Biting Will Lead to Destruction

A simple word, a little white lie, an entire conspiracy theory--are at best things that Christians need to be wary of. Just like a bomb, one misspoken word, one lie, one conspiracy theory will cause a ripple and do more harm than previously believed.
Today while in a chatroom, the topic of Donald Trump came up. I was asked if I would vote for him, and my answer was "Probably not. Can you tell me other than Israel and Sanctity of Life why I should?" Simple as that. I never said 100% no. I merely said "Give me a reason other than the two soap boxes on which Christians seem to hinge their voting and I'd consider it.
A lady who hides behind the name Kayness, said "I have to tell Liberal Christians like Randers..." So I asked "Please do not compare liberal Christians to me." So in true fashion she mocked me and I said "It's a wonder you win souls to Christ acting like a butt. This is why so many people run from Christ." Next thing you know, someone who hides behind the nickname Hansel_and_Gretel, OldJoex, Chatnoah all began telling me "You are demon possessed!" "We're going to pray for you!" And calling for the admin to kick me from the room because "I am a child of perdition."
I finished my workout and walked to the locker room, my heart aching for these people. While in the shower, God spoke to me. Galatians 5:15 came to my heart. “But if you keep on biting and devouring one another, watch out or you will be consumed by one another.” Instantly, I decided to come to my office and study the verse; and I found in verse 14 that Paul taught (as Christ did) “The entire law is fulfilled in a single decree “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Why do we find that so hard to do?
Needless to say I was a bit dumbfounded when I read Martin Luther’s Commentary on verse 15; but I couldn’t help but agree with him. Martin Luther states: “When faith in Christ is overthrown peace and unity come to an end in the church. Diverse opinions and dissensions about doctrine and life spring up, and one member bites and devours the other, i.e., they condemn each other until they are consumed. To this the Scriptures and the experience of all times bear witness. The many sects at present have come into being because one sect condemns the other. When the unity of the spirit has been lost there can be no agreement in doctrine or life.”
As I continued my study, I read in the Jameson-Fausset-Brown Bible commentary that to bite meant to backbite or attack the character of another. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges stated that the attacks would consist of abuses and slanderous accusations. Barnes’ Notes on the Bible stated that the Greek for Bite was “Dakno” and it was used also to describe how wild beasts attack each other. We know from our own study of animals that often times they will fight until both are dead--so it is within the church--we’ll continue to fight each other until we destroy the spirituality and happiness of one another; thus ruining the character of and overthrowing the church.
Can we as a Christians, whether Catholic, or Protestant really afford to continue to fight one another? Can we afford to continue using conspiracy theories to prove points that are not even valid or truthful? Brothers and Sisters, the church is in trouble, but it’s not just our leaders; we need to look at ourselves and how we are throwing out messages of falsehoods that can’t be proven.
You want to fulfill the law? Then instead of breaking the law—which you do through attacks and trying to harm your fellow believers—try loving them.
**I did apologize to the above mentioned Kayness.**

The Last Accepted Prejudice: Anti-Catholicism

Edmund Burke, the Irish philosopher and politician, penned these words: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Burke's words are just as prevalent today as they were in the 18th century. I am one of the lucky kids, my parents raised me to be respectful of all faiths. I was encouraged to learn about Judaism. When a friend asked me to attend Mass my parents encouraged it; as a journalist, I went to a mosque after 9/11 and have worshipped in an Amish congregation and have written about the Ba'Hai faith. I have experienced learning about various people and their cultures. Today, however, I am seeing America's last accepted prejudice rear it's ugly head. 

