[Vision2020] Re: another question for Doug Wilson
bill london
london@moscow.com
Sat, 06 Mar 2004 14:57:16 -0800
D-
Regarding allegations #3 and #4 from the dougsplotch list (see below),
let's take this one at a time....
This is #3.-- Ethan said the casino was OK'ed by another Christ Church
officer. You say that the statement, as it stands, is false. Does that
mean that Ethan never said the casino was OK'ed by a Christ Church
officer?
This is #4 -- Casino players who won the $1000 refuse to return the
money. This also you say, as it stands, is false. Does that mean that
the casino players who won the $1000 did not refuse to return the money?
Please explain. BL
----------------------
Douglas wrote:
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> My question about whether you all were without shame did not
> presuppose that you put up the web site. I, for one, certainly believe
> that you did not. My point is simply that if anyone, however
> unreliable and untrustworthy, puts up a web site that offers to dish
> the dirt on Christ Church, that person is currently operating in a
> seller's market. There are quite a few of you who are desperate to
> buy. There are many people in our community who want to get some dirt
> on us for whatever reason, reasons that are completely unrelated to
> fat head young men gambling when they shouldn't. Consequently, this
> means that anyone who is hostile to us for any reason can put up a web
> site that you all (having no sense of shame about pastoral and
> counseling matters) would pour over, in order to present your
> so-called objective questions to us. The whole thing is obnoxious. So
> a word to the fevered brow set here -- on the Morton street business,
> my conscience is so clean it squeaks when I walk.
>
> Let me invent a scenario that illustrates why what you are doing is so
> obnoxious. This is imaginary, but I have dealt with issues very much
> like this. Suppose we discover that a member of our church is beating
> his wife. Suppose further that we confront him about it, and he won't
> repent. The elders give the wife our blessing to move out, taking the
> children with her. We begin the process of church discipline with him,
> but he gets angry and sets up a web site in which he accuses the
> elders of ecclesiastical tyranny, posts private (and selectively
> edited) correspondence between his wife and the elders, between him
> and his wife, etc. The local intoleristas, who are still on their jag,
> are on this web site like a duck on June bug. They want to adjudicate.
> They want to know if she committed adultery ten years ago. They have
> concerns, deep concerns, about all this. Nothing to do with the
> worldview differences between Christians and secularists, nothing at
> all. Nothing to do with religious bigotry against Christ Church. They
> are just concerned that Mr. Smith is getting a raw deal (because the
> enemy of my enemy is my friend), and this leads to all the feminists
> on 20/20 demanding that Mrs. Smith get back there right now and take
> her licks. What questions will I answer after you all invade Mrs.
> Smith's privacy? As few as I can, and I may even follow it up with a
> general exhortation to get a life.
>
> For the reasons outlined above, with regard to your remaining
> questions, I will just say that #3 & #4, as they stand, are false.
> There is no need to go into it further, is there?
>
> Cordially,
>
> Douglas
>
>
>
> At 09:32 AM 3/4/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> D-
>> Thanks for continuing to respond, as I continue to seek answers.
>>
>> First, I would like to reply to your question posed in the final
>> paragraph (in the message reprinted below): "Bill, do your people
>> have no shame?" Doug, the authors of the dougsplotch website are not
>> my people. I do not know who created that website, and first learned
>> of it when I read about it on V2020. And as to whether or not they
>> have any shame, I can not answer, but I do presume they are
>> interested in learning the truth about this casino incident, as I
>> am. Which brings me to these questions....
>>
>> As I read your last posting, you agreed that the 8 contentions below,
>> which I listed in my previous email as the core message of the
>> dougsplotch website, are accurate--with the exception of #3 and #4.
>> 1. in the fall of 2001, Christ Church member Ethan opens a casino in
>> a garage in Moscow, offering illegal gambling and alcohol. church
>> member Brett serves as bank
>> 2. in Dec of 2001, you found out about the casino and took the
>> following action: cancelled all debts, including $4,500 owed to the
>> bank and tells those who had won approximately $1000 from the bank to
>> return it to the bank.
