Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Brethren →
Rufus D. Bowman
I’ve done some deep dives into the archives of American Quaker and Mennonite churches in the past, to try to discern how their attitudes towards war tax resistance developed over the years.
I’ve so far neglected the third church in the “traditional peace churches” trinity: the Church of the Brethren. (Part of what has held me back has been that when you search for “Quakers” or the “Society of Friends” you get what you’re looking for; similarly “Mennonites”; but if you search for “Brethren” you get a whole ton of things other than the Church of the Brethren.)
Here is my first attempt to discern the outlines of war tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren, from a quick review of a few on-line sources.
It is certainly very incomplete:
American Revolution
In , Brethren and Mennonites issued a joint declaration to the Pennsylvania Assembly that set out their objection to military service, but also said:
We are always ready, according to Christ’s command to Peter, to pay the tribute, that we may offend no man, and so we are willing to pay taxes, and to render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar’s and to God those things that are God’s… We are also willing to be subject to the higher powers, and to give in the manner Paul directs us… Our small gift, which we have given, we give to those who have power over us, that we may not offend them, as Christ taught us by the tribute penny.
, the Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren issued a statement on recommended practice for Brethren on explicit war taxes and militia exemption fines.
The recommendation was never to pay for a substitute to serve in the military in one’s place, or to pay money to the government for that purpose, but instead to wait for the government to fine one for not serving and then pay the fine.
Optionally, rather than paying the fine, one could passively wait for the government to use its collection enforcement process.
Excerpt:
If a brother bears his testimony that he cannot give his money on account of his conscience and would say to the collector: “If you must take it, then use your authority, I shall not be in your way” — with such a brother we should also be satisfied.
But concerning the tax, it is considered that on account of the troublesome times and in order to avoid offense, we might follow the example of Christ (Matt. 17:24–27).
Yet, if one does not see it so and thinks perhaps, he for his conscience sake could not pay it, but bears with others who pay in patience, we would willingly go along inasmuch as we deem the overruling of the conscience to be wrong.
Some Brethren evidently accompanied their taxes with a request that the money be spent “for the needy” but without any real expectation that the government would honor such a request.
During the period before the American Civil War there was some debate over whether or not Brethren should resist mandatory militia training.
The law allowed conscientious objectors to decline to participate in such training if they paid fines for the privilege, but some Brethren felt that it was less objectionable for a conscientious objector to turn out for militia training than to pay a fine that would fund the military.
The Annual Conference of took up this question and answered that paying the fine was indeed less objectionable than “learn[ing] the art of war, and the most appropriate method of shedding our fellow-creatures’ blood.”
American Civil War
During the American Civil War, the Annual Conference of issued an exhortation to Brethren “not to encourage in any way the practice of war.” Among the specific recommendations:
[W]e think it more in accordance with our principles, that instead of paying bounty-money, to await the demands of the government, whether general, state, or local, and pay the fines and taxes required of us, as the gospel permits, and, indeed, requires. Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:7.
In Rufus D. Bowman’s The Church of the Brethren and War, 1708–1941, he characterizes this as “Inconsistencies in the Brethren Peace Position,” saying that:
The discouragement against the hiring of substitutes was mild and shows that the church had not thought through the implications of its peace position.
There was no organized protest against the payment of war taxes but rather a submission to what the government demanded.
The church advised its members not to give voluntary efforts for the raising of war money, but held that the gospel required the payment of fines and taxes.
The peace position of the Brethren based upon the teachings of Jesus was applied more to the overt acts of war than to the economic and moral problems of the whole war system.
The Brethren leaders then probably would not have said that all war is a sin.
An 1864 law in the North permitted draftees who could show themselves to be consistent conscientious objectors to military service to avoid combatant service by paying a $300 exemption fine which, according to the terms of the law, was “to be applied to the benefit of the sick and wounded soldiers.” In a congregation sent a query to the Annual Conference concerning a potential member who had hired a substitute to serve in the military in his place.
The Conference then explicitly encouraged Brethren conscientious objectors to pay the $300 exemption tax rather than serving in the military or hiring a substitute:
Since the law has exempted brethren from military duty, by paying a tax in lieu of service, we consider that Brethren do wrong to resort to other means, unless they are ignorant of the provisions of the law.
(This is in contrast to the position of much of the Society of Friends, which considered a tax in lieu of military service to be forbidden.)
In the South, things were worse.
There was no general mechanism at first for permitting conscientious objection in the Confederacy, though those who did not want to serve could hire a substitute to serve in their place, and some Brethren apparently took advantage of this.
Some individual Confederate states had laws that allowed for exemption fees similar to those in the North.
When one large group of Brethren tried to make a run for it when they expected to be drafted, they were captured.
An investigator examined the prisoners; this is an excerpt from his report:
Some of them had made exertions to procure substitutes.
One man had sent the money to Richmond to hire a substitute.
Others had done much to support the families of volunteers.
Some had furnished horses to the cavalry.
All of them are friendly to the South and they express a willingness to contribute all their property if necessary to establish their liberties.
I am informed a law will probably pass exempting these person from military duty on payment of a pecuniary compensation.
These parties assure me all who are able will cheerfully pay this compensation.
Those who are unable to make the payment will cheerfully go into service as teamsters or in any employment in which they are not required to shed blood.
The expected law was passed, and the Brethren prisoners were released.
The exemption for conscientious objectors in the Confederacy cost $500, which was a considerable sum, and it became a policy in the church to encourage wealthier members to pay the exemption fines for men who could not afford it themselves.
But the exemption in the Confederacy was also a less confident one.
Some Brethren found themselves imprisoned in spite of having paid the fine, and in Jefferson Davis said that in his opinion the exemptions should be abolished (the exemptions were eventually abolished, but the abolition did not take effect until the South had lost the war).
Bowman summarizes the position of the church during the Civil War as follows:
In the early days of the war, some of the Brethren hired substitutes.
The church members preferred to pay taxes instead of using the system of substitutes.
But the records do not indicate that the Brethren clearly recognized the inconsistency with their peace position of employing substitutes or paying heavy war taxes to keep free from participation in armed conflicts.
The Society of Friends protested continually against war taxes.
The Brethren and the Mennonites took the position that they should pay what the government required.
The Brethren felt that the gospel required the payment of fines and taxes.
World War Ⅰ
The Liberty Bond program — ostensibly voluntary loans to the government’s war effort — was the focus of the debate about conscientious objection to war funding during World War Ⅰ in the United States.
Rufus D. Bowman writes:
The Brethren Bought Liberty Bonds
While no records are available, it is generally known among the Brethren that many members of the church bought Liberty Bonds during World War Ⅰ.
It was not universally practiced.
Some members refused to help finance the war program.
But the writer recalls the strength of the war propaganda, the community pressure, and the fact that Brethren farmers and businessmen put thousands of dollars into Liberty Bonds.
The church had not analyzed the economic implications of its peace position.
Up to this time in the history of the Church of the Brethren there had been no general and effective protest against helping to finance the war system.
