Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Mennonites / Amish →
Mary & Willard Swartley
Some bits-and-pieces from around the web:
Susan Balzer writes about Mennonite war tax resisters for the Mennonite Weekly Review.
Some of the resisters mentioned: Tim Godshall, Willard and Mary Swartley, Ray Gingerich, Harold A. Penner, John and Janet Stoner, Albert and Mary Ellen Meyer, Don Kaufman, Titus and Linda Gehman Peachey, and Stan Bohn.
A Tax Tea Party Revolt will be the only recourse available in the wake of efforts to not provide equal treatment to all citizens under law …
This means gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people will not be filing taxes April 15th.
War tax resister NTodd Pritsky at Pax Americana takes note of the prosecution of a tax evader and wonders if this is going to be his eventual fate as well.
Pritsky is resisting both federal and state taxes (as a war tax resister, he is protesting state complicity in the military industrial complex and in the wars via the state national guard).
Fighting this battle on two fronts takes a lot of energy, and he’s not sure it’s worth it.
This is the forty-fifth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today
we finish off the first decade of the new millennium.
What belongs to God and what to Caesar? It’s a riddle that has to be puzzled
over again and again by Mennonites in the context of war tax resistance. In the
edition,
Titus Peachey took a swing
at the pitch: Given all that belongs to God, he asked, “can we who follow Jesus
willingly give our tax dollars for war and killing?”
In the edition,
Scott Key
answered Everett J. Thomas’s editorial statement — “There seems to be nothing
we can do but write letters and pray that [the war in Iraq] will stop.” — with
some more practical ideas, including boycotts of and divestment from military
contractors, and war tax resistance.
Susan Miller Balzer wrote in to applaud and supplement this:
Scott Key… lists some important ways to work against war and for peace. In
mentioning war tax resistance, he expresses a common misconception that
employees cannot prevent their employers from withholding federal taxes from
their paychecks.
However, it is possible to limit or stop withholding by increasing withholding allowances on the W-4 Form (or legally writing “Exempt” on the form if you did not owe federal income taxes last year and do not expect to owe in the coming year).
See the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee’s “practical” publications on the Web site nwtrcc.org on controlling federal tax withholding and on low income or simple living for helpful information on ways to keep from paying for war.
On the same Web site, click on the War Tax Boycott, Withhold from War/Pay for Peace to find ways to participate in this national effort to defund war.
The “draft” of federal tax money to pay for present, past and future wars is a
fundamental issue that our church should address as it works to replace
suffering, destruction and injustice with healing and hope. The military draft
affected only young men. The current “economic draft” affects young men and
women who enter the military to try to get out of poverty. The draft of tax
money affects people of all ages as long as they have a taxable income.
If everyone in just one congregation refused to pay for war and redirected
their refused taxes to an underfunded social service, imagine the
opportunities for witness and change that could occur.
Don
Kaufman was back in the
letters to the editor column:
If enough of us withhold from war and pay for peace, we can stop the harm.
War-tax resistance is not a passive or unethical tax avoidance but an act of
conscience that everyone can do. The cross of Jesus as nonviolence and
compassion is our model for hope and change.
Individuals shoulder great responsibility for warfare and for peace. At times
the most effective way to take responsibility is refusal to collaborate, as
Franz
Jaggerstatter did in Hitler’s Austria in
. How can we take a stand against a
government that leads its citizens into committing murder? The task is to be
reform-minded, to live in an ethical way, and progressively to make
unthinkable the coercion of conscience by the majority who put their faith in
military or violent solutions.
Like Jeremiah, let us
unmask the illusions of power by being servants of hope among the vulnerable
and wounded.
Stanley Bohn
encouraged people to engage in at least a small symbolic act of war tax
redirection, in the edition,
claiming important benefits from the gesture that go beyond its likely
practical results:
Will this action make Congress and the Bush administration change their funding priorities?
Unlikely, even if millions took part in this effort.
After all, war fuels our economy, is useful in getting national unity and political support, and it focuses on the evil of others, allowing us to raise our self-esteem.
As Chris Hedges wrote in his book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, war provides us with purpose and a civil religion.
What happens to us: For some Christians, the motive for participating
in tax redirection may start as a protest against refugee making, the
slaughter of people as collateral damage, torture of prisoners, creating
mentally damaged veterans, ballooning war debt, ruined international
relations, and other disastrous consequences. But when we take a stand for our
Christian convictions, something else may happen.
We gain an understanding of Jesus’ way of being lumped with criminals when
choosing the community-building, caring, enemy-loving life at the heart of the
universe. We realize that Jesus did not live or teach a religion guided by
what is respectable, safe, stress-free, or that waits for a consensus. Jesus
calls us to a life that is unpredictable and vulnerable.
Tax redirection is not a criterion of who is a “real Christian” but is more
accepting life as a gift, being what we are here for, living what we see in
Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. When the
IRS
makes us pay a small percentage more than our lawful tax, we can experience
what we believe is more important than money, and the hold money has on us is
reduced.
Living this kind of trust in the Jesus way helps keep serious Christians from
attempting to be pure and withdraw from life’s realities. It keeps us engaged
in current issues and with those proposing different goals. We are engaged,
however, in the kind of peace Christians should expect when choosing an
alternative way to conquer evil.
The risk of taking a stand regardless of consequences brings an unexpected
peace. It is not a peace that makes us feel protected, free of fears, or
satisfied with ourselves. It is a peace from knowing one is on a venture of
trusting in the universe-guiding reality we see in Christ. It is an empowering
peace given us when we offer ourselves to the one who gave us this life,
trusting God for the outcome. It is an empowerment that keeps us open rather
than defensive and having to shut out the desperate cries of others. It is an
alternative to a consumer-oriented Christianity that brings an unintended
transformation that makes us vulnerable and powerful at the same time.
Possibilities after April 15: There is no telling if or how God might
use the April 15 tax-redirection event. Consequences may occur that we never
thought of, including what powers or gifts might be released in ourselves.
We should not expect the government to inform us how many participated. The
media may not be free to report it, even if it knew. If the amount we withheld
and diverted is seen by the
IRS as
worth taking action against us, we will likely receive threatening letters and
finally have those funds confiscated along with a penalty.
Yet significant tax redirection can mean some humanitarian agencies will get
more financial support, and starving people will be fed. Maybe some
legislators will hear the conscience dilemma of many taxpayers and join other
co-sponsors of
HR 1921, the
Freedom of Religion Peace Tax Fund, which would make legal the redirection of
taxes by conscientious objectors to war. And maybe a few thousand redirectors
will discover we are less bound by the expectations of others and are freer
than we thought we could be.
Most important, we may learn that choosing risky ways of living for others,
even civil disobedience, can bring spiritual healing. We won’t defund the war,
but we can be more confident of the Power that overcomes our fears and by
God’s grace enables us to be the humans God intended us to be.
One such redirection idea was announced in the edition:
“Turning toward peace.”
This Mennonite Central Committee
(U.S.) initiative
allowed Americans to “redirect[] war tax dollars to help children in
Afghanistan through
MCC’s
Global Family education sponsorship program.” Titus Peachey, director of peace
education for
MCC
(U.S.) was quoted:
According to Peachey, most who have chosen to withhold believe, “If we cannot
conscientiously participate in war with our bodies, we cannot pay for it
either. We need to give our money to causes that build up rather than destroy
the presence of God in each person,” he says.
Most inform their governments of their actions. “Given the presence of Western
military action in Afghanistan today, the opportunity to contribute to
peacemaking there is timely,” says Peachey. “Equally important is the way in
which withholding war taxes challenges our own systemic militarism.”
A joint letter from Susan Balzer, Deb & Wes Bergen, Anita & Stan Bohn, Ron Faust, Don Kaufman, H.A. Penner, Steve Ratzlaff, Mary Swartley, Willard Swartley, and Dan Leatherman appeared in the edition.
They were responding to an editorial that suggested the Mennonite Church had surrendered as a peace church and had come to be “at peace with war.”
There is a traditional, positive witness opportunity for conscientious
objectors to war of all ages. It may seem scary, but many find it almost
routine. It involves redirection of income-tax assessments used for killing
and refugee-making to ministries meeting human need.…
Our descendants and overseas Christians will wonder how Christians in a
superpower, with over 700 military bases around the world, fighting two wars
and considering a third with Iran, supporting covert wars in places such as
Colombia and Israel, could be so at peace with war.
“The church should consist of communities of loving defiance. Instead, it
consists largely of comfortable clubs of conformity,” writes Ron Sider in
Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. If we teach it is wrong, why
do we support it financially?
Shame is the negative motivation. The positive is that Jesus promised his
spirit of truth would abide in us and enable us to live differently from the
world’s ways. If we love him, we are empowered to keep his commandments
(John 14:15–17).
War tax redirection is “alternative service” for dollars we earn, service that
provides hope and new possibilities for suffering people instead of endless
war.
The issue covered
John
Stoner’s “$10.40 for Peace” campaign.
This was another attempt to get timid people to take baby steps into war tax
resistance by resisting a small, token amount of their taxes. The campaign is
still going on today but has yet to
catch fire.
The article seemed to me to exaggerate the scariness of such resistance even as
it tried to assuage the fears of potential resisters. Excerpts:
Stoner says the group hears some concern from individuals about the possible
penalties and “heavy hand of the
IRS
coming down.”
Stoner’s response is threefold. First, “As disciples of Jesus, we shouldn’t
have so much fear,” he says. Second, the past experiences of individuals who
have withheld taxes for similar reasons have been minimal. Third, the tax
withholder can decide later to pay the full amount.
“The most important thing is to make that statement that calls for democratic
conversation about how federal money is spent,” Stoner said.
Others say this movement should take more risks and that
U.S. war spending
remains too large. However, if enough people join, the risks and penalties
would increase, Stoner said.
The article noted that Shane Claiborne had signed on as an endorser and would
be speaking at an upcoming public meeting on the campaign.
This is the seventeenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
In the Mennonite Church and
General Conference Mennonite Church cosponsored a seminar on
“Civil Religion: True and False Patriotism”
According to the Gospel Herald coverage, “[a] number
of special issue groups were formed in which persons struggled with questions
raised during the seminar [such as l]egal implications of nonpayment of war
taxes and other forms of resistance…”
The issue brought news of
Mennonite-inspired war tax resistance sprouting in Japan:
A war tax resistance movement is beginning in Japan.
Started by Michio Ohno, a United Church of Christ in Japan pastor who attended
Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries in Elkhart,
Ind.,
, an organization for “Conscientious
Objection to Military Tax” was formed on in Tokyo. About sixty people attended the first meeting, and a
“general assembly” was planned on
at the Shinanomachi Church in Tokyo.
The objectives of the organization are (1) reduction and eventual abolition of
Japan’s self-defense force (Japan’s constitution prohibits a military) and (2)
encouraging nonpayment of the 6.4 percent of income taxes that support the
self-defense force.
Mr. Ohno, who is now working with Mennonites and Brethren in Christ in the
Tokyo area, started the movement out of his religious convictions. But support
has now grown beyond Mennonites, the Society of Friends, and the Fellowship of
Reconciliation to include other Japanese citizens who question the
constitutionality of the self-defense force.
At the organizational meeting, speakers included Gan Sakakibara, principal of
the Tokyo English Center, "The Historical Development of Conscientious
Objection”; Yasusaburo Hoshino, professor at the Tokyo University of Liberal
Arts, “How to Live Nonviolently — A Theory of Peaceful Tax-Paying”; and Shizuo
Ito, a lawyer who sued the government for having unconstitutional armed
forces, “Struggle for Peace — The World of Zero.”
Mr. Sakakibara told of the history of the Anabaptists and said that nonpayment
of military tax has a long history. Mr. Ito remarked that “the nuclear reactor
of the conscience is being lit today.” Mr. Hoshino compared the cost of food
in social welfare institutions with the cost of the self-defense forces.
Mr. Ohno called Conscientious Objection to Military Tax the first organized
movement of this kind in Japan.
“The time was ripe when we started the campaign,” he said. “We consulted
several scholars of the constitution, and one of the professors said he
himself had wanted to start a movement like this. Somebody else may well have
started a movement like this anyway, even if we did not. We should not just
sit back and wait for the peace to come, but be the peacemakers.”
Mr. Ohno said one of the decisive factors in his becoming involved in
conscientious tax objection in was
an article in The Mennonite last year on the
proposed World Peace Tax Fund legislation in the United States.
Deadline for filing taxes in Japan is in
. “Then we will know how the tax
officials respond to the objection,” Mr. Ohno said.
Another meeting for tax refusers is planned in
, and members of the steering
committee were to itinerate in Kyushu and Okinawa in
.
On ,
Japanese Christians founded a new movement of persons who refuse to pay that
part of their taxes allotted for military purposes. Newspapers have since
reported that an association of lawyers has promised to work with the group.
Susami Ishitani, secretary of the Christian pacifists, wrote: “We have invited
the cooperation of others who share with us the principle of nonviolence.” He
also pointed out that the Japanese constitution contains articles which could
provide the legal base for refusing to see a military or violent solution as
any solution at all. ―Algemeen Doopsgezind Weekblad.
Brother Ohno of Tokyo shared out of his conviction for peace and his current
experience in nonpayment of the military tax portion of his personal income
tax.
Our government’s “permanent war economy” policy should rank high among reasons
peace-making Christians have for (1) finding simpler lifestyles, (2) telling
their congressmen about their continuing opposition to military spending
madness, (3) continuing to reduce their taxable income, (4) finding more ways
to resist the war, (5) allowing the
IRS to
check individual deductions for contributions.
Join the club. If they check my deductions when my Federal tax is over $200,
will they also check me when it falls under $200? They probably will. Time
will tell.
Remember the stability and value of the
U.S. dollar is
related directly to how wisely or stupidly our Federal tax dollars are spent.
