a new church building with paved parking lots, raised funds for building programs, signed bank loan documents, led worship (and tried to cast demons out of worship team musicians), hired youth pastors, led board meetings (and tried to cast demons out of board members), prepared and preached thousands of sermons, organized church dinners, led men’s ministry, directed staff members and committees, officiated at weddings and funerals, recruited new volunteers to replace burnt out volunteers, did hospital visitation and marriage counseling and a host of other standard pastoral duties—and having experienced some degree of “success” in all of it—today I’m loving my tiny church. Really loving it.

So What is a Tiny Church?

Of course, the “congregation” of a tiny church is tiny. The maximum size is about twelve. The minimum is three. Jesus promised, “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst” (Matt. 18:20). Based on that promise, you might think the minimum is two, but if so, you’ve overlooked the fact that Jesus promised that He would be joining the gathering. So the minimum is three, not two.

Some might claim that such a gathering does not constitute a church. If we are honest with Scripture, however, we will have to admit that when the New Testament speaks of “church,” it never refers to a building. It always refers to a group of believers. The Greek word for “church” is ekklesia, which literally means “an assembly.”

In the Bible, “church” can refer to the assembly of all the believers on earth and in heaven (the universal church), all the believers in a region, such as the “church at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2), or to a small group that meets in a house, like the church that met in the houses of Aquila and Prisca (Rom. 16:3-5; 1 Cor. 16:19), Nympha (Col. 4:15) or Philemon (Philem. 1-2).

If we are really honest with Scripture, we must admit that there is no mention of church buildings, which makes church buildings—dare we say it—non-scriptural. (But who could ever be that honest?)

And all of this makes it kind of funny when people who are associated with churches that meet in special buildings tell me the tiny church that meets in my house isn’t really a church. Really? Were the churches that met in the homes of Aquila and Prisca, Nympha and Philemon not actually churches? Is a small group of believers who gather in Jesus’ name and whom He Himself joins not a church? Are the millions of churches around the world that meet in houses not actually churches?

No, in my house, a church meets. A biblical church. It is not just a “Bible study.” It is not just a “cell” or a “small group.” It is a church. End of discussion!

An Objection

“But a true church needs a pastor!” some may claim. OK, I tend to agree. In my tiny church, I suppose that I could be considered to be a shepherd (which is what “pastor” means). But considering the fact that the “Good Shepherd” (John 10:11, 14), the “Great Shepherd” (Heb. 13:20) and the “Chief Shepherd” (1 Pet. 5:4) solemnly promised to join us every time we gather in His name, it seems my pastoral ministry is of secondary importance, to say the least. It is quite possible that I could even occasionally be absent and everything might go OK in a gathering of people who are all indwelled and joined in a special way by the Good, Great and Chief Shepherd, who is also the Head of the Church (universal)! Right?

And that is one of the many things I love about the tiny church that meets in my house. I am not the center of the “show.” I often felt uncomfortable with the central role I played in the previous churches I planted and pastored (with the exception of all the times when I secretly loved it…).

I can still remember the rush of being up front, center stage. Lights, and sometime cameras, were directed at me. All the seats in the auditorium faced me. All the people sat at a lower elevation than me. A big cross was my backdrop. Make no mistake, I was THE MAN OF GOD. Called. Appointed. Anointed. My job required supernatural power: to hold their attention and keep them happy, in hopes they would return next week.

And this I did every week in spite of the fact that the Bible I claimed to believe says, “When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation” (1 Cor. 14:26)—all obviously given by the Spirit for the common edification. Those kinds of scripture passages were so embarrassing to “Bible-believing” churches like mine. Apparently, when the body of Christ—of which we are all important members— comes together, it is not God’s plan that only one member, “the mouth,” do everything while all the other members are functionless and sit silently listening.

In the tiny church that meets in my house, I never prepare or “deliver” a sermon. We study the Word together. I don’t send a subtle message via a weekly monologue that only seminary and Bible school grads are qualified to interpret and share God’s Word. On the contrary, I intentionally convey that (1) every believer, with the help of the Holy Spirit, can learn to rightly interpret God’s Word, (2) every believer should be practicing everything they understand in God’s Word, and (3) every believer should be sharing with other believers, whom they are responsible to disciple, what they practice. This is biblical (Matt. 5:19; Eph. 4:11-16; 2 Tim. 2:2).

