MY grandmother delighted in confounding "bad" Christians. Any chance she got, she’d skewer priests and missionaries, ministers and street preachers with relentlessly polite logic. Her concept of "bad" included both hypocrisy and ignorance.
"If they’re going to preach to me," she’d say, "then they’d better be able to give a good account of themselves." She’d make these phoney Christians squirm with the absurdities of the Bible. Dinosaurs, anyone? And she’d force them to confront the book’s cruelty. Wasn’t it nice of God to demand Abraham kill his son Isaac? But her favourite tactic was to set a trap using their own double-dealing and falsity.
Your book preaches love of the poor and fellowship with all humankind, she’d say, so why do your church leaders live in luxury; why do they heap discrimination on women and gay people; why don’t they speak out against war? Why are you in the pockets of the rich? Why don’t you overthrow the tables of the money changers? Why, most of all, don’t you truly try and live by the teachings of your Saviour, Jesus Christ, who was a great and good man?
My grandmother lost her faith slowly over decades. She’d been devout as a child and closely schooled in the Bible. She knew the book intimately. By the time I arrived, though, she was firmly atheist. My grandmother gifted me something special – she not only bred in me a healthy scepticism, she also made sure I knew my Bible back to front. She read it to me frequently. It’s one of the world’s greatest works of literature, she rightly felt. She’d tell me it was up to each person to decide whether they believed the Bible was "literal truth" or simply good stories with some decent moral messages thrown in - a bit like a version of Aesop’s Fables which someone took too seriously.
Read more: Sturgeon must offer a home to refugees
I’ve read the Bible pretty much cover to cover twice during my life. I’m an atheist who knows the Bible, loves the Bible and can quote the Bible. I’m very comfortable with my respectful yet critical position on Christianity. There’s nothing I admire more than a Christian who walks the walk – but I've a special loathing for Christians who preach one thing and do another. Their hypocrisy repels me.
So I was confounded by the confected outrage around a tweet sent by the SNP MSP James Dornan to the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg recently. Mr Rees-Mogg, who claims he’s a devout Christian, had issued a contemptible tweet about his Tory Party’s immigration policy. The new Nationality and Borders Bill will empower immigration officials to turn refugees away as they cross the sea using “reasonable force if necessary”. The Tories also plan to set up offshore "processing centres". Currently it’s an offence to aid undocumented migrants "for gain". The new law removes the words "for gain". So if you provide humanitarian assistance to someone from Iraq or Afghanistan – countries we invaded – you risk jail. Children are being sent to detention centres.
Mr Rees-Mogg chose to comment on the new legislation in the tone of some monstrous Billy Bunter: “The bands of blighters bringing illegal entrants to Blighty will be broken up by this brilliant borders bill.” His tweet revealed the desert that is his soul. He has said in the past that he takes his “whip” from the church not the Conservative Whip’s Office.
Mr Dornan responded by saying Mr Rees-Mogg was “happy to see the most desperate people in the world suffer and drown. If your God exists you will undoubtedly rot in hell.” Cue screaming outrage from Conservatives. It was a masterclass in deflection. Their man Rees-Mogg was behaving abominably, so let’s find a convenient Nat as distraction.
Now, Mr Dornan has history on Twitter. Like many politicians he’s made a fool of himself online too often. Who hasn’t? That, however, doesn’t mean he’s wrong regarding Mr Rees-Mogg. Was his language a bit too brutal? Perhaps. But his logic was sound – according to Christianity.
If someone professes Christianity, and not only fails conspicuously to live up to the ideals of their faith, but also deliberately undermines the values of that faith by their actions, then not only is it acceptable to call out their hypocrisy but it’s also acceptable to ask how their God would judge them.
If you believe in the Bible then you have to go all in – no ifs or buts. Love the poor, do good works, and if you’re a rotten person you’ll rot in hell. That’s the deal, I’m afraid.
Read more: I'm an atheist who mourns the decline in religion
Just read the Epistle of James in the New Testament. “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, ‘Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled’; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”
In other words, how can you call yourself a Christian if you see someone in need but do nothing, or even worse pretend that all’s well with them. People like Mr Rees-Mogg go one step further – they don’t just pretend all is well with those in need or do nothing, they actively collude to make the suffering worse for those in need.
I'd a brief exchange with a Church of Scotland minister of my acquaintance about the Rees-Mogg-Dornan event –they’re a Christian who tries to walk the walk as best they can and I’ve a lot of respect for them. They said that Mr Rees-Mogg “needs called out on his hypocrisy as he obviously reads a different Bible to me”.
I’m an unrepentant atheist, but I know the Bible, and while Christ may love, God judges. If you profess to live by Christ’s words but act in direct contradiction to those teachings – offering pain instead of comfort – then surely your God will judge you and find you wanting. And if your god judges you, finds you wanting – if your god cannot forgive you – then isn’t rotting in hell just part of the process?
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel