Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” → Brethren → Arlene & Cliff Kindy

This is the twentieth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.

In 1979, the Mennonite Church had the luxury of being by-standers as the General Conference Mennonite Church wrestled with the war tax issue, and in particular about whether to continue to withhold income taxes from the salaries of their employees who were conscientious objectors to military taxation (the Mennonite Church would get its own chance to wrestle with these issues a bit later on), at a special mid-triennium conference on the issue. Meanwhile, disgruntled conservative Mennonites met at the Smoketown Consultation, Peace Tax Fund advocates ramped up their campaign, and the New Call to Peacemaking pushed the Peace Churches to step up their game.

As a result, there was a plethora of war tax resistance-related content in Gospel Herald that year.

The 2 January 1979 issue of Gospel Herald quoted Don Kaufman on the war tax problem:

“The federal income tax is the chief link connecting each individual’s daily labor with the tremendous buildup for war,” Donald D. Kaufman observes in his new book, The Tax Dilemma: Praying for Peace, Paying for War (Herald Press: 1978). “Preoccupied as some citizens are with paying too much tax, I suggest that the crucial issue has to do with the purpose for which tax monies are used,” Kaufman maintains. “While a young person can be exempted from personally serving in the Armed Forces, no one is easily exempted from making contributions to the military leviathan.” In his book, Kaufman considers issue of the two kingdoms. After a brief examination of the biblical background, he traces the history of conscientious objection to war taxes. He discusses a dozen viable options which concerned Christians can use “to register our faithfulness to Jesus Christ as Lord and our opposition to corporate war making by the state within which we live.”

“The Bulletin of the Mennonite Biblical Seminaries” which was included as a January 1979 supplement, announced that Henry Poettcker would be the new president of Mennonite Biblical Seminary:

[W]hat words can we say to our brother in his new responsibilities? Lawrence Burkholder last June in the consultation on taxes and war initiated an intriguing discussion on the manager (or the administrator) and the prophet and corporate responsibility. He observed that with only a few incidental references, "the Bible is almost solidly against those who assumed responsibility for institutional life" (a distressing word for a biblical scholar on his inauguration).

At the February 1979 meeting of the Mennonite Board of Missions, it became clear that Mennonite Church agencies would also have to deal with the tax withholding question that was roiling the General Conference Mennonite Church:

Ray Horst reported that two staff members have said they would want to consider a personal response on war taxes should Mennonite Board of Missions seek alternatives to such withholdings. The directors acted to continue discussions with other Mennonite groups and Mennonite Church agencies on the war tax question.

In the 13 March 1979 issue, Carl Kreider offered simple living and charitable giving as war tax resistance techniques:

How to save taxes.

There has been much discussion about the appropriateness of paying for war as we pray for peace. Some have sought ways in which they can refuse to pay federal income taxes and thus give a concrete witness against the militarism which plagues the U.S. and many other countries of the world — even, alas, poor countries.
The focus on income taxes may obscure the fact that there are many other federal taxes which are also used to support the national defense establishment. In fact, in fiscal 1979 the personal income tax provided only about one half of the non-trust fund U.S. federal revenue. The other half came from a variety of sources such as the corporation income tax, excise taxes (on many items such as telephone service, air travel, automobile tires, gasoline, and especially alcohol and tobacco), estate and gift taxes, and customs duties.
Can we avoid paying these taxes? Not completely, but we can reduce the amount we pay by the simple device of not buying at all the things which are harmful and by reducing our expenditures for all other items by holding down our standard of living. The United States tax law is very generous in allowing deductions for making contributions to churches and charitable institutions. (The Canadian law is less generous.) Up to 50 percent of income may be deducted.
These charitable gifts will first of all reduce sharply the amount of federal income tax we pay — in some cases even avoiding the tax completely. But in the second place, since the gift to charity will reduce our remaining disposable income we will have reduced our standard of living and thus will have to pay less of the hidden taxes which also support the defense establishment. The corporation income tax, for example, is one third the size of the personal income tax.
Although the check to pay the corporation income tax is sent to the government by the corporation, rest assured the corporation will, if they possibly can, pass on the tax to the consumer in the form of higher prices for the things the corporation sells. If we don’t buy the product, we aren’t paying this tax.
Reducing our standard of living as a means of avoiding federal taxes has an important additional benefit. It is a powerful witness that we are disturbed by the disparities in wealth and income throughout the world. Our lives should demonstrate that we can get along without buying the multitude of things an affluent America deems important.

A report on an April 15 protest at Titan Ⅱ missile base noted that “Also scheduled for the same day will be a nonviolent protest at the Wichita offices of the Internal Revenue Service, designed to draw attention to tax money being used for military expenditures…” And a separate report on a protest at Rocky Flats said that “On Apr. 16, tax resisters made statements about their refusal to pay for war in a press conference outside the IRS office.”

The 17 April 1979 issue brought news of the Quaker war tax resisters Bruce & Ruth Graves’ court battle:

Quaker couple billed for tax not owed

A Quaker couple from Ypsilanti, Michigan, attempted to claim a “war tax” credit on federal income tax returns, but has lost an unusual case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Associated Press reports. The court left intact lower court rulings that Bruce and Ruth Graves, as conscientious objectors, may not claim such a credit. The couple had sought a refund of the portion of their taxes used for war materials.
Since 1973, the Graves have converted the “foreign tax credit” on their federal tax forms to a “war tax credit” and entered only 50 percent to the income tax otherwise due. Each year they have asked a refund but not received it. So after failing to get the couple to sign corrected tax statements, the government initiated action to collect the “deficiency” even though it had already collected the correct amount. The appeal argued that the government’ s action violated the Graves’ constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Catholic priest John M. Garvey also fought the law and the law won, a bit. The 15 May 1979 Gospel Herald had the scoop:

Priest who refused to pay taxes has to get around without a car

Father John M. Garvey gave up his car for Lent. Actually, the Internal Revenue Service hauled it away on Ash Wednesday. It now sits amid big, drab army trucks behind a fence topped with barbed wire 20 miles away in Mobridge, S.D. It is there because the Roman Catholic priest has not paid income taxes as a protest against military spending and the federal government’s treatment of Indian people.
Without a car on the South Dakota prairie, the priest has been walking more, hitchhiking, and riding buses. “It’s been inconvenient,” he said, and when he does he gets some puzzled looks. “But it’s no big dramatic thing. I’m not standing out there shivering to death.”

John K. Stoner, in the 29 May 1979 issue, imagined the conversation between a taxpayer and his or her Maker in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust:

There was a blinding flash of light, an explosion like the bursting of a million bombs, and in an instant everything was burning in a huge ball of fire.
The first time it was the Flood.
But next time the fire… It was the End.
Afterward a prominent evangelical leader was being quizzed by his Maker.
“You say you were taken by surprise. But didn’t you know it might happen?”
“Well, yes, Sir. I guess I did, Sir. But You see, Sir, they…”
“Wasn’t anybody talking about the fantastic risks involved? But not risks really. It was a certainty. As predictable as death and taxes.”
“Well, Sir, I can see it now. But hindsight is always better…”
“What do you mean, hindsight? Couldn’t you discern the signs of the times?”
“Well, Sir, we were kind of busy…”
“Doing what?”
“Well, Sir, some of us were searching for remnants of Noah’s Ark. We thought if we found it maybe they would believe in You…”
“But surely you weren’t all hunting Noah’s Ark?”
“Well, Sir, not exactly. But a lot of people who weren’t hunting it were watching movies about the search. And then we were busy defending the Bible.”
“Why didn’t you know it was going to happen? Surely there were people warning you. In fact, I had assigned a few Myself to sound the alarm.”
“Well, Sir, You see, Sir, those people… I don’t know quite how to say this… er… they didn’t believe the way we… er… I mean I…”
“Did you think you could go on building three more bombs a day forever and not blow things up?
“Well, Sir, You see, I thought You would look after those things. I didn’t think it would happen unless You wanted.
“Women nursing infant babies? Children swinging on the side porch, playing in the lawn sprinkler? An old man reading his Bible? Millions of people, burned up?”
“Well, sir, in retrospect it does look rather overwhelming. I’m not sure it was really fair. But then, things were getting rather bad, what with communism, homosexuality, welfare, big government, pollution…”
“And capitalism, national security, the good life, nuclear deterrence.”
“Well, Sir, I hadn’t thought of those things as…”
“Why not?”
“Well, Sir, You see, the people who talked about those things were not… er… Bible believing. As an example, they talked about resisting war taxes, even though the Bible says, ‘Render unto Caesar…’. Things like that…”
“You paid your taxes?”
“Well, Sir, yes, Sir, I did.”
“Every penny?”
“I think so, Sir.”
“Are you saying that I am responsible for this fire and your tax dollars were not?”
“Well, Sir, I… er…”
“Next!”

Allan W. Smith responded in a letter to the editor, saying that Christians should beware of inadvertently putting themselves under an Antichrist who promises worldly peace at the expense of abandoning Biblical truth:

In Stoner’s depiction of the scene of judgment day, it is to be observed that Jesus dictum, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” is contradicted. It is not to be supposed that Jesus and Paul, who both told people to pay their taxes, were ignorant of the way that Rome got and held its power. Taxes are, after all, not freewill gifts to the state, and we may well be grieved with the way the state uses them. However, we must all live by our Word-enlightened consciences.

