How you can resist funding the government →
arguments against tax resistance →
Carl M. Lehman
This is the eighteenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today we hit 1971.
A dam seems to have burst in , and any reluctance The Mennonite had about covering war tax resistance washed away.
In the concern was front and center, and readers could not help but be confronted by a variety of opinions on the subject.
A letter from John S. Swarr insisted that Jesus “commands us, as His followers, to bring peace and reconciliation in a world of strife and violence by committing our lives to unconditional love for our fellowmen.
Such a discipleship manifests itself in a radically different life style than that of the rest of the world.”
He asked, in this regard, “Can we, as Christians, responsible for all our neighbors, continue to pay taxes for the means of destruction which are used against our distant (only in physical distance) brothers?
This responsibility is our own, not Caesar’s.”
Christian love shown to a brother will not manifest itself in bombs and napalm, paid for with our money and silently allowed to be used.
It will, rather, manifest itself in actions of love, help, and concern.
It may result in our refusal to pay war taxes or cooperate with the draft, but at any rate it will mean avoiding nationalism for “No man can serve two masters.”
(That edition also announced the resignation of the editor.
The announcement was carefully vague, but subsequent letters to the editor hinted that there was something of a rebellion afoot against the “anti-American propaganda… all politics and sociology” that had replaced anodyne bible studies in the magazine’s pages.
The resignation takes effect in .
We’ll see if it makes a difference in the coverage of war tax resistance.)
A hundred people met to discuss war tax resistance at Bethel College Mennonite Church in at a meeting sponsored by the Western District Conference (which had recently passed a resolution in support of war tax resistance) and the Commission on Home Ministries of the General Conference Mennonite Church.
Don Kaufman gave some thoughts about Christian obedience to state authority, and Bob Calvert from the secular “War Tax Resistance” group spoke about the upcoming “spring offensive” anti-war actions.
Here are some excerpts about other parts of the conference from the report on the workshop in The Mennonite:
A Quaker physician from Denver, Arthur Evans, spoke of his experiences with the Internal Revenue Service spanning more than twenty-five years.
During World War Ⅱ, Evans’ conscience stirred him to withhold part of his taxes.
He said, “The trouble we’re now at is because we as a nation tried to overcome evil with the same methods that we decried of Hitler.
The thought occurred to me was that if I were a Jew in Germany, would I have paid taxes to Hitler to pay for my own crematorium?
Am I not a Jew in the United States perhaps paying taxes to create my own crematorium right now?
This is the burning question in my mind.”
Evans was sent to jail for not turning over to IRS some records which pertained to his income taxes.
He felt that doing so “would have been the first step in a crime against humanity.”
He acted partly upon the principle established in the Nuremberg war crimes trials that individuals have to decide what laws of their nation are just and what laws are unjust.
“I maintain that as I tried to follow my conscience this was the only way I could grow and this is the only way human beings can grow — as they are willing to follow conscience.
You deny conscience here, you deny conscience there, you won’t grow in what it means to be a human being.”
While spending ninety days in jail for contempt, he received letters from over a hundred and fifty individuals whom he did not know who supported his actions.
“None of us knows how we strengthen the community by following our own conscience.
I felt a power from the prayers and the loving concern of people who saw me suffering in jail,” he said.
The group discussed methods of withholding or reducing their taxes, but wanted to go beyond simply voicing their beliefs about war.
Participants felt a need to establish a simpler life-style that was a fuller response to the causes of violence.
Discussion centered around setting up voluntary service-type group arrangements and channeling earnings through the church’s voluntary service program.
To strengthen their own witness, participants in the workshop drew up a statement which they all signed.
That statement read:
We the undersigned have agreed together to find ways to end our financial support of America’s military efforts.
We have come from various denominations, occupations, age groups, and parts of the country.
As seekers, we have participated in a Workshop on War Taxes, held at the Bethel College Mennonite Chuch, , sponsored by committees for the Western District and the General Conference Mennonite Church.
Together, our consciences were prodded.
We have heard Christ call us to be peacemakers.
We have examined together the biblical teachings on the matter of paying taxes for war.
We have looked at the historical witness and examples of Anabaptist founders, and men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
We have tried to take seriously Christ’s call to love our enemies as He loves all men.
We have seen our guilt in our past payment of blood-money and are now looking for ways to end this involvement.
More vitally, we are seeking ways to make our money serve real human needs.
We realize this may lead to many types of action.
We approve and support all open, conscientious efforts to end war through Christian stewardship.
Specific actions could include any or all of the following: refusal of federal income tax payment, refusal to pay that part which goes for military purposes, refusal of the telephone excise tax, written protest accompanying income-tax returns, witnessing to the consciences of officials and employers who collect and enforce the tax laws, and increasing charitable giving.
We encourage the creation of voluntary-service-style communities which practice a lower level of consumption and present a Christian alternative to the present materialistic and militaristic character of American life.
We plead with the congregations and conferences of which we are members to follow Christ, their consciences, and the needs of their brothers in responding to our concern.
As a witness to our deranged national priorities and how they might be straightened out, I and others will make a public donation during of the money we have withheld from war, and will give it to a local group working for real human needs.
I hope you can see your way to join us.
David Janzen, a pastor and a philosophy instructor at Eastern Mennonite College, wrote an article on the Vietnam War that he’d originally hoped to place in the New York Times.
Instead, The Mennonite picked it up for its edition.
Excerpt:
Our consciences are sorely troubled concerning our tax money, which continues to make this unjust war possible.
The time is ripe for action.
Enough is enough.
Let us not commit violence.
No destruction of property.
No aggression against human beings.
We want to honor our nation.
We can only do so by correcting our mistakes.
The vital point is tax money.
Let us invite a million sensitive Americans to take a stand for conscience’ sake.
Let us tell the government, that unless it starts serious negotiations that lead to peace by , we will withhold our income tax and pay it into a Tax Conscience Fund.
We must organize people with conscience scruples.
I would suggest that concerned groups in universities, churches, and other organizations start registering people for united action.
A federal organization could coordinate the program.
Conscientious individuals would commit themselves to pay their total income tax, or the approximately 80 percent of it that is spent for war, into a tax conscience fund.
The money could be paid into special accounts at local banks.
We would make it available for rehabilitation of the war areas as soon as the war has ended.
A letter to the editor dissented from the recent flood of pro-resistance articles and letters:
Personally, I do not believe that there is such a thing as a war tax in existence.
If there were it would have had to be declared as such by Congress, as they pass all taxes.
This has not been done.
All expenses are paid out of one treasury.
It may be true that there are some Congressmen and politicians who have said that a certain tax is necessary to pay for the war.
This was their excuse for voting for it or working for its passage.
But that does not make it a war tax.
Nor do I believe that there is any individual who with any degree of accuracy can tell us what percent of our taxes goes for war purposes.
Not all the money voted for the Pentagon goes for war… [For instance t]he Coast Guard spends much of its time in saving lives at sea, which has nothing to do with war…
…[I]f I believe war is wrong it becomes my obligation to do what I can to stop it.
My refusing to pay taxes does not stop it, for most people are still paying their tax.
If I disobey a law, especially publicly, I lose my influence over my non-Christian neighbor that I am supposedly trying to win to Christ.
The articles on the war tax workshop and Rensberger’s discussion of loyalty to God vs. country are especially thought-provoking.
Is there interest in having workshops on these subjects in many areas of the conference on the local level?
Would leaders be available from the war tax workshop, the conference, or seminary to help with such workshops where hundreds of lay people could discuss and think together about a united commitment that may make some impact on communities and government?
Another letter in the same issue reported on a silent vigil held before the offices of Bell Telephone Company in Newton Kansas on :
They came to turn over money which they had not been paying on their telephone bill to a community youth organization called Someplace.
They came as concerned Christians to tell others that they were not paying the federal tax portion of their telephone bill because the tax had been levied specifically for war purposes.
Approximately ninety persons accepted a hand-out sheet explaining the federal telephone tax and explaining why many Christians no longer pay that portion.
Seventy-eight dollars was given to Someplace and it is expected that as more Christians hear about this alternative, more money will be turned over to various community organizations.
There is a question of where to get more specific information on war taxes.
Jacob Friesen tells how he is withholding the excise tax on his telephone bill and writing a letter each month to the President with copies going also to his senator and congressional representative.
“I have chosen each month to vote ‘no’ on war.”
Probably, no other living person has spent as much time in Civilian Public Service as I have.
During that time, and since, I associated with many young men who struggled with their conscience.
I argued with some, but only with those who wanted to argue, and usually, it was with some who had conscientiously chosen either noncombatant or full military service.
I also knew quite intimately a few who struggled with an attempt at total separation from all war effort, including nonregistration.
This was at a time when the nation was solidly supporting World War Ⅱ.
Today, the Vietnam war is not popular and the climate for vigorous opposition is utterly different from what it was then.
I deeply respected the convictions of the absolutist then as I do now and have never cared to debate their point of view, even though it did not coincide with mine.
It does seem to me, however, that there has been growing confusion about the payment of taxes during wartime.
There is no doubt a sense in which nonpayment finds it place, in the continuum from all-out participation to suicidal protest.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt had some sympathetic appreciation for conscientious objectors.
While visiting one of the camps, she was reported to have remarked that short of living on a desert island, it was impossible to live without being involved in the war to some degree.
Because there is truth in this, it is most difficult to talk about a clearly right or a clearly wrong position.
However, if we believe the way of war is inherently wrong our conscience will push us as far away from participation as possible, consistent with other considerations, human and divine, that we cannot conscientiously ignore.
Just where does nonpayment of taxes belong on this continuum?
We need to distinguish between refusing to participate in war as an immoral act, on the one hand, and the moral compulsion to do what we can to stop an immoral war on the other.
Part of the confusion concerning nonpayment of taxes has to do with failure to distinguish clearly between these two somewhat different moral considerations.
Nonpayment of taxes is not getting much serious consideration from our traditional Mennonite nonresistant believer, because it does not relate with his views on participation as an immoral act.
The “give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” edict of Jesus makes it difficult for him to see a clear immoral act in paying taxes, even though he knows that a large portion is needed for war purposes.
The case becomes clearer for the person whose conscience is also concerned with a moral compulsion to do something about stopping the war.
Today, many of us believe we need to be as much concerned about our moral obligation as citizens of our country to do what we can to stop our country’s immoral war as we are about participation in the immoral act of war.
Is payment of taxes an immoral act? We have already pointed out that, traditionally, Mennonites did not consider payment of taxes immoral, in part, at least, because of Jesus’ edict.
However, when taxes are labeled “war taxes” as the telephone excise tax is, many begin to have second thoughts.
When mustaches were popular among military men, Mennonites shunned mustaches.
Guilt by association becomes a real consideration.
What everyone ought to know is that these taxes all go into the same general treasury.