Allen R. Mohler, in a piece entitled
“Caesar or God?”
() didn’t have much positive to
say about war tax resistance, and introduced the “why stop at war tax
resistance” line of attack:
If we refuse to pay our portion of taxes that go for military spending, we had
better hold back the “murder tax” (whatever tax money is spent on abortions)
and the immorality tax” (the tax money that is helping unwed persons live
immorally without the responsibility of being parents).
When Jesus was asked the question about paying taxes to the Roman government.
He asked whose image was on the coin? Answer: Caesar’s — and Caesar
represented the political power and leadership of a pagan and militaristic
government. Jesus then said, “Render… to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,
and to God the things that are God’s.” I think we often miss the meaning of
this last part of Jesus’ statement. What has the image of God is God’s — that
is, you and I. The only object or thing created in God’s image is the human
family.
As I understand the teachings of the Bible on taxes, it is to pay — the
governments will ultimately be responsible, whether it is used right or wrong.
To do otherwise is to get our images and rendering all turned around.
The issue having only recently come to life, it was odd to see the following
headline in the issue. I expect
the end of the Vietnam War was probably what was being alluded to.
In connection with his presentations of Mennonite history and principles
throughout the church, Jan Gleysteen has been involved in a lot of study
groups and discussions. He reported that one question which has recently come
up with greater frequency and which has provided the reason for additional
meetings and prayer sessions is the problem of war taxes.
Congregations or fellowships studying Anabaptist heritage this year are
discovering the statements of Grebel, Riedemann, Felbinger, Simons, and others
on this subject and are wondering what a Christian’s contemporary response to
war taxes might be, especially since today’s technological armies need vast
sums of money more than they need men. Individuals and small groups here and
there are actively engaged in studying the issue, but not much help and
information is as yet available from the denominational level. Yet in one
congregation the statement was made: “How to deal with war taxes is an issue
that affects far more of us than the issues of abortion or a study on the role
of women.”
A bit of historical revisionism was at work in a note titled
“Ancestor Worship?”
by Wayne North () that made much
stronger claims for early Mennonite war tax resistance than I have been able to
discern from the record:
If we are glorifying our ancestry… why do some modern-day Mennonites urge the
payment of war taxes and advocate the death penalty when both were condemned
by their early leaders?
Levi Keidel, in the issue,
suggested there was a
“Mennonite Credibility Gap”
that expressed itself in the way Mennonites were approaching the war tax
question:
Now with the proliferation of technological weaponry, the annual
U.S. budget is
dominated by a hydra-headed military appropriation. We Mennonites who have set
our affection upon things of earth, relished the pleasures and conveniences of
affluence, amassed material wealth like everyone else, now say that we will
refuse to pay income tax as our peace witness to government. We are selecting
to apply the principle of nonparticipation in violence, but not of
self-imposed poverty for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.
Is a government official wrong in accusing Mennonites of accepting their
historic principles which concern the state, but rejecting their historic
principles which touch themselves? Is it proper for us to make a corporate
witness to government against payment of income tax when there is little else
which distinguishes us as citizens of another kingdom who give primary
allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ? How can we justify the selective
application of Anabaptist beliefs to our contemporary lives?
Levi Keidel makes a good point against selective discipleship… From what I
observe, however, those who take seriously the idea of nonpayment of war taxes
are often the same Christian disciples who are most conscientious about their
lifestyles. How many affluent Mennonites consider war taxes to be at all
inconsistent with a peace witness? Perhaps the worst “selective” problem we
have is in letting a “select few” be our conscience on both these Anabaptist
concerns. I am grateful for this minority voice which may help others of us to
return to fuller application of the total biblical ethic.
Speakers for an inter-Mennonite and Brethren in Christ conference on war taxes
have been named.
The conference, sponsored by the General Conference Mennonite Church,
Mennonite Church, Brethren in Christ Church, and Mennonite Central Committee
Peace Section, is scheduled for
at First Mennonite Church, Kitchener,
Ont.
Included among the speakers are:
Colonel Edward King
(ret.), director of the
Coalition on National Priorities and Military Policy
(U.S.), and
Major General Fred Carpenter, Canadian armed forces, on “Militarism in
Today’s Society.”
Marlin Miller, president of Goshen Biblical Seminary, Elkhart,
Ind., on “The Christian’s
Relationship to the State and Civil Authority.”
Walter Klaassen, associate professor of religious studies at Conrad Grebel
College, Waterloo, Ont.,
and Donald Kaufman of Newton,
Kan., author of
What Belongs to Caesar? on "Anabaptism and
Church-State Tax Issues.”
Willard Swartley, chairman of the Bible and Philosophy Department, Eastern
Mennonite College, Harrisonburg,
Va., on “The Christian
and Payment of War Taxes.”
Workshops are planned on such topics as “War Taxes and the Bible,” “The
Christian and Civil Disobedience,” “World Peace Tax Fund Act,” "Forms of
Resistance and Legal Consequences,” “Mennonite Institutions and the
Withholding Dilemma, and “Voluntary Service and War Tax Options.”
The conference, intended for “theological and practical discernment on war tax
issues,” is open to all who wish to attend.
Initiative for the conference came from a resolution passed by the triennial
convention of the General Conference Mennonite Church in
in
St. Catherines,
Ont.
Those planning to attend the conference should register by
…
Co-moderators of the conference are Peter Ediger of Arvada,
Colo., and Vernon Leis of
Elmira, Ont.
After the conference, Gospel Herald carried the
following report:
Unlike in 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 Mennonite College made the pilgrimage to First
Mennonite.
Two retired military men gave background for the concern about war taxes at
the first session. Col. Edward
King, U.S. Army
(retired), summarized the ludicrous contradictions between stated
U.S. foreign policy
and actual U.S.
military practice, and tallied up the cost in tens of billions of dollars.
Major-General Fred Carpenter, Canadian Armed Forces (retired), who traces his
martial ancestry to Napoleon, pointed out political and military differences
between the U.S.
and Canada. Stressing the dangers of nationalism, Carpenter called for a view
of land resources which sees them as international property just as the ocean
and the air.
Conference participants were characterized by a keen sense of urgency about
the international arms race and felt some personal accountability for national
policy in their respective countries, the United States and Canada. A basic
cleavage of viewpoint became evident however over the degree of accountability
which Christians have for the nuclear immorality of the governments under
which they live.
The historical record of Anabaptists on war tax issues was reviewed by Walter
Klaassen of Conrad Grebel College and Donald Kaufman of General Conference
Home Ministries Personnel Services. The evidence suggests that most
Anabaptists did pay all their taxes willingly; however, there is the early
case of Hutterite Anabaptists who refused to pay war taxes that were to be
used against the invading Turks.
During the American Revolution some Mennonites did object to paying war taxes;
yet, in a joint statement with the Church of the Brethren (German Baptist
Brethren) they agreed to pay taxes in general to the colonial powers “that we
may not offend them.”
In a biblical/theological paper. Marlin Miller, president of Goshen Biblical
Seminary, defined the relationship of the Christian to civil authorities as
one of subordination rather than obedience or subjection. Subordination, he
said, requires the exercise of discrimination regarding what is due the state
(Rom. 13:7) within a basic
stance that rejects rebellion and violent revolution.
In the second major biblical/theological paper of the conference, Willard
Swartley of Conrad Grebel College examined the New Testament texts on taxes.
“Scripture does not speak a clear word on the subject of paying taxes used for
war. While taxes generally appear to be Caesar’s due, the statements on the
subject contain either ambiguity in meaning
(Mk. 12:17) or qualifications in
the texts that call for discrimination in judgment,” he concluded.
Conference participants felt that the ethical directive as to whether to pay
or not to pay must be found by the community of believers led by the Spirit to
understand the imperative of the total revelation in Christ Jesus.
The summary statement of the conference issues an appeal to the churches and
church institutions to “recognize the extent to which we are subject to the
industrial-military complex” and to “pray for those in authority, that they
will rule justly.” It calls on the church to “awaken a consciousness of the
extent to which our lifestyles are affected by the standards of our consumer
society, and extend a new call to the lordship of Christ in lifestyle issues.”
A response 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.[”]
Conference planners Harold Regier and Peter Ediger, editors of
God and Caesar, a war tax newsletter from Newton,
Kan., and Ted Koontz of
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.) indicated
plans to carry on efforts to raise consciousness about war tax and military
issues.
Cassettes of the proceedings at the War Tax Conference held at Kitchener… are
now ready for circulation. The entire set includes six cassettes with
presentations by Col. Edward
King (ret.), Major General
Fred Carpenter of the Canadian Armed Forces, Marlin Miller, Walter Klaassen,
Donald Kaufman, and Willard Swartley. The discussions after the presentations
are also included.…
A couple of history lessons followed. The issue reprinted the petition sent by Mennonites to their
state Assembly in in which they begged
for conscientious objection to military service, noted that they were dutiful
taxpayers, and enclosed a “small gift” as protection money. And the
issue told the story of the
Funkite schism that happened around the same time:
Bicentennial reenactments usually emphasize powdered wigs and antique muskets
to the exclusion of ideas, but a 200-year-old sermon repeated at First
Presbyterian Church in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, this summer put a current
issue in sharper focus.
Costumes and candlelight could not detract from the timeliness of the Reverend
John Carmichael’s sermon, because the
payment of war taxes is no less a problem for us than it was for 18th-century
Mennonites. The Presbyterian pastor had little sympathy with those who
questioned the morality of war, but his sermon tells us what Mennonites were
doing about war taxes 200 years ago.
“Had our Lord been a Mennonist, He would have refused to pay tribute to
support war, which shows the absurdity of these people’s conduct,” he said.
“In Romans 13, we are instructed the duty we owe to civil government, but if
it was unlawful and anti-Christian and antiscriptural to support war, it would
be unlawful to pay taxes. If it is unlawful to go to war, it is unlawful to
pay another to do it.”
Lancaster County Mennonites refused to pay taxes for military purposes in
, according to the Presbyterian preacher,
forcing the authorities to seize their property.
“What a foolish trick those people put on their consciences who, for the
reasons already mentioned, will not pay their taxes and yet let others come
and take their money.”
When the dispute between England and her American Colonies turned to bloodshed
and farmers and storekeepers began drilling at every crossroads, Mennonites
refused to join their neighbors in these “military associations” or to make
contributions for the purchases of rifles and gunpowder.
Instead of helping the war effort, Quakers set up an elaborate system for
distributing aid to war victims in besieged Boston. Mennonites also donated
money for the relief of the poor of Boston. In the Continental Congress recognized the rights of conscientious
objectors and asked no more of them than voluntary contributions “for their
distressed brethren.”
But the peace churches were not allowed to stand aloof. Patriot leaders wanted
their contributions to be an acknowledged equivalent for military service, not
a free gift to the poor. A letter from a Church of the Brethren pastor in
Lancaster County tells how his congregation required the collector to sign a
receipt that the money was intended “for the needy,” but he was afraid it
would be used for military purposes.
When the Pennsylvania Assembly decided to put a direct tax on everyone who
would not join a military unit, with the money appropriated for defense of the
state, Quakers insisted that the tax violated the liberty of conscience
guaranteed in William Penn’s charter. Mennonites and Brethren explained in
their petition to the Assembly:
“The Advice to those who do not find Freedom of Conscience to take up arms,
that they ought to be helpful to those who are in Need and distressed
Circumstances, we receive with Chearfulness towards all Men of what Station
they may be — it being our Principle to feed the Hungry and give the Thirsty
Drink; — we have dedicated ourselves to serve all Men in every Thing that can
be helpful to the Preservation of Men’s Lives, but we find no Freedom in
giving, or doing, or assisting in any Thing by which Men’s Lives are destroyed
or hurt. We beg the Patience of all those who believe we err in this Point.”
Mennonites of that generation saw no distinction between fighting in war and
paying for the weapons of war. “I would as soon go into the war as pay the 3
pounds, 10 shillings, if I did not fear for my life,” Andrew Ziegler, bishop
in the Skippack congregation, declares in .
Since Mennonites, Quakers, and Brethren objected on conscientious grounds to
paying war taxes, while making it a matter of conscience to pay other state
and township taxes, as many documents make clear, forcing them to pay for war
as an equivalent to military service was as much a violation of religious
freedom as forcible induction into the army would be.
The Pennsylvania Constitution guaranteed the
right of conscientious objectors to refuse military service, provided they
made an equivalent contribution in money. But an equivalent of any kind of
military service made exemption on conscientious grounds a sham. The Mennonite
and Quaker refusal to pay war taxes during the American Revolution was thus an
integral part of their refusal to participate in war. If they could be
exempted from militia duty for this reason, it was illogical and a violation
of liberty of conscience not to exempt them from paying war taxes.
The experience of an earlier generation need not be normative, but we would do
well to ponder the witness of the Mennonite Church in the crisis of the
American Revolution and its meaning for our generation.
In the issue, John E. Lapp
summarized Romans 13
and in so doing showed how much the orthodoxy had shifted. Compare this to his
remarks on the same subject in (see
♇ 7 September 2018)!
Paul… continued in [Romans] chapter 13 to call upon all Christians to be
subject to the powers — not to resist the powers, to be subject for
conscience’ sake, and to pay taxes cheerfully. Here we can see how the
citizens of the other world maintain relationships with the nations of this
world and continue their faithful loyalties to the King of kings. One
parenthesis may be in order. (This does not mean that Christians who belong to
the new order will unquestioningly pay war taxes. They may even determine what
really is Caesar’s rightful portion and may even decide to withhold that
portion which is designated for military purposes!)
This is the twentieth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
In , the Mennonite Church had the luxury of
being by-standers as the General Conference Mennonite Church wrestled with the
war tax issue, and in particular about whether to continue to withhold income
taxes from the salaries of their employees who were conscientious objectors to
military taxation (the Mennonite Church would get its own chance to wrestle
with these issues a bit later on), at a special mid-triennium conference on the
issue. Meanwhile, disgruntled conservative Mennonites met at the Smoketown
Consultation, Peace Tax Fund advocates ramped up their campaign, and the New
Call to Peacemaking pushed the Peace Churches to step up their game.
