This is the twenty-fourth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today
brings us up to 1977.
In our last episode we watched various
executive committees and commissions and boards in the Mennonite General
Conference pass the buck back and forth as the Conference impatiently waited to
learn whether they would or would not continue to withhold taxes from the
paychecks of their conscientiously objecting employees.
The board [General Board, I think ―♇] was sharply divided on whether to grant
the employee’s request and thus risk violating tax regulations. Board members
also could not agree on whether the issue should be decided by the board or
wait for action by the entire conference at the triennial sessions in
.
Cornelia Lehn, the employee bringing the request, met with the board for the
first time and told them, “It was also a very difficult decision for me over a
long period of years. Finally I gave up seeing through the difficulties; for
me, I simply had to obey God and leave the consequences up to him.”
The resolution reviews the history of General Conference discussion of the war
tax issues from a sentence in the statement
“The Way of Peace” [see ♇ 22 July 2018]
to General Board deliberations on an employee’s request that war taxes not be
taken out of her paycheck.
The resolution asks that congregations and regional conferences “commit
ourselves to a serious study of civil disobedience during
, that the
Commission on Home Ministries help facilitate such a study… and that a
midtriennium miniconference be convened for congregations to report on their
study and to recommend actions related to civil disobedience and war tax
resistance, including the question of Mennonite institutions serving as war
tax collectors for the state by withholding these taxes from employees.”
In three separate votes, the delegates first turned down, 1,190 to 336, an
amendment which would have adopted an interim policy for eighteen months
“instructing the conference to honor the requests of those employees who ask
not to have withheld from their salaries that portion of federal income tax
they believe helps the government prepare for war.”
The next evening, delegates adopted, 1,178½ to 453½, the main motion. Its
effect is to delay any action on the request of conference employee Cornelia
Lehn that federal income taxes that would go for war not be taken out of her
paycheck. It also calls for a midtriennium official delegate conference to
recommend actions related to civil disobedience and war tax resistance,
including the question of Mennonite institutions serving as war tax collectors
for the state by withholding these taxes from employees.
A second resolution that evening gave General Conference endorsement to the
World Peace Tax Fund Act in the
U.S. Congress and
encouraged similar legislation in Canada, if appropriate. The act would allow
conscientious objectors to war to designate the military portion of their
taxes into the peace fund. The resolution also “continue(s) to support
individuals who feel compelled by Chrisian conscience to adopt other methods
of witness against payment of war taxes such as voluntary reduction of income
or nonpayment of war taxes.”
Cornelia Lehn tells of her struggle with war taxes.
Discussion of the war tax withholding issue began with a
testimony by Ms. Lehn, who writes and edits children’s
curriculum for the Commission on Education, who
first came to the conference business manager two years ago
with a request that she be allowed to resist payment of war taxes.
Presently the business office is following
federal regulations that estimated taxes
be withheld from each employee’s paycheck. The
regulations do not apply, however, to ordained
persons employed by the conference, some of whom are
resisting voluntary payment of war taxes
without implicating the conference as a
whole.
“It is a long journey from the little Mennonite village in the Ukraine, where
I was born, to Newton, Kansas,” she began. “It was a long pilgrimage until I
came to the conviction to resist war taxes and was able to act on it.”
Ms. Lehn told of her struggle with the command to pay taxes, on the one hand,
and the knowledge that her tax dollars were being used for killing.
“I can’t extricate myself from the system, but I finally have to take a stand
against a demonic armaments race,” she said. “I do not know where this will
lead, but… for my part, I must obey the Spirit of God as I understand it to be
revealed in the Bible and leave the consequences to God.”
Delegates kept coming to the microphones to speak to the resolution until
debate was cut off.
“As a pastor, I could not advocate civil disobedience,” said Dan Dalke of
Bluffton.
“The taxes Jesus said to pay were to the Roman Government,” said a former
IRS
employee.
“I have proper respect for laws, but I also recognize that if Felix Manz,
Conrad Grebel, and Menno Simons had had greater fear for the law than for God,
we would probably not be here today,” commented Lauren Friesen, pastor from
Seattle.
