Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Nick Gill on 70-549!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    ... Nick s perspective fails to properly apply the concept of compromise . ACU agents Bush and Burleson compromised the IRS in using their political influence
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 14, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Following is the reply to Nick Gill which I submitted and which Jay has now posted to his blog:

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

      Nick wrote:

      > If the IRS has been compromised,
      > it chose to do so itself. Who wrote
      > 70-549?

      Nick's perspective fails to properly apply the concept of "compromise".

      ACU agents Bush and Burleson compromised the IRS in using their political influence to get the IRS administrators who otherwise were against the desired relief, consistent with the facts and the law, to issue forth a ruling contrary to the facts and the law.

      IRS administrators compromised the IRS by giving in to the pressure and issuing the ruling contrary to fact and law.

      Nick wrote:

      > If the law has been compromised, it
      > was compromised by its own creators
      > and defenders.

      Nick's perspecive indicates a misunderstanding of the law. Congress created the law and the IRS is charged with administering it. IRS administrators, in response to political pressure, compromised the agency in compromising its mission in administering the law.

      Nick wrote:

      > If the schools have been compromised,
      > AND if you are correct that they are
      > *not* integral agencies of the church,
      > why should the church care that
      > they've compromised themselves?

      That the schools have compromised themselves should be sufficient cause for concern, to the extent folks have time for such things. Similarly, the compromise of the law, the IRS and the church is sufficient cause for concern amongst certain elements in our society.

      Otherwise, it is noted by many a preacher that one of the biggest problems amongst us is apathy! :o)

      Nick wrote:

      > If they *are* integral agencies, as I
      > would contend they are..

      They aren't, so the rest is irrelevant. However, if Nick is serious about contending for the agency status of such private schools to the church(es) of Christ, he is welcome to so contend for our consideration instead of simply asserting an opinion contrary to the facts and the law.

      Nick wrote:

      > The church has not been compromised
      > As you said, it simply was not
      > represented in Caesar's decision to
      > give some of its member's a tax break.

      > Why should it have been?

      Considering the benefits sought were to be determined on the basis of the relationship existing, or not existing, between the private school and church, obviously, in examining such relationship, it would be reasonable to consider seriously the opinions of those on both sides of the alleged relationship.

      In fact, at least one other ruling states this explicitly.

      Of course, in this case, the schoolmen were on record or recognizing that no such relationship existed and there was no church or group of churches that were going to come forward and claim any such relationship existed. That's why prior rulings resulted in a denial of the benefits requested.

      Nick wrote:

      > It is not the church's responsibility
      > to teach Caesar how to enforce his
      > own tax laws. If he can't figure out
      > how they relate to the kingdom of
      > God, that is his responsibility and
      > his problem.

      Caesar would not have had a problem had the good brethren taken an appropriate course and sought legislative relief instead of compromising all the parties involved.

      The good brethren are not responsible to teach Caesar how to enforce his tax laws, but, according to what I hear from the preachers, they are responsible for faithfully representing the truth in such matters as are relevant in such a case.

      The "integral agency" relationship doesn't exist in fact.

      The "integral agency" relationship doesnt exist in law.

      The "integral agency" relationship doesn't exist in the theological claims of those relevant to deciding the issue.

      Nick wrote:

      > If they ask for permission to pay less,
      > and Caesar says, "Yes," why should
      > they force him to take their money?

      They asked and asked and were told "no", "no", "no"!

      They didn't pay, they went to work on Caesar's agents, using their own in the persons of George Bush and Omar Burleson.

      They got their "yes", at the price of compromising their own principles, the law, the IRS and the church.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

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

      My further comments:

      It is interesting that Nick questions the propriety of "caring" about such things even while multitudes are taking to the streets because they care about how the tax system operates!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Robert Baty
      Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:13 PM
      To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [M & B] Nick Gill on 70-549!

      Nick Gill operates a blog at:

      http://fumblingtowardseternity.wordpress.com/

      He also participates from time to time in other venues, such as Jay Guin's "OneInJesus" and "GraceConversation".

      Coming quite late to the issue, Nick has posted some comments on the 70-549 issue.

      Following is the reference and text of Nick's observations related thereto and to the complete record as posted to Jay's blog:

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

      http://oneinjesus.info/2009/03/15/the-housing-allowance-do-christian-college-professors-qualify/

      Author: Nick Gill

      Comment:

      If the IRS has been compromised, it chose to do so itself. Who wrote 70-549?

      If the law has been compromised, it was compromised by its own creators and defenders. Why should this surprise us? the kingdoms of this world have always acted this way!

      If the schools have been compromised, AND if you are correct that they are *not* integral agencies of the church, why should the church care that they've compromised themselves? If they *are* integral agencies, as I would contend they are as outposts of the kingdom in the world of education, then they have not compromised themselves. Either way, I don't see how the church has a problem.

      The church has not been compromised. As you said, it simply was not represented in Caesar's decision to give some of its member's a tax break. Why should it have been? The IRS didn't call me when it wrote the tax code!

      It is not the church's responsibility to teach Caesar how to enforce his own tax laws. If he can't figure out how they relate to the kingdom of God, that is his responsibility and his problem.

      It is the Christian's responsibility to pay the amount demanded, and not a cent more. If they ask for permission to pay less, and Caesar says, "Yes," why should they force him to take their money?

      See all comments on this post here:

      http://oneinjesus.info/2009/03/15/the-housing-allowance-do-christian-college-professors-qualify/#comments

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



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.