“They are not skilful considerers of human things, who imagine to remove sin by removing the matter of sin...” – John Milton

By PACO NUNEZ

Tribune Staff Reporter

pnunez@tribunemedia.net

SOMETHING has been bothering me ever since the start of the Great Debate on Gambling.

Led for the most part by churchmen, the “Vote No” position contains both a moral and a practical dimension: gambling is clearly a sin according to Biblical evidence; it also has a detrimental affect on society.

So far, the practical aspect has supplied the arena for debate – the “Vote Yes” lobby touting the benefits of gambling in terms of jobs and revenue, the pastors warning of addiction and social deterioration.

But the first point seems to have been surrendered without a fight. Apparently, it goes with saying that from a moral perspective, gambling should remain outlawed.

I’m not so sure. In fact, it seems to me that the very Christian doctrine on which these pastors rely to make their argument can quite clearly support the opposite conclusion – that gambling should be made legal, precisely because it is a sin.

Now, let me disclose from the outset, I’m in no way qualified to make authoritative religious statements on this or any other subject, and stand happy to be corrected by the experts.

Another disclaimer: This argument is not intended to support the view that any secular law should be built upon Biblical assumptions about the nature of things – far from it.

But the fact is, many Bahamians do look at the world through the lens of sin and salvation, and whether the more secular-minded among us like it or not, religion will be a big factor come referendum day.

As such, I believe the pastors’ position should be put to the test on its own terms.

• The Earthly City

In opposing the legalisation of gambling for Bahamians, Pastor Allan Lee wants to avoid the “crime, corruption, poverty and social degeneration” that have followed in other countries.

Pastor Lyall Bethel thinks it will harm our efforts to create “a disciplined, ordered society”.

But according to their own beliefs, is the promotion of a superficially ordered, peaceful society restrained by laws, prohibitions and penalties, really the proper calling of religious leaders?

Surely the inner life of their followers, the state of the human heart and soul, should be their most pressing concern.

What’s more, from a Christian perspective it would seem futile to try and purge sin from an incurably fallen world in the first place.

The Catholic Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) emphasised the fundamental, irredeemable differences between the corrupt “earthly city” and the righteous realm of God.

“The Heavenly City,” he writes “outshines Rome beyond comparison. There, instead of victory, is truth; instead of high rank, holiness; instead of peace, felicity; instead of life, eternity.”

It is pointless, he suggests, to try to build heaven on earth. Instead, the faithful should turn their eyes to the New Jerusalem in the sky and work towards securing their place in the next life.

Many of those at the forefront of the Vote No movement describe themselves as Baptists, and would probably have little time for such a celebrity of the Roman Church.

But, there is also Scriptural evidence for the idea that the proper focus, spiritually speaking, is not on actions, but intentions. The inner life, rather than the outer.

Jesus is said to have declared: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’

And, from the Old Testament: “For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Sam 16:7)

The Vote No pastors may well claim their aim is to improve both the moral health of individuals, AND the state of society, but it’s hard to see why this would even be necessary.

Better individual morals would presumably lead automatically to better actions, and thereby a better society, irrespective of what the law allows or prohibits.

On the other hand, seeking to project the outer semblance of order in society through restrictions and penalties – essentially through fear – will in no way improve the souls of individuals. Sin, as Biblically defined, flourishes in the heart of man in ordered and chaotic societies alike.

It’s not hard to see why this should be the case:

Scripture identifies an activity, say gambling, as sinful. Who then is more righteous – he who harbours a secret desire to gamble, but refrains for fear of legal consequences; or he who lives in a society where he can bet without fear, but chooses not to?

Whose offering is more pleasing to God?

Virtue, free will and the necessary existence of sin

The idea of choice being an important component in redemption has a long history.

Its first champion was Tertullian (160-225 AD), an early church father.

He said free will is a sign that humans were made in God’s image, the “outer expression of God’s own dignity”.

Man was “afforded room for a conflict,” Tertullian said, so that he could “worthily recover his salvation by a victory; wherein also the devil might receive a more bitter punishment, through being vanquished by him whom he had previously injured; and God might be discovered to be so much the more good”.

