TRANSCRIPT: Should you allow your child to participate in school raffles?

November 13, 2014

Hello, this is Russell Moore, and this is Questions and Ethics, the program where we gather together and talk about your moral dilemmas and try to look at them through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And we have this week a letter from Matt, who says, “Dr. Moore, I am about to become a band dad for the first time,” and I am assuming what he means by that is that he has a kid who is about the join the high school marching band. “One of the fundraisers our high school band uses is raffle tickets. There are limited numbers of tickets available, and it’s a winner-take-all pot for the winning raffle ticket. Tickets are sold for ten dollars apiece, and the prize pot is five thousand to ten thousand dollars.”

Wow! Ten thousand dollars for a high school band raffle! Okay, I am just kind of impressed by that.

“My concern is that every member of the marching band is required to participate in the fundraisers which include selling these raffle tickets. There is a buyout provision where our child won’t have to sell the tickets.”

I hope it’s not a ten thousand dollar buyout.

“I don’t see,” he says, “how this is any different than gambling or a lottery, and how should I as a Christian respond to forms of gambling like this that are for a good cause?”

Now, Matt, when I read this letter that you sent, I immediately thought about my grandmother because I remember one time we had some sort of a fundraiser—I don’t know if it was for Boy Scouts or what it was—but it was one of these raffle deals, and I went to my grandmother to sell the ticket, and her immediate response was to say no. And I was really surprised because my grandmother would do anything for me then and now, frankly. But she said I will do anything. I will give you whatever you need, but I’m not going to buy that raffle ticket because she said that to her that was a form of gambling.

Now, let’s step back for a minute and ask why is it that we are opposed to gambling? Well, there are several reasons. One of them is that gambling is something that teaches that money is something that can be obtained through chance rather than through work. It denigrates the work ethic.

More importantly, with gambling, what we have is a predation upon the poor. And so state-sponsored gambling—and frankly, not just state-sponsored but industrialized gambling that we see in the casino industries all over the country—it uses the illusion of winning in order to take money away from the poor. That is one of the reasons why the people hardest hit in any given community are those who become addicted to gambling. Any community with a casino industry has gambling addiction. As a pastor I dealt with that back in my hometown. I remember one family we went to visit, and there was only lawn furniture in the family’s apartment because the husband had become addicted to gambling and had sold off everything, all the furniture, in order to pay for his habit. Lotteries are essentially a super-regressive tax upon poor people who are desperate to get out of poverty with this manipulative illusory means to get out of it.

Now, when we talk about this issue that you are talking about with a raffle, I suppose that one would have to ask is this the sort of thing where people who are already giving to a good cause are given a prize that is chosen at random, at which point I don’t think there’s anything really wrong with that. If you say, for instance, we are going to have an event tonight, and everybody who comes has the opportunity to win a prize of this clock or this iPad or whatever it is that we are giving away that night, I don’t really see that as a gambling event. I really don’t see that as a raffle—I see that as people who are already participating who are winning a prize.

But having said that, I can see why somebody would, and somebody who has a conscientious objection to even the appearance of gambling ought not to participate. I think that one’s conscience ought to hold with its integrity even if you and I might have different levels of scruples about what that is.

You are probably thinking this raffle is going to teach some things to your high schooler that you don’t want to teach about gambling, about work ethic, about all of those things. I understand that. You are probably also not wanting to teach things to your high schooler that would teach a sense of quarrelsomeness with objecting to this in the wrong way. I sense this from the way that you are very carefully laying out your argument here. So, what I would suggest to you is that you find a way here—I think there are several ways—where your conscience is clear, the teaching that you are wanting to give to your high schooler is clear, and you are supportive of what you see as a good cause which is supporting the band. I think there are a number of ways that you can do that.

I am not sure what this buyout option is that you have with the raffle, but I think one of the things that you could do is to say we are going to give to the band, and we are going to encourage people to give to the band without taking a ticket. We are just going to give, and we are going to ask everybody let’s give, and if you have moral objections to this raffle, and you say but we believe this is a good cause, then you may say let’s all of us who have these objections let’s give even more than what people who don’t have to this band.

Or you may say we are going to buy these tickets, but we are going to commit that we are not going to take whatever the pot of money is if we win it; instead, we are going to donate that right back to the band.

I think find a way to think through how can we support this good cause without violating your conscience here, and at the same time, also do so with that Romans 12–14 understanding of not judging people who differ with you on a point of conscience here.

And frankly, that would work either way. I would say the same thing if the person were writing to me saying we’ve got this one stick-in-the-mud guy here, he’s not wanting to sell raffles for the band. I would say you need to bear with the consciences of another. And so, teaching your child how to stand with the principle and conscience in the way you define it, while also teaching your child how not to be pharisaical about that, is an important lesson to be taught.

I am someone who sometimes I don’t follow that through very effectively because children— sometimes it depends on the personality of your child, and your adolescent sometimes can be very black and white. And so, certain things that we don’t do in our household I have to work really hard to make sure that my children don’t automatically assume that those families that do participate in those things are awful people, you know? And that is an important lesson and an important conversation to have—we in our family aren’t going to participate in this because Dad has a moral objection to it. I think that there are some issues here that might lead to some bad things. But without the kind of turn the table over, thus sayeth the Lord which doesn’t really apply to something as low level as a band raffle.

Alright, what’s your question? Maybe you are wrestling through something that is going on in your workplace or your high school or your family or your church, and you are not sure how to think about it or how to carry out your convictions there. Well, send me an email, [email protected], and we will take it up when we gather next for Questions and Ethics. This is Russell Moore.

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24