With news of the death of Kobe Bryant, came loads of questions about a his faith. Bryant, a devout Catholic supposedly attended Mass the morning before his death. Even in my own conservative Methodist group, people were asking "Was he a Christian?" "Was he Saved?" All I can think is that Kobe, must have been a believer, but maybe unlike some people he didn't flaunt his faith. However, that isn't why I am writing my blog today. I am one of the lucky kids, my parents raised me to be respectful of all faiths. I was encouraged to learn about Judaism. When a friend asked me to attend Mass my parents encouraged it; as a journalist, I went to a mosque after 9/11 and have worshipped in an Amish congregation and have written about the Ba'Hai faith. I have experienced learning about various people and their cultures. Today, however, I am seeing America's last accepted prejudice rear it's ugly head. 

Along with questions about his faith, and salvation, anti-catholic commenters have made reared their ugly heads. Anti-Catholic prejudice is the last accepted prejudice in the United States. “When you look back at the true, hidden history of the United States this strand of anti-Catholicism is very powerful,” said Kenneth Davis, a prominent historian and commentator. “We want to show this patriotic view that we were this melting pot of religious freedom. Nonsense. People wanted their own religious freedom, not freedom for others. There was a very, very deep hatred of Catholics.”

So what is anti-Catholism? Anti-Catholicism refers to staunch opposition to the Roman Catholic Church and to its members, usually grounded in conspiracy theory, nativism, and misrepresentation of Catholic theology (and, often, copious amounts of tangentially related wingnuttery).

The following comments, by David Nielsen and Natalie Hoehn showed up on Facebook today.: 

David Nielsen Catholicism never has been and never will be Christianity. I don't grieve the loss of Kobe Bryant's life, what I grieve is the loss of Kobe Bryant's soul. The Pope is a fraud ! Catholicism is a fraud ! Catholicism is a man-made religion requiring works to get to heaven. Kobe Bryant was deceived by this pseudo-Christian man-made religion. It grieves me that millions will go to HELL, will wake up in HELL and ask, "What happened?" It is because you have been deceived by another gospel. There is only one Gospel that's the Gospel of Jesus of the Bible. Catholicism does not follow the Gospel of the Bible. If it anything in this loss of the life of Kobe Bryant is meditated on, I pray that people will sober up to their mortality and understand that one day they too will die and will have to stand before God in judgement (Hebrews 9:27).

REPLY TO DAVID: Natalie J. Hoehn David Nielsen Catholicism has been around for 200 sum years when Christianity has been around for a couple thousand years.. you’re so right David Nielsen.. it’s a fabricated religion. It’s so sad that Catholics have to pray through a priest in order to get to God. It’s nice being a Christian and we are able to pray directly to our God. And we can repent in our sins by asking our God directly for forgiveness. Catholics think they can’t. The only father there is is God. Not a Pope or Priest.. it’s sad.

Bishop Robert Barron states “The correct doctrine is that God, in Christ, entered, out of love, into the depth of human misery, sin, and failure in order to bring the divine light even to those darkest places. It is in this sense that he took away the sins of the world and brought us life from the Father. In John’s Gospel, Jesus said, simply, “I have come that you might have life and have it to the full;” and St. Irenaeus, the great second century theological master, said, “the glory of God is a human being fully alive.”

Theological differences between Protestants and Catholics are still wide and in places very deep. As the 500th anniversary of the Reformation just passed, I believe it’s important to be conversant with some of the main issues that legitimately divide us, lest we think all the theological hills have been laid low and all the dogmatic valleys made into a plain.

Below are a few of the main points that still separate Catholics and Protestants. Of course, many Roman Catholics may not believe (or even know) what their formal theology states. But by seeking to understand official church documents we can get a good idea of what Catholics are supposed to believe and see how these differ from traditional Protestant beliefs (unless otherwise noted, quotations are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

The Church

Since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has softened its stance toward Protestants, calling them “estranged brothers.” Nevertheless, to be a part of the church in its fullness one must be immersed in the Roman Catholic system of sacraments, orders, and under the authority of the Pope. “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who . . . are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules here through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.” Further, the Pope is considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra (from the chair); that is, when he makes official doctrinal pronouncements.

