Sermons
“TONGUES"
TEXT: 1 CORNINTHIANS 14: 1-20
TONGUES: JUDEA
The book of Acts mentions tongues three times: at Pentecost (most famously), at Caesarea with Gentiles and the family of Cornelius, and with the church at Ephesus. Pentecost sets the tone for our understanding of tongues. Remember what happened? The Holy Spirit descends upon the infant church and tongues of fire were distributed and rested upon each of the Apostles, and they spoke in tongues.
Let me remind you that the Greek word for language is tongue, and we could rightly translate this as “speaking in languages” and the “gift of languages.” At Pentecost, they certainly were speaking in languages. Jews from around the ancient world heard the Apostles speaking under the power of the Spirit, and heard them speaking known, intelligible languages that it was unlikely—if not impossible—for these Galilean bumpkins to know. The languages are named in Acts: Parthian, Mede, Elamite, Mesopotamian, Cappadocian, Turkish, Phrygian, Pamphylian, Latin, Egyptian, and more—in short, all the languages of the then-known world. In Jerusalem at Pentecost, the tongues were intelligible.
What happened at Pentecost was something spiritual and certainly well-beyond common description. But divine knowledge—the language of the Word of God—was given to each one and they then proclaimed with boldness the good news of Jesus and the glories of God—intelligibly and for the whole world. Remember, these Apostles had neither education, reputation, nor human authority. God’s gift of tongues empowered and enabled them to build the church far beyond their reasonable abilities.
TONGUES: CORINTH
In Corinth, the practice looks quite different, and we have no reason to presume that what was called tongues on Pentecost, in Jerusalem and Judea, was the exact same thing as what the Corinthians called tongues. In fact, they seem to come from opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of intelligibility.
This whole passage is Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians to grow toward greater intelligibility. What they practiced was likely a kind of sanctified babbling. We already know that this was a popular pagan practice—once which made its way into Corinth’s infant Christian community.
The pagan babbling worked like this: the one praying would freely babble believing that he or she might land on the name of a deity or spirit that would then be beholding to them because they had called its name. It also was part and parcel of the pagan priesthood—leaders of the shrines and temples would work themselves into a trance—an altered state of consciousness—by babbling.
In the Sermon on the Mount, remember Jesus says that when you pray, don’t heap up empty phrases like the Gentiles, thinking they will be heard for their babbling. Jews did not pray that way. It was not a facet of Judaism, but of the Greco-Roman world.
It seems this babbling kind of tongues was normal in the Corinthian church, and Paul does not discourage it. We have to say that this kind of prayer got baptized into the faith and into their public worship. We can also infer from the text that tongues played into their spiritual one-ups-manship: some Christians were a little better than others—a little more spiritual—because they spoke in tongues as freely as they did.
At Pentecost, the intelligibility factor was key; in Corinth, it didn’t seem to matter.
After the first couple centuries of church history, the practice of tongues seems to have tapered off and pretty well disappeared for a thousand years—the references to tongues and prophetic utterance grow very up until the Reformation. But with the Reformation and its freeing of Scripture to the people—and the availability of newly printed Scriptures now translated into common languages(a mini Pentecost in itself), Christians started reading in Acts and Corinthians about tongues. They wondered at it—and at some point, reintroduced the practice.
You may ask: Is the practice of tongues from the Reformation (and up to the present day) the same thing as we practiced in Corinth or Judea? The short answer is we dont’ really know, but we do know that there is only one Holy Spirit to animate and unite the whole church, so as Paul did not discourage it, neither should we. We need to respect the practice even if we do not have the gift ourselves.
TONGUES: THE GIFT
Well if it’s a gift to the Church, then why don’t we practice it? Why don’t we teach it?
Because it’s a gift of the Holy Spirit—it isn’t taught; it is simply given. Or not. No one instructed the Apostles at Pentecost on how to speak in different languages. It just fell upon them as a gift from God. I believe it still comes to some Christians as a gift from God and we shouldn’t discourage it any more than Paul did.
Now, most Presbyterians haven’t been exposed to tongues. If you’ve been around it, it’s likely from other churches. As a pastor, I have encouraged a few people to pray for the gift.
