1/23/55

Scripture: Matthew 27: 27-37

Text: Matthew 27: 35; “When they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots.”

To a small detail of Roman soldiers who were assigned the job of executing three men, it was taken for granted that they would get the clothes from the three condemned ones. It wouldn’t amount to much. But perhaps the things could be sold or pawned or given as favors for exchange. The execution business involved a couple of fellows who were convicted thieves - perhaps the kind that might lie in wait along the roadways seizing, and beating into submission, any likely looking victim in order to take his merchandise and personal possessions. The other condemned man was apparently victim of some condemnation by his own people. It seems that while none of the laws of the Roman Empire had been clearly broken by him, he had stirred up a lot of opposition among those of his own nationality, particularly among religious leaders. At any rate the government orders were to crucify him, along with the other two.

After the grim job of stripping and nailing the condemned men to their crosses was accomplished, there was a long time of posting guard until they should be pronounced dead. It would take hours; it might even take days. So there was no hurry about the business of waiting. One of the things the soldiers could do was to divide up the clothes.

Probably no one considered giving the clothing to the families or friends of the condemned. After all, wasn’t it all right to confiscate the stuff, just as one confiscates the booty of warfare?

Further, they could add a little spice to the whole sordid affair for themselves, by gambling for the clothes -- winner to take all. So, the record says they cast lots to see who would be the lucky fellow. There was no question of actual property in their minds. None of them “earned” the stuff, or gave anything in fair exchange for it. If it had been earned by anyone, it would have been by the wearers. But they no longer had any rights.

So the clothing of Our Lord, which seems to be all the “property” of any sort that he was known to have, went to whichever soldier won the gamble at the foot of His cross. It wasn’t right. It was just on of those things that was tolerated, and even defended, as permissible under some circumstances.

We don’t countenance looting, by greedy folk, after some disaster. We approve the posting of guards to prevent it. But we “pass by on the other side” when it comes to a great deal of the taking of another’s earnings by lot, or gambling. Partly, we countenance it, I suppose, because we convince ourselves that if someone wants to take a chance on losing some of his property on the slender possibility that he will win a lot, he might as well be permitted to do so. And maybe it is even all right to “take in” the “poor sucker” if one feels that one is shrewd enough, or lucky enough, to beat him at luck.

Here, I am convinced, we play with a morally dangerous idea and practice. And I wish to speak against it. This is on of those “controversial” subjects that may arouse debate. And if the debate should be productive of some moral convictions in the matter, it is well worth provoking.

Our land abounds in lotteries, sweepstakes, raffles, bingo, slot and pinball machines, casino games, wagers on recreational games, and stock market speculation. The gambling urge is noted among friends at play, and in organized fashion. Not even those who pride themselves on their devotion to American law and justice and who work in behalf of youth are all clear of the practice of gambling. Gambling is big business in America. The number of people and the expenditures involved, and appalling. A public opinion survey, as measured by a Gallup poll, indicates that 40 million Americans gamble in one form or another. One in three adults takes chances on raffles, lotteries, bingo; one in five gambles at cards; sweepstakes, lotteries, various kinds of “office pools,” are held in offices, factories, clubs, and social centers.

And some of the churches themselves are not beyond the morally destructive infection of gambling. I understand that a bill was to have been introduced into the Wisconsin legislature this past week, which would legalize bingo games in churches. If that be true, it is introduced because some elected representative believes that voting churchmen in his constituency want gambling to be permissive and legal for churches. A bishop in one church, elsewhere in the nation, was quoted as saying, “There’s nothing wrong with a little gambling.” I dissent, strongly. There is a great deal that is wrong with it, and I desire you to let me discuss it somewhat.

The costs of gambling are in astronomical figures. It is reported that numbers games take about 10 billion dollars a year. “Life” describes horse racing as the “6 billion dollar racket.” The pinball machine “take” is a puny 20 million dollars.

On top of this, the legitimate investment markets are in danger of demoralization and being brought under suspicion by tens of thousands of small time, and large time, gamblers who “play the market” in the hope of swift and huge profits that are in no ethical sense earned in any conceivable sense of the fair exchange of values. Insofar as they have some success, it is at the cost of people’s food and clothing and fuel costs. One statesman remarks that: “Gambling is the distinctive vice of the age.” But, unfortunately, a lot of people don’t think so.

These are some of the things they say in its defense. (1) “Gambling is natural.” They defend it as being as natural as the impulse to eat, to talk, to sleep. It is not! Men learn to gamble, just as they may learn tight rope walking, or whiskey drinking, or coordinated team play, or relishing spinach.

It is true that man has gambled for a long time, but the fact that it is old does not make it right. Men have been fighting over their desires, stealing, and murdering for quite a while. But that does not make any of those practices right. Chattel slavery existed for a long time. But it was not wrong to make it illegal. Dueling existed, with an aura of honor about it, for a long time. But it was not wrong to outlaw it. Little children worked at long hours and pittance wages in factories for a long time. Was it wrong eventually to proscribe the practice?

If those things, and gambling as well, be natural, then is not human greed natural? But greed has to have a curb.