The Catholic Church also has seven sacraments instead of two—Eucharist (or Lord’s Supper) and baptism like Protestants, and then penance, holy orders, marriage, confirmation, and last rites.

Scripture

Catholics have a larger biblical canon. In addition to the 66 books in the Protestant Bible, Catholic Bibles include the Apocrypha, with books like Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccebees, Sirach, and Baruch. Catholic teaching also elevates tradition more than Protestants do. 

Granted, many evangelicals suffer from ignoring tradition and the wisdom of the past. But Catholic theology goes beyond just respecting the past; it sacralizes it. “Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence,” the Catechism states.

Likewise, the Magisterium has the authority to make definitive interpretations. “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching, office of the Church alone . . . to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” The issue of authority continues to be the biggest practical divide between Protestants and Catholics.

Lord’s Supper

Central to the Catholic faith is the Mass (their worship service), and central to the Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist. Catholics believe that bread and wine are transubstantiated into the actual, physical body and blood of Jesus Christ.

The elements are offered as a sacrifice from the church and a sacrifice of Jesus Christ’s work on the cross. This is not simply a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice, but the same atoning work: “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice . . . the sacrifice [of the Eucharist] is truly propitiatory.”

Baptism

Catholics teach that “justification is conferred in Baptism.” The waters of baptism wash away original sin and join us with Christ. Baptism is not merely a sign and seal of grace, but actually confers saving grace.

Mary

Mary is not only the Mother of Christ, but the Mother of the church. She was conceived without original sin (the immaculate conception) and at the end of her earthly life “was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things” (assumption). She intercedes for the church, “continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation,” and is “a mother to us in the order of grace.”

Mary was more than just the faith-filled mother of Jesus: “The Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

Purgatory

Those who die in God’s grace, but still imperfectly purified, are assured of eternal life, but must first undergo purification in purgatory. Because of the presence of this intermediate state, the Catholic Church has developed the practice of prayer for the dead. “The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead.”

Concerning the salvation of those who do not hear the gospel, the Catholic Catechism is committed to inclusivism: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

Merit

It is not really fair to say “Catholics teach that you can earn your salvation.” That may be what many Catholics believe, but the official teaching of Rome is more nuanced, though still a long way off from the Reformation understanding sola gratia. The Catechism summarizes: “Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.”

Justification

Catholic teaching rejects the Protestant doctrine of imputed righteousness. The question is this: is the righteousness whereby we are forgiven and made right with God a righteousness working in us or a righteousness reckoned to our account? Catholics say the former, Protestants the latter. According to Catholic teaching, justification is more than God’s declaration of our righteousness based on Christ’s work, it is also a renewal of the inner man and reconciliation with God. Of course, these are good things too, but Catholics make them present in and through justification, rather than by faith alone.

Despite our differences, Catholics and Protestants should always treat each other with decency and with respect. We should always labor side by side on important moral and social matters. If we don’t know what a church believes we shouldn’t be scared to ask, or better yet pick up a copy of their official doctrines and use that as your starting point. Once you understand the theology of the Catholic church, then and only then can you criticize it. The Council of Trent, from the 16th century Catholic counter-reformation, declares: “If anyone says, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of grace and charity that is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God: let him be anathema.” While individual Protestants and Catholics may work to find common ground on justification, the official teaching of the Roman Church is still opposed to any notion of an imputed righteousness through faith alone.

UPDATE: Regarding the Christian Centrist Post

I want to clear up something with my last post. One of the things that a lot of people have stated is that I have confused them. The last post elicited many text messages, private messages, even a phone call from my own pastor.

I stand by my definition of a "Christian Centrist" in that they are theologically orthodox, typically labeled moderate to conservative somewhere on the spectrum between fundamentalism and liberalism. They hold a high view of Scripture, the work of Christ (incarnation, substitutionary death/atonement and resurrection), salvation through Christ alone and God's redemptive mission. 