World War Ⅱ
In , the Eglon congregation sent a query to the Annual Conference asking “how we can best protest against paying taxes for military purposes.” The Conference referred the query to its Board of Christian Education, which answered the following year:
All lawful taxes should be paid. As Christians we differentiate between taxes for constructive and taxes for destructive purposes. Because war is unchristian, taxes for military and naval purposes should be protested
Not less than 70% out of our taxes paid to the federal government goes directly or indirectly for military and naval purposes. Some of these federal taxes are: income taxes, estate taxes, federal stamp taxes, and the federal tax on gasoline, etc.
Ways of protesting against taxes for military and naval purposes.
Paste a small sticker to your income tax returns and other payments made to the federal government, which reads as follows: “That portion of this tax devoted to armaments and war preparedness is paid under protest.” The Board of Christian Education will furnish these stickers.
Write a letter once a year to your congressman protesting against the appropriation of funds for military and naval purposes.
Protest personally when paying federal taxes, such as the federal gasoline tax.
Protest through resolutions from local churches, district and Annual Conferences.
We favor a further study of this problem with the purpose of helping to develop a sound theory of taxation.
In Bowman’s book, he writes that “[h]ow general these protests were carried out is not known” but that the mail he received as a member of the Board of Christian Education at that time “indicate[s] that there was a growing church consciousness that paying taxes for military purposes was wrong.” One example of this form of protest was the “One HundredTwenty Thousand Two Hundred Thousand Dunkers for Peace” (“Dunkers” was another term used to describe Brethren) campaign from the early 1930s.
It aimed to get members of the church to sign a pledge that included the line: “I further declare that, because of conscientious convictions, I cannot engage in war, and do protest the appropriation of my taxes for military purposes.
In , the Pipe Creek congregation sent a query to the Annual Conference asking for legal guidance that would be helpful to students attending schools where military training was a mandatory part of the curriculum.
In answer to this, the Conference set up a committee to come up with general recommendations for Brethren students who were conscientious objectors to war.
In the committee issued a report with some “initial recommendations on the positions that our young people should take in the event of war.” Among the “[t]ypes of services considered not consistent with the historical position of the church” were listed “[t]he purchase of Liberty Bonds to finance the war” and “[t]he paying of Federal income tax, if used for military purposes, except under protest.” (“Liberty Bonds” is a term specific to World War Ⅰ.)
A committee report reiterated this from a different angle, stating that among the “[t]ypes of peace testimony to register our convictions and to avoid our participation in war-related activities” was “[t]he refraining from the purchase of such as Liberty Bonds to finance war” and “[t]he protesting against federal taxes if used for military purposes.”
In Rufus Bowman’s book, he states that this policy “still represent[s] the official position of the church” (as of ) and is “the farthest the church had gone in considering the economic implications of its peace position” (Bowman was the committee chairman).
Cold War and Vietnam War
The Church put out a position paper on “Obedience to God and Civil Disobedience” in that was meant to address, among other things, “laws which require payment of taxes for war purposes.” The statement mentions war tax resistance several times in passing, but does not address it directly with a firm recommendation either way.
Instead, the paper recommends a process through which Brethren can go when they may be called to civil disobedience, and counsels that Brethren treat each other with respect whether or not their consciences call them to civil disobedience.
While the Church of the Brethren recognizes the responsibility of all citizens to pay taxes for the constructive purposes of government we oppose the use of taxes by the government for war purposes and military expenditures.
For those who are conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for these purposes, the church seeks government provision for an alternative use of such tax money for peaceful, nonmilitary purposes.
The church recognizes that its members will believe and act differently in regard to their payment of taxes when a significant percentage goes for war purposes and military expenditures.
Some will pay the taxes willingly; some will pay the taxes but express a protest to the government; some will refuse to pay all or part of the taxes as a witness and a protest; and some will voluntarily limit their incomes or use of taxable services to a low enough level that they are not subject to taxation.
We call upon all of our members, congregations, institutions, and boards, to study seriously the problem of paying taxes for war purposes and investing in those government bonds which support war.
We further call upon them to act in response to their study, to the leading of conscience, and to their understanding of the Christian faith.
To all we pledge to maintain our continuing ministry of fellowship and spiritual concern.
In , the Church issued a recommendation from a committee that had been formed specifically to address the Church’s corporate payment of the telephone excise tax and whether it would be proper for the Church to invest in U.S. government securities.
The formation of the committee was accompanied with a note that a “growing number of Brethren and Brethren institutions… are either withholding the telephone tax (and/or income tax) or struggling with the problem.” The Annual Conference also approved a recommendation that it “reaffirm its fellowship with and prayerful concern for all those Brethren who have in light of their New Testament faith and Brethren heritage, chosen to withhold payment of taxes for war.” The following are excerpts from the report of that committee:
That the payment of federal taxes inevitably involves one in war and preparation for war is self-evident… Yet when the Christian understanding is applied to this issue, the matter immediately becomes complex and problematic.
On the one hand, our calling is to obey God rather than men, to witness for Christian peace and presumably, also, to protest the evil of war.
But on the other hand, the New Testament makes it clear that the Christian just as certainly has been called to stand alongside his fellowmen, to participate in their common life, and to take a responsible role in the larger world.
Regarding taxes, then, the first calling would seem to imply that the Christian should entirely divorce himself from that society which has dedicated its energies to the waging of war and refuse to support it in any way—including, of course, tax support. However, the second calling would imply a Christian obligation to participate fully in the social effort of humanity—including, of course, the payment of one’s fair share of taxes. The problem is to find the proper balance between these two callings.
This finding of balance is complicated by the difficulty in distinguishing between “war taxes” and other taxes when the government itself makes no such distinction.
Still further complication is introduced when the question arises as to whether one actually is able to withhold tax money or in any way affect the amount that ultimately is spent for war purposes.
The matter is not an easy one.
New Testament Guidance
As we turn to the New Testament we realize that the early Christians had to seek the same balance that we do; undoubtedly there have been few if any times in history when a Christian’s tax bill did not include “war taxes.” And it is certain that money paid to the Roman Empire went not only to support war but also idolatry, slavery, and other evils as well.
The New Testament, of course, is consistent in its opposition to war and violence; yet at every point where the particular issue of taxes is raised, the counsel is to pay them; no explicit precedent for withholding them is to be found.
Paul, in Romans 13:4–8 (NEB), speaks in terms of general principle: “You are obliged to submit. It is an obligation imposed not merely by fear of retribution but by conscience. That is also why you pay taxes. The authorities are in God’s service and to these duties they devote their energies. Discharge your obligations to all men; pay tax and toll, reverence and respect, to those to whom they are due. Leave no claim outstanding against you, except that of mutual love” (cf. 1 Peter 2:13–17).
When faced with the specific question of paying taxes to Caesar, Jesus’ response was “Pay Caesar what is due to Caesar, and pay God what is due to God” (Matthew 22:15–22; cf. Mark 12:13–17 and Luke 20:19–26).
The intended implication would seem to be that what belongs to God is much more inclusive and in every way prior to what belongs to Caesar.
And yet if Jesus’ statement means to indicate as legitimately belonging to Caesar, it is precisely that coin of taxation which Caesar himself had minted.