“This morning we passed a resolution supporting missionaries for acting
faithfully in oppressive situations abroad,” said Steve Linscheid of Goessel,
Kansas. “We should not expect more from our missionaries than we are willing
to do ourselves.”
“Many people are concerned about our tax dollar, but we should work much
harder trying to come to a common mind with other Mennonite groups,” said
Henry A. Fast of North Newton, Kansas. “We should keep on pushing the World
Peace Tax Fund Act.”
Donovan Smucker of Kitchener, Ontario, cited many Christians throughout the
ages who have obeyed God rather than man and said, “The problem is, When do
you stop the democratic process that is pushing you into something that is
evil?”
“It’s best to work through the system and use the privileges we already have,”
said Art Waltner.
“Our right to conscientious objection to military service did not come through
petition in Washington,” Ted Koontz of Boston reminded the delegates. “It came
because our forefathers spent years in prison in World War Ⅰ.”
The World Peace Tax Fund resolution, which supports legislation to allow
people to resist war taxes without breaking the law, passed later in the
evening by voice vote without audible opposition. Most of the
U.S. district
conferences had already adopted resolutions supporting the proposed
legislation.
In a way, this was more of a triumph than a defeat for the promoters of war tax
resistance. If the triennium had voted the other way, one employee, and maybe a
handful more, would have benefited somewhat from the new policy. But by voting
this way, the triennium prompted discussions in every Mennonite congregation
about whether or not war tax resistance was the right thing to do.
There was… lengthy deliberation about the midtriennium civil disobedience
conference called for by a Bluffton resolution. One of the main concerns was
whether Canadian churches would see the issue of civil disobedience and war
tax as relevant to them. Would they send delegates? Another worry was whether
delegates would carry a large number of proxy votes. The constitution of the
General Conference allows for a quorum with 50 percent representation, and
since one delegate can carry up to twenty-five votes by proxy, it would be
possible for forty persons to make a decision affecting the whole conference.
About 1,000 votes are needed for a quorum.
The hope was expressed that the study process being initiated would create
good interest and also broadly based, informed representation. Beginning in
an attitudinal survey on civil
disobedience is scheduled. A study guide is to be ready by
for use in Sunday school
sessions and other study groups. A definite place and time for the
midtriennium conference will be decided later, though
is a strong
possibility.
Already the executive committee is faced with a question of civil
disobedience. Only a few days prior to the meeting the Newton office received
notice from the Internal Revenue Service of the United States to pay personal
income taxes owed by Heinz Janzen (general secretary) and his wife, Dorothea
Janzen. Since Heinz is ordained, it is legal for him to categorize himself as
self-employed, and hence, his salary check from the General Conference has no
income tax deductions. he has
been refusing to pay the military portion of his income tax, placing it in a
bank account, and informing the
IRS of
his reasons.
Until this levy arrived the
IRS has
simply confiscated the bank accounts of such persons and withdrawn the unpaid
portion from the accounts. Now the
IRS has
demanded that the General Conference employer be responsible for paying
Heinz’s unpaid tax out of Heinz’s salary check.
The executive committee decided to delay a decision on the
IRS
levy until the meeting of the
General Board. They were concerned that any action in the current case is not
to be seen as a predetermination of the issues which by Bluffton conference
resolution are to come before the midtriennial conference. They did, however,
see the levy as different from the request of General Conference employee
Cornelia Lehn to have the military portion of her tax not withheld from her
salary check by the General Conference. The Janzen case is seen as civil
disobedience by individuals and not by the incorporated body, the General
Conference.
There was also coverage of war tax resistance in The
Mennonite that was unconnected, or largely so, with the tussle over
withholding from Conference employees.
A letter to the editor declared
the writer “fascinated by the views on tax payment… when Jesus made a fairly
clear statement on that subject almost 2,000 years ago.” In his mind,
Americans’ high earnings relative to those of citizens of other countries are
due to the actions of the American government, so “in a way our earnings are
Caesar’s to start with.”
