Antithesis Magazine V1N6
Issue: Is Gambling Morally Permissible?Issue: Is Gambling Morally Permissible?
Advocate 1: Gambling Per Se Is Permissible Within Certain Biblical Limits
The Jewish rabbis of the middle ages forbade it. So did Confucius and Mohammed. And through the years, many well-intended Christians have done so as well. What have they all forbidden? Gambling. That’s right. From chipping in a buck for the World Series pool at work to playing with the big spenders at the highfalutin casinos of Monte Carlo, we are told that gambling is sinful. “For followers of Jesus Christ,” writes one Christian author, “gambling is an insidious form of worldliness.”[1] Yet another author continues in the same vein by bringing down the gauntlet: “Gambling is wrong; the Bible is clear on that point…. Don’t gamble — ever!”[2]
Some stern warnings, to be sure. But are they accurate? Does Scripture really condemn gambling per se? Hardly. After examining some foundational principles, articulating some important limitations, and answering some common but fallacious objections, we will see that far from condemning gambling per se, Scripture actually permits it within carefully prescribed limitations. Hence, to those who say “Don’t bet on it!” we simply respond by asking, “Wanna bet?”
Laying A Firm Foundation: Some Introductory Principles
Lord of All
Because Christ alone is Lord of all, He has given us directives in His Word which apply to all of life. To say that Christ is Lord of all is simply to say that no area of life is outside of His lordship, dominion, or control. We are to consecrate every area of our lives to God so that whether we eat or drink or whatever we do, we do all in His name and to His glory (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 3:17).
Living to the glory of God, though, doesn’t require us to enroll in a local monastery and spend the rest of our lives chanting in candle-lit rooms (as though Christ were not Lord of all vocations and we were not His royal priests on Wall Street — 1 Pet. 2:9). Nor does it require us to denounce marriage or certain foods (as though Christ were not Lord of all things and the One through whom God made all things “good” — Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; 1 Tim. 4:4; Jn. 1:3). And it certainly doesn’t require us to beat and flog our “flesh” and engage in other acts of self-abasement (as though Christ were not Lord of our bodies and we were not the temples wherein His Spirit dwells — 1 Cor. 3:16).
What, then, does living a truly God-glorifying life require? It simply requires us to submit to Christ alone as Lord (Js. 4:12), and to order our lives according to His Word which is the final authority for all that we believe and do (Acts 17:11). If Christ alone, speaking through Scripture, is our final authority, then He alone can bind our consciences. Simply put, when it comes to living a godly life, we must speak when Scripture speaks and remain silent when Scripture is silent.
Strange as it may seem, however, many Christians have it all backwards: they are mute when Scripture speaks and they blurt out when Scripture is silent. That is, either (1) they ignore true godliness by rejecting the plain teachings of Scripture (only to end up wallowing around in licentiousness) or (2) they invent rules and restrictions for achieving “true” godliness by condemning what Scripture doesn’t condemn or by adding to the plain teachings of Scripture (only to end up wading through legalism). As Christians, though, we are called to steer clear of both licentiousness and legalism.
Instead, we are called to exercise both liberty and responsibility. Paul put it well when he told the Galatians that though we have been “called to freedom” we are not to “turn our freedom into an opportunity for the flesh….” (Gal. 5:13).
Free at Last?
How do we tell the difference between what we are free to do and what is an opportunity for the flesh? Obviously, we must do what God has commanded (e.g. loving one another), refrain from doing what He has prohibited (e.g. committing adultery), and are free to enjoy what God permits (e.g. getting married). So much for the easy cases. What about the seemingly difficult cases like drinking, dancing, or even gambling? No one would contend that God commands us individually to drink, dance, or gamble. So, when it comes to activities like gambling, the payoff question is: Does God prohibit us from gambling or does He permit us to do so within certain prescribed limits?
Aside from the evils of licentiousness and legalism, there are two diametrically opposed ways to approach and answer this payoff question: what we shall refer to respectively as the Fundamentalist view and the Reformed view.
According to the Fundamentalist view, whatever is not permitted in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, is prohibited. In other words, we can’t do anything unless Scripture says we can do it. On this view, the proponent of gambling bears the burden of proving that Scripture permits and does not forbid gambling. Until and unless he does so, the Fundamentalist view maintains that gambling is forbidden.
Over and against the Fundamentalist view, stands the Reformed view, which holds that whatever is not forbidden in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, is permitted. Put simply, we can do anything that Scripture doesn’t prohibit. On this view, the opponent of gambling bears the burden of proving that Scripture prohibits gambling. Until and unless he does so, the Reformed view maintains that gambling is permitted.
Is there a way to resolve this supposed impasse between the Fundamentalist and the Reformed views? Fortunately, Scripture itself is very clear on this point; only the Reformed view finds warrant in Scripture. Consider, if you will, the following passages:
Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man…. For from within, out of the heart of man, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these things proceed from within and defile the man (Mk. 7:14-15, 21-23).
I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in and of itself…. All things indeed are clean…(Rom. 14:14, 20).
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything…. All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify…. For the earth is the Lord’s and all it contains (1 Cor. 6:12, 10:23, 26; Ps. 24:1).
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer (1 Tim. 4:1-5).
If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourselves to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using)–in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence (Col. 2:20-23).
If we know and can be convinced that (1) Christ alone is Lord over the earth and all it contains, (2) God created all things good, (3) nothing is unclean in and of itself, (4) nothing can defile a man from without, (5) nothing is to be rejected if it received with gratitude and is sanctified by means of the Word of God and prayer, (6) man-made rules, while appearing outwardly religious, are of no value whatsoever against licentiousness, and (7) all things are lawful, then the Reformed view prevails. It is up to the opponent of gambling or any other activity to prove that Scripture forbids such behavior.
Given the truth of the Reformed view, it is helpful to see life as a playground. God has created a playground and has given His children liberty to play to their fill as long as they do so to His glory. Just as assuredly as God has created a playground and given us liberty therein, He has also built a fence around that playground and prohibits us sternly from wandering beyond that fence. But a playground wouldn’t be a playground if it didn’t have its own internal rules. Our playground is no exception. We must seek to understand those rules in light of our personal backgrounds (e.g. our motivations, capabilities, strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, etc.) and in light of our circumstances (e.g. the short and long term consequences of our actions). In other words, some of us may like the swings while others get dizzy on them and avoid them. This, of course, is just another way of saying that though something may be permissible in and of itself (e.g. drinking in moderation), it may not be good or desireable for everyone (e.g. a former alcoholic or someone who simply dislikes the taste) or under every circumstance (e.g. before driving).
My opponent and I believe that only the Reformed view safeguards both liberty and responsibility and simultaneously steers clear of licentiousness (which is based on a distorted view of liberty) and legalism (which is based on a distorted view of responsibility). Even though we agree as to the Reformed view, however, we disagree as to how it is to be applied to the case of gambling. I contend that gambling per se is within the playground subject only to the internal rules of the playground, whereas my opponent contends that gambling in and of itself is outside of the playground.
Drawing The Battle Lines: Some Important Limitations
Gambling is playing a so-called game of chance for money or other stakes; wagering money or other stakes on an allegedly uncertain outcome or contingency; betting, wagering, or speculating.[3] Gambling, then, involves (1) putting up money or other stakes (2) on an so-called game of chance, uncertainty, or contingency.
While we have claimed that gambling per se is within the playground (i.e. is generally permissible), we have also admitted that gambling, like any activity, is subject to certain playground rules (i.e. Biblically prescribed limits). What follows, then, is a brief list of attitudes and/or actions which Scripture forbids whether they be associated with gambling or any other activity.
