Monday, December 14, 2015

The Jesus Problem

Bill O'Reilly's Faux News invention of the War on Christmas typifies the evangelical obsession with a Jesus narrative divorced from the doctrinal and ethical messages behind the Nativity. The greeting of 'Happy Holiday' in no way threatens the church, the Christian faith or Jesus himself because Advent borrows nothing from our cultural celebration of Christmas. Advent itself has meaning beyond the birth of Jesus.

I won't bore you with yet another reminder of the origins of, or fallacies surrounding, Christmas, simply to say that the church exploits the Christmas season as much as John Lewis and Coca Cola. However much we might deplore the nauseating commercialism engulfing Christmas, its a buyers market. By definition, consumerism is a consumer disease rather than a marketing epidemic. The church itself has had to learn that in order to engage with its potential pew dwellers it must speak the common language, much like New Testament writers who wrote in Koine [common] Greek rather than Aramaic or any other obscure language like Latin. Its a matter of supply and demand.

If Bill is going to criticise anyone for ignoring Christmas he should start with the Gospel writers Mark and John who made no mention of Jesus birth at all. John really doesn't care because it adds nothing to his message while Matthew and Luke tell different stories, neither of which tally with the beloved nativity scene that we are familiar with. Its hardly any surprise that a Fox presenter would not check his sources. More profoundly, though, he's probably oblivious to the real message of Jesus' incarnation which is that God desired to live among us and as one of us. 'Us' being the disenfranchised, despised, occupied and homeless as well as the comfortable.

The message of the incarnation is one of identity, not with a people group or a religion but with the human condition in all its glory and depravity. Muslims, on the whole, are more than happy to share in the Christmas celebrations. Even atheists quote Jesus when his words align with their ethos. In stark contrast are the Christians who insist on those with other beliefs paying lip service to a name they lazily curse the rest of the year round. You can't take Christ out of Christmas simply by supplanting another holiday greeting but you can take Jesus out of Christianity by replacing the Jesus of the Gospels with a misogynistic, gun possessing, Muslim hating parody.

Rather than Jesus being the answer (as we are told), Jesus is the moderator of the question. Read the Gospels and see how often Jesus attacks the validity of the question or leaves the enquirer with another question. He drove the authorities mad because he wouldn't give them the answer they wanted but left them with questions they dared not answer. If you're looking for a happy Christmas, Jesus isn't the solution - he's the problem. He was a problem for Herod, he was a problem for the Jewish authorities. He didn't exactly make Joseph and Mary's relationship simple or easy, being conceived out of wedlock.

Christmas is a problem. Its a marketplace that the church must compete in because it no longer has a monopoly. Its a time of family strife and marriage breakdown. Its a time of pressure to get into pointless debt, a time of guilt and peer pressure. Its a time that the lonely and heartbroken dread. Where is Christ in this Christmas? He's not on a card, in a carol or a cheery greeting. If you truly believe in the incarnation you'll know he's not in the sweet nativity scene, he's wherever humanity is most messy, destructive and dangerous. He's rotting in Calais, surviving in refugee camps, waiting in line for a bowl of soup.

When the Queen gives her dreary speech with the enthusiasm of a wino at a kids party, he's challenging her privileged lifestyle. When the kids get fractious because they are overwhelmed by the mountain of gifts, he's watching a family of refugees clinging to the gift of life. The problem isn't the guilt trip - no, that's a privilege in itself. The problem is much more universal. There's a story of a monk whose only possession was a pencil. His problem was that despite his vow of poverty he'd never dealt with his possessiveness. He guarded his pencil as if it were his life. Jesus told a rich young man to give up all he had. Not because he was rich but because he was possessive of his wealth. Jesus wants the heart of the monk and the rich man alike.

Jesus said that your heart is where your treasure is. So if your motivation is money you heart will be invested in the making of it. But its equally true that you will invest in your religion if that's where your heart is. But Jesus said that our hearts should be for the kingdom of heaven which is neither a religion, a place nor a destination, its a way of life that is summed up in Jesus' sermon on the mount. Its a life free from greed, hate and enmity, full of love, peace and honest self reflection. There is no room in this kingdom for the possession even of hearts and minds or the preservation of religious dogma.