A good friend of mine from college expressed his frustration with public prayer. He was a camp counselor, and when his high schoolers prayed in a group, he felt terribly frustrated over business of putting his feelings into words. He said, “I just feel so bogged down and can never find the words.” I suggested he could ask God about tongues and ask for the gift. He seems to have found in practicing tongues a way he can pour out praise and glory to God unhindered by the constant mental search for the right words.
I think of tongues like great scat singing—think of Ella Fitzgerald—she was a phenomenally accomplished jazz musician. What she did with her voice is as marvelous as Miles Davis’ trumpet or John Coltrane’s saxophone. Her scat singing was inimitable, though many have tried to copy her. The music poured forth from her heart in nonsense syllables. Was it nonsense? No! Was it music? Absolutely! Was it language? Not so much, but we can say that in the language of music, she was most articulate and most eloquent.
Tongues is like this: the voice pours out the inexpressible longings of the heart and soul without the filters and editors of language. The worshiper is free to pour his or her soul into the free and unfettered utterance. Is it language? Not really. Is it true prayer? Yes, every bit as much as Ella’s scat singing is music.
Paul recognized and encouraged the practice for these aspects. But he certainly discouraged it as a means of one-ups-manship spirituality, and he encourages the Corinthians to emphasize prophecy all the more.
TO PROPHESY
The popular understanding of the word prophecy is foretelling future events, but this is not what biblical prophecy is about. When Paul encourages the people of Corinth to prophesy, he moves them on that line from unintelligible utterance toward intelligible proclamation—at least as far as public worship goes.
Simply put, to prophesy is to speak forth the Word of God. To prophesy is to speak by the power of the Holy Spirit the mysteries of God. Like tongues, prophecy can’t be taught—it comes from the Spirit or else it doesn’t happen.
The Prophets of the Old Testament were those who spoke the Word of God to the people. Yes, sometimes that involved warnings about the future, and sometimes other knowledge that was divinely revealed. In every case, the prophet is the one who bears the Word of God to the people.
Paul makes clear there is nothing wrong with tongues as a way of giving praise and glory to God—Paul says he practices it himself even more than the Corinthians—but he suggests that it is essentially self-serving. It builds up the self. In that it is unintelligible, it doesn’t bless anyone else and does nothing to either unite or build up the community of faith. It seems the best place to practice tongues is in that quiet inner room—as Jesus teaches us—and to pray our prayers for God alone.
We certainly aren’t to make a show of tongues, which can happen easily, because it is so very dramatic.
Not surprisingly, Paul wants the church to emphasize the gifts that build up the church more than just the self. He’s already spoken of the power of love in chapter 13, but here he holds up prophecy—speaking God’s Word to his people—because it is good for the unity of the church and the building up of one another within the church.
When Paul says, “let there be an interpreter,” how might that have changed their worship? At Pentecost, there were plenty of interpreters—all of them who heard the gospel proclaimed in their own language—and so in public worship, if you want to speak in tongues, let there be interpreters. It seems to me that this would have put a major damper on the practice. Anyone can babble, but not everyone can provide an interpretation of that babbling.
In his gentle and most tactful way, Paul demands intelligibility.
THE LOW AND THE HIGH
There are many Christians who say that these gifts have disappeared—that there was a general cessation of these gifts in the church. I find that line suspicious, particularly because it places limits on God, which is always wrong. God can do whatever He likes whenever He likes, and no earthly theologians can say otherwise.
They say that tongues, prophetic utterances, and miraculous healings were there for the birth of the church but then dissolved as the church grew. That is what the history looks like. That is the general view, but again, I feel it is wrong to put limits on God. The Holy Spirit can come down and affect anyone at anytime however God should choose. We should be open and aware of this, and even find hope in the thought that we never know what God may do next. The mystery of God is good news and we should all be on watch for it.
I will say that these special gifts were certainly part of the church’s first gear. Now, after nearly two thousand years, the church is clearly in fourth gear. We’re moving at 80 miles an hour. Our needs are different and our gifts are modified accordingly. What happens if a truck going 80 miles an hour suddenly throws the stick back into first gear? Not good things.
