How you can resist funding the government → the tax resistance movement → conferences & gatherings → A New Call To Peacemaking, 1979 Mid-America Gathering

This is the twenty-sixth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today I’m going to try to cover 1979.

Preparing for the Minneapolis Conference

In early 1979, there was a special general session of the Mennonite General Conference especially to discuss war tax resistance, and in particular, to decide whether the Conference would support its tax-resisting employees by refusing to withhold taxes from their paychecks.

In our last episode, the heat was rising, with opinion pieces and study guides and letters to the editor addressing the issue. Now, with the session approaching and the decision imminent, things really began to boil.

The 30 January 1979 issue hosted a long letter to the editor from Albert H. Epp (dated the previous month) in which he accused The Mennonite and the Commission on Home Ministries of putting their thumbs on the scale in favor of war tax resistance. Excerpts:

Some of us… are part of the “silent majority” that feels inundated by the tax-resistance mail arriving almost daily.

The Kauffman-Harder profile (1975) stated, “A member of our churches ought not to pay the proportion of his income taxes that goes for military purposes.” Only 15 percent of our denomination agreed; and no more than 8 percent among the Mennonite Brethren and Brethren in Christ. Even fewer actually withheld tax. Eighty-five percent disagreed!

Now Minneapolis looms ahead. Many of us feel we are being swept helplessly downstream toward an ill-advised showdown. I was one of the 453 delegates at Bluffton (77) who voted “no” on resolution 11. But it carried. There seems to be a wide gap between delegate-action at conference and constituency-opinion at home. How did “the few” persuade “the many” to agree to a February session that will cost about $100,000?

We are witnessing one of the strongest attempts at shaping conference-opinion in 20 years, and possibly our entire history. Long-held views on civil responsibility are being challenged by brethren who are crusading for tax resistance and civil disobedience. Neither Scripture nor history are normative in the ways they used to be. “We have something new,” we are told, “in the present nuclear threat.”

Behind this ideological shift stands our Commission on Home Ministries. Three years ago CHM began publishing a war-tax newsletter, God and Caesar. In the fifth issue they report on a two-day war tax conference they conducted at Kitchener, Ontario. “The evidence suggests that most Anabaptists did pay all their taxes willingly…,” the report avers; but CHM leaders pledged themselves “to raise consciousness about war tax and militarism issues…” Highly significant is the fact that two scholars. Miller and Swartley, emerged at that session as men willing to say that the Scripture does not give us a clear command to pay taxes used for military purposes.

It is my impression that Mennonite stalwarts of recent decades, H.S. Bender, Guy F. Hershberger, Erland Waltner, and John C. Wenger, to name just a few, all taught the full-paying of taxes on scriptural grounds. Their general view agreed with Paul, who taught the paying of taxes in Romans 13 and was fully aware that Rome had crucified Christ, had subjugated many nations, and was now ruled by the despot Nero.

H.S. Bender, writing on “Taxation” in 1959, claims that “few if any Mennonites” were presently refusing to pay the portion of income tax calculated to go for military purposes, which he estimated to be about two-thirds of the total.

Guy F. Hershberger, in his classic on nonresistance, discusses the answer of Jesus in Matthew 22: “…the situation here is almost precisely like that in Romans 13. Jesus’ questioners were not men who would be interested in service in the Roman army. If anything, they would be interested in a military rebellion against the Roman authority. There Jesus says, ‘Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.’ That is, do not rebel against him, not even to the extent of refusing to pay the tax.”

The current tax-resistance movement requires a major shift in biblical interpretation. This is something new.

It appears to me that today’s tax-resisters are hard put to proof-text their views. Swartley admitted to Kitchener (1975) “…there is no New Testament text which either explicitly or clearly implicitly tells us not to pay taxes.” Yet some go from text to text progressively untying the knots of normal interpretation. But the knot of Romans 13. will not easily yield. Donald Kaufman (What Belongs to Caesar, page 48) chides Oscar Cullmann for “his lack of moral discernment” when he insists that disciples of Jesus pay tax, no matter to what government. John Howard Yoder, well-known for his personal tax-withholding procedure, nevertheless, in his oft-reprinted masterpiece The Politics of Jesus (page 211), approvingly quotes C.E.B. Cranfield, “taxes and revenue, perhaps honor, are due to Caesar, but fear is due to God.” In sketching the limits of subordination, Yoder stops short of using Romans 13 for tax resistance. Not so Larry Kehler in The Rule of the Lamb. Using his stature as editor-writer, Kehler seems to infer that Paul supports our tax resistance. The truth of the matter is that for every scholar who teaches tax resistance from Romans 13, there might be 50 competent professors who teach otherwise. A tax protest based on Romans 13 is an exegesis not easy to defend.

The method of promoting the new idea also deserves comment. Basic to good human relations is the concept that issues are best discussed without the injection of personalities. When Cornelia Lehn’s speech at the Bluffton conference was programmed into the civil-disobedience debate by conference officials, it almost gave the appearance of being a psychological pressure tactic to sway votes. After all, who can speak against womanhood? Who can deny that Nellie’s stand is courageous? But someone has to venture the tough question “Is it fair to ask thousands of Mennonites to approve civil disobedience because of one person’s convictions?”

Is it possible that CHM has moved ahead too quickly on this issue — even out of earshot? Take their suggestion that the General Board no longer honor tax-withholding laws for some employees (The Mennonite, 2 November 1976, page 648). On 1 August 1977 the constituents turned back Resolution 12 (yes — 336, no — 1,190) on this issue. Bluffton delegates later gave the mandate for a midtriennium conference, but even this decision process was interlaced with CHM influence. The delegates, caught in the euphoria of the moment, unable to confer with churches at home, approved the surprise resolution. Most surprising of all, Larry Kehler, as recent as 5 December 1978, wrote, “I have not yet been able to discover any tax resisters in Canada…” Little wonder CHM’s promotion is so voluminous.

When churches in the Midwest ask CHM for a clarification of issues, men are readily available to give excellent thought-out defenses for tax resistance and civil disobedience. But no one seems willing and/ or permitted to present the traditional biblical-Anabaptist stance and say, “That’s my view.” So we, the silent majority, feel like people with no representation. While we collect thousands of dollars for conference coffers, no one pleads our case — the case of the majority.

Any protest, it seems to me, needs keen discernment. Picketing a tax office, withholding income tax, or balking at withholding laws may all be misdirected efforts. The Internal Revenue Service is only a collecting agency. Do we punish the newspaper boy, refusing to pay when we dislike an editorial? No, we phone the editor. Why not spend our energy on the decision makers?

A hope seems to flicker in some minds that a domino reaction, “me too, me too,” will bring out an avalanche of Mennonite tax resisters. Then, some aver, a frustrated government might negotiate. However, worse things may accrue. Attorney J. Elwin Kraybill says that evading tax is a felony (26 USC 7201) and can result in a fine (maximum $10,000) and/or prison (maximum 5 years). At the least most Mennonites would be subjected to the harassment of an annual audit. At the worst they could be accused of spawning anarchy — a trend already evidenced in teachers’ strikes and police strikes.

I wonder if tax resistance won’t trap us in a blind alley — in a stance too negative. Why curse the darkness? Let’s plant a light. In past decades our conscientious objector position was transformed by creative service in refugee camps, mental hospitals, and mission schools. Today we again need positive solutions. Could Mennonite Central Committee possibly establish a research center with departments like peace, pollution, and world hunger? When our scholars really tackle these complex problems, our governments will knock at our door. In retrospect, I was proud when President John F. Kennedy turned to MCC for advice on the Peace Corps.

I am a Mennonite, both by birth and by choice. I deeply appreciate our Anabaptist theology. As a pastor I can affirm with my parish CHM’s conviction of (1) the limited nature of Caesar’s power; and (2) the lethal character of its weaponry. However, we do not feel it biblical or Anabaptist to rob government of its right to taxation, or even some national defense. Where government abuses this right we wish to exhaust every legal channel of protest before we engage in illegal maneuvers.

In my congregation one brother is reducing his income; another has enclosed a protest letter with his tax return. Many of us have increased contributions to reduce taxable income. But not one, to my knowledge, is refusing to pay taxes. As one brother put it, “Can we be harsh on Uncle Sam while our financial stewardship level is so low in Mennonite circles?”

A final word. I tested this letter with my Board of Deacons. All seven present, to the man, encouraged me to send it. Editor, thanks for letting us speak.

Richard K. MacMaster addressed the history of war tax resistance among American Mennonites in an article that appeared in the 9 January 1979 issue:

I read with great interest your articles about the forthcoming discussion of war taxes at Minneapolis.

I’ve had a great concern to write some few lines on one small aspect of this large question, but generally put it off as a nit-picking historical footnote. Observing that “historical perspective” will play a role in the consultation next February, I thought I should take time to clarify what might possibly lead to misunderstanding.

Mennonite conscience about taxes

A number of recent discussions on the war tax issue have stated that Mennonites and Brethren paid their taxes in obedience to the biblical injunction of “taxes to whom taxes are due.” The reader might reasonably conclude that, unlike Friends, neither Brethren nor Mennonites were troubled in conscience about payment of taxes levied for any purpose. The point would be too insignificant to raise in even some nitpicking scholarly review, if it did not have consequences for our understanding of our own heritage in regard to a current issue of great importance.

In 1968 Peter Brock published his monumental Pacifism in the United States from the Colonial Era to the First World War. The scope of his subject precluded his searching into every manuscript collection that might bear some relation to it, and he relied heavily on printed sources. The limited number of published works on Mennonite history is reflected in his footnotes and bibliography. Walter Klaassen leaned heavily on Brock for his interpretation of the American scene, since his own scholarly work has been in the European Anabaptist sources. There is a danger in this process that, in spite of passing through the hands of two very distinguished modern scholars, the material is no better than the sources available to Mennonite historians 50 or 75 years ago.

The danger of allowing this recycled history to determine our understanding of our own heritage is compounded by the fact that Brock made assumptions that went beyond his somewhat limited sources in describing the position held by Mennonites on key issues, notably on the payment of taxes. The first mention of any Mennonite attitude on this question involved Mennonite settlers in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia in the 18th century. Brock noted that they “were able to obtain exemption by the payment of militia fines, against which — unlike the Quakers — they had no deep-seated scruples of conscience,” but that they petitioned in 1773 (sic) for relief from militia fines, “not because of any fundamental objection to this alternative to service (for was it not merely rendering Caesar his due?), but on account of their poverty as frontiersmen eking out a bare subsistence.” He cited as his only source Harry A. Brunk’s History of Mennonites in Virginia, but Brunk does not make any of the statements I have quoted; he is quite clear in his statement that conscience was involved.

Virginia Mennonites petitioned the authorities in Williamsburg for relief from militia fines in 1769 and again in 1772. No copy of these petitions is known to be extant and we know of the contents only from the brief minutes entered in the Journal of the House of Burgesses. Since the Virginia lawmakers exempted Quakers from payment of militia fines for the first time in 1766, it is not surprising that Mennonites sought the same privilege, which was granted them by the House of Burgesses in 1772.

Their motives in petitioning for exemption were explained in a Mennonite petition of 1785, which asked that the earlier privilege be restored. Militia bills passed during the Revolutionary War had taken it away and enrolled conscientious objectors in the militia, once again making them subject to fines. This petition, signed by 73 “members of the Menonist Church in behalf of themselves and their religious Brethren,” declared that their forefathers had come “to America to Seek Religious Liberty; this they have enjoyed, except by the Infliction of penalties for not bearing Arms which for some time lay heavy on them. But on a representation, and their situation being made known to the Honorable the Legislature, they were indulged with an exemption from said penalties until some few years past, when by a revisal of the Militia Law they were again enrolled and are now subject to the penalties aforesaid.” (The original petition is in the Virginia State Library.)

