Krissi

David didn’t ask the soldiers about possible strategies or approaches, but about the rewards he would get if he killed Goliath. When he explained to Saul why he could kill Goliath, he gave his shepherding resume which included killing big, aggressive animals … like Goliath. David did say he believed God would deliver him because God had delivered him in the past. He had a history of deliverance with God. So, I don’t think David’s explanation had much to do with his faith. He wasn’t a lethal warrior but a kid hardened by exposure to nature, much like many people who live on the border of civilization and wilderness. In the American context, I’ve read about men and boys who killed wolves and bears protecting their flocks and cattle … though not with slingshots. This used to be common. My father, who died a few weeks ago at the age of 96, told me he used to spend hours hitting birds with his slingshot, so even that skill hadn’t died in the contemporary West! David said He expected God to rescue him basing that expectation on past experiences of dangerous animals and prevailing over them. In his mind, David attributed his success to God, not his own skill, even though he touted his skill, not faith, before Saul. Saul’s motive for letting David try to kill the giant fascinates me. Here was a king with an army too frightened to take him on, man to man. Only after forty days of taunting, when no one responded, did David decide to volunteer himself for the task of killing Goliath. Note that Saul was out of options. No regular soldier had been willing to go on this suicide mission in spite of rewards Saul had offered. Note that David asked about the rewards. The rewards were important to David. He wanted the gibs! Saul was in a good position politically. The extremely rare possibility that David would prevail would obviously benefit Saul. The more likely consequence of David’s death would not be considered a victory for the Philistines as David was just a kid. It, too, would benefit Saul. So it was a win-win situation for Saul. Politically, he’d win either way – in fact, forcing Goliath to fight a child demeaning both Goliath and the Philistines, which is why Goliath complained. He knew he was being set up. Saul did not act out of faith. He was a man of political expedience who saw the situation for what it was. To send a boy to his death, as Saul was willing to do, just to mock Goliath, was not an act of faith but of callous disregard for his own people. To say, “God help you,” is not a faith-claim either. It’s a common expression, one that doesn’t express faith, but, strangely, of disbelief in God’s timely redemption. Saul didn’t exclaim or predict victory before David’s encounter, but merely expressed a half-hearted(?) hope that God would help David. Saul is not an appealing man in these passages.

I'm answering this in the middle of the Western war against Russia now occurring in the Ukraine. To understand this war, I have been reading/watching Telegram channels and other social media accounts from Western, Ukrainian and Russian fighters as well as from mercenaries from various parts of the world. What strikes me is the constant mocking and taunting that goes on from all participants, but mostly from the weakest side, the losers in this war. I don't know this for a fact, but I'd guess that taunting is a behavior that can be seen in all wars. It's probably been done since the earliest wars, too. In Homer, Hector taunted Patroclus, even though he was dead. There are hundreds of other examples just in Homer. The goal of taunting is to demoralize or intimidate one's opponent, to goad them into making premature forays or stupid decisions. It's a psychological technique, that is -- psychological warfare. David is young. He reacted in an immature way that some interpret as bravery. He didn't have the emotional maturity to see war-taunts for what they were -- psychological techniques to wear down and belittle. So he reacted. Understandably. The overlay of his faith makes David's response better than a knee-jerk reaction of a young patriot. He thought Goliath was demeaning God, not merely his nation. He was eager to defend not only nation (which I think was a big part of his response) but also his God. "Is there not a cause ..." Yes, there are causes greater than ego, mistaken anger and patriotism. That's what this story is about. It's not about David, Goliath or even Eliab, but about the CAUSE that is greater than all human emotions and reactions, that is, the cause of defending faith in God. I find Eliab's treatment of David sadly predictable. He was the sensible, older brother in a culture that put a huge premium on birth order. David, in their eyes, was the kid brother that had no status or future. David had been reduced to being a delivery boy for his warrior brothers. So, it's understandable that Eliab wouldn't take David seriously nor did he want to be embarrassed by David's bravado. I don't think Eliab was jealous as there was nothing to be jealous of ... yet. Instead, Eliab didn't want to be humiliated as the older brother of a boy who took on Goliath, a job for men, and then was flayed alive by him, which I'm certain Eliab thought would happen.

This is one of the most sobering passages in the bible, one that fills me with fear -- from this passage I learn that the Spirit within me is "on loan" and His presence is contingent on my behavior. This is the conclusion that has to be reached. I can pray and hope that God will never forsake or leave me, but the fact is God did leave Saul. The text plainly states this. Thus, He could leave me, too. Though David was sent to Saul's court to comfort him, surely there were many musicians who could have done that job well, or better. It's almost as if God is goading Saul with David's presence, making Saul find comfort in the songs of the boy/man who would eventually replace him. It's as if the CEO of a blue chip agreed to sponsor a 20-year-old intern who later turned on him and became the CEO! I don't know God's perspective on this, but clearly David was given insight into the government's workings and the mind of an increasingly mentally ill man. Knowing Saul's emotional weaknesses helped David overtake him, perhaps with compassion -- knowing how the government ran gave David superficial though first-hand insight into an institution as he grew into the role of king. David, obviously, had been young and clueless about the government. Maybe David made helpful contacts during this time? Maybe he gained a particular interest in the judiciary or the military? Who knows. I assume that Pastor Ralph's question about things that tend to prevent us from learning from God in the midst of circumstances refers to our own circumstances. Right now, my circumstances are terrible and have been for many years. Perhaps that's why I fear what God could do: I was not particularly disobedient -- I don't know of any egregious sin that God found so repulsive that He abandoned me -- I know that I continue to be a sinful person who makes little slights, ignores His small voice, has wrong priorities, etc. Am I listening to HIm? Yes, I'm trying. Could I do better? I could always do better, which is the problem. Are there other things that prevent me from learning about Him? I don't think so except attitudinal issues like being defeated, depressed and fearful of the future. What could make me more teachable? Ultimately, I pray that when this ends -- and I believe it will though I have low times of despair -- I can genuinely praise God for rescuing and delivering me, that I attribute surviving these circumstances to Him, not my own determination and will power, and see Him in a positive light, as a God of love, not a God who looked away from me as I was impatiently praying. I pray that God does not treat me as He did Saul and that I haven't done anything to merit His rejection. Most posters believe Saul had earned God's wrath. In a sense, we all merit His wrath, don't we? Unlike you, I don't see Saul as worse than the typical Christian. I don't see Saul as meriting special condemnation. Saul was an impatient man trying to exercise leadership in a tight spot and in a time when God did not come in a timely way after he had so importunately prayed. Saul did wrong -- no doubt about this -- but his sin seems understandable to me. He was trying to do the right thing, felt the pressure of time, and being a leader made a decision which, in his eyes, had to be made. This is why I fear the future, that the God who came down so hard on Saul may come down hard on me ... again. Sometimes horrible circumstances are deserved. Most of the time they are not.

