Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Mennonites / Amish →
David & Joanne Janzen
“Protest at the offices of COSEP. We call on the business sector to join efforts to organize a tax strike and indefinite general strike. We are not afraid… the struggle is just beginning!”
Irlanda Jerez, leader of the tax strike among merchants in
Nicaragua’s Mercado Oriental, was
seized by masked police officers , held incommunicado, and swiftly given a
three-year sentence on what strike me as trumped-up charges
unrelated to the protests.
Calls for more widespread tax refusal and for a general strike are
growing louder. there
was a protest at the offices of
COSEP
[Supreme Private Business Council], a sort of private sector business union
that represents various industry and chamber of
commerce groups. The group, while nominally opposing
the Ortega/Murillo crackdowns and promoting protests, has been
dragging its heels when it comes to challenging the regime with
stronger action. It is under pressure from citizens who want it to be
bolder.
This is the seventeenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today we
enter the 1970s.
The edition noted:
“Tentative plans are being made for a professor from Bethel College… to work
with a seminar group for six to ten weeks in a study program for six hours of
college credit. The topic for study is ‘The Draft, Income Tax, and Defense
Spending.’ ” More details
could be found in the edition.
“The seminar will emphasize a total learning experience through study, action,
and group living.” Tax refusal was one of the topics on the agenda.
A
meandering letter from Theodore Janzen dated and published in the edition complained of dancing in public schools, trashy sex talk
in The Mennonite, and “the Mennonite hippie problem”
on the way to having this to say about war tax resistance:
Sure, I am against war and at the same time I pay my taxes. Contradictions!
You bet! I’m not going to fight the great white father in Washington. If I did
nobody would help, and everybody would laugh and tell me, “You never had it so
good!” That’s what happens when I have a crop failure; nobody helps.
But then read the Bible. Give unto Caesar which is Caesar’s, unto God which is
God’s.
Right now, I am more concerned about the dancing than the war…
The edition included a brief
item about the American Friends Service Committee’s lawsuit asking “for the
return of funds which were paid to the government in lieu of federal income
taxes collected from employees conscientiously opposed to war.” (See
♇ 15 July 2013 for more about this
case.)
The purpose of the
MENNO fund
is to help with the following:
Legal costs because of conscientious civil disobedience (tax refusal,
noncooperation with draft, refusal of induction) related to militarism, civil
rights, and religious freedom.
Aid to dependents and families of persons engaging in conscientious civil
disobedience.
Fines and bail for persons engaging in acts of conscientious civil
disobedience.
Grants or loans for personal items (college debts) to persons engaged in
conscientious civil disobedience.
The edition included a long
essay by Phil Kliewer entitled “Did the cat get Menno’s dove?”
that took Mennonites to task for becoming too blasé in their opposition to
violence and war. Some excerpts:
People tell me that the government recognized us by legislating the
alternative service program and respected us for our good use of it.
That is all very fine, except that the recognition and respect has not gone
much further than this. Were we only looking for recognition and respect?
A few of our people are saying no to violence, and sacrificing family
life, wealth, social relations, or personal freedoms. They have refused to
render unto Caesar what belongs to God, in the form of war tax resistance and
draft resistance.
Just a few of these Mennonites are: Dan Clark, who has just recently turned in
his draft card, and is awaiting court procedures; Dennis Koehn, who is
awaiting jail sentence; John Howard Yoder, whose bank account has been frozen
for tax resistance…
What is creative, radical, nonviolent commitment? Can it work? To answer these
two questions, perhaps we can take a look at recent history.
During Franz Josef
of Austria tried to subordinate Hungary. The people of Hungary refused to
recognize Austria, and boycotted Austrian goods. When the Austrian tax
collectors came around, they were treated very kindly, but given no tax money.
Austrian police confiscated property, but could not persuade the Hungarian
auctioneers to sell it. When they brought in their own auctioneers, no one
would bid, and to bring in bidders was not worth the trouble. The Austrian
government then declared boycotting illegal, but the persistent Hungarians
refused to recognize this and soon the jails were overflowing.
Austria then offered partial government, but the Hungarians insisted on full
claims. After trying a compulsory military service, which was destined to fall
flat, Austria gave up. Throughout, the Hungarians remained nonviolent but
unswayed. Their creative, radical, nonviolent commitment was effective.
In , the Bombay provincial government raised
the tax rate to 60 percent, for the people of Bardoli. Vallabhai Patel led a
tax-resistance movement to nonviolently prevent this economic injustice from
actually taking place. This took a lot of planning. Sixteen camps were put up
in the district, where 250 volunteer leaders printed daily bulletins and
trained the eighty-eight thousand peasants to withstand the punishment they
received. The government tried flattery, bribes, fines, flogging,
imprisonment, confiscation, and other means to persuade the peasants to
comply, but the peasants, with their nonviolent methods, eventually persuaded
the government to comply to their wishes. Again, creative, radical, nonviolent
commitment won out.
Government should be God’s servant for man’s good. Its role is to maintain
order and to preserve life. Christians should appreciate and support the
worthy functions which government performs. They should willingly pay generous
proportions of their incomes for taxes which finance education and other
functions which are for man’s good.
But when government is not God’s servant for man’s good, Christians should
seek to be a correcting force. Christians are not called to submit to every
demand of every state. When Paul instructs the Roman Christians
(Rom. 13:7)
to give “tax to whom tax is due, toll to whom toll, respect to whom respect,
and honor to whom honor,” he is saying that we are to discriminate and give to
each only his due, refusing to give to Caesar what belongs to God.
Mennonites throughout history have refused when a government demanded that
they go to war. Our conscientious objectors today carry on this vital
tradition. But how can we, in clear conscience, pay someone else to do for us
that evil which we refuse to do ourselves?
In earlier days men were the primary tools of war. But now the primary tool of
war is money. Military technology needs only a few men. This is making
conscientious objection to military service less and less meaningful.
Conscientious objection to killing will have to take new and different forms
if it is to retain its vital significance.
