If she is a wall, we will build towers of silver on her. If she is a door, we will enclose her with panels of cedar. – Song of Songs 8:9

Today's Scripture Reading (January 23, 2026): Song of Songs 8

I had several nicknames as a kid. Some were based on my name; I was often called "Watermullen," and one family friend called me "Garrybaldi." I hoped that the latter wasn't a comment on my future hairline, and so far, it hasn't been. Some nicknames were based on my age. For a while, I was just referred to as "kid." Some were based on my physical features, such as nicknames like "The Incredible Bulk," and one that connects more closely to this verse in Song of Songs: "The Brick Wall." This last nickname was based on the idea that, in several games, it was difficult to get anything past me. I remember several times when I was playing floor hockey, which can be a very physical game, at least the way I play it, opposing players would sometimes run into me and subsequently bounce off of me and land on the floor.

The idea of hitting an object and bouncing off of it is a feature of a well-built wall. I was the Youth Pastor at a church with a lower level featuring a central hallway that formed a square. And kids being kids, there was more than one time when the guys, it was almost always guys, would get into a chase around the square. Often, especially in winter, the guys were wearing only socks, which meant they would race down one straight hallway, then negotiate a 90-degree turn to race down another straight hallway. Often, one of the guys couldn't make the turn and ended up crashing into the wall. And a few times, the crash would put a hole in the wall, usually in the shape of a teenage head, which exasperated the building maintenance people. At other times, it was the kid who took the brunt of the damage. But there were no instances in which the collision caused the wall to fall. In every instance, the wall was the ultimate victor.

The friends suggest two possible outcomes: either the bride was a wall or a door. If she were a wall, if she were strong and stable and unable to be moved, then she would be adorned with silver. However, if she was easily moved or in the language of her friends, a door that could be easily opened or swayed, then precautions would have to be made to secure access to her. Theologian S. Craig Glickman phrases it this way: "If she could handle responsibility, they would give it to her; if not, she would be restricted" (S. Craig Glickman, "Solomon's Song of Love.)

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: 1 Kings 10

 

Your breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle. – Song of Songs 7:3

Today's Scripture Reading (January 22, 2026): Song of Songs 7

In an episode of M.A.S.H., Father Mulcahey walks into the recovery ward of the hospital to find a patient reading the Bible. "Ah, spending some time in the Good Book," the priest remarks upon seeing the patient with the Bible in his hands. The patient responded by looking back at the priest, sheepishly.

The M.A.S.H. priest continued, "No need to be embarrassed. When I'm feeling low, I like to spend time reading the Bible. So, what are you reading?" He looks over to see what the patient is reading and recognizes that it is the Song of Songs. "Oh, yes, well, the Song of Solomon, maybe in your condition you should read something a little less … stimulating."

Mulcahey effectively captures the church's attitude toward the Song of Songs. Many people become very uncomfortable when confronted with Solomon's love song. We don't know how to read it. And when we try to interpret it as a love song that sums up God's love for us, it only makes us even more uncomfortable. Is it possible that this is the way that God feels toward us? 

We are more comfortable with the metaphor of God as the Potter and us as the clay. That expression we turn into songs and sing about; at times, this is the relationship we need with God. There are times when we come into the presence of God as broken people and need the shaping power of God in our lives.

The Bible also talks of God being the Good Shepherd, with us as His sheep. There is a significant difference between clay and sheep. I know how much I need God's guiding touch in my life, but I also have to admit that sheep don't exactly have a reputation as the most graceful and intelligent creatures in the world.

We are also called His children, and He is our Heavenly Father. If God truly wants an intimate relationship with us, this is where that relationship finally becomes possible. We aren't just servants, or sheep, or lumps of clay to be molded, but we are the children of the King. This parent-child relationship is likely where we feel most comfortable. Children of the King seems to be a good place to be.

The analogies continue. The Bible says that God calls us "friends." There is an added intimacy between friends that doesn't exist between a five-year-old and his parents. God calling us a friend implies that God sees something in us. Too often, we refuse to see that side of the equation. The God of creation sees something of enough value in me to call me a friend. 

But it doesn't stop even there. The level of intimacy God desires goes even beyond being a friend. He calls us "lovers." Paul writes, "' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church" (Ephesians 5:31-32). God speaks to Isaiah, saying, "As a young man marries a young woman, so will your Builder marry you; as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you" (Isaiah 62:5).

The words of the Song of Songs might be more explicit, but they reflect a similar intimacy as to what both Paul and Isaiah are trying to describe to us. They are the words of one who loves every aspect of the object of his attention, much as a groom might describe his new bride.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Song of Songs 8

You are as beautiful as Tirzah, my darling, as lovely as Jerusalem, as majestic as troops with banners. – Song of Songs 6:4

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 21, 2026): Song of Songs 6

Capital cities vary in size and shape. Some are old and antiquated; others are newer and often the result of significant planning. Some Capitals are beautiful, others are ugly, and frequently the ugliness is a direct result of war and crime. When Donald Trump ordered troops into Washington, D.C. in 2025, the President seemed to indicate that his concern was that the American Capital had become ugly because of the high crime rate in the city. Historically, he was probably right. Washington, D.C., had become a dangerous city. But at the time of President Trump’s order, crime in the city had hit a 30-year low. Still, an argument can be made that crime in a city, especially a capital city, can never be too low.