>> 3. Ethan said the casino was OK'ed by another Christ Church officer.
>> 4. Casino players who won the $1000 refuse to return the money.
>> 5. Brett contacts you to get his $1000
>> 6. Christ Church elders take $1000 from church general funds and you
>> give it to Brett in June 2002
>> 7. Brett wants to declare the $1000 as income in reporting federal
>> tax in 2003 (and wants IRS form 1099 from church to explain receipt).
>> 8. Christ Church refuses to supply IRS form 1099.
>>
>> Regarding #3: You did not specifically refer to this allegation. Is
>> it true that Ethan said that the casino was OK'ed by an officer of
>> your church? Was it? If so, by which officer?
>>
>> Regarding #4: You said Brett refused to accept money from one of the
>> several players who won money at the casino. That contradicts the
>> information presented on the dougsplotch website. That raises
>> another question: did Brett refuse money from all the players who
>> were supposed to repay their winnings?
>>
>> Thanks BL
>>
>> ----------------------------- Douglas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear Bill,
>>>
>>> Since you posted your question to v2020, I would appreciate it if
>>> you passed along my answer in its entirety. As I mentioned to you
>>> before, I have never before seen such a combination of malevolence
>>> and incompetence. And if it is not too late, you need to take great
>>> care because this deadly combination appears to be catching.
>>>
>>> An initial observation that I will repeat again at the close of this
>>> post is this. I strongly object to the necessity of having to answer
>>> charges manufactured out of private pastoral correspondence. As a
>>> pastor, counseling many people on many sensitive issues, you need to
>>> know that I now have to proceed on the supposition that at some
>>> point Bill London will be rifling through the exchanges, and posting
>>> questions about it on the Internet. I have to assume this because I
>>> know from direct experience that many of my adversaries in this town
>>> have no sense of propriety or proportion. And lest some anonymous
>>> poster take this as an invitation to lecture us on shame and
>>> shamelessness, let me point out that thus far he has been too craven
>>> and embarrassed to sign his own name. Shame, aye. Wisdom is
>>> identified by her children, and folly by her bastards.
>>>
>>> But since the wickedness is already done, my duty is to try to
>>> ameliorate the damage to those who are being wronged in this. So try
>>> this chronology on:
>>>
>>> 1. Brett Bauer begins to behave in such an atrocious, illegal,
>>> disrespectful, and unloving fashion that he ruins his credibility as
>>> a witness to everyone in the world except for James Nelson and
>>> Thomas Bartnick.
>>>
>>> 2. The elders of Christ Church find out about his gambling
>>> operation, shut it down, rebuke all the participants and culpable
>>> by-standers, negate all debts incurred, and require all parties to
>>> return the money they acquired. Are those the charges? Then we are
>>> as guilty as it gets. And you may confirm our "guilt" in this matter
>>> by referring to the documents posted by our judicially-blinded
>>> adversaries.
>>>
>>> 3. In the aftermath, Brett Bauer refuses to take money from one of
>>> guys attempting to return his winnings, while complaining at the
>>> same time that the church was robbing him through our mediation. In
>>> order to be above all reproach, our elders appropriated the money to
>>> ensure the gambling restitution (not debts) was paid to him, entered
>>> that transaction in our minutes as part of our COVER-UP, I gave the
>>> money to Brett personally and warned him about the state of his
>>> soul, and Brett was so concerned about the morality of the whole
>>> business that he went and cashed the check. We also instructed the
>>> young men concerned that they could donate money back to our
>>> deacons' fund instead of paying restitution to Brett. And that money
>>> was donated to the deacons' fund by the Atwoods.
>>>
>>> 4. Brett suddenly acquires scruples about the tax status of his
>>> money that had been returned to him. But if I left my wallet on a
>>> restaurant table, and the waiter chased me down and gave it to me,
>>> he would not also owe me a W-2.
