Is it too much to ask?

Yesterday I observed that local churches sometimes receive members who come from outside their tradition because an individual has become disenchanted with their former congregation.  This can happen for some good reasons.  But frequently it is a form of pouting.  “I don’t have to put up with this, I’ll just leave” is not the greatest rationale for leaving one fellowship and uniting with another.

There is a kindred malady, and it is wreaking havoc in The United Methodist Church.  I am talking about the practice of wholesale receiving already-credentialed clergy from other denominations.  I want to go on record as affirming many of my sisters and brothers who, as they matured in their spirits, theology and ecclesiology turned to The United Methodist Church for the carrying out of their ministerial call.  I know a great number of clergy whose journey has carried them not away from something, but to something they valued in the UMC.

But there is another bunch.  And they are driving me crazy.  They come from denominations that will not countenance divorce among clergy for whatever reason.  The clergyperson doesn’t have to be flaming practitioner of adultery for their denomination to excuse them. They can be pillars of the community, but if their spouse leaves them for any reason at all, their denomination disqualifies them from the practice of ministry.  The UMC has no such prohibition.  Consequently, people who never change their denominational spots seek credentialing as Methodists because divorced clergy have a place in our structure. Some of these folks come in, receive church appointments, and then rail at our practices.  But we’ll give them a paycheck, and so here we are.  And they’re killing us.

These preachers have some kinfolk in a class of people who may bounce around church-to-church in their congregational denominations for years.  In such settings a local church can arbitrarily and immediately dismiss a pastor just because they do not like the cut of the preacher’s jib.  These clergy can wake up one morning not knowing if they are going to have a position by nightfall.  In The United Methodist Church, we have a practice of assuring pastors a “guaranteed appointment.”  That means that a minister in good standing will always have a place of assignment.  If a congregation becomes disenchanted with its clergy, s/he may be moved down the road, and the location might not be the most desirable in the mind of the pastor, but there is a place to go, a check to be collected and a roof over their head.  As you can imagine, that has an enormous appeal to some folks.  And, as was the case with their cousins above, once in the system they pretty much have the freedom to be as un-Methodist as they like.  And they’re killing us.

A separate but equally calamitous set of circumstances concerns the retirement arrangements for Methodist clergy.  Ministers are, for Social Security purposes, self-employed.  So, Methodist pastors pay around 13.5% of their earnings off the top to Social Security.  But they also make private contributions to a denominational retirement fund.  The local congregation where the individual ministers makes an in-kind contribution to the pension fund.  Over the course of a lifetime of pastoring the amount is not exorbitant, but it is superior to the plans in which many other denominations participate.  Especially as a clergyperson gets older, this looks pretty good.  As is the case with the aforementioned imports, once in, clergy who formerly ministered in another fellowship can practice a lot of theological – and therefore, hermeneutical – latitude.  And they’re killing us.

I may sound bitter.  That is not my aim.  But our great church is in crisis, not only in the area that the General Conference of 2019 addressed, but in almost every sphere of church theology and practice.  I don’t know how to fix it.  But I don’t think that it is too much to ask Methodist clergy to act like Methodists.

Otherwise, you have the hodge-podge that faces us now. 

And they’re killing us.

Psalm 1

Psalm 1

Happy are those

   who do not follow the advice of the wicked,

or take the path that sinners tread,

   or sit in the seat of scoffers;

but their delight is in the law of the Lord,

   and on his law they meditate day and night.

They are like trees

   planted by streams of water,

which yield their fruit in its season,

   and their leaves do not wither.

In all that they do, they prosper.

The wicked are not so,

   but are like chaff that the wind drives away.

Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgement,

   nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;

for the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,

   but the way of the wicked will perish.

The Psalter Reading for this past Sunday in the New Revised Common Lectionary (NRCL) is Psalm 1.  It is a delightful text and is worthy of our meditation. 

When I ponder this text, one of the questions I ask is, “Why is this Psalm 1?  It is not that it is unworthy of a place of prominence.  But I simply wonder, “Why this one.”  Now, I know that this text has occupied this particular position for a thousand years and more.  I have no point of contention or dispute over its right to be here.  I just wonder, “Why this one?” 