James Stauffer, missionary to Vietnam under the Eastern Mennonite Board, wrote
recently in the Mennonite Weekly Review: “The time
has come for the peace churches to request a plan whereby our tax dollars
could be channeled directly to some constructive cause. Campus protests,
street demonstrations, draft card burnings have not been effective in stopping
the war. But choking off the funds that feed the military-industrial complex
could bring results.”
Sixty to 70 percent of our income tax dollar is spent in payment for past and
present wars, or in preparation for future wars. The average Western District
congregation of two hundred persons, in ,
paid $65,000 in war taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. Western District
members paid $4,250,000 to buy guns, napalm, and hand grenades. We pay two and
one-half times more in war taxes than we give to our church and its outreach.
What is the meaning of Christmas bundles given to refugees when we bought the
bombs that destroyed their homes?
Let us ponder the words of our late President Eisenhower, who was not a
pacifist: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and not clothed.”
Is paying war taxes responsible Christian stewardship? Ought we not as
brothers of those who are hungry and cold, refuse to give up our resources for
destruction, and give our war tax money to authorities who will use it as
God’s servant for man’s good?
We move that the Western District Conference ask the Peace and Social
Concerns Committee to:
Provide information to local congregations and individuals on the
following ways in which Christians have through word and deed sought to
witness against the destructive functions of government made possible by
war taxes:
Pay the income tax, but include a letter of protest to the Internal
Revenue Service explaining why payment of these taxes makes us violate
the law of love that Christ gave us to follow. The letter can urge the
government to use tax money only for peaceful and constructive purposes
either through the United Sates Government or through the United Nations.
We can send copies of this letter to our Congressmen and our President,
among others.
Refuse to pay that portion of our income tax which goes for war and
contribute the same amount to some constructive service agency, such as
Church World Service or UNICEF
of the United Nations. We will not make obstacle nor withhold any
information which
IRS
might need to collect these taxes.
Refuse to pay the federal telephone tax which was instituted in
to pay for an escalated war in Vietnam.
A brochure is available and titled, “Hang Up On War.”
Reduce or share our incomes so that they will be below the income-tax
level, and, thereby, we will avoid payment of war taxes by legal and
sacrificial means. This method also diminishes the amount of indirect
taxes we pay by a higher level of consumption, and puts us nearer to the
world average standard of living.
Petition appropriate legislatures or in some way seek to create an
alternative peace tax to which conscientious objectors to war (of any age)
could pay the military portion of their income tax. This alternative fund
would be comparable to alternative service and would be used for such
projects as promote world peace by nonmilitary means.
Help Mennonite agencies and employers to investigate alternative
structures of operation so that they will not be required to withhold
income tax from their employees’ pay. John Howard Yoder, president of the
Goshen Biblical Seminary has said: “There is something very questionable
about the willingness with which Mennonite church agencies, by withholding
their employees’ income, serve as arms of the federal government for tax
collection which thereby relieves the individual of any conscious choice
concerning the bulk of his tax money… We would object to the states
collecting taxes to support the church, yet without compunction we let
church agencies collect to support the state (and the military).”
We also ask the Peace and Social Concerns Committee to help employees
whose income tax is already withheld to find appropriate ways of making a
witness against the payment of war taxes.
The above statement was prepared by Ardean L. Goertzen Max Ediger, Howard
Snider, David H. Janzen, Dennis Koehn, Stan Senner; and recommended for
adoption by the Peace and Social Concerns Committee to the Western District
Conference of the General Conference Mennonite Church which adopted it at its
annual meeting at Hillsboro, Kansas, .
Western District takes stand on war taxes
Should Christians pay war taxes?
That’s a hard question. One Mennonite body studied a soft answer to this
question, and made it softer after forty-five minutes of cautious debate.
The Western District Conference meeting in Hillsboro, Kansas, in
, was told that its members “pay two
and one-half times more in war taxes than we give to our church and its
outreach.”
Another question: “What is the meaning of Christmas bundles to refugees when
we bought the bombs that destroyed their homes?”
And Western District members through their war taxes have bought quite a few
bombs, guns, napalm, and grenades. One estimate set the figure at $4,250,000
per year.
“I heartily endorse the idea of protesting taxes,” said Curt Siemens, Buhler,
Kansas, as the topic of nonpayment of war taxes was introduced.
But along with other delegates, he was concerned about the practical
consequences of nonpayment of war taxes since the government could deprive a
family of its livelihood as a penalty. Then, how would the church and the
conference raise the funds to support its missions and schools?
Others saw the demands of Christian obedience as prior to the practical
questions.
“What is the meaning of asking these kinds of practical questions about
raising our budgets and educating our children, yet we make pious speeches
about wanting to be biblical and obedient?” asked Peter Ediger, Arvada,
Colorado. “What is the meaning of seeking first the kingdom of God and all
these things will be added unto you?”
Several persons testified that they had withheld a portion of their taxes as a
protest to war or would do so if given encouragement.
“I can’t see eye to eye with those who don’t want to pay taxes,” said one
delegate. “All I say is, ‘Go ahead. Why don’t you do it?’ ”
“That’s just the point,” replied Wendell Rempel, Newton, Kansas. “What is
going to be our relationship to those who take that step?”
At this point, the Western District Conference waffled.
The resolution presented for adoption said, “We move that the Western District
Conference recognize nonpayment of war taxes as a valid Christian witness” and
thus asked for a program of education and actions based on the assumption that
tax refusal was a “valid Christian witness.”
This was seen by some delegates that “everyone ought to [withhold his war
taxes] as a Christian.”
Said Marvin Zehr, Moundridge, Kansas, “It may give encouragement, but it will
also cast judgment. Even if I do it, I don’t know if I want to cast judgment
on someone else,”
So the conference considered a motion that struck the words “valid Christian
witness” from the resolution’s enabling clause. Delegates voted 93 to 63 to
drop these words. The resolution thus weakened was then quickly passed by a
voice vote.
The resolution thus adopted still calls for a broad program of education and
action. It asks the Western District’s Peace and Social Concerns Committee to
provide information on the ways of tax refusal which have been used by various
individuals. Such methods include the filing of a letter of protest with full
payment of income tax or withholding a portion of income tax and contributing
it to a service agency. Withholding the telephone tax or reducing one’s income
below the taxable level were also methods in which more information was
requested.
