Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Mennonites / Amish →
Larry Kehler
This is the twenty-first in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today
brings us up to 1974.
brought readers
the
news that “The World Peace Tax Fund Act” had been introduced in Congress.
This early version of the “peace tax fund” idea, according to the
article, would create a federal trust fund separate from the funds in the
general
U.S. treasury,
which would be supervised by a board of trustees (mostly appointed by the
U.S. president). The
fund might be used to support such things as (the language in the bill said
“shall include but not be limited to”) “research and other activities designed
to develop and demonstrate nonviolent methods of resolving international
conflicts.” Registered conscientious objectors to military taxation would have
a portion of their taxes assigned to this fund (a portion equivalent to the
percent of the U.S.
budget spent on military purposes in the previous year) in a way that would
ostensibly give them “rights… comparable to First Amendment rights given to
draftees who are conscientious objectors.”
“The bill,” the article explains with a straight face, “prohibits using the
Peace Fund as a means of reducing regular appropriations for nonmilitary
purposes.” In other words, if the trustees of the peace tax fund decide to
grant the money to the Peace Corps, Congress is not supposed to then cut the
appropriation it gave to the Peace Corps out of the general treasury.
How this was supposed to be enforced is anyone’s guess.
This is the modern version of the phony “Civilian Bonds” from World War Ⅱ (see
♇ 9,
10, &
11 July 2018). It would allow
“conscientious” people to avoid the risks of resistance and to get official
government recognition of how conscientious they are without actually affecting
one whit their complicity in what the government does with their money.
Sadly, one of the stories the archive of The
Mennonite tells is how the drive to pass some sort of “peace tax fund”
legislation like this came to displace actual war tax resistance — even as the
proposed bills themselves became more and more watered down and got further and
further from being taken seriously in Congress
(the current version,
doggedly introduced to each Congress by Representative John Lewis, has no
cosponsors). I won’t be commenting on all of the individual mentions of these
bills as they come up in this and subsequent issues of
The Mennonite, as I consider it tangential to
conscientious tax resistance (at best; antagonistic at worst), but there will
be many such mentions, and by the end of my survey, they will outnumber
mentions of real war tax resistance.
Taking off my rant hat…
The edition reprinted much
of a
letter from James Klassen, who was doing relief work in Vietnam, to his pastor,
Ronald Krehbiel, telling about the torture of prisoners by South Vietnamese
police. Editor Larry Kehler comments at the end of the letter: “The telephone
company in Wichita called our house the other day to ask if we wanted to start
paying our federal excise tax again ‘now that the war is over.’ We declined.”
The edition told of a
triumph in the AFSC’s
suit attempting to retrieve money it had withheld from the paychecks of its
conscientiously objecting employees. A District Court had ordered the Internal
Revenue Service to stop collecting the full taxes for those employees “because
such withholding violates the free exercise of their religion as members of the
Society of Friends” and to refund previously-collected amounts that represent
“overpayment of taxes withheld.”
The triumph would be short-lived. (See ♇
for more about the suit and
how it progressed.) When the Supreme Court voted, with one notable dissent, to
reverse the district court’s decision,
the
news was covered in the
edition.
One possibly beneficial, though indirect, effect of the publicity about the
peace tax fund act, I must admit, was that it seems to have inspired a Japanese
Christian, Michio Ohno, to spark war tax resistance in Japan.
A
letter from Ohno, dated
says that upon reading about the bill, he “at once wrote a letter to the editor
of Asahi shimbun, the most influential daily paper
in Japan, and it was printed in the
issue of the paper.”
In the letter, I stated (1) I do not want to pay my income tax to be used for
military purpose out of money God has entrusted me, (2) I will gladly pay the
tax if nonmilitary use is secured, and (3) I proposed to have an act like the
World Peace Tax Fund Act in the United States.
A few days later, Professor Masahito Ara commented favorably about my letter
in his Newspapers in review on the
NHK Radio.