1. We cannot involuntarily take or misappropriate property which rightfully belongs to God or others. Consequently, we cannot (a) rob God by gambling our tithe (Mal. 3:8); (b) steal money from family, friends, or associates to bet at the races (Ex. 20:15); or (c) fail to provide for those reasonably under our care (1 Tim. 5:8). In other words, we must be good stewards of what God has given to us and those around us.
2. We cannot allow ourselves to become mastered by or addicted to anything such that we neglect our duties toward God, our families, churches, employers, and neighbors (1 Cor. 6:12).
3. We cannot worship anyone or anything other than the one true God (e.g. we cannot worship lady luck, fortune, or happenstance) (Ex. 20:3, 34:14).
4. We cannot allow ourselves to be motivated by greed, covetousness, or discontent (Ex. 20:17; Prov. 11:28; 15:16; 23:4-5; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:3-5; Phil. 4:11-13; Col. 3:5; 1 Tim. 6:6-11, 17-19).
5. We cannot disobey lawful authorities if such authorities have forbidden us to gamble since we would not be forced to choose between obeying God or man (i.e. a law forbidding gambling would not forbid us to do what God commands or command us to do what God forbids) (Acts 5:29).
6. We cannot perpetrate crimes or acts of fraud and deceit on others (Lev. 19:13; Ps. 15:3; 24:4; 1 Cor. 6:8; 2 Cor. 7:2).
7. We cannot offend a weaker brother by forcing or cajoling him to gamble when he has scruples against gambling (Rom. 14:1-23; 1 Cor. 8:9-13).
Parrying The Blows: Some Common Objections
Having examined some foundational principles and articulated some important limitations, we are now in a position to answer some common objections to gambling which have been raised through the years. As we will see, however, each objection misunderstands the nature of gambling and the nature of the Biblical limitations discussed above, since each objection assumes that gambling necessarily involves a violation of one or more of the Biblical limitations discussed above. Put another way, each objection misconstrues the Biblical limitations on gambling as outright prohibitions of gambling per se.
1. What A Steal
In his magnanimous three-volume Systematic Theology, the great Reformed theologian, Charles Hodge, claims that gambling violates the eighth commandment because it necessarily involves taking property which belongs to others. Because “gambling falls under the same category where advantage is taken of the unwary or unskillful to deprive them of their property without compensation,” it is sinful.[4] And Hodge isn’t alone. The masterful southern theologian, Robert L. Dabney, concurs with Hodge by asserting that gambling plunders our neighbors’ estate; accordingly, he includes gambling with vices such as robbery, theft, stealth, swindling, wastefulness, extortion, and embezzlement.[5] Thus, both Hodge and Dabney believe that gambling necessarily involves depriving others of their property.G.I. Williamson, whose tremendously insightful books on the Westminster Confession and Catechisms have tutored many in the Reformed faith, gives us a better understanding of the traditional Reformed position (“TRP”). After claiming that God ultimately owns all that exists, that God sovereignly determines what property is given to man, and that the right of private property is an ordinance of God (with which we heartily agree), he claims that there are only two legitimate ways for Christians to acquire property: by gift/inheritance and by labor.[6] He proceeds to define stealing as obtaining property unlawfully (by which he means property not acquired as a gift or as a result of labor), and then moves from this definition to his punchline by claiming that gambling “always involves the element of stealing because the motive is to get money without labor, and without it being given as a gift.”[7 ] Admitting that great Reformed minds have classified gambling as stealing, we must nonetheless take the TRP to Scripture — as did the noble-minded Bereans with the teachings of the apostles themselves — to see whether these things are so (Acts 17:11). By so doing, we will see that the TRP is mistaken for four reasons.
(1) The TRP begs the question by assuming (a) that gambling necessarily involves either the acquisition of property (which, as a matter of fact, it usually doesn’t!) or (b) that everyone gambles primarily in order to acquire property (which is a hasty generalization!).[8] Would gambling per se still be wrong if the gambler had no desire to acquire property and returned all property so acquired?
(2) Even if gambling necessarily involves the acquisition of or motivation to acquire property, the TRP reduces to a false dilemma since Scripture nowhere says that we can acquire property only by means of gifts or as a result of labor. This definition arbitrarily and conveniently excludes a third alternative: acquiring property by means of a voluntary exchange.[9]
(3) Since the TRP defines stealing as acquiring property other than by gifts or by labor (i.e. since the TRP omits voluntary exchange as a legitimate way to acquire property), the TRP trips when it classifies gambling as stealing. Contrary to the TRP, stealing should properly be defined as taking or misappropriating the property of others without their consent. To avoid begging the question, therefore, the advocate of the TRP needs to prove that gambling necessarily involves (a) taking or misappropriating the property of others, and (b) that such taking or misappropriation is involuntary (no paternalism please!).
(4) Even if the advocate of the TRP is adamant in clinging to his arbitrary view that the Christian can only acquire property by means of a gift or by bestowing labor, it is entirely possible to characterize property gained by gambling as constituting a gift or as resulting from labor. (a) The TRP assumes that property acquired by gambling does not constitute a gift. In the process, however, the TRP becomes impaled on the horns of a serious dilemma. The catalyst for generating this dilemma is the test case of “prizes”. Would the TRP, if consistently applied, condemn all prizes? If the advocate of TRP says “no” then he must offer criteria for distinguishing other prizes (which he would allow) from property acquired by gambling (which he doesn’t allow). If, on the other hand, he says “yes” then he must offer criteria for distinguishing prizes (which he wouldn’t allow) from other gifts (which he does allow). (b) The TRP also assumes that gambling, in at least some cases, does not result from skill or labor (apparently because that skill or labor is staked on an apparent contingency beyond the control of the gambler).[10] But isn’t the same thing true with other kinds of investments or business transactions? Would the TRP also condemn other such investments or transactions? If the advocate of TRP says “no” then he must offer criteria for distinguishing gambling from other kinds of investments and transactions. If, on the other hand, he says “yes” then he must distinguish what he means by “labor” from the obvious skill and labor investors and businessmen bestow.
2. The Gambling Bug
Many Christians condemn gambling because some people become addicted to or abuse it.[11] Four problems inhere in this objection. (1) By condemning legitimate use because of potential or actual abuse, this objection can easily be reduced to absurdity: should we also refuse to drink alcohol or take prescription drugs because there are many alcoholics or drug addicts who abuse alcohol or drugs?[12] If the potential for addiction or abuse is a reason to condemn an activity, then, in order to be consistent, we would have to jettison many otherwise legitimate and permissible activities. (2) Advocates of the “gambling bug” objection attribute the problem of some people to all people (usually by arguing that we all have a hidden potential for abuse). “Gambling bug” advocates then move from what “is” the case to (the addiction of some) to what “ought” to be the case (prohibition); that is, they commit the naturalistic fallacy by moving from the descriptive to the normative without providing adequate Biblical warrant. (3) The “gambling bug” objection, as articulated by some opponents of gambling, assumes the truth of the medical model (i.e. that addiction is an illness or a disease) which undermines Biblical responsibility. (4) And aside from the three criticisms offered above, this objection is especially pernicious because its advocates pretend to know better than God what is best for His people!
