Some historical and global examples of tax resistance →
religious groups and the religious perspective →
Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) →
George MacLeod
This is the thirty-second in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today we reach the middle-1980s.
A conference held in and sponsored by the Mennonite Church General Board (I think this is distinct from the General Conference Mennonite Church’s General Board, but it gets confusing) concerned “The Church’s Relationship to the Political Order.”
War tax resistance was among the topics discussed:
John and Sandy Drescher Lehman of Richmond, Va., told how they followed their conscience and decided a few years ago to withhold the part of their income taxes that they figure goes for military spending.
Now they have become employees of Mennonite Board of Missions in their role as co-directors of the Richmond Discipleship Voluntary Service program.
“What should an institution do when its employees, following their consciences, ask that we stop withholding taxes from their paychecks?” asked MBM president Paul Gingrich.
A panel of four attempted to answer the question, including Robert Hull, soldier-turned-tax-resister who is peace and justice secretary of the General Conference Mennonite Church.
He explained how his denomination, with the instruction of its members, is now breaking the law by not withholding taxes from the paychecks of seven of its employees who have requested that.
In an editorial in the edition, E. Stanley Bohn wrote that war tax resistance is an example of Christians taking their doctrine seriously and taking risks for it, and that this is useful in missionary work.
Excerpts:
While my wife, Anita, and I were in a language school in Mexico, we stayed with a family that claimed to have a faith but had no relation to any congregation.
They had a good supply of humorous imitations of TV preachers and stories of inconsistencies of church people.
They also had the feeling that churches were exploitive of people and supported the exploitive governments to the north and their manipulation of governments in Latin America.
When I explained one night at the evening meal that in my denomination people often took a different position than the government, they listened politely.
But when I explained there were Christians who took the New Testament so sincerely that they accepted fines and jail terms, they wanted to know more.
Accepting penalties for conscientious objection to war, non-registration, refusing to pay a war tax and offering sanctuary to Central American refugees caused at least the son in that family to reconsider a faith he had earlier ridiculed.
The second incident happened in Japan with a Japanese friend who had lived in our home as an MCC trainee.
Christianity is not sweeping the country in Japan.
Although the door is not closed to Christian missionaries, it may be that a large percentage of the people are closed to a Christ who has been identified with what the West did to Asians in Vietnam, their parents in World War Ⅱ and with the current pressure on Japan to violate its constitution and establish armed forces capable of international war.
Our friend had arranged for a meeting of a group of his student friends, some of them non-Christian.
He asked me to speak while he translated on the topic of peacemaking efforts of Mennonites in the United States.
Topics like draft registration, prayer vigils at missile sites or war taxes — that are controversial for us — were in his eyes exactly what was needed to make credible what the church was teaching and to open the minds of his friends to the Christian faith.
In Canada and the United States we often see the more controversial peace witness and overseas missions as opposite kinds of religious expression, having little to do with each other.
Yet in some overseas situations the unbelievers we met were more open to the gospel if it included a peace witness that was clearly international and repudiated protecting ourselves at the expense of others (not that their governments would be any more receptive to that than ours is).
From their viewpoint it is clear that such witness efforts as those of Christian war tax refusers actually aid the work of overseas missions.
This may put our triennial conference action in a different light.
At the Bethlehem conference our delegates voted that we would not accept the position in which the U.S. laws put us: that the church act as a tax collector, taking taxes for war from those who are conscientiously against war.
That stand may some day require us to pay for legal assistance.
Since our conference was not unanimous in taking this stand, it was agreed that costs should be covered by donations from those who believe this was the right path to take.
Those who contribute to such legal expenses, if and when they come, may feel they are paying a penalty for having a conscience.
However, whether the ruling is favorable or unfavorable, their dollars may help our overseas mission dollars accomplish more.
They may be helping to open some minds closed to national and tribal gods and hungry for the God of all nations who makes a difference in people’s lives.