In July 1979, the General Board of the Mennonite Church met. Gospel Herald reported:

A proposed Mennonite Church statement on militarism and conscription, originally drafted by MBCM staff members Hubert Schwartzentruber and Gordon Zook in consultation with several other persons, was presented. The Board gave the statement extensive discussion and some refinement, and unanimously approved the document for submission as a recommendation from MBCM to the General Board for presentation to the 1979 Mennonite Church General Assembly. The statement contains sections on peace and obedience, use of material resources, Christian service and conscription, and militarism and taxation.

That article also noted that the Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries met and approved a “task force to represent the Mennonite Church in cooperation with the General Conference Mennonite Church committee on conscientious objection and tax exemption.”

Hubert Schwartzentruber gave the keynote address at the 2–4 August 1979 Allegheny Conference annual meeting:

Sensing the radical nature of his comments on the theme, “The Way of Peace,” Schwartzentruber said that he could be taken to jail if he put into action his beliefs on such issues as war taxes and conscription. If he had to go to jail, he said, it would be easier to go with brothers and sisters in the faith. Peacemaking is the way of Jesus, but it has to be the work of the church and not of individuals alone, he said.

Representatives of the Mennonite Church gathered in Waterloo, 11–16 August 1979, and war tax resistance was on the agenda but was overshadowed by other concerns about draft registration:

Debate over the proposed statement on militarism and conscription was centered in two subpoints. One counseled Mennonites not to comply with any military registration law that might be passed by the U.S. Congress if the Department of Defense and not civilians would be responsible for the registration program. The other point counseled administrators of church schools not to comply with any legislation which might be passed that would require them to provide information about their students for purposes of registration.
Noting that passage of any such registration bill is very much in doubt, Linden Wenger, Harrisonburg, Va., told fellow delegates, “It seems to me we’re being a bit premature in making an issue of these two items.” Wenger also said that he “will not hinge my decision” on whether to support compliance with a registration law on whether it is administered by civilian or military personnel.
Other delegates, including John E. Lapp of Souderton, Pa., responded that it was important that the items in question not be deleted.
In the amended statement which was finally approved, the two items were combined and weakened slightly, but were retained. A subpoint urging “careful biblical study” on the issue of war tax payment was added. In addition, the statement was upgraded from “guidelines” to a full statement of position.

The eventual statement on militarism and conscription that came out of the Waterloo conference on 16 August 1979 was reprinted in Gospel Herald. It included the following section:

On militarism and taxation

We recognize that today’s militarism expresses itself more and more through expensive and highly technical weaponry and that such equipment is dependent upon financial resources conscripted from citizens through taxation. Therefore,

We encourage our members to pursue a lifestyle which minimizes such tax liability through reduction of taxable income and/or increase of tax deductible contributions for the advancement of the gospel and the relief of human suffering.

We endorse efforts in support of legislation which would provide alternative uses for taxes, paid by conscientious objectors to war, which would otherwise be devoted to military purposes.

We encourage our congregations to engage in careful biblical study regarding Christian responsibility to civil authorities including issues of conscience in relation to payment of taxes.

We recognize as a valid witness the conscientious refusal to pay a portion of taxes required for war and military efforts. Such refusal, however, may not be pursued in a spirit of lawlessness nor for personal advantage but may be an occasion for constructive response to human need.

We encourage our congregations and institutions to seek relief from the current legal requirement of collecting taxes through the withholding of income taxes of employees, especially those taxes which may be used for war purposes. In this effort we endorse cooperation with the General Conference Mennonite Church in the current search for judicial, legislative, and administrative alternatives to the collection of military-related taxes. In the meantime if congregational or institutional employers are led to noncompliance with the requirement to withhold such taxes, we pledge our support for those representatives of the church who may be called to account for such a witness.

On 20 September 1979, Robert C. Johansen (“president of the Institute for World Order”) spoke at Goshen College and boosted war tax resistance:

Johansen encouraged his listeners to become part of a “new breed of abolitionists,” to take a more active stance, even if this included refusing to pay war taxes and refusing to be drafted. He reminded his audience that those in opposition to slavery had also defied the law in order to bring about change.

Gordon Zook, in the 2 October 1979 issue, wrote that the whole economy was distorted towards militarism, and took a sort of sideways look at tax resistance in that context:

One current issue of obedience is the militaristic mentality which keeps producing new weapons systems at the expense of basic human needs. So much of North American “abundance” results from the distorted values and priorities of our militaristic economy. Many are wondering, how to repent of such involvements including questions of responsibility for the use of tax revenues.

In the same issue, John K. Stoner was back to urge conscientious objection to nuclear deterrence which necessarily meant action before the nuclear war, not just options to be held in reserve for after the war started:

Mennonites who believe that the Bible teaches conscientious objection to military service should also be conscientious objectors to the concept and practice of nuclear deterrence. We have expressed conscientious objection to military service by refusing military service, whether by refusing to put on the military uniform, going to prison, doing alternate service, or emigrating. We should express our Conscientious objection to the concept and practice of nuclear deterrence by publicly rejecting the myth of nuclear deterrence, denouncing the idolatry of nuclear weapons, refusing to pay war taxes, and identifying with resistance to the nuclear madness.
Mennonites should do this because the concept and practice of nuclear deterrence is a form of military service in which the entire population has been conscripted. The concept of nuclear deterrence epitomizes the spirit of war. The practice of nuclear deterrence is to war what lust is to adultery, and whoever engages freely in lust should not consider himself innocent of adultery. As E.I. Watkin has said, it cannot “be morally right to threaten immoral conduct.” To plan and prepare for the annihilation of millions of people is a culpable act in the extreme, and whoever does not deliberately and explicitly repudiate the concept and practice of nuclear deterrence participates in the act.

The Catholic peace group Pax Christi wanted in on the war tax resistance action according to this report of their October 1979 convention:

The U.S. branch of the international Roman Catholic peace movement, Pax Christi USA, initiated informal contacts with General Conference Mennonite peace spokespersons Oct. 12–14. Rural Benedictine College at Atchison, Kan., provided the setting for the sixth annual convention of Pax Christi USA, at which Mennonites Bob Hull and Don Kaufman of Newton, Kan., led a workshop on tax resistance and the World Peace Tax Fund Act. Interest in this was strong. About 40 persons, including some tax resisters, participated. In a private meeting with Sister Man Evelyn Jegen, executive secretary of Pax Christi USA, and Gordon Zahn, a Catholic conscientious objector in World War Ⅱ, Hull, Kaufman, and William Keeney of Bethel College, North Newton, Kan., explained the General Conference Mennonite Church resolution on war taxes. Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section’s Christian Peacemaker Registration form received active interest at the convention, particularly during a workshop on “Militarism in Education.” The possible resumption of registration and perhaps the draft in the U.S. is stimulating regional Pax Christi groups to promote conscientious objection to war by Catholic youth.

The 23 October 1979 issue noted that “MCC Peace Section (U.S.) is sponsoring a speakers bureau… to promote support of the World Peace Tax Fund among U.S. Mennonites and to be supportive of persons and groups who refuse to pay taxes used for military purposes.” The article included a list of speakers with their addresses and phone numbers, in case you’d like to track down some of the people involved back then.

When the MCC Peace Section (U.S.) met around the end of November, war tax resistance was on the agenda:

Resolutions concerning the Iranian-U.S. crisis, SALT Ⅱ, and the proposed World Peace Tax Fund were passed at the fall meeting of Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section (U.S.), Nov. 30–Dec. 1 at Akron, Pa.
Section members also agreed to postpone a decision on a resolution to support war tax resistance campaign until they could have further dialogue with constituent members…

The World Peace Tax Fund (WPTF) bill now before Congress also received an endorsement from the Peace section group. The bill would provide a legal means for conscientious objectors to channel the portion of their tax dollar which now goes for the military budget to be used in a special fund for projects to promote world peace.
The section said in resolution “that it is conscious that the WPTF legislation might not in itself force a significant reduction in military spending, but it recognizes that it would provide funds for peacemaking efforts and would be a witness against military spending. The section continues to support other forms of witness against military spending, including persons who refuse to pay war taxes.”
Although Peace Section has given staff time to the promotion of a better understanding of WPTF in its constituency, it had not before been a formal sponsor of the bill.
Peace Section has also established a bureau of Christian speakers available to address congregations and other groups concerning WPTF.