Dr. Sakakibara, who
energetically writes books about Anabaptism, proposed an “alternative tax”
system in the Anabaptist genealogy of conscientious
objection, which is now at the press.
We are preparing to make a group looking for a possibility of having a law
enabling us to pay tax whose use is restricted to nonmilitary purposes. We
need your prayer and spiritual support.
But while this letter seemed to place all of the emphasis on a “peace tax
fund”-style bill, the movement that Ohno started would instead focus on actual
war tax resistance. Here’s an article that appeared in the
edition:
A war tax resistance movement is beginning in Japan.
Started by Michio Ohno, a pastor of the United Church of Christ in Japan who
attended Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries in Elkhart, Indiana, in
, an organization for “Conscientious
Objection to Military Tax” was formed in Tokyo. About sixty people attended the first meeting, and a
“general assembly” was planned
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 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, on “The historical development of conscientious
objection” Yasusaburo Hoshino, professor at the Tokyo University of Liberal
Arts, on “How to live nonviolently; A theory of peaceful tax paying”; and
Shizuo Ito, a lawyer who sued the government for having unconstitutional armed
forces, on “Struggle for peace.”
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.
The Mennonite General Conference met for its triennial sessions in
, and 1,300 delegates passed
several resolutions. One was:
Be it resolved that we educate ourselves more fully regarding the pervasive
militarism of our society and express ourselves more strongly, advocating a
reordering of priorities toward peacemaking;
That we encourage congregations to study the World Peace Tax Fund Act
(U.S.),
considering the possibility of supporting it;
That we… ask all General Conference members to question prayerfully
whether they want to pay war taxes voluntarily;
That the General Conference offices seriously work at the possibility of
providing each employee with the option of following his/her conscience in
the payment of war taxes; and
That the Commission on Home Ministries give greater priority to this
issue, including the creation of a special fund to be used for education,
for assistance to those conscientiously refusing payment of war taxes, and
for legal expenses, and that each person committed to war tax resistance
pledge a regular contribution to this fund.
I took these brief excerpts from a later report
on the triennial sessions:
“The struggles within the church, both individually and as a people, to relate
to war taxes, amnesty, and serious economic questioning spoke of life to me. I
came away grateful to be part of this people.” ―Dorsy Hill
World poverty and hunger, western affluence, the meaning in the twentieth
century of the Bible’s teaching on the Year of Jubilee, life-style,
ordination, amnesty, war taxes, mission expansion, church planting, and
international relations were among the issues raised.
The meeting [a panel discussion that advocated simple living on
] ended with tears, prayers, and
other verbal responses after Ladon Sheats’ plea for Mennonites to turn away
from wealth and the payment of war taxes.
The service was punctuated
by an unscheduled dramatic presentation, initiated by Ladon Sheats.
Three persons wearing signs saying, “Fear,” “Security,” and “Tradition,” came
to the front of the gymnasium during one of the first hymns and told a “third
world” person, “We cannot help you.” They remained at the front until almost
the end of the service, when they left saying, “Our forefathers said no but we
don’t. We pay over $4 billion in war taxes. We can’t help you. Please forgive
us. May God help you.”
A letter
from Arnold Claasen, dated complained that not enough time was given to discuss the various
resolutions at the triennial. “Specifically with reference to ‘war tax’
resolution, there was considerable discussion, and the chair found it necessary
to terminate the discussion, with good reason.” In his own case, while he did
not care to see so much of his taxes go to the military, and he would not serve
in the military, he felt that this did not relieve him from the responsibility
to pay his taxes. He recommended instead that Mennonites rededicate themselves
to charitable giving, in part as a legal war tax resistance technique.
