We recognize that gambling takes on many forms. There are many disagreements among people as to which activities actually are gambling, and as to what is the relative harmfulness of different activities which are generally acknowledged to be gambling. Our concern lies in all these areas, but our thrust in this report is chiefly on legalized lotteries and on the possible use of gambling activities to raise funds for churches.
Central Aim: Our aim and purpose has been to provide GUIDELINES, not directives. We have no intention of attempting to answer all or even most of the questions posed above. The factual information and the reflections contained in this report must speak for themselves. The onus for making value judgments and policy decisions finally rests with individuals and congregations, although the recommendations will give specific conclusions for approval by the General Council.
We set down a tentative working definition in which we believe each phrase to be important:
GAMBLING is a contract whereby loss or gain or exchange or something of value (property, or money, or money’s worth) is staked on the issue or outcome of an artificially created chance or uncertain event; without reference to or determination by value or service or goodwill; with consciousness or risk and hope of gain; and with the gain of the winners being at the expense of the losers (even when it is with the mutual consent of the losers).
Aspects To make a thorough study of an act of gambling it would be necessary for an individual or a congregation to render:
economic, sociological and political judgments concerning the context in which the act of gambling takes place;
individual judgments (moral, psychological and otherwise) concerning the character and the motivations of the person or persons doing the gambling, and also of the person or persons promoting the gambling (individual, institution, organization and state); and the means employed in promoting the gambling;
social judgments concerning the persons affected by the gambling (consequences to individuals, families, community, society, nation).
Areas of inquiry Any discussion of the moral and ethical implications of gambling must be concerned with:
the character expressed in the moral act;
the principle involved in the moral act (and its application);
the consequences resulting from the moral act and judgments arrived at would have to be applied to those who gamble, those who promote gambling, and those affected by the gambling.
Gambling in permissive societies Gambling has existed in every known society from the most primitive to the most complex. Evidence of dice games and sometimes guessing games (rude, intellectual contests) is found in surviving or recorded stone-age cultures, among the Bushmen in South Africa, the Australian aborigines and the American Indians. Itinerant professional gamblers were reported among American Indians. Evidence of gambling also survives from all the advanced cultures of antiquity-dice in an Egyptian tomb of 3000 BC, a gaming board cut into the step at the Acropolis in Athens, and innumerable evidences from the Roman Empire.
Gambling and Religion Gambling in primitive societies is commonly connected by scholars with religion. The Hebrews cast lots before the Lord (Joshua 18:10) and the Lord decided (Proverbs 16:33). In other cultures priests used divinatory devices such as casting stones or directing arrows toward occult patterns, and onlookers bet among themselves on the results. Early dice and playing cards have been linked to divinity tableaus in Korea and China. Tacitus reports the betting of the early Germans on the results of their trial by ordeal. Great emotional response as of religious fervour or superstitious fear often marked the behaviour of participants in primitive people’s games. Tacitus records that the Germans gambled away their children and their wives and ultimately themselves into slavery, as did many members of African tribes; and there are cited instances of a Chinese gambler staking a hand and, upon losing, cutting it off.
Roman Influence The Emperor Claudius was interested in gambling and wrote a treatise on the use of dice. Horse-racing and chariot-racing at the Circus Maximus saw many fortunes won and lost. Gambling in various forms was prevalent throughout the length and breadth of the Roman Empire.
Opposition by Christians The initial Christian reaction of revulsion toward gambling may possibly have stemmed from the Roman soldiers at the crucifixion casting dice for Christ’s garments. Later, Christian opposition was for more social, humane, charitable and economic reasons.
From the time that Christianity became officially established (in the reign of Emperor Constantine) until comparatively recently, attempts were made to legislate gambling to a more moderate scale. These efforts were generally ineffective. In Venice, gambling destroyed so many noble families that the Council of Ten twice forbade the sale of cards and dice and called upon servants to report masters violating these ordinances. Francis I in 1526 ordered the arrest of people who played cards or dice in taverns or gambling houses, but allowed the establishment of a public lottery in 1539. Lotteries were known in the time of Caesar Augustus and of Claudius, but they were often limited to friends of the Emperor (with winners and their prizes sometimes determined in advance). Some of the petty states of Europe introduced state lotteries in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries to raise needed funds.
