The proposal of the powers that be to hold a referendum on whether or not the informal Bahamian national lottery commonly known as numbers should be legalized, has certainly provoked much lively debate in the Bahamian community. I had elected to remain silent on this issue, but in the light of some recent statements which have proven to be confusing, and consequently misleading, I do feel constrained to make my voice heard on this most important national debate.
Therefore, after much thought and prayer, I am doing so because I believe that I can make a positive contribution on the basis of three principles. Principle I As a minister of the gospel who has taken a stand against gambling ever since the proposal to introduce casino gambling to The Bahamas as a tourist attraction was initiated by the late Sir Stafford Sands, I am opposed to gambling in all forms strictly on religious and moral grounds.
Gambling, the concept of gaining something by means of luck and games of chance, at the expense of others, is incompatible with the teaching of scripture, which calls upon us all to use our God-given abilities and talents to work for or earn the same, ("by the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread" - [Genesis 3:19]; see also Proverbs 6:6, Matthew 25:14-30, and II Thessalonians 3:10-12). Gambling encourages laziness, avarice and greed, fostering dependence upon chance rather than divine providence and dedication to duty as taught in the Bible.
Diligence in labor, from a theological perspective, is certainly emphasized in the teaching of Martin Luther, notably in his commentary on the Fourth Commandment, and also the reformer, John Calvin. Indeed the ethical teaching of these and other reformers formed the basis of the Protestant work ethic, spiritual driving force of the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century.
Moreover, as the Rev. Dr. Kenneth Huggins, then president of the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos Islands Conference of The Methodist Church pointed out, gambling can greatly disrupt, even destroy, home and family life. People who can remember the days of the race track, are certainly painfully aware of the possible detrimental effects of gambling on home and family life when the "breadwinner" placed priority on games of chance rather than paying the bills.
The most powerful argument against gambling, from a moral perspective, however, is the law of love as expounded by Jesus in The sermon on the mount in discussions with His religious contemporaries (Matthew 4-7, Mark 12:28-32, Luke 10:25-37 and John 15:12). The law of love was echoed by St. Paul who taught that it fulfilled the law (Romans 13:8-10). And, interestingly enough, featured prominently in the Christian social ethics of the late Martin Luther King, Jr. What then, is the relevance of the law of love to gambling? The answer is at hand.
Essentially speaking, the law of love challenges us to extend to others the same love and consideration that we would like them to show to us. This means that we should not seek to gain anything at his or her expense. But winning in gambling or any game of chance means that someone else must lose in order for me or you to gain anything. This is clearly totally incompatible with both the letter and the spirit of the law of love. Thus, John Wesley, in his famous sermon on the use of money, appealed to the law of love in rejecting gambling as a legitimate method for Christians to gain wealth.
There are, therefore, powerful and convincing reasons, from a religious and ethical perspective, quite apart from economic considerations, for the prohibition of gambling. Accordingly, I am at one with the bishop; the Rev. Derek C.O. Browne, president of the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos Islands Conference of The Methodist Church in the Caribbean and the Americas (MCCA); the pastors forum in Grand Bahama, and other ministers of the gospel including Pastor Lyall Bethel; Dr. Myles Munroe and Pastor Cedric Moss (my former student) in taking a principled, strong, uncompromising stand against legalizing numbers.
Concisely, the position here is that the law should be enforced. Principle II While opposed to legalizing numbers however, it is recognized that the powers that be do have a right to call a referendum on this highly controversial matter which is having a very polarizing effect upon the entire Bahamian community. There are two principal reasons for holding this position. First, it is certainly in keeping with the concept of The Bahamas as a democratic nation.
For it is established in the preamble to our constitution that ours shall be a nation established upon the principles of democracy, Christianity, and the rule of law. The Bahamas then, ideally speaking, should be a democratic Christian, law-abiding nation. What a lofty ideal of Christian nation building. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, a referendum is a direct vote of the people of a country on a single political issue. And since, as United States President Abraham Lincoln declared, "democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people".
Then a referendum in which the people decide on an issue of tremendous significance for everyone in the nation is, indeed, the highest and most noble expression of the democratic process in action. It is germane here to distinguish sharply between a general election and a referendum. In the former, the powers that be take a political stand - vote for us. In the latter, it appeals to the people for guidance in making a decision on an extremely important issue, and acts accordingly.
The second major reason for this position is the fact that there is very strong biblical warrant for consulting with the people. You see, when in ancient Israel, the people requested a king, Samuel, last of the judges, was disappointed and did not agree with them. Why? Because he belonged to the old school, which held that there should be no human king in Israel, believing that it was a theocracy in which God alone was king.
They believed in the rule of the divine king. Samuel was so upset that he prayed about the matter. The biblical record is most instructive here. "But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, 'Give us a king to judge us'. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, 'Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
Now, therefore, hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of king that shall reign over them'" (1 Samuel 8: 6-7, 9). Samuel acted in accord with the divine instruction and so, although he did not agree with the idea of kingship, he acceded to the voice of the people and anointed Saul as the first king of Israel (1 Samuel 10). Let us cast this into contemporary mode. The people wanted a king, but Samuel did not agree with them. He believed that God alone was the divine king of Israel. So Samuel called a referendum -- and lost.
Therefore, in accord with the wishes of the people, he gave them a king. It is submitted, therefore, that both on the grounds of political philosophy and biblical teaching, there is justification for holding a referendum -- going to the people on an issue of tremendous significance for them. Principle III The third principle follows, quite logically, from the two discussed already: It is the historic, prophetic responsibility of the church to take a clear stand on gambling, while recognizing the right of the powers that be to call a referendum on it.
Thus it is suggested that the wise, courageous action of Samuel in dealing with the popular request for a king, sets the model whereby the church in The Bahamas can deal with the proposed referendum on whether or not to legalize numbers and web shops, etc., in a manner in keeping with the concept of The Bahamas as a democratic, Christian, law-abiding nation. So, note carefully that Samuel afforded the people the opportunity to freely express their position with regard to kingship. Likewise, the church need have no fear or objection to the powers that be calling a referendum on this contentious matter.
For being one with tremendous moral import, the church must take a stand. It is the responsibility of the powers that be to make the necessary arrangements for the people to express their opinion and to act accordingly. As the Master advised, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God, the things that are God's" (Mark 12:17, Av.). The late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, recognized as the most brilliant, creative, influential exponent of Christian social ethics of the twentieth century, declared that the church should be "The Conscience of The Nation".
As such, its leaders are called upon to give clear, moral guidance on this matter of momentous ramifications for the benefit of our people. The church therefore, cannot, dare not remain silent on this matter of paramount importance at this crucial juncture in our historic development as a people under God. Rather, in the spirit of Elijah and the prophets, Peter and the apostles, and our Lord Himself, must speak out on this issue for the guidance and consideration of the people as they prepare to express their opinion on gambling in the proposed referendum.
Moreover, it is the privilege of every citizen to participate in this democratic method of expressing their opinion on this burning issue for the position which obtains at present -- a practice which is illegal on the books being indulged by many citizens daily. It cannot continue.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