Anointing is frequently done in charismatic groups. I recently attended a weekend-long conference and every participant was anointed as they walked through the door. In a way, this cheapens the experience. David's anointing was powerful, in contrast. It set him on a life path -- it determined the trajectory of his future and gave him the power to accomplish what God had tasked him to do. It was a big deal. Anointing changed David. What is the difference, then, between the anointing all of us got at the conference and that of David? Are not all Christians given the Holy Spirit as an indwelling presence at salvation? If so, then what does the anointing do -- supercharge what's already there? release what's there but not fully used? Give more of the spirit than already is possessed? David's life seems to have been changed by the presence of the Holy Spirit which came upon him at his anointing. I want this. I want this sort of deep, constitutive change that the Spirit can bring, anointing or not. I want the power to carry out a calling and assignment ... I want a calling and assignment, too. But, frankly, after being anointed a couple weeks ago and on other occasions, I don't think that what is done in charismatic circles has much to do with the sort of anointing David experienced. Also, there's that sticky problem that the anointing can be withdrawn, as happened to Saul. That's frightening. God gives ... and takes which means that the anointing is contingent on our behavior. We have to be good/obedient enough for the Spirit to remain in us. Recall that David was forgiven for his HUGE mistakes, but Saul was not. God took Saul's spirit away ... --- I'm back. After about five minutes I couldn't get this thought out of my mind: Hebrews 13 promises this: 'I will NEVER leave you nor forsake you." But the Spirit left Saul! God withdrew it from him. Can we have the confidence, as the verse goes on to say, that "The Lord is my helper ... I will not be afraid." I think we can. I'm not sure the Spirit left Saul, but only that he lost his anointing. Thus, the anointing isn't the same as the Spirit, but is the Spirit's work directed toward a specific calling. Saul lost his calling, or the power to do his calling. He lost his kingship. He did not lose the Holy Spirit. I hope this is right.

I just finished skimming the answers of other posters because this is an important topic to me -- hearing God's voice clearly and in time. Three competing voices can be heard in my mind: first, my own voice which includes my conscience and desires; secondly, Satan's voice which no one mentioned in this thread but should be considered; thirdly, God's voice which is usually soft and often not clear. Admittedly, I find it difficult to discern my voice from God's, at times. It's not that I think like God, though I wish I did, but that my voice mimes His, giving wee commands and charting a path forward. Also, God tends to lead me into ways that are painful which instinctively, I avoid. Right now, I'm exhausted from suffering. But this is how God teaches me -- via suffering -- perhaps to get my attention and focus, and perhaps because I'm strong-willed. Like the first poster, I am troubled by Saul's rejection because I know that His justice is fair and rational. But in this story, God's justice overruled His love (or so it appears). Yes, Saul had not waited for God's voice -- don't we all do this, at times? -- because he was a leader with his back against a wall. The situation was tense: Saul had waited for days for God to speak. A decision needed to be made. So Saul, as a leader, made that decision and solved the crisis, but in doing so, he cut short the time he was supposed to wait for God's voice to be heard. God didn’t look at Saul with compassion after this as He did when Elijah ran away and tried to die in the desert; He didn’t view Saul with eyes of forgiveness, but as a dispassionate decision-maker that God sometimes, but not always, is. God read into the future. He knew what Saul would become. Of course, He knew Saul's heart all the time, so why did He choose Saul only to reject him later? This is what bothers me about this story. It's implied that Saul could have chosen differently or that God truly didn’t know what Saul would choose. Thus is the mystery of free will, perhaps. So, the first example is Saul's impatience in hearing God's voice and waiting for His will to be known, and the sobering consequence of being rejected by God as king. (Someone upthread wrote the phrase "redemptive hesitation" = react, but don't act until prompted by God.) Nice. The second way the stories teach the importance of listening carefully has to do with the prophet Samuel's obedience to God's SPOKEN voice -- here, there was no ambiguity about what God wanted Samuel to do -- in spite of his fear of Saul's response, that is, the consequences. I so wish God would speak to me this clearly. Then, my obedience would be starkly exposed and I could not hide behind a murky command. As the bible says, "Samual did what God told him." Sometimes I obey and horrible things result. Christian martyrs obeyed unto death, for example. Samuel obeyed and was spared negative consequences. So here, God rewarded obedience in his life with His smiling approval. A third way the stories teach the importance of listening clearly has to do with the way Samuel perceived God's voice as he chose David as king. He was told clearly by God that none of the king-like brothers were to be ordained, but rather the youngest, the "runt" of the litter, David. Now, David's big problem wasn't that he was undesirable, but that he was young. The bible describes David as (message version): "bright-eyed, good-looking." So, it's not like Samuel was asked to bless a hopeless case to be king, but had been told to bless a kid with potential. God spoke clearly to Samuel, “Up on your feet! Anoint him! This is the one.” A few thoughts. It's relatively easy to obey God when He speaks with an audible, clear voice, when the choice to obey or disobey is set out in stark relief. There's no ambiguity. No worries that the voice I think is God's is really my own. I don't know why God whispers in ways hard to discern instead of speaking with a clear voice. My rational self says that hearing His voice would be a lot easier if He spoke a bit louder. God's ways may have something to do with forcing me to silence myself in order to hear Him. Not hearing clearly makes me hesitate. To wait. To let Him speak over my "better" judgment and intuition. Honestly, I pity Saul. He was a leader in a pinch, a guy with his back against a wall. He heard the war cries of the enemy and knew, as a leader, he had to make a decision. Yet God tarried. And tarried. And tarried. As minutes turned into days and the panic of war overwhelmed him, poor Saul made a decision, one that had to be made. After all, God did not speak! Or, perhaps, Saul could not hear God speak. I believe Saul wanted to hear from God but felt he couldn't wait any longer. God walked away from Saul and put the mantle of leadership onto David. This was the consequence. The horrible consequence of not hearing ... no, of not waiting to hear. God overruled human judgment. He is teaching us, perhaps, to ignore our intuition and the pressing need to make a decision and just wait against all odds ... keep waiting when everyone is staring you down asking what you want to do ... keep waiting and waiting as you wonder why God doesn't speak and worry that you missed His tiny whisper. Just wait.