The cares of this world are tied up with our possessions, material or otherwise. The greatest gifts we can receive are those we cannot hoard or barter with. When we invest everything in what we eat, drink, wear or drive, in our own selfish interests, in our prejudices and fears – we take Christ out of Christmas. When we strive to love, to care, to trust, to understand and to sacrifice we invite Jesus back. Jesus becomes a thorn when we choose convenience before truth, comfort before empathy and security before trust. He is no friend to the bigot and the war monger.

John tells us that Jesus became our neighbour. Jesus told us that the world is our neighbour.

John tells us that we cannot claim to love God and hate our brother. Jesus said that if you cannot forgive your brother then God cannot forgive you.

"Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favour rests."

On whom does God's favour rest?
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”


I should add that Jesus claimed to be the "way the truth and the life" and promised eternal life to those who place their faith him. But he demanded that those who claimed to follow him must show the fruits of that faith. Faith without works is dead.

Saturday, April 04, 2015

Past Perfect

We often use the word 'perfect'. We can have a perfect day, a perfect meal or a perfect score. But what if your experience can be improved upon? Is anything truly perfect? If Jesus was the perfect sacrifice what does that mean? And how are we to define that 'perfection' perfectly?

When images of Holy Week stirred negative feelings within me I had to give it some serious thought. I've never been enthusiastic about religious festivals and Easter never excited me much. Having said that I don't really register anniversaries emotionally - I find its random incidents that trigger memories and take me back to experiences rather than dates. Jesus isn't going to die on Friday or rise on Sunday and I can't generate the enthusiasm that I somehow feel this commemoration should.

But there's much more to this than simply feeling a little disconnected from the festivities. Christians have been hitting the headlines recently for all the wrong reasons and I hope I can claim a little justification for my negativity; I can quote the Bible like the best. In the book of Amos God declares, "I despise your religious feasts, I cannot stand your assemblies … I will not listen to your music. But let justice roll like a river, righteousness like a never failing stream".

I'm thinking of the Ashers bakery, supported by the Christian Institute who, to me, have an over-zealous and narrow minded concept of justice. I have no problem with believing marriage is exclusively heterosexual and we've been taught in church that same sex is sinful. But there is a world of difference between staying true to your beliefs and discriminating against others who don't hold to your convictions. Besides, the issue of same sex marriage gets little more than a few passing mentions in the Bible so how does it become a defining principle?

Further afield a law has just been passed in Indiana that allows discrimination of LGBT people provided its on religious grounds. Yesterday I read about how Christians had (about a year ago) abandoned World Vision child sponsorship overnight to the tune of around $8 million only because World Vision had admitted to employing those in same sex marriages. Because so much of World Vision's backing comes from conservative Evangelicals it decided to back peddle immediately which I found even more disappointing.

And its more than the LGBT issue. I feel a little like Elijah who complained that there were none left in Israel who hadn't bowed the knee to the Baals. Where are the Christians who hold fast to the Apostle's Creed without being spiritually abusive, bigoted, judgemental or exclusive? Where are they who can claim Jesus as Lord without making it sound jingoistic? Stepping off my holier than thou pedestal I'll get to my main point.

My reading of the Bible has evolved over the years and I may well have slipped into that pit of heresy and sedition occupied by liberals. I know that David didn't write all the Psalms attributed to him, I no longer believe the world was created in 6 days and if, as has been shown, the King James Bible contains errors, we have to be cautious about declaring every apostrophe to be the word of God. I understand that the Bible must be understood in context but have increasingly found this to be less than satisfying in every case.

One such problem arises when the Bible appears to condone Israel annihilating indigenous communities for what were essentially religious reasons. The New Testament seems more progressive yet appears to condone slavery even when the slave owner is a Christian. Context and history can mitigate the damage to a certain extent but I wonder if the Christian doth protest too much. I'm wondering if the Christian concepts of an inerrant Bible and a perfect God are fundamentally flawed. "Heresy" they cry but if you know your church history you will be aware that heresy is grist to the mill of truth.

Unlike toxic heresies like Zionism, the "Rapture" and the "Word of Faith" my heresy is based on orthodox Christian belief and accepted scholarship. While the Apostle Paul says all scripture is God breathed we know that each book has a human author with their own distinctive approach. I know at least one story in Genesis that is based solely on superstition and many of the numbers in the book of the same name just don't add up. The last few paragraphs of Mark's Gospel are disputed and the story of the woman caught in adultery was considered too scandalous to be included in the earliest canon. There are many other reasons why putting all your eggs in the biblical basket might be less than prudent but don't draw any conclusions yet. What of Jesus' perfection?

