The Benefits of False Teaching

An old cliché says there is a silver lining in every cloud. In a sense this is true for the follower of God. In Romans 8:18-39, Paul tells us that God can turn the wicked events that happen to Christians into an advantage for the righteous. Joseph’s life is an excellent example (Genesis 39-41). After being sold by his own brothers, Joseph spent 13 years as a slave and in prison. I can’t think of many good things to say about Joseph’s situation, yet Joseph rose from his miserable state to become the second highest man in Egypt. However, we often overlook an important point. Pharaoh appointed Joseph to manage Egypt’s produce during the seven years of plenty and the seven years of famine. How did Joseph, the son of a nomadic herder, learn to manage the wealth of a nation? Much of it came from the wisdom that God granted him, but notice that in both Potiphar’s house and in jail, Joseph was placed in a position of management. In both places, Joseph was second only to Potiphar and the jailer. He ran their affairs so well, that neither man had to concern himself with his daily affairs. In other words, God used Joseph’s bad situation to train Joseph for a larger future task.

God turns many bad events into something good for every Christian, but have you ever wonder if anything good can come from the works of a false teacher?

Peter warns us that there will always be false teachers among God’s people (II Peter 2:1-3). Because of them, many Christians will be lead to same destruction reserved for the deceivers. Paul prophesied that Christians would depart from the faith, following after false teachings (I Timothy 4:1-4). Not only would God allow this to happen, but Jesus said it is impossible for this not to happen (Luke 17:1-2). Now don’t take this to mean that God approves of the actions of a false teacher. God will still punish those who lead His people astray. However, false teachers will come. In fact, Jesus bluntly says, in Matthew 18:7, that such offenses must come.

Why does God allow false teachers access to His people? Why must a person be lead astray? We begin to see the answer in I Corinthians 11:17-19. Paul states that there will be divisions among Christians. These factions show whom God approves and disapproves. In order for Christians to grow in Christ, they must learn to use their knowledge to combat error (Hebrews 5:13-14). A Christian cannot distinguish between good and evil without using the knowledge God gives them. Paul explains it a different way in Ephesians 6:10-20. We must imagine our lives as Christians as constant warfare. We don’t fight on a physical plain, but on a spiritual battlefield. Our weapon is our own Bible — our spiritual sword. Nevertheless, how accomplished would a swordsman be if he never welded his weapon in the heat of a battle? Oh, he may know the technical aspects of sword fight, but we would never call him an accomplished sword fighter until he had a chance to put his knowledge to use against a real opponent. The same idea applies to Christians. We may have a lot of technical knowledge about the Holy Scriptures, but until we put our knowledge to use in combating false teaching, we will never be accomplished fighters for God.

John shows, in I John 2:18-19, that there is another benefit to false teaching. When faithful Christians stand against false teachings, they put the spotlight of truth on the corrupt ways of the false teacher. Many Christians would never notice falsehoods if other, more mature, Christians did not point them out. When false teachers run from the truth, they show they are not a part of the Lord’s body. A few may be lost, but the Lord’s bride remains pure. Her members grow stronger as they learn from first-hand experience the methods Satan uses to taint the church.

Even under the Old Law, God told the Israelites that He would allow false prophets to go among the people (Deuteronomy 13:1-3). God uses the false prophets to test the people’s commitment to the Lord. Claiming we love God when there is no resistance is easy for followers of God, but will we love God when someone is actively trying to persuade us to leave God? We cannot know until God has tested us.

Jesus was not a false prophet, but He did cause the rising and falling of many people (Luke 2:34-35). Peter describes Jesus as a stone in a path that people trip over (I Peter 2:4-10). In other words, Jesus forces people to come to a decision. When people face the glorious news of the Gospel they must decide either to accept it or reject it. This decision shows us the true heart of the people. Accepting or rejecting Christ becomes more than an outward acknowledgment. God designed the Gospel to reveal the true inward feelings of a person. Why does the division come? It comes because some people lack true faith in God (Romans 9:30-33).

Amazingly enough, God can derive benefits for His people from the wickedness of false teachers. The benefits are not for the false teachers or for the people they lead astray. Eternal destruction awaits them at the end of this world. However, for those of God’s people who overcome — who successfully resist the wiles of the Devil — they derive the benefits of strength and joy (James 1:2-4).

By Jeffrey W. Hamilton

Seeking to Establish Their Own Righteousness

A series of articles came across my desk that caused me to realize that our society is not just abandoning the teachings of Christ. People realize that society needs moral standards in order to function, but without the standards of God to guide them, society is turning to guidelines of its own making.