Finally, in Matthew 17:24–27, Jesus, in order “not to cause offense,” shows himself willing to pay even that tax which, he asserts, could not rightly be claimed of him. The reference may be to the temple-tax, although Jesus does speak of “earthly monarchs” collecting it. Be that as it may, the temple came under just as strong a judgment from Jesus as the state did. And it seems clear that the Gospel writer wants to use this incident to teach, with Paul, that the liberty of the Christian is not a license for him to disregard his civic obligations in matters such as tax payment. Certainly, all of the above texts must be held in tension with such commands as obeying God rather than men, separating oneself from evil, not conforming to the world, and so on. But the evidence is that, in this tension, the New Testament Christians found their proper balance to include the paying of taxes rather than the withholding of them…
The Brethren Tradition
Historical research… indicates that the official position of the church consistently has been that of paying all taxes, including some that were much more directly “war taxes” than any that can be so identified today.
Indeed, even the possibility of withholding taxes was given almost no consideration until very recently.
When such consideration was given, the church in every instance granted the right of conscience to tax resisters even while declining to recommend their action.
It should be noted, too, that some of the Brethren who have been most honored for their peace witness also took a stand in favor of paying taxes; the person’s position regarding tax payment was not made a test of his commitment to Christian peace.
The Current Situation
One complicating aspect of tax resistance is the fact that tax monies are not clearly differentiated into military and non-military categories; most of the functions of government are financed out of the same general fund. Money withheld (if that actually is possible) is withheld as much from the humane programs of government as from military programs; and it takes some care to make it clear that what one is protesting is war and not taxation in and of itself. In our day, the telephone tax comes the closest to being an explicit “war tax”—although even that situation is debatable…
The Christian’s problem is further complicated by the fact that he cannot actually withhold taxes, deprive the war effort of funds, or prevent his money from being used for war purposes—short of doing without a telephone (and perhaps other items subject to federal excise taxes), keeping his income below taxable level, or resorting to questionable dodges… Whatever taxes the individual does not pay voluntarily, the government is able to collect by means of liens and confiscations (and penalties which have the effect of actually increasing the amount of one’s money that goes to the government).
In its effect, then, tax resistance must be understood simply as one means of registering strong and dramatic opposition to war—a protest which may or may not be more effective than other means of protest. In fact, unless it is also accompanied by some other form of witness, tax refusal, in and of itself, has the disadvantage of being sheerly negative protest against war rather than a positive witness to the Prince of Peace and his way.
The Finding
We find no specific biblical counsel directing that taxes should be withheld, while we do find some calling for the payment of taxes even to a sinful, militaristic government.
However we can appreciate the fact that a number of Brethren, out of a truly Christian aversion to war based on the total Spirit and life of Jesus and the overall teachings of the New Testament do feel led of God to make protest by means of tax refusal.
But whatever action the Christian takes, it should mark a serious and dedicated effort to realize the lordship of Jesus Christ and become obedient only to him.
It should never be merely the practice of a current political technique on the one hand or a heedless and cowardly way of avoiding trouble for oneself on the other.
Recommendations
Although the Brethren cannot agree as to whether tax withholding is proper, they all can recognize the propriety of using the means of dissent which the social order itself recognizes and provides. We recommend, therefore, that all who feel the concern be encouraged to express their protests and testimonies through letters accompanying their tax returns, whether accompanied by payment or not, in correspondence with appropriate legislators and officials, and in other such ways.
We recommend, also, that both the denomination and individual Brethren give strong and active support to appropriate legislation providing alternative tax arrangements for peaceful purposes for those persons conscientiously opposed to war.
A Final Plea
We plead for a mutual and brotherly honoring of one another in this matter.
To those whose reading of Scripture leads them conscientiously to pay their full tax requirement, may they recognize the sincere Christian intention of the withholders in their desire to protest against what the New Testament clearly identifies as the sinfulness and demonism of war.
To those who because of their Christian conviction conscientiously feel that they must withhold payment in some degree, may they realize that their brethren who pay are themselves striving to be obedient to the instruction of Scripture and dare not be assumed to be any less dedicated to the Prince of Peace than are those who withhold.
Finally, we would consider it most unfortunate if, because of the taxation issue, the church allows its peace emphasis to become focused upon this one particular technique of anti-war protest and so be diverted from the much more important matters of deepening our biblical and theological understanding of the Christian peace position and of being about the positive work of reconciliation at all levels of human interaction through our witness to Him who is our Reconciliation.
[O]nly recently have we become sensitive to the fact that about half the federal taxes we pay personally is used for past, present, and future wars.
Our money destroys life and global resources in defiance of the will of God.
We pray for peace while paying for war.
We recommend Annual Conference strengthen and extend the denomination’s historic peace witness through the following actions: (Points a through e are based on recommendations of the New Call to Peace-making Conference, Green Lake, Wisconsin, ).
to call on congregations, districts, and the General Board to place high priority on study and discussion of:
war tax resistance, including Biblical examination of the Christian responsibility to civil authority,
consideration of refusal to pay the portion of their federal taxes used for militarism as a response to Christ’s call to discipleship and obedience,
pledging by congregations and individuals of spiritual, emotional, legal, and material support to members who resist war taxes,
exploration by the General Board, congregations, and church-related agencies for release from the current legal requirement to collect taxes by withholding the income taxes of employees, especially that portion of taxes used for military purposes,
to affirm that the open, non-evasive withholding of war taxes is a legitimate witness to our conscientious intention to follow the call of discipleship to Jesus Christ,
to consider the creation of a peace fund by congregations, the General Board, or the New Call to Peacemaking for handling the alternative “tax” payments of members who are conscientious objectors to war taxes.
to lend support to members who as a peace witness choose a lifestyle that reduces taxable income or increases their tax-deductible contributions to minimize tax liability,
to call on congregations, districts, and the General Board to participate in research and planning in local areas aimed at the conversion of plants from the manufacture of weapons to the production of civilian goods.
Also with reference to taxes for war, Brethren are urged to work for legislation that will enable alternative tax arrangements for persons conscientiously opposed to war. Annual Conference previously endorsed such efforts in 1973, in the Statement on Taxation for War, and in 1978, in the Statement on the World Peace Tax Fund.
There was also a “War Tax Consultation” statement that is not included on the Church of the Brethren website for some reason.
Maybe I’ll find that later if I keep digging.
Finally, in , the Annual Conference appointed a committee to take up the question of “Taxation for War” again.
That committee made its report in .
The report reviews the 1969–1983 statements described above, concludes that the Church had settled on a policy of considering war tax resistance a legitimate witness without actually recommending it, and noted that some Brethren continued to find that lack of active support insufficient.
Having summarized the work so far, “the committee does not feel led to write yet another position paper at this time,” but did recommend that Brethren “develop a heightened awareness of the war tax issue” and engage in “extensive and thorough study and discussion of earlier position papers on the war tax issues.” It assembled a study packet of the existing material, which was sent out to various Brethren bodies for that purpose.
The sources I used:
Bowman, Rufus D. The Church of the Brethren and War, 1708–1941 (Brethren Publishing House, 1944)
Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the Church of the Brethren, 1923–1944 (Brethren Publishing House, 1946)
Today I share the results of my hunt for war tax resistance sentiment in the archives of Brethren periodicals from the 1930s up to the point of the U.S. entry into World War Ⅱ.
A lot happened in this period, which came as a surprise to me after having viewed the vanishing of opposition to personal funding of war during and immediately after World War Ⅰ.
