Grasping at more straws in Chapter 4 of Why Be Plain? in search of support for Plain doctrines, Weaver and Zimmerman again cite the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15, and they again count on the biblical ignorance of their readers to pull the wool over their eyes.
The Jerusalem council was not convened to create a few hundred additional rules beyond the Law of Christ that would be enforced by threat of excommunication, shunning and hellfire—rules that everyone would be required to vow to keep at their baptism and twice every year after. Rather, it was convened to decide whether new Gentile followers of Jesus should be required to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law, just like all the Jewish believers at the time.
Readers familiar with Acts 15 will also recall that the Jerusalem council members arrived at their decision by means of the clear revelation of the Holy Spirit (specifically, the evidence that uncircumcised Gentile believers were being baptized in the Holy Spirit), the Word of God, and simple honesty. Moreover, the council determined that Gentile believers did not have to become cultural Jews to be saved. Henceforth, they were not obligated to keep hundreds of rules that some Jewish Christians wanted them to keep.
Tragically, Weaver and Zimmerman twist this story about how the early church rejected imposing rules on the first Gentile believers into a story about how the apostles established the church’s first ordnung! It would be comical if it wasn’t so pathetic. Here are their words:
The Plain People follow the examples of the apostles in Acts 15 in making guidelines. Here is a brief summary [in 6 points] of what Acts 15 teaches us.
1.) The apostles didn’t assume that the believers would understand all of God’s will without guidance from the church [leaders]. People say that church guidelines are unnecessary because the Holy Spirit is a Christian’s guide. But the apostles show us that one of the Holy Spirit’s ways of giving guidance is through the church leaders. Immature Christians sometimes interpret their own wants and emotions as guidance from the Spirit, but church standards [ordnung rules] stem from careful, prayerful decisions made by a group of mature Christians following the Spirit’s guidance (p. 81).
It is certainly true that neither the apostles nor God assumed that new believers would understand all of God’s will—as He has revealed it in His commandments—without being taught by church leaders. That is why God has placed leaders in the church (see Eph. 4:11–16). But God never gave church leaders responsibility to create new rules beyond the Law of Christ, and such an idea never entered the minds of the Jerusalem council members. They convened to determine if Gentiles were obligated to keep commandments that God had given to Jews through Moses.
2.) The church didn’t view guidelines as many do today—restrictions on Christian liberty and human attempts to replace the work of the Spirit. Rather, “When they heard, they rejoiced” (v. 31) (p. 81).
What an incredible deception by Weaver and Zimmerman! The Gentile Christians rejoiced when they learned the council’s decision that they didn’t have to keep hundreds of Jewish rules. Weaver and Zimmerman, however, attempt to mislead their readers into thinking that the Gentile believers rejoiced when they learned about their obligation to keep some new man-made ordnung rules!
The Council’s Caveat
3.) These guidelines were used as written standards in all the churches (16:4). The result was not legalism, deadness and formalism. Rather, it helped the church to be established and grow (16:5) (p. 81).
Although the Jerusalem council determined that Gentile believers were not obligated to be circumcised and keep all the non-moral Mosaic laws that were not included in the Law of Christ, the council did recommend that they be considerate of Jewish believers by avoiding four things that would be particularly offensive to them. Council member James said:
Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they [1] abstain from things contaminated by idols and [2] from fornication and [3] from what is strangled and [4] from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath (Acts 15:19–21).
At that time, for Jews and Gentiles to love one another as brothers and sisters, and to gather together to worship God, was a novel thing that no one would ever have anticipated. (Recall that Peter was confronted by the Jerusalem church leaders just for eating with Gentiles, because the Jews viewed Gentiles as unclean; see Acts 11:1–18). That Jewish-Gentile clash of cultures introduced a few challenges in the early church, challenges that are addressed in some of the New Testament letters (see 1 Cor. 8:1–13; Rom. 14:1–23).
It is, therefore, easy to understand why the Jerusalem council decided to recommend that Gentile believers avoid a few things that were particularly offensive to Jewish believers, even after telling them that they were under no obligation to keep the Mosaic Law. Clearly, all four recommendations were made out of deference to Jews, both Christian and non-Christian, as James said in his concluding statement: “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21).
