Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Mennonites / Amish →
Michael Friedmann
This is the nineteenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today we
are up to 1972, a year in which there was an enormous amount of material
about war tax resistance in the magazine.
In a weekend workshop was held
for “people who seriously question the morality of paying all that Caesar
demands.” The General Conference Mennonite Central District Peace and Service
Committee was one of the sponsors. From the edition:
Christian response to war taxes was discussed by about 100 participants in a
workshop in Elkhart,
Indiana.
The weekend was sponsored by the Elkhart Peace Fellowship, the General
Conference Mennonite Central District peace and service committee, and other
regional church peace and service committees.
Michael Friedmann of the Elkhart Peace Fellowship said many of the
participants felt the war tax question involved a shift in life style to
reduce involvement in the military-industrial complex.
Al Meyer, a research physicist at Goshen College, Goshen, Indiana, suggested
to the group that one does not start by changing the laws to provide legal
alternatives, to payment of war taxes, but by refusing to pay taxes. We need
to give a clear witness, he said.
Mr. Meyer did not oppose payment of war taxes because he was opposed to
government as such, but because he did not give his total allegiance to
government. He felt it was his responsibility to refuse to pay the immoral
demands of government.
“No alternative will be provided by the federal government until a significant
number of citizens refuse war taxes,” he said.
Art Gish, author of The new left and Christian radicalism, said
draft resistance led logically to war tax resistance.
“If I won’t give the government my warm body, I shouldn’t give it my cold
cash,” he said.
On , John Howard Yoder, president
of Goshen Biblical Seminary, discussed the purposes of resisting tax payments.
He felt the point is to make a clear moral witness. The goal should not be
absolute resistance in keeping the government from getting the money. He said
he would not give his money voluntarily, but would let the Internal Revenue
Service know where they could find it.
Other participants felt tax refusal could be both witness to war and part of a
larger movement to shift national priorities.
Mr. Gish discussed legal and illegal tax resistance. Goshen attorney Greg
Hartzler emphasized that those who break tax laws should make their religious
motivations clear if they want to avoid a severe sentence.
The workshop also discussed communities which are carrying the spirit of
voluntary service into a total life style and are freer to develop a clear
witness on the tax question.
Another topic was the World Peace Tax Fund, which a group in Ann Arbor,
Michigan, is attempting to establish through a bill which it hopes will be
introduced in Congress in . The bill
would enable those who can demonstrate conscientious objection to war to put
that portion of their taxes which would go to war into the fund. The fund
would be used for such purposes as disarmament efforts, international
exchanges, and international health.
Is there a significant difference between fighting a war as a soldier and
supporting it with taxes? “…why should the pacifist refuse service in the
army if he does not refuse to pay taxes?” (Richard Gregg) Why should any
person, on receipt of the government’s demand for money to kill, hurry as
fast as he can to comply? Why pay voluntarily?
What is the biblical or Christian basis for paying or not paying war
taxes? What responsibility does an individual have for wars which are
fought and financed by a government to which he makes tax payments? To
whom is the Christian really responsible?
When faced with a “war tax” situation, what should Christians do? Should
Christians “…take their obligations toward government more seriously than
their church obligations”? (Milton J. Harder) Unless followers of Jesus
dissent from paying war taxes, how are government leaders to know that
Christians are opposed to making war on other peoples whom God has
created? What are the ways whereby we can keep dear our commitment to God
and his love as revealed in Jesus, the Christ?
Can a Christian obedient to God as the supreme Lord of his life continue
simultaneously to “Pray for peace” and “Pay for war”? “How do you
interpret Christ’s answer about the coin in relation to war tax payment?
(See Mark 12:17.)
Must Christians pay to have persons killed? What is Caesar’s? What is
God’s?” (William Keeney) At what point does a government become satanic or
demonic in that it demands what is God’s?
Should Christians who object to paying war taxes wait with their protest
until the whole Christian community agrees to do so?
For the Christian who is opposed to war taxes, is it enough to simply
refuse voluntarily payment of the money requested by
IRS
or should he put forth serious effort to prevent the government from
obtaining the money?
Isn’t the question of military taxation a reflection of the most
formidable problem which every person or religious group must face in our
time: Nationalism?
Ted Koontz of Harvard Divinity school attended the Mennonite Graduate
Fellowship’s annual winter conference and “presented an analysis of reasons for
war tax refusal for use in dialog with those who believe the war in Indochina
is unjust but continue to pay war taxes.” (According to
an
article in the edition.)
The commission asked William Snyder, executive secretary of the Mennonite
Central Committee, if
MCC
is discussing with other religious groups continuing the pacifist position
beyond current “popular” opinions, and if
MCC
is pressing for an alternative fund for war taxes in light of the changing
nature of warfare with finances as the primary resource.
Meetings to discuss war tax resistance were scheduled at three Mennonite
churches in Kansas and Pennsylvania in
and
, according to
an
announcement in the
edition. One of those meetings was covered as follows in the
edition:
About fifty persons shared ways of protesting the use of their taxes for war
at a meeting in Buhler, Kansas,
sponsored by the Western District peace and social concerns committee.
After watching the slide set, The automated air war, produced by
the American Friends Service Committee, participants discussed ways they are
avoiding contribution to the war: refusing the telephone tax, refusing to pay
income tax, investing in corporations which do not produce war materials,
voluntary service, keeping income below the taxable level, and retirement.
Money and the weapons it buys, not the bodies of draft-age men, have become
the primary resource for waging war, the group agreed. But individuals
differed on the best way to influence government against war.
The Internal Revenue Service will attach bank accounts or auction personal
property to collect delinquent income tax or telephone tax, and some persons
questioned the effectiveness of refusal to pay when the government collects
the money later with interest. Or are we simply called to be faithful? some
asked.
Willard Unruh said, “It’s not the money that’s important; it’s the opportunity
to express my opinion. I sent copies to Senators Dole and Pearson of my letter
to the
IRS.
They both responded.”
Jonah Reimer suggested establishing a fund in Kansas into which persons
refusing federal taxes could put an equivalent amount. “It would be an
excellent way to witness,” he said.
The group also discussed attempts to place before Congress a bill to establish
a government fund into which conscientious objectors to war could place their
tax money, which would not be used for military purposes. Such a fund,
however, would not necessarily reduce the amount of money going to the
military.
Some persons objected to the fund, analogous to legal alternative service for
conscientious objectors, saying that such a legal alternative would give
approval to the evil of the military-industrial complex.
One man said, “Mennonites want special privileges. They want to come out of
the war with a clear conscience. But we should want that clear conscience for
everybody.”
“An increasing number of Mennonites are asking what it means to render to
Caesar what belongs to him and in particular to render to God what belongs to
him,” said Wesley Mast, Philadelphia, convener for the seminars. “Since war is
increasingly becoming a matter of bombs and buttons rather than people, we
need to ask what form Christian obedience takes.”
The other two meetings were covered in the edition. Excerpts:
Wesley Mast, Philadelphia, said, “The degree of openness on an issue as
explosive as war taxes was amazing. We wrestled together first of all with the
message of the Scriptures. Would Paul, for example, admonish us today to pay
taxes, as he did the Roman Christians? Would he do the same to Christians in
World War Ⅱ under Hitler? We noted that the times had already changed in the
early church from the ‘good’ government in Romans 13 to the ‘beastly’
government in Revelation 13.”
The seminars also discussed the nature of the present war. Mr. Mast said the
seminar participants heard that since World War Ⅱ the need for foot soldiers
has declined 50 percent. Present war is becoming automated. “When they no
longer need our bodies, how do we declare our protest?”
Another issue concerned tax dollars. “When over half of our taxes are used for
outright murder, how can we go on sinning by supporting that which God
forbids?”
With regard to brotherhood, “should the few who cannot conscientiously pay for
war wait until others come along? How do we discern the Spirit’s leading in
this and not make decisions on an individualistic basis?”
Howard Charles, Goshen Biblical Seminary, was resource teacher on biblical
passages dealing with taxes. Other input was given by Melvin Gingerich and
Grant Stoltzfus on examples of tax refusal from history. Mr. Mast presented
options in payment and nonpayment of taxes. Walton Hackman broke down the
present use of tax dollars, 75 percent of which go for war-related purposes.
“Mennonite collegians will meet
to rap about the kind of lifestyle they want to adopt,” hiply noted
an
article in the edition.
Among the topics on the agenda: “how to avoid complicity with militarism
through paying taxes.”
