Mennonites Steve Ratzlaff and Weldon Nisly recently hosted an Ask-Me-Anything query on Reddit’s Christianity subreddit titled: Should Christians, who believe war is wrong, refuse to pay for it by withholding a portion of their taxes?
Their use of commas in the title ought to give you some idea as to their answer. But you might also be interested in the 75 comments and questions in the ensuing back-and-forth.
There was also coverage of war tax resistance in The Mennonite that was unconnected, or largely so, with the tussle over withholding from Conference employees.
A letter to the editor declared the writer “fascinated by the views on tax payment… when Jesus made a fairly clear statement on that subject almost 2,000 years ago.” In his mind, Americans’ high earnings relative to those of citizens of other countries are due to the actions of the American government, so “in a way our earnings are Caesar’s to start with.”
Carl Lehman penned a third in his series of patiently exasperated essays arguing against war tax resistance. He reiterates his assertion that there are no “war taxes” — no tax whose proceeds are devoted solely to military expenses. And he says that the common practice of refusing to pay a percentage of your income tax that is equivalent to the percent of the federal budget devoted to military expenses doesn’t make much sense when you hold it up to scrutiny. There’s little to suggest that withholding some number of dollars from the government is going to mean even a dime less will be spent on the military. Bothering IRS agents, who don’t set government spending policy, is pointlessly annoying. Furthermore he wanted it known that Mennonites like him who oppose war tax resistance are also being conscientious, and should not be asked to violate their consciences.
Marge Roberts responded. For her, war tax resistance was at its core an outreach tool:
[T]he center of my using this method of resisting is the opportunity present to witness to many individuals and groups about my feelings around peace issues. My tax resistance brings my convictions into the awareness of a much wider forum of my fellows than just the IRS; many facets of my life are touched and opened to people not otherwise thinking of how much we allow ourselves to be used by the government to do evil.
She gave several examples: her employers at a Lutheran church who ultimately decided to stop withholding taxes from her salary, a real estate agent who learned of a federal tax lien against her, the officers of a bank who refused her a loan because of that lien, IRS agents who came to seize her car.
Eric Coursey was even more fed up than Lehman. Just look at the darned Bible, he wrote. He gave the by-now-familiar tour of Romans 13, Matthew 17, Matthew 22, and so forth, and accused those who weren’t willing to go along with his interpretation of those verses of preferring modern cultural trends to the Word of God.
Harold R. Regier, the Commission on Home Ministries secretary for peace and social concerns, had an op-ed in the edition on the social responsibilities of Christians. At first he struck a tone that harmonized with Coursey’s complaint: “Too often we buckle under the heresy some call ‘civil religion.’ Social, political, and economic values determine the shape of our faith. The world presses us into its mold.” But rather than counseling obedience, as Coursey did, he counseled “prophetic witness,” and gave this example:
On , the judgment of a U.S. tax court ruled that the levying of taxes for war purposes does not interfere with the individual’s free exercise of religion. If religion means only to worship together in a building or only to relate your personal self to God, then paying military taxes is no violation of religion. But if our religion moves us from the pew to see our neighbors as part of God’s world, then that court couldn’t be more wrong.
Some overdue skepticism about the World Peace Tax Fund act started to surface in the pages of The Mennonite in too. This brief note comes from the edition:
Objections to the World Peace Tax Fund Act were stated in the first prize essay of the C. Henry Smith Peace Oratorical Contest. Winner Phil M. Shenk, student at Eastern Mennonite College, Harrisonburg, Virginia, points out that the fund would not reduce the military budget and may lull the consciences of nonresistant persons, diluting “the church’s prophetic voice against the world’s ungodly love for war.” The fund is a proposal in the U.S. Congress in which conscientious objectors could designate their federal income, estate, and gift taxes for a special fund devoted to nonmilitary purposes.
An article by Shenk followed, in the edition:
Mennonite church bodies are officially recognizing the World Peace Tax Fund (WPTF) as an attractive option for a peace witness. Yet, is the WPTF a biblically faithful response to a war-mongering world? Does it fit the nature of Christ’s gospel?
The WPTF would change the Internal Revenue Code, allowing conscientious objectors to channel the military portion of their federal income, estate, and gift taxes to a special fund devoted to “nonmilitary purposes.” But here, as in conscription, does the legitimization of objection to war strengthen the protest or does it mortally wound personal conviction and severely weaken social impact?
The church confronts a world at odds with its values. The world values its military budgets. The polaric opposite of this value system is found in the love of Christ which prioritizes life. Because of Christ’s spirit of love, the church’s whole mission must call the world to change its doom-full directions away from death into life. This is a call to salvation, and, Andre Trocme declares, it is a “doctrine applicable to a society, as well as to an individual.”
The character of this salvation is found in the suffering-servant nature of the Savior. Christ did not withdraw in the face of suffering. He purposefully rejected the temptation to create an insulated life and instead faithfully extended his life and values among people who finally killed him for it. Today we call this agape or self-giving love. Agape finds its sole justification in the revelation of God as interpreted in Scripture.
The WPTF concept, on the other hand, appears to rely heavily on the state-decreed right of the individual to the free exercise of religion. By offering the opportunity to avoid financial participation in war, the state claims to respect the consciences of those persons opposing war. But what exactly is being respected here? Does this conscience have only to do with individual personal values, or does its sphere of influence penetrate the social realm as well? The latter is a political challenge.
The WPTF obviously would strengthen official respect for the personal consciences of those persons opposed to financial participation in war. But what impact would the WPTF have on the social consciences of persons opposed to war? Might it not tend to dilute the church’s prophetic voice against the world’s ungodly love for war?
The early church was seduced by the Roman emperor Constantine’s legalization of the church. Its strength was sapped; its faith made tolerant by tolerance. Official recognition of the church was fourth-century doublespeak for subsuming it within the state’s umbrella of political support, itemization, and diluted plurality.
The Mennonite church has been aptly characterized as the “quiet in the land,” and more recently, the “silent in the suburbs.” We would do well to critically look at how special legal exemptions in the past have influenced our convictions against war. Special niches tend to foster reclusive passivity.
The objection could be raised that the WPTF is an act of positive involvement instead of an act of withdrawal. It diverts tax monies into peace-promoting activities. Just as doing voluntary service is seen as more constructive than sitting in jail, the legal alternative in the WPTF is taken to be more responsible than tax resistance. But is this really true? I think not.
The church’s faithful response would include both positive action and negative protest. What if the draft-age persons illegally refused to comply with the draft while nondraftable brothers and sisters voluntarily furthered peace positively in voluntary service? Is this not a more balanced peace agenda for the church? Similarly, though the war tax issue hits all wage earners, the current high standard of living allows the church to do both again — protest by refusing to pay war taxes and at the same time promote peace positively by giving time and money to peace projects.
It is vain thinking to proffer the WPTF as a way to reduce the military budget. The military will get its money anyway, as long as the majority of people are oblivious of the inhumanness and ungodliness of killing. It is imperative that the strongest most diligent efforts of protest be maintained, even when confronted with an unbelieving and hostile generation. Though affirmed years ago, Tertullian’s words still ring true: “The blood of martyrs is seed.”
What resources then does the church have to protest with? I cannot improve on John Howard Yoder when he says that at times “the most effective way to take responsibility is to refuse to collaborate… This refusal is not a withdrawal from society. It is rather a major negative intervention within the process of social change, a refusal to use unworthy means even for what seems to be a worthy end.”
Thus, as an alternative to the WPTF, I submit simple yet active tax resistance as the best, most faithful way in which the church can witness to society on war taxes. True, the money will be eventually taken by the Internal Revenue Service and the military, yet not without sparking some public interest and provoking numerous forums in which to voice one’s concern.
Worldly priorities must be objected to in word and deed. If the objecting deeds are performed legally, they register little if any protest. If consciously illegal, they register an unequivocal refusal to agree with the world’s values. The latter gets the attention of the state, the former does not.
Simple tax resistance would free the church to spend its energies calling the whole world to salvation rather than saving just itself.
The church’s “in-ness” but “not-of-ness” demands that it be actively concerned about the nonchurched world. Christ as Lord is subject to no other authority. Because of this, the church’s most crucial task is to prophetically and faithfully enact and promote Christ’s values in life without regard for political limitations or definitions. The politics of Jesus are not those of compromise, but those of dogged, active, and consistent faithfulness.
Finally, the edition included a brief note about Margaret and Weldon Nisly who were withholding the federal excise tax on their phone service and sending the money to charity.
This is the twenty-second 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.
was marked by heated debate in the pages of Gospel Herald about war tax resistance, while Mennonite Church institutions continued to struggle with whether or how to take a stand.
The issue reported on Mennonite war tax redirection:
Taxes for Peace Fund grows
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Peace Section’s Taxes for Peace Fund experienced a substantial increase in contributions during 1980. The amount of $10,400 was contributed in , compared to $6,200 in .
The Taxes for Peace Fund was established in late . “Persons whose consciences forbid them to yield money on request to the government’s death-by-technology militarism are contributing the military portion of their income tax instead to the life-supporting work of MCC U.S. Peace Section,” says John K. Stoner, executive secretary of the section.
During , the U.S. budgeted $138 billion for current military spending. Thirty-two percent of the income tax paid by every American during contributed to raising this money. An additional 15 percent went to veterans benefits and the portion of the national debt related to past wars. Thus, nearly half of the federal budget, raised almost entirely by individual and corporate income taxes, is military related.
A recent preliminary census taken by U.S. Peace Section found that over 200 Mennonite families and individuals are refusing to pay a portion of their income taxes and are instead contributing that money to organizations working for peace.
Withholding a portion of one’s income tax is only one of many ways to witness against military spending. Some Mennonites are using other methods, such as reducing income below taxable level, increasing charitable contributions, refusing to pay the federal telephone tax, and actively supporting the World Peace Tax Fund.
The Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries was distributing a war tax study packet by this time, according to the issue:
A revised and updated War Tax Packet covering a variety of issues related to the question of payment of taxes for military purposes is available. The packet contains articles by Willard Swartley, Marlin Miller, David Schroeder, Donald Kaufman, John Stoner, and William Durland; the stories of some persons’ own experiences; several brochures and other reprints; an issue of God and Caesar newsletter; a list of peace organizations; and a bibliography. Copies of the War Tax Packet are $2.00 and may be requested from MBCM… or MCC…
In the cover story of the edition (“Focusing Mennonite missions in the ’80s”), John Driver wrote:
If the church wants to speak to the peace and justice issues of our day with credibility, we will need to live out more radically our status as God’s children. We must really be, in fact, the peacemakers we are called to be. This goes for the church in all parts of the world, but most importantly, it is for all of us who are citizens of a nation which insists on being number one in the world.
After hearing my views on peace, a student leader in Spain asked me what I intended to do about paying taxes to support the armament race. I personally do not see how Christians can proclaim the gospel of peace with integrity while intentionally supporting America’s desire to be the number one military power. This contradiction is compounded when we realize that, in the eyes of the rest of the world, the United States is the great bastion of evangelical Christianity.
Things really began to heat up starting in the issue, which featured this commentary (I corrected the numbering of items 5–7, where the numbers were missing from the original, but there was some ambiguity so I might have gotten it wrong):
A testimony regarding the payment of war taxes
by Daniel Slabaugh
Editor’s Note: The question of war taxes has been a subject of discussion among Mennonites for years. It does not appear any nearer solution than before. Should we then cease discussing it? On the contrary, the issue is so important that we should listen to all who have insights, especially those who not only speak, but practice their convictions.
This is a blunt article, but I believe it is written with love. Can we receive it as such? See also the author’s personal note at the end of his article.
Introduction For years I have struggled with the knowledge that there are in our Mennonite Church many pastors, educators, theologians, seminary professors, and writers who have condoned, justified, and rationalized the payment of war taxes, even placating those whose tender consciences were bothering them every April 15.
Many times I have argued with the Spirit when confronted with the request that I witness against this inconsistency. I had good excuses too! Except for a year of junior college Bible at Eastern Mennonite College, my academic training has been in engineering and natural science. I can’t read Greek or Hebrew! How then could a non-seminary, practically illiterate nobody have any influence? These little dialogues were nearly weekly experiences (some more detailed), while driving the car, alone in the field, reading Scripture in sermon preparation, even in silent prayer.
Finally on , while husking corn, a terrible dread came over me. I stopped the husker right there in the middle of the field and shouted: “Okay God, if You want me to make a fool of myself. I’ll do it, I will, I will.” (No one heard me above the noise of the John Deere, else they might have questioned my sanity.) What a relief and joy I felt! I think I sang all the hymns I knew by heart the rest of the day!
It was my day off at the hospital, but that evening I was just “too tired” to “start anything,” and for two weeks I was just “too busy.” Always when I come home at 12:30 or 1:00 a.m. I fall asleep the minute I get to bed. Then one night I was wide awake! After an hour of tossing I finally got up, picked up my Bible and came down to the kitchen, dropped it on the table rather disgustedly, got a drink of water, and sat down. The Bible had fallen open and the first words I read were Ezekiel 3:20, 21. That did it for me! (Don’t bother to tell me that is not the proper way to read the Bible. I already know that; I’m just telling you what happened to me.)
I thought I should share these experiences with you so that you may know the motivation for this communication.
Come then, my brothers and sisters, let us reason together concerning the payment of war taxes!
The United States Internal Revenue Service has stated: “The IRS can only collect income taxes because of the voluntary cooperation of the citizens.” Let no one say that they voluntarily pay income taxes, because they have no choice. That is not true! The payment of war taxes is viewed by the government as voluntary cooperation; the final endorsement of their policies.
If you choose not to pay voluntarily, and make no other deduction arrangements, then the IRS will eventually try to collect in some other way. We have never paid war taxes and are now giving our entire farm to the church so that we will pay no income tax. It is costing us something. The burden of proof is upon you who approve of war taxes because it costs you nothing.
Now I know that many of our people are not in a position to do as we are doing, so I have with many others been working for seven or eight years to get the World Peaee Tax Fund passed. The only reason it has not passed and will not pass is because of lack of concern. United States senators and representatives have told us many times that except for the few of you, “There is no evidence that anyone else has any problem paying war taxes; so why are you bothering us with this bill?”
A highly educated theologian of our denomination said to me, “You can’t hang a guilt trip on me about war taxes, because we aren’t in a war.” Doesn’t everyone understand that this is a “Pay now, go later plan”? I doubt that we will ever again pay for a war during a war. When the atomic destruction comes it will be no consolation for the victims to remember that these atomic bombs were paid for by peace-loving Mennonites, not some terrible heathen Russians! If I should live to see that total destruction (may God spare me that) I will know that my own brothers and sisters in the faith have helped make it possible!
It has been pointed out to me that Menno Simons said “we should pay our taxes” as justification for paying war taxes today. Based on Menno’s life and teachings, how can anyone even suggest that he would voluntarily pay our war taxes? I don’t know how it would be possible to dishonor the man more than to hang that on him, when he was hunted like a criminal for things a whole lot less contradictory to Jesus’ life and teaching than voluntarily paying for killing!
In Luke 13:10–17, the ruler of the synagogue was correct in calling attention to the laws of the Sabbath. Sabbath observance was a good rule of conduct to obey, but when it interfered with meeting human need, Jesus demonstrated that meeting human need took precedence over Sabbath observance.
Now, suppose for the sake of comparison, I allow you to take Romans 13:1–7 as universally applicable for today’s world. Now you have the same difference that existed between Jesus and the Pharisees, namely literal observance of the law versus human good and well being. You are opting for the former (as the Pharisees did), but Jesus opted for the latter.
