Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Brethren →
Chuck & Shirley Boyer
In , Brethren continued to resist war taxes, and a new “777 Club” campaign attempted to nudge non-resisters into a small, baby-steps form of war tax resistance.
The issue of Messenger covered the legal battle of war tax resister Bruce Chrisman:
“Our hearts go with our treasure to war when we must pay war taxes,” said Bill Faw of Reba Place Fellowship.
He was speaking at a worship service in support of Bruce Chrisman and his appeal for the right to refuse to pay war taxes.
Chrisman appeared before the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago in .
He was appealing his conviction for failing to file a proper income tax return.
Bruce and his wife, Maryanne, farm near Ava, Ill.
The argument against Chrisman (and others in similar cases) is that he broke the law when he failed to file the proper income tax return.
Chrisman believes that such an argument misses the point — that his freedom of religion is violated by the court’s insistence that he pay even those taxes that go towards war.
Chrisman’s attorney, A. Jeffrey Weiss, argued that the first amendment of the Constitution prohibits laws that interfere with the “free exercise” of religion.
Weiss contended that the US government violates this clause by requiring full payment of taxes from citizens whose faith demands that they not pay for war.
The General Conference Mennonite Church (GCMC) filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in Chrisman’s behalf.
The brief gave historical precedents for withholding war taxes.
It also stated the GCMC officially supports “Christian pacifists who refuse to pay taxes to be used for military purposes.”
Although Chrisman is not a Mennonite, he is closely associated with the GCMC.
After his conviction, Chrisman expected to receive a two-year prison sentence.
But , when he stood before the judge for sentencing, he explained that he didn’t mind paying taxes.
In fact, he said, he would not object to paying more than his share of taxes if those taxes relieved human suffering.
The judge gave him the unusual sentence of one year’s service in Mennonite Voluntary Service.
He spent the year doing peace work and visiting prisons.
He and Maryanne plan to serve another year.
Chrisman does not expect word on his appeal before since a written ruling from the court usually requires between three and six months.
If his conviction is upheld, Chrisman intends to carry his appeal further.
U.S. military support of the government of El Salvador became another reason to refuse taxes, when in the issue Jorge Lara-Braud was quoted addressing Church of the Brethren higher-ups (source):
“To what extent,” he asked, “will we US Christians be used to finance the repression of those who are seeking the Kingdom of God?” He urged tax resistance as one way of resolving the agony of giving the government money to kill other Christians.
That issue also reported on a new “Brethren Discipleship Group” and noted, somewhat vaguely, that “They also refuse to pay ‘willingly those taxes which support war’ ” (source).
The Annual Conference reaffirmed its support for the World Peace Tax Fund legislation (source), but:
An amendment urging refusal to pay military-related taxes was ruled out of order, although recognized as a related issue.
Concern was raised that the WPTF represented an “easier way to be Christian” than direct refusal to pay taxes.
But war tax resistance was still a going concern.
From the issue:
Three General Board staff families have taken a stand against war by withholding part of their federal income taxes.
Chuck and Shirley Boyer, Ralph and Mary Cline Detrick, and Miller and Phyllis Davis protested the use of their tax dollars for defense spending by giving the amount withheld to other organizations.
Miller Davis, director of the New Windsor Service Center, and Phyllis withheld $100, which they sent to the General Board.
Peace consultant Chuck Boyer said that he and his wife, Shirley, had periodically withheld income taxes .
, they and the Detricks, of life cycle ministries, each gave $50 to the local school board to demonstrate their support of public non-military programs.
“We don’t mind paying taxes,” says Mary Detrick.
“That’s why we chose to pay the same amount to a public institution.
It feels like a little bit of leaning toward justice.”
Adds Ralph Detrick: “It’s a symbolic protest of how the government spends our money.
We choose to make a nuisance.”
Like the Detricks, Boyer acknowledges that tax resistance currently is little more than a “nuisance” to the federal government.
But he points out that such a protest could have an impact “if 20,000 or 30,000 Christians did involve themselves.”
Boyer and the Detricks stress that their personal decisions are not intended to tell others what to do.
Rather, they hope to raise questions and to give support to other Brethren families who have chosen to take the same stand.
“It’s not the kind of thing I like to do.
People probably think I’m a real radical,” says Boyer.
“It’s a struggle within me to find what it means to be faithful,” he concludes, “but something has to be done, and this is it for now.”
And there was this attempt to get some more-timid Brethren to take symbolic baby-steps into tax resistance, from :
Jesus does not tell us to give Caesar everything he asks for.
Nor does he specify what is Caesar’s and what is God’s.
The 777 Club is one way to resist war taxes and maintain one’s Christian integrity.
by Karen Zimmerman and Bill Puffenberger
What started out as a sharing experience for a few Sundays at the Eiizabethtown Church of the Brethren expanded into a class lasting 12 weeks.
The Topic? “War Tax Resistance.”
After a brief initial discussion of the topic we began an in-depth study of several key biblical passages.
This led to other experiences — a visit with Paul and Loretta Leatherman (originators of a 777 plan of war tax resistance);
a visit to the Mennonite Central Committee Headquarters to share with a group of Mennonites who have been practicing various types of war tax resistance; the sponsorship of a Sunday morning mini-workshop in the local congregation; and a Sunday morning dialog with our local congressional representative, Robert Walker.
As a result of these experiences, some members of the class have offered to share their time and ideas on this issue with other churches in Atlantic Northeast District.
As newcomers to the field of war resistance, it was rewarding to have the opportunity to talk with the Leathermans — 10-year veterans.
Over the years they have tried various methods to withhold the portion of their taxes that are used for war.
Eventually, the Internal Revenue Service got its money, but it was not an easy process and it provided the Leathermans an opportunity to witness to their local IRS agent, their bank representative, their employers, and others about their opposition to war and their necessity for funding it.
In an effort to have more people join them and hopefully to attract the attention of law-makers in Washington, the Leathermans initiated a 777 plan.
They propose withholding a symbolic amount of $7.77 (or some variable thereof) as a war tax deduction.
Because present US tax laws do not provide for this kind of deduction, many members of the class used the 1040 long form and wrote in the words “War Tax Credit” on line 46.
A brief letter of explanation was then attached to the form.
In addition, more detailed letters explaining our views were sent to our local congress members and to the President.
We recognize that this is indeed a symbolic protest since in most cases the government has already taken the taxes or will take unpaid taxes from our future paychecks.
