Then Thomas S.
Bell moved to amend the proposed section by inserting the following:
Those who conscientiously scruple to bear arms shall not be compelled to do so, nor shall they be compelled to pay an equivalent therefor, except in times of exigency, or war.
This was that compromise that would have freed conscientious objectors from militia service or militia exemption fines — except when such things would be most directly and immediately related to war and bloodshed, that is, except when their consciences would be most likely to be repulsed.
Here’s how
Bell defended this strange proposal:
Mr.
Bell of Chester said that it was with reluctance he rose to renew the consideration of this important,
though vexed question.
But representing as he did a large class of persons who were deeply interested in its fate, he deemed it to be his duty seriously
to discuss the subject, and to ask for it a fair, candid, and impartial examination.
It was now fairly before the committee.
So prominently had it presented itself to the attention of this body that the consideration of it had been anticipated.
It had been incidentally discussed — when other
questions were more immediately under consideration.
Every gentleman had then felt sooner or later he should have to meet it, discuss it, and decide upon
it.
It was a question of vast magnitude, as it affected rights immeasurable, except by that standard which is implanted in the breast of man by the
Creator: rights, not merely civil and political, but resulting from that allegiance which is due from humanity to God.
Regarding it in this point of
view, he would ask whether it ought not to be approached solemnly, and whether we should not cast away all prejudices, and eschew all passions and everything calculated to mislead the understanding?
Whether we were not to
look at the question, no matter what had been said on the subject, fairly and honestly, and in the hope of at least coming to a righteous judgment?
Such prejudices, he was aware he would have to encounter. Such prejudices — if
he was correct in applying them, — but perhaps it was too harsh a one; and
if so, he begged pardon of the committee. However, to use the word in its
mildest sense, he would say that prejudices were held by some of the members
of this committee, resulting either from education, or their habits and
morals, and which made it difficult for them to appreciate the sentiments of
those who were conscientiously scrupulous against bearing arms at any time.
What, he would enquire, was the question? It was simply this: Whether those
forming a part and parcel of the people of Pennsylvania who entertain
religious scruples against bearing arms should be placed on an equality with
our fellow citizens, who do not? We had heard something here relative to
privileged classes, and it had been intimated that the memorialists asked
for privileges and to be placed above the mass of their fellow citizens.
This is not the fact. The Friends sought only to be put on the same terms as
other persons of the community. Why did he say so? Because by the fundamental
law of Pennsylvania, as it exists, the religious scruples of all men were
respected, except in reference to the defense of the State. If gentlemen
would refer to the Bill of Rights, they would find that such was the fact. He
considered that those who had memorialized us had made nothing more than a
reasonable request. They wished to be protected equally with the rest of
their fellow citizens. Nor was this peculiar scruple relative to bearing arms
confined to one class of religionists. It had been asserted in the course of
the discussion that the large and respectable Society of Friends were the
only body that was demanding the right which they claimed. This was not the
fact, for a large society called Mennonists also asked it. The amendment now
on the table embraced all classes of men, all sects, all religious
denominations. It extended protection to the whole community. Besides those
two societies which he had named as claiming this right, there were many
others. There was a large number of people in Lancaster and other places who
entertained conscientious scruples against bearing arms. A class existed,
calling themselves German and United Brethren, which would rather surrender
all their worldly wealth than give up their notions in respect to bearing
arms. He did not in the least object to the wide scope of the amendment. He
much preferred it in its present shape than if it were less general in its
character.
What did we ask? He said we, because he felt the honor of standing
on this floor as the advocate of the memorialists; not that he entertained
the scruples which they did. What, then, he repeated, did we ask?
Liberty — religious liberty — liberty of conscience. Nothing more than this. — Freedom
of conscience — to pursue the dictates of our hearts, with a religious
intent — to worship God in our own way. We asked to be placed on the same
foundation as we are in regard to liberty of speech — to the right of
acquiring property and to the right of pursuing our own happiness — all which
rights are secured to us by the Constitution of Pennsylvania. He would repeat
that the memorialists asked nothing more. The right of conscience was of more
importance than any other which he had mentioned, because the latter sprung
from the institutions of society, whilst the former originated from the
connection which exists between the Deity and man.
And shall this protection, asked for in this enlightened age, be refused on
the ground that the feeling which originated the request is not entertained
by the whole community? A meritorious, well-deserving, and highly respectable
portion of the people had asked for it, and why should we not grant them it?
It had been said that this was a right subordinate to the right of
self-defense, — an indefeasible right as it had been called by the gentleman
from the city of Philadelphia. It is implanted in the very nature of man, and
accordingly we were struggling for this right from the first dawn of
religious liberty. Yes, whenever and wherever a ray of light had succeeded
the gloom which had overshadowed the world — men had yielded up their lives
in thousands as martyrs in the cause of religious liberty. History was full
of examples of the obstinate firmness with which men had fought for this
natural right. Look to France — to the Waldenses and the Huguenot, who turned
every house into a fortress, and every site into a battle field. In Ireland,
the best blood had been poured out like water in the sacred cause. It had
every where crimsoned the green fields of the Emerald Isle. In England, the
martyr had yielded up his life at the stake rather than surrender his
religious belief. In Scotland, the Presbyterians waged an obstinate and
exterminating war in defense of their creed and to free themselves of the
fetters which their English neighbors sought to bind upon them. Men there
fled from their homes, deserted the cottages of their affections, and
abandoned the protection of an organized government, because that protection
was accompanied by the assertion of a right to control the conscience of the
subject. All this was overwhelming proof that religious liberty was felt to
be dearer than life, and would only be surrendered with it. But among the
great illustrations of this truth might be instanced the facts attending the
first settlement of Northern America. Under the most discouraging
circumstances, thousands who had partaken of the advantages of civilization
left the land of their fathers, and abandoning the luxuries of polished life,
withdrew from the baleful shade of an oppressive government to seek a howling
wilderness and such safety as they might find at the hand of the rude savage,
rather than endure the desecration of a right which they insisted on as
sacred. Among the glories of the early history of the liberties of this
country was that here freedom of conscience was first proclaimed as among the
fundamental principles of its governments. In the reign of Charles
Ⅱ of England, Roger Williams, actuated by a
liberality of feeling in advance of the age, and which sheds lustre on his
memory, established religious liberty as one of the prominent characteristics
of the government he founded.
The memorialists asked for no privilege — no franchise — as had been alleged.
They demanded but a bare right, the possession of which their great leader — the
founder of this Commonwealth — had guaranteed to them. If they were here
importuning for the grant of an exclusive privilege, for something not
possessed by other citizens, he would be the last man to stand here as their
advocate; but they desired nothing more than the introduction of a clause to
some extent prohibiting the enactment of laws interfering with the religious
scruples they entertained, and this was nothing more than was already secured
to their fellows. This was asserted as a principle in the Constitution of
, and repeated in the existing Bill of
Rights. It was, perhaps, sufficient merely to call attention to the fact that
from the first settlement of Pennsylvania down to the present moment, it had
been observed as a rule not to be controverted that no law should be made
having the slightest tendency to interfere with or control freedom of
conscience, except in the particular instance of which, as seemed to him, the
memorialists so justly complained.
The principle, he therefore contended, was at the foundation of our
institutions, that there was no power in our government to interfere with the
rights of conscience. If this principle was correct, and none here would deny
it, what was the question for this Convention to decide? Simply this: do any
portion of our fellow citizens entertain conscientious scruples against
performing military duty, or is it merely an affectation of a scruple on
their part to avoid the burden and hazard of bearing arms? When we looked to
this question, we would find that it was one merely of veracity. Were their
professions sincere? Have those who have given us, for so many years, proof
upon proof of their sincerity, and who have suffered themselves, for the sake
of their religious scruples, to be reviled and oppressed, been all this time
practicing deceit? If their scruple was an honest one, they had a right to
maintain it, and we were obliged to secure them in the right by the aid of
the law.
Sir, said Mr.
B. in asking for
the insertion of this protective provision in the Constitution, it is not
necessary that I should refer to the character of the largest society which
claims exemption from military service. If they were here for an exclusive
favor, it might be necessary to speak of their moral and social worth, and
of the great benefits which they had conferred upon Pennsylvania, and the
important part they had acted in the establishment of our free institutions.
It might, too, be necessary to follow them into the friendly and benevolent
circle of their domestic retirement. But it was a right and not a privilege
which they asked, and he, therefore, forbore. Had we any evidence, he asked,
except our own assertions, that they are insincere in the scruples which
they profess to entertain? In the Constitution, as it now stood, there was
at least a practical recognition of the principle for which he contended,
and though it did not go so far as was demanded, yet it furnished a proof
that respect had been paid to the fact that a portion of our fellow citizens
entertained an honest scruple in regard to bearing arms.
It remained to inquire, what was the extent of this scruple. Did it go
beyond mere personal service? If it did, it was entitled to our respectful
consideration. If gentlemen would turn to the memorial, they would find that
their scruples extended to the payment of an equivalent for service, and
they put it on the natural ground that, being averse to war, they were
opposed to the means by which a state of war might be created and
maintained. They asked to be relieved not only from the duty of bearing
arms, but from the equally odious necessity of paying an equivalent for it.
Was it for us to say that this scruple was affected? Should we set up a
standard for other men’s consciences, and pronounce that this or that
scruple of conscience is unreasonable? The members of this religious,
worthy, and respectable society say that they entertain scruples of
conscience equally strong against paying an equivalent as against bearing
arms. Now, the principle which he had before indicated was strong enough to
protect every scruple which might be professed. It extended to one case as
well as to the other. If the scruple was sincere we were bound to recognize
it and protect them in it; and we had no right to pronounce that it is
unreasonable. He might perhaps ask, but he did not do it, that any society
or individual should be exempt under the rights of conscience, in time of
danger and of war, from personal service or the payment of an equivalent.
They had a right to come in and demand this, but that question was
surrounded with so many difficulties that they waived it altogether, and
only asked to be exempted in time of profound peace. But, when the
exigencies of war should require it, they remain like other citizens,
subject to the demand of the government upon them for personal service or
its equivalent. If the question was between convenience and inconvenience,
who would hesitate in his decision? If the question be between right on the
one side and mere inconvenience on the other, would the argument resulting
from inconvenience defeat the prayer of the petitioners, and deprive them of
a right which from the origin of our Constitution had been held sacred?
As to the frauds which were anticipated by some gentlemen, no man would, in
time of peace, resort to fraud for the purpose of procuring an exemption,
and in time of war it would not avail. Then, all classes would be on the
same footing, and be compelled to render personal service or an equivalent.
All they asked was freedom from the burden and vexation of this duty in time
of peace when their exemption could be productive of no ill effects. What
though one half or three-fourths of the people should, in time of peace,
affect a scruple in order to avoid militia training. Would the country lose
any thing by it? What advantage would be derived from the continuance of the
militia trainings, even though every citizen attended them? In time of war
when their services were wanted, there would be no room for fraud or the
allegation of any scruples, — for no one will be exempted, except upon
the payment of an equivalent. This feature was not a novel one in our
Constitution. This was not the only State in the Union which had set an
example of freeing from the burden of militia service, the tender consciences
of their citizens. The Constitution of Vermont, provides that “Quakers and
Shakers, the Judges of the Supreme Judicial Court, and the ministers of the
Gospel,” may be exempted from militia duty. The Constitution of New
Hampshire, says: “No person who is conscientiously scrupulous about the
lawfulness of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay
an equivalent.”
We find, therefore, that other States recognize the existence of these
scruples and protect them. Should we then, whose State was founded by this
very sect which demands the exemption, and who see everywhere around them
the evidences of their patriotism and worth, should we be behind others in
maintaining the sacred principle of freedom of conscience, which by this
society was laid at the foundation of our institutions? Should the
proposition which he had offered succeed, any defect which might arise in
its operation might be remedied by the Legislature. If fraudulent evasions
were practiced under it, the law would provide means for their detection and
punishment. Mere inconvenience ought not to be urged as an obstacle to the
adoption of the proposition.
George W.
Woodward then complained that “now we are asked to go further and to exonerate those
professing conscientious scruples, from all military taxation.” Taxation?
I thought it was a fine, not a tax.
This distinction became a battle over framing the debate.
Are Quakers petitioning to be freed from a provision that unfairly fines their conscientious scruples, or are they petitioning to be
given the privilege of a tax break?
Woodward said:
He called it taxation, because it was a mode of compelling men to contribute to public burdens.
Sir, said Mr.
W. I have always been
taught that peace is the time to prepare for war, but how can you prepare for
war without money, which is its sinew? We are called on to exempt a body of
people from the payment of the taxes in a time of peace, which are necessary
not only to prepare for war but to prevent it.
These military fines or taxes, as he called them, went into the Treasury for
the use of the Government, and he was opposed to exempting any class of
citizens from their payment. It seemed to him we should be doing great
injustice to our citizens at large, and violence to our best interests,
should we yield to any class or portion of the people, however respectable,
entire exemption both from military service and its pecuniary equivalent.
During the progress of the debate, we had heard a great deal of the freedom
of conscience. He concurred in all that gentleman had said of the freedom of
conscience and the sacredness of conscience, and he was unwilling in any
manner to interfere with the full enjoyment of his rights of conscience to
which every human being was entitled, but it struck him that the rights of
conscience were well enough secured by the Constitution as it stands, and
that this demand for further provision in behalf of conscience, which the
Friends are now pressing on us as a matter of right — for the
gentleman from Chester demands it
in their name as a matter of right — is quite unnecessary and a novelty in
Pennsylvania. I can understand how a man may have conscientious scruples
against bearing arms for the purpose of taking away the lives of his fellow
men, and there is much reason for being asked to excuse that peaceful sect
from such a duty; but, when Government asks an annual contribution either in
services or money for the purpose of preventing all necessity for violence
and force, I can not, sir, understand how it is a case for tender
consciences, nor why both money and services should be forbid by conscience.
It is a new case — to me a novelty.
There’s that old canard: Armies, arms, military training, and military spending aren’t for war — on the contrary, they’re all to prevent war!
Therefore pacifists ought to be the first to support military measures.
War is peace!
Freedom is slavery!
Ignorance is strength!
Gentlemen have referred to Penn’s Charter, wherein, as in our bill of rights, the freedom of conscience is abundantly guarantied.
Every man is permitted to adopt whatever religion and
creed he pleases, and to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his conscience, and no man is permitted to molest or make him afraid; but nowhere in Penn’s Charter, in our Constitution or laws, do you find the principle recognized which is now sought to be introduced.
Exemption from
taxation is the last thing he would ever have expected the Quakers to ask for.
Their history informs me, sir, that they have always regarded it as a
religious duty to contribute to the support of the Government under which they lived, and that conscience, instead of interposing to shield them from the demands of Government, has bound them to a strict and faithful discharge of all the obligations of good citizens.
In Proud’s
History of Pennsylvania, gentlemen will find the following account of the ideas which this sect used to entertain, if they do not still, of their duties to Government.
Their great care and strictness, in rendering to Cæsar, according to their manner of expression, that is to the Government, its
dues; in the punctual payment of taxes, customs, and discouraging all illicit and clandestine trade; and in being at a word in their dealings: — Insomuch, that, in their particular advices to their brethren they say: — “As the blessed truth we profess, teaches us to do justly to all men, in all things; even so more especially, in a faithful subjection to the Government, in all godliness and honesty; continuing to render to the King what is his due, in taxes and customs, payable to him according to law.” — “For our ancient testimony has ever been, and still is against defrauding the King of any of the above mentioned particulars, and against buying goods reasonably suspected to be run” — “or doing any other thing whatsoever to the injury of the King’s revenue, or of the common good, or to the hurt of the fair trader; so, if any person or persons, under our name or profession, shall be known to be guilty of these, or any other such crimes or offences, we do earnestly advise the respective monthly meetings (hereafter explained) to which such
offenders belong, that they severely reprimand, and testify against such offender, and their unwarrantable, clandestine and unlawful actions” — “we being under great obligations of gratitude, as well as duty, to manifest, that we are as truly conscientious to render to Cæsar, the things that are Cæsar’s, as to support any other branch of our Christian testimony.” And so great was the importance of this affair with them, that an annual enquiry was regularly made through all parts of the British dominions, where they had members of society, whether the purport of these advices were duly put in practice, or not, and to enforce the same.
I have always supposed that these people were to be looked to for good examples of citizenship as well as for all the other virtues, and never before did I hear that conscience had taken alarm at the ordinary and reasonable demands of the kind and paternal Government we enjoy.
Why, sir,
where is this principle of exemption, if once adopted, to stop?
The Legislature of this State may think it necessary in times of profound peace
to buy arms and munitions of war — to organize and drill the militia — to encourage volunteer corps and to make large preparations against the hour of need and peril.
All this will require money, and who shall
contribute it?
Since these preparations point to war, the Friends cannot conscientiously contribute and they must be exempted, you say.
But another and another class of community come forward with the same plea of conscience, and, on the same principle, they too must be exempted from all participation in these arrangements — this peace establishment — and finally it is discovered that the State cannot be armed and put into an attitude of defense at all.
What then is to become of her?
Why, sir, war would be inevitable.
Our feeble condition would attract assaults and that greatest of human calamities would be certainly brought on us by the tender
consciences of the Commonwealth, which refused to keep up an ability of defense.
True humanity might dictate the preparations I have supposed or
more, and they would have the effect to deter hostility, prevent bloodshed, and preserve peace.
The gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr.
Scott) has shown conclusively how extensively the fact of an organized military force had operated with the enemy during the last war and how salutary such impressions may prove in future.
But you lose the benefit of such
impressions on the mind of an enemy when you deny to the government the means of making the requisite preparations, and if you excuse those who are conscientiously scrupulous, not the Quakers only, but the Menonists, the Dunkers and perhaps every man of any religious creed, may claim the benefit of the exemption, so that your government will become defenseless and powerless.
Without a formal renunciation of its authority, and without open resistance
to its demands, it will be left at the mercy of any foe who may choose to
attack it from without, or of any enemy within its bosom who may desire to
rend and overthrow it. Now, sir, I have shown from Proud’s
History what the opinions of the Society of Friends
are in respect to public contributions; and I find, in the Constitution of
, the principle adopted and recognized under
which they seem always to have acted. The 8th
section of that Constitution is in these words: “Every member of society has
a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property; and
therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expense of that
protection, and yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent
thereto; but no part of a man’s property can be justly taken from him, or
applied to public uses, without his own consent or that of his legal
representatives; nor can any man, who is conscientiously scrupulous of
bearing arms, be compelled thereto; nor are the people bound by any laws but
such as they have, in like manner, assented to for their common good.”
Mr. Chairman, this is wholesome doctrine, and these are the principles of
Pennsylvania. They pervade all our institutions; and I had hoped they were
cherished by all our people. I would respect conscientious scruples against
bearing arms where they are sincerely entertained, and would not ask any
man, in peace or war, to take up arms against his conscience; but then he
should pay a pecuniary equivalent such as the government might assess. This
is all that has ever been demanded; and this seems most reasonable and just.
I have looked in vain in our own plans of government and Constitutions, and
in the Constitutions of other States, for any such extraordinary immunity as
is now asked for a part of our fellow citizens.
But we are told we must not undertake to judge of men’s consciences; and it
is more than intimated that to argue against this “demand” of
conscience is to trespass on holy ground. I agree that conscience is a sacred
right; but when I am asked to vote for exempting a large class of our most
opulent citizens from the contribution to public burdens which other citizens
have to make, on the ground that conscience forbids them to contribute, may I
not inquire if it is a case for conscience? If an enlightened conscience
ought, or can, interpose a plea in bar in such a case? It seems to me to fall
peculiarly within the scope of our duties; and I should feel that our
constituents had reason to complain if we yielded to this mild
“demand” without investigating it closely and severely.
I know the proposition is often stated in this form: “It is wrong to take
human life. And it is the same thing to pay another for taking it as to take
it ourselves;” and in this way it is supposed the argument is just as strong
against paying pecuniary equivalents for military service as it is against
performing the service. Now two things are forgotten by this argument: First,
that the pecuniary equivalent is for the general purposes of the
government; and, secondly, that all military service, as well as pecuniary
equivalents, are designed to assist to preserve peace, and not to promote
war. Peace is the state our country desires. War is a calamity, and
government must be trusted with the means of averting it. If government finds
military preparations to be the most effectual means, where is there room for
conscientious scruples against cooperating with government?
That pious statement came less than a decade before the launch of the
Mexican-American War.
There is another view of this matter to be taken.
The people who have sent in their petitions here asking for this exemption are among our most opulent
citizens, and have a large amount of property to be protected by the government.
Can they conscientiously ask for protection when they refuse to
furnish means?
Protection and allegiance are reciprocal duties; and it seems to me that the law of allegiance binds every citizen to a discharge of all
his obligations to the government which gives him protection, until he is ready to transfer himself to another asylum.
Surely, while a body of men ask
and enjoy protection from the government for their persons and property, it would be unwise to give them the power, by an affirmation of conscientious scruples, to absolve themselves from their reciprocal duties to the government.
I have an objection to the amendment, founded on its generality. Nobody but
the Society of Friends is asking for this exemption; and if it is to be
granted, let it be to them specially and alone. The amendment goes to exempt
everybody who may profess conscientious scruples. Let us not outrun the
expectations of the public by offering universal exemption from taxation;
but if we are to have a select and privileged class among us, let us name
and specify them in our Constitution, so it may be known who are intended to
be benefitted. In the first establishment of a privileged order of men, we
ought to be more exact and specific than the amendment is; and if gentlemen
insist on pressing it, I hope they will make it so.
Much of the anti-war movement has lately turned away from marching and pleading with legislators and such and has decided to try to make the U.S. less eager to make war by exacerbating its “human resources” shortage.
I think this new focus shows promise.
It has a concrete, measurable goal that can be reached incrementally, results can potentially be seen both on a large scale and on a very human scale, and it is an actual, non-symbolic impediment to militarism, making it more difficult and more expensive.
There is a danger, though, that by focusing on encouraging desertion and conscientious objection within the military, and on discouraging recruiting, the anti-war movement will fall in to the easy habit of regarding its struggle as something that mostly involves other people — members of the military and potential recruits — changing their behavior.
One way to address this is to remind people that conscientious objection is for everyone.
A good example of this is provided by the Church of the Brethren Christian Citizenship Seminar, which was held in New York and Washington, D.C.:
Former conscientious objectors (COs) Enten Pfaltzgraff Eller and Clarence Quay shared the stories of their struggles, as did more more recent COs Andrew Engdahl and Anita Cole.
Eller and Quay each chose not to register and instead did alternative service, although Eller’s service came after a lengthy court case.
Engdahl and Cole arrived at their decisions after entering the military, and they asked for reclassification.
“When Jesus said ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,’ that has to be now, not later,” Eller said.
“You have to struggle with where God is calling you and how you’re going to follow.”…
Several speakers addressed a different form of conscientious objection, war tax resistance.
Phil and Louise Rieman of Indianapolis and Alice and Ron Martin-Adkins of Washington, D.C., explained why they had decided not to pay the portion of their taxes that support military operations — and the consequences that can come with that choice.
Marian Franz of the National Peace Tax Fund provided additional background on this form of witness.
“If we say that war is wrong, and we believe war is wrong, then why would we pay for it?” Louise Rieman said.
“It was more than I expected,” said Chrissy Sollenberger, a youth participant from Annville, Pa.
“I didn’t think there was so much about conscientious objection to talk about.
I just thought it was saying no to being drafted, but it’s so much more than that.…
It feels like we have more power now to make those choices.”
So lately I’ve been being very urban homesteader — baking bread, brewing beer and sake, making yogurt, weeding the garden, canning soups.
I’ve been looking for a paying gig, too, which I think partially explains my sudden explosion of home usefulness: it gives me something productive to do while I wait for résumés and bids to be ignored.
What I haven’t been doing much is writing anything substantial for The Picket Line.
Sorry ’bout that.
Meanwhile all sorts of interesting things have backed up in my bookmarks, waiting for me to add some insight or context before passing them on for you to enjoy.
I think instead I’ll just let them spill out here and trust you to fill in the blanks:
Francois Tremblay wonders if taxpayers become complicit in what their tax dollars support. He weighs the arguments for both sides (no, because their participation is legally required; and yes, because their participation is nonetheless voluntary) and then engages in some spirited give-and-take with his readers.
War tax resisters Phil and Louise Baldwin Rieman died in a car accident shortly after .
There have been several remembrances of the couple on-line, such as this one from the Church of the Brethren.
Murray Rothbard writes about ending tyranny without violence (through withdrawal of consent) and the nearly 500-year-old insights of Étienne de La Boétie.
The Taxpayer Advocate said in its annual report that American taxpayers pay — above and beyond what they actually are charged in taxes — nearly two hundred billion dollars just trying to do the paperwork involved in taxpaying.
Our local paper did the math and put a number on a conclusion that should have been pretty obvious: it’s much cheaper to take public transit than to drive.
According to their figures, it costs Bay Area drivers about $1,000 per month to get where they’re going by car instead of by bus and rail.
Hell, we pay that much for rent.
A writer for Rebelión notes that Europe’s public is sick of spending so much on the military and asks, “is tax resistance not therefore justified, an investment in the struggle for what is worth the trouble of defending instead of the military costs that impede this to a great extent?” (en español)
Finally, U.S. nuclear weapons spending topped $52 billion (and that’s only counting what we’re allowed to know about).
Compare that to the budget of your favorite government agency, business, or non-profit.
Here’s a piece from the New York Times that mostly concerns the efforts of the promoters of “Peace Tax Fund” legislation in the United States but also touches on American war tax resisters:
War Resisters: ‘We Won’t Go’ to ‘We Won’t Pay’
You could hardly find a more problematic time for pacifists who do not want their taxes spent on the military.
But the recent wave of patriotic fervor has only reinvigorated the efforts of one tiny, determined group.
“On , I was told I should lay low for a while,” said Marian Franz, executive director of the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund.
“Now I have been told this is the time.
As the war grows, so does the antiwar movement.”
For more than three decades, the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund has petitioned the federal government for a way to earmark the tax revenues that would go to the military — usually around 50 percent — for nonmilitary purposes, like education or health care.
Like conscientious objectors who in the past were offered an alternative to military service, these resisters say the First Amendment protects their ethical or religious objections to paying for war with their taxes.
Like other groups that have struggled to reconcile the obligations of citizenship with antiwar beliefs, the campaign has had a marked increase in inquiries from the public over the last year.
At the Center on Conscience and War, a Washington-based national nonprofit group that works for the rights of conscientious objectors, phone calls quadrupled right after and are now about 4,000 a month, double the usual number, said J. E. McNeil, the center’s executive director.
Mary Loehr, the coordinator of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, an organization based in Ithaca, N.Y., that links 50 groups opposing war or weapons, has also seen a surge in interest.
“Starting , we have had a call a day from people asking for information, and our busy season is usually January through April,” she said.
“I would get 70-year-old women from the Midwest saying: ‘I don’t want to pay for this. Will it hurt my Social Security?’ ”
The debate over whether it is justifiable to withhold tax money from the military was waged on religious, philosophical and legal grounds even before supporters managed to have a bill on the matter introduced in Congress.
Derrick Bell, a visiting professor at the New York University Law School and an expert on constitutional issues, says the law doesn’t allow people to pick and choose where their tax money goes, as if they were at a buffet.
“When particular groups try to exempt themselves from having their tax money support a particular government activity, there is no legal precedent for that,” he said.
Professor Bell said the prevailing standard was that the “free exercise” of religion clause in the First Amendment was violated only if a law was shown to be irrational or unreasonable, or that someone suffered some special harm from it.
He noted, too, that even the right to be a conscientious objector to military service was established by statute and theoretically could be overturned by Congress.
“There is nothing written in stone,” Professor Bell said.
“Even the ‘free exercise’ clause has been variously interpreted.”
Opponents of the tax initiative commonly cite the fear that exempting some taxpayers for their religious beliefs would open a floodgate of claims from others objecting to federal support for everything from the arts to AIDS research.
Last year, for instance, a bill was introduced in the Illinois Legislature that would allow taxpayers who are against the death penalty to have the portion of their taxes that finances executions go to schools.
The bill, which never had any significant support, was killed.
But advocates counter that pacifism, often grounded in religious belief, is in a category by itself.
“Whenever you come up with a new issue, you hear ‘slippery slope,’ ‘Pandora’s box,’ ” said Ms. McNeil of the Center on Conscience and War, who is also a lawyer.
“There is no floodgate.
A minuscule amount of taxpayer money goes to pay for abortion or the death penalty, and other issues are political, not religious.”
In the United States, there has been a long religious and ethical tradition of opposition to war.
During the 19th century, Henry David Thoreau refused to pay taxes because he opposed slavery and the military.
The Mennonites, the Quakers and the members of the Church of the Brethren, who belong to what are known as historic peace churches because of their pacifist tradition, all refused to take part in the American Revolution.
They laid the foundation for the creation in of the Selective Service Alternative Service Program for conscientious objectors, which started with World War Ⅱ.
Until then, there was no legal recognition for conscientious objection.
During World War Ⅰ, 17 soldiers who were conscientious objectors even received death sentences in a military court, although none were carried out.
In the United States Supreme Court ruled that the criteria for conscientious objection could be broadened to include men who were not members of any religious denomination and in to include those who did not profess belief in a Supreme Being but had ethical or moral convictions against war.
Ms. Loehr, 44, who has been a war tax resister for 22 years, estimates that about 5,000 people around the country currently withhold taxes because of their objections to war and military spending.
Some tax resisters purposely keep their earnings too low to be taxed, she said, while some are self-employed and refuse to pay estimated tax; and some claim an abundance of tax exemptions so their employers cannot take the money from their paychecks.
The Rev. Michael J. Baxter, national secretary for the Catholic Peace Fellowship in South Bend, Ind., and a professor of theology at Notre Dame University, predicts resistance will rise.
“I think as the U.S. gets ready to go to war in Iraq, there will be more tax resisters,” he said.
“Sometimes during war, the place that good Christians belong is in jail.”
His group has already begun advising conscientious objectors in case the draft is revived, he said.
In June, to put a human face on their ideals, the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund put together a 15-page booklet featuring the smiling images and often sad tales of tax resisters across the country.
Some of the resisters profiled donate the taxes that they estimate would go to the military to other causes.
Others have been imprisoned or lost their assets because of tax evasion.
They say they have reached their convictions about the immorality of war through their religious beliefs or the influence of thinkers like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
As pacifists and pastors in the Church of the Brethren, Phil and Louise Baldwin Rieman argue that contributing funds to war is the same as killing.
For 30 years they have given about 60 percent of their taxes to civil rights and peace programs, despite Internal Revenue Service threats of liens against their bank accounts, wage-garnishment letters sent to churches where they worked and government seizure of their family van.
“We will look back on war someday like we did on slavery,” said Mr. Rieman, who lives in Indianapolis.
A conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, he completed two years of alternative service.
“It feels lonely sometimes, but mostly it feels frustrating,” said Mrs. Rieman, 56, describing the couple’s long odyssey.
“We can’t buy a house, we can’t buy a car.
We don’t enjoy the feeling of religious freedom they say we enjoy in this country.”
Stanley M. Hauerwas, a professor of theological ethics at Duke Divinity School, said many religious traditions had a history of resistance to laws they considered immoral, those statutes supporting slavery being prime examples.
Even the way that the standards for conscientious objection have changed, from requiring membership in a pacifist church to simply allowing the adherence to certain ethics, shows a government grappling with what constitutes religion, Professor Hauerwas said.
Is it ethics, beliefs, membership?
The Peace Tax Fund bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code, setting up a nonmilitary fund to which pacifists could contribute the tax money that would otherwise go to the military.
Introduced in by Representative Ron Dellums, Democrat of California, it has been reintroduced every year since and had 35 supporters in the House of Representatives during Congress’s last session.
“ changed the equation once again,” said Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York, a two-time co-sponsor of the bill who no longer supports it.
“A case could be made that if every American decided they didn’t like certain policies and decided to withhold taxes, it would be a problem.
It wreaks havoc with government.”
But Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, the bill’s current sponsor and a veteran of the civil rights movement, said should not make a difference in supporting the rights of conscientious objectors.
Other groups may have their own objections to the way federal taxes are spent, he said, but his philosophy was “you try to take the ones that have the largest meaning to the largest number of individuals.”
“We will put on a whole new effort when we come back to Congress,” said Mr. Lewis, an ordained Baptist minister.
“Look at the military budget.
We have enough bombs, we have enough missiles, we have enough guns.”
The 8 August 1981 Nashua Telegraph carried an article by Associated Press “Religion Writer” George W. Cornell.
Some excerpts:
A-bomb anniversary brings peaceful fight
New York (AP) —
In a time of military buildup, the “peace” people are marching, praying, fasting and signing petitions.
Several denominations have made “peacemaking” a current priority.
And some church leaders, including a bold bishop, have advised refusing to pay the portion of taxes that goes for arms.
[A]dvocacy of withholding so-called “war taxes” — the share of federal income taxes that go for military equipment — came not just from traditional “peace” denominations, but from a Roman Catholic archbishop.
Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen of Seattle, in a speech that has since evoked wide and varying reactions, suggested Christians refuse to pay the half of their federal income taxes going for armament.
“We have to refuse to give our incense — in our day, tax dollars — to the nuclear idol,” he said.
“I think the teaching of Jesus tells us to render to a nuclear-arms Caesar what Caesar deserves — tax resistance.
“Some would call what I am urging ‘civil disobedience.’
I prefer to see it as obedience to God.”
Similar suggestions have come from some other Christians, most solidly from leaders of three relatively small, but historic “peace” denominations — The Church of the Brethren, the Friends and Mennonites.
A joint meeting of them under the banner of “New Call to Peacemaking” said paying for war is wrong and asked members to “consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes, as a response to Christ’s call to radical discipleship.”
In separate denominational actions, the Church of the Brethren has supported “open, massive withholding of war taxes” and the Mennonites general conference is fighting in court against being required to withhold taxes partly used for military purposes from employes’ income.
The New York-based War Resisters League estimates 2,000 to 10,000 Americans annually hold back part of their taxes, some eventually being forced to pay but continuing to repeat the protest.
On representatives from
the IRS
testified before a Congressional committee about their efforts to improve
taxpayer compliance, and specifically to get non-filers back in the system.
Two non-filers testified in person — neither of them conscientious tax
resisters, though one went on at length about wasteful government spending,
and although he blamed his own nonfiling on negligence and wastefulness, it
was hard not to believe that resentment didn’t also play a role.
Conscientious objectors to taxation were more or less ignored by the committee
and by those witnesses who appeared before it. Representative Andy Jacobs,
Jr. submitted a statement in
support of legislation he introduced that would have created the United States
Peace Tax Fund and permitted conscientious objectors to military spending to
direct their taxes there. Here is the way he described the bill:
In some real ways, the legislation probably ought to be called The Federal
Revenue Collection Enhancement Act.
Conscientious objectors in many cases are refusing to pay their full tax
obligations because to pay the military portion would violate deeply held
religious or ethical beliefs. Most of us believe that our taxes should cover
national defense. And most of us believe that in time of American war we
should serve in the military if we are capable of doing so. But conscientious
objection has been recognized since before George Washington’s time. He
favored accommodation of the consciences of sincere objectors and recognized
that for the citizens of sincere conscience in opposition to war, there is no
choice.
This bill is a win-win proposition. It would simply allow a bona fide
conscientious objector to be assured that none of his or her taxes would go
to military purposes. Instead those taxes would be earmarked for
WIC,
Head Start, the
U.S. Institute of
Peace and the Peace Corps.
In no way would the bill change the priorities voted by the Congress. The
Defense Department would get exactly as much money as the Congress and the
President determined to be appropriate and the
WIC
Program and others listed in the bill would get no more than the Congress and
the President decided. The bill would simply allow the conscientious
objectors to pay their full taxes in good conscience.
Statements in support of the bill were also submitted by
Of the three historic “peace churches” that have included war tax resistance in their tenets, I’ve paid relatively little attention to the Church of the Brethren, the smallest of the three (the other two are Quakers and Mennonites).
While the Church of the Brethren recognizes the responsibility of all citizens to pay taxes for the constructive purposes of government, we oppose the use of taxes by the government for war purposes and military expenditures.
For those who are conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for these purposes, the church seeks government provision for an alternative use of such tax money for peaceful, nonmilitary purposes.
The church recognizes that its members will believe and act differently in regard to their payment of taxes when a significant percentage goes for war purposes and military expenditures.
Some will pay the taxes willingly; some will pay the taxes but express a protest to the government; some will refuse to pay all or part of the taxes as a witness and a protest; and some will voluntarily limit their incomes or use of taxable services to a low enough level that they are not subject to taxation.
We call upon all of our members, congregations, institutions, and boards, to study seriously the problem of paying taxes for war purposes and investing in those government bonds which support war.
We further call upon them to act in response to their study, to the leading of conscience, and to their understanding of the Christian faith.
To all we pledge to maintain our continuing ministry of fellowship and spiritual concern.
And here is the text of Taxes For War Purposes, an undated (circa 1967–8) pamphlet billed as “A Statement Adopted by the Brethren Service Commission”:
The Problem
A major and ever-growing portion of the Federal budget is going for war purposes and military expenditures.
The Federal Income Tax, Federal Telephone Tax, and other Federal taxes provide the monies for these purposes.
The percentage of the Federal budget which goes for war purposes and military expenditures ranges from 60% to 90%.
Traditionally, the source for most of this money has been the Federal Income Tax.
However, in the Congress restored the 10% tax on telephone bills to help pay for the Vietnam War and the President is now pressing for a 10% Surtax to provide still additional revenue needed to fight the war.
This situation presents a serious and growing problem of conscience for peace-minded people and conscientious objectors to war who put their trust in the power of love, nonviolence, and international cooperation rather than in military might.
They are caught in a conflict of conscience between loyalty to their land and obedience to God, between obligation to state and responsibility to Christ.
The Church’s Stance
The Church of the Brethren historically has opposed war and participation in war while at the same time it has taught responsible citizenship.
The Statement of the Church of the Brethren on War said:
“The American public may come to accept as normal and inevitable the prospect that the nation must be prepared to go to war at any moment, that every young man must spend time in military service, that an overwhelming share of our heavy Federal taxes must be devoted to military needs, and that this country must always be willing to assume the military burdens of weaker allies, actual or potential.
“Because of our complete dissent from these assumptions the Church of the Brethren desires again, as at other times in its history, to declare its convictions about war and peace, military service and conscription, the right of Christian conscience, and the responsibility of Christian citizenship.”
The Statement of the Church of the Brethren on Church, State, and Christian Citizenship said, “The Christian should appreciate and support the worthy functions which government performs.
He should willingly obey the state in matters on which he has no contrary moral conviction.
On the other hand, he should be alert to occasions when government neglects or misuses its trust from God.
When he is profoundly convinced that God forbids what the State demands, it is his responsibility to express his convictions.
Such expression may include disobedience of the State.”
The church recognizes and encourages freedom of conscience regarding war and the payment of taxes for war purposes.
Although it recommends alternative service instead of military service, it recognizes that not all members will hold the belief which the church recommends.
The same may be said regarding the payment of taxes for war purposes.
Although the church opposes the use of Federal taxes for war purposes and military expenditures, it recognizes that not ail members will hold this belief, and that even among those who do, there will be different expressions of that belief.
Present Alternatives
Four positions on the payment of Federal taxes for war purposes are evident:
paying the taxes
paying the taxes but expressing a protest to the government
voluntarily limiting one’s income or use of services to such a low level that they are not subject to Federal taxation
refusing to pay all or part of the taxes as a witness and a protest
1. Payment of taxes.
Persons who favor the government’s war and military policies willingly pay their taxes for these purposes.
Other taxpayers judge the constructive functions of government to outweigh the unacceptable activities.
Others feel that responsible citizenship requires the payment of all taxes.
Some who oppose the use of taxes for war feel that the risks and efforts involved in opposing such use of taxes are not worth the negligible results.
2. Payment of taxes under protest.
Persons who follow this alternative usually file a letter with appropriate government officials protesting the use of any of their tax money for war purposes or military expenditures.
Frequently they urge the government to use their tax money only for peaceful and constructive purposes either through the United States Government or the United Nations.
Sometimes such persons ask government leaders to amend the nation’s tax laws, especially the income tax law, to provide an alternative opportunity to those conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for war purposes to designate the use of their tax dollars for peaceful and constructive purposes either through United States Government functions or United Nations operations.
3. Limitation of income or use of service to non-taxable level.
Some persons are led by their consciences to limit voluntarily their income to such a low level that it will not be subject to Federal taxation for war purposes.
Likewise they may not install a telephone or use other services which are subject to similar Federal taxation.
They may endeavor to avoid participating in all those aspects of economic life which contribute to or support war and military operations.
This is a sacrificial position difficult to maintain but which offers a significant witness and form of protest.
4. Non-payment of taxes or portions thereof.
Persons who follow this alternative refuse to pay all or part of the taxes asked by the government.
They engage in this form of civil disobedience because they conscientiously object to the use of their money by the government for war or military purposes and because they want to make a more vigorous protest against the government’s war policy and military policy.
Sometimes these persons contribute an equal amount to the United Nations or a private peace agency as a positive witness to their position.
The Federal Income Tax and the Federal Telephone Tax are presently the taxes most frequently refused by conscientious objectors.
Refusal to pay such taxes might possibly be considered a violation of Internal Revenue Code, Section 7203, which would be a misdemeanor subject to a fine up to $10,000 and jail up to one year.
However, the experiences of conscientious objectors to Federal taxes for war purposes during the past several years indicate that the government is not interested in pressing possible criminal charges, but in trying to collect the taxes here or there with interest.
The Internal Revenue Service usually attaches the salary or bank account of the non-payer and collects the tax plus 6% interest from the date the tax was due.
The non-payment of the Federal Income Tax or portion thereof is carried out by those who have payment control over all or part of their income tax return and who refuse to pay all or a portion of the money owed.
The non-payment of the Federal Telephone Tax or a portion thereof is carried out by refusing to pay that part of one’s monthly telephone bill and sending with each remittance a written explanation of why that portion is not included.
Telephone companies have indicated that refusal to pay this tax will not result in interruption of telephone service.
Telephone companies turn over to the Internal Revenue Service the responsibility for collecting such unpaid taxes.
The phone company treats refusal as a matter between the customer and the government.
Some companies continue to carry the refused tax on the telephone bill as an “unpaid balance,” others do not.
Recommendations
We call upon all of our members and congregations to study seriously the problem of paying taxes for war purposes.
We further call upon them to act in response to their study, to the leading of conscience, and to their understanding of the Christian faith.
To all, we pledge to maintain our continuing ministry of fellowship and spiritual concern.
In order to provide further information, help and guidance to our members and congregations, we make the following recommendations:
That the Brethren Service Commission provide appropriate information and counsel to our members on all of the foregoing alternatives.
That the Brethren Service Commission in concert with other agencies continue to seek for and to help secure a provision in the Federal income tax law for a constructive alternative to the payment of income taxes for war and military purposes.
As a part of this effort we suggest that an appropriate delegation visit the President and other policymaking leaders.
That the church oppose any proposed legislation to increase Federal taxes designed specifically to support the war such as the proposed Surtax.
This opposition can be expressed by the General Brotherhood Board through testimony before congressional committees, by congregations through policy statements adopted and forwarded to legislators, and by individuals through letters and contacts with legislators.
That the Brethren Service Commission provide an opportunity for a corporate public witness by those congregations and members led to refuse to pay the Federal Telephone Tax specifically designed to support the Vietnam War.
This corporate witness could well include publicizing a list of Brethren congregations and members refusing to pay this war tax and consenting to be on such a list.
That a similar opportunity for a corporate public witness be provided in respect to any other Federal taxes enacted or about to be enacted specifically designed to support the War, e.g., the Surtax.
That those congregations and individuals who refuse to pay taxes for war purposes and military expenditures be encouraged to contribute any amount thus saved to the peace program of the church or other peace agencies as a positive witness to their opposition to war.
War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in
War tax resistance remained very much on the agenda at the Friends Journal at the beginning of the Reagan era of aggressive military build-up in .
A letter from Jenny Duskey in the issue read, in part:
I belong to a community of disciples called Publishers of Truth.
Our testimony is that Christ’s disciples can have no part in war or preparation for war, and that this means not joining the military or being drawn into legally designated “alternatives” to conscription even when the law demands, as well as not paying taxes destined for military use when we can refuse them.
“Publishers of Truth” (see also the advertisement pictured in ♇ ) was centered around Larry and Lisa Kuenning, who came to prophesy an emerging paradise on Earth, centered on Farmington, Maine.
I’m tempted to do some further research in this direction, but am afraid of getting lost in some interesting by-ways.
Lisa Kuenning was a collaborator with Timothy Leary, and for a time an important figure in the psychedelic renaissance.
Last I checked, the Kuennings were running Quaker Heritage Press, which specializes in reprints of old Quaker books.
The issue had an in-depth article by Richard K. MacMaster on Christian Obedience in [American] Revolutionary Times, that included a discussion of Quaker responses to war taxes and militia exemption taxes.
Excerpts:
The Pennsylvania Assembly voted on to recommend to conscientious objectors “that they cheerfully assist in proportion to their abilities, such persons as cannot spend both time and substance in the service of their country without great injury to themselves and families.”
This would be a subsidy to poorer Associators, men who could not supply themselves with a musket and bayonet and needed help from their neighbors.
It was a far cry from the kind of nonpolitical relief work that the sects had in mind.
The Continental Congress did not help matters when it decreed in that members of the Peace Churches should “contribute liberally in this time of universal calamity, to the relief of their distressed brethren.”
Were these distressed brethren the poor of Boston or poor families in their own neighborhood or George Washington’s makeshift army camped on the hills overlooking Boston harbor?
The Peace Churches took the Congressional resolve as a last-minute reprieve and insisted that their contributions were for the poor, even though the money would be turned over to the County Committee.
“For we gave it in good faith for the needy,” a Lancaster County Brethren pastor explained, “and the man to whom we gave it gave us a receipt stating that the money would be used for that purpose.”
The Lancaster County experience was repeated in other Pennsylvania counties and in other colonies where Quakers, Brethren, and Mennonites were numerous.
Most communities tried voluntary contributions, but in Frederick County, Maryland, and Berks County, Pennsylvania, the committees levied fines on men of military age who did not drill with the Associators.
The nonresistant sects had fallen into a trap.
No matter how they labeled them, the authorities understood their voluntary contributions as donations to the war chest.
And if contributions failed to come voluntarily, they were already preparing for compulsory payment of money as an equivalent to military service.
Time was running out on the Peace Churches by .
Soon after the elections, military associators began petitioning the Pennsylvania Assembly that
some decisive Plan should be fallen upon to oblige every Inhabitant of the Province either with his Person or Property to contribute towards the general Cause, and that it should not be left, as at present, to the Inclinations of those professing tender Conscience, but that the Proportion they shall contribute, may be certainly fixed and determined.
These petitions asked much more than an increased tax assessment on the conscientious objectors.
The petitions explicitly stated that every member of the community had an obligation to make some contribution to the common cause; the additional tax would be a concession to those who could not meet that obligation on the field of battle.
The Peace Churches rightly put their case on the high ground of religious freedom.
Quakers expressed their “Concern on the Endeavours used to induce you to enter into Measures so manifestly repugnant to the Laws and Charter of this Province, and which, if enforced, must subvert that most essential of all Privileges, Liberty of Conscience.”
They asked the Assembly not to infringe the solemn assurance given them in Penn’s Charter, “that we shall not be obliged ‘to do or suffer any Act or Thing contrary to our religious Persuasion.’ ”
The revolutionary government rose to the challenge.
All sixty-six members of the Philadelphia Committee proceeded in a body to the Assembly chamber to present their response to the Quaker address to the Speaker of the House.
The same day, the Assembly heard petitions from the Officers of the Military Association of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia and from a Committee of Privates.
They first narrowly construed the grant of religious freedom in the Charter and threw out of court the sectarian contention that religion was more than a Sunday worship service.
We cannot alter the Opinion we have ever held with Regard to those parts of the Charier quoted by the Addressors, that they relate only to an Exemption from any Acts of Uniformity in Worship, and from paying towards the Support of other religious Establishments, than those to which the Inhabitants of this Province respectively belong.
The representation from the Committee of Privates went still further.
They insisted that “Those who believe the Scriptures must acknowledge that Civil Government is of divine Institution, and the Support of it enjoined to Christians.”
Quakers ought not to question what governments did, according to this Committee of Privates, but simply obey; God had ordained the powers and thereby gave sanction to every action of the state.
The lines were thus clearly drawn between the sectarian view of supremacy of conscience and the secular view of the primacy of the state.
The Mennonites and Church of the Brethren simply set down the limits of what they could do in good conscience.
Their petition made little difference to the course of events.
The day after the Mennonite and Brethren statement was read the Pennsylvania Assembly voted to require everyone of military age who would not drill with the Associators “to contribute an Equivalent to the time spent by the Associators in acquiring the military Discipline.”
Later in , the Assembly imposed a tax of two pounds and ten shillings on non-Associators, which would be remitted for those who joined a military unit.
Under new pressure from the Associators they raised the tax to three pounds and ten shillings in .
The Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention incorporated the principle of taxing conscientious objectors as an equivalent to military service in the Declaration of Rights they adopted.
It made explicit what most Patriots already believed:
That every Member of Society hath a right to be protected in the Enjoyment of Life, Liberty and property and therefore is bound to Contribute his proportion towards the Expence of that protection and yield his personal Service when necessary or an equivalent… Nor can any Man who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing Arms be justly compelled thereto if he will pay such equivalent.
Participation in warfare was a universal obligation, in their view, falling equally on every citizen; those who could not fight must pay others to fight in their place.…
The Assembly and the Convention clearly intended to make the Peace Churches pay for war and imposed the tax as an avowed equivalent to military service.… Religious pacifists carried the whole burden of the tax.
But a tax imposed on conscientious objectors as an equivalent to joining the army and intended for the military budget definitely infringed on the religious liberty guaranteed by William Penn’s Charter.
The war tax issue thus arose in a context of freedom of conscience curtailed for those whose Christian faith forbade their “giving, or doing, or assisting in any Thing by which Men’s Lives are destroyed or hurt.”
Maryland and North Carolina followed Pennsylvania’s example in levying a special tax on conscientious objectors; the North Carolina law made payment the grounds for exemption from actual service with the army.
Virginia and several other states required conscientious objectors to hire substitutes to take their place whenever their company of militia was drafted for combat duty.
Special tax assessments for military purposes passed every state legislature as the war dragged on.
And the rapidly depreciating Continental and state paper money that fueled a run-away inflation was itself a war tax.
Wherever Quakers, Mennonites, or Brethren lived, the problem of paying for war soon caught up with them
Could a valid distinction be made between military service and war taxes?
The Reverend John Carmichael, Scottish Presbyterian pastor in Chester County, Pennsylvania, had little sympathy with the nonresistant sects who refused to pay war taxes, but he saw no distinction between fighting and paying the cost of war.
In Rom 13, from the beginning, to the 7th verse, we are instructed at large the duty we owe to civil government, but if it was unlawful and anti-Christian, or anti-scriptural to support war, it would be unlawful to pay taxes; if it is unlawful to go to war, it is unlawful to pay another to do it, or to go do it.
Some Brethren, Mennonites, and Quakers agreed that no real distinction could be made and consequently refused to pay taxes levied for military purposes.
In his sermon, Carmichael spoke of Mennonites “who for the reasons already mentioned will not pay their taxes, and yet let others come and take their money, where they can find it, and be sure they will leave it where they can find it handily.”
They would not resist the tax collector in any way; but they could not cooperate in wrongdoing by voluntarily paying war taxes.
The law took this practice into account and permitted collectors to seize the property of those would not pay their own taxes.
Quakers officially discouraged payment of war taxes and militia fines.
Many Friends went to jail for their refusal and still a larger number allowed the authorities to take horses, cattle, furniture, farm implements and tools to pay their taxes.
They refused to accept any money from the sale of their goods over and above the tax and fine.
In the Shenandoah Valley and in other Quaker communities, their neighbors found rare bargains when the sheriff sold a Quaker farmer’s property for taxes and purposely kept the bidding low.
Virginia Yearly Meeting protested to the authorities about the sale of slaves, freed by their Quaker masters in defiance of the law, who were taken up and sold to pay their former masters’ war taxes.
Refusal to pay taxes for military purposes had a close parallel in Quaker refusal to pay taxes to support an established Church; they accepted the right of civil government to appropriate money for either purpose, but denied that civil government could coerce their consciences, even at the cost of jail sentences.
This was a minority position among English and American Friends, even after John Woolman prodded their conscience on war taxes.
Woolman’s influence can be seen in a circular letter issued by Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in , when Braddock’s defeat left Pennsylvania exposed to French and Indian raids and the Assembly ordered new taxes for mounting a fresh campaign.
The tax was a general one, including military appropriations with all the other functions of civil governments, but Friends agreed “as we cannot be concerned in wars and fightings, so neither ought we to contribute thereto by paying the tax directed by the said act, though suffering be the consequence of our refusal.”
The issue in was much clearer: the taxes were levied entirely for military purposes and intended as an equivalent to military service.
With the passage of years, Friends had the meaning of nonresistance in much sharper focus and a much greater number accepted the challenge of faithful discipleship.
Mennonites also responded to the challenge by refusing to pay war taxes.
When the Pennsylvania Assembly passed an act in to require a tax of three pounds and ten shillings from everyone of military age who refused to turn out with the militia, Mennonite opinion was divided.
Christian Funk, bishop in the Franconia congregation, allowed payment of the tax and tried to convince his brother ministers.
But refusal to pay war taxes had taken deep roots in the Mennonite tradition by .
The mere rumor that Funk permitted payment of the tax was enough to bring complaints against him at the time of preparation for the Lord’s Supper in and to lead to his ouster from the ministry.
All of the preachers and a great many other Mennonites in eastern Pennsylvania opposed payment of the tax.
Andrew Ziegler, bishop in the Skippack congregation, spoke for them, when he declared: “I would as soon go into the war, as to pay the three pounds ten shillings if I were not concerned for my life.”
Zeigler and others could see little difference between fighting and paying for war.
In the face of a long-standing tradition of paying taxes without questioning the purpose of the tax, men of faith testified from their own conscience that for them there could be no distinction between refusing to fight and refusing to pay for war.
These Mennonites, Brethren, and Quakers willingly accepted the penalty for their conscientious objection to war taxes in imprisonment and loss of property far in excess of the tax.
Their action reminded their brethren of the need for careful discrimination in rendering to Caesar the things that are really Caesar’s. They refused to let a majority vote in the legislature be their conscience and rejected the easy way of confusing Caesar’s will with the will of God.
In the same issue, Bill Durland of the Center on Law and Pacifism reviewed the attempts to get a sympathetic court hearing in the United States for the argument that conscientious objection to military taxation is a Constitutionally-protected right of citizens.
He described the founding of the Center in by himself, Robert Anthony, Bruce & Ruth Graves, Barbara & Howard Lull, Peter Herby, and Richard McSorley, and then described the various avenues of appeal the group was pursuing in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Anthony put his legal argument this way: to be compelled to pay war taxes “would force [him] to accept a creed, and practice a form of worship foreign to his convictions, and to establish as the only normative religious belief and practice, that adhered to by most Christian denominations, i.e., that it is both a Christian and an American duty to fight in just wars and pay for them.”
The Supreme Court wasn’t interested.
The Center tried again with the Graves’ case, asserting that the First Amendment’s assertion that “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” means that the governmental interest in having an efficient and uncomplicated tax system is trumped by the citizen’s right to a religious practice that forbids funding war.
Again, the Supreme Court turned up its nose.
The Center then made an attempt with the Lulls & Peter Herby as petitioners.
As the First Amendment arguments had failed to make any headway, this time they made a Hail Mary pass with a Ninth Amendment argument.
“This amendment recognizes that there are certain fundamental, inalienable rights not enumerated in the Constitution which the people possess that are preexisting to any constitution, are inherent in the individual, and are not subject to divestment either partially or completely by the state.
These rights have also been called ‘natural’ and are those held by an individual in a state of absolute liberty.
In contracting to enter into a state of society, the people collectively, and the person individually, only divest themselves of those natural rights which they expressly relinquish by enumeration.”
Nice try, but the Supreme Court yet again denied cert.
The article notes that in addition to First Amendment-based arguments, “each of the three cases raised at the Federal Court level a compelling legal position based on International Law and, in particular, the Nuremberg Principles.”
(Not compelling enough, apparently.)
An article in the same issue, by William Strong, profiles war tax resister Bruce Chrisman.
Excerpts:
[H]e cannot pay that portion of his federal taxes that he knows will be used for preparations for war.
For that, he is serving a criminal sentence that includes one year of humanitarian service without pay, three years of probation, a fine of $2,400 for court costs, and the payment of all back taxes due.
He deems this result a moral victory, however — the sentence could have been up to one year in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Over the years Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s minutes have reflected the repeated return of the war tax concern.
In a striking, sensitive minute was approved.
The unity reached at that time calls upon “all Friends to continue to search themselves deeply on their responsibility to separate themselves from preparations for war.”
Where does that searching lead?
“We encourage dialogue between conscientious war tax refusers and other concerned people struggling with the issue of paying war taxes.
We seek to build a community of deeply committed persons.”
Friends offer their real support — spiritual, moral, legal, and material — to that growing community, and close the minute by reaffirming:
Our strength and our security are derived from our belief in the reality of a loving God and the oneness of that of God in all people.
In order to say yes to this belief, we must seriously consider saying no to payment of war taxes.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s “War Tax Concerns Support Committee” works to carry out that minute.
Its mandate is broad, from war tax refusal and resistance, questing for administrative (IRS) and judicial relief, to a spectrum of wholly positive approaches.
The committee seeks “legislative relief” in pursuing the World Peace Tax Fund law that proposes alternative service for war taxes, for conscientious objectors to monetary conscription.
In the war tax concerns section of our Peace Testimony, as in most fields of Quaker endeavor, certain Friends are ’way out front.
They have been going down a committed road for years.
George and Lillian Willoughby, Bob Anthony, Lorraine Cleveland, and Robin Harper in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting come to mind.
“Not to worry” — most of us are beginners, and we don’t need to catch up.
What stride do we take this year — or this quarter — in the Light? We tackle the big issues by taking the next step, getting a bit more involved.
Saying “no” to that small, lingering, now two percent Vietnam War telephone tax, which does indeed produce a billion dollars in direct war taxes, is one such step.
Adjusting our withholding so that we take more control of our tax payments, with more options, is another.
Or do we match what the government requires of us in war taxes with comparable contributions to peace organizations?
Everyone ultimately decides his own next step, but often it comes out of shared, caring discussion with other Friends, “wrestling as I am, with the harder questions of our faith and practice.”
That issue also had a few short notes that mentioned war tax resistance:
“In Japan, COMIT (Conscientious Objection to Military Tax) is planning to sue the government for breach of constitution by taxing for war.”
“In Switzerland, 300 people belonging to the group ‘Pour une Politique de Paix Active’ refused to pay their military tax or some part of the duty levied for national defense.”
“[N]ine members of the Pacific Yearly Meeting Peace Committee testified ‘against rendering unto Caesar that which is God’s’ by declaring their solidarity with those Friends who refuse to cooperate with war taxes and draft registration.
Some seventeen others present at the yearly meeting also signed the statement.”
“A statement from Orange County Meeting asks: ‘If we recognize our involvement in militarism through the payment of taxes used for military purposes but do not act to end such involvement, then are we not hypocritical to tell Friends faced with registration to refuse military service?’ ”
The issue included a mention that the Australian Yearly Meeting was pursuing its own Peace Tax Fund plan “as a method of allowing taxpayers to direct a proportion of their tax to peace purposes instead of military spending.”
The issue noted that a “Historic Peace Church Task Force on Taxes is preparing a packet of study materials to provide information on the biblical basis of war taxes and the World Peace Tax Fund… together with suggestions for personal and political action.”
Maurice McCracken wrote in to the issue to chide anti-war activists for their timidity.
Excerpts:
Indeed it is a feeble gesture to do what we do not believe in; even though we protest doing it.
The only valid protest is resistance and complete noncooperation with what we believe to be wrong.
[A] law… threatens anyone who advises a young man not to register for the draft with the same penalty as the non-registrant — a possible prison sentence of five years and a possible fine of $5,000. In the draft registration resistance movement I find that considerable time is spent on how to counsel young men about registration so it will not appear that we are actually advising them not to register.
Why this hesitancy and timidity?
I not only advise young men of draft age not to register.
I urge them not to register.
This military juggernaut which threatens to destroy all human life and all animal and plant life on the planet must be stopped.
It must be resisted at the point of not filing a federal income tax return and of not registering for the draft.
A thief-says, “Your money or your life.”
The Pentagon says, “Your money and your life!”
I refuse to give either one!
Won’t you join me?
In the issue, E. Raymond Wilson tried to envision a “Quaker Peace Program” that would be adequate to the challenges of .
He advocated working toward a more powerful U.N., drastic disarmament, global economic/social development with an emphasis on underdeveloped areas, and active reconciliation of global adversaries.
Much of this work would involve lobbying and other pleading with powerful people whose inclinations are largely in the opposite direction; but there was also a nod toward conscientious objection:
an ad in the issue of Friends Journal
Friends should seriously consider the recommendations of the Second New Call to Peacemaking Conference that individuals should withhold all or part of their income tax going to military and war appropriations, now estimated at more than forty-eight percent of the budget controlled by Congress.
War tax resistance came up at the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in .
War tax resister John Beer wrote down some questions that people had about resisting, and in a Friends Journal issue , Bill Strong (of the Meeting’s “War Tax Concerns Support Committee”) answered them.
The questions were:
“If we refuse $100 of our federal war taxes and give it to some organization working for peace, what steps will the IRS take?”
“What options do we have in dealing with the IRS actions?”
“Is the initial letter we send with our tax return, stating the reasons for our tax refusal, important in terms of the subsequent legal proceedings?”
“Should we get help from a lawyer or tax refusal group in composing the letter?”
“What kind of advice can you provide which will allow us to profit from the experience of those who are already refusing to pay war taxes?”
“What happens to persons who refuse war taxes year after year?”
Some excerpts from the answers give a window into how war tax resistance was practiced by Quakers and by Meetings:
Both at Celo (NC) Meeting and at Central Philadelphia Meeting members asked others to share their examination or audit with IRS agents.
The first was in the refusers’ home, the latter in a federal office building.…
One Friend has been refusing for 23 years.
His witness continues and collection is still in the future, so much of the obligations of the early years have lapsed.
Another Friend, whose refusal goes back even further, has had the funds due taken at irregular intervals from her checking account.
A report in the issue noted that the Lake Erie Yearly Meeting in had “considered a minute on war tax concerns” based on queries from the New Call to Peacemaking Conference:
“If we believe that fighting war is wrong, does it not follow that paying for war is wrong?
If we urge resistance to the draft, should we not also resist the conscription of our material resources?”
The minute concluded: “We reassert the historic peace witness of the Society of Friends.
We commit ourselves to wrestle with the contradictions between our testimony and our government’s tax regulations.
To continue quiet payment for war preparations is to the conditions for war.”
Each meeting was urged to appoint a representative to the World Peace Tax Fund.
Finally, the issue brought a meditation on “the peaceable kingdom” by Susan Furry.
She believed that the Kingdom of God, the peaceable commonwealth, was “at hand” as Jesus said it was, and that it was the duty of Christians to “begin to live there.”
She reflected on how she came to include war tax resistance in her vision of how to carry this out:
an ad in the issue of Friends Journal
…I felt that I had to begin to look into the question of war tax resistance.
This led to a long period of study and self-examination.
To me, becoming a war tax resister meant making a final commitment to pacifism, and I didn’t do it lightly.
It took a lot of prayer and thought and the help and support of many people in my meeting to bring me to a point of clearness, where I know, solidly and comfortably, that this action is right for me.
Since then I have found myself being led not only to resist war taxes for myself but also to speak about it to others and to offer counsel and support to those who are considering this action.
I have helped prepare a packet called “Quakers and War Taxes” which is on sale at my meeting and have been involved in setting up the New England Friends Peace Tax Fund, an escrow fund for tax resisters under the care of my yearly meeting: I’ve been given a lot of encouragement to continue and to grow in my tax resistance activities through the support of others in my meeting, many of whom are not tax resisters themselves but friends who recognize that it is the right thing for me to do.
I’ve found that obedience to the divine leading I have felt in this matter has brought me closer to God, has given me new courage, and has opened me to further leadings.
In practical terms, war tax resistance seems to be a futile, irrational, and perhaps risky undertaking.
I think by now I’ve probably heard all the possible arguments against it.
The only answer I can really give is, “This is something I must do, to be faithful to my conscience and my understanding of God’s will.”
For it is part of the foolishness of God, which is wiser than human wisdom, as Paul tells us in First Corinthians.
It requires me to acknowledge my dependence on God’s guidance and strength.
I don’t know where my action will lead in practical terms, but I trust God to make use of it; I don’t know what the consequences will be for me personally, but I trust God to help me to face them.
In one way or another, perhaps, peacemaking may bring all of us to that place of acknowledging our dependence on God.
For me it has come through tax resistance.
For another it may come through the old dilemma about Hitler or through an experience of physical violence on the street.
In any case one comes to a place where one has to say, “I don’t know what will happen, but I place my trust in the God of love and accept the consequences.”
In coming to rely on God more, I have begun to learn that God really is dependable.
I have felt God working through the beautiful support I have received from many individuals and from my meeting.
I’ve been to tax court twice and was sustained by a powerful sense of God’s presence.
I’ve faced the certainty of financial loss and found that it doesn’t trouble me as much as I feared it would.
However, I still worry about the future; I haven’t reached the point where I can really leave it all in God’s hands.
Sometimes I even wonder about going to jail.
Right now the government isn’t prosecuting many war tax resisters, but it is always a possibility.
My actions are not very unusual; there are over forty war tax resisters in my meeting alone and many more in New England.
I know many people who have sacrificed more and taken greater risks for peace than I have.
But I have learned that when you follow God one step down the road, God usually asks you to take another step.
Who knows what God may ask of me in the future?
I have friends who have gone to jail for conscience’ sake, and I wonder if I could face that if it came to me.
My action in refusing to voluntarily pay taxes for war is largely symbolic — like the early Christians who refused to put a pinch of incense on Caesar’s altar.
Is it worth the risk to make a symbolic gesture?
Such questions take me back to the Christian roots of my faith.
I know that my way of thinking about these things and the language I use do not work for everybody, but these are the symbols which make sense to me, so I must use them.
War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in
The third of Friends Journal’s special issues on war tax resistance came in , and the topic came up in several other issues besides.
An article by Mary Bye in the issue showed how the arguments for war tax resistance were starting to break the bounds of the tax arena and take hold elsewhere.
Excerpts:
In a letter from the collection department of Philadelphia Electric Company demanded payment for a backlog of refused rate hikes.
I had withheld the 13.7 percent imposed to cover the construction costs of the Salem and Limerick nuclear reactors.
Why did I take this stand?
Looking back over the years for the source of my action, I could see it springing from a long-time insistence upon justice, a small but growing willingness to risk, a perennial sense of grief for suffering, and a blossoming love of the Earth.
These are the qualities of the spirit which began to unfold into action during the early days of the Vietnam War.
Somewhere along the line, I refused to pay the war tax portion of my federal income tax.
Later the Vietnam War ground to a halt when legislation ended financial support for it.
Was it just a coincidence that our war tax resistance preceded this legislation?
Or did citizens modeling the denial of monies not only support the growing disaffection with the war, but also provide a clue to a way to end it?
We had perhaps unwittingly slipped into an old Christian strategy of living as if the Kingdom were here now, and, behold, it manifested a brave, new world, or at least the beginning of one.
War tax resistance seemed an appropriate base upon which to build a new witness of caring for the whole Earth.…
…With crystalline clarity I selected my own utility, Philadelphia Electric, and refused the rate hike for Salem and Limerick.
After 1½ years of refusal, accompanied by monthly explanations, I received a warning letter from the collection department, threatening an end of service.
The initial fright yielded to a decision to continue resisting and move as swiftly as possible to establish my independence from nuclear power forever.
I faced a new, expensive, complicated simplicity: photovoltaic cells, which produce electrical current when exposed to light, and which could free me from bondage not only to nuclear generators but also fossil fuel-fired reactors.
As war tax resistance led me to a lower income, so rate hike refusal was pointing the way to lower energy demands.
My living standard may drop, but the quality of my life soars.
Meanwhile I have discovered that Philadelphia Electric is experimenting with photovoltaics in anticipation of the coming solar age.
If the price is right, I could purchase them there.
After all, nuclear power is the enemy, not the electric company.
This is the vision, but it is a dream deferred or rather only partially realized.
Philadelphia Electric Company and Solarex, which manufactures photovoltaic cells, want to establish a demonstration project at my home that would provide between one-fourth and one-third of the daily demand here for electricity.
The stumbling block is the cost, which would possibly necessitate a 35-year pay-back period.
So I am circling the photovoltaic issue in a holding pattern like a plane above an airport.
I am searching for answers to hard questions: such as what is the equitable balance between the cost of photovoltaics and the wattage generated?
What is a reasonable payback time?
If the cost is rock bottom right now, how do we gather funds?
How do we secure state and government support?
Are churches and meetinghouses able to model this kind of caring for God’s creation?
How do we dream this dream into reality?
I would welcome your suggestions.
an ad in the issue of Friends Journal
That issue also announced a “Conference for Quaker, Mennonite, and Brethren employers, airing ways to deal with war tax resistance by employees.
Sponsored by Friends Committee on War Tax Concerns and New Call to Peacemaking.”
That conference was covered in the issue in an article by Paul Schrag.
Excerpts:
The question of how church organizations can help their employees follow their consciences — and how to deal with the risks involved for both employees and employers — were the issues that 36 Mennonites, Brethren, and Quakers struggled with at the meeting.
The church leaders, organizational representatives and lawyers affirmed their support for individual military tax resisters and for efforts to seek a legislative solution by working toward passage of the U.S. Peace Tax Fund bill in Congress.
They agreed to organize a peace church leadership group to go to Washington, D.C., to support the peace tax bill and to express concerns about tax withholding.
They also agreed to help each other by filing friend-of-the-court briefs if tax resisters are prosecuted and by sharing the cost of tax resistance penalties, if necessary.
People from churches that refuse to withhold federal taxes for employees who oppose paying military taxes shared their experiences with people from churches considering adopting such a policy.
The General Conference Mennonite Church and two Quaker groups are in the first category.
The Mennonite Church is in the second.
The meeting, held at Quaker Hill Conference Center, took place in an atmosphere of excitement generated by a gathering of people from different traditions who share a vision.
One conference participant said it was frustrating that many members of historic peace churches are unwilling to witness against financial participation in preparing for war, although they are opposed to physical participation in war.
Some said it was disappointing that so many people are unwilling to follow their consciences until the government, through the Peace Tax Fund, might allow them to do so legally.
One quoted Gandhi: “We have stooped so low that we fancy it our duty to do whatever the law requires.”
When a church or organization decides to honor employees’ requests not to withhold their federal income tax, it assumes serious risks.
Theoretically, a person in a responsible position who willfully fails to withhold an employee’s taxes can be punished with a prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.
An organization can be fined $500,000.
But such penalties have never been imposed on legitimate religious organizations, nor are they likely to be, said two lawyers at the meeting.
The usual Internal Revenue Service response to war tax resistance is to take the amount of tax owed, plus a 5 percent penalty and interest, from the employee’s bank account.
However, the IRS has not taken even this action against General Conference Mennonite Church employees who are not having their taxes withheld.
They pay the nonmilitary portion of their taxes themselves and deposit the 53 percent that would have gone to the military in a designated account.
The IRS has not touched that account after church delegates approved the policy in .
All church personnel who could be subject to penalties have agreed to accept the risk.
Friends World Committee for Consultation, which has had a nonwithholding policy , has had tax money seized, plus interest and penalties, from its resisters’ bank accounts.
Friends United Meeting adopted a non withholding policy .
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends is considering such a policy.
A representative of the Church of the Brethren said he would use input from the meeting to work toward developing a denominational policy on tax resistance.
Lobbying continues for the Peace Tax Fund bill…
The bill would allow people opposed to war taxes to put the portion normally given to the military in a separate fund for peaceful purposes.
The rest of that person’s tax money also would be designated for nonmilitary use…
Whether or not military tax resistance is effective, participants agreed that people’s moral imperative to follow their consciences must be respected.
“No conscientious objector ever stopped a conflict,” said William Strong, a Quaker representative [and treasurer of the Friends Journal Board of Directors].
“But they had to explain what they did, and the vision was kept alive, and those ripples, you don’t know where they stop.”
A postscript noted: “ ‘A Manual on Military Tax Withholding for Religious Employers,’ written by Robert Hull, Linda Coffin, Peter Goldberger, and J.E. McNeil, will be available .”
from the cover to the issue of Friends Journal
The issue was the third special issue on war taxes from the Friends Journal.
It was prompted in part by the fact that the Journal itself had received IRS levies on the salary of its editor, Vinton Deming, who had been refusing to pay income tax .
The Treasurer of the Journal, William D. Strong, explained what was going on in the lead editorial:
The Friends Journal Board of Managers has twice been unable to honor the levy against the wages of our editor, Vint Deming, for unpaid federal taxes.
In our most recent reply to the Internal Revenue Service we stated that:
It is not possible for us as a board to separate our faith and our practice: we must live out our faith.
Our earlier letter… refers to our 300-year-old Peace Testimony.
To more fully describe that part of our beliefs we enclose copies of two sections of Faith and Practice, the book of spiritual discipline of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.
[“The Peace Testimony” and “The Individual and the State,” pp. 34–38, were shared.]
Our position of noncompliance to the requests of the Internal Revenue Service is not an easy one.
We do not question the laws of the land lightly, but do so under the weight of a genuine religious and moral concern.
We know as well that other religious groups — Mennonites, Brethren, and others — are facing this same difficult dilemma.
For this reason, many of us support the proposed Peace Tax Fund bill in Congress.
The board agreed at our meeting in to make known this continuing witness, both individual and corporate, to you, our readers.
The dilemma is clearly not the Journal’s alone.
Many Quaker institutions in the United States, Canada, and England have faced this challenge.
Beyond the historic peace churches are Catholics, Methodists, and others who are considering the whole question of taxes and militarism.
In February representatives of some 70 institutions came together at the Quaker Hill Conference Center in Richmond, Indiana, for a New Call to Peacemaking consultation on “Employers and War Taxes.”
This followed a Quaker conference at Pendle Hill considering the same concern.
The Journal board has worked at and reached unity in this matter.
We will continue to seek the light in the months and years ahead.
For now, however, we would welcome the support and reactions of our subscribers and readers.
If you’d like to share in this witness with your moral support, let us know.
If you’d like to add practical support, we would welcome it, as we are establishing a Conscience Fund.
We don’t plan extensive legal undertakings at this time, but we know that there can readily be some fees and costs ahead, as well as possible penalties resulting from our refusal to honor the levies from the IRS.