I obediently rebel. I choose to obey God by rebelling against society and the government. Rebellion is obedience to God when godly living is mocked or even made illegal. As society coarsens and openly promotes sin, is it rebellion or obedience to God to go against evil laws and social behaviors? When I see gay pride parades or dolled-up trannies reading books to children in public libraries, the promotion of abortion and so-called "gender-fluidity," unfair and unjust use of targeted taxation against Christians, governmental coercion to submit to harmful and untested vaccinations and the shuttering of churches (but not gay bars), lawfare as a tool of oppression and silencing Christian opposition to the government, wars started to maintain their colonialist-mindset and hegemony, and flagrant censorship and lies to keep Christians in the dark as to what the government is doing behind their backs ... am I belng rebellious God to work against society/culture/government? God demands that I be salt and light in a disgusting culture and before an increasingly evil government -- to be salt and light today means rebelling! In the past, rebellion against the government and social norms was neither expected nor desired because, for the most part, the government stayed within the bounds of loosely interpreted, generic principles of Christianity. BUT, today, as the government increasingly veers away from Christian principles, passive obedience is not a Christian response. I must rebel. To obey God I must rebel against evildoers in the government as well as the government itself. Civil disobedience is no longer an option; rebellion is a requirement of faith. To look away from evil done in a nation's name is the same as condoning it. I can no longer do this. When there is no lsafe space to which I can escape ... when I no longer can carve out exemptions for myself ... when the government not only promotes evil, but demands I engage in it, should I rebel or obey??? It is simply a fact that the United States was founded on rebellion and disobedience. We rebelled against haughty colonial rulers, unjust taxation and much more. To rebel, we believed, was to act in obedience to God's written word. What was right then is right today. I believe I must boldly defy the oppressive government as well as social "influencers" who greatly harm society. This is a time to quietly say "NO." I pray to plant my feet squarely on the ground while lifting my eyes to heaven as I beg God for the strength to say, as did Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms: "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise." -- Luther's words: I claim no other merit than that of having spoken and written with the simplicity of mind which regards nothing but the glory of God and the pure instruction of the people of Christ…. What, then, should I be doing …? Wretched man! I alone, of all men living, should be abandoning truths approved by the unanimous vote of friends and enemies, and should be opposing doctrines that the whole world glorifies in confessing!... Is it not manifest that the laws and human doctrines of the popes entangle, vex, and distress the consciences of the faithful, while the crying and endless extortions engulf the property and wealth of Christendom, and more particularly of this illustrious nation? Yet it is a perpetual statute that the laws and doctrines of the pope be held erroneous and reprobate when they are contrary to the Gospel and the opinions of the Church fathers. Bearing down all resistance with fresh fury, we should behold these proud men swell, foam, and rage more than ever! And not merely would the yoke which now weighs down Christians be made more grinding … Great God! (If I did not rebel against authority) I should thus be like to an infamous cloak, used to hide and cover over every kind of malice and tyranny. I have written some books against private individuals, who had undertaken to defend the tyranny of Rome by destroying the faith. I freely confess that I may have attacked such persons with more violence than was consistent with my profession as an ecclesiastic … "I came not to send peace unto the earth, but a sword," said Christ. God is wonderful and terrible in His counsels. Let us have a care, lest in our endeavors to arrest discords, we be bound to fight against the holy word of God and bring down upon our heads a frightful deluge of inextricable dangers, present disaster, and everlasting desolations. "Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise"

Drifting into sin is more insidious than suddenly succumbing to sin because it includes a slow, unnoticed change in one's perceptions, ideas and values, which is far harder to undo than a single, impetuous and stupid mistake. When character changes, it drags the rest of the Christian with it. This can be good if the change is in the right direction. I've noticed that a slow, hard-fought positive change in outlook is much stronger and deeper than even a well-reasoned determination to do differently. The latter is easy to forget. Thus, drifting seems more durable -- it's more difficult to retrace steps and re-find a pure mind after drifting from the Lord. Dry spells in faith may seem like drifting, but in actuality they're just times of swimming in place. Drifting, in contrast, actually moves a Christian from a more to less desirable place. Perhaps dry spells lead to drifting? If so, one way of preventing drifting is to actively and determinedly swim the other direction, that is, to counter the drift with activities and thoughts that tug toward God. I know many people who saturate their mind's with Christian music to counter "secularizing" thoughts and tendencies. This doesn't work for me. Instead, I write long, poorly constructed, error-ridden and unreadable essays on what's wrong and necessary correctives. When I write, though it takes time, I eventually think more clearly. Putting words to paper helps me see the problem and pray. So when I'm confused or my heart is heavy, or when I feel anger or bitterness welling up inside of me, I write and write and write until I check the "drift" toward sinful thoughts and pull back toward Him. Thank you for another wonderful teaching, Pastor Ralph. I enjoyed "Solomon" and will be doing "David" next ... out of order. Thank you, again.

Of the seven sins listed, the first and seventh (which, in my mind, are the same) are the worst -- Solomon substituted things/other-gods for the True God. Had Solomon kept God first and front in his mind, as did his father, the rest of his flaws would have been mitigated, or partially mitigated. We sin less, and less severely, when our eyes are focused on God. His lousy stewardship of public money -- which caused the eventual breakup of the nation -- was Solomon's second greatest weakness. Public finances, once squandered, do not mend themselves well. Some benefit ... others lose out and the generational impact of favoritism/disfavoritism persists. The children of Solomon were surely well-educated and provisioned, but when they grew into adults, they probably had an outsized sense of entitlement that effected all around them. Unequal benefit and unfair tax burdens breed resentment in society which are like seeds of that society's dissolution. This is happening in the West today.