If you think of the entire body of The Psalter, you see texts that we know simply by reference.  All you have to say is “Psalm 23,” and the entirety of “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want,” floods over you in its entirety.  You might say the same thing about Psalm 51 (a Psalm of repentance) or Psalm 100 (Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth…).

One might observe that Psalm 119 is the lengthiest Psalm.  The reader might also remember that the 117^th Psalm is the briefest poem in the collection. 

We remember that Jesus quoted Psalm 22 (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?)  and Psalm 31 (Father, into your hands I commend my spirit!) from the cross.

The first text in a 150-psalm collection sets the tone for all the rest.  It cannot possible embody all of the emotions and experience of the entire Psalter.  But, it of necessity carries an appropriate tone as it introduces all that is to follow.

There is a fiction in The United Methodist Church that the Charles Wesley hymn “O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing” has been the initial hymn in all Methodist hymn-books since the beginning.  This is not true.  There have been a few – not many, but a few – Methodist song books where this song was not the first.  The most recent is The Methodist Hymnal of 1935, which had “Holy, Holy, Holy” as its first hymn-text.  This is to say that “O for a Thousand Tongues” set the tone for all that was to follow in most of the Methodist song-books throughout the church's history.  For a denomination that transmitted its theology largely through the content of its hymns, the initial hymn carries a lot of freight.

So, Psalm 1 is an admirable choice for the beginning of the Psalter.  In a simple – but never simplistic – fashion, it speaks of blessing, of communion with God, and of the reward of righteousness.  These themes and their antitheses are the subject of much that is to follow. 

Good choice!

"We've never done it that way before!"

It was on this date in 1739 that Methodist pioneer George Whitfield (1714 – 1770) preached in the open air for the first time.  After he graduated from Oxford University (where he had met and ministered with John and Charles Wesley), the Church of England did not immediately assign him to a pulpit.  So, he worked as an itinerant evangelist.  When meeting-houses were not available he decided to preach in the open air. 

Whitfield was enthusiastic and theatrical.  He had a loud, booming voice and was soon drawing extraordinary crowds of people who did not or could not attend worship in Church of England buildings.

He invited John Wesley to accompany him to a preaching event in April of that year.  Whitfield (also sometimes spelled Whitefield) wanted to return to America and continue his former evangelistic work there.  So, he desired Wesley to assume his mantle in Britain.  Wesley attended, but did not join in the leadership of, a meeting on April 1.  He saw the extraordinary response to Whitfield’s preaching, and could not deny that souls were being saved.  He wrote:

I could scarce reconcile myself at first to this strange way of preaching in the fields, of which he (Whitefield) set me an example on Sunday; having been all my life - till very lately - so tenacious of every point relating to decency and order, that I should have thought the saving of souls almost a sin, if it had not been done in a church.       –"The Journal of John Wesley,” April 1, 1739

He later recorded a fuller account of his initial experience with what he called “Field Preaching:” insisting that he only turned to the fields when the doors of the churches were closed. 

        There was no scheme at all previously formed, ... nor 

        had I any other end in view than this-to save as many 

        souls as I could. 

        –"A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion” (1745).

Whitfield’s bold activity was as responsible for the First Great Awakening in America as any other single cause (outside, of course, to the powerful movement of The Holy Spirit). “Open Air Preaching” also determined the direction of the Methodist movement for the next generation.  Field Preachers would preach to miners and other laborers on-site before they started their work day.  It was from these working-class roots that Methodism received its first energy toward popular acceptance.  Soon, every Methodist preacher and evangelist was, at least part of the time, addressing crowds out-of-doors.  Brush arbors and tents followed.  But it was a long time before dedicated Methodist “preaching houses” became part of the fledgling church’s landscape.

Let us gather at the…table

In our congregation’s weekly Bible study recently, we considered   Matthew 11:28: Come to me, all who labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.  It is a wonderful invitation, and I could spend a lot of time on it.