Even though the taxes will eventually be collected, we think it is a matter of integrity to say by our actions, words, and letters how we feel about this issue.
The number 777 was chosen for its biblical significance and symbolism.
Seven is the biblical symbol for perfection.
Seven is the numerical framework for God’s Creation, especially the Sabbath.
Jesus tells us to forgive “seventy times seven.”
To us Eiizabethtown tax resisters the number had even greater significance — our church address is 777 Mount Joy Street.
We studied in detail two biblical references on taxes: Mark 12:13–17 and Romans 13:1–7.
Our study convinced us that we cannot assume that the law of the land is the sole judge of our moral decisions.
We must see obedience to government in the context of the command to live in peace with all persons.
In light of the increasing militarism of the present administration in Washington it is particularly urgent that Brethren consider the issue of war tax resistance.
Can we be satisfied that conscientious objection by only our 18 to 26-year-old youth is an adequate stance to maintain?
What is to be required of us who are outside this age classification?
In a world that is warring with a technology fueled more by money than by personnel, most of us are relatively unaffected by the draft.
While our bodies are not being used, our dollars are being conscripted for war purposes.
What kind of integrity is this?
How can we conscientiously pray for peace and at the same time pay for war?
We urge Brethren to take another look at Christ’s teachings as well as our denomination’s peace position.
We feel we have a convincing argument that the current military build-up is diametrically opposed to God’s law to love one another.
We are hopeful other Brethren join with us who are taking this symbolic war tax deduction of $7.77 (or $77.77 or $777.77) as a way of maintaining our Christian integrity and at the same time letting our government know that there are some people out there who oppose the current excessive military build-up.
We are not in principle opposed to the payment of taxes (which support many worthwhile endeavors).
We are opposed only to the payment of taxes for war-like means (which we see as destructive and unchristian).
We all have a choice: We can quietly pay our war taxes and support preparations for war or we can noisily refuse to pay (even a symbolic amount) and work untiringly for the cause of peace.
We members of the 777 Club probably cannot arrest the current military build-up, but we will have at least set the record straight that we cannot mouth the words of peace and at the same time willingly pay into an ever-growing war chest.
We seek to avoid a kind of Christian schizophrenia as we refuse to pay for that which is destructively unchristian.
The Bible Monitor never flinched from its strict if somewhat blinkered interpretation of render-unto-Caesar.
From “Serving God and Caesar,” the lead article in the issue:
The Christian’s duty includes paying his taxes.
Even Jesus paid his tribute money.
The money of our land is very clearly marked as the legal tender of the land, therefore it should be rendered back to the government.
Although we may not approve of all uses made of our tax money, we dare not be selective in what we pay.
We do indirectly receive a benefit, at least in the eye of the world, from our taxes.
In , Brethren churches had to make tough choices of how far to go to support their war tax resisting pastors in battles with the government.
At the Annual Conference , the Church approved a position paper recommending that congregations consider civil disobedience in such cases.
The issue of Messenger reported on how, in the wake of a discouraging Supreme Court decision in an unrelated case, “[t]he General Conference Mennonite Church has put on hold a war tax lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.” (source)
, the magazine reported on a Brethren congregation that struggled to decide how far to go to support a war tax resisting pastor:
After agonizing debate.
Prince of Peace Church of the Brethren, South Bend, Ind., voted to comply with an order to pay the Internal Revenue Service part of the wages of pastor Louise Rieman, a war tax resister.
Prince of Peace is the first Church of the Brethren congregation to be faced with the tax-resistance issue.
Louise Rieman and her husband, Phil, have been withholding a percentage of their taxes to protest military spending, and have also withheld information about bank accounts from which the IRS could take tax money.
When the church was asked to hand over part of her wages, the Riemans asked the church board to refuse.
The board passed a resolution that supported the Riemans and denied the IRS request.
But the resolution was defeated 20 to 16 when it was sent to the church council for consideration by the entire congregation.
The debate focused on the biblical basis for and against tax resistance, the moral implications of breaking the law, and preservation of the congregation amidst the controversy.
, in response to a Northern Indiana District query, Annual Conference formed a committee to study war tax resistance.
A report is expected at the conference in Baltimore.
An Oregon congregation, however, decided to take a stronger stand (from the issue):
Peace Church of the Brethren, in Portland, Ore., has voted unanimously to refuse to comply with an Internal Revenue Service effort to collect war taxes owed by pastor Rick Ukena.
The congregation also voted to issue a public statement explaining the decision, and to raise funds to pay any fine arising from noncompliance with the IRS.
Ukena and his wife, Twyla Wallace, have withheld taxes , and the government has seized the money each of those years.
IRS actions against war tax protesters have become speedier and more severe under the Reagan Administration, and this year a levy was imposed against the church.
After a committee explored alternatives with an attorney and with Chuck Boyer, Church of the Brethren peace consultant, a special congregational meeting was held to consider the options.
“Most inspiring was the way the church took it on without my insistence,” said Ukena.
“People were really trying to discern the Spirit.”
Earlier this year, Prince of Peace church in South Bend, Ind., voted to comply with an IRS order regarding pastor Louise Rieman (see [above]).
Ukena was a conscientious objector in and says tax resistance has become a way of life for him.
“I would encourage people to not take the action,” he cautioned, “unless they’re aware of what they’re doing.”
“It was a really scary decision at first,” he added.
“We really prayed and talked to others and read the Bible to determine what was right.
It’s nice to fear God more than the IRS.”
Shirley Whiteside wrote in to applaud the Peace Church’s stand (source):
I rejoice to see this kind of integrity supported within the church.
I hope that one day the greater church will realize our hypocrisy.
To officially proclaim “All war is sin,” while we are party to war with no visible resistance, decries our loyalty to the gospel we claim.
At the Annual Conference, the Church of the Brethren decided whether or not to take a stronger stand that might include corporate civil disobedience.
By a supermajority, they voted to do so:
What started out at the Annual Conference as a study on war tax resistance came out of the Conference as a position paper.
The job of the study committee on war tax consultation was to answer the basic question of how an institution should respond to employees who object to payment of the part of their taxes that goes for military support, said Phillip Stone, General Board member and chairman of the committee.
In its list of recommendations, the committee suggested that “congregations and church-related institutions give consideration to a range of extra-legal options.”
Included is the option of corporate civil disobedience by supporting an employee involved in war tax resistance.
Moderator Paul Hoffman said that by recommending civil disobedience the study paper became a position paper, and needed a two-thirds majority — which it did receive from the delegate body.