Such a sad denouement. Like too many of us, Solomon started better than he finished. From the list of twenty, or so, of Solomon's "positives," those that seem most defining he had little control over. 1) He was picked by God. Solomon didn't do anything to be picked other than exist, but still, he was chosen. One would think that this, alone, would assure him a godly destiny, but then again, recall Saul, a king who was chosen by God who failed! Solomon didn't fail. He retained his crown until his death. So, God had positive reasons for selecting Solomon and putting Israel's destiny on his shoulders. 2) Solomon was born with abilities that gave him advantages including intelligence. He seems thoughtful and hesitant to pronounce judgment. He was not loving, but fair-minded. He seemed to have an aloof relationship with the people he ruled -- definitely an elitist, NOT a populist. 3) Solomon built the temple and set up a religious-like bureaucracy to maintain the worship of Yahweh. He had his priorities right, in this regard. He fulfilled his obligation and promise to God. Unfortunately, setting up bureaucracies -- in government or temple worship -- plants the seed of their eventual destruction. 4) Solomon had the winds of political power at his back. This, too, was not his doing. He happened to assume power at a time when the powerful nations around him were jostling for advantage. A power vacuum usually helps newbies and not established powers such as Egypt. It certainly helped Israel/Judah. He was able to pursue peace because none of his neighbors were excessively belligerent. 5) I can't help but notice that Solomon's most lasting achievement were in the international realm, not domestic. Increased influence/reputation was a consequence of increased trade, a strong national defense, great wealth, good PR and peace, etc. 6) Solomon, or someone close to him, wrote the Proverbs. In the end, these writings have lasted. I wonder if he would have been just another name in the line-up of kings had he not written the Proverbs.

Is it fair to conclude that Solomon is a womanizer who lusts after women? Yes. The option that he is a scheming, power-hungry man who uses women to achieve his political goals is also at play. How does a womanizer treat a wife? Men and women both can treat each other dishonorably when they marry each other for superficial or expedient reasons, that is, treat each other as means to an end rather than an end itself. How does having a womanizer for a father affect the children? The children of such a relationship know and feel their own expendability, that they were the consequence of a strategic coupling not love. Unless healed, they will forevermore carry on the behavior of regarding a spouse as a means to an end and the deep insecurities and inability to love that they subsequently acquired. Is sexual excess compatible with Christian discipleship? Of course not. I suppose some people define "excess" differently, but it is obvious that the Christian ideal is one-man + one-woman for life wed. --- I came back to add a few words. I'm surprised that the same man who wrote the Proverbs, which obviously contain verses about chastity and love, would live such opposite life. His vaunted wisdom seems to be for others, not himself. That may be harsh, but seeds of apostasy were planted by Solomon. Some say Solomon started a generational curse, as the sins of the father were passed down to his children and his children's children. Too, I thought about how some Christians manage to push to the side or isolate what they know to be true from their daily lives. This is surprisingly easy and I'm certain all of us do this to some degree. What we know to be good/true/God's-will is not how we act. To keep our faith intact, we start creating layers of justification and obfuscation -- this is like a green, thick layer of algae on a pond that blocks the sunlight and eventually kills much of the life underneath it. We all know people who have fallen away from faith. I know only a handful who have abandoned their faith for intellectual reasons; this is rare. Most of the time Christians backslide and then fall off the edge of faith because moral sins have smothered their spiritual life.

Rich and showy wealth is, by definition, misused wealth. Wealth must be hidden both for the sake of the wealthy individual as well as for the sake of the not-as-wealthy people around him or her. People tend to be comparative. They compare themselves to others in their social circles, not to showy people they don't know such as Bill Gates or the King of England. An envy of neighbors, of the people we know, trip up most people. This is why Paul, here, is not talking about people who already have wealth (old money, presumably) but about people who do not have wealth but are desperately seeking it. Those who crave wealth will "pierce themselves with many griefs." Those who have hidden wealth, presumably, are pierced by other things! We are all pierced by something ... The point of his passage isn't the arrogance of the wealthy, but a tendency to use wealth as a buffer between oneself and suffering. This is clearly the point of 17b. Wealthy people are told to focus on the needs of others and to be both generous and loving toward those who have less "stuff." They're also told to assume a perspective that looks ahead to a time where wealth matters not as they have eternal security in Him. Again, the only wealth that breeds arrogance is that which is publicly known and displayed (such as Solomon's). Arrogance, after all, is an attitude based on comparison, one that expresses itself in front of others. Pride, on the other hand, can be secret, a sin of the soul. This is why it is far easier to deal with arrogance than other expressions of pride. Wealth that no one knows about cannot breed arrogance.

There is a concept of "the deserving poor." It stands in contradistinction to the concept of "undeserving poor," though rarely made verbally explicit. The deserving poor are victims of horrible circumstances such as health crises that rob them of their ability to crawl out from poverty. They're mired in a Dickens-like world, a world they don't deserve to live in but are unable to get out of. But then, there's the undeserving poor. Here, the definition gets murky. Is a drug addict undeserving if he/she is now trapped in addiction? We tend to believe that all prostitutes, addicts, thieves and others are in this state because they CHOSE to be this way (which, in a way, is true) and therefore are reaping the consequences of decisions they could have made differently. They are responsible for their condition -- that's the bottom line. But ... I know this isn't entirely true. For one, ALL of us make lousy choices but not all of us reap the consequences of those choices. Sometimes we get away with making mistakes without paying the price or suffering the consequences that should have been ours, but were not. The consequences seem almost happenstance as there is only a tenuous correlation between stupid/evil decisions and poverty, for example. Both poor and wealthy people can be "good" or not. It could be the case that a lack of morality actually increases one's ability to make money. And, in my opinion, this is why Christians are a bit skeptical about very wealthy people in their churches -- are they really true or mature Christians, and if so, why don't they give it away? So, to answer Pastor Ralph's question, I hesitate to give money because I cannot be certain that the recipient of my money is truly needy or "deserving." Furthermore, I'm skeptical that organizations to which I give are not skimming too much off the top. Organizations can be incredibly wasteful. Many years ago, I worked in a city. Every day, as I got off the metro train, I was greeted by a long line of beggars. Most were addicts. Every day, I used to bring a small wad of one-dollar bills to give away until a man on the train chastised me for doing this, saying that the homeless were stashing away bills until they had enough to buy drugs. So, I decided to make sandwiches. If the homeless addicts were hungry, I reasoned, they'd appreciate a good sandwich. To my surprise, most of the homeless either threw away the sandwich or refused it. Very few took a sandwich to eat. This was a watershed moment for me and my view of the homeless, drugs and poverty. But, still, I wondered if they have done better? Humans do have agency, after all. They have the ability to make decisions and save or improve their own lives. There does seem to be a point, though, when humans can't get out of their circumstances without some sort of jarring event/person from the outside. But even then, people react differently to jarring events. I've decided that for charity to be moral and effective, the recipients have to want to better themselves, to really want to live in a different way. Many of them say they want to be different, but when given the opportunity, don't work hard enough. Even when given a chance, they relapse into addictions, poverty and homelessness. We are all responsible, for example, for accepting or refusing Christ. If we are responsible for such a weighty, eternal decision, the responsibility to not take drugs or steal or whatever seems far less weighty. I don't have answers, as usual. Even Jesus said that the poor would always be with us. He must have understood the social ramifications of the human psyche and sin better than we do! I very much want to help both the deserving and undeserving who want to escape the consequences of past stupid decisions, but can't distinguish between undeserving and deserving, and those who are determined to live a better life from those who are just taking advantage of my tender heart. I tend to err on the side of generosity, just in case.

