Some historical and global examples of tax resistance →
Japan →
Conscientious Objection to Military Tax, 1974– →
Michio Ohno
This is the twenty-first in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today
brings us up to 1974.
brought readers
the
news that “The World Peace Tax Fund Act” had been introduced in Congress.
This early version of the “peace tax fund” idea, according to the
article, would create a federal trust fund separate from the funds in the
general
U.S. treasury,
which would be supervised by a board of trustees (mostly appointed by the
U.S. president). The
fund might be used to support such things as (the language in the bill said
“shall include but not be limited to”) “research and other activities designed
to develop and demonstrate nonviolent methods of resolving international
conflicts.” Registered conscientious objectors to military taxation would have
a portion of their taxes assigned to this fund (a portion equivalent to the
percent of the U.S.
budget spent on military purposes in the previous year) in a way that would
ostensibly give them “rights… comparable to First Amendment rights given to
draftees who are conscientious objectors.”
“The bill,” the article explains with a straight face, “prohibits using the
Peace Fund as a means of reducing regular appropriations for nonmilitary
purposes.” In other words, if the trustees of the peace tax fund decide to
grant the money to the Peace Corps, Congress is not supposed to then cut the
appropriation it gave to the Peace Corps out of the general treasury.
How this was supposed to be enforced is anyone’s guess.
This is the modern version of the phony “Civilian Bonds” from World War Ⅱ (see
♇ 9,
10, &
11 July 2018). It would allow
“conscientious” people to avoid the risks of resistance and to get official
government recognition of how conscientious they are without actually affecting
one whit their complicity in what the government does with their money.
Sadly, one of the stories the archive of The
Mennonite tells is how the drive to pass some sort of “peace tax fund”
legislation like this came to displace actual war tax resistance — even as the
proposed bills themselves became more and more watered down and got further and
further from being taken seriously in Congress
(the current version,
doggedly introduced to each Congress by Representative John Lewis, has no
cosponsors). I won’t be commenting on all of the individual mentions of these
bills as they come up in this and subsequent issues of
The Mennonite, as I consider it tangential to
conscientious tax resistance (at best; antagonistic at worst), but there will
be many such mentions, and by the end of my survey, they will outnumber
mentions of real war tax resistance.
Taking off my rant hat…
The edition reprinted much
of a
letter from James Klassen, who was doing relief work in Vietnam, to his pastor,
Ronald Krehbiel, telling about the torture of prisoners by South Vietnamese
police. Editor Larry Kehler comments at the end of the letter: “The telephone
company in Wichita called our house the other day to ask if we wanted to start
paying our federal excise tax again ‘now that the war is over.’ We declined.”
The edition told of a
triumph in the AFSC’s
suit attempting to retrieve money it had withheld from the paychecks of its
conscientiously objecting employees. A District Court had ordered the Internal
Revenue Service to stop collecting the full taxes for those employees “because
such withholding violates the free exercise of their religion as members of the
Society of Friends” and to refund previously-collected amounts that represent
“overpayment of taxes withheld.”
The triumph would be short-lived. (See ♇
for more about the suit and
how it progressed.) When the Supreme Court voted, with one notable dissent, to
reverse the district court’s decision,
the
news was covered in the
edition.
One possibly beneficial, though indirect, effect of the publicity about the
peace tax fund act, I must admit, was that it seems to have inspired a Japanese
Christian, Michio Ohno, to spark war tax resistance in Japan.
A
letter from Ohno, dated
says that upon reading about the bill, he “at once wrote a letter to the editor
of Asahi shimbun, the most influential daily paper
in Japan, and it was printed in the
issue of the paper.”
In the letter, I stated (1) I do not want to pay my income tax to be used for
military purpose out of money God has entrusted me, (2) I will gladly pay the
tax if nonmilitary use is secured, and (3) I proposed to have an act like the
World Peace Tax Fund Act in the United States.
A few days later, Professor Masahito Ara commented favorably about my letter
in his Newspapers in review on the
NHK Radio.
Dr. Sakakibara, who
energetically writes books about Anabaptism, proposed an “alternative tax”
system in the Anabaptist genealogy of conscientious
objection, which is now at the press.
We are preparing to make a group looking for a possibility of having a law
enabling us to pay tax whose use is restricted to nonmilitary purposes. We
need your prayer and spiritual support.
But while this letter seemed to place all of the emphasis on a “peace tax
fund”-style bill, the movement that Ohno started would instead focus on actual
war tax resistance. Here’s an article that appeared in the
edition:
A war tax resistance movement is beginning in Japan.
Started by Michio Ohno, a pastor of the United Church of Christ in Japan who
attended Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries in Elkhart, Indiana, in
, an organization for “Conscientious
Objection to Military Tax” was formed in Tokyo. About sixty people attended the first meeting, and a
“general assembly” was planned
at the Shinanomachi Church in Tokyo.
The objectives of the organization are (1) reduction and eventual abolition of
Japan’s Self-Defense Force (Japan’s constitution prohibits a military) and (2)
encouraging nonpayment of the 6.4 percent of income taxes that support the
Self-Defense Force.
Mr. Ohno, who is now working with Mennonites and Brethren in the Tokyo area,
started the movement out of his religious convictions. But support has now
grown beyond Mennonites, the Society of Friends, and the Fellowship of
Reconciliation to include other Japanese citizens who question the
constitutionality of the Self-Defense Force.
At the organizational meeting, speakers included Gan Sakakibara, principal of
the Tokyo English Center, on “The historical development of conscientious
objection” Yasusaburo Hoshino, professor at the Tokyo University of Liberal
Arts, on “How to live nonviolently; A theory of peaceful tax paying”; and
Shizuo Ito, a lawyer who sued the government for having unconstitutional armed
forces, on “Struggle for peace.”
Mr. Ohno called Conscientious Objection to Military Tax the first organized
movement of this kind in Japan.
“The time was ripe when we started the campaign,” he said. “We consulted
several scholars of the constitution, and one of the professors said he
himself had wanted to start a movement like this. Somebody else may well have
started a movement like this anyway, even if we did not. We should not just
sit back and wait for the peace to come, but be the peacemakers.”
Mr. Ohno said one of the decisive factors in his becoming involved in
conscientious tax objection in was
an article in The Mennonite last year on the
proposed World Peace Tax Fund legislation in the United States.
The Mennonite General Conference met for its triennial sessions in
, and 1,300 delegates passed
several resolutions. One was:
Be it resolved that we educate ourselves more fully regarding the pervasive
militarism of our society and express ourselves more strongly, advocating a
reordering of priorities toward peacemaking;
That we encourage congregations to study the World Peace Tax Fund Act
(U.S.),
considering the possibility of supporting it;
That we… ask all General Conference members to question prayerfully
whether they want to pay war taxes voluntarily;
That the General Conference offices seriously work at the possibility of
providing each employee with the option of following his/her conscience in
the payment of war taxes; and
That the Commission on Home Ministries give greater priority to this
issue, including the creation of a special fund to be used for education,
for assistance to those conscientiously refusing payment of war taxes, and
for legal expenses, and that each person committed to war tax resistance
pledge a regular contribution to this fund.
I took these brief excerpts from a later report
on the triennial sessions:
“The struggles within the church, both individually and as a people, to relate
to war taxes, amnesty, and serious economic questioning spoke of life to me. I
came away grateful to be part of this people.” ―Dorsy Hill
World poverty and hunger, western affluence, the meaning in the twentieth
century of the Bible’s teaching on the Year of Jubilee, life-style,
ordination, amnesty, war taxes, mission expansion, church planting, and
international relations were among the issues raised.
The meeting [a panel discussion that advocated simple living on
] ended with tears, prayers, and
other verbal responses after Ladon Sheats’ plea for Mennonites to turn away
from wealth and the payment of war taxes.
The service was punctuated
by an unscheduled dramatic presentation, initiated by Ladon Sheats.
Three persons wearing signs saying, “Fear,” “Security,” and “Tradition,” came
to the front of the gymnasium during one of the first hymns and told a “third
world” person, “We cannot help you.” They remained at the front until almost
the end of the service, when they left saying, “Our forefathers said no but we
don’t. We pay over $4 billion in war taxes. We can’t help you. Please forgive
us. May God help you.”
A letter
from Arnold Claasen, dated complained that not enough time was given to discuss the various
resolutions at the triennial. “Specifically with reference to ‘war tax’
resolution, there was considerable discussion, and the chair found it necessary
to terminate the discussion, with good reason.” In his own case, while he did
not care to see so much of his taxes go to the military, and he would not serve
in the military, he felt that this did not relieve him from the responsibility
to pay his taxes. He recommended instead that Mennonites rededicate themselves
to charitable giving, in part as a legal war tax resistance technique.
Generosity and charity and self-sacrifice — “Jubilee living” — were also the
theme of
a
letter from John Swarr dated . Excerpt:
Once again war is brought to mind, now in its new form of refusing food to the
hungry or assistance to the poor and struggling peoples. But the
U.S. Government
continues to send money and give military training and materials to many
repressive governments, and we continue to pay the taxes it uses to finance
this evil, in Brazil, Chile, South Korea, South Vietnam, and on and on.
Stop! Jubilee living proclaims Jesus is Lord! Neither Caesar nor
Uncle Sam is lord, so we must resist this evil and channel money to the
General Conference War Tax Alternative Fund instead. I enclose some refused
tax money for the fund and trust you will see that it gets to the right place.
The Commission on Home Ministries of the General Conference Mennonite Church,
having been given a mandate at the triennial, established a “war tax
alternative fund.” Here’s
how the edition described it:
The fund, to be outside the budget, will be used for education about war tax
resistance, assistance to those who are resisting taxes, and legal expenses of
individuals or agencies involved in tax resistance.
The commission’s peace and social concerns committee took action in
to establish the fund and to invite
persons who have a commitment to war tax resistance to contribute to the fund
on a regular basis.
In addition, persons who have resisted war taxes or who are concerned about
the issue are encouraged to share their experiences with the commission or to
request resources on the war tax issue, according to Harold Regier,
CHM
peace and social concerns secretary.
Peter Ediger, a member of the peace and social concerns committee and pastor
of the Arvada (Colorado) Mennonite Church, will coordinate work on the war tax
issue and possibly edit a war tax newsletter to keep concerned people in touch
with each other.
The Justice Department has brought suit against the Episcopal Diocese of
Pennsylvania to collect $1,006 in federal income taxes withheld by David M.
Gracie.
Mr. Gracie, rector of the Free Church of
St. John in Kensington, a
working-class neighborhood in Philadelphia, withheld 50 percent of his income
tax for the past five years because of the continuing American involvement in
Vietnam. He claims that “another 50,000 will die this year courtesy of the
United States of America.”
In response to the suit, the diocesan council let stand its recent decision
“that each of our employees has the right to exercise his conscience in
respect to the withholding of payment of taxes as a means of protest” and that
the legal council of the diocese will contest the government move to collect
money from the diocese.
From Fellowship magazine.
War tax resistance came up in other contexts in The
Mennonite in as well.
An letter from Mabel Amstutz
Sutter and Sem Christian Sutter of Chicago to the Internal Revenue Service
was reprinted (this was essentially the same pay-under-protest letter as was
printed in a 1973 edition).
An
letter from Jacob T. Friesen
also announced a pay-under-protest lack-of-resistance strategy.
The edition noted
that Michio Ohno’s war tax resistance group in Japan, Conscientious Objection
to Military Tax, had launched a new
publication — Plowshare. “The fifth and latest issue
of the four-page paper includes an account of the first Japanese tax resister
whose bank account has been seized by the government, an article on whether
military forces are really effective in national defense, an article on poverty
as a reason for enlisting in the military, and a guide for filing tax returns.”
Also mentioned in that edition was a letter from someone in Colorado to the
MCC
that read in part: “Enclosed find a check for $40 for world hunger. Rather than
paying income taxes, we are sending this check so that we may help to build
peace and support causes that help our troubled world.”
[I]f I were to take a gun and shoot someone, that would be sinful. I would be
punished for my evil actions. If I were to pay someone else $500 to take a gun
and shoot the person, I would still be considered sinful and would still be
liable for punishment. But when I give that $500 to the government and have
them hire the person to do the shooting, it becomes good and I am no longer
evil. It is only when I refuse to kill by proxy through nonpayment of war
taxes that many people (Christians among them) once again see me as evil.
Once again the principalities and powers have moved the consequences of evil
away from us, so that we do not see the direct connection between what I do
and the resulting evil and suffering which is caused. We are lulled into
thinking we are righteous, when in actual fact, we are participating in the
works of the devil.
He traced the history of the three denominations’ struggles over whether
Christians can pay for war when they refuse to participate in it. Some early
church leaders in America advocated not offending the government and thus
paying all taxes. In other groups, especially among Friends, members were
disciplined for supporting war in any way.
“Jesus took direct action in the temple with the money-changers.” Yes, and I’m
sure he is grieved at some of the activities with which we crowd real worship
out of our places of worship — but I don’t read of his organizing a
protest march on Herod’s palace.
We read so much these days about withholding war taxes, but I’m not convinced
this is right — and not because there is anything right about war! Paul lived
in a time when taxes were used to support a system that fed innocent people to
lions in full view of a bloodthirsty crowd of spectators, yet he advised
Christians in his day to submit to the authorities — no word about withholding
taxes.
A
statement from the
MCC
Peace Section was submitted as testimony when the
U.S. House of
Representatives’ ways & means committee considered the “World Peace Tax
Fund Act.” It read in part:
The debate among us as Mennonites is on the question of whether we must, in
order to faithfully follow the way of peace taught by our Lord Jesus Christ,
break the law by refusing to pay part or all of our federal taxes since a high
proportion is used for war.
We do not want to break any laws, but some of us feel compelled to do so on
the tax matter because of a growing conviction that in our modern time we are
not living out our conscientious objection to war if we pay federal taxes used
for military purposes. We urge you to provide a way for us and for many others
of similar convictions to obey both the law and our convictions by enacting
the World Peace Tax Fund Act.
This is the twenty-fifth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today I’m going to try to cover 1978.
I say “try” because there was a frenzy of war tax resistance activity reported in The Mennonite .
Maybe I can try to sort it thematically…
A New Call to Peacemaking
“A New Call to Peacemaking” was an initiative coordinated by Mennonite, Quaker, and Brethren activists that began in and would eventually culminate in a statement urging people, Christians in particular, to refuse to pay taxes for war.
The Mennonite General Conference’s Peace Section,
U.S. division, met
and its executive secretary, John K. Stoner, reported that the Call
“has
gained widespread support.”
Invited to the meeting are 300 persons — Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites.
Named the New Call to Peacemaking, this coalition of historic peace churches
believes that “the time has come for all Christians and people of all faiths
to renounce war on religious and moral grounds.”
During the last year twenty-six regional New Call to Peacemaking meetings, involving more than 1500 persons, took a new look at the teachings of their churches.
They gave special attention to war and violence which they continue to see as denials of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Not surprisingly the groups agreed to urge upon all governments “effective
steps toward international disarmament.” However, none of the regional
meetings expressed the hope that politicians, soldiers, and diplomats would
put an end to war. Rather, the thought was that people at the grass-roots
level must demand a change in the system. Further, the idea was often
expressed that tax resistance and civil disobedience are necessary tactics in
convincing governments that a new order can bring security in place of the
present insecurity.
A New Call to Peacemaking conference which convened at Old Chatham, New York, last April, asked itself rhetorically, “Are we going to pray for peace, and pay for war?” A similar conference in Wichita, Kansas, gave its encouragement to “individuals who feel called to resist the payment of the military portion of their federal taxes.”
When the national conference convenes in Green Lake it will be receiving
requests from the regional meetings for a strong position on tax resistance
proposals. It will also be asked to give guidance to individuals and church
organizations on approaches to tax resistance. Theological, economic, and
social justice issues are also on the agenda.
“Citizens should organize themselves and act without waiting for government, especially the major powers, to take positive action,” says Robert Johansen in a paper being studied by the Green Lake delegates.
In another document prepared for the Green Lake meeting, Lois Barrett, a
Mennonite journalist from Wichita, Kansas, notes that the peace churches have
long “recognized refusal to pay war taxes as one of many valid witnesses
against war.”
In the Church of the Brethren recommended “that all who feel the concern be encouraged to express their protest and testimonies through letters accompanying their tax returns, whether accompanied by payment or not.” In the General Conference Mennonite Church said, “We stand by those who feel called to resist the payment of that portion of taxes being used for military purposes.”
The number of persons within the peace churches actually withholding a portion
of their taxes is still thought to be small, but it is growing. The Internal
Revenue Service will not release figures on the number of tax resisters in the
United States.
Members of the Green Lake planning group include John K. Stoner, Mennonite Central Committee, Akron, Pennsylvania; Lorton Heusel, Friends United Meeting, Richmond, Indiana; and Chuck Boyer, Church of the Brethren, Elgin, Illinois.
Coordinator for the New Call to Peacemaking is Robert J. Rumsey, Plainfield, Indiana.
After the gathering, The Mennonite seemed surprised at how tame and nonconfrontational it ended up being (they titled their article “Peacemakers shy away from shocking anyone”).
Excerpts:
The Green Lake conference is part of a cooperative effort by the historic peace groups to do five things — stir up rededication to the Christian peace witness, clarify the biblical basis for it, extend a call to the larger church to see peacemaking as a gospel imperative, propose actions the U.S. Government can take for peacemaking, and determine contemporary positive strategy for peace and justice.
Planning for the consultation began in and has included 26 regional meetings in 16 different areas of the United States.
Over 1500 people were involved in these meetings.
[Church of the Brethren theologian and professor Dale] Brown said one new way of expressing a peace witness was to protest the country’s military expenditures by withholding income taxes.
Tax resistance, he reflected, is an important symbol because it involves our pocketbooks and enlarges the peace witness beyond what 17- and 18-year-old youth do in response to conscription.
[T]he findings committee created a final document satisfying the diverse peaceniks.
For the conservative the final statement was too radical; for the activists it was too limp.
There are two main thrusts to the document — actions that are directed inward
among the peace churches to enhance the integrity of the peace witness, and
actions that are directed outward to enlarge the visibility of the peace
witness.
At the end of the national New Call to Peacemaking conference delegates urged all Friends (Quakers), Mennonites, and Brethren to firmly oppose militarism and to become personally involved in the struggle for justice for the oppressed.
Included in the final paper approved is a call to the 400,000 members of the three peace church
traditions “to seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their
federal taxes as a response to Christ’s call to radical discipleship.” This
statement is as strong as the 300 delegates could jointly affirm.
Other parts of the war tax statement are equally muted.
In the first draft of the paper, church and conference agencies were asked to “honor” the requests of employees who do not want the military portion of their taxes remitted to the government.
In the final draft, however, “honor” is changed to “enter into dialogue with.” Several evangelical Quakers were especially antagonistic to even including a reference to war tax resistance in the final document.
Yet tax resistance received new encouragement from the conference.
About 60 persons attended a Saturday afternoon workshop which detailed tax resistance strategies.
Studying the War Tax Issue and Christian Civil Responsibility
The Mennonite General Conference had been asked to stop withholding taxes from the paycheck of one of its conscientiously objecting employees.
This led to a long debate over the advisability of such a policy that caused arguments about war tax resistance to echo throughout the Conference in .
A special General Conference delegate session was scheduled to convene in just to respond to this single issue.
In preparation for that session, congregations had been encouraged to put some
serious effort into understanding the subject, and some studies were written up
to help guide these investigations.
A Christian’s response to civil authority will be given concentrated emphasis by the General Conference during .
The study is an outcome of a resolution at the triennial conference in Bluffton, Ohio, .
That resolution called for a thorough study of civil disobedience which is intended to state an official position of the General Conference with respect to that portion of income taxes which are used for funding military expenditures, and in general, to research the whole question of obedience-disobedience to civil authority.
Responsibility for the study has been given to the peace and social concerns
committee of the Commission on Home Ministries. They, however, requested that
a special obedience-civil disobedience committee be formed to give general
direction and leadership. This latter group consists of Palmer Becker, Ted
Stuckey, John Gaeddert, Harold Regier, Perry Yoder, and Heinz Janzen.
To date three major aspects of the study have been planned — an attitudinal survey, an invitational consultation in , and a study guide to be ready by .
Included in the survey are twenty-eight questions with responses varying from
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” chosen to provide an inventory of
congregational attitudes towards the authority of the church, and of the
state. It will also indicate attitudes to particular issues such as abortion,
capital punishment, and payment of taxes for military purposes. A copy of the
questionnaire will be sent to every congregation to be duplicated locally.
A second major happening is scheduled for at Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart, Indiana.
An invitational consultation will bring together about thirty participants, including persons not committed to civil disobedience.
The gathering will include administrative personnel from the General Conference, lawyers, biblical scholars, as well as representatives from Mennonite Central Committee and the Mennonite Church.
It is expected that the study guide will evolve from the proceedings of the
consultation. Five of the thirteen lessons in the guide will focus on
peacemaking in a technological society. What sort of peacemaking should
Mennonites be about in an age of nuclear warfare and worldwide arms shipments?
The remaining eight lessons will center about the meaning of civil
disobedience. Was it practiced in the Bible? Is nonpayment of taxes a case in
point?
The study process will culminate in the special midtriennium conference scheduled for .
That gathering will be an official decision-making conference to which congregational delegates will come.
At that point a decision on the meaning and practice of civil disobedience will be made.
After the conference the questionnaire
will again be used to determine whether the churchwide discussion on
obedience-civil disobedience has generated any changes in attitudes.
A few more details came after the Commission on Home Ministries met in , and, according to The Mennonite:
Perry Yoder, part-time CHM staff member, outlined the process planned for dealing with the war tax or civil responsibility issue raised at the Bluffton conference.
Because of this issue’s “divisive and emotional potential in the conference,” a survey instrument has been designed to get congregational input; a consultation at the seminary will work toward a study guide, and congregations will be encouraged to use the study in preparation for a special General Conference delegate session at Minneapolis, called solely for the purpose of responding to the Bluffton resolution on tax withholding.
Another article said this study guide would be “available [and] will look at present militarism in North America, previous acts of dissent by Mennonites, and biblical texts on dissent, payment of taxes, and corporate action.”
During the first session on , board members locked onto the planning for the midtriennium conference on war taxes and civil responsibility.
Uneasiness about the process erupted quickly.
The structure of the invitational consultation on the issue was strongly faulted, as was the conference itself.
Board member Ken Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne, Indiana,
galvanized his colleagues with his allegations. “The consultation is not
structured for dialogue — it is monologue. The way it has been set up upsets
me deeply.” Later he declared that the Commission on Home Ministries should
not serve as the launching pad for the study and the planning leading to the
conference in . “Why ask
CHM?
The image of
CHM
is stacked. It should be the responsibility of the General Board.”
His assessment was the beginning of a fruitful debate which occupied several more sessions of the General Board, one session of CHM and hallway discussions.
The debate crystallized about several key questions. What is wrong with the
study process initiated by the obedience-civil disobedience committee of
CHM?
Is the issue of war taxes so divisive that a schism in the General Conference
is inevitable? Is the delegate
conference viable?
By , perhaps symbolically, the hard-hitting process of charge and countercharge had evolved into understanding and affirmation of the original plans.
On paper, little had changed, but in the minds of those who spoke for the “unheard,” — the “conservatives,” the “common person,” and the Canadians — there was a restoration of confidence in the process.
Tenseness was dissipated.
The mood became one of working together.
The consultation will meet at Mennonite
Biblical Seminary, Elkhart, Indiana. About twenty-five persons are invited.
These include theologians and biblical scholars, attorneys, administrative
staff of the General Conference, several
MCC
staff, and representatives from the Mennonite Church and the Mennonite
Brethren Church. The proceedings of the consultation are to serve as the basis
for a study guide on civil disobedience.
The committee planning the consultation and the midtriennium conference was called in to justify its ideas.
One member, Perry Yoder, observed, “Getting people to participate is very difficult.
People are very tense about this.”
“We thought the trust level would be quite high,” said another member, Harold
Regier. “Requests for speakers were made on the basis of scholarship and the
purpose is biblical. It is not a matter of pro or con.”
“We don’t know where the scholars will come out,” declared Don Steelberg, chairperson of CHM. (A complete list of scholars invited is not yet available — some are still considering the invitation.)
It was noted that since the concern on abortion had been handled insensitively
at the Bluffton conference, there was fear that the same thing would happen
with the issue of war taxes. So why should those who oppose withholding war
taxes bother to participate? They won’t be heard anyway.
Another fear was that the Canadians would also stay away. “My gut reaction is that it is a U.S. issue,” said board member Loretta Fast.
She was challenged on that.
“Don’t Canadians also pay military taxes?” queried Ben Sprunger.
“Yes,” replied another Canadian board member, Jake Klassen, “but we have not gone through the trauma and frustrations of the Vietnam War."
Hence, if both the Canadians and those opposed to withholding war taxes stayed
away from the delegate
conference, the gathering would be a farce. The conference would not be viable
if large blocs of delegates simply weren’t there.
For a brief time the board lost nerve.
Should the conference be canceled?
However, chairman Elmer Neufeld injected reality by reflecting, “The issue is not going to go away.
So, what is the next step?"
Over the board
recovered confidence in itself, in the planning already done, in the
possibility of bringing the dissenters into dialogue, despite differences in
theology and nationality, and in the voice of the discerning church. “I came
to the Mennonite church because of discerning congregations. If we cannot
discern in a process like this, then we have missed the boat,” reflected Don
Steelberg.
That was the next step.
They reminded themselves that the Anabaptist movement grew out of several
forms of civil disobedience.
They decided to adjust some of the personnel for the consultation.
They decided to promote serious study of the civil responsibility issue among congregations so that delegates would be conversant with it.
They decided to book the Leamington Hotel in Minneapolis as the place for the midtriennium conference.
The General Board also affirmed the action of its executive committee when they refused to pay a tax levy from the Internal Revenue Service.
The personal income taxes are owed by Heinz Janzen (general secretary) and his wife, Dorothea Janzen.
Under U.S. tax laws an ordained minister is self-employed, is not subject to normal payroll deductions, and hence, Heinz has refused to pay the military portion of his income tax.
Normally the
IRS
simply confiscates the amount owed from the bank account of the person
protesting. But with the levy the
IRS is
attempting to collect directly from the General Conference as employer. The
General Board agreed with the executive committee that the Janzen case is
civil disobedience by individuals, and not by an incorporated body, the
General Conference.
Editor Bernie Wiebe, himself based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, wrote an editorial for the edition expressing his unease about the direction Canada was taking, at how blasé his fellow-Canadian Mennonites were about it, and at how comparatively little concern there seemed to be there about the war tax issue that was roiling the Conference:
I am uneasy because I don’t hear my brothers and sisters protest against Ottawa.