This 1785 petition and one offered the previous year by Rockingham County Mennonites and Brethren did not succeed in changing the law, and the payment of fines was the subject of occasional petitions from all three of the peace churches. What is significant about the 1785 Virginia petition is its statement that payment of militia fines violated the liberty of conscience that Mennonites otherwise enjoyed and that this was true under the king as well as during and after the Revolution. It would appear to me impossible to square this contemporary Mennonite document with the interpretation that Mennonites paid militia fines as merely rendering Caesar his due!

The conscientious objection to payment of a fine or equivalent to militia duty in Virginia on the eve of the Revolution might help us in understanding the position of Pennsylvania Mennonites. There was no compulsory militia law in Pennsylvania prior to 1777, so no question of fines or other equivalent would have arisen as early as it did in Virginia.

In 1775 Pennsylvania authorities requested voluntary contributions from those who scrupled against bearing arms and the Continental Congress itself made a similar appeal. Records of the county committees entrusted with collecting this money suggest that it had a mixed reception. Objections were heard very early, however, against levying contributions from conscientious objectors on a purely voluntary basis. In October 1775 the Pennsylvania Assembly debated imposing a set amount as a special tax on non-associators. They read petitions from the Quakers and from the Mennonites and some members of the Church of the Brethren. The meaning of these petitions seems perfectly clear. A well-known military historian understood them to mean that “not a few Quakers and Mennonites joined to oppose not only the Association but any tax levied in lieu thereof.” (Arthur J. Alexander, “Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, ⅬⅩⅨ, January 1945, page 16.) This would follow logically from the position taken by Virginia Mennonites, who were closely related to the Pennsylvania congregations.

When a Militia Law was enacted in 1777 in Pennsylvania, no provision was made for the exemption of conscientious objectors, and a special tax was imposed on them in lieu of military service. It was this tax that was under discussion among Franconia Mennonites when a majority of the preachers opposed Christian Funk’s contention that it ought to be paid. I am well aware that Pennsylvania Mennonites felt uneasy with the new revolutionary regime and declined sending a formal petition to the legislature in 1778 since it would involve addressing them as “the representatives of the freemen of Pennsylvania.” Hostility to the new government may well have colored the attitude of Funk’s opponents, but it does not explain why they opposed payment of this particular tax and not of all taxes levied by the new state. There is no hint in any official document, newspaper, letter, or other contemporary source that any Mennonite in Pennsylvania refused payment of any other tax. Surely there would be some notice taken by someone of tax resistance, particularly if it were on the quasi-political ground that the new government had no legitimate authority. On the other hand, reluctance to pay a tax levied in lieu of military service would square with the Virginia documents, the obvious sense of the 1775 petition, and the minutes of the Church of the Brethren annual meetings that refer to persons with conscientious objection against paying for substitutes and paying the tax (singular).

I do not know that this leads us very far on our present quest. But it is sufficient, I hope, to indicate that Mennonites have expressed “deep-seated scruples of conscience” and “fundamental objection to this alternative to military service.”

The 16 January 1979 edition included this op-ed from Harold R. Regier:

Reflections before Minneapolis

The sovereign Lord and the sovereign nation will be in tension at Minneapolis 9–10 February when the General Conference, in official session, will be “In Search of Christian Civil Responsibility.”

Will we be ready at Minneapolis to decide issues related to paying those taxes required of the state used for death-threatening militarism and weapons building? Much depends on how adequately congregations study and discuss The Rule of the Sword and The Rule of the Lamb prior to Minneapolis. Much depends on adequate congregational representation. And much depends on an openness to hear each other and the leading of God’s Spirit.

What are specific questions we must answer at Minneapolis?

1. What is the biblical teaching on civil responsibility and civil disobedience? Are Christians ever called to civil disobedience?
2. If civil disobedience may at times be a Christian response to government, what conditions or principles guide that response? Is the payment of taxes used for war purposes one such condition?
3. If “war tax” resistance is a Christian response to a government’s militarism and to the nuclear arms race, to what extent and in what ways should that response be encouraged and initiated? Is conscientious objection to paying for war in today’s context equivalent to conscientious objection to physical participation in war in the past?
4. Should General Conference and other Mennonite institutions honor employees’ requests that the portion of taxes used for military purposes not be withheld from their paychecks? Should Mennonite employers even go beyond this and refuse to be “war tax” collectors for the state for any of its employees?

Is the bottom line for the Minneapolis conference the question of tax withholding? Not necessarily. Other options for faithfulness and witness may be discovered. Our search for Christian civil responsibility must be open-ended rather than locked into the consideration of only one kind of action. However, the withholding question is a very important one on which we are committed to making a clear decision.

The withholding question is significant, but not because this is the only alternative for the employee. There are other ways to have less tax withheld. Possibilities include refiling a tax form to include allowances for expected (“war tax”) deductions, forming an alternative employing agency, or contributing up to 50 percent of salary to charitable causes. The withholding issue’s greatest significance lies with the questions of corporate responsibility and the issue of church as an agent of the state.

I would suggest five reasons for the conference to consider honoring requests from persons asking that their taxes not be withheld. (1) Honoring these requests would eliminate the discrimination between ordained and nonordained employees. In the U.S., ordained employees are considered “self-employed” by the tax department and are exempt from withholding regulations. Nonordained persons have to follow a more difficult procedure to enable resistance. Currently at least four ordained employees of the General Conference offices are not voluntarily paying the military portion of their taxes. (2) Honoring nonwithholding requests would represent a corporate peace witness rather than leaving such witness and action solely to the individual. (3) A corporate conference voice and action would make a much stronger witness for peace and justice than lone voices here and there. (4) Nonwithholding would be one appropriate way to initiate a test of the constitutionality of requiring church agencies to collect taxes for the state. (5) This corporate action builds on our Anabaptist theology of peace and takes seriously the way our financial resources contribute to warmaking.

My hope for Minneapolis is that the General Conference Mennonite Church will act to do something together about our nations’ militarism. This could be corporate action regarding withholding “war taxes.” This could be a commitment to a large-scale symbolic resistance to “war tax” payment (e.g. “each” Mennonite withholding $10 and explaining why). As a conference we could send a strong message to our governments regarding militarism and the taxation which supports it. We could issue a “war tax” statement to be shared with the larger church (other denominations) as well as to our governments. We could make a stronger effort to promote the World Peace Tax Fund Act in the U.S. and instigate other alternatives in Canada.

These are only suggestions. Delegates need to think of other options.

Minneapolis will be a failure if we conclude that “everyone do what is right in their own eyes.” Minneapolis will be a success if we take some large or small step toward corporate responsibility and action.

Andrew R. Shelly also chimed in with his perspective in that issue.

He began by noting the paucity of charity by American Mennonites is devoted to “the crucial urgency of tragic situations in the Third World” compared to how much is spent domestically. “It appears our dedication somehow is absorbed in our words which seem to psychologically liberate us to expand lavishly on the home front.”

While I respect individual conviction, I am cool toward the effectiveness or the witness of withholding taxes. (In recent months I have been going over old magazines and clipping articles related to war taxes. There has been a rash of articles on this subject every 6–10 years in the past decades.)

In the 1966–76 decade, the U.S. federal budget increased 48 percent for defense, space, and foreign affairs (probably not even keeping up with inflation). The human-resources part of the budget jumped 378 percent during the same decade. Not all these programs are effective, yet they represent an attempt to cope with areas of great need.

When we criticize government expenditures, let us remember that we Mennonites have been increasing our budgets in North American institutional and church developments rather than for that part of the “one in Christ” where poverty is indescribably great.

In short: “Until we have done what we ought we should not say too much to other segments of society.”

Furthermore, Shelly felt that there was an overemphasis on war as a source of violence. Alcohol, reckless driving, and abortion, were also examples of violence that deserved at least as much attention.

Finally, the way to peace, he felt, was not through civil disobedience or protest or peace witnessing, but simply through spreading the gospel and getting more people to adopt Christian values. For example: “during the massacre in Uganda almost all Christians refused to shoulder guns.” So Mennonites should stop arguing about taxes and rededicate themselves to missionary work.

Kenneth G. Bauman penned an op-ed for the 23 January 1979 edition, from the point of view of “some of us”.

Bauman thought the Bible offered little or no support for war tax resistance. Jesus did not counsel it, even when pitched a softball. Paul explicitly said Christians should pay their taxes to Rome and the Roman Empire wasn’t exactly peaceful. Those examples of civil disobedience found in the Bible never touch on war taxes or on conscientious objection to government spending. Mennonites, he felt, shouldn’t just skip over this on the way to making their own independent moral judgments about war taxes.

Bauman also challenged the view articulated in Richard K. MacMaster’s essay that war tax resistance had strong footing in historical Mennonite practice:

A good historical development of this issue is found in Walter Klaassen’s pamphlet Mennonites and War Taxes. A summary is found on pages 40–41 in The Rule of the Lamb. The only groups that refused taxation were the Hutterites and the Franconia Conference in Pennsylvania during the Revolutionary War. The issue was probably not “war taxes” but rather who was the legitimate government, the British or the United States? Recent Mennonite scholars hold the traditional view. Check the writings of Guy Hershberger in War, Peace, and Nonresistance (page 369), Harold S. Bender’s “Taxation” in The Mennonite Encyclopedia, and Robert Kreider’s “Anabaptists and the State” in The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision. Kreider states, “The Anabaptists agreed unanimously that the Christian owes obedience to the civil authorities insofar as the prior claims of God are not violated in those duties. The Christian gives this obedience freely and not grudgingly. He pays taxes, tithes, interest, and customs as required by the magistracy. No evidence can be found to substantiate the frequently made accusation that the Anabaptists refused to pay these obligations” (page 190).

The new threat of nuclear war, Bauman thought, was not a reason to rethink this established wisdom. After all, the murder of one person and the obliteration of millions are both terrible sins: “Is the biblical teaching on the sacredness of life on a sliding scale or is even one person’s life sacred?”

Some of us respect the individual conscience as we want our conscience to be respected, but we are not convinced that those who believe in withholding taxes have seriously considered all the options. Several alternatives are (1) filing suit against the government to recover taxes, (2) setting up a subsidiary corporation, and (3) greater efforts toward a World Peace Tax Fund. We are grieved that in this hour when we need a united witness against militarism, with selective service a real possibility (which will also include women), we are divided. We object to our peace position being questioned because we do not see withholding taxes as being biblical or Anabaptist-Mennonite.

Some of us are waiting for open dialogue on the tax issue. The other side has not been formally presented in the General Board, nor was it given adequate representation at the Consultation on Civil Responsibility at Elkhart, nor has it been given a fair presentation in The Mennonite. We question whether the midtriennium conference will change the situation.

Marie J. Janzen, in a 23 January 1979 letter to the editor, wrote that she thought Bauman was “attempt[ing] to find a letter of the law that would justify us not to refuse taxes.”

It is true, for instance, that Peter was referring to the Jewish leaders and not to the state when he said we must obey God rather than men, but the principle would be the same in either case, wouldn’t it?

It seems to me that the Christian gospel speaks to the needs of each age, and different things need to be done in different ages. There would have been no need to warn early Christians to drive carefully lest someone’s life might be taken in an accident. But today there certainly is. When Jesus said to his disciples that they would do greater things than he had done, didn’t he imply that there would be a need for greater things in later ages than there was in the time of the early church? The common person at that time had no rights, no influence on government. In a democracy we Christians have responsibilities the early Christians did not have. I don’t have to pay income tax; I don’t know whether I would have the courage to refuse if I did. But I certainly admire the ones who do refuse to pay taxes for conscience’ sake.