It is clear that at least three of the four council recommendations were associated with foods, including the eating of meat that had been sacrificed to idols as part of pagan worship. Most likely, those sacrificed animals were killed by strangulation, rather than by cutting that facilitated draining of blood, as was required under the Mosaic Law.
For this reason, it would seem logical to conclude that the fourth recommended avoidance of “fornication” referred to eating anything associated with the sexual immorality that was practiced in pagan temples as part of the “worship.” No Jew would purchase meat from a pagan temple for all four reasons mentioned in the council’s decision. Certainly, James would not have been referencing “fornication,” in the sense of not engaging in sexual immorality, just to avoid offending Jews. Fornication is a damning sin for everyone, as noted in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10.
To summarize this explanation, James’ recommendation could be paraphrased as follows:
Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they [1] abstain from eating things Jewish believers perceive as being contaminated by idols and [2] abstain from eating things Jewish believers perceive as being contaminated by pagan temple fornication and [3] abstain from eating what is strangled and [4] abstain from eating anything from which the blood has not been first drained—as those things are forbidden by the Mosaic Law and thus offensive to Jewish believers who are still keeping the Mosaic Law.
It is possible that James’s recommendation applied to believing Gentiles only when they were eating a shared meal with Jewish believers. Regardless, the Jerusalem council’s decision had nothing to do with creating something that resembled modern Plain ordnungs, and to claim otherwise is grossly dishonest. But that doesn’t stop Weaver and Zimmerman from making an illogical analogy. They say, as we already read, “The result [of the council’s decision] was not legalism, deadness and formalism. Rather, it helped the church to be established and grow” (16:5). The authors imply that Plain ordnungs also don’t result in legalism, deadness and formalism. But in fact they do, as anyone knows who has compared Plain lifestyles and church gatherings with those of Spirit-filled Christians.
The authors also imply that ordnungs “help the church to be established and grow,” but in actuality, Plain ordnungs prevent Plain churches from growing (except through having large families). The likely reason why the Jerusalem council’s decision helped “the churches [to be] strengthened in the faith, and [increase] in number daily” (Acts 16:5) was because the decision removed barriers that would have hindered Gentiles from believing in Jesus. In contrast, Plain ordnungs—with their hundreds of detailed, non-moral, and often senseless requirements—do the exact opposite, erecting barriers that keep people out.
The Cultural Case
Weaver and Zimmerman next focus on the fact that at least one of the Jerusalem council’s recommendations was based on a cultural issue (eating meat sacrificed to idols), and that Paul, who was a member of that council, later wrote that it was not a sin to eat meat sacrificed to idols. So, the authors conclude, this proves that modern church leaders can make rules concerning cultural issues and also forbid what is not biblically sinful. Here are their words:
4.) At least one of the guidelines were [sic] made simply because of their culture at the time. Today we don’t have the issue of meat that was sacrificed to idols, but every culture will have its “meat” that the Scriptural church must make guidelines against.
5.) Although the leaders forbade eating such meat, it is interesting that Paul elsewhere wrote that it is not a sin to eat meat sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:8). Today, many people say the church has no right to make rules against something that isn’t sin in itself. But the apostles did! (p. 81).
This illustrates the lengths to which Weaver and Zimmerman twist Scripture to make it fit Plain doctrine. There is no valid comparison between modern Plain ordnungs and the decision of the Jerusalem council. In fact, the council’s decision stands as an enduring testimony against any church ever establishing an ordnung. How so? Let’s consider these comparisons.
The Jerusalem council’s decision opened the floodgates for the salvation of outsiders. Modern Plain ordnungs shut the door of salvation to all outsiders as well as most insiders.
The Jerusalem council’s decision eliminated hundreds of old rules for Gentile Christians. Modern Plain ordnungs create hundreds of new rules for everyone.