But what captivated my interest in that hearing was that it transported me to a time long ago.  In the church where I grew up, the first Sunday of each month was Communion Sunday.”  Our method in that observance was to follow the direction of the ushers and queue in the outside aisles between the pews and the sanctuary walls.  We would then go to the chancel rail and kneel.  There we received the little morsel of communion bread and the individual glasses of grape juice.  The pastor would usually move down the row with the tray of bread, and someone else would follow with the tray containing the cups.  When he had served everyone, the minister would give a table dismissal.  This was usually a short scripture verse and then the phrase, “Rise, and go in peace, and the peace of God go with you.”  We would all stand up and return to our seats by the center aisle.

One of the verses that our pastor would employ as a dismissal was Matthew 11:28.  Whether I was kneeling at the chancel or sitting in my seat, I sort of felt like I had completed the communion act when I heard, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.”

As time went on, I was exposed to a number of alternate approaches to serving communion.  I found many (most) churches have the worshipers approach by the center aisle and return by the side passages. 

Many congregations, particularly those that have a larger number of worshipers, will serve the elements as the people stand at the head of a line that forms at the chancel.  In this same vein there are churches that use multiple stations to serve people, usually as the recipients stand. 

Of course, there are denominations that serve the elements to people while they remain in the pews.  Ushers or deacons or people with other designations serve the trays of bread and multiple cups to worshipers at the end of each seat and then these folks pass the trays to their neighbors.

It is the fashion in recent times to receive the elements by means of intinction.  In this method the communicant receives a morsel of bread and then dips the bread into a common cup.  This allows the entire worshiping body to share in the one loaf and single cup.  It sounds terrific in theory.  In practice it can be problematic.  For one thing, there seems to be a lot of people who cannot dip the bread into the cup without also getting a bit of their hand in the liquid as well.  Or, they pinch the very end of the bread by as few grains as possible, so that when they lower the bread into the cup, only about half of their bread comes back out.  Two or three floaters can put others off their feed very quickly.  This approach is unaesthetic as well as unhygienic. 

Churches that use true wine for the sacrament avoid a lot of this, of course.  The tradition is that the church serves wine in a gold or silver chalice.  After the priest serves each person, they rotate the vessel and wipe it with a clean napkin.  Studies show that this is an essentially risk-free method of approaching communion.

There are congregations that offer any combination of element forms or options for posture to communicants.  I am not of a mind to pass any judgment on the “right” way or “wrong” way to serve communion.  But I will have to admit that for the above-mentioned reasons and others I am beginning to lose my attraction to intinction.  The commonality is a plus.  It is also among the most time-efficient methods of serving.  However, I am beginning a campaign to put this practice in my rear-view mirror, at least for a season. 

I have spent no little time considering this and I believe it is time to move on it.  I’ll let you know how it goes.

A not-so-proud moment

U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy charged that communists had infiltrated the State Department at all levels on this date in 1950. This was the beginning of "McCarthyism."

McCarthy saw communists hiding behind every rock and tree.  This was in the Cold War era when “communist” was code not only for a political system that was over against so-called “democracy.”  It was also a label that right-wingers hurled at anyone who did not agree with every aspect of their politics, religion, sociology and all other opinions. 

McCarthy targeted liberals of all kinds, gays, artists of any medium and almost anyone else to whom he could make his charges of disloyalty, subversives and even spies stick.  “McCarthyism” is a term that applies to witch hunts and hurling unsubstantiated accusations at ideological opponents.

The McCarthy Era is among the darkest days of U. S. history.  Strong-arm tactics, ignoring of due process and outright lies are the characteristics of the period.  The approach was “make your opponent appear to be evil, and the opponent’s position appears evil.”  It is a rotten way to do business and is the polar opposite of civil discourse.

The U. S. Senate censured McCarthy in 1954.  Although he stuck to his guns for the rest of his life (and remained a Senator from Wisconsin until his death in 1957), he was never a force in national politics again.

One would hope that we would learn the lesson of history.  But, in contemporary politics and in church debate I am afraid that McCarthyism lives.

The ticking of the clock is getting loud

We are less than three weeks away from the United Methodist Church’s Special Session of General Conference.  An important milestone for me is that there is one more weekend before the session convenes.  Next Sunday will be the last opportunity delegates have to assemble in their own churches.  Sometime that week the participants will make their way to St. Louis and the gavel will fall on Saturday the 29^th.

