Introduction⤒🔗

This article, is designed to interpret an article of the Church Order that has, in the brief history of the United Reformed Churches, become (in)famous for its already-frequent use. We are referring to Article 11, the regulations pertaining to dissolving the relationship between a minister and his congregation.

The organization of our analysis will begin with setting forth the text of the Church Order article in question, followed by a section dealing with the appropriate interpretation and application of that article. We will conclude with some observations designed to contextualize or embed the use of this article within a broader context of resolving conflicts within the congregation.

1. Church Polity Considerations←⤒🔗

What follows below is the text of the relevant Church Order articles from a variety of sources. These include the URCNA Church Order Article 11, the American/Canadian Reformed Churches Church Order Article 11, the CRCNA Church Order Article 17, and (for comparative purposes) the OPC Form of Government Chapter 24.

1.1 The Texts of Various Church Orders←↰⤒🔗

1.1.1. United Reformed Church in North America, Church Order, Article 11:←↰⤒🔗

If, for reasons other than such as warrant ecclesiastical discipline, either a minister of the Word or the congregation he is serving desires to dissolve their pastoral relationship, that dissolution shall occur only upon mutually satisfactory conditions and only with the concurring advice of the classis. If the released minister desires to receive a call to service another congregation, the council from whose service he is being released shall announce his eligibility for call, which eligibility shall be valid for no more than two years, whereafter he shall be honorably released from office. If the minister released from his congregation desires to leave his office in order to seek non-ministerial labor, he must receive the approval of the classis before doing so.

1.1.2.  American/Canadian Reformed Churches, Church Order, Article 11:←↰⤒🔗

If a minister of the Word is judged unfit and incapable of serving the congregation fruitfully and to its edification, without there being any reason for church discipline, the consistory with the deacons shall not dismiss him from his service within the congregation without the approbation of classis and the concurring advice of the deputies of regional synod, and not without proper arrangements regarding the support of the minister and his family for a reasonable period of time.

If no call is forthcoming in three years, he shall be declared released from his ministerial status by the classis in which he served last.

1.1.3.  Christian Reformed Church in North America, Church Order, Article 17:←↰⤒🔗

1. Ministers who are neither eligible for retirement nor worthy of discipline may for weighty reasons be released from active ministerial service in a congregation through action initiated by themselves, by a council, or jointly. Such release shall be given only with the approval of classis, with the concurring advice of the synodical deputies, and in accordance with synodical regulations.

2. The council shall provide for the support of a released minister in such a way and for such a time as shall receive the approval of classis.

3. A minister of the Word who has been released from active ministerial service in a congregation shall be eligible for call for a period of two years, after which time the classis, with the concurring advice of the synodical deputies, shall declare him to be released from the ministerial office. For weighty reasons the classis, with the concurring advice of the synodical deputies, may extend the eligibility for call on a yearly basis.

4. In some situations, the classis may decide that it cannot declare the released minister eligible for call after the minister has completed the process of evaluation and assistance. The classis, with the concurring advice of the synodical deputies, shall then declare the minister to be released from ministerial office."

1.2  Terms and Descriptions used in Article 11←↰⤒🔗

The URCNA Church Order employs a number of terms or phrases to regulate in specific ways how a minister may leave his labor or his office.

Retirement: involves ending the activities of office, while retaining the title and honor of office (Art. 10)

Suspension: a form of special discipline, i.e., discipline applied to officebearers involving temporary departure from office, relating to all congregations in the federation (Art. 61)

Deposition: a form of special discipline involving departure from office, relating to all congregations in the federation (Art. 61)

Dissolution, dismissal, or release: involves ending an official relationship between a minister and his congregation (Art. 11)

Distinguishing these terms is very important for using them appropriately. Dissolving the relationship between a minister and congregation is not equivalent to dismissing a man from office. Negatively, the reason for such dissolution may not be health, age, or error in doctrine or life. Positively, this action dissolves the local minister-church relationship for reasons of incompatibility or ineffectiveness that cannot be remedied.

