Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Brethren →
(The Gospel) Messenger
Today I continue observing the evolution of attitudes toward war taxes and related subjects in the Church of the Brethren via archives of Brethren periodicals, this time from the 1876–1899 period.
The Primitive Christian and The Pilgrim merged in 1876.
In , the magazine republished a series of articles representing a debate between a Baptist and a “Tunker” (Brethren) over whether Brethren doctrines were sound Christianity.
One of these touched on war taxes briefly, as the author defending Brethren wrote (source):
Our brethren cheerfully paid “tribute” to civil authorities wherever they were during the uncivil war and paid the fines imposed upon them, whether North or South, but did not take part in the quarrel and did not shed human blood.
(The debate, and that quote, also appeared in The Brethren at Work that year.)
Another article in an issue detoured briefly to recap some of the debate in the church about war taxes during the American Revolution (source). Excerpt:
At the beginning of the Revolutionary war, various difficulties arose in the church.
One was in regard to the paying of tax. — Some seem to have thought that our peace principles would be compromised by paying the tax that would go to support the war.
Others viewed the subject differently.
The counsel of our ancient brethren in regard to this matter, was similar to that given by the apostle in cases we have referred to.
They thought the tax might be paid according to the example of Christ, Matt. 17:24–27, but they say, “If one does not see it so, and thinks, perhaps, he, for his conscience’s sake could not pay it, but bear with others who pay in patience, we would willingly leave it over, inasmuch as we deem the overruling of the conscience as wrong.” See Minutes of Annual Meeting, .
In the magazine reprinted a local news article about a “German Baptist or Dunkard” named George Grisso.
It mentioned that during the War of 1812 Grisso had been drafted “but as his church opposed all war and taught that all disputes should be settled by peaceful methods, he hired a substitute…”
The Brethren at Work began publishing in .
An issue covered a debate between a Baptist and a Brethren, and in the course of so doing, described the Brethren position on war taxes thusly (source):
We obey man when it does not conflict with God’s teaching, but prefer obeying God rather than man.
We pay tribute, and in this way respect those who are over us, but take no part in war.
We do not resist, but submit.
The Primitive Christian and The Brethren at Work were absorbed into Gospel Messenger in .
In searching for mentions of taxes in these various archives, I frequently came across debates having more to do with congregations taxing themselves to raise funds for various things.
This in turn was tangled up in concern about a hireling ministry, and about the corruption of wealthy churches of other denominations that seemed parasitic on their flock.
The position that the church ought to be supported by voluntary donation only was defended by a D.E. Cripe in an article (source). Excerpts:
We hold that taxation is contrary to the teaching and principle of the Scriptures; that it is unjust, and takes away the blessing of giving.
In conclusion, we would say, there is no instance recorded in all the Scriptures where God approved of a taxation.
Jehoiakim taxed Israel to pay tribute to Pharaoh, but he was a very wicked king.
The Roman emperors also taxed Israel, but we have no account that any of God’s servants ever did.
Ananias and his wife died, not because they kept back part of their property and did not pay a stipulated sum, but because they tried to deceive the apostles and make them believe they paid in all their money, when they had not done so.
If the Brethren once feel sure their money is required for a good cause and will be judiciously applied, then they will contribute freely, without being asked.
This anti-tax point of view was in the specific context of the debate over mandatory church tithing, and is not indicative of a broader anti-tax sentiment, but I thought it was noteworthy.
(For a good statement of the ordinary render-unto-Cæsar teaching, see this column from an issue.)
Some Civil War reminiscences by B.F. Moomaw were published in .
One chapter begins with the narrator remembering matter-of-factly that “a distant relative of mine, — Jacob P. Moomaw, now an elder in the church, then in the army in Eastern Virginia, asked me to assist him in getting [hiring] a substitute” to take his place in the army.
The author later writes:
Shortly after, the question was moved in Congress to repeal the substitute law, upon which another brother and myself went to Richmond, to get up an influence against its repeal.
This we attempted by getting some of the members of the house, who were our friends, to try to prevent its passage, but the advocates of the bill were too many, and our cause failed.
Then the only alternative was for the boys to refugee, and they went over the line by the hundreds.
This seems to suggest that hiring substitutes was not frowned on nearly as much as previous excerpts I had found have suggested.
Another data point in that regard is an obituary for John Brenneman in the edition, which noted that in , while in Indiana, “he was drafted, and a substitute cost him $1000.00.
This crippled him financially and he never fully recovered.”
While it would be a violation of the principles of the Gospel, to give anything voluntarily, or in any way encourage carnal warfare, yet it is our duty, by way of taxation, to give all we have, if demanded, and give up ourselves, rather than resist; and let them do with us, and our property, as they may see proper.
The issue relates an incident that has a whiff of the apocryphal about it, but the gist of which is this: During the Civil War, two recently-converted Brethren were drafted, and at first their attempt to pay a $300 commutation fine for conscientious objector status was denied, with the authorities asserting that they had become Brethren in order to evade the draft and that their scruples were not genuine.
Two members of the church intervened on their behalf by visiting the state (Indiana) governor, and eventually persuaded him to allow the draftees to pay the fines and get exempted.
The Spanish-American War of was accompanied by a menu of new war taxes.
The first mention of these I found was in the Gospel Messenger, in an article which began: “Only a few days ago the war revenue tax went into effect, but already it is evident that the aggregate amount, to be realized by this measure, will be far in excess of the anticipations.
While the tax is comparatively small, it is so well and thoroughly distributed over the entire population that vast sums will be thus obtained.
It is an illustration of the fact that large amounts can readily be secured if all are willing to give systematically, even a few cents only, from time to time.” (source).
Hold your breath… will this be a call for war tax resistance? But no.
There is “a lesson to us as a church” to be drawn from this war tax, but that lesson apparently is that Brethren should be tithing to the church every week, even if they can only do so in small amounts.
The lead editorial in that issue also excitingly announced the latest war bonds, with nothing said to discourage people from investing in them:
Some time ago the Government decided to issue bonds to meet the expenses of the war with Spain.
Two hundred million dollars is the amount to be issued.
The bonds will bear three per cent and may be paid by the Government at the expiration of ten years, though they do not fall due for twenty years.
The intention is to make this a popular loan.
And to accomplish that purpose blanks have been sent out to all money order post offices and to about all the banks.
No one is allowed to subscribe for more than five hundred dollars of the bonds.
The Government has not tried this time to get more than the face value of the bonds, as it has done heretofore, and as it could easily do now.
Those whose subscriptions are received first, will be first served.
Subscriptions will be received by the Government up to .
If by that time the small subscribers have not taken all of the issue, larger subscribers will have a chance.
It seems now that there will be no bonds left for those who subscribe more than five hundred dollars.
This gives persons of small means an opportunity to make an investment that is absolutely safe.
The interest they will receive is the same as is regularly paid by banks.
The interest is payable quarterly, and the principal is entirely safe, which is not always the case where money is put in banks.
Hitherto only wealthy, and in most cases extremely wealthy men, have held the bonds.
This fact has led some people to think that the wealthy persons were favored by the Government.
Such was not the case.
The Government wanted gold, and so sold the bonds to the men who could furnish it.
This time any kind of money now issued by the United States will be received in payment.
The way in which the bonds are being subscribed for shows the confidence all classes have in our Government.
Every bondholder feels directly interested in the affairs of our country, and will be anxious to have the finances of the United States on a good basis.
This popular loan is wise policy from more than one standpoint.
A follow-up editorial in the issue doubled down on the enthusiasm with still no hint that there might be a problem.
In addition, a query in the asked whether it would “be better for the Mission Board to lend the endowment funds to the Government, and get Government Bonds, rather than the way they are now doing?” (source).
The response did not mention anything about possible ethical problems with loaning the government money, but simply said that it did not make business sense to buy such bonds at that time.
The impression I get is that the problem of paying for war had fallen so far off the radar since the Civil War that even voluntary payments for war bonds did not seem to raise any debate.
I continue my search through the archives of old Church of the Brethren periodicals, this time from the early years of the 1900s, until the brink of the U.S. entry into World War Ⅰ.
a magazine called The Inglenook was marketed to the Brethren.
Although I saw occasional mentions of the tax burden of war listed as one of war’s unfortunate consequences, I saw no hints that direct action against war taxation ought to be considered nor that taxpaying represented a problem of complicity for the taxpayer.
An article about the Shakers in one issue (source) noted that “They are averse to war and so do not vote, believing it to be wrong to take part in a government which supports an army and navy. For the same reason they do not like to pay taxes for military purposes, although they promptly pay… civil taxes.”
A article commented on a proposal made at a peace conference that it be made illegal for neutral nations to float war bonds for other countries at war (source).
The article enthusiastically endorsed the idea, but still no mention was made of whether individual investors might be concerned about their bond purchases.
I also looked through issues of The Missionary Visitor from this period, but found nothing worth reporting here.
A edition of The Gospel Messenger noted that the United States was leading the global arms race, but also said resignedly that there was nothing Brethren taxpayers could do to lessen their contribution to it (source):
This country is rapidly moving to the front, if front it can be called, in war preparations.
The last Congress provided for the building of nine large fighting ships and five auxiliary vessels.
The total appropriation for all naval purposes amounted to nearly $160,000,000.
This means over $2 for every man, woman and child in the United States.
In the Brethren families, counting the children, there are not far from 300,000 souls, hence towards this department of war preparations we must pay at least $600,000.
To carry on our mission work, the spreading of the Gospel, both at home and abroad, we pay, all told, not to exceed $100,000 a year, and yet we must pay six times as much in the interest of military preparations.
Just at present there is no way of avoiding it, for it is our duty to pay tribute to whom tribute is due.
A similar note that stopped short of the necessary a-ha moment appeared in a issue (source):
Japanese credit was shown recently by the way in which Americans applied for the bonds of a new loan, the applications amounting to several times the amount of bonds assigned to the United States.
The London part of the loan was also a success.
At home the condition is good too.
An interior loan of one hundred million yen was to be floated, and about five times the amount was subscribed, seventy million at a price higher than the issue price.
An internal loan in Russia was also oversubscribed, which shows that the people in the countries at war and also those in foreign countries have more money that they are willing to invest in slaughter.
If the money were not forthcoming, the war would not continue long.
But men are not particular for what purpose their money is used, if the returns promise to be satisfactory.
The cause of peace was continually raised in the Messenger, but mostly as a political issue that was to be addressed by international law and arbitration, or by the people successfully lobbying their government to reduce arms expenditures.
Rarely did I see reference to conscientious objection to military service, and never to military spending.
Here is one example, from a edition, which shows that the orthodoxy here had remained much the same as in decades previous, or perhaps a bit more relaxed (source):
Among us there may be those who do not have clear conceptions regarding the relation that a non-resistant people should sustain to the civil government under which they live.… The Christian is taxed the same as any one else, and, since the paying of tax is in keeping with the teaching of the New Testament, it becomes his duty to pay all that is legally assessed against him.
Should he, however, be drafted to serve in the army, it becomes his duty as a Christian to refuse to respond to the call of his government in this particular.
War is forbidden in the New Testament, and since he is under obligations to obey God rather than man, he should kindly inform those in authority just why it is not proper for him to take part in anything that would lead to the killing or maiming of his fellow-man.
If persecution should follow, his faith in his Master should enable him to endure whatever punishment may be laid upon him.
But, should his government have respect for his conscientious views regarding war, and show a disposition to assign him tasks that in no manner clash with the teachings of the New Testament, it becomes his duty, as a subject of an earthly kingdom, to perform these labors to the best of his ability.
In New Testament times there were Christians who served in Cæsar’s household, but they did not serve as soldiers in his army.
As civil governments become more enlightened, and more considerate, they will make better provisions for those whose conscience will not permit them to take part in war.
Should they be drafted, they can then be assigned duties that in no manner conflict with nonresistant principles.
In the issue, Charles W.
Eisenbise made a case for voting (many Brethren did not vote for conscientious reasons, and this was a frequent topic of debate over the decades I have been reviewing).
Part of the case against voting was that office holders rule by the sword, and Brethren are forbidden the sword, and so they should not vote for office holders to do so by proxy.
But Eisenbise noticed the disconnect between this and Brethren practice around taxpaying, and decided to make it explicit (source).
Excerpts:
Suppose I refrain from voting, feeling that if I would vote, to be consistent, I must help to enforce the laws (by physical force if need be) if called upon for that purpose.
Holding this view am I less consistent in paying my taxes that, knowingly, go to support the State Militia, who, by physical force and murder enforce the present wickedly-inclined laws?
But Christ teaches me to pay my taxes.
When World War Ⅰ began in Europe, the United States did not enter the war right away, but did institute new taxes in anticipation, which the Messenger called “A War Tax in Time of Peace.”
Still no talk of war tax resistance, though.
An essay on “The War and the Church by H.M. Fogelsonger also brushed right up against confronting the war tax issue, without quite being willing to go there. (Fogelsonger seemed mostly interested in working to get more Christians into positions of political power.) Excerpt:
How long will good Christian people allow their hard-earned dollars, with which they pay their taxes, both direct and indirect, in the form of tariffs, to be spent for unholy causes and for machines, — the sole purpose of which is to take human life?
“How Much Do We Believe In Peace?” asked an editorial in the edition.
The editorial pointed out a Christian who had said of the war, “It does not concern me in the least.
I pay my taxes, pray for peace, and trust in God,” calling such a hands-off response “impossible.” But after a lot of rhetoric about taking a strong stand at this time of crisis, the practical advice mostly came down to write-your-congressman, and, again, nothing about the taxes.
An editorial on “The State and the Church in the issue was another missed opportunity.
It attempted to rally the reader to help “establish[] the background of moral sentiment and conviction that will one day sweep militarism and carnal warfare from the face of the earth” and to “array himself uncompromisingly against all preparation for war” and yet to somehow do this while rendering those taxes unto Cæsar as usual.
In our perusal of Brethren periodical archives, we now reach the point of the U.S. entry into World War Ⅰ.
The U.S. funded its participation in the war in large part through the Liberty Bond program, in which citizens could loan the government money to carry on the war by buying specially-issued bonds.
The program was legally voluntary, and so an obvious way for pacifists to decline to participate in funding war, but the record in the U.S. peace churches is mixed.
I found little evidence that Quakers resisted the temptation to go along with bond drives, for example; while among Mennonites it differed from congregation to congregation, with some Mennonites suffering mob violence for their refusal to go along with the bond drives.
Now we’ll have a chance to look at how Brethren fared.
I warn you: it’s not pretty.
The edition of Our College Times, the campus newspaper of Elizabethtown College (which was founded as a Church of the Brethren college, and which still claims to “foster the values of peace, non-violence, human dignity and social justice” today), included this sad note (source):
The Alumni Association decided to purchase two one hundred dollar Liberty Loan Bonds with part of the Endowment Fund which is lying idle.
An article pointed out that “[m]any brethren and sisters solicited thus far have given us their Liberty Bonds for the permanent endowment fund.
Have you thought of doing the same?
Give them and thereby help to maintain a Christian college that will send out church workers at home and abroad.”
And a note about the Endowment Campaign early the following year read: “Hold your Liberty Bonds for us and get credit for their face value.”
A late- issue of that paper included some rah-rah about the Music Department that tried to explain the value of music to society by noting, for example, how “[t]he soldier goes to the front with song, his spirit is stirred, and he does not falter in his purpose” and “[t]he Community Singing is doing much to unite communities in thought and effort in the Red Cross Work and Liberty Loan Drives.”
In short, I saw no evidence of shame, pushback, or dissonance about the Liberty Bond program at Elizabethtown College.
Meanwhile, at the Gospel Messenger, the U.S. entry into the war arrived with regret (editorial, ):
Through increased taxes and living cost we shall, whether we will or not, make our share of the money offering.
But for many of us, since we are an agricultural people, this will be more than offset by the war prices the farmer will receive for his produce.
How do you feel, brother, about coining money to your own profit out of your neighbor’s blood and the anguish of the widow and the orphan?
Can you contemplate the prospect with a comfortable conscience?
How to soothe such a conscience?
By “giving freely of our money and, as opportunity offers, of the service of our hands, for the relief of that tremendous load of human suffering which now weighs upon the world,” or, you know, by donating to church fundraisers.
In a article, A.B. Miller explained the conscientious objection status that Brethren draftees were applying for on “Registration Day” when draft-eligible men across the country were required to register.
He reassured America that in “this day of the nation’s sore need”…
We request no exemption from our share of taxation, that the people of this nation will be called upon to shoulder because of the stupendous expenditures incurred.
The Things That Are Cæsar’s was the lead editorial of the issue.
It at least addressed taxpayer complicity, but with a what-can-you-do shrug of the shoulders:
How far shall a Christian, who holds war itself unchristian, give his support to a government at war?
If he can not bear arms himself, can he do anything that helps to make it possible for others to bear arms?
Does it not seem that the only logical answer to this question is an unqualified “no”?
But you will not have followed out your logic very far, in that case, until you will see that you “must needs go out of the world.”
Not only can you not pay your taxes, nor sell the produce of your farm, you can not even buy your groceries, without contributing, in some measure, to the war’s support.
But for the payment of tribute we have the high sanction both of Jesus and of Paul, while the buying and selling of foodstuffs are bound up with the very necessities of existence.
It is folly to talk of doing nothing that can help along the war.
That the logic of our position seems to make such a conclusion desirable, merely shows that, in our reasoning, we have been unable to take account of all the facts.
In such a world as we are living in, the right course for us must often involve a choice of the least of two or more evils.
Much as we deplore the war, we are obliged to admit the impossibility of avoiding all indirect participation in it.
But we can avoid direct participation in it, — thanks to the good government under which we live, — and by so doing, we can be a constant protest against war.
At the same time, we can and must leave no ground for question of our sincere desire to be good, loyal citizens.
In the matter of taking up arms, the position of the church is clear, as it has been from the beginning of its organization.
Beyond this, she has, not seen fit to prescribe the course of the individual member in time of war.
Hence it is left to the conscience of each one to decide for himself his duties in this regard.
“How far one may go in serving the Government, at this time, without violating the Gospel doctrine of peace is one of the important problems to be solved,” wrote editor D.L. Miller in the issue (source).
How far?
Pretty far, it turns out.
Excerpt:
Our Government brings us in close touch with the war.
We must pay our taxes, and the money will be used to carry on the war.
The farmer must raise grain, and much of it will be used to feed the soldiers.
These men had to be fed before they were in the army and it takes no more to feed them now than it did before.
Always keep in mind that it is never wrong to serve the Government, so long as no Gospel principle is violated.
This was reiterated by H.H. Nininger in the issue (source).
Excerpt:
[O]ur nation is at war.
Against our wish it is at war; and in many ways we are assisting in that war.
We may succeed in securing the exemption of our boys from the bearing of arms, but we must aid the war machine.
We are paying the taxes and supplying the food which makes possible our army’s success in this wholesale killing of our fellows.
We might refuse utterly and throw ourselves as a burden upon society by going to prison, but this would only be aiding the enemy by lowering our own national efficiency.
Is it inevitable that we take a part in this warfare which we believe to be wrong?
Is there no way out of this terrible dilemma?
And ringing in our ears, more and more loudly, comes the unwelcome reply to this question.
For the edition, Leo Blickenstaff wrote “A Plea to the Drafted” in which he tried to draw the line thusly:
We, as Christians… can not willingly enter into anything that would help war in any way… We will only contribute to war when we can not help ourselves… as from necessity of circumstances, — such as buying our daily bread at the high war prices; or when forced by the Government… to pay war taxes or buy revenue stamps… The Government can take our money and property from us, but we dare not give our services in any way that will help war, except when forced to, and only then in the things in which we can work with a good motive.
Were that even that much had been true.
Instead, the Messenger kept ratcheting the argument in the other direction, until finally it would endorse the enthusiastic voluntary funding of war by Brethren.
Referring to a request for a statement of the church’s attitude to the purchase of Government bonds we give herewith the latest action of the Conference, bearing on the subject.
It was passed in and in response to a request for a reconsideration, was reaffirmed .
This is the decision: “Is it right, and according to the Gospel, for a brother to invest money in Government bonds?
Answer: We consider it not wrong to do so.”
In the issue, J.M. Henry again touched on the complicity of noncombatants (source).
Excerpts:
[I]t is maintained by some that we should have absolutely nothing to do with any service under military control.
A very sharp distinction is made, in the mind at least, but not so clear, sometimes, in action, between civil duties and duties controlled by military power.
The fact should not be overlooked that most of our civil duties, as citizens, are now made subservient to winning the war.
You buy a postage stamp, make a note, purchase a railroad ticket, etc., and in each case you pay the revenue, which is no longer for civil but military necessity.
Finally, Liberty Bonds are purchased.
Well, why not? — says the noncombatant to himself or his banker.
The investment is safe and the interest fair.
In a “Peace Address Delivered at the Hershey Conference” that led off the issue, an H.C.E. sidestepped the war-funding issue this way (source):
I shall make no effort to settle the question as to whether noncombatants should support the war, financially, or the difference, if any, between financial and personal support.
Already fabulous sums have been spent, and there is an unprecedented demand for more money to win the war.
There is confusion in the minds of some.
However, it may be said that members of the Church of the Brethren have bought Liberty Bonds and War-Saving Stamps.
But the question can not be regarded as a proper subject for discussion here, and so it must rest.
The issue warned Brethren that “[a] man is entitled to his opinion and to the exercise of his own conscience, but he is not always at liberty to give utterance to or exploiting his opinion, or to urge his conscience on the attention of others” and that in particular “advice or reference to Liberty Bonds that could, in any sense, prejudice their sale, may involve one in trouble.” Following this were printed excerpts from the Espionage Act that said “Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall… say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States… shall be punished…” (source).
So it’s worth keeping in mind that the absence of evidence of resistance to the Liberty Bond drives may partially be because such talk was legally suppressed.
D.W.K. wrote a piece on “The Moral Problem” for the issue.
After giving the reader a whirlwind tour of the history of ethical philosophy, he says that what ethics all boils down to really is choosing the lesser evil.
During the war, therefore, the dilemma for Brethren in the U.S. is that you either support the war effort or you support the Kaiser.
“That is all that is left to us.”
Clearly, supporting the war is better than supporting the Kaiser, so support away without regret!
“I think the Brethren did right in helping, cheerfully and liberally, the Red Cross, the Y.M.C.A., and the Liberty Loan. This does not mean that all that is connected with this work is the Divine Ideal. But we are in a world where the ideal can not always be realized. I believe it is better to help these causes than not to help, because not to help is helping the enemy, — a much greater evil.”
The issue surrendered all qualms and gave full-throated editorial support for buying War Savings Stamps (source):
The President Calls for Volunteers
He does not ask for fighters in this call, but for volunteers in the home line.
Every-one, from the oldest man to the youngest child, is eligible. is the day set for the completion of the recruiting all over the United States.
It is the army of thrift, of war savers, that is being recruited.
Appealing to “every man, woman and child to pledge themselves on or before June 28 to save constantly, and buy War Savings Stamps as regularly as possible,” the President asks that “there be none unenlisted on that day.” War Savings Stamps can be purchased at every postoffice and from every mail carrier.
There is scarcely a bank which does not handle them.
As loyal citizens, and in obedience to the “powers that be,” it is but just and right that each one do his share in the task allotted
The issue extended this to Liberty Bonds (source):
“The Things That Are Cesar’s”
the Government of the United States will start its Fourth Liberty Loan campaign, and the most systematic arrangements are being made to have every citizen assume his share of the burden.
During the days of the Civil War many of our members assisted the authorities in that way, and no criticism was urged against it by our Annual Conference.
As citizens of the United States we enjoy great privileges, and now it would seem but right to show our appreciation in a fitting manner. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.… Ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.
For this cause pay ye tribute also, for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”
And an follow-up went further in tangling the church with the war bonds:
A Good Investment
Just now, while the Government of our country expects every one to come to its assistance by the purchase of as many Liberty Bonds of the Fourth Loan as possible, no one who is able to help, should refuse his assistance in some way.
At the same time let us not forget the claims of the Kingdom, which, as some one suggests, may be amply met by a “Liberty Loan for Soul Freedom.” To advance that most desirable work, you simply purchase a Liberty Bond and donate it to the General Mission Board for World-wide Missions.
In many churches that practice is rapidly gaining in favor, and we see no reason why the Church of the Brethren should not follow that plan.
It is a splendid way of helping your country and also aiding the extension of the Kingdom.
I believe that a great many Brethren purchased Liberty Bonds.
Whether a direct or indirect violation of our well-established and well-known peace principles, is not the question for discussion now.
Brethren have them, and will doubtless keep them until they fall due.
It would not be surprising if the Government today should have a million dollars borrowed from Brethren.
A regional report from Rocky Ford, Colorado, carried in the issue, noted that “[m]uch assistance is being given to the War Savings Stamps, Liberty Loan and other movements” by the church in that district.
Continuing the shame, on the front page of the issue was “A Thank Offering” from the General Mission Board, exclaiming its gladness that the war had finally come to an end, but mostly being a plea for money, including this: “Since your Liberty Bonds have helped to assure the peace of the world, why not turn them over to us, to assist in liberating the world from the thralldom of sin and heathenism?”
As far as I could tell from what was published by Brethren periodicals during World War Ⅰ, the ostensible pacifism of the Church of the Brethren became a cowardly retreat in the face of public pressure to join the war bond purchase drives.
Today I examine the archives from the post-war period to look for signs of soul-searching in the wake of this capitulation.
The Annual Report of the General Mission Board, as found in The Missionary Visitor (source) crowed that “the war is over” and even went so far as to say that “Possibly the historian of future years will look back and recount, through numberless proofs, that the war was not fought in vain.” The Board compared its own struggle against Satan with the Allies’ victory in Europe, and said Brethren contribute to each: “[W]hile we have contributed our funds for Liberty bonds, and freed the world from autocracy, we must not cease our vigilance.”
In this vein, the magazine decided to market Brethren fundraising efforts as “God’s Liberty Loan”.
It is staggering to think of the amount of money that has been raised to finance the war, reaching the great sum of twenty-three billion dollars.
It is interesting to wonder how much of this large amount has been subscribed by the Church of the Brethren.
“Interesting” but not pauseworthy.
The author goes on to make an estimate, by assuming that the typical member of the church makes a little more than the average national income and that “it would be expected that we contribute our proportionate share” to the war bond drives.
The earliest issue of The Brethren Evangelist that I found in the archives comes from (41 years into its run).
By then, anyway, it seems that they saw no inconsistency in Brethren and Brethren institutions trafficking in war bonds.
The initial issue of that year noted that “The first Liberty Bond given to Kentucky Mission work was received as a Christmas Gift on Christmas morning,” named the donor, and asked that others follow their example to “send Liberty Bonds to be used to further the Home Mission work of the Brethren church” (source).
A later article compared a mission fund drive with the Liberty Loan, saying “We [emphasis mine] raised billions for Liberty Bonds time and again.
Now we are starting another drive.”
The Business Manager of Ashland College (a Brethren institution) wrote in to encourage donations in the form of Liberty Bonds, writing that “[d]uring the past year more than $20,000 in Liberty Bonds have been assigned to Ashland College in this way” (source).
By this amount had risen to more than $50,000 (source).
The Brethren in Falls City “could see that it was only good business to kill two birds with one stone, so they bought those Liberty Loans and gave them to the college” (source).
An accounting of the endowment of that college, in a later issue, indicated that it held $29,800 in Liberty Bonds and $1,256.62 in War Savings Stamps (source).
A note in a issue tried to explain what happened: “Did we buy Liberty Bonds?
We did.
Not because we were especially in favor of war; not because we were investors.
We gave because the spirit of giving and sacrifice was abounding.” (source)
A fundraiser for a Brethren project being pumped in a edition, on the other hand, said that “Liberty Bonds were bought, in a large measure not as an investment but to save the country’s credit” — so why don’t you donate them to us since you don’t really need the money (source).
By issue, a sanctimonious pacifism had returned, as shown by a reprint of a letter from another magazine in response to National Defense Day (source).
The editorial note before the letter said that “[t]he Christian patriot who has a true vision of world peace and of the only way to its attainment will not remain silent and passive and allow national propaganda for militarism to go on unrebuked.” The letter itself told the story of a Belgian family, some members of which had been killed by poison gas in an American bombardment: “American gas shells, made by American girls, paid for by your grandmother’s liberty bonds [emphasis mine], handled by skilled American artillerymen, blessed by American clergy, valiantly gassed this Belgian maiden.”
But aside from this pointed mention, the subject of the Liberty Loan, Liberty Bonds, War Stamps, and things of that nature was for the most part just quietly dropped in the Brethren Evangelist, and writers went on preaching peace as though nothing had happened.
(But Iremember them that are in bonds.)
Meanwhile, what was going on over at the Gospel Messenger?
A article by I.V. Funderburgh on “Our Response” (to the war).
He described the response of Brethren in part this way: “We pledge to the Red Cross; we subscribe for Liberty Bonds; we buy thrift-stamps; we conserve food, clothing, and fuel. Sacrifice! Yes, we do. ¶ But what of the summons, ‘Serve’? Oh, yes, we have served in responding to our country’s demand for money…”
In the issue, D.E. Cripe confronted the theory of war tax resistance more directly than I had seen done to this point (source):
Though we be strangers and pilgrims, while we are in the flesh, we can not avoid living in an earthly kingdom or nation, and therefore we have duties which can not be evaded.
One of these is paying tribute or taxes.
Even Jesus, through Peter, paid tribute, “lest we should offend them,” and he never asked what use would be made of the money.
Paul says we should pay tribute, not only for wrath but for conscience’s sake.
Very likely this tribute was turned into the treasury to support the Roman army, but Paul did not question this.
After the Christian has paid his tribute, he has done his duty, and he is not responsible for the use that the Government makes of it.
In the issue, J.A. Vancil urged Brethren who had purchased war bonds to “put those Liberty Bonds to work for the cause of Jesus Christ?
It was really the Lord’s money that purchased them, anyway.” (source) “If those Liberty Bonds were turned over to the church, there would be sufficient funds, from the accruing interest, to carry on all departments of the work of the church for the next five years.
Then, at the maturity of these Bonds, there would be a vast available amount.”
The General Mission Board, in a fundraising notice in the issue (source), wrote:
Liberty Bonds
A brother writes and asks: “Can you accept Liberty Bonds in the Conference offering?
Some of our brethren can give considerably more, if you can.” Most surely we can accept Liberty Bonds.
Through them you have helped to free the world from autocracy.
Now let us use them to free the world from the autocracy of sin.
Send them in to us!
We will put them to the Lord’s use.
An interesting note in the issue said that the following query had been sent to the Annual Conference (source):
We, the members of the Empire congregation, ask Annual Meeting of through the District Meeting of Northern California, to restate and define the position of the church upon war in all its phases, including the bearing of arms, drilling, buying war bonds, etc.
If the Annual Meeting took up this invitation, I haven’t yet found record of it.
The issue included an article entitled “In the War on War” by George Fulk.
Fulk wrote that “[t]o a very considerable number of highly patriotic Christian citizens, perhaps no question of ethics more difficult of solution ever presented itself than that of the proper relation which they should personally bear toward service in the World War… With [some] it became a question as to the purchasing of liberty bonds, which meant the furnishing of the sinews of war.”
This at least put buying war bonds back on the agenda as a problem and didn’t try to wave away what buying war bonds meant.
Fulk was back in to tell Brethren that they really must take a stand, because by default they were supporting war (source):
It is a stern fact also that persons are volunteering on both sides, and those who fail to volunteer, are being drafted on the side of war.
Circumstances, speaking in very general terms, are doing the drafting.
That is to say, circumstances have always been such, are now such, and promise indefinitely to be such, as to lead unfailingly to war unless counter-forces are brought to oppose.
If we fail to join the counter-forces, we not only offer circumstances a clear road to war, but we contribute directly, through taxes, and other means, which necessarily conform to the present system of war, as a method of settling disputes.
But in general, war taxes were presented as something to be regretted, not resisted.
The Messenger would sometimes allude to estimates that 93% of federal taxes being raised were going to pay for the expenses of the recent war.
But rather than wonder whether anti-war Brethren ought to pay such a bill, this was usually just a lead in to a sales pitch about how Brethren ought to be just as willing to contribute to the latest church fundraising campaign.
A note in a issue concerned Kees and Beatrice Boeke, the European Quaker pacifists who were pushing the limits of nonviolent action.
The note said that the couple “are likely to have their property seized again this year as last, because they can not, as a matter of conscience, pay their military tax.”
The couple’s “unflinching testimony against war, and their fearless preaching of the Gospel of peace and good will to all men” was described in nothing but flattering terms (source).
A lengthy article by L.R. Holsinger on “The Christian’s Duty to the State”, from the issue, attacked war tax resistance more or less directly, which at least suggests that somewhere off the pages of the Messenger that heresy was alive:
The matter of paying taxes has been considered obligatory ever since government has been a realization.
It was true thousands of years before Christ said, “Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.”… We therefore believe that in order to “Render… to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom”…, it becomes necessary to pay over our portion of the necessary funds to facilitate the effective and harmonious administration of the government of which we are a part.
There come times, however, that the government engages in activities such as war which their consciences justly raise a question about, but the experiences of the recent war have been of such a nature as to cause many to feel that the awful cost, not only in money, but in morals, happiness, and life, is the penalty for their neglect and indifference both in religious and civic affairs.
We are persuaded that if the amount of money and zealous effort that was expended each month during the war to promote it, had been expended during the ten years previous to the war to propagate the Gospel and promote the cause of the Prince of Peace, the history of the “world war” would never have been written, and the future generation would have “heroes” to admire and to emulate whose influence would not create a false patriotism which will result in a periodic repetition of a similar or worse upheaval but would hasten the day when “Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”… The fact that we find ourselves a part of a government that engages temporarily in war may be blamed on us as Christians as well as others, and though we may be justified in absolute refusal to take the life willfully of any individual, we cannot find justification in refusal to pay taxes as long as the government functions as such, not only for the purpose of war which is incidental, but “for the people.”
I’ve left out some references to war savings stamps and liberty bonds listed as donations or as parts of the holdings of Brethren institutions.
I saw very few signs that members of the Church of the Brethren — at least those who were represented in the periodicals of the period — had second thoughts about church-members or institutions trafficking in war bonds during World War Ⅰ.
There were many complaints about the continuing arms race, and many of these highlighted the burden placed on the taxpayer, but this was never presented as something that a conscientious taxpayer could or should confront directly.
Today I share the results of my hunt for war tax resistance sentiment in the archives of Brethren periodicals from the 1930s up to the point of the U.S. entry into World War Ⅱ.
A lot happened in this period, which came as a surprise to me after having viewed the vanishing of opposition to personal funding of war during and immediately after World War Ⅰ.
Gandhi’s Indian independence movement was frequently mentioned in columns of Brethren periodicals, and usually in a sympathetic way.
In the edition of The Brethren Evangelist, his tax resistance campaigns got a skeptical look in the light of Brethren teaching (source):
The Word of Christ inculcates obedience to the powers of civil government, the payment of tribute and tax money even to the emperors of Rome, the rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. Ghandi [sic] asks his followers not to pay certain taxes and foments a campaign of “civil disobedience.”
As a matter of fact, the “Way of Ghandi” is more like the method used by the English suffragettes of some years ago. And in some respects it is very successful as a political means.
George H.
Jones saw the writing on the wall in a article that began: “That the United States is nearer war now than at any time in the past twenty years, no one doubts” (source).
He urged conscientious objectors to war to prepare for the tough times ahead, and reminded them what had happened in the last war, for example:
The churches in many cases became simply the sponsors for drives to win the war by appeals for cigarettes and socks or chocolate and sweaters or Liberty Bonds to end the War for Democracy.
These were the major needs that sounded to the dome in many Christian churches.
The Gospel Messenger was also publishing at this time, and had absorbed the previously independent Missionary Visitor.
In the issue of The Gospel Messenger, Ben Stoner announced the “20,000 Dunkers for Peace” campaign.
The campaign aimed to get 20,000 Brethren (and other varieties of German Baptist and related sects) to sign a peace pledge.
This brief pledge explicitly mentioned war taxes (source):
I, ⸺, as a part of my program for peace, refuse ever to bear arms or to coöperate, in any way, in armed conflict; and, only under protest to pay taxes for military purposes.
In the accompanying article, Stoner explained that the tax portion pledged the signer “to do all within his power to keep his tax money from being appropriated for purposes which are inconsistent with Christiantiy and the basic laws of our land.” However, this stopped short of tax resistance: “At present perhaps the best way of protesting the use of tax money for military purposes is through petition to Congress when appropriations are being considered.”
The issue printed the following query from one congregation, and noted that it had been passed up for consideration to the Annual Conference (source):
We, the Eglon congregation, petition Annual Conference through District Meeting of the First District of West Virginia to tell us how we can best protest against paying taxes for military purposes.
A report on the conference carried in the issue explained what happened next (source):
The paper protesting military taxes resulted in several speeches before it was decided to make the answer of Standing Committee the answer of Conference.
And this was that the matter be referred to the Board of Christian Education for study and a report in .
This seems a fair disposition of the problem in view of the fact that the question is involved and study needed.
The answer from the Board of Christian Education came (source):
All lawful taxes should be paid. As Christians we differentiate between taxes for constructive and taxes for destructive purposes. Because war is unchristian, taxes for military and naval purposes should be protested.
Not less than 70% out of our taxes paid to the federal government goes directly or indirectly for military and naval purposes. Some of these federal taxes are: income taxes, estate taxes, federal stamp taxes, and the federal tax on gasoline, etc.
Ways of protesting against taxes for military and naval purposes.
Paste a small sticker on your income tax returns and other payments made to the federal government, which reads as follows: “That portion of this tax devoted to armaments and war preparedness is paid under protest.” The Board of Christian Education will furnish these stickers.
Write a letter once a year to your congressmen protesting against the appropriation of funds for military and naval purposes.
Protest personally when paying federal taxes, such as the federal gasoline tax.
Protest through resolutions from local churches, district, and Annual Conferences.
We favor a further study of this problem with the purpose of helping to develop a sound theory of taxation.
A later report on the Annual Conference noted that this “Protesting Against Military Taxes” committee report was adopted by the conference “after a single question… There was no argument.”
A front-page editorial by J.E.M. in the edition, entitled “I Hate War”, touched on personal war funding in a couple of places:
Later in the seventies I saw the war stamps on match boxes, and learned of other stamps and taxes that had to be paid because of the depression caused by the Civil War. My hatred of war increased, for those stamps and taxes in hard times seemed stained with human blood and reeked with human flesh.
I have seen university students being trained for war, trained with money that you and I pay, and I hate war.
I am paying taxes to help pay for past wars and to prepare for the next war, and I hate war.
In a article, Kermit Eby tried to explain that when the war comes, the pacifist position, if taken earnestly, will be see as a threat to the war effort and dealt with accordingly, and that Brethren should prepare themselves with this in mind (source):
The major task in the last war centered in the task of keeping up the will to win; no effort was spared in its achievement.
Most authorities on the “next war” believe that a greater effort will be made to mobilize the national sentiment needed.
If this is true, several significant developments may be expected concerning which members of pacifist churches should be aware.
Membership in the Church of the Brethren means that each member is opposed to the use of war as a means of achieving the policies of his nation; that because of religious, economic, social, and other reasons he is unable to give intellectual assent to the war system.
Having come to this conclusion, he refuses to support his government when to do so goes contrary to his conscience.
The assumption of such a position automatically places one in opposition to the government at war.
It is a situation in which there is no neutrality, no grey, simply white or black.
The mere intellectual assent to a pacifist position amounts to intellectual sabotage, for it implies an unwillingness to go with the group.
…[T]he success of war depends on the intellectual and emotional support given it, as much as on the material.
Hence, the pacifist position is the first step in blocking the successful termination of the war.
Furthermore, the greater the number of those who take the position of opposition, the greater the danger to them as individuals.
A few pacifists could be tolerated as religious fanatics; many pacifists become a stumblingblock to the war machine, and, as such, they must be removed quickly.
Frankly, members of a pacifist church should know that such a position may mean their removal from society, loss of jobs, persecution, and even death.
The only hope in a pacifist move lies in the possibility of it becoming a mass movement of such proportions that no government would dare risk annihilating it entirely.
Membership in the Church of the Brethren is not a passive act.
It puts one on record as an opponent of war.
It classifies one as a public enemy in war time, along with enemy aliens, deserters, labor and professional agitators.
The statement in the resolution concerning the refusal to support war by the payment of taxes adds to the similarity with the left wing labor groups who oppose international war for economic reasons.
The only distinction remains in the mind of the pacifist who ignorantly thinks that refusal to give economic support is non-aggressive in its opposition to the government at war.
It is, in fact, a most dangerous form of obstruction.
Since this is the case, a pacifist should be willing to accept the logic of his position and refuse all economic aid for support of war.
To put the case simply, no Dunker farmer dare ask his son to support the position of the church by risking death in opposition to war when he is guilty of selling his farm produce at a profit.