On 3 December 1979, a Mennonite war tax resister was convicted of tax evasion. I found it interesting that the prosecutor attacked Chrisman’s acts on scriptural grounds:

Federal court convicts Mennonite in Illinois war tax resistance case

Bruce Chrisman, 30-year-old General Conference Mennonite, was convicted on Dec. 3 by U.S. District Court in Springfield, Ill., of federal income tax evasion.
Chrisman, who lives in Ava in southern Illinois, was charged with failing to file a tax return in 1975. Actually Chrisman did file a return in 1975 and other years for which the government said he failed to file. But the returns did not contain the financial data the Internal Revenue Service contends constitutes a legal tax return.
Chrisman attached letters to his returns saying he objected on religious and moral grounds to paying taxes that support the U.S. military. His defense lawyers said the government had to prove that he “willfully” failed to file a return — that he knew what the statute required and purposefully decided not to comply.
At a three-day criminal trial Chrisman said, “The returns I filed with the IRS were in accordance with the dictates of my conscience and religious beliefs and the IRS code.”
He testified that his father never hit him and that “guns, even cap guns, were never allowed in our home.”
The prosecuting attorney read Romans 13, Luke 20:20–26, and Matthew 17:24–27 and asked Chrisman, “Don’t you believe in the Bible? Doesn’t it state here you should pay taxes?”
Chrisman said, “The government is not the supreme authority in my life, but Jesus Christ is.”
In the closing arguments to the jury the prosecution said Chrisman’s “joy” and “peaceful composure” exposed his lack of deeply held religious beliefs.
James Dunn, Mennonite pastor in Urbana, Ill., observed the trial. He said evidence of Chrisman’s character and of his pacifism were not allowed as testimony by the judge, J. Waldo Ackerman.
During the pretrial hearings, Ackerman allowed Robert Hull, secretary for peace and social concerns of the General Conference Mennonite Church, and Peter Ediger, director of Mennonite Voluntary Service, to testify about Mennonite witness against war and conscription of persons and money for war purposes. But the testimony was disallowed at the trial.
One of Chrisman’s attorneys, Jeffrey Weiss, in addressing the 12-member jury, argued that Chrisman’s religious beliefs and his conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War should exempt him from paying that portion of his federal income tax that supports the military. “He did not try to hide behind the shield of religion to rip off the government but honestly believes he is exercising his constitutional rights to religion.” he said.
Chrisman, married, with a two-year-old daughter, faces up to one year in prison and a $10,000 fine The verdict will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago.

A pair of articles advertised seminar on war tax resistance that would be held at Laurelville Mennonite Church Center in December:

Does Caesar ask for only what belongs to him? Should there be a Mennonite consensus on paying or not paying war taxes? These and related questions will be the agenda for a seminar at Laurelville Church Center, Dec. 14–16. The seminar is entitled “War Taxes: to Pay or Not to Pay?” It is jointly sponsored by the Church Center and Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section. Persons on both sides of the issue are encouraged to participate. More information is available from Laurelville Mennonite Church Center…

“War Taxes: To Pay or Not to Pay?” is the title of a Dec. 14–16 seminar cosponsored by MCC Peace Section and Laurelville Mennonite Church Center. Persons on all sides of the issue are encouraged to participate as such questions will be raised as: What belongs to Caesar and what to God? What are these taxes buying? What are the alternatives? More information is available from Laurelville Mennonite Church Center…

The GCMC Mid-Triennium

This was the first Gospel Herald report from the General Conference Mennonite Church special mid-triennium conference on war taxes:

Meeting shows diversity of views on militarism

Debate was vigorous and heated as more than 500 delegates from the General Conference Mennonite Church and some 200 visitors met Feb. 9 and 10 to discuss how Christians should respond to the nuclear threat and to massive expenditures for defense. War tax resistance, or the refusal to pay for the military portion of the federal budget, was among possible responses discussed at the meeting, held in Minneapolis.
A few delegates present at the first day of the conference said the church should not act as tax collector for the state through withholding taxes from employees’ paychecks. But most of the delegates present the first day said that while they were troubled by worldwide military expenditures of over one billion dollars daily, the church as a corporate body should not engage in illegal activity in its witness against war preparations. Instead, speakers urged alternatives such as pressuring congressional representatives to reduce defense expenditures, eliminate the arms trade, and to increase aid and trade to Third World countries. A few observed that Mennonites contribute to the disparity in living standards around the world through their affluent lifestyle.
A sentiment often expressed, however, was that the church, while avoiding illegal actions, should actively support its members who engage in civil disobedience on the basis of conscience.
Roy Vogt, economics professor from Winnipeg, Manitoba, berated the assembly for loading the responsibility for witness upon isolated individuals. “It is morally reprehensible,” he said, “to give only moral support. We must provide financial and legal support for those prophets who have arisen from our middle-class ranks.”
In contrast to the social activists at the conference are Mennonites like Dan Dalke, pastor from Bluffton, Ohio, who castigated the social activists for making pacifism a religion. “We will never create a Utopia,” he said. “Jesus didn’t come to clean up social issues. Our job is to evangelize the world. A peace witness is secondary.”
Some of the statements were personal. A businessman confessed that while he could easily withhold paying military taxes on the basis of conscience, he was frightened. “I am scared of being different, of being embarrassed, of being alienated from my community. Unless I get support from the Mennonite church, I will keep paying taxes.”
Alvin Beachy of Newton, Kan., said the church seemed to be shifting from a quest to being faithful to the gospel to being legal before the government. Echoing this view, J.R. Burkholder of Goshen, Ind., said, “The question is not who is most faithful, but what does it mean to be faithful?”

A follow-up article in the 6 March 1979 issue filled in some blanks:

Church should not act as tax collector

General Conference Mennonites voted today to launch a vigorous campaign to exempt the church from acting as a tax collector for the state.
Five-hundred delegates, representing 60,000 Mennonites in Canada and the U.S. passed the resolution by a nine to one margin. Charged with responsibility to implement the decision is the highest policy-making body of the General Conference Mennonite Church, the General Board.
Heinz Janzen, executive secretary for the denomination, said the decision will increase political activism among Mennonites, a group which has traditionally kept distant from legislative activities.
Delegates met Feb. 9–10 in a special conference to discern the will of God for Christians in their response to militarism and the worldwide arms race.
Some Mennonites are practicing war tax resistance — the refusal to pay the military portion of federal income tax. This was a central focus of debate during the two days because one of the employees of the General Conference has asked the church to stop withholding war taxes from her wages. In 1977, Cornelia Lehn, who is director of children’s education, made the request on grounds of conscience. Her request was refused by the General Board because it would be illegal for an employer to not act as a tax collector for the Internal Revenue Service.
Although delegates to this convention affirmed that decision, they instructed the General Board to vigorously search for legal avenues to exempt the church from collecting taxes. In that way individuals employed by the church would be free to follow their own conscience.
The campaign to obtain legal conscientious objection to war taxes will last three years. If fruitless the question is to be brought back to another meeting of the church.
Activists in the church were not completely satisfied with the decision. They would prefer that Cornelia Lehn’s request be granted. These delegates spoke for an early First Amendment test of the constitutionality of the church being compelled to act as a tax collector.
Nevertheless, Donovan Smucker, vice-president of the General Conference and from Kitchener, Ont., said of the decision, “Something wonderful is happening. We are beginning to bring our witness to the political order.”
Vernon Lohrenz, a delegate from South Dakota, observed, “We must proceed in faith, and not in fear. If this is the right thing to do, God will take care of us.”
From the discussions on taxation, it seemed the issue will not easily be resolved.

The 21 August 1979 issue gave an update on how the General Conference Mennonite Church was progressing on the goals it had set for itself:

Slow progress reported by task force on taxes

Implementing the decision of the General Conference Mennonite Church “war tax” conference in Minneapolis last February has not been easy.
The Minneapolis resolution mandated a task force on taxes to seek “all legal, legislative, and administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector exemption” for the General Conference Mennonite Church from the withholding of federal income taxes from its employees. (About 46 percent of U.S. federal taxes are used for the military.)
Two meetings of the task force have been held. The task force has been expanded to include representation from the Church of the Brethren, the Friends, and the Mennonite Church. This group of 11 is expected by the participating churches to establish the legal, legislative, and administrative agenda of a corporate discipleship response to military taxes.
At their second meeting (June 28–29) the task force members rejected administrative avenues. Within the scope of U.S. Internal Revenue Service or Revenue Canada regulations, this would involve extending ordination, commissioning, or licensing status to all employees of church institutions. It was a consensus of the task force that this would be an administrative loophole. It would not develop a conscientious objector position in response to military taxes.
However, both the judicial and legislative options will be pursued simultaneously. Plans for the legislative option are the more developed.
For the legislative route to work, says Delton Franz, director of the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section office in Washington, D.C., the problem of conscience and taxes will have to be defined carefully. Currently a paper focusing on the reasons the General Conference has a major problem of conscience with collecting taxes from its employees is being drafted. After it has been reviewed, it will be sent along with cover letters by leaders of the historic peace churches to members of Congress who represent major constituency concentrations or sit on key subcommittees. Later on, church members will also be asked to write letters. It is important, says Franz, to define the problem of conscience in such a way that it will motivate Senators and Representatives to work vigorously for the bill.
Another follow-up to these initiatives will be a visit to Washington of the most influential peace church leaders to solicit support from selected members of Congress and to obtain a sponsor for an exemption bill.
There is a possibility that a parallel task force will emerge in Canada. Ernie Regehr, director of Project Ploughshares, Waterloo, Ont., notes the necessity of defining the question of militarism in Canadian terms for Canadians; for example, arms export revenues. Regehr in attempting to gather a Canadian task force. Heinz Janzen, general secretary of the General Conference Mennonite Church, is convener of the war tax expanded task force. Mennonite Church members are Winifred Beechy, secretary for peace and social concerns under the Board of Congregational Ministries; Janet Reedy, member of the Mennonite Church committee on tax concerns; and Gordon Zook, executive secretary of the Board of Congregational Ministries.

A New Call to Peacemaking

The “New Call to Peacemaking” campaign continued. Another conference was announced for March 1979:

Saturday workshops will deal with conflict resolution, tax resistance and the World Peace Tax Fund, economic conversion and the arms race, and resources for peace education.

Organizers of the Peace Tax Fund legislation campaign took heart:

Campaign organizers assert that interest in the “issue of conscience and war taxes” has been growing recently. It was given a “high priority” by the New Call to Peacemaking national conference last October in Wisconsin.