2. The Interpretation and Application of Article 11←⤒🔗

2.1. The Misapplication of Article 11←↰⤒🔗

One seriously mistaken use of Article 11 involves dissolving the minister-congregation relationship (or dismissing a minister from his labors in a congregation) when the complaint really involves a matter worthy of discipline. In their widely used commentary on the CRC Church Order, Martin Monsma and Idzerd Van Dellen state emphatically: "Dismissal may never be substituted for suspension or deposition. Neither may (dismissal) be used when a congregation or consistory desires to 'get rid' of its minister for insufficient and unworthy reasons. But this article does apply when the relationship between a church and its minister has become so strained that real cooperation seems impossible, or when it is evident that the minister cannot be a blessing to the church concerned because of past happenings" (The Revised Church Order Commentary, 72). In other words, Article 11 does not apply, and may not be used, when a minister is suspected of being, or is judged to be, doctrinally unsound or morally corrupt.

Why is this so? Because normally a minister released from service in a congregation will be declared eligible for call by another congregation! It is unfair both to the minister and to other congregations in the federation when a minister whose reputation is clouded with the suspicion of error is nevertheless declared fit to serve another congregation.

2.2. The Reason for Dissolving the Relationship←↰⤒🔗

Article 11 is clear, as far as it goes: "If, for reasons other than such as warrant ecclesiastical discipline, either a minister of the Word or the congregation he is serving desires to dissolve their pastoral relationship..." The article provides no further explanation, since the occasion for this desire can vary from one situation to another.

The formulations of other Reformed Church Orders are worthy of note. The formulation of the American/Canadian Reformed Churches is: "If a minister of the Word is judged unfit and incapable of serving the congregation fruitfully and to its edification..." The CRCNA Church Order stipulates that such a release from service shall occur "for weighty reasons."

Admittedly, it is not an easy matter for a Church Order article to stipulate all the possible reasons or circumstances where ministerial incompatibility or ineffectiveness cannot be remedied. Some may wish to challenge this as being an illegitimate and unbiblical approach to dealing with problems that arise between a minister and congregation, arguing that this relationship is like a marriage where the parties are bound to one another for life. (We plan to discuss this analogy later.)

The formulations of both the URC and the CRC avoid assigning blame for the irremediable situation to the minister, since, as we shall see, either the minister or the congregation may desire (and pursue) dissolution. By contrast, the formulation of the American/Canadian Reformed Churches seems to place a larger measure of blame on the minister who is judged unfit and incapable of serving the congregation fruitfully and to its edification.

If, for reasons other than such as warrant ecclesiastical discipline, either a minister of the Word or the congregation he is serving desires to dissolve their pastoral relationship, that dissolution shall occur only upon mutually satisfactory conditions and only with the concurring advice of the classis. If the released minister desires to receive a call to service another congregation, the council from whose service he is being released shall announce his eligibility for call, which eligibility shall be valid for no more than two years, whereafter he shall be honorably released from office. If the minister released from his congregation desires to leave his office in order to seek non-ministerial labor, he must receive the approval of the classis before doing so.

2.3. Mutual Censure←↰⤒🔗

Dissolving the minister-congregation relationship is perhaps the most severe trauma a minister and a church can experience. This pain and suffering are to be wished upon no one, and therefore every effort must be expended to avoid such an outcome.

This leads us to suggest that Article 11 (on dissolution) "kicks in" when Article 63 (on mutual censure) has failed.

Let me explain.

Reformed polity recognizes the parity of officebearers, which means that each of the offices was instituted by Jesus Christ and each officebearer is called to his office by Jesus Christ through the congregation. No officebearer may lord it over another officebearer (Article 65, "No church shall in any way lord it over other churches, and no officebearers shall lord it over other officebearers."). Often we think in this connection of "dominocracy" or domination-by-the-minister, but frankly, "presbyteriocracy" (domination-by-the-elders) and "diaconiocracy" (domination-by-the-deacons) are equally possible! The impulse to dominate wasn't born in seminary.

To this parity among church officebearers belongs the exercise of mutual accountability. As brothers in Christ called to labor together in service to his people, these leaders must be willing to answer to each another, and where needed, to both give and receive fraternal encouragement and correction. This is what Article 63 describes when it speaks of regularly exercising mutual censure.

The ministers, elders and deacons shall exercise mutual censure regularly, whereby they exhort one another in an edifying manner regarding the discharge of their offices.

Mutual submission gets modeled in mutual censure.