Even verses 8, 9, 10 of the same chapter make it impossible to obey verse 7 if “their dues” are whatever they ask, because today the payment of war taxes and loving my neighbor as myself are mutually exclusive!
Certainly Jesus would not view preparation to kill someone as the proper way to express God’s love.
Some of you say, “The Bible specifically says, ‘Pay your taxes,’ so that’s what I do and what the government does with it is not my responsibility.” That was the position of the church during Hitler’s extermination of the Jews, a position which some of you have criticized very severely even though to “be faithful” then was much more disastrous than to be so now. Personal responsibility is such a consistent principle throughout the Holy Scriptures that I should not need to belabor the point. Even the worldly legal system has affirmed personal responsibility regardless of government demands!
If you really behaved in such a simplistic literalism, then you ought to advocate hatred of parents, because Jesus Himself said that if you don’t hate your father and mother you can’t be His disciple. Since this is completely opposite to all His teachings, we know that He said that for comparison, for emphasis. In the same way, I wished to pay all my taxes (and always had) until doing so became completely contrary to the life of Christ!
Some of you argue, “The government will get the money anyway,” or “Withholding my war taxes won’t stop the arms race.” The exact same reasoning should put you into a military uniform! I could have reasoned (as many did) that if I didn’t go into the military, they would just get someone else to take my place. The day that I was drafted into Civilian Public Service, I didn’t really notice any lessening of hostilities! I didn’t take conscientious objector position because I thought it would be successful (nor is that why I am writing this). The words I want to hear from my Lord are: “Thou hast been faithful.”
Our citizens are told that all our “defense” (?) budget is to protect our life and property. (Even if I were in favor of that, I wouldn’t approve exceeding that by at least 25 times for the personal profit of special interests.) Some years ago a Mennonite bishop wrote in the Gospel Herald, “We shouldn’t criticize our government because they protect our property.” The logical honest extension of that is: “There is nothing more important than our property.” What could be more contrary to the essence of the gospel, or the faith of the Anabaptist martyrs? Didn’t Jesus specifically teach in Luke 9:24 that if your overriding concern is to save your life, then you will lose it? Certainly you can already see the beginning of the financial destruction of our country because of the irresponsible and insane spending of the military! How pathetic that the Mennonite Church, because of our worldview, our concept of discipleship, and our persecution history, could have been in the strength of the Holy Spirit, a powerful mover toward peace and sanity, but instead has become a farce instead of a force! History (if there will be any) will say of us as Jesus said of the Pharisees: “They say, but they do not.”
Is it any less a sin to kill someone than to ignore human need? If not, then it seems very appropriate to paraphrase 1 John 3:17 for today. “If any of you have this world’s goods and voluntarily allow some of it to be used to prepare to kill your brothers and sisters and to destroy all that God has made, how is it possible for the love and spirit of the God and Father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to dwell in a heart like that?”
What a horrifying possibility that any one might some day tell Jesus, “Haven’t we held many evangelistic meetings, preached many great sermons, written wonderful books, healed the sick, spoken in tongues, sang your praises with great fervor?” and Jesus will have to say to you, “Depart from me, ye workers of destruction!”
Have you ever considered this question: What effect will my being an accomplice to the American military have on our worldwide witness to God’s love and His saving power?
If I were an unbeliever in some Third World country and knew that “Christian America” is the only country that ever dropped an atomic bomb on a civilian population, and that “Christian America” supports and arms 42 repressive dictatorships in order to maintain the highest standard of living on earth for themselves, and that they sell six times more weapons of violence and destruction than any other country, and that the church justifies all that, I am sure that I would never want to become a Christian or have anything to do with such a God!
I fully expect that you will be able to put me down with theological arguments, or discredit me with a self-righteous application of Scripture taken out of context to justify and rationalize your position; but, at least, ask yourself this pragmatic question: If everyone did as I do, regarding war taxes, what difference would it make? If everyone (or even all so-called pacifists) would respectfully decline to pay for war, what difference would that make?
Why are Mennonites unable to take an official position against paying for war? Is it because we really don’t know what the truth is? Is it because we never had it so good and we don’t want to risk anything? Is it because we have become so acculturated, so affluent that we don’t want martyrs anymore. Do we much prefer millionaires now?
It is my firm conviction that, as far as God is concerned, the day that I pay war taxes I effectively discredit all that I have ever said, written, or given for the cause of peace!
The forces of evil do not care what you say, or how you pray as long as you pay!
A personal note, please: None of us is “off limits” to Satan’s deception! I therefore remind you of your responsibility to tell me if you believe that I have been misled in my search for the path of obedience!
Daniel Slabaugh is pastor of Ann Arbor (Mich.) Mennonite Church. He is a laboratory supervisor at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and has a farm as a hobby.
This prompted many responses, including:
I have only one point of disagreement with Mr. Slabaugh; that is the matter of paying our war taxes voluntarily. I pay taxes, but not voluntarily. I happily pay the portion of my taxes which go for human services and running the government (even if some is wasted), but I do not happily pay the portion that goes for military support. We have a Quaker friend who once “arranged” not to pay his war taxes and the IRS showed their “appreciation” by “arranging” for him to spend several months in prison. Some years ago, we refused to pay our telephone surcharge tax but later found that our checking account had been debited for that amount, which they claimed we owed. We then refused to pay that tax by having our telephone removed.
I would like to “arrange” not to pay war taxes, but the consequences for exercising that “freedom” would be too harsh for me at this Hme. I, therefore, pay my war taxes “under protest,” and may God have mercy.
Does a Christian have to pay all of his taxes? I don’t believe that he can be taxed on what he does not have; and I don’t see any compelling reason why a Christian should have to accumulate things just so as to pay more taxes. In fact, a Christian who in his work gathers a great amount of money to himself probably is doing more harm in participating in whatever is bringing him the money than is being done by whatever portion of the money is going to taxes.
But, what happens if we withhold part of the taxes on our incomes? If we do not pay all of the taxes, people who are employed by defense contractors and defense-related industries as well as military personnel may be thrown out of work. Unemployment will be a hardship to these people; it will be suffering caused by the actions of nonresistant Christians.
I should think that the appropriate method to be used by nonresistant Christians to close the defense plants would be to convert such a large part of the population to the discipleship of Christ that there would not be enough people remaining to man the defense plants. The fact that this is not now the case may very well be the fault of Christians, past and present, and not the fault of the defense workers.
Of course, the easy answer is to cause suffering to someone we don’t like so as to alleviate the suffering of someone we do; or to see the problem in terms of things (money and bombs) rather than people. We Christians are not to seek vengeance on the defense workers because of their production of bombs, but it seems easier to overcome evil with evil than to attempt to overcome evil with good. In this evil world we would like to keep just a little evil for our own use, just for self-defense.
We in our human fear forget that man has no more power to destroy himself than he has power, of himself, to draw his next breath. So we abandon the methods of Jesus Christ and allow Satan to win the decisive battle and so rob us of our share in the assured victory of Christ.
I found myself cheering enthusiastically when the article by Pastor Slabaugh on the payment of war taxes appeared… I hope there will be more and more freedom in church papers to deal with this up and coming concern.
Considerations of conscientious war-tax resistance point up some larger problems that we as the Mennonite Church live with but don’t necessarily resolve. These problems have to do not with the ample biblical teaching supportive of noncompliance with war support, but rather, with the lack of practical models as well as awareness of support resources and groups. These facilities would greatly enhance our ability to work out responsible individual witness stances. Several kinds of practical questions seem to emerge.
In the first place, what ranges of governmental receptiveness (especially IRS receptiveness) have been encountered by members of our faith and what constructive follow-up responses have we Mennonites explored after we are categorized as tax-evaders? Second, and more specifically, what kinds of deduction possibilities have been attempted and upon what rationale? Third, how may we relate the quality of committed Anabaptist peace perspectives to the degree we withhold tax dollars? Finally, what types of congregational support models have emerged and what growth has occurred in each process?
I seem to hear the Apostle Peter speaking across a vast expanse of time and firmly addressing not only a failing government but a growing church as well with a burning perspective — “One should obey God more than men” (Acts 5:29). Yes. Now how does it happen within the war-tax arena in practical terms?
There is much discussion about the war tax. Maybe we should also give some thought to the balance of our tax money. We can name the education tax, the research tax, welfare tax, road tax, regulatory tax, as a few. We can also identify the abortion tax, tobacco subsidy tax (although maybe this isn’t a concern since we accept the fact that a lot of grain goes to the liquor industry), the waste and fraud tax, and of course the congressman salary tax that pays the people that vote for the war tax. On the local scene we have others, including the state, county, and city police tax. I wonder if paying the tax for local law enforcement could be understood to say that we recognize that the state needs to carry a stick. Is it possible that it’s the church’s responsibility to decide how big that stick should be? All this gets somewhat complicated and confusing. It would be much simpler if taxes were just taxes.
Nonresistant Christians pay taxes
Jesus’ kingdom is one of testimony to truth, saving truth, truth that changes lives, truth that builds character. Caesar’s kingdom was one that used the sword to restrain evil and even to crucify the innocent.
And yet Jesus had told inquirers to show Him the coin used for paying taxes to Caesar.
Then He asked them, “Whose portrait is this? and whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
Jesus did not discuss what percent of the tax money was spent for soldiers or for war, even though He knew this. There was no implication in His teaching that taxes paid to Caesar should be called “war taxes” or that nonresistant Christians should try to avoid payment of such taxes because they knew they would be used for military purposes.
In reference to payment of specific taxes for support of the military enterprise such as were imposed by the Continental government in the time of the Revolution, one can understand that nonresistant Christians found themselves unable to pay them and especially so since it was revolutionaries who were asking for them — to subsidize their rebellion.
Then, too, one can understand the attitude of the nonresistant Hutterites in Moravia who were asked to pay a special war tax to support the war against the Turks in the 1500s. Peter Riedemann, their leader, said: “For war, killing, and bloodshed (where it is demanded especially for that) we give nothing but not out of wickedness or arbitrariness, but out of the fear of God (1 Tim. 5) that we may not be partakers in strange sins” (“Taxation,” The Mennonite Encyclopedia, p. 688).
I do not agree with Daniel Slabaugh that the federal income tax is a war tax, per se. His entire article is based on calling it that… However, it is a good thing to give one’s farm to the church (and so reduce one’s payment of a tax that is partly used for military purposes). But should such gifts be given to the church only to reduce payment of federal income tax? Would not a more scriptural reason be to help the church in its mission of testifying to the truth?
When I was a young man of 18, I was graciously healed from a critical attack of pneumonia, and I decided to devote my life to full-time service to the Lord, wherever and whenever He would want me to serve. For fifty years I have served in mission work or Christian school teaching on an income basis that took care of my needs (Phil. 4:19), but often exempted me from payment of federal income tax, especially if I was faithful in support of the Lord’s work and diligent to claim other exemptions and deductions.
But I do not call federal income tax a war tax, nor think I should promote nonpayment of it on this basis. Should others want to follow my example of devoting their lives and income to the Lord’s work I would encourage them to do so, not primarily to avoid payment of federal income tax, but in order to build Christ’s church on earth.
I think we need to watch that we don’t lose our salvation in going overboard in some subjects. I do appreciate a country where we have freedom of worship to our God. The best way to show our appreciation is to pay our taxes. To hold some back and refuse to pay, saying, “We don’t want to pay for war” is not the answer. How do you know that the remaining taxes you pay can also be put in the military? The taxes are for the government to use and it is theirs. The responsibility of how and where it is used is theirs also.
I have become increasingly aware of the fact that the issue of payment of war taxes is dividing the Mennonite Church. I have indeed found myself pulling for both sides at different times and I realize that much study in the Word of God is required.
As far as Daniel Slabaugh’s article… is concerned, he raised some very good questions and made us more aware of our need as a church to come together on this issue. I am not sure that our problems will go away by all of us turning our properties over to the church but I do believe Daniel made an honest response.
I’m not convinced that war taxes is the real issue. Right now this is the issue that is surfacing, but somehow I believe that God is speaking to all of us about how we use His money. We are living in an age where luxuries are now necessities, and giving is done when it is convenient. That doesn’t add up to the teachings in the New Testament at all.
My suggestion would be to try to live a simpler lifestyle. It is very obvious only those that make increasing amounts of money pay taxes. Could we lower our standard of living and give more thereby reducing our taxable income? My suggestion would include taking a look at the Macedonian church as Paul talks about them in 2 Cor. 8:1–7. He tells us that they have given as much as they were able and even beyond their ability. It would be good to learn a lesson from them. Also let’s look at what Paul says to the Corinthians in 2 Cor. 9:6–7: “Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (NIV).
Shall we tell our Caesar that he is wrong? Peter and Paul both said that we should submit to the authorities and that we should show them honor and respect. Since we live under a democracy instead of a dictatorship I would like to suggest that we show respect and honor to our president by sending him a message. No, not just a letter or a phone call, but a money message. You know, money speaks!
Let all Mennonites and any others that care to join them send their tax monies to the Mennonite General Board to forward to the IRS in one lump payment with the message, "We, the people, request these monies be used for people programs and none be used for military purposes.” That would be democratic and respectful, would it not?
Stop evading responsibility
On the eve of a new decade and of a new federal administration it would be well for the church to reflect on these words of Henry David Thoreau…
The implications of this statement for the Mennonite Church today are enormous. Most Americans, believing what the popular media and the government propaganda tells them, are not really aware of the dangerous path we are walking as we pile up arms and simultaneously arm other nations involved in active wars — both internal and international. Mennonites have been well informed for years about these things but have done far too little, even symbolically, to redress the imbalance. There is no excuse for this. When will the church recoil from the unavoidable fact that our taxes and our greed are destroying our brothers and sisters while we read these lines? When will we give a strong, clear “No” to the government’s growing demand for funds for war?
There remains but one immediate response that will suffice — that of voluntary poverty (living below the federal tax line) and personal service to those we have wronged. The list of places to work is staggering and growing longer: Somalia, Cambodia, Italy, Lebanon, the Persian Gulf, Bangladesh, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Brazil, Mississippi, the inner city, Appalachia…
Mr. Reagan proposes to cut taxes while increasing the war budget drastically. He knows there is a real economic crisis simmering in the U.S., yet is blind to the fact that our military dominated economy is the single greatest cause of inflation and unemployment. While he officially opposes the draft he wants more sophisticated instruments of mass slaughter, costing enormous amounts of money.
I call the Mennonite Church to stop evading responsibility and challenge her to stand up publicly, and by word and action, witness for peace and justice and a nation more ready to welcome the kingdom of God.
Refuse registration! Refuse war taxes!
Is one government ordained as much as another?
Taxes and the faithful church
Twenty years ago efforts to introduce ideas of war-tax refusal into the Mennonite church met with little response. Times have changed and Daniel Slabaugh’s “Testimony Regarding the Payment of War Taxes”… indicates how deeply we are now being challenged on this issue.
No one who endeavors to live in the spirit of Christ can feel easy while helping to finance the machinery of war. We all want to feel our lives are a consistent witness for the truth of Christ’s love and are, therefore, made increasingly uneasy as the testimony against war taxes gains currency within the church.