Gandhi’s Indian independence movement was frequently mentioned in columns of Brethren periodicals, and usually in a sympathetic way.
In the edition of The Brethren Evangelist, his tax resistance campaigns got a skeptical look in the light of Brethren teaching (source):
The Word of Christ inculcates obedience to the powers of civil government, the payment of tribute and tax money even to the emperors of Rome, the rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. Ghandi [sic] asks his followers not to pay certain taxes and foments a campaign of “civil disobedience.”
As a matter of fact, the “Way of Ghandi” is more like the method used by the English suffragettes of some years ago. And in some respects it is very successful as a political means.
George H.
Jones saw the writing on the wall in a article that began: “That the United States is nearer war now than at any time in the past twenty years, no one doubts” (source).
He urged conscientious objectors to war to prepare for the tough times ahead, and reminded them what had happened in the last war, for example:
The churches in many cases became simply the sponsors for drives to win the war by appeals for cigarettes and socks or chocolate and sweaters or Liberty Bonds to end the War for Democracy.
These were the major needs that sounded to the dome in many Christian churches.
The Gospel Messenger was also publishing at this time, and had absorbed the previously independent Missionary Visitor.
In the issue of The Gospel Messenger, Ben Stoner announced the “20,000 Dunkers for Peace” campaign.
The campaign aimed to get 20,000 Brethren (and other varieties of German Baptist and related sects) to sign a peace pledge.
This brief pledge explicitly mentioned war taxes (source):
I, ⸺, as a part of my program for peace, refuse ever to bear arms or to coöperate, in any way, in armed conflict; and, only under protest to pay taxes for military purposes.
In the accompanying article, Stoner explained that the tax portion pledged the signer “to do all within his power to keep his tax money from being appropriated for purposes which are inconsistent with Christiantiy and the basic laws of our land.” However, this stopped short of tax resistance: “At present perhaps the best way of protesting the use of tax money for military purposes is through petition to Congress when appropriations are being considered.”
The issue printed the following query from one congregation, and noted that it had been passed up for consideration to the Annual Conference (source):
We, the Eglon congregation, petition Annual Conference through District Meeting of the First District of West Virginia to tell us how we can best protest against paying taxes for military purposes.
A report on the conference carried in the issue explained what happened next (source):
The paper protesting military taxes resulted in several speeches before it was decided to make the answer of Standing Committee the answer of Conference.
And this was that the matter be referred to the Board of Christian Education for study and a report in .
This seems a fair disposition of the problem in view of the fact that the question is involved and study needed.
The answer from the Board of Christian Education came (source):
All lawful taxes should be paid. As Christians we differentiate between taxes for constructive and taxes for destructive purposes. Because war is unchristian, taxes for military and naval purposes should be protested.
Not less than 70% out of our taxes paid to the federal government goes directly or indirectly for military and naval purposes. Some of these federal taxes are: income taxes, estate taxes, federal stamp taxes, and the federal tax on gasoline, etc.
Ways of protesting against taxes for military and naval purposes.
Paste a small sticker on your income tax returns and other payments made to the federal government, which reads as follows: “That portion of this tax devoted to armaments and war preparedness is paid under protest.” The Board of Christian Education will furnish these stickers.
Write a letter once a year to your congressmen protesting against the appropriation of funds for military and naval purposes.
Protest personally when paying federal taxes, such as the federal gasoline tax.
Protest through resolutions from local churches, district, and Annual Conferences.
We favor a further study of this problem with the purpose of helping to develop a sound theory of taxation.
A later report on the Annual Conference noted that this “Protesting Against Military Taxes” committee report was adopted by the conference “after a single question… There was no argument.”
A front-page editorial by J.E.M. in the edition, entitled “I Hate War”, touched on personal war funding in a couple of places:
Later in the seventies I saw the war stamps on match boxes, and learned of other stamps and taxes that had to be paid because of the depression caused by the Civil War. My hatred of war increased, for those stamps and taxes in hard times seemed stained with human blood and reeked with human flesh.
I have seen university students being trained for war, trained with money that you and I pay, and I hate war.
I am paying taxes to help pay for past wars and to prepare for the next war, and I hate war.
In a article, Kermit Eby tried to explain that when the war comes, the pacifist position, if taken earnestly, will be see as a threat to the war effort and dealt with accordingly, and that Brethren should prepare themselves with this in mind (source):
The major task in the last war centered in the task of keeping up the will to win; no effort was spared in its achievement.
Most authorities on the “next war” believe that a greater effort will be made to mobilize the national sentiment needed.
If this is true, several significant developments may be expected concerning which members of pacifist churches should be aware.
Membership in the Church of the Brethren means that each member is opposed to the use of war as a means of achieving the policies of his nation; that because of religious, economic, social, and other reasons he is unable to give intellectual assent to the war system.
Having come to this conclusion, he refuses to support his government when to do so goes contrary to his conscience.
The assumption of such a position automatically places one in opposition to the government at war.
It is a situation in which there is no neutrality, no grey, simply white or black.
The mere intellectual assent to a pacifist position amounts to intellectual sabotage, for it implies an unwillingness to go with the group.
…[T]he success of war depends on the intellectual and emotional support given it, as much as on the material.
Hence, the pacifist position is the first step in blocking the successful termination of the war.
Furthermore, the greater the number of those who take the position of opposition, the greater the danger to them as individuals.
A few pacifists could be tolerated as religious fanatics; many pacifists become a stumblingblock to the war machine, and, as such, they must be removed quickly.
Frankly, members of a pacifist church should know that such a position may mean their removal from society, loss of jobs, persecution, and even death.
The only hope in a pacifist move lies in the possibility of it becoming a mass movement of such proportions that no government would dare risk annihilating it entirely.
Membership in the Church of the Brethren is not a passive act.
It puts one on record as an opponent of war.
It classifies one as a public enemy in war time, along with enemy aliens, deserters, labor and professional agitators.
The statement in the resolution concerning the refusal to support war by the payment of taxes adds to the similarity with the left wing labor groups who oppose international war for economic reasons.
The only distinction remains in the mind of the pacifist who ignorantly thinks that refusal to give economic support is non-aggressive in its opposition to the government at war.
It is, in fact, a most dangerous form of obstruction.
Since this is the case, a pacifist should be willing to accept the logic of his position and refuse all economic aid for support of war.
To put the case simply, no Dunker farmer dare ask his son to support the position of the church by risking death in opposition to war when he is guilty of selling his farm produce at a profit.
Wheat is as vital to war as soldiers, and we dare not refuse the former and advance the latter.
Finally, we must face the fact that even relief means support of the war system, for it releases others from the necessity of affording relief, it encourages the soldiers who are in need of relief, it gives support to the war by rehabilitating wounded for further service, it denies simultaneous aid to the enemy — no government would permit relief for its enemy.
Relief supplies are secured by independent funds; thus direct economic aid is given which would otherwise not be supplied.
More seriously than any of the above is the intellectual support which relief gives.
To be consistent, we must intellectually sabotage the entire system even to relief and bravely accept the consequences.
This was such a radical departure from everything I’d read before that at first I wondered whether it had been intended as a sort of Modest Proposal meant to exaggerate the pacifist position to logical conclusions that would be unpalatable to the typical reader.
But I think Eby was sincere.