This question makes me wonder about the difference in the wisdom found in the Old Testament book of Proverbs and that of Jesus in His New Testament's parables. Jesus' parables seem to upend some of the proverbs or at least draw startling conclusions from them that contradict their flat or most obvious meaning. Thus, Jesus' parables or wise teachings bring to the proverbs a deeper, often inexplicable meaning. I don't think a Christian "goes about becoming wise" but rather a Christian lives out each minute of her/his day being aware of Christ to the greatest extent possible. Slowly, as this Christian thinks through scripture stories rahter than thinking about scripture, wisdom begins to grow. A person doesn't decide to be wise, then, but becomes wise as his or her patterns of thought change through increased "soaking" in Him and His words. I can't describe this any better. Sorry.

Most of Solomon's projects seem to have been built for defensive purposes -- walls, fortified towns, etc. -- or for his foreign wife. Since there was only one temple, perhaps it was the only structure built exclusively for Yahweh. The wall he built seems too short to be defensive ... it's nothing like the Great Wall of China, for example, that stretches for tens of miles and on which could walk sentries. That wall must have provided some protection, however, as Solomon was a wise man, and presumably a wise builder. If I had "a bit" of disposable income, I'd build a cottage for myself -- small and next to a creek -- and then build two more cottages deep in the woods in which Christians could come to relax, mend, heal or hide as needed. These two cabins would be stocked with many shelves of books, some fishing gear and a few cords of wood for a wood stove. Simple but lovely. Back to Solomon ... he didn't use his wealth to serve his people, other than to build fortified cities. He could have, like Joseph, erected huge granaries for times of famine, or dug more water wells, etc. Instead, Solomon seemed most interested in defensive building. Perhaps this makes sense given his time/place, but I wish he had done more to help ordinary people live extraordinary lives. This would have served them -- " ... what you do for the least of these, you do for (Yahweh)."

At Solomon's finest, he loved God and sought to obey Him. This is no different than the relationship with God that all believers in the NT are supposed to have -- We, though, are going to love—love and be loved. First we were loved, now we love. He loved us first. God must have loved Solomon first. Solomon reciprocated. Yet, in spite of the love between them, Solomon was a womanizer. In a way, his womanizing is disloyalty to God and the love God had for him. If Solomon in all his wisdom was unable to keep his love pure, how can we have hope to be pure? He was given great wisdom so must have known the consequences of his poor behavior, and yet did it anyway ... wisdom crashed on the shoals of desire. He was greatly self-controlled in all other areas but this. The good news is that in spite of his sin, God loved him. The bad news is that in spite of his great wisdom, Solomon still sinned and the consequences of his sin impacted future generations.

The four attitudes/behaviors for which Daniel prayed seem to be preconditions for revival. In this case, revival is national -- it is the restoration of spiritual life in Israel. This isn't a formula though it is treated as such by most of the preaching I've heard on these verses. To me, this seems like a complicated "if-then" statement: IF you do "A", and you do "B", and you do "C," THEN God will do "D". In this case, IF (one or more people ) ... A -- humble themselves B -- pray C -- earnestly seek God D -- repent ... THEN God will send revival and restore the land. -- Is this applicable today? I note that Daniel prayed alone. He didn't drag others into his prayer to get a quorum, or even reach the "two or more ..." of the NT. Only one guy prayed for revival. Just one. Perhaps that's all it takes for God to revive a nation. Having said this it's clear that for years Westerners have been praying for revival at the same time that secularism became further entrenched. Were their prayers not sincere enough ... not heart-felt enough? Why didn't God answer these prayers? I can't resolve why some prayers are answered and others are not: Why are some Christians healed while others die in pain?; Why are some soldiers miraculously delivered while others are slaughtered?; Why do some countries experience revival while others slip into apostasy and decline? I know that God answers all prayers and that "NO" can be an answer. But these verses suggest that God will NOT answer "No." It's a promise, in other word, with conditions. If we meet the conditions, He is "obligated" to fulfill his side of the if-then statement. But our ability to rise to meet the preconditions seem impossible. Are we ever humble enough, for example, to meet condition "A"? If a little anger and pride slip into our prayers, are those prayers negated? Can we ever reach the mark?? At times, I see myself as a leaf floating down a river, carried by a current I can't see or control. My prayers express my desire to guide this floating journey. I can only trust that God will not allow me to sink to the bottom of the river (where many leaves have disintegrated) or be pushed aside to the shoreline. I'm not sure my prayers have much effect ... but am afraid to say this because I don't want to anger God or jettison any prayers that may actually change history or even my life in some tiny way.

Whenever there are conditions or qualifications to a promise, I get worried. Will I be "good" enough? Will I be able to meet the conditions adequately? God knows that all of us are made of sinful stuff -- imperfection -- and yet he wants a WHOLE heart. Is my heart whole enough? Solomon didn't make the cut. His heart was divided ... un-whole. But this begs the question, Who among us are whole enough for God??? Since these promises were made prior to Christ, God must have had some way of deciding our wholeness before HIm. After Christ, there is a similar demand. We are to be like Him. Impossible. Yet, in the Bible, forgiveness is juxtaposed with demands for perfection. They exist side-by-side. I know we're all forgiven and have eternal life, but IN THIS LIFE does our sin negate conditional promises? God called Solomon to an impossible standard. I'm not surprised he failed. To have integrity of heart, uprightness and utter obedience is ... impossible. That's the lifestyle Solomon was supposed to have. Of course, his womanizing negated this ... -- As a believer, I don't doubt my salvation. I do doubt, however, the promises in the Bible that are conditioned on my behavior and thoughts. I worry they're not for me. (Or you!) I want to believe in verses that seem like promises, particularly in the OT, but know they are often conditioned on a standard I cannot meet.

