Category Archives: Bible Study

Books That Shape Us

old-books

From time to time someone will mention a book to me and I find myself saying, “Oh! That’s in my Top Ten List!” So, I figured I would sit down and see if I really do have a Top Ten List. These are ten books that shaped me as a younger believer, or that shaped my thinking about ministry. None is academic; I think all are accessible. Here they are, in no particular order. There might just as easily have been twenty, I suppose.

1. Spiritual Authority, by Watchman Nee
2. God Meant It For Good, by R. T. Kendall
3. The Making Of A Man Of God, by Alan Redpath
4. The Prophetic Ministry, by Rick Joyner
5. Humility, by Andrew Murray
6. How To Be Born Again, by Billy Graham
7. The Holy Spirit And You, by Dennis & Rita Bennett (so helpful back in the day!)
8. Rees Howells, Intercessor, by Norman Grubb
9. Prayer Series, by E. M. Bounds
10. Power Healing, by John Wimber

What about you? Do you have a Top Five or a Top Ten you’d like to share?

More About “Private Tongues”

matchstick-20237

I recently had opportunity to teach again on different aspects of speaking in tongues, and in the course of teaching, I referred people to my post entitled “The Private, Devotional Use of Tongues.” This was a piece I wrote in the middle of the “Strange Fire” controversy several years ago.

Things had quieted down on that front but, to my surprise, a flurry of comments has just come in from someone who disagrees with me strongly about speaking or praying in tongues privately. I wanted to give this brother, Mr. Ron Cash, the courtesy of addressing his objections in the form of a actual post, rather than a comment thread, which can become hard to follow. I also want to reassert my position and see if working through his objections could be helpful. When talking about spiritual gifts (and certainly tongues) I think it’s a good thing to deal with people’s real questions, concerns, and objections, rather than being too theoretical.

Here are Mr. Cash’s objections and, as always, I invite his (and your) further thoughts.

Objection 1: …you have not taken the entire context into account. The epistle to the Corinthians was addressed to the most carnal church in the entire NT. You cannot just take a few verses out of context and make a doctrine out of it. What you are actually doing is appealing to the way the Corinthians were using the gift and somehow using that as an example to emulate. Again, Paul considered them carnal, as in “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal”. So what you are doing is using the practice of carnal christian’s as your example.

Response 1: On the contrary, I think I have taken the whole context into account. There’s nothing in what I’ve said that seeks to use the practice of carnal people as an example. Thoughtful Pentecostals and Charismatics have always taught that Paul was correcting the misuse of a valid gift. Especially do we see this in Chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians, where Paul takes great pains to emphasize that the rule of love (specifically the rule of seeking to edify the church) must govern whether one speaks in a tongue or in the vernacular at any particular moment. What was making the Corinthians carnal was not speaking in tongues per se, but their unloving (or otherwise inappropriate, unedifying use of tongues). I agree with Mr. Cash’s statements to the effect that 1 Corinthians, Chapters 12-14, are corrective in nature. No one is debating this. But this does not mean that there is no valid personal use of tongues — it only means that the personal use of tongues is inappropriate in certain settings, and Paul gives examples to show us what he is getting at.

Objection 2: So his whole train of thought is very consistent in Chap. 12 to Chap 14. It is all about using the gifts for the common good to edify the body, anything else is abuse, self centered abuse, remember Chap. 3 he called them “babes in Christ”.

Response 2: Yes, I think anything else is definitely abusive of the gift, but I’m afraid it’s Mr. Cash who has gone beyond Paul’s argument, which is to address the corporate setting.

Objection 3: Notice he mentions what tongues are here, he clearly calls them “languages”, which is why he concludes that thought with “13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.” He never said, sometimes interpret. Who is to pray to interpret? The “one who speaks in a tongue”, which means always. If you speak in a tongue, then pray to interpret. How many who practice this as a “private prayer” language are doing that? If not you are disobeying the word of God, plain and simple, every time you ignore this verse. This verse has never been rescinded!

Response 3: The context here, again, is a church gathering, as Paul says in v. 6, “But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?” (1 Cor. 14:6, NKJV) In such settings, an uninterpreted tongue is unloving, inappropriate, unedifying, and therefore forbidden by apostolic command. See also verse 12, the immediately preceding verse: “Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.” Of course, the verse which follow on from v. 13 show very clearly that there is an appropriate giving of thanks, etc., in tongues, and that Paul would regulate himself in the matter depending on his situation. You cannot deny that this is the context of v. 19, in which he says that in the church he will speak in the vernacular.