3. Chances Are
Dabney writes that gambling is a sin, because, among other things, gamblers insincerely and profanely appeal to chance as a cause when “the real cause is Divine Providence.”[13] Indeed, if gamblers worship, adore, or otherwise believe in “lady luck”, then gambling is sinful for them. But this objection doesn’t militate against gambling per se for three reasons. (1) This objection begs the question that gambling necessarily involves idolatrous appeals to chance. Isn’t it possible for a Christian to realize that the “lot is cast in the lap, but its very decision is from the Lord” (Prov. 16:33)? Christians can speculate on an alleged contingency, knowing full well that even seemingly chance-random events happen only by divine providence (I Kg. 22:34). (2) As with the “gambling bug” objection above, this objection moves from rightfully condemning abuse to fallaciously condemning legitimate use. (3) If consistently applied, this objection would condemn otherwise legitimate investments or transactions[14] as well as insurance policies,[15] since, from a human point of view, investments, transactions, and insurance policies typically involve apparent contingencies. After all, the “secret things belong to the Lord our God…” (Deut. 29:29).
4. The Greed Factor
Most Christians who oppose gambling, argue that gambling is wrong because it springs from and fosters greed, covetousness, and discontent.[16] This objection is wrong for three reasons. (1) This objection begs the question by assuming that those who gamble are doing so based on greed, covetousness, and discontent. Just because gambling may be financially profitable doesn’t mean that gambling necessarily entails greed, covetousness, and discontent. (2) Taken to its logical conclusion, this objection would condemn all profit-seeking activity (including our occupations) since our salaries could foster greed as well. How absurd! The sinful attitude of greed doesn’t necessarily inveigh against an activity just because that activity produces a profit. Scripture nowhere tells us that financial profit in and of itself is to be eschewed since it is the love of money and not money itself that is the root of all evil (1 Tim. 6:10). (3) This objection, like the “gambling bug” objection, fallaciously moves from rightfully condemning abuse to condemning legitimate use without providing adequate Biblical warrant.
5. The Long Arm of the Law
Some argue that Christians shouldn’t gamble because gambling is illegal in many jurisdictions. Indeed, where gambling is illegal, Christians must obey lawful authorities. But this argument doesn’t tell against gambling per se for two reasons. (1) Just because something is illegal doesn’t make it immoral per se since not all crimes are sins. A law criminalizing gambling doesn’t make gambling evil in and of itself. Were the Christian to gamble in a jurisdiction that outlaws gambling, the sin would not be gambling; the sin would be violating the law and lawful authorities without abiding by the Biblical criteria for such disobedience. (2) This objection doesn’t prove that gambling is morally wrong for the Christian if his particular jurisdiction permits its citizens to gamble which is the case in many jurisdictions.
6. Crimes and Misdemeanors
Dabney argues that the “practical proof of the immorality of gaming is, that all habitual gamblers proceed from `fair gaming’ sooner or later, to tricks which even their own code condemns as frauds.”[17] Still others argue against gambling by contending that gambling breeds crimes such as drug trafficking, prostitution, and theft. This objection falls prey to several blunders. (1) This objection is based on a slippery slope which is unproven. Until and unless those who voice this objection can prove (a) that there is a slope and (b) that it is slippery, they have not met the burden of proof that rests on their shoulders. (2) Even assuming that the slippery slope exists, this objection moves fallaciously from rightfully condemning abuse to condemning legitimate use.[18] It simply isn’t true that all gamblers perpetrate frauds or sell drugs or prostitute themselves. (3) Undesirable social consequences may be prevalent in and around gambling establishments, but such crimes do not necessarily constitute an argument against the morality of gambling any more than crimes committed in and around bars would be an argument against drinking,[19] or any more than crimes committed in and around movie theaters would be an argument against the morality of attending a movie!
7. Oh Brother!
Some, as a last ditch effort, argue against gambling by contending that we shouldn’t gamble because we may cause a weaker brother or sister to stumble. In order to properly apply the weaker brother passages to the case of gambling, however, we must understand (1) that the weaker brother is the one with the scruples and (2) that causing him to stumble means forcing or cajoling him to do that which he believes is wrong.[20] Thus, this objection doesn’t prove that gambling itself is wrong; it only proves that we shouldn’t force or cajole someone who thinks that gambling is wrong to gamble. Why? Because doing something you think is wrong is sinful, even if it is actually permissible (since the weaker brother would be doing it with the wrong motivation). God not only looks at our actions; He also examines our hearts (Prov. 21:2).
Some Concluding Remarks
The Reformed view of Christian liberty holds that we are permitted to do anything that God doesn’t forbid. While many Christians try to argue against gambling per se by contending that it is forbidden, their arguments simply don’t stand up to scrutiny. Within Biblically prescribed limits, gambling per se is permissible. You can bet on it!
Notes
[1] Tom Watson Jr., Don’t Bet on It, (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1987), p. 28.
[2] David Hocking, The Moral Catastrophe, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1990), p. 245.
[3] Philip Babcock Gove, ed., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged), (Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1976), p. 932.
[4] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Col, reprinted 182), vol. III, p. 437.
[5] Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology, (Carlistle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trst, 1985 [1878]), p. 415; see also, Robert L. Dabney, The Practical Philosphy, (Harrisburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1984 [1897]), p. 485.
[6] G.I. Williamson, The Shorter Catechism, (Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1970), vol. w, p. 68.
[7] Ibid.
[8] For a detailed refutation of this objection, see my refutation of “The Greed Factor” objection below.
[9] A voluntary exchange may include an exchange of money, goods, labor/services, entertainment, etc. in any combination.
[10] One logician claims that a “thoroughly practiced gambler” with more than usual skill “must be regarded as following a pression”. John Venn, The Logic of Chance, New York, NY: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1962 [1888]), p. 377.
[11] See, e.g., Watson, Don’t Bet on It, pp. 18-19.
[12] Hocking actually condemns alcohol because of its addictive potential. He may be consistent, but he is consistently wrong. While Scripture condemns abuse of alcohol (drunkenness), it does not condemn legitimate use of alcohol. As with gambling, we are at liberty to drink withing certain perscribed limitations.
[13] Dabney, The Practical Philosphy, p. 485.
[14] Venn has written that while there are some differences between gamblers and investors/businessmen, there is an important respect in which they are alike: “insofar as chance and risk [are invloved in investments and business ventures, inventors and businessmen] may be fairly so termed [as gamblers], and in many branches of business this must necessarily be the case to a very considerable extent.” The Logic of Chance, p. 386.
[15] Venn writes that insurance “is simply equivalent to a mutual contract amongst those who dread the consequences of the uncertainty of their life or employment, that they will employ the aggregate regularity to neutralize as far as possible the individual irregularity.” The Logic of Chance, p. 373. Thus, to condemn gambling because it involves apparent contingencies is to condemn insurance policies as well.
[16] See, e.g. Hocking, The Moral Catastrophe, pp. 235-246.
[17] Dabney, The Practical Philosophy, p. 485.
[18] Note how Dabney argues from habitual gambling to gambling itself — a rhetorically effective, but nonetheless fallacious category shift.
[19] During the so-called temperance movement, many teetotalers argued against drinking in this way. Their descendants are still around today; see, e.g. Hocking, The Moral Catastrophe, p. 201.
[20] Many wrongly think that causing a weaker brother to stumble means doing anything that offends him. Were this the case, we probably couldn’t do anything since some brother out there would be offended.
ADVOCATE 2: Gambling Per Se is Inconsistent with the Biblical Ethic
Before refuting the specific arguments of the Christian Gambling Advocate, I will sketch the case against gambling under the headings of three Biblical principles. I will refine the understanding of these principles under three further headings. Finally I will rebut several specific arguments of my opponent, even while stipulating agreement with several others.