The Peace and Social Concerns Committee was further requested to petition
government agencies for an alternative peace tax for conscientious objectors.
And Mennonite agencies and employers may expect to receive counsel about their
role in collecting income taxes.
The resolution quoted John Howard Yoder as saying, “There is something very
questionable about the willingness with which Mennonite church agencies, by
withholding their employees’ income, serve as arms of the federal government
for tax collection which thereby relieves the individual of any conscious
choice concerning the bulk of his tax money.”
The statement saw the tax refusal as a natural extension of the traditional
position of conscientious objection to war.
“Mennonites throughout history have refused when a government demanded that
they go to war,” it said. “Our conscientious objectors today carry on this
vital tradition. But how can we, in clear conscience, pay someone else to do
for us that evil which we refuse to do ourselves?”
James Stauffer, missionary to Vietnam under the Eastern Mennonite Board, was
quoted as saying, “The time has come for peace churches to request a plan
whereby our tax dollars could be channeled directly to some constructive
cause. Campus protests, street demonstrators, draft card burnings have not
been effective in stopping the war. But choking off the funds that feed the
military-industrial complex could bring results.”
The resolution as presented to the Western District Conference was prepared by
six interested individuals: Ardean L. Goertzen, Max Ediger, Howard Snider,
David H. Janzen, Dennis Koehn, and Stan Senner.
The Western District statement adopted on represents the first time that any Mennonite body has taken a public
position on war taxes.
At the annual assembly of the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section in
another such resolution was tabled,
asking the assembly “to make a declaration to be taken to Vietnam pledging
Mennonite support to end the war through tax refusal, draft resistance, and
other forms of civil disobedience.”
An article
about the assembly framed the debate in a generation-gap way, with younger,
more radical students pushing, and older delegates reluctant to go along. In
any case, “[a]fter the statement was debated with considerable emotion, the
activists changed the document from one representing the Mennonite church as a
group to a statement to be signed by individuals.”
A letter from Wanda (Steven) Schmidt to President Nixon lambasting the Vietnam
War appeared in the edition.
It included these thoughts:
I am against war and will not give you my children. Nor will I pay my federal
income tax as sixty-five cents out of every dollar goes for defense. Nor will
I pay the U.S. tax
on my telephone as it goes entirely for Vietnamese War expenditures.
This is the nineteenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today we
are up to 1972, a year in which there was an enormous amount of material
about war tax resistance in the magazine.
In a weekend workshop was held
for “people who seriously question the morality of paying all that Caesar
demands.” The General Conference Mennonite Central District Peace and Service
Committee was one of the sponsors. From the edition:
Christian response to war taxes was discussed by about 100 participants in a
workshop in Elkhart,
Indiana.
The weekend was sponsored by the Elkhart Peace Fellowship, the General
Conference Mennonite Central District peace and service committee, and other
regional church peace and service committees.
Michael Friedmann of the Elkhart Peace Fellowship said many of the
participants felt the war tax question involved a shift in life style to
reduce involvement in the military-industrial complex.
Al Meyer, a research physicist at Goshen College, Goshen, Indiana, suggested
to the group that one does not start by changing the laws to provide legal
alternatives, to payment of war taxes, but by refusing to pay taxes. We need
to give a clear witness, he said.
Mr. Meyer did not oppose payment of war taxes because he was opposed to
government as such, but because he did not give his total allegiance to
government. He felt it was his responsibility to refuse to pay the immoral
demands of government.
“No alternative will be provided by the federal government until a significant
number of citizens refuse war taxes,” he said.
Art Gish, author of The new left and Christian radicalism, said
draft resistance led logically to war tax resistance.
“If I won’t give the government my warm body, I shouldn’t give it my cold
cash,” he said.
On , John Howard Yoder, president
of Goshen Biblical Seminary, discussed the purposes of resisting tax payments.
He felt the point is to make a clear moral witness. The goal should not be
absolute resistance in keeping the government from getting the money. He said
he would not give his money voluntarily, but would let the Internal Revenue
Service know where they could find it.
Other participants felt tax refusal could be both witness to war and part of a
larger movement to shift national priorities.
Mr. Gish discussed legal and illegal tax resistance. Goshen attorney Greg
Hartzler emphasized that those who break tax laws should make their religious
motivations clear if they want to avoid a severe sentence.
The workshop also discussed communities which are carrying the spirit of
voluntary service into a total life style and are freer to develop a clear
witness on the tax question.
Another topic was the World Peace Tax Fund, which a group in Ann Arbor,
Michigan, is attempting to establish through a bill which it hopes will be
introduced in Congress in . The bill
would enable those who can demonstrate conscientious objection to war to put
that portion of their taxes which would go to war into the fund. The fund
would be used for such purposes as disarmament efforts, international
exchanges, and international health.
Is there a significant difference between fighting a war as a soldier and
supporting it with taxes? “…why should the pacifist refuse service in the
army if he does not refuse to pay taxes?” (Richard Gregg) Why should any
person, on receipt of the government’s demand for money to kill, hurry as
fast as he can to comply? Why pay voluntarily?
What is the biblical or Christian basis for paying or not paying war
taxes? What responsibility does an individual have for wars which are
fought and financed by a government to which he makes tax payments? To
whom is the Christian really responsible?
When faced with a “war tax” situation, what should Christians do? Should
Christians “…take their obligations toward government more seriously than
their church obligations”? (Milton J. Harder) Unless followers of Jesus
dissent from paying war taxes, how are government leaders to know that
Christians are opposed to making war on other peoples whom God has
created? What are the ways whereby we can keep dear our commitment to God
and his love as revealed in Jesus, the Christ?
Can a Christian obedient to God as the supreme Lord of his life continue
simultaneously to “Pray for peace” and “Pay for war”? “How do you
interpret Christ’s answer about the coin in relation to war tax payment?
(See Mark 12:17.)
Must Christians pay to have persons killed? What is Caesar’s? What is
God’s?” (William Keeney) At what point does a government become satanic or
demonic in that it demands what is God’s?
Should Christians who object to paying war taxes wait with their protest
until the whole Christian community agrees to do so?