Results of the conference (which had apparently been pushed back a few weeks) were reported by Winifred N. Beechy:

More war-tax opposition

A group of 30 to 40 church people met on Saturday, Mar. 24, at City Church of the Brethren, Goshen, Ind., to consider the moral dilemma faced by Christians who are opposed to war as a method of settling disputes but who involuntarily contribute to war by payment of taxes.
Participants in the one-day seminar came from 12 area congregations and represented four denominations. The focus of the meeting was on that portion of the federal income tax which goes to support the military and weapons production. This group felt that the increasing militarization of our society, the escalation of the arms race, and production of highly technological weapons of destruction posed the problem of priorities and stewardship, and the contradiction of “paying for war while praying for peace.”
Willard Swartley, professor of New Testament at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries in Elkhart, spoke on “Biblical imperatives,” emphasizing the Christian’s mandate for responsible use of the earth’s resources. Cliff Kindy of Goshen then outlined what we pay for war, giving a breakdown of the federal budget with percentages of expenditures going to current and past military and war-related items. He computed current military spending as roughly 25 to 30 percent, while a more comprehensive figure, taking into account veterans’ expenses and interest on the war-related portion of the national debt, reaches as high as 50 percent of the national budget. Kindy also estimated that members of Mennonite and Church of the Brethren churches in Elkhart County pay more for war taxes than they contribute to their churches.
A survey of the history of war tax resistance among the historic peace churches since the Reformation was presented by Leonard Gross, archivist of the Mennonite Church. Current responses to the problem of war taxes were given by a number of people. Janet Reedy of Elkhart and Jim Sweigart of Goshen discussed possible options such as refusal to pay that portion of the income tax which goes to support war, payment made with an accompanying letter or protest, or voluntarily limiting income below the level of tax liability.
Following the presentations the group broke up into three workshops for further discussion. From these emerged a consensus on the need for a continuing support group such as this. Participants expect to draft a statement which can be presented to their respective congregations for consideration.
The seminar was planned by a New Call to Peacemaking Committee made up of members from six Church of the Brethren and Mennonite Churches in Goshen, with Virgil Brenneman from The Assembly (Mennonite) serving as chairman.

And the “4^th Mid-America New Call to Peacemaking” was held in November 1979. The theme was “Conscription of Youth and Wealth”:

The workshop on national service and voluntary service discussed a proposal by members of Rainbow Boulevard Mennonite Church, Kansas City, Kan., regarding a legal tax alternative which would involve cooperating with a national service plan.
In the workshop on conscription of wealth Bob Hull, secretary for peace and social concerns of the General Conference Mennonite Church, suggested alternatives to paying war taxes. Others offered their own suggestions.
Several persons expressed the desire to pay taxes only for nonmilitary programs, and said they wished there was legal provision for this, such as the World Peace Tax Fund. McSorley, who has had contacts on Capitol Hill, responded by saying that until there is a large grass-roots movement of tax resistance the WPTF doesn’t stand a chance.
The latter half of the workshop included sharing by Bruce Chrisman, Carbondale, Ill., who is involved in a federal criminal case, one of two in the U.S. involving tax resistance. His case is significant because it will provide a precedent either for or against tax refusal on the basis of conscience and religious convictions.
In 1971 Chrisman received draft counseling from James Dunn, pastor of the Champaign-Urbana (Ill.) Mennonite Church. He made a covenant with God to only pay taxes for humanitarian purposes. Since that time he has paid no federal income taxes.
It wasn’t until this year, however, that the government prosecuted him, charging that he willfully failed to disclose his gross income in 1975. “Willful” is the key term, because Chrisman claims he conscientiously chose not to disclose his income. He feels the government has purposely waited to build its case.
In the conclusion to his talk Chrisman said that when he first appeared in court on Oct. 1 this year he was “scared to death.” “Today,” he said, “I have no fear in me. God has given me an inner peace. I know I’m doing what He wants me to do.”

The Smoketown Consultation

The Gospel Herald covered “the Smoketown Consultation” of 10–11 July 1979, in which conservative Mennonites organized against innovations like war tax resistance. It noted that “All 25 persons invited were white males,” but also reproduced the statement that came out of the conference.

Several letters to the editor reacted to this news:

Harvey Yoder: “I… wondered about the inclusion of the specific war tax issue. Were individuals who sincerely hold to an alternate point of view asked to take part in the discussion? Again, I am not questioning the conclusions of the group so much as to ask whether any ‘by-invitation-only’ meeting can speak for the church with any more integrity than can existing boards and commissions of the church.”
John E. Lapp: Also wondered why the Smoketown crew picked out the war tax issue in particular.
Jim Drescher: “It is very easy to pick a Scripture verse to use to prove or disprove almost anything. The group at one point (Statement #2) speaks about total commitment to Jesus Christ but then uses quotations from the Apostle Paul (Statement #5) to validify payment of all taxes. If Jesus Christ is central, let’s use His example and specific words to guide us! I can imagine the Pentagon people jumping for joy upon hearing such a statement about taxes. I’m sure they are glad for this voluntary assurance (from ‘peace church’ members) that money will continue to roll in so that the military can increase its nuclear arsenal. Because of the apparent unquestioning payment of taxes by German Christians, Hitler was able to annihilate millions of persons. We (U.S.) will be able to do it with nuclear weapons Neat, eh?”
Greg & Ellen Bownan: “At Smoketown Ⅱ, when we assume the sisters of the church will take the opportunity to share their thoughts, we suggest that a fuller range of statements be reported. Issues, the unavoidable places where doctrine meets practical decisions, should be identified and addressed to give definition to the positive reaffirmation of the authority of Scripture and a renewed zeal for personal and church evangelism. And, for the grass roots, a minority report on the nonpayment of war taxes could be included.”
John Verburg: Verburg didn’t think much of all this talk about war taxes, saying that the peace witness was about more than opposition to military, so the war tax emphasis was sign of an imbalance. “We are not the flower children of the sixties. We are Jesus people and there is a big difference.”

When the General Board of the Mennonite Church met in November, the Smoketown consultation came up.:

[Gordon] Zook [executive secretary of the Board of Congregational Ministries] noted the difference between the Smoketown statement “that we should pay all taxes” and the statement on peacemaking passed by the General Assembly at Waterloo. The Waterloo statement recognizes the withholding of war taxes as a valid option. Which statement represents the church? he asked.

Peace Tax Fund Legislation

The 10 April 1979 edition included an article by Dan Slabaugh laying out the case for the World Peace Tax Fund bill. An editor’s note in that issue mentioned that “The U.S. copies of the March 6 issue of the Gospel Herald carried a center insert with cards that may be used by readers to encourage U.S. lawmakers to support the World Peace Tax Fund. The following article provides the author’s rationale for support of the Fund legislation. Readers who care to are encouraged to make use of these cards or to write their own leaders on its behalf.”

Why I support the World Peace Tax Fund

by Dan Slabaugh
Any collection of taxes for military purposes has created problems of conscience for those committed to the peaceful resolution of conflict. Many members of the “historic peace churches” have viewed war taxes as a denial of religious freedom since such payments forced them to engage in personal sin. The question has been put this way: “How can I, as a follower of the Prince of Peace, willingly provide the government with money that’s needed to pay for war?”
The most recent war tax in the United States, aside from the income tax, has been the federal telephone tax. This levy was initiated originally to support the Vietnam War, but is still continuing for a few more years. Many people have refused to pay this tax to the federal government. Instead, they have been sending the equivalent amount to the [“]Special Fund for Tax Resisters” of Mennonite Central Committee’s Peace Section, or to similar designated organizations.
To a smaller percentage of individuals the payment of the federal income tax (approximately 50 percent of which they know goes to support wars and military activity) also has been considered a matter of personal sin. They therefore have informed the government that in good conscience they cannot voluntarily pay that portion of their tax. In some cases persons have deposited the amount in a local bank where the Internal Revenue Service comes and “steals” it from them. By so doing these persons are freeing themselves of personal responsibility for the money’s eventual use and also providing a visible protest against the evil.
To most of these law-abiding, peace-loving people continual confrontation with their own government has been an unhappy prospect. So nearly a decade ago a small group of Christians at Ann Arbor, Michigan — with considerable faith in the American legislative process — came to believe that it might be possible to draft a bill and eventually convince the federal government to legalize “peace” for those citizens so inclined.
A faculty member and a few graduate students at the University of Michigan’s Law School drafted such a proposal. It provides, for the individual requesting it, a setting aside of that percentage of the federal income tax which the U.S. Attorney General would determine to be earmarked for military purposes. This amount would then be placed in a trust fund to be administered by a board of trustees to fund peaceful activities, as approved by the U.S. Congress.
This legislation, which has become known as the World Peace Tax Fund bill, was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by Ronald Dellums of California in 1972. In 1976 the National Council for a WPTF was invited to present its case in the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill was introduced into the Senate in 1977 by Senator Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon. In the last Congress it had 25 sponsors in the House of Representatives and the three in the Senate (The legislation was not enacted and so must be reintroduced to be considered by the present Congress.)
The World Peace Tax Fund bill is often misunderstood. It does not call for any tax relief or special favors benefiting anyone financially. The bill, if passed, probably will not affect the U.S. government’s military activities. In all likelihood it will not cut the military budget, or of itself, stop wars. And it will not diminish the need to continue peace teaching or peace activities.
But it will allow a citizen to legally refrain from contributing to the cost of war and violence. It will provide a fund to finance peace programs and support efforts to eliminate the causes of violent conflict.
The biggest obstacle to getting this bill passed in the U.S. Congress is the large number of people who say they are committed to peace, but who seemingly feel no responsibility regarding the government’s use of their tax money. As a result, legislators tell us that they can’t see the payment of war taxes as much of a problem because they get very few letters expressing concern about the matter.
To a large degree, Congress is “problem-oriented.” An alert young Congressman told us personally that “this bill probably will not be passed until enough of you refuse to pay war taxes — even if it means going to jail. In other words,” he was saying, “create a problem that Congress must deal with.”
I am convinced that the conscientious objector provision of the Selective Service act of 1940 never would have been included had it not been for the “problem” created by C.O.’s who refused induction during World War Ⅰ. As the U.S. was mobilizing for World War Ⅱ the government did not want another “problem” on its hands, so it agreed to make provisions for the C.O.’s — not necessarily out of concern for religious liberty, but in order to keep the boat from rocking too much.
We should remember that God’s prophets and even His own Son were seen as “problems” in terms of natural human tendencies toward power, selfishness and greed. Few of us like to “cause problems” for others. We like to work at solving them — and be successful in our efforts. But in matters of conscience, we haven’t been called to be successful, we have been called to be faithful.