Wheat is as vital to war as soldiers, and we dare not refuse the former and advance the latter.
Finally, we must face the fact that even relief means support of the war system, for it releases others from the necessity of affording relief, it encourages the soldiers who are in need of relief, it gives support to the war by rehabilitating wounded for further service, it denies simultaneous aid to the enemy — no government would permit relief for its enemy.
Relief supplies are secured by independent funds; thus direct economic aid is given which would otherwise not be supplied.
More seriously than any of the above is the intellectual support which relief gives.
To be consistent, we must intellectually sabotage the entire system even to relief and bravely accept the consequences.
This was such a radical departure from everything I’d read before that at first I wondered whether it had been intended as a sort of Modest Proposal meant to exaggerate the pacifist position to logical conclusions that would be unpalatable to the typical reader.
But I think Eby was sincere.
The Annual Conference reaffirmed “our purpose not to participate in any war, and our protest against the application of such a large proportion of our taxes to military purposes” but did not elaborate (source).
In the Conference Committee on Counsel for Conscientious Objectors made a series of recommendations for that year’s Annual Conference “on the positions that our people should take in the event of war” (source).
These included the following three varieties of “peace testimony to register our convictions and to avoid our participation in war-related activities:”
The refraining from the purchase of such as Liberty Bonds to finance war.
The renunciation of, or the sacrificial use of, profits derived from industry, farming, or invested securities as a result of war; sacrificing always during war periods to build a fund for the furtherance of good will and for the support of families who suffer because of their conscientious objections to war.
The protesting against federal income taxes if used for military purposes.
This is the first explicit renunciation of the Church’s embrace of Liberty Bonds during World War Ⅰ that I have spotted.
A later report on the Annual Conference was difficult for me to interpret, but I think the gist of it was that this set of recommendations passed.
Rufus Bowman was a member of that Conference Committee, and in a later book on The Church of the Brethren and War he says that this was the high point of official Brethren opposition to war, at least up to the book’s publication in .
In the issue, Lorell Weiss predicted the trouble ahead, and how Brethren would be communicating their values to their children by their actions (source):
[T]here is a strong temptation to compromise principles for expediency’s sake.
Furthermore, the choice between principles and expediency must be made not once but often, by both parents and children.
We have not only to decide whether it is right to kill.
Other questions press for an answer.
Shall we buy defense bonds? Shall we assist in aluminum drives or patriotic demonstrations? Shall we remain discreetly silent and let our neighbors assume that we share the general war fever, or shall we boldly testify for what we believe?
A letter to the editor from Homer D. Kimmel (source) printed in the edition read:
This evening we heard a radio announcer advertising the sale of defense savings bonds with these words, “Buy a defense saving bond.
The $18.75 that you spend for a $25 defense savings bond will buy five bayonets.”
What a picture that calls to one’s mind! Five bayonets for five soldiers to tear the entrails out of five fellow men left lying helpless with their life blood flowing out on some ghastly battlefield! Yet all such are fellow men who love life no less than you and I.
Buy a defense saving bond!
Buy some death, some pain and suffering, some heartache, tears, hunger and privation.
An article by James L. Houff in the issue noted how frequently the government was tapping people for war funding (source). Excerpt:
Every time we go to the movies we pay three cents to the government for defense.
When we take a Sunday afternoon motor ride, about six cents out of every twenty goes to the government for tax.
At the post office we are reminded by our postmaster that he has defense bonds for sale.
Children are told they might help protect their country by buying savings stamps with their money instead of candy.
In the Bible Monitor of , B.F.
Masterson tried to put all this talk of protesting war taxes to rest (source).
Masterson advocated a strict distancing of the Christian believer from politics, of a sort that was going out of fashion elsewhere in the church.
Excerpts:
Paul did not suggest to the churches to write letters to Ceaser instructing him how to manage his naval tactics, that is the chief commander of the army’s business.
The church is not supposed, from a New Testament view point, to take part in the transaction of civil government.
The Jews who were under the Roman government, but not on good terms with it, conspired to draw Christ into politics when they asked Him, if it is lawful to pay taxes to Ceasar.
He said, render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s, He did not suggest to the Jews to make a protest against paying a certain per cent of the taxes.
He knew better than to get His foot in the trap.
[I]t does not pay for the church to enter into a confederacy with the world and for a Christian organization to advise, unsolicited, the commander of an army is beyond its jurisdiction and to protest against taxes that are applied for one[’s] protection is ungrateful to say the least, and would not coincide with the tenor of Christ’s doctrine.
Jesus was entirely free from the spirit of nationalism.
Although a Jew, He never protested against the Roman rule nor incited in His followers the spirit of rebellion.
The Bible Monitor also reproduced an article from the Gospel Herald (a Mennonite publication) in on the proper relationship between the Christian and the government (stand-offish for the most part), that included this section on taxes and Liberty Bonds (source):
Christians have the obligation to pay tribute and custom to and to fear and honor the “powers that be.”… This principle came acutely under test during the World war.
The problem did not arise with reference to the payment of taxes some of the proceeds of which were definitely used to carry on the war, but with reference to the purchase of Liberty Bonds which was voluntary, the proceeds of which directly supported the war program.
Here the nonresistant conscience asserted itself.
The former was clearly within the teaching of scripture, but the latter was voluntary and became a measure of one’s wartime patriotism.
Men who were physically unable on account of the rigors of warfare could render their bit toward the winning of the war by the purchase of bonds.
To sum up: the Church of the Brethren has come a long way since the willful blindness of the World War Ⅰ period, when Dunkers seemed happy to buy up war bonds with abandon.
Now there is explicit precedent for refusal to buy war bonds, and even some hints of emerging tax resistance, or at least tax reluctance.
But it remains to be seen whether this trend will survive Pearl Harbor.
The U.S. entry into World War Ⅱ gave the Church of the Brethren another chance to decide whether it would stick to its principles in the face of public pressure to join in the bloodletting.
As we’ll see, the evidence is mixed, but at least this time around the Church avoided the total surrender to war fever that it exhibited in World War Ⅰ.
The earliest mentions of war bonds I saw in the Brethren Evangelist were all of this basic opportunistic form (my paraphrase): “The government wants you to invest 10% of your income in war bonds; can’t you invest at least that much in our Mission Board?” There were also a few off-hand mentions of church institutions either investing some of their money in government bonds or taking government bonds as donations.
This mention was typical of the crass way this magazine saw war bonds largely as unwelcome competition for church fundraising (source):
Why not make your regular offering this year, and then make the added contribution of one of those “War Bonds” you have been buying.
This would help us look to the future in a fine way, if enough of those bonds were given each year so they would mature year by year…
Remember Jesus believed in Benevolence — so must we.
There was not even a hint in the Brethren Evangelist during the war years that there was anything ethically wrong with buying war bonds, unless it interfered too much with your tithing.
Things were a little different over at the Gospel Messenger.
The issue carried a resolution from the Brethren Service Committee that read in part:
Our citizens are being urged to help finance this war by many measures other than by direct taxation; and since [t]he official position of the Church of the Brethren involves nonparticipation in any war either directly or indirectly…
From there it did not counsel for or against anything specifically, but the flavor of the advice was for the reader to redouble his efforts for relief of war suffering and “look for the voice of God in his own Christ-enlightened conscience and obey that voice no matter to how great sacrifice and suffering it may lead.”
An Indiana section of the church held a peace conference on and “one subject of discussion was Shall We Buy Defense Bonds?” (source).
The issue carried “An Appeal for Patriotism” from W. Glenn McFadden, who noted that the defense bonds program had to bribe citizens with lucrative returns in order to get their financial support.
McFadden said that instead he would buy a Brethren Service Certificate and ask nothing in return.
an illustration of a Brethren Service Certificate
One issue noted without further comment that “Life insurance companies are putting well over half of all their funds for investment into United States government bonds.
On the average, each policyholder is owner of $120 in government bonds through his life insurance policy.” I am not certain how to interpret this, but if it’s not just a piece of trivia, it sounds like a veiled warning for conscientious objectors to military funding.
A note in another issue said that an annual “United Pacifist Conference” of some sort had adopted “[a] resolution demanding that Federal tax money collected from religious pacifists be used by the government for nonmilitary purposes only.”
This was only a one-paragraph short, and is the first I’ve heard of this conference or its resolution.
It might have been an A.J. Muste project from around the time when he was beginning to explore war tax resistance.
Some church leaders from the Michigan district approved the following resolution, which seems to allude to the pressure to buy war bonds (source):
In harmony with the historic attitude of the Church of the Brethren, we the representatives of the southern churches of the District of Michigan, declare ourselves to be in favor of all things constructive and opposed to all things destructive; and that when demands are made of us which we cannot conscientiously fulfill, that our attitude should be nonviolent, and that we encourage the churches of Michigan in the purchase of Brethren Service certificates and stamps.
In war life and money are conscripted.
Every nation demands of its citizens what they possess — service from the physically fit and money from everyone.
Taxes
Direct and indirect taxes are assessed against all citizens.
Investment in War Bonds
This is expected from all citizens who have investing power.
To date the government makes such investment a voluntary matter but community pressures are almost equivalent to compulsion.
Many persons with a conscience which prevents them from engaging in physical warfare are also deterred from voluntarily financing war.
a boy shows off his Brethren Service Stamps card
The article went on to talk up Brethren Service Certificates, which helped to fund the Civilian Public Service camps for drafted conscientious objectors who were doing alternative work.
There were also smaller-denomination “Brethren Service Stamps”, which were marketed to children in particular — “Children take their stamp books to school to indicate that, while they are not buying defense stamps, they are buying these stamps” — and also some so-called “peace bonds” and “peace stamps” that were meant as ways Brethren could participate in the bond drive mania without compromising their consciences.
In all of these cases, the amount spent on bonds or stamps was a pure donation — the bonds could not later be redeemed for cash like war bonds could.
“Civilian Bonds”
The article shared a letter from Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau in which he authorized the issue of government bonds “which are not designated by their terms as ‘war issues’ ” — or, as he put it in another place “securities not designated as ‘War Bonds’ ” — so that conscientious objectors could plausibly buy them.
Morgenthau’s language not so subtly indicates that this would be largely a fig leaf.
The bonds would not be “designated” as “war issues” or “war bonds” but there was no suggestion that their proceeds would be spent any differently than any other government bonds.
The accompanying article, however, went further and claimed that this new bond money was “to be used for civilian purposes” and would therefore be “a way to co-operate in government financing without violation of conscience.”
I think that was wishful thinking at best.
The Brethren Service Committee was taking orders for the bonds immediately, via the Provident Trust Company of Philadelphia, who would send the bonds out to purchasers when the government got around to printing them up.
In return for your order you would “without delay receive a reply which you may hold as tangible evidence to your community, if needed, to show that you are co-operating in financing the government.”
If memory serves, the Provident Trust Company ended up using the money to buy ordinary government F- & G-series bonds and then “registered” them as “conscience money” through some sort of hocus-pocus to distinguish them somehow from the bonds other people were buying without such conscientious decoration.
(If you want to delve further, this was also a project that was covered extensively in The Mennonite, and you can see what I found in that magazine starting here.)
A later issue gave further instructions on the program, and included a coupon employees could use, if their employers were withholding money from their paychecks to buy war bonds, to request that they be used for “Civilian Bonds” or “Brethren Service Certificates” instead (source).
The article explained the need for the new bonds:
“For us who hold sacred [pacifist] convictions, it becomes very embarrassing to refuse the purchase of war bonds to meet a community quota.
Our neighbors cannot understand and we are often looked upon as unpatriotic.”
A frequently-asked-questions section followed.
This mostly covered the practical issues of how the bonds worked and how to purchase them, and didn’t include any questions about just how conscientious or civilian the bonds really were.
The article seemed more careful than its predecessor in only implying without stating explicitly that the money raised by the bonds would not go to military spending.
There was, however, this somewhat telling answer:
Question: Does the purchase of a Civilian Bond give credit on the county war bond quota?
Answer: Yes.…
Often, subsequent mentions of the Civilian Bond program were careful to say merely that the bonds were not explicitly designated for war expenses.
But occasionally a stronger (and I believe, baseless) guarantee would be added, like this one from the issue (source):
The government assures us that the funds realized from the sale of these bonds are not used to finance the war.
Or this one, from (source), that you can just barely parse as not an outright lie if you try hard enough:
The historic peace churches through their committee have made arrangements that purchasers of government bonds may designate their money to be used in the civilian phases of our government program. Many citizens desiring to co-operate in the civilian program of the government but whose consciences do not permit them to aid directly and voluntarily in financing the war buy these bonds.
Or this carefully-constructed phrasing, from (source):
The peace churches have arranged with the government that… purchases may be made which constitute a designation that the money should be used in the civilian expenses of the government.
Purchasers of Brethren Service Certificates had more of a legitimately clear conscience, though they may not have found these certificates as useful as bonds in beating back the mobs of war bond enforcers, and of course they were also more expensive, being donations rather than loans.
But here is an example of how one taxpayer used this program to help assuage his guilt for taxpaying:
Enclosed please find a check… representing double the amount of the tax which has been deducted from my salary this month.
It is my conviction that the use to which this tax is being put — destructive alike of human life and of international goodwill — is incompatible with Christian ethics…
Since I can do nothing to prevent the withholding of this tax, I can at least protest the use to which it is put by trying to help counteract the damage it is doing to the cause of Christianity and democracy.
I am therefore sending double the amount of tax to organizations which are maintaining and strengthening the principles of Christianity and of true democracy by constructive work of goodwill.
I intend to continue sending this amount, in addition to my regular contributions, each time I receive a salary check from which this tax has been deducted.
As a receipt, the regular B.S.C. certificate will be ample.
Rufus D. Bowman
For the edition, Rufus D.
Bowman wrote an article titled “Our Brethren Heritage Is Being Threatened”.
One of these threats: “During World War Ⅱ the majority of the members of the Church of the Brethren are supporting the war system.” Bowman reported on the results of a survey he had conducted of Brethren practices that had reached 161 churches, representing about one-sixth of the Church of the Brethren.
In that survey, “forty-six per cent of the churches reported that the members generally were buying war bonds and stamps, while sixteen per cent indicated that a substantial minority were buying them, and seventeen per cent said that a few were purchasing war bonds.”
(Furthermore, more than 80% of Brethren draftees were going into the military without taking any sort of conscientious objector status, either noncombatant or civilian public service work.)
Along with the ministers all adults who have supported the war economically should repent.
War cannot be reconciled with Jesus Christ.
War is unchristian and is inconsistent with the most precious values of this universe.
The kingdom of God is not built through hate, but through love.
It is true that one cannot live without helping the war to some extent.
When the writer takes the train there is a war tax on his ticket.
But there are varying degrees of supporting the war and not supporting it.
Where the individual is free to choose, the spirit and teachings of Jesus and the position of the Church of the Brethren are clear that church members should not support a system that destroys personality.
Adults should repent of their part in this conflict.
In the edition, W.G. Willoughby took this now-that-the-war’s-over-let’s-repent thing and ran with it:
Let us confess to God and to one another that we have all shared in the dropping of bombs.
We have participated in the mass slaughter of God’s children.
Is the bombardier who released the bombs more guilty than the pilot who guided the ship; is he more guilty than the person who built the plane; is he more guilty than the person who bought bonds to pay for the ship, or is he more guilty than we who paid taxes to the government directing the whole operation?
The Etownian (Elizabethtown College student paper) covered a seminar held by Church of the Brethren officials who had been navigating the government’s conscientious objector / Civilian Public Service Camp bureaucracy (source).
A paraphrase of remarks of M.R.
Zigler included this: “The church must decide if it can purchase war bonds which are used to build more instruments of death, or if it should buy Brethren Service Stamps and Bonds which go to relieve suffering regardless of nation, race, or creed.”
The president of the student senate at Elizabethtown apparently decided in favor of bonds, when in a article (source), he wrote matter-of-factly that:
Today when we hear “Back the Attack” we know we must all cooperate by buying and investing in war bonds.
Without this cooperation our Government would be helpless and we might as well learn the “goose step.”
However, we know what we want and we will not let our Government down.
We have pledged to cooperate and we are cooperating.
And a front-page banner in the issue urged that “every alumnus and former student will adopt the slogan, ‘Buy a Bond for Elizabethtown College’ ” (source).
The Brethren Missionary Herald reprinted a statement from the Southern California District Conference on the propriety of non-combatant service, in its issue (source).
It included this:
In the matter of the purchasing of Government Bonds, War Stamps, and working in defense industries, we hold that the line of Christian duty, as well as of Christian privilege, is sometimes a very difficult line to draw; and, in these matters it must be left to the individual soul to deal alone with his God.
A news brief in the edition showed that the West 10th Street Brethren Church of Ashland Ohio didn’t find the line too difficult to draw (source):
Rev. Charles Mayes, pastor, received $10.25 in war stamps in the church offering plates.
Suggestion was made “that any other stamps appearing in the offering will be gladly received.
These can either be converted into a war bond in the name of the church corporation, or turned over to some of our creditors as stamps, probably at face value.
It honors the government to buy stamps even though the stamps may be turned into the church.
The government will not lose and the church will thus gain.
A sidebar noted that “War Bonds Will Be Accepted” in the Thanksgiving Offering of the Home Missions Council, so the line was not apparently very difficult for the Council to draw, either.
“Militarism and hate are sweeping the Church today,” complained the editor in (source).
“The gospel of love and grace has died in thousands of pulpits.
Many church members are complaining that they cannot buy war bonds and support the Church, too.”
I can think of one possible solution to that problem, but the editor had another in mind:
buy war bonds and then turn them over to the church!
When the government instituted an additional “Victory Tax” to be withheld from salaries, the Brethren Conference of Southern California sent a protest to the government about it, after a special meeting held for this purpose on .
Their protest was over the fact that the churches would be responsible for withholding this tax, which apparently they were not required to do for other taxes previously.
This, they evidently found to be an egregious violation of religious liberty, and they insisted that pastors of their district pay the tax themselves without the church doing the withholding.
Some lines were easier for the district to draw than others.
Clarence M.
Stump took an unusually radical stand in the edition of the Bible Monitor, criticizing other Brethren for helping the government establish, fund, and operate Civilian Public Service camps for conscientious objectors. “Some say, going to camp is not fighting, but nevertheless it is a defense program.
Trying to use one’s own power and not relying on God.” He recommended that draftees stand their ground and refuse to serve and take refuge in the Bible verse that says “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake.” So “Let us serve God and not Mammon.
Let us not take offerings to send our young men to camp, but rather let us pray for our boys that they may be faithful to God.” (source)
See “Why Should I Give?” by O.L. Strayer in the issue, on the other hand, for a passionate defense of the camps.
That defense included this admission:
We have paid taxes both direct and hidden for the carrying out of the business of the government.
None of us can be so foolish as to say that we did not know that a portion of those taxes have been going for the upkeep of the fighting forces of the country, and yet we have not scrupled to pay, nay, we have taught from our pulpits that the Christian will pay his taxes faithfully.
One of the arguments for participating in bond drives and for turning a blind eye to war taxes was that everybody was involved in the war somehow, directly or indirectly, so there was no point trying to take a risky personal stand to try to extricate yourself from it.
H.S.
Bender of the Mennonite “Peace Problems Committee” tried to address this in an article reproduced in a issue of the Bible Monitor (source).
Excerpts:
We are sometimes told that it is inconsistent for Mennonites to refuse to take part in the war because our Mennonite farmers are already in the war effort; hence all other forms of participation such as fighting, buying war bonds, working in war industry, must also be approved.
The argument is clear and logical: if farming is taking part in war, then we cannot logically refuse the other things asked of us in military service, in war bonds, or in war work; then we must either quit farming or give up our nonresistant position altogether.
Bender took the position that while the produce of the farmer is used by those engaging in war, this is not the same as manufacturing military materiel, operating under military orders, working in a war industry, or working for the benefit of the war.
While such a farmer does pay taxes, he did so just as much before the war.
In short: farming remains a peaceful industry, even if it is conducted during wartime.
The propaganda arguments used against nonresistant farmers come from chiefly two sources: either from the militarists who do not at all want to strengthen Christian conscience against war but who want to break down this conscience to get more war participation; or from men with weak consciences and convictions, often from some one in war industries or in military service who desires an alibi to justify his own lack of conscientiousness.
During World War Ⅱ the Church of the Brethren held somewhat more firm than they had in War Ⅰ.
At least they largely kept their misgivings about war funding, if they were not very consistent about following through on them.
A new pacifist war tax resistance movement began to gel outside of the traditional peace churches in the late 1940s, and I’ll be looking to see how or whether the Brethren contributed to this.
The Brethren Evangelist continued to look at war bonds mostly as a positive example of giving that ought to be emulated by Brethren in the post-war period through Church-directed giving.
For example, an article on that theme by the Reverend James E. Ault alluded to war bonds in this way: “We have assisted in meeting goals for War Bonds, Victory Bonds, or Community Fund drives until it has become a part of every day experience.
These goals would be of very little value if there were not some greater goal to be reached…” (source).
Things took a very different turn in the Gospel Messenger.
Harper S. Will presented “A Seven-Point Program for Brethren” in the issue.
Will suggested that the arms race and the normalization of military conscription and training meant that Brethren would have to be more active and persistent if they wanted to make progress for a peaceful world.
He asked his readers to “[g]o into your closet, quiet your mind, and seek the guidance of the Eternal Spirit” and gave this as one example: “Henry Thoreau did it in the days of the Civil War, and he ended up in jail because he would not pay his taxes.”
In the issue, Rufus D. Bowman addressed “The Church of the Brethren and the Cultural Crisis”.
According to Bowman, the Church was being overwhelmed by and absorbed into an unchristian culture.
One of the symptoms of this was the half-hearted way Brethren upheld their adherence to non-resistance:
During World War Ⅰ our members purchased war bonds and many of our young men went straight into the army.
During World War Ⅱ it is evident that the majority of our members compromised with the war system.
“Shall We Continue to Call Ourselves a Peace Church?” asked Ruth B. Statler in the issue.
Statler noted that most Brethren draftees in the last war went into the armed services without taking any sort of conscientious objector status, and that “[a] great many of our church members bought war bonds.”
The issue brought readers news of a war tax resister from the just-emerging modern war tax resistance movement (source):
Mrs. Caroline Urie. wife of a navy officer, a Quaker and veteran social worker, has publicly refused to pay the 34.6% of her income tax which, according to government figures, would go to military expenses.
Mrs. Urie wrote President Truman and the U.S. collector of internal revenue that the withheld money would be given to four nonprofit agencies engaged in removing the causes of war.
She is willing to pay taxes “for any reasonable constructive purposes.” As a Christian she said, “I must henceforth refuse to contribute in any way I can avoid toward maintaining the institution of war.”
that was followed up by this note:
This copy of a letter to the Collector of Internal Revenue came to the Messenger desk recently.
Enclosed herewith is my income tax return for .
I wish now to announce to the Collector of Internal Revenue and the Treasury Department that I cannot conscientiously continue to pay federal income taxes when so large a proportion of the funds is being used for purposes of war.
This country did not turn to peace at the end of World War Ⅱ, but instead sought to protect and expand an American Empire.
This mad attempt to dominate the world by force of arms, the threat of atomic war, and offers of economic aid only to future allies will lead to devastation and death.
I want to dissociate myself as completely as possible from these tragic, suicidal and evil policies, and to do all I can to convince my fellow citizens that we must completely renounce the way of war and violence. ―Marion Coddington, New York, N.Y.
There was also a note in the following issue about a woman who had been denied U.S. citizenship after she stated in her application that she would not be willing to “bear arms in defense of the United States [and] that she had refused to buy bonds in the last war because their proceeds were used to finance war.”
The issue noted briefly that “The National Baptist Sunday School and Training Union Congress at Cleveland, Ohio, recently urged churches and religious bodies not to invest in war or savings bonds which may be used in the financing of war.” (source)
The issue reprinted some resolutions passed by a Quaker gathering on the subject of conscientious objection to war (source).
Among these were that “Friends are urged… [t]o avoid engaging in any trade, business, or profession directly contributing to the military system; and the purchase of government war bonds or stock certificates in war industries. [And t]o carefully consider the implication of paying those taxes, a major portion of which goes for military purposes.” The issue also reported that the North Carolina Yearly Meeting of Friends had issued a statement on conscientious objection, which also “urged Quakers ‘to realize that by paying federal taxes we are supporting preparation for war,’ but did not advise that taxes not be paid” (source).
Up to this point, all of this sudden interest in war tax resistance has been focused outside the Church of the Brethren — neither Urie nor Coddington were Brethren, and the statements above are from Quaker and Baptist institutions.
But in the issue is a quote from Rufus D. Bowman, who up to this point has been hinting at war tax resistance without actually endorsing it, in which he finally comes out:
My conviction is that all war is sin and out of harmony with the spirit, life and teachings of Jesus.
It is, therefore, wrong to participate in war.
When war comes, it is difficult in a totalitarian state to keep from helping the war system.
The most Christian position is to remain apart from war as far as possible.
Accepting any service within the army puts a person under military orders and clouds his testimony against war.
Carrying on constructive service projects under church or civilian direction, the giving of a vigorous testimony against war and the payment of war taxes, and giving our lives for a vital peace program represents a consistent Christian position.
The issue continued the new trend of highlighting examples of war tax resisters from other denominations (source):
A Quaker of Moorestown, N.J., William B. Evans, paid his income tax three months ahead of time because he believes in the American government.
But he does not believe in war or in the preparation for it; therefore, he deducted from his payment the amount he estimated would be allotted to military purposes.
In a letter to the internal revenue office he said that he was giving that money to relief and rehabilitation.
Refusal to pay taxes that may be used for military purposes on the ground of conscience is being manifested by small groups of people in the United States, Switzerland, and Norway.
In Switzerland a growing group of women, many of them teachers, and in Norway Quakers are withholding taxes for military purposes, but stating their willingness to pay the same amounts for constructive projects.
The issue carried an update on Caroline Urie’s resistance (source):
Mrs. Caroline Urie, seventy-five year old Quaker widow, of Yellow Springs, Ohio, deducted 32.3 per cent of the first installment of her income tax and will donate the deducted amount to nonprofit agencies working for peace.
She estimated the deducted amount would be used for military purposes and expressed her opposition to this use of the tax money because “war and preparation for war in the atomic area is a crime against humanity.”
The issue reported on the blooming Peacemakers war tax resistance movement (source):
More than forty individuals throughout America, most of them from the peace churches, submitted only a part of their income tax to the government this year.
They sent an accompanying letter saying that they were contributing the rest of the tax to service or peace-making projects.
Their basis of refusal to pay all of it was that a high percentage of income tax revenue goes for war purposes.
The issue brought the news that “[i]n Norway the Quakers have decided to pay a peace tax to the government instead of the government defense tax recently voted by Parliament.
The government has agreed to this arrangement.” (source) No further details were given, though, so it’s difficult to guess what this amounted to practically.
The magazine repeated the news in its issue without adding much in the way of specifics.
There was clearly a hunger for news about war tax resisters, but in all of this there is still no mention of any actual named resister from within the Church of the Brethren itself, except perhaps Rufus Bowman by implication.
The issue included this representation of the debate about war tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren at the time (source):
How Does a Pacifist Act?
One says, “I have to stick my neck out.”
Vigorous efforts to break with a war system are necessary.
What kind of logic is it for a person to say he’s a pacifist and pay income tax — a large share of which goes for war?
If I refuse my income tax payment, I am protesting in the strongest way I know.
Anyone can write letters against a tax.
They mean little to our legislators.
What counts is conviction so strong that persons refuse to pay no matter what the consequences are.
If Gandhi had not been ready to go to jail for what he believed, the Free India Movement would have crumpled before it got well under way.
We cannot build a pacifist movement if leaders in the Church of the Brethren are unwilling to risk jail for what they believe.
⋮
Another says, “I must act with moderation.”
⋮
The extreme and antagonistic position of the tax refusers and nonregistrants seems out of harmony with the Master’s deeds and words:
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”
“Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.”
I don’t like it that I am forced through my income tax into supporting war preparations. However, if I refuse payment, the government will collect anyway.
The way to fight this tax is to work for a change in the law.
Meanwhile, over at the Brethren Missionary Herald things remained much in the vein of “you gave money for war, won’t you also give some to us?” For example:
the Brethren Home Missions Council held war bonds according to its financial statement
How much have members of our churches paid out in taxes and in purchase of war bonds during the past five years?
Dare we give the Lord less in the next five years? []
Today I’ll share what I found in the archives of American Brethren periodicals from the early 1950s concerning war taxes and war bond purchases.
I found most of the items of interest in the Gospel Messenger again, and for the first time these included specified war tax resisters from within the Church of the Brethren.
The edition gave readers this short notice:
Floyd M.
Irvin of Eustis, Fla., sent in only that part of his income tax which would not be used by the Federal government for war purposes.
The rest of it, he informed them, he was turning over to a useful church program.
He believes that if many more people would do this it would have a telling effect upon military expenditures.
This was the first I’d heard of Irvin.
There was a follow-up about his resistance in the issue (source):
A series of articles in a Lake County, Fla., local paper call attention to the activities of Floyd M.
Irvin of Eustis, Fla., on behalf of world peace.
While the articles tell a few facts concerning Bro. Irvin’s life, they give special attention to his advocating nonviolent techniques in place of war, and especially to his refusal to pay the share of income taxes which goes toward supporting the military program.
Through Bro. Irvin’s efforts a recent article in the Gospel Messenger was used as the basis for a feature in his local paper.
They don’t come right out and claim Irvin as a member of the Brethren here, but they do call him “Bro.” and make the Gospel Messenger connection.
I think this is the first explicitly war tax resisting member of a Brethren church named in a Brethren periodical from the modern war tax resistance era.
Another small note was found in the issue (source):
Again this year various people, who have conscientious feelings against the tremendous amount of our budget which is being spent for war, are withholding from their income tax the percentages which are used definitely for war purposes.
The rest of it they are paying.
I assume this refers to the Peacemakers, who were putting out press releases about organized war tax resistance around this time.
The issue included a note about the Monteverde Quaker emigrants (source):
Quaker Group to Leave United States
Twenty-five Quaker residents of Fairhope, Ala., have decided to emigrate to Costa Rica so that they may be free from military demands and from paying “war taxes.” This announcement came from Hubert Mendenhall, the spokesman for the group who range in age from twenty to eighty years.
Most of them are farmers.
“Our economy has become so involved with military effort throughout the world,” Mr. Mendenhall said, “that a person can hardly make a living here without being a part of that system.”
A spokesman for the American Friends Service Committee said that this would be the first instance in American history that a group of Quakers had left the country because of their religious pacifist convictions.
A letter to the editor from Mart Sheaffer, in the edition suggested that tax resistance was more Christian than the alternative (source):
Tax Refusal
Why do Christians continue to pay the government that portion of tax which is used to support war, since war is contrary to the teachings of the New Testament?
It seems that it would be more Christlike to refuse to pay that portion of tax and to give the same amount — or more — to some worthy Christian cause such as the program of the Brethren Service Commission or some other Christian denomination’s project.
We could then take a receipt for the amount given and turn the receipt over to the government.
If it is permissible to teach the gospel, it also should be permissible to live it and practice it.
the magazine printed a letter in response, disagreeing by giving the old taxes-are-debts argument, and recommending instead prayer rather than civil disobedience (source).
Floyd M.
Irvin responded in the issue (source):
Taxes and Our Responsibility
I would like to express my disagreement with the brother from Grantsville, Md., who states that “taxes are a debt… when we pay this debt our responsibility ends.”
I would say rather that, as a citizen, I am a partner with other citizens both in managing and in financing the affairs of our government.
A citizen of a democracy has a definite responsibility in determining the purpose for which his tax money is used.
The denial of this privilege by the English government was one of the chief reasons for the revolt of the American colonists and for the birth of our republic.
Now that we have this privilege, it becomes a responsibility.
If the fathers of the American Revolution in their day felt an inner compulsion to refuse to pay taxes for the use of which they had no directing voice, ought not followers of the Prince of Peace in our day feel an urge to refuse to pay taxes which are used to finance the killing of our fellow Christians?
This is a question which needs careful consideration.
The following questions may stimulate our thoughts on the matter.
Do we as citizens have a responsibility in regard to the use of our tax money which should direct our actions beyond our choice of representatives?
In other words, after we have voted to the best of our ability, are we guiltless if our taxes are used to kill our fellow men?
Does the Scriptural injunction to pay taxes apply without exception, or is the payment of taxes to finance a war that destroys God’s children an exception when we should obey God rather than men?
How can we order our lives and finances so that if we refuse to pay taxes the government will not take more than we withhold?
Is it time for Christians to organize a non-violent resistance movement against war?
The edition again covered the Peacemakers (source):
Group Refuses to Pay “War” Taxes
Fifty-nine men and women, including four Protestant clergymen, in various parts of the country have refused to file federal income tax returns because they find it impossible to support the Korean or any other war.
This announcement was made by the tax refusal committee of Peacemakers, a national pacifist group, which released a statement by the fifty-nine saying:
“We are particularly concerned at this time about the situation in Korea, where a civil struggle has been provoked and aggravated by two power states to the point where it is already a major war — one which may be the spark that will set the world afire.
“We find it impossible to support policies and activities of this kind with our allegiance or with our money.
We must, therefore, refuse to give money for such purposes of conquest and massacre, and must give it instead to causes which build understanding and world community.”
A.J. Muste of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, sent a separate letter to the collector of internal revenue in his district, declaring that this is the third successive year in which he has refused to file a return or pay taxes.
He contended that “anyone who contributes to arming the United States today also contributes to arming Russia — which is the last thing I want to do — in the same way that Russians contribute to American armament, for each government mechanically matches the military preparations of the other.”
At the auction sale of her husband’s car, Mrs.
Arthur H.
Emery, Jr., begged those attending the sale not to bid.
She said she feared the proceeds might be used for war.
The U.S. bureau of internal revenue, which had seized the car, will apply the $145 on the income tax owed by Mr. and Mrs.
Emery.
They had refused to pay it because they thought it might be used for military purposes.
This letter from Ernest Bromley comes from the issue (source):
Tax Refusal
Many people who have been deeply concerned over the large and growing percentage of federal taxes going to war purposes have been prevented from taking any definite action because all funds paid to the federal government go into a common treasury, whether this money is for war purposes or for constructive purposes to which citizens willingly contribute.
The Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers calls attention to the fact that if the increased military appropriations now being voted by Congress under various heads are added together, this will mean a total of around seventy billion dollars for war purposes out of a budget of around ninety billion.
The increased appropriations will reflect themselves in a percentage increase in taxes, and this increase will be for purely military purposes and nothing else.
We would welcome correspondence from persons who feel a concern over this matter, which should be addressed to Rev. Ernest Bromley, Golay Road in Gano, Sharonville, Ohio.
Another war tax resister from outside of Brethren circles was featured briefly in the issue (source):
Woman Pastor Refuses to Pay “War Taxes”
A woman pastor in South Hartford, N.Y., paid only twenty-five per cent of her federal income tax because she is opposed to the government’s “warlike ventures.” The Rev. Marion C.
Frenyear, pastor of the South Hartford Congregational church, said she is a Christian pacifist and “cannot support war in any way,” that in her belief war is against religious principles and taxes should be used to bring peace and disarmament to the world.
For the same reason Miss Frenyear paid only twenty-five per cent of her federal tax bill.
Walter R. Sturr, collector of internal revenue at Albany, placed a lien against her salary and indicated the same method would be used this year to collect the unpaid taxes.
The delinquent taxes were paid by the treasury of the church and the amount was deducted from the pastor’s salary.
The Brethren Missionary Herald seemed to trend conservative.
It complained about high government spending and taxes (and saw creeping socialism at every turn), and didn’t hesitate to put the blame for this on the military budget, but this was about as far as it was prepared to go in protest:
The child of God will… pay his taxes….
It is our judgment that the general tenor of the teaching of the Bible allows for protest and even revolt against unjust and exorbitant taxation.
Beyond these considerations, however, the Lord’s servant will not try to evade the payment of tribute.
[]
The Brethren Evangelist was also largely sticking to its guns and not entertaining any newfangled tax resistance ideas.
But the magazine’s intolerance for legalized alcoholic beverages was intense enough that, in the midst of what was otherwise a standard render-unto-Cæsar article, they let this slip in the issue (source):
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” What things does Caesar have a right to claim?
Taxes?
Yes, we should expect to pay taxes for the privilege of living in such a land as ours.
We expect protection of life and property; good sanitary living conditions, and the like — and these cost money.
But there is, of course, a limit to which the Christian should be forced to go.
For instance, to be forced to pay taxes for the upkeep of hospitals for the criminally insane and penitentiaries where are housed the results of crimes brought about by a government-supported liquor program, is going beyond what any government has a moral (even if it has a legal) right to demand.
We could go on at great length with many other examples, but space forbids.
You think about them.
Interest in war tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren continued to simmer through the mid-1950s, and more war tax resisters emerged into the limelight.
The war tax resistance of Marion Frenyear again made it into the Gospel Messenger in the issue (source):
Woman Pastor Deducts “War” Tax
A woman pastor in Great Barrington, Mass., paid only twenty-five per cent of her federal income tax because she is opposed to the large percentage of the national income used for war.
Marion C.
Frenyear, now a supply pastor for churches in the Great Barrington area, said she had paid voluntarily only twenty-five per cent of the federal income taxes since .
Miss Frenyear explained her partial payment in a letter to the director of internal revenue at Boston.
In the past two years a lien was placed against Miss Frenyear’s salary to collect the unpaid taxes and it is expected the same method will be used this year.
James Berkebile, dean of McPherson College (a Brethren institution) wrote an article on “Christians and Citizens” for the edition.
In the past, this would have been the occasion for the usual render-unto-Cæsar boilerplate when it came to taxes.
This time, though, things were a little more nuanced.
Excerpt:
In these days of high taxes many illegal methods of evading payment of income tax have been used.
It is just that one make every means provided under law to reduce his income tax to that value determined by legislation, but often there is no reporting of income that cannot be checked on readily.
Devious methods are used to avoid one’s well-defined financial obligation to the government.
Certainly, we should protest the use of so much of our public money for war purposes.
We should compliment and encourage those who strive to divert our tax money to productive enterprises for the good of men.
But for our own soul’s sake we must be honest in our reports for taxation purposes while we strive to change the taxation procedure if it is unwise and unfair.
We respect those who refuse to pay that portion of their tax going for war purposes in order to make their testimony for a cause because they make clear what they are doing and accept the penalties of the law for their failure to comply.
We do not respect those who are dishonest in their reporting.
We owe the government, of which we are a part, our honesty and integrity, whether we move through normal channels or whether we move contrary to established legislation.
In the latter case we owe our submission voluntarily, willingly and freely to the penalties involved with the hope that our suffering for the cause of the kingdom may result in changes for the better.
In the issue, Donald Royer passed along some early results of his historical study of the beliefs and practices of the Brethren (source):
I am completing a study on the factors in our culture which are related to the changing peace position of the Brethren, and one of the tentative conclusions I have drawn is this.
Up to World War Ⅰ the heart of our peace position was conscientious objection to war.
Since World War Ⅰ the heart of our peace position has come to be the Brethren Service program of relief and rehabilitation.
We have lost the protesting witness almost completely, and have put in its place a positive witness.
With this positive witness there has come something we may not have anticipated.
According to my study an increasing number of Brethren are saying that in case of another war they would increase their giving to Brethren Service, but that they would also buy war bonds and work in a defense industry if needed.
Under our new emphasis it is becoming easier to play both ends against the middle, or to serve both God and Caesar at the same time.
A.J.
Muste, on refusing to file a Federal income tax return: “A stupendous percentage of the Federal budget is devoted to war purposes, an increasing percentage to the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, and there is no way of separating the income used for war and that used for other purposes.”
A new Brethren war tax resister shared his protest in the letters column of the issue (source):
Obliged to Protest
I am informing the Bureau of Internal Revenue that since the major item on the Federal budget is military expenditure I, therefore, cannot conscientiously pay all of my income tax.
Because of religious conviction I could not myself bear arms, nor could I assist in the manufacture of armaments.
Neither can I pay a substitute to bear arms for me or invest time or money in any company or corporation which manufactures or supplies armaments.
Therefore, I do not feel able to supply voluntarily any part of the money to be used to support a military establishment or to create super-bombers, guided missiles, and nuclear weapons, all of which things clearly contradict God’s will for mankind and cannot help but bring terrible judgments upon their creators.
With five dependents I have not until this year been affluent enough to be liable for this tax.
Now, although the amount of money is small, I feel that I can voluntarily pay half, which will more than include that spent for all of the necessary and valuable functions of the federal government.
For I have no desire to deny either the government’s existence or its value, except in that its military function has become so pathologically exaggerated.
Also as a member of the Church of the Brethren I feel obliged to make this protest.