This news comes from the edition:
About a year ago, Mennonite Central Committee established a task force to study how MCC should respond to employees’ requests that MCC not withhold federal taxes from their paychecks.
This was to enable them to keep that portion of their taxes used for military purposes.
After meeting with leaders from eight conferences, the task force reported in that none of the conference groups was in favor of honoring the employees’ requests.
Even though the General Conference honors such requests by its employees, the executive committee of its General Board did not favor MCC taking similar action.
The former moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) has called for the creation of a peace army committed to withholding the 13 percent of income taxes that the British government spends on defense.
Lord MacLeod of Fuinary hopes such an army will be able to persuade the government to allow people to give an equivalent amount of their taxes to relieve world hunger instead.
Even if the government refuses to go along with the idea, he said, taxpayers should still withhold the money and give it to famine relief.
In the edition, Richard McSorley wrote about having taken “a vow of non-violence.”
The Catholic peace group Pax Christi was encouraging people to take such a formal vow annually, and was encouraging the Catholic Church to support such vows by providing a ritual context for them.
In my formulation of the vow I said, “I, before the cross of Jesus Christ, vow perpetual non-violence in fulfillment of the command of your Son, ‘Love your enemies.’ ”
It seems to me beyond doubt that I cannot love a person in the same act in which I kill that person.
The vow means I will not take part in killing anybody.
That means I will not pay taxes for weapons of death and be a part of the preparations to kill done by the military or the hangman or the abortionist.
Neither will I hold, as morally acceptable, the program of killing some to save others.
Discussion about payment of U.S. federal income taxes used for military purposes — or “war taxes” — was prompted by a request from four MCC Akron employees who asked MCC to stop forwarding the portion of their income taxes which go for military spending.
In letters last year to the executive committee, the four cited deployment of missiles in Europe, U.S. funds for war in Central America, MCC’s support of conscientious objection during the Vietnam War and the deaths of friends killed by American-made weapons as basis for the request.
A tax withholding task force reported to the board that, after discussions with eight Mennonite and Brethren in Christ conferences, “no group counseled MCC to honor the requests.”
MCC Canada indicated that payment of military taxes is not an issue among Canadians “at this time.”
The task force recommended that MCC “continue to withhold and forward taxes to the (U.S.) government.”
Possible penalties for not forwarding an employee’s tax include the amount plus interest, a $10,000 fine and/or five years imprisonment.
Board member Phil Rich, who served on the task force, emphasized that conference leaders “agonized” over the decision and observed that “none of the groups said that civil disobedience is absolutely wrong.”
Some of the leaders, he indicated, “are in favor but do not think their people will go along.”
He also noted that most conferences are open to dealing with the issue in the future.
During a lengthy discussion, board members wrestled with the issue.
Ray Brubacher, a Canadian, indicated that his church allows him to withhold the military portion of his income tax.
“I cannot,” he said, “vote against their request if I can [have taxes not withheld] myself.
I don’t want to vote against the constituency, but I cannot vote against my conscience.”
Larry Kehler of the General Conference noted that his denomination had decided in not to forward the tax of individuals who had made such a request.
As a member of that conference, he indicated that he “could not vote for the recommendation.”
Both said that their vote would be made with “much pain.”
Other board members shared their pain but agreed with MCC Canada representative Ross Nigh that “we are bound by the process.
We went to the conferences in good faith, and not one recommended that we withhold taxes.
In the interest of the wider brotherhood, we must vote for it.”
The recommendation passed with four against and two abstentions.
The board also passed recommendations that affirm the four and others who make a similar request and that encourage MCC to find ways for them to resist payment legally.
Staff were also encouraged to increase efforts to educate the churches about the relationship between militarism, hunger, development and refugees.
The task force also suggested that MCC and the conferences hold a study conference on church/state issues.
In a prepared response, Earl Martin read a statement on behalf of the four that expressed appreciation for the process and deliberation but appealed to the conferences to discuss the issue at their next annual conventions.