The standard method of reasoning, to put at ease those whose conscience has grown tender on this point, is to remind them that the government is ordained of God and that Christians, therefore, are to obey the government. (An exception to this reasoning is made in the case of personal military service. Having allowed this exception we must, it seems to me, allow that growth in moral sensitivity may well lead to further civil disobedience. )
What exactly does it mean to say “the government is ordained of God”? To approach this question we need to distinguish two levels of ordination. First, we hold the church to be ordained of God in a unique way, quite distinctly different in origin, character, and mission from other social institutions. Second, because God is the origin and sustainer of all life, it may be said that, in general, social institutions are ordained of God. Plainly, the idea of government being ordained of God belongs to the second level.
Now, it seems to me, that when someone argues that I must pay my taxes because the government is ordained of God, they are confusing the two levels. They are talking as if the government was as uniquely and as specifically ordained of God as the church. This is plainly not true, and a good many of our ancestors laid down their lives to avoid this confusion.
Government is born out of a human predisposition to organize and control. Slavery, being derived from the same human predisposition, may also be regarded as having once been ordained of God. Slavery evidently gave the apostle Paul no moral pause. He did not foresee that it would become intolerable to Ghristian morality. Nor did he foresee that governments would fall and rise through a wide variety of processes, including representative assemblies, constitutional conventions, force of arms, and subversive manipulation.
To regard all governments as somehow equally ordained of God is to sever the concern for social justice from its biblical mandate. A large talent for political naivety would be required to see the government visited on Uganda by Idi Amin and the government of Switzerland as equally legitimate.
It is possible to argue that one’s own government is “more ordained” than others, but such a self-serving view brings with it the whole baggage of civil religion, and ill befits the world-servant role to which we understand ourselves called. Governments may be ordained of God in some general naturalistic sense, but people who care about social justice and human well-being must judge whether they are legitimate or illegitimate.
Perhaps because Mennonites have a traditional aloofness from politics, the matter of legitimacy in government often seems poorly understood. I have seen it argued recently in the Mennonite press, and supported by biblical proof texts, that opposing the government on the war-tax issue is the same as opposing God.
It is important to understand that the political framework needed to support this argument is something very close to the “divine right of kings.” Why this antique political notion, deriving from ancient and medieval despotisms and seriously confusing church and state, should be used against the testimony of tax refusers in the Mennonite Church is, indeed, a curious matter. Perhaps others, better equipped than I, can delve lovingly into the motivations of this desperate argument.
Life in North America has been so good to our people that it is difficult to imagine Mennonites becoming an outlaw church on the issue of war taxes. Yet the teachings of Jesus and the demands of faithfulness, if taken seriously, plainly move us in that direction. The conviction that the faithful church must, at times, become an outlaw church should not be shocking to those acquainted with Anabaptist origins and history.
If we don’t draw the line at paying for nuclear weapons (or conventional weapons, for that matter), will we draw it at their use? Military planners no longer regard nuclear weapons as of deterrent use only. They are openly talking about a limited use of their offensive first-strike capacity.
What if a nuclear bomb had been dropped on Hanoi in an effort to end the war in Vietnam? What if the American government uses nuclear weapons to maintain access to Middle East oil? Would the church then draw the line and move into a position of active tax refusal? Or will we sit tight, no matter what the government does?
Is there any threshold of violence or oppression which the government might cross that would cause the Mennonite Church to advocate tax refusal?
“The teachings of Jesus and the demands of faithfulness, if taken seriously, plainly move us in that direction [of resisting taxes which may be used for military purposes],” writes Keith Helmuth…
Whatever teachings he has in mind, however, he neglects to identify. Of course, that is a common omission among Mennonite writers who advocate tax, draft, and other forms of “resistance” and “civil” disobedience. Bold assertions, sharp reasonings, and generalized allusions to Scripture. But, no direct quotes or citings of passages.
I feel the teachings of Jesus plainly move us in a direction radically different from tax resistance. I find those teachings in such places as Mt. 5:41 where Jesus is quoted as instructing those who would seriously seek the kingdom to, if forced to go a distance, continue on an additional distance.
It is my understanding that this teaching likely referred to the practice of the Roman army to conscript civilians, literally off the street, and force them to carry military supplies for perhaps a mile or so. From that it seems logical for me to conclude that Jesus did not even exclude forced assistance of the military (such as by taxes) from the compensatory love response he prescribed for those who are beaten, stolen from, forced to do things against their will.
Certainly the faithful church will often also face becoming an outlaw church. The Scripture makes that plain. But, search as I may, I can’t find any scriptural evidence that resisting taxes is something our Lord would call us to. Rather, I can only conclude tax resistance to be a symptom of the philosophy of those seeking a political kingdom and a social salvation through the exercise of earthly power.
It seems to me that it is only fair that Mennonite editors ask writers supporting tax resistance to document all supportive references found in Scripture for their points. I think we readers are by now quite familiar with their reasonings and rhetoric. If they have a scriptural basis, let’s hear it.
D.R. Yoder is correct. I cannot cite a specific teaching of Jesus on war tax refusal.
The case for war tax refusal, however, rests not on proof texts, but on the fact that Jesus introduced a profound moral vision, with an extraordinary potential for growth, into the stream of human consciousness. When Jesus was asked about the “greatest commandment” He replied: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
Starting from this masterly summation of spiritual life, faithfulness, it seems to me, depends on our growth in moral sensitivity and not on our ability to correctly analyze all the cultural idiosyncrasies to which Jesus was necessarily responding. Should we help finance the defoliation of our neighbor’s rice fields or the massacre of her family just because Jesus never had the occasion to comment on those situations? I think it entirely fair to say the “teachings of Jesus” move us away from such behavior.
It was recognized by the early Anabaptists that personal military service was seriously out of harmony with “the teachings of Jesus.” The refusal of state ordered military service is not a specific injunction of Jesus, but the growth in moral sensitivity which accompanied the Anabaptist movement drew out this inherent aspect of the gospel. The same process, apparently, kept the Anabaptist settlers in the New World from making use of readily available slave labor, though Jesus nowhere condemns the institution of slavery. It is this same growth in moral sensitivity, …which is now focusing the issue.
As for “seeking a political kingdom and a social salvation through the exercise of earthly power,” I doubt that very many who support the witness of war tax refusal have any such aspirations. “Political kingdoms” can only exist on the conscripted lives and resources of our communities and it is exactly this that tax refusal opposes. The concept of “social salvation” has, by now, lost even its nostalgia value. Our dreams are far more modest. We hope to avoid nuclear holocaust and keep the planet habitable. We want the resources now being wasted in military budgets to help feed, house, and clothe the poor of the world. This is not “social salvation.” It is only good sense and common decency.
One final note: The issue of war tax refusal is one that all persons have to weigh in the balance against all the other important factors in their lives. Judge not is the rule here. What makes no sense from the standpoint of a growing family might come to make good sense after 50.
Our lofty discussion is probably beside the point. If we could see the anguish that brings people to the point of tax refusal we would be inundated with images of napalm and herbicides raining down on Vietnam, families massacred in El Salvador, and the chilling vision of the neutron bomb grinning over empty cities.
All our rhetoric, all our proof texts stagger and fall in the face of a dead child and screaming mother with helicopters thundering overhead. The crucifixion of Christ’s flesh is ever before us. Our sins roll across the landscape. We do what we must and pray for strength.
In the Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries board of directors met. Among their decisions:
In harmony with the General Board action to support the General Conference Mennonite Church in their judicial challenge of the collecting of taxes by church agencies, the board acted to encourage staff “to publicize among our congregations the issues involved in the judicial action and the need for funds for this purpose.”
The organizers of the Smoketown Consultation (which was in part a conservative Eastern Mennonite backlash against war tax resistance and other innovations) met again in in what was called the “Berne consultation.” This time, however, according to Gospel Herald: “Little attention at Berne was given to war taxes, a dominant theme at Smoketown…”
A article on the anti-nuclear movement in Netherlands noted:
…neither the Mennonite Church nor the IKV feels comfortable with individual radical action. Example: Dirk Visser, a Dutch Mennonite journalist working for the equivalent of the Associated Press wire services in the Netherlands, called my attention to Willem-Jan Maas, a Mennonite minister serving in Opeland. This minister tried to funnel what he considered the war-taxes portion of his income tax to the Dutch Mennonite Peace Group via the local income tax office.
This effort was fraudulently aborted by the tax officers, but even had it been successful, the minister would not have been applauded by the IKV, according to Visser. The IKV has taken the political action route and with that the churches can cooperate.
In a Peace Tax Fund-boosting article in the issue, it was noted that war tax resisters acted as the “bad cop” to the “good cop” of lobbyists: “[David] Bassett and others cited the ‘inconvenience factor’ of current war tax resistance to the IRS as further incentive for change in the tax laws.”
Richerd Lewman, Jr. went back on the offensive with a forceful rebuttal of Christian war tax resistance for the issue:
Was Jesus a Hypocrite?
To accept the statements that justify the nonpayment of war taxes is to accept the statement that Jesus was a hypocrite.
After reading much about the war-tax issue and listening to much discussion, both pro and con, I wanted to find out more about the issue, so that I could take a stand consistent with God’s teachings. I read all that I could that justified not paying taxes. Then I read as much as possible justifying the payment of taxes. Both of these included much Bible reading and prayer. I then did a lot more praying and asking God to guide me to what his truth is. He led me to more reading and research.
After all of this, I was led to only one conclusion. If we believe Jesus taught that we should not pay taxes to a government in the process of or planning to slaughter people, then Jesus was a hypocrite because he paid his taxes. If Jesus was a hypocrite, because he taught one thing and did another, then Jesus sinned and he was not the unblemished lamb suitable to die for our sins. So there cannot be salvation through him.
The first point made by those who would condone, even encourage, the nonpayment of war taxes, is that income tax is voluntary, because it requires citizen cooperation and to pay it is to agree with the government’s policies. Using this same line of thinking we could say that all laws are voluntary, and to obey them is to agree with them. I may not agree that I should not drive any faster than 55 miles per hour, but if I decide not to obey the law I will be penalized for it. If I pay my taxes I do not necessarily agree with how my tax money is spent. But I still must pay.
A second point that is made is that the personal responsibility of loving my neighbor comes before the law. I agree. But, I ask this question. What were some of Jesus’ actions and how did they coincide with his teachings? Many instances of civil disobedience and tax evasion have been justified using Jesus’ teachings. I feel that his teachings are removed from their context if they are not in agreement with the example of his perfect life. Do we read in the Bible that Jesus went to Rome to picket in front of the Senate about the atrocities committed against Jerusalem. Do we find Jesus lobbying to have the Roman troops withdrawn from the temple, or for the exemption of the Jews from paying the many taxes levied on them largely for the support of the bloodthirsty Roman army? Or do we find Jesus not paying his war taxes? The answer to each of these questions is a very clear “No!”
But wait, you say it was different back then. Was it?
They say that we must not pay our taxes, in order to make a witness, since we as Mennonites are not drafted anymore. Well, the Jews in Jesus’ time were not drafted either. They say they did not have conscription back then. Wrong. Conscription dates back to the earliest civilization. They say that our government needs our money more than our bodies. Well, the Roman government needed money, because many of the soldiers were professionals and they fought for the money. They say today we have the atom bomb, the most destructive war machine ever devised by man, up to this time. Back then it was the Roman army, the most destructive and bloodthirsty war machine ever devised by man, up to that time.
How do we know that Jesus paid his taxes? The Tribute Coin referred to by Jesus was a coin used to pay the poll tax which had to be paid by every male person, ages 14–65, and by females, ages 12–65. If Jesus had not paid his tax, would not the Pharisees and Sadducees have brought this to the attention of Pilate when Jesus was before him, since they were looking for something to convict him of?
If you say that Jesus’ teachings are that we should not pay our war taxes, I cannot accept this. I believe that Jesus was the perfect example of the Christian life and that his life was consistent with his teachings and that he was not a hypocrite. If Jesus paid taxes to the government of his time, then I can do no less. In fact, I must pay those taxes if I am to be in accordance with Jesus’ life and teachings.
You say that we must follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. I agree, but how do we discern the leading of the Holy Spirit? We must go to the Bible. If the Bible and Jesus’ example contradict what we thought was the leading of the Holy Spirit, then it can’t be the leading of the Holy Spirit. The leading of the Holy Spirit, if it is authentic, will always agree with the life and teachings of Jesus.
You ask. Why doesn’t the Mennonite Church take an official position against payment of war taxes? I ask you. How can we take an official position condemning something that Jesus did? I am in no position to question Jesus’ actions!
If we are to be consistent about not paying our war taxes because we disagree with their purpose, then let’s stop paying that portion of our taxes that goes for abortion and subsidizes the tobacco industry. But then, why not withhold our property taxes if the schools teach evolution or sex education? Once the pattern of nonpayment as protest is begun, there will be no logical place to stop.
Jesus taught us to pay our taxes and his example showed us we must do the same. If I am to be a Christian and desire Jesus to say to me someday, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” then I can do no less than pay my taxes.
A letter from Elvin Glick fired just about every arrow from the traditionalist quiver: “there is no such thing as a war tax” — “The government has a right to its armies and police forces.” — “Governments have a right to levy taxes.” — Render unto Caesar, two kingdoms, go the extra mile, Romans 13, Jesus & Paul never resisted their governments, war taxes are different from military service, etc.
In the Mennonite Church held its churchwide delegate meeting. Gospel Herald reported:
[One extreme of the feedback:] In 22½ hours of business sessions, 266 delegates who answered the roll call “dragged their feet in giving women equal leadership opportunities in the church, in speaking with a clear voice on nuclear armaments and war taxes, and in preparing a relevant and up-to-date confession of faith.”
In their business sessions delegates… in the longest discussion of the week — struggled with how to realize reconciliation with a delegate who denounced them for continuing to pay war taxes.
Most of the floor discussion centered in the letter to President Reagan… “There’s an unfortunate philosophy behind this letter,” said James Hess, Bethel, Pa. “It’s that because I’m a Christian, I’m qualified to advise the government how to go about its business. That goes against our historic doctrine of the separation of church and state.”
Said Dan Slabaugh, Whitmore, Mich.: “The president will laugh when he reads this letter — if he reads it at all. He’ll laugh because he knows that every payday we disavow what we say when we continue to pay our taxes for war.”
A sidebar to that article read:
A prophetic voice?
How does the assembly process minority viewpoints? That became the focus in an intense discussion engaging assembly delegates for 2½ hours beyond their scheduled closing time in the final business session.
Impetus for the discussion came when Dan Slabaugh, Whitmore Lake, Mich., asked permission to make a four-minute statement on a concern of his. He confronted delegates with their failure to back up their sentiments about peace, as stated in their letter to President Reagan, with their actions. “Why do you continue to pay taxes that go for war purposes?” he asked. “The religious community in America could stop the arms buildup if it wanted to; I can’t understand why this doesn’t excite us.”
Slabaugh reported he had wanted to put two motions on the floor but had been advised by assembly leaders not to. (Later discussion revealed one motion would have called delegates to acknowledge that paying war taxes was sin but that they planned to continue doing so anyway; the other would have called for all Mennonites to stop paying war taxes immediately.) In frustration Slabaugh concluded: “I joined the Mennonite Church because of its stand on peace and nonresistance. I will leave it for the same reason.” He then walked off the assembly floor to participate in a seminar on war taxes.
In subsequent discussion, many delegates voiced concern about the incident and called for reconciliation to be effected between Slabaugh and assembly leaders. There was also discussion on how the assembly can hear a prophetic word and what is the process by which it is determined whether or not a minority opinion is prophetic.
After long discussion, delegates approved a motion which (1) made Slabaugh’s concerns about war taxes a part of the official record of the assembly; (2) asked the Council on Faith, Life, and Strategy to bring proposals to the next assembly for dealing with the war tax issue and for discerning “prophetic voices”; (3) called for immediate steps to be taken to bring about reconciliation between Slabaugh and the assembly.