I recently read an article that listed the ugliest capital cities in the world. This list of the ugly included Damascus, Syria, primarily due to the devastating effects of a civil war. It also listed Lagos, Nigeria, because of high crime rates, a lack of adequate infrastructure, and overcrowding, as well as Tripoli, Libya, because of political instability. Recent events might require us to add Caracas, Venezuela, to this list. Caracas is plagued by crime, hyperinflation, and economic instability, all of which diminish the city's appeal.

On the other side of this coin are the beautiful capitals of the world: cities such as Paris, France; Rome, Italy; and Islamabad, Pakistan. Maybe that last city is a bit of a surprise to those of us living in the West. However, Islamabad is known for its natural beauty. The city is nestled in the Margalla Hills and is recognized for its lush greenery and modern architecture.

There are many questions surrounding the Song of Songs, including who really wrote it. Solomon is the traditional author, and it is possible that the last King of the United Kingdom of Israel wrote it. We sometimes like to think that this King wrote it to Abishag, the beautiful woman who appears to have been used as a pawn for a significant portion of her early life, including being chosen to warm King David’s bed during the last days of his life. But it is equally possible that it was written by someone else.

If King Solomon wrote it, one problematic passage is this one, in which the author compares his bride to the beauty of Tirzah and Jerusalem. Both cities are capitals, and both are considered very beautiful by the author. The problem is that Tirzah might have been a lovely city; the name of the city itself means “delight” or “pleasantness.” However, if the Song of Songs was written by Solomon somewhere around 950 B.C.E., Tirzah wasn’t a capital city; therefore, it was not a city on par with Jerusalem. Tirzah didn’t become the Capital of the Kingdom of Israel and the counterpart of Jerusalem until after the death of Solomon in 931 B.C.E. It remained the Capital city of the Northern Kingdom until Omri burnt Tirzah when he took control of the Kingdom in 886 B.C.E. At that time, Omri moved the Capital of the Northern Kingdom to Samaria. This comment about Tirzah would seem to indicate that the Song of Songs was written between 930 and 886 B.C.E.

However, whoever wrote Song of Songs compares his bride to the most beautiful cities that he could imagine: Jerusalem, the Capital of Judah, and Tirzah, the Capital of Israel.   

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Song of Songs 7

I opened for my beloved, but my beloved had left; he was gone. My heart sank at his departure. I looked for him but did not find him. I called him but he did not answer. – Song of Songs 5:6

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 20, 2026): Song of Songs 5

Most couples have stories of times when there was a miscommunication. Maybe how we react to those moments is the real story of our relationships. My wife and I have had a few humorous moments, although they were probably not so funny at the time.

One such moment came early in our relationship. During our college years, we both lived in the dormitory with many other students. We hadn’t been dating for long when, one evening, a few of the guys came up to me to warn me that someone was making a move on my girlfriend. According to my “friends,” someone had decided that she was the one for him and, at this very moment, was proposing marriage. I have no idea if he was. Over the years, I have teased my wife about this moment, but we have never really discussed it.

As I mentioned, the event took place relatively early in our relationship, and I wasn’t sure what any of my “spies” expected me to do about the situation. I hung around some of the public areas I knew she frequented. Later that evening, we saw each other, and as I remember it, neither of us made a big deal of what had just happened. However, it is entirely possible that our relationship would have progressed differently if I had responded differently.

There is so much that could be said about this passage in Song of Songs. Experts make the most out of a possible “double entendre” throughout this group of verses and throughout the whole book. However, regardless of the meaning we find in this passage, it appears that the bride is hesitant about what comes next. There are excuses offered, but none of them change the reality that by the time the bride is ready to welcome her beloved, her beloved is no longer ready for her.

The groom could have been frustrated over his beloved’s hesitancy to welcome him. He could have stomped off angrily, but there is no evidence in this passage that he reacts in this manner. Instead, he patiently waits for his bride to welcome him. He leaves to give her the space she requires in this moment, rather than demand or force what it is that he wants. For a King in antiquity, it is an unusual response, but one from which we can all learn.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Song of Songs 6

You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride; you have stolen my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace. – Song of Songs 4:9

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 19, 2026): Song of Songs 4

They are called “Consanguinity Laws,” the regulations that govern how close a relative you are allowed to marry. Most societies and cultures have either laws or taboos about marrying a close relative. And with good reason. The problem is that marrying someone with a very similar gene pool can have adverse effects on health. Recessive traits are more likely to become dominant in a child whose parents share similar genetic backgrounds. Couples who are related to each other are recommended to have genetic counselling to explore some of the problems that such a union might produce.

As a result, many cultures have incorporated regulations concerning such marriages into their laws. In the United States, it is the individual States that enact these laws. As a result, they vary from state to state. Marrying close relatives, such as siblings, parents, or children, is widely prohibited. The variance arises with the union of first cousins. In some states, such as California or New York, marrying a first cousin is legal, while in states like Virginia and Tennessee, such unions are prohibited. In Canada, marriage between first cousins is legal, although it is not generally culturally accepted.