So, this coming Sunday will be (for most) the last regularly-scheduled service of worship prior to their historic meeting.  It will be the last sermon (preached or audited) before the crucial debates of the Conference.  It will probably be the last Communion for a portion of the crowd.  Sunday will be the final opportunity for encouragement.  There will be only one more gathering in a prayer circle.  Last handshakes and parting “Good lucks!” will abound.

It is coming so fast.

So, in these final days before General Conference, I entreat any who read these words to be in prayer.  No matter what your position on the issue of human sexuality, no matter which plan you support, no matter what your long-term vision for the United Methodist Church – please, pray.

There is so much violence to people and to the church that could come about.  Relationships could be fractured.  The delegates could make decisions that would take decades from which to recover.  As important as the issue before the Conference may be, I believe that our fellowship is more important still.  If people get hurt, if congregations and conferences splinter, can anyone truthfully say that this is the better option?

The clock is ticking.  The time is approaching.

Pray.

Please, pray.

Toe the Line?

In his book How to Read the Bible & Still be a Christian John Dominic Crossan says,

…in 621BCE, the high priest Hilkiah informed King Josiah of Judah that he had found the book of Deuteronomy, which he called the “book of the law,” in the Jerusalem Temple (2 Kings 12:8).  Thus began what today is called the Deuteronomic Reform under the slogan “one God in one Temple – at Jerusalem” (note, for example Deuteronomy 12:13-14).

WHAT IS MOST STRIKING¹ and even startling about the book of Deuteronomy is how it is dominated by covenant, with covenant dominated by Sanction, and with Sanction dominated by curses and blessings.²

These sorts of writings – taken out of both literary and historical context – prompt some modern-day folks to take the position that sanctions and curses are the appropriate response toward all with which they disagree.  Some of the horribly vindictive rhetoric coming out of the conservative camps in regard to the Way Forward and United Methodist General Conference that gathers later this month appeals to such passages as a rationale for their attitude.

This “second telling” of the Law (lit. deuteros "second" + nomos "law") surfaced at a time of great political and religious upheaval.  No matter what one’s view of the severity of sanction and curse in the book, Josiah and Hilkiah were of the opinion that it was only by imposing strict regulations and harsh enforcement that the Kingdom of Judah and the faith of the Hebrews was going to be preserved.  It is akin to marshal law or the declaration of a state of disaster.  Such things were not ever the norm in Israel.

I understand that some folks believe the situations to be analogous.  They see these times as a period of religious upheaval.  They see strict enforcement as the only way to preserve the unity of the United Methodist Church.  Things fall apart, though, with the realization that The United Methodist Church is an all-volunteer organization.  Even the highest-paid professional clergy, bureaucrats and agency workers joined the church by choice.  One can always walk away without threat to life or limb.  As a fellowship of believers who relish the doctrine of free will, the church as a whole ought to perceive vindictiveness as abhorrent. 

The Right masks its marshal law plan with words such as “accountability,” meaning that anyone who does not agree with their party line is wrong, even chargeable, and that those with whom they disagree must be identified and punished if the so-called offender refuses to conform with their definition of “the correct.”

Let’s be clear: The Right is not called of God or of anyone else save they themselves to be the Credential Police.  I have heard representatives of their position preach from pulpits about “love” and “grace” and “room for all of God’s children at God’s table.”  Until someone disagrees with them.  Then the vigor of their wrath knows no bounds.

Deuteronomy is not the whole of Scripture.  For every passage on Law there is a corresponding text extolling Grace.  I don’t know where all this will end.  But I trust that Self-Justification will never prevail.

Lord, have mercy.

Christ, have mercy.

Lord, have mercy.

¹Capitals are the author’s.

²John Dominic Crossan, How to Read the Bible & Still be a Christian (New York: Harper Collins, 2015), pp. 89-90.

"You were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak..."

The Epistle reading for this week suggested by the New Revised Common Lectionary (NRCL) is 1 Corinthians 12:1-11.  This reading is part of the much longer discussion of spiritual gifts that extends through the middle of chapter 14.  12:2 reads: You know that when you were pagans, you were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak.  It is an odd little verse that commentators frequently ignore while moving on to the greater argument about spiritual gifts that Paul develops.