We look forward to the response of our readers. We feel that we cannot host writings in the issues of the Journal on peace and justice, on our testimonies and faith and practice, without, as an employer, living them out to the best of our God-given abilities.
Another article in the special issue was an extract from J. William Frost’s Tax Court testimony in the Deming case, in which he explained the Quaker war tax resistance practice:
The peace testimony has been a basic part of Quaker religious belief .
The testimony has not been static; it has evolved over time as Friends thought out the implications of what it meant to be a bringer of peace.
Some of the most creative actions of members of the Society of Friends have come from the peace testimony.
For example, Friends’ primary contribution to world history is that they began and carried through the antislavery testimony.
Friends became antislavery advocates in , when they realized that the only way one could obtain a black slave was to take him or her captive in war.
Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn for religious liberty.
Penn believed, and so did the early settlers, that to create a Quaker colony meant there would be no militia, no war taxes and no oaths.
These were conceived to be part of religious freedom, and in the early years of Pennsylvania, there was no militia, and there were no war taxes and no oaths.
At first, the Pennsylvania Assembly refused to levy any taxes for the direct carrying on of war.
Instead, after when the British government requested money because it was already beginning its long series of wars with France, the Crown and the Pennsylvania Assembly worked out a series of arrangements.
Those arrangements provided that the Assembly (then composed primarily of Quakers) would provide money for the king’s use or the queen’s use, but the laws also stipulated that that money would not be directly used for military purposes; i.e., there would be almost a noncombat status for Quaker money.
It could be used to provide foodstuffs to be used to feed the Indians, or it could purchase grain or relieve sufferings.
It would not be used to provide guns and gunpowder.
This policy of no direct war taxes, no militia, and no oaths, was followed in Pennsylvania .
In , a group of members of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting began the debate on whether Quakers should pay taxes in time of war.
At this time, some of the most devout Quakers refused to pay a war tax levied by the Pennsylvania Assembly.
And finally the yearly meeting agreed that those whose consciences would not allow them to pay the taxes, should not.
So the heritage of Pennsylvania was that government accommodated the religion.
The Federal Constitution allows for an affirmation, because certain religious rights are antecedent to the establishment of the government, and the government can and will accommodate itself to religious scruples of those people who are conscientious good citizens.
there was less opportunity for tax resistance because there was no direct federal taxation.
The federal government was financed by tariffs, and the tariffs were used to carry out the full operations of government.
(The major exception came during the Civil War, and here the main issues were military service and Quakers’ refusal to pay a substitution tax.)
The main Quaker response to World War Ⅰ was the creation of the American Friends Service Committee.
This organization was designed to allow those young men who did not wish to fight (conscientious objectors) to have an opportunity for constructive service (i.e., to provide relief and reconstruction in the war zone).
Friends conducted relief activities in France, and then later in Germany, Serbia, Poland, and in Russia.
The War Department accommodated itself to Friends.
There was no specific provision in the draft law in World War Ⅰ for conscientious objectors.
The War Department allowed those Friends who wished to serve in the American Friends Service Committee to be furloughed so that they could go abroad to participate in relief activities.
A second way in which the authorities accommodated Friends at that time was in relief money raised by the Red Cross for Bonds.
Much of the Red Cross effort was for military hospitals, and Friends did not wish to support that effort.
Therefore in Philadelphia an agreement was worked out whereby Friends contributed money or bonds which would be earmarked for the American Friends Service Committee or for relief activity rather than for direct war activity.
There were instances in World War Ⅱ of individual Friends refusing to pay war taxes, and the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting officially protested against certain war taxes, but the main movement against war taxes has occurred .
During the Cold War and particularly during Vietnam, war tax resistance has become a major theme in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.
The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, , has regularly put a discussion of war taxes on its agenda.
In many ways the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting position on war taxes is like its position was on antislavery before the Civil War: before , virtually all Friends opposed slavery.
, virtually all Friends oppose military taxation.
The difficulty in and in is that Friends are searching for a way to make their religious witness effective.
What Friends want to do is somehow change the focus of a policy which they see as destructive of what is basic to their value system.
In summary, the position of Friends is that religious freedoms preceded and are incorporated into the federal government.
Pennsylvania was founded for religious freedom, and religious freedom meant no taxes for war, no militia service, and the right of affirmation.
Friends think that the federal government incorporated part of that understanding in the affirmation clause in the constitution, in the first amendment, and in the religion clauses in the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Friends think that the government has in good faith tried to accommodate us in our position on military service, and what Friends are wanting from the government now is a like accommodation on a subject which is the same to us as conscientious objection: the paying of taxes which will be used to create weapons to threaten and to kill.
Deming represented himself next, in an article describing his “journey toward war tax resistance.”
Excerpts:
During a difficult moment [in the discussion over the Philadelpha Yearly Meeting’s response to the Vietnam War] a young Friend stood and spoke with deep emotion; and his words went straight to my heart.
It didn’t matter, he said, what older Friends might say in support of him and his generation (though support was needed and appreciated, for sure); what really mattered to him was that Friends look personally at their own lives to see how they were connected to warmaking.
If they were too old to be drafted (and most of us were) perhaps they could find other ways to resist the war.
About 20 years have gone by and I don’t even remember the name of the young Friend who spoke in meeting that day, but his words had a profound impact on me.
As a result of his ministry I decided to begin to seek ways to resist the payment of taxes for warmaking (what another Friend, Colin Bell, would term the “drafting of our tax dollars” for the military).
I should say that there was another motivating force at work on me as well.
My work for Friends in the city of Chester was bringing me into daily contact with poor and black people.
I was learning firsthand about a community — a microcosm of other urban areas across the country — that suffered the debilitating effects of chronic poverty, high unemployment, deteriorating housing, inadequate health care, and inferior public schools.
I was witnessing the insufficient funding of a so-called War on Poverty in Chester while millions of dollars and human lives were being expended in a war against other poor people in Southeast Asia.
I knew I had to do something to end my personal complicity in helping to pay for the war and to redirect these dollars to wage a more life-affirming battle against poverty and injustice here at home.
I soon discovered that it is hard to become a tax resister; there are so many basic assumptions about money and taxes that we have learned.
We are expected to do certain things in our society: when we work, we must pay taxes — this pretty much goes without question.
How else will programs get funded and bills get paid?
And those who don’t pay, well… there’s an institution called the IRS that takes care of such people and will make them pay!
There are so many good reasons for not resisting taxes.
Some of the ones I wrestled with are these:
I can’t get away with it.
IRS will eventually get the money from me anyway and I’ll just end up paying more in the end.
It won’t do any good.
The government is too powerful and they’ll not change their policies because of my symbolic act.
There are better ways to work for peace (i.e. writing letters to Congress, going to demonstrations, etc.)
There will never be a substantial number who will be tax resisters — it’s simply not realistic.
Well, there’s truth in all of these statements, but I had to start anyway.
Not to do so had simply become an even bigger problem for me.
So I began looking at the question of taxes for war and decided to start where I could, with the telephone tax.
I learned that the federal tax on my personal phone had been increased specifically to help pay for the war.
In talking with others who were refusing to pay this portion of their phone bills I learned that the risk was fairly small.
No one I knew about had gone to jail or suffered any severe penalties (beyond having some money taken from a bank account or such).
So my wife and I began to withhold these few dollars each month and include a note to the telephone company explaining our reasons.
This became an educational experience for me.
I started to get used to receiving the impersonal letters from the phone company and later from IRS, and I even came to enjoy the process of writing my own letters in response — I felt good about not paying.
In I began to feel more confident.
The IRS had not locked me up, or even taken any money from me, as I recall, so I gathered my courage and decided to take the next step — to resist paying a portion of my income taxes.
At first I included a letter with my tax form in April and tried to claim a “war tax deduction” and request a return of some of the money withheld from my salary but with no success.
The IRS computers were not impressed with my effort, and they routinely informed me that the tax code did not provide for such a claim.
So I came to a decision: it would be better to have IRS asking me for the money each year rather than my asking IRS.
So beginning in I began to seek ways to reduce the amount withheld from my regular paychecks.
Though some tax resisters at accomplished this by claiming all the world’s children as their dependents (or all the Vietnamese children), I decided to reduce the amount withheld by claiming extra allowances (which were authorized for anticipated medical expenses, etc.) and thus reduce the amount withheld.
Beginning in , when I started to work part-time at Friends Journal, and continuing until , I claimed enough allowances on my W-4 so that no money was withheld from my pay.
For several years as a single parent raising a young child, I lived very modestly, working just part-time and sharing living expenses in a communal house.
During those years I actually got money back from the government when I had paid nothing.
Since , however, after I remarried (and later had two more children) I started to owe money to IRS each year.
So each year at tax time I would write a personal letter to the president to be sent with a copy of my tax form (not completely filled out, usually just with my name and address) explaining why I could not in good conscience pay any taxes until our nation’s priorities changed from warmaking to peacemaking.
I would usually send copies of my letters as well to IRS, my representative in Congress, and friends.
Occasionally I would receive thoughtful responses, once from Congressman William Gray from my district, who is one of the sponsors of Peace Tax Fund legislation in Washington.
After a few years of this, IRS began to make some ominous threats and noises, followed by the first serious efforts to collect back taxes from me.
I should say that I redirected some of the unpaid taxes to peace organizations and poor people’s groups, some into an alternative tax fund, some into a credit union account to earn interest — and some was spent.
On two occasions — once in , again in — I went to tax court.
Each court appearance provided an opportunity to explain my witness more clearly, and to meet others in the community who were tax resisters or who wanted to be supportive.
My first day in court was in Raleigh, North Carolina, and was particularly meaningful.
About 30 of my friends went with me to lend support.
A local peace group baked apple pies and served small slices to people entering the courthouse next to a large “pie chart” that graphically showed the disproportionately small share of our federal taxes going to human services and the large piece to the military.
A local TV station interviewed me and carried a story on the evening news.
A wire service picked up on the story as well, and for several days I received phone calls from people throughout the South.
What occurred inside the courthouse was just as important.
The judge was very interested in my pacifist views:
At one point he ended the hearing and engaged in an extended discussion right in the courtroom of many of the peace issues I had raised.
It became a sort of teach-in on the subject of militarism and peaceful resistance.
Later both he and the young government attorney thanked me for what I shared and complimented me for effectively handling my own legal defense.
(I had elected not to be represented by counsel.)
Though the court eventually ruled against my arguments in the case — which did not surprise me — I feel that the whole experience of going to court was a positive one, as well as an educational experience for others.
And though I was ordered to pay the $500 or so owed in back taxes, I never did — and no further efforts were made to collect.
IRS has been more aggressive, however, in recent years.
Some funds have been seized from a bank account, an IRA was taken, and such efforts are continuing even as I write this article.
Most recently IRS has levied Friends Journal for the tax years for taxes, interest, and penalties totaling about $23,000.
I am grateful that the Journal’s board has declined to accept the levies on my salary… and that the board as a Quaker employer both corporately and as individual members supports my witness.
I don’t know what the future will bring, and frankly I try not to think about it too much.
In the past two years I have changed my approach some.
My wife and I have decided to file a joint return.
Beginning this past summer the Journal started to withhold a little money from my paychecks following my decision to complete the new W-4.
It seems appropriate just now that I devote my time to working on the earlier tax years and to finding ways to support others who are more actively resisting.
I try to stay open as well to seeking other approaches to resistance from year to year.
What are some things that I have learned from all this?
Perhaps I might share these thoughts:
Tax resistance is a very individual thing.
Each of us must find our own way and decide what works best for us.
Resist openly and joyfully, and seek opportunities to be in the company of others along the way.
When you go for an IRS audit, for instance, take some friends with you; when you go to court, make the courtroom a meeting for worship.
Don’t see IRS agents or government officials as the enemy.
Look for opportunities for friendliness, address individuals by name, be open and honest about what you intend to do.
The IRS will soon recognize that a conscientious tax refuser is different from a tax evader.
What might work one year may not the next.
Be flexible and remain open to trying different approaches.
Talking about money is hard, and it is discouraged in our society.
I remember how embarrassed the grownups in my family were when one of my children once asked at the dinner table, “How much money do you have, grandpa?”
Tax resistance helps us to remove some of these barriers, and this is good.
Sometimes our children can educate us, I should say, and provide simple insights to seemingly complex problems.
Just as I was challenged by a young Friend to consider tax resistance 20 years ago, an IRS agent was once set on his heels by my daughter.
During a lull in a long conversation about financial figures, Evelyn (only seven at the time) asked the agent, “Why do you make my daddy pay money for killing people?”
The poor man shuffled his papers, turned beet-red, cleared his throat, and ended the meeting.
There were several responses to the special issue on war tax resistance that were printed as letters-to-the-editor in the issue:
Jim Quigley wrote in to express his “admiration for the act of courage and faith represented by the war tax resisters.”
Karl E. Buff wanted to “encourage Vinton Deming to continue to resist” in the hopes that “[w]ithout easy access to huge sums of money our government would surely have to curtail its war-making propensities.”
He also put in a plug for the Tax Resisters Penalty Fund.
Eddie Boudreau suggested that someone set up a “Conscience Fund” that people could contribute to and that would help defray the legal expenses of folks like Vinton Deming.
Susan B. Chambers wrote in about her technique, which was to consult with a tax expert in order to get into the “zero tax bracket” and to contribute 30% of her income to charity.
“I am pleased not to inconvenience my friends in taking this stand,” she wrote, in what I read as something of a rebuke to those resisters, like Deming, whose resistance becomes an agenda item for their employers (though she didn’t make this explicit).
Robin Greenler wrote to support the Journal’s resistance to helping the IRS collect from Deming.
“The decisions are neither easier nor less important on corporate levels than they are on a personal level.”
Ben Richmond wrote that, for him, the question of whether a tax resister would just end up paying more in the end (with penalties and interest added to the unpaid tax) was the one he found the most difficult.
“I have never found it satisfying to think that the point of the witness was simply to satisfy my personal need for moral purity.”
But he looked into the early Quaker resistance to mandatory tithes for the establishment church and found that Quakers were willing to suffer having property seized worth several times the resisted tithes rather than pay voluntarily.
He notes also that the Quakers eventually won that battle, which is to say there are no longer government-enforced tithes that everyone must pay to an established church.
So, Richmond wrote, “I do not resist military taxes in the expectation or hope that I will succeed in keeping particular dollars from the hands of the military.
But I do expect and hope that, insofar as my resistance is in obedience to the leadings of God, it will play its small part in breaking down the legitimacy of the warmaking machinery, as the early Friends broke down the legitimacy of taxation on behalf of the state church.
I believe that in the end, Christ’s way is not only right but effective, and will prevail.
Our sufferings are small in the overall scheme of things, so I don’t wish to be melodramatic.
But, it seems to me that we cannot afford to follow Jesus for the short haul because in the short run, all that appears is the cross (which, after all is simply shorthand for suffering at the hands of a pagan empire).
Yet, it is the cross which led to the resurrection.”
In , the Friends World Committee for Consultation held their annual meeting.
They decided to retire their “Friends Committee on War Tax Concerns” and establish in its place a “Committee on Peace Concerns.”
On Brian Willson had been run over by a train while blockading the Concord, California Naval Weapons Station in protest against American wars in Central America.
A few days later, while recovering from his injuries, which included a fractured skull and the amputation of both of his lower legs, he issued a statement reasserting his continued commitment to nonviolent activism, which was reprinted in part in the issue, and which included this section:
If we want peace, we can have it, but we’re going to have to pay for it…
Our government can only continue its wars with the cooperation of our people, and that cooperation is with our taxes and with our bodies.
Our actions and expressions are what are needed, not our whispers and quiet dinner conversation.
In the issue, Jonathan Lutz gave an overview of the situation of Quakers in Scandinavia that included this parenthetical aside:
“(To my knowledge, only one Scandinavian Friend is a war-tax resister, but then, the very different political climate must be taken into account.)”
That issue also included this historical note, which it sourced to “the newsletter of Friends World Committee for Consultation, Section of the Americas”:
According to a Canadian publication, For Conscience Sake, Russia was the first nation to establish legislation exempting pacifists from paying war taxes.
“In , thirty British citizens were invited by Czar Alexander Ⅰ to establish a cotton mill in Tamerfors, which is now in Finland.
James Finlayson, the manager, submitted a petition to the Czar signed by the employees from Britain, some of whom were members of the Society of Friends.
The petition asked for freedom of conscience and religion to practice their own religion, and for exemption from military service, war, church taxes, and the taking of oaths.”
The Czar agreed to free Quaker manufacturers from taxes and support of the military.
This is the closest I’ve been able to get to a citation for this claim, and as you see, it’s third-hand and doesn’t refer to an original source.
I have seen references to Finlayson’s getting a charter from the Czar to set up his mill that included some tax incentives, but I haven’t gotten any closer to finding a clear and authoritative indication that the Czar explicitly honored the conscientious objection to military taxation of Quakers at this mill.
A note in the issue read:
John Stoner, executive secretary of Mennonite Central Committee, U.S. Peace Section, writes:
“That little Scripture passage on rendering to God and Caesar has been misused for too long, giving people an excuse for going the wrong way on important questions of ultimate loyalty.”
So John has created a lovely poster with the following words on it:
“We are war tax resisters because we have discovered some doubt as to what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, and have decided to give the benefit of the doubt to God.”
The posters are available for ten cents per copy (a real bargain, Friends, we can learn something from our Mennonite friends about good prices).
An excerpt from Pearl C. Ewald’s letter to the IRS was included in the issue.
Excerpt: “my conscience will no longer allow me to cooperate with any plans by our government to prepare weapons for mass annihilation.
I know that such weapons of war are under the condemnation of God.
Therefore, I am not sending in an income tax report.
I am prepared to accept the penalty for this action, and I will try to maintain a spirit of love and consideration toward you.”
illustration by Barbara Benton from the issue of Friends Journal
The issue brought an article by Eleanor Brooks Webb in which she described her family’s telephone tax resistance, and damned it with faint praise.
Excerpts:
, my husband and I have refused to pay the federal tax on our phone bill.
This is an unheroic and inconsistent witness to our conviction that participation in war is wrong and that paying for war preparations and for others’ participation is likewise wrong.
The singular virtue of this small witness is that it is something we can do.
…The payment of federal taxes was the place where other thinking people could not evade their own complicity.
We had long been convinced by such reasoning as Milton Mayer’s:
“If you want peace, why pay for war?”
But nonpayment of taxes was difficult.
My husband was the breadwinner, and his salary was subject to withholding; the Internal Revenue Service usually owed us money at the end of the income-tax year.
Nonpayment of tax was also illegal, and we’re very law-abiding people; we try to stay within the speed limit, and we calculate our income taxes scrupulously.
When I first heard of phone tax resistance, I thought it was a foolish idea.
The pennies of the phone tax were so trivial against the amount of the income tax!
But discussion in Congress about the re-imposition of the phone tax made it explicit that the reason for this “nuisance” tax was the cost of war — the war in Vietnam — and the tax was all tidily calculated for us on each phone bill.
The penalties for so trivial a flouting of the Internal Revenue Service would not likely be unendurable.
This was something we could do!
an ad from the issue of Friends Journal
The Webbs wrote a letter to the phone company with each bill (sending a copy to the IRS) explaining their resistance.
They tried to redirect the resisted taxes to the UN (but the UN turned down the donations), and then to the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
The phone company responded appropriately, by “notifying the Internal Revenue Service of what we are doing and giving us credit for the unpaid tax.”
In the early years of this saga, IRS made some effort to collect the unpaid tax.
We received notices of unpaid tax, and replied that we didn’t intend to pay it.
We received notices of intent to collect, and several times liens were issued against my husband’s salary (for sums along the order of $4.73).
We would get notices from the payroll supervisor that such a lien had been issued and they had no alternative but to pay it; and we would write back saying we were sorry they had been bothered with the matter, but we had no intention of paying the tax voluntarily, and we gave the reasons — it was another opportunity to say what our convictions were.
A number of times we received notices of tax due that we couldn’t reconcile with our carefully kept records, and we would write IRS to that effect and ask for an explanation of the assessment.
This often stopped them cold.
At least once when we were due an income tax refund, a few dollars were deducted from it for “other unpaid taxes,” or something like that, which we assumed was derived from the unpaid phone tax.
In the last few years we have heard nothing from IRS except an occasional, apparently random “notice of tax due,” which we wearily ignore.
She complained of the annoyance of all of the letter writing involved — “we have probably eight inches of file folders filled with telephone bills and carbon copies of letters.”
My husband and I aren’t consistent in our witness.
We haven’t made the effort to get our MCI [long distance] service arranged so that we have control of paying the tax (instead of American Express, through which we are billed).
I can’t handle any more letters!
But if this is all we have energy and grace to do, then I’m glad we’ve followed the leading this far.
The issue brought news of a new war tax resistance organization — “the Colorado War Tax Information Project” — associated with the Rocky Mountain Peace Center.
This project ran an alternative fund that redirected $3,500 in war taxes to social programs .
An obituary notice for Louise Benckenstein Griffiths in the same issue noted that she “refused to pay federal income tax toward American military efforts.”
in a demonstration of the efficiency and wise use of taxpayer-funded resources for which the IRS has such a fine reputation, it sent me five sheets of paper in five separate first-class-posted envelopes
Yesterday I got five letters from the IRS.
One each to remind me of my unpaid taxes for , , , , and (I didn’t owe any federal tax in ).
They didn’t include anything ominous, except for the mild warning on the reverse side that if I don’t pay up “interest will increase and additional penalties may apply.”
Apparently they are required to send out these bland reminders annually.
The total amount I owe from those years is a little north of $22,000. So I’m a little surprised they aren’t putting more effort into collecting.
It’s possible they’re just too overwhelmed with other things to go after small-fry.
Or they may be biding their time… the statute of limitations gives them ten years, I believe, so there’s no great hurry.
In any case, it’s been ages since they’ve done anything more substantial than sending me letters.
From the Harrisburg [Pennsylvania] Telegraph:
Man Refuses to Pay Tax Because of Faith
A gray-haired, Campbellstown storekeeper, Amos M. Brandt, has refused to pay Social Security taxes because he believes it would be contrary to the principles of his faith, the United Christian.
Consequently, he was arraigned before United States Commissioner Sidney E. Friedman and released under $1000 bail for trial in the United States Eastern District Court.
This charge is violating the United States tax laws, resulting from his alleged refusal to make returns and payments under the Social Security Tax law.
The United Christian Church is closely related to the Church of the United Brethren.
If they had an official policy at the time about Social Security or similar programs, I haven’t been able to find it.
I wasn’t able to dig up much more about Brandt and his tax battle.
Here’s a follow-up from the Evening Times of Sayre, Pennsylvania:
Charge Failure to Pay Security Tax
Philadelphia, (UP) — Amos M. Brandt, Campbelltown hardware and paint dealer, was under federal indictment today, the first employer in this district charged with failure to comply with the social security act.
Thirty counts of a true bill returned by the federal grand jury charged the Lebanon county merchant with failing to make social security deductions from wages of his employees or to contribute himself.
Quarterly payments Brandt should have made range from $12.80 to $42.04, according to the indictment.
This is the tenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today we
finish off the 1950s.
In general, except for a brief flurry of mostly noncommittal articles in the
late 1940s, The Mennonite seemed to steer clear of
the topic of war tax resistance thereafter, with a few exceptions.
In the issue, Lloyd L.
Ramseyer wrote of
“The
Sin of Just Being Good” — that is of “people who are content to just be
good without concerning themselves very much with the evil about them.” One way
this might display itself?
Do we sometimes shift the responsibility to others, saying this is no business
of mine? May it be that we sometimes even employ others to do what we think it
is wrong for us to do ourselves, and then seem to feel that it is not our
affair?… If three-fourths of my tax dollar goes for war, can I have a
conscience clear of it?
An article on “Taxes” in the issue gave some very middle-of-the-road advice:
In the classic passage, Matthew 22:17–22,
Jesus states that He expected His followers to pay taxes.
“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the
things that are God’s.”
Very briefly, we want to say four things:
Christians ought to be honest in filing tax returns…
Christians should not pay too much tax…
Christians ought to take advantage of deductions and through contributions…
Christians ought to study best ways to give as to tax…
There was not even a hint of a suggestion that a Christian ought to be
concerned about what use Caesar puts the tax to, or might have to draw a line
somewhere and refuse. The “Render Unto Caesar” episode is portrayed as though
when Jesus was asked whether Jews ought to pay taxes to Caesar or not, he had
simply replied “yes” but in a more wordy way than necessary.
(“When they heard this, they marvelled…”
perhaps this is just a mistranslation for “they yawned and checked their
wristwatches.”)
The time of year has come again when the citizens of our country will have to
pay income tax. The question is sometimes raised, should Christians pay this
tax? A large percentage of the income tax money goes for war purposes. A
Christian obeying the new commandment of Jesus to love his neighbor as himself
cannot possibly be in accord with hatred, strife, and bloodshed resulting from
war. What then shall we do about it? Refuse to pay and come in conflict with
the laws of our country?
Jesus our Lord has given us a very clear teaching on this subject in
Matthew 17:24–27.
The collector of the tribute money asked Peter if Jesus paid tribute. Peter
answered, “yes.” Jesus preventing Peter from telling him the incident, asks
Peter “of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own
children, or of strangers?” Peter said of strangers. Jesus answered, “then are
the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast a
hook, and take the first fish thou catchest, open his mouth and take out the
coin therein and give it to the tribute collector.”
The Roman tribute money was used mostly for military purposes. The Roman
Empire was then ruling the major part of the then known world. It required
large armies to subdue and occupy these many nations. The money consumed for
military purposes was a large sum. Jesus asked Peter to pay for both of them.
Tax was again the subject of an article in the issue, but this time the message is much changed:
Daniel Graber Pastor, Silver Street Church, Goshen, Ind.
Dear Quiet of the Land;
PAX… VOLUNTARY SERVICE… 1‒W… What does it all mean? Yes, it means a positive
witness for peace; but in a vision the other night I heard 1000 angels
shouting, “Awake! Awake! Ye Quiet of the Land!”
And then the angel Gabriel went on to explain: “Ah, yes, you Mennonites are
righteous, peace-loving, law-abiding citizens of your land; but what are you
doing at this time so near the death of your Lord? Does not your Christian
conscience move you at more points than that of nonresistance to war and your
interest in finding a peaceful alternative?
“You who proclaim to the world that you are Christ’s disciples would now also
deny thy Lord! Ah, yes, my Lord did boldly say, ‘Render therefore to Caesar
the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s’; but are
you living under the Roman Empire where you have no political freedom? No, you
are citizens in a free republic, a land founded with an appreciation for your
conscience. Did you not hear the words of John Milton: ‘The passage “render to
Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” does not say “Give Caesar
thy conscience.”’
“You, the Quiet of the Land, are ordering a huge portion of that which
crucifies your Lord when you pay your federal taxes. Did you
know, fine Mennonites, that you are ordering
H-Bombs which will
destroy cities of a million men, women, and children?… Did you
know you are ordering massive retaliation which will destroy most of
mankind and cause more mass suffering than our world has ever known?…
Did you know you are ordering nuclear bomb tests which poison
the atmosphere for a hundred generations yet unborn?… Did you
know you are ordering the top secret horror weapon, by paying in
advance for it, to be delivered any day now?”
As Gabriel finished, the chorus of angels replied from the background; “No!
Gabriel, No! Most Mennonites did not order these horrible weapons. They were
ordered for them unawares — yet we must admit they did give silent
consent. Most of them didn’t realize that Washington sent all of them a
bill for these macabre instruments of suicide and moral degradation in the
name of democracy.”
That bill for the coming year amounts to $43,300,000,000 for Defense, or 60
per cent of the total estimated expenditures of the national government. Over
half of the total budget is raised from individual income taxes, Mennonites
included.
In 20 per cent of the budget went to the War
and Navy Departments to defray the cost of national security. In
this item went down to 14 per cent of the
budget. Possibly these figures do not mean very much now, but taken in
comparison to the present amount, it is ten times less than the 43 billion
dollars now at our doorstep.
At what point, my dear friends, does one cease to add a pinch of incense and
begin to engage in idolatrous worship, and thus deny our Lord? The cost of the
Federal Government operation in the budget
was $55 per person, even then more than what many people gave to the church.
The budget will cost about $455 per person.
If you wish to put this into the Mennonite picture, here is an up-to-date
report.
In Elkhart County, Indiana, where the population is 84,512
( Census), there are over 8,800 Amish and
Mennonites (Mennonite Encyclopedia). Elkhart County will pay
$43,642,912 as their share of the cost of federal government spending. It is
assumed that Mennonites of Elkhart County will pay at least their share, which
amounts to more than 10.4 per cent, or $4,538,862 plus.
If we could believe that even 40 per cent of the budget would be legitimately
used for democracy, it means that the Mennonites of Elkhart County alone are
putting into preparation for future wars close to three million
dollars a year. That amount of money would be sufficient to operate the
entire
MCC
program for more than a year, or to build several new Mennonite Biblical
Seminaries, or a number of hospitals, old people’s homes, colleges, high
schools, etc.
From the soldiers of the cross we hear these testimonies concerning taxes.
John Woolman, who refused payment in : “To
refuse active payment at such a time might be construed to be an act of
disloyalty, and appeared likely to displease the rulers, not only here but in
England; still there was a scruple so fixed on the minds of many Friends that
nothing moved it.”
Bishop Andrew Ziegler, a Mennonite, in the Revolutionary War period; “I would
as soon go to war as to pay the three pounds and ten shillings.”
A.J. Muste (Secretary Emeritus of the Fellowship of Reconciliation): “The two
decisive powers of government with respect to war are the power to conscript
and the power to tax. In regard to the second I have come to the conviction
that I am at least conscience bound to challenge the right of the government
to tax me for waging war, and in particular for the production of atomic and
bacterial weapons.”
Ernest and Marion Bromley (Sharonville, Ohio): “We regard it as the
prerogative of every individual to refuse to aid this government or any other
government either to prepare for or to engage in war. The time has come when
men ought no longer to depend solely upon their spoken witness against war.
They ought to prepare themselves for outright resistance by a thorough-going
dissociation with the war-making system. No testimony for peace can afford to
become a timid shadow. No matter what one may say against our armaments, if he
is still paying for armaments, it seems to be talking peace and preparing for
war.”
“Awake! Awake! Ye Quiet of the Land!” Think before you begin
paying Defense dollars. Convert them to
Peace and the Church today.
Christians have responded to the challenge of this issue in various ways. A
few have refused to pay the proportion of their tax that is used for military
purposes. Some have voluntarily limited their income to the low level that is
tax-exempt…
The issue included Don and
Eleanor Kaufman’s letter to the
IRS:
As Mennonite Christians filed their income tax returns for
, more than one was disquieted to
realize that tithing Christians were not giving nearly as much to further
God’s kingdom as they were paying for military preparation for war! Two
Mennonites decided to give voice to this concern in the following letter.
U.S. Treasury
Department Internal Revenue Service Washington 25,
D.C.
Gentlemen:
In filing income tax returns for we believe
it is necessary to clarify our concerns. Like others who have been perplexed
by the irresponsible use of tax money for military purposes, we are earnestly
seeking for a constructive way in which to be honest with what we understand
about the issue. Personally, we are unable to acquiesce easily to the present
military expenditures of our government which we believe, are irrelevant to
the problem they are trying to solve. One cannot change ideologies or correct
evil by destroying those in whom these forces reside.
In an effort to reduce our cooperation in a warmaking system to a minimum, we
seriously considered refusing payment of that portion used for military
expenditures (which we understand is about 73 per cent of federal taxes).
Since we object on religious grounds to participation in war and military
preparation in any form, we believe, like Milton Mayer, that we are denied the
free exercise of our religion (guaranteed by the First Amendment to the
Constitution) when forced to pay income taxes used for military purposes.
If money represents a part of a person’s life, as we believe it does, then it
logically follows that a Christian will have ambivalent feelings about
professing peace and good will while at the same time supporting explicitly
destructive forces within a government. As there are provisions for
conscientious objection to military service, there should also be provisions
for conscientious objection to making
H-bombs or paying for
the making of them.
Consequently, in the interests of our government and all people, we are
looking for some alternative whereby it would be possible to channel that
portion of tax money to those causes which contribute to the welfare of
people — those legitimate functions which are constructive and not destructive
of human value.
We hope that the United States government will accept our offer to pay the
equivalent or more of the military tax to some mutually agreeable agency,
organization, or institution, like
CROP,
MCC,
Church World Service, or the United Nations (UNESCO,
Technical and Economic Assistance Program,
etc.), which is
committed to a peaceful program for all men. We feel that a voluntary
arrangement something like Edith Green’s bill
H.R. 12310 is
necessary if we are to make possible the conditions of a lasting and abiding
peace.
(This was the earliest of the “peace tax fund” legislative proposals. It set up
a fund to be used to give aid developing nations, and would have allowed
taxpayers to get up to a 2% deduction on their taxes by donating to the fund.)
As Christians, we are not seeking exemption from the payment of taxes, but we
are searching for a right to determine how those taxes are used, especially
those which we contribute personally. It is clear to us that a Christian has a
responsibility to government, significantly because in a democracy he is a
real part of the government. Because the Christian knows something of the
value and importance of community he will do everything he can to contribute
to the stability and welfare of government on all levels.
Yet if this person realizes the destructive character and devastating results
of all military preparation, he will consider it his patriotic duty to do what
he can to avoid collective disaster. We believe responsible citizenship
implies that there is no blanket endorsement for what a government does. Its
actions must be tested and if they are found to be outside of the purpose of
God they are to be challenged.
We hope you will feel with us the urgent need to recognize the priority which
God always deserves in every human decision. We would appreciate your
thoughtful response to this crucial issue.
Akron– Concern for payment of war taxes has been
expressed by the General Brotherhood Board of the Church of the Brethren.
Board Executive Secretary W. Howard Row writes, “The concern is real and the
problems to implement (an alternative to payment of war taxes) are great.
However, probably no greater than that of securing an alternative to military
service.” In a resolution shared with
MCC
and similar organizations the General Brotherhood Board states: Because there
is a growing interest among Brethren and others in finding a positive
alternative to the payment of that portion of federal income taxes that go for
war preparations, the General Brotherhood Board voted that explorations be
made with the appropriate agencies of government to the end that an acceptable
constructive alternative be provided for all those persons who, by reason of
religious training and belief, conscientiously object to the payment of that
portion of income taxes going for military defense. These explorations might
be made in concert with one or the more of the other organizations with which
we are associated or if necessary by Brethren alone.”
A similar reaction was recently expressed by two Mennonites. Mr. and Mrs. Don
Kaufman (Moundridge, Kan.) who
are under appointment as
MCC
workers in Indonesia [and who] assert in a letter to the
U.S. Treasury
Department: [quote from above letter omitted]
On the
MCC
Executive Committee met, and, according to
a
later article on the meeting, “[r]eferred to Peace Section the invitation
from the Church of the Brethren to study whether there might be a positive
alternative provided by the
U.S. government for
persons conscientiously opposed to paying that portion of income taxes going
for military defense.”
The
Mennonite Central Committee annual report for
included a report from this “Peace
Section.” They noted that “throughout our constituency… [c]oncern is evident in
discussions about possible participation in various protest actions and about
the propriety of paying income taxes that are used so largely for war
purposes…”
Our next episode will pick up as the tumultuous 1960s begin.
This is the twenty-fifth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today I’m going to try to cover 1978.
I say “try” because there was a frenzy of war tax resistance activity reported in The Mennonite .
Maybe I can try to sort it thematically…
A New Call to Peacemaking
“A New Call to Peacemaking” was an initiative coordinated by Mennonite, Quaker, and Brethren activists that began in and would eventually culminate in a statement urging people, Christians in particular, to refuse to pay taxes for war.
The Mennonite General Conference’s Peace Section,
U.S. division, met
and its executive secretary, John K. Stoner, reported that the Call
“has
gained widespread support.”
Invited to the meeting are 300 persons — Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites.
Named the New Call to Peacemaking, this coalition of historic peace churches
believes that “the time has come for all Christians and people of all faiths
to renounce war on religious and moral grounds.”
During the last year twenty-six regional New Call to Peacemaking meetings, involving more than 1500 persons, took a new look at the teachings of their churches.
They gave special attention to war and violence which they continue to see as denials of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Not surprisingly the groups agreed to urge upon all governments “effective
steps toward international disarmament.” However, none of the regional
meetings expressed the hope that politicians, soldiers, and diplomats would
put an end to war. Rather, the thought was that people at the grass-roots
level must demand a change in the system. Further, the idea was often
expressed that tax resistance and civil disobedience are necessary tactics in
convincing governments that a new order can bring security in place of the
present insecurity.
A New Call to Peacemaking conference which convened at Old Chatham, New York, last April, asked itself rhetorically, “Are we going to pray for peace, and pay for war?” A similar conference in Wichita, Kansas, gave its encouragement to “individuals who feel called to resist the payment of the military portion of their federal taxes.”
When the national conference convenes in Green Lake it will be receiving
requests from the regional meetings for a strong position on tax resistance
proposals. It will also be asked to give guidance to individuals and church
organizations on approaches to tax resistance. Theological, economic, and
social justice issues are also on the agenda.
“Citizens should organize themselves and act without waiting for government, especially the major powers, to take positive action,” says Robert Johansen in a paper being studied by the Green Lake delegates.
In another document prepared for the Green Lake meeting, Lois Barrett, a
Mennonite journalist from Wichita, Kansas, notes that the peace churches have
long “recognized refusal to pay war taxes as one of many valid witnesses
against war.”
In the Church of the Brethren recommended “that all who feel the concern be encouraged to express their protest and testimonies through letters accompanying their tax returns, whether accompanied by payment or not.” In the General Conference Mennonite Church said, “We stand by those who feel called to resist the payment of that portion of taxes being used for military purposes.”
The number of persons within the peace churches actually withholding a portion
of their taxes is still thought to be small, but it is growing. The Internal
Revenue Service will not release figures on the number of tax resisters in the
United States.
Members of the Green Lake planning group include John K. Stoner, Mennonite Central Committee, Akron, Pennsylvania; Lorton Heusel, Friends United Meeting, Richmond, Indiana; and Chuck Boyer, Church of the Brethren, Elgin, Illinois.
Coordinator for the New Call to Peacemaking is Robert J. Rumsey, Plainfield, Indiana.
After the gathering, The Mennonite seemed surprised at how tame and nonconfrontational it ended up being (they titled their article “Peacemakers shy away from shocking anyone”).
Excerpts:
The Green Lake conference is part of a cooperative effort by the historic peace groups to do five things — stir up rededication to the Christian peace witness, clarify the biblical basis for it, extend a call to the larger church to see peacemaking as a gospel imperative, propose actions the U.S. Government can take for peacemaking, and determine contemporary positive strategy for peace and justice.
Planning for the consultation began in and has included 26 regional meetings in 16 different areas of the United States.
Over 1500 people were involved in these meetings.
[Church of the Brethren theologian and professor Dale] Brown said one new way of expressing a peace witness was to protest the country’s military expenditures by withholding income taxes.
Tax resistance, he reflected, is an important symbol because it involves our pocketbooks and enlarges the peace witness beyond what 17- and 18-year-old youth do in response to conscription.
[T]he findings committee created a final document satisfying the diverse peaceniks.
For the conservative the final statement was too radical; for the activists it was too limp.
There are two main thrusts to the document — actions that are directed inward
among the peace churches to enhance the integrity of the peace witness, and
actions that are directed outward to enlarge the visibility of the peace
witness.
At the end of the national New Call to Peacemaking conference delegates urged all Friends (Quakers), Mennonites, and Brethren to firmly oppose militarism and to become personally involved in the struggle for justice for the oppressed.
Included in the final paper approved is a call to the 400,000 members of the three peace church
traditions “to seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their
federal taxes as a response to Christ’s call to radical discipleship.” This
statement is as strong as the 300 delegates could jointly affirm.
Other parts of the war tax statement are equally muted.
In the first draft of the paper, church and conference agencies were asked to “honor” the requests of employees who do not want the military portion of their taxes remitted to the government.
In the final draft, however, “honor” is changed to “enter into dialogue with.” Several evangelical Quakers were especially antagonistic to even including a reference to war tax resistance in the final document.
Yet tax resistance received new encouragement from the conference.
About 60 persons attended a Saturday afternoon workshop which detailed tax resistance strategies.
Studying the War Tax Issue and Christian Civil Responsibility
The Mennonite General Conference had been asked to stop withholding taxes from the paycheck of one of its conscientiously objecting employees.
This led to a long debate over the advisability of such a policy that caused arguments about war tax resistance to echo throughout the Conference in .
A special General Conference delegate session was scheduled to convene in just to respond to this single issue.
In preparation for that session, congregations had been encouraged to put some
serious effort into understanding the subject, and some studies were written up
to help guide these investigations.
A Christian’s response to civil authority will be given concentrated emphasis by the General Conference during .
The study is an outcome of a resolution at the triennial conference in Bluffton, Ohio, .
That resolution called for a thorough study of civil disobedience which is intended to state an official position of the General Conference with respect to that portion of income taxes which are used for funding military expenditures, and in general, to research the whole question of obedience-disobedience to civil authority.
Responsibility for the study has been given to the peace and social concerns
committee of the Commission on Home Ministries. They, however, requested that
a special obedience-civil disobedience committee be formed to give general
direction and leadership. This latter group consists of Palmer Becker, Ted
Stuckey, John Gaeddert, Harold Regier, Perry Yoder, and Heinz Janzen.
To date three major aspects of the study have been planned — an attitudinal survey, an invitational consultation in , and a study guide to be ready by .
Included in the survey are twenty-eight questions with responses varying from
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” chosen to provide an inventory of
congregational attitudes towards the authority of the church, and of the
state. It will also indicate attitudes to particular issues such as abortion,
capital punishment, and payment of taxes for military purposes. A copy of the
questionnaire will be sent to every congregation to be duplicated locally.
A second major happening is scheduled for at Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart, Indiana.
An invitational consultation will bring together about thirty participants, including persons not committed to civil disobedience.
The gathering will include administrative personnel from the General Conference, lawyers, biblical scholars, as well as representatives from Mennonite Central Committee and the Mennonite Church.
It is expected that the study guide will evolve from the proceedings of the
consultation. Five of the thirteen lessons in the guide will focus on
peacemaking in a technological society. What sort of peacemaking should
Mennonites be about in an age of nuclear warfare and worldwide arms shipments?
The remaining eight lessons will center about the meaning of civil
disobedience. Was it practiced in the Bible? Is nonpayment of taxes a case in
point?
The study process will culminate in the special midtriennium conference scheduled for .
That gathering will be an official decision-making conference to which congregational delegates will come.
At that point a decision on the meaning and practice of civil disobedience will be made.
After the conference the questionnaire
will again be used to determine whether the churchwide discussion on
obedience-civil disobedience has generated any changes in attitudes.
A few more details came after the Commission on Home Ministries met in , and, according to The Mennonite:
Perry Yoder, part-time CHM staff member, outlined the process planned for dealing with the war tax or civil responsibility issue raised at the Bluffton conference.
Because of this issue’s “divisive and emotional potential in the conference,” a survey instrument has been designed to get congregational input; a consultation at the seminary will work toward a study guide, and congregations will be encouraged to use the study in preparation for a special General Conference delegate session at Minneapolis, called solely for the purpose of responding to the Bluffton resolution on tax withholding.
Another article said this study guide would be “available [and] will look at present militarism in North America, previous acts of dissent by Mennonites, and biblical texts on dissent, payment of taxes, and corporate action.”
During the first session on , board members locked onto the planning for the midtriennium conference on war taxes and civil responsibility.
Uneasiness about the process erupted quickly.
The structure of the invitational consultation on the issue was strongly faulted, as was the conference itself.
Board member Ken Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne, Indiana,
galvanized his colleagues with his allegations. “The consultation is not
structured for dialogue — it is monologue. The way it has been set up upsets
me deeply.” Later he declared that the Commission on Home Ministries should
not serve as the launching pad for the study and the planning leading to the
conference in . “Why ask
CHM?
The image of
CHM
is stacked. It should be the responsibility of the General Board.”
His assessment was the beginning of a fruitful debate which occupied several more sessions of the General Board, one session of CHM and hallway discussions.
The debate crystallized about several key questions. What is wrong with the
study process initiated by the obedience-civil disobedience committee of
CHM?
Is the issue of war taxes so divisive that a schism in the General Conference
is inevitable? Is the delegate
conference viable?
By , perhaps symbolically, the hard-hitting process of charge and countercharge had evolved into understanding and affirmation of the original plans.
On paper, little had changed, but in the minds of those who spoke for the “unheard,” — the “conservatives,” the “common person,” and the Canadians — there was a restoration of confidence in the process.
Tenseness was dissipated.
The mood became one of working together.
The consultation will meet at Mennonite
Biblical Seminary, Elkhart, Indiana. About twenty-five persons are invited.
These include theologians and biblical scholars, attorneys, administrative
staff of the General Conference, several
MCC
staff, and representatives from the Mennonite Church and the Mennonite
Brethren Church. The proceedings of the consultation are to serve as the basis
for a study guide on civil disobedience.
The committee planning the consultation and the midtriennium conference was called in to justify its ideas.
One member, Perry Yoder, observed, “Getting people to participate is very difficult.
People are very tense about this.”
“We thought the trust level would be quite high,” said another member, Harold
Regier. “Requests for speakers were made on the basis of scholarship and the
purpose is biblical. It is not a matter of pro or con.”
“We don’t know where the scholars will come out,” declared Don Steelberg, chairperson of CHM. (A complete list of scholars invited is not yet available — some are still considering the invitation.)
It was noted that since the concern on abortion had been handled insensitively
at the Bluffton conference, there was fear that the same thing would happen
with the issue of war taxes. So why should those who oppose withholding war
taxes bother to participate? They won’t be heard anyway.
Another fear was that the Canadians would also stay away. “My gut reaction is that it is a U.S. issue,” said board member Loretta Fast.
She was challenged on that.
“Don’t Canadians also pay military taxes?” queried Ben Sprunger.
“Yes,” replied another Canadian board member, Jake Klassen, “but we have not gone through the trauma and frustrations of the Vietnam War."
Hence, if both the Canadians and those opposed to withholding war taxes stayed
away from the delegate
conference, the gathering would be a farce. The conference would not be viable
if large blocs of delegates simply weren’t there.
For a brief time the board lost nerve.
Should the conference be canceled?
However, chairman Elmer Neufeld injected reality by reflecting, “The issue is not going to go away.
So, what is the next step?"
Over the board
recovered confidence in itself, in the planning already done, in the
possibility of bringing the dissenters into dialogue, despite differences in
theology and nationality, and in the voice of the discerning church. “I came
to the Mennonite church because of discerning congregations. If we cannot
discern in a process like this, then we have missed the boat,” reflected Don
Steelberg.
That was the next step.
They reminded themselves that the Anabaptist movement grew out of several
forms of civil disobedience.
They decided to adjust some of the personnel for the consultation.
They decided to promote serious study of the civil responsibility issue among congregations so that delegates would be conversant with it.
They decided to book the Leamington Hotel in Minneapolis as the place for the midtriennium conference.
The General Board also affirmed the action of its executive committee when they refused to pay a tax levy from the Internal Revenue Service.
The personal income taxes are owed by Heinz Janzen (general secretary) and his wife, Dorothea Janzen.
Under U.S. tax laws an ordained minister is self-employed, is not subject to normal payroll deductions, and hence, Heinz has refused to pay the military portion of his income tax.
Normally the
IRS
simply confiscates the amount owed from the bank account of the person
protesting. But with the levy the
IRS is
attempting to collect directly from the General Conference as employer. The
General Board agreed with the executive committee that the Janzen case is
civil disobedience by individuals, and not by an incorporated body, the
General Conference.
Editor Bernie Wiebe, himself based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, wrote an editorial for the edition expressing his unease about the direction Canada was taking, at how blasé his fellow-Canadian Mennonites were about it, and at how comparatively little concern there seemed to be there about the war tax issue that was roiling the Conference:
I am uneasy because I don’t hear my brothers and sisters protest against Ottawa.
Somehow we manage to wash our hands and keep pointing at the Pentagon…
At Bluffton, the majority voted for a midtriennium conference on the war-tax
issue. Every discussion I have since heard on this subject turns to the fear
that the Canadian third of the General Conference may refuse to participate;
after all, that’s a
U.S. question.
The conference was meant to bring in experts on the question who could help better inform the upcoming debate.
Participants in the General Conference Mennonite Church invitational consultation on civil responsibility have been named and the schedule outlined.
The consultation will convene
at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries, Elkhart, Indiana.
Beginning , Ted Stuckey and Reg Toews, representing the business administration arms of the General Conference and Mennonite Central Committee respectively, will present information on the administrative dimensions of the war tax question.
The question, Is there a biblical case for civil disobedience? will be the
focus of scholarly input Friday morning. Millard Lind, professor at AMBS,
will speak from an Old Testament perspective; confirmation from the scholar
asked to provide a New Testament analysis is still pending.
A more specific look at the issue of war taxes is scheduled for .
Is civil disobedience called for in this specific case?
David Schroeder, professor at Canadian Mennonite Bible College, Winnipeg, and Kenneth Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne, Indiana, will speak to the question.
Erland Waltner, president of Mennonite Biblical Seminary, will respond.
Corporate action and individual conscience is the theme for
. Speaking to this are J.
Lawrence Burkholder, president of Goshen (Indiana) College, and William
Keeney, professor at Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas. Another person has
yet to confirm acceptance. Peter Ediger, pastor of the Arvada Mennonite
Church, will respond.
Elvin Kraybill, legal counsel for Mennonite Central Committee, will talk about legal questions related to civil disobedience.
Responding to his presentation are Duane Heffelbower, a member of the Division of Administration of the General Conference, and Ruth Stoltzfus, an attorney living in Linville, Virginia.
In addition to the formal input, various church leaders and administrative
staff will contribute to the consultation. These people are Heinz Janzen,
general secretary of the General Conference; Harold Regier and Perry Yoder,
cosecretaries of peace and social concerns of the General Conference; John
Gaeddert, executive secretary of the Commission on Education; William Snyder,
executive secretary of
MCC;
Urbane Peachey, executive secretary for
MCC
Peace Section; Hubert Schwartzentruber, secretary for peace and social
concerns of the Mennonite Church; Ed Enns, executive secretary of the
Congregational Resources Board of the Canadian Conference; Peter Janzen,
pastor, representing the Canadian Conference.
Six persons will form the findings committee.
They are John Sprunger, pastor, Indian Valley Mennonite Church, Harleysville, Pennsylvania; Palmer Becker, executive secretary of the Commission on Home Ministries; Elmer Neufeld, president of the General Conference; Hugo Jantz, chairperson of MCC (Canada); John Stoner, executive secretary for MCC Peace Section (U.S.); and Larry Kehler, pastor of the Charleswood Mennonite Church, Winnipeg.
Kehler is also the writer for the study guide which is to be published by fall.
[T]he issue was how Mennonite institutions should respond to those employees who request that the military portion of their income taxes not be withheld by the employer.
Several Mennonite organizations are facing the issue. The General Conference
is seeking the will of its 60,000 members in answering such a request from one
of its employees, Cornelia Lehn. The consultation in Elkhart was one part of
the discerning process leading to a delegate assembly, and a decision in
.
Bible scholars, theologians, pastors, administrators, attorneys — twenty-nine persons in all — presented papers, exchanged insights, and probed the issue.
Much of their analysis will be incorporated into a study guide to be published by .
There was general agreement that militarism and the nuclear arms buildup are a
massive threat to human existence. “We are in pre-Holocaust days,” asserted
John Stoner, director of Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section.
How does one change the direction of society?
How does one influence government policy so that it is prohuman?
Some individuals claim that the witness of taxes withheld from the military could do much to change American priorities.
Is civil disobedience biblical?
Is there a biblical case for civil disobedience?
Seminary professor and Old Testament scholar Millard Lind said the question was wrong.
He declared the question assumes that the government provides the norm for the person of faith, and asks whether there may be a religious basis for sometimes disobeying it.
On the contrary, he counseled, the biblical accounts emphasize the absolute
sovereignty of the God of Israel. Biblical thought challenges the sovereignty
of the civil authorities, calling it rebellion. Not only individuals, but
above all, the state, with its self-interest and empire building, are against
the rule and order of Yahweh.
Is civil disobedience called for in the specific instance of taxes spent for military purposes?
Two papers were presented on this question, one by David Schroeder of Canadian Mennonite Bible College, Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the second by Kenneth Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne, Indiana.
“It is clear,” said Schroeder, “that the New Testament speaks for civil
disobedience, but it is difficult to determine the form.” Interpreting the
will of God must be done in the community of believers. The Scripture must not
only be searched to know the will of God, but also to bind ourselves to doing
it.
He observed that the issue of taxes for military purposes is often seen in isolation from other options.
He counseled that the church needs to look at all avenues which would lead to peace, and then choose those options which would be effective at the individual and corporate levels.
A noticeable reaction of surprise was evident after Schroeder indicated that
as a Canadian member of the General Conference he would abstain from voting at
the mid-triennium conference in .
“Those (Americans) who must take the consequences of tax withholding must take the responsibility,” he opined.
When questioned on this Schroeder said he held the position because he would not, as a Canadian national, be able to effectively support an American practicing tax resistance.
Later in the conference, however, he appeared to modify his position.
Bauman’s paper was a careful overview of the tax situation in the time of
Christ, of Jesus’ stance relative to the authorities, and of Anabaptist
practice.
He indicated that Jesus’ political stance was not with the ecclesiastical nor with the social establishment.
Nor did Jesus identify himself as a radical social revolutionary.
Rather, Christ was a representative of the kingdom of God with a prophetic call to repentance, faith, and righteous living which transforms society through the transformation of the individual.
“It is amazing,” he reflected, “to see the early church and the Apostles show
such respect and subordination to a political system that crucified their Lord
and killed their leaders.”
When asked at what point he would practice civil disobedience, Bauman said, “For me it would be more than taxation; it would be when government becomes an object of worship.”
Mennonite practice he noted has been to pay taxes. Only the Hutterites have a
consistent pattern of resisting taxes.
Kings and prophets
In a humorous manner, J. Lawrence Burkholder, president of Goshen College, illuminated the tension between individual conscience and management responsibility.
“The Bible is stacked against managers,” he remarked. The managers (kings)
were always getting critiques from the prophets. Burkholder confessed that
before becoming a college president (a “king”) he had often been prophetic in
his utterances.
But now as a manager he values continuity, order, and making life possible.
Decisions often have ambiguity built into them.
Further, although individuals are free to order their lives as they wish, a corporation incarnates the many wills of its supporters into a limited function.
Is it right to expect a corporation to respond in the same way as an individual?
Burkholder did conclude though that a corporation must be willing to die for
the sake of principle. For a Mennonite school he suggested such a case would
be required ROTC (Reserve Officers’ Training Corps).
In his paper on the same topic, William Keeney of Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas, warned that biblical and Anabaptist history illustrate that the voice of the majority is not necessarily the voice of God.
He also noted that for many people there is a double ethical standard, one for the Christian, and one for the state.
Keeney said Christians should have a bias in favor of loyalty to the prophets, and to the way of the cross and costly discipleship.
From this he concluded that corporate action needs to respect the individual conscience.
In his response to the above papers, Peter Ediger, pastor of the Arvada
(Colorado) Mennonite Church, cried out, “I would hope that management could be
prophetic. Can leadership in institutions not give evidence of faithfulness to
God? Why do we see this question (tax withholding) as a threat to our
institutions? We need more faith in the powers of resurrection. Do we foster
fear or faith? Spread the rumor that the Lord is going to do wonderful
things.”
The attorneys present provided a legal framework, as distinct from a biblical rationale, for approaching the issue of not withholding taxes used for military purposes.
The General Conference could, if it wished, simply stop remitting taxes and wait for the government to take action.
A long process of litigation might ensue in which the church could argue that
using the corporate body to collect taxes violates the conscience of tax
objectors, and also violates the principle of separation of church and state
because the church is held hostage by the state, under penalty of fines or
imprisonment of its officers. The attorneys also observed that the
IRS
(Internal Revenue Service) could decide to avoid litigation and its attendant
publicity, and simply go to the individual to collect.
In essence the attorneys said there were ways of working on the issue through legal, legislative, and administrative channels.
Findings
A findings committee — Palmer Becker, Hugo Jantz, Elmer Neufeld, John Stoner, Larry Kehler — drafted a statement.
After hours of discussion and subsequent changes the persons at the consultation agreed that the statement fairly represented their thinking.
Some excerpts:
“Our Christian obedience has to find new and creative responses to the
proliferation of military weaponry and technology…
“Christians respect the governing authorities… which leads to a broad
range of activities in support of the public good. Nevertheless, at times
our call of prior obedience to God’s sovereignty leads us to disobey the
claims of the state…
“We… have differing convictions about refusing to pay taxes for the
military.
“Let us be open to the possibility that the Spirit of God may lead some of
us in a direction that is both prophetic and full of risks.
“We agree that a way should be sought which will facilitate the expression
of the convictions of conference employees who request that their taxes
not be withheld.
“We need to seek the counsel of and work with other Mennnonite groups and
denominations, particularly the historic peace churches, in developing the
most appropriate response to this issue.”
Two multi-part articles and two additional stand-alone articles stretched
across multiple issues of The Mennonite and also
served to summarize some of the points of debate:
“The North American military” by Harold Fransen (part 1 and part 2)
These articles begin with an unflattering look at U.S. military personnel, suggesting that even if you put the violence of war off to one side, the drunkenness, ignorance, and sexual immorality found among those in uniform is enough not to recommend the institution to Mennonites.
The first part ends: “If we have come to the realization that we can not go to war, maybe the time has come to… say that no one can go to war on our behalf either.
As we fill out out income tax forms this year, so that the military can do the job which we refuse to do, let us remember what effect it has on the lives that are bound up in its powerful grip, and be in prayer as we move toward the General Conference’s midtriennium session to deal with this issue.”
Part two looked at this issue from the Canadian perspective, noting that
Canada was deeply involved in the international arms trade and was boosting its
own military spending. “Can we any longer brush off war taxes as a
U.S. issue?”
“Is this our modern pilgrims’ progress”
This article summarized the recent history of the General Conference in grappling with the issue that would come to a head at the session:
If the conference delegates decide that nonpayment of military taxes is justified the decision is binding on the administrators of the General Conference.
Impetus for such an assembly began in when employee Cornelia Lehn requested the General Conference
business office not to remit the military tax portion of her paycheck to the
IRS.
Prior to 1974 the issue of “war taxes” had been discussed, and as early as
, delegates at the triennial sessions in
Fresno, California, passed a statement protesting the use of tax monies for
war purposes. The delegates also said, “We stand by those who feel called to
resist the payment of that portion of taxes being used for military purposes.”
However, the General Board did not think that directive from the delegates
authorized them to stop remitting Lehn’s military taxes. Her request was
refused.
Three years later… [at] the next conference… delegates called for education regarding militarism, reaffirmed the 1971 statement, and agreed that serious work be done on the possibility of allowing General Conference employees to follow their consciences on payment or nonpayment of military taxes.
Educational materials have included the periodical God and
Caesar and two study guides, The Rule of the
Sword and The Rule of the Lamb. In addition
to these efforts two major consultations were convened in
and in
. At these consultations scholarly
papers were presented on militarism, biblical considerations for payment or
nonpayment of military taxes, and Anabaptist history and theology related to
war tax concerns.
Despite the protracted input the General Board could not reach a consensus on the issue.
Consequently the problem was brought to delegates at the triennial… [where] the delegate body committed itself to serious congregational study of civil disobedience and war tax resistance during .
The delegates also decided to discuss the issue in detail at a midtriennium conference in .
In an effort to implement the Bluffton
resolution an eight-member civil responsibility committee was formed. Several
actions were taken by it to encourage serious study.
an attitude survey on church
and government was conducted. Approximately 2,500 responses were received,
including 463 from a select sampling in 31 churches. A scholarly consultation
was held in . One of the key ideas
which came out of this consultation was whether those who feel strongly about
not paying military taxes should be encouraged to form a separate corporation
within the General Conference. To assist churches in their study of the issue
two study guides were published. The Rule of the
Sword deals primarily with facts and concerns related to militarism.
The Rule of the Lamb centers about the sovereignty
of God and biblical texts on taxes and civil authority.
Each of the more than 300 congregations in the General Conference is being encouraged to prepare a statement to bring to the conference.
It is evident from the sale of the study guides that a minority of congregations are actually making an effort to study the issue, although all congregations have received sample copies of the guides.
Many Canadian churches feel the issue is strictly an American problem, and there is a considerable diversity of conviction and thought among American congregations.
Some congregations do not intend to send delegates.
What this means for the Minneapolis conference is difficult to assess, except
for one feature. There will be a lot of stirring debate. After
will there be some
resolution of the withholding question? No one is predicting the outcome.
“Countdown to Minneapolis”
This article tried to put the debate into a larger context of what it meant for the congregations in the General Conference to be deliberating together in this way.
It also seemed to be trying to drum up more attendance; there seemed to be some worry that Canadian Mennonites, and more conservative congregations, might just not turn up.
“Our Christian civil responsibility”
This article, by Larry Kehler (author of The Rule of the Lamb), attempted to put all of the pieces together for readers ahead of the conference.
Excerpts:
General Conference churches have the opportunity of either growing through the process of working on the war-tax question or of stagnating and splintering.
I am somewhat more confident now than I was even six months ago that we will mature through this experience, and in the process perhaps reassert some of our Conference’s flagging leadership in the field of peace.
Perhaps it is only because I have been talking to more optimistic persons.
But I do have the impression that General Conference people are more ready now to participate in the struggle for an answer than they were even as late as last winter.
The easy answer of letting this debate be the occasion for some congregations to sever their ties with the General Conference seems to be more of a “cop-out” than a reasonable response to a difficult question.
Will your congregation have delegates at the midtriennium sessions in Minneapolis?
If it won’t, both the conference and the congregation will be the poorer for it.
You see, the question is not only how we will respond to the issue of tax-withholding as a witness against war, but how we go about dealing with questions on which we have not yet achieved clarity or unanimity.
The process we go through may well be much more vital to us than the answer we finally come up with, and that is not to diminish the seriousness of the problem of militarism.
Coming to Minneapolis without advance preparation, however, could be almost as
destructive as not coming at all. Each congregation should do some serious
struggling within its own setting on the various dimensions which this issue
is raising for us.
The war-tax issue offers the General Conference one of its best opportunities in many years to work seriously at Bible interpretation on a question about which we have widely differing views.
How do we make decisions when we disagree?
The tax texts
What does the New Testament say about taxes?
Here are the four primary passages:
Mark 12:13–17
is a description of the Pharisees and Herodians trying to entrap Jesus with
the question: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Jesus responds by
taking a coin and showing them Caesar’s image on it and saying, “Render to
Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
Luke 23:1–5 recalls the accusations made against Jesus before Pilate.
Among them is the charge that he has forbidden his people “to give tribute to Caesar.” In response to Pilate’s question about his kingship over the Jews, Jesus replies ambiguously, “You have said so.”
Matthew 17:24–27
talks about the temple tax. Some Bible interpreters feel that the tax question
is a secondary issue in this passage. The writer’s main purpose in telling
this incident, some scholars say, is to underscore Jesus’ sonship.
Romans 13:6–7 urges followers of Christ to be subject to the governing authorities and to pay taxes where they are due.
A straightforward reading of these passages has led many persons to conclude
that taxes are to be paid regardless of the use to which they might be put.
“How can you argue against such clear, simple statements?” they ask people who
suggest that there may be more to these comments than can be seen on the
surface.
It is the tension between these two approaches to the Bible which lies at the heart of the problem which the General Conference is now facing in its attempt to come up with a biblical response to the “war tax issue.” How do we interpret and understand the Bible?
Is the easiest reading of a biblical passage always to be taken as the most likely intention of the writer?
Some Bible scholars say that it is sometimes quite deceiving to accept the easiest reading.
Others wonder if that sort of remark doesn’t simply underscore the Bible’s assertion that some truths will confound the wise and yet be very clear to more down-to-earth and average persons.
Well, maybe.
But doesn’t it cheapen the Bible if we think that a book which has come to us from another millennium and a decidedly different culture can be read on the surface — much like one reads a twentieth-century pop-psychology book — and applied to situations in our day without adaptation?
Can any statement in the Bible be taken by itself without first testing it
against the background from which it came and against related statements
elsewhere in the Bible?
Modern, easy-to-read paraphrases of the Scriptures and our general attitude toward the Bible have led us to believe that “hermeneutics” (the interpretation of the Bible’s message) is not a difficult task.
In some cases it isn’t, but in others it is.
In places the Bible is so inscrutable that we can seemingly never be quite sure about its full intention.
So we have to launch out in faith on some questions, hoping that more clarity will come as we proceed.
We may discover as we go that we have started off in the wrong direction.
Then we need the humility to admit our error and change our direction.
The major agenda item at the midtriennium sessions in Minneapolis may turn out
not to be “war taxes” at all. This issue may be God’s way of prodding us into
becoming more of a “hermeneutic community”…
The tax texts need to be studied intensely at the congregational level, each participant bringing an open mind and heart to the discussion.
If clarity and unanimity do not come immediately let us not be discouraged.
Other groups have had similar difficulties before us.
That is all the more reason why we should continue to struggle with this question.
The summary statement prepared by the people who attended the
war tax conference contained this paragraph:
“After considering the New Testament texts which speak about the Christian’s
payment of taxes, most of us are agreed that we do not have a clear word on
the subject of paying taxes used for war. The New Testament statements on
paying taxes (Mark 12:17 and Romans 13:6–7)
contain either ambiguity in meaning or qualifications on the texts that call
the discerning community to decide in light of the life and teachings of
Jesus.”
For Canadians too
The war tax issue is a U.S. issue and should be decided by them.
Right?
Wrong! It’s an issue for the entire General Conference.
But Canadians wouldn’t be taking any of the risks if the U.S. Government should bear down and hand out some jail sentences or fines for the Conference’s not withholding its employees’ income taxes.
Too much emphasis has been put on the possibility of fines or jail terms.
These consequences might come, but they’re not likely. The fear of a
confrontation with the law has taken the focus off the main point of this
whole exercise. The purpose is to give a firm, clear, and prophetic witness
against the diabolic buildup of the machines of war, which is occurring at an
ever-increasing pace in the United States and in many other nations. Are we
going to sit back and allow this escalation to continue without at least
giving our governments some sort of message that we cannot any longer go along
with this race toward self-destruction?
The arms race and the manufacture of war goods is very much part of the Canadian scene too… I have not yet been able to discover any tax resisters in Canada, but this does not mean that militarism is not a front-burner issue in Canada.
It is, and it should be.
I don’t know why there aren’t tax resisters in Canada. There are certainly
other forms of objection to the military buildup. “Project Ploughshares” is an
interchurch witness against militarism. Mennonites are actively involved in
its program of research and information-sharing. Thus, even though tax
resistance isn’t part of the Canadian experience now, Canadian Mennonites
shouldn’t withdraw from the General Conference discussion. They can
legitimately be fully involved on the basis of principle.
If the General Conference is going to say, “Yes,” to those of its employees who don’t want their income tax withheld, that should be the decision of the entire Conference, not just a portion of it.
The decision, whichever way it goes, will carry much more weight, I believe, if all the congregations in the Conference have participated in it.
Canadian involvement is important.
Some have indicated that the present set of options offered to the
delegates — that is to vote either yes or no on the withholding question — is
not sufficient. Other alternatives must be developed. If not, the Conference
may become polarized, and it might even split.
The question therefore is: How can the General Conference, as an international body, make a clear-cut witness against militarism without splintering the Conference?
Some U.S. Mennonites have stated that Canadian participation is crucial to the process.
After the conference in Bluffton in it
appeared that there would be minimal Canadian involvement at Minneapolis.
There is still no guarantee that participation from Canada will be adequate,
but good efforts are being made to encourage Canadian churches to send
delegates.
The General Board of the Conference of Mennonites in Canada at its last meeting went on record urging Canadian participation.
It will communicate this concern to the churches.
Several congregations are making special efforts to prepare for the convention.
Bethel Mennonite Church, Winnipeg, Manitoba, held a weekend seminar on this topic.
Grace Mennonite Church, Regina, Saskatchewan, arranged a similar event.
The Winnipeg meeting was covered in a later issue.
About fifty people met and came up with a set of recommendations as they prepared to select their delegates to the conference.
Sharon Sawatzky of the Canadian Conference staff in Winnipeg prepared a Canadian supplement for the study booklet The Rule of the Sword by Charlie Lord.
Copies of the supplement have been sent to all Canadian congregations who have ordered the five-lesson study booklet on militarism.
Faith and Life Press, Newton, reports that to date (I write this on
) more orders for the study
materials (The Rule of the Sword and
The Rule of the Lamb) have been received from Canada
than from the United States.
The prophets and the managers
The tension created by the war tax question in the General Conference is heightened by people’s disparate understandings of what it means to be good stewards of our church-related institutions.
Some have seen it as a tension between the “prophets” and the “managers.”
Who shapes the direction and philosophies of our churches and their agencies?
Is it the people who have a “prophetic” vision of biblical responsibility? Is
it the administrators who have been charged with “managing” these
organizations and creating as few waves as possible? Both? Partially? Neither?
Questions related to this apparent tension are included in the study guide The Rule of the Lamb…
J. Lawrence Burkholder, who is himself the “manager” of a major Mennonite
institution (Goshen College), has frankly described the predicament in which
leaders of institutions find themselves.
Here is a summary of his observations…
An efficient and well-trained corps of managers has emerged to run the
Mennonites’ growing number of institutions. The “constituency” of each of
these institutions insists that it is to be run in a businesslike, fiscally
responsible, and basically conservative way. Actions which might jeopardize
the welfare of an institution are not likely to be looked upon with much
favor.
The war tax issue, said Burkholder, is a problem of personal ethics as opposed to corporate ethics.
Our way of understanding the Bible is based on a one-to-one decision-making process, where the individual can respond quickly and simply to a situation.
A corporation’s response to an ethical question, on the other hand, involves
many wills. A number of “publics” make demands on the institution to decide
the issue their way. This does not mean, the Goshen College president
emphasized, that moral demands cannot be made of corporations. Nor should it
be said that all institutions are alike.
Corporations tend toward the status quo.
They emphasize different values than “prophetic” Christians.
Corporations tend to take a positive view of the broader culture in which they operate, they recognize the ambiguity of the situations in which they are making their decisions, and they look less judgmentally on people than do the “prophets.”
On the other hand, prophets have the luxury, according to Burkholder, of being
able to speak abstractly, of idealizing certain things from the past, and of
talking about perfection and ideals in an imperfect society.
Managers of church-related institutions have a clear line of accountability to their constituency, he said, “but who holds the prophets responsible?” Prophets are usually judged to be true or false in retrospect.
A prophet, therefore, doesn’t have to take responsibility for actions, words, and decisions in the same way that a manager does. “Sometimes,” said Burkholder, “present-day prophets come off ‘cheap.’ ”
He emphasized that Mennonites should continue to identify with the prophetic
tradition. They should be aware, though, that this means they will have to be
willing to remain somewhat on the edge of society.
“We will also need to develop a theology of corporate life,” he added. “We already have a theology of fellowship, but we don’t have a theology of the institution.”
Debate in the Letters Column
There was plenty of debate about the propriety of war tax resistance itself in the letters-to-the-editor column, sometimes explicitly prompted by the debate over withholding and the upcoming conference, other times more general.
John K. Stoner said that if the Conference were to fail to endorse war tax
resistance, “I would like to be able to have the confidence that they made
their decision in full awareness and with truly informed knowledge of the
dimensions of the nuclear abyss into which we are staring. At this point I
do not find it possible to have that confidence.” In short, they seemed to
be unaware of just how bad things had gotten.
I do not wish to imply that tax resistance or some other form of civil disobedience is the only kind of response which faithful Christians should be making to the unprecedented evil of the nuclear arms race. (It is my judgment that the situation confronts us with more than adequate grounds for civil disobedience.) However, I do wish to imply that those who counsel against tax refusal and civil disobedience would be much more convincing if they were leading out in other visible kinds of response to the nuclear crisis.
Carl M. Lehman wrote in to again remind readers that there was no such
thing as a “war tax” and that such nomenclature comes from “a less than
completely honest persistence in using labels to create a straw man to
attack.”
Money is only a convenient medium of exchange and not a real necessity to conduct war…
I have no quarrel with the person who simply wants to refuse to pay
taxes as a protest technique. As an attention-calling device it may very
well be effective. It is not exactly the kind of role I would feel led
to play, but I would not want to condemn anyone who felt they must use
such a tactic. I would, however, strongly protest any attempt to make
such a tactic mandatory for all Mennonites, and this is exactly what is
being attempted. Not mandatory, of course, in the sense that it would be
a test of membership, but mandatory in the sense of a normal commitment
expectation for a nonresistant Christian.
I maintain that tax resistance is a deviation from our heritage of faith.
The fact that it is a deviation in no sense makes it wrong and certainly does not mean that we pay no heed.
It does, however, very much suggest that the burden of proof is on the deviant, and that the deviant ought not to equate obedience to God with conformity by others.
John Swarr called on Mennonites to repent for war and in true repentance
to “change our ways.” He disagreed with Lehman’s dismissal of the moral
import of money. “Money is indeed a medium of exchange, but as Christian
stewards of God’s gifts we must be concerned about the things for which
that money is invested, donated, or paid.” He also disagreed that war tax
resistance was a deviation from Mennonite tradition, pointing to examples
from history in which Anabaptists took the issue seriously and came down
on both sides.
Karl Detrich took a hard Romans 13
line on the question, saying that the question of whether Christians
should or should not pay taxes had long ago been closed by that chapter.
While the New Testament also contains examples of civil disobedience, “in
each case these men were following the dictates of a higher law, namely,
that we should have no other gods besides our Lord.”
Jesus tells us that in the last days there will be, among other tribulations, wars and rumors of war.
Rather than going against the teaching of God’s word in a vain effort to forestall the inevitable, should we not give our time and energies to the worship of God and the proclamation of his gospel, so that we can do our part to hasten the day of his coming?
Paul W. Andreas saw simple living as a key to avoiding war taxes, and
resisting war taxes as a key to avoiding despair:
The submission to evil (no government has been free of it) produces despair.
I believe that love of my fellow humans is fundamental to not only
Mennonite faith but to Christ’s message. If I am compelled to violate
that message by hiring killers and providing weapons, I despair. For me,
no charitable contribution undoes the evil I unleash by paying taxes
that are used for such ends. Fortunately the practitioner of the simple
life can reduce his wage and thus avoid the income tax used for evil.
James Newcomer, in the course of taking Mennonites to task for the
“red-baiting” he’d found in their midst, took some time out to praise war
tax resistance:
I am deeply moved… by the witness of Peter Ediger at Rocky Flats, Colorado, and by many others who through war tax resistance and protest are trying to focus their own understanding of the modern Christian experience at the risk of losing middle-class luxuries and future security.
