Luke 11:14-26

     Luke tells us that Jesus was driving out demons (or devils). He mentions this in passing because the point of the story is the controversy which follows. We are told that the demon was dumb and when it had been driven out, the dumb man began to speak.
     The modern world often interprets a story such as this to some physical cause. The people then believed it was a demon; in fact it must have sometimes seemed as if there was no other possible explanation for certain psychological and physical conditions.
     Whether or not you believe in demon possession, the controversy that followed was over where Jesus gained his power and authority. Some of the onlookers figured it was from Beelzebub, prince of devils and that’s why he could drive out demons. Other people wondered whether it could be from God, but demanded Jesus give them a sign to prove it one way or the other.
     Jesus understood human nature and made the ironic comment that a kingdom divided against itself falls, which is exactly what would be the case if his power had come from evil. And if his power had come from evil, then what of those whom they trusted who also drove out demons But if what Jesus did was from God, then the kingdom of God was already upon them.
      He goes on to postulate a military situation, when a man is guarding his household. It is the stronger man who can overcome and take the treasure guarded by the first man. The logic of this comment was surely not lost on those who first heard it.
      Next words are among those that seem puzzling in context with other words he is reported as having said. He tells those listening that the one who is not with him was against him, and the one who does not gather with him, scatters. Yet earlier he had told his disciples that one who was not against them was on their side. Of course, in the one situation with his disciples he was apparently teaching tolerance, and in the other may have been defining the opposition against him.
     The words Jesus spoke that day, as recorded in Luke, were spoken in a time of gathering opposition. It seems possible that he was issuing a challenge to his opponents.  And his words sound almost like a proverb. Proverbs can carry meaning within their culture and time that are lost to those who were not part of it. (What would describing an attitude as “dog in a manger” mean to people not familiar with it?) Is it possible that there is a nuance of meaning we could be missing?
      Nonetheless, it does raise a question, what does it mean to be only neutral regarding Jesus?
      Certainly there are those who are indifferent. They may not know him, they may not have been introduced to him in such a way as to understand the difference he can make in their lives. Christians have too often presented a holier than thou attitude to the world, and have been experienced as judgmental and self-righteous to those who weren’t part of the Christian “in” crowd. In addition, we live in a world in which we know that inter-religious cooperation could make the difference between peace and destruction.
       So, how should these words be interpreted or made a part of the Christian message?
      Should they be understood as a specific response to a particular situation, with the more tolerant attitude earlier expressed as reflecting Jesus’ general response to those who are not his followers?
      Whether or not you regard "demons" as literal or figural, what are the demons you'd like to see run out of your life?