The Jerusalem council’s decision helped to unite two very distinct cultures into one group, in answer to Jesus’ prayer that His followers be one, as He and the Father are one (see John 17:21). Modern Plain ordnungs continually spawn division after grievous division, as has been proved by hundreds of years of history.
The Jerusalem council’s decision taught a wonderful lesson to all believers that they should love one another (as Jesus commanded; see John 13:35), with a love that takes thought of others and yields its rights. Modern ordnungs teach people to judge everyone else by hundreds of insignificant criteria and to exclude anyone, including even one’s family members, if they don’t measure up.
Beyond those things, there is certainly no evidence that the Jerusalem council expected their recommendations to Gentile believers to be enforced under threat of excommunication, shunning and hellfire. The exact opposite is true of Plain ordnungs.
To Weaver and Zimmerman’s point that “Today we don’t have the issue of meat that was sacrificed to idols, but every culture will have its ‘meat’ that the Scriptural church must make guidelines against,” it should be noted that the Jerusalem council did not make guidelines against cultural customs; rather, it yielded to cultural customs. That’s another big difference between modern ordnungs and the Jerusalem council’s decision.
As for Weaver and Zimmerman’s point that Paul later wrote that it was not a sin to eat meat sacrificed to idols—which allegedly proves that Plain leaders have the right to “make rules against something that isn’t sin in itself”—they again twist Paul’s words by ignoring their context. Although Paul did write that it was not a sin to eat meat sacrificed to idols, he also wrote in the same passage that doing so could become a sin if it led a fellow believer to stumble. Such an act would be a violation of Jesus’ commandment to love fellow believers. Paul wrote:
And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble (1 Cor. 8:12–13).
All of this disproves Weaver and Zimmerman’s claim that “Today, many people say the church has no right to makes rules against something that isn’t sin in itself. But the apostles did!” Certainly modern church leaders, like the early church leaders, can offer practical guidance to help believers apply Jesus’ commandment to love each other. But how many of the hundreds of Plain ordnung rules accomplish that?
Church Authority
Weaver and Zimmerman try to capitalize on their readers’ biblical ignorance once more by making a sixth point about the Jerusalem council, one that they hope will persuade their readers to obey without questioning whatever rules their Plain leaders create:
6.) Acts 15 shows that the church leaders are to make the final decision on making standards. The apostles listened to the thoughts of the church (took counsel), but they didn’t decide on the basis of majority vote or democracy. They made the final decision among themselves (v. 6) by discussing the Scriptures, and their decision was the opposite of what some of the church was clamoring for (p. 82).
Why do Weaver and Zimmerman so vaguely describe “what some of the church was clamoring for”? Why don’t they mention that some Jewish Christians were clamoring for an ordnung consisting of hundreds of Jewish rules that “some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed” (Acts 15:5) wanted to lay on the shoulders of Gentile believers?
Moreover, why don’t they discuss Peter’s question to the council, “Why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” (Acts 15:10, emphasis added). Might the authors be afraid that their readers will realize that the outcome of the Jerusalem council was not the establishment of new rules but the elimination of hundreds of extra rules not included in the Law of Christ?
Weaver and Zimmerman next attempt to drive home their sixth point with a biblical quotation followed by more twisted logic:
Hebrews 13:17, “Obey them that have rule over you, and submit yourselves.” If the ministry has no right to make and enforce guidelines not specifically mentioned in the Bible, what’s to submit to? This verse seems to be referring to more than just what the Bible spells out (p. 82).
No historic or modern Christian leaders, besides Plain leaders, have ever thought that Hebrews 13:17 instructs them to make and enforce rules not specifically mentioned in the Bible. No, godly leaders say to themselves, “Jesus commanded me to make disciples, teaching them to obey all that He commanded, and only if I do that should anyone submit to me.”
The correct answer to Weaver and Zimmerman’s question (“If the ministry has no right to make and enforce guidelines not specifically mentioned in the Bible, what’s to submit to?”) is obvious: the commandments of Christ, which all true Christian leaders are teaching their disciples to obey. How much simpler could it be?
