Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Brethren →
Allen T. Hansell
This is the twelfth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
By , war tax resistance had come out in the
open in Gospel Herald as a practice that had support
in the Mennonite Church community, though not without reservations from
conservative hold-outs. But that year, coverage of the issue became
inexplicably muted and the magazine returned to its earlier, more reserved
practice of mostly reporting on war tax resistance from a distance, as the
sort of thing other groups did.
For example, the issue included
this note
about a Church of the Brethren congregation:
The Wilmington, Del. Church
of the Brethren will refuse to pay the federal excise tax on telephones as a
protest against the Vietnam War.
The church council voted 8-6 to stop payment in accordance with a proposal
submitted by the congregation’s witness commission.
The Reverend Allen T. Hansell, pastor, said he has been withholding the 10 per
cent tax from his own telephone bill payments since
.
When the proposal was endorsed by the council, individual members were asked
to consider withholding their personal phone bills’ tax.
Robert Cain, Jr., chairman of
the Witness Committee, said he had been told by Church of the Brethren
headquarters, Elgin, Ill.,
that withholding of the tax has been considered by other congregations, but no
action had been taken before the Wilmington church’s decision.
The church council sent a letter to President Richard M. Nixon outlining its
action and urging him “to use all resources and power available to you as
president of the United States to achieve world peace.”
Mr. Cain said the church is not against paying taxes to the government, but
when the federal government restored the telephone excise tax in
, it was felt it was a tax “directly imposed
to help pay for the war in Vietnam.”
Richard and Carol Morse, a Quaker couple recently returned from three months
working in a Vietnam rehabilitation center, have notified President Nixon they
won’t pay taxes .
“After what we have seen in Vietnam,” the Morses told Mr. Nixon in a letter,
“we feel that you are insulting the American people by asking them to support
such destruction.”
As a result of their experiences with amputees at the center the couple
stated: “We can no longer let it be assumed that we condone the violent
destruction of Vietnam by our voluntary payment of taxes.”
Mr. and Mrs. Morse said Vietnam is “a refugee country,” and noted that “their
whole social system has been turned upside down.”
Things began to pick up again in . In the
issue, Warren M. Wenger
warned Mennonites
that they were in danger of letting history pass by and leave them behind:
Today there appears to be some confusion, on our part, as to how to relate to
the popular peace movement, when to some degree they “have stolen our
thunder.” Shall we now change our practice, of payment of taxes and
registering for the draft and applying for Ⅰ-0 classification, a position
which previously had us branded as “radicals” and now is only “moderate”? The
true “radical” position now involves nonpayment of “war” taxes,
nonregistration, migration, and other developing resistance.
The traditional Mennonite solution, which included payment of taxes and
registration, made us quite unpopular in “normal” war years. Vietnam, however,
is not a “normal” war and the likely occurrence of other similar wars is
always present. We cannot afford to close our eyes and hope the problem will
go away. We need to carefully think through the present dilemma, and in the
light of God’s Word, guided by the ever-present Holy Spirit, find the way
through our problems. We are all aware that no solution for a problem
is ever a permanent one. Change is always present. Each generation must do as
we are doing, search the Scriptures, seek and accept the leading of God s
Spirit, search our own hearts and minds for the way to construct a useful
life, which brings glory to His name, life to His church, and light to the
world.
An early “peace tax fund”-like proposal surfaced in a
article
(“War Taxes Questioned”),
which also tried to attack the traditional always-pay-your-taxes interpretation
of the Render-unto-Caesar riddle from several angles:
James K. Stauffer, veteran Mennonite missionary in Vietnam, questions
Mennonite payment of war taxes…
Stauffer comments, “It’s about time for ‘our people’ — the Mennonite
brotherhood — to give a consistent testimony against war. Let’s get at
the root of all evil — money, or more particularly, taxes! The other day 35
B‒52s dropped 1,000 tons of bombs on
suspected enemy positions in Cambodia. One wonders how many Mennonite
tax-dollars helped make that mission successful!
“During World War Ⅱ our government agreed to the Civilian Public Service
program. Our men were permitted to engage in work of national importance. 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,
etc., have not
been effective in stopping the war. But choking off the funds that feed the
military-industrial complex could bring results.
“The contribution by members of the peace churches to the gigantic 73 billion
defense budget is infinitesimal, but there would no doubt be many Christians
in other denominations who would welcome the idea.