Modern Times During World War II, the USSR introduced a lottery in which purchasers of government bonds could win prizes, and in 1956, the United Kingdom adopted a similar policy. Also, in the United Kingdom, football pools are so widespread and popular that they perhaps could be termed in effect a national lottery. The USSR has now followed Canada’s lead and introduced an Olympic Lottery to raise funds for the 1980 Summer Olympics.
The Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes, still likely the largest lottery promoted internationally, continues to derive more of its revenue from North America than from any other source. Despite the brickbats thrown its way over the years by anti-gambling groups, the Irish Sweepstakes today is one of the few forms of lottery (perhaps the only major one) where amounts spent on prizes, salaries, advertising and other expenses are regulated by the government, with certain regulations set out in law and with books open to government inspection. We now have a proliferation of lotteries (municipal, provincial, state and federal) in North America and Western Europe, many of which do not make available a public statement or accounting of monies received and how they are disbursed.
The Present Situation Non-gamblers have become a small minority class in Canada. A Gallup Poll carried out in June 1975, in Ontario, discovered that, in that province, 82 per cent of the population supported the idea of a provincial lottery and 71 per cent of these bought tickets. Only 8 per cent of those questioned declared themselves as being definitely opposed to such lotteries.
It is interesting to speculate upon the fact that, apart from the obvious exception of the Province of Quebec, the spread and great popularity of legalized gambling, especially lotteries, has been in provinces, states and countries considered to be at least nominally protestant.
It is estimated that Canadians spent $934 million on gambling in this country in 1976. Even so, it is noted that the average Canadian spends only $40 a person annually for lotteries, compared to $70 per Frenchman, $200 per Englishman and $220 per Japanese. More than 80 per cent of Americans regard gambling as an acceptable activity, and nearly two-thirds of the American people actually make wagers of one sort or another.
Government lotteries are now sponsored by the Canadian government and by Ontario, Quebec, the Western Provinces and the Atlantic Provinces. What the future holds for government-sponsored gambling in Canada may be inferred from noting that forty-four American States have some form of legalized gambling, and that legislation to permit new and expanded types of betting games (including bingo, dog-racing, card rooms and others) is now pending in thirty-seven states.
One of the most popular family gifts in America at Christmas of 1976 was a game in which the whole family can participate as players in various forms of gambling, including lotteries.
There is no “Christian Ethic of Gambling” as such. But there are clear general guidelines to be deduced from the scriptures that help Christians to make whatever ethical decisions they are faced with.
Basic Assumptions First we should note that the Christian brings to every situation certain basic assumptions as to ethical values. These assumptions are relevant to any and every situation though they do not necessarily yield immediate and final answers. The one assumption that takes precedence over every other in Christian ethics is that “the righteousness of God is the plumb-line for measuring the rightness of human actions.” Certain other implications rise out of this assumption: that the knowledge we need in order to do what is right is found in God’s own activities; that our obligations to God and to our neighbour are inseparable. In biblical terms, human obligation is expressed as a covenant by which men and women are bound, and according to which they will eventually be judged. But how do human beings know what the Lord requires? In the person and work of Jesus Christ, God provides not only the ultimate standard of moral judgment, but also the means of strength and grace to achieve that standard.
Christian Response And how is God’s activity in the world to be identified? How do we recognize “what God is doing in the world to make and to keep human life human”? How are we to know beyond doubt what is authentically human? The question of authority is a real factor in all ethical decision-making. Christians are often at variance with one another as to the content of God’s revelation of his mighty acts. The Bible records are sometimes inconsistent. It is impossible to reconcile a God who visits horrible plagues upon the Egyptians, including the slaughter of first-born sons, with the God to whom Jesus prayed “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” And as for the community of God’s faithful people-there are no infallible human beings; all are subject to short-sightedness, self-interest, pride, prejudice and other such weaknesses that lead them to distort the human interpretation of God’s activity. Similarly, individual conscience (limited as it is by human subjectivity) can scarcely lay claim to universal validity. The only ultimate authority is God himself. The bringing together of these three basic sources, Bible, tradition and conscience, will bring us closer to an authentic interpretation of God’s revelation of himself.
