Washed in widow’s tears

Jim Read on tainted money

W

hat do you make of Major Cleo Damon’s decision? Just before Christmas, 2002, Major Damon, who is the Corps Officer and area commander for Naples, Florida, turned down a $100,000 donation to The Salvation Army. The would-be donor, David Rush, had recently won $14 million in the Florida lottery, and he said the $100,000 would be coming from that jackpot. Despite the fact that this one gift would have just about equalled the total that others had given in the local Christmas kettle appeal, Major Damon said, “No, thanks.”

His spokeswoman Maribeth Shanahan explained the decision this way: “We preach against gambling. To accept it would be to talk out both sides of our mouth.”

Within days the story went global. Why? What made it news? Well, the first thing is that it’s not often that you get anyone really questioning gambling any more, certainly not anyone who stands to lose out by questioning it. The second thing is that it’s The Salvation Army. If the headline had read, “Cleo Damon refuses $100,000 donation,” the story wouldn’t have made it out of Florida. But when Major Damon acted, he acted for the Army. Thirdly, I think people were quite startled to find The Salvation Army turning away money! One thing the public knows us for is Christmas kettles in the mall and website banners that say “donate on-line.” They don’t expect us to be picky.

I don’t know Major Damon. I might or might not have made a quite different decision. But either way, I have to tell you, I’m proud of him for having convictions.

Gambling is a major social force today, and it is creating social ills. Our Position Statement says, “The Salvation Army deplores the fact that, with the advent and proliferation of government lotteries, legislators have encouraged the tendency to prey on the greed and weakness of human nature. The Salvation Army continues to resist this insidious occurrence and cautions both governments and individuals of the inherent dangers in this gambling craze.”

And it is a craze. It’s hard to believe, but as recently as the mid-1970s lotteries were illegal in Canada. The law changed to help pay for the 1976 Montreal Olympics (a great show, but a financial catastrophe!). Now every provincial government is into the game in a big way. The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, for one, boasts that gambling is multi-billion dollar business: gross revenues from lotteries, slots, casinos and race-tracks in Ontario were $5.3 billion in 2001 alone. About a third of this was “profit” that the government used for various services.

If gambling was just a scheme for redistributing private wealth and funding government services, it wouldn’t be so troubling. What troubles me deeply is that Ontario spends over $300 million a year promoting its gambling business and less than $20 million to help those who get into deep problems precisely because the advertising works. The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation itself admits that 5.8% of all Ontarians are “problem gamblers,” and half of them could be called addicts.

Somebody has to ask whether this is really the way a government should treat its people. And, I’m with Major Damon in thinking it is hard for the Army to preach against government gambling policy at one moment, and eagerly take our “cut” the next.

The fear of selling out or of being called hypocritical has to be balanced by other factors, though. We have to ask what our scrupulosity looks like from the vantage point of the needy. Hearing that the Army had refused Mr. Rush’s donation, comedian Angus Hamilton quipped, “If there is anything a homeless person cannot stand, it’s ill-gotten soup.” That’s a barb worthy of William Booth himself.

On the business of “tainted money,” General Booth is reported to have said, “The Salvation Army takes the money and washes it in the tears of the widows and orphans and lays it on the altar of humanity.” The majority of Salvationists I asked are sure that Booth would have taken David Rush’s money.

I can’t see the Founder taking it to buy better cars for corps officers or better offices for ethicists, however. Good as those expenditures are, I’d like to think General Booth would want to see a closer connection between the gambling winnings he took in and the healing hand he reached out. I think that he meant “washing [money] in the tears” to express a redemptive principle, not to advocate simple money laundering. I think he was calling us to fix our eyes firmly on those who have been most directly disadvantaged by the squandering of money in the first place. We should be aware that what ought to have been spent on “the widows and orphans” may instead have been wasted by the very people they were depending on. We should understand that money lands in the hands of those “industries” that make irresponsible drinking and problem gambling possible. By the time it becomes available as a donation or a “charitable grant” from government, it’s not money fresh from the mint; it’s money with a history. One could argue that history should guide what is to be done with it. For The Salvation Army to receive some of it to feed the hungry and clothe the naked could be seen as a way of redeeming it. The principle is profoundly Christian.