The Spirit works in different ways in different eras, but we should not try to codify them. There is no gift of the Holy Spirit that can be bottled or pre-packaged. The Spirit is wild and well beyond all human control. We can ask for gifts appropriate to our era—for things to build us up personally and as a people—and we should ask for these. At the same time, we shouldn’t look down our noses at other Christians who delight in tongues and prophetic utterances.
Two things must be held together: 1. God is mysterious beyond our understanding. God is bigger, brighter, and more active in and around us than we can imagine. We must be inwardly awake to his constant power and presence. He is ever near us and ever eager for us to know his presence, his grace, his goodness, and his love. 2. God is intelligible. God has spoken in the person of Jesus Christ intelligibly. We can know God and speak about God meaningfully—even in English—and have confidence in our understanding. We don’t make things up about God, but God has self-revealed through his Word—through Jesus—and God is knowable.
When we fail to keep either aspect in the balance, we risk falling off the tightrope of faith.
And finally, we are more than minds—we are spiritual beings with a share in eternity—we should have a hunger and thirst for the mysteries of God in our makeup. When we pray—alone, for God’s ears alone—we should seek that kind of prayer wherein we pour out the inexpressible longings of our soul to God. Like Ella, we are instruments and made for music—great music—and the song we participate in whenever we give praise, glory, and honor to God is one that began before this cosmos was created, and one that shall continue after it is long gone. You and I are called to sing along, to enter the stream of that music and to amplify its call to the ends of the world.
And when we’ve been there 10,000 years, bright shining as the sun, we’ve no less days to sing God’s praise than when we first begun. Let us begin today.
QUESTIONS
- 1. How did the practice of tongues differ between Judea and Corinth?
- 2. What does Paul mean by “prophecy”? (Hint: it has nothing to do with future events.)
- 3. What makes prophecy superior to tongues?
- 4. Without discouraging the practice of tongues in Corinth, how does Paul prioritize it?
- 5. How might adding the requirement that there be an interpreter to interpret tongues affect public worship?
- 6. What does it mean to pray with both the spirit and the mind?
- 7. Considering Jesus’ teaching about prayer in the Sermon on the Mount, what might be the most appropriate context for praying in tongues?
“THE COMMON GOOD”
“THE COMMON GOOD”
Noel K. Anderson 10.11.20
PAUL’S HOMONIA
As we said in week one of this series, Paul’s letter to Corinth is his homonia to the church. A homonia was a speech delivered to a city, addressing the entire city as though it were a single body. It was a kind of health report—a collective prescription—instructing a city to act in ways that can serve the common good and the well-being of all. Similarly, Paul addresses the church of Corinth that had fallen into many divisions, and he writes to encourage them to act and function like a single body, which in Christ they are. The key issue for Corinth was division—and today in 2o2o, division is something with which we Americans are only far too familiar. I’m suggesting that as we hear Paul’s prescription for the church at Corinth, we can also hear God’s Word and will speaking to us in our situation.
The upshot of this text is that Paul acknowledges their great diversity, and I’ll remind you that the ancient city of Corinth, the first city of Greece, was diverse, pluralistic, wealthy with a large slave population, and a home for ancient elites. As such, it was fiercely classist, and the one church of Corinth soon suffered division as sub-groups formed exclusive cliques and fell into criticizing each other. Paul writes to them saying, in effect, “You’re all very different, but you all belong. You’ve got to accept, value, and honor one another because you are all part of the one body of Christ, and you are all needed in order to function and flourish.”
IRREDUCIBLE COMMUNITY
In the mid 90s, Lehigh University biochemist and intelligent design advocate Michael Behe wrote a book called Darwin's Black Box. The book's central thesis is that many biological systems are “irreducibly complex" at the molecular level. Irreducible complexity means that there is a system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that make something work. Without any one of these parts in the assembly, the whole system fails to function. Take one, tiny mechanism out of your watch and what do you have? Something that looks like a watch, but doesn’t work. It doesn’t tick, it doesn’t move, and it doesn’t tell time. Without all the parts working together in unison, the watch is worthless. Maybe it works a little—the second may still move, or the hour hand—but overall, you have a busted timepiece.
Now I’m not going to wade into the waters of biochemistry—at one inch deep I’m out of my depth—but I think we take the basic idea of irreducible complexity an apply it to our community. We are something when we are all together—all of us—that we can never be when some people—any people—are missing. We might be perfectly happy just hanging out with our friends and people we like, but we are not the same as we would be when connected with the whole community—with people outside of our group very different from us.