I woudl also point out the word language in 1 Cor. 14:10 is questionable in this context. The KJV is actually better when it renders it as voice, because it is the Greek word phone. It means a voice or sound. The languages in Acts 2:6 are the word dialektos, something more like an actual language. Your argument assumes that all tongues speaking at Corinth was xenolalia, which I don’t think was your intention.

Objection 4: You said, “As for the devotional practices of Paul himself, we have his own record in 1 Cor. 14: 18-19a: “I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: yet in the church…” Where did Paul’s frequent tongues-speaking take place? By his own words, it was done mostly outside of the church – in other words, privately.” I certainly accept the verses as quoted as being true, but you have made numerous assumptions about these verses that are just no supported by Paul and the NT. First and foremost, you said, ” in other words, privately.” Where does it say that anywhere in Scripture? I would be interested in seeing where it says Paul used it “privately”. I myself do not know anywhere that is stated. So this would seem like a big assumption on your part and that this slight twist you put on his quote is what you are using to try to shift the meaning of what tongues is. Paul made it clear that as a basic tenet not to be violated, “13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.”

Response 4: The word privately is not used, but it is certainly descriptive of what Paul is conveying to us. You and I agree that Paul commands interpretation in the church, but you are not grappling with verse 19 in which Paul says he spoke with tongues more than them all, yet in the church he would rather speak five words in the vernacular. You have gutted completely the force of your own argument. He did it more than the Corinthians, who did it a lot, and he contrasts that frequent use of tongues with what he did in church.

Objection 5: You said, “Where did Paul’s frequent tongues-speaking take place? By his own words, it was done mostly outside of the church” Of course, Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and he was a Hebrew of Hebrews, so he needed the gift of languages to communicate the gospel to them, nowhere does it say “privately”, that is jumping completely out of context. And that is exactly what he had in mind when he said, “”If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian,”. He even goes on to say, “In the Law it is written, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me,” says the Lord. 22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers;” So he also has the idea of his talking to “unbelievers” in mind in this passage from chap 12 to chap 14.

Response 5: Again, you’re confounding the context here. The verse about the barbarian, verse 11, is followed immediately by verse 12 which says to excel in edifying the church. He’s clearly talking about the need to interpret tongues in a public meeting, as you yourself wished to emphasize from v. 13. Even the passage about being a sign to unbelievers has to do with avoiding the problem of unbelievers coming into a gathering were everyone is speaking in tongues and thinking the saints are mad. Perhaps we should notice again that verse 23-28, which give more insight into public meetings, follow verse 22.

You’re also attempting to make a strong conclusion from a very weak argument from silence. We have no record whatsoever in Scripture that the Gospel was preached through a gift of tongues. Even in Acts 2 the Gospel was not preached in tongues; rather, the wonderful works of God were extolled. It was left to Peter to preach Christ in the vernacular. No one, no one at all, preached the Gospel in the Book of Acts by speaking to them using the gift of tongues. Such a thing (which I admit is possible) would undercut your cessationism, since if tongues were given for that purpose, it would seem it should still be needed.

I would also point you to 1 Corinthians 14:2 where Paul specifically says that he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. This forces honest readers to confess that tongues are for prayer and/or worship only, as they are directed God-wards.

I will close with this:

Three Things Cessationists Ignore, Demonstrated from a SIngle Verse, 1 Corinthians 14:28: “But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.” (NKJV)

  1. Private tongues: notice that the man is told to speak to himself if there is no interpreter or, we may surmise, if he himself does not have the faith to interpret. Notice that he is in a church service.
  2. Praying in tongues: notice that the man is speaking to God. I think most Christians would agree this limits his speech to prayer or expressions of praise. Of course, some Cessationists have denied that there is even such a thing as praying in tongues at all, even though Paul specifically alludes to the practice in 1 Cor. 14:14 and says that when a person prays in a tongue his spirit (not his mind) is praying.
  3. Edifying of the self is a good thing, not a bad thing. It can certainly be wrong to edify yourself when you’re in church to edify others; our use of the spiritual gifts is always to be governed by love. However, there is nothing wrong with edifying ourselves per se. And Paul allows people here to speak in a tongue to themselves and to God, even in church. This is clearly a private activity, which will result in spiritual edification to the one speaking, however unquantifiable or inexplicable to us. We know this is so because Paul has said that he “who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” (1 Cor. 14:4)

These one verse shows these three concepts dovetailing together: there is a private use of tongues, in praying and worshiping God, which has the secondary (but unselfish and beneficial) effect of edifying oneself.