As a result, there was a plethora of war tax resistance-related content in
Gospel Herald that year.
“The federal income tax is the chief link connecting each individual’s daily labor with the tremendous buildup for war,” Donald D. Kaufman observes in his new book, The Tax Dilemma: Praying for Peace, Paying for War (Herald Press: ).
“Preoccupied as some citizens are with paying too much tax, I suggest that the crucial issue has to do with the purpose for which tax monies are used,” Kaufman maintains.
“While a young person can be exempted from personally serving in the Armed
Forces, no one is easily exempted from making contributions to the military
leviathan.” In his book, Kaufman considers issue of the two kingdoms. After a
brief examination of the biblical background, he traces the history of
conscientious objection to war taxes. He discusses a dozen viable options
which concerned Christians can use “to register our faithfulness to Jesus
Christ as Lord and our opposition to corporate war making by the state within
which we live.”
[W]hat words can we say to our brother in his new responsibilities? Lawrence
Burkholder in the consultation on
taxes and war initiated an intriguing discussion on the manager (or the
administrator) and the prophet and corporate responsibility. He observed that
with only a few incidental references, "the Bible is almost solidly against
those who assumed responsibility for institutional life" (a distressing word
for a biblical scholar on his inauguration).
Ray Horst reported that two staff members have said they would want to
consider a personal response on war taxes should Mennonite Board of Missions
seek alternatives to such withholdings. The directors acted to continue
discussions with other Mennonite groups and Mennonite Church agencies on the
war tax question.
There has been much discussion about the appropriateness of paying for war as
we pray for peace. Some have sought ways in which they can refuse to pay
federal income taxes and thus give a concrete witness against the militarism
which plagues the
U.S. and many other
countries of the world — even, alas, poor countries.
The focus on income taxes may obscure the fact that there are many other
federal taxes which are also used to support the national defense
establishment. In fact, in the personal income tax provided only about one half of the
non-trust fund U.S.
federal revenue. The other half came from a variety of sources such as the
corporation income tax, excise taxes (on many items such as telephone service,
air travel, automobile tires, gasoline, and especially alcohol and tobacco),
estate and gift taxes, and customs duties.
Can we avoid paying these taxes? Not completely, but we can reduce the amount
we pay by the simple device of not buying at all the things which are harmful
and by reducing our expenditures for all other items by holding down our
standard of living. The United States tax law is very generous in allowing
deductions for making contributions to churches and charitable institutions.
(The Canadian law is less generous.) Up to 50 percent of income may be
deducted.
These charitable gifts will first of all reduce sharply the amount of federal
income tax we pay — in some cases even avoiding the tax completely. But in the
second place, since the gift to charity will reduce our remaining disposable
income we will have reduced our standard of living and thus will have to pay
less of the hidden taxes which also support the defense establishment. The
corporation income tax, for example, is one third the size of the personal
income tax.
Although the check to pay the corporation income tax is sent to the government
by the corporation, rest assured the corporation will, if they possibly can,
pass on the tax to the consumer in the form of higher prices for the things
the corporation sells. If we don’t buy the product, we aren’t paying this tax.
Reducing our standard of living as a means of avoiding federal taxes has an
important additional benefit. It is a powerful witness that we are disturbed
by the disparities in wealth and income throughout the world. Our lives should
demonstrate that we can get along without buying the multitude of things an
affluent America deems important.
A report on an protest at Titan Ⅱ missile base
noted that “Also scheduled for the same day will be a nonviolent protest at the
Wichita offices of the Internal Revenue Service, designed to draw attention to
tax money being used for military expenditures…” And
a separate report on a protest at Rocky Flats said that
“On ,
tax resisters made statements about their refusal to pay for war in a press
conference outside the
IRS
office.”
The issue brought news of the
Quaker war tax resisters Bruce & Ruth Graves’ court battle:
A Quaker couple from Ypsilanti, Michigan, attempted to claim a “war tax”
credit on federal income tax returns, but has lost an unusual case before the
U.S. Supreme Court,
the Associated Press reports. The court left intact lower court rulings that
Bruce and Ruth Graves, as conscientious objectors, may not claim such a
credit. The couple had sought a refund of the portion of their taxes used for
war materials.
, the Graves have converted the
“foreign tax credit” on their federal tax forms to a “war tax credit” and
entered only 50 percent to the income tax otherwise due. Each year they have
asked a refund but not received it. So after failing to get the couple to sign
corrected tax statements, the government initiated action to collect the
“deficiency” even though it had already collected the correct amount. The
appeal argued that the government’ s action violated the Graves’
constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Catholic priest John M. Garvey also fought the law and the law won, a bit. The
Gospel
Herald had the scoop:
Father John M. Garvey gave up his car for Lent. Actually, the Internal Revenue
Service hauled it away on Ash Wednesday. It now sits amid big, drab army
trucks behind a fence topped with barbed wire 20 miles away in Mobridge,
S.D. It is there
because the Roman Catholic priest has not paid income taxes as a protest
against military spending and the federal government’s treatment of Indian
people.
Without a car on the South Dakota prairie, the priest has been walking more,
hitchhiking, and riding buses. “It’s been inconvenient,” he said, and when he
does he gets some puzzled looks. “But it’s no big dramatic thing. I’m not
standing out there shivering to death.”
John K. Stoner, in the issue,
imagined
the conversation
between a taxpayer and his or her Maker in the aftermath of a nuclear
holocaust:
There was a blinding flash of light, an explosion like the bursting of a
million bombs, and in an instant everything was burning in a huge ball of
fire.
The first time it was the Flood.
But next time the fire… It was the End.
Afterward a prominent evangelical leader was being quizzed by his Maker.
“You say you were taken by surprise. But didn’t you know it might happen?”
“Well, yes, Sir. I guess I did, Sir. But You see, Sir, they…”
“Wasn’t anybody talking about the fantastic risks involved? But not risks
really. It was a certainty. As predictable as death and taxes.”
“Well, Sir, I can see it now. But hindsight is always better…”
“What do you mean, hindsight? Couldn’t you discern the signs of the times?”
“Well, Sir, we were kind of busy…”
“Doing what?”
“Well, Sir, some of us were searching for remnants of Noah’s Ark. We thought
if we found it maybe they would believe in You…”
“But surely you weren’t all hunting Noah’s Ark?”
“Well, Sir, not exactly. But a lot of people who weren’t hunting it were
watching movies about the search. And then we were busy defending the Bible.”
“Why didn’t you know it was going to happen? Surely there were people warning
you. In fact, I had assigned a few Myself to sound the alarm.”
“Well, Sir, You see, Sir, those people… I don’t know quite how to say this…
er… they didn’t believe the way we… er… I mean I…”
“Did you think you could go on building three more bombs a day forever and not
blow things up?
“Well, Sir, You see, I thought You would look after those things. I didn’t
think it would happen unless You wanted.
“Women nursing infant babies? Children swinging on the side porch, playing in
the lawn sprinkler? An old man reading his Bible? Millions of people, burned
up?”
“Well, sir, in retrospect it does look rather overwhelming. I’m not sure it
was really fair. But then, things were getting rather bad, what with
communism, homosexuality, welfare, big government, pollution…”
“And capitalism, national security, the good life, nuclear deterrence.”
“Well, Sir, I hadn’t thought of those things as…”
“Why not?”
“Well, Sir, You see, the people who talked about those things were not… er…
Bible believing. As an example, they talked about resisting war taxes, even
though the Bible says, ‘Render unto Caesar…’. Things like that…”
“You paid your taxes?”
“Well, Sir, yes, Sir, I did.”
“Every penny?”
“I think so, Sir.”
“Are you saying that I am responsible for this fire and your tax dollars were
not?”
“Well, Sir, I… er…”
“Next!”
Allan W. Smith responded in a
letter to the editor,
saying that Christians should beware of inadvertently putting themselves under
an Antichrist who promises worldly peace at the expense of abandoning Biblical
truth:
In Stoner’s depiction of the scene of judgment day, it is to be observed that
Jesus dictum, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” is
contradicted. It is not to be supposed that Jesus and Paul, who both told
people to pay their taxes, were ignorant of the way that Rome got and held its
power. Taxes are, after all, not freewill gifts to the state, and we may well
be grieved with the way the state uses them. However, we must all live by our
Word-enlightened consciences.
A proposed Mennonite Church statement on militarism and conscription,
originally drafted by MBCM
staff members Hubert Schwartzentruber and Gordon Zook in consultation with
several other persons, was presented. The Board gave the statement extensive
discussion and some refinement, and unanimously approved the document for
submission as a recommendation from MBCM
to the General Board for presentation to the
Mennonite Church General Assembly. The statement contains sections on peace
and obedience, use of material resources, Christian service and conscription,
and militarism and taxation.
That article also noted that the Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries
met and approved a “task force to represent the Mennonite Church in cooperation
with the General Conference Mennonite Church committee on conscientious
objection and tax exemption.”
Sensing the radical nature of his comments on the theme, “The Way of Peace,”
Schwartzentruber said that he could be taken to jail if he put into action his
beliefs on such issues as war taxes and conscription. If he had to go to jail,
he said, it would be easier to go with brothers and sisters in the faith.
Peacemaking is the way of Jesus, but it has to be the work of the church and
not of individuals alone, he said.
Representatives of the Mennonite Church gathered in Waterloo,
, and
war tax resistance was on the agenda
but was overshadowed by other concerns about draft registration:
Debate over the proposed statement on militarism and conscription was centered
in two subpoints. One counseled Mennonites not to comply with any military
registration law that might be passed by the
U.S. Congress if
the Department of Defense and not civilians would be responsible for the
registration program. The other point counseled administrators of church
schools not to comply with any legislation which might be passed that would
require them to provide information about their students for purposes of
registration.
Noting that passage of any such registration bill is very much in doubt,
Linden Wenger, Harrisonburg,
Va., told fellow delegates,
“It seems to me we’re being a bit premature in making an issue of these two
items.” Wenger also said that he “will not hinge my decision” on whether to
support compliance with a registration law on whether it is administered by
civilian or military personnel.
Other delegates, including John E. Lapp of Souderton,
Pa., responded that it
was important that the items in question not be deleted.
In the amended statement which was finally approved, the two items were
combined and weakened slightly, but were retained. A subpoint urging “careful
biblical study” on the issue of war tax payment was added. In addition, the
statement was upgraded from “guidelines” to a full statement of position.
The eventual statement on militarism and conscription that came out of the
Waterloo conference on was
reprinted in Gospel Herald. It included the following
section:
We recognize that today’s militarism expresses itself more and more through
expensive and highly technical weaponry and that such equipment is dependent
upon financial resources conscripted from citizens through taxation.
Therefore,
We encourage our members to pursue a lifestyle which minimizes such tax
liability through reduction of taxable income and/or increase of tax
deductible contributions for the advancement of the gospel and the relief
of human suffering.
We endorse efforts in support of legislation which would provide
alternative uses for taxes, paid by conscientious objectors to war, which
would otherwise be devoted to military purposes.
We encourage our congregations to engage in careful biblical study
regarding Christian responsibility to civil authorities including issues
of conscience in relation to payment of taxes.
We recognize as a valid witness the conscientious refusal to pay a portion
of taxes required for war and military efforts. Such refusal, however, may
not be pursued in a spirit of lawlessness nor for personal advantage but
may be an occasion for constructive response to human need.
We encourage our congregations and institutions to seek relief from the
current legal requirement of collecting taxes through the withholding of
income taxes of employees, especially those taxes which may be used for
war purposes. In this effort we endorse cooperation with the General
Conference Mennonite Church in the current search for judicial,
legislative, and administrative alternatives to the collection of
military-related taxes. In the meantime if congregational or institutional
employers are led to noncompliance with the requirement to withhold such
taxes, we pledge our support for those representatives of the church who
may be called to account for such a witness.
On ,
Robert C. Johansen
(“president of the Institute for World Order”) spoke at Goshen College and
boosted war tax resistance:
Johansen encouraged his listeners to become part of a “new breed of
abolitionists,” to take a more active stance, even if this included refusing
to pay war taxes and refusing to be drafted. He reminded his audience that
those in opposition to slavery had also defied the law in order to bring about
change.
Gordon Zook, in the issue,
wrote that the whole economy was distorted towards militarism, and took a
sort of sideways look at tax resistance in that context:
One current issue of obedience is the militaristic mentality which keeps
producing new weapons systems at the expense of basic human needs. So much of
North American “abundance” results from the distorted values and priorities of
our militaristic economy. Many are wondering, how to repent of such
involvements including questions of responsibility for the use of tax
revenues.
In the same issue, John K. Stoner was back to urge
conscientious objection to nuclear deterrence
which necessarily meant action before the nuclear war, not just
options to be held in reserve for after the war started:
Mennonites who believe that the Bible teaches conscientious objection to
military service should also be conscientious objectors to the concept and
practice of nuclear deterrence. We have expressed conscientious objection to
military service by refusing military service, whether by refusing to put on
the military uniform, going to prison, doing alternate service, or emigrating.
We should express our Conscientious objection to the concept and practice of
nuclear deterrence by publicly rejecting the myth of nuclear deterrence,
denouncing the idolatry of nuclear weapons, refusing to pay war taxes, and
identifying with resistance to the nuclear madness.
Mennonites should do this because the concept and practice of nuclear
deterrence is a form of military service in which the entire population has
been conscripted. The concept of nuclear deterrence epitomizes the spirit of
war. The practice of nuclear deterrence is to war what lust is to adultery,
and whoever engages freely in lust should not consider himself innocent of
adultery. As E.I. Watkin has said, it cannot “be morally right to threaten
immoral conduct.” To plan and prepare for the annihilation of millions of
people is a culpable act in the extreme, and whoever does not deliberately and
explicitly repudiate the concept and practice of nuclear deterrence
participates in the act.