Somehow we manage to wash our hands and keep pointing at the Pentagon…
At Bluffton, the majority voted for a midtriennium conference on the war-tax
issue. Every discussion I have since heard on this subject turns to the fear
that the Canadian third of the General Conference may refuse to participate;
after all, that’s a
U.S. question.
The conference was meant to bring in experts on the question who could help better inform the upcoming debate.
Participants in the General Conference Mennonite Church invitational consultation on civil responsibility have been named and the schedule outlined.
The consultation will convene
at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries, Elkhart, Indiana.
Beginning , Ted Stuckey and Reg Toews, representing the business administration arms of the General Conference and Mennonite Central Committee respectively, will present information on the administrative dimensions of the war tax question.
The question, Is there a biblical case for civil disobedience? will be the
focus of scholarly input Friday morning. Millard Lind, professor at AMBS,
will speak from an Old Testament perspective; confirmation from the scholar
asked to provide a New Testament analysis is still pending.
A more specific look at the issue of war taxes is scheduled for .
Is civil disobedience called for in this specific case?
David Schroeder, professor at Canadian Mennonite Bible College, Winnipeg, and Kenneth Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne, Indiana, will speak to the question.
Erland Waltner, president of Mennonite Biblical Seminary, will respond.
Corporate action and individual conscience is the theme for
. Speaking to this are J.
Lawrence Burkholder, president of Goshen (Indiana) College, and William
Keeney, professor at Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas. Another person has
yet to confirm acceptance. Peter Ediger, pastor of the Arvada Mennonite
Church, will respond.
Elvin Kraybill, legal counsel for Mennonite Central Committee, will talk about legal questions related to civil disobedience.
Responding to his presentation are Duane Heffelbower, a member of the Division of Administration of the General Conference, and Ruth Stoltzfus, an attorney living in Linville, Virginia.
In addition to the formal input, various church leaders and administrative
staff will contribute to the consultation. These people are Heinz Janzen,
general secretary of the General Conference; Harold Regier and Perry Yoder,
cosecretaries of peace and social concerns of the General Conference; John
Gaeddert, executive secretary of the Commission on Education; William Snyder,
executive secretary of
MCC;
Urbane Peachey, executive secretary for
MCC
Peace Section; Hubert Schwartzentruber, secretary for peace and social
concerns of the Mennonite Church; Ed Enns, executive secretary of the
Congregational Resources Board of the Canadian Conference; Peter Janzen,
pastor, representing the Canadian Conference.
Six persons will form the findings committee.
They are John Sprunger, pastor, Indian Valley Mennonite Church, Harleysville, Pennsylvania; Palmer Becker, executive secretary of the Commission on Home Ministries; Elmer Neufeld, president of the General Conference; Hugo Jantz, chairperson of MCC (Canada); John Stoner, executive secretary for MCC Peace Section (U.S.); and Larry Kehler, pastor of the Charleswood Mennonite Church, Winnipeg.
Kehler is also the writer for the study guide which is to be published by fall.
[T]he issue was how Mennonite institutions should respond to those employees who request that the military portion of their income taxes not be withheld by the employer.
Several Mennonite organizations are facing the issue. The General Conference
is seeking the will of its 60,000 members in answering such a request from one
of its employees, Cornelia Lehn. The consultation in Elkhart was one part of
the discerning process leading to a delegate assembly, and a decision in
.
Bible scholars, theologians, pastors, administrators, attorneys — twenty-nine persons in all — presented papers, exchanged insights, and probed the issue.
Much of their analysis will be incorporated into a study guide to be published by .
There was general agreement that militarism and the nuclear arms buildup are a
massive threat to human existence. “We are in pre-Holocaust days,” asserted
John Stoner, director of Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section.
How does one change the direction of society?
How does one influence government policy so that it is prohuman?
Some individuals claim that the witness of taxes withheld from the military could do much to change American priorities.
Is civil disobedience biblical?
Is there a biblical case for civil disobedience?
Seminary professor and Old Testament scholar Millard Lind said the question was wrong.
He declared the question assumes that the government provides the norm for the person of faith, and asks whether there may be a religious basis for sometimes disobeying it.
On the contrary, he counseled, the biblical accounts emphasize the absolute
sovereignty of the God of Israel. Biblical thought challenges the sovereignty
of the civil authorities, calling it rebellion. Not only individuals, but
above all, the state, with its self-interest and empire building, are against
the rule and order of Yahweh.
Is civil disobedience called for in the specific instance of taxes spent for military purposes?
Two papers were presented on this question, one by David Schroeder of Canadian Mennonite Bible College, Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the second by Kenneth Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne, Indiana.
“It is clear,” said Schroeder, “that the New Testament speaks for civil
disobedience, but it is difficult to determine the form.” Interpreting the
will of God must be done in the community of believers. The Scripture must not
only be searched to know the will of God, but also to bind ourselves to doing
it.
He observed that the issue of taxes for military purposes is often seen in isolation from other options.
He counseled that the church needs to look at all avenues which would lead to peace, and then choose those options which would be effective at the individual and corporate levels.
A noticeable reaction of surprise was evident after Schroeder indicated that
as a Canadian member of the General Conference he would abstain from voting at
the mid-triennium conference in .
“Those (Americans) who must take the consequences of tax withholding must take the responsibility,” he opined.
When questioned on this Schroeder said he held the position because he would not, as a Canadian national, be able to effectively support an American practicing tax resistance.
Later in the conference, however, he appeared to modify his position.
Bauman’s paper was a careful overview of the tax situation in the time of
Christ, of Jesus’ stance relative to the authorities, and of Anabaptist
practice.
He indicated that Jesus’ political stance was not with the ecclesiastical nor with the social establishment.
Nor did Jesus identify himself as a radical social revolutionary.
Rather, Christ was a representative of the kingdom of God with a prophetic call to repentance, faith, and righteous living which transforms society through the transformation of the individual.
“It is amazing,” he reflected, “to see the early church and the Apostles show
such respect and subordination to a political system that crucified their Lord
and killed their leaders.”
When asked at what point he would practice civil disobedience, Bauman said, “For me it would be more than taxation; it would be when government becomes an object of worship.”
Mennonite practice he noted has been to pay taxes. Only the Hutterites have a
consistent pattern of resisting taxes.
Kings and prophets
In a humorous manner, J. Lawrence Burkholder, president of Goshen College, illuminated the tension between individual conscience and management responsibility.
“The Bible is stacked against managers,” he remarked. The managers (kings)
were always getting critiques from the prophets. Burkholder confessed that
before becoming a college president (a “king”) he had often been prophetic in
his utterances.
But now as a manager he values continuity, order, and making life possible.
Decisions often have ambiguity built into them.
Further, although individuals are free to order their lives as they wish, a corporation incarnates the many wills of its supporters into a limited function.
Is it right to expect a corporation to respond in the same way as an individual?
Burkholder did conclude though that a corporation must be willing to die for
the sake of principle. For a Mennonite school he suggested such a case would
be required ROTC (Reserve Officers’ Training Corps).
In his paper on the same topic, William Keeney of Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas, warned that biblical and Anabaptist history illustrate that the voice of the majority is not necessarily the voice of God.
He also noted that for many people there is a double ethical standard, one for the Christian, and one for the state.
Keeney said Christians should have a bias in favor of loyalty to the prophets, and to the way of the cross and costly discipleship.
From this he concluded that corporate action needs to respect the individual conscience.
In his response to the above papers, Peter Ediger, pastor of the Arvada
(Colorado) Mennonite Church, cried out, “I would hope that management could be
prophetic. Can leadership in institutions not give evidence of faithfulness to
God? Why do we see this question (tax withholding) as a threat to our
institutions? We need more faith in the powers of resurrection. Do we foster
fear or faith? Spread the rumor that the Lord is going to do wonderful
things.”
The attorneys present provided a legal framework, as distinct from a biblical rationale, for approaching the issue of not withholding taxes used for military purposes.
The General Conference could, if it wished, simply stop remitting taxes and wait for the government to take action.
A long process of litigation might ensue in which the church could argue that
using the corporate body to collect taxes violates the conscience of tax
objectors, and also violates the principle of separation of church and state
because the church is held hostage by the state, under penalty of fines or
imprisonment of its officers. The attorneys also observed that the
IRS
(Internal Revenue Service) could decide to avoid litigation and its attendant
publicity, and simply go to the individual to collect.
In essence the attorneys said there were ways of working on the issue through legal, legislative, and administrative channels.
Findings
A findings committee — Palmer Becker, Hugo Jantz, Elmer Neufeld, John Stoner, Larry Kehler — drafted a statement.
After hours of discussion and subsequent changes the persons at the consultation agreed that the statement fairly represented their thinking.
Some excerpts:
“Our Christian obedience has to find new and creative responses to the
proliferation of military weaponry and technology…
“Christians respect the governing authorities… which leads to a broad
range of activities in support of the public good. Nevertheless, at times
our call of prior obedience to God’s sovereignty leads us to disobey the
claims of the state…
“We… have differing convictions about refusing to pay taxes for the
military.
“Let us be open to the possibility that the Spirit of God may lead some of
us in a direction that is both prophetic and full of risks.
“We agree that a way should be sought which will facilitate the expression
of the convictions of conference employees who request that their taxes
not be withheld.
“We need to seek the counsel of and work with other Mennnonite groups and
denominations, particularly the historic peace churches, in developing the
most appropriate response to this issue.”
Two multi-part articles and two additional stand-alone articles stretched
across multiple issues of The Mennonite and also
served to summarize some of the points of debate:
“The North American military” by Harold Fransen (part 1 and part 2)
These articles begin with an unflattering look at U.S. military personnel, suggesting that even if you put the violence of war off to one side, the drunkenness, ignorance, and sexual immorality found among those in uniform is enough not to recommend the institution to Mennonites.
The first part ends: “If we have come to the realization that we can not go to war, maybe the time has come to… say that no one can go to war on our behalf either.
As we fill out out income tax forms this year, so that the military can do the job which we refuse to do, let us remember what effect it has on the lives that are bound up in its powerful grip, and be in prayer as we move toward the General Conference’s midtriennium session to deal with this issue.”
Part two looked at this issue from the Canadian perspective, noting that
Canada was deeply involved in the international arms trade and was boosting its
own military spending. “Can we any longer brush off war taxes as a
U.S. issue?”
“Is this our modern pilgrims’ progress”
This article summarized the recent history of the General Conference in grappling with the issue that would come to a head at the session:
If the conference delegates decide that nonpayment of military taxes is justified the decision is binding on the administrators of the General Conference.
Impetus for such an assembly began in when employee Cornelia Lehn requested the General Conference
business office not to remit the military tax portion of her paycheck to the
IRS.
Prior to 1974 the issue of “war taxes” had been discussed, and as early as
, delegates at the triennial sessions in
Fresno, California, passed a statement protesting the use of tax monies for
war purposes. The delegates also said, “We stand by those who feel called to
resist the payment of that portion of taxes being used for military purposes.”
However, the General Board did not think that directive from the delegates
authorized them to stop remitting Lehn’s military taxes. Her request was
refused.
Three years later… [at] the next conference… delegates called for education regarding militarism, reaffirmed the 1971 statement, and agreed that serious work be done on the possibility of allowing General Conference employees to follow their consciences on payment or nonpayment of military taxes.
Educational materials have included the periodical God and
Caesar and two study guides, The Rule of the
Sword and The Rule of the Lamb. In addition
to these efforts two major consultations were convened in
and in
. At these consultations scholarly
papers were presented on militarism, biblical considerations for payment or
nonpayment of military taxes, and Anabaptist history and theology related to
war tax concerns.
Despite the protracted input the General Board could not reach a consensus on the issue.
Consequently the problem was brought to delegates at the triennial… [where] the delegate body committed itself to serious congregational study of civil disobedience and war tax resistance during .
The delegates also decided to discuss the issue in detail at a midtriennium conference in .
In an effort to implement the Bluffton
resolution an eight-member civil responsibility committee was formed. Several
actions were taken by it to encourage serious study.
an attitude survey on church
and government was conducted. Approximately 2,500 responses were received,
including 463 from a select sampling in 31 churches. A scholarly consultation
was held in . One of the key ideas
which came out of this consultation was whether those who feel strongly about
not paying military taxes should be encouraged to form a separate corporation
within the General Conference. To assist churches in their study of the issue
two study guides were published. The Rule of the
Sword deals primarily with facts and concerns related to militarism.
The Rule of the Lamb centers about the sovereignty
of God and biblical texts on taxes and civil authority.
Each of the more than 300 congregations in the General Conference is being encouraged to prepare a statement to bring to the conference.
It is evident from the sale of the study guides that a minority of congregations are actually making an effort to study the issue, although all congregations have received sample copies of the guides.
Many Canadian churches feel the issue is strictly an American problem, and there is a considerable diversity of conviction and thought among American congregations.
Some congregations do not intend to send delegates.
What this means for the Minneapolis conference is difficult to assess, except
for one feature. There will be a lot of stirring debate. After
will there be some
resolution of the withholding question? No one is predicting the outcome.
“Countdown to Minneapolis”
This article tried to put the debate into a larger context of what it meant for the congregations in the General Conference to be deliberating together in this way.
It also seemed to be trying to drum up more attendance; there seemed to be some worry that Canadian Mennonites, and more conservative congregations, might just not turn up.
“Our Christian civil responsibility”
This article, by Larry Kehler (author of The Rule of the Lamb), attempted to put all of the pieces together for readers ahead of the conference.
Excerpts:
General Conference churches have the opportunity of either growing through the process of working on the war-tax question or of stagnating and splintering.
I am somewhat more confident now than I was even six months ago that we will mature through this experience, and in the process perhaps reassert some of our Conference’s flagging leadership in the field of peace.
Perhaps it is only because I have been talking to more optimistic persons.
But I do have the impression that General Conference people are more ready now to participate in the struggle for an answer than they were even as late as last winter.
The easy answer of letting this debate be the occasion for some congregations to sever their ties with the General Conference seems to be more of a “cop-out” than a reasonable response to a difficult question.
Will your congregation have delegates at the midtriennium sessions in Minneapolis?
If it won’t, both the conference and the congregation will be the poorer for it.
You see, the question is not only how we will respond to the issue of tax-withholding as a witness against war, but how we go about dealing with questions on which we have not yet achieved clarity or unanimity.
The process we go through may well be much more vital to us than the answer we finally come up with, and that is not to diminish the seriousness of the problem of militarism.
Coming to Minneapolis without advance preparation, however, could be almost as
destructive as not coming at all. Each congregation should do some serious
struggling within its own setting on the various dimensions which this issue
is raising for us.
The war-tax issue offers the General Conference one of its best opportunities in many years to work seriously at Bible interpretation on a question about which we have widely differing views.
How do we make decisions when we disagree?
The tax texts
What does the New Testament say about taxes?
Here are the four primary passages:
Mark 12:13–17
is a description of the Pharisees and Herodians trying to entrap Jesus with
the question: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Jesus responds by
taking a coin and showing them Caesar’s image on it and saying, “Render to
Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
Luke 23:1–5 recalls the accusations made against Jesus before Pilate.
Among them is the charge that he has forbidden his people “to give tribute to Caesar.” In response to Pilate’s question about his kingship over the Jews, Jesus replies ambiguously, “You have said so.”
Matthew 17:24–27
talks about the temple tax. Some Bible interpreters feel that the tax question
is a secondary issue in this passage. The writer’s main purpose in telling
this incident, some scholars say, is to underscore Jesus’ sonship.
Romans 13:6–7 urges followers of Christ to be subject to the governing authorities and to pay taxes where they are due.
A straightforward reading of these passages has led many persons to conclude
that taxes are to be paid regardless of the use to which they might be put.
“How can you argue against such clear, simple statements?” they ask people who
suggest that there may be more to these comments than can be seen on the
surface.
It is the tension between these two approaches to the Bible which lies at the heart of the problem which the General Conference is now facing in its attempt to come up with a biblical response to the “war tax issue.” How do we interpret and understand the Bible?
Is the easiest reading of a biblical passage always to be taken as the most likely intention of the writer?
Some Bible scholars say that it is sometimes quite deceiving to accept the easiest reading.
Others wonder if that sort of remark doesn’t simply underscore the Bible’s assertion that some truths will confound the wise and yet be very clear to more down-to-earth and average persons.
Well, maybe.
But doesn’t it cheapen the Bible if we think that a book which has come to us from another millennium and a decidedly different culture can be read on the surface — much like one reads a twentieth-century pop-psychology book — and applied to situations in our day without adaptation?
Can any statement in the Bible be taken by itself without first testing it
against the background from which it came and against related statements
elsewhere in the Bible?
Modern, easy-to-read paraphrases of the Scriptures and our general attitude toward the Bible have led us to believe that “hermeneutics” (the interpretation of the Bible’s message) is not a difficult task.
In some cases it isn’t, but in others it is.
In places the Bible is so inscrutable that we can seemingly never be quite sure about its full intention.
So we have to launch out in faith on some questions, hoping that more clarity will come as we proceed.
We may discover as we go that we have started off in the wrong direction.
Then we need the humility to admit our error and change our direction.
The major agenda item at the midtriennium sessions in Minneapolis may turn out
not to be “war taxes” at all. This issue may be God’s way of prodding us into
becoming more of a “hermeneutic community”…
The tax texts need to be studied intensely at the congregational level, each participant bringing an open mind and heart to the discussion.
If clarity and unanimity do not come immediately let us not be discouraged.
Other groups have had similar difficulties before us.
That is all the more reason why we should continue to struggle with this question.
The summary statement prepared by the people who attended the
war tax conference contained this paragraph:
“After considering the New Testament texts which speak about the Christian’s
payment of taxes, most of us are agreed that we do not have a clear word on
the subject of paying taxes used for war. The New Testament statements on
paying taxes (Mark 12:17 and Romans 13:6–7)
contain either ambiguity in meaning or qualifications on the texts that call
the discerning community to decide in light of the life and teachings of
Jesus.”
For Canadians too
The war tax issue is a U.S. issue and should be decided by them.
Right?
Wrong! It’s an issue for the entire General Conference.
But Canadians wouldn’t be taking any of the risks if the U.S. Government should bear down and hand out some jail sentences or fines for the Conference’s not withholding its employees’ income taxes.
Too much emphasis has been put on the possibility of fines or jail terms.
These consequences might come, but they’re not likely. The fear of a
confrontation with the law has taken the focus off the main point of this
whole exercise. The purpose is to give a firm, clear, and prophetic witness
against the diabolic buildup of the machines of war, which is occurring at an
ever-increasing pace in the United States and in many other nations. Are we
going to sit back and allow this escalation to continue without at least
giving our governments some sort of message that we cannot any longer go along
with this race toward self-destruction?
The arms race and the manufacture of war goods is very much part of the Canadian scene too… I have not yet been able to discover any tax resisters in Canada, but this does not mean that militarism is not a front-burner issue in Canada.
It is, and it should be.
I don’t know why there aren’t tax resisters in Canada. There are certainly
other forms of objection to the military buildup. “Project Ploughshares” is an
interchurch witness against militarism. Mennonites are actively involved in
its program of research and information-sharing. Thus, even though tax
resistance isn’t part of the Canadian experience now, Canadian Mennonites
shouldn’t withdraw from the General Conference discussion. They can
legitimately be fully involved on the basis of principle.
If the General Conference is going to say, “Yes,” to those of its employees who don’t want their income tax withheld, that should be the decision of the entire Conference, not just a portion of it.
The decision, whichever way it goes, will carry much more weight, I believe, if all the congregations in the Conference have participated in it.
Canadian involvement is important.
Some have indicated that the present set of options offered to the
delegates — that is to vote either yes or no on the withholding question — is
not sufficient. Other alternatives must be developed. If not, the Conference
may become polarized, and it might even split.
The question therefore is: How can the General Conference, as an international body, make a clear-cut witness against militarism without splintering the Conference?
Some U.S. Mennonites have stated that Canadian participation is crucial to the process.
After the conference in Bluffton in it
appeared that there would be minimal Canadian involvement at Minneapolis.
There is still no guarantee that participation from Canada will be adequate,
but good efforts are being made to encourage Canadian churches to send
delegates.
The General Board of the Conference of Mennonites in Canada at its last meeting went on record urging Canadian participation.
It will communicate this concern to the churches.
Several congregations are making special efforts to prepare for the convention.
Bethel Mennonite Church, Winnipeg, Manitoba, held a weekend seminar on this topic.
Grace Mennonite Church, Regina, Saskatchewan, arranged a similar event.
The Winnipeg meeting was covered in a later issue.
About fifty people met and came up with a set of recommendations as they prepared to select their delegates to the conference.
Sharon Sawatzky of the Canadian Conference staff in Winnipeg prepared a Canadian supplement for the study booklet The Rule of the Sword by Charlie Lord.
Copies of the supplement have been sent to all Canadian congregations who have ordered the five-lesson study booklet on militarism.
Faith and Life Press, Newton, reports that to date (I write this on
) more orders for the study
materials (The Rule of the Sword and
The Rule of the Lamb) have been received from Canada
than from the United States.
The prophets and the managers
The tension created by the war tax question in the General Conference is heightened by people’s disparate understandings of what it means to be good stewards of our church-related institutions.
Some have seen it as a tension between the “prophets” and the “managers.”
Who shapes the direction and philosophies of our churches and their agencies?
Is it the people who have a “prophetic” vision of biblical responsibility? Is
it the administrators who have been charged with “managing” these
organizations and creating as few waves as possible? Both? Partially? Neither?
Questions related to this apparent tension are included in the study guide The Rule of the Lamb…
J. Lawrence Burkholder, who is himself the “manager” of a major Mennonite
institution (Goshen College), has frankly described the predicament in which
leaders of institutions find themselves.
Here is a summary of his observations…
An efficient and well-trained corps of managers has emerged to run the
Mennonites’ growing number of institutions. The “constituency” of each of
these institutions insists that it is to be run in a businesslike, fiscally
responsible, and basically conservative way. Actions which might jeopardize
the welfare of an institution are not likely to be looked upon with much
favor.
The war tax issue, said Burkholder, is a problem of personal ethics as opposed to corporate ethics.
Our way of understanding the Bible is based on a one-to-one decision-making process, where the individual can respond quickly and simply to a situation.
A corporation’s response to an ethical question, on the other hand, involves
many wills. A number of “publics” make demands on the institution to decide
the issue their way. This does not mean, the Goshen College president
emphasized, that moral demands cannot be made of corporations. Nor should it
be said that all institutions are alike.
Corporations tend toward the status quo.
They emphasize different values than “prophetic” Christians.
Corporations tend to take a positive view of the broader culture in which they operate, they recognize the ambiguity of the situations in which they are making their decisions, and they look less judgmentally on people than do the “prophets.”
On the other hand, prophets have the luxury, according to Burkholder, of being
able to speak abstractly, of idealizing certain things from the past, and of
talking about perfection and ideals in an imperfect society.
Managers of church-related institutions have a clear line of accountability to their constituency, he said, “but who holds the prophets responsible?” Prophets are usually judged to be true or false in retrospect.
A prophet, therefore, doesn’t have to take responsibility for actions, words, and decisions in the same way that a manager does. “Sometimes,” said Burkholder, “present-day prophets come off ‘cheap.’ ”
He emphasized that Mennonites should continue to identify with the prophetic
tradition. They should be aware, though, that this means they will have to be
willing to remain somewhat on the edge of society.
“We will also need to develop a theology of corporate life,” he added. “We already have a theology of fellowship, but we don’t have a theology of the institution.”
Debate in the Letters Column
There was plenty of debate about the propriety of war tax resistance itself in the letters-to-the-editor column, sometimes explicitly prompted by the debate over withholding and the upcoming conference, other times more general.
John K. Stoner said that if the Conference were to fail to endorse war tax
resistance, “I would like to be able to have the confidence that they made
their decision in full awareness and with truly informed knowledge of the
dimensions of the nuclear abyss into which we are staring. At this point I
do not find it possible to have that confidence.” In short, they seemed to
be unaware of just how bad things had gotten.
I do not wish to imply that tax resistance or some other form of civil disobedience is the only kind of response which faithful Christians should be making to the unprecedented evil of the nuclear arms race. (It is my judgment that the situation confronts us with more than adequate grounds for civil disobedience.) However, I do wish to imply that those who counsel against tax refusal and civil disobedience would be much more convincing if they were leading out in other visible kinds of response to the nuclear crisis.
Carl M. Lehman wrote in to again remind readers that there was no such
thing as a “war tax” and that such nomenclature comes from “a less than
completely honest persistence in using labels to create a straw man to
attack.”
Money is only a convenient medium of exchange and not a real necessity to conduct war…
I have no quarrel with the person who simply wants to refuse to pay
taxes as a protest technique. As an attention-calling device it may very
well be effective. It is not exactly the kind of role I would feel led
to play, but I would not want to condemn anyone who felt they must use
such a tactic. I would, however, strongly protest any attempt to make
such a tactic mandatory for all Mennonites, and this is exactly what is
being attempted. Not mandatory, of course, in the sense that it would be
a test of membership, but mandatory in the sense of a normal commitment
expectation for a nonresistant Christian.
I maintain that tax resistance is a deviation from our heritage of faith.
The fact that it is a deviation in no sense makes it wrong and certainly does not mean that we pay no heed.
It does, however, very much suggest that the burden of proof is on the deviant, and that the deviant ought not to equate obedience to God with conformity by others.
John Swarr called on Mennonites to repent for war and in true repentance
to “change our ways.” He disagreed with Lehman’s dismissal of the moral
import of money. “Money is indeed a medium of exchange, but as Christian
stewards of God’s gifts we must be concerned about the things for which
that money is invested, donated, or paid.” He also disagreed that war tax
resistance was a deviation from Mennonite tradition, pointing to examples
from history in which Anabaptists took the issue seriously and came down
on both sides.
Karl Detrich took a hard Romans 13
line on the question, saying that the question of whether Christians
should or should not pay taxes had long ago been closed by that chapter.
While the New Testament also contains examples of civil disobedience, “in
each case these men were following the dictates of a higher law, namely,
that we should have no other gods besides our Lord.”
Jesus tells us that in the last days there will be, among other tribulations, wars and rumors of war.
Rather than going against the teaching of God’s word in a vain effort to forestall the inevitable, should we not give our time and energies to the worship of God and the proclamation of his gospel, so that we can do our part to hasten the day of his coming?
Paul W. Andreas saw simple living as a key to avoiding war taxes, and
resisting war taxes as a key to avoiding despair:
The submission to evil (no government has been free of it) produces despair.