“By now the ‘render to Caesar…’ statement is haunting us. Perhaps we get hung
up on the letter of the law and ignore the Spirit. Remember, the letter kills,
but the Spirit gives life! Permit a few comments on this text.
“Jesus spoke these words in peace-time. The famous Pax
Romana was a reality. While Rome conquered like a barbarian, she ruled
those she conquered like a humane statesman (I.S.B.E., p. 2600).
“Our President is a professing Christian. Caesar was not. Our full and
unquestioning support of his methods and policies gives to the world a
distorted image of Christianity.
“Jesus did not define exactly what or how much belongs to Caesar. He sent
the Holy Spirit to guide us in determining where to draw the line. Each
generation needs to assess the existing political situation.
“As a brotherhood professing discipleship, we believe that all of life is
sacred. Our strength, abilities, time, and money belong to God. We refuse
to give our bodies to the war god; why should we give our money?
“Some say that the taxpayer is not responsible for the way the government
uses his money. This would perhaps have some validity if a reasonable
amount was being appropriated for defense. But when most of it goes for
military purposes at the expense of desperate social and domestic needs,
something is radically wrong.
“Furthermore, placing the responsibility on government is the same
argument used by many Christians who justify their participation in the
armed forces. So, let’s be consistent in both areas!”
Stauffer’s arguments prompted a rebuttal from Anna Mae Nolt arguing that there
was nothing especially objectionable about war taxes, as more people (Americans
anyway) were being killed on the highways than in Vietnam and yet nobody was
arguing we should refuse to pay taxes for highways. Besides, if you don’t want
to pay taxes you can always move to some other country.
Discussions at Mission ’70 indicated widespread concern among Mennonites
regarding the relative validity of the various ways young men related to the
Selective Service System and the pros and cons involved in paying taxes used
for military purposes.
It was moved and carried to urge the Peace and Social Concerns Committee to
direct more study on the congregational and family levels which can lead
people to a clearer and more forthright understanding, conviction, and action
on matters relating to peace, the draft, and taxes used for military purposes.
Most people seem to think their only responsibility is to pray for the
president and pay taxes. I just can’t buy that any more. I feel that as a
Christian I have a very strong responsibility to witness to the government
concerning what seems to be a gross immorality. So when people are interested
in the same goals as I (i.e. ending a war),
and they use acceptable means of achieving that goal, I will support them.
This witness to the government might well include prayer, but it might also
include not paying taxes which finance the immorality.
The Mennonite attitude toward war and military service rests deeply in their
obedience to the Jesus’ way of life as one of love and reconciliation. A
corollary conviction is that this way of life includes separation from the
evils of the world, a life conformed to Christ and nonconformed to the
patterns of violence and the instruments of carnal warfare. Conscientious
objection to evil, to war and militarism is one of the characteristics of a
dynamic nonconformity.
The pattern of conscientious objection familiar to modern Mennonites emerged
comparatively recently in modern history. With the rise of democratic
governments, armies were expanded by the use of various conscription
techniques. Democracy and conscription grew up together although thee was
constant tension between them. The conscientious objector was and is a citizen
who for reasons of conscience could not become part of an organization bent on
killing — the military. He refuses to serve the military, not out of an
irresponsible citizenship, but rather to suggest an alternate and better way
of solving human problems.
Since the first conscript armies of the eighteenth century, the character of
warfare has changed enormously. In the United States
the military constituted a very
small percentage of the population. Military action consumed an even smaller
part of the time in service. Military concerns involved only a small sector of
political and economic life. An effective and useful witness against war was
to refuse to serve in the military.
Now, however, there are over 3,000,000 Americans in the Armed Forces. Nearly
40 million living American males have served in the Armed Forces. Compulsory
service is sometimes extended for draftees to five or six years. Yet in spite
of expanded armies fewer and fewer persons are involved in actual combat. War
has become a technique fought with tanks, planes, flamethrowers, napalm plus
bombs, and chemicals, to kill unseen enemies. War is no longer the plaything
of the generals nor even of the tehnologists but of an entire society which
provides the know-how and the wherewithal to wage war. We live in an age when
war is total; it involves the economic, scientific, political, ideological,
educational, and religious resources of the entire society. In the United
States we live in what Fred Cook calls a “warfare state” where it is nearly
impossible to escape the effects and impact of war.
In such a situation is there any validity to conscientious objection to
military service. Or are there other forms of conscientious objection which
will symbolically witness to the way of Christ and against the way of war?