The continuation of the war in Southeast Asia calls upon us in the United
States to review again our payment of taxes that go to support the war. In
, the Council of Commissions meeting in
Newton, Kansas, urged churches to consider the non-payment of a portion of
their taxes. One of the district conferences passed a resolution chiding the
council for being unbiblical. This response should have called for a mutual
study of the question and this can still be done. It is the intention of the
writer that this article should be a contribution toward the continuation of
dialog on this topic.
The record of Jesus’ pronouncement on the paying of taxes is recorded in all
three of the Synoptic Gospels
(Matt. 22:15–22;
Mark 12:13–17,
Luke 20:20–26). This indicates the importance of this account to the
early church.
The account tells of Pharisees’ and Herodians’ coming to ask a question of
Jesus. They came the day after the cleansing of the temple. Their purpose was
to discredit Jesus in the eyes of the people. Jesus had shown up the leaders
of the temple and they were anxious to get back at him. This question is one
of several that they used. Here the cooperation between the Pharisees and
Herodians is strange. The Pharisees were opposed to the occupation by the
Roman authorities, while the Herodians were enriching themselves by
cooperating. They united because they both wanted Jesus out of the way.
The question of paying taxes brought different answers from these two groups.
The Pharisees were nationalistic and were against any foreign occupation. They
saw the payment of taxes as a symbol of their subjection to a heathen foreign
power. They also hated using the coins with an imprint of Caesar’s likeness as
it went against their interpretation of the second commandment. The Herodians
were willing to see the taxes paid for they had improved their livelihood by
their cooperation.
Thus the question would appear to be a legitimate one. Who was right? They
recognized that Jesus was impartial to people and that if they could appeal to
his sense of justice they might get him to make a judgment. On the surface
their query seemed innocent enough. But they were laying a trap for Jesus.
The question was two-pronged. Jesus could be caught if he answered either
“yes” or “no.” A “yes” would have disowned the people’s nationalistic hopes
and given approval to the hated tax burden. The total taxes paid amounted to
as much as 35 to 40 percent of their income. A “no” to the question would have
made him liable to the charge of sedition and he could be reported to the
Roman authorities. So either answer was one that was looked upon as a means of
hurting Jesus and either discrediting him or doing away with him. Luke says
clearly that they wanted to deliver Jesus up to the authority and jurisdiction
of the governor (Lk. 20:20).
Mark says at the outset that the intent of the questioners was to entrap
Jesus. We are also told that Jesus was aware of their hypocrisy, their seeming
sincerity in asking a question with a hidden intent to trap him. On the basis
of this information, to expect Jesus to reply with either a yes or a no would
be to assume that Jesus was caught in their trap. The amazement of the
questioners after Jesus’ reply indicates that Jesus did not give the kind of
answer they expected.
Turning to the crucial issue, the Pharisees asked if it was lawful to give
taxes to Caesar. The idiomatic rendering of this is “pay taxes.” Jesus replied
that they should “pay back” to Caesar that which was his. Did Jesus see taxes
as a return for benefits received? He probably did, but without sanctioning
all that Caesar was doing. For it was Caesar who had provided for the making
of the coin. But the paying back to Caesar statement does not stand alone and
we cannot treat it as such. To it is added the phrase that we are to pay back
to God what belongs to God. These two phrases need to be interpreted together.
And there are several ways in which this can be done. What did Jesus mean?
First, some see the realm of Caesar and the realm of God as two side-by-side
but separate and distinct realms, each having its own concerns and existence.
The Christian lives in both realms and has a dualistic ethic. When it comes to
killing, a Christian as a citizen of God’s kingdom will not kill. But as a
citizen of this world he will be obedient to Caesar and take up arms. Many
Christians see no inconsistency in reading the words of Jesus to mean this is
the way they should live.
To some of us it is quite obvious that this is not the way Jesus taught us to
live. We do not see him giving Caesar equal authority with God. Jesus warned
that no man can serve two masters. So we reject the position that would say we
should pay to Caesar regardless of the uses he makes of our money.
A second view is that the Kingdom of God is above the kingdoms of this world.
God’s realm is holy and the worldly realm is sinful. According to this model,
one would seek to live as much as possible within God’s realm. It might be
necessary to be involved in the world to some extent but one would take no
responsibility, such as voting or holding office. One would pay taxes to
Caesar but would not see the money as purchasing any services. This has been
the view of some Mennonites in the past. They asked nothing from the world and
gave what was demanded except where it involved their personal lives. They let
the governing authorities take full responsibility before God for the use of
the taxes they paid. This position we also reject as an inadequate
interpretation.
A third point of view sees the whole creation as belonging to God, with God
acting in and through all men. Within the world are a number of states having
separate existence but not autonomous existence for they are all under the
judgment of God. What the rulers do, they are to do as ministers of God and it
should always be according to God’s purposes. Their authority is a derived
authority. Because the rulers of the states are not autonomous, they
frequently seek to wield more power than given by God and so become demonic.
Thus Caesar is not to be obeyed regardless of what he asks. We see fine
examples of this in both the Old and New Testaments. When Caesar asks for more
than God has set for him, the Christian must definitely refuse to grant it to
him. Then the words, “We must obey God rather than men” are appropriate.
Knowing Jesus’ life of total obedience to the will of his Father, we have no
doubt in saying that Jesus saw governing authorities as ruling under God. He
told Pilate, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you
from above” (John 19:11).
The Christians who received the revelation of Jesus Christ were told that
those who are faithful unto death to their convictions would receive the crown
of life
(Rev. 2:10).
It is to this third model that we look for guidance.
The words, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” does say explicitly
that there is an amount that is due a government. But we also hold that it
says there are limits to what Caesar should ask. Jesus was not being asked
about the payment of all taxes. A variety of taxes were levied by Caesar and
the one Jesus was asked about was the annual poll tax that each male above
fourteen years of age had to pay with the specific coin Jesus called for.
We need to see Jesus’ words as providing a generalization rather than a
universal prescription. In moving from a general statement to a particular
situation, we must always move carefully. Let me illustrate: we are told a
person who is a guest should eat what is set before him
(Luke 10:7).
However, if a person is diabetic, it would not be right for him to eat food
that would be harmful to his system. While we can say that Jesus supported the
payment of taxes, we cannot thereby say that he favored the payment of every
particular tax that a government might levy. We can all think of programs
(such as the destruction of elderly and handicapped persons) which we would
not be willing to support with our taxes. If that is the case, then we need to
look seriously at what our taxes are doing in making war possible.
Living under a government that says it is responsible to the concerns of its
citizens, we have an opportunity to witness by bringing our concerns to the
government. A first step should be to write those who represent us and make
the laws for our country. Stating our position in this manner is being a
faithful witness. If the tax money is being used for purposes that are utterly
contrary to what we understand to be the will of God, then we ought to
consider the act of refusing to pay the tax. The purpose of this action is the
desire to be faithful to the will of God as we know it and to help the rulers
become aware of how they are overstepping the bounds of true ministers of God.
Paul in his letter to the Romans exhorts Christians to be obedient to the
authorities. But he has already stated the principle that Christians should
not be conformed to this world (12:1). Or as Phillips has translated it,
“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its mold.” This calls for
discernment on the part of the church. Can we as Christians continue to pray
for peace while we pay for war?
The edition profiled two small
Mennonite intentional communities in Kansas: the Fairview Mennonite House and
The Bridge.
The
article noted:
[The Bridge] began forming at a Western District war tax workshop. David and
Joanne Janzen, Randy and Janeal Krehbiel, and Steve and Wanda Schmidt were
ready to stop paying taxes for war and to join into a brotherhood of shared
income “to make our whole lives count for peace.”
Both intentional communities are a part of the voluntary service program of
the General Conference Mennonite Church and follow the same financial pattern
of self-support as the majority of other voluntary service units. All income
is turned over directly to the voluntary service office in Newton, which
reimburses the unit for such items as food, housing, travel, and medical
expenses. Each individual receives $25 a month personal allowance.
Although critics of the intentional communities have accused them of using the
voluntary service program as a tax dodge, members of the communities felt
strong ties with their Anabaptist heritage and wanted to channel their
resources to and through the church. But there are no apologies for not paying
taxes. “We’re witnessing to the fact that the federal government is not using
our money responsibly in its huge military expenditures,” said Ken [Janzen].
A member of the Love, Joy, Peace Community (Washington,
D.C.)
wrote a letter in response
in which he wrote (in part):
The problem of war taxes is one which both Fairview House and The Bridge are
addressing. It’s good to see people more concerned with “rendering to God what
is his” (our whole lives), rather than being obsessed with Caesar and his
temporal demands! We have long been passive, instead of active peacemakers. We
pray for peace while we pay for war.