Generosity and charity and self-sacrifice — “Jubilee living” — were also the
theme of
a
letter from John Swarr dated . Excerpt:
Once again war is brought to mind, now in its new form of refusing food to the
hungry or assistance to the poor and struggling peoples. But the
U.S. Government
continues to send money and give military training and materials to many
repressive governments, and we continue to pay the taxes it uses to finance
this evil, in Brazil, Chile, South Korea, South Vietnam, and on and on.
Stop! Jubilee living proclaims Jesus is Lord! Neither Caesar nor
Uncle Sam is lord, so we must resist this evil and channel money to the
General Conference War Tax Alternative Fund instead. I enclose some refused
tax money for the fund and trust you will see that it gets to the right place.
The Commission on Home Ministries of the General Conference Mennonite Church,
having been given a mandate at the triennial, established a “war tax
alternative fund.” Here’s
how the edition described it:
The fund, to be outside the budget, will be used for education about war tax
resistance, assistance to those who are resisting taxes, and legal expenses of
individuals or agencies involved in tax resistance.
The commission’s peace and social concerns committee took action in
to establish the fund and to invite
persons who have a commitment to war tax resistance to contribute to the fund
on a regular basis.
In addition, persons who have resisted war taxes or who are concerned about
the issue are encouraged to share their experiences with the commission or to
request resources on the war tax issue, according to Harold Regier,
CHM
peace and social concerns secretary.
Peter Ediger, a member of the peace and social concerns committee and pastor
of the Arvada (Colorado) Mennonite Church, will coordinate work on the war tax
issue and possibly edit a war tax newsletter to keep concerned people in touch
with each other.
The Justice Department has brought suit against the Episcopal Diocese of
Pennsylvania to collect $1,006 in federal income taxes withheld by David M.
Gracie.
Mr. Gracie, rector of the Free Church of
St. John in Kensington, a
working-class neighborhood in Philadelphia, withheld 50 percent of his income
tax for the past five years because of the continuing American involvement in
Vietnam. He claims that “another 50,000 will die this year courtesy of the
United States of America.”
In response to the suit, the diocesan council let stand its recent decision
“that each of our employees has the right to exercise his conscience in
respect to the withholding of payment of taxes as a means of protest” and that
the legal council of the diocese will contest the government move to collect
money from the diocese.
From Fellowship magazine.
This is the twenty-third in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today
brings us up to 1976.
The question of whether the Mennonite General Conference should stop
withholding taxes from the paychecks of conscientiously objecting employees
continued to bedevil the Conference and its various committees and commissions
in . After the American Friends Service
Committee won a District Court ruling about withholding from its objecting
employees, the General Conference was pressed to adopt such a policy. But that
ruling was swiftly overturned by the Supreme Court, and so the Conference
seemed to lose its nerve.
In the executive committee of
the General Conference’s Commission
on Home Ministries decided to put on its agenda for their full-commission
meeting in a “recommendation
that the General Conference not withhold the military portion of income taxes
from the paychecks of those employees who do not wish to pay war taxes
voluntarily. This would mean that such employees, rather than the conference,
could be responsible for the decision of whether to pay war taxes to the
government.”
That proposed recommendation
was
approved at the meeting, “but referred for further study by the Division of
Administration and the General Board.”
A article covered the slow
progress of the proposal through the Conference bureaucracy:
Should General Conference employees have the right not to have war taxes
withheld by the conference from their paychecks?
For the time being, the answer is still no, pending further study and the
securing of more legal counsel.
The peace and social concerns reference council of the Commission on Home
Ministries raised the issue of war-tax withholding by the conference. The
reference council recommended that the General Conference central offices
allow persons the right not to have taxes withheld (in line with research done
last summer by a law student), that other Mennonite institutions be invited to
participate in similar action, and that congregations and individuals be
invited to consider war tax resistance.
“Freedom of religion includes freedom from the church forced by the state to
act as a tax collection agent, particularly when taxes are used for purposes
which are in conflict with the kingdom,” said the reference council statement.
“The Anabaptist concept of separation of church and state would also suggest
that the church not perform this kind of state function.”