The “war tax” label on the telephone excise tax has significance only in that it helped ease it through Congress, and none, whatsoever, as to its use.
The use of tax money for war purposes is an entirely separate matter, and is determined by appropriations for this purpose by Congress.
So long as Congress appropriates what the Pentagon asks for with overwhelming majorities, nonpayment of taxes will have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of money available for war purposes.
But, unfortunately, it does have something to do with the availability of funds for less popular but terribly important poverty programs as well as health and education programs. Those who do not pay their taxes must realize that the net effect, if any, is not at all what they have in mind.
Is nonpayment effective politically? Many of those who do not pay taxes are probably more concerned about the political impact this might have, and hope it will help turn our country away from war.
Certainly, this would seem like much more solid ground.
The sheer drama of civil disobedience for the sake of conscience makes an impact that cannot be ignored.
Even though much of the reaction may be negative, this is not necessarily bad.
Jesus’ crucifixion was the result of negative reaction, too.
The point is, let us be clear about what we are doing and why we are doing it.
Apart from the attention-getting quality of nonpayment of taxes, the technique, however, is subject to serious questions.
It is essentially a pitch to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and to the telephone company, neither of which has anything to do with determining policy concerning Vietnam.
Witnessing to Internal Revenue about such matters is about as effective as writing a letter to a computer.
The telephone company has trouble enough giving good telephone service, without being harassed about something for which it has no responsibility and for which it has no competence.
We do all have a direct line to the White House and to Congress.
Here are the people who can do something about it.
If we believe, as literally millions of Americans are now believing, that our presence in Vietnam is a tragic mistake, these are the people to talk to.
I suspect Jesus was more of a tax economist than are some of His spokesmen when He got a bit vague about payment of taxes.
Departing editor Maynard Shelly, in the , reflected on the classic Anabaptist work Martyrs Mirror and on the urge to persecute those who don’t go along with institutions.
He concluded:
I dare you to turn to the Martyrs Mirror and read military service and war taxes where the old book says baptism.
All of a sudden, those words put down on paper in will be more up to date than the news in tomorrow morning’s newspaper.
Raymond Regier wrote a letter in response to Lehman’s article.
Some of his thoughts:
It is extremely difficult to live as we are used to living and not pay taxes, taxes which finance both warfare and many beneficial things.
But just because nonpayment is difficult, because it has not traditionally been done by Mennonites, does not say that the payment of taxes is not an integral part of the waging of modern war.
Modern warfare and especially Vietnamization require sophisticated technology and an enormous sum of money, perhaps even more than it needs drafted manpower.
Is a man any less responsible for the way his money is used than he is for the way his body is used?
The “give unto Caesar” quote, it seems to me, is tragically misused to give the appearance of avoiding complicity in our nation’s war making.
Can anyone seriously imagine that Jesus would be paying taxes to finance our Vietnam war or our nuclear deterrent?
Or that He would be earning enough to pay taxes at all?…
If one is interested in a direct line to the White House and Congress, wouldn’t an announcement by the letter writer that taxes have been withheld lend credibility to the intensity of his feelings and the seriousness with which he regards the matter?
The General Conference considered a statement on “The Way of Peace” at its meeting in Fresno that included a war tax resistance plank.
The version that appeared in the edition of The Mennonite was somewhat mangled, but I found a better version:
The levying of war taxes is another form of conscription which, along with the conscription of manpower, makes war possible.
We are accountable to God for the use of our financial resources and should protest the use of our taxes in the promotion and waging of war.
We stand by those who feel called to resist the payment of that portion of taxes being used for military purposes.
The Conference ratified the statement, with 73.4% of delegates voting in favor of it, though the war tax resistance plank, and another having to do with resistance to the Selective Service system, were the most controversial.
The statement updated previous statements on peace put out by the conference in and .
It was printed up in “a twenty-page illustrated booklet” and distributed to the various churches in the Conference.
The edition included a note about a creative form of tax resistance using a method I haven’t seen before:
In some ways, the government can be involved in redirecting taxes that are withheld in protest of military policies.
An Old Mennonite pastor preferred to use a portion of his taxes for relief work rather than to support the United States military.
His protest took on a positive, creative form.
He wrote two checks to pay his income tax.
One check covered that proportion of his tax dollar which supports government actions that he approves.
This he made out to the federal government.
The portion which would have gone to war was made out to the Mennonite Central Committee.
He sent both checks to the Internal Revenue Service with a letter explaining his actions and requesting that the IRS forward the second check on to MCC headquarters.
A stamped, addressed envelope was enclosed.
The government complied.
Tax Talk, a war-tax-resistance bulletin, commented on the method used: “This action effectively reached three levels.
First, symbolically, it shows nonsupport of war.
Secondly, it personally involves people in the IRS in a protest and in a positive attempt to help those whose lives our tax dollars have helped totally disrupt, while removing tax dollars (at least for the moment) from contributing to that destruction.”
Although the Internal Revenue Service forwarded the check, they soon attached the pastor’s bank account to reclaim that part of the tax which he refused to directly pay.
The Arvada Mennonite Church, Arvada, Colo., has notified Mountain Bell Telephone Company that the congregation has agreed “to cease voluntary payment of the 10 percent federal telephone tax levied against the citizens of this country for the support of the war in Vietnam.”
The money which would have been spent on the federal tax will be contributed to the Mennonite Central Committee for alleviation of suffering in Vietnam.
In its letter to the telephone company, the congregation said, “The decision to refrain from willingly paying a specifically legislated war tax is an expression of the sorrow and protest of the church over the suffering and loss of life in Vietnam, both American and Vietnamese, and the unwillingness of the United States to allow the citizens of that country engaged in civil strife to determine their own destiny and fashion their own future in relation to the world community of nations.”
The letter said the church did not intend “to defraud our nation which we love, or by secret means to deprive it of its claim upon citizens for support in its just and God-given duties.
Rather we openly seek to make this expression a call for justice and peace.”
In such cases, the telephone company does not terminate service or collect the tax, but notifies the Internal Revenue Service.
The Internal Revenue Service eventually takes the required amount plus interest from the bank account of the individual or organization refusing the tax.
This is the twenty-second in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today
brings us up to 1975.
The Mennonite General Conference’s Commission on Home Ministries was often at
the forefront (or ahead of the forefront) of the Conference’s policies on war
tax resistance. But they seem to have gotten caught flat-footed at their annual
meeting in . Here’s an
excerpt from The Mennonite’s coverage:
The commission devoted most of to the war tax question. The discussion was sharpened by a
request which had come to the General Conference from one of its employees not
to withhold her income tax.
The board members, after lengthy and vigorous debate, could not agree on what
course of action to take. They did agree to the following statement, however:
“We would like to support in spirit the concerns of church employees
requesting nonwithholding of war taxes, but we are not together on what kind
of action we can take.”
It was agreed that further attention needs to be given to this issue, and the
commission decided to call an inter-Mennonite study conference later this year
to look at the theological, political, and historical issues involved in war
tax resistance.
Other participants in the Council of Commissions cautioned the General
Conference to tread softly on this question because it has the potential of
being an explosive issue. Some voiced concern about grass roots reactions. It
was felt that most constituents would not favor the General Conference’s
involvement in this type of activity. The Division of Administration said that
it was fearful that if a move is made not to withhold war taxes from
conference employees’ paychecks, the General Conference might be jeopardizing
its nonprofit status.
A war tax resistance fund has been established and a war tax newsletter
started by CHM.
CHM
is still exploring the legal aspects of not withholding federal income tax
from the paychecks of central office employees who so request. An
inter-Mennonite study conference will be called sometime
to discuss the theological issues
involved.
[W]hen the war in Indochina was building up to its most destructive levels
ever, I felt an urgency to stop paying all war taxes. However, under the
present
IRS
system there is no way to say, “Yes, we are willing to pay the ‘regular’
taxes, but not the portion that goes for military expenses” all tax monies are
channeled into one general treasury. The only way to say no war taxes is to
reduce the amount of federal income tax one pays. So, for
, after listing the usual itemized
deductions, I claimed the amount of the “taxable income” as a “war crimes
deduction.”
Since the
IRS
would not accept that claim, we decided to appeal their decision. With some
“fear and trembling” we prepared our statement for the tax court, not knowing
just what to expect from the representatives of an agency that often seems to
be hostile toward people who oppose the payment of taxes for war purposes. We
are grateful that the Lord did calm our spirits so that we could speak freely.
We were somewhat surprised when the tax court referee expressed a real
openness to hear our prepared statement concerning the bases for opposition to
war taxes. We were also free to share something about the life of our church
community as the context for making ethical decisions. We were so grateful for
the receptive spirit we sensed in the judge, the
IRS’s
counsel, the clerks, and the bailiff.…
We are seeking for other alternatives: one is to work at simplifying our
“needs,” reduce our consumption of material goods, and reduce our taxable
income, thereby making more resources available to the church-community to be
used to extend its mission and outreach. We believe the clearest answer to war
taxes is the gathered community of disciples, seeking together for alternative
forms of economic life that reduce our tax liability.
In our pilgrimage, we have been led to live in close proximity, for some to
work in paying jobs and some in non-remunerative work, and to share all our
resources. We believe this kind of relationship and commitment to one another
is an important aspect of the life of a church-community and is to be
understood as an open-ended time commitment. Some Christian communities, with
a similar emphasis on service, poverty, and sharing of resources, have
obtained legal status as “apostolic orders” and are thus able to devote all
their resources to the witness and service they can offer to people in the
name of Christ, rather than to channel any tax monies through the hands of
Caesar
(IRS).
The cover story of the issue
took the form of a poem, by Peter J. Ediger, called
Christ and Caesar: A ballad of faith.
It beckoned its readers to imagine the history of the Mennonites and the
suffering and martyrdom and struggles the sect go through as they “hear the
call of God / and followed Christ into the Kingdom of Loving Enemies / and
ceased from following Caesar into his Kingdom of Killing Enemies.” But over
time the Mennonites grew soft, while Caesar kept growing and becoming more
powerful and more militaristic.
and there was uneasiness in the revelation that people of the faith
were giving more money for war than for all the causes of the kingdom of the Lord…
And the sons and daughters of the enemy-loving kingdom said what shall we do
and some responding quickly said
we must pay our taxes we must give to Caesar what is Caesar’s
we must be subject to the powers that be
and others said yes we must give to Caesar what is his and to God what is God’s
as for our conscience that belongs to God
and as for earth’s resources, does Caesar really have legitimate claim
or is the earth, and all that in it is, the Lord’s?
Can Caesar command us to use earth’s resources to pay for his killings?
And some sons and daughters of the faith said no
and refused to pay voluntarily that portion of their taxes designated for defense
offering the money for the use of human help instead.
