Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” → Brethren → Anita Smith & Richard Buckwalter

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

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

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

It is obvious that the payment of federal taxes inevitably involves us in war and preparation for war, since tax monies are not clearly differentiated into military and non-military categories…

One avenue of escape for this dilemma is to refuse to pay taxes. However, money refused from tax payments is refused as much from the humane programs of government as from military programs. We are not always able to make clear that we are protesting war and not taxation itself. Furthermore, whatever taxes are withheld as an act of conscience, the government is able to collect by means of levies and confiscations.

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

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

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

What to render unto Caesar

Last November, 44 people from seven states gathered at Camp Mack in Northern Indiana to study and fellowship together to discern God’s will for the church as it faces requirements from the US government to pay vast sums of money for military-related purposes. We were a mixture of Methodists, Mennonites, and Brethren who had been struggling with this issue for many years. In the face of the fact that as church people we are paying over three times as much money in only the military-related portions of our taxes as we give for all church and charity purposes, our Bible study of the weekend focused on the clear word that Jesus is Lord of the earth.

Our time together was filled with joyful singing, unifying times of worship, meaningful moments of sharing our feelings and experiences, and deep periods of Bible study with openness to Jesus’ call changing our very lives. The retreat was pulled together by Chuck Boyer of On Earth Peace and the BVS peace team from New Windsor. There was a real openness on the part of the leadership (Donald Kaufman, author of What Belongs to Caesar?, and Lee Griffith from Advaita House in Baltimore) to allow the Spirit to change the agenda of the weekend to fit the call coming out of the discernment process.

Although retreats such as this are often little more than times of learning and fellowship, this gathering was an exciting exception with the potential to call the church to a fresh understanding of how total are the demands on those who profess Jesus as Lord of their lives. On Saturday evening and Sunday morning, out of moments of worship, listening for the word of the Lord, and sharing together came the Waubee Peace Pledge (named for Lake Waubee, the location of the Camp Mack retreat) and commitments to continuing activities of witness to our church and the world around us.

Although we were at different positions in our own lives, there was an amazing unity in feeling at Camp Mack that the pledge should be one written as strongly as the Word of God dictates and yet shared with the humility which the sin of our own lives necessitates. What follows is the pledge in its final form with an invitation to each of you to join, if after deep, prayerful searching you find that you must.

Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅰ

Jesus Christ is Lord and we pledge our lives to his Lordship. This is a pledge which we do make and we can make because the Lord fills his people with faith, hope, and love. This is a pledge which we make with humility, but also with conviction, aware of the risks, since under all circumstances, we must obey God rather than people.

We believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, knowing that it is in the resurrection that we have our life. We need follow death no more. Death is conquered. God chooses life for us.

We therefore pledge ourselves to the service of life and the renunciation of death. Jesus Christ is the way and the truth and his way is the way of peace. We will seek to oppose the way of war.

Specifically we make this pledge to our brothers and sisters in Christ:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. We further pledge ourselves to keep our hearts and lives open to the movement of God’s Spirit and to follow where Christ might lead us on the path of peace. We pray for help and guidance — that we might be instruments of God’s peace.

We invite others to join in doing the words of this covenant and we seek to support those who are struggling toward this and other means of witness against war in the world. We want to join you in whatever ways of sharing and commitment are possible through our common life in Christ. Peace be with you.

Because we are at different points of commitment, a second pledge came out of this conference. There was a common understanding by participants in the conference that Jesus is the King of Peace and that it is wrong to pay taxes for war, but for some that witness to life takes a different form. Support for the World Peace Tax Fund is the form that takes for some of us. Overall, though, the feeling of the conference was that, as a church, God calls us much beyond that in our witness for peace and our no to war.

As signers of Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅱ, we invite you to join if you feel God’s leading in the matter.

Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅱ

We, in spirit and in conscience affirm the Waubee Peace Pledge and fully support our sisters and brothers of that covenant. At this time in our lives we feel unable to commit ourselves to non-payment of income and phone taxes. We do commit our time, energy, and resources to searching for alternate channels of resistance, and pledge ourselves to continued seeking of God’s will for us in acting definitively to oppose those taxes for payment of war.

We give thanks for the freedom given us through Christ which enables us in this search, and we pray for the strength and hope to use our freedom as servants of God.

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

Whatever our point of commitment we want to encourage each other to deeper Christian discipleship in spite of the radically scandalous nature of the kingdom as it takes shape in our world. May God grant us the grace to travel in that way.

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

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

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

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

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

If you check your files, you will see that our protest has been consistent and lengthy. Our purpose was then and is now to witness to the way of the Prince of Peace and to register our conscientious opposition to the use of our taxes for war-making. To this end, we now feel called to move one step farther in our witness. We can not in good conscience or in good faith sign over to you that portion of our taxes — roughly 35 percent in 1977 — that goes for present military use. We refuse to take the initiative in paying for death and the destruction of God’s creation. Therefore, we will not willingly forward this money to you; this is our witness to the powers that be — that God’s will for peace lives on in the victory of Christ over the powers of death.