Mutual censure is the point where problems between a congregation and minister are likely to surface for the council's attention. At least this is where they should be discussed, but only in a proper way. Mutual censure should avoid fault-finding and petty criticism, while aiming at loving and helpful edification of the brother. Problems must be discussed fairly, forthrightly, calmly, dearly, and purposefully. If necessary the brothers should agree on a plan of action for responding to criticism, improving the performance of official tasks, following up to bring closure, and resolving any matter or complaint or criticism.

When this exercise of mutual censure is neglected, or when it becomes ineffective, the relationship between the congregation and the minister can easily and quickly deteriorate beyond hope of repair. So a faithful use of Article 63 can help avoid the need for using Article 11!

2.4. The Decision for Dissolution←↰⤒🔗

The relevant wording of Article 11 is this: "If ... either a minister of the Word or the congregation he is serving desires to dissolve their pastoral relationship, that dissolution shall occur only upon mutually satisfactory conditions and only with the concurring advice of the classis." The impetus or desire for dissolving the relationship may proceed from either the minister or "the congregation."

We place "the congregation" in quotation marks, because the wording of Article 11 may seem to give the impression that it is the congregation that decides to dissolve the relationship – perhaps even by a congregational vote! But such a decision or action would violate a fundamental principle of Reformed polity (in distinction, say, from Baptist polity), namely, that the council is the body responsible for the official relationship between a minister and the congregation. In other words, the desire for dissolution may proceed from either the minister or the congregation, but in either case, it is implemented through the council.

In Article 23, the Church Order provides the following description of the council: "When the deacons meet together with the Consistory, the body is referred to as the council. The council shall exercise such duties described in the Church Order or such duties delegated to it by the Consistory. The council shall operate under the authority of the Consistory."

So the council consists of all the officebearers – minister, elders, and deacons. Why, then, does Article 11 speak of the council rather than only the consistory implementing the request for dissolution? Three reasons explain this:

1. As Article 11 clearly states, the reason or occasion for dissolution is not disciplinary. If it were, then indeed the consistory would be the body involved, rather than the council, since the consistory (the elders) exercises official ecclesiastical discipline toward both officebearers and members of the congregation.

2. It was the council (not the congregation, nor simply the consistory) that officially and formally extended the call to the minister. This is reinforced in Article 6, which supplies the steps for lawfully calling a minister: "First, the election by the council of one who has been declared a candidate according to the regulations prescribed herein." Later, in Article 7, we find the stipulation that someone already ordained who receives a call to another congregation "shall consult with his current council regarding that call. He may accept the call only with their consent." Extending a call, signing the letter of call, approving a minister's accepting another call, and dissolving the minister-congregation relationship, are actions that fall within the purview of the council.

3. Finally, Article 11 itself goes on to speak of "the council from whose service he is being released" announcing his eligibility for call. Although the minister's doctrine and life belong to the supervision of the elders, his relationship to the congregation belongs to the supervision of the elders and deacons.

So we see that the minister-congregation relationship may be dissolved not by the minister on his own, nor by a congregational vote, nor by the consistory, but only by decision of the council.

2.5. Classical Involvement in the Dissolution←↰⤒🔗

Regarding the matter of classical involvement in dissolving the relationship, a comparison of various Church Order formulations proves helpful.

• United Reformed: "that dissolution shall occur only upon mutually satisfactory conditions and only with the concurring advice of the classis."

• Canadian Reformed: "the consistory with the deacons shall not dismiss him from his service within the congregation without the approbation of classis and the concurring advice of the deputies of regional synod."

• Christian Reformed: "Such release shall be given only with the approval of classis, with the concurring advice of the synodical deputies."

As we can see, some Church Orders require classical "approbation" or "approval" along with the concurring advice of synodical deputies as the prerequisite for dissolving the relationship. Presumably, if the classis does not approbate or approve, or the deputies do not concur, then the dissolution does not take place. By contrast, Article 11 of the URC Church Order mentions only "the concurring advice of the classis," and makes no mention of either regional or general synodical deputies. Here, too, if the classis does not concur, presumably the dissolution does not occur.

For what reasons might the classis withhold its approval or concurrence? The classis may have concerns about,

• the validity of the reason(s) advanced for dissolution.