And in America church agencies faced difficult decisions
should they withhold Caesar’s taxes from employees who for conscience’ sake requested noncompliance?
Should they respect the law of Caesar or the conscience of faith?
And some structures and some persons of faith were threatened by such questions sensing many implications
and officers advised that issues should be carefully researched.
And in America’s House of Representatives
legislation called the World Peace Tax Fund Act was introduced
seeking provision for channeling of tax monies into pursuits of peace
and some were hopeful that this might ease their conscience problem
and others questioned whether it would even be enacted
and if it might become
another way for Caesar to still the voices of protest.
And now the sons and daughters of the enemy-loving kingdom
are calling for a conference on the war tax program
and from across America and Canada they will come
to seek the Light, to walk in Love, to discern and do the Truth.
And so forth. A less versified and more skeptical article immediately followed:
“Tax
resistance — A form of protest?” by Carl M. Lehman — one of the best
critiques of modern war tax resistance I have read.
The tragedy of Vietnam and the part played by our country has led some to a
form of protest heretofore little known among our people — resistance to
paying taxes. The fact that the war has been so widely criticized both by
pacifists and nonpacifists has had something to do with this phenomenon. What
a sensitive pacifist felt he could do during World War Ⅱ, when all his friends
and neighbors were deeply involved in the war effort, was usually different
from what he would do during a Vietnam War.
Tax resistance is a form of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience itself is
deeply rooted in the origins of our church, as it is in the beginnings of our
land. But it has traditionally only been used in ultimate tests of loyalty to
God. To use tax resistance under other circumstances is a breakaway from our
Anabaptist tradition. To use it lightly is an affront to government by the
people.
I have a profound respect for those who believe deeply this is the course they
must take. God uses people with courage and conviction, even if he has to
change them a bit. I must admit however that I am perplexed as I try to
understand how some have arrived at their decision not to pay taxes.
The activist I understand. He will use any means he believes right to agitate
and bring about a change. Most will stop short of physical violence, but I
sometimes wonder about that. People can be violated more completely in other
ways.
I understand the absolutist, and I understand the literalist who will not eat
meat offered to idols. I do not find it easy to understand Mennonite tax
resisters who are neither literalists nor agitators.
It is sometimes suggested that modern warfare has made the individual soldier
relatively unimportant. Armament is all-important. Armament costs staggering
amounts of money and today’s conscientious objector is straining at a gnat as
he swallows a camel if he does not refuse to pay taxes.
There is a certain logic to this. Unfortunately it equates money with people.
This is not only bad economics but bad Christianity. Money is a medium of
exchange; people are not. Money does not kill people; people kill people. Only
people make guns and bombs people use to kill people. Maybe Jesus had
this in mind when he looked at the coin and said “Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s”?
What is meant by war taxes?
Tax resisters are not opposed to paying taxes as such, only to paying war
taxes. This poses a problem, for we really do not have war taxes. We have a
federal income tax, import duties, and excise taxes on things like liquor,
tobacco, and telephone service. These taxes flow into the general treasury and
are commingled. They are used only as Congress appropriates money out of the
treasury. The Internal Revenue Service has nothing to do with how the money is
spent. The only money segregated is that which goes into special trust funds
such as social security, unemployment compensation, and highway construction.
Some have singled out the telephone excise tax with the notion that the
proceeds are for military purposes in a way not true for other taxes. Our
government does have a long tradition of levying additional excise taxes as it
wages war, both to control inflation and to replenish the treasury.
by far
the most important source of revenue has been the income tax. Excise taxes
were increased, too, but were no longer the major source of revenue. By
they accounted for less than 7 percent with
the telephone tax providing about 1 percent. None of this is used for military
purposes any more than is any other tax. The fact that Congress called it a
“defense tax” when initiated in and
reenacted in has no bearing on its use, only
on its palatability for passage.
What is meant by the term “war taxes” varies with the user. It is usually
someone’s calculation of the percentage of the president’s proposed national
budget which the president suggests be used for military purposes. This
percentage varies. Those who want it to look small include social security
payments as part of the total budget. Presidents now publish budgets showing
it that way.
There is also disagreement as to what is to be included as military
spending. The often-publicized 60 percent is calculated by first removing
social security from the budget. Everything related to wars, past, present,
and future, is then lumped together. Those willing to care for veterans and
who believe the government should pay interest on war debts drop it to 40
percent. Arbitrarily, resisters then figure that 60 percent or 40 percent of
their taxes are “war taxes” and deduct this from the amount they pay.
There is no legal basis for it, just a logic that is easily grasped.
What actually happens?
Much of the discussion about the moral basis for tax resistance has not been
clear. The dominant note is that waging war is evil; our taxes increase the
magnitude of war; if the government does not get our taxes, the evil is
reduced accordingly. It is not clear why, if this is true, we would want to
withhold only 60 percent. Why not withhold 100 percent and further reduce the
evil?
The supposition apparently is that the other 40 percent will go for functions
of government resisters are willing to support. Unfortunately this is not
true, as we will see in a minute.
Federal spending is a function of government not related to collecting taxes.
It is the responsibility of a different group of people. Talking to the
telephone company or to the Internal Revenue Service about the use of your tax
money is as pointless as arguing with the janitor at the Chase Manhattan Bank
about giving you a loan.
The amount the federal government spends for a given purpose is only
indirectly related, if at all, to the amount collected in taxes. If you know
about the federal debt, you know this. Nor is the amount spent determined by
the president’s budget. The budget is a plan the Congress may or may not
follow when it passes appropriation bills.
The amount of tax money collected does have an eventual effect on the amount
spent inasmuch as Congress sets for itself borrowing limits — limits which it
keeps changing. When a tax resister withholds a dollar from the government,
the government can either increase its borrowing by a dollar or decrease its
spending by that amount. What the resister needs to understand is that defense
appropriations are almost always approved by overwhelming majorities. As long
as the Pentagon receives this kind of support, tax resistance will have no
effect at all on the amount of money available for war. What tax resisters
actually do is either force a cut in highly desirable programs such as aid to
education — or increase the national debt. In either case an even larger
percent of the money they pay goes for military purposes.
It would be just as reasonable for a Mennonite farmer to withhold 10 percent
of his wheat from the market because 10 percent of all wheat produced was
found to be used directly or indirectly for military purposes. Soldiers would
still get their bread and so would all but the poorest of Americans.
Can the tax resister play a useful role?
Civil disobedience has been used by the church ever since the day Peter said.
“We must obey God rather than men.” The resister who believes in direct action
as a way to call attention to the terrible evil of a Vietnam War may well have
a role to play. God has many ways of using people. Some of us, however, find
it difficult to reconcile it with the teaching and spirit of Jesus. Harassing
telephone company employees and the Internal Revenue Service is not in keeping
with an invitation to Zacchaeusto come down from the sycamore tree. We may not
mean to harass them, but how do they feel about it?
Why not turn to congressmen? They decide how our money is to be used. This is
where our attention must focus if we are serious about a responsible Christian
witness. We elect them and they need to know what we think. Our letters, our
telephone calls, and our visits are important to them. Because so few write
and so few visit, our voice becomes as the voice of a thousand.
Working thus with Congress has not been without effect. Perhaps a World Peace
Tax Fund bill will not become law, but working for it has been constructive.
Such a provision, too, has its limitations, as do all alternative service
programs. Let us not delude ourselves about any imagined effect on military
spending. It would be tragic if such an enactment were to assuage our
conscience and we were to reduce our pressure on Congress to keep military
spending down.
(I sent a link to the above article to wtr-s — a mailing list for people interested in war tax resistance — and asked how they would respond to Lehman’s arguments.
Click here to see the responses.)
Following this came
the
news that the Commission on Home Ministries had come up with a proposed
solution to the problem of employees of General Conference Mennonite Church
institutions who wanted not to have war taxes withheld from their paychecks.
The proposal was “based on the research and recommendations of Ruth C.
Stoltzfus, a Boston law student who spent the summer on a special war tax
research assignment for CHM.”
The proposal recommended that the
church agency ceases withholding from the employee who is conscientiously
opposed to this. At the next interval when withheld funds are paid over to the
government, submit a statement along with the withheld non-war percentage of
taxes explaining that this action is based on your claim under the First
Amendment and on the AFSC
case which was reversed on other grounds.
According to Stoltzfus,
criminal prosecution of the church agency would be “extremely unlikely, both
in view of the lack of ‘evil motive’ and the reasonable cause to have acted on
the basis of a district court case.”
The district court decision had already been overturned by this time, but the
Commission felt they could still rely on it because:
The U.S. Supreme
Court later overturned the district court decision, but only on the basis that
such an injunction [the
AFSC’s,
demanding the return of already paid withholding taxes] could not be served
against the Internal Revenue Service. The court did not address the religious
claim.
The recommendation to the General Conference would bypass the injunction
difficulty, since it would not require the conference to sue for a refund.
Thus if the government brought suit against the conference, conscientious
refusal to withhold war taxes could be tested in court on its own merits.
Some 115 persons gathered at First Mennonite Church in Kitchener, Ontario,
to seek
theological and practical discernment on war tax issues. Their concern grew
out of the Mennonite and Brethren in Christ heritage of the way of peace and
the growing menace of the world arms race.
Unlike some Mennonite peace gatherings of the past decade, the under-thirty
set did not predominate at Kitchener. Laborers, pastors, homemakers, and
teachers shared their concerns. Students from as far as Swift Current Bible
Institute and Eastern Mennnonite College came to Kitchener.
A response recommended specifically for
U.S. citizens
suggested refusal “to pay federal tax, or a percentage thereof, since such a
large part is used for military purposes, and… willingness to accept the legal
consequences of such a conscientious objection to supporting war,
acknowledging the illegal aspect of the act and inviting the opportunities to
witness at various levels which it brings.”
It included a call to “bring taxable income below the taxable level by
adjusting standard of living through earning less income, through donating up
to the maximum allowable 50 percent of income to charitable causes or through
other types of deduction and/or dependent claiming which are legally
allowable.”
Responses recommended for Canadians included to “call upon our government to
legislate against the export of military weapons and systems” and to “affirm
and support individuals who feel led to actions (actual or symbolic) that
focus conscientious objection in particular ways:
Tax withholding, a withholding of that portion to taxes going for defense
as a symbolic act
Tax overpayment, an overpayment of that portion of the
GNP
that derives from defense export.”
Other action recommendations affirmed “that Mennonite institutions make
allowance for individual expression of conscience concerning tax refusal and
withholding,” “that the Meetinghouse format deal with the war tax
issue as soon as possible,” and “that a study guide and packet of resource
material on the war tax issue be made available to congregations for further
discernment on the matter.”
Conference planners Harold Regier and Peter Ediger, editors of “God and
Caesar,” a war tax newsletter from Newton, Kansas, and Ted Koontz of
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.) indicated
plans to carry on efforts to raise consciousness about war tax and militarism
issues, while the world waits for Armageddon.