The authors’ claim that “This verse seems to be referring to more than just what the Bible spells out” has no logical or scriptural basis, and so they resort to quoting a turn-of-the-century Mennonite evangelist named George R. Brunk, whose logic is equally irrational to theirs.
Brunk declares that Christians are supposed to obey God, Scripture, church leaders, parents and magistrates (all true), and that because parents and civil magistrates have the right to make rules not expressly mentioned in the Bible, so must church leaders! That is another non sequitur. We might as well conclude that because children should obey both their parents and police, police have the right to determine what vegetables children should eat and what time they should go to bed!
With that kind of logic to buttress their point, Weaver and Zimmerman double down with a bold declaration that God expects Plain church members to unquestionably obey their leaders and the hundreds of rules they create to regulate every detail of their lives:
It may seem like a minor thing to overstep a church guideline [enforced, man-made rule]. But is it? Since the Bible commands us to obey the ministry and since God gave them their authority over the lay members, any act of disobedience against a Scriptural ministry is an act of disobedience against God. If we are not submitting to the church let us not fool ourselves into thinking we’re submitting to God (p. 83).
That same rhetoric has been employed by the leaders of every cult-like authoritarian religious group that has ever existed. “If you disobey me, you are disobeying God.”
I am reminded of the famous words of Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I am also reminded of Peter’s words to the church leaders of his time:
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock (1 Pet. 5:1–3, emphasis added).
And I am reminded of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ to His disciples, whose feet He washed:
You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all (Mark 10:42-44).
As for the authors’ point that “Any act of disobedience against a Scriptural ministry is an act of disobedience against God” I respond, “Any ministry that thinks it has the right to create and enforce hundreds of extra-biblical rules is not a scriptural ministry, and it should never be obeyed.”
Car Ownership
Next, the authors tackle the subject of car ownership, something that has caused many outsiders to scratch their heads and ask, “Why do Plain people still drive small, fragile horse-drawn buggies, by which they risk their lives on the highways, subject themselves to rain, snow and cold, and dramatically increase their travel times?”
Outsiders scratch their heads even more when they learn that most Plain people regularly pay for taxi services. “They pay others to drive them in cars, but they think it’s wrong to own or drive a car?”
If outsiders were to read Why Be Plain? they’d be scratching their heads even more, because Weaver and Zimmerman declare that (as we have previously read) “modern technology” and “the world’s gadgets” are among “the high things of the world” that are an “abomination to God” (p. 9). So Plain people frequently pay non-Plain people to transport them in vehicles that are an abomination to God. In effect, they are saying, “If we owned and drove a car, it would be a sin. So to avoid that, we pay others who own cars to drive us where we want to go.” It is amazing that Weaver and Zimmerman (and all Plain people) can’t see the hypocrisy in that. But here is the start of their “explanation”:
One of the biggest dividing lines between the Plain Churches and other conservative churches is car ownership. While the Plain People understand that the car in itself isn’t evil [even though Weaver and Zimmerman previously described modern technology as among “the high things of the world” that is an “abomination” to God?], they also know that the overall influence of the car is not good for the church, tending to make individuals more independent of each other. It causes the church to lose some of its brotherhood and community spirit (p. 84).
The authors don’t explain exactly how cars actually make “individuals more independent of each other” or “cause the church to lose some of its brotherhood and community spirit.” Cars, just like horses and buggies, are just a means of transportation. Cars, however, greatly reduce travel time, so if car owners desire, they can use that advantage to interact more with others to increase “community spirit.” If they desire, they can go to more church gatherings each week or stay longer. Or they can also leave their car parked and stay home, just as Plain people can do with their horse-drawn buggies.
In any case, Weaver and Zimmerman’s claims are questionable. But they continue, “Cars are expensive to operate, come in the line of luxury, and lead to a higher, more worldly lifestyle” (p. 84).
Guess what? Cars are actually more expensive to operate when you have to pay for a driver. When a Plain person utilizes an “English” taxi, all the costs of ownership, maintenance, insurance, depreciation, and fuel are passed on to the customer, plus the time of the driver, plus some profit. Plain people have that expense, plus the expense of owning and maintaining a horse and buggy. I suspect that many Plain people spend more money on transportation than do non-Plain people. As I explained previously, that was the case for my friend and former Amish minister, Jonas Kurtz.