This led to a letter to the editor from Betty Ann Keener in which she asked: “If the Bible says in three different passages to pay our taxes, why do we even question it?”
The issue carried this report:
Number of taxpayers protesting arms race “minuscule,” IRS says
For Suzanne Polen, a part-time research microbiologist in Pittsburgh, President Reagan’s recent decisions to increase arms spending mean that she will no longer pay that portion of her taxes she says would fund national defense. “The government is buying weapons which will eventually kill me,” said the 45-year-old tax protester. Instead of paying her full tax bill to the government, she plans to deposit about 50 percent of the money into the newly created Pittsburgh Fund for Life, which describes itself as a peace and justice ministry.
Since the Vietnam War ended, Wildon Fadely of the Internal Revenue Service said, the number of those who have withheld taxes to protest Pentagon activities has been “minuscule.” The category is so small that no separate records are kept, he added. But he admitted his general impression was the “protests of all kinds are on the rise.”
A conservative Anabaptist conference on “Basic Biblical Beliefs” was held in . Among its concerns for the church: “There is a growing alignment with ‘leftist elements’ who advocate civil disobedience, demonstrations, and nonpayment of taxes used for military purposes.”
Driving that point home, in the readers would see “An open letter to our brothers and sisters within the Mennonite, Mennonite Brethren, Brethren in Christ, and General Conference Mennonite Church(es)” that read in part:
We call for acts of tax resistance to be undertaken since our federal income taxes fuel the arms race. We suggest giving funds denied for use in building nuclear weapons to groups working for peace and disarmament, and to groups meeting human needs.
The Mennonite Central Committee’s Peace Section (U.S.) held its assembly in .
Jim Longacre, Peace Section chairman, brought a statement of concern to the group for possible adoption. After the document was criticized for not being specific enough, the group moved to add a paragraph on the war tax issue. Although there was some dissent regarding the usefulness of a statement (one person noted: “It’s easier to assent to a piece of paper than to be accountable”), and the initial voting process was confused and had to be repeated, the majority of the participants approved the statement.
That section of the statement read:
We were repeatedly reminded in this Assembly that the conscription of our income supports the nuclear arms race. Moreover, we saw that the government is increasing expenditures for nuclear and other weapons by decreasing expenditures for human services for the poor and oppressed. We encourage people to consider ways to witness against this evil use of the power of taxation, such as refusing to pay the military portion of the federal income tax.
The issue brought this news:
Episcopal bishop hits arms race, but doesn’t accept withholding tax
Episcopal Bishop Robert H. Cochrane of Olympia, Wash., while denouncing the worldwide buildup of nuclear arms, stopped short of condoning a tax revolt as did his Roman Catholic counterpart.
“Please know that I shall continue to pay to my government every penny of my income tax, but at the same time every penny that I save under our president’s new tax plan I shall give away to meet the needs of the poor and uncared for,” Bishop Cochrane said in his annual address to the diocesan convention. “I invite you to do the same.”
Bishop Cochrane’s diocese covers western Washington, the same area taken in by the archdiocese of Catholic Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen of Seattle. The archbishop has become a rallying point for a growing anti-nuclear movement among leaders of nearly a dozen denominations in the Pacific Northwest.
Archbishop Hunthausen has said that people would be morally justified in refusing to pay 50 percent of their income taxes in nonviolent resistance to nuclear “murder and suicide.” He also said he favors unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Truman H. Brunk, Jr., snuck a war tax resistance message into his article “Disarmed by his peace”:
Neither can Christians hide their eyes from the evil insanity of the arms race. Christ came to signal peace on earth, not preparation for war. Christ’s peace means that we cannot participate in the crime of preparation for nuclear war. The obedience of Christians to their government is not absolute and unconditional. We need the courage to avoid adding even a particle of evil to our broken creation. How long can good Mennonites pray for peace and pay for nuclear readiness with our tax dollars?
And to finish off the year, an article on the Ames Mennonite Fellowship in the issue included this news about organized war tax resistance there:
[T]here are three things God is doing in Ames, Iowa… [including] the formulation of guidelines for a war tax alternative fund.
[Ames Mennonite Fellowship] is taking the lead in establishing a war tax alternative fund for persons in the Ames area who are conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for war. In , AMF took formal action to establish the fund. Since then, some $300 has been contributed to it. On seven persons gathered and drew up guidelines for participation in the fund.
In brief, the group determined that contributors to the fund need to pay “an equivalent to the amount actually withheld from Internal Revenue Service.” Participants are expected to sign a “statement of purpose and guidelines” at the time of the first deposit. Keith Schrag, Dan Clark, and other AMF participants in the fund welcome questions and counsel from the broader church in this matter.
This is the twenty-third 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.
Here’s how Larry Cornies of the Gospel Herald reported on the negotiations between the General Conference Mennonite Church and the IRS (the Mennonite Church, with which Gospel Herald was associated, was supporting the General Conference action but from a bit of a distance):
Conference, IRS fail to reach administrative solution to tax withholding problem
Representatives of the General Conference Mennonite Church and the Internal Revenue Service failed to reach an 11th-hour compromise at a meeting in Washington on which would have averted a suit by the 63,000-member denomination against the government agency.
IRS officials at the meeting denied that there was any administrative solution to the conference’s complaint that it must withhold the income taxes of its employees, thereby acting as a tax collector for the state. The denomination has argued, and will argue in a forthcoming judicial action, that the IRS requirement violates the concept of separation of church and state as embodied in the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.
“The 45-minute meeting was cordial, but unproductive,” said Vem Preheim, general secretary for the conference. “We outlined our concerns about the withholding issue as a historic peace church and described the problem which the IRS requirement poses for us.”
William Ball, the conference’s attorney in the matter, then formally asked members of the IRS’s special working group on withholding issues whether there was any way to exempt the General Conference from the problematic requirement.
Nancy Schuhmann, who chairs the special group, stated that the IRS must abide by its codes of operation and would not be able to offer an exemption on tax withholding to the conference. IRS officials Susan Cunningham and Gail Libin were also present for the discussions.
In light of the results of the meeting, attorney Ball will complete the preparation of the conference complaint and submit the brief to a U.S. district court after one last check to make sure all administrative possibilities have been exhausted.
The General Conference’s General Board was authorized to initiate a judicial action on the tax withholding question at an international gathering of the conference membership at Estes Park, Colo., in .
More than a year earlier, on , delegates to a special midtriennium conference session instructed the General Board to “use all legal, legislative, and administrative avenues for achieving[”] conscientious objector exemption to the tax withholding requirement.
John J. Hostetter, Jr. attacked the new war tax resistance craze in a commentary titled “Render unto Caesar”:
In the , issue of the Gospel Herald, the forms of protest on nuclear weaponry advocated by MCC, Peace Section, include the following, “We call for acts of tax resistance to be undertaken since our federal income taxes fuel the arms race. We suggest giving funds denied for use in building nuclear weapons to groups working for peace and disarmament, and to groups meeting human needs.”
Such statements are damaging and completely misleading. It gives the impression to the uninformed that an option for taxpayers is withholding part of their tax liability and sending it somewhere of their own choosing. Rather, the choice is whether one pays his tax or whether he pays his tax plus penalty and interest. The only other possibility at present is fraud for deliberately not reporting income, which is even more serious.
Pick and choose from the budget? Most ethical and religious protestors base their action on the notion that one can pick and choose in the budgetary items of the government, as a shopper at a department store. It is implied that taxes are a voluntary contribution to the government by its citizens and therefore, if they don’t like the way the money is spent, they can withhold the part of the contribution they don’t like.
The courts have long ago settled this also. There is a classic quotation from Judge Learned Hand, “Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich and poor, and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands; taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions.”
While one can so arrange his affairs to pay as little as possible within the law, this does not imply the right to pay the part one likes and refuse the rest any more than one can dictate how the groceryman uses the money paid for groceries. Once the tax liability is assessed, it is no longer the taxpayer’s money. Otherwise very few would pay any taxes since we all feel we have better ways to spend money than the way the government spends it.
Some object to the defense budget, while others feel just as strongly about the welfare program. Although far less than one tenth of one percent of church people protest taxes to the point of refusing to voluntarily pay all of their taxes without confiscation, yet probably a high percentage of Christians as well as non-Christians would opt to send their tax money to a “Peace Fund” were that option available. At present it is not. Perhaps in the future the Congress may grant such an election in much the same way that taxpayers can direct $1 of their taxes to the presidential election campaign. Even if such were possible, it wouldn’t change the size of the budget for defense.
In the Waitzkin case of , the court said that conscientious objectors couldn’t withhold 50 percent of their tax on the basis of “war crimes” deduction. Neither religious beliefs nor international law relieve citizens of tax liability. Tax is neutral on religious matters and is imposed on all citizens, even though each may object to some specific governmental expenditure on religious grounds.
Likewise in the McDade case, the “war crimes” deduction was disallowed. The taxpayer’s belief that the government shouldn’t force its citizens to participate in taking of lives didn’t relieve her of an obligation to pay tax. In another case, the taxpayer’s deduction for “conscientious objection to military expenditures” was denied and the negligence penalty imposed. Military protest deduction wasn’t permitted under the code. Taxpayer lacked standing to contest military expenditures of the government. (Reimer) In the Van Tol case, the war tax credit was denied; sincerity of the taxpayer’s objection to war didn’t excuse the tax liability.
The government gets the money. A few observations could be made. First, such protestations, as sincere as they are, are not accomplishing what may be the desire of the protest, in that the government ends up with more, not less, money for undesirable purposes as a result of the protest. Not only will the tax be collected, but penalty and interest as well. (The average increase is $207 for penalty alone.)
Second, in the case of war or defense, not one cent less will be spent for bullets, bombs, or battleships because of the protest. Tax money which we might earmark for Cambodian Relief, as good as that might be, only means other money out of the same treasury is used for what the Congress believes is necessary for national defense, and if that is not enough, the government will simply borrow what it needs. One who thinks that such a fund will change the size of national defense has only a superficial method of salving his conscience.
Third, Internal Revenue agents, with (against) whom I have worked, openly joke at such protest tactics. Regardless of the agents’ own personal views on the use of tax money, which all citizens agree leaves much to be desired, they as public servants must go and collect the tax whether it is from an impoverished taxpayer, a religious protestor, or a fraudulent evader. Thus all that is accomplished is a reduction in efficiency and an increase in the cost of collection in the tax system. The Revenue Service doesn’t make the laws; Congress does. A much more valid approach is correspondence with those in Congress responsible for the present law and who have the power to change it. Certainly the revenue agents have no jurisdiction over setting up the national budget.
Internal Revenue agents deserve our respect. They are, with some exceptions, well trained and conscientious, doing a job necessary to insure compliance and integrity in the tax system. (After all, Jesus selected one as one of his disciples. While he wasn’t the star of the show, he certainly wasn’t the villain either.)
It would be interesting to know what percentage of church people have ever written to their congressman expressing their concern on militarism. The percentage would probably increase if names and addresses of congressmen were available on church bulletin boards with sample letters for those who want some positive ways to express their concerns.
I cringe when reports come out in the paper of tax protestors who have been convicted of tax evasion on religious grounds with a byline that they are Mennonites, with the implied impression that this is a belief of such churches. Mennonites do not believe that. Editors of newspapers and periodicals should be corrected when it is implied. The vast majority of Christians believe such a stance to be unscriptural teaching.
This prompted a series of letters to the editor in response:
The failure of the General Conference Mennonite Church to reach an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service… should come as no surprise. Furthermore, if the case goes to court the winner can be predicted with a considerable degree of assurance. It will be Attorney Ball in collecting his fee. It is to be hoped that our church does not emulate the unenviable position in which that church now finds itself. It can hardly back down without swallowing its pride and cannot push forward with any hope of success in the untenable stance it is taking. The constituency should scream at using so much funds on such a case.
The requirement of the service to withhold taxes and forward them to the government is nothing new. It has been on the books for more than a generation. If they had not signed the waiver on Social Security taxes, they would have more of a leg to stand on. They can’t have it both ways.
The issue included an editorial, “As for taxes…”, from Daniel Hertzler. There wasn’t much meat there. It talked around the subject for the most part, though it did mention Hertzler’s own dipping-his-toes-in: “For a time I resisted the telephone tax, but then I gave up. Perhaps I was a little overly impressed by the threatening form letters which began to come from the Internal Revenue Service. Also, tax refusal seemed like a form of revolution. As an orderly Mennonite, revolution is not my style.”
That prompted Art Landis to shoot back in the issue with a letter to the editor taking Hertzler to task for romanticizing earlier generations who “had no compassion for the slave or the prisoner. I believe the state could have constructed concentration camps and gas ovens next to their meetinghouses and they would not have protested.”
Hubert Schwartzentruber worried that the much-fought-over statements of policy on Mennonite peacemaking might prove to be pyrrhic victories, in his discussion of the "Peacemaking" statement approved at the General Assembly:
Good statements can have a reverse and negative effect… The statement can serve to immunize us and keep us from action. We have resolved our guilt by preparing another statement. This statement calls for a radical change of lifestyle. Guilt and inner conflict are not as easily laid aside as this statement might indicate. Wrestling with the complex issues of peace does not successfully reduce inner conflict. What would really happen if “the old self that lives for self dies”? We call into judgment economic systems that keep millions poor when we ourselves are very deeply rooted in that economic system. We denounce wars, but no consensus can be reached regarding applying the same biblical understanding to paying for the hardware of war as we have for giving of our bodies for war.
[A]t Bowling Green when a brother expressed his concern over the assembly’s failure to deal with the question of obedience as it relates to payment of taxes for war. Even though long discussion followed, business proceeded very much as usual…
The question that comes to my mind is whether we indeed should make statements such as these when we know well enough that the very structures of our institutions would be shattered if we attempted to live out the text of the statement.
This news came from the issue:
Lutheran pacifists urge co-religionists to act on antiwar tax challenge
Responding to Seattle Catholic Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen’s call for a tax revolt against the nuclear arms race, Lutheran pacifists have urged co-religionists to join the protest, redirecting the money to the poor. “We shall act on Bishop Hunthausen’s encouragement to resist a percentage of our federal income tax that is symbolic of allocations made to the military,” said the New York-based Lutheran Peace Fellowship, an independent intra-Lutheran group which works with the International Fellowship of Reconciliation.
“We will no longer offer our tax dollars for a nuclear military that affronts the lordship of Jesus. Instead, we choose to redirect resisted tax dollars to the poor of our country and of our world.”
Conscientious tax resisters who were hoping the courts would find a place for them in the U.S. Constitution were disappointed (Levi Miller reporting):
Supreme Court rules on Amish Social Security payment
Amish employers and employees cannot invoke their religious beliefs to avoid paying Social Security and federal unemployment taxes, the Supreme Court ruled on .
The unanimous decision overturned a western Pennsylvania judge’s ruling that forcing the Amish to pay such taxes violates their freedom of religion.
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said, “The design of the [Social Security] system requires support by mandatory contributions from covered employers and employees.”
The controversy arose when the internal Revenue Service informed Edwin Lee, an Old Order Amish carpenter from Lawrence County, Pa., that he owed some $27,000 in back taxes. Lee had not paid any Social Security taxes for himself or his employees since . He also had not withheld such taxes.
It was noted in the ruling that Congress has already provided for a tax exemption that covers self-employed Amish, such as farmers. The Amish believe that the church and the family should take care of the elderly and do not withdraw the government funds at old age.