“Conscience and War Taxes” is the title of a slide set produced by the National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund. A resources packet accompanies the 78 color slides, 20-minute cassette. “Conscience and War Taxes” can be obtained from MBCM Audiovisuals…

Lobbying didn’t always go so smoothly, as this report from a Mennonite study group at East Union Mennonite Church (28 Aug 1979) shows:

The first issue the class tackled was the payment of war taxes. In early 1976 U.S. Rep. Edward Mezvinsky was invited to church for Sunday lunch and a discussion of the war tax issue.
“He sidestepped every issue,” said Jim Yoder. Mezvinsky promised to vote for the World Peace Tax Fund Act if it ever made it to the floor of the House, but declined to help the bill out of committee.
“He spent most of his time expounding upon his efforts to kill the B-1 bomber,” recalled Nyle.
When the Fourth of July rolled around that Bicentennial year, the class sponsored an alternate celebration for the church. Guy Hershberger was asked to chair the meeting. He interviewed some of the local “veterans” — conscientious objectors Henry Miller, Henry Brenneman, and Sol Ropp — who had been badly mistreated by the U.S. Army during World War Ⅱ. He also discussed the war tax issue.
Later in the year the class presented a proposal to the congregation, asking the church to lend moral support to people who did not pay the portion of their taxes going for war. After initial misunderstandings and further discussion, the congregation approved the proposal.
Nyle [Kauffman] and Jim were the only class members making enough to have to worry about paying any taxes at all in 1976. Both withheld 33 percent of their estimated tax and sent a check for the amount to Mennonite Central Committee.

Again in 1974 it was all about the Messenger, as none of the other Brethren publications I skimmed seemed to want to engage in the debate about war tax resistance.

In the January issue, O.E. Gibson shared what he had learned about war taxes from the Spirit of Truth (source):

Here is what I hear the Spirit of Truth saying to us Christians about paying taxes to support the military:
“War is dependent upon two supports — soldiers and money. Because enough drafted young men choose the jail to the demands of our government, we have been given alternative service.
“When enough property owners prefer to have their property confiscated by our government rather than willingly pay the war tax, then we can hope for an alternative tax plan put into law.”
A few such people are calling us to join them.

Priscilla Zigler shared her reactions to the previous year’s Annual Conference statements (source). Excerpt:

I experienced mixed emotions when our proposals from Southern Ohio, concerning the need for further study of the tax issue, were defeated. Immediately, feelings of frustration and anger surfaced — but then, also, a determination to keep communication alive and well, in spite of the polarization we were experiencing. However, I know a witness was made in behalf of the importance of tax resistance in relation to our peace stand — and a witness is always an education for someone. I hope it was for many that afternoon.
The hardest thing for me to understand or accept during the discussion on tax refusal was the “why” of it. It was as though the church had absolved itself from any guilt about the Vietnam war. No mention was made, in the study, of the life at stake in our payment or non-payment of taxes — and our choosing to support either life or death. I’m wondering if the committee had looked at the issue in that light whether that very well-researched justification (the study committee report) could have ever come to be our position.
Brethren — we are opposed to war, to the destruction of human life and to any system that supports it. Our way is peace — the gospel of love. Why then, when the fact is that the phone tax was created specifically to aid in the destruction of the people of Vietnam, did we to the estimated tune of $145,000 per year support this tax? Senator Frank Church said in reference to the renewal of the tax in 1968: “We are about to vote on an added tax which, when all the rhetoric is stripped away, is simply a war tax. The need for it, as everyone now admits, is occasioned by the skyrocketing costs of our involvement in Vietnam.” We supported that need. The phone tax consistently remains, until 1983, a part of the “life-giving blood” of the defense department. If we continue to support the tax, we are nourishing an ever-growing evil.

Arlene and Cliff Kindy shared their below-the-tax-line tax resistance method in a letter in the April issue:

We are happy to share with Messenger readers that we have again been able to keep our income below the taxable level of $2,800 for the past year. It has not posed any financial problems for us, but instead has been a very freeing experience.
We took this conscious step initially because of what we felt to be a Christian responsibility to refuse to pay taxes when such a large portion of those taxes go to hurt and destroy others of God’s children here and around our world. In addition, we felt that this might be a small way for us to attempt to correct the injustice of our small population in the United States using and controlling over 50 percent of the world’s material resources. We can’t be sure at all that these actions will have any positive effect, but we continue them because of a call to try to be obedient to the life and teaching of our example, Jesus Christ.
We invite you to take a similar step out of obedience. We do believe that for you this decision is a viable option because over 85 percent of our world population lives well below this level. If you do face problems after making such a step, please feel free to contact us for help.

You’d think that a within-the-law form of resistance like this would satisfy the render-unto-Caesar set, but no. Edgar O. Slater shot back in the October issue that it was bad that the Kindys, by lowering their incomes, would “not pay a fair share for the government that makes this freedom possible.”

The June issue announced that legislation purporting to legalize a sort of conscientious objection to military taxation had been introduced in Congress (source). Brethren were among the promoters of this early version of “Peace Tax Fund” legislation. The Messenger listed the following Brethren lobbyists who had gone to Washington D.C. to push the bill: Clifford Bingham, Philip Bishop, Clifford Kindy, Kim Yamasaki, Nancy Stinette, James Drescher, Velma Shearer, Kaye Yoder, and Ralph E. Smeltzer.

“Although the World Peace Tax Fund Act is designed primarily to provide a legal alternative for taxpayers who cannot conscientiously help finance military programs, it gives all taxpayers an effective way to express their concern about the priority the Pentagon has over domestic programs,” explained James Drescher of the Brethren delegation.

In 1977 and 1978, Cliff Kindy wrote a full-throated encouragement of war tax resistance for the Church of the Brethren Messenger, the Camp Mack / Waubee conference enlisted people to sign a war tax resistance pledge, and a “New Call to Peacemaking” conference brought representatives of the three traditional peace churches together.

Wilbur J. Stump wrote in to the March 1977 issue to promote the World Peace Tax Fund bill, which he claimed “would enable me, and others who feel as I do, to have the war part of my taxes used for peace projects” and would be “a legal alternative to paying taxes for military purposes” (source).

That proposed legislation was also boosted by an article a few pages further on in the same issue (source). That article quoted a card that the National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund was asking supporters to send to Washington as saying that the bill “would allow conscientious objectors to have that portion of their taxes which would normally go for military purposes used instead for peace projects.” The article quoted Brethren bill booster Dean M. Miller:

It is obvious that the payment of federal taxes inevitably involves us in war and preparation for war, since tax monies are not clearly differentiated into military and non-military categories…
One avenue of escape for this dilemma is to refuse to pay taxes. However, money refused from tax payments is refused as much from the humane programs of government as from military programs. We are not always able to make clear that we are protesting war and not taxation itself. Furthermore, whatever taxes are withheld as an act of conscience, the government is able to collect by means of levies and confiscations.

An article in a later issue noted that an accompanying Senate bill had been introduced by bipartisan sponsors. Another noted that the United Church of Christ had also endorsed the legislation. And that’s it for 1977.

All of the talk of war tax resistance that used to fill the pages of the Messenger is gone, replaced with this (ultimately fruitless) lobbying. It’s worth noting that the “peace tax fund” legislation originally being promoted was better in many ways from the similar legislation that’s floundering today. That said, this goes to show that from the very beginning, the “peace tax fund” movement has discouraged war tax resistance.

