Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” → Mennonites / Amish → Elaine & Nathan Zook Barge

This is the forty-sixth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today we find ourselves in our own decade.

A profile of Martha F. Graber in the February 2011 edition mentioned her family’s tax resistance:

Her father [Gerhard Friesen], she said, “was ahead of his time” in advocating war tax resistance and speaking out at Mennonite conferences against profiteering from the war economy. “His conscience would not let him support the military.”

She said her father would have approved the 1983 action by the General Conference Mennonite Church to honor employee Cornelia Lehn’s request to not have her income taxes withheld from her paychecks.

The Friesens practiced war tax resistance by living simply, giving generously and usually not earning enough to owe income taxes.

Although as a youth she was embarrassed by her father’s outspokenness to audiences unreceptive to his message, Martha embraced her parents’ convictions about Christian discipleship and peacemaking and taught them to her children. She files tax returns but usually has a zero taxable income due to living simply and giving 50 percent of her income to charity. She has also advocated for the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund legislation.

Daniel Riehl, in a letter to the editor printed in the July 2011 edition, invited readers to visit a website where they could learn how much they were contributing to war by entering their taxable income:

If one adds up the taxable income of every Mennonite in the land, how much is the Mennonite church contributing to destroying other countries for the benefit of our corporations? Is this really what we want to do with our wealth, the wealth of “Die Stille im Lande,” the capital of Anabaptists, the sweat of the brow of the meek and the nonviolent peacemakers?

In an interview with Hedwig Maria (Hedy) Sawadsky, published in the March 2012 edition, she reflected on her turn to war tax resistance:

[M]y mind and heart increasingly made connections with the inherent contradiction of praying for peace and paying for war via “war taxes.” How could I, a follower of the Prince of Peace, justify paying for militarism and the building of weapons with my tax dollars? Indeed, these weapons might be used to harm or even kill my friends in the Middle East and people in other places. Increasingly my conscience was bolstered by biblical convictions.

I struggled with others who were also trying to find clarity on this issue. Later I worked in a Mennonite church in Pennsylvania where my role included teaching the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) to ecumenical women’s groups and to young people.

Thus, while living in the state of the Quaker William Penn and delving deeper into the Scriptures as well as the 16^th-century Anabaptist witness, the path became clearer. For me the way to go was to live below the war-taxable level.

After considerable discernment, the church’s education committee proposed to the church leadership that I would continue in my position but would be paid as a person in Mennonite Voluntary Service so as to keep my salary under the taxable level. There was some resistance by the church leadership to my becoming a voluntary service worker. Even though there was strong verbal affirmation for our Anabaptist peace position, it was not acceptable to church leadership for me to take this stance and commit to living more simply while still holding the same position.

My resignation meant that I had six months before my two-year contract was up. I continued wrestling with the question, How can we Mennonites continue being the quiet in the land when the world is full of violence?

The April 2012 edition carried a brief article about the Everence Sharing Fund, which distributed nearly a million dollars in financial assistance to thousands of needy families the previous year. It noted that the fund grew out of the Everence Federal Credit Union, from which, “[b]ecause of the organization’s unique tax status, money that would be paid in federal taxes is instead distributed through mutual aid programs like the Sharing Fund.”

Mennonite World Conference asked a question of Mennonite Church U.S.A. (the U.S. branch of the successor of the merged Mennonite Church and the Mennonite General Conference): “How are we doing as a peace church?” In the July 2012 edition, André Gingerich Stoner (“director of holistic witness for Mennonite Church U.S.A.”) wrote up an answer (“after taking counsel from area conference leaders and testing [his] response with a wider circle of pastors, teachers, denominational leaders, and practitioners and others”). Here’s the part that touched on taxpaying:

For some of our congregations and members, “peace” is still primarily a matter of not going to war. In a time when there is no draft, engagement in peace witness wanes.

Our tax monies are conscripted, and each year our church members pay for cruise missiles, smart bombs, and unmanned drones — with barely the slightest tinge of conscience, let alone a whimper of protest.

The June 2014 edition broke a long fast of significant war tax resistance content by profiling “fourteen individuals from one Mennonite congregation [who] are consciously redirecting their war taxes.” (Excerpts from an article compiled by Carolyn Yoder:)

April 15 is tax day in the United States. But while most people pay their taxes by that date, a group of us at Community Mennonite Church in Harrisonburg, Va., take a different route. Concerned with the high percentage of our federal tax money that goes to the military while we pray for peace, we witness to our Christian faith through how we deal with this dilemma. This often includes redirecting a portion of our military taxes to life-giving causes.

We are not against paying taxes. In fact, some of us would willingly pay higher taxes if they supported education, health, infrastructure, sustainable and clean energy sources, bike paths, or efforts to learn nonviolent ways to address complex domestic and international conflicts. That’s why we prefer a term other than “tax resistance” to describe what we do.

And we don’t think we have necessarily figured out the best way to exercise our constitutional freedom to live by our conscience when it comes to taxes. We’re ordinary people on a journey. We offer here a summary of what we do in the hope that it will encourage others who take similar actions to share their experiences in their congregations and communities. We also hope it will inspire more people to consider this type of witness.

Nathan and Elaine Zook Barge, restorative justice specialist and STAR (Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience) director.

How long have you engaged in an act witness through your taxes?

Over 30 years

Why do you do it?

Living and working in a Catholic and Mennonite community in Colorado Springs, Colo., in the early 1980s, we became aware of the dissonance between saying we were conscientious objectors to war while paying for war. Our commitment deepened during the 14 years we worked in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala with Mennonite Central Committee (MCC). Many friends or their family members had been killed or wounded by U.S. weapons, and many people suffered hunger, homelessness and illness because money was used for weapons rather than for food, health and education.

Ironically, it was on tax day, April 15, 1985, that we experienced too closely the fear and trauma of war. Along with the Salvadorans on the bus, we prayed for safety as guns from 10 U.S. helicopters strafed the area around us. That day, we became tax resisters for life.

How do you do it?

It’s a journey, finding the way that works for our stage of life. Early on, we withheld 50 percent of our taxable income and redirected it to MCC. Then for many years, we lived below the taxable level, first as a couple and then as a family of four. The past number of years, we have withheld a symbolic 10 cents for every $1 billion in the U.S. military budget and redirected that money for life-giving efforts rather than war. We also reduce our taxable income through charitable donations and deductions.

David Jost, ESL Instructor

How long have you lived under the taxable level?

One year

How do you do it?

By making a small reduction in my pay-check to ensure that I owe no federal income tax.

Why do you do it?

Because I want to avoid financially supporting the U.S. military any way I can, and I believe that church institutions (such as Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, to which I contribute by reducing my paycheck) are better stewards of my money than the government.

Ray and Wilma Gingerich, retired peace and justice professor and retired hospice nurse

How long have you redirected a portion of your taxes?

Since 1976

Why do you do it?

We are Mennonites (inheritors of a nonviolent way of life); we are followers of Jesus, who taught us to practice love toward our enemies. This is the explanation we give to the IRS. But our primary reason to resist the payment of military taxes is to witness to our church, to our Mennonite brothers and sisters. We are simply seeking to live lives consistent to the faith we profess. If we, the church, all those who profess Jesus as Lord of our lives, lived more like Jesus, faithfully refusing to pay for war, our country would not go to war. (That is a political fact.) How can we pray for peace while paying for war? On a more personal level, we taught our children (our own sons) not to join the military. Our two youngest sons are nonregistrants. How inconsistent then it would be for us as parents to pay others to prepare for war and to practice violence on our behalf!