Basics in Ethics – Relation to God and Man The foundation of Christian ethics, then, is in the self-disclosure of God. It is also rooted in a particular view of human nature. The first fact about man is that he is a child of God, made in God’s image. Man is also “fallen,” a sinner. Through pride, self-will and disobedience he has become so radically estranged from God that only through God’s own activity in Jesus Christ is that estrangement overcome and man restored to fellowship with God. The Christian ethic is not an ethic of good works designed to win divine approval, nor is it human striving to fulfil man’s side of the covenant; rather, it is an ethic of grace-characterized by good works motivated by joyful gratitude for the love of God so freely and undeservedly given.
The broad implications of man’s two-fold relationship with God and with his neighbour seems clear enough so far as moral responsibility is concerned. The Christian is called upon to love as he is loved. Freely he has received, freely must he give. He is to befriend the outcast and care for the despised and the oppressed. Real problems arise, however, in applying these generalizations to specific issues such as gambling. One way of bridging the gap between generalized assumption and specific problem is to set down some “intermediate propositions” or “middle axioms” or “guidelines.”
“Propositions,” of course, can all too readily claim a validity and a finality that cannot be justified. Many Christians would like to reduce the whole of Christian theology and ethics to certain “prepositional truths,” that is, infallible absolutes that permit neither question nor interpretation. The guidelines we propose to set down could not be further from such an interpretation; they are tentative and open to question, offered solely for the light they may help shed on the specific problem under consideration.
Every person, in God’s eyes, is of infinite worth. We are called to love God with all our heart, and to love our neighbour as ourself. God embraced all people in his love in Christ his son. As Christians, we must learn to evaluate ourselves and our neighbours as God sees us. No person is ever to be used, or manipulated, or exploited or hurt by another. Possibly the simplest question I can ask myself as I seek to make an ethical decision is: “Would this act I am contemplating hurt or harm my neighbour or myself in any way whatsoever?” It becomes even more searching when we put the question in positive terms: “Is this act motivated by love and concern for my brother?” “Would it help to create and promote redemptive Christian community?”
Such a proposition or guideline, served by such a battery of questions, could well provide the basis for condemning the exploitation of another person for one’s own gratification (which must surely be what is happening when one person seeks to gain a fortune at the expense of another). This guideline would also challenge the ethical propriety of promoting a lottery, since by appealing to motives of avarice or greed it is encouraging others to degrade themselves, possibly even to move towards addiction.
God’s creation is good, and hence to be reverenced and enjoyed. God cares for all the life he created and shows this by placing at its disposal “the earth with its store of wonders untold.” The material “goods” of this world are to be rightly used and justly divided among God’s creatures. The enjoyment of the material aspects of life is not inherently wrong, but they must surely not be hoarded or piled up by a few at the expense of all other people. The question Christians must constantly wrestle with as they relate themselves to their material environment is: “Is this a proper and creative and just use of the ‘goods’ of the world in which I live.” In the light of this guideline lotteries would seem to represent a particularly uneven or unequal distribution of goods.
All that we are and all that we have belong to God. “We are not our own.” Because God’s care is total, man’s responsibility before God is also total; and man’s obligation to God is inescapably “moral.” No human choice is a matter of indifference to God. Christian stewardship is accountability to God of all that one possesses (how one gains it, and how one uses or spends it), just as Christian vocation is the commitment of one’s entire life to God. It is not wealth, but the wrong way of looking at it, which is condemned in the Christian scriptures. An important part of our Christian stewardship is sharing with others and giving to the support of “Christian enterprises.” True Christian giving ought to be a means of grace. It should be responsible and direct (not tempered by mixed motivations); it should by systematic and proportional to our resources (not hit-or-miss); it should always be reaching toward the standard of sacrificial giving. If everything we have belongs to God, then we should carefully weight the question as to whether we are ever justified in claiming the right to do just as we please (e.g. buying lottery tickets) with our “disposable” income, as if a token payment (e.g. a tithe) to God were quite adequate. Self-indulgent behaviour would be difficult to rationalize if we are convinced that ultimately we are accountable to God for everything we think and say and do. Far beyond questions related to gambling activities, Christian stewardship would demand that the church take a new look at all “found-raising” methods and at all decisions concerning the expending and use of monies by Christians.