Donald Kaufman does not treat the entire problem of militarism, the warfare
state, or even conscientious objection. He poses the fundamental question
posed by the Pharisees to Jesus in Matthew 22 and then deals with one specific
issue — the question of war taxes.
Kaufman has mastered a vast amount of material regarding the history of
taxation, the biblical passages involving the tax question, and the arguments
and practices of those who do not pay war taxes. Howard Charles of Goshen
Biblical Seminary writes a stimulating introduction to the volume. A valuable
dimension of this book is the comprehensive bibliography which includes an
excellent compilation of periodical articles.
Beginning with the basic issue, Kaufman explores the meaning of taxation in
the biblical world. There taxes upheld a vast religious establishment as well
as the civil authorities. In the “ancient city,” however, it was difficult to
distinguish the religious from the civil, for the king was more than a
political leader. Caesar was worshiped. Caesar claimed to be lord. Exorbitant
taxation was rarely protested save by the Jews who objected to taxes which
implied that Caesar was Lord rather than Yahweh.
It is this context which make so difficult the exegesis of biblical passages
involving political structures. Kaufman effectively interprets
Matthew 17:24–27,
Mark 12,
Romans 13, and
1 Peter 2.
Perhaps the crucial insight of this analysis is that both Jesus and the New
Testament writers suggest principles and perimeters, rather than legal dicta
with fixed answers in which and by which Christians make decisions. Government
and taxes can be good and bad, depending on purposes and motives for taxation.
Payment of taxes can be for conscience’ sake and non-payment of taxes can be
for conscience’ sake.
Arguments against paying war taxes are less well known than arguments for
paying war taxes. But arguments against paying war taxes are the same as
arguments for not participating in the military. For Christians, these
arguments rest on obedience to God rather than man, on the commitment to love
rather than hate, on the duty to give rather than to take, on supporting that
which makes peace and opposing that which hurts, kills, and destroys.
There have always been tax resisters. There have always been Christian who for
conscience’ sake have refused to pay certain taxes. Early Christians refused
to pay compulsory taxes to Caesar’s pagan temples. Medieval monks reduced
their income so they would not have to pay taxes to evil kings. The radical
sectarians, including some of the early Anabaptists, felt taxes were a moral
issue, and that some were not to be paid. The Hutterites criticized their
fellow Anabaptists for paying war taxes even though they refused to bear arms.
The early Quakers, through William Penn, told the queen of England that their
conscience would not allow “a tribute to carry on any war, nor ought true
Christians to pay i.” The Mennonites in Eastern Pennsylvania split during the
Revolutionary War, one reason being the issue of war taxes. They joined,
however, with their Dunkard neighbors to petition the Pennsylvania Assembly
stating, “We find no freedom in giving, or doing, or assisting in any thing by
which men’s lives are destroyed or hurt.”
Since then, Mennonites have generally paid war taxes. They even hired
substitute soldiers so they would not need to fight during the Civil War.
However, Mennonites were clear in opposing any voluntary campaigns to sell and
buy war bonds. In recent years the war tax question has become more alive in
the brotherhood. When President Lyndon Johnson said the telephone excise tax
and the Income Surtax were necessary to fight the war in Vietnam, the mask on
taxes was removed. Thus some taxes are clearly designated to fight a war
without having to analyze the allocations of the national budget.
Donald Kaufman methodically and analytically forces the reader to confront the
question, “Can I pray for peace and pay for war?” What really belongs to
Caesar? If one believes in the stewardship of money, is the use of money for
war good stewardship? Money can destroy life. Money through taxes is without a
doubt “the central vital nerve of the military Leviathan.” What then do we do
with Pastor John Franz who during World War Ⅰ told his Montana community,
“Using our money to make it possible for others to be killed would be just as
wrong as going in the army and killing a man ourselves”?
What Belongs to Caesar? introduces a profound ethical question for the Christian church.
More study will be necessary by each church agency.
It will be easy to “let the sleeping dog lie.”
But no one concerned about the evil of war and how to love the enemy can afford to ignore this book.
The genius of this little volume of 97 pages is that it does not clutter the
arguments over war taxes by focusing on the anxieties of the present moment.
Rather Kaufman sticks closely to a biblical and historical analysis. In so
doing he is really asking the Christian conscientious objector if he is
exercising his conscience regarding war at the right place on the right
issues. This is the question confronting the Mennnonite brotherhood. Is now
the time to expand the scope of conscientious objection to include taxes which
buy guns as well as persons who fire guns?