How do you do it?

We withhold payment of the military portion of our federal income tax (approximately 47 percent) and send that amount to life-giving organizations (e.g., our local congregation’s compassion fund, Christian Peacemaker Teams and the National War Tax Resisters Coordinating Committee). A letter of explanation is sent to the director of IRS and included with our annual IRS report. Most importantly, copies of our letter to the IRS are sent to key Mennonite Church USA leaders and heads of organizations. With these letters, a handwritten note is included — an encouragement to promote the witness against the payment of military taxes.

Sue Klassen and Johann Zimmermann, public health nurse and structural engineer

How long have you redirected a portion of your taxes?

We have always kept our earnings low, not only for a lifestyle choice but to pay as little tax for military as possible. About eight years ago, when we came back from overseas with MCC and had taxable earnings, we started deducting taxes directly for military reasons.

Why do you do it?

We do it in order to inform our elected officials of our stand for peace. We send a statement to the local paper each year, and it has brought us into conversation with many different people from many walks of life about pacifist beliefs and peace initiatives.

How do you do it?

During the year, we underestimate our tax payments. Then when we have to pay what is due at the end of the year, we withhold a symbolic amount of 10 cents for every $1 billion that is annually spent on military funding, which adds up to approximately $80.

Jennifer and Kent Davis Sensenig, lead pastor at Community Mennonite Church and EMU adjunct professor

How long have you redirected a portion of your taxes or minimized what you owe?

About 15 years

Why do you do it?

It is a small witness for peace, a part of our life of discipleship to Jesus Christ and a way of expressing that we seek a more just, peaceable and sustainable U.S. public policy. Kent’s parents lived in Vietnam for a decade during the U.S. military intervention into that civil war and saw firsthand the destructive consequences U.S. foreign policy can have.

How do you do it?

For some of the early years of our marriage we withheld a symbolic portion of our taxes (less than $100), which provided a reason to send letters to our Congressional representatives, the President, and the IRS, expressing our faith-based resistance to U.S. budgetary priorities vis-a-vis discretionary federal spending.

We’re not always consistent. Some years we have withheld the entire percentage of federal taxes for military expenditures, and some years we have withheld a symbolic portion. Some years we have filed under protest and written letters. For the last five years, we have managed to not owe any federal taxes (beyond Social Security) by maxing out a variety of legal tax-break options, such as charitable giving, IRA investments and mortgage-interest deductions. One of us also only has part-time paid employment, which keeps taxable income lower.

Dorothy Jean Weaver, seminary professor of New Testament

How long have you engaged in an act of witness through your taxes?

Thirty years or so

How do you do it?

I got this idea years ago from an MCC info sheet. I split my tax monies and write two checks: 55 percent to the U.S. Treasury and 45 percent to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I mail both checks to the IRS along with a letter, copied to my legislators, explaining why I am doing this. I also send a symbolic sum of $45 to MCC for their “taxes for peace” fund.

Why do you do it?

In the letter I say that as a follower of Jesus Christ I cannot in conscience pay the portion of my federal taxes that goes to military purposes. I note that I have no intention to avoid paying the money I owe to the federal government. I simply wish to designate that these funds go to a cause that is life-giving, not death-dealing. And I submit these checks as an expression of my freedom of religion, protected by the constitution, the freedom not to have to take an action that is contradictory to my Christian beliefs.

Anna and Ben Wyse, public health nurse and owner of Wyse Cycles, with their children Martha, Desmond, and Sam.

How long have you been living below the taxable income level?

Since we got married, 13 years ago — with the exception of one year when we accidentally made a little too much money.

Why do you do it?

Living below the taxable income level is at some level an act rooted in helping us sleep at night.

One component of American militarism has to do with protecting our consumptive lifestyles. The uneven distribution of wealth and uneven consumption of resources are one factor that drives conflict both in some localized conflicts and some international conflicts. As Americans, we cannot help but participate in and benefit from the violent structures that underpin our economy and society. By living under the taxable level, we at least are attempting to reckon with the dissonance we experience between what we believe and the broken world in which we all live.

We often feel like this is sort of a token act that will never really make a difference. We also know there are still numerous ways that we are complicit in the machinery of violence that our society relies on. Despite all that, this is one of the important choices we have made about how to express faithfulness and a longing for a different kind of world.

How do you do it?

By bringing home one income. When Anna had a job, Ben did a lot of volunteer work, and when he worked for folks he asked them to donate to various nonprofits in lieu of payment for services. Now Anna is a full-time stay-at-home parent, and we live on Ben’s income. We have to be careful with our budget, but we still live a far more abundant lifestyle than many of our neighbors in Harrisonburg and many of our global neighbors.

Rick and Carolyn Yoder, retired business and economics professor/semiretired international health systems consultant and psychotherapist

How long have you redirected a portion of your taxes?

Since we were married 38 years ago

Why do you do it?

Our work has taken us to many countries where we have seen both the positive and negative effects of our tax dollars. Carolyn’s work in psychosocial trauma healing often involves dealing with the fallout of violent conflict. We believe it’s a moral issue that nearly half our taxes go to military spending and that we spend more than the next highest 15 countries combined on the military while cutting domestic spending on programs such as health care, education, and the social safety net. Redirecting a portion of our taxes to life-giving causes helps reduce the gap between our stated values on peace and nonviolence and our actions.

The research on bystanders says that silence in the face of harm or wrongdoing emboldens harmdoers, leading them to assume others support and agree with them. Doing something, even something small, puts them on alert that someone has noticed and doesn’t agree. We’re not under the illusion that our letters and voice will change things, but it does change us. And knowing what we know, how can we be silent bystanders?

How do you do it?

We first take steps to ensure that we owe the IRS on April 15, rather than having a refund due us. Then we redirect a symbolic amount, a couple hundred dollars, from our federal income tax payments to the National Peace Tax Fund and MCC. We enclose a letter with our tax returns, stating what we are doing and why, with copies to the U.S. President, our legislators and our congregation. We also enclose a copy of the formal action taken by Community Mennonite Church to offer its support morally, financially and otherwise to its members.

A question many people have for those of us who redirect our taxes to life-giving causes is about the consequences from the IRS. Sue and John’s experience is typical: “We receive quarterly letters from the IRS each year, informing us that we owe them money. We respond to them with a letter restating our reasons. If in a given year we have prepaid too much tax, the money that we have withheld gets subtracted from our return. We do not really mind that this happens, because we find that we have already achieved the goal of bringing attention to our stance on military spending and war.”

Rick and Carolyn have had a lien placed on their bank account for the amount owed plus interest and a small penalty. They have also had the IRS get the amount due by electronically taking their state tax refund. Ray and Wilma have been audited numerous times, likely due to the high amount of deductions they have for contributions.

H.A. Penner applauded that article in a letter, putting in a word for the “$10.40 For Peace” project along the way. In a later letter (November 2014) he added:

Now, in the interest of peace, must we demand an arms embargo against all armed actors in Iraq and Syria, including the United States?

Paying for war is a form of participation in war…

But here alas, he decided to plug the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund instead of full-throated war tax resistance.

This is the twenty-fifth 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.

The debate about war tax resistance continued at a simmer through 1984, and by the end of the year it was clear that the Mennonite Church would have to have the same debate about withholding taxes from its employees’ salaries that had occupied the General Conference Mennonite Church the previous year.

