John Stuart Mill on Christian Conduct

In his book On Liberty John Stuart Mill writes about how one's belief may not always correspond with one's conduct. And he uses Christianity and Christians to illustrate his point. He writes that to the Christian doctrine, a Christian gives 'homage; and to the worldly practical consideration, he gives his 'allegiance'. He cites examples from the Bible and concludes that contemporary Christians don't really follow them as such. He says " All Christians believe that the blessed are the poor and the humble, and those who ill-used by the world; that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; that they should judge not, lest they are judged...that if one take their cloak, they should give him coat too;  that they should take no thought for the morrow; that if they would be perfect, they should sell all that they have and give it to the poor." (On Liberty 2008:47) As I see it, the implication of what he writes is that Christianity is of not much practical relevance or that Christians believe one thing but do another thing; to put it bluntly, Christians are hypocrites! 

Being an influential writer of an influential book, Mill could have made a negative impression about Christianity and Christians to many of his readers.  Mill was an atheist, and therefore he was not a friend of Christianity. What he said about Christianity or about any other religions therefore need careful consideration. He might have a bias, unwittingly, just as I might have a bias, unwittingly, about his belief or rather lack of belief. 

The above lines have been quoted from different texts of the Bible. Different section of the Bible requires different interpretative principle. Whether it's the Bible or the Nikayas (Buddhist Scripture) or Dante or Shakespeare it's of paramount importance that the line is interpreted within the context in which it is given. The context could be literary context or the historical context. Interpreting the line without the context is not doing justice to the text. And this is what I see Mill doing here.This is the first point I want to contend for. 

The second point is that Mill has misquoted some of the points and has added his own point. This then changes the meaning of the text. For those who are not aware of what the text really says, they would be inclined to take his words at face value. " That they should take no thought for the morrow" should be " That they should not worry for tomorrow" (Matt 6:34). The last line about selling all that's there to give to the poor is from the story of Jesus and the  rich young man ( Matt 19: 16-30) The injunction there is not for all the rich Christians to follow throughout the ages.

There are teachings of the Bible that Christians all agree in the meaning, but can't quite follow. " Do no tell lies" is a principle that not only Christians but all others would agree to uphold. (The question whether it's alright to lie to a drunkard when he is walking around trying to kill his wife is a different matter here.) But has Mill never ever told a lie? If he had, was it because he gave only lip service to his belief; that he did not take this principle seriously? If a Christian tells lies, it would be more like the reason why Mill might have lied though , in principle,  he would also agree that telling a lie is wrong.

Reference: 

1. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 47