The four also asked MCC to help facilitate the discussion and invited the conferences to report their findings at the MCC annual meeting.
Martin also pointed out that while U.S. members of MCC’s seven constituent conferences donated $9.4 million to MCC in , they paid an estimated $159 million in military taxes.
Approximagely $880,000 was paid during the course of the meeting.
When the General Board met in , however, they backpedaled from their own participation in this decision:
[The board] passed a motion brought by CHM U.S. that GB reverse its recommendation to the Mennonite Central Committee that it continue to withhold taxes from its employees even when they request otherwise.
Staff member Robert Hull… disagreed with MCC’s decision not to stop withholding taxes of employees.
He said the General Board is partly responsible because it was contacted, along with seven other denominations when the decision was being made.
The committee continued to struggle with the issues posed by MCC employees whose request not to have income taxes withheld was rejected after long debate at the MCC annual meeting in .
It was decided at that time that, despite this decision, MCC should continue to affirm the integrity of those objecting to war taxes and establish a committee that would study and create broader awareness of the impact of militarism on refugees, hunger and development.
But the mandate of that group, which is to begin meeting in , was not clearly defined.
Executive committee chairman Elmer Neufeld said that there seems to be a “strong expectation” from some that the special committee will continue to work specifically on the tax withholding issue.
Others said the committee’s task was to struggle with congregations to find legal ways to express a Christian witness on the issue of militarism.
It was also reported that the General Conference Mennonite Church has had further discussion regarding how to counsel MCC to respond to the request from its staff on income tax withholding.
At MCC’s annual meeting it was reported that MCC representatives had met with constituent conferences and that none had counseled MCC to honor the request of staff.
In the General Conference’s General Board decided to counsel MCC “that they honor requests of their employees to not have their taxes withheld, in line with General Conference policy.”
As authorized by the triennial sessions, the conference is honoring the requests of four employees not to withhold income tax due to the U.S. Government.
Thus far, Internal Revenue Service has not taken action against the conference.
Originally, seven such employees had requested not to have taxes withheld.
This was later reduced to five.
Now it’s four.
I can’t tell whether this is from a general shrinkage of staff or from a flagging of enthusiasm for war tax resistance.
This is the twenty-sixth 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 whether or not to pay war taxes, and about whether Mennonite
institutions should be more accommodating of the requests of their employees
not to have war taxes deducted from their salaries, continued in
, and edged ever closer to the Mennonite
Church itself.
For over ten years I have openly withheld a portion of my federal income taxes
because I’m a conscientious objector to participation in war. This action has
sometimes resulted in face-to-face conversations with Internal Revenue Service
representatives. I have on several occasions written to legislators on issues
of peace and justice or facilitated similar communication by our congregation.
As I see that Christians have contributed to the injustices, my faith compels
me to speak. There are many professing Christians who are in public office who
make government policy. There are many professing Christians whose votes
helped to put them into office and whose tax dollars by the millions pay for
the administration of their policies. Because of this I want to invite my
Christian brothers and sisters to let the Prince of Peace train their
consciences and to take these trained consciences to work whether in the
private or public sector.
The board discussed a request by several staff members that
MCC
not withhold their income taxes, to allow them to withhold a portion of their
taxes as a protest of the dollars used for military purposes.
They agreed that the executive committee should appoint a task group to
consult broadly within the
MCC
constituency to review historical positions on this matter, to examine
alternative responses, and to bring a recommendation to the executive
committee and annual meeting on alternative courses of action.
This approach “moves from a simple decision of whether
MCC
should withhold taxes to stepping back and reflecting on the overall situation
before recommending any one solution for the
MCC
board to accept or reject,” it was said.
Members noted that the Mennonite Church and the Conference of Mennonites in
Canada are studying this issue, that the General Conference Mennonite Church
has completed such a study, and that efforts will be made to learn from those
studies.