Miscellany
And if that weren’t enough, there were several other news items that discussed war tax resistance without relating directly to the upcoming conference or the specific debate to be dealt with there.
For example:
“A weekend seminar on war tax resistance” organized by Philadelphia Mennonites at which “[s]pecific strategies for implementing war tax resistance were discussed,” and the usual biblical verses were hashed out.
A four-point resolution on peacemaking called the Eastern District to: (1) serious Bible study on peace and a General Conference resolution on “The Way of Peace” (2) involvement in disapproval (through congressional representatives) of national actions promoting war, poverty, and terror; (3) support of those who feel led to withhold portions of their taxes; and (4) a midyear assembly to promote peacemaking.
After vigorous discussion, point three was stricken from the resolution
and point two was amended to include encouragement for righteous actions.
The amended resolution was adopted.
The Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section (U.S.) met. But in spite of all that was going on around them, it merely “reaffirmed its recommendation to Mennonite institutions ‘to study the conflict between Christian obligations and legal obligations in the collection of federal taxes…’ ” When they would meet again “a resolution on militarism, the future of New Call to Peacemaking, and the question of alternatives to the payment of taxes for military purposes” would be on the agenda. At that meeting, they took a stronger stand:
We support those who resist the payment of taxes for military purposes and call upon all members of the church to seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes.
While Mennonite church institutions continue to struggle with an administrative response to the issue of “war tax” withholding, individual Mennonites are voicing their convictions through refusing to pay the portion of their taxes designated for military use.
About $4,000 has been received by the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section’s “Taxes
for Peace” fund, contributed by Mennonite war tax refusers.
Nonpayment of taxes violates national laws, but tax refusers are convinced that paying taxes is disobedience to God when slightly over half of that tax money is allocated for the past, present, and future military expenditures of the United States.
Most of these tax refusers paid only 47 to 50 percent of taxes owed to
the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS),
forwarding the remaining amount to
MCC
and other Mennonite agencies. Statements to
IRS
clarified that the withheld tax money was not for personal profit but
rather for meeting human needs, promoting peace and reconciliation, and
supporting life instead of death.
James Klassen, Newton, Kansas, who claimed a Nuremburg Principle tax deduction in an amount sufficient to result in a 50 percent refund of the amount of taxes due, recently received the refund in full and forwarded the check to MCC. (The Nuremburg Principles, unanimously affirmed by the United Nations after World War Ⅱ, specify that crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are crimes under national law.)
“This is the first time we have deliberately broken the law of our
country,” say tax refusers James and Anna Juhnke, North Newton, Kansas.
“It is not an easy decision. We love our land and we respect the
authority of the government. We want to show our respect by making our
civil disobedience a public act and by accepting the penalties which may
result from our action.”
“As a Christian who accepts the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament as normative for life and ethics, I am a ‘conscientious objector’ to participation in war and to the resolution of human conflict by violence,” concludes Marlin Miller of Goshen, Indiana. “It is my conviction that the financial support of war and military expenditures cannot be reconciled with this stance any more than actual military service itself.”
They and other Christians feel that Christ’s calling to a life of love,
nonviolence and reconciliation supersedes demands of the state.
Thirty-three persons and families thus far have identified themselves as “war tax resisters” after God and Caesar in its issue provided the opportunity for people to do so.
The respondents represent eleven denominations as well as those with no church affiliation.
One recent case of a non-ordained employee at a Mennonite institution
hoping to resist paying war taxes involved Esther Lanting, a teacher at
Western Mennonite School
(WMS),
Salem, Oregon, who on
wrote a letter to the
WMS
board requesting that her income tax not be withheld from her check.
On , Lanting was invited to meet with the board to explain her reasons.
The board decided to seek the counsel of the conference executive committee, and secure study papers on the tax issue.
Finally, on , after
extended study, the peace and social concerns committee of the conference
recommended that the
WMS
board grant Lanting’s request and discontinue withholding her taxes.
On , the WMS board considered the committee’s recommendation.
By a vote of six to two they decided not to follow the recommendation, but to continue withholding all tax as legally required.
At this same board meeting three other WMS teachers or staff members acted as follows: Ray Nussbaum submitted a letter requesting that the board stop withholding his tax; Floyd Schrock made a verbal request that his tax not be withheld; and Cindy Mullet asked that the board decrease her salary to the level where she will owe no tax.
The board granted Cindy Mullet’s request for a reduction in salary. The
board is willing to reconsider the issue if more faculty members should
make the same request to have the board refrain from withholding taxes.
MCC has taken no official position on the refusal to pay taxes for military use, but MCC Peace Section (U.S.) adopted a statement in which in part recommended “that Mennonite and Brethren in Christ continue to work toward reduction of military spending, not resting content with special provisions exempting us from payment of taxes for military purposes.” It affirms “those in our midst who feel compelled by Christian conscience to refuse payment of all or some federal tax because of the large percentage of such taxes used for military purposes.”
In concluding his war tax talk Yoder said church members are generally more ready to disregard what the church has to say than what the government says.
Issuing a direct challenge to those who believe war tax resistance is wrong he counseled, “It would be more credible if those who are in favor of paying all their taxes would show through some other action what they are doing to love our national enemies.”
This is the thirtieth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today we continue to work through the early 1980s.
War tax resisters’ hour comes round at last in Bethlehem
On the ongoing issue of tax withholding, GB agreed to submit a resolution to delegates at Bethlehem to “authorize the officers [of the conference] to test the constitutionality of [the tax withholding] requirement… by refusing to serve as tax collectors in cases where individual employees have asked that their federal income taxes not be withheld from their wages, in order that they may conscientiously refuse to pay for war.”
The church which seeks to save her security by following only “legal, legislative and judicial avenues” to salve its war tax conscience will lose her life; the church willing to lose her security in supporting non-registrants for the sake of Christ will find life.
At the triennial sessions, the conference authorized the General Board to initiate a judicial action seeking exemption for the General Conference Mennonite Church from withholding taxes from the income of its employees.
James Gingerich, Duane Heffelbower, Larry Voth, Robert Hull, and Vern Preheim were appointed as a judicial action committee to implement the resolution.
William Ball was engaged as legal counsel.
In , Ball advised the conference that the general climate in the United States, the attitude of the present government administration, and the attitude of the Supreme Court as evidenced by some recent decisions dealing with religious conviction or conscience and taxes were such that the likelihood of the General Conference accomplishing its objectives through a judicial action was virtually nil.
The committee recommended and the General Board concurred to put the judicial action on hold and to bring the matter once again to the conference for further discernment and decision.
A more detailed report and a recommendation from the General Board to the conference that we honor the requests of employees to not withhold taxes on their wages will be sent to the congregations in advance of the triennial sessions.
Throughout , while pursuing judicial action, we also continued to encourage the enactment of World Peace Tax Fund legislation.
An editorial in the edition described the upcoming decision thusly:
At a special midtriennium conference in Minneapolis in , GC delegates voted 1,218 to 134 in favor of urging their General Board to “use all legal, legislative and administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector exemption from the legal requirement that the conference withhold income taxes from the wages of its employees.”
If no solution could be found within three years, the GB was to bring the matter back for further action.
At Estes Park in , a judicial test case on the issue was okayed by a vote of 1,156 to 353.
Bethlehem will bring GC delegates face to face with the fact that all three avenues, at present, look like dead ends.
As a result, the GB is proposing that the conference stop withholding taxes from salaries of employees who request such action in order to “assert the higher claim of Christ’s law of love.”
If approved, the resolution would take the conference one small but significant step into the sphere of divine obedience/civil disobedience.
It could become the most formidable — and challenging — business item for GCs, despite the fact that several other organizations have already taken the same action.
In advance of the Bethlehem gathering, the text of the proposed resolution was released in the pages of The Mennonite:
Among the resolutions for consideration by delegates at the General Conference Mennonite Church Triennial Sessions… is a formal action authorizing conference officers to stop withholding taxes from the salaries of its employees as required by U.S. law.
It also encourages Canadian Mennonites to obtain relief from the same requirement by Revenue Canada.
The conference’s General Board… will bring the "Resolution on Faithful Action Toward Tax Withholding" to Bethlehem delegates as their recommendation for resolving the moral dilemma which church officials feel they are facing.
If approved, the resolution could take the conference into divine obedience/civil disobedience.
Thus we urge our governments to sharply reduce military spending and use our resources for life-affirming purposes.
Furthermore, just as conscientious objectors have received exemption from military service, we also seek legislation exempting conscientious objectors from paying taxes for military purposes.
Thus we continue to work in the United States for passage for the World Peace Tax Fund Act and in Canada for the Peace Tax Fund, which would allow individuals to designate all of their federal taxes for peaceful purposes.
Both the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and Revenue Canada require the General Conference Mennonite Church to violate the consciences of its employees who are conscientious objectors to paying taxes for military purposes.
In the United States, we have thoroughly explored all legislative, administrative and judicial avenues for obtaining a conscientious objector exemption to these withholding requirements, as we resolved at the Minneapolis midtriennium conference.
Our explorations have convinced us there is no likelihood of relief in the near future for conscientious objectors to military taxes.
The time has come when, like Peter and the apostles, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
In Canada, equally thorough explorations of similar avenues for seeking a conscientious objection from withholding requirements have not yet been accomplished.
We commend the “Resolution on Security and Disarmament” of the Canadian Mennonite Conference in and the work of the Canadian Tax Task Force under the sponsorship of MCC Canada Peace and Social Concerns.
We encourage Canadian congregations to continue study of materials made available on the issue of military taxes.
As delegates to the triennial sessions of the General Conference Mennonite Church, we therefore:
Authorize the conference officers to test the constitutionality of the withholding requirements in the United States and to assert the higher claim of Christ’s law of love by refusing to serve as tax collectors in cases where individual employees have asked that their federal income taxes not be withheld from their wages in order that they may conscientiously refuse to pay for war preparations.
These employees will be treated similarly to the way General Conference treats ordained ministers, i.e. as self-employed persons, in that their earnings will be reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, but no federal income tax withheld.
We request that the Conference of Mennonites in Canada consider means to obtain relief from Revenue Canada withholding requirements as these apply to General Conference Mennonite Church employees.
We shall inform the U.S. government of this act of conscientious objection to their withholding requirements.
We shall again urge them to provide exemption from these requirements and exemption for people of peacemaking conscience from military use of their tax money.
At this moment of decision we commit ourselves to surround with our prayers the General Conference staff and government officials who will be involved in this action and all those individuals who refuse in conscience to pay taxes for war preparations, however costly their witness may be.
Jim Gingerich of Moundridge, Kan., chairperson of the conference’s judicial action committee, reported that the suit against the IRS approved at Estes Park was, in the opinion of constitutional lawyer William Ball, almost certain to fail.
Little progress was being made on the legislative or administrative fronts either.
In light of this, the General Board was recommending that the conference honor the consciences of its employees who request that their full salaries be paid to them, allowing the employees themselves to remit to the IRS what their consciences would allow.
After Robert Hull, secretary for peace and justice, had reviewed the experiences of other groups which had attempted similar actions, Duane Heffelbower of Reedley, Calif., outlined the points of the resolution in detail and spoke of their possible ramifications.
“We could scarcely devise a softer velvet glove to cast at the feet of the IRS,” he said.
“But the action does show our corporate willingness to stand beside our employees.
What will the government do?
We don’t know.”
What followed was probably the most vigorous interchange of viewpoints by GC delegates of the entire week.
Nearly two dozen speakers took their turns at the mikes before the vote was called for.
Viewpoints on the resolution ran the gamut from disassociation with it to praising God for it.
“We believe that the Bible says we ought to pay our taxes.
We want to be separated from and not have any part of this action,” said Paul Goossen, Wayland, Iowa.
“This resolution is creating an impossible situation for our government,” added John Voth of Meno, Okla. “We have emphasized that we love our enemy.
I wonder whether the government has become our enemy.
Have we adopted the same big-stick approach that we so often have criticized?”
Others, however, urged the conference to push ahead with the proposed action.
“Mennonites took a stand against slavery even though it was unpopular,” said Mark Winslow, Allentown, Pa.
“Today, the nuclear arms race is the primary social sin of our day.
We should take a stand regardless of the fact that it may be unpopular.”
Lois Barrett, Wichita, Kan., observed that “in the U.S., disobeying the law is the time-honored way of changing the law,” noting that the cause of civil rights in was advanced primarily through civil disobedience.
H.A. Fast of North Newton, Kan., prompted the only round of applause during the lengthy discussion.
“We refuse our selves in service, but we say nothing about our taxes,” Fast said.
“I have said to the government, ‘You can’t take my body to fight a war.’ I have said, ‘You can’t take my son.’ And now I am saying, ‘You can’t take my money, either.’ ”
When it was over and the ballots counted, the resolution passed by a 70 percent majority. [1,128 to 457]
One of the characteristic features of the discussion on tax withholding, as well as other debates during the week, was the sensitivity and willingness to listen with which delegates approached the microphones.
Several told of how they had come to the convention ready to vote one way, but were now moved to vote another.
Phrases such as “I want to respect your point of view…” or “I’m willing to learn more…” preceded many of the speeches.
And the tough debates of Bethlehem, during which emotions ran high and convictions deep, never seemed to overshadow the determination by participants to celebrate their common identity, their peoplehood, their unity.
After the convention, many attributed that prevailing unity to the moving of the Spirit.
Delegates at the conference were treated to a performance of The Plow and the Sword, a musical about American Mennonites during the Revolutionary War who disputed whether or not it was proper to pay taxes to the rebellious Continental Congress.
“The play’s content was powerfully pertinent to the delegates meeting at Bethlehem who discussed present-day responses to war taxes.”
Acting on the basis of a resolution adopted by General Conference delegates at Bethlehem , conference treasurer Ted W. Stuckey on issued the first paychecks on which federal income taxes were not withheld.
Seven employees of the denomination’s central offices made the request that the taxes not be withheld, so that they can remit to the IRS personally the amount of federal taxes their consciences will allow, given the U.S. government’s high rate of military spending.
Those making the request were Robert Hull, secretary for peace and justice; Lynn Keenan, Mennonite Voluntary Service associate director; Paula Diller Lehman, secretary for youth education; Fred Loganbill, assistant for peace and justice; John Sommer, overseas personnel secretary; Meribeth Sprunger, secretary for mission communications; and Elizabeth Yoder, general editor.
Several others have indicated that they may be willing to take part in the action at a later date.
Stuckey said that, beginning with the paychecks, the seven will have state and social security taxes deducted but be treated like self-employed persons as far as federal income taxes are concerned.
Under such a classification, they would be required to submit quarterly estimated tax payments to the IRS.
The seven plan to make a portion of those quarterly payments but put the balance — the amount they feel they cannot voluntarily pay because of high U.S. military spending — into a special account at General Conference central offices.
Stuckey and general secretary Vern Preheim informed Commissioner Roscoe L. Egger, Jr., at IRS headquarters in Washington by letter of the conference’s action, the motivation of employees for requesting the procedure, the reasons for the church’s granting the requests, the identities of the seven employees and the location of the account to which the IRS may initiate collection procedures.
“We’re trying to be completely open and above board with them about this matter,” he said.
Copies of the letter were also sent to IRS offices in Wichita, Kan., and Austin, Texas, as well as to state and federal legislators.
The pay period is the first opportunity for the conference to implement the “Resolution on Faithful Action Toward Tax Withholding” adopted by delegates to a churchwide convention in Bethlehem, Pa., on .
There, conferees voted 1,128 to 457 to “authorize the conference officers to test the constitutionality of the withholding requirements in the United States and to assert the higher claim of Christ’s law of love, by refusing to serve as tax collectors in cases where individual employees have asked that their federal income taxes not be withheld from their wages, in order that they may conscientiously refuse to pay for war preparations.[”]
Miscellany
A note in the edition mentioned that the Historic Peace Church Task Force on Taxes had decided to go all-in on the World Peace Tax Fund bill, promoting “dunamis groups which approach congresspersons in a spirit of compassion rather than confrontation… to obtain a dozen more co-sponsors for the WPTF bill in the coming year.”
The edition noted that “MCC U.S. Peace Section has put together a War Tax Packet, designed to equip individuals and groups with a variety of resources for study on the question of paying taxes for war.
Cost is $2.”
The edition included a profile of Cornelia “Nellie” Lehn, whose war tax resistance became the focus for much of the debate that overtook the General Conference Mennonite Church.
It summarized this as follows:
Nellie was… dealing personally with the perplexing issue of war taxes.
She liked to read Bible verses that say to pay your taxes, but began to wonder why she did not concentrate equally on those saying to love your enemies and put your sword away.
Finally she felt she could not pay that part of her taxes going to war purposes and asked the General Conference office not to withhold any of her salary for taxes.
“The time comes when you have to cut through all the complexity and be obedient,” she says, reminiscent of her stand earlier in life.
At the triennium she stated her views.
The conference continues to work on this issue even today.
I’m surprised I haven’t come across this amusing example of war tax resistance outreach before:
Mennonites in Harrisonburg, Va., gathered on to attach over $300 to about 75 helium-filled balloons.
Each balloon, in addition to a five- or ten-dollar bill, carried a note from a participant explaining why he or she had withheld the money from current income taxes.
“Because we are Christians who are trying to follow the peaceful way of Jesus, we cannot support this country’s military build-up,” said many of the notes.
“Instead, we have chosen to ‘waste’ our money in a more constructive way.”
Participants read Scripture, sang, danced, prayed, confessed their sins, and clowns passed out jelly beans as the balloons rose.
The shift of focus to “Peace Tax Fund” legislation would aggravate a decline in interest in real war tax resistance in the General Conference Mennonite Church that continues to the present day.
Clearly, some Mennonites perceived this danger, as Robert Hull wrote an article to defend the push for such a law:
An argument by some war tax resisters is that any peace tax fund is a means for conscientious objectors to salve their conscience with regard to diverting their own taxes, and that this provision then will encourage such COs to be quiet and passively accept the warmaking of governments which will continue more efficiently without their dissent.
When I have explored this argument, I almost invariably discover that the war tax resister speaking is drawing upon an analogy made with the 20th-century U.S./Canadian history of conscientious objection to military service.
The Civilian Public Service camps of World War Ⅱ by and large had this “quietistic” effect.
However, it should be noted that the provision for COs in World War Ⅱ came about because the government remembered the difficulties it had encountered with historic peace church resisters in World War Ⅰ.
Similar spokespersons on the eve of World War Ⅱ stated their convictions to “draw the line” again if acceptable provisions were not made.
But even during World War Ⅱ, the legal criteria for CO classification in the United States were broadened by the Supreme Court to include all religious objectors, then during the Vietnam War to include people holding a belief equivalent to that in a Supreme Being (Seeger, ), and later to all people morally, ethically or religiously opposed to all war (Welsh, ).
In the draft registration debate in , projections by the Selective Service of future CO claimants extended to 40 percent of all registrants.
It seems reasonable to conclude that at least one cause for this large increase in the potential CO population is a result of the public visibility of thousands of young men performing alternative service during the Vietnam War.
The recent response of the U.S. Selective Service to its own projections has been to develop plans for CO alternative service which seek to once more “contain” the CO visibility by centralizing the program under direct Selective Service administration in order to meet military mobilization priorities.
This policy is in turn quite likely to produce non-cooperators who will have registered but then find that such an alternative service program is unacceptable to their conscience.
A significant number of such non-cooperators would increase the already more than 500,000 draft-eligible young men who have not registered.
Twentieth-century CO history has lodged anomalous laws within the government structures.
That is, if these laws are interpreted by relatively tolerant regulations, the CO population may grow uncontrollably large; if the laws are interpreted by repressive regulations, the number of non-cooperators may grow uncontrollably.
Now let’s pursue this analogy with regard to peace tax legislation and war tax resistance.
I am convinced that Parliament or Congress will never enact peace tax legislation until the war tax resistance movement grows so large that such laws come to be viewed as an expedient accommodation, as Civilian Public Service was viewed on the eve of World War Ⅱ.
But several differences between the two are significant.
Bear in mind that peace tax legislation provides for the taxpayer to claim he or she is a CO and that the burden of the challenge and rebuttal lies upon the government.
Additionally, peace tax legislation’s provision for income tax forms and information materials to describe the military proportion of the federal budget in some detail will ensure that a far greater percentage of the taxpayers become aware of the peace tax alternative than the percentage of draft-age men who were made aware by the government of the CO alternative from World War Ⅱ through Vietnam.
Finally, the peace tax legislation provides for the diversion of CO taxpayers’ “military taxes” into a trust fund.
This is intended to result in a direct drain out of the general treasury available for war preparations.
Thus the peace tax legislation further raises people’s consciousness.
If peace trust funds in the United States and Canada are administered as the legislation intends, many millions of people will choose to support peacemaking alternatives to conflict rather than supporting warmaking preparations, and a “democracy of defense” may develop: those who rely on military weapons can pay for them without coercing the contributions of those who place their reliance upon other alternatives.
If the CO eligibility criteria are interpreted too restrictively, or inaccurate portrayals of the military proportion of the federal budget are published, or CO taxpayers’ funds are demonstrably rechanneled into the warmaking treasury, then increased numbers of informed citizens may respond with direct tax resistance.
The government will thus have on its hands another significant anomalous law, one by which millions of citizens can measure the government’s tendency to override their democratic rights in its clearing of the path toward war.
This then is the educational strategy behind the peace tax effort as I see it.
The legislation will reach millions of people with the message that there are alternatives to paying for the war system.
It will provide a step which millions of citizens can take, and whose aggregate pressure for peacemaking will be enormous, without overwhelming risk to the individual taxpayer.
After all, it is at least in part the risk involved in war tax refusal which keeps it an infinitesimally small protest movement in the total population.
I hope that thousands of active peacemakers will heed the call to war tax refusal and that the pressure for peace upon the warmaking tendencies of government will grow.
As it does, I believe it will prove disastrous if the peacemaking community has no legislative proposal to put forward which will secure as much of the “democracy of defense” goal as possible, and to which the government can turn as an accommodation.
The Church of the Brethren has long supported members who conscientiously object to the payment of war taxes.
Some members wish to refuse to pay taxes but are unable to because the taxes are withheld by their employers.
The delegates approved a paper that gives guidance to church institutions whose employees request, for reason of conscience, that their taxes not be withheld.
The annual conference recommended that all legal possibilities be explored first but affirmed civil disobedience for both individuals and institutions when it is a matter of conscience.
A United Methodist congregation in New Haven, Conn., backing their pastor’s right to refuse paying federal taxes for military use, has declined to turn over his salary to the Internal Revenue Service.
Carl Lundbord [sic], pastor of First and Summerfield United Methodist Church, has withheld federal income taxes in both and , telling the IRS his “obligations as a Christian and as a citizen are no longer reconcilable.
The 50 percent of my taxes that support the military I cannot pay.” IRS ordered the church to withhold the pastor’s salary until the amount was paid.
But church members voted on to reject IRS’s demand.
Our ancestors migrated to the United States so that they would not be forced to participate in European wars.
Eventually this government respected their deeply held beliefs about peacemaking and granted them the right to register as conscientious objectors.
Today we find ourselves in a technological age in which our money is more useful to the military than our bodies.
So we are being forced by law to participate financially in the preparation for war, which violates the biblical command to love our neighbors as ourselves.
When Caesar’s demands conflict with God’s, we cannot blindly obey our government.
These words from John S. and Sara L. Wengerd’s letter to the Internal Revenue Service echo the convictions of nearly 60 individuals and families who chose to contribute to Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Peace Section in lieu of paying a portion of their income taxes that would have been used for military purposes.
For some, the contribution was a symbolic amount, such as $7.77.
For others, it equaled the 36 to 54 percent of their tax dollars that would have financed military activity.
That portion is commonly referred to as a “military tax” or a “war tax.”
In another case, a couple’s taxes had already been withheld by the Internal Revenue Service, so they donated an amount equal to their military taxes, which they had already paid.
In all cases, these individuals felt that silent compliance with the tax collection process would be a violation of their consciences and religious convictions against killing and participating in war in any way.
Many noted that their dilemma of conscience could be ameliorated by passage of the World Peace Tax Fund (WPTF) Act…
Meanwhile, the federal government is attempting to crack down on various types of tax protests.
People who object to paying taxes for military purposes may face stiff penalties designed to deter those trying to evade tax collection or destroy the tax system.
The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of instituted an automatic $500 penalty for individuals filing “frivolous” tax returns.
The penalty can apply to people who take unallowable deductions, credits or exemptions or give incomplete information on their tax returns.
Those taking “war tax” deductions or credits or claiming an excessive number of exemptions to reduce their tax liability could be subject to the new fine.
Several conscientious military tax resisters have received notices from the Internal Revenue Service that the penalty has been imposed, according to the May–June issue of Center Peace, the news journal of the Center on Law and Pacifism.
Robert Hull, peace and justice secretary for the General Conference Mennonite Church, suggests that conscientious objectors to military taxation take steps to distinguish their non-payment of military taxes from secular tax protests and evasion schemes.
If taxpayers correctly compute and report the amount owed and indicate in an attached letter that they cannot with a clear conscience pay the military-related portion, their tax returns will go directly to the Internal Revenue Service Collection Division instead of to the overloaded Audit Division.
Hull suggests that this action be accompanied with letters to legislators to communicate the religious and moral grounds for such action, and to demonstrate the need for remedial legislation such as the World Peace Tax Fund.
Bill Samuel, member of the WPTF steering committee, suggests that taxpayers write a contract on the back of their check to IRS stating that deposit of the check constitutes a legally binding agreement (contract) that the money will not be used for military purposes.
Courts have held that contractual checks involving private parties are legally binding, but it is uncertain whether or not IRS would abide by the contract.
John R. Dyck
A article profiled Canadian war tax resister John R. Dyck.
Excerpts:
All his life, John R. Dyck of Rosthern, Sask., has been a law-abiding citizen.
He’s never been to court.
But he expects that to change when Revenue Canada catches up with him for non-payment of taxes.
Dyck is one of a small but growing band of Canadians who are refusing to pay the portion of their income taxes they feel is designated for the military.
Instead, they are calling for an alternative “peace tax fund” which would use their tax money for peaceful purposes.
Since that alternative does not exist and Dyck withheld 10.5 percent of his taxes for and for , he expects a court order to arrive eventually.
John R. Dyck is not a young radical defying authority.
Officially he is retired (though not willingly or inactively) and has given the better part of the past two decades to service with the Mennonite Central Committee, Mennonite Foundation and the MCC Food Bank.
A sudden stroke forced him to slow down over a year ago, but he has recovered and calls it “a real miracle.”
Now he can go on serving, and he places military tax resistance in that category.
The decision did not come easily or hastily.
“I don’t know where it (a conviction) began,” he commented during an interview at this year’s annual meeting of MCC Canada in Saskatoon.
He had come to listen to the discussion and spend time with his brother and fellow peace-seeker, Peter J.
He remembers that “Cornelia Lehn made us sit up and think” in .
John began with his tax return, filed while the Dycks were in Jordan under MCC and able to observe firsthand the effects of military exploitation.
He sent two checks to Revenue Canada, asking that the smaller one be used only for peaceful development work.
He heard nothing further and assumed that both checks flowed into government coffers.
Along with his tax return he sent only a letter of concern.
But with his return he again enclosed two checks, one for Revenue Canada and a second made out to the Peace Tax Fund.
Revenue Canada replied that such a fund did not exist (legally) and demanded payment in full.
Dyck then sent the check to the Victoria, B.C.-based Peace Tax Fund and began correspondence with government officials to explain why.
“I want to do things correctly and openly,” he says.
Now Dyck is expecting a day in court.
It is bound to come, since Revenue Canada wants his money and must obtain a court order before garnisheeing his account at the Rosthern Credit Union.
The sooner the better, he adds, since it may help establish a right of conscience that would allow other people to divert their hard-earned tax money from bombs to working for peace.
He also hopes to find a sympathetic lawyer to handle the case.
“I think a lot of people would rather not talk to me about it,” he says, summing up the reaction to his protest.
So far, any criticism has been muted, though one friend told him, “I admire you for it, but you’re wrong.”
Paula, his wife, is supportive, but most fellow members at Rosthern Mennonite Church are either uninformed or indifferent.
John R. Dyck firmly believes, “We don’t need the military.”
The threat of nuclear war hanging over the world means Christians must resist militarism with renewed vigor.
“I see this (nuclear holocaust) coming and we’re accountable.
The handwriting is on the wall.”
Dyck adds that there is a growing network of people asking about the peace tax fund, though the actual number withholding taxes is still small.
(Ernie Hildebrand, a teacher at the Swift Current (Sask.) Bible Institute, is another Mennonite who is doing so.)
“But people must think this through carefully,” Dyck concludes.
“You can’t legislate a thing like this… I’m glad the Lord led us to this position.”
As the General Conference pushed ahead with its support of war tax resisting employees, with the blessing of the majority of conferees, the U.S. “Peace Section” seemed more reluctant to take a stand, at its meeting. From the edition:
While agreeing that the church has an important role to play in saying no to preparations for [nuclear war], the members struggled with the place of military tax resistance as a method of saying no.
Several members observed that the constituency is “not of one mind on this matter,” while Darrel Brubaker of Philadelphia, Brethren in Christ representative, urged that “here is one place we need to be leaders more than representatives.”
After the matter was tabled overnight for further reflection, the group affirmed a recommendation commending the General Conference for the serious attention it has given the issue and urging churches to work more diligently at the process of prayerful discernment of their response to this issue.
The resolution also strongly encouraged constituents to initiate further action in support of the World Peace Tax Fund bill, which would provide a legal alternative to the payment of taxes for military purposes.
War tax resister Don Schrader wrote in on to insist that Mennonites can best criticize revolutionary and other violence if they are careful not to support violence with their taxes:
Until our nonviolence becomes revolutionary, revolutions will be violent.
[A]s long as well-fed U.S. pacifists pay war taxes to support the imminent nuclear terror and mass murder of our planet and the dictatorial repression of Central America, what integrity do we have in questioning or condemning those peasants’ use of violence for survival.
To be peacemakers in this perilous age, we must refuse to pay war taxes, we must renounce all materialism which breeds militarism, and we must denounce foreign policy regardless of the risks for our community standing and employment.
Over four years ago I confronted the question “How can I speak for peace and pay for war,” and I became a war tax resister.
This is the thirty-first in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today we reach 1984.
The magazine helpfully summed up the current state of war tax resistance, particularly among American Christians, in its edition:
“Were you able in 1983 to find the resources to support religious, charitable and peace efforts equal to the taxes you were required to pay for the military establishment?”
The Friends Committee on National Legislation uses this question to encourage people to examine the consistency of their peace witness while filling out income tax forms.
In current military expenditures consumed 33 percent of federal appropriations, or 46 percent if the cost of past wars (interest on the national debt and veterans programs) is included, reports Delton Franz of Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section Washington Office.
During each Monthly Meeting (similar to an individual congregation) in the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (similar to a conference body) was asked to examine this question:
Is the voluntary payment of war taxes consistent with the Quaker peace testimony?
When the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting convenes its annual session in , this question will be on the agenda.
Concern about “war taxes” is reaching beyond the traditional peace churches.
The United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church have adopted statements of support for members who conscientiously oppose payment of taxes for military purposes.
The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. has initiated a churchwide study on war tax resistance.
While the religious community in the United States has moved toward greater support for conscientious objection to paying taxes for military purposes, the Internal Revenue Service has beefed up its efforts to penalize tax “protests” of all kinds.
An estimated 4,700 taxpayers were fined $500 each during for expressing their religious, moral or political views on their income tax forms.
Congress enacted this automatic $500 fine as a provision of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of .
The Internal Revenue Service began enforcing the penalty soon after its passage by Congress.
At least 30 people, including those of Mennonite, Quaker, Catholic and other religious backgrounds, are challenging the constitutionality of this regulation in court.
Lawyers believe that the penalty violates freedom of speech and that the expression of religious convictions on income tax forms is not “frivolous.”
Courts are expected to issue summary judgments (decision made by a judge only, no jury) in a number of cases in the coming year.
Internal Revenue Service officials invited Mennonite representatives to meet with them in to discuss the application of the penalty for “frivolous” returns.
IRS officials told U.S. Peace Section staff that the penalty is a processing penalty, designed to protect the efficiency of processing millions of tax returns.
People who have filled their tax forms out correctly and have simply not paid the full amount of taxes owed are not subject to this penalty.
However, taking a “war tax” credit or deduction or writing other comments on the tax form itself can result in a penalty.
The IRS officials agreed that the World Peace Tax Fund bill would be a solution if it were enacted.
Abatement of the penalties already imposed is highly unlikely, but senators who helped formulate the legislation remain concerned about its application against Mennonites and Quakers in particular.
The Fellowship of Reconciliation group in North Manchester, Ind., has organized a Tax Resister’s Penalty Fund to ease the financial burden on conscientious tax resisters.
People can submit a request for financial assistance to cover interest and penalty charges resulting from not paying military tax.
If the request is approved, an appeal letter is sent to all people who have expressed interest in contributing to the fund.
In this way, the cost of a $500 penalty could be distributed among 200 people if each paid only $2.50.
In , 250 people were on the Tax Resister’s Penalty Fund mailing list.
In MCC U.S. Peace Section approved guidelines for a “War Tax Witness Relief Fund.”
This fund was established to provide financial assistance to people within the MCC constituency who face hardship from court cases resulting from a war tax witness.
People in financial straits because they contributed the military portion of their taxes to a charitable organization and then had to face an IRS levy, property seizure, or garnishment of wages would also be eligible for assistance.
To date, no money has been budgeted for the U.S. Peace Section War Tax Witness Relief Fund and the existence of the fund has not been publicized.
U.S. Peace Section, however, will consider aiding those who are unable to acquire assistance from their congregation or conference.
U.S. Peace Section continues to accept contributions of redirected telephone and federal income tax money to its “Taxes for Peace” fund.
Donations to this fund have supported special projects and the ongoing work of U.S. Peace Section.
“The payment of taxes in the service of our common life is a necessary and a good thing.
It is therefore unusual and inappropriate to refuse tax payment,” begins a declaration printed in several national daily newspapers in the Netherlands on and signed by 69 Amsterdam area ministers, including at least seven Mennonites.
The statement, pointing out the Dutch government’s agreement to place nuclear weapons in the Netherlands, goes on to say, “In this critical phase we consider tax objection as a necessary means of protest.
We wish tax monies no longer to be misused to continue along this dead-end road.”
The edition brought readers up to date on the story of John Dyck, a Canadian war tax resister whose story had been introduced :
Like the rest of us, John R. Dyck of Rosthern, Sask., files his tax return.
But unlike most of us, he sends Revenue Canada a check for only 90 percent of his unpaid taxes.
And he includes a letter informing the Canadian government that, for reasons of conscience, a check for the balance has been sent to the Peace Tax Fund in Victoria, B.C.
The second check represents the estimated portion of Canadian taxes designated for the military.
This is in that John and Paula Dyck quietly insisted on not having their taxes spent on bombs and guns.
They believe that Christian non-resistance means more than simply refusing to fight in a war.
It also means not paying others to arm and fight for you.
A small but growing number of Canadians are sending a portion of their taxes to be held in trust by the Peace Tax Fund.
They are hoping that the Canadian government will recognize their conscientious objection to military taxes and provide an alternative.
As a retired pensioner, Dyck must calculate the taxes he owes and forward that amount with his income tax return.
Every year he checks with Ernie Regehr at Project Ploughshares (a peace research group) on the exact percentage of Canada’s budget that goes to the Department of National Defense.
Last year it was 10.5 percent.
He subtracts the military percentage and encloses a letter informing Revenue Canada of his actions, his reasons and the number of his account at the Rosthern Credit Union.
“I tell them, ‘If you want it, take it.’ But I won’t send it myself.”
Consequences.
Last year Dyck found out the hard way what happens when the government wants to collect unpaid taxes.
He says he was prepared to accept the consequences of his actions, but not for the ruthless, impersonal way Revenue Canada operates.
One day the Credit Union manager showed him an official letter that had arrived that morning garnisheeing his account.
His personal notice of the action did not arrive until a week later.
And even though the credit union account held sufficient funds, a second bank account in Saskatoon was also garnisheed.
Then, without notice, his two pension checks stopped coming.
The government ended up with $360 more than was due and Dyck has not heard from them since.
Presumably his “credit” at Revenue Canada will be used to cover the taxes he won’t pay for .
When Dyck visited the Revenue Canada office in Saskatoon to ask why he had not received a notice about the diversion of his pension checks, he was treated rudely.
“The man used some pretty rough language.
He gave me the impression that he would walk over anyone to get the money.”
Although he can recall the money in the Peace Tax Fund trust account if he wishes, he would prefer to have that money used in a hoped-for court challenge, based on the new Canadian Charter of Rights.
“On principle, I don’t mind paying twice,” he says.
The Conscience Canada organization, an outgrowth of the Peace Tax Fund Committee, expects such a challenge to cost at least $50,000.
Dyck himself is not inclined to get involved in a court case.
He has had trouble finding a lawyer who is sympathetic.
Besides, “the court route should be taken by some organization that has enough money and can do it right.”
What is Caesar due?
John R. Dyck is not a man to get up on a soapbox and trumpet his cause.
But the word gets around.
There are Mennonites in his hometown who don’t agree with him and others who ignore him.
His pastor chooses his words carefully when talking about the subject.
“I don’t suppose he has a great deal of support in the church; people feel we should obey the government.”
Dyck is now 70 years old.
When asked why he has taken such a stand when others rest in quiet retirement, he begins to talk about a lifetime spent in church-related service, of the example of his parents, about the books he has read and the years spent overseas with Mennonite Central Committee in Paraguay, India, Korea and Jordan, where he observed the effect of Western militarism.
“They all left their mark on me.”
He is committed to a vigorous, active faith based on a personal experience of God’s salvation and presence.
John doesn’t mind if people disagree with his stand.
“I don’t have any corner on the truth.
I know what it is for me at this moment.
A person should stay true to one’s convictions.”
About his critics he adds, “People say, ‘What do you think you’re doing?’
I know that.
I have no illusions that anyone in Ottawa is listening — at the moment.
It has to start small, and I want to support this movement.”
But aren’t we supposed to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s?
“Sure. But does Caesar deserve all he asks for?”
A letter to Revenue Canada from Annie Janzen of Victoria, B.C., indicated that she was joining John Dyck in his protest.
“I object on conscientious grounds to my taxes being used for war purposes…
I have sent 12.2 percent (of income tax owed to Revenue Canada) of the net federal tax payable to Conscience Canada.”
“Form 1040 is the place where the Pentagon enters all our lives and asks unthinking cooperation with the idol of nuclear destruction.
I think the teaching of Jesus tells us to render to a nuclear-armed Caesar what that Caesar deserves: tax resistance.”
These are the words of Seattle Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen (right), who two years ago decided to withhold half of his federal income tax and thereby helped launch a religious “war tax” resistance movement that is growing rapidly.
According to the Internal Revenue Service, war tax resistance has increased nearly fivefold in the last three years.
War tax resistance groups say that actual numbers are higher, that IRS tabulations miss many people, including those who simply don’t file or who don’t specify reasons for underpaying.
In the edition, Donald E. Martin wrote about “sponsoring” children from war-torn areas, and noted that doing so “helped to cut down the amount of money we spent on ourselves and the amount of taxes we paid toward paying for war.”
There were also several passing mentions of war tax resistance here and there that I didn’t think were worth excerpting here.
This is the eighth 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.
Up until now, war tax resistance has either been treated as unscriptural and therefore unthinkable, or as a curious practice that a few particularly conscientious people from other Christian sects were experimenting with.
But in something snapped, and the Gospel Herald began to consider it as a possible Mennonite response.
The issue noted that the closely-related Anabaptist cousins, the Church of the Brethren had turned the payment of taxes for military purposes into a problem that Christians needed to solve or work around:
Church of the Brethren leaders will approach government agencies in the interest of finding a “positive alternative” to the payment of taxes for military purposes.
The Brotherhood Board voted to make explorations “with the appropriate agencies of government to the end that an acceptable constructive alternative be provided for all those persons who by reason of religious training and belief conscientiously object to the payment of that portion of income taxes going for military defense.”
Several members of the Board pointed out that this matter would be much more complicated than arrangements already in effect for alternatives to military service, but the Board felt all possible explorations should be made.
The Mennonite Central Committee put this on the agenda at its Executive Committee meeting :
[The MCC Executive Committee actions included] Referring to Peace Section the invitation from the Church of the Brethren to study whether there might be a positive alternative provided by the U.S. government for persons conscientiously opposed to paying that portion of income taxes going for military defense.
Harold S. Bender did not address this tax problem directly, in his essay “When May Christians Disobey the Government?”
This may be meaningful because this was a time when war tax resistance was clearly in the air and because when Bender had been given the opportunity in the 1930s and 1940s, he had said unequivocally that Christians pay their taxes period.
Bender did, though, take a very conservative line on civil disobedience in general:
Jesus taught His disciples to “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21), thus stating a principle which goes far beyond the question of tax payment which was immediately at issue.
The Christian owes allegiance and obedience to two sovereignties, both in good conscience.
He must decide in all conscientiousness and earnestness when his allegiance to God requires disobedience to regularly constituted governmental authority and cheerfully take the consequences.
Opinion that a law or a requirement of the state is unwise or undesirable cannot be a ground of disobedience.
There may be wide divergence as to whether legislation is good or bad or whether governmental policies are helpful or harmful to the general welfare.
The Christian’s overriding obligation is to obey, even while he may seek to persuade or convince the authorities to change the law.
What then are the conditions requiring disobedience?
Certainly the Christian must disobey (1) when he is required to perform an act which is clearly forbidden in Scripture or is a dear implication from such a prohibition (military training or service would be a case in point), and (2) when he is forbidden to do what the Scripture or the clear implications of it require.
In other words, the subject matter of an act required by the state must clearly be an evil in itself, which then becomes a sin when performed.
We must consider it a sin to disobey the government (in the light of the above-cited N.T. teachings) unless a sinful act is required.
The Christian is not at liberty to disobey the government for his own ulterior purposes, no matter how good these purposes may be in themselves…
Nonresistant Christians cannot justify disobedience to law merely because they have good ends in view.
In the light of the above, it would appear that the desire to witness to the truth or against an evil cannot be a ground to disobey the requirements of the state which in themselves are not wrong.
Nor may the supposed relative effectiveness of several kinds of witness be a ground for employing the type of witness that involves disobedience, rather than a type that is free of such disobedience.
For example, Bender wrote, in the case of conscription, it is not sinful to accept conscription into civilian service, so Christians must accept this if it is demanded.
Registration is also not sinful, so Christians must register.
If forced into military service, though, the Christian must refuse to obey.
Refusal to register is a form of witness against the military, not a proper example of Christian refusal to commit a sinful act, and so it’s not an appropriate occasion for disobedience.
This distinction is worth keeping in mind as we move forward, as some Mennonite war tax resisters will come to defend their resistance as a form of witness against an over-militarized state, while others will defend theirs as a form of conscientious objection against (indirect) military service.
When the Mennonite Central Committee issued its Annual Report, the “Peace Witness” section made note of the growing concern among Mennonites about the propriety of paying for the military by means of taxes:
Emerging throughout our constituency is a growing uneasiness concerning our witness against such problems as discrimination, militarism, and war, in view of the frightful consequences these might have today.
Concern is evident in discussions about possible participation in various protest actions and about the propriety of paying income taxes that are used so largely for war purposes, as well as the suggestion that perhaps nonregistration would be a clearer testimony against conscription and militarism.
Serious discussion on the question of whether the nonresistant Christian can in good conscience pay income taxes which go so heavily for war purposes has continued.
Some decided the time had come to press the point.
“A Concerned Member” had this to say in the issue:
Would you believe that Mennonites are giving many times more for military purposes than for missions?
Sixty per cent of your income tax money each year goes for defense and yet per member we give only about $20 each year for missions.
A.J. Muste, well-known pacifist leader, has lost a court battle in his refusal to pay income tax because some portion might go toward the nation’s military establishment.
United States Tax Court has ruled that Mr. Muste must pay back taxes plus a variety of penalties.
The opinion stressed that Congress has specifically provided military service exemption for conscientious objectors, but has taken no similar action in the income tax field.
Andrew R. Shelley was among the first Gospel Herald writers to try to provide a solution for concerned Mennonites.
He proposed using legal deductions for charitable donations (which were apparently more generous then than they are today) to reduce or eliminate income tax liability ():
Practically all thinking people are disturbed about the arms race in our world.
This does not mean there is common agreement as to exactly what should be done about it.
In the United States many people of various denominations, and some who do not claim to be Christians, are very much concerned over the proportion of the national budget which goes for military purposes.
There have been those who have felt that Christian people should withhold the portion of the tax which goes for military purposes.
These people reason that to pay the tax is a violation of conscience.
Our government has been petitioned numbers of times to provide an alternative to paying tax for military purposes.
During World War Ⅱ the Canadian government did provide what was called a “Sticker Bond.”
This meant that a conscientious objector, if he desired that his money be used for other than war purposes, could request that a sticker be attached to his bond which would indicate that the money was to be used for nonmilitary purposes of government.
While this eased the conscience of the conscientious objector, it was purely a bookkeeping matter as far as the government was concerned, because it provided for essential phases of the work of the government.
Recently in various periodicals there have appeared letters and articles regarding the paying of the portion of tax that goes for military purposes.
It has appeared to me that one phase of the solution of the problem has been overlooked in almost all of the letters and articles which I have read.
In our desire to find a full solution to the problems involved we should not be unmindful of that which we do have in our power to do.
The government of the United States is the most liberal government in the world in regard to giving recognition for giving to charitable purposes.
Our government allows a tax deduction of 30 per cent for charitable giving.
(The last 10 per cent must be given to certain phases of charity which fall into the category of the general giving of Christian people.)
All of us are aware of the unnatural and unwholesome nature of American living.
Yet, most Christian people choose to go along with this way of life which even many non-Christian leaders say is unwholesome.
It is possible for Christian people to sharply reduce the amount of tax which they pay for military purposes through the simple and legal expedient of charitable giving.
Here, our government gives us the marvelous opportunity to choose that phase of charitable giving to which we desire our money to go.
While it is certainly true that not all Christian families can give 30 per cent of their income to charitable purposes, certainly those in average circumstances can do so.
(Those in higher income brackets can go far beyond this.)
It is at once evident that we need not go along with some of the extremely wasteful practices of the American public.
For every hundred dollars more that the Christian family gives to the work of the church, they can save twenty dollars’ tax and approximately fifteen dollars which would go into the general category of military spending (on the basis of 20 per cent taxation).
Consequently, it would seem that those directly concerned with the problem of taxation for military purposes would go the very limit in reducing the amount of money which they give to military purposes through taxation.
For those who are concerned about this matter, I would urge that careful records be kept of every phase of living having to do with taxes.
Thus it will be seen that through careful expenditure of the money God has entrusted to us, it is astounding how much we can give to the work of the Lord.
Think of the prospects; the positive aspect of our modern America is the privilege of living full lives and yet giving largely to the work of the Lord.
I would like to clearly state that this is not the highest motivation for giving.
We give fundamentally not because we want to pay less tax, but primarily because we love the Lord and we want His work to go forward.
It is startling and it is wonderful that at this juncture of the history of the world, when the needs are great and the opportunities are beyond description, the Lord has granted us the greatest resources in the history of mankind.
We can send forth the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Certainly without Him there can be no peace.
Without the saving grace of salvation which has been brought through the shed blood of Christ, there can be no lasting peace.
Among the various things that might be said, we must realize that the primary consideration is the sending forth of the Gospel.
While this approach does not answer the total problem with which we began this letter, it does mean that we are beginning at a point where we have control.
And from this point, which takes no more time than any other approach that we might use, we can do what we feel led to do further.
But let us begin at this point and I am sure whatever else we do will be observed with greater sympathy than if we do not start at this point of personal involvement.
All of us believe it is right and proper that we should support many phases of our government.
Whatever our differences may be on the attitude toward taxation in relation to the military part of our budget, certainly we recognize the need for government.
We recognize our responsibilities. Rom. 13.
Consequently, we gladly participate in that part of our government’s program which is essential for the welfare of our people.
A civilly disobedient war tax resister from the Church of the Brethren — Charles E. Zunkel — hit the pages of Gospel Herald on :
Charles E. Zunkel of Port Republic, Va., former moderator of the Church of the Brethren, wrote to President Kennedy and to the director of Internal Revenue that he and his wife would no longer pay a major portion of their federal income tax because 75 per cent of it goes for military purposes.
He wrote that they would continue filing their income taxes, but would pay only 25 per cent of the amount.
The remainder would be given to the church in quarterly payments, in addition to the 15 per cent or more which they already give.
He writes that they hope some alternative tax plan may be worked out whereby conscientious objectors may give their tax money to peaceable pursuits just as young men serve in alternative service in lieu of the military service.
Finally, a poem by Rachel Horst, found in the edition, and titled “Render to Caesar” suggested that the Render Unto Caesar quotation was being abused by people who prefer Caesar to Christ:
He spoke the words, Himself, not long ago
While looking at a craven face upon the coin.
We paid our tax with hatred to a hated man
And waved palms for a King of love,
Whose throng we hoped to join.
We shout the words from raucous throats today
While looking at a regal face upon the cross.
We acclaim the kingship of a loathsome man
As we renounce the Sovereign
Without a thought of loss.
There was a bit of a gap in coverage of war tax resistance issues for the rest of the year that coincided with John Drescher taking over the editorship from Paul Erb in (I don’t know if there’s any connection).
But then things heated up, as a genuine Mennonite declared himself a civilly disobedient war tax resister in .
Tune in tomorrow!
This is the twelfth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
By , war tax resistance had come out in the
open in Gospel Herald as a practice that had support
in the Mennonite Church community, though not without reservations from
conservative hold-outs. But that year, coverage of the issue became
inexplicably muted and the magazine returned to its earlier, more reserved
practice of mostly reporting on war tax resistance from a distance, as the
sort of thing other groups did.
For example, the issue included
this note
about a Church of the Brethren congregation:
The Wilmington, Del. Church
of the Brethren will refuse to pay the federal excise tax on telephones as a
protest against the Vietnam War.
The church council voted 8-6 to stop payment in accordance with a proposal
submitted by the congregation’s witness commission.
The Reverend Allen T. Hansell, pastor, said he has been withholding the 10 per
cent tax from his own telephone bill payments since
.
When the proposal was endorsed by the council, individual members were asked
to consider withholding their personal phone bills’ tax.
Robert Cain, Jr., chairman of
the Witness Committee, said he had been told by Church of the Brethren
headquarters, Elgin, Ill.,
that withholding of the tax has been considered by other congregations, but no
action had been taken before the Wilmington church’s decision.
The church council sent a letter to President Richard M. Nixon outlining its
action and urging him “to use all resources and power available to you as
president of the United States to achieve world peace.”
Mr. Cain said the church is not against paying taxes to the government, but
when the federal government restored the telephone excise tax in
, it was felt it was a tax “directly imposed
to help pay for the war in Vietnam.”
Richard and Carol Morse, a Quaker couple recently returned from three months
working in a Vietnam rehabilitation center, have notified President Nixon they
won’t pay taxes .
“After what we have seen in Vietnam,” the Morses told Mr. Nixon in a letter,
“we feel that you are insulting the American people by asking them to support
such destruction.”
As a result of their experiences with amputees at the center the couple
stated: “We can no longer let it be assumed that we condone the violent
destruction of Vietnam by our voluntary payment of taxes.”
Mr. and Mrs. Morse said Vietnam is “a refugee country,” and noted that “their
whole social system has been turned upside down.”
Things began to pick up again in . In the
issue, Warren M. Wenger
warned Mennonites
that they were in danger of letting history pass by and leave them behind:
Today there appears to be some confusion, on our part, as to how to relate to
the popular peace movement, when to some degree they “have stolen our
thunder.” Shall we now change our practice, of payment of taxes and
registering for the draft and applying for Ⅰ-0 classification, a position
which previously had us branded as “radicals” and now is only “moderate”? The
true “radical” position now involves nonpayment of “war” taxes,
nonregistration, migration, and other developing resistance.
The traditional Mennonite solution, which included payment of taxes and
registration, made us quite unpopular in “normal” war years. Vietnam, however,
is not a “normal” war and the likely occurrence of other similar wars is
always present. We cannot afford to close our eyes and hope the problem will
go away. We need to carefully think through the present dilemma, and in the
light of God’s Word, guided by the ever-present Holy Spirit, find the way
through our problems. We are all aware that no solution for a problem
is ever a permanent one. Change is always present. Each generation must do as
we are doing, search the Scriptures, seek and accept the leading of God s
Spirit, search our own hearts and minds for the way to construct a useful
life, which brings glory to His name, life to His church, and light to the
world.
An early “peace tax fund”-like proposal surfaced in a
article
(“War Taxes Questioned”),
which also tried to attack the traditional always-pay-your-taxes interpretation
of the Render-unto-Caesar riddle from several angles:
James K. Stauffer, veteran Mennonite missionary in Vietnam, questions
Mennonite payment of war taxes…
Stauffer comments, “It’s about time for ‘our people’ — the Mennonite
brotherhood — to give a consistent testimony against war. Let’s get at
the root of all evil — money, or more particularly, taxes! The other day 35
B‒52s dropped 1,000 tons of bombs on
suspected enemy positions in Cambodia. One wonders how many Mennonite
tax-dollars helped make that mission successful!
“During World War Ⅱ our government agreed to the Civilian Public Service
program. Our men were permitted to engage in work of national importance. The
time has come for the peace churches to request a plan whereby our tax-dollars
could be channeled directly to some constructive cause. Campus protests,
street demonstrations, draft card burnings,
etc., have not
been effective in stopping the war. But choking off the funds that feed the
military-industrial complex could bring results.
“The contribution by members of the peace churches to the gigantic 73 billion
defense budget is infinitesimal, but there would no doubt be many Christians
in other denominations who would welcome the idea.
“By now the ‘render to Caesar…’ statement is haunting us. Perhaps we get hung
up on the letter of the law and ignore the Spirit. Remember, the letter kills,
but the Spirit gives life! Permit a few comments on this text.
“Jesus spoke these words in peace-time. The famous Pax
Romana was a reality. While Rome conquered like a barbarian, she ruled
those she conquered like a humane statesman (I.S.B.E., p. 2600).
“Our President is a professing Christian. Caesar was not. Our full and
unquestioning support of his methods and policies gives to the world a
distorted image of Christianity.
“Jesus did not define exactly what or how much belongs to Caesar. He sent
the Holy Spirit to guide us in determining where to draw the line. Each
generation needs to assess the existing political situation.
“As a brotherhood professing discipleship, we believe that all of life is
sacred. Our strength, abilities, time, and money belong to God. We refuse
to give our bodies to the war god; why should we give our money?
“Some say that the taxpayer is not responsible for the way the government
uses his money. This would perhaps have some validity if a reasonable
amount was being appropriated for defense. But when most of it goes for
military purposes at the expense of desperate social and domestic needs,
something is radically wrong.
“Furthermore, placing the responsibility on government is the same
argument used by many Christians who justify their participation in the
armed forces. So, let’s be consistent in both areas!”
Stauffer’s arguments prompted a rebuttal from Anna Mae Nolt arguing that there
was nothing especially objectionable about war taxes, as more people (Americans
anyway) were being killed on the highways than in Vietnam and yet nobody was
arguing we should refuse to pay taxes for highways. Besides, if you don’t want
to pay taxes you can always move to some other country.
Discussions at Mission ’70 indicated widespread concern among Mennonites
regarding the relative validity of the various ways young men related to the
Selective Service System and the pros and cons involved in paying taxes used
for military purposes.
It was moved and carried to urge the Peace and Social Concerns Committee to
direct more study on the congregational and family levels which can lead
people to a clearer and more forthright understanding, conviction, and action
on matters relating to peace, the draft, and taxes used for military purposes.
Most people seem to think their only responsibility is to pray for the
president and pay taxes. I just can’t buy that any more. I feel that as a
Christian I have a very strong responsibility to witness to the government
concerning what seems to be a gross immorality. So when people are interested
in the same goals as I (i.e. ending a war),
and they use acceptable means of achieving that goal, I will support them.
This witness to the government might well include prayer, but it might also
include not paying taxes which finance the immorality.
The Mennonite attitude toward war and military service rests deeply in their
obedience to the Jesus’ way of life as one of love and reconciliation. A
corollary conviction is that this way of life includes separation from the
evils of the world, a life conformed to Christ and nonconformed to the
patterns of violence and the instruments of carnal warfare. Conscientious
objection to evil, to war and militarism is one of the characteristics of a
dynamic nonconformity.
The pattern of conscientious objection familiar to modern Mennonites emerged
comparatively recently in modern history. With the rise of democratic
governments, armies were expanded by the use of various conscription
techniques. Democracy and conscription grew up together although thee was
constant tension between them. The conscientious objector was and is a citizen
who for reasons of conscience could not become part of an organization bent on
killing — the military. He refuses to serve the military, not out of an
irresponsible citizenship, but rather to suggest an alternate and better way
of solving human problems.
Since the first conscript armies of the eighteenth century, the character of
warfare has changed enormously. In the United States
the military constituted a very
small percentage of the population. Military action consumed an even smaller
part of the time in service. Military concerns involved only a small sector of
political and economic life. An effective and useful witness against war was
to refuse to serve in the military.
Now, however, there are over 3,000,000 Americans in the Armed Forces. Nearly
40 million living American males have served in the Armed Forces. Compulsory
service is sometimes extended for draftees to five or six years. Yet in spite
of expanded armies fewer and fewer persons are involved in actual combat. War
has become a technique fought with tanks, planes, flamethrowers, napalm plus
bombs, and chemicals, to kill unseen enemies. War is no longer the plaything
of the generals nor even of the tehnologists but of an entire society which
provides the know-how and the wherewithal to wage war. We live in an age when
war is total; it involves the economic, scientific, political, ideological,
educational, and religious resources of the entire society. In the United
States we live in what Fred Cook calls a “warfare state” where it is nearly
impossible to escape the effects and impact of war.
In such a situation is there any validity to conscientious objection to
military service. Or are there other forms of conscientious objection which
will symbolically witness to the way of Christ and against the way of war?
Donald Kaufman does not treat the entire problem of militarism, the warfare
state, or even conscientious objection. He poses the fundamental question
posed by the Pharisees to Jesus in Matthew 22 and then deals with one specific
issue — the question of war taxes.
Kaufman has mastered a vast amount of material regarding the history of
taxation, the biblical passages involving the tax question, and the arguments
and practices of those who do not pay war taxes. Howard Charles of Goshen
Biblical Seminary writes a stimulating introduction to the volume. A valuable
dimension of this book is the comprehensive bibliography which includes an
excellent compilation of periodical articles.
Beginning with the basic issue, Kaufman explores the meaning of taxation in
the biblical world. There taxes upheld a vast religious establishment as well
as the civil authorities. In the “ancient city,” however, it was difficult to
distinguish the religious from the civil, for the king was more than a
political leader. Caesar was worshiped. Caesar claimed to be lord. Exorbitant
taxation was rarely protested save by the Jews who objected to taxes which
implied that Caesar was Lord rather than Yahweh.
It is this context which make so difficult the exegesis of biblical passages
involving political structures. Kaufman effectively interprets
Matthew 17:24–27,
Mark 12,
Romans 13, and
1 Peter 2.
Perhaps the crucial insight of this analysis is that both Jesus and the New
Testament writers suggest principles and perimeters, rather than legal dicta
with fixed answers in which and by which Christians make decisions. Government
and taxes can be good and bad, depending on purposes and motives for taxation.
Payment of taxes can be for conscience’ sake and non-payment of taxes can be
for conscience’ sake.
Arguments against paying war taxes are less well known than arguments for
paying war taxes. But arguments against paying war taxes are the same as
arguments for not participating in the military. For Christians, these
arguments rest on obedience to God rather than man, on the commitment to love
rather than hate, on the duty to give rather than to take, on supporting that
which makes peace and opposing that which hurts, kills, and destroys.
There have always been tax resisters. There have always been Christian who for
conscience’ sake have refused to pay certain taxes. Early Christians refused
to pay compulsory taxes to Caesar’s pagan temples. Medieval monks reduced
their income so they would not have to pay taxes to evil kings. The radical
sectarians, including some of the early Anabaptists, felt taxes were a moral
issue, and that some were not to be paid. The Hutterites criticized their
fellow Anabaptists for paying war taxes even though they refused to bear arms.
The early Quakers, through William Penn, told the queen of England that their
conscience would not allow “a tribute to carry on any war, nor ought true
Christians to pay i.” The Mennonites in Eastern Pennsylvania split during the
Revolutionary War, one reason being the issue of war taxes. They joined,
however, with their Dunkard neighbors to petition the Pennsylvania Assembly
stating, “We find no freedom in giving, or doing, or assisting in any thing by
which men’s lives are destroyed or hurt.”
Since then, Mennonites have generally paid war taxes. They even hired
substitute soldiers so they would not need to fight during the Civil War.
However, Mennonites were clear in opposing any voluntary campaigns to sell and
buy war bonds. In recent years the war tax question has become more alive in
the brotherhood. When President Lyndon Johnson said the telephone excise tax
and the Income Surtax were necessary to fight the war in Vietnam, the mask on
taxes was removed. Thus some taxes are clearly designated to fight a war
without having to analyze the allocations of the national budget.
Donald Kaufman methodically and analytically forces the reader to confront the
question, “Can I pray for peace and pay for war?” What really belongs to
Caesar? If one believes in the stewardship of money, is the use of money for
war good stewardship? Money can destroy life. Money through taxes is without a
doubt “the central vital nerve of the military Leviathan.” What then do we do
with Pastor John Franz who during World War Ⅰ told his Montana community,
“Using our money to make it possible for others to be killed would be just as
wrong as going in the army and killing a man ourselves”?
What Belongs to Caesar? introduces a profound ethical question for the Christian church.
More study will be necessary by each church agency.
It will be easy to “let the sleeping dog lie.”
But no one concerned about the evil of war and how to love the enemy can afford to ignore this book.
The genius of this little volume of 97 pages is that it does not clutter the
arguments over war taxes by focusing on the anxieties of the present moment.
Rather Kaufman sticks closely to a biblical and historical analysis. In so
doing he is really asking the Christian conscientious objector if he is
exercising his conscience regarding war at the right place on the right
issues. This is the question confronting the Mennnonite brotherhood. Is now
the time to expand the scope of conscientious objection to include taxes which
buy guns as well as persons who fire guns?
A
letter to the editor
from John H. Herr put him on record opposing war tax resistance, because after
all Jesus told Peter to pay a tax to a warlike government (I assume this refers
to the temple tax episode in the Gospel of Matthew).
Since most of us are Christian citizens of the most militarily involved and
overextended nation in the world the war tax problem should be of special
concern to us who are members of the historic peace churches. But as American
involvement in wars and military solutions grows and grows it is encouraging
to note in Christian circles an awareness of the problem and a growing
uneasiness on the propriety of paying taxes when they are used mainly for war
and war-related purposes. However, there is a bewildering confusion of
responses to that ethical problem.
The key question is then: Can the Scriptures provide us with the means of testing whether or not payment of such taxes constitutes a form of idolatry of a war god and as such be contrary to our commitment to a way of love?
In this context the present study by Donald D. Kaufman’s What Belongs to Caesar? is especially appropriate.
The 100-page presentation followed by 28 pages of Bible references, footnotes,
and an index has all the marks of diligent and careful scholarship. Maybe
you’d expect a book of this nature to be a crusading weapon charged with an
emotional stance for a particular view of the Christian’s relation to the
state and on nonpayment of taxes, but it isn’t. In his first chapter Don
Kaufman carefully examines the history of taxation from ancient times till
today. In chapter two he takes a new look at biblical passages often used to
justify absolute, unquestioning obedience to governmental demands, and urges
us to reexamine them in the context of their full chapter, or better yet, seen
in the total context of the Bible. In this way the write proves that, for
instance, Romans 13:1 and following is not a passage in which every
governmental action is given carte blanche. In no situation should a person be
required to disobey his conscience by submitting to government. Without
becoming a violent rebel the Christian can refuse to do what he regards as
wrong, but he must patiently endure the consequences. To resist with respect
is to render a service to the state by reminding it of its true function. In
chapter three Kaufman squarely plants the argument against the paying of war
taxes under the Christian’s obligation to obey God rather than man.
The records of Anabaptists, Mennonites, and Hutterites are examined in chapter
four, as are the Quaker and Mennonite practices in Colonial America. This
chapter ends with a variety of statements by recent and current church leaders
on the issues of tax objection. In his concluding chapter Kaufman asks anew:
“What Belongs to Caesar?” and why we who refuse our warm bodies to the war
machine so willingly surrender our cold cash to the same. How long, Kaufman
asks, will the Christian pray for peace and pay for war. The answer depends on
you.
No one can give careful attention to this book without having the issues
clarified. It is hoped that this book, developed jointly by the Mennonite
Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church will be widely read,
seriously discussed, and that out of it will come conduct that will
consistently embody the gospel of love we profess.
From here, the pushback became much more defensive. Instead of just saying that
Christians should pay their taxes cheerfully and without question because the
money belongs to Caesar and Caesar bears the responsibility for how it is used,
critics acknowledged the tension between the Christian love-your-neighbor
mandate and Caesar’s kill-the-foreigners bloodthirstiness, but tried to suggest
alternatives to civil disobedience. For example:
Shelly promoted charitable giving as an alternative. “[O]ur norm for
giving is not a government. But, at a time when we are concerned about
certain uses of our tax dollar, it would seem that our first consideration
would be to reduce that tax dollar to the lowest possible point.”
Blosser also suggested charitable giving as a way to lower taxes, saying
in part that it would be more effective than resisting and then having
taxes seized along with interest and penalties seized. “In the end, who
has paid the lesser tax and served to help the most people?”
Stoltzfus suggested income reduction, giving the example of a man who
“turned over his business to God, paying himself a small salary. In this
way the profits were channeled directly into the Lord’s work.”
I’ve done some deep dives into the archives of American Quaker and Mennonite churches in the past, to try to discern how their attitudes towards war tax resistance developed over the years.
I’ve so far neglected the third church in the “traditional peace churches” trinity: the Church of the Brethren. (Part of what has held me back has been that when you search for “Quakers” or the “Society of Friends” you get what you’re looking for; similarly “Mennonites”; but if you search for “Brethren” you get a whole ton of things other than the Church of the Brethren.)
Here is my first attempt to discern the outlines of war tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren, from a quick review of a few on-line sources.
It is certainly very incomplete:
American Revolution
In , Brethren and Mennonites issued a joint declaration to the Pennsylvania Assembly that set out their objection to military service, but also said:
We are always ready, according to Christ’s command to Peter, to pay the tribute, that we may offend no man, and so we are willing to pay taxes, and to render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar’s and to God those things that are God’s… We are also willing to be subject to the higher powers, and to give in the manner Paul directs us… Our small gift, which we have given, we give to those who have power over us, that we may not offend them, as Christ taught us by the tribute penny.
, the Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren issued a statement on recommended practice for Brethren on explicit war taxes and militia exemption fines.
The recommendation was never to pay for a substitute to serve in the military in one’s place, or to pay money to the government for that purpose, but instead to wait for the government to fine one for not serving and then pay the fine.
Optionally, rather than paying the fine, one could passively wait for the government to use its collection enforcement process.
Excerpt:
If a brother bears his testimony that he cannot give his money on account of his conscience and would say to the collector: “If you must take it, then use your authority, I shall not be in your way” — with such a brother we should also be satisfied.
But concerning the tax, it is considered that on account of the troublesome times and in order to avoid offense, we might follow the example of Christ (Matt. 17:24–27).
Yet, if one does not see it so and thinks perhaps, he for his conscience sake could not pay it, but bears with others who pay in patience, we would willingly go along inasmuch as we deem the overruling of the conscience to be wrong.
Some Brethren evidently accompanied their taxes with a request that the money be spent “for the needy” but without any real expectation that the government would honor such a request.
During the period before the American Civil War there was some debate over whether or not Brethren should resist mandatory militia training.
The law allowed conscientious objectors to decline to participate in such training if they paid fines for the privilege, but some Brethren felt that it was less objectionable for a conscientious objector to turn out for militia training than to pay a fine that would fund the military.
The Annual Conference of took up this question and answered that paying the fine was indeed less objectionable than “learn[ing] the art of war, and the most appropriate method of shedding our fellow-creatures’ blood.”
American Civil War
During the American Civil War, the Annual Conference of issued an exhortation to Brethren “not to encourage in any way the practice of war.” Among the specific recommendations:
[W]e think it more in accordance with our principles, that instead of paying bounty-money, to await the demands of the government, whether general, state, or local, and pay the fines and taxes required of us, as the gospel permits, and, indeed, requires. Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:7.
In Rufus D. Bowman’s The Church of the Brethren and War, 1708–1941, he characterizes this as “Inconsistencies in the Brethren Peace Position,” saying that:
The discouragement against the hiring of substitutes was mild and shows that the church had not thought through the implications of its peace position.
There was no organized protest against the payment of war taxes but rather a submission to what the government demanded.
The church advised its members not to give voluntary efforts for the raising of war money, but held that the gospel required the payment of fines and taxes.
The peace position of the Brethren based upon the teachings of Jesus was applied more to the overt acts of war than to the economic and moral problems of the whole war system.
The Brethren leaders then probably would not have said that all war is a sin.
An 1864 law in the North permitted draftees who could show themselves to be consistent conscientious objectors to military service to avoid combatant service by paying a $300 exemption fine which, according to the terms of the law, was “to be applied to the benefit of the sick and wounded soldiers.” In a congregation sent a query to the Annual Conference concerning a potential member who had hired a substitute to serve in the military in his place.
The Conference then explicitly encouraged Brethren conscientious objectors to pay the $300 exemption tax rather than serving in the military or hiring a substitute:
Since the law has exempted brethren from military duty, by paying a tax in lieu of service, we consider that Brethren do wrong to resort to other means, unless they are ignorant of the provisions of the law.
(This is in contrast to the position of much of the Society of Friends, which considered a tax in lieu of military service to be forbidden.)
In the South, things were worse.
There was no general mechanism at first for permitting conscientious objection in the Confederacy, though those who did not want to serve could hire a substitute to serve in their place, and some Brethren apparently took advantage of this.
Some individual Confederate states had laws that allowed for exemption fees similar to those in the North.
When one large group of Brethren tried to make a run for it when they expected to be drafted, they were captured.
An investigator examined the prisoners; this is an excerpt from his report:
Some of them had made exertions to procure substitutes.
One man had sent the money to Richmond to hire a substitute.
Others had done much to support the families of volunteers.
Some had furnished horses to the cavalry.
All of them are friendly to the South and they express a willingness to contribute all their property if necessary to establish their liberties.
I am informed a law will probably pass exempting these person from military duty on payment of a pecuniary compensation.
These parties assure me all who are able will cheerfully pay this compensation.
Those who are unable to make the payment will cheerfully go into service as teamsters or in any employment in which they are not required to shed blood.
The expected law was passed, and the Brethren prisoners were released.
The exemption for conscientious objectors in the Confederacy cost $500, which was a considerable sum, and it became a policy in the church to encourage wealthier members to pay the exemption fines for men who could not afford it themselves.
But the exemption in the Confederacy was also a less confident one.
Some Brethren found themselves imprisoned in spite of having paid the fine, and in Jefferson Davis said that in his opinion the exemptions should be abolished (the exemptions were eventually abolished, but the abolition did not take effect until the South had lost the war).
Bowman summarizes the position of the church during the Civil War as follows:
In the early days of the war, some of the Brethren hired substitutes.
The church members preferred to pay taxes instead of using the system of substitutes.
But the records do not indicate that the Brethren clearly recognized the inconsistency with their peace position of employing substitutes or paying heavy war taxes to keep free from participation in armed conflicts.
The Society of Friends protested continually against war taxes.
The Brethren and the Mennonites took the position that they should pay what the government required.
The Brethren felt that the gospel required the payment of fines and taxes.
World War Ⅰ
The Liberty Bond program — ostensibly voluntary loans to the government’s war effort — was the focus of the debate about conscientious objection to war funding during World War Ⅰ in the United States.
Rufus D. Bowman writes:
The Brethren Bought Liberty Bonds
While no records are available, it is generally known among the Brethren that many members of the church bought Liberty Bonds during World War Ⅰ.
It was not universally practiced.
Some members refused to help finance the war program.
But the writer recalls the strength of the war propaganda, the community pressure, and the fact that Brethren farmers and businessmen put thousands of dollars into Liberty Bonds.
The church had not analyzed the economic implications of its peace position.
Up to this time in the history of the Church of the Brethren there had been no general and effective protest against helping to finance the war system.
World War Ⅱ
In , the Eglon congregation sent a query to the Annual Conference asking “how we can best protest against paying taxes for military purposes.” The Conference referred the query to its Board of Christian Education, which answered the following year:
All lawful taxes should be paid. As Christians we differentiate between taxes for constructive and taxes for destructive purposes. Because war is unchristian, taxes for military and naval purposes should be protested
Not less than 70% out of our taxes paid to the federal government goes directly or indirectly for military and naval purposes. Some of these federal taxes are: income taxes, estate taxes, federal stamp taxes, and the federal tax on gasoline, etc.
Ways of protesting against taxes for military and naval purposes.
Paste a small sticker to your income tax returns and other payments made to the federal government, which reads as follows: “That portion of this tax devoted to armaments and war preparedness is paid under protest.” The Board of Christian Education will furnish these stickers.
Write a letter once a year to your congressman protesting against the appropriation of funds for military and naval purposes.
Protest personally when paying federal taxes, such as the federal gasoline tax.
Protest through resolutions from local churches, district and Annual Conferences.
We favor a further study of this problem with the purpose of helping to develop a sound theory of taxation.
In Bowman’s book, he writes that “[h]ow general these protests were carried out is not known” but that the mail he received as a member of the Board of Christian Education at that time “indicate[s] that there was a growing church consciousness that paying taxes for military purposes was wrong.” One example of this form of protest was the “One HundredTwenty Thousand Two Hundred Thousand Dunkers for Peace” (“Dunkers” was another term used to describe Brethren) campaign from the early 1930s.
It aimed to get members of the church to sign a pledge that included the line: “I further declare that, because of conscientious convictions, I cannot engage in war, and do protest the appropriation of my taxes for military purposes.
In , the Pipe Creek congregation sent a query to the Annual Conference asking for legal guidance that would be helpful to students attending schools where military training was a mandatory part of the curriculum.
In answer to this, the Conference set up a committee to come up with general recommendations for Brethren students who were conscientious objectors to war.
In the committee issued a report with some “initial recommendations on the positions that our young people should take in the event of war.” Among the “[t]ypes of services considered not consistent with the historical position of the church” were listed “[t]he purchase of Liberty Bonds to finance the war” and “[t]he paying of Federal income tax, if used for military purposes, except under protest.” (“Liberty Bonds” is a term specific to World War Ⅰ.)
A committee report reiterated this from a different angle, stating that among the “[t]ypes of peace testimony to register our convictions and to avoid our participation in war-related activities” was “[t]he refraining from the purchase of such as Liberty Bonds to finance war” and “[t]he protesting against federal taxes if used for military purposes.”