The February 1978 issue brought the first full-throated encouragement of war tax resistance in a long time, from Brethren resister Cliff Kindy (source):

What to render unto Caesar

Last November, 44 people from seven states gathered at Camp Mack in Northern Indiana to study and fellowship together to discern God’s will for the church as it faces requirements from the US government to pay vast sums of money for military-related purposes. We were a mixture of Methodists, Mennonites, and Brethren who had been struggling with this issue for many years. In the face of the fact that as church people we are paying over three times as much money in only the military-related portions of our taxes as we give for all church and charity purposes, our Bible study of the weekend focused on the clear word that Jesus is Lord of the earth.
Our time together was filled with joyful singing, unifying times of worship, meaningful moments of sharing our feelings and experiences, and deep periods of Bible study with openness to Jesus’ call changing our very lives. The retreat was pulled together by Chuck Boyer of On Earth Peace and the BVS peace team from New Windsor. There was a real openness on the part of the leadership (Donald Kaufman, author of What Belongs to Caesar?, and Lee Griffith from Advaita House in Baltimore) to allow the Spirit to change the agenda of the weekend to fit the call coming out of the discernment process.
Although retreats such as this are often little more than times of learning and fellowship, this gathering was an exciting exception with the potential to call the church to a fresh understanding of how total are the demands on those who profess Jesus as Lord of their lives. On Saturday evening and Sunday morning, out of moments of worship, listening for the word of the Lord, and sharing together came the Waubee Peace Pledge (named for Lake Waubee, the location of the Camp Mack retreat) and commitments to continuing activities of witness to our church and the world around us.
Although we were at different positions in our own lives, there was an amazing unity in feeling at Camp Mack that the pledge should be one written as strongly as the Word of God dictates and yet shared with the humility which the sin of our own lives necessitates. What follows is the pledge in its final form with an invitation to each of you to join, if after deep, prayerful searching you find that you must.

Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅰ

Jesus Christ is Lord and we pledge our lives to his Lordship. This is a pledge which we do make and we can make because the Lord fills his people with faith, hope, and love. This is a pledge which we make with humility, but also with conviction, aware of the risks, since under all circumstances, we must obey God rather than people.
We believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, knowing that it is in the resurrection that we have our life. We need follow death no more. Death is conquered. God chooses life for us.
We therefore pledge ourselves to the service of life and the renunciation of death. Jesus Christ is the way and the truth and his way is the way of peace. We will seek to oppose the way of war.
Specifically we make this pledge to our brothers and sisters in Christ:

Since we do not give our bodies for war, neither will we give our money. We will refuse payment of federal telephone taxes and federal income taxes which go for military purposes. Where our treasure is, there our hearts will be also. If our treasure is involved in making war, our hearts cannot be set toward making peace. We will pay no taxes for war, and if that means legal or other jeopardy for any of us, we will seek to support one another as sisters and brothers. The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. Render unto God what belongs to God.

We further pledge ourselves to urgently communicate with brothers and sisters in our churches, urging them to join us in refusing money for war. We will also work to have annual meetings of our churches take a firm position against payment of war taxes, and to have church agencies agree to refuse withholding of these taxes from the pay of employees. We believe that we who are the body of Christ should not serve as a military tax collection agency.

We further pledge ourselves to keep our hearts and lives open to the movement of God’s Spirit and to follow where Christ might lead us on the path of peace. We pray for help and guidance — that we might be instruments of God’s peace.

We invite others to join in doing the words of this covenant and we seek to support those who are struggling toward this and other means of witness against war in the world. We want to join you in whatever ways of sharing and commitment are possible through our common life in Christ. Peace be with you.
Because we are at different points of commitment, a second pledge came out of this conference. There was a common understanding by participants in the conference that Jesus is the King of Peace and that it is wrong to pay taxes for war, but for some that witness to life takes a different form. Support for the World Peace Tax Fund is the form that takes for some of us. Overall, though, the feeling of the conference was that, as a church, God calls us much beyond that in our witness for peace and our no to war.
As signers of Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅱ, we invite you to join if you feel God’s leading in the matter.

Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅱ

We, in spirit and in conscience affirm the Waubee Peace Pledge and fully support our sisters and brothers of that covenant. At this time in our lives we feel unable to commit ourselves to non-payment of income and phone taxes. We do commit our time, energy, and resources to searching for alternate channels of resistance, and pledge ourselves to continued seeking of God’s will for us in acting definitively to oppose those taxes for payment of war.
We give thanks for the freedom given us through Christ which enables us in this search, and we pray for the strength and hope to use our freedom as servants of God.

Out of these pledges and the activities of the weekend came several commitments and decisions. It was felt that there was no need for a new newsletter but that our effort should be joined with the God and Caesar newsletter (Commission on Home Ministries, General Conference Mennonite Church, Box 347, Newton, KS 67114) and be supplemented as needed by a memo from the BVS peace team. An exciting development was the surfacing of a group interested in serious Bible study of scriptures dealing with the issue of taxes. Tony Sayer will be coordinating that study through the mail. Three commitments relating to the church were to 1) share with congregations and individuals on the topic of the church and taxes which are used for war; 2) ask the decision-making bodies of our churches to endorse a statement calling all our church-related institutions to stop withholding taxes for IRS when most of those go to the US military; and 3) offer ourselves if the need arises to fill (in name only) the positions of high risk which might be threatened with prosecution by IRS because of the radical nature of some of our stances for peace. Many at the conference will be working toward a concerted witness in the spring with the institutions of the US government that are ignoring the breaking of the Kingdom of God into our midst.
Whatever our point of commitment we want to encourage each other to deeper Christian discipleship in spite of the radically scandalous nature of the kingdom as it takes shape in our world. May God grant us the grace to travel in that way.

Following this was a list of the names of twenty-two signers of pledge #1, and five of pledge #2.

The April 1978 issue went back to peace tax fund stuff, with a profile of National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund promoter Wilbur Stump (source). Stump was an attendee at the Waubee / Camp Mack conference, and one of the signers of pledge #2.

Anita and Richard Buckwalter shared their letter to the phone company in which they announced “we are no longer going to pay ‘protection’ money (blood money) to support [Uncle Sam’s] death machine” (source):

P.S. We donate the amount of our withheld phone tax to the Peace Tax Fund at Lansing Church of the Brethren, to be used in ministries for peacemaking.

They also shared their letter to the IRS in which they explained their refusal to pay a portion of their income taxes. Excerpt:

If you check your files, you will see that our protest has been consistent and lengthy. Our purpose was then and is now to witness to the way of the Prince of Peace and to register our conscientious opposition to the use of our taxes for war-making. To this end, we now feel called to move one step farther in our witness. We can not in good conscience or in good faith sign over to you that portion of our taxes — roughly 35 percent in 1977 — that goes for present military use. We refuse to take the initiative in paying for death and the destruction of God’s creation. Therefore, we will not willingly forward this money to you; this is our witness to the powers that be — that God’s will for peace lives on in the victory of Christ over the powers of death.
Please note that we do not argue with the government’s power to collect taxes. We accept the legitimate taxing powers of the state and willingly submit our taxes when we conscientiously can; we will even help to pay for past sins and wars of this nation — otherwise the percentage would be much higher. But after much study of the Bible, prayer, and dialogue, we have come to the conviction that we will make this witness to the gospel of peace as over against the insanity of planning for war and nuclear holocausts.
Unfortunately, because the World Peace Tax Fund Act has not been enacted yet by Congress, our actions mean some inconvenience to you. We regret this, and for your sake hope for the day when that law will make our witness “legal.” Until then, we know that you have the power to collect our money. We will not obstruct your efforts in that direction; neither will we hide or make personal gain from the money. We are now and always will be open and direct with you about our intentions; we don’t wish to cause offense. And we will forward copies of this letter to our elected representatives.
If you have any questions regarding our beliefs, we would be glad to dialogue with you.

There were three queries, from three separate congregations, concerning the World Peace Tax Fund Act, on the agenda at the 1978 Annual Conference. A Standing Committee drafted a statement in response, “urging that Brethren support the WPTF through Annual Conference communiques to the President of the United States and appropriate Congressional committees, dissemination of information from the General Offices, continued promotion by the Washington Office, and congregational and individual letter-writing to members of Congress.” (source) But some skepticism began to emerge:

While the Standing Committee recommendation passed with negligible delegate opposition, discussion of the issue included challenging questions about means of conscientious objection to war. Cliff Kindy asked the church to consider the link between affluent life-styles and warfare, and suggested that living below a taxable income level is one response to the tax issue.
He urged the church to grapple again with tax refusal as a form of resisting participation in war. Another speaker warned that the WPTF is “an attempt for us to be more comfortable with what is happening in the world” by seeking government approval of our resistance rather than acting boldly regardless of legal sanction.
John Reimer, of Western Plains District, asked if the WPTF would actually reduce military spending, or merely create a fund for peace research and education by reducing civilian sectors of the federal budgets while leaving the growing military budget unchallenged.

The December 1978 issue noted that the Shenandoah District Board had begun a sort of conscientious objector census, asking draft-age youth to register their conscientious objection, while “[p]ersons who are supportive of conscientious objection to the payment of war taxes may register their beliefs on a third form.” (source)

Finally, the October “New Call to Peacemaking” conference was also covered in the December issue (source). That conference was the first attempt to convene for a coordinated peacemaking response from members of the three traditional peace churches. Excerpt:

Reaching consensus on war tax resistance was not as easy. Although it was listed third among the concerns of this section, tax resistance was clearly the most widely debated item at the conference and support for the idea came from many of the regional meetings. Finally, in five strong statements, delegates called upon Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites to “seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes as a response to Christ’s call to radical discipleship,” challenged congregations to uphold those who do resist with spiritual, legal, and material support; called upon church and conference agencies to seriously consider the requests of their employees who ask that their taxes not be withheld; suggested that alternative “tax” payments be channeled into a peace fund established by New Call to Peacemaking; and called upon the denominations, congregations, and meetings to give high priority to the study and promotion of war tax resistance.

