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.

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…)

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.

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.

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.

It’s Friday after prayers in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Worshippers are streaming from Al-Jafali Mosque to surround an area in the adjacent square that has been cordoned off by police.

In the center of that square kneels a man with hands tied behind his back, flanked by an imam, a prison warden, and an executioner grasping a four-foot sword. The condemned man faces the victim’s family some yards away, from whom he begs forgiveness. Behind him, on the other side of the square, the prisoner’s family is weeping, also begging the victim’s family to forgive.

Bible-readers quickly learn that God is both just and merciful. Regarding the former, Isaiah 61:8 says, “I, the Lord, love justice…. and I will faithfully give them their recompense.” Regarding the latter, Ephesians 2:4 tells us, “God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us…”

Anyone, however, who loves both justice and mercy must hold them in tension, because they are, by their nature, at odds with each other. Justice calls for the punishment deserved while mercy calls for a delay or pardon. If you are both just and merciful you have an inward conflict.

All parents can relate to that inward conflict. When a child deserves discipline, parents debate within themselves: “Do I spank this child now (justice) or just give him a warning (mercy) in hopes he won’t repeat the same behavior?”

In light of Jesus’ lordship, His grace must be limited to some degree. If, for example, Jesus was offering a license to sin by His grace, that would void His lordship. How could He be Lord if He has no behavioral expectations for His servants (whom He owns)?

Yet some professing Christian teachers advocate that Jesus’ grace is, in fact, a license to sin. They would never say it using those words, but they say it in other words.

For example, some claim there is nothing any Christian could do that would result in the forfeiture of his or her salvation. That, clearly, is a license to sin. It is a claim that, if I as a Christian become a serial rapist and murderer, it would not affect the status of my ultimate salvation. Worse, such teachers claim that if there is any behavioral requirement for salvation, that is equivalent to advocating “salvation by works,” and to nullifying “salvation by grace.”

One of the most common phrases used in Christian circles is the phrase, “accept the Lord,” as in, “I accepted the Lord when I was 19 years old” or, “We’re praying that my mother will accept the Lord.”

Interestingly, that phrase can’t be found in any English translation of the Bible, and the idea of “accepting Jesus” can only be found in a couple of fairly modern translations. Why is that? One reason is because, from a standpoint of theological truth, the phrase is inappropriate. The word “lord” carries an historic connotation of describing one who possesses supreme authority. Thus, lords aren’t people whom lesser people “accept.” They are people whom lesser people are supposed to honor, revere, and obey.

A lord, by dictionary definition is: “Someone who has power, authority, or influence; a master or ruler, as in, ‘lord of the sea,’ ‘lords of the jungle,’ or ‘our lord the king.’”

“Masters” and “rulers” exercise authority over their citizens or subjects. They expect and enforce compliance.

That concept is somewhat foreign to those of us who live in democratic societies. We expect that our leaders—whom we elect—should serve us. But God’s kingdom is not a democracy; it’s a THEOcracy. It’s a KINGdom. There is a king whom we’re supposed to serve and obey.