Dear Editor: As members of the Mennonite congregation of Boston, we are
writing this letter to make public our decision to withhold a portion of our
federal taxes, either income or telephone taxes. This decision came out of
discussions with the entire congregation. We are doing this because our
Christian consciences and our Mennonite backgrounds tell us the war in
Southeast Asia is counter to the teachings of Christ. We have chosen to
withhold our taxes because part of the responsibility for the war resides with
those who willingly support it financially, regardless of what they believe.
Realizing this act will undoubtedly have a very small effect indeed on
governmental policy, we hope it will in some way influence others into taking
concrete actions which will demonstrate Christian love. Our friends and our
families cannot help but react to our decision to withhold taxes.
The desired effect of our actions is not, however, the sole reason why we have
chosen this form of protest. As conscientious objector status has become more
automatic for Mennonites, refusal to pay war taxes has provided an additional
way to demonstrate one’s Christian beliefs. Because we have only rough guesses
as to the effects of our act, we accept as a matter of faith that this act
will at least be a significant event in our Christian lives.
While we know the government will eventually collect our taxes, our intention
to send an equal amount of money to the Mennonite Central Committee for
Vietnam relief is a further Christian witness. It offers our alternative to
war.
Jerry and Janet Friesen Regier, Weldon and Rebecca Pries,
Ted and Gayle Gerber Koontz, Dorothy and Gordon D. Kaufman.
An increasing number of people are sending war tax monies to Mennonite Central
Committee, instead of paying them to the United States Government for military
use, said Calvin Britsch,
MCC
assistant treasurer.
Contributions of tax money are of two kinds, Mr. Britsch said. More people are
refusing to pay the federal tax levied on the use of telephones. This 10
percent tax is seen as a direct source for military expenditures. People who
refuse this tax simply subtract the 10 percent from their telephone bill and
send it instead to
MCC.
We also receive contributions from people who refuse part of their federal
income tax, Mr. Britsch said. Several people, for example, have withheld and
have sent in as a contribution ten or 15 percent of their income tax in a
symbolic protest against the Vietnam war and the whole United States military
machine. Others who have had less than the total tax withheld send that
remainder to
MCC
rather than to the Internal Revenue Service. We often get letters with tax
refusal contributions explaining the individuals belief that, as a Christian,
one cannot voluntarily, or without protest, pay money to be used for the
destruction of human life.
Tax refusal contributions, unless otherwise designated, are usually applied to
the
MCC
Peace Section budget, Mr. Britsch said.
The General Conference had asked the Commission on Home Ministries and the
Commission on Overseas Mission to come up with some sort of repentance action,
focused on the Vietnam War. They settled on a coordinated day of repentance,
with other Mennonite and Brethren churches also joining in with a day of
fasting and prayer. Included with the letter from the commissions announcing
this was
a
confession of complicity, which said in part:
We recognize that though we cannot completely disassociate ourselves from the
destruction and suffering the people of the United States are inflicting upon
others, we continue to seek ways “to perform deeds worthy of (our)
repentance.”…
As a church we have opposed war and worked for peace through programs of
relief and service. Yet we share responsibility for the destruction in this
way through our silence, through our profiting from a military economy,
through our patronage of corporations with substantial defense contracts, and
through our payment of the portion of telephone and
IRS
taxes used for war purposes. Much of this involvement is unintentional and may
even be done without knowledge of the implications.
To pay income tax means to help buy the guns, airplanes, and bombs which
continue daily to kill the men, women and children of Indochina. To pay this
tax means to help build the nuclear weaponry which threatens the possibility
of any joyful human life. To pay this tax is to help retire the mortgage of
the atomic bombs which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So, instead of trusting my money to the federal government, I have directed my
financial resources to organizations and individuals working for peace and
justice.
Claus Felbinger, writing about the Anabaptist church in
, said, “We are gladly and willingly subject
to the government for the Lord’s sake, and in all just matters we will in no
way oppose it. When, however, the government requires of us what is contrary
to our faith and conscience — as swearing oaths and paying hangman’s dues of
taxes for war — then we do not obey its command.” Living in the
Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition, I feel that, rather than pay taxes, I must
hear and respond to the cries of those who fall victim to the American
war-making power.
I hope that you people working for the Internal Revenue Service will
understand and accept my decision to follow conscience. I hope that you will
also consider the contribution which your work of collecting war taxes makes
to the suffering of our fellow human beings.
Accompanying this was a maudlin poem by another author, called “Confession”
that began “I killed a man today / Or was it a woman or a child?” and went on
to explain that his taxes paid someone to kill, in spite of all the other
things he did to express his dislike for killing. But he was writing a letter
to the
IRS to
tell them why he wouldn’t be paying “that part of income tax which is used for
killing.”
The “Central District
Reporter,” a sort of supplemental insert in the magazine, reported this from
the district’s Peace and Service Committee:
Parents too have stopped being passive about peace. If son will not register,
father will not pay the tax which keeps the army and any war going. All ages
are learning more and more that there is no one way to give witness to
convictions.
A
letter to the editor
from Jacob and Irene Pauls discussed their decision to redirect 64% of their
federal income tax (“clearly designated for war”) from the government to the
Mennonite Central Committee. They wrote: “The state has chosen an enemy, but we
have no enemy. We do not accept the premise that the state can choose an enemy
for us and force us to help annihilate the state’s enemy.”
From the edition:
War tax resistance means sale of car. David Janzen, Newton, Kansas, at right,
talks with Internal Revenue Service officials in Wichita as they open and
record sealed bids for Mr. Janzen’s station wagon. The automobile was
confiscated in for nonpayment of $31.32
of telephone excise tax which would have been used to carry on the war in
Indochina. The officials read bids for one cent to $501, but refused to read
bids for “one napalmed baby” and other “units of suffering” submitted by other
war tax resisters and supporters. “All we’re interested in is the money,” said
the IRS
officer. “We’re interested in what the money buys,” replied Mr. Janzen. The
intentional community of which he is a member bought back the station wagon.
There are some points at which it is necessary “to make a one-sided emotional
commitment to one value” (our militaristic brethren in the church feel we do
this on the war question — especially when we begin to urge withholding part
of our income tax).
What was billed as a “‘Lamb’s war’ camp meeting”
took place in . Sixty or
seventy mostly youngish people, mostly but not all Mennonites, met to discuss
“a life of sacrifice and aggressive peacemaking” as part of “a nonviolent army
under the direction of God.” War tax resistance was one of the topics
discussed, and the verse “gonna lay down my telephone tax, down by the
riverside” was spliced in to the popular spiritual during an evening
sing-along.
A letter to the editor from Robert W. Guth
on the subject of war taxes again told the story of the excommunication of
Christian Funk for paying taxes to the Continental Congress during the American
revolutionary war, and of Andrew Ziegler’s “I would as soon go to war as pay
the three pounds and ten shillings” response.
Preliminary results from the first Church Member Profile survey were revealed
in a article. Excerpt:
In the United states… only 11 percent were uncertain about their position,
should they be subject to the draft. Seventy-one percent would choose
alternative service, an option acceptable to both the government and the
church’s teaching in recent history.
However, 33 percent were uncertain about refusal to pay that proportion of
their income taxes designated for the military. Fifty-five percent opposed
nonpayment of war taxes.
Bill Londeree, a member of Koinonia Partners, Americus, Georgia, emphasized
the personal response to affluence and militarism.
The Methodist Church, he said, has $40 million in investments in the top
twenty-nine defense contractors — and sends out the antiwar slide
presentation, “The automated air war.” Members of the Mennonite Church paid
$87 million last year in war taxes and call themselves a “peace church.”
“This is schizophrenia of the first order,” Mr. Londeree said. “The greatest
need is for examination of our own lives. Jesus’ first statement to us all is
a call to repentance, to metanoia. This does not mean
feeling sorry, but is a command to change.”
The assembly spent much of its time in small groups discussing the
presentations and related topics, such as life style, the ideology of growth,
war taxes, international economic relations, economic needs of church-related
institutions, strategies for social change, new value orientations, and
investments.
This is the twenty-second in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today
brings us up to 1975.
The Mennonite General Conference’s Commission on Home Ministries was often at
the forefront (or ahead of the forefront) of the Conference’s policies on war
tax resistance. But they seem to have gotten caught flat-footed at their annual
meeting in . Here’s an
excerpt from The Mennonite’s coverage:
The commission devoted most of to the war tax question. The discussion was sharpened by a
request which had come to the General Conference from one of its employees not
to withhold her income tax.