I believe that love of my fellow humans is fundamental to not only
Mennonite faith but to Christ’s message. If I am compelled to violate
that message by hiring killers and providing weapons, I despair. For me,
no charitable contribution undoes the evil I unleash by paying taxes
that are used for such ends. Fortunately the practitioner of the simple
life can reduce his wage and thus avoid the income tax used for evil.
James Newcomer, in the course of taking Mennonites to task for the
“red-baiting” he’d found in their midst, took some time out to praise war
tax resistance:
I am deeply moved… by the witness of Peter Ediger at Rocky Flats, Colorado, and by many others who through war tax resistance and protest are trying to focus their own understanding of the modern Christian experience at the risk of losing middle-class luxuries and future security.
Miscellany
And if that weren’t enough, there were several other news items that discussed war tax resistance without relating directly to the upcoming conference or the specific debate to be dealt with there.
For example:
“A weekend seminar on war tax resistance” organized by Philadelphia Mennonites at which “[s]pecific strategies for implementing war tax resistance were discussed,” and the usual biblical verses were hashed out.
A four-point resolution on peacemaking called the Eastern District to: (1) serious Bible study on peace and a General Conference resolution on “The Way of Peace” (2) involvement in disapproval (through congressional representatives) of national actions promoting war, poverty, and terror; (3) support of those who feel led to withhold portions of their taxes; and (4) a midyear assembly to promote peacemaking.
After vigorous discussion, point three was stricken from the resolution
and point two was amended to include encouragement for righteous actions.
The amended resolution was adopted.
The Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section (U.S.) met. But in spite of all that was going on around them, it merely “reaffirmed its recommendation to Mennonite institutions ‘to study the conflict between Christian obligations and legal obligations in the collection of federal taxes…’ ” When they would meet again “a resolution on militarism, the future of New Call to Peacemaking, and the question of alternatives to the payment of taxes for military purposes” would be on the agenda. At that meeting, they took a stronger stand:
We support those who resist the payment of taxes for military purposes and call upon all members of the church to seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes.
While Mennonite church institutions continue to struggle with an administrative response to the issue of “war tax” withholding, individual Mennonites are voicing their convictions through refusing to pay the portion of their taxes designated for military use.
About $4,000 has been received by the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section’s “Taxes
for Peace” fund, contributed by Mennonite war tax refusers.
Nonpayment of taxes violates national laws, but tax refusers are convinced that paying taxes is disobedience to God when slightly over half of that tax money is allocated for the past, present, and future military expenditures of the United States.
Most of these tax refusers paid only 47 to 50 percent of taxes owed to
the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS),
forwarding the remaining amount to
MCC
and other Mennonite agencies. Statements to
IRS
clarified that the withheld tax money was not for personal profit but
rather for meeting human needs, promoting peace and reconciliation, and
supporting life instead of death.
James Klassen, Newton, Kansas, who claimed a Nuremburg Principle tax deduction in an amount sufficient to result in a 50 percent refund of the amount of taxes due, recently received the refund in full and forwarded the check to MCC. (The Nuremburg Principles, unanimously affirmed by the United Nations after World War Ⅱ, specify that crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are crimes under national law.)
“This is the first time we have deliberately broken the law of our
country,” say tax refusers James and Anna Juhnke, North Newton, Kansas.
“It is not an easy decision. We love our land and we respect the
authority of the government. We want to show our respect by making our
civil disobedience a public act and by accepting the penalties which may
result from our action.”
“As a Christian who accepts the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament as normative for life and ethics, I am a ‘conscientious objector’ to participation in war and to the resolution of human conflict by violence,” concludes Marlin Miller of Goshen, Indiana. “It is my conviction that the financial support of war and military expenditures cannot be reconciled with this stance any more than actual military service itself.”
They and other Christians feel that Christ’s calling to a life of love,
nonviolence and reconciliation supersedes demands of the state.
Thirty-three persons and families thus far have identified themselves as “war tax resisters” after God and Caesar in its issue provided the opportunity for people to do so.
The respondents represent eleven denominations as well as those with no church affiliation.
One recent case of a non-ordained employee at a Mennonite institution
hoping to resist paying war taxes involved Esther Lanting, a teacher at
Western Mennonite School
(WMS),
Salem, Oregon, who on
wrote a letter to the
WMS
board requesting that her income tax not be withheld from her check.
On , Lanting was invited to meet with the board to explain her reasons.
The board decided to seek the counsel of the conference executive committee, and secure study papers on the tax issue.
Finally, on , after
extended study, the peace and social concerns committee of the conference
recommended that the
WMS
board grant Lanting’s request and discontinue withholding her taxes.
On , the WMS board considered the committee’s recommendation.
By a vote of six to two they decided not to follow the recommendation, but to continue withholding all tax as legally required.
At this same board meeting three other WMS teachers or staff members acted as follows: Ray Nussbaum submitted a letter requesting that the board stop withholding his tax; Floyd Schrock made a verbal request that his tax not be withheld; and Cindy Mullet asked that the board decrease her salary to the level where she will owe no tax.
The board granted Cindy Mullet’s request for a reduction in salary. The
board is willing to reconsider the issue if more faculty members should
make the same request to have the board refrain from withholding taxes.
MCC has taken no official position on the refusal to pay taxes for military use, but MCC Peace Section (U.S.) adopted a statement in which in part recommended “that Mennonite and Brethren in Christ continue to work toward reduction of military spending, not resting content with special provisions exempting us from payment of taxes for military purposes.” It affirms “those in our midst who feel compelled by Christian conscience to refuse payment of all or some federal tax because of the large percentage of such taxes used for military purposes.”
In concluding his war tax talk Yoder said church members are generally more ready to disregard what the church has to say than what the government says.
Issuing a direct challenge to those who believe war tax resistance is wrong he counseled, “It would be more credible if those who are in favor of paying all their taxes would show through some other action what they are doing to love our national enemies.”
This is the thirty-fifth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today we finish off the 1980s.
The issue announced that a new poster was available from the MCC:
Seattle Mennonite Church established a Northwest Peace Fund in to receive donations and recoverable deposits from people withholding a portion of their federal income taxes or phone taxes because of the large military buildup in the United States.
Anyone who wishes to may donate to the fund so that the resulting interest can be used for local peace activities.
Interest from the Northwest Peace Fund has been used to support peace-related projects in the Puget Sound area, such as the Emergency Feeding Program and the Victim Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP).
While the Seattle Mennonite Church’s Northwest Peace Fund will accept deposits and contributions from outside the Northwest, we strongly encourage each Mennonite congregation to establish its own peace fund.
We approved these seven operating guidelines:
This fund will be called the Northwest Peace Fund.
It will be a non-profit investment fund that will generate income.
This income will be distributed for peace and social concerns projects in the Pacific Northwest.
The peace fund will be administered by three peace fund representatives selected by the peace and social concerns committee of the Seattle Mennonite Church initially for one-, two-, and three-year terms, and for two- year terms thereafter.
Current peace fund representatives are Charles Lord, Bob Hamilton and David Ortman.
Money may be deposited into the fund through a peace fund representative either on a donation or recoverable-deposit basis:
(a) Donations will be retained to generate income for the fund,
(b) Recoverable deposits may be placed in the peace fund for a period of up to five years.
During this time period such funds may be returned to the depositor within 30 days upon written request of the fund’s address, given below.
Recoverable deposits will be used to generate income during the time these funds remain available.
After a period of five years, if not reclaimed, such deposits will revert to the status of donations.
The fund will operate on a fiscal year ending on May 31.
One meeting of the peace fund representatives will be held each April to prepare an annual report, copies of which will be available upon request.
At this meeting the peace fund representatives are also authorized to distribute up to all income generated from the fund to peace and social concern projects in the Pacific Northwest.
Any disbursement must have prior approval of the Seattle Mennonite Church advisory council.
The peace fund is authorized to budget up to 10 percent of any income generated by the fund to cover costs of advertising the fund to attract additional deposits and to provide copies of the annual report.
Any peace fund representative is authorized to withdraw within 30 days any recoverable deposit to a depositor upon a written request by the depositor.
In the event of the dissolution of the peace fund, all funds will be transferred to another peace fund escrow account and the depositors notified.
The mailing address of the fund will be…
Peace Tax Fund campaign director Marian Franz also wrote in with a brief note in which she suggested war tax resisters prompt their Congressional representatives to become Peace Tax Fund law supporters:
Sometimes the sequence goes like this (and I wish it would more often):
Carl Lundberg, a United Methodist pastor from New Haven, Conn., refuses to pay the military portion of his taxes.
The Internal Revenue Service comes to garnishee the wages.
The congregation has a meeting.
The vote is unanimous.
The answer is, No, they will not cooperate with the IRS because they will not be tax collectors, because they will not violate the pastor’s right to his own views of conscience and living by those, etc.
Then in the same year the U.S. Senator from Connecticut, Lowell Weicker, becomes a co-sponsor of the Peace Tax Fund Bill.
Is there a connection?
I think there is and that more will be coming.
That is because I am a person of hope.
Another invitation for war tax resisters to redirect their taxes through the MCC U.S. Peace Section’s “Taxes for Peace” fund appeared in the edition.
This time the funds were to be disbursed to both the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and to the Christian Peacemaker Teams program.
The note said about $4,000 had been donated to the fund .
The Commission on Home Ministries is interested in hearing from Mennonites who have placed some of their resisted military taxes into alternative peace funds.
Information on recent judicial decisions affecting such peace funds is available from the General Conference Peace and Justice office…
Randy Kehler and Betsy Corner’s Colrain, Mass., home is scheduled to go on the auction block any day.
The Internal Revenue Service seized their house for non-payment of $20,000 in taxes and $6,000 in fines and fees.
The couple has been withholding their federal taxes for 12 years, donating the money to a shelter for homeless women and children, a veteran’s outreach center, and a local peace group.
Kehler says they are willing to risk the consequences “because we can’t not do it.”
While the IRS is looking for a buyer, many local realtors will not touch the sale of the house because of strong community sentiment in favor of the couple’s decision.
After 7½ years of litigation, 27 hearings, and with a case file that grew two inches thick, the Tokyo District Court has ruled against a taxpayers’ organization that sought to end the Japanese government’s collection of income taxes for military purposes.
The case had its origin after the bank accounts of Akiteru Nakagawa and Mennonite minister Michio Ohno were attached by the government and the telephone of Yoshinori Tan was seized, in each instance due to their non-payment of taxes.
The Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church voted to combine into a single organization at their joint conference in .
This, I hope, will simplify things for me at least, as it’s been difficult to keep track of the subtle differences in names between the two organizations and their subcommittees.
Also at that conference:
The Mennonite Church narrowly (59 percent) approved a resolution calling for its General Board to take four steps on military tax-withholding.
It will establish a policy of not withholding (U.S.) federal income taxes from wages of any of its employees who make this request because of conscientious objection to war.
The resolution supports “other church boards and agencies that may adopt similar policies,” giving direction, not a mandate.
The General Conference took a similar action in in Bethlehem, Pa., but with a stronger vote, 71 percent.
The edition included an editorial by Muriel T. Stackely that brought readers up to speed on the history of the withholding debate.
Excerpt:
Our conference [the General Conference Mennonite Church] now does not withhold federal tax from those employees requesting this.
“We immediately notified the Internal Revenue Service,” says conference treasurer Ted Stuckey, “explaining our actions, being open, concealing nothing.
That was .
We still have not heard any more from the IRS — after getting its initial response, which told us that this was illegal.
We answered that we knew it was illegal but that it was in response to the action taken by the delegate body.”
Currently three employees of our conference offices in Newton, Kan., are requesting that tax not be withheld.
They are treated as self-employed people.
They say, observes Ted, that they have appreciated the opportunity to witness in this way.
The amounts not paid to IRS have been symbolic rather than comprehensive.
One expression of our commitment to non-violence has been war tax resistance.
Thus we and our friends found that our commitment to practice war tax resistance encouraged our commitment to a simple lifestyle.
We have defined war tax resistance as filing our taxes, but refusing to pay 50 percent of what is owed because that is the portion of U.S. income tax that goes toward military spending.
Fifty percent is a conservative estimate because parts of the U.S. military budget are hidden or secret.
We have learned that if we own a car, even one that is six years old, the IRS will sell it at a public auction to collect back taxes.
It became obvious that consumerism and war tax resistance are incompatible.
As a result several of our friends have made a conscious decision to do job-sharing or half-time employment.
It has worked out that between couples both parents can act equally as care-takers for the children while also having employment, which is psychologically rewarding and complementary to their vision of participating in God’s reign on earth.
Our choice of war tax resistance as a way of reducing our participation in the U.S. war machine has made a simple lifestyle almost mandatory because it has led us to lower our tax liability and lower our material consumption.
Another editorial by Muriel T. Stackely, this one in the edition, complained that “the 7,000 brochures about the Peace Tax Fund distributed at our triennial session in Normal, Ill., among 8,000 Mennonites netted one, one new membership for this campaign that says to the U.S. government, I want my tax dollars to be used to promote life, not death; peace, not war.”
War Resisters League is initiating organizing for major Tax Day demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco on .
Based on the theme “Alternative Revenue Service,” the actions will emphasize the U.S. government’s militaristic spending priorities and will feature a 1040 EZ Peace tax form and the distribution of redirected tax dollars to peace and social justice programs.
WRL is inviting other tax resistance and peace groups to join in planning the actions.
For more information contact Ruth Benn, War Resisters League…
This is the forty-eighth and last in a series of posts about war tax resistance
as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today I’m going to try to sum up what we’ve seen.
Disclaimers first:
I relied on some naïve text searching through the
optical-character-recognition versions of archived documents that were not
always well-scanned or legible, so I probably missed some things.
I wasn’t able to review complete copies from
.
The Mennonite was published by an arm of the
General Conference Mennonite Church (now Mennonite Church
USA)
and so was biased towards the viewpoint and activities of that branch,
and so these findings should not necessarily be extrapolated to
Mennonites as a whole. (I’m sure you’re looking forward to my upcoming deep
dive in to the Gospel Herald, organ of the
Mennonite Church.)
I ignored a lot of “Peace Tax Fund” legislation boosting. If you consider
that to also be a form of war tax resistance, you shouldn’t be misled by
how little of it I’ve included in my excerpts.
My concentration on war tax resistance can make it seem like the magazine
must have been full of talk of peace, love, and understanding and kind of a
liberal peaceniky sort of place. But Mennonites are by and large a pretty
conservative breed. To get the full flavor of the war tax resistance
conversation in the pages of The Mennonite it may
be useful to imagine the articles I’ve excerpted salted in a context full
of anti-Papism, anti-Masonicism, temperance, rants about gambling and
dancing and the movies, disgust at homosexuality, and fervent anti-abortion
views.
The General Conference Mennonite Church began to coalesce in Iowa in
. It was a mix of
more-or-less assimilated second-or-later generation American Mennonites of
Swiss and South German descent, and more recent Swiss and Russian Mennonite
immigrants, largely from the Midwestern United States, Pennsylvania, Ontario,
and Manitoba. (I’m summarizing a bigger story told in
An Introduction to Mennonite History,
, edited by Cornelius J. Dyck, who also wrote
the chapter on the General Conference Mennonite Church.)
The Mennonite began publishing in
as a publication of the Eastern District of
the Conference, and became the official
paper of the Conference itself (official English language paper, anyway; there
was also a German language one — Der
Bote — which I haven’t reviewed). I found very little evidence in the
early decades of its publication of any scruples about paying war taxes or
buying war bonds. If taxes were scrutinized at all, a quick glance at the
“Render unto Caesar” anecdote was enough to make stillborn any doubts.
(The “Render unto Caesar” verses would get a dead-horse beating throughout the
years of the publication that I read, with little consensus on the riddle’s
real meaning even from within the camps of opponents or proponents of
war tax resistance.)
As World War Ⅰ comes on and war taxes rise along with ostensibly voluntary
contributions to the war in the form of “Liberty Bonds,” there is almost no
push-back to be seen in the pages of The Mennonite,
even as American Mennonites in other branches are indeed suffering for their
refusal to participate in the Bond drives.
Indeed, reports of Liberty Bond sales are reported matter-of-factly or even
enthusiastically in The Mennonite, and Mennonite
institutions unashamedly report that they have accepted donations in the form
of such bonds. The Eastern District went on record both reaffirming its peace
and non-resistance policies and recommending that its members stock up
on bonds.
It isn’t until that I see a mention of
Mennonites refusing to buy war bonds (and that’s in the context of an editorial
mocking such Mennonites for their peculiar scruples).
In the period between the world wars a little more nuanced discussion began to
take place, but still the typical opinion was that Jesus said “Render Unto
Caesar” and that’s all you need to know.
While there was some backwards-looking hand-wringing about the Mennonite
enthusiasm for buying war bonds that had occurred during World War Ⅰ, I saw
little sign that anyone was willing to step boldly out from that foundation and
discourage Mennonites from buying war bonds in the future or from paying war
taxes in the present.
As World War Ⅱ approached, latent Mennonite guilt about war bonds clashed with
Mennonite reluctance to go up against public opinion and actually resist paying
for war. This eventually led to “Civilian Bonds” in the United States and
“Victory Loan Bonds with a sticker attached” (the sticker ostensibly indicated
that the subscribed funds were meant to be spent exclusively on relief work) in
Canada. These fig leaves allowed Mennonites to buy war bonds without buying
“War Bonds” and thus to assuage their consciences somewhat while keeping them
in the good graces of the support-the-troops crowd.
It’s not even the case that Mennonite conscientious objection to military
service was particularly well practiced at this time, though Mennonite
organizations continued to pay lip service to nonresistance and peace. One
report said that only 27% of General Conference Mennonite men who had been
conscripted had been classified as conscientious objectors.
However, this time around there is a lot more evidence to be found in the pages
of The Mennonite that Mennonites were seeking
alternatives to the phony let’s-pretend bonds. Some instead purchased “Peace
Certificates,” “Relief Certificates,” and other methods of supporting
non-military relief work in lieu of bonds. But the orthodox opinion in
The Mennonite was still all in favor of the fig-leaf
war bonds. Readers were meant to understand that purchasing such bonds
represented a sort of “witness of conscience against war financing” even while
they were also, ahem, a source of war financing.
After the war, when it was safer, The Mennonite
permitted outsiders — a Dutch Mennonite, Ernest Bromley and others in the
“Peacemakers” movement — to broach the topic of war tax resistance in its
pages. When Jacob J. Enz took over as acting editor for
he took
the opportunity to strongly hint, frequently, that Mennonites should reconsider
their unconcerned attitude toward taxes. By the issue was finally out in the open enough that actual
General Conference Mennonites were debating it front-and-center.
Continued murmurs about war tax resistance continued through
, and Mennonite and
Brethren institutions responded by considering how they should adopt
corporately to these concerns.
A letter to the
IRS
from Don Kaufman, who would be prominent in discussions of this issue for
decades to come, appeared in a issue, and a
first stab at “Peace Tax Fund” legislation was proposed in order to give
Mennonites a similar fig leaf to the “Civilian Bonds” of World War Ⅱ.
By paying war taxes was seen
as a definite problem that had to be addressed. People reached out to the
government, to various boards and committees, and tried also to come up with
individual solutions — such as income-reduction, charitable contributions, and
refusal to pay some portion of the tax due.
For the first time also, a backlash emerged of people who still held to the old
orthodoxy that one ought to unconcernedly render unto Caesar what Caesar
demands. They at times patiently, and at times with exasperation, tried to talk
Mennonites out of this newfangled foolishness, and their campaign would
continue for the next few decades.
The idea that one could refuse to pay “the military portion” of one’s tax
(usually defined as a portion equivalent to the portion of the national budget
spent on warstuffs) caught on in this period, and became a mostly-unquestioned
article of faith. The anti-resistance skeptics didn’t see any logic to it, but
the resisters largely regarded it as self-evident.
The hope of a Peace Tax Fund law also became a rarely-questioned dogma among
Mennonites who were troubled by paying taxes for war.
If asked why war tax resistance could be such a crucial issue of Mennonite
faith today when Mennonites of the past seemed not to be so troubled, war tax
resisters might respond in two ways: 1) they might find a few exemplars in
Anabaptist history who could be shown to have indeed had sympathy with war tax
resistance or something close to it, or 2) they could assert that the nuclear
age, in which expensive technology was more threatening to the peace than
masses of soldiers, had changed the rules of the game such that the only
meaningful conscientious objection was one that included war tax resistance.
The Mennonite began to put concern about paying taxes
for war at the forefront by , and it became
commonplace to assert that Mennonites should at the least be troubled
by paying taxes that support such a gargantuan military establishment, even if
they didn’t feel they could go all the way to resistance.
Influential Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder came out as a war tax
resister in the pages of a issue. Four
members of the Church of the Brethren issued “A Call to Income Tax Protest”
that appeared in a issue.
The Vietnam War started becoming more of a focal point than the nuclear sword
of Damocles by . In
the Peace and Social Concerns Committee
of the General Conference issued a statement, which was adopted by the
Conference’s Council of Boards and presented at the Mennonite World Conference
and that asked Mennonites to “counsel together” about a new war tax surcharge
and ask if “the Christian [should] object to payment of these taxes on the same
grounds as he conscientiously objects to military service”. It also asked
congregations to support war tax resisters among them.
The first corporate backlash resulted, with the Eastern District Conference
passing a resolution censuring the Council of Boards for suggesting such an
“unscriptural” thing. Still, the same resolution did back-handedly acknowledge
the tension between Mennonite beliefs and taxpaying when it recommended that
Mennonites take full advantage of charitable deductions to lower their tax
bill.
In , 673 delegates to the General Conference
triennial were polled about Vietnam-oriented activism. Only 27% agreed that
war tax resistance was appropriate (51% disagreed). In an additional survey
conducted at the “youth conference,” 51% agreed, so there was some generation
gap stuff at work here too.
In the Mennonite Central Committee’s Peace
Section created a mutual aid fund to help conscientious objectors, and
explicitly listed conscientious objectors to military taxation as among those
who were eligible.
also, the Western District Conference
passed a resolution in favor of war tax resistance, indicating a West/East
split to rival the young/old split.
Phone tax resistance also started to catch on around this time.
A hundred people met to discuss war tax resistance at Bethel College Mennonite
Church in in a conference sponsored by the
Western District Conference and the Commission on Home Ministries (a subgroup
of the General Conference). Mennonite, Quaker, and secular war tax resisters
spoke, and participants signed a joint pledge.
In 73.4% of the delegates to the General
Conference triennial ratified a statement saying that “The levying of war taxes
is another form of conscription… We stand by those who feel called to resist
the payment of that portion of taxes being used for military purposes.”
That year also, a Mennonite church in Arvada, Colorado decided to stop paying
the tax on its phone — the first example I saw of a Mennonite institution
refusing to pay taxes.
There was another 100-person-strong war tax conference in
, this time in the heartland. Another
50-person conference on the subject was held in Kansas. Mennonite intentional
communities began to develop with war tax resistance as an explicit focus.
Mennonite bodies began coordinating war tax redirection efforts.
Nonetheless, results from a Church Member Profile survey showed that 55% of
those Mennonites surveyed opposed war tax resistance.
As the Vietnam War wound down, Mennonite war tax resistance continued. Even
those who weren’t brave enough to resist were eager to stand up and say that at
least they were paying under protest. Redirection of war taxes to
Mennonite institutions and projects increased.
In a second Mennonite church began resisting
its phone tax corporately. “The World Peace Tax Fund Act” was introduced into
Congress, raising hopes that a legislative solution might make the problem go
away for Mennonite taxpayers.
In a Christian war tax resistance group
kindled in Japan for the first time thanks to Mennonite pastor Michio Ohno.
Sixty people would attend its first meeting and for a short while there would be an enthusiastic response in
Japan to the movement, with eighty or more people in Japan refusing to pay war
taxes.
The Mennonite General Conference triennial sessions in
“ask[ed] all General Conference members to
question prayerfully whether they want to pay war taxes voluntarily” and
pledged that the General Conference itself would work to provide its employees
with (vaguely-specified) support in war tax resistance.
In another 100+-person
conference on war tax concerns was held, this time in an Ontario Mennonite
Church.
The Commission on Home Ministries created a war tax redirection fund, and
started a newsletter for war tax resisters, but stopped short of refusing to
withhold taxes from its resisting employees’ paychecks.
That question — whether Mennonite institutions should honor their employees’
requests not to have war taxes withheld from their paychecks and submitted to
the government — began to really bubble in .
An encouraging (but short-lived) court decision gave some hope that such
institutions could legally get away with refusing such withholding, and then
the idea became hard to shake.
Several years’ of bureaucratic pass-the-buck followed:
The Commission on Home Ministries’ Peace and Social Concerns Reference
Council recommended that the General Conference stop withholding such
taxes.
The Commission on Home Ministries’ executive committee put that on its
agenda and approved it “but referred [it] for further study by the Division
of Administration and the General Board.”
The Division of Administration wasn’t enthusiastic, thinking that many
possible consequences hadn’t been fully considered. So the General Board
asked the Division of Administration to come back to them later with their
ideas.
When the General Board met again, they decided to wait to decide until
their next meeting.
At the next meeting, the Council on Commissions asked the Commission on
Home Ministries to prepare a study process in advance of the next triennial
conference so everyone would get a chance to vote on it. And the General
Board agreed that the Conference triennium should decide as a body.
The triennium decided to commit itself to 18 months of “serious study” on
the matter, followed by a special midtriennium conference at which they
would decide once and for all.
Educational materials were prepared and distributed, and an invitational
consultation on civil responsibility was held to help prepare people for
the responsibility that had been put upon them.
The midtriennial conference was held, and they decided “to engage in a
serious and vigorous search to use all legal, legislative, and
administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector exemption
from” withholding, and to come back for another try if they couldn’t figure
anything like that out within three years.
The General Conference established a board to implement this, which later
expanded to be a multi-sectarian task force on war tax issues.
The task force quickly ruled out administrative avenues as being frankly
unavailable and began to explore legislative ones (Peace Tax Fund
schemes).
That seeming just as unlikely, “a resolution seeking approval to initiate a
judicial action to exempt the General Conference from withholding taxes
from the income of its employees” was prepared for the next triennial,
which passed it 1,156:353.
None of this was in the abstract. A General Conference employee named Cornelia
Lehn asked for war taxes not to be withheld from her paycheck, and her request
caused everything to go haywire for a good long while in the General Conference
bureaucracy. On the one hand, not much got accomplished for many years, but on
the other hand, the dust Lehn kicked up rained down as ink that filled several
columns of The Mennonite for many an edition, and the
buck-passing by the Mennonite bureaucracy meant that everybody got a chance to
get their hands dirty trying to figure out their position on the issue. All of
the heat and light at the midtriennium also kindled a nonsectarian Christian
war tax resistance group in the city where it was held. Lehn gets a lot of
credit for keeping war tax resistance at the forefront of Mennonite
deliberation for years, simply by making her request, explaining herself, and
holding firm.
