by Rev. Malcolm MacInnes, Ullapool
It is characteristic of human nature in every age to rebel against authority which is felt to infringe upon the liberty sought after by the generation. Too often today students at universities and colleges are prepared to join forces with people who voice their grievances by “strikes,” “marches” or by a “sit-in.” It may well be that superiors are not providing for their inferiors “all things necessary,” but even unfair treatment by those in authority does not give license to take matters into our own hands. Similarly, legislation which to some people may appear to be unjust, but the observance of which does not infringe upon one’s liberty of conscience, is to be observed. Should such legislation infringe upon one’s liberty to worship God or seek to impose practices which are immoral upon the individual, then obviously the law of God is of greater authority than any “man-made” law which contradicts it. The title of this article poses a question which, surprisingly enough, might prove controversial, and yet, if the principles of law and order, which are contended for in other spheres of society, are applied to this subject, the line of conduct should be clear to all.
“Poaching” is defined as “trespassing on land belonging to another in search of game or fish” or “searching for game or fish illegally” — Universal English Dictionary (Wyld). Two arguments seem to cloud the issue, and behind these arguments those in favour of poaching take their stand. The first of these arguments is that the fish in the sea or rivers and the ‘game’ on the hills was put there by God for the good of man; the second argument advanced is that some Christians have not regarded poaching as wrong. An examination of both these arguments should show that neither gives a tenable position to those who condone poaching.
It is universally agreed that God placed the fish in the water and the game on the hill for the good of man, but the point to be debated is whether every man has a right to go into what is acknowledged as the property of another and take what is there. When men buy land to which there are attached ‘fishing rights’ or ‘shooting rights’ the laws governing the structure of society are such that the catching of fish or game there belongs to them — it is their property. For any to use the first argument that such a law is bad seems to be beside the point in trying to decide whether we obey it or not. If any regard a law as bad the proper way to deal with it is to seek to have it repealed, but to give obedience to it while it is in force. If everyone is to flout what they consider a “bad” law in society, then a state of anarchy will prevail. If one law be flouted, who is to say which laws are to be obeyed and which not? It is recognised by all classes of society that the law decides ‘what is whose property.’ Stealing is stealing, whether it be a person’s good name, character or possessions, or whether it be the envying and grudging at the good of others. We read in Leviticus chapter six some of the laws of community relations, and in verse four the Lord says “then it shall be, because he has sinned and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten.” No person with a sense of equity can say that it is honest for a man to take deceitfully what belongs to someone else. The verse quoted implies that there is sin and guilt in taking deceitfully what belongs to another person. There may be some public sympathy with the “poacher,” but public sympathy does not remove guilt. The public conscience may not always condemn an evil action. Only when the conscience is instructed by divine truth can it be a sure monitor. If the teaching of Scripture condemns an action then this must be the standard. Before becoming hardened, the conscience recognises that there is an association of “wrong-doing” attached to the transgression of laws, even the laws of society. If “poaching” cannot be done before the eyes of men, it shows that the “poacher” has forgotten the eye of God. The loneliness of the hillside or of the river does not hide from God, nor does the darkness of the night.
The argument that some Christians do not regard it as wrong does not give a licence either; it is rather a sad reflection on these Christians. Such Christians may be regarded as outstanding for the exercise of grace or of zeal for the cause of Christ, and yet they are not to be regarded as infallible. Paul exhorted the Corinthians “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” We would do well to follow Christians who follow Christ, but the moment they begin to condone what is questionable, if not clearly wrong in the estimation of some, it is time for us to say “not a step further.” Let a Christian be seen doing what is wrong, let him be seen poaching, and a finger is immediately pointed at this “spot” in his profession even although he may win the praise and friendship of the “lawbreakers.” Christians who regard “poaching” as “permissible” are not only endangering the effectiveness of their own witness, but are in danger of encouraging others in what can only be regarded as wrong. The principle we see at work in Zaccheus was a seeking to undo the evil he had done. He restored his ill-gotten gain, which implies that had he acted properly from the outset he would not have indulged in false dealing. Love to our neighbour implies that we wish him prosperity in all that he has. We cannot say that we are prospering our neighbour’s outward estate when we take what, by law, is his property. A Christian life should commend obedience to the laws of “the powers that are ordained of God.” The more that laws are observed as rules of life the more tender the conscience will be against doing what is forbidden, whether by God’s moral law or the laws of society. The more that the believer, not only voices his conviction on moral issues which are becoming increasingly blurred, but also by divine grace lives accordingly, the clearer and more effective will his witness for Christ be in the world. Christians should live so as to be “blameless and harmless, the sons of God without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.” and thus have “a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.” Taking unlawfully what does not belong to him should not be a characteristic of a person converted to Christ. What is wrong for a Christian is also wrong for an unconverted person, and the conclusion to which we must come is that “poaching” is wrong not only for the converted, but for the unconverted also. “. . . giving no offence in any thing. . .” 2 Corinthians 6:3.