For it is shameful and demoralizing that the whole weight of the important witness against war and warmaking is being laid on teen-age shoulders while their elders too easily content with a false security conveniently look the other way and refuse to assume their moral and spiritual obligation to their community, their church, and God.
It may be objected that by saying, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” Jesus thereby obliged his followers to pay every tax for any purpose.
The truth is that this saying places the problem squarely upon one’s discrimination of what belongs to Caesar that does not belong to God, and contrariwise.
The image and legend which made that particular coin legal tender were certainly Caesar’s and not God’s.
Any ultimate claims upon the actual metal would, of course, pose more difficult questions.
My situation is not like that, however.
What Caesar demands of me is a check, a mere piece of common paper which is not given currency value by Caesar’s image and legend but rather by my own private signature which is a particular and intimate image of my own personal mind and body.
The claim whereby Caesar would use my personal image and signature in order to create weapons of total destruction is not supported by the gospel or by any divine right but rather by the very force and violence which I as a pacifist and a Christian must and do refuse to acknowledge as binding or just in the sight of God.―Fred W.
Smith, W. Alexandria, Ohio.
Lottie M.
Bollinger wrote a letter supporting Smith’s stand that was published in the issue.
Over several issues in and , The Pilgrim reprinted Daniel Musser’s Non-Resistance Asserted: Or the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the World Separated.
Musser was a Reformed Mennonite, but apparently his point of view was harmonious with that of the Pilgrim editors.
Musser believed that Christians should stay aloof from the government, but should obey it, including in taxation.
Christians “are duty bound to be obedient to all their laws and regulations, and to pay all taxes, duties, fines, or whatever rates or levies the government may see fit to impose upon them,” he wrote.
On the other hand, voluntary contributions for war or to raise money to help hire armed forces were out of the question:
Since the commencement of the present war, when the War Department called for fresh levies of troops, and when our State was threatened with invasion, people have collected money to arm and equip militia for local or State service, and also for bounty to induce men to volunteer in the National service.
This is not inconsistent for the world, or such as profess that it is the duty of Christians to take up arms in defense of their rights and country.
But it is certainly inconsistent for those who profess to be nonresistant to pay or arm others to go and do what they say is wrong to do themselves.
It would be a very gross violation of this principle [of non-resistance] for non-resistants to show their reliance in or dependence on an arm of flesh by joining in with the world to contribute money for bounty to induce men to volunteer, or to arm and equip men to go forth and defend their person and property.
[H]ow can those who profess to be disciples of Jesus Christ, and who say as such that Christ has forbidden them to fight, join in with our opponents and pay men to go and fight for them, or in their stead?
It is said, “It is to avoid the draft,” but by what means?
By inducing other men to go in our stead!
Anyone can see that there is no consistency here.
If it is wrong for me to go, it is wrong to pay another to go for me.
And hiring substitutes directly is also forbidden:
We do not recognize those as true non-resistants who profess to have conscientious scruples about bearing arms… as will not go to the battle-field themselves, but will hire substitutes to go and do that for them which, they say, they dare not do themselves.
What about the special tax that conscientious objectors were supposed to pay in lieu of service?
Mennonites and Brethren were typically okay with paying that; Quakers were not.
Musser’s opinion:
[T]he powers again ordered a draft without exempting any for conscience sake.
The request was personal service or money — three hundred dollars.
The personal service they could not render.
The money belongs to the kingdom of this world, and they had a right to demand it as their own.
Paul said that we shall pay tribute and custom to whom it is due, and said we shall do so because of the duties the Government has to discharge.
They now ask for our person or the money.
The latter is theirs and we make conscience of the duty to pay it, and feel that it would be wrong to refuse to do so.
It is alleged that, when we pay the commutation fee and the war tax, these are used for war purposes, and that the case is parallel with that of paying to induce volunteering, or buying substitutes.
The world does not profess to be willing to suffer loss and inconvenience if it can be avoided by personal resistance or defense.
When they take such measures, as before alluded to, they act rationally and consistently.
The government is founded on this principle and cannot exist without the sword, and, whenever necessity requires it, must use the sword.
Paul said that for this purpose we also pay tribute.
It is due to the government, and we shall pay to all their dues.
The commutation fee and what is called “war tax” are no more a “war tax” than any other tax we pay to keep up the government; and I am no more violating my non-resistant principles, if I pay one, than I do if I pay the other.
I have said before, all the estate or property we own, we hold only by the tolerance and authority of the powers that be.
The powers have authority over all property, and have right to demand so much of it as they have need of.
This we acknowledge, and have no right to refuse giving it to them, or to ask what use they intend making of it.
If I buy property with a ground rent, or lien of any kind on it, that part or amount is not mine any more than if I had not bought the property.
I have no right to withhold the payment of that money any more than I have a sum of money that I have borrowed, or other debt that I have contracted.
Thus it is with land, and all property.
The government originally owned all the land.
It sold it to settlers, under its patent; they hold it on condition of paying such rates and levies as the Government may demand.
Then, when we pay whatever tax is asked of us, we only give to it its due, as we would pay any other debt due; and for this reason Paul said we shall do it for conscience’ sake.
Every honest man makes conscience of withholding anything which is due to another, and so every true Christian makes conscience of returning his property, fairly and faithfully, to the officers of government, and punctually paying what it requires of him, with as little right to ask or inquire what use they design making of it, as they have to ask what use the person proposes to make of the money he has lent to us.
There is therefore a very great difference between what we pay voluntarily, or without sanction of law, and what we pay on demand of the powers.
If a person comes to me, and solicits a donation to give as a bounty to induce men to volunteer in the army, or to equip men to go and fight, by giving it I testify that I am interested in the cause and desire it to progress — when, at the same time, I do not know that I am not arming men to fight against what God designs to do.
But if I owe a man a sum of money as a debt, and he comes and demands it, and tells me he intends it to arm and equip himself to go to war, I have no right to withhold payment.
It is his, and he has a right to do with it as he pleases.
I would make no difference between paying a man to go to war, and going myself.
I would not consider that I would any more violate the spirit of the Gospel in one case than the other; neither do I consider that I am any more violating the command of the Savior if I serve as a General in the field, or a soldier in the ranks, than I do if I serve as sheriff of the county, or justice of the peace, or cast my vote for member of Congress, Governor, or President of the United States; and would not make one iota more conscience to one than the other.
I say more: those who vote for officers in the government, and use its power and authority to protect their rights and property, or appeal to law for justice, and yet refuse to defend the government in the time of need, are neither faithful to the kingdom of Christ or that of this world.
In the late 1950s, the Gospel Messenger covered the war tax resistance of Maurice McCrackin, and the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference took on the issue of war taxes and decided to try to work out some form of legalized conscientious objection to military taxation with the government.
The edition of Gospel Messenger introduced Maurice McCrackin’s war tax resistance:
A Presbyterian pacifist minister who has refused for ten years to pay part of his federal income tax he felt was for war purposes, was indicted by a grand jury in Cincinnati, Ohio, for failing to answer a summons from the Internal Revenue Service.
He is the Rev. Maurice McCrackin of West Cincinnati-St. Barnabas church, a racially integrated mission congregation jointly supported by the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio and the Cincinnati Presbytery.
Recently twenty-eight ministers requested the two groups not to yield to pressure for the minister’s removal from his church.
A Presbyterian pacifist minister who refused to pay part of his federal income tax he felt would be used for war purposes has been sentenced to serve six months in a federal prison camp in Pennsylvania.
Following his conviction thirteen clergymen appealed to President Eisenhower to intervene in the sentence.
A somewhat more in-depth news brief appeared later in the same issue (source):
Pacifist Minister Jailed for Contempt
Maurice F. McCrackin, a pacifist minister who has refused to pay the part of his federal income tax he felt would be used for war purposes, was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to jail for an indefinite period after ignoring a summons from the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. McCrackin is pastor of the West Cincinnati-St. Barnabas church, a mission congregation jointly supported by the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio and the Cincinnati Presbytery.
He has refused to pay income taxes for the past ten years because some of the money goes for military purposes.
Clergymen Ask President’s Intervention for Imprisoned Minister
Thirteen clergymen appealed to President Eisenhower to intervene in the “persecution” of a Presbyterian pacifist minister who has refused to pay part of his federal income tax he felt would be used for war purposes.
In a message sent by the Fellowship of Reconciliation the clergymen asked the President to bring Mr.
McCrackin’s case immediately to the attention of the Justice Department and urged that he be freed of the contempt conviction so the charges may proceed “in orderly fashion” to try him on the tax charges.
W. Harold Row, secretary of the Brethren Service Commission, was one of the twelve Protestant ministers who signed the appeal.
The message stressed that the signers were not associating themselves with the position Mr. McCrackin had taken or with the means he employed to appeal to the conscience of his fellow citizens to renounce war.
A letter-to-the-editor in the issue took inspiration from McCrackin’s stand (somewhat mangled source):
Objection to War Taxes
In the issue, you questioned the way the tax dollar is spent, and in another section you mentioned the plight of Rev. Maurice McCrackin, imprisoned for not paying the war taxes.
To me it seems that McCrackin and others like him are pointing the way out of a basic dilemma for all who profess to be pacifists, namely how to effectively oppose war when tax dollars are taken from us that go four fifths for war.
It is time that the Church of the Brethren and the other peace churches come out in favor of conscientious objection to war taxes and alternative service for the dollars we get for our labors in the form of giving an identical amount or more than the amount of taxes to the Brethren Service Commission, CARE, and other such organizations that are doing the needed job that the war-minded government of the U.S. refuses to do:
help the needy and suffering and undeveloped people all over the world.
The early Brethren did not pay taxes for war, and we are a poor shadow of our forebears if we let our dollars be spent to maintain the cancerous military machine of the United States. ―John Forbes, Castañer, Puerto Rico
Jeanne Jacoby of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, was in turn inspired by Forbes, in her letter in the issue (source): “I sincerely believe that we Brethren should oppose war taxes.
If we oppose war and preparation for war, why should we pay money for war.”
Perhaps not surprisingly, the war tax issue came up at the Annual Conference that year, though the focus seemed to be on trying to convince the government to accommodate conscientious objection to military taxation rather than on taking action in the here and now.
From the issue (source):
From the Brethren Service Commission came a recommendation to the Board urging that the Church of the Brethren begin making explorations with agencies of government in order to find some acceptable alternative for persons who, because of religious training or belief, are conscientiously opposed to the payment of the portion of their income taxes that goes for military defense.
It was pointed out that there is a growing interest among Brethren in finding such an alternative and that there is an increasing concern with regard to the large amount of tax money that is used for war preparation and various forms of military defense.
The Board recognized this interest and approved the recommendation that came to it.
It was pointed out that the difficulties confronting such a proposal would be extensive, but that a start should be made.
The church will attempt to work with other organizations having a similar concern, but if necessary, the church will proceed by itself to try to find some alternative to paying war taxes.
This evidently gave the editor of the Messenger permission to be somewhat more forthright about advocating war tax resistance.
In an editorial (source), Kenneth Morse wrote:
, the anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb, should not pass without every Christian deciding to take personal responsibility for some form of protest or non-violent action against the continuing arms race.
Some concerned persons have kept vigil at launching bases, others have demonstrated against policies by engaging in “walks for peace,” others have refused to pay taxes for war purposes.
W.A.
Ogden of Grace Seminary (Indiana) wrote an article on “Separation” for the issue of The Brethren Missionary Herald in which he set out his idea of the Brethren orthodoxy on how the Christian ought to behave toward the state.
When it comes to war bonds: “We recognize that there are many areas, such as purchasing bonds, war stamps, and so forth, which the individual must settle alone with his God.”
In the issue of The Brethren Evangelist, Percy C.
Miller reviewed the chapter on the Civil War from Rufus Bowman’s The Church of the Brethren and War (source).
He summarized the Brethren position on war taxes and related issues this way:
In the early days of the war, some of the Brethren hired substitutes.
The church members preferred to pay fines instead of using the system of substitutes.
But the records do not indicate that the Brethren clearly recognized the inconsistency with their peace position of employing substitutes or paying heavy war taxes to keep free from participation in armed conflicts.
The Society of Friends protested continually against war taxes.
The Brethren and Mennonites took the position that they [sh/c?]ould pay what the government required.
The brethren felt that the gospel required the payment of fines and taxes.
They based their opposition to war upon the teachings of Jesus but related their opposition more to the overt acts of war than to the whole war system.
They felt that the Brethren Church, for Biblical reasons, [sh/c?]ould not use the sword, but that the civil government, likewise because of Biblical reasons — “for the punishment of evildoers” (Ⅰ Peter 2:14) — might have to use material force.
Today, some gleanings from the Gospel Messenger of .
In the issue, Donald M.
Royer shared the results of his study of two Brethren congregations, one with a strong adherence to the Brethren “peace doctrine” and the other not so much (source).
In the less-strong congregation, Royer noted, “over half the members… work in industries with government contracts for military material… When asked what they would do in time of war, about one in two replied that they would buy war bonds, work in industries making materials for war, and at the same time increase their giving to the Brethren Service program.”
the Church of the Brethren General Offices made available a pamphlet about the tax burden of military spending in
Harry K. Zeller, Jr. penned something of a paean to the protester in the issue (source). Excerpt:
War — hot or cold — is the major business of civilized nations.
It is now accepted as a part of our way of life.
To some people such a condition of national conduct is unworthy of us as children of God.
A few resist, refusing to accept for themselves what society approves.
With Edith Cavell they insist, “Patriotism is not enough.” They decline to salute, refrain from wearing the uniform and refuse to kill.
A few will not even pay that portion of their income tax which is used for military purposes.
They have undertaken the most important practical task facing the world — the honest effort of simple people to eliminate war, the Public Enemy No. 1 of humanity.
Provision can be made for conscientious objection and its parallel provided in alternative service, but to refuse to pay taxes — this no civilized society can permit!
Society cannot tolerate these social resisters either.
If they persist, they must be punished or imprisoned or eliminated.
A lengthy letter to the editor about taxpayer complicity in militarism from Mrs. Robert D. Clark appeared in the issue (source). Excerpt:
We would laud the man who risked his life refusing to obey Hitler.
Are we just as alert to recognize that a brave girl, Eroseanna Robinson, an athlete of national standing, is in jail today because her conscience will not allow her to let her tax money be used to promote precisely the same method of dealing with world problems?
Can the same method be evil under Hitler and righteous in America?
The issue profiled long-time minister Ross Murphy (source).
The profile included this note: “[H]e was elected president of the Philadelphia federation of churches shortly before World War Ⅱ began, and he was able to use his influence to keep the churches of the city from being stampeded into the sale of war bonds.”
In , suddenly Brethren couldn’t stop talking about war tax resistance.
By war tax resistance had gone from heresy to something that was considered one possible appropriate Christian response to runaway militarism.
Take, for example, this mention in passing from Ralph E.
Smeltzer’s long essay on “The Church and the World” in the issue of Gospel Messenger:
When the Christian conscience and the demands of the state conflict, as many feel in the case of military service, taxes for military purposes, and defense jobs, the Christian must follow his conscience.
A lengthy war tax resistance letter-to-the-editor on war tax resistance led off that column in the issue (source).
The page scan (here and elsewhere in this volume) is difficult to read in parts, but I’ll try to restore it as best I can:
Taxes for War Purposes
The three of us, two ministers and a layman, have come to the conclusion that we can no longer pay Federal income tax for war.
This may seem an astonishing stand; but much more astonishing is our general Brethren complacency about paying income tax.
In colonial times and during the Revolutionary War there was much tax refusal by Quakers, Mennonites, and Brethren.
An irate critic of the Church of the Brethren charged,
“They not only refused to take up arms to repel the savage marauders and prevent the inhuman slaughter of women and children, but they refused in the most positive manner to pay a dollar to support those who were willing to take up arms to defend their homes and their firesides, until wrung from them by the stern mandates of the law.
They did the same when the Revolution broke out. They might at least have furnished money.
But no; not a dollar!”
It is not certain whether this writer referred to taxes or only to the substitutionary sum paid in lieu of the militia draft.
In either case the Brethren then had an alert ethical sensitivity about turning over their money for war.
In the belief that many Brethren are becoming troubled about paying income tax, we submit for fraternal consideration the following statement on income tax refusal.
Because the per capita U.S. military expenditure rose from less than $8 in to $268 in ,
Because approximately 75% of the Federal budget for the past several years has been annually appropriated for military purposes,
Because the government has been spending less than one million dollars yearly on the problems of disarmament, in contrast to $47 billion on arms, a ratio of one to forty-seven thousand,
Because there is so little national conscience about what nuclear war would mean for man, what it would be under God,
We find ourselves constrained by the love of Christ to refuse paying Federal income tax and instead are giving a corresponding amount, plus no less than 20%, to UN or other peacemaking programs.
We reject, as blasphemy against Christ, the prevailing readiness to exterminate hundreds of millions, or even all mankind, in order to “defend our values, our faith.”
Since modern technological warfare is much more dependent on huge amounts of money than on manpower, we believe that refusal to turn over our bodies is not enough; we can no longer turn over our dollars for the present rush t[o our] mass annihilation. Let West an[d East] really take total disarmament a[s our] goal, and not merely toy with it [under] the pressure of world public o[pinion] as till now.
We do not discount the cons[tructive] aspects of Federal activity, a[nd we] welcome governmental endeavo[rs that] do make for peace. But with t[he best] prospects for disarmament fadi[ng fast] and the population of East and [West] mostly unaware of the imminen[ce of] and the certainty of disaster if [these] policies continue, we are impe[lled to] income tax refusal as a way of [calling] others to hear God’s warning:
[“I have] set before you this day life and [good, and] death and evil. Therefore choo[se life,] that you and your descendant[s may] live, loving the Lord your God, [obey]ing his voice, and cleaving to [Him.”]
Those interested in discussi[ng this] difficult issue should write Dal[e] [Auk]erman, Bechlinghoven bei [?] Glueckstrasse 3, Germany. [Dale] Aukerman, John Forbes, and [Jerry] Royer.
That letter got an enthusiastic reply from Dale Rummel in the issue (source):
Church Should Take a Stand
I read the letter on “Taxes for War Purposes,” by Dale Aukerman, John Forbes, and Jerry Royer in [the] Gospel Messenger for [.
I] feel that they are trying, const[ruc]tively, to reach the answer [to the] problem that has been plaguing Christians since the two world wars.
I would like to see Annual Conference take action along the line[s of] their statement.
Our government can crush individuals when they take a stand which is “illegal.”
But if an organization like our whole Brotherhood took this stand and backed up [the] individuals who carried it out, [there] is much more chance for its [doing] some lasting good. I believe, [also] that if we take this stand [other] denominations will join us in it[.]
This is no time for the Brethren to become fearful and cowardly [and] be afraid to step forward and [go] where we know it is right to [go].
Let us, with God’s guidance, go [for]ward, regardless of the phy[sical] consequences, in what we know [is] right.
A note in the issue (source) said that the Michigan district conference had asked the Annual conference to “study the possibilities of making the pacifist movement a political force in our country” by, among other means:
Attempting to work out a proposal for an alternative tax arrangement, so that the taxes of those who object to war on conscientious grounds may be used for peaceful and constructive goals of government.
In the issue, J.
Robert Boyer encouraged his readers to take more courageous stands for their faith, and not like Peter deny Christ three times before the cock crows.
One example he gives of when one might take a stand: “Will you send your tax money to Cape Canaveral, where missiles are launched to kill the enemy?”
The following letter from Charles E. and Cleda P. Zunkel appeared in the issue (source):
No Tax for War Purposes
In keeping with our pronouncements concerning war, the last of which was made at the Annual Conference at Richmond, Va., we Brethren have encouraged our young men to seek alternative service, in lieu of military service.
Our young men, who have followed our teaching, have borne most of the brunt of this course of action.
Have we, their parents, kept faith with them, as we have continued to pay our income tax money, 75% of which has gone for the support of military preparedness and war? I think we have not.
Some of our young men have challenged us to action, by appealing to us to cease paying the 75% of our income tax which goes to military purposes.
It seems high time that we oldsters make our witness for peace, as we have asked our youth to make theirs.
My wife and I have been spurred to action by this appeal of our youth, and by the recent appeal of our President for $2 billion more to be added to an already staggering sum for military might.
The accompanying letter was sent to the Internal Revenue Service and to our President to clarify our position.
It seems to us that we are called upon to make clear our faith and our action, in keeping with our historic understanding of the life and teachings of our Lord.
Director of Internal Revenue,
Richmond, Virginia.
President John F. Kennedy
White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Sirs:
Since the late 1920’s we have been conscientious objectors to war, in the settlement of international disputes.
We believe in the historic faith of our church, The Church of the Brethren, that “all war is sin.
We, therefore, cannot encourage, engage in, or willingly profit from armed conflict at home or abroad.
We cannot in the event of war accept military service or support the military machine in any capacity.”
Believing as we have, we have had guilty consciences as we have seen our nation increase its military preparedness.
We have been aware that approximately 75% of all our income tax money has been spent for war, preparation for war, or mainten[ance] of military might. In 1938 the [total] military expenditure was $8 [per] capita; in 1958 it had risen to [$268] per capita.
From time to time, as we [have] filed our income tax returns, we [have] in letters to the government, [pro]tested this use of our money. [We] suggested that there be some [pro]vision whereby these funds now [used] for military expenditures be used [for] peaceful pursuits, such as the fee[ding] of the hungry of the world [and] the aid to underprivileged [people] through technical assistance.
Thus far, our protests have [not] been regarded. On , our local newspaper carried the notice that you, President Kennedy, were asking for $2 [billion] more than the amount already [pro]posed for military defense, ma[king] a total asking of $43,794,300,000[.]
Recently, we learned that two [nu]clear scientists warned the Nat[ional] Education Association in its co[nven]tion that we in the United States already have enough manufact[ured] fissionable material to blot ou[t all] life from the face of the entire [earth] and leave it pock-marked and vo[id like] the face of the moon.
In all good conscience, we ca[n no] longer give 75% of our income [tax] money for the support of mil[itary] might.
We are not opposed to pa[ying] tax, but rather, to paying tax for [that] purpose.
We feel as guilty as if [we] were giving our lives in the pro[gram] of the military method of settling international disputes.
Therefore, we are filing our income tax report as usual, paying [the] full tax for , but paying [only] 25% of the tax due for the first [quarter] of 1961.
The other 75% of our [income] tax will be given in quarterly [install]ments to the church, in addition [to] the 15% or more we already [give.]
We hope the time may [speedily] come when such vast military expenditures may cease, and the [money] so spent may be used to relieve [the] suffering and need in our world.
[We] hope, further, that in the [mean] time some alternative tax plan [may] be worked out whereby conscientious objectors may give their [tax] money to peaceful pursuits, just [as] young men may serve in alternative service in lieu of the military service.
The Gospel Messenger editor, Kenneth Morse, endorsed peace protest in general in his editorial, and war tax resistance as one possible protest: “Consider also the personal decision of the moderator of Annual Conference and his wife with regard to taxation for war purposes… It is always easy to criticize the stand that others take. But please note that some have at least taken a stand.”
A response from Jack Kline, however, in the issue, took issue with tax resistance on the usual render-unto-Cæsar grounds (source): “I think it well to protest the high military expenditure.
But the type of letter that was written to Mr.
Kennedy and to the Internal Revenue Department I think does not show good grace.
I am a bit embarrassed that leaders in our own church would write that type of letter and refuse to pay taxes which our Lord distinctly told the Jews, under a military occupation, they should pay.”
There was another dissent, from John L.
Mohler, in the issue (source).
His objection was more on the grounds of democratic political theory: “[B]y participating on the economic life of our national community and accepting our incomes from it, we obligate ourselves to payment of the tax which, by democratic procedures, a majority of our citizens have imposed upon us.” Mohler felt that if you were going to conscientiously object to the taxes on your income, you should do so by refusing the income in the first place: “It seems to me that, in the case of refusal to pay taxes, the removal [of the dissenter from the democratically-chosen endeavors] should precede and prevent acceptance of the income on which the tax is paid.” But he didn’t think that was such a great idea either.
He felt that the tax resister’s quest to morally isolate himself from the decisions of the democratic polis was futile, and that he should instead accept his share of guilt for those decisions and begin from there.
On the other hand, Virgil Rose, in a letter in the issue (source) “was moved with deep spiritual elation” by the news of Brethren war tax resisters.
Rose tried to contradict some of the arguments against war tax resistance.
For example, the individual contribution to the modern war budget, he says, dwarfs the tiny head tax in Judea that Jesus spoke of, and so they cannot be directly compared; and the idea that he straightforwardly counseled the payment of a tax to Rome contradicts the whole point of the render-unto-Cæsar parable.
Rose also wasn’t impressed with Mohler’s democratic theory, though as I interpret it, it seems they were talking past each other on this point (Mohler responded in the issue).
His conclusion:
Let us not shrug off the pricks of conscience that disturb us as we witness the courageous decisions these Brethren are marking.
What defense have we before God if knowingly and without protest we supply money to buy instruments for the destruction of our fellow men?
Russ Montgomery also chimed in, in the issue (source). “I would like to congratulate [Charles Zunkel] on the courage to take such a stand.
When such bold action is taken by leaders it seems to make them worthy of the name.”
The issue brought an update about Maurice McCrackin (source):
Presbytery Suspends Minister Who Refused to Pay Income Tax
The Rev. Maurice F.
McCrackin, pacifist Presbyterian minister who for some twelve years has refused to pay a major portion of his income taxes, has been suspended indefinitely by the Cincinnati Presbytery from his ministry.
Mr.
McCrackin has been pastor of the West Cincinnati-St. Barnabas church, a racially integrated mission congregation supported jointly by the Cincinnati Presbytery and the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio.
A spokesman for the Presbytery explained that Mr. McCrackin was suspended not for his stand on income taxes but for disobeying the law by ignoring a summons from the Internal Revenue Service, an offense for which he served a six-month prison sentence.
Many of the minister’s parishioners were reported sympathetic with his refusal to pay most of his income taxes on the ground that they were used for military purposes and that war is a sin.
The lead editorial in the issue (Morse again) again promoted conscientious tax resistance:
Just about the time that Valentine Byler, an Amish farmer in Pennsylvania, was ready to start his spring plowing, the Interal Revenue Service seized his three work horses and sold them at auction.
The reason was that Byler, who is conscientiously opposed to Social Security, had refused to pay a self-employment tax for that purpose.
Many members of the Amish sect regard Social Security as a form of insurance, and they are opposed to it. They have consistently refused to accept its benefits and do not take a Social Security number. While agreeing to the normal taxes on their property, they object to paying the Social Security tax required of farmers.
Thus we have another of those ironical situations in which the government finds itself [ba]nishing some of its most thrifty and self-reliant citizens.
Fortunately, as a result of the Byler case, several bills have now been introduced in Congress which would allow persons who are conscientiously opposed to Social Security to be excused from participating either in its support or its benefits.
We hope that some legal provision can be made for the benefit of those independent persons who have such scruples.
Many of us who would argue in favor of Social Security and even urge that it become available to more people still recognize the rights of conscience.
We respect the integrity of citizens who, like the Amish, may have some unique ideas as to how they contribute to the general welfare.
At the same time, is it not just as reasonable for the federal government to give some consideration to the scruples of citizens who are conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for war purposes?
A friend who is employed in the Treasury Department tells us it should not be too difficult for Congress to set up a general fund for nonmilitary purposes to which the tax payments of peace-minded citizens could be directed.
This would not satisfy all the concerns raised by taxprotesters, but it might at least provide an alternative more acceptable than the present arrangement.
A wise government should be able to find some way of conserving the conscientious contributions of citizens who cannot conform to policies they regard as wrong but who still desire to serve in constructive ways.
In the issue, an S.
Mohler (no idea if there’s any relation to the John Mohler referred to above) wrote in (source).
This letter began by saying that “in recent years I have read about a few Brethren suffering imprisonment for refusing to pay income taxes, because of the government’s military use of them.” I think this cannot be factually correct, as there were not very many Brethren war tax resisters at this point, and I don’t know of any who had yet been imprisoned for it.
Be that as it may, Mohler continues by saying that such “imprisonment for nonpayment of income taxes can be honorably and approvedly avoided” by increasing tax-deductible charitable contributions to the point where you do not owe taxes.
Mohler suggests that this is the method he or she has been using for “the past ten or fifteen years.”
Andrew R. Shelly, of the Board of Missions in the General Conference Mennonite Church, wrote in to second that suggestion, in the issue (source).
“Why should we not adjust our lives so that we can give very much more and at the same time materially reduce that which we pay directly to the war effort?”
(See ♇ 5 September and 9 September 2018 for Shelly’s contributions on this theme to the Mennonite Gospel Herald.)
The Brethren Evangelist was much more restrained in its coverage.
They did publish this wire service piece about Maurice McCrackin in the issue (source):
Presbytery Suspends Minister Who Wouldn’t Pay Income Taxes
Cincinnati, O. (EP)—
A pacifist Presbyterian minister who for some 12 years has refused to pay a major portion of his income taxes, has now been suspended indefinitely by the Cincinnati Presbytery.
The move not only halts his ministry but prevents his receiving communion in the church.
The Rev. Maurice F. McCrackin has been pastor of the West Cincinnati-St. Barnabas Church, a racially integrated mission congregation supported jointly by the Cincinnati Presbytery and the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio.
An Episcopal diocese spokesman explained that although the mission is a co-operative project in its religious program, disciplinary jurisdiction rests with the Presbytery since Mr. McCrackin is an ordained Presbyterian clergyman.
A spokesman for the Presbytery said that Mr. McCrackin has appealed this suspension to the Presbyterian Synod of Ohio, but it was reported unofficially that his only hope for reinstatement would be a formal declaration to the Presbytery that he would pay his income taxes in the future.
It was explained that Mr. McCrackin was suspended not for his stand on income taxes, but for disobeying the law by ignoring a summons from the Internal Revenue Service, an offense for which he served a six-month prison sentence.
Presbytery has been studying the case for nearly a year.
I did not notice any mentions of war tax or war bond refusal in The Etownian, The Pilgrim, the Brethren Missionary Herald, or Bible Monitor in .
The war tax resistance debate raged in the letters-to-the-editor column of the Gospel Messenger in (though other Brethren periodicals ignored the issue entirely so far as I could see).
In one of the letters from that I noted yesterday, an S. Mohler had recommended that people who had conscientious scruples about contributing their taxes to military spending should increase their charitable giving to the point where they no longer owe taxes.
In the issue, Rollin E. Pepper threw some cold water on that suggestion (source), noting that the law limits the amount of charitable deductions that a taxpayer can claim.
The debate continued in the letters column of the issue, in which Charles W. Wampler said “it would be impossible to run a government allowing such action [tax resistance] by its citizens” (source).
I expect that if the government would allow people to pay tax only for the things that they approve the majority of the people would pay much less tax.
Some might even find excuses not to pay any tax.
Certainly no good Brethren would want to follow a course that would destroy our government even though it is not perfect.
A editorial from editor Kenneth Morse tried to put the critics of tax resistance on the defensive:
[Regarding] the stand taken several months ago by a Brethren minister who refuses to pay taxes to be used for war purposes.
Several of our readers were quick to disagree with him, but hardly any one came forth with a more constructive way of witnessing against the use of tax money for destruction.
You say you do not like the idea of tax refusal, mass demonstrations, or such public protests against the drift toward annihilation?
Then show us a better way to witness.
O.E. Gibson wrote in to the issue to promote civil disobedience against military taxation as a way of pressuring the government to accommodate such conscientious objection (source):
One Way God Works
May I sum up my thinking about one’s refusal to pay tax money to our government for the support of the big military build-up (one half to three fourths of the total of one’s income taxes assessed)?
Men bearing arms were the essential part of a war machine in all history up to within a few years ago.
But recently money has become the essential in plans using guided missiles, etc.
The government came to recognize the consciences of men who were unwilling to bear arms to take life only after some fearless ones were willing to defy the government and accept imprisonment to prove their convictions.
These men caused our laws to be changed.
What had been considered wrong came to be recognized as right.
For similar reasons it can hardly be expected that our government will change its laws to exempt money (allow it to be held back) without being morally forced to do so by conscientious objectors being willing to bear the consequences — probably imprisonment.
History, both Biblical and secular, has borne out this general principle — at critical times governments must be disobeyed if truth is to be vindicated and right standards more generally accepted.
This is one way that God works in history.
In the issue, a reader (whose name is unfortunately obscured in the page scan) wrote in to recommend that conscientious objectors to military taxation try voluntary simplicity instead (source).
Excerpts:
I believe those who wish to withhold income tax would admit that their “way of life,” materially speaking, is supported by the military economy.
I think a more constructive way, and the only consistent practice of withholding such money, is to reduce the standard of living, individually and voluntarily, to more of a subsistence level.
This would mean such a drastic reduction in salary that there would be no income tax due.
It would also mean revising our standards of living, materially speaking, such as mode of travel and home conveniences to what would be necessary if the military preparations and expenditures were suddenly and drastically curtailed.
The writer said that he himself lived economically, but he did not personally practice nor actually advocate this living-below-the-tax-line procedure.
He merely put it forward as being in his opinion more consistent than war tax resistance.
The debate continued to rage.
In the issue, [Jeanne?] Lee Jacoby wrote (source):
On Tax Refusal
I am a firm believer in the refusal to pay war taxes or, more appropriately, the percentage of income taxes which is used for war.
How many Brethren can conscientiously sit back and look at the missiles going up, wasting millions of our hard-earned dollars when there are so many other worthwhile projects for which we ought to be putting our money?
For example, why couldn’t the government use our percentage of the tax for the Peace Corps?
To me this is a wonderful experiment which I hope will continue for a long time.
Also, there are millions of tons of surplus food stored in our warehouses going to waste, and all that is needed is the money to send it to the starving people of the world.
Besides, if America needs allies so badly, there is no better way of obtaining them.…
How great is our concern?
Should we stand for something we know is wrong?
We refuse to bear arms.
Ought we consent to doing something like this which may prove to be even more destructive?
The General Brotherhood Board put forward a report on “the church’s historic peace position” in (source).
It tiptoed around the war tax resistance issue this way:
During the last few years, several voluntary agencies have been exploring with the government the possibility of an alternative tax arrangement.
The Brethren Service Commission has been working with the Friends and the Mennonites in the preparation of such a proposal.
We urge the Brethren Service Commission to continue its efforts to develop an acceptable proposal for an alternative tax arrangement.
Ralph Detrick announced his resistance in a letter published in the issue (source):
Caesar’s Due Portion
Following are excerpts from a recent letter I sent to President Kennedy, Senator William Proxmire, and the Internal Revenue Service.
I did not pay the $7.20 balance due on my income tax this year.… I protest the payment of a tax which supports the military machine and its false security.
There is nothing positive about the level of military involvement to which our country has devoted itself.
It is time to reverse this trend.
I take my stand in opposition to the direction our country is going and instead give my support to a peace-making organization.
I am sending $9.00 to the World Health Organization of the United Nations.… My voice may be small, but it is only when many such voices respond openly to the higher loyalty of God’s supreme law of love, that we as a nation may become a leader in peace rather than in weapons of war.
I often question the wisdom of this action.
I am ignorant of the long-range implications of this witness.
But where does the Christian draw the line at compromise?
Christians compromise out of necessity, and in some cases perhaps the ends justify the means.
Yet, there is also a great need for the person who tries to hold compromise at a minimum on certain issues in order that the plumb line of Christ may bring these issues into focus and reveal their evils.
When the federal budget is pitted against this plumb line, its evils — nuclear testing, the “military-industrial complex,” the waste created by Pentagon pressure — are revealed, creating an issue with which I do not wish to compromise.
Should the day arrive when Caesar’s budget becomes more in tune with God’s law of love, I shall be more than happy to render him his due portion.
A report on the annual conference, from the issue, reported (source):
William Smith, a representative on Standing Committee from Pennsylvania, expressed disappointment that the [General Brotherhood] board had not offered more help to persons who were disturbed by some of the issues involved in paying taxes to be used for war purposes.
Yet with one amendment, largely editorial in nature, the original statement [see above] was adopted by the delegate body.
In the issue, Charles Zunkel wrote in with an update on his family’s war tax resistance, and how they had backed out of it into more of a mild symbolic protest:
Witness by Designation
A little over a year ago, my wife and I decided we should refuse to pay the 75% of our federal income tax which was used for purposes of war.
We so announced to the Internal Revenue Department, the President of the U.S., and to our church through the Gospel Messenger. [see yesterday’s Picket Line]
Following that announcement, we had communication from the U.S. Treasury and the Department of Internal Revenue, and much with members of our own church and some other denominations.
All of the communications from the federal government were most considerate and courteous, a thing we did not always experience with our own Brethren.
The Department of Internal Revenue carefully acknowledged our conscientious scruples but reminded us that Mr. A.J. Muste had lost his case of conscientious tax refusal in the federal tax court, and urged us to pay ours.
In continuing correspondence we reaffirmed that we were not opposed to the payment of tax, but rather to the use to which it was put.
We asked if we might designate it for United Nations, Peace Corps, or Food for Relief, all of which are in the federal budget.
We were told that Internal Revenue did not have authority for the use of the tax money, but rather for its collection.
In discussing the matter with many friends and members of our families, we decided to test out the Internal Revenue on the designation of the tax money.
Accordingly, in paying our third quarter’s payment, we made one check for the 25% undesignated and for the 75% for three quarters, designated in the lower left-hand corner of the check — “For Peaceful purposes: U.N., Peace Corps, etc.”
The checks were cashed without any communication or question.
Since that, we have continued to write two checks, each quarter, designating the one in the fashion indicated.
We took this course of procedure, realizing that eventually the tax would be collected and with an additional 6% penalty.
The federal government will withdraw the tax due from the checking account, if funds are sufficient, or will confiscate property and sell it to secure the amount due.
Rather than make more money available for war purposes by confiscation and penalty, we decided to witness our protest by designated check.
Thus far, we have not tried to probe to discover whether the designated money was channeled as designated for United Nations, Peace Corps, etc. That we may still do at a later date.
We believe the witness can made by designation, at least until we can find some more effective way.
The issue reported on the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., including its decision to uphold the suspension of war tax resisting minister Maurice McCrackin (source).
I. Wayne Keller wrote in to the edition to decry the lawlessness of war tax resistance, and the Messenger’s “tacit, if not expressed approval” of it (source).
He wasn’t too fond of protests either:
“Carrying placards and walking in a public place are the methods of radicals, pressure groups, rioters, and anarchists.
Because they are, the Christian should not use them.”
Keller was joined by L. Wade Bollinger in the , who said that in a democracy “we the people are indeed ‘Caesar’ ” and so we should not be resisting our taxes but exercising our democratic franchise to help direct them (source).
Robert Fritter penned a lengthy rebuttal to these points of view in the issue (source).
Excerpt:
So aware were the early Christians of their primary loyalty to the laws of God rather than man’s laws when the two conflicted that for 300 years they were persecuted for disobeying the laws of the land.
They would not worship the emperor, nor would they take part in war.
They would not bow down to the military state because they knew that it was a stupendous and terrifying god of destruction which froze men into fearsome obedience while proclaiming to be their only salvation.
Those who refuse to pay income tax which feeds the insatiable hunger of this false god of 20th century America also refuse to pay homage to the same god.
A brief report on the Mennonite World Conference from the same issue (source) noted:
A Mennonite professor closed the conference with a speech in which he suggested that Christians who oppose the world power struggle and nuclear weapons might consider withholding payment of taxes which would be spent for military purposes. Dr. Edward G. Kaufman, professor of religion and philosophy at Bethel College in Kansas, said this would be an effective means of preventing nuclear war, but he conceded most people would not adopt his plan.
Harley J. Utter, in the issue, thought that war tax resisters were disregarding all of the nice non-military things the government spends our taxes on.
He also wasn’t a fan of protests: “show-off demonstrations are wrong, that is walks for peace and the like.” (source)
John Forbes wrote in to the same issue, saying in part:
“Thanks be to Bro. Charles Zunkel, whose witness against paying taxes for military purposes should inspire all of us to go and do likewise.”
Today I’ll look at war tax resistance among American Brethren in 1963 by hunting through the archives of Brethren periodicals.
In the issue of the Gospel Messenger, John Forbes introduced the idea of a form of tax resistance as a symbolic protest, rather than as a conscientious imperative (source):
Suggestions for Taxpayers
For the benefit of the readers of the Messenger and all others across the Brotherhood interested in the peace position, I would like to quote three statements and make a suggestion.
“We urge the Brethren Service Commission to continue its efforts to develop an acceptable proposal for an alternative tax arrangement” (Report of GBB to Annual Conference, adopted).
“My feeling has been that the initiative on this has to come from taxpayers around the country rather than from any organized effort here in Washington… that until there is widespread nonpayment of taxes by those opposed to war, there will be no change in government policy” (Edward F. Snyder, Friends Committee on National Legislation, letter to the undersigned ).
“I am as convinced as ever that all those who are opposed to preparations for nuclear extermination and who will owe any federal income tax should refuse some token amount.