If the Army refuses gambling money because it’s more concerned about its reputation than the needs of “the widows and orphans,” that’s simply not good enough. At the same time, I think it’s not good enough simply to focus on the neediness of the “widows and orphans” and show no concern about the souls of those who put them there. David Rush seems to have thought that Major Damon was motivated by holier-than-thou self-interest: “Everybody has a right to be sanctimonious if they want to be,” he said. But suppose that Major Damon was not trying to be superior. Suppose he was trying to demonstrate to Mr. Rush (and the State of Florida) why the Army’s Position Statement says that Salvationists will “resist participation” in gambling. If he thinks there are good reasons for Salvationists to have this personal stand, and he really cares about the people who support the Army, doesn’t it make sense for him to want them to think twice about the way they had generated the money they are donating?

Mr. Rush doesn’t see his gambling as doing anything wrong (the newspaper reports him as saying he doesn’t even really think of lotteries as gambling). And at one level, he’s probably right. Whatever he wagered he probably could afford. He’s not an addict. And he could well be more generous than the average guy. Consequently it would be unfair to do an Amos number on him and rail against him for exploitation. He’s no Zacchaeus; he didn’t steal the $14 million. But is our position on gambling only that it’s exploitative? The Position Statement says we think large-scale government-promoted gambling tends to be harmful to people’s relations with their neighbours. We don’t mean it’s only harmful to Salvationists’ relations; we mean it’s harmful in general.

It’s not right for The Salvation Army to force its values down anybody’s throat. But persuasion is not coercion. Jesus cared about the soul of Zacchaeus as well as the souls of those he’d stolen from. Shouldn’t we then care as much about the spiritual well-being of donors who are unmaliciously and unintentionally doing things that hurt their neighbours?

The gospel is not only about redemption, it’s also about reconciliation. When The Salvation Army can be used by God not only to help the needy, not only to rectify injustices, but also to rebuild community, it is especially blessed. I find myself wondering what might happen if Mr. Rush were to meet some of those problem gamblers who had wasted much more than $100,000 in futile attempts to hit it big. Might there be a healthy re-connection?

When we think that quandaries like Major Damon’s are mostly about money, we miss the mark. They aren’t. They are mostly about people. About people Salvationists are privileged to serve. About people we are privileged to have as supporters. About ourselves as recipients and channels of God’s grace.

Writer: Dr. James E. Read is the Executive Director of The Salvation Army Ethics Centre in Winnipeg, Canada. Jim is a lifelong Salvationist whose vision and passion birthed the Ethics Centre 13 years ago. The Centre is a ministry of the Canada and Bermuda Territory but provides educational and consultative resources to the Army worldwide. The article was originally published in March 2003.

5 Comments to Washed in widow’s tears

1. Dr. Read, you know what my response is. This for me is a tempting dilemma. There are huge issues involved in this - social justice, redemption, addiction and not least of all - bringing glory to God.

   I would like to suggest that people are redeemed not money, money in itself being in no need of redemption. When we use profits from gambling the argument is that we are redeeming the money by putting it to good use. I cannot conceive that William Booth would have ever foreseen his thoughts being carried to this extent.

   Re social justice and helping the poor, while we may indeed be helping the poor and oppressed and widows, it is a kind of band-aid form of help if the basic social injustice which results from such things as gambling, is not dealt with. The oppressed need our help on a much bigger scale - they need us to stand against the corruption and unjust practices of gambling. An example of how this has worked is the Canadian Cancer Society’s efforts to deal with cigarette smoking. My neighbour who is a Mormon by the way, and who is in charge of the Canadian Cancer Society, would never accept fundraising money from cigarette companies, because he considers it too incongruous with their purposes. The Canadian Cancer Society has been successful in lobbying to the extent that together with the medical community, they haved succeeded in turning public opinion around to the extent that governments have responded with anti-smoking legislation even though government gets a lot of tax from cigarette sales. they have dealt with one of the root causes of the cancer phenomenon.