The “A New Call to Peacemaking” initiative began in
and would for several years advance the cause
of war tax resistance particularly in the “traditional peace churches”
(Mennonites, Brethren, and Quakers).
Meanwhile more Mennonite institutions were refusing their phone taxes, new
Mennonite intentional communities were forming with tax resistance as part of
their charters, other religious denominations and secular groups were jumping
on the war tax resistance bandwagon, Mennonite conservatives were becoming more
and more frustrated with liberal innovations like war tax resistance, and hopes
for the World Peace Tax Fund legislation continued to drain support from war
tax resistance proper.
Robert Hull began in to circulate plans for
a “Sabbatical Service” program in which conscientious objectors would devote
one year in seven to volunteer service, and in exchange the government would
grant them conscientious objector to military taxation status. This was
elaborated at length, but never seemed to get off of the drawing boards and
into an implementation or a legislative proposal.
Individual Mennonites created a vast variety of symbolic withholding ideas,
choosing particular small amounts to withhold based on numerological symbolism
or on correspondences with the amounts or percentages of federal budget
spending on offensive items. In general it seems that there was very little
consensus about how to resist war taxation among those who had decided
that resistance was appropriate, instead a thousand different techniques
bloomed.
The IRS
began responding to certain varieties of tax protest by issuing “frivolous
filing” penalties. This increased the fear and uncertainty around the decision
of whether or not (or how) to resist. Secular and Mennonite institutions
responded by creating mutual aid insurance funds to help penalized resisters,
such as the “War Tax Witness Relief Fund” established by the
MCC
(U.S.) Peace Section
in .
A conservative backlash to the advance of war tax resistance (and other
innovations), largely in the conservative Eastern District, led to the
“Smoketown Consultation” which would eventually lead to a rupture in which the
Alliance of Mennonite Evangelical Congregations split off from the General
Conference to go on their own. (Today the issue of same-sex marriage is
causing a similar exodus of conservative congregations.)
Having been given the green light by the assembled delegates at its last
triennial, the General Conference prepared to file a lawsuit against the
IRS to
assert its right to stop withholding taxes from the salaries of conscientiously
objecting employees. They began by meeting with the
IRS to
try to work out an 11th-hour administrative
compromise, but had no luck. Then they began to assemble witnesses and
co-plaintiffs with standing. But then the
U.S. Supreme Court
handed down its decision in
U.S. v. Lee — a
case in which a man from the Old Order Amish conscientiously objected to
participation in government social insurance programs. That unanimous ruling
firmly indicated that the Supreme Court had zero tolerance for arguments about
conscientious objection to taxation (“The tax system could not function if
denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments
were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.”). The General
Conference decided to put its suit on the back burner.
Having been blocked in its search for administrative and judicial remedies,
and with the legislative remedy (some sort of Peace Tax Fund law) languishing
in the back-alleys of Congress, the board of the General Conference prepared to
tell its congregations that the ball was back in their court as to how to
proceed: should the Conference throw in the towel and continue to withhold
taxes from objecting employees, or should it refuse in outright civil
disobedience? The Conference would decide, as a body, at the Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania triennial in . A
70% majority of delegates there opted for corporate civil disobedience.
Seven employees registered their objection with the Conference, which on
stopped withholding
federal income taxes from their paychecks. (By the number of such employees had dropped to five; by
, to four; by
, to three.) The
IRS
doesn’t seem to have taken any action against the Conference for this, though
there is some indication that the employees in question paid all but “symbolic”
amounts of the tax themselves.
The Historic Peace Church Task Force on Taxes narrowed its focus to the
legislative avenue, going all-in to lobby for the World Peace Tax Fund bill.
A small group of Canadian Mennonite war tax resisters began to emerge in the
early 1980s. One, Jerilyn Prior, tried to get a court to grant her the right
to conscientious objection to military taxation, to no avail. There were also
reports of Mennonite war tax resistance from the Netherlands. The First
International Conference of Military Tax Resisters and Peace Tax Campaigns was
held in West Germany in , with
support from Mennonites there.
Meanwhile, the war tax resistance bug was spreading through other Christian
denominations, including those not found under the “traditional peace churches”
banner. This put additional pressure on the Mennonites, who had to ask
themselves if they still qualified as a peace church when other churches seemed
at times more willing to take the lead on such conscientious objection and
activism.
In the Mennonite Central Committee decided
not to follow in the General Conference’s footsteps and stop
withholding taxes from its objecting employees’ paychecks. None of the
individual conferences they consulted with were supportive of them opting for
civil disobedience. This is somewhat surprising, given the 70% support for
civil disobedience at the triennial,
and may suggest that was the high-water mark
for war tax resistance in the General Conference.
The Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church opted to
begin the process of merging in , and
simultaneously the Mennonite Church decided to also adopt the policy of
refusing to withhold taxes from its objecting employees. (The vote though was
narrower than the vote of the General
Conference delegates — 59% in favor this time — and the General Board of the
Church would later stall on implementing the decision.)
The urgency of the war tax resistance question had deflated by the
. Christian Peacemaker Teams tried
to breathe some life back into it through a “Taxes for Life” symbolic
redirection campaign, beginning in .
The years when hardly an issue would come out that didn’t have some
war tax resistance content in it were behind us. Now in some years there might
be a single tax-season issue that profiled some steadfast Mennonite war tax
resisters, and in other years the topic would hardly be mentioned at all, or
would only be mentioned in passing. The
triennial endorsed Peace Tax Fund campaigns but did not issue any shows of
support for war tax resistance.
The Commission on Home Ministries decided in
to extend its Student Aid Fund for Non-Registrants so that it would also cover
students who were denied loans because of their war tax resistance.
An informal study of 17 Mennonite and Brethren in Christ institutions found
that few had official policies concerning war taxes, and that even of those who
did have a policy of honoring requests from employees not to have taxes
withheld from their paychecks — “[m]ost institutions surveyed had not fielded
such requests within the past 10 years.”
Some Mennonite institutions adopted the policy of gently pushing back against
IRS
attempts to levy the salaries of resisting employees, for instance by writing
the agency a letter explaining their reluctance to participate in violating
their employee’s conscientious act.
Mennonites continued to evolve new ways of reducing, refusing, or resisting
paying for war with their taxes as the new millennium dawned. But the new
“Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund” bill got most of the press. Editorial
mentions of war tax resistance became increasingly vague and noncommittal.
The stories of individual Mennonite tax resisters of the past and present were
occasionally told in the pages of The Mennonite in
the early years of the 21st century, but the idea
that this was a subject of fiery debate and collective concern in the Church
was gone. Instead readers learned of individual prophets, protesters, eccentric
heretics, or hopeless idealists (depending on your perspective).
Desperate war tax resistance evangelists increasingly were reduced to begging
people to withhold tiny symbolic amounts from their taxes, such as in the
“$10.40 for Peace” campaign.
Most distressingly, as the War on Iraq raged, Mennonite discussion of war tax
resistance seemed to diminish even further (at least in The
Mennonite). Had the Mennonite Church come to be “at peace with war” as
one editorialist put it? One sober assessment of “How are we doing as a peace
church?” in concluded that “[E]ach year
our church members pay for cruise missiles, smart bombs, and unmanned
drones — with barely the slightest tinge of conscience, let alone a whimper of
protest.”
In the Mennonite Central Committee
(U.S.) announced a
war tax redirection effort — “Turning toward peace” — with a goal of helping
aid programs in Afghanistan, and this program would continue to operate for
several years.
It’s an extraordinary arc. War tax resistance built slowly and steadily until
it had become a frenzy of debate, activity, and corporate commitment, and then
astonishingly rapidly it mostly dissolved.
It’s hard to know quite what to make of this, or of
the similar “forgetting” that took place
in the Society of Friends around the same time. To a cynic, this might just
look like a craze — with war tax resisters being the Cabbage Patch Kids of the
historic peace churches.
Some other possible explanations that occur to me:
The end of the Vietnam War and then the Cold War took the wind out of the
sails of the peace movement in general, dampening the general interest in
war tax resistance that the Mennonite war tax resistance movement was
drafting off of.
The drive to pass “Peace Tax Fund” legislation displaced interest in war
tax resistance among people who shared a concern about taxpayer complicity.
Potential tax resisters or war tax resistance advocates devoted themselves
instead to letter-writing, lobbying, and fundraising for this doomed and
increasingly counterproductive legislative effort.
Those who were sympathetic to the arguments for war tax resistance quickly
converted to some form of resistance by the peak of Mennonite war tax
resistance activity in or so. Once these
low-hanging-fruit had been collected, it was an uphill battle to get anyone
else interested because they did not find the arguments as compelling, and
so outreach and evangelism stalled.
The “Reagan Revolution” of the 1980s was in part inspired by conservative
anger at high taxes and conservative politicians’ promises to lower taxes.
This might have made the more liberal Mennonites, from which war tax
resisters were drawing most of their support, less eager to be associated
with a tax-resisting cause.
Some resisters may have had exaggerated hopes for what war tax resistance
would accomplish, and as those hopes faded with time and experience, so did
enthusiasm for war tax resistance.
This is the seventeenth 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 the Mennonite Church and
General Conference Mennonite Church cosponsored a seminar on
“Civil Religion: True and False Patriotism”
According to the Gospel Herald coverage, “[a] number
of special issue groups were formed in which persons struggled with questions
raised during the seminar [such as l]egal implications of nonpayment of war
taxes and other forms of resistance…”
The issue brought news of
Mennonite-inspired war tax resistance sprouting in Japan:
A war tax resistance movement is beginning in Japan.
Started by Michio Ohno, a United Church of Christ in Japan pastor who attended
Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries in Elkhart,
Ind.,
, an organization for “Conscientious
Objection to Military Tax” was formed on in Tokyo. About sixty people attended the first meeting, and a
“general assembly” was planned on
at the Shinanomachi Church in Tokyo.
The objectives of the organization are (1) reduction and eventual abolition of
Japan’s self-defense force (Japan’s constitution prohibits a military) and (2)
encouraging nonpayment of the 6.4 percent of income taxes that support the
self-defense force.
Mr. Ohno, who is now working with Mennonites and Brethren in Christ in the
Tokyo area, started the movement out of his religious convictions. But support
has now grown beyond Mennonites, the Society of Friends, and the Fellowship of
Reconciliation to include other Japanese citizens who question the
constitutionality of the self-defense force.
At the organizational meeting, speakers included Gan Sakakibara, principal of
the Tokyo English Center, "The Historical Development of Conscientious
Objection”; Yasusaburo Hoshino, professor at the Tokyo University of Liberal
Arts, “How to Live Nonviolently — A Theory of Peaceful Tax-Paying”; and Shizuo
Ito, a lawyer who sued the government for having unconstitutional armed
forces, “Struggle for Peace — The World of Zero.”
Mr. Sakakibara told of the history of the Anabaptists and said that nonpayment
of military tax has a long history. Mr. Ito remarked that “the nuclear reactor
of the conscience is being lit today.” Mr. Hoshino compared the cost of food
in social welfare institutions with the cost of the self-defense forces.
Mr. Ohno called Conscientious Objection to Military Tax the first organized
movement of this kind in Japan.
“The time was ripe when we started the campaign,” he said. “We consulted
several scholars of the constitution, and one of the professors said he
himself had wanted to start a movement like this. Somebody else may well have
started a movement like this anyway, even if we did not. We should not just
sit back and wait for the peace to come, but be the peacemakers.”
Mr. Ohno said one of the decisive factors in his becoming involved in
conscientious tax objection in was
an article in The Mennonite last year on the
proposed World Peace Tax Fund legislation in the United States.
Deadline for filing taxes in Japan is in
. “Then we will know how the tax
officials respond to the objection,” Mr. Ohno said.
Another meeting for tax refusers is planned in
, and members of the steering
committee were to itinerate in Kyushu and Okinawa in
.
On ,
Japanese Christians founded a new movement of persons who refuse to pay that
part of their taxes allotted for military purposes. Newspapers have since
reported that an association of lawyers has promised to work with the group.
Susami Ishitani, secretary of the Christian pacifists, wrote: “We have invited
the cooperation of others who share with us the principle of nonviolence.” He
also pointed out that the Japanese constitution contains articles which could
provide the legal base for refusing to see a military or violent solution as
any solution at all. ―Algemeen Doopsgezind Weekblad.
Brother Ohno of Tokyo shared out of his conviction for peace and his current
experience in nonpayment of the military tax portion of his personal income
tax.
Our government’s “permanent war economy” policy should rank high among reasons
peace-making Christians have for (1) finding simpler lifestyles, (2) telling
their congressmen about their continuing opposition to military spending
madness, (3) continuing to reduce their taxable income, (4) finding more ways
to resist the war, (5) allowing the
IRS to
check individual deductions for contributions.
Join the club. If they check my deductions when my Federal tax is over $200,
will they also check me when it falls under $200? They probably will. Time
will tell.
Remember the stability and value of the
U.S. dollar is
related directly to how wisely or stupidly our Federal tax dollars are spent.
Allen R. Mohler, in a piece entitled
“Caesar or God?”
() didn’t have much positive to
say about war tax resistance, and introduced the “why stop at war tax
resistance” line of attack:
If we refuse to pay our portion of taxes that go for military spending, we had
better hold back the “murder tax” (whatever tax money is spent on abortions)
and the immorality tax” (the tax money that is helping unwed persons live
immorally without the responsibility of being parents).
When Jesus was asked the question about paying taxes to the Roman government.
He asked whose image was on the coin? Answer: Caesar’s — and Caesar
represented the political power and leadership of a pagan and militaristic
government. Jesus then said, “Render… to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,
and to God the things that are God’s.” I think we often miss the meaning of
this last part of Jesus’ statement. What has the image of God is God’s — that
is, you and I. The only object or thing created in God’s image is the human
family.
As I understand the teachings of the Bible on taxes, it is to pay — the
governments will ultimately be responsible, whether it is used right or wrong.
To do otherwise is to get our images and rendering all turned around.
The issue having only recently come to life, it was odd to see the following
headline in the issue. I expect
the end of the Vietnam War was probably what was being alluded to.
In connection with his presentations of Mennonite history and principles
throughout the church, Jan Gleysteen has been involved in a lot of study
groups and discussions. He reported that one question which has recently come
up with greater frequency and which has provided the reason for additional
meetings and prayer sessions is the problem of war taxes.
Congregations or fellowships studying Anabaptist heritage this year are
discovering the statements of Grebel, Riedemann, Felbinger, Simons, and others
on this subject and are wondering what a Christian’s contemporary response to
war taxes might be, especially since today’s technological armies need vast
sums of money more than they need men. Individuals and small groups here and
there are actively engaged in studying the issue, but not much help and
information is as yet available from the denominational level. Yet in one
congregation the statement was made: “How to deal with war taxes is an issue
that affects far more of us than the issues of abortion or a study on the role
of women.”
A bit of historical revisionism was at work in a note titled
“Ancestor Worship?”
by Wayne North () that made much
stronger claims for early Mennonite war tax resistance than I have been able to
discern from the record:
If we are glorifying our ancestry… why do some modern-day Mennonites urge the
payment of war taxes and advocate the death penalty when both were condemned
by their early leaders?
Levi Keidel, in the issue,
suggested there was a
“Mennonite Credibility Gap”
that expressed itself in the way Mennonites were approaching the war tax
question:
Now with the proliferation of technological weaponry, the annual
U.S. budget is
dominated by a hydra-headed military appropriation. We Mennonites who have set
our affection upon things of earth, relished the pleasures and conveniences of
affluence, amassed material wealth like everyone else, now say that we will
refuse to pay income tax as our peace witness to government. We are selecting
to apply the principle of nonparticipation in violence, but not of
self-imposed poverty for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.
Is a government official wrong in accusing Mennonites of accepting their
historic principles which concern the state, but rejecting their historic
principles which touch themselves? Is it proper for us to make a corporate
witness to government against payment of income tax when there is little else
which distinguishes us as citizens of another kingdom who give primary
allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ? How can we justify the selective
application of Anabaptist beliefs to our contemporary lives?
Levi Keidel makes a good point against selective discipleship… From what I
observe, however, those who take seriously the idea of nonpayment of war taxes
are often the same Christian disciples who are most conscientious about their
lifestyles. How many affluent Mennonites consider war taxes to be at all
inconsistent with a peace witness? Perhaps the worst “selective” problem we
have is in letting a “select few” be our conscience on both these Anabaptist
concerns. I am grateful for this minority voice which may help others of us to
return to fuller application of the total biblical ethic.
Speakers for an inter-Mennonite and Brethren in Christ conference on war taxes
have been named.
The conference, sponsored by the General Conference Mennonite Church,
Mennonite Church, Brethren in Christ Church, and Mennonite Central Committee
Peace Section, is scheduled for
at First Mennonite Church, Kitchener,
Ont.
Included among the speakers are:
Colonel Edward King
(ret.), director of the
Coalition on National Priorities and Military Policy
(U.S.), and
Major General Fred Carpenter, Canadian armed forces, on “Militarism in
Today’s Society.”
Marlin Miller, president of Goshen Biblical Seminary, Elkhart,
Ind., on “The Christian’s
Relationship to the State and Civil Authority.”
Walter Klaassen, associate professor of religious studies at Conrad Grebel
College, Waterloo, Ont.,
and Donald Kaufman of Newton,
Kan., author of
What Belongs to Caesar? on "Anabaptism and
Church-State Tax Issues.”
Willard Swartley, chairman of the Bible and Philosophy Department, Eastern
Mennonite College, Harrisonburg,
Va., on “The Christian
and Payment of War Taxes.”
Workshops are planned on such topics as “War Taxes and the Bible,” “The
Christian and Civil Disobedience,” “World Peace Tax Fund Act,” "Forms of
Resistance and Legal Consequences,” “Mennonite Institutions and the
Withholding Dilemma, and “Voluntary Service and War Tax Options.”
The conference, intended for “theological and practical discernment on war tax
issues,” is open to all who wish to attend.
Initiative for the conference came from a resolution passed by the triennial
convention of the General Conference Mennonite Church in
in
St. Catherines,
Ont.
Those planning to attend the conference should register by
…
Co-moderators of the conference are Peter Ediger of Arvada,
Colo., and Vernon Leis of
Elmira, Ont.
After the conference, Gospel Herald carried the
following report:
Unlike in some Mennonite peace gatherings of the past decade, the under-thirty
set did not predominate at Kitchener. Laborers, pastors, homemakers, and
teachers shared their concerns. Students from as far as Swift Current Bible
Institute and Eastern Mennonite College made the pilgrimage to First
Mennonite.
Two retired military men gave background for the concern about war taxes at
the first session. Col. Edward
King, U.S. Army
(retired), summarized the ludicrous contradictions between stated
U.S. foreign policy
and actual U.S.
military practice, and tallied up the cost in tens of billions of dollars.
Major-General Fred Carpenter, Canadian Armed Forces (retired), who traces his
martial ancestry to Napoleon, pointed out political and military differences
between the U.S.
and Canada. Stressing the dangers of nationalism, Carpenter called for a view
of land resources which sees them as international property just as the ocean
and the air.
Conference participants were characterized by a keen sense of urgency about
the international arms race and felt some personal accountability for national
policy in their respective countries, the United States and Canada. A basic
cleavage of viewpoint became evident however over the degree of accountability
which Christians have for the nuclear immorality of the governments under
which they live.
The historical record of Anabaptists on war tax issues was reviewed by Walter
Klaassen of Conrad Grebel College and Donald Kaufman of General Conference
Home Ministries Personnel Services. The evidence suggests that most
Anabaptists did pay all their taxes willingly; however, there is the early
case of Hutterite Anabaptists who refused to pay war taxes that were to be
used against the invading Turks.
During the American Revolution some Mennonites did object to paying war taxes;
yet, in a joint statement with the Church of the Brethren (German Baptist
Brethren) they agreed to pay taxes in general to the colonial powers “that we
may not offend them.”
In a biblical/theological paper. Marlin Miller, president of Goshen Biblical
Seminary, defined the relationship of the Christian to civil authorities as
one of subordination rather than obedience or subjection. Subordination, he
said, requires the exercise of discrimination regarding what is due the state
(Rom. 13:7) within a basic
stance that rejects rebellion and violent revolution.
In the second major biblical/theological paper of the conference, Willard
Swartley of Conrad Grebel College examined the New Testament texts on taxes.
“Scripture does not speak a clear word on the subject of paying taxes used for
war. While taxes generally appear to be Caesar’s due, the statements on the
subject contain either ambiguity in meaning
(Mk. 12:17) or qualifications in
the texts that call for discrimination in judgment,” he concluded.
Conference participants felt that the ethical directive as to whether to pay
or not to pay must be found by the community of believers led by the Spirit to
understand the imperative of the total revelation in Christ Jesus.
The summary statement of the conference issues an appeal to the churches and
church institutions to “recognize the extent to which we are subject to the
industrial-military complex” and to “pray for those in authority, that they
will rule justly.” It calls on the church to “awaken a consciousness of the
extent to which our lifestyles are affected by the standards of our consumer
society, and extend a new call to the lordship of Christ in lifestyle issues.”
A response included a call to “bring taxable income below the taxable level by
adjusting standard of living through earning less income, through donating up
to the maximum allowable 50 percent of income to charitable causes, or through
other types of deduction and/or dependent claiming which are legally
allowable.”
Responses recommended for Canadians included to “call upon our government to
legislate against the export of military weapons and systems” and to “affirm
and support individuals who feel led to actions (actual or symbolic) that
focus conscientious objection in particular ways.[”]
Conference planners Harold Regier and Peter Ediger, editors of
God and Caesar, a war tax newsletter from Newton,
Kan., and Ted Koontz of
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.) indicated
plans to carry on efforts to raise consciousness about war tax and military
issues.
Cassettes of the proceedings at the War Tax Conference held at Kitchener… are
now ready for circulation. The entire set includes six cassettes with
presentations by Col. Edward
King (ret.), Major General
Fred Carpenter of the Canadian Armed Forces, Marlin Miller, Walter Klaassen,
Donald Kaufman, and Willard Swartley. The discussions after the presentations
are also included.…
A couple of history lessons followed. The issue reprinted the petition sent by Mennonites to their
state Assembly in in which they begged
for conscientious objection to military service, noted that they were dutiful
taxpayers, and enclosed a “small gift” as protection money. And the
issue told the story of the
Funkite schism that happened around the same time:
Bicentennial reenactments usually emphasize powdered wigs and antique muskets
to the exclusion of ideas, but a 200-year-old sermon repeated at First
Presbyterian Church in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, this summer put a current
issue in sharper focus.
Costumes and candlelight could not detract from the timeliness of the Reverend
John Carmichael’s sermon, because the
payment of war taxes is no less a problem for us than it was for 18th-century
Mennonites. The Presbyterian pastor had little sympathy with those who
questioned the morality of war, but his sermon tells us what Mennonites were
doing about war taxes 200 years ago.
“Had our Lord been a Mennonist, He would have refused to pay tribute to
support war, which shows the absurdity of these people’s conduct,” he said.
“In Romans 13, we are instructed the duty we owe to civil government, but if
it was unlawful and anti-Christian and antiscriptural to support war, it would
be unlawful to pay taxes. If it is unlawful to go to war, it is unlawful to
pay another to do it.”
Lancaster County Mennonites refused to pay taxes for military purposes in
, according to the Presbyterian preacher,
forcing the authorities to seize their property.
“What a foolish trick those people put on their consciences who, for the
reasons already mentioned, will not pay their taxes and yet let others come
and take their money.”
When the dispute between England and her American Colonies turned to bloodshed
and farmers and storekeepers began drilling at every crossroads, Mennonites
refused to join their neighbors in these “military associations” or to make
contributions for the purchases of rifles and gunpowder.
Instead of helping the war effort, Quakers set up an elaborate system for
distributing aid to war victims in besieged Boston. Mennonites also donated
money for the relief of the poor of Boston. In the Continental Congress recognized the rights of conscientious
objectors and asked no more of them than voluntary contributions “for their
distressed brethren.”
But the peace churches were not allowed to stand aloof. Patriot leaders wanted
their contributions to be an acknowledged equivalent for military service, not
a free gift to the poor. A letter from a Church of the Brethren pastor in
Lancaster County tells how his congregation required the collector to sign a
receipt that the money was intended “for the needy,” but he was afraid it
would be used for military purposes.
When the Pennsylvania Assembly decided to put a direct tax on everyone who
would not join a military unit, with the money appropriated for defense of the
state, Quakers insisted that the tax violated the liberty of conscience
guaranteed in William Penn’s charter. Mennonites and Brethren explained in
their petition to the Assembly:
“The Advice to those who do not find Freedom of Conscience to take up arms,
that they ought to be helpful to those who are in Need and distressed
Circumstances, we receive with Chearfulness towards all Men of what Station
they may be — it being our Principle to feed the Hungry and give the Thirsty
Drink; — we have dedicated ourselves to serve all Men in every Thing that can
be helpful to the Preservation of Men’s Lives, but we find no Freedom in
giving, or doing, or assisting in any Thing by which Men’s Lives are destroyed
or hurt. We beg the Patience of all those who believe we err in this Point.”
Mennonites of that generation saw no distinction between fighting in war and
paying for the weapons of war. “I would as soon go into the war as pay the 3
pounds, 10 shillings, if I did not fear for my life,” Andrew Ziegler, bishop
in the Skippack congregation, declares in .
Since Mennonites, Quakers, and Brethren objected on conscientious grounds to
paying war taxes, while making it a matter of conscience to pay other state
and township taxes, as many documents make clear, forcing them to pay for war
as an equivalent to military service was as much a violation of religious
freedom as forcible induction into the army would be.
The Pennsylvania Constitution guaranteed the
right of conscientious objectors to refuse military service, provided they
made an equivalent contribution in money. But an equivalent of any kind of
military service made exemption on conscientious grounds a sham. The Mennonite
and Quaker refusal to pay war taxes during the American Revolution was thus an
integral part of their refusal to participate in war. If they could be
exempted from militia duty for this reason, it was illogical and a violation
of liberty of conscience not to exempt them from paying war taxes.
The experience of an earlier generation need not be normative, but we would do
well to ponder the witness of the Mennonite Church in the crisis of the
American Revolution and its meaning for our generation.
In the issue, John E. Lapp
summarized Romans 13
and in so doing showed how much the orthodoxy had shifted. Compare this to his
remarks on the same subject in (see
♇ 7 September 2018)!