The Commission on Home Ministries, in its annual session in
, approved the recommendation
with some reservations. The Division of Administration had even more
reservations about the recommendation.
DA
members questioned the legal findings of last summer and asked for further
consultation with a tax attorney with more experience in this area.
Specifically they wanted to know the cost of possible litigation, whether a
revenue ruling should be requested from the Internal Revenue Service, possible
civil and criminal sanctions against the General Conference, the effect on the
conference’s tax-exempt status, and the chances of success in the event of
litigation.
“Conscience is a personal thing, and we’re not together on what we want to do
with this,” said
DA
chairman Howard Baumgartner of Berne, Indiana. “CHM
is asking that the business manager be put on the spot. What if his conscience
doesn’t permit him to break this law? My conscience tells me to pay my tax.”
In the closing minutes of its sessions, the General Board, acting on the
recommendation of the
DA,
asked the
DA to
do further study on the legal aspects of failure to withhold taxes and to
bring back some information at the General Board’s
meeting.
“I’m not willing to face the legal consequences until we’re fairly united on
this,” said conference president Elmer Neufeld of Bluffton, Ohio.
At present, the General Conference central offices withhold all state and
federal income taxes from the paychecks of nonordained employees. Such persons
cannot choose whether to pay or not to pay any war taxes they owe because the
government already has the money, or most of it.
Editor Larry Kehler, in the
issue called this a “red flag”:
Although some leaders from other denominations may be beginning to notice and
listen to the Anabaptist-Mennonite point of view as an attractive option, the
Mennonites may be losing their testimony as a peace church. One committee at
the Council of Commissions stated, for example, in its opinion there was no
“corporate conscience” within the General Conference against the payment of
war taxes.
And Peter J. Ediger summed things up in his prose-poem fashion:
It came to pass that an employee of the General Conference Mennonite Church
requested that taxes for the military not be withheld from her paycheck.
And officers of the conference said, “What shall we do?”
And the Commission on Home Ministries was asked to study the matter
and make a recommendation.
And the commission hired a student of law to research the options;
and the commission joined with other Mennonite groups in calling for a study conference on war tax questions.
And from the research and the conference came a clear recommendation
that the General Conference allow persons the right
not to have war taxes withheld.
And when this recommendation was brought to the Commission on Home Ministries
there was a consensus of support and agreement to recommend its adoption to the General Board.
And the recommendation was brought to the Division of Administration.
And lo, their response was as follows:
“Motion that the request of CHM for right not to have taxes withheld
from salaries of employees who submit such request be refused…”
and listing six recommendations asking for more legal counsel.
And so the conflicting recommendations were brought to the General Board.
And the General Board was occupied with many weighty matters.
The agenda was long and the time for discernment was short
and war taxes was the last item on the agenda
and five minutes was left for this item
and no action was taken.
And the conference goes on with business as usual
continuing collection of money for making of war
seeking its guidance more from the law of the land
and less from the law of the Lord.
Do we really want the laws and lawyers of our society
to define the perimeters of our discipleship?
The
General Board executive committee met in
and “allotted two hours at the
full board session in … for discussion of
whether the conference should honor an employee’s request that federal income
taxes not be deducted from her paycheck. Theological input on the payment of
war taxes was also requested.”
The way this was put in
an
announcement just before the board meeting was: “The Division of
Administration… wants to continue its policy of not honoring employees’
requests that the portion of their federal taxes which goes for war not be
taking out of their paychecks.”
The board met and… kicked the can further down the road.
After almost three hours of discussion by the General Board of the General
Conference, a decision is still pending on whether the conference should honor
an employee’s request that the portion of her income taxes that goes for war
not be taken out of her pay.
The board had set aside two hours at the end of its midyear meeting
in Washington, Illinois, to
consider the issue of war tax withholding. Marlin Miller of Goshen Biblical
Seminary had been invited to give biblical input, and Division of
Administration members Howard Baumgartner and Elvin Souder, both attorneys, to
give legal recommendations.