John and Sandy Drescher Lehman: war tax resisters who work for
MBM
Friday evening — Case Study 3: Conscientious objection to
military taxes — a case presentation, by John and Sandra Drescher Lehman and
Paul Gingrich. — A panel— James R. Hess, Stephen Dintaman, and Bob
Detweiler.
The other case was conscientious objection to military taxes. John and Sandy
Drescher Lehman of Richmond,
Va., told how they followed
their conscience and decided a few years ago to withhold the part of their
income taxes that they figure goes for the military.
The complication now, though, is that they have become employees of Mennonite
Board of Missions in their role as codirectors of the Richmond Discipleship
Voluntary Service program. “What should an institution do when its employees
ask that we stop withholding taxes from their paychecks?” asked
MBM
president Paul Gingrich.
A panel of four attempted to answer the question, including Robert Hull, a
soldier-turned-tax-resister who is peace and justice secretary of the General
Conference Mennonite Church. He explained how his denomination, with the
instruction of its members, is now breaking the law by not withholding taxes
from the paychecks of seven of its employees who have requested that.
The tensest moment of the conference came when James Hess, a Lancaster
Conference bishop who served on the war taxes panel, was asked whether he
would have paid all his taxes in Nazi Germany even though some of it went to
kill six million Jews. He hinted that the Jews may have brought judgment on
themselves for their crucifixion of Jesus. This caused a minor uproar and led
to a public apology the next morning by Hess. He said that his statement was
speculative, trying to defend the sovereignty of God, and quoted from Jacques
Ellul that everything man does is within the global plan of God.
Energetic war tax resistance foe D.R. Yoder couldn’t stand to see his position
dragged through the mud like this, so he responded in
a letter to the editor:
I would not in any way seek to defend the position reportedly taken by James
Hess during the recent Conversations on Faith Ⅱ linking the Jewish Holocaust
with Christ’s crucifixion… Such notions are the misguided, though not
necessarily unnatural, projections of his fundamentalism.
It is hardly fair, however, that the person who posed what seems the quite
irresponsible as well as irrelevant question which provoked Hess’s intemperate
response is not also identified in the report. For this questioner should be
asked whether he/she paid (or would have paid) taxes to the United States or
Canada during World War Ⅱ.
If the questioner would not have paid, given the assumptions of tax resistance
theory, would not he/she also have been guilty of contributing to the
prolongation of Nazi atrocities against the Jews and others, just as he/she
charges a taxpaying German citizen Hess would have been?
If, on the other hand, the questioner would have paid his/her federal taxes,
again given the assumptions of tax resistant theory, wouldn’t that be
embracing the “just” war position? For how else is the “financing” of one set
of military activity, but refusing to “finance” another, to be interpreted?
We Mennonites are already rushing pell-mell along the broad way, having
sanctified “just” resistance, “just” legal suits, “just” civil disruption, and
even the “just” destruction of public and private property. It doesn’t take a
very astute reading of the winds a-blowing to expect conferences in the very
near future to consider the inherent “justice” of “defensive” wars and of wars
of “liberation.”
War tax resisters Ray and Wilma Gingerich shared their letter to the
IRS
in the issue:
Here are excerpts of a letter we sent to our regional Internal Revenue Service
officer recently. An ongoing conviction of ours is that our most significant
witness in the political-ethical arena is to the church itself. This is a
matter of policy in our local “Christians for Peace” organization. Whenever we
plan an “action,” we do it deliberately with the church “looking over our
shoulders.”
Dear Mr. Smith:
According to your records we now owe the
IRS
$1491.92 in accumulated taxes, interest, and penalties for the fiscal years
of . What you fail to
recognize is:
That the monies withheld represent the military portion of our income
taxes. (We have not withheld veterans’ benefits.)
That the amounts withheld have already been paid to church institutions
engaged in nonviolent justice-and-peace activities. (We are not seeking
to evade carrying our fair share of the public burden for a peaceable and
life-giving society.)
That we are acting out of our religious convictions fostered in the
tradition of the historic peace witness of the Mennonite Church.
