Gift Horse
I apologize for moving off point, but Douglas Wilson gave me this one. Over at Green Baggins, Wilson wrote,
Kyle, the “documentation” of the casino “scandal” is risible. What happened was this: the elders found out that some idiot kids were gambling at their house (the casino), shut the operation down the day we found out about it, and required everyone to return the money to the point where it was the day before the gambling started. When some couldn’t or wouldn’t do that, we expedited the required restitution from church funds (moved, seconded and recorded in the minutes), which money was then subsequently restored to the church’s deacon fund by one of the principal offenders. If my enemies want me to feel bad about the charges made against me, they need to find something I would be ashamed of.
I have to agree with his first point. The documentation of the casino scandal is risible. In fact, the first time I saw the following link I laughed so hard I needed a diaper. So please get a rise out of this document and getter a bigger rise out of Wilson’s revision.
In the comment above, notice who restored the money to the church’s deacon fund. Wilson says, “. . . which money was then subsequently restored to the church’s deacon fund by one of the principal offenders.” And in this account, taken from the community bulletin board, Wilson clearly identified — by name — who restored the money. He wrote, “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.” Elsewhere, and on several occasions, Wilson named Roy Atwood. Therefore, we may conclude that Roy Atwood, President of New Saint Andrews College, was one of the principal offenders in the casino scandal.
I sure am glad Wilson cleared that one up.
Thank you.
3 comments:
Mark,
I was thinking precisely of that "Dougsplotch" site when I mentioned the casino scandal. I figured it would be fruitless, but I thought of asking how on earth the session thought it would be a good idea to pull out of the church's funds to pay off an illegal gambling debt, but apparently it didn't phase Pr. Wilson.
When Wilson writes, “If my enemies want me to feel bad about the charges made against me, they need to find something I would be ashamed of,” he forces me to conclude that he has no shame.
Dear Mark,
How many times are we going to have to explain this to you on this so-called-blog of yours
[Incidentally, speaking of your inability to figure out how to blog properly, I have it on good authority that "Schism" might be a Latin word. If that is true all you need to do is change the word "Federal" in the Blog Title to "Foedero" and your blog will be on its way to being worthy. As for not agreeing with the Foedero Visum as I prefer to call it - you don't have to change your existing content; all you need to do is to begin strenuosly maintaining that you do in fact agree with the FV. Apparent contradiction is the mark of theological genius, and the greater the contradiction, the greater the genius. Please study our Magister Contradictus, Jacobus Jordanius, for details on how this works. I like to call him "big river" or "flumen magnus" because as the philosopher sez you can never step in the same river twice.]
Dougus... sorry I'm getting carried away - but O! to have been a medieval monk when things were really reformed before the dread baptist Plato and one and all were in unum pactus vespering the Latin of scripture... English is so banal and unsanctified, don't you agree? But back to Doug, he patiently explained at length in this tape:
http://dougsplotch.com/dougloads/wilson.mp3
how the check you mentioned was not a payment it was a gift given by his church to repay a debt owed to a person who just happened to have run a gambling operation and NOT, NOT, NOT, a payment to a gambling house. I can understand how you may have become confused. You see in FV theology gift and payment are synonyms. For instance, salvation is a gift we earn by our works of obedience. Note well that we do not merit a gift, or strictly speaking earn it, a gift is graciously obtained in return for works performed. Understand? It's all quite biblical and the key to understanding James and Paul and checking.
In fact, there is a salvation analogy here somewhere - a parallel or parallelogram or something - person D was owed a gambling debt by persons A,B,& C. Then organization W said persons A, B, & C are like sons to us, but they can never pay the debt they owe, but we can, so because they are members of the covenant we will give a gift that will set them free from bondage to D after which the gift will be paid for by them. The sign and seal of this transaction that rendered real satisfaction was called "the check". This check was not merely imputed to the account of the guilty. It was delivered directly to D. Call it the new ransom theory.
There you have it. If you have problems remember, W has never been found guilty by himself, that is to say the church court that duly oversees him. He is therefore "not guiltifiable."
So given the lack of guiltafiability, how about ending this unjustifiable attack?
Post a Comment