…Of course, there may be other alternatives which are more effective than the refusal to pay taxes. For instance, as my sister suggested, if we would deluge the government with letters and with telephone calls and insist that this arms race must stop — or at least that they give us the right to have a peace tax — that might do more good.

On the other hand, David A. Somner wrote in to praise what he called Bauman’s “clear, biblical, historically accurate” statement.

A letter from Gary Martin, written on 26 January 1979 but not published until well after the conference, thought that the war tax issue was overshadowing the fact that Mennonites had lost their way and were neglecting some of the foundations of their faith and practice. This was followed by a letter from Don Kaufman, in which he related an anecdote from a repentant soldier and thought it “could be instructive for us too as we wrestle with the implications of the Christian gospel concerning war taxes.”

A letter from David C. Janzen, dated 30 January 1979, published in the 3 April edition, said that “[b]ased on our congregational meeting on the issue, it would appear that the [war tax] protesters are a small but very vocal minority.” He thought the conference was a waste of time trying to relitigate an issue that had been decided by Jesus way back when.

A letter from Eugene Klassen, dated 30 January 1979 but also not published until after the conference, also took the line that the Bible was black-and-white about taxpaying: “Romans 13 clearly tells us to pay taxes to whom taxes are due. Yet we allow the use of our conference time, money, and publications to debate both sides of the issue.”

An advertisement in the 30 January 1979 edition announced the publication of Donald Kaufman’s The Tax Dilemma: Praying for Peace, Paying for War.

The Conference and its Aftermath

Drumroll please. The conference was held, and all of these years of kicking the can down the road and avoiding a decision came to an end as a general assembly of the Mennonite General Conference, after lengthy study and debate, concluded:

Moved that we request the General Board of our conference to engage in a serious and vigorous search to use all legal, legislative, and administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector exemption from the legal requirements that the General Conference withhold income taxes from the wages of its employees. If no relief can be found within a three-year period, they shall again bring the question to the attention of the conference.

So… the can kicked another three years further down the road. Well, what were you expecting?

The 20 February 1979 edition put it this way:

We found some things

Seven hundred persons came to the bitter cold and deep snow of Minneapolis, 9–10 February, “in search of Christian civil responsibility.”

…Would our General Conference grant an employee’s request to no longer withhold from her salary that portion of the income tax which goes toward military expenditures?

Many predicted a collision course. Minneapolis would be a showdown.

The drama has happened. And the unexpected far outdid the expected.

A month prior to the assembly only a few hundred people had registered. Polarized positions surfaced in many congregations. There was talk of maneuvering, boycott, and schism.

The annual Council of Commissions met at Minneapolis on 6–8 February to do the usual review and projection of GC program and budget. Hardly a session went by without reference of concern about the midtriennium.

By Thursday evening it became obvious that God’s Spirit was again among us in unusual ways.

In faith, space had been reserved for 500 people. Over 700 came.

We found the issue is not “yes-no” “either-or” regarding war taxes. It includes our lifestyle. Do we live in ways that share Christ’s salvation, love, and justice to all. This is not just for a few brave radicals. Each of us needs to choose again and again to let our light shine.

We found the issue is not Cornelia Lehn and civil disobedience. It is obedience to Jesus in today’s world.

We found the issue is of deep concern to our youth. About 100 persons present were under 25. And they spoke up. Their generation most directly faces the nuclear shadow. If we want to leave them a heritage of peace we must address our faith to this global threat.

The main resolution (above) passed 1,218 to 134.

The following issue expanded on that first draft of history. It included the details that delegates from 176 churches were represented at the midtriennium, that the 700 attendees included “almost 500 delegates and more than 200 visitors” who at one point broke up into “78 small groups”, and further noted:

Following the… conference the General Board set up a six-person task force to implement the decision of the delegates. The persons for this committee have been appointed and upon acceptance their names will be released.

A later article named them as Delton Franz, Duane Heffelbower, Bob Hull, Heinz Janzen, Ernie Regehr, and Ben Sprunger, and noted that “[t]he task force had its first meeting 26 March in Columbus, Ohio.” Later Stanley Perisho, Chuck Boyer, Winifred Beachy, Janet Reedy, and Gordon Zook were added to the list.

Though the conference officially started Friday morning, 9 February, most people arrived Thursday evening in time to watch a group from the Mennonite Collegiate Institute in Gretna, Manitoba, present The Blowing and the Bending, a musical drama highlighting the themes of wartime intolerance for conscientious objectors and Mennonite struggles with the war spirit.

Some of the themes played out in the small groups and by the symposium were the following:

• the gospel is first, pacifism is secondary.
• it is important to be legal.
• it is better to be faithful.
• a witness for peace has to have the integrity of an appropriate lifestyle.
• the government is more willing to accept conscientious objectors than the church.
• there are other social and political issues which need to be spoken to.
• a corporate witness is/is not the route to go.
• militarism today is a qualitatively different problem than anything civilization has had to face before.
• the response to militarism is a theological and faith issue.

When one delegate called for a show of hands to indicate who had done some protest against nuclear proliferation and militarism about 20 percent of the assembly said they had.

Though most of the delegates who spoke during the afternoon plenary session admitted they were troubled by worldwide military expenditures over one billion dollars daily, they nevertheless said the church as a corporate body should not engage in illegal activities in its witness against war preparations. Instead speakers urged alternatives.

A sentiment often expressed, however, was that the church, while avoiding illegal actions, should actively support its members who engage in civil disobedience on the basis of conscience.

Roy Vogt, economics professor from Winnipeg, Manitoba, berated the assembly for loading the responsibility for witness upon isolated individuals. “It is morally reprehensible,” he said, “to give only moral support. We must provide financial and legal support for those prophets who have arisen from our middle-class ranks.”

In contrast to the social activists at the conference Dan Dalke, pastor from Bluffton, Ohio, castigated the social activists for making pacifism a religion. “We will never create a Utopia,” he said. “Jesus didn’t come to clean up social issues. Our job is to evangelize the world. A peace witness is secondary.”

Some of the statements were personal. A businessman confessed that while he could easily withhold paying military taxes on the basis of conscience, he was frightened. “I am scared of being different, of being embarrassed, of being alienated from my community. Unless I get support from the Mennonite church I will keep on paying taxes.”

Alvin Beachy of Newton, Kansas, said the church seemed to be shifting from a quest to being faithful to the gospel to being legal before the government.

By Friday evening the small groups were into serious wrestling with these open-ended statements: (1) The biblical teaching on obedience to God and its relation to civil responsibility is… (2) Civil disobedience may be a faithful Christian response when… (3) With respect to whether the General Conference should withhold the taxes of employees who would rather practice war-tax refusal, we urge that… (4) With respect to the threat of militarism in North America, we feel that the General Conference as a Christian body should now…

By 9:00 p.m. the groups were supposed to have their consensus ready for the findings committee. Many of the statements came later in the evening, and the findings committee of six began to sift through the material. They spent a good part of the night at it, got up again early on Saturday, had it typed (three pages, single spaced), and by midmorning Saturday 800 copies were being distributed.

Action on the floor did not, however, center on the findings committee statement. Immediately after the Saturday morning Bible lecture a ballot was distributed to the delegates. It asked for a “yes” or “no” vote on this question: “Shall the General Conference Mennonite Church refuse to withhold from salaries and refuse to remit to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service a portion of the federal tax due in those cases in which this is requested by employees on the grounds of conscience, even though such action on the part of the conference is against the law?”

There was a flurry of action on why the midtriennium conference organizers had brought this question to the assembly so early in the day. Conference president Elmer Neufeld replied that the intention was to bring the question to the delegates in a clear and forthright manner. The General Board executive committee had decided to present the main question of the midtriennium in ballot form as a way of helping the decision-making process. After some discussion on the procedure Kenneth Bauman of Berne, Indiana, moved the ballot. It was seconded and discussion began.

Shortly after the midmorning break David Habegger of Wichita, Kansas, brought in a substitute motion. It stated: “Moved that we request, the General Board of our conference to engage in a serious and vigorous search to use all legal, legislative, and administrative avenues for achieving conscientious objection exemption from the U.S. legal requirement that the conference withhold income taxes from the wages of its employees. If no relief can be found within a three-year period they shall proceed to a constitutional test of the First Amendment by whatever means appear most appropriate at the time, including the option of honoring employees’ requests that their tax not be withheld.”

This sparked a miniprocedural debate. Was a substitute motion the same as an amendment? Checking their judgment against Robert’s Rules of Order, the three-man procedural committee said it was. There was some objection to the ruling.

It was a key ruling. From the tenor of discussion, and from the statements which 75 churches brought to the midtriennium, it was apparent that most GC congregations were not willing to vote “yes” on the first motion. If the first motion had come to a vote the decision would likely have been against those in favor of not paying war taxes.

Hence the substitute motion was debated first. In short order it was also amended by Herman Andres of Newton, Kansas. The amendment carried by a vote of 906-to-458. The amendment changed the second sentence to read: “If no relief can be found within the three-year period they shall again bring the question to the conference.” The vote was taken just prior to the noon break.

Gordon Kaufman, professor at Harvard Divinity School in Boston, probably made the key speech of the morning, thereby paving the way for delegates to be sympathetic to the substitute motion.

Kaufman said he was puzzled by all the concern about legality. He commented, “The early church was illegal. The Anabaptists were illegal. Illegality is not a Christian question. We talk as if we are concerned about a massive illegality. We are not asked to sign pledge cards. The question is are we willing to test the law that asks the church to collect taxes? We need to test the law of separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. In this country it is a matter of civil responsibility to test the law.”

After a rushed noon break — “Here they come,” said one restaurateur — the final session of two hours began. A vote was taken on the substitute motion and it passed by a plurality of nine-to-one, 1,218-to-134 votes.

A miracle had happened. It was essentially a consensus. Longtime peace advocate Henry Fast of Newton, Kansas, called it “an historic moment.”

At this point people made editorial comments about the findings statement. As a summary of what people at the conference thought it attempted to cover the spectrum of conviction. Most comments were affirmative and on a voice vote the conference adopted it. It noted that the world is “caught in a tragic system of threat and counter-threat, violence and counterviolence.”

“We want to be obedient citizens, but even more we want to be obedient to Jesus Christ… We are convinced that citizens of Christ’s kingdom must choose ways to speak and act against this suicidal race to universal destruction.”

During the afternoon session various people made capsule comments and appeals.

One of the appeals was to take an offering to assist those who are resisting the payment of war taxes.…

The offering realized $3,030.

The magazine helpfully tallied the delegates by district. Curiously, I thought, the Eastern District was the most well-represented, with 81% of their votes represented by either delegates or proxies. I saw some evidence in our last episode that the Eastern District might be particularly conservative on this issue. The least well-represented of the United States districts was the Pacific, with only 46% of its voters represented. Canada turned up to a greater extent than some had worried, with 57% of voters from the Conference of Mennonites in Canada voting.

The 27 February 1979 edition gave a summary of the report of the findings committee. Excerpts:

What we found in Minneapolis

Never in our history have so many engaged their energies so extensively in preparation for a conference decision.

We want to be obedient citizens, but even more we want to be obedient to Jesus Christ. In this quest we are aware that the Bible and our people’s experience do not give us fully explicit answers on the tax issue. At this moment, therefore, these are our best discernments.

As Christians we must speak and act. We hope that Mennonites will support sons and daughters in their leadings to witness for Christ — even in such acts as refusing to pay taxes destined for war. This means prayerful, moral, and financial support. Our tradition has been to be a quiet people. We yearn to act and to witness in sensitive ways which exhaust every acceptable legal process available to the constituency.

We encourage the General Board to work at developing alternative possibilities for the handling of tax withholding and to work in collaboration with other church bodies and institutions in seeking to extricate itself from the role of being a tax-collecting agency.