The cloud represents His glory which may be the same as His spirit, though somehow more present to our senses than His invisible spirit. I don't know why His glory isn't called Spirit, however. When Moses saw God, he glowed afterward -- something physically changed in the way He looked. When Elijah saw His glory he wrapped His cloak over His face and backed into a cave, but he still was able to see God's glory. So God's glory must be a presentation of the Spirit that is more greater in measure or powerful to human senses than His typical "still small voice." (I just re-read the Elijah passage and the word "glory" isn't used in my translation). God sends His fire as a scary, awe-inspiring sign that He is present and powerful; also, it a sign of confirming a promise or covenant. Recently, I was with a group of charismatic Christians who were deep in prayer when one of them said she saw God's glory. I saw nothing. Perhaps God does allow contemporary people to see His glory as did with Moses or Solomon, but, frankly, I was suspicious that this woman was emotionally overwhelmed. The need for a confirming and dramatic spiritual experiences is strong in some people, so much so that such a need manifests itself as an experience. In other words, she imagined it. I believe that God could manifest Himself as "glory" and am not ruling out the possibility that He does so, but, so far, have not seen it myself. -- Clearly the "glory" comes to those who are particularly scrupulous morally, obedient to what they know is His will and observant at all times. Such integrity is non-existent in fallen humanity, so how could God make this a precondition for seeing His glory? Who of us have "integrity of heart", "uprightness," and are obedient in all things? When God makes His words/blessings contingent on our behavior, I, for one, am worried I don't make the cut. Yet God let these people -- sinful people who did not merit the descriptor "upright" -- see His glory. This is amazing. Were they good enough? No. Yet they saw His glory anyway. We often say God knows our hearts" in times like this, which seems to be a phrase signifying His forgiveness. -- I do not know how to trigger a vision of God's glory or how to "take time" to apprehend it. His glory seems too great for me to ask for ... so I don't.

A tension exists between the idea that God is omnipresent and the idea that He presents Himself “more” in a particular place. Yes, God is everywhere, but many Christians believe there are places where God is “concentrated” and those where He spreads Himself thinly. This seems rather silly to me, but I think most people – including myself, at times – feel God’s presence more intensely in certain places. So often Christians pray for God to come into themselves, or into a place, as if He was not there before: “Come, Holy Spirit, come!” Yet, He’s already there. I think we know He’s there, but just can’t intuit His presence. There's some sort of blockage. We then, ask to be more aware of His presence, for Him to “come.” Like the dark cloud surrounding the box, there are places where He seems most available to us, but that’s not because He wasn’t always there – we were unaware or blinded to His presence. The problem was in us. Of course, Jesus Himself is the epitome of God’s presence, the actual, physical entrance of God in human history and physical place. It could be the case that as Christians mature spiritually they become more sensitive to the “fact” that the Spirit is in all places at all times, that God never “leaves” or “comes” but just “is.” For these people, a religious building or ritual is unnecessary. Most believers, however, haven’t reached the point in their spiritual walk where they see God manifest in all things. Thus it is helpful to have the beauty of cathedrals to “pique” knowledge of both His transcendence and immanence, sacred ceremonies such as the eucharist to recall His sacrifice and even little shrines in nature to remind us that all things were created by Him. Note that Jesus was baptized, not because He needed it, but to “fulfill the prophecies.” It’s almost as if Jesus rotely went through religious rituals in religious places even thought his heart was most fixed on God while he prayed in solitude on mountains and deserts in the early hours. So, it’s not wrong to go into a church to pray any more than it is wrong to pray at a traffic signal when driving. If a church seems peaceful or somehow enables deep and sincere prayer, then it’s a wonderful place to pray, but if being alone, at home, in a comfortable chair looking out a window is the place where deep prayers are more likely to take place, then that is the place to be! A church building is not magical. There are no holy places on earth. God is everywhere as are His angelic beings and heavenly order. Any problem with accessing God is within us. Thus, we need, at times, the crutch of a holy place, the idea that we can meet God more “here” than “there.”

Sometimes worship is spontaneous and easy. At other time, however, worship seems forced and contrived. I suppose the idea of worship-as-sacrifice refers to the times when the heart is heavy, suffering is intense and God seems distant. At those times, it is costly to worship. It's a sacrifice, that is. Very recently, I was so angry with God that I stood with my arms crossed over my chest, tears streaming down my face … feeling so betrayed by God that I could not worship. And yet, I stood there. In obedience. Trying to see good in a very evil circumstance. That’s a sort of sacrifice. In retrospect, though I was seething inside, I think God understood my anger toward Him, and in an odd way, I believe He counted it as a true sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to love God when all is well – that’s just a natural, human response. It’s easy to love God when He graciously blesses me. It’s when God allows circumstances to go dark and become oppressive, times when I beg God to take my life because existence itself seems futile, that my half-hearted prayers, attendance at church, devotional readings and the study of scripture rise to the level of sacrifice. A sacrifice both costs me as well as demands my obedience. It isn’t just doing something I know I should do which takes time, money and energy – a ritual, for example – but actually inflicts pain on my soul. It hurts. It’s easy to superficially love others but a sacrifice to really mean it. It’s easy to say to myself that I’ve been surrendered, but a sacrifice to give up something I deeply desire or crave. It's easy to tithe when the money flows but a sacrifice when I’m not certain I can cover my expenses that month. To witness to a stranger is much less of a sacrifice than to witness to my atheistic son and daughter who consequently reject me. To praise when nothing is going well in life is far more of a sacrifice than to praise when life seems to be going my way. Even to pray … to utter words to a distant or cruel God, is a sacrifice when praying effusively out of happy-making events is easy. To sum: A sacrifice has to be difficult. Emotionally and otherwise. It has to be done out of begrudging obedience. It has to be personally costly. Yes, we praise and express gratitude and love for God when we are happy, feeling satisfied, know God’s presence and hear His voice clearly. These are wonderful times. Our words at these times please God, but ... they are not sacrifices.