I have mentioned elsewhere in this blog that there has been some inbreeding in my family. My paternal grandparents shared the same surname. When they married, my grandmother’s maiden name did not change. She was Fanny Mullen all of her life and didn’t have to change her last name when she married my grandfather. They were eighth cousins, a relationship distance commonly declared acceptable by law, but some in the family disagreed on cultural grounds. Culturally, some people believed that even eighth cousins were too close to permit marriage. My grandparents paid no heed to those complaints.

But the cultural aversion is so great that it often intrudes into relationships between unrelated people. I recall one friend remarking that his relationship with another woman had been so close since childhood that he never considered dating her. The reason? He said, “It would be like dating my sister.” Even though the woman wasn’t his sister, the taboo seemed to be still in place.

It hasn’t always been that way. And so, Solomon writes, “You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride.” The words are probably enough to produce a collective “Eww” from most siblings. But in Solomon’s day, it was a common description of your bride. The love a brother held for a sister was supreme. Nothing could top the dedication of a brother to his sister. Not even a wife. However, in this case, Solomon is so much in love with his bride that he argues she has become “like a sister” to him. And there is no collective “Eww” that was ever expected.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Song of Songs 5

The watchmen found me as they made their rounds in the city. “Have you seen the one my heart loves?” – Song of Songs 3:3

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 18, 2026): Song of Songs 3

I attended High School in a small town. As a result, most of us kids had a pretty good relationship with the local police officers. There were only four or five officers responsible for the area, and it seemed like they wanted to build relationships with at least some of us kids. That meant that we felt pretty comfortable being around them. I recall one incident in which a Check Stop was set up on a local bridge. Everyone coming into town had to cross the bridge; there were no other choices other than to drive at least a couple of hours out of your way so that you could approach the town from a different direction.

So, I drove up to the Check Stop. I hadn’t been drinking or doing anything illegal, just a kid trying to make his way home. The officer, whom I knew slightly, approached my window and requested my license, insurance, and registration. No other traffic was on the bridge, so it was just me and this young police officer. I retrieved my wallet, gave the officer my license, and then leaned over to open the glove compartment to get my registration and insurance. The registration was right where it was supposed to be; however, the insurance card was missing.

The police officer was not impressed and started to really press me. Did I know what the penalty was for driving without insurance? I assured him that I had insurance; I just couldn’t find my proof of insurance. I offered to bring my insurance to the police station the next day, but the officer wasn’t buying any of it. At one point, I wondered whether I would be arrested for driving without an insurance card. Again, it was a small town, and one of the local officials who was responsible for the jail was a friend (and my boss at my part-time job), and he had warned me that he didn’t ever want to be woken up to find out that I was spending the night in the local lock-up. And to this point, he never had.

Just as my fear was reaching its peak, a car pulled up behind me. The officer handed me back my license and insurance with the words, “Get lost, Garry. I have a real customer.” My “police confrontation” had a good ending. Still, maybe for a moment, I understood a little of what some minorities in several places in the world experience every time they encounter a police official. (I found my insurance card the next day. It had fallen to the floor when I pulled out the insurance. In the darkness of the night on the bridge, I couldn’t see it.)

The bride would have had a good relationship with the Watchman. But it wasn’t the watchman for whom she was searching. It was her beloved. She would ask if he had seen him, but then she would move on. I love the way Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) describes this passage.

She did not sit down, and say to any one of them, “O watchman of the night, thy company cheers me! The streets are lonely and dangerous; but if thou art near, I feel perfectly safe, and I will be content to stay awhile with thee.” Nay, but she leaves the watchmen, and still goes along the streets until she finds him whom her soul loveth (Charles Spurgeon).

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Song of Songs 4

Strengthen me with raisins, refresh me with apples, for I am faint with love. – Song of Songs 2:5

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 17, 2026): Song of Songs 2

For a while, I lived in the basement of an official who often performed marriages. While I lived in his basement, several couples chose to marry in his well backyard. That meant that I had the opportunity to play the part of the Best Man, for a price. I don’t know how many men I stood beside as the Bride and Groom took their vows and then signed the marriage license as a witness. Somewhere, there are several marriage documents containing my signature; who knows how many of those couples are still together.  

My parents have been married for sixty-six years (as of their last anniversary in June 2025). In our world, sixty-six years of marriage is a significant achievement. No marriage is easy; they all come with problems and difficulties that must be overcome. I have tried to determine how long the average marriage lasts and have found substantial contradictory evidence. But as close as I can figure out, there are two very different numbers. Including all marriages, those that end in divorce as well as those that end with the death of a spouse, the average length of these marriages is approximately 20 years, perhaps slightly shorter. The average person who makes the commitment and says “I do” in a ceremony, whether in a church, courthouse, or even in a stranger’s backyard, can expect to remain together for about 20 years.

But there is a second question. For those who marry and that marriage does not last until one spouse dies, but instead ends in divorce, how long do those marriages last? And the answer to that question is about eight years. Most marriages that end in divorce last fewer than 10 years. And there is a reason for that length of time—the brain hormone phenethylamine governs romantic love. Phenethylamine has a cycle. At the beginning of a relationship, there is a significant spike in this hormone, but like many hormones, phenethylamine has a best-before date. After about four or five years, it begins to decrease, and if the couple has not built other reasons to stay together, they often don’t. In almost all cultures, there is a sharp increase in divorce rates that begins at about four and a half years.