A
letter to the editor
from John H. Herr put him on record opposing war tax resistance, because after
all Jesus told Peter to pay a tax to a warlike government (I assume this refers
to the temple tax episode in the Gospel of Matthew).
Since most of us are Christian citizens of the most militarily involved and
overextended nation in the world the war tax problem should be of special
concern to us who are members of the historic peace churches. But as American
involvement in wars and military solutions grows and grows it is encouraging
to note in Christian circles an awareness of the problem and a growing
uneasiness on the propriety of paying taxes when they are used mainly for war
and war-related purposes. However, there is a bewildering confusion of
responses to that ethical problem.
The key question is then: Can the Scriptures provide us with the means of testing whether or not payment of such taxes constitutes a form of idolatry of a war god and as such be contrary to our commitment to a way of love?
In this context the present study by Donald D. Kaufman’s What Belongs to Caesar? is especially appropriate.
The 100-page presentation followed by 28 pages of Bible references, footnotes,
and an index has all the marks of diligent and careful scholarship. Maybe
you’d expect a book of this nature to be a crusading weapon charged with an
emotional stance for a particular view of the Christian’s relation to the
state and on nonpayment of taxes, but it isn’t. In his first chapter Don
Kaufman carefully examines the history of taxation from ancient times till
today. In chapter two he takes a new look at biblical passages often used to
justify absolute, unquestioning obedience to governmental demands, and urges
us to reexamine them in the context of their full chapter, or better yet, seen
in the total context of the Bible. In this way the write proves that, for
instance, Romans 13:1 and following is not a passage in which every
governmental action is given carte blanche. In no situation should a person be
required to disobey his conscience by submitting to government. Without
becoming a violent rebel the Christian can refuse to do what he regards as
wrong, but he must patiently endure the consequences. To resist with respect
is to render a service to the state by reminding it of its true function. In
chapter three Kaufman squarely plants the argument against the paying of war
taxes under the Christian’s obligation to obey God rather than man.
The records of Anabaptists, Mennonites, and Hutterites are examined in chapter
four, as are the Quaker and Mennonite practices in Colonial America. This
chapter ends with a variety of statements by recent and current church leaders
on the issues of tax objection. In his concluding chapter Kaufman asks anew:
“What Belongs to Caesar?” and why we who refuse our warm bodies to the war
machine so willingly surrender our cold cash to the same. How long, Kaufman
asks, will the Christian pray for peace and pay for war. The answer depends on
you.
No one can give careful attention to this book without having the issues
clarified. It is hoped that this book, developed jointly by the Mennonite
Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church will be widely read,
seriously discussed, and that out of it will come conduct that will
consistently embody the gospel of love we profess.
From here, the pushback became much more defensive. Instead of just saying that
Christians should pay their taxes cheerfully and without question because the
money belongs to Caesar and Caesar bears the responsibility for how it is used,
critics acknowledged the tension between the Christian love-your-neighbor
mandate and Caesar’s kill-the-foreigners bloodthirstiness, but tried to suggest
alternatives to civil disobedience. For example:
Shelly promoted charitable giving as an alternative. “[O]ur norm for
giving is not a government. But, at a time when we are concerned about
certain uses of our tax dollar, it would seem that our first consideration
would be to reduce that tax dollar to the lowest possible point.”
Blosser also suggested charitable giving as a way to lower taxes, saying
in part that it would be more effective than resisting and then having
taxes seized along with interest and penalties seized. “In the end, who
has paid the lesser tax and served to help the most people?”
Stoltzfus suggested income reduction, giving the example of a man who
“turned over his business to God, paying himself a small salary. In this
way the profits were channeled directly into the Lord’s work.”
The debate about war tax resistance continued among Brethren in , and for the first time a Brethren church began resisting taxes corporately.
In , representatives from Mennonite, Quaker, and Brethren congregations — the “historic peace churches” — met in New Windsor, Maryland to figure out how to be a peace church in the middle of the Vietnam War.
According to Messenger coverage of the event , war tax resistance was a footnote (source): “Spurred on by the youth delegates to the consultation, a group at New Windsor prepared a brief statement calling for… ‘counseling on the draft and nonpayment of war taxes for those who need it.’ ”
In (see yesterday’s Picket Line), the Messenger had invited four writers to explain their diverse ways of confronting taxes for war.
One, Russell Bollinger, paid his taxes willingly and thought tax resistance was dangerously corrosive of democratic cooperation.