It is easy to call governments and conference offices to faithfulness. Perhaps the most urgent call proceeding from this conference is a call to each other — to individual church members, to families, and to congregations — a call to renewed faithfulness. What are we prepared to do in revising our style of life as affluent witnessing against the powers of darkness in this world? How does my life vocation fulfill the claims of Christ for this age?

We yearn for unity in our churches. We want to proceed together in our pilgrimage of obedience but don’t want to tarry long in fear and indecision. We want to affirm those individuals whose consciences are sensitive on issues not fully shared by all.

Reactions continued to reverberate through the letters-to-the-editor column and op-eds:

• Mary Gerber, on 2 March told the Mennonites who weren’t resisting taxes that they were in the right and shouldn’t feel guilty about it.

  [S]everal of the church statements and many individuals expressed a feeling of guilt that they were not following in the steps of those “prophets” who were refusing to pay a portion of their tax. In order to compensate for their personal unwillingness to break the law they enthusiastically offered to provide moral and financial support for those who did.

  …[P]aying someone else to perform what is also my moral duty is blatant hypocrisy.

  If we… honestly wish to follow Christ in all, we will respond as he did in similar circumstances. We will love and correct that brother, not aid and abet him.

• Ralph A. Ewert, on 8 March, suggested that people (in the U.S. anyway) who did not want to pay a percentage of their income taxes should figure out how much they would have to donate to charity in order to reduce their taxable income enough to eliminate that much tax and then donate away.
• Mark Penner, on 13 March related the temple tax and render-unto-Caesar episodes from the Bible as slam-dunk reasons to oppose tax resistance, as though nobody had thought of that before.
• Jack L. Mace, on 16 March found that the Bible suggested a possible new if counterintuitive technique of tax witness:

  While I would like to stop warring uses of my taxes by refusing to pay, and giving instead to peaceful purposes, I know the IRS will collect the money — in spades — and my witness will be just to the collectors and their supervisors. The government will not prosecute such tax resistance, because that would draw too much public attention.

  I want to witness to the policy enactment levels of government. My study of the issue brought me to the words of Jesus in Matthew 5: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil, but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”

  These words speak of positive responses to negative problems, and of a method to make a tax witness virtually impossible to be ignored by even the most recalcitrant legislator; a “second mile theology of witness.” Taking these words seriously led me to decide that with a letter of protest to the IRS I will pay my full taxes. Then I will send an amount hopefully equal to the “war taxes” to my senators and/or representative in a check made out to the government along with a letter of witness.

  I will try to find a way to give the money so that disposition on the congressional floors might be expected — if that be possible — but even if the legislators send the check back they have had to come to grips with its existence and its accompanying witness. The returned check would then call for another letter containing the check, which again could not be ignored.

  The letter will contain a brief statement of my conscientious objection to killing and its implications to the use of my tax dollars for war. Then it will turn to the disposition of the check. Explaining respectfully that since they are acting against my will as a provider for the military machine with my tax dollars, I will ask as diligent action on my behalf for the use of the money enclosed for the proliferation of peace. The money is to be used by the government within the framework of not doing violence to my conscience. I will list some uses of the money which would violate my conscience, and why — being careful not to suggest specific uses I would desire. The whole idea is to get legislators to dialogue with their conscience on this issue.

  I will actually split the check, sending at least two letters. Our new Kansas senator, Nancy Kassebaum, needs to be made aware of our faith early on. On the other hand, Robert Dole is one of the most recalcitrant senators at the point of military spending. He had the temerity to come to our Mid-Kansas MCC relief sale in his campaign last year and speak on the “need” for increased military spending. It may even be advantageous for my congressman, Dan Glickman, to receive a letter with part of the money. He is a Democrat, and with Dole and Kassebaum being Republicans he might just act as political conscience to the others. In each case of a split check, all recipients will be told that there are others and the total amount of the checks written.

  After sharing this idea on the conference floor, there was sufficient informal response between sessions that I decided to share more in this letter and to invite anyone else who wishes to join me in this effort. It would be desirable to make a coordinated effort so that the letters arrive within a relatively short time for the greatest impact. It might even be good to split up the amount into quarterly payments to be sent at strategic times throughout the congressional year.

  If you are interested in dialogue on this idea or if you plan to try it with me, I would appreciate hearing from you and receiving your input.

• Stanley E. Kaufman, on 23 April expressed his disappointment at the timidity of the “too-reluctant” Minneapolis resolution. He urged The Mennonite to publish frequent updates on the work of the task force searching for a “legal alternative” along with suggestions for how people could help that work, and that people who do independent outreach to officials keep The Mennonite informed of their actions. He also said that while the institutional church dithers, “each of us individuals [should] consider stronger forms of witness”.

  Direct tax resistance should not be forgotten for three years but should be actively debated in our congregations and experimented with in our lives. One of the biggest barriers to this is not knowing who and how many others are currently engaged in tax resistance. I am refusing to pay voluntarily my telephone tax (being a student, I have no income), but I’m finding even this relatively simple stance rather difficult because I feel I’m standing alone. I suggest that The Mennonite could provide a forum — perhaps through a special column — in which all those resisting taxes could find each other and communicate experiences they’ve had, arguments they’ve encountered, statements of the bases of their actions, etc.

  In our efforts to be faithful to God in this matter — to attempt to change U.S. military policy through tax witness — we need to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” We need to refine our strategies, improve our communication, and support each other’s involvements.

• Fred Suter, in the 24 April edition, wrote:

  It appeared that our over-politeness got in our way to deal effectively with the issue at hand. It appeared as though the issue at hand was put on the back burner to simmer to give us Mennonites more time. More time for what? It will give a few people more time to pursue other legal alternatives to the specific tax issue. It will also give many of us grass-roots people in the church more time to remain silent and not be directly faced with a Mennonite stand on the issue. It is those long, noncommitted silent periods which trouble me… A firm and committed voice by the Mennonite people needs to be heard in our world now.

• Gaynette Friesen, on 13 September, wrote that though “we still have nearly 2½ years to resolve ourselves, hopefully as a unified body, to the question of war taxes,” that’s no reason to slack off.

The 21 August edition gave another update on the activities of the “task force”:

Task force concentrates on legislative route

Two meetings of the task force on taxes have been held. The task force has been expanded to include representation from the Church of the Brethren, the Friends, and the Mennonite Church. This group of 11 is expected by the participating churches to establish the legal, legislative, and administrative agenda of a corporate discipleship response to military taxes.

The Minneapolis resolution mandated the task force to seek “all legal, legislative, and administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector exemption” for the GCMC from the withholding of federal income taxes from its employees. (About 46 percent of U.S. federal taxes are used for the military.)

At their second meeting (June 28–29) the task force members rejected administrative avenues. Within the scope of U.S. Internal Revenue Service or Revenue Canada regulations this would involve extending ordination, commissioning, or licensing status to all employees of church institutions. It was a consensus of the task force that this would be an administrative loophole. It would not develop a conscientious objector position in response to military taxes.

However, both the judicial and legislative options will be pursued simultaneously. Plans for the legislative option are the more developed.

For the legislative route to work, says Delton Franz, director of the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section office in Washington, D.C., the problem of conscience and taxes will have to be defined carefully. Currently a paper focusing on the reasons the General Conference has a major problem of conscience with collecting taxes from its employees is being drafted. After it has been reviewed and okayed it will be sent along with cover letters by leaders of the historic peace churches to congresspersons representing major constituency concentrations and those on key subcommittees. Later on church members will also be asked to write letters. It is important, says Franz, to define the problem of conscience in such a way that it will motivate congresspersons to work vigorously for the bill.

Another follow-up to these initiatives will be a visit to Washington of the most influential peace church leaders to solicit support from selected members of Congress and to obtain a sponsor for an exemption bill.

In preparation for the next meeting of the task force in November law firms are being contacted for advice on optimum judicial procedures should the task force decide to initiate a case as plaintiff. However, there is doubt that a judicial process would be productive.

There is a possibility that a parallel task force will emerge in Canada. Ernie Regehr, director of Project Ploughshares, Waterloo, Ontario, notes the necessity of defining the question of militarism in Canadian terms for Canadians. Regehr is attempting to gather a Canadian task force.

This mirrored a growing enthusiasm for the Peace Tax Fund legislation in many organizations and congregations of the General Conference. This would ultimately allow Mennonites to pass their well-worn buck all the way to Washington, D.C., and let Congress take the blame for further delays.

New Call to Peacemaking

The New Call to Peacemaking initiative continued in 1979.

• Tax resistance was on the agenda at the follow-up meeting for churches in the central United States in March 1979.

• 

  In November, a hundred participants, mostly Mennonites, but also Quakers, Brethren “plus several Catholics and a Presbyterian” came to the fourth Mid-America New Call to Peacemaking. “Conscription of Youth and Wealth” was the theme, and tax resistance was again high on the agenda:

  In the workshop on conscription of wealth Bob Hull, secretary for peace and social concerns of the General Conference, suggested some alternatives to paying war taxes. Others offered their own suggestions. It was decided that resisting war taxes is a complicated affair and that each person should decide according to their conscience. Several expressed the desire to pay taxes for education, welfare, and other social services, and wished there was an alternative such as the World Peace Tax Fund. [Richard] McSorley, who has had contacts on Capitol Hill, responded by saying that until there is a large grass-roots movement of tax resistance the WPTF doesn’t stand a chance.

  The latter half of the workshop included sharing by Bruce Chrisman, Carbondale, Illinois, who is involved in a federal criminal case, one of two in the U.S. involving tax resistance. His case is significant because it will provide a precedent either for or against tax refusal on the basis of conscience and religious convictions.

  In 1971 Chrisman received draft counseling from James Dunn, pastor of the Champaign-Urbana (Illinois) Mennonite Church. He made a covenant with God to only pay taxes for humanitarian purposes. Since that time he has paid no federal income taxes. It wasn’t until this year, however, that the government prosecuted him, charging that he willfully failed to disclose his gross income in 1975. “Willful” is the key term, because Chrisman claims he conscientiously chose not to disclose his income. He feels the government has purposely waited to build its case.

  “The government wants to establish a precedent in order to prosecute other tax resisters.” But Chrisman is confident. “We’re going to win and establish a precedent the other way,” he said. He believes he has a strong case. Part of that strength comes from his affiliation with the General Conference Mennonite Church. He read from a statement from the 1971 triennium which opposes war taxes and supports those who resist paying them. “That’s a beautiful statement!” he exclaimed, explaining that it has important legal implications for his case.

  In a moving conclusion to his talk Chrisman said that when he first appeared in court October 1 this year he was “scared to death.” “Today,” he said, “I have no fear in me. God has given me an inner peace. I know I’m doing what he wants me to do.” No one disagreed.

  • Chrisman would lose his court case. On 3 December 1979 he was convicted of failure to file (he filed, but the government contended the information on the filing was not sufficient to make it legal).

    During the pretrial hearings Judge J. Waldo Ackerman allowed Robert Hull, secretary for peace and social concerns of the General Conference, and Peter Ediger, director of Mennonite Voluntary Service, to testify about Mennonite witness against war and conscription of persons and money for war purposes. But the testimony was disallowed at the trial.

  • Chrisman would ultimately be sentenced to pay the taxes and court costs, to do a year of Mennonite Voluntary Service, and to probation. He spun this as a victory of sorts:

    “I’m amazed… I feel very good about the sentence. The alternative service is probably the first sentence of its kind for a tax case. I think it reflects the testimony in the trial and its influence on the judge.”

    Chrisman’s attorney filed an appeal of the conviction, which was heard in November 1980, with the Mennonite General Conference filing an amicus curiae in Chrisman’s behalf.