But I do pause over it a moment.  The NRSV translates the phrase referring to idols as idols that could not speak.  Other versions offer the simpler dumb idols.  There is a bridge connecting verse 2 with verse 3, Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says, "Let Jesus be cursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit.  That connection involves idols that cannot speak and people or spirits that either affirm or blaspheme verbally.  It may be a stretch, but it makes sense to me.

But the thing that captivates me is this identification of dumb idols.  It is true that idolatry is the one great transgression in both the Old and New Testaments.  Knowing that can spin Paul and his readers into the observations about oral expression.

That brings me back to idols that could not speak.  I wonder what that must be like.  I can envision people bowing down and praying before idols.  Some understandings of idols may have compelled worshippers to offer sacrifices in the presence of idols.  My question is, “How does an idol-worshiper receive affirmation?”  I suppose that if the petitioner prays for rain and then it rains that the worshiper could say, “Well, my offering must have been accepted.  The idol has granted my request.  The idol must have approved my offering.”  But, what if the idol-worshiper requests something besides favorable weather or a good harvest?  Does such a person ever ask for direction, or comfort, or other items that we do not objectively measure?

If this idolater feels like the idol’s spirit is leading them down a particular path that gets pretty subjective.  An individual could act in any manner they choose and write it off to, “Well, I feel like the idol is leading me in such-and-such a direction.”

That strikes pretty close to home.  I don’t know that there is a hair’s breadth of difference between the idol-worshiper and any Christian believer who bases their action on some ill-defined “feeling.” 

Does the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob answer prayers?  Does the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ grant petitions?  I say a resounding “yes” to these questions.  Does God give some kind of secret instruction to the few, especially to the few whose thoughts or behavior fly in the face of all we know of the nature of God?  I don’t think so.  Lacking the rending of the heavens and the voice of God booming like thunder, it is our common experience and tradition that directs us along the paths that God chooses.  As is the case with those who worship dumb idols, for people of faith a lack of clear instruction does not mean that we get to make up our own answers.

Week of Prayer for Christian Unity

Did you know that January 18-25 (from Friday through Friday [?]) is The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity?  Neither did I.  If you don’t have a resource like the United Methodist Program Calendar, you may not have had any way of knowing.  I haven’t received anything from the denomination, the conference or my district promoting it in any way.  I can remember in the past receiving all manner of items related to this time.  There would be bulletin inserts and wall posters.  I would get suggested orders of worship and children’s activity books in the mail.  Clergy meetings would have time set aside to interpret this week to pastors.  It was as regular as clockwork.

Then, in THIS year, we don’t hear anything?  When fightings without and fears within threaten to rend The United Methodist Church asunder we don’t hear a whisper regarding prayer and unity?  What are the Powers That Be thinking?

It is true that the Week of Prayer has its origins in ecumenical concerns.  I don’t mean to diminish the importance or the urgency of these issues at all.  But, how do we not take advantage of a built-in apparatus for unifying prayer to encourage United Methodists to bring our concerns regarding agreement before the Throne of Grace in an organized – dare I say methodical – fashion?

So, pray for Christian Unity.  And United Methodist unity. 

You can see all that the UMC has to offer on the subject this year here.

The World Council of Churches has some info here.

The United Methodist Church Official Site links to a Roman Catholic resource for the week under the title “Ecumenical Sunday” (January 20) here.

Ordinary Time

Monday was the first day following the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord.  As such (by most reckonings) it was the first day of Ordinary Time.  This is the liturgical season that begins immediately following the Baptism feast and it runs through Shrove Tuesday, or the day before Ash Wednesday (March 6 in 2019). 

The church calls this time after The Epiphany Ordinary Time.  (I addressed those unusual days between Epiphany and The Baptism in a post dated January 11.)  This period gets its name from the way that we number the days during this time.  We do not designate this stretch ordinary because we label this time as somehow common or dull.  Rather, the church employs this designation because of the nature of the numbering of these days.  Instead of using cardinal numbers (one, two, three) it utilizes ordinal numbers (first, second, third).  So, we call this coming Sunday, February 20, The Second Sunday After The Epiphany.