That led to a rebuttal from David Coppock in the issue (source). Excerpts:
Mr. Bollinger expresses a fear that no government can exist as long as the people pay taxes only as their conscience guides them.
Since I put the conscience first, I am more afraid of a government that does not allow the people to live as their consciences guide them.
Our first concern as Christians should not be to see that our moral inclinations are in harmony with man-made laws.
We don’t have to answer to man for our acts if we believe we have been guided by God.
We need only to answer to God.
To allow one’s personal convictions to be molded and shaped by society and government is to allow one’s very being to be taken from the hands of God and placed into the fallible hands of man.
Mr. Bollinger states, “All attempts to change the behavior, attitudes, or values of mature responsible persons by force are degrading and destructive to personhood.”
When I think about Vietnam, Biafra, race prejudice, and a so-called Christian nation with Dow Chemical and A-Bombs, I ask where are all the mature and responsible people?
And by paying taxes don’t you willfully and knowingly give most of that money to a war that is as degrading and as destructive to personhood as anything can be?
He challenges tax withholding on the basis of whether or not it can be universalized.
Since he doesn’t believe that it can, he rejects such ideas.
Does this mean that he believes that a willful support of the war effort can be universalized into a law for all men?
I certainly want to challenge his last main point.
“Our impatience to reconstruct the world after our own particular blueprint must not lead us into betraying noble ends for unworthy means.”
The Christian must recognize that America’s blueprint is being felt right now in Vietnam.
Our government would have us believe that the Vietnam war is being fought for noble ends — democracy, freedom, end of communism.
And since it found no other alternative but war, it would have us believe that this is a worthy means.
The Christian can never accept war as a worthy means.
And the Christian must recognize that the noble ends which he seeks are higher than those which the government seeks.
Therefore, withholding taxes can hardly be considered an unworthy means when that money would have been used for the most degrading and evil acts of man.
In the issue, Richard G. Young raised a dissenting voice against the attempt to lobby the government to accommodate conscientious objectors to military taxation. “A hard line should immediately be taken against any suggestion to seek tax exemption for pacifists,” wrote Young (source).
According to Young, war tax resistance is only a pacifist action if it confronts and resists militarism. “Once the military power accommodates (removes the confrontation of) an action, it is no longer antimilitaristic.”
We can be sure that if all young men eighteen years old demanded alternative service, our government would rescind the conscientious objector alternative.
It should be recognized also that our militaristic government embellishes itself with the boast that it offers a conscientious objector alternative in the “true spirit of democracy.” In this manner the antimilitaristic action, well intentioned as it may have been, has ceased to be pacifistic in that the military system has neutralized its effect.
Similarly, any agreement with the government to exempt pacifists from paying war taxes would not be pacifistic.
We would not be threatening the military but perhaps adding another plume to its hat.
The edition brought the news that a Brethren church had decided as an institution to begin war tax resistance — the first such example that I am aware of (source):
Both as a witness and as a protest, the Wilmington, Del., Church of the Brethren decided by board action to refuse to pay the federal excise tax on telephones.
In a letter to President Richard M. Nixon from the board of the Richardson Park congregation, Dale W. Good, board chairman, and Robert D. Cain Jr., witness commission chairman, noted that the 10 percent federal telephone tax was restored by Congress in to help pay for the war in Vietnam.
They also quoted from the Statement of the Church of the Brethren on War, in which the denomination stated its opposition to the use of taxes for war purposes and called upon congregations and boards to study the issues and press for alternative uses for tax money.
Meaning: “We recognize that the act of refusing to pay this tax is small, but the meaning is large in that it is a direct and tangible means of expressing our dissent to the United States’ action in Vietnam and also a protest to the enactment of taxes for war purposes,” the letter stated.
It further urged Mr. Nixon “to use all resources and power available to you as President of the United States to achieve world peace” and to give consideration to a government provision for an alternative use of tax money for peaceful, nonmilitary purposes.
The decision to take the action followed a recommendation from the witness commission and was voted 8 to 6.
Individual members of the parish were asked in turn to consider withholding the excise tax on their personal telephone bills.
The pastor, Allen T. Hansell, said that he personally had been withholding the 10 percent tax on his own telephone bill payments since .
First: Ralph E. Smeltzer of the World Ministries Commission commented that to his knowledge the action is the first taken in the Church of the Brethren by a congregational board.
In several areas Brethren individuals have practiced telephone tax refusal for up to two years.