Carl Lehman penned a third in his series of patiently exasperated essays arguing against war tax resistance.
He reiterates his assertion that there are no “war taxes” — no tax whose
proceeds are devoted solely to military expenses. And he says that the common
practice of refusing to pay a percentage of your income tax that is equivalent
to the percent of the federal budget devoted to military expenses doesn’t make
much sense when you hold it up to scrutiny. There’s little to suggest that
withholding some number of dollars from the government is going to mean even a
dime less will be spent on the military. Bothering
IRS
agents, who don’t set government spending policy, is pointlessly annoying.
Furthermore he wanted it known that Mennonites like him who oppose war tax
resistance are also being conscientious, and should not be asked to violate
their consciences.
[T]he center of my using this method of resisting is the opportunity present
to witness to many individuals and groups about my feelings around peace
issues. My tax resistance brings my convictions into the awareness of a much
wider forum of my fellows than just the
IRS;
many facets of my life are touched and opened to people not otherwise thinking
of how much we allow ourselves to be used by the government to do evil.
She gave several examples: her employers at a Lutheran church who ultimately
decided to stop withholding taxes from her salary, a real estate agent who
learned of a federal tax lien against her, the officers of a bank who refused
her a loan because of that lien,
IRS
agents who came to seize her car.
Eric Coursey was even more fed up than Lehman.
Just look at the darned Bible, he wrote.
He gave the by-now-familiar tour of
Romans 13,
Matthew 17,
Matthew 22,
and so forth, and accused those who weren’t willing to go along with his
interpretation of those verses of preferring modern cultural trends to the Word
of God.
Harold R. Regier, the Commission on Home Ministries secretary for peace and
social concerns, had
an
op-ed in the edition on
the social responsibilities of Christians. At first he struck a tone that
harmonized with Coursey’s complaint: “Too often we buckle under the heresy some
call ‘civil religion.’ Social, political, and economic values determine the
shape of our faith. The world presses us into its mold.” But rather than
counseling obedience, as Coursey did, he counseled “prophetic witness,” and
gave this example:
On , the judgment of a
U.S. tax court
ruled that the levying of taxes for war purposes does not interfere with the
individual’s free exercise of religion. If religion means only to worship
together in a building or only to relate your personal self to God, then
paying military taxes is no violation of religion. But if our religion moves
us from the pew to see our neighbors as part of God’s world, then that court
couldn’t be more wrong.
Some overdue skepticism about the World Peace Tax Fund act started to surface
in the pages of The Mennonite in
too.
This brief note
comes from the edition:
Objections to the World Peace Tax Fund Act were stated in the first prize
essay of the C. Henry Smith Peace Oratorical Contest. Winner Phil M. Shenk,
student at Eastern Mennonite College, Harrisonburg, Virginia, points out that
the fund would not reduce the military budget and may lull the consciences of
nonresistant persons, diluting “the church’s prophetic voice against the
world’s ungodly love for war.” The fund is a proposal in the
U.S. Congress in
which conscientious objectors could designate their federal income, estate,
and gift taxes for a special fund devoted to nonmilitary purposes.
An article by Shenk followed, in the edition:
Mennonite church bodies are officially recognizing the World Peace Tax Fund
(WPTF) as an
attractive option for a peace witness. Yet, is the
WPTF a
biblically faithful response to a war-mongering world? Does it fit the nature
of Christ’s gospel?
The WPTF
would change the Internal Revenue Code, allowing conscientious objectors to
channel the military portion of their federal income, estate, and gift taxes
to a special fund devoted to “nonmilitary purposes.” But here, as in
conscription, does the legitimization of objection to war strengthen the
protest or does it mortally wound personal conviction and severely weaken
social impact?
The church confronts a world at odds with its values. The world values its
military budgets. The polaric opposite of this value system is found in the
love of Christ which prioritizes life. Because of Christ’s spirit of love, the
church’s whole mission must call the world to change its doom-full directions
away from death into life. This is a call to salvation, and, Andre Trocme
declares, it is a “doctrine applicable to a society, as well as to an
individual.”