Preceding the listing of extra-legal options was a listing of legal means by which institutions could support employees involved in tax resistance.
The committee stated that only after legal means were exhausted should an institution enter into civil disobedience.
In conclusion, the committee called on the larger church community to give support to any church-related organization involved in civil disobedience.
This statement is conspicuously absent from the Church of the Brethren Resolutions & Statements listed on the official Annual Conference website today.
I’m not sure how to explain that.
Maybe we’ll find out as I continue to hunt through the archives.
We need to name the huge expenditures for weapons for what it is, blasphemy against the goodness of God’s creation, a sin we commit together.
In light of this reality I would like to pass on a suggestion from the New Call to Peacemaking Conference at Elizabethtown College :
Instead of focusing on the division between those who pay and those who resist war taxes, let’s all join together in witnessing against war taxes even though we do this in different ways.
Some will witness to people in government through letters accompanying or sent concurrently with their tax payment and returns.
Some will reduce their income or increase their giving in ways as to decrease or eliminate war taxes.
Some who pay under protest will support by word and deed brothers and sisters who withhold a portion or all of their taxes.
Some of us will continue to witness our strong concern through withholding monies in civil disobedience to the tax laws.
This attitude and these actions are consistent with our Annual Conference decisions on this issue.
The issue reported on the war tax resistance debate as it was taking place in the General Conference Mennonite Church (source), and the issue followed up with a report of Church employees who had asked the church to stop withholding war taxes from their salaries (source).
Another news brief in the issue described the World Peace Tax Fund as a bill that “would amend the Internal Revenue Service Code so that conscientious objectors could have their tax payments spent for nonmilitary purposes,” and reported on lobbying efforts.
The issue gave another example of corporate tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren:
The Michigan District board has instructed its district personnel to withhold the Federal excise tax on district telephone bills.
It is forwarding the resolution to the Internal Revenue Service and to congressional representatives.
The withheld funds will be redirected to a Michigan District Peace Tax Fund and used by the district witness commission.
The action was based on Annual Conference statements of , , and .
The board “commend(s) this witness to all Brethren, local congregations, the General Board, and Annual Conference for their study and prayerful consideration,” and also encourages other forms of witness, such as lobbying for the World Peace Tax Fund Bill.
A profile of Brethren Volunteer Service volunteers Steve & Sue Williams in the issue included this detail:
Another attraction to volunteer service for the Williamses was their desire not to pay taxes for war purposes.
Before they married, Steve was a tax resister, withholding a certain amount of money as a protest against the government’s using his taxes for the military.
But Sue was uncomfortable with tax resistance and, after they married, they began looking for an alternative.
One was simply to make a lot of donations to charity.
“Before BVS we were working full-time and giving a lot of money away,” Steve said.
“We began looking for a way to give away time and not money.”
I also found this article in The Morning News of Wilmington, Delaware (). Excerpt:
Brethren still withholding taxes
How to protest “sin of war” is on denomination’s conference agenda
by Eileen C. Spraker and Stephanie Whyche Staff reporters
In , the Vietnam War sparked members of the Wilmington Church of the Brethren not to pay the church’s federal telephone excise tax for a year.
Although that war is dead, tax-withholding among members of the Church of the Brethren is very much alive.
How to support Brethren institutions and individuals who choose to withhold “war taxes” will be on the denomination’s agenda during their national conference, which opens in Baltimore.
Traditionally, the denomination has held to the belief that all war is sin.
Brethren 35 years ago established the Brethren Volunteer Service for conscientious objectors as an alternative to military service.
Some members of the church, for reasons of conscience, have chosen to withhold part or all of their taxes to avoid supporting the military.
A paper to be presented at the Baltimore meeting will discuss the lawful choices available to such people, the church’s position on civil disobedience, and support for institutions and people pursuing tax resistance.
“This is one of the most timely issues we have right now,” says the Rev. Allen T. Hansell, pastor of the Wilmington Church for the Brethren.
According to Hansell, some employees of the six Brethren Colleges and employees in at least one of the Brethren retirement homes are currently involved in tax resistance efforts.
But some are less than successful because their employers are withholding taxes from their employees’ pay in accordance with regulations.
“The issue is these employees, on the basis of conscience, don’t want this money withheld.
Legally, the employers are bound.
That’s why this issue is coming before the conference,” Hansell said.
What’s more, Hansell said, although there’s “no war right now, the telephone excise tax continues,” even though Congress promised to discontinue it once the Vietnam war had ended.
During the Vietnam War, members of Hansell’s church, in Richardson Park, stirred up a lot of controversy because they refused to pay the church’s federal telephone-excise tax.
The action was because of their belief that part of the tax was financing the war.
“Our concern was to make a witness of the issue that this money was going directly to the war effort,” Hansell said.
“It was a matter of principle.”
The proposal to be presented before the conference calls upon employers of employees involved in military tax-resistance efforts to take the issue seriously and maintain open dialogue with their employees.
It does not recommend that church institutions get involved in tax resistance efforts, but if they do, it calls upon the denomination to support that effort through such methods as legal assistance.
Other recommendations will suggest that Brethren seek voluntary wage reductions, and that they work with the Mennonites and Society of Friends to bring about changes through legislation.
In , two Brethren-linked groups started war tax resisters’ penalty funds, and the Annual Conference considered two queries on whether or how Brethren churches should refuse to pay the excise tax on their phone bills.
No one in the crowd offered bids for the Subaru station wagon, which was being auctioned by the Internal Revenue Service.
The IRS had seized it from Stephen and Phyllis Senesi as partial payment of taxes that the couple has refused to pay.
As conscientious objectors to paying taxes that fund the US military, the Senesis have withheld about $6,500 over the past five years.
Several area peace groups had organized the nonviolent protest at the auction.
When the IRS agent called for bids on the car, the crowd responded first with silence, and then with “We choose life over death.” Phyllis Senesi is a member of Skyridge Church of the Brethren, Kalamazoo, Mich.
A letter-writer in the issue tried to turn the tables on the tax resisters, saying their refusal to pay “could mean one less defensive hour by a protective policeman. This failure to defend could result in the undefended death of some person. The person who machinated the tax resistance is an indirect killer; category, murder.” (source)
The Midland (Mich.) congregation has voted to withhold the federal excise tax on its telephone bill, saying, “We do not believe that paying for war is loving.” The money withheld will be used to buy peace literature for their library.