There was also coverage of war tax resistance in The Mennonite that was unconnected, or largely so, with the tussle over withholding from Conference employees.
A letter to the editor declared the writer “fascinated by the views on tax payment… when Jesus made a fairly clear statement on that subject almost 2,000 years ago.”
In his mind, Americans’ high earnings relative to those of citizens of other countries are due to the actions of the American government, so “in a way our earnings are Caesar’s to start with.”
Carl Lehman penned a third in his series of patiently exasperated essays arguing against war tax resistance.
He reiterates his assertion that there are no “war taxes” — no tax whose proceeds are devoted solely to military expenses.
And he says that the common practice of refusing to pay a percentage of your income tax that is equivalent to the percent of the federal budget devoted to military expenses doesn’t make much sense when you hold it up to scrutiny.
There’s little to suggest that withholding some number of dollars from the government is going to mean even a dime less will be spent on the military.
Bothering IRS agents, who don’t set government spending policy, is pointlessly annoying.
Furthermore he wanted it known that Mennonites like him who oppose war tax resistance are also being conscientious, and should not be asked to violate their consciences.
[T]he center of my using this method of resisting is the opportunity present to witness to many individuals and groups about my feelings around peace issues.
My tax resistance brings my convictions into the awareness of a much wider forum of my fellows than just the IRS; many facets of my life are touched and opened to people not otherwise thinking of how much we allow ourselves to be used by the government to do evil.
She gave several examples: her employers at a Lutheran church who ultimately decided to stop withholding taxes from her salary, a real estate agent who learned of a federal tax lien against her, the officers of a bank who refused her a loan because of that lien, IRS agents who came to seize her car.
Eric Coursey was even more fed up than Lehman.
Just look at the darned Bible, he wrote. He gave the by-now-familiar tour of Romans 13, Matthew 17, Matthew 22, and so forth, and accused those who weren’t willing to go along with his interpretation of those verses of preferring modern cultural trends to the Word of God.
Harold R. Regier, the Commission on Home Ministries secretary for peace and social concerns, had an op-ed in the edition on the social responsibilities of Christians.
At first he struck a tone that harmonized with Coursey’s complaint: “Too often we buckle under the heresy some call ‘civil religion.’
Social, political, and economic values determine the shape of our faith.
The world presses us into its mold.”
But rather than counseling obedience, as Coursey did, he counseled “prophetic witness,” and gave this example:
On , the judgment of a U.S. tax court ruled that the levying of taxes for war purposes does not interfere with the individual’s free exercise of religion.
If religion means only to worship together in a building or only to relate your personal self to God, then paying military taxes is no violation of religion.
But if our religion moves us from the pew to see our neighbors as part of God’s world, then that court couldn’t be more wrong.
Some overdue skepticism about the World Peace Tax Fund act started to surface in the pages of The Mennonite in too.
This brief note comes from the edition:
Objections to the World Peace Tax Fund Act were stated in the first prize essay of the C. Henry Smith Peace Oratorical Contest.
Winner Phil M. Shenk, student at Eastern Mennonite College, Harrisonburg, Virginia, points out that the fund would not reduce the military budget and may lull the consciences of nonresistant persons, diluting “the church’s prophetic voice against the world’s ungodly love for war.”
The fund is a proposal in the U.S. Congress in which conscientious objectors could designate their federal income, estate, and gift taxes for a special fund devoted to nonmilitary purposes.
An article by Shenk followed, in the edition:
Mennonite church bodies are officially recognizing the World Peace Tax Fund (WPTF) as an attractive option for a peace witness.
Yet, is the WPTF a biblically faithful response to a war-mongering world?
Does it fit the nature of Christ’s gospel?
The WPTF would change the Internal Revenue Code, allowing conscientious objectors to channel the military portion of their federal income, estate, and gift taxes to a special fund devoted to “nonmilitary purposes.”
But here, as in conscription, does the legitimization of objection to war strengthen the protest or does it mortally wound personal conviction and severely weaken social impact?
The church confronts a world at odds with its values.
The world values its military budgets.
The polaric opposite of this value system is found in the love of Christ which prioritizes life.
Because of Christ’s spirit of love, the church’s whole mission must call the world to change its doom-full directions away from death into life.
This is a call to salvation, and, Andre Trocme declares, it is a “doctrine applicable to a society, as well as to an individual.”
The character of this salvation is found in the suffering-servant nature of the Savior.
Christ did not withdraw in the face of suffering.
He purposefully rejected the temptation to create an insulated life and instead faithfully extended his life and values among people who finally killed him for it.
Today we call this agape or self-giving love.
Agape finds its sole justification in the revelation of God as interpreted in Scripture.
The WPTF concept, on the other hand, appears to rely heavily on the state-decreed right of the individual to the free exercise of religion.
By offering the opportunity to avoid financial participation in war, the state claims to respect the consciences of those persons opposing war.
But what exactly is being respected here?
Does this conscience have only to do with individual personal values, or does its sphere of influence penetrate the social realm as well?
The latter is a political challenge.
The WPTF obviously would strengthen official respect for the personal consciences of those persons opposed to financial participation in war.
But what impact would the WPTF have on the social consciences of persons opposed to war?
Might it not tend to dilute the church’s prophetic voice against the world’s ungodly love for war?
The early church was seduced by the Roman emperor Constantine’s legalization of the church.
Its strength was sapped; its faith made tolerant by tolerance.
Official recognition of the church was fourth-century doublespeak for subsuming it within the state’s umbrella of political support, itemization, and diluted plurality.
The Mennonite church has been aptly characterized as the “quiet in the land,” and more recently, the “silent in the suburbs.”
We would do well to critically look at how special legal exemptions in the past have influenced our convictions against war.
Special niches tend to foster reclusive passivity.
The objection could be raised that the WPTF is an act of positive involvement instead of an act of withdrawal.
It diverts tax monies into peace-promoting activities.
Just as doing voluntary service is seen as more constructive than sitting in jail, the legal alternative in the WPTF is taken to be more responsible than tax resistance.
But is this really true?
I think not.
The church’s faithful response would include both positive action and negative protest.
What if the draft-age persons illegally refused to comply with the draft while nondraftable brothers and sisters voluntarily furthered peace positively in voluntary service?
Is this not a more balanced peace agenda for the church?
Similarly, though the war tax issue hits all wage earners, the current high standard of living allows the church to do both again — protest by refusing to pay war taxes and at the same time promote peace positively by giving time and money to peace projects.
It is vain thinking to proffer the WPTF as a way to reduce the military budget.
The military will get its money anyway, as long as the majority of people are oblivious of the inhumanness and ungodliness of killing.
It is imperative that the strongest most diligent efforts of protest be maintained, even when confronted with an unbelieving and hostile generation.
Though affirmed years ago, Tertullian’s words still ring true: “The blood of martyrs is seed.”
What resources then does the church have to protest with?
I cannot improve on John Howard Yoder when he says that at times “the most effective way to take responsibility is to refuse to collaborate… This refusal is not a withdrawal from society.
It is rather a major negative intervention within the process of social change, a refusal to use unworthy means even for what seems to be a worthy end.”
Thus, as an alternative to the WPTF, I submit simple yet active tax resistance as the best, most faithful way in which the church can witness to society on war taxes.
True, the money will be eventually taken by the Internal Revenue Service and the military, yet not without sparking some public interest and provoking numerous forums in which to voice one’s concern.
Worldly priorities must be objected to in word and deed.
If the objecting deeds are performed legally, they register little if any protest.
If consciously illegal, they register an unequivocal refusal to agree with the world’s values.
The latter gets the attention of the state, the former does not.
Simple tax resistance would free the church to spend its energies calling the whole world to salvation rather than saving just itself.
The church’s “in-ness” but “not-of-ness” demands that it be actively concerned about the nonchurched world.
Christ as Lord is subject to no other authority.
Because of this, the church’s most crucial task is to prophetically and faithfully enact and promote Christ’s values in life without regard for political limitations or definitions.
The politics of Jesus are not those of compromise, but those of dogged, active, and consistent faithfulness.
This is the twenty-fifth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today I’m going to try to cover 1978.
I say “try” because there was a frenzy of war tax resistance activity reported in The Mennonite .
Maybe I can try to sort it thematically…
A New Call to Peacemaking
“A New Call to Peacemaking” was an initiative coordinated by Mennonite, Quaker, and Brethren activists that began in and would eventually culminate in a statement urging people, Christians in particular, to refuse to pay taxes for war.
The Mennonite General Conference’s Peace Section,
U.S. division, met
and its executive secretary, John K. Stoner, reported that the Call
“has
gained widespread support.”
Invited to the meeting are 300 persons — Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites.
Named the New Call to Peacemaking, this coalition of historic peace churches
believes that “the time has come for all Christians and people of all faiths
to renounce war on religious and moral grounds.”
During the last year twenty-six regional New Call to Peacemaking meetings, involving more than 1500 persons, took a new look at the teachings of their churches.
They gave special attention to war and violence which they continue to see as denials of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Not surprisingly the groups agreed to urge upon all governments “effective
steps toward international disarmament.” However, none of the regional
meetings expressed the hope that politicians, soldiers, and diplomats would
put an end to war. Rather, the thought was that people at the grass-roots
level must demand a change in the system. Further, the idea was often
expressed that tax resistance and civil disobedience are necessary tactics in
convincing governments that a new order can bring security in place of the
present insecurity.
A New Call to Peacemaking conference which convened at Old Chatham, New York, last April, asked itself rhetorically, “Are we going to pray for peace, and pay for war?” A similar conference in Wichita, Kansas, gave its encouragement to “individuals who feel called to resist the payment of the military portion of their federal taxes.”
When the national conference convenes in Green Lake it will be receiving
requests from the regional meetings for a strong position on tax resistance
proposals. It will also be asked to give guidance to individuals and church
organizations on approaches to tax resistance. Theological, economic, and
social justice issues are also on the agenda.
“Citizens should organize themselves and act without waiting for government, especially the major powers, to take positive action,” says Robert Johansen in a paper being studied by the Green Lake delegates.
In another document prepared for the Green Lake meeting, Lois Barrett, a
Mennonite journalist from Wichita, Kansas, notes that the peace churches have
long “recognized refusal to pay war taxes as one of many valid witnesses
against war.”
In the Church of the Brethren recommended “that all who feel the concern be encouraged to express their protest and testimonies through letters accompanying their tax returns, whether accompanied by payment or not.” In the General Conference Mennonite Church said, “We stand by those who feel called to resist the payment of that portion of taxes being used for military purposes.”
The number of persons within the peace churches actually withholding a portion
of their taxes is still thought to be small, but it is growing. The Internal
Revenue Service will not release figures on the number of tax resisters in the
United States.