Because Ash Wednesday is a moveable feast (an observance that does not occur on the same date each year), ordinary time will be of varying duration from year to year.  Ash Wednesday can fall anywhere between February 4 and March 10, though the two extremes of the range are very rare.  The last time Ash Wednesday was on February 4 was 1818 and will next occur in 2285.  The most recent time Ash Wednesday fell on March 10 was in 1943 and will next occur in 2038.  So, the duration of ordinary time is between four and nine weeks.  In the modern liturgical usage, the first Sunday in Ordinary Time is The Feast of the Baptism of the Lord and the last Sunday is The Feast of the Transfiguration.  Obviously, there are two more days in the season before Lent begins on Ash Wednesday.

Ordinary time carries with it emphases on mission (begun with the narrative of the Wise Men visiting the infant Jesus) and spiritual growth.  The liturgical colors of the season are white (for the feast days) and green (signifying new, eternal and abundant life) for the rest of the season.  The New Revised Common Lectionary (NRCL) offers gospel texts that reveal the nature of Jesus Christ (in keeping with the Epiphany theme).  The epistle readings address the topics of spiritual gifts and the character of the church (in an examination of spiritual growth).

We can be deceived by looking over our shoulders at Christmas and ahead to Easter so that we think that ordinary time is a “down time,” a respite between major occurrences where nothing of significance takes place.  But it can be an extraordinary time, where the church addresses some of its most formative ideas. 

What a great time.

The Baptism of the Lord -- February 13

You would think that this Feast Day would be straightforward.  Jesus goes to the Jordan.  John baptizes him (with or without a lot of dialog, depending on which gospel account you are reading), the heavens open, the Holy Spirit descends in (some sort of) bodily form and a voice speaks.  It is the inauguration of Jesus’ public ministry.  Celebrate!  Give thanks!  End of story.

And yet, almost from the very beginning there were teachers who were proclaiming Christian baptism in the exact same terms as the baptism offered by John.  Their call was to John’s baptism, not that of Jesus and the church.  There are people within the larger church who do this same thing today.  They use John language to talk about what they call Christian baptism. 

But what was John’s proclamation?  “Repent!  Renounce your sins!  Make way for the coming of the Lord.  Prepare yourselves for the Messiah, the Christ, the one who will save you from your sins.”  Let’s be clear: “get ready” is not the same thing as “Have faith.”  There are those who claim that their belief system can trace its lineage all the way back to John the Baptist.  They say that with pride.  I don’t get it.  What has John done for them lately?  John’s baptism?  You can have it I say.  John didn’t save You.  You are not John’s disciple.  Nowhere in scripture do you hear a call to proclaim, “John the Baptist is Lord!”  Why then would you want to embrace John’s baptism?

It is true that the larger church has muddled the significance of this Sacrament through the years.  To this day there is no uniformity of opinion as to what the Rite means.  Some communions see baptism as a literal washing away of the stain of sin.  Others see it as an act of professing faith in making ready to join the church universal or a particular congregation.  This is what is meant by “believer’s baptism.”  Some congregations won't even recognize  the baptism performed by other congregations within their fellowship.  The idea is, "If we haven't baptized you, then no one has baptized you!"  

The United Methodist Church (and others) define baptism as an initiation into the Body of Christ and a claiming of the individual into the family of God.  Again, like many other groups the United Methodist Church practices the baptism of infants, with parents or sponsors taking the vows on behalf of the candidate until such time as the individual can affirm those promises for themselves.

I have a book in my library with the provocative title Baptism: The Water that Divides by Donald Bridge.  The work itself is a bit murky, but what a great title!  That which designs to unite believers is in fact one of the great points of contention within the church.  For something that Christ commanded, and that the church has normatively required from its beginnings, there is no consensus among the major faith groups as to what this means at all. 

I won’t enter the discussion about the amount of water that constitutes baptism.  I leave that issue grieving that people will split families and even congregations over what amounts to a measuring cup.

So, owning that this action of the church has no foreseeable resolution, I simply commend the day as an extraordinary one in the life and ministry of The Lord Jesus. It is worthy of our notice and our commemoration.  There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all. –Ephesians 4:4-6

Lord, haste the day…