For the Christian who is opposed to war taxes, is it enough to simply
refuse voluntarily payment of the money requested by
IRS
or should he put forth serious effort to prevent the government from
obtaining the money?
Isn’t the question of military taxation a reflection of the most
formidable problem which every person or religious group must face in our
time: Nationalism?
Ted Koontz of Harvard Divinity school attended the Mennonite Graduate
Fellowship’s annual winter conference and “presented an analysis of reasons for
war tax refusal for use in dialog with those who believe the war in Indochina
is unjust but continue to pay war taxes.” (According to
an
article in the edition.)
The commission asked William Snyder, executive secretary of the Mennonite
Central Committee, if
MCC
is discussing with other religious groups continuing the pacifist position
beyond current “popular” opinions, and if
MCC
is pressing for an alternative fund for war taxes in light of the changing
nature of warfare with finances as the primary resource.
Meetings to discuss war tax resistance were scheduled at three Mennonite
churches in Kansas and Pennsylvania in
and
, according to
an
announcement in the
edition. One of those meetings was covered as follows in the
edition:
About fifty persons shared ways of protesting the use of their taxes for war
at a meeting in Buhler, Kansas,
sponsored by the Western District peace and social concerns committee.
After watching the slide set, The automated air war, produced by
the American Friends Service Committee, participants discussed ways they are
avoiding contribution to the war: refusing the telephone tax, refusing to pay
income tax, investing in corporations which do not produce war materials,
voluntary service, keeping income below the taxable level, and retirement.
Money and the weapons it buys, not the bodies of draft-age men, have become
the primary resource for waging war, the group agreed. But individuals
differed on the best way to influence government against war.
The Internal Revenue Service will attach bank accounts or auction personal
property to collect delinquent income tax or telephone tax, and some persons
questioned the effectiveness of refusal to pay when the government collects
the money later with interest. Or are we simply called to be faithful? some
asked.
Willard Unruh said, “It’s not the money that’s important; it’s the opportunity
to express my opinion. I sent copies to Senators Dole and Pearson of my letter
to the
IRS.
They both responded.”
Jonah Reimer suggested establishing a fund in Kansas into which persons
refusing federal taxes could put an equivalent amount. “It would be an
excellent way to witness,” he said.
The group also discussed attempts to place before Congress a bill to establish
a government fund into which conscientious objectors to war could place their
tax money, which would not be used for military purposes. Such a fund,
however, would not necessarily reduce the amount of money going to the
military.
Some persons objected to the fund, analogous to legal alternative service for
conscientious objectors, saying that such a legal alternative would give
approval to the evil of the military-industrial complex.
One man said, “Mennonites want special privileges. They want to come out of
the war with a clear conscience. But we should want that clear conscience for
everybody.”
“An increasing number of Mennonites are asking what it means to render to
Caesar what belongs to him and in particular to render to God what belongs to
him,” said Wesley Mast, Philadelphia, convener for the seminars. “Since war is
increasingly becoming a matter of bombs and buttons rather than people, we
need to ask what form Christian obedience takes.”
The other two meetings were covered in the edition. Excerpts:
Wesley Mast, Philadelphia, said, “The degree of openness on an issue as
explosive as war taxes was amazing. We wrestled together first of all with the
message of the Scriptures. Would Paul, for example, admonish us today to pay
taxes, as he did the Roman Christians? Would he do the same to Christians in
World War Ⅱ under Hitler? We noted that the times had already changed in the
early church from the ‘good’ government in Romans 13 to the ‘beastly’
government in Revelation 13.”
The seminars also discussed the nature of the present war. Mr. Mast said the
seminar participants heard that since World War Ⅱ the need for foot soldiers
has declined 50 percent. Present war is becoming automated. “When they no
longer need our bodies, how do we declare our protest?”
Another issue concerned tax dollars. “When over half of our taxes are used for
outright murder, how can we go on sinning by supporting that which God
forbids?”
With regard to brotherhood, “should the few who cannot conscientiously pay for
war wait until others come along? How do we discern the Spirit’s leading in
this and not make decisions on an individualistic basis?”
Howard Charles, Goshen Biblical Seminary, was resource teacher on biblical
passages dealing with taxes. Other input was given by Melvin Gingerich and
Grant Stoltzfus on examples of tax refusal from history. Mr. Mast presented
options in payment and nonpayment of taxes. Walton Hackman broke down the
present use of tax dollars, 75 percent of which go for war-related purposes.
“Mennonite collegians will meet
to rap about the kind of lifestyle they want to adopt,” hiply noted
an
article in the edition.
Among the topics on the agenda: “how to avoid complicity with militarism
through paying taxes.”
The continuation of the war in Southeast Asia calls upon us in the United
States to review again our payment of taxes that go to support the war. In
, the Council of Commissions meeting in
Newton, Kansas, urged churches to consider the non-payment of a portion of
their taxes. One of the district conferences passed a resolution chiding the
council for being unbiblical. This response should have called for a mutual
study of the question and this can still be done. It is the intention of the
writer that this article should be a contribution toward the continuation of
dialog on this topic.
The record of Jesus’ pronouncement on the paying of taxes is recorded in all
three of the Synoptic Gospels
(Matt. 22:15–22;
Mark 12:13–17,
Luke 20:20–26). This indicates the importance of this account to the
early church.
The account tells of Pharisees’ and Herodians’ coming to ask a question of
Jesus. They came the day after the cleansing of the temple. Their purpose was
to discredit Jesus in the eyes of the people. Jesus had shown up the leaders
of the temple and they were anxious to get back at him. This question is one
of several that they used. Here the cooperation between the Pharisees and
Herodians is strange. The Pharisees were opposed to the occupation by the
Roman authorities, while the Herodians were enriching themselves by
cooperating. They united because they both wanted Jesus out of the way.
The question of paying taxes brought different answers from these two groups.
The Pharisees were nationalistic and were against any foreign occupation. They
saw the payment of taxes as a symbol of their subjection to a heathen foreign
power. They also hated using the coins with an imprint of Caesar’s likeness as
it went against their interpretation of the second commandment. The Herodians
were willing to see the taxes paid for they had improved their livelihood by
their cooperation.