Dale Brown of the Church of the Brethren also penned an article on “The Bible on Tax Resistance” for Sojourners magazine in 1977.

The very different attitude toward war taxes (which usually went without mention) at The Brethren Evangelist can be illustrated by this excerpt from the convocation delivered by Ashland College dean Joseph Schultz (source). Schultz was an ordained minister in the Brethren Church, with which Ashland College is affiliated:

One cannot visit the Strategic Air Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, without experiencing a welter of conflicting emotions. Predominant is gratitude for the sense of security which those enormously complicated defense systems can generate, and a more tolerant attitude even toward taxes. There is, of course, a feeling of awe, mixed with a tinge of doubt as to whether man actually can master such technological refinements. And there is also an overpowering tug of regret that so much money must be spent for such expensive gadgets which may never be used. A still greater foreboding is that they may be used, and expanded.

A “Christian Life-style Task Force” presented its report at the 1980 Church of the Brethren Annual Conference, and gave war tax resisters the encouragement they had been looking for.

The cover story of the January issue was an interview of Ruby Rhoades, head of the World Ministries Commission and an associate general secretary on the General Board of the Church of the Brethren (source). Excerpt:

How do you look upon the status of the denomination’s peace witness at all levels: Is it growing or diminishing? More importantly, considering the biblical foundation, is the witness faithful and prophetic?

I believe there is a growing consciousness among individual members of the larger issues of peace. By that I mean beyond the draft and conscientious objection, which have been our traditional concerns. Our support for the World Peace Tax Fund, broad involvement in the New Call to Peacemaking, participation in the United Nations disarmament rally, the coming together last winter in bitterly cold weather to protest the arms bazaar in Rosemont, Ill., rallying against the possible resumption of the draft… all are evidence of a vital peace concern among Brethren. And pockets of persons all around the country continue to meet regularly to work at the issues more decisively.
But it is not enough. When I read statistics about our weapons stockpiles and the destruction capability of new weapons systems I get scared, depressed and angry all at once. We must make it clear that we will not tolerate such inventions and production levels and military spending.
Now to the second part of your question: Are we being prophetic? I think we are, though I’m not sure what Micah or Jeremiah would say about us.

In what ways do you mean?

We’re trying to speak to the principalities and powers through our work in Washington and at the United Nations. It was a Brethren on a World Council of Churches committee who got a strong peace statement through that body on combating militarism and arms proliferation. We’ve worked and are working in reconciliation efforts in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East. We’ve given major leadership to the New Call to Peacemaking. As a body, we haven’t moved into tax resistance as some of our individual members have. Maybe that will finally be the way to convince our government that we are not willing to keep paying for war preparations.

Arlene & Cliff Kindy contributed “Eight questions on war taxes” to the same issue:

We recognize that the issue of taxes used for war purposes is but one of many issues facing the church today. We share some questions with the expectation that similar ones on other issues might be put to us to upbuild all in the way of faithfulness and draw us together in the bond of unity.

Should Christians pay those taxes which are used for war-related purposes?

How large can the percentage of taxes going for war purposes become before it would be our Christian obligation to refuse them?

Does God get the glory when our church institutions are collecting taxes for “Caesar” (through withholding) and about 50 percent of those taxes are going for war-related purposes?

If the same percentage of our taxes were going to support a network of houses of prostitution, would we pay those taxes?

Is it not a much more awesome breach of faithfulness to have prostituted our souls to the god of war to the extent we have than to have given our bodies to a whore or our money to support a prostitution network?

If it will be right not to pay war taxes when (and if) the World Peace Tax Fund Act becomes law, why is it not now?

If Jesus Christ is Lord and we are convinced that there is something inconsistent with the Christian life and paying taxes for war purposes, then what authority does “Caesar” have to say we must pay those taxes?

Should the threat of persecution/prosecution ever deter the Christian from an act of faithlessness to Jesus Christ and God’s kingdom?

The April issue reported that “[u]nanimously and without comment” the Supreme Court had turned down an appeal by pacifists who argued that they had a Constitutional right (on 1^st and 9^th Amendment grounds) to refuse to pay taxes for war (source).

The September issue included a contribution from Delia Miller, who wrote about her war tax resistance (source). Excerpts:

I claimed a “military tax deduction” on my 1979 income tax return. I claimed this by exercising my rights guaranteed under the first amendment to freely practice my religion. Most Americans don’t see how paying income taxes interferes with religion. I believe paying the 47 percent of our income tax, budgeted for military use (past, present and future) is in profound opposition to God’s commandment to worship and serve.

I have rejected the false security of militaristic muscle and the belligerent way of relating to others, next door and around the globe. As a member of the Church of the Brethren, a historic peace church, I join the tradition of refusing to participate in killing my brothers and sisters, either by carrying a gun myself or paying my government to make and launch missiles. In my attempt to be a faithful servant of God I try to be obedient to commands in all areas of my life, to make allegiance to the kingdom primary, and allegiance to earthly kingdoms secondary. If my life is committed to peacemaking, that must include my money. Today, especially, our money is more necessary than our bodies for preparing for and fighting a high-technology, nuclear war.

The October issue noted that the Church of the Brethren General Board was considering joining forces with the General Conference Mennonite Church in its planned lawsuit “seeking exemption from withholding taxes from the income of its employees” who conscientiously object to military taxation (source). Excerpt:

Robert W. Neff, general secretary of the Church of the Brethren General Board, said, “We must seriously consider joining them in this historic action.” He pointed to the paper on Christian life-style passed by Annual Conference delegates in Pittsburgh [see below]. That paper calls on the General Board to “place high priority on study and discussion” of “exploration… for release from the current legal requirement to collect taxes by withholding the income taxes of employees…” He believes Brethren will favor this test case because it “attempts to work within the law.”

The Christian Life-style Task Force Report

War tax resistance was again on the Annual Conference agenda in 1980. After the 1977 Conference, a “Christian Life-style Task Force” was put together to study and make recommendations regarding war tax resistance and voluntary simplicity. Brethren war tax resisters who were upset at the tepid 1973 Church statement on war tax resistance (see ♇ 9 June 2020) hoped for something stronger this time (and they got it).

The August issue reported on the debate over the Task Force’s report:

First included in the Conference Booklet as a study document, the report was amended in its section on “taxation and militarism” by the June General Board meeting and passed on to Annual Conference for adoption as a position paper.
Debate on the floor centered on that amended section. In it the task force encourages high priority on study and discussion of consideration of refusal to pay that portion of federal taxes used for militarism. It affirms withholding of war taxes as a legitimate Christian witness. A “peace fund” could be one way to handle alternative “tax” payments.

The magazine did not give details about the substance of the debate on the floor. You can find the statement that the Conference approved here: Christian Lifestyle: 1980 Church of the Brethren Statement.

New Call to Peacemaking

The joint Quaker/Mennonite/Brethren “New Call to Peacemaking” conference met again in October, and the Messenger covered it (source). Excerpt:

New Call to Peacemaking participants urged other Brethren, Mennonites, and Friends to be faithful to Christ’s spirit of peace by confronting militarism through war tax resistance, opposition to registration and reinstatement of the draft, and renouncement of the belief that security lies in arms.
While stating their “common conviction that peace is the will of God and that Christ calls us to be peacemakers,” delegates were divided about whether the call to peacemaking requires war tax resistance.
The conference finally reaffirmed the call made by the first NCP conference in 1978 that “members of the historic peace churches seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes…” and said, “If we believe that fighting war is wrong, does it not follow that paying for war is wrong?”
Members of the three churches were encouraged to engage in forms of tax resistance ranging from withholding that portion of their taxes that would be used for military purposes to paying “war tax monies under protest.”

The hows and whys of war tax resistance continued in the pages of the Messenger in 1986, as Cliff Kindy made the case for voluntarily simplicity and living on an income below the tax line.

In 1985 the Messenger printed an opinion piece by Barry Shutt that had attacked war tax resistance on the grounds that it was ineffective. This somewhat novel argument prompted some rebuttals in the January 1986 issue (source). L. William Yolton (of the National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors) wrote that Shutt’s arguments were of the same sort that conscientious objectors to military service hear —

“Are there not other evils to be resisted? So don’t resist this one.” “There are differences of opinion among Christians about an issue, so let us wait to do the good until all are agreed.” “If you do not do this evil, then someone else will be drafted in your place to do it, so you must do evil.”

— and Brethren know by now not to bend to such arguments. David W. Fouts said that his own experience was proof that writing protest letters was a poor form of witness compared to resistance:

For years I enclosed a carefully composed letter with my tax return protesting the use of my tax dollars for military purposes, but I have yet to receive a single reply from an IRS or other administrative official. My actions apparently spoke louder than my words.
However, when I withheld 10 percent of my 1984 income taxes to protest the proportion spent on nuclear weapons, I received repeated attention from the IRS in the form of letters demanding payment and threatening to confiscate my property.

Cliff Kindy wrote in for the March issue to recommend a non-disobedient form of tax refusal (source).