In Rufus Bowman’s book, he states that this policy “still represent[s] the official position of the church” (as of ) and is “the farthest the church had gone in considering the economic implications of its peace position” (Bowman was the committee chairman).
Cold War and Vietnam War
The Church put out a position paper on “Obedience to God and Civil Disobedience” in that was meant to address, among other things, “laws which require payment of taxes for war purposes.” The statement mentions war tax resistance several times in passing, but does not address it directly with a firm recommendation either way.
Instead, the paper recommends a process through which Brethren can go when they may be called to civil disobedience, and counsels that Brethren treat each other with respect whether or not their consciences call them to civil disobedience.
While the Church of the Brethren recognizes the responsibility of all citizens to pay taxes for the constructive purposes of government we oppose the use of taxes by the government for war purposes and military expenditures.
For those who are conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for these purposes, the church seeks government provision for an alternative use of such tax money for peaceful, nonmilitary purposes.
The church recognizes that its members will believe and act differently in regard to their payment of taxes when a significant percentage goes for war purposes and military expenditures.
Some will pay the taxes willingly; some will pay the taxes but express a protest to the government; some will refuse to pay all or part of the taxes as a witness and a protest; and some will voluntarily limit their incomes or use of taxable services to a low enough level that they are not subject to taxation.
We call upon all of our members, congregations, institutions, and boards, to study seriously the problem of paying taxes for war purposes and investing in those government bonds which support war.
We further call upon them to act in response to their study, to the leading of conscience, and to their understanding of the Christian faith.
To all we pledge to maintain our continuing ministry of fellowship and spiritual concern.
In , the Church issued a recommendation from a committee that had been formed specifically to address the Church’s corporate payment of the telephone excise tax and whether it would be proper for the Church to invest in U.S. government securities.
The formation of the committee was accompanied with a note that a “growing number of Brethren and Brethren institutions… are either withholding the telephone tax (and/or income tax) or struggling with the problem.” The Annual Conference also approved a recommendation that it “reaffirm its fellowship with and prayerful concern for all those Brethren who have in light of their New Testament faith and Brethren heritage, chosen to withhold payment of taxes for war.” The following are excerpts from the report of that committee:
That the payment of federal taxes inevitably involves one in war and preparation for war is self-evident… Yet when the Christian understanding is applied to this issue, the matter immediately becomes complex and problematic.
On the one hand, our calling is to obey God rather than men, to witness for Christian peace and presumably, also, to protest the evil of war.
But on the other hand, the New Testament makes it clear that the Christian just as certainly has been called to stand alongside his fellowmen, to participate in their common life, and to take a responsible role in the larger world.
Regarding taxes, then, the first calling would seem to imply that the Christian should entirely divorce himself from that society which has dedicated its energies to the waging of war and refuse to support it in any way—including, of course, tax support. However, the second calling would imply a Christian obligation to participate fully in the social effort of humanity—including, of course, the payment of one’s fair share of taxes. The problem is to find the proper balance between these two callings.
This finding of balance is complicated by the difficulty in distinguishing between “war taxes” and other taxes when the government itself makes no such distinction.
Still further complication is introduced when the question arises as to whether one actually is able to withhold tax money or in any way affect the amount that ultimately is spent for war purposes.
The matter is not an easy one.
New Testament Guidance
As we turn to the New Testament we realize that the early Christians had to seek the same balance that we do; undoubtedly there have been few if any times in history when a Christian’s tax bill did not include “war taxes.” And it is certain that money paid to the Roman Empire went not only to support war but also idolatry, slavery, and other evils as well.
The New Testament, of course, is consistent in its opposition to war and violence; yet at every point where the particular issue of taxes is raised, the counsel is to pay them; no explicit precedent for withholding them is to be found.
Paul, in Romans 13:4–8 (NEB), speaks in terms of general principle: “You are obliged to submit. It is an obligation imposed not merely by fear of retribution but by conscience. That is also why you pay taxes. The authorities are in God’s service and to these duties they devote their energies. Discharge your obligations to all men; pay tax and toll, reverence and respect, to those to whom they are due. Leave no claim outstanding against you, except that of mutual love” (cf. 1 Peter 2:13–17).
When faced with the specific question of paying taxes to Caesar, Jesus’ response was “Pay Caesar what is due to Caesar, and pay God what is due to God” (Matthew 22:15–22; cf. Mark 12:13–17 and Luke 20:19–26).
The intended implication would seem to be that what belongs to God is much more inclusive and in every way prior to what belongs to Caesar.
And yet if Jesus’ statement means to indicate as legitimately belonging to Caesar, it is precisely that coin of taxation which Caesar himself had minted.
Finally, in Matthew 17:24–27, Jesus, in order “not to cause offense,” shows himself willing to pay even that tax which, he asserts, could not rightly be claimed of him. The reference may be to the temple-tax, although Jesus does speak of “earthly monarchs” collecting it. Be that as it may, the temple came under just as strong a judgment from Jesus as the state did. And it seems clear that the Gospel writer wants to use this incident to teach, with Paul, that the liberty of the Christian is not a license for him to disregard his civic obligations in matters such as tax payment. Certainly, all of the above texts must be held in tension with such commands as obeying God rather than men, separating oneself from evil, not conforming to the world, and so on. But the evidence is that, in this tension, the New Testament Christians found their proper balance to include the paying of taxes rather than the withholding of them…
The Brethren Tradition
Historical research… indicates that the official position of the church consistently has been that of paying all taxes, including some that were much more directly “war taxes” than any that can be so identified today.
Indeed, even the possibility of withholding taxes was given almost no consideration until very recently.
When such consideration was given, the church in every instance granted the right of conscience to tax resisters even while declining to recommend their action.
It should be noted, too, that some of the Brethren who have been most honored for their peace witness also took a stand in favor of paying taxes; the person’s position regarding tax payment was not made a test of his commitment to Christian peace.
The Current Situation
One complicating aspect of tax resistance is the fact that tax monies are not clearly differentiated into military and non-military categories; most of the functions of government are financed out of the same general fund. Money withheld (if that actually is possible) is withheld as much from the humane programs of government as from military programs; and it takes some care to make it clear that what one is protesting is war and not taxation in and of itself. In our day, the telephone tax comes the closest to being an explicit “war tax”—although even that situation is debatable…
The Christian’s problem is further complicated by the fact that he cannot actually withhold taxes, deprive the war effort of funds, or prevent his money from being used for war purposes—short of doing without a telephone (and perhaps other items subject to federal excise taxes), keeping his income below taxable level, or resorting to questionable dodges… Whatever taxes the individual does not pay voluntarily, the government is able to collect by means of liens and confiscations (and penalties which have the effect of actually increasing the amount of one’s money that goes to the government).
In its effect, then, tax resistance must be understood simply as one means of registering strong and dramatic opposition to war—a protest which may or may not be more effective than other means of protest. In fact, unless it is also accompanied by some other form of witness, tax refusal, in and of itself, has the disadvantage of being sheerly negative protest against war rather than a positive witness to the Prince of Peace and his way.
The Finding
We find no specific biblical counsel directing that taxes should be withheld, while we do find some calling for the payment of taxes even to a sinful, militaristic government.
However we can appreciate the fact that a number of Brethren, out of a truly Christian aversion to war based on the total Spirit and life of Jesus and the overall teachings of the New Testament do feel led of God to make protest by means of tax refusal.
But whatever action the Christian takes, it should mark a serious and dedicated effort to realize the lordship of Jesus Christ and become obedient only to him.
It should never be merely the practice of a current political technique on the one hand or a heedless and cowardly way of avoiding trouble for oneself on the other.
Recommendations
Although the Brethren cannot agree as to whether tax withholding is proper, they all can recognize the propriety of using the means of dissent which the social order itself recognizes and provides. We recommend, therefore, that all who feel the concern be encouraged to express their protests and testimonies through letters accompanying their tax returns, whether accompanied by payment or not, in correspondence with appropriate legislators and officials, and in other such ways.
We recommend, also, that both the denomination and individual Brethren give strong and active support to appropriate legislation providing alternative tax arrangements for peaceful purposes for those persons conscientiously opposed to war.
A Final Plea
We plead for a mutual and brotherly honoring of one another in this matter.
To those whose reading of Scripture leads them conscientiously to pay their full tax requirement, may they recognize the sincere Christian intention of the withholders in their desire to protest against what the New Testament clearly identifies as the sinfulness and demonism of war.
To those who because of their Christian conviction conscientiously feel that they must withhold payment in some degree, may they realize that their brethren who pay are themselves striving to be obedient to the instruction of Scripture and dare not be assumed to be any less dedicated to the Prince of Peace than are those who withhold.
Finally, we would consider it most unfortunate if, because of the taxation issue, the church allows its peace emphasis to become focused upon this one particular technique of anti-war protest and so be diverted from the much more important matters of deepening our biblical and theological understanding of the Christian peace position and of being about the positive work of reconciliation at all levels of human interaction through our witness to Him who is our Reconciliation.
[O]nly recently have we become sensitive to the fact that about half the federal taxes we pay personally is used for past, present, and future wars.
Our money destroys life and global resources in defiance of the will of God.
We pray for peace while paying for war.
We recommend Annual Conference strengthen and extend the denomination’s historic peace witness through the following actions: (Points a through e are based on recommendations of the New Call to Peace-making Conference, Green Lake, Wisconsin, ).
to call on congregations, districts, and the General Board to place high priority on study and discussion of:
war tax resistance, including Biblical examination of the Christian responsibility to civil authority,
consideration of refusal to pay the portion of their federal taxes used for militarism as a response to Christ’s call to discipleship and obedience,
pledging by congregations and individuals of spiritual, emotional, legal, and material support to members who resist war taxes,
exploration by the General Board, congregations, and church-related agencies for release from the current legal requirement to collect taxes by withholding the income taxes of employees, especially that portion of taxes used for military purposes,
to affirm that the open, non-evasive withholding of war taxes is a legitimate witness to our conscientious intention to follow the call of discipleship to Jesus Christ,
to consider the creation of a peace fund by congregations, the General Board, or the New Call to Peacemaking for handling the alternative “tax” payments of members who are conscientious objectors to war taxes.
to lend support to members who as a peace witness choose a lifestyle that reduces taxable income or increases their tax-deductible contributions to minimize tax liability,
to call on congregations, districts, and the General Board to participate in research and planning in local areas aimed at the conversion of plants from the manufacture of weapons to the production of civilian goods.
Also with reference to taxes for war, Brethren are urged to work for legislation that will enable alternative tax arrangements for persons conscientiously opposed to war. Annual Conference previously endorsed such efforts in 1973, in the Statement on Taxation for War, and in 1978, in the Statement on the World Peace Tax Fund.
There was also a “War Tax Consultation” statement that is not included on the Church of the Brethren website for some reason.
Maybe I’ll find that later if I keep digging.
Finally, in , the Annual Conference appointed a committee to take up the question of “Taxation for War” again.
That committee made its report in .
The report reviews the 1969–1983 statements described above, concludes that the Church had settled on a policy of considering war tax resistance a legitimate witness without actually recommending it, and noted that some Brethren continued to find that lack of active support insufficient.
Having summarized the work so far, “the committee does not feel led to write yet another position paper at this time,” but did recommend that Brethren “develop a heightened awareness of the war tax issue” and engage in “extensive and thorough study and discussion of earlier position papers on the war tax issues.” It assembled a study packet of the existing material, which was sent out to various Brethren bodies for that purpose.
The sources I used:
Bowman, Rufus D. The Church of the Brethren and War, 1708–1941 (Brethren Publishing House, 1944)
Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the Church of the Brethren, 1923–1944 (Brethren Publishing House, 1946)
The Gospel-Visiter (later Visitor) started publishing in 1851, and its archives go back further than any other Church of the Brethren magazine I’ve yet come across on-line.
So the hunt begins.
As always with this sort of thing, disclaimers apply: I’m not reading through each issue but using some simple text searches against magazines that have been scanned with optical character recognition software.
Many of these old pages are difficult for such software to understand, and so some things are bound to be missed.
When searching for terms associated with taxation and commutation fines, the earliest examples I find are mentions of the usual bible verses about rendering to Cæsar, the miracle of the coin in the fish, and Romans 13 — and there’s no hint of tax resistance sentiment in how these episodes are interpreted.
(For a good example of this, see “Essays on the Civil Law” starting on page 38 of the issue.)
In 1861, a reader wrote in to ask for an explanation of Romans 13:1–5.
This time, the response from the editors was uncharacteristically wiggly, suggesting that Paul had penned this notoriously lickspittle passage for mostly pragmatic reasons and that we should not take it too strictly (source):
The Jews in the apostolic age were of a very rebellious disposition, and exceedingly opposed to the Roman government, and even pleading conscious in refusing to pay tribute, or showing any other mark of subjection; considering themselves as the subjects of God alone, and that all other authority over them was mere usurpation, and such as ought to be opposed.
This spirit would be too apt to spread itself among the Gentile converts to Christianity, and might thus bring the Christians into inconvenience, and the more so, as Christians were considered at first as nothing more than a sect of the Jews.
The apostle therefore teaching Christians to be subject to the laws of civil governments, as being ordained by God.
We must understand the apostle to mean that the general principle of civil government is ordained by God, for the good of mankind, and that Christians should give their sanction to such government, as something that is in itself useful.
But we must not suppose that the apostle meant that all the laws enacted by civil authority are ordained of God, and are to be obeyed by Christians.
For it would be very absurd to suppose the apostle would teach Christians to obey all the wicked laws that are made by ungodly tyrants.
The apostles themselves did not obey every requirement which those in authority enjoined upon as will be seen in the fourth chapter of the Acts.
A letter from John Kline, dated from rebel-held Virginia, is the first mention I found of fines for conscientious objection from military service (source):
Times however, dear brethren, are truly pretty squally and things uncertain.
What will at last be the final result no man on earth can tell.
Our brethren truly have much to pay, so much so, it will be a considerable burden for them to bear.
Those that are able have paid for substitutes before the law of fines was in existence to rid themselves from going to the arm, from $600 to $1500, and now to help those that have not to pay, to pay the $500 fine falls heavy, yet it may be the means to relieve the brethren from some of the worldly burden, and do us good, and wean our affections to the heavenly treasures.
The magazine reprinted a letter from an Indiana government official who was responding to complaints about the operation of the conscription law and the exemption fines (source).
The letter gives some details about how the mechanics of the exemption fine process worked (and how the law could be ambiguous in some ways), but what I found most interesting about the letter is how the writer makes it explicit that the exemption fines could be used to recruit substitutes to serve in the place of the objectors.
(Sometimes elsewhere it was stated or implied that such fines would only be used by the government to pay for humanitarian expenses.) Excerpt:
The number raised by draft will probably fall one thousand below what was anticipated… This deficit can be properly supplied by paying the $200 equivalents of the conscientious exempts to an equal number of volunteers.
There are probably one thousand of such drafted exempts able to pay the equivalent.
Thus the able-bodied man who is exempt from military duty on conscientious grounds, furnishes the means by which another is induced to go, and the militia of the State is relieved from an unequal burden.
As the conscientious exempt cannot volunteer or induce others to volunteer — as he cannot be drafted or aid any drafted man in procuring a substitute — as he cannot contribute money to war purposes — as his conscience forbids him to render any active aid to any war, the constitution requires some compensation for these exemptions…
There are about 1,250 drafted conscientious men in the State, who are required to pay $200 each, if able to pay it, if not able they are released from service without payment.
Probably one thousand of those drafted are able to pay the sum required.…
If any one thinks $200 dollars is more than an equivalent for exemption, let him ascertain the present price of substitutes, and he will be satisfied on that point. If the Government would permit all persons to be exempted on the payment of $200 each, thousands would avail themselves of the privilege.
In a petition to the Ohio legislature was prepared by some “German Baptist” elders (I think that’s the same as Brethren or Dunkers) that urged the legislature to institute a commutation tax (source). Excerpt:
[W]hile we love our country, and are as loyal to our government, and pay our taxes, our tribute &c. as cheerfully as any of our neighbors, and do not wish for any privilege, that we would not as freely accord to all, we feel bound in our consciences to refuse taking up arms against our fellowmen, and beg and entreat an honorable Legislature therefore to pass such a law, by which we could be exempted from what we cannot do conscientiously, that is from personal military service, from hiring substitutes, which still would put us under the ban of being disobedient, and if in order to perfectly equalize us with our fellow-citizens, your honorable body sees fit to lay upon us some extra burden for exempting us from such personal service, we would humbly suggest to lay an extra-tax on the property of non-combatants, as is the case in Canada and many European states and countries.
A letter from editor Henry Kurtz to a West Virginia legislator, dated mentioned some Brethren men who had been jailed in Virginia there the previous year for refusing to cooperate with press gangs (source), and noted their willingness to pay a commutation tax when it was finally made available. Excerpts:
Congressmen and others of high standing became interested in their case, and finally a law was passed, that such conscientious people should be exempted from military service by paying a fine of Five hundred Dollars.
The papers stated that this fine had to be paid in specie, but this appears to have been incorrect, because it would have been impossible.
The fine was paid in Confederate money or scrip, and the prisoners were liberated and dismissed to go home.
We have learned since, that they were no further disturbed or required to perform military service: though they have suffered and still suffer much from the inevitable concomitants and consequences of war.
That those who are able should pay an equitable sum of money for the boon of exemption, we freely admit; but what shall those do who have not the means to pay such an equivalent, and are as conscientious as their wealthier brethren?
We have been informed, that in Rockingham and adjoining counties our wealthier brethren had to pay their own fines, and besides contribute for the poor of their church to the amount of thousands of dollars.
Not saying anything of the hardness of the case this may be possible in old settlements, where people had time to accumulate wealth; but it would be impossible in new settlements, such as are in your own new state, and many other places, where people have had scarcely time to open a farm in the wilderness, and make an honest living.
If these cannot be exempted on such terms that they possibly can fulfill, we see no other way but they must emigrate to some other country, where they will be permitted to enjoy liberty of conscience to the full extent of the word.
Should not a wise government prevent the expatriation of her best, most useful and most loyal citizens?
Another letter , from Henry Kurtz of Ohio (source) advocated that Brethren chip in to help each other pay these commutation fines, and proposed an example formula a congregation could use for this purpose. Excerpt:
To make the matter as plain as possible, we will suppose a church contains 150 brethren, one hundred enrolled, and twenty of the latter drafted, and fifty exempt on account of age &c.
Now suppose again, of those twenty drafted, who altogether would have to pay $6000, fifteen could pay their own shares fully with $4,500 — it might be asked, would it be right, would it be fair and equal, would it be bearing one another’s burden in fulfillment of the law of Christ, if the church required of them the full payment of their own fine, and perhaps even ask of them a farther contribution toward the $1500 for those five (5) unable to pay? — Was it not much better, more according to the Gospel and more lovely, when brethren last fall distributed the whole sum to be paid among all according to the “true avails of their property” and according to the willingness of the mind, so that each bore an equal share of the burden?
(Another letter, from Philip Boyle, in an 1865 edition, shared a formula adopted by the Brethren at Pipe Creek, Maryland for sharing the cost of commutation fines across the congregation, and encouraged others to adopt something similar.)
An interesting letter to the editor from E.A. Teter, dated challenged Brethren to consider more carefully how to avoid the draft in a morally consistent way without voluntarily paying for war (source). Excerpts:
There was a draft to be made but in order to shun this draft, designing men of each township got up a subscription and went around to each man, telling them if they would pay so much, there would no draft be made.
And now the brethren pay their share in with the world.
And what is this money for?
Why, it is to hire men to go to war.
And what have we done now?
Why, we have given our money to hire men to go yonder and kill our fellow beings.
And is this according to the Gospel and our profession? “O yes,” methinks I hear a brother saying, “we must be subject to the laws of our land.” But must we take advantage of the laws of our land as it is in the case now before us; we will say, for instance, if every man in the township pays twenty dollars then we will be free from the draft this time.
But brethren, is this right? and is there no more harm in paying volunteer money, or to hire substitutes, or to go to the battle field; than to pay our fine after being drafted?
Some of our brethren here think the former plan the best, because it don’t take so many of our rusty dollars, to which our hearts are inclined to cleave so fast: while some of our brethren think it to be very wrong and inconsistent with the Gospel and the profession of our faith.
We profess to be a harmless and inoffensive people: then why do we not live up to our faith?
And why are we so easily made afraid? It looks as though we feared man, poor, feeble man more than we fear our heavenly Father.
…We are taught not to be conformed to this world, and in 1 Cor. 6:14. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers;” which we fear has been done in paying money to hire substitutes, when we knew for what purpose it would be used.
The editor responded sympathetically but vaguely, and recommended that the question be brought up at the next Yearly Meeting.
In the issue appeared a note about a letter the magazine had received from “J.H.” in response to Ms. Teter (source).
J.H. pushed even further in the direction Teter was urging:
“Is there no more harm in paying bounty-money, or in hiring substitutes, or in going to the battlefield, than to pay a fine after being drafted?” — as proposed by a sister some time ago.
The sister’s opinion was that the last proposition was least objectionable, namely to wait till drafted, and then pay the fine.
Brother J.H. is of an entirely different opinion, and asks: Suppose a brother is drafted, and then goes to pay his fine, does he not thereby subject another of his friends and neighbors to take his place? and adds, Where is a brother’s charity, who pays his fine under these circumstances?
We would fain give the brother’s whole letter, but our limits forbid, and other questions have taken the place of these.
Hence we give only the conclusion of it.
“Let us be consistent. If there are those, as no doubt there are, who will wait and see whether God will strengthen their faith to hold out to the end after being drafted, I say their resolution is commendable.…[”]
In the edition, the editors gave a more concrete answer to Ms. Teter’s query, one that steered the conversation back from its increasingly radical direction:
In case a town or township agree to raise funds sufficient to prevent a draft, the question occurs, may brethren or non-resistants contribute to such fund with a good conscience? — In the fear of God we would reply, if no more than money is asked of us, and if we do, what we do, from a proper motive, not only to screen ourselves but our neighbors also from the draft in a lawful manner, we verily believe this can be done with a good conscience.
What is done with the funds is no more our concern, as is our concern, what is done with other taxes we have to pay.
Best let every one act according to his own faith, and not condemn others, if they act differently from the same principle.
A letter from “A.
Pilgrim” (source) in the edition concerned the ethics of investing in government bonds.
Excerpt:
I beg the privilege of calling the brethren’s attention to the query No. 16, of the last Annual Council, relative to the investment of money in government bonds.
The answer was “considered not wrong to do so.”
Then refer to query No. 35, relative to voting and paying bounty money.
The answer to that query was, “We exhort the brethren &c.”
(See answer to query 35, minutes of 1864.)
I fully concur in the decision of the latter query, but I am sorry to say I cannot altogether agree with the decision of the former.
Our non-resistant principles are indeed very dear to us all as true subjects of the Prince of peace, but as we are all fallible creatures, we sometimes have to realize our short-sightedness in giving counsel.
The advice not to encourage in any way the practice of war, seems to have been overlooked in the former query.
According to my opinion, there is not much difference between paying bounty money and investing money in government bonds; both are voluntarily given and answer the same purpose in general.
We are all aware that the government needs money for the prosecution of the war, and is applying it for that very purpose.
The government is also paying from $600 to $700 bounty for recruits, and how very likely may some of this money be used to make up some of this bounty.
It is true, we have no right to ask for what this money is intended, and indeed it would be unnecessary, for we know it is to encourage the war, and answers the means to prolong this unhappy struggle.
Why should we not then rather withhold money and wait till the demands are made in the forms of taxes and fines, which the gospel requires of us to pay?
Some say it is our duty to sustain the financial credit of our government.
I find nothing in the gospel to enjoin such a duty upon us, but it requires us to honor the profession we make, by being holy as the Lord God is holy. If we live circumspectly in all our ways and actions, we present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable before God, and thus sustain the credit of the kingdom of Christ in which we are the proper subjects.
It may be a very safe deposit, and besides that a profit of 7 30—100 per cent annually, convertable into gold-bearing bonds, and is exempt from state and municipal taxation; but I hope my brethren will not suffer themselves to be tempted to yield to these liberal offers, if inconsistent to our non-resistant principles.
An article titled “Non-Resistance Defended” by “H.D.” appeared in the edition.
It took a hard line on Christian non-resistance, saying for instance that because “[a]ll officers in the government are supported by the sword, and their duties discharged by virtue of its power,” that non-resistant Christians ought not to hold such offices, or vote for those who do, or petition those officers for assistance or redress.
Nevertheless such Christians “are in duty bound to be obedient to all their laws and regulations, and to pay all taxes, duties, fines, or whatever rates or levies the government may see fit to impose upon them.”
This duty the apostle Paul says, we shall make conscience of, not from fear of the penalty which would follow a refusal, but for conscience’ sake.
The kingdom of this world has power over the things of this world, and whatever portion of its goods we have possession of, when they ask it of us, it is our duty to give it.
It is theirs, and they only ask their own when they demand it of us.
The article also touched on bounty money, hiring substitutes, and things of that nature, and tried to figure out where to draw the line:
We do not recognize those as true non-resistants who profess to have conscientious scruples about bearing arms, and yet… will not go to the battlefield themselves, but will hire substitutes to go and do that for them, which they say they dare not do themselves…
Since the commencement of the present war, when the war department called for fresh levies of troops, and when our own state was threatened with invasion, people have collected money to arm and equip militia for local or state service, and also for bounty to induce men to volunteer in the National service.
This is not inconsistent for the world, or such as profess that it is the duty of christians to take up arms in defence of their rights and country.
But it is certainly inconsistent in those who profess to be non-resistants to pay, or arm others to go and do what they say is wrong for themselves to do.
…how can those who profess to be disciples of Jesus Christ, and say as such, Christ has forbidden them to fight, join in with our opponents and pay men to go and fight for them or in their stead?
Any one can see that there is no consistency here.
If it is wrong for me to go, it is wrong for me to pay another to go for me.…
It is urged that we pay the commutation fee and the war tax and that these are used for war purposes, and that the case is parallel with that of paying to induce volunteering or buying substitutes.…
The commutation fee, and what is called war tax, is no more war tax than any other tax we pay to keep up the government, and I am no more violating my non-resistant principles if I pay one, than I do if I pay the other.
I have said before all the estate or property we own we hold only by the tolerance and authority of the powers that be.
The civil powers have authority over all property, and have right to demand so much of it as they have need of.
This we acknowledge, and have no right to refuse giving it to them, or to ask what use they intend making of it.
If I buy property with a ground rent or lien of any kind on it, that part or amount is not mine any more than if I had not bought the property.
I have no right to withhold the payment of that money any more than I have a sum of money that I have borrowed, or any other debt contracted.
Thus it is with land and all property.
The government originally owned all the land.
It sold it to settlers under its patent.
They hold it on condition of paying such rates and levies as the government may demand.
Then when we pay whatever tax is asked of us, we only give to it its due, as we would pay any other debt due.
And for this reason Paul says, “we shall do it for conscience’ sake.”
Every honest man makes conscience of withholding anything which is due to another, and so every true christian makes conscience of returning his property fairly and faithfully to the officers of the government, and punctually paying what it requires of him with as little right to ask or inquire what use they design making of it, as they have to ask what use the person proposes to make of the money he has borrowed of us.
There is therefore a very great difference between what we pay voluntarily, or without sanction of law, and what we pay on demand of the powers.
If a person comes to me and solicits a donation as a bounty to induce men to volunteer in the army, or to equip men to go and fight, by giving it I give a testimony that I have an interest in, and desire the cause to progress, when at the same time I do not know that I am not arming men to fight against what God designs to do.
But if I owe a man a sum of money as a debt, and he comes and demands it, and tells me he intends it to arm and equip himself to go to war, I have no right to withhold payment, it is his own, and he has a right to do with it as he pleases.
I would make no difference between paying a man to go to war, or going myself.
And that takes us up through the end of the American Civil War, where I’ve stopped for now.
I continue my search through Church of the Brethren periodicals for mentions of tax resistance and related topics, starting where I left off at the end of the American Civil War, and going up to .
With the Civil War receding into history, there was much less discussion of the dilemma in which Christian pacifists helped to fund warfare, and what there was was mostly backwards-looking.
A letter from an Indiana congregation appeared in the Visitor asking for help paying the old commutation fines of their members (source).
Excerpt:
We have paid four thousand eight hundred dollars commutation money, with the exception of one.
These drafted brethren were poor men, and unable to pay their commutation money without distressing themselves.
One in particular sold his home to raise the money, as the draft came upon us suddenly and the money had to be raised speedily.
While the draft was pending, it was unanimously decided by the council of the church, that our beloved brother and elder, John Knisely should borrow the money on the credit of the church, and relieve those brethren that were or should be drafted.
With much trouble this was done from time to time.
Subsequently, those drafted brethren agreed and promised the church to pay their indebtedness with such assistance as the church could give them.
The church is now indebted between seven and eight hundred dollars.
Individual members not less than eighteen hundred dollars more.
(The most of this we pay 10 pr. ct. interest for.)
We wish also to state that our members are generally poor in this district of church.
In 1874, the Gospel Visitor merged with the Christian Family Companion.
The first issue of Christian Family Companion included some notes about the Middle Pennsylvania District meeting of at which this query was discussed: “How is it considered for brethren to contribute money for raising ‘local bounty’ to procure volunteers in order to avoid the draft?”
The answer the meeting came up with was: “Considered that under existing circumstances we are willing to bear with one another; but that no brother shall take an active part in raising such bounties” (source).
A later letter indicates that this sideways method of paying for substitutes was frowned upon both inside and outside of the church (source).
Excerpt:
I have received a letter from Elder Henry D. Davy, in which he states that he had conversed with the Governor, and Martial of Ohio; and that they told him that all consciencious men who paid bounty money to clear townships, could not be exempt by paying $300. The Provost-Martial of the State said that those who had paid and did not know what the law was, would be excused for this time, but not hereafter.
They said they did not consider a man consciencious who paid to others to do that which he would not do himself.
I [William Chambers] say amen.
Brother Davy states further that he had visited the brethren in the Miami Valley, and that they all agreed that they will pay no more money to townships, but they will stand the draft, and then help one another to pay their $300 commutation.
May God help us all to do the same.
A later letter from Daniel Stone insisted that “the great majority of the Brethren have paid bounty money” and recommended the those who oppose the practice look with charity on those who did.
An H.B. Brumbaugh also chimed in in similar fashion, saying that there is no harm in contributing money to a fund meant to hire substitutes and shield neighbors from the draft.
Excerpt:
[W]hen our neighbors who have always been kind to us, come round, tell us that they do not feel like going, and if we give them some money, they can get the credit of men who are willing to go and thereby save them and us.
When we give through such motives not for our own interest but for the good of our neighbors, where is the wrong, and who will demur against it… A brother that is not willing to give a few dollars for the good of his neighbor shows as great an attachment to the world and his money, as the one that gives, and as to the purpose for which the money is used there is not a particle of difference as it is all either directly or indirectly used for the suppressing of the present rebellion, and as long as they ask for nothing more than money, let them have it whether it be under the name of Commutation or Charity, to and for our neighbors.
An issue printed a form letter that it recommended brethren use when drafted, to collect statements from Elders certifying the draftee’s membership in good standing in the church and conscientious scruples, and to “petition[] that he may be allowed to pay $300 in commutation” rather than enlisting.
A query to the Annual Meeting of concerned the propriety of paying for a substitute to serve in the military in one’s place.
Apparently the person who put forward the query was unfamiliar with the $300 commutation fine option, and the Meeting told him to take advantage of that instead, saying: “Where the government has provided for the exemption of brethren by commutation fine, it [hiring substitutes] should not be allowed.” Another question, about whether it is okay to contribute money to someone else outside of the church who is raising money to hire a substitute, was tabled.
A correspondent noted in an letter that in addition to being ethically shifty, hiring a substitute was no guarantee of getting out of the draft either: “[I]n Logan county, Ohio… I met with a kind brother… who had been driven from home… by the wicked oppressor, who wished to drag him into the confederate army after once honorably satisfying the law by hiring a substitute for the sum of $1100!”
As the war came to a close, the magazine noted that it had received several articles debating the bounty question, but told its readers: “As it is not likely that the brethren will again be required to pay bounty in the present war, we propose to drop the matter for the present.”
A letter in an issue concerned a campaign to compensate Peter Crumpacker, who during the war had spent $3000 to pay the commutation fines of poor Brethren who had been drafted in Virginia.
According to the letter, committees of Brethren in Virginia had counseled “that brethren who had the means at command should not permit the poor brethren to be forced into the army, but come to their relief; And if one brother did more than others, towards aiding those poor brethren to pay their fines, it should be regarded as a common cause, and the brotherhood at large should bear the burden equally.”
A report on the Annual Meeting that year indicated that there was a query about whether it was right to invest in government bonds.
But this had nothing to do with the government spending the bond money on war (which was “A. Pilgrim”’s objection to government bonds, see ♇ 18 May 2020), but: “The main objection advanced against investing in Bonds, was the fact of their being untaxable; it being feared that in this way, the burden of taxation would fall more heavily upon those members who were less able to bear it.”
The Meeting recommended that Brethren not invest in bonds if their goal in doing so was to avoid taxes.
A letter from an anonymous subscriber in an issue defended Brethren from the charge of being bad citizens, saying in part: “If we are conscientiously opposed to becoming warriors, personally, we sustain our fealty to the government by paying the equivalent the laws of war demand…”
In , after the merger with the Visitor, the magazine recounted the story of Civil War conscientious objector Tilghman Vestal (or “Vestol” in this version).
Vestal was a Quaker, and so had a different attitude toward militia commutation fines (Brethren were encouraged to pay them, Quakers forbidden).
Excerpts:
He was told that if he persisted in his course, he would be subjected to severe punishment, and finally would be shot for disobedience of orders.
He replied that they had the power to kill him, but neither the Federal nor Confederate army possessed the power to force him to abandon his principles, or prove false to his religion.
I [the unnamed author] remember endeavoring to persuade him one day to pay the $500, which the law provided a Quaker might pay, and be exempt from military duty, and asked him if he couldn’t raise that amount and pay it, and thus get rid of the troubles that I plainly saw ahead of him if he persisted in his course.
He said he could raise the money without any difficulty.
“But,” said he, “suppose I pay the Confederate Government $500 — that will enable them to employ some one else to fight, and it will be equivalent to my hiring another man to do what I think is wrong to do myself.
I can’t do that.
Vestal was interviewed by Henry Foote who at the time was a Confederate legislator.
Excerpt:
Foote―“Young man, you are all wrong about this matter, even from a Scriptural standpoint.
When Christ was upon earth he directed his disciples to pay tribute to Cæsar.
The money thus paid went into the Roman Treasury, and was used in carrying on the wars of the Roman people.”
Vestol―“No, sir; you are mistaken about that.
The Temple of Janus was closed at that time, and there were no wars going on.”
Foote―“I believe he knows more about it than I do.
I don’t know whether the Temple of Janus was closed then or not.”
What’s remarkable about this is that the Brethren position on this matter of the commutation fines was closer to that of the Confederate than the Quaker, but the Quaker is the hero of the story because of his conscientious objection and willingness to suffer for his faith.
This may have helped some Brethren look on the Quaker position in a more favorable light.
Today I continue observing the evolution of attitudes toward war taxes and related subjects in the Church of the Brethren via archives of Brethren periodicals, this time from the 1876–1899 period.
The Primitive Christian and The Pilgrim merged in 1876.
In , the magazine republished a series of articles representing a debate between a Baptist and a “Tunker” (Brethren) over whether Brethren doctrines were sound Christianity.
One of these touched on war taxes briefly, as the author defending Brethren wrote (source):
Our brethren cheerfully paid “tribute” to civil authorities wherever they were during the uncivil war and paid the fines imposed upon them, whether North or South, but did not take part in the quarrel and did not shed human blood.
(The debate, and that quote, also appeared in The Brethren at Work that year.)
Another article in an issue detoured briefly to recap some of the debate in the church about war taxes during the American Revolution (source). Excerpt:
At the beginning of the Revolutionary war, various difficulties arose in the church.
One was in regard to the paying of tax. — Some seem to have thought that our peace principles would be compromised by paying the tax that would go to support the war.
Others viewed the subject differently.
The counsel of our ancient brethren in regard to this matter, was similar to that given by the apostle in cases we have referred to.
They thought the tax might be paid according to the example of Christ, Matt. 17:24–27, but they say, “If one does not see it so, and thinks, perhaps, he, for his conscience’s sake could not pay it, but bear with others who pay in patience, we would willingly leave it over, inasmuch as we deem the overruling of the conscience as wrong.” See Minutes of Annual Meeting, .
In the magazine reprinted a local news article about a “German Baptist or Dunkard” named George Grisso.
It mentioned that during the War of 1812 Grisso had been drafted “but as his church opposed all war and taught that all disputes should be settled by peaceful methods, he hired a substitute…”
The Brethren at Work began publishing in .
An issue covered a debate between a Baptist and a Brethren, and in the course of so doing, described the Brethren position on war taxes thusly (source):
We obey man when it does not conflict with God’s teaching, but prefer obeying God rather than man.
We pay tribute, and in this way respect those who are over us, but take no part in war.
We do not resist, but submit.
The Primitive Christian and The Brethren at Work were absorbed into Gospel Messenger in .
In searching for mentions of taxes in these various archives, I frequently came across debates having more to do with congregations taxing themselves to raise funds for various things.
This in turn was tangled up in concern about a hireling ministry, and about the corruption of wealthy churches of other denominations that seemed parasitic on their flock.
The position that the church ought to be supported by voluntary donation only was defended by a D.E. Cripe in an article (source). Excerpts:
We hold that taxation is contrary to the teaching and principle of the Scriptures; that it is unjust, and takes away the blessing of giving.
In conclusion, we would say, there is no instance recorded in all the Scriptures where God approved of a taxation.
Jehoiakim taxed Israel to pay tribute to Pharaoh, but he was a very wicked king.
The Roman emperors also taxed Israel, but we have no account that any of God’s servants ever did.
Ananias and his wife died, not because they kept back part of their property and did not pay a stipulated sum, but because they tried to deceive the apostles and make them believe they paid in all their money, when they had not done so.
If the Brethren once feel sure their money is required for a good cause and will be judiciously applied, then they will contribute freely, without being asked.
This anti-tax point of view was in the specific context of the debate over mandatory church tithing, and is not indicative of a broader anti-tax sentiment, but I thought it was noteworthy.
(For a good statement of the ordinary render-unto-Cæsar teaching, see this column from an issue.)
Some Civil War reminiscences by B.F. Moomaw were published in .
One chapter begins with the narrator remembering matter-of-factly that “a distant relative of mine, — Jacob P. Moomaw, now an elder in the church, then in the army in Eastern Virginia, asked me to assist him in getting [hiring] a substitute” to take his place in the army.
The author later writes:
Shortly after, the question was moved in Congress to repeal the substitute law, upon which another brother and myself went to Richmond, to get up an influence against its repeal.
This we attempted by getting some of the members of the house, who were our friends, to try to prevent its passage, but the advocates of the bill were too many, and our cause failed.
Then the only alternative was for the boys to refugee, and they went over the line by the hundreds.
This seems to suggest that hiring substitutes was not frowned on nearly as much as previous excerpts I had found have suggested.
Another data point in that regard is an obituary for John Brenneman in the edition, which noted that in , while in Indiana, “he was drafted, and a substitute cost him $1000.00.
This crippled him financially and he never fully recovered.”
While it would be a violation of the principles of the Gospel, to give anything voluntarily, or in any way encourage carnal warfare, yet it is our duty, by way of taxation, to give all we have, if demanded, and give up ourselves, rather than resist; and let them do with us, and our property, as they may see proper.
The issue relates an incident that has a whiff of the apocryphal about it, but the gist of which is this: During the Civil War, two recently-converted Brethren were drafted, and at first their attempt to pay a $300 commutation fine for conscientious objector status was denied, with the authorities asserting that they had become Brethren in order to evade the draft and that their scruples were not genuine.
Two members of the church intervened on their behalf by visiting the state (Indiana) governor, and eventually persuaded him to allow the draftees to pay the fines and get exempted.
The Spanish-American War of was accompanied by a menu of new war taxes.
The first mention of these I found was in the Gospel Messenger, in an article which began: “Only a few days ago the war revenue tax went into effect, but already it is evident that the aggregate amount, to be realized by this measure, will be far in excess of the anticipations.
While the tax is comparatively small, it is so well and thoroughly distributed over the entire population that vast sums will be thus obtained.
It is an illustration of the fact that large amounts can readily be secured if all are willing to give systematically, even a few cents only, from time to time.” (source).
Hold your breath… will this be a call for war tax resistance? But no.
There is “a lesson to us as a church” to be drawn from this war tax, but that lesson apparently is that Brethren should be tithing to the church every week, even if they can only do so in small amounts.
The lead editorial in that issue also excitingly announced the latest war bonds, with nothing said to discourage people from investing in them:
Some time ago the Government decided to issue bonds to meet the expenses of the war with Spain.
Two hundred million dollars is the amount to be issued.
The bonds will bear three per cent and may be paid by the Government at the expiration of ten years, though they do not fall due for twenty years.
The intention is to make this a popular loan.
And to accomplish that purpose blanks have been sent out to all money order post offices and to about all the banks.
No one is allowed to subscribe for more than five hundred dollars of the bonds.
The Government has not tried this time to get more than the face value of the bonds, as it has done heretofore, and as it could easily do now.
Those whose subscriptions are received first, will be first served.
Subscriptions will be received by the Government up to .
If by that time the small subscribers have not taken all of the issue, larger subscribers will have a chance.
It seems now that there will be no bonds left for those who subscribe more than five hundred dollars.
This gives persons of small means an opportunity to make an investment that is absolutely safe.
The interest they will receive is the same as is regularly paid by banks.
The interest is payable quarterly, and the principal is entirely safe, which is not always the case where money is put in banks.
Hitherto only wealthy, and in most cases extremely wealthy men, have held the bonds.
This fact has led some people to think that the wealthy persons were favored by the Government.
Such was not the case.
The Government wanted gold, and so sold the bonds to the men who could furnish it.
This time any kind of money now issued by the United States will be received in payment.
The way in which the bonds are being subscribed for shows the confidence all classes have in our Government.
Every bondholder feels directly interested in the affairs of our country, and will be anxious to have the finances of the United States on a good basis.
This popular loan is wise policy from more than one standpoint.
A follow-up editorial in the issue doubled down on the enthusiasm with still no hint that there might be a problem.
In addition, a query in the asked whether it would “be better for the Mission Board to lend the endowment funds to the Government, and get Government Bonds, rather than the way they are now doing?” (source).
The response did not mention anything about possible ethical problems with loaning the government money, but simply said that it did not make business sense to buy such bonds at that time.
The impression I get is that the problem of paying for war had fallen so far off the radar since the Civil War that even voluntary payments for war bonds did not seem to raise any debate.
I continue my search through the archives of old Church of the Brethren periodicals, this time from the early years of the 1900s, until the brink of the U.S. entry into World War Ⅰ.
a magazine called The Inglenook was marketed to the Brethren.
Although I saw occasional mentions of the tax burden of war listed as one of war’s unfortunate consequences, I saw no hints that direct action against war taxation ought to be considered nor that taxpaying represented a problem of complicity for the taxpayer.
An article about the Shakers in one issue (source) noted that “They are averse to war and so do not vote, believing it to be wrong to take part in a government which supports an army and navy. For the same reason they do not like to pay taxes for military purposes, although they promptly pay… civil taxes.”
A article commented on a proposal made at a peace conference that it be made illegal for neutral nations to float war bonds for other countries at war (source).
The article enthusiastically endorsed the idea, but still no mention was made of whether individual investors might be concerned about their bond purchases.
I also looked through issues of The Missionary Visitor from this period, but found nothing worth reporting here.
A edition of The Gospel Messenger noted that the United States was leading the global arms race, but also said resignedly that there was nothing Brethren taxpayers could do to lessen their contribution to it (source):
This country is rapidly moving to the front, if front it can be called, in war preparations.
The last Congress provided for the building of nine large fighting ships and five auxiliary vessels.
The total appropriation for all naval purposes amounted to nearly $160,000,000.
This means over $2 for every man, woman and child in the United States.
In the Brethren families, counting the children, there are not far from 300,000 souls, hence towards this department of war preparations we must pay at least $600,000.
To carry on our mission work, the spreading of the Gospel, both at home and abroad, we pay, all told, not to exceed $100,000 a year, and yet we must pay six times as much in the interest of military preparations.
Just at present there is no way of avoiding it, for it is our duty to pay tribute to whom tribute is due.
A similar note that stopped short of the necessary a-ha moment appeared in a issue (source):
Japanese credit was shown recently by the way in which Americans applied for the bonds of a new loan, the applications amounting to several times the amount of bonds assigned to the United States.
The London part of the loan was also a success.
At home the condition is good too.
An interior loan of one hundred million yen was to be floated, and about five times the amount was subscribed, seventy million at a price higher than the issue price.
An internal loan in Russia was also oversubscribed, which shows that the people in the countries at war and also those in foreign countries have more money that they are willing to invest in slaughter.
If the money were not forthcoming, the war would not continue long.
But men are not particular for what purpose their money is used, if the returns promise to be satisfactory.
The cause of peace was continually raised in the Messenger, but mostly as a political issue that was to be addressed by international law and arbitration, or by the people successfully lobbying their government to reduce arms expenditures.
Rarely did I see reference to conscientious objection to military service, and never to military spending.
Here is one example, from a edition, which shows that the orthodoxy here had remained much the same as in decades previous, or perhaps a bit more relaxed (source):
Among us there may be those who do not have clear conceptions regarding the relation that a non-resistant people should sustain to the civil government under which they live.… The Christian is taxed the same as any one else, and, since the paying of tax is in keeping with the teaching of the New Testament, it becomes his duty to pay all that is legally assessed against him.
Should he, however, be drafted to serve in the army, it becomes his duty as a Christian to refuse to respond to the call of his government in this particular.
War is forbidden in the New Testament, and since he is under obligations to obey God rather than man, he should kindly inform those in authority just why it is not proper for him to take part in anything that would lead to the killing or maiming of his fellow-man.
If persecution should follow, his faith in his Master should enable him to endure whatever punishment may be laid upon him.
But, should his government have respect for his conscientious views regarding war, and show a disposition to assign him tasks that in no manner clash with the teachings of the New Testament, it becomes his duty, as a subject of an earthly kingdom, to perform these labors to the best of his ability.
In New Testament times there were Christians who served in Cæsar’s household, but they did not serve as soldiers in his army.
As civil governments become more enlightened, and more considerate, they will make better provisions for those whose conscience will not permit them to take part in war.
Should they be drafted, they can then be assigned duties that in no manner conflict with nonresistant principles.
In the issue, Charles W.
Eisenbise made a case for voting (many Brethren did not vote for conscientious reasons, and this was a frequent topic of debate over the decades I have been reviewing).
Part of the case against voting was that office holders rule by the sword, and Brethren are forbidden the sword, and so they should not vote for office holders to do so by proxy.
But Eisenbise noticed the disconnect between this and Brethren practice around taxpaying, and decided to make it explicit (source).
Excerpts:
Suppose I refrain from voting, feeling that if I would vote, to be consistent, I must help to enforce the laws (by physical force if need be) if called upon for that purpose.
Holding this view am I less consistent in paying my taxes that, knowingly, go to support the State Militia, who, by physical force and murder enforce the present wickedly-inclined laws?
But Christ teaches me to pay my taxes.
When World War Ⅰ began in Europe, the United States did not enter the war right away, but did institute new taxes in anticipation, which the Messenger called “A War Tax in Time of Peace.”
Still no talk of war tax resistance, though.
An essay on “The War and the Church by H.M. Fogelsonger also brushed right up against confronting the war tax issue, without quite being willing to go there. (Fogelsonger seemed mostly interested in working to get more Christians into positions of political power.) Excerpt:
How long will good Christian people allow their hard-earned dollars, with which they pay their taxes, both direct and indirect, in the form of tariffs, to be spent for unholy causes and for machines, — the sole purpose of which is to take human life?
“How Much Do We Believe In Peace?” asked an editorial in the edition.
The editorial pointed out a Christian who had said of the war, “It does not concern me in the least.
I pay my taxes, pray for peace, and trust in God,” calling such a hands-off response “impossible.” But after a lot of rhetoric about taking a strong stand at this time of crisis, the practical advice mostly came down to write-your-congressman, and, again, nothing about the taxes.
An editorial on “The State and the Church in the issue was another missed opportunity.
It attempted to rally the reader to help “establish[] the background of moral sentiment and conviction that will one day sweep militarism and carnal warfare from the face of the earth” and to “array himself uncompromisingly against all preparation for war” and yet to somehow do this while rendering those taxes unto Cæsar as usual.
In our perusal of Brethren periodical archives, we now reach the point of the U.S. entry into World War Ⅰ.
The U.S. funded its participation in the war in large part through the Liberty Bond program, in which citizens could loan the government money to carry on the war by buying specially-issued bonds.
The program was legally voluntary, and so an obvious way for pacifists to decline to participate in funding war, but the record in the U.S. peace churches is mixed.
I found little evidence that Quakers resisted the temptation to go along with bond drives, for example; while among Mennonites it differed from congregation to congregation, with some Mennonites suffering mob violence for their refusal to go along with the bond drives.
Now we’ll have a chance to look at how Brethren fared.
I warn you: it’s not pretty.
The edition of Our College Times, the campus newspaper of Elizabethtown College (which was founded as a Church of the Brethren college, and which still claims to “foster the values of peace, non-violence, human dignity and social justice” today), included this sad note (source):
The Alumni Association decided to purchase two one hundred dollar Liberty Loan Bonds with part of the Endowment Fund which is lying idle.
An article pointed out that “[m]any brethren and sisters solicited thus far have given us their Liberty Bonds for the permanent endowment fund.
Have you thought of doing the same?
Give them and thereby help to maintain a Christian college that will send out church workers at home and abroad.”
And a note about the Endowment Campaign early the following year read: “Hold your Liberty Bonds for us and get credit for their face value.”
A late- issue of that paper included some rah-rah about the Music Department that tried to explain the value of music to society by noting, for example, how “[t]he soldier goes to the front with song, his spirit is stirred, and he does not falter in his purpose” and “[t]he Community Singing is doing much to unite communities in thought and effort in the Red Cross Work and Liberty Loan Drives.”
In short, I saw no evidence of shame, pushback, or dissonance about the Liberty Bond program at Elizabethtown College.
Meanwhile, at the Gospel Messenger, the U.S. entry into the war arrived with regret (editorial, ):
Through increased taxes and living cost we shall, whether we will or not, make our share of the money offering.
But for many of us, since we are an agricultural people, this will be more than offset by the war prices the farmer will receive for his produce.
How do you feel, brother, about coining money to your own profit out of your neighbor’s blood and the anguish of the widow and the orphan?
Can you contemplate the prospect with a comfortable conscience?
How to soothe such a conscience?
By “giving freely of our money and, as opportunity offers, of the service of our hands, for the relief of that tremendous load of human suffering which now weighs upon the world,” or, you know, by donating to church fundraisers.
In a article, A.B. Miller explained the conscientious objection status that Brethren draftees were applying for on “Registration Day” when draft-eligible men across the country were required to register.
He reassured America that in “this day of the nation’s sore need”…
We request no exemption from our share of taxation, that the people of this nation will be called upon to shoulder because of the stupendous expenditures incurred.
The Things That Are Cæsar’s was the lead editorial of the issue.
It at least addressed taxpayer complicity, but with a what-can-you-do shrug of the shoulders:
How far shall a Christian, who holds war itself unchristian, give his support to a government at war?
If he can not bear arms himself, can he do anything that helps to make it possible for others to bear arms?
Does it not seem that the only logical answer to this question is an unqualified “no”?
But you will not have followed out your logic very far, in that case, until you will see that you “must needs go out of the world.”
Not only can you not pay your taxes, nor sell the produce of your farm, you can not even buy your groceries, without contributing, in some measure, to the war’s support.
But for the payment of tribute we have the high sanction both of Jesus and of Paul, while the buying and selling of foodstuffs are bound up with the very necessities of existence.
It is folly to talk of doing nothing that can help along the war.
That the logic of our position seems to make such a conclusion desirable, merely shows that, in our reasoning, we have been unable to take account of all the facts.
In such a world as we are living in, the right course for us must often involve a choice of the least of two or more evils.
Much as we deplore the war, we are obliged to admit the impossibility of avoiding all indirect participation in it.
But we can avoid direct participation in it, — thanks to the good government under which we live, — and by so doing, we can be a constant protest against war.
At the same time, we can and must leave no ground for question of our sincere desire to be good, loyal citizens.
In the matter of taking up arms, the position of the church is clear, as it has been from the beginning of its organization.
Beyond this, she has, not seen fit to prescribe the course of the individual member in time of war.
Hence it is left to the conscience of each one to decide for himself his duties in this regard.
“How far one may go in serving the Government, at this time, without violating the Gospel doctrine of peace is one of the important problems to be solved,” wrote editor D.L. Miller in the issue (source).
How far?
Pretty far, it turns out.
Excerpt:
Our Government brings us in close touch with the war.
We must pay our taxes, and the money will be used to carry on the war.
The farmer must raise grain, and much of it will be used to feed the soldiers.
These men had to be fed before they were in the army and it takes no more to feed them now than it did before.
Always keep in mind that it is never wrong to serve the Government, so long as no Gospel principle is violated.
This was reiterated by H.H. Nininger in the issue (source).
Excerpt:
[O]ur nation is at war.
Against our wish it is at war; and in many ways we are assisting in that war.
We may succeed in securing the exemption of our boys from the bearing of arms, but we must aid the war machine.
We are paying the taxes and supplying the food which makes possible our army’s success in this wholesale killing of our fellows.
We might refuse utterly and throw ourselves as a burden upon society by going to prison, but this would only be aiding the enemy by lowering our own national efficiency.
Is it inevitable that we take a part in this warfare which we believe to be wrong?
Is there no way out of this terrible dilemma?
And ringing in our ears, more and more loudly, comes the unwelcome reply to this question.
For the edition, Leo Blickenstaff wrote “A Plea to the Drafted” in which he tried to draw the line thusly:
We, as Christians… can not willingly enter into anything that would help war in any way… We will only contribute to war when we can not help ourselves… as from necessity of circumstances, — such as buying our daily bread at the high war prices; or when forced by the Government… to pay war taxes or buy revenue stamps… The Government can take our money and property from us, but we dare not give our services in any way that will help war, except when forced to, and only then in the things in which we can work with a good motive.
Were that even that much had been true.
Instead, the Messenger kept ratcheting the argument in the other direction, until finally it would endorse the enthusiastic voluntary funding of war by Brethren.
Referring to a request for a statement of the church’s attitude to the purchase of Government bonds we give herewith the latest action of the Conference, bearing on the subject.
It was passed in and in response to a request for a reconsideration, was reaffirmed .
This is the decision: “Is it right, and according to the Gospel, for a brother to invest money in Government bonds?
Answer: We consider it not wrong to do so.”
In the issue, J.M. Henry again touched on the complicity of noncombatants (source).
Excerpts:
[I]t is maintained by some that we should have absolutely nothing to do with any service under military control.
A very sharp distinction is made, in the mind at least, but not so clear, sometimes, in action, between civil duties and duties controlled by military power.
The fact should not be overlooked that most of our civil duties, as citizens, are now made subservient to winning the war.
You buy a postage stamp, make a note, purchase a railroad ticket, etc., and in each case you pay the revenue, which is no longer for civil but military necessity.
Finally, Liberty Bonds are purchased.
Well, why not? — says the noncombatant to himself or his banker.
The investment is safe and the interest fair.
In a “Peace Address Delivered at the Hershey Conference” that led off the issue, an H.C.E. sidestepped the war-funding issue this way (source):
I shall make no effort to settle the question as to whether noncombatants should support the war, financially, or the difference, if any, between financial and personal support.
Already fabulous sums have been spent, and there is an unprecedented demand for more money to win the war.
There is confusion in the minds of some.
However, it may be said that members of the Church of the Brethren have bought Liberty Bonds and War-Saving Stamps.
But the question can not be regarded as a proper subject for discussion here, and so it must rest.
The issue warned Brethren that “[a] man is entitled to his opinion and to the exercise of his own conscience, but he is not always at liberty to give utterance to or exploiting his opinion, or to urge his conscience on the attention of others” and that in particular “advice or reference to Liberty Bonds that could, in any sense, prejudice their sale, may involve one in trouble.” Following this were printed excerpts from the Espionage Act that said “Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall… say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States… shall be punished…” (source).
So it’s worth keeping in mind that the absence of evidence of resistance to the Liberty Bond drives may partially be because such talk was legally suppressed.
D.W.K. wrote a piece on “The Moral Problem” for the issue.
After giving the reader a whirlwind tour of the history of ethical philosophy, he says that what ethics all boils down to really is choosing the lesser evil.
During the war, therefore, the dilemma for Brethren in the U.S. is that you either support the war effort or you support the Kaiser.
“That is all that is left to us.”
Clearly, supporting the war is better than supporting the Kaiser, so support away without regret!
“I think the Brethren did right in helping, cheerfully and liberally, the Red Cross, the Y.M.C.A., and the Liberty Loan. This does not mean that all that is connected with this work is the Divine Ideal. But we are in a world where the ideal can not always be realized. I believe it is better to help these causes than not to help, because not to help is helping the enemy, — a much greater evil.”
The issue surrendered all qualms and gave full-throated editorial support for buying War Savings Stamps (source):
The President Calls for Volunteers
He does not ask for fighters in this call, but for volunteers in the home line.
Every-one, from the oldest man to the youngest child, is eligible. is the day set for the completion of the recruiting all over the United States.
It is the army of thrift, of war savers, that is being recruited.
Appealing to “every man, woman and child to pledge themselves on or before June 28 to save constantly, and buy War Savings Stamps as regularly as possible,” the President asks that “there be none unenlisted on that day.” War Savings Stamps can be purchased at every postoffice and from every mail carrier.
There is scarcely a bank which does not handle them.
As loyal citizens, and in obedience to the “powers that be,” it is but just and right that each one do his share in the task allotted
The issue extended this to Liberty Bonds (source):
“The Things That Are Cesar’s”
the Government of the United States will start its Fourth Liberty Loan campaign, and the most systematic arrangements are being made to have every citizen assume his share of the burden.
During the days of the Civil War many of our members assisted the authorities in that way, and no criticism was urged against it by our Annual Conference.
As citizens of the United States we enjoy great privileges, and now it would seem but right to show our appreciation in a fitting manner. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.… Ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.
For this cause pay ye tribute also, for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”
And an follow-up went further in tangling the church with the war bonds:
A Good Investment
Just now, while the Government of our country expects every one to come to its assistance by the purchase of as many Liberty Bonds of the Fourth Loan as possible, no one who is able to help, should refuse his assistance in some way.
At the same time let us not forget the claims of the Kingdom, which, as some one suggests, may be amply met by a “Liberty Loan for Soul Freedom.” To advance that most desirable work, you simply purchase a Liberty Bond and donate it to the General Mission Board for World-wide Missions.
In many churches that practice is rapidly gaining in favor, and we see no reason why the Church of the Brethren should not follow that plan.
It is a splendid way of helping your country and also aiding the extension of the Kingdom.
I believe that a great many Brethren purchased Liberty Bonds.
Whether a direct or indirect violation of our well-established and well-known peace principles, is not the question for discussion now.
Brethren have them, and will doubtless keep them until they fall due.
It would not be surprising if the Government today should have a million dollars borrowed from Brethren.
A regional report from Rocky Ford, Colorado, carried in the issue, noted that “[m]uch assistance is being given to the War Savings Stamps, Liberty Loan and other movements” by the church in that district.
Continuing the shame, on the front page of the issue was “A Thank Offering” from the General Mission Board, exclaiming its gladness that the war had finally come to an end, but mostly being a plea for money, including this: “Since your Liberty Bonds have helped to assure the peace of the world, why not turn them over to us, to assist in liberating the world from the thralldom of sin and heathenism?”
As far as I could tell from what was published by Brethren periodicals during World War Ⅰ, the ostensible pacifism of the Church of the Brethren became a cowardly retreat in the face of public pressure to join the war bond purchase drives.
Today I examine the archives from the post-war period to look for signs of soul-searching in the wake of this capitulation.
The Annual Report of the General Mission Board, as found in The Missionary Visitor (source) crowed that “the war is over” and even went so far as to say that “Possibly the historian of future years will look back and recount, through numberless proofs, that the war was not fought in vain.” The Board compared its own struggle against Satan with the Allies’ victory in Europe, and said Brethren contribute to each: “[W]hile we have contributed our funds for Liberty bonds, and freed the world from autocracy, we must not cease our vigilance.”
In this vein, the magazine decided to market Brethren fundraising efforts as “God’s Liberty Loan”.
It is staggering to think of the amount of money that has been raised to finance the war, reaching the great sum of twenty-three billion dollars.
It is interesting to wonder how much of this large amount has been subscribed by the Church of the Brethren.
“Interesting” but not pauseworthy.
The author goes on to make an estimate, by assuming that the typical member of the church makes a little more than the average national income and that “it would be expected that we contribute our proportionate share” to the war bond drives.
The earliest issue of The Brethren Evangelist that I found in the archives comes from (41 years into its run).
By then, anyway, it seems that they saw no inconsistency in Brethren and Brethren institutions trafficking in war bonds.
The initial issue of that year noted that “The first Liberty Bond given to Kentucky Mission work was received as a Christmas Gift on Christmas morning,” named the donor, and asked that others follow their example to “send Liberty Bonds to be used to further the Home Mission work of the Brethren church” (source).
A later article compared a mission fund drive with the Liberty Loan, saying “We [emphasis mine] raised billions for Liberty Bonds time and again.
Now we are starting another drive.”
The Business Manager of Ashland College (a Brethren institution) wrote in to encourage donations in the form of Liberty Bonds, writing that “[d]uring the past year more than $20,000 in Liberty Bonds have been assigned to Ashland College in this way” (source).
By this amount had risen to more than $50,000 (source).
The Brethren in Falls City “could see that it was only good business to kill two birds with one stone, so they bought those Liberty Loans and gave them to the college” (source).
An accounting of the endowment of that college, in a later issue, indicated that it held $29,800 in Liberty Bonds and $1,256.62 in War Savings Stamps (source).
A note in a issue tried to explain what happened: “Did we buy Liberty Bonds?
We did.
Not because we were especially in favor of war; not because we were investors.
We gave because the spirit of giving and sacrifice was abounding.” (source)
A fundraiser for a Brethren project being pumped in a edition, on the other hand, said that “Liberty Bonds were bought, in a large measure not as an investment but to save the country’s credit” — so why don’t you donate them to us since you don’t really need the money (source).
By issue, a sanctimonious pacifism had returned, as shown by a reprint of a letter from another magazine in response to National Defense Day (source).
The editorial note before the letter said that “[t]he Christian patriot who has a true vision of world peace and of the only way to its attainment will not remain silent and passive and allow national propaganda for militarism to go on unrebuked.” The letter itself told the story of a Belgian family, some members of which had been killed by poison gas in an American bombardment: “American gas shells, made by American girls, paid for by your grandmother’s liberty bonds [emphasis mine], handled by skilled American artillerymen, blessed by American clergy, valiantly gassed this Belgian maiden.”
But aside from this pointed mention, the subject of the Liberty Loan, Liberty Bonds, War Stamps, and things of that nature was for the most part just quietly dropped in the Brethren Evangelist, and writers went on preaching peace as though nothing had happened.
(But Iremember them that are in bonds.)
Meanwhile, what was going on over at the Gospel Messenger?
A article by I.V. Funderburgh on “Our Response” (to the war).
He described the response of Brethren in part this way: “We pledge to the Red Cross; we subscribe for Liberty Bonds; we buy thrift-stamps; we conserve food, clothing, and fuel. Sacrifice! Yes, we do. ¶ But what of the summons, ‘Serve’? Oh, yes, we have served in responding to our country’s demand for money…”
In the issue, D.E. Cripe confronted the theory of war tax resistance more directly than I had seen done to this point (source):
Though we be strangers and pilgrims, while we are in the flesh, we can not avoid living in an earthly kingdom or nation, and therefore we have duties which can not be evaded.
One of these is paying tribute or taxes.
Even Jesus, through Peter, paid tribute, “lest we should offend them,” and he never asked what use would be made of the money.
Paul says we should pay tribute, not only for wrath but for conscience’s sake.
Very likely this tribute was turned into the treasury to support the Roman army, but Paul did not question this.
After the Christian has paid his tribute, he has done his duty, and he is not responsible for the use that the Government makes of it.
In the issue, J.A. Vancil urged Brethren who had purchased war bonds to “put those Liberty Bonds to work for the cause of Jesus Christ?
It was really the Lord’s money that purchased them, anyway.” (source) “If those Liberty Bonds were turned over to the church, there would be sufficient funds, from the accruing interest, to carry on all departments of the work of the church for the next five years.
Then, at the maturity of these Bonds, there would be a vast available amount.”
The General Mission Board, in a fundraising notice in the issue (source), wrote:
Liberty Bonds
A brother writes and asks: “Can you accept Liberty Bonds in the Conference offering?
Some of our brethren can give considerably more, if you can.” Most surely we can accept Liberty Bonds.
Through them you have helped to free the world from autocracy.
Now let us use them to free the world from the autocracy of sin.
Send them in to us!
We will put them to the Lord’s use.
An interesting note in the issue said that the following query had been sent to the Annual Conference (source):
We, the members of the Empire congregation, ask Annual Meeting of through the District Meeting of Northern California, to restate and define the position of the church upon war in all its phases, including the bearing of arms, drilling, buying war bonds, etc.
If the Annual Meeting took up this invitation, I haven’t yet found record of it.
The issue included an article entitled “In the War on War” by George Fulk.
Fulk wrote that “[t]o a very considerable number of highly patriotic Christian citizens, perhaps no question of ethics more difficult of solution ever presented itself than that of the proper relation which they should personally bear toward service in the World War… With [some] it became a question as to the purchasing of liberty bonds, which meant the furnishing of the sinews of war.”
This at least put buying war bonds back on the agenda as a problem and didn’t try to wave away what buying war bonds meant.
Fulk was back in to tell Brethren that they really must take a stand, because by default they were supporting war (source):
It is a stern fact also that persons are volunteering on both sides, and those who fail to volunteer, are being drafted on the side of war.
Circumstances, speaking in very general terms, are doing the drafting.
That is to say, circumstances have always been such, are now such, and promise indefinitely to be such, as to lead unfailingly to war unless counter-forces are brought to oppose.
If we fail to join the counter-forces, we not only offer circumstances a clear road to war, but we contribute directly, through taxes, and other means, which necessarily conform to the present system of war, as a method of settling disputes.
But in general, war taxes were presented as something to be regretted, not resisted.
The Messenger would sometimes allude to estimates that 93% of federal taxes being raised were going to pay for the expenses of the recent war.
But rather than wonder whether anti-war Brethren ought to pay such a bill, this was usually just a lead in to a sales pitch about how Brethren ought to be just as willing to contribute to the latest church fundraising campaign.
A note in a issue concerned Kees and Beatrice Boeke, the European Quaker pacifists who were pushing the limits of nonviolent action.
The note said that the couple “are likely to have their property seized again this year as last, because they can not, as a matter of conscience, pay their military tax.”
The couple’s “unflinching testimony against war, and their fearless preaching of the Gospel of peace and good will to all men” was described in nothing but flattering terms (source).
A lengthy article by L.R. Holsinger on “The Christian’s Duty to the State”, from the issue, attacked war tax resistance more or less directly, which at least suggests that somewhere off the pages of the Messenger that heresy was alive:
The matter of paying taxes has been considered obligatory ever since government has been a realization.
It was true thousands of years before Christ said, “Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.”… We therefore believe that in order to “Render… to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom”…, it becomes necessary to pay over our portion of the necessary funds to facilitate the effective and harmonious administration of the government of which we are a part.
There come times, however, that the government engages in activities such as war which their consciences justly raise a question about, but the experiences of the recent war have been of such a nature as to cause many to feel that the awful cost, not only in money, but in morals, happiness, and life, is the penalty for their neglect and indifference both in religious and civic affairs.
We are persuaded that if the amount of money and zealous effort that was expended each month during the war to promote it, had been expended during the ten years previous to the war to propagate the Gospel and promote the cause of the Prince of Peace, the history of the “world war” would never have been written, and the future generation would have “heroes” to admire and to emulate whose influence would not create a false patriotism which will result in a periodic repetition of a similar or worse upheaval but would hasten the day when “Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”… The fact that we find ourselves a part of a government that engages temporarily in war may be blamed on us as Christians as well as others, and though we may be justified in absolute refusal to take the life willfully of any individual, we cannot find justification in refusal to pay taxes as long as the government functions as such, not only for the purpose of war which is incidental, but “for the people.”
I’ve left out some references to war savings stamps and liberty bonds listed as donations or as parts of the holdings of Brethren institutions.
I saw very few signs that members of the Church of the Brethren — at least those who were represented in the periodicals of the period — had second thoughts about church-members or institutions trafficking in war bonds during World War Ⅰ.
There were many complaints about the continuing arms race, and many of these highlighted the burden placed on the taxpayer, but this was never presented as something that a conscientious taxpayer could or should confront directly.
Today I share the results of my hunt for war tax resistance sentiment in the archives of Brethren periodicals from the 1930s up to the point of the U.S. entry into World War Ⅱ.
A lot happened in this period, which came as a surprise to me after having viewed the vanishing of opposition to personal funding of war during and immediately after World War Ⅰ.
Gandhi’s Indian independence movement was frequently mentioned in columns of Brethren periodicals, and usually in a sympathetic way.
In the edition of The Brethren Evangelist, his tax resistance campaigns got a skeptical look in the light of Brethren teaching (source):
The Word of Christ inculcates obedience to the powers of civil government, the payment of tribute and tax money even to the emperors of Rome, the rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. Ghandi [sic] asks his followers not to pay certain taxes and foments a campaign of “civil disobedience.”
As a matter of fact, the “Way of Ghandi” is more like the method used by the English suffragettes of some years ago. And in some respects it is very successful as a political means.
George H.
Jones saw the writing on the wall in a article that began: “That the United States is nearer war now than at any time in the past twenty years, no one doubts” (source).
He urged conscientious objectors to war to prepare for the tough times ahead, and reminded them what had happened in the last war, for example:
The churches in many cases became simply the sponsors for drives to win the war by appeals for cigarettes and socks or chocolate and sweaters or Liberty Bonds to end the War for Democracy.
These were the major needs that sounded to the dome in many Christian churches.
The Gospel Messenger was also publishing at this time, and had absorbed the previously independent Missionary Visitor.
In the issue of The Gospel Messenger, Ben Stoner announced the “20,000 Dunkers for Peace” campaign.
The campaign aimed to get 20,000 Brethren (and other varieties of German Baptist and related sects) to sign a peace pledge.
This brief pledge explicitly mentioned war taxes (source):
I, ⸺, as a part of my program for peace, refuse ever to bear arms or to coöperate, in any way, in armed conflict; and, only under protest to pay taxes for military purposes.
In the accompanying article, Stoner explained that the tax portion pledged the signer “to do all within his power to keep his tax money from being appropriated for purposes which are inconsistent with Christiantiy and the basic laws of our land.” However, this stopped short of tax resistance: “At present perhaps the best way of protesting the use of tax money for military purposes is through petition to Congress when appropriations are being considered.”
The issue printed the following query from one congregation, and noted that it had been passed up for consideration to the Annual Conference (source):
We, the Eglon congregation, petition Annual Conference through District Meeting of the First District of West Virginia to tell us how we can best protest against paying taxes for military purposes.
A report on the conference carried in the issue explained what happened next (source):
The paper protesting military taxes resulted in several speeches before it was decided to make the answer of Standing Committee the answer of Conference.
And this was that the matter be referred to the Board of Christian Education for study and a report in .
This seems a fair disposition of the problem in view of the fact that the question is involved and study needed.
The answer from the Board of Christian Education came (source):
All lawful taxes should be paid. As Christians we differentiate between taxes for constructive and taxes for destructive purposes. Because war is unchristian, taxes for military and naval purposes should be protested.
Not less than 70% out of our taxes paid to the federal government goes directly or indirectly for military and naval purposes. Some of these federal taxes are: income taxes, estate taxes, federal stamp taxes, and the federal tax on gasoline, etc.
Ways of protesting against taxes for military and naval purposes.
Paste a small sticker on your income tax returns and other payments made to the federal government, which reads as follows: “That portion of this tax devoted to armaments and war preparedness is paid under protest.” The Board of Christian Education will furnish these stickers.
Write a letter once a year to your congressmen protesting against the appropriation of funds for military and naval purposes.
Protest personally when paying federal taxes, such as the federal gasoline tax.
Protest through resolutions from local churches, district, and Annual Conferences.
We favor a further study of this problem with the purpose of helping to develop a sound theory of taxation.
A later report on the Annual Conference noted that this “Protesting Against Military Taxes” committee report was adopted by the conference “after a single question… There was no argument.”
A front-page editorial by J.E.M. in the edition, entitled “I Hate War”, touched on personal war funding in a couple of places:
Later in the seventies I saw the war stamps on match boxes, and learned of other stamps and taxes that had to be paid because of the depression caused by the Civil War. My hatred of war increased, for those stamps and taxes in hard times seemed stained with human blood and reeked with human flesh.
I have seen university students being trained for war, trained with money that you and I pay, and I hate war.
I am paying taxes to help pay for past wars and to prepare for the next war, and I hate war.
In a article, Kermit Eby tried to explain that when the war comes, the pacifist position, if taken earnestly, will be see as a threat to the war effort and dealt with accordingly, and that Brethren should prepare themselves with this in mind (source):
The major task in the last war centered in the task of keeping up the will to win; no effort was spared in its achievement.
Most authorities on the “next war” believe that a greater effort will be made to mobilize the national sentiment needed.
If this is true, several significant developments may be expected concerning which members of pacifist churches should be aware.
Membership in the Church of the Brethren means that each member is opposed to the use of war as a means of achieving the policies of his nation; that because of religious, economic, social, and other reasons he is unable to give intellectual assent to the war system.
Having come to this conclusion, he refuses to support his government when to do so goes contrary to his conscience.
The assumption of such a position automatically places one in opposition to the government at war.
It is a situation in which there is no neutrality, no grey, simply white or black.
The mere intellectual assent to a pacifist position amounts to intellectual sabotage, for it implies an unwillingness to go with the group.
…[T]he success of war depends on the intellectual and emotional support given it, as much as on the material.
Hence, the pacifist position is the first step in blocking the successful termination of the war.
Furthermore, the greater the number of those who take the position of opposition, the greater the danger to them as individuals.
A few pacifists could be tolerated as religious fanatics; many pacifists become a stumblingblock to the war machine, and, as such, they must be removed quickly.
Frankly, members of a pacifist church should know that such a position may mean their removal from society, loss of jobs, persecution, and even death.