Other guidelines could be enunciated. We have confirmed ourselves to three, with some indications as to how they could be useful in trying to make ethical decisions concerning gambling or lotteries. Inevitably, other questions could be raised: for example, the effects of lotteries upon the whole society’s sense of responsibility. Or, what is the relation between motive, means and consequences in determining the rightness of a proposed action? To give a short answer to this last, all three are important: no result, however exalted (not even the Olympic Games) could justify using means which might contribute to the moral decline of an entire society.
When Canadians are questioned as to why they buy lottery tickets, they point to the benevolent cause which will benefit from their purchase. They also spin daydreams about what they will do with their winnings and these fantasies usually include plans for being generous to others.
In September 1974, several thousand Canadians were given the opportunity to reply to a favourite fantasy. Asked the question: “If your income were to increase a lot, which of these would you do first?” they skipped over such answers as sending milk to the starving and chose instead (in the following order): buy a house, live it up, save some money, buy property, take a holiday, buy stocks, start a business. When the element of obtaining this money from gambling is removed and the question is worded only as to the result, a sudden, large, financial gain, Canadians did not rationalize about their actions; their choices were clear – invest their windfall or spend it.
A recent MacLean’s article notes: “Although every legal lottery in Canada claims to be in aid of some worthy cause (religious, community, athletic, cultural, etc.) hardly anyone believes people buy tickets for altruistic reasons.” John Griffin, who manages Saskatchewan Super Lotto, puts it bluntly: “We base all our marketing strategy on greed. It’s our big selling point. People don’t buy tickets because they want to help a cause. They buy tickets because they want to win.”
Another explanation for gambling is that it is an integral part of man’s mythic struggle against unfathomable forces which seem to control his destiny. Milo Tyndal, a Toronto psychiatrist, declares “Man gambles because gambling is challenging the gods. We must challenge fate. It’s inherent in our nature.”
Gamblers Anonymous, with a long history of working with compulsive gamblers, discerns no such noble motivation. They maintain that people gamble because of an inability and unwillingness to accept reality, because of their own emotional insecurity, and because of an immaturity that makes them wish to escape responsibility.
A third explanation of the urge to gamble is that risk is an essential and beneficial element of the human psyche and that most of the human race’s advancement has been the result of someone daring to risk reputation, material comfort, or even life. Unable to find such challenges, alienated human beings increasingly seek to provide the element of risk artificially by becoming gambling enthusiasts. This urge to gamble (as Graham Greene points out) is motivated by the complete boredom of the individual. He further notes that people without purpose experience an essential boredom in evil which is not glamorous, but merely a feeling of ennui.
Many people today sense a sordidness in their lives which causes them to search for something which will generate a spirit of excitement as reassurance that they are not merely living, but are vitally alive. Gambling for many supplies this lift from routine and presents a chance to dream, an opportunity to stand apart from what has become a dreary, unexpectant existence.
Gambling in itself then is merely a symptom of man’s fumbling attempts to improve himself, especially materially; of his desire to find meaning and purpose in his short-spanned existence; of his need to have a full perception of being emotionally as well as nominally alive.
The turning of people in increasing numbers and with additional frequency of gambling to fulfil these needs can no more be treated successfully in isolation (e.g. by prohibition) than could excessive use of alcohol. Solutions must be based on a proper evaluation of the root causes rather than attempts to mask symptoms. Christians are called to live in total obedience to Christ their Master and Lord. There would be no need for such artificially created risks as gambling in lives caught up meaningfully in the adventure and the challenge and the risks of true Christian discipleship-lives committed to the risks of the gospel for the sake of others.
Motivations for Gambling From various sources, we have gleaned this list of gambling motivations:
The “get-something-for-nothing” syndrome.
Taking a small risk in the hope of getting a great advantage.
Giving vent to the human need to experience “adventure.”
Expression of innate human greed and covetousness.
Idea of “doing something nice for oneself by doing something nice for others.”
Hope of instant riches.
Desire to challenge fate or the gods.
The need to escape into a dream world or fantasy or an affluent life.