Thus the question would appear to be a legitimate one. Who was right? They
recognized that Jesus was impartial to people and that if they could appeal to
his sense of justice they might get him to make a judgment. On the surface
their query seemed innocent enough. But they were laying a trap for Jesus.
The question was two-pronged. Jesus could be caught if he answered either
“yes” or “no.” A “yes” would have disowned the people’s nationalistic hopes
and given approval to the hated tax burden. The total taxes paid amounted to
as much as 35 to 40 percent of their income. A “no” to the question would have
made him liable to the charge of sedition and he could be reported to the
Roman authorities. So either answer was one that was looked upon as a means of
hurting Jesus and either discrediting him or doing away with him. Luke says
clearly that they wanted to deliver Jesus up to the authority and jurisdiction
of the governor (Lk. 20:20).
Mark says at the outset that the intent of the questioners was to entrap
Jesus. We are also told that Jesus was aware of their hypocrisy, their seeming
sincerity in asking a question with a hidden intent to trap him. On the basis
of this information, to expect Jesus to reply with either a yes or a no would
be to assume that Jesus was caught in their trap. The amazement of the
questioners after Jesus’ reply indicates that Jesus did not give the kind of
answer they expected.
Turning to the crucial issue, the Pharisees asked if it was lawful to give
taxes to Caesar. The idiomatic rendering of this is “pay taxes.” Jesus replied
that they should “pay back” to Caesar that which was his. Did Jesus see taxes
as a return for benefits received? He probably did, but without sanctioning
all that Caesar was doing. For it was Caesar who had provided for the making
of the coin. But the paying back to Caesar statement does not stand alone and
we cannot treat it as such. To it is added the phrase that we are to pay back
to God what belongs to God. These two phrases need to be interpreted together.
And there are several ways in which this can be done. What did Jesus mean?
First, some see the realm of Caesar and the realm of God as two side-by-side
but separate and distinct realms, each having its own concerns and existence.
The Christian lives in both realms and has a dualistic ethic. When it comes to
killing, a Christian as a citizen of God’s kingdom will not kill. But as a
citizen of this world he will be obedient to Caesar and take up arms. Many
Christians see no inconsistency in reading the words of Jesus to mean this is
the way they should live.
To some of us it is quite obvious that this is not the way Jesus taught us to
live. We do not see him giving Caesar equal authority with God. Jesus warned
that no man can serve two masters. So we reject the position that would say we
should pay to Caesar regardless of the uses he makes of our money.
A second view is that the Kingdom of God is above the kingdoms of this world.
God’s realm is holy and the worldly realm is sinful. According to this model,
one would seek to live as much as possible within God’s realm. It might be
necessary to be involved in the world to some extent but one would take no
responsibility, such as voting or holding office. One would pay taxes to
Caesar but would not see the money as purchasing any services. This has been
the view of some Mennonites in the past. They asked nothing from the world and
gave what was demanded except where it involved their personal lives. They let
the governing authorities take full responsibility before God for the use of
the taxes they paid. This position we also reject as an inadequate
interpretation.
A third point of view sees the whole creation as belonging to God, with God
acting in and through all men. Within the world are a number of states having
separate existence but not autonomous existence for they are all under the
judgment of God. What the rulers do, they are to do as ministers of God and it
should always be according to God’s purposes. Their authority is a derived
authority. Because the rulers of the states are not autonomous, they
frequently seek to wield more power than given by God and so become demonic.
Thus Caesar is not to be obeyed regardless of what he asks. We see fine
examples of this in both the Old and New Testaments. When Caesar asks for more
than God has set for him, the Christian must definitely refuse to grant it to
him. Then the words, “We must obey God rather than men” are appropriate.
Knowing Jesus’ life of total obedience to the will of his Father, we have no
doubt in saying that Jesus saw governing authorities as ruling under God. He
told Pilate, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you
from above” (John 19:11).
The Christians who received the revelation of Jesus Christ were told that
those who are faithful unto death to their convictions would receive the crown
of life
(Rev. 2:10).
It is to this third model that we look for guidance.
The words, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” does say explicitly
that there is an amount that is due a government. But we also hold that it
says there are limits to what Caesar should ask. Jesus was not being asked
about the payment of all taxes. A variety of taxes were levied by Caesar and
the one Jesus was asked about was the annual poll tax that each male above
fourteen years of age had to pay with the specific coin Jesus called for.
We need to see Jesus’ words as providing a generalization rather than a
universal prescription. In moving from a general statement to a particular
situation, we must always move carefully. Let me illustrate: we are told a
person who is a guest should eat what is set before him
(Luke 10:7).
However, if a person is diabetic, it would not be right for him to eat food
that would be harmful to his system. While we can say that Jesus supported the
payment of taxes, we cannot thereby say that he favored the payment of every
particular tax that a government might levy. We can all think of programs
(such as the destruction of elderly and handicapped persons) which we would
not be willing to support with our taxes. If that is the case, then we need to
look seriously at what our taxes are doing in making war possible.
Living under a government that says it is responsible to the concerns of its
citizens, we have an opportunity to witness by bringing our concerns to the
government. A first step should be to write those who represent us and make
the laws for our country. Stating our position in this manner is being a
faithful witness. If the tax money is being used for purposes that are utterly
contrary to what we understand to be the will of God, then we ought to
consider the act of refusing to pay the tax. The purpose of this action is the
desire to be faithful to the will of God as we know it and to help the rulers
become aware of how they are overstepping the bounds of true ministers of God.
Paul in his letter to the Romans exhorts Christians to be obedient to the
authorities. But he has already stated the principle that Christians should
not be conformed to this world (12:1). Or as Phillips has translated it,
“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its mold.” This calls for
discernment on the part of the church. Can we as Christians continue to pray
for peace while we pay for war?
The edition profiled two small
Mennonite intentional communities in Kansas: the Fairview Mennonite House and
The Bridge.
The
article noted:
[The Bridge] began forming at a Western District war tax workshop. David and
Joanne Janzen, Randy and Janeal Krehbiel, and Steve and Wanda Schmidt were
ready to stop paying taxes for war and to join into a brotherhood of shared
income “to make our whole lives count for peace.”