The only hope in a pacifist move lies in the possibility of it becoming a mass movement of such proportions that no government would dare risk annihilating it entirely.
Membership in the Church of the Brethren is not a passive act.
It puts one on record as an opponent of war.
It classifies one as a public enemy in war time, along with enemy aliens, deserters, labor and professional agitators.
The statement in the resolution concerning the refusal to support war by the payment of taxes adds to the similarity with the left wing labor groups who oppose international war for economic reasons.
The only distinction remains in the mind of the pacifist who ignorantly thinks that refusal to give economic support is non-aggressive in its opposition to the government at war.
It is, in fact, a most dangerous form of obstruction.
Since this is the case, a pacifist should be willing to accept the logic of his position and refuse all economic aid for support of war.
To put the case simply, no Dunker farmer dare ask his son to support the position of the church by risking death in opposition to war when he is guilty of selling his farm produce at a profit.
Wheat is as vital to war as soldiers, and we dare not refuse the former and advance the latter.
Finally, we must face the fact that even relief means support of the war system, for it releases others from the necessity of affording relief, it encourages the soldiers who are in need of relief, it gives support to the war by rehabilitating wounded for further service, it denies simultaneous aid to the enemy — no government would permit relief for its enemy.
Relief supplies are secured by independent funds; thus direct economic aid is given which would otherwise not be supplied.
More seriously than any of the above is the intellectual support which relief gives.
To be consistent, we must intellectually sabotage the entire system even to relief and bravely accept the consequences.
This was such a radical departure from everything I’d read before that at first I wondered whether it had been intended as a sort of Modest Proposal meant to exaggerate the pacifist position to logical conclusions that would be unpalatable to the typical reader.
But I think Eby was sincere.
The Annual Conference reaffirmed “our purpose not to participate in any war, and our protest against the application of such a large proportion of our taxes to military purposes” but did not elaborate (source).
In the Conference Committee on Counsel for Conscientious Objectors made a series of recommendations for that year’s Annual Conference “on the positions that our people should take in the event of war” (source).
These included the following three varieties of “peace testimony to register our convictions and to avoid our participation in war-related activities:”
The refraining from the purchase of such as Liberty Bonds to finance war.
The renunciation of, or the sacrificial use of, profits derived from industry, farming, or invested securities as a result of war; sacrificing always during war periods to build a fund for the furtherance of good will and for the support of families who suffer because of their conscientious objections to war.
The protesting against federal income taxes if used for military purposes.
This is the first explicit renunciation of the Church’s embrace of Liberty Bonds during World War Ⅰ that I have spotted.
A later report on the Annual Conference was difficult for me to interpret, but I think the gist of it was that this set of recommendations passed.
Rufus Bowman was a member of that Conference Committee, and in a later book on The Church of the Brethren and War he says that this was the high point of official Brethren opposition to war, at least up to the book’s publication in .
In the issue, Lorell Weiss predicted the trouble ahead, and how Brethren would be communicating their values to their children by their actions (source):
[T]here is a strong temptation to compromise principles for expediency’s sake.
Furthermore, the choice between principles and expediency must be made not once but often, by both parents and children.
We have not only to decide whether it is right to kill.
Other questions press for an answer.
Shall we buy defense bonds? Shall we assist in aluminum drives or patriotic demonstrations? Shall we remain discreetly silent and let our neighbors assume that we share the general war fever, or shall we boldly testify for what we believe?
A letter to the editor from Homer D. Kimmel (source) printed in the edition read:
This evening we heard a radio announcer advertising the sale of defense savings bonds with these words, “Buy a defense saving bond.
The $18.75 that you spend for a $25 defense savings bond will buy five bayonets.”
What a picture that calls to one’s mind! Five bayonets for five soldiers to tear the entrails out of five fellow men left lying helpless with their life blood flowing out on some ghastly battlefield! Yet all such are fellow men who love life no less than you and I.
Buy a defense saving bond!
Buy some death, some pain and suffering, some heartache, tears, hunger and privation.
An article by James L. Houff in the issue noted how frequently the government was tapping people for war funding (source). Excerpt:
Every time we go to the movies we pay three cents to the government for defense.
When we take a Sunday afternoon motor ride, about six cents out of every twenty goes to the government for tax.
At the post office we are reminded by our postmaster that he has defense bonds for sale.
Children are told they might help protect their country by buying savings stamps with their money instead of candy.
In the Bible Monitor of , B.F.
Masterson tried to put all this talk of protesting war taxes to rest (source).
Masterson advocated a strict distancing of the Christian believer from politics, of a sort that was going out of fashion elsewhere in the church.
Excerpts:
Paul did not suggest to the churches to write letters to Ceaser instructing him how to manage his naval tactics, that is the chief commander of the army’s business.
The church is not supposed, from a New Testament view point, to take part in the transaction of civil government.
The Jews who were under the Roman government, but not on good terms with it, conspired to draw Christ into politics when they asked Him, if it is lawful to pay taxes to Ceasar.
He said, render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s, He did not suggest to the Jews to make a protest against paying a certain per cent of the taxes.
He knew better than to get His foot in the trap.
[I]t does not pay for the church to enter into a confederacy with the world and for a Christian organization to advise, unsolicited, the commander of an army is beyond its jurisdiction and to protest against taxes that are applied for one[’s] protection is ungrateful to say the least, and would not coincide with the tenor of Christ’s doctrine.
Jesus was entirely free from the spirit of nationalism.
Although a Jew, He never protested against the Roman rule nor incited in His followers the spirit of rebellion.
The Bible Monitor also reproduced an article from the Gospel Herald (a Mennonite publication) in on the proper relationship between the Christian and the government (stand-offish for the most part), that included this section on taxes and Liberty Bonds (source):
Christians have the obligation to pay tribute and custom to and to fear and honor the “powers that be.”… This principle came acutely under test during the World war.
The problem did not arise with reference to the payment of taxes some of the proceeds of which were definitely used to carry on the war, but with reference to the purchase of Liberty Bonds which was voluntary, the proceeds of which directly supported the war program.
Here the nonresistant conscience asserted itself.
The former was clearly within the teaching of scripture, but the latter was voluntary and became a measure of one’s wartime patriotism.
Men who were physically unable on account of the rigors of warfare could render their bit toward the winning of the war by the purchase of bonds.
To sum up: the Church of the Brethren has come a long way since the willful blindness of the World War Ⅰ period, when Dunkers seemed happy to buy up war bonds with abandon.
Now there is explicit precedent for refusal to buy war bonds, and even some hints of emerging tax resistance, or at least tax reluctance.
But it remains to be seen whether this trend will survive Pearl Harbor.
The U.S. entry into World War Ⅱ gave the Church of the Brethren another chance to decide whether it would stick to its principles in the face of public pressure to join in the bloodletting.
As we’ll see, the evidence is mixed, but at least this time around the Church avoided the total surrender to war fever that it exhibited in World War Ⅰ.
The earliest mentions of war bonds I saw in the Brethren Evangelist were all of this basic opportunistic form (my paraphrase): “The government wants you to invest 10% of your income in war bonds; can’t you invest at least that much in our Mission Board?” There were also a few off-hand mentions of church institutions either investing some of their money in government bonds or taking government bonds as donations.
This mention was typical of the crass way this magazine saw war bonds largely as unwelcome competition for church fundraising (source):
Why not make your regular offering this year, and then make the added contribution of one of those “War Bonds” you have been buying.
This would help us look to the future in a fine way, if enough of those bonds were given each year so they would mature year by year…
Remember Jesus believed in Benevolence — so must we.
There was not even a hint in the Brethren Evangelist during the war years that there was anything ethically wrong with buying war bonds, unless it interfered too much with your tithing.
Things were a little different over at the Gospel Messenger.
The issue carried a resolution from the Brethren Service Committee that read in part:
Our citizens are being urged to help finance this war by many measures other than by direct taxation; and since [t]he official position of the Church of the Brethren involves nonparticipation in any war either directly or indirectly…
From there it did not counsel for or against anything specifically, but the flavor of the advice was for the reader to redouble his efforts for relief of war suffering and “look for the voice of God in his own Christ-enlightened conscience and obey that voice no matter to how great sacrifice and suffering it may lead.”
An Indiana section of the church held a peace conference on and “one subject of discussion was Shall We Buy Defense Bonds?” (source).
The issue carried “An Appeal for Patriotism” from W. Glenn McFadden, who noted that the defense bonds program had to bribe citizens with lucrative returns in order to get their financial support.
McFadden said that instead he would buy a Brethren Service Certificate and ask nothing in return.
an illustration of a Brethren Service Certificate
One issue noted without further comment that “Life insurance companies are putting well over half of all their funds for investment into United States government bonds.
On the average, each policyholder is owner of $120 in government bonds through his life insurance policy.” I am not certain how to interpret this, but if it’s not just a piece of trivia, it sounds like a veiled warning for conscientious objectors to military funding.
A note in another issue said that an annual “United Pacifist Conference” of some sort had adopted “[a] resolution demanding that Federal tax money collected from religious pacifists be used by the government for nonmilitary purposes only.”
This was only a one-paragraph short, and is the first I’ve heard of this conference or its resolution.
It might have been an A.J. Muste project from around the time when he was beginning to explore war tax resistance.
Some church leaders from the Michigan district approved the following resolution, which seems to allude to the pressure to buy war bonds (source):
In harmony with the historic attitude of the Church of the Brethren, we the representatives of the southern churches of the District of Michigan, declare ourselves to be in favor of all things constructive and opposed to all things destructive; and that when demands are made of us which we cannot conscientiously fulfill, that our attitude should be nonviolent, and that we encourage the churches of Michigan in the purchase of Brethren Service certificates and stamps.
In war life and money are conscripted.
Every nation demands of its citizens what they possess — service from the physically fit and money from everyone.
Taxes
Direct and indirect taxes are assessed against all citizens.
Investment in War Bonds
This is expected from all citizens who have investing power.
To date the government makes such investment a voluntary matter but community pressures are almost equivalent to compulsion.
Many persons with a conscience which prevents them from engaging in physical warfare are also deterred from voluntarily financing war.
a boy shows off his Brethren Service Stamps card
The article went on to talk up Brethren Service Certificates, which helped to fund the Civilian Public Service camps for drafted conscientious objectors who were doing alternative work.
There were also smaller-denomination “Brethren Service Stamps”, which were marketed to children in particular — “Children take their stamp books to school to indicate that, while they are not buying defense stamps, they are buying these stamps” — and also some so-called “peace bonds” and “peace stamps” that were meant as ways Brethren could participate in the bond drive mania without compromising their consciences.
In all of these cases, the amount spent on bonds or stamps was a pure donation — the bonds could not later be redeemed for cash like war bonds could.
“Civilian Bonds”
The article shared a letter from Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau in which he authorized the issue of government bonds “which are not designated by their terms as ‘war issues’ ” — or, as he put it in another place “securities not designated as ‘War Bonds’ ” — so that conscientious objectors could plausibly buy them.
Morgenthau’s language not so subtly indicates that this would be largely a fig leaf.
The bonds would not be “designated” as “war issues” or “war bonds” but there was no suggestion that their proceeds would be spent any differently than any other government bonds.
The accompanying article, however, went further and claimed that this new bond money was “to be used for civilian purposes” and would therefore be “a way to co-operate in government financing without violation of conscience.”
I think that was wishful thinking at best.
The Brethren Service Committee was taking orders for the bonds immediately, via the Provident Trust Company of Philadelphia, who would send the bonds out to purchasers when the government got around to printing them up.
In return for your order you would “without delay receive a reply which you may hold as tangible evidence to your community, if needed, to show that you are co-operating in financing the government.”
If memory serves, the Provident Trust Company ended up using the money to buy ordinary government F- & G-series bonds and then “registered” them as “conscience money” through some sort of hocus-pocus to distinguish them somehow from the bonds other people were buying without such conscientious decoration.
(If you want to delve further, this was also a project that was covered extensively in The Mennonite, and you can see what I found in that magazine starting here.)
A later issue gave further instructions on the program, and included a coupon employees could use, if their employers were withholding money from their paychecks to buy war bonds, to request that they be used for “Civilian Bonds” or “Brethren Service Certificates” instead (source).
The article explained the need for the new bonds:
“For us who hold sacred [pacifist] convictions, it becomes very embarrassing to refuse the purchase of war bonds to meet a community quota.
Our neighbors cannot understand and we are often looked upon as unpatriotic.”
A frequently-asked-questions section followed.
This mostly covered the practical issues of how the bonds worked and how to purchase them, and didn’t include any questions about just how conscientious or civilian the bonds really were.
The article seemed more careful than its predecessor in only implying without stating explicitly that the money raised by the bonds would not go to military spending.
There was, however, this somewhat telling answer:
Question: Does the purchase of a Civilian Bond give credit on the county war bond quota?
Answer: Yes.…
Often, subsequent mentions of the Civilian Bond program were careful to say merely that the bonds were not explicitly designated for war expenses.
But occasionally a stronger (and I believe, baseless) guarantee would be added, like this one from the issue (source):
The government assures us that the funds realized from the sale of these bonds are not used to finance the war.
Or this one, from (source), that you can just barely parse as not an outright lie if you try hard enough:
The historic peace churches through their committee have made arrangements that purchasers of government bonds may designate their money to be used in the civilian phases of our government program. Many citizens desiring to co-operate in the civilian program of the government but whose consciences do not permit them to aid directly and voluntarily in financing the war buy these bonds.
Or this carefully-constructed phrasing, from (source):
The peace churches have arranged with the government that… purchases may be made which constitute a designation that the money should be used in the civilian expenses of the government.
Purchasers of Brethren Service Certificates had more of a legitimately clear conscience, though they may not have found these certificates as useful as bonds in beating back the mobs of war bond enforcers, and of course they were also more expensive, being donations rather than loans.
But here is an example of how one taxpayer used this program to help assuage his guilt for taxpaying:
Enclosed please find a check… representing double the amount of the tax which has been deducted from my salary this month.
It is my conviction that the use to which this tax is being put — destructive alike of human life and of international goodwill — is incompatible with Christian ethics…
Since I can do nothing to prevent the withholding of this tax, I can at least protest the use to which it is put by trying to help counteract the damage it is doing to the cause of Christianity and democracy.
I am therefore sending double the amount of tax to organizations which are maintaining and strengthening the principles of Christianity and of true democracy by constructive work of goodwill.
I intend to continue sending this amount, in addition to my regular contributions, each time I receive a salary check from which this tax has been deducted.
As a receipt, the regular B.S.C. certificate will be ample.
Rufus D. Bowman
For the edition, Rufus D.
Bowman wrote an article titled “Our Brethren Heritage Is Being Threatened”.
One of these threats: “During World War Ⅱ the majority of the members of the Church of the Brethren are supporting the war system.” Bowman reported on the results of a survey he had conducted of Brethren practices that had reached 161 churches, representing about one-sixth of the Church of the Brethren.
In that survey, “forty-six per cent of the churches reported that the members generally were buying war bonds and stamps, while sixteen per cent indicated that a substantial minority were buying them, and seventeen per cent said that a few were purchasing war bonds.”
(Furthermore, more than 80% of Brethren draftees were going into the military without taking any sort of conscientious objector status, either noncombatant or civilian public service work.)
Along with the ministers all adults who have supported the war economically should repent.
War cannot be reconciled with Jesus Christ.
War is unchristian and is inconsistent with the most precious values of this universe.
The kingdom of God is not built through hate, but through love.
It is true that one cannot live without helping the war to some extent.
When the writer takes the train there is a war tax on his ticket.
But there are varying degrees of supporting the war and not supporting it.
Where the individual is free to choose, the spirit and teachings of Jesus and the position of the Church of the Brethren are clear that church members should not support a system that destroys personality.
Adults should repent of their part in this conflict.
In the edition, W.G. Willoughby took this now-that-the-war’s-over-let’s-repent thing and ran with it:
Let us confess to God and to one another that we have all shared in the dropping of bombs.
We have participated in the mass slaughter of God’s children.
Is the bombardier who released the bombs more guilty than the pilot who guided the ship; is he more guilty than the person who built the plane; is he more guilty than the person who bought bonds to pay for the ship, or is he more guilty than we who paid taxes to the government directing the whole operation?
The Etownian (Elizabethtown College student paper) covered a seminar held by Church of the Brethren officials who had been navigating the government’s conscientious objector / Civilian Public Service Camp bureaucracy (source).
A paraphrase of remarks of M.R.
Zigler included this: “The church must decide if it can purchase war bonds which are used to build more instruments of death, or if it should buy Brethren Service Stamps and Bonds which go to relieve suffering regardless of nation, race, or creed.”
The president of the student senate at Elizabethtown apparently decided in favor of bonds, when in a article (source), he wrote matter-of-factly that:
Today when we hear “Back the Attack” we know we must all cooperate by buying and investing in war bonds.
Without this cooperation our Government would be helpless and we might as well learn the “goose step.”
However, we know what we want and we will not let our Government down.
We have pledged to cooperate and we are cooperating.
And a front-page banner in the issue urged that “every alumnus and former student will adopt the slogan, ‘Buy a Bond for Elizabethtown College’ ” (source).
The Brethren Missionary Herald reprinted a statement from the Southern California District Conference on the propriety of non-combatant service, in its issue (source).
It included this:
In the matter of the purchasing of Government Bonds, War Stamps, and working in defense industries, we hold that the line of Christian duty, as well as of Christian privilege, is sometimes a very difficult line to draw; and, in these matters it must be left to the individual soul to deal alone with his God.
A news brief in the edition showed that the West 10th Street Brethren Church of Ashland Ohio didn’t find the line too difficult to draw (source):
Rev. Charles Mayes, pastor, received $10.25 in war stamps in the church offering plates.
Suggestion was made “that any other stamps appearing in the offering will be gladly received.
These can either be converted into a war bond in the name of the church corporation, or turned over to some of our creditors as stamps, probably at face value.
It honors the government to buy stamps even though the stamps may be turned into the church.
The government will not lose and the church will thus gain.
A sidebar noted that “War Bonds Will Be Accepted” in the Thanksgiving Offering of the Home Missions Council, so the line was not apparently very difficult for the Council to draw, either.
“Militarism and hate are sweeping the Church today,” complained the editor in (source).
“The gospel of love and grace has died in thousands of pulpits.
Many church members are complaining that they cannot buy war bonds and support the Church, too.”
I can think of one possible solution to that problem, but the editor had another in mind:
buy war bonds and then turn them over to the church!
When the government instituted an additional “Victory Tax” to be withheld from salaries, the Brethren Conference of Southern California sent a protest to the government about it, after a special meeting held for this purpose on .
Their protest was over the fact that the churches would be responsible for withholding this tax, which apparently they were not required to do for other taxes previously.
This, they evidently found to be an egregious violation of religious liberty, and they insisted that pastors of their district pay the tax themselves without the church doing the withholding.
Some lines were easier for the district to draw than others.
Clarence M.
Stump took an unusually radical stand in the edition of the Bible Monitor, criticizing other Brethren for helping the government establish, fund, and operate Civilian Public Service camps for conscientious objectors. “Some say, going to camp is not fighting, but nevertheless it is a defense program.
Trying to use one’s own power and not relying on God.” He recommended that draftees stand their ground and refuse to serve and take refuge in the Bible verse that says “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake.” So “Let us serve God and not Mammon.
Let us not take offerings to send our young men to camp, but rather let us pray for our boys that they may be faithful to God.” (source)
See “Why Should I Give?” by O.L. Strayer in the issue, on the other hand, for a passionate defense of the camps.
That defense included this admission:
We have paid taxes both direct and hidden for the carrying out of the business of the government.
None of us can be so foolish as to say that we did not know that a portion of those taxes have been going for the upkeep of the fighting forces of the country, and yet we have not scrupled to pay, nay, we have taught from our pulpits that the Christian will pay his taxes faithfully.
One of the arguments for participating in bond drives and for turning a blind eye to war taxes was that everybody was involved in the war somehow, directly or indirectly, so there was no point trying to take a risky personal stand to try to extricate yourself from it.
H.S.
Bender of the Mennonite “Peace Problems Committee” tried to address this in an article reproduced in a issue of the Bible Monitor (source).
Excerpts:
We are sometimes told that it is inconsistent for Mennonites to refuse to take part in the war because our Mennonite farmers are already in the war effort; hence all other forms of participation such as fighting, buying war bonds, working in war industry, must also be approved.
The argument is clear and logical: if farming is taking part in war, then we cannot logically refuse the other things asked of us in military service, in war bonds, or in war work; then we must either quit farming or give up our nonresistant position altogether.
Bender took the position that while the produce of the farmer is used by those engaging in war, this is not the same as manufacturing military materiel, operating under military orders, working in a war industry, or working for the benefit of the war.
While such a farmer does pay taxes, he did so just as much before the war.
In short: farming remains a peaceful industry, even if it is conducted during wartime.
The propaganda arguments used against nonresistant farmers come from chiefly two sources: either from the militarists who do not at all want to strengthen Christian conscience against war but who want to break down this conscience to get more war participation; or from men with weak consciences and convictions, often from some one in war industries or in military service who desires an alibi to justify his own lack of conscientiousness.
During World War Ⅱ the Church of the Brethren held somewhat more firm than they had in War Ⅰ.
At least they largely kept their misgivings about war funding, if they were not very consistent about following through on them.
A new pacifist war tax resistance movement began to gel outside of the traditional peace churches in the late 1940s, and I’ll be looking to see how or whether the Brethren contributed to this.
The Brethren Evangelist continued to look at war bonds mostly as a positive example of giving that ought to be emulated by Brethren in the post-war period through Church-directed giving.
For example, an article on that theme by the Reverend James E. Ault alluded to war bonds in this way: “We have assisted in meeting goals for War Bonds, Victory Bonds, or Community Fund drives until it has become a part of every day experience.
These goals would be of very little value if there were not some greater goal to be reached…” (source).
Things took a very different turn in the Gospel Messenger.
Harper S. Will presented “A Seven-Point Program for Brethren” in the issue.
Will suggested that the arms race and the normalization of military conscription and training meant that Brethren would have to be more active and persistent if they wanted to make progress for a peaceful world.
He asked his readers to “[g]o into your closet, quiet your mind, and seek the guidance of the Eternal Spirit” and gave this as one example: “Henry Thoreau did it in the days of the Civil War, and he ended up in jail because he would not pay his taxes.”
In the issue, Rufus D. Bowman addressed “The Church of the Brethren and the Cultural Crisis”.
According to Bowman, the Church was being overwhelmed by and absorbed into an unchristian culture.
One of the symptoms of this was the half-hearted way Brethren upheld their adherence to non-resistance:
During World War Ⅰ our members purchased war bonds and many of our young men went straight into the army.
During World War Ⅱ it is evident that the majority of our members compromised with the war system.
“Shall We Continue to Call Ourselves a Peace Church?” asked Ruth B. Statler in the issue.
Statler noted that most Brethren draftees in the last war went into the armed services without taking any sort of conscientious objector status, and that “[a] great many of our church members bought war bonds.”
The issue brought readers news of a war tax resister from the just-emerging modern war tax resistance movement (source):
Mrs. Caroline Urie. wife of a navy officer, a Quaker and veteran social worker, has publicly refused to pay the 34.6% of her income tax which, according to government figures, would go to military expenses.
Mrs. Urie wrote President Truman and the U.S. collector of internal revenue that the withheld money would be given to four nonprofit agencies engaged in removing the causes of war.
She is willing to pay taxes “for any reasonable constructive purposes.” As a Christian she said, “I must henceforth refuse to contribute in any way I can avoid toward maintaining the institution of war.”
that was followed up by this note:
This copy of a letter to the Collector of Internal Revenue came to the Messenger desk recently.
Enclosed herewith is my income tax return for .
I wish now to announce to the Collector of Internal Revenue and the Treasury Department that I cannot conscientiously continue to pay federal income taxes when so large a proportion of the funds is being used for purposes of war.
This country did not turn to peace at the end of World War Ⅱ, but instead sought to protect and expand an American Empire.
This mad attempt to dominate the world by force of arms, the threat of atomic war, and offers of economic aid only to future allies will lead to devastation and death.
I want to dissociate myself as completely as possible from these tragic, suicidal and evil policies, and to do all I can to convince my fellow citizens that we must completely renounce the way of war and violence. ―Marion Coddington, New York, N.Y.
There was also a note in the following issue about a woman who had been denied U.S. citizenship after she stated in her application that she would not be willing to “bear arms in defense of the United States [and] that she had refused to buy bonds in the last war because their proceeds were used to finance war.”
The issue noted briefly that “The National Baptist Sunday School and Training Union Congress at Cleveland, Ohio, recently urged churches and religious bodies not to invest in war or savings bonds which may be used in the financing of war.” (source)
The issue reprinted some resolutions passed by a Quaker gathering on the subject of conscientious objection to war (source).
Among these were that “Friends are urged… [t]o avoid engaging in any trade, business, or profession directly contributing to the military system; and the purchase of government war bonds or stock certificates in war industries. [And t]o carefully consider the implication of paying those taxes, a major portion of which goes for military purposes.” The issue also reported that the North Carolina Yearly Meeting of Friends had issued a statement on conscientious objection, which also “urged Quakers ‘to realize that by paying federal taxes we are supporting preparation for war,’ but did not advise that taxes not be paid” (source).
Up to this point, all of this sudden interest in war tax resistance has been focused outside the Church of the Brethren — neither Urie nor Coddington were Brethren, and the statements above are from Quaker and Baptist institutions.
But in the issue is a quote from Rufus D. Bowman, who up to this point has been hinting at war tax resistance without actually endorsing it, in which he finally comes out:
My conviction is that all war is sin and out of harmony with the spirit, life and teachings of Jesus.
It is, therefore, wrong to participate in war.
When war comes, it is difficult in a totalitarian state to keep from helping the war system.
The most Christian position is to remain apart from war as far as possible.
Accepting any service within the army puts a person under military orders and clouds his testimony against war.
Carrying on constructive service projects under church or civilian direction, the giving of a vigorous testimony against war and the payment of war taxes, and giving our lives for a vital peace program represents a consistent Christian position.
The issue continued the new trend of highlighting examples of war tax resisters from other denominations (source):
A Quaker of Moorestown, N.J., William B. Evans, paid his income tax three months ahead of time because he believes in the American government.
But he does not believe in war or in the preparation for it; therefore, he deducted from his payment the amount he estimated would be allotted to military purposes.
In a letter to the internal revenue office he said that he was giving that money to relief and rehabilitation.
Refusal to pay taxes that may be used for military purposes on the ground of conscience is being manifested by small groups of people in the United States, Switzerland, and Norway.
In Switzerland a growing group of women, many of them teachers, and in Norway Quakers are withholding taxes for military purposes, but stating their willingness to pay the same amounts for constructive projects.
The issue carried an update on Caroline Urie’s resistance (source):
Mrs. Caroline Urie, seventy-five year old Quaker widow, of Yellow Springs, Ohio, deducted 32.3 per cent of the first installment of her income tax and will donate the deducted amount to nonprofit agencies working for peace.
She estimated the deducted amount would be used for military purposes and expressed her opposition to this use of the tax money because “war and preparation for war in the atomic area is a crime against humanity.”
The issue reported on the blooming Peacemakers war tax resistance movement (source):
More than forty individuals throughout America, most of them from the peace churches, submitted only a part of their income tax to the government this year.
They sent an accompanying letter saying that they were contributing the rest of the tax to service or peace-making projects.
Their basis of refusal to pay all of it was that a high percentage of income tax revenue goes for war purposes.
The issue brought the news that “[i]n Norway the Quakers have decided to pay a peace tax to the government instead of the government defense tax recently voted by Parliament.
The government has agreed to this arrangement.” (source) No further details were given, though, so it’s difficult to guess what this amounted to practically.
The magazine repeated the news in its issue without adding much in the way of specifics.
There was clearly a hunger for news about war tax resisters, but in all of this there is still no mention of any actual named resister from within the Church of the Brethren itself, except perhaps Rufus Bowman by implication.
The issue included this representation of the debate about war tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren at the time (source):
How Does a Pacifist Act?
One says, “I have to stick my neck out.”
Vigorous efforts to break with a war system are necessary.
What kind of logic is it for a person to say he’s a pacifist and pay income tax — a large share of which goes for war?
If I refuse my income tax payment, I am protesting in the strongest way I know.
Anyone can write letters against a tax.
They mean little to our legislators.
What counts is conviction so strong that persons refuse to pay no matter what the consequences are.
If Gandhi had not been ready to go to jail for what he believed, the Free India Movement would have crumpled before it got well under way.
We cannot build a pacifist movement if leaders in the Church of the Brethren are unwilling to risk jail for what they believe.
⋮
Another says, “I must act with moderation.”
⋮
The extreme and antagonistic position of the tax refusers and nonregistrants seems out of harmony with the Master’s deeds and words:
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”
“Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.”
I don’t like it that I am forced through my income tax into supporting war preparations. However, if I refuse payment, the government will collect anyway.
The way to fight this tax is to work for a change in the law.
Meanwhile, over at the Brethren Missionary Herald things remained much in the vein of “you gave money for war, won’t you also give some to us?” For example:
the Brethren Home Missions Council held war bonds according to its financial statement
How much have members of our churches paid out in taxes and in purchase of war bonds during the past five years?
Dare we give the Lord less in the next five years? []
In the course of researching this section, I found that the Bible Monitor had reproduced the statement of the Annual Meeting of on non-resistance which I hadn’t been able to find elsewhere.
Here it is (source):
Inasmuch, at the big meeting at Conestoga, , it has been unanimously concluded that we should not pay the substitute money; but inasmuch as it has been overlooked here and there, and some have not regarded it (sad conclusion), therefore we, the assembled brethren, exhort in union all brethren in all places to hold themselves guiltless, and take no part in war or blood-shedding, which might take place if we would pay for hiring men voluntarily; or more still, if we would become agents to collect such money.
And inasmuch some brethren have received written orders to tell the people, and afterwards collect (such money), accompanied by a threat of a heavy fine — we exhort heartily, not to be scared to do that which is not right.
Still, we exhort, also, heartily, that if a brother should be fined, there should be provisions made for such brethren, and assistance rendered as far as concerns money.
In case a brother or his son should be drafted, that he or his son should go to war, and he could buy himself or his son from it, such would not be deemed so sinful, yet it should not be given voluntarily, without compulsion.
But where this has been overlooked, and the substitute-money has been voluntary, and (the brother) should acknowledge his mistake from the heart, and repent it, the church might be satisfied with him.
But when a brother bears his testimony that he can not give his money on account of his conscience, and would say to the collector, “If thou must take it, then use your authority; I shall not be in your way,” — with such brother we should be also satisfied.
But concerning the tax, it is considered that on account of the troublesome times [], and in order to avoid offense, we might follow the example of Christ, Matt. 17:24–27, yet if one does not see it so, and thinks, perhaps, he, for his conscience’s sake could not pay it, but bear with others who pay in patience, we would willingly leave it over, inasmuch we deem the overruling of the conscience as wrong.
Today I’ll share what I found in the archives of American Brethren periodicals from the early 1950s concerning war taxes and war bond purchases.
I found most of the items of interest in the Gospel Messenger again, and for the first time these included specified war tax resisters from within the Church of the Brethren.
The edition gave readers this short notice:
Floyd M.
Irvin of Eustis, Fla., sent in only that part of his income tax which would not be used by the Federal government for war purposes.
The rest of it, he informed them, he was turning over to a useful church program.
He believes that if many more people would do this it would have a telling effect upon military expenditures.
This was the first I’d heard of Irvin.
There was a follow-up about his resistance in the issue (source):
A series of articles in a Lake County, Fla., local paper call attention to the activities of Floyd M.
Irvin of Eustis, Fla., on behalf of world peace.
While the articles tell a few facts concerning Bro. Irvin’s life, they give special attention to his advocating nonviolent techniques in place of war, and especially to his refusal to pay the share of income taxes which goes toward supporting the military program.
Through Bro. Irvin’s efforts a recent article in the Gospel Messenger was used as the basis for a feature in his local paper.
They don’t come right out and claim Irvin as a member of the Brethren here, but they do call him “Bro.” and make the Gospel Messenger connection.
I think this is the first explicitly war tax resisting member of a Brethren church named in a Brethren periodical from the modern war tax resistance era.
Another small note was found in the issue (source):
Again this year various people, who have conscientious feelings against the tremendous amount of our budget which is being spent for war, are withholding from their income tax the percentages which are used definitely for war purposes.
The rest of it they are paying.
I assume this refers to the Peacemakers, who were putting out press releases about organized war tax resistance around this time.
The issue included a note about the Monteverde Quaker emigrants (source):
Quaker Group to Leave United States
Twenty-five Quaker residents of Fairhope, Ala., have decided to emigrate to Costa Rica so that they may be free from military demands and from paying “war taxes.” This announcement came from Hubert Mendenhall, the spokesman for the group who range in age from twenty to eighty years.
Most of them are farmers.
“Our economy has become so involved with military effort throughout the world,” Mr. Mendenhall said, “that a person can hardly make a living here without being a part of that system.”
A spokesman for the American Friends Service Committee said that this would be the first instance in American history that a group of Quakers had left the country because of their religious pacifist convictions.
A letter to the editor from Mart Sheaffer, in the edition suggested that tax resistance was more Christian than the alternative (source):
Tax Refusal
Why do Christians continue to pay the government that portion of tax which is used to support war, since war is contrary to the teachings of the New Testament?
It seems that it would be more Christlike to refuse to pay that portion of tax and to give the same amount — or more — to some worthy Christian cause such as the program of the Brethren Service Commission or some other Christian denomination’s project.
We could then take a receipt for the amount given and turn the receipt over to the government.
If it is permissible to teach the gospel, it also should be permissible to live it and practice it.
the magazine printed a letter in response, disagreeing by giving the old taxes-are-debts argument, and recommending instead prayer rather than civil disobedience (source).
Floyd M.
Irvin responded in the issue (source):
Taxes and Our Responsibility
I would like to express my disagreement with the brother from Grantsville, Md., who states that “taxes are a debt… when we pay this debt our responsibility ends.”
I would say rather that, as a citizen, I am a partner with other citizens both in managing and in financing the affairs of our government.
A citizen of a democracy has a definite responsibility in determining the purpose for which his tax money is used.
The denial of this privilege by the English government was one of the chief reasons for the revolt of the American colonists and for the birth of our republic.
Now that we have this privilege, it becomes a responsibility.
If the fathers of the American Revolution in their day felt an inner compulsion to refuse to pay taxes for the use of which they had no directing voice, ought not followers of the Prince of Peace in our day feel an urge to refuse to pay taxes which are used to finance the killing of our fellow Christians?
This is a question which needs careful consideration.
The following questions may stimulate our thoughts on the matter.
Do we as citizens have a responsibility in regard to the use of our tax money which should direct our actions beyond our choice of representatives?
In other words, after we have voted to the best of our ability, are we guiltless if our taxes are used to kill our fellow men?
Does the Scriptural injunction to pay taxes apply without exception, or is the payment of taxes to finance a war that destroys God’s children an exception when we should obey God rather than men?
How can we order our lives and finances so that if we refuse to pay taxes the government will not take more than we withhold?
Is it time for Christians to organize a non-violent resistance movement against war?
The edition again covered the Peacemakers (source):
Group Refuses to Pay “War” Taxes
Fifty-nine men and women, including four Protestant clergymen, in various parts of the country have refused to file federal income tax returns because they find it impossible to support the Korean or any other war.
This announcement was made by the tax refusal committee of Peacemakers, a national pacifist group, which released a statement by the fifty-nine saying:
“We are particularly concerned at this time about the situation in Korea, where a civil struggle has been provoked and aggravated by two power states to the point where it is already a major war — one which may be the spark that will set the world afire.
“We find it impossible to support policies and activities of this kind with our allegiance or with our money.
We must, therefore, refuse to give money for such purposes of conquest and massacre, and must give it instead to causes which build understanding and world community.”
A.J. Muste of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, sent a separate letter to the collector of internal revenue in his district, declaring that this is the third successive year in which he has refused to file a return or pay taxes.
He contended that “anyone who contributes to arming the United States today also contributes to arming Russia — which is the last thing I want to do — in the same way that Russians contribute to American armament, for each government mechanically matches the military preparations of the other.”
At the auction sale of her husband’s car, Mrs.
Arthur H.
Emery, Jr., begged those attending the sale not to bid.
She said she feared the proceeds might be used for war.
The U.S. bureau of internal revenue, which had seized the car, will apply the $145 on the income tax owed by Mr. and Mrs.
Emery.
They had refused to pay it because they thought it might be used for military purposes.
This letter from Ernest Bromley comes from the issue (source):
Tax Refusal
Many people who have been deeply concerned over the large and growing percentage of federal taxes going to war purposes have been prevented from taking any definite action because all funds paid to the federal government go into a common treasury, whether this money is for war purposes or for constructive purposes to which citizens willingly contribute.
The Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers calls attention to the fact that if the increased military appropriations now being voted by Congress under various heads are added together, this will mean a total of around seventy billion dollars for war purposes out of a budget of around ninety billion.
The increased appropriations will reflect themselves in a percentage increase in taxes, and this increase will be for purely military purposes and nothing else.
We would welcome correspondence from persons who feel a concern over this matter, which should be addressed to Rev. Ernest Bromley, Golay Road in Gano, Sharonville, Ohio.
Another war tax resister from outside of Brethren circles was featured briefly in the issue (source):
Woman Pastor Refuses to Pay “War Taxes”
A woman pastor in South Hartford, N.Y., paid only twenty-five per cent of her federal income tax because she is opposed to the government’s “warlike ventures.” The Rev. Marion C.
Frenyear, pastor of the South Hartford Congregational church, said she is a Christian pacifist and “cannot support war in any way,” that in her belief war is against religious principles and taxes should be used to bring peace and disarmament to the world.
For the same reason Miss Frenyear paid only twenty-five per cent of her federal tax bill.
Walter R. Sturr, collector of internal revenue at Albany, placed a lien against her salary and indicated the same method would be used this year to collect the unpaid taxes.
The delinquent taxes were paid by the treasury of the church and the amount was deducted from the pastor’s salary.
The Brethren Missionary Herald seemed to trend conservative.
It complained about high government spending and taxes (and saw creeping socialism at every turn), and didn’t hesitate to put the blame for this on the military budget, but this was about as far as it was prepared to go in protest:
The child of God will… pay his taxes….
It is our judgment that the general tenor of the teaching of the Bible allows for protest and even revolt against unjust and exorbitant taxation.
Beyond these considerations, however, the Lord’s servant will not try to evade the payment of tribute.
[]
The Brethren Evangelist was also largely sticking to its guns and not entertaining any newfangled tax resistance ideas.
But the magazine’s intolerance for legalized alcoholic beverages was intense enough that, in the midst of what was otherwise a standard render-unto-Cæsar article, they let this slip in the issue (source):
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” What things does Caesar have a right to claim?
Taxes?
Yes, we should expect to pay taxes for the privilege of living in such a land as ours.
We expect protection of life and property; good sanitary living conditions, and the like — and these cost money.
But there is, of course, a limit to which the Christian should be forced to go.
For instance, to be forced to pay taxes for the upkeep of hospitals for the criminally insane and penitentiaries where are housed the results of crimes brought about by a government-supported liquor program, is going beyond what any government has a moral (even if it has a legal) right to demand.
We could go on at great length with many other examples, but space forbids.
You think about them.
Interest in war tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren continued to simmer through the mid-1950s, and more war tax resisters emerged into the limelight.
The war tax resistance of Marion Frenyear again made it into the Gospel Messenger in the issue (source):
Woman Pastor Deducts “War” Tax
A woman pastor in Great Barrington, Mass., paid only twenty-five per cent of her federal income tax because she is opposed to the large percentage of the national income used for war.
Marion C.
Frenyear, now a supply pastor for churches in the Great Barrington area, said she had paid voluntarily only twenty-five per cent of the federal income taxes since .
Miss Frenyear explained her partial payment in a letter to the director of internal revenue at Boston.
In the past two years a lien was placed against Miss Frenyear’s salary to collect the unpaid taxes and it is expected the same method will be used this year.
James Berkebile, dean of McPherson College (a Brethren institution) wrote an article on “Christians and Citizens” for the edition.
In the past, this would have been the occasion for the usual render-unto-Cæsar boilerplate when it came to taxes.
This time, though, things were a little more nuanced.
Excerpt:
In these days of high taxes many illegal methods of evading payment of income tax have been used.
It is just that one make every means provided under law to reduce his income tax to that value determined by legislation, but often there is no reporting of income that cannot be checked on readily.
Devious methods are used to avoid one’s well-defined financial obligation to the government.
Certainly, we should protest the use of so much of our public money for war purposes.
We should compliment and encourage those who strive to divert our tax money to productive enterprises for the good of men.
But for our own soul’s sake we must be honest in our reports for taxation purposes while we strive to change the taxation procedure if it is unwise and unfair.
We respect those who refuse to pay that portion of their tax going for war purposes in order to make their testimony for a cause because they make clear what they are doing and accept the penalties of the law for their failure to comply.
We do not respect those who are dishonest in their reporting.
We owe the government, of which we are a part, our honesty and integrity, whether we move through normal channels or whether we move contrary to established legislation.
In the latter case we owe our submission voluntarily, willingly and freely to the penalties involved with the hope that our suffering for the cause of the kingdom may result in changes for the better.
In the issue, Donald Royer passed along some early results of his historical study of the beliefs and practices of the Brethren (source):
I am completing a study on the factors in our culture which are related to the changing peace position of the Brethren, and one of the tentative conclusions I have drawn is this.
Up to World War Ⅰ the heart of our peace position was conscientious objection to war.
Since World War Ⅰ the heart of our peace position has come to be the Brethren Service program of relief and rehabilitation.
We have lost the protesting witness almost completely, and have put in its place a positive witness.
With this positive witness there has come something we may not have anticipated.
According to my study an increasing number of Brethren are saying that in case of another war they would increase their giving to Brethren Service, but that they would also buy war bonds and work in a defense industry if needed.
Under our new emphasis it is becoming easier to play both ends against the middle, or to serve both God and Caesar at the same time.
A.J.
Muste, on refusing to file a Federal income tax return: “A stupendous percentage of the Federal budget is devoted to war purposes, an increasing percentage to the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, and there is no way of separating the income used for war and that used for other purposes.”
A new Brethren war tax resister shared his protest in the letters column of the issue (source):
Obliged to Protest
I am informing the Bureau of Internal Revenue that since the major item on the Federal budget is military expenditure I, therefore, cannot conscientiously pay all of my income tax.
Because of religious conviction I could not myself bear arms, nor could I assist in the manufacture of armaments.
Neither can I pay a substitute to bear arms for me or invest time or money in any company or corporation which manufactures or supplies armaments.
Therefore, I do not feel able to supply voluntarily any part of the money to be used to support a military establishment or to create super-bombers, guided missiles, and nuclear weapons, all of which things clearly contradict God’s will for mankind and cannot help but bring terrible judgments upon their creators.
With five dependents I have not until this year been affluent enough to be liable for this tax.
Now, although the amount of money is small, I feel that I can voluntarily pay half, which will more than include that spent for all of the necessary and valuable functions of the federal government.
For I have no desire to deny either the government’s existence or its value, except in that its military function has become so pathologically exaggerated.
Also as a member of the Church of the Brethren I feel obliged to make this protest.
For it is shameful and demoralizing that the whole weight of the important witness against war and warmaking is being laid on teen-age shoulders while their elders too easily content with a false security conveniently look the other way and refuse to assume their moral and spiritual obligation to their community, their church, and God.
It may be objected that by saying, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” Jesus thereby obliged his followers to pay every tax for any purpose.
The truth is that this saying places the problem squarely upon one’s discrimination of what belongs to Caesar that does not belong to God, and contrariwise.
The image and legend which made that particular coin legal tender were certainly Caesar’s and not God’s.
Any ultimate claims upon the actual metal would, of course, pose more difficult questions.
My situation is not like that, however.
What Caesar demands of me is a check, a mere piece of common paper which is not given currency value by Caesar’s image and legend but rather by my own private signature which is a particular and intimate image of my own personal mind and body.
The claim whereby Caesar would use my personal image and signature in order to create weapons of total destruction is not supported by the gospel or by any divine right but rather by the very force and violence which I as a pacifist and a Christian must and do refuse to acknowledge as binding or just in the sight of God.―Fred W.
Smith, W. Alexandria, Ohio.
Lottie M.
Bollinger wrote a letter supporting Smith’s stand that was published in the issue.
Over several issues in and , The Pilgrim reprinted Daniel Musser’s Non-Resistance Asserted: Or the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the World Separated.
Musser was a Reformed Mennonite, but apparently his point of view was harmonious with that of the Pilgrim editors.
Musser believed that Christians should stay aloof from the government, but should obey it, including in taxation.
Christians “are duty bound to be obedient to all their laws and regulations, and to pay all taxes, duties, fines, or whatever rates or levies the government may see fit to impose upon them,” he wrote.
On the other hand, voluntary contributions for war or to raise money to help hire armed forces were out of the question:
Since the commencement of the present war, when the War Department called for fresh levies of troops, and when our State was threatened with invasion, people have collected money to arm and equip militia for local or State service, and also for bounty to induce men to volunteer in the National service.
This is not inconsistent for the world, or such as profess that it is the duty of Christians to take up arms in defense of their rights and country.
But it is certainly inconsistent for those who profess to be nonresistant to pay or arm others to go and do what they say is wrong to do themselves.
It would be a very gross violation of this principle [of non-resistance] for non-resistants to show their reliance in or dependence on an arm of flesh by joining in with the world to contribute money for bounty to induce men to volunteer, or to arm and equip men to go forth and defend their person and property.
[H]ow can those who profess to be disciples of Jesus Christ, and who say as such that Christ has forbidden them to fight, join in with our opponents and pay men to go and fight for them, or in their stead?
It is said, “It is to avoid the draft,” but by what means?
By inducing other men to go in our stead!
Anyone can see that there is no consistency here.
If it is wrong for me to go, it is wrong to pay another to go for me.
And hiring substitutes directly is also forbidden:
We do not recognize those as true non-resistants who profess to have conscientious scruples about bearing arms… as will not go to the battle-field themselves, but will hire substitutes to go and do that for them which, they say, they dare not do themselves.
What about the special tax that conscientious objectors were supposed to pay in lieu of service?
Mennonites and Brethren were typically okay with paying that; Quakers were not.
Musser’s opinion:
[T]he powers again ordered a draft without exempting any for conscience sake.
The request was personal service or money — three hundred dollars.
The personal service they could not render.
The money belongs to the kingdom of this world, and they had a right to demand it as their own.
Paul said that we shall pay tribute and custom to whom it is due, and said we shall do so because of the duties the Government has to discharge.
They now ask for our person or the money.
The latter is theirs and we make conscience of the duty to pay it, and feel that it would be wrong to refuse to do so.
It is alleged that, when we pay the commutation fee and the war tax, these are used for war purposes, and that the case is parallel with that of paying to induce volunteering, or buying substitutes.
The world does not profess to be willing to suffer loss and inconvenience if it can be avoided by personal resistance or defense.
When they take such measures, as before alluded to, they act rationally and consistently.
The government is founded on this principle and cannot exist without the sword, and, whenever necessity requires it, must use the sword.
Paul said that for this purpose we also pay tribute.
It is due to the government, and we shall pay to all their dues.
The commutation fee and what is called “war tax” are no more a “war tax” than any other tax we pay to keep up the government; and I am no more violating my non-resistant principles, if I pay one, than I do if I pay the other.
I have said before, all the estate or property we own, we hold only by the tolerance and authority of the powers that be.
The powers have authority over all property, and have right to demand so much of it as they have need of.
This we acknowledge, and have no right to refuse giving it to them, or to ask what use they intend making of it.
If I buy property with a ground rent, or lien of any kind on it, that part or amount is not mine any more than if I had not bought the property.
I have no right to withhold the payment of that money any more than I have a sum of money that I have borrowed, or other debt that I have contracted.
Thus it is with land, and all property.
The government originally owned all the land.
It sold it to settlers, under its patent; they hold it on condition of paying such rates and levies as the Government may demand.
Then, when we pay whatever tax is asked of us, we only give to it its due, as we would pay any other debt due; and for this reason Paul said we shall do it for conscience’ sake.
Every honest man makes conscience of withholding anything which is due to another, and so every true Christian makes conscience of returning his property, fairly and faithfully, to the officers of government, and punctually paying what it requires of him, with as little right to ask or inquire what use they design making of it, as they have to ask what use the person proposes to make of the money he has lent to us.
There is therefore a very great difference between what we pay voluntarily, or without sanction of law, and what we pay on demand of the powers.
If a person comes to me, and solicits a donation to give as a bounty to induce men to volunteer in the army, or to equip men to go and fight, by giving it I testify that I am interested in the cause and desire it to progress — when, at the same time, I do not know that I am not arming men to fight against what God designs to do.
But if I owe a man a sum of money as a debt, and he comes and demands it, and tells me he intends it to arm and equip himself to go to war, I have no right to withhold payment.
It is his, and he has a right to do with it as he pleases.
I would make no difference between paying a man to go to war, and going myself.
I would not consider that I would any more violate the spirit of the Gospel in one case than the other; neither do I consider that I am any more violating the command of the Savior if I serve as a General in the field, or a soldier in the ranks, than I do if I serve as sheriff of the county, or justice of the peace, or cast my vote for member of Congress, Governor, or President of the United States; and would not make one iota more conscience to one than the other.
I say more: those who vote for officers in the government, and use its power and authority to protect their rights and property, or appeal to law for justice, and yet refuse to defend the government in the time of need, are neither faithful to the kingdom of Christ or that of this world.
In the late 1950s, the Gospel Messenger covered the war tax resistance of Maurice McCrackin, and the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference took on the issue of war taxes and decided to try to work out some form of legalized conscientious objection to military taxation with the government.
The edition of Gospel Messenger introduced Maurice McCrackin’s war tax resistance:
A Presbyterian pacifist minister who has refused for ten years to pay part of his federal income tax he felt was for war purposes, was indicted by a grand jury in Cincinnati, Ohio, for failing to answer a summons from the Internal Revenue Service.
He is the Rev. Maurice McCrackin of West Cincinnati-St. Barnabas church, a racially integrated mission congregation jointly supported by the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio and the Cincinnati Presbytery.
Recently twenty-eight ministers requested the two groups not to yield to pressure for the minister’s removal from his church.
A Presbyterian pacifist minister who refused to pay part of his federal income tax he felt would be used for war purposes has been sentenced to serve six months in a federal prison camp in Pennsylvania.
Following his conviction thirteen clergymen appealed to President Eisenhower to intervene in the sentence.
A somewhat more in-depth news brief appeared later in the same issue (source):
Pacifist Minister Jailed for Contempt
Maurice F. McCrackin, a pacifist minister who has refused to pay the part of his federal income tax he felt would be used for war purposes, was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to jail for an indefinite period after ignoring a summons from the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. McCrackin is pastor of the West Cincinnati-St. Barnabas church, a mission congregation jointly supported by the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio and the Cincinnati Presbytery.
He has refused to pay income taxes for the past ten years because some of the money goes for military purposes.
Clergymen Ask President’s Intervention for Imprisoned Minister
Thirteen clergymen appealed to President Eisenhower to intervene in the “persecution” of a Presbyterian pacifist minister who has refused to pay part of his federal income tax he felt would be used for war purposes.
In a message sent by the Fellowship of Reconciliation the clergymen asked the President to bring Mr.
McCrackin’s case immediately to the attention of the Justice Department and urged that he be freed of the contempt conviction so the charges may proceed “in orderly fashion” to try him on the tax charges.
W. Harold Row, secretary of the Brethren Service Commission, was one of the twelve Protestant ministers who signed the appeal.
The message stressed that the signers were not associating themselves with the position Mr. McCrackin had taken or with the means he employed to appeal to the conscience of his fellow citizens to renounce war.
A letter-to-the-editor in the issue took inspiration from McCrackin’s stand (somewhat mangled source):
Objection to War Taxes
In the issue, you questioned the way the tax dollar is spent, and in another section you mentioned the plight of Rev. Maurice McCrackin, imprisoned for not paying the war taxes.
To me it seems that McCrackin and others like him are pointing the way out of a basic dilemma for all who profess to be pacifists, namely how to effectively oppose war when tax dollars are taken from us that go four fifths for war.
It is time that the Church of the Brethren and the other peace churches come out in favor of conscientious objection to war taxes and alternative service for the dollars we get for our labors in the form of giving an identical amount or more than the amount of taxes to the Brethren Service Commission, CARE, and other such organizations that are doing the needed job that the war-minded government of the U.S. refuses to do:
help the needy and suffering and undeveloped people all over the world.
The early Brethren did not pay taxes for war, and we are a poor shadow of our forebears if we let our dollars be spent to maintain the cancerous military machine of the United States. ―John Forbes, Castañer, Puerto Rico
Jeanne Jacoby of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, was in turn inspired by Forbes, in her letter in the issue (source): “I sincerely believe that we Brethren should oppose war taxes.
If we oppose war and preparation for war, why should we pay money for war.”
Perhaps not surprisingly, the war tax issue came up at the Annual Conference that year, though the focus seemed to be on trying to convince the government to accommodate conscientious objection to military taxation rather than on taking action in the here and now.
From the issue (source):
From the Brethren Service Commission came a recommendation to the Board urging that the Church of the Brethren begin making explorations with agencies of government in order to find some acceptable alternative for persons who, because of religious training or belief, are conscientiously opposed to the payment of the portion of their income taxes that goes for military defense.
It was pointed out that there is a growing interest among Brethren in finding such an alternative and that there is an increasing concern with regard to the large amount of tax money that is used for war preparation and various forms of military defense.
The Board recognized this interest and approved the recommendation that came to it.
It was pointed out that the difficulties confronting such a proposal would be extensive, but that a start should be made.
The church will attempt to work with other organizations having a similar concern, but if necessary, the church will proceed by itself to try to find some alternative to paying war taxes.
This evidently gave the editor of the Messenger permission to be somewhat more forthright about advocating war tax resistance.
In an editorial (source), Kenneth Morse wrote:
, the anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb, should not pass without every Christian deciding to take personal responsibility for some form of protest or non-violent action against the continuing arms race.
Some concerned persons have kept vigil at launching bases, others have demonstrated against policies by engaging in “walks for peace,” others have refused to pay taxes for war purposes.
W.A.
Ogden of Grace Seminary (Indiana) wrote an article on “Separation” for the issue of The Brethren Missionary Herald in which he set out his idea of the Brethren orthodoxy on how the Christian ought to behave toward the state.
When it comes to war bonds: “We recognize that there are many areas, such as purchasing bonds, war stamps, and so forth, which the individual must settle alone with his God.”
In the issue of The Brethren Evangelist, Percy C.
Miller reviewed the chapter on the Civil War from Rufus Bowman’s The Church of the Brethren and War (source).
He summarized the Brethren position on war taxes and related issues this way:
In the early days of the war, some of the Brethren hired substitutes.
The church members preferred to pay fines instead of using the system of substitutes.
But the records do not indicate that the Brethren clearly recognized the inconsistency with their peace position of employing substitutes or paying heavy war taxes to keep free from participation in armed conflicts.
The Society of Friends protested continually against war taxes.
The Brethren and Mennonites took the position that they [sh/c?]ould pay what the government required.
The brethren felt that the gospel required the payment of fines and taxes.
They based their opposition to war upon the teachings of Jesus but related their opposition more to the overt acts of war than to the whole war system.
They felt that the Brethren Church, for Biblical reasons, [sh/c?]ould not use the sword, but that the civil government, likewise because of Biblical reasons — “for the punishment of evildoers” (Ⅰ Peter 2:14) — might have to use material force.
Today, some gleanings from the Gospel Messenger of .
In the issue, Donald M.
Royer shared the results of his study of two Brethren congregations, one with a strong adherence to the Brethren “peace doctrine” and the other not so much (source).
In the less-strong congregation, Royer noted, “over half the members… work in industries with government contracts for military material… When asked what they would do in time of war, about one in two replied that they would buy war bonds, work in industries making materials for war, and at the same time increase their giving to the Brethren Service program.”
the Church of the Brethren General Offices made available a pamphlet about the tax burden of military spending in
Harry K. Zeller, Jr. penned something of a paean to the protester in the issue (source). Excerpt:
War — hot or cold — is the major business of civilized nations.
It is now accepted as a part of our way of life.
To some people such a condition of national conduct is unworthy of us as children of God.
A few resist, refusing to accept for themselves what society approves.
With Edith Cavell they insist, “Patriotism is not enough.” They decline to salute, refrain from wearing the uniform and refuse to kill.
A few will not even pay that portion of their income tax which is used for military purposes.
They have undertaken the most important practical task facing the world — the honest effort of simple people to eliminate war, the Public Enemy No. 1 of humanity.
Provision can be made for conscientious objection and its parallel provided in alternative service, but to refuse to pay taxes — this no civilized society can permit!
Society cannot tolerate these social resisters either.
If they persist, they must be punished or imprisoned or eliminated.
A lengthy letter to the editor about taxpayer complicity in militarism from Mrs. Robert D. Clark appeared in the issue (source). Excerpt:
We would laud the man who risked his life refusing to obey Hitler.
Are we just as alert to recognize that a brave girl, Eroseanna Robinson, an athlete of national standing, is in jail today because her conscience will not allow her to let her tax money be used to promote precisely the same method of dealing with world problems?
Can the same method be evil under Hitler and righteous in America?
The issue profiled long-time minister Ross Murphy (source).
The profile included this note: “[H]e was elected president of the Philadelphia federation of churches shortly before World War Ⅱ began, and he was able to use his influence to keep the churches of the city from being stampeded into the sale of war bonds.”
In , suddenly Brethren couldn’t stop talking about war tax resistance.
By war tax resistance had gone from heresy to something that was considered one possible appropriate Christian response to runaway militarism.
Take, for example, this mention in passing from Ralph E.
Smeltzer’s long essay on “The Church and the World” in the issue of Gospel Messenger:
When the Christian conscience and the demands of the state conflict, as many feel in the case of military service, taxes for military purposes, and defense jobs, the Christian must follow his conscience.
A lengthy war tax resistance letter-to-the-editor on war tax resistance led off that column in the issue (source).
The page scan (here and elsewhere in this volume) is difficult to read in parts, but I’ll try to restore it as best I can:
Taxes for War Purposes
The three of us, two ministers and a layman, have come to the conclusion that we can no longer pay Federal income tax for war.
This may seem an astonishing stand; but much more astonishing is our general Brethren complacency about paying income tax.
In colonial times and during the Revolutionary War there was much tax refusal by Quakers, Mennonites, and Brethren.
An irate critic of the Church of the Brethren charged,
“They not only refused to take up arms to repel the savage marauders and prevent the inhuman slaughter of women and children, but they refused in the most positive manner to pay a dollar to support those who were willing to take up arms to defend their homes and their firesides, until wrung from them by the stern mandates of the law.
They did the same when the Revolution broke out. They might at least have furnished money.
But no; not a dollar!”
It is not certain whether this writer referred to taxes or only to the substitutionary sum paid in lieu of the militia draft.
In either case the Brethren then had an alert ethical sensitivity about turning over their money for war.
In the belief that many Brethren are becoming troubled about paying income tax, we submit for fraternal consideration the following statement on income tax refusal.
Because the per capita U.S. military expenditure rose from less than $8 in to $268 in ,
Because approximately 75% of the Federal budget for the past several years has been annually appropriated for military purposes,
Because the government has been spending less than one million dollars yearly on the problems of disarmament, in contrast to $47 billion on arms, a ratio of one to forty-seven thousand,
Because there is so little national conscience about what nuclear war would mean for man, what it would be under God,
We find ourselves constrained by the love of Christ to refuse paying Federal income tax and instead are giving a corresponding amount, plus no less than 20%, to UN or other peacemaking programs.
We reject, as blasphemy against Christ, the prevailing readiness to exterminate hundreds of millions, or even all mankind, in order to “defend our values, our faith.”
Since modern technological warfare is much more dependent on huge amounts of money than on manpower, we believe that refusal to turn over our bodies is not enough; we can no longer turn over our dollars for the present rush t[o our] mass annihilation. Let West an[d East] really take total disarmament a[s our] goal, and not merely toy with it [under] the pressure of world public o[pinion] as till now.
We do not discount the cons[tructive] aspects of Federal activity, a[nd we] welcome governmental endeavo[rs that] do make for peace. But with t[he best] prospects for disarmament fadi[ng fast] and the population of East and [West] mostly unaware of the imminen[ce of] and the certainty of disaster if [these] policies continue, we are impe[lled to] income tax refusal as a way of [calling] others to hear God’s warning:
[“I have] set before you this day life and [good, and] death and evil. Therefore choo[se life,] that you and your descendant[s may] live, loving the Lord your God, [obey]ing his voice, and cleaving to [Him.”]
Those interested in discussi[ng this] difficult issue should write Dal[e] [Auk]erman, Bechlinghoven bei [?] Glueckstrasse 3, Germany. [Dale] Aukerman, John Forbes, and [Jerry] Royer.
That letter got an enthusiastic reply from Dale Rummel in the issue (source):
Church Should Take a Stand
I read the letter on “Taxes for War Purposes,” by Dale Aukerman, John Forbes, and Jerry Royer in [the] Gospel Messenger for [.
I] feel that they are trying, const[ruc]tively, to reach the answer [to the] problem that has been plaguing Christians since the two world wars.
I would like to see Annual Conference take action along the line[s of] their statement.
Our government can crush individuals when they take a stand which is “illegal.”
But if an organization like our whole Brotherhood took this stand and backed up [the] individuals who carried it out, [there] is much more chance for its [doing] some lasting good. I believe, [also] that if we take this stand [other] denominations will join us in it[.]
This is no time for the Brethren to become fearful and cowardly [and] be afraid to step forward and [go] where we know it is right to [go].
Let us, with God’s guidance, go [for]ward, regardless of the phy[sical] consequences, in what we know [is] right.
A note in the issue (source) said that the Michigan district conference had asked the Annual conference to “study the possibilities of making the pacifist movement a political force in our country” by, among other means:
Attempting to work out a proposal for an alternative tax arrangement, so that the taxes of those who object to war on conscientious grounds may be used for peaceful and constructive goals of government.
In the issue, J.
Robert Boyer encouraged his readers to take more courageous stands for their faith, and not like Peter deny Christ three times before the cock crows.
One example he gives of when one might take a stand: “Will you send your tax money to Cape Canaveral, where missiles are launched to kill the enemy?”
The following letter from Charles E. and Cleda P. Zunkel appeared in the issue (source):
No Tax for War Purposes
In keeping with our pronouncements concerning war, the last of which was made at the Annual Conference at Richmond, Va., we Brethren have encouraged our young men to seek alternative service, in lieu of military service.
Our young men, who have followed our teaching, have borne most of the brunt of this course of action.
Have we, their parents, kept faith with them, as we have continued to pay our income tax money, 75% of which has gone for the support of military preparedness and war? I think we have not.
Some of our young men have challenged us to action, by appealing to us to cease paying the 75% of our income tax which goes to military purposes.
It seems high time that we oldsters make our witness for peace, as we have asked our youth to make theirs.
My wife and I have been spurred to action by this appeal of our youth, and by the recent appeal of our President for $2 billion more to be added to an already staggering sum for military might.
The accompanying letter was sent to the Internal Revenue Service and to our President to clarify our position.
It seems to us that we are called upon to make clear our faith and our action, in keeping with our historic understanding of the life and teachings of our Lord.
Director of Internal Revenue,
Richmond, Virginia.
President John F. Kennedy
White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Sirs:
Since the late 1920’s we have been conscientious objectors to war, in the settlement of international disputes.
We believe in the historic faith of our church, The Church of the Brethren, that “all war is sin.
We, therefore, cannot encourage, engage in, or willingly profit from armed conflict at home or abroad.
We cannot in the event of war accept military service or support the military machine in any capacity.”
Believing as we have, we have had guilty consciences as we have seen our nation increase its military preparedness.
We have been aware that approximately 75% of all our income tax money has been spent for war, preparation for war, or mainten[ance] of military might. In 1938 the [total] military expenditure was $8 [per] capita; in 1958 it had risen to [$268] per capita.
From time to time, as we [have] filed our income tax returns, we [have] in letters to the government, [pro]tested this use of our money. [We] suggested that there be some [pro]vision whereby these funds now [used] for military expenditures be used [for] peaceful pursuits, such as the fee[ding] of the hungry of the world [and] the aid to underprivileged [people] through technical assistance.
Thus far, our protests have [not] been regarded. On , our local newspaper carried the notice that you, President Kennedy, were asking for $2 [billion] more than the amount already [pro]posed for military defense, ma[king] a total asking of $43,794,300,000[.]
Recently, we learned that two [nu]clear scientists warned the Nat[ional] Education Association in its co[nven]tion that we in the United States already have enough manufact[ured] fissionable material to blot ou[t all] life from the face of the entire [earth] and leave it pock-marked and vo[id like] the face of the moon.
In all good conscience, we ca[n no] longer give 75% of our income [tax] money for the support of mil[itary] might.
We are not opposed to pa[ying] tax, but rather, to paying tax for [that] purpose.
We feel as guilty as if [we] were giving our lives in the pro[gram] of the military method of settling international disputes.
Therefore, we are filing our income tax report as usual, paying [the] full tax for , but paying [only] 25% of the tax due for the first [quarter] of 1961.
The other 75% of our [income] tax will be given in quarterly [install]ments to the church, in addition [to] the 15% or more we already [give.]
We hope the time may [speedily] come when such vast military expenditures may cease, and the [money] so spent may be used to relieve [the] suffering and need in our world.
[We] hope, further, that in the [mean] time some alternative tax plan [may] be worked out whereby conscientious objectors may give their [tax] money to peaceful pursuits, just [as] young men may serve in alternative service in lieu of the military service.
The Gospel Messenger editor, Kenneth Morse, endorsed peace protest in general in his editorial, and war tax resistance as one possible protest: “Consider also the personal decision of the moderator of Annual Conference and his wife with regard to taxation for war purposes… It is always easy to criticize the stand that others take. But please note that some have at least taken a stand.”
A response from Jack Kline, however, in the issue, took issue with tax resistance on the usual render-unto-Cæsar grounds (source): “I think it well to protest the high military expenditure.
But the type of letter that was written to Mr.
Kennedy and to the Internal Revenue Department I think does not show good grace.
I am a bit embarrassed that leaders in our own church would write that type of letter and refuse to pay taxes which our Lord distinctly told the Jews, under a military occupation, they should pay.”
There was another dissent, from John L.
Mohler, in the issue (source).
His objection was more on the grounds of democratic political theory: “[B]y participating on the economic life of our national community and accepting our incomes from it, we obligate ourselves to payment of the tax which, by democratic procedures, a majority of our citizens have imposed upon us.” Mohler felt that if you were going to conscientiously object to the taxes on your income, you should do so by refusing the income in the first place: “It seems to me that, in the case of refusal to pay taxes, the removal [of the dissenter from the democratically-chosen endeavors] should precede and prevent acceptance of the income on which the tax is paid.” But he didn’t think that was such a great idea either.
He felt that the tax resister’s quest to morally isolate himself from the decisions of the democratic polis was futile, and that he should instead accept his share of guilt for those decisions and begin from there.
On the other hand, Virgil Rose, in a letter in the issue (source) “was moved with deep spiritual elation” by the news of Brethren war tax resisters.
Rose tried to contradict some of the arguments against war tax resistance.
For example, the individual contribution to the modern war budget, he says, dwarfs the tiny head tax in Judea that Jesus spoke of, and so they cannot be directly compared; and the idea that he straightforwardly counseled the payment of a tax to Rome contradicts the whole point of the render-unto-Cæsar parable.
Rose also wasn’t impressed with Mohler’s democratic theory, though as I interpret it, it seems they were talking past each other on this point (Mohler responded in the issue).
His conclusion:
Let us not shrug off the pricks of conscience that disturb us as we witness the courageous decisions these Brethren are marking.
What defense have we before God if knowingly and without protest we supply money to buy instruments for the destruction of our fellow men?
Russ Montgomery also chimed in, in the issue (source). “I would like to congratulate [Charles Zunkel] on the courage to take such a stand.
When such bold action is taken by leaders it seems to make them worthy of the name.”
The issue brought an update about Maurice McCrackin (source):
Presbytery Suspends Minister Who Refused to Pay Income Tax
The Rev. Maurice F.
McCrackin, pacifist Presbyterian minister who for some twelve years has refused to pay a major portion of his income taxes, has been suspended indefinitely by the Cincinnati Presbytery from his ministry.
Mr.
McCrackin has been pastor of the West Cincinnati-St. Barnabas church, a racially integrated mission congregation supported jointly by the Cincinnati Presbytery and the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio.
A spokesman for the Presbytery explained that Mr. McCrackin was suspended not for his stand on income taxes but for disobeying the law by ignoring a summons from the Internal Revenue Service, an offense for which he served a six-month prison sentence.
Many of the minister’s parishioners were reported sympathetic with his refusal to pay most of his income taxes on the ground that they were used for military purposes and that war is a sin.
The lead editorial in the issue (Morse again) again promoted conscientious tax resistance:
Just about the time that Valentine Byler, an Amish farmer in Pennsylvania, was ready to start his spring plowing, the Interal Revenue Service seized his three work horses and sold them at auction.
The reason was that Byler, who is conscientiously opposed to Social Security, had refused to pay a self-employment tax for that purpose.
Many members of the Amish sect regard Social Security as a form of insurance, and they are opposed to it. They have consistently refused to accept its benefits and do not take a Social Security number. While agreeing to the normal taxes on their property, they object to paying the Social Security tax required of farmers.
Thus we have another of those ironical situations in which the government finds itself [ba]nishing some of its most thrifty and self-reliant citizens.
Fortunately, as a result of the Byler case, several bills have now been introduced in Congress which would allow persons who are conscientiously opposed to Social Security to be excused from participating either in its support or its benefits.
We hope that some legal provision can be made for the benefit of those independent persons who have such scruples.
Many of us who would argue in favor of Social Security and even urge that it become available to more people still recognize the rights of conscience.
We respect the integrity of citizens who, like the Amish, may have some unique ideas as to how they contribute to the general welfare.
At the same time, is it not just as reasonable for the federal government to give some consideration to the scruples of citizens who are conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for war purposes?
A friend who is employed in the Treasury Department tells us it should not be too difficult for Congress to set up a general fund for nonmilitary purposes to which the tax payments of peace-minded citizens could be directed.
This would not satisfy all the concerns raised by taxprotesters, but it might at least provide an alternative more acceptable than the present arrangement.
A wise government should be able to find some way of conserving the conscientious contributions of citizens who cannot conform to policies they regard as wrong but who still desire to serve in constructive ways.
In the issue, an S.
Mohler (no idea if there’s any relation to the John Mohler referred to above) wrote in (source).
This letter began by saying that “in recent years I have read about a few Brethren suffering imprisonment for refusing to pay income taxes, because of the government’s military use of them.” I think this cannot be factually correct, as there were not very many Brethren war tax resisters at this point, and I don’t know of any who had yet been imprisoned for it.
Be that as it may, Mohler continues by saying that such “imprisonment for nonpayment of income taxes can be honorably and approvedly avoided” by increasing tax-deductible charitable contributions to the point where you do not owe taxes.
Mohler suggests that this is the method he or she has been using for “the past ten or fifteen years.”
Andrew R. Shelly, of the Board of Missions in the General Conference Mennonite Church, wrote in to second that suggestion, in the issue (source).
“Why should we not adjust our lives so that we can give very much more and at the same time materially reduce that which we pay directly to the war effort?”
(See ♇ 5 September and 9 September 2018 for Shelly’s contributions on this theme to the Mennonite Gospel Herald.)
The Brethren Evangelist was much more restrained in its coverage.
They did publish this wire service piece about Maurice McCrackin in the issue (source):
Presbytery Suspends Minister Who Wouldn’t Pay Income Taxes
Cincinnati, O. (EP)—
A pacifist Presbyterian minister who for some 12 years has refused to pay a major portion of his income taxes, has now been suspended indefinitely by the Cincinnati Presbytery.
The move not only halts his ministry but prevents his receiving communion in the church.
The Rev. Maurice F. McCrackin has been pastor of the West Cincinnati-St. Barnabas Church, a racially integrated mission congregation supported jointly by the Cincinnati Presbytery and the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio.
An Episcopal diocese spokesman explained that although the mission is a co-operative project in its religious program, disciplinary jurisdiction rests with the Presbytery since Mr. McCrackin is an ordained Presbyterian clergyman.
A spokesman for the Presbytery said that Mr. McCrackin has appealed this suspension to the Presbyterian Synod of Ohio, but it was reported unofficially that his only hope for reinstatement would be a formal declaration to the Presbytery that he would pay his income taxes in the future.
It was explained that Mr. McCrackin was suspended not for his stand on income taxes, but for disobeying the law by ignoring a summons from the Internal Revenue Service, an offense for which he served a six-month prison sentence.
Presbytery has been studying the case for nearly a year.
I did not notice any mentions of war tax or war bond refusal in The Etownian, The Pilgrim, the Brethren Missionary Herald, or Bible Monitor in .
The war tax resistance debate raged in the letters-to-the-editor column of the Gospel Messenger in (though other Brethren periodicals ignored the issue entirely so far as I could see).
In one of the letters from that I noted yesterday, an S. Mohler had recommended that people who had conscientious scruples about contributing their taxes to military spending should increase their charitable giving to the point where they no longer owe taxes.
In the issue, Rollin E. Pepper threw some cold water on that suggestion (source), noting that the law limits the amount of charitable deductions that a taxpayer can claim.
The debate continued in the letters column of the issue, in which Charles W. Wampler said “it would be impossible to run a government allowing such action [tax resistance] by its citizens” (source).
I expect that if the government would allow people to pay tax only for the things that they approve the majority of the people would pay much less tax.
Some might even find excuses not to pay any tax.
Certainly no good Brethren would want to follow a course that would destroy our government even though it is not perfect.
A editorial from editor Kenneth Morse tried to put the critics of tax resistance on the defensive:
[Regarding] the stand taken several months ago by a Brethren minister who refuses to pay taxes to be used for war purposes.
Several of our readers were quick to disagree with him, but hardly any one came forth with a more constructive way of witnessing against the use of tax money for destruction.
You say you do not like the idea of tax refusal, mass demonstrations, or such public protests against the drift toward annihilation?
Then show us a better way to witness.
O.E. Gibson wrote in to the issue to promote civil disobedience against military taxation as a way of pressuring the government to accommodate such conscientious objection (source):
One Way God Works
May I sum up my thinking about one’s refusal to pay tax money to our government for the support of the big military build-up (one half to three fourths of the total of one’s income taxes assessed)?
Men bearing arms were the essential part of a war machine in all history up to within a few years ago.
But recently money has become the essential in plans using guided missiles, etc.
The government came to recognize the consciences of men who were unwilling to bear arms to take life only after some fearless ones were willing to defy the government and accept imprisonment to prove their convictions.
These men caused our laws to be changed.