To get “the good things of life” with a minimum of effort.
The belief that eternal bliss hangs on the possession of great amounts of money.
Emotional need to exalt “myself” at the expense of others.
Nourishing and enlarging of extravagant expectations.
The expectation that payments to government lotteries may help to keep tax rates down.
Boredom, and frustration with daily routine.
Attempt to escape when the burden of normal existence is almost unbearable.
Unconscious sublimation of aggression against society.
Pathological desire to lose.
The experience of the pleasure of uncertainty.
Entertainment (e.g. bingo).
The self-satisfaction of beating someone else.
We have combed many sources to compile a list of the arguments for and against lotteries and games of chance. Many of the arguments crop up again and again. The persuasiveness of arguments on either side of the case tends to be linked, we find, to statistical documentation, or to depend on the credibility or appeal or presentational skills of the persons making the claims. Statistical backing is often shaky since its validity will depend upon the up-to-dateness of the figures, the soundness of the methods by which the figures were arrived at, and what figures one chooses to quote (or leave unquoted).
We make no attempt to support or prove any of the arguments here set down; we merely list them.
Arguments commonly raised by those who promote gambling and lotteries:
Governments can realize millions of dollars in new revenue in national lotteries.
Lotteries will solve a problem of mounting public expenditures for welfare purposes.
Lotteries will create jobs-practically a new industry (the machinery of government administration, hired workers, etc.): and the taxes so generated will stimulate the economy.
Lotteries offer a sound source of revenue; the people will gladly contribute huge sums in this way that they would object to paying in taxes.
People do not like being taxed for “less essential” purposes. Lotteries make it possible for those who are interested in a particular purpose to support it.
Government sponsored lotteries afford the opportunity for speculating on an honest and definite basis (safer than the stock exchange; not calling for additional cash “margin” to protect money invested; and lottery winnings would not be subject to market manipulation).
Lotteries do not increase gambling.
Reputable lotteries are administered with extreme care for honesty.
Sudden wealth will not have the deadening effect on the moral nature which is produced by long-term preoccupation for gain.
The psychological value of the hope and the amusement given by lottery participation compensates for its taking money from poor people.
The attitude of most people today is favourable to lotteries.
Lotteries keep the general tax rate down. Society has a chance to pursue special goals which government would otherwise feel it could not afford.
There is no biblical injunction against lotteries; in fact, Judas’ successor as a disciple was chosen by drawing lots.
Banning lotteries for the good of the poor is paternalistic, a limiting of poor peoples’ options “for their own good.”
Lotteries are democratic-the one place where the rich and the poor have the same chance.
Arguments commonly raised by those who oppose gambling and lotteries:
Lotteries are financially unsound and wasteful-they take money from legitimate businesses; they reduce the purchasing power of the people; while the lottery is going on, large sums of money are withdrawn from circulation; government lotteries reduce the financial credit of the nation; lotteries are an enormously costly and inefficient means of raising public monies.
Revenues from lotteries are unstable.
The profits of state lotteries are often negligible.
The total financial and social costs of lotteries have always exceeded the total benefits.
Lotteries are not in accord with our free enterprise system, in which prices should be determined largely on the basis of materials and labour involved in production.
Lotteries are a regressive form of taxation, not related to income; weighing disproportionately upon the poorer strata of society (those least able to bear the burden); there is no ground of equity-it is impossible to ascertain how the tax burden is distributed.
Lotteries are an unfair, ineffective and irresponsible way of under girding the tax structures or supporting good causes.
The effect of lotteries on ordinary citizens is deplorable-the savings of the poor are dissipated; many use money needed for essentials to buy tickets; many suicide cases have been persons disappointed in lotteries; lotteries discourage thrift; relying on chance and luck to win wealth fosters harmful and base superstitions.
Lotteries dull all sense of civic and social responsibility-people become unwilling to pay taxes without hope of return.
Lotteries raise false expectations.
Lotteries lure people into irresponsible spending patterns.
Lotteries deprive people of initiative.
Lotteries induce cynical attitudes to life.
Lotteries are immoral, unethical, anti-social and unchristian.
Sudden large gains in wealth often destroy the moral fibre of people who live humbly.
Lotteries constitute a gross manipulation of people.