The bride in the story of the Song of Songs remarks that she is “faint with love.” What she is talking about is the effects of phenethylamine. She says that she wants her beloved to bring her raisins and fruit to give her strength. But the reality might be that she hopes this feeling will last for a long time, or at least long enough to build other ties with the one whom she loves.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Song of Songs 3

Tell me, you whom I love, where you graze your flock and where you rest your sheep at midday. Why should I be like a veiled woman beside the flocks of your friends? – Song of Songs 1:7

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 16, 2026): Song of Songs 1

I pumped gas at a full-service station when I was in High School. I worked a couple of nights a week and then a full shift on Saturday. I remember one Saturday, a girl I knew came to see me. I should make it clear that we were just friends, and she was a couple of years younger than I was, but looked older than her chronological age. I don’t know what she was doing in the area, but she came to the service station with her youngest sibling, a few-month-old brother entrusted to her care. She sat in a chair in the customer waiting area while I performed my duties, and we spoke as I worked. She didn’t stay long, and I don’t remember what we talked about. What I do remember about that day is one of my customers congratulating me on my strong, healthy-looking son. My friend smiled and said, “Thank you,” and the customer left. I didn’t get a chance to set the customer straight, and my friend seemed to think that the idea that her brother was our son was the most hilarious thing she had ever heard. This was the only time I remember her ever coming to see me at work. She was probably just looking for a way to pass the time.

Song of Songs is a dialogue between a bride and groom and their friends. Some of the words are spoken to each other, while other portions of this play are spoken directly to the audience or to the onlookers of this relationship. Traditionally, Solomon has been considered the groom, while the bride has remained anonymous; however, some have argued that Abishag, the woman who slept with King David to keep him warm late in his life, may be the woman in this drama.

Here, the woman asks where her beloved keeps his flocks. She identifies with Solomon not as a king but as a shepherd, the business of his grandfather. She intends to tell her beloved that who he is does not factor into her love. She would love him if he were merely someone involved in the family business.

However, she also makes it clear that she is not after any shepherd, or by extension, any King. The only one she wants is her beloved. Similarly, it is nice to believe that my friend didn’t want to talk to anybody; she came to the service station knowing that I would be there. The bride in our story refers to “the veiled women” who might approach the flocks of his friends. They were working women, prostitutes, looking to connect with anyone who had the funds to afford them. But this woman wants to be with no one but her beloved. She only wants to spend time with him, and no one else, even if she has to take care of the sheep to find that time with her beloved.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Song of Songs 2

Listen, my son! Listen, son of my womb! Listen, my son, the answer to my prayers! – Proverbs 31:2

Today's Scripture Reading (January 15, 2026): Proverbs 31

I noted in my analysis of Proverbs 31:1 that, although the text states that King Lemuel wrote this Proverb, we have no idea who King Lemuel might be. There is no King Lemuel in the traditions of either of the Kingdoms of Israel or Judah. And we have no record of a King Lemuel who was a foreign King of one of the nations with whom Israel or Judah had dealings. The identity of King Lemuel, which means "belonging to God," has been a real historical mystery. 

We have no evidence to support theories about who this King might be, but that hasn't stopped us from making a guess. Some argue that it was a pen name of King Solomon. There is a rich tradition of writers who have written under pseudonyms.  So, Michael Crichton, early in his career, wrote under the name John Lange, Eric Blair wrote under the pen name George Orwell, and Mary Ann Evans became George Eliot when she published her writings. Why would we struggle if King Solomon were identified as King Lemuel in some of his early writings?

However, another theory warrants consideration. This theory holds that King Lemuel is not Solomon's pen name but that of Solomon's mother, Bathsheba. Those who believe that a woman is uniquely unqualified to write even a chapter of the Bible will probably get mad at me, but that might also be a motive for a woman to hide her gender. That is precisely why Mary Ann Evans wrote under the male pen name of George Eliot.

However, there are good reasons to believe that this advice from King Lemuel may have originated with Bathsheba's counsel to Solomon. And one of them is present in this verse. King Lemuel makes a plea to the "son of my womb." That is not a mistranslation. The term used here literally denotes the womb, belly, or abdomen. If Lemuel really was a King as opposed to Queen Lemuel, as far as I know, men do not have wombs and have never given birth. Son of my womb seems to indicate that this advice originated as the words of a mother to her son.

It might be that this is advice that Solomon received from his mother. Possibly, this advice circulated independently until someone, likely a scribe, combined this advice of Bathsheba to her son as the concluding voice of Solomon's Proverbs. After all, much of the wisdom any of us possesses comes from Mom and Dad. We all need to thank them for the wisdom they have given to us.   

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Song of Songs 1

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. – Proverbs 30:5

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 14, 2026): Proverbs 30

Purity is an important concept. Very little of the everyday things we use is pure. The clothes that we wear, the coins that we spend, and the tools that make our life easier are all made up of composites or things that are made of different materials. And there is a reason for that. Not only are pure things more valuable, but they can also be less durable. So, if you have won a gold medal at the Olympics, you might be surprised to find out that the medal isn’t really gold. A gold medal is made up of only 6% gold. The vast majority of the medal is silver (92.5%). Silver medals are mostly silver, while bronze medals are made of 95% copper and 5% zinc. Revisiting the gold medals, one reason for the predominance of silver in the gold medal is that gold is expensive and soft. That picture of the gold medal winners biting their medals, today all medal winners tend to bite their medals, is because if it is pure gold, you will leave tooth marks in the soft medal. Mixing gold with other metals makes it much more durable.