In fact, a big part of our fallenness is acted out by wanting to associate with people like ourselves. It is natural, but fallen, because in loving those who love us, we are only learning to love ourselves. We need people who are very different from us—even people who don’t like us—if we are to exercise real community and learn real love of neighbor.
Like that watch, in order for the body—be it the church or nation—to function as it should, all the pieces have to be in place, connected, and functioning for the total function to occur.
THE COMMON GOOD
Back in 1787, Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Supreme Court Justice John Jay—under the collective pseudonym Publius—wrote a collection of 85 essays to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. One of the terms haunting the writing—as well as the founding philosophy—is “the common good.” The idea of the common good is again and again elevated, even as it weighs in the balance with individual freedoms.
The founders knew what people are really like; namely, flawed, fallen, prone to sin and self-interest (thank you, Apostle Paul, John Calvin, and Adam Smith).
In essay number 10, James Madison shows this awareness of how people tend to divide into cliques and subgroups:
“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man ... human passions have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”
—James Madison, Essay No. 10, The Federalist Papers
The Common Good was not a phrase to be taken lightly; It was that thing that stood at the middle of all America’s hopes and aspirations—that thing that was important to every individual but also much more important than any individual. The common good is another name for that American core to which the founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
Here is an idea to reinforce today—the Common Good—that which benefits everyone equally, or that which does everyone good, not just some.
CALIFORNIA, USA
Has it been slipping away from us—this idea of the common good? Sometimes the division seems to leave nothing in common. We see polarization, the extremes becoming more extreme, Balkanization, fragmentation, and politics, politics, politics. Antifa riots, Black Lives Matter protests, MAGA rallies, Proud Boys, nasty politics and a panoply of fake news sources pouring bile out of every digital device and screen. Division is the song of the day.
Keith Olbermann, a once-respectable journalist, lately proclaimed that “Trump and his supporters must be expunged....His enablers...the Mike Lee’s, the William Barr’s and the Sean Hannity’s and the Mike Pence’s...and the Amy Coney Barrett’s must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society.” Sounds more like Joseph Goebbels than James Madison.
So where is the devotion to a common good? Where is there any acknowledgement of the irreducible complexity of our American community? The kind that says everyone belongs. The kind the rises above the small-minded view that says, “The only good is the good of our side!”?
Well, I for one don’t think things are as bad as the sides would tell us. And even though the sides are not as devoted to the common good as they are to their own empowerment, no sane person wants civil war. Those who predict civil war are dangerous, for they will inwardly commit to make it happen, if only to prove their prediction accurate.
We, Christians all—Americans all—rightly rebuke the idea and stand adamant against it. Because we all need each other. We are a unified complexity, and we all belong.
CHILDREN, ETC.
Today we are in the final stretch of the elections. We can expect a half dozen or more so-called October Surprises from all sides, all of these launched not for the common good but to weaken the opposition. We must remember that we can be opponents without being enemies.
When we were children, would we disown a friend because we lost a game of ping pong? Of course not. If you played team sports, did you not scrimmage—dividing your team to play against itself so that everyone got stronger? Were our opponents enemies? No, they were our teammates, just playing a role so that the whole team improved.
Do you remember that kid who, when losing at checkers or Monopoly, overturned the board and went stomping off in a huff? What should they do? Accept a little bit of defeat, come back to the table with some dignity and prepare for the next game.
Are we becoming a nation of pouting children? Sore losers, whiners, and crybabies because we are not having our way? Do the politics feel that way?
Are people cheating—stealing Monopoly money from the bank or changing the rules in the middle of the game? That should not happen.
Christian brothers and sisters, please reassure me that not one of us plans to stomp our feet and hold our breath in selfish anger if we do not get our way. Tell me we will never do that. Whichever way the voting goes, whichever way America leans next, we stay at the table, catch our breath, and ready ourselves for the next game. We can and should play hard, but play fair, refuse to accept dishonest gains, and refuse to confuse our opponents with our enemies.
America needs some adults in the room. It needs to be us, for a start—and as we start in love, we begin by recognizing that whoever we are, whoever we think ourselves to be, and whatever we personally want—all we are willing to set aside in service of the common good—that which helps and serves everyone.