In October, 2005, Gene Edward Veith wrote an article for World Magazine titled “Worldly Word.” In the article, Mr. Veith discusses the various gender-neutral translations reaching the shelves of bookstores, such as Today’s New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version. These translations keep “masculine references to God and to Jesus, but change them for human beings, getting rid of the generic ‘man,’ putting ‘brothers and sisters’ where the original just has ‘brothers,’ and using awkward plurals and repetitions to avoid the generic ‘he.'” Worse, they change the title of Christ from “Son of Man” to “a human being” — all in the name of including the female gender.

Many denominations use lectionaries for their services. Lectionaries are canned worship services. A recent lectionary, called the “Inclusive Language Lectionary” goes beyond the alterations made by the gender-neutral translations. “Today, the congregations who use this lectionary in Sunday worship pray to ‘our Father-Mother.’ Jesus is not the Son of God but the ‘child of God.’ The pronoun ‘he’ is not even used for the man Jesus, [and is] replaced with ungrammatical constructions: ‘Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us’ becomes ‘Jesus Christ, who gave self for us’ (Titus 2:13-14).

A month later, in November, 2005, Ben Frichti wrote an article for Culture and Family Institute titled, “Can You Say ‘Good Morning Boys and Girls’? Only If You’re a Bigot.” It seems that Rebecca S. Bigler, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin, is advocating removing all gender references from the classroom. Her argument is that saying “Good morning, boys and girls” is equivalent to making race distinctions, such as “Good morning, blacks and whites.” Teachers, Ms. Bigler states, “should avoid making statements such as, ‘The girls are doing a good job,’ or ‘The boys need to be a bit quieter,'” “This,” she claims, “will help all children concentrate on their identity as students rather than as members of a gender group. … Of course, gender cannot and should not be ignored in all situations. … It is appropriate, for example, to discuss gender barriers that have been broken — the first female astronaut, the first female U.S. senator and so on.”

In case you haven’t realized it by now, “gender neutrality” is really removal of all male references. The gender neutral translations don’t avoid referring to Mary as a woman or using the female pronoun when referring to her, but they do aim to reduce or remove male references to Jesus. The nutty professor from Austin doesn’t mind the use of female terms when discussing the advancement of women, but she doesn’t want half the children to think of themselves as male. What is being created is a moral standard where being male is wrong, in and of itself.

Finding it hard to believe this? Consider Patrick Goodenough’s article “Airline Seating Policy ‘Demonizes’ Men,” published by CNSNews.com, November 29, 2005. The articles lead line states, “Two airlines ‘down under’ are under fire after acknowledging their policy of not allowing an unaccompanied child passenger to sit next to a man.” “Both Qantas and Air New Zealand have now confirmed that they would not seat a child traveling alone next to an adult male passenger.” Of course, this policy implies that children are unsafe sitting besides a man. One politician decried the policy stating it was “prejudicial to presume that men can’t be trusted to have contact with children unless they are related to them or are specially trained.”

What has happened? In absence of reasonable moral guidelines, people are establishing their own; in this case, a guideline where being male is bad or at least suspicious. “When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die” (Ezekiel 33:13). When people create their own standards of right and wrong, they often get it wrong. Oh, it sounds good to them at first, but the application demonstrates the foolishness of their “wisdom.”

The Israelites had this problem. “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God” (Romans 10:3). It has become our problem as well. As our culture pushes to remove all religious ideas, especially Christian ideas, from our lives, the moral vacuum is replaced with a moral code of mankind’s imagination. People are ignorant of the benefits of following God’s plan for mankind. They believe that it is straight forward to create their own plan, but eventually they are left wondering what went wrong. However, instead of returning to their Creator for guidance, they foolishly decide that they didn’t go far enough. And, thus, the downward spiraling decay of our society.

Will we not learn, as Paul did, that our only hope lies in the Almighty God? “Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead” (Philippians 3:8-11). Our salvation depends on following our Savior. We don’t have to forge our own paths to destruction when the path to salvation has been opened for us.

By Jeffrey W. Hamilton

Was Jesus a Vegetarian?

On March 17, 1999 the Omaha World Herald reprinted a hilarious article by Bill Broadway of the Washington Post. It seems the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have launched a campaign to claim that Jesus was a vegetarian. Billboards stating “Jesus was a vegetarian. Show respect for God’s creatures – follow Him” are being placed around the country.

What is the basis of this unusual claim?

