Matthew 5:22

The atheist bus, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. There’s a lot to like. I particularly liked the religious critics who complained the word “probably” was too wishy-washy. I wonder how many were previously saying same that Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist. Anyway another round of buses is on the way. The way it’s being reported is that the whole flap started with the atheists, ignoring that it was a response to the kind of advertising that people like the Trinitarian Bible Society (catchphrase: If you don’t believe in God you’re a fool – kiss my Psalms) have been putting out for years. Unsurprisingly the Trinitarians have announced they’re not going to stand for people mocking their Psalms 53 posters.

By running more Psalms 53 posters.

You probably won’t find out a lot about the Trinitarians at the link I used, because most of their website is broken. They don’t seem to have noticed so my guess is they’re slow readers. It would explain why they haven’t worked their way through to Matthew 5:22 yet. I think it’s probably accepted the Trinitarians are a bit odd, so that’s not news. What is news is some of the other people the atheist buses are dragging out, and I think it’s going to show how unexpectedly successful the atheist campaign has been. The photo above is from the Christian Party, sadly a political party rather than a party party. The Christian Party, to be charitable, doesn’t get it. Like the Trinitarians, Christian Party pick and choose which bits of the bible they believe and which bits are no biggie. From George Hargreaves slot in CiF it’s clear they’re not keen on Matthew either.

The Bible is clear that only a fool says “There is no God” (Psalm 53). Even then such a fool only says so inwardly in their heart. They do not spend £140,000 on an advertising campaign. That, I suppose, takes the type of fool that is easily parted from their money.

I’m an atheist so I really ought to welome this campaign. They take the colour scheme of the atheist buses, I’m not sure they’ve got the font quite right, but even so they’re pushing a brand. It’s a brand associated with the very thing they’re trying to deny. Even thought they use the word ‘definitely’, they’re dragged right into the frame of the debating whether or not God exists. That’s probably why the more media-savvy religious groups have welcomed the atheist adverts as highighting a debate, but not really engaged with it.

Even so, the Christian Party’s adverts bother me slightly.

I think it’s the use of the word Christian. It takes the label of a diverse group of people who share a huge variety of political beliefs, and it pins them down to one position. For example there are plenty of Christians who are anti-choice when it comes to abortion, because they think that’s what the Bible says. There are Christians who have read the Bible and decided that it’s possible to be pro-choice and Christian. The Christian Party in contrast welcomed the election of Barack Obama by complaining about his stance on abortion. The name implies that if you don’t take their very specific take on Christianity then you’re not a Christian.

That’s what bothers me about all the rants against the adverts. It’s the loudest rants which are heard and you end up with the equation that ‘Christian’ is a synonym for people like Stephen Green. Yes, I’d like to see religious influence in Britain diminished. For example, I don’t see why there should be bishops automatically in the House of Lords. At the same time I wouldn’t want to see people barred from public life simply because they were Christians. In the case of the Lords I’d welcome bishops as members, if they were granted membership because of reasoned insights into law and government. Preferably as part of a democratically elected chamber. In contrast we have people like Giles Fraser saying that atheists have nothing of value to say, and wondering why they get stroppy when they want to participate in public life to the same extent as Christians can.

I don’t think it really is appropriate to use the label ‘Christian’ to describe such people because I’ve met plenty of tolerant, reasonable Christians who can feel sympathy for their fellow humans. It’s possible to be a Christian and live a happy fulfulling life. That’s why George Hargreaves or Giles Fraser don’t make me angry, they make me worried about their own well-being. George Hargreaves has said:

I believe that tolerance begins where agreement ends. So over the past month I have had to be at my most tolerant as the 149 bus passes my office bearing the words “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

If he’s sincere, and that’s the limit of his tolerance, then that’s a plea for therapy. Your average Christian really is far more chilled about disbelief than that.

I’d hope that the campaigns would put an end to weirdoes being able to claim sane Christians as part of their crowd. The alternative is that their invitation to mock Christians is going to polarise this into a fight to sate the persecution fantasies of a few nutters. I’d like to think that people are worth a bit more respect.

If you’re interested to know what the Christian God would make of all this preaching then you need to check 1 Corinthians 1:21.

And just before I post I see that Why Don’t You Blog? has made more or less the same points. Bah!