Several people have commented that I was wrong to use "the contra of liberalism is fundamentalism." So let's put in the current language of the church "they are on the spectrum between fundamentalism and progressivism." 

However, I know what you are thinking what made you write what you did? I have spent a few months speaking with friends on both sides of the current conflict, probably more time speaking to both sides than our own bishops. I have met in coffeeshops, local breweries, I have met with members of the LGBTQIA+ community, I have met with churched and unchurched people, believers and unbelievers, Conservative Catholics, liberal Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Americans and people from other countries. And what I have learned is there is a lot of people who are conflicted. People who know exactly what the Bible says, and they truly believe it, but they are conflicted because they have gotten to know the people who have gotten married to their life partners and they realize sometimes better than we do, that they can tolerate and not celebrate same-sex marriage. 

House of Commons, House of Parliament 

The current discussions in the UMC and the forums on Facebook, I have found that many of us, will not step across the red line to the middle and have a civilized conversations because we are so dug in to our positions. We have become like the House of Commons in England, we can't cross the lines that have been drawn to speak to our opponents. Instead we are standing at our benches and will yell at the other side instead of daring to cross over. My post provides a voice to those who have dared to step across those lines, who have said, "I am conflicted." It gives a voice to those don't feel they have a voice, because neither side will listen to them. 

So for all the rude comments I have gotten, I am a traditionalist, and I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. For everyone who has said "If you were a traditionalist you wouldn't have written this piece." I am also a journalist, and for the first time I have been allowed to write my own articles and through God's grace I have been given this ministry of a blog for my own editorials. My goal is to write my own beliefs primarily as well as give a voice to the many people that I speak to. 

So a little bit about how I feel about the issues facing the UMC; a split is inevitable, I don't like it, but it's coming. I will fall on the traditional side. I am a graduate of Liberty University, a candidate in the UMC for Pastoral Ordination (which was shot down by my dCom). 

Three of my best friends are homosexual. After the 2019 Annual Conference of the Western NC Conf.-UMC one of their first words to me were "I am so sorry things didn't turn out for you as you thought it would. Followed by a hug!" They knew it didn't turn out the way I wanted, they knew that the progressives in the Western NC group had stacked against the traditionalists. 

I stand up and give a voice to those that don’t have one based on our very own book of discipline--"We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God." (Section 161).

While I know that my recent article wasn't well accepted, except by a few, it is a voice that you otherwise would never have heard and for taking the time to read it, I am grateful.

Notes from a Christian Centrist

UPDATE: There will be an updated post explaining where this blog post is coming from. I have been told that this is a confusing post--and I feel that it needs some explanation and to where it's coming from. 

I am neither progressive not traditionalist. I am a Centrist—a Christian Centrist. I have come to the conclusion however, that we don’t have a good working definition of Christian Centrist. I’d like to offer one here:

Being centrist must not be confused with taking the middle road between fundamentalism and liberalism. It embraces the truth in both camps and negates the untruth in these positions as well. Being a centrist evangelical means building upon the center or core of faith--the gospel of God's reconciling act in Jesus Christ attested in Holy Scripture and clarified by the fathers and teachers of the faith through the ages.

• Theologically, the centrist is orthodox, typically labeled moderate to conservative somewhere on the spectrum between fundamentalism and liberalism holding a high view of Scripture, the work of Christ (incarnation, substitutionary death/atonement and resurrection), salvation through Christ alone and God’s redemptive mission.

With all this in consideration here is how I would define a Christian centrist: an orthodox (as defined by the Nicene Creed) believer in Christ who develops his/her peripheral theology (any belief not explicitly defined by the Nicene Creed) by honestly considering all ideas equally without concern for ideological consistency or popularity. Instead, their concern is forming convictions grounded in their core faith and based on context and reason. They are willing to change positions or enact reforms when better evidence or new circumstances convince them that any previously held peripheral belief has become inadequate. Their investigative and open nature drives them to understand why someone with a differing opinion believes what they believe without believing the same or taking offense. In this way, they can peacefully debate others because the end goal is their own edification.