John A. Hostetler, a professor at Temple University and member of the Plains Mennonite Church, commented on the ruling by saying that although “it is a blow for religious liberty in general, in the long run it is better for the Amish to pay it. If they were exempt, it would create jealousy.”
Hostetler said he did not know how many of these small shops would be involved. “It will mean more paperwork for them,” he concluded.
A follow-up by Phil Shenk explained the consequences for war tax resisters:
Court decision hits tax resistance hard
The U.S. Supreme Court indirectly referred to the issue of war tax resistance and the World Peace Tax Fund in its ruling, denying an Amish employer exemption from paying and collecting Social Security taxes.
The unanimous decision, plus the arguments employed by the court, may also have diminished the prospects for success in the General Conference Mennonite Church’s case asking for an employer’s exemption from collecting federal-military income taxes for the government.
In the Amish case, Amishman Edwin Lee had refused to withhold Social Security taxes from his Amish employees’ paychecks and failed to pay the employer’s share of their Social Security taxes, claiming that doing so would violate his and his employees’ First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion. Lee said the Amish believe it is sinful not to provide for their elderly and needy themselves and therefore are opposed to the national social security system.
Unlike the celebrated case, in which the Supreme Court granted the Amish an exemption from Wisconsin’s compulsory school-attendance law based on their free exercise of religion rights, the Supreme Court here held that the government’s interest should overrule the religious rights of the individual because it would be difficult for the Social Security system to accommodate the “myriad exceptions flowing from a wide variety of religious beliefs.”
In ruling that Amishman Lee’s First Amendment religious rights must “yield to the common good,” the Supreme Court raised the issue of conscientious objectors’ refusal to pay taxes that go for what the court called “war-related activities.” The court said it could not see any difference between Lee’s refusal to pay Social Security taxes and the position of one who refuses to pay war taxes.
“If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax.”
The problem with this, the court said, is that “[t]he tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.”
In a very broad statement that implicitly referred to religious conscientious objection to federal-military income taxes as well as Social Security taxes, the court revealed its basic rule: “Because the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such a high order, religious belief in conflict with the payment of taxes affords no basis for resisting the tax.”
The court did recognize that Congress has passed a constitutionally sound law that exempts Amish who are self-employed from paying Social Security taxes. But it held that taxes imposed on employers “must be uniformly applicable to all, except as Congress provides explicitly otherwise.” Because Congress has not exempted Amish employers or their employees from Social Security taxes, the court refused to honor their religious rights over the interests of the nation as a whole.
Before Congress, in the proposed World Peace Tax Fund legislation, is explicit language that would “exempt” conscientious objectors from paying war taxes and instead divert their taxes to peaceful governmental activities. If passed, this might provide the authority the court has implied it needs before it will honor the rights of war tax objectors.
A Mennonite lawyer, John Yoder, is working as one of several assistants to Chief Justice Burger, the author of the opinion striking down Amishman Lee’s free exercise of religion rights. Burger’s Mennonite aide is originally from Hesston, Kan.
The decision was so gratuitously dismissive of conscientious tax refusal that the General Conference Mennonite Church decided to halt its legal action, on :
In the light of a negative judgment rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court against an Amish employer on , the General Conference’s judicial action committee has recommended to the denomination’s General Board that a planned suit against the IRS on the issue of tax withholding “be put on indefinite hold.” The committee’s decision came at the end of a conference call with William Ball, who has been preparing the case on behalf of the church group over the past year. During the telephone meeting, Ball indicated that, considering the Supreme Court ruling in the case IRS vs. Lee, the General Conference would almost certainly lose its case.
In a cover story in the issue Donald B. Kraybill proposed some ideas on what to do about the threat of nuclear war. Idea #10 was “Refuse to pay some of your federal income taxes as a witness to your faith. If you’re scared, try a small amount like $7.77. If that’s too scary, at least send a letter describing the difficulty of praying for peace and paying for war. Those who pay taxes without sending such a letter are quietly condoning and supporting the nuclear arms buildup.”
Raymond Hunthausen’s war tax resistance, which had been alluded to earlier, was covered in a brief note:
Catholic prelate in Seattle will give half of U.S. tax to charity as arms protest
Seattle Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen announced that he will withhold half of his income tax to protest “our nation’s continuing involvement in the race for nuclear arms supremacy.”
“As Christians imbued with the spirit of peacemaking expressed by the Lord in the Sermon on the Mount, we must find ways to make known our objections to the present concentration on further nuclear arms buildup,” the archbishop told 300 peace activists attending a meeting at Notre Dame University.
In the issue, Ivan H. Stoltzfus felt compelled to write in to explain “Why I pay taxes.” The standard set of bible verses were deployed to explain that worldly goods are at the disposal of worldly governments; Rome’s government was no better than ours, so Paul’s advice in Romans 13 still holds; besides, it’s impossible to determine what percentage of your taxes are objectionable, so you might as well pay the whole thing. Still, Stoltzfus wrote, if there were a Peace Tax Fund law, he’d go along with it.
Rob Sauder, in the issue, pointed out that it’s silly to act as though when Jesus gave his “Render unto Caesar” answer he was merely saying “yes: pay all your taxes.” After all, that’s not how his interrogators interpreted it at the time.
Another Catholic war tax resister was in the news in that issue:
Iowa priests’ senate votes support for lay minister’s anti-war fight against IRS
A senate of priests in Iowa has voted to support a Catholic lay minister who refuses to pay his federal income taxes as a protest against the nuclear arms race.
The resolution approved by the representative group of priests in the Dubuque Catholic archdiocese says they commend Tom Cordaro and St. Thomas Aquinas parish at Ames for their courageous stand relative to the payment of taxes for military and nuclear armaments.
Mr. Cordaro, 27, has held back most of his income taxes because he believes it would be a sin to contribute money for nuclear weapons. The parish council at St. Thomas Aquinas has refused to honor an order by the Internal Revenue Service to turn over Mr. Cordaro’s wages to satisfy the $828 tax debt.
Dan E. Hoellwarth made another attempt to defang Romans 13 in the issue. According to him, the description of government in that chapter should be seen as prescriptive, not descriptive, and is meant to restrict which sorts of governments Christians owe allegiance to: “what if the leaders are not acting in accordance with Scripture?” “Obviously we should pay taxes… However…”
The Catholic war tax resisters were back again in the issue:
Berrigan will take church stand on A-arms seriously when its leaders go to jail
The Catholic peace advocate Daniel Berrigan says he will take the church’s anti-nuclear arms movement seriously “when we have a few bishops in jail.[”] Berrigan, who is appealing a 3–10 year prison sentence for breaking into a Pennsylvania nuclear plant, spoke to some 200 students and faculty members at Fordham University.
The Jesuit priest said this “unparalleled threat to our survival” has made civil disobedience — such as demonstrations and withholding federal income taxes — a necessary component of the anti-nuclear movement.
He said he was encouraged by the fact that the American church hierarchy no longer engages in “cold-war” rhetoric, and that the peace movement has made some strides. But he added that the church, like the rest of the anti-nuclear movement, has only “moved the diameter of a dime” toward serious opposition to the arms race.
And the Methodists turned up too:
Giving to the poor in lieu of to the IRS
A Methodist pastor and wife in Portland, Oregon, withheld $1500 from their U.S. income taxes. They turned $1,000 of the money into $5 bills and gave them to persons they found in line at the state of Oregon employment service.
According to the United Methodist John and Pat Schwiebert “clipped [a note] to each $5 bill explaining that the couple was withholding a portion of their tax ‘because we cannot in good conscience do nothing while income we have earned is used by our government to plan and carry out the killing of human beings…’ ”
Linda & Titus Peachey penned a poignant reflection on the still-ongoing bloodshed and destruction caused by the American war in Southeast Asia for the issue:
After nearly a year in Laos, we feel a bit of fire brewing in our bones. Surely, we think, the church can offer an alternative and a “no” to the militarism and violence that is increasingly manifested around the world. Surely we have a responsibility to end such suffering. Yet, as we turn to our church papers (which we read avidly even though they arrive 4 to 5 months late) we find that much of the discussion on peacemaking, including war-tax resistance, seems to focus on the interpretation of certain biblical passages. While it is important that these passages shape our thoughts and direct our lives, it seems that too much time is spent fine-tuning favorite arguments in comfortable, safe settings, far removed from the cries of those who suffer. We wonder, for example, how well our arguments would stand up if the bombing which occurred in many areas of Laos had instead destroyed our own communities in Kansas, Ohio, or Manitoba.
The oil lamps burned late into the night when we visited the village. The day before a Lao woman, the mother of 11 children, was killed when her hoe struck a small anti-personnel bomblet that had buried itself under a root in her garden. The bomblet, one of hundreds which still litter the soil, had been dropped 10 to 15 years ago… Looking at the depression left in the soil by the explosion, the hoe fragment, and the saddened eyes of the 10-year-old daughter, we wondered who would own this family’s grief… who would answer for this woman’s death?
The answer, we fear, is no one. Indeed the United States has created a military system which can kill in such a way that no one need feel guilty. Certainly no one in America, army general or taxpayer, will be accused of plotting the death of this peasant woman. No international court will bring bomb manufacturing companies to trial. Even to know which pilot dropped that particular bomblet some ten years ago would be impossible. Thus we have created death without a murderer.
Are we really so clever? Have we finally outwitted God, who would come and ask, “Where is Abel, your brother?” Indeed, if God should come and ask, would he not find us all guilty?
Of course, we as historic peace churches have often tried to separate ourselves from our nation’s militaristic policies, to be a people with a different identity. To some extent we have succeeded. The very fact that Mennonite Central Committee is allowed to be in Laos is in large measure due to the fact that we, as Mennonites, did not fight as U.S. soldiers in Indochina.
Nevertheless, how clean are we? Are our self-perceptions of innocence realistic? Or have we been lured into a giant game of guilt evasion whose players include Pentagon officials and common folk alike? While we ourselves have not worn a soldier’s uniform, have not our taxes and our silence helped to build weapons systems and to pay the salaries of those who fight? Though we have espoused love and peace, could any of us stand before that peasant woman’s family and state with assurance that we did not contribute to the making of the weapon that killed her?
Thus, the presence of the shattered family in Muong Kham or the “cave dwellers” in Sam Neua is disquieting to our spirits — the links between our tax money and their suffering are too strong to ignore. The option of war tax resistance then seems not like a matter for debate, but the next logical step for all Christians who would work for peace in the world.
Perhaps many of you will disagree with us that withholding taxes is a faithful part of peacemaking. May we plead however that before final judgments are made, you listen to the voices of those hurt by our violence? Standing close to them, we need to respond with compassion. What will we say? What will we do?
A letter to the editor from Robin Lowery followed: “They [the Peacheys] seem to base their conclusion on the experience of those they dialogued with rather than on what God our Father says to us through the Bible,” Lowery wrote. “It is a dangerous thing to base our faith on experience and feelings.” We shouldn’t expect governments to live up to Christian principles. Our worldly life is only temporary; we are guests here and live under worldly rules temporarily. “War is a horrible thing, but even more terrible is the judgment waiting for those who would oppose God and what he has put in place.”
A letter to the editor from the Peacheys complained that their original article had been severely edited:
As edited by Gospel Herald, our article seemed to imply that all true peacemakers will engage in war-tax resistance. Certainly we were urging Christians to seriously consider making some type of witness with their tax return. Our original article acknowledged, however, that this could take many forms. Some people may choose to live with an income below the taxable level while others may wish to enclose a letter of concern with their tax return. Some may withhold a symbolic amount while others withhold all of their taxes.
Yet, none of these actions can be the whole of peacemaking. Rather, as we stressed in our original submission, peacemaking is a total way of life which embraces our troublesome next-door neighbor as well as those whom our country defines as “enemy.” Further, as we seek to prevent suffering caused by North American militarism, we must also turn to those in our communities who have been cut off from help by our nation’s preoccupation with defense “needs.”
Finally, all of our actions must spring from our Christian faith. We cannot work for peace out of guilt or a desire for personal innocence. Instead, what we do, we do joyfully as a positive witness to life, to wholeness, and to our faith in God who loves all people, irrespective of human barriers.
And Titus Peachey also wrote a follow-up article. Here is an excerpt that touches on war tax resistance:
The U.S. asks neither for our consent or direct physical participation to send weapons around the world such as the cluster bombs which were dropped in Laos. It requires only our dollars and our silence. Can we continue to give our government what it needs to make wars, and then serve the victims of its violence with a clear conscience? Can we still claim to be nonresistant if that violence was committed in defense of our way of life in another part of the world?
Some of us felt that the shovels provided to Lao farmers in Xieng Khouang should be purchased with money which Mennonites withheld from their taxes, thereby making the connection between our nation’s militarism and the victims of war. While some of the shovels were indeed purchased with the Taxes for Peace Fund, many people cited legal, theological, and practical problems with taking such an action.
From our vantage point in Laos, we admittedly worry more about the theological, human, and practical problems of inaction. Can we find common ground for a strong, unified, Mennonite peace witness which deals more directly with our nation’s defense budget, arms sales, and military aid?
The Peacheys’ story was evidently persuasive enough that the MCC war tax redirection fund administrators decided to donate some of the redirected taxes to bomb clearance in Laos:
MCC has spent over $10,000 to purchase and ship about 1,200 shovels to Laos, and $4,000 of that amount was allocated from MCC’s “Taxes for Peace” fund. This “Taxes for Peace” fund was established in to receive contributions from church members who had voluntarily withheld portions of their taxes as a symbolic protest against the government’s excessive spending for military purposes.
“Since people withheld this money so that it could be used for peace instead of war, we feel it especially appropriate that these dollars be used to help clear the land of Laos of bomblets made and dropped by Americans,” explains John Stoner, executive secretary of MCC U.S. Peace Section.
Canadian Mennonites wanted to get in on the act, according to this account:
What is the meaning of conscientious objection to war in Canada today, and how does this relate to the support of Canadian military industries and armed forces activities? That is the focus of a task force on tax support of Canadian military activities. A short document spelling out proposed goals and research tasks of this group was mailed to each of the conferences earlier this year asking for more guidance or support, perhaps after discussion at their annual meetings. The initial work of this task force is being coordinated by the Peace and Social Concerns office of MCC (Canada).
War tax resisters continued to have tough luck in U.S. courts, as this showed:
“War tax” withholders lose case, are penalized by U.S. Tax Court
A Rhode Island couple who have refused to pay their federal income taxes as a way of demonstrating their opposition to military spending have lost their fight with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The United States Tax Court in Washington has not only ordered Kevin and Linda Regan to pay $4,138 in back taxes and $206 in interest for , but it has also slapped the couple with a $500 fine for having “wasted” the government’s time and money on “frivolous” actions. Although the decision was reached , the IRS office here only announced it .
Keith Johnson, an IRS public affairs officer, said the agency was publicizing the Tax Court decision because the Regans had been the subject of a long Providence Journal-Bulletin story in which the couple attempted to justify their nonpayment of taxes on religious and moral grounds. In the interview, the Regans argued that the arms race contradicted the Christian belief against the taking of human life. “What we were presented with were taxpayers who were saying they could withhold tax payments on moral grounds,” Mr. Johnson said. “This is an argument that neither the IRS, nor the courts, accept.”