My grandfather was a coin collector. I wish I had his collection, but I don’t. However, grandpa became disillusioned because silver was removed from some coins, such as quarters, in 1964 (in Canada, 1968). Before 1964, an American quarter was 90% silver and 10% copper, with the copper making the coin more durable. Today, an American quarter is made of 91.67% copper and 8.33% nickel. Interestingly, a nickel is composed of 75% copper and 25% nickel; the exact composition has been used since 1866. The Canadian nickel is an alloy of 94.5% steel and 3.5% copper, with only 2% of the namesake element present. The mixture of these metals makes the coins cheaper to produce and more durable.

But pure gold or silver coins are much more valuable, even though they are also more fragile. The purification process is essential because it removes impurities, leaving the pure metal. The metal is heated, and the dross is burned off, leaving only the pure metal, free of the imperfections present in its original state.

This section of Proverbs is attributed to someone named Agur, the son of Jakeh. We know very little about this man, but he describes himself as a “brute of a man” that does not “have human understanding” (Proverbs 30:2). According to Agur, there is no reason to listen to him except that he is a prophet whom God has chosen to speak through. His words may not be of value, but God’s words are essential. And what Agur is about to give his readers are the flawless words of God. A better translation is that these words are pure. Nothing is present in what Agur gives to his readers except what God has told him. Agur has not polluted these sayings with the dross that came from his mind. It is the pure word of God, and the pure word of God is essential, and it will defend the person who is willing to take these words seriously.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Proverbs 31

When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan. – Proverbs 29:2

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 13, 2026): Proverbs 29

What do we mean when we say “righteous?” I lament that the word has taken on an almost exclusively religious meaning. It denotes moral or ethical behavior and is also associated with faith. But righteousness is something that we all want because we all have a sense and a desire for what we think is right. What is right can differ across political understandings. I have always described myself as a fiscal conservative. Part of what that means to me is that I support principles like balanced budgets. We need to pay down our debt because we spend too much servicing it, including accrued interest. That is money that could be put to better use if our debt weren’t so high. Moreover, there might be a day when we need to borrow money to help with a disaster we can’t see coming, but if we have borrowed all the money we can during good times or even just okay times, it won’t be there for us when disaster strikes.

Maybe you disagree. That’s okay. Well-meaning people can have disagreements. What we think is right may differ. Perhaps that should be what we mean by the word "righteous": people who are willing to do what is right. The righteous have a sense of right and wrong and act accordingly. Perhaps it doesn’t always align with what I think is right, but righteous people consistently follow a moral code. They will not act self-servingly to gain power; they will do what they believe is right.

We can celebrate when righteous people are in authority. One reason is that we can trust that they will follow the established law because the law is a byproduct of morality in every society. Again, morality must be separated from its religious connotations. The law establishes benefits for all people. Righteous leaders won’t take shortcuts or do things that only benefit some of the people. Righteous leaders commit to leading all the people.

However, that isn’t true for the unrighteous, or what the Bible often refers to as the wicked person. They are concerned only with how an action will serve them and those like them. They will take shortcuts as long as it benefits them. The only morality these leaders follow is that which gives them an advantage over others. Eventually, such leaders cause harm to all of us, and we all suffer. As a result, under their leadership, the people groan.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Proverbs 30

A ruler who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops. – Proverbs 28:3

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 12, 2026): Proverbs 28

As 2025 drew to a close, I found myself obsessed with an old wrong. I began to think about the internment of the Japanese during World War II. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an Executive Order that would forcibly remove 120,000 Japanese from their homes on the United States coast and send them to 10 internment Camps in various Southern States. About two-thirds of the interned in the United States were citizens, which meant that they were born in the United States, because at the time, there was no path to Japanese citizenship for those who emigrated to the United States. The camps were surrounded by barbed wire and patrolled by armed guards. The internees were placed in overcrowded barracks and were forced to sell land and businesses at a loss before they were placed in the camps.

The United States was not alone. They made the move first, but five days after the internment of the Japanese began in the U.S, it started in Canada as well. Fewer Japanese were interned in Canada because the Canadian population was significantly smaller. In Canada, 22,000 Japanese Canadians were taken from their homes on the West Coast of Canada and placed in internment camps in British Columbia.

All of this happened at the stroke of a pen. There was no due process, no court cases, no defense to be mounted. Officers showed up, arrested the man of the home, and took them off to be interviewed, and most were never seen again. These decisions were not made on evidence, but on conspiracy theories. It would be like our current leaders making significant political and health decisions because of rumors and conspiracy theories rather than on the facts of the situation.

After the war, land was not returned, and internees were recommended to find homes elsewhere in the United States. In Canada, the federal government pressured internees to accept mass deportations following the end of the conflict with Japan. Those who stayed in Canada were not allowed to return to British Columbia, the westernmost province, until April 1, 1949, almost 4 years after the war.

We dwell on these stories because we mustn’t repeat these events. Never again should we arrest and intern or imprison a group of people based solely on race. Never again should we be the instruments of creating a new class of people enveloped by poverty just because of an unfounded conspiracy theory.

