An Axe (or 2) to Grind

Fair warning: I have two axes to grind this morning. One is rather inconsequential; but, still, I’m blowing off steam.

Both for professional development and out of simple curiosity, I’ve taken several personality inventories over the years. They show change. I hope the change is progress, rather than regression. In the infamous Myers-Briggs inventory (a derivative of Carl Jung’s personality types), I was “INTP” 25 years ago. INTP means introverted, rather than extroverted; intuitive rather than sensing; thinking rather than feeling; perceiving rather than judging. If you want to go deeper, just Google Myers Briggs.

In the past year my Myers Briggs type was ESTP. I think the biggest factor behind the change is that I’ve become more comfortable in my own skin, and am more open to being motivated by people and environment. I still enjoy my self-motivating quiet corner with a book, however.

All the preceding is but prelude to this: a consistent personality trait identified when I first entered seminary has been that I’m a “fixer.” That trait did not play well in my early years as a pastor; and it still intrudes into my counselling practices on occasion.

I’m guessing I inherited the trait from my mother. She never tolerated the quarrels between my sister and me.[1] So I learned to become a “fixer”. I think that’s the basis of my liberal perspective. I try to understand all sides of any issue, so I can “fix” it. One of my strong suits is conflict resolution; in fact, I have several certifications in that field.

I’m confident that that personality trait contributes to my pounding temples when I read the hateful, disrespectful Facebook exchanges that have become pervasive on virtually all social media. COME ON, PEOPLE!!! BE NICE!!!

I wonder what personality trait(s) are operative when people hide behind the anonymity of social media and ambush and snipe away at anyone whose ideas deviate from their own.

It’s one thing to differ; indeed, diversity of thought is an enriching part of a democratic republic. Remember American history? Remember the famous “melting pot” mode that in the late 19^th and early 20^th century affirmed the various contributions of the differing ethnic and cultural populations? Of course, it also must be remembered that those times endured prejudice and even violence against those same ethnic and cultural populations.

Diversity of thought is an enriching element in any human interaction. I went to barber college and was a licensed barber during the decade of the 60s. One barber with whom I worked said to me: “Jim, you’re about as good a barber as I’ve seen come straight out of barber school. But don’t ever think you can’t learn more. If you’ll watch, you can learn something from every barber you work with. If you don’t learn something good to do, you’ll learn something bad to avoid.” I've noted that that counsel fits most situations.

So, what personality type becomes enraged over disagreement(s)? What is the personality type by which one gives oneself permission to call other humans “stupid,” when they don’t share the same ideology? What personality type justifies gross contempt for other people who are honest, compassionate people of integrity, but who disagree with that type’s opinions? What personality type is OK with insulting others, but is infuriated when his or her own beliefs are questioned?

God, we’re broken. Will you fix us, please?

That’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] And herein lies my second axe to grind (the inconsequential one). The “Grammar Nazi” part of my personality emerges, and I “need” to “fix” something. Perhaps it’s a sign of the times, and is becoming acceptable in formal English grammar pedagogy. Maybe I’m “old school,” and out of touch; but, per my own English grammar studies, the use of the personal pronouns, “I” and “me” have become confused in recent years.

People who are very intelligent, well-educated and otherwise quite articulate, have fallen into the trend over the past few years of misusing these two pronouns. I seldom see or hear “me” being used incorrectly; but, the incorrect use of “I” has become rampant.

In the sentence footnoted above, “me” is correct. It is in the objective case, the object of the preposition, between. Had I wanted to use the pronoun, “I”, I would have put it in the nominative case: “My mother grew intolerant when my sister and I quarreled.” Here, “I” is part of a compound predicate nominative.

The rules of grammar can be quite boring; but, in this case, one need not memorize rules or diagram sentences. It’s really quite simple. If “me” is correct when it stands alone, it also will be correct when compounded with another pronoun, as in the sentence under examination here: “…my sister and me.” The same is true for the pronoun, “I”.

If I am calling the dog, then it also is correct to say “My sister and I are calling the dog.” If the dog comes to me when I call, then it also is correct to say, “The dog comes to my sister and me when we call.” Really simple.