The issue was whether the General Conference business office should violate
U.S. law by
refusing to take from an employee’s paycheck the portion (almost half) of her
federal income taxes which would go for military purposes. Such action would
allow the employee to refuse to pay such taxes and would make her personally
liable for nonpayment of tax.
The law at present requires employers to withhold income and Social Security
taxes from employees’ salaries — except in the case of ordained employees, who
may legally consider themselves self-employed and are thus personally
responsible for making, or not making, quarterly tax payments. A number of
ordained employees at the General Conference offices are already refusing war
taxes in this manner.
Nonordained employees have no way of refusing war taxes except by falsifying
their tax returns or the number of exemptions they claim.
The General Board did not vote on a normal motion on the war tax matter, but
straw poll showed a slight majority in favor of allowing all employees the
right to refuse war taxes, in spite of the possible consequences to the
conference or its officers for breaking the law. But the board was not willing
to act officially until it reached greater consensus.
“We are facing an issue of our own integrity as a people and as a church,”
said board member Peter Ediger of Arvada, Colorado. “It is a situation not
unlike that of our grandfathers in World War Ⅰ. Because some of them had the
courage to say no, laws were enacted to permit conscientious objection to
military service. And it is an evangelism issue. Our world desperately needs
the good news that there is an alternative to violence and war. We can do this
with the kind of integrity that perhaps no other corporate group in our world
can.”
Some like Irene Dunn of Normal, Illinois, were not ready to decide personally
about payment of war taxes, but wanted to allow General Conference employees
freedom of conscience concerning war taxes.
Others wanted to postpone the issue. “It’s my feeling we should take a
recommendation to the triennial conference,” said board president Elmer
Neufeld of Bluffton, Ohio.
In the end the decision was postponed — probably until the
board session.
Marlin Miller, himself a tax refuser for seven years, told the board that the
legality of refusing war taxes was not the highest morality. “If we are clear
on the moral principles, we will find a way to deal with the legal matters,”
he said.
His biblical study focused on Mark 12:13–17
(in which Jesus tells those who are trying to trick him, “Render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”) and
Romans 13.
There is no unambiguous word in the New Testament on whether the Christian
should pay all taxes he said. But likewise, there is no clear statement in the
New Testament on not going to military service. “Taxes are due to the
governing authorities, but there is still a need for moral discrimination,”
Mr. Miller said.
Howard Baumgartner told the board that, if it decided to allow an employee not
to pay her war taxes, it might want to test the constitutionality of the
withholding law in the
U.S. courts. An
earlier similar case from the American Friends Service Committee had been
thrown out on technical grounds without testing the tax law itself.
Elmer Neufeld, president of the General Conference, sent
a
letter to all General Conference pastors on the subject:
Should the conference withhold taxes for war?
Some time ago I reviewed a number of the court-martial records of the
Mennonite men in the United States in World War Ⅰ who were tried for refusing
to participate in military service. These were our fathers and fathers’
fathers who had committed their lives to the way of the cross and who held
with the saints of all ages that there is a law of God which stands above the
human laws of the nation.
There was no legal provision for conscientious objection to military service
and war, so they simply took their stand in humble obedience to Christ and
accepted the consequences. Gerhard M. Baergen… guilty. Abraham Goertz… guilty.
Russell A. Lantz… guilty. John T. Neufeld… guilty. Carl A. Schmidt… guilty.
Walter Sprunger… guilty. And so on.
It is through the sacrifice of these sturdy men of conscience that the United
States came to provide a legal alternative to military service and war for
those with scruples against participation. It is through their sacrifice that
many of us were able to use this legal alternative in World War Ⅱ and again in
the Korean and Vietnam wars.
