The Seven Deadly Spins--Skepticism about Morality

 It’s often said in our culture today, “You shouldn’t push your morality on others.” If this statement was simply used to argue that we should use persuasion rather than threats of force when we discuss morality, no one should object to that. But more often, there’s an unspoken claim that lies behind this statement; a claim that sounds something like this: “You shouldn’t push your morality on others—because what’s right and what’s wrong is just a matter of personal opinion.” Increasingly, our culture asserts that morality is a realm in which there are no objective standards that apply to everyone. We are told that each person must decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong and to tell another person that he’s done wrong would just be, well, wrong! It seems that the only sin in our society today is to tell another person that he’s sinned.

 It's not hard to see that this claim is self-contradictory. If you believe morality is relative to each person’s opinions and you say, “You shouldn’t push your morality on others,” you are really saying, “It’s wrong to tell someone else that he’s wrong!” Yet that’s exactly what you are doing by making this claim. Since this claim contradicts itself, it should be no surprise that we quickly abandon it when someone does us wrong. If you were (God forbid!) mugged in a parking lot somewhere, you wouldn’t think to yourself, “How unlucky that I ran into someone who has a different opinion about mugging!” No—you would think that this person has done wrong and that your assessment is not simply a personal opinion. You would think that this person had violated a true standard that applies to both of you and that he should have known about this standard and followed it. What’s more, you would be convinced that this man had done you wrong even if mugging was legal—so your conviction isn’t based on whatever the law happens to say but on something else, something more fundamental in reality than even the laws of a society.

 You would be right, of course, yet the idea that morality is relative still persists in our culture like a stubborn stain that won’t come out in the wash. On a spiritual level, it’s not hard to see why this persistence exists: we are sinners and we don’t want anyone telling us we’re wrong—not even God! On an intellectual level, I think there are two main reasons why moral relativism persists. First, we seem to assume that if there are objective standards for morality, then moral decisions ought to be easy. It might seem that our moral choices should be crystal clear if certain actions are always right and other actions are always wrong—yet our moral choices are not always easy to figure out, so we may question whether objective moral standards exist. But we need to understand that there’s a difference between recognizing moral standards and applying them. It’s one thing to acknowledge that the standard “do not murder” applies to all people at all times; it’s another thing to sort out whether a certain instance of killing is murder or if it is something else—like justifiable self-defense. But we must recognize that a difficulty in applying a standard doesn’t prove that the standard is non-existent.

 A second reason why moral relativism persists is the connection between morality and politics. Many moral issues have become hot-button political topics today. As free citizens of a republic, we correctly object to the idea that the government would have the power to tell us what is right and wrong. Yet it’s easy to take this line of thinking too far and say that if the government doesn’t have the power to tell me what is right and wrong, no one else should either—it should be entirely up to me. Here we must simply recognize the vast difference between human authority and divine authority. A human government cannot define what is right and wrong because it is also supposed to be subject to the true standards of right and wrong. But divine authority is different. God has the authority to tell us what is right and wrong because He is our Creator. He knows how and why He made us, so He can tell us what is good for human nature and what is evil for it, and He can declare what would move us toward our true purpose and what would move us away from it. This connection is why many people have seen the moral order to offer a powerful argument for God’s existence—for if objective moral standards exist for humans, God is the only one who could be their source. So ultimately, if you want to deny that objective moral standards exist, you must deny that God exists. I hope you’ll agree with me that that price is far too steep to pay.

What does the Bible say about gambling?

Gambling has long been a taboo practice among Christians. I say “taboo” because gambling has more likely been discouraged through tradition and peer pressure than any attempt at clear, biblical teaching. While tradition and peer pressure (or let’s call it “accountability”) can serve a community well if they are oriented toward good ends, we should stop at least once a generation and ask, “Are we right about this?”

So let’s apply this question to the issue of gambling. I’m dealing with this question in part because I suspect that gambling has become more common among Christians in recent years. This is especially true if one considers gambling to include pay-to-play games like NCAA Tournament bracket pools and fantasy football (more on this later). If more Christians are in fact gambling these days, then it’s a good time to revisit this issue.

The Biblical Data

To the possible consternation of some, there is no verse of Scripture that states, “Thou shalt not gamble.” Ah, how short this post could have been! You could have been on to other things by now, but instead we’ll have to dig a bit deeper into the Word to get some answers. As it turns out, there is a strong biblical case against gambling.