Both intentional communities are a part of the voluntary service program of
the General Conference Mennonite Church and follow the same financial pattern
of self-support as the majority of other voluntary service units. All income
is turned over directly to the voluntary service office in Newton, which
reimburses the unit for such items as food, housing, travel, and medical
expenses. Each individual receives $25 a month personal allowance.
Although critics of the intentional communities have accused them of using the
voluntary service program as a tax dodge, members of the communities felt
strong ties with their Anabaptist heritage and wanted to channel their
resources to and through the church. But there are no apologies for not paying
taxes. “We’re witnessing to the fact that the federal government is not using
our money responsibly in its huge military expenditures,” said Ken [Janzen].
A member of the Love, Joy, Peace Community (Washington,
D.C.)
wrote a letter in response
in which he wrote (in part):
The problem of war taxes is one which both Fairview House and The Bridge are
addressing. It’s good to see people more concerned with “rendering to God what
is his” (our whole lives), rather than being obsessed with Caesar and his
temporal demands! We have long been passive, instead of active peacemakers. We
pray for peace while we pay for war.
Dear Editor: As members of the Mennonite congregation of Boston, we are
writing this letter to make public our decision to withhold a portion of our
federal taxes, either income or telephone taxes. This decision came out of
discussions with the entire congregation. We are doing this because our
Christian consciences and our Mennonite backgrounds tell us the war in
Southeast Asia is counter to the teachings of Christ. We have chosen to
withhold our taxes because part of the responsibility for the war resides with
those who willingly support it financially, regardless of what they believe.
Realizing this act will undoubtedly have a very small effect indeed on
governmental policy, we hope it will in some way influence others into taking
concrete actions which will demonstrate Christian love. Our friends and our
families cannot help but react to our decision to withhold taxes.
The desired effect of our actions is not, however, the sole reason why we have
chosen this form of protest. As conscientious objector status has become more
automatic for Mennonites, refusal to pay war taxes has provided an additional
way to demonstrate one’s Christian beliefs. Because we have only rough guesses
as to the effects of our act, we accept as a matter of faith that this act
will at least be a significant event in our Christian lives.
While we know the government will eventually collect our taxes, our intention
to send an equal amount of money to the Mennonite Central Committee for
Vietnam relief is a further Christian witness. It offers our alternative to
war.
Jerry and Janet Friesen Regier, Weldon and Rebecca Pries,
Ted and Gayle Gerber Koontz, Dorothy and Gordon D. Kaufman.
An increasing number of people are sending war tax monies to Mennonite Central
Committee, instead of paying them to the United States Government for military
use, said Calvin Britsch,
MCC
assistant treasurer.
Contributions of tax money are of two kinds, Mr. Britsch said. More people are
refusing to pay the federal tax levied on the use of telephones. This 10
percent tax is seen as a direct source for military expenditures. People who
refuse this tax simply subtract the 10 percent from their telephone bill and
send it instead to
MCC.
We also receive contributions from people who refuse part of their federal
income tax, Mr. Britsch said. Several people, for example, have withheld and
have sent in as a contribution ten or 15 percent of their income tax in a
symbolic protest against the Vietnam war and the whole United States military
machine. Others who have had less than the total tax withheld send that
remainder to
MCC
rather than to the Internal Revenue Service. We often get letters with tax
refusal contributions explaining the individuals belief that, as a Christian,
one cannot voluntarily, or without protest, pay money to be used for the
destruction of human life.
Tax refusal contributions, unless otherwise designated, are usually applied to
the
MCC
Peace Section budget, Mr. Britsch said.
The General Conference had asked the Commission on Home Ministries and the
Commission on Overseas Mission to come up with some sort of repentance action,
focused on the Vietnam War. They settled on a coordinated day of repentance,
with other Mennonite and Brethren churches also joining in with a day of
fasting and prayer. Included with the letter from the commissions announcing
this was
a
confession of complicity, which said in part:
We recognize that though we cannot completely disassociate ourselves from the
destruction and suffering the people of the United States are inflicting upon
others, we continue to seek ways “to perform deeds worthy of (our)
repentance.”…
As a church we have opposed war and worked for peace through programs of
relief and service. Yet we share responsibility for the destruction in this
way through our silence, through our profiting from a military economy,
through our patronage of corporations with substantial defense contracts, and
through our payment of the portion of telephone and
IRS
taxes used for war purposes. Much of this involvement is unintentional and may
even be done without knowledge of the implications.
To pay income tax means to help buy the guns, airplanes, and bombs which
continue daily to kill the men, women and children of Indochina. To pay this
tax means to help build the nuclear weaponry which threatens the possibility
of any joyful human life. To pay this tax is to help retire the mortgage of
the atomic bombs which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So, instead of trusting my money to the federal government, I have directed my
financial resources to organizations and individuals working for peace and
justice.
Claus Felbinger, writing about the Anabaptist church in
, said, “We are gladly and willingly subject
to the government for the Lord’s sake, and in all just matters we will in no
way oppose it. When, however, the government requires of us what is contrary
to our faith and conscience — as swearing oaths and paying hangman’s dues of
taxes for war — then we do not obey its command.” Living in the
Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition, I feel that, rather than pay taxes, I must
hear and respond to the cries of those who fall victim to the American
war-making power.
I hope that you people working for the Internal Revenue Service will
understand and accept my decision to follow conscience. I hope that you will
also consider the contribution which your work of collecting war taxes makes
to the suffering of our fellow human beings.
Accompanying this was a maudlin poem by another author, called “Confession”
that began “I killed a man today / Or was it a woman or a child?” and went on
to explain that his taxes paid someone to kill, in spite of all the other
things he did to express his dislike for killing. But he was writing a letter
to the
IRS to
tell them why he wouldn’t be paying “that part of income tax which is used for
killing.”
The “Central District
Reporter,” a sort of supplemental insert in the magazine, reported this from
the district’s Peace and Service Committee:
Parents too have stopped being passive about peace. If son will not register,
father will not pay the tax which keeps the army and any war going. All ages
are learning more and more that there is no one way to give witness to
convictions.