Proverbs warns that a ruler who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops. Crops need a gentle rain. Driving rain tends to destroy or wash away crops, leaving the farmer without the very thing he needs to survive. In the same way, a ruler who oppresses the poor courts a similar kind of destruction. And if you need an example, look at the internment of the Japanese. Ultimately, the internment of the Japanese during the 1940s meant that a reparations payment would be offered to the survivors. But it also took a group of Japanese patriots and made them enemies of the state that hadn’t existed before the internment was taken.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Proverbs 29

Perfume and incense bring joy to the heart, and the pleasantness of a friend springs from their heartfelt advice. – Proverbs 27:9

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 11, 2026): Proverbs 27

There is a paradox of friendship between what we need and what we want. Sometimes, friendship needs to present us with advice. Advice has many aspects to it. It can be “You need to adjust here.” But it can just as easily be “you are doing great, keep going.” Heartfelt advice is what it needs to be. And that is the role that friendship should play in our lives.

However, one of my hot-button issues is the echo chambers we all seem to crave. We want to surround ourselves with people who will agree with us on every point. But these people aren’t friends; they are “yes people” and “toadies.” And the truth is that we don’t need them; we need friends.

Let me share a list of names: Kenny, Tom, Scott, Danny, Allan, Tim, another Tim, Larry, Steve, Brian, Gary, and so many others. This list barely covers the first thirty years of my life. They are people whom I have called friends. And in every case, they are people with whom I have had significant disagreements. But we were friends, and we were able to get beyond the arguments.

As I look at the testimony of churches, even within my precious association, I have noticed that we seem to be unwilling to have significant disagreements. We don’t want friends; we want an echo chamber that refuses to challenge us. Instead, churches are now making demands that others act as they do. And my problem, which I wish someone would listen to, is that the demand to agree bothers me more than the hot topic on which we disagree. Friends will disagree, and there is nothing wrong with that. Christian friends disagree, even on the big-ticket items, and then are able to reach out and say, “I love you. And I am so thankful that you are in my life. And even though we don’t agree on this topic, I still see Christ in you.” Or as Paul says, “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27).

The Book of Proverbs stresses that heartfelt advice is the bedrock of friendship. Let me expand that to include the places where we disagree, because that is the strength of every real friendship. We can disagree, but know this: I love you anyway.                     

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Proverbs 28

Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them. – Proverbs 26:12

Today's Scripture Reading (January 10, 2026): Proverbs 26

C. S. Lewis wrote that "Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it is thinking of yourself less." He is right. When we are truly humble, we think more often about others than about ourselves. But there is something else we need to understand about humility. When we chase it, it disappears. The moment that we say, "Wow, what a humble person I am," we have lost all humility.

I remember a story about a reporter trying to find out how Mother Teresa felt about receiving the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize. The reporter wanted a personal reflection from this Christian Missionary to India who worked with people Jesus might have called "the least of these." But all Mother Teresa wanted to tell the reporter was about the people to whom she ministered. The difference maker in Mother Teresa's life was not some prize, even if it was the highly prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. It was the people, some of whom were the poorest of the poor, that made her life worth living. Finally, an exasperated reporter exclaimed, "But what about you? What does winning the prize mean to you?" Mother Teresa looked at the reporter and replied, "But it's not about me." It is never about me. It has to be about them." I doubt Mother Teresa would have thought of herself as a humble person, but that is the way humility works. Concentrate on it, and it will disappear. Concentrate on the needs of others, and humility reigns, although you may never know it.

Proverbs warns us that those who are wise in their own eyes are beyond hope. It is not the message that any of us wants to hear. Because most of us think we are wise. That is partly why we find humility so hard to achieve. We want to be recognized for our level of education, our experience, or even just our natural talents. We believe that we are worthy of lofty positions. However, all of these things can sometimes betray us and take away the very things we think we deserve in life.

Most real success in life comes from the question not just of how we can intersect with someone else's need, but of what we can learn from them. However, if we are wise in our own eyes, there is nothing we can learn, because we don't think learning is something we need. We already know what we need to know; as a result of that belief, no one can teach us a thing.

Going back to C. S. Lewis, the secret is not to somehow belittle your own talents, but to recognize that others have talents too. And, just maybe, we can learn from them the things that we need to know, something that those who believe that they are already wise will never be able to do.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Proverbs 27

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. – Proverbs 25:21

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 9, 2026): Proverbs 25

On September 2, 2025, the US military carried out an attack on a Venezuelan boat suspected of carrying drugs. The first US attack destroyed the ship. However, that attack left survivors who were struggling to stay alive in the ocean. It was at that point that the United States military leadership, how high this was chased up the chain of command is still an open question, did something that has been the subject of much disagreement. It ordered a second strike to kill the survivors who were left in the water. The second strike was considered problematic because it targeted vulnerable individuals who posed no harm. At the very least, they could have been picked up and questioned, an act which would have provided information that might have helped the military plan future attacks in the war on drugs.

In my view, there was much that was wrong with these attacks. The U.S. attack on Venezuela has been a one-sided affair. To my knowledge, the September 2 attack was the only attack that had left survivors. The U.S. leadership claims that these boats are carrying drugs, but because everyone is dead, that is the only information we have available. Some clearly accept the U.S. military command's explanation. Others are more skeptical. But regardless of which side you are on, one of the problems with the second attack on September 2 was that it silenced possible witnesses to the crime, whether that crime was the movement of drugs or the murder of innocent people on the boat. If the U.S. attacks are on drug boats, these witnesses might have been able to support the story of the U.S. government. However, the second strike ensured that any potential evidence was never presented to either a U.S. or an international court.