Principle #1: Gambling places our property under unnecessary and foolish risk, thereby violating the principle of stewardship which God requires us to exercise with respect to all the property which has been entrusted to us.
That the risk is unnecessary is obvious. That it is foolish follows from the fact that in games of chance, losses might begin from the very first game, and are virtually guaranteed in the long run if playing against a “house” whose resources greatly exceed those of the gambler. Indeed, if one continues to stake bets on a chance outcome indefinitely, it will eventually lead to bankruptcy. The eventual ruin of one player or the other is a mathematical certainty, unless one party or the other quits before it happens (see, e.g. W. Warren, Lady Luck: The Theory of Probability (NY: Dover, 1963) pp. 330 ff.). Even the gambler who sincerely believes he can win must admit that he might not win: his property, too, is subject to instant loss.
The objection, that it may be a legitimate use of money to risk small amounts of property for the “recreational” benefit of a game, is negated by the simple consideration: why not simply play the game without a stake of property? But in case this objection still seems to have some merit, it will be addressed in greater detail later on.
Principle #2: Gambling is wrong, for it involves a desire to gain the property of one’s neighbor without quid pro quo– that is, without an equitable exchange of value.
This can be seen most clearly by realizing that gambling, unlike proper economic exchanges, is a “zero-sum game”: the gain of one party is precisely equal to, and entails, the loss of the other party. Hoping to win, therefore, entails the simultaneous hope that your neighbor will lose. C.S. Lewis instinctively recognized this connection (though his preceding analysis faltered) when he said, “If anyone comes to me asking to play bridge for money I just say: `How much do you hope to win? Take it and go away.'” For the Christian, then, this kind of activity is unacceptable, for it puts him in a position of desiring his neighbor’s loss rather than his neighbor’s prosperity: this violates the law of love (cf. Westminster Larger Catechism #114: “The duties required in the eighth command [include].. to endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.”)
Note carefully that the implied desire for your partner’s loss is not entailed by a proper economic exchange, unless fraud is involved. If I trade my car for my neighbor Jack’s horse, and we each enter the trade without compulsion, it is because my ends are better served by the horse, in my estimation; and Jack’s by the car in his. I profit from the trade by gaining a horse at the expense of a car, and Jack profits from it by gaining a car at the expense of a horse. Though at first it seems paradoxical, in fact we can both profit from the transaction, for our ends and resources are different.
The objection, that the risk of loss was freely offered by both parties to the gambling “transaction”, and specifically by the loser, is irrelevant; for my partner has no more right to make such an offer than I have. We have seen that my participation in the gamble involves immorality in two ways: my willingness to risk the uncompensated loss of a part of my estate, which is foolish, and my desire or willingness to deprive my neighbor of his, uncompensated, which violates the law of love. The immorality is deduced logically prior to the specification of the transaction as voluntary or involuntary. Its voluntary nature cannot, then make it legitimate, any more than the handshake of duelists sanctifies the subsequent murder which takes place.
Principle #3: Gambling is wrong in that it appeals to Chance for a favorable outcome, rather than God’s Providence.
One cannot in good faith pray for a favorable outcome of the game; but we are to pray without ceasing, and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. First, one would be praying for a loss on the part of one’s neighbor; but we are to pray for the good of even our enemies. Second, it would be tempting God to beseech Him to grant an outcome based on a condition we have arbitrarily set up and for which we have no legitimate basis for invoking His aid.
Look at it another way: God’s Providence is the ultimate controlling force of all events. But to place one’s hope for gain on an arbitrary supposition of what His Providence will cause to fall out, when there is no reason to expect that He will do so, is presumptuous.
We Take Account Of Both Basic Types Of Gambling In This Analysis
The discussion so far applies most clearly to those gambles which involve pure chance — the roulette wheel or craps, for example. (Betting on sporting events falls into this category as well: the spread, if done skillfully, equalizes the chance of either selection winning.) Other kinds of games involve elements of skill which, by virtue of reducing the “sovereignty” of chance, might seem to change the morality of the games for the better. We are not talking about that knowledge and finesse which is presupposed for a game to be “fair” — knowing the ranking of poker hands, for example. We are referring to two kinds of skill which go beyond this. (a) In games such as bridge or poker, part of the strategy is to use bluff or other forms of deception to gain an advantage over one’s fellow players. (b) In games such as blackjack, some players have devised ways of keeping track of past event (e.g. cards that have been dealt) in order to increase their odds when betting on future events (e.g. cards that will be dealt). They do this by exploiting the theory of conditional probabilities. Neither of these cases, however, mitigates the immorality of gambling. In the first case, why should the immorality of appealing to Chance in order to strip my neighbor of some of his property be lessened, simply because I add to the process my concentrated powers of deception? The second case is only an anomaly: by changing the presuppositions of the game, in effect the odds should be recalculated to restore the game to its status as “fair”. The practical proof is this: no casino will allow any such person to play on once discovered. The market has a way of squeezing these anomalies out of action, even if the terms of the game must be changed. Also, we would be irked if the casino used such tactics: but in a hypothetical Christian setting (i.e., no “spoiling the Egyptians” allowed) why should there be a double standard?
Analogies To Business Ventures, Insurance, Etc. Are Fallaciously Cited
My adversary claims that rejecting gambling because of its relation to chance would imply that one should also eschew business deals involving an element of risk. The implied argument appears to be that as this would be an unacceptable conclusion, the antecedent must be false; consequently, gambling properly so-called cannot be condemned on the ground of its appeal to uncertainty or the risk of loss.
In passing, I note that if the argument from the analogy to business ventures were actually valid we should be able to follow the analogy through, and it should be as permissible to devote a significant portion of one’s life savings to the investment of “gambling” as it is to business ventures. My opponent, then, should not limit the application of his thesis to things like one-dollar football pools, but should come right out and declare that he would have no moral counter-advice to persons proposing to gamble, say, 30% of their life savings, provided of course that they were confident that they would win.
Second, even if it were necessary to concede the argument implied by the analogy to investments, it would not lead to my opponent’s conclusion, for there still would remain the argument of Principle #2 — no quid pro quo — against his position, but which does not affect business ventures, insurance, etc.
Be this as it may, a close examination shows that the analogy of gambling to investments fails anyway. It is based on a failure to distinguish between uncertainty and randomness.
All events in creation are contingent upon certain other events occurring as a precondition, and are, therefore, uncertain (from a human standpoint). In this strict sense, we can say that everything from the rising of the sun tomorrow to the outcome of the dice I roll is “uncertain”. The difference between the two extreme cases is seen by the crucially different way that we relate to them as we reflect on God’s Providence. On the one hand, there is every reason to believe that, in God’s Providence, the sun will rise tomorrow. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that, in God’s Providence, I will roll “snake-eyes”.
This difference of attitude will provide a sound litmus test for distinguishing between righteous and unrighteous risking of loss. When considering an investment, we should ask: “Is there a rational expectation and hope for increasing our outward estate by means of the venture, after carefully considering all factors of God’s Providence known to be relevant?” The Christian investor should only move affirmatively if the answer to this question is Yes. The element of chance in gambling differs from the uncertainty entailed in a investment, in that there is in gambling no rational basis for hoping or expecting not to suffer loss.
An investment might fail, but this may not be read back to the automatic conclusion that making the investment was wrong, any more than getting lucky at gambling proves that the act of gambling was right. Otherwise, we would be saying that the end justifies the means. Instead, the attitude of the heart, judged by the norm of Scripture, is the key to judging an action righteous or unrighteous. Finally, we need to remember that pursuing our calling on earth is a divine command which we may no more avoid than we may shirk getting out of bed in the morning — despite the risk and uncertainties. Even a failed business need not be a cause of shame.