You are asking us to do what in good faith we cannot do — to violate our
consciences and our understanding of obedience to Jesus Christ by paying for
murder.
I, Wilma, am a nurse dedicated to making lives whole, not to destroying them.
I find preparation to kill and destroy abhorrent and inconsistent with what
my whole life as a mother, as a nurse, as a human being, as a follower of
Jesus Christ is about.
I, Ray, am a professor of church history and ethics. In my teaching and in
everyday life I seek to underscore that if we are to become persons and
create communities of noble character and life-giving quality, we must live
lives consistent with our beliefs.
To you as a law-enforcer, and to our congressmen and senators as law-makers,
we ask: What is being done to our people and to our nation by enforcing the
practice of violence upon those whose conscience and religious convictions
are opposed to violence? Why do you insist that pacifist citizens act
contrary to their conscience by coercing them to pay for weapons of death?
Would it not be a healthier, stronger nation if these people were granted
freedom of religion and allowed to practice economic nonviolence by
channeling their funds into constructive, nonviolent, humanitarian aid?
To Mennonites war is murder. For Mennonites, and for all Christians who take
seriously the lordship of Jesus in their daily living, there is no government
that can override the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. For Mennonites,
therefore, and for all pacifist Christians, the payment of military taxes has
always posed a dilemma. Some, psychically numbed by continued
rationalization, comply with the state’s demands for death money. Others
choose the way of noncompliance, following the example of Jesus Christ that
leads to persecution — military tax penalties, confiscation of property, and
imprisonment.
Finally, Mr. Smith, allow us to address you personally. What role will you
have in all of this? All of us are in the system. And all of us are morally
obligated to say “no” to death and “yes” to life. You undoubtedly have
thought about these questions many times. We would count it a privilege to
meet with you to discuss these grave matters in a more personal way.
There were some letters to the editor
in response to this wave of articles on the topic. Joe Cross wrote that he was
generally against war tax resistance, but didn’t say anything particularly
notable. Curt Ashburn didn’t care for the put-down of taxpayers in the
Gingeriches’ letter (“psychically numbed by continued rationalization”) and
felt that they should keep such “witness” in the family rather than dragging
IRS
agents into it. He also asked if the Gingeriches refused to pay taxes to
support state-funded abortion, police violence, capital punishment, and so
forth or if they thought war was somehow special?
Exploring new territory in religious opposition to nuclear arms, a number of
major religious denominations have begun to contemplate whether they should
throw their support behind the growing movement to resist payment of taxes in
protest of the arms race. While increasing numbers of individuals within the
churches have joined the ranks of “war tax” resisters, only a handful of
denominations have encouraged or lent support to such resistance. However, as
peace activists within the churches have demanded tougher antiwar stands at
the highest church levels, denominations have begun to wrestle with the
biblical, theological, and historical questions raised by war tax resistance.
The churches are using the examination as a basis for deciding whether to
take, as corporate bodies, any of a variety of actions — both legal and
illegal — in support of the movement. What is moving churches is the growing
realization that they have been “praying for peace while paying for war,” said
Marian Franz, a Mennonite who is executive director of the Washington-based
National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund. “For many people, the arms race has
just gone too far. And they’re saying, ‘Oh my God, I’m involved in it.’ ” While
several mainline denominations have begun to study the issue, the strongest
support for war tax resistance has come from the historic peace churches,
particularly Quaker and Mennonite bodies. In an unprecedented move, the
60,000-member General Conference Mennonite Church voted, in
, not to withhold federal taxes
from the paychecks of employees who are tax refusers. This is punishable by
fines and imprisonment.
Seminars on singleness and sexuality, marriage and sexuality, and silent
devotions were also well attended, indicating a rising concern among
Mennonites for personal growth and self-understanding. On the other hand,
seminars on such topics as war taxes, Central America, and church-state
relations received relatively less attention.