It is for this that god has given us gifts from His Spirit: for the common good—for service to the world in His name—for the unity of the Church as a sign of His coming kingdom, where there will be no opposition and no enmity, and every one of us will know that we are made to belong.
PRAY FOR USA, ETC.
I entreat you all to join me in praying for California and America with increased frequency over the next few weeks. As Paul and the other Apostles prayed for the Corinthian church, let us pray for the church in America. Let us pray that all our brothers and sisters in Christ would prove themselves salt and light—adults—in a room of children.
And let us pray that America may repent of its many sins, turn to God, and return to serving the common good.
And may we never take for granted the many blessings with which God has blessed us, lest he remove His hand of protection entirely, and give us what we deserve rather than his grace, mercy, and peace.
QUESTIONS
- 1. What is the good of affirming community members who dislike us or whom we dislike?
- 2. What are some problems with the “everyone belongs” attitude? Does it have its limits?
- 3. How does this text apply to criticisms of denominations toward other denominations?
- 4. Can Anti-classism be as bad as Classism itself?
- 5. What is the connection between our spiritual gifts and the unity of the Church?
- 6. How can the naming of our spiritual gifts become a source of disunity?
- 7. Are our spiritual gifts for the good of the Church alone or for the good of society in general?
- 8. Are there legitimate grounds for marginalizing some Christians? Has Paul already addressed this?
“CONTEXT MATTERS"
TEXT: 1 Corinthians 10: 23-33
PAGAN PLATES
First, a little background on ancient Corinth. Before the time of Paul and the infant church, the city of Corinth had been famous for several temples of Aphrodite. We’ve already mentioned the nature of their practices, except for the offerings.
The temple buildings were usually empty inside except for a statue idol of the goddess. All kinds of sacrifices were made, but these usually took place outside the temple. Animals were slaughtered on the front patio, as it were, and the animals were “turned into smoke” on large braziers. The priests would help themselves to the best parts. They’d take the tri-tip and the bacon and return the inferior cuts—now nicely barbecued—back to the ones who brought the sacrifice. Then they would take their meat home and eat. Some temples had meeting rooms along each side of their length where a group which, say, brought a sacrificial cow, could gather and eat their steaks. Remember, there were no restaurants in Corinth—nothing in the archaeological record—but the temples provided the function of receiving sacrifices, barbecuing your meat for you, and in some cases providing you and your group a room to dine in.
The question naturally arose: “Should Christians be allowed to eat meat that had come from the pagan temple?” Is a Christian defiled by eating meat that had been part of a pagan sacrifice? Some Christians—then as now—would automatically offer an emphatic yes, for some would have believed that the meat was infused with demonic power or demons themselves. But this is not Paul’s perspective. Whether or not we eat meat sacrificed to idols is not an automatic no. The context determines everything.
GRAY SPACE
Paul has already established that food sacrificed to idols is not “demon-infused” or anything of the kind. From chapter 8:
Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “no idol in the world really exists,” and that “there is no God but one.” —1 Corinthians 8:4
Paul makes it clear that idols are not real. There is one God and God is not a God among other gods. The pagans of Corinth worship nothing if they do not worship The Lord.
“Don’t be afraid of food,” Paul says in effect, “because all food is a gift from God.” What makes food sacrificed to idols either good or bad is entirely a matter of context. How does food play out in your relationship with others?
Verse 24: Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other.
There is no generosity in legalism. Legalists are all black-and-white with no shades of gray. For legalists, every moral question is like a simple light switch: two positions only—on or off—and nothing in between. Things are either good or evil with little flexibility. And many legalists find the idea of taking the context into consideration a slippery slope to sin.
Paul shows us that legalism is too narrow a view. We need to replace all our our light switches with rheostats—dimmer switches. The light isn’t merely on or off, but operating at a variable percentage of luminosity. You have dimmer switches at home, don’t you? Like adjusting volume on a stereo, you adjust the intensity of the light according to the time of day, purpose, or mood.
As to black-and-white, consider the spectrum: when you think of it, black and white are merely the end points of the spectrum. Between black and white there are hundreds—maybe thousands—of shades of gray. Why in the world would we eliminate them? Perhaps because we are drawn to certainty, and when it comes to moral questions, we don’t like gray space. We prefer to have every matter settled. That’s the recipe for legalism.