Cases In The Gray Area
Having laid the groundwork, we are now in a position to evaluate the cases of gambling that seem to be benign and acceptable. The most plausible instances seem to be cases where minor amounts of money are spent, and the loss is chalked up to either entertainment or social camaraderie. Now, it is not the thesis asserted here, that spending money for entertainment is always wrong, nor that the playing of games of chance per se is wrong. The cases in the gray area are difficult because we do not see the essence of gambling revealed in unmixed form: we see instead a mixture of several classes of behavior, making the analysis complex.
All ethical judgments pertaining to an individual’s actions must include the intent of the individual in performing the action. For example, if an involuntary nervous twitch caused someone’s arm to jerk, hitting a wall which dislodged a brick which fell and hit some people on the head, killing them, it would not count as murder, though the same action properly would count as murder had it been done with the intent of killing. I submit that it may be possible for an individual to participate in a game which others are using as an occasion for gambling (and therefore subject to the criticisms outlined above), yet do so from a matrix of intentions such that, for him, it is not gambling at all. In particular, I suggest asking the following questions in the course of examining one’s heart on this issue of the legitimacy of seeking entertainment in games that are used for gambling.
1. Am I limiting my total expenditure (including the cost of the trip, if any) to the amount that I can, with a clear conscience before God, devote to mere entertainment?
2. Do I either hope or expect to win anything?
3. Do I find myself praying for a “win”?
4. Would I be equally enamored of the game if participation were free of charge?
5. Do I regard the bet as a “user fee” (rather than a stake in hope of winning my neighbor’s property)? Do I always place the minimum permitted bet?
If the answers to these question are “yes,no,no,yes,yes”, then it is probably okay to play. But then, answering in this fashion proves that you are not, by intention, gambling at all, but rather paying to play a game that you find recreational or entertaining. This, then, is the resolution of the gray areas cases, which does not require compromising Biblical principle. Nevertheless, so inclined is the human heart to self-deception and rationalization, that I am inclined to recommend against participation even in this restricted sense. A little leaven leavens the whole lump — make certain there is not even a grain of it!
Blunders Of The Christian Gambling Advocate
Most of the errors made by my opponent should now be obvious. For the sake of completeness, however, I will quickly run through them, starting with the numbered reasons under the section “What a Steal”.
1.1 “Would gambling per se still be wrong if the gambler had no desire to acquire property and returned all property so acquired?” First, was this attitude and intent present at the commencement of the game? If “No”, then the evasion has no force with respect to evaluating the moral stance of the individual at the moment of the game. If “Yes”, then the game, as intended by the participant, was not gambling at all; the money was simply functioning for him as a cipher to keep track of winners and losers — not different really from the play-money of Monopoly.
1.2,1.3 Gambling cannot be classed a legitimate “voluntary exchange” for the reasons listed under Principle #2 above. The desire to acquire my neighbor’s property to his net loss reflects a covetous spirit. The fact that he is willing to submit to the possibility of loss for the chance to do the same to me only adds to the viciousness of the situation.
1.4 Gambling is not an instance of gift-giving, since a gift ceases to be a gift if it is conditional. Like grace, there may not be strings attached. May we think of gambling as the awarding of a prize? Of course one could define the result of gambling as a prize, in which case we would have to say that some kinds of prizes are right and some are wrong. The objections to gambling are not affected by defining it into a new category; conversely, prize-giving in general need not be susceptible to the moral criticisms defines above. The offerer of a prize is not subjecting his estate to potential uncompensated loss in exchange for the hope of gaining possession of someone else’s property. On the contrary, he may be deriving advertising exposure from the event, or he may, out of generosity, wish to advance a good cause or stimulate achievement in some area of worthwhile endeavor. Against this there is no law. Sneaking in the notion of “labor” involved in skillful gambling makes exactly as much sense as suggesting that the professional burglar’s intricate and demanding labors grant legitimacy to his gains. What makes the labor involved in a business morally exemplary, if it is, is not the mere exertion of effort, but rather the fact that it involves worthwhile service, and fulfillment of the obligations of a life calling, and does not involve moral turpitude. Other moral differences between business and gambling, both in the nature of the transaction, and in the relation to uncertainty, were described earlier. The favorable citation of footnote number 10 by our Christian gambling advocate seems to indicate that he holds forth the possibility of going into gambling as a profession. We challenge him to show on what basis he would try to dissuade a young man from entering the “field” of gambling as a life calling (provided of course that the young man intended to tithe, provide for his family, etc.).
2. The Gambling Bug — Nolo contendere.
3. Chances Are — We need not imagine a pagan lying prostrate before an idol of “Lady Luck” to realize the difficulty for the Christian in the relation to chance created by gambling. My opponent spindles himself on the horns of a dilemma here. One may only look to Chance or God’s Providence as the ground for any future random event. On the one hand, there is a sense in which it is unavoidable to “appeal to” Chance if one gambles with the hope of winning. Indeed, we could take as the very definition of a “random event” an event for which there is no more reason to expect, in God’s Providence, its occurrence than the occurrence of an alternative. (Though His Providence determines the result of a flipped coin, there is no reason, based on what we know of the initial conditions of the flip, to expect His Providence to favor one side or the other: hence, an a priori 50-50 probability). Thus, some appeal to Chance is inherent in the nature of the case; the Christian is forced to desire a specific outcome for which there is no basis for trusting God’s Providence to provide, nor for praying for a favorable outcome. On the other hand, the alternative is worse yet. He must then look to Providence for the implied hope of his neighbor’s loss.
I willingly stipulate agreement with my opponent’s position in sections 4-7, only pointing out, in connection with “Crimes and Misdemeanors”, that once having seen the immorality of gambling, it is not surprising (though not a proof) to find it almost universally associated with organized crime and a debauched and thieving people; that the same state which is famous for its extensive and legal network of casinos also permits counties to legalize prostitution; and other such observations. Contrapositively, it is not surprising that we do not find roulette wheels at church picnics, to allow sporting brothers to bet against each other for fun and fellowship. The Christian ethic is a seamless garment, and we see its norms confirmed both in the observance and in the breech. For the Christian, then, all bets are off!
ADVOCATE 1 Response
By focusing on the big picture, we can see that, so far, Advocate 2 (A2) has granted the (1) Reformed view of Christian liberty, (2) my seven Biblical limitations on gambling, (3) my responses to five common objections to gambling, and (4) the permissibility of gambling as a form of entertainment (no matter what he wants to call it).
Because A2 has practically given away the farm, our dispute has been narrowed considerably. In this response, I will identify a hidden premise which lurks behind A2’s case, refute that premise and his principles which ride piggy back on it, and critique a few of his subsidiary arguments.
Come Out, Come Out Wherever You Are
Debating A2 is like playing a game of hide-and-seek: long after all of his arguments have been caught or have surrendered, there is one lone holdout — a hidden premise which undergirds much of his case: A2 implicitly assumes that gambling not only involves (1) putting up money or other stakes (2) on a so-called game of chance, contingency, or uncertainty (the two elements I noted); according to A2, gambling must also involve (3) a covetous intent to plunder one’s neighbor.
It’s A Matter Of Principle
Quid Pro Quo
The only way A2 can even argue that gambling necessarily involves a covetous intent to plunder one’s neighbor is if he buys into the mistaken notion that gambling doesn’t involve a quid pro quo — that is, an equitable exchange of value. No problem for A2 who plunges ahead and, with a straight face, argues that gambling is a “zero sum game” whereby the winner’s gain is “precisely equal” to the loser’s loss. A2’s argument is mistaken for at least three reasons.