I suggest holding back $10, an amount large enough to be noticed but small enough to avoid excessive penalty.
When Internal Revenue took $14.49 from my bank account, the ‘statutary addition’ was only 21 cents.
The year before, when I owed $5.90, it did not bother to collect at all.
“This ‘token ten’ could be given to some constructive project, and IRS so informed in a letter explaining the objection to over half of it being otherwise used for destruction.
Enough pacifists are interested in this, I feel, to make it become a significant force for peace” (Franklin Zahn to editor of the Peacemaker, ).
I think everyone in the Church of the Brethren with a concern for peace should take up this suggestion and apply it when income tax is due in April, if they can.
I am willing to act as coordinator of this project, if one is needed and someone in Elgin doesn’t want the job.
If enough Brethren and others take this action now, we shall surely see action in Congress or in the Treasury Department before long.
In a “Brethren Ministers’ Peace Retreat” was held.
The Church teachings on pacifism and peacemaking were given a thorough going-over.
Dale Aukerman reported on the retreat in the issue (source).
Aukerman had himself come out as a war tax resister (see ♇ 31 May 2020), so he would likely have been attuned to any mention of it, but except for one mention of Civil War-era refusal to hire substitutes for military service (but payment of tax), his article on the Retreat is silent on the issue of taxes.
The issue published a brief dispatch about Quaker war tax resister Arthur Evans (source), but a more in-depth dispatch appeared in the Brethren Evangelist so I’ll save it for that section, below.
The minister of the Unitarian Universalist church in San Anselmo Calif., has declined to pay sixty-one percent of his federal income tax on the grounds that it would go for “carefully planned machinery to kill millions of human beings.”
The Dutch-born pastor, Karel F. Botermans, who was a leader in the Netherlands underground during the Nazi occupation, sent the remaining thirty-nine percent of his tax to the Internal Revenue Service.
In the protest letter he sent to President Kennedy and Secretary of Defense McNamara he asserted the belief that he had international law on his side.
He referred to the Nurnberg trials, “where it was stated by our Allied judges that, in actions of genocide, every person in that society involved in those actions is to be held responsible.”
The pacifist clergyman points out that he would gladly pay the withheld sixty-one percent of his tax if the U.S. pledged to spend the money for other methods of settling international differences.
In the issue, O.E. Gibson raised a series of questions about conscientious objection, suitable for consideration by Brethren.
Several of these concerned war funding, and the others seemed designed to guide the consideration of those (source).
Excerpt:
Is there a difference in principle in supporting one’s government as a soldier and supporting its war plans with money?
Are those persons in the U.S. (some forty or fifty) who are openly refusing to give their money in tax to support the military plans of our government more radical or less realistic than the conscientious objectors who would not submit to the draft in World War Ⅰ?
Allowing that refusal may mean much more than a few months in prison — that it may mean a complete change in one’s way or standard of living as is the case with most of those who are refusing, should we condemn or should we uphold them?
Would history or reason suggest that a law allowing that one might divert his tax money into religious or peace work be passed by our Congress without a comparable amount of suffering as that endured to get our “alternative service” law?
The issue of The Brethren Evangelist printed a wire service article about Quaker war tax resister Arthur Evans:
Colorado Springs, Colo. (EP)—
A Colorado Quaker who long has refused voluntary payment of that portion of his federal taxes earmarked for military spending plans the same course of action .
For 20 years, Dr. Arthur Evans, a Denver physician, has donated the amount of money equal to his tax burden of military spending to a charity and has sent the receipt to the Internal Revenue Service.
Every year the IRS attaches his bank account, collects the amount due and adds a 6 per cent interest charge.
, because the IRS was “using the information I was voluntarily giving for evil purposes,” Dr. Evans did not file any federal return.
To make up for his tax liability, the physician sent the IRS five checks for $200 each — payable to the United Nations, the Peace Corps, and the AID Program.
Dr. Evans contends he is meeting his obligation by contributing to organizations such as the United Nations, which are supported at least in part by the U.S. government.
The IRS, in returning the checks, stated “they have no connection with any tax liability and cannot be accepted by this office.”
The Quaker, who terms military spending as a “Doomsday Machine,” continues to pay his state income taxes because they have no military spending connection.
After a flurry of interest in war tax resistance in the early 1960s, things simmered down a bit just as the focus of the tax resistance movement shifted from conscientious objection against nuclear-era militarism to protesting against the U.S. war in Vietnam.
A letter from Mary Blocher Smeltzer and Ralph E. Smeltzer to the Director of the IRS, announcing their tax resistance, took up a page in the issue of the Messenger (source):
We are filing our Income Tax Return with our District Director of Internal Revenue, but we are refusing to pay the $21.83 balance of the tax due, for reasons of conscience.
During the years it has been our practice to accompany our return with a statement protesting and strongly opposing the use of any of our tax money for military purposes, for war, and for preparation for war, and requesting that it be used only for the peaceful nonmilitary activities of our government.
Last year we also refused to pay the balance of the tax due, for reasons of conscience.
We are both Christian pacifists.
One of us is a minister employed by the General Brotherhood Board of the Church of the Brethren.
The other is a public school teacher.
We enthusiastically approve and support the constructive services and peaceful programs of our government.
But we conscientiously object to war and preparation for war by reason of our religious training and belief.
We especially oppose our country’s present program of producing and stockpiling nuclear, chemical, biological, and other weapons of mass destruction which are now capable of destroying the human race.
We equally oppose similar programs by all other nations.
We would like to designate all of our income tax for the purposes of disarmament and preparation for disarmament, for increasing the constructive services and peaceful programs of our government, and for increasing the constructive and peaceful programs of the United Nations.
But the Internal Revenue Code makes no provision for such designations. We are urging our legislators to work for such provisions and amendments in the code.
Most of our income tax has been withheld by our employers and forwarded to you.
We have had no control over this action by our employers who in turn must follow this procedure by law.
However, as individuals we retain the choice as to whether we will pay the balance of the tax called for by the government, or whether we will not.
We have decided to protest the use of our income tax for military purposes by refusing to forward the balance of our tax called for.
We recognize that the United States government may impose penalties upon us for not paying this portion of our income tax.
We are prepared to accept the consequences of our Christian conscientious objection to the payment of our tax, at least seventy-five percent of which now goes for military purposes.
We do not desire to receive any personal privilege or gain from this refusal to pay the balance of our tax.
We are contributing an equivalent amount to the Brethren Service Commission… for its program of peace and relief at home and abroad.
A receipt for this contribution is enclosed.
A roster of 360 persons, among them professors, scientists, writers, doctors, clergymen, and entertainers, made public their refusal to pay voluntary part or all of their federal income taxes.
As critics of U.S. policy in Vietnam, the signers declared that American forces there are “clearly being used in violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and the United Nations Charter.”
Their statement, published in newspapers this spring, deplored “the spectacle of the United States with its jet bombers, helicopters, fragmentation and napalm bombs, and disabling gas, carrying on an endless war against the hungry, scantily armed Vietnamese guerrillas and civilians” and compared such action to Italian atrocities in Ethiopia and Russia’s intervention in Hungary.
It further drew parallels between “the indifference of Americans to the crimes being committed in their names, by their brothers and with their tax money” and the indifference of most Germans to the slaughter of Jews.
Two of the signers, Ralph and Mary Smeltzer, Elgin, Ill., have refused to pay voluntarily the unwithheld portion of their federal income tax for four years, opposing the use of tax moneys for military purposes.
The outcome has been the government’s attaching the balance in wages.
“While only the unwithheld portion of the tax is all we have control over, we protest the sixty percent of every tax dollar used for military purposes,” said Mr. Smeltzer, who is Brotherhood director of peace and social education.
“At the same time we voice approval and support for the constructive and peaceful programs of the government.
“If enough people express themselves a change in the law may be made allowing people to designate how their income tax will be used.”
Mr. Smeltzer added, “or the program and policy of military expenditures may be reduced.
“Whether our actions do any good or not, we have to do what we conscientiously feel.”
This open letter from Russell F. Helstern appeared in the issue:
It’s tax time again!
Tax paying is a privilege and a responsibility of every American citizen.
To my knowledge I have never voted against a bond issue or a tax levy, nor have I ever been delinquent in the payment of my taxes.
Good government and the needed community services can be secured and maintained only through the willingness of citizens to assume this civic responsibility.
Right now my desk is cluttered with income tax forms, family ledgers and accounts, scribbling paper, and a box of aspirins within easy reach.
The aspirins are not alone for eyestrain and headache from long hours of juggling elusive figures but serve more as an opiate for a troubled conscience.
As a Christian and a responsible world citizen I am genuinely disturbed as I sit here ready to write my income tax check.
For many years I have met the dilemma of conscience by sending with each income tax return and check a letter of protest for paying that portion of my tax that would be used for military purposes and requesting that it be allocated to humanitarian and legitimate constructive areas of service but at the same time knowing it would all go into the same till.
With poised pen ready to write the check, I become suddenly aware that last year’s income tax check helped to purchase the bombs that fell on Hanoi, tearing huge, gaping craters in residential areas quite remote from military targets, as Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times has informed us by photos and news dispatches.
It was my income tax check of last year that helped purchase napalm bombs that were dropped indiscriminately on areas of South Vietnam, inflicting unimaginable suffering and death on innocent and helpless women and children who, by the remotest stretch of imagination, could not be held responsible for any part of this conflict.
It was my income tax check of last year and the year before that helped pay the cost of the defoliation of the Vietnamese rice fields and croplands, accentuating the problem of hunger and starvation in a world much of which is already locked in a grim race with death from mass starvation.
The pen is still poised and I am deeply troubled.
I stand before almighty God, who holds me individually responsible for the use I make of the resources he has placed at my disposal.
(The Nurenberg war criminal trials taught us that!)
I am not absolved of guilt for crimes committed at my country’s insistence.
And so as a Christian and one who tries to be a responsible world citizen I confess I am deeply disturbed.
I’m not sure what’s going on here.
After years of frequent coverage of war tax resistance inside and outside the church, now the magazine retreats to reprinting some timid hand-wringing about being “deeply disturbed” about paying taxes for war crimes without even alluding to resistance as an option.
War tax resistance came up at the Annual Conference in as the Church voted to issue “A Call for Peace in Vietnam” (source):
One specific step urged for congregations proved to be the subject of some debate.
It was a proposal that congregations should oppose legislation which would increase taxes designed specifically to support the war.
One delegate was eager to have this sentence eliminated from the statement, but his amendment failed.
Another delegate proposed that a sentence be added that would urge members to consider seriously whether they should continue to pay income taxes that might be used for the support of the war.
This amendment also failed to gain support.
In a later issue, remarks of a Catholic observer of the Brethren conference were summarized this way: “[he] summed up the Brethren statement on Vietnam and recounted a plea by a Midwest minister urging members to consider whether they should pay income tax in light of its heavy use for war purposes. ‘The assembly listened politely to the young man and then defeated his amendment.’ ” (source)
The issue included a “Special Report” on phone tax resistance as an option for people who wanted to resist a “war tax”:
“The act is small but the meaning is large. It clearly says that this war is not our war.”
In its “Call for Peace in Vietnam” (see [above]) Annual Conference in urged congregations to oppose legislation which would increase taxes designed specifically to support the war in Vietnam.
One such tax already enacted (though not mentioned in the Annual Conference statement) is the ten percent federal excise tax on telephone charges.
The tax, which once had been reduced to three percent and was due to be dropped entirely in , was reinstated in .
Rep. Wilbur D. Mills (D., Ark.), who managed the tax legislation in the House, is quoted in the Congressional Record () as saying:
“It is clear that the Vietnam and only the Vietnam operation makes this bill necessary.”
War protest: In protest to the Vietnam “operation” — particularly the mass bombings, napalming, support of the Ky government, and other aspects of U.S. military involvement — a group of several hundred persons have begun boycotting the telephone tax on the grounds that it is singularly a war tax.
The refusal is treated by phone companies as a matter between the individual and the government, and phone service has not been interrupted.
In fact, according to some sources, the telephone company has rather welcomed the protests, for it has long opposed the excise tax, though for a different reason.
At Staten Island, New York, the telephone company reportedly reminded a tax-refusing customer that she had neglected to withhold the tax in one payment, and it credited her account with the amount of the tax.
Sponsor: Promoted by the Committee for Non-Violent Action (5 Beekman Street, Room 1033, New York, N.Y. 10038), the campaign of telephone tax refusal has been dubbed, “Hang Up on War!”
According to CNVA staff member Valerie Herres in New York, some 800 persons have made known their refusal to CNVA.
Colleague Karl Meyer in Chicago says the actual number of telephone tax protesters likely exceeds 2,000, including members of at least two Church of the Brethren congregations.
In withholding the excise tax from payments, individuals are urged always to include a note explaining the omission.
The CNVA asks also that protesters inform them of their stand.
In , after the Chicago Daily News carried a front-page story on the campaign, the district director of Internal Revenue within two weeks sent to the withholding parties first notices of direct assessment.
However, for most of the recipients no actual collection was yet made several months later.
The CNVA makes clear to tax refusers that in the severest application of the law, under the criminal penalties act, one who “willfully fails to pay” the phone tax could possibly be charged with a misdemeanor, under Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code, and be imprisoned up to a year and fined up to $10,000.
It is also possible that one could be charged with attempt to “evade or defeat” the phone tax, under a section carrying a stiffer penalty.
On the record: Testimony of Internal Revenue Service officials on the matter before the House Subcommittee Hearings on Appropriations for the Departments of Treasury Post Office, and Executive (as quoted in Peacemaker magazine ) went as follows:
Mr. Robison (congressman).
That is income tax.
Unpaid excise taxes will be pretty small per individual, however, unless it accumulates over a period of years.
Mr. Cohen (IRS director).
If necessary we collect small amounts, and we have.
I think it will be less convenient for them than it will for us.
Mr. Bacon (assistant director).
We have about eighty-five cases pending in Illinois and above thirty-five in Ohio.
It is a nuisance situation because the tax is small.
Mr. Cohen.
But we do not intend to sit by.
People cannot pick and choose which laws of the United States they will obey and those which they will not.
Mr. Robison.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I want to know what your policy is.
Mr. Cohen.
We intend to vigorously follow up any of these cases and collect the tax.
We may let several months accumulate and do it all at once.
Exaggeration? In reflecting on the above testimony, Karl Meyer of the Chicago Workshop in Nonviolence commented to Messenger:
“This exaggerates somewhat the vigor of their determination.
I have been refusing for over a year (and income taxes for seven years), and they have yet to collect a cent from me.
To my knowledge they have thus far collected from only two or three of the Illinois refusers, and in those cases only the initial couple months of unpaid tax.
In two cases the taxes were taken from bank accounts after unsuccessful visits from IRS agents.
In one case a bank charged a fee of $10 for handling this transaction, and in the other case a bank charged $5.
In a third case the tax was collected by attachment against a paycheck.
Agents have visited several other refusers and have sometimes made threats of serious action, but in the three cases cited the serious action turned out to be no more than collection by seizure.”
Toward what end? What is the point of refusal?
Mr. Meyer put it this way:
“The future will be different only if we change our lives.
The act is small, but the meaning is large:
This war is not our war, and we are willing to struggle to be on the side of life.”
From some Brethren involved in the telephone tax “hang up” came the explanation that it is one direct means, small yet tangible, of dissenting to the United States’ action in Vietnam.
“It probably will not change government policy,” one member said, “but it does something to me.
It lays my witness on the line.”
In light of the vote by Annual Conference delegates against amending “A Call to Peace” to express support for income tax refusal as a means of peace action, many Brethren likely would be reticent to join in telephone tax refusal.
Still, even the prospect of income tax dissent is up for study by the Brethren Service Commission.
Prompted by a request last fall from the Pacific Southwest Conference board, a five-member committee has been named to explore federal income tax alternatives.
In the meantime, for those who choose, telephone tax refusal appears as a modest but viable means of voicing concern over the Vietnam war.
In response, Ethel Weddle wrote in to the issue to say that she didn’t have any reluctance in paying her taxes in spite of her disapproval of the government’s military policy.
Civil disobedience is too dangerous, she thought, as it opens the door to all manner of lawbreaking: “giving those people with less than Christian ideals the go-go sign to disobey, rob, destroy, and kill” (source).
Horner M. Eby replied to this in the issue (source). Excerpt:
Ethel Weddle makes some cogent points in her letter… Withholding federal telephone excise tax is a rather picayune gesture.
I am doing it.
The Internal Revenue Service is not long-suffering.
The IRS man has visited our home twice and has levied against our checking account both times, so that we are never more than eight months in arrears on this tiny tax.
If I really meant business, I should reduce my income enough to eliminate my income tax, which is a hundred times greater.
Then, of course, I could not give to the church an amount comparable to my income tax, nor to the FOR, the AESC, the ACLU, SNCC, SCLC, SOS, the Chicago Area Draft Resisters, and the DuPage Draft Resisters.
After something of a lull in the mid-1960s, in the war tax resistance debate filled the pages of the Church of the Brethren’s Messenger magazine.
(Other Brethren periodicals were silent on the issue that year so far as I could tell.)
In the General Brotherhood Board decided it was time to polish up the peace witness of the Church of the Brethren.
And in preparation for this, it produced “a paper clarifying various stances on the payment of taxes for military uses… [which] cited various options now open and urged efforts to seek a further alternative for those who, because of conscience, oppose supporting war causes.” (source)
This included “urging the government to adopt a provision by which persons conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for military purposes may be granted some alternative, much as conscientious objection is permitted in draft legislation.”
On the matter of alternatives in the payment of federal income tax for war uses, a study committee report was presented and adopted by the General Brotherhood Board.
The report was prompted by various inquiries by Brethren, the most recent from the Pacific Southwest Conference board of administration.
The report enumerated as present options (1) paying the taxes, (2) attaching to the payment a statement of protest on the portion used for war purposes, (3) holding one’s income to a level not subject to taxation, and (4) refusing to pay all taxes or the portion of taxes used militarily, as a witness and a protest.
While not endorsing one alternative above another, the paper, like the proposed revision in the Annual Conference Statement on War, did recommend that efforts be made to secure tax laws permitting a constructive alternative to the payment of income taxes for war.
The board statement also proposed that publicity be given to such steps as the withholding of the federal telephone tax levied in support of the war in Vietnam.
Towards implementation, the board asked the administrative committee of the Brotherhood staff to study the implications of the paper and to bring subsequent proposals in .
One type of question raised by board members in discussion was whether the board itself, in its own operations, might withhold payment on the telephone tax.
A Brethren Peace Fellowship began to congeal, and in one of its early regional meetings: “At several points discussion centered on the possibilities for tax refusal and draft resistance and on proposing an Annual Conference statement on civil disobedience” (source).
The Annual Conference did end up putting out a statement based on the General Brotherhood Board’s recommendation (source):
Another new section deals with taxes for war purposes.
The statement on this point was amended in discussion on the floor of Conference to include a preliminary sentence indicating that although Brethren accept the need for paying taxes for constructive purposes, the church opposes the use of taxes by the government for war purposes and military expenditures.
Specific suggestions dealing with approaches to paying war taxes on the part of members were put in a permissive form, leaving the action to the conscience of the individual.
At the same time, churches and church-related institutions were urged to study the problem of paying taxes for war purposes and even to make a careful review of funds that they might possibly have invested in bonds that would support war.
The approach of civil disobedience is alive in our day.
Knowing that the telephone tax we pay finances the Vietnam war, some individuals do not include money in their payments for the federal tax.
They write across their bills, “No money for war,” or some similar statement.
A new surtax requiring ten percent additional tax money earmarked for Vietnam has been demanded by our government.
Some who believe that war is contrary to the will of God will question themselves, “Is it right to ask our young men to refuse to bear arms even if for some this may mean jail, if we as adults are willing to finance the devastation?”
The edition included an article that discussed the recent progress of the discussion about war tax resistance, and the search for a legal alternative, in the Church of the Brethren:
For the Christian pacifist, where is the conflict of loyalty to God and to the state felt more pervasively than in taxation?
And as the nation’s military expenditures skyrocket, persons of peace persuasion are moved to ask: If alternatives are allowable when it comes to putting one’s time and body on the military line, ought not a similar provision pertain to putting one’s taxes there?
The answer, as called for by a variety of concerned spokesmen, is for a legal, constructive, alternative tax arrangement for persons conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for war and military purposes.
The appeal for such a plan has been heard off and on for a quarter of a century.
For the Church of the Brethren, the matter came more sharply into focus when Annual Conference inserted in its Statement on War a section on taxes for war purposes.
Alternative use: “While the Church of the Brethren recognizes the responsibility of all citizens to pay taxes for the constructive purposes of government, we oppose the use of taxes by the government for war purposes and military expenditures,” the new section declared.
“For those who are conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for war purposes, the church seeks government provision for an alternative use of such money for peaceful, non-military purposes.”
The statement, recognizing that members will differ in their responses, cited four positions on the payment of federal taxes for war purposes which are evident:
to pay taxes willingly.
to pay the taxes but to express a protest to the government.
to refuse to pay all or part of the taxes as a witness and a protest.
to limit voluntarily one’s income or use of taxable services to a low enough level so as not to be subject to taxation.
To implement the concern, the Conference statement urged all members, congregations, institutions, and boards to pursue the matter with serious study and to act “in response to their study, to the leading of conscience, and to their understanding of the Christian faith.”
Dilemma: The appeal for study and action was prompted by concern over the “ever-growing portion” of the federal budget going for military purposes, according to a statement on “Taxes for War Purposes” adopted by the Brethren Service Commission .
The commission paper pointed up the dilemma which this escalation of war funds poses for “peace-minded people and conscientious objectors to war who put their trust in the power of love, non-violence, and international cooperation rather than military might.”
Sparked by a request from the Pacific Southwest Conference Board of Administration for a study of federal income tax alternatives, the Brethren Service study committee asserted that the church’s stance historically has been to oppose participation in war; at the same time it has taught responsible citizenship.
“The Christian should appreciate and support the worthy functions which government performs.
He should willingly obey the state in matters on which he has no contrary moral conviction.
On the other hand, he should be alert to occasions when government neglects or misuses its trust from God.
When he is profoundly convinced that God forbids what the state demands, it is his responsibility to express his convictions.
Such expression may include disobedience of the state,” the commission paper quoted from the Annual Conference statement on “Church, State, and Christian Citizenship.”
Pre-Vietnam: In its own background study the Brethren Service committee noted that while the nonpayment of taxes on conscientious grounds has been a movement of the past 25 years, the concern has “a long and honorable history.
Early Christians refused to pay taxes to Caesar’s pagan temple in Rome; many historic peace church members refused to pay taxes during the French and Indian wars, the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War; strugglers for independence in India, under Gandhi’s influence, refused to pay taxes to the British Empire.”
The study committee recounted a series of efforts which the Brethren Service Commission has made in seeking tax alternatives.
The General Brotherhood Board had urged explorations with government “to the end that an acceptable constructive alternative be provided for all those persons who, by reason of religious training and belief, conscientiously object to the payment of that portion of income taxes going for military defense.”
At Brethren Service’s initiative, representatives of eight peace agencies, each genuinely interested in seeking a suitable tax alternative, met in in Washington, D.C., for a strategy session.
The consensus was that there was little likelihood of the government’s providing a tax alternative until tax protestors and objectors created sufficient administrative difficulties that the government would decide it would be less vexing to provide a tax alternative.
Subsequent efforts by a follow-up committee and other efforts in liaison with the Mennonites and the Friends proved to no avail.
Legislators who had introduced measures calling for tax credits for contributions to the United Nations, which had been looked upon as possibly one alternative designation of tax funds, received little support from the public or from Congress for their proposals.
In a response to a related query the Annual Conference urged Brethren Service to continue efforts to develop an acceptable proposal for an alternative tax arrangement.
According to the study committee, all efforts to date have failed to find or gain sufficient support for a tax law provision or administrative formula that would satisfy Congress, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and conscientious objectors.
Wider forum: For the next step, the appeal of Annual Conference and of the Brethren Service Commission is for the question on the payment of taxes for war purposes to receive a wider airing among members and congregations.
Copies of two major resource items, “Statement on War” and “Taxes for War Purposes,” were mailed in to pastors and to Witness and Brethren Service chairmen.
The issue of Messenger [see below] will feature a symposium with spokesmen for each of the four stances on the handling of tax payments.
A response coupon in the same issue will enable readers to report their own stand on the payment of three taxes used heavily for war use, the federal excise tax on telephone service, the recent ten percent surtax on income tax, and the income tax itself.
The names of persons willing to have their positions identified may be published.
Readers also are invited to submit letters to Readers Write to share testimonies and viewpoints on the matter.
Institutions and boards are likewise asked to study the payment of war taxes.
The General Board, through its Administrative Committee is examining the implications at the denominational level.
Ralph E. Smeltzer, who is coordinating the study emphasis, stressed the hope “that individuals, classes, study groups church boards, congregations, and all church institutions and related boards will come to their own thought-out positions.”
Accompanying that article was this sidebar, taken from the statement on “Taxes for War Purposes”:
Paying war taxes
Present positions
Four Positions on the payment of federal taxes for war purposes are evident:
Payment of taxes.
Persons who favor the government’s war and military policies willingly pay their taxes for these purposes.
Other taxpayers judge the constructive functions of government to outweigh the unacceptable activities.
Others feel that responsible citizenship requires the payment of all taxes.
Some who oppose the use of taxes for war feel that the risks and efforts involved in opposing such use of taxes are not worth the negligible results.
Payment of taxes under protest.
Persons who follow this alternative usually file a letter with appropriate government officials protesting the use of any of their tax money for war purposes or military expenditures.
Frequently they urge the government to use their tax money only for peaceful and constructive purposes…
Sometimes such persons ask government leaders to amend the nation’s tax laws, especially the income tax law, to provide an alternative opportunity… to designate the use of their tax dollars for peaceful and constructive purposes either through United States government functions or United Nations operations.
Limitation of income or use of service to nontaxable level.
Some persons are led by their consciences to limit voluntarily their income to such a low level that it will not be subject to federal taxation for war purposes.
Likewise they may not install a telephone or use other services which are subject to similar federal taxation.
They may endeavor to avoid participating in all those aspects of economic life which contribute to or support war and military operations…
Nonpayment of taxes or portions thereof.
Persons who follow this alternative refuse to pay all or part of the taxes asked by the government.
They engage in this form of civil disobedience because they conscientiously object to the use of their money by the government for war or military purposes and because they want to make a more vigorous protest against the government’s war policy and military policy.
Sometimes these persons contribute an equal amount to the United Nations or a private peace agency as a positive witness to their position.
The Federal Income Tax and the Federal Telephone Tax are presently the taxes most frequently refused by conscientious objectors.
Refusal to pay such taxes might possibly be considered a violation of Internal Revenue Code, Section 7203, which would be a misdemeanor subject to a fine up to $10,000 and jail up to one year.
However, the experiences of conscientious objectors to federal taxes for war purposes during the past several years indicate that the government is not interested in pressing possible criminal charges but in trying to collect the taxes here or there with interest.
The Internal Revenue Service usually attaches the salary or bank account of the nonpayer and collects the tax plus six percent interest from the date the tax was due.
The nonpayment of the Federal Income Tax or portion thereof is carried out by those who have payment control over all or part of their income tax return and who refuses to pay all or a portion of the money owed.
The nonpayment of the Federal Telephone Tax or a portion thereof is carried out by refusing to pay that part of one's monthly telephone bill and sending with each remittance a written explanation of why that portion is not included.
Telephone companies have indicated that refusal to pay this tax will not result in interruption of telephone service.
Telephone companies turn over to the Internal Revenue Sendee the responsibility for collecting such unpaid taxes.
The phone company treats refusal as a matter between the customer and the government.
Some companies continue to carry the refused tax on the telephone bill as an “unpaid balance,” others do not.
The issue asked four authors to each give his perspective on the war tax issue (“Debaters of the war tax question include Russell V. Bollinger, dean of students at Manchester College in Indiana; Charles E. Zunkel, pastor of the Crest Manor church, South Bend, Indiana; David B. Rittenhouse, pastor of several congregations in West Virginia; and William Faw, pastor of the Douglas Park church in Chicago”) and included a survey readers could fill out and send in to the Messenger in which they could say which action they were taking:
In recent actions of Annual Conference and of the General Board, members of the church have been urged to study seriously the problem of paying taxes used for war purposes and to act in response to their study.
The church recognizes that its members will believe and act differently in regard to the payment of taxes when a significant percentage goes for war purposes and military expenditures.
Four major positions on the payment of federal taxes for war purposes are evident:
Some will pay the taxes willingly; some will pay the taxes but express a protest to the government; some will voluntarily limit their incomes or use of taxable services to a low enough level so that they are not subject to federal taxation; and some will refuse to pay all or part of the taxes as a witness and a protest.
As an aid to discussion and action Messenger has invited four spokesmen to comment on these alternative positions.
There is also a response form that may be used individually or by groups to indicate how readers stand on this controversial topic. ―Editor
Why I Pay Taxes Used for War Purposes
by Russell V. Bollinger
Though I write in defense of the first position, namely, that the Christian ought to pay his taxes willingly, it should be clear that I have no objection to the second, which adds only some form of verbal or written protest against the defense budget.
Those who take the third position seem to me to be evading the issue.
They resolve their personal dilemma by abdicating their responsibility to society.
The fourth position constitutes an abdication of personal responsibility in an attempt to correct a social evil.
It should be very clear that I share and have always supported the Brethren peace position, which can be amply documented from the New Testament.
Under debate here are particular forms of protest or obstruction against war.
Such forms of protest, like all actions of Christians and of the church, must be tested against what Jesus both said and did.
In order to identify and to underscore some basic considerations affecting this discussion, it seems to me necessary to examine an assumption on which many such actions as tax withholding have been proposed and some implemented.
Considerable promotion has been given, for example, to the slogan, “Government Is the Christian’s Business.”
I have always objected strenuously to this concept, especially to its adoption as a slogan.
At best, the statement is misleading; at its worst it grossly distorts the Christian’s concept of his central task.
Government is the citizen’s business, whether he be Christian, Jew, or pagan.
To be sure, the Christian’s citizenship will be exercised in the light of his faith — but never as the central or major focus of his activity as a Christian.
He has accepted an enormously more urgent and significant “business” — to order his own life after Jesus’ teaching and example and to strive to win others to the same commitment.
Whatever the Christian’s proper role in government, it must always be secondary among his priorities.
Otherwise, it must seem strange that Jesus and Paul so clearly advised subjection to civil government, at least in all ordinary circumstances, and do not appear to have spent time or energy attempting to reform or even influence a very corrupt government at Rome.
I propose, under the foregoing assumptions, two considerations which for me justify willing payment of taxes, even if portions of the tax budget go for objectionable purposes.
First, it is a matter of reasonable doubt whether any government could long operate under a system by which tax paying is made subject to the range of possible “conscientious” objections to selected government activities.
Let us suppose that such groups as the Amish were to withhold that portion of their taxes which goes to support all education beyond the common school.
They declare opposition to secondary and higher education on grounds of conscience.
Suppose all Christian Scientists were to withhold a percentage of their taxes allotted to medical research and facilities.
Suppose we Brethren were to withhold taxes because welfare funds are sometimes so administered as to endanger or destroy normal family life or because Department of Agriculture funds are paid to large-scale farmers for nonproduction of food and fiber.
These and many more may with equal logic be considered matters of conscientious objection.
Happily, under our system of government, we have ample opportunity to present and defend other points of view, but the democratic social theory neither contemplates nor condones obstructionism.
There is reason to question whether Brethren leaders can support tax withholding with integrity while at the same time they discourage “designated giving” to the Brotherhood budget.
If churchmen be urged to support the total church budget, without discrimination, but citizens be exhorted to support only such governmental budget items as they can approve in good conscience, we may ask whether tax withholding is supported in principle or only opportunistically, as a strategy.
It is surely axiomatic that all forms of human association are possible only because of some surrender of personal freedoms and preferences.
Since in our society we have adequate legal, educational, and constitutional avenues for expressing our views to government, to withhold taxes for what we happen to disapprove (and who can differentiate between “conscientious,” philosophical, emotional, and mystical disapproval?) comes perilously close to asking for the benefits of government while shirking its responsibilities.
In short, the proposal to withhold all or a part of one’s tax obligations for reasons of individual or corporate conscience must be conceded to contribute to a fragmentation of society that tends toward anarchy.
Second, tax withholding on whatever grounds with the purpose of preventing selected government activity is essentially a method of force which Brethren in particular should reject.
All attempts to change the behavior, attitudes, or values of mature, responsible persons by force are degrading and destructive of personhood.
There seems to be no point in arguing that the purpose of such withholding is simply a symbolic form of protest.
Kant’s categorical imperative in ethics tests a proposed act in terms of whether it could be universalized.
Since tax withholding quite obviously cannot be universalized without destroying government, it clearly suffers by such an ethical criterion.
No thoughtful observer of the contemporary scene can deny a trend toward the substitution of force for persuasion, of compulsion for rational debate, to bring about social change.
The civil rights movement, the student protests, the Poor Peoples’ Campaign in some of its expressions and slogans are illustrations.
The church seems in imminent danger of succumbing to this trend, although it is both unworthy and out of character for Christians.
The ultimate indictment of the method of force is of course that it cannot succeed except in appearance.
An attack on the war system ought to proceed by using available means to demonstrate its futility, its ineffectiveness, and its immorality — none of which ends tax withholding can serve.
At most it seems a crude and primitive way of attracting attention to one’s cause.
From time to time the Christian, as a citizen, may properly make representation to government concerning his views, his desires, and his concerns.
Our impatience to reconstruct the world after our own particular blueprint must not lead us into betraying noble ends by the use of unworthy means.
Why I Pay the War Tax Under Protest
by Charles E. Zunkel
In order to be consistent the conscientious objector to war must face the whole range of his involvement with war.
In addition to participation in the military is certainly his concern for the use of his tax money for military purposes.
This is especially true now that so much of one’s income tax is being used for war.
When my wife and I came clearly to this conviction in and decided that we must do something about it, I wrote the Department of Internal Revenue, sharing copies of my letter with the President and declaring our concern and our intention to refuse payment of the percentage of our income tax which would be used for war [see ♇ 31 May 2020].
I made it quite clear that we were not unwilling to pay the tax, but we were objecting to its being used for war.
We wanted it used for constructive, peaceful purposes.
I received a very courteous reply, reiterating my words, but advising us and urging us to pay the tax.
I then wrote, asking if we could pay this percentage for the United Nations, Food for Relief, or Peace Corps, programs of the federal government which we considered peaceful and worthy.
Internal Revenue replied that it was not in their province to disperse the funds, only to collect them.
In the meantime, I conferred with one who had refused to pay the income tax and learned that, if we did not pay, the tax would be collected by taking it from our bank or savings account or by confiscation and selling personal property.
An additional penalty of five percent would be imposed.
We decided we did not want to provide the extra five percent for war to carry out our refusal, when the tax would eventually be collected anyway.
Instead, we decided to write two checks each time, one designated for “peaceful purposes: United Nations, Food for Relief, Peace Corps,” in the percentage amount of the federal taxes for war.
The other for the remaining percentage amount we marked “undesignated.”
Since the federal government has the power to use the tax money as it wishes, not as we may designate, the checks were cashed and no comment was or ever has been given.
Periodically to accompany the checks I have written letters voicing our concern and protest to the President and the Secretary of State.
While this method does not keep our money from supporting war, it seems to us the only viable way for us to protest, since we earn enough to have to pay the tax and since we do not want the added five percent penalty to provide more funds for war.
If enough persons or families used this method and the process became publicized, it would be an educational program which might build conscience in others and eventually lead to the provision for tax exemption of the sort we now have for military service.
Legislative bills have been prepared for this purpose but have not been introduced because the lack of public support would assure their defeat.
In the meantime, we would hope that the Brethren, Mennonites, Friends, and others concerned might send to the President a delegation asking for tax alternatives, as was done to secure an alternative to military service.
Regarding the surtax or the telephone excise tax, we believe that, because these are small enough amounts of one’s total tax and that they are clearly all for war purposes, they can and should be refused, even though the five percent penalty will be added and they will be collected.
Education could win sufficient popular support for objectors to war tax payment and make possible the passage of legislation that will provide alternatives for the worthy use of tax money which would otherwise be spent to support war.
Keep Income Below the Taxable Level
by David Rittenhouse
While serving in BVS 1-W Program, Merle Grouse, a fellow BVSer, and I were traveling by train from Turkey to Germany.
During an all-night ride through Yugoslavia, we talked with a young Yugoslavian who said that he had been taught that capitalism could not exist without war.
In all innocence we strongly disagreed.
During , the Church of the Brethren sponsored a work camp in Altoona, Pennsylvania, for the unemployed after the railroad shops changed from steam to diesel.
There, at the end of a hot summer day, a group of men sat on the steps talking about their hope for a job.
One remarked, “I guess we will have to wait for another war before we get work.”
So it is that with the event of the Vietnam War and the resulting defense contracts, we are forced to admit that which some had suspected.
Though I do not believe that this war economy is the inevitable result of capitalism, the war is definitely with us, even if not by design.
It is high time that vocal Brethren pacifists be called to attention by our consciences about our direct involvement in war through taxes.
It has been a natural temptation, when Christian ethics are frustrated by the real world in which we live, to turn inward in an attempt at individual purification and character refinement as a goal that is within reach.
I do not in any sense want to encourage this type of denial of the implications of Christ’s teachings, for we must accept the fact that we cannot disassociate ourselves from the economy in which we live.
In all our expressions of protest there must still be the humble recognition that the curse of Habakkuk is there: “Woe unto him who builds a city on blood.”
But there are ways in which individual citizens can exercise freedom of belief as persons.
Living on a limited income is one of these forms of witness.
Voluntarily limiting one’s income requires us to reevaluate our standard of values.
We are encouraged to find satisfaction in meaningful activity instead of in possession of things.
It is in keeping with the Christian concept that persons and beliefs are more important than property.
It is related to the spirit of the verse in Hebrews 10:34, “You joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you know that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one.”
Our family includes my wife and me, four children, and many guests.
For seven years our income has been below the taxable level.
This does not mean to us that we are pure and uninvolved in a war economy.
Rather it has freed us to pastor six country churches that could not compete on a minimum salary for pastoral leadership.
This, then, is the exciting part of the idea of limiting one’s income.
It frees Brethren pastors, teachers, doctors, builders to go to the places of greatest need, regardless of the salary offered.
Consider Partial or Total Tax Refusal
by William Faw
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” What do we owe Caesar? Many Christians would say that we owe him complete obedience in all things: We must kill for him, pay for his wars, even exterminate a people for him as Hitler commanded and as we may be doing in Vietnam.
But Brethien have said “No” to that type of obedience.
We have said that we will render unto Caesar constructive citizenship and support for constructive programs.
We have insisted, though, that Christ’s commandment that we love our enemies forbids us to kill in Caesar’s name.
The early Christian church and the Church of the Brethren were born in civil disobedience, saying with Peter to the government, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Paul, who in Romans 13 calls us to “be subject to the governing authorities,” spent much time in jail because of civil disobedience when the command of Caesar conflicted with the command of God.
Many of us have refused to participate in military service but have unflinchingly paid taxes to support that same war machine, seemingly unaware of the contradiction involved.
Where your treasure is, there will be your heart also!
Our pocketbooks support the wars that our bodies shun!
What this amounts to is that we are paying for others to kill for us.
If God has not given us authority to kill, how can we give Caesar the authority to kill in our name and with our money?
We have often thought that the payment of taxes is a morally neutral issue.
How can it be that when our taxes are financing the extermination of the Vietnamese people?
Once you decide to object conscientiously to tax involvement in war, you must make many secondary moral decisions.
You might elect to pay your taxes but send a letter of protest which states your preference to pay a portion to the United Nations if such an alternative should become available.
It is possible that enough protest letters could strengthen congressional attempts to offer such an alternative tax-payment provision.
Or you might decide to refuse payment of taxes until such an alternative should become available, just as you might refuse to enter military service even if there were no legal alternatives to it.
If you refuse payment you must decide whether to withhold the percentage that would go into military use (some say eighty percent) or to withhold the total amount.
If you choose the first path you might reason that you are paying for constructive programs of government while refusing to support the military.
If you decide on total withholding you might give one or both of the following reasons:
One, since you cannot designate where a paid portion would go, eighty percent of what you pay still goes to the military; and two, a goal of peacemaking may be to hold back eighty percent of the government’s total revenue so that it would have to eliminate its military expenditures, in which case the total withholding of the few tax refusers is a bigger step than their partial withholding.
If you are willing to consider partial or total tax refusal, you will need to think through the mechanics and consequences of it.
If you are totally or partially “self employed” (a minister, small businessman, farmer, babysitter, public speaker) and thus have control over all or a portion of your income tax withholding, the procedure might be to withhold all or part of your quarterly estimate payments or listing the accumulated “other income” on your tax form and refuse payment on that.