The Annual Conference reaffirmed “our purpose not to participate in any war, and our protest against the application of such a large proportion of our taxes to military purposes” but did not elaborate (source).
In the Conference Committee on Counsel for Conscientious Objectors made a series of recommendations for that year’s Annual Conference “on the positions that our people should take in the event of war” (source).
These included the following three varieties of “peace testimony to register our convictions and to avoid our participation in war-related activities:”
The refraining from the purchase of such as Liberty Bonds to finance war.
The renunciation of, or the sacrificial use of, profits derived from industry, farming, or invested securities as a result of war; sacrificing always during war periods to build a fund for the furtherance of good will and for the support of families who suffer because of their conscientious objections to war.
The protesting against federal income taxes if used for military purposes.
This is the first explicit renunciation of the Church’s embrace of Liberty Bonds during World War Ⅰ that I have spotted.
A later report on the Annual Conference was difficult for me to interpret, but I think the gist of it was that this set of recommendations passed.
Rufus Bowman was a member of that Conference Committee, and in a later book on The Church of the Brethren and War he says that this was the high point of official Brethren opposition to war, at least up to the book’s publication in .
In the issue, Lorell Weiss predicted the trouble ahead, and how Brethren would be communicating their values to their children by their actions (source):
[T]here is a strong temptation to compromise principles for expediency’s sake.
Furthermore, the choice between principles and expediency must be made not once but often, by both parents and children.
We have not only to decide whether it is right to kill.
Other questions press for an answer.
Shall we buy defense bonds? Shall we assist in aluminum drives or patriotic demonstrations? Shall we remain discreetly silent and let our neighbors assume that we share the general war fever, or shall we boldly testify for what we believe?
A letter to the editor from Homer D. Kimmel (source) printed in the edition read:
This evening we heard a radio announcer advertising the sale of defense savings bonds with these words, “Buy a defense saving bond.
The $18.75 that you spend for a $25 defense savings bond will buy five bayonets.”
What a picture that calls to one’s mind! Five bayonets for five soldiers to tear the entrails out of five fellow men left lying helpless with their life blood flowing out on some ghastly battlefield! Yet all such are fellow men who love life no less than you and I.
Buy a defense saving bond!
Buy some death, some pain and suffering, some heartache, tears, hunger and privation.
An article by James L. Houff in the issue noted how frequently the government was tapping people for war funding (source). Excerpt:
Every time we go to the movies we pay three cents to the government for defense.
When we take a Sunday afternoon motor ride, about six cents out of every twenty goes to the government for tax.
At the post office we are reminded by our postmaster that he has defense bonds for sale.
Children are told they might help protect their country by buying savings stamps with their money instead of candy.
In the Bible Monitor of , B.F.
Masterson tried to put all this talk of protesting war taxes to rest (source).
Masterson advocated a strict distancing of the Christian believer from politics, of a sort that was going out of fashion elsewhere in the church.
Excerpts:
Paul did not suggest to the churches to write letters to Ceaser instructing him how to manage his naval tactics, that is the chief commander of the army’s business.
The church is not supposed, from a New Testament view point, to take part in the transaction of civil government.
The Jews who were under the Roman government, but not on good terms with it, conspired to draw Christ into politics when they asked Him, if it is lawful to pay taxes to Ceasar.
He said, render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s, He did not suggest to the Jews to make a protest against paying a certain per cent of the taxes.
He knew better than to get His foot in the trap.
[I]t does not pay for the church to enter into a confederacy with the world and for a Christian organization to advise, unsolicited, the commander of an army is beyond its jurisdiction and to protest against taxes that are applied for one[’s] protection is ungrateful to say the least, and would not coincide with the tenor of Christ’s doctrine.
Jesus was entirely free from the spirit of nationalism.
Although a Jew, He never protested against the Roman rule nor incited in His followers the spirit of rebellion.
The Bible Monitor also reproduced an article from the Gospel Herald (a Mennonite publication) in on the proper relationship between the Christian and the government (stand-offish for the most part), that included this section on taxes and Liberty Bonds (source):
Christians have the obligation to pay tribute and custom to and to fear and honor the “powers that be.”… This principle came acutely under test during the World war.
The problem did not arise with reference to the payment of taxes some of the proceeds of which were definitely used to carry on the war, but with reference to the purchase of Liberty Bonds which was voluntary, the proceeds of which directly supported the war program.
Here the nonresistant conscience asserted itself.
The former was clearly within the teaching of scripture, but the latter was voluntary and became a measure of one’s wartime patriotism.
Men who were physically unable on account of the rigors of warfare could render their bit toward the winning of the war by the purchase of bonds.
To sum up: the Church of the Brethren has come a long way since the willful blindness of the World War Ⅰ period, when Dunkers seemed happy to buy up war bonds with abandon.
Now there is explicit precedent for refusal to buy war bonds, and even some hints of emerging tax resistance, or at least tax reluctance.
But it remains to be seen whether this trend will survive Pearl Harbor.
The U.S. entry into World War Ⅱ gave the Church of the Brethren another chance to decide whether it would stick to its principles in the face of public pressure to join in the bloodletting.
As we’ll see, the evidence is mixed, but at least this time around the Church avoided the total surrender to war fever that it exhibited in World War Ⅰ.
The earliest mentions of war bonds I saw in the Brethren Evangelist were all of this basic opportunistic form (my paraphrase): “The government wants you to invest 10% of your income in war bonds; can’t you invest at least that much in our Mission Board?” There were also a few off-hand mentions of church institutions either investing some of their money in government bonds or taking government bonds as donations.
This mention was typical of the crass way this magazine saw war bonds largely as unwelcome competition for church fundraising (source):
Why not make your regular offering this year, and then make the added contribution of one of those “War Bonds” you have been buying.
This would help us look to the future in a fine way, if enough of those bonds were given each year so they would mature year by year…
Remember Jesus believed in Benevolence — so must we.
There was not even a hint in the Brethren Evangelist during the war years that there was anything ethically wrong with buying war bonds, unless it interfered too much with your tithing.
Things were a little different over at the Gospel Messenger.
The issue carried a resolution from the Brethren Service Committee that read in part:
Our citizens are being urged to help finance this war by many measures other than by direct taxation; and since [t]he official position of the Church of the Brethren involves nonparticipation in any war either directly or indirectly…
From there it did not counsel for or against anything specifically, but the flavor of the advice was for the reader to redouble his efforts for relief of war suffering and “look for the voice of God in his own Christ-enlightened conscience and obey that voice no matter to how great sacrifice and suffering it may lead.”
An Indiana section of the church held a peace conference on and “one subject of discussion was Shall We Buy Defense Bonds?” (source).
The issue carried “An Appeal for Patriotism” from W. Glenn McFadden, who noted that the defense bonds program had to bribe citizens with lucrative returns in order to get their financial support.
McFadden said that instead he would buy a Brethren Service Certificate and ask nothing in return.
an illustration of a Brethren Service Certificate
One issue noted without further comment that “Life insurance companies are putting well over half of all their funds for investment into United States government bonds.
On the average, each policyholder is owner of $120 in government bonds through his life insurance policy.” I am not certain how to interpret this, but if it’s not just a piece of trivia, it sounds like a veiled warning for conscientious objectors to military funding.