(1) The vast majority of gambling transactions are not limited to two parties such that one’s gain is equal to his counterpart’s loss. When, for example, parties A, B and C all “lose” nickels in a given slot machine and Party Z wins a nickel, who “lost” the nickel? Did the nickel come from A? from B? from C? or from someone else? Or — and this is the clincher — did the nickel come from the casino in which case it is not even really proper to speak of it as a “loss” (since it is really a cost of doing business)? By assuming that gambling always involves a situation whereby the winner’s gain is precisely equal to the loser’s loss, A2 builds his case on a mistaken factual premise.
(2) Even assuming that gambling only involves a two-party transaction, A2 can only argue that the gain of one is equal to the loss of the other if he holds that economic value is something tangible (objective). The fatal flaw in A2’s argument is the fact that, at this point, A2 doesn’t account for intangible (subjective) values such as entertainment, and when he later does so, he refutes his own spurious notion of value. Suppose Party B was willing to part with his nickel as a “user fee” (A2’s own words!) for the sheer enjoyment of it all. B’s nickel, then, isn’t a loss at all; it is simply the price he paid for what he gained in entertainment value. Thus, A2’s own entertainment model refutes his spurious notion of value and the zero sum fallacy upon which it is based.
(3) By arguing that he need not address the fact that gambling transactions are voluntary, A2 commits two blunders. (a) He simply begs the questions he is supposed to be proving at this point (i.e. that gambling necessarily violates Biblical stewardship and fails to involve a quid pro quo). (b) He then wraps up his question begging epithets in the garb of a false analogy by claiming that the voluntary nature of gambling no more justifies gambling than a handshake justifies duelling. Though A2 may wish that gambling is as much a violation of the eighth commandment (thou shalt not steal) as duelling is a violation of the sixth commandment (thou shalt not kill), A2 has yet to prove that such is the case. In the meantime, A2’s argument, like a roulette wheel, goes round and round!
Chances Are
A2 argues that gambling necessarily appeals to chance as opposed to the providence of God since the Christian cannot pray to win without praying for his neighbor’s loss and since praying to win in such a situation is presumptuous. This argument is flawed in two respects.
(1) To the extent that gambling doesn’t necessarily involve a win/loss situation (as shown above) is the extent to which we are not forced to pray for our neighbor’s downfall.
(2) On A2’s reasoning, a student taking a final exam which is graded “on the curve” couldn’t pray for his success since, by definition, his success would entail the failure of another student in the class. A lawyer couldn’t pray for a verdict since that would entail his opponent’s loss. A mother couldn’t pray for her son to hit a homerun to win a game since that would entail the loss of the other team. Indeed, we are commanded to pray ceaselessly, and we can pray that we succeed as long as we pray according to the will of God. This, of course, spins us right around to the question of whether Scripture permits us to gamble in the first place. Make no mistake about it: we are to pray that God’s will be done. And there is nothing presumptuous about that!
Stewardship
A2 argues that gambling violates Biblical stewardship by putting one’s property at unnecessary and foolish risk since gambling, if unabated, would eventually lead to bankruptcy. This argument runs into two difficulties.
(1) A2 simply asserts that money spent on gambling is spent unnecessarily and foolishly; he also shirks his burden by failing to provide definitions or guidelines for determining when a particular expense or investment is unnecessary and/or foolish. Until he does so, his argument is all bark and no bite.
(2) A2 fallaciously condemns use because of the potential for abuse (bankruptcy). Yet, on A2’s reasoning, investing in real estate ventures would be intrinsically immoral since an investor who invests in risky ventures again and again would eventually bankrupt himself.
To be sure, we are commanded to be wise stewards of what God has entrusted to us, and several of my Biblical limits are designed to foster a sense of Biblical stewardship. But Biblical stewardship doesn’t require us to cower in the corner of savings accounts (which, by the way, also involve a modicum of risk). Christ taught us parabolically that burying our “talents” in the ground (i.e. avoiding risk) is even more foolish than taking risk. A2 better stop digging.
Odds And Ends
Business is Business
A2 argues that my analogies to business ventures and insurance are flawed by first contending that such reasoning would justify significant wagers. How absurd! Both business ventures and gambling wagers are subject to the same Biblical limits. In his better moments, A2 would admit such.
Second, A2 valiantly tries to press his now-limping quid pro quo argument into service again, despite the fact that it has been beaten to a pulp above. It’s time we all bade farewell to good ol’ quid.
Third, A2 argues that analogies to business ventures fail to distinguish between chance (where there is no rational basis for hope) and uncertainty (where there is a rational basis for hope). A2’s argument, though, misunderstands the nature of odds which exist precisely to inform us about the rationality of various speculations. Suppose, for instance, that a business man has a one in six chance to get a return on a thousand dollar investment which otherwise abides by Biblical limits; suppose further that the same businessman can place the same amount of money and get the same return on a pure game of chance such as craps by betting on “seven” which also boasts a one in six chance. Exactly how is the former based on uncertainty and the latter on chance? Johann von Goethe put A2’s predicament so well when he once wrote that “[w]hen an idea is wanting, a word can always be found to take its place.”
Fourth, when A2 is not inventing words to cover the holes in his case, he tries to chide me by challenging me to say upon what basis I would dissuade a young man from entering “the `field’ of gambling” as a profession. Surprising as it may seem, I would not dissuade such young men. On the contrary, I would and do encourage them to become businessmen, entrepreneurs, real estate developers, etc.
Crimes and Misdemeanors
A2 appears to cede my argument that crimes and other misdeeds committed in and around casinos no more prove that gambling is intrinsically immoral than crimes and misdeeds committed in and around movie theatres prove that attending movies is intrinsically immoral. While saying that such crimes are “not a proof” against gambling, A2 then proceeds to appeal to such crimes in a futile attempt to bolster his case (by means of guilt by association). If it looks like a proof and smells like a proof, then it must be a proof! Only one problem: it’s not a good proof.
While A2 may not typically find roulette wheels at church picnics, he won’t typically find alcohol, dancing, or “secular” music either! What we have here — thanks to A2 — is a new logical fallacy: argumentum ad picnicium, which is simply a variant of the ad populum fallacy. Face it: much of the so-called Christian ethic A2 speaks of is governed more by Fundamentalist taboos than by the Word of God. That’s A2’s real problem. You can bet on it!
ADVOCATE 2 Response
One way the weakness of my opponent is evident, is that he refuses to endorse an example of gambling that does not have either entertainment or “business” as an underlying motive; yet neither his definition of gambling nor his list of restrictions drag these elements into the picture by necessity. Like a skillful Impressionist painter, my opponent stipples his coloration of gambling so that, depending on the angle of viewing, it looks now like an investment, now like recreation, and occasionally — but only from a distance — like gambling. One minute there may be the intent to return the money won; next moment, the money is merely a “prize” anyway; all of a sudden, it is merely a user fee; and on it goes. Put the qualifications all together at the same time, and you have an odd assortment of intentions that adds up to anything but gambling. Thus, though the Christian Gambling Advocate (hereafter CGA) claims to defend the notion that “gambling per se” is in the domain of Christian liberty, he has failed to isolate the element of “gambling per se” in the situations which he wishes to endorse.