It probably means nothing to most of my readers; but, the “fixer” part of my personality is now at peace—at least, for now. There are other grammar faults out there that need to be “fixed.” As soon as I get my cape cleaned, I'll be back.

I Am Conflicted.

I deeply detest the divisive belligerence of the partisan political posts on Social Media. I have participated in the vicious “Mixmaster,” and thus far the investment of time, energy and emotion has produced a net loss.

I understand and affirm the right to express one’s opinions, and I understand and affirm the right and the obligation to stand up for one’s beliefs.

BUT…

I have begun to see that doing so on Social Media is totally useless. In fact, I’d venture to say such an effort is counterproductive.

In the first place, nothing is ever resolved in the venomous, malicious and hurtful exchanges that too often emerge. Essentially, Social Media becomes a venue, at best, for venting, and at worst, for cowards to hide behind its anonymity and become verbal terrorists, exploding over all who come within range.

I understand the human need to vent; but, it seems to me there are other, more appropriate and, indeed, more effective venues for venting.

In the second place, no minds ever are changed; indeed, most of the time it’s more like “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts;” “I’m right.” Period. Therefore, if you disagree with me “You’re wrong.” Period. It’s a short journey from “You’re wrong” to “You’re stupid,” to “You’re evil,” and the elimination of evil is justified in most ideologies.

Sadly, however, too often the aftermath is an end-justifies-the-means ethic. In my thinking, no cause, no matter how good or noble, justifies, or is enhanced by, ignoble means.

And so, earlier this week I resolved to abstain from participation in the adversarialism. It was just futile. Useless. Divisive.

Today, however, a specific on line article caught my attention, and convinced me that Social Media has become a viable indicator of the American political pulse and blood pressure. The news agencies pick up on it; and by extension, I’m guessing the politicians and policy moguls notice, too. Perhaps all that contempt and bitterness and hatred spewed across Facebook walls play valid roles in social and political influence.

Perhaps I should stay engaged, after all. My perception of Social Media is not at all representative of Social Media as a whole. Fully 85% of my Facebook friends are conservative--from traditional GOP to Tea Party to Libertarian to Survivalist. A large majority are from the South and are Evangelical Christians. While I make no value judgments here, the ethos of my Facebook community is skewed, and not representative of the whole venue.

[Yes, I understand that my unwillingness to pass value judgement begs the question whether the belligerence I experience on Social Media is a direct result of the ethos of my Facebook community. On the other hand, my liberal FB friends, though making up a small minority, are not immune to their own brand of venom!]

I’m conflicted.

By personality type, by profession, and by faith, I advocate peace, unity[1] and cooperation. I promote reconciliation, collaborative conflict resolution and empathetic human interaction. I belong to a church whose vision includes being "a movement for wholeness in a fragmented world." Thus, I detest the schoolyard bully façade projected by a disproportionate majority of Social Media pundits (and wannabees) in my Facebook community.

My gut wants to just drop out. I’m tired of the bile and the refusal to consider “other”

Downloaded from a public domain site

perspectives. I’m tired of ideology taking precedence over human need. I’m tired of the racism, the misogyny and the hatred directed at ethnic, religious and LGBT groups. And I’m tired of the denial of all the above.

Most of all I’m tired of the “I’m right syndrome”—the across-the-board refusal to collaborate, negotiate or even communicate with anyone who disagrees with “ME/US”[2].

I’m tired of it all because at the bottom line I’m convinced that between any two of us there are infinitely more similarities than differences, and that if we so choose, we can build on our similarities and agreements and can thereby create “a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

That’s how I see it through the “Flawed Glass” that is my perspective.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Unity is not the same thing as uniformity. It’s more like harmony—a choir singing in unison can create beautiful music; but the same choir multiplies its beauty when the basses, tenors, altos and sopranos are singing different notes at the same time. That’s harmony. That’s unity.

[2] As I’ve written and preached many times, I believe in absolute truth; but I don’t believe any human or human group is capable of perceiving truth absolutely. Our human perception of “absolute” truth always will be “relative” to our personal experience of reality.