It has been said that the only man made things in heaven are the wounds in Jesus' hands and feet. Does that not mean we have a mutilated, hence less than perfect, Jesus in heaven? In the book of Hebrews we are told that he was made perfect in suffering. Does that mean he was 99% perfect right up to the cross? Was Jesus never told off as a child and, if he was a carpenter, how would he make perfect objects? The real issue was that he was the perfect sacrifice, more perfect than the lambs who were sacrificed under the old covenant. 10 out of 10 is a perfect score even if the performance was less than perfect in other regards.

One of the most powerful statements in the Bible is that man was made in God's image. One extension of this is that we 'have the mind of God'. We are all keenly aware of how the Disneyfied world of beauty and harmony grates. We crave the imperfect hero with whom we can identify instead of the Teflon phoney who mostly turns out to be a hypocrite and scoundrel in the end. The definition of our perfect hero does not include the proviso that he/she does nothing wrong. Rather than putting this down to us living in a perfect world maybe we are getting a glimpse of God's perspective.

To be holy literally means to be 'set apart', i.e. to be entirely different and dissociated rather than strictly perfect. Presumably the angels are perfect but they are not holy like God. So if we have the mind of a God who would send his son to walk the sewer of human experience and be mutilated in the process would it be that surprising if we were collaborating in a less than 'perfect' revelation? When seeing God and his Word as holy and perfect is there a danger of us creating God in an image of perfection that we have defined imperfectly?

We are generally suspicious of those who appear to have no faults but trust those who are flawed yet appear honest and transparent. If the Bible does perhaps sometimes get its facts wrong, discriminate and condone what seems ethically unacceptable it is also honest about its failings. It doesn't tell only one side of the story and when the God Man appears it becomes electrifying. If it were a crystal ball, polished to perfection we would be blinded by its reflected light. Instead Jesus walks into a rough and flawed landscape, rich in history and contradiction, predicted yet profoundly confusing, pregnant with hope both deferred and realised.

The Old Testament prophets lambasted the Jewish priests for following rituals to the letter and completely missing the point. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for the same. When Jesus declared that even looking at a woman lustfully meant you'd committed adultery, he was letting the self-righteous know they were not off the hook rather than adding more rules. In the Apostle John's first letter he says that "perfect love drives out fear". Jesus gave us only two commandments - to love God with everything we have and to love our neighbours as ourselves, we weren't commanded to love the faith or love perfection.

Jesus' plan wasn't that we would be lawless or excuse anything because love was the answer. Neither are we to strive to be perfect (we all know where that leads). Rather we are to be constrained by a love for God that is measured by our love for others. Its not through a book or a set of rules that we will find perfection, its through love.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

A Word should not be a Sentence

Words are important. Freudian slips are accidental but no less significant. "I didn't mean that" can be both a genuine and a bogus excuse. With some of our news coming in a one sentence tweet you need to choose your words very carefully and woe betide the birdie who drops a bomb like 'suicide'.

It's not really surprising that someone has said that suicide is selfish. In a proper debate that point of view would have to be aired and examined. It would need to be tested from different angles and according to different criteria. The definition of 'selfish' has to be established. Does it simply mean I did it for myself or does it carry the caveat that it has no consideration for others? Is being selfish, of itself, a bad thing or does it depend on how you are being selfish?

Maybe it shouldn't but it bothers me a little seeing article headlines saying suicide isn't selfish. It's not that I believe it is but it seems that everyone has to defend Robin Williams' own suicide like a herd of wildebeest running from the pragmatic lion. Is it now something to be honoured like a death in the trenches? Does it actually have any merits or is it something that just needs to be understood more?

Those who have criticised JW should be ashamed of themselves but that's no reason to counter attack. By arguing against something you can accidentally validate its point of view. If someone claimed the moon was made of cheese you'd just laugh it off, not get into a serious debate.