Miscellany

• A 3 January letter to the editor from Jacob T. Friesen described how he withheld a symbolic $13 from his income taxes “to gain attention and create opportunity to ‘dialogue for peace.’ ”
• The 23 January issue covered a tax dispute between the Canadian government and some Hutterite colonies. The colonies refused to pay on the grounds that they were churches; the government disagreed and went after them for “about $37 million in back income taxes and interest”
• The 6 February issue told of the Manitoba Alliance Against Abortion, whose bank accounts had been frozen by the Canadian tax agency to pay for the taxes the organization’s president, Joe Borowski, had been refusing to pay for several years. The organization disputed that the funds belonged to the organization’s president and could thereby be seized, saying that the funds were meant for a legal battle against legal abortion. A letter-writing campaign by supporters of the group was credited for pressuring the government to abandon the seizure.
• Chris Dueck, in the 21 March edition, called Mennonites out for complaining about Caesar’s war taxes while hoarding Caesar’s currency. “For us to refuse payment of taxes is to say ‘we want to keep the money we get through your military-economic policies, but we don’t want any of the guilt.’ The war tax issue is shedding guilt without shedding the selfish heart.”
• On 26 March, members of the St. Louis Mennonite Voluntary Service unit announced their refusal to pay the telephone excise tax and its redirection to the MCC.
• Robert V. Peters hoped that “seeking ways to resist the military machine (e.g. war tax resistance)” would be on the agenda at the Mennonite World Conference, in the 27 March edition.
• In the 1 May edition, Gordon Houser looked into the New Creation Fellowship intentional community — which “was born more than six years ago out of the concern of a small group of people about the sad state of our society [and] a common involvement in simple living, war tax resistance, and prison reform.”
• In July, twenty people “from the General Conference Mennonite Church, the Mennonite Church, the Conservative Conference, and the Beachy Amish” met “to air trends within the Mennonite church and to share concerns.” Among those concerns, as expressed in a jointly-framed statement:

  According to the direct command to pay taxes (Romans 13:6,7) and according to the specific word of Christ on the payment of taxes to “Caesar” (Matthew 22:15–22) we believe we are under obligation to pay taxes levied by the law. We regard taxation as the power of the state to collect monies needed for its budget and not as voluntary contributions by citizens.

• The February Minneapolis conference was given credit for encouraging peace-minded clergy to come together and discuss the arms race and peace advocacy.
• William Stringfellow addressed the Church of the Brethren Symposium and suggested that the contemporary urban church should renounce its tax-exempt status. “since present tax privileges curtail the church’s freedom to speak out on important matters and keep it from engaging in tax resistance.”
• The South Seattle Mennonite Church issued a letter of support for war tax resisters, saying in part:

  [G]ood citizenship does not imply that we should obey our government without regard for Christian conscience. Rather, good citizenship leads us to work as a church and human community towards the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth… We believe that Christ’s strength is in his weakness and that the present aggressive stance of the world’s military powers runs counter to our call to be peacemakers.

• In the 1 October 1979 issue, Ferd Wiens attacked “what may be called a ‘peace” cult” of Mennonite flagellants who, in his view, had turned the doctrine of nonresistance on its head to make it a doctrine of civil disobedience — calling out promoters of war tax resistance in particular.
  • Walter Regier agreed, writing that “[e]mphasis on world peace through demonstrations and nonpayment of taxes simply brings confusion into our ranks” and distracts from “more important issues that we face in our day… like abortion, homosexuality, and divorce”.
• The U.S. branch of Pax Christi (a Catholic peace movement) invited some of their Mennonite counterparts to their annual convention in October.

  Mennonites Bob Hull and Don Kaufman of Newton, Kansas, led a workshop on tax resistance and the World Peace Tax Fund Act. Interest in this was strong. About 40 persons, including some tax resisters, participated. Hull is peace and social concerns director for the General Conference; Kaufman is author of The Tax Dilemma: Praying for Peace, Paying for War.

  In a private meeting with Sister Mary Evelyn Jegen, executive secretary of Pax Christi USA, and Gordon Zahn, a Catholic conscientious objector in World War Ⅱ, Hull, Kaufman, and William Keeney explained the General Conference resolution on war taxes. Keeney, North Newton, Kansas, is director of the Consortium on Peace Research, Education, and Development.

  Although Pax Christi USA, supports the World Peace Tax Fund it has not responded to its members who engage in war tax withholding and are requesting official support from Pax Christi.

• Albert H. Epp felt that civil disobedience and other sorts of confrontation with government “can ensnare a people in activities that make them obnoxious to the general citizenry. It is ‘good’ deeds that earn respect and give us a right to speak.” For this reason “It seems improper for Christians to start at the point of urging illegal tax-resistance rather than first declaring a church-wide month of prayer for a national crisis.”

  In my congregation we took a poll on ideal ways to influence government. We prefer to exhaust all legal means to achieve peace before we engage in illegal maneuvers. Only 5 percent approved of refusing to pay one’s tax as a protest. But in terms of practical, positive solutions, we found that 65 percent approved the World Peace Tax Fund alternative; 85 percent approved writing the President and Congress; 85 percent approved using the ballot box to elect responsive leaders; and 89 percent approved increased giving to decrease taxes.

  • But David Graber responded that in his opinion “the demand to lay down our tax dollars is a similar call to idolatry” as those that prompted the civil disobedience of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. “Thank God for Christians today who refuse to cooperate with our government’s demands in Jesus’ name. Where is Epp’s recognition of their witness?”
  • And Mark S. Lawson added that the blessings of government that Epp felt we should all be humbly grateful for weren’t all that. For example: “My country forces me to cut my income below the taxable level so I can obey both the laws of God and man. Religious liberty is only for those who support the killing in wars financed by their tax money.” He seconded the idea that only through “widespread tax refusal” could pacifists pressure Congress into creating an alternative for conscientious taxpayers.
  • C.B. Friesen was more appreciative of Epp’s take. He trotted out the usual Render Unto Caesar ⇒ Romans 13 ⇒ 1 Peter 2 biblical justification for submission to civil government and said that those who counsel war tax resistance “mostly benefit their egos” in service of their “own philosophies and pet theories”.
• The Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section (U.S.) met at the end of November. They “formally supported the passage of the World Peace Tax Fund bill” but “decided against sponsoring a vigorous campaign to promote Mennonite participation in a war tax resistance campaign. Section members felt such a resolution would not reflect the will of their constituent bodies.” So they instead adopted the kick-the-can routine, passing “a resolution that the section ‘is prepared to consider at its spring 1980 meeting a decision to promote participation in a war tax resistance campaign.’ ” There seemed to be some acknowledgment of flaws in the Peace Tax Fund bill:

  The section said in resolution “that it is conscience that the WPTF legislation might not in itself force a significant reduction in military spending, but it recognizes that it would provide funds for peacemaking efforts and would be a witness against military spending.”

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

In 1979, the Mennonite Church had the luxury of being by-standers as the General Conference Mennonite Church wrestled with the war tax issue, and in particular about whether to continue to withhold income taxes from the salaries of their employees who were conscientious objectors to military taxation (the Mennonite Church would get its own chance to wrestle with these issues a bit later on), at a special mid-triennium conference on the issue. Meanwhile, disgruntled conservative Mennonites met at the Smoketown Consultation, Peace Tax Fund advocates ramped up their campaign, and the New Call to Peacemaking pushed the Peace Churches to step up their game.

As a result, there was a plethora of war tax resistance-related content in Gospel Herald that year.

The 2 January 1979 issue of Gospel Herald quoted Don Kaufman on the war tax problem:

“The federal income tax is the chief link connecting each individual’s daily labor with the tremendous buildup for war,” Donald D. Kaufman observes in his new book, The Tax Dilemma: Praying for Peace, Paying for War (Herald Press: 1978). “Preoccupied as some citizens are with paying too much tax, I suggest that the crucial issue has to do with the purpose for which tax monies are used,” Kaufman maintains. “While a young person can be exempted from personally serving in the Armed Forces, no one is easily exempted from making contributions to the military leviathan.” In his book, Kaufman considers issue of the two kingdoms. After a brief examination of the biblical background, he traces the history of conscientious objection to war taxes. He discusses a dozen viable options which concerned Christians can use “to register our faithfulness to Jesus Christ as Lord and our opposition to corporate war making by the state within which we live.”

“The Bulletin of the Mennonite Biblical Seminaries” which was included as a January 1979 supplement, announced that Henry Poettcker would be the new president of Mennonite Biblical Seminary:

[W]hat words can we say to our brother in his new responsibilities? Lawrence Burkholder last June in the consultation on taxes and war initiated an intriguing discussion on the manager (or the administrator) and the prophet and corporate responsibility. He observed that with only a few incidental references, "the Bible is almost solidly against those who assumed responsibility for institutional life" (a distressing word for a biblical scholar on his inauguration).

At the February 1979 meeting of the Mennonite Board of Missions, it became clear that Mennonite Church agencies would also have to deal with the tax withholding question that was roiling the General Conference Mennonite Church:

Ray Horst reported that two staff members have said they would want to consider a personal response on war taxes should Mennonite Board of Missions seek alternatives to such withholdings. The directors acted to continue discussions with other Mennonite groups and Mennonite Church agencies on the war tax question.

In the 13 March 1979 issue, Carl Kreider offered simple living and charitable giving as war tax resistance techniques:

How to save taxes.

There has been much discussion about the appropriateness of paying for war as we pray for peace. Some have sought ways in which they can refuse to pay federal income taxes and thus give a concrete witness against the militarism which plagues the U.S. and many other countries of the world — even, alas, poor countries.

The focus on income taxes may obscure the fact that there are many other federal taxes which are also used to support the national defense establishment. In fact, in fiscal 1979 the personal income tax provided only about one half of the non-trust fund U.S. federal revenue. The other half came from a variety of sources such as the corporation income tax, excise taxes (on many items such as telephone service, air travel, automobile tires, gasoline, and especially alcohol and tobacco), estate and gift taxes, and customs duties.

Can we avoid paying these taxes? Not completely, but we can reduce the amount we pay by the simple device of not buying at all the things which are harmful and by reducing our expenditures for all other items by holding down our standard of living. The United States tax law is very generous in allowing deductions for making contributions to churches and charitable institutions. (The Canadian law is less generous.) Up to 50 percent of income may be deducted.

These charitable gifts will first of all reduce sharply the amount of federal income tax we pay — in some cases even avoiding the tax completely. But in the second place, since the gift to charity will reduce our remaining disposable income we will have reduced our standard of living and thus will have to pay less of the hidden taxes which also support the defense establishment. The corporation income tax, for example, is one third the size of the personal income tax.

Although the check to pay the corporation income tax is sent to the government by the corporation, rest assured the corporation will, if they possibly can, pass on the tax to the consumer in the form of higher prices for the things the corporation sells. If we don’t buy the product, we aren’t paying this tax.

Reducing our standard of living as a means of avoiding federal taxes has an important additional benefit. It is a powerful witness that we are disturbed by the disparities in wealth and income throughout the world. Our lives should demonstrate that we can get along without buying the multitude of things an affluent America deems important.

A report on an April 15 protest at Titan Ⅱ missile base noted that “Also scheduled for the same day will be a nonviolent protest at the Wichita offices of the Internal Revenue Service, designed to draw attention to tax money being used for military expenditures…” And a separate report on a protest at Rocky Flats said that “On Apr. 16, tax resisters made statements about their refusal to pay for war in a press conference outside the IRS office.”

The 17 April 1979 issue brought news of the Quaker war tax resisters Bruce & Ruth Graves’ court battle:

Quaker couple billed for tax not owed

A Quaker couple from Ypsilanti, Michigan, attempted to claim a “war tax” credit on federal income tax returns, but has lost an unusual case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Associated Press reports. The court left intact lower court rulings that Bruce and Ruth Graves, as conscientious objectors, may not claim such a credit. The couple had sought a refund of the portion of their taxes used for war materials.