Members of the Green Lake planning group include John K. Stoner, Mennonite Central Committee, Akron, Pennsylvania; Lorton Heusel, Friends United Meeting, Richmond, Indiana; and Chuck Boyer, Church of the Brethren, Elgin, Illinois.
Coordinator for the New Call to Peacemaking is Robert J. Rumsey, Plainfield, Indiana.
After the gathering, The Mennonite seemed surprised at how tame and nonconfrontational it ended up being (they titled their article “Peacemakers shy away from shocking anyone”).
Excerpts:
The Green Lake conference is part of a cooperative effort by the historic peace groups to do five things — stir up rededication to the Christian peace witness, clarify the biblical basis for it, extend a call to the larger church to see peacemaking as a gospel imperative, propose actions the U.S. Government can take for peacemaking, and determine contemporary positive strategy for peace and justice.
Planning for the consultation began in and has included 26 regional meetings in 16 different areas of the United States.
Over 1500 people were involved in these meetings.
[Church of the Brethren theologian and professor Dale] Brown said one new way of expressing a peace witness was to protest the country’s military expenditures by withholding income taxes.
Tax resistance, he reflected, is an important symbol because it involves our pocketbooks and enlarges the peace witness beyond what 17- and 18-year-old youth do in response to conscription.
[T]he findings committee created a final document satisfying the diverse peaceniks.
For the conservative the final statement was too radical; for the activists it was too limp.
There are two main thrusts to the document — actions that are directed inward
among the peace churches to enhance the integrity of the peace witness, and
actions that are directed outward to enlarge the visibility of the peace
witness.
At the end of the national New Call to Peacemaking conference delegates urged all Friends (Quakers), Mennonites, and Brethren to firmly oppose militarism and to become personally involved in the struggle for justice for the oppressed.
Included in the final paper approved is a call to the 400,000 members of the three peace church
traditions “to seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their
federal taxes as a response to Christ’s call to radical discipleship.” This
statement is as strong as the 300 delegates could jointly affirm.
Other parts of the war tax statement are equally muted.
In the first draft of the paper, church and conference agencies were asked to “honor” the requests of employees who do not want the military portion of their taxes remitted to the government.
In the final draft, however, “honor” is changed to “enter into dialogue with.” Several evangelical Quakers were especially antagonistic to even including a reference to war tax resistance in the final document.
Yet tax resistance received new encouragement from the conference.
About 60 persons attended a Saturday afternoon workshop which detailed tax resistance strategies.
Studying the War Tax Issue and Christian Civil Responsibility
The Mennonite General Conference had been asked to stop withholding taxes from the paycheck of one of its conscientiously objecting employees.
This led to a long debate over the advisability of such a policy that caused arguments about war tax resistance to echo throughout the Conference in .
A special General Conference delegate session was scheduled to convene in just to respond to this single issue.
In preparation for that session, congregations had been encouraged to put some
serious effort into understanding the subject, and some studies were written up
to help guide these investigations.
A Christian’s response to civil authority will be given concentrated emphasis by the General Conference during .
The study is an outcome of a resolution at the triennial conference in Bluffton, Ohio, .
That resolution called for a thorough study of civil disobedience which is intended to state an official position of the General Conference with respect to that portion of income taxes which are used for funding military expenditures, and in general, to research the whole question of obedience-disobedience to civil authority.
Responsibility for the study has been given to the peace and social concerns
committee of the Commission on Home Ministries. They, however, requested that
a special obedience-civil disobedience committee be formed to give general
direction and leadership. This latter group consists of Palmer Becker, Ted
Stuckey, John Gaeddert, Harold Regier, Perry Yoder, and Heinz Janzen.
To date three major aspects of the study have been planned — an attitudinal survey, an invitational consultation in , and a study guide to be ready by .
Included in the survey are twenty-eight questions with responses varying from
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” chosen to provide an inventory of
congregational attitudes towards the authority of the church, and of the
state. It will also indicate attitudes to particular issues such as abortion,
capital punishment, and payment of taxes for military purposes. A copy of the
questionnaire will be sent to every congregation to be duplicated locally.
A second major happening is scheduled for at Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart, Indiana.
An invitational consultation will bring together about thirty participants, including persons not committed to civil disobedience.
The gathering will include administrative personnel from the General Conference, lawyers, biblical scholars, as well as representatives from Mennonite Central Committee and the Mennonite Church.
It is expected that the study guide will evolve from the proceedings of the
consultation. Five of the thirteen lessons in the guide will focus on
peacemaking in a technological society. What sort of peacemaking should
Mennonites be about in an age of nuclear warfare and worldwide arms shipments?
The remaining eight lessons will center about the meaning of civil
disobedience. Was it practiced in the Bible? Is nonpayment of taxes a case in
point?
The study process will culminate in the special midtriennium conference scheduled for .
That gathering will be an official decision-making conference to which congregational delegates will come.
At that point a decision on the meaning and practice of civil disobedience will be made.
After the conference the questionnaire
will again be used to determine whether the churchwide discussion on
obedience-civil disobedience has generated any changes in attitudes.
A few more details came after the Commission on Home Ministries met in , and, according to The Mennonite:
Perry Yoder, part-time CHM staff member, outlined the process planned for dealing with the war tax or civil responsibility issue raised at the Bluffton conference.
Because of this issue’s “divisive and emotional potential in the conference,” a survey instrument has been designed to get congregational input; a consultation at the seminary will work toward a study guide, and congregations will be encouraged to use the study in preparation for a special General Conference delegate session at Minneapolis, called solely for the purpose of responding to the Bluffton resolution on tax withholding.
Another article said this study guide would be “available [and] will look at present militarism in North America, previous acts of dissent by Mennonites, and biblical texts on dissent, payment of taxes, and corporate action.”
During the first session on , board members locked onto the planning for the midtriennium conference on war taxes and civil responsibility.
Uneasiness about the process erupted quickly.
The structure of the invitational consultation on the issue was strongly faulted, as was the conference itself.
Board member Ken Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne, Indiana,
galvanized his colleagues with his allegations. “The consultation is not
structured for dialogue — it is monologue. The way it has been set up upsets
me deeply.” Later he declared that the Commission on Home Ministries should
not serve as the launching pad for the study and the planning leading to the
conference in . “Why ask
CHM?
The image of
CHM
is stacked. It should be the responsibility of the General Board.”
His assessment was the beginning of a fruitful debate which occupied several more sessions of the General Board, one session of CHM and hallway discussions.
The debate crystallized about several key questions. What is wrong with the
study process initiated by the obedience-civil disobedience committee of
CHM?
Is the issue of war taxes so divisive that a schism in the General Conference
is inevitable? Is the delegate
conference viable?
By , perhaps symbolically, the hard-hitting process of charge and countercharge had evolved into understanding and affirmation of the original plans.
On paper, little had changed, but in the minds of those who spoke for the “unheard,” — the “conservatives,” the “common person,” and the Canadians — there was a restoration of confidence in the process.
Tenseness was dissipated.
The mood became one of working together.
The consultation will meet at Mennonite
Biblical Seminary, Elkhart, Indiana. About twenty-five persons are invited.
These include theologians and biblical scholars, attorneys, administrative
staff of the General Conference, several
MCC
staff, and representatives from the Mennonite Church and the Mennonite
Brethren Church. The proceedings of the consultation are to serve as the basis
for a study guide on civil disobedience.
The committee planning the consultation and the midtriennium conference was called in to justify its ideas.
One member, Perry Yoder, observed, “Getting people to participate is very difficult.
People are very tense about this.”
“We thought the trust level would be quite high,” said another member, Harold
Regier. “Requests for speakers were made on the basis of scholarship and the
purpose is biblical. It is not a matter of pro or con.”
“We don’t know where the scholars will come out,” declared Don Steelberg, chairperson of CHM. (A complete list of scholars invited is not yet available — some are still considering the invitation.)
It was noted that since the concern on abortion had been handled insensitively
at the Bluffton conference, there was fear that the same thing would happen
with the issue of war taxes. So why should those who oppose withholding war
taxes bother to participate? They won’t be heard anyway.
Another fear was that the Canadians would also stay away. “My gut reaction is that it is a U.S. issue,” said board member Loretta Fast.
She was challenged on that.
“Don’t Canadians also pay military taxes?” queried Ben Sprunger.
“Yes,” replied another Canadian board member, Jake Klassen, “but we have not gone through the trauma and frustrations of the Vietnam War."
Hence, if both the Canadians and those opposed to withholding war taxes stayed
away from the delegate
conference, the gathering would be a farce. The conference would not be viable
if large blocs of delegates simply weren’t there.
For a brief time the board lost nerve.
Should the conference be canceled?
However, chairman Elmer Neufeld injected reality by reflecting, “The issue is not going to go away.
So, what is the next step?"
Over the board
recovered confidence in itself, in the planning already done, in the
possibility of bringing the dissenters into dialogue, despite differences in
theology and nationality, and in the voice of the discerning church. “I came
to the Mennonite church because of discerning congregations. If we cannot
discern in a process like this, then we have missed the boat,” reflected Don
Steelberg.
That was the next step.
They reminded themselves that the Anabaptist movement grew out of several
forms of civil disobedience.
They decided to adjust some of the personnel for the consultation.
They decided to promote serious study of the civil responsibility issue among congregations so that delegates would be conversant with it.
They decided to book the Leamington Hotel in Minneapolis as the place for the midtriennium conference.
The General Board also affirmed the action of its executive committee when they refused to pay a tax levy from the Internal Revenue Service.
The personal income taxes are owed by Heinz Janzen (general secretary) and his wife, Dorothea Janzen.
Under U.S. tax laws an ordained minister is self-employed, is not subject to normal payroll deductions, and hence, Heinz has refused to pay the military portion of his income tax.
Normally the
IRS
simply confiscates the amount owed from the bank account of the person
protesting. But with the levy the
IRS is
attempting to collect directly from the General Conference as employer. The
General Board agreed with the executive committee that the Janzen case is
civil disobedience by individuals, and not by an incorporated body, the
General Conference.
Editor Bernie Wiebe, himself based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, wrote an editorial for the edition expressing his unease about the direction Canada was taking, at how blasé his fellow-Canadian Mennonites were about it, and at how comparatively little concern there seemed to be there about the war tax issue that was roiling the Conference:
I am uneasy because I don’t hear my brothers and sisters protest against Ottawa.
Somehow we manage to wash our hands and keep pointing at the Pentagon…
At Bluffton, the majority voted for a midtriennium conference on the war-tax
issue. Every discussion I have since heard on this subject turns to the fear
that the Canadian third of the General Conference may refuse to participate;
after all, that’s a
U.S. question.
The conference was meant to bring in experts on the question who could help better inform the upcoming debate.