The Evolution of Ordnungs on Cars
Cars were a luxury when they first appeared in the late 1800s, back when everyone was using literal horsepower. But that perception began to change in 1908 with the production of the Model T Ford, the first mass-produced car that most people could afford. Today, with an estimated 1.64 billion cars in operation, they are no longer a luxury. For most people in developed societies, they are necessities.
I strongly suspect that when cars first were seen on the road, they were denounced as worldly by Plain preachers. I suspect that even riding in one was forbidden in most ordnungs. But today, different Plain groups have adopted different stances. Most allow hiring an English taxi. Some Plain groups have allowed their members to own a vehicle, but not to drive one. Some permit men to drive vehicles for their employers. Some allow members to transport their families on wagons pulled behind a tractor, driving what amounts to a slow, open-air car. And some Plain groups have allowed both ownership and driving of cars but have restricted certain accessories. Today, many Plain people do what would have sent their great-grandparents to hell. What once was “worldly” is no longer “worldly.” Does that teach us anything?
Of course, buggies could be considered a luxury by people whose only means of transportation is walking. How would Weaver and Zimmerman respond if a poor man in Africa denounced them, saying that “the overall influence of horse-drawn buggies is not good for the church, because they tend to make individuals more independent of each other, cause the church to lose some of its brotherhood and community spirit, are expensive to own and operate, come in the line of luxury, and lead to a higher, more worldly lifestyle”? I’ll bet they would object.
According to Weaver and Zimmerman, people who own cars spend more time on the road than people who drive buggies, because “it becomes easy to run hither and thither for trivial reasons or just for something fun to do. It’s now as easy to drive 100 miles as it was to drive 10 and that’s exactly what they do” (p. 85). Of course, if that is true, then there is no difference in the amount of time spent between a car owner who drives 100 miles and a buggy owner who drives 10 miles. And car owners don’t drive for trivial reasons. Just like buggy owners, they drive to get from one point to another, and they save lots of time in the process. If having an easier and faster means of transportation is a bad thing, why don’t Plain people sell their horses and buggies and walk everywhere they go?
Weaver and Zimmerman also claim that car owners “get sucked up in the world’s mad dash for everywhere and everything.” Once again, this is the “prison rationale.” The more restrictions, the less temptation, so let’s restrict those who are under our authority as much as possible. Although hundreds of millions of devoted Christians own cars and use them only for good and never for evil, Plain Christians can’t be trusted to own a car. They might sin.
Oops!
Realizing that their claims will be rejected by Plain readers whose ordnungs permit car ownership (like Beachy and New Order), Weaver and Zimmerman backpedal to the point of contradicting themselves:
It is not that car ownership is wrong when the church allows it, nor that its owner is always worldly. But the rejection of the car brings a spiritual blessing that can’t be denied (p. 85).
That means that if one’s church allows car ownership, then it is not wrong and car owners are not necessarily worldly, even though the authors have previously stated that (1) a car is a “high thing of the world” that is an “abomination to God,” (2) car ownership “leads to a higher, more worldly lifestyle,” and (3) car owners “get sucked up in the world’s mad dash for everywhere and everything”! Does any of that sound contradictory?
And what, exactly, is the “spiritual blessing that can’t be denied” that accompanies “the rejection of the car”? It certainly isn’t a physical blessing, as anyone who has ridden in a buggy in the rain or bitter cold knows. If we could get Weaver and Zimmerman to describe that “spiritual blessing,” perhaps they would refer to some inward feeling, relief from self-imposed guilt, or the inward thought, “God, I thank you that I am not like others … .”
And if car ownership is not wrong “when the church allows it,” that confirms the authors’ belief that local church leaders have the authority to decide what is right and wrong. That is an idea that some of their Anabaptist ancestors gave their lives to refute.
