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.
Marge Roberts responded. For her, war tax resistance was at its core an outreach tool:
[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.
Finally, the edition included a brief note about Margaret and Weldon Nisly who were withholding the federal excise tax on their phone service and sending the money to charity.