To Watch or Not to Watch

Today I watched the Inauguration of President Donald J Trump. Some of my friends felt I should have boycotted the event, instead of honoring him by watching.

I saw it through different eyes. I saw it as honoring, not President Trump, but our Democracy, and honoring what President Ronald Reagan called the “common and miraculous” peaceful transfer of power that has been the hallmark of our Democracy since 1797.

I didn’t vote for President Trump, nor do I even respect him as a human being. But, like it or not—like him or not—he is the President of the United States. He is my President. His past suggests that he will not represent me or my views or my interests; but, I live in Arkansas, so it’s been a long time since I felt represented. Nevertheless, he is the President—the only President—of the United States.

Nor have I participated in or supported or encouraged any of the protests which have come to my attention—although I fully respect the right of peaceful protest. Indeed, there are situations in which I believe public protest is an effective strategy, the civil rights marches being one example. There, the purpose was to raise awareness and to rally pubic support against a gross injustice—to change public opinion and public policy.

The protests (I read that several hundred were being planned) today were simply that: a protest. No concrete or tangible effect or result was proposed or suggested. “My candidate lost, and I don’t like it.”

I don’t like it, either.

I fully expect that I will disagree with the overwhelming majority of what President Trump says and does; but I will oppose those things in ways I feel are more effective; although, letters to congressional representatives or Senators, in spite of the fact that they are the most accessible method of protest, generally have not been ineffective. Again, I live in Arkansas, and letters to Senator Tom Cotton are like letters to a brick wall (his responses give no evidence whatsoever that he or some staff member even reads my letters), and Letters to Senator John Boozman don’t even get a response. Still, I write.

I participate in several advocacy and interest groups, through which the power of numbers gives me a sense that I may be making a difference.

I also use blogs and letters to the editor. While I never use the pulpit for partisan political advocacy, the people in the church I serve know of my political persuasions, and I am strong in advocating biblical values that do impact political ideologies.

I appreciated Senator Roy Blunt’s (R – Missouri) comments in his opening remarks as Master of Ceremonies. It was he who reminded Americans of President Reagan’s words, which I quoted above, viz., the “common and miraculous” peaceful transfer of power that is the hallmark of our Democracy.

Democracy thrives on vigorous debate. Yes, each of should be actively involved in efforts to influence the outcomes of the political process. It just seems to me that that 220-year-old hallmark should take precedence on this one day—this one day—over our partisanism.

That's the way it looks through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,
Jim

As Innauguration Day Approaches

This morning I was reviewing some of my writings from the past year, and found the following "E-Pistle" to the congregation I serve. It was from the morning after the election, and I felt called to offer pastoral perspective. I find it still appropriate, and offer it to a larger audience through my blog. As always, I invite and encourage your respectful response.

* * * * *

"Good Morning, Church!

"As your minister, I feel called to provide encouragement and guidance—in all of life’s circumstances –to those who called me. It is most difficult to do so when my own cup is empty.

"This morning I have prayerfully gleaned words of focus and direction from several sources, and my cup is not so empty now. I want to share how my own spirit has found some peace and made some sense out of what happened at the polls yesterday.

"1.      For the first time in my memory, one party will control the entire government of the United States:

a.     The Executive Branch—The Presidency, the Cabinet and the White House staff.

b.    The Legislative Branch—both Houses of Congress

c.     The Judicial Branch—it seems to follow that the Supreme Court, and for the next four years all lower court appointees, will represent a conservative ideology.

"2.     One of two things will happen as a result:

a.     The ideology of the party that controls the government will be exposed as inadequate, or even counterproductive, for the good of the entire country.

b.    The ideology of the party that controls the government will be vindicated as adequate and effective in providing a foundation for the growth and integrity of our country.

"In either case, the direction of the country’s future will be clear: if (a) comes to pass, then we will be set back and damaged for a time; but, the way will become clearer as we move into the next election cycle. If (b) is the reality, the way also will be clear for the next election cycle.