Part of the story of Solomon is that he was supposed to be the King of Peace. I don’t think that was completely possible in this era, where Kings went to war to expand their territory, something that is against international law today. But Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem because his father had too much blood on his hands, even though the Temple was the dream of David, not Solomon. So, this King of Peace instructs that we should give food to the hungry enemy and water to the thirsty enemy. We are to care even for those who oppose us. It is a revolutionary idea, and one that Jesus built on in the Sermon on the Mount. 

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that (Matthew 5:43-47).

That probably means that if your enemy is drowning, don’t send a second strike, but rather a boat to save them.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Proverbs 26

Surely you need guidance to wage war, and victory is won through many advisers. – Proverbs 24:6

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 8, 2026): Proverbs 24

Ralph Carr was the 29^th Governor of Colorado, serving from 1939 to 1943. What I know about Carr is that he was a good governor, but he was also willing to stand up for what he believed, regardless of the political fallout he might have to endure. I also know that, for a time, Governor Carr was the golden child of the Republican Party. At the time of his election in Colorado, there were rumors that he could be the Republican nominee for President. He was asked to run as the vice-presidential nominee early in his tenure as Governor of Colorado, but declined because he wanted to remain the State Governor.

Carr’s downfall came in December 1941 in the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It was a time when the seeds for Japanese internment were being planted. As most states in the United States were condemning the Japanese people living in their midst, including those of Japanese descent who had been born in the United States, Carr, in opposition to the people who had elected him, stressed that the Constitution of the United States guaranteed equality to all people, regardless of ancestry, which included the Japanese. Colorado would not persecute the Japanese people. It was a decision that would cost him any future in politics, but it was an honest reaction of a man who felt he had no choice but to follow what he believed should be done. It was a moral decision, not a political one.

I live in a democracy, which means many things, but it ultimately comes down to the idea that I have a voice. When election time comes, I try to be knowledgeable about the issues and to ensure that my vote reflects what I believe about the world as I view it through the lens of my faith. For the first couple of decades of my voting life, I voted in a consistent manner, always in the same direction. However, the last few elections have seen my voting pattern change, as I have observed shifts within the party that had traditionally received my vote and voice.

I live in a democracy. I elect people who I hope will reflect my voice. But I also hope that they are moral people who, when tragedy strikes, can make the ethical choice, even if it incurs political costs. I want a leader who will guide me toward morality, even when I selfishly would rather choose otherwise.

I live in a democracy, and the hope in a democracy is that we elect good people who will come together and make the right choice in times of distress. It doesn’t always work that way, but we hope that it does most of the time. I am a great believer that our elected representatives should be able to vote their hearts before they vote the party line. But that idea seems to be a fading reality.

I live in a democracy, and that means that the representatives that we vote into office have to vote to go to war. No single person should be able to take the nation to war. Our leaders are not Kings or princes; the people elect them, and so war is a decision of the country, not the King.

Solomon would not have known what a democracy was, but he seemed to understand that going to war could not be the decision of a single man. Even a King needed the support of many advisors if a war was to be successful. War was one situation where the King could not go it alone.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Proverbs 25

When you sit to dine with a ruler, note well what is before you. – Proverbs 23:1

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 7, 2026): Proverbs 23

During Queen Elizabeth’s reign, mealtimes were held at fixed times. Breakfast was served in her bedroom at 9:00 am. For the Queen, breakfast was cereal poured out of a Tupperware container; she was especially fond of Special K. Lunch was at 1:00 p.m., and supper was at 8:15 p.m., although that was moved to 8:30 if the Queen Mother was attending the meal; the Queen Mother, also named Elizabeth, was notoriously late for meals.

At my house, we say grace. It is probably an unusual practice for those not accustomed to that tradition, but we gather at the table and wait until the prayer is offered in thanks for the meal before we begin to eat. If you were dining with the Queen, I am not sure a prayer of thanks would be provided for the meal, but the sign that the meal could begin was when the Queen began to eat. No one started to eat before the Queen. And when the Queen returned her cutlery to the “finished position,” everyone was finished. It didn’t matter if there was still food on your plate; you did not continue to eat after the Queen had announced with her cutlery that she was done. When her cutlery was placed in the appropriate position, you followed her lead and did the same with yours. If you were going to eat with the Queen, these were the hard and fast rules. I sought to determine whether King Charles III had similar guidelines, but was unable to find anyone willing to share that information.

Proverbs says that when you sit down with a ruler, you need to understand what is being placed before you. That means understanding what is being served. This proverb was one that Daniel understood well. As the young Israelite found himself in Babylon with his friends, he looked at the meal and understood that the meat had been offered to false gods. As a result, Daniel knew that he and his friends could not eat the meal. It was the reason why Daniel, in the first chapter of the Book that bears his name, sought an alternate meal. He understood what had been placed before him.

But noting well what has been placed before you also indicates understanding the rules. You don’t want to be caught eating before the appropriate time or continuing to eat after the meal is considered to be finished. You also wanted to be on time. As far as I know, the only tardiness that was allowed at the Queen’s table was from the Queen’s mom. She might have been permitted to be late, but that forgiveness was extended only to her. For everyone else, 8:15 meant 8:15, not 8:16.

