The fin de siècle Beef War between France and the UK was an interesting study in human behaviour and attitudes to right and wrong and questions of what is acceptable and what is not. It allowed people the opportunity to let all their little racial prejudices off their leash for a while and recall the glorious days of history like Agincourt and Trafalgar. It made supermarket shopping more time-consuming as one actually read the labels for a change to make sure they didn’t contain the words ‘Produit de France’. What was more difficult was finding suitable alternatives to such beloved expressions as ‘volte-face’, ‘déja-vu’, ‘faux pas’, ‘force majeure’, and ‘plus ça change c’est plus la même chose’, not to mention ‘crêpes suzettes’ or ‘crême-de-menthe’. Yes, I know I’m beginning to sound like Clement Freud doing a turn on’ Just a Minute’, so we’ll say adieu to this paragraph. Oops!
It was the legal issues that were among the most interesting. How should the law be interpreted and implemented, and furthermore, what law? National or European? Could and should national governments legitimately impose bans in such circumstances in defiance of community law. This very subject came up for discussion with some of my colleagues. Generally it was agreed that a government should not ban, but simply inform and let people make up their own minds about things. Some people thought that such a policy should be extended to other matters like drugs, and that it should not be the rôle (oops #2) of government to prescribe exactly how we should and should not live our lives. It’s called the Nanny State, although I’m not sure what nannies have to do with it. I always thought nannies gave advice and parents prescribed. Perhaps they mean goats?
All this rubbish brings me to the main question. You just know from experience that God is going to be mentioned now, don’t you? Oh, how clever you are! Is God a ‘Nanny God’? It’s true, he did give laws and commandments to Israel in the desert, but then the Christian is free in Christ (Gal. 5:1). Paul regales the Corinthian church at some length on this matter using the issue of eating meat dedicated to idols as an example. If I may be permitted to answer my own question, (and you can’t stop me – it’s my article) I think that on the whole God does not prescribe, but simply tells humanity what reality and truth really are, allowing us to accept or reject his testimony. We are not forced to embrace his salvation, but we are clearly warned that to fail to do so has extremely long-term health consequences, i.e. eternity in hell. I made this point to my colleagues and I should inform you that judgement and damnation are still not considered popular conversation topics!
There is not space here to explore the whole of the can of worms or kettle of fish (or roasting tin of French beef even) that this leads us into. We could consider the tension between free will and determinism but I don’t feel it’s my fate to do so now. We might start drawing a few lines in the sand of morality, but a word is worth a thousand pictures (I think that’s how it goes) and I’m a terrible artist anyhow. We could embark on a thousand-page discourse on 1 Corinthians where from we might glean much of the spiritual nourishment we require in this matter. But, after much consideration, I think I need to keep back some topics for future Obiter Dictums, so you’ll just have to wait – tough tacky! After all, I’m told a cliff-hanger endings can be terribly effective literary device. Keep them hungry for more. So, how about,
Next month: St. Paul and Immanuel Kant battle it out to the ethical death above the Dover seashore!