The 4 February 1984 issue included this interesting note:

The Center for Discipleship and the Peace Studies Program at Goshen College will cosponsor a seminar on “Conscientious Objection to Military Taxes” on Goshen’s campus, Feb. 4. The program will feature an Internal Revenue Service representative addressing the legalities of withholding military taxes; discussion of improved communication between tax withholders, the government, and the church; and a look at various patriotic and biblical objections raised by nonwithholders. The purpose of the seminar is not to foster debate on the morality of tax withholding; rather, persons who are already withholding taxes or who are seeking additional information on the issue are encouraged to attend. In lieu of a registration fee, participants will be asked to make a $10 tax-deductible contribution.

I wonder if you could rope an IRS spokesperson into addressing a war tax resistance conference today.

The 7 February 1984 included an article that summed up the state of the war tax issue in the Mennonite community. It’s the same article that appeared in The Mennonite around the same time and that I reproduced here when I was going through those archives (see ♇ 4 August 2018 — search for “Military taxes — continuing agenda in 1984”).

War tax resistance foe D.R. Yoder wrote a commentary for the 6 March 1984 issue in which he argued that tax resistance was ineffective because the government can just rely on borrowing or seigniorage if it runs out of tax money, which means ultimately the costs not paid by war tax resisters just get shifted to other people, which isn’t very Christian.

Robert V. Peters promoted simple living, in part as a tax resistance strategy, in his 27 March 1984 article “Stewardship: a pilgrim’s progress”:

One stewardship issue that is seldom brought up, although one of the most important, is how we use our tax dollars. Becky and I are comfortable in paying local and state taxes but have come to feel that we cannot pay any of our federal income taxes, given their use in fueling the arms race. We note the irony that while the average Mennonite family gives the church $430 a year for peacemaking it pays the IRS $1,500 for its militarism. A 4 percent tithe for the church, and a 10 percent tithe for the government! Our response is to reduce our taxable income and refuse to pay anything, choosing instead to use this money for serving the kingdom. Friends of ours have taken other options such as matching their giving to the IRS with their giving to the church, refusing to pay a percentage of their tax dollars, enclosing a letter of protest with their payment. We feel that how we use our money is a crucial test of our loyalties and commitments and must become a stewardship issue for this generation.

Imagine with us what could happen if we Mennonites were to take the steps outlined in books like Beyond the Rat Race. Imagine if we were to give as much to the church as we give the IRS, or if we gave our tax dollars to the work of the church, withholding them from military use?

Titus Martin responded, in the 4 April 1984 issue:

I want to make a few comments… especially on the last part concerning the average Mennonite family giving “a 4 percent tithe for the church, and a 10 percent tithe for the government.” I cannot understand how he can withhold all income taxes from Uncle Sam in light of the fact the U.S. government is very reasonable in its demands. The government allows us to give 50 percent to charitable causes without too many restrictions, though there are some.

Thus I ask, until we give 50 percent to charity which the government allows, who is responsible if it is not spent right? Peters talked about the tithe for the church. Personally I believe many of us should give much more. Just because we feel our government does not spend all our tax money right does not give us the right to withhold all or part of our tax money.

There was a passing mention of war tax resistance at the Bijou Community in a 3 April 1984 article:

[Esther (Leatherman)] Kisamore, formerly of Pennsylvania, is a member of a Christian community, called Bijou House, consisting of 13 persons. There are four other Mennonites in this house community; the next largest group represented is Roman Catholic. The group shares economic resources and lives below the taxable income level as a way of avoiding the payment of war taxes.

The 10 April 1984 issue contained a pro-taxpaying op-ed from Harold Hartzler. Christians should pay taxes gladly, he wrote, citing Romans 13. Taxes help our terrific government; we shouldn’t try to lower our taxes but should indeed pay even more than is required; the government should simplify taxes and broaden the tax base, and should increase taxes even if that makes things “unbearable.”

Alongside that commentary was this one, credited to Call to Peacemaking:

Praying and paying: a dilemma

The question begins to sound like a cliché, we’ve heard it so often: Can we go on praying for peace while paying for war?

But the question won’t go away. Every year in the United States we are reminded of the reality of military preparations when the president presents the proposed budget to congress. This year the figures reach almost beyond our imaginations, near a trillion in total spending with more than a third for war. A military expenditure of that enormity was once associated only with the waging of all-out war. Now it is only preparation for war, plus minor (?) interventions here and there.

We only need to reflect for a moment on the consequences of the kind of war we’re preparing for to know in our hearts that the government is buying us less security. That’s the purpose of the state? To brandish a nuclear sword which guarantees that if used it will fulfill the prophecy of Jesus: “They who take the sword will perish with the sword.”

Between the time the budget is unveiled and when we can no longer delay the moment of truth with the Internal Revenue Service is usually a little less than three months. Plenty of time to agonize whether what Caesar is demanding to support the arms race is really what is due to Caesar.

An increasing number of concerned persons recognize the dilemma of praying and paying and are seriously trying to decide how to resist. A leaflet, “Stages of Conscientious Objection to Military Taxes,” by Bill Strong at the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Friends and Linda Schmidt of Mennonite Central Committee describes what some have done in response to the question of taxes for war.

The leaflet is available from New Call to Peacemaking, Box 1245, Elkhart, IN…

Reporter Steve Shenk brought this news in the 13 April 1984 issue:

Virginia peace group offers food for thought

As tax season rolls around, taxpayers are faced with many facts and figures that concern the conscience as well as the wallet. For some Christians payment of federal income tax — the portion which goes to finance the military — is a dilemma.

This year a group called Christians for Peace, consisting of largely Mennonites from the Harrisonburg, Va., area, gathered at the regional office of the Internal Revenue Service in Staunton, Va., on Apr. 13, 1984. They came to register their concern about the amount of income tax money which is used for military purposes. Instead of bringing their normal checks, they came with a truckload of food for the IRS.

The food was purchased with money that the participants withheld from their 1983 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 their destruction.”

The group began the witness with a short worship service in front of the IRS building. There was a short mime skit entitled The Global Garden Deli which visualized their feelings about paying for military expenditures. The theme song, “I Am Not Willing to Buy Your Bombs, Sam,” sung to the melody “I Have Decided to Follow Jesus,” was heard between prayers and testimony of the group members.

Wendell Ressler then read a short statement of purpose to the small crowd of onlookers. He explained that this action was really a pledge to reexamine the effects of the group’s lifestyle on other people. “We do not wish to be protected if it means others are killed in our names. 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.”

Christians for Peace members, Milo and Viola Stahl, then entered the IRS building to offer their bags of groceries in payment for the military portion of the income tax. They were cordially received by the representative for the regional director of the IRS, but told that the IRS could not accept the bread. When the Milo Stahls asked the representative what the IRS would like them to do with the food, the representative replied, “That is your prerogative, but I cannot accept it.”

The food was then presented to the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank, Inc., a nonprofit community organization that distributes 220,000 pounds of food each month to hungry people in the area. Executive Director Phil Grasty was careful to note that he did not want to take a political stand on the issue, but he was “happy to receive the food.” Over 1,000 pounds of canned goods were donated to the organization.

The group repeatedly tried to explain that their intention was not to harass the IRS personnel. Instead their goal was to represent their concern as a Christian witness. “The reason that I am here,” said Christian for Peace member Nate Barge, “is that for me it is an act of faith. I am trying to bring evangelism and social action together.”