A
letter to the editor
from Jacob and Irene Pauls discussed their decision to redirect 64% of their
federal income tax (“clearly designated for war”) from the government to the
Mennonite Central Committee. They wrote: “The state has chosen an enemy, but we
have no enemy. We do not accept the premise that the state can choose an enemy
for us and force us to help annihilate the state’s enemy.”
From the edition:
War tax resistance means sale of car. David Janzen, Newton, Kansas, at right,
talks with Internal Revenue Service officials in Wichita as they open and
record sealed bids for Mr. Janzen’s station wagon. The automobile was
confiscated in for nonpayment of $31.32
of telephone excise tax which would have been used to carry on the war in
Indochina. The officials read bids for one cent to $501, but refused to read
bids for “one napalmed baby” and other “units of suffering” submitted by other
war tax resisters and supporters. “All we’re interested in is the money,” said
the IRS
officer. “We’re interested in what the money buys,” replied Mr. Janzen. The
intentional community of which he is a member bought back the station wagon.
There are some points at which it is necessary “to make a one-sided emotional
commitment to one value” (our militaristic brethren in the church feel we do
this on the war question — especially when we begin to urge withholding part
of our income tax).
What was billed as a “‘Lamb’s war’ camp meeting”
took place in . Sixty or
seventy mostly youngish people, mostly but not all Mennonites, met to discuss
“a life of sacrifice and aggressive peacemaking” as part of “a nonviolent army
under the direction of God.” War tax resistance was one of the topics
discussed, and the verse “gonna lay down my telephone tax, down by the
riverside” was spliced in to the popular spiritual during an evening
sing-along.
A letter to the editor from Robert W. Guth
on the subject of war taxes again told the story of the excommunication of
Christian Funk for paying taxes to the Continental Congress during the American
revolutionary war, and of Andrew Ziegler’s “I would as soon go to war as pay
the three pounds and ten shillings” response.
Preliminary results from the first Church Member Profile survey were revealed
in a article. Excerpt:
In the United states… only 11 percent were uncertain about their position,
should they be subject to the draft. Seventy-one percent would choose
alternative service, an option acceptable to both the government and the
church’s teaching in recent history.
However, 33 percent were uncertain about refusal to pay that proportion of
their income taxes designated for the military. Fifty-five percent opposed
nonpayment of war taxes.
Bill Londeree, a member of Koinonia Partners, Americus, Georgia, emphasized
the personal response to affluence and militarism.
The Methodist Church, he said, has $40 million in investments in the top
twenty-nine defense contractors — and sends out the antiwar slide
presentation, “The automated air war.” Members of the Mennonite Church paid
$87 million last year in war taxes and call themselves a “peace church.”
“This is schizophrenia of the first order,” Mr. Londeree said. “The greatest
need is for examination of our own lives. Jesus’ first statement to us all is
a call to repentance, to metanoia. This does not mean
feeling sorry, but is a command to change.”
The assembly spent much of its time in small groups discussing the
presentations and related topics, such as life style, the ideology of growth,
war taxes, international economic relations, economic needs of church-related
institutions, strategies for social change, new value orientations, and
investments.
This is the twentieth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today we
reach 1973.
The Paris Peace Accord is about to be signed, beginning the eventual withdrawal
of U.S. troops from
Vietnam. Will the growing war tax resistance movement in the General Conference
Mennonite Church be able to sustain its momentum as anti-war urgency slackens?
Of all the varieties of tax resistance, the pay-taxes-but-complain method seems
the least likely to satisfy or impress. But some people do seem to like it. For
example, a letter from Sem and Mabel Sutter to the Commissioner of the
IRS,
dated explained that they
were paying “the two-thirds of our federal
income tax which is budgeted for military purposes… under protest.” Because
“the money is already in your hands in the form of withholding tax, we have no
recourse but to pay it, while stating that it violates our conscience to do
so.” The typical complaints about “the wholesale destruction of human life” and
the opportunity costs of military spending followed, along with a patient
explanation of the Mennonite point of view on “resistance to war.” Finally the
letter concluded that “until such time as legislative provision is made for
conscientious objection to war tax, we shall pay our tax under protest.”
The issue included
a
letter from Steven G. Schmidt. Similarly anguished about the Vietnam War,
he suggested something a bit stronger than paying-under-protest:
I would like to suggest one further action to people who follow Christ and to
people who believe in God. Income tax money is due soon. Most of that money
will go to disrupt and destroy lives. Perhaps church people would serve God
best by sending this money to nonmilitary agencies or to local charities or
the church. I, for one, pledge my support to you — and I know others who do,
too. Let me know if we can help you in any way, for it takes courage to follow
conscience.
As Joshua put it (24:15), “Choose ye this day whom you will serve… as for me
and my house, we shall serve the Lord.” We at our house have come to believe
that putting the money that would have gone to
IRS into
life-giving investments is serving the Lord.
A letter from David Janzen, dated , hoped to keep the war tax resistance momentum going as the
anti-war movement’s urgency was being deflated by the withdrawal of the United
States from the Vietnam War:
Dear [The Mennonite editor] Larry [Kehler]: I have
been asked by a number of friends, “Now that the war is over in Vietnam, will
you end your war tax resistance?” Since most of my friends read
The Mennonite, I wanted to share my answer here,
hoping it may be helpful to others.
No, I will not pay the telephone excise tax (now 9 percent); I will do my best
to owe no income tax and will refuse to pay whatever I do owe.
I am glad that the United States has finally agreed to withdraw all troops
from Vietnam and exchange prisoners with Hanoi, but… the war is not over and
U.S. complicity in
it has not ended. Our bombers in Indochina have not been brought home, rather
they are raining destruction on Cambodia and Laos in in unprecedented levels.
The victims of these bombs are not my enemies. Why should they suffer for the
sins of their rulers, or mine?
Furthermore, the President has requested a $4.7 billion increase in the
Pentagon’s budget, and this in supposed peace time. What is the purpose of all
this war spending that consumes 60 cents of every income tax dollar? It is, it
seems to me, getting ready to put down with massive violence, the next threat
to the American empire, or worse, to win the nuclear showdown of World War Ⅲ.