A note in another issue said that an annual “United Pacifist Conference” of some sort had adopted “[a] resolution demanding that Federal tax money collected from religious pacifists be used by the government for nonmilitary purposes only.”
This was only a one-paragraph short, and is the first I’ve heard of this conference or its resolution.
It might have been an A.J. Muste project from around the time when he was beginning to explore war tax resistance.
Some church leaders from the Michigan district approved the following resolution, which seems to allude to the pressure to buy war bonds (source):
In harmony with the historic attitude of the Church of the Brethren, we the representatives of the southern churches of the District of Michigan, declare ourselves to be in favor of all things constructive and opposed to all things destructive; and that when demands are made of us which we cannot conscientiously fulfill, that our attitude should be nonviolent, and that we encourage the churches of Michigan in the purchase of Brethren Service certificates and stamps.
In war life and money are conscripted.
Every nation demands of its citizens what they possess — service from the physically fit and money from everyone.
Taxes
Direct and indirect taxes are assessed against all citizens.
Investment in War Bonds
This is expected from all citizens who have investing power.
To date the government makes such investment a voluntary matter but community pressures are almost equivalent to compulsion.
Many persons with a conscience which prevents them from engaging in physical warfare are also deterred from voluntarily financing war.
a boy shows off his Brethren Service Stamps card
The article went on to talk up Brethren Service Certificates, which helped to fund the Civilian Public Service camps for drafted conscientious objectors who were doing alternative work.
There were also smaller-denomination “Brethren Service Stamps”, which were marketed to children in particular — “Children take their stamp books to school to indicate that, while they are not buying defense stamps, they are buying these stamps” — and also some so-called “peace bonds” and “peace stamps” that were meant as ways Brethren could participate in the bond drive mania without compromising their consciences.
In all of these cases, the amount spent on bonds or stamps was a pure donation — the bonds could not later be redeemed for cash like war bonds could.
“Civilian Bonds”
The article shared a letter from Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau in which he authorized the issue of government bonds “which are not designated by their terms as ‘war issues’ ” — or, as he put it in another place “securities not designated as ‘War Bonds’ ” — so that conscientious objectors could plausibly buy them.
Morgenthau’s language not so subtly indicates that this would be largely a fig leaf.
The bonds would not be “designated” as “war issues” or “war bonds” but there was no suggestion that their proceeds would be spent any differently than any other government bonds.
The accompanying article, however, went further and claimed that this new bond money was “to be used for civilian purposes” and would therefore be “a way to co-operate in government financing without violation of conscience.”
I think that was wishful thinking at best.
The Brethren Service Committee was taking orders for the bonds immediately, via the Provident Trust Company of Philadelphia, who would send the bonds out to purchasers when the government got around to printing them up.
In return for your order you would “without delay receive a reply which you may hold as tangible evidence to your community, if needed, to show that you are co-operating in financing the government.”
If memory serves, the Provident Trust Company ended up using the money to buy ordinary government F- & G-series bonds and then “registered” them as “conscience money” through some sort of hocus-pocus to distinguish them somehow from the bonds other people were buying without such conscientious decoration.
(If you want to delve further, this was also a project that was covered extensively in The Mennonite, and you can see what I found in that magazine starting here.)
A later issue gave further instructions on the program, and included a coupon employees could use, if their employers were withholding money from their paychecks to buy war bonds, to request that they be used for “Civilian Bonds” or “Brethren Service Certificates” instead (source).
The article explained the need for the new bonds:
“For us who hold sacred [pacifist] convictions, it becomes very embarrassing to refuse the purchase of war bonds to meet a community quota.
Our neighbors cannot understand and we are often looked upon as unpatriotic.”
A frequently-asked-questions section followed.
This mostly covered the practical issues of how the bonds worked and how to purchase them, and didn’t include any questions about just how conscientious or civilian the bonds really were.
The article seemed more careful than its predecessor in only implying without stating explicitly that the money raised by the bonds would not go to military spending.
There was, however, this somewhat telling answer:
Question: Does the purchase of a Civilian Bond give credit on the county war bond quota?
Answer: Yes.…
Often, subsequent mentions of the Civilian Bond program were careful to say merely that the bonds were not explicitly designated for war expenses.
But occasionally a stronger (and I believe, baseless) guarantee would be added, like this one from the issue (source):
The government assures us that the funds realized from the sale of these bonds are not used to finance the war.
Or this one, from (source), that you can just barely parse as not an outright lie if you try hard enough:
The historic peace churches through their committee have made arrangements that purchasers of government bonds may designate their money to be used in the civilian phases of our government program. Many citizens desiring to co-operate in the civilian program of the government but whose consciences do not permit them to aid directly and voluntarily in financing the war buy these bonds.
Or this carefully-constructed phrasing, from (source):
The peace churches have arranged with the government that… purchases may be made which constitute a designation that the money should be used in the civilian expenses of the government.
Purchasers of Brethren Service Certificates had more of a legitimately clear conscience, though they may not have found these certificates as useful as bonds in beating back the mobs of war bond enforcers, and of course they were also more expensive, being donations rather than loans.
But here is an example of how one taxpayer used this program to help assuage his guilt for taxpaying:
Enclosed please find a check… representing double the amount of the tax which has been deducted from my salary this month.
It is my conviction that the use to which this tax is being put — destructive alike of human life and of international goodwill — is incompatible with Christian ethics…
Since I can do nothing to prevent the withholding of this tax, I can at least protest the use to which it is put by trying to help counteract the damage it is doing to the cause of Christianity and democracy.
I am therefore sending double the amount of tax to organizations which are maintaining and strengthening the principles of Christianity and of true democracy by constructive work of goodwill.
I intend to continue sending this amount, in addition to my regular contributions, each time I receive a salary check from which this tax has been deducted.
As a receipt, the regular B.S.C. certificate will be ample.
Rufus D. Bowman
For the edition, Rufus D.
Bowman wrote an article titled “Our Brethren Heritage Is Being Threatened”.
One of these threats: “During World War Ⅱ the majority of the members of the Church of the Brethren are supporting the war system.” Bowman reported on the results of a survey he had conducted of Brethren practices that had reached 161 churches, representing about one-sixth of the Church of the Brethren.
In that survey, “forty-six per cent of the churches reported that the members generally were buying war bonds and stamps, while sixteen per cent indicated that a substantial minority were buying them, and seventeen per cent said that a few were purchasing war bonds.”
(Furthermore, more than 80% of Brethren draftees were going into the military without taking any sort of conscientious objector status, either noncombatant or civilian public service work.)
Along with the ministers all adults who have supported the war economically should repent.
War cannot be reconciled with Jesus Christ.
War is unchristian and is inconsistent with the most precious values of this universe.
The kingdom of God is not built through hate, but through love.
It is true that one cannot live without helping the war to some extent.
When the writer takes the train there is a war tax on his ticket.
But there are varying degrees of supporting the war and not supporting it.
Where the individual is free to choose, the spirit and teachings of Jesus and the position of the Church of the Brethren are clear that church members should not support a system that destroys personality.
Adults should repent of their part in this conflict.
In the edition, W.G. Willoughby took this now-that-the-war’s-over-let’s-repent thing and ran with it:
Let us confess to God and to one another that we have all shared in the dropping of bombs.