It is with great regret that I announce that there must not be a middle ground within the United Methodist Church any longer. There will be no room for middle ground believers in the conservative movement, nor the progressive movement. For the traditionalist/conservative and the progressive/liberal camps the thought is “You are either with us or against us!” If you point out something that the traditionalist don’t like you are too progressive, if you point out something the progressives don’t like you are too traditionalist. There is no room for people like me; which is sad. I’m too progressive for my traditionalist friends, and I am too traditionalist for my progressive friends. 

I have come to the conclusion that the Christian Centrist has come to a place where we are being forced to choose sides and hope that we are on the “right” side. Everything has become a them vs. us scenario and the Christian Centrist doesn’t have anyone to really stand with. At General Conference 2020, most likely the UMC that many of us love, will shatter. And friends, people like me will fall into the cracks because we don’t have an iron in this fire. 

Earlier this week, I shared a story about a kid in Kentucky who was kicked out of a Christian school for the fact that her mother posted a picture of her with a rainbow cake. I shared this story with several conservative friends and all of them “read between the lines” that the kid could possibly be LGBT despite the parents’ claims that the kid just likes rainbows. I shared the same story with my LGBT friends and they were appalled that a “kid who likes rainbows” would get kicked out of school for an alternative lifestyle and my progressive friends said the same…”sometimes a rainbow is just that…a rainbow.” 

In the recent days, on facebook, several churches have posted “notes” and blogs “No middle ground” placing emphasis on the verse of Luke 11:23 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” However, why they fail to mention or even understand is that Jesus isn’t talking about people, He’s addressing the impossibility of neutrality in the strife between Jesus and Satan. Matter of fact, according to The Pulpit Commentary, “Our Lord here is referring to the exorcists, and contrasting their imperfect work with his, showing how hopeless a task it was to attempt to combat the evil one and his satellites apart from him—Christ. It is particularly to be noticed that Jesus neither here nor elsewhere charges these with imposture. Pretence and ridiculous spells and incantations were doubtless constantly mixed up with their attempts to exorcise; indeed, the term used to describe them in Acts 19:13 is one of contempt; but Jesus assumes in his argument here, what was no doubt the fact, that in these cases there was often, in the person of the physician-exorcist, earnestness and prayer mingled with the deepest pity for the unhappy sufferer, and before these there is no doubt that, in the less severe cases of possession, the evil influence or spirit yielded, and for a time at least let go his victim. “See,” said the Master, “he that is not with me is against me in this dire conflict against evil;” for these would-be exorcists were utterly unable, even in those instances where they expelled the devil, to render him powerless to do mischief for the future. “My power sent these dread beings to the abyss, there to wait. The would-be exorcists were unable to replace the hellish tenant which they expelled by another and a holier influence. I bring back the once-tormented soul to its old relations with its God-Friend, and replace the unclean spirit by the Holy Spirit.”

I don’t see anyone in the middle ground as deceived. I see them as Bishop Michael J. Coyner does Those in the Methodist Middle are not in the middle-of-the-road just to avoid issues. They try to center their life and faith on Jesus Christ, and they believe in the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit to guide and direct their lives and their church. Their faith is not relegated to past traditions, nor does it ignore those traditions. Their faith is firmly grounded in Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. They are not opposed to theological exploration and new ideas, but they want these explorations and ideas tested by the whole community of faith and by the whole experience of Christian tradition.

At this point, I really feel like I am finding myself daily where Luther once stood praying “here I stand, I can do no other, God help me, amen.” 

40 Questions about Heave and Hell

I am not sure why my first review of 40 Questions about Heaven and Hell didn't post. However, here is my review.

I have always been fascinated by eschatology and love to think about what Heaven and Hell would be like. I have always found it hard to explain however, these concepts to people. Not to mention that many Christians have non Christian views of heaven and hell.