The event attracted passersby to stop and watch the demonstration. One of them, Dave Murphy, a member of the Staunton Christian Fellowship Baptist Church, said, “I think it is a nice effort on their part to present what they believe about military spending… after all it is the American way to speak out. I am particularly pleased that they are giving the food to the Food Bank where it will do some good.”

The following news brief was found in the 1 May 1984 issue:

Religious war tax movement growing rapidly in U.S.

Two years after Seattle Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen’s decision to withhold half of his federal income taxes, a religious “war tax” movement is growing rapidly. Its numbers are being swelled both by Hunthausen imitators and by creative new forms of protest by people who are upset by the nuclear arms race but reluctant to put themselves outside the law.

According to new Internal Revenue Service figures, the type of protest popularized by the Seattle archbishop has increased nearly fivefold in the last three years, while alternative forms of protest, some of them revived from the Vietnam War era, have also become more frequent. Among the latter protesters are people who refuse to pay a small, token amount of tax, or withhold federal excise taxes from their monthly telephone bills. Others file a return and write “paid under protest” on the check, or file for a refund of military taxes already paid. Increasing charitable giving to reduce the amount of income subject to tax, and changing one’s lifestyle to live below a taxable income level, are also gaining acceptance. Many religious groups, in addition, are pressing Congress for legislation that would allow “conscientious objectors” to divert all their taxes to “peaceful” purposes.

The Mennonite Central Committee held its executive committee meeting in May 1984:

Military tax issue raised

Executive Secretary Reg Toews reported that three staff members have requested that MCC no longer withhold the military portion of the federal withholding tax from their paychecks.

Member Larry Kehler of Winnipeg, Man., noted that "this is a very volatile issue in our constituency." It was observed that MCC is in a unique position, since it represents a wide coalition of conferences, who come to this issue with various degrees of intensity. “Just to discuss this issue is to raise concern in many groups,” Toews said.

The executive committee stated their intention to take seriously the request from the staff members, as well as constituency concerns. They asked administrative staff to work on a plan, to be discussed by the committee in September, concerning how this issue should receive broader testing.

A letter to the editor from Steven G. Gehman (14 August 1984) rejected on scriptural grounds the “witnessing” justification of war tax resistance, but left open the possibility that it was justified on the grounds of conscientious objection to participation in war:

I have struggled with the war tax issue and have not reached any definite answer. I cannot feel comfortable knowing that a great portion of my taxes is devoted to killing or creating the potential to kill, and knowing that Jesus commands us to have no part in war. But neither am I comfortable with war tax resistance. There are no records of Jesus opposing taxes to the Roman military machine. In Romans 13:1–5 Paul states his view that the government bears the sword as God’s servant. First Peter 2:13 gives us the injunction to submit to human authority.

I do not think either or both of these passages in themselves yield a final answer to the war tax issue. They do help to sharpen the questions. If the government bears the sword as God’s servant, total disarmament cannot be the goal or the reason for war tax resistance. Neither is the desire for an effective witness to the government sufficient reason to resist payment since we are commanded to submit to human authority.

The question of whether or not payment of war taxes is right hinges on whether or not payment of these taxes constitutes participation in a killing machine to an extent forbidden by the example and teachings of Jesus. What effect does current military technology have on our response to this issue?

An August 1984 conference in Japan included war tax resister Michio Ohno:

Michio Ohno, pastor of the Mennonite congregation in Toke outside Tokyo, told of his pilgrimage which included being a pastor in the United Church before becoming a Mennonite. He also made an eloquent appeal for a peace stance and the nonpayment of military taxes.

J. Ward Shank, in a 18 September 1984 “Update on the peace movement in the Mennonite Church”, criticized the modern centrality of anti-war activism among Mennonites, suggesting that it had displaced more basic Christian themes. “Peace is a fruit of the gospel, not its basis, or necessarily the heart of it,” he wrote. The article only mentioned war tax resistance in passing, but of course was relevant to it. It prompted a great deal of back-and-forth in the letters to the editor column.

The Mennonite Church’s general board’s “council on faith, life, and strategy” met in October 1984. It turned out that the Mennonite Church, like its cousins the General Conference Mennonite Church, had employees who wanted their church to stop withholding war taxes from their paychecks. This time around, the Mennonite Church wouldn’t have the luxury of playing spectator in the debate:

One of the stickier issues arose out of a request from a couple employed by Mennonite Board of Missions that federal income taxes not be withheld from their paychecks. They want to stop paying the portion of their taxes that goes to the military. The council tried to clarify the issue by raising underlying questions such as “Shall a church perform a function on behalf of the state, in this instance collecting taxes?” and “Should a church institution place employees in a position where they do not have the option to follow their conscience on this issue?” Vigorous discussion led to two recommendations: (1) That this question might be considered in the forthcoming Conversations on Faith Ⅱ meeting. (2) That a task force be appointed by the General Board.

I noticed that tax resistance was on the agenda at the General Conference Dialogue on Faith in October also, but there wasn’t anything meaty in the article worth reprinting here.

This is the thirty-first in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.

General Board Follies

So if you remember from our last episode, the board of the Mennonite Church was dragging its feet about supporting employees who did not want war taxes withheld from their paychecks. Then the whole Church, in its General Assembly, forced their hand by voting to honor the requests of such employees.

But apparently the board still saw that as advisory and not binding, because they kept right on dragging their feet:

General Board tables military tax question

After several years of study and discussion, the Mennonite Church General Board brought the military tax question to a vote — and tabled it. Normal 89 attenders will recall that a majority of General Assembly delegates voted to “support” the efforts of church board employees who do not wish their taxes deducted so that they can deal with the government in regard to military taxes.

The issue came back to the General Board as such issues will and it was given extended attention at the spring meeting which convened at Kalona (Iowa) Mennonite Church, Apr. 5–7. An early straw vote strongly favored going ahead, but when decision time came, a majority voted to table the motion.

As presented, the motion called for agreeing “in principle” to honor requests of employees who ask that their income tax not be withheld. However, such approval was intended to be reviewed in the 1991 session of the board after a congregational study process which is now being initiated. No taxes were to be withheld prior to April 1991.

Motion to table, it was suggested, was related to the pending congregational study process. The board was concerned not to prejudice the case before the study process. Also there was concern that the possible consequences of such withholding be better understood. What action might the government take toward board officers?

Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ and Executive Secretary James Lapp indicated that they were not unhappy about the motion to postpone action. “Some of us thought ‘in principle’ could be helpful in the study process,” said Brunk. “The board position has been in the direction of the proposed motion,” he continued. “But there are different ways to capture this.”

Yet another Military Tax Consultation was held to allow for more jaw-exercise and to cover for the delay:

Mennonite Church General Board is holding a Military Tax Consultation in response to actions taken by General Assembly at Normal 89 last August. It will be held May 11–13 at Goshen College. Mennonite Church conferences are invited to send teams of persons to the event. Since General Assembly called for “continued study of issues raised by taxation for military purposes,” General Board is currently preparing a study guide for use by congregations. It is being prepared under the direction of Robert Hull and will be ready in time for the consultation. The most controversial — and potentially illegal — action taken by General Assembly was its permission to denominational agencies and schools to honor the request of employees who don’t want taxes withheld from their paychecks so they can refuse to pay the portion (about half) that goes to the military. More information about the consultation is available from General Board…

Daniel Hertzler reported on the consultation:

War tax resisters tell their stories at General Board consultation

Some 30 people met at Goshen College, May 11–12, for a “Consultation on Military Tax Withholding.” The military tax question has been on Mennonite Church agenda since 1977, General Board executive secretary James Lapp told the group. But now it has become focused on the issue of “tax withholding” by church agencies for people who wish to deal with the Internal Revenue Service on their own.