Phones
As they near the end of chapter 4 of Why Be Plain? Weaver and Zimmerman return again to the subject of phones. Of course, every Plain community has its own set of rules regarding phones. Some allow communal pay phone shacks. Some allow personal outdoor or even indoor “black box” phones. Some allow phones only at places of business. Some allow personal phones as long as they aren’t smartphones with internet access. Recently, some began allowing smart phones that include filtering technology to prevent users from viewing pornography. Weaver and Zimmerman lament this “compromise”:
And now it seems that even some Plain Churches are flirting with the possibility of accepting the smartphone. If that happens, the end of being Plain is drawing nigh. To accept the smartphone is to accept what the Plain People have always opposed and considered of the world: the [in-] home phone, TV, camera, radio, movies, computer and the Internet. All of these are conveniently on that small smartphone. There is no way that the Plain People could accept it without losing their values and conservatism. Their rejection of technology is the reason they have been able to remain a separate people. A smartphone would constantly bombard them with the world’s influence, mentality and beliefs. This would be detrimental to the church.
When a person owns a smartphone, the church has no chance of being the main influence in his life. The world will be (p. 87).
That last claim is alarming because Weaver and Zimmerman apparently believe that “the church” should be the main influence in someone’s life. “The church,” of course, is just a substitute phrase for “church leaders.” That again affirms the undue and dominating authority that Plain leaders possess. Why didn’t Weaver and Zimmerman warn that, when one owns a smart phone, Jesus has no chance of being the main influence in his life?
In any case, although it is certainly not true that owning a smart phone guarantees that the world’s influence will extinguish Jesus’ influence (as demonstrated by millions of Christians), it is true that owning a smart phone may ultimately nullify the influence of Plain leaders, because the smart phone can give Plain people access to biblical information from outside their “Plain bubbles.” Many former members of Plain churches in which no one, including the ministry, were born again have discovered the truth of the new birth by gaining “forbidden” access to the truth through a smart phone. Tragically, however, when they were born again, they were excommunicated for “adopting a new faith.” Those Plain churches don’t realize they are excommunicating the only person in their church in whom Jesus actually lives! They are excommunicating Jesus!
In churches in which no one is born again—which means no one actually loves Jesus and desires to keep His commandments—rules against smart phones might keep some members from owning them, but many secretly own them anyways, and they indulge in the evil that is available through them. But among people who are truly born again and who truly love Jesus and desire to keep His commandments, smart phones are not gateways to the evil of the world. They are simply a multifaceted means of communication. I’ve owned a smart phone for years and it has not caused the world to become the main influence in my life, as is also the case with millions of other Christians. We are living our lives for Jesus.
Apparently, either Weaver and Zimmerman don’t realize that users control what they see on their smart phones, or they assume that no one can resist the temptations offered by smart phones. They write, “A smartphone would constantly bombard them with the world’s influence, mentality and beliefs” (p. 87). Millions of Christ-followers who own smart phones would disagree, because they control what they see with their smart phones and use them only for good. In fact, some of us use smart phones and other modern technology to teach the Bible and preach the gospel.
But Weaver and Zimmerman even object to that, asking, “Should we actually offer someone a drink of the Gospel in a cup used to measure the devil’s poison? Should we really tell others about Christ through the same device that has caused millions—and that includes professing Christians—to sin against Christ?” (p. 87).
That is an interesting statement from people who admit that they and their entire group don’t spread the gospel as other churches do (see Chapter 7 of Why Be Plain?). And their description of a smart phone as “a cup used to measure the devil’s poison” shows how skewed a view they have. I view my smart phone as simply a communication tool that I am blessed to own. I often read the Bible on my smart phone. I have edifying conversations on it, sharing biblical truth and encouragement with others. I often take photos of my grandchildren or of beautiful scenery God has created. I use it to guide me to unfamiliar destinations, to check the weather forecast, to learn recent news from trusted sources, and to monitor my health. I use it to sell items I no longer need to people in my community. And I use it in many ways for my ministry.
Finally, if we apply Weaver and Zimmerman’s logic that the gospel shouldn’t be preached through things that are often used for evil, we would have to conclude that the gospel shouldn’t be preached through human mouths (see Jas. 3:1–12)!