Participants in the General Conference Mennonite Church invitational consultation on civil responsibility have been named and the schedule outlined.
The consultation will convene
at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries, Elkhart, Indiana.
Beginning , Ted Stuckey and Reg Toews, representing the business administration arms of the General Conference and Mennonite Central Committee respectively, will present information on the administrative dimensions of the war tax question.
The question, Is there a biblical case for civil disobedience? will be the
focus of scholarly input Friday morning. Millard Lind, professor at AMBS,
will speak from an Old Testament perspective; confirmation from the scholar
asked to provide a New Testament analysis is still pending.
A more specific look at the issue of war taxes is scheduled for .
Is civil disobedience called for in this specific case?
David Schroeder, professor at Canadian Mennonite Bible College, Winnipeg, and Kenneth Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne, Indiana, will speak to the question.
Erland Waltner, president of Mennonite Biblical Seminary, will respond.
Corporate action and individual conscience is the theme for
. Speaking to this are J.
Lawrence Burkholder, president of Goshen (Indiana) College, and William
Keeney, professor at Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas. Another person has
yet to confirm acceptance. Peter Ediger, pastor of the Arvada Mennonite
Church, will respond.
Elvin Kraybill, legal counsel for Mennonite Central Committee, will talk about legal questions related to civil disobedience.
Responding to his presentation are Duane Heffelbower, a member of the Division of Administration of the General Conference, and Ruth Stoltzfus, an attorney living in Linville, Virginia.
In addition to the formal input, various church leaders and administrative
staff will contribute to the consultation. These people are Heinz Janzen,
general secretary of the General Conference; Harold Regier and Perry Yoder,
cosecretaries of peace and social concerns of the General Conference; John
Gaeddert, executive secretary of the Commission on Education; William Snyder,
executive secretary of
MCC;
Urbane Peachey, executive secretary for
MCC
Peace Section; Hubert Schwartzentruber, secretary for peace and social
concerns of the Mennonite Church; Ed Enns, executive secretary of the
Congregational Resources Board of the Canadian Conference; Peter Janzen,
pastor, representing the Canadian Conference.
Six persons will form the findings committee.
They are John Sprunger, pastor, Indian Valley Mennonite Church, Harleysville, Pennsylvania; Palmer Becker, executive secretary of the Commission on Home Ministries; Elmer Neufeld, president of the General Conference; Hugo Jantz, chairperson of MCC (Canada); John Stoner, executive secretary for MCC Peace Section (U.S.); and Larry Kehler, pastor of the Charleswood Mennonite Church, Winnipeg.
Kehler is also the writer for the study guide which is to be published by fall.
[T]he issue was how Mennonite institutions should respond to those employees who request that the military portion of their income taxes not be withheld by the employer.
Several Mennonite organizations are facing the issue. The General Conference
is seeking the will of its 60,000 members in answering such a request from one
of its employees, Cornelia Lehn. The consultation in Elkhart was one part of
the discerning process leading to a delegate assembly, and a decision in
.
Bible scholars, theologians, pastors, administrators, attorneys — twenty-nine persons in all — presented papers, exchanged insights, and probed the issue.
Much of their analysis will be incorporated into a study guide to be published by .
There was general agreement that militarism and the nuclear arms buildup are a
massive threat to human existence. “We are in pre-Holocaust days,” asserted
John Stoner, director of Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section.
How does one change the direction of society?
How does one influence government policy so that it is prohuman?
Some individuals claim that the witness of taxes withheld from the military could do much to change American priorities.
Is civil disobedience biblical?
Is there a biblical case for civil disobedience?
Seminary professor and Old Testament scholar Millard Lind said the question was wrong.
He declared the question assumes that the government provides the norm for the person of faith, and asks whether there may be a religious basis for sometimes disobeying it.
On the contrary, he counseled, the biblical accounts emphasize the absolute
sovereignty of the God of Israel. Biblical thought challenges the sovereignty
of the civil authorities, calling it rebellion. Not only individuals, but
above all, the state, with its self-interest and empire building, are against
the rule and order of Yahweh.
Is civil disobedience called for in the specific instance of taxes spent for military purposes?
Two papers were presented on this question, one by David Schroeder of Canadian Mennonite Bible College, Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the second by Kenneth Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne, Indiana.
“It is clear,” said Schroeder, “that the New Testament speaks for civil
disobedience, but it is difficult to determine the form.” Interpreting the
will of God must be done in the community of believers. The Scripture must not
only be searched to know the will of God, but also to bind ourselves to doing
it.
He observed that the issue of taxes for military purposes is often seen in isolation from other options.
He counseled that the church needs to look at all avenues which would lead to peace, and then choose those options which would be effective at the individual and corporate levels.
A noticeable reaction of surprise was evident after Schroeder indicated that
as a Canadian member of the General Conference he would abstain from voting at
the mid-triennium conference in .
“Those (Americans) who must take the consequences of tax withholding must take the responsibility,” he opined.
When questioned on this Schroeder said he held the position because he would not, as a Canadian national, be able to effectively support an American practicing tax resistance.
Later in the conference, however, he appeared to modify his position.
Bauman’s paper was a careful overview of the tax situation in the time of
Christ, of Jesus’ stance relative to the authorities, and of Anabaptist
practice.
He indicated that Jesus’ political stance was not with the ecclesiastical nor with the social establishment.
Nor did Jesus identify himself as a radical social revolutionary.
Rather, Christ was a representative of the kingdom of God with a prophetic call to repentance, faith, and righteous living which transforms society through the transformation of the individual.
“It is amazing,” he reflected, “to see the early church and the Apostles show
such respect and subordination to a political system that crucified their Lord
and killed their leaders.”
When asked at what point he would practice civil disobedience, Bauman said, “For me it would be more than taxation; it would be when government becomes an object of worship.”
Mennonite practice he noted has been to pay taxes. Only the Hutterites have a
consistent pattern of resisting taxes.
Kings and prophets
In a humorous manner, J. Lawrence Burkholder, president of Goshen College, illuminated the tension between individual conscience and management responsibility.
“The Bible is stacked against managers,” he remarked. The managers (kings)
were always getting critiques from the prophets. Burkholder confessed that
before becoming a college president (a “king”) he had often been prophetic in
his utterances.
But now as a manager he values continuity, order, and making life possible.
Decisions often have ambiguity built into them.
Further, although individuals are free to order their lives as they wish, a corporation incarnates the many wills of its supporters into a limited function.
Is it right to expect a corporation to respond in the same way as an individual?
Burkholder did conclude though that a corporation must be willing to die for
the sake of principle. For a Mennonite school he suggested such a case would
be required ROTC (Reserve Officers’ Training Corps).
In his paper on the same topic, William Keeney of Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas, warned that biblical and Anabaptist history illustrate that the voice of the majority is not necessarily the voice of God.
He also noted that for many people there is a double ethical standard, one for the Christian, and one for the state.
Keeney said Christians should have a bias in favor of loyalty to the prophets, and to the way of the cross and costly discipleship.
From this he concluded that corporate action needs to respect the individual conscience.
In his response to the above papers, Peter Ediger, pastor of the Arvada
(Colorado) Mennonite Church, cried out, “I would hope that management could be
prophetic. Can leadership in institutions not give evidence of faithfulness to
God? Why do we see this question (tax withholding) as a threat to our
institutions? We need more faith in the powers of resurrection. Do we foster
fear or faith? Spread the rumor that the Lord is going to do wonderful
things.”
The attorneys present provided a legal framework, as distinct from a biblical rationale, for approaching the issue of not withholding taxes used for military purposes.
The General Conference could, if it wished, simply stop remitting taxes and wait for the government to take action.
A long process of litigation might ensue in which the church could argue that
using the corporate body to collect taxes violates the conscience of tax
objectors, and also violates the principle of separation of church and state
because the church is held hostage by the state, under penalty of fines or
imprisonment of its officers. The attorneys also observed that the
IRS
(Internal Revenue Service) could decide to avoid litigation and its attendant
publicity, and simply go to the individual to collect.
In essence the attorneys said there were ways of working on the issue through legal, legislative, and administrative channels.
Findings
A findings committee — Palmer Becker, Hugo Jantz, Elmer Neufeld, John Stoner, Larry Kehler — drafted a statement.
After hours of discussion and subsequent changes the persons at the consultation agreed that the statement fairly represented their thinking.
Some excerpts:
“Our Christian obedience has to find new and creative responses to the
proliferation of military weaponry and technology…
“Christians respect the governing authorities… which leads to a broad
range of activities in support of the public good. Nevertheless, at times
our call of prior obedience to God’s sovereignty leads us to disobey the
claims of the state…
“We… have differing convictions about refusing to pay taxes for the
military.
“Let us be open to the possibility that the Spirit of God may lead some of
us in a direction that is both prophetic and full of risks.
“We agree that a way should be sought which will facilitate the expression
of the convictions of conference employees who request that their taxes
not be withheld.
“We need to seek the counsel of and work with other Mennnonite groups and
denominations, particularly the historic peace churches, in developing the
most appropriate response to this issue.”
Two multi-part articles and two additional stand-alone articles stretched
across multiple issues of The Mennonite and also
served to summarize some of the points of debate:
“The North American military” by Harold Fransen (part 1 and part 2)
These articles begin with an unflattering look at U.S. military personnel, suggesting that even if you put the violence of war off to one side, the drunkenness, ignorance, and sexual immorality found among those in uniform is enough not to recommend the institution to Mennonites.
The first part ends: “If we have come to the realization that we can not go to war, maybe the time has come to… say that no one can go to war on our behalf either.
As we fill out out income tax forms this year, so that the military can do the job which we refuse to do, let us remember what effect it has on the lives that are bound up in its powerful grip, and be in prayer as we move toward the General Conference’s midtriennium session to deal with this issue.”
Part two looked at this issue from the Canadian perspective, noting that
Canada was deeply involved in the international arms trade and was boosting its
own military spending. “Can we any longer brush off war taxes as a
U.S. issue?”
“Is this our modern pilgrims’ progress”
This article summarized the recent history of the General Conference in grappling with the issue that would come to a head at the session:
If the conference delegates decide that nonpayment of military taxes is justified the decision is binding on the administrators of the General Conference.
Impetus for such an assembly began in when employee Cornelia Lehn requested the General Conference
business office not to remit the military tax portion of her paycheck to the
IRS.
Prior to 1974 the issue of “war taxes” had been discussed, and as early as
, delegates at the triennial sessions in
Fresno, California, passed a statement protesting the use of tax monies for
war purposes. The delegates also said, “We stand by those who feel called to
resist the payment of that portion of taxes being used for military purposes.”
However, the General Board did not think that directive from the delegates
authorized them to stop remitting Lehn’s military taxes. Her request was
refused.