The board members, after lengthy and vigorous debate, could not agree on what
course of action to take. They did agree to the following statement, however:
“We would like to support in spirit the concerns of church employees
requesting nonwithholding of war taxes, but we are not together on what kind
of action we can take.”
It was agreed that further attention needs to be given to this issue, and the
commission decided to call an inter-Mennonite study conference later this year
to look at the theological, political, and historical issues involved in war
tax resistance.
Other participants in the Council of Commissions cautioned the General
Conference to tread softly on this question because it has the potential of
being an explosive issue. Some voiced concern about grass roots reactions. It
was felt that most constituents would not favor the General Conference’s
involvement in this type of activity. The Division of Administration said that
it was fearful that if a move is made not to withhold war taxes from
conference employees’ paychecks, the General Conference might be jeopardizing
its nonprofit status.
A war tax resistance fund has been established and a war tax newsletter
started by CHM.
CHM
is still exploring the legal aspects of not withholding federal income tax
from the paychecks of central office employees who so request. An
inter-Mennonite study conference will be called sometime
to discuss the theological issues
involved.
[W]hen the war in Indochina was building up to its most destructive levels
ever, I felt an urgency to stop paying all war taxes. However, under the
present
IRS
system there is no way to say, “Yes, we are willing to pay the ‘regular’
taxes, but not the portion that goes for military expenses” all tax monies are
channeled into one general treasury. The only way to say no war taxes is to
reduce the amount of federal income tax one pays. So, for
, after listing the usual itemized
deductions, I claimed the amount of the “taxable income” as a “war crimes
deduction.”
Since the
IRS
would not accept that claim, we decided to appeal their decision. With some
“fear and trembling” we prepared our statement for the tax court, not knowing
just what to expect from the representatives of an agency that often seems to
be hostile toward people who oppose the payment of taxes for war purposes. We
are grateful that the Lord did calm our spirits so that we could speak freely.
We were somewhat surprised when the tax court referee expressed a real
openness to hear our prepared statement concerning the bases for opposition to
war taxes. We were also free to share something about the life of our church
community as the context for making ethical decisions. We were so grateful for
the receptive spirit we sensed in the judge, the
IRS’s
counsel, the clerks, and the bailiff.…
We are seeking for other alternatives: one is to work at simplifying our
“needs,” reduce our consumption of material goods, and reduce our taxable
income, thereby making more resources available to the church-community to be
used to extend its mission and outreach. We believe the clearest answer to war
taxes is the gathered community of disciples, seeking together for alternative
forms of economic life that reduce our tax liability.
In our pilgrimage, we have been led to live in close proximity, for some to
work in paying jobs and some in non-remunerative work, and to share all our
resources. We believe this kind of relationship and commitment to one another
is an important aspect of the life of a church-community and is to be
understood as an open-ended time commitment. Some Christian communities, with
a similar emphasis on service, poverty, and sharing of resources, have
obtained legal status as “apostolic orders” and are thus able to devote all
their resources to the witness and service they can offer to people in the
name of Christ, rather than to channel any tax monies through the hands of
Caesar
(IRS).
The cover story of the issue
took the form of a poem, by Peter J. Ediger, called
Christ and Caesar: A ballad of faith.
It beckoned its readers to imagine the history of the Mennonites and the
suffering and martyrdom and struggles the sect go through as they “hear the
call of God / and followed Christ into the Kingdom of Loving Enemies / and
ceased from following Caesar into his Kingdom of Killing Enemies.” But over
time the Mennonites grew soft, while Caesar kept growing and becoming more
powerful and more militaristic.
and there was uneasiness in the revelation that people of the faith
were giving more money for war than for all the causes of the kingdom of the Lord…
And the sons and daughters of the enemy-loving kingdom said what shall we do
and some responding quickly said
we must pay our taxes we must give to Caesar what is Caesar’s
we must be subject to the powers that be
and others said yes we must give to Caesar what is his and to God what is God’s
as for our conscience that belongs to God
and as for earth’s resources, does Caesar really have legitimate claim
or is the earth, and all that in it is, the Lord’s?
Can Caesar command us to use earth’s resources to pay for his killings?
And some sons and daughters of the faith said no
and refused to pay voluntarily that portion of their taxes designated for defense
offering the money for the use of human help instead.
And in America church agencies faced difficult decisions
should they withhold Caesar’s taxes from employees who for conscience’ sake requested noncompliance?
Should they respect the law of Caesar or the conscience of faith?
And some structures and some persons of faith were threatened by such questions sensing many implications
and officers advised that issues should be carefully researched.
And in America’s House of Representatives
legislation called the World Peace Tax Fund Act was introduced
seeking provision for channeling of tax monies into pursuits of peace
and some were hopeful that this might ease their conscience problem
and others questioned whether it would even be enacted
and if it might become
another way for Caesar to still the voices of protest.
And now the sons and daughters of the enemy-loving kingdom
are calling for a conference on the war tax program
and from across America and Canada they will come
to seek the Light, to walk in Love, to discern and do the Truth.
And so forth. A less versified and more skeptical article immediately followed:
“Tax
resistance — A form of protest?” by Carl M. Lehman — one of the best
critiques of modern war tax resistance I have read.
The tragedy of Vietnam and the part played by our country has led some to a
form of protest heretofore little known among our people — resistance to
paying taxes. The fact that the war has been so widely criticized both by
pacifists and nonpacifists has had something to do with this phenomenon. What
a sensitive pacifist felt he could do during World War Ⅱ, when all his friends
and neighbors were deeply involved in the war effort, was usually different
from what he would do during a Vietnam War.
Tax resistance is a form of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience itself is
deeply rooted in the origins of our church, as it is in the beginnings of our
land. But it has traditionally only been used in ultimate tests of loyalty to
God. To use tax resistance under other circumstances is a breakaway from our
Anabaptist tradition. To use it lightly is an affront to government by the
people.
I have a profound respect for those who believe deeply this is the course they
must take. God uses people with courage and conviction, even if he has to
change them a bit. I must admit however that I am perplexed as I try to
understand how some have arrived at their decision not to pay taxes.
The activist I understand. He will use any means he believes right to agitate
and bring about a change. Most will stop short of physical violence, but I
sometimes wonder about that. People can be violated more completely in other
ways.
I understand the absolutist, and I understand the literalist who will not eat
meat offered to idols. I do not find it easy to understand Mennonite tax
resisters who are neither literalists nor agitators.
It is sometimes suggested that modern warfare has made the individual soldier
relatively unimportant. Armament is all-important. Armament costs staggering
amounts of money and today’s conscientious objector is straining at a gnat as
he swallows a camel if he does not refuse to pay taxes.
There is a certain logic to this. Unfortunately it equates money with people.
This is not only bad economics but bad Christianity. Money is a medium of
exchange; people are not. Money does not kill people; people kill people. Only
people make guns and bombs people use to kill people. Maybe Jesus had
this in mind when he looked at the coin and said “Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s”?
What is meant by war taxes?
Tax resisters are not opposed to paying taxes as such, only to paying war
taxes. This poses a problem, for we really do not have war taxes. We have a
federal income tax, import duties, and excise taxes on things like liquor,
tobacco, and telephone service. These taxes flow into the general treasury and
are commingled. They are used only as Congress appropriates money out of the
treasury. The Internal Revenue Service has nothing to do with how the money is
spent. The only money segregated is that which goes into special trust funds
such as social security, unemployment compensation, and highway construction.
Some have singled out the telephone excise tax with the notion that the
proceeds are for military purposes in a way not true for other taxes. Our
government does have a long tradition of levying additional excise taxes as it
wages war, both to control inflation and to replenish the treasury.
by far
the most important source of revenue has been the income tax. Excise taxes
were increased, too, but were no longer the major source of revenue. By
they accounted for less than 7 percent with
the telephone tax providing about 1 percent. None of this is used for military
purposes any more than is any other tax. The fact that Congress called it a
“defense tax” when initiated in and
reenacted in has no bearing on its use, only
on its palatability for passage.
What is meant by the term “war taxes” varies with the user. It is usually
someone’s calculation of the percentage of the president’s proposed national
budget which the president suggests be used for military purposes. This
percentage varies. Those who want it to look small include social security
payments as part of the total budget. Presidents now publish budgets showing
it that way.
There is also disagreement as to what is to be included as military
spending. The often-publicized 60 percent is calculated by first removing
social security from the budget. Everything related to wars, past, present,
and future, is then lumped together. Those willing to care for veterans and
who believe the government should pay interest on war debts drop it to 40
percent. Arbitrarily, resisters then figure that 60 percent or 40 percent of
their taxes are “war taxes” and deduct this from the amount they pay.