The U.S. branch of
the international Roman Catholic peace movement, Pax Christi
USA,
initiated informal contacts with General Conference Mennonite peace
spokespersons .
Rural Benedictine College at Atchison,
Kan., provided the setting for
the sixth annual convention of Pax Christi
USA,
at which Mennonites Bob Hull and Don Kaufman of Newton,
Kan., led a workshop on tax
resistance and the World Peace Tax Fund Act. Interest in this was strong.
About 40 persons, including some tax resisters, participated. In a private
meeting with Sister Man Evelyn Jegen, executive secretary of Pax Christi
USA, and
Gordon Zahn, a Catholic conscientious objector in World War Ⅱ, Hull, Kaufman,
and William Keeney of Bethel College, North Newton,
Kan., explained the General
Conference Mennonite Church resolution on war taxes. Mennonite Central
Committee Peace Section’s Christian Peacemaker Registration form received
active interest at the convention, particularly during a workshop on
“Militarism in Education.” The possible resumption of registration and perhaps
the draft in the
U.S. is stimulating
regional Pax Christi groups to promote conscientious objection to war by
Catholic youth.
Resolutions concerning the
Iranian-U.S. crisis,
SALT
Ⅱ, and the proposed World Peace Tax Fund were passed at the fall meeting of
Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section
(U.S.),
Nov.
30–Dec. 1 at Akron,
Pa.
Section members also agreed to postpone a decision on a resolution to support
war tax resistance campaign until they could have further dialogue with
constituent members…
The World Peace Tax Fund
(WPTF) bill
now before Congress also received an endorsement from the Peace section group.
The bill would provide a legal means for conscientious objectors to channel
the portion of their tax dollar which now goes for the military budget to be
used in a special fund for projects to promote world peace.
The section said in resolution “that it is conscious that the
WPTF
legislation might not in itself force a significant reduction in military
spending, but it recognizes that it would provide funds for peacemaking
efforts and would be a witness against military spending. The section
continues to support other forms of witness against military spending,
including persons who refuse to pay war taxes.”
Although Peace Section has given staff time to the promotion of a better
understanding of
WPTF in its
constituency, it had not before been a formal sponsor of the bill.
Peace Section has also established a bureau of Christian speakers available to
address congregations and other groups concerning
WPTF.
Federal court convicts Mennonite in Illinois war tax resistance case
Bruce Chrisman, 30-year-old General Conference Mennonite, was convicted on
by U.S. District
Court in Springfield, Ill.,
of federal income tax evasion.
Chrisman, who lives in Ava in southern Illinois, was charged with failing to
file a tax return in . Actually Chrisman did
file a return in and other years for which
the government said he failed to file. But the returns did not contain the
financial data the Internal Revenue Service contends constitutes a legal tax
return.
Chrisman attached letters to his returns saying he objected on religious and
moral grounds to paying taxes that support the
U.S. military. His
defense lawyers said the government had to prove that he “willfully” failed to
file a return — that he knew what the statute required and purposefully
decided not to comply.
At a three-day criminal trial Chrisman said, “The returns I filed with the
IRS were
in accordance with the dictates of my conscience and religious beliefs and the
IRS
code.”
He testified that his father never hit him and that “guns, even cap guns, were
never allowed in our home.”
The prosecuting attorney read Romans 13, Luke 20:20–26, and Matthew 17:24–27
and asked Chrisman, “Don’t you believe in the Bible? Doesn’t it state here you
should pay taxes?”
Chrisman said, “The government is not the supreme authority in my life, but
Jesus Christ is.”
In the closing arguments to the jury the prosecution said Chrisman’s “joy” and
“peaceful composure” exposed his lack of deeply held religious beliefs.
James Dunn, Mennonite pastor in Urbana,
Ill., observed the trial. He
said evidence of Chrisman’s character and of his pacifism were not allowed as
testimony by the judge, J. Waldo Ackerman.
During the pretrial hearings, Ackerman allowed Robert Hull, secretary for
peace and social concerns of the General Conference Mennonite Church, and
Peter Ediger, director of Mennonite Voluntary Service, to testify about
Mennonite witness against war and conscription of persons and money for war
purposes. But the testimony was disallowed at the trial.
One of Chrisman’s attorneys, Jeffrey Weiss, in addressing the 12-member jury,
argued that Chrisman’s religious beliefs and his conscientious objector status
during the Vietnam War should exempt him from paying that portion of his
federal income tax that supports the military. “He did not try to hide behind
the shield of religion to rip off the government but honestly believes he is
exercising his constitutional rights to religion.” he said.
Chrisman, married, with a two-year-old daughter, faces up to one year in
prison and a $10,000 fine The verdict will be appealed to the
U.S. Court of
Appeals in Chicago.
A pair of articles advertised seminar on war tax resistance that would be held
at Laurelville Mennonite Church Center in
:
Does Caesar ask for only what belongs to him?
Should there be a Mennonite consensus on paying or not paying war taxes? These
and related questions will be the agenda for a seminar at Laurelville Church
Center, .
The seminar is entitled “War Taxes: to Pay or Not to Pay?” It is jointly
sponsored by the Church Center and Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section.
Persons on both sides of the issue are encouraged to participate. More
information is available from Laurelville Mennonite Church Center…
“War Taxes: To Pay or Not to Pay?”
is the title of a seminar cosponsored by
MCC
Peace Section and Laurelville Mennonite Church Center. Persons on all sides of
the issue are encouraged to participate as such questions will be raised as:
What belongs to Caesar and what to God? What are these taxes buying? What are
the alternatives? More information is available from Laurelville Mennonite
Church Center…
The GCMC Mid-Triennium
This was the first Gospel Herald report from the
General Conference Mennonite Church special mid-triennium conference on war
taxes:
Debate was vigorous and heated as more than 500 delegates from the General
Conference Mennonite Church and some 200 visitors met
to discuss how Christians should respond to the nuclear threat and to massive
expenditures for defense. War tax resistance, or the refusal to pay for the
military portion of the federal budget, was among possible responses discussed
at the meeting, held in Minneapolis.
A few delegates present at the first day of the conference said the church
should not act as tax collector for the state through withholding taxes from
employees’ paychecks. But most of the delegates present the first day said
that while they were troubled by worldwide military expenditures of over one
billion dollars daily, the church as a corporate body should not engage in
illegal activity in its witness against war preparations. Instead, speakers
urged alternatives such as pressuring congressional representatives to reduce
defense expenditures, eliminate the arms trade, and to increase aid and trade
to Third World countries. A few observed that Mennonites contribute to the
disparity in living standards around the world through their affluent
lifestyle.
A sentiment often expressed, however, was that the church, while avoiding
illegal actions, should actively support its members who engage in civil
disobedience on the basis of conscience.
Roy Vogt, economics professor from Winnipeg, Manitoba, berated the assembly
for loading the responsibility for witness upon isolated individuals. “It is
morally reprehensible,” he said, “to give only moral support. We must provide
financial and legal support for those prophets who have arisen from our
middle-class ranks.”
In contrast to the social activists at the conference are Mennonites like Dan
Dalke, pastor from Bluffton, Ohio, who castigated the social activists for
making pacifism a religion. “We will never create a Utopia,” he said. “Jesus
didn’t come to clean up social issues. Our job is to evangelize the world. A
peace witness is secondary.”
Some of the statements were personal. A businessman confessed that while he
could easily withhold paying military taxes on the basis of conscience, he was
frightened. “I am scared of being different, of being embarrassed, of being
alienated from my community. Unless I get support from the Mennonite church, I
will keep paying taxes.”
Alvin Beachy of Newton, Kan.,
said the church seemed to be shifting from a quest to being faithful to the
gospel to being legal before the government. Echoing this view, J.R.
Burkholder of Goshen, Ind.,
said, “The question is not who is most faithful, but what does it mean to be
faithful?”
A follow-up article in the
issue filled in some blanks:
General Conference Mennonites voted
to launch a vigorous campaign to exempt the church from acting as a tax
collector for the state.
Five-hundred delegates, representing 60,000 Mennonites in Canada and the
U.S. passed the
resolution by a nine to one margin. Charged with responsibility to implement
the decision is the highest policy-making body of the General Conference
Mennonite Church, the General Board.
Heinz Janzen, executive secretary for the denomination, said the decision will
increase political activism among Mennonites, a group which has traditionally
kept distant from legislative activities.
Delegates met
in a special conference to discern the will of God for Christians in their
response to militarism and the worldwide arms race.
Some Mennonites are practicing war tax resistance — the refusal to pay the
military portion of federal income tax. This was a central focus of debate
during because one of the
employees of the General Conference has asked the church to stop withholding
war taxes from her wages. In , Cornelia Lehn,
who is director of children’s education, made the request on grounds of
conscience. Her request was refused by the General Board because it would be
illegal for an employer to not act as a tax collector for the Internal Revenue
Service.
Although delegates to this convention affirmed that decision, they instructed
the General Board to vigorously search for legal avenues to exempt the church
from collecting taxes. In that way individuals employed by the church would be
free to follow their own conscience.
The campaign to obtain legal conscientious objection to war taxes will last
three years. If fruitless the question is to be brought back to another
meeting of the church.
Activists in the church were not completely satisfied with the decision. They
would prefer that Cornelia Lehn’s request be granted. These delegates spoke
for an early First Amendment test of the constitutionality of the church being
compelled to act as a tax collector.
Nevertheless, Donovan Smucker, vice-president of the General Conference and
from Kitchener, Ont., said of
the decision, “Something wonderful is happening. We are beginning to bring our
witness to the political order.”
Vernon Lohrenz, a delegate from South Dakota, observed, “We must proceed in
faith, and not in fear. If this is the right thing to do, God will take care
of us.”
From the discussions on taxation, it seemed the issue will not easily be
resolved.
Implementing the decision of the General Conference Mennonite Church “war tax”
conference in Minneapolis has
not been easy.
The Minneapolis resolution mandated a task force on taxes to seek “all legal,
legislative, and administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector
exemption” for the General Conference Mennonite Church from the withholding of
federal income taxes from its employees. (About 46 percent of
U.S.
federal taxes are used for the military.)
Two meetings of the task force have been held. The task force has been
expanded to include representation from the Church of the Brethren, the
Friends, and the Mennonite Church. This group of 11 is expected by the
participating churches to establish the legal, legislative, and administrative
agenda of a corporate discipleship response to military taxes.
At their second meeting () the
task force members rejected administrative avenues. Within the scope of
U.S. Internal
Revenue Service or Revenue Canada regulations, this would involve extending
ordination, commissioning, or licensing status to all employees of church
institutions. It was a consensus of the task force that this would be an
administrative loophole. It would not develop a conscientious objector
position in response to military taxes.
However, both the judicial and legislative options will be pursued
simultaneously. Plans for the legislative option are the more developed.
For the legislative route to work, says Delton Franz, director of the
Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section office in Washington,
D.C., the
problem of conscience and taxes will have to be defined carefully. Currently a
paper focusing on the reasons the General Conference has a major problem of
conscience with collecting taxes from its employees is being drafted. After it
has been reviewed, it will be sent along with cover letters by leaders of the
historic peace churches to members of Congress who represent major
constituency concentrations or sit on key subcommittees. Later on, church
members will also be asked to write letters. It is important, says Franz, to
define the problem of conscience in such a way that it will motivate Senators
and Representatives to work vigorously for the bill.
Another follow-up to these initiatives will be a visit to Washington of the
most influential peace church leaders to solicit support from selected members
of Congress and to obtain a sponsor for an exemption bill.
There is a possibility that a parallel task force will emerge in Canada. Ernie
Regehr, director of Project Ploughshares, Waterloo,
Ont., notes the necessity of
defining the question of militarism in Canadian terms for Canadians; for
example, arms export revenues. Regehr in attempting to gather a Canadian task
force. Heinz Janzen, general secretary of the General Conference Mennonite
Church, is convener of the war tax expanded task force. Mennonite Church
members are Winifred Beechy, secretary for peace and social concerns under the
Board of Congregational Ministries; Janet Reedy, member of the Mennonite
Church committee on tax concerns; and Gordon Zook, executive secretary of the
Board of Congregational Ministries.
A New Call to Peacemaking
The “New Call to Peacemaking” campaign continued.
Another conference
was announced for :
workshops will deal with conflict
resolution, tax resistance and the World Peace Tax Fund, economic conversion
and the arms race, and resources for peace education.
Campaign organizers assert that interest in the “issue of conscience and war
taxes” has been growing recently. It was given a “high priority” by the New
Call to Peacemaking national conference in Wisconsin.
Results of the conference
(which had apparently been pushed back a few weeks) were reported by Winifred
N. Beechy:
More war-tax opposition
A group of 30 to 40 church people met on , at City Church
of the Brethren, Goshen, Ind.,
to consider the moral dilemma faced by Christians who are opposed to war as a
method of settling disputes but who involuntarily contribute to war by payment
of taxes.
Participants in the one-day seminar came from 12 area congregations and
represented four denominations. The focus of the meeting was on that portion
of the federal income tax which goes to support the military and weapons
production. This group felt that the increasing militarization of our society,
the escalation of the arms race, and production of highly technological
weapons of destruction posed the problem of priorities and stewardship, and
the contradiction of “paying for war while praying for peace.”
Willard Swartley, professor of New Testament at Associated Mennonite Biblical
Seminaries in Elkhart, spoke on “Biblical imperatives,” emphasizing the
Christian’s mandate for responsible use of the earth’s resources. Cliff Kindy
of Goshen then outlined what we pay for war, giving a breakdown of the federal
budget with percentages of expenditures going to current and past military and
war-related items. He computed current military spending as roughly 25 to 30
percent, while a more comprehensive figure, taking into account veterans’
expenses and interest on the war-related portion of the national debt, reaches
as high as 50 percent of the national budget. Kindy also estimated that
members of Mennonite and Church of the Brethren churches in Elkhart County pay
more for war taxes than they contribute to their churches.