The character of this salvation is found in the suffering-servant nature of
the Savior. Christ did not withdraw in the face of suffering. He purposefully
rejected the temptation to create an insulated life and instead faithfully
extended his life and values among people who finally killed him for it. Today
we call this agape or self-giving love. Agape finds its sole justification in
the revelation of God as interpreted in Scripture.
The WPTF
concept, on the other hand, appears to rely heavily on the state-decreed right
of the individual to the free exercise of religion. By offering the
opportunity to avoid financial participation in war, the state claims to
respect the consciences of those persons opposing war. But what exactly is
being respected here? Does this conscience have only to do with individual
personal values, or does its sphere of influence penetrate the social realm as
well? The latter is a political challenge.
The WPTF
obviously would strengthen official respect for the personal consciences of
those persons opposed to financial participation in war. But what impact would
the WPTF
have on the social consciences of persons opposed to war? Might it not tend to
dilute the church’s prophetic voice against the world’s ungodly love for war?
The early church was seduced by the Roman emperor Constantine’s legalization
of the church. Its strength was sapped; its faith made tolerant by tolerance.
Official recognition of the church was fourth-century doublespeak for
subsuming it within the state’s umbrella of political support, itemization,
and diluted plurality.
The Mennonite church has been aptly characterized as the “quiet in the land,”
and more recently, the “silent in the suburbs.” We would do well to critically
look at how special legal exemptions in the past have influenced our
convictions against war. Special niches tend to foster reclusive passivity.
The objection could be raised that the
WPTF is an
act of positive involvement instead of an act of withdrawal. It diverts tax
monies into peace-promoting activities. Just as doing voluntary service is
seen as more constructive than sitting in jail, the legal alternative in the
WPTF is
taken to be more responsible than tax resistance. But is this really true? I
think not.
The church’s faithful response would include both positive action and negative
protest. What if the draft-age persons illegally refused to comply with the
draft while nondraftable brothers and sisters voluntarily furthered peace
positively in voluntary service? Is this not a more balanced peace agenda for
the church? Similarly, though the war tax issue hits all wage earners, the
current high standard of living allows the church to do both again — protest
by refusing to pay war taxes and at the same time promote peace positively by
giving time and money to peace projects.
It is vain thinking to proffer the
WPTF as a
way to reduce the military budget. The military will get its money anyway, as
long as the majority of people are oblivious of the inhumanness and
ungodliness of killing. It is imperative that the strongest most diligent
efforts of protest be maintained, even when confronted with an unbelieving and
hostile generation. Though affirmed years ago, Tertullian’s words still ring
true: “The blood of martyrs is seed.”
What resources then does the church have to protest with? I cannot improve on
John Howard Yoder when he says that at times “the most effective way to take
responsibility is to refuse to collaborate… This refusal is not a withdrawal
from society. It is rather a major negative intervention within the process of
social change, a refusal to use unworthy means even for what seems to be a
worthy end.”
Thus, as an alternative to the
WPTF, I
submit simple yet active tax resistance as the best, most faithful way in
which the church can witness to society on war taxes. True, the money will be
eventually taken by the Internal Revenue Service and the military, yet not
without sparking some public interest and provoking numerous forums in which
to voice one’s concern.
Worldly priorities must be objected to in word and deed. If the objecting
deeds are performed legally, they register little if any protest. If
consciously illegal, they register an unequivocal refusal to agree with the
world’s values. The latter gets the attention of the state, the former does
not.
Simple tax resistance would free the church to spend its energies calling the
whole world to salvation rather than saving just itself.
The church’s “in-ness” but “not-of-ness” demands that it be actively concerned
about the nonchurched world. Christ as Lord is subject to no other authority.
Because of this, the church’s most crucial task is to prophetically and
faithfully enact and promote Christ’s values in life without regard for
political limitations or definitions. The politics of Jesus are not those of
compromise, but those of dogged, active, and consistent faithfulness.