America’s Got Talent

Because I never deliver any sermons, that means my sermons are never judged on how “good” they are, as they always were in my previous churches. So I no longer have to worry that, although a great performance earns rave reviews, it also raises the expected standard for every performance thereafter. And I no longer crave compliments (or dodge digs) as congregants shake my hand on their way out the door:

“Great sermon today, pastor David!”

“Thanks, layman Joe! I hope you’ll come back next week to hear another well-rehearsed speech, not longer than 20 minutes, full of funny illustrations, and one that is not too convicting, but that makes you feel good about yourself!”

“What did you say?”

“I said, ‘I hope you will come back next week!'”

“Don’t worry, Pastor David, you’ll always see me in the last pew, just as long as there isn’t a home game that starts at 1:00!”

“Ah yes, I know you’re a big football fan! Do enjoy the game this afternoon! And don’t forget that Jesus died and rose again, and He desires that none should perish. Hundreds of millions of people are waiting to hear the gospel for the first time, which is their only hope of gaining eternal life and escaping hell. And Jesus warned us that, if we are not His committed disciples, we are utterly worthless to Him.”

“What did you say?”

“I said that I so appreciate the five dollars you put in the offering plate whenever you attend our uplifting services!”

“Ah, glad to contribute. It was nothing.”

“You aren’t kidding about it being nothing! Your checkbook is no doubt one more sure indication that you are on the broad road that leads to destruction!”

“What did you say?”

“I said, ‘Are you sure you don’t want to stay another five minutes to enjoy some Christian fellowship, a donut and a cup of coffee? It won’t cost you a dime!'”

And that is another thing I love about the tiny church that meets in my house. I am no longer tempted to treat “goats” like they are “sheep” (see Matt. 25:31-46).

First of all, few goats will even consider attending something as strange as a small gathering in a house of people who actually love Jesus. In their religious minds, darkened by tradition, you don’t attend church in a house. You attend church in a church building.

Second, if a goat accidentally did attend, he would quickly realize he did not fit in among true disciples of Jesus who are striving to obey and please Him. He would feel very uncomfortable around people who worship and talk as if Jesus actually is King of kings and Lord of lords. So he would either repent and become a Christ follower, or he would never return. Here’s the biblical norm:

If all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you [just like Jesus promised] (1 Cor. 14:24-25, emphasis added).

Biblical Goals

What I love the most about the tiny church that meets in my house is that we are actually focused on being, making and multiplying disciples. Our goal is not to fill a building with hearers of the Word, but to fill the world with doers of the Word. We aren’t judging success by counting noses and nickels on Sunday mornings. Jesus’ mandate is that we make disciples. Disciples are people who obey Jesus’ commandments. One of those commandments is that we make disciples. All of the members of the tiny church that meets in my house are interested in learning to effectively share the gospel and disciple those who receive it. Sure, we are all battling different degrees of fear in that regard, but we’re all interested and making efforts. Any professing Christian who is not interested in those things is deceiving himself that he is a Christian. Yet those kinds of “believers” seem to be the majority in many churches, and pastors keep preaching to them every week like they are God’s people!

We follow a simple format each time we gather that lends itself to everyone’s individual spiritual progress. We first “look back.” Everyone shares how they’ve done the past week on their spiritual journey, particularly focusing on any commitments they made the last time we gathered—all in response to the impact of the Word of God and the work of the Holy Spirit. Then we “look up,” by studying the Word together and by listening to the Holy Spirit who lives within us. Then, based on what we gain when we “look up,” we “look forward” by making commitments of obedience and by praying for the Lord’s help. It is intentional, every time.

I can’t help but contrast those gatherings with how it was when I was the pastor of a big box church. Even after a watershed personal repentance that occurred late in my pastoral career—one that resulted in many subsequent impassioned and convicting sermons—there was little way of gauging my impact or the personal spiritual progress of any of my church members. There was no method or means of accountability, no way to really measure spiritual progress.