A survey of the history of war tax resistance among the historic peace
churches since the Reformation was presented by Leonard Gross, archivist of
the Mennonite Church. Current responses to the problem of war taxes were given
by a number of people. Janet Reedy of Elkhart and Jim Sweigart of Goshen
discussed possible options such as refusal to pay that portion of the income
tax which goes to support war, payment made with an accompanying letter or
protest, or voluntarily limiting income below the level of tax liability.
Following the presentations the group broke up into three workshops for
further discussion. From these emerged a consensus on the need for a
continuing support group such as this. Participants expect to draft a
statement which can be presented to their respective congregations for
consideration.
The seminar was planned by a New Call to Peacemaking Committee made up of
members from six Church of the Brethren and Mennonite Churches in Goshen, with
Virgil Brenneman from The Assembly (Mennonite) serving as chairman.
Bruce Chrisman told a New Call to Peacemaking Workshop of his war tax resistance.
The workshop on national service and voluntary service discussed a proposal by
members of Rainbow Boulevard Mennonite Church, Kansas City,
Kan., regarding a legal tax
alternative which would involve cooperating with a national service plan.
In the workshop on conscription of wealth Bob Hull, secretary for peace and
social concerns of the General Conference Mennonite Church, suggested
alternatives to paying war taxes. Others offered their own suggestions.
Several persons expressed the desire to pay taxes only for nonmilitary
programs, and said they wished there was legal provision for this, such as the
World Peace Tax Fund. McSorley, who has had contacts on Capitol Hill,
responded by saying that until there is a large grass-roots movement of tax
resistance the
WPTF doesn’t
stand a chance.
The latter half of the workshop included sharing by Bruce Chrisman,
Carbondale, Ill., who is
involved in a federal criminal case, one of two in the
U.S. involving tax
resistance. His case is significant because it will provide a precedent either
for or against tax refusal on the basis of conscience and religious
convictions.
In Chrisman received draft counseling from
James Dunn, pastor of the Champaign-Urbana
(Ill.) Mennonite Church. He
made a covenant with God to only pay taxes for humanitarian purposes. Since
that time he has paid no federal income taxes.
It wasn’t until this year, however, that the government prosecuted him,
charging that he willfully failed to disclose his gross income in
. “Willful” is the key term, because Chrisman
claims he conscientiously chose not to disclose his income. He feels the
government has purposely waited to build its case.
In the conclusion to his talk Chrisman said that when he first appeared in
court on
this year he was “scared to death.” “Today,” he said, “I have no fear in me.
God has given me an inner peace. I know I’m doing what He wants me to do.”
The Smoketown Consultation
The Gospel Herald covered
“the Smoketown Consultation”
of , in which conservative
Mennonites organized against innovations like war tax resistance. It noted that
“All 25 persons invited were white males,” but also reproduced the statement
that came out of the conference.
Several letters to the editor reacted to this news:
“I… wondered about the inclusion of the specific war tax issue. Were
individuals who sincerely hold to an alternate point of view asked to take
part in the discussion? Again, I am not questioning the conclusions of the
group so much as to ask whether any ‘by-invitation-only’ meeting can speak
for the church with any more integrity than can existing boards and
commissions of the church.”
“It is very easy to pick a Scripture verse to use to prove or disprove
almost anything. The group at one point (Statement #2) speaks about total
commitment to Jesus Christ but then uses quotations from the Apostle Paul
(Statement #5) to validify payment of all taxes. If Jesus Christ is
central, let’s use His example and specific words to guide us! I can
imagine the Pentagon people jumping for joy upon hearing such a statement
about taxes. I’m sure they are glad for this voluntary assurance (from
‘peace church’ members) that money will continue to roll in so that the
military can increase its nuclear arsenal. Because of the apparent
unquestioning payment of taxes by German Christians, Hitler was able to
annihilate millions of persons. We
(U.S.) will be
able to do it with nuclear weapons Neat, eh?”
“At Smoketown Ⅱ, when we assume the sisters of the church will take the
opportunity to share their thoughts, we suggest that a fuller range of
statements be reported. Issues, the unavoidable places where doctrine
meets practical decisions, should be identified and addressed to give
definition to the positive reaffirmation of the authority of Scripture and
a renewed zeal for personal and church evangelism. And, for the grass
roots, a minority report on the nonpayment of war taxes could be
included.”
Verburg didn’t think much of all this talk about war taxes, saying that
the peace witness was about more than opposition to military, so the war
tax emphasis was sign of an imbalance. “We are not the flower children of
the sixties. We are Jesus people and there is a big difference.”
[Gordon] Zook [executive secretary of the Board of Congregational Ministries]
noted the difference between the Smoketown statement “that we should pay all
taxes” and the statement on peacemaking passed by the General Assembly at
Waterloo. The Waterloo statement recognizes the withholding of war taxes as a
valid option. Which statement represents the church? he asked.
Peace Tax Fund Legislation
The edition included an
article by Dan Slabaugh laying out the case for the World Peace Tax Fund bill.
An editor’s note in that issue mentioned that “The
U.S. copies of the
issue of the
Gospel Herald carried a center insert with cards that
may be used by readers to encourage
U.S. lawmakers to
support the World Peace Tax Fund. The following article provides the author’s
rationale for support of the Fund legislation. Readers who care to are
encouraged to make use of these cards or to write their own leaders on its
behalf.”
Any collection of taxes for military purposes has created problems of
conscience for those committed to the peaceful resolution of conflict. Many
members of the “historic peace churches” have viewed war taxes as a denial of
religious freedom since such payments forced them to engage in personal sin.
The question has been put this way: “How can I, as a follower of the Prince of
Peace, willingly provide the government with money that’s needed to pay for
war?”
The most recent war tax in the United States, aside from the income tax, has
been the federal telephone tax. This levy was initiated originally to support
the Vietnam War, but is still continuing for a few more years. Many people
have refused to pay this tax to the federal government. Instead, they have
been sending the equivalent amount to the [“]Special Fund for Tax Resisters”
of Mennonite Central Committee’s Peace Section, or to similar designated
organizations.
To a smaller percentage of individuals the payment of the federal income tax
(approximately 50 percent of which they know goes to support wars and military
activity) also has been considered a matter of personal sin. They therefore
have informed the government that in good conscience they cannot voluntarily
pay that portion of their tax. In some cases persons have deposited the amount
in a local bank where the Internal Revenue Service comes and “steals” it from
them. By so doing these persons are freeing themselves of personal
responsibility for the money’s eventual use and also providing a visible
protest against the evil.
To most of these law-abiding, peace-loving people continual confrontation with
their own government has been an unhappy prospect. So nearly a decade ago a
small group of Christians at Ann Arbor, Michigan — with considerable faith in
the American legislative process — came to believe that it might be possible
to draft a bill and eventually convince the federal government to legalize
“peace” for those citizens so inclined.
A faculty member and a few graduate students at the University of Michigan’s
Law School drafted such a proposal. It provides, for the individual requesting
it, a setting aside of that percentage of the federal income tax which the
U.S. Attorney
General would determine to be earmarked for military purposes. This amount
would then be placed in a trust fund to be administered by a board of trustees
to fund peaceful activities, as approved by the
U.S. Congress.
This legislation, which has become known as the World Peace Tax Fund bill, was
introduced into the
U.S. House of
Representatives by Ronald Dellums of California in
. In the
National Council for a
WPTF was
invited to present its case in the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill
was introduced into the Senate in by Senator
Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon. In the last Congress it had 25 sponsors in the
House of Representatives and the three in the Senate (The legislation was not
enacted and so must be reintroduced to be considered by the present Congress.)
The World Peace Tax Fund bill is often misunderstood. It does not call for any
tax relief or special favors benefiting anyone financially. The bill, if
passed, probably will not affect the
U.S. government’s
military activities. In all likelihood it will not cut the military budget, or
of itself, stop wars. And it will not diminish the need to continue peace
teaching or peace activities.
But it will allow a citizen to legally refrain from contributing to the cost
of war and violence. It will provide a fund to finance peace programs and
support efforts to eliminate the causes of violent conflict.
The biggest obstacle to getting this bill passed in the
U.S. Congress is
the large number of people who say they are committed to peace, but who
seemingly feel no responsibility regarding the government’s use of their tax
money. As a result, legislators tell us that they can’t see the payment of war
taxes as much of a problem because they get very few letters expressing
concern about the matter.
To a large degree, Congress is “problem-oriented.” An alert young Congressman
told us personally that “this bill probably will not be passed until enough of
you refuse to pay war taxes — even if it means going to jail. In other words,”
he was saying, “create a problem that Congress must deal with.”
I am convinced that the conscientious objector provision of the Selective
Service act of never would have been
included had it not been for the “problem” created by
C.O.’s who
refused induction during World War Ⅰ. As the
U.S. was mobilizing
for World War Ⅱ the government did not want another “problem” on its hands, so
it agreed to make provisions for the C.O.’s — not
necessarily out of concern for religious liberty, but in order to keep the
boat from rocking too much.
We should remember that God’s prophets and even His own Son were seen as
“problems” in terms of natural human tendencies toward power, selfishness and
greed. Few of us like to “cause problems” for others. We like to work at
solving them — and be successful in our efforts. But in matters of conscience,
we haven’t been called to be successful, we have been called to be faithful.
“Conscience and War Taxes” is the title of a slide set produced by the
National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund. A resources packet accompanies
the 78 color slides, 20-minute cassette. “Conscience and War Taxes” can be
obtained from MBCM Audiovisuals…
The first issue the class tackled was the payment of war taxes. In
U.S.
Rep. Edward Mezvinsky
was invited to church for Sunday lunch and a discussion of the war tax issue.
“He sidestepped every issue,” said Jim Yoder. Mezvinsky promised to vote for
the World Peace Tax Fund Act if it ever made it to the floor of the House, but
declined to help the bill out of committee.
“He spent most of his time expounding upon his efforts to kill the
B-1 bomber,” recalled Nyle.
When the Fourth of July rolled around that Bicentennial year, the class
sponsored an alternate celebration for the church. Guy Hershberger was asked
to chair the meeting. He interviewed some of the local
“veterans” — conscientious objectors Henry Miller, Henry Brenneman, and Sol
Ropp — who had been badly mistreated by the
U.S. Army during
World War Ⅱ. He also discussed the war tax issue.
Later in the year the class presented a proposal to the congregation, asking
the church to lend moral support to people who did not pay the portion of
their taxes going for war. After initial misunderstandings and further
discussion, the congregation approved the proposal.
Nyle [Kauffman] and Jim were the only class members making enough to have to
worry about paying any taxes at all in . Both
withheld 33 percent of their estimated tax and sent a check for the amount to
Mennonite Central Committee.
This is the twenty-seventh in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
From the issue:
Dutch Mennonite stages arms protest in his living room.
Dutch Mennonite theologian H.B. Kossen (standing, left) had a golden
opportunity to explain his views on nuclear weapons to the media recently
when a bailiff came to collect taxes he had withheld in protest against the
placing of American cruise missiles in Europe. The bailiff collected the
money by holding an auction at the Kossen apartment in Amsterdam.
Kossen and his supporters, including politicians and church leaders, used the
event to hold a press conference and communion service. Over 70 of the
supporters announced they would also begin withholding a symbolic portion of
their taxes.
Kossen, who was one of the main speakers at the
Mennonite World Conference assembly in
Wichita, Kans., teaches at the
University of Amsterdam and at the Mennonite seminary on the same campus.
His protest is part of a growing peace movement among Mennonites and others
in the Netherlands. It is estimated that one fifth of all the Dutch people
have participated in street demonstrations against the cruise missiles.
There was also lively and extended discussion about a report from the Tax
Withholding Task Force. This group had talked to representatives of
MCC’s
supporting denominations about whether
MCC
should honor the requests of four employees that it no longer continue to
forward to the government the military portion of their withheld federal
income taxes.
Phil Rich, who chaired the task force, reported that while there was much soul
searching and serious attention given to the request, none of the
denominations were ready to counsel
MCC
to honor the request for institutional involvement in illegal non-withholding.
Four board members [out of 37] voted to support the request of the four staff
persons. “Our history tells us that actions of minority people like this” lead
us to greater faithfulness, said Larry Kehler.
But the majority voted with Vice-Chairman Ross Nigh, who said, “We are bound
by the process we have begun. We went to the conferences who own
MCC
and without exception they recommended that
MCC
not honor the request of staff.”
The (U.S.) Peace
Section tried to soften the blow ():
Once again it is tax filing time. For those who object to their tax dollars
being used to fund the military, this is an agonizing time.
To help such people, Mennonite Central Committee
U.S. Peace Section
has just completed an information packet on military tax opposition, and
designated an alternative fund for those wishing to channel a portion of their
tax dollars to a peaceful purpose.
The free information packet includes descriptions of varying theological
positions on the war-tax issue, the federal
budget allocation of funds, a discussion of options available for war-tax
opposition, and information on Internal Revenue Service action as a result of
tax resistance.
The alternative fund will channel tax dollars to victims of political violence
in Guatemala. Human-rights abuses are again increasing in that Central
American country.
To obtain the information packet and more details on the alternative fund,
interested people should contact
MCC
U.S. Peace Section…
A modest proposal: Let the Christians of the world resolve to give more of
their wealth to God than to Caesar’s armies.
For those who consider tax resistance incompatible with their interpretation
of Scripture, we would suggest a strict observance of the biblical injunction
to tithe. Every year Christians, like other citizens, pay their federal taxes.
For most people, these taxes are deducted from their paychecks automatically,
so that the cash flow into the government coffers is regular and abundant.
