I was brought up short, in the Commons debate on referring the prime minister to the Committee of Privileges to determine if he had knowingly misled parliament, when Steve Baker, the Conservative MP for High Wycombe, referred to Ian Blackford, the Westminster leader of the Scottish National Party, as “a brother in Christ”.

Blackford, who is a member of the Free Church of Scotland, looked a little taken aback. Baker asked him if he didn’t believe in redemption, to which Blackford replied blandly: “I believe in truth and justice, and I believe that a prime minister who has misled the house should face appropriate sanctions.”

The question was a strange one, not just because it was phrased in explicitly religious terms, but because when Baker came to give his own view it turned out that, although he did believe in redemption, he didn’t think that Boris Johnson’s contrition was genuine: “The prime minister’s apology lasted only as long as it took to get out of the headmaster’s study.” So he too thought the prime minister should go.

Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat MP whose Christianity caused him difficulties as party leader on the question of gay rights, addressed the philosophical question of Boris Johnson’s sincerity in similar language: “I do not know how contrite the prime minister is. I do not know how sincere is his repentance, or his apology. Only two beings know the answer to that question, and I will not make any assumption that I know it, because I am definitely not one of them.”

However, Farron nevertheless managed to come to the same conclusion as Baker. Although he believes that “forgiveness is available for everything and for everyone”, he said, “even forgiven sins bear consequences”. He quoted the Bible story of Zacchaeus, a tax collector and cheat who repented of his sins but who also made recompense: “He gives back four times what he has taken.” The prime minister has not borne the consequence of his sins, Farron said, which is why he thought Johnson should be removed from office.

It was as if we had been transported back to the 18th or 19th centuries, when MPs debated matters of state in religious language and biblical analogy. Chris Bryant, the Labour MP who chairs the committee to which the prime minister has been referred, commented that he felt as if he was back at theological college.

As the only MP who is an ordained minister of religion – he was a Church of England vicar before entering parliament – he said he thought he was the only person in the Commons who can actually pronounce absolution on anybody.

However, he has recused himself from the Committee of Privileges in this case because he has criticised Boris Johnson so sharply over Downing Street parties, so his power of forgiveness is not going to be tested.

Yours,

John Rentoul

Chief political commentator