• the process leading to the decision to dissolve the relationship.

• consequences to the congregation, or to the minister, if care is not taken to follow due process – i.e., if the council has not gathered adequate relevant information, or weighed the evidence fairly, or investigated avenues for resolution, and the like.

In view of these potential concerns, it is rather unfortunate that Article 11 omits explicit mention of the desirability of involving the classis, through its church visitors, before a decision regarding dissolution is made. For one could interpret Article 11 to require classical involvement only at the end of the process, when a decision has already been made between the minister and his council to dissolve the relationship; the involvement of classis would begin then when the mutually satisfactory conditions for the already- decided dissolution need the concurring advice of the classis.

The only mention of classical church visitors and their mandate appears in Article 27:

Each Consistory of the classis shall invite two experienced officebearers appointed by classis, either two ministers or a minister and an elder, to visit the council once every two years, who shall give account of their visit to the classis. These visitors shall inquire whether the officebearers faithfully perform their duties, adhere to sound doctrine, observe in all things the adopted order, and properly promote as much as lies in them, by word and deed, the edification of the congregation, including the youth, to the end that these visitors may fraternally admonish those officebearers who have in anything been negligent, and may by their advice and assistance help direct all things unto the peace, edification and greatest profit of the churches.

This article describes their routine biennial visits made to each council, upon invitation by the consistory, for the purpose of reviewing the labors of the officebearers.

The Church Order does not stipulate any other circumstances under which church visitors might or should assist officebearers with advice and counsel. Surely the difficulties leading up to dissolving the minister-congregation relationship warrant specific attention in the Church Order to the need for classical involvement through its church visitors as early as possible in a situation of growing conflict and disaffection (remembering that the advice and counsel of church visitors, though weighty, is not binding on the council [see With Common Consent, by W. W. J. van Oene, p. 222])

An ancient Latin proverb goes like this: Abusus non tollit usum, or misuse does not nullify proper use. This is just as true of steak knives as of church visitors. Many people have been hurt by both, but only folly suggests that a thing's abuse disqualifies its proper use. Rather, wisdom teaches a thing's proper use, whether in the kitchen or the church.

If, for reasons other than such as warrant ecclesiastical discipline, either a minister of the Word or the congregation he is serving desires to dissolve their pastoral rela­tionship, that dissolution shall occur only upon mutually satisfactory conditions and only with the concurring advice of the classis. If the released minister desires to receive a call to serve another congregation, the council from whose service he is being released shall announce his eligibility for call, which eligibility shall be valid for no more than two years, whereafter he shall be honorably released from office. If the minister released from his congregation desires to leave his office in order to seek non-ministerial labor, he must receive the approval of the classis before doing so.Church Order, Article 11
United Reformed Churches in North America

3. Pastoral Considerations←⤒🔗

3.1. Is the Permission of Article 11 bib­lical?←↰⤒🔗

For those committed to the holiness of the church and the sacredness of ecclesi­astical office, the question is quite natu­ral: Is it biblical to permit the minister-congregation relationship to be dissolved?

If there is one passage that may appear most relevant to our discussion, it is the episode involving the separation between the apostle Paul and his mis­sionary companions Barnabas and John Mark. In Acts 15:37-40, we read:

Now Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, hav­ing been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.

Despite this sharp disagreement, the apostle wrote to Timothy years later, "Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry" (2 Timothy 4:11).

Notice that this incident occurred between missionaries, not between a minister and congregation. Moreover, the strategy of teaming Mark with Barnabas and Silas with Paul, with each team going its own way, apparently met with the approval of other brothers, who commended Paul to the Lord. The apostle's criticism of John Mark was later replaced with appreciation, and their relationship was apparently repaired.

In light of these observations, this pas­sage has no direct relevance, but only indirect application to the question at hand. Certainly the Bible provides other principles and considerations relevant to dissolving a minister-congregation relationship, precepts governing atti­tudes of heart, truth-telling, willingness to forgive, and much more. But the Bible nowhere explicitly prohibits dis­solving the relationship.