While some may be disquieted by the fact that 57 percent of their taxes goes
to the military, most will remember the verse “Render unto Caesar…” and make
sure Caesar is paid.
Why is it, then, that the Mennonite Church cannot “Render unto God…” with
equal ease? The Bible, in fact, goes into considerable detail about how to
give our money to God, even giving us the standard of a 10 percent tithe. Yet
we are inexcusably lax in practicing this biblical injunction.
By recent estimates at the Ames (Iowa) Assembly of the Mennonite Church,
Mennonites contributed between 5 and 6 percent of their incomes to the church.
Can we rightfully claim that we pay our federal taxes because the Bible tells
us to, while failing to pay our tithe? Surely if being biblical were our
honest intention, we would make absolutely certain that God’s tax (the tithe)
was paid in full. What is God to think of us?
According to the Center for Defense Information, an average
U.S. family of
four, earning $25,000 a year, would normally pay $2,064 — or 8 percent of
their income to the military. Thus it appears likely that Mennonites pay more
to Caesar’s armies than to the church.
We think it is time to correct this situation. Each congregation should
appoint a tax collector whose duty it must be to collect 10 percent of each
member’s income every month. Provision should also be made to collect back
tithes and accumulated interest fees from the date of membership to the
present. Those who find it hard to pay could simply borrow from their federal
tax payments.
Certainly God must be honored with our tithes. If that means Internal Revenue
Service received only 50 to 60 percent of what is owed, perhaps we could
discuss the problem sometime during a Mennonite Church assembly.
On another matter, the committee struggled with the issues posed by
MCC
employees whose request not to have income taxes withheld was rejected after
long debate at the
MCC
annual meeting in . It was
decided at that time that, despite this decision,
MCC
should continue to affirm the integrity of those objecting to war taxes and
establish a committee that would study and create broader awareness of the
impact of militarism on refugees, hunger, and development.
But the mandate of that group, which is to begin meeting in
, was not clearly defined. Executive
Committee chairman Elmer Neufeld said there seems to be a “strong expectation”
from some that the special committee will continue to work specifically on the
taxwithholding issue.
Tax resisters give money to needy causes.
Ten Mennonites, Catholics, and Brethren gathered in front of the courthouse
in Kalamazoo, Mich., on
to voice their opposition to military spending. Instead of paying the
Internal Revenue Service the portion of their income taxes they claimed would
go into the U.S.
defense budget, they chose instead to give their combined withholdings
totaling $1,600 to five local social-service agencies.
Accompanied by guitar, the protesters sang “Peace” and “Down by the
Riverside." They then made personal statements and mailed their tax returns.
Winfred Stoltzfus (back to camera) declared that the taking of life violated
his religious beliefs and his medical training. “As medical students we are
taught to save life,” he said. “I cannot in good conscience continue to
voluntarily support and pay the federal taxes budgeted for war and death.”
Ellen Kinsenger-Roihi of Center City Housing (third from right) and Marcia
Jackson of Loaves and Fishes (extreme right) were present to receive checks
for their agencies. Three other checks were mailed during the demonstration
to Habitat for Humanity, Kalamazoo Diaeonal Conference, and Kalamazoo Youth
Ministry.
Flanking the banner are four of the tax resisters (left to right): Deanna
Brown, Terry Ciszek, Joanne Lehman, and Andrew Lehman.
Chicagoans protest “contra” aid with “die-in.”
Eight Chicago area Mennonites participated in a “die-in" and street witness
at the post office in Chicago on
to demonstrate their opposition to President Ronald Reagan’s request for $100
million in U.S.
aid to the “contra” rebels in Nicaragua. Here a protester hands a flower to a
police officer before being forcibly removed!
Kris Chupp and Dorothy Friesen joined 25 others who entered the post office
and dropped to the ground one by one to dramatize the reality faced by
Nicaraguans daily as a result of contra raids on that country. Orlando
Redekop placed flowers on the “dead” and told the people mailing their tax
forms the day before the deadline that their taxes are used to kill
Nicaraguans.
Other Mennonites joined the 300 demonstrators outside the post office who put
up posters depicting a bloody hand on a tax form.
No arrests were made. The “dead” were dragged from the building and heaped
outside the door. “I was heartened,” said Friesen, “that the officer accepted
the flower I gave him in the name of the dead women and children of
Nicaragua.”
The Mennonite participants are part of the National Pledge of Resistance
movement, whose members have committed themselves to resist
U.S. military
escalation in Central America.
Max E. Thierry gave some thought to the war tax resistance question in the
issue:
My first contact with the income tax issue was at Bethlehem
, where a part of the Mennonite Church decided
it wasn’t going to collect taxes for the government. I admired that position.
In I began to study economics, and it led to
the income tax. I have been studying the income tax issue for a year now and
have quit paying income tax or filing tax forms on moral and legal bases.
Mennonites are famous for nonresistance. I have come to believe that it’s easy
to say we’re nonresistant and we want peace throughout the world and at home.
Then we turn around and pay for the very acts we as Christians feel are wrong.
As Christians we say war is wrong, killing is wrong, and that Christ told us
to love our enemies. Is it love when we pay to have our enemies bombed and
killed? Is it love to kill unwanted babies and pay for it with money that we
earn by the fruits of our labor?
I suggest if we pay for it we are just as guilty of the crimes against
humanity as are the ones who actually do it. If a person pays another person
to kill someone he can be charged with murder and sent to jail under our legal
system. I believe God has a much higher standard for his people.
I can no longer pay for murder and justify it by Romans 13 because God has
instituted government. I will obey government if its laws are in harmony with
God’s laws. I will also obey government only if it follows the law that was
laid out for this country in the constitution.
What sets a Christian apart from the world anyway? We don’t act because we
might lose our money and power. It’s purely selfish reasons that we give for
going along. Christ died on the cross for not going along. Disciples were put
in jail for not going along. What is a Christian? One who says he loves his
neighbor and pays to have his enemies killed? I believe not.
The Internal Revenue Service has threatened to prosecute me and has fined me
$500 as a civil penalty (I have refused to pay it). They have tried to audit
me (I will not submit to their assumed authority) and they have threatened to
seize any property I own and levy my wages in payment of alleged taxes. They
will eventually do one or all of the above. Four years ago I had a “net worth”
of $20,000. Today it is around $1,000 as I have sold off most all that I had.
I will never be able to personally “own” a car or house since the
IRS
would take it.
I will lose my $25,000-a-year job as a direct result of my actions. I will
most likely end up in a federal prison for my beliefs in God and country.
The most-asked question is “Why?” My answer is, “Because it’s the right thing
to do.” Christ calls us to obedience and while I do not by any means say that
I am not prone to sin, I try to follow God’s calling in my life. By the
shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross he paid for all our sins, but that
doesn’t give us the right to ignore our sin for personal gain.
Finally, the announced the
availability of a “War Tax Resistance Seminar” video,
featuring speaker Willard Swartley and panelists Kenneth Covelens, Maynard
Shirk, Frank Albrecht (the last two were specifically identified as war tax
resisters).
This is the thirty-first in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
General Board Follies
So if you remember from our last episode, the board of the Mennonite Church was dragging its feet about supporting employees who did not want war taxes withheld from their paychecks.
Then the whole Church, in its General Assembly, forced their hand by voting to honor the requests of such employees.
But apparently the board still saw that as advisory and not binding, because
they kept right on dragging their feet:
After several years of study and discussion, the Mennonite Church General Board brought the military tax question to a vote — and tabled it.
Normal attenders will recall that a majority of General Assembly delegates voted to “support” the efforts of church board employees who do not wish their taxes deducted so that they can deal with the government in regard to military taxes.
The issue came back to the General Board as such issues will and it was given
extended attention at the spring meeting which convened at Kalona (Iowa)
Mennonite Church, .
An early straw vote strongly favored going ahead, but when decision time came,
a majority voted to table the motion.
As presented, the motion called for agreeing “in principle” to honor requests of employees who ask that their income tax not be withheld.
However, such approval was intended to be reviewed in the session of the board after a congregational study process which is now being initiated.
No taxes were to be withheld prior to .
Motion to table, it was suggested, was related to the pending congregational
study process. The board was concerned not to prejudice the case before the
study process. Also there was concern that the possible consequences of such
withholding be better understood. What action might the government take toward
board officers?
Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ and Executive Secretary James Lapp indicated that they were not unhappy about the motion to postpone action. “Some of us thought ‘in principle’ could be helpful in the study process,” said Brunk. “The board position has been in the direction of the proposed motion,” he continued. “But there are different ways to capture this.”
Yet another Military Tax Consultation was held to allow for more jaw-exercise and to cover for the delay:
Mennonite Church General Board is holding a Military Tax Consultation in response to actions taken by General Assembly at Normal .
It will be held at Goshen College.
Mennonite Church conferences are invited to send teams of persons to the event.
Since General Assembly called for “continued study of issues raised by taxation for military purposes,” General Board is currently preparing a study guide for use by congregations.
It is being prepared under the direction of Robert Hull and will be ready in time for the consultation.
The most controversial — and potentially illegal — action taken by General Assembly was its permission to denominational agencies and schools to honor the request of employees who don’t want taxes withheld from their paychecks so they can refuse to pay the portion (about half) that goes to the military.
More information about the consultation is available from General Board…
Ray Gingerich talks about tax resistance during the small-group discussion
time.
Daniel Hertzler reported on the consultation:
Wilma Gingerich (left) and Leanna Rhodes share their experiences in refusing
to pay the military portion of their taxes.
Some 30 people met at Goshen College, , for a “Consultation on Military Tax Withholding.” The military tax question has been on Mennonite Church agenda , General Board executive secretary James Lapp told the group.
But now it has become focused on the issue of “tax withholding” by church agencies for people who wish to deal with the Internal Revenue Service on their own.
Avowed purpose of the consultation was to introduce a study guide, “As
Conscience and the Church Shall Lead,” being prepared for use in
congregations. To this end Marlene Kropf of Mennonite Board of Congregational
Ministries led the group in an educational experience.
In the beginning, and alternatively throughout, there was story telling.
Military-tax resisters told how they got into it.
All referred to a variety of spiritual influences and life-changing experiences.
Seven persons told personal stories.
Among them was Dan Hunsberger of Hesston College, who worked one summer for a contractor without taxes withheld and got a tax bill for $1,700. “I considered this use of money wrong, not only from a peace standpoint, but also bad business.”
David Weaver, a teacher at Central Christian High School, grew up in a family
that eschewed political involvement. But in
he went on a student tour to the Middle East and spent some time on the West
Bank of the Jordan River, the home of persecuted Palestinians. Then, in
, he wrote a paper on the issue of war taxes
and in the same year he went to Nicaragua with Witness for Peace. “I saw the
Nicaraguan people and looked into their eyes,” he said. That year he decided
to withhold 55 percent of his income taxes.
“At the beginning I felt very heavy about this.
In November when they came and took money from my account, it was like a burden was lifted.
What really can they do to harm me?
We’re in the world for a short life.
There are little things we can do.
This doesn’t mean my hands are clean.
But it is a small action.”
Ray and Wilma Gingerich from Harrisonburg,
Va., gave a joint report
which recounted a decades-long, growing concern over the issue of war taxes.
When they first became aware of the issue, they had no income taxes to pay.
But by they finally had enough income to be
taxed and began to withhold 50 to 59 percent. “Our son Andre refused to
register under Carter,” they said. “We saw some relation between this and
middle-aged people not paying for war. We cannot continue to pay taxes while
applauding our young who resist the draft.”
Ray expressed concern that Mennonite Church leaders have not been more forthright about the issue. “We need to try to draw our leaders into the discussion.
Leaders generally get their authority from the people, not from the poor or the Bible.
In some respects, tax resisters must lead the leaders.”
Among the leaders present was Paul Gingrich, president of Mennonite Board of
Missions. He acknowledged that
MBM
first faced this issue , when
John and Sandra Drescher-Lehman asked that their taxes not be withheld. The
MBM
board of directors is divided. Some threaten to resign either way.
But Gingrich concludes that some corporate action needs to be taken as an object lesson, a parable so that younger Mennonites may learn firsthand about resisting militarism. “We have a generation that only hears the stories of those resisting World Wars Ⅰ and Ⅱ and the Korean conflict,” he said. “The institution can become a symbol.
In the action is a tremendous teaching moment.”
He continued, “In every generation we need to discover the issue on which we
will not compromise. For what will we be ready to die? Is this the place to
stand? Is this the way to stand? If an institution takes such an action, it
may be that the institution will not survive. But maybe that is not the most
important thing.”
No clear-cut answer to Gingrich came out of the consultation.
But from small-group settings a cautious consensus emerged.
Most groups encouraged church agencies to respect the consciences of persons who do not wish their taxes deducted by the agency, even though such honoring would involve the agency in illegal action.
Several groups pointed out, however, that there are ways for persons to gain
access to enough tax money to make a symbolic protest without implicating
their agency in illegal action. It was urged that they explore these first.
James Lapp, who called the consultation, and Marlene Kropf, director of the educational experience, both expressed satisfaction with the session. “We need to recognize that there is a complex set of issues here,” said Lapp. “Our goal is to help people to see that there is more than one way to be faithful.”
Although I have not been involved in the issue, I believe the issue of military tax deductions of church employees has been around for at least a decade.
I am concerned about the continued reluctance of General Board to implement the will of General Assembly to support church board employees who as a matter of conscience do not wish to have their taxes deducted.
As reported in “General Board Tables Military Tax Question”… the eagerness
with which the board embraces broad “visions” while avoiding concrete actions
is striking. Whatever the possible actions of the government toward board
officers if tax withholding is stopped, it would surely be mild in contrast to
the price paid by Mennonite leaders during World War Ⅰ who refused to
financially support the war effort. “A Pastor Pays a Price for Peace” in the
same issue of Gospel Herald is an illustration.