(2) And then we are told that “life is a gamble.” And we often hear the statement that we take a gamble each time we cross the street of climb into an airplane, or start out in the car. This is not so! We take a risk, which, soberly understood, is a very different thing.

If I were to shut my eyes before crossing the street and then strike out across the road without reference to stop lights or oncoming traffic I would be gambling. But I don’t close my eyes. I look to the right and to the left; I see the semaphore; I even estimate the reliability of some others to obey the traffic rules. I calculate the risk as carefully as possible. I trust the reliable, and legitimate, and ethically established insurance business to help in dealing with the risk. But, if I keep my wits about me, I don’t gamble on it. Because I rely on the theory that “Order is heaven’s first law.”

(3) We are even told that “business is a gamble.” Except when gambling is made a business, the very opposite is true. The aim of any business man is the elimination of chance. Even the gambling promoter wants his “cut” to be assured.

The business man studies his market, buys ahead with care, keeps tab on his inventory, considers his customer’s preferences, balances his ledgers regularly. Business is a risk, and the business man seeks constantly to overcome the risks, but it is not a gamble.

One of the worst defenses for gambling is the pious sounding statement that, “It may be wrong, but it’s for a good cause.” This is the old claim that the end justifies the means.

The teaching of ethical religion is that we can’t do evil that good may come. There is even grave doubt that good can come from evil. Good is not destroyed by evil, and it may emerge out of the midst of what appears evil, because it has been there all the time. This seems to be what is meant by the scriptural observation that all things work together for good to them that love the Lord. But evil means do not produce good ends or results.

A thing that is morally bad can not be morally good in its ends. And a desired “good end” can not justify bad means. We do not expect to gather grapes off cactuses.

Anyone who attempts to justify gambling because it is supposed to assist a church or a community cause, or even a charity, should remember that the moral degradation which gambling brings to human personality is the wrong kind of price to pay for a good cause. The way to support the work of children’s homes, boys and girls camps, hospital needs, parochial schools, and churches, is to give out of one’s fairly gained assets, because one has the love, and interest and willingness to put that part of himself into the cause.

Now let us look briefly at the indictment which we may draw up against gambling. Here I am a debater. If you should disagree with me, you will have to supply the rebuttal. My three points here are those already advanced and defended by Dr. James W. Clarke of St. Louis.

(1) Gambling is a sin against self because it perverts a noble instinct. One of the creative elements in human nature is the spirit of adventure. Adventure manifests itself in an endeavor to go beyond life’s routines into the unknown. It stimulates us to overcome what are considered “insuperable difficulties.”

It is seen in the organized effort of Mallory’s company to get to the top of Mount Everest, and in Charles Lindbergh’s endeavor to cross the Atlantic in a single nonstop flight when it had never been done before. The risks were high, but they were all calculated as carefully as possible. Future knowledge and performance awaited the adventure.

Adventure is a romantic angle to our living, which is to be preserved and encouraged. But gambling vulgarizes and exploits it by eliminating brains and forethought and intelligence, making the cash prize the most important thing. The aim of gambling is selfish. One’s gain in gambling is always another’s loss.

The contrast between adventure and gambling has its most dramatic illustration at Calvary. There on the cross, Jesus makes the supreme venture on behalf of mankind. There also, on the ground beneath him, the soldiers gamble for what is not even theirs.

Gambling is a sin against self because it makes of a man a fool. The gambler does things one does not do in his right mind. He backs the horses on a chance that is 75 to 1 against him. If he purchases a ticket to the Irish sweepstakes, the odds on his winning are said to be only 1 in 137,043. Lottery chances are as slim and 1 in 200,000. That’s a fool’s game. It involves abandonment of thought, planning, reason. And the controls of one’s conscience and reason are put in a cell somewhere, with the door locked, while one plunges about in uncontrolled chancing.

Do you know of a single character that has been improved by gambling?

(2) It is a sin against society. It is frequently destructive of home, for it humiliates self-respect, impoverishes means, destroys happiness and love. It tends to destroy brotherhood, for it denies the essential spirit of brotherhood which is mutual consideration. In gambling, one’s gain is definitely another’s loss. It is destructive of sport, as is clearly seen whenever the gambler gets in to pervert the clean effort of players to win. It is destructive of business because it renders no service, produces no goods, creates no wealth. It is destructive of government, for it is one of the main sources of bribery, graft, and betrayal of public trust and service.

It was in Ireland where the Catholic Herald printed this indictment: “The unhappy fact is now greatly beyond all contradiction that the Irish Free State from end to end, in town and village, and in the country places, in swagger streets and in the poorest slums, has become a sordid gambling den. The Hospital Sweeps have given an enormous impetus to this accursed business.”

(3) It is a sin against God. If a thing hurts personality, then it hurts God’s highest creation. If it hurts society, then it delays the realization of God’s kingdom. It denies God’s law of order. God’s universe is orderly, not chaotic. The universe has a purpose, because it is God’s. The gamblers rule of “luck” is the antithesis of God’s law of order.

Gambling is an evil that creates a sin against self and society and God. Let the temperate Christian forthrightly reject it in favor of the real values of good living to which our faith commend us all.

------------

Dates and places delivered:

Wisconsin Rapids, January 23, 1955

Faith Reformed Church, January 30, 1955