This conclusion does not contradict the truth that minister and congregation have been brought together by divine providence. At the service of ordination or installation, God's providential lead­ing was celebrated with joy. The minis­ter-congregation relationship was described clearly in the "Form for the Ordination (or: Installation) of Ministers of the Word" in the Psalter Hymnal (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1976; pages 165-168). It can be both helpful and humbling for both minister and congregation, in the con­text of disagreement and hostility, to be reminded of their promises to each other. At one time they agreed on this:

We rejoice that in His faithful love the Lord Jesus has provided a minister to serve as pastor and teacher to this peo­ple, and also as their leader in the mis­sionary calling of this church. We receive this servant of our Lord from the hand and heart of the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. We are grateful that our Savior has committed preaching, teaching, and pastoral care to the office of the ministry, and that He will contin­ue to use sinful men for such high and holy purposes until the day of His return.

Then the minister answered affirma­tively this question:
''Do you believe that in the call of this congregation you are called by God Himself to this holy ministry?''

And the congregation answered this one:
''Do you promise to receive the Word of God proclaimed by him and to encourage him in the discharge of his duty?''

Both minister and congregation received exhortations unto faithfulness, followed by a closing prayer thanking God by acknowledging the minister as "the gift of this Thy servant, sent to this people as a messenger of Thy peace," and requesting that God "grant that this people may receive him as having been sent by Thee."

All the more painful, then, when alien­ation and hostility come to replace this joy. All the more distressing when atti­tudes toward one another have hard­ened and recrimination has become the reflex.

Employing the analogy of marriage in terms of this issue is not helpful in every respect, however. We all would acknowledge that God designed mar­riage such that husband and wife remain united "until death do us part." But no minister or congregation makes such a promise to one another at the time of ordination or installation. Although a minister is bound for life to his office, he is not bound for life to exercise his office in one congregation! Dissolving the minister-congregation relationship is therefore not equivalent to a divorce between husband and wife; that feature of the analogy is quite misleading, and rather inappropriate. To be sure, virtues and attitudes required for a healthy Christian marriage (loyalty, sensitivity, willingness to sacrifice, etc.) are also required for a healthy relationship between minister and congregation — but they are also required for a healthy Christian testimony in the workplace and in other social settings.

Yes, minister and congregation are brought together by God — and that divine providence binds them together in mutual service to the gospel. But when circumstances arise in which that mutual service to the gospel is impossi­ble, then for the sake of the gospel they should be permitted to dissolve their relationship.

3.2. Advice from the Past←↰⤒🔗

This permission has been embedded in Reformed polity for more than a century

About one hundred years ago, Dr. F. L. Rutgers served the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands with advice on ques­tions of applying the Church Order to the life of the churches. He wrote a regular column, in which he answered questions sent to him by consistories or church members. Two volumes of his answers were published in the early 1900s.

"For what reasons may a minister be dismissed?" someone asked Dr. Rutgers, in connection with a specific minister serving a particular congregation.

Let me summarize his answer.

With reference to the complaints of the consistory and some members in "church X" about "Reverend So-and-so," Rutgers could hardly provide any advice, since he was not sufficiently acquainted with the persons and situa­tions so far removed. In general the complaints submitted about the minis­ter seemed rather vague: "The minister's preaching doesn't edify." "His cate­chism teaching leaves a lot to be desired." "The minister often stretches the truth through exaggeration." Rutgers thought that the classis needed to inves­tigate the complaints and seek more precision and more facts surrounding these complaints. After all, such vague complaints could apply to any number of ministers, but in themselves these complaints don't warrant dismissal.

In some cases, the blame rests with the congregation. The consistory and con­gregation bear some responsibility for not having sufficiently investigated the abilities and compatibility of their min­ister before extending to him a call. A consistory and congregation would want to know especially if he had expe­rienced difficulties in previous pas­torates.

This is not to exempt the minister from responsibility, but simply to indi­cate that people must not move too quickly to dismiss a minister, simply because the congregation is no longer satisfied with him or cannot get along with him. A number of churches have been served by men with average abili­ty, or by men who developed their abili­ties over the years. We should not make it easy for the minister-congregation relationship to be dissolved, for that too will have serious consequences. This relationship has been established by God, as we acknowledge in the Form for Ordination, and therefore may be dissolved only for weighty reasons.

On the other hand, a church may not be sacrificed for the sake of one man.

