- 38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part. 41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
- Compare: Luke 9:49,50
Jesus on Outsiders vs. Insiders
Every religious group is defined by its boundaries between insiders and outsiders. The insiders are those who adhere to the religion’s doctrines and beliefs, while those who do not are naturally the outsiders. A lot can learned about a religion by noting what sorts of moral distinctions it draws between outsiders and insiders: for example, are outsiders to be tolerated, can they be killed, and should they be permitted to avail themselves of the group’s resources?
In this scene, we find Jesus discussing the relationship between his band of followers (insiders) and those who don’t actually follow Jesus (outsiders) but still presume to preach and act in Jesus’ name (specifically, casting out devils). Are they truly outsiders or are they really insiders?
John (and ostensibly the other apostles, as they were the only ones given authority to cast out unclean spirits) thinks that such a person is an outsider — so much so, in fact, that he and the others tried to forbid him from continue to cast out demons in Jesus’ name. Jesus disagrees.
According to Jesus, no one qualifies as an “outsider” so long as they sincerely act in his name; and if they are successful when it comes to performing miracles, they you can trust both their sincerity and their connection to Jesus. This sounds a lot like an attempt to break down the barriers that divide people, but immediately thereafter Jesus builds them up higher by declaring that anyone who is not against him must be for him.
Usually such a sentiment is stated the other way around: whoever is not with us is against us. Jesus’ formulation is more moderate in the sense that the group which is treated as “for” him becomes larger (it includes everyone not explicitly against him) while the more common formulation has the group “against” be larger (because it includes everyone not explicitly “for”). Jesus used exactly this more negative formulation elsewhere (Matthew 12:30, Luke11:23).
The effect is the much same, though, however it is stated, and that’s to divide people along a single axis: for me or against me. There is no allowance for people who might agree with some of your agenda but not all of it. There is no allowance for people who disagree with your agenda but agree with some of your principles (or vice-versa).
Such a world is reduced to a superficial black-and-white morality where everything falls into one of two categories, no shades of grey. Sadly, this is just the sort of world many later Christians have insisted on trying to create — one in which people are classified according to whether they adhere to a particular and even narrow religious doctrine or not.
Who was this person “casting out devils,” anyway? It’s odd to find someone doing such things in Jesus’ name without actually identifying himself as a follower of Jesus. It has been argued that he might have been a follower of John the Baptist who was now without a leader yet perhaps not comfortable with joining Jesus’ band. On the other hand, maybe he was doing work in John’s name and Jesus’ followers didn’t want to acknowledge that someone could work miracles in the name of someone other than Jesus.