If all your taxes are withheld by your employer you can at least send a letter of protest to the government with your income tax forms (send letters to the President and to congressmen as well as to IRS) and refuse to pay the ten percent federal excise “war tax” on telephone service.
In fact, refusing on both taxes should be considered if that is possible.
If the additional income taxes recently accepted to finance the Vietnam conflict had been passed as a surtax, each of us would have had the opportunity to pay or refuse to pay it.
Instead, it will be withheld by employers in the same way as normal income tax.
The Internal Revenue Code lists several categories of “tax delinquency” with consequences ranging from collecting, with six percent per annum interest, from bank accounts, salary, or, rarely, the seizure of personal property, to a fine up to $10,000 and jail up to one year.
I and others have been assured by IRS agents that there is little chance that the federal government will prosecute us until they have collected the billions of dollars in crime syndicate tax fraud.
Regarding the telephone tax, “In no case so far has phone service been discontinued because the refusal is, according to law, a matter between the refuser and the government” (War Resisters League pamphlet, “Resist Vietnam War Taxes”).
Telephone tax collection has followed the income tax procedure, with no prosecutions recorded to date.
The consequences may be negligible, but the risk must be understood and considered.
You must decide within the framework of your beliefs, of the limits of your control over your taxes, and of the personal and social risks involved.
There is one thing you cannot escape: the moral implications of financing mass murder!
The article was accompanied by a survey form for readers to fill out and return to the Messenger:
Floyd Irvin, an early Brethren adopter of war tax resistance, explained the evolution of his resistance tactics in the issue:
I have always felt that the payment of taxes for the support of our government’s killing agency — the military — is wrong.
As a Christian I am exhorted to love my neighbors and my enemies, not to kill them, and to overcome evil with good.
I am mindful of the command, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”
But I also consider that in a democracy the citizens are the rulers — the Caesars.
So in this nation I, as a sovereign citizen, have a tremendous responsibility for the actions of my nation.
As a sovereign citizen and as a Christian I am obligated to render unto God loyalty in expressing love for my neighbor and for my enemy.
And as a co-ruler with my fellow citizens, I must lead my nation to do the same.
I cannot help my nation kill people who are God’s children.
In a democracy I express my sovereign rights and obligations not only by my vote but also sometimes by protest.
My protest, even if it is expressed by non-cooperation, need not be, and should not be, termed “force” in the same sense in which destroys life.
Withholding taxes from war financing is noncooperation in that which destroys God’s highest creation, man.
Peter, who exhorted us to be subject to human institutions, did not always obey government orders.
To be loyal to the laws of God is not anarchy.
Our own government, with allies, condemned and punished German citizens for being loyal to their government’s orders when they were wrong.
Withholding taxes to be used for killing my fellowman is a means of expressing my moral disapproval of an immoral act.
This may be considered by some to be wrong.
But becoming involved in killing is also wrong.
Which is the greater wrong?
And how best express my disapproval is the question to consider.
In I withheld seventy-five percent of my income taxes — that being the approximate amount of the federal budget used for military purposes.
I gave the amount withheld to UNICEF, an agency of the United Nations.
By this donation I expressed my social responsibility.
The publicity that followed was a testimony for peace.
But it led to my removal from a responsible position and the office of superintendent of the church school of a leading congregation in our town.
I also found that the government can, if it will, collect all the taxes due, in one way or another.
They got my taxes by a devious method.
My business was such that had the government seized a truck or other property essential to my business, it would have caused considerable inconvenience to many of my 1,500 customers.
So, considering all, for some years I paid my taxes under protest.
I finally decided that for me the best way to avoid paying for military operations was to reduce my income.
So I retired early.
I have most of my investments in real estate.
If I have a prospective sale for a piece of property, the profit of which would put me in an income tax paying bracket, I deed that property to a church or to a charity institution and let that organization deed it to the purchaser.
So I receive no profit.
Or I may get a contract for many small payments over a period of years, making a low income each year.
I use all my exemptions and live on my exempted income.
The above plan works satisfactorily for me.
The debate about war tax resistance continued among Brethren in , and for the first time a Brethren church began resisting taxes corporately.
In , representatives from Mennonite, Quaker, and Brethren congregations — the “historic peace churches” — met in New Windsor, Maryland to figure out how to be a peace church in the middle of the Vietnam War.
According to Messenger coverage of the event , war tax resistance was a footnote (source): “Spurred on by the youth delegates to the consultation, a group at New Windsor prepared a brief statement calling for… ‘counseling on the draft and nonpayment of war taxes for those who need it.’ ”
In (see yesterday’s Picket Line), the Messenger had invited four writers to explain their diverse ways of confronting taxes for war.
One, Russell Bollinger, paid his taxes willingly and thought tax resistance was dangerously corrosive of democratic cooperation.
That led to a rebuttal from David Coppock in the issue (source). Excerpts:
Mr. Bollinger expresses a fear that no government can exist as long as the people pay taxes only as their conscience guides them.
Since I put the conscience first, I am more afraid of a government that does not allow the people to live as their consciences guide them.
Our first concern as Christians should not be to see that our moral inclinations are in harmony with man-made laws.
We don’t have to answer to man for our acts if we believe we have been guided by God.
We need only to answer to God.
To allow one’s personal convictions to be molded and shaped by society and government is to allow one’s very being to be taken from the hands of God and placed into the fallible hands of man.
Mr. Bollinger states, “All attempts to change the behavior, attitudes, or values of mature responsible persons by force are degrading and destructive to personhood.”
When I think about Vietnam, Biafra, race prejudice, and a so-called Christian nation with Dow Chemical and A-Bombs, I ask where are all the mature and responsible people?
And by paying taxes don’t you willfully and knowingly give most of that money to a war that is as degrading and as destructive to personhood as anything can be?
He challenges tax withholding on the basis of whether or not it can be universalized.
Since he doesn’t believe that it can, he rejects such ideas.
Does this mean that he believes that a willful support of the war effort can be universalized into a law for all men?
I certainly want to challenge his last main point.
“Our impatience to reconstruct the world after our own particular blueprint must not lead us into betraying noble ends for unworthy means.”
The Christian must recognize that America’s blueprint is being felt right now in Vietnam.
Our government would have us believe that the Vietnam war is being fought for noble ends — democracy, freedom, end of communism.
And since it found no other alternative but war, it would have us believe that this is a worthy means.
The Christian can never accept war as a worthy means.
And the Christian must recognize that the noble ends which he seeks are higher than those which the government seeks.
Therefore, withholding taxes can hardly be considered an unworthy means when that money would have been used for the most degrading and evil acts of man.
In the issue, Richard G. Young raised a dissenting voice against the attempt to lobby the government to accommodate conscientious objectors to military taxation. “A hard line should immediately be taken against any suggestion to seek tax exemption for pacifists,” wrote Young (source).
According to Young, war tax resistance is only a pacifist action if it confronts and resists militarism. “Once the military power accommodates (removes the confrontation of) an action, it is no longer antimilitaristic.”
We can be sure that if all young men eighteen years old demanded alternative service, our government would rescind the conscientious objector alternative.
It should be recognized also that our militaristic government embellishes itself with the boast that it offers a conscientious objector alternative in the “true spirit of democracy.” In this manner the antimilitaristic action, well intentioned as it may have been, has ceased to be pacifistic in that the military system has neutralized its effect.
Similarly, any agreement with the government to exempt pacifists from paying war taxes would not be pacifistic.
We would not be threatening the military but perhaps adding another plume to its hat.
The edition brought the news that a Brethren church had decided as an institution to begin war tax resistance — the first such example that I am aware of (source):
Both as a witness and as a protest, the Wilmington, Del., Church of the Brethren decided by board action to refuse to pay the federal excise tax on telephones.
In a letter to President Richard M. Nixon from the board of the Richardson Park congregation, Dale W. Good, board chairman, and Robert D. Cain Jr., witness commission chairman, noted that the 10 percent federal telephone tax was restored by Congress in to help pay for the war in Vietnam.
They also quoted from the Statement of the Church of the Brethren on War, in which the denomination stated its opposition to the use of taxes for war purposes and called upon congregations and boards to study the issues and press for alternative uses for tax money.
Meaning: “We recognize that the act of refusing to pay this tax is small, but the meaning is large in that it is a direct and tangible means of expressing our dissent to the United States’ action in Vietnam and also a protest to the enactment of taxes for war purposes,” the letter stated.
It further urged Mr. Nixon “to use all resources and power available to you as President of the United States to achieve world peace” and to give consideration to a government provision for an alternative use of tax money for peaceful, nonmilitary purposes.
The decision to take the action followed a recommendation from the witness commission and was voted 8 to 6.
Individual members of the parish were asked in turn to consider withholding the excise tax on their personal telephone bills.
The pastor, Allen T. Hansell, said that he personally had been withholding the 10 percent tax on his own telephone bill payments since .
First: Ralph E. Smeltzer of the World Ministries Commission commented that to his knowledge the action is the first taken in the Church of the Brethren by a congregational board.
In several areas Brethren individuals have practiced telephone tax refusal for up to two years.
A lengthy interpretation of the action taken by the Richardson Park church board appeared the next day in Wilmington’s Morning News.
The article stated the Church of the Brethren believes that its historic opposition to all war “is compatible with good citizenship” and that the church endorses support of “worthy government functions.”
But the article also cited Brethren concern over the trend toward a permanent militaristic outlook by the nation.
That news was interesting enough that it was also covered in The Brethren Evangelist , interrupting that magazine’s silence on the issue (source).
in the Church of the Brethren made available this book, which included a chapter on “Payment of Taxes for War Purposes” by William Few
In the “General Board” had put together a policy statement on civil disobedience that it hoped the Annual Conference would adopt.
The Messenger published it (source).
It alluded to “laws which require payment of taxes for war purposes” as an opportunity for “reactive” civil disobedience — conscientious objection — as opposed to “initiatory” civil disobedience, which is designed as a pressure tactic to change government behavior.
And it gave favorable mention to “the Christians who refused… to pay taxes to Caesar’s pagan temples”, “Quakers who refused to pay taxes for war against the Indians”, “Henry David Thoreau”, and, within the Church of the Brethren, “refusal to… pay war taxes during the Revolutionary War”.
But it did not come down on either side of the question of whether war tax resistance ought to be recommended.
It instead recommended a careful process for assessing proposed individual and corporate civil disobedience actions.
[We] separate our total tax obligation into two parts.
That portion required to pay our part of the indispensable, nonwar services of our government as loyal citizens we gladly pay.
The part that would go to war purposes, which we cannot conscientiously support, we withhold by making contributions to relief, to the church and her ministries, and to other worthy, nonwar causes — contributions large enough to wipe out our war-tax obligation.
If the government takes part of the tax dollars we pay for non-war services and uses them for the war, we can’t prevent that.
We couldn’t prevent it if we refused to pay all taxes and went to jail.
Our alternative service for tax dollars is a matter of conscientious objection to the war, and we so state on our tax return.
This is not just “tax avoidance.”
It is costly.
It costs far more than a dollar to divert a dollar from the war.
Since the tax rate begins at fourteen percent of taxable income and increases with larger incomes, we have to give away six or seven dollars to withhold one dollar from the war.
But wouldn’t you gladly give seven dollars to lessen a little the suffering of a wounded refugee child rather than to pay one dollar to buy napalm to burn more babies?
How much should we withhold?
Should we proportion our withholding to the direct cost of the Vietnam war (fifteen percent of the national budget)?
Or should it be in proportion to the total defense budget (forty to fifty percent of the total national budget, depending on whose analysis you accept)?
One’s own conscience must be the guide.
One legal limitation will affect those with higher incomes: deductible contributions cannot exceed thirty percent of total income.
The legal withholding of war taxes by contributions is especially suitable for retired citizens, for most of them have a nontaxable income on which to live.
Social Security for a retired couple, both over sixty-five, now is approximately $3,000 a year maximum for those who have been fully employed at average or better-than-aver-age incomes.
In addition, there is a nontaxable exemption of $2,400 on any other income they receive from pensions or investments.
And Medicare pays major health care expenses.
In short, a retired couple who have any income tax at all to pay have a nontaxed income sufficient for a modest but comfortable living.
Their income taxes come out of the surplus which they have for hobbies, travel, gifts to family or church, or other good causes.
It is out of this surplus that we “lay up treasure in heaven.”
Perhaps we oldsters who conscientiously oppose war should, by choosing alternative service for our tax dollars, prove ourselves worthy brothers to our young men who choose alternative service to the military.
What I was hoping to see in but didn’t was the results of the survey the magazine had sent out the previous year asking readers how they were responding to war taxes.
The Brethren Evangelist was again much more reluctant than the Messenger to discuss war tax resistance in .
There was a mention of the Richardson Park Brethren Church’s corporate phone tax resistance decision.
In the issue, Steve Haller addressed “Christian Pacifism”.
He mostly reflected on his own experience in Brethren alternative service for conscientious objectors, but also approvingly quoted Larry Kuenning who took the perspective that to a Christian, war is already over, and so:
In a war you have to pay taxes to support the army.
But the war is over: you don’t have to pay taxes for war.
You can use the money to help the victims of war instead.
In the debate over the proper response by Christians to government demands that they pay for war spilled over into the more conservative branches of American Brethren.
In the General Board of the Church of the Brethren met.
Among the items on the agenda was an invitation for them to stop paying the phone tax as an institution (source):
In still another action, a review of the federal excise tax on telephone service, the General Board by a 2 to 1 ratio voted down a motion that would have discontinued the voluntary payment of the tax.
Proponents of the motion alleged that the tax was instituted by the government to help cover costs of the Vietnam war.
Dorothy and Paul Brumbaugh shared their letter to President Nixon in the issue (source):
Preparing our income tax form and realizing that about sixty-six percent of our tax will go for purposes of war, past, present, and future, force us to examine our values.
For the past two years we have refused voluntary payment of our U.S. income tax.
We wish this year to reaffirm our previous stance and to emphasize even more emphatically (1) our abhorrence of mass murders in Vietnam and other places in the world in the name of freedom; (2) our opposition to the widespread fear generated by promotion of the ABM system; and (3) our disappointment in the neglect of hunger, housing, and education.
We also wish to affirm that governmental authority is within the will and plan of God.
We regret that our government refuses to accept the God-given authority and chooses instead the authority of power and the “almighty” dollar.
We urge you to help our government to place more emphasis on humanizing efforts and much less on the dehumanization of the war effort.
We desire that our funds be used for human development.
It is possible to choose not to participate in the Social Security program, a program helpful to many persons.
Why not also the opportunity of choice in supporting the military?
The issue featured Ralph Dull, a member of the Church of the Brethren and also a long-shot peace candidate for Congress (source).
The article noted:
For the last eleven years, the Dulls [Ralph & Joy] have refused to pay the percentage of their income tax that would be allocated to military spending, an amount of one half to two thirds of a tax figure.
The government has attached his bank account for that amount plus interest.
The Brethren Missionary Herald reported on the Annual Conference of the National Fellowship of Brethren Churches (source).
This is a more conservative group than those organized under the Church of the Brethren, and this is reflected in what its Selective Service Committee had to say about paying war taxes.
That said, the statement was sincerely searching about Brethren economic entanglement with war:
The presence of the military establishment in American life embraces much more than the problem of whether our sons accept military duty or claim conscientious objection.
The believer should realistically recognize the extent to which the military has invaded the whole of our lives and the probability that it will assume in the future an even more critical influence.
Let us carefully consider several grim realities and possibilities.
To begin with, our American system of taxation is so structured that every adult member of our society, from the oldest retiree to the youngest wage earner makes his contribution to the local, state or national government.
Huge chunks of these taxes are earmarked for the military.
Whether we like it or not we are involuntary contributors to the support of the military and are therefore participants.
Indeed, as law abiding citizens we believe we have an obligation to support our rulers (Romans 13).
Thus we are involved.
Furthermore, we must think fairly and logically about the very financial structure of our country and thus face a very disturbing reality.
Our economy is based upon the foundation of the investment of capital.
Each of us has been taught to save our money, to bank it, to invest it wisely.
Central in our economy is the building loan deposit, the government bond, the insurance policy, stocks and bonds and even the lowly savings account.
These monies, trustfully placed by us in the hands of financial experts, are reinvested for our benefit.
The returns are then paid to our accounts. It is common knowledge that tremendous amounts of investors’ money are spent to develop defense businesses.
Again we are involved.
Again, let us be reminded that a large segment of America’s work force supports the military.
The day is long gone when we can say that a few munitions makers supply the powder and ball for the military or that the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot has purchased a supply of clothing and food for the soldiers.
Government contracts are eagerly sought by nearly every industry.
The sophisticated weaponry, communications systems and transportation systems consume material far removed from the conventional concept of war items.
The huge maw of the military gulps down huge quantities of goods of every description.
Thus from the farm, the mine, the forest, the ocean and from every type of manufacturing and assembly plants unnumbered items flow into the channels marked military.
How does one know whether or not he has been a part of this nationwide effort?
In , war tax resisters in the Church of the Brethren were eager to find precedent for their beliefs and actions in the history of the Brethren as they pressured the church to dip its toes into corporate resistance by divesting itself of U.S. government bonds.
In the issue, the Messenger reproduced an excerpt from the script of a play by Gary Rowe that dramatized a dilemma for Brethren conscientious objectors during the American Civil War (source).
While, as far as I could determine, in historical fact Brethren typically paid the commutation tax to avoid service without complaint, in the play this became a contested issue.
Excerpts:
Thomas:
The great house of this nation is torn apart into two hostile camps.
I fear that tonight I will divide the house of my own father.
For that, I pray forgiveness.
I cannot stand with my brother [who joined the military].
Nor can I accept the offer my father made to me today, the offer to pay the tax to exempt me from service in the army.
William:
(Jumping up) Then let us pay it!
Thomas:
Thank you, but I cannot permit that either.
Jacob:
You are aware, Brother Thomas, that our brotherhood has recommended that each church help its members who are drafted to pay the tax?
Thomas:
I know that, too.
But I want to stand before you now, not with you but in front of you, to bear witness to my own faith.
I hope that some of you may find it in your hearts to stand with me.
William:
But Sister Wolfe does have a point, Thomas.
Wouldn’t it be easier to pay the tax and avoid this danger?
Thomas:
Yes. It would be easier. But would it be true to our faith?
Jacob:
Our churches have declared that our members may pay the tax in order to avoid military service.
Thomas:
But is that why our fathers came to this country?
They came to get away from coercion.
They came to a land where they could obey their conscience, without being punished by the state!
Now… are we to bear arms in violation of our covenant as a people of God?
The answer must be no.
But are we also to pay taxes levied on us to avoid that service, taxes that burden us for holding fast to God’s Word?
Does the state have the right to punish us, in any way, for our faith?
To tell us we can believe what we like as long as we pay for others to violate those beliefs?
Adam:
(His head still lowered) Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God—
Thomas:
(Retorting) Shall I give my life, my blood, to serve Caesar, or shall I lay it down for God? (Pause) This matter involves more for us than the simplicity of giving up a coin in our pocket!
Brethren peace activists were eager to find or imagine precedents for their stand in Brethren history.
Later the same year, T. Wayne Rieman would write (source):
The early Brethren were conscientious objectors to the coercive practices of the state and church: compelling people to join or leave the church of Christ, baptizing children before they understood its meanings, forcing people to take oaths, conscripting for the military, and levying war taxes.
To all of these the Brethren answer was: No!
The overruling of the conscience is wrong — always wrong.
The Brethren… supported government, paid taxes without opposition (except war taxes)…
But the older Brethren practices I have noticed around war taxes (though I’ve only been looking at the U.S., and only back as far as the mid-19th century) were much more ambiguous than this, and if anything, promoted paying taxes willingly whether they were called war taxes or not.
Please be informed that as a matter of conscience we cannot pay that portion of our income tax which has not been withheld.
We would hold ourselves unjust if, after having seen how this war has been both reflection and cause of the unwholeness of Americans; having seen almost daily the evidence of the vast destructiveness of the war in terms of human life and the ecology of Indochina; having recognized the militaristic use of a large percentage of public monies — a use which makes war more not less inevitable; after having been taught by Anabaptist Brethren heritage that all war is evil and madness and contrary to God and man; and after having tasted of the life-giving spirit whose joy is love and forgiveness, we would indeed be unjust hypocrites if, after all this, we supported with our taxes what we hold with all our heart, mind, and soul to be an abomination in the sight of God and an offense against man.
War tax resistance and the long-ignored issue of war bonds came up at the Annual Conference that year.
The Messenger reported (source):
Attempts to force the Board to sell all U.S. bonds and to refuse to pay the telephone tax which is used for war purposes, were unsuccessful.
A later letter-writer gave some details about how this came about, expressing frustration that Brethren activists were not putting forth their efforts in a way that was calculated for success (source):
Many of us learned with some surprise that among the holdings of the General Board there are war bonds.
We would have been eager to support a motion instructing the Board to dispose of these bonds at its earliest convenience.
But we did not get that motion.
Instead we were offered a motion by the Brethren Action Movement that we do not accept the report of the Board until they first dispose of such bonds.
Very few of us are willing to use our approval for last year’s work as a weapon to hold over the heads of the Board until they do our will on a new item.
A later National Youth Conference, however, tried to keep the item on the agenda (source):
[T]he conference voted to “affirm anew our faith and allegiance in the Lord Jesus Christ and in so doing oppose war and the support of war in all forms.
Consistent with this faith… we commend the General Board to immediately dispose of, at any cost, all U.S. government bonds under its jurisdiction and control…
We call upon the church to have the courage to be Brethren.”
The Church of the Brethren decided to divest from U.S. government bonds, and considered engaging in corporate phone tax refusal as well, and in the debate began to spill over into more conservative branches of American Brethren.
Chuch Investment in U.S. Bonds
In , the Church of the Brethren General Board met, and among the items on the agenda was Church investments in the war industry and in U.S. government bonds.
The Messenger covered this in its edition (source).
Excerpt:
Government bond ownership by the church, like the war that bonds are said to support, may be winding down, but not winding up — as some persons are urging.
Replying to the National Youth Conference resolution calling on the church to dispose of all government bonds, the General Board rejected a proposed reply from its investment committee and asked the Administrative Council to bring further options in March for handling fiscal operations without the use of bonds.
Board members also called for the investment committee to consider selling any stocks held with the dozen top corporations supplying war materials.
The rejected proposal would have put the board on record as reconfirming its opposition to war, not purchasing additional bonds as long as the national budget is so heavily military oriented, permitting the sale of bonds held as cash needs arise, and opposing immediate liquidation of the remaining bonds held.
Board views ranged from those who sought to dispose of the $617,933 in bonds held by the church “as a witness to the nation” for peace, to those who saw the bonds supporting many good things of government.
Other arguments against disposal included the cash liquidity on short notice of the bonds, the loss that would be suffered in the sale of the bonds, and the fact that $259,880 of the total is pledged for a Bethany Seminary loan.
One staff member challenged the assumption that the bonds are a means of financing the war, but rather lend stability to the government.
Another indicated that the cash put into a savings account could be invested by the bank in bonds anyway, and that the church owed a fiscal responsibility to donors of the money in not risking a financial loss in any premature sale of the bonds.
“The government bonds in the investment portfolio are not considered war bonds,” noted the board’s investment committee, “but are issues which were put out from time to time for general government operations, including programs that we enthusiastically support.”
Many of the bonds held by the Brethren were purchased in the 1950s, and no further purchases have been made since 1965.
During the past fiscal year the church sold half a million dollars in government bonds.
Likely to come before the Cincinnati Conference next year is a query from Southern Ohio that the church investigate payment of the telephone tax and the holding of U.S. government securities which are believed to support war.
The issue brought more details about where these queries were coming from (source).
Excerpt:
Southern Ohio district is bringing a query to the Conference asking for a study of the payment of the telephone tax and the holding of U.S. government securities by the church’s national offices.
Likewise, the Pacific Southwest Conference, at the initiation of some youth and the Lynnhaven, Phoenix, and Glendale, Ariz., congregations, has requested Annual Conference to “consider the moral question of holding United States Savings Bonds when we as a church are trying to divorce ourselves as far as possible from the military-industrial complex.”
The General Board gave in to the pressure, as reported in the issue (source).
Excerpt:
The Church of the Brethren General Board will sell its stock holdings in corporations directly producing defense or weapons-related products and its governmental securities that are believed to channel funds into military appropriations.
Meeting at Elgin, Ill., in , the board also tightened its investment guidelines, declaring that words and acts should be brought together “so that the clearest possible witness can be given to the inclusive reconciling love of Christ.”
The statement recognized, however, that “at any given moment the commitment can be one of direction only — it cannot be one of absolute achievement.”
The implication is that mergers and company reorganizations sometimes bring into the firm products or ideals inconsistent with the Brethren stance.
Based on market prices the divestment of stocks represents four percent of the general investment portfolio and 6.5 percent of the pension fund portfolio.
US Treasury bonds being sold amount to $248,813.
The board declined, however, to sell the $274,894 in bonds pledged for a loan to Bethany Theological Seminary.
They will be sold only as they are released from escrow.
Board treasurer Robert Greiner estimated a loss of $18,300 instead of an $18,000 gain that would have been realized if the bonds had been held until maturity.
Any possible loss on the stock investments being sold and reinvested was not known.
Last year’s National Youth Conference in a resolution urged the board to sell its
US Treasury bonds.
And in the National Council of Churches’ Corporate Information Center, in which the Brethren participate, divulged the stock-holdings of ten denominations in the top 60 firms in military sales.
The Church of the Brethren had investments in nine such companies, totaling $329,258 in cost value prices.
The church’s pension fund also held $613,303 of common stocks in 13 corporations appearing in the list.
The revised guidelines now declare that the board will not knowingly invest in corporations producing defense or weapons-related products; in companies which fail to practice fair and equal employment opportunities; nor in banks or firms which transact business with governments having apartheid policies.
Similarly prohibited are investments in the tobacco and alcoholic beverage industries and companies making excessive profit.
More positively, the guidelines stipulate the board will invest in companies working to improve the environment, in government agencies that are clearly non-military, and in such industries as food, housing, clothing, utilities, education, and medical supplies.
When the board discovers that it has holdings in a company that does not meet the religious, racial, or social ideals of the church’s official statements, the investment committee may approach the company or speak at stockholders’ meetings.
Failing to effect a change in company policy, the stocks are to be sold.
Producing the sharpest disagreement was the question as to whether government bonds contribute to the Vietnam war effort or simply toward regular government operations.
Still, a strong majority of the board believed that the bonds directly supported the war effort and should be divested.
Such action, some contended, bespeaks a “disengagement from the US government” and fails to recognize that a large part of the federal budget goes toward programs of which Brethren could heartily approve.
On the other hand, a couple speakers noted that even in such nonmilitary programs as agriculture and economic development, government policy can be repressive and manipulative and divergent from Brethren ideals.
Moderator Dale W. Brown of Lombard, Ill., said that the church needs to confess its credibility gap. “I’m calling for an acknowledgment that we haven’t done our best.”
Among a few board members disassociating themselves from the majority action was Jesse H. Ziegler of Dayton, Ohio.
He described the sale of the government bonds as a “divisive act that finally will drive the Church of the Brethren to the point of increasingly making people ask what we’re about.”
He pleaded for the board to take healing and compromising action that would leave room for various views among the membership.
The board’s officers were instructed to estimate any loss of principal or income that may accrue from the divestment of Treasury obligations and issue an appeal for interested members to make special contributions so that the ongoing ministry of the church or the equity of the pension funds will not be curtailed.
The guidelines are also commended to other church agencies and to individuals.
Despite the eight hours over two days of sometimes intense debate, David B. Rittenhouse of Dunmore, W. Va., expressed the feeling of most board members in saying that he voted for divestment of the stocks and bonds not with enthusiasm, but out of genuine humility, struggle, and soul-searching.
The discussion of the issue at the General Conference was covered in the issue (source):
Investments: What is Caesar’s, what is due to God?
⋮
the General Board voted (not unanimously) to divest itself of government bonds and stocks in corporations involved in defense-related contracts.
The action resulted in some loss of income and brought severe criticism from many individuals and from some congregations.
Conference delegates, however, voted to approve the Board’s investment guidelines which state that the Board will not knowingly purchase securities in corporations or industries that are “direct producers of defense or weapons-related products; involved in tobacco and alcoholic beverage produce: involved in unfair employment practices; or involved in excessive profits.”
In reporting to the Conference the Board indicated that it had decided to sell all US Treasury bonds or notes except for those pledged to secure a loan for Bethany Theological Seminary.
Disposing of these prior to their maturity resulted in a loss of more than $20,000.
The church’s holding of US Government bonds was questioned at its last Annual Conference and forcefully opposed by the national conference of Brethren youth.
In commending the Cincinnati conference for its support of the Board’s action, the Rev. Wendell Flory, a delegate from Staunton, Virginia, noted the persistence of youth in their opposition to war and urged them to help make up the financial loss resulting from following the new investment policies.
War Tax Resistance
In addition to the bond investments issue, ordinary war tax resistance was also a topic of discussion.
The inaugural issue of included a profile of Church of the Brethren moderator Dale W. Brown (source) that noted: “He refuses to pay his telephone tax because it was levied specifically for war.”
The issue noted (source): “The La Verne, Calif., church board voted to support the Southern California Telephone War Tax Suite, involving the withholding of the ten-percent federal excise tax.”
The Annual Conference debate over whether the Church of the Brethren should resist the phone tax corporately was covered in the issue (source):
Telephone tax: Delegates decline to counsel tax refusal
…[D]elegates in are not quite ready yet to counsel tax refusal for their Board and its offices.
They were made aware that a growing number of individual Brethren as well as some Brethren institutions have been refusing to pay the telephone excise tax, which they say is specifically designated as a “war tax” helping support the Vietnam war.
The Conference agreed to appoint a committee of five to study “the problem of the Christian’s response to taxation for war.”
But they voted down a proposal directing the General Board to withhold payment of the tax on the telephone service to its Elgin, Ill., headquarters.
Board officers said that the tax, which amounts to about $130 a month, currently is paid under protest.
Earlier conference statements on the payment of war taxes, while deploring the use of tax monies for war purposes and recognizing the right of tax refusal, noted several optional choices and left the decision up to individuals.
General Board member Leon Neher, Quinter, Kan., said in the floor debate that he regarded refusal to pay war taxes as being compatible with a positive attitude toward government.
He said “resistance comes because of our love for our nation.”
Other delegates noted that a study was needed so that members could be aware of the legal implications as well as the moral implications of tax refusal.
(The members selected “[t]o study a response to taxation for war” were Dene E. Denlinger, Galen Detwiler, Vemard Eller, James F. Meyer, and Robert B. Myers.)
The issue brought this news: “In Illinois the York Center congregation has voted to ‘instruct the church treasurer not to pay the federal excise tax on the church telephone as an act of conscience against the Indo-China war, and that the Internal Revenue Service be informed of the decision.’ Pastor Dean Miller noted, ‘We felt we’ve tried all [other] channels open to us.’ ” (source)
All this while I’ve been scanning through issues of the Elizabethtown College student newspaper, The Etownian to see if there has been any mention of tax resistance there.
Finally, in the issue, there’s a mention of “A Tent (‘Freedom’) City” that was being erected on campus and hosting teach-ins (source).
The first one on the agenda: a 45-minute discussion of “tax resistance.”
A later report (source) said that a rainstorm had cut into attendance, but that the teach-ins had gone on:
Ted Landon started the morning by speaking on the background of resistance and its meaning for the individual who practices it.
Bob Blatt enlarged on this as it related to tax resistance.
He pointed out that 61% of the nation’s yearly budget is spent for military matters, and that all other pressing bills must be paid from the remaining 39%.
The stodgy Brethren Evangelist was forced to take note when the General Board of the Church of the Brethren decided to divest from military industries and U.S. government bonds, though they merely reprinted a wire service dispatch about it (source):
Brethren Will Drop Defense Investments
Elgin, Ill. (EP)—
All holdings in corporations directly involved in defense or weapons-related industries will be dropped by the General Board of the Church of the Brethren.
The vote, not unanimous, was seen as an attempt by the denomination to bring its investment practices into line with its peace pronouncements.
The church officials also voted to sell $248,813 in U.S. Treasury bonds and not to purchase new governmental securities that might channel funds into military appropriations.
The board of 25 members also voted to withhold investments from companies failing to practice fair and equal employment opportunities, and from banks or firms which transact business with governments having apartheid policies.
Even the Bible Monitor finally added its voice to the debate.
It included an article on “The Christian’s Relation to the Nation” in the issue that touched on the war tax resistance issue:
The Christian also obediently pays his taxes (Romans 13:6,7; Luke 20:25).
One pacifist used his “fist” against the government by calling upon Christians to withhold some of their taxes (war taxes) by saying that when Christ said, we are to “render… unto Ceasar the things which be Ceasar’s,” He did not say how much.
May we remember that Christ did tell us how much to pay to the state when He said that we should render that which bears his image.
Therefore, when the nation asks for it, we give it to them and it is never our responsibility to tell the government how it may use its money.
If I owe a person some money, I have no right to refuse to pay it on the grounds that he will not use it properly.
Nor can I refuse it unless he promises to use it the way I say he should.
While we find it our duty to pay Ceasar his required tax, it would be contrary to the principle of the Scripture to voluntarily or otherwise invest in war bonds, thereby becoming an investor in the war program.
No non-resistant person would want to make a profit on the war.
In , a Church of the Brethren committee formed to study the war tax resistance issue released its report, which went nowhere near far enough for those promoting resistance.
One called it a “slap in the face of the tax refusers, but perhaps we needed it.”
The issue of the Messenger printed a letter from John & Sandy Zinn, wrote to who “commend the General Board for selling their government bonds and stock in ‘war corporations’ ” and enclosed a check “to help offset the financial loss incurred by this decision,” encouraging others to do the same (source). “If all individuals and churches refused to let their money be spent for war, it would certainly become more difficult to wage war.”
The issue briefly noted that “[t]he Worthington church, Reading, Minn., in joined congregations withholding the excise tax on their telephone bill, in opposition to the Vietnam war” (source).
The issue introduced readers to the Clark family (source):
“Mike and Lois decided to enter totally into volunteer ministry.
One factor was their opposition to US participation in the war in Southeast Asia.
Lois told the congregation last summer:
‘We lacked the courage to defy our government by withholding taxes.
So, we decided to live on a subsistence income.
We then will not have to contribute taxes supporting the Vietnam War.’ ”
The issue reported on a “Cost of Discipleship” group formed in the Southern Ohio District whose work “has included investigation of war-tax resistance” (source).
“In personal responses, some members of the group have withheld the percentage of the income tax which goes for war purposes.
Others have refused to pay the federal excise tax on the telephone and sent a like amount of money as a ‘second-mile’ gift to an Alternative Fund.”
Later in that issue, Bob Gross described reluctance to resist war taxes as a symptom of a lack of faith (source). Excerpts:
Although we claim to believe in the power of the Spirit, it seems we more often choose to base our lives on worldly power.
We say we love our enemies, yet many of us follow the government’s call to war, many of us work for or invest in companies which produce weapons, and most of us willingly pay the taxes which make war possible.
We pray, “Give us this day our daily bread” while we surround ourselves with new cars, carpets, and color televisions.
We call God our protector, yet we live behind locked doors and life insurance.
We have our excuses, of course, but Jesus strikes down every one of them.
We say that we have a “right” to whatever possessions and comforts we can afford, but Jesus would instruct us as he did the rich young man:
“Sell your possessions and give to the poor… and come follow me” (Matt. 19:21).
We say that if we quit our job at General Electric because GE is a major war contractor, it will mean a loss of salary and position.
Or we cry that we can’t live on an income below taxable levels, because we need more money than that.
Jesus said, “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow and reap and store in barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them.
You are worth more than the birds!” (Matt. 6:26), and “I tell you this: a rich man will find it hard to enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:23).
The expression of our faith must not be confined to our spare time.
We are called to love God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind, and with all our strength.
Halfway is not enough.
This means we must quit our jobs if they contribute to war or to the destruction of God’s world, we must refuse payment of taxes for war purposes if we believe that human life is sacred, and we must cease laying up treasures on earth.
When we refuse to answer to worldly power, we can then turn our energies to the bringing in of the kingdom.
We can then “be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might.”
In the Church of the Brethren General Board adopted a statement entitled Taxes for War Purposes.
In it our denomination urged us to consider whether or not we can conscientiously pay taxes to support war and military purposes.…
To remind us of the statement, portions are quoted here:
The church recognizes and encourages freedom of conscience regarding war and the payment of taxes for war purposes.
Although it recommends alternative service instead of military service* it recognizes that not all members will hold the belief which the church recommends.
The same may be said regarding the payment of taxes for war purposes.
Although the church opposes the use of federal taxes for war purposes and military expenditures, it recognizes that not all members will hold this belief and that, even among those who do, there will be different expressions of that belief.
Present Alternatives. Four positions on the payment of federal taxes for war purposes are evident:
Paying of taxes
Paying the taxes but expressing a protest to the government
Voluntarily limiting one’s income or use of services to such a low level that they are not subject to federal taxation
Refusing to pay all or part of the taxes as a witness and a protest…
* In , the Church of the Brethren Statement on War was amended so that both alternative service and nonviolent noncooperation are commended to persons facing the draft.
On behalf of the World Ministries Commission, I would like to know how Brethren have responded to the Statement on Taxes for War Purposes.
I would appreciate your taking time to return the following questionnaire, using the space provided here to share interpretation of actions and feelings.
The results of this survey will be shared with all who respond.
I (we) have taken the following stance regarding the payment of federal income and telephone taxes.
Payment of taxes.
Payment of taxes under protest.
Voluntarily limiting income so as not to be subject to federal taxation.
Nonpayment of all or part of the taxes.
Signed ⸺
Address ⸺
Return to: World Ministries Commission, Church of the Brethren General Board, 1451 Dundee Avenue, Elgin, Illinois 60120
I wonder what happened to the results from the similar survey the Messenger featured, more prominently, in a issue.
The issue gave a preview of what would be discussed at the Annual Conference (source), including:
Telephone Tax and US Government Securities.
Introduced by the Southern Ohio Board of Administration, the query as it now stands focuses on “the problem of the Christian’s response to taxation for war.” In the report [see ♇ 17 May 2020] the five-member committee examines “a proper balance” between two callings — one of obeying God’s law rather than humans’ law, the other of participating responsibly in the common life of the world.
In terms of precedents both from the New Testament and Brethren history, the statement concludes the weight is on the side of the Christian’s paying and not withholding taxes.
Two recommendations are that concerned Brethren express their dissent or testimonies through recognized means and that active support be directed to the World Peace Tax Fund Act and similar legislative efforts.
A warning is sounded that the church would be diverted in its task of deepening biblical and theological understanding of the Christian peace position if it were to become focused on one particular form of protest.
In the issue, William G. Willoughby recapped the tax resistance debate from the Annual Conference (source):
My wife and I have had a continuing discussion over the question of nonpayment of the telephone excise tax.
I argued that such refusal would be a symbolic protest to the government against the Indochina conflict, while she argued that the government would eventually get the money anyway, and I would do better to put my efforts elsewhere.
So it was with considerable interest that I anticipated the report of the Conference committee on “The Christian’s Response to Taxation for War.”
This item of business turned out to be the most prolonged of the entire Conference, which indicates something of the struggle of conscience that many Brethren have been going through in paying heavy taxes for past, present, and future wars.
The committee report, with all its supplementary materials, showed its members had studied carefully the biblical teachings on taxation and had examined carefully the practices of the Brethren on payment of taxes.
Their conclusion was that there is no biblical counsel that taxes be withheld, but there is “some calling for the payment of taxes even to a sinful, militaristic government.”
The committee recognized, however, that some Brethren arrive at a different conclusion, feeling led of God to make protest by means of tax refusal.
At the preliminary hearing on , with more than a hundred people present, it was evident that the majority there were dissatisfied with the committee’s report.
The spirit of the discussion was honest, open, considerate, and good-natured, but beneath the surface many “tax refusers” felt somewhat betrayed.
They, too, had searched the scriptures and had examined Brethren history, and now — when they were subject to harassment and possible indictment by a vindictive government — the committee was raising questions about the biblical basis of their position.
When the committee report was made to the Conference business session, the committee capably defended its paper.
A valiant effort to recommit the paper for further study by an expanded committee which would include two tax refusers was narrowly defeated.
In the lengthy and at times impassioned debate, the issues were sharpened.
Did the Brethren always support voluntary payment of all taxes to a war-making government?
Was the committee too literalistic and legalistic in its interpretation of the biblical teaching?
Did it take into account the total context of New Testament teaching against war?
Is it morally right to refuse to be conscripted to drop bombs but allow one’s money to be conscripted to pay for the bombs?
Immediate past moderator Dale Brown thought that the committee’s report was a “slap in the face of the tax refusers, but perhaps we needed it.”