An Essential Premise Elucidated
In all of this discussion, it is important to realize that there is indeed an implied premise in the definition of gambling, namely, that the reason for placing the (1) “stake” on a (2) chance outcome is the (3) desire and hope to receive back a quantity of value greater than that of the original stake. The third element is implied by the first and therefore need not be spelled out. It is the very nature of a “stake” to be born in this context; else it would simply be called a price or admission fee. To deny that the third element is entailed in the placing of the gambler’s stake would be to reduce gambling to the same level as pinball, bowling, or golf. Try asking any gambler if, in placing the bet, he hopes to win back the bet and more — he will assume you are being facetious.
Shaking out the Quiddities
CGA’s cavil, that the analysis of gambling as a zero-sum game fails to account for multiple-party scenarios, is trivially false. It is a zero sum game judged in terms of the set of all participants, however large that set may be. The soundness of the simplification to two players for discussion purposes is readily apparent. Pick any player from the set of participants and call his winnings X. Now, the sum of the winnings of all other participants is (-X), for a total of zero. The implications are the same as for the case of two players with a respective win and loss of X and -X. The slot machine, similarly, only spreads the transaction out over time — again, the essential economic relation is the same. Of course the casino or “house” is one of the players as well: other than the fact that the odds are tilted slightly in the house’s favor (thus making its continued viability possible), there is no ethical difference between the house and any other player.
Here is yet another index that gambling does not involve quid pro quo: after the “transaction,” the loser would prefer that he had won, and the winner is glad he didn’t lose. But in free economic exchanges, each party goes away glad to have made the exchange — preferring his final state of affairs to the state of affairs obtaining prior to the exchange.
CGA seriously misconstrues my contrast of the zero-sum game to proper economic exchange when he latches onto the tangibility of the things exchanged in my illustration. (Incidently, all economic value — whether in reference to tangible or intangible objects — is subjective (not objective), which is simply to say this: people rank the relative desirability of things to them based on purely individual considerations.) The propriety of spending money for the privilege of playing an amusing game is not under dispute. We must restrict the discussion to the morality of that expenditure of property staked, or placed in hock, in exchange for the right to gain more than the amount staked, based on a chance event. Otherwise, we are arguing about bowling and golf — something I at any rate did not sign up to do.
Separating the “User Fee” From the “Gamble Per Se”
It is not hard, in principle, to draw a sharp distinction between that amount of money which is spent for entertainment, and that which is going into the gamble as such. Imagine a graph with the horizontal axis labeled “PAYOFF” and the vertical axis labeled “Price I am willing to pay to play”. Starting at zero PAYOFF and increasing, plot the price you are willing to pay for the privilege of playing the game. The value plotted at PAYOFF=0 is the amount which is spent as pure “user fee”. If the plotted line is perfectly flat, then there is no value being staked purely in hopes of gaining a return — it is not a gamble, by intention, at all. On the other hand, if the line slopes upward as the PAYOFF increases, the amount of its upward movement is the amount which may be considered pure “gamble”. All my arguments apply to the latter only.
If “B’s nickel” (or B’s broken toothpick for that matter) is payment for the fun of watching a wheel spin, with no implied hope of gaining someone else’s nickel, then B’s intent is to spend, not gamble. If this seems like a fine distinction, let us remember Murray’s apt comment: “at the point of divergence, the difference between right and wrong is not a chasm but a razor’s edge.”
Are All Actions Between Consenting Adults Innocent?
To spend or to gamble. The voluntary nature of the former is essential to its legitimacy, because of the subjective nature of value and the unlawfulness of theft. The impure desire giving rise to the latter — the desire to gain my neighbor’s property, to his net loss, in “exchange” only for my giving him, in gentlemanly fashion, the “right” to gain mine in like manner — is assumed to be voluntary (how could it be coerced?), and thus its “voluntarity” is irrelevant to its ethical standing. The world is full of examples of things assumed to be voluntary, and whose moral bankruptcy is not reduced by virtue of being voluntary: prostitution, duelling, etc. The burden of proof therefore falls squarely upon CGA to show how the voluntarism of gambling is sufficient to secure its moral soundness.
Given Many Examples, “Chances Are” at Least One Will Be Right
But alas, it is not so. Grading on a curve would be unjust if its effect were to downgrade students for statistically insignificant variations in performance– but the injustice would not be on the part of the excelling student. A lawyer had better not pray for a verdict that he knows would be unjust. Losing the ballgame only “costs” the boy a bit of pride — and hopefully stimulates greater effort next season.
Jesus Commands us to Gamble?
Bankruptcy is not an “abuse”; it is simply an inevitable consequence of a certain practice if persisted in indefinitely — which practice may, therefore, rightly be called foolish. Repeated investment in real estate, or in business ventures entailing an element of risk, is not guaranteed to lead to bankruptcy — or if it is, CGA has not given us any grounds for believing it.
Some Unfinished “Business”
CGA equivocates between gambling (in the Las Vegas sense) and “gambling” (in the sense of being an entrepreneur) as regards the advice he would give a young man starting his career: this simply begs the question. Let us imagine the hypothetical case of a gambler who gets no particular pleasure from gambling, nor does he do it as a calling. He is going to Las Vegas with the intent of gambling his entire nest egg. He hopes to win big: if he does, he will tithe; if he loses it all, he will continue living off his normal wage. Now, without entertainment or business venture to hide behind, on what ground would CGA seek to dissuade this individual from his plan?
Uncertainty, Randomness, and the Sovereignty of God
Sounds awfully metaphysical. But there seems to be enough confusion here about the nature of probability as it pertains to random events, and probability as it is referred to by investors, to warrant a slight digression.
When we speak of the probability of a random event X occurring, we mean the ratio of the number of events which can be classed as “X” to the total number of possible events. For example, list all possible hands that can be dealt to a player in a game of poker. Let this number of possible hands be N. Now, count the entries in this list containing exactly three matching cards. Let this number be T. The probability of being dealt “three of a kind”, then, is T/N.
What does it mean, however, to say “there is a one-sixth chance of this business succeeding”? There is no a priori meaning to this statement, for you can’t count the possible outcomes. There is no a posteriori meaning, for you can’t repeat the experiment a large number of times. In short, if businessmen speak this way, it is only as a heuristic to try to quantify their level of confidence of various outcomes; this confidence, in turn, is really only an intuition derived from experience and “sixth sense.”
The probability which one imputes to human action is intimately related to the extent of one’s knowledge of the persons. Someone who does not know me at all, would have to assign equal probabilities to my driving north, south, east, or west, when I get into my car for the first time each morning. Someone who knows me well, on the other hand, would assign a very high probability of my driving south– the direction I must go to get to my place of work.
We see, then, that there is a fundamental difference between the “uncertainty” of games of chance — which can be calculated from the ratio of possible events — and that of human events, including investments, which vary considerably with the extent of knowledge of the “players”. As knowledge of the “players” grows, the quantity of relative probabilities changes.
Consequently, it is only loosely speaking that we speak of quantifiable probabilities when it comes to investments. Superior knowledge of markets, trends, management, labor relations, etc. will, on the average, pay a dividend. The nature of uncertainty is fundamentally different in the cases of gambling and investment: this reinforces the argument regarding the relation of chance to our view of God’s Providence given in my first piece. Moreover, this doesn’t prove that repeated investments will lead to bankruptcy. Indeed, there is no contradiction to the thought that a society could exist where no investor ever suffered actual loss (though of course there would be the potential for loss). In gambling, however, loss, if not bankruptcy, on the part of someone is guaranteed. The gambler forces the issue: either he or his neighbor will certainly lose.