>>>
>>> 5. Years later, anti-gambling crusaders (e.g. anti-Christ Church,
>>> any stick is good enough to throw) show up, find that Brett Bauer
>>> has apparent credibility, and want answers now.
>>>
>>> And here I return to my first point. Bill, do your people have no
>>> shame? No sense of decency? "An ungodly man digs up evil, and it is
>>> on his lips like a burning fire" (Prov. 16:27).
>>>
>>> Douglas Wilson
>>>
>>> P.S. My wife and I count as one of the great privileges of our life
>>> our friendship with Roy and Bev Atwood, a godly and gracious
>>> Christian couple. And I am pleased that their son Ethan appears to
>>> be past the difficulties that beset him a few years ago. He
>>> certainly has been far more teachable and receptive of correction
>>> than all his critics put together.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 04:02 PM 2/29/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> D-
>>>> Thanks for your response to my question about the accuracy of the
>>>> information on the <www.dougsplotch.net> website.
>>>> You suggested that I carefully read the documentation that is
>>>> provided on that site and then find the proof there that the
>>>> charges are false.
>>>> I did carefully read the documentation and did not find the proof
>>>> that the charges are false. Maybe, if you were specific regarding
>>>> the points raised, we could get this sorted out.
>>>>
>>>> So, please specifically comment on the accuracy of the following
>>>> points made on the website:
>>>> 1. in the fall of 2001, Christ Church member Ethan opens a casino
>>>> in a garage in Moscow, offering illegal gambling and alcohol.
>>>> church member Brett serves as bank
>>>> 2. in Dec of 2001, you found out about the casino and took the
>>>> following action: cancelled all debts, including $4,500 owed to the
>>>> bank and tells those who had won approximately $1000 from the bank
>>>> to return it to the bank.
>>>> 3. Ethan said the casino was OK'ed by another Christ Church officer.
>>>> 4. Casino players who won the $1000 refuse to return the money.
>>>> 5. Brett contacts you to get his $1000
>>>> 6. Christ Church elders take $1000 from church general funds and
>>>> you give it to Brett in June 2002
>>>> 7. Brett wants to declare the $1000 as income in reporting federal
>>>> tax in 2003 (and wants IRS form 1099 from church to explain receipt).
>>>> 8. Christ Church refuses to supply IRS form 1099.
>>>>
>>>> Please address the accuracy of these 8 points. The documentation
>>>> on that website (emails and letters reproduced) indicates these 8
>>>> points are accurate.
>>>> BL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Douglas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Bill,
>>>>>
>>>>> What you need to do is look at what the web site claims about us,
>>>>> and then carefully read the documentation they provide for it.
>>>>> They basically provide ample proof that their charges are false,
>>>>> so you really need nothing further from me. I have never before in
>>>>> my life seen such a combination of malevolence and incompetence.
>>>>> But thanks for checking with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cordially,
>>>>>
>>>>> Douglas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At 09:39 AM 2/27/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> D-
>>>>>> I have visited the website <http://www.dougsplotch.net>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This website focuses on a series of incidents about an alleged
>>>>>> casino operation involving a number of members of your church.
>>>>>> According to the website documents, the casino story began in the
>>>>>> fall of 2001, when the son of the dean of New St. Andrews College
>>>>>> opened a blackjack casino in his garage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The website explains that the casino was a fully operational
>>>>>> gaming facility equipped with books, chips, wet bar, free
>>>>>> alcohol, a secret doorbell, casino trappings, credited money from
>>>>>> the house, and a $100 betting-limit per hand. In addition to
>>>>>> violating state laws, such as dispensing alcohol to minors, the
>>>>>> casino violated federal statutes, including a handful of
>>>>>> racketeering laws. The casino s patrons were all members in good
>>>>>> standing at Christ Church; many were students at New St. Andrews.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the documents provided on that website, when you
>>>>>> discovered the casino, you paid $1,000 from church funds to
>>>>>> settle the debts and protect the casino operators.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the information provided on this website accurate?
>>>>>> BL
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>
>
>
> .
>