"I pray that if (a) plays out, the damage will not be too bad. And if it is (b) that plays out, I pray that I will have the grace to own up to the inadequacies of my own ideology, and will be able to swallow my pride and support what seems to be working.

"I have my own ideas about which scenario will play out. For now, what do we as Christians do?

"As usual, I found great wisdom in the closing words of Bill Rose-Heim’s letter to the churches in the region he serves (Greater Kansas City Region):

"'We can re-commit to living out our Disciples identity:

“’We are Disciples of Christ, a movement for wholeness in a fragmented world.  As part of the one body of Christ, we welcome all to the Lord’s Table as God has welcomed us.

“'Talk about timely!  Let’s get around the Table.  Let’s listen and speak with humility and wisdom, compassion and hope. Then, let’s get to work!  We are ALL called and chosen for this time!'

"And Unity is our Polar Star!"

Together in the Walk,

Pastor Jim

A Reverent Intelligence

The first major issue to face Christianity was, “What are we going to do with all these Gentile converts?” Jesus’ teaching was seen as a reform movement within Judaism; but, when the fledgling church began spreading its witness, many Jews—especially within leadership—were hostile. But Gentiles accepted the gospel and came by droves!

“What are we going to do with all these Gentile converts?” There were no creeds for them to memorize—no New Testament for them to read. The Gospels and Epistles wouldn’t appear for another thirty years; and by that time, churches had been established.

Under Peter’s leadership, the initial response was simple: make them become Jews first: submit to the law, keep the kosher dietary rules, offer the proper sacrifices… Make the men be circumcised (that’ll weed out the riff-raff!). A whole Christian sect—mostly converted Jews—grew out of that teaching. They were called “Judaizers.”

Communities of believers emerged in Jerusalem and Caesarea. Some disciples moved north, into Syria. and were teaching and gathering believers in Antioch. Paul took the Gospel into what we know today as Turkey. All this happened, without a written doctrine or manual of policies and procedures.

By the time Paul reached Corinth in his second missionary journey, there already was a church there, and at least two preachers had preceded him. There we see a chaotic mess resulting from the debate over which preacher got it right: “I follow Peter/I support Apollos/I agree with Paul…”

They were confusing ends and means. The Gospel was about Jesus. They were arguing over preachers and baptism and the role of women and whether to eat meat…

And to add to the challenge, the new converts were coming out of pagan religions, and wanted simply to add Jesus as one more God in their pantheon. They wanted to continue to worship in the Temple of Diana, the Temple of Apollo and the Oracle at Delphi...

What are we going to do with all these Gentile converts? Paul returned to Jerusalem and challenged Peter and those who said Gentiles must become Jews before they could become Christians. Paul prevailed, and Gentiles could enter the church simply by a confession of faith and submission to baptism.

But the challenges continued; with a surplus of Christian preachers, many of them recent converts, there were heresies: Gnosticism (the Gospel of John appears to have been written, at least in part, as a counter-testimony to Gnosticism), Docetism, Arianism… Paul’s letters were the first attempts to bring together a message that was consistent and faithful to the life and teachings of Jesus.

But we humans are insecure when it comes to spiritual matters. “What if we get it wrong?” We want things nailed down, carved in stone. We’re uncomfortable with faith. We prefer certainty. We tend to fall for slick-talking carnival barkers and sideshows offering “Five Easy Steps to Heaven” or “Fire Insurance Doctrines” or a “Prosperity Gospel.”

Paul refused to compromise. Over and over he said, “The rituals we perform, the liturgies we recite, and the ethical standards we put into practice are expressions of the faith we hold; they are not the means by which we attain heaven and avoid hell.”

In Paul’s second missionary journey—in Lystra—he developed a strong mentoring relationship with a young Christian named Timothy. Timothy accompanied Paul on some of his later journeys, and eventually Paul left him in charge of the church in Ephesus.