I heard that the conference moderator gave only six minutes of floor time to
deal with the question of the church withholding federal income tax from the
paychecks of church workers who conscientiously resist war taxes.
Perhaps to some, war tax resistance is more personally uncomfortable than
homosexuality! Remember that for any government to exploit and massacre, two
things are required from the majority of its citizens — silence and paying
taxes.
The Rhodes family (left to right): Carmen, Leanna, Rebekah, Philip, James,
Anita, Candice, and Martin.
Praying for peace while paying for war? It’s an irony that Ray and Wilma
Gingerich and James and Leanna Rhodes of the Harrisonburg, Virginia, area
refuse to accept.
Ray and Wilma are in their early 50s. He teaches theology and ethics at
Eastern Mennonite College; she is completing a master’s degree in community
health nursing at the University of Virginia and works part time at Virginia
Mennonite Home. Their four sons of college age or older no longer live at
home. One might think it’s time to slow down, settle in, go with the flow.
Not so. The Gingerichs are wrestling with an issue they believe is
increasingly urgent for Christians — how to respond to the fact that over 50
percent of all income tax monies go to pay for past and present wars and to
prepare for future wars. As one response, they began in
to withhold the portion of their federal
income tax that pays for war.
“We deduct an estimated amount for veterans’ benefits, then send a check for
the amount we are withholding to Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section or
some other church agency,” Ray explained. “We don’t try to hide anything. The
Internal Revenue Service receives a letter that outlines our position along
with a photocopy of the check being sent to the church agency.”
For the past three years, the couple has also withheld the federal excise tax
from their monthly telephone statement. This tax began during the Vietnam War
as a “quick source of revenue” for that conflict, Ray pointed out.
Slightly different tack.
Several miles southwest of Gingerich’s Harrisonburg home, in the rolling
countryside of western Rockingham County near Dayton, James and Leanna Rhodes
are taking a slightly different tack to the military tax issue.
The couple, in their mid-30s, is making a conscious effort to live at a
nontaxable income level. For them, it means trying to raise their family of
six children on $12,000–$13,000 a year.
It’s easier said than done, the couple admitted, but several things are in
their favor.
The family rents the large frame house where they’re living. They care for
dairy heifers and beef cattle for their landlord. The old station wagon they
drive is registered in Leanna’s mother’s name so the
IRS
can’t put a lien on it.
James works for his brother in a new and used farm machinery business. Leanna,
a nurse, works on and off for Homecall, a local home health care agency.
The family has no accessible bank account or other personal property that the
government could claim to satisfy unpaid military taxes. This leaves the
IRS
only one option — to go after Rhodeses themselves.
Rhodeses have refused to pay the portion of their federal income tax for
military purposes for three years in which they earned slightly over their
nontaxable limit. They have been audited and warned of collection procedures,
but nothing has come of it.
Like Gingerichs, Rhodeses refuse to pay the federal excise tax portion of
their monthly phone bill.
Acquiring peace convictions.
The families didn’t acquire their peace convictions overnight or in isolation.
Gingerichs point to a stint of mission work in Luxembourg,
, as a time when they were
confronted with the realities of war.
“We heard stories and saw photos from Vietnam that never made it into the
North American press,” Ray recalled. “We also met people who lived through the
experiences of Nazi Germany and realized that much of what happened in World
War Ⅱ was largely the result of good people following orders.”
In Gingerich enrolled at Goshen Biblical
Seminary, where he was challenged by the teachings of John Howard Yoder, a tax
resister himself. When the family moved to Nashville, Tennessee, for Ray to
pursue a doctorate at Vanderbilt University, the couple began attending a
United Methodist church that was deeply involved in urban ministry.
“I got my theology at Goshen Seminary but we saw how it could be lived out at
that church in Nashville,” Ray said. “Our time there made us realize that
peacemaking is a Christian mandate — not just a Mennonite ideology!”
Family peace initiatives have not been restricted to Ray and Wilma. When
President Jimmy Carter reinstated the military draft in
, sons Andre and Pierre both decided not to
register.