Now we face a new situation. For the first time
, except for a brief lull
following World War Ⅱ, our churches in the United States no longer face the
conscription of young men for military service. For this many have worked and
for this we are grateful. However, it is clear that conscription for military
service was not terminated because the United States has come to rely less on
military power. In fact, the United States has come to be militarily the most
powerful nation in the world and is exporting more armaments than any other
nation in the world. All of this is possible with well-paid volunteer armed
forces and a heavily financed industrial military complex. The military
complex is able to get along without our young men as draftees, but it insists
on having our finances to support its multibillion dollar operation.
More and more there are those among us whose consciences no longer allow them
freely to support this military machine. Though they realize that Christians
have usually paid their taxes through the centuries, even to strongly
militaristic governments, they believe that the vast sums required today are
too much, that it is once more time to withstand the military powers that
threaten to destroy all of humankind, that Caesar is demanding not only what
belongs to Caesar, but also what belongs to God.
I was deeply impressed as we went about the circle of General Board members
and staff [at the meeting] that
almost all had struggled with this issue of conscience and that most had in
some way protested the vast sums being required for military purposes. Though
it is appropriate for us as a people to counsel together whether it is right
in the sight of God to keep paying these war taxes, this is also an issue on
which individuals and families will make their own decisions — and we will not
all make the same decisions.
However, as a conference we face a more complex question. Not only must our
individual members and families decide what to do about war taxes, but the
conference as an employer must collect taxes, including taxes for war, for the
government. We are collecting taxes not only from those who are willing to pay
the whole amount to the government, but also from those who have Christian
convictions against supporting the military in this way. Cornelia Lehn is one
such person. (See below.) A number of ordained ministers working for the
conference are self-employed for tax purposes and thus can make their protest
in whatever way seems appropriate. But for others this is not possible.
So the issue before the General Board in
was whether the General
Conference as an employer should continue to withhold federal income tax
money, even from those employees who have conscientious objection to this, and
send that money to the government.
The Commission on Home Ministries recommends that the conference should no
longer withhold taxes from those employees who have convictions against such
payments. On the other hand, the Division of Administration has serious
concerns about the consequences for the conference in violating the laws of
the land.
The General Board in its meeting
had a long and intensive discussion, with representatives of the Commission on
Home Ministries and the Division of Administration and with counsel on
biblical principles from Marlin Miller, president of Goshen Biblical Seminary,
as well as Erland Waltner, president of Mennonite Biblical Seminary.
A larger and larger majority of General Board members have serious
reservations about serving as a tax collector from those employees who have
Christian convictions against the payment of such taxes. At the same time we
were sensitive that we were being called to make a decision not only for
ourselves but for the whole conference and that we have not yet had adequate
dialog with our congregations about this issue.
What is the will of God for the General Conference in this issue? What is your
counsel for the General Board? We did not act because it was clear that we had
not come to consensus, but the issue will continue to face us and we will
continue to struggle for the right decision.
One possible course of action is for the General Board in its
meeting to formulate a recommendation
to be sent to the congregations for study and for corporate consideration at
the triennial sessions of the General Conference in
.
I want to touch on a related question: Is this one of those conference issues
which is of concern only to the United States and not to Canada? Will our
brothers and sisters in Canada feel like washing their hands of this issue? Or
is this one of those cases when one part of the body is in trouble and the
whole body struggles together? May it in fact be possible that the Canadians
can help those of us in the American churches see ourselves a bit more
objectively?
Can we possibly come to the place, in the words of the Acts of the Apostles,
that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us together that we should
decide this issue in a certain way? Surely if we search together in openness
and honesty and in a spirit of prayer, God will not forsake his people.
A letter from Conference employee Cornelia Lehn was also enclosed in Neufeld’s
letter:
I work for the General Conference Mennonite Church at 722 Main
St., Newton, Kansas. Each month
a certain percentage of my salary is deducted for income tax purposes before I
receive it. The business office is legally requested to do so for all
employees except for those who have been ordained to the ministry.