But the mentoring continued with this young Bishop of Ephesus, and we have two of Paul’s letters to him. Our text today comes from the second letter. Timothy was confronted with heresies:

• religion without power;
• trusting in the right form, the right ritual, instead of trusting in the grace of God;
• fads and fancies… you know them: “it doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere; after all, we’re all trying to get to the same place…”
• religion that focuses almost exclusively on the destination, and neglects the journey…
• superficial faith that clings to the ancient wisdom that “The good are rewarded and the evil are punished.” And if we don’t see that happening in our world, we rationalize: “Well, ‘When we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be’…”
• simplistic faith that trivializes the Gospel’s promise of heaven, assigning it exclusively to another time and another place totally separated from life here and now.

Those kinds of heresies. And Paul writes:

2 Timothy 3:13-17 (NRSV) But wicked people and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived. ¹⁴But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, ¹⁵and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

From the beginnings of Christianity—I suppose throughout the history of religions in general—voices have called for believers to check their brains at the door when engaging in matters of faith. Just wrap your mind in memorized creeds and doctrines and carefully selected verses of Scripture. And don’t ask questions. Just accept what we tell you.

Those voices had become the official voice of the church by the Middle Ages, as creeds and catechisms replaced rational thinking. And then, Martin Luther nailed his famous “95 Theses” on the door of the Wittenberg Church.

The Reformation had limited effectiveness. It released the minds of some brilliant thinkers—both sacred and secular. Indirectly it led to the Enlightenment, which produced the writings of John Locke, whose ideas heavily influenced the thinking of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, founders of our denomination.

The Campbells separated themselves from their church heritage, primarily in opposition to the use of creeds as tests of faith and tests of fellowship. Alexander Campbell said, “Faith is personal; not doctrinal;” and he and his father offered a faith that was reasonable, based upon Scripture.

Hopefully, you can see how those principles line up so well with our text today, when Paul encourages Timothy to “continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, ¹⁵and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings…”

My friend, Rodney Allen Reeves, a cradle Disciple and serious student of Christianity, calls it a “Reverent Intelligence.” Our reason, he says, “needs to be tempered especially with ‘reverent intelligence’, grounded not only in sacred writings and faith, but as Alexander Campbell stressed, grounded also in our rational human experience, and in the humility of our human condition that recognizes that we are not ‘omniscient’ beings. Rather, we ‘live and move and have our very being’ in a creative cosmos filled with Mystery.” And our faith brings us to the awareness of a divine persona that, in William James’ term, is "a more"—more than we can know; more even than we can ever imagine!”

In such a state of awareness, we can only stand before that divine persona in awe and reverence.

But in our own time, those voices are being raised again. The result has been damaging: a “spiritually hungry, institutionally disillusioned public”[1] increasingly perceives the church as mindlessly locked into irrelevant, irrational doctrines, judgmental, homophobic and committed only to its own well-being.

That same disillusioned public wants to know, simply, “What does it mean to follow Jesus and to become more like him?” For several weeks now, we’ve been looking at that same question> It involves infinitely more than mental affirmations and verbal recitations. The founders of the Christian Church, from the beginning, called on Disciples to bring “a reverent intelligence” to our faith journey.

The integration of faith and intellect—the integration of our whole being—is imbedded in the DNA of our church history; and is indispensable to the health and vitality of our witness. Paul puts it this way in Romans 12:1:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your whole being as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

---

[1] Thomas G. Bandy identifies this public as the largest and fastest-growing spiritual population in North America.

Jesus Blesses the Children

Matthew 19:13-15 ~  “Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them…”

Isn’t it strange how sometimes those who are closest to Jesus are the ones who keep others away? Jesus’ exhortation about causing “one of these little ones to stumble”[1] is still ringing in their ears; but the disciples want to keep the children away.

Around the world for the last century, non-Christians and wannabe Christians have been saying they are influenced negatively, not about Jesus, but about Christians. Even Mahatma Gandhi reportedly said to Methodist Missionary, E. Stanley Jones, “I like your Christ; but your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

I don’t know what it will take for the humility of Jesus to displace the arrogance that is projected, unintentional and unconscious as it may be, by so many, many Christians. The attitude that we have all the answers and everybody needs to think and speak and act the way we say, is one of the greatest barriers to the health of Christianity.