Please note that we do not argue with the government’s power to collect taxes. We accept the legitimate taxing powers of the state and willingly submit our taxes when we conscientiously can; we will even help to pay for past sins and wars of this nation — otherwise the percentage would be much higher. But after much study of the Bible, prayer, and dialogue, we have come to the conviction that we will make this witness to the gospel of peace as over against the insanity of planning for war and nuclear holocausts.

Unfortunately, because the World Peace Tax Fund Act has not been enacted yet by Congress, our actions mean some inconvenience to you. We regret this, and for your sake hope for the day when that law will make our witness “legal.” Until then, we know that you have the power to collect our money. We will not obstruct your efforts in that direction; neither will we hide or make personal gain from the money. We are now and always will be open and direct with you about our intentions; we don’t wish to cause offense. And we will forward copies of this letter to our elected representatives.

If you have any questions regarding our beliefs, we would be glad to dialogue with you.

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

While the Standing Committee recommendation passed with negligible delegate opposition, discussion of the issue included challenging questions about means of conscientious objection to war. Cliff Kindy asked the church to consider the link between affluent life-styles and warfare, and suggested that living below a taxable income level is one response to the tax issue.

He urged the church to grapple again with tax refusal as a form of resisting participation in war. Another speaker warned that the WPTF is “an attempt for us to be more comfortable with what is happening in the world” by seeking government approval of our resistance rather than acting boldly regardless of legal sanction.

John Reimer, of Western Plains District, asked if the WPTF would actually reduce military spending, or merely create a fund for peace research and education by reducing civilian sectors of the federal budgets while leaving the growing military budget unchallenged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the best debates I have seen about the biblical basis for tax obedience or tax resistance was found in the Messenger in 1985.

In the June issue, the Messenger hosted a debate between Vernard Eller and Dale Aukerman on the biblical basis for war tax resistance or obedient tax payment:

Rendering to Caesar [pro]

by Vernard Eller

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 A.D. 70, 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 1973 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 1985. 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.

And here’s how that worked out (source):

In action for war growing out of a General Board query of 1984, 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 1987 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 letter in the March 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).

This news came from the June issue:

Seminary group tries to pay taxes with food

Three days before the April 15 income tax filing deadline, 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 Church of the Brethren stood firm and refused to honor an IRS levy filed against pastors Louise & Phil Rieman in 1987, 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 1987 issues of Messenger, but it wasn’t until the August/September 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 1961 after he refused to pay the portion of his income taxes that would have gone for military spending. The denomination’s General Assembly in June formally confessed error and endorsed an action to restore him to clergy status.

The following page brought this news:

Tax resisters’ fund issues 11^th appeal

Since 1983, 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 11^th appeal for funds in April.

Founded in 1983 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.

Since 1982, 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 since 1983 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 this month.

The War Tax Resisters Penalty Fund is still in operation today and still operates much as described in the above article.

At the 1987 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 1987, as reported in the January 1988 issue:

Tax resistance action results in IRS levy

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 November 11 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 February, 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.”

Peace churches meet, discuss war taxes

“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 February 15–17 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 March 1988 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 June 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 May 1988 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 July 1988 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.”

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

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

A taxing situation

When April 15 rolls around, Louie and Phil Rieman plan to file their federal income tax just like everyone else. But along with it, the co-pastors of the Ivester Church of the Brethren, in Grundy Center, Iowa, will enclose a letter. It opens, “Dear Brothers and Sisters at the IRS: Once again we write to let you know that we are not paying the full, expected amount…”

Isn’t that being dishonest? No. It’s not a criminal offense, the IRS says, as long as an accurate tax return is filed. Of course, the IRS can and does come after the withheld amount. And the withholders usually end up losing more money than if they had paid their taxes in full, on time. Civil penalties, as large as $500, and interest charges are added when the IRS eventually collects unpaid taxes by seizing paychecks, bank accounts, or property.

In 1988, IRS agents seized the Rieman family van. It had an appraised value of $8,000, but the IRS auctioned it off for $3,900 and kept $3,000.

Why withhold taxes, in such a “losing” situation? Louie and Phil are among a number of Brethren who believe so strongly that war is sin, that they choose this way of protesting the 50 percent of their tax money they figure goes for military use. So they only pay 50 percent of what they owe and let the IRS come after the rest. The Riemans consciously put the percentage that would have been used for the military into life-enhancing programs instead. They have been doing this since 1969.

“Our main goal is not simply protesting war taxes,” explains Louie, “but living in spiritual and moral obedience to the teachings of Christ.”

It’s not a popular stance with the general public in this country. Sneaking through every loophole one can find is the more acceptable way of withholding taxes. But the Riemans feel led to make a costly statement against war.

“How can we pray for peace and pay for war?” asks Phil. A good question, one that other Brethren have to wrestle with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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