Paradox in Practice

 I have mentioned in an earlier post that I sometimes find the Roe doe cull rather unpleasant. In order to keep the population under control, I have to cull a number of breeding females. At times they have what is termed "followers", which are immature offspring, and these, although they are fully weaned still hang out with their mother and seem to rely on her to teach them the ropes of survival and how best to become a really good Roe deer. If they are orphaned at this stage they will almost certainly survive, but they often exhibit signs of distress, and orphaned kids I have come across (usually through road traffic accidents or collisions with fences), even though they were fine physically, were often behaving strangely and somehow, as a colleague once said, "looked like little lost souls", bewildered and unsure of what to do. Therefore my unpleasant task is to shoot the followers first before then aligning the cross hairs on the mother. Some say kill the mother first as the kids are less likely to run at the noise of the rifle. "Boo! Bad form!" says I! Don't do it unless you really, really have to. If the mother runs she will be fine; if the kid runs, the situation I have just described happens, and it will be your fault.

Now, seen from one point of view, my killing of deer is nothing more than a legalised satiating of some perverse blood lust; merely the brutish desire to cause the death and suffering of the innocent. I mean, let's face it, the hunters in Bambi were such hideous brutes weren't they?

I can actually sympathise with that point of view. I really can. Until, that is, you first see the emaciated body of a deer that is starving to death. You see, there are no wolves in this country, no bears to predate on young, old, or infirm deer, and so the "wolf", the chief predator that now pursues our 6 native species of deer in the UK, is starvation. Starvation takes weeks to achieve population control, sometimes longer. A (decent) deer stalker does the job in a second or two, often less. And he selects the best beast to take, for the good of the remainder of the population (if he or she is worth their salt that is). Humans messed up the ecology of this island by hunting the predators to extinction. We must now take the responsibility of fixing the artificial situation we created in the countryside by using artificial means.

I am one of those artificial means! This is me, the Pastor, in some of my alternative work clothes:

All of the above reasoning sounds very clinical and scientific. It's almost as if I do this part of my life out of pure altruism, often with a sinking feeling and a heavy heart. But here is my problem:

I love it. I love hunting. I love the pursuit, the stealthy stalk, the aligning of the sights on the vital area, and I really love the sound of a big calibre rifle going off (it's called the report and it is more invigorating to me than the sound of the finest orchestra!)  

So the paradox that exists is clear: I genuinely love to see deer and I find it difficult to cull some of them at times, but I still thoroughly enjoy it all as well. This certainly does present me with a conundrum, a bit of a difficulty. Why don't I stalk them with a camera instead, some ask. Using a camera simply does not excite me the same way as using my .30-06. From one angle the responsible countryman sees the need to control a species that no longer has natural predators, culling them for the greater good of the remaining population and for the countryside as a whole. At the same time, the atavistic nature of the hunter is only satiated by the thrill of the chase and the successful killing of a beast. The excitement and adrenaline surge is far more enjoyable than merely harvesting venison (which is my favourite repast by the way). Some call it hypocrisy, arguing that one side of this conundrum must be wrong. Happily, though, as a paradox, both can co-exist. Indeed, the tension that exists between the two viewpoints can actually feed and help the other to maintain a healthy balance. It demonstrates to me that I have a real compassion along with my zeal for adventure; a self-control to go along with my excitability.

So there you have it. Find yourself a responsible deer stalker and an avid hunter in one person and you have a walking, talking example of a paradox.

One of the greatest paradoxes is of course the one of how a God who loves with an everlasting love, who sent His Son to die for all of mankind, could ever be so harsh as to condemn people to the fires of hell forever. It is one of the most hotly contested issues that is ever raised when Christianity is first mentioned, and is almost invariably raised as an objection to God in general, and to Christianity in particular. 

So let me ask you a question. As I explained my little conundrum about deer stalking, did it not at least start to make sense, how both attitudes can exist together? If you have no previous experience of deer stalking or management of the countryside, did the explanation I gave not at least start to make sense of a difficult issue, and perhaps change your view, bring in a smidgen of doubt, or at least alter your perception a little? Now, imagine if you spent the same amount of time listening to how the seemingly double standards of God might actually not be quite so impossible to reconcile as you previously thought. And if you are coming from the angle of a Christian, how often do you take the time to try to understand the nature of this difficulty that non-believers have, and try to put yourself in their shoes and answer them with simplicity, openness, frankness and honesty? One of the most endearing responses, so I am told, that I give to people quite frequently is "I don't know", but for some reason Christians rarely give it, apparently!

I feel good about my attitude to deer stalking, complete with the difficulties. I feel great about my relationship with a God Who I often do not understand. But if I cannot figure Him out, that in itself gives me cause for relief and peace; it means He is too big to fathom, and so He is big enough to be completely relied upon. Have a think about it. Post a comment if you like. About God, deer or shooting. I don't mind!

Ah, one man, his (fairly) obedient dog, and another walk in the dawn woods, rifle slung, dawn chorus in full bloom, and the Roebuck starting to feed his way toward you...so long as you see him first! Life makes sense, for a while at least.