Today, many Christians want to incorporate Jewish rituals and the calendar as the basis of their contemporary Christian worship, and frankly, I've not understood their motives or logic for celebrating, say, harvest sacrifices. What's happening now on the cutting edge of Christianity, at least in the US, is very similar to how the Puritans fetishized the rituals of the Old Testament. Puritans imagined themselves as God's chosen who had been called to populate the land that was given to them... the "errand into the wilderness." THey adopted many Jewish ceremonies and even gave themselves OT names. THey dressed oddly, had long beards and incorporated aspects of the Hebrew calendar. This is happening again. NOte that today's Christians who adopt Jewish ceremonies are not Messianic Jews, that is, Jews converted to Christianity who would be expected syncretize some of their old patterns of worship and belief to their new faith in Christ. They're "gentiles" without any Jewish connections. But the question Pastor Ralph posed goes beyond worship/calendar/dress/food to the bigger question of how the OT and the gospel relate ... this is too much for me to answer. I can only say that the sacrifices and annual calendar of the temple era suggest that God is very particular about how we think of Him: He had wanted order, regularity and exacting obedience to the law. Pehraps these contemporary Christians are trying to achieve a similar exactness in worship that they believe God demands? It could be the case that because God's nature does not change, He still wants us to come to Him in a patterned, exacting and ritualized manner. This poses theological issues. Jesus' death on the cross ended all ritual and sacrifices. HE was the final sacrifice. No further rituals were needed and the old calendar ceased to matter as it was integral to ways of forgiveness/worship that no longer applied. Christians have to tie together, somehow, the Old and New Testaments, while at the same time keeping is a red line drawn at the moment of the resurrection. That line demarcates the former from the Christian, the old and new -- that red line separates a system of rules and sacrifices from the supreme sacrifice in Christ that supersedes everything before it.

I find European cathedrals captivating. I have felt His presence when entering a building that soars high into the sky, as my footsteps echo in the empty space between the pews and the ceiling, and my eyes adjust to twilight-like light filtered through stained glass windows. It’s difficult not to imagine the generations of craftsmen who made these beautiful buildings … the masons, carvers, glass-makers, etc. They stand as a testimony to the values of eras past, to the mysteriousness of the gospel, the inaccessibility of God. They also represent a time when people stayed in one place, had a longer sense of history stretching back and forward in time, and were confident that their contribution to a collective building project was both blessed by God and socially significant. And that’s sorta the problem. We’ve changed. Today, these buildings are empty, or mostly empty, with gawking tourists and only a few worshippers. They point to the past, not the future. They recall a European civilization that was, not is, and, sadly, too, a faith that was, but is no more. Cathedrals feel more like museums than places of worship; though I want to worship God there, I can’t quite settle down enough to focus on Him. So, I really don’t know how buildings relate to the central missions of the church – evangelism, worship, fellowship, etc. Perhaps, again, there will be a time when communities come together in fellowship to create beautiful buildings in which to worship. These would be buildings worthy of God’s presence. Buildings that represent the best craftmanship that ordinary mortals can make. Buildings that are like offerings of time, effort and perhaps even lives spent creating an object that glorifies God. I lived in Paris for three months last year, about a mile from an old cathedral that was being renovated. Almost all Parisian cathedrals are in various states of disrepair. This particular church had a huge hole in the ceiling through which decades of water had dripped. Apparently, it had never been repaired. So few Parisians are Christians, now, that cathedrals aren’t supported by parishes. There aren’t enough wealthy Christians to pay to repair their own churches! Thus, the government subsidizes their repair, not because the government gives a rip about faith or God, but to increase tourism. I know this may sound weird, but I feel a heaviness in many cathedrals, a sense of death, not life … of god-denying not God-upholding. I think this is because the repairs are not being done by the faithful, but by the faithless. This may not show, but it “feels.” This aesthetic malaise, a sense that Christians can no longer create with the Spirit’s inspiration and help is pervasive in contemporary churches. We don’t come together to create over a span of generations. Most of our architecture is local and dull, cookie cutter churches lacking the feeling of mystery which old cathedrals had in spades. Churches don’t look any different than government buildings, for example. Or, schools. Or storefronts. They’re utilitarian not transcendent. Ugly, even. Pastor Ralph’s question juxtaposes our time/money/creativity going to missions vs. that going into building projects. Yes, there’s a zero-sum quality to our time and money, that what we give here we take from there, but … I don’t know … maybe, just maybe, we can make our churches stand out a bit as places of mystery, beauty, transcendence, color, craftmanship and the giving of our best? For Him? I come from an “ancient” puritan background that values plain interiors and simple buildings. Admittedly, I find it easiest to worship God in an atmosphere of silence and with my eyes shut. But I do feel that something is missing in my spiritual life, that sense of wonder and awe, beauty and transcendence, pride in what human hands have wrought motivated by a love of God in community.