Avowed purpose of the consultation was to introduce a study guide, “As Conscience and the Church Shall Lead,” being prepared for use in congregations. To this end Marlene Kropf of Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries led the group in an educational experience.

In the beginning, and alternatively throughout, there was story telling. Military-tax resisters told how they got into it. All referred to a variety of spiritual influences and life-changing experiences. Seven persons told personal stories. Among them was Dan Hunsberger of Hesston College, who worked one summer for a contractor without taxes withheld and got a tax bill for $1,700. “I considered this use of money wrong, not only from a peace standpoint, but also bad business.”

David Weaver, a teacher at Central Christian High School, grew up in a family that eschewed political involvement. But in 1984 he went on a student tour to the Middle East and spent some time on the West Bank of the Jordan River, the home of persecuted Palestinians. Then, in 1986, he wrote a paper on the issue of war taxes and in the same year he went to Nicaragua with Witness for Peace. “I saw the Nicaraguan people and looked into their eyes,” he said. That year he decided to withhold 55 percent of his income taxes.

“At the beginning I felt very heavy about this. In November when they came and took money from my account, it was like a burden was lifted. What really can they do to harm me? We’re in the world for a short life. There are little things we can do. This doesn’t mean my hands are clean. But it is a small action.”

Ray and Wilma Gingerich from Harrisonburg, Va., gave a joint report which recounted a decades-long, growing concern over the issue of war taxes. When they first became aware of the issue, they had no income taxes to pay. But by 1977 they finally had enough income to be taxed and began to withhold 50 to 59 percent. “Our son Andre refused to register under Carter,” they said. “We saw some relation between this and middle-aged people not paying for war. We cannot continue to pay taxes while applauding our young who resist the draft.”

Ray expressed concern that Mennonite Church leaders have not been more forthright about the issue. “We need to try to draw our leaders into the discussion. Leaders generally get their authority from the people, not from the poor or the Bible. In some respects, tax resisters must lead the leaders.”

Among the leaders present was Paul Gingrich, president of Mennonite Board of Missions. He acknowledged that MBM first faced this issue as long ago as 1984, when John and Sandra Drescher-Lehman asked that their taxes not be withheld. The MBM board of directors is divided. Some threaten to resign either way.

But Gingrich concludes that some corporate action needs to be taken as an object lesson, a parable so that younger Mennonites may learn firsthand about resisting militarism. “We have a generation that only hears the stories of those resisting World Wars Ⅰ and Ⅱ and the Korean conflict,” he said. “The institution can become a symbol. In the action is a tremendous teaching moment.”

He continued, “In every generation we need to discover the issue on which we will not compromise. For what will we be ready to die? Is this the place to stand? Is this the way to stand? If an institution takes such an action, it may be that the institution will not survive. But maybe that is not the most important thing.”

No clear-cut answer to Gingrich came out of the consultation. But from small-group settings a cautious consensus emerged. Most groups encouraged church agencies to respect the consciences of persons who do not wish their taxes deducted by the agency, even though such honoring would involve the agency in illegal action.

Several groups pointed out, however, that there are ways for persons to gain access to enough tax money to make a symbolic protest without implicating their agency in illegal action. It was urged that they explore these first.

James Lapp, who called the consultation, and Marlene Kropf, director of the educational experience, both expressed satisfaction with the session. “We need to recognize that there is a complex set of issues here,” said Lapp. “Our goal is to help people to see that there is more than one way to be faithful.”

All this dithering prompted a letter to the editor from Dannie Otto (22 May 1990):

Although I have not been involved in the issue, I believe the issue of military tax deductions of church employees has been around for at least a decade. I am concerned about the continued reluctance of General Board to implement the will of General Assembly to support church board employees who as a matter of conscience do not wish to have their taxes deducted.

As reported in “General Board Tables Military Tax Question”… the eagerness with which the board embraces broad “visions” while avoiding concrete actions is striking. Whatever the possible actions of the government toward board officers if tax withholding is stopped, it would surely be mild in contrast to the price paid by Mennonite leaders during World War Ⅰ who refused to financially support the war effort. “A Pastor Pays a Price for Peace” in the same issue of Gospel Herald is an illustration. [See ♇ 1 September 2018]

Discussion of visions is fine, but no vision is more catching than one demonstrated through faithful action. My sympathies are with the General Board employees who have patiently gone through the lengthy process required to have their concerns embraced by General Assembly, only to have the issue kicked back into a “study process” by General Board.

The board’s apparent relief at being able to postpone action on this issue should be juxtaposed with Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ’s concern stated in his “state of the Mennonite Church” address that “We are not facing conflict as a people of God. The question of our faithfulness calls for eternal vigilance.”

Daniel Hertzler tried to put the whole thing in context with a 29 May 1990 editorial:

Why is it so hard to get to the bottom of the war tax question?

The issue of paying military taxes has been knocking about in the Mennonite Church for close to a generation. At the “Consultation on Military Tax Withholding” (Goshen College, May 11–12) it was reported that John Howard Yoder was writing about this already in the 1950s.

Perhaps these writings were not published. The earliest material on this subject which I could find in the Gospel Herald was “Dare We Pay Taxes for War?” by John Drescher (Oct. 10, 1967). I found this editorial with help from Swartley and Dyck’s Annotated Bibliography of Mennonite Writings on War and Peace: 1930–1980 (Herald Press, 1987). This book has 16 pages on the topic “War Tax Resistance,” so the subject has clearly been one of concern among us. Some of the references go back into the ’50s, but not in the Gospel Herald.

Drescher’s editorial indicates that concern about the issue arose during Mennonite General Conference and that “delegates asked for direction on the matter of paying taxes designated for war purposes.” A resolution was passed calling for “a fresh study of the biblical teaching”! Has anything changed among us in 23 years?

At the Goshen consultation I listened to Willard Swartley declaim on Romans 13:1–7, and I suddenly got a clue as to why this issue keeps grinding on with no resolution in sight. “Pay all of them their dues,” writes Paul, regarding the authorities, “taxes to whom taxes are due…”

So there it is. If Paul wrote to the Romans that they should pay their taxes, why do modern Mennonites sit around debating whether they may pay the military part of their taxes? We are known as people of the Bible. Isn’t the Bible plain enough?

Not so fast. At Goshen, Willard Swartley presented a 12-point outline entitled “Method for Bible Study.” The first three points were entitled “Observation: What does the Bible say?” The second five he captioned “Meaning: What is the text saying?’ The final four he called “Significance: What says the text?” Beyond these I think the most important thing he said was that Romans 13:1–7 should be interpreted as part of a longer unit in the letter (certainly a basic Bible study principle) and that probably there was a local controversy in Rome over the payment of specific taxes. Paul’s counsel to the Romans was to pay these specific taxes and was not intended as a general principle, regarding all taxes in all times and all places.

Willard pointed out that the New Testament has a number of normative texts on this subject. He mentioned the following: Colossians 2:15; Ephesians 1:19–23; 3:10; 1 Peter 3:22; 1 Corinthians 15:24–26; Romans 8:35–39; Ephesians 6:12–20. Romans 13, he said, should be interpreted in dialogue with this longer stream of texts. In the end, said Willard, there is “ambiguity in the biblical tradition over the place of authorities: respect for their responsibility for order versus awareness that they represent evil.” In other words, by simply paying taxes without thinking, we may be selling out.