Since 1973, the Graves have converted the “foreign tax credit” on their federal tax forms to a “war tax credit” and entered only 50 percent to the income tax otherwise due. Each year they have asked a refund but not received it. So after failing to get the couple to sign corrected tax statements, the government initiated action to collect the “deficiency” even though it had already collected the correct amount. The appeal argued that the government’ s action violated the Graves’ constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Catholic priest John M. Garvey also fought the law and the law won, a bit. The 15 May 1979 Gospel Herald had the scoop:

Priest who refused to pay taxes has to get around without a car

Father John M. Garvey gave up his car for Lent. Actually, the Internal Revenue Service hauled it away on Ash Wednesday. It now sits amid big, drab army trucks behind a fence topped with barbed wire 20 miles away in Mobridge, S.D. It is there because the Roman Catholic priest has not paid income taxes as a protest against military spending and the federal government’s treatment of Indian people.

Without a car on the South Dakota prairie, the priest has been walking more, hitchhiking, and riding buses. “It’s been inconvenient,” he said, and when he does he gets some puzzled looks. “But it’s no big dramatic thing. I’m not standing out there shivering to death.”

John K. Stoner, in the 29 May 1979 issue, imagined the conversation between a taxpayer and his or her Maker in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust:

There was a blinding flash of light, an explosion like the bursting of a million bombs, and in an instant everything was burning in a huge ball of fire.

The first time it was the Flood.

But next time the fire… It was the End.

Afterward a prominent evangelical leader was being quizzed by his Maker.

“You say you were taken by surprise. But didn’t you know it might happen?”

“Well, yes, Sir. I guess I did, Sir. But You see, Sir, they…”

“Wasn’t anybody talking about the fantastic risks involved? But not risks really. It was a certainty. As predictable as death and taxes.”

“Well, Sir, I can see it now. But hindsight is always better…”

“What do you mean, hindsight? Couldn’t you discern the signs of the times?”

“Well, Sir, we were kind of busy…”

“Doing what?”

“Well, Sir, some of us were searching for remnants of Noah’s Ark. We thought if we found it maybe they would believe in You…”

“But surely you weren’t all hunting Noah’s Ark?”

“Well, Sir, not exactly. But a lot of people who weren’t hunting it were watching movies about the search. And then we were busy defending the Bible.”

“Why didn’t you know it was going to happen? Surely there were people warning you. In fact, I had assigned a few Myself to sound the alarm.”

“Well, Sir, You see, Sir, those people… I don’t know quite how to say this… er… they didn’t believe the way we… er… I mean I…”

“Did you think you could go on building three more bombs a day forever and not blow things up?

“Well, Sir, You see, I thought You would look after those things. I didn’t think it would happen unless You wanted.

“Women nursing infant babies? Children swinging on the side porch, playing in the lawn sprinkler? An old man reading his Bible? Millions of people, burned up?”

“Well, sir, in retrospect it does look rather overwhelming. I’m not sure it was really fair. But then, things were getting rather bad, what with communism, homosexuality, welfare, big government, pollution…”

“And capitalism, national security, the good life, nuclear deterrence.”

“Well, Sir, I hadn’t thought of those things as…”

“Why not?”

“Well, Sir, You see, the people who talked about those things were not… er… Bible believing. As an example, they talked about resisting war taxes, even though the Bible says, ‘Render unto Caesar…’. Things like that…”

“You paid your taxes?”

“Well, Sir, yes, Sir, I did.”

“Every penny?”

“I think so, Sir.”

“Are you saying that I am responsible for this fire and your tax dollars were not?”

“Well, Sir, I… er…”

“Next!”

Allan W. Smith responded in a letter to the editor, saying that Christians should beware of inadvertently putting themselves under an Antichrist who promises worldly peace at the expense of abandoning Biblical truth:

In Stoner’s depiction of the scene of judgment day, it is to be observed that Jesus dictum, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” is contradicted. It is not to be supposed that Jesus and Paul, who both told people to pay their taxes, were ignorant of the way that Rome got and held its power. Taxes are, after all, not freewill gifts to the state, and we may well be grieved with the way the state uses them. However, we must all live by our Word-enlightened consciences.

In July 1979, the General Board of the Mennonite Church met. Gospel Herald reported:

A proposed Mennonite Church statement on militarism and conscription, originally drafted by MBCM staff members Hubert Schwartzentruber and Gordon Zook in consultation with several other persons, was presented. The Board gave the statement extensive discussion and some refinement, and unanimously approved the document for submission as a recommendation from MBCM to the General Board for presentation to the 1979 Mennonite Church General Assembly. The statement contains sections on peace and obedience, use of material resources, Christian service and conscription, and militarism and taxation.

That article also noted that the Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries met and approved a “task force to represent the Mennonite Church in cooperation with the General Conference Mennonite Church committee on conscientious objection and tax exemption.”

Hubert Schwartzentruber gave the keynote address at the 2–4 August 1979 Allegheny Conference annual meeting:

Sensing the radical nature of his comments on the theme, “The Way of Peace,” Schwartzentruber said that he could be taken to jail if he put into action his beliefs on such issues as war taxes and conscription. If he had to go to jail, he said, it would be easier to go with brothers and sisters in the faith. Peacemaking is the way of Jesus, but it has to be the work of the church and not of individuals alone, he said.

Representatives of the Mennonite Church gathered in Waterloo, 11–16 August 1979, and war tax resistance was on the agenda but was overshadowed by other concerns about draft registration:

Debate over the proposed statement on militarism and conscription was centered in two subpoints. One counseled Mennonites not to comply with any military registration law that might be passed by the U.S. Congress if the Department of Defense and not civilians would be responsible for the registration program. The other point counseled administrators of church schools not to comply with any legislation which might be passed that would require them to provide information about their students for purposes of registration.

Noting that passage of any such registration bill is very much in doubt, Linden Wenger, Harrisonburg, Va., told fellow delegates, “It seems to me we’re being a bit premature in making an issue of these two items.” Wenger also said that he “will not hinge my decision” on whether to support compliance with a registration law on whether it is administered by civilian or military personnel.

Other delegates, including John E. Lapp of Souderton, Pa., responded that it was important that the items in question not be deleted.

In the amended statement which was finally approved, the two items were combined and weakened slightly, but were retained. A subpoint urging “careful biblical study” on the issue of war tax payment was added. In addition, the statement was upgraded from “guidelines” to a full statement of position.

The eventual statement on militarism and conscription that came out of the Waterloo conference on 16 August 1979 was reprinted in Gospel Herald. It included the following section:

On militarism and taxation

We recognize that today’s militarism expresses itself more and more through expensive and highly technical weaponry and that such equipment is dependent upon financial resources conscripted from citizens through taxation. Therefore,

1. We encourage our members to pursue a lifestyle which minimizes such tax liability through reduction of taxable income and/or increase of tax deductible contributions for the advancement of the gospel and the relief of human suffering.
2. We endorse efforts in support of legislation which would provide alternative uses for taxes, paid by conscientious objectors to war, which would otherwise be devoted to military purposes.
3. We encourage our congregations to engage in careful biblical study regarding Christian responsibility to civil authorities including issues of conscience in relation to payment of taxes.
4. We recognize as a valid witness the conscientious refusal to pay a portion of taxes required for war and military efforts. Such refusal, however, may not be pursued in a spirit of lawlessness nor for personal advantage but may be an occasion for constructive response to human need.
5. We encourage our congregations and institutions to seek relief from the current legal requirement of collecting taxes through the withholding of income taxes of employees, especially those taxes which may be used for war purposes. In this effort we endorse cooperation with the General Conference Mennonite Church in the current search for judicial, legislative, and administrative alternatives to the collection of military-related taxes. In the meantime if congregational or institutional employers are led to noncompliance with the requirement to withhold such taxes, we pledge our support for those representatives of the church who may be called to account for such a witness.

On 20 September 1979, Robert C. Johansen (“president of the Institute for World Order”) spoke at Goshen College and boosted war tax resistance:

Johansen encouraged his listeners to become part of a “new breed of abolitionists,” to take a more active stance, even if this included refusing to pay war taxes and refusing to be drafted. He reminded his audience that those in opposition to slavery had also defied the law in order to bring about change.

Gordon Zook, in the 2 October 1979 issue, wrote that the whole economy was distorted towards militarism, and took a sort of sideways look at tax resistance in that context:

One current issue of obedience is the militaristic mentality which keeps producing new weapons systems at the expense of basic human needs. So much of North American “abundance” results from the distorted values and priorities of our militaristic economy. Many are wondering, how to repent of such involvements including questions of responsibility for the use of tax revenues.

In the same issue, John K. Stoner was back to urge conscientious objection to nuclear deterrence which necessarily meant action before the nuclear war, not just options to be held in reserve for after the war started:

Mennonites who believe that the Bible teaches conscientious objection to military service should also be conscientious objectors to the concept and practice of nuclear deterrence. We have expressed conscientious objection to military service by refusing military service, whether by refusing to put on the military uniform, going to prison, doing alternate service, or emigrating. We should express our Conscientious objection to the concept and practice of nuclear deterrence by publicly rejecting the myth of nuclear deterrence, denouncing the idolatry of nuclear weapons, refusing to pay war taxes, and identifying with resistance to the nuclear madness.

Mennonites should do this because the concept and practice of nuclear deterrence is a form of military service in which the entire population has been conscripted. The concept of nuclear deterrence epitomizes the spirit of war. The practice of nuclear deterrence is to war what lust is to adultery, and whoever engages freely in lust should not consider himself innocent of adultery. As E.I. Watkin has said, it cannot “be morally right to threaten immoral conduct.” To plan and prepare for the annihilation of millions of people is a culpable act in the extreme, and whoever does not deliberately and explicitly repudiate the concept and practice of nuclear deterrence participates in the act.

The Catholic peace group Pax Christi wanted in on the war tax resistance action according to this report of their October 1979 convention:

The U.S. branch of the international Roman Catholic peace movement, Pax Christi USA, initiated informal contacts with General Conference Mennonite peace spokespersons Oct. 12–14. Rural Benedictine College at Atchison, Kan., provided the setting for the sixth annual convention of Pax Christi USA, at which Mennonites Bob Hull and Don Kaufman of Newton, Kan., led a workshop on tax resistance and the World Peace Tax Fund Act. Interest in this was strong. About 40 persons, including some tax resisters, participated. In a private meeting with Sister Man Evelyn Jegen, executive secretary of Pax Christi USA, and Gordon Zahn, a Catholic conscientious objector in World War Ⅱ, Hull, Kaufman, and William Keeney of Bethel College, North Newton, Kan., explained the General Conference Mennonite Church resolution on war taxes. Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section’s Christian Peacemaker Registration form received active interest at the convention, particularly during a workshop on “Militarism in Education.” The possible resumption of registration and perhaps the draft in the U.S. is stimulating regional Pax Christi groups to promote conscientious objection to war by Catholic youth.

The 23 October 1979 issue noted that “MCC Peace Section (U.S.) is sponsoring a speakers bureau… to promote support of the World Peace Tax Fund among U.S. Mennonites and to be supportive of persons and groups who refuse to pay taxes used for military purposes.” The article included a list of speakers with their addresses and phone numbers, in case you’d like to track down some of the people involved back then.

When the MCC Peace Section (U.S.) met around the end of November, war tax resistance was on the agenda:

Resolutions concerning the Iranian-U.S. crisis, SALT Ⅱ, and the proposed World Peace Tax Fund were passed at the fall meeting of Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section (U.S.), Nov. 30–Dec. 1 at Akron, Pa.