It’s All About Your Lampstand

In the weeks since the Super Bowl, many Christians have found themselves arguing or being asked to weigh in about Katy Perry’s halftime performance, and her claims that God spoke to her beforehand. Over the past several years, a number of people have written blogs or produced videos critical of Katy Perry and how she has released music with overt lesbian and occult lyrics and themes. Others have defended her: some saying that we should not “judge” her; others on the theory that what Katy produces is harmless. Still others are concerned that, whatever we may think about Katy, Christians are wrong to be critical in public fora where unsaved people can see us disagree and perhaps speak harshly.

In addition to arguing about Katy Perry, there has been renewed discussion about social issues in general and the steady drift of churches, even ostensibly Evangelical churches, in the direction of accepting homosexual marriage. These mini-controversies have surfaced a lot of discussion about how we should act and speak in social media.

Having watched this happening, I will put forward a few observations:

1. It may no longer be the conservative Christians who are the “attack Christians.” Despite the stereotype of the conservative Christian who bashes those who disagree with him, things seem to have flipped. To merely express an opinion contrary to the spirit of the age is to make yourself a prey for slander – not only from those who do not profess Christ, but from those who do. This is troubling. While these friends attack conservative Christians as judgmental, they don’t seem to realize that they have become equally judgmental, maybe more so.

Here’s a thought. It may be that someone who posts a video attacking Katy Perry’s music does not hate Katy Perry, and isn’t trying to make a buck, but is trying to warn parents about the dangers of letting their young daughters listen to her music. For parents, such discussions are not academic.

2. There is almost no desire for holiness in North America. It is abundantly clear that we can no longer be shocked by anything. Society has accepted as the new normal behaviors that only a single generation ago would have made a person liable to arrest. Does anyone take this to heart? No. King David’s vow to set no wicked thing before his eyes finds very few imitators today.

And yet, this is not a matter of rule-keeping, but a matter of the desires of the heart. What are we looking for? How many among us still have that spirit of Jonathan Edwards, who said, “The heaven that I desired was a heaven of holiness?”

3. Much of the complaining about “division” in the Church is a red herring. Christians who believe in the integrity of God’s Word cannot afford to be cowed here, although Christ-likeness is always required. For not every division necessarily grieves the Spirit of God. It may surprise us to recall that some division in opinion and even in fellowship is expected by Scripture. The New Testament is clear that offenses, and even heresies, will come. They will happen because of human weakness and pride. Paul is clear about this: For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. (1 Cor. 11:19) God uses division, using it to make obvious those of whom He approves.

In Romans 16, Paul tells us to take note of those who cause divisions – but his concern is actually quite specific and not directed against all division:

Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple… I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil.

So then we are not necessarily to be grieved by the mere fact of disagreements, but we are to make note of those who cause divisions by contravening the Word of God. Contrary to the modern spirit, Paul was shocked that the Corinthians tolerated flagrant sin: …you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. (1 Cor. 5:2) Paul and his fellow apostles could not have imagined a situation in which Christians would argue that the Holy Spirit was speaking a personal word to an alleged prodigal to encourage her to sing about the glories of lesbianism in front of a billion people.

4. Because of false “tolerance” (which is actually false love), the lampstand of the American Church may now be going out. I won’t argue here with professing Christians concerning “social issues” such as gay marriage. (And let’s face it, the battle over that issue definitely seems to be lost.) So, if you claim to be a Christian and you believe in gay marriage, I’m not addressing you here. Go ahead and tune me out for a minute.

Now, for the rest of us, are we sure that our lampstand is not even now being removed? When was the last time we read the letters to the seven churches (Revelation 2-3) and trembled in fear at the thought of being inspected by the One whose eyes are a flame of fire? The fact that we operate in a false tolerance which masquerades as Christian love keeps us from being effective in proclaiming Christ to our nation. So our lampstand is going out, because there are very few churches left that are brave enough to assert even the most basic truths of the Gospel.

What will happen when Christ removes the lampstand of the Church in America and Canada? Are we so arrogant to think this cannot happen and that national judgment will not descend? Many don’t think such a thing could ever happen to the Land of the Free, but by the same token, I haven’t run into too many Byzantines lately, and neither have you.

5. Christian leaders are obligated by God to warn the Church about sin and to call the wider society to repentance. Yes, we must do this in love, but the average American Christian’s 21st-century definition of love doesn’t square with God’s definition.

Paul said, “Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.” But some do not want their teachers to do so. He also said, “Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.” But this would get an American pastor sued. And Paul told Titus,  “…denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age…Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.”