Lotteries exploit human frailty and weakness; they contribute to alienation and violence; they legalize cupidity.
Lotteries increase crime; weak persons are tempted to steal or embezzle in order to buy more tickets.
Lotteries are an evil which creates other evils-corruption and organized crime thrive around lotteries; lotteries foster the gambling evil.
Government lotteries provide a basis of respectability for more obviously damaging and criminal forms of gambling.
Gamblers may become addicted (as with drugs and alcohol).
Gambling is a perversion of the human desire for adventure; it provides an artificial answer to a vital human need which is the taking of normal risks; gambling manufactures chance and creates an artificial risk.
Gambling fosters a lack of the sense of stewardship and responsibility.
Good ends do not justify bad means; honourable projects and good causes do not justify employment of degrading means to support them.
Gambling is against life as God made it; it destroys and distorts our whole understanding of our relationship to others; it is against brotherhood; it encourages materialism; it exploits philanthropy; it debases charity; it replaces trust in providence with dependence on chance; it destroys domestic peace.
Inform ourselves. Research the facts and issues relating to gambling and lotteries. Promote study and dialogue and discussion within your congregation around “Christian Guidelines for Moral Decisions.” Try to come to a measure of consensus which can be framed in a congregational policy. Share your findings with other people.
Do not be afraid to take a firm and unequivocal stand on social and moral issues-not a financial or self-righteous stand, but at the same time not a stand which is concerned with being “popular” or with echoing the voice of the majority of people around us.
The conviction that there may be little likelihood of the church having any practical effect on the rising tide of lotteries and gambling still does not mean that there is no Christian action to be taken. As Christian disciples we are called to take what we deem to be a Christian stand, witnessing to Christian values, following the highest light we know; and we are called to support one another in an responsible Christian lifestyle. Passing resolutions will never be enough if not accompanied by committed action.
Consider the crucial importance of the example we set for the young. Whether consciously or not, the church is always teaching. By all that it does, and by all that it does not do, the church teaches-not only (indeed possibly least of all) in its official and formally organized “educational” activities. We dare not close our eyes to the fact that our children are constantly learning from us what it means to be a Christian-in our relationship to one another-in our values and our commitments-in our integrity or lack of integrity-in our relationship to the world around us-in our reaction to and witness to the social issues we face from day to day. Gambling is just one such issue.
Become aware of the disease of gambling (as of other compulsive behaviours). Treat with caring and respect the gambling addict and his family. Seek to make our Christian fellowship such that they can find a sense of belonging within it-of understanding, of support, of acceptance. Those afflicted with the disease of gambling ought never to feel condemned by nor shut off by the Christian church. Work to make your Christian fellowship a centre of redemptive healing.
We, as Christians, must find creative and moral alternatives to war and violence, to inadequate forms of fellowship and amusement, to “material ways of looking at things,” to irresponsible pseudo-stewardship activities, to inadequate ways of seeking challenge and risk.
As we find answers in these areas, we must support one another in practising them, and we must furnish creative leadership to society as we share our answers with them.
In view of the historical and theological statement contained in the above review, as well as the concern expressed for the social and moral impact of gambling, it is recommended that:
The General Council recommend that all formally constituted United Church groups abstain from applying for grants to government commissions or foundations based on lotteries.
The Division of Mission in Canada, on behalf of General Council, contact both federal and provincial governments regarding the following:
Consideration of more responsible ways of taxation for the support of educational, cultural, recreational, health and welfare programs than is provided by lotteries.
The need to have complete public accountability and disclosure of all lotteries, with particular reference to costs of administration and promotion as well as detailed listings of funds used.
The need to look carefully at mass-media advertising (institutionalized advertising) and the manipulative aspects of this kind of advertising.
The Division of Mission in Canada contact the Banks, Trust Companies and retail businesses which offer lottery tickets for sale to examine their employment practices-primarily to ensure that all employees have the right to decline to sell such tickets when they feel that selling of lottery tickets violates their moral code.
The General Council goes on record as being supportive of and willing to cooperate with the work of Gamblers Anonymous organization, and that people be informed through the Observer and other church media of the existence and the scope of this work.
1977 ROP, pp. 314-323