Three years later… [at] the next conference… delegates called for education regarding militarism, reaffirmed the 1971 statement, and agreed that serious work be done on the possibility of allowing General Conference employees to follow their consciences on payment or nonpayment of military taxes.
Educational materials have included the periodical God and
Caesar and two study guides, The Rule of the
Sword and The Rule of the Lamb. In addition
to these efforts two major consultations were convened in
and in
. At these consultations scholarly
papers were presented on militarism, biblical considerations for payment or
nonpayment of military taxes, and Anabaptist history and theology related to
war tax concerns.
Despite the protracted input the General Board could not reach a consensus on the issue.
Consequently the problem was brought to delegates at the triennial… [where] the delegate body committed itself to serious congregational study of civil disobedience and war tax resistance during .
The delegates also decided to discuss the issue in detail at a midtriennium conference in .
In an effort to implement the Bluffton
resolution an eight-member civil responsibility committee was formed. Several
actions were taken by it to encourage serious study.
an attitude survey on church
and government was conducted. Approximately 2,500 responses were received,
including 463 from a select sampling in 31 churches. A scholarly consultation
was held in . One of the key ideas
which came out of this consultation was whether those who feel strongly about
not paying military taxes should be encouraged to form a separate corporation
within the General Conference. To assist churches in their study of the issue
two study guides were published. The Rule of the
Sword deals primarily with facts and concerns related to militarism.
The Rule of the Lamb centers about the sovereignty
of God and biblical texts on taxes and civil authority.
Each of the more than 300 congregations in the General Conference is being encouraged to prepare a statement to bring to the conference.
It is evident from the sale of the study guides that a minority of congregations are actually making an effort to study the issue, although all congregations have received sample copies of the guides.
Many Canadian churches feel the issue is strictly an American problem, and there is a considerable diversity of conviction and thought among American congregations.
Some congregations do not intend to send delegates.
What this means for the Minneapolis conference is difficult to assess, except
for one feature. There will be a lot of stirring debate. After
will there be some
resolution of the withholding question? No one is predicting the outcome.
“Countdown to Minneapolis”
This article tried to put the debate into a larger context of what it meant for the congregations in the General Conference to be deliberating together in this way.
It also seemed to be trying to drum up more attendance; there seemed to be some worry that Canadian Mennonites, and more conservative congregations, might just not turn up.
“Our Christian civil responsibility”
This article, by Larry Kehler (author of The Rule of the Lamb), attempted to put all of the pieces together for readers ahead of the conference.
Excerpts:
General Conference churches have the opportunity of either growing through the process of working on the war-tax question or of stagnating and splintering.
I am somewhat more confident now than I was even six months ago that we will mature through this experience, and in the process perhaps reassert some of our Conference’s flagging leadership in the field of peace.
Perhaps it is only because I have been talking to more optimistic persons.
But I do have the impression that General Conference people are more ready now to participate in the struggle for an answer than they were even as late as last winter.
The easy answer of letting this debate be the occasion for some congregations to sever their ties with the General Conference seems to be more of a “cop-out” than a reasonable response to a difficult question.
Will your congregation have delegates at the midtriennium sessions in Minneapolis?
If it won’t, both the conference and the congregation will be the poorer for it.
You see, the question is not only how we will respond to the issue of tax-withholding as a witness against war, but how we go about dealing with questions on which we have not yet achieved clarity or unanimity.
The process we go through may well be much more vital to us than the answer we finally come up with, and that is not to diminish the seriousness of the problem of militarism.
Coming to Minneapolis without advance preparation, however, could be almost as
destructive as not coming at all. Each congregation should do some serious
struggling within its own setting on the various dimensions which this issue
is raising for us.
The war-tax issue offers the General Conference one of its best opportunities in many years to work seriously at Bible interpretation on a question about which we have widely differing views.
How do we make decisions when we disagree?
The tax texts
What does the New Testament say about taxes?
Here are the four primary passages:
Mark 12:13–17
is a description of the Pharisees and Herodians trying to entrap Jesus with
the question: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Jesus responds by
taking a coin and showing them Caesar’s image on it and saying, “Render to
Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
Luke 23:1–5 recalls the accusations made against Jesus before Pilate.
Among them is the charge that he has forbidden his people “to give tribute to Caesar.” In response to Pilate’s question about his kingship over the Jews, Jesus replies ambiguously, “You have said so.”
Matthew 17:24–27
talks about the temple tax. Some Bible interpreters feel that the tax question
is a secondary issue in this passage. The writer’s main purpose in telling
this incident, some scholars say, is to underscore Jesus’ sonship.
Romans 13:6–7 urges followers of Christ to be subject to the governing authorities and to pay taxes where they are due.
A straightforward reading of these passages has led many persons to conclude
that taxes are to be paid regardless of the use to which they might be put.
“How can you argue against such clear, simple statements?” they ask people who
suggest that there may be more to these comments than can be seen on the
surface.
It is the tension between these two approaches to the Bible which lies at the heart of the problem which the General Conference is now facing in its attempt to come up with a biblical response to the “war tax issue.” How do we interpret and understand the Bible?
Is the easiest reading of a biblical passage always to be taken as the most likely intention of the writer?
Some Bible scholars say that it is sometimes quite deceiving to accept the easiest reading.
Others wonder if that sort of remark doesn’t simply underscore the Bible’s assertion that some truths will confound the wise and yet be very clear to more down-to-earth and average persons.
Well, maybe.
But doesn’t it cheapen the Bible if we think that a book which has come to us from another millennium and a decidedly different culture can be read on the surface — much like one reads a twentieth-century pop-psychology book — and applied to situations in our day without adaptation?
Can any statement in the Bible be taken by itself without first testing it
against the background from which it came and against related statements
elsewhere in the Bible?
Modern, easy-to-read paraphrases of the Scriptures and our general attitude toward the Bible have led us to believe that “hermeneutics” (the interpretation of the Bible’s message) is not a difficult task.
In some cases it isn’t, but in others it is.
In places the Bible is so inscrutable that we can seemingly never be quite sure about its full intention.
So we have to launch out in faith on some questions, hoping that more clarity will come as we proceed.
We may discover as we go that we have started off in the wrong direction.
Then we need the humility to admit our error and change our direction.
The major agenda item at the midtriennium sessions in Minneapolis may turn out
not to be “war taxes” at all. This issue may be God’s way of prodding us into
becoming more of a “hermeneutic community”…
The tax texts need to be studied intensely at the congregational level, each participant bringing an open mind and heart to the discussion.
If clarity and unanimity do not come immediately let us not be discouraged.
Other groups have had similar difficulties before us.
That is all the more reason why we should continue to struggle with this question.
The summary statement prepared by the people who attended the
war tax conference contained this paragraph:
“After considering the New Testament texts which speak about the Christian’s
payment of taxes, most of us are agreed that we do not have a clear word on
the subject of paying taxes used for war. The New Testament statements on
paying taxes (Mark 12:17 and Romans 13:6–7)
contain either ambiguity in meaning or qualifications on the texts that call
the discerning community to decide in light of the life and teachings of
Jesus.”
For Canadians too
The war tax issue is a U.S. issue and should be decided by them.
Right?
Wrong! It’s an issue for the entire General Conference.
But Canadians wouldn’t be taking any of the risks if the U.S. Government should bear down and hand out some jail sentences or fines for the Conference’s not withholding its employees’ income taxes.
Too much emphasis has been put on the possibility of fines or jail terms.
These consequences might come, but they’re not likely. The fear of a
confrontation with the law has taken the focus off the main point of this
whole exercise. The purpose is to give a firm, clear, and prophetic witness
against the diabolic buildup of the machines of war, which is occurring at an
ever-increasing pace in the United States and in many other nations. Are we
going to sit back and allow this escalation to continue without at least
giving our governments some sort of message that we cannot any longer go along
with this race toward self-destruction?
The arms race and the manufacture of war goods is very much part of the Canadian scene too… I have not yet been able to discover any tax resisters in Canada, but this does not mean that militarism is not a front-burner issue in Canada.
It is, and it should be.
I don’t know why there aren’t tax resisters in Canada. There are certainly
other forms of objection to the military buildup. “Project Ploughshares” is an
interchurch witness against militarism. Mennonites are actively involved in
its program of research and information-sharing. Thus, even though tax
resistance isn’t part of the Canadian experience now, Canadian Mennonites
shouldn’t withdraw from the General Conference discussion. They can
legitimately be fully involved on the basis of principle.
If the General Conference is going to say, “Yes,” to those of its employees who don’t want their income tax withheld, that should be the decision of the entire Conference, not just a portion of it.
The decision, whichever way it goes, will carry much more weight, I believe, if all the congregations in the Conference have participated in it.
Canadian involvement is important.
Some have indicated that the present set of options offered to the
delegates — that is to vote either yes or no on the withholding question — is
not sufficient. Other alternatives must be developed. If not, the Conference
may become polarized, and it might even split.
The question therefore is: How can the General Conference, as an international body, make a clear-cut witness against militarism without splintering the Conference?
Some U.S. Mennonites have stated that Canadian participation is crucial to the process.
After the conference in Bluffton in it
appeared that there would be minimal Canadian involvement at Minneapolis.
There is still no guarantee that participation from Canada will be adequate,
but good efforts are being made to encourage Canadian churches to send
delegates.
The General Board of the Conference of Mennonites in Canada at its last meeting went on record urging Canadian participation.
It will communicate this concern to the churches.
Several congregations are making special efforts to prepare for the convention.
Bethel Mennonite Church, Winnipeg, Manitoba, held a weekend seminar on this topic.
Grace Mennonite Church, Regina, Saskatchewan, arranged a similar event.
The Winnipeg meeting was covered in a later issue.
About fifty people met and came up with a set of recommendations as they prepared to select their delegates to the conference.
Sharon Sawatzky of the Canadian Conference staff in Winnipeg prepared a Canadian supplement for the study booklet The Rule of the Sword by Charlie Lord.
Copies of the supplement have been sent to all Canadian congregations who have ordered the five-lesson study booklet on militarism.
Faith and Life Press, Newton, reports that to date (I write this on
) more orders for the study
materials (The Rule of the Sword and
The Rule of the Lamb) have been received from Canada
than from the United States.
The prophets and the managers
The tension created by the war tax question in the General Conference is heightened by people’s disparate understandings of what it means to be good stewards of our church-related institutions.
Some have seen it as a tension between the “prophets” and the “managers.”
Who shapes the direction and philosophies of our churches and their agencies?
Is it the people who have a “prophetic” vision of biblical responsibility? Is
it the administrators who have been charged with “managing” these
organizations and creating as few waves as possible? Both? Partially? Neither?
Questions related to this apparent tension are included in the study guide The Rule of the Lamb…
J. Lawrence Burkholder, who is himself the “manager” of a major Mennonite
institution (Goshen College), has frankly described the predicament in which
leaders of institutions find themselves.