We have participated in the mass slaughter of God’s children.
Is the bombardier who released the bombs more guilty than the pilot who guided the ship; is he more guilty than the person who built the plane; is he more guilty than the person who bought bonds to pay for the ship, or is he more guilty than we who paid taxes to the government directing the whole operation?
The Etownian (Elizabethtown College student paper) covered a seminar held by Church of the Brethren officials who had been navigating the government’s conscientious objector / Civilian Public Service Camp bureaucracy (source).
A paraphrase of remarks of M.R.
Zigler included this: “The church must decide if it can purchase war bonds which are used to build more instruments of death, or if it should buy Brethren Service Stamps and Bonds which go to relieve suffering regardless of nation, race, or creed.”
The president of the student senate at Elizabethtown apparently decided in favor of bonds, when in a article (source), he wrote matter-of-factly that:
Today when we hear “Back the Attack” we know we must all cooperate by buying and investing in war bonds.
Without this cooperation our Government would be helpless and we might as well learn the “goose step.”
However, we know what we want and we will not let our Government down.
We have pledged to cooperate and we are cooperating.
And a front-page banner in the issue urged that “every alumnus and former student will adopt the slogan, ‘Buy a Bond for Elizabethtown College’ ” (source).
The Brethren Missionary Herald reprinted a statement from the Southern California District Conference on the propriety of non-combatant service, in its issue (source).
It included this:
In the matter of the purchasing of Government Bonds, War Stamps, and working in defense industries, we hold that the line of Christian duty, as well as of Christian privilege, is sometimes a very difficult line to draw; and, in these matters it must be left to the individual soul to deal alone with his God.
A news brief in the edition showed that the West 10th Street Brethren Church of Ashland Ohio didn’t find the line too difficult to draw (source):
Rev. Charles Mayes, pastor, received $10.25 in war stamps in the church offering plates.
Suggestion was made “that any other stamps appearing in the offering will be gladly received.
These can either be converted into a war bond in the name of the church corporation, or turned over to some of our creditors as stamps, probably at face value.
It honors the government to buy stamps even though the stamps may be turned into the church.
The government will not lose and the church will thus gain.
A sidebar noted that “War Bonds Will Be Accepted” in the Thanksgiving Offering of the Home Missions Council, so the line was not apparently very difficult for the Council to draw, either.
“Militarism and hate are sweeping the Church today,” complained the editor in (source).
“The gospel of love and grace has died in thousands of pulpits.
Many church members are complaining that they cannot buy war bonds and support the Church, too.”
I can think of one possible solution to that problem, but the editor had another in mind:
buy war bonds and then turn them over to the church!
When the government instituted an additional “Victory Tax” to be withheld from salaries, the Brethren Conference of Southern California sent a protest to the government about it, after a special meeting held for this purpose on .
Their protest was over the fact that the churches would be responsible for withholding this tax, which apparently they were not required to do for other taxes previously.
This, they evidently found to be an egregious violation of religious liberty, and they insisted that pastors of their district pay the tax themselves without the church doing the withholding.
Some lines were easier for the district to draw than others.
Clarence M.
Stump took an unusually radical stand in the edition of the Bible Monitor, criticizing other Brethren for helping the government establish, fund, and operate Civilian Public Service camps for conscientious objectors. “Some say, going to camp is not fighting, but nevertheless it is a defense program.
Trying to use one’s own power and not relying on God.” He recommended that draftees stand their ground and refuse to serve and take refuge in the Bible verse that says “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake.” So “Let us serve God and not Mammon.
Let us not take offerings to send our young men to camp, but rather let us pray for our boys that they may be faithful to God.” (source)
See “Why Should I Give?” by O.L. Strayer in the issue, on the other hand, for a passionate defense of the camps.
That defense included this admission:
We have paid taxes both direct and hidden for the carrying out of the business of the government.
None of us can be so foolish as to say that we did not know that a portion of those taxes have been going for the upkeep of the fighting forces of the country, and yet we have not scrupled to pay, nay, we have taught from our pulpits that the Christian will pay his taxes faithfully.
One of the arguments for participating in bond drives and for turning a blind eye to war taxes was that everybody was involved in the war somehow, directly or indirectly, so there was no point trying to take a risky personal stand to try to extricate yourself from it.
H.S.
Bender of the Mennonite “Peace Problems Committee” tried to address this in an article reproduced in a issue of the Bible Monitor (source).
Excerpts:
We are sometimes told that it is inconsistent for Mennonites to refuse to take part in the war because our Mennonite farmers are already in the war effort; hence all other forms of participation such as fighting, buying war bonds, working in war industry, must also be approved.
The argument is clear and logical: if farming is taking part in war, then we cannot logically refuse the other things asked of us in military service, in war bonds, or in war work; then we must either quit farming or give up our nonresistant position altogether.
Bender took the position that while the produce of the farmer is used by those engaging in war, this is not the same as manufacturing military materiel, operating under military orders, working in a war industry, or working for the benefit of the war.
While such a farmer does pay taxes, he did so just as much before the war.
In short: farming remains a peaceful industry, even if it is conducted during wartime.
The propaganda arguments used against nonresistant farmers come from chiefly two sources: either from the militarists who do not at all want to strengthen Christian conscience against war but who want to break down this conscience to get more war participation; or from men with weak consciences and convictions, often from some one in war industries or in military service who desires an alibi to justify his own lack of conscientiousness.
During World War Ⅱ the Church of the Brethren held somewhat more firm than they had in War Ⅰ.
At least they largely kept their misgivings about war funding, if they were not very consistent about following through on them.
A new pacifist war tax resistance movement began to gel outside of the traditional peace churches in the late 1940s, and I’ll be looking to see how or whether the Brethren contributed to this.
The Brethren Evangelist continued to look at war bonds mostly as a positive example of giving that ought to be emulated by Brethren in the post-war period through Church-directed giving.
For example, an article on that theme by the Reverend James E. Ault alluded to war bonds in this way: “We have assisted in meeting goals for War Bonds, Victory Bonds, or Community Fund drives until it has become a part of every day experience.
These goals would be of very little value if there were not some greater goal to be reached…” (source).
Things took a very different turn in the Gospel Messenger.
Harper S. Will presented “A Seven-Point Program for Brethren” in the issue.
Will suggested that the arms race and the normalization of military conscription and training meant that Brethren would have to be more active and persistent if they wanted to make progress for a peaceful world.
He asked his readers to “[g]o into your closet, quiet your mind, and seek the guidance of the Eternal Spirit” and gave this as one example: “Henry Thoreau did it in the days of the Civil War, and he ended up in jail because he would not pay his taxes.”
In the issue, Rufus D. Bowman addressed “The Church of the Brethren and the Cultural Crisis”.
According to Bowman, the Church was being overwhelmed by and absorbed into an unchristian culture.
One of the symptoms of this was the half-hearted way Brethren upheld their adherence to non-resistance:
During World War Ⅰ our members purchased war bonds and many of our young men went straight into the army.
During World War Ⅱ it is evident that the majority of our members compromised with the war system.
“Shall We Continue to Call Ourselves a Peace Church?” asked Ruth B. Statler in the issue.