James Beard of Indiana contended that “the scriptures teach that we should pay our taxes and we should obey them.”
Harley Utz of Ohio argued that an act against the law and our government is an act against God.
Ben Simmons of Indiana believed that that issue is not “pro or con tax refusal, but our desire for Caesar’s property.”
Art Gish of Pennsylvania maintained that the church should give moral support to those who conscientiously refuse to pay a portion of their taxes.
When the debate was all over, and the report adopted by the Conference, I was left with many lingering questions:
What is the teaching of the Bible on this issue?
What should I do?
Should the church discourage people from refusing to pay taxes?
Perhaps Vernard Eller, Dale Brown, and others will write some books or at least articles that will be of real help to us in the years to come.
The issue has not been laid to rest!
Doris Cline Egge added her thoughts on the debate (source). Excerpt:
What is our witness?
Is it to withhold the telephone tax, all taxes?
I heard people sincerely upholding what they considered the biblical position on several sides of that issue.
I found developing a disturbing position for myself that perhaps a more faithful position might be the one James Myer, member of the committee, reiterated from the paper.
That position would be that discipleship should lead me to renounce that income that rises above the taxable floor, so in effect wage earners keep income so low they are not required to pay taxes.
For how can I faithfully tell my government, “You can do this and this with my money, and I’ll withhold funds from any expenditure I don’t like,” without encouraging people to do the same thing with the local church budget?
Dale Brown made a good point that a negative position against taxes for war purposes must not allow us to lose perspective in a positive emphasis — a vital peace witness.
Perhaps there is another position that would say, “If I can contrive to arrange my income so that I pay no taxes at all, I have relinquished any rights to influence government spending because I have no stake in it.”
I must admit that, for me, God has not yet written the last word.
Again in it was all about the Messenger, as none of the other Brethren publications I skimmed seemed to want to engage in the debate about war tax resistance.
In the issue, O.E. Gibson shared what he had learned about war taxes from the Spirit of Truth (source):
Here is what I hear the Spirit of Truth saying to us Christians about paying taxes to support the military:
“War is dependent upon two supports — soldiers and money. Because enough drafted young men choose the jail to the demands of our government, we have been given alternative service.
“When enough property owners prefer to have their property confiscated by our government rather than willingly pay the war tax, then we can hope for an alternative tax plan put into law.”
A few such people are calling us to join them.
Priscilla Zigler shared her reactions to the previous year’s Annual Conference statements (source). Excerpt:
I experienced mixed emotions when our proposals from Southern Ohio, concerning the need for further study of the tax issue, were defeated.
Immediately, feelings of frustration and anger surfaced — but then, also, a determination to keep communication alive and well, in spite of the polarization we were experiencing.
However, I know a witness was made in behalf of the importance of tax resistance in relation to our peace stand — and a witness is always an education for someone.
I hope it was for many that afternoon.
The hardest thing for me to understand or accept during the discussion on tax refusal was the “why” of it.
It was as though the church had absolved itself from any guilt about the Vietnam war.
No mention was made, in the study, of the life at stake in our payment or non-payment of taxes — and our choosing to support either life or death.
I’m wondering if the committee had looked at the issue in that light whether that very well-researched justification (the study committee report) could have ever come to be our position.
Brethren — we are opposed to war, to the destruction of human life and to any system that supports it.
Our way is peace — the gospel of love.
Why then, when the fact is that the phone tax was created specifically to aid in the destruction of the people of Vietnam, did we to the estimated tune of $145,000 per year support this tax?
Senator Frank Church said in reference to the renewal of the tax in :
“We are about to vote on an added tax which, when all the rhetoric is stripped away, is simply a war tax.
The need for it, as everyone now admits, is occasioned by the skyrocketing costs of our involvement in Vietnam.”
We supported that need.
The phone tax consistently remains, until , a part of the “life-giving blood” of the defense department.
If we continue to support the tax, we are nourishing an ever-growing evil.
Arlene and Cliff Kindy shared their below-the-tax-line tax resistance method in a letter in the issue:
We are happy to share with Messenger readers that we have again been able to keep our income below the taxable level of $2,800 for the past year.
It has not posed any financial problems for us, but instead has been a very freeing experience.
We took this conscious step initially because of what we felt to be a Christian responsibility to refuse to pay taxes when such a large portion of those taxes go to hurt and destroy others of God’s children here and around our world.
In addition, we felt that this might be a small way for us to attempt to correct the injustice of our small population in the United States using and controlling over 50 percent of the world’s material resources.
We can’t be sure at all that these actions will have any positive effect, but we continue them because of a call to try to be obedient to the life and teaching of our example, Jesus Christ.
We invite you to take a similar step out of obedience.
We do believe that for you this decision is a viable option because over 85 percent of our world population lives well below this level.
If you do face problems after making such a step, please feel free to contact us for help.
You’d think that a within-the-law form of resistance like this would satisfy the render-unto-Caesar set, but no.
Edgar O.
Slater shot back in the issue that it was bad that the Kindys, by lowering their incomes, would “not pay a fair share for the government that makes this freedom possible.”
The issue announced that legislation purporting to legalize a sort of conscientious objection to military taxation had been introduced in Congress (source).
Brethren were among the promoters of this early version of “Peace Tax Fund” legislation.
The Messenger listed the following Brethren lobbyists who had gone to Washington D.C. to push the bill: Clifford Bingham, Philip Bishop, Clifford Kindy, Kim Yamasaki, Nancy Stinette, James Drescher, Velma Shearer, Kaye Yoder, and Ralph E. Smeltzer.
“Although the World Peace Tax Fund Act is designed primarily to provide a legal alternative for taxpayers who cannot conscientiously help finance military programs, it gives all taxpayers an effective way to express their concern about the priority the Pentagon has over domestic programs,” explained James Drescher of the Brethren delegation.
In , promotion of the new “World Peace Tax Fund Act” legislation crowded out mention of honest-to-goodness war tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren’s Messenger magazine.
The issue profiled Grace and Harrold Lefevre, who had adopted a simple-living lifestyle (source). Excerpt:
Grace says that profit making is antithetical to their chosen life-style.
The Lefevers do not support many of the government’s spending practices and the family’s desire to keep their living at a subsistence level has a concurrent advantage.
Seldom have they had to pay income taxes, one yardstick by which they measure their own success as homesteaders.
The issue reviewed the work of the Church of the Brethren’s lobbying presence in Washington, D.C. (source), which included working with “a representative’s office in developing the World Peace Tax Fund Bill.” One of the “12 political action priorities” the lobbyist team was focusing on was “Providing a war tax alternative to conscientious objectors.”
But aside from those two articles, there was little in the Messenger in that touched on war tax resistance, and nothing at all in the other Brethren periodicals I reviewed.
Perhaps this was just fatigue, after the issue had been talked out thoroughly in previous years.
But I’ve noticed this suspicious correlation in my investigation of war tax resistance among Quakers and Mennonites, too, that as the chimera of “peace tax fund” legislation started to become prominent, actual war tax resistance became less so.
The first mention of war taxes I noticed in didn’t come until , and was a letter promoting the “World Peace Tax Fund” legislation (source).
Marcy Smith put in another plug for the bill in the issue, but this time at least mentioned war tax resistance in passing as another possible response to war taxes (source). Excerpt:
[A] question arises for followers of Jesus, persons opposed to repression and militarism, persons hoping for a better world free from war — in good conscience, can these people financially support war?
Search for alternatives. There are several alternatives.
Some people pay their taxes but include a letter stating their opposition to war;
some pay only part of their taxes, omitting the approximate percentage that goes to the military;
others refuse to pay any income tax.
Members of this latter group face loss of property (sold to reimburse the government for nonpayment of taxes) and even imprisonment.
In 1972, “The World Peace Tax Fund Act” was introduced into Congress.
The purpose of this legislation is to allow persons who are conscientiously opposed to war to channel their tax monies into a trust fund.
The trust fund would be used to support peace research and education, non-violent conflict resolution, and non-militaristic programs.
Diverting payment. How would it work?
If passed by Congress, the World Peace Tax Fund Act would allow persons filing income tax forms to indicate that they are conscientiously opposed to war and do not want their monies supporting the military.
That portion of the tax payment which would normally be used for military spending would be diverted into the trust fund.
Technically, the World Peace Tax Fund will cover only the percentage being used for current military operations (at this time, approximately 38 percent).
The trust fund is to have a Board of Trustees, appointed by the President of the United States.
The Trustees would be “men and women who have demonstrated a sincere and determined commitment to world peace and international friendship and who have experience with the resolution of international conflict by peaceful means.”
These people will decide what percentage of the annual budget has been allocated to military spending, therefore, what percentage goes into the trust fund, and for what alternative program(s) this money will be used.
Questions are raised by consideration of the World Peace Tax Fund Act.
One which is frequently asked is, “Won’t people who are opposed to welfare, abortion, and other controversial issues want to have special provisions made for them so that their money will not support those programs?”
In response, supporters of the Peace Tax answer that non-cooperation and opposition to war is a well-established conviction of many religions, Christian and non-Christian.
Because it is a sincere, long-held belief, the refusal to support war, whether in person or with money, must be recognized.
Precedent. A precedent for the World Peace Tax Fund is the Conscientious Objector (CO) provision in the Selective Service System.
Just as young men facing the draft could choose alternative service, so could taxpayers elect an alternative use for their money.
Like the CO option, however, the Peace Tax raises moral questions.
The World Peace Tax Fund will offer an opportunity for individuals to withhold their money from the military coffers.
However, while it is a chance for individual expression, the World Peace Tax Fund will not directly change United States’ military or foreign policy.
Just as opting for CO status did not end the draft, the World Peace Tax Fund will not bring the end of the military.
Passage of the World Peace Tax Fund Act will not relieve individuals of the need to speak out against wasteful military spending.
It will provide legal, alternative funding for peace-related programs and it will let members of the United States Congress know that a significant proportion of Americans are concerned about their monies being spent on the military.
The issue reported on a reunion of World War Ⅰ-era conscientious objectors (source).
Notice anything missing here?:
Speakers reminded the gathering of conscientious objectors that their fathers took a sharp distinct stand for peace and challenged the sons to find something as effective in their day.
Suggestions for present-day peace witnessing were: work against Junior ROTC in public schools, visit Washington to give testimony for peace, and support the World Peace Tax Fund.
In , Cliff Kindy wrote a full-throated encouragement of war tax resistance for the Church of the Brethren Messenger, the Camp Mack / Waubee conference enlisted people to sign a war tax resistance pledge, and a “New Call to Peacemaking” conference brought representatives of the three traditional peace churches together.
Wilbur J. Stump wrote in to the issue to promote the World Peace Tax Fund bill, which he claimed “would enable me, and others who feel as I do, to have the war part of my taxes used for peace projects” and would be “a legal alternative to paying taxes for military purposes” (source).
That proposed legislation was also boosted by an article a few pages further on in the same issue (source).
That article quoted a card that the National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund was asking supporters to send to Washington as saying that the bill “would allow conscientious objectors to have that portion of their taxes which would normally go for military purposes used instead for peace projects.”
The article quoted Brethren bill booster Dean M. Miller:
It is obvious that the payment of federal taxes inevitably involves us in war and preparation for war, since tax monies are not clearly differentiated into military and non-military categories…
One avenue of escape for this dilemma is to refuse to pay taxes.
However, money refused from tax payments is refused as much from the humane programs of government as from military programs.
We are not always able to make clear that we are protesting war and not taxation itself.
Furthermore, whatever taxes are withheld as an act of conscience, the government is able to collect by means of levies and confiscations.
An article in a later issue noted that an accompanying Senate bill had been introduced by bipartisan sponsors.
Another noted that the United Church of Christ had also endorsed the legislation.
And that’s it for .
All of the talk of war tax resistance that used to fill the pages of the Messenger is gone, replaced with this (ultimately fruitless) lobbying.
It’s worth noting that the “peace tax fund” legislation originally being promoted was better in many ways from the similar legislation that’s floundering today.
That said, this goes to show that from the very beginning, the “peace tax fund” movement has discouraged war tax resistance.
The issue brought the first full-throated encouragement of war tax resistance in a long time, from Brethren resister Cliff Kindy (source):
What to render unto Caesar
, 44 people from seven states gathered at Camp Mack in Northern Indiana to study and fellowship together to discern God’s will for the church as it faces requirements from the US government to pay vast sums of money for military-related purposes.
We were a mixture of Methodists, Mennonites, and Brethren who had been struggling with this issue for many years.
In the face of the fact that as church people we are paying over three times as much money in only the military-related portions of our taxes as we give for all church and charity purposes, our Bible study of the weekend focused on the clear word that Jesus is Lord of the earth.
Our time together was filled with joyful singing, unifying times of worship, meaningful moments of sharing our feelings and experiences, and deep periods of Bible study with openness to Jesus’ call changing our very lives.
The retreat was pulled together by Chuck Boyer of On Earth Peace and the BVS peace team from New Windsor.
There was a real openness on the part of the leadership (Donald Kaufman, author of What Belongs to Caesar?, and Lee Griffith from Advaita House in Baltimore) to allow the Spirit to change the agenda of the weekend to fit the call coming out of the discernment process.
Although retreats such as this are often little more than times of learning and fellowship, this gathering was an exciting exception with the potential to call the church to a fresh understanding of how total are the demands on those who profess Jesus as Lord of their lives.
On , out of moments of worship, listening for the word of the Lord, and sharing together came the Waubee Peace Pledge (named for Lake Waubee, the location of the Camp Mack retreat) and commitments to continuing activities of witness to our church and the world around us.
Although we were at different positions in our own lives, there was an amazing unity in feeling at Camp Mack that the pledge should be one written as strongly as the Word of God dictates and yet shared with the humility which the sin of our own lives necessitates.
What follows is the pledge in its final form with an invitation to each of you to join, if after deep, prayerful searching you find that you must.
Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅰ
Jesus Christ is Lord and we pledge our lives to his Lordship.
This is a pledge which we do make and we can make because the Lord fills his people with faith, hope, and love.
This is a pledge which we make with humility, but also with conviction, aware of the risks, since under all circumstances, we must obey God rather than people.
We believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, knowing that it is in the resurrection that we have our life.
We need follow death no more.
Death is conquered.
God chooses life for us.
We therefore pledge ourselves to the service of life and the renunciation of death.
Jesus Christ is the way and the truth and his way is the way of peace.
We will seek to oppose the way of war.
Specifically we make this pledge to our brothers and sisters in Christ:
Since we do not give our bodies for war, neither will we give our money.
We will refuse payment of federal telephone taxes and federal income taxes which go for military purposes.
Where our treasure is, there our hearts will be also.
If our treasure is involved in making war, our hearts cannot be set toward making peace.
We will pay no taxes for war, and if that means legal or other jeopardy for any of us, we will seek to support one another as sisters and brothers.
The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.
Render unto God what belongs to God.
We further pledge ourselves to urgently communicate with brothers and sisters in our churches, urging them to join us in refusing money for war.
We will also work to have annual meetings of our churches take a firm position against payment of war taxes, and to have church agencies agree to refuse withholding of these taxes from the pay of employees.
We believe that we who are the body of Christ should not serve as a military tax collection agency.
We further pledge ourselves to keep our hearts and lives open to the movement of God’s Spirit and to follow where Christ might lead us on the path of peace.
We pray for help and guidance — that we might be instruments of God’s peace.
We invite others to join in doing the words of this covenant and we seek to support those who are struggling toward this and other means of witness against war in the world.
We want to join you in whatever ways of sharing and commitment are possible through our common life in Christ.
Peace be with you.
Because we are at different points of commitment, a second pledge came out of this conference.
There was a common understanding by participants in the conference that Jesus is the King of Peace and that it is wrong to pay taxes for war, but for some that witness to life takes a different form.
Support for the World Peace Tax Fund is the form that takes for some of us.
Overall, though, the feeling of the conference was that, as a church, God calls us much beyond that in our witness for peace and our no to war.
As signers of Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅱ, we invite you to join if you feel God’s leading in the matter.
Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅱ
We, in spirit and in conscience affirm the Waubee Peace Pledge and fully support our sisters and brothers of that covenant.
At this time in our lives we feel unable to commit ourselves to non-payment of income and phone taxes.
We do commit our time, energy, and resources to searching for alternate channels of resistance, and pledge ourselves to continued seeking of God’s will for us in acting definitively to oppose those taxes for payment of war.
We give thanks for the freedom given us through Christ which enables us in this search, and we pray for the strength and hope to use our freedom as servants of God.
Out of these pledges and the activities of the weekend came several commitments and decisions.
It was felt that there was no need for a new newsletter but that our effort should be joined with the God and Caesar newsletter (Commission on Home Ministries, General Conference Mennonite Church, Box 347, Newton, KS 67114) and be supplemented as needed by a memo from the BVS peace team.
An exciting development was the surfacing of a group interested in serious Bible study of scriptures dealing with the issue of taxes.
Tony Sayer will be coordinating that study through the mail.
Three commitments relating to the church were to 1) share with congregations and individuals on the topic of the church and taxes which are used for war; 2) ask the decision-making bodies of our churches to endorse a statement calling all our church-related institutions to stop withholding taxes for IRS when most of those go to the US military; and 3) offer ourselves if the need arises to fill (in name only) the positions of high risk which might be threatened with prosecution by IRS because of the radical nature of some of our stances for peace.
Many at the conference will be working toward a concerted witness in the spring with the institutions of the US government that are ignoring the breaking of the Kingdom of God into our midst.
Whatever our point of commitment we want to encourage each other to deeper Christian discipleship in spite of the radically scandalous nature of the kingdom as it takes shape in our world.
May God grant us the grace to travel in that way.
Following this was a list of the names of twenty-two signers of pledge #1, and five of pledge #2.
The issue went back to peace tax fund stuff, with a profile of National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund promoter Wilbur Stump (source).
Stump was an attendee at the Waubee / Camp Mack conference, and one of the signers of pledge #2.
Anita and Richard Buckwalter shared their letter to the phone company in which they announced “we are no longer going to pay ‘protection’ money (blood money) to support [Uncle Sam’s] death machine” (source):
P.S. We donate the amount of our withheld phone tax to the Peace Tax Fund at Lansing Church of the Brethren, to be used in ministries for peacemaking.
They also shared their letter to the IRS in which they explained their refusal to pay a portion of their income taxes. Excerpt:
If you check your files, you will see that our protest has been consistent and lengthy.
Our purpose was then and is now to witness to the way of the Prince of Peace and to register our conscientious opposition to the use of our taxes for war-making.
To this end, we now feel called to move one step farther in our witness.
We can not in good conscience or in good faith sign over to you that portion of our taxes — roughly 35 percent in — that goes for present military use.
We refuse to take the initiative in paying for death and the destruction of God’s creation.
Therefore, we will not willingly forward this money to you; this is our witness to the powers that be — that God’s will for peace lives on in the victory of Christ over the powers of death.
Please note that we do not argue with the government’s power to collect taxes.
We accept the legitimate taxing powers of the state and willingly submit our taxes when we conscientiously can; we will even help to pay for past sins and wars of this nation — otherwise the percentage would be much higher.
But after much study of the Bible, prayer, and dialogue, we have come to the conviction that we will make this witness to the gospel of peace as over against the insanity of planning for war and nuclear holocausts.
Unfortunately, because the World Peace Tax Fund Act has not been enacted yet by Congress, our actions mean some inconvenience to you.
We regret this, and for your sake hope for the day when that law will make our witness “legal.”
Until then, we know that you have the power to collect our money.
We will not obstruct your efforts in that direction; neither will we hide or make personal gain from the money.
We are now and always will be open and direct with you about our intentions; we don’t wish to cause offense.
And we will forward copies of this letter to our elected representatives.
If you have any questions regarding our beliefs, we would be glad to dialogue with you.
There were three queries, from three separate congregations, concerning the World Peace Tax Fund Act, on the agenda at the Annual Conference.
A Standing Committee drafted a statement in response, “urging that Brethren support the WPTF through Annual Conference communiques to the President of the United States and appropriate Congressional committees, dissemination of information from the General Offices, continued promotion by the Washington Office, and congregational and individual letter-writing to members of Congress.” (source)
But some skepticism began to emerge:
While the Standing Committee recommendation passed with negligible delegate opposition, discussion of the issue included challenging questions about means of conscientious objection to war.
Cliff Kindy asked the church to consider the link between affluent life-styles and warfare, and suggested that living below a taxable income level is one response to the tax issue.
He urged the church to grapple again with tax refusal as a form of resisting participation in war.
Another speaker warned that the WPTF is “an attempt for us to be more comfortable with what is happening in the world” by seeking government approval of our resistance rather than acting boldly regardless of legal sanction.
John Reimer, of Western Plains District, asked if the WPTF would actually reduce military spending, or merely create a fund for peace research and education by reducing civilian sectors of the federal budgets while leaving the growing military budget unchallenged.
The issue noted that the Shenandoah District Board had begun a sort of conscientious objector census, asking draft-age youth to register their conscientious objection, while “[p]ersons who are supportive of conscientious objection to the payment of war taxes may register their beliefs on a third form.” (source)
Finally, the “New Call to Peacemaking” conference was also covered in the issue (source).
That conference was the first attempt to convene for a coordinated peacemaking response from members of the three traditional peace churches.
Excerpt:
Reaching consensus on war tax resistance was not as easy.
Although it was listed third among the concerns of this section, tax resistance was clearly the most widely debated item at the conference and support for the idea came from many of the regional meetings.
Finally, in five strong statements, delegates called upon Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites to “seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes as a response to Christ’s call to radical discipleship,” challenged congregations to uphold those who do resist with spiritual, legal, and material support; called upon church and conference agencies to seriously consider the requests of their employees who ask that their taxes not be withheld; suggested that alternative “tax” payments be channeled into a peace fund established by New Call to Peacemaking; and called upon the denominations, congregations, and meetings to give high priority to the study and promotion of war tax resistance.
Dale Brown of the Church of the Brethren also penned an article on “The Bible on Tax Resistance” for Sojourners magazine in .
The very different attitude toward war taxes (which usually went without mention) at The Brethren Evangelist can be illustrated by this excerpt from the convocation delivered by Ashland College dean Joseph Schultz (source).
Schultz was an ordained minister in the Brethren Church, with which Ashland College is affiliated:
One cannot visit the Strategic Air Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, without experiencing a welter of conflicting emotions.
Predominant is gratitude for the sense of security which those enormously complicated defense systems can generate, and a more tolerant attitude even toward taxes.
There is, of course, a feeling of awe, mixed with a tinge of doubt as to whether man actually can master such technological refinements.
And there is also an overpowering tug of regret that so much money must be spent for such expensive gadgets which may never be used.
A still greater foreboding is that they may be used, and expanded.
In readers of the Messenger learned the legal how-tos of war tax resistance, while even the conservative Brethren Evangelist was willing to publish “New Call to Peacekeeping”’s summons to war tax resistance.
an ad promoting the World Peace Tax Fund, from the edition of the Messenger
As had become common at this point, discussion of the World Peace Tax Fund bill often overshadowed war tax resistance when war taxes were discussed.
The bill was boosted in
(source),
(source), and
(source).
Here’s another example mention, from an profile of Charles Anderson (source):
Charles admits some pangs of conscience over his life-style.
His own affluence is difficult for him to reconcile with peacemaking, since he believes that the gap between the prosperous and the poor breeds violence.
His payment of tax, more than half of which is used for military purposes, is also stressful.
Support of the World Peace Tax Fund is an effort to resolve this personal conflict.
In the magazine reported that the Mennonites seemed to out in front of the Brethren on the war tax issue (source):
Church as tax collector protested by Mennonites
Delegates attending a special meeting of the General Conference Mennonite Church in Minneapolis in voted to launch a vigorous campaign to exempt the church from acting as a tax collector for the state.
The 500 delegates at the conference, called to discern the Christian response to militarism, passed the resolution by a nine to one margin.
A central focus of discussion was tax resistance already being practiced among Mennonites and the request of one such person, a General Conference employee, that the church stop withholding war taxes from her wages.
The General Board denied her request because it is illegal for an employer not to act as a tax collector for the Internal Revenue Service.
Delegates affirmed that decision but instructed the General Board to vigorously search for legal avenues to exempt the church from collecting taxes so individuals employed by the church would be free to follow their own conscience.
The issue profiled Ralph Dull, and noted that “throughout the past 25 years… the Dulls have withheld from their taxes the portion allotted to the military.” (source)
“Sometimes you get so frustrated, you just have to do something,” Ralph said.
For the past two years Ralph and others have taken food to the IRS as a witness that taxes should be used for feeding the hungry instead of supporting the military.
“I’m not sure it does any good, but it raises the issue.”
Phil Rieman wrote in to the issue, urging Brethren to stick together in order to overcome the fear of government reprisals when considering war tax resistance (source).
The issue reprinted a lengthy article by William Durland, a lawyer who founded the Center on Law and Pacifism (and later helped found NWTRCC), on the practical and legal aspects of war tax resistance:
When President Carter’s military tax budget for was criticized, he replied that he would not apologize for it.
While recommending cutbacks in health, education and human needs, he increased the portion of the budget allocated to bombs and bullets.
Many Christians are beginning to realize that they cannot use mammon for murder and expect a welcome at the millennium.
So they are looking for advice on ways to refuse complicity with the war machine.
Recently the Center on Law and Pacifism was organized in Philadelphia to serve people who need advice and support in the relationship of their radical religious, pacifist convictions to the laws which attempt to obstruct their conscientious objection to violence.
One of the main projects of the Center has been to aid people in their quest for information on how to be military tax refusers.
The Center is in the process of publishing such a study and the following is an overview of that report.
People want to know how to withhold their taxes, what happens if they do so and what legal remedies exist for them to witness to their conscientious objection in the courts of this land.
Usually people who are in this position are employees.
So we will talk about them first, then the employer, the corporation, the income tax refuser and the telephone tax refuser.
Employees receive their income in the form of wages which are subject to withholding before they see their check.
Employees must fill out a W4 form with their employer.
The W4 form determines the amount of money to be withheld from each paycheck.
The more allowances you claim the less money is withheld.
You are allowed a number of allowances on your W4 form depending upon how many dependents you have and what your anticipated itemized deductions are.
The employer determines how much money to withhold from your weekly paycheck on the basis of your W4 form.
Therefore, in order to reduce or eliminate withholding, you can file a new W4 form claiming more allowances.
There is nothing fraudulent about this procedure as long as you inform the IRS when you file your income tax return as to why you took the allowances on your W4 form.
When it comes time for your income tax, it is important that it be consistent with this claim.
This is done by taking a war tax deduction on your income tax form under “miscellaneous deductions.”
This is one of four methods to avoid withholding.
The second method is by working in an occupation exempt from the withholding law.
A third method is by becoming self-employed as a consultant or independent contractor.
Fourth, by earning less than a taxable income you can avoid not only withholding, but also any income tax liability whatsoever.
If you are successful in computing the sufficient number of allowances — which will constitute rendering your withholding to a point where you can take your deduction on your income tax — then no further problem remains until that time for the employee.
However, should the employee choose not to use the allowance method, but rather to ask the employer not to withhold any of the withholding tax, then there is a problem for both employer and employee.
The Internal Revenue Code of , as amended, requires employers making payment of wages to deduct and withhold from such wages a tax determined in accordance with IRS tables.
The employer is liable for the amount required to be deducted and withheld.
Any employer who fails is liable to the IRS for that amount plus a civil penalty equal to the tax amount.
There is also a criminal penalty of $10,000 fine and/or five years imprisonment for willful failure to pay or collect the amount due.
Some employers have wanted to protect the right of their employees to exercise their rights of conscience even though the employer does not share the same viewpoint.
In this event, employers have refused to withhold and have been taken to court.
Eventually they wind up paying and requiring the employee to reimburse them.
But what if the whole corporation becomes a war tax refuser, rather than just one of its employees?
In that event the corporation will not withhold any tax at all because they are conscientiously opposed to paying military taxes.
Recently we have seen some organizations which were created on radical religious, pacifist principles beginning to refuse to pay military taxes as a corporation rather than simply to support the conscience of one or more of their employees.
They see this as their own witness to the immorality of war taxes.
There is a possibility of losing tax-exempt status and other rights, but they are willing to witness in this way and suffer for conscience’s sake.
Everyone who makes a minimum amount of money a year is required by law to file an income tax return.
Whether you made your money as an employee, an employer or are self-employed, you must file form 1040 and complete Schedule A (“Itemized Deductions”) in order to take an income tax deduction for war.
Those who are self-employed can write in a “war tax credit” instead of a deduction, and simply withhold a percentage of the tax owed and send a letter to the IRS explaining what they are doing.
Another popular way of resisting military taxes has been refusal to pay the tax on the telephone bill.
In times past, the IRS took quite a bit of time tracing down telephone tax refusers.
Since the end of the Vietnam War, this has not been the case, although we have heard of one case recently where the telephone company closed down the service of a telephone tax refuser.
Whatever category you are in, you must decide how much to refuse and what you are going to do with that money.
Many organizations, such as the World Peace Tax Fund and the various chapters of War Resisters League, are equipped to advise you on the breakdown of the national budget.
But generally, from year to year, the military portion of the budget is calculated anywhere from 35 percent to 53 percent, depending upon whether current military expenditures for past wars are included.
For those who wish to put their money to good use while it is being withheld, there are various alternative funds which invest in human resources and use your money for that purpose.
Many people hope that the World Peace Tax Fund Act — designed to allow the taxpayer to earmark a specific amount of tax money to go into a federal fund to be used only for peaceful purposes — will be approved by Congress soon.
What happens when you take these steps?
How do you cope with the IRS?
No matter what category of refuser you are, what generally is going to happen to you is something like this:
If a tax is owed, a notice of tax will be sent to you.
The IRS is required to issue this bill which is a demand for payment.
You are then required by law to make payment within 10 days of the date of this bill.
If the tax remains unpaid after the 10-day period, a statutory lien is automatically attached to your property.
The law also provides for interest and penalty for late payment at this time.
Once this notice of tax lien has been filed at your courthouse, it becomes a matter of public record and may adversely affect your business transactions or other financial interests.
It could impair your credit rating; therefore, it is normally filed only after the IRS has sent you a second notice of deficiency and tried to contact you personally, giving you the opportunity to pay.
After the lien has been filed, a levy may be taken.
A levy is the taking of property to satisfy tax liability.
The tax may be collected by a levy on any property belonging to you.
In the case of levies being made on salaries or wages, you will usually be given written notice, in addition to the notice of demand, at least 10 days before the levy is served.
Generally, court authorization is not required before a levy action is taken, unless collection personnel must enter private premises to accomplish their levy action.
The only legal requirements are that the taxes are owed and that the notice and demand for payment have been sent to your last known address.
In taking a levy action, the IRS first considers levying on such property as wages, salaries and bank accounts.
Levying on this type of property is referred to as a seizure.
Willful failure to file or pay income tax can result in a criminal sentence of one year and/or $10,000 fine.
However, we know of no cases which have ever resulted in criminal penalties, except where there is a total failure to file any income tax form at all.
When you receive your notice of deficiency from the IRS, you will also be notified that you may elect to appeal your case to the US Tax Court;
if you decide to do so within 90 days of that time, the IRS process against you is halted for the duration of the case.
Several people have gone to Tax Court following this procedure, although in no case has anyone “won” there.
The Center on Law and Pacifism has advised and supported people filing cases in Tax Court and on the Appellate and US Supreme Court levels also.
If you lose your case in Tax Court, you may appeal to higher courts, and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
These appeals are based on the First Amendment free exercise of religion and other constitutional provisions.
Many of us are presently refusing 35 to 50 percent or more of our income taxes.
For others just beginning to consider war tax refusal, or those reluctant to refuse taxes in those quantities, a new project called People Pay for Peace, under the auspices of the Center on Law and Pacifism, offers an opportunity to participate.
The Center is coordinating this symbolic tax refusal movement by new reformers who withheld from their tax returns a few dollars, symbolizing their witness against military armament.
The amount is so small that it is unlikely the IRS will try to levy it.
Multiplied by thousands of people, this small amount will constitute a significant conscientious objection to payment for war.
There is still time to build the kingdom, time to protest armaments, time to create a spiritual community for those who turn from the idols of fear.
If I were to say to you, “I will not kill my neighbor, but I will pay someone else to do it,” would you not hold me accountable?
If we refuse to kill our neighbor but allow our government to do it with our money, are we not to be held accountable?
But then we must witness and suffer the consequences of our military tax refusal for conscience’s sake.
This is the price some Christians are paying for peace in .
According to another article in that issue, of 200 people who responded to a “Survey on Life-Style Changes” in an earlier issue of the magazine, 20% had taken the step of “keeping income down in order not to pay taxes.” Another 25% wanted nothing to do with such a step. (source)
I was a little surprised to see the fairly conservative Brethren Evangelist devote several pages of its issue to reprinting part of the Statement of the Findings Committee of the “New Call to Peacekeeping” conference (source).
The Brethren Church was not (as the Church of the Brethren was) a partner to this conference, but they did send an observer.
The magazine was careful in its preface to say: “The printing of this Statement does not mean that either the Peace Coordinator [Doc Shank of the Brethren Church, who attended the conference] or the Brethren Publishing Company endorses it in its entirety. It is our hope that it will be read carefully and with an open mind.”
Mention of tax resistance was brief in the published excerpt (“We urge the development of support groups within congregations and meetings for those individuals who are working at peace issues such as war tax resistance, simple lifestyles, and nonviolent action.”) but this makes for a rare positive mention in this usually more stodgy magazine.
In the magazine followed up with a second excerpt from the Statement (source).
This one was more explicit and direct:
We call upon members of the Historic Peace Churches to seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes, as a response to Christ’s call to radical discipleship.
We challenge ourselves and also our congregations and meetings to uphold war tax resisters with spiritual, emotional, legal, and material support.
We call on our church and conference agencies to enter into dialogue with employees who ask, for reasons of moral conviction, that their taxes not be withheld.
We suggest that alternative “tax” payments be channeled into a peace fund initiated by the New Call to Peacemaking or into existing peace funds of constituent groups.
We call on our denominations, congregations and meetings to give high priority to the study of war tax resistance in our own circles and beyond.
Another element of the statement gave a thumbs-up to the World Peace Tax Fund legislation.
There were a couple of horrified letters to the editor that followed, from Brethren who didn’t want to see their church tangled up with the anti-war movement, but otherwise not much discussion.
A “Christian Life-style Task Force” presented its report at the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference, and gave war tax resisters the encouragement they had been looking for.
The cover story of the issue was an interview of Ruby Rhoades, head of the World Ministries Commission and an associate general secretary on the General Board of the Church of the Brethren (source).
Excerpt:
How do you look upon the status of the denomination’s peace witness at all levels:
Is it growing or diminishing?
More importantly, considering the biblical foundation, is the witness faithful and prophetic?
I believe there is a growing consciousness among individual members of the larger issues of peace.
By that I mean beyond the draft and conscientious objection, which have been our traditional concerns.
Our support for the World Peace Tax Fund, broad involvement in the New Call to Peacemaking, participation in the United Nations disarmament rally, the coming together last winter in bitterly cold weather to protest the arms bazaar in Rosemont, Ill., rallying against the possible resumption of the draft… all are evidence of a vital peace concern among Brethren.
And pockets of persons all around the country continue to meet regularly to work at the issues more decisively.
But it is not enough.
When I read statistics about our weapons stockpiles and the destruction capability of new weapons systems I get scared, depressed and angry all at once.
We must make it clear that we will not tolerate such inventions and production levels and military spending.
Now to the second part of your question: Are we being prophetic?
I think we are, though I’m not sure what Micah or Jeremiah would say about us.
In what ways do you mean?
We’re trying to speak to the principalities and powers through our work in Washington and at the United Nations.
It was a Brethren on a World Council of Churches committee who got a strong peace statement through that body on combating militarism and arms proliferation.
We’ve worked and are working in reconciliation efforts in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East.
We’ve given major leadership to the New Call to Peacemaking.
As a body, we haven’t moved into tax resistance as some of our individual members have.
Maybe that will finally be the way to convince our government that we are not willing to keep paying for war preparations.
We recognize that the issue of taxes used for war purposes is but one of many issues facing the church today.
We share some questions with the expectation that similar ones on other issues might be put to us to upbuild all in the way of faithfulness and draw us together in the bond of unity.
Should Christians pay those taxes which are used for war-related purposes?
How large can the percentage of taxes going for war purposes become before it would be our Christian obligation to refuse them?
Does God get the glory when our church institutions are collecting taxes for “Caesar” (through withholding) and about 50 percent of those taxes are going for war-related purposes?
If the same percentage of our taxes were going to support a network of houses of prostitution, would we pay those taxes?
Is it not a much more awesome breach of faithfulness to have prostituted our souls to the god of war to the extent we have than to have given our bodies to a whore or our money to support a prostitution network?
If it will be right not to pay war taxes when (and if) the World Peace Tax Fund Act becomes law, why is it not now?
If Jesus Christ is Lord and we are convinced that there is something inconsistent with the Christian life and paying taxes for war purposes, then what authority does “Caesar” have to say we must pay those taxes?
Should the threat of persecution/prosecution ever deter the Christian from an act of faithlessness to Jesus Christ and God’s kingdom?
The issue reported that “[u]nanimously and without comment” the Supreme Court had turned down an appeal by pacifists who argued that they had a Constitutional right (on 1st and 9th Amendment grounds) to refuse to pay taxes for war (source).
The issue included a contribution from Delia Miller, who wrote about her war tax resistance (source). Excerpts:
I claimed a “military tax deduction” on my income tax return.
I claimed this by exercising my rights guaranteed under the first amendment to freely practice my religion.
Most Americans don’t see how paying income taxes interferes with religion.
I believe paying the 47 percent of our income tax, budgeted for military use (past, present and future) is in profound opposition to God’s commandment to worship and serve.
I have rejected the false security of militaristic muscle and the belligerent way of relating to others, next door and around the globe.
As a member of the Church of the Brethren, a historic peace church, I join the tradition of refusing to participate in killing my brothers and sisters, either by carrying a gun myself or paying my government to make and launch missiles.
In my attempt to be a faithful servant of God I try to be obedient to commands in all areas of my life, to make allegiance to the kingdom primary, and allegiance to earthly kingdoms secondary.
If my life is committed to peacemaking, that must include my money.
Today, especially, our money is more necessary than our bodies for preparing for and fighting a high-technology, nuclear war.
The issue noted that the Church of the Brethren General Board was considering joining forces with the General Conference Mennonite Church in its planned lawsuit “seeking exemption from withholding taxes from the income of its employees” who conscientiously object to military taxation (source).
Excerpt:
Robert W.
Neff, general secretary of the Church of the Brethren General Board, said, “We must seriously consider joining them in this historic action.” He pointed to the paper on Christian life-style passed by Annual Conference delegates in Pittsburgh [see below].
That paper calls on the General Board to “place high priority on study and discussion” of “exploration… for release from the current legal requirement to collect taxes by withholding the income taxes of employees…” He believes Brethren will favor this test case because it “attempts to work within the law.”
The Christian Life-style Task Force Report
War tax resistance was again on the Annual Conference agenda in .
After the Conference, a “Christian Life-style Task Force” was put together to study and make recommendations regarding war tax resistance and voluntary simplicity.
Brethren war tax resisters who were upset at the tepid Church statement on war tax resistance (see ♇ 9 June 2020) hoped for something stronger this time (and they got it).
The issue reported on the debate over the Task Force’s report:
First included in the Conference Booklet as a study document, the report was amended in its section on “taxation and militarism” by the General Board meeting and passed on to Annual Conference for adoption as a position paper.
Debate on the floor centered on that amended section.
In it the task force encourages high priority on study and discussion of consideration of refusal to pay that portion of federal taxes used for militarism.
It affirms withholding of war taxes as a legitimate Christian witness.
A “peace fund” could be one way to handle alternative “tax” payments.
The joint Quaker/Mennonite/Brethren “New Call to Peacemaking” conference met again in , and the Messenger covered it (source).
Excerpt:
New Call to Peacemaking participants urged other Brethren, Mennonites, and Friends to be faithful to Christ’s spirit of peace by confronting militarism through war tax resistance, opposition to registration and reinstatement of the draft, and renouncement of the belief that security lies in arms.
While stating their “common conviction that peace is the will of God and that Christ calls us to be peacemakers,” delegates were divided about whether the call to peacemaking requires war tax resistance.
The conference finally reaffirmed the call made by the first NCP conference in that “members of the historic peace churches seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes…” and said, “If we believe that fighting war is wrong, does it not follow that paying for war is wrong?”
Members of the three churches were encouraged to engage in forms of tax resistance ranging from withholding that portion of their taxes that would be used for military purposes to paying “war tax monies under protest.”
In , Brethren continued to resist war taxes, and a new “777 Club” campaign attempted to nudge non-resisters into a small, baby-steps form of war tax resistance.