Since the congregation wants its action to be done publicly and submissively, the witness commission will enclose letters with the monthly payment.
And another on the same page:
Chuck Boyer, peace consultant for the denomination, is compiling a list of people willing to be contacted when someone faces grave financial need because of faithful witness to Christ.
Such instances include Brethren who suffer loss because of conscientious objection to payment of war taxes.
To join the list, write to Chuck Boyer…
My conscience of recent months has given anguish and now distress, because I do not want to pay the military part of my federal income taxes.
I am now a redirector of my war taxes to peace.
My dilemma is that I am treated as a criminal with a lien.
I am not a tax dodger or evader.
I wish to pay all my taxes for peace.
My correct amount has been reported.
The World Peace Tax Fund bill… is one way out of this dilemma.
Its goal is a law permitting people morally opposed to war to have the military part of their taxes allocated for peacemaking.…
Two Brethren-related peace organizations have begun tax resister’s penalty funds to support those who conscientiously choose to withhold war taxes.
In both cases, the fund reimburses those who have been fined by the Internal Revenue Service, and supporters of the fund share the total cost.
The two groups are the North Manchester, Ind., chapter of the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Iowa Peace Network. For more information, write…
That issue also brought a preview of coming attractions at the upcoming Annual Conference (source):
The Michigan query points out the use of the federal telephone excise tax to pay for past and present military expenditures and states that Michigan District will withhold the tax, redirecting the amount to a peace tax fund.
In commending this witness to Annual Conference for study and prayerful consideration, the district is asking for affirmation of the action.
The General Board query asks for the appointment of a committee to study and recommend how Brethren should respond to the dilemma of paying taxes for war.
Walter Fitzsimons wrote an opinion piece for the issue that talked all around the issue of war tax resistance, seemed to conclude that such resistance was futile because it would not stop the march of militarism, then took an about-face and said that even if that is true it could be a worthwhile action of persuasion, but then ended on a write-your-congressman note without taking a stand either way (source).
“Church of the Brethren student Mike Yoder (right), of Morgantown, W. Va., helps carry a ‘Bread not Bombs’ banner in a tax-time peace witness. The event was ‘an act of faith,’ said one participant. ‘I am trying to bring evangelism and social action together.’ ”
For some Christians, paying the percentage of federal income taxes that goes toward the military is a dilemma.
This year, a Harrisonburg, Va., group called Christians for Peace gathered at the regional office of the Internal Revenue Service in Staunton to register their concern.
They brought a truckload of food, bought with the money withheld from their tax payments.
“We seek to follow Jesus’ call to be peacemakers by directing our resources away from the instruments of death and toward life,” explained Wendell Ressler, one of the organizers of the event.
“We cannot reconcile Jesus’ call to love our enemies with our government’s call to help pay for our enemies’ destruction.”
In a short statement to onlookers, he said, “We gladly pay taxes which are used to enrich the lives of others, but it is immoral for our government to play Russian roulette with the future of our planet.”
IRS officials were cordial, but explained that they could not accept the food.
The bags of groceries — including more than 1,000 pounds of canned goods — were presented to the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank.
Another article on the same page noted that a Portland, Oregon “Peace” congregation had “voted to withhold the federal excise tax on its telephone bill as a way ‘to say no to militarism and yes to life-affirming programs.’ The money will be sent to the Brethren World Peace Academy…”
The pastor of that Peace Church, Rick Ukena, and his wife Twyla Wallace were profiled in the issue (source). Excerpt:
Just before Rick left the pastorate of Peace Church of the Brethren in Portland, Ore., he and his wife, Twyla Wallace, discussed with me their refusal to pay war taxes. “Refusing to pay that portion of our taxes that goes for military purposes is merely an extension of the decision I made in [to become a conscientious objector],” Rick says. “Paying taxes for war is no different from providing bodies for military purposes.”
Rick likens their present witness to that of past Brethren:
“Historically, the Church of the Brethren youth have been conscientious objectors to military service.
Military tax resistance is an equally important statement for peace.”
, Rick and Twyla have redirected a portion of their federal taxes as an effort to lift up their opposition to current priorities of the federal budget.
With the filing of their returns, they sent that portion to Health Help, a low-income health clinic in Portland.
“Nevertheless,” says Rick, “the IRS, during that time, has seized over $1,000 from our checking account for non-payment of taxes.”
A lien was also threatened against the Portland congregation, since the IRS ordered the church to pay Rick and Twyla’s taxes.
In a specially called members’ meeting, the IRS demand was turned down by a unanimous vote.
“We were joyed with the support that we received from the congregation as it was placed in a position of choosing between compliance with human laws aimed at destroying life and a higher order that commands us to love one another, even our enemies,” Rick says.
As mentioned above, there were two items concerning war tax resistance on the Annual Conference agenda in .
The issue tells us how they fared (source):
The delegates established a committee to study and recommend how the Brethren should respond to the dilemma of paying taxes for war.
Brought by the General Board, the query on taxation for war said that “our government continues to put its faith in weapons that can destroy all human life on our planet.”
The query also pointed out that expenses for present and past military efforts currently total about one-half of all federal expenditures.
The concern of the related query, a Michigan District resolution on telephone tax redirection, was adopted by the delegates, and the issue of telephone tax withholding was assigned to the war tax committee.
Michigan District voted in to withhold federal excise taxes on district telephone bills, and to inform the Internal Revenue Service of the action.
It’s hard to believe that at this point there was much more for yet another a committee to say on the issue, so many similar committees had been formed and had issued reports in recent years.
This committee would consist of Philip W.
Rieman, Arlene E.
May, Violet Cox, Richard O.
Buckwalter, and Gary Flory.
One of the best debates I have seen about the biblical basis for tax obedience or tax resistance was found in the Messenger in .
In the issue, the Messenger hosted a debate between Vernard Eller and Dale Aukerman on the biblical basis for war tax resistance or obedient tax payment:
The report to Annual Conference of the Committee on Taxation for War shows a great diversity of opinion within the committee itself.
Accordingly, there is at present no inclination to try for any change of policy.
Rather, the recommendation is for a churchwide study of the Conference statements already on the books.
And because I find myself highly in favor of this proposal, I offer this article as a contribution to the study for which the reports calls.
I address myself solely to the matter of scriptural evidence and interpretation.
Accidentally, as it were, I have been doing major research on the subject — for a book even now in press.