The Bible condemns some common motives for gambling, like greed or the love of money.

If someone is moved to gamble out of greed or a love for money, his actions would clearly violate Scriptural standards. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their greed (Luke 11:39-41), and greed is a motivating factor for false teachers, who twist the Gospel for their own gain (2 Peter 2:3, 14). Also, in a very memorable passage, Paul warned us against a longing for riches and a love of money:

            But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and             harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a    root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from          the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. But as for you, O man of God, flee      these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness (1     Timothy 6:9-11).

Is it possible that someone could gamble out of other motives—perhaps even motives that aren’t objectionable? That seems possible, so other considerations beyond motive will have to be considered in order to decide if gambling is morally permissible, and even if it is, if it is wise.

Gambling is a very foolish way to pursue prosperity.

The odds of winning at gambling vary from game to game, but generally speaking, they’re incredibly small. It is far more likely that you will lose money gambling, especially if you keep at it. In fact, even if you do win, you may come to regret it, as the experience of many lottery winners has shown.¹

The Book of Proverbs warns us about the desire to “get rich quick:”

            Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it       (Proverbs 13:11).

            Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits lacks sense (Proverbs 12:11).

Love for one’s neighbor should prevent us from gambling.

This concern is especially true for public gambling institutions like casinos and state lotteries. Such opportunities are disproportionally used by those who can’t truly afford them. Gambling is a highly addictive activity for many people, and studies have also shown that when the casino comes to town, so do higher crime rates.² Love for our neighbors should move us not to support these establishments that have such detrimental effects on society.

The Casino vs. The Kitchen Table

But could there be a difference between gambling at a casino and going to poker night at your buddy’s man cave? Consider a situation in which you’re playing poker for money with just a few close friends. To the best of your knowledge, each person involved can afford the $50 entry fee for the game, and no one has a gambling problem that would be exacerbated by participating. Everyone is fully convinced that it’s okay to participate, so no one’s conscience will be violated by playing. Would this be wrong?

It is difficult to say that participating would be inherently wrong, but that’s not to say it would be wise. Why not play without introducing money into the game? You could still enjoy the fun of friendly competition without flirting with the potential temptations that could come from winning money. One should also consider the other activities that you could be doing with your friends. Other entertainment options could be more edifying toward the goal of becoming like Christ. In other words, while participating might not be morally bad, it might also not be morally best.

On Pools and Patrick Mahomes

What about activities like NCAA Tournament bracket pools or fantasy football? Should these be considered gambling? If one could draft Patrick Mahomes in his fantasy league, surely that wouldn’t be gambling since he’s such a safe bet to put up big numbers! (Pun fully intended.)

Deciding if these activities constitute gambling would depend on how one defines gambling, which we haven’t done yet in this post. For the sake of discussion, I’ll use the definition offered by theologian Norman Geisler: “gambling can be defined as the transfer of something of value from one person to another primarily on the basis of chance.”³ The element of chance is the determining factor according to this definition, and one would think it would be a constituent element of any definition of gambling.

Using chance as the deciding factor still leaves the waters a bit murky because so many activities involve chance—including highly legitimate activities like investing in a retirement fund or opening a business. But chance does at least give us a sliding scale with which to make some assessments.

According to such a scale, a bracket pool is more likely to be a form of gambling since the winner is decided in large part by chance (you know it’s true, bracketologists!). A fantasy football league would be less likely to be a form of gambling since the element of chance is more delicately balanced with the element of skill. This would seem to be especially true of a season-long league, since a player would have opportunities to change his strategy in light of chance occurrences that come up. Knowing what changes to make would be an example of skill.

All of this being said, however, a decision to participate in such games would have to pass through the same questions as the decision to attend poker night with your buddies. Is it wise to spend your money in this way? Does the introduction of money into the game needlessly expose you to temptations? Are you certain that no one in the game is flirting with personal harm—either financially or morally? To me, the same conclusion seems valid: it might not be morally bad, but it also might not be morally best.

References

1. “Here’s How Winning the Lottery Makes You Miserable,” Melissa Chan, https://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners, accessed July 8, 2020.

2. For the claims in this section, I am relying on the documentation in Wayne Grudem, Christian Ethics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 1039-41.

3. Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics, 2^nd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 374.