The issue of Messenger covered the legal battle of war tax resister Bruce Chrisman:
“Our hearts go with our treasure to war when we must pay war taxes,” said Bill Faw of Reba Place Fellowship.
He was speaking at a worship service in support of Bruce Chrisman and his appeal for the right to refuse to pay war taxes.
Chrisman appeared before the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago in .
He was appealing his conviction for failing to file a proper income tax return.
Bruce and his wife, Maryanne, farm near Ava, Ill.
The argument against Chrisman (and others in similar cases) is that he broke the law when he failed to file the proper income tax return.
Chrisman believes that such an argument misses the point — that his freedom of religion is violated by the court’s insistence that he pay even those taxes that go towards war.
Chrisman’s attorney, A. Jeffrey Weiss, argued that the first amendment of the Constitution prohibits laws that interfere with the “free exercise” of religion.
Weiss contended that the US government violates this clause by requiring full payment of taxes from citizens whose faith demands that they not pay for war.
The General Conference Mennonite Church (GCMC) filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in Chrisman’s behalf.
The brief gave historical precedents for withholding war taxes.
It also stated the GCMC officially supports “Christian pacifists who refuse to pay taxes to be used for military purposes.”
Although Chrisman is not a Mennonite, he is closely associated with the GCMC.
After his conviction, Chrisman expected to receive a two-year prison sentence.
But , when he stood before the judge for sentencing, he explained that he didn’t mind paying taxes.
In fact, he said, he would not object to paying more than his share of taxes if those taxes relieved human suffering.
The judge gave him the unusual sentence of one year’s service in Mennonite Voluntary Service.
He spent the year doing peace work and visiting prisons.
He and Maryanne plan to serve another year.
Chrisman does not expect word on his appeal before since a written ruling from the court usually requires between three and six months.
If his conviction is upheld, Chrisman intends to carry his appeal further.
U.S. military support of the government of El Salvador became another reason to refuse taxes, when in the issue Jorge Lara-Braud was quoted addressing Church of the Brethren higher-ups (source):
“To what extent,” he asked, “will we US Christians be used to finance the repression of those who are seeking the Kingdom of God?” He urged tax resistance as one way of resolving the agony of giving the government money to kill other Christians.
That issue also reported on a new “Brethren Discipleship Group” and noted, somewhat vaguely, that “They also refuse to pay ‘willingly those taxes which support war’ ” (source).
The Annual Conference reaffirmed its support for the World Peace Tax Fund legislation (source), but:
An amendment urging refusal to pay military-related taxes was ruled out of order, although recognized as a related issue.
Concern was raised that the WPTF represented an “easier way to be Christian” than direct refusal to pay taxes.
But war tax resistance was still a going concern.
From the issue:
Three General Board staff families have taken a stand against war by withholding part of their federal income taxes.
Chuck and Shirley Boyer, Ralph and Mary Cline Detrick, and Miller and Phyllis Davis protested the use of their tax dollars for defense spending by giving the amount withheld to other organizations.
Miller Davis, director of the New Windsor Service Center, and Phyllis withheld $100, which they sent to the General Board.
Peace consultant Chuck Boyer said that he and his wife, Shirley, had periodically withheld income taxes .
, they and the Detricks, of life cycle ministries, each gave $50 to the local school board to demonstrate their support of public non-military programs.
“We don’t mind paying taxes,” says Mary Detrick.
“That’s why we chose to pay the same amount to a public institution.
It feels like a little bit of leaning toward justice.”
Adds Ralph Detrick: “It’s a symbolic protest of how the government spends our money.
We choose to make a nuisance.”
Like the Detricks, Boyer acknowledges that tax resistance currently is little more than a “nuisance” to the federal government.
But he points out that such a protest could have an impact “if 20,000 or 30,000 Christians did involve themselves.”
Boyer and the Detricks stress that their personal decisions are not intended to tell others what to do.
Rather, they hope to raise questions and to give support to other Brethren families who have chosen to take the same stand.
“It’s not the kind of thing I like to do.
People probably think I’m a real radical,” says Boyer.
“It’s a struggle within me to find what it means to be faithful,” he concludes, “but something has to be done, and this is it for now.”
And there was this attempt to get some more-timid Brethren to take symbolic baby-steps into tax resistance, from :
Jesus does not tell us to give Caesar everything he asks for.
Nor does he specify what is Caesar’s and what is God’s.
The 777 Club is one way to resist war taxes and maintain one’s Christian integrity.
by Karen Zimmerman and Bill Puffenberger
What started out as a sharing experience for a few Sundays at the Eiizabethtown Church of the Brethren expanded into a class lasting 12 weeks.
The Topic? “War Tax Resistance.”
After a brief initial discussion of the topic we began an in-depth study of several key biblical passages.
This led to other experiences — a visit with Paul and Loretta Leatherman (originators of a 777 plan of war tax resistance);
a visit to the Mennonite Central Committee Headquarters to share with a group of Mennonites who have been practicing various types of war tax resistance; the sponsorship of a Sunday morning mini-workshop in the local congregation; and a Sunday morning dialog with our local congressional representative, Robert Walker.
As a result of these experiences, some members of the class have offered to share their time and ideas on this issue with other churches in Atlantic Northeast District.
As newcomers to the field of war resistance, it was rewarding to have the opportunity to talk with the Leathermans — 10-year veterans.
Over the years they have tried various methods to withhold the portion of their taxes that are used for war.
Eventually, the Internal Revenue Service got its money, but it was not an easy process and it provided the Leathermans an opportunity to witness to their local IRS agent, their bank representative, their employers, and others about their opposition to war and their necessity for funding it.
In an effort to have more people join them and hopefully to attract the attention of law-makers in Washington, the Leathermans initiated a 777 plan.
They propose withholding a symbolic amount of $7.77 (or some variable thereof) as a war tax deduction.
Because present US tax laws do not provide for this kind of deduction, many members of the class used the 1040 long form and wrote in the words “War Tax Credit” on line 46.
A brief letter of explanation was then attached to the form.
In addition, more detailed letters explaining our views were sent to our local congress members and to the President.
We recognize that this is indeed a symbolic protest since in most cases the government has already taken the taxes or will take unpaid taxes from our future paychecks.
Even though the taxes will eventually be collected, we think it is a matter of integrity to say by our actions, words, and letters how we feel about this issue.
The number 777 was chosen for its biblical significance and symbolism.
Seven is the biblical symbol for perfection.
Seven is the numerical framework for God’s Creation, especially the Sabbath.
Jesus tells us to forgive “seventy times seven.”
To us Eiizabethtown tax resisters the number had even greater significance — our church address is 777 Mount Joy Street.
We studied in detail two biblical references on taxes: Mark 12:13–17 and Romans 13:1–7.
Our study convinced us that we cannot assume that the law of the land is the sole judge of our moral decisions.
We must see obedience to government in the context of the command to live in peace with all persons.
In light of the increasing militarism of the present administration in Washington it is particularly urgent that Brethren consider the issue of war tax resistance.
Can we be satisfied that conscientious objection by only our 18 to 26-year-old youth is an adequate stance to maintain?
What is to be required of us who are outside this age classification?
In a world that is warring with a technology fueled more by money than by personnel, most of us are relatively unaffected by the draft.
While our bodies are not being used, our dollars are being conscripted for war purposes.
What kind of integrity is this?
How can we conscientiously pray for peace and at the same time pay for war?
We urge Brethren to take another look at Christ’s teachings as well as our denomination’s peace position.
We feel we have a convincing argument that the current military build-up is diametrically opposed to God’s law to love one another.
We are hopeful other Brethren join with us who are taking this symbolic war tax deduction of $7.77 (or $77.77 or $777.77) as a way of maintaining our Christian integrity and at the same time letting our government know that there are some people out there who oppose the current excessive military build-up.
We are not in principle opposed to the payment of taxes (which support many worthwhile endeavors).
We are opposed only to the payment of taxes for war-like means (which we see as destructive and unchristian).
We all have a choice: We can quietly pay our war taxes and support preparations for war or we can noisily refuse to pay (even a symbolic amount) and work untiringly for the cause of peace.
We members of the 777 Club probably cannot arrest the current military build-up, but we will have at least set the record straight that we cannot mouth the words of peace and at the same time willingly pay into an ever-growing war chest.
We seek to avoid a kind of Christian schizophrenia as we refuse to pay for that which is destructively unchristian.
The Bible Monitor never flinched from its strict if somewhat blinkered interpretation of render-unto-Caesar.
From “Serving God and Caesar,” the lead article in the issue:
The Christian’s duty includes paying his taxes.
Even Jesus paid his tribute money.
The money of our land is very clearly marked as the legal tender of the land, therefore it should be rendered back to the government.
Although we may not approve of all uses made of our tax money, we dare not be selective in what we pay.
We do indirectly receive a benefit, at least in the eye of the world, from our taxes.
Again in , only the Messenger (of those Brethren periodicals I reviewed) covered war tax resistance, but they did so often.
In a Brethren church in Indiana hosted a war tax resistance workshop:
A concern for active Christian peacemaking was the motivation for the gathering of over 50 people from at least seven religious traditions .
The event, sponsored by the Peace Action Committee of the Northern Indiana District and held at Prince of Peace Church of the Brethren, was a war tax resistance workshop led by Dale Aukerman of the Brethren Peace Fellowship.
The two main body presentations dealt with “our peacemaking and the end of the world,” and “war tax resistance as seen from the perspective of Matthew 18:15–17.” Participants were called to “claim the sovereignty of God and take our Christian discipleship seriously.
The key to our peace witness is to strive to be faithful to God.”
The workshop is one of a growing number being held throughout Brethren churches, often in conjunction with other denominations.
The groups explore nuts-and-bolts alternatives of withholding taxes and support each other in maintaining the witness under Internal Revenue Service pressure, as well as sharing the vision of peace inherent in faithfulness to God.
“Participants in the war tax resistance workshop led by Dale Aukerman (lower left corner) explore peacemaking theology and alternatives of withholding taxes.”
Kevin Zimmerman shared the thinking that went into his war tax resistance in the issue of Messenger (source).
Excerpt:
Although my body is not being conscripted to support war, my tax money is, and at this point in history which do the military powers need more?
My money!
As Dale Brown notes, “If it becomes possible through automated warfare to kill and destroy with unmanned aircraft and minimal personnel, then the witness of withholding economic support may become an issue of even greater importance to the conscientious Christian peacemaker.”
I am not opposed to supporting my government or paying taxes to my government.
But I believe when our government goes directly against Christ’s teachings we are to follow Christ.
Peter and the apostles found themselves forced to resort to civil disobedience in an attempt to fulfill Christ’s teachings and, when arrested, responded, “We must serve God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
I would like to see Congress pass the bill supporting the World Peace Tax Fund.
That portion of my taxes supporting our military could instead be put into this fund to be used for such peaceful purposes as United Nations activities, research into nonviolent solutions to international conflicts, disarmaments efforts, and international education and welfare.
In this way I can support my government as well as the peaceful lifestyle demonstrated by Christ.
Christianity has never been and will never be a spectator sport.
We are commanded to go out and spread the word by helping our neighbors and sharing their burdens, but also by letting our government know too, by letter or by civil disobedience, when they have broken God’s laws.
By sharing my feelings, I hope others will seriously and prayerfully consider how their tax money is being spent, their role in our military machine, and Christ’s teachings to “love our enemies.”
The issue covered the Supreme Court ruling against Old Order Amish who wanted their conscientious objection to the social security system allowed by law (source).
Excerpt:
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger agreed with the IRS, saying, “The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge tax systems because tax payments were spent in a man-er that violates their religious belief.”
Such an attitude could seriously hamper efforts to establish an alternate peace fund into which conscientious objectors could channel taxes that now fund military budgets.
That issue also announced the formation of a “Tax Resister’s Penalty Fund” (still going strong today as the War Tax Resisters Penalty Fund):
Dave Leiter, of North Manchester, Ind., is heading up a network of people interested in distributing the burden of penalties or interest levied against military tax resisters.
An example of such support would be for 200 people to share a $500 penalty by each contributing $2.50. If interested, write the Tax Resister’s Penalty Fund…
Another article in the same issue, on possible responses to the nuclear arms race (source), recommended war tax resistance as one of the possibilities:
Refuse to pay some of your Federal income taxes as a witness to your faith.
If you’re scared, try a small amount like $7.77. If that’s too scary, at least send a letter describing the difficulty of praying for peace and paying for war.
Mike and Carol Zuercher Stern shared their war tax resistance journey in a letter-to-the-editor in the issue (source):
The way a person spends money is an indicator of one’s personal priorities.
In the past year (perhaps more clearly than any other time in recent history) our country has corporately demonstrated what it considers to be most important by how it spends money.
Top priority is military superiority over all other nations — bigger and better bombs, submarines, missiles, and napalm.
As Christians and conscientious objectors to war, we cannot accept this national priority as though it were our own.
We oppose the building of weapons whose ultimate use means the shedding of human blood.
Each April 15 we are reminded of our personal participation in funding a national priority which we believe stands in direct contradiction to our Christian faith.
Our response each year has been to file all the legally required tax forms while witnessing by a variety of symbolic protests against the use of tax dollars for weapons of war.
This year we felt compelled by conscience to refuse to pay the entire amount of taxes which had not been withheld already from our salaries.
This $438, less than 25 percent of our total tax obligation for the year, will be given instead to charitable organizations.
In doing so, we affirm our commitment to the gospel of love, healing, and reconciliation.
That issue also reported on Ralph Dull’s theatric tax resistance protest:
Ralph Dull, of the Brookville, Ohio, Church of the Brethren, has refused to pay a portion of his income taxes each year as a protest against military spending.
This year he chose a new way to draw attention to the issue.
On he pulled up in front of the Federal Building in downtown Dayton to offer the Internal Revenue Service 325 bushels of corn in lieu of taxes owed.
The action was “to dramatize and emphasize the need for the Federal government to turn its priorities around and support constructive people programs,” Dull said, “rather than use our resources for an arms race that is murderous and suicidal.”
He asked the IRS to sign a statement acknowledging the value of the grain and guaranteeing that its value would be used only for non-military purposes.
When the IRS refused to sign.
Dull sold the corn to a local elevator.
A check for about $777 was made out to Church World Service and given to the National Farmers Organization’s Food for Poland project.
“Apart from the religious aspect of this issue,” said Dull, “what this symbolic action lifts up for consideration is human decency.
It is vulgar to squander material and human resources while there is so much opportunity to relieve existing human misery.”
a classified ad from the issue
An article from the issue, focused on resistance to draft registration, noted in passing that “The United Methodist Church… said [in ], ‘We… support all those who conscienttiously object to preparation in any specific war or all wars; to cooperation with military conscription; or to the payment of taxes for military purposes; and we ask that they be granted legal recognition.”
A report on the Annual Conference in that same issue noted that war tax resistance was a last-minute addition to the agenda:
Brethren war protesters who decide to withhold tax money going to war purposes may find their employers less than enchanted with the idea.
Brethren employers may be sympathetic to the idea but are up against federal regulations to withhold taxes.
So what’s a body (such as Annual Conference) to do?
Acting on a late-breaking query from Northern Indiana District, Annual Conference elected a committee of five to study the problem and report in .
The committee is charged to come up with helpful guidance for church institutions so they can adequately respond to their employees employees who wish to withhold their “war taxes.”
The study was approved, despite at least one speaker grousing that he hadn’t “heard one good thing about the US government this week.”
Chances are he was correct.
The Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren will not be remembered as an exercise in flag-waving patriotism.
For the majority of the delegates to Wichita, judging by the voting record, patriotism was best evinced in responsibly and prayerfully calling one’s government to account in the areas of justice and peace.
That committee would include Dale W. Brown, William R. Faw, Ramona Smith Moore, Phillip C. Stone, and Marty Smeltzer West.
In the issue, Ingred Rogers reported on a war tax resisters’ alternative fund that her Brethren church established:
The Manchester Church of the Brethren has established a “Fund for Life” as an expression of support for those who feel moved to refuse payment of war taxes.
This was a significant step in a long process of soul-searching and consciousness-raising.
The process began in when several members formed a tax-concerned group.
Driven by the conviction that to contemplate nuclear holocaust is sin against God and humanity, we came together to discuss how to express our conscientious objection to war taxes.
Careful reading of the Bible convinced us that the Scriptures give no single, absolute statement about payment of taxes.
But we are indeed called to obey God above all, and trusting in weapons of mass destruction is clearly idolatrous.
From the beginning, we saw our action as an effort to maintain faithfully the Brethren peace testimony.
It became increasingly important to us to allow the church to make a witness on behalf of tax resisters.
Our denomination as a whole had already committed itself to recognition of war-tax resistance as a form of conscientious objection.
Now it was a matter of asking for support from the local congregation that had nurtured us and had had a vital influence on tiie formation of our peace position.
After the first church board discussion on the issue, the tax group prepared a proposal for a Fund for Life.
The original draft provided that resisters would deposit in the fund the money withheld from taxes.
Money unclaimed by the Internal Revenue Service was to become the property of the Manchester church as a completed gift by the original depositor and used for peace work.
As in an escrow account, money up to the amount deposited could be returned to the individual if the IRS should claim the sum.
The church board raised two objections.
If the money can be returned in full to the original depositor once the IRS demands it, where is the witness, the risk, the sacrifice?
If the church holds money owed to the government, might the whole congregation legally be implicated?
The board decided to bring the proposal to the next council meeting for discussion, and to delay a final vote for another six months to allow the congregation to reflect upon the issue of war-tax resistance.
The resulting education program was thorough and rewarding.
As expected, we met with disagreement and heated debate.
A second draft suggested that the money should be a completed gift from the beginning without strings attached.
Also, money deposited would not necessarily have to be withheld from taxes; anyone could contribute as an expression of support.
The tax group found this second draft more true in some ways to the original intent.
Both drafts were presented in Sunday school classes.
After three more modifications, the group settled on this wording:
The congregation leaves the withholding of war taxes to the individual conscience of each member or friend.
Any member or friend of the Manchester Church of the Brethren may contribute money to the Fund for Life.
The income from said gifts and the gifts themselves shall be used by the church for activities that are expressly peace-making, including the support of those persons mentioned in item four.
None of these gifts or the income from said gifts shall be used for the operating budget of the church.
Upon request, our congregation shall financially assist any member or friend who withholds war taxes if the Internal Revenue Service presses for collection of his/her tax liability.
Such contributions shall come from the fund or from special contributions of individual members of the congregation.
This latest version was adopted by the church in the .
Our need for education and discussion on this subject increases.
Every year we are painfully made aware of the shift in priorities in our national budget; every year more billions are sacrificed for weapons which will destroy God’s creation.
The Fund for Life has been an attempt to seek alternatives to quiet acquiescence.
It is a small but significant step in accordance with the faith we proclaim.
The study of peacemaking has led some Brethren to question the payment of taxes that support the military system.
Southern Ohio has a special committee on the World Peace Tax Fund.
Michigan’s district conference in will act upon a resolution that urges congregations not to pay telephone taxes.
Manchester (Ind.) church has created a Fund for Life (see [above]).
Galen and Wanda Miller, of Oregon/Washington District, divide their Federal tax into two checks — one made out to the Department of Health and Human Services and one to the Internal Revenue Service — and include a letter stating that they don’t object to paying taxes for constructive programs.
In , Brethren churches had to make tough choices of how far to go to support their war tax resisting pastors in battles with the government.
At the Annual Conference , the Church approved a position paper recommending that congregations consider civil disobedience in such cases.
The issue of Messenger reported on how, in the wake of a discouraging Supreme Court decision in an unrelated case, “[t]he General Conference Mennonite Church has put on hold a war tax lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.” (source)
, the magazine reported on a Brethren congregation that struggled to decide how far to go to support a war tax resisting pastor:
After agonizing debate.
Prince of Peace Church of the Brethren, South Bend, Ind., voted to comply with an order to pay the Internal Revenue Service part of the wages of pastor Louise Rieman, a war tax resister.
Prince of Peace is the first Church of the Brethren congregation to be faced with the tax-resistance issue.
Louise Rieman and her husband, Phil, have been withholding a percentage of their taxes to protest military spending, and have also withheld information about bank accounts from which the IRS could take tax money.
When the church was asked to hand over part of her wages, the Riemans asked the church board to refuse.
The board passed a resolution that supported the Riemans and denied the IRS request.
But the resolution was defeated 20 to 16 when it was sent to the church council for consideration by the entire congregation.
The debate focused on the biblical basis for and against tax resistance, the moral implications of breaking the law, and preservation of the congregation amidst the controversy.
, in response to a Northern Indiana District query, Annual Conference formed a committee to study war tax resistance.
A report is expected at the conference in Baltimore.
An Oregon congregation, however, decided to take a stronger stand (from the issue):
Peace Church of the Brethren, in Portland, Ore., has voted unanimously to refuse to comply with an Internal Revenue Service effort to collect war taxes owed by pastor Rick Ukena.
The congregation also voted to issue a public statement explaining the decision, and to raise funds to pay any fine arising from noncompliance with the IRS.
Ukena and his wife, Twyla Wallace, have withheld taxes , and the government has seized the money each of those years.
IRS actions against war tax protesters have become speedier and more severe under the Reagan Administration, and this year a levy was imposed against the church.
After a committee explored alternatives with an attorney and with Chuck Boyer, Church of the Brethren peace consultant, a special congregational meeting was held to consider the options.
“Most inspiring was the way the church took it on without my insistence,” said Ukena.
“People were really trying to discern the Spirit.”
Earlier this year, Prince of Peace church in South Bend, Ind., voted to comply with an IRS order regarding pastor Louise Rieman (see [above]).
Ukena was a conscientious objector in and says tax resistance has become a way of life for him.
“I would encourage people to not take the action,” he cautioned, “unless they’re aware of what they’re doing.”
“It was a really scary decision at first,” he added.
“We really prayed and talked to others and read the Bible to determine what was right.
It’s nice to fear God more than the IRS.”
Shirley Whiteside wrote in to applaud the Peace Church’s stand (source):
I rejoice to see this kind of integrity supported within the church.
I hope that one day the greater church will realize our hypocrisy.
To officially proclaim “All war is sin,” while we are party to war with no visible resistance, decries our loyalty to the gospel we claim.
At the Annual Conference, the Church of the Brethren decided whether or not to take a stronger stand that might include corporate civil disobedience.
By a supermajority, they voted to do so:
What started out at the Annual Conference as a study on war tax resistance came out of the Conference as a position paper.
The job of the study committee on war tax consultation was to answer the basic question of how an institution should respond to employees who object to payment of the part of their taxes that goes for military support, said Phillip Stone, General Board member and chairman of the committee.
In its list of recommendations, the committee suggested that “congregations and church-related institutions give consideration to a range of extra-legal options.”
Included is the option of corporate civil disobedience by supporting an employee involved in war tax resistance.
Moderator Paul Hoffman said that by recommending civil disobedience the study paper became a position paper, and needed a two-thirds majority — which it did receive from the delegate body.
Preceding the listing of extra-legal options was a listing of legal means by which institutions could support employees involved in tax resistance.
The committee stated that only after legal means were exhausted should an institution enter into civil disobedience.
In conclusion, the committee called on the larger church community to give support to any church-related organization involved in civil disobedience.
This statement is conspicuously absent from the Church of the Brethren Resolutions & Statements listed on the official Annual Conference website today.
I’m not sure how to explain that.
Maybe we’ll find out as I continue to hunt through the archives.
We need to name the huge expenditures for weapons for what it is, blasphemy against the goodness of God’s creation, a sin we commit together.
In light of this reality I would like to pass on a suggestion from the New Call to Peacemaking Conference at Elizabethtown College :
Instead of focusing on the division between those who pay and those who resist war taxes, let’s all join together in witnessing against war taxes even though we do this in different ways.
Some will witness to people in government through letters accompanying or sent concurrently with their tax payment and returns.
Some will reduce their income or increase their giving in ways as to decrease or eliminate war taxes.
Some who pay under protest will support by word and deed brothers and sisters who withhold a portion or all of their taxes.
Some of us will continue to witness our strong concern through withholding monies in civil disobedience to the tax laws.
This attitude and these actions are consistent with our Annual Conference decisions on this issue.
The issue reported on the war tax resistance debate as it was taking place in the General Conference Mennonite Church (source), and the issue followed up with a report of Church employees who had asked the church to stop withholding war taxes from their salaries (source).
Another news brief in the issue described the World Peace Tax Fund as a bill that “would amend the Internal Revenue Service Code so that conscientious objectors could have their tax payments spent for nonmilitary purposes,” and reported on lobbying efforts.
The issue gave another example of corporate tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren:
The Michigan District board has instructed its district personnel to withhold the Federal excise tax on district telephone bills.
It is forwarding the resolution to the Internal Revenue Service and to congressional representatives.
The withheld funds will be redirected to a Michigan District Peace Tax Fund and used by the district witness commission.
The action was based on Annual Conference statements of , , and .
The board “commend(s) this witness to all Brethren, local congregations, the General Board, and Annual Conference for their study and prayerful consideration,” and also encourages other forms of witness, such as lobbying for the World Peace Tax Fund Bill.
A profile of Brethren Volunteer Service volunteers Steve & Sue Williams in the issue included this detail:
Another attraction to volunteer service for the Williamses was their desire not to pay taxes for war purposes.
Before they married, Steve was a tax resister, withholding a certain amount of money as a protest against the government’s using his taxes for the military.
But Sue was uncomfortable with tax resistance and, after they married, they began looking for an alternative.
One was simply to make a lot of donations to charity.
“Before BVS we were working full-time and giving a lot of money away,” Steve said.
“We began looking for a way to give away time and not money.”
I also found this article in The Morning News of Wilmington, Delaware (). Excerpt:
Brethren still withholding taxes
How to protest “sin of war” is on denomination’s conference agenda
by Eileen C. Spraker and Stephanie Whyche Staff reporters
In , the Vietnam War sparked members of the Wilmington Church of the Brethren not to pay the church’s federal telephone excise tax for a year.
Although that war is dead, tax-withholding among members of the Church of the Brethren is very much alive.
How to support Brethren institutions and individuals who choose to withhold “war taxes” will be on the denomination’s agenda during their national conference, which opens in Baltimore.
Traditionally, the denomination has held to the belief that all war is sin.
Brethren 35 years ago established the Brethren Volunteer Service for conscientious objectors as an alternative to military service.
Some members of the church, for reasons of conscience, have chosen to withhold part or all of their taxes to avoid supporting the military.
A paper to be presented at the Baltimore meeting will discuss the lawful choices available to such people, the church’s position on civil disobedience, and support for institutions and people pursuing tax resistance.
“This is one of the most timely issues we have right now,” says the Rev. Allen T. Hansell, pastor of the Wilmington Church for the Brethren.
According to Hansell, some employees of the six Brethren Colleges and employees in at least one of the Brethren retirement homes are currently involved in tax resistance efforts.
But some are less than successful because their employers are withholding taxes from their employees’ pay in accordance with regulations.
“The issue is these employees, on the basis of conscience, don’t want this money withheld.
Legally, the employers are bound.
That’s why this issue is coming before the conference,” Hansell said.
What’s more, Hansell said, although there’s “no war right now, the telephone excise tax continues,” even though Congress promised to discontinue it once the Vietnam war had ended.
During the Vietnam War, members of Hansell’s church, in Richardson Park, stirred up a lot of controversy because they refused to pay the church’s federal telephone-excise tax.
The action was because of their belief that part of the tax was financing the war.
“Our concern was to make a witness of the issue that this money was going directly to the war effort,” Hansell said.
“It was a matter of principle.”
The proposal to be presented before the conference calls upon employers of employees involved in military tax-resistance efforts to take the issue seriously and maintain open dialogue with their employees.
It does not recommend that church institutions get involved in tax resistance efforts, but if they do, it calls upon the denomination to support that effort through such methods as legal assistance.
Other recommendations will suggest that Brethren seek voluntary wage reductions, and that they work with the Mennonites and Society of Friends to bring about changes through legislation.
In , two Brethren-linked groups started war tax resisters’ penalty funds, and the Annual Conference considered two queries on whether or how Brethren churches should refuse to pay the excise tax on their phone bills.
No one in the crowd offered bids for the Subaru station wagon, which was being auctioned by the Internal Revenue Service.
The IRS had seized it from Stephen and Phyllis Senesi as partial payment of taxes that the couple has refused to pay.
As conscientious objectors to paying taxes that fund the US military, the Senesis have withheld about $6,500 over the past five years.
Several area peace groups had organized the nonviolent protest at the auction.
When the IRS agent called for bids on the car, the crowd responded first with silence, and then with “We choose life over death.” Phyllis Senesi is a member of Skyridge Church of the Brethren, Kalamazoo, Mich.
A letter-writer in the issue tried to turn the tables on the tax resisters, saying their refusal to pay “could mean one less defensive hour by a protective policeman. This failure to defend could result in the undefended death of some person. The person who machinated the tax resistance is an indirect killer; category, murder.” (source)
The Midland (Mich.) congregation has voted to withhold the federal excise tax on its telephone bill, saying, “We do not believe that paying for war is loving.” The money withheld will be used to buy peace literature for their library.
Since the congregation wants its action to be done publicly and submissively, the witness commission will enclose letters with the monthly payment.
And another on the same page:
Chuck Boyer, peace consultant for the denomination, is compiling a list of people willing to be contacted when someone faces grave financial need because of faithful witness to Christ.
Such instances include Brethren who suffer loss because of conscientious objection to payment of war taxes.
To join the list, write to Chuck Boyer…
My conscience of recent months has given anguish and now distress, because I do not want to pay the military part of my federal income taxes.
I am now a redirector of my war taxes to peace.
My dilemma is that I am treated as a criminal with a lien.
I am not a tax dodger or evader.
I wish to pay all my taxes for peace.
My correct amount has been reported.
The World Peace Tax Fund bill… is one way out of this dilemma.
Its goal is a law permitting people morally opposed to war to have the military part of their taxes allocated for peacemaking.…
Two Brethren-related peace organizations have begun tax resister’s penalty funds to support those who conscientiously choose to withhold war taxes.
In both cases, the fund reimburses those who have been fined by the Internal Revenue Service, and supporters of the fund share the total cost.
The two groups are the North Manchester, Ind., chapter of the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Iowa Peace Network. For more information, write…
That issue also brought a preview of coming attractions at the upcoming Annual Conference (source):
The Michigan query points out the use of the federal telephone excise tax to pay for past and present military expenditures and states that Michigan District will withhold the tax, redirecting the amount to a peace tax fund.
In commending this witness to Annual Conference for study and prayerful consideration, the district is asking for affirmation of the action.
The General Board query asks for the appointment of a committee to study and recommend how Brethren should respond to the dilemma of paying taxes for war.
Walter Fitzsimons wrote an opinion piece for the issue that talked all around the issue of war tax resistance, seemed to conclude that such resistance was futile because it would not stop the march of militarism, then took an about-face and said that even if that is true it could be a worthwhile action of persuasion, but then ended on a write-your-congressman note without taking a stand either way (source).
“Church of the Brethren student Mike Yoder (right), of Morgantown, W. Va., helps carry a ‘Bread not Bombs’ banner in a tax-time peace witness. The event was ‘an act of faith,’ said one participant. ‘I am trying to bring evangelism and social action together.’ ”
For some Christians, paying the percentage of federal income taxes that goes toward the military is a dilemma.
This year, a Harrisonburg, Va., group called Christians for Peace gathered at the regional office of the Internal Revenue Service in Staunton to register their concern.
They brought a truckload of food, bought with the money 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 our enemies’ destruction.”
In a short statement to onlookers, he said, “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.”
IRS officials were cordial, but explained that they could not accept the food.
The bags of groceries — including more than 1,000 pounds of canned goods — were presented to the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank.
Another article on the same page noted that a Portland, Oregon “Peace” congregation had “voted to withhold the federal excise tax on its telephone bill as a way ‘to say no to militarism and yes to life-affirming programs.’ The money will be sent to the Brethren World Peace Academy…”
The pastor of that Peace Church, Rick Ukena, and his wife Twyla Wallace were profiled in the issue (source). Excerpt:
Just before Rick left the pastorate of Peace Church of the Brethren in Portland, Ore., he and his wife, Twyla Wallace, discussed with me their refusal to pay war taxes. “Refusing to pay that portion of our taxes that goes for military purposes is merely an extension of the decision I made in [to become a conscientious objector],” Rick says. “Paying taxes for war is no different from providing bodies for military purposes.”
Rick likens their present witness to that of past Brethren:
“Historically, the Church of the Brethren youth have been conscientious objectors to military service.
Military tax resistance is an equally important statement for peace.”
, Rick and Twyla have redirected a portion of their federal taxes as an effort to lift up their opposition to current priorities of the federal budget.
With the filing of their returns, they sent that portion to Health Help, a low-income health clinic in Portland.
“Nevertheless,” says Rick, “the IRS, during that time, has seized over $1,000 from our checking account for non-payment of taxes.”
A lien was also threatened against the Portland congregation, since the IRS ordered the church to pay Rick and Twyla’s taxes.
In a specially called members’ meeting, the IRS demand was turned down by a unanimous vote.
“We were joyed with the support that we received from the congregation as it was placed in a position of choosing between compliance with human laws aimed at destroying life and a higher order that commands us to love one another, even our enemies,” Rick says.
As mentioned above, there were two items concerning war tax resistance on the Annual Conference agenda in .
The issue tells us how they fared (source):
The delegates established a committee to study and recommend how the Brethren should respond to the dilemma of paying taxes for war.
Brought by the General Board, the query on taxation for war said that “our government continues to put its faith in weapons that can destroy all human life on our planet.”
The query also pointed out that expenses for present and past military efforts currently total about one-half of all federal expenditures.
The concern of the related query, a Michigan District resolution on telephone tax redirection, was adopted by the delegates, and the issue of telephone tax withholding was assigned to the war tax committee.
Michigan District voted in to withhold federal excise taxes on district telephone bills, and to inform the Internal Revenue Service of the action.
It’s hard to believe that at this point there was much more for yet another a committee to say on the issue, so many similar committees had been formed and had issued reports in recent years.
This committee would consist of Philip W.
Rieman, Arlene E.
May, Violet Cox, Richard O.
Buckwalter, and Gary Flory.
One of the best debates I have seen about the biblical basis for tax obedience or tax resistance was found in the Messenger in .
In the issue, the Messenger hosted a debate between Vernard Eller and Dale Aukerman on the biblical basis for war tax resistance or obedient tax payment:
The report to Annual Conference of the Committee on Taxation for War shows a great diversity of opinion within the committee itself.
Accordingly, there is at present no inclination to try for any change of policy.
Rather, the recommendation is for a churchwide study of the Conference statements already on the books.
And because I find myself highly in favor of this proposal, I offer this article as a contribution to the study for which the reports calls.
I address myself solely to the matter of scriptural evidence and interpretation.
Accidentally, as it were, I have been doing major research on the subject — for a book even now in press.
I had no intention of studying tax resistance per se, but was addressing the much broader question of how a Christian should relate to the host of regimes, parties, and ideologies competing with each other in the effort to direct and control society.
My mentors in the matter make up a 150-year-long string of biblically oriented thinkers who constitute the modern theological tradition I feel comes closest to Brethrenism.
These people are Soren Kierkegaard, J.C. and Christoph Blumhardt, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Jacques Ellul.
And as I chased them down on my particular topic, I found them regularly going to the New Testament tax passages.
It became apparent that this was not so much their doing as that of the Bible itself.
The logic of the move is this:
The all-dominating political reality of Palestine during the New Testament period was that of a most evil and vicious Roman regime occupying, oppressing, and eventually destroying the homeland of the Jewish people (and earliest Christians).
Over against this power was pitted that of the Jewish liberationists and freedom fighters commonly known as the Zealots.
Thus, the pattern of political decision forming the context not only of our tax passages but of all New Testament political counsel is one that applies as well to almost any issue, ancient or modern:
One can either (1) legitimize the presently established regime as representing God’s will for the nation, or (2) follow God’s will in supporting the efforts of the revolution against that regime.
“Revolution” here does not necessarily imply terrorism, guerrilla warfare, or other forms of physical brutality, but identifies any bringing to bear of political power in the effort to overthrow an evil regime or to pressure it into becoming good.
By its very nature, of course, the gospel would have as much as prohibited Christians from any desire to legitimize a cruel and pagan Roman Empire.
Yet, also, by its very nature, the gospel would make it very tempting for Christians to align themselves with liberation movements and efforts at just revolution.
Accordingly, on the one hand the New Testament consistently refuses to encourage any legitimizing tendencies — while on the other hand it actively discourages the greater temptation of revolution.
And “tax revolt” — i.e., withholding taxes as a power-play against government evil — becomes the New Testament’s regular signal and symbol of Zealot liberationism in particular and, in general, all forms of revolution.
(It is significant that this symbol has Christianity opposed to revolutionism quite prior to and apart from its physical violence.)
Regarding particularly the exegesis of Mark 12, in addition to the five thinkers named above I consulted four contemporary New Testament specialists: Martin Hengel, Gunther Bomkamm, Leander Keck, and Howard Clark Kee.
All nine scholars are in total agreement, each reading the tax passages in the context of the historical situation described above.
In the process, the scriptures come clear, manifesting their theological consistency as warnings against Christian involvement in political revolutionism.
My researchers are not exhaustive; but I failed to come across even one reputable scholar doing serious biblical exposition who concludes that these passages actually imply a support for (or even a leaving room for) Christian tax resistance.
The crucial New Testament passages are three:
Mark 12 — which is actually Mark 12:13–17 (the fact that both Matthew and Luke later pick up the incident for their own Gospels adds no new meaning but does corroborate the significance it held in the eyes of the early church);
Romans 13 — which is actually Romans 12:14–13:10;
and Matthew 17 — which is actually Matthew 17:24–27.
All of my nine, except the Blumhardts, address the Mark 12 passage — and all agree as to its reading.
The earliest writer, Kierkegaard, says it best.
(Consider that, in the historical context, to make Jesus “king” or to call him “Messiah” politically could mean nothing other than “revolutionary leader against Rome.”)
The small nation to which Jesus belonged was under foreign domination, and naturally all were intent upon the thought of shaking off the foreign yoke.
Hence they would acclaim him king.
But, lo, when they show him a coin and would constrain him against his will to take sides with one party or the other — what then?
Oh, worldly passion of partisanship, even when thou callest thyself holy and patriotic — nay, so far thou canst not stretch as to break through his indifference… No, he posits the infinite yawning difference between God and the Emperor: “Give unto God what is God’s!” For they with worldly wisdom would make it a question of religion, of duty to God, whether or not it was lawful to pay tribute to the Emperor.
Worldliness is so eager to embellish itself as godliness, and in this case God and the Emperor are blended together in the question,… that is to say, the question takes God in vain and secularizes him [by implying that whether the Emperor does or does not get his tax coin is an issue somehow related to or comparable with whether God does or does not get what belongs to him].
But Christ draws the distinction, the infinite distinction, and he does this by treating the question about paying tribute to the Emperor as the most indifferent thing in the world, regarding it as something which one should do without wasting a word or an instant in talking about it — so as to get more time for giving God what belongs to God.
Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Ellul speak a single mind on the Romans 13 passage.
Each finds it to be in complete agreement with Mark 12;
Ellul thinks that Romans 13 even shows that Paul was familiar with the Mark 12 incident.
Yet Barths’s exposition is easily the most extended and insightful of the three:
The revolutionary seeks to be rid of the evil by bestirring himself to battle with it and to overthrow it.
He determines to remove the existing ordinances, in order that he may erect in their place the new right…
The revolutionary must, however, own that, in adopting his plan, he allows himself to be overcome of evil (Rom. 12:21)… What man has the right to propound and represent the “New,” whether it be a new age, or a new world, or a new spirit?…
Overcome evil with good.
What can this mean but the end of the triumph of men, whether this triumph is celebrated in the existing order or by revolution?… There is here no word of approval of the existing order; but there is endless disapproval of every enemy of it.
It is God who wishes to be recognized as He that overcometh the unrighteousness of the existing order…
Even the most radical revolution — and this is so even when it is called a “spiritual” or “peaceful” revolution — can be no more than a revolt; and that is to say, it is in itself simply a justification and confirmation [not of God’s “new” but] of what already exists [namely, one human ideology or another]…
For this cause ye pay tribute also (Rom. 13:6).
Ye are paying taxes to the State.
It is important, however, for you to know what ye are doing.
If I might interpret: If you are paying those taxes as a positive legitimization of the state and its evil activity, you are wrong.
If, on the contrary, you are withholding those taxes as an act of protest and defiance against the evil of the state, you are wrong again.
“But what other option is there?”
Well, if Jesus is correct that Caesar’s image on the coin is proof enough that it belongs to him, then, rather than saying that we do pay him taxes, would it not be more correct to say that we do not try to stop him from taking what is his, do not revolt, do not return evil for evil?
As Barth puts it, “It is important for you to know what you are doing.”
The Matthew 17 incident is not as crucial as the first two; only a couple of our scholars mention it — and that merely in passing.