“Here’s a case of children and parents teaching each other,” Wilma said. “We
had been through a lot of painful and joyful growth experiences together. To
them, not to register was the logical way to live out the convictions we
shared.
“As the cost for not paying our military taxes increased we could only move
ahead. To do otherwise would have been a betrayal of our sons and their
convictions.”
More than lip service.
Although James and Leanna had long felt a commitment to blend personal faith
and active social concern, their awareness of the need to give more than lip
service to their beliefs was heightened during
when they helped to start a
Mennonite church in San Francisco.
In that setting James got involved with a number of peace causes and groups,
including counseling military personnel who wanted to claim conscientious
objector status.
“That was a fantastic experience,” James said of their time in the Bay Area.
“I was impressed by the aggressive and committed efforts of many peace
activists, even though many may have acted from purely humanitarian motives.”
Both couples are quick to draw on their understanding of Jesus’ teachings and
example to support their actions.
“The gospel addresses our relationship to other human beings,” Ray said.
“Salvation is a personal response but it is also communal. It means
‘wholemaking.’ War and preparation for war is the epitome of death and
destruction.”
“I hold to an evangelical faith that includes the message of peace and
nonresistance,” James added. “I believe that Jesus can save us from
militarism, hateful attitudes, and a spirit of revenge in the same way he
delivers us from other sins.”
“Our church has failed to see the logical progression from the conscientious
objector stance and Mennonites’ refusal to buy war bonds in
to the war tax resistance stance
of ,” Ray stated.
Added Wilma: “Our peace witness dare not be limited to nonconscription. Why
put most of the burden on 18-to-20-year-olds to take a
CO stand
while we middle-aged men and women go on paying for war? At the same time we
expect our young people to believe that participation in war is wrong.”
Stance is costly.
Both Gingerichs and Rhodeses have paid a price for their stance.
For the Gingerich family, it has included repeated threats from the Selective
Service System and a lien placed on all their personal property.
James Rhodes earned tuition money to attend Eastern Mennonite College and
Seminary by working as an artificial inseminator for dairy farms up and down
the Shenandoah Valley. He later lost that job as a result of local pressure,
but he “feels no animosity” toward those who called for his ouster.
James noted that the harshest criticism has come from other Mennonites at a
time when interest in Christian peacemaking and nonresistance is gaining
momentum in a number of mainline denominations.
Both couples indicated they have had “valuable and redemptive” talks with
IRS
officials. According to James, these encounters “allow us to move from systems
to individuals and open the door to exchange viewpoints.”
“A certain amount of understanding has developed,” he added. “The
IRS
people seem to empathize with our position and apparently don’t know what to
do with us.”
Gingerichs have journeyed to Charlottesville, Virginia, to meet with
IRS
officials and have encountered “extremely personable people… there’s a feeling
of mutual respect.”
The two families commend each other’s positions, but cited the need for other
people who are involved in varied forms of tax resistance to “become more
visible.” They are active in a local “Christians for Peace” group that has
about a dozen members.
“I often feel like we are pretty much going it alone,” said Wilma. “We long
for the day when the focus shifts from our having to defend our position to
the real question of how pacifist Mennonite Christians can go on paying for
war and claim to be followers of Christ. We need greater accountability to
each other in the church.”
“There’s a need to develop an open forum and network for people who are at
different places on the war tax issue to get together and learn from and
encourage each other,” Ray said. Added Leanna: “I would feel a lot more secure
in our position if we knew for certain that a dozen Mennonites in this
community would be willing to take a public stand with us if at some point
we’d be taken to court.”
The couples emphasized that their methods of war tax resistance are not the
only valid approaches, and both expressed a desire for more dialogue and sense
of solidarity with the larger Mennonite Church.
Whatever course one pursues for the cause of peace, it is important to do it
“with a sense of joy,” Ray noted. “Lose your sense of exuberance and it
becomes an overwhelming burden. At that point one must back off to gain fresh
perspective.”