Two others at Goshen discussed the issue from a theoretical standpoint: ethics professor J.R. Burkholder and Pastor John F. Murray. Murray proposed that the answer to the war tax problem is to be found in generous giving to the church. Since in the U.S. one can contribute up to 50 percent of one’s income, or $50,000, he proposed that reducing our income through contributions is a more effective response than tax resistance. Further, he pointed out, anyone who saves money and puts it in the bank is supporting the military just as much as the person who pays taxes. “When we give only 5 percent of our income as a denomination, we are not faithful.”

Burkholder stressed the reality of ambiguities. “We will have to learn to live with pluralism in the Mennonite Church,” he asserted. “We do not have the same position on war taxes.”

Clearly we do not. And as James Rhodes responded to Burkholder, “There is danger in an emphasis on ambiguity of diluting our basic foundation of biblical obedience.”

So it is important that we not give up just because we come with different perspectives on the issue. It is urgent that those with different points of view listen to each other under God and under the Scriptures. We have no other place to go.

Readers responded:

Robert V. Peters (10 July 1990)

In response to your editorial, “Why is it so Hard to Get to the Bottom of the War-Tax Question?”… and the news article piece on the war-tax consultation in the same issue, let me note the following: Why is it that the Mennonite Church can so easily reach clarity that homosexuality is a sin and ban any dialogue whatsoever with gay members of our community but yet find the war-tax issue “contains a complex set of issues” and that it is “filled with ambiguities”?

Why must we accept pluralism and ambiguity on this issue when we can so easily reach apparent consensus on the gay question? Is this not rather self-serving and hypocritical, for on the one hand our church fathers tell us we must accept differing biblical interpretations, pluralism, and ambiguity on war taxes but somehow the gay issue is crystal clear!

It seems to me that there is no ambiguity, for as you note, Romans 13 is not intended as a general principle that we must pay all taxes to government. Further the whole text seems to make clear that we must clarify our loyalties and choose whom we serve, God or Caesar. Further it seems clear that if we follow the way of peace, we can have no part in allowing our money to pay for killing and war. If there is room for ambiguity I think it is more apparent on the gay question. On war taxes it seems clear.

Perhaps our leaders wish to keep it plural, for only a minority can support our historic peace witness these days, while they know that pluralism is unacceptable for the gay question given the majority in our community who are convinced that homosexuality is sin. Wake up, leaders, and be fair! You can’t have it both ways. Either we seek clear standards and follow them or we become Unitarians or Quakers, where everything is ambiguous.

Robert J. Schultz (10 July 1990)

Schultz started off with the typical Render-unto-Caesar / after all Rome was a militaristic government / Jesus never complained about paying taxes line. Then he finished off with the “silent majority” gambit:

I urge all of those conservative Mennonites who usually remain silent to “send the General Board a message” — mainly, not to be tempted into politicking with the liberal pacifist elements, and to remain within the boundaries of biblical nonresistance. If there are those who want to withhold taxes, let them do it without having the actions of the General Board as a shield.

John M. Eby (21 August 1990)

“Why Is It So Hard to Get to the Bottom of the War Tax Question?”… Maybe because there is no bottom — only a bottomless chasm between two irreconcilable views.

In my own imagination I see the story told in Matthew 22 in modem “dress.” The Pharisee digs through the pockets of his custom-tailored suit. From a jumble of temple contribution receipts and credit cards (Pharisee-controlled banks) he produces a $50 bill.

“Whose portrait is on that bill?”

“General and President Ulysses S. Grant.”

“If you deal in portraits of deceased generals and presidents, you owe a commission to those who occupy their offices today. But don’t forget that you owe even more to God.”

Again, we know that Caesar does not divide his tax collections between two baskets labeled “war” and “peace.” It all goes into one basket, and then is divided out as Caesar wishes. And so, if 50 percent (or whatever) goes for “war,” then 50 percent of anything that an individual deposits into the basket goes for “war.” The persons who pay 50 percent of their taxes are in fact paying half of their “war” tax and half of their “peace” tax.

I admire those who for conscience’ sake voluntarily live at the “poverty” line so that they do not owe the tax that they object to paying. They have adjusted their lifestyle to put their (lack of) money where their “mouth” is. I’m not willing to do that — a character flaw, perhaps, but one that I seem to share with many others. Is it wrong to want to share in at least part of the standard USA lifestyle without paying for Caesar’s expenses in maintaining conditions that promote this lifestyle?

Do we want a “free lunch”? And, of course, Caesar’s money can do God’s work, or so we are told by those responsible for keeping church agencies and institutions in the black. Those who have the spirit of generosity also need something to be generous with. And Caesar pays a part of the gift.

If we deal in portraits of deceased generals and presidents, what do we owe to those who occupy their offices today?

Richard E. Martin (4 September 1990)

Over a number of years I have read articles, pro and con, on the war-tax issue. Your May 29 editorial on the same subject has rekindled my interest. A large percentage of the arguments have been of a theological or theoretical nature. However, I have not seen the following point of view mentioned.

Many of us in the Mennonite Church are no longer independent farmers and/or businessmen or self-employed.

(At age 48 I have witnessed this transition.) Therefore, we have little or no control over the deductions from our pay checks. No company, business, or public institution that I know of would seriously consider a request not to withhold a certain percent of taxes due. Some firms that are operated by Christians may grant us their understanding and be sympathetic in attitude, but simply are not willing to get into the legal and business ramifications of a tax fight with the federal government.

Consequently, the war-tax issue, while perhaps valid, is to many simply a moot point lingering in a gray mist on the edge of our consciousness. Could this be why the 1989 General Assembly vote on the General Board war-tax recommendation went 142 for and 100 against?

For me, if the federal government would institute a special, separate, extra-budget war tax (as done in the American Revolution, for example), that is a horse of a different color. I would try to resist in some way as my ancestors collectively did in Lancaster County, Pa., in the Revolutionary times. Having written my Indiana senators and representative on the war-tax issue, I see no change in federal tax regulations to be soon in coming.

The 30 October 1990 issue announced that if “continued study” was the order of the day, the Mennonite Church General Board was equipped:

Study guide on military tax withholding from Mennonite Publishing House. Prepared at the request of Mennonite Church General Board, it is designed to facilitate discussion of the 1989 General Assembly request for “continued study of issues raised by taxation for military purposes.” It is entitled As Conscience and the Church Shall Lead. A response form is provided so that Sunday school classes, small groups, and individuals may provide feedback.

The Mennonite Church General Board met in mid-November and tried to pretend that the General Assembly hadn’t voted to go ahead with corporate tax resistance:

Question was also raised about the Normal ’89 decision regarding war taxes. Board members noted a lack of clarity on what the decision meant. Slightly more than half the delegates had agreed that churchwide agencies need not withhold the military portion of taxes for employees who request this. Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ noted the decision is valid but that it can be reconsidered following a churchwide study on war taxes currently underway.