However, the words Jesus speaks on this occasion are as significant as anything we find on the subject.
In the process of explaining why he pays the tax, Jesus forestalls any idea that a Christian’s payment of taxes is to depend upon the relative righteousness or unrighteousness of the collecting regime.
He says, in effect, that no human regime is righteous enough for the Christian ever to owe it anything.
No, there is only one Father and King of whom Jesus knows himself and his followers to be “sons.”
No one except that “father” can claim anything from these “children.”
So the kings of the earth will have to do their collecting from “others,” not from Jesus and the children of God.
Thus, when Jesus goes on to say that he chooses to pay the tax even though he doesn’t owe it, he is saying that Christian payment never is made as recognition of either the rights or the righteousness of the State.
No, it is made to regimes good, bad, and indifferent — and that sheerly out of obedience to God’s command to love, not revolt, and not cause offense.
It strikes me that the word of God speaks quite clearly on the matter of tax resistance — and that that word is hardly in support of the practice.
I do fully honor the conscientious integrity of those who feel led to withhold some of their taxes; but I cannot confirm that leading as being biblical.
Rendering to Caesar [con]
by Dale Aukerman
If the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb is thought of as the width of a lead pencil, the destructive potential of the current nuclear arsenals is the height of Mount Everest.
If the United States were to explode a bomb each day to destroy a city, the present stockpile would last more than one hundred years.
The Reagan administration plans to build 1,700 additional nuclear bombs a year and press ahead in an arms buildup that is taking us into the war that can destroy God’s earthly creation.
Or to give just one example of the increasing ghastliness of conventional weapons, white phosphorus bombs have a sticky jelly, which adheres to the human body, burns at a temperature of more than 3000° Centigrade for at least 24 hours, and turns victims into agonized human torches.
The United States has been supplying these bombs to a number of countries, including El Salvador and Israel, which used them against civilians in its invasion of Lebanon.
As for the huge sums in federal tax dollars needed to purchase all these weapons and much more.
Brother Vernard Eller seems to say:
No problem; we have the clear command of Jesus to pay up.
After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in , they changed the Temple tax mentioned in the Matthew 17:24–27 story into a tax for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.
Some governments have levied taxes so exorbitant as to leave children and others starving.
Certain taxes have been imposed specifically for financing a war.
A government could use half its budget to keep masses of people in concentration camps or to run a network of brothels for the diversion of the male population.
Vernard evidently says: No problem basically;
Christians go by the command of Jesus.
According to the Friends Committee on National Legislation, $350 billion or 55 percent of the 1984 federal budget went to military spending and the cost of past wars.
Figured on a per-capita basis, the fraction of that for the Church of the Brethren membership was $255 million.
All Brethren church-related giving for the year was somewhat over $55 million.
As Vernard sees it, we need not to be troubled that hundreds of millions of Brethren dollars go to finance the arms buildup;
paying is “the most indifferent thing in the world.”
Vernard’s greatest service to us Brethren has come through his insistence that, if we claim to be a New Testament church, we must strive to live by the New Testament.
I stand with him in that insistence.
If Jesus in Mark 12:17 was saying that disciples of his should pay without question every tax levied by whatever government they are under, that, for us, should settle it.
But did Jesus say that?
Vernard failed to find “even one reputable scholar” whose treatment of the passage would leave open the option of Christian tax resistance.
I would call his attention to some.
A.M. Hunter writes: “This was an ad hoc answer, not a fixed and permanent rule for every situation.”
Jean Lasserre gives this interpretation:
“Jesus is not passing any judgment on the lawfulness of the Roman tribute;
He is speaking only of this particular coin.
It represents the things that are Caesar’s, not a foreign tyrant’s right to exact a tribute.
In other words, Jesus recognizes Caesar as having the right to the coin but not to the tribute.
This is what disconcerts His questioners and breaks their trap.”
Francis Wright Beare comments,
“The famous saying leaves untouched the fundamental problem: how are we to draw the line between the legitimate requirements of the society to which we owe allegiance, and the demands of loyalty to God?”
The insight of Paul S. Minear is most helpful:
“By his reply Jesus forced them, as students of the law, to decide for themselves where to draw the line between God’s jurisdiction and Caesar’s…
The riddle remains that each must solve for himself or herself.
Keep in mind that the first audience for this riddle was neither the crowd nor the disciples, but only their adversaries.”
Jacques Ellul, whom Vernard points to as one of the six thinkers decisively supporting the pay-without-question interpretation, states in The Ethics of Freedom that Jesus “refuses to answer the question whether he is for or against Caesar or whether taxes should be paid or not.”
In any case, appealing to the authority of European theologians within other church traditions has not for Brethren been a main way of discovering what faithful discipleship to Christ is.
Those enemies of Jesus thought they had the perfect trap.
If Jesus said, “Don’t pay the tax,” they would denounce him to the Roman authorities.
If he said, “Pay the tax,” they would trumpet that to the common people, who hated the tax as symbolizing Rome’s repressive occupation of their country.
His enemies could spread the word:
“The Messiah is to liberate us from Roman rule, but this fellow supinely tells us to pay the tax.”
The reply, “Don’t pay the tax,” would have pleased Jesus’ adversaries the most, and that they did not get.
According to the interpretation Vernard advocates, they did receive the other answer, “Pay the tax,” and could proceed with their strategy contingent on that reply.
That is, their trap did catch Jesus.
But the close of the story in each Gospel brings out that the trap did not succeed.
“And they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him by what he said; but marveling at his answer they were silent” (Luke 20:26).
Jesus had not said, “Pay the tax.”
Jesus’ enemies were intent on exposing him as a collaborator, if not a Zealot revolutionary.
When they produced the detested Roman coin, they — not Jesus — were exposed as the collaborators.
When the Jewish leaders brought Jesus to Pilate, they accused him of “forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar” (Luke 23:2).
They would hardly have used that accusation if Jesus a short time before, in a public context charged with excitement about him, had counseled payment of the tribute.
Usually people quote, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” and omit the rest.
This pernicious misuse of the saying has had immense significance in the history of the West.
Vernard emphasizes that the second part of Jesus’ reply is vastly more important than the first, but he remains within the traditional interpretation by holding that on the matter of taxes we can take the first part and know its meaning for us without the second part.
Brethren historically have held that young men should not simply comply with whatever notice comes from a draft board and that what can rightly be given to the government has to be discerned in relation to giving ourselves totally to God.
Brethren who are deeply concerned about paying money into a monstrously expanding military buildup are not advocating refusal of all taxes, complete noncooperation with government, or trying to overthrow it.
But we believe that we can come to a Christian understanding of taxes that should be handed over to the government only in the light of Jesus’ supremely central command that we give ourselves fully to God.
The crucial issue is whether the first part of Jesus’ reply is taken by itself as a clear, sweeping command or whether it is seen as a riddle calling for the discernment that can come within our striving to love God and follow Jesus.
Jesus, as a Jewish male between the ages of 14 and 65, was subject to the Roman poll tax of one denarius a year.
We have no record that he paid it (his adversaries could have cornered him on that point) — or that he did not pay it.
But in Matthew 17:24–27, the tax in question was for the Temple in Jerusalem.
Jesus told Peter that children of the heavenly King are free from any obligation to pay taxes, but “not to give offense… give the shekel to them for me and for yourself.”
Here too Jesus did not command that all taxes are to be paid regardless.
(Much of what Vernard finds in the passage is not there at all.)
The key consideration is that one not give offense, cause others to fall away from faith.
Had Jesus refused to pay the Temple tax, he would have appeared to reject the Mosaic law (Exodus 30:11–16) and the Temple itself.
But in some circumstances paying a tax can constitute giving offense, impelling others away from God.
When national leaders are stumbling blindly toward slaughtering unimaginable multitudes of those for whom Christ died, casual payment of all the money asked for toward their mad projects amounts to abetting them in their fateful falling away from God.
To resist paying such taxes can provide opportunities for pointing agents of government to Jesus as Lord.
On the Romans 13 passage John Howard Yoder writes:
“Verse 7 says ‘render to each his due’; verse 8 says ‘nothing is due to anyone except love.’
Thus the claims of Caesar are to be measured by whether what he claims is due to him is part of the obligation of love.
Love in turn is defined (verse 10) by the fact that it does no harm.”
Paul was probably restating the teaching of Jesus found in Mark 12:17 and his Master’s call to the most careful discrimination between what under God can be rightly rendered to the ruling authority and what cannot.
Thus we have cogent reasons for concluding that Vernard’s article, the Brethren tradition of paying all taxes without question, and the Annual Conference Statement on Taxation for War (of which Vernard was a principal writer) depend on a mistaken understanding of the words of Jesus.
There is no easy answer— certainly not in four Greek words in Mark 12:17 taken by themselves.
In this issue we need together to seek a fresh discernment of what from us belongs to God.
Bob Gross wrote a letter-to-the-editor in response, in which he made this point (source):
Eller may not realize that for many Brethren who feel led to refuse to pay taxes for war, the primary reason is not the one his article cautions against.
Rather than “an act of protest and defiance against the evil of the state,” our non-payment is a simple, humble attempt to refrain from contributing to that evil.
This is not done in a quest for purity or out of guilt.
It comes from a desire to be more conformed to the will of God and to witness to God’s kingdom.
John Stoner from the Mennonite Central Committee also wrote in to reiterate that “When Jesus was asked, by people wishing entrap him, ‘Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?’ his answer was not ‘Yes.’ ” (source)
Barry Shutt, on the other hand, took the point of view that war tax resistance was not an effective response, and should be discouraged for that reason (source). Excerpts:
[A] legitimate concern for any witness is the question of effectiveness.
One could seriously question if violating the law is very effective in a society where most people believe it is best to work within the system to initiate change.
And if tax resistance only leads to the tax resister paying more money to the government in fines and penalties, the question of effectiveness becomes an even greater concern.
The point to be made, of course, is, “How do we work effectively to bring about change?” When the system provides adequate means by which one can voice concerns and attempt to change priorities, tax resistance as a means to bring about change becomes even more questionable.
If tax resisters would argue that effectiveness is not the primary concern or objective but simply the witness alone is the objective, then one should ask if simply writing letters of protest to our elected officials is any less of a witness?
If God hears prayers made from the privacy of the prayer closet, God surely takes note of witnesses made through the less conspicuous channels available for us to voice our concerns.
Being fined or arrested may not be necessary, and I would suggest neither is tax resistance.
A further letter in support of resistance, by Dale Hess, did not add much new to the argument, but, in implicit contradiction to Shutt, said of war tax resistance: “The importance of this type of peace witness is hard to overestimate” (source).
The Annual Conference had assembled yet another committee to issue yet another report about war tax resistance, and that committee reported on its work in .
The messenger reported on their recommendations (source):
The assignment from last year’s Annual Conference was two-fold.
In response to a request that the committee study and recommend how Brethren should respond to the dilemma of paying taxes for war, the committee chose not to write a new position paper.
Instead it recommends that Brethren undertake an extensive study of earlier position papers and then determine more specifically what, in addition to the previous papers, is called for in the query.
The committee was also asked to make a recommendation about General Board payment of the federal telephone excise tax.
The committee recommends that the decision be made by the board itself, because of the liability of individual officers.
In action for war growing out of a General Board query of , delegates approved a study committee’s recommendation that the church undertake its own study of previous position papers before deciding whether a new paper on taxation for war is desired.
The General Board is to prepare a study packet and to compile responses from across the denomination.
In an unusual move, the delegates extended the life of the study committee, directing it to recommend to the Cincinnati Conference a process to complete the study.
The same committee, assigned to respond to a Michigan District query about telephone tax redirection, recommended (and Conference approved) that any decision about whether the General Board should withhold the federal telephone excise tax should be made by the Board, since its staff could be held liable.
“A gratified war tax study committee regrouped after finding it had two more years of life.
Clockwise from left:
Chuck Boyer, Gary Flory, Phil Rieman, Dick Buckwalter, Vi Cox.”
A letter in the issue dissented from the war tax resistance craze on the grounds that “many non-Christian people who deeply resent having to support welfare programs” would use the same logic to avoid their taxes (source).
, a group of Brethren showed up at the Lombard, Ill., Internal Revenue Service office and tried to pay part of their taxes with bags of groceries.
The group from Bethany Theological Seminary included about 33 students and faculty member Dale Brown, and they wanted to let the IRS know that they objected to paying taxes for war.
“I believe in paying taxes, but not for defense,” said Brown.
The group took about $160 worth of food to the IRS and contributed about the same amount to peace organizations.
IRS officials refused the groceries, which were then given to local food pantries and soup kitchens.
The hows and whys of war tax resistance continued in the pages of the Messenger in , as Cliff Kindy made the case for voluntarily simplicity and living on an income below the tax line.
In the Messenger printed an opinion piece by Barry Shutt that had attacked war tax resistance on the grounds that it was ineffective.
This somewhat novel argument prompted some rebuttals in the issue (source).
L. William Yolton (of the National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors) wrote that Shutt’s arguments were of the same sort that conscientious objectors to military service hear —
“Are there not other evils to be resisted? So don’t resist this one.” “There are differences of opinion among Christians about an issue, so let us wait to do the good until all are agreed.” “If you do not do this evil, then someone else will be drafted in your place to do it, so you must do evil.”
— and Brethren know by now not to bend to such arguments.
David W.
Fouts said that his own experience was proof that writing protest letters was a poor form of witness compared to resistance:
For years I enclosed a carefully composed letter with my tax return protesting the use of my tax dollars for military purposes, but I have yet to receive a single reply from an IRS or other administrative official.
My actions apparently spoke louder than my words.
However, when I withheld 10 percent of my income taxes to protest the proportion spent on nuclear weapons, I received repeated attention from the IRS in the form of letters demanding payment and threatening to confiscate my property.
Cliff Kindy wrote in for the issue to recommend a non-disobedient form of tax refusal (source).
It has been good to see the issue of paying taxes for war highlighted in Messenger.
The issue for our family has been “Who is Lord?”
Is Caesar Lord, through the channels of IRS?
Or is Jesus?
Caesar calls for our money and our life, and, yet, Jesus calls for our all.
To which will we respond in obedience?
(We cannot have two masters.) We fret about the consequences of breaking the law, and yet seem unconcerned about the possibility of falling into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:31).
Certainly God, who asks us to stand over against the powers of death, will care for us in our obedience.
We must venture obedience.
It is too easy to assume that in this instance obedience to God leads directly to disobedience to Caesar.
For those who struggle over that concern, there is a possible answer.
To limit one’s income to below the taxable level is not illegal, and, although still extravagant by the world’s standards, is moving in the direction of standing with God’s little people.
We as a church have not examined seriously the results of living at an income level that does not require missiles, bombers, and Trident submarines to protect it.
You might like to try it for a few years.
Several questions for those who pay taxes for war:
1) Do you give more money to the church than you pay to IRS?
More than you pay to IRS for the 50-to-70-percent portion of your tax that is military-related?
2) How large would that military-related percentage need to get before you would say “No”?
3) If that percentage of the federal income tax were going to finance houses of prostitution or liquor warehouses, would you pay it?
4) If it would be proper for a Christian to channel monies to the Peace Tax Fund (if such a proposal is ever passed for conscientious objectors), does that not imply that we should feel some urgency even now to pay those dollars toward similar purposes?
(Does the law of the land ever define the Law of God?)
5) If we spoke the passages of Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25 with the same emphasis Jesus probably had, (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”), might we not also find “…this man… forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar…” (Luke 23:2)?
Ten Christians in Kalamazoo, Mich., gathered in front of the courthouse to voice their opposition to military funding.
Representing the Catholic Church, the Mennonite Church, and the Church of the Brethren, they withheld a total of $6,400, the portion of their income taxes that they claimed would help fund the military budget.
Deanna Brown, pastor of the Skyridge Church of the Brethren, thought twice before joining the peace demonstration, since she didn’t want to be misunderstood by other Christians.
“But because of my vocation as a disciple of Christ,” she said, “I feel called to make this witness and to say there is another way — the way of reconciliation, humility, service — and that’s the way of Jesus Christ.”
Added Steve Senesi: “We are not opposed to taxes.
The point today is to speak to where those funds go and how they are spent.”
The withheld tax money was given to five local social service agencies:
Center City Housing, Loaves and Fishes (a clearinghouse for emergency food pantries), Habitat for Humanity, Kalamazoo Diaconal Conference, and Kalamazoo Youth Ministry.
“Deanna Brown and Terry Ciszek (to left of banner), of the Kalamazoo Church of the Brethren, joined others who were opposing the use of tax dollars for military purposes.”
The issue brought news of Brethren who had been arrested in demonstrations opposing U.S. militarized foreign policy (source), including:
Phil Rieman, co-pastor of the Ivester church in Grundy Center, Iowa, was part of an effort to link the payment of tax dollars and US funding of the contras [Nicaraguan insurgents].
He and 10 others were arrested after refusing to leave the IRS building in Waterloo.
In the subsequent 2-day jury trial all 11 defendants were found “not guilty” by all six jurors on the grounds that the demonstration was justifiable.
“Unlike the recent sanctuary trial (in Tuscon, Ariz.), we were allowed to say why we did what we did.
And the jury agreed that we were right,” Rieman said.
“It was unusual.”
The previous year, the Messenger had hosted a thoughtful theological debate about the possible biblical basis for tax resistance or obedience.
Mark Wilhelm wanted to remind people that this wasn’t just a theoretical concern:
A few Brethren have been discussing war tax resistance, trying to attain a New Testament view.
The theological complications of this discussion and the possibility of confrontation with the government have resulted in the neglect of the issue by the majority of Brethren, even those who otherwise adhere to the nonviolent teachings of Jesus.
Instead of neglect, we Brethren should urgently consider our position on war-tax resistance.
We Brethren are failing to realize that the military is depending more on technology and less on people.
It is this growing dependence on technology that makes the war-tax issue vital.
The military is always seeking to use fewer personnel with sophisticated weaponry to carry out major operations.
The military goal of this latter work is to replace human soldiers in the battlefield with computer-controlled robotics that are capable of making complex human-like decisions.
Greater military dependence upon advanced technology has its drawbacks.
It requires expert scientific research, extensive engineering design, skilled manufacturing, and elaborate testing.
This extremely costly work must be begun many years in advance of the intended use of the weapons.
Therefore the military needs a large amount of money, and it needs it today for the next decade’s weapons.
It is this shift in the military’s dependence from human soldiers to expensive, advanced-planned technology that makes the payment of war taxes a vital issue to Brethren.
The military is less in need of Brethren young men, but more in need of the war taxes paid by all Brethren well before the occurrence of a war.
War-tax resistance not only withholds the funding that the military relies upon, it also exposes the sin of the quiet, deadly weapons buildup.
War-tax resistance is therefore a vital part of a holistic peace witness.
To be conscientiously opposed to war and to pay for the advanced weaponry that is the life blood of the modern military is a difficult discipleship dilemma, the resolution of which is made increasingly urgent by the pace of technology.
To wait until global hostilities begin to practice nonviolent resistance is of no use.
At that time the weapons systems that we currently fund will be in the hands of those committed to using them.
At this moment our incomes are being taxed to fight future wars.
The income of every brother and sister is being conscripted by the military that it might do tremendous violence.
The crucial question each of us must face is:
“Would Jesus have me resist this evil?”
The Church of the Brethren stood firm and refused to honor an IRS levy filed against pastors Louise & Phil Rieman in , and the church’s Messenger magazine also brought news of war tax resisters from other denominations.
There were several passing references to war taxes in the early issues of Messenger, but it wasn’t until the issue that there was anything substantial.
That issue brought a brief update on Presbyterian war tax resister Maurice McCrackin (source):
The Presbyterian Church (USA) has publicly asked the forgiveness of an 81-year-old Cincinnati minister who was defrocked 26 years ago for his anti-war activism.
The Rev. Maurice F.
McCrackin, pastor of the non-denominational 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 have gone for military spending.
The denomination’s General Assembly in formally confessed error and endorsed an action to restore him to clergy status.
, more than $40,000 in tax-resistance fines has been covered by a network of people who contribute to a “Tax Resisters’ Penalty Fund (TRPF).[”] The fund, which aids those who refuse for conscientious reasons to pay taxes for war, issued its 11th appeal for funds in .
Founded in by Dave Leiter, then coordinator of the North Manchester Fellowship of Reconciliation, in Indiana, the TRPF provides financial and moral support to war-tax resisters, allowing those who do not directly resist war taxes to support those who do.
War-tax resisters resist funding militarism by refusing to pay all or a portion of their income taxes.
They are not tax evaders, says the TRPF committee, because they do not use withheld money for personal benefit.
Many channel the withheld taxes to organizations that work for peace and justice.
Using US federal budget figures, the committee says that 62 percent of income tax monies go to pay for current and past military expenses.
, the Internal Revenue Service has levied $500 in penalties on deductions it considers “frivolous,” including war-tax deductions.
Resisters submit requests for reimbursements of such charges to the Penalty Fund.
The TRPF does not pay the original tax burden — only penalties and interest.
Between two and four times annually, requests are evaluated and tabulated by a committee of eight people, and an appeal is sent to supporters of the fund.
The amount of the appeal is shared equally by supporters.
The 11 appeals issued have ranged from $1 to $15 per supporter.
The fund has about 570 supporters and has given more than $40,000 to more than 80 war-tax resisters, according to the committee.
The next appeal goes out .
The War Tax Resisters Penalty Fund is still in operation today and still operates much as described in the above article.
At the Annual Conference, the committee that had been set up to yet again study the war tax issue and make recommendations announced “that it was choosing not to write a new statement on the issue of conscientiously opposing paying taxes that go for military purposes.”
Instead, they recommended that Brethren go back and study the previous reports issued by previous committees, and heed the calls from previous conferences to seriously study the issue.
(source)
The Church of the Brethren stood firm against an IRS levy in , as reported in the issue:
The Internal Revenue Service has issued a tax levy on funds the General Board holds for Phil and Louise Rieman, co-pastors of the Ivester Church of the Brethren, Grundy Center, Iowa.
The action is a response to the Riemans’ tax withholding as a conscientious objection to paying taxes that are used for war.
The levy requires the General Board to take money held on their behalf from the Pastor’s Housing Fund and send it to the IRS.
If the board fails to do this, the IRS has declared its intention to levy the board’s bank accounts and take the amount plus a 50-percent penalty.
The Executive Committee voted not to send the required amount and to file a protest letter that supports the Riemans’ right to engage in tax resistance.
The committee also told the IRS that the Pastor’s Housing Fund is of such a nature that the government does not have the right to levy against it.
In , representatives from Brethren, Mennonite, and Quaker groups had come together for a three-day conference about war taxes, sponsored by a “New Call to Peacemaking.”
“People who express opposition to war need to consider conscientious objection to paying for it,” stated Chuck Boyer, General Board peace representative, after returning from a three-day discussion of war tax issues.
Thirty-six historic peace church members — Brethren, Mennonites, and Friends — including Boyer, and Julie Garber, of the Manchester Church of the Brethren, North Manchester, Ind., met to discuss issues surrounding withholding of war taxes.
Prior to that consultation, 18 leaders from the historic peace churches met to discuss how best to work together for peace.
It was the first meeting of the heads of the peace churches in more than 10 years.
The simple fact that the leaders met and got to know each other better was the highlight of the meeting, said Donald E. Miller, general secretary of the Church of the Brethren.
In addition to Miller, General Board executives Joan Deeter, Melanie May, and Roger Schrock; board chairwoman Anita Smith Buckwalter; and church historian Donald F. Durnbaugh represented the Brethren.
Both meetings were sponsored by New Call to Peacemaking, a cooperative peace church organization.
The war tax consultation focused on options and consequences for church agencies that refuse to withhold employees’ federal income taxes.
One Mennonite and two Quaker agencies already have policies of breaking the law by not withholding federal taxes of employees who oppose paying the military portion of their taxes.
The Church of the Brethren has not dealt directly with this issue, said Boyer, since no General Board employees have asked that their taxes not be withheld.
At the St. Louis Annual Conference, however, the larger issue of corporate civil disobedience will be discussed.
Of greater interest to the Brethren was lengthy discussion of the US Peace Tax Fund bill in Congress.
Consultation participants agreed to organize a group of leaders to visit Washington, D.C., to register concerns about tax withholding and to support the bill.
Boyer has begun organizing “Six-by-Six” clubs of Brethren to promote the bill.
Groups of six will visit their legislators in Washington or at local offices six times to promote the bill.…
The Peace Tax Fund bill would allow conscientious objectors to put the portion of their taxes that would support the military (presently about 53 percent) into a special fund to promote peaceful programs.
Conscientious objectors could then pay all their taxes without violating their consciences.
The issue reported on the policy the General Board of Friends United Meeting had adopted of refusing to withhold taxes from the paychecks of employees who were conscientious objectors to military taxation (source).
The issue followed by reporting on a similar action by the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (of Friends), which decided “to withhold but not forward to the Internal Revenue Service the estimated military portion of its employees’ federal income taxes” (source).
The issue brought the news that the Church of the Brethren General Board’s Executive Committee “is studying whether the board can withhold the telephone excise tax as a protest against military expenditures” (source).
The issue reported that the Mennonite Church was jumping on the bandwagon too: “The General Board of the Mennonite Church has recommended that church agencies honor the requests of employees who wish to withhold payment of taxes used for military purposes” (source).
That issue also reported on the Brethren Revival Fellowship, which was trying to prod Brethren back in a more conservative direction (source).
It quoted their newsletter on the tax resistance issue:
“We believe that those who are loyal to Christ are bound by the biblical mandate to respect the government of the land in which they reside, and should pay their taxes when due.
What the government does with the money is no longer their responsibility.”
As the Cold War sputtered to a close during the Gorbachev era, the urgency went out of the war tax resistance movement — something I’ve also noticed in my recaps of Mennonite and Quaker war tax resistance — as can be seen by the reduced attention given to the subject in Brethren periodicals during this period.
The issue brought the news that the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Quakers) had been sued by the IRS which was trying to force it to turn over taxes that had not been paid by two of its conscientiously objecting employees (source).
Excerpt:
In its countersuit, the Quaker group contends that “for the Meeting to pay over to the IRS, in defiance of an employee’s Quaker beliefs, the amount of taxes which had been refused on grounds of religious conscience by that employee, would violate the most fundamental religious principles of the church.”
Samuel D. Caldwell, general secretary of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, said the military tax refusers are not tax evaders.
“They would gladly pay their full share of taxes — and more — if they had assurances that it would go to peaceful purposes.”
[T]reasury bonds [are] a very safe investment but one which “raises the issue whether one wants to invest in the current priorities of our government where so much money is spent on the military budget”…
IRAs are another way people can reduce their tax contributions to military spending.
Earnings on an IRA are tax-deferred until retirement.
In many cases IRAs are tax-deductible.
It is also possible for employers to set up tax-deferred retirement plans…
The issue introduced readers to tax resistance as a tactic of nonviolent resistance, summarizing the story of the tax resisting town of Beit Sahour in occupied Palestine (source).
A profile of Curtis Dubble (the recently-elected Annual Conference moderator) in the issue included his recollection of the war bonds pressure during World War Ⅱ:
“For me there were a couple of struggles,” he says. “In the shoe factory they put pressure on me to buy war bonds.
I couldn’t stand that pressure, so I bought a few.”
But his conscience wouldn’t allow him to continue to support the war effort in that way, so he cashed them in.
The teller at the Myerstown bank “looked at me like I was crazy,” he recalls.
Later, when asked to sew soles on military shoes, he refused.
A feature on married co-pastors in the issue included this note about Louise and Phil Rieman (source):
[T]heir strong stance on war tax resistance [is] a challenge their congregation has had to wrestle with. “One of our biggest joys in this congregation,” says Phil, “is the support we’ve felt in asking the church to cooperate with us on this conviction.
Perhaps because there are two of us, this has allowed them to be less hesitant, knowing that if one of us is arrested, the pulpit can still be filled.”
Last-minute taxpayers in Iowa City, Iowa, rushing to mail their returns late at night on , were met by demonstrators in front of the post office, protesting tax money being spent for military purposes.
Among the demonstrators was peace activist Marianne Michael, a member of the Panora (Iowa) Church of the Brethren.
Said she to a newspaper reporter, “It’s obscene that the government spends so much on the military when there are so many things here at home that we need to work on.
The US has a poor sense of values when our tax money is spent on things that destroy human life.”
Meanwhile, the Bible Monitor wasn’t budging.
From the issue (source):
…we do not believe a Christian is called to picket abortion clinics, refuse to pay “war taxes,” or take a part in the many popular anti-government demonstrations supported by both “fundamental” and “liberal” wings of christendom. In our opinion, such actions are a part of the fanatic fringe and not being faithful.
The slowdown in mentions of war tax resistance in Brethren publications towards the end of the cold war accelerated further during the opening years of the Clinton presidency.
The issue of Messenger included a brief article about the war tax resistance of Brethren co-pastors Louise & Phil Rieman:
When rolls around, Louie and Phil Rieman plan to file their federal income tax just like everyone else.
But along with it, the co-pastors of the Ivester Church of the Brethren, in Grundy Center, Iowa, will enclose a letter.
It opens, “Dear Brothers and Sisters at the IRS: Once again we write to let you know that we are not paying the full, expected amount…”
Isn’t that being dishonest? No.
It’s not a criminal offense, the IRS says, as long as an accurate tax return is filed.
Of course, the IRS can and does come after the withheld amount.
And the withholders usually end up losing more money than if they had paid their taxes in full, on time.
Civil penalties, as large as $500, and interest charges are added when the IRS eventually collects unpaid taxes by seizing paychecks, bank accounts, or property.
In , IRS agents seized the Rieman family van.
It had an appraised value of $8,000, but the IRS auctioned it off for $3,900 and kept $3,000.
Why withhold taxes, in such a “losing” situation?
Louie and Phil are among a number of Brethren who believe so strongly that war is sin, that they choose this way of protesting the 50 percent of their tax money they figure goes for military use.
So they only pay 50 percent of what they owe and let the IRS come after the rest.
The Riemans consciously put the percentage that would have been used for the military into life-enhancing programs instead.
They have been doing this .
“Our main goal is not simply protesting war taxes,” explains Louie, “but living in spiritual and moral obedience to the teachings of Christ.”
It’s not a popular stance with the general public in this country.
Sneaking through every loophole one can find is the more acceptable way of withholding taxes.
But the Riemans feel led to make a costly statement against war.
“How can we pray for peace and pay for war?” asks Phil.
A good question, one that other Brethren have to wrestle with.
War tax resistance led to a settlement of $31,343 between the Quaker magazine Friends Journal and the IRS.
Editor Vinton Deming refused to pay taxes for , giving the money to peace organizations instead.
The IRS demanded a tax levy on Deming’s salary, which the Journal’s board of managers reluctantly paid on the advice that they could not win a case in court.
There were also a handful of mentions of the proposed federal “Peace Tax Fund” legislation, which had a well-attended House of Representatives committee hearing in .
A brief story about “Organic Gardening” in the issue made reference to the tax resistance of Arlene & Cliff Kindy:
“We live below the taxable income level,” says Arlene, “so that we don’t have to pay military taxes.” Taking their Christianity seriously has meant simplification on many different levels, including riding their bicycles instead of driving a car, and home-schooling their daughters.
There was a brief mention of the “Midwest War Tax Resistance Conference,” sponsored by the Iowa Peace Network, which had Church of the Brethren members in it, in the issue (source).
Another “New Call to Peacemaking” conference was held in , but from the report of it in the Messenger, war tax resistance was no longer the main attraction.
“Sabrina and David Falls, Quakers from Richmond, Ind., who spoke about their experiences in refusing to pay income tax designated for military use…” were among the speakers.
The issue profiled Anita & Rich Buckwalter, and noted (source):
For almost 30 years, the Buckwalters have made a protest against taxes going to military funding, withholding the part of their taxes they calculate would be spent by the military.
To those who question his patriotism, Rich responds, “I think I am being a patriot and a responsible citizen by calling the nation to its deeper responsibility.”
By , war tax resistance had almost disappeared from the Church of the Brethren’s Messenger, replaced by vain hopes that the government would pass “Peace Tax Fund” legislation to ease the consciences of troubled taxpayers.
As a supplement to its issue, the Messenger included several-page recap of the first fifty years of the Church of the Brethren General Board, which briefly mentioned the Annual Conference’s vote (754 to 103) to update its peace position in a way that affirmed “tax resistance as a legitimate expression[] of the church’s peace witness” (source).
The April 15 federal tax deadline presents a recurring religious and moral dilemma for me.
The Church of the Brethren has always taught me that “all war is sin,” and that believers should not participate in it.
Although the government no longer wants my body, it still demands my money (about 50 percent of federal income taxes) to pay for wars, past and present.
As a conscientious objector to war, I find my deeply held religious beliefs violated by being forced to pay for military activities.
But rather than say he will not go along with such a violation of his deeply held religious beliefs, the writer’s response to this dilemma is just to say that “the government… should… pass the Peace Tax Fund bill.”
A letter from Don Schrader in the issue promoted below-the-tax-line living as a tax resistance strategy (source). Excerpt:
If someone comes to my door collecting money for a local gang to rob and kill my neighbors, would I donate? Would I donate even a dollar if I knew any of the money collected went to kill my neighbors — no matter if the rest of it went to feed the homeless and to build schools?
I keep my taxable income under the taxable level.
For a sighted, single person under 65, the taxable level for is $6,800.
I lived well in on $5,700.
I am glad to have no car, no big apartment or house, no luxury vacations in order to live under the taxable level.
I prize living the truth as best I see it far more than I value unnecessary things.
In order for the US to plunder and to massacre, two things are required from many citizens — silence and paying taxes.
For 18 years I have paid no federal income tax and I sure as hell am not silent!
An article in the issue, boosting the Peace Tax Fund legislation again, recapped the history of Church of the Brethren with regards to war taxes in the following way (source):
, the Church of the Brethren has openly expressed its opposition to war.
During the Revolutionary War, recorded minutes indicate that Brethren were struggling to define what action to take with regard to government conscription and the payment of “war taxes.”
The recommendation by the Conference body was to examine one’s conscience and to act as a result of Christ’s leading, with support being given to all those who chose to pay or not to pay taxes.
Some Brethren who paid their taxes would designate the money “for the needy,” but would allow the government to decide ultimately how to use those funds.
During the Civil War, the peace churches were successful in convincing the Union to modify its approach to the use of tax revenues.
The government agreed to use monies collected as bounty from conscientious objectors for “the benefit of sick and wounded soldiers” rather than for hiring substitutes.
The Church of the Brethren has recently called for the establishment of a World Peace Tax Fund through several General Board and Annual Conference statements.
By supporting the establishment of a Peace Tax Fund, we can lift up an integral part of our Brethren heritage.
Bible Monitor included an article by Dennis St. John on “The Christian and Political Participation” in its issue.
The article touched on war tax resistance in an unusually sympathetic way, given the general conservativism of that journal.
Excerpts:
What should the Christian’s response be when his convictions conflict with governmental demands? Should Christians use the political process to encourage social betterment? What does the Bible reveal on this issue? How has the Church historically responded to such problems? In the Christian community today there is a great diversity of answers given to these questions.
Historically, there have been several issues in America in which the church has become involved.
Slavery, temperance, the peace movement, abortion, women’s rights and gay rights are examples of issues that have affected society-at-large.
The church became actively involved and in some instances is still involved.
Refusing military service, refusing to pay “war taxes”, and educational issues would be examples of concerns that have more directly involved Christians rather than society as a whole.
Two other issues the Brethren had to deal [at the time of the American Revolution] with were the hiring of substitutes to serve in the rebel militia and the matter of whether to pay taxes that supported the war.
Again, we turn to their written records to discover their response.
Inasmuch as at the great meeting in Conestoga last year, it was unanimously concluded that we should not pay the substitute money; but inasmuch as it has been overlooked here and there and some have not regarded it, therefore we, the assembled brethren, exhort in union all brethren everywhere to hold themselves guiltless and take no part in war or bloodshedding, which might take place if we would voluntarily pay for hiring men, or yet more if we became agents to collect such money.
But concerning the tax, it is considered that on account of the troublesome times and in order to avoid offense, we might follow the example of Christ (Matt. 17:24–27).
Yet, if one does not see it so and thinks perhaps, he for conscience sake could not pay it, but bear with others who pay in patience, we would willingly go along inasmuch as we deem the overruling of conscience to be wrong.
What do we learn from these Brethren?
We note their humility and willingness to be subject to “higher powers”.
We see that they gave their congregations some firm direction as to a course to follow in those troubling times.
We also see their willingness to give some room for individual conscience on the matter of “war taxes”.
For their faith and convictions they faced consequences.
They had to pay heavy fines in some instances, while others had possessions and properties confiscated by the authorities.
There were even some scattered cases of brutality.
In the end, they preserved a clear conscience before their God.
As the millennium came to a close, the chorus of war tax resisters that had sung strongly in the Church of the Brethren through the sixties, seventies, and eighties faded to a handful of crickets, and then, finally, to nearly nothing.
In the on-line archives of the Messenger and Brethren Evangelist give out at Internet Archive.
But maybe that’s just as well.
In there was almost nothing in either magazine touching on war taxes or war bonds.
a Peace Tax Fund advertisement from the Messenger
I was able to find a couple of things in the on-line Messenger archives at brethren.org.
A article profiled David R. Bassett and his war tax resistance and his work with the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund.
The page containing this article also has an audio interview with Bassett.
A article on “The Brethren in World War Ⅰ” noted that “the Sedition Act… criminalized speaking out against purchase of Liberty (war) Bonds, which resulted in charges against Brethren pastors J.A. Robinson of Iowa and David Gerdes of Illinois.”
The Pilgrim recounted this story in its issue (source):
In the Old Brethren had existed as a separate brotherhood for only five years.
One of the elders of the church in Carroll County, Indiana, then was a brother named John Leedy.
He was known as being very firm in his views.
When neighbors came to persuade John to buy war bonds, he refused.
How could he do such a thing when he believed this was so opposite the Gospel of our Lord?
John would not use a gun to take his enemy’s life.
How could he willingly and purposefully finance someone else to do so?
This was not understood by the patriotic neighbors of Brother John.
They could not understand how he could think it was right just to let the enemy go on without resistance.
But we think Brother John would rather have given up all his possessions and been mistreated than to be unfaithful to the Lord Jesus and the example of the small flock of Jesus through the centuries.
We as Christians are called to actually love our enemies.
So not only is this a matter of legalistic obedience.
But how could a Christian want to take part in warmongering or support others to do?
One evening as John and his wife were about to retire for the night, they heard a knock on the door.
John opened the door, and when he saw the men, he prepared to go outdoors.
His wife begged him to stay indoors, but John knew that the men who bid him come outdoors were angry, so he motioned his wife to stay indoors.
He stepped outside and closed the door.
Someone said, “Grab him!” They took John and roughly set him in then midst.
Someone produced scissors, and they cut large pieces of his beard and hair, but left parts of it in a grotesque pattern.
John offered no resistance.
The men prepared to go, and one said to him, “John, you buy bonds or we will return, and you will be handled worse the next time.”
John stood quietly in the doorway.
I imagine his lip trembled as yours or mine would have done.
I imagine he felt sorry for the men, as you and I should feel.
Then he said in his characteristic way, “Well, men, when you return I expect you’ll find the same John.”
The next day John went into the local village.
Respectful businessmen in town were enraged that someone would treat their fellow neighbor in such fashion.
In spite of John’s protests, they put a guard around his house for awhile to protect them.
When I ask some old folks today, “Do you remember John Leedy?” they invariably smile and say, “John was a firm man.”
— From Fred Benedict’s The Same John printed in the , Vindicator.
Christians have the obligation to pay tribute and custom to and to fear and honor the “powers that be.” (Rom. 13:6–7) This principle came acutely under test during the World War.
The problem did not arise with reference to the payment of taxes some of the proceeds of which were definitely used to carry on the war, but with reference to the purchase of Liberty Bonds which was voluntary, the proceeds of which directly supported the war program.
Here the nonresistant conscience asserted itself.
The former was clearly within the teaching of scripture, but the latter was voluntary and became a measure of one’s wartime patriotism.
Men who were physically unable on account of the rigors of warfare could render their bit toward the winning of the war by the purchase of bonds.
![$25 Certificate. Brethren Service Commitee. Church of the Brethren. General Administration Offices, Elgin, Illinois. This certifies that [blank] has contributed the within stated sum to the Church of the Brethren to be used in Civilian Public Service, in relieving suffering, in creating good will, and in making Christ known as Prince of Peace. Contributor’s Statement of Purpose: This contribution, made in addition to my normal giving, is in consideration of tragic world need, of the sacrifice of life and money which many are making in war and of my desire to support constructive service to humanity. This contribution is intended as an alternate service to war, in which my conscience does not permit me to engage. I give it voluntarily, asking neither interest nor return of principal.](brethren-service-certificate.png)