We are told that approximately 50 percent of the income tax deducted goes to
buy armaments. When I first started working here, this did not bother me too
much, even though I believed strongly in nonresistance. After all, did not
Jesus himself pay taxes
(Mt. 17:24-27)?
Why then should I refuse to do so?
The whole question of personal responsibility began to tear at my heart and
mind, however. We held the people condemned at Nuremberg responsible for their
deeds, although they had just “obeyed the government.” We held Captain Calley
responsible for his deeds at My Lai, though he, too, thought he had obeyed the
government. Why should I not be held responsible to obeying the government
when it was asking me to do an evil thing? Though Jesus paid taxes, the spirit
of his teachings is to do good, not evil, to our fellow human beings. I became
convinced that allowing my money to be used for armaments could not be God’s
will and that if it was used in that way I must bear at least part of the
responsibility.
The big question then was how to get out of being involved in this crime. I
could not refuse to pay a portion of my tax, since the whole tax was already
withheld. I asked our conference office not to withhold from my paycheck that
portion of the income tax that goes for war, but they could not grant that
request. I considered the options, such as reducing my paycheck to the point
where I would not need to pay any taxes or reducing it to the point where I
would need to pay only half the taxes I do now.
Finally I decided to give half of my income to relief and other church work
and thus force the Internal Revenue Service to return that portion of my tax
which they had already slated for military purposes.
I realize, of course, that this is not the perfect answer. Of the 50 percent
that IRS
still has of my income tax, half will again be used to meet the military
budget. It is, however, the best answer I know at this time. Finally I could
no longer acquiesce and be a part of something so diabolical as war. I had to
take a stand against it.
I wish that my church, which believes in the way of peace, would as a body no
longer gather money to help the government make war. I wish all the members of
our church would stand up in horror and refuse to allow it to happen. Then the
conference officers would be in a position to say to the government, “We will
not give you our sons and daughters, and we will not give you our money to
kill others. Allow us to serve our country in the way of peace.”
Don
Kaufman wrote in to the magazine on to praise Neufeld’s letter and to say that the dialogue about the
issue had been beneficial to the community, but also to criticize the church
for its timidity in the face of the law:
[A]s Christians we seem to be far more accountable to the government than we
are to the church. I have sometimes wondered why it is that we are more
willing to allow the secular authorities to shape us and to “keep us in line”
than we are to receive guidance from our brothers and sisters in Christ. The
major exceptions to this in the General Conference Mennonite Church appear to
be the intentional communities of faith like Fairview Mennonite House and the
New Creation Fellowship, where economic discernment is more obviously a part
of the Christin commitment.
This is the twenty-fifth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today I’m going to try to cover 1978.
I say “try” because there was a frenzy of war tax resistance activity reported in The Mennonite .
Maybe I can try to sort it thematically…
A New Call to Peacemaking
“A New Call to Peacemaking” was an initiative coordinated by Mennonite, Quaker, and Brethren activists that began in and would eventually culminate in a statement urging people, Christians in particular, to refuse to pay taxes for war.
The Mennonite General Conference’s Peace Section,
U.S. division, met
and its executive secretary, John K. Stoner, reported that the Call
“has
gained widespread support.”
Invited to the meeting are 300 persons — Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites.
Named the New Call to Peacemaking, this coalition of historic peace churches
believes that “the time has come for all Christians and people of all faiths
to renounce war on religious and moral grounds.”
During the last year twenty-six regional New Call to Peacemaking meetings, involving more than 1500 persons, took a new look at the teachings of their churches.
They gave special attention to war and violence which they continue to see as denials of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Not surprisingly the groups agreed to urge upon all governments “effective
steps toward international disarmament.” However, none of the regional
meetings expressed the hope that politicians, soldiers, and diplomats would
put an end to war. Rather, the thought was that people at the grass-roots
level must demand a change in the system. Further, the idea was often
expressed that tax resistance and civil disobedience are necessary tactics in
convincing governments that a new order can bring security in place of the
present insecurity.