Witness will continue. Ray and Wilma expect to continue withholding that
percentage of their federal income taxes that goes for direct military
purposes and to continue talking and working with individuals and within their
professions to keep the issue alive.
James and Leanna, meanwhile, “feel comfortable” with their simple living
approach, recognizing that it doesn’t allow them to confront government
officials and others as directly as Gingerichs have.
“When our children get older, we’ll need to adjust our strategy,” James said.
“For now, our fear of what could happen to us has gone from near paranoia to a
real sense of peace and freedom.
“Our response, however small, is at least a symbolic effort to say ‘no,’ to
refuse to contribute toward the ultimate destruction of God’s people and his
beautiful creation.”
“Paying a Price for Peace”… is one of the most encouraging articles you’ve
published recently. It is encouraging to see two families who take their faith
in Jesus Christ very seriously. In my mind, they are acting out the very core
of the gospel message to love, to be peacemakers, and — above all — to be
obedient.
On the other hand the article can cause one to be depressed because of the
lack of support and criticisms Rhodeses and Gingerichs have received from
fellow Mennonites. Mennonites, of all people, should be cheering these
families on, even if they are not in complete agreement with their tax
witness.
Joyce and I have also withheld portions of our federal income tax payment,
making it necessary for the Internal Revenue Service to put liens on our
checking account. It is a lonely feeling. To me, any action that lessens
another human being, lessens me. It is sin for me to sit in the safety of a
protected home and claim no responsibility for what my money buys. To tell
someone we love them and apologize for the fact that nearly half our tax
dollar is being spent in preparation to kill them, is the ultimate lie and
irony. I cannot love you if I am preparing to kill you.
On the other hand, Harry Shenk
wasn’t as thrilled.
He started off with the traditional Render-unto-Caesar line that Jesus had
never discouraged paying taxes to militaristic Rome, and then ended on this
curious note:
Jesus never challenged the state on these practices, nor did he indicate that
paying taxes implied responsibility for these heinous crimes.
I don’t think Jesus paid any war tax. I think he probably lived below a
taxable level, and I affirm anyone who chooses this path. I also pay no war
tax. Our tax checks are not divided into portions by the Internal Revenue
Service, but are thrown together into a central fund, against which huge
government checks are drawn. I simply decide in my heart which huge government
check I want my money to be a part of. For me, it’s food stamps and interstate
highways.
The former moderator of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Lord MacLeod of
Fuinary, has called for the creation of a peace army committed to withholding
the 13 percent of income taxes which the British government spends on defense.
MacLeod hopes such an army will be able to persuade the government to allow
people to give an equivalent amount of their taxes to starving countries
instead. Even if the government refuses to go along with the idea, he said,
taxpayers should still withhold the money and spend it on famine relief.
War, MacLeod said, is no longer “a disciplined conflict between nations”;
instead it has become “mutual mass murder of women and children between
hemispheres. The church must go radical about war.”
The Mennonite Central Committee held
an executive committee meeting
in and shot down the
proposal to stop withholding war taxes from the paychecks of objecting
employees:
The committee also heard a report from a task force established after several
staff members asked
MCC
not to withhold their federal income taxes. This was to allow them to keep a
portion of their taxes as a protest of taxes used for military purposes.
Committee member Phil Rich reported that the task force had met with leaders
from eight Mennonite denominations over the past year to seek counsel on how
to respond to the tax-withholding issue. None of the denominations counseled
MCC
to honor the staff members’ request.
The Executive Committee voted 7-1, with three abstentions, to accept the task
force’s recommendation that the staff members’ request be denied. The
recommendation will go to the
MCC
annual meeting for final action.
Staff member H.A. Penner expressed appreciation for
MCC’s
serious attention to the issue, but asked if the process might be only half
done. “Have we listened to persons on the other end of our bombs and our guns?
Are we listening to the church in Central America, the Philippines, and South
Africa? What would they say?”