They also issued a “Statement to our Mennonite churches on the Persian Gulf situation” that included this:

[T]he Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church General Boards take the following action:

That the General Boards express deep concern about and opposition to the military buildup and the growing threat of war in the Persian Gulf, reaffirm their biblical understanding that the will of God is for humankind to live in peace and harmony and that war and militarism are counter to God’s intentions, and call our congregations to the following:

To confess our own complicity and selfishness in utilizing more than our share of the world’s supply of oil and other resources and for our limited concern for long-standing injustices in the Middle East, and also to confess and reexamine our complicity in paying for the military buildup through our taxes.

The Mennonite Church General Board met again in mid-April 1991 and continued to put off making a firm decision in response to the mandate given them by the General Assembly:

They focused on the question of withholding war taxes for their employees. Two years ago delegates to Mennonite General Assembly had authorized churchwide boards to honor requests of employees not to withhold the military portion of their income taxes; final decision was up to each board. Though it had been previously discussed in several meetings, General Board had made no decision on the issue.

Nor did it come easy this time. Board members raised questions about their financial liability. They acknowledged the burden of leadership: other churchwide boards were awaiting the General Board decision for help with their own.

In the end General Board agreed “to honor the request of an employee who for conscience’ sake requests that the military portion of his or her federal income tax not be withheld.” But they hedged. They made the action subject “to development of acceptable policies for implementation approved by the board.”

Miscellany

There was also plenty of content around this time that wasn’t directly prompted by the Mennonite Church board’s inaction.

For example, there was a series of letters-to-the-editor around the beginning of the year debating war tax resistance. Here are a pair of them, side-by-side:

Adam R. Martin and Ervin Miller also chimed in, largely agreeing with Wengerd.

The “Taxes for Peace” fund gave its annual update in the 13 February 1990 issue:

MCC invites contributions to Taxes for Peace Fund

Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Peace Section is inviting contributions for the 1990 Taxes for Peace Fund. The fund, established in 1972, gives people who want to withhold war taxes a way to contribute their money toward peaceful purposes. While contributing to this fund is a symbolic action and not a legal alternative to paying the tax, many people have found it a meaningful way to demonstrate their commitment to peace.

Last year, $5,750 in Taxes for Peace money was divided between the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and Christian Peacemaker Teams. This year’s contributions will be divided the same way.

The National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund seeks to enact the U.S. Peace Tax Fund Bill, which would give those conscientiously opposed to war a way to pay 100 percent of their taxes by designating the military percentage to a separate fund for peace-enhancing programs. Christian Peacemaker Teams is an initiative of North American Mennonite and related churches to develop and support more assertive peacemaking.

Since 1977 MCC constituents have contributed more than $75,000 to the Taxes for Peace Fund. Among other projects, the money has funded reconstruction efforts in Indochina, aided victims of violence in Guatemala, and supported the MCC U.S. Peace Section.

The following excerpt is from one of several dozen letters sent to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in 1989 by contributors to the Taxes for Peace Fund: “We will sleep better tonight than if we would be helping to keep the murder machine going for the United States. And hopefully, all the people of the world will sleep better when we can all stop financing their death threats and death squads.” (John and Sandra Drescher-Lehman, Richmond, Va.)

Checks for the Taxes for Peace Fund should be made payable to “MCC, Taxes for Peace.”…

An information packet on military-tax opposition is available for $3 from MCC U.S. Peace Section. It contains varying theological positions on the war-tax issue and materials about tax laws and legal concerns for the tax resister. Updated materials are available for those who purchased earlier editions of the packet.

The 20 February 1990 issue announced a “Standing Up for Peace” contest in which young people (ages 15–23) “are urged to interview someone who has refused to fight in war, pay war taxes, or build weapons and then write an essay or song, produce a video, or create a work of art.” The MCC (U.S.) Peace Section was one of the sponsors.

One Mennonite congregation decided to take the lead and begin resisting the telephone excise tax as a group (6 March 1990):

St. Louis (Mo.) Mennonite Fellowship has decided to stop paying its telephone tax as a form of protest against military spending. Federal phone tax revenues, first collected in 1941, contribute directly to the U.S. Armed Forces. “Though the biblical basis for such action has been debated, we wish to respect the convictions of our members and Anabaptist forebears and foremostly to be disciplined followers of Jesus Christ,” said Scott Neufeld, who coordinates the congregation’s peace witness. The congregation will send its tax money instead to Mennonite Central Committee.

Five European Mennonite theologians are proposing changes in a World Council of Churches statement that is being discussed at WCC’s Convocation on Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation in Seoul, South Korea, Mar. 5–13. One of them, Andrea Lange of West Germany, took the proposed revisions to Seoul as a representative of the Dutch Mennonite Church and the North German Mennonite Church, both of which are WCC members. The Seoul statement grows out of an extended “conciliar” process by WCC member churches. The Mennonite revisions call for the rejection of force and support for conscientious objectors to military service and those who refuse to pay war taxes. The revision also calls for the full use of women’s gifts in the church — and to “admit them to all church offices.”

The 1 May 1990 issue included an article on Mennonite martyrs of the World War Ⅰ period who were persecuted for refusing to buy war bonds (see ♇ 1 September 2018 for that article).

The Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries board of directors met in August 1990, and took their cue from the Mennonite Church board by putting things off for another time:

The issue of military tax withholding for MBCM employees was discussed at length. However, no action was taken. Since no MBCM employees are currently requesting that the military portion of their taxes not be withheld, the board agreed to wait for such a request before responding to the military tax withholding question.

In November J. Lorne Peachey took over from Daniel Hertzler as editor. We haven’t heard from Peachey yet so I don’t know if he took any position in the war tax resistance debates that might influence his editorial positions.

A 11 December 1990 letter to the editor from John F. Murray used the war tax resistance issue as a rhetorical hook in the course of trying to prompt readers into tithing more to the Church.

Another letter, from Jim Leuba, in the 15 January 1991 issue, gave taxpaying Christians a pointed edge:

In reference to your suggestion in your editorial that we spend a day praying for “Peace in the Persian Gulf”…, I feel the following is an appropriate prayer:

“Lord, today I am praying for peace in the Persian Gulf. I pray our armies do not use the weapons I helped pay for with my tax dollars. Never mind. Lord, that I could live at an income level that did not require paying war taxes. And, Lord, a war will only increase the price of oil. I am so addicted to oil that I can’t imagine life without it. Never mind. Lord, that I use at least 10 times more fossil energy than 75 percent of the earth’s human population. Protect me. Lord; I am a North American Christian.”

The following syndicated news brief appeared in the 26 February 1991 issue:

Quaker group must garnish wages of tax-resisting employees

A Philadelphia Quaker organization must garnish the wages of its employees who fail to pay income tax for religious reasons, a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled. But Judge Norma Shapiro also said the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends cannot be penalized for failing to honor the levies imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The case involved the refusal of three Friends employees to pay the full amount of their taxes because part of it would go to the military, and that would violate their religious antiwar beliefs.

In her decision, Shapiro cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year in Employment v. Smith, the controversial Oregon peyote case. In denying unemployment benefits to two residents, the high court ruled that since ingestion of peyote was a crime in Oregon, “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion proscribes (or prescribes).”

Eastern Canada Conference of Mennonites was struggling with the same issue of tax resisting employees that had troubled the General Conference Mennonite Church and the Mennonite Church (Ron Rempel reporting, 19 March 1991):

Canadian conference responds to military tax objectors

Waterloo, Ont. (Mennonite Reporter) — Two Ontario Mennonite leaders have declared their conscientious objection to the payment of military taxes. However, their employers have not yet decided whether or how to cooperate with the request to redirect military taxes for peaceful purposes.