[See ♇ 1 September 2018]
Discussion of visions is fine, but no vision is more catching than one demonstrated through faithful action.
My sympathies are with the General Board employees who have patiently gone through the lengthy process required to have their concerns embraced by General Assembly, only to have the issue kicked back into a “study process” by General Board.
The board’s apparent relief at being able to postpone action on this issue
should be juxtaposed with Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ’s concern stated in his
“state of the Mennonite Church” address that “We are not facing conflict as a
people of God. The question of our faithfulness calls for eternal vigilance.”
Daniel Hertzler tried to put the whole thing in context with a editorial:
The issue of paying military taxes has been knocking about in the Mennonite Church for close to a generation.
At the “Consultation on Military Tax Withholding” (Goshen College, ) it was reported that John Howard Yoder was writing about this already in .
Perhaps these writings were not published. The earliest material on this
subject which I could find in the Gospel Herald was
“Dare We Pay Taxes for War?” by John Drescher ().
I found this editorial with help from Swartley and Dyck’s Annotated
Bibliography of Mennonite Writings on War and Peace:
(Herald Press,
). This book has 16 pages on the topic “War
Tax Resistance,” so the subject has clearly been one of concern among us. Some
of the references go back into , but
not in the Gospel Herald.
Drescher’s editorial indicates that concern about the issue arose during Mennonite General Conference and that “delegates asked for direction on the matter of paying taxes designated for war purposes.” A resolution was passed calling for “a fresh study of the biblical teaching”!
Has anything changed among us in 23 years?
At the Goshen consultation I listened to Willard Swartley declaim on Romans
13:1–7, and I suddenly got a clue as to why this issue keeps grinding on with
no resolution in sight. “Pay all of them their dues,” writes Paul, regarding
the authorities, “taxes to whom taxes are due…”
So there it is.
If Paul wrote to the Romans that they should pay their taxes, why do modern Mennonites sit around debating whether they may pay the military part of their taxes?
We are known as people of the Bible.
Isn’t the Bible plain enough?
Not so fast. At Goshen, Willard Swartley presented a 12-point outline entitled
“Method for Bible Study.” The first three points were entitled “Observation:
What does the Bible say?” The second five he captioned
“Meaning: What is the text saying?’ The final four he called
“Significance: What says the text?” Beyond these I think the most
important thing he said was that Romans 13:1–7 should be interpreted as part
of a longer unit in the letter (certainly a basic Bible study principle) and
that probably there was a local controversy in Rome over the payment of
specific taxes. Paul’s counsel to the Romans was to pay these specific taxes
and was not intended as a general principle, regarding all taxes in all times
and all places.
Willard pointed out that the New Testament has a number of normative texts on this subject.
He mentioned the following: Colossians 2:15; Ephesians 1:19–23; 3:10; 1 Peter 3:22; 1 Corinthians 15:24–26; Romans 8:35–39; Ephesians 6:12–20.
Romans 13, he said, should be interpreted in dialogue with this longer stream of texts.
In the end, said Willard, there is “ambiguity in the biblical tradition over the place of authorities: respect for their responsibility for order versus awareness that they represent evil.” In other words, by simply paying taxes without thinking, we may be selling out.
Two others at Goshen discussed the issue from a theoretical standpoint: ethics
professor J.R. Burkholder and Pastor John F. Murray. Murray proposed that the
answer to the war tax problem is to be found in generous giving to the church.
Since in the U.S.
one can contribute up to 50 percent of one’s income, or $50,000, he proposed
that reducing our income through contributions is a more effective response
than tax resistance. Further, he pointed out, anyone who saves money and puts
it in the bank is supporting the military just as much as the person who pays
taxes. “When we give only 5 percent of our income as a denomination, we are
not faithful.”
Burkholder stressed the reality of ambiguities. “We will have to learn to live with pluralism in the Mennonite Church,” he asserted. “We do not have the same position on war taxes.”
Clearly we do not. And as James Rhodes responded to Burkholder, “There is
danger in an emphasis on ambiguity of diluting our basic foundation of
biblical obedience.”
So it is important that we not give up just because we come with different perspectives on the issue.
It is urgent that those with different points of view listen to each other under God and under the Scriptures.
We have no other place to go.
In response to your editorial, “Why is it so Hard to Get to the Bottom of the War-Tax Question?”… and the news article piece on the war-tax consultation in the same issue, let me note the following: Why is it that the Mennonite Church can so easily reach clarity that homosexuality is a sin and ban any dialogue whatsoever with gay members of our community but yet find the war-tax issue “contains a complex set of issues” and that it is “filled with ambiguities”?
Why must we accept pluralism and ambiguity on this issue when we can so
easily reach apparent consensus on the gay question? Is this not rather
self-serving and hypocritical, for on the one hand our church fathers tell
us we must accept differing biblical interpretations, pluralism, and
ambiguity on war taxes but somehow the gay issue is crystal clear!
It seems to me that there is no ambiguity, for as you note, Romans 13 is not intended as a general principle that we must pay all taxes to government.
Further the whole text seems to make clear that we must clarify our loyalties and choose whom we serve, God or Caesar.
Further it seems clear that if we follow the way of peace, we can have no part in allowing our money to pay for killing and war.
If there is room for ambiguity I think it is more apparent on the gay question.
On war taxes it seems clear.
Perhaps our leaders wish to keep it plural, for only a minority can support
our historic peace witness these days, while they know that pluralism is
unacceptable for the gay question given the majority in our community who
are convinced that homosexuality is sin. Wake up, leaders, and be fair! You
can’t have it both ways. Either we seek clear standards and follow them or
we become Unitarians or Quakers, where everything is ambiguous.
Schultz started off with the typical Render-unto-Caesar / after all Rome
was a militaristic government / Jesus never complained about paying taxes
line. Then he finished off with the “silent majority” gambit:
I urge all of those conservative Mennonites who usually remain silent to “send the General Board a message” — mainly, not to be tempted into politicking with the liberal pacifist elements, and to remain within the boundaries of biblical nonresistance.
If there are those who want to withhold taxes, let them do it without having the actions of the General Board as a shield.
“Why Is It So Hard to Get to the Bottom of the War Tax Question?”… Maybe because there is no bottom — only a bottomless chasm between two irreconcilable views.
In my own imagination I see the story told in Matthew 22 in modem “dress.”
The Pharisee digs through the pockets of his custom-tailored suit. From a
jumble of temple contribution receipts and credit cards (Pharisee-controlled
banks) he produces a $50 bill.
“Whose portrait is on that bill?”
“General and President Ulysses S. Grant.”
“If you deal in portraits of deceased generals and presidents, you owe a commission to those who occupy their offices today.
But don’t forget that you owe even more to God.”
Again, we know that Caesar does not divide his tax collections between two
baskets labeled “war” and “peace.” It all goes into one basket, and then is
divided out as Caesar wishes. And so, if 50 percent (or whatever) goes for
“war,” then 50 percent of anything that an individual deposits into
the basket goes for “war.” The persons who pay 50 percent of their taxes are
in fact paying half of their “war” tax and half of their “peace” tax.
I admire those who for conscience’ sake voluntarily live at the “poverty” line so that they do not owe the tax that they object to paying.
They have adjusted their lifestyle to put their (lack of) money where their “mouth” is.
I’m not willing to do that — a character flaw, perhaps, but one that I seem to share with many others.
Is it wrong to want to share in at least part of the standard USA lifestyle without paying for Caesar’s expenses in maintaining conditions that promote this lifestyle?
Do we want a “free lunch”? And, of course, Caesar’s money can do God’s work,
or so we are told by those responsible for keeping church agencies and
institutions in the black. Those who have the spirit of generosity also need
something to be generous with. And Caesar pays a part of the gift.
If we deal in portraits of deceased generals and presidents, what do we owe to those who occupy their offices today?
Over a number of years I have read articles, pro and con, on the war-tax issue.
Your editorial on the same subject has rekindled my interest.
A large percentage of the arguments have been of a theological or theoretical nature.
However, I have not seen the following point of view mentioned.
Many of us in the Mennonite Church are no longer independent farmers and/or
businessmen or self-employed.
(At age 48 I have witnessed this transition.) Therefore, we have little or no control over the deductions from our pay checks.
No company, business, or public institution that I know of would seriously consider a request not to withhold a certain percent of taxes due.
Some firms that are operated by Christians may grant us their understanding and be sympathetic in attitude, but simply are not willing to get into the legal and business ramifications of a tax fight with the federal government.
Consequently, the war-tax issue, while perhaps valid, is to many simply a
moot point lingering in a gray mist on the edge of our consciousness. Could
this be why the General Assembly vote on
the General Board war-tax recommendation went 142 for and 100 against?
For me, if the federal government would institute a special, separate, extra-budget war tax (as done in the American Revolution, for example), that is a horse of a different color.
I would try to resist in some way as my ancestors collectively did in Lancaster County, Pa., in the Revolutionary times.
Having written my Indiana senators and representative on the war-tax issue, I see no change in federal tax regulations to be soon in coming.
The issue announced that if “continued study” was the order of the day, the Mennonite Church General Board was equipped:
Study guide on military tax withholding from Mennonite Publishing House.
Prepared at the request of Mennonite Church General Board, it is designed to facilitate discussion of the General Assembly request for “continued study of issues raised by taxation for military purposes.” It is entitled As Conscience and the Church Shall Lead.
A response form is provided so that Sunday school classes, small groups, and individuals may provide feedback.
Question was also raised about the Normal decision regarding war taxes.
Board members noted a lack of clarity on what the decision meant.
Slightly more than half the delegates had agreed that churchwide agencies need not withhold the military portion of taxes for employees who request this.
Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ noted the decision is valid but that it can be reconsidered following a churchwide study on war taxes currently underway.
[T]he Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church General Boards take the following action:
That the General Boards express deep concern about and opposition to the
military buildup and the growing threat of war in the Persian Gulf, reaffirm
their biblical understanding that the will of God is for humankind to live in
peace and harmony and that war and militarism are counter to God’s intentions,
and call our congregations to the following:
To confess our own complicity and selfishness in utilizing more than our share of the world’s supply of oil and other resources and for our limited concern for long-standing injustices in the Middle East, and also to confess and reexamine our complicity in paying for the military buildup through our taxes.
They focused on the question of withholding war taxes for their employees. delegates to Mennonite General Assembly had authorized churchwide boards to honor requests of employees not to withhold the military portion of their income taxes; final decision was up to each board.
Though it had been previously discussed in several meetings, General Board had made no decision on the issue.
Nor did it come easy this time. Board members raised questions about their
financial liability. They acknowledged the burden of leadership: other
churchwide boards were awaiting the General Board decision for help with their
own.
In the end General Board agreed “to honor the request of an employee who for conscience’ sake requests that the military portion of his or her federal income tax not be withheld.” But they hedged.
They made the action subject “to development of acceptable policies for implementation approved by the board.”
Miscellany
There was also plenty of content around this time that wasn’t directly prompted by the Mennonite Church board’s inaction.
For example, there was a series of letters-to-the-editor
debating war tax resistance. Here are a pair of them, side-by-side:
Why I willingly pay my taxes
While paying taxes may be an economic burden to some, may be a question of
conscience to others, and may be an accounting nightmare for many more, I
willingly pay my taxes. Why?
It is a matter of submission.
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no
authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” ―Romans
13:1–2
I am called to not only submit to God and to submit to my church leaders
but also to submit to my civil authorities.
The only time that I can refuse to obey the governing authority is when God’s law requires me to
do otherwise.
It is a matter of conscience.
“You must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’
sake.
For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.
Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs,
fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” ―Romans 13:5–7
For me the payment of taxes is not so much an attempt to avoid
penalties, court orders, or imprisonment but it is a matter of Christian
conscience.
It is a matter of integrity.
“ ‘Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to
Caesar, or not?’ But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, ‘Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?
Show Me the tax money.’ So they brought Him a denarius.
And He said to them, ‘Whose image and inscription is this?’ They said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ And He said to them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are
God’s.’ ” ―Matthew 22:17–21
I consider firstfruits tithing to be an important dimension of Christian
living.
However, should I render unto God the things that are God’s by tithing through my local church but fail to render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar by paying my taxes, only one part of Jesus’ instruction would be fulfilled.
To be a person of integrity requires me
to both practice firstfruits tithing and to pay my taxes.
It is a matter of honesty.
“You shall not steal.” ―Exodus 20:15
To steal is to take that which belongs to someone.
The Israelites were told by the prophet Malachi that they had robbed God.
The problem was not a pilfering of the temple storehouse, but rather a withholding of tithes and offerings.
To keep back a portion of tax dollars that the Internal Revenue Service determines are due to my government would, in my opinion, be a form of stealing.
To be a person of honesty requires me
to pay my taxes in full.
It is a matter of credibility.
“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s
sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.
For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men — as free, yet not using your liberty as a cloak for vice, but as servants of God.” ―1 Peter
2:13–16
Admittedly, I have concern about some aspects of the federal budget.
Reports of mismanagement, fraud, and excessive deficit spending are certainly not consistent with my understanding of fiscal responsibility.
However, should I withhold a portion of my taxes as a means of protest when the Scripture specifically calls for the payment of such would be to lose my credibility and Christian witness.
To have credibility in a world of many critics of the gospel, I must be careful to “do good” — in
this case, to pay my taxes in full.
―Robert D. Wengerd, Coshocton, Ohio
In response to “Why I Willingly Pay My Taxes”…, I feel I must prayerfully challenge the author’s unquestioning willingness to pay all taxes while he in no way addresses the tax issue as it pertains to the military budget.
In fact, the author’s own reasons for paying taxes are some of the same reasons I can no longer pay the portion of tax that finances the war machine.