This question hits a sore spot in my soul -- I have been confused about natural/spiritual gifting for many years. The basic idea of spiritual gifts seems to be that we’re given something “special” by God which is distinctly spiritual. It’s a gift. Something we didn’t have before. These gifts go beyond natural or ordinary talents and seem to enable us to do things we could not have done (or be someone we could not have been) without a special infusion and rewiring by the Holy Spirit. Without this infusion of the Spirit, we would not be able to perform or act out these gifts. Thus, they are distinctly spiritual gifts, not natural ones. I’m confused because overlap exists between natural and spiritual gifts, so that the boundaries of gifts from God are unclear. I’m not sure what is a beyond-reason-and ability gift from God, and what is a gift that God gave everyone at creation, including unbelievers. Let say you were a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, talented in administration and a natural leader. Lets also say that you were an atheist. Can an atheist have the gift of administration? What is the difference, then, between a Christian with the gift of administration who runs, say, General Electric and an atheist who runs it? Shouldn’t a spiritual gift in administration express itself differently? I would hope so. Furthermore, how could that CEO of General Electric be certain that his/her gift is of the Spirit? And should that CEO assume that his spiritual gift would be the same as his natural gift? Maybe he’s just so good at administration that he’s acting wholly out of the “natural.” There are, after all, many CEOs who are incredibly gifted as administrators who have no faith at all. Most, in fact. If natural gifting is a sign of spiritual gifting, then whatever we’re good at in the flesh points to how God uses us in the kingdom. But how would we know if this ability was either developed through hard work and genetic advantages or from the Spirit working in us? How would we know if we were just pushing our own talents and abilities to their limit, or if the Spirit was supernaturally gifting us? Lets say you were amazingly good at making money. Lets also say that though everything you touched seemed to turn into gold, in the depth of your heart you felt God leading you to the mission field. Do you obey what you think is the call of God, to be a mediocre evangelist? Or, do you stick with what you do well and make money to give to missionaries rather than become one? (I knew someone in this position). Furthermore, to reverse the logic, if you had NO ability whatsoever in building homes, for example, but there was a real need for housing in your neighborhood, should you start from scratch and learn building techniques and tricks? Does need determine calling? Does God supernaturally equip you with gifts you don’t naturally have to meet a need? When your gifting is clearly supernatural, it’s easier to identify it as a gifting. If you have no medical training yet God gives you the gift of healing, then clearly this is a spiritual gift. No other explanations suffice. But if your spiritual gift aligns with your natural gift, you can never be sure if you acting out of your spiritual gift, or not. That’s the rub. There must be a difference between natural and spiritual gifting or the abilities/works of secular people would be no different than that of ourselves. I think this is why Christians tend to dramatize their gifts – they’re unsure if it is spiritual or natural, and intuitively desire some sort of confirmation. The preacher who seems to lose himself in his message, who acts in ways beyond normal everyday behavior by swining his hands around, speaking loudly, handling snakes … whatever, could be trying to confirm his gift, if only to himself. He acts super-naturally because such supernatural behaviors suggest supernatural gifting. And then there are those who are definitely not acting out of natural gifts. Elijah was a weird man. He looked and acted strangely. He confronted kings rudely. Didn’t bathe. Ate stuff birds brought to him. He was nowhere near the norm! So, it makes sense that Elijah and not the-joe-next-door would put his head between his knees and beg God to send rain. Maybe that in itself is not a gifting, but Elijah was described as a prophet. The fact that he knew God would send fire or rain … isn’t that prophetic gifting? Miracles confirm spiritual gifting. When Moses threw down his staff and it turned into snakes, this was clearly a miracle. Something beyond the natural. But have you noticed that when someone is miraculously healed Christians immediately try to validate that healing by having that person medically examined? When a physician says he has no explanation for someone’s healing, we breathe a sigh of relief as we declare it to be a miracle. It’s almost like the absence of a natural explanation confirms the supernatural source of gifting. More to the point, a miracle also confirms the spiritual gift of the person God has called to heal. I’m sorry for rambling like this. It’s just that I want clarity. I want to know that whatever I am doing is of me or of Him, a clear demarcating line: this is of me; this is of God. I want spiritual gifts to be truly spiritual, not an exaggeration of natural gifts, or worse yet, self-delusion. Since some spiritual gifts seem to be clearly of God, other spiritual gifts have a dubious origin and can be either of God or of the flesh … frankly, this scares me. - If I have a certain, distinctive spiritual gift, it would probably be the gift of discernment, though I am often wrong and am probably wrong even about this! I’m good at discerning large social movements and changes, geopolitical currents … that sorta thing. When something I write in my daily journal in 2022 is spot on in 2024, it’s a bit eerie. My track record is far better than most pundits and commentators. But is this a spiritual gift? Is it merely something I know because I’m fascinated by world happenings and grew up in a political family, etc. Is it spiritual or natural? I don’t know. No miracle has confirmed this gift, if it is a gift. Nothing sparkles. I hear no voices. See no angels.

I tend to skip over the proverbs which is one of the reasons why corrective learning about Solomon is important. The proverbs seem a bit like folk wisdom -- it is difficult to know what to do with them. Often, a proverb stands alone as an isolated sentence without context or development. In a way, the proverbs contradict how we've been taught to think in the West, that we are to dig, dig, dig downward to get to the pithy core of a statement, and then rebuild it in its historical and cultural context. Down than up. But a proverb seems to be the core meaning of a wise statement, (as far down as one can go) without the secondary development (the upward rebuilding). So, I'm not sure what to do with a proverb. Take it as it appears? If so, how? "Trust in the Lord and lean not on your own understanding." Hah! That's a proverb I often tell myself. It tells me to stop the process of understanding and just take God's teachings "as is", but ... in practice, what does this mean? God doesn't want us to turn off our minds but rather He is telling us to not lean on our minds, to not overemphasize thinking and reasoning. I take this to mean that when the limit of thinking has been reached, I am to stop scrubbing at the problem and just trust God to give understanding. His understanding. Easier said than done. So much in the Bible is difficult to understand. I reach my limit of understand both often and early and have to rely on God to help me stop worrying about being so dumb and ignorant. Important concepts such as the resurrection or the humanity of God in Jesus ... floor me. I simply don't understand them deeply enough so that this knowledge can be "applied." -- i wonder if God looks at us as I look at my dog. Right now, my dog is barking at something he sees outside the window. Probably another dog. I tried to reason with him, "What does this do for you ..." but he didn't listen. So, I said, "Good Dog No Bark." He understood this but the temptation to bark was too overwhelming so he didn't care. Solomon tries to tell us what to do/not do by reducing His directives down to pithy statements, "Bad Woman Think Too Much." I understand this, and truly care, but, well, am still barking ...

In the recent past, the poor, aliens and orphans were shoved aside by the court system, unable to defend themselves against other citizens or from the government itself because the system was rigged against them. Today, courts are corrupted and politicized in a different way with different victims. For example, "lawfare" harms a political opponent by using the court system to destroy his reputation, bankrupt and silence him. Today's courts are above the law. They create, not interpret, laws and use these newly created or fantastical re-interpretations of existing laws to destroy political opponents or people they don't like. Once targeted, a citizen's life will never be the same. He or she will never feel safe and will constantly worry about the next trumped up accusation their political enemies will make. Today's legal system uses the laws as a weapon to coerce submission and silence. Ray Donovan (who had some sort of job under Reagan, I believe) after finally being acquitted (as well as bankrupted), famously quipped, "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?" He had been ruined by the courts. Unjustly. His acquittal didn't help him because his entire life, career, family and health had been devastated by weaponized courts. There are tens of thousands of people who have had experiences like Ray Donovan's ... harmed and destroyed by the government's judicial system. Today's court perverters of justice intellectualize the problem by pretending that justice is an airy-fairy concept that no longer exists -- "whose justice ... which rationality" -- but the rest of us know that justice remains an understandable concept. Corrupt judges are part of a corrupt system. That system seeks to harm individuals who critique or oppose it. Americans can no longer safely voice contrary opinions or challenge the government -- free speech has been gutted. For this reason, Solomon's wise sayings don't fit today's circumstances. In fact, Solomon's situation has been turned on it's head! The poor, disadvantaged and aliens are actually protected and acquitted by the courts even when guilty, while Christians, the innocent and reformers are persecuted relentlessly even though innocent. There is a positive bias toward criminals and Leftists in today's courts -- witness the lax punishment of those who steal, destroy property or are a public menace in San Fransisco and Portland, for example. The court is part of the insider's club which excludes true Christians -- governmental elitists are a law unto themselves. Social justice only will be manifested when governmental insiders are unable to change the laws to benefit themselves or to consider themselves above the law. Personally, I no longer think it is possible for Christians to work within the system to reform the system. Governmental corruption is too endemic and pervasive to be changed with the typical remedies of voting and activism.