Fred Martin, the student and young adult minister for Eastern Canada Conference, first raised the issue in the fall of 1989. Jean-Jacques Goulet, pastor of Wilmot Mennonite Church, took a similar stand the week that the Persian Gulf War started. His church is waiting to see how the conference will resolve the matter.

Last October, at its fall delegate meeting, the conference gave notice of a recommendation that will be dealt with at the annual meeting next month. That recommendation called on the conference to support Martin not forwarding to Revenue Canada the portion of his income tax used for military purposes.

Since the October meeting, the executive board of the conference has looked more closely at how to proceed if the fall recommendation is accepted. The board has prepared an alternative resolution, calling on the conference: (1) to “withhold no income tax from the salary of any conference employee who requests this on the basis of conscience”; (2) to inform Revenue Canada and members of Parliament of the decision; (3) to ask the government to introduce legislation recognizing conscientious objection to payment of military taxes and to provide peaceful alternatives for use of these tax dollars; and (4) to support other church boards, agencies, and congregations that may adopt similar policies.

“As far as we know, no one in Canada has gone this route,” commented Sam Steiner, secretary of the conference. Others who have asked for the cooperation of employers in not paying military taxes have become “contract employees,” or “self-employed contractors.”

Eastern Canada Conference, however, is proposing to treat military tax objectors as full employees, and to continue all regular benefits and deductions, except for income tax deductions. It would be left to the employee to remit income taxes to Revenue Canada after redirecting the military portion.

This procedure has been used by the General Conference Mennonite Church after that denomination decided in 1983 to support military tax objectors. The Mennonite Church has made a similar commitment in principle, but has not yet decided on a procedure to use.

According to Steiner, the conference would technically be Hable for breaking tax laws by deciding not to collect income taxes for the government.

Reporter Ron Rempel followed up on that report with this:

Eastern Canada Conference rejects proposal on military tax deductions

Baden, Ont. (Mennonite Reporter) — After a vigorous debate, delegates to the annual meeting of Eastern Canada Conference, Apr. 5–7, defeated a proposal calling on the conference not to deduct income tax from employees who want to redirect the military portion for peaceful purposes. They also tabled an alternative resolution.

The conference executive board developed its proposal in response to a request from its student and young adult minister, Fred Martin. He indicated in the fall of 1989 that he objected on the basis of conscience to paying military taxes. He asked the conference — which is required by law to deduct all income taxes and remit them to Revenue Canada — to help him find a way to express his conscience.

In the recent Gulf War, “my body was not being conscripted, but my money was,” commented Martin in a brief presentation before delegates. “How can I pray for peace but pay for war?”

In introducing the proposal, conference secretary Sam Steiner said the executive board had not been unanimous. Some abstained from voting; others were against the proposal. He also said the proposed action could make the conference legally liable for breaking the Income Tax Act.

The legal question dominated the Saturday afternoon discussion by delegates. For example. Ken Musselman said military tax objectors should use other options, like increasing charitable donations or cutting back their overall income to reduce taxes. A number of delegates said that individuals who want to redirect military taxes should assume the legal liability themselves — for example, as contract employees — rather than expect conference to bear it. Others supported the proposal. They cited historical precedents such as World War Ⅰ conscientious objectors choosing jail rather than the military uniform.

A number who lined up at the open mikes said they liked the second part of the executive board’s proposal — to seek legislation recognizing conscientious objections to payment of military taxes — but objected to the first part — asking conference to defy current income tax laws.

The delegates then faced two choices: either table the executive board’s proposal or look at an alternative resolution.

The alternative, presented by Margot Fieguth, began with the second part of the original proposal: an attempt to work through legislative and legal avenues to secure recognition of conscientious objection to payment of military taxes and to provide peaceful alternatives. This resolution also suggested that conference offer Fred Martin a contract position, so that he, rather than conference, would be responsible to make income tax payments.

Delegates decided not to table the original proposal. But before they started debating the alternative, there were voices calling for a vote on the executive board’s proposal.

“I would like to hear the truth of where the conference stands on this issue,” said Jean-Jacques Goulet, pastor of Wilmot (Ont.) Mennonite Church. During the Gulf War he had declared himself a conscientious objector to military taxes. And his congregation was waiting to see how conference would respond to Fred Martin.

In a ballot vote, the executive board’s proposal was defeated 159-48. It was late in the evening. The alternative resolution was on the floor. But someone proposed that it be tabled till the next session of conference. The motion carried.

The “Taxes for Peace” war tax redirection fund gave its annual report in the 16 April 1991 issue:

Taxes for peace.

The Peace Section of Mennonite Central Committee U.S. is inviting contributions for the 1991 “Taxes for Peace” fund. Established in 1972, it gives people who want to withhold war taxes a way to contribute their money to peaceful purposes. Donations last year totaled $3,700, and they were sent to the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and to Christian Peacemaker Teams. More information is available from MCC U.S. Peace Section…

Nathan Zook Barge was quoted in a 30 July 1991 article as saying: “Can we say that we are pacifist when we are still paying taxes in support of war? Unless we are actively stopping that kind of support, I don’t think we are being heard as pacifists in Central America.”

Another General Assembly was held around the beginning of August, and I’m sure the board of directors were on tenterhooks hoping that the Assembly would let them off the hook about implementing the decision they’d made at the previous General Assembly to begin refusing to withhold war taxes from the salaries of objecting employees.

Unfortunately, I see nothing in the Gospel Herald coverage that indicates that issue was addressed at all. Instead, there was a lot of talk about encouraging Mennonites to contribute more to the Peace Tax Fund lobbying effort.

Delegates did look to themselves in reconsidering a 1989 statement on the Peace Tax Fund. The statement had called on individual Mennonites to contribute to this fund. Noting that less than one percent had done so, this time delegates took action to urge conferences and congregations to put the Peace Tax Fund in their budgets.

The Peace Tax Fund would allow conscientious objectors to pay their taxes by diverting the military portion to a special trust fund. Efforts are currently underway to have the Fund be considered by lawmakers in the U.S.; a comparable campaign is also being considered in Canada.

Weldon and Marg Nisly of Cincinnati told how they are refusing to pay the portion of their taxes that goes to the military. The Internal Revenue Service has frozen their bank accounts and life for them has become more inconvenient, but Nisleys said this is one way for them to “say no to the military monster.” Their call for 100,000 other Mennonites to join them was met with applause.

Peace tax fund.

In 1989 Mennonite General Assembly went on record to encourage individuals to contribute to a peace tax fund campaign. Less than one percent of us did. So in Oregon delegates made their action stronger: they are now “urging” district conferences and local congregations to put the peace tax fund into their annual budgets.

So your congregation will need to make a decision about that “urging” some time in the next two years. Will you give expression to your belief in peace by supporting a congregational budget item to contribute to a peace tax fund? The contribution will be used to help sponsor legislation in both Washington and Ottawa to legitimatize a peace tax fund as an option for persons opposed to having their tax money used for military purposes.

The 3 September 1991 issue profiled “Seniors for Peace” and included this detail:

Some Seniors for Peace withhold the military portion of their income taxes and contribute it to a peace fund. Many actively support lobbying for legislation for a peace tax fund to provide alternative service for tax dollars.

And finally, a 29 October 1991 letter to the editor from Tim Nafziger urged Mennonites not to stop, satisfied by redirecting their taxes to a peace tax fund. “The Mennonite Church is called to do more than be morally pure,” he wrote.