I had no intention of studying tax resistance per se, but was addressing the much broader question of how a Christian should relate to the host of regimes, parties, and ideologies competing with each other in the effort to direct and control society.
My mentors in the matter make up a 150-year-long string of biblically oriented thinkers who constitute the modern theological tradition I feel comes closest to Brethrenism.
These people are Soren Kierkegaard, J.C. and Christoph Blumhardt, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Jacques Ellul.
And as I chased them down on my particular topic, I found them regularly going to the New Testament tax passages.
It became apparent that this was not so much their doing as that of the Bible itself.
The logic of the move is this:
The all-dominating political reality of Palestine during the New Testament period was that of a most evil and vicious Roman regime occupying, oppressing, and eventually destroying the homeland of the Jewish people (and earliest Christians).
Over against this power was pitted that of the Jewish liberationists and freedom fighters commonly known as the Zealots.
Thus, the pattern of political decision forming the context not only of our tax passages but of all New Testament political counsel is one that applies as well to almost any issue, ancient or modern:
One can either (1) legitimize the presently established regime as representing God’s will for the nation, or (2) follow God’s will in supporting the efforts of the revolution against that regime.
“Revolution” here does not necessarily imply terrorism, guerrilla warfare, or other forms of physical brutality, but identifies any bringing to bear of political power in the effort to overthrow an evil regime or to pressure it into becoming good.
By its very nature, of course, the gospel would have as much as prohibited Christians from any desire to legitimize a cruel and pagan Roman Empire.
Yet, also, by its very nature, the gospel would make it very tempting for Christians to align themselves with liberation movements and efforts at just revolution.
Accordingly, on the one hand the New Testament consistently refuses to encourage any legitimizing tendencies — while on the other hand it actively discourages the greater temptation of revolution.
And “tax revolt” — i.e., withholding taxes as a power-play against government evil — becomes the New Testament’s regular signal and symbol of Zealot liberationism in particular and, in general, all forms of revolution.
(It is significant that this symbol has Christianity opposed to revolutionism quite prior to and apart from its physical violence.)
Regarding particularly the exegesis of Mark 12, in addition to the five thinkers named above I consulted four contemporary New Testament specialists: Martin Hengel, Gunther Bomkamm, Leander Keck, and Howard Clark Kee.
All nine scholars are in total agreement, each reading the tax passages in the context of the historical situation described above.
In the process, the scriptures come clear, manifesting their theological consistency as warnings against Christian involvement in political revolutionism.
My researchers are not exhaustive; but I failed to come across even one reputable scholar doing serious biblical exposition who concludes that these passages actually imply a support for (or even a leaving room for) Christian tax resistance.
The crucial New Testament passages are three:
Mark 12 — which is actually Mark 12:13–17 (the fact that both Matthew and Luke later pick up the incident for their own Gospels adds no new meaning but does corroborate the significance it held in the eyes of the early church);
Romans 13 — which is actually Romans 12:14–13:10;
and Matthew 17 — which is actually Matthew 17:24–27.
All of my nine, except the Blumhardts, address the Mark 12 passage — and all agree as to its reading.
The earliest writer, Kierkegaard, says it best.
(Consider that, in the historical context, to make Jesus “king” or to call him “Messiah” politically could mean nothing other than “revolutionary leader against Rome.”)
The small nation to which Jesus belonged was under foreign domination, and naturally all were intent upon the thought of shaking off the foreign yoke.
Hence they would acclaim him king.
But, lo, when they show him a coin and would constrain him against his will to take sides with one party or the other — what then?
Oh, worldly passion of partisanship, even when thou callest thyself holy and patriotic — nay, so far thou canst not stretch as to break through his indifference… No, he posits the infinite yawning difference between God and the Emperor: “Give unto God what is God’s!” For they with worldly wisdom would make it a question of religion, of duty to God, whether or not it was lawful to pay tribute to the Emperor.
Worldliness is so eager to embellish itself as godliness, and in this case God and the Emperor are blended together in the question,… that is to say, the question takes God in vain and secularizes him [by implying that whether the Emperor does or does not get his tax coin is an issue somehow related to or comparable with whether God does or does not get what belongs to him].
But Christ draws the distinction, the infinite distinction, and he does this by treating the question about paying tribute to the Emperor as the most indifferent thing in the world, regarding it as something which one should do without wasting a word or an instant in talking about it — so as to get more time for giving God what belongs to God.
Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Ellul speak a single mind on the Romans 13 passage.
Each finds it to be in complete agreement with Mark 12;
Ellul thinks that Romans 13 even shows that Paul was familiar with the Mark 12 incident.
Yet Barths’s exposition is easily the most extended and insightful of the three:
The revolutionary seeks to be rid of the evil by bestirring himself to battle with it and to overthrow it.
He determines to remove the existing ordinances, in order that he may erect in their place the new right…
The revolutionary must, however, own that, in adopting his plan, he allows himself to be overcome of evil (Rom. 12:21)… What man has the right to propound and represent the “New,” whether it be a new age, or a new world, or a new spirit?…
Overcome evil with good.
What can this mean but the end of the triumph of men, whether this triumph is celebrated in the existing order or by revolution?… There is here no word of approval of the existing order; but there is endless disapproval of every enemy of it.
It is God who wishes to be recognized as He that overcometh the unrighteousness of the existing order…
Even the most radical revolution — and this is so even when it is called a “spiritual” or “peaceful” revolution — can be no more than a revolt; and that is to say, it is in itself simply a justification and confirmation [not of God’s “new” but] of what already exists [namely, one human ideology or another]…
For this cause ye pay tribute also (Rom. 13:6).
Ye are paying taxes to the State.
It is important, however, for you to know what ye are doing.
If I might interpret: If you are paying those taxes as a positive legitimization of the state and its evil activity, you are wrong.
If, on the contrary, you are withholding those taxes as an act of protest and defiance against the evil of the state, you are wrong again.
“But what other option is there?”
Well, if Jesus is correct that Caesar’s image on the coin is proof enough that it belongs to him, then, rather than saying that we do pay him taxes, would it not be more correct to say that we do not try to stop him from taking what is his, do not revolt, do not return evil for evil?
As Barth puts it, “It is important for you to know what you are doing.”
The Matthew 17 incident is not as crucial as the first two; only a couple of our scholars mention it — and that merely in passing.
However, the words Jesus speaks on this occasion are as significant as anything we find on the subject.
In the process of explaining why he pays the tax, Jesus forestalls any idea that a Christian’s payment of taxes is to depend upon the relative righteousness or unrighteousness of the collecting regime.