Here is a summary of his observations…
An efficient and well-trained corps of managers has emerged to run the
Mennonites’ growing number of institutions. The “constituency” of each of
these institutions insists that it is to be run in a businesslike, fiscally
responsible, and basically conservative way. Actions which might jeopardize
the welfare of an institution are not likely to be looked upon with much
favor.
The war tax issue, said Burkholder, is a problem of personal ethics as opposed to corporate ethics.
Our way of understanding the Bible is based on a one-to-one decision-making process, where the individual can respond quickly and simply to a situation.
A corporation’s response to an ethical question, on the other hand, involves
many wills. A number of “publics” make demands on the institution to decide
the issue their way. This does not mean, the Goshen College president
emphasized, that moral demands cannot be made of corporations. Nor should it
be said that all institutions are alike.
Corporations tend toward the status quo.
They emphasize different values than “prophetic” Christians.
Corporations tend to take a positive view of the broader culture in which they operate, they recognize the ambiguity of the situations in which they are making their decisions, and they look less judgmentally on people than do the “prophets.”
On the other hand, prophets have the luxury, according to Burkholder, of being
able to speak abstractly, of idealizing certain things from the past, and of
talking about perfection and ideals in an imperfect society.
Managers of church-related institutions have a clear line of accountability to their constituency, he said, “but who holds the prophets responsible?” Prophets are usually judged to be true or false in retrospect.
A prophet, therefore, doesn’t have to take responsibility for actions, words, and decisions in the same way that a manager does. “Sometimes,” said Burkholder, “present-day prophets come off ‘cheap.’ ”
He emphasized that Mennonites should continue to identify with the prophetic
tradition. They should be aware, though, that this means they will have to be
willing to remain somewhat on the edge of society.
“We will also need to develop a theology of corporate life,” he added. “We already have a theology of fellowship, but we don’t have a theology of the institution.”
Debate in the Letters Column
There was plenty of debate about the propriety of war tax resistance itself in the letters-to-the-editor column, sometimes explicitly prompted by the debate over withholding and the upcoming conference, other times more general.
John K. Stoner said that if the Conference were to fail to endorse war tax
resistance, “I would like to be able to have the confidence that they made
their decision in full awareness and with truly informed knowledge of the
dimensions of the nuclear abyss into which we are staring. At this point I
do not find it possible to have that confidence.” In short, they seemed to
be unaware of just how bad things had gotten.
I do not wish to imply that tax resistance or some other form of civil disobedience is the only kind of response which faithful Christians should be making to the unprecedented evil of the nuclear arms race. (It is my judgment that the situation confronts us with more than adequate grounds for civil disobedience.) However, I do wish to imply that those who counsel against tax refusal and civil disobedience would be much more convincing if they were leading out in other visible kinds of response to the nuclear crisis.
Carl M. Lehman wrote in to again remind readers that there was no such
thing as a “war tax” and that such nomenclature comes from “a less than
completely honest persistence in using labels to create a straw man to
attack.”
Money is only a convenient medium of exchange and not a real necessity to conduct war…
I have no quarrel with the person who simply wants to refuse to pay
taxes as a protest technique. As an attention-calling device it may very
well be effective. It is not exactly the kind of role I would feel led
to play, but I would not want to condemn anyone who felt they must use
such a tactic. I would, however, strongly protest any attempt to make
such a tactic mandatory for all Mennonites, and this is exactly what is
being attempted. Not mandatory, of course, in the sense that it would be
a test of membership, but mandatory in the sense of a normal commitment
expectation for a nonresistant Christian.
I maintain that tax resistance is a deviation from our heritage of faith.
The fact that it is a deviation in no sense makes it wrong and certainly does not mean that we pay no heed.
It does, however, very much suggest that the burden of proof is on the deviant, and that the deviant ought not to equate obedience to God with conformity by others.
John Swarr called on Mennonites to repent for war and in true repentance
to “change our ways.” He disagreed with Lehman’s dismissal of the moral
import of money. “Money is indeed a medium of exchange, but as Christian
stewards of God’s gifts we must be concerned about the things for which
that money is invested, donated, or paid.” He also disagreed that war tax
resistance was a deviation from Mennonite tradition, pointing to examples
from history in which Anabaptists took the issue seriously and came down
on both sides.
Karl Detrich took a hard Romans 13
line on the question, saying that the question of whether Christians
should or should not pay taxes had long ago been closed by that chapter.
While the New Testament also contains examples of civil disobedience, “in
each case these men were following the dictates of a higher law, namely,
that we should have no other gods besides our Lord.”
Jesus tells us that in the last days there will be, among other tribulations, wars and rumors of war.
Rather than going against the teaching of God’s word in a vain effort to forestall the inevitable, should we not give our time and energies to the worship of God and the proclamation of his gospel, so that we can do our part to hasten the day of his coming?
Paul W. Andreas saw simple living as a key to avoiding war taxes, and
resisting war taxes as a key to avoiding despair:
The submission to evil (no government has been free of it) produces despair.
I believe that love of my fellow humans is fundamental to not only
Mennonite faith but to Christ’s message. If I am compelled to violate
that message by hiring killers and providing weapons, I despair. For me,
no charitable contribution undoes the evil I unleash by paying taxes
that are used for such ends. Fortunately the practitioner of the simple
life can reduce his wage and thus avoid the income tax used for evil.
James Newcomer, in the course of taking Mennonites to task for the
“red-baiting” he’d found in their midst, took some time out to praise war
tax resistance:
I am deeply moved… by the witness of Peter Ediger at Rocky Flats, Colorado, and by many others who through war tax resistance and protest are trying to focus their own understanding of the modern Christian experience at the risk of losing middle-class luxuries and future security.
Miscellany
And if that weren’t enough, there were several other news items that discussed war tax resistance without relating directly to the upcoming conference or the specific debate to be dealt with there.
For example:
“A weekend seminar on war tax resistance” organized by Philadelphia Mennonites at which “[s]pecific strategies for implementing war tax resistance were discussed,” and the usual biblical verses were hashed out.
A four-point resolution on peacemaking called the Eastern District to: (1) serious Bible study on peace and a General Conference resolution on “The Way of Peace” (2) involvement in disapproval (through congressional representatives) of national actions promoting war, poverty, and terror; (3) support of those who feel led to withhold portions of their taxes; and (4) a midyear assembly to promote peacemaking.
After vigorous discussion, point three was stricken from the resolution
and point two was amended to include encouragement for righteous actions.
The amended resolution was adopted.
The Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section (U.S.) met. But in spite of all that was going on around them, it merely “reaffirmed its recommendation to Mennonite institutions ‘to study the conflict between Christian obligations and legal obligations in the collection of federal taxes…’ ” When they would meet again “a resolution on militarism, the future of New Call to Peacemaking, and the question of alternatives to the payment of taxes for military purposes” would be on the agenda. At that meeting, they took a stronger stand:
We support those who resist the payment of taxes for military purposes and call upon all members of the church to seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes.
While Mennonite church institutions continue to struggle with an administrative response to the issue of “war tax” withholding, individual Mennonites are voicing their convictions through refusing to pay the portion of their taxes designated for military use.
About $4,000 has been received by the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section’s “Taxes
for Peace” fund, contributed by Mennonite war tax refusers.
Nonpayment of taxes violates national laws, but tax refusers are convinced that paying taxes is disobedience to God when slightly over half of that tax money is allocated for the past, present, and future military expenditures of the United States.
Most of these tax refusers paid only 47 to 50 percent of taxes owed to
the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS),
forwarding the remaining amount to
MCC
and other Mennonite agencies. Statements to
IRS
clarified that the withheld tax money was not for personal profit but
rather for meeting human needs, promoting peace and reconciliation, and
supporting life instead of death.
James Klassen, Newton, Kansas, who claimed a Nuremburg Principle tax deduction in an amount sufficient to result in a 50 percent refund of the amount of taxes due, recently received the refund in full and forwarded the check to MCC. (The Nuremburg Principles, unanimously affirmed by the United Nations after World War Ⅱ, specify that crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are crimes under national law.)
“This is the first time we have deliberately broken the law of our
country,” say tax refusers James and Anna Juhnke, North Newton, Kansas.
“It is not an easy decision. We love our land and we respect the
authority of the government. We want to show our respect by making our
civil disobedience a public act and by accepting the penalties which may
result from our action.”
“As a Christian who accepts the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament as normative for life and ethics, I am a ‘conscientious objector’ to participation in war and to the resolution of human conflict by violence,” concludes Marlin Miller of Goshen, Indiana. “It is my conviction that the financial support of war and military expenditures cannot be reconciled with this stance any more than actual military service itself.”
They and other Christians feel that Christ’s calling to a life of love,
nonviolence and reconciliation supersedes demands of the state.
Thirty-three persons and families thus far have identified themselves as “war tax resisters” after God and Caesar in its issue provided the opportunity for people to do so.
The respondents represent eleven denominations as well as those with no church affiliation.
One recent case of a non-ordained employee at a Mennonite institution
hoping to resist paying war taxes involved Esther Lanting, a teacher at
Western Mennonite School
(WMS),
Salem, Oregon, who on
wrote a letter to the
WMS
board requesting that her income tax not be withheld from her check.
On , Lanting was invited to meet with the board to explain her reasons.
The board decided to seek the counsel of the conference executive committee, and secure study papers on the tax issue.
Finally, on , after
extended study, the peace and social concerns committee of the conference
recommended that the
WMS
board grant Lanting’s request and discontinue withholding her taxes.
On , the WMS board considered the committee’s recommendation.
By a vote of six to two they decided not to follow the recommendation, but to continue withholding all tax as legally required.
At this same board meeting three other WMS teachers or staff members acted as follows: Ray Nussbaum submitted a letter requesting that the board stop withholding his tax; Floyd Schrock made a verbal request that his tax not be withheld; and Cindy Mullet asked that the board decrease her salary to the level where she will owe no tax.
The board granted Cindy Mullet’s request for a reduction in salary. The
board is willing to reconsider the issue if more faculty members should
make the same request to have the board refrain from withholding taxes.
MCC has taken no official position on the refusal to pay taxes for military use, but MCC Peace Section (U.S.) adopted a statement in which in part recommended “that Mennonite and Brethren in Christ continue to work toward reduction of military spending, not resting content with special provisions exempting us from payment of taxes for military purposes.” It affirms “those in our midst who feel compelled by Christian conscience to refuse payment of all or some federal tax because of the large percentage of such taxes used for military purposes.”
In concluding his war tax talk Yoder said church members are generally more ready to disregard what the church has to say than what the government says.
Issuing a direct challenge to those who believe war tax resistance is wrong he counseled, “It would be more credible if those who are in favor of paying all their taxes would show through some other action what they are doing to love our national enemies.”