This book is part of the Kregel Publishing 40 questions series. The book is a great addition to the series.

The author of this book, Alan Gomes is straightforward and solemn with the topic at hand. The book is so well written I kept thinking that I wish we had read the book in seminary. After reading 40 Questions I felt that I was more up to speed on a topic that many find as fascinating as I do.

After I read it, I let a non-Christian friend borrow it; the book has opened a door for us as we both are enjoying a long discussion on the topics within the book.

If you are looking to brush up on questions about heaven and hell or even wanting to preach a sermon series on the topic, you really need look no further than this book as it will answer all of your questions and give you a challenge as you seek answers.

Well Jesus Called People Names...

It is rare that I try to tell conservative Christians how they should treat people, but today I had my fill when someone posted in a Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) group a blog post calling the LGBTQIA+ the name “Rainbow Mafia.” Just as I always encourage my progressive friends to not name call, I merely pointed it out that we don’t need to call people names, immediately I was given the weakest argument anyone could come up with “Well Jesus called people names!” I call it a weak argument because Jesus was God incarnate. In calling these religious leaders all these names, the Lord Jesus did not react in anger or malice toward these opposers. Instead, He declared their true character in hopes that they would come face-to-face with the Truth about themselves and repent.

When discussing the split of the United Methodist Church, what does it tell the world when Christians will call people names instead of engage in thoughtful discussion? What these Christians want to deny is that our very own Book of Discipline says in Article IV. Inclusiveness of the Church: The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection.This goes along with the biblical teaching that all humans on earth are descended from Noah, and, in turn, from Adam, who was created in the image of God. (Genesis 1:26)

The only directive that we have in the Discipline is 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. 341.6: Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.

Beyond that we don’t have any directives. To me the name calling is a form of bullying/abuse. Abusive name calling pushes them farther from the truth. And while the Bible doesn't talk directly about bullying, but that doesn’t mean that we can't use biblical principles to address the issue. The Bible commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 12:31) and to treat others the way we would like to be treated (Luke 6:31). There is no room in the Christian faith for belittling or abusing someone. Every person, regardless of what he or she looks or acts like, is created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27; James 3:9-10) and is worthy of the dignity that God gives to every person.

Whether John Wesley, the founding father of Methodism really said this, there are three rules which every Christian should strive: Do no harm, Do good, stay in love with God. 

So let’s take a look at the three rules: 

Do no harm, is anybody ever truly successful by doing no harm. Most of us would say yes, I do pretty good job at not doing any harm, I haven’t killed anybody, I haven’t caused anybody any problems, so I’m doing pretty good on the first rule. we have to ask ourselves this, have we gotten angry in the past couple of days, well that’s harm to ourselves, so then we are not good at keeping the first rule.

Second Rule, Do good. We believe because we aren’t bad people so that  must mean that we are good people right. Not necessary, the disciples came up to Jesus and said, Good Teacher, and Jesus immediately said why do you call me Good, no one except for the Father is Good. So if Jesus himself said he isn’t a good person then we have truly missed the mark.

Third Rule, Stay in Love with God. Do we really need to discuss this rule? We don’t read the Word of God like we should, we don’t pray like we should, nor do we live our lives in the most holiest way like we should.

So why did Jesus call people names? Being the Omniscient God that He is, He infallibly knows what is in man. Hence, He knows when people are sincere or phonies. Throughout Matthew 23, we find Him renouncing the Pharisees - using various derogatory names. In using them against these religious leaders, it was not His intent to manifest hatred, resentment, wrath, or malice toward them for opposing His ministry. He simply called them names in order to reveal to them their true character and in hopes that they would "wake up" and repent of their sins. Are you guilty of calling people names and then justifying it by saying that even Jesus did the same? He happens to know the character of all men for He reads and knows their hearts. The question is - Do you?