Finally, a letter to the editor from Weldon Nisly emphasized the parallel between conscientious objection to the draft and conscientious objection to military taxation:
May we all have the faith and courage to stand with these young men of conscience facing draft registration. It is indeed a difficult moment and decision they and their families face. But it is not just they who face the demands of the powers in our country and time. We all face a parallel decision in a direct way with the demand for tax money to finance the Pentagon’s headlong plunge toward death and destruction of all God’s creation and creatures. The painful question of faith we ail face is will we contribute to and cooperate with that demand of the powers or will we choose to place our trust in God alone?
This is the thirtieth 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.
In the Mennonite Church General Assembly would hold a long-overdue vote on whether or not to support war tax resistance as an institution. You’ll have to scroll down to see how that turned out.
First off we have an update on war tax resisters in Japan, from the issue:
A Japanese court has ruled against 22 military tax resisters, including Mennonite pastor Michio Ohno. The ruling by the Tokyo District Court came recently after nearly eight years of litigation. The case had its origin after the bank accounts of Ohno and another person were attached by the government because they didn’t pay their taxes. For reasons of conscience, the 22 object to paying the portion of their taxes that is used for military purposes. The negative ruling does not discourage them, however. “We believe it is this type of lawsuit which, repeated a thousand times, will open the way to legalize conscientious objection to military taxation in Japan,” said Ohno.
The following annual update on the “Taxes for Peace” redirection fund appeared in the issue:
A “Taxes for Peace” fund is again being set up by Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Peace Section. It is for people who withhold war taxes to give money for a peaceful purpose. It is a symbolic action and not a legal alternative to paying the tax. ’s fund will be divided between National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and Christian Peacemaker Teams. More information about the fund is available from MCC U.S. Peace Section…
As the general assembly loomed, a series of letters to the editor concerning war tax resistance hit the Gospel Herald pages in :
Do Mennonites need more time to study the tax withholding issue or more courage? Will the Mennonite Church be known as a “historic peace church” 50 years from now? These and other questions came to mind as I read “General Board Makes Cautious Preparation for Normal ”…
General Assembly actions in recent years have repeatedly affirmed tax resistance, based on Christian conscience, as a valid part of our peace witness. We see these actions not as liberal trends but rather a needed return to New Testament teachings: to the life, nonviolent teachings, and spirit of Jesus and to Anabaptist understandings of church and state separation, roles, and loyalties.
Today military technologies are more important than personnel and therefore the drafting of our dollars for war and preparation for war is a crucial matter. The central issue in the earlier General Board recommendation, in my perspective, was not tax resistance per se but whether the Mennonite Church is ready to respect and support the consciences of those who request that their taxes for military purposes not be withheld.
Recently, a young man named Jose was returning to his house in the Philippines. Government soldiers, who later claimed Jose was out after curfew, shot this defenseless youth, leaving him with a serious leg injury. They refused him treatment for enough days that gangrene claimed his lower leg. When we finally met Jose in the hospital, the lad needed to find blood for his leg amputation.
Weekly, in our work with Mennonite Central Committee, we hear stories of global brothers and sisters who are being maimed or killed with weapons of war, many of them supplied by the American government. Therefore, when we are faced with the turning over of our income to the Internal Revenue Service for supplying these coffers of war, it feels to us that to do so willingly would be the equivalent of signing the death warrant for innocent friends.
We do not expect that everyone in the Mennonite Church will share these deep convictions of ours. We believe that many Mennonites have wrestled with this issue in honesty and prayer and have come to different conclusions from our own.
Still, we are very saddened when we learn in Gospel Herald that Mennonite Church General Board chose to back away from recommending to General Assembly that the convictions of church institutional employees who object to paying military taxes shall be honored by their employers. The action leaves us feeling lonely.
What is the church telling us? Are our convictions out of place in our church? Are we considered stubborn people who refuse to see the truth that the church identifies? Is the church asking us to give up these deeply held convictions? We don’t know. We sincerely value the counsel of the church community. And yet somehow we can’t seem to shut off our (misguided?) consciences on this matter.
Linda Peachey in “Agonizing Over War Taxes”… makes a good argument for withholding war taxes. However, there is another angle from which to view the issue of not paying war taxes. The primary Scripture cited in the debate is Matthew 22:15–22 (and parallels). If we would apply a little historical and political exegesis to this passage, we would have to ask ourselves how we could apply Jesus’ response to ourselves.
For instance, we are not a nation or a people held captive under a foreign ruler, such as Palestine was during the time of the Roman Empire. Also, we are not presently ruled by a monarch; we realistically have no “caesar” over us. If there is a caesar, so to speak, then we are caesar.
In the United States, our constitution begins by naming our caesar, “We the people,” and Abraham Lincoln elaborated that phrase from our preamble by claiming that our government essentially is and must remain a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
In our form of democracy, we have no absolute authority set over us. What we do have is public servants set under us. We, as responsible citizens, are the authority of this nation. If our nation blunders and falls, the blame is on us, not merely on those whom we have elected.
Those of us who withhold a portion of our tax are trying to re-orient our national priorities. While what we do is considered to be illegal, we are breaking a law of the people (willing to take responsibility for our actions), but we are not breaking a law against caesar. What we are trying to do is give to our government (ourselves) what it needs to function as a force for order, a system for providing for the needs of all, and as a body of law to carry out justice. (See Jacob Hutter’s and Menno Simons’ writings in Plots and Excuses and Foundations, respectively.)
We do not all agree on the question of nonpayment of taxes for military purposes… But shouldn’t we all be asking whether an agency of our church should withhold taxes for employees who have a conscience against payment of the military portion? Should a peace church agency side with the state against the conscience of its own members? And is that consistent when the church is on record supporting the conscientious action of its members in nonpayment? It would seem appropriate for us to arrive at a plan whereby the request of employees be respected and taxes for military purposes not be withheld by church agencies.
We’ve known since childhood the stories of God’s people in the Old and New Testaments who said to government and religious authorities, “I can’t do that,” or “You can’t do that,” or “We can’t do that,” and then took the awful consequences. Will we rouse from our easy “Christianity” and recognize when the time has come for us to say such words — to obey God rather than man and take the consequences?
The general board of the Mennonite Church seemed to be backpedaling from taking a stand in favor of corporate support for war tax resistance in preparation for the general assembly meeting ():
As for the recommendation on military tax withholding, the board concluded after consulting the district conferences that the recommendation had to be rewritten. The sequence of events was as follows.
At Purdue , General Board was asked by General Assembly to consult the church on the question of the conscientious objection to the payment of military taxes, particularly the withholding of such taxes by church institutions for persons who objected to paying them.
In , General Board approved a statement for presentation to General Assembly at Normal which included the recommendation that the convictions of church institutional employees who object to paying military taxes shall be honored by their employers.
During , district conferences were contacted by General Board to seek their counsel on the proposed statement. Responses were mixed. Three conferences supported the proposal for presentation to General Assembly. Four conferences did not support it. Eight supported the statement with modifications or cautions. Executive Secretary James Lapp reported to the board that “I perceive in general there is no broad consensus of support for the proposed stance of the General Board.”
Accordingly the board saw it as necessary to prepare a drastically revised proposal. Gone from this proposal was any reference to illegal action such as a church institution refusing to collect military taxes from those conscientiously opposed to paying them. Instead the statement which is to appear in the “workbook” prepared for General Assembly delegates calls for “study of the church/state issues raised by the collection of taxes by church agencies” and for support of the Peace Tax Fund options being called for in both the U.S. and Canada.
An editorial put Mennonites on the alert:
Military taxes for church employees is a particularly difficult subject. This issue has been knocking around for several years already. As I reported on , the General Board at its last meeting passed a much less decisive proposal than expected. This revision was made after consultations with district conferences. If anyone wishes to press for the church to take a radical position on this issue, it will be necessary to make that point clear since the General Board received mixed signals in consultations with the conferences.
The General Board had a last chance to tangle with the issue :
General Board holds maintenance session before Normal
The Mennonite Church General Board held a prior to Normal . No major issues were resolved in this brief meeting. Much of the activity involved receiving reports and doing final work on statements to be presented to General Assembly.
Among the reports being prepared for the assembly was one related to the payment of war taxes. This followed an action of Purdue which had called for the board to study this issue and report to Normal . There had been a change of stance after consultation with the district conferences.
In , the board had drafted a proposal which included a recommendation to respect the consciences of employees of church organizations who do not wish to have the military portion of their income tax deducted from their paychecks. By this proposal was withdrawn and the emphasis was rather on study of the issue and support of the Peace Tax Fund. On , the board made final revisions on this statement for presentation to Normal .
And then the General Assembly met and pushed back against the Board’s reluctance:
The conference delegations caucused several times during the debate about war-tax resistance. Here Dave Miller makes a point to his fellow delegates from Indiana-Michigan Conference.
Delegates take big steps toward GC merger, war-tax resistance
Merger with a sister denomination and illegal support for war-tax resisters became a distinct possibility following two crucial secret-ballot votes by the Mennonite Church General Assembly delegates during Normal . The merger vote was decisive — 86 percent — and there were no surprises. But the tax vote was close — 59 percent — and was the result of an unexpected turnaround on the General Assembly floor.
Ruth Brunk Stoltzfus of Virginia Conference calls for more courage instead of more study on the matter of tax-withholding.
The war-tax issue proved to be a much thornier and more complex matter. It all started about 10 years ago when employees of Mennonite Church agencies and schools began requesting that taxes not be withheld from their paychecks so they could refuse to pay the portion of their federal income taxes (about half) that is used by the U.S. government for military purposes. The employees said they are conscientious objectors to military taxes in the same way their fathers and grandfathers were conscientious objectors to military service in times of conscription.
The agencies and schools would break the law if they honored their employees’ request. Caught between their employees’ consciences and the government’s requirements, the agencies and schools appealed to General Board for help. What followed was years of study and discussion.
Finally, in , General Board members voted to recommend to General Assembly that church agencies and schools be permitted to honor the requests of employees who want to resist war taxes. The General Board action then went to district conferences for their response. The response was mixed and generally cautious, so General Board watered down the recommendation at its meeting. By the time of its meeting the day before the start of Normal , however, General Board put some teeth back into the document, but it was still a weakened form of the original version.
When General Assembly took up the issue, several delegates jumped up to scold General Board for its indecisiveness. “General Board has backed off on this issue, and that makes me sad and angry,” said Bob Hartzler of Allegheny Conference. “General Board must exercise leadership on this and not just gather consensus.” He then asked that the original recommendation be restored.
After more debate and two time-outs for district conference caucuses, the delegates agreed to vote separately on the three sections of the revised recommendation and then on the “heart” of the original version, as requested by Hartzler. The three sections were approved by unanimous or near-unanimous hand votes.
The revised document calls for (1) further study of the war-tax issue, (2) financial and other support for the peace-tax fund options being proposed in the U.S. Congress and the Canadian Parliament, and (3) moral and financial support for war-tax resisters.
Action on the heart of the original version, giving agencies and schools permission to not withhold taxes when requested, was tabled until later in the week. When the issue came up again, GC general secretary Vern Preheim was present to report on his denomination’s experience since it took a similar action in . Though the U.S. Internal Revenue Service contacted the GC leaders early on to confirm the action and warn them about the consequences, to date IRS has not moved against the GC Church.
The district conferences then caucused, and when debate resumed, many of the speakers reported on the general feelings of their conference delegations. “We stand in a long line of saints who have faced decisions like this, starting with the women who illegally hid baby Moses,” said Weldon Nisly of Ohio Conference. Del Glick of Indiana-Michigan Conference reported that several people in his delegation had changed their minds and were now prepared to vote yes. “We want to take a stand,” he said. “It will probably take more courage to face our congregations than to face the government!” Brent Foster then announced the support of Afro-American Mennonite Association.
Ron Schertz, a lawyer who is a board member of Mennonite Board of Missions, offered one of the few opposing comments. He warned that approval of the document would get in the way of MBM’s main mission and jeopardize its tax-exempt status.
When the votes were counted, the resurrected war-tax recommendation passed 142-100. Moderator-Elect George Brunk Ⅲ commented that the vote is not a decisive mandate for General Board but that it does represent “some momentum on this question.” He said General Board “will have to move with due caution” and that “we’ll have to see if a greater sense of consensus emerges in the coming biennium.”
Robert Hartzler of Allegheny Conference introduces an amendment that put teeth back into the war-tax recommendation.
A separate report from Don Garber about “late-night activities” at the assembly noted:
Special-interest activities abounded. Vigorous discussion marked a session entitled “Should the Church Be Caesar’s Tax Collector?”
This was followed by the General Board meeting, at which the probably somewhat shocked Board would have to determine how (or whether) to put the Assembly’s mandate into practice. It seemed to reach the conclusion that since it could not identify any employees who were currently requesting the Church to stop withholding war taxes from their salaries, they could safely kick the can down the road a few years further:
Another major agenda item for General Board was follow-up work on the military tax action by General Assembly at Normal . After years of study and debate, the General Assembly delegates voted to permit denominational agencies and schools to honor — illegally — the request of employees who, for conscience’ sake, don’t want taxes withheld from their paychecks. This is so they can refuse to pay the portion that is used for the military.
The General Assembly vote was close (59 percent) and no employees are currently requesting non-withholding, so the General Board members agreed to proceed with caution. But they also agreed that regardless of what the agencies and schools do and regardless of whether General Board itself has employees who request non-withholding, they would take a clear stand on military taxes and submit another recommendation to the next General Assembly sessions in .
Meanwhile, General Board will plan a major consultation on military taxes for and prepare a study guide to be ready by then. Conferences and congregations will then be encouraged to study the issue and report to General Board.
This is the thirty-first 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.
So if you remember from our last episode, the board of the Mennonite Church was dragging its feet about supporting employees who did not want war taxes withheld from their paychecks. Then the whole Church, in its General Assembly, forced their hand by voting to honor the requests of such employees.
But apparently the board still saw that as advisory and not binding, because they kept right on dragging their feet:
General Board tables military tax question
After several years of study and discussion, the Mennonite Church General Board brought the military tax question to a vote — and tabled it. Normal attenders will recall that a majority of General Assembly delegates voted to “support” the efforts of church board employees who do not wish their taxes deducted so that they can deal with the government in regard to military taxes.
The issue came back to the General Board as such issues will and it was given extended attention at the spring meeting which convened at Kalona (Iowa) Mennonite Church, . An early straw vote strongly favored going ahead, but when decision time came, a majority voted to table the motion.
As presented, the motion called for agreeing “in principle” to honor requests of employees who ask that their income tax not be withheld. However, such approval was intended to be reviewed in the session of the board after a congregational study process which is now being initiated. No taxes were to be withheld prior to .
Motion to table, it was suggested, was related to the pending congregational study process. The board was concerned not to prejudice the case before the study process. Also there was concern that the possible consequences of such withholding be better understood. What action might the government take toward board officers?
Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ and Executive Secretary James Lapp indicated that they were not unhappy about the motion to postpone action. “Some of us thought ‘in principle’ could be helpful in the study process,” said Brunk. “The board position has been in the direction of the proposed motion,” he continued. “But there are different ways to capture this.”
Yet another Military Tax Consultation was held to allow for more jaw-exercise and to cover for the delay:
Mennonite Church General Board is holding a Military Tax Consultation in response to actions taken by General Assembly at Normal . It will be held at Goshen College. Mennonite Church conferences are invited to send teams of persons to the event. Since General Assembly called for “continued study of issues raised by taxation for military purposes,” General Board is currently preparing a study guide for use by congregations. It is being prepared under the direction of Robert Hull and will be ready in time for the consultation. The most controversial — and potentially illegal — action taken by General Assembly was its permission to denominational agencies and schools to honor the request of employees who don’t want taxes withheld from their paychecks so they can refuse to pay the portion (about half) that goes to the military. More information about the consultation is available from General Board…
Ray Gingerich talks about tax resistance during the small-group discussion time.