By contributing to this kind of terror politics, I do not demonstrate God’s
nature nor bring his peace. So, for the foreseeable future, I plan to reinvest
my war taxes into works of mercy.
If anyone wants information on how to refuse taxes for war, even if you are in
a withholding situation, write me or War Tax Resistance, 912
E.
31st
St., Kansas City, Missouri
64109.
I haven’t really looked into the question of whether Canadians are doing more
good than evil by paying their taxes. C.J. Hinke of 918 Center
St. South in Whitby, Ontario,
is apparently the only open tax resister in Canada, and would be glad to share
his reasons with inquirers.
Walton Hackman, executive secretary of the Mennonite Central Committee’s “Peace
Section” noted that war tax redirection to support that Section’s work had
increased:
During the past year the
MCC
Peace Section has received $4,000 in contributions made in lieu of tax
payments. This was a new phenomenon. In previous years only several hundred
dollars were contributed in this way. The contributions were unsolicited; they
were made by individuals whose consciences would not allow them to pay taxes
which were used for war purposes.
Since a substantial number of individuals from the
MCC
constituency are looking for an alternative way to use tax monies otherwise
collected for war purposes, the Peace Section took action at its
meeting to establish a
taxes-for-peace fund to which such contributions could be made.
Some of the funds contributed last year were contributions made in lieu of the
10 percent (now 9 percent) telephone excise tax which, according to Wilbur
Mills, chairman of the United States House ways and means committee, is a tax
needed to pay for the Vietnam war. Other funds contributed in lieu of tax
payments came from individuals who withheld part of their federal income tax.
Contrary to what many people hoped, the end of United States military action
in Vietnam does not mean a reduction in military spending. The proposed budget
increase for the Pentagon next year is $4,200,000,000.
Those who have made contributions to the Peace Section in lieu of tax payments
during past years are not, as some might suspect, the young activists, but
include businessmen, medical doctors, teachers, farmers, and administrators
representing a good cross section of the Mennonite brotherhood.
Young people, especially students who are not in earning situations of paying
taxes, contributed very little in lieu of tax payments. Most of the
contributions came from people over thirty.
The taxes-for-peace fund, as it is being called, is being established for
persons whose conscience against war and killings will not allow them to pay
the portion of their taxes that goes for war purposes. It should be
clearly understood, that contributions made to this fund will not satisfy the
Internal Revenue Service. It will, however, provide individuals with a
receipt proving that their intentions were not to defraud, but that their
withholding some portion of their tax monies was a matter of conscientious
objection to war and militarism.
The monies contributed to the fund will be used for the work of the Peace
Section and will be a small effort toward waging peace rather than war.
With the need for manpower in the armed forces greatly reduced and with the
use of more sophisticated remote-controlled technical weapons, it is
increasingly difficult to express one’s conscientious objection to war.
Mennonites have traditionally withheld their bodies as a protest against war.
Now few bodies are needed and many more dollars are needed for the development
and maintenance of expensive war machinery.
Contributions to the taxes-for-peace fund may be one tangible way in which
conscientious objectors can positively express peace through their tax
dollars.
A
letter by Gus Konkel, dated , shows the first sign of backlash for some time. Excerpt:
It seems to me the whole question about war taxes is a prime example of utter
question begging. In the final analysis all the taxes go in and out of the
same pot. Tagging a name to any particular tax doesn’t really mean anything. I
don’t ever expect to live under a government that has no defense system, be it
capitalist or communist. How directly I support that defense system through
the tax dollar doesn’t seem to me to be of any great import one way or the
other.
American Telephone and Telegraph reports that 22,000 people refused to pay the telephone excise tax in protest against the Vietnam War in , up from 17,000 in and 12,000 in .
The Internal Revenue Service wants AT&T to disconnect all those phones, but AT&T says tax problems are IRS’ business.
Apparently IRS wants as little to do with 22,000 prosecutions as AT&T wants to do with the $200,000 a month it would cost to disconnect protesters’ phones.
The edition reported on three
anonymous donors, young people from Goshen, Indiana, “with an average income of
$4,000” had together donated $5,000 to a fund for financially-needy Goshen
College students. “They have decided to give away their earnings,”
the
article reported, “rather than keep them and pay federal taxes, much of
which goes for war.”
The edition gave a second
example of a Mennonite organization practicing war tax resistance corporately
(see ♇ for the first example):
Faith Mennonite Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, has recently voted to
withhold payments of the 9 percent federal excise tax on its telephone bill
“in protest against the Vietnam War and
U.S. militarism.”
The church council had discussed the issue in
and
and had recommended that the tax issue
be brought up at the annual business meeting
. On
, the issue was debated during the
Sunday school hour and voted on at the annual meeting in the afternoon.
“There was not complete consensus in our case,” said Pastor Donald Kaufman.
“But a significant group feels that this is an important Christian witness.”
Congregational moderator Richard Westby drafted a letter to Northwestern Bell
to be sent with each month’s phone payment. The letter reads in part:
“The Faith Church has traditionally opposed war and continues to pay for war
(although tax withholding does not have a long tradition within our history.)
This contradiction between profession and practice within our congregation is
now being changed so that we are more consistent in our faith. We are opposed
to war and do not want our tax payments to support, endorse, or pay for
U.S. war efforts.
“As a church organization, we realize that we have a responsibility to our
country and government for services rendered. We support our government except
when it contradicts Christian morality and conscience… We feel obligated to
challenge our government’s reckless and immoral military deeds. By our small
action we join with many other moral people in strongly urging our government
to change its priorities and reduce its dependence upon the military. Without
money, modern warfare could not be fought…”
The telephone tax, formerly 10 percent, was restored by President Lyndon B.
Johnson in , during the escalation of the
Vietnam War. Beginning this year, it will be decreased 1 percent annually
until it disappears in .
The edition carried
a
brief news item about the the strange
AFSC
lawsuit in which they were trying to have the withholding taxes they had
already paid for their conscientiously-objecting employees refunded to them.
(See ♇ for more about that suit.)
The edition included a
tribute to Mennonite professor Benny Bargen,
who had died . It touched
briefly on his war tax resistance, saying: “His opposition to war had led him
to request that his salary be held at a level that would not require him to pay
taxes.”