Paul… continued in [Romans] chapter 13 to call upon all Christians to be
subject to the powers — not to resist the powers, to be subject for
conscience’ sake, and to pay taxes cheerfully. Here we can see how the
citizens of the other world maintain relationships with the nations of this
world and continue their faithful loyalties to the King of kings. One
parenthesis may be in order. (This does not mean that Christians who belong to
the new order will unquestioningly pay war taxes. They may even determine what
really is Caesar’s rightful portion and may even decide to withhold that
portion which is designated for military purposes!)
This is the eighteenth 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.
The returned us to the new
war tax resistance movement in Japan:
Conscientious Objection to Military Tax, a Japanese war tax-resistance
organization, has published five issues of a four-page publication called
Plowshare.
The latest issue includes an account of Ishihara Shoichi of Shimizu City, a
newspaper dealer who withheld the 6.39 percent of the tax for his shop that
would have gone for military expense in the national budget. While he was
appealing to the tax tribunal, saying that the levying of military tax was
unconstitutional, his bank account was seized. This was the first legal action
against any of the dozen people who have withheld their tax money.
The periodical also includes a report of a speech by Professor Kobayashi Naoki
of Tokyo University, in which he says that “military forces do not defend the
land or the people. What the former Imperial Army really shielded was a
handful of military executives and the imperial family. The present
Self-Defense Forces are deficient for a nuclear warfare or even a conventional
war.”
Another article by Otomo Michio attacks poverty as one of the reasons people
enlist in the military.
Other information includes a guide for filing tax returns and publication
notice of an 80-page booklet “A Shoot of the Olive” on the history of tax
resistance, philosophical and biblical questions, how to file tax returns, and
how to appeal.
The publication, in Japanese with an English summary, is available from Michio
Ohno, 2‒35‒18 Asahigaoka, Hino, Tokyo 191, Japan.
A compilation of Mennonite responses to world hunger, printed in the
issue, included
this one:
“Enclosed find a check for $40 for world hunger. Rather than paying income
taxes, we are sending this check so that we may help to build peace and
support causes that help our troubled world.” (A letter from Colorado to
MCC)
A packet of resources on war taxes has been published by the Commission on
Home Ministries of the General Conference Mennonite Church. The majority of
articles in the packet are speeches given at the inter-Mennonite and Brethren
in Christ war tax conference… in Kitchener, Ontario. Also included are a
report of legal research by Ruth Stoltzfus on institutional withholding of the
portion of income taxes going for war purposes, brochures explaining the World
Peace Tax Fund Act now before the
U.S. Congress, and
statements about war taxes adopted by the Mennonite Central Committee Peace
Section and the Church of the Brethren annual conference. The packet is
available for $1.50 from the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section…
In the issue
Sem and Mabel Sutter
shared the letter they sent when they paid their taxes under protest.
More than 150 persons from Iowa peace churches met on
at William Penn College, Oskaloosa, Iowa, to consider the theme
“Peacemaking: Living Heritage and Living Challenge.” The main purpose of the
conference, sponsored by Mennonites, Quakers, and Church of the Brethren, was
to introduce materials and ideas that congregations could use in promoting
peace.
Donald D. Kaufman, of Newton,
Kan., gave the keynote address:
“Our Taxes Buy Wars? The Peace Church Heritage.” He traced the history of the
three denominations’ struggles over whether Christians can pay for war when
they refuse to participate in it.
Some early church leaders in America advocated not offending the government,
and thus paying all taxes. In others groups, especially among Friends, members
were disciplined for supporting war in any way. The decision not to support
war was not easy, and it was often accompanied by persecution.
[Disciples] will stand up for the rights of all people. My father and others
have refused to pay war taxes, willing to pay a fine instead when
IRS came
to collect.
A television segment about Mennonites hit British television, and the
issue
described it this way:
The Mennonite segment begins in Europe with episodes from Martyrs
Mirror, then switches to modern Mennonite events… [such as] a Sunday
school debate on church-state issues with such topics as war taxes, Vietnam,
and growing up as a conscientious objector in a public school.
The delegates took action on two statements presented by the Bishop Board, one
on “Funeral Practices” and another on “The Christian Conscience and Tax
Dollars.”
More controversial was the statement on taxes which included two proposals: 1)
increased giving to the church with the resultant increased tax deductions; 2)
seeking an alternative tax provision similar to alternative military service.
The second statement included a reference to the World Peace Tax Fund, which
made some persons uncomfortable and so this was eliminated from the text. The
statement was passed with some negative votes. In addition to those who felt
the statement went too far were several who thought it was simply not radical
enough in dealing with the “problem of wealth.” “It amazes me,” said one,
“that though we can make money, we have trouble getting rid of it.”
Paying war taxes seems to be a problem for some. In Romans 13, after giving
some of the duties of the “powers that be” including the use of the sword, it
follows, “for this cause pay ye tribute.” To be consistent, those that
withhold war taxes must withhold all other taxes, including local, that are
not spent right. I do not believe at any time we have to break one Scripture
to keep another one.
The war tax issue generated the most lively discussion. Cornelia Lehn, a
Foundation Series writer, gently forced the issue when she asked headquarters
not to withhold that portion of income tax she felt helps the government
prepare for war. An amendment to the resolution, “A call for congregational
study on civil disobedience and war tax issues,” would have permitted
headquarters to honor her request. But the conference turned down the
amendment 1,190 to 336. The issue will continue under study for the next 18
months.
Phil M. Shenk, student at Eastern Mennonite College, has been awarded first
prize in the C. Henry Smith Peace Oratorical contest with an oratorical essay
entitled “The World Peace Tax Fund and Faithfulness.” He challenges the fund
as a means of faithfulness. He says the fund would not reduce the military
budget and may lull the consciences of nonresistant persons. … The C. Henry
Smith Trust, named for a leader of another generation, makes prize money
available, and the Peace Section of
MCC
arranges for the judging of entries.
Shenk’s essay was reprinted in the issue (it is given there in roughly the same form as it appeared in The Mennonite — see ♇ 28 July 2018 for the text).
Elmer Borntrager threw some cold water on things in an off-handed way when
he wrote
in the issue:
In answer to a question regarding the paying of taxes, Jesus said to the
Pharisees, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caeser’s; and
unto God the things that are God’s”… There have been some questions raised as
to the propriety of paying war taxes by those of us who do not believe in war.
I suppose there is no easy answer to this question, but it seems the majority
of the people of the non-resistant faith quite literally pay all the taxes
required by Caesar.…
This is the nineteenth 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.
The Mennonite Church Peace Section
(U.S.) met on
. I found
this cryptically-worded note
in a Gospel Herald report about the meeting:
The arms race and war tax questions remains a vital one. Its focus seems to be
shifting from tax withholding to the issue of civil disobedience for
conscience and God’s sake.
A Christian’s response to civil authority will be given concentrated emphasis
by the General Conference Mennonite Church during . The study is an outcome of a resolution at the triennial
conference in Bluffton, Ohio, . That
resolution called for a thorough study of civil disobedience leading to a
special conference , which is
intended to state an official position of the General Conference with respect
to that portion of income taxes which are used for funding military
expenditures, and in general, to research the whole question of
obedience-disobedience to civil authority.
Responsibility for the study has been given to the peace and social concerns
committee of the Commission on Home Ministries. They, however, requested that
a special obedience-civil disobedience committee be formed to give general
direction and leadership.
To date three major aspects of the study have been planned — an attitudinal
survey, an invitational consultation in ,
and a study guide to be ready by the fall quarter.
Included in the survey are 28 questions chosen to provide an inventory of
congregational attitudes toward the authority of the church and of the state.
It will also indicate attitudes to particular issues such as abortion, capital
punishment, and payment of taxes for military purposes. A copy of the
questionnaire will be sent to every congregation. If the congregation decides
to use the survey it will be duplicated locally to save on costs. After the
conference the same questionnaire will
again be used to determine whether the churchwide discussion on
obedience-civil disobedience has generated any changes in attitudes.
A second major happening is scheduled for at Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart,
Ind. An invitational
consultation will bring together about 30 participants, including persons not
committed to civil disobedience. The gathering will include administrative
personnel from the General Conference, lawyers, biblical scholars, as well as
representatives from Mennonite General Committee and the Mennonite Church.
It is expected that the study guide will evolve from the proceedings of the
consultation. Five of the 13 lessons in the guide will focus on peacemaking in
a technological society. What sort of peacemaking should Mennonites be about
in an age of nuclear warfare and worldwide arms shipments? The remaining eight
lessons will center in the meaning of civil disobedience. Was it practiced in
the Bible? Is nonpayment of taxes a case in point?
The study process will culminate in the special midtriennium conference
scheduled for . That gathering
will be an official decision-making conference to which congregational
delegates will come. At that point a decision on the meaning and practice of
civil disobedience will be made.
There was a followup in the
issue. From the coverage, I get the impression that the Mennonite Church was
playing spectator and taking a wait-and-see attitude:
If debate among members of the General Board of the General Conference
Mennonite Church is the litmus test of what it means to be a discerning
church, then the denomination is pointed toward an exciting future. The two
issues, war taxes and fundraising, were the preeminent concerns during
meetings in Newton, Kan.,
.
Although thorough reports were heard by the 16-member board on all aspects of
programming — overseas mission, education, home ministries — and dozens of
decisions were made, the two keynote issues were civil disobedience and how to
communicate the need for increased giving.
During the first session on , Board
members locked onto the planning for the midtriennium conference on war taxes
and civil responsibility. Uneasiness about the process erupted quickly. The
structure of the invitational
consultation on the issue was strongly faulted, as was the conference itself.
Board member Ken Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne,
Ind., galvanized his
colleagues with his allegations. “The consultation is not structured for
dialogue — it is monologue. The way it has been set up upsets me deeply.”
Later he declared that the Commission on Home Ministries should not serve as
the launching pad for the study and the planning leading to the conference in
. “Why ask
CHM?
The image of
CHM
is stacked. It should be the responsibility of the General Board.”
His assessment was the beginning of a fruitful debate which occupied several
more sessions of the General Board, one session of
CHM,
hallway discussions, and coffee confabs.
The debate crystallized about several key questions. What is wrong with the
study process initiated by the obedience-civil disobedience committee of
CHM?
Is the issue of war taxes so divisive that a schism in the General Conference
is inevitable? Is the delegate
conference viable?
By ,
perhaps symbolically, the hard-hitting process of charge and counter-charge
had evolved into understanding and affirmation of the original plans. On paper
little had changed, but in the minds of those who spoke for the
“unheard” — the “conservatives,” the “common person,” and the
Canadians — there was a restoration of confidence in the process. Tenseness
was dissipated.
The consultation will meet at
Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart,
Ind. About 25 persons are
invited. These include theologians and biblical scholars, attorneys,
administrative staff of the General Conference, several
MCC
staff, and representatives from the Mennonite Church and the Mennonite
Brethren Church. The proceedings of the consultation are to serve as the basis
for a study guide on civil disobedience.
Asked about his personal goals for the peacemaking initiative, the pastor
listed: 1) a more radical community in all three denominations that will break
down barriers in talking about peace with other Christians and non-Christians,
2) a radical change in our attitudes toward material things, and 3) a unified
position on the problem of war taxes.
Fahrer has recently finished work on a four-unit war tax Bible study guide. He
anticipates its publication by Ohio and Eastern Conference.
The Lancaster Conference had its own war tax study guides in the works, as
shown in these excerpts from the
and
issues:
Mennonites and War Taxes is a 28-page booklet by
Walter Klaassen which traces the history of the war tax issue in Anabaptism
and suggests how Mennonites might relate to that history. It was first
published by the Lancaster Conference Mennonite Historical Society but is now
published by the Commission on Education of the General Conference Mennonite
Church. Copies of the booklet may be ordered from Faith and Life Press…
“Honoring God with My Tax Dollars” is an excellent little pamphlet that deals
with some big questions. Produced in (and
revised in ) by the Peace Committee of
Lancaster Mennonite Conference, this piece was prepared as “a study guide to
be used in congregational or group discussion settings.” A bibliography of
related resources is included at the end. Available at no cost from Lancaster
Mennonite Conference…
The world arms race, nuclear threat, and militarism were the backdrop for a
discussion of war tax resistance. The Section reaffirmed its
recommendation to Mennonite institutions “to
study the conflict between Christian obligations and legal obligations in the
collection of federal taxes, especially when employees request that war taxes
not be withheld from their wages, and that institutions be encouraged to honor
such requests.”
Some disappointment was expressed that, with a few exceptions, constituent
conferences and congregations of
MCC
have not wrestled with the war tax question.
A cross-organizational consultation on how Christians ought to behave in
relation to the governments they live under was held in
:
Five themes — the nuclear menace, taxes for military purposes, the lessons of
biblical and Anabaptist history, faithfulness, and effective
witness — dominated a consultation on civil responsibility in Elkhart,
Ind.,
. In its sharpest focus the
issue was how Mennonite institutions should respond to those employees who
request that the military portion of their income taxes not be withheld by the
employer. Under current law employers must deduct income tax from payrolls and
remit the tax to the government.
Several Mennonite organizations are facing the issue. The General Conference
is seeking the will of its 60,000 members in answering such a request from one
of its employees, Cornelia Lehn. The consultation in Elkhart was one part of
the discerning process leading to a delegate assembly, and a decision in
.
Bible scholars, theologians, pastors, administrators, attorneys — twenty-nine
persons in all — presented papers, exchanged insights, and probed the issue.
Much of their analysis will be incorporated into a study guide to be published
by .
A findings committee — Palmer Becker, Hugo Jantz, Elmer Neufeld, John Stoner,
Larry Kehler — drafted a statement. After hours of discussion and subsequent
changes the persons at the consultation agreed that the statement fairly
represented their thinking.
Some excerpts from the statement are listed below:
“Our Christian obedience has to find new and creative responses to the
proliferation of military weaponry and technology…
“Christians respect the governing authorities… which leads to a broad
range of activities in support of the public good. Nevertheless, at times
our call of prior obedience to God’s sovereignty leads us to disobey the
claims of the state…
“We… have differing convictions about refusing to pay taxes for the
military.
“Let us be open to the possibility that the Spirit of God may lead some of
us in a direction that is both prophetic and full of risks.
“We agree that a way should be sought which will facilitate the expression
of the convictions of conference employees who request that their taxes
not be withheld.
“We need to seek the counsel of and work with other Mennonite groups and
denominations, particularly the Historic Peace Churches, in developing the
most appropriate response to this issue.”
While delegates from nearly every government in the world met at the United
Nations to debate whether they should continue the arms race, some 30
Mennonites representing North American conferences met at the Associated
Mennonite Biblical Seminaries to debate whether they should continue to pay
for it. Most Mennonite delegates likely knew something of the
U.N. Special
Session on Disarmament although probably none at the
U.N. knew about
the Mennonite meeting. The two groups had in common a deep concern about the
crushing momentum of the arms race which places in jeopardy the very survival
of the human race.
The Consultation on Civil Responsibility was initiated by the General
Conference Mennonite Church with the support of the Mennonite Church and
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.) for
discussion of paying taxes used for military purposes. Christians living in
nations with nuclear weapons face a crisis of faith and morals. Such
Christians live amidst wealth that is heavily generated and protected by
military/economic systems whose focus is the perfecting of weapons for
massive, indiscriminate global destruction. How can the church give a faithful
and credible witness that its trust is not in these powers of death but in the
life-giving power of Jesus Christ?
Mennonite Central Committee was represented at the consultation by four staff
persons — William Snyder, Reg Toews, Urbane Peachey, and John Stoner.
MCC’s
interest in the war tax question grows out of (1) Peace Section’s assignment
to explore issues related to the historic Mennonite and Brethren in Christ
testimony of peace and nonresistance, (2) MCC’s administrative problem with
war tax withholding, and (3) the relationship between the arms race and world
hunger. Janet Reedy of Elkhart,
Ind., attended in a dual role
as a member of
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.) and as a
representative from the Mennonite Church.
The question of tax collection came up as a part of the report from Peace and
Social Concerns secretary, Hubert Schwartzentruber. In increasing numbers,
workers in church institutions have asked that their federal income taxes not
be deducted from their paychecks so that they may refuse voluntary payment of
the part of their taxes that goes for military purposes.
The Board reacted to this possibility with caution. For one thing, to fail to
collect taxes is a federal offense. All persons responsible for such refusal
are liable to prosecution, from the lowest to the highest in terms of
responsibility. Also there was expressed a strong opinion in favor of positive
instead of negative witness for peace, a position separated from civil
disobedience on the one hand and civil religion on the other.
The question of tax withholding was designated for further study.
We readily pay our taxes. In paying our taxes, we not only pay for the many
services we receive from the government, but we also pay to help care for the
needy among us and beyond our borders. In willingly paying our taxes, we still
have the opportunity to be critical and communicate our concerns about how the
money is being used such as in military spending. We remember it is through
paying our taxes that good is promoted and evil restrained.
And in
an interview with John Howard Yoder
in the same issue, he complained that the church had been lagging on coming to
a sensible consensus about war taxes:
Where is our Mennonite peace testimony in danger?
We are not any clearer than before on the old problems such as separatism,
civil disobedience, and tax resistance. We have made no progress in
fashioning creative responses to these issues. They are talked about but
there is no united action.
War tax resisters in Japan were back in the news as well. Michio Ohno spoke at
the Mennonite World Conference, Peace
Interest Group, giving his talk a provocative title:
Over 80 Japanese citizens did not pay all or part of this year’s income taxes
or asked for refunds, says Michio Ohno, Japanese minister who spoke on war tax
resistance in Japan at the MCC-sponsored
Peace Interest Group at Mennonite World Conference. Ohno is chairman of the
Mennonite and Brethren in Christ Evangelical Cooperative Conference.
Ohno was introduced to pacifism while studying at the Mennonite Biblical
Seminary in Elkhart, Ind., in
. He was pastor of a church in
Kyodan for six years and for the past year has taught English and led Bible
studies in his home.
Ohno says he became involved with war tax resistance in
when he owed the
U.S.
[sic] $4.40 in taxes. “I was troubled by the table on the
back of the income tax form which stated that 6.5 percent of the tax money had
been used for the military’s so-called “Self-Defense Forces” during the
previous year.
“Shortly before, I had read in The Mennonite
periodical about the World Peace Tax Fund Bill, a
U.S. legislative
measure, which if approved would allow conscientious objectors to rechannel
their tax money to nonmilitary purposes. This idea impressed me because I knew
that as a pacifist, I could not pay for war and war preparation.
“The next day I visited Gan Sakakibara, one of Japan’s leading Anabaptist
scholars, to discuss this. I remembered his answer to a high school boy who
had once asked him why Christians were not persecuted like the early
Anabaptists had been.”
He answered, “That is because we are not true Christians. We are not good or
bad. We are not the medicine or the poison. If we were, we would be
persecuted.”
Ohno said he visited the tax office and explained why he could not pay the
tax. “I told them I didn’t mind if they took my possessions.”
A group of people favoring conscientious objection to war taxes began meeting
in Sakakibara s home.
When a civil lawyer sued the state for repayment of his tax money, believing
that conscientious objection to war taxes was legal, he was invited to speak
to the group. The lawyer’s visit resulted in the formation of Conscientious
Objection to Military Tax
(COMIT),
a citizens’ group of 250 members including Mennonites, Quakers, Catholics,
Buddhists, and nonbelievers.
COMIT
now holds summer study seminars and publishes “The Plowshare,” a bimonthly
paper.
The 80 people who have not paid their taxes for this year have received
notices demanding payment, but none has been arrested and no property has been
seized. Additionally, 120,000 members of the General Conference of Trade
Unions in Japan have asked for a tax refund to express their desire for peace.
“A huge olive tree grows up from a tiny pit,” he concluded. “We are sowing
olive pits and tending seedlings. Someday there will be a stout olive tree,
and one of the big branches, I hope, will be conscientious tax objection.”
The “New Call to Peacemaking” initiative was ramping up, with Mennonite
participation:
During the last year, 26 regional New Call to Peacemaking meetings, involving
more than 1,500 persons, took a new look at the teachings of their churches
with special attention to violence, war, and peace.
The Wichita, Kan., group gave
its encouragement to “individuals who feel called to resist the payment of the
military portion of their federal taxes. The Wichita meeting also asked its
churches and agencies to discontinue collecting taxes from its employees so
that “they can have the option to follow their consciences in war tax
resistance.”
When the national New Call to Peacemaking conference convenes in Green Lake,
Wis.,
,
it will be receiving requests from the regional meetings for a strong position
on tax resistance proposals. It will also be asked to give guidance to
individuals and church organizations on approaches to tax resistance.
The Green Lake Conference, which will be attended by some 300 members of the
three sponsoring Peace Churches (Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites), will look
at theological issues as well as matters of economic and social justice,
including respect for human rights.
The New Call to Peacemaking conference is just around the corner. It is
scheduled for
at Green Lake, Wis. Invited
to the meeting are 300 Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites. Leaders of the
conference have called for effective steps toward international disarmament
and support for the United Nations,” saying that “mutual trust and cooperation
are the only bases for long-term national and international security.” Citizen
action, refusal to pay war tax, and other measures will be considered as ways
of undercutting war. The Green Lake meeting, according to Dale Brown, Brethren
theologian who will open the conference, will issue a call to the peace
churches and those who sympathize with their aims to take new risks.
Two films on television commercials and a slide/cassette set on war taxes have
recently been added to MBCM
Audiovisuals, the rental library of Mennonite Board of Congregational
Ministries… “Conscience and War Taxes” is an excellent 20-minute color slide
set/cassette presentation produced by the National Council for a World Peace
Tax Fund. It traces the history of the
U.S. income tax,
gives information on the military budget, and examines some of the economic
consequences of military spending. The World Peace Tax Fund is discussed as a
legal alternative to paying for war which could provide more than two billion
dollars for funding peaceful solutions to world problems and at the same time
provide more jobs for peaceful pursuits than are currently provided by
war-related industries. The “Conscience and War taxes” slide set, cassette
tape, and a resource packet can be obtained from MBCM Audiovisuals…
“New Call to Peacemaking generated 26 regional meetings in 16 different areas
of the U.S. during
,” reported Maynard Shelly to the conference in a summary paper, “A
Declaration of Peace.” The records showed that more than 1,500 people were
involved in those meetings and they generated 170 pages of reports,
statements, and resolutions.
When asked what he expected to come out of this conference, before the
sessions began, Peter Ediger, of Arvada,
Colo., said, “Words, plenty
of words.”
A number of delegates, for instance, were calling for “dramatic action,”
whatever that might have been. As it turned out, because of the task
orientation of the conference, the “action” was a statement agreed upon by the
assembled, which covered the waterfront, but probably pleased only a few.
One of the central themes which stirred the most emotions turned out to be
war-tax resistance. This was an issue the Mennonites felt strongly about.
Those presenting the issue wished for action that would have given them a
context for action. As in the case of the “dramatic action,” so much desired
by some, this desire was also frustrated.
Organizers and conference leaders had projected the Green Lake meetings to be
a working conference. The meetings were set up to assure some kind of action
and/or product. Finally, after much careful shifting on the part of the
findings committee, and public discussions that were sometimes hotter than
illuminating, the conferees agreed to approve a revised statement of the
findings committee. This heavy emphasis on task fulfillment almost restricted
the creative work of the conference too much, according to some observers.
But, of course, the conferees had been informed of the nature of the
conference beforehand.
The findings statement was accepted by most participants, yet could count on
ownership by few. Besides the document, inspiration, fellowship, and sharing
that went on, there was little to show for everyone’s efforts. Nevertheless,
“We see this not as the end of our journey but as the beginning stage of a
continuing pilgrimage,” read the statement.
A world alternative to taxes for the military was endorsed and encouraged. And
while the “children of the sixties” worried about war taxes, the younger set
was most concerned about conscription, which seems to be looming over the
horizon.
“We’re releasing a new focal pamphlet in
titled The Tax
Dilemma: Praying for Peace and Paying for War. Peace is central to our
theology, not an option added on.”
The issue gave a preview of
the upcoming General Conference Mennonite Church midtriennium meeting which
they had convened especially to hash out the war tax withholding issue:
The program for the midtriennium conference of the General Conference
Mennonite Church (GCMC) has been finalized.
As an official meeting of the denomination delegates will discuss the nature
of a Christian’s civil responsibility, particularly the question of a
Christian peace position in a militaristic society. For some participants the
question is whether the withholding of payment of the military portion of
their income taxes is justified. If so, then several employees of the GCMC
would like the denomination to stop remitting the military portion of their
taxes to the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS).
For , the
issue will be debated in the Leamington Hotel in Minneapolis,
Minn. If the conference
delegates decide that nonpayment of military taxes is justified the decision
is binding on the administrators of the GCMC.
Impetus for such an assembly began in when GCMC
employee Cornelia Lehn requested the General Conference business office not to
remit the military tax portion of her paycheck to the
IRS.
Prior to , the issue of “war taxes” had been
discussed, and as early as , delegates at the
triennial sessions in Fresno,
Calif., passed a statement
protesting the use of tax monies for war purposes. The delegates also said,
“We stand by those who feel called to resist the payment of that portion of
taxes being used for military purposes.” However, the General Board of the
GCMC
did not think that directive from the delegates authorized them to stop
remitting Lehn’s military taxes. Her request was refused.
Three years later, St.
Catharines, Ontario, was the location for the next conference. There delegates
called for education regarding militarism, reaffirmed the
statement, and agreed that serious work be
done on the possibility of allowing GCMC
employees to follow their consciences on payment or nonpayment of military
taxes.
Educational materials have included the periodical God and
Caesar and two study guides. The Rule of the Sword and
The Rule of the Lamb. In addition to these efforts two major
consultations were convened in
and in . At these consultations
scholarly papers were presented on militarism, biblical considerations for
payment or nonpayment of military taxes, and Anabaptist history and theology
related to war tax concerns.
Despite the protracted input, the General Board could not reach a consensus on
the issue. Consequently the problem was brought to delegates at the
triennial conference in Bluffton,
Ohio. At this juncture the delegate body committed itself to serious
congregational study of civil disobedience and war tax resistance during
. The delegates
also decided to discuss the issue in detail at a midtriennium conference in
.
In an effort to implement the Bluffton
resolution an eight-member civil responsibility committee was formed. Several
actions were taken by it to encourage serious study.
an attitude survey on church and
government was conducted. Approximately 2,500 responses were received,
including 463 from a select sampling in 31 churches. A scholarly consultation
was held in . One of the key ideas
which came out of this consultation was whether those who feel strongly about
not paying military taxes should be encouraged to form a separate corporation
within the General Conference. To assist churches in their study of the issue
two study guides were published. The Rule of the Sword deals
primarily with facts and concerns related to militarism. The Rule of the
Lamb centers in the sovereignty of God and biblical texts on taxes and
civil authority.