The concept’s most eloquent defender was not an ecclesiastic however, but a poet.

John Milton wrote Paradise Lost (1667) in an effort to “justify the ways of God to men”.

A major concern throughout the history of Christianity has been the so-called problem of evil: if God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, why does he let people do bad things?

Surely it would have been a much happier scenario for all concerned had He just made it impossible for people to sin in the first place.

The “problem” is usually stated in this way: Either God made evil, in which case he isn’t all good, or he didn’t make it but can’t do anything about it, in which he isn’t all powerful.

Milton’s solution: It is humans who create evil by committing immoral acts, which God gives them the freedom to commit in order to avoid making them puppets, mere slaves to his will.

Without the freedom to choose disobedience, obedience to God’s laws would be a hollow farce. He therefore made each person “sufficient to have stood, though free to fall”.

Apply this to gambling: yes, some will become addicted and many will act irresponsibly; without the choice to do so, every effort of every abstainer or responsible gambler is meaningless.

In another work, Milton gives what could serve for a direct answer to our present day Vote No pastors, criticising the “foolish tongues” who complain about people being free to sin:

“Wherefore did He create passions within us, pleasures round about us, but that these rightly tempered are the very ingredients of virtue? They are not skilful considerers of human things, who imagine to remove sin by removing the matter of sin...”

Milton says God sets before us “a profuseness of desirable things” to provoke us, and gives us wondering minds, precisely because he wants each person to prove their merit and earn their reward, “For God sure esteems the growth and completing of one virtuous person, more than the restraint of 10 (corrupt people)”.

• Believing in destiny

Earlier strains of Christianity emphasising free will and the necessity of choice in morality – for example Anabaptism or Milton’s Arminianism – all influenced the development of the modern Baptist Church to a greater or lesser extent.

Tertullian himself was the first defender of one of the faith’s central tenets: credobaptism or believer’s baptism.

Today, many Baptists themselves believe in the concept of “soul liberty” – the idea that each person has total religious freedom and is responsible only to God for his or her salvation.

But perhaps our local pastors were influenced by another contributing tradition, which views the fate of each person’s soul as predestined and therefore inescapable.

Calvinism is currently a small but growing voice particularly in the Southern Baptist Convention, an organisation to which many of our local churches are affiliated.

In this conception, personal choices have no bearing whatsoever on an individual’s standing with God. Your destiny is set in stone and known to God before you are born.

But it’s hard to understand how even this could be the source of the Vote No camp’s support for morality legislation.

In a world where some are pre-selected for salvation and others for damnation, a person’s behaviour while alive would surely take on even less importance in the grand scheme of things.

• Why I’ll probably still vote ‘no’

All of the above might be taken as suggesting I support the Vote Yes position. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.

But my problem with Mr Christie’s referendum is entirely secular – I’m afraid that the very general nature of the questions will lead to a yes vote being taken as permission for the government to do whatever it wants.

In particular, I’m concerned about who will benefit, and how these people will be selected.

I want to see gambling made legal, but only if managed in the way all industries should be: ownership made open to any person who meets certain criteria established in law and evaluated by a transparent application process.

What I don’t want is business as usual – a scenario in which the enormous financial windfall ends up in the hands of a select group of PLP friends and creditors, who are occasionally changed out for some FNM friends and creditors depending on which way the political wind blows.

But, what I also don’t want is for my concerns to get hijacked by a religious movement that seeks to remodel society in its own image by making illegal what it deems to be immoral.

There are many people in this country, whether religious or secular in their inclinations, who find this idea offensive.

Certainly, for Bahamians of any stripe who value the exercise of free will, a negative referendum result cannot be allowed to be portrayed as an exclusive victory for the “Vote No - Save Our Bahamas” movement, any more than a yes vote can be allowed to come off as a blank cheque for Christie and Co.

Otherwise one or the other will come away believing they have a mandate to impose their will on the Bahamian people in other respects as well.

And in the case of the pastors, a number of other freedoms many of us hold dear are on their hit list.

What do you think?

Email any questions or comments to pnunez@tribunemedia.net, or join the conversation at: http://www.tribune242.com/news/opinion/insight/