  1. “Jesus belonged to the Essenes, who some historians believe were one of several Jewish sects that abhorred animal sacrifice and were practicing vegetarians.”
  2. When Jesus drove the money changers from the temple, “he directed most of his ire at vendors in this ‘den of thieves’ who were selling animals for sacrifice and consumption.”
  3. “There is no mention in the New Testament of Jesus eating poultry, beef, or lamb, even during the last meal with his disciples, where Scripture mentions only bread and wine.”
  4. “Passages in the Bible prove that God – from the Garden of Eden on – always meant for humans to be vegetarians.”

To answer these claims, we need to note that Jesus was a Jew who perfectly kept the Law of Moses perfectly.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf . . .” (II Corinthians 5:21)

… One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:16)

As a Jew, Jesus must have kept the Law of Moses perfectly. Yet that same law required all Jews to keep the Passover celebration.

All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate [the Passover].” (Exodus 12:47)

The Gospels specifically mention Jesus keeping three Passover feasts in Jerusalem. However, in order to keep the feast, the participants were given roasted lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread to eat (Exodus 12:3-4). The entire lamb had to be eaten during the feast. If there were any leftovers, they had to be burned (Exodus 12:10). If Jesus did not eat the lamb, he would have been violating the Law and could have been accused of sin.

… observe the Passover to the LORD. ‘In the second month on the fourteenth day at twilight, they shall observe it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. ‘They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break a bone of it; according to all the statute of the Passover they shall observe it. ‘But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and yet neglects to observe the Passover, that person shall then be cut off from his people, for he did not present the offering of the LORD at its appointed time. That man will bear his sin.” (Numbers 9:10-13)

The New Testament records that Jesus did eat the Passover feast, which would include the eating of the roasted lamb (Luke 22:14-15). In fact, before the last Passover meal, Jesus specifically instructs his disciples to prepare the meal, including the lamb, for their observance.

Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it.”” (Luke 22:7-8)

Not only did Jesus eat lamb, but he also ate fish. “But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, ‘Have you any food here?’ So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence” (Luke 24:41-43). He served it for the 4,000 in Matthew 15:34-37. Jesus also promoted the catching of fish for the purpose of consuming them.

So Jesus said to them, “Children, you do not have any fish, do you?” They answered Him, “No.” And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch.” So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish. … So when they got out on the land, they saw a charcoal fire already laid and fish placed on it, and bread. Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have now caught.” Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples ventured to question Him, “Who are You?” knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and the fish likewise.” (John 21:5-6, 9-14)

I noticed the folks at PETA were careful to avoid saying that Jesus did not eat fish. What is the difference between the consumption of a land animal and a sea animal?

It is true that in the beginning, mankind only ate vegetables (Genesis 1:29-30). However, this was changed when Noah departed the ark.

Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.” (Genesis 9:3)

Under the Law of Moses, the eating of various kinds of meat was allowed (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:3-20). The eating of beef, lamb, various poultry and fish were permissible for any Jew. Jesus’ eating of these animals would not violate the Law.

The claim that Jesus belonged to a group of vegetarian Essenes is simply wishful thinking on PETA’s part. The Essenes are not mentioned in the New Testament, nor is there any mention of Jesus belonging to any Jewish sect.

The idea that Jesus and God, the Father, would oppose the killing of animals is hilarious! Did you know that God was the first to kill animals to make clothing for Adam and Eve? (See Genesis 3:21.)

God’s Law to Israel required numerous animal sacrifices. If Jesus protested animal sacrifices, then he would have been protesting the teachings of the Law of Moses. Fighting God’s law is a sin, yet Jesus was without sin. When Jesus cast out the money changers from the temple, he was protesting the profiting being made from an ordinance of God (Mark 11:17).

And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.”” (John 2:14-16)

Christians are not forbidden to eat meat. Any meat may be eaten except for blood and strangled animals (because the blood remains in the meat). Peter was commanded by God to kill and eat the animals God presented before him (Acts 10:9-16). Paul instructed Christians to eat anything sold in the meat market without question (I Corinthians 10:25-26). In fact, the forbidding of eating certain foods is an indication of people departing from the Christian faith.

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.” (I Timothy 4:1-5)

Slip-Slidng Away

When changes occur, it is common for those who bring in new ideas to reinterpret past events to prove that their ideas are really what people thought and wanted all along. Even when the changes are recent and people still remember what life was like before the changes, they just put a spin on the old ideas.