But the best way to deal with a particular situation (warn the minister? admonish the consistory? rebuke critical church members? etc.) requires accurate knowledge of people and circum­stances, far more than what was supplied in those vague complaints.

Rutgers concluded with a stern warn­ing that the Church Order (back then) did not explicitly permit such dissolu­tion, even though such a dissolution was conceivable and did not violate the spirit of the Church Order.You can find this discussion in Kerkelijke Adviezen, vol. 1
[Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1921], pages 80-83.

3.3. An Improved Church Order?←↰⤒🔗

You may recall that we cited Article 11 from the Church Order of the American/Canadian Reformed Churches, which describes the occasion for dissolving a minister-congregation relationship this way: "If a minister of the Word is judged unfit and incapable of serving the congregation fruit­fully and to its edifica­tion..." We then observed that this for­mulation seems to place a larger measure of blame on the minister who is judged unfit and incapable of serving the congregation fruitfully. The situation may be due, however, to the unfitness or incapacity of the congregation. So the Church Order should envision either possibility.

In this connection, it may be helpful to con­sider the relevant article that has been formulat­ed for the proposed combined Church Order:

Exceptional release of a minister When for weighty reasons and excep­tional circumstances a pastoral relation­ship has been irreconcilably broken, a council may release its minister from his call only under all of the following conditions:

• this release shall not occur for delin­quency in doctrine or life, which would warrant church discipline;

• this release shall occur only when attempted reconciliation, with the involvement of classis, has been unsuc­cessful, resulting in an intolerable situa­tion;

• this release shall occur only with the approval of classis and the concurring advice of the deputies of regional synod; and

• this release shall require the approval by classis of the council's provision for the adequate congregational support of the minister and his family for up to two years.

The council from whose service he has been released shall announce his eligi­bility for call. This eligibility shall be valid for no more than two years, whereafter he shall be honorably discharged from office.

Aside from the mention of deputies of regional synod, which may be unfamil­iar to some readers, this proposed arti­cle should not strike anyone as unusual or innovative, given the history of Reformed church polity. Moreover, this proposal includes those very elements we have found to be lacking in the cur­rent URC Church Order Article 11.

3.4. A Mode for Collaborating←↰⤒🔗

After a thorough and objective investi­gation of the conflict between minister and congregation, the ultimate diagnos­tic question that must be answered comes down to this: Given the current circumstances, can this man continue to serve this congregation effectively? If the council and minister cannot agree on the answer to this question, advice should be sought from church visitors, the neighboring consistory, or classis. Please understand that the current cir­cumstances are neither unchangeable nor regulative. Although we must take current circumstances into account when evaluating a minister-congrega­tion relationship, wisdom investigates the prospects for improvement. Attitudes can change, wounds can heal, sins can be forgiven – and then mutual service can continue. We should not underestimate the power of divine grace, especially in the church, of all places! In assessing this relationship, wise counselors look for a supple spirit, a humble readiness to cooperate, and a show of grace by everyone involved.

As we all know from experience, this suppleness, humility, and graciousness do not appear instantaneously. They must be cultivated. That is to say: these virtues must be reflexive responses from the very beginning of the minister-congregation relationship, and everyone must continually protect these responses, encourage them, identify them, and celebrate them.

Here, indeed, the marriage analogy is helpful. Even as a husband and wife must learn to live together in the Lord, so too a minister and congre­gation must learn to love each other, to bear with each other's faults, to live together in grace and mercy. Their relationship will have just the right tone and texture when minister, elders, and congregation continually ask them­selves each the right question. Let the minister continually ask: "What must I do in order to serve the gospel effective­ly in this congregation?" Let the elders continually ask, "What must we do in order to enhance the effectiveness of the minister's service in this congregation?" And let members of the congregation continually ask, "What must we do in order to demonstrate the gospel togeth­er before the watching world?"

Today is a difficult time to be a minis­ter of the gospel, and a difficult time to be the church of Jesus Christ. We all – minister and congregation – face con­flicting agendas and competing expecta­tions that need to be sorted out and straightened out by the Holy Spirit working in us with his Word. May our Triune God bless us and keep us; may he cause his face to shine upon us and be gracious to us; may he lift up his countenance upon us.

And give us peace.