When someone commits suicide as a way out of their torment, they do it for themselves. Its your choice to load that positively, negatively or not at all. But if this is our focus we are never going to tackle the important issues. A moralistic approach to anything only leads to shame, condemnation and self-righteousness. Reassigning suicide to the 'good' pile changes nothing.

Human nature is such that we cannot resist the urge to take a side or pass moral judgement. There is a place for this in setting your own standards or those of society. But like the doctor, psychiatrist or priest who must put judgement aside in order to treat the patient or seek the truth, it serves no purpose to label actions according to your own preconceptions.

We all feel the need to be in the right as if what we think really makes any difference.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Peek-a-boo

Now you see Hamas, now you don't.

The answer to, "Is Hamas a terrorist organisation?" is neither yes nor no. It can't be 'no' because they clearly are terrorists. They are terrorising Israelis with their indiscriminate bombs and they undoubtedly terrorise Palestinians. So why can't the answer be yes?

No one in the media is defending Hamas but do they not at least deserve a fair trial? Go back to the troubles in Ireland. From the mainland we could look at loyalists and republicans and wonder how they could support their respective paramilitaries. The IRA and their counterparts were thugs (no doubt there) but so long as there was an 'us' and 'them' there was no hope for peace.

The Sinn Fein were never flavour of the month except among republicans but they won elections, even to the UK Parliament. Ian Paisley was never a terrorist and Martin McGuinness was never a saint. Neither garnered much support outside their respective camps and if either had their way Northern Ireland would be either Catholic or Protestant (perish the thought). But in the end they shared power because that was the only answer.

I believe in, and hope for, good always prevailing. Its the feel-good factor in the movies we watch and books we read. There is often a goody and a baddy. The baddy sometimes turns good and the supposed goody sometimes turns out to be a scoundrel but the outcome is usually fairly straightforward. Life's complicated enough so when we recreationally put the world to rights at least we get a little peace. But that's not how the world works.

If the IRA were the equivalent of Hamas then Sinn Fein would be the equivalent of Fatah, except Fatah have effectively been reduced to puppets. So, like it or loath it, Hamas are the representatives of the Palestinians. In the latest peace talks (brokered by Egypt) Hamas were not even consulted. So when Israel says that Hamas have refused a cease fire that's a lie. It's generally recognised that it was not Hamas who kidnapped and killed the three Israeli teenagers. The Israeli government knew that, yet went after Hamas anyway. So to say that Hamas started this conflict is debatable at best.

Its like that question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The answer isn't yes because I never started beating her. 'No' would technically be correct but would imply that I am beating her. The problem lies in the question and its inherent assumptions. In the context of the current conflict the question, "Is Hamas a terrorist organisation?" is just too loaded. If you want something from the shop you don't ask if the shopkeeper can be trusted because if they can't, you won't shop there. If you truly want peace and that shop is the only place you can buy it you either settle for war or you take the risk. Of course you could always kill the shopkeeper.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Obama, the antichrist

Many American right wing nut jobs will claim that Obama is the antichrist. It sounds ridiculous but I would suggest a rational argument can be made to justify the title. Before you decide to disown me please allow me to explain.

In what is now the Holy Week, churches throughout the world are centring on the Passion, the final hours around Jesus' crucifixion. According to John's gospel, Jesus was taken before Pilate and questioned. Pilate asked Jesus if he was the king of the Jews because the Jewish leaders were accusing him of claiming that title. Jesus confirmed that he was a king but not of this world. If he were, then he could command an army to defend him.

Outside the specific context of his trial and execution this has massive implications for us who claim to be Christians. First of all it means we are citizens of a spiritual kingdom and, as Christians, have no nationhood as its understood in an earthly sense. Secondly it forbids us to assault those who do not claim Christ as their Lord either physically or verbally. There is no precedent in the New Testament for us to do so and, in fact, we are encouraged to practice respect and restraint. Unfortunately the church throughout the centuries has severely tainted its reputation by blatantly disregarding the words of its king and continues to do so.

If we are citizens of a heavenly kingdom then when we talk of a Christian nation, surely we are talking of one that consists of all Christians throughout the world. America's constitution clearly separates church and state so, of all the nations in the world it has least justification in claiming its country to be Christian. But that is where these nut jobs are coming from.