Each of the more than 300 congregations in the GCMC
is being encouraged to prepare a statement to bring to the
conference. It is evident from the sale
of the study guides that a minority of congregations are actually making an
effort to study the issue, although all congregations have received sample
copies of the guides. Many Canadian churches feel the issue is strictly an
American problem, and there is a considerable diversity of conviction and
thought among American congregations. Some congregations do not intend to send
delegates.
What this means for the Minneapolis conference is difficult to assess, except
for one feature. There will be a lot of stirring debate. After
of searching will there be some
resolution of the withholding question? No one is predicting the outcome.
My job is managing public communications for a large organization. In simple
terms, I’m a propagandist — one who, according to my dictionary, spreads
ideas, facts, or allegations deliberately to further a cause.
Interestingly, the root of this widely misunderstood word is in a division of
the Catholic Church established to propagate the faith,
i.e., to ensure that the church membership
continue to be convinced of the church’s teachings and that others might
become so convinced. Church-owned periodicals, such as this one, can thus
rightly (and proudly) be said to be propagandistic.
As a propagandist, I am writing to point out some of the things I see in the
current reporting by the Mennonite press of the war-tax-resistance movement.
Not surprisingly, the reason I am writing is because I do not agree that
resistance, nonviolent coercion or force,
etc., are highly
ethical strategies for Christians or that, specifically, war-tax resistance is
an effective tactic in achieving peace.
Please understand that, while I personally think that war-tax resistance is
getting considerably more than equitable coverage in the Mennonite press, that
is not my point of concern. Rather, it is the aspects of that coverage that I
believe Mennonites should question. These are:
First, source. The articles seem overwhelmingly to originate in the several
information offices of Mennonite boards and agencies. Like me, the authors are
propagandists who, it can be assumed, for whatever reasons, are producing
releases representing their own biases or those of the persons employing them.
Second, style. The articles on tax resistance are written as news stories, not
as expository pieces which are the common vehicle for the expression of both
majority and minority opinions in the Mennonite press.
The last concern, and closely related to the second, is perspective. By
adopting the news-reporting style, the tax-resisting position is presented as
a given, accepted method of Christian witness. This style boldly assumes that
not paying one’s taxes is widely held among Mennonites as Christ’s way, as
well as that tax resistance is a rational means of bringing peace to the
world.
Am I suggesting that Mennonite papers quit giving space to the tax-resistance
movement? Definitely not. Nor, even that such coverage be necessarily reduced.
For, despite my personal feelings, I am interested in the faith of my brothers
and sisters who feel Christ is calling them to resist taxation.
Rather, I’m suggesting that coverage continue, but in the form of exposition,
advocacy, and response; that brothers and sisters who are tax resisters be
invited, even urged, to present the scriptural and other bases of their
convictions and actions. And the same goes for other practitioners of
nonviolent direct action: marching, sitting-in, disruption.
While the rest of us are waiting for these articles to emerge, brother editor,
I would not want to be guilty of demanding that this or any other subject be
suppressed. But, I know at least a few of us wonder sometimes if
demonstrations and acts of resistance are really the most newsworthy events
going on in the Mennonite subdivision of Christ’s kingdom.
Hubert Schwartzentruber with
a commentary
in which he wrote:
It is no secret that our nuclear capabilities have brought the whole world to
the brink of suicide and murder. Yet only a few people are blowing the
trumpets of warning. There is still strong resistance by most Christians even
to think of becoming war tax resisters. There seems to be little urgency to
adopt a lifestyle which would model peace for all the peoples of the earth.
The courage to confront the principalities and powers seems to be lacking.
Was it true that the growing war tax resistance movement in the Mennonite
Church was beginning to lose its momentum?
This is the twenty-first 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 there was a lot of discussion of war tax
resistance, and a lot of individual Mennonite war tax refusal and redirection,
but Mennonite Church institutions seemed more reluctant than their General
Conference to take corporate stands supporting their war tax refusing
employees.
The issue brought an update
in the case of a Mennonite war tax resister who was fighting his case in court:
Bruce Chrisman of Ava, Ill.,
a General Conference Mennonite who was convicted on
of failure to file an income tax return in ,
was sentenced on
to one year in Mennonite Voluntary Service.
Chrisman is a war-tax resister. He believes conscientious objectors should be
exempt on First Amendment grounds from paying that portion of federal income
tax that supports the military.
Judge J. Waldo Ackerman of the
U.S. District Court
in Springfield,
Ill. ordered the unusual
sentence, giving Mennonite Voluntary Service
(MVS)
staff 30 days to work out a program with Chrisman.
“I’m amazed,” said Chrisman. “I feel very good about the sentence. The
alternative service is probably the first sentence of its kind for a tax case.
I think it reflects the testimony in the trial and its influence on the
judge.” Chrisman could have been sentenced to one year in prison and a $10,000
fine.
Chrisman and his wife, Mary Anne, and two-year-old daughter, Venessa, live on
a small farm near Ava. Plans are for them to join
MVS
as a family. They will remain in their home community and engage in prison
ministries and peace education work along with their farming. Charles Neufeld,
regional
MVS
administrator, is working with the Chrismans and local support committee
headed by Ted Braun, pastor of United Church of Christ in Carbondale,
Ill., to give guidance to
this ministry.
At the trial Bob Hull, Jim Dunn, and
Peter Ediger joined with Chrisman in testifying to Christian conviction
against warfare, including payment of taxes for support of war. When the
prosecution cross-examined Chrisman from the Bible they also called Ediger as
a trial witness. Ediger, who is director of Mennonite Voluntary Service,
articulated Mennonite pacifist beliefs and how the tax code infringes on the
First Amendment rights to religious pacifists.
Dunn, who is pastor of the First Mennonite Church in Champaign-Urbana
(Ill.), was a character
witness. Hull, secretary for peace and social concerns of the General
Conference Mennonite Church, and Ediger testified about Mennonite beliefs
during the earlier pretrial hearing.
An appeal of the case has been filed by Chrisman’s attorney, Jeffrey Weiss,
not to contest the sentence, but to test the court’s rulings denying relevance
of First Amendment rights in this case. Persons interested in helping with
court costs may contact the General Conference Mennonite Church, Commission on
Home Ministries…
The Chrismans are ready to share their faith and concerns for peacemaking in
their community and beyond. Persons or churches interested may write them at
Route 2, Ava, IL 62907.
A prayer for believers who voluntarily pay war taxes: “Father, forgive them,
even though they know very well what they are doing.” ―from Daniel Slabaugh, a
conscientious objector to voluntary payment of war taxes, pastor of the Ann
Arbor (Mich.) Mennonite
Church.
Elam Lantz, currently residing in Washington, spoke on “First Amendment
Religious Freedom.” He spoke at some length on the “free exercise” phrase as
some have tried to apply it to war-tax resistance.
[T]he board responded to an inquiry from James Longacre, Mennonite Church
representative on
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.). Longacre
sought counsel on whether Peace Section should approve a proposal for advocacy
of “war tax” resistance. The Board acknowledged that there is a lack of
consensus on the subject in the church and counseled caution, urging
sensitivity toward those who hold to different practices.
In a controversial decision, the bishop board reported that “after careful
consideration… we do not support promoting participation in a war tax
resistance campaign.”
Calling on congregations to stand with draft-age young people in a costly
peace witness, meeting participants urged “a stronger stand” in resistance to
the payment of taxes for military purposes and called for “increased
participation in existing and expanded service programs by young and old
alike.”
An commentary by Michael Shank
and Richard Kremer pushed Mennonites to take a stand with their taxes, if only
a small, symbolic one:
During the past year, the Mennonite congregation of Boston has felt a growing
concern about the enormous military expenditures of our government and about
our silence as a church. Events of the past months — Americans increasing
demands for military intervention to “solve” the stalemate in Iran, the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan, and President Carter’s requests for sharply increased
military spending, for opening new military bases near the Middle East, for
restoring draft registration — have made us realize, yet again, how close a
nation ostensibly “at peace” can be to war.
, we spent several meetings
discussing militarism and war taxes so that our congregational representative
could speak for us at the General Conference Mennonite Church consultation on
war taxes held in . Since that
time we have been grappling with our responses to the war tax issue, both as
individuals and as a congregation.
Why do we think this issue is so important? First we assume that as Mennonites
our commitment to reconciliation and our refusal to participate in war-related
activities remain fundamental to our understanding of the gospel. In this
respect, we remain in continuity with the conscientious objection to war
voiced by our predecessors, particularly during World War Ⅰ and the wars which
followed.
Although this commitment has not changed in any fundamental way, the world
situation in which we find ourselves is significantly different from that of
our parents and grandparents. Until very recently, manpower appeared to be the
crucial ingredient for war. Since we could not in good conscience participate
in war, we objected to the government’s demands for our military service. This
stance led to the imprisonment of Mennonites and other conscientious objectors
during World War Ⅰ, and later to alternative service legislation during World
War Ⅱ.
During , however, the
character of warfare has changed in drastic ways. The threats to human life
and peace presented by large armies, unfortunately, have been completely
dwarfed by nuclear weapons, which our country did not hesitate to use on an
earlier occasion. These weapons of large-scale and indiscriminate death
presently exist in quantities sufficient to destroy all human life many times
over, and the stockpiles continue to grow.
Under such circumstances, the military branches of our government no longer
need our bodies as badly as they need our money and our silence. Every year
they need new funds:
to research, develop, and test more accurate and efficient means of
carrying bombs to their targets;
to produce, deploy, and maintain these weapons;
to train technicians to use them; and
to attract, recruit, and pay people who presently “volunteer”
for the armed forces.
All of these activities take place without our direct participation (unless,
of course, the draft is cranked up again); none of them could take place
without money. These expenditures are authorized by our representatives and
paid for by the taxes we contribute.
In contrast to the Roman Christians to whom Paul wrote, we have alternatives
beyond silent submission or open revolt. Our government expects its citizens
to voice their concerns. Our constitution and laws have provided channels for
doing so. These include, among others, communications to representatives, and
provisions for challenging bad laws by testing their validity
(e.g., by refusing to comply so that a higher
court will need to examine the law). Under such circumstances, our government
and representatives can be expected to interpret our silence, both as
individuals and as a church, in only two ways: either we approve of their
policies, or we do not care.
Many in our congregation are convinced that the biblical teachings and
arguments which led Mennonites to the conscientious objector position in World
War Ⅰ (when this position was not legal) and in World War Ⅱ (when it was) lead
us also to object to the use of our tax dollars for weapons of mass
destruction. The quiet payment of war taxes today is as inconsistent with the
spirit of Jesus life and teachings as the act of joining the army was earlier
(and indeed still is). The same concern for obedience today demands a response
suited to the new circumstances into which military developments have placed
us.
There is yet another reason why we must voice our concerns. Many of us would
undoubtedly make use of the World Peace Tax Fund, if such an option were
presently open to us. But how will we honestly be able to call ourselves
conscientious objectors to war taxes in the future (if and when such a
possibility becomes legal) if we raise no objections whatsoever now? What
grounds will the government have for believing our sincerity if it has no
record of our past objections either as a church or as individuals?
, a number of our members took the
symbolic step of withholding $10 from their income tax payments and forwarding
this amount to the Mennonite Central Committee. Others included letters with
their tax returns protesting use of their tax monies for military purposes. We
plan to reconsider our tax-paying responsibilities as
approaches once again. We
encourage other Mennonite congregations to join with us in seeking to build
peaceful relations among all peoples and nations and to denounce the tendency
to solve world problems solely through military might.
D.R. Yoder wrote a
letter to the editor
in response, rejecting war tax resistance for lack of scriptural support.
Seminar participants elected workshops, Saturday afternoon on organizing
public peace witness, war tax alternatives, the draft and conscientious
objectors, and the arms race and the economy.
The Mennonite brotherhood stands firmly on the position that Christians should
not serve in the military. The basic reason for this position is that the
military is a force and a power of destruction, and it cannot be brought
together with the role of a servant as we understand the call to commitment in
the New Testament. To avoid military service in various countries and
centuries Mennonites have used different methods. Substitutes have been hired,
men have refused to serve and have been imprisoned and killed. Since the
1940s, Mennonites have been excused from serving and have been allowed to do
alternative service.
The methods of fighting wars and being a power have changed greatly since the
1600s. World War Ⅰ and most of World War Ⅱ were fought with the same methods
as for thousands of years, that method being vast numbers of men and hand
weapons.
World Wars Ⅰ and Ⅱ also brought new ideas and methods to the “act of
war”: the fighter plane and the bomber, that now destroys women, children, and
the old who are not in the military through the bombing of cities; tanks and
rockets and (the thing that ended the war with Japan) the atomic bomb, not by
destroying or defeating the army, but by destroying two cities and killing old
people, women, and children. War and power are not measured today so much by
the number of men carrying a rifle but by the number of atomic bombs, tanks,
bombers, jet fighters, aircraft carriers, submarines, other ocean vessels, and
even computers.
War is fought today not so much with men but with machines. I believe that
this change in war methods also calls for a change in the way we as Christians
respond. We need to refuse to serve, as we have done in the past, but we also
need to refuse to support the war machine with our material resources.
President Carter has recently asked for a large increase in military spending.
Since the peak of the Vietnam War in , the
amount spent on military in the
U.S. has gone from
$77.3 billion to the $142.0 billion projected for
. What is or should be our response as
followers of the Prince of Peace? Do we continue to pay our taxes without
speaking out against or doing something about the insanity of war and the
terrible waste of money and natural resources, to say nothing of the potential
for destruction? What should be a Christian response to the enormous spending
for the military? I will not argue with the right of the state to determine
its own course, but I believe that we as Christians have a responsibility to
decide whether we participate with the state in destructive goals.
My wife and I have attempted since the early 1970s to avoid supporting the war
machine by not paying income taxes. We have not withheld payment from the
government but have used another method that has been taught in our
fellowship. I must say, we have not been 100 percent successful with our
method. In the last six years we have paid small amounts of income tax of
under $100 for two or three years, one year we paid a larger sum and the other
years we paid nothing.
This method is adaptable to just about everyone and is very legal. We
have attempted to reduce our income below taxable levels by giving it to the
work of the church and deducting it from our income taxes as an itemized gift.
This method has two very positive goals; the first, it gives needed money to
the mission and service programs of the Mennonite Church and, second, it
speaks out against our consumeristic society because we have to learn to get
by on less than normal in the line of material possessions, but usually still
more than we actually need.
The second goal is difficult to fulfill. We find out continually how our
society has an influence on our lives. Simple living is not easy to
accomplish, but by reducing our incomes we can speak out forcefully against
the excess consumption and the senseless military spending. I believe that our
money is an extension of ourselves, that is, when we give money to
MCC
or a mission in the Mennonite Church we are in reality there working, where
that money is being used. In the same way when we give money to the government
for taxes and the government buys and builds weapons of destruction, we are
there too, every bit as much as on the mission field. Can you imagine the
force for good and the amount of work that could be done in the world today if
the people in our brotherhood would reduce their income in an attempt to defer
support of war through giving to our church missions and relief organizations?
The decision is yours and mine whether we want to further the kingdom of God
or give our money to the building of a war machine. Let us seek the Lord and
seek broader counsel in our brotherhood for the answer on how to be faithful
today.
A letter to the editor,
from Jon Byler () also promoted
the simple living technique:
Why, when the Lord Jesus spoke so clearly about the dangers of wealth, and
when we have so many people seeking ways to avoid supporting the military
machine, has this been overlooked? If we are willing to reduce our standard of
living to help our brothers, we can speak positively against the consumer
waste, materialism, and disposable society; we can similarly be in complete
obedience to all the laws, and still refuse to support a military machine that
we all believe is wrong. I realize this is easier for myself, being young (25)
and single, but I am happy to say that I have never paid a single
cent that was used to bomb innocent children or to burn their homes, or to
support political torture by our “allies.”
The payment of taxes for military purposes is a growing source of concern for
more and more people. In response to the increasing awareness of the function
of taxation in the world arms race. Peace Section
(U.S.) is
sponsoring an educational effort to aid in the search for a biblical response.
As part of that effort, Paul and Loretta Leatherman were interviewed by Ron
Flickinger for Peace Section. Excerpts from that interview are presented in
the hope that the Leathermans’ convictions and experiences will provide useful
information to those who are considering their own action in the future. Paul
and Loretta began resisting war taxes when they returned from an
MCC
term in Vietnam in . Paul is presently
employed by
MCC
as director of the Self-Help program and Loretta is teaching in the Ephrata
public school system. Their home is in Akron,
Pa.
Question:
What led you to begin resisting war taxes? Did your
experience in Vietnam influence your decision to do so?
Loretta:
We saw the war effort change from manpower to money
power. Men aren’t used as much anymore and, instead, our money was being used
to do intensive bombing. We would not go to war ourselves and so we thought we
should resist having our money being sent to war also.
Paul:
I think serving in Vietnam radicalized us in that sense.
About every night we were there, we went to sleep with the sound of bombing
and we saw bombs exploding from our house. We lived in the middle of the war
and saw what it did to children and families. You recognize that it’s done
through your taxes and you begin to take a pretty serious look at it.
Question:
Do you also see consequences in the future if people do
not start resisting the use of their money in this way?
Paul:
Well, this is supposedly peacetime but I see the military
budget increasing in real dollars. It goes up in addition to inflation while
many other government programs are being trimmed. It doesn’t make much sense
to keep building up and building up the military machinery which is capable of
destroying the world. I think history shows that whatever military equipment
is made is always used, so I think sometime there is going to be a big nuclear
war.
Loretta:
There isn’t much sense in being able to destroy oneself
so many times. It’s a terrible waste.
Question:
Many people who are resisting war taxes have voiced
specific concerns for their families, their children, their grandchildren. I’m
sure this has a part in your thinking, too.
Paul:
Well, I think it does. I don’t know that we’ve specifically
said we’re going to resist taxes because of our own children, but more simply
for the world community. Our children are certainly a part of that.
Question:
Do you feel as Christians that you have something to say
to government? Many people don’t think they are responsible for what the
government does with their money once their taxes are paid.
Paul:
I’m pretty convinced that we have to say something. If
Christians don’t, who will? Where does the conscience come from? How is man
going to see the sin and evil of his ways unless someone speaks up to it? As
we would understand the way of Christ and what He has taught us, we need to be
prophetic in terms of what that means in the world. We can’t be Christians and
be quiet about it. If we are going to be citizens of another kingdom, then we
have to speak out about what it means and live it out as well.
Question:
What kind of reactions do you get from friends and
acquaintances?
Paul:
I think we get a strong resistance from people in the church
who are thoroughly convinced that we must pay all of our taxes and that any
tax resistance is going directly against biblical teaching. Mark 12:17 says,
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…” and those who don’t pay all
of the taxes Caesar asks for are specifically disobeying the teachings of the
Bible. I don’t know all of their motives behind that sort of conviction, but I
think there is a stronger resistance there than any place. Now, there are also
outside the church the superpatriotic people who believe that anything that
tends to speak against the structure of the
U.S. military is
bad. But there are also a lot of people who are sort of questioning the
direction of things in the world today. They are open to thinking about ideas
and, while they may not agree with all of it, at least they see some of the
reasoning behind it all.
Question:
How do you respond to people who don’t agree with
you?
Paul:
That depends very much on who it is. I don’t think there is
much point in arguing, but if people want to discuss it in a real way, then I
think we can. It’s not a point one can win by arguing and I think we could
probably do more harm than good by doing so. We’re not out waving the flag of
tax resistance every place we go, not at all. Simply when the opportunity
presents itself, we will discuss it. I think we have felt the importance in
doing this as much within our own church as any other place. It’s within our
own church fellowship that we need to help our brothers and sisters understand
what our tax dollars are doing around the world, such as we saw happen in
Vietnam. We want to try to help sharpen consciences on this issue.
Loretta:
You have to think of the saying, “Those who do not stand
up for the powerless are acting against them.”
Paul:
The thing that we’ve been doing on taxes has given us the
chance on numerous occasions to at least talk about it, share it in a way that
has helped us as people in the church understand what it means to live in a
complicated world.
Question:
What has been the
IRS
reaction? Tell us about some of your contacts with
IRS
agents.
Paul:
One of the first years we resisted paying war taxes, we
actually owed a little bit of money at the end of the year. We claimed a war
tax credit and asked for a refund. The
IRS
turned it down and called us in to audit the credit and also our
contributions, which were somewhat above the norm. The inspector took 25
minutes to audit our contributions and concluded that they were exactly right
to the penny. He said that was okay but that he simply could not allow the war
tax credit and there was no use in talking about it.
“Now look,” I said, “you asked us to come in here for an audit and we had to
leave our jobs to come. You’ve taken 25 minutes of my time auditing something
which I knew all along was correct and I’m equally convinced that I’m entitled
to the war tax credit. I’d like at least 25 minutes of your time to discuss
it.” He said okay, let’s talk. We discussed the pros and cons of why we were
opposed to paying war taxes, why we thought it was wrong. He listened and sort
of entered into the discussion and then at the end of 25 minutes, I said,
“Well, you’ve given me 25 minutes now, but there are still many more things we
could talk about. Would you be interested in reading a little more about this?
He said he would, so I gave him Kaufman’s What Belongs to Caesar? and a few other things.
Then I said, “After you have had a chance to read these, why don’t you come over for dinner next Wednesday and we can talk about it some more.”
He accepted the invitation. We weren’t sure if he would come but he showed up
and we had a very good discussion with him for about three hours. He was very
much against the Vietnam war but he thought that our tax resistance was
completely useless and that there was no way to succeed.
One year, we took our case all the way to court. Loretta didn’t take off from
teaching but I took our case all the way through the appeals process. We were
turned down at each place and were finally scheduled to go to the tax court in
Washington,
D.C. At that
point, I decided to take it out of that court and asked to have it tried in
the small tax court in Harrisburg,
Pa. The decision in the
small tax court was not precedent setting nor could it be appealed. If I had
kept the case in the tax court in Washington,
D.C., I
would have been able to appeal that decision all the way to the Supreme Court.
I decided not to do that because the preparation for the case would have had
to be much more careful in order to be heard and not simply dismissed on a
technicality. I wrote my own briefs and presented the case myself. It was
about three to four months before we got the judge’s opinion turning it
down.
Question:
Have you ever felt that you have risked a prison
sentence by refusing to pay?
Paul:
Well, that’s another story I can tell. After the court
trial, an
IRS
agent came to see me at the office. The receptionist called me and told me
there was someone out there to see me but I didn’t recognize his name. Only
when I got out there and he showed me his credentials did I realize who he
was. That was when we had the open office at
MCC
so rather than taking him into a conference room, I brought him in beside my
desk. I wanted to be on my own turf when he questioned me.
He asked me about the bill and I said, “Yes,
IRS
thinks I owe that amount and the judge thinks I owe it. I acknowledge that
from the
IRS
perspective it is a legitimate bill but I don’t have any intention of paying
it.”
He replied that he was here to collect the bill and he didn’t expect to leave
until I paid it.
“Well,” I said, “I already told you that I don’t expect to pay it and since
I’m not expecting to pay it, I think you ought to put me in jail. My wife has
been expecting that you might come around sometime and she said that if I go
to jail, she’d like to know where I’m going so she could write to me. I would
also like to know how soon it would be so that I can make arrangements for
somebody to take my place at this desk.” He looked at me and said he had never
heard anybody talk like that before. He went up to the bank the next day and
issued an order to draw the money out of my bank account.
I must admit that even when I was talking to him I didn’t think I was risking
a jail sentence. I didn’t think the
IRS
would put anyone in jail because they have other ways to collect the money. It
is too hazardous for them to take someone out of the
MCC
office and put them in jail. I don’t think they can risk that.
Question:
What has been your experience with the
IRS
attaching your bank account?
Paul:
Usually they have just issued an order for the money and the
bank notified us that the money was being withdrawn. One time, though, we
didn’t have enough money in the account to cover the bill, so the
IRS
attached the account and nothing could be paid out of it until they got their
money. It took about a month before we got our account cleared again.
Loretta:
Every time we wanted to cash a check they would have to
call Lancaster to find out if the account was clear. It was embarrassing. I
wanted to run in quick to withdraw some cash and it would take all of 45
minutes before I found out I couldn’t get any.
Paul:
Our banking was really skewed. The checks we issued that had
not been cashed all bounced because the
IRS had
withdrawn all the money. The bank stamped on the cheeks that the account had
been attached by the
IRS. One
of the checks we had written was a contribution to the World Peace Tax Fund.
When it bounced we got a note from the
WPTF office
saying, "Good work, brother. Keep it up. We don’t mind losing this kind.” That
was sort of interesting but it was a very marked inconvenience for us. That
was one of the worst experiences we have had in tax resistance.
Loretta:
That was when the people in the bank knew what was going
on.
Paul:
Yes, one of the brothers in the bank is from the Mennonite
Church. The first time my account was attached, he took the money out and I
just got the notice in the mail. I scolded him for that and told him that he
should at least let me know before he took the money out. The next time it
happened, he called me saying he had a notice to attach my account and asked
me to write a check to the
IRS so
he wouldn’t have to attach the account. I said, “No way, brother. Thanks for
calling me, but now it s on your conscience. If you think you can be a tax
collector, then go ahead and do it.” I was kind of mean to him. I won’t think
less of him if he pays the
IRS, but
as least he has to think through what he is doing.
Question:
What keeps you working at this in spite of the
inconveniences and the people that disagree with you?
Paul:
I thing we’re getting a little tired. That’s our mood
actually now, that we re getting a little tired.
Loretta:
It’s kind of a lonely struggle.
Paul:
It’s a question of how much you really ought to share what
you are doing, whether it’s a real sharing of where you are or whether you are
bragging about what you are doing. In the final analysis, when the time comes
to fill out your
IRS
form, you’re not doing it in a support group and the consequences are going to
be yours.
Question:
What suggestions do you have for someone who is thinking
about resisting war taxes?
Paul:
Do it. The first time we did this it was a very difficult,
emotional experience.
Loretta:
And even when the telephone rang. I was just terribly
worried about what it might be.
Paul:
Well, I have a strong feeling that we ought to pay what
is due. I think it’s correct that we ought to render unto Caesar or anybody
else what is their due. We also give unto God what is due and I think that is
the important thing. When these two come in conflict, then my moral, ethical
training is not to pay Caesar. But not to pay becomes a very difficult
struggle whether it’s 34¢ or $34 or $340. The one was about as difficult as
the other when we started, and starting this is not easy. But in starting, you
make a kind of commitment that does something to you.