A lengthy interpretation of the action taken by the Richardson Park church board appeared the next day in Wilmington’s Morning News.
The article stated the Church of the Brethren believes that its historic opposition to all war “is compatible with good citizenship” and that the church endorses support of “worthy government functions.”
But the article also cited Brethren concern over the trend toward a permanent militaristic outlook by the nation.
That news was interesting enough that it was also covered in The Brethren Evangelist , interrupting that magazine’s silence on the issue (source).
in the Church of the Brethren made available this book, which included a chapter on “Payment of Taxes for War Purposes” by William Few
In the “General Board” had put together a policy statement on civil disobedience that it hoped the Annual Conference would adopt.
The Messenger published it (source).
It alluded to “laws which require payment of taxes for war purposes” as an opportunity for “reactive” civil disobedience — conscientious objection — as opposed to “initiatory” civil disobedience, which is designed as a pressure tactic to change government behavior.
And it gave favorable mention to “the Christians who refused… to pay taxes to Caesar’s pagan temples”, “Quakers who refused to pay taxes for war against the Indians”, “Henry David Thoreau”, and, within the Church of the Brethren, “refusal to… pay war taxes during the Revolutionary War”.
But it did not come down on either side of the question of whether war tax resistance ought to be recommended.
It instead recommended a careful process for assessing proposed individual and corporate civil disobedience actions.
[We] separate our total tax obligation into two parts.
That portion required to pay our part of the indispensable, nonwar services of our government as loyal citizens we gladly pay.
The part that would go to war purposes, which we cannot conscientiously support, we withhold by making contributions to relief, to the church and her ministries, and to other worthy, nonwar causes — contributions large enough to wipe out our war-tax obligation.
If the government takes part of the tax dollars we pay for non-war services and uses them for the war, we can’t prevent that.
We couldn’t prevent it if we refused to pay all taxes and went to jail.
Our alternative service for tax dollars is a matter of conscientious objection to the war, and we so state on our tax return.
This is not just “tax avoidance.”
It is costly.
It costs far more than a dollar to divert a dollar from the war.
Since the tax rate begins at fourteen percent of taxable income and increases with larger incomes, we have to give away six or seven dollars to withhold one dollar from the war.
But wouldn’t you gladly give seven dollars to lessen a little the suffering of a wounded refugee child rather than to pay one dollar to buy napalm to burn more babies?
How much should we withhold?
Should we proportion our withholding to the direct cost of the Vietnam war (fifteen percent of the national budget)?
Or should it be in proportion to the total defense budget (forty to fifty percent of the total national budget, depending on whose analysis you accept)?
One’s own conscience must be the guide.
One legal limitation will affect those with higher incomes: deductible contributions cannot exceed thirty percent of total income.
The legal withholding of war taxes by contributions is especially suitable for retired citizens, for most of them have a nontaxable income on which to live.
Social Security for a retired couple, both over sixty-five, now is approximately $3,000 a year maximum for those who have been fully employed at average or better-than-aver-age incomes.
In addition, there is a nontaxable exemption of $2,400 on any other income they receive from pensions or investments.
And Medicare pays major health care expenses.
In short, a retired couple who have any income tax at all to pay have a nontaxed income sufficient for a modest but comfortable living.
Their income taxes come out of the surplus which they have for hobbies, travel, gifts to family or church, or other good causes.
It is out of this surplus that we “lay up treasure in heaven.”
Perhaps we oldsters who conscientiously oppose war should, by choosing alternative service for our tax dollars, prove ourselves worthy brothers to our young men who choose alternative service to the military.
What I was hoping to see in but didn’t was the results of the survey the magazine had sent out the previous year asking readers how they were responding to war taxes.
The Brethren Evangelist was again much more reluctant than the Messenger to discuss war tax resistance in .
There was a mention of the Richardson Park Brethren Church’s corporate phone tax resistance decision.
In the issue, Steve Haller addressed “Christian Pacifism”.
He mostly reflected on his own experience in Brethren alternative service for conscientious objectors, but also approvingly quoted Larry Kuenning who took the perspective that to a Christian, war is already over, and so:
In a war you have to pay taxes to support the army.
But the war is over: you don’t have to pay taxes for war.
You can use the money to help the victims of war instead.
In , Brethren churches had to make tough choices of how far to go to support their war tax resisting pastors in battles with the government.
At the Annual Conference , the Church approved a position paper recommending that congregations consider civil disobedience in such cases.