Imagine if any human institution operated as so many churches do. Imagine an army whose soldiers listen to an (optional) weekly lecture but aren’t expected to ever show up for duty, a sales force that never has to report on how sales are progressing, a college in which students are never tested and never graduate. What would be accomplished by such silly scenarios? Very little or next to nothing! That’s a picture of vast numbers of churches, and what is often passed off as “making disciples”! It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic!

It took me quite a few years to realize that teaching, by itself, does not constitute disciple making. Jesus did not just teach or lecture His disciples. He modeled obedience to His Father before them. He also gave them ministry assignments and required follow-up reporting. He let them fail. He corrected them. He ate with them. He interacted with them. He answered their questions. He washed their feet. That is how disciples are made.

Paul wrote, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). You can only imitate what is modeled.

The ultimate goal of our tiny church is that every member will be pioneering and leading a tiny church themselves, imitating what they’ve seen modeled. But they will never disconnect from our tiny church. Rather, I hope to continue discipling them as they launch and lead their own tiny churches, and even as their disciples begin to make disciples. (If you live in the Pittsburgh, PA area, you are welcome to join us! We’re starting a new 10-week discipleship training gathering mid-September [of 2019]. Just send me an email.)

The Love of the Brethren

This brings me to another thing I love about the tiny church that meets in my house. Among ourselves, we’re experiencing genuine Christian fellowship. Rather than looking at the backs of the heads of the people in the pew in front of me, I’m looking into the faces of people whom I am increasingly getting to know and love.

And they’re beautiful. Nobody wears the “Sunday mask.” We share our struggles and our victories with each other. We encourage one another. We pray for each other. We enjoy each other’s company. We’re friends. Some among us are “accountability partners,” who spend time each week together discussing what we are learning, applying and sharing with others from our daily Bible reading.

On a side note, we’ve never “taken up an offering,” because there are no expenses in our tiny church. We don’t have a mortgage on a building, utilities or upkeep. We don’t have any staff salaries to pay. Our friends often bring food to share at our common meal, but even that really isn’t necessary, as my wife and I can handle the weekly meal expense.

Yet all of us are generous givers to the degree that God has blessed us. We give towards what we are passionate about, namely, the furtherance of Jesus’ kingdom. So we support missionaries, and we assist our poor and persecuted brothers and sisters around the world. That way our spiritual family whom we are commanded to love is not being robbed by church mortgage payments and staff salaries. We are actually, according to the Bible, laying up treasure in heaven, rather than paying what are essentially “church club membership dues.”

What About Kids?

There is still more that I love about the tiny church that meets in my house. I love the kids who come.

You might wonder what we do with kids. We only have two very small ones in attendance right now. One is baby Luther, who does baby things. The other is a delightful toddler named Ivy who does toddler things, like playing with toys in a nearby room. Both children fit right in with us. And they have something to teach us, because the Head of Church told us, “Unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3). (When I pastored a big box church, we removed those teachers from the sanctuary whenever they had something to say!)

In a healthy tiny church, experienced parents can teach and model good parenting as a service to parents who are struggling with their children. It’s part of discipleship. In fact, parenting itself is discipling—the discipling of children. Let’s face it, one of the main reasons we have to segregate children from adults in big box churches is because neither parents nor children are being discipled! We “solve” the problem by a temporary weekly quarantine!

What About You?

Do I think God is against big box churches? No, I believe that God, being gracious, favors as much as He can anything and everything that bears any resemblance to the biblical pattern. He, unlike so many of us, is much more inclined to draw big, inclusive circles than small, exclusive circles. Remember that Jesus once said, “He who is not against you is for you” (Luke 9:50). Big box churches undeniably bear some resemblance to the biblical pattern, and so God blesses them as much as He can. Of course, however, God prefers 100% conformity to the biblical pattern. And surely greater conformity results in greater blessing and fruitfulness. Why be satisfied with second, or third, best?