Jesus promised, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all (people) to myself” (John 12:32). But, like the ancient Pharisees of Jesus’ time, so many rigid, legalistic expressions of Christianity are literally driving more and more people away.

There is a world of difference between saying, “Jesus is the only way,”[2] and saying “Our path is the only path to Jesus.”

Hopefully those being driven away from organized, institutional religious expressions are being drawn, by whatever means, to Jesus, who I think also would reject much of what operates under his name. And I think the primary factor that is driving people away is the perceptions, not that Jesus is being lifted up, but that people are being put down for not conforming to the doctrinal hoops through which so many churches insist they must jump.

Am I standing in the way—preventing someone from coming to Jesus?

---

[1] Matthew 8:6-16, see April 8 above.

[2] An affirmation I do not espouse. Jesus is the only way I have experienced God; therefore, I cannot bear witness to any other path. However, Jesus, himself said, “I have other sheep that are not of this fold,” which can be inferred to mean that there are alternative paths to him. Besides, I would not be arrogant enough to limit the ways God can draw people to God’s self, and I especially would not be arrogant enough to say that my understanding of Jesus is the only pathway to him. What I say is not an infallible pronouncement; it is but a witness, and I can bear witness only to that which I have seen and heard and experienced.

Teachings About Divorce

Matthew 18:23-35 ~ Teachings about divorce

Once again the Pharisees ask Jesus a “how-much-can-we-get-away-with” kind of question—“What’s the least we have to do to comply with the law?” Such is the nature of legalism. The law becomes an end in itself, rather than a means toward a specific end, namely a Godly life.

Jesus’ teachings in particular, and the Jewish law in general are descriptive, rather than prescriptive. Jesus’ kingdom parables always begin, “The kingdom of heaven is like…” The Pharisees’ most frequent approach is, “What must we do to get it?” Jesus has said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness…” The Pharisees ask, “Is it legal to divorce?” Jesus has said, “If you want to gain your life you must lose it.” The Pharisees ask, “What if… ?”

In this instance, the attitude is this: “I’m going to divorce my wife. How can I do that without going to hell?” [That’s really not a fair paraphrase of what those 1^st century Pharisees asked. “Heaven” and “hell” didn’t mean the same thing to them that it means to most post-reformation Christians today; so I’ve updated the question to reflect what today’s Pharisees are asking.]

What we’re dealing with is the old universal wisdom that always has said goodness is rewarded and evil is punished. The Job narrative (perhaps the oldest portion of Judeo/Christian Scripture) is a rebuttal of that ancient wisdom, and Jesus’ own words negate the reward/punishment model when he says “God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).

Jesus says (Robinson paraphrase) that marriage is a reflection of God’s created order. It is a matter of the nature of humanity, not an invention of human laws and rules. By extension, since humans are created in the image of God, who is eternally faithful, it is natural that humans also be faithful in their relationships.

Bottom line: marriage is a natural reflection of creation because it is a reflection of the unity that holds all of creation together. Divorce, then, is unnatural, because it goes against God’s will and intention that all created things participate in the harmony of God’s creation.[1]

The Pharisees preferred the law of Moses, which allowed them to do what they already had decided to do. Go ahead and do it. We can always find a loophole later.

It’s really not about divorce. It’s about integrity. Relationships die, just as individuals die. No righteous God would desire or demand that a person remain in a totally abusive relationship.

The status of women in that culture was a gross violation of God’s intention for the unity of all things. Women were chattel, with no rights. A single woman was viewed as flawed, and a divorced woman was even worse. Single, divorced and even widowed women were vulnerable and virtually without protection.

So, for Jesus, it’s really not about divorce. It’s a much broader concern. It’s about how we humans relate in a created universe in which unity and harmony is the will of our creator.

If I am to follow Jesus, my concern will be about mending and healing broken relationships, rather than dismissing them because they’ve become inconvenient. [And, again, there’s a world of difference between inconvenient in intolerable.]

That's the way it looks through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] The clearest statement of this Divine intention may be Ephesians 1:8b-10, “With all wisdom and insight ⁹ he has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, ¹⁰ as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.”