He says, in effect, that no human regime is righteous enough for the Christian ever to owe it anything.
No, there is only one Father and King of whom Jesus knows himself and his followers to be “sons.”
No one except that “father” can claim anything from these “children.”
So the kings of the earth will have to do their collecting from “others,” not from Jesus and the children of God.
Thus, when Jesus goes on to say that he chooses to pay the tax even though he doesn’t owe it, he is saying that Christian payment never is made as recognition of either the rights or the righteousness of the State.
No, it is made to regimes good, bad, and indifferent — and that sheerly out of obedience to God’s command to love, not revolt, and not cause offense.
It strikes me that the word of God speaks quite clearly on the matter of tax resistance — and that that word is hardly in support of the practice.
I do fully honor the conscientious integrity of those who feel led to withhold some of their taxes; but I cannot confirm that leading as being biblical.
Rendering to Caesar [con]
by Dale Aukerman
If the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb is thought of as the width of a lead pencil, the destructive potential of the current nuclear arsenals is the height of Mount Everest.
If the United States were to explode a bomb each day to destroy a city, the present stockpile would last more than one hundred years.
The Reagan administration plans to build 1,700 additional nuclear bombs a year and press ahead in an arms buildup that is taking us into the war that can destroy God’s earthly creation.
Or to give just one example of the increasing ghastliness of conventional weapons, white phosphorus bombs have a sticky jelly, which adheres to the human body, burns at a temperature of more than 3000° Centigrade for at least 24 hours, and turns victims into agonized human torches.
The United States has been supplying these bombs to a number of countries, including El Salvador and Israel, which used them against civilians in its invasion of Lebanon.
As for the huge sums in federal tax dollars needed to purchase all these weapons and much more.
Brother Vernard Eller seems to say:
No problem; we have the clear command of Jesus to pay up.
After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in , they changed the Temple tax mentioned in the Matthew 17:24–27 story into a tax for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.
Some governments have levied taxes so exorbitant as to leave children and others starving.
Certain taxes have been imposed specifically for financing a war.
A government could use half its budget to keep masses of people in concentration camps or to run a network of brothels for the diversion of the male population.
Vernard evidently says: No problem basically;
Christians go by the command of Jesus.
According to the Friends Committee on National Legislation, $350 billion or 55 percent of the 1984 federal budget went to military spending and the cost of past wars.
Figured on a per-capita basis, the fraction of that for the Church of the Brethren membership was $255 million.
All Brethren church-related giving for the year was somewhat over $55 million.
As Vernard sees it, we need not to be troubled that hundreds of millions of Brethren dollars go to finance the arms buildup;
paying is “the most indifferent thing in the world.”
Vernard’s greatest service to us Brethren has come through his insistence that, if we claim to be a New Testament church, we must strive to live by the New Testament.
I stand with him in that insistence.
If Jesus in Mark 12:17 was saying that disciples of his should pay without question every tax levied by whatever government they are under, that, for us, should settle it.
But did Jesus say that?
Vernard failed to find “even one reputable scholar” whose treatment of the passage would leave open the option of Christian tax resistance.
I would call his attention to some.
A.M. Hunter writes: “This was an ad hoc answer, not a fixed and permanent rule for every situation.”
Jean Lasserre gives this interpretation:
“Jesus is not passing any judgment on the lawfulness of the Roman tribute;
He is speaking only of this particular coin.
It represents the things that are Caesar’s, not a foreign tyrant’s right to exact a tribute.
In other words, Jesus recognizes Caesar as having the right to the coin but not to the tribute.
This is what disconcerts His questioners and breaks their trap.”
Francis Wright Beare comments,
“The famous saying leaves untouched the fundamental problem: how are we to draw the line between the legitimate requirements of the society to which we owe allegiance, and the demands of loyalty to God?”
The insight of Paul S. Minear is most helpful:
“By his reply Jesus forced them, as students of the law, to decide for themselves where to draw the line between God’s jurisdiction and Caesar’s…
The riddle remains that each must solve for himself or herself.
Keep in mind that the first audience for this riddle was neither the crowd nor the disciples, but only their adversaries.”
Jacques Ellul, whom Vernard points to as one of the six thinkers decisively supporting the pay-without-question interpretation, states in The Ethics of Freedom that Jesus “refuses to answer the question whether he is for or against Caesar or whether taxes should be paid or not.”
In any case, appealing to the authority of European theologians within other church traditions has not for Brethren been a main way of discovering what faithful discipleship to Christ is.
Those enemies of Jesus thought they had the perfect trap.
If Jesus said, “Don’t pay the tax,” they would denounce him to the Roman authorities.
If he said, “Pay the tax,” they would trumpet that to the common people, who hated the tax as symbolizing Rome’s repressive occupation of their country.
His enemies could spread the word:
“The Messiah is to liberate us from Roman rule, but this fellow supinely tells us to pay the tax.”
The reply, “Don’t pay the tax,” would have pleased Jesus’ adversaries the most, and that they did not get.
According to the interpretation Vernard advocates, they did receive the other answer, “Pay the tax,” and could proceed with their strategy contingent on that reply.
That is, their trap did catch Jesus.
But the close of the story in each Gospel brings out that the trap did not succeed.
“And they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him by what he said; but marveling at his answer they were silent” (Luke 20:26).
Jesus had not said, “Pay the tax.”
Jesus’ enemies were intent on exposing him as a collaborator, if not a Zealot revolutionary.
When they produced the detested Roman coin, they — not Jesus — were exposed as the collaborators.
When the Jewish leaders brought Jesus to Pilate, they accused him of “forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar” (Luke 23:2).
They would hardly have used that accusation if Jesus a short time before, in a public context charged with excitement about him, had counseled payment of the tribute.
Usually people quote, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” and omit the rest.
This pernicious misuse of the saying has had immense significance in the history of the West.
Vernard emphasizes that the second part of Jesus’ reply is vastly more important than the first, but he remains within the traditional interpretation by holding that on the matter of taxes we can take the first part and know its meaning for us without the second part.
Brethren historically have held that young men should not simply comply with whatever notice comes from a draft board and that what can rightly be given to the government has to be discerned in relation to giving ourselves totally to God.
Brethren who are deeply concerned about paying money into a monstrously expanding military buildup are not advocating refusal of all taxes, complete noncooperation with government, or trying to overthrow it.