The first point being a matter of submission, the author concludes that the
only time he can refuse to obey the governing authority is when God’s law
requires him to do otherwise. The law of God is that we love God with all
our heart, soul, and mind, and love our neighbor as ourselves. How can I
love my neighbor if I willingly pay for his murder? Hitler was able to do as
much evil as he did because so many Christians submitted to human authority
rather than God’s authority.
Second, it is a matter of conscience.
I willingly and conscientiously give taxes, customs, fear, and honor to whom they are due (Rom. 14:5–7), but only as I can do so with a clear conscience before God.
To willingly contribute to a system of oppression and murder under any nation’s flag is in conflict with what God calls me to do.
Third, it is a matter of integrity. To say that our firstfruits tithing goes
to God and our taxes go to Caesar is to miss the point of what Jesus says in
Matthew 22:17–21. Such an understanding puts God and Caesar on equal footing
as though each is due equal allegiance. To be a person of integrity, I must
offer all I have to God first, including my awareness of how my tax dollars
are spent. I cannot with integrity refuse to bodily take part in killing
another human made in God’s image, but be willing to pay someone else to do
so.
Fourth, it is a matter of honesty.
I don’t believe that refusing to pay for war is stealing from the government.
Indeed, we pay for war by stealing from the poor.
We have the choice to either help bring hope of a better life to our neighbors with needed services, housing, and education or take part in their oppression by buying weapons to protect us from them when they tire of watching their children starve to death.
Fifth, it is a matter of credibility. The author pays all taxes because he
wishes not to lose his credibility and Christian witness. Of what and to
whom are we witnesses? Are we credible witnesses to Jesus’ presence in our
hearts to our brothers and sisters in Central America, such as the priests
and church workers in El Salvador who were murdered by death squads trained
and armed by our tax dollars? I might be willing to pay all my taxes if
Congress passes the Peace Tax Fund bill which would allow those who are
conscientious objectors to have their taxes used for nonmilitary purposes.
But until that opportunity is available, I will no longer pay war taxes, but
instead will put that money to use where it will nurture life and not poison
it.
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Peace Section is inviting contributions for the Taxes for Peace Fund.
The fund, established in , gives people who want to withhold war taxes a way to contribute their money toward peaceful purposes.
While contributing to this fund is a symbolic action and not a legal alternative to paying the tax, many people have found it a meaningful way to demonstrate their commitment to peace.
Last year, $5,750 in Taxes for Peace money was divided between the National
Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and Christian Peacemaker Teams. This year’s
contributions will be divided the same way.
The National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund seeks to enact the U.S. Peace Tax Fund Bill, which would give those conscientiously opposed to war a way to pay 100 percent of their taxes by designating the military percentage to a separate fund for peace-enhancing programs.
Christian Peacemaker Teams is an initiative of North American Mennonite and related churches to develop and support more assertive peacemaking.
MCC
constituents have contributed more than $75,000 to the Taxes for Peace Fund.
Among other projects, the money has funded reconstruction efforts in
Indochina, aided victims of violence in Guatemala, and supported the
MCC
U.S. Peace Section.
The following excerpt is from one of several dozen letters sent to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in by contributors to the Taxes for Peace Fund: “We will sleep better tonight than if we would be helping to keep the murder machine going for the United States.
And hopefully, all the people of the world will sleep better when we can all stop financing their death threats and death squads.” (John and Sandra Drescher-Lehman, Richmond, Va.)
Checks for the Taxes for Peace Fund should be made payable to
“MCC,
Taxes for Peace.”…
An information packet on military-tax opposition is available for $3 from MCC U.S. Peace Section.
It contains varying theological positions on the war-tax issue and materials about tax laws and legal concerns for the tax resister.
Updated materials are available for those who purchased earlier editions of the packet.
The issue announced a “Standing Up for Peace” contest in which young people (ages 15–23) “are urged to interview someone who has refused to fight in war, pay war taxes, or build weapons and then write an essay or song, produce a video, or create a work of art.” The MCC (U.S.) Peace Section was one of the sponsors.
St. Louis (Mo.) Mennonite Fellowship has decided to stop paying its telephone tax as a form of protest against military spending.
Federal phone tax revenues, first collected in , contribute directly to the U.S. Armed Forces. “Though the biblical basis for such action has been debated, we wish to respect the convictions of our members and Anabaptist forebears and foremostly to be disciplined followers of Jesus Christ,” said Scott Neufeld, who coordinates the congregation’s peace witness.
The congregation will send its tax money instead to Mennonite Central Committee.
Five European Mennonite theologians are proposing changes in a World Council
of Churches statement that is being discussed at
WCC’s
Convocation on Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation in Seoul, South
Korea, .
One of them, Andrea Lange of West Germany, took the proposed revisions to
Seoul as a representative of the Dutch Mennonite Church and the North German
Mennonite Church, both of which are
WCC
members. The Seoul statement grows out of an extended “conciliar” process by
WCC
member churches. The Mennonite revisions call for the rejection of force and
support for conscientious objectors to military service and those who refuse
to pay war taxes. The revision also calls for the full use of women’s gifts in
the church — and to “admit them to all church offices.”
The issue included an article on Mennonite martyrs of the World War Ⅰ period who were persecuted for refusing to buy war bonds (see ♇ 1 September 2018 for that article).
The issue of military tax withholding for MBCM employees was discussed at length.
However, no action was taken.
Since no MBCM employees are currently requesting that the military portion of their taxes not be withheld, the board agreed to wait for such a request before responding to the military tax withholding question.
In J. Lorne Peachey took over from Daniel Hertzler as editor.
We haven’t heard from Peachey yet so I don’t know if he took any position in the war tax resistance debates that might influence his editorial positions.
A letter to the editor from John F. Murray used the war tax resistance issue as a rhetorical hook in the course of trying to prompt readers into tithing more to the Church.
Another letter,
from Jim Leuba, in the
issue, gave taxpaying Christians a pointed edge:
In reference to your suggestion in your editorial that we spend a day praying for “Peace in the Persian Gulf”…, I feel the following is an appropriate prayer:
“Lord, today I am praying for peace in the Persian Gulf. I pray our armies do
not use the weapons I helped pay for with my tax dollars. Never mind. Lord,
that I could live at an income level that did not require paying war taxes.
And, Lord, a war will only increase the price of oil. I am so addicted to oil
that I can’t imagine life without it. Never mind. Lord, that I use at least 10
times more fossil energy than 75 percent of the earth’s human population.
Protect me. Lord; I am a North American Christian.”
The following syndicated news brief appeared in the issue:
A Philadelphia Quaker organization must garnish the wages of its employees who fail to pay income tax for religious reasons, a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled.
But Judge Norma Shapiro also said the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends cannot be penalized for failing to honor the levies imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
The case involved the refusal of three Friends employees to pay the full amount of their taxes because part of it would go to the military, and that would violate their religious antiwar beliefs.
In her decision, Shapiro cited the
U.S. Supreme Court
decision last year in Employment
v. Smith, the
controversial Oregon peyote case. In denying unemployment benefits to two
residents, the high court ruled that since ingestion of peyote was a crime in
Oregon, “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the
obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on
the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion
proscribes (or prescribes).”
Eastern Canada Conference of Mennonites was struggling with the same issue of tax resisting employees that had troubled the General Conference Mennonite Church and the Mennonite Church (Ron Rempel reporting, ):
Canadian conference responds to military tax objectors
Waterloo, Ont. (Mennonite Reporter) — Two Ontario Mennonite leaders have declared their conscientious objection to the payment of military taxes.
However, their employers have not yet decided whether or how to cooperate with the request to redirect military taxes for peaceful purposes.
Fred Martin, the student and young adult minister for Eastern Canada
Conference, first raised the issue in . Jean-Jacques Goulet, pastor of Wilmot Mennonite Church, took a
similar stand the week that the Persian Gulf War started. His church is
waiting to see how the conference will resolve the matter.
, at its fall delegate meeting, the conference gave notice of a recommendation that will be dealt with at the annual meeting .
That recommendation called on the conference to support Martin not forwarding to Revenue Canada the portion of his income tax used for military purposes.
Since the meeting, the executive board
of the conference has looked more closely at how to proceed if the
recommendation is accepted. The board has
prepared an alternative resolution, calling on the conference: (1) to
“withhold no income tax from the salary of any conference employee who
requests this on the basis of conscience”; (2) to inform Revenue Canada and
members of Parliament of the decision; (3) to ask the government to introduce
legislation recognizing conscientious objection to payment of military taxes
and to provide peaceful alternatives for use of these tax dollars; and (4) to
support other church boards, agencies, and congregations that may adopt
similar policies.
“As far as we know, no one in Canada has gone this route,” commented Sam Steiner, secretary of the conference.
Others who have asked for the cooperation of employers in not paying military taxes have become “contract employees,” or “self-employed contractors.”
Eastern Canada Conference, however, is proposing to treat military tax
objectors as full employees, and to continue all regular benefits and
deductions, except for income tax deductions. It would be left to the employee
to remit income taxes to Revenue Canada after redirecting the military
portion.
This procedure has been used by the General Conference Mennonite Church after that denomination decided in to support military tax objectors.
The Mennonite Church has made a similar commitment in principle, but has not yet decided on a procedure to use.
According to Steiner, the conference would technically be Hable for breaking
tax laws by deciding not to collect income taxes for the government.
Reporter Ron Rempel followed up on that report with this:
Baden, Ont. (Mennonite Reporter) — After a vigorous debate, delegates to the annual meeting of Eastern Canada Conference, , defeated a proposal calling on the conference not to deduct income tax from employees who want to redirect the military portion for peaceful purposes.
They also tabled an alternative resolution.
The conference executive board developed its proposal in response to a request
from its student and young adult minister, Fred Martin. He indicated in
that he objected on the
basis of conscience to paying military taxes. He asked the conference — which
is required by law to deduct all income taxes and remit them to Revenue
Canada — to help him find a way to express his conscience.
In the recent Gulf War, “my body was not being conscripted, but my money was,” commented Martin in a brief presentation before delegates. “How can I pray for peace but pay for war?”
In introducing the proposal, conference secretary Sam Steiner said the
executive board had not been unanimous. Some abstained from voting; others
were against the proposal. He also said the proposed action could make the
conference legally liable for breaking the Income Tax Act.
The legal question dominated the discussion by delegates.
For example.
Ken Musselman said military tax objectors should use other options, like increasing charitable donations or cutting back their overall income to reduce taxes.
A number of delegates said that individuals who want to redirect military taxes should assume the legal liability themselves — for example, as contract employees — rather than expect conference to bear it.
Others supported the proposal.
They cited historical precedents such as World War Ⅰ conscientious objectors choosing jail rather than the military uniform.
A number who lined up at the open mikes said they liked the second part of the
executive board’s proposal — to seek legislation recognizing conscientious
objections to payment of military taxes — but objected to the first
part — asking conference to defy current income tax laws.
The delegates then faced two choices: either table the executive board’s proposal or look at an alternative resolution.
The alternative, presented by Margot Fieguth, began with the second part of
the original proposal: an attempt to work through legislative and legal
avenues to secure recognition of conscientious objection to payment of
military taxes and to provide peaceful alternatives. This resolution also
suggested that conference offer Fred Martin a contract position, so that he,
rather than conference, would be responsible to make income tax payments.
Delegates decided not to table the original proposal.
But before they started debating the alternative, there were voices calling for a vote on the executive board’s proposal.
“I would like to hear the truth of where the conference stands on this issue,”
said Jean-Jacques Goulet, pastor of Wilmot
(Ont.) Mennonite Church.
During the Gulf War he had declared himself a conscientious objector to
military taxes. And his congregation was waiting to see how conference would
respond to Fred Martin.
In a ballot vote, the executive board’s proposal was defeated 159-48.
It was late in the evening.
The alternative resolution was on the floor.
But someone proposed that it be tabled till the next session of conference.
The motion carried.
The “Taxes for Peace” war tax redirection fund gave its annual report in the issue:
The Peace Section of Mennonite Central Committee U.S. is inviting contributions for the “Taxes for Peace” fund.
Established in , it gives people who want to withhold war taxes a way to contribute their money to peaceful purposes.
Donations last year totaled $3,700, and they were sent to the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and to Christian Peacemaker Teams.
More information is available from MCC U.S. Peace Section…
Another General Assembly was held
, and
I’m sure the board of directors were on tenterhooks hoping that the Assembly
would let them off the hook about implementing the decision they’d made at
the previous General Assembly to begin refusing to withhold war taxes from the
salaries of objecting employees.
Delegates did look to themselves in reconsidering a statement on the Peace Tax Fund.
The statement had called on individual Mennonites to contribute to this fund.
Noting that less than one percent had done so, this time delegates took action to urge conferences and congregations to put the Peace Tax Fund in their budgets.
The Peace Tax Fund would allow conscientious objectors to pay their taxes by
diverting the military portion to a special trust fund. Efforts are currently
underway to have the Fund be considered by lawmakers in the
U.S.; a comparable
campaign is also being considered in Canada.
In Mennonite General Assembly went on record to encourage individuals to contribute to a peace tax fund campaign.
Less than one percent of us did.
So in Oregon delegates made their action stronger: they are now “urging” district conferences and local congregations to put the peace tax fund into their annual budgets.
So your congregation will need to make a decision about that “urging” some
time in the next two years. Will you give expression to your belief in peace
by supporting a congregational budget item to contribute to a peace tax fund?
The contribution will be used to help sponsor legislation in both Washington
and Ottawa to legitimatize a peace tax fund as an option for persons opposed
to having their tax money used for military purposes.
Some Seniors for Peace withhold the military portion of their income taxes and contribute it to a peace fund.
Many actively support lobbying for legislation for a peace tax fund to provide alternative service for tax dollars.
And finally, a letter to the editor from Tim Nafziger urged Mennonites not to stop, satisfied by redirecting their taxes to a peace tax fund. “The Mennonite Church is called to do more than be morally pure,” he wrote.