There is no legal basis for it, just a logic that is easily grasped.
What actually happens?
Much of the discussion about the moral basis for tax resistance has not been
clear. The dominant note is that waging war is evil; our taxes increase the
magnitude of war; if the government does not get our taxes, the evil is
reduced accordingly. It is not clear why, if this is true, we would want to
withhold only 60 percent. Why not withhold 100 percent and further reduce the
evil?
The supposition apparently is that the other 40 percent will go for functions
of government resisters are willing to support. Unfortunately this is not
true, as we will see in a minute.
Federal spending is a function of government not related to collecting taxes.
It is the responsibility of a different group of people. Talking to the
telephone company or to the Internal Revenue Service about the use of your tax
money is as pointless as arguing with the janitor at the Chase Manhattan Bank
about giving you a loan.
The amount the federal government spends for a given purpose is only
indirectly related, if at all, to the amount collected in taxes. If you know
about the federal debt, you know this. Nor is the amount spent determined by
the president’s budget. The budget is a plan the Congress may or may not
follow when it passes appropriation bills.
The amount of tax money collected does have an eventual effect on the amount
spent inasmuch as Congress sets for itself borrowing limits — limits which it
keeps changing. When a tax resister withholds a dollar from the government,
the government can either increase its borrowing by a dollar or decrease its
spending by that amount. What the resister needs to understand is that defense
appropriations are almost always approved by overwhelming majorities. As long
as the Pentagon receives this kind of support, tax resistance will have no
effect at all on the amount of money available for war. What tax resisters
actually do is either force a cut in highly desirable programs such as aid to
education — or increase the national debt. In either case an even larger
percent of the money they pay goes for military purposes.
It would be just as reasonable for a Mennonite farmer to withhold 10 percent
of his wheat from the market because 10 percent of all wheat produced was
found to be used directly or indirectly for military purposes. Soldiers would
still get their bread and so would all but the poorest of Americans.
Can the tax resister play a useful role?
Civil disobedience has been used by the church ever since the day Peter said.
“We must obey God rather than men.” The resister who believes in direct action
as a way to call attention to the terrible evil of a Vietnam War may well have
a role to play. God has many ways of using people. Some of us, however, find
it difficult to reconcile it with the teaching and spirit of Jesus. Harassing
telephone company employees and the Internal Revenue Service is not in keeping
with an invitation to Zacchaeusto come down from the sycamore tree. We may not
mean to harass them, but how do they feel about it?
Why not turn to congressmen? They decide how our money is to be used. This is
where our attention must focus if we are serious about a responsible Christian
witness. We elect them and they need to know what we think. Our letters, our
telephone calls, and our visits are important to them. Because so few write
and so few visit, our voice becomes as the voice of a thousand.
Working thus with Congress has not been without effect. Perhaps a World Peace
Tax Fund bill will not become law, but working for it has been constructive.
Such a provision, too, has its limitations, as do all alternative service
programs. Let us not delude ourselves about any imagined effect on military
spending. It would be tragic if such an enactment were to assuage our
conscience and we were to reduce our pressure on Congress to keep military
spending down.
(I sent a link to the above article to wtr-s — a mailing list for people interested in war tax resistance — and asked how they would respond to Lehman’s arguments.
Click here to see the responses.)
Following this came
the
news that the Commission on Home Ministries had come up with a proposed
solution to the problem of employees of General Conference Mennonite Church
institutions who wanted not to have war taxes withheld from their paychecks.
The proposal was “based on the research and recommendations of Ruth C.
Stoltzfus, a Boston law student who spent the summer on a special war tax
research assignment for CHM.”
The proposal recommended that the
church agency ceases withholding from the employee who is conscientiously
opposed to this. At the next interval when withheld funds are paid over to the
government, submit a statement along with the withheld non-war percentage of
taxes explaining that this action is based on your claim under the First
Amendment and on the AFSC
case which was reversed on other grounds.
According to Stoltzfus,
criminal prosecution of the church agency would be “extremely unlikely, both
in view of the lack of ‘evil motive’ and the reasonable cause to have acted on
the basis of a district court case.”
The district court decision had already been overturned by this time, but the
Commission felt they could still rely on it because:
The U.S. Supreme
Court later overturned the district court decision, but only on the basis that
such an injunction [the
AFSC’s,
demanding the return of already paid withholding taxes] could not be served
against the Internal Revenue Service. The court did not address the religious
claim.
The recommendation to the General Conference would bypass the injunction
difficulty, since it would not require the conference to sue for a refund.
Thus if the government brought suit against the conference, conscientious
refusal to withhold war taxes could be tested in court on its own merits.
Some 115 persons gathered at First Mennonite Church in Kitchener, Ontario,
to seek
theological and practical discernment on war tax issues. Their concern grew
out of the Mennonite and Brethren in Christ heritage of the way of peace and
the growing menace of the world arms race.
Unlike some Mennonite peace gatherings of the past decade, the under-thirty
set did not predominate at Kitchener. Laborers, pastors, homemakers, and
teachers shared their concerns. Students from as far as Swift Current Bible
Institute and Eastern Mennnonite College came to Kitchener.
A response recommended specifically for
U.S. citizens
suggested refusal “to pay federal tax, or a percentage thereof, since such a
large part is used for military purposes, and… willingness to accept the legal
consequences of such a conscientious objection to supporting war,
acknowledging the illegal aspect of the act and inviting the opportunities to
witness at various levels which it brings.”
It included a call to “bring taxable income below the taxable level by
adjusting standard of living through earning less income, through donating up
to the maximum allowable 50 percent of income to charitable causes or through
other types of deduction and/or dependent claiming which are legally
allowable.”
Responses recommended for Canadians included to “call upon our government to
legislate against the export of military weapons and systems” and to “affirm
and support individuals who feel led to actions (actual or symbolic) that
focus conscientious objection in particular ways:
Tax withholding, a withholding of that portion to taxes going for defense
as a symbolic act
Tax overpayment, an overpayment of that portion of the
GNP
that derives from defense export.”
Other action recommendations affirmed “that Mennonite institutions make
allowance for individual expression of conscience concerning tax refusal and
withholding,” “that the Meetinghouse format deal with the war tax
issue as soon as possible,” and “that a study guide and packet of resource
material on the war tax issue be made available to congregations for further
discernment on the matter.”
Conference planners Harold Regier and Peter Ediger, editors of “God and
Caesar,” a war tax newsletter from Newton, Kansas, and Ted Koontz of
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.) indicated
plans to carry on efforts to raise consciousness about war tax and militarism
issues, while the world waits for Armageddon.
This is the fourteenth 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.
War tax resistance really picked up steam in the Mennonite Church in , as the coverage in Gospel Herald shows.
In a “workshop on war taxes” was held “at the Hively Mennonite Church, Elkhart, Ind. Resource persons are Al Meyer, John Howard Yoder, David Habegger, Art Gise, and Carl Landes…” Gospel Herald’s report on the conference noted:
Christian response to war taxes was discussed by about 100 participants in a workshop in Elkhart, Ind.
The weekend was sponsored by the Elkhart Peace Fellowship, the General Conference Mennonite Central District Peace and Service Committee, and other regional church peace and service committees.
Michael Friedmann of the Elkhart Peace Fellowship said many of the participants felt the war tax question involved a shift in life-style to reduce involvement in the military-industrial complex.
Al Meyer, a research physicist at Goshen College, Goshen, Ind., suggested to the group that one does not start by changing the laws to provide legal alternatives to payment of war taxes, but by refusing to pay taxes.
We need to give a clear witness, he said.
Meyer did not oppose payment of war taxes because he was opposed to government as such, but because he did not give his total allegiance to government.
He felt it was his responsibility to refuse to pay the immoral demands of government.
“No alternative will be provided by the federal government until a significant number of citizens refuse war taxes,” he said.
The annual tax collection time is at hand.
How do you respond to the 1040 and other tax forms?
An increasing number of Mennonites are asking what it means to render to Caesar what belongs to him and in particular to render to God what belongs to Him.
Two seminars are planned to study this question: , Akron Mennonite Church; Bally Mennonite Church.
The purpose will be (1) to learn what the Bible says for and against paying taxes, (2) to share with and support each other as the Spirit leads, and (3) to examine what choices are available in nonpayment of taxes used for war purposes.
The schedule allows for considerable discussion time.