They would claim their authority in Jesus and the Bible. So when Jesus' claim to kingship and their claim to be Christians are put together they must be citizens of his kingdom. Now if America is a Christian nation its king must be Christ. They don't have a king but the nearest equivalent is the President. Antichrist means 'in place of Christ' and following this logic Obama fits the bill perfectly. Unfortunately the only alternative is for Jesus to become President but Jesus has already turned that down.

The issue, it would appear, is their claim of a Christian nation. As soon as they relinquish that claim the antichrist goes away. The same logic labels the Pope as the antichrist and our own Queen is in its targets. Its all rather silly but logical.

Many will celebrate Easter as an affirmation of Jesus as their personal saviour. Others will complain that its been hijacked by the Easter bunny. Worst of all some might complain that its been hijacked by pagans which would be highly ironic. There is no mandate for the people of this nation to celebrate a Christian Easter because this is not a Christian nation and never has been. Jesus denied us that right on Good Friday over 2000 years ago.

But Jesus is neither our national saviour or personal saviour. According to the New Testament he is the saviour of the world. The Jewish state was fittingly dissolved in AD70, the last dividing wall of God's new era. Ironically America is the champion of the modern Israeli state, an unholy alliance between the "one nation under God" and the special nation many Christians see as strategic to Christ's coming, the two horns of another antichrist.

Jesus leads us to a better place where there is no flag waving, no discrimination, no judging by the world's standards, where we defend the faith by turning the other cheek and bring down empires by exposing their lies. Jesus is no respecter of nations. The world's great faiths share a father Abraham who, according to the book of Hebrews, "lived in tents" but looked forward to "the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God". It goes on to say that, "if [he] had been thinking of the country [he] left, [he] would have had opportunity to return. Instead, [he was] looking for a better country - a heavenly one, (my emphasis)."

And the great news is that God's kingdom is here in our hearts - its not pie in the sky when you die. If, on Good Friday, we relinquish our hold on this world, on Easter Sunday we can wake up in a new united kingdom.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Moral Camels

©Fotofolia royalty free imageIt seems to me that Christians are their worst enemies when it comes to alienating those who do not share their faith. I am aware that Christians are persecuted for their faith throughout the world more than any other faith but we should distinguish between raw persecution, reasoned dislike and difference of opinion. Setting aside the principle that any discussion on religion is bound to spark passionate debate and raise the usual suspects, its the moral dimension that I want to address.

We should distinguish between morals and moralising. Society requires moral fabric, accepting that stealing, murder, rape, fraud etc. are not acceptable. But inevitably we each become arbiters of what is morally acceptable and judge others by our moral code which, for each of us, is different in degree if not in content. Stealing is a crime but the principle is that you do not acquire the property of another without their permission or by some sort of legitimate contract. But its a rare person who can say they have never stolen anything. Some could be said to be thieves in that it's their chief means of income but generally labelling others as thieves while absolving ourselves could be said to be moralising. Its slightly dishonest to claim that prisons are full of thieves and murderers. They are actually the ones that got caught.

We Christians often delude ourselves that we are not moralisers. We claim that Jesus is our righteousness but when we are ever confessing in order to cleanse ourselves of the moral filth of society and our own actions are we not obsessive compulsive, desperate to be good Christians. If we can't claim to be better than anyone else at least we can claim diplomatic immunity. Admitting you are a sinner doesn't automatically make you a better one. I believe one of the greatest problems the Church has is its obsession with law. It's understandable because law is the backbone of the Old Testament but there are enough clues in the New Testament to show that our obsession should be with grace – undeserved favour. However, we do need to understand the relationship between Law and Grace to fully understand what grace means.

“Old Testament” means old covenant (or agreement) and in order for a new agreement (New Testament) to be put in place the old must be revoked. Despite the Gospels being in the New Testament Jesus lived under the Old Covenant. Everything he did and said has to be understood in terms of that covenant which was based on law, a set of rules established hundreds of years previously. We should understand that this law was not primarily a moral code; it was a legal system undergirding a theocratic state. We can think it barbaric (in some respects) now but it was a law for its time in which God was king, when the nation was at war and its very existence was under threat. But as in all laws it was morally based, the Ten Commandments being its constitution.

We know we are loved because God is willing to forgive us; we don't need to prove it by meeting a set of guidelines.