   I think likewise, our efforts should be aimed at some of the root causes of social injustice, rather than just treating the symptoms of its victims -then we are significantly helping people. Instead of assisting Molson’s brewery to enhance its image in communities across Canada by accepting their donations, we should be refusing their donations and in so doing publicly taking a stand against the devastations of alcohol addiction. We should likewise be turning down donations known to be from gambling and in so doing publicly taking a stand against the devastations of gambling, as this officer in Naples did.

   Yes, there may be those who will cry “holier than thou”, but early Christians were considered the garbage heap of the world by their society and in these circumstances I would see “holier than thou” as a compliment.

   Then there’s the whole question of bringing glory to God. I well remember a YP Band in Canada who were forced to turn down the Wintario lottery winnings many years ago - I think they were going to use the money to purchase new instruments. It made front page news that TSA had taken this stand. Then in short order another generous donor came across and made a donation to cover the turned down donation. Now that was bringing glory to God and trusting Him to provide. I also remember local Salvationists in the city where I grew up being disciplined by TSA because the wife had won a lottery on a ticket she was in on at her place of work. With these two prominent incidents in my lifetime, it came as quite a surprise a few years ago to realize that TSA had accepted generous funding from Imperial tobacco, Molson’s Brewery, and in their fund raising statement on the internet (included in the appendix) that we now accept money from gambling organizations. Does this glorify God?

   Yes, we are able to give aid to the poor and the widow using these monies, but are we not just helping to keep the poor and oppressed in those situations when we don’t take a public stand against gambling by refusing their donations? We are giving aid to the derelicts of alcohol but at the same time helping breweries enhance their public image by accepting their donations. Can this be considered truly caring for and helping those addicted to alcohol? I think we should be concerned more at the deeper root cause level with the redemption of people. Money is not redeemable.Also when we publicly refuse these donations, our standing up against social injustice will be considered more seriously.

   As for the redemption of the soul’s of those who organize gambling - just maybe they might respect us enough to notice what we are saying against their practices. Our first priority should be redeeming the poor and oppressed of society - that is our particular mission is it not?
Lorna Rogers Simard on June 22nd, 2007

2. good thoughts. i just find it odd how christian culture repeatedly goes on to point out certain flaws in society (such as gambling) while completely neglecting others. we are often quick to sum up the social justice conquests to include gambling, drinking, swearing, etc etc while being totally ignorant of unfair labor practices, the effects of globalization on third world economies and devastation to the environment.

   the salvation army, or in this case a specific officer, turned down gambling funds. yet we graciously accepted huge donations from the creators of mcdonalds and wal-mart. mcdonalds - which could be argued is largely responsible for ushering in the uprising of obesity in western culture as well as globalizing itself across continents, and killing cultural nuances while running smaller run food establishments off the map. this is among countless other devastating issues such as the effects of factory farming on workers and the environment. yet as the salvation army, we take no stand against it.

   and wal-mart - which has been repeatedly accused of exploiting its workers with unfair wages, and medical insurance decreases, as well as the use and support of sweatshop labor overseas. it has also contributed to overwhelming environmental atrocities and has put out countless smaller businesses only to replace those jobs with cashier and stock positions that hardly pay a living wage. yet as a salvation army, we awarded the CEO with the Evangeline Booth award this year for corporate giving.

   i for one am tired of picking and choosing our battles. if the salvation army is truly going to stand up for social issues through declining to accept monetary donations, let’s stop playing the morality game and start looking at the larger picture of what is affecting the world around us.
jon bukiewicz on June 22nd, 2007

3. I would have taken the money, were it a purely personal decision - but as an officer in The Salvation Army, and therefore covenanted to respect and follow the “practices and principles” of the movement, I would have had to toe the party line and say no.

   My personal decision would have nothing to do with an endorsement of gambling, however (of course Christians should all know that it is a destructive force in many peoples lives and so should not be encouraged or supported). However, I have little qualms about taking money from anyone to use for ministry purposes - the rub comes in on whether or not there are strings attached. If Mr Rush was giving this lottery money unconditionally then - why not?