Howard Charles, Goshen Biblical Seminary, will be the resource person.…
War Tax Meeting Set
A meeting for people who are disturbed by American policy in Southeast Asia and who question payment of war taxes is planned for at Hebron Mennonite Church, Buhler, Kan. The meeting, sponsored by the Western District Peace and Social Concerns Committee of the General Mennonite Church, will be a time to exchange ideas and tell of actions already taken.
Two seminars on taxes, “Jesus and the 1040 Form” seminars, were held at the Akron Mennonite Church and the Bally Mennonite Church, respectively.
Approximately 70 persons participated.
Howard Charles, Goshen Biblical Seminary, was the resource teacher on biblical passages dealing with taxes.
Other input was given by Melvin Gingerich and Grant Stoltzfus on examples of tax refusal from history.
Wesley Mast presented options in payment and nonpayment of taxes.
Walton Hackman gave a breakdown of the present use of tax dollars, 75 percent of which go toward war-related purposes.
War taxes also would come up at another Mennonite forum, as announced in the issue:
On the Swiss Farm at Bluffton College, Bluffton, Ohio, Mennonite collegians will meet.
, to “rap” about the kind of life-style they want to adopt.
Intentional communities, ways to avoid American materialism and consumerism, how to avoid complicity with militarism through paying taxes that support past, present, and future wars, and the role of women will be ingredients in the discussions of the conference.
Rudolf Gnaegi, Swiss defense minister, has announced that 32 Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy will be prosecuted if they persist in their refusal to perform military service or to pay “defense taxes.”
In Switzerland, all males over 20 — including the clergy — are subject to military service and annual retraining service periods.
Conscientious objection is not recognized.
Those who refuse to serve in the military are liable to prison terms.
The 32 clergymen, all from French-speaking cantons, announced in a joint letter to the Defense Ministry that they would not report for military service nor pay taxes earmarked for defense because they felt the Army served only “economic and financial interests.”
The letter charged further that whenever the Army was used in the country, it was used “against workers, peasants, and young people.”
Mr. Gnaegi, chief of the Military Department, told newsmen it was “incredible” that “in a free and evolving society like Switzerland’s,” clergymen should refuse completely “to share the difficult task of national defense.”
A second issue brought to the Council was that of payment of war taxes.
After extensive discussion, the Council agreed to ask Walton Hackman, secretary-elect of MCC Peace Section, to serve as resource person in further discussion of the issue in the meeting of the Council.
Meanwhile, Council members will take their homework seriously by continued study in preparation for carrying the question to the church.
In “What Belongs to Caesar” (), Robert E. Dickinson explained how he had come around to the war tax resistance position:
Although I was a conscientious objector to war in the Second World War, I have justified the paying of war taxes to myself with the quote from Jesus, “Render unto Caesar…” As violence has escalated in our world I have become increasingly uneasy with this concept.
With the reading of What Belongs to Caesar? a discussion on the Christians’ response to the payment of war taxes by Donald D. Kaufman, I realized that Christ’s statement was not to be taken too literally but needed to be placed in context.
It has become increasingly clear to me that my own reasons for paying war taxes was one of protecting property and job, neither of which are ultimate Christian values.
The now well-documented illegality of the war as substantiated by the publication of the Pentagon Papers and the fact that the individual citizen is to be held responsible for his acts as established in the Nuremberg Trials are further factors in my decision.
As an architect I do not wish to emulate the German architect, Albert Speer, who sold his soul to the state for professional advancement.
It seems to me that Christians who refuse to serve in the military but at the same time pay for war put themselves in the unenviable position of paying someone else to fight their wars for them.
With God’s leading I will do my best not to do this.
Meanwhile, other Mennonites were refusing to pay their war taxes while redirecting them to alternative funds.
The telephone excise tax was a popular target for anti-war activists.
This account comes from the edition:
An increasing number of people are sending war tax monies to Mennonite Central Committee, instead of paying them to the United States Government for military use, said Calvin Britsch, MCC assistant treasurer.
Contributions of tax money are of two kinds, Britsch said.
More people are refusing to pay the federal tax levied on the use of telephones.
This 10 percent tax is seen as a direct source for military expenditures.
People who refuse this tax simply subtract the 10 percent from their telephone bill and send it instead to MCC.
Ron Meyer tried to relax the hold that the traditional Render-unto-Caesar interpretation had on many Mennonites, in his article “Reflections on Paying War Taxes.” This was also the first mention I found in Gospel Herald of peace-tax-fund legislation:
[Render-unto-Caesar summary omitted] When He answers, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” he doesn’t make a solid commitment one way or the other.
Instead, Jesus makes it apparent that His follower should decide what of his belongs to the government and what to God.
He does not tell the Christian that his tax money should be given without thought to the government, an interpretation that seems to be quite prevalent today.
In contrast to this interpretation, some American Christians now are questioning the morality of voluntarily paying taxes which support the U.S. government’s military policies.
The income tax is the main source of revenue for warfare: 60 to 75 percent of it is used for military purposes.
The 800-member Goshen College Mennonite Church determined that the amount of money its members “gave” for military purposes through the income tax was almost twice as much as church giving in that congregation.
Though Christ’s work cannot be measured by dollars alone, the thought of paying twice as much for war as for the church and its mission of peace is disturbing.
It is almost impossible not to support the war in Vietnam, however indirectly, if one lives in U.S. today.
Even a small purchase may be supporting a company which has been awarded government contracts for war materials.
If one does refuse to pay war taxes, the government will take the amount from his bank account or personal possessions.
The question then arises, “Why resist the tax if you end up supporting the war effort anyway?”
Tax resisters answer this by saying that one’s intention must be more than just trying to “keep his hands clean.”
The real purpose of war tax resistance is to provide a witness against the war and the ways in which tax money is being used for military purposes.
There are various approaches to war tax resistance for one who decides upon this type of peace witness.
Many tax resisters refuse to pay the 10 percent telephone tax that is to be used expressly for war.
The telephone company usually regards this as a matter between the government and the individual (if notified of the reason for the refusal) and will not cut off phone service.
IRS may take the money from a bank account or send men to the home.
Telephone tax resisters have found that talking to IRS men gives them an excellent chance to witness.
Because of the tax-withholding policy of most employers, nonpayment of income taxes is more difficult.
In this case, if there is any extra tax due each year, the resister may refuse to pay this as a token gesture.
Letters of protest sent in with tax forms are also indicative of the taxpayer’s stance for peace.
Some resisters earn less than the taxable income level for their number of dependents.
This level starts at $1724.99 per year for no dependents.
Those resisting in this way pay no income tax at all.
If one is self-employed, it is a relatively simple matter not to pay the 60 to 75 percent of the income tax used for war.
The tax resister simply deducts this percentage from the amount he must give.
This is not to say that the government won’t take the amount eventually from the individual’s personal property.
An alternative to the war tax system, presently under discussion by various groups, is the World Peace Tax Fund.
This proposal, drawn up by a group of University of Michigan law students, suggests that an individual’s tax money that would go for war purposes could be channeled into a world peace fund if he so wished.
This is similar to the Selective Service Conscientious Objector provision in which an alternative to compulsory military service is provided.
If this proposal is put through Congress, it will provide a peace witness that is within the law.
Its inherent danger is that people may become less bothered by the killing if they aren’t paying for it.
Total noncooperation with the Internal Revenue Service, similar to noncooperation with the Selective Service, is not extensive, since IRS is set up for peaceful purposes as well as channeling money for war.
The consequences of war tax resistance have not proven severe so far, yet the decision is weighty, since legally one could be fined and imprisoned for tax evasion.
Most Christian tax resisters hold that if one decides to take this stand, he must remember that his real object cannot be to “keep his hands clean.”
He must be led by a desire to witness for peace and against violence and war.
Even a simple refusal to pay a telephone tax may influence someone to follow Christ’s way of peace.
There are many Christians who are sincerely opposed to resisting the government in the ways that have been discussed here.
And there are many also who feel that by paying war taxes, they are giving to Caesar what is God’s. Whatever a believer’s decision about the war tax issue, it should be carefully and prayerfully considered with the way of Christ firmly in mind.
The Gospel Herald editor, “D.” (John M. Drescher) endorsed this in a editorial: “When approximately 70 percent of the tax dollar is going to war, a foremost frontier of faith may well be the kind of witness we bear in refusing to finance killing.”
He followed this up with a second editorial in the issue — “Taxes for War”:
Approximately 70 percent of income taxes go to pay for war and all of the 10 percent telephone tax goes to pay for war.
What is the responsibility of those who believe that war is contrary to the Spirit and teaching of Christ?
