Drawing the line

This week, MPs backed a plan to ban anyone born after 2009 from ever buying cigarettes, a move that effectively ensures that the proposal will one day become law. Whilst the bill passed comfortably, there were those who opposed it and it’s not hard to understand their motives for doing so.

Because there are, of course, two sides to every argument, and opinions can differ as to what is for the best.

The fact that smoking is both injurious to one’s health and highly addictive is not, however, in question. And equally certain is that there are less unhealthy ways to deal with personal stress than relying on the calming effects that some folk gain from the inhalation of nicotine. And so it is not a denial of the harmful effects of smoking that prompted those who opposed the bill to vote against it, but rather concerns regarding restrictions being placed on an individual’s freedom to act in whatever way they chose.

And this concern is, of course, one that is well worth considering – since it is in fact a concern that is shared by those on both sides of the debate.

Because those who opposed the bill will not unreasonably want to ask those in favour of it whether they would also support a ban on buying alcohol, participating in dangerous pastimes or spending too much time sat watching television when it would be far more healthy to be engaging in some form of exercise.

Similarly, those in favour of the bill will, equally reasonably, want to ask those who want to preserve one’s right to choose whether or not to smoke, if such individuals are equally liberal in wanting people to be free to snort cocaine, participate in satanic rituals involving human sacrifice, or promote methods of how to commit suicide to vulnerable individuals on social media platforms.

It seems then that we all have a line which divides the acceptable from the unacceptable, the only thing that we differ on is where that line should be drawn.

All of us know more or less where we would place it – and that, inevitably, will be where we think the line between right and wrong lies. The problem then becomes that what we consider to be right and wrong will, to a greater or lesser extent, differ from what is thought by each of the other eight billion people currently living on planet Earth.

Having then tacitly acknowledged the existence of right and wrong and, unless we are psychopaths, recognising the need to act accordingly, we need to decide who gets to be the final arbiter of what is and is not acceptable.

For the arrogant amongst us, the answer is that it should be they themselves, those who, confident that they are supreme judge of such matters, would happily enforce their will on others, and, given power to do so, would oppress others as the head of a military dictatorship.

At the other end of the spectrum are those who, unwilling to impose any restrictions on anyone, are effectively endorsing anarchy, with everyone free to do precisely what they want.

A balance then needs to be struck, which is, of course, what democracy seeks to do by way of consensus and thus making decisions on what should and should not be legislated. Which is all very well apart from the fact that, despite the no doubt largely good intentions of those who sit in parliament, they too are flawed. Inevitably then not all their decisions are good ones and the question then that The Proclaimers once sang about then arises, namely, ‘what do you do if minority means you’.

No wonder then that Winston Churchill once said that,

‘democracy is the worst form Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time’

But what if there was such a thing as a benevolent dictator, a leader who, rather than being one who acted solely for their own benefit, ruled instead for the benefit of their people? What if there was one who truly knew the difference between right and wrong and, fully appreciating what was best for those under their authority, legislated accordingly. What if we had a leader whose judgments could be trusted and who could be relied upon to always do what was right?

Well I believe there is such a one  – namely the judge of the whole earth who only does what is just. [Genesis 18:25].

Because as well as being the one whose unchanging word is both life giving and strengthening, not to mention illuminating and inspiring, He is also the one whose statutes are trustworthy, a source of hope and ones in which we can take genuine delight [Psalm 119:89, 25,28, 130, 161, 42, 43, 16]. Because not only are his commands good, they are good for us to.

And in addition to all this, He is the one that, when we err, remains merciful and gracious, the one who does not treat us as our sins deserve [Psalm 103:8,10], the one who, because of Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross for us, forgives us for all our foolish law breaking.

And so it is the case that, for me at least, God is the one who, in contrast to both myself and politicians, I am content to put my trust. And in this year of worldwide elections He is the one who has my vote of confidence.

And irrespective of your politics, I would suggest that He warrants your vote of confidence as well.

---

Related posts:

To read ‘Grace in a Political World’, click here

To read ‘Two Little Words’, click here

To read ‘Time’, click here

To read ‘One Day’, click here