Daniel Hertzler reported on the consultation:
Wilma Gingerich (left) and Leanna Rhodes share their experiences in refusing to pay the military portion of their taxes.
War tax resisters tell their stories at General Board consultation
Some 30 people met at Goshen College, , for a “Consultation on Military Tax Withholding.” The military tax question has been on Mennonite Church agenda , General Board executive secretary James Lapp told the group. But now it has become focused on the issue of “tax withholding” by church agencies for people who wish to deal with the Internal Revenue Service on their own.
Avowed purpose of the consultation was to introduce a study guide, “As Conscience and the Church Shall Lead,” being prepared for use in congregations. To this end Marlene Kropf of Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries led the group in an educational experience.
In the beginning, and alternatively throughout, there was story telling. Military-tax resisters told how they got into it. All referred to a variety of spiritual influences and life-changing experiences. Seven persons told personal stories. Among them was Dan Hunsberger of Hesston College, who worked one summer for a contractor without taxes withheld and got a tax bill for $1,700. “I considered this use of money wrong, not only from a peace standpoint, but also bad business.”
David Weaver, a teacher at Central Christian High School, grew up in a family that eschewed political involvement. But in he went on a student tour to the Middle East and spent some time on the West Bank of the Jordan River, the home of persecuted Palestinians. Then, in , he wrote a paper on the issue of war taxes and in the same year he went to Nicaragua with Witness for Peace. “I saw the Nicaraguan people and looked into their eyes,” he said. That year he decided to withhold 55 percent of his income taxes.
“At the beginning I felt very heavy about this. In November when they came and took money from my account, it was like a burden was lifted. What really can they do to harm me? We’re in the world for a short life. There are little things we can do. This doesn’t mean my hands are clean. But it is a small action.”
Ray and Wilma Gingerich from Harrisonburg, Va., gave a joint report which recounted a decades-long, growing concern over the issue of war taxes. When they first became aware of the issue, they had no income taxes to pay. But by they finally had enough income to be taxed and began to withhold 50 to 59 percent. “Our son Andre refused to register under Carter,” they said. “We saw some relation between this and middle-aged people not paying for war. We cannot continue to pay taxes while applauding our young who resist the draft.”
Ray expressed concern that Mennonite Church leaders have not been more forthright about the issue. “We need to try to draw our leaders into the discussion. Leaders generally get their authority from the people, not from the poor or the Bible. In some respects, tax resisters must lead the leaders.”
Among the leaders present was Paul Gingrich, president of Mennonite Board of Missions. He acknowledged that MBM first faced this issue , when John and Sandra Drescher-Lehman asked that their taxes not be withheld. The MBM board of directors is divided. Some threaten to resign either way.
But Gingrich concludes that some corporate action needs to be taken as an object lesson, a parable so that younger Mennonites may learn firsthand about resisting militarism. “We have a generation that only hears the stories of those resisting World Wars Ⅰ and Ⅱ and the Korean conflict,” he said. “The institution can become a symbol. In the action is a tremendous teaching moment.”
He continued, “In every generation we need to discover the issue on which we will not compromise. For what will we be ready to die? Is this the place to stand? Is this the way to stand? If an institution takes such an action, it may be that the institution will not survive. But maybe that is not the most important thing.”
No clear-cut answer to Gingrich came out of the consultation. But from small-group settings a cautious consensus emerged. Most groups encouraged church agencies to respect the consciences of persons who do not wish their taxes deducted by the agency, even though such honoring would involve the agency in illegal action.
Several groups pointed out, however, that there are ways for persons to gain access to enough tax money to make a symbolic protest without implicating their agency in illegal action. It was urged that they explore these first.
James Lapp, who called the consultation, and Marlene Kropf, director of the educational experience, both expressed satisfaction with the session. “We need to recognize that there is a complex set of issues here,” said Lapp. “Our goal is to help people to see that there is more than one way to be faithful.”
All this dithering prompted a letter to the editor from Dannie Otto ():
Although I have not been involved in the issue, I believe the issue of military tax deductions of church employees has been around for at least a decade. I am concerned about the continued reluctance of General Board to implement the will of General Assembly to support church board employees who as a matter of conscience do not wish to have their taxes deducted.
As reported in “General Board Tables Military Tax Question”… the eagerness with which the board embraces broad “visions” while avoiding concrete actions is striking. Whatever the possible actions of the government toward board officers if tax withholding is stopped, it would surely be mild in contrast to the price paid by Mennonite leaders during World War Ⅰ who refused to financially support the war effort. “A Pastor Pays a Price for Peace” in the same issue of Gospel Herald is an illustration. [See ♇ 1 September 2018]
Discussion of visions is fine, but no vision is more catching than one demonstrated through faithful action. My sympathies are with the General Board employees who have patiently gone through the lengthy process required to have their concerns embraced by General Assembly, only to have the issue kicked back into a “study process” by General Board.
The board’s apparent relief at being able to postpone action on this issue should be juxtaposed with Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ’s concern stated in his “state of the Mennonite Church” address that “We are not facing conflict as a people of God. The question of our faithfulness calls for eternal vigilance.”
Daniel Hertzler tried to put the whole thing in context with a editorial:
Why is it so hard to get to the bottom of the war tax question?
The issue of paying military taxes has been knocking about in the Mennonite Church for close to a generation. At the “Consultation on Military Tax Withholding” (Goshen College, ) it was reported that John Howard Yoder was writing about this already in .
Perhaps these writings were not published. The earliest material on this subject which I could find in the Gospel Herald was “Dare We Pay Taxes for War?” by John Drescher (). I found this editorial with help from Swartley and Dyck’s Annotated Bibliography of Mennonite Writings on War and Peace: (Herald Press, ). This book has 16 pages on the topic “War Tax Resistance,” so the subject has clearly been one of concern among us. Some of the references go back into , but not in the Gospel Herald.
Drescher’s editorial indicates that concern about the issue arose during Mennonite General Conference and that “delegates asked for direction on the matter of paying taxes designated for war purposes.” A resolution was passed calling for “a fresh study of the biblical teaching”! Has anything changed among us in 23 years?
At the Goshen consultation I listened to Willard Swartley declaim on Romans 13:1–7, and I suddenly got a clue as to why this issue keeps grinding on with no resolution in sight. “Pay all of them their dues,” writes Paul, regarding the authorities, “taxes to whom taxes are due…”
So there it is. If Paul wrote to the Romans that they should pay their taxes, why do modern Mennonites sit around debating whether they may pay the military part of their taxes? We are known as people of the Bible. Isn’t the Bible plain enough?
Not so fast. At Goshen, Willard Swartley presented a 12-point outline entitled “Method for Bible Study.” The first three points were entitled “Observation: What does the Bible say?” The second five he captioned “Meaning: What is the text saying?’ The final four he called “Significance: What says the text?” Beyond these I think the most important thing he said was that Romans 13:1–7 should be interpreted as part of a longer unit in the letter (certainly a basic Bible study principle) and that probably there was a local controversy in Rome over the payment of specific taxes. Paul’s counsel to the Romans was to pay these specific taxes and was not intended as a general principle, regarding all taxes in all times and all places.
Willard pointed out that the New Testament has a number of normative texts on this subject. He mentioned the following: Colossians 2:15; Ephesians 1:19–23; 3:10; 1 Peter 3:22; 1 Corinthians 15:24–26; Romans 8:35–39; Ephesians 6:12–20. Romans 13, he said, should be interpreted in dialogue with this longer stream of texts. In the end, said Willard, there is “ambiguity in the biblical tradition over the place of authorities: respect for their responsibility for order versus awareness that they represent evil.” In other words, by simply paying taxes without thinking, we may be selling out.
Two others at Goshen discussed the issue from a theoretical standpoint: ethics professor J.R. Burkholder and Pastor John F. Murray. Murray proposed that the answer to the war tax problem is to be found in generous giving to the church. Since in the U.S. one can contribute up to 50 percent of one’s income, or $50,000, he proposed that reducing our income through contributions is a more effective response than tax resistance. Further, he pointed out, anyone who saves money and puts it in the bank is supporting the military just as much as the person who pays taxes. “When we give only 5 percent of our income as a denomination, we are not faithful.”
Burkholder stressed the reality of ambiguities. “We will have to learn to live with pluralism in the Mennonite Church,” he asserted. “We do not have the same position on war taxes.”
Clearly we do not. And as James Rhodes responded to Burkholder, “There is danger in an emphasis on ambiguity of diluting our basic foundation of biblical obedience.”
So it is important that we not give up just because we come with different perspectives on the issue. It is urgent that those with different points of view listen to each other under God and under the Scriptures. We have no other place to go.
Readers responded:
In response to your editorial, “Why is it so Hard to Get to the Bottom of the War-Tax Question?”… and the news article piece on the war-tax consultation in the same issue, let me note the following: Why is it that the Mennonite Church can so easily reach clarity that homosexuality is a sin and ban any dialogue whatsoever with gay members of our community but yet find the war-tax issue “contains a complex set of issues” and that it is “filled with ambiguities”?
Why must we accept pluralism and ambiguity on this issue when we can so easily reach apparent consensus on the gay question? Is this not rather self-serving and hypocritical, for on the one hand our church fathers tell us we must accept differing biblical interpretations, pluralism, and ambiguity on war taxes but somehow the gay issue is crystal clear!
It seems to me that there is no ambiguity, for as you note, Romans 13 is not intended as a general principle that we must pay all taxes to government. Further the whole text seems to make clear that we must clarify our loyalties and choose whom we serve, God or Caesar. Further it seems clear that if we follow the way of peace, we can have no part in allowing our money to pay for killing and war. If there is room for ambiguity I think it is more apparent on the gay question. On war taxes it seems clear.
Perhaps our leaders wish to keep it plural, for only a minority can support our historic peace witness these days, while they know that pluralism is unacceptable for the gay question given the majority in our community who are convinced that homosexuality is sin. Wake up, leaders, and be fair! You can’t have it both ways. Either we seek clear standards and follow them or we become Unitarians or Quakers, where everything is ambiguous.
I urge all of those conservative Mennonites who usually remain silent to “send the General Board a message” — mainly, not to be tempted into politicking with the liberal pacifist elements, and to remain within the boundaries of biblical nonresistance. If there are those who want to withhold taxes, let them do it without having the actions of the General Board as a shield.
“Why Is It So Hard to Get to the Bottom of the War Tax Question?”… Maybe because there is no bottom — only a bottomless chasm between two irreconcilable views.
In my own imagination I see the story told in Matthew 22 in modem “dress.” The Pharisee digs through the pockets of his custom-tailored suit. From a jumble of temple contribution receipts and credit cards (Pharisee-controlled banks) he produces a $50 bill.
“Whose portrait is on that bill?”
“General and President Ulysses S. Grant.”
“If you deal in portraits of deceased generals and presidents, you owe a commission to those who occupy their offices today. But don’t forget that you owe even more to God.”
Again, we know that Caesar does not divide his tax collections between two baskets labeled “war” and “peace.” It all goes into one basket, and then is divided out as Caesar wishes. And so, if 50 percent (or whatever) goes for “war,” then 50 percent of anything that an individual deposits into the basket goes for “war.” The persons who pay 50 percent of their taxes are in fact paying half of their “war” tax and half of their “peace” tax.
I admire those who for conscience’ sake voluntarily live at the “poverty” line so that they do not owe the tax that they object to paying. They have adjusted their lifestyle to put their (lack of) money where their “mouth” is. I’m not willing to do that — a character flaw, perhaps, but one that I seem to share with many others. Is it wrong to want to share in at least part of the standard USA lifestyle without paying for Caesar’s expenses in maintaining conditions that promote this lifestyle?
Do we want a “free lunch”? And, of course, Caesar’s money can do God’s work, or so we are told by those responsible for keeping church agencies and institutions in the black. Those who have the spirit of generosity also need something to be generous with. And Caesar pays a part of the gift.
If we deal in portraits of deceased generals and presidents, what do we owe to those who occupy their offices today?
Over a number of years I have read articles, pro and con, on the war-tax issue. Your editorial on the same subject has rekindled my interest. A large percentage of the arguments have been of a theological or theoretical nature. However, I have not seen the following point of view mentioned.
Many of us in the Mennonite Church are no longer independent farmers and/or businessmen or self-employed.
(At age 48 I have witnessed this transition.) Therefore, we have little or no control over the deductions from our pay checks. No company, business, or public institution that I know of would seriously consider a request not to withhold a certain percent of taxes due. Some firms that are operated by Christians may grant us their understanding and be sympathetic in attitude, but simply are not willing to get into the legal and business ramifications of a tax fight with the federal government.
Consequently, the war-tax issue, while perhaps valid, is to many simply a moot point lingering in a gray mist on the edge of our consciousness. Could this be why the General Assembly vote on the General Board war-tax recommendation went 142 for and 100 against?
For me, if the federal government would institute a special, separate, extra-budget war tax (as done in the American Revolution, for example), that is a horse of a different color. I would try to resist in some way as my ancestors collectively did in Lancaster County, Pa., in the Revolutionary times. Having written my Indiana senators and representative on the war-tax issue, I see no change in federal tax regulations to be soon in coming.
The issue announced that if “continued study” was the order of the day, the Mennonite Church General Board was equipped:
Study guide on military tax withholding from Mennonite Publishing House. Prepared at the request of Mennonite Church General Board, it is designed to facilitate discussion of the General Assembly request for “continued study of issues raised by taxation for military purposes.” It is entitled As Conscience and the Church Shall Lead. A response form is provided so that Sunday school classes, small groups, and individuals may provide feedback.
The Mennonite Church General Board met in and tried to pretend that the General Assembly hadn’t voted to go ahead with corporate tax resistance:
Question was also raised about the Normal decision regarding war taxes. Board members noted a lack of clarity on what the decision meant. Slightly more than half the delegates had agreed that churchwide agencies need not withhold the military portion of taxes for employees who request this. Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ noted the decision is valid but that it can be reconsidered following a churchwide study on war taxes currently underway.
They also issued a “Statement to our Mennonite churches on the Persian Gulf situation” that included this:
[T]he Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church General Boards take the following action:
That the General Boards express deep concern about and opposition to the military buildup and the growing threat of war in the Persian Gulf, reaffirm their biblical understanding that the will of God is for humankind to live in peace and harmony and that war and militarism are counter to God’s intentions, and call our congregations to the following:
To confess our own complicity and selfishness in utilizing more than our share of the world’s supply of oil and other resources and for our limited concern for long-standing injustices in the Middle East, and also to confess and reexamine our complicity in paying for the military buildup through our taxes.
The Mennonite Church General Board met again in and continued to put off making a firm decision in response to the mandate given them by the General Assembly:
They focused on the question of withholding war taxes for their employees. delegates to Mennonite General Assembly had authorized churchwide boards to honor requests of employees not to withhold the military portion of their income taxes; final decision was up to each board. Though it had been previously discussed in several meetings, General Board had made no decision on the issue.
Nor did it come easy this time. Board members raised questions about their financial liability. They acknowledged the burden of leadership: other churchwide boards were awaiting the General Board decision for help with their own.
In the end General Board agreed “to honor the request of an employee who for conscience’ sake requests that the military portion of his or her federal income tax not be withheld.” But they hedged. They made the action subject “to development of acceptable policies for implementation approved by the board.”