Should we not seek an alternative in paying taxes when the government’s primary need is for our money, just as hard as we sought an alternative service when the government needed our bodies?
Those who understand what is happening in the automated war and have a concern for life are asking questions like the above with growing seriousness.
Some simply dismiss the whole question by saying, “Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and to God the things which are God’s.” Could this be a cop out?
Might Christ not be laying upon us the obligation to decide what is Caesar’s and what is God’s?
Or was He saying that we will need to decide whether we are Caesar’s person or God’s person?
Isn’t it strange that, over the years, many of those who used this Scripture to say that we should pay our taxes without question, did not render unto God even what was required under the Old Testament?
As a church we are even today much more obedient in rendering to Caesar what he demands than to God what is His.
Look at it this way.
Suppose Caesar should demand a 10 percent telephone tax to wipe out Jews or Indians or blacks in the United States.
What would be our reaction?
Would we willingly and without question render it to Caesar?
How would that be different than demanding a 10 percent tax to wipe out Vietnamese?
What would we say if it were levied to bomb Lancaster, Goshen, or Hesston?
Or to bring it closer.
Suppose Caesar would level a 10 percent tax to pay for the extermination of Mennonites.
Would we encourage everyone to “render unto Caesar what he asks for”?
Would such a 10 percent tax be any different than paying a 10 percent tax for killing Vietnamese?
If so, what is the difference?
Since Caesar receives all his rights from God, does not he forfeit these rights when he violates them?
What is our duty to use money to restrain injustice and to advance right?
For additional study help and discussion, order and study the paperback, What Belongs to Caesar, by Donald D. Kaufman, Herald Press.
As a church, we are at the point where we must somehow come to grips with what we will do about giving our money to support war.
Dealing with a problem of this proportion will be costly.
It may demand a different life-style, the loss of property and institutions.
We can be assured, however, that the way of obedience, even though it leads through the wilderness and death, is the way of Christ.
Out of death we believe there is always a resurrection.
And how our world needs resurrection life!
Sixteen years ago, the country told me I had to join the army.
I told them I was a Christian and I could not do it.
Now, the country tells me I must give it money so it can pay other people to fight and kill.
Once again, I must say I cannot, because I am a Christian.
A very large portion of the taxes we pay, as well as a number of special taxes, go directly to help fight the war.
I have told the government that because Jesus said I should not kill, I cannot pay these, and that instead I give that amount to the church to use in helping people our country makes homeless.
At least one speaker brought up war tax resistance at “Mission ” ():
One speaker took the open mike to make a statement on the war in Vietnam.
He felt that the government is not leveling with us.
Therefore, we should find some way to disengage ourselves as a people — perhaps through nonpayment of certain taxes.
Resolutions urging Unitarian Universalists to refuse payment of the telephone excise tax, and calling for strong gun control laws were approved by delegates to the 11th annual Unitarian Universalist Association General Assembly.
Action on the controversial issues was taken by 678 delegates, the smallest number of delegates in the history of the Association.
Stating that the telephone excise tax “was levied specifically by Congress in to finance the war in Vietnam,” the resolution calls on “all Unitarian Universalists to refuse payment of the telephone excise tax” and urges the UU Association “to refuse such payments also.”
Legal counsel for the 375,000-member Association told delegates that refusal to pay the tax is considered a criminal offense carrying a one-year jail sentence or $10,000 fine or both.
Some feedback from Gospel Herald readers followed:
I want to commend your courage in writing the editorial, “Taxes for War” ( issue).
Your words seem clearly to be in the spirit of Jesus.
Asking the question, “Suppose Caesar would level a 10 percent tax to pay for the extermination of Mennonites.
Would we encourage everyone to ‘render unto Caesar what he asks for’?” brings the argument for nonpayment of war taxes home with blunt but true force.
We are personally searching for the Christian way with regard to the payment of our taxes.
Your editorial shed additional light to our pilgrimage.
Thanks for your two editorials recently (“We Merely Pay to Kill” and “Taxes for War”).
They, along with Maynard Shirk’s “Plea from Saigon” and Don Blosser’s "But, Daddy,” point out our silent complicity in financing the destruction, rather than Jesus’ call to love, of our Vietnamese neighbors.
Our silence indicates the complacent neglect of our individual responsibility as Christians and our corporate responsibility as the church to be God’s reconciling community in this world.
We cannot be silent or complacent in our militarized society and still name Jesus our Lord!
Paul said, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2).
It appears that our renewal has not yet occurred.
Our churches have not become God’s liberated zones.
As an ex-VS-er I recently learned that MCC paid about $1,500 in federal telephone tax during alone, a tax that "Vietnam and only the Vietnam operation makes this bill (federal phone tax) necessary,” according to Rep. Wilbur Mills of the House Ways and Means Committee (Congressional Record of ).
Our other church agencies and our churches are no different from MCC in this respect.
As John A. Lapp wrote in the MCC Peace Section Newsletter, , “Each institution has wittingly or unwittingly developed its program not simply because this is what the Lord or the brotherhood wants us to do but also because this is what IRS allows us to do” (italics mine).
Yes, Brother Drescher, we do not have to worry about rendering to Caesar his due, for he collects by force.
But God only receives voluntary service, which we continually cut short because of submission to government or some other reason.
Our fruits indicate what kind of trees we Mennonites are — comfortable, quiet, complacent.
As Jesus’ disciples we must say no to paying for others or machines to destroy our neighbors, just as the Mennonite Church has said no to participating actively in such destruction, as Jesus said no to Peter fighting enemies with a sword.
As we say no individually we must encourage our churches and agencies to also say no to war taxes as corporate bodies, even if it costs something such as the tax exemption privilege, or property, or social status.
Being “renewed of mind” in witnessing to Jesus’ way of reconciling love for all people.
For as disciples we can value nothing more.
In the name of Christianity, let’s keep balanced on this idea of withholding “war taxes.”
Every person that works in any industry or food production, helps to produce commodities that are used by the army.
So why not talk about laying off from work so many days or withholding so many head of cattle?
Even if we did that the army would still get its share of what did go on the market.
And if we hold back part of our taxes, the army will get what it needs out of what we do pay.
In the days when Paul lived, Rome was just as corrupt as America has been, and still Paul says in Romans 13 that we should pay to “all their dues.”
Alcohol is a much worse killer than war is, why not start doing something about it?
Remembering Paul was living under one of the most cruel and bloody governments of all time and he knew that much of the tax money went to pay the Roman army, which not only put wicked people to death but many, many Christians as well, yet admonished the Roman Christians, “Pay your tax” without any strings attached.
In the editorial, “Taxes for War,” () you quote, “Render to Caesar…” and you say, “Might Christ not be laying upon us the obligation to decide what is Caesar’s and what is God’s?”
You are not suggesting that each of us should decide for himself how much tax he ought to pay and what he wants his tax money used for, are you?
That is getting pretty far out it seems to me.
I think Paul is telling us in Romans 13 that the government as ordered by God is responsible, (1) to provide for our needs, v. 3, (2) to protect us, v. 4, and we in turn shall pay the government the taxes that are laid upon us, with no strings attached as to how they should use our money.
The government is not accountable to us but to God and He will hold them responsible for their actions.
Romans 12:19.
May I express appreciation for the good articles in the issue of Gospel Herald which dealt with our response to war.
I was especially glad for the editorial, “Taxes for War,” and for the “Testimony on Taxes.”
My husband and I have been part of a group in our congregation which studied Donald D. Kaufman’s book, What Belongs to Caesar? and as a result we and others have been seeking to live an altered life-style which will proclaim our commitment to Christ’s way of love.
We too have felt that the way of obedience may be costly.
Reading such testimonies in the Gospel Herald gives us courage to continue to learn what discipleship in this area means.
I am glad to hear that you are concerned about war taxes.
I’m sure that a lot of people share this same concern.
However, I must say that your concern is probably little more than the academic cloak worn by the average “pious Christian."
Why do I say this?
There is a very simple answer to the problem of war taxes for the person who is truly concerned.
I’m not talking about the “Oh, isn’t that a shame” set.
I’m talking about those who see the sadness and weep.
Those who lock themselves in their rooms and beat on their mattresses in anguish.
The answer is simply don’t earn enough money to have to pay taxes.
It is the only legal recourse we have at the present time.
Some say they cannot live on that amount of money, and I say hogwash!
Who is your God?
Did He tell you that you need a six-room house?
Did He tell you that you need a new car, a television, or an air conditioner?
Did He even tell you that you need electricity, running water, or a living-room rug?