Interestingly when Jesus referred to the law he was speaking about personal conduct and referred his hearers to natural law (common sense) in translating the moral code for themselves. Even in the Old Testament when you read the Prophets you hear God arguing for common sense against blind adherence to law. “Why do you fast and fight among yourselves? … The true fast is to free the oppressed and release those in bondage.” He called their sacrifices a stench in his nostrils. Jesus commended the Pharisees for tithing but could not overlook their cruel treatment of widows and orphans and their obsessive moralising. My favourite passage in the Gospels is the story of the woman caught in adultery. Ironically this story was dismissed by the early church because they thought Jesus should have condemned her. Jesus was pretty insistent that mercy should always trump judgement but it wasn't until after his death and resurrection that we could fully understand the relationship between law and grace and it was down to the Apostle Paul to explain it.

You cannot be expected to know what God requires unless its spelled out and you cannot know if you fall short if there is no measure. Jesus was clear that God's minimum was 100% but also recognised that no one could attain that. But instead of berating us as losers he pointed to himself as the one who could get us to that standard. The one proviso was that we give up all our efforts and rely on him. Jesus lived under the old covenant because it was his mission to meet the covenant's demands 100% for us. Then, having met the standard, he took the whole Law with him to the grave effectively dissolving it and making way for a new covenant, the covenant of grace. In his resurrection he instituted a new covenant but instead of discrediting the old he based the new on the essence of the original – to love God and love your neighbour. The greatest mystery of the New Testament is the giving of the Holy Spirit who helps us to live a good life by changing our hearts, not demanding we follow a set of rules. We know we are loved because God is willing to forgive us; we don't need to prove it by meeting a set of guidelines. Of course, if your heart is for God you will lead a moral life (more or less) but only because you are motivated to do that, not compelled or threatened.

The Christian has access to the Law only through Jesus Christ who met its every requirement. We are children of grace and, as such, should extend that grace to those who have none. Also, we are not to judge because we have already been forgiven. This doesn't give us license to abandon a moral code. We are not free from the constraints of moral decisions, only free from the condemnation that moralisers bring upon themselves. If you live by the Law, as Paul said, you will be condemned by the Law. You can't have it both ways. Maybe you would like the income of a surgeon but without the skills you would fail. No one is qualified to live a morally perfect life so why pretend just so that you can be better than your neighbour or command respect.

gatekeepers to a kingdom they could not enter

Unfortunately its only moralising and judgemental preaching that hits the headlines and their excuse is usually that they are only telling us what the Bible says, claiming no prejudice or self-righteous judgement. Anyone who challenges this is classed as a liberal who doesn't fully trust God's word. More often than not the source texts are taken from the books of Moses (The Law) or Paul's letters referring to church discipline. These are applied to behaviour they don't approve of. In contrast we hear Paul talking about God's love and how there is no condemnation and Jesus telling us we will never be plucked out of God's hands, when referring to those they approve of. They fail to see that Jesus condemnation is directed chiefly at moralisers and law keepers, that Paul's harshest condemnation is directed at those who insist on living according to the laws of Moses. The book of Romans is almost entirely devoted to understanding grace as is the letter to the Galatians.

Jesus said it was harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to enter the eye of a needle. In other words: impossible. But I think it's safe to say that Jesus was referring to more than financial wealth. I believe he was saying that a man defined by his wealth is not a candidate but neither is anyone defined by their morality. Lets look at the parable of the narrow and wide gates. Jesus said that the way to heaven was narrow and few found it. In contrast the wide gate was very popular. Combining this with the previous parable we might see the narrow gate as impossibly thin rather than the common conception of it being single or double file. The wide gate might then be whatever width or shape we like to imagine it. The parable only requires that it be easy to navigate.

Taking this one step further let's say there are many gates only one of which is impossible. We have 3 types of people: those seeking only self gratification; those seeking justification and those seeking truth. This first group go for the wide gate (no pain) and the third group stand at the impossible gate, instinctively knowing that there is a way through even if it's not obvious. The second group, seeking to justify themselves, find a gate that only they can get through and demand that others conform to their profile. Jesus told the Pharisees that they were gatekeepers to a kingdom they could not enter, keeping out the rightful subjects yet seeking out (proselytising) others making them more sons of hell than themselves.

“Many will say to me on that day,'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'”

Matthew 7:22-23.