Dear Editor,
Please permit me space in your paper to comment on the public's response to the recent referendum; and in particular, the church's response. As I listened attentively to the public's response to the resounding no vote in the recent referendum on gaming as was portrayed by the media, it appeared to me that many people attribute the success of the no vote either to the frustration and confusion which the Bahamian people felt with regard to the process, or the lobbying power of the church. To be sure, although the referendum is now over, public uncertainty about the process and its outcome persists.
Nevertheless, it is the ascription of success to the church's lobby which I want to comment on because it seems to me as if many within the church are also of the impression that the success of the no vote is in some sense a great moral victory for the church. Let me be clear, the church has done a tremendous job in issuing the clarion call to its members to simply vote no; and arguably many have heeded that call. For this they ought to be commended. However, I disagree that the success of the no vote is a great moral victory for the church.
In fact, I believe it is a call for all - including the church - to repentance. Whether or not many in the church recognize it, a fundamental moral issue with gambling - whether in gaming or in a lottery - is that it nurtures the gambler into an inordinate relationship with money. Becoming rich or wealthy is understood to be the source of salvation for all one's problems, and so - in an unrestrained way - the gambler believes and acts (might I say lovingly?) as if the big jackpot is the source of happiness and satisfaction.
In other words, one who is in an inordinate relationship with money therein accords to money (or Mammon) the love and devotion that is only rightly due to God. This is why it is not money which is a root of all evil, but the love of money. Therefore, the issue that churches should have with numbers houses and lotteries is not the act of betting itself, but their propensity for forming one's attitudes and behaviors in accordance with an inordinate loving relationship with money. On this basis, the church should not interpret the recent no vote as a great moral victory, because there are many among its own membership who also struggle with an inordinate relationship with money; we see it clearly in the practices of tithes and offerings.
For example, within the Anglican tradition of which I am a member - and in many of the other mainline denominations - there are many who appear averse to the practice of tithing. While a small minority are innocently unaware of the significant costs involved in administering the work of God's church, the majority will make any and every excuse so as to shrug off their personal responsibilities in this regard, and continue to view their offering as a small donation towards a worthy cause. I once even heard a member suggest that tithing is an obsolete Old Testament practice.
The simple point is this: There are many who cling so very tenaciously to money as if they own it or as if it is the very source of their life and wellbeing, and therefore the house of God receives only the leftovers. To the extent that Christians see themselves as owners and not as stewards, they too reflect an inordinate relationship with money. On the other hand, among my brothers and sisters within the Baptist and Pentecostal traditions, tithing appears to be less of an issue. The problem is among its leadership who espouse a distinctly North American brand of prosperity theology which trains members to think that one's wealth is a measure of one's blessedness.
Therefore, the image of prosperity and blessedness is projected in such status symbols as the ever-expanding church edifice, the television ministry, the private jet, the well-dressed pastor, the fancy car he/she drives, and the mansion in which he/she lives; all derived from tithes. Following the explicit image and example of such leadership, members are implicitly taught never to be content with what they have, and it is not difficult to imagine why so many within our churches sense no inner-conflict between a desire for God and a desire to become rich.
The simple point is that in these instances, money is still the means by which one establishes one's identity; even if it is the spiritual-identity of one who is blessed. To the extent that Christians see themselves as owners of the tithe, or owners of their money, and not as stewards, they too reflect an inordinate relationship with money. For this reason, it is apparent that both those who frequent the numbers houses and those who frequent our churches reflect, in their attitudes and behaviors, an inordinate relationship with money.
For the church to point fingers at the numbers houses is in this way a kind of hypocrisy; both have nurtured an inordinate relationship with money. Is there any wonder why many within the church also struggle with gambling? Is there any wonder why some church leaders are blind to the fundamental moral problem with gambling and focus instead on its potential social or economic benefits? Is there any wonder why some church leaders seem so ambivalent?
Therefore, before the church pats itself too vigorously on the back for the success of the no vote, and before it ascribes to itself this outcome as a great moral victory, let me suggest that the result of this referendum is first a calling of the church to repentance, and second a calling to the nation to do the same. To the church I say: "First take the 'log' of this 'inordinate relationship with money' out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the 'speck' out of your neighbor's eye."
- Rev. Fr. Theadore Hunt
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