The other thing is the time and energy to do it. You know it’s easier to do
the status quo thing. Resistance takes a lot more energy and time.
A letter to the editor in response
() from Allen King noted “There
are a number of people in our community who believe the same way but do not
know how to go about it.”
In an
International Mennonite Peace Committee meeting
was held, which allowed for an update from the war tax resisters of Japan,
though this is all that Gospel Herald readers learned
about it:
Michio Ohno of Asia, remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki, demonstrates his
concern about the destruction of nuclear war by his resistance to payment of
taxes used for military purposes. He is president of the Tokyo (Japan)
Mennonite Conference.
A pair of Mennonites went to court to try to gain legal conscientious objector
to military taxation status:
On , a federal circuit court judge
agreed that Janet and Stan Reedy of Elkhart,
Ind., had a case worth hearing
after they had claimed a conscientious objector deduction on their income tax
report.
Supported by members of their church, the South Side Fellowship of Elkhart,
the Reedys presented testimony in opposition to the motion of the Internal
Revenue Service that the petition for a conscientious objector deduction is
“insufficient, immaterial, and frivolous.”
“As the motion to strike points out,” said Janet Reedy, “there is presently no
provision in the
IRS code
which authorized the deduction we are claiming. That is precisely the problem.
The First Amendment to the (Constitution states, ‘Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof…’ I want to argue that the present
IRS law
violates our rights and the rights of all persons who are conscientiously
opposed to war by requiring us to pay for war even though it is contrary to
our religious beliefs. Thus we are denied a right guaranteed to us by the
First Amendment.”
In support of this argument, Janet told of her conviction that killing is
wrong and that paying the tax for killing is no different than killing. She
asserted that “the law should recognize the right to refuse to pay the taxes
that make it possible for others to kill.” She concluded that “the First
Amendment guarantees us rights to the free exercise of our religious beliefs
which are not being honored by the present
IRS
code.”
Stan followed with corroborative testimony, stating that “the United States
government, through its instruments of the
IRS and
the courts can of course force what appears to be obedience… But some day the
hard, inflexible, and brittle mass of the
IRS code
will shatter upon or be dissolved by the soft voice of conscience.”
As reported by Kathy Rohrer, one of the Fellowship members in attendance, when
Stan was seated the judge asked one question: “Do you come to this court with
a new argument?” Janet answered that they had never before claimed the First
Amendment in their arguments. The judge was so impressed by their evidence
that he denied the
IRS
claim that their petition for a hearing was “irrelevant, immaterial,
impertinent, and frivolous” and granted them a hearing in federal court where
the constitutionality of the case will be judged. No date has been set for
this hearing.
Ken Reed: The Mennonite Church has been a beautiful experience for me, but
it’s only been the past several years that I’ve seriously asked myself:
What is the vision of the Anabaptists? and I’ve concluded it says
something about us being both a community of love and a community of
resistance. We’ve emphasized the love side perhaps — MCC,
Voluntary Service, and giving ourselves in service (the towel and the basin).
Perhaps we haven’t emphasized resistance to evil. Then I look at
Luke 4,
where Jesus says: “This is what my mission is all about in coming to the
world” — He talks about a mission of love and a mission of resistance, a
mission of identifying with people and also a mission of saying “no” to the
evil that was around Him. I take His life as a model for my own.
, I was thinking
about taxes and where my tax dollars go. I was looking through a book on
Hiroshima which was produced by a committee of Japanese journalists and it
just struck me that my money is paying for future Hiroshimas. At that moment,
I made a commitment to myself, “I don’t want to be part of that.”
The General Conference Mennonite Church will “initiate a judicial action
seeking exemption from withholding taxes from the income of its employees” and
take its case to the
U.S. Supreme Court
if necessary. It is planned to base the case on the First Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution,
which embodies the separation of church and state. The action was approved by
delegates to the church’s triennial sessions at Estes Park,
Colo., held
.
Duane Heffelbower, a Mennonite attorney from Reedley,
Calif., and member of the
conference’s task force on tax withholding, said that the suit would be aimed
at seeking an injunction against the Internal Revenue Service, which presently
requires the church’s central offices to withhold the income taxes of its
employees. “We hope to move the suit to the district court level within a
year,” he said.
The Estes Park resolution stated further that all General Conference churches
in the U.S. and
Canada support the Task Force on Taxes through special offerings or budget
allocations and that
U.S.
congregations support efforts for the passage of the World Peace Tax Fund.
This proposed fund would allow those who object to paying taxes in support of
military causes to channel their taxes toward peaceful and humanitarian
projects. The church hopes to find some support for its tax collection test
case among its fellow historic peace churches; namely, the Church of the
Brethren, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Mennonite
Church.
The newly adopted resolution grew out of a motion passed at a special
conference session in Minneapolis,
Minn., in
which asked the General Board of the
conference “to engage in a serious and vigorous search to use all legal,
legislative, and administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector
exemption from the legal requirement that the conference withhold income taxes
from the wages of its employees.” Should the GCMC
be successful in gaining the injunction against forced tax collection, the
conference’s employees would receive their wages in full and then follow their
individual consciences in deciding whether to pay or not pay war taxes.
A pair of commentaries from Peter Farrar ( and )
urged Mennonites to “Refuse war taxes! Refuse registration!” without waiting
for the government to grant them special conscientious objector status. Farrar
wrote of the traditional Mennonite “nonresistance” position: “We may choose not
to resist aggression against our persons. We cannot countenance being the means
of aggression against others.”
Pax Christi continued to highlight how taxpaying made citizens complicit in the
arms race, and continued also to encourage war tax resistance as a response
():
A Catholic peace group has called on the
U.S.
bishops to reinstate meatless Fridays as “a penance for and protest against
the arms race.” The statement, issued by Pax Christi
U.S.A.,
at a two-day meeting in Maryknoll,
N.Y., also calls for the
establishment of a National Catholic Peace Week to promote disarmament, and
urges American Catholics to “refrain from the manufacture or use of nuclear
weapons” and to “support those people who refuse to pay for the war machine
with their taxes.” Pax Christi
U.S.A.,
is a branch of the international movement founded in France at the end of
World War Ⅱ. The American unit was begun in .
Spurred by the return of draft registration, a number of Christian groups
have increased their continuing efforts to counter what they see as a growing
tide of militarism in the United States.
Some members of the Society of Friends, disregarding possible penalties of
fines and imprisonment, have advised young men to refuse to register with the
Selective Service System when they come of age. The Church of the Brethren has
affirmed “open, nonevasive withholding of war taxes as a legitimate witness to
our conscientious intention to follow the call of discipleship to Jesus
Christ.”
Going one step further, the General Conference Mennonite Church, meeting at
Estes Park, Colo., in
, committed itself to go to the Supreme
Court, if necessary, to secure release from its current obligation to collect
from its employees income taxes used in large part to support military
programs.
All three bodies work together in the New Call to Peacemaking. This coalition
has invited 400 delegates to a national conference in Green Lake,
Wis.,
,
to devise additional ways for its members to reply to conscription, war taxes,
and what they see as the growing hazards of so-called military security.
Approximately 300 Mennonites, Brethren, and Friends from across the
U.S. have called on
their meetings and congregations to intensify efforts in the search for
alternatives to militarism, conscription, and the payment of war taxes.
The conference’s eight-page findings report was written and revised by a
committee which attempted to integrate the minutes of 27 discussion groups
which met regularly throughout the weekend. The final statement dealt with the
tasks of envisioning peace, nurturing peacemakers, countering militarism,
responding to the conscription of youth and taxes for war, and witnessing to
peace.
With respect to the issue of payment of taxes used for war purposes, the New
Call restated its commitment to urge
Christian peacemakers to “consider withholding from the Internal Revenue
Service all tax monies which contribute to any war effort.”
The statement of findings recommended the following as alternatives to the
payment of war taxes: (1) active work for the adoption of the World Peace Tax
Fund bill which, if passed by the
U.S. Congress,
would serve as a legal alternative to payment of war taxes just as
conscientious objector status is a legal alternative to military service, and
(2) individuals are urged to consider prayerfully all moral ways of reducing
their tax liabilities, including sizable contributions to tax-exempt
organizations and reduction of personal income.
The concern that New Call not issue a declaration more radical than meetings
and congregations would be willing to hear was raised at several points during
the meeting.
The Mennonite Church general board met in
and cautiously decided to
throw its support behind the General Conference Mennonite Church’s legal
challenge to withholding taxes from objecting employees. This was one of the
earliest examples of corporate support for war tax resistance from a Mennonite
Church institution:
One other action of significance had to do with an invitation from the General
Conference Mennonite Church to join in its effort to “initiate a judicial
action seeking exemption for the General Conference Mennonite Church from
withholding taxes from the income of its employees.”
On the basis of action taken at the last Mennonite Assembly in Waterloo,
Ont., which reads: “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.”
The Board acted to: (1) support the judicial action of the General Conference
Mennonite Church to seek exemption of our institutions from withholding taxes
from the income of employees with the understanding that this implies an
invitation to Mennonite members to join in financial support for this judicial
action and (2) we encourage the MBCM
to the task force on taxes to seek to generate a wide support for the World
Peace Tax Fund throughout our constituency by appropriate General Assembly
action and encouragement.
The Board was careful to clarify that this action does not constitute civil
disobedience but rather attempts to work within the domain of the first
amendment in the
U.S. constitution.
This is the twenty-fifth 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.
The debate about war tax resistance continued at a simmer through
, and by the end of the year it was clear that
the Mennonite Church would have to have the same debate about withholding taxes
from its employees’ salaries that had occupied the General Conference Mennonite
Church .
Joel Kauffmann’s “Pontius” comic strip was a regular feature in
Gospel Herald. This example comes from the
issue.
The Center for Discipleship and the Peace Studies Program at Goshen College
will cosponsor a seminar on “Conscientious Objection to Military Taxes” on
Goshen’s campus, .
The program will feature an Internal Revenue Service representative addressing
the legalities of withholding military taxes; discussion of improved
communication between tax withholders, the government, and the church; and a
look at various patriotic and biblical objections raised by nonwithholders.
The purpose of the seminar is not to foster debate on the morality of tax
withholding; rather, persons who are already withholding taxes or who are
seeking additional information on the issue are encouraged to attend. In lieu
of a registration fee, participants will be asked to make a $10 tax-deductible
contribution.
I wonder if you could rope an
IRS
spokesperson into addressing a war tax resistance conference today.
The included an article that
summed up the state of the war tax issue in the Mennonite community. It’s the
same article that appeared in The Mennonite around
the same time and that I reproduced here when I was going through those
archives (see ♇ 4 August 2018 — search
for “Military taxes — continuing agenda in 1984”).
War tax resistance foe D.R. Yoder wrote
a commentary
for the issue in which he
argued that tax resistance was ineffective because the government can just rely
on borrowing or seigniorage if it runs out of tax money, which means ultimately
the costs not paid by war tax resisters just get shifted to other people, which
isn’t very Christian.
One stewardship issue that is seldom brought up, although one of the most
important, is how we use our tax dollars. Becky and I are comfortable in
paying local and state taxes but have come to feel that we cannot pay any of
our federal income taxes, given their use in fueling the arms race. We note
the irony that while the average Mennonite family gives the church $430 a year
for peacemaking it pays the
IRS
$1,500 for its militarism. A 4 percent tithe for the church, and a 10 percent
tithe for the government! Our response is to reduce our taxable income and
refuse to pay anything, choosing instead to use this money for serving the
kingdom. Friends of ours have taken other options such as matching their
giving to the
IRS with
their giving to the church, refusing to pay a percentage of their tax dollars,
enclosing a letter of protest with their payment. We feel that how we use our
money is a crucial test of our loyalties and commitments and must become a
stewardship issue for this generation.
Imagine with us what could happen if we Mennonites were to take the steps outlined in books like Beyond the Rat Race.
Imagine if we were to give as much to the church as we give the IRS, or if we gave our tax dollars to the work of the church, withholding them from military use?
I want to make a few comments… especially on the last part concerning the
average Mennonite family giving “a 4 percent tithe for the church, and a 10
percent tithe for the government.” I cannot understand how he can withhold all
income taxes from Uncle Sam in light of the fact the
U.S. government is
very reasonable in its demands. The government allows us to give 50 percent to
charitable causes without too many restrictions, though there are some.
Thus I ask, until we give 50 percent to charity which the government allows,
who is responsible if it is not spent right? Peters talked about the tithe for
the church. Personally I believe many of us should give much more. Just
because we feel our government does not spend all our tax money right does not
give us the right to withhold all or part of our tax money.
There was a passing mention of war tax resistance at the Bijou Community in
a article:
[Esther (Leatherman)] Kisamore, formerly of Pennsylvania, is a member of a
Christian community, called Bijou House, consisting of 13 persons. There are
four other Mennonites in this house community; the next largest group
represented is Roman Catholic. The group shares economic resources and lives
below the taxable income level as a way of avoiding the payment of war taxes.
The issue contained
a pro-taxpaying op-ed from Harold Hartzler.
Christians should pay taxes gladly, he wrote, citing Romans 13. Taxes help our
terrific government; we shouldn’t try to lower our taxes but should indeed pay
even more than is required; the government should simplify taxes and broaden
the tax base, and should increase taxes even if that makes things “unbearable.”
Alongside that commentary was this one, credited to Call to
Peacemaking:
Praying and paying: a dilemma
The question begins to sound like a cliché, we’ve heard it so often: Can we go
on praying for peace while paying for war?
But the question won’t go away. Every year in the United States we are
reminded of the reality of military preparations when the president presents
the proposed budget to congress. This year the figures reach almost beyond our
imaginations, near a trillion in total spending with more than a third for
war. A military expenditure of that enormity was once associated only with the
waging of all-out war. Now it is only preparation for war, plus minor (?)
interventions here and there.
We only need to reflect for a moment on the consequences of the kind of war
we’re preparing for to know in our hearts that the government is buying us
less security. That’s the purpose of the state? To brandish a nuclear sword
which guarantees that if used it will fulfill the prophecy of Jesus: “They who
take the sword will perish with the sword.”
Between the time the budget is unveiled and when we can no longer delay the
moment of truth with the Internal Revenue Service is usually a little less
than three months. Plenty of time to agonize whether what Caesar is demanding
to support the arms race is really what is due to Caesar.
An increasing number of concerned persons recognize the dilemma of praying and
paying and are seriously trying to decide how to resist. A leaflet, “Stages of
Conscientious Objection to Military Taxes,” by Bill Strong at the Philadelphia
Yearly Meeting of Friends and Linda Schmidt of Mennonite Central Committee
describes what some have done in response to the question of taxes for war.
The leaflet is available from New Call to Peacemaking, Box 1245, Elkhart,
IN…
Milo and Viola Stahl presented bags of groceries to a staff person at the
regional office of the Internal Revenue Service, Staunton,
Va.
Reporter Steve Shenk brought this news in the issue:
As tax season rolls around, taxpayers are faced with many facts and figures
that concern the conscience as well as the wallet. For some Christians payment
of federal income tax — the portion which goes to finance the military — is a
dilemma.
This year a group called Christians for Peace, consisting of largely
Mennonites from the Harrisonburg,
Va., area, gathered at the
regional office of the Internal Revenue Service in Staunton,
Va., on
, 1984. They came to register their concern about the amount of
income tax money which is used for military purposes. Instead of bringing
their normal checks, they came with a truckload of food for the
IRS.
The food was purchased with money that the participants withheld from their
tax payments. “We seek to follow Jesus’ call
to be peacemakers by directing our resources away from the instruments of
death and toward life,” explained Wendell Ressler, one of the organizers of
the event. “We cannot reconcile Jesus’ call to love our enemies with our
government’s call to help pay for their destruction.”
The group began the witness with a short worship service in front of the
IRS
building. There was a short mime skit entitled The Global Garden Deli which
visualized their feelings about paying for military expenditures. The theme
song, “I Am Not Willing to Buy Your Bombs, Sam,” sung to the melody “I Have
Decided to Follow Jesus,” was heard between prayers and testimony of the group
members.
Wendell Ressler then read a short statement of purpose to the small crowd of
onlookers. He explained that this action was really a pledge to reexamine the
effects of the group’s lifestyle on other people. “We do not wish to be
protected if it means others are killed in our names. We gladly pay taxes
which are used to enrich the lives of others, but it is immoral for our
government to play Russian roulette with the future of our planet.”
Christians for Peace members, Milo and Viola Stahl, then entered the
IRS
building to offer their bags of groceries in payment for the military portion
of the income tax. They were cordially received by the representative for the
regional director of the
IRS,
but told that the
IRS
could not accept the bread. When the Milo Stahls asked the representative what
the IRS
would like them to do with the food, the representative replied, “That is your
prerogative, but I cannot accept it.”
The food was then presented to the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank,
Inc., a nonprofit
community organization that distributes 220,000 pounds of food each month to
hungry people in the area. Executive Director Phil Grasty was careful to note
that he did not want to take a political stand on the issue, but he was “happy
to receive the food.” Over 1,000 pounds of canned goods were donated to the
organization.
The group repeatedly tried to explain that their intention was not to harass
the IRS
personnel. Instead their goal was to represent their concern as a Christian
witness. “The reason that I am here,” said Christian for Peace member Nate
Barge, “is that for me it is an act of faith. I am trying to bring evangelism
and social action together.”
The event attracted passersby to stop and watch the demonstration. One of
them, Dave Murphy, a member of the Staunton Christian Fellowship Baptist
Church, said, “I think it is a nice effort on their part to present what they
believe about military spending… after all it is the American way to speak
out. I am particularly pleased that they are giving the food to the Food Bank
where it will do some good.”
Members of the Christians for Peace group tried to donate food to the
IRS,
but it was refused, so they turned the food over to the Blue Ridge Area Food
Bank.
Two years after Seattle Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen’s decision to withhold
half of his federal income taxes, a religious “war tax” movement is growing
rapidly. Its numbers are being swelled both by Hunthausen imitators and by
creative new forms of protest by people who are upset by the nuclear arms race
but reluctant to put themselves outside the law.
According to new Internal Revenue Service figures, the type of protest
popularized by the Seattle archbishop has increased nearly fivefold in the
last three years, while alternative forms of protest, some of them revived
from the Vietnam War era, have also become more frequent. Among the latter
protesters are people who refuse to pay a small, token amount of tax, or
withhold federal excise taxes from their monthly telephone bills. Others file
a return and write “paid under protest” on the check, or file for a refund of
military taxes already paid. Increasing charitable giving to reduce the amount
of income subject to tax, and changing one’s lifestyle to live below a taxable
income level, are also gaining acceptance. Many religious groups, in addition,
are pressing Congress for legislation that would allow “conscientious
objectors” to divert all their taxes to “peaceful” purposes.
The Mennonite Central Committee held its executive committee meeting in
:
Executive Secretary Reg Toews reported that three staff members have requested
that
MCC
no longer withhold the military portion of the federal withholding tax from
their paychecks.
Member Larry Kehler of Winnipeg,
Man., noted that "this is a
very volatile issue in our constituency." It was observed that
MCC
is in a unique position, since it represents a wide coalition of conferences,
who come to this issue with various degrees of intensity. “Just to discuss
this issue is to raise concern in many groups,” Toews said.
The executive committee stated their intention to take seriously the request
from the staff members, as well as constituency concerns. They asked
administrative staff to work on a plan, to be discussed by the committee in
, concerning how this issue should
receive broader testing.
A letter to the editor
from Steven G. Gehman ()
rejected on scriptural grounds the “witnessing” justification of war tax
resistance, but left open the possibility that it was justified on the grounds
of conscientious objection to participation in war:
I have struggled with the war tax issue and have not reached any definite
answer. I cannot feel comfortable knowing that a great portion of my taxes is
devoted to killing or creating the potential to kill, and knowing that Jesus
commands us to have no part in war. But neither am I comfortable with war tax
resistance. There are no records of Jesus opposing taxes to the Roman military
machine. In Romans 13:1–5 Paul states his view that the government bears the
sword as God’s servant. First Peter 2:13 gives us the injunction to submit to
human authority.
I do not think either or both of these passages in themselves yield a final
answer to the war tax issue. They do help to sharpen the questions. If the
government bears the sword as God’s servant, total disarmament cannot be the
goal or the reason for war tax resistance. Neither is the desire for an
effective witness to the government sufficient reason to resist payment since
we are commanded to submit to human authority.
The question of whether or not payment of war taxes is right hinges on whether
or not payment of these taxes constitutes participation in a killing machine
to an extent forbidden by the example and teachings of Jesus. What effect does
current military technology have on our response to this issue?
Michio Ohno, pastor of the Mennonite congregation in Toke outside Tokyo, told
of his pilgrimage which included being a pastor in the United Church before
becoming a Mennonite. He also made an eloquent appeal for a peace stance and
the nonpayment of military taxes.
J. Ward Shank, in a
“Update on the peace movement in the Mennonite Church”,
criticized the modern centrality of anti-war activism among Mennonites,
suggesting that it had displaced more basic Christian themes. “Peace is a fruit
of the gospel, not its basis, or necessarily the heart of it,” he wrote. The
article only mentioned war tax resistance in passing, but of course was
relevant to it. It prompted a great deal of back-and-forth in the letters to
the editor column.
The Mennonite Church’s general board’s
“council on faith, life, and strategy”
met in . It turned out that
the Mennonite Church, like its cousins the General Conference Mennonite Church,
had employees who wanted their church to stop withholding war taxes from their
paychecks. This time around, the Mennonite Church wouldn’t have the luxury
of playing spectator in the debate:
One of the stickier issues arose out of a request from a couple employed by
Mennonite Board of Missions that federal income taxes not be withheld from
their paychecks. They want to stop paying the portion of their taxes that goes
to the military. The council tried to clarify the issue by raising underlying
questions such as “Shall a church perform a function on behalf of the state,
in this instance collecting taxes?” and “Should a church institution place
employees in a position where they do not have the option to follow their
conscience on this issue?” Vigorous discussion led to two recommendations: (1)
That this question might be considered in the forthcoming Conversations on
Faith Ⅱ meeting. (2) That a task force be appointed by the General Board.
I noticed that tax resistance was on the agenda at the General Conference
Dialogue on Faith
in also, but there wasn’t
anything meaty in the article worth reprinting here.
This is the twenty-eighth 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.
When I hit in the archives it seemed to me that I started seeing a lot more mentions of how “our tax dollars” were financing this or that government-sponsored horror, but much less followup from there about how such a thing might lead one to resist paying.
Maybe that was seen as an obvious corollary by then, or maybe some people had abandoned the idea of war tax resistance as impractical and had just become resigned to complaining.
It’s hard to tell from the record.
That’s not to say there wasn’t war tax resistance content.
Plenty of it.
The “Taxes for Peace” war tax redirection fund, run by the Mennonite Central Committee’s (U.S.) Peace Section, announced it’s annual drive in the issue.
The fund would be redirecting money to the Lancaster County (Pa.) Peacework Alternatives Project, and announced that they had redirected $4,600 to a project to aid victims of violence in Guatemala the previous year.
A curious story, “The parable of the taxpayers” by John F. Murray appeared in the .
It was a sort of updating of the “parable of the talents” from the Bible.
It included a character who was a war tax resister but the parable chided him for hiding his money away from the tax collector rather than spending it on good churchly stuff.
Perhaps this indicates that this was one stereotype of war tax resisters — as miserly sorts — that was prevalent in Mennonite circles.
The emerging war tax resistance movement in Japan took the offensive in , according to this article:
A Mennonite pastor is among 22 Japanese tax resisters who have sued the government for what they say was an “unconstitutional” collection of their taxes in .
The 22 are all members of Conscientious Objection to Military Tax (COMIT), and 12 of them are Christians — including Michio Ohno, a Mennonite pastor in Tokyo.
The government action involved the seizing of the bank accounts of Ohno and two others.
The 22 charge that Japan’s so-called Self-Defense Forces is a violation of the post-World War Ⅱ constitution, which forbids the country to have an army, navy, and air force.
So, they charge, the collection of taxes for the military is also unconstitutional.
Members of the Mennonite Church in the United States contribute $9 to the federal government for military purposes for every $5 they contribute to the local church for the cause of Christ.
Nine to five is the proportion of military support to local church support.
Nine to five is also a traditional eight-hour workday.
The fruit of our labor is paying for the arms race.
The nine-to-five calculation is based on figures from the current Mennonite Yearbook, p. 190. The contributions given by U.S. Mennonite Church members through the congregational treasury in totaled $57,269,704. This figure does not include individual gifts that were not channeled through the congregation.
The estimated military tax paid by the same people in was $105,800,000.
Stanley Kropf, churchwide agency finance secretary, estimates that the pretax income of Mennonite Church members in was $1,602,600,000. I have calculated a 12 percent tax rate paid on that income, with 55 percent of the taxes going to past and present military costs, including a portion of interest on the federal debt attributable to inflationary military spending.
I believe that these figures are correct within a margin of 5–10 percent.
No great concern?
Maybe it isn’t a matter of great concern.
Some say that the government is responsible for what it does with tax monies.
We are not accountable.
Bernard Offen, a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz, thinks differently.
His letter of war-tax protest came across my desk recently, and I share it as a stimulus to reflection on our war taxes in :
The guards at Auschwitz herded my father to the left and me to the right.
I was a child.
I never saw him again.
He was a good man.
He was loyal, obedient, law-abiding.
He paid his taxes.
He was a Jew.
He paid his taxes.
He died in the concentration camp.
He had paid his taxes.
My father didn’t know he was paying for barbed wire.
For tattoo equipment.
For concrete.
For whips.
For dogs.
For cattle cars.
For Zyklon B gas.
For gas ovens.
For his destruction.
For the destruction of 6,000,000 Jews.
For the destruction of 6,000,000 Jews.
For the destruction, ultimately, of 50,000,000 people in World War Ⅱ.
In Auschwitz I was tattoo #B‒7815. In the United States I am an American citizen, taxpayer #370‒32‒6858. I am paying for a nuclear arms race.
A nuclear arms race that is both homicidal and suicidal.
It could end life for 5,000,000,000 people, five billion Jews.
For now the whole world is Jewish and nuclear devices are the gas ovens for the planet.
There is no longer a selection process such as I experienced at Auschwitz.
We are now one.
I am an American.
I am loyal, obedient, law-abiding.
I am afraid of the Internal Revenue Service.
Who knows what power they have to charge me penalties and interest?
To seize my property?
To imprison me?
After soul-searching and God-wrestling for several years, I have concluded that I am more afraid of what my government may do to me, mine, and the world with the money if I pay it… if I pay it.
I do believe in taxes for health, education, and the welfare of the public.
While I do not agree with all the actions of my government, to go along with the nuclear arms race is suicidal.
It threatens my life.