My God didn’t. My God said, “Love Me more than you love anything in this world.
Love your neighbor more than you love yourself.
Remember the rich man who would not give up his riches to follow Christ.
I say that every one of us is rich, and anyone who cannot part with his riches cannot love the Lord, for we cannot serve two gods.
We can continue with our present stewardship (pittance that it is) and still not have to pay taxes.
I am not suggesting that we quit working, but I am suggesting that we refuse salaries which cause us to have to pay taxes.
A married couple can now earn $2,300 and be exempt from taxes.
A family with children, even more.
I don’t expect very many people to take this seriously, for God only opens the eyes of a few However, I want to express my love to those of you who will think I am a little crazy.
After reading D.D. Kauffman’s book What Belongs to Caesar?, listening to and reading testimonies from tax protesters, and thinking about the subject, I had arrived at about the same conclusions that Bro. Mason presents.
I suppose it is to my discredit that I am unwilling to act on these conclusions as he apparently has done.
It has been said that the entire science of economics is summarized in the statement, “There is no such thing as free lunch.”
And I would like to suggest that our tax liabilities represent that which we owe unto Caesar in return for the material blessings and luxuries that we enjoy under Caesar’s system.
Remember that the Pharisees, who were admonished to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” had confessed their involvement in the Roman economic system by their possession of Caesar’s coinage.
As Bro. Mason has so ably pointed out, it is within our power to arrange our affairs in such a way that Caesar is also willing to reduce our tax liability if we are willing to give the money unto God.
Unfortunately, it costs us 100 cents to give a dollar unto God through the church, and only 20 cents if we elect to pay the tax and keep the dollar for ourselves.
The issue brought news that the Central Conference of American Rabbis had decided to resist the phone tax corporately:
In protest against the war in Vietnam, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) has instructed its executive vice-president to withhold payment of the federal telephone excise tax which, it said, supports the Vietnam war.
The CCAR said it is the first Jewish organization to approve this act of civil disobedience in protest of the Vietnam war.
The action was taken after consultation with lawyers.
At the same time, the Reform rabbis urged in a resolution the movement’s sister institutions — the Hebrew Union College — Jewish Institute of Religion and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations — to follow a similar course of action.
Individual members of the conference were called upon “as an act of personal moral responsibility” to withhold the telephone tax.
The CCAR has protested the Vietnam war .
A report on the “Lamb’s War” camp meeting noted that a war tax resistance break-out group had formed.
A pseudonymous “Letter to My Home Church” reprinted in the issue mentioned how uncomfortable the churchgoer was with the casual taxpaying and patriotism encountered in the (also pseudonymous) congregation:
I have heard comments from you people like “I’m glad to pay my taxes for the privilege of living in a ‘free’ country.”
Oh yes, Cherrydale has certainly become patriotic.
We pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to IRS each year knowing that 60 percent goes to pay for killing.
The killers rest at ease knowing that they have allowed us an alternative.
We can be conscientious objectors.
There were objections to the “peace tax fund” legislation idea almost from the very beginning, as Richard Malishchak’s “Some Thoughts on Peace Taxes” () shows.
He makes a good effort at rebutting those objections, but it’s interesting to note how few of his defenses still apply to the pathetically watered-down Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act that promoters are pushing today:
Should it be legal to pay for peace?
Some Thoughts on Peace Taxes
by Richard Malishchak
From The Reporter for Conscience Sake
The World Peace Tax Fund Act, which was introduced several months ago in the House of Representatives, has spawned controversy, strangely enough, among the very people and groups who are most in sympathy with the desired goals of the Act.
The Tax Fund Act would permit taxpayers to claim status as Conscientious Objectors to taxation for military purposes.
Small segments of the peace movement which have no interest in tax resistance/objection have naturally been cool to the proposed legislation.
But doubts have been raised even in the tax resistance movement.
The national War Tax Resistance office is deciding this month whether to throw their support behind the Tax Fund Act, and local WTR groups have been encouraging reader responses in their newsletters.
Being a human creation, the World Peace Tax Fund Act is flawed.
Some of the doubts expressed about the Act do have merit.
Yes, there is the danger that individuals would use a Conscientious Objector tax provision simply to soothe their own consciences, while taxes for military expenditures are collected from other people and the killing continues.
But has war tax resistance done any better on this point?
The tax resistance movement has yet to demonstrate that resistance alone is an effective tool.
The money is frequently collected anyway from the resister and used in the general fund, and the resister is liable to become an unwilling war-taxpayer.
Nor is a large-scale prison witness, large enough to effect a change in national consciousness by itself, a realistic possibility.
As important as acts of individual witness are, the military budget remains monstrous.
Ironically the military budget is likely to increase in the coming fiscal year (see the July Tax Talk from WTR, 339 Lafayette St., New York 10012).
It may also be true that legal channels for tax objection would siphon off some potential resisters into the “system.”
But would this number be significant in relation to the new objectors who would otherwise shy away from “illegitimate” protest?
Furthermore, if the government is still getting the money to buy death and suffering, what is the difference whether an individual protester is called a “resister” or an “objector”?
There is naturally a palpable personal difference between the witness of the objector and that of the resister.
But the World Peace Tax Fund Act is no threat at all to those who would continue to choose resistance.
Those who resist war taxation, like those who resist the draft, are in the vanguard of the peace movement and so must be especially careful to avoid the snare of moral elitism, a “more-resistant-than-thou” attitude that may obscure the common goal.
In the case of taxes, the common goal would seem to be to spend more on life and less on death.
And in addition to its overall importance, the Tax Fund Act contains two especially significant provisions toward this end.
First of all, the bill would provide for positive peace expenditures: the objector’s allotted “peace taxes” would not go into the general fund but into the World Peace Tax Fund and from there into designated peaceful activities.
Second, the Secretary of the Treasury would be obligated to inform every taxpayer, on the tax return instruction booklet, of the existence of the Peace Tax Fund and the qualifications for participation.
This provision could be momentous.
Combined with a vigorous tax counseling network, which is already beginning, it could become an effective consciousness-raising instrument.
In recent years, for example, the percentage of Conscientious Objectors recognized by the Selective Service System has been between one and two percent of the total number of registrants.
The vast majority of these men became Conscientious Objectors or recognized they were Conscientious Objectors after being confronted with an actual choice between morally opposite courses of action.
Most taxpayers, however, write their annual check to IRS or claim their refund with a minimum of decision-making.
If informed every year by the government in the official IRS publication that paying war taxes is not an inevitability, would one or two out of every 100 taxpayers choose to pay for peace instead?
If yes, the impact would be far beyond what tax resistance alone can achieve.
Admittedly a hopeful answer to this question assumes a basic “good will” on the part of most Americans, and that lack of information is the best ally of the war makers.
Yet how many of today’s draft Conscientious Objectors knew that they were Conscientious Objectors before they registered for the draft or before they became “draft-eligible”?
Not even a local draft board would deny a Conscientious Objector claim on the grounds that the registrant was not born a Conscientious Objector.
In the words of Joan Baez’ new album, which she dedicates in part to war tax refusal, more and more people must be encouraged to “come from the shadows.”
This is exactly what a Conscientious Objector tax provision would do.
(A recent Detroit poll, incidentally, showed support for the war tax refusal of Jane Hart, wife of the Michigan Senator, by 55 percent of the survey sample.)
If the Tax Fund Act does not cut the military budget directly, it would at least be likely to help produce an awareness of government expenditures that will cause people to think about, and consciously choose, to buy either peace or war, rather than passively “permitting” the government to buy war on their behalf.
This public awareness of where their dollars are going is, in turn, bound to be reflected in the actions of voter-conscious legislators.
If the people truly want peace, it will be easier for them to have it.
The World Peace Tax Fund Act is an important piece of legislation.
It will need all the help it can get, first to be taken seriously by “old guard” Congressmen, and later to be pushed through the wall of opposition that will form.
Draft resisters, military Conscientious Objectors, draft Conscientious Objectors, and tax resisters must begin to form the wedge of support behind this bill.
No one else will.
In “Thankful for What, When You Have All You Need?” (), Atlee Beechy wrote, “We may not be able to do too much about our governments’ (U.S. and Canada) priorities but we should be able to make a frontal attack on our priorities as Christians.
Is it my responsibility that my tax dollars go for military purposes?”
Finally, a report on the MCC Peace Assembly noted that there was a break-out group to discuss war tax resistance.
And “Stan Hostetter publicly declared his objection to war taxes and presented a check to the MCC Peace Section in lieu of tax payments which would be used for war.”