AFTER THE LAW
In verse 23 Paul says, “All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial.” This is the exact same wording as we saw in chapter 6:12: “All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial.” And we discussed how the word translated “beneficial” is closer to the word “conductive.” All things are lawful, not all things are conductive—not all things complete the circuit and keep the current of the Holy Spirit flowing.
When Paul says “all things are lawful,” he does not mean that all behaviors are good and of equal value. He means that we live asking different kinds of questions. In his background as a Pharisee, the key, leading question for anything began, “Is it lawful to (fill in the blank)?” Remember how Jesus was pummeled by this kind of question? “Rabbi, is it lawful to heal a man on the Sabbath?” “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?” and so on. But “Is it lawful?” is no longer the question, because, as Paul says, “all things are lawful.”
The question now is “Is it helpful?” “Is it beneficial?” or as we’ve indicated, “Is it conductive?” As to the question, “Is it wrong to eat meat that’s been sacrificed to idols?” we don’t concern ourselves with legalisms, but with the effect upon our relationships. It’s not, “What foods are right or wrong to eat?” but rather, “How does what I’m doing help or hurt the gospel?” How does what I do affect my witness to Christ? The answer will definitely depend upon the context.
Today Paul might say that if you are eating with Vegans, eat vegan (at least while you’re with them); and if you are a vegan Christian and are invited to the home of pagan carnivores, eat what you’re served and don’t make an issue of your veganism. Don’t let food get in the way of building love and trust for the sake of the gospel. Ethics after the Law has less to do with particular behaviors and everything to do with our witness to Christ.
DOES IT CONDUCT?
To determine whether a behavior is right or wrong, we can’t pluck it out of its context and say it is always and necessarily wrong. Aside from the wicked basics—murder, adultery, revenge, hatred, and the like—most behaviors become good or evil in their context.
Is lying always wrong? We want to say yes, but if telling a lie saves lives or leads to the capture of a murderer, then its evil pales in context. We can usually come up with a situation to justify almost any behavior, which is why legalism is insufficient.
Some years ago, Christians were fond of debating the idea of so-called “situational ethics,” and good Christians looked down their noses at the idea because they suspected it was really just a form of rationalization—a way for more liberal Christians to justify whatever they wanted to do. That is a problem, because that is exactly what sinful people do.
How many marriages—Christian marriages—have ended because someone said, “ Well, the heart wants what the heart wants!” or “I don’t think commitment is as important as good feelings.” So yes, sinful people will try to justify bad behavior by saying the situation demanded it. Still, this does not vindicate legalism.
There is no alternative to situational ethics—all ethics are embodied in a context where people play out the drama of life. When we face a moral quandary, the question we should ask is not simply, “Is it right or wrong?” but “What choice—among all my possible choices—will best glorify God?” “What action will best serve my witness to Jesus?”
In general, God doesn’t care whether you eat meat or not—even meat that has been sacrificed to pagan idols—what He cares about is that we conduct our relationships in a Christlike manner. Is it beneficial, useful, helpful—does it conduct?
SOLI DEO GLORIA
Verse 32: “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God.”
Here is the guide for Christian ethics. It is a far cry from the mere legalism of the Pharisees and Sadducees. It is the code of the Christ, heard clearly in the Sermon on the Mount. Paul instructs the church at Corinth—and California—to evaluate all the things we do based upon how they either help or hinder our proclamation of Christ. Christ, not the Law, is our standard. Christ is our absolute. God is glorified as we live serving His glory rather than in self-gratification.
“Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God.”
As we prepare to come to the table of Christ, we are indeed about to eat and drink to God’s glory. We do so together with hundreds of other denominations—all who have agreed to break bread on this day. Though we do so in different congregations, in different cities, and in different time zones, we are one gathering in Christ.
Our differences are today set aside. We are one Church in Jesus Christ, regardless of whatever names we may call ourselves. We are united in Spirit and truth—all of us—to prioritize the central claim of our faith: that Jesus is Lord and there is no other.
Let us worship the Lord—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and may our lives be shaped in the light of His grace and love.