Theological Misdemeanors
CGA rails against my observations of things often associated with gambling, even though I stated that the observations were not a proof. I submit that the underlying problem with CGA is his model of life as a playground. In contrast, the Biblical model, which we take from the creation account, is a garden. The garden was fundamentally a place of work, rest, fellowship, and worship. The longing for easy money, let alone the desire to trick some money from your brother by exploiting his similar desire, is something one can only imagine occurring after the fall. Let us move forward in redemptive history and pull this weed out at the roots!
ADVOCATE 1 Concluding Remarks
Back To The Basics
A2 has got it all wrong. Far from punishing Fundamentalism for A2’s errors, I sought to admonish A2 for his Fundamentalist errors. Although I thought we shared a basic commitment to the Reformed view of Christian liberty, A2 has shown his true Fundamentalist stripes. Not only has he simply assumed that gambling is guilty until proven innocent; he has also proudly worn the crown as a literalist’s literalist by attempting to impugn my obviously metaphorical reference to life as a “playground.” A2 contends that life is like a “garden.” Fine. Why don’t we just say that life is like both a “playground” and a “garden” — a “park” if you will — and move on to more significant areas of dispute?
A Matter Of Semantics?
At the most fundamental level, A2 and I have radically different conceptions of the definition of gambling. Though I provided adequate lexical support and defined gambling as (1) putting up money or other stakes (2) on a contingency, A2, by contrast, simply asserts — without any proof — that gambling must also involve (3) a desire to “receive back a quantity of value greater than that of the original stake.”
What is lurking behind this third element? According to A2, Christians are prohibited from putting up money on a contingency if they have the desire to gain more than they put up because by so doing, Christians plunder their neighbors.
The Return Of Quid
Of course, one can only plunder his neighbor by involuntarily taking or misappropriating what rightfully belongs to his neighbor. A2’s third element, then, is just good ol’ quid in another guise. A2’s attempt to resuscitate quid, however, is fatally flawed.
On the House
If, as A2 admits, there is no difference between the “house” and any other player, then A2 fails to account for the fact that any money paid out by the house is simply a prize. A2 never provided adequate reasons for allowing some prizes and not others. Until he does so, his digital win/loss scenario doesn’t adequately account for transactions involving the house.
Don’t Worry, Be Happy
Even assuming a two-party transaction, A2 is still mistaken when he argues that the way to distinguish “free economic exchanges” from gambling is that with free exchanges, the parties are happy in that each party prefers his post-exchange state to his pre-exchange state. This “be happy” distinction is hardly a sound litmus test for assessing the propriety of economic exchanges. On A2’s reasoning, any time “buyer’s remorse” sets in (i.e. when a buyer prefers his pre-exchange state to his post-exchange state), the moral propriety of an exchange would be in jeopardy. Contrary to A2’s artificial and mistaken litmus test, a buyer’s state of mind after a given transaction is irrelevant.
Beyond Good Intentions
From the outset, I have argued that opponents of gambling in general and A2 in particular wrongly assume that people gamble necessarily to acquire money. A2 has insisted that as long as the money one puts up is put up solely as a “user fee” one is merely spending (which is permissible) and not gambling (which is impermissible). But does A2’s distinction really hold up?
Suppose that Party B deposits a silver dollar into a slot machine solely as a “user fee” (i.e. he meets A2’s test by not having an intent to acquire any money in return). Suppose further that B wins $100.00. Is B obligated to return the $100.00? If A2 says “no” then he has abandoned his quid pro quo argument because the money B “won” — on A2’s reasoning — still came at the “loss” of others. If, however, A2 says “yes” then he has abandoned his intent test (which A2 has consistently held to be a sufficient test for determining the moral propriety of putting up the “user fee”). A2’s case is hopelessly divided against itself — graphs and all!
Drawing Straws
A2 claims that I need to prove that the voluntary nature of gambling is sufficient to prove its moral soundness. By arguing that the propriety of X doesn’t necessarily depend on whether X is done voluntarily (with which I wholeheartedly agree), A2 is knocking down a straw man. Again and again he begs the crucial question by offering examples which Scripture clearly forbids (e.g. prostitution, duelling). What A2 has consistently failed to do is to prove that gambling necessarily involves plundering (i.e. stealing from) one’s neighbor. In my opening remarks, I defined stealing as taking or misappropriating the property of others without their consent (involuntarily). A2 has been unable or unwilling to prove that gambling necessarily (1) takes or misappropriates the property of others (2) without their consent. Until he does so, he has not even made out a prima facie case that gambling is stealing. From the outset, my position has been that voluntarism is a necessary though not sufficient condition to prove the propriety of gambling. A2’s problem is that he has failed to prove that gambling is necessarily involuntary. The buck stops with A2.
Chances Are
A2 claims that gambling requires appeals to chance since praying for success necessarily would entail praying for the failure of your neighbor. I responded by noting that A2’s argument depends upon his appeal to quid which has been rendered futile. I also pointed out that A2’s reasoning would forbid praying for success on an exam graded on the curve, a trial verdict ( not an unjust verdict!), or a homerun since success in each scenario entails the failure of another. A2’s response skirts the real issue: Christians can simply pray that God’s will be done. There is nothing presumptuous or idolatrous about that!
No One’s Business?
In his first response, A2 challenged me to say upon what basis I would encourage a young man to enter the field of gambling as a life-calling “provided of course that the young man intended to tithe, provide for his family, etc.” After I satisfactorily answered that hypothetical, A2 now wants to change the terms of the hypothetical to involve one who is not called to gamble and who wants to gamble his entire nest egg. No problem. Such an individual would not be abiding by the Biblical limits both A2 and I share in common. What’s the point A2?
The only way A2 can even argue that I equivocate on the meaning of “gambling” and beg the question by arguing that I would and do encourage young men to become businessmen, entrepreneurs, and developers is if he first begs the question in the opposite direction. While A2 has made many rhetorical overtures, he has done little to jostle my analogy to business investments since most business investments involve putting up money or other stakes on a contingency (and even on A2’s definition, the vast majority, if not all, business ventures involve the desire to gain more than what was put up!).
The stock market, for example, provides one of the strongest analogies to gambling. Aside from his rhetorical flurries, then, A2 has not even come close to refuting the analogy to business investments.
Worse Than An Infidel
While A2 and I have sought to explore gambling in a thorough, yet light-hearted fashion, I must confess that this topic really is no joke to me. My own life has been tragically scarred by a father who was a compulsive gambler. Not only did he gamble paychecks, jewelry, and automobiles without blanching an eyelid; he even went so far as to steal from my piggy bank. Needless to say, by stealing practically anything and everything he could get his hands on, he failed to provide for even the basic needs of his family. He also worshipped lady luck, was motivated by deep-seated covetousness, disobeyed lawful authorities, and perpetrated acts of fraud on others.
My story is not unique. Others, no doubt, could tell similar — perhaps even more horrific — stories if not about gambling, then about drinking or a host of other activities. So horrified was I that as a young child, I made it my mission (as Fundamentalists are prone to do) to condemn gambling outright and other activities such as drinking. If ever there were a person who would have every reason to stand in A2’s shoes!
But praise be to God who has taught me in spite of my personal background that ever and always I am to be constrained by Scripture alone which clearly teaches that we are free to do anything that God doesn’t forbid. Though my father’s excesses were clearly forbidden by God, I have learned that I cannot condemn gambling per se. Indeed, we should rightfully condemn abuse; but we should also be wary of those who, like A2, condemn legitimate use within proper Biblical limits.
Scripture alone is our standard. Not traditional wisdom. Not public opinion. And not the commandments of men.