This proverb offers sound advice when we meet with rulers and when we are guests at any meal we attend.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Proverbs 24

Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all. – Proverbs 22:2

Today's Scripture Reading (January 6, 2026): Proverbs 22

The Gospel of Luke tells the story of a rich man and a poor man. The rich man lived in luxury; he owned the best clothes and ate the best food. But at the gate of his home, another man sat in poverty and discomfort. All that he possessed were the rags that barely covered his thin frame. His body was covered with sores, and he dreamed of just being able to eat the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table.

In a move that has sparked much debate, Jesus did something he rarely does in his parables. While the rich man remains anonymous, like most of the characters in Jesus's stories, the poor man is named; Jesus calls him Lazarus. Some have wondered whether Jesus's naming of this poor man meant it was not a parable but a real story. Others have openly wondered whether this was just a way for Jesus to let the audience know the importance of this poor man. I have to admit that I wonder if this story wasn't the inspiration for Charles Dickens' favorite Christmas Story: A Christmas Carol.

One day, this rich man died, and it just so happened that Lazarus died on the same day. Lazarus was transported into heaven, while the rich man was sent to Hades. And the rich man in Hades is suffering; the one who had once had all the choice food and drink that he wanted now was crying out for just a drink of water. And so, he sees Father Abraham and Lazarus in heaven, and the rich man thinks he is still at home. He calls up to heaven and asks Abraham to send Lazarus down to him with some water for the rich man to drink. Even in Hades, the rich man doesn't recognize that Lazarus is no longer the poor man who sat at his gate and would do whatever the rich man said for the promise of the crumbs that might fall from the rich man's table. Abraham explains that during his life, the rich man was comforted by all that he possessed, while Lazarus suffered. But now, it was Lazarus's turn to be comforted and the rich man's turn to suffer from a lack of things.

But then Abraham adds that there is a great gulf fixed between where the rich man was and where Lazarus is, and no one was allowed to cross this prodigious chasm. I have never admitted this before, but a friend of mine wrote a play called "A Great Gulf Fixed," and I hated it, not because it wasn't a good script, but because I found the story so depressing (Sorry, Mark). Let me say this: I don't want to get to heaven and find that any of you are stuck on the other side of the gulf. I don't want to get to heaven and find out that the neighbors of our churches, or of our homes, are on the other side of the gulf. I want to make sure that they feel loved and know that that love doesn't originate with me or us; instead, it originates from the throne of God.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus emphasizes that God does not see as we do. He doesn't evaluate us on our money, jobs, race, gender, intelligence, or knowledge. God sees none of the things that seem to grab our attention. Every time I say that I am more essential because of (fill in the blank), I am wrong.

        Rich and poor have this in common:
            The Lord is the Maker of them all.

                                                            Proverbs 22:2

And that means that he has created us in his image. And he has placed in us a kernel of something that makes us essential to the community of God. Every one of us is both critical and necessary. All of us. It can't be any other way. God is the creator of all of us, and no one can replace any of us. This importance to God is something we share, and it should bind us all together. 

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Proverbs 23

The plans of the diligent lead to profit as surely as haste leads to poverty. – Proverbs 21:5

Today’s Scripture Reading (January 5, 2026): Proverbs 21

One of the biggest secrets of the rich is that they seem to know where every penny goes. They know how much money they are bringing in and how much is going out. I often tell people, much to their disgust, that anyone can be rich. All you have to do is spend less than you make. As a result, rich people have a plan for their money. The Bible says it this way - 

Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish’ (Luke 14:28-30)

Are budgets fun? Of course not. But if you want to be wealthy, they are necessary. The path starts with a plan and some basic steps, which begin with a commitment to keep a record. If you want to be wealthy, you must know exactly what your sources of income are bringing in and what expenses are going out. Too often, when I sit with people to talk about their budget, they have no idea either what is coming in or going out. That has to be fixed.

Second, you have to be responsible. Responsible means that your budget balances. Irresponsibility places you in debt. If you want to be wealthy, you can’t spend money because you have it. Your budget reminds you of expenses coming later in the month and financial goals you want to achieve. As a result, for now, you have to say no to that thing you want today, even though, technically, you might have the money.

Third, you need to decide to be an adult. The time has finally come to discipline the four-year-old kid that we all have living inside of us.

Finally, we need to remember the theme of “On Paper, On Purpose.” This theme is huge. You need to treat your dollars like they are your employees. They do what you tell them to do. A good employer doesn’t hire an employee so they can do whatever they want. They hire them because a task needs to be completed. Most disagreements between employers and employees stem from unclear job descriptions and expectations. I have a job, and there are certain things that I am expected to do. But there are also limits. Employees can’t do everything. Your money must have a job, but it can’t do everything. But you need to tell your money what to do. Give every dollar a name, agree on it with your spouse or significant other, and tell it what you want it to do.

All because a plan leads us to profit and wealth, while being lazy with our money leads us into poverty. Outside of significant, unexpected difficulties or injuries, it is really our decision which will be the reality in our lives. And if we begin to plan our finances early enough, even the unexpected won’t be able to derail us.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Proverbs 22