It threatens the life of my family.
It threatens the world.
I remember my father.
I have learned from Auschwitz.
I will not willingly contribute to the production of nuclear devices.
They are more lethal than the gas Zyklon B, the gas that killed my father and countless others.
I am withholding 25 percent of my tax and forwarding it to a peace tax fund.
Offen gives permission to reproduce or publish his letter and says he may be contacted at Sonoma County Taxes for Peace, Box 563, Santa Rosa, CA 95402.
No simple answer.
What is the answer to the war-tax dilemma?
I offer no simple one.
I simply identify a challenge to our faith which will not go away.
And I think it is helpful to have some idea of how much money, and in what proportion, we are giving to the death machine.
St. Augustine said, “Hope has two sisters: Anger and courage.”
Beautiful women, these, in an age of despair.
Thank you for printing the article by John Stoner, “Nine to Five”… It is good but uncomfortable for us to be reminded of our involvement in military and war-related activity.
I wonder how much longer the Mennonite Church can remain so silent and still carry the distinction of being a peace church.
In a democracy, silence gives consent.
In light of Scripture, our history, and the present reality that Stoner points out, how can we Mennonites give our consent to spending so much for war?
Withholding federal income tax for conscience’ sake is still a lonely and often misunderstood act, even within the church.
True, there are individuals and small segments of the Mennonite Church who have taken positions similar to the Stoners.
But I long and pray for the time when such actions of civil disobedience will be strongly supported and encouraged by the majority of Mennonites.
A war tax redirection ceremony and tax day protest was covered in the issue:
Michigan group gives war-tax money to the poor.
On the income-tax deadline of , a group of 11 people in Kalamazoo, Mich., called “Partners in Peace” gave a public witness to their beliefs in front of the post office.
They mailed their income-tax returns minus the amount they calculate is used for military purposes — 50 percent.
Instead the group gave that amount — which together came to about $5,500 — to five local agencies that assist the needy.
Here Partners for Peace member Karen Small gives a check to Marcia Jackson of Loaves and Fishes.
The group, which includes Mennonites, also conducted a short worship service with singing, prayer, and testimonies by several participants.
Onlookers were given printed statements and pens with the inscription, “If you pray for peace, should you pay for war?”
This is the second year the public witness has been conducted.
Winfred Stoltzfus, a Mennonite doctor who is a member of the group, said he and others are being “harassed” by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, which is seizing bank accounts and portions of their paychecks.
“Even if you are not a war tax resister, you can help those who are,” say a group of Christians who operate the Tax Resisters Penalty Fund.
Based in North Manchester, Ind., it helps resisters when they suffer financial loss through the seizure of penalties and interest by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
The fund, started in as a project of the local chapter of Fellowship of Reconciliation, is currently trying to broaden its base of support because of the increasing number of requests for assistance.
More information is available from the North Manchester Fellowship of Reconciliation…
While war tax resistance seemed mostly a U.S. phenomenon during the Vietnam War era (and this led to some chagrin when Canadian Mennonites felt like they were being dragged into disputes about it), Canadians were also getting in on the act by this time ():
Conscience Canada, a Victoria, B.C.-based organization objecting to Canadian military taxes, held its first national conference recently.
Several participants reported that they sent the military portion of their taxes to Peace Tax Fund — a trust account administered by Conscience Canada which is not approved by the government.
Member of Parliament James Manley told the participants how they could be more effective in lobbying their MPs.
Motions favoring peace tax legislation were introduced in the House of Commons by Manley in and and by MP Simon De Jong in .
Reporting on war-tax resistance in the United States, Robert Hull, a Mennonite who chairs the Washington, D.C.-based National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund, said his group has enlisted 55 representatives and four senators as sponsors of peace tax legislation in the U.S. Congress.
“Conscience Canada is part of a movement in 17 countries, from Finland and Spain to Australia and New Zealand,” said Edith Adamson, the organization’s coordinator.
Study packet on militarism in Canada from Mennonite Central Committee Canada.
It includes pamphlets, articles, and a fact sheet.
The packet helps Canadians struggling to discern a faithful Christian response to militarism, including the issue of whether or not to pay war taxes.
It is available for a suggested donation of $3 from Information Services at MCC Canada…
David Charles wrote a commentary for the issue in which he went on at length about the horror of nuclear war and said “Some have even come to recognize our complicity in the situation through silence and the payment of war taxes.”
And: “Our continued silence to a government that is not merely content to collect tax but is mortgaging the entire country to pursue a ridiculous ambition is conveying a message of acceptance.”
But his suggested response was hilariously pathetic:
We can write on the bottom of our tax returns that our money is to be used to build peace, not more arms.
For an increasing number of Christians the conscription of their taxes for military purposes is becoming a problem of conscience as clear as the conscription of their bodies for military service.
The question will not fade away.
Are the excuses offered by Nazi collaborators or Iran-contra conspirators that someone else is making the decisions that much different than washing our hands of responsibility for how the state uses the resources God has given us?
Challenge and action.
The study suggested by MCC and the militarism resolution — “Growing in Stewardship and Witness in a Militaristic World” — which will be considered by the General Assembly at Purdue arose directly out of the struggle of conscience about war taxes by some members of the church.
The proposed resolution is intended to alert us to the broad scope of this challenge and suggest appropriate actions.
Let us expand our support for proposed Peace Tax Fund legislation in both the United States and Canada, recognizing that legal recognition of conscientious objection to payment of taxes destined for military use will require the same patient persistence which resulted in legal recognition of conscientious objection to military service.
Let us prayerfully examine the practice of church organizations withholding and transmitting income taxes of church employees who themselves are conscientiously unable to pay taxes for military use.
As part of that effort, we will participate in a conference planned for for Mennonite, Brethren, and Quaker employers to share their experiences relating to tax withholding and conscience and to develop a strategy for relief of this ethical dilemma.
Let us continue to support those whose conscience prevents them from paying taxes destined for military use or from registering with the U.S. Selective Service System.
A report from the conference, carried in the issue, carried the ominous quote “Personally, I think the Peace Tax Fund is a way out of this” as a way of excusing why the Mennonite Church seemed to be waffling rather than taking any committed stand:
A statement on “Growing in Stewardship and Witness in a Militaristic World” was approved more quickly.
It offers suggestions to congregations for ways to counter the increasingly pervasive “evil” of militarism in North America and around the world.
Ed Metzler, who presented the statement, said one of the best ways Mennonites can oppose militarism today is by supporting the campaign for “Peace Tax Fund” legislation in both the United States and Canada.
Metzler, who is peace and social concerns secretary at Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries, said this would permit conscientious objection to war taxes in the same way that Mennonites and others won the right to conscientious objection to war.
He called to the podium the executive director of the campaign in the U.S. — Marian Franz, a Mennonite.
“Conscience is contagious,” she said, “and peace concerns are spreading far beyond the historic peace churches.”
Approval of the statement did not end the discussion on militarism.
Especially after Mennonite Board of Missions president Paul Gingrich reminded the delegates that his agency is still waiting to hear what it is supposed to do about employees who request that taxes not be withheld from their paychecks so that they can resist war taxes.
“I wish this body would act on this,” he said.
Metzler agreed, pointing out that the Mennonite Church General Board “ducked the issue” by calling for a general statement on militarism.
“We wish the issue would go away,” he said, “but it won’t.” Moderator-Elect Lebold defended General Board inaction, noting that the church is deeply divided on the subject.
“Personally, I think the Peace Tax Fund is a way out of this,” he said.
Nondelegate Ray Gingerich, an Eastern Mennonite College professor who is a war tax resister, challenged the notion of having to wait on the government to make legal a matter of conscience.
Many delegates seemed to agree, and by majority vote, they instructed General Board to take immediate action on tax withholding and give a clear answer to MBM and other agencies seeking guidance.
Well, I think so.
It is an odd question for a 53-year-old person because nobody’s asking me to wreak violence on anybody else.
We are all very fortunate to have that little dialogue about paying over the coin to Caesar because otherwise we 53-year-olds, if we thought of being pacifists, would have to think of financing nuclear weapons.
I guess that little dialogue lets us out, or at least in some people’s minds it does.
But I figure that by now the taxes I paid have bought a lot of destructive weaponry, if I am paying my share.
The Church of the Brethren (Anabaptist cousins of the Mennonites) also held their annual conference.
The issue reported:
An agenda item on “taxation for war” prompted little debate, since a study committee said the church has written enough about war-tax resistance, and that it is time for members to study seriously what has been written.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) has publicly asked the forgiveness of an 81-year-old Cincinnati minister who was defrocked by a regional church body 25 years ago for his antiwar activism.
Maurice McCrackin, pastor of the nondenominational Community Church of Cincinnati, was deposed from the ministry by the Cincinnati Presbytery in after he refused to pay the portion of his income taxes that would go for military spending.
Meeting in Biloxi, Miss., the denomination’s highest governing body, the General Assembly, formally confessed error in removing McCrackin from the ministry and endorsed an action taken in by the Presbytery of Cincinnati restoring him to clergy status.
The attempts to get the Mennonite Church to take risks on behalf of war tax resisters got the goat of of Elmer S. Yoder, who wrote the following for the issue — again suggesting the Peace Tax Fund as a way of sidelining the problem:
The concluding appeal by a delegate at Purdue to “respect the individual conscience” in regard to church institutions not withholding “war taxes” failed to address a key question.
The appeal sounded simple and persuasive, on the surface, but it is much more complex and far-reaching.
Whose conscience is to be respected?
The conscience of the individual employee of an institution or the collective conscience of a board of directors, or perhaps even General Assembly?
The corporation is a legal entity and owes its continued existence to statutory provisions.
The centralized management of the corporation can and does express the collective conscience of the institution.
Our major church institutions are incorporated and directed by boards.
The directors have been charged with the optimum operation of the institutions.
The institutions (corporations) are faced with options different from those of an individual in respect to a refusal to pay the tax in question.
An individual refusing to pay what he considers is the war tax would be confronted by an agency of the government.
The result might be the placing of some financial restrictions upon him, or additional legal action, such as seizure of property, or in extreme cases, imprisonment.
Noncompliance by a church corporation would almost certainly result in governmental measures amounting to a substantial loss of freedom.
This loss could well include its legal base to perform the objectives and purposes included in its charter and given by the Mennonite Church.
An individual Christian respecting the conscience of a war-tax resister suffers no detrimental consequences legally.
A trustee of a church institution is in a completely different situation.
By consenting with fellow trustees not to withhold the tax in question, he and the trustees are inviting various restrictions on the institution via legal action.
Legal alternatives of not withholding the war tax have been researched thoroughly by the General Conference Mennonite Church, without finding any legal recourse.
This means that trustees of church institutions would engage in civil disobedience by not withholding from any employee’s salary the part of the tax he protests, but in addition, would push the institution into a morass of legal restrictions and extended court procedures that would severely hamper the operation of the institution or drain its resources through protracted legal fees.
This is not a plea to act only on the basis of potential consequences.
The call to faithfulness supersedes consequences.
But faithfulness in great diversity of understanding, such as the war tax issue and the legal consequences, is difficult to achieve.
It is not in the interests of brotherhood to create or foster an institutional versus individual conflict, but neither is it proper or ethical to evade the issue of an institutional conscience.
In church institutions that conscience is molded by the larger brotherhood and those directly charged for the operation of the institutions — the trustees.
Nearly 100 years ago, the Mennonite Church began forming institutions (corporations) to carry out more effectively its tasks of nurture, education, and evangelism.
The institutions have served well and have contributed in many ways to the mission of the Mennonite Church.
Shall this servant role of the institutions continue?
Trustees of the institutions can, by openly defying the law over an issue on which such a diversity of opinion exists within the Mennonite Church, shackle the institutions, rather than performing as stewards.
Perhaps the time is coming, in the United States, when the church may again need to preach, to teach, and to evangelize without the legal entity of the corporation.
Perhaps there again will be the time for the fabled school with the professor on one end of a log and the student on the other.
The church corporation, which makes possible educating larger numbers, would be conspicuously absent, because of legal ramifications.
But, in my opinion, that time is not yet.
Perhaps, rather than urging a course of action which would eventually eliminate faculty and staff positions in the institutions, the energies and efforts devoted to this should be channeled into making possible a legal alternative, such as the Peace Tax Fund.
Devoting one’s energies to making it possible for larger numbers to step out and take advantage of the Peace Tax Fund certainly would be preferred to potentially reducing the church institutions into ineffectiveness.
The “New Call to Peacemaking” initiative was still active, but seemed to be deemphasizing war tax resistance.
It is not until the penultimate paragraph of this story that war tax issues are mentioned:
Some of New Call’s limited resources do go to renewing the vision within the historic peace churches.
In a conference will be cosponsored with the Quaker War Tax Concerns Committee on the challenge to church organizations from employees requesting their federal taxes not be withheld so they can exercise their conscience in relation to war taxes.
Thank you for sharing Ike Glick’s courageous decision of conscience to resign from a company that might be involved in military contracts ().
All of us in North America are inextricably involved in an economy addicted to huge military expenditures.
Ike’s conscience challenges especially all of us who think that the taxes we pay to build weapons of war are something for which we have no responsibility.
Our stewardship teachings tell us it is God’s money.
How we use that resource surely must be a matter of conscience as much as the way we use our God-given talents in our occupations.
This is the thirtieth 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 the Mennonite Church General Assembly
would hold a long-overdue vote on whether or not to support war tax resistance
as an institution. You’ll have to scroll down to see how that turned out.
A Japanese court has ruled against 22 military tax resisters, including
Mennonite pastor Michio Ohno. The ruling by the Tokyo District Court came
recently after nearly eight years of litigation. The case had its origin after
the bank accounts of Ohno and another person were attached by the government
because they didn’t pay their taxes. For reasons of conscience, the 22 object
to paying the portion of their taxes that is used for military purposes. The
negative ruling does not discourage them, however. “We believe it is this type
of lawsuit which, repeated a thousand times, will open the way to legalize
conscientious objection to military taxation in Japan,” said Ohno.
A “Taxes for Peace” fund is again being set up by Mennonite Central Committee
U.S. Peace Section.
It is for people who withhold war taxes to give money for a peaceful purpose.
It is a symbolic action and not a legal alternative to paying the tax.
’s fund will be divided between National
Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and Christian Peacemaker Teams. More information
about the fund is available from
MCC
U.S. Peace Section…
As the general assembly loomed, a series of letters to the editor concerning
war tax resistance hit the Gospel Herald pages in
:
Krabill felt that war tax resisters were twisting themselves in knots trying to explain away scriptural passages that on their clear facial reading counseled taxpaying.
Peachey explained why she thought war tax resistance was worth taking seriously (this is the same commentary as appeared in The Mennonite and that I excerpted here).
Nafziger thought that Krabill wasn’t discerning the clear obvious meaning of the bible so much as offering a distorted version of it in order to justify paying war taxes.
Do Mennonites need more time to study the tax withholding issue or more
courage? Will the Mennonite Church be known as a “historic peace church” 50
years from now? These and other questions came to mind as I read “General
Board Makes Cautious Preparation for Normal
”…
General Assembly actions in recent years have repeatedly affirmed tax
resistance, based on Christian conscience, as a valid part of our peace
witness. We see these actions not as liberal trends but rather a needed
return to New Testament teachings: to the life, nonviolent teachings, and
spirit of Jesus and to Anabaptist understandings of church and state
separation, roles, and loyalties.
Today military technologies are more important than personnel and therefore
the drafting of our dollars for war and preparation for war is a crucial
matter. The central issue in the earlier General Board recommendation, in my
perspective, was not tax resistance per se but whether the Mennonite Church
is ready to respect and support the consciences of those who request that
their taxes for military purposes not be withheld.
Recently, a young man named Jose was returning to his house in the
Philippines. Government soldiers, who later claimed Jose was out after
curfew, shot this defenseless youth, leaving him with a serious leg injury.
They refused him treatment for enough days that gangrene claimed his lower
leg. When we finally met Jose in the hospital, the lad needed to find blood
for his leg amputation.
Weekly, in our work with Mennonite Central Committee, we hear stories of
global brothers and sisters who are being maimed or killed with weapons of
war, many of them supplied by the American government. Therefore, when we
are faced with the turning over of our income to the Internal Revenue
Service for supplying these coffers of war, it feels to us that to do so
willingly would be the equivalent of signing the death warrant for innocent
friends.
We do not expect that everyone in the Mennonite Church will share these deep
convictions of ours. We believe that many Mennonites have wrestled with this
issue in honesty and prayer and have come to different conclusions from our
own.
Still, we are very saddened when we learn in Gospel
Herald that Mennonite Church General Board chose to back away from
recommending to General Assembly that the convictions of church
institutional employees who object to paying military taxes shall be honored
by their employers. The action leaves us feeling lonely.
What is the church telling us? Are our convictions out of place in our
church? Are we considered stubborn people who refuse to see the truth that
the church identifies? Is the church asking us to give up these deeply held
convictions? We don’t know. We sincerely value the counsel of the church
community. And yet somehow we can’t seem to shut off our (misguided?)
consciences on this matter.
Linda Peachey in “Agonizing Over War Taxes”… makes a good argument for
withholding war taxes. However, there is another angle from which to view
the issue of not paying war taxes. The primary Scripture cited in the debate
is Matthew 22:15–22 (and parallels). If we would apply a little historical
and political exegesis to this passage, we would have to ask ourselves how
we could apply Jesus’ response to ourselves.
For instance, we are not a nation or a people held captive under a foreign
ruler, such as Palestine was during the time of the Roman Empire. Also, we
are not presently ruled by a monarch; we realistically have no “caesar” over
us. If there is a caesar, so to speak, then we are caesar.
In the United States, our constitution begins by naming our caesar, “We the
people,” and Abraham Lincoln elaborated that phrase from our preamble by
claiming that our government essentially is and must remain a “government of
the people, by the people, for the people.”
In our form of democracy, we have no absolute authority set over us. What we
do have is public servants set under us. We, as responsible citizens, are
the authority of this nation. If our nation blunders and falls, the blame is
on us, not merely on those whom we have elected.
Those of us who withhold a portion of our tax are trying to re-orient our
national priorities. While what we do is considered to be illegal, we are
breaking a law of the people (willing to take responsibility for our
actions), but we are not breaking a law against caesar. What we are
trying to do is give to our government (ourselves) what it needs to function
as a force for order, a system for providing for the needs of all, and as a
body of law to carry out justice. (See Jacob Hutter’s and Menno Simons’
writings in Plots and Excuses and Foundations,
respectively.)
We do not all agree on the question of nonpayment of taxes for military
purposes… But shouldn’t we all be asking whether an agency of our church
should withhold taxes for employees who have a conscience against payment of
the military portion? Should a peace church agency side with the state
against the conscience of its own members? And is that consistent when the
church is on record supporting the conscientious action of its members in
nonpayment? It would seem appropriate for us to arrive at a plan whereby the
request of employees be respected and taxes for military purposes not be
withheld by church agencies.
We’ve known since childhood the stories of God’s people in the Old and New
Testaments who said to government and religious authorities, “I can’t do
that,” or “You can’t do that,” or “We can’t do that,” and then took the
awful consequences. Will we rouse from our easy “Christianity” and recognize
when the time has come for us to say such words — to obey God rather than
man and take the consequences?
As for the recommendation on military tax withholding, the board concluded
after consulting the district conferences that the recommendation had to be
rewritten. The sequence of events was as follows.
At Purdue , General Board was asked by General
Assembly to consult the church on the question of the conscientious objection
to the payment of military taxes, particularly the withholding of such taxes
by church institutions for persons who objected to paying them.
In , General Board approved a
statement for presentation to General Assembly at Normal
which included the recommendation that the
convictions of church institutional employees who object to paying military
taxes shall be honored by their employers.
During , district
conferences were contacted by General Board to seek their counsel on the
proposed statement. Responses were mixed. Three conferences supported the
proposal for presentation to General Assembly. Four conferences did not
support it. Eight supported the statement with modifications or cautions.
Executive Secretary James Lapp reported to the board that “I perceive in
general there is no broad consensus of support for the proposed stance of the
General Board.”
Accordingly the board saw it as necessary to prepare a drastically revised
proposal. Gone from this proposal was any reference to illegal action such as
a church institution refusing to collect military taxes from those
conscientiously opposed to paying them. Instead the statement which is to
appear in the “workbook” prepared for General Assembly delegates calls for
“study of the church/state issues raised by the collection of taxes by church
agencies” and for support of the Peace Tax Fund options being called for in
both the U.S. and
Canada.
Military taxes for church employees is a particularly difficult subject. This
issue has been knocking around for several years already. As I reported on
, the General Board at its last
meeting passed a much less decisive proposal than expected. This revision was
made after consultations with district conferences. If anyone wishes to press
for the church to take a radical position on this issue, it will be necessary
to make that point clear since the General Board received mixed signals in
consultations with the conferences.
The General Board had a last chance to tangle with the issue
:
The Mennonite Church General Board held a
prior to Normal
. No major issues were resolved in this brief
meeting. Much of the activity involved receiving reports and doing final work
on statements to be presented to General Assembly.
Among the reports being prepared for the assembly was one related to the
payment of war taxes. This followed an action of Purdue
which had called for the board to study this
issue and report to Normal . There had been a
change of stance after consultation with the district conferences.
In , the board had drafted a
proposal which included a recommendation to respect the consciences of
employees of church organizations who do not wish to have the military portion
of their income tax deducted from their paychecks. By
this proposal was withdrawn and the
emphasis was rather on study of the issue and support of the Peace Tax Fund.
On , the board made final revisions
on this statement for presentation to Normal .
And then the General Assembly met and pushed back against the Board’s
reluctance:
The conference delegations caucused several times during the debate about
war-tax resistance. Here Dave Miller makes a point to his fellow delegates
from Indiana-Michigan Conference.
Merger with a sister denomination and illegal support for war-tax resisters
became a distinct possibility following two crucial secret-ballot votes by the
Mennonite Church General Assembly delegates during Normal
. The merger vote was decisive — 86
percent — and there were no surprises. But the tax vote was close — 59
percent — and was the result of an unexpected turnaround on the General
Assembly floor.
Ruth Brunk Stoltzfus of Virginia Conference calls for more courage instead of
more study on the matter of tax-withholding.
The war-tax issue proved to be a much thornier and more complex matter. It all
started about 10 years ago when employees of Mennonite Church
agencies and schools began requesting that taxes not be
withheld from their paychecks so they could refuse to pay the
portion of their federal income taxes (about half) that is used by the
U.S.
government for military purposes. The
employees said they are conscientious objectors
to military taxes in the same way their fathers and
grandfathers were conscientious objectors to
military service in times of conscription.
The agencies and schools would break the law if they honored their employees’
request. Caught between their employees’ consciences and the government’s
requirements, the agencies and schools appealed to General Board for help.
What followed was years of study and discussion.
Finally, in , General Board members
voted to recommend to General Assembly that church agencies and schools be
permitted to honor the requests of employees who want to resist war taxes. The
General Board action then went to district conferences for their response. The
response was mixed and generally cautious, so General Board watered down the
recommendation at its meeting. By
the time of its meeting the day before the start of Normal
, however, General Board put some teeth back
into the document, but it was still a weakened form of the original version.
When General Assembly took up the issue, several delegates jumped up to scold
General Board for its indecisiveness. “General Board has backed off on this
issue, and that makes me sad and angry,” said Bob Hartzler of Allegheny
Conference. “General Board must exercise leadership on this and not just
gather consensus.” He then asked that the original recommendation be restored.
After more debate and two time-outs for district conference caucuses, the
delegates agreed to vote separately on the three sections of the revised
recommendation and then on the “heart” of the original version, as requested
by Hartzler. The three sections were approved by unanimous or near-unanimous
hand votes.
The revised document calls for (1) further study of the war-tax issue, (2)
financial and other support for the peace-tax fund options being proposed in
the U.S. Congress
and the Canadian Parliament, and (3) moral and financial support for war-tax
resisters.
Action on the heart of the original version, giving agencies and schools
permission to not withhold taxes when requested, was tabled until later in the
week. When the issue came up again,
GC general
secretary Vern Preheim was present to report on his denomination’s experience
since it took a similar action in . Though
the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service contacted the
GC leaders
early on to confirm the action and warn them about the consequences, to date
IRS
has not moved against the
GC Church.
The district conferences then caucused, and when debate resumed, many of the
speakers reported on the general feelings of their conference delegations. “We
stand in a long line of saints who have faced decisions like this, starting
with the women who illegally hid baby Moses,” said Weldon Nisly of Ohio
Conference. Del Glick of Indiana-Michigan Conference reported that several
people in his delegation had changed their minds and were now prepared to vote
yes. “We want to take a stand,” he said. “It will probably take more courage
to face our congregations than to face the government!” Brent Foster then
announced the support of Afro-American Mennonite Association.
Ron Schertz, a lawyer who is a board member of Mennonite Board of Missions,
offered one of the few opposing comments. He warned that approval of the
document would get in the way of
MBM’s
main mission and jeopardize its tax-exempt status.
When the votes were counted, the resurrected war-tax recommendation passed
142-100. Moderator-Elect George Brunk Ⅲ commented that the vote is not a
decisive mandate for General Board but that it does represent “some momentum
on this question.” He said General Board “will have to move with due caution”
and that “we’ll have to see if a greater sense of consensus emerges in the
coming biennium.”
Robert Hartzler of Allegheny Conference introduces an amendment that put
teeth back into the war-tax recommendation.
Special-interest activities abounded. Vigorous
discussion marked a session entitled “Should the
Church Be Caesar’s Tax Collector?”
This was followed by the General
Board meeting, at which the probably somewhat shocked Board would
have to determine how (or whether) to put the Assembly’s
mandate into practice. It seemed to reach the conclusion that since
it could not identify any employees who were currently
requesting the Church to stop withholding war taxes from
their salaries, they could safely
kick the can down the road a few years further:
Another major agenda item for General Board was follow-up work on the military
tax action by General Assembly at Normal . After years of study and debate, the General Assembly delegates
voted to permit denominational agencies and schools to honor — illegally — the
request of employees who, for conscience’ sake, don’t want taxes withheld from
their paychecks. This is so they can refuse to pay the portion that is used
for the military.
The General Assembly vote was close (59 percent) and no employees are
currently requesting non-withholding, so the General Board members agreed to
proceed with caution. But they also agreed that regardless of what the
agencies and schools do and regardless of whether General Board itself has
employees who request non-withholding, they would take a clear stand on
military taxes and submit another recommendation to the next General Assembly
sessions in .
Meanwhile, General Board will plan a major consultation on military taxes for
and prepare a study guide to be
ready by then. Conferences and congregations will then be encouraged to study
the issue and report to General Board.