What had been considered wrong came to be recognized as right.
For similar reasons it can hardly be expected that our government will change its laws to exempt money (allow it to be held back) without being morally forced to do so by conscientious objectors being willing to bear the consequences — probably imprisonment.
History, both Biblical and secular, has borne out this general principle — at critical times governments must be disobeyed if truth is to be vindicated and right standards more generally accepted.
This is one way that God works in history.
In the issue, a reader (whose name is unfortunately obscured in the page scan) wrote in to recommend that conscientious objectors to military taxation try voluntary simplicity instead (source).
Excerpts:
I believe those who wish to withhold income tax would admit that their “way of life,” materially speaking, is supported by the military economy.
I think a more constructive way, and the only consistent practice of withholding such money, is to reduce the standard of living, individually and voluntarily, to more of a subsistence level.
This would mean such a drastic reduction in salary that there would be no income tax due.
It would also mean revising our standards of living, materially speaking, such as mode of travel and home conveniences to what would be necessary if the military preparations and expenditures were suddenly and drastically curtailed.
The writer said that he himself lived economically, but he did not personally practice nor actually advocate this living-below-the-tax-line procedure.
He merely put it forward as being in his opinion more consistent than war tax resistance.
The debate continued to rage.
In the issue, [Jeanne?] Lee Jacoby wrote (source):
On Tax Refusal
I am a firm believer in the refusal to pay war taxes or, more appropriately, the percentage of income taxes which is used for war.
How many Brethren can conscientiously sit back and look at the missiles going up, wasting millions of our hard-earned dollars when there are so many other worthwhile projects for which we ought to be putting our money?
For example, why couldn’t the government use our percentage of the tax for the Peace Corps?
To me this is a wonderful experiment which I hope will continue for a long time.
Also, there are millions of tons of surplus food stored in our warehouses going to waste, and all that is needed is the money to send it to the starving people of the world.
Besides, if America needs allies so badly, there is no better way of obtaining them.…
How great is our concern?
Should we stand for something we know is wrong?
We refuse to bear arms.
Ought we consent to doing something like this which may prove to be even more destructive?
The General Brotherhood Board put forward a report on “the church’s historic peace position” in (source).
It tiptoed around the war tax resistance issue this way:
During the last few years, several voluntary agencies have been exploring with the government the possibility of an alternative tax arrangement.
The Brethren Service Commission has been working with the Friends and the Mennonites in the preparation of such a proposal.
We urge the Brethren Service Commission to continue its efforts to develop an acceptable proposal for an alternative tax arrangement.
Ralph Detrick announced his resistance in a letter published in the issue (source):
Caesar’s Due Portion
Following are excerpts from a recent letter I sent to President Kennedy, Senator William Proxmire, and the Internal Revenue Service.
I did not pay the $7.20 balance due on my income tax this year.… I protest the payment of a tax which supports the military machine and its false security.
There is nothing positive about the level of military involvement to which our country has devoted itself.
It is time to reverse this trend.
I take my stand in opposition to the direction our country is going and instead give my support to a peace-making organization.
I am sending $9.00 to the World Health Organization of the United Nations.… My voice may be small, but it is only when many such voices respond openly to the higher loyalty of God’s supreme law of love, that we as a nation may become a leader in peace rather than in weapons of war.
I often question the wisdom of this action.
I am ignorant of the long-range implications of this witness.
But where does the Christian draw the line at compromise?
Christians compromise out of necessity, and in some cases perhaps the ends justify the means.
Yet, there is also a great need for the person who tries to hold compromise at a minimum on certain issues in order that the plumb line of Christ may bring these issues into focus and reveal their evils.
When the federal budget is pitted against this plumb line, its evils — nuclear testing, the “military-industrial complex,” the waste created by Pentagon pressure — are revealed, creating an issue with which I do not wish to compromise.
Should the day arrive when Caesar’s budget becomes more in tune with God’s law of love, I shall be more than happy to render him his due portion.
A report on the annual conference, from the issue, reported (source):
William Smith, a representative on Standing Committee from Pennsylvania, expressed disappointment that the [General Brotherhood] board had not offered more help to persons who were disturbed by some of the issues involved in paying taxes to be used for war purposes.
Yet with one amendment, largely editorial in nature, the original statement [see above] was adopted by the delegate body.
In the issue, Charles Zunkel wrote in with an update on his family’s war tax resistance, and how they had backed out of it into more of a mild symbolic protest:
Witness by Designation
A little over a year ago, my wife and I decided we should refuse to pay the 75% of our federal income tax which was used for purposes of war.
We so announced to the Internal Revenue Department, the President of the U.S., and to our church through the Gospel Messenger. [see yesterday’s Picket Line]
Following that announcement, we had communication from the U.S. Treasury and the Department of Internal Revenue, and much with members of our own church and some other denominations.
All of the communications from the federal government were most considerate and courteous, a thing we did not always experience with our own Brethren.
The Department of Internal Revenue carefully acknowledged our conscientious scruples but reminded us that Mr. A.J. Muste had lost his case of conscientious tax refusal in the federal tax court, and urged us to pay ours.
In continuing correspondence we reaffirmed that we were not opposed to the payment of tax, but rather to the use to which it was put.
We asked if we might designate it for United Nations, Peace Corps, or Food for Relief, all of which are in the federal budget.
We were told that Internal Revenue did not have authority for the use of the tax money, but rather for its collection.
In discussing the matter with many friends and members of our families, we decided to test out the Internal Revenue on the designation of the tax money.
Accordingly, in paying our third quarter’s payment, we made one check for the 25% undesignated and for the 75% for three quarters, designated in the lower left-hand corner of the check — “For Peaceful purposes: U.N., Peace Corps, etc.”
The checks were cashed without any communication or question.
Since that, we have continued to write two checks, each quarter, designating the one in the fashion indicated.
We took this course of procedure, realizing that eventually the tax would be collected and with an additional 6% penalty.
The federal government will withdraw the tax due from the checking account, if funds are sufficient, or will confiscate property and sell it to secure the amount due.
Rather than make more money available for war purposes by confiscation and penalty, we decided to witness our protest by designated check.
Thus far, we have not tried to probe to discover whether the designated money was channeled as designated for United Nations, Peace Corps, etc. That we may still do at a later date.
We believe the witness can made by designation, at least until we can find some more effective way.
The issue reported on the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., including its decision to uphold the suspension of war tax resisting minister Maurice McCrackin (source).
I. Wayne Keller wrote in to the edition to decry the lawlessness of war tax resistance, and the Messenger’s “tacit, if not expressed approval” of it (source).
He wasn’t too fond of protests either:
“Carrying placards and walking in a public place are the methods of radicals, pressure groups, rioters, and anarchists.
Because they are, the Christian should not use them.”
Keller was joined by L. Wade Bollinger in the , who said that in a democracy “we the people are indeed ‘Caesar’ ” and so we should not be resisting our taxes but exercising our democratic franchise to help direct them (source).
Robert Fritter penned a lengthy rebuttal to these points of view in the issue (source).
Excerpt:
So aware were the early Christians of their primary loyalty to the laws of God rather than man’s laws when the two conflicted that for 300 years they were persecuted for disobeying the laws of the land.
They would not worship the emperor, nor would they take part in war.
They would not bow down to the military state because they knew that it was a stupendous and terrifying god of destruction which froze men into fearsome obedience while proclaiming to be their only salvation.
Those who refuse to pay income tax which feeds the insatiable hunger of this false god of 20th century America also refuse to pay homage to the same god.
A brief report on the Mennonite World Conference from the same issue (source) noted:
A Mennonite professor closed the conference with a speech in which he suggested that Christians who oppose the world power struggle and nuclear weapons might consider withholding payment of taxes which would be spent for military purposes. Dr. Edward G. Kaufman, professor of religion and philosophy at Bethel College in Kansas, said this would be an effective means of preventing nuclear war, but he conceded most people would not adopt his plan.
Harley J. Utter, in the issue, thought that war tax resisters were disregarding all of the nice non-military things the government spends our taxes on.
He also wasn’t a fan of protests: “show-off demonstrations are wrong, that is walks for peace and the like.” (source)
John Forbes wrote in to the same issue, saying in part:
“Thanks be to Bro. Charles Zunkel, whose witness against paying taxes for military purposes should inspire all of us to go and do likewise.”
Today I’ll look at war tax resistance among American Brethren in 1963 by hunting through the archives of Brethren periodicals.
In the issue of the Gospel Messenger, John Forbes introduced the idea of a form of tax resistance as a symbolic protest, rather than as a conscientious imperative (source):
Suggestions for Taxpayers
For the benefit of the readers of the Messenger and all others across the Brotherhood interested in the peace position, I would like to quote three statements and make a suggestion.
“We urge the Brethren Service Commission to continue its efforts to develop an acceptable proposal for an alternative tax arrangement” (Report of GBB to Annual Conference, adopted).
“My feeling has been that the initiative on this has to come from taxpayers around the country rather than from any organized effort here in Washington… that until there is widespread nonpayment of taxes by those opposed to war, there will be no change in government policy” (Edward F. Snyder, Friends Committee on National Legislation, letter to the undersigned ).
“I am as convinced as ever that all those who are opposed to preparations for nuclear extermination and who will owe any federal income tax should refuse some token amount.
I suggest holding back $10, an amount large enough to be noticed but small enough to avoid excessive penalty.
When Internal Revenue took $14.49 from my bank account, the ‘statutary addition’ was only 21 cents.
The year before, when I owed $5.90, it did not bother to collect at all.
“This ‘token ten’ could be given to some constructive project, and IRS so informed in a letter explaining the objection to over half of it being otherwise used for destruction.
Enough pacifists are interested in this, I feel, to make it become a significant force for peace” (Franklin Zahn to editor of the Peacemaker, ).
I think everyone in the Church of the Brethren with a concern for peace should take up this suggestion and apply it when income tax is due in April, if they can.
I am willing to act as coordinator of this project, if one is needed and someone in Elgin doesn’t want the job.
If enough Brethren and others take this action now, we shall surely see action in Congress or in the Treasury Department before long.
In a “Brethren Ministers’ Peace Retreat” was held.
The Church teachings on pacifism and peacemaking were given a thorough going-over.
Dale Aukerman reported on the retreat in the issue (source).
Aukerman had himself come out as a war tax resister (see ♇ 31 May 2020), so he would likely have been attuned to any mention of it, but except for one mention of Civil War-era refusal to hire substitutes for military service (but payment of tax), his article on the Retreat is silent on the issue of taxes.
The issue published a brief dispatch about Quaker war tax resister Arthur Evans (source), but a more in-depth dispatch appeared in the Brethren Evangelist so I’ll save it for that section, below.
The minister of the Unitarian Universalist church in San Anselmo Calif., has declined to pay sixty-one percent of his federal income tax on the grounds that it would go for “carefully planned machinery to kill millions of human beings.”
The Dutch-born pastor, Karel F. Botermans, who was a leader in the Netherlands underground during the Nazi occupation, sent the remaining thirty-nine percent of his tax to the Internal Revenue Service.
In the protest letter he sent to President Kennedy and Secretary of Defense McNamara he asserted the belief that he had international law on his side.
He referred to the Nurnberg trials, “where it was stated by our Allied judges that, in actions of genocide, every person in that society involved in those actions is to be held responsible.”
The pacifist clergyman points out that he would gladly pay the withheld sixty-one percent of his tax if the U.S. pledged to spend the money for other methods of settling international differences.
In the issue, O.E. Gibson raised a series of questions about conscientious objection, suitable for consideration by Brethren.
Several of these concerned war funding, and the others seemed designed to guide the consideration of those (source).
Excerpt:
Is there a difference in principle in supporting one’s government as a soldier and supporting its war plans with money?
Are those persons in the U.S. (some forty or fifty) who are openly refusing to give their money in tax to support the military plans of our government more radical or less realistic than the conscientious objectors who would not submit to the draft in World War Ⅰ?
Allowing that refusal may mean much more than a few months in prison — that it may mean a complete change in one’s way or standard of living as is the case with most of those who are refusing, should we condemn or should we uphold them?
Would history or reason suggest that a law allowing that one might divert his tax money into religious or peace work be passed by our Congress without a comparable amount of suffering as that endured to get our “alternative service” law?
The issue of The Brethren Evangelist printed a wire service article about Quaker war tax resister Arthur Evans:
Colorado Springs, Colo. (EP)—
A Colorado Quaker who long has refused voluntary payment of that portion of his federal taxes earmarked for military spending plans the same course of action .
For 20 years, Dr. Arthur Evans, a Denver physician, has donated the amount of money equal to his tax burden of military spending to a charity and has sent the receipt to the Internal Revenue Service.
Every year the IRS attaches his bank account, collects the amount due and adds a 6 per cent interest charge.
, because the IRS was “using the information I was voluntarily giving for evil purposes,” Dr. Evans did not file any federal return.
To make up for his tax liability, the physician sent the IRS five checks for $200 each — payable to the United Nations, the Peace Corps, and the AID Program.
Dr. Evans contends he is meeting his obligation by contributing to organizations such as the United Nations, which are supported at least in part by the U.S. government.
The IRS, in returning the checks, stated “they have no connection with any tax liability and cannot be accepted by this office.”
The Quaker, who terms military spending as a “Doomsday Machine,” continues to pay his state income taxes because they have no military spending connection.
After a flurry of interest in war tax resistance in the early 1960s, things simmered down a bit just as the focus of the tax resistance movement shifted from conscientious objection against nuclear-era militarism to protesting against the U.S. war in Vietnam.
A letter from Mary Blocher Smeltzer and Ralph E. Smeltzer to the Director of the IRS, announcing their tax resistance, took up a page in the issue of the Messenger (source):
We are filing our Income Tax Return with our District Director of Internal Revenue, but we are refusing to pay the $21.83 balance of the tax due, for reasons of conscience.
During the years it has been our practice to accompany our return with a statement protesting and strongly opposing the use of any of our tax money for military purposes, for war, and for preparation for war, and requesting that it be used only for the peaceful nonmilitary activities of our government.
Last year we also refused to pay the balance of the tax due, for reasons of conscience.
We are both Christian pacifists.
One of us is a minister employed by the General Brotherhood Board of the Church of the Brethren.
The other is a public school teacher.
We enthusiastically approve and support the constructive services and peaceful programs of our government.
But we conscientiously object to war and preparation for war by reason of our religious training and belief.
We especially oppose our country’s present program of producing and stockpiling nuclear, chemical, biological, and other weapons of mass destruction which are now capable of destroying the human race.
We equally oppose similar programs by all other nations.
We would like to designate all of our income tax for the purposes of disarmament and preparation for disarmament, for increasing the constructive services and peaceful programs of our government, and for increasing the constructive and peaceful programs of the United Nations.
But the Internal Revenue Code makes no provision for such designations. We are urging our legislators to work for such provisions and amendments in the code.
Most of our income tax has been withheld by our employers and forwarded to you.
We have had no control over this action by our employers who in turn must follow this procedure by law.
However, as individuals we retain the choice as to whether we will pay the balance of the tax called for by the government, or whether we will not.
We have decided to protest the use of our income tax for military purposes by refusing to forward the balance of our tax called for.
We recognize that the United States government may impose penalties upon us for not paying this portion of our income tax.
We are prepared to accept the consequences of our Christian conscientious objection to the payment of our tax, at least seventy-five percent of which now goes for military purposes.
We do not desire to receive any personal privilege or gain from this refusal to pay the balance of our tax.
We are contributing an equivalent amount to the Brethren Service Commission… for its program of peace and relief at home and abroad.
A receipt for this contribution is enclosed.
A roster of 360 persons, among them professors, scientists, writers, doctors, clergymen, and entertainers, made public their refusal to pay voluntary part or all of their federal income taxes.
As critics of U.S. policy in Vietnam, the signers declared that American forces there are “clearly being used in violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and the United Nations Charter.”
Their statement, published in newspapers this spring, deplored “the spectacle of the United States with its jet bombers, helicopters, fragmentation and napalm bombs, and disabling gas, carrying on an endless war against the hungry, scantily armed Vietnamese guerrillas and civilians” and compared such action to Italian atrocities in Ethiopia and Russia’s intervention in Hungary.
It further drew parallels between “the indifference of Americans to the crimes being committed in their names, by their brothers and with their tax money” and the indifference of most Germans to the slaughter of Jews.
Two of the signers, Ralph and Mary Smeltzer, Elgin, Ill., have refused to pay voluntarily the unwithheld portion of their federal income tax for four years, opposing the use of tax moneys for military purposes.
The outcome has been the government’s attaching the balance in wages.
“While only the unwithheld portion of the tax is all we have control over, we protest the sixty percent of every tax dollar used for military purposes,” said Mr. Smeltzer, who is Brotherhood director of peace and social education.
“At the same time we voice approval and support for the constructive and peaceful programs of the government.
“If enough people express themselves a change in the law may be made allowing people to designate how their income tax will be used.”
Mr. Smeltzer added, “or the program and policy of military expenditures may be reduced.
“Whether our actions do any good or not, we have to do what we conscientiously feel.”
This open letter from Russell F. Helstern appeared in the issue:
It’s tax time again!
Tax paying is a privilege and a responsibility of every American citizen.
To my knowledge I have never voted against a bond issue or a tax levy, nor have I ever been delinquent in the payment of my taxes.
Good government and the needed community services can be secured and maintained only through the willingness of citizens to assume this civic responsibility.
Right now my desk is cluttered with income tax forms, family ledgers and accounts, scribbling paper, and a box of aspirins within easy reach.
The aspirins are not alone for eyestrain and headache from long hours of juggling elusive figures but serve more as an opiate for a troubled conscience.
As a Christian and a responsible world citizen I am genuinely disturbed as I sit here ready to write my income tax check.
For many years I have met the dilemma of conscience by sending with each income tax return and check a letter of protest for paying that portion of my tax that would be used for military purposes and requesting that it be allocated to humanitarian and legitimate constructive areas of service but at the same time knowing it would all go into the same till.
With poised pen ready to write the check, I become suddenly aware that last year’s income tax check helped to purchase the bombs that fell on Hanoi, tearing huge, gaping craters in residential areas quite remote from military targets, as Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times has informed us by photos and news dispatches.
It was my income tax check of last year that helped purchase napalm bombs that were dropped indiscriminately on areas of South Vietnam, inflicting unimaginable suffering and death on innocent and helpless women and children who, by the remotest stretch of imagination, could not be held responsible for any part of this conflict.
It was my income tax check of last year and the year before that helped pay the cost of the defoliation of the Vietnamese rice fields and croplands, accentuating the problem of hunger and starvation in a world much of which is already locked in a grim race with death from mass starvation.
The pen is still poised and I am deeply troubled.
I stand before almighty God, who holds me individually responsible for the use I make of the resources he has placed at my disposal.
(The Nurenberg war criminal trials taught us that!)
I am not absolved of guilt for crimes committed at my country’s insistence.
And so as a Christian and one who tries to be a responsible world citizen I confess I am deeply disturbed.
I’m not sure what’s going on here.
After years of frequent coverage of war tax resistance inside and outside the church, now the magazine retreats to reprinting some timid hand-wringing about being “deeply disturbed” about paying taxes for war crimes without even alluding to resistance as an option.
War tax resistance came up at the Annual Conference in as the Church voted to issue “A Call for Peace in Vietnam” (source):
One specific step urged for congregations proved to be the subject of some debate.
It was a proposal that congregations should oppose legislation which would increase taxes designed specifically to support the war.
One delegate was eager to have this sentence eliminated from the statement, but his amendment failed.
Another delegate proposed that a sentence be added that would urge members to consider seriously whether they should continue to pay income taxes that might be used for the support of the war.
This amendment also failed to gain support.
In a later issue, remarks of a Catholic observer of the Brethren conference were summarized this way: “[he] summed up the Brethren statement on Vietnam and recounted a plea by a Midwest minister urging members to consider whether they should pay income tax in light of its heavy use for war purposes. ‘The assembly listened politely to the young man and then defeated his amendment.’ ” (source)
The issue included a “Special Report” on phone tax resistance as an option for people who wanted to resist a “war tax”:
“The act is small but the meaning is large. It clearly says that this war is not our war.”
In its “Call for Peace in Vietnam” (see [above]) Annual Conference in urged congregations to oppose legislation which would increase taxes designed specifically to support the war in Vietnam.
One such tax already enacted (though not mentioned in the Annual Conference statement) is the ten percent federal excise tax on telephone charges.
The tax, which once had been reduced to three percent and was due to be dropped entirely in , was reinstated in .
Rep. Wilbur D. Mills (D., Ark.), who managed the tax legislation in the House, is quoted in the Congressional Record () as saying:
“It is clear that the Vietnam and only the Vietnam operation makes this bill necessary.”
War protest: In protest to the Vietnam “operation” — particularly the mass bombings, napalming, support of the Ky government, and other aspects of U.S. military involvement — a group of several hundred persons have begun boycotting the telephone tax on the grounds that it is singularly a war tax.
The refusal is treated by phone companies as a matter between the individual and the government, and phone service has not been interrupted.
In fact, according to some sources, the telephone company has rather welcomed the protests, for it has long opposed the excise tax, though for a different reason.
At Staten Island, New York, the telephone company reportedly reminded a tax-refusing customer that she had neglected to withhold the tax in one payment, and it credited her account with the amount of the tax.
Sponsor: Promoted by the Committee for Non-Violent Action (5 Beekman Street, Room 1033, New York, N.Y. 10038), the campaign of telephone tax refusal has been dubbed, “Hang Up on War!”
According to CNVA staff member Valerie Herres in New York, some 800 persons have made known their refusal to CNVA.
Colleague Karl Meyer in Chicago says the actual number of telephone tax protesters likely exceeds 2,000, including members of at least two Church of the Brethren congregations.
In withholding the excise tax from payments, individuals are urged always to include a note explaining the omission.
The CNVA asks also that protesters inform them of their stand.
In , after the Chicago Daily News carried a front-page story on the campaign, the district director of Internal Revenue within two weeks sent to the withholding parties first notices of direct assessment.
However, for most of the recipients no actual collection was yet made several months later.
The CNVA makes clear to tax refusers that in the severest application of the law, under the criminal penalties act, one who “willfully fails to pay” the phone tax could possibly be charged with a misdemeanor, under Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code, and be imprisoned up to a year and fined up to $10,000.
It is also possible that one could be charged with attempt to “evade or defeat” the phone tax, under a section carrying a stiffer penalty.
On the record: Testimony of Internal Revenue Service officials on the matter before the House Subcommittee Hearings on Appropriations for the Departments of Treasury Post Office, and Executive (as quoted in Peacemaker magazine ) went as follows:
Mr. Robison (congressman).
That is income tax.
Unpaid excise taxes will be pretty small per individual, however, unless it accumulates over a period of years.
Mr. Cohen (IRS director).
If necessary we collect small amounts, and we have.
I think it will be less convenient for them than it will for us.
Mr. Bacon (assistant director).
We have about eighty-five cases pending in Illinois and above thirty-five in Ohio.
It is a nuisance situation because the tax is small.
Mr. Cohen.
But we do not intend to sit by.
People cannot pick and choose which laws of the United States they will obey and those which they will not.
Mr. Robison.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I want to know what your policy is.
Mr. Cohen.
We intend to vigorously follow up any of these cases and collect the tax.
We may let several months accumulate and do it all at once.
Exaggeration? In reflecting on the above testimony, Karl Meyer of the Chicago Workshop in Nonviolence commented to Messenger:
“This exaggerates somewhat the vigor of their determination.
I have been refusing for over a year (and income taxes for seven years), and they have yet to collect a cent from me.
To my knowledge they have thus far collected from only two or three of the Illinois refusers, and in those cases only the initial couple months of unpaid tax.
In two cases the taxes were taken from bank accounts after unsuccessful visits from IRS agents.
In one case a bank charged a fee of $10 for handling this transaction, and in the other case a bank charged $5.
In a third case the tax was collected by attachment against a paycheck.
Agents have visited several other refusers and have sometimes made threats of serious action, but in the three cases cited the serious action turned out to be no more than collection by seizure.”
Toward what end? What is the point of refusal?
Mr. Meyer put it this way:
“The future will be different only if we change our lives.
The act is small, but the meaning is large:
This war is not our war, and we are willing to struggle to be on the side of life.”
From some Brethren involved in the telephone tax “hang up” came the explanation that it is one direct means, small yet tangible, of dissenting to the United States’ action in Vietnam.
“It probably will not change government policy,” one member said, “but it does something to me.
It lays my witness on the line.”
In light of the vote by Annual Conference delegates against amending “A Call to Peace” to express support for income tax refusal as a means of peace action, many Brethren likely would be reticent to join in telephone tax refusal.
Still, even the prospect of income tax dissent is up for study by the Brethren Service Commission.
Prompted by a request last fall from the Pacific Southwest Conference board, a five-member committee has been named to explore federal income tax alternatives.
In the meantime, for those who choose, telephone tax refusal appears as a modest but viable means of voicing concern over the Vietnam war.
In response, Ethel Weddle wrote in to the issue to say that she didn’t have any reluctance in paying her taxes in spite of her disapproval of the government’s military policy.
Civil disobedience is too dangerous, she thought, as it opens the door to all manner of lawbreaking: “giving those people with less than Christian ideals the go-go sign to disobey, rob, destroy, and kill” (source).
Horner M. Eby replied to this in the issue (source). Excerpt:
Ethel Weddle makes some cogent points in her letter… Withholding federal telephone excise tax is a rather picayune gesture.
I am doing it.
The Internal Revenue Service is not long-suffering.
The IRS man has visited our home twice and has levied against our checking account both times, so that we are never more than eight months in arrears on this tiny tax.
If I really meant business, I should reduce my income enough to eliminate my income tax, which is a hundred times greater.
Then, of course, I could not give to the church an amount comparable to my income tax, nor to the FOR, the AESC, the ACLU, SNCC, SCLC, SOS, the Chicago Area Draft Resisters, and the DuPage Draft Resisters.
After something of a lull in the mid-1960s, in the war tax resistance debate filled the pages of the Church of the Brethren’s Messenger magazine.
(Other Brethren periodicals were silent on the issue that year so far as I could tell.)
In the General Brotherhood Board decided it was time to polish up the peace witness of the Church of the Brethren.
And in preparation for this, it produced “a paper clarifying various stances on the payment of taxes for military uses… [which] cited various options now open and urged efforts to seek a further alternative for those who, because of conscience, oppose supporting war causes.” (source)
This included “urging the government to adopt a provision by which persons conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for military purposes may be granted some alternative, much as conscientious objection is permitted in draft legislation.”
On the matter of alternatives in the payment of federal income tax for war uses, a study committee report was presented and adopted by the General Brotherhood Board.
The report was prompted by various inquiries by Brethren, the most recent from the Pacific Southwest Conference board of administration.
The report enumerated as present options (1) paying the taxes, (2) attaching to the payment a statement of protest on the portion used for war purposes, (3) holding one’s income to a level not subject to taxation, and (4) refusing to pay all taxes or the portion of taxes used militarily, as a witness and a protest.
While not endorsing one alternative above another, the paper, like the proposed revision in the Annual Conference Statement on War, did recommend that efforts be made to secure tax laws permitting a constructive alternative to the payment of income taxes for war.
The board statement also proposed that publicity be given to such steps as the withholding of the federal telephone tax levied in support of the war in Vietnam.
Towards implementation, the board asked the administrative committee of the Brotherhood staff to study the implications of the paper and to bring subsequent proposals in .
One type of question raised by board members in discussion was whether the board itself, in its own operations, might withhold payment on the telephone tax.
A Brethren Peace Fellowship began to congeal, and in one of its early regional meetings: “At several points discussion centered on the possibilities for tax refusal and draft resistance and on proposing an Annual Conference statement on civil disobedience” (source).
The Annual Conference did end up putting out a statement based on the General Brotherhood Board’s recommendation (source):
Another new section deals with taxes for war purposes.
The statement on this point was amended in discussion on the floor of Conference to include a preliminary sentence indicating that although Brethren accept the need for paying taxes for constructive purposes, the church opposes the use of taxes by the government for war purposes and military expenditures.
Specific suggestions dealing with approaches to paying war taxes on the part of members were put in a permissive form, leaving the action to the conscience of the individual.
At the same time, churches and church-related institutions were urged to study the problem of paying taxes for war purposes and even to make a careful review of funds that they might possibly have invested in bonds that would support war.
The approach of civil disobedience is alive in our day.
Knowing that the telephone tax we pay finances the Vietnam war, some individuals do not include money in their payments for the federal tax.
They write across their bills, “No money for war,” or some similar statement.
A new surtax requiring ten percent additional tax money earmarked for Vietnam has been demanded by our government.
Some who believe that war is contrary to the will of God will question themselves, “Is it right to ask our young men to refuse to bear arms even if for some this may mean jail, if we as adults are willing to finance the devastation?”
The edition included an article that discussed the recent progress of the discussion about war tax resistance, and the search for a legal alternative, in the Church of the Brethren:
For the Christian pacifist, where is the conflict of loyalty to God and to the state felt more pervasively than in taxation?
And as the nation’s military expenditures skyrocket, persons of peace persuasion are moved to ask: If alternatives are allowable when it comes to putting one’s time and body on the military line, ought not a similar provision pertain to putting one’s taxes there?
The answer, as called for by a variety of concerned spokesmen, is for a legal, constructive, alternative tax arrangement for persons conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for war and military purposes.
The appeal for such a plan has been heard off and on for a quarter of a century.
For the Church of the Brethren, the matter came more sharply into focus when Annual Conference inserted in its Statement on War a section on taxes for war purposes.
Alternative use: “While the Church of the Brethren recognizes the responsibility of all citizens to pay taxes for the constructive purposes of government, we oppose the use of taxes by the government for war purposes and military expenditures,” the new section declared.
“For those who are conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for war purposes, the church seeks government provision for an alternative use of such money for peaceful, non-military purposes.”
The statement, recognizing that members will differ in their responses, cited four positions on the payment of federal taxes for war purposes which are evident:
to pay taxes willingly.
to pay the taxes but to express a protest to the government.
to refuse to pay all or part of the taxes as a witness and a protest.
to limit voluntarily one’s income or use of taxable services to a low enough level so as not to be subject to taxation.
To implement the concern, the Conference statement urged all members, congregations, institutions, and boards to pursue the matter with serious study and to act “in response to their study, to the leading of conscience, and to their understanding of the Christian faith.”
Dilemma: The appeal for study and action was prompted by concern over the “ever-growing portion” of the federal budget going for military purposes, according to a statement on “Taxes for War Purposes” adopted by the Brethren Service Commission .
The commission paper pointed up the dilemma which this escalation of war funds poses for “peace-minded people and conscientious objectors to war who put their trust in the power of love, non-violence, and international cooperation rather than military might.”
Sparked by a request from the Pacific Southwest Conference Board of Administration for a study of federal income tax alternatives, the Brethren Service study committee asserted that the church’s stance historically has been to oppose participation in war; at the same time it has taught responsible citizenship.
“The Christian should appreciate and support the worthy functions which government performs.
He should willingly obey the state in matters on which he has no contrary moral conviction.
On the other hand, he should be alert to occasions when government neglects or misuses its trust from God.
When he is profoundly convinced that God forbids what the state demands, it is his responsibility to express his convictions.
Such expression may include disobedience of the state,” the commission paper quoted from the Annual Conference statement on “Church, State, and Christian Citizenship.”
Pre-Vietnam: In its own background study the Brethren Service committee noted that while the nonpayment of taxes on conscientious grounds has been a movement of the past 25 years, the concern has “a long and honorable history.
Early Christians refused to pay taxes to Caesar’s pagan temple in Rome; many historic peace church members refused to pay taxes during the French and Indian wars, the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War; strugglers for independence in India, under Gandhi’s influence, refused to pay taxes to the British Empire.”
The study committee recounted a series of efforts which the Brethren Service Commission has made in seeking tax alternatives.
The General Brotherhood Board had urged explorations with government “to the end that an acceptable constructive alternative be provided for all those persons who, by reason of religious training and belief, conscientiously object to the payment of that portion of income taxes going for military defense.”
At Brethren Service’s initiative, representatives of eight peace agencies, each genuinely interested in seeking a suitable tax alternative, met in in Washington, D.C., for a strategy session.
The consensus was that there was little likelihood of the government’s providing a tax alternative until tax protestors and objectors created sufficient administrative difficulties that the government would decide it would be less vexing to provide a tax alternative.
Subsequent efforts by a follow-up committee and other efforts in liaison with the Mennonites and the Friends proved to no avail.
Legislators who had introduced measures calling for tax credits for contributions to the United Nations, which had been looked upon as possibly one alternative designation of tax funds, received little support from the public or from Congress for their proposals.
In a response to a related query the Annual Conference urged Brethren Service to continue efforts to develop an acceptable proposal for an alternative tax arrangement.
According to the study committee, all efforts to date have failed to find or gain sufficient support for a tax law provision or administrative formula that would satisfy Congress, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and conscientious objectors.
Wider forum: For the next step, the appeal of Annual Conference and of the Brethren Service Commission is for the question on the payment of taxes for war purposes to receive a wider airing among members and congregations.
Copies of two major resource items, “Statement on War” and “Taxes for War Purposes,” were mailed in to pastors and to Witness and Brethren Service chairmen.
The issue of Messenger [see below] will feature a symposium with spokesmen for each of the four stances on the handling of tax payments.
A response coupon in the same issue will enable readers to report their own stand on the payment of three taxes used heavily for war use, the federal excise tax on telephone service, the recent ten percent surtax on income tax, and the income tax itself.
The names of persons willing to have their positions identified may be published.
Readers also are invited to submit letters to Readers Write to share testimonies and viewpoints on the matter.
Institutions and boards are likewise asked to study the payment of war taxes.
The General Board, through its Administrative Committee is examining the implications at the denominational level.
Ralph E. Smeltzer, who is coordinating the study emphasis, stressed the hope “that individuals, classes, study groups church boards, congregations, and all church institutions and related boards will come to their own thought-out positions.”
Accompanying that article was this sidebar, taken from the statement on “Taxes for War Purposes”:
Paying war taxes
Present positions
Four Positions on the payment of federal taxes for war purposes are evident:
Payment of taxes.
Persons who favor the government’s war and military policies willingly pay their taxes for these purposes.
Other taxpayers judge the constructive functions of government to outweigh the unacceptable activities.
Others feel that responsible citizenship requires the payment of all taxes.
Some who oppose the use of taxes for war feel that the risks and efforts involved in opposing such use of taxes are not worth the negligible results.
Payment of taxes under protest.
Persons who follow this alternative usually file a letter with appropriate government officials protesting the use of any of their tax money for war purposes or military expenditures.
Frequently they urge the government to use their tax money only for peaceful and constructive purposes…
Sometimes such persons ask government leaders to amend the nation’s tax laws, especially the income tax law, to provide an alternative opportunity… to designate the use of their tax dollars for peaceful and constructive purposes either through United States government functions or United Nations operations.
Limitation of income or use of service to nontaxable level.
Some persons are led by their consciences to limit voluntarily their income to such a low level that it will not be subject to federal taxation for war purposes.
Likewise they may not install a telephone or use other services which are subject to similar federal taxation.
They may endeavor to avoid participating in all those aspects of economic life which contribute to or support war and military operations…
Nonpayment of taxes or portions thereof.
Persons who follow this alternative refuse to pay all or part of the taxes asked by the government.
They engage in this form of civil disobedience because they conscientiously object to the use of their money by the government for war or military purposes and because they want to make a more vigorous protest against the government’s war policy and military policy.
Sometimes these persons contribute an equal amount to the United Nations or a private peace agency as a positive witness to their position.
The Federal Income Tax and the Federal Telephone Tax are presently the taxes most frequently refused by conscientious objectors.
Refusal to pay such taxes might possibly be considered a violation of Internal Revenue Code, Section 7203, which would be a misdemeanor subject to a fine up to $10,000 and jail up to one year.
However, the experiences of conscientious objectors to federal taxes for war purposes during the past several years indicate that the government is not interested in pressing possible criminal charges but in trying to collect the taxes here or there with interest.
The Internal Revenue Service usually attaches the salary or bank account of the nonpayer and collects the tax plus six percent interest from the date the tax was due.
The nonpayment of the Federal Income Tax or portion thereof is carried out by those who have payment control over all or part of their income tax return and who refuses to pay all or a portion of the money owed.
The nonpayment of the Federal Telephone Tax or a portion thereof is carried out by refusing to pay that part of one's monthly telephone bill and sending with each remittance a written explanation of why that portion is not included.
Telephone companies have indicated that refusal to pay this tax will not result in interruption of telephone service.
Telephone companies turn over to the Internal Revenue Sendee the responsibility for collecting such unpaid taxes.
The phone company treats refusal as a matter between the customer and the government.
Some companies continue to carry the refused tax on the telephone bill as an “unpaid balance,” others do not.
The issue asked four authors to each give his perspective on the war tax issue (“Debaters of the war tax question include Russell V. Bollinger, dean of students at Manchester College in Indiana; Charles E. Zunkel, pastor of the Crest Manor church, South Bend, Indiana; David B. Rittenhouse, pastor of several congregations in West Virginia; and William Faw, pastor of the Douglas Park church in Chicago”) and included a survey readers could fill out and send in to the Messenger in which they could say which action they were taking:
In recent actions of Annual Conference and of the General Board, members of the church have been urged to study seriously the problem of paying taxes used for war purposes and to act in response to their study.
The church recognizes that its members will believe and act differently in regard to the payment of taxes when a significant percentage goes for war purposes and military expenditures.
Four major positions on the payment of federal taxes for war purposes are evident:
Some will pay the taxes willingly; some will pay the taxes but express a protest to the government; some will voluntarily limit their incomes or use of taxable services to a low enough level so that they are not subject to federal taxation; and some will refuse to pay all or part of the taxes as a witness and a protest.
As an aid to discussion and action Messenger has invited four spokesmen to comment on these alternative positions.
There is also a response form that may be used individually or by groups to indicate how readers stand on this controversial topic. ―Editor
Why I Pay Taxes Used for War Purposes
by Russell V. Bollinger
Though I write in defense of the first position, namely, that the Christian ought to pay his taxes willingly, it should be clear that I have no objection to the second, which adds only some form of verbal or written protest against the defense budget.
Those who take the third position seem to me to be evading the issue.
They resolve their personal dilemma by abdicating their responsibility to society.
The fourth position constitutes an abdication of personal responsibility in an attempt to correct a social evil.
It should be very clear that I share and have always supported the Brethren peace position, which can be amply documented from the New Testament.
Under debate here are particular forms of protest or obstruction against war.
Such forms of protest, like all actions of Christians and of the church, must be tested against what Jesus both said and did.
In order to identify and to underscore some basic considerations affecting this discussion, it seems to me necessary to examine an assumption on which many such actions as tax withholding have been proposed and some implemented.
Considerable promotion has been given, for example, to the slogan, “Government Is the Christian’s Business.”
I have always objected strenuously to this concept, especially to its adoption as a slogan.
At best, the statement is misleading; at its worst it grossly distorts the Christian’s concept of his central task.
Government is the citizen’s business, whether he be Christian, Jew, or pagan.
To be sure, the Christian’s citizenship will be exercised in the light of his faith — but never as the central or major focus of his activity as a Christian.
He has accepted an enormously more urgent and significant “business” — to order his own life after Jesus’ teaching and example and to strive to win others to the same commitment.
Whatever the Christian’s proper role in government, it must always be secondary among his priorities.
Otherwise, it must seem strange that Jesus and Paul so clearly advised subjection to civil government, at least in all ordinary circumstances, and do not appear to have spent time or energy attempting to reform or even influence a very corrupt government at Rome.
I propose, under the foregoing assumptions, two considerations which for me justify willing payment of taxes, even if portions of the tax budget go for objectionable purposes.
First, it is a matter of reasonable doubt whether any government could long operate under a system by which tax paying is made subject to the range of possible “conscientious” objections to selected government activities.
Let us suppose that such groups as the Amish were to withhold that portion of their taxes which goes to support all education beyond the common school.
They declare opposition to secondary and higher education on grounds of conscience.
Suppose all Christian Scientists were to withhold a percentage of their taxes allotted to medical research and facilities.
Suppose we Brethren were to withhold taxes because welfare funds are sometimes so administered as to endanger or destroy normal family life or because Department of Agriculture funds are paid to large-scale farmers for nonproduction of food and fiber.
These and many more may with equal logic be considered matters of conscientious objection.
Happily, under our system of government, we have ample opportunity to present and defend other points of view, but the democratic social theory neither contemplates nor condones obstructionism.
There is reason to question whether Brethren leaders can support tax withholding with integrity while at the same time they discourage “designated giving” to the Brotherhood budget.
If churchmen be urged to support the total church budget, without discrimination, but citizens be exhorted to support only such governmental budget items as they can approve in good conscience, we may ask whether tax withholding is supported in principle or only opportunistically, as a strategy.
It is surely axiomatic that all forms of human association are possible only because of some surrender of personal freedoms and preferences.
Since in our society we have adequate legal, educational, and constitutional avenues for expressing our views to government, to withhold taxes for what we happen to disapprove (and who can differentiate between “conscientious,” philosophical, emotional, and mystical disapproval?) comes perilously close to asking for the benefits of government while shirking its responsibilities.
In short, the proposal to withhold all or a part of one’s tax obligations for reasons of individual or corporate conscience must be conceded to contribute to a fragmentation of society that tends toward anarchy.
Second, tax withholding on whatever grounds with the purpose of preventing selected government activity is essentially a method of force which Brethren in particular should reject.
All attempts to change the behavior, attitudes, or values of mature, responsible persons by force are degrading and destructive of personhood.
There seems to be no point in arguing that the purpose of such withholding is simply a symbolic form of protest.
Kant’s categorical imperative in ethics tests a proposed act in terms of whether it could be universalized.
Since tax withholding quite obviously cannot be universalized without destroying government, it clearly suffers by such an ethical criterion.
No thoughtful observer of the contemporary scene can deny a trend toward the substitution of force for persuasion, of compulsion for rational debate, to bring about social change.
The civil rights movement, the student protests, the Poor Peoples’ Campaign in some of its expressions and slogans are illustrations.
The church seems in imminent danger of succumbing to this trend, although it is both unworthy and out of character for Christians.
The ultimate indictment of the method of force is of course that it cannot succeed except in appearance.
An attack on the war system ought to proceed by using available means to demonstrate its futility, its ineffectiveness, and its immorality — none of which ends tax withholding can serve.
At most it seems a crude and primitive way of attracting attention to one’s cause.
From time to time the Christian, as a citizen, may properly make representation to government concerning his views, his desires, and his concerns.
Our impatience to reconstruct the world after our own particular blueprint must not lead us into betraying noble ends by the use of unworthy means.
Why I Pay the War Tax Under Protest
by Charles E. Zunkel
In order to be consistent the conscientious objector to war must face the whole range of his involvement with war.
In addition to participation in the military is certainly his concern for the use of his tax money for military purposes.
This is especially true now that so much of one’s income tax is being used for war.
When my wife and I came clearly to this conviction in and decided that we must do something about it, I wrote the Department of Internal Revenue, sharing copies of my letter with the President and declaring our concern and our intention to refuse payment of the percentage of our income tax which would be used for war [see ♇ 31 May 2020].
I made it quite clear that we were not unwilling to pay the tax, but we were objecting to its being used for war.
We wanted it used for constructive, peaceful purposes.
I received a very courteous reply, reiterating my words, but advising us and urging us to pay the tax.
I then wrote, asking if we could pay this percentage for the United Nations, Food for Relief, or Peace Corps, programs of the federal government which we considered peaceful and worthy.
Internal Revenue replied that it was not in their province to disperse the funds, only to collect them.
In the meantime, I conferred with one who had refused to pay the income tax and learned that, if we did not pay, the tax would be collected by taking it from our bank or savings account or by confiscation and selling personal property.
An additional penalty of five percent would be imposed.
We decided we did not want to provide the extra five percent for war to carry out our refusal, when the tax would eventually be collected anyway.
Instead, we decided to write two checks each time, one designated for “peaceful purposes: United Nations, Food for Relief, Peace Corps,” in the percentage amount of the federal taxes for war.
The other for the remaining percentage amount we marked “undesignated.”
Since the federal government has the power to use the tax money as it wishes, not as we may designate, the checks were cashed and no comment was or ever has been given.
Periodically to accompany the checks I have written letters voicing our concern and protest to the President and the Secretary of State.
While this method does not keep our money from supporting war, it seems to us the only viable way for us to protest, since we earn enough to have to pay the tax and since we do not want the added five percent penalty to provide more funds for war.
If enough persons or families used this method and the process became publicized, it would be an educational program which might build conscience in others and eventually lead to the provision for tax exemption of the sort we now have for military service.
Legislative bills have been prepared for this purpose but have not been introduced because the lack of public support would assure their defeat.
In the meantime, we would hope that the Brethren, Mennonites, Friends, and others concerned might send to the President a delegation asking for tax alternatives, as was done to secure an alternative to military service.
Regarding the surtax or the telephone excise tax, we believe that, because these are small enough amounts of one’s total tax and that they are clearly all for war purposes, they can and should be refused, even though the five percent penalty will be added and they will be collected.
Education could win sufficient popular support for objectors to war tax payment and make possible the passage of legislation that will provide alternatives for the worthy use of tax money which would otherwise be spent to support war.
Keep Income Below the Taxable Level
by David Rittenhouse
While serving in BVS 1-W Program, Merle Grouse, a fellow BVSer, and I were traveling by train from Turkey to Germany.
During an all-night ride through Yugoslavia, we talked with a young Yugoslavian who said that he had been taught that capitalism could not exist without war.
In all innocence we strongly disagreed.
During , the Church of the Brethren sponsored a work camp in Altoona, Pennsylvania, for the unemployed after the railroad shops changed from steam to diesel.
There, at the end of a hot summer day, a group of men sat on the steps talking about their hope for a job.
One remarked, “I guess we will have to wait for another war before we get work.”
So it is that with the event of the Vietnam War and the resulting defense contracts, we are forced to admit that which some had suspected.
Though I do not believe that this war economy is the inevitable result of capitalism, the war is definitely with us, even if not by design.
It is high time that vocal Brethren pacifists be called to attention by our consciences about our direct involvement in war through taxes.
It has been a natural temptation, when Christian ethics are frustrated by the real world in which we live, to turn inward in an attempt at individual purification and character refinement as a goal that is within reach.
I do not in any sense want to encourage this type of denial of the implications of Christ’s teachings, for we must accept the fact that we cannot disassociate ourselves from the economy in which we live.
In all our expressions of protest there must still be the humble recognition that the curse of Habakkuk is there: “Woe unto him who builds a city on blood.”
But there are ways in which individual citizens can exercise freedom of belief as persons.
Living on a limited income is one of these forms of witness.
Voluntarily limiting one’s income requires us to reevaluate our standard of values.
We are encouraged to find satisfaction in meaningful activity instead of in possession of things.
It is in keeping with the Christian concept that persons and beliefs are more important than property.
It is related to the spirit of the verse in Hebrews 10:34, “You joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you know that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one.”
Our family includes my wife and me, four children, and many guests.
For seven years our income has been below the taxable level.
This does not mean to us that we are pure and uninvolved in a war economy.
Rather it has freed us to pastor six country churches that could not compete on a minimum salary for pastoral leadership.
This, then, is the exciting part of the idea of limiting one’s income.
It frees Brethren pastors, teachers, doctors, builders to go to the places of greatest need, regardless of the salary offered.
Consider Partial or Total Tax Refusal
by William Faw
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” What do we owe Caesar? Many Christians would say that we owe him complete obedience in all things: We must kill for him, pay for his wars, even exterminate a people for him as Hitler commanded and as we may be doing in Vietnam.
But Brethien have said “No” to that type of obedience.
We have said that we will render unto Caesar constructive citizenship and support for constructive programs.
We have insisted, though, that Christ’s commandment that we love our enemies forbids us to kill in Caesar’s name.
The early Christian church and the Church of the Brethren were born in civil disobedience, saying with Peter to the government, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Paul, who in Romans 13 calls us to “be subject to the governing authorities,” spent much time in jail because of civil disobedience when the command of Caesar conflicted with the command of God.
Many of us have refused to participate in military service but have unflinchingly paid taxes to support that same war machine, seemingly unaware of the contradiction involved.
Where your treasure is, there will be your heart also!
Our pocketbooks support the wars that our bodies shun!
What this amounts to is that we are paying for others to kill for us.
If God has not given us authority to kill, how can we give Caesar the authority to kill in our name and with our money?
We have often thought that the payment of taxes is a morally neutral issue.
How can it be that when our taxes are financing the extermination of the Vietnamese people?
Once you decide to object conscientiously to tax involvement in war, you must make many secondary moral decisions.
You might elect to pay your taxes but send a letter of protest which states your preference to pay a portion to the United Nations if such an alternative should become available.
It is possible that enough protest letters could strengthen congressional attempts to offer such an alternative tax-payment provision.
Or you might decide to refuse payment of taxes until such an alternative should become available, just as you might refuse to enter military service even if there were no legal alternatives to it.
If you refuse payment you must decide whether to withhold the percentage that would go into military use (some say eighty percent) or to withhold the total amount.
If you choose the first path you might reason that you are paying for constructive programs of government while refusing to support the military.
If you decide on total withholding you might give one or both of the following reasons:
One, since you cannot designate where a paid portion would go, eighty percent of what you pay still goes to the military; and two, a goal of peacemaking may be to hold back eighty percent of the government’s total revenue so that it would have to eliminate its military expenditures, in which case the total withholding of the few tax refusers is a bigger step than their partial withholding.
If you are willing to consider partial or total tax refusal, you will need to think through the mechanics and consequences of it.
If you are totally or partially “self employed” (a minister, small businessman, farmer, babysitter, public speaker) and thus have control over all or a portion of your income tax withholding, the procedure might be to withhold all or part of your quarterly estimate payments or listing the accumulated “other income” on your tax form and refuse payment on that.
If all your taxes are withheld by your employer you can at least send a letter of protest to the government with your income tax forms (send letters to the President and to congressmen as well as to IRS) and refuse to pay the ten percent federal excise “war tax” on telephone service.
In fact, refusing on both taxes should be considered if that is possible.
If the additional income taxes recently accepted to finance the Vietnam conflict had been passed as a surtax, each of us would have had the opportunity to pay or refuse to pay it.
Instead, it will be withheld by employers in the same way as normal income tax.
The Internal Revenue Code lists several categories of “tax delinquency” with consequences ranging from collecting, with six percent per annum interest, from bank accounts, salary, or, rarely, the seizure of personal property, to a fine up to $10,000 and jail up to one year.
I and others have been assured by IRS agents that there is little chance that the federal government will prosecute us until they have collected the billions of dollars in crime syndicate tax fraud.
Regarding the telephone tax, “In no case so far has phone service been discontinued because the refusal is, according to law, a matter between the refuser and the government” (War Resisters League pamphlet, “Resist Vietnam War Taxes”).
Telephone tax collection has followed the income tax procedure, with no prosecutions recorded to date.
The consequences may be negligible, but the risk must be understood and considered.
You must decide within the framework of your beliefs, of the limits of your control over your taxes, and of the personal and social risks involved.
There is one thing you cannot escape: the moral implications of financing mass murder!
The article was accompanied by a survey form for readers to fill out and return to the Messenger:
Floyd Irvin, an early Brethren adopter of war tax resistance, explained the evolution of his resistance tactics in the issue:
I have always felt that the payment of taxes for the support of our government’s killing agency — the military — is wrong.
As a Christian I am exhorted to love my neighbors and my enemies, not to kill them, and to overcome evil with good.
I am mindful of the command, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”
But I also consider that in a democracy the citizens are the rulers — the Caesars.
So in this nation I, as a sovereign citizen, have a tremendous responsibility for the actions of my nation.
As a sovereign citizen and as a Christian I am obligated to render unto God loyalty in expressing love for my neighbor and for my enemy.
And as a co-ruler with my fellow citizens, I must lead my nation to do the same.
I cannot help my nation kill people who are God’s children.
In a democracy I express my sovereign rights and obligations not only by my vote but also sometimes by protest.
My protest, even if it is expressed by non-cooperation, need not be, and should not be, termed “force” in the same sense in which destroys life.
Withholding taxes from war financing is noncooperation in that which destroys God’s highest creation, man.
Peter, who exhorted us to be subject to human institutions, did not always obey government orders.
To be loyal to the laws of God is not anarchy.
Our own government, with allies, condemned and punished German citizens for being loyal to their government’s orders when they were wrong.
Withholding taxes to be used for killing my fellowman is a means of expressing my moral disapproval of an immoral act.
This may be considered by some to be wrong.
But becoming involved in killing is also wrong.
Which is the greater wrong?
And how best express my disapproval is the question to consider.
In I withheld seventy-five percent of my income taxes — that being the approximate amount of the federal budget used for military purposes.
I gave the amount withheld to UNICEF, an agency of the United Nations.
By this donation I expressed my social responsibility.
The publicity that followed was a testimony for peace.
But it led to my removal from a responsible position and the office of superintendent of the church school of a leading congregation in our town.
I also found that the government can, if it will, collect all the taxes due, in one way or another.
They got my taxes by a devious method.
My business was such that had the government seized a truck or other property essential to my business, it would have caused considerable inconvenience to many of my 1,500 customers.
So, considering all, for some years I paid my taxes under protest.
I finally decided that for me the best way to avoid paying for military operations was to reduce my income.
So I retired early.
I have most of my investments in real estate.
If I have a prospective sale for a piece of property, the profit of which would put me in an income tax paying bracket, I deed that property to a church or to a charity institution and let that organization deed it to the purchaser.
So I receive no profit.
Or I may get a contract for many small payments over a period of years, making a low income each year.
I use all my exemptions and live on my exempted income.
The above plan works satisfactorily for me.
The debate about war tax resistance continued among Brethren in , and for the first time a Brethren church began resisting taxes corporately.
In , representatives from Mennonite, Quaker, and Brethren congregations — the “historic peace churches” — met in New Windsor, Maryland to figure out how to be a peace church in the middle of the Vietnam War.
According to Messenger coverage of the event , war tax resistance was a footnote (source): “Spurred on by the youth delegates to the consultation, a group at New Windsor prepared a brief statement calling for… ‘counseling on the draft and nonpayment of war taxes for those who need it.’ ”
In (see yesterday’s Picket Line), the Messenger had invited four writers to explain their diverse ways of confronting taxes for war.
One, Russell Bollinger, paid his taxes willingly and thought tax resistance was dangerously corrosive of democratic cooperation.
That led to a rebuttal from David Coppock in the issue (source). Excerpts:
Mr. Bollinger expresses a fear that no government can exist as long as the people pay taxes only as their conscience guides them.
Since I put the conscience first, I am more afraid of a government that does not allow the people to live as their consciences guide them.
Our first concern as Christians should not be to see that our moral inclinations are in harmony with man-made laws.
We don’t have to answer to man for our acts if we believe we have been guided by God.
We need only to answer to God.
To allow one’s personal convictions to be molded and shaped by society and government is to allow one’s very being to be taken from the hands of God and placed into the fallible hands of man.
Mr. Bollinger states, “All attempts to change the behavior, attitudes, or values of mature responsible persons by force are degrading and destructive to personhood.”
When I think about Vietnam, Biafra, race prejudice, and a so-called Christian nation with Dow Chemical and A-Bombs, I ask where are all the mature and responsible people?
And by paying taxes don’t you willfully and knowingly give most of that money to a war that is as degrading and as destructive to personhood as anything can be?
He challenges tax withholding on the basis of whether or not it can be universalized.
Since he doesn’t believe that it can, he rejects such ideas.
Does this mean that he believes that a willful support of the war effort can be universalized into a law for all men?
I certainly want to challenge his last main point.
“Our impatience to reconstruct the world after our own particular blueprint must not lead us into betraying noble ends for unworthy means.”
The Christian must recognize that America’s blueprint is being felt right now in Vietnam.
Our government would have us believe that the Vietnam war is being fought for noble ends — democracy, freedom, end of communism.
And since it found no other alternative but war, it would have us believe that this is a worthy means.
The Christian can never accept war as a worthy means.
And the Christian must recognize that the noble ends which he seeks are higher than those which the government seeks.
Therefore, withholding taxes can hardly be considered an unworthy means when that money would have been used for the most degrading and evil acts of man.
In the issue, Richard G. Young raised a dissenting voice against the attempt to lobby the government to accommodate conscientious objectors to military taxation. “A hard line should immediately be taken against any suggestion to seek tax exemption for pacifists,” wrote Young (source).
According to Young, war tax resistance is only a pacifist action if it confronts and resists militarism. “Once the military power accommodates (removes the confrontation of) an action, it is no longer antimilitaristic.”
We can be sure that if all young men eighteen years old demanded alternative service, our government would rescind the conscientious objector alternative.
It should be recognized also that our militaristic government embellishes itself with the boast that it offers a conscientious objector alternative in the “true spirit of democracy.” In this manner the antimilitaristic action, well intentioned as it may have been, has ceased to be pacifistic in that the military system has neutralized its effect.
Similarly, any agreement with the government to exempt pacifists from paying war taxes would not be pacifistic.
We would not be threatening the military but perhaps adding another plume to its hat.
The edition brought the news that a Brethren church had decided as an institution to begin war tax resistance — the first such example that I am aware of (source):
Both as a witness and as a protest, the Wilmington, Del., Church of the Brethren decided by board action to refuse to pay the federal excise tax on telephones.
In a letter to President Richard M. Nixon from the board of the Richardson Park congregation, Dale W. Good, board chairman, and Robert D. Cain Jr., witness commission chairman, noted that the 10 percent federal telephone tax was restored by Congress in to help pay for the war in Vietnam.
They also quoted from the Statement of the Church of the Brethren on War, in which the denomination stated its opposition to the use of taxes for war purposes and called upon congregations and boards to study the issues and press for alternative uses for tax money.
Meaning: “We recognize that the act of refusing to pay this tax is small, but the meaning is large in that it is a direct and tangible means of expressing our dissent to the United States’ action in Vietnam and also a protest to the enactment of taxes for war purposes,” the letter stated.
It further urged Mr. Nixon “to use all resources and power available to you as President of the United States to achieve world peace” and to give consideration to a government provision for an alternative use of tax money for peaceful, nonmilitary purposes.
The decision to take the action followed a recommendation from the witness commission and was voted 8 to 6.
Individual members of the parish were asked in turn to consider withholding the excise tax on their personal telephone bills.
The pastor, Allen T. Hansell, said that he personally had been withholding the 10 percent tax on his own telephone bill payments since .
First: Ralph E. Smeltzer of the World Ministries Commission commented that to his knowledge the action is the first taken in the Church of the Brethren by a congregational board.
In several areas Brethren individuals have practiced telephone tax refusal for up to two years.
A lengthy interpretation of the action taken by the Richardson Park church board appeared the next day in Wilmington’s Morning News.
The article stated the Church of the Brethren believes that its historic opposition to all war “is compatible with good citizenship” and that the church endorses support of “worthy government functions.”
But the article also cited Brethren concern over the trend toward a permanent militaristic outlook by the nation.
That news was interesting enough that it was also covered in The Brethren Evangelist , interrupting that magazine’s silence on the issue (source).
in the Church of the Brethren made available this book, which included a chapter on “Payment of Taxes for War Purposes” by William Few
In the “General Board” had put together a policy statement on civil disobedience that it hoped the Annual Conference would adopt.
The Messenger published it (source).
It alluded to “laws which require payment of taxes for war purposes” as an opportunity for “reactive” civil disobedience — conscientious objection — as opposed to “initiatory” civil disobedience, which is designed as a pressure tactic to change government behavior.
And it gave favorable mention to “the Christians who refused… to pay taxes to Caesar’s pagan temples”, “Quakers who refused to pay taxes for war against the Indians”, “Henry David Thoreau”, and, within the Church of the Brethren, “refusal to… pay war taxes during the Revolutionary War”.
But it did not come down on either side of the question of whether war tax resistance ought to be recommended.
It instead recommended a careful process for assessing proposed individual and corporate civil disobedience actions.
[We] separate our total tax obligation into two parts.
That portion required to pay our part of the indispensable, nonwar services of our government as loyal citizens we gladly pay.
The part that would go to war purposes, which we cannot conscientiously support, we withhold by making contributions to relief, to the church and her ministries, and to other worthy, nonwar causes — contributions large enough to wipe out our war-tax obligation.
If the government takes part of the tax dollars we pay for non-war services and uses them for the war, we can’t prevent that.
We couldn’t prevent it if we refused to pay all taxes and went to jail.
Our alternative service for tax dollars is a matter of conscientious objection to the war, and we so state on our tax return.
This is not just “tax avoidance.”
It is costly.
It costs far more than a dollar to divert a dollar from the war.
Since the tax rate begins at fourteen percent of taxable income and increases with larger incomes, we have to give away six or seven dollars to withhold one dollar from the war.
But wouldn’t you gladly give seven dollars to lessen a little the suffering of a wounded refugee child rather than to pay one dollar to buy napalm to burn more babies?
How much should we withhold?
Should we proportion our withholding to the direct cost of the Vietnam war (fifteen percent of the national budget)?
Or should it be in proportion to the total defense budget (forty to fifty percent of the total national budget, depending on whose analysis you accept)?
One’s own conscience must be the guide.
One legal limitation will affect those with higher incomes: deductible contributions cannot exceed thirty percent of total income.
The legal withholding of war taxes by contributions is especially suitable for retired citizens, for most of them have a nontaxable income on which to live.
Social Security for a retired couple, both over sixty-five, now is approximately $3,000 a year maximum for those who have been fully employed at average or better-than-aver-age incomes.
In addition, there is a nontaxable exemption of $2,400 on any other income they receive from pensions or investments.
And Medicare pays major health care expenses.
In short, a retired couple who have any income tax at all to pay have a nontaxed income sufficient for a modest but comfortable living.
Their income taxes come out of the surplus which they have for hobbies, travel, gifts to family or church, or other good causes.
It is out of this surplus that we “lay up treasure in heaven.”
Perhaps we oldsters who conscientiously oppose war should, by choosing alternative service for our tax dollars, prove ourselves worthy brothers to our young men who choose alternative service to the military.
What I was hoping to see in but didn’t was the results of the survey the magazine had sent out the previous year asking readers how they were responding to war taxes.
The Brethren Evangelist was again much more reluctant than the Messenger to discuss war tax resistance in .
There was a mention of the Richardson Park Brethren Church’s corporate phone tax resistance decision.
In the issue, Steve Haller addressed “Christian Pacifism”.
He mostly reflected on his own experience in Brethren alternative service for conscientious objectors, but also approvingly quoted Larry Kuenning who took the perspective that to a Christian, war is already over, and so:
In a war you have to pay taxes to support the army.
But the war is over: you don’t have to pay taxes for war.
You can use the money to help the victims of war instead.
In the debate over the proper response by Christians to government demands that they pay for war spilled over into the more conservative branches of American Brethren.
In the General Board of the Church of the Brethren met.
Among the items on the agenda was an invitation for them to stop paying the phone tax as an institution (source):
In still another action, a review of the federal excise tax on telephone service, the General Board by a 2 to 1 ratio voted down a motion that would have discontinued the voluntary payment of the tax.
Proponents of the motion alleged that the tax was instituted by the government to help cover costs of the Vietnam war.
Dorothy and Paul Brumbaugh shared their letter to President Nixon in the issue (source):
Preparing our income tax form and realizing that about sixty-six percent of our tax will go for purposes of war, past, present, and future, force us to examine our values.
For the past two years we have refused voluntary payment of our U.S. income tax.
We wish this year to reaffirm our previous stance and to emphasize even more emphatically (1) our abhorrence of mass murders in Vietnam and other places in the world in the name of freedom; (2) our opposition to the widespread fear generated by promotion of the ABM system; and (3) our disappointment in the neglect of hunger, housing, and education.
We also wish to affirm that governmental authority is within the will and plan of God.
We regret that our government refuses to accept the God-given authority and chooses instead the authority of power and the “almighty” dollar.
We urge you to help our government to place more emphasis on humanizing efforts and much less on the dehumanization of the war effort.
We desire that our funds be used for human development.
It is possible to choose not to participate in the Social Security program, a program helpful to many persons.
Why not also the opportunity of choice in supporting the military?
The issue featured Ralph Dull, a member of the Church of the Brethren and also a long-shot peace candidate for Congress (source).
The article noted:
For the last eleven years, the Dulls [Ralph & Joy] have refused to pay the percentage of their income tax that would be allocated to military spending, an amount of one half to two thirds of a tax figure.
The government has attached his bank account for that amount plus interest.
The Brethren Missionary Herald reported on the Annual Conference of the National Fellowship of Brethren Churches (source).
This is a more conservative group than those organized under the Church of the Brethren, and this is reflected in what its Selective Service Committee had to say about paying war taxes.
That said, the statement was sincerely searching about Brethren economic entanglement with war:
The presence of the military establishment in American life embraces much more than the problem of whether our sons accept military duty or claim conscientious objection.
The believer should realistically recognize the extent to which the military has invaded the whole of our lives and the probability that it will assume in the future an even more critical influence.
Let us carefully consider several grim realities and possibilities.
To begin with, our American system of taxation is so structured that every adult member of our society, from the oldest retiree to the youngest wage earner makes his contribution to the local, state or national government.
Huge chunks of these taxes are earmarked for the military.
Whether we like it or not we are involuntary contributors to the support of the military and are therefore participants.
Indeed, as law abiding citizens we believe we have an obligation to support our rulers (Romans 13).
Thus we are involved.
Furthermore, we must think fairly and logically about the very financial structure of our country and thus face a very disturbing reality.
Our economy is based upon the foundation of the investment of capital.
Each of us has been taught to save our money, to bank it, to invest it wisely.
Central in our economy is the building loan deposit, the government bond, the insurance policy, stocks and bonds and even the lowly savings account.
These monies, trustfully placed by us in the hands of financial experts, are reinvested for our benefit.
The returns are then paid to our accounts. It is common knowledge that tremendous amounts of investors’ money are spent to develop defense businesses.
Again we are involved.
Again, let us be reminded that a large segment of America’s work force supports the military.
The day is long gone when we can say that a few munitions makers supply the powder and ball for the military or that the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot has purchased a supply of clothing and food for the soldiers.
Government contracts are eagerly sought by nearly every industry.
The sophisticated weaponry, communications systems and transportation systems consume material far removed from the conventional concept of war items.
The huge maw of the military gulps down huge quantities of goods of every description.
Thus from the farm, the mine, the forest, the ocean and from every type of manufacturing and assembly plants unnumbered items flow into the channels marked military.
How does one know whether or not he has been a part of this nationwide effort?
In , war tax resisters in the Church of the Brethren were eager to find precedent for their beliefs and actions in the history of the Brethren as they pressured the church to dip its toes into corporate resistance by divesting itself of U.S. government bonds.
In the issue, the Messenger reproduced an excerpt from the script of a play by Gary Rowe that dramatized a dilemma for Brethren conscientious objectors during the American Civil War (source).
While, as far as I could determine, in historical fact Brethren typically paid the commutation tax to avoid service without complaint, in the play this became a contested issue.
Excerpts:
Thomas:
The great house of this nation is torn apart into two hostile camps.
I fear that tonight I will divide the house of my own father.
For that, I pray forgiveness.
I cannot stand with my brother [who joined the military].
Nor can I accept the offer my father made to me today, the offer to pay the tax to exempt me from service in the army.
William:
(Jumping up) Then let us pay it!
Thomas:
Thank you, but I cannot permit that either.
Jacob:
You are aware, Brother Thomas, that our brotherhood has recommended that each church help its members who are drafted to pay the tax?
Thomas:
I know that, too.
But I want to stand before you now, not with you but in front of you, to bear witness to my own faith.
I hope that some of you may find it in your hearts to stand with me.
William:
But Sister Wolfe does have a point, Thomas.
Wouldn’t it be easier to pay the tax and avoid this danger?
Thomas:
Yes. It would be easier. But would it be true to our faith?
Jacob:
Our churches have declared that our members may pay the tax in order to avoid military service.
Thomas:
But is that why our fathers came to this country?
They came to get away from coercion.
They came to a land where they could obey their conscience, without being punished by the state!
Now… are we to bear arms in violation of our covenant as a people of God?
The answer must be no.
But are we also to pay taxes levied on us to avoid that service, taxes that burden us for holding fast to God’s Word?
Does the state have the right to punish us, in any way, for our faith?
To tell us we can believe what we like as long as we pay for others to violate those beliefs?
Adam:
(His head still lowered) Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God—
Thomas:
(Retorting) Shall I give my life, my blood, to serve Caesar, or shall I lay it down for God? (Pause) This matter involves more for us than the simplicity of giving up a coin in our pocket!
Brethren peace activists were eager to find or imagine precedents for their stand in Brethren history.
Later the same year, T. Wayne Rieman would write (source):
The early Brethren were conscientious objectors to the coercive practices of the state and church: compelling people to join or leave the church of Christ, baptizing children before they understood its meanings, forcing people to take oaths, conscripting for the military, and levying war taxes.
To all of these the Brethren answer was: No!
The overruling of the conscience is wrong — always wrong.
The Brethren… supported government, paid taxes without opposition (except war taxes)…
But the older Brethren practices I have noticed around war taxes (though I’ve only been looking at the U.S., and only back as far as the mid-19th century) were much more ambiguous than this, and if anything, promoted paying taxes willingly whether they were called war taxes or not.
Please be informed that as a matter of conscience we cannot pay that portion of our income tax which has not been withheld.
We would hold ourselves unjust if, after having seen how this war has been both reflection and cause of the unwholeness of Americans; having seen almost daily the evidence of the vast destructiveness of the war in terms of human life and the ecology of Indochina; having recognized the militaristic use of a large percentage of public monies — a use which makes war more not less inevitable; after having been taught by Anabaptist Brethren heritage that all war is evil and madness and contrary to God and man; and after having tasted of the life-giving spirit whose joy is love and forgiveness, we would indeed be unjust hypocrites if, after all this, we supported with our taxes what we hold with all our heart, mind, and soul to be an abomination in the sight of God and an offense against man.
War tax resistance and the long-ignored issue of war bonds came up at the Annual Conference that year.
The Messenger reported (source):
Attempts to force the Board to sell all U.S. bonds and to refuse to pay the telephone tax which is used for war purposes, were unsuccessful.
A later letter-writer gave some details about how this came about, expressing frustration that Brethren activists were not putting forth their efforts in a way that was calculated for success (source):
Many of us learned with some surprise that among the holdings of the General Board there are war bonds.
We would have been eager to support a motion instructing the Board to dispose of these bonds at its earliest convenience.
But we did not get that motion.
Instead we were offered a motion by the Brethren Action Movement that we do not accept the report of the Board until they first dispose of such bonds.
Very few of us are willing to use our approval for last year’s work as a weapon to hold over the heads of the Board until they do our will on a new item.
A later National Youth Conference, however, tried to keep the item on the agenda (source):
[T]he conference voted to “affirm anew our faith and allegiance in the Lord Jesus Christ and in so doing oppose war and the support of war in all forms.
Consistent with this faith… we commend the General Board to immediately dispose of, at any cost, all U.S. government bonds under its jurisdiction and control…
We call upon the church to have the courage to be Brethren.”
The Church of the Brethren decided to divest from U.S. government bonds, and considered engaging in corporate phone tax refusal as well, and in the debate began to spill over into more conservative branches of American Brethren.
Chuch Investment in U.S. Bonds
In , the Church of the Brethren General Board met, and among the items on the agenda was Church investments in the war industry and in U.S. government bonds.
The Messenger covered this in its edition (source).
Excerpt:
Government bond ownership by the church, like the war that bonds are said to support, may be winding down, but not winding up — as some persons are urging.
Replying to the National Youth Conference resolution calling on the church to dispose of all government bonds, the General Board rejected a proposed reply from its investment committee and asked the Administrative Council to bring further options in March for handling fiscal operations without the use of bonds.
Board members also called for the investment committee to consider selling any stocks held with the dozen top corporations supplying war materials.
The rejected proposal would have put the board on record as reconfirming its opposition to war, not purchasing additional bonds as long as the national budget is so heavily military oriented, permitting the sale of bonds held as cash needs arise, and opposing immediate liquidation of the remaining bonds held.
Board views ranged from those who sought to dispose of the $617,933 in bonds held by the church “as a witness to the nation” for peace, to those who saw the bonds supporting many good things of government.
Other arguments against disposal included the cash liquidity on short notice of the bonds, the loss that would be suffered in the sale of the bonds, and the fact that $259,880 of the total is pledged for a Bethany Seminary loan.
One staff member challenged the assumption that the bonds are a means of financing the war, but rather lend stability to the government.
Another indicated that the cash put into a savings account could be invested by the bank in bonds anyway, and that the church owed a fiscal responsibility to donors of the money in not risking a financial loss in any premature sale of the bonds.
“The government bonds in the investment portfolio are not considered war bonds,” noted the board’s investment committee, “but are issues which were put out from time to time for general government operations, including programs that we enthusiastically support.”
Many of the bonds held by the Brethren were purchased in the 1950s, and no further purchases have been made since 1965.
During the past fiscal year the church sold half a million dollars in government bonds.
Likely to come before the Cincinnati Conference next year is a query from Southern Ohio that the church investigate payment of the telephone tax and the holding of U.S. government securities which are believed to support war.
The issue brought more details about where these queries were coming from (source).
Excerpt:
Southern Ohio district is bringing a query to the Conference asking for a study of the payment of the telephone tax and the holding of U.S. government securities by the church’s national offices.
Likewise, the Pacific Southwest Conference, at the initiation of some youth and the Lynnhaven, Phoenix, and Glendale, Ariz., congregations, has requested Annual Conference to “consider the moral question of holding United States Savings Bonds when we as a church are trying to divorce ourselves as far as possible from the military-industrial complex.”
The General Board gave in to the pressure, as reported in the issue (source).
Excerpt:
The Church of the Brethren General Board will sell its stock holdings in corporations directly producing defense or weapons-related products and its governmental securities that are believed to channel funds into military appropriations.
Meeting at Elgin, Ill., in , the board also tightened its investment guidelines, declaring that words and acts should be brought together “so that the clearest possible witness can be given to the inclusive reconciling love of Christ.”
The statement recognized, however, that “at any given moment the commitment can be one of direction only — it cannot be one of absolute achievement.”
The implication is that mergers and company reorganizations sometimes bring into the firm products or ideals inconsistent with the Brethren stance.
Based on market prices the divestment of stocks represents four percent of the general investment portfolio and 6.5 percent of the pension fund portfolio.
US Treasury bonds being sold amount to $248,813.
The board declined, however, to sell the $274,894 in bonds pledged for a loan to Bethany Theological Seminary.
They will be sold only as they are released from escrow.
Board treasurer Robert Greiner estimated a loss of $18,300 instead of an $18,000 gain that would have been realized if the bonds had been held until maturity.
Any possible loss on the stock investments being sold and reinvested was not known.
Last year’s National Youth Conference in a resolution urged the board to sell its
US Treasury bonds.