The issue of Messenger reported on how, in the wake of a discouraging Supreme Court decision in an unrelated case, “[t]he General Conference Mennonite Church has put on hold a war tax lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.” (source)
, the magazine reported on a Brethren congregation that struggled to decide how far to go to support a war tax resisting pastor:
After agonizing debate.
Prince of Peace Church of the Brethren, South Bend, Ind., voted to comply with an order to pay the Internal Revenue Service part of the wages of pastor Louise Rieman, a war tax resister.
Prince of Peace is the first Church of the Brethren congregation to be faced with the tax-resistance issue.
Louise Rieman and her husband, Phil, have been withholding a percentage of their taxes to protest military spending, and have also withheld information about bank accounts from which the IRS could take tax money.
When the church was asked to hand over part of her wages, the Riemans asked the church board to refuse.
The board passed a resolution that supported the Riemans and denied the IRS request.
But the resolution was defeated 20 to 16 when it was sent to the church council for consideration by the entire congregation.
The debate focused on the biblical basis for and against tax resistance, the moral implications of breaking the law, and preservation of the congregation amidst the controversy.
, in response to a Northern Indiana District query, Annual Conference formed a committee to study war tax resistance.
A report is expected at the conference in Baltimore.
An Oregon congregation, however, decided to take a stronger stand (from the issue):
Peace Church of the Brethren, in Portland, Ore., has voted unanimously to refuse to comply with an Internal Revenue Service effort to collect war taxes owed by pastor Rick Ukena.
The congregation also voted to issue a public statement explaining the decision, and to raise funds to pay any fine arising from noncompliance with the IRS.
Ukena and his wife, Twyla Wallace, have withheld taxes , and the government has seized the money each of those years.
IRS actions against war tax protesters have become speedier and more severe under the Reagan Administration, and this year a levy was imposed against the church.
After a committee explored alternatives with an attorney and with Chuck Boyer, Church of the Brethren peace consultant, a special congregational meeting was held to consider the options.
“Most inspiring was the way the church took it on without my insistence,” said Ukena.
“People were really trying to discern the Spirit.”
Earlier this year, Prince of Peace church in South Bend, Ind., voted to comply with an IRS order regarding pastor Louise Rieman (see [above]).
Ukena was a conscientious objector in and says tax resistance has become a way of life for him.
“I would encourage people to not take the action,” he cautioned, “unless they’re aware of what they’re doing.”
“It was a really scary decision at first,” he added.
“We really prayed and talked to others and read the Bible to determine what was right.
It’s nice to fear God more than the IRS.”
Shirley Whiteside wrote in to applaud the Peace Church’s stand (source):
I rejoice to see this kind of integrity supported within the church.
I hope that one day the greater church will realize our hypocrisy.
To officially proclaim “All war is sin,” while we are party to war with no visible resistance, decries our loyalty to the gospel we claim.
At the Annual Conference, the Church of the Brethren decided whether or not to take a stronger stand that might include corporate civil disobedience.
By a supermajority, they voted to do so:
What started out at the Annual Conference as a study on war tax resistance came out of the Conference as a position paper.
The job of the study committee on war tax consultation was to answer the basic question of how an institution should respond to employees who object to payment of the part of their taxes that goes for military support, said Phillip Stone, General Board member and chairman of the committee.
In its list of recommendations, the committee suggested that “congregations and church-related institutions give consideration to a range of extra-legal options.”
Included is the option of corporate civil disobedience by supporting an employee involved in war tax resistance.
Moderator Paul Hoffman said that by recommending civil disobedience the study paper became a position paper, and needed a two-thirds majority — which it did receive from the delegate body.
Preceding the listing of extra-legal options was a listing of legal means by which institutions could support employees involved in tax resistance.
The committee stated that only after legal means were exhausted should an institution enter into civil disobedience.
In conclusion, the committee called on the larger church community to give support to any church-related organization involved in civil disobedience.
This statement is conspicuously absent from the Church of the Brethren Resolutions & Statements listed on the official Annual Conference website today.
I’m not sure how to explain that.
Maybe we’ll find out as I continue to hunt through the archives.
We need to name the huge expenditures for weapons for what it is, blasphemy against the goodness of God’s creation, a sin we commit together.
In light of this reality I would like to pass on a suggestion from the New Call to Peacemaking Conference at Elizabethtown College :
Instead of focusing on the division between those who pay and those who resist war taxes, let’s all join together in witnessing against war taxes even though we do this in different ways.