Section members also agreed to postpone a decision on a resolution to support war tax resistance campaign until they could have further dialogue with constituent members…

The World Peace Tax Fund (WPTF) bill now before Congress also received an endorsement from the Peace section group. The bill would provide a legal means for conscientious objectors to channel the portion of their tax dollar which now goes for the military budget to be used in a special fund for projects to promote world peace.

The section said in resolution “that it is conscious that the WPTF legislation might not in itself force a significant reduction in military spending, but it recognizes that it would provide funds for peacemaking efforts and would be a witness against military spending. The section continues to support other forms of witness against military spending, including persons who refuse to pay war taxes.”

Although Peace Section has given staff time to the promotion of a better understanding of WPTF in its constituency, it had not before been a formal sponsor of the bill.

Peace Section has also established a bureau of Christian speakers available to address congregations and other groups concerning WPTF.

On 3 December 1979, a Mennonite war tax resister was convicted of tax evasion. I found it interesting that the prosecutor attacked Chrisman’s acts on scriptural grounds:

Federal court convicts Mennonite in Illinois war tax resistance case

Bruce Chrisman, 30-year-old General Conference Mennonite, was convicted on Dec. 3 by U.S. District Court in Springfield, Ill., of federal income tax evasion.

Chrisman, who lives in Ava in southern Illinois, was charged with failing to file a tax return in 1975. Actually Chrisman did file a return in 1975 and other years for which the government said he failed to file. But the returns did not contain the financial data the Internal Revenue Service contends constitutes a legal tax return.

Chrisman attached letters to his returns saying he objected on religious and moral grounds to paying taxes that support the U.S. military. His defense lawyers said the government had to prove that he “willfully” failed to file a return — that he knew what the statute required and purposefully decided not to comply.

At a three-day criminal trial Chrisman said, “The returns I filed with the IRS were in accordance with the dictates of my conscience and religious beliefs and the IRS code.”

He testified that his father never hit him and that “guns, even cap guns, were never allowed in our home.”

The prosecuting attorney read Romans 13, Luke 20:20–26, and Matthew 17:24–27 and asked Chrisman, “Don’t you believe in the Bible? Doesn’t it state here you should pay taxes?”

Chrisman said, “The government is not the supreme authority in my life, but Jesus Christ is.”

In the closing arguments to the jury the prosecution said Chrisman’s “joy” and “peaceful composure” exposed his lack of deeply held religious beliefs.

James Dunn, Mennonite pastor in Urbana, Ill., observed the trial. He said evidence of Chrisman’s character and of his pacifism were not allowed as testimony by the judge, J. Waldo Ackerman.

During the pretrial hearings, Ackerman allowed Robert Hull, secretary for peace and social concerns of the General Conference Mennonite Church, and Peter Ediger, director of Mennonite Voluntary Service, to testify about Mennonite witness against war and conscription of persons and money for war purposes. But the testimony was disallowed at the trial.

One of Chrisman’s attorneys, Jeffrey Weiss, in addressing the 12-member jury, argued that Chrisman’s religious beliefs and his conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War should exempt him from paying that portion of his federal income tax that supports the military. “He did not try to hide behind the shield of religion to rip off the government but honestly believes he is exercising his constitutional rights to religion.” he said.

Chrisman, married, with a two-year-old daughter, faces up to one year in prison and a $10,000 fine The verdict will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago.

A pair of articles advertised seminar on war tax resistance that would be held at Laurelville Mennonite Church Center in December:

Does Caesar ask for only what belongs to him? Should there be a Mennonite consensus on paying or not paying war taxes? These and related questions will be the agenda for a seminar at Laurelville Church Center, Dec. 14–16. The seminar is entitled “War Taxes: to Pay or Not to Pay?” It is jointly sponsored by the Church Center and Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section. Persons on both sides of the issue are encouraged to participate. More information is available from Laurelville Mennonite Church Center…

“War Taxes: To Pay or Not to Pay?” is the title of a Dec. 14–16 seminar cosponsored by MCC Peace Section and Laurelville Mennonite Church Center. Persons on all sides of the issue are encouraged to participate as such questions will be raised as: What belongs to Caesar and what to God? What are these taxes buying? What are the alternatives? More information is available from Laurelville Mennonite Church Center…

The GCMC Mid-Triennium

This was the first Gospel Herald report from the General Conference Mennonite Church special mid-triennium conference on war taxes:

Meeting shows diversity of views on militarism

Debate was vigorous and heated as more than 500 delegates from the General Conference Mennonite Church and some 200 visitors met Feb. 9 and 10 to discuss how Christians should respond to the nuclear threat and to massive expenditures for defense. War tax resistance, or the refusal to pay for the military portion of the federal budget, was among possible responses discussed at the meeting, held in Minneapolis.

A few delegates present at the first day of the conference said the church should not act as tax collector for the state through withholding taxes from employees’ paychecks. But most of the delegates present the first day said that while they were troubled by worldwide military expenditures of over one billion dollars daily, the church as a corporate body should not engage in illegal activity in its witness against war preparations. Instead, speakers urged alternatives such as pressuring congressional representatives to reduce defense expenditures, eliminate the arms trade, and to increase aid and trade to Third World countries. A few observed that Mennonites contribute to the disparity in living standards around the world through their affluent lifestyle.

A sentiment often expressed, however, was that the church, while avoiding illegal actions, should actively support its members who engage in civil disobedience on the basis of conscience.

Roy Vogt, economics professor from Winnipeg, Manitoba, berated the assembly for loading the responsibility for witness upon isolated individuals. “It is morally reprehensible,” he said, “to give only moral support. We must provide financial and legal support for those prophets who have arisen from our middle-class ranks.”

In contrast to the social activists at the conference are Mennonites like Dan Dalke, pastor from Bluffton, Ohio, who castigated the social activists for making pacifism a religion. “We will never create a Utopia,” he said. “Jesus didn’t come to clean up social issues. Our job is to evangelize the world. A peace witness is secondary.”

Some of the statements were personal. A businessman confessed that while he could easily withhold paying military taxes on the basis of conscience, he was frightened. “I am scared of being different, of being embarrassed, of being alienated from my community. Unless I get support from the Mennonite church, I will keep paying taxes.”

Alvin Beachy of Newton, Kan., said the church seemed to be shifting from a quest to being faithful to the gospel to being legal before the government. Echoing this view, J.R. Burkholder of Goshen, Ind., said, “The question is not who is most faithful, but what does it mean to be faithful?”

A follow-up article in the 6 March 1979 issue filled in some blanks:

Church should not act as tax collector

General Conference Mennonites voted today to launch a vigorous campaign to exempt the church from acting as a tax collector for the state.

Five-hundred delegates, representing 60,000 Mennonites in Canada and the U.S. passed the resolution by a nine to one margin. Charged with responsibility to implement the decision is the highest policy-making body of the General Conference Mennonite Church, the General Board.

Heinz Janzen, executive secretary for the denomination, said the decision will increase political activism among Mennonites, a group which has traditionally kept distant from legislative activities.

Delegates met Feb. 9–10 in a special conference to discern the will of God for Christians in their response to militarism and the worldwide arms race.

Some Mennonites are practicing war tax resistance — the refusal to pay the military portion of federal income tax. This was a central focus of debate during the two days because one of the employees of the General Conference has asked the church to stop withholding war taxes from her wages. In 1977, Cornelia Lehn, who is director of children’s education, made the request on grounds of conscience. Her request was refused by the General Board because it would be illegal for an employer to not act as a tax collector for the Internal Revenue Service.

Although delegates to this convention affirmed that decision, they instructed the General Board to vigorously search for legal avenues to exempt the church from collecting taxes. In that way individuals employed by the church would be free to follow their own conscience.

The campaign to obtain legal conscientious objection to war taxes will last three years. If fruitless the question is to be brought back to another meeting of the church.

Activists in the church were not completely satisfied with the decision. They would prefer that Cornelia Lehn’s request be granted. These delegates spoke for an early First Amendment test of the constitutionality of the church being compelled to act as a tax collector.

Nevertheless, Donovan Smucker, vice-president of the General Conference and from Kitchener, Ont., said of the decision, “Something wonderful is happening. We are beginning to bring our witness to the political order.”

Vernon Lohrenz, a delegate from South Dakota, observed, “We must proceed in faith, and not in fear. If this is the right thing to do, God will take care of us.”

From the discussions on taxation, it seemed the issue will not easily be resolved.

The 21 August 1979 issue gave an update on how the General Conference Mennonite Church was progressing on the goals it had set for itself:

Slow progress reported by task force on taxes

Implementing the decision of the General Conference Mennonite Church “war tax” conference in Minneapolis last February has not been easy.

The Minneapolis resolution mandated a task force on taxes to seek “all legal, legislative, and administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector exemption” for the General Conference Mennonite Church from the withholding of federal income taxes from its employees. (About 46 percent of U.S. federal taxes are used for the military.)

Two meetings of the task force have been held. The task force has been expanded to include representation from the Church of the Brethren, the Friends, and the Mennonite Church. This group of 11 is expected by the participating churches to establish the legal, legislative, and administrative agenda of a corporate discipleship response to military taxes.

At their second meeting (June 28–29) the task force members rejected administrative avenues. Within the scope of U.S. Internal Revenue Service or Revenue Canada regulations, this would involve extending ordination, commissioning, or licensing status to all employees of church institutions. It was a consensus of the task force that this would be an administrative loophole. It would not develop a conscientious objector position in response to military taxes.

However, both the judicial and legislative options will be pursued simultaneously. Plans for the legislative option are the more developed.

For the legislative route to work, says Delton Franz, director of the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section office in Washington, D.C., the problem of conscience and taxes will have to be defined carefully. Currently a paper focusing on the reasons the General Conference has a major problem of conscience with collecting taxes from its employees is being drafted. After it has been reviewed, it will be sent along with cover letters by leaders of the historic peace churches to members of Congress who represent major constituency concentrations or sit on key subcommittees. Later on, church members will also be asked to write letters. It is important, says Franz, to define the problem of conscience in such a way that it will motivate Senators and Representatives to work vigorously for the bill.

Another follow-up to these initiatives will be a visit to Washington of the most influential peace church leaders to solicit support from selected members of Congress and to obtain a sponsor for an exemption bill.

There is a possibility that a parallel task force will emerge in Canada. Ernie Regehr, director of Project Ploughshares, Waterloo, Ont., notes the necessity of defining the question of militarism in Canadian terms for Canadians; for example, arms export revenues. Regehr in attempting to gather a Canadian task force. Heinz Janzen, general secretary of the General Conference Mennonite Church, is convener of the war tax expanded task force. Mennonite Church members are Winifred Beechy, secretary for peace and social concerns under the Board of Congregational Ministries; Janet Reedy, member of the Mennonite Church committee on tax concerns; and Gordon Zook, executive secretary of the Board of Congregational Ministries.

A New Call to Peacemaking

The “New Call to Peacemaking” campaign continued. Another conference was announced for March 1979:

Saturday workshops will deal with conflict resolution, tax resistance and the World Peace Tax Fund, economic conversion and the arms race, and resources for peace education.

Organizers of the Peace Tax Fund legislation campaign took heart:

Campaign organizers assert that interest in the “issue of conscience and war taxes” has been growing recently. It was given a “high priority” by the New Call to Peacemaking national conference last October in Wisconsin.

Results of the conference (which had apparently been pushed back a few weeks) were reported by Winifred N. Beechy:

More war-tax opposition

A group of 30 to 40 church people met on Saturday, Mar. 24, at City Church of the Brethren, Goshen, Ind., to consider the moral dilemma faced by Christians who are opposed to war as a method of settling disputes but who involuntarily contribute to war by payment of taxes.