And in the National Council of Churches’ Corporate Information Center, in which the Brethren participate, divulged the stock-holdings of ten denominations in the top 60 firms in military sales.
The Church of the Brethren had investments in nine such companies, totaling $329,258 in cost value prices.
The church’s pension fund also held $613,303 of common stocks in 13 corporations appearing in the list.
The revised guidelines now declare that the board will not knowingly invest in corporations producing defense or weapons-related products; in companies which fail to practice fair and equal employment opportunities; nor in banks or firms which transact business with governments having apartheid policies.
Similarly prohibited are investments in the tobacco and alcoholic beverage industries and companies making excessive profit.
More positively, the guidelines stipulate the board will invest in companies working to improve the environment, in government agencies that are clearly non-military, and in such industries as food, housing, clothing, utilities, education, and medical supplies.
When the board discovers that it has holdings in a company that does not meet the religious, racial, or social ideals of the church’s official statements, the investment committee may approach the company or speak at stockholders’ meetings.
Failing to effect a change in company policy, the stocks are to be sold.
Producing the sharpest disagreement was the question as to whether government bonds contribute to the Vietnam war effort or simply toward regular government operations.
Still, a strong majority of the board believed that the bonds directly supported the war effort and should be divested.
Such action, some contended, bespeaks a “disengagement from the US government” and fails to recognize that a large part of the federal budget goes toward programs of which Brethren could heartily approve.
On the other hand, a couple speakers noted that even in such nonmilitary programs as agriculture and economic development, government policy can be repressive and manipulative and divergent from Brethren ideals.
Moderator Dale W. Brown of Lombard, Ill., said that the church needs to confess its credibility gap. “I’m calling for an acknowledgment that we haven’t done our best.”
Among a few board members disassociating themselves from the majority action was Jesse H. Ziegler of Dayton, Ohio.
He described the sale of the government bonds as a “divisive act that finally will drive the Church of the Brethren to the point of increasingly making people ask what we’re about.”
He pleaded for the board to take healing and compromising action that would leave room for various views among the membership.
The board’s officers were instructed to estimate any loss of principal or income that may accrue from the divestment of Treasury obligations and issue an appeal for interested members to make special contributions so that the ongoing ministry of the church or the equity of the pension funds will not be curtailed.
The guidelines are also commended to other church agencies and to individuals.
Despite the eight hours over two days of sometimes intense debate, David B. Rittenhouse of Dunmore, W. Va., expressed the feeling of most board members in saying that he voted for divestment of the stocks and bonds not with enthusiasm, but out of genuine humility, struggle, and soul-searching.
The discussion of the issue at the General Conference was covered in the issue (source):
Investments: What is Caesar’s, what is due to God?
⋮
the General Board voted (not unanimously) to divest itself of government bonds and stocks in corporations involved in defense-related contracts.
The action resulted in some loss of income and brought severe criticism from many individuals and from some congregations.
Conference delegates, however, voted to approve the Board’s investment guidelines which state that the Board will not knowingly purchase securities in corporations or industries that are “direct producers of defense or weapons-related products; involved in tobacco and alcoholic beverage produce: involved in unfair employment practices; or involved in excessive profits.”
In reporting to the Conference the Board indicated that it had decided to sell all US Treasury bonds or notes except for those pledged to secure a loan for Bethany Theological Seminary.
Disposing of these prior to their maturity resulted in a loss of more than $20,000.
The church’s holding of US Government bonds was questioned at its last Annual Conference and forcefully opposed by the national conference of Brethren youth.
In commending the Cincinnati conference for its support of the Board’s action, the Rev. Wendell Flory, a delegate from Staunton, Virginia, noted the persistence of youth in their opposition to war and urged them to help make up the financial loss resulting from following the new investment policies.
War Tax Resistance
In addition to the bond investments issue, ordinary war tax resistance was also a topic of discussion.
The inaugural issue of included a profile of Church of the Brethren moderator Dale W. Brown (source) that noted: “He refuses to pay his telephone tax because it was levied specifically for war.”
The issue noted (source): “The La Verne, Calif., church board voted to support the Southern California Telephone War Tax Suite, involving the withholding of the ten-percent federal excise tax.”
The Annual Conference debate over whether the Church of the Brethren should resist the phone tax corporately was covered in the issue (source):
Telephone tax: Delegates decline to counsel tax refusal
…[D]elegates in are not quite ready yet to counsel tax refusal for their Board and its offices.
They were made aware that a growing number of individual Brethren as well as some Brethren institutions have been refusing to pay the telephone excise tax, which they say is specifically designated as a “war tax” helping support the Vietnam war.
The Conference agreed to appoint a committee of five to study “the problem of the Christian’s response to taxation for war.”
But they voted down a proposal directing the General Board to withhold payment of the tax on the telephone service to its Elgin, Ill., headquarters.
Board officers said that the tax, which amounts to about $130 a month, currently is paid under protest.
Earlier conference statements on the payment of war taxes, while deploring the use of tax monies for war purposes and recognizing the right of tax refusal, noted several optional choices and left the decision up to individuals.
General Board member Leon Neher, Quinter, Kan., said in the floor debate that he regarded refusal to pay war taxes as being compatible with a positive attitude toward government.
He said “resistance comes because of our love for our nation.”
Other delegates noted that a study was needed so that members could be aware of the legal implications as well as the moral implications of tax refusal.
(The members selected “[t]o study a response to taxation for war” were Dene E. Denlinger, Galen Detwiler, Vemard Eller, James F. Meyer, and Robert B. Myers.)
The issue brought this news: “In Illinois the York Center congregation has voted to ‘instruct the church treasurer not to pay the federal excise tax on the church telephone as an act of conscience against the Indo-China war, and that the Internal Revenue Service be informed of the decision.’ Pastor Dean Miller noted, ‘We felt we’ve tried all [other] channels open to us.’ ” (source)
All this while I’ve been scanning through issues of the Elizabethtown College student newspaper, The Etownian to see if there has been any mention of tax resistance there.
Finally, in the issue, there’s a mention of “A Tent (‘Freedom’) City” that was being erected on campus and hosting teach-ins (source).
The first one on the agenda: a 45-minute discussion of “tax resistance.”
A later report (source) said that a rainstorm had cut into attendance, but that the teach-ins had gone on:
Ted Landon started the morning by speaking on the background of resistance and its meaning for the individual who practices it.
Bob Blatt enlarged on this as it related to tax resistance.
He pointed out that 61% of the nation’s yearly budget is spent for military matters, and that all other pressing bills must be paid from the remaining 39%.
The stodgy Brethren Evangelist was forced to take note when the General Board of the Church of the Brethren decided to divest from military industries and U.S. government bonds, though they merely reprinted a wire service dispatch about it (source):
Brethren Will Drop Defense Investments
Elgin, Ill. (EP)—
All holdings in corporations directly involved in defense or weapons-related industries will be dropped by the General Board of the Church of the Brethren.
The vote, not unanimous, was seen as an attempt by the denomination to bring its investment practices into line with its peace pronouncements.
The church officials also voted to sell $248,813 in U.S. Treasury bonds and not to purchase new governmental securities that might channel funds into military appropriations.
The board of 25 members also voted to withhold investments from companies failing to practice fair and equal employment opportunities, and from banks or firms which transact business with governments having apartheid policies.
Even the Bible Monitor finally added its voice to the debate.
It included an article on “The Christian’s Relation to the Nation” in the issue that touched on the war tax resistance issue:
The Christian also obediently pays his taxes (Romans 13:6,7; Luke 20:25).
One pacifist used his “fist” against the government by calling upon Christians to withhold some of their taxes (war taxes) by saying that when Christ said, we are to “render… unto Ceasar the things which be Ceasar’s,” He did not say how much.
May we remember that Christ did tell us how much to pay to the state when He said that we should render that which bears his image.
Therefore, when the nation asks for it, we give it to them and it is never our responsibility to tell the government how it may use its money.
If I owe a person some money, I have no right to refuse to pay it on the grounds that he will not use it properly.
Nor can I refuse it unless he promises to use it the way I say he should.
While we find it our duty to pay Ceasar his required tax, it would be contrary to the principle of the Scripture to voluntarily or otherwise invest in war bonds, thereby becoming an investor in the war program.
No non-resistant person would want to make a profit on the war.
In , a Church of the Brethren committee formed to study the war tax resistance issue released its report, which went nowhere near far enough for those promoting resistance.
One called it a “slap in the face of the tax refusers, but perhaps we needed it.”
The issue of the Messenger printed a letter from John & Sandy Zinn, wrote to who “commend the General Board for selling their government bonds and stock in ‘war corporations’ ” and enclosed a check “to help offset the financial loss incurred by this decision,” encouraging others to do the same (source). “If all individuals and churches refused to let their money be spent for war, it would certainly become more difficult to wage war.”
The issue briefly noted that “[t]he Worthington church, Reading, Minn., in joined congregations withholding the excise tax on their telephone bill, in opposition to the Vietnam war” (source).
The issue introduced readers to the Clark family (source):
“Mike and Lois decided to enter totally into volunteer ministry.
One factor was their opposition to US participation in the war in Southeast Asia.
Lois told the congregation last summer:
‘We lacked the courage to defy our government by withholding taxes.
So, we decided to live on a subsistence income.
We then will not have to contribute taxes supporting the Vietnam War.’ ”
The issue reported on a “Cost of Discipleship” group formed in the Southern Ohio District whose work “has included investigation of war-tax resistance” (source).
“In personal responses, some members of the group have withheld the percentage of the income tax which goes for war purposes.
Others have refused to pay the federal excise tax on the telephone and sent a like amount of money as a ‘second-mile’ gift to an Alternative Fund.”
Later in that issue, Bob Gross described reluctance to resist war taxes as a symptom of a lack of faith (source). Excerpts:
Although we claim to believe in the power of the Spirit, it seems we more often choose to base our lives on worldly power.
We say we love our enemies, yet many of us follow the government’s call to war, many of us work for or invest in companies which produce weapons, and most of us willingly pay the taxes which make war possible.
We pray, “Give us this day our daily bread” while we surround ourselves with new cars, carpets, and color televisions.
We call God our protector, yet we live behind locked doors and life insurance.
We have our excuses, of course, but Jesus strikes down every one of them.
We say that we have a “right” to whatever possessions and comforts we can afford, but Jesus would instruct us as he did the rich young man:
“Sell your possessions and give to the poor… and come follow me” (Matt. 19:21).
We say that if we quit our job at General Electric because GE is a major war contractor, it will mean a loss of salary and position.
Or we cry that we can’t live on an income below taxable levels, because we need more money than that.
Jesus said, “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow and reap and store in barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them.
You are worth more than the birds!” (Matt. 6:26), and “I tell you this: a rich man will find it hard to enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:23).
The expression of our faith must not be confined to our spare time.
We are called to love God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind, and with all our strength.
Halfway is not enough.
This means we must quit our jobs if they contribute to war or to the destruction of God’s world, we must refuse payment of taxes for war purposes if we believe that human life is sacred, and we must cease laying up treasures on earth.
When we refuse to answer to worldly power, we can then turn our energies to the bringing in of the kingdom.
We can then “be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might.”
In the Church of the Brethren General Board adopted a statement entitled Taxes for War Purposes.
In it our denomination urged us to consider whether or not we can conscientiously pay taxes to support war and military purposes.…
To remind us of the statement, portions are quoted here:
The church recognizes and encourages freedom of conscience regarding war and the payment of taxes for war purposes.
Although it recommends alternative service instead of military service* it recognizes that not all members will hold the belief which the church recommends.
The same may be said regarding the payment of taxes for war purposes.
Although the church opposes the use of federal taxes for war purposes and military expenditures, it recognizes that not all members will hold this belief and that, even among those who do, there will be different expressions of that belief.
Present Alternatives. Four positions on the payment of federal taxes for war purposes are evident:
Paying of taxes
Paying the taxes but expressing a protest to the government
Voluntarily limiting one’s income or use of services to such a low level that they are not subject to federal taxation
Refusing to pay all or part of the taxes as a witness and a protest…
* In , the Church of the Brethren Statement on War was amended so that both alternative service and nonviolent noncooperation are commended to persons facing the draft.
On behalf of the World Ministries Commission, I would like to know how Brethren have responded to the Statement on Taxes for War Purposes.
I would appreciate your taking time to return the following questionnaire, using the space provided here to share interpretation of actions and feelings.
The results of this survey will be shared with all who respond.
I (we) have taken the following stance regarding the payment of federal income and telephone taxes.
Payment of taxes.
Payment of taxes under protest.
Voluntarily limiting income so as not to be subject to federal taxation.
Nonpayment of all or part of the taxes.
Signed ⸺
Address ⸺
Return to: World Ministries Commission, Church of the Brethren General Board, 1451 Dundee Avenue, Elgin, Illinois 60120
I wonder what happened to the results from the similar survey the Messenger featured, more prominently, in a issue.
The issue gave a preview of what would be discussed at the Annual Conference (source), including:
Telephone Tax and US Government Securities.
Introduced by the Southern Ohio Board of Administration, the query as it now stands focuses on “the problem of the Christian’s response to taxation for war.” In the report [see ♇ 17 May 2020] the five-member committee examines “a proper balance” between two callings — one of obeying God’s law rather than humans’ law, the other of participating responsibly in the common life of the world.
In terms of precedents both from the New Testament and Brethren history, the statement concludes the weight is on the side of the Christian’s paying and not withholding taxes.
Two recommendations are that concerned Brethren express their dissent or testimonies through recognized means and that active support be directed to the World Peace Tax Fund Act and similar legislative efforts.
A warning is sounded that the church would be diverted in its task of deepening biblical and theological understanding of the Christian peace position if it were to become focused on one particular form of protest.
In the issue, William G. Willoughby recapped the tax resistance debate from the Annual Conference (source):
My wife and I have had a continuing discussion over the question of nonpayment of the telephone excise tax.
I argued that such refusal would be a symbolic protest to the government against the Indochina conflict, while she argued that the government would eventually get the money anyway, and I would do better to put my efforts elsewhere.
So it was with considerable interest that I anticipated the report of the Conference committee on “The Christian’s Response to Taxation for War.”
This item of business turned out to be the most prolonged of the entire Conference, which indicates something of the struggle of conscience that many Brethren have been going through in paying heavy taxes for past, present, and future wars.
The committee report, with all its supplementary materials, showed its members had studied carefully the biblical teachings on taxation and had examined carefully the practices of the Brethren on payment of taxes.
Their conclusion was that there is no biblical counsel that taxes be withheld, but there is “some calling for the payment of taxes even to a sinful, militaristic government.”
The committee recognized, however, that some Brethren arrive at a different conclusion, feeling led of God to make protest by means of tax refusal.
At the preliminary hearing on , with more than a hundred people present, it was evident that the majority there were dissatisfied with the committee’s report.
The spirit of the discussion was honest, open, considerate, and good-natured, but beneath the surface many “tax refusers” felt somewhat betrayed.
They, too, had searched the scriptures and had examined Brethren history, and now — when they were subject to harassment and possible indictment by a vindictive government — the committee was raising questions about the biblical basis of their position.
When the committee report was made to the Conference business session, the committee capably defended its paper.
A valiant effort to recommit the paper for further study by an expanded committee which would include two tax refusers was narrowly defeated.
In the lengthy and at times impassioned debate, the issues were sharpened.
Did the Brethren always support voluntary payment of all taxes to a war-making government?
Was the committee too literalistic and legalistic in its interpretation of the biblical teaching?
Did it take into account the total context of New Testament teaching against war?
Is it morally right to refuse to be conscripted to drop bombs but allow one’s money to be conscripted to pay for the bombs?
Immediate past moderator Dale Brown thought that the committee’s report was a “slap in the face of the tax refusers, but perhaps we needed it.”
James Beard of Indiana contended that “the scriptures teach that we should pay our taxes and we should obey them.”
Harley Utz of Ohio argued that an act against the law and our government is an act against God.
Ben Simmons of Indiana believed that that issue is not “pro or con tax refusal, but our desire for Caesar’s property.”
Art Gish of Pennsylvania maintained that the church should give moral support to those who conscientiously refuse to pay a portion of their taxes.
When the debate was all over, and the report adopted by the Conference, I was left with many lingering questions:
What is the teaching of the Bible on this issue?
What should I do?
Should the church discourage people from refusing to pay taxes?
Perhaps Vernard Eller, Dale Brown, and others will write some books or at least articles that will be of real help to us in the years to come.
The issue has not been laid to rest!
Doris Cline Egge added her thoughts on the debate (source). Excerpt:
What is our witness?
Is it to withhold the telephone tax, all taxes?
I heard people sincerely upholding what they considered the biblical position on several sides of that issue.
I found developing a disturbing position for myself that perhaps a more faithful position might be the one James Myer, member of the committee, reiterated from the paper.
That position would be that discipleship should lead me to renounce that income that rises above the taxable floor, so in effect wage earners keep income so low they are not required to pay taxes.
For how can I faithfully tell my government, “You can do this and this with my money, and I’ll withhold funds from any expenditure I don’t like,” without encouraging people to do the same thing with the local church budget?
Dale Brown made a good point that a negative position against taxes for war purposes must not allow us to lose perspective in a positive emphasis — a vital peace witness.
Perhaps there is another position that would say, “If I can contrive to arrange my income so that I pay no taxes at all, I have relinquished any rights to influence government spending because I have no stake in it.”
I must admit that, for me, God has not yet written the last word.
Again in it was all about the Messenger, as none of the other Brethren publications I skimmed seemed to want to engage in the debate about war tax resistance.
In the issue, O.E. Gibson shared what he had learned about war taxes from the Spirit of Truth (source):
Here is what I hear the Spirit of Truth saying to us Christians about paying taxes to support the military:
“War is dependent upon two supports — soldiers and money. Because enough drafted young men choose the jail to the demands of our government, we have been given alternative service.
“When enough property owners prefer to have their property confiscated by our government rather than willingly pay the war tax, then we can hope for an alternative tax plan put into law.”
A few such people are calling us to join them.
Priscilla Zigler shared her reactions to the previous year’s Annual Conference statements (source). Excerpt:
I experienced mixed emotions when our proposals from Southern Ohio, concerning the need for further study of the tax issue, were defeated.
Immediately, feelings of frustration and anger surfaced — but then, also, a determination to keep communication alive and well, in spite of the polarization we were experiencing.
However, I know a witness was made in behalf of the importance of tax resistance in relation to our peace stand — and a witness is always an education for someone.
I hope it was for many that afternoon.
The hardest thing for me to understand or accept during the discussion on tax refusal was the “why” of it.
It was as though the church had absolved itself from any guilt about the Vietnam war.
No mention was made, in the study, of the life at stake in our payment or non-payment of taxes — and our choosing to support either life or death.
I’m wondering if the committee had looked at the issue in that light whether that very well-researched justification (the study committee report) could have ever come to be our position.
Brethren — we are opposed to war, to the destruction of human life and to any system that supports it.
Our way is peace — the gospel of love.
Why then, when the fact is that the phone tax was created specifically to aid in the destruction of the people of Vietnam, did we to the estimated tune of $145,000 per year support this tax?
Senator Frank Church said in reference to the renewal of the tax in :
“We are about to vote on an added tax which, when all the rhetoric is stripped away, is simply a war tax.
The need for it, as everyone now admits, is occasioned by the skyrocketing costs of our involvement in Vietnam.”
We supported that need.
The phone tax consistently remains, until , a part of the “life-giving blood” of the defense department.
If we continue to support the tax, we are nourishing an ever-growing evil.
Arlene and Cliff Kindy shared their below-the-tax-line tax resistance method in a letter in the issue:
We are happy to share with Messenger readers that we have again been able to keep our income below the taxable level of $2,800 for the past year.
It has not posed any financial problems for us, but instead has been a very freeing experience.
We took this conscious step initially because of what we felt to be a Christian responsibility to refuse to pay taxes when such a large portion of those taxes go to hurt and destroy others of God’s children here and around our world.
In addition, we felt that this might be a small way for us to attempt to correct the injustice of our small population in the United States using and controlling over 50 percent of the world’s material resources.
We can’t be sure at all that these actions will have any positive effect, but we continue them because of a call to try to be obedient to the life and teaching of our example, Jesus Christ.
We invite you to take a similar step out of obedience.
We do believe that for you this decision is a viable option because over 85 percent of our world population lives well below this level.
If you do face problems after making such a step, please feel free to contact us for help.
You’d think that a within-the-law form of resistance like this would satisfy the render-unto-Caesar set, but no.
Edgar O.
Slater shot back in the issue that it was bad that the Kindys, by lowering their incomes, would “not pay a fair share for the government that makes this freedom possible.”
The issue announced that legislation purporting to legalize a sort of conscientious objection to military taxation had been introduced in Congress (source).
Brethren were among the promoters of this early version of “Peace Tax Fund” legislation.
The Messenger listed the following Brethren lobbyists who had gone to Washington D.C. to push the bill: Clifford Bingham, Philip Bishop, Clifford Kindy, Kim Yamasaki, Nancy Stinette, James Drescher, Velma Shearer, Kaye Yoder, and Ralph E. Smeltzer.
“Although the World Peace Tax Fund Act is designed primarily to provide a legal alternative for taxpayers who cannot conscientiously help finance military programs, it gives all taxpayers an effective way to express their concern about the priority the Pentagon has over domestic programs,” explained James Drescher of the Brethren delegation.
In , promotion of the new “World Peace Tax Fund Act” legislation crowded out mention of honest-to-goodness war tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren’s Messenger magazine.
The issue profiled Grace and Harrold Lefevre, who had adopted a simple-living lifestyle (source). Excerpt:
Grace says that profit making is antithetical to their chosen life-style.
The Lefevers do not support many of the government’s spending practices and the family’s desire to keep their living at a subsistence level has a concurrent advantage.
Seldom have they had to pay income taxes, one yardstick by which they measure their own success as homesteaders.
The issue reviewed the work of the Church of the Brethren’s lobbying presence in Washington, D.C. (source), which included working with “a representative’s office in developing the World Peace Tax Fund Bill.” One of the “12 political action priorities” the lobbyist team was focusing on was “Providing a war tax alternative to conscientious objectors.”
But aside from those two articles, there was little in the Messenger in that touched on war tax resistance, and nothing at all in the other Brethren periodicals I reviewed.
Perhaps this was just fatigue, after the issue had been talked out thoroughly in previous years.
But I’ve noticed this suspicious correlation in my investigation of war tax resistance among Quakers and Mennonites, too, that as the chimera of “peace tax fund” legislation started to become prominent, actual war tax resistance became less so.
The first mention of war taxes I noticed in didn’t come until , and was a letter promoting the “World Peace Tax Fund” legislation (source).
Marcy Smith put in another plug for the bill in the issue, but this time at least mentioned war tax resistance in passing as another possible response to war taxes (source). Excerpt:
[A] question arises for followers of Jesus, persons opposed to repression and militarism, persons hoping for a better world free from war — in good conscience, can these people financially support war?
Search for alternatives. There are several alternatives.
Some people pay their taxes but include a letter stating their opposition to war;
some pay only part of their taxes, omitting the approximate percentage that goes to the military;
others refuse to pay any income tax.
Members of this latter group face loss of property (sold to reimburse the government for nonpayment of taxes) and even imprisonment.
In 1972, “The World Peace Tax Fund Act” was introduced into Congress.
The purpose of this legislation is to allow persons who are conscientiously opposed to war to channel their tax monies into a trust fund.
The trust fund would be used to support peace research and education, non-violent conflict resolution, and non-militaristic programs.
Diverting payment. How would it work?
If passed by Congress, the World Peace Tax Fund Act would allow persons filing income tax forms to indicate that they are conscientiously opposed to war and do not want their monies supporting the military.
That portion of the tax payment which would normally be used for military spending would be diverted into the trust fund.
Technically, the World Peace Tax Fund will cover only the percentage being used for current military operations (at this time, approximately 38 percent).
The trust fund is to have a Board of Trustees, appointed by the President of the United States.
The Trustees would be “men and women who have demonstrated a sincere and determined commitment to world peace and international friendship and who have experience with the resolution of international conflict by peaceful means.”
These people will decide what percentage of the annual budget has been allocated to military spending, therefore, what percentage goes into the trust fund, and for what alternative program(s) this money will be used.
Questions are raised by consideration of the World Peace Tax Fund Act.
One which is frequently asked is, “Won’t people who are opposed to welfare, abortion, and other controversial issues want to have special provisions made for them so that their money will not support those programs?”
In response, supporters of the Peace Tax answer that non-cooperation and opposition to war is a well-established conviction of many religions, Christian and non-Christian.
Because it is a sincere, long-held belief, the refusal to support war, whether in person or with money, must be recognized.
Precedent. A precedent for the World Peace Tax Fund is the Conscientious Objector (CO) provision in the Selective Service System.
Just as young men facing the draft could choose alternative service, so could taxpayers elect an alternative use for their money.
Like the CO option, however, the Peace Tax raises moral questions.
The World Peace Tax Fund will offer an opportunity for individuals to withhold their money from the military coffers.
However, while it is a chance for individual expression, the World Peace Tax Fund will not directly change United States’ military or foreign policy.
Just as opting for CO status did not end the draft, the World Peace Tax Fund will not bring the end of the military.
Passage of the World Peace Tax Fund Act will not relieve individuals of the need to speak out against wasteful military spending.
It will provide legal, alternative funding for peace-related programs and it will let members of the United States Congress know that a significant proportion of Americans are concerned about their monies being spent on the military.
The issue reported on a reunion of World War Ⅰ-era conscientious objectors (source).
Notice anything missing here?:
Speakers reminded the gathering of conscientious objectors that their fathers took a sharp distinct stand for peace and challenged the sons to find something as effective in their day.
Suggestions for present-day peace witnessing were: work against Junior ROTC in public schools, visit Washington to give testimony for peace, and support the World Peace Tax Fund.
In , Cliff Kindy wrote a full-throated encouragement of war tax resistance for the Church of the Brethren Messenger, the Camp Mack / Waubee conference enlisted people to sign a war tax resistance pledge, and a “New Call to Peacemaking” conference brought representatives of the three traditional peace churches together.
Wilbur J. Stump wrote in to the issue to promote the World Peace Tax Fund bill, which he claimed “would enable me, and others who feel as I do, to have the war part of my taxes used for peace projects” and would be “a legal alternative to paying taxes for military purposes” (source).
That proposed legislation was also boosted by an article a few pages further on in the same issue (source).
That article quoted a card that the National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund was asking supporters to send to Washington as saying that the bill “would allow conscientious objectors to have that portion of their taxes which would normally go for military purposes used instead for peace projects.”
The article quoted Brethren bill booster Dean M. Miller:
It is obvious that the payment of federal taxes inevitably involves us in war and preparation for war, since tax monies are not clearly differentiated into military and non-military categories…
One avenue of escape for this dilemma is to refuse to pay taxes.
However, money refused from tax payments is refused as much from the humane programs of government as from military programs.
We are not always able to make clear that we are protesting war and not taxation itself.
Furthermore, whatever taxes are withheld as an act of conscience, the government is able to collect by means of levies and confiscations.
An article in a later issue noted that an accompanying Senate bill had been introduced by bipartisan sponsors.
Another noted that the United Church of Christ had also endorsed the legislation.
And that’s it for .
All of the talk of war tax resistance that used to fill the pages of the Messenger is gone, replaced with this (ultimately fruitless) lobbying.
It’s worth noting that the “peace tax fund” legislation originally being promoted was better in many ways from the similar legislation that’s floundering today.
That said, this goes to show that from the very beginning, the “peace tax fund” movement has discouraged war tax resistance.
The issue brought the first full-throated encouragement of war tax resistance in a long time, from Brethren resister Cliff Kindy (source):
What to render unto Caesar
, 44 people from seven states gathered at Camp Mack in Northern Indiana to study and fellowship together to discern God’s will for the church as it faces requirements from the US government to pay vast sums of money for military-related purposes.
We were a mixture of Methodists, Mennonites, and Brethren who had been struggling with this issue for many years.
In the face of the fact that as church people we are paying over three times as much money in only the military-related portions of our taxes as we give for all church and charity purposes, our Bible study of the weekend focused on the clear word that Jesus is Lord of the earth.
Our time together was filled with joyful singing, unifying times of worship, meaningful moments of sharing our feelings and experiences, and deep periods of Bible study with openness to Jesus’ call changing our very lives.
The retreat was pulled together by Chuck Boyer of On Earth Peace and the BVS peace team from New Windsor.
There was a real openness on the part of the leadership (Donald Kaufman, author of What Belongs to Caesar?, and Lee Griffith from Advaita House in Baltimore) to allow the Spirit to change the agenda of the weekend to fit the call coming out of the discernment process.
Although retreats such as this are often little more than times of learning and fellowship, this gathering was an exciting exception with the potential to call the church to a fresh understanding of how total are the demands on those who profess Jesus as Lord of their lives.
On , out of moments of worship, listening for the word of the Lord, and sharing together came the Waubee Peace Pledge (named for Lake Waubee, the location of the Camp Mack retreat) and commitments to continuing activities of witness to our church and the world around us.
Although we were at different positions in our own lives, there was an amazing unity in feeling at Camp Mack that the pledge should be one written as strongly as the Word of God dictates and yet shared with the humility which the sin of our own lives necessitates.
What follows is the pledge in its final form with an invitation to each of you to join, if after deep, prayerful searching you find that you must.
Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅰ
Jesus Christ is Lord and we pledge our lives to his Lordship.
This is a pledge which we do make and we can make because the Lord fills his people with faith, hope, and love.
This is a pledge which we make with humility, but also with conviction, aware of the risks, since under all circumstances, we must obey God rather than people.
We believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, knowing that it is in the resurrection that we have our life.
We need follow death no more.
Death is conquered.
God chooses life for us.
We therefore pledge ourselves to the service of life and the renunciation of death.
Jesus Christ is the way and the truth and his way is the way of peace.
We will seek to oppose the way of war.
Specifically we make this pledge to our brothers and sisters in Christ:
Since we do not give our bodies for war, neither will we give our money.
We will refuse payment of federal telephone taxes and federal income taxes which go for military purposes.
Where our treasure is, there our hearts will be also.
If our treasure is involved in making war, our hearts cannot be set toward making peace.
We will pay no taxes for war, and if that means legal or other jeopardy for any of us, we will seek to support one another as sisters and brothers.
The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.
Render unto God what belongs to God.
We further pledge ourselves to urgently communicate with brothers and sisters in our churches, urging them to join us in refusing money for war.
We will also work to have annual meetings of our churches take a firm position against payment of war taxes, and to have church agencies agree to refuse withholding of these taxes from the pay of employees.
We believe that we who are the body of Christ should not serve as a military tax collection agency.
We further pledge ourselves to keep our hearts and lives open to the movement of God’s Spirit and to follow where Christ might lead us on the path of peace.
We pray for help and guidance — that we might be instruments of God’s peace.
We invite others to join in doing the words of this covenant and we seek to support those who are struggling toward this and other means of witness against war in the world.
We want to join you in whatever ways of sharing and commitment are possible through our common life in Christ.
Peace be with you.
Because we are at different points of commitment, a second pledge came out of this conference.
There was a common understanding by participants in the conference that Jesus is the King of Peace and that it is wrong to pay taxes for war, but for some that witness to life takes a different form.
Support for the World Peace Tax Fund is the form that takes for some of us.
Overall, though, the feeling of the conference was that, as a church, God calls us much beyond that in our witness for peace and our no to war.
As signers of Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅱ, we invite you to join if you feel God’s leading in the matter.
Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅱ
We, in spirit and in conscience affirm the Waubee Peace Pledge and fully support our sisters and brothers of that covenant.
At this time in our lives we feel unable to commit ourselves to non-payment of income and phone taxes.
We do commit our time, energy, and resources to searching for alternate channels of resistance, and pledge ourselves to continued seeking of God’s will for us in acting definitively to oppose those taxes for payment of war.
We give thanks for the freedom given us through Christ which enables us in this search, and we pray for the strength and hope to use our freedom as servants of God.
Out of these pledges and the activities of the weekend came several commitments and decisions.
It was felt that there was no need for a new newsletter but that our effort should be joined with the God and Caesar newsletter (Commission on Home Ministries, General Conference Mennonite Church, Box 347, Newton, KS 67114) and be supplemented as needed by a memo from the BVS peace team.
An exciting development was the surfacing of a group interested in serious Bible study of scriptures dealing with the issue of taxes.
Tony Sayer will be coordinating that study through the mail.
Three commitments relating to the church were to 1) share with congregations and individuals on the topic of the church and taxes which are used for war; 2) ask the decision-making bodies of our churches to endorse a statement calling all our church-related institutions to stop withholding taxes for IRS when most of those go to the US military; and 3) offer ourselves if the need arises to fill (in name only) the positions of high risk which might be threatened with prosecution by IRS because of the radical nature of some of our stances for peace.
Many at the conference will be working toward a concerted witness in the spring with the institutions of the US government that are ignoring the breaking of the Kingdom of God into our midst.
Whatever our point of commitment we want to encourage each other to deeper Christian discipleship in spite of the radically scandalous nature of the kingdom as it takes shape in our world.
May God grant us the grace to travel in that way.
Following this was a list of the names of twenty-two signers of pledge #1, and five of pledge #2.
The issue went back to peace tax fund stuff, with a profile of National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund promoter Wilbur Stump (source).
Stump was an attendee at the Waubee / Camp Mack conference, and one of the signers of pledge #2.
Anita and Richard Buckwalter shared their letter to the phone company in which they announced “we are no longer going to pay ‘protection’ money (blood money) to support [Uncle Sam’s] death machine” (source):
P.S. We donate the amount of our withheld phone tax to the Peace Tax Fund at Lansing Church of the Brethren, to be used in ministries for peacemaking.
They also shared their letter to the IRS in which they explained their refusal to pay a portion of their income taxes. Excerpt:
If you check your files, you will see that our protest has been consistent and lengthy.
Our purpose was then and is now to witness to the way of the Prince of Peace and to register our conscientious opposition to the use of our taxes for war-making.
To this end, we now feel called to move one step farther in our witness.
We can not in good conscience or in good faith sign over to you that portion of our taxes — roughly 35 percent in — that goes for present military use.
We refuse to take the initiative in paying for death and the destruction of God’s creation.
Therefore, we will not willingly forward this money to you; this is our witness to the powers that be — that God’s will for peace lives on in the victory of Christ over the powers of death.
Please note that we do not argue with the government’s power to collect taxes.
We accept the legitimate taxing powers of the state and willingly submit our taxes when we conscientiously can; we will even help to pay for past sins and wars of this nation — otherwise the percentage would be much higher.
But after much study of the Bible, prayer, and dialogue, we have come to the conviction that we will make this witness to the gospel of peace as over against the insanity of planning for war and nuclear holocausts.
Unfortunately, because the World Peace Tax Fund Act has not been enacted yet by Congress, our actions mean some inconvenience to you.
We regret this, and for your sake hope for the day when that law will make our witness “legal.”
Until then, we know that you have the power to collect our money.
We will not obstruct your efforts in that direction; neither will we hide or make personal gain from the money.
We are now and always will be open and direct with you about our intentions; we don’t wish to cause offense.
And we will forward copies of this letter to our elected representatives.
If you have any questions regarding our beliefs, we would be glad to dialogue with you.
There were three queries, from three separate congregations, concerning the World Peace Tax Fund Act, on the agenda at the Annual Conference.
A Standing Committee drafted a statement in response, “urging that Brethren support the WPTF through Annual Conference communiques to the President of the United States and appropriate Congressional committees, dissemination of information from the General Offices, continued promotion by the Washington Office, and congregational and individual letter-writing to members of Congress.” (source)
But some skepticism began to emerge:
While the Standing Committee recommendation passed with negligible delegate opposition, discussion of the issue included challenging questions about means of conscientious objection to war.
Cliff Kindy asked the church to consider the link between affluent life-styles and warfare, and suggested that living below a taxable income level is one response to the tax issue.
He urged the church to grapple again with tax refusal as a form of resisting participation in war.
Another speaker warned that the WPTF is “an attempt for us to be more comfortable with what is happening in the world” by seeking government approval of our resistance rather than acting boldly regardless of legal sanction.
John Reimer, of Western Plains District, asked if the WPTF would actually reduce military spending, or merely create a fund for peace research and education by reducing civilian sectors of the federal budgets while leaving the growing military budget unchallenged.
The issue noted that the Shenandoah District Board had begun a sort of conscientious objector census, asking draft-age youth to register their conscientious objection, while “[p]ersons who are supportive of conscientious objection to the payment of war taxes may register their beliefs on a third form.” (source)
Finally, the “New Call to Peacemaking” conference was also covered in the issue (source).
That conference was the first attempt to convene for a coordinated peacemaking response from members of the three traditional peace churches.
Excerpt:
Reaching consensus on war tax resistance was not as easy.
Although it was listed third among the concerns of this section, tax resistance was clearly the most widely debated item at the conference and support for the idea came from many of the regional meetings.
Finally, in five strong statements, delegates called upon Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites to “seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes as a response to Christ’s call to radical discipleship,” challenged congregations to uphold those who do resist with spiritual, legal, and material support; called upon church and conference agencies to seriously consider the requests of their employees who ask that their taxes not be withheld; suggested that alternative “tax” payments be channeled into a peace fund established by New Call to Peacemaking; and called upon the denominations, congregations, and meetings to give high priority to the study and promotion of war tax resistance.
Dale Brown of the Church of the Brethren also penned an article on “The Bible on Tax Resistance” for Sojourners magazine in .
The very different attitude toward war taxes (which usually went without mention) at The Brethren Evangelist can be illustrated by this excerpt from the convocation delivered by Ashland College dean Joseph Schultz (source).
Schultz was an ordained minister in the Brethren Church, with which Ashland College is affiliated:
One cannot visit the Strategic Air Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, without experiencing a welter of conflicting emotions.
Predominant is gratitude for the sense of security which those enormously complicated defense systems can generate, and a more tolerant attitude even toward taxes.
There is, of course, a feeling of awe, mixed with a tinge of doubt as to whether man actually can master such technological refinements.
And there is also an overpowering tug of regret that so much money must be spent for such expensive gadgets which may never be used.
A still greater foreboding is that they may be used, and expanded.
In readers of the Messenger learned the legal how-tos of war tax resistance, while even the conservative Brethren Evangelist was willing to publish “New Call to Peacekeeping”’s summons to war tax resistance.
an ad promoting the World Peace Tax Fund, from the edition of the Messenger
As had become common at this point, discussion of the World Peace Tax Fund bill often overshadowed war tax resistance when war taxes were discussed.
The bill was boosted in
(source),
(source), and
(source).
Here’s another example mention, from an profile of Charles Anderson (source):
Charles admits some pangs of conscience over his life-style.
His own affluence is difficult for him to reconcile with peacemaking, since he believes that the gap between the prosperous and the poor breeds violence.
His payment of tax, more than half of which is used for military purposes, is also stressful.
Support of the World Peace Tax Fund is an effort to resolve this personal conflict.
In the magazine reported that the Mennonites seemed to out in front of the Brethren on the war tax issue (source):
Church as tax collector protested by Mennonites
Delegates attending a special meeting of the General Conference Mennonite Church in Minneapolis in voted to launch a vigorous campaign to exempt the church from acting as a tax collector for the state.
The 500 delegates at the conference, called to discern the Christian response to militarism, passed the resolution by a nine to one margin.
A central focus of discussion was tax resistance already being practiced among Mennonites and the request of one such person, a General Conference employee, that the church stop withholding war taxes from her wages.
The General Board denied her request because it is illegal for an employer not to act as a tax collector for the Internal Revenue Service.
Delegates affirmed that decision but instructed the General Board to vigorously search for legal avenues to exempt the church from collecting taxes so individuals employed by the church would be free to follow their own conscience.
The issue profiled Ralph Dull, and noted that “throughout the past 25 years… the Dulls have withheld from their taxes the portion allotted to the military.” (source)
“Sometimes you get so frustrated, you just have to do something,” Ralph said.
For the past two years Ralph and others have taken food to the IRS as a witness that taxes should be used for feeding the hungry instead of supporting the military.
“I’m not sure it does any good, but it raises the issue.”
Phil Rieman wrote in to the issue, urging Brethren to stick together in order to overcome the fear of government reprisals when considering war tax resistance (source).
The issue reprinted a lengthy article by William Durland, a lawyer who founded the Center on Law and Pacifism (and later helped found NWTRCC), on the practical and legal aspects of war tax resistance:
When President Carter’s military tax budget for was criticized, he replied that he would not apologize for it.
While recommending cutbacks in health, education and human needs, he increased the portion of the budget allocated to bombs and bullets.
Many Christians are beginning to realize that they cannot use mammon for murder and expect a welcome at the millennium.
So they are looking for advice on ways to refuse complicity with the war machine.
Recently the Center on Law and Pacifism was organized in Philadelphia to serve people who need advice and support in the relationship of their radical religious, pacifist convictions to the laws which attempt to obstruct their conscientious objection to violence.
One of the main projects of the Center has been to aid people in their quest for information on how to be military tax refusers.
The Center is in the process of publishing such a study and the following is an overview of that report.
People want to know how to withhold their taxes, what happens if they do so and what legal remedies exist for them to witness to their conscientious objection in the courts of this land.
Usually people who are in this position are employees.
So we will talk about them first, then the employer, the corporation, the income tax refuser and the telephone tax refuser.
Employees receive their income in the form of wages which are subject to withholding before they see their check.
Employees must fill out a W4 form with their employer.
The W4 form determines the amount of money to be withheld from each paycheck.
The more allowances you claim the less money is withheld.
You are allowed a number of allowances on your W4 form depending upon how many dependents you have and what your anticipated itemized deductions are.
The employer determines how much money to withhold from your weekly paycheck on the basis of your W4 form.
Therefore, in order to reduce or eliminate withholding, you can file a new W4 form claiming more allowances.
There is nothing fraudulent about this procedure as long as you inform the IRS when you file your income tax return as to why you took the allowances on your W4 form.
When it comes time for your income tax, it is important that it be consistent with this claim.
This is done by taking a war tax deduction on your income tax form under “miscellaneous deductions.”
This is one of four methods to avoid withholding.
The second method is by working in an occupation exempt from the withholding law.
A third method is by becoming self-employed as a consultant or independent contractor.
Fourth, by earning less than a taxable income you can avoid not only withholding, but also any income tax liability whatsoever.
If you are successful in computing the sufficient number of allowances — which will constitute rendering your withholding to a point where you can take your deduction on your income tax — then no further problem remains until that time for the employee.
However, should the employee choose not to use the allowance method, but rather to ask the employer not to withhold any of the withholding tax, then there is a problem for both employer and employee.
The Internal Revenue Code of , as amended, requires employers making payment of wages to deduct and withhold from such wages a tax determined in accordance with IRS tables.
The employer is liable for the amount required to be deducted and withheld.
Any employer who fails is liable to the IRS for that amount plus a civil penalty equal to the tax amount.
There is also a criminal penalty of $10,000 fine and/or five years imprisonment for willful failure to pay or collect the amount due.
Some employers have wanted to protect the right of their employees to exercise their rights of conscience even though the employer does not share the same viewpoint.
In this event, employers have refused to withhold and have been taken to court.
Eventually they wind up paying and requiring the employee to reimburse them.
But what if the whole corporation becomes a war tax refuser, rather than just one of its employees?
In that event the corporation will not withhold any tax at all because they are conscientiously opposed to paying military taxes.
Recently we have seen some organizations which were created on radical religious, pacifist principles beginning to refuse to pay military taxes as a corporation rather than simply to support the conscience of one or more of their employees.
They see this as their own witness to the immorality of war taxes.
There is a possibility of losing tax-exempt status and other rights, but they are willing to witness in this way and suffer for conscience’s sake.
Everyone who makes a minimum amount of money a year is required by law to file an income tax return.
Whether you made your money as an employee, an employer or are self-employed, you must file form 1040 and complete Schedule A (“Itemized Deductions”) in order to take an income tax deduction for war.
Those who are self-employed can write in a “war tax credit” instead of a deduction, and simply withhold a percentage of the tax owed and send a letter to the IRS explaining what they are doing.
Another popular way of resisting military taxes has been refusal to pay the tax on the telephone bill.
In times past, the IRS took quite a bit of time tracing down telephone tax refusers.
Since the end of the Vietnam War, this has not been the case, although we have heard of one case recently where the telephone company closed down the service of a telephone tax refuser.
Whatever category you are in, you must decide how much to refuse and what you are going to do with that money.
Many organizations, such as the World Peace Tax Fund and the various chapters of War Resisters League, are equipped to advise you on the breakdown of the national budget.
But generally, from year to year, the military portion of the budget is calculated anywhere from 35 percent to 53 percent, depending upon whether current military expenditures for past wars are included.
For those who wish to put their money to good use while it is being withheld, there are various alternative funds which invest in human resources and use your money for that purpose.
Many people hope that the World Peace Tax Fund Act — designed to allow the taxpayer to earmark a specific amount of tax money to go into a federal fund to be used only for peaceful purposes — will be approved by Congress soon.
What happens when you take these steps?
How do you cope with the IRS?
No matter what category of refuser you are, what generally is going to happen to you is something like this:
If a tax is owed, a notice of tax will be sent to you.
The IRS is required to issue this bill which is a demand for payment.
You are then required by law to make payment within 10 days of the date of this bill.
If the tax remains unpaid after the 10-day period, a statutory lien is automatically attached to your property.
The law also provides for interest and penalty for late payment at this time.
Once this notice of tax lien has been filed at your courthouse, it becomes a matter of public record and may adversely affect your business transactions or other financial interests.
It could impair your credit rating; therefore, it is normally filed only after the IRS has sent you a second notice of deficiency and tried to contact you personally, giving you the opportunity to pay.
After the lien has been filed, a levy may be taken.
A levy is the taking of property to satisfy tax liability.
The tax may be collected by a levy on any property belonging to you.
In the case of levies being made on salaries or wages, you will usually be given written notice, in addition to the notice of demand, at least 10 days before the levy is served.
Generally, court authorization is not required before a levy action is taken, unless collection personnel must enter private premises to accomplish their levy action.
The only legal requirements are that the taxes are owed and that the notice and demand for payment have been sent to your last known address.
In taking a levy action, the IRS first considers levying on such property as wages, salaries and bank accounts.
Levying on this type of property is referred to as a seizure.
Willful failure to file or pay income tax can result in a criminal sentence of one year and/or $10,000 fine.
However, we know of no cases which have ever resulted in criminal penalties, except where there is a total failure to file any income tax form at all.
When you receive your notice of deficiency from the IRS, you will also be notified that you may elect to appeal your case to the US Tax Court;
if you decide to do so within 90 days of that time, the IRS process against you is halted for the duration of the case.
Several people have gone to Tax Court following this procedure, although in no case has anyone “won” there.
The Center on Law and Pacifism has advised and supported people filing cases in Tax Court and on the Appellate and US Supreme Court levels also.
If you lose your case in Tax Court, you may appeal to higher courts, and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
These appeals are based on the First Amendment free exercise of religion and other constitutional provisions.
Many of us are presently refusing 35 to 50 percent or more of our income taxes.
For others just beginning to consider war tax refusal, or those reluctant to refuse taxes in those quantities, a new project called People Pay for Peace, under the auspices of the Center on Law and Pacifism, offers an opportunity to participate.
The Center is coordinating this symbolic tax refusal movement by new reformers who withheld from their tax returns a few dollars, symbolizing their witness against military armament.
The amount is so small that it is unlikely the IRS will try to levy it.
Multiplied by thousands of people, this small amount will constitute a significant conscientious objection to payment for war.
There is still time to build the kingdom, time to protest armaments, time to create a spiritual community for those who turn from the idols of fear.
If I were to say to you, “I will not kill my neighbor, but I will pay someone else to do it,” would you not hold me accountable?
If we refuse to kill our neighbor but allow our government to do it with our money, are we not to be held accountable?
But then we must witness and suffer the consequences of our military tax refusal for conscience’s sake.
This is the price some Christians are paying for peace in .
According to another article in that issue, of 200 people who responded to a “Survey on Life-Style Changes” in an earlier issue of the magazine, 20% had taken the step of “keeping income down in order not to pay taxes.” Another 25% wanted nothing to do with such a step. (source)
I was a little surprised to see the fairly conservative Brethren Evangelist devote several pages of its issue to reprinting part of the Statement of the Findings Committee of the “New Call to Peacekeeping” conference (source).
The Brethren Church was not (as the Church of the Brethren was) a partner to this conference, but they did send an observer.
The magazine was careful in its preface to say: “The printing of this Statement does not mean that either the Peace Coordinator [Doc Shank of the Brethren Church, who attended the conference] or the Brethren Publishing Company endorses it in its entirety. It is our hope that it will be read carefully and with an open mind.”
Mention of tax resistance was brief in the published excerpt (“We urge the development of support groups within congregations and meetings for those individuals who are working at peace issues such as war tax resistance, simple lifestyles, and nonviolent action.”) but this makes for a rare positive mention in this usually more stodgy magazine.
In the magazine followed up with a second excerpt from the Statement (source).
This one was more explicit and direct:
We call upon members of the Historic Peace Churches to seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes, as a response to Christ’s call to radical discipleship.
We challenge ourselves and also our congregations and meetings to uphold war tax resisters with spiritual, emotional, legal, and material support.
We call on our church and conference agencies to enter into dialogue with employees who ask, for reasons of moral conviction, that their taxes not be withheld.
We suggest that alternative “tax” payments be channeled into a peace fund initiated by the New Call to Peacemaking or into existing peace funds of constituent groups.
We call on our denominations, congregations and meetings to give high priority to the study of war tax resistance in our own circles and beyond.
Another element of the statement gave a thumbs-up to the World Peace Tax Fund legislation.
There were a couple of horrified letters to the editor that followed, from Brethren who didn’t want to see their church tangled up with the anti-war movement, but otherwise not much discussion.
A “Christian Life-style Task Force” presented its report at the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference, and gave war tax resisters the encouragement they had been looking for.
The cover story of the issue was an interview of Ruby Rhoades, head of the World Ministries Commission and an associate general secretary on the General Board of the Church of the Brethren (source).
Excerpt:
How do you look upon the status of the denomination’s peace witness at all levels:
Is it growing or diminishing?
More importantly, considering the biblical foundation, is the witness faithful and prophetic?
I believe there is a growing consciousness among individual members of the larger issues of peace.
By that I mean beyond the draft and conscientious objection, which have been our traditional concerns.
Our support for the World Peace Tax Fund, broad involvement in the New Call to Peacemaking, participation in the United Nations disarmament rally, the coming together last winter in bitterly cold weather to protest the arms bazaar in Rosemont, Ill., rallying against the possible resumption of the draft… all are evidence of a vital peace concern among Brethren.
And pockets of persons all around the country continue to meet regularly to work at the issues more decisively.
But it is not enough.
When I read statistics about our weapons stockpiles and the destruction capability of new weapons systems I get scared, depressed and angry all at once.
We must make it clear that we will not tolerate such inventions and production levels and military spending.
Now to the second part of your question: Are we being prophetic?
I think we are, though I’m not sure what Micah or Jeremiah would say about us.
In what ways do you mean?
We’re trying to speak to the principalities and powers through our work in Washington and at the United Nations.
It was a Brethren on a World Council of Churches committee who got a strong peace statement through that body on combating militarism and arms proliferation.
We’ve worked and are working in reconciliation efforts in Northern Ireland and in the Middle East.
We’ve given major leadership to the New Call to Peacemaking.
As a body, we haven’t moved into tax resistance as some of our individual members have.
Maybe that will finally be the way to convince our government that we are not willing to keep paying for war preparations.
We recognize that the issue of taxes used for war purposes is but one of many issues facing the church today.
We share some questions with the expectation that similar ones on other issues might be put to us to upbuild all in the way of faithfulness and draw us together in the bond of unity.
Should Christians pay those taxes which are used for war-related purposes?
How large can the percentage of taxes going for war purposes become before it would be our Christian obligation to refuse them?
Does God get the glory when our church institutions are collecting taxes for “Caesar” (through withholding) and about 50 percent of those taxes are going for war-related purposes?
If the same percentage of our taxes were going to support a network of houses of prostitution, would we pay those taxes?
Is it not a much more awesome breach of faithfulness to have prostituted our souls to the god of war to the extent we have than to have given our bodies to a whore or our money to support a prostitution network?
If it will be right not to pay war taxes when (and if) the World Peace Tax Fund Act becomes law, why is it not now?
If Jesus Christ is Lord and we are convinced that there is something inconsistent with the Christian life and paying taxes for war purposes, then what authority does “Caesar” have to say we must pay those taxes?
Should the threat of persecution/prosecution ever deter the Christian from an act of faithlessness to Jesus Christ and God’s kingdom?
The issue reported that “[u]nanimously and without comment” the Supreme Court had turned down an appeal by pacifists who argued that they had a Constitutional right (on 1st and 9th Amendment grounds) to refuse to pay taxes for war (source).
The issue included a contribution from Delia Miller, who wrote about her war tax resistance (source). Excerpts:
I claimed a “military tax deduction” on my income tax return.
I claimed this by exercising my rights guaranteed under the first amendment to freely practice my religion.
Most Americans don’t see how paying income taxes interferes with religion.
I believe paying the 47 percent of our income tax, budgeted for military use (past, present and future) is in profound opposition to God’s commandment to worship and serve.
I have rejected the false security of militaristic muscle and the belligerent way of relating to others, next door and around the globe.
As a member of the Church of the Brethren, a historic peace church, I join the tradition of refusing to participate in killing my brothers and sisters, either by carrying a gun myself or paying my government to make and launch missiles.
In my attempt to be a faithful servant of God I try to be obedient to commands in all areas of my life, to make allegiance to the kingdom primary, and allegiance to earthly kingdoms secondary.
If my life is committed to peacemaking, that must include my money.
Today, especially, our money is more necessary than our bodies for preparing for and fighting a high-technology, nuclear war.
The issue noted that the Church of the Brethren General Board was considering joining forces with the General Conference Mennonite Church in its planned lawsuit “seeking exemption from withholding taxes from the income of its employees” who conscientiously object to military taxation (source).
Excerpt:
Robert W.
Neff, general secretary of the Church of the Brethren General Board, said, “We must seriously consider joining them in this historic action.” He pointed to the paper on Christian life-style passed by Annual Conference delegates in Pittsburgh [see below].
That paper calls on the General Board to “place high priority on study and discussion” of “exploration… for release from the current legal requirement to collect taxes by withholding the income taxes of employees…” He believes Brethren will favor this test case because it “attempts to work within the law.”
The Christian Life-style Task Force Report
War tax resistance was again on the Annual Conference agenda in .
After the Conference, a “Christian Life-style Task Force” was put together to study and make recommendations regarding war tax resistance and voluntary simplicity.
Brethren war tax resisters who were upset at the tepid Church statement on war tax resistance (see ♇ 9 June 2020) hoped for something stronger this time (and they got it).
The issue reported on the debate over the Task Force’s report:
First included in the Conference Booklet as a study document, the report was amended in its section on “taxation and militarism” by the General Board meeting and passed on to Annual Conference for adoption as a position paper.
Debate on the floor centered on that amended section.
In it the task force encourages high priority on study and discussion of consideration of refusal to pay that portion of federal taxes used for militarism.
It affirms withholding of war taxes as a legitimate Christian witness.
A “peace fund” could be one way to handle alternative “tax” payments.
The joint Quaker/Mennonite/Brethren “New Call to Peacemaking” conference met again in , and the Messenger covered it (source).
Excerpt:
New Call to Peacemaking participants urged other Brethren, Mennonites, and Friends to be faithful to Christ’s spirit of peace by confronting militarism through war tax resistance, opposition to registration and reinstatement of the draft, and renouncement of the belief that security lies in arms.
While stating their “common conviction that peace is the will of God and that Christ calls us to be peacemakers,” delegates were divided about whether the call to peacemaking requires war tax resistance.
The conference finally reaffirmed the call made by the first NCP conference in that “members of the historic peace churches seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes…” and said, “If we believe that fighting war is wrong, does it not follow that paying for war is wrong?”
Members of the three churches were encouraged to engage in forms of tax resistance ranging from withholding that portion of their taxes that would be used for military purposes to paying “war tax monies under protest.”
In , Brethren continued to resist war taxes, and a new “777 Club” campaign attempted to nudge non-resisters into a small, baby-steps form of war tax resistance.
The issue of Messenger covered the legal battle of war tax resister Bruce Chrisman:
“Our hearts go with our treasure to war when we must pay war taxes,” said Bill Faw of Reba Place Fellowship.
He was speaking at a worship service in support of Bruce Chrisman and his appeal for the right to refuse to pay war taxes.
Chrisman appeared before the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago in .
He was appealing his conviction for failing to file a proper income tax return.
Bruce and his wife, Maryanne, farm near Ava, Ill.
The argument against Chrisman (and others in similar cases) is that he broke the law when he failed to file the proper income tax return.
Chrisman believes that such an argument misses the point — that his freedom of religion is violated by the court’s insistence that he pay even those taxes that go towards war.
Chrisman’s attorney, A. Jeffrey Weiss, argued that the first amendment of the Constitution prohibits laws that interfere with the “free exercise” of religion.
Weiss contended that the US government violates this clause by requiring full payment of taxes from citizens whose faith demands that they not pay for war.
The General Conference Mennonite Church (GCMC) filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in Chrisman’s behalf.
The brief gave historical precedents for withholding war taxes.
It also stated the GCMC officially supports “Christian pacifists who refuse to pay taxes to be used for military purposes.”
Although Chrisman is not a Mennonite, he is closely associated with the GCMC.
After his conviction, Chrisman expected to receive a two-year prison sentence.
But , when he stood before the judge for sentencing, he explained that he didn’t mind paying taxes.
In fact, he said, he would not object to paying more than his share of taxes if those taxes relieved human suffering.
The judge gave him the unusual sentence of one year’s service in Mennonite Voluntary Service.
He spent the year doing peace work and visiting prisons.
He and Maryanne plan to serve another year.
Chrisman does not expect word on his appeal before since a written ruling from the court usually requires between three and six months.
If his conviction is upheld, Chrisman intends to carry his appeal further.
U.S. military support of the government of El Salvador became another reason to refuse taxes, when in the issue Jorge Lara-Braud was quoted addressing Church of the Brethren higher-ups (source):
“To what extent,” he asked, “will we US Christians be used to finance the repression of those who are seeking the Kingdom of God?” He urged tax resistance as one way of resolving the agony of giving the government money to kill other Christians.
That issue also reported on a new “Brethren Discipleship Group” and noted, somewhat vaguely, that “They also refuse to pay ‘willingly those taxes which support war’ ” (source).
The Annual Conference reaffirmed its support for the World Peace Tax Fund legislation (source), but:
An amendment urging refusal to pay military-related taxes was ruled out of order, although recognized as a related issue.
Concern was raised that the WPTF represented an “easier way to be Christian” than direct refusal to pay taxes.
But war tax resistance was still a going concern.
From the issue:
Three General Board staff families have taken a stand against war by withholding part of their federal income taxes.
Chuck and Shirley Boyer, Ralph and Mary Cline Detrick, and Miller and Phyllis Davis protested the use of their tax dollars for defense spending by giving the amount withheld to other organizations.
Miller Davis, director of the New Windsor Service Center, and Phyllis withheld $100, which they sent to the General Board.
Peace consultant Chuck Boyer said that he and his wife, Shirley, had periodically withheld income taxes .
, they and the Detricks, of life cycle ministries, each gave $50 to the local school board to demonstrate their support of public non-military programs.
“We don’t mind paying taxes,” says Mary Detrick.
“That’s why we chose to pay the same amount to a public institution.
It feels like a little bit of leaning toward justice.”
Adds Ralph Detrick: “It’s a symbolic protest of how the government spends our money.
We choose to make a nuisance.”
Like the Detricks, Boyer acknowledges that tax resistance currently is little more than a “nuisance” to the federal government.
But he points out that such a protest could have an impact “if 20,000 or 30,000 Christians did involve themselves.”
Boyer and the Detricks stress that their personal decisions are not intended to tell others what to do.
Rather, they hope to raise questions and to give support to other Brethren families who have chosen to take the same stand.
“It’s not the kind of thing I like to do.
People probably think I’m a real radical,” says Boyer.
“It’s a struggle within me to find what it means to be faithful,” he concludes, “but something has to be done, and this is it for now.”
And there was this attempt to get some more-timid Brethren to take symbolic baby-steps into tax resistance, from :
Jesus does not tell us to give Caesar everything he asks for.
Nor does he specify what is Caesar’s and what is God’s.
The 777 Club is one way to resist war taxes and maintain one’s Christian integrity.
by Karen Zimmerman and Bill Puffenberger
What started out as a sharing experience for a few Sundays at the Eiizabethtown Church of the Brethren expanded into a class lasting 12 weeks.
The Topic? “War Tax Resistance.”
After a brief initial discussion of the topic we began an in-depth study of several key biblical passages.
This led to other experiences — a visit with Paul and Loretta Leatherman (originators of a 777 plan of war tax resistance);
a visit to the Mennonite Central Committee Headquarters to share with a group of Mennonites who have been practicing various types of war tax resistance; the sponsorship of a Sunday morning mini-workshop in the local congregation; and a Sunday morning dialog with our local congressional representative, Robert Walker.
As a result of these experiences, some members of the class have offered to share their time and ideas on this issue with other churches in Atlantic Northeast District.
As newcomers to the field of war resistance, it was rewarding to have the opportunity to talk with the Leathermans — 10-year veterans.
Over the years they have tried various methods to withhold the portion of their taxes that are used for war.
Eventually, the Internal Revenue Service got its money, but it was not an easy process and it provided the Leathermans an opportunity to witness to their local IRS agent, their bank representative, their employers, and others about their opposition to war and their necessity for funding it.
In an effort to have more people join them and hopefully to attract the attention of law-makers in Washington, the Leathermans initiated a 777 plan.
They propose withholding a symbolic amount of $7.77 (or some variable thereof) as a war tax deduction.
Because present US tax laws do not provide for this kind of deduction, many members of the class used the 1040 long form and wrote in the words “War Tax Credit” on line 46.
A brief letter of explanation was then attached to the form.
In addition, more detailed letters explaining our views were sent to our local congress members and to the President.
We recognize that this is indeed a symbolic protest since in most cases the government has already taken the taxes or will take unpaid taxes from our future paychecks.
Even though the taxes will eventually be collected, we think it is a matter of integrity to say by our actions, words, and letters how we feel about this issue.
The number 777 was chosen for its biblical significance and symbolism.
Seven is the biblical symbol for perfection.
Seven is the numerical framework for God’s Creation, especially the Sabbath.
Jesus tells us to forgive “seventy times seven.”
To us Eiizabethtown tax resisters the number had even greater significance — our church address is 777 Mount Joy Street.
We studied in detail two biblical references on taxes: Mark 12:13–17 and Romans 13:1–7.
Our study convinced us that we cannot assume that the law of the land is the sole judge of our moral decisions.
We must see obedience to government in the context of the command to live in peace with all persons.
In light of the increasing militarism of the present administration in Washington it is particularly urgent that Brethren consider the issue of war tax resistance.
Can we be satisfied that conscientious objection by only our 18 to 26-year-old youth is an adequate stance to maintain?
What is to be required of us who are outside this age classification?
In a world that is warring with a technology fueled more by money than by personnel, most of us are relatively unaffected by the draft.
While our bodies are not being used, our dollars are being conscripted for war purposes.
What kind of integrity is this?
How can we conscientiously pray for peace and at the same time pay for war?
We urge Brethren to take another look at Christ’s teachings as well as our denomination’s peace position.
We feel we have a convincing argument that the current military build-up is diametrically opposed to God’s law to love one another.
We are hopeful other Brethren join with us who are taking this symbolic war tax deduction of $7.77 (or $77.77 or $777.77) as a way of maintaining our Christian integrity and at the same time letting our government know that there are some people out there who oppose the current excessive military build-up.
We are not in principle opposed to the payment of taxes (which support many worthwhile endeavors).
We are opposed only to the payment of taxes for war-like means (which we see as destructive and unchristian).
We all have a choice: We can quietly pay our war taxes and support preparations for war or we can noisily refuse to pay (even a symbolic amount) and work untiringly for the cause of peace.
We members of the 777 Club probably cannot arrest the current military build-up, but we will have at least set the record straight that we cannot mouth the words of peace and at the same time willingly pay into an ever-growing war chest.
We seek to avoid a kind of Christian schizophrenia as we refuse to pay for that which is destructively unchristian.
The Bible Monitor never flinched from its strict if somewhat blinkered interpretation of render-unto-Caesar.
From “Serving God and Caesar,” the lead article in the issue:
The Christian’s duty includes paying his taxes.
Even Jesus paid his tribute money.
The money of our land is very clearly marked as the legal tender of the land, therefore it should be rendered back to the government.
Although we may not approve of all uses made of our tax money, we dare not be selective in what we pay.
We do indirectly receive a benefit, at least in the eye of the world, from our taxes.
Again in , only the Messenger (of those Brethren periodicals I reviewed) covered war tax resistance, but they did so often.
In a Brethren church in Indiana hosted a war tax resistance workshop:
A concern for active Christian peacemaking was the motivation for the gathering of over 50 people from at least seven religious traditions .
The event, sponsored by the Peace Action Committee of the Northern Indiana District and held at Prince of Peace Church of the Brethren, was a war tax resistance workshop led by Dale Aukerman of the Brethren Peace Fellowship.
The two main body presentations dealt with “our peacemaking and the end of the world,” and “war tax resistance as seen from the perspective of Matthew 18:15–17.” Participants were called to “claim the sovereignty of God and take our Christian discipleship seriously.
The key to our peace witness is to strive to be faithful to God.”
The workshop is one of a growing number being held throughout Brethren churches, often in conjunction with other denominations.
The groups explore nuts-and-bolts alternatives of withholding taxes and support each other in maintaining the witness under Internal Revenue Service pressure, as well as sharing the vision of peace inherent in faithfulness to God.
“Participants in the war tax resistance workshop led by Dale Aukerman (lower left corner) explore peacemaking theology and alternatives of withholding taxes.”
Kevin Zimmerman shared the thinking that went into his war tax resistance in the issue of Messenger (source).
Excerpt:
Although my body is not being conscripted to support war, my tax money is, and at this point in history which do the military powers need more?
My money!
As Dale Brown notes, “If it becomes possible through automated warfare to kill and destroy with unmanned aircraft and minimal personnel, then the witness of withholding economic support may become an issue of even greater importance to the conscientious Christian peacemaker.”
I am not opposed to supporting my government or paying taxes to my government.
But I believe when our government goes directly against Christ’s teachings we are to follow Christ.
Peter and the apostles found themselves forced to resort to civil disobedience in an attempt to fulfill Christ’s teachings and, when arrested, responded, “We must serve God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
I would like to see Congress pass the bill supporting the World Peace Tax Fund.
That portion of my taxes supporting our military could instead be put into this fund to be used for such peaceful purposes as United Nations activities, research into nonviolent solutions to international conflicts, disarmaments efforts, and international education and welfare.
In this way I can support my government as well as the peaceful lifestyle demonstrated by Christ.
Christianity has never been and will never be a spectator sport.
We are commanded to go out and spread the word by helping our neighbors and sharing their burdens, but also by letting our government know too, by letter or by civil disobedience, when they have broken God’s laws.
By sharing my feelings, I hope others will seriously and prayerfully consider how their tax money is being spent, their role in our military machine, and Christ’s teachings to “love our enemies.”
The issue covered the Supreme Court ruling against Old Order Amish who wanted their conscientious objection to the social security system allowed by law (source).
Excerpt:
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger agreed with the IRS, saying, “The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge tax systems because tax payments were spent in a man-er that violates their religious belief.”
Such an attitude could seriously hamper efforts to establish an alternate peace fund into which conscientious objectors could channel taxes that now fund military budgets.
That issue also announced the formation of a “Tax Resister’s Penalty Fund” (still going strong today as the War Tax Resisters Penalty Fund):
Dave Leiter, of North Manchester, Ind., is heading up a network of people interested in distributing the burden of penalties or interest levied against military tax resisters.
An example of such support would be for 200 people to share a $500 penalty by each contributing $2.50. If interested, write the Tax Resister’s Penalty Fund…
Another article in the same issue, on possible responses to the nuclear arms race (source), recommended war tax resistance as one of the possibilities:
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.
Mike and Carol Zuercher Stern shared their war tax resistance journey in a letter-to-the-editor in the issue (source):
The way a person spends money is an indicator of one’s personal priorities.
In the past year (perhaps more clearly than any other time in recent history) our country has corporately demonstrated what it considers to be most important by how it spends money.
Top priority is military superiority over all other nations — bigger and better bombs, submarines, missiles, and napalm.
As Christians and conscientious objectors to war, we cannot accept this national priority as though it were our own.
We oppose the building of weapons whose ultimate use means the shedding of human blood.
Each April 15 we are reminded of our personal participation in funding a national priority which we believe stands in direct contradiction to our Christian faith.
Our response each year has been to file all the legally required tax forms while witnessing by a variety of symbolic protests against the use of tax dollars for weapons of war.
This year we felt compelled by conscience to refuse to pay the entire amount of taxes which had not been withheld already from our salaries.
This $438, less than 25 percent of our total tax obligation for the year, will be given instead to charitable organizations.
In doing so, we affirm our commitment to the gospel of love, healing, and reconciliation.
That issue also reported on Ralph Dull’s theatric tax resistance protest:
Ralph Dull, of the Brookville, Ohio, Church of the Brethren, has refused to pay a portion of his income taxes each year as a protest against military spending.
This year he chose a new way to draw attention to the issue.
On he pulled up in front of the Federal Building in downtown Dayton to offer the Internal Revenue Service 325 bushels of corn in lieu of taxes owed.
The action was “to dramatize and emphasize the need for the Federal government to turn its priorities around and support constructive people programs,” Dull said, “rather than use our resources for an arms race that is murderous and suicidal.”
He asked the IRS to sign a statement acknowledging the value of the grain and guaranteeing that its value would be used only for non-military purposes.
When the IRS refused to sign.
Dull sold the corn to a local elevator.
A check for about $777 was made out to Church World Service and given to the National Farmers Organization’s Food for Poland project.
“Apart from the religious aspect of this issue,” said Dull, “what this symbolic action lifts up for consideration is human decency.
It is vulgar to squander material and human resources while there is so much opportunity to relieve existing human misery.”
a classified ad from the issue
An article from the issue, focused on resistance to draft registration, noted in passing that “The United Methodist Church… said [in ], ‘We… support all those who conscienttiously object to preparation in any specific war or all wars; to cooperation with military conscription; or to the payment of taxes for military purposes; and we ask that they be granted legal recognition.”
A report on the Annual Conference in that same issue noted that war tax resistance was a last-minute addition to the agenda:
Brethren war protesters who decide to withhold tax money going to war purposes may find their employers less than enchanted with the idea.
Brethren employers may be sympathetic to the idea but are up against federal regulations to withhold taxes.
So what’s a body (such as Annual Conference) to do?
Acting on a late-breaking query from Northern Indiana District, Annual Conference elected a committee of five to study the problem and report in .
The committee is charged to come up with helpful guidance for church institutions so they can adequately respond to their employees employees who wish to withhold their “war taxes.”
The study was approved, despite at least one speaker grousing that he hadn’t “heard one good thing about the US government this week.”
Chances are he was correct.
The Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren will not be remembered as an exercise in flag-waving patriotism.
For the majority of the delegates to Wichita, judging by the voting record, patriotism was best evinced in responsibly and prayerfully calling one’s government to account in the areas of justice and peace.
That committee would include Dale W. Brown, William R. Faw, Ramona Smith Moore, Phillip C. Stone, and Marty Smeltzer West.
In the issue, Ingred Rogers reported on a war tax resisters’ alternative fund that her Brethren church established:
The Manchester Church of the Brethren has established a “Fund for Life” as an expression of support for those who feel moved to refuse payment of war taxes.
This was a significant step in a long process of soul-searching and consciousness-raising.
The process began in when several members formed a tax-concerned group.
Driven by the conviction that to contemplate nuclear holocaust is sin against God and humanity, we came together to discuss how to express our conscientious objection to war taxes.
Careful reading of the Bible convinced us that the Scriptures give no single, absolute statement about payment of taxes.
But we are indeed called to obey God above all, and trusting in weapons of mass destruction is clearly idolatrous.
From the beginning, we saw our action as an effort to maintain faithfully the Brethren peace testimony.
It became increasingly important to us to allow the church to make a witness on behalf of tax resisters.
Our denomination as a whole had already committed itself to recognition of war-tax resistance as a form of conscientious objection.
Now it was a matter of asking for support from the local congregation that had nurtured us and had had a vital influence on tiie formation of our peace position.
After the first church board discussion on the issue, the tax group prepared a proposal for a Fund for Life.
The original draft provided that resisters would deposit in the fund the money withheld from taxes.
Money unclaimed by the Internal Revenue Service was to become the property of the Manchester church as a completed gift by the original depositor and used for peace work.
As in an escrow account, money up to the amount deposited could be returned to the individual if the IRS should claim the sum.
The church board raised two objections.
If the money can be returned in full to the original depositor once the IRS demands it, where is the witness, the risk, the sacrifice?
If the church holds money owed to the government, might the whole congregation legally be implicated?
The board decided to bring the proposal to the next council meeting for discussion, and to delay a final vote for another six months to allow the congregation to reflect upon the issue of war-tax resistance.
The resulting education program was thorough and rewarding.
As expected, we met with disagreement and heated debate.
A second draft suggested that the money should be a completed gift from the beginning without strings attached.
Also, money deposited would not necessarily have to be withheld from taxes; anyone could contribute as an expression of support.
The tax group found this second draft more true in some ways to the original intent.
Both drafts were presented in Sunday school classes.
After three more modifications, the group settled on this wording:
The congregation leaves the withholding of war taxes to the individual conscience of each member or friend.
Any member or friend of the Manchester Church of the Brethren may contribute money to the Fund for Life.
The income from said gifts and the gifts themselves shall be used by the church for activities that are expressly peace-making, including the support of those persons mentioned in item four.
None of these gifts or the income from said gifts shall be used for the operating budget of the church.
Upon request, our congregation shall financially assist any member or friend who withholds war taxes if the Internal Revenue Service presses for collection of his/her tax liability.
Such contributions shall come from the fund or from special contributions of individual members of the congregation.
This latest version was adopted by the church in the .
Our need for education and discussion on this subject increases.
Every year we are painfully made aware of the shift in priorities in our national budget; every year more billions are sacrificed for weapons which will destroy God’s creation.
The Fund for Life has been an attempt to seek alternatives to quiet acquiescence.
It is a small but significant step in accordance with the faith we proclaim.
The study of peacemaking has led some Brethren to question the payment of taxes that support the military system.
Southern Ohio has a special committee on the World Peace Tax Fund.
Michigan’s district conference in will act upon a resolution that urges congregations not to pay telephone taxes.
Manchester (Ind.) church has created a Fund for Life (see [above]).
Galen and Wanda Miller, of Oregon/Washington District, divide their Federal tax into two checks — one made out to the Department of Health and Human Services and one to the Internal Revenue Service — and include a letter stating that they don’t object to paying taxes for constructive programs.