If you are unwilling or afraid to speak out and so lose friends or face persecution, then please, at least recognize that there are some who are called to this. You ought not hinder them. You may not feel that you can bring a word of correction to your brother concerning his doctrine or behavior – but your elders have been called by God to do so:

“Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” (Colossians 1:28)

Let’s all think very carefully about where we go from here as we speak out for Christ and for His honor. As Christians have now lost the culture wars, all that we have left is the Gospel. Let’s not throw that away, too. Actually, it’s all we’ve really ever had.

May your lampstand not be put out, but may you burn brightly for Him.

Do Evangelicals support Israel because they want Jews dead?

 

Why do Evangelicals support Israel? I was happy to see an article in the Washington Examiner asserting that Christians support Israel because of God’s promises to Abraham and his descendants, and not because of some twisted desire to see Jews slain or something similar.

Straight to the point is David Brog, a director of Christians United For Israel, and himself a Jew who does not believe in Jesus:

“Any one who says that evangelical support for Israel is all about somehow speeding the end times, bringing Jesus back, [and killing or converting Jews] … any one who does that is showing their own ignorance.”

Whatever your position, I encourage you to read the article and Brog’s comments carefully. As the tweet above shows, we commonly hear the complaint that Christians support Israel or Jews in general because we want them to die. Which, of course, makes no sense whatsoever.

This is a slander which does indeed show a frightful ignorance of what the New Testament teaches: that the coming Antichrist will persecute Jews and all who “have the testimony of Jesus Christ,” a phrase which refers to people who profess faith in Jesus as the Son of God. This takes place during the three-and-a-half years before Christ’s return to Earth.

And the dragon was enraged with the woman [Israel], and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Rev. 12:17)

In other words, we are in this thing together.

As Brog correctly says, Christians do not believe that we can force God’s hand or by human agency set end times events in motion. (Again, Brog is Jewish!) Jesus said that the timing of the Kingdom is a matter which belongs to the mind and purpose of God alone.

Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. (Acts 1:6-7)

The malicious statements about Christian Zionists and all Evangelicals that we see on TV and social media are nothing more than politically-motivated fabrications. They are poisonous nuggets of propaganda meant to advance the goals of the secular Left and fundamentalist Islam, two hateful forces which are very strange bedfellows indeed, and who can only unite around their anti-Semitism and antichrist spirit. (Woe to the world when they finally fall out!)

In order to demonstrate true love for Israel, and for Muslims, too, let us be prepared to counter this flood of lies with the truth spoken in Christian love and longsuffering.

The Red Heifer and the End of the Age

Red_Angus_Heifer

I’ve recently finished a stretch where I’ve been teaching on the end times for about nine months. I always think that the one who teaches learns more than those who hear him, and this was no exception. It was a wonderful experience to talk about the basics of eschatology (the doctrine of “last things”) and then go through the Book of Revelation verse by verse.

Because of all this, I’ve been interested to see stories popping up about the discovery and raising of a pure red heifer, and Christians and Jews speculating about its prophetic significance.

What is the red heifer and does it mean anything for us? This is one of the most complicated and mysterious subjects in all of Jewish religious law – actually, it is possibly the most mysterious. In a nutshell, the Old Testament required (Numbers 19) that the ashes of a red heifer be used in the purification of the Temple. The Israeli organization known as The Temple Institute, like many others, considers the sacrifice of a red heifer to be necessary in order to erect a Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

Watch the brief YouTube video above and understand that The Temple Institute now believes that a pure red heifer has been found which could possibly be used for that purpose, allowing the Temple to finally be rebuilt after more than 19 centuries. These Orthodox Jews believe that after the Temple will be rebuilt the Messianic Era will soon follow.

Many Bible-believing Christians also think there will be a Third Temple, but believe that its rebuilding is a more ominous sign. Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24 that the coming Antichrist will defile this Third Temple and that this event (the “abomination of desolation”) will begin the time of persecution and terror called the Great Tribulation. The Apostle Paul also taught (2 Thessalonians 2) that the Man of Lawlessness will stand in the Temple area and assert that he is above all gods. From the perspective of the Christian Scriptures, the rebuilding of the Temple is a sign of impending tribulation – even while it is a necessary prophetic precondition to the return of Jesus Christ to the Earth.

None of this means that “the end is near” in the sense that it is going to happen this year, or this decade. What it does mean is that there are people who are seriously preparing in practical (not just spiritual) ways to build a Third Temple. They are committed to making this a reality. And they will do so when conditions are right. Once this occurs, the world will truly be on borrowed time.

Our forebears in the faith would be amazed to see in our day the rebirth of Israel and the conquest of Jerusalem by the Jews – as well as the prophesied alignment of anti-Semitic nations ringing that tiny country. The Third Temple is coming, likely sooner rather than later. Are we asleep to these prophetic realities or are we considering the lateness of the hour?