There was also plenty of content around this time that wasn’t directly prompted by the Mennonite Church board’s inaction.
For example, there was a series of letters-to-the-editor debating war tax resistance. Here are a pair of them, side-by-side:
Why I willingly pay my taxesWhile paying taxes may be an economic burden to some, may be a question of conscience to others, and may be an accounting nightmare for many more, I willingly pay my taxes. Why?
―Robert D. Wengerd, Coshocton, Ohio | In response to “Why I Willingly Pay My Taxes”…, I feel I must prayerfully challenge the author’s unquestioning willingness to pay all taxes while he in no way addresses the tax issue as it pertains to the military budget. In fact, the author’s own reasons for paying taxes are some of the same reasons I can no longer pay the portion of tax that finances the war machine. The first point being a matter of submission, the author concludes that the only time he can refuse to obey the governing authority is when God’s law requires him to do otherwise. The law of God is that we love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and love our neighbor as ourselves. How can I love my neighbor if I willingly pay for his murder? Hitler was able to do as much evil as he did because so many Christians submitted to human authority rather than God’s authority. Second, it is a matter of conscience. I willingly and conscientiously give taxes, customs, fear, and honor to whom they are due (Rom. 14:5–7), but only as I can do so with a clear conscience before God. To willingly contribute to a system of oppression and murder under any nation’s flag is in conflict with what God calls me to do. Third, it is a matter of integrity. To say that our firstfruits tithing goes to God and our taxes go to Caesar is to miss the point of what Jesus says in Matthew 22:17–21. Such an understanding puts God and Caesar on equal footing as though each is due equal allegiance. To be a person of integrity, I must offer all I have to God first, including my awareness of how my tax dollars are spent. I cannot with integrity refuse to bodily take part in killing another human made in God’s image, but be willing to pay someone else to do so. Fourth, it is a matter of honesty. I don’t believe that refusing to pay for war is stealing from the government. Indeed, we pay for war by stealing from the poor. We have the choice to either help bring hope of a better life to our neighbors with needed services, housing, and education or take part in their oppression by buying weapons to protect us from them when they tire of watching their children starve to death. Fifth, it is a matter of credibility. The author pays all taxes because he wishes not to lose his credibility and Christian witness. Of what and to whom are we witnesses? Are we credible witnesses to Jesus’ presence in our hearts to our brothers and sisters in Central America, such as the priests and church workers in El Salvador who were murdered by death squads trained and armed by our tax dollars? I might be willing to pay all my taxes if Congress passes the Peace Tax Fund bill which would allow those who are conscientious objectors to have their taxes used for nonmilitary purposes. But until that opportunity is available, I will no longer pay war taxes, but instead will put that money to use where it will nurture life and not poison it. ―Karl R. Yoder, Americus, Ga. |
Adam R. Martin and Ervin Miller also chimed in, largely agreeing with Wengerd.
The “Taxes for Peace” fund gave its annual update in the issue:
MCC invites contributions to Taxes for Peace Fund
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Peace Section is inviting contributions for the Taxes for Peace Fund. The fund, established in , gives people who want to withhold war taxes a way to contribute their money toward peaceful purposes. While contributing to this fund is a symbolic action and not a legal alternative to paying the tax, many people have found it a meaningful way to demonstrate their commitment to peace.
Last year, $5,750 in Taxes for Peace money was divided between the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and Christian Peacemaker Teams. This year’s contributions will be divided the same way.
The National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund seeks to enact the U.S. Peace Tax Fund Bill, which would give those conscientiously opposed to war a way to pay 100 percent of their taxes by designating the military percentage to a separate fund for peace-enhancing programs. Christian Peacemaker Teams is an initiative of North American Mennonite and related churches to develop and support more assertive peacemaking.
MCC constituents have contributed more than $75,000 to the Taxes for Peace Fund. Among other projects, the money has funded reconstruction efforts in Indochina, aided victims of violence in Guatemala, and supported the MCC U.S. Peace Section.
The following excerpt is from one of several dozen letters sent to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in by contributors to the Taxes for Peace Fund: “We will sleep better tonight than if we would be helping to keep the murder machine going for the United States. And hopefully, all the people of the world will sleep better when we can all stop financing their death threats and death squads.” (John and Sandra Drescher-Lehman, Richmond, Va.)
Checks for the Taxes for Peace Fund should be made payable to “MCC, Taxes for Peace.”…
An information packet on military-tax opposition is available for $3 from MCC U.S. Peace Section. It contains varying theological positions on the war-tax issue and materials about tax laws and legal concerns for the tax resister. Updated materials are available for those who purchased earlier editions of the packet.
The issue announced a “Standing Up for Peace” contest in which young people (ages 15–23) “are urged to interview someone who has refused to fight in war, pay war taxes, or build weapons and then write an essay or song, produce a video, or create a work of art.” The MCC (U.S.) Peace Section was one of the sponsors.
One Mennonite congregation decided to take the lead and begin resisting the telephone excise tax as a group ():
St. Louis (Mo.) Mennonite Fellowship has decided to stop paying its telephone tax as a form of protest against military spending. Federal phone tax revenues, first collected in , contribute directly to the U.S. Armed Forces. “Though the biblical basis for such action has been debated, we wish to respect the convictions of our members and Anabaptist forebears and foremostly to be disciplined followers of Jesus Christ,” said Scott Neufeld, who coordinates the congregation’s peace witness. The congregation will send its tax money instead to Mennonite Central Committee.
Five European Mennonite theologians are proposing changes in a World Council of Churches statement that is being discussed at WCC’s Convocation on Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation in Seoul, South Korea, . One of them, Andrea Lange of West Germany, took the proposed revisions to Seoul as a representative of the Dutch Mennonite Church and the North German Mennonite Church, both of which are WCC members. The Seoul statement grows out of an extended “conciliar” process by WCC member churches. The Mennonite revisions call for the rejection of force and support for conscientious objectors to military service and those who refuse to pay war taxes. The revision also calls for the full use of women’s gifts in the church — and to “admit them to all church offices.”
The issue included an article on Mennonite martyrs of the World War Ⅰ period who were persecuted for refusing to buy war bonds (see ♇ 1 September 2018 for that article).
The Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries board of directors met in , and took their cue from the Mennonite Church board by putting things off for another time:
The issue of military tax withholding for MBCM employees was discussed at length. However, no action was taken. Since no MBCM employees are currently requesting that the military portion of their taxes not be withheld, the board agreed to wait for such a request before responding to the military tax withholding question.
In J. Lorne Peachey took over from Daniel Hertzler as editor. We haven’t heard from Peachey yet so I don’t know if he took any position in the war tax resistance debates that might influence his editorial positions.
A letter to the editor from John F. Murray used the war tax resistance issue as a rhetorical hook in the course of trying to prompt readers into tithing more to the Church.
Another letter, from Jim Leuba, in the issue, gave taxpaying Christians a pointed edge:
In reference to your suggestion in your editorial that we spend a day praying for “Peace in the Persian Gulf”…, I feel the following is an appropriate prayer:
“Lord, today I am praying for peace in the Persian Gulf. I pray our armies do not use the weapons I helped pay for with my tax dollars. Never mind. Lord, that I could live at an income level that did not require paying war taxes. And, Lord, a war will only increase the price of oil. I am so addicted to oil that I can’t imagine life without it. Never mind. Lord, that I use at least 10 times more fossil energy than 75 percent of the earth’s human population. Protect me. Lord; I am a North American Christian.”
The following syndicated news brief appeared in the issue:
Quaker group must garnish wages of tax-resisting employees
A Philadelphia Quaker organization must garnish the wages of its employees who fail to pay income tax for religious reasons, a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled. But Judge Norma Shapiro also said the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends cannot be penalized for failing to honor the levies imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The case involved the refusal of three Friends employees to pay the full amount of their taxes because part of it would go to the military, and that would violate their religious antiwar beliefs.
In her decision, Shapiro cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year in Employment v. Smith, the controversial Oregon peyote case. In denying unemployment benefits to two residents, the high court ruled that since ingestion of peyote was a crime in Oregon, “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion proscribes (or prescribes).”
Eastern Canada Conference of Mennonites was struggling with the same issue of tax resisting employees that had troubled the General Conference Mennonite Church and the Mennonite Church (Ron Rempel reporting, ):
Canadian conference responds to military tax objectors
Waterloo, Ont. (Mennonite Reporter) — Two Ontario Mennonite leaders have declared their conscientious objection to the payment of military taxes. However, their employers have not yet decided whether or how to cooperate with the request to redirect military taxes for peaceful purposes.
Fred Martin, the student and young adult minister for Eastern Canada Conference, first raised the issue in . Jean-Jacques Goulet, pastor of Wilmot Mennonite Church, took a similar stand the week that the Persian Gulf War started. His church is waiting to see how the conference will resolve the matter.
, at its fall delegate meeting, the conference gave notice of a recommendation that will be dealt with at the annual meeting . That recommendation called on the conference to support Martin not forwarding to Revenue Canada the portion of his income tax used for military purposes.
Since the meeting, the executive board of the conference has looked more closely at how to proceed if the recommendation is accepted. The board has prepared an alternative resolution, calling on the conference: (1) to “withhold no income tax from the salary of any conference employee who requests this on the basis of conscience”; (2) to inform Revenue Canada and members of Parliament of the decision; (3) to ask the government to introduce legislation recognizing conscientious objection to payment of military taxes and to provide peaceful alternatives for use of these tax dollars; and (4) to support other church boards, agencies, and congregations that may adopt similar policies.
“As far as we know, no one in Canada has gone this route,” commented Sam Steiner, secretary of the conference. Others who have asked for the cooperation of employers in not paying military taxes have become “contract employees,” or “self-employed contractors.”
Eastern Canada Conference, however, is proposing to treat military tax objectors as full employees, and to continue all regular benefits and deductions, except for income tax deductions. It would be left to the employee to remit income taxes to Revenue Canada after redirecting the military portion.
This procedure has been used by the General Conference Mennonite Church after that denomination decided in to support military tax objectors. The Mennonite Church has made a similar commitment in principle, but has not yet decided on a procedure to use.
According to Steiner, the conference would technically be Hable for breaking tax laws by deciding not to collect income taxes for the government.
Reporter Ron Rempel followed up on that report with this:
Eastern Canada Conference rejects proposal on military tax deductions
Baden, Ont. (Mennonite Reporter) — After a vigorous debate, delegates to the annual meeting of Eastern Canada Conference, , defeated a proposal calling on the conference not to deduct income tax from employees who want to redirect the military portion for peaceful purposes. They also tabled an alternative resolution.
The conference executive board developed its proposal in response to a request from its student and young adult minister, Fred Martin. He indicated in that he objected on the basis of conscience to paying military taxes. He asked the conference — which is required by law to deduct all income taxes and remit them to Revenue Canada — to help him find a way to express his conscience.
In the recent Gulf War, “my body was not being conscripted, but my money was,” commented Martin in a brief presentation before delegates. “How can I pray for peace but pay for war?”
In introducing the proposal, conference secretary Sam Steiner said the executive board had not been unanimous. Some abstained from voting; others were against the proposal. He also said the proposed action could make the conference legally liable for breaking the Income Tax Act.
The legal question dominated the discussion by delegates. For example. Ken Musselman said military tax objectors should use other options, like increasing charitable donations or cutting back their overall income to reduce taxes. A number of delegates said that individuals who want to redirect military taxes should assume the legal liability themselves — for example, as contract employees — rather than expect conference to bear it. Others supported the proposal. They cited historical precedents such as World War Ⅰ conscientious objectors choosing jail rather than the military uniform.
A number who lined up at the open mikes said they liked the second part of the executive board’s proposal — to seek legislation recognizing conscientious objections to payment of military taxes — but objected to the first part — asking conference to defy current income tax laws.
The delegates then faced two choices: either table the executive board’s proposal or look at an alternative resolution.
The alternative, presented by Margot Fieguth, began with the second part of the original proposal: an attempt to work through legislative and legal avenues to secure recognition of conscientious objection to payment of military taxes and to provide peaceful alternatives. This resolution also suggested that conference offer Fred Martin a contract position, so that he, rather than conference, would be responsible to make income tax payments.
Delegates decided not to table the original proposal. But before they started debating the alternative, there were voices calling for a vote on the executive board’s proposal.
“I would like to hear the truth of where the conference stands on this issue,” said Jean-Jacques Goulet, pastor of Wilmot (Ont.) Mennonite Church. During the Gulf War he had declared himself a conscientious objector to military taxes. And his congregation was waiting to see how conference would respond to Fred Martin.
In a ballot vote, the executive board’s proposal was defeated 159-48. It was late in the evening. The alternative resolution was on the floor. But someone proposed that it be tabled till the next session of conference. The motion carried.
The “Taxes for Peace” war tax redirection fund gave its annual report in the issue:
Taxes for peace.
The Peace Section of Mennonite Central Committee U.S. is inviting contributions for the “Taxes for Peace” fund. Established in , it gives people who want to withhold war taxes a way to contribute their money to peaceful purposes. Donations last year totaled $3,700, and they were sent to the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and to Christian Peacemaker Teams. More information is available from MCC U.S. Peace Section…
Nathan Zook Barge was quoted in a article as saying: “Can we say that we are pacifist when we are still paying taxes in support of war? Unless we are actively stopping that kind of support, I don’t think we are being heard as pacifists in Central America.”
Another General Assembly was held , and I’m sure the board of directors were on tenterhooks hoping that the Assembly would let them off the hook about implementing the decision they’d made at the previous General Assembly to begin refusing to withhold war taxes from the salaries of objecting employees.
Unfortunately, I see nothing in the Gospel Herald coverage that indicates that issue was addressed at all. Instead, there was a lot of talk about encouraging Mennonites to contribute more to the Peace Tax Fund lobbying effort.
Delegates did look to themselves in reconsidering a statement on the Peace Tax Fund. The statement had called on individual Mennonites to contribute to this fund. Noting that less than one percent had done so, this time delegates took action to urge conferences and congregations to put the Peace Tax Fund in their budgets.
The Peace Tax Fund would allow conscientious objectors to pay their taxes by diverting the military portion to a special trust fund. Efforts are currently underway to have the Fund be considered by lawmakers in the U.S.; a comparable campaign is also being considered in Canada.
Weldon and Marg Nisly of Cincinnati told how they are refusing to pay the portion of their taxes that goes to the military. The Internal Revenue Service has frozen their bank accounts and life for them has become more inconvenient, but Nisleys said this is one way for them to “say no to the military monster.” Their call for 100,000 other Mennonites to join them was met with applause.
Peace tax fund.
In Mennonite General Assembly went on record to encourage individuals to contribute to a peace tax fund campaign. Less than one percent of us did. So in Oregon delegates made their action stronger: they are now “urging” district conferences and local congregations to put the peace tax fund into their annual budgets.
So your congregation will need to make a decision about that “urging” some time in the next two years. Will you give expression to your belief in peace by supporting a congregational budget item to contribute to a peace tax fund? The contribution will be used to help sponsor legislation in both Washington and Ottawa to legitimatize a peace tax fund as an option for persons opposed to having their tax money used for military purposes.
The issue profiled “Seniors for Peace” and included this detail:
Some Seniors for Peace withhold the military portion of their income taxes and contribute it to a peace fund. Many actively support lobbying for legislation for a peace tax fund to provide alternative service for tax dollars.
And finally, a letter to the editor from Tim Nafziger urged Mennonites not to stop, satisfied by redirecting their taxes to a peace tax fund. “The Mennonite Church is called to do more than be morally pure,” he wrote.