In , Brethren churches had to make tough choices of how far to go to support their war tax resisting pastors in battles with the government.
At the Annual Conference , the Church approved a position paper recommending that congregations consider civil disobedience in such cases.
The issue of Messenger reported on how, in the wake of a discouraging Supreme Court decision in an unrelated case, “[t]he General Conference Mennonite Church has put on hold a war tax lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.” (source)
, the magazine reported on a Brethren congregation that struggled to decide how far to go to support a war tax resisting pastor:
After agonizing debate.
Prince of Peace Church of the Brethren, South Bend, Ind., voted to comply with an order to pay the Internal Revenue Service part of the wages of pastor Louise Rieman, a war tax resister.
Prince of Peace is the first Church of the Brethren congregation to be faced with the tax-resistance issue.
Louise Rieman and her husband, Phil, have been withholding a percentage of their taxes to protest military spending, and have also withheld information about bank accounts from which the IRS could take tax money.
When the church was asked to hand over part of her wages, the Riemans asked the church board to refuse.
The board passed a resolution that supported the Riemans and denied the IRS request.
But the resolution was defeated 20 to 16 when it was sent to the church council for consideration by the entire congregation.
The debate focused on the biblical basis for and against tax resistance, the moral implications of breaking the law, and preservation of the congregation amidst the controversy.
, in response to a Northern Indiana District query, Annual Conference formed a committee to study war tax resistance.
A report is expected at the conference in Baltimore.
An Oregon congregation, however, decided to take a stronger stand (from the issue):
Peace Church of the Brethren, in Portland, Ore., has voted unanimously to refuse to comply with an Internal Revenue Service effort to collect war taxes owed by pastor Rick Ukena.
The congregation also voted to issue a public statement explaining the decision, and to raise funds to pay any fine arising from noncompliance with the IRS.
Ukena and his wife, Twyla Wallace, have withheld taxes , and the government has seized the money each of those years.
IRS actions against war tax protesters have become speedier and more severe under the Reagan Administration, and this year a levy was imposed against the church.
After a committee explored alternatives with an attorney and with Chuck Boyer, Church of the Brethren peace consultant, a special congregational meeting was held to consider the options.
“Most inspiring was the way the church took it on without my insistence,” said Ukena.
“People were really trying to discern the Spirit.”
Earlier this year, Prince of Peace church in South Bend, Ind., voted to comply with an IRS order regarding pastor Louise Rieman (see [above]).
Ukena was a conscientious objector in and says tax resistance has become a way of life for him.
“I would encourage people to not take the action,” he cautioned, “unless they’re aware of what they’re doing.”
“It was a really scary decision at first,” he added.
“We really prayed and talked to others and read the Bible to determine what was right.
It’s nice to fear God more than the IRS.”
Shirley Whiteside wrote in to applaud the Peace Church’s stand (source):
I rejoice to see this kind of integrity supported within the church.
I hope that one day the greater church will realize our hypocrisy.
To officially proclaim “All war is sin,” while we are party to war with no visible resistance, decries our loyalty to the gospel we claim.
At the Annual Conference, the Church of the Brethren decided whether or not to take a stronger stand that might include corporate civil disobedience.
By a supermajority, they voted to do so:
What started out at the Annual Conference as a study on war tax resistance came out of the Conference as a position paper.
The job of the study committee on war tax consultation was to answer the basic question of how an institution should respond to employees who object to payment of the part of their taxes that goes for military support, said Phillip Stone, General Board member and chairman of the committee.
In its list of recommendations, the committee suggested that “congregations and church-related institutions give consideration to a range of extra-legal options.”
Included is the option of corporate civil disobedience by supporting an employee involved in war tax resistance.
Moderator Paul Hoffman said that by recommending civil disobedience the study paper became a position paper, and needed a two-thirds majority — which it did receive from the delegate body.
Preceding the listing of extra-legal options was a listing of legal means by which institutions could support employees involved in tax resistance.
The committee stated that only after legal means were exhausted should an institution enter into civil disobedience.
In conclusion, the committee called on the larger church community to give support to any church-related organization involved in civil disobedience.
This statement is conspicuously absent from the Church of the Brethren Resolutions & Statements listed on the official Annual Conference website today.
I’m not sure how to explain that.
Maybe we’ll find out as I continue to hunt through the archives.
We need to name the huge expenditures for weapons for what it is, blasphemy against the goodness of God’s creation, a sin we commit together.
In light of this reality I would like to pass on a suggestion from the New Call to Peacemaking Conference at Elizabethtown College :
Instead of focusing on the division between those who pay and those who resist war taxes, let’s all join together in witnessing against war taxes even though we do this in different ways.
Some will witness to people in government through letters accompanying or sent concurrently with their tax payment and returns.
Some will reduce their income or increase their giving in ways as to decrease or eliminate war taxes.
Some who pay under protest will support by word and deed brothers and sisters who withhold a portion or all of their taxes.
Some of us will continue to witness our strong concern through withholding monies in civil disobedience to the tax laws.
This attitude and these actions are consistent with our Annual Conference decisions on this issue.
The issue reported on the war tax resistance debate as it was taking place in the General Conference Mennonite Church (source), and the issue followed up with a report of Church employees who had asked the church to stop withholding war taxes from their salaries (source).
Another news brief in the issue described the World Peace Tax Fund as a bill that “would amend the Internal Revenue Service Code so that conscientious objectors could have their tax payments spent for nonmilitary purposes,” and reported on lobbying efforts.
The issue gave another example of corporate tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren:
The Michigan District board has instructed its district personnel to withhold the Federal excise tax on district telephone bills.
It is forwarding the resolution to the Internal Revenue Service and to congressional representatives.
The withheld funds will be redirected to a Michigan District Peace Tax Fund and used by the district witness commission.
The action was based on Annual Conference statements of , , and .
The board “commend(s) this witness to all Brethren, local congregations, the General Board, and Annual Conference for their study and prayerful consideration,” and also encourages other forms of witness, such as lobbying for the World Peace Tax Fund Bill.
A profile of Brethren Volunteer Service volunteers Steve & Sue Williams in the issue included this detail:
Another attraction to volunteer service for the Williamses was their desire not to pay taxes for war purposes.
Before they married, Steve was a tax resister, withholding a certain amount of money as a protest against the government’s using his taxes for the military.
But Sue was uncomfortable with tax resistance and, after they married, they began looking for an alternative.
One was simply to make a lot of donations to charity.
“Before BVS we were working full-time and giving a lot of money away,” Steve said.
“We began looking for a way to give away time and not money.”
I also found this article in The Morning News of Wilmington, Delaware (). Excerpt:
Brethren still withholding taxes
How to protest “sin of war” is on denomination’s conference agenda
by Eileen C. Spraker and Stephanie Whyche Staff reporters
In , the Vietnam War sparked members of the Wilmington Church of the Brethren not to pay the church’s federal telephone excise tax for a year.
Although that war is dead, tax-withholding among members of the Church of the Brethren is very much alive.
How to support Brethren institutions and individuals who choose to withhold “war taxes” will be on the denomination’s agenda during their national conference, which opens in Baltimore.
Traditionally, the denomination has held to the belief that all war is sin.
Brethren 35 years ago established the Brethren Volunteer Service for conscientious objectors as an alternative to military service.
Some members of the church, for reasons of conscience, have chosen to withhold part or all of their taxes to avoid supporting the military.
A paper to be presented at the Baltimore meeting will discuss the lawful choices available to such people, the church’s position on civil disobedience, and support for institutions and people pursuing tax resistance.
“This is one of the most timely issues we have right now,” says the Rev. Allen T. Hansell, pastor of the Wilmington Church for the Brethren.
According to Hansell, some employees of the six Brethren Colleges and employees in at least one of the Brethren retirement homes are currently involved in tax resistance efforts.
But some are less than successful because their employers are withholding taxes from their employees’ pay in accordance with regulations.
“The issue is these employees, on the basis of conscience, don’t want this money withheld.
Legally, the employers are bound.
That’s why this issue is coming before the conference,” Hansell said.
What’s more, Hansell said, although there’s “no war right now, the telephone excise tax continues,” even though Congress promised to discontinue it once the Vietnam war had ended.
During the Vietnam War, members of Hansell’s church, in Richardson Park, stirred up a lot of controversy because they refused to pay the church’s federal telephone-excise tax.
The action was because of their belief that part of the tax was financing the war.
“Our concern was to make a witness of the issue that this money was going directly to the war effort,” Hansell said.
“It was a matter of principle.”
The proposal to be presented before the conference calls upon employers of employees involved in military tax-resistance efforts to take the issue seriously and maintain open dialogue with their employees.
It does not recommend that church institutions get involved in tax resistance efforts, but if they do, it calls upon the denomination to support that effort through such methods as legal assistance.
Other recommendations will suggest that Brethren seek voluntary wage reductions, and that they work with the Mennonites and Society of Friends to bring about changes through legislation.
In , two Brethren-linked groups started war tax resisters’ penalty funds, and the Annual Conference considered two queries on whether or how Brethren churches should refuse to pay the excise tax on their phone bills.
No one in the crowd offered bids for the Subaru station wagon, which was being auctioned by the Internal Revenue Service.
The IRS had seized it from Stephen and Phyllis Senesi as partial payment of taxes that the couple has refused to pay.
As conscientious objectors to paying taxes that fund the US military, the Senesis have withheld about $6,500 over the past five years.
Several area peace groups had organized the nonviolent protest at the auction.
When the IRS agent called for bids on the car, the crowd responded first with silence, and then with “We choose life over death.” Phyllis Senesi is a member of Skyridge Church of the Brethren, Kalamazoo, Mich.
A letter-writer in the issue tried to turn the tables on the tax resisters, saying their refusal to pay “could mean one less defensive hour by a protective policeman. This failure to defend could result in the undefended death of some person. The person who machinated the tax resistance is an indirect killer; category, murder.” (source)
The Midland (Mich.) congregation has voted to withhold the federal excise tax on its telephone bill, saying, “We do not believe that paying for war is loving.” The money withheld will be used to buy peace literature for their library.
Since the congregation wants its action to be done publicly and submissively, the witness commission will enclose letters with the monthly payment.
And another on the same page:
Chuck Boyer, peace consultant for the denomination, is compiling a list of people willing to be contacted when someone faces grave financial need because of faithful witness to Christ.
Such instances include Brethren who suffer loss because of conscientious objection to payment of war taxes.
To join the list, write to Chuck Boyer…
My conscience of recent months has given anguish and now distress, because I do not want to pay the military part of my federal income taxes.
I am now a redirector of my war taxes to peace.
My dilemma is that I am treated as a criminal with a lien.
I am not a tax dodger or evader.
I wish to pay all my taxes for peace.
My correct amount has been reported.
The World Peace Tax Fund bill… is one way out of this dilemma.
Its goal is a law permitting people morally opposed to war to have the military part of their taxes allocated for peacemaking.…
Two Brethren-related peace organizations have begun tax resister’s penalty funds to support those who conscientiously choose to withhold war taxes.
In both cases, the fund reimburses those who have been fined by the Internal Revenue Service, and supporters of the fund share the total cost.
The two groups are the North Manchester, Ind., chapter of the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Iowa Peace Network. For more information, write…
That issue also brought a preview of coming attractions at the upcoming Annual Conference (source):
The Michigan query points out the use of the federal telephone excise tax to pay for past and present military expenditures and states that Michigan District will withhold the tax, redirecting the amount to a peace tax fund.
In commending this witness to Annual Conference for study and prayerful consideration, the district is asking for affirmation of the action.
The General Board query asks for the appointment of a committee to study and recommend how Brethren should respond to the dilemma of paying taxes for war.
Walter Fitzsimons wrote an opinion piece for the issue that talked all around the issue of war tax resistance, seemed to conclude that such resistance was futile because it would not stop the march of militarism, then took an about-face and said that even if that is true it could be a worthwhile action of persuasion, but then ended on a write-your-congressman note without taking a stand either way (source).
“Church of the Brethren student Mike Yoder (right), of Morgantown, W. Va., helps carry a ‘Bread not Bombs’ banner in a tax-time peace witness. The event was ‘an act of faith,’ said one participant. ‘I am trying to bring evangelism and social action together.’ ”
For some Christians, paying the percentage of federal income taxes that goes toward the military is a dilemma.
This year, a Harrisonburg, Va., group called Christians for Peace gathered at the regional office of the Internal Revenue Service in Staunton to register their concern.
They brought a truckload of food, bought with the money withheld from their tax payments.
“We seek to follow Jesus’ call to be peacemakers by directing our resources away from the instruments of death and toward life,” explained Wendell Ressler, one of the organizers of the event.
“We cannot reconcile Jesus’ call to love our enemies with our government’s call to help pay for our enemies’ destruction.”
In a short statement to onlookers, he said, “We gladly pay taxes which are used to enrich the lives of others, but it is immoral for our government to play Russian roulette with the future of our planet.”
IRS officials were cordial, but explained that they could not accept the food.
The bags of groceries — including more than 1,000 pounds of canned goods — were presented to the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank.
Another article on the same page noted that a Portland, Oregon “Peace” congregation had “voted to withhold the federal excise tax on its telephone bill as a way ‘to say no to militarism and yes to life-affirming programs.’ The money will be sent to the Brethren World Peace Academy…”
The pastor of that Peace Church, Rick Ukena, and his wife Twyla Wallace were profiled in the issue (source). Excerpt:
Just before Rick left the pastorate of Peace Church of the Brethren in Portland, Ore., he and his wife, Twyla Wallace, discussed with me their refusal to pay war taxes. “Refusing to pay that portion of our taxes that goes for military purposes is merely an extension of the decision I made in [to become a conscientious objector],” Rick says. “Paying taxes for war is no different from providing bodies for military purposes.”
Rick likens their present witness to that of past Brethren:
“Historically, the Church of the Brethren youth have been conscientious objectors to military service.
Military tax resistance is an equally important statement for peace.”
, Rick and Twyla have redirected a portion of their federal taxes as an effort to lift up their opposition to current priorities of the federal budget.
With the filing of their returns, they sent that portion to Health Help, a low-income health clinic in Portland.
“Nevertheless,” says Rick, “the IRS, during that time, has seized over $1,000 from our checking account for non-payment of taxes.”
A lien was also threatened against the Portland congregation, since the IRS ordered the church to pay Rick and Twyla’s taxes.
In a specially called members’ meeting, the IRS demand was turned down by a unanimous vote.
“We were joyed with the support that we received from the congregation as it was placed in a position of choosing between compliance with human laws aimed at destroying life and a higher order that commands us to love one another, even our enemies,” Rick says.
As mentioned above, there were two items concerning war tax resistance on the Annual Conference agenda in .
The issue tells us how they fared (source):
The delegates established a committee to study and recommend how the Brethren should respond to the dilemma of paying taxes for war.
Brought by the General Board, the query on taxation for war said that “our government continues to put its faith in weapons that can destroy all human life on our planet.”
The query also pointed out that expenses for present and past military efforts currently total about one-half of all federal expenditures.
The concern of the related query, a Michigan District resolution on telephone tax redirection, was adopted by the delegates, and the issue of telephone tax withholding was assigned to the war tax committee.
Michigan District voted in to withhold federal excise taxes on district telephone bills, and to inform the Internal Revenue Service of the action.
It’s hard to believe that at this point there was much more for yet another a committee to say on the issue, so many similar committees had been formed and had issued reports in recent years.
This committee would consist of Philip W.
Rieman, Arlene E.
May, Violet Cox, Richard O.
Buckwalter, and Gary Flory.
One of the best debates I have seen about the biblical basis for tax obedience or tax resistance was found in the Messenger in .
In the issue, the Messenger hosted a debate between Vernard Eller and Dale Aukerman on the biblical basis for war tax resistance or obedient tax payment:
The report to Annual Conference of the Committee on Taxation for War shows a great diversity of opinion within the committee itself.
Accordingly, there is at present no inclination to try for any change of policy.
Rather, the recommendation is for a churchwide study of the Conference statements already on the books.
And because I find myself highly in favor of this proposal, I offer this article as a contribution to the study for which the reports calls.
I address myself solely to the matter of scriptural evidence and interpretation.
Accidentally, as it were, I have been doing major research on the subject — for a book even now in press.
I had no intention of studying tax resistance per se, but was addressing the much broader question of how a Christian should relate to the host of regimes, parties, and ideologies competing with each other in the effort to direct and control society.
My mentors in the matter make up a 150-year-long string of biblically oriented thinkers who constitute the modern theological tradition I feel comes closest to Brethrenism.
These people are Soren Kierkegaard, J.C. and Christoph Blumhardt, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Jacques Ellul.
And as I chased them down on my particular topic, I found them regularly going to the New Testament tax passages.
It became apparent that this was not so much their doing as that of the Bible itself.
The logic of the move is this:
The all-dominating political reality of Palestine during the New Testament period was that of a most evil and vicious Roman regime occupying, oppressing, and eventually destroying the homeland of the Jewish people (and earliest Christians).
Over against this power was pitted that of the Jewish liberationists and freedom fighters commonly known as the Zealots.
Thus, the pattern of political decision forming the context not only of our tax passages but of all New Testament political counsel is one that applies as well to almost any issue, ancient or modern:
One can either (1) legitimize the presently established regime as representing God’s will for the nation, or (2) follow God’s will in supporting the efforts of the revolution against that regime.
“Revolution” here does not necessarily imply terrorism, guerrilla warfare, or other forms of physical brutality, but identifies any bringing to bear of political power in the effort to overthrow an evil regime or to pressure it into becoming good.
By its very nature, of course, the gospel would have as much as prohibited Christians from any desire to legitimize a cruel and pagan Roman Empire.
Yet, also, by its very nature, the gospel would make it very tempting for Christians to align themselves with liberation movements and efforts at just revolution.
Accordingly, on the one hand the New Testament consistently refuses to encourage any legitimizing tendencies — while on the other hand it actively discourages the greater temptation of revolution.
And “tax revolt” — i.e., withholding taxes as a power-play against government evil — becomes the New Testament’s regular signal and symbol of Zealot liberationism in particular and, in general, all forms of revolution.
(It is significant that this symbol has Christianity opposed to revolutionism quite prior to and apart from its physical violence.)
Regarding particularly the exegesis of Mark 12, in addition to the five thinkers named above I consulted four contemporary New Testament specialists: Martin Hengel, Gunther Bomkamm, Leander Keck, and Howard Clark Kee.
All nine scholars are in total agreement, each reading the tax passages in the context of the historical situation described above.
In the process, the scriptures come clear, manifesting their theological consistency as warnings against Christian involvement in political revolutionism.
My researchers are not exhaustive; but I failed to come across even one reputable scholar doing serious biblical exposition who concludes that these passages actually imply a support for (or even a leaving room for) Christian tax resistance.
The crucial New Testament passages are three:
Mark 12 — which is actually Mark 12:13–17 (the fact that both Matthew and Luke later pick up the incident for their own Gospels adds no new meaning but does corroborate the significance it held in the eyes of the early church);
Romans 13 — which is actually Romans 12:14–13:10;
and Matthew 17 — which is actually Matthew 17:24–27.
All of my nine, except the Blumhardts, address the Mark 12 passage — and all agree as to its reading.
The earliest writer, Kierkegaard, says it best.
(Consider that, in the historical context, to make Jesus “king” or to call him “Messiah” politically could mean nothing other than “revolutionary leader against Rome.”)
The small nation to which Jesus belonged was under foreign domination, and naturally all were intent upon the thought of shaking off the foreign yoke.
Hence they would acclaim him king.
But, lo, when they show him a coin and would constrain him against his will to take sides with one party or the other — what then?
Oh, worldly passion of partisanship, even when thou callest thyself holy and patriotic — nay, so far thou canst not stretch as to break through his indifference… No, he posits the infinite yawning difference between God and the Emperor: “Give unto God what is God’s!” For they with worldly wisdom would make it a question of religion, of duty to God, whether or not it was lawful to pay tribute to the Emperor.
Worldliness is so eager to embellish itself as godliness, and in this case God and the Emperor are blended together in the question,… that is to say, the question takes God in vain and secularizes him [by implying that whether the Emperor does or does not get his tax coin is an issue somehow related to or comparable with whether God does or does not get what belongs to him].
But Christ draws the distinction, the infinite distinction, and he does this by treating the question about paying tribute to the Emperor as the most indifferent thing in the world, regarding it as something which one should do without wasting a word or an instant in talking about it — so as to get more time for giving God what belongs to God.
Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Ellul speak a single mind on the Romans 13 passage.
Each finds it to be in complete agreement with Mark 12;
Ellul thinks that Romans 13 even shows that Paul was familiar with the Mark 12 incident.
Yet Barths’s exposition is easily the most extended and insightful of the three:
The revolutionary seeks to be rid of the evil by bestirring himself to battle with it and to overthrow it.
He determines to remove the existing ordinances, in order that he may erect in their place the new right…
The revolutionary must, however, own that, in adopting his plan, he allows himself to be overcome of evil (Rom. 12:21)… What man has the right to propound and represent the “New,” whether it be a new age, or a new world, or a new spirit?…
Overcome evil with good.
What can this mean but the end of the triumph of men, whether this triumph is celebrated in the existing order or by revolution?… There is here no word of approval of the existing order; but there is endless disapproval of every enemy of it.
It is God who wishes to be recognized as He that overcometh the unrighteousness of the existing order…
Even the most radical revolution — and this is so even when it is called a “spiritual” or “peaceful” revolution — can be no more than a revolt; and that is to say, it is in itself simply a justification and confirmation [not of God’s “new” but] of what already exists [namely, one human ideology or another]…
For this cause ye pay tribute also (Rom. 13:6).
Ye are paying taxes to the State.
It is important, however, for you to know what ye are doing.
If I might interpret: If you are paying those taxes as a positive legitimization of the state and its evil activity, you are wrong.
If, on the contrary, you are withholding those taxes as an act of protest and defiance against the evil of the state, you are wrong again.
“But what other option is there?”
Well, if Jesus is correct that Caesar’s image on the coin is proof enough that it belongs to him, then, rather than saying that we do pay him taxes, would it not be more correct to say that we do not try to stop him from taking what is his, do not revolt, do not return evil for evil?
As Barth puts it, “It is important for you to know what you are doing.”
The Matthew 17 incident is not as crucial as the first two; only a couple of our scholars mention it — and that merely in passing.
However, the words Jesus speaks on this occasion are as significant as anything we find on the subject.
In the process of explaining why he pays the tax, Jesus forestalls any idea that a Christian’s payment of taxes is to depend upon the relative righteousness or unrighteousness of the collecting regime.
He says, in effect, that no human regime is righteous enough for the Christian ever to owe it anything.
No, there is only one Father and King of whom Jesus knows himself and his followers to be “sons.”
No one except that “father” can claim anything from these “children.”
So the kings of the earth will have to do their collecting from “others,” not from Jesus and the children of God.
Thus, when Jesus goes on to say that he chooses to pay the tax even though he doesn’t owe it, he is saying that Christian payment never is made as recognition of either the rights or the righteousness of the State.
No, it is made to regimes good, bad, and indifferent — and that sheerly out of obedience to God’s command to love, not revolt, and not cause offense.
It strikes me that the word of God speaks quite clearly on the matter of tax resistance — and that that word is hardly in support of the practice.
I do fully honor the conscientious integrity of those who feel led to withhold some of their taxes; but I cannot confirm that leading as being biblical.
Rendering to Caesar [con]
by Dale Aukerman
If the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb is thought of as the width of a lead pencil, the destructive potential of the current nuclear arsenals is the height of Mount Everest.
If the United States were to explode a bomb each day to destroy a city, the present stockpile would last more than one hundred years.
The Reagan administration plans to build 1,700 additional nuclear bombs a year and press ahead in an arms buildup that is taking us into the war that can destroy God’s earthly creation.
Or to give just one example of the increasing ghastliness of conventional weapons, white phosphorus bombs have a sticky jelly, which adheres to the human body, burns at a temperature of more than 3000° Centigrade for at least 24 hours, and turns victims into agonized human torches.
The United States has been supplying these bombs to a number of countries, including El Salvador and Israel, which used them against civilians in its invasion of Lebanon.
As for the huge sums in federal tax dollars needed to purchase all these weapons and much more.
Brother Vernard Eller seems to say:
No problem; we have the clear command of Jesus to pay up.
After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in , they changed the Temple tax mentioned in the Matthew 17:24–27 story into a tax for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.
Some governments have levied taxes so exorbitant as to leave children and others starving.
Certain taxes have been imposed specifically for financing a war.
A government could use half its budget to keep masses of people in concentration camps or to run a network of brothels for the diversion of the male population.
Vernard evidently says: No problem basically;
Christians go by the command of Jesus.
According to the Friends Committee on National Legislation, $350 billion or 55 percent of the 1984 federal budget went to military spending and the cost of past wars.
Figured on a per-capita basis, the fraction of that for the Church of the Brethren membership was $255 million.
All Brethren church-related giving for the year was somewhat over $55 million.
As Vernard sees it, we need not to be troubled that hundreds of millions of Brethren dollars go to finance the arms buildup;
paying is “the most indifferent thing in the world.”
Vernard’s greatest service to us Brethren has come through his insistence that, if we claim to be a New Testament church, we must strive to live by the New Testament.
I stand with him in that insistence.
If Jesus in Mark 12:17 was saying that disciples of his should pay without question every tax levied by whatever government they are under, that, for us, should settle it.
But did Jesus say that?
Vernard failed to find “even one reputable scholar” whose treatment of the passage would leave open the option of Christian tax resistance.
I would call his attention to some.
A.M. Hunter writes: “This was an ad hoc answer, not a fixed and permanent rule for every situation.”
Jean Lasserre gives this interpretation:
“Jesus is not passing any judgment on the lawfulness of the Roman tribute;
He is speaking only of this particular coin.
It represents the things that are Caesar’s, not a foreign tyrant’s right to exact a tribute.
In other words, Jesus recognizes Caesar as having the right to the coin but not to the tribute.
This is what disconcerts His questioners and breaks their trap.”
Francis Wright Beare comments,
“The famous saying leaves untouched the fundamental problem: how are we to draw the line between the legitimate requirements of the society to which we owe allegiance, and the demands of loyalty to God?”
The insight of Paul S. Minear is most helpful:
“By his reply Jesus forced them, as students of the law, to decide for themselves where to draw the line between God’s jurisdiction and Caesar’s…
The riddle remains that each must solve for himself or herself.
Keep in mind that the first audience for this riddle was neither the crowd nor the disciples, but only their adversaries.”
Jacques Ellul, whom Vernard points to as one of the six thinkers decisively supporting the pay-without-question interpretation, states in The Ethics of Freedom that Jesus “refuses to answer the question whether he is for or against Caesar or whether taxes should be paid or not.”
In any case, appealing to the authority of European theologians within other church traditions has not for Brethren been a main way of discovering what faithful discipleship to Christ is.
Those enemies of Jesus thought they had the perfect trap.
If Jesus said, “Don’t pay the tax,” they would denounce him to the Roman authorities.
If he said, “Pay the tax,” they would trumpet that to the common people, who hated the tax as symbolizing Rome’s repressive occupation of their country.
His enemies could spread the word:
“The Messiah is to liberate us from Roman rule, but this fellow supinely tells us to pay the tax.”
The reply, “Don’t pay the tax,” would have pleased Jesus’ adversaries the most, and that they did not get.
According to the interpretation Vernard advocates, they did receive the other answer, “Pay the tax,” and could proceed with their strategy contingent on that reply.
That is, their trap did catch Jesus.
But the close of the story in each Gospel brings out that the trap did not succeed.
“And they were not able in the presence of the people to catch him by what he said; but marveling at his answer they were silent” (Luke 20:26).
Jesus had not said, “Pay the tax.”
Jesus’ enemies were intent on exposing him as a collaborator, if not a Zealot revolutionary.
When they produced the detested Roman coin, they — not Jesus — were exposed as the collaborators.
When the Jewish leaders brought Jesus to Pilate, they accused him of “forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar” (Luke 23:2).
They would hardly have used that accusation if Jesus a short time before, in a public context charged with excitement about him, had counseled payment of the tribute.
Usually people quote, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” and omit the rest.
This pernicious misuse of the saying has had immense significance in the history of the West.
Vernard emphasizes that the second part of Jesus’ reply is vastly more important than the first, but he remains within the traditional interpretation by holding that on the matter of taxes we can take the first part and know its meaning for us without the second part.
Brethren historically have held that young men should not simply comply with whatever notice comes from a draft board and that what can rightly be given to the government has to be discerned in relation to giving ourselves totally to God.
Brethren who are deeply concerned about paying money into a monstrously expanding military buildup are not advocating refusal of all taxes, complete noncooperation with government, or trying to overthrow it.
But we believe that we can come to a Christian understanding of taxes that should be handed over to the government only in the light of Jesus’ supremely central command that we give ourselves fully to God.
The crucial issue is whether the first part of Jesus’ reply is taken by itself as a clear, sweeping command or whether it is seen as a riddle calling for the discernment that can come within our striving to love God and follow Jesus.
Jesus, as a Jewish male between the ages of 14 and 65, was subject to the Roman poll tax of one denarius a year.
We have no record that he paid it (his adversaries could have cornered him on that point) — or that he did not pay it.
But in Matthew 17:24–27, the tax in question was for the Temple in Jerusalem.
Jesus told Peter that children of the heavenly King are free from any obligation to pay taxes, but “not to give offense… give the shekel to them for me and for yourself.”
Here too Jesus did not command that all taxes are to be paid regardless.
(Much of what Vernard finds in the passage is not there at all.)
The key consideration is that one not give offense, cause others to fall away from faith.
Had Jesus refused to pay the Temple tax, he would have appeared to reject the Mosaic law (Exodus 30:11–16) and the Temple itself.
But in some circumstances paying a tax can constitute giving offense, impelling others away from God.
When national leaders are stumbling blindly toward slaughtering unimaginable multitudes of those for whom Christ died, casual payment of all the money asked for toward their mad projects amounts to abetting them in their fateful falling away from God.
To resist paying such taxes can provide opportunities for pointing agents of government to Jesus as Lord.
On the Romans 13 passage John Howard Yoder writes:
“Verse 7 says ‘render to each his due’; verse 8 says ‘nothing is due to anyone except love.’
Thus the claims of Caesar are to be measured by whether what he claims is due to him is part of the obligation of love.
Love in turn is defined (verse 10) by the fact that it does no harm.”
Paul was probably restating the teaching of Jesus found in Mark 12:17 and his Master’s call to the most careful discrimination between what under God can be rightly rendered to the ruling authority and what cannot.
Thus we have cogent reasons for concluding that Vernard’s article, the Brethren tradition of paying all taxes without question, and the Annual Conference Statement on Taxation for War (of which Vernard was a principal writer) depend on a mistaken understanding of the words of Jesus.
There is no easy answer— certainly not in four Greek words in Mark 12:17 taken by themselves.
In this issue we need together to seek a fresh discernment of what from us belongs to God.
Bob Gross wrote a letter-to-the-editor in response, in which he made this point (source):
Eller may not realize that for many Brethren who feel led to refuse to pay taxes for war, the primary reason is not the one his article cautions against.
Rather than “an act of protest and defiance against the evil of the state,” our non-payment is a simple, humble attempt to refrain from contributing to that evil.
This is not done in a quest for purity or out of guilt.
It comes from a desire to be more conformed to the will of God and to witness to God’s kingdom.
John Stoner from the Mennonite Central Committee also wrote in to reiterate that “When Jesus was asked, by people wishing entrap him, ‘Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?’ his answer was not ‘Yes.’ ” (source)
Barry Shutt, on the other hand, took the point of view that war tax resistance was not an effective response, and should be discouraged for that reason (source). Excerpts:
[A] legitimate concern for any witness is the question of effectiveness.
One could seriously question if violating the law is very effective in a society where most people believe it is best to work within the system to initiate change.
And if tax resistance only leads to the tax resister paying more money to the government in fines and penalties, the question of effectiveness becomes an even greater concern.
The point to be made, of course, is, “How do we work effectively to bring about change?” When the system provides adequate means by which one can voice concerns and attempt to change priorities, tax resistance as a means to bring about change becomes even more questionable.
If tax resisters would argue that effectiveness is not the primary concern or objective but simply the witness alone is the objective, then one should ask if simply writing letters of protest to our elected officials is any less of a witness?
If God hears prayers made from the privacy of the prayer closet, God surely takes note of witnesses made through the less conspicuous channels available for us to voice our concerns.
Being fined or arrested may not be necessary, and I would suggest neither is tax resistance.
A further letter in support of resistance, by Dale Hess, did not add much new to the argument, but, in implicit contradiction to Shutt, said of war tax resistance: “The importance of this type of peace witness is hard to overestimate” (source).
The Annual Conference had assembled yet another committee to issue yet another report about war tax resistance, and that committee reported on its work in .
The messenger reported on their recommendations (source):
The assignment from last year’s Annual Conference was two-fold.
In response to a request that the committee study and recommend how Brethren should respond to the dilemma of paying taxes for war, the committee chose not to write a new position paper.
Instead it recommends that Brethren undertake an extensive study of earlier position papers and then determine more specifically what, in addition to the previous papers, is called for in the query.
The committee was also asked to make a recommendation about General Board payment of the federal telephone excise tax.
The committee recommends that the decision be made by the board itself, because of the liability of individual officers.
In action for war growing out of a General Board query of , delegates approved a study committee’s recommendation that the church undertake its own study of previous position papers before deciding whether a new paper on taxation for war is desired.
The General Board is to prepare a study packet and to compile responses from across the denomination.
In an unusual move, the delegates extended the life of the study committee, directing it to recommend to the Cincinnati Conference a process to complete the study.
The same committee, assigned to respond to a Michigan District query about telephone tax redirection, recommended (and Conference approved) that any decision about whether the General Board should withhold the federal telephone excise tax should be made by the Board, since its staff could be held liable.
“A gratified war tax study committee regrouped after finding it had two more years of life.
Clockwise from left:
Chuck Boyer, Gary Flory, Phil Rieman, Dick Buckwalter, Vi Cox.”
A letter in the issue dissented from the war tax resistance craze on the grounds that “many non-Christian people who deeply resent having to support welfare programs” would use the same logic to avoid their taxes (source).
, a group of Brethren showed up at the Lombard, Ill., Internal Revenue Service office and tried to pay part of their taxes with bags of groceries.
The group from Bethany Theological Seminary included about 33 students and faculty member Dale Brown, and they wanted to let the IRS know that they objected to paying taxes for war.
“I believe in paying taxes, but not for defense,” said Brown.
The group took about $160 worth of food to the IRS and contributed about the same amount to peace organizations.
IRS officials refused the groceries, which were then given to local food pantries and soup kitchens.
The hows and whys of war tax resistance continued in the pages of the Messenger in , as Cliff Kindy made the case for voluntarily simplicity and living on an income below the tax line.
In the Messenger printed an opinion piece by Barry Shutt that had attacked war tax resistance on the grounds that it was ineffective.
This somewhat novel argument prompted some rebuttals in the issue (source).
L. William Yolton (of the National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors) wrote that Shutt’s arguments were of the same sort that conscientious objectors to military service hear —
“Are there not other evils to be resisted? So don’t resist this one.” “There are differences of opinion among Christians about an issue, so let us wait to do the good until all are agreed.” “If you do not do this evil, then someone else will be drafted in your place to do it, so you must do evil.”
— and Brethren know by now not to bend to such arguments.
David W.
Fouts said that his own experience was proof that writing protest letters was a poor form of witness compared to resistance:
For years I enclosed a carefully composed letter with my tax return protesting the use of my tax dollars for military purposes, but I have yet to receive a single reply from an IRS or other administrative official.
My actions apparently spoke louder than my words.
However, when I withheld 10 percent of my income taxes to protest the proportion spent on nuclear weapons, I received repeated attention from the IRS in the form of letters demanding payment and threatening to confiscate my property.
Cliff Kindy wrote in for the issue to recommend a non-disobedient form of tax refusal (source).
It has been good to see the issue of paying taxes for war highlighted in Messenger.
The issue for our family has been “Who is Lord?”
Is Caesar Lord, through the channels of IRS?
Or is Jesus?
Caesar calls for our money and our life, and, yet, Jesus calls for our all.
To which will we respond in obedience?
(We cannot have two masters.) We fret about the consequences of breaking the law, and yet seem unconcerned about the possibility of falling into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:31).
Certainly God, who asks us to stand over against the powers of death, will care for us in our obedience.
We must venture obedience.
It is too easy to assume that in this instance obedience to God leads directly to disobedience to Caesar.
For those who struggle over that concern, there is a possible answer.
To limit one’s income to below the taxable level is not illegal, and, although still extravagant by the world’s standards, is moving in the direction of standing with God’s little people.
We as a church have not examined seriously the results of living at an income level that does not require missiles, bombers, and Trident submarines to protect it.
You might like to try it for a few years.
Several questions for those who pay taxes for war:
1) Do you give more money to the church than you pay to IRS?
More than you pay to IRS for the 50-to-70-percent portion of your tax that is military-related?
2) How large would that military-related percentage need to get before you would say “No”?
3) If that percentage of the federal income tax were going to finance houses of prostitution or liquor warehouses, would you pay it?
4) If it would be proper for a Christian to channel monies to the Peace Tax Fund (if such a proposal is ever passed for conscientious objectors), does that not imply that we should feel some urgency even now to pay those dollars toward similar purposes?
(Does the law of the land ever define the Law of God?)
5) If we spoke the passages of Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25 with the same emphasis Jesus probably had, (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”), might we not also find “…this man… forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar…” (Luke 23:2)?
Ten Christians in Kalamazoo, Mich., gathered in front of the courthouse to voice their opposition to military funding.
Representing the Catholic Church, the Mennonite Church, and the Church of the Brethren, they withheld a total of $6,400, the portion of their income taxes that they claimed would help fund the military budget.
Deanna Brown, pastor of the Skyridge Church of the Brethren, thought twice before joining the peace demonstration, since she didn’t want to be misunderstood by other Christians.
“But because of my vocation as a disciple of Christ,” she said, “I feel called to make this witness and to say there is another way — the way of reconciliation, humility, service — and that’s the way of Jesus Christ.”
Added Steve Senesi: “We are not opposed to taxes.
The point today is to speak to where those funds go and how they are spent.”
The withheld tax money was given to five local social service agencies:
Center City Housing, Loaves and Fishes (a clearinghouse for emergency food pantries), Habitat for Humanity, Kalamazoo Diaconal Conference, and Kalamazoo Youth Ministry.
“Deanna Brown and Terry Ciszek (to left of banner), of the Kalamazoo Church of the Brethren, joined others who were opposing the use of tax dollars for military purposes.”
The issue brought news of Brethren who had been arrested in demonstrations opposing U.S. militarized foreign policy (source), including:
Phil Rieman, co-pastor of the Ivester church in Grundy Center, Iowa, was part of an effort to link the payment of tax dollars and US funding of the contras [Nicaraguan insurgents].
He and 10 others were arrested after refusing to leave the IRS building in Waterloo.
In the subsequent 2-day jury trial all 11 defendants were found “not guilty” by all six jurors on the grounds that the demonstration was justifiable.
“Unlike the recent sanctuary trial (in Tuscon, Ariz.), we were allowed to say why we did what we did.
And the jury agreed that we were right,” Rieman said.
“It was unusual.”
The previous year, the Messenger had hosted a thoughtful theological debate about the possible biblical basis for tax resistance or obedience.
Mark Wilhelm wanted to remind people that this wasn’t just a theoretical concern:
A few Brethren have been discussing war tax resistance, trying to attain a New Testament view.
The theological complications of this discussion and the possibility of confrontation with the government have resulted in the neglect of the issue by the majority of Brethren, even those who otherwise adhere to the nonviolent teachings of Jesus.
Instead of neglect, we Brethren should urgently consider our position on war-tax resistance.
We Brethren are failing to realize that the military is depending more on technology and less on people.
It is this growing dependence on technology that makes the war-tax issue vital.
The military is always seeking to use fewer personnel with sophisticated weaponry to carry out major operations.
The military goal of this latter work is to replace human soldiers in the battlefield with computer-controlled robotics that are capable of making complex human-like decisions.
Greater military dependence upon advanced technology has its drawbacks.
It requires expert scientific research, extensive engineering design, skilled manufacturing, and elaborate testing.
This extremely costly work must be begun many years in advance of the intended use of the weapons.
Therefore the military needs a large amount of money, and it needs it today for the next decade’s weapons.
It is this shift in the military’s dependence from human soldiers to expensive, advanced-planned technology that makes the payment of war taxes a vital issue to Brethren.
The military is less in need of Brethren young men, but more in need of the war taxes paid by all Brethren well before the occurrence of a war.
War-tax resistance not only withholds the funding that the military relies upon, it also exposes the sin of the quiet, deadly weapons buildup.
War-tax resistance is therefore a vital part of a holistic peace witness.
To be conscientiously opposed to war and to pay for the advanced weaponry that is the life blood of the modern military is a difficult discipleship dilemma, the resolution of which is made increasingly urgent by the pace of technology.
To wait until global hostilities begin to practice nonviolent resistance is of no use.
At that time the weapons systems that we currently fund will be in the hands of those committed to using them.
At this moment our incomes are being taxed to fight future wars.
The income of every brother and sister is being conscripted by the military that it might do tremendous violence.
The crucial question each of us must face is:
“Would Jesus have me resist this evil?”
The Church of the Brethren stood firm and refused to honor an IRS levy filed against pastors Louise & Phil Rieman in , and the church’s Messenger magazine also brought news of war tax resisters from other denominations.
There were several passing references to war taxes in the early issues of Messenger, but it wasn’t until the issue that there was anything substantial.
That issue brought a brief update on Presbyterian war tax resister Maurice McCrackin (source):
The Presbyterian Church (USA) has publicly asked the forgiveness of an 81-year-old Cincinnati minister who was defrocked 26 years ago for his anti-war activism.
The Rev. Maurice F.
McCrackin, pastor of the non-denominational Community Church of Cincinnati, was deposed from the ministry by the Cincinnati Presbytery in after he refused to pay the portion of his income taxes that would have gone for military spending.
The denomination’s General Assembly in formally confessed error and endorsed an action to restore him to clergy status.
, more than $40,000 in tax-resistance fines has been covered by a network of people who contribute to a “Tax Resisters’ Penalty Fund (TRPF).[”] The fund, which aids those who refuse for conscientious reasons to pay taxes for war, issued its 11th appeal for funds in .
Founded in by Dave Leiter, then coordinator of the North Manchester Fellowship of Reconciliation, in Indiana, the TRPF provides financial and moral support to war-tax resisters, allowing those who do not directly resist war taxes to support those who do.
War-tax resisters resist funding militarism by refusing to pay all or a portion of their income taxes.
They are not tax evaders, says the TRPF committee, because they do not use withheld money for personal benefit.
Many channel the withheld taxes to organizations that work for peace and justice.
Using US federal budget figures, the committee says that 62 percent of income tax monies go to pay for current and past military expenses.
, the Internal Revenue Service has levied $500 in penalties on deductions it considers “frivolous,” including war-tax deductions.
Resisters submit requests for reimbursements of such charges to the Penalty Fund.
The TRPF does not pay the original tax burden — only penalties and interest.
Between two and four times annually, requests are evaluated and tabulated by a committee of eight people, and an appeal is sent to supporters of the fund.
The amount of the appeal is shared equally by supporters.
The 11 appeals issued have ranged from $1 to $15 per supporter.
The fund has about 570 supporters and has given more than $40,000 to more than 80 war-tax resisters, according to the committee.
The next appeal goes out .
The War Tax Resisters Penalty Fund is still in operation today and still operates much as described in the above article.
At the Annual Conference, the committee that had been set up to yet again study the war tax issue and make recommendations announced “that it was choosing not to write a new statement on the issue of conscientiously opposing paying taxes that go for military purposes.”
Instead, they recommended that Brethren go back and study the previous reports issued by previous committees, and heed the calls from previous conferences to seriously study the issue.
(source)
The Church of the Brethren stood firm against an IRS levy in , as reported in the issue:
The Internal Revenue Service has issued a tax levy on funds the General Board holds for Phil and Louise Rieman, co-pastors of the Ivester Church of the Brethren, Grundy Center, Iowa.
The action is a response to the Riemans’ tax withholding as a conscientious objection to paying taxes that are used for war.
The levy requires the General Board to take money held on their behalf from the Pastor’s Housing Fund and send it to the IRS.
If the board fails to do this, the IRS has declared its intention to levy the board’s bank accounts and take the amount plus a 50-percent penalty.
The Executive Committee voted not to send the required amount and to file a protest letter that supports the Riemans’ right to engage in tax resistance.
The committee also told the IRS that the Pastor’s Housing Fund is of such a nature that the government does not have the right to levy against it.
In , representatives from Brethren, Mennonite, and Quaker groups had come together for a three-day conference about war taxes, sponsored by a “New Call to Peacemaking.”
“People who express opposition to war need to consider conscientious objection to paying for it,” stated Chuck Boyer, General Board peace representative, after returning from a three-day discussion of war tax issues.
Thirty-six historic peace church members — Brethren, Mennonites, and Friends — including Boyer, and Julie Garber, of the Manchester Church of the Brethren, North Manchester, Ind., met to discuss issues surrounding withholding of war taxes.
Prior to that consultation, 18 leaders from the historic peace churches met to discuss how best to work together for peace.
It was the first meeting of the heads of the peace churches in more than 10 years.
The simple fact that the leaders met and got to know each other better was the highlight of the meeting, said Donald E. Miller, general secretary of the Church of the Brethren.
In addition to Miller, General Board executives Joan Deeter, Melanie May, and Roger Schrock; board chairwoman Anita Smith Buckwalter; and church historian Donald F. Durnbaugh represented the Brethren.
Both meetings were sponsored by New Call to Peacemaking, a cooperative peace church organization.
The war tax consultation focused on options and consequences for church agencies that refuse to withhold employees’ federal income taxes.
One Mennonite and two Quaker agencies already have policies of breaking the law by not withholding federal taxes of employees who oppose paying the military portion of their taxes.
The Church of the Brethren has not dealt directly with this issue, said Boyer, since no General Board employees have asked that their taxes not be withheld.
At the St. Louis Annual Conference, however, the larger issue of corporate civil disobedience will be discussed.
Of greater interest to the Brethren was lengthy discussion of the US Peace Tax Fund bill in Congress.
Consultation participants agreed to organize a group of leaders to visit Washington, D.C., to register concerns about tax withholding and to support the bill.
Boyer has begun organizing “Six-by-Six” clubs of Brethren to promote the bill.
Groups of six will visit their legislators in Washington or at local offices six times to promote the bill.…
The Peace Tax Fund bill would allow conscientious objectors to put the portion of their taxes that would support the military (presently about 53 percent) into a special fund to promote peaceful programs.
Conscientious objectors could then pay all their taxes without violating their consciences.
The issue reported on the policy the General Board of Friends United Meeting had adopted of refusing to withhold taxes from the paychecks of employees who were conscientious objectors to military taxation (source).
The issue followed by reporting on a similar action by the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (of Friends), which decided “to withhold but not forward to the Internal Revenue Service the estimated military portion of its employees’ federal income taxes” (source).
The issue brought the news that the Church of the Brethren General Board’s Executive Committee “is studying whether the board can withhold the telephone excise tax as a protest against military expenditures” (source).
The issue reported that the Mennonite Church was jumping on the bandwagon too: “The General Board of the Mennonite Church has recommended that church agencies honor the requests of employees who wish to withhold payment of taxes used for military purposes” (source).
That issue also reported on the Brethren Revival Fellowship, which was trying to prod Brethren back in a more conservative direction (source).
It quoted their newsletter on the tax resistance issue:
“We believe that those who are loyal to Christ are bound by the biblical mandate to respect the government of the land in which they reside, and should pay their taxes when due.
What the government does with the money is no longer their responsibility.”
As the Cold War sputtered to a close during the Gorbachev era, the urgency went out of the war tax resistance movement — something I’ve also noticed in my recaps of Mennonite and Quaker war tax resistance — as can be seen by the reduced attention given to the subject in Brethren periodicals during this period.
The issue brought the news that the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Quakers) had been sued by the IRS which was trying to force it to turn over taxes that had not been paid by two of its conscientiously objecting employees (source).
Excerpt:
In its countersuit, the Quaker group contends that “for the Meeting to pay over to the IRS, in defiance of an employee’s Quaker beliefs, the amount of taxes which had been refused on grounds of religious conscience by that employee, would violate the most fundamental religious principles of the church.”
Samuel D. Caldwell, general secretary of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, said the military tax refusers are not tax evaders.
“They would gladly pay their full share of taxes — and more — if they had assurances that it would go to peaceful purposes.”
[T]reasury bonds [are] a very safe investment but one which “raises the issue whether one wants to invest in the current priorities of our government where so much money is spent on the military budget”…
IRAs are another way people can reduce their tax contributions to military spending.
Earnings on an IRA are tax-deferred until retirement.
In many cases IRAs are tax-deductible.
It is also possible for employers to set up tax-deferred retirement plans…
The issue introduced readers to tax resistance as a tactic of nonviolent resistance, summarizing the story of the tax resisting town of Beit Sahour in occupied Palestine (source).
A profile of Curtis Dubble (the recently-elected Annual Conference moderator) in the issue included his recollection of the war bonds pressure during World War Ⅱ:
“For me there were a couple of struggles,” he says. “In the shoe factory they put pressure on me to buy war bonds.
I couldn’t stand that pressure, so I bought a few.”
But his conscience wouldn’t allow him to continue to support the war effort in that way, so he cashed them in.
The teller at the Myerstown bank “looked at me like I was crazy,” he recalls.
Later, when asked to sew soles on military shoes, he refused.
A feature on married co-pastors in the issue included this note about Louise and Phil Rieman (source):
[T]heir strong stance on war tax resistance [is] a challenge their congregation has had to wrestle with. “One of our biggest joys in this congregation,” says Phil, “is the support we’ve felt in asking the church to cooperate with us on this conviction.
Perhaps because there are two of us, this has allowed them to be less hesitant, knowing that if one of us is arrested, the pulpit can still be filled.”
Last-minute taxpayers in Iowa City, Iowa, rushing to mail their returns late at night on , were met by demonstrators in front of the post office, protesting tax money being spent for military purposes.
Among the demonstrators was peace activist Marianne Michael, a member of the Panora (Iowa) Church of the Brethren.
Said she to a newspaper reporter, “It’s obscene that the government spends so much on the military when there are so many things here at home that we need to work on.
The US has a poor sense of values when our tax money is spent on things that destroy human life.”
Meanwhile, the Bible Monitor wasn’t budging.
From the issue (source):
…we do not believe a Christian is called to picket abortion clinics, refuse to pay “war taxes,” or take a part in the many popular anti-government demonstrations supported by both “fundamental” and “liberal” wings of christendom. In our opinion, such actions are a part of the fanatic fringe and not being faithful.
The slowdown in mentions of war tax resistance in Brethren publications towards the end of the cold war accelerated further during the opening years of the Clinton presidency.
The issue of Messenger included a brief article about the war tax resistance of Brethren co-pastors Louise & Phil Rieman:
When rolls around, Louie and Phil Rieman plan to file their federal income tax just like everyone else.
But along with it, the co-pastors of the Ivester Church of the Brethren, in Grundy Center, Iowa, will enclose a letter.
It opens, “Dear Brothers and Sisters at the IRS: Once again we write to let you know that we are not paying the full, expected amount…”
Isn’t that being dishonest? No.
It’s not a criminal offense, the IRS says, as long as an accurate tax return is filed.
Of course, the IRS can and does come after the withheld amount.
And the withholders usually end up losing more money than if they had paid their taxes in full, on time.
Civil penalties, as large as $500, and interest charges are added when the IRS eventually collects unpaid taxes by seizing paychecks, bank accounts, or property.
In , IRS agents seized the Rieman family van.
It had an appraised value of $8,000, but the IRS auctioned it off for $3,900 and kept $3,000.
Why withhold taxes, in such a “losing” situation?
Louie and Phil are among a number of Brethren who believe so strongly that war is sin, that they choose this way of protesting the 50 percent of their tax money they figure goes for military use.
So they only pay 50 percent of what they owe and let the IRS come after the rest.
The Riemans consciously put the percentage that would have been used for the military into life-enhancing programs instead.
They have been doing this .
“Our main goal is not simply protesting war taxes,” explains Louie, “but living in spiritual and moral obedience to the teachings of Christ.”
It’s not a popular stance with the general public in this country.
Sneaking through every loophole one can find is the more acceptable way of withholding taxes.
But the Riemans feel led to make a costly statement against war.
“How can we pray for peace and pay for war?” asks Phil.
A good question, one that other Brethren have to wrestle with.
War tax resistance led to a settlement of $31,343 between the Quaker magazine Friends Journal and the IRS.
Editor Vinton Deming refused to pay taxes for , giving the money to peace organizations instead.
The IRS demanded a tax levy on Deming’s salary, which the Journal’s board of managers reluctantly paid on the advice that they could not win a case in court.
There were also a handful of mentions of the proposed federal “Peace Tax Fund” legislation, which had a well-attended House of Representatives committee hearing in .
A brief story about “Organic Gardening” in the issue made reference to the tax resistance of Arlene & Cliff Kindy:
“We live below the taxable income level,” says Arlene, “so that we don’t have to pay military taxes.” Taking their Christianity seriously has meant simplification on many different levels, including riding their bicycles instead of driving a car, and home-schooling their daughters.
There was a brief mention of the “Midwest War Tax Resistance Conference,” sponsored by the Iowa Peace Network, which had Church of the Brethren members in it, in the issue (source).
Another “New Call to Peacemaking” conference was held in , but from the report of it in the Messenger, war tax resistance was no longer the main attraction.
“Sabrina and David Falls, Quakers from Richmond, Ind., who spoke about their experiences in refusing to pay income tax designated for military use…” were among the speakers.
The issue profiled Anita & Rich Buckwalter, and noted (source):
For almost 30 years, the Buckwalters have made a protest against taxes going to military funding, withholding the part of their taxes they calculate would be spent by the military.
To those who question his patriotism, Rich responds, “I think I am being a patriot and a responsible citizen by calling the nation to its deeper responsibility.”
By , war tax resistance had almost disappeared from the Church of the Brethren’s Messenger, replaced by vain hopes that the government would pass “Peace Tax Fund” legislation to ease the consciences of troubled taxpayers.
As a supplement to its issue, the Messenger included several-page recap of the first fifty years of the Church of the Brethren General Board, which briefly mentioned the Annual Conference’s vote (754 to 103) to update its peace position in a way that affirmed “tax resistance as a legitimate expression[] of the church’s peace witness” (source).
The April 15 federal tax deadline presents a recurring religious and moral dilemma for me.
The Church of the Brethren has always taught me that “all war is sin,” and that believers should not participate in it.
Although the government no longer wants my body, it still demands my money (about 50 percent of federal income taxes) to pay for wars, past and present.
As a conscientious objector to war, I find my deeply held religious beliefs violated by being forced to pay for military activities.
But rather than say he will not go along with such a violation of his deeply held religious beliefs, the writer’s response to this dilemma is just to say that “the government… should… pass the Peace Tax Fund bill.”
A letter from Don Schrader in the issue promoted below-the-tax-line living as a tax resistance strategy (source). Excerpt:
If someone comes to my door collecting money for a local gang to rob and kill my neighbors, would I donate? Would I donate even a dollar if I knew any of the money collected went to kill my neighbors — no matter if the rest of it went to feed the homeless and to build schools?
I keep my taxable income under the taxable level.
For a sighted, single person under 65, the taxable level for is $6,800.
I lived well in on $5,700.
I am glad to have no car, no big apartment or house, no luxury vacations in order to live under the taxable level.
I prize living the truth as best I see it far more than I value unnecessary things.
In order for the US to plunder and to massacre, two things are required from many citizens — silence and paying taxes.
For 18 years I have paid no federal income tax and I sure as hell am not silent!
An article in the issue, boosting the Peace Tax Fund legislation again, recapped the history of Church of the Brethren with regards to war taxes in the following way (source):
, the Church of the Brethren has openly expressed its opposition to war.
During the Revolutionary War, recorded minutes indicate that Brethren were struggling to define what action to take with regard to government conscription and the payment of “war taxes.”
The recommendation by the Conference body was to examine one’s conscience and to act as a result of Christ’s leading, with support being given to all those who chose to pay or not to pay taxes.
Some Brethren who paid their taxes would designate the money “for the needy,” but would allow the government to decide ultimately how to use those funds.
During the Civil War, the peace churches were successful in convincing the Union to modify its approach to the use of tax revenues.
The government agreed to use monies collected as bounty from conscientious objectors for “the benefit of sick and wounded soldiers” rather than for hiring substitutes.
The Church of the Brethren has recently called for the establishment of a World Peace Tax Fund through several General Board and Annual Conference statements.
By supporting the establishment of a Peace Tax Fund, we can lift up an integral part of our Brethren heritage.
Bible Monitor included an article by Dennis St. John on “The Christian and Political Participation” in its issue.
The article touched on war tax resistance in an unusually sympathetic way, given the general conservativism of that journal.
Excerpts:
What should the Christian’s response be when his convictions conflict with governmental demands? Should Christians use the political process to encourage social betterment? What does the Bible reveal on this issue? How has the Church historically responded to such problems? In the Christian community today there is a great diversity of answers given to these questions.
Historically, there have been several issues in America in which the church has become involved.
Slavery, temperance, the peace movement, abortion, women’s rights and gay rights are examples of issues that have affected society-at-large.
The church became actively involved and in some instances is still involved.
Refusing military service, refusing to pay “war taxes”, and educational issues would be examples of concerns that have more directly involved Christians rather than society as a whole.
Two other issues the Brethren had to deal [at the time of the American Revolution] with were the hiring of substitutes to serve in the rebel militia and the matter of whether to pay taxes that supported the war.
Again, we turn to their written records to discover their response.
Inasmuch as at the great meeting in Conestoga last year, it was unanimously concluded that we should not pay the substitute money; but inasmuch as it has been overlooked here and there and some have not regarded it, therefore we, the assembled brethren, exhort in union all brethren everywhere to hold themselves guiltless and take no part in war or bloodshedding, which might take place if we would voluntarily pay for hiring men, or yet more if we became agents to collect such money.
But concerning the tax, it is considered that on account of the troublesome times and in order to avoid offense, we might follow the example of Christ (Matt. 17:24–27).
Yet, if one does not see it so and thinks perhaps, he for conscience sake could not pay it, but bear with others who pay in patience, we would willingly go along inasmuch as we deem the overruling of conscience to be wrong.
What do we learn from these Brethren?
We note their humility and willingness to be subject to “higher powers”.
We see that they gave their congregations some firm direction as to a course to follow in those troubling times.
We also see their willingness to give some room for individual conscience on the matter of “war taxes”.
For their faith and convictions they faced consequences.
They had to pay heavy fines in some instances, while others had possessions and properties confiscated by the authorities.
There were even some scattered cases of brutality.
In the end, they preserved a clear conscience before their God.
As the millennium came to a close, the chorus of war tax resisters that had sung strongly in the Church of the Brethren through the sixties, seventies, and eighties faded to a handful of crickets, and then, finally, to nearly nothing.
In the on-line archives of the Messenger and Brethren Evangelist give out at Internet Archive.
But maybe that’s just as well.
In there was almost nothing in either magazine touching on war taxes or war bonds.
a Peace Tax Fund advertisement from the Messenger
I was able to find a couple of things in the on-line Messenger archives at brethren.org.
A article profiled David R. Bassett and his war tax resistance and his work with the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund.
The page containing this article also has an audio interview with Bassett.
A article on “The Brethren in World War Ⅰ” noted that “the Sedition Act… criminalized speaking out against purchase of Liberty (war) Bonds, which resulted in charges against Brethren pastors J.A. Robinson of Iowa and David Gerdes of Illinois.”
The Pilgrim recounted this story in its issue (source):
In the Old Brethren had existed as a separate brotherhood for only five years.
One of the elders of the church in Carroll County, Indiana, then was a brother named John Leedy.
He was known as being very firm in his views.
When neighbors came to persuade John to buy war bonds, he refused.
How could he do such a thing when he believed this was so opposite the Gospel of our Lord?
John would not use a gun to take his enemy’s life.
How could he willingly and purposefully finance someone else to do so?
This was not understood by the patriotic neighbors of Brother John.
They could not understand how he could think it was right just to let the enemy go on without resistance.
But we think Brother John would rather have given up all his possessions and been mistreated than to be unfaithful to the Lord Jesus and the example of the small flock of Jesus through the centuries.
We as Christians are called to actually love our enemies.
So not only is this a matter of legalistic obedience.
But how could a Christian want to take part in warmongering or support others to do?
One evening as John and his wife were about to retire for the night, they heard a knock on the door.
John opened the door, and when he saw the men, he prepared to go outdoors.
His wife begged him to stay indoors, but John knew that the men who bid him come outdoors were angry, so he motioned his wife to stay indoors.
He stepped outside and closed the door.
Someone said, “Grab him!” They took John and roughly set him in then midst.
Someone produced scissors, and they cut large pieces of his beard and hair, but left parts of it in a grotesque pattern.
John offered no resistance.
The men prepared to go, and one said to him, “John, you buy bonds or we will return, and you will be handled worse the next time.”
John stood quietly in the doorway.
I imagine his lip trembled as yours or mine would have done.
I imagine he felt sorry for the men, as you and I should feel.
Then he said in his characteristic way, “Well, men, when you return I expect you’ll find the same John.”
The next day John went into the local village.
Respectful businessmen in town were enraged that someone would treat their fellow neighbor in such fashion.
In spite of John’s protests, they put a guard around his house for awhile to protect them.
When I ask some old folks today, “Do you remember John Leedy?” they invariably smile and say, “John was a firm man.”
— From Fred Benedict’s The Same John printed in the , Vindicator.
Christians have the obligation to pay tribute and custom to and to fear and honor the “powers that be.” (Rom. 13:6–7) This principle came acutely under test during the World War.
The problem did not arise with reference to the payment of taxes some of the proceeds of which were definitely used to carry on the war, but with reference to the purchase of Liberty Bonds which was voluntary, the proceeds of which directly supported the war program.
Here the nonresistant conscience asserted itself.
The former was clearly within the teaching of scripture, but the latter was voluntary and became a measure of one’s wartime patriotism.
Men who were physically unable on account of the rigors of warfare could render their bit toward the winning of the war by the purchase of bonds.
Today I’ll try to summarize what I’ve gleaned from reviewing the archives of various periodicals associated with Brethren churches in the U.S., along with some supplemental material.
Some issues of some periodicals were missing from that archive.
Recent issues of some periodicals that are still in operation are not yet in the archive.
The periodicals I reviewed were: Gospel Visitor, Christian Family Companion, The Weekly Pilgrim, The Primitive Christian and Pilgrim, The Brethren at Work, (Gospel) Messenger, The Inglenook, The Missionary Visitor, Our College Times / The Etownian, The Brethren Evangelist, Bible Monitor, Schwarzenau, Brethren Missionary Herald, The Pilgrim, Grace Theological Journal, and Ashland Theological Bulletin.
Some Brethren periodicals published material in German, and I didn’t bother trying to delve into any of that.
For the most part, I found content of interest by doing simple text searches on the optical-character-recognition scans of the periodicals.
If the text was not legible to the optical character recognition, it would not come to my attention even if it were relevant.
The churches grouped here under the “Brethren” name are American branches of an originally Germanic group of Anabaptists that was forced to flee to America in the early-18th century.
They’re sometimes called “Schwarzenau Brethren” or “German Baptists” or “Dunkers”.
Brethren, along with Mennonites and Quakers, are considered the “traditional peace churches,” for their shared non-resistant (pacifist) beliefs.
There have been schisms aplenty among American Brethren.
From what I could tell from the periodicals I reviewed, most modern war tax resistance was to be found in the Messenger, which is the organ of the “Church of the Brethren”.
The periodicals I reviewed go back to .
I don’t have much to go on before that.
At the outbreak of the American Revolution, some Brethren joined with Mennonites in a declaration to the Pennsylvania Assembly that expressed their unwillingness to serve in the military, but stressed their willingness to pay taxes (and evidently included a supplemental donation).
In an annual meeting of Brethren unanimously concluded that it was improper to “pay the substitute money” — that is, to pay for substitutes to take the place of conscientious objectors in the militia. , noting that this instruction “has been overlooked here and there, and some have not regarded it (sad conclusion),” the annual meeting issued a follow-up, saying: “take no part in war or blood-shedding, which might take place if we would pay for hiring men voluntarily; or more still, if we would become agents to collect such money.”
As for war taxes, the statement was more permissive, saying that Brethren might pay them “in order to avoid offense” and such Brethren should not be faulted for this.
But also, “if one does not see it so, and thinks, perhaps, he, for his conscience’s sake could not pay it, but bear with others who pay in patience, we would willingly leave it over, inasmuch we deem the overruling of the conscience as wrong.”
That suggests that there were war tax resisters among the Brethren at this early date, and their conscientious scruples were respected by the Church.
There’s a gap in the record, or at least in the record I stumbled on, between the American Revolution and the mid-19th century.
The Gospel-Visiter starts publishing in , and in the years before the Civil War I wasn’t able to find any tax resistance sentiments there.
When taxes are mentioned, Render Unto Caesar seems enough to settle the question, without much room for nuance.
When the Civil War hit, Brethren were once again forced to reckon with the military draft.
Some ways people could abstain from military service when threatened with conscription included hiring a substitute to serve in one’s place or paying an exemption fine.
Brethren typically were untroubled by the latter — and sometimes even lobbied the government to make such a commutation fine available to them — but often found hiring substitutes directly to be morally offensive (although not at all unheard of among Brethren).
In addition, Brethren were often encouraged by their churches to contribute to funds to pay the commutation fines of financially disadvantaged Brethren who could not do so on their own.
That said, there were occasional dissenting voices from Brethren who thought that paying the commutation fines was just another sinful way of hiring a substitute.
More controversial was the practice of contributing to community funds designed to hire substitutes for a whole region.
Apparently, sometimes the military draft would operate by demanding a certain number of young men from a particular district.
The district could somehow conscript those men from its ranks, or they could try to hire others on the open market to serve.
Some districts attempted to exempt themselves from service in this way, and Brethren were conflicted over whether they could contribute to the community fundraising for such a purpose.
The issue of whether or not it was appropriate to invest in government bonds came up for the first time (that I noticed anyway) during this period.
The Annual Council said, of investing in such bonds, “We consider it not wrong to do so,” but there was some debate, and it’s not even clear to me whether war funding (as opposed to more banal aspects of bond sales) was even at issue there.
After the Civil War, discussion of these issues became less urgent and those that were left unresolved during the war stayed that way afterward.
During the Spanish-American War, mentions of war bonds in the Gospel Messenger did not include any qualms about whether or not Brethren ought to invest in such things — indeed they were downright enthusiastic about the bonds.
World War Ⅰ was the most disheartening period for me, as in all of the sources I reviewed, Brethren and Brethren institutions completely capitulated to the “Liberty Bonds” mania, and loaned the government money expressly in order to help it carry on the war.
That said, there was intense government persecution of anti-war activity during this period.
You could be imprisoned for trying to discourage people from buying war bonds.
So the lack of evidence of such arguments in the magazines of the period may just be reflecting this censorship.
But full-throated endorsements of war bond purchases were not uncommon in Brethren publications, and for years after the war I kept finding examples of war bonds in the published financial statements of Brethren institutions.
Even after the war, when sober heads might have prevailed, most mentions of Liberty Bonds came from Brethren institutions putting in a pitch for Brethren to donate them to the institutions.
One asked readers whether they ought to “put those Liberty Bonds to work for the cause of Jesus Christ?
It was really the Lord’s money that purchased them, anyway.”
In the I start to see hints that there is a war tax resistance faction out there somewhere, but they for the most part don’t speak for themselves in the periodicals I reviewed — I infer them from some of the attacks on conscientious tax resistance from other authors.
In the , a “20,000 Dunkers for Peace” campaign began.
The pledge these 20,000 Dunkers were to sign said, in part, that they would refuse to bear arms in combat “and, only under protest to pay taxes for military purposes.” This was the first explicit mention of war tax resistance (or protest at least) in decades.
A query was sent up to the Annual Conference about how one should go about making such a protest, and in , a report was issued saying that of course Brethren should pay all of their taxes, but they can write letters or pass resolutions or paste messages to their tax returns if they want to protest.
The conference approved the report with no dissension.
That was pretty weak sauce, admittedly, but it seemed to open the door to hearing more radical points of view.
Kermit Eby published a piece in the Gospel Messenger in late in which he called for pacifists to refuse all manner of economic cooperation with the war state.
In an Annual Conference committee explicitly recommended that Brethren refrain “from the purchase of such as Liberty Bonds to finance war,” the first explicit renunciation of the Brethren position during World War Ⅰ that I found.
And then the U.S. entered World War Ⅱ, and Brethren had to decide whether to capitulate to war fever again or to try to stick with their newly-refound principles.
The evidence is mixed.
At first, in parts of the Brethren community at least, I saw continued reluctance to buy war bonds (though no war tax resistance).
But the pressure continued to build.
Bond drives tried to get 100% participation of neighborhoods, towns, or workplaces, and anyone who held out was tarred as disloyal and uncivil.
One way Brethren tried to deflect this pressure was through the sale of “Brethren Service Stamps” and “Brethren Service Certificates”.
These were ways to donate money to Brethren service projects, or to the funding of camps for conscientious objectors.
The donations were recognized by giving stamps or other fancy-looking papers to the donors that Brethren could show in place of their war bonds or war stamps as a way of demonstrating that they too were contributing to the public effort in their own way.
Brethren also joined with Mennonites to try to get the government to issue war bonds that weren’t called war bonds, so that they could purchase them without embarrassment.
Eventually the government gave in, and issued bonds that were “not designated as ‘War Bonds’ ” and the Brethren Service Committee began taking orders for them — often overselling them, in either a dishonest or merely wishful way, as though they were actually going to pay for exclusively non-military projects.
Rufus D. Bowman surveyed Brethren churches in and found that adherence to conscientious objection to military service was dismally low, while “forty-six per cent of the churches reported that the members generally were buying war bonds and stamps, while sixteen per cent indicated that a substantial minority were buying them, and seventeen per cent said that a few were purchasing war bonds.” Bowman would later be the first member of the Brethren to come out of the closet as a war tax resister in the pages of a Brethren journal.
The emerging non-sectarian pacifist war tax resistance movement caught the eye of Brethren editors, and I saw several mentions of the (non-Brethren) pioneers of this movement and their resistance in Brethren periodicals (particularly the Gospel Messenger).
In , Brethren resisters began to emerge, with Floyd M. Irvin the most prominent of the early resisters.
By the mid-1950s war tax resistance had become a topic of serious consideration in the Messenger, even in the sorts of articles that used to just matter-of-factly say “render unto Caesar” and call it a day.
In conscientious objection to military taxation was raised as an issue at the Church of the Brethren annual conference, and the Board approved a recommendation to “begin making explorations with agencies of government in order to find some acceptable alternative for persons who, because of religious training or belief, are conscientiously opposed to the payment of the portion of their income taxes that goes for military defense.”
This seems to have opened the floodgates, at least in the Church of the Brethren / Gospel Messenger branch.
In and the letters-to-the-editor column was full of back-and-forth about whether war tax resistance was appropriate for Brethren, and the editor endorsed war tax resistance in an editorial.
Many Brethren resisters were coming out of the woodwork, and defenders of the old unquestioning “render unto” position were put in the unusual position of having to defend what had been orthodox for ages.
A variety of symbolic forms of tax resistance as protest began to develop.
In the lack of much official guidance from church authorities about whether, why, and how to resist, individual Brethren blazed their own trails: some reducing their income to non-taxable levels, some resisting all or part of their income tax, some resisting a token or symbolic amount, some beginning to resist the excise tax on their telephone bills.
In the General Brotherhood Board of the Church of the Brethren issued a new report urging the government to somehow accommodate conscientious objection to military taxation, but also explicitly listing war tax resistance as a possible legitimate Brethren response to the problem of paying taxes for war (something the Church hadn’t done as far as I could see since ).
The Annual Conference issued a statement of its own based on this recommendation which “put in a permissive form” options like war tax resistance “leaving the action to the conscience of the individual.”
In I begin to see mentions of Brethren congregations resisting taxes corporately, beginning with a Delaware church refusing to pay the excise tax on its phone service.
In the Church of the Brethren General Board began to divest from government bonds, in protest against war spending, though it decided against phone tax resistance.
In a committee report to the Annual Conference on “The Christian’s Response to Taxation for War” threw some cold water on the emerging enthusiasm by noting that historical Brethren practice about war taxes had typically been to pay them without complaint.
In an early version of “Peace Tax Fund” legislation was developed, beginning a fools’ errand that continues to the present day.
Excitement over the possibility of such a law would begin to crowd out mention of honest-to-goodness war tax resistance in the pages of Brethren periodicals.
In a few dozen Methodists, Mennonites, and Brethren met at Camp Mack and many signed a tax resistance pledge that was drafted there. , the first “New Call to Peacemaking” conference brought Brethren, Mennonites, and Quakers together, and also put out a statement advocating war tax resistance and church support for resisters.
That was enough to make even the stodgy Brethren Evangelist take note, as they reprinted the conference statement over two issues.
In another committee issued another report to the Annual Conference, and one that gave much more encouragement to war tax resisters than the tepid report — taking its lead from the New Call to Peacemaking statement.
The Church of the Brethren adopted that report as an official position paper.
In war tax resisters penalty funds began to be organized, with Brethren support, and one Brethren church started a war tax redirection fund.
In Brethren congregations confronted the issue of what to do when the IRS demanded they withhold taxes from the salaries of their war tax resisting pastors (some gave in, others resisted).
The Annual Conference formally recommended on a supermajority vote that “congregations and church-related institutions give consideration to a range of extra-legal options” in such situations.
In the Church of the Brethren General Board refused to honor an IRS levy against two Brethren pastors.
By the end of the Cold War the wind had gone out of the war tax resistance sails.
A remarkable surge of Brethren direct action against cooperation with military spending that had begun to sprout in the 1930s and then grew for fifty years, for the most part withered and died by the end of the century.
This is a similar story to what I saw when I reviewed Mennonite and Quaker periodicals, and its cause remains something of a mystery.
![$25 Certificate. Brethren Service Commitee. Church of the Brethren. General Administration Offices, Elgin, Illinois. This certifies that [blank] has contributed the within stated sum to the Church of the Brethren to be used in Civilian Public Service, in relieving suffering, in creating good will, and in making Christ known as Prince of Peace. Contributor’s Statement of Purpose: This contribution, made in addition to my normal giving, is in consideration of tragic world need, of the sacrifice of life and money which many are making in war and of my desire to support constructive service to humanity. This contribution is intended as an alternate service to war, in which my conscience does not permit me to engage. I give it voluntarily, asking neither interest nor return of principal.](brethren-service-certificate.png)