   As a young person, I used to sell The War Cry for the Army in local pubs in Toronto on Friday nights. I took money from people who were often drunk, certainly drinking, in the context of a tavern (a place we generally frown upon in the Army) where the money was flowing freely because people were, well, drinking. The more down-at-the-heels the establishment, the better the flow of donations - in other words the people who could least afford to be drinking their paychecks away, were the most generous. And vice versa. We never batted an eye at this in those days.

   In Canada, the Army has in the past made a fair bit of money through investments in companies whose practices were quite unethical - in the late 1980’s we used to invest in a Calgary-based oil company who, it was generally acknowledged, financially supported Muslim rebels in an African country who made a practice of capturing and selling into slavery their Christian neighbours…

   In Ontario, as officers in the Army we are not allowed to apply for funding to the Trillium Foundation, a governmental funding agency that uses money from State lotteries. Yet, we run hospitals and in this province the majority funding for hospitals comes from the Trillium Foundation including, presumably the salaries of those officers appointed to these hospitals as chaplains and administrators…

   Also in Ontario the government controls the selling of alcohol through the Liquor Control Licensing Board, revenues from which, among other things, go to repair roads that I drive on every day in my Army leased vehicle in order to engage in ministry…

   The Army in the States accepts money for their government under the faith-based funding initiative. Money from a government that a tabled a budget a few years back favouring tax breaks for the rich while sticking it to the poor, who are supposedly our core consituency as a movement…

   What about the huge Kroc donation that the Army in the US accepted, agreeing to build a number of commmunity centres across the country… MacDonalds Corporation - the poster boy of aggressive capitalism and globilization and (depending on your eating habits) serial desecrators of our “bodies as temples”…

   In England, birthplace of the Salvation Army, does anyone really have any idea how many billions of pounds the British government makes every year as one of the largest arms dealers in the world? Does anyone seriously believe that some of this money doesn’t filter down to the Army in funding we receive from the British government?

   And on it goes…

   I guess one has to draw a line in the sand somewhere and at some point. However, Booth was a pragmatist and so am I. Major Damon, if you could give Mr. Rush my contact details, I would appreciate it. We need the money.
Geoff Ryan on June 23rd, 2007

4. Geoff, I think you make some excellent points - esp. about the pub collections.

   But what is with everyone picking on McDonalds? They have never rung my doorbell and shoved a hamburger in my mouth. People go there of their own choice. Why is it that the only salad bar restaurant in my town closed down but McDonalds thrives? Because PEOPLE CHOOSE to eat at McDonalds. If people didn’t choose to, they’d still be a tiny little shop in Artesia, California, where I think they started. (could be wrong about that) Funny enough, I have been blaming my extra pounds on myself…I guess I could have been blaming it on megacorporations.
Amy Reardon on June 27th, 2007

5. Unfortunately the problem with McDonalds goes well beyond their food. Like the smoking industry, however, McDonalds would have us believe that their food isn’t nearly as bad for us as it actually is. Still, the biggest injustice with McDonalds involves the way they treat their employees. Here in the UK, they even attempted to abuse a law that allowed them to take to court a couple of people who decided to protest the actions of the McDonald’s corporation. The European Union is now looking at the legality of the law.

   Walmart, on the other hand, takes the McDonald’s way of doing business and cranks it up a few notches. This is a company that absolutely drains local economies, destroys local business, practices abusive tactics on their employees, quite happily uses overseas sweatshops (while shopping itself as an American made company), and costs tax payers millions every year.

   It’s hard to know where to draw the line though. Booth was famous for saying that he was happy to take the devil’s money and redeem it by using it for good (something that one of my Church of England friends recently reminded me of). Still, gambling is wrong because it destroys lives. As a local practitioner in a poor neighborhood, I can attest to the countless lives, sitting around in gambling parlors, giving away their rent and food money all in a desperate attempt to get themselves out of poverty. It’s a sickening business and it’s hard to justify the Army profiting (even if it is for others) from it. When Major Cleo first turned down the money, I personally questioned his decision. A few years of seeing the affect of gambling, and my perspective has changed.
Tim Miller on July 8th, 2007

Leave a comment