But we believe that we can come to a Christian understanding of taxes that should be handed over to the government only in the light of Jesus’ supremely central command that we give ourselves fully to God.
The crucial issue is whether the first part of Jesus’ reply is taken by itself as a clear, sweeping command or whether it is seen as a riddle calling for the discernment that can come within our striving to love God and follow Jesus.
Jesus, as a Jewish male between the ages of 14 and 65, was subject to the Roman poll tax of one denarius a year.
We have no record that he paid it (his adversaries could have cornered him on that point) — or that he did not pay it.
But in Matthew 17:24–27, the tax in question was for the Temple in Jerusalem.
Jesus told Peter that children of the heavenly King are free from any obligation to pay taxes, but “not to give offense… give the shekel to them for me and for yourself.”
Here too Jesus did not command that all taxes are to be paid regardless.
(Much of what Vernard finds in the passage is not there at all.)
The key consideration is that one not give offense, cause others to fall away from faith.
Had Jesus refused to pay the Temple tax, he would have appeared to reject the Mosaic law (Exodus 30:11–16) and the Temple itself.
But in some circumstances paying a tax can constitute giving offense, impelling others away from God.
When national leaders are stumbling blindly toward slaughtering unimaginable multitudes of those for whom Christ died, casual payment of all the money asked for toward their mad projects amounts to abetting them in their fateful falling away from God.
To resist paying such taxes can provide opportunities for pointing agents of government to Jesus as Lord.
On the Romans 13 passage John Howard Yoder writes:
“Verse 7 says ‘render to each his due’; verse 8 says ‘nothing is due to anyone except love.’
Thus the claims of Caesar are to be measured by whether what he claims is due to him is part of the obligation of love.
Love in turn is defined (verse 10) by the fact that it does no harm.”
Paul was probably restating the teaching of Jesus found in Mark 12:17 and his Master’s call to the most careful discrimination between what under God can be rightly rendered to the ruling authority and what cannot.
Thus we have cogent reasons for concluding that Vernard’s article, the Brethren tradition of paying all taxes without question, and the Annual Conference Statement on Taxation for War (of which Vernard was a principal writer) depend on a mistaken understanding of the words of Jesus.
There is no easy answer— certainly not in four Greek words in Mark 12:17 taken by themselves.
In this issue we need together to seek a fresh discernment of what from us belongs to God.
Bob Gross wrote a letter-to-the-editor in response, in which he made this point (source):
Eller may not realize that for many Brethren who feel led to refuse to pay taxes for war, the primary reason is not the one his article cautions against.
Rather than “an act of protest and defiance against the evil of the state,” our non-payment is a simple, humble attempt to refrain from contributing to that evil.
This is not done in a quest for purity or out of guilt.
It comes from a desire to be more conformed to the will of God and to witness to God’s kingdom.
John Stoner from the Mennonite Central Committee also wrote in to reiterate that “When Jesus was asked, by people wishing entrap him, ‘Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?’ his answer was not ‘Yes.’ ” (source)
Barry Shutt, on the other hand, took the point of view that war tax resistance was not an effective response, and should be discouraged for that reason (source). Excerpts:
[A] legitimate concern for any witness is the question of effectiveness.
One could seriously question if violating the law is very effective in a society where most people believe it is best to work within the system to initiate change.
And if tax resistance only leads to the tax resister paying more money to the government in fines and penalties, the question of effectiveness becomes an even greater concern.
The point to be made, of course, is, “How do we work effectively to bring about change?” When the system provides adequate means by which one can voice concerns and attempt to change priorities, tax resistance as a means to bring about change becomes even more questionable.
If tax resisters would argue that effectiveness is not the primary concern or objective but simply the witness alone is the objective, then one should ask if simply writing letters of protest to our elected officials is any less of a witness?
If God hears prayers made from the privacy of the prayer closet, God surely takes note of witnesses made through the less conspicuous channels available for us to voice our concerns.
Being fined or arrested may not be necessary, and I would suggest neither is tax resistance.
A further letter in support of resistance, by Dale Hess, did not add much new to the argument, but, in implicit contradiction to Shutt, said of war tax resistance: “The importance of this type of peace witness is hard to overestimate” (source).
The Annual Conference had assembled yet another committee to issue yet another report about war tax resistance, and that committee reported on its work in .
The messenger reported on their recommendations (source):
The assignment from last year’s Annual Conference was two-fold.
In response to a request that the committee study and recommend how Brethren should respond to the dilemma of paying taxes for war, the committee chose not to write a new position paper.
Instead it recommends that Brethren undertake an extensive study of earlier position papers and then determine more specifically what, in addition to the previous papers, is called for in the query.
The committee was also asked to make a recommendation about General Board payment of the federal telephone excise tax.
The committee recommends that the decision be made by the board itself, because of the liability of individual officers.
In action for war growing out of a General Board query of , delegates approved a study committee’s recommendation that the church undertake its own study of previous position papers before deciding whether a new paper on taxation for war is desired.
The General Board is to prepare a study packet and to compile responses from across the denomination.
In an unusual move, the delegates extended the life of the study committee, directing it to recommend to the Cincinnati Conference a process to complete the study.
The same committee, assigned to respond to a Michigan District query about telephone tax redirection, recommended (and Conference approved) that any decision about whether the General Board should withhold the federal telephone excise tax should be made by the Board, since its staff could be held liable.
“A gratified war tax study committee regrouped after finding it had two more years of life.
Clockwise from left:
Chuck Boyer, Gary Flory, Phil Rieman, Dick Buckwalter, Vi Cox.”
A letter in the issue dissented from the war tax resistance craze on the grounds that “many non-Christian people who deeply resent having to support welfare programs” would use the same logic to avoid their taxes (source).
, a group of Brethren showed up at the Lombard, Ill., Internal Revenue Service office and tried to pay part of their taxes with bags of groceries.
The group from Bethany Theological Seminary included about 33 students and faculty member Dale Brown, and they wanted to let the IRS know that they objected to paying taxes for war.
“I believe in paying taxes, but not for defense,” said Brown.
The group took about $160 worth of food to the IRS and contributed about the same amount to peace organizations.
IRS officials refused the groceries, which were then given to local food pantries and soup kitchens.
The Church of the Brethren stood firm and refused to honor an IRS levy filed against pastors Louise & Phil Rieman in , and the church’s Messenger magazine also brought news of war tax resisters from other denominations.
There were several passing references to war taxes in the early issues of Messenger, but it wasn’t until the issue that there was anything substantial.