Some will witness to people in government through letters accompanying or sent concurrently with their tax payment and returns.
Some will reduce their income or increase their giving in ways as to decrease or eliminate war taxes.
Some who pay under protest will support by word and deed brothers and sisters who withhold a portion or all of their taxes.
Some of us will continue to witness our strong concern through withholding monies in civil disobedience to the tax laws.
This attitude and these actions are consistent with our Annual Conference decisions on this issue.
The issue reported on the war tax resistance debate as it was taking place in the General Conference Mennonite Church (source), and the issue followed up with a report of Church employees who had asked the church to stop withholding war taxes from their salaries (source).
Another news brief in the issue described the World Peace Tax Fund as a bill that “would amend the Internal Revenue Service Code so that conscientious objectors could have their tax payments spent for nonmilitary purposes,” and reported on lobbying efforts.
The issue gave another example of corporate tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren:
The Michigan District board has instructed its district personnel to withhold the Federal excise tax on district telephone bills.
It is forwarding the resolution to the Internal Revenue Service and to congressional representatives.
The withheld funds will be redirected to a Michigan District Peace Tax Fund and used by the district witness commission.
The action was based on Annual Conference statements of , , and .
The board “commend(s) this witness to all Brethren, local congregations, the General Board, and Annual Conference for their study and prayerful consideration,” and also encourages other forms of witness, such as lobbying for the World Peace Tax Fund Bill.
A profile of Brethren Volunteer Service volunteers Steve & Sue Williams in the issue included this detail:
Another attraction to volunteer service for the Williamses was their desire not to pay taxes for war purposes.
Before they married, Steve was a tax resister, withholding a certain amount of money as a protest against the government’s using his taxes for the military.
But Sue was uncomfortable with tax resistance and, after they married, they began looking for an alternative.
One was simply to make a lot of donations to charity.
“Before BVS we were working full-time and giving a lot of money away,” Steve said.
“We began looking for a way to give away time and not money.”
I also found this article in The Morning News of Wilmington, Delaware (). Excerpt:
Brethren still withholding taxes
How to protest “sin of war” is on denomination’s conference agenda
by Eileen C. Spraker and Stephanie Whyche Staff reporters
In , the Vietnam War sparked members of the Wilmington Church of the Brethren not to pay the church’s federal telephone excise tax for a year.
Although that war is dead, tax-withholding among members of the Church of the Brethren is very much alive.
How to support Brethren institutions and individuals who choose to withhold “war taxes” will be on the denomination’s agenda during their national conference, which opens in Baltimore.
Traditionally, the denomination has held to the belief that all war is sin.
Brethren 35 years ago established the Brethren Volunteer Service for conscientious objectors as an alternative to military service.
Some members of the church, for reasons of conscience, have chosen to withhold part or all of their taxes to avoid supporting the military.
A paper to be presented at the Baltimore meeting will discuss the lawful choices available to such people, the church’s position on civil disobedience, and support for institutions and people pursuing tax resistance.
“This is one of the most timely issues we have right now,” says the Rev. Allen T. Hansell, pastor of the Wilmington Church for the Brethren.
According to Hansell, some employees of the six Brethren Colleges and employees in at least one of the Brethren retirement homes are currently involved in tax resistance efforts.
But some are less than successful because their employers are withholding taxes from their employees’ pay in accordance with regulations.
“The issue is these employees, on the basis of conscience, don’t want this money withheld.
Legally, the employers are bound.
That’s why this issue is coming before the conference,” Hansell said.
What’s more, Hansell said, although there’s “no war right now, the telephone excise tax continues,” even though Congress promised to discontinue it once the Vietnam war had ended.
During the Vietnam War, members of Hansell’s church, in Richardson Park, stirred up a lot of controversy because they refused to pay the church’s federal telephone-excise tax.
The action was because of their belief that part of the tax was financing the war.
“Our concern was to make a witness of the issue that this money was going directly to the war effort,” Hansell said.
“It was a matter of principle.”
The proposal to be presented before the conference calls upon employers of employees involved in military tax-resistance efforts to take the issue seriously and maintain open dialogue with their employees.
It does not recommend that church institutions get involved in tax resistance efforts, but if they do, it calls upon the denomination to support that effort through such methods as legal assistance.
Other recommendations will suggest that Brethren seek voluntary wage reductions, and that they work with the Mennonites and Society of Friends to bring about changes through legislation.