Statler noted that most Brethren draftees in the last war went into the armed services without taking any sort of conscientious objector status, and that “[a] great many of our church members bought war bonds.”
The issue brought readers news of a war tax resister from the just-emerging modern war tax resistance movement (source):
Mrs. Caroline Urie. wife of a navy officer, a Quaker and veteran social worker, has publicly refused to pay the 34.6% of her income tax which, according to government figures, would go to military expenses.
Mrs. Urie wrote President Truman and the U.S. collector of internal revenue that the withheld money would be given to four nonprofit agencies engaged in removing the causes of war.
She is willing to pay taxes “for any reasonable constructive purposes.” As a Christian she said, “I must henceforth refuse to contribute in any way I can avoid toward maintaining the institution of war.”
that was followed up by this note:
This copy of a letter to the Collector of Internal Revenue came to the Messenger desk recently.
Enclosed herewith is my income tax return for .
I wish now to announce to the Collector of Internal Revenue and the Treasury Department that I cannot conscientiously continue to pay federal income taxes when so large a proportion of the funds is being used for purposes of war.
This country did not turn to peace at the end of World War Ⅱ, but instead sought to protect and expand an American Empire.
This mad attempt to dominate the world by force of arms, the threat of atomic war, and offers of economic aid only to future allies will lead to devastation and death.
I want to dissociate myself as completely as possible from these tragic, suicidal and evil policies, and to do all I can to convince my fellow citizens that we must completely renounce the way of war and violence. ―Marion Coddington, New York, N.Y.
There was also a note in the following issue about a woman who had been denied U.S. citizenship after she stated in her application that she would not be willing to “bear arms in defense of the United States [and] that she had refused to buy bonds in the last war because their proceeds were used to finance war.”
The issue noted briefly that “The National Baptist Sunday School and Training Union Congress at Cleveland, Ohio, recently urged churches and religious bodies not to invest in war or savings bonds which may be used in the financing of war.” (source)
The issue reprinted some resolutions passed by a Quaker gathering on the subject of conscientious objection to war (source).
Among these were that “Friends are urged… [t]o avoid engaging in any trade, business, or profession directly contributing to the military system; and the purchase of government war bonds or stock certificates in war industries. [And t]o carefully consider the implication of paying those taxes, a major portion of which goes for military purposes.” The issue also reported that the North Carolina Yearly Meeting of Friends had issued a statement on conscientious objection, which also “urged Quakers ‘to realize that by paying federal taxes we are supporting preparation for war,’ but did not advise that taxes not be paid” (source).
Up to this point, all of this sudden interest in war tax resistance has been focused outside the Church of the Brethren — neither Urie nor Coddington were Brethren, and the statements above are from Quaker and Baptist institutions.
But in the issue is a quote from Rufus D. Bowman, who up to this point has been hinting at war tax resistance without actually endorsing it, in which he finally comes out:
My conviction is that all war is sin and out of harmony with the spirit, life and teachings of Jesus.
It is, therefore, wrong to participate in war.
When war comes, it is difficult in a totalitarian state to keep from helping the war system.
The most Christian position is to remain apart from war as far as possible.
Accepting any service within the army puts a person under military orders and clouds his testimony against war.
Carrying on constructive service projects under church or civilian direction, the giving of a vigorous testimony against war and the payment of war taxes, and giving our lives for a vital peace program represents a consistent Christian position.
The issue continued the new trend of highlighting examples of war tax resisters from other denominations (source):
A Quaker of Moorestown, N.J., William B. Evans, paid his income tax three months ahead of time because he believes in the American government.
But he does not believe in war or in the preparation for it; therefore, he deducted from his payment the amount he estimated would be allotted to military purposes.
In a letter to the internal revenue office he said that he was giving that money to relief and rehabilitation.
Refusal to pay taxes that may be used for military purposes on the ground of conscience is being manifested by small groups of people in the United States, Switzerland, and Norway.
In Switzerland a growing group of women, many of them teachers, and in Norway Quakers are withholding taxes for military purposes, but stating their willingness to pay the same amounts for constructive projects.
The issue carried an update on Caroline Urie’s resistance (source):
Mrs. Caroline Urie, seventy-five year old Quaker widow, of Yellow Springs, Ohio, deducted 32.3 per cent of the first installment of her income tax and will donate the deducted amount to nonprofit agencies working for peace.
She estimated the deducted amount would be used for military purposes and expressed her opposition to this use of the tax money because “war and preparation for war in the atomic area is a crime against humanity.”
The issue reported on the blooming Peacemakers war tax resistance movement (source):
More than forty individuals throughout America, most of them from the peace churches, submitted only a part of their income tax to the government this year.
They sent an accompanying letter saying that they were contributing the rest of the tax to service or peace-making projects.
Their basis of refusal to pay all of it was that a high percentage of income tax revenue goes for war purposes.
The issue brought the news that “[i]n Norway the Quakers have decided to pay a peace tax to the government instead of the government defense tax recently voted by Parliament.
The government has agreed to this arrangement.” (source) No further details were given, though, so it’s difficult to guess what this amounted to practically.
The magazine repeated the news in its issue without adding much in the way of specifics.
There was clearly a hunger for news about war tax resisters, but in all of this there is still no mention of any actual named resister from within the Church of the Brethren itself, except perhaps Rufus Bowman by implication.
The issue included this representation of the debate about war tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren at the time (source):
How Does a Pacifist Act?
One says, “I have to stick my neck out.”
Vigorous efforts to break with a war system are necessary.
What kind of logic is it for a person to say he’s a pacifist and pay income tax — a large share of which goes for war?
If I refuse my income tax payment, I am protesting in the strongest way I know.
Anyone can write letters against a tax.
They mean little to our legislators.
What counts is conviction so strong that persons refuse to pay no matter what the consequences are.
If Gandhi had not been ready to go to jail for what he believed, the Free India Movement would have crumpled before it got well under way.
We cannot build a pacifist movement if leaders in the Church of the Brethren are unwilling to risk jail for what they believe.
⋮
Another says, “I must act with moderation.”
⋮
The extreme and antagonistic position of the tax refusers and nonregistrants seems out of harmony with the Master’s deeds and words:
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”
“Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.”
I don’t like it that I am forced through my income tax into supporting war preparations. However, if I refuse payment, the government will collect anyway.
The way to fight this tax is to work for a change in the law.
Meanwhile, over at the Brethren Missionary Herald things remained much in the vein of “you gave money for war, won’t you also give some to us?” For example:
the Brethren Home Missions Council held war bonds according to its financial statement
How much have members of our churches paid out in taxes and in purchase of war bonds during the past five years?
Dare we give the Lord less in the next five years? []
![$25 Certificate. Brethren Service Commitee. Church of the Brethren. General Administration Offices, Elgin, Illinois. This certifies that [blank] has contributed the within stated sum to the Church of the Brethren to be used in Civilian Public Service, in relieving suffering, in creating good will, and in making Christ known as Prince of Peace. Contributor’s Statement of Purpose: This contribution, made in addition to my normal giving, is in consideration of tragic world need, of the sacrifice of life and money which many are making in war and of my desire to support constructive service to humanity. This contribution is intended as an alternate service to war, in which my conscience does not permit me to engage. I give it voluntarily, asking neither interest nor return of principal.](brethren-service-certificate.png)