It has been good to see the issue of paying taxes for war highlighted in Messenger. The issue for our family has been “Who is Lord?” Is Caesar Lord, through the channels of IRS? Or is Jesus? Caesar calls for our money and our life, and, yet, Jesus calls for our all. To which will we respond in obedience? (We cannot have two masters.) We fret about the consequences of breaking the law, and yet seem unconcerned about the possibility of falling into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:31). Certainly God, who asks us to stand over against the powers of death, will care for us in our obedience. We must venture obedience.
It is too easy to assume that in this instance obedience to God leads directly to disobedience to Caesar. For those who struggle over that concern, there is a possible answer. To limit one’s income to below the taxable level is not illegal, and, although still extravagant by the world’s standards, is moving in the direction of standing with God’s little people. We as a church have not examined seriously the results of living at an income level that does not require missiles, bombers, and Trident submarines to protect it. You might like to try it for a few years.
Several questions for those who pay taxes for war: 1) Do you give more money to the church than you pay to IRS? More than you pay to IRS for the 50-to-70-percent portion of your tax that is military-related? 2) How large would that military-related percentage need to get before you would say “No”? 3) If that percentage of the federal income tax were going to finance houses of prostitution or liquor warehouses, would you pay it? 4) If it would be proper for a Christian to channel monies to the Peace Tax Fund (if such a proposal is ever passed for conscientious objectors), does that not imply that we should feel some urgency even now to pay those dollars toward similar purposes? (Does the law of the land ever define the Law of God?) 5) If we spoke the passages of Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25 with the same emphasis Jesus probably had, (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”), might we not also find “…this man… forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar…” (Luke 23:2)?

The following news came from the July issue:

Kalamazoo Christians make tax-day peace witness

Ten Christians in Kalamazoo, Mich., gathered in front of the courthouse to voice their opposition to military funding. Representing the Catholic Church, the Mennonite Church, and the Church of the Brethren, they withheld a total of $6,400, the portion of their income taxes that they claimed would help fund the military budget.
Deanna Brown, pastor of the Skyridge Church of the Brethren, thought twice before joining the peace demonstration, since she didn’t want to be misunderstood by other Christians. “But because of my vocation as a disciple of Christ,” she said, “I feel called to make this witness and to say there is another way — the way of reconciliation, humility, service — and that’s the way of Jesus Christ.”
Added Steve Senesi: “We are not opposed to taxes. The point today is to speak to where those funds go and how they are spent.” The withheld tax money was given to five local social service agencies: Center City Housing, Loaves and Fishes (a clearinghouse for emergency food pantries), Habitat for Humanity, Kalamazoo Diaconal Conference, and Kalamazoo Youth Ministry.

about ten people stand in a circle on the sidewalk, one holding a banner reading “truth + justice + freedom + love = peace” while in the foreground is a mailbox labeled “Federal and State Income Tax Returns” — “Deanna Brown and Terry Ciszek (to left of banner), of the Kalamazoo Church of the Brethren, joined others who were opposing the use of tax dollars for military purposes.”

The August/September issue brought news of Brethren who had been arrested in demonstrations opposing U.S. militarized foreign policy (source), including:

Phil Rieman, co-pastor of the Ivester church in Grundy Center, Iowa, was part of an April 14 effort to link the payment of tax dollars and US funding of the contras [Nicaraguan insurgents]. He and 10 others were arrested after refusing to leave the IRS building in Waterloo.
In the subsequent 2-day jury trial all 11 defendants were found “not guilty” by all six jurors on the grounds that the demonstration was justifiable. “Unlike the recent sanctuary trial (in Tuscon, Ariz.), we were allowed to say why we did what we did. And the jury agreed that we were right,” Rieman said. “It was unusual.”

The previous year, the Messenger had hosted a thoughtful theological debate about the possible biblical basis for tax resistance or obedience. Mark Wilhelm wanted to remind people that this wasn’t just a theoretical concern:

Tax resistance is crucial now

A few Brethren have been discussing war tax resistance, trying to attain a New Testament view. The theological complications of this discussion and the possibility of confrontation with the government have resulted in the neglect of the issue by the majority of Brethren, even those who otherwise adhere to the nonviolent teachings of Jesus. Instead of neglect, we Brethren should urgently consider our position on war-tax resistance.
We Brethren are failing to realize that the military is depending more on technology and less on people. It is this growing dependence on technology that makes the war-tax issue vital. The military is always seeking to use fewer personnel with sophisticated weaponry to carry out major operations. The military goal of this latter work is to replace human soldiers in the battlefield with computer-controlled robotics that are capable of making complex human-like decisions.
Greater military dependence upon advanced technology has its drawbacks. It requires expert scientific research, extensive engineering design, skilled manufacturing, and elaborate testing. This extremely costly work must be begun many years in advance of the intended use of the weapons. Therefore the military needs a large amount of money, and it needs it today for the next decade’s weapons.
It is this shift in the military’s dependence from human soldiers to expensive, advanced-planned technology that makes the payment of war taxes a vital issue to Brethren. The military is less in need of Brethren young men, but more in need of the war taxes paid by all Brethren well before the occurrence of a war. War-tax resistance not only withholds the funding that the military relies upon, it also exposes the sin of the quiet, deadly weapons buildup. War-tax resistance is therefore a vital part of a holistic peace witness.
To be conscientiously opposed to war and to pay for the advanced weaponry that is the life blood of the modern military is a difficult discipleship dilemma, the resolution of which is made increasingly urgent by the pace of technology. To wait until global hostilities begin to practice nonviolent resistance is of no use. At that time the weapons systems that we currently fund will be in the hands of those committed to using them.
At this moment our incomes are being taxed to fight future wars. The income of every brother and sister is being conscripted by the military that it might do tremendous violence. The crucial question each of us must face is: “Would Jesus have me resist this evil?”

The slowdown in mentions of war tax resistance in Brethren publications towards the end of the cold war accelerated further during the opening years of the Clinton presidency.

The April 1992 issue of Messenger included a brief article about the war tax resistance of Brethren co-pastors Louise & Phil Rieman:

A taxing situation

When April 15 rolls around, Louie and Phil Rieman plan to file their federal income tax just like everyone else. But along with it, the co-pastors of the Ivester Church of the Brethren, in Grundy Center, Iowa, will enclose a letter. It opens, “Dear Brothers and Sisters at the IRS: Once again we write to let you know that we are not paying the full, expected amount…”
Isn’t that being dishonest? No. It’s not a criminal offense, the IRS says, as long as an accurate tax return is filed. Of course, the IRS can and does come after the withheld amount. And the withholders usually end up losing more money than if they had paid their taxes in full, on time. Civil penalties, as large as $500, and interest charges are added when the IRS eventually collects unpaid taxes by seizing paychecks, bank accounts, or property.
In 1988, IRS agents seized the Rieman family van. It had an appraised value of $8,000, but the IRS auctioned it off for $3,900 and kept $3,000.
Why withhold taxes, in such a “losing” situation? Louie and Phil are among a number of Brethren who believe so strongly that war is sin, that they choose this way of protesting the 50 percent of their tax money they figure goes for military use. So they only pay 50 percent of what they owe and let the IRS come after the rest. The Riemans consciously put the percentage that would have been used for the military into life-enhancing programs instead. They have been doing this since 1969.
“Our main goal is not simply protesting war taxes,” explains Louie, “but living in spiritual and moral obedience to the teachings of Christ.”
It’s not a popular stance with the general public in this country. Sneaking through every loophole one can find is the more acceptable way of withholding taxes. But the Riemans feel led to make a costly statement against war.
“How can we pray for peace and pay for war?” asks Phil. A good question, one that other Brethren have to wrestle with.

The August/September 1992 issue brought this news (source):

War tax resistance led to a settlement of $31,343 between the Quaker magazine Friends Journal and the IRS. Editor Vinton Deming refused to pay taxes for 1979–1983, giving the money to peace organizations instead. The IRS demanded a tax levy on Deming’s salary, which the Journal’s board of managers reluctantly paid on the advice that they could not win a case in court.

There were also a handful of mentions of the proposed federal “Peace Tax Fund” legislation, which had a well-attended House of Representatives committee hearing in 1992.

A brief story about “Organic Gardening” in the September 1994 issue made reference to the tax resistance of Arlene & Cliff Kindy:

“We live below the taxable income level,” says Arlene, “so that we don’t have to pay military taxes.” Taking their Christianity seriously has meant simplification on many different levels, including riding their bicycles instead of driving a car, and home-schooling their daughters.

There was a brief mention of the May 1995 “Midwest War Tax Resistance Conference,” sponsored by the Iowa Peace Network, which had Church of the Brethren members in it, in the April 1995 issue (source).

Another “New Call to Peacemaking” conference was held in August 1995, but from the report of it in the Messenger, war tax resistance was no longer the main attraction. “Sabrina and David Falls, Quakers from Richmond, Ind., who spoke about their experiences in refusing to pay income tax designated for military use…” were among the speakers.

The December 1996 issue profiled Anita & Rich Buckwalter, and noted (source):

For almost 30 years, the Buckwalters have made a protest against taxes going to military funding, withholding the part of their taxes they calculate would be spent by the military. To those who question his patriotism, Rich responds, “I think I am being a patriot and a responsible citizen by calling the nation to its deeper responsibility.”

Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” → Brethren → Arlene &amp; Cliff Kindy

How to save taxes.

Federal court convicts Mennonite in Illinois war tax resistance case

The GCMC Mid-Triennium

Slow progress reported by task force on taxes

A New Call to Peacemaking

More war-tax opposition

The Smoketown Consultation

Peace Tax Fund Legislation

What to render unto Caesar

Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅰ

Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅱ

The Christian Life-style Task Force Report

New Call to Peacemaking

Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” → Brethren → Arlene & Cliff Kindy