There is a whole generation who have now lived in a United States where abortion has always been legal, where most married couples get divorced, and where homosexuality is prominently discussed. Is it a wonder that young people just assume it was always like this; or if it wasn’t like this, life must have been worse? For example, I frequently read that the era before no-fault divorces was a time when many women were trapped in abusive relationships. Human nature doesn’t change (Ecclesiastes 1:10). I doubt there where more abusive husbands in the past than there are today. Yet, history is redefined. What occurs today is assumed to be better than the past. Rightly did Solomon sorrowfully say, “There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come by those who will come after” (Ecclesiastes 1:11).

It is a fact that most of the churches who wear the name “Church of Christ” hold a liberal view of the Scriptures. Liberalism is a philosophical approach to law, whether we talk about constitutional law or the law of Christ. A liberal advocates a free approach to law. Anything is allowed that the law doesn’t specifically restrict, and even then, the law is interpreted so as to give the least restraint possible. The majority of churches of Christ refer to themselves as “mainstream” churches. They will attack those who hold more conservative beliefs as being too restrictive; using terms such as “pharisaical” or “anti” to address conservative-minded Christians. At the same time, they will attack those who take liberalities further than they desire to go. The Max Lucados and Rubel Shellys of the world are too liberal in their view.

Interestingly, the last few decades have brought a reinterpretation of the views of past brethren. Brethren among the mainstream churches assume that their beliefs are the ones brethren have always held. Thomas B. Warren, in his book “Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes” argued “If you can find anyone who taught this before 1955, you will be doing me a favor.” Yes, teachings have changed in the church, but it might surprise you who has changed.

Consider the idea of churches establishing and maintaining homes for the needy. Paul taught, “If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed” (I Timothy 5:16). The primary care of the elderly fell upon their family. The church only cared for a limited set of widows who had no family and who had met strict guidelines (I Timothy 5:3-16).

In 1930, brother A. B. Barret, founder of Abilene Christian College wrote, “Individual Christians, any number, may scripturally engage in any worthwhile work, such as running colleges, papers and orphanages, and other individual Christians may properly assist them in every proper way; but no local congregation should be called upon, as such, to contribute a thing to any such enterprises. Such a call would be out of harmony with the word of the living God. And if any congregation so contributes, it transcends its scriptural prerogatives” (Gospel Advocate, March 13, 1930). Yet, today Abilene Christian College regularly solicits and accepts funding from mainstream congregations across the country.

The following year, brother F. B. Srygley wrote, “These churches were independent of each other and of all other congregations. They were not bound together by any organization under the control of the eldership of any of these churches, neither were they banded together under one board created by any state or national law … there was no discussion among them about how to build and control institutions such as orphanages, homes for the aged, or hospitals for the sick. There is no more authority in the New Testament for the control of such things than there is for control of a farm or health resort. Sometime after the apostles died … men became dissatisfied with this simple organization, which eventually led to the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The Catholic church then undertook to organize in a way to control schools, hospitals … we now have brethren that should know better trying to find authority for owning and operating such things under the overworked rule of expediency” (Gospel Advocate, May 14, 1931). Hence, the debate over church supported institutions did exist prior to 1955, unlike what brother Warren asserted. Since the Gospel Advocate was and remains the popular paper of the mainstream churches, brother Srygley’s comments show that the churches in the 1930s held a conservative view against the use of institutions.

In 1946, Guy N. Woods argued “There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church” (1946 Annual Lesson Commentary, page 338). In 1954, B. C. Goodpasture stated, “The church is all sufficient for the work God intended it to do. It needs no aids or auxiliaries.” Brothers Woods and Goodpasture later changed their position. Today the mainstream churches support a wide variety of organizations, such as orphanages, nursing homes, and schools. A change did occur, but it was away from a conservative view of the authority of the Scriptures.

There has also been a change in how churches supported the work of spreading the gospel. Paul stated, “You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs” (Philippians 4:15-16). Other churches joined with the Philippians to support Paul so that Paul later wrote to the Corinthians, “I robbed other churches by taking wages from them to serve you; and when I was present with you and was in need, I was not a burden to anyone; for when the brethren came from Macedonia they fully supplied my need, and in everything I kept myself from being a burden to you, and will continue to do so” (II Corinthians 11:8-9).

Regarding this simple method of each congregation sending support directly to preachers of the gospel, David Lipscomb wrote in 1874, “The simple congregation can cooperate, help, assist, by each of them doing just what the master commands them … what are usually termed cooperation are really not cooperation of the churches, they are an organization, combinations that do the work of the church … two churches, both working by the same law for accomplishment of the end are cooperation.” The view 125 years ago among the churches was similar to the pattern laid out in the New Testament. Each congregation independently supported preachers of the gospel. That two or more congregations happened to decided to support the same man meant they were cooperating in the spread of the gospel in that area. No further organization was needed.