Following The Lamb Wherever He Goes

Young Lambs

And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders:and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God. (Revelation 14:1-5 KJV)

Many people have argued about identity of the 144,000, but it will be of more profit to us if we simply seek to emulate them in their devotion to Christ. Although we are introduced to them earlier in Revelation, here in Chapter 14 it seems we see them at the completion of their ministry, as they receive their reward from the Lord.

This special group of believers is rewarded for their faithfulness with very high privileges. First, they are given the right to worship God with a special song which only they are allowed to learn and, apparently, play.  Second, they are invited to follow the Lamb wherever he goes. Think of that! Wherever Jesus goes, these loyal followers who will be there with him. They are His personal companions.  Third, they are described as being “before the throne of God.”  They have a special place of closeness to God’s throne.  John connects this to the fact that there is no deceit in their mouths.

I believe this is a reference to Psalm 15. In the Old Testament, people knew that you could only stand before God if you had clean lips. (We recall that Isaiah had to have his lips cleansed when he was taken up to the third heaven.) Psalm 15 goes like this:

Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbor, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not. He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved. (Psalms 15:1-5 KJV)

The 144,000 display the kind of holy living that God seeks from his people. We see in them a quality of character radically different from that of the Beast-followers in the chapters preceding.

While followers of the Beast bear his hideous name or mark on their forehead, these men have the name of their Father. It may be invisible to us, but God can see that they are completely devoted to Him.

While followers of the Beast blaspheme God, these render Him pure worship, and they sing Him a new song.

While followers of the Beast have no “love of the truth” so as to be saved, the 144,000 have no deceit in their mouths.

The followers of the Beast reject God and fall away in the Great Apostasy, but these men follow the Lamb wherever He goes. And what a beautiful description of Christian living that is.

These overcoming saints live a life of personal holiness. During the trumpet judgments of Revelation, people refuse to repent of sins such as murder, theft, and sexual immorality – but these men refuse to defile themselves while sin is raging all around them.

What a beautiful contrast between two groups of people, and what a wonderful testimony to the grace of God. These men’s lives show us that even in the darkest days of history, His power can keep us close to Him, and keep us holy.

Indeed, if they did not follow Him wherever He went in the days of Tribulation to come, they would never have been rewarded by being welcomed to follow Him wherever He goes in the Age To Come.

Wanted: Obedient Ears

"Listen," by Ky
Like an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold is a wise rebuker to an obedient ear.
— Proverbs 25:12

Rebuking has gone out of style. Authentic and loving rebuke is rare, because few can deliver it. Few are discerning enough to see when someone has embarked upon a harmful path; few know a friend well enough to find a suitable way to deliver words calculated to bring salutary change; and, few love someone well enough to place a relationship at risk by delivering a loving reproof in any case.

We hear much today about how to correct people properly, although much of it is gleaned from the world of business and not the Word.  And there’s no shortage of hand-wringing among the saints over the fact that we don’t “speak the truth in love.”  Every American under 40 has grown up hearing that “when you point a finger at someone there are three fingers pointing back at you.” Yet I can’t help wondering if the greatest need of American Christians isn’t actually the other side of the coin: ears that can hear rebuke

Yes, we know that Paul tells those of us who are “spiritual” to restore with gentleness those who are caught in sin. (Galatians 6:1) But certainly there is no hope for adjustment of the offender’s life and no hope for him to reach the high calling to which he is called unless he himself has an ear that can receive a word of loving correction.

David prayed in Psalm 141 – no, not prayed – invited rebuke from the righteous: Let a righteous man strike me—it is a kindness; let him rebuke me—it is oil for my head; let my head not refuse it. (Psalm 141:5a, ESV)

Which of us is seeking this? Our generation is insolent, even surly. We accept no correction and our first instinct is the instinct of all flesh – to protect the precious life and self. Isn’t this what John the Baptist and Christ Himself meant when they called people vipers?  An outstretched hand or a flame too close will causes a snake to lash out, and in just the same way, the old man defensively bites at anyone who suggests there may be a better way than the way he’s doing it.

May the Lord give us grace to not only hear correction, but begin to actively seek His judgments in our lives. One of the most life-giving forms of spiritual poverty is this: to know that not only Christ but others, too, have what I need and that they may be able to see where I’m missing it, even when I cannot.

Is the real problem the fact that I’ve been rebuked or is it that my ear cannot hear it?

[Photo Credit: “Listen,” by Ky on Flickr, used under Creative Commons license.]