Obviously, I haven’t written this article for those who are satisfied, but for those who are dissatisfied, just as I was at one time. There are hundreds of thousands of Christians around the world who are the causalities of big box Christianity. Many are former pastors who have been spit out or burnt out by the system. (Many are pastors still.) And then there are all the deacons, elders, Sunday school and Bible class teachers, and others, who have never quite had what it takes to serve as big box pastors, but who actually fit the biblical qualifications for leadership found in the New Testament. Many of them could be fruitful disciples of Jesus who make and multiply disciples.

If what I’m talking about resonates with you, I’d recommend that you gather 3 to 5 other spiritually hungry believers and commit to meeting together once a week for 10 weeks while using the discipleship training course found at ZumeProject.com. That’s what we’ve initially used at the tiny church that meets in my house. We stretched it out to more than 10 weeks, as the concepts, although simple and biblical, need time to sink in, as they are sadly foreign to Western Christianity. But as we’ve intentionally applied and committed ourselves, we’ve been making spiritual progress. That is exciting to this old, recovering pastor. And that is why I’m totally loving my tiny church!

The post Totally Loving My Tiny Church appeared first on David Servant.

In our last Little Lesson, we were talking about how to prevent or stop your child from being a brat. I thought it would be good to continue on this same theme because the principles are the same when it comes to figuring out how to get your little child to sleep all through the night. It comes down to reinforcement.

My wife and I have had three children, and we succeeded in getting them to sleep all the way through the night pretty early on. So I’m going to share my secret with you so that you can also enjoy a good night’s sleep. All right?

All right. So what happens? You bring those little babies home and, boy, are they cute. But they want to be fed every so many hours, and it doesn’t fit into your sleep schedule at all. And so they wake up crying in the middle of the night.

They want to be fed, and if you’re nursing your baby then, generally, Mom has to get up and take care of that. Although we all know there are ways around that for dads to get involved. But who wants to be doing that for months and months and months? Not me. And the more kids you have, the more you love to sleep through the night. So what do you have to do?

The Principle of Reinforcement

Well, you’ve got to use the principle of reinforcement.

You and your spouse will have to agree on this. You have to be determined that your child will not die if they go through the night without being fed, which is pretty early on. And I’m not gonna give you any number here, because I don’t wanna sound dogmatic.

But goodness, I have known parents who are waking up in the middle of the night to take care of their kids when they’re two years old, because they’ve just gotten into the habit. The kid is on that kind of a sleep cycle. They may not even want to be fed any longer, but they’re just waking up because they’re used to that. And they’re crying, and, again, they’re trying to ruin your life!

So you’ve decided that it’s not that long after your child is born that they’re not going to survive a night without eating. So they wake up in the middle of the night. You hear them crying. You and your spouse have already agreed that tonight is the first night you’re not going to feed your child.

And you lay there, and those little babies cry, and they try to break your heart. Oh my goodness, are they good at that! They scream louder, and it becomes more desperate. And if they could speak your language, they’d be saying, “What’s wrong with you? Don’t you love me? You’re not worthy to be parents if you’re going to allow me to be in this state of hunger in the middle of the night!” That’s what they’d be saying. That’s what they’re thinking, obviously.

Sticking it Out

You have to grab your spouse’s hand and say, “We decided we’re not going to feed them tonight.” And you lie there.

But here’s the test. If after 15 minutes one of you says, “I just can’t take it any longer! I’ve got to go feed that baby! That baby’s breaking my heart!” And you go in and then you feed that baby. You know what you just taught them? If you want to be fed, just scream for 15 minutes. That’s all it takes.

And that little baby has just figured that out. “Okay, now I know what I’ll do tomorrow night!” So you’ve just made your job that much harder. You’ve reinforced negative behavior. So what do you have to do? You’ve got to be tough.

Why God Made Parents Bigger Than Children

This is one reason that God made parents bigger than their children. Look in the mirror and see how big you are compared to your children and realize, “I’m bigger. I’ve got a competitive advantage over this little person. There’s no way that it’s God’s will for this little tiny child to ruin my life!” (And we talked in our previous Little Lesson about children ruining your life in the daytime!)