In 1921, M. C. Kurfees wrote, “Hence, the fact that one church is contributing to sustain a missionary is no reason another church or churches may not do so if one is too poor financially to sustain the work; in such a case, each church maintains its own independence, and sends directly to the support of the missionary in the field” (ACC Lectures, 1920-1921, page 55).

Foy E. Wallace, Jr. also commented on this topic in 1931, “For one church to solicit funds from other churches for general distribution in other fields or places, thus becoming a treasury of other churches … makes a sort of society out of the elders of a local church, and for such there is no scriptural precedent or example” (Gospel Advocate, May 14, 1931). That same year, F. B. Srygly wrote, “These elders had no authority to take charge of the missionary money or any other money or means of any church except the one over which they were overseers” (Gospel Advocate, December 3, 1931). The following year H. Leo Boles wrote, “There is no example of two or more churches joining together their funds for the support of the gospel” (Gospel Advocate, November 3, 1932).

We see, then, that the common view in the past agreed with the scriptural pattern. Congregations did not pool their funds, but solely cooperated through common but independent action. Today, the mainstream churches accomplish almost all their support of preachers through sponsoring churches. A preacher finds a congregation to sponsor his work and that congregation then solicits and collects funds for that preacher, which it then sends to that preacher in the form of a salary. Yet, most brethren among the mainstream churches refuse to believe that this was not the way it used to be done.

Changes are also evident in the way preachers were trained to preach the gospel. The apostle Paul wrote the young preacher Timothy exhorting him, “And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” (II Timothy 2:2). One of the duties of a preacher is to train preachers for the next generation.

In 1915 J. D. Tant wrote, “He and I agreed that this society was unscriptural. Then I told him the church of Christ has its Bible college society with its president, secretary, treasurer, board of directors, etc. to collect money from churches to teach the gospel and do other good works. Then I asked by what process of reasoning could the digressive missionary society be unscriptural, and our college society be scriptural” (Firm Foundation, June 8, 1915). While it has long been the practice of colleges to accept funding from congregations, it was frequently argued against the practice, even within these same colleges. In 1939 Guy N. Woods argued, “The ship of Zion has floundered more than once on the sand-bar of institutionalism. The tendency to organize is characteristic of the age. This writer has ever been unable to appreciate the logic of those who effect to see grave danger in the missionary society but scruple not to form organizations for the purpose of caring for orphans, and teaching young men to be gospel preachers” (ACC Lectures, 1939, page 54).

Later, George DeHoff clearly stated, “What is God’s institution to educate and train men in the gospel? Answer: The local church” (Christian Magazine, January 1951). Brother DeHoff’s answer reflects the teaching of Paul in Ephesians 4:11-16. Christ organized the church to train its members to be mature Christians. Yet today the majority of churches will only accept a preacher who has been trained at a college or preacher-training school run by brethren. Rarely does a local congregation train up preachers. Instead, promising young men are sent somewhere else to be trained.

Finally, let us consider the matter of churches sponsoring recreation for its members. The apostle Paul scolded the Corinthians, “What, do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God?” (I Corinthians 11:22).

In 1948 B.C. Goodpasture wrote, “For the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission. It degrades its mission. Amusement and recreation should stem from the home rather than the church. The church, like Nehemiah, has a great work to do; and it should not come down to the plain of Ono to amuse and entertain. As the church turns its attention to amusement and entertainment, it will be shorn of its power as Samson was when his hair was cut. Only as the church becomes worldly, as it pillows it head in the lap of Delilah, will it turn from its wanted course to relatively unimportant matters. Imagine Paul selecting and training a group of brethren to compete in the Isthmain games!” (Gospel Advocate, May 20, 1948). Yet today, the mainstream churches frequently fund social meals for its members. They furnish gymnasiums for use by their members. Many congregations sponsor youth sports leagues. Who appears to have changed their view regarding the work of the church?

The brethren quoted in this article are not authorities in the matter of determining what is right or wrong regarding a particular issue. However, their writings prove that these issues were considered and for the most part rejected many years ago. Mainstream churches of Christ have followed a new path. They have walked there for so long that they have forgotten that it wasn’t always this way. They find comfort in the position of the majority instead of searching for the ancient landmarks (Proverbs 22:28).

By Jeffrey W. Hamilton