That issue brought a brief update on Presbyterian war tax resister Maurice McCrackin (source):
The Presbyterian Church (USA) has publicly asked the forgiveness of an 81-year-old Cincinnati minister who was defrocked 26 years ago for his anti-war activism.
The Rev. Maurice F.
McCrackin, pastor of the non-denominational Community Church of Cincinnati, was deposed from the ministry by the Cincinnati Presbytery in after he refused to pay the portion of his income taxes that would have gone for military spending.
The denomination’s General Assembly in formally confessed error and endorsed an action to restore him to clergy status.
, more than $40,000 in tax-resistance fines has been covered by a network of people who contribute to a “Tax Resisters’ Penalty Fund (TRPF).[”] The fund, which aids those who refuse for conscientious reasons to pay taxes for war, issued its 11th appeal for funds in .
Founded in by Dave Leiter, then coordinator of the North Manchester Fellowship of Reconciliation, in Indiana, the TRPF provides financial and moral support to war-tax resisters, allowing those who do not directly resist war taxes to support those who do.
War-tax resisters resist funding militarism by refusing to pay all or a portion of their income taxes.
They are not tax evaders, says the TRPF committee, because they do not use withheld money for personal benefit.
Many channel the withheld taxes to organizations that work for peace and justice.
Using US federal budget figures, the committee says that 62 percent of income tax monies go to pay for current and past military expenses.
, the Internal Revenue Service has levied $500 in penalties on deductions it considers “frivolous,” including war-tax deductions.
Resisters submit requests for reimbursements of such charges to the Penalty Fund.
The TRPF does not pay the original tax burden — only penalties and interest.
Between two and four times annually, requests are evaluated and tabulated by a committee of eight people, and an appeal is sent to supporters of the fund.
The amount of the appeal is shared equally by supporters.
The 11 appeals issued have ranged from $1 to $15 per supporter.
The fund has about 570 supporters and has given more than $40,000 to more than 80 war-tax resisters, according to the committee.
The next appeal goes out .
The War Tax Resisters Penalty Fund is still in operation today and still operates much as described in the above article.
At the Annual Conference, the committee that had been set up to yet again study the war tax issue and make recommendations announced “that it was choosing not to write a new statement on the issue of conscientiously opposing paying taxes that go for military purposes.”
Instead, they recommended that Brethren go back and study the previous reports issued by previous committees, and heed the calls from previous conferences to seriously study the issue.
(source)
The Church of the Brethren stood firm against an IRS levy in , as reported in the issue:
The Internal Revenue Service has issued a tax levy on funds the General Board holds for Phil and Louise Rieman, co-pastors of the Ivester Church of the Brethren, Grundy Center, Iowa.
The action is a response to the Riemans’ tax withholding as a conscientious objection to paying taxes that are used for war.
The levy requires the General Board to take money held on their behalf from the Pastor’s Housing Fund and send it to the IRS.
If the board fails to do this, the IRS has declared its intention to levy the board’s bank accounts and take the amount plus a 50-percent penalty.
The Executive Committee voted not to send the required amount and to file a protest letter that supports the Riemans’ right to engage in tax resistance.
The committee also told the IRS that the Pastor’s Housing Fund is of such a nature that the government does not have the right to levy against it.
In , representatives from Brethren, Mennonite, and Quaker groups had come together for a three-day conference about war taxes, sponsored by a “New Call to Peacemaking.”
“People who express opposition to war need to consider conscientious objection to paying for it,” stated Chuck Boyer, General Board peace representative, after returning from a three-day discussion of war tax issues.
Thirty-six historic peace church members — Brethren, Mennonites, and Friends — including Boyer, and Julie Garber, of the Manchester Church of the Brethren, North Manchester, Ind., met to discuss issues surrounding withholding of war taxes.
Prior to that consultation, 18 leaders from the historic peace churches met to discuss how best to work together for peace.
It was the first meeting of the heads of the peace churches in more than 10 years.
The simple fact that the leaders met and got to know each other better was the highlight of the meeting, said Donald E. Miller, general secretary of the Church of the Brethren.
In addition to Miller, General Board executives Joan Deeter, Melanie May, and Roger Schrock; board chairwoman Anita Smith Buckwalter; and church historian Donald F. Durnbaugh represented the Brethren.
Both meetings were sponsored by New Call to Peacemaking, a cooperative peace church organization.
The war tax consultation focused on options and consequences for church agencies that refuse to withhold employees’ federal income taxes.
One Mennonite and two Quaker agencies already have policies of breaking the law by not withholding federal taxes of employees who oppose paying the military portion of their taxes.
The Church of the Brethren has not dealt directly with this issue, said Boyer, since no General Board employees have asked that their taxes not be withheld.
At the St. Louis Annual Conference, however, the larger issue of corporate civil disobedience will be discussed.
Of greater interest to the Brethren was lengthy discussion of the US Peace Tax Fund bill in Congress.
Consultation participants agreed to organize a group of leaders to visit Washington, D.C., to register concerns about tax withholding and to support the bill.
Boyer has begun organizing “Six-by-Six” clubs of Brethren to promote the bill.
Groups of six will visit their legislators in Washington or at local offices six times to promote the bill.…
The Peace Tax Fund bill would allow conscientious objectors to put the portion of their taxes that would support the military (presently about 53 percent) into a special fund to promote peaceful programs.
Conscientious objectors could then pay all their taxes without violating their consciences.
The issue reported on the policy the General Board of Friends United Meeting had adopted of refusing to withhold taxes from the paychecks of employees who were conscientious objectors to military taxation (source).
The issue followed by reporting on a similar action by the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (of Friends), which decided “to withhold but not forward to the Internal Revenue Service the estimated military portion of its employees’ federal income taxes” (source).
The issue brought the news that the Church of the Brethren General Board’s Executive Committee “is studying whether the board can withhold the telephone excise tax as a protest against military expenditures” (source).
The issue reported that the Mennonite Church was jumping on the bandwagon too: “The General Board of the Mennonite Church has recommended that church agencies honor the requests of employees who wish to withhold payment of taxes used for military purposes” (source).
That issue also reported on the Brethren Revival Fellowship, which was trying to prod Brethren back in a more conservative direction (source).
It quoted their newsletter on the tax resistance issue:
“We believe that those who are loyal to Christ are bound by the biblical mandate to respect the government of the land in which they reside, and should pay their taxes when due.
What the government does with the money is no longer their responsibility.”