So if you survive that first night, your child might cry for a half hour, but eventually they’ll fall back asleep because they just tire themselves out. And in the morning when you go in there, they’re not dead! They’re still alive. They made it.

And you can feel good that you had a night where you got a little victory. And that’s a promise of better things to come.

Getting Victory

The second night—the next night—they will wake up again. This time the crying might be as long, but chances are it’s going to be shorter in duration. It’s getting a little bit easier.

So the first night is the most difficult. I think the second night is the second most difficult. And then the third night, they’re going to wake up, they’re going to cry, but they’re not going to go as long this time.

And I can’t tell you how many nights it’s going to take. For our kids, I don’t remember it being more than five nights or so. It all depends on how strong-willed the child is and what you’ve reinforced with them already.

When our kids were born, we learned to tell them, “We were here first! We already had a family before you showed up. Now, we love you, but you are not going to ruin our lives!”

And we knew that was best for us, but also best for the kids too. They need to know that they’re a part of an already existing family, and they are not the king. No, they’re not the king. Mom and Dad are the king and the queen. Okay?

A Happy, Sleeping Child

All right. It might be three, it might be four, it might be five or more nights, but the night will happen when your child won’t wake up. Because waking up hasn’t been reinforced. Waking up has not been rewarded with milk. And if there’s no reward for waking up and crying, there’s no sense waking up and crying.

And your child sleeps all through the night. And you wake up that morning, and you go, “Oh my goodness, oh my goodness! What just happened? We didn’t wake up! There was no crying.” And your first thought, of course, is, “My baby has died!”

And you rush in to make sure that that baby is still alive. And lo and behold, that baby is still alive! And voila, you have just succeeded. And you’ve learned a great principle that will pay rich dividends in your relationship with that child all the way to when they leave the nest: Reinforce behavior that you want to recur. Don’t reinforce behavior that you don’t want to recur. Okay?

All right. Thanks so much for joining me on this Little Lesson!

The post How Can You Get Your Little Child to Sleep the Entire Night and Not Wake You Up? appeared first on David Servant.

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 last month’s e-teaching 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. This could be interesting…

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. (By the way, an excellent movie that tells the story of the women’s suffrage movement in England is Suffragette…you can view it at VidAngel.com, a movie streaming service that allows viewers to filter out anything objectionable.)

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 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 just a few years ago, were restricted by law to having only one child (two is now the limit)—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), and today there are millions more men than women in China.

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), 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 unconcerned.

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, is 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 females who can have babies and nurse babies. And those biological facts force 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. The closest modern example that exists of what I’ve just described is the lifestyle of the Amish.

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 beyond 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:

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 very misogynistic to me!

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

Suppose someone said to you right now, “For some reason that I can’t explain, I have faith that there is a book in your hands.” You would, of course, think that something was wrong with that person. You would say, “Why, you don’t need to believe I have a book in my hands, because you can plainly see that I’m holding a book.”

Faith is of the unseen realm. For example, as I’m writing these words, I believe that there is an angel near me. In fact, I’m certain of it. How can I be so sure? Have I seen an angel? No. Have I felt or heard an angel fly by? No. If I had seen an angel or heard or felt one, then I wouldn’t have to believe there was an angel near me—I’d know it.

So what makes me so certain of the angel’s presence? My certainty stems from one of God’s promises. In Psalm 34:7, He promised, “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and rescues them.” I have no evidence for what I believe other than God’s Word. That is true biblical faith—the “conviction of things not seen.” The people of the world often use the expression, “Seeing is believing.” But in the kingdom of God the opposite is true: “Believing is seeing.”

When we exercise faith in one of God’s promises, we often face circumstances that tempt us to doubt, or we go through a period of time when it looks as if God is not keeping his promise because our circumstances are not changing. In those cases, we simply need to resist doubts, persevere in faith, and remain convinced in our hearts that God always keeps His word. It is impossible for Him to lie (see Tit. 1:2).

The post Faith is the Conviction of Things Not Seen [Page] appeared first on David Servant.