Participants in the one-day seminar came from 12 area congregations and represented four denominations. The focus of the meeting was on that portion of the federal income tax which goes to support the military and weapons production. This group felt that the increasing militarization of our society, the escalation of the arms race, and production of highly technological weapons of destruction posed the problem of priorities and stewardship, and the contradiction of “paying for war while praying for peace.”

Willard Swartley, professor of New Testament at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries in Elkhart, spoke on “Biblical imperatives,” emphasizing the Christian’s mandate for responsible use of the earth’s resources. Cliff Kindy of Goshen then outlined what we pay for war, giving a breakdown of the federal budget with percentages of expenditures going to current and past military and war-related items. He computed current military spending as roughly 25 to 30 percent, while a more comprehensive figure, taking into account veterans’ expenses and interest on the war-related portion of the national debt, reaches as high as 50 percent of the national budget. Kindy also estimated that members of Mennonite and Church of the Brethren churches in Elkhart County pay more for war taxes than they contribute to their churches.

A survey of the history of war tax resistance among the historic peace churches since the Reformation was presented by Leonard Gross, archivist of the Mennonite Church. Current responses to the problem of war taxes were given by a number of people. Janet Reedy of Elkhart and Jim Sweigart of Goshen discussed possible options such as refusal to pay that portion of the income tax which goes to support war, payment made with an accompanying letter or protest, or voluntarily limiting income below the level of tax liability.

Following the presentations the group broke up into three workshops for further discussion. From these emerged a consensus on the need for a continuing support group such as this. Participants expect to draft a statement which can be presented to their respective congregations for consideration.

The seminar was planned by a New Call to Peacemaking Committee made up of members from six Church of the Brethren and Mennonite Churches in Goshen, with Virgil Brenneman from The Assembly (Mennonite) serving as chairman.

And the “4^th Mid-America New Call to Peacemaking” was held in November 1979. The theme was “Conscription of Youth and Wealth”:

The workshop on national service and voluntary service discussed a proposal by members of Rainbow Boulevard Mennonite Church, Kansas City, Kan., regarding a legal tax alternative which would involve cooperating with a national service plan.

In the workshop on conscription of wealth Bob Hull, secretary for peace and social concerns of the General Conference Mennonite Church, suggested alternatives to paying war taxes. Others offered their own suggestions.

Several persons expressed the desire to pay taxes only for nonmilitary programs, and said they wished there was legal provision for this, such as the World Peace Tax Fund. McSorley, who has had contacts on Capitol Hill, responded by saying that until there is a large grass-roots movement of tax resistance the WPTF doesn’t stand a chance.

The latter half of the workshop included sharing by Bruce Chrisman, Carbondale, Ill., who is involved in a federal criminal case, one of two in the U.S. involving tax resistance. His case is significant because it will provide a precedent either for or against tax refusal on the basis of conscience and religious convictions.

In 1971 Chrisman received draft counseling from James Dunn, pastor of the Champaign-Urbana (Ill.) Mennonite Church. He made a covenant with God to only pay taxes for humanitarian purposes. Since that time he has paid no federal income taxes.

It wasn’t until this year, however, that the government prosecuted him, charging that he willfully failed to disclose his gross income in 1975. “Willful” is the key term, because Chrisman claims he conscientiously chose not to disclose his income. He feels the government has purposely waited to build its case.

In the conclusion to his talk Chrisman said that when he first appeared in court on Oct. 1 this year he was “scared to death.” “Today,” he said, “I have no fear in me. God has given me an inner peace. I know I’m doing what He wants me to do.”

The Smoketown Consultation

The Gospel Herald covered “the Smoketown Consultation” of 10–11 July 1979, in which conservative Mennonites organized against innovations like war tax resistance. It noted that “All 25 persons invited were white males,” but also reproduced the statement that came out of the conference.

Several letters to the editor reacted to this news:

Harvey Yoder

“I… wondered about the inclusion of the specific war tax issue. Were individuals who sincerely hold to an alternate point of view asked to take part in the discussion? Again, I am not questioning the conclusions of the group so much as to ask whether any ‘by-invitation-only’ meeting can speak for the church with any more integrity than can existing boards and commissions of the church.”

John E. Lapp

Also wondered why the Smoketown crew picked out the war tax issue in particular.

Jim Drescher

“It is very easy to pick a Scripture verse to use to prove or disprove almost anything. The group at one point (Statement #2) speaks about total commitment to Jesus Christ but then uses quotations from the Apostle Paul (Statement #5) to validify payment of all taxes. If Jesus Christ is central, let’s use His example and specific words to guide us! I can imagine the Pentagon people jumping for joy upon hearing such a statement about taxes. I’m sure they are glad for this voluntary assurance (from ‘peace church’ members) that money will continue to roll in so that the military can increase its nuclear arsenal. Because of the apparent unquestioning payment of taxes by German Christians, Hitler was able to annihilate millions of persons. We (U.S.) will be able to do it with nuclear weapons Neat, eh?”

Greg & Ellen Bownan

“At Smoketown Ⅱ, when we assume the sisters of the church will take the opportunity to share their thoughts, we suggest that a fuller range of statements be reported. Issues, the unavoidable places where doctrine meets practical decisions, should be identified and addressed to give definition to the positive reaffirmation of the authority of Scripture and a renewed zeal for personal and church evangelism. And, for the grass roots, a minority report on the nonpayment of war taxes could be included.”

John Verburg

Verburg didn’t think much of all this talk about war taxes, saying that the peace witness was about more than opposition to military, so the war tax emphasis was sign of an imbalance. “We are not the flower children of the sixties. We are Jesus people and there is a big difference.”

When the General Board of the Mennonite Church met in November, the Smoketown consultation came up.:

[Gordon] Zook [executive secretary of the Board of Congregational Ministries] noted the difference between the Smoketown statement “that we should pay all taxes” and the statement on peacemaking passed by the General Assembly at Waterloo. The Waterloo statement recognizes the withholding of war taxes as a valid option. Which statement represents the church? he asked.

Peace Tax Fund Legislation

The 10 April 1979 edition included an article by Dan Slabaugh laying out the case for the World Peace Tax Fund bill. An editor’s note in that issue mentioned that “The U.S. copies of the March 6 issue of the Gospel Herald carried a center insert with cards that may be used by readers to encourage U.S. lawmakers to support the World Peace Tax Fund. The following article provides the author’s rationale for support of the Fund legislation. Readers who care to are encouraged to make use of these cards or to write their own leaders on its behalf.”

Why I support the World Peace Tax Fund

by Dan Slabaugh

Any collection of taxes for military purposes has created problems of conscience for those committed to the peaceful resolution of conflict. Many members of the “historic peace churches” have viewed war taxes as a denial of religious freedom since such payments forced them to engage in personal sin. The question has been put this way: “How can I, as a follower of the Prince of Peace, willingly provide the government with money that’s needed to pay for war?”

The most recent war tax in the United States, aside from the income tax, has been the federal telephone tax. This levy was initiated originally to support the Vietnam War, but is still continuing for a few more years. Many people have refused to pay this tax to the federal government. Instead, they have been sending the equivalent amount to the [“]Special Fund for Tax Resisters” of Mennonite Central Committee’s Peace Section, or to similar designated organizations.

To a smaller percentage of individuals the payment of the federal income tax (approximately 50 percent of which they know goes to support wars and military activity) also has been considered a matter of personal sin. They therefore have informed the government that in good conscience they cannot voluntarily pay that portion of their tax. In some cases persons have deposited the amount in a local bank where the Internal Revenue Service comes and “steals” it from them. By so doing these persons are freeing themselves of personal responsibility for the money’s eventual use and also providing a visible protest against the evil.

To most of these law-abiding, peace-loving people continual confrontation with their own government has been an unhappy prospect. So nearly a decade ago a small group of Christians at Ann Arbor, Michigan — with considerable faith in the American legislative process — came to believe that it might be possible to draft a bill and eventually convince the federal government to legalize “peace” for those citizens so inclined.

A faculty member and a few graduate students at the University of Michigan’s Law School drafted such a proposal. It provides, for the individual requesting it, a setting aside of that percentage of the federal income tax which the U.S. Attorney General would determine to be earmarked for military purposes. This amount would then be placed in a trust fund to be administered by a board of trustees to fund peaceful activities, as approved by the U.S. Congress.

This legislation, which has become known as the World Peace Tax Fund bill, was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by Ronald Dellums of California in 1972. In 1976 the National Council for a WPTF was invited to present its case in the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill was introduced into the Senate in 1977 by Senator Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon. In the last Congress it had 25 sponsors in the House of Representatives and the three in the Senate (The legislation was not enacted and so must be reintroduced to be considered by the present Congress.)

The World Peace Tax Fund bill is often misunderstood. It does not call for any tax relief or special favors benefiting anyone financially. The bill, if passed, probably will not affect the U.S. government’s military activities. In all likelihood it will not cut the military budget, or of itself, stop wars. And it will not diminish the need to continue peace teaching or peace activities.

But it will allow a citizen to legally refrain from contributing to the cost of war and violence. It will provide a fund to finance peace programs and support efforts to eliminate the causes of violent conflict.

The biggest obstacle to getting this bill passed in the U.S. Congress is the large number of people who say they are committed to peace, but who seemingly feel no responsibility regarding the government’s use of their tax money. As a result, legislators tell us that they can’t see the payment of war taxes as much of a problem because they get very few letters expressing concern about the matter.

To a large degree, Congress is “problem-oriented.” An alert young Congressman told us personally that “this bill probably will not be passed until enough of you refuse to pay war taxes — even if it means going to jail. In other words,” he was saying, “create a problem that Congress must deal with.”

I am convinced that the conscientious objector provision of the Selective Service act of 1940 never would have been included had it not been for the “problem” created by C.O.’s who refused induction during World War Ⅰ. As the U.S. was mobilizing for World War Ⅱ the government did not want another “problem” on its hands, so it agreed to make provisions for the C.O.’s — not necessarily out of concern for religious liberty, but in order to keep the boat from rocking too much.

We should remember that God’s prophets and even His own Son were seen as “problems” in terms of natural human tendencies toward power, selfishness and greed. Few of us like to “cause problems” for others. We like to work at solving them — and be successful in our efforts. But in matters of conscience, we haven’t been called to be successful, we have been called to be faithful.

---

“Conscience and War Taxes” is the title of a slide set produced by the National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund. A resources packet accompanies the 78 color slides, 20-minute cassette. “Conscience and War Taxes” can be obtained from MBCM Audiovisuals…

Lobbying didn’t always go so smoothly, as this report from a Mennonite study group at East Union Mennonite Church (28 Aug 1979) shows:

The first issue the class tackled was the payment of war taxes. In early 1976 U.S. Rep. Edward Mezvinsky was invited to church for Sunday lunch and a discussion of the war tax issue.

“He sidestepped every issue,” said Jim Yoder. Mezvinsky promised to vote for the World Peace Tax Fund Act if it ever made it to the floor of the House, but declined to help the bill out of committee.

“He spent most of his time expounding upon his efforts to kill the B-1 bomber,” recalled Nyle.

When the Fourth of July rolled around that Bicentennial year, the class sponsored an alternate celebration for the church. Guy Hershberger was asked to chair the meeting. He interviewed some of the local “veterans” — conscientious objectors Henry Miller, Henry Brenneman, and Sol Ropp — who had been badly mistreated by the U.S. Army during World War Ⅱ. He also discussed the war tax issue.

Later in the year the class presented a proposal to the congregation, asking the church to lend moral support to people who did not pay the portion of their taxes going for war. After initial misunderstandings and further discussion, the congregation approved the proposal.

Nyle [Kauffman] and Jim were the only class members making enough to have to worry about paying any taxes at all in 1976. Both withheld 33 percent of their estimated tax and sent a check for the amount to Mennonite Central Committee.