A New Call to Peacemaking conference which convened at Old Chatham, New York, last April, asked itself rhetorically, “Are we going to pray for peace, and pay for war?” A similar conference in Wichita, Kansas, gave its encouragement to “individuals who feel called to resist the payment of the military portion of their federal taxes.”
When the national conference convenes in Green Lake it will be receiving
requests from the regional meetings for a strong position on tax resistance
proposals. It will also be asked to give guidance to individuals and church
organizations on approaches to tax resistance. Theological, economic, and
social justice issues are also on the agenda.
“Citizens should organize themselves and act without waiting for government, especially the major powers, to take positive action,” says Robert Johansen in a paper being studied by the Green Lake delegates.
In another document prepared for the Green Lake meeting, Lois Barrett, a
Mennonite journalist from Wichita, Kansas, notes that the peace churches have
long “recognized refusal to pay war taxes as one of many valid witnesses
against war.”
In the Church of the Brethren recommended “that all who feel the concern be encouraged to express their protest and testimonies through letters accompanying their tax returns, whether accompanied by payment or not.” In the General Conference Mennonite Church said, “We stand by those who feel called to resist the payment of that portion of taxes being used for military purposes.”
The number of persons within the peace churches actually withholding a portion
of their taxes is still thought to be small, but it is growing. The Internal
Revenue Service will not release figures on the number of tax resisters in the
United States.
Members of the Green Lake planning group include John K. Stoner, Mennonite Central Committee, Akron, Pennsylvania; Lorton Heusel, Friends United Meeting, Richmond, Indiana; and Chuck Boyer, Church of the Brethren, Elgin, Illinois.
Coordinator for the New Call to Peacemaking is Robert J. Rumsey, Plainfield, Indiana.
After the gathering, The Mennonite seemed surprised at how tame and nonconfrontational it ended up being (they titled their article “Peacemakers shy away from shocking anyone”).
Excerpts:
The Green Lake conference is part of a cooperative effort by the historic peace groups to do five things — stir up rededication to the Christian peace witness, clarify the biblical basis for it, extend a call to the larger church to see peacemaking as a gospel imperative, propose actions the U.S. Government can take for peacemaking, and determine contemporary positive strategy for peace and justice.
Planning for the consultation began in and has included 26 regional meetings in 16 different areas of the United States.
Over 1500 people were involved in these meetings.
[Church of the Brethren theologian and professor Dale] Brown said one new way of expressing a peace witness was to protest the country’s military expenditures by withholding income taxes.
Tax resistance, he reflected, is an important symbol because it involves our pocketbooks and enlarges the peace witness beyond what 17- and 18-year-old youth do in response to conscription.
[T]he findings committee created a final document satisfying the diverse peaceniks.
For the conservative the final statement was too radical; for the activists it was too limp.
There are two main thrusts to the document — actions that are directed inward
among the peace churches to enhance the integrity of the peace witness, and
actions that are directed outward to enlarge the visibility of the peace
witness.
At the end of the national New Call to Peacemaking conference delegates urged all Friends (Quakers), Mennonites, and Brethren to firmly oppose militarism and to become personally involved in the struggle for justice for the oppressed.
Included in the final paper approved is a call to the 400,000 members of the three peace church
traditions “to seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their
federal taxes as a response to Christ’s call to radical discipleship.” This
statement is as strong as the 300 delegates could jointly affirm.
Other parts of the war tax statement are equally muted.
In the first draft of the paper, church and conference agencies were asked to “honor” the requests of employees who do not want the military portion of their taxes remitted to the government.
In the final draft, however, “honor” is changed to “enter into dialogue with.” Several evangelical Quakers were especially antagonistic to even including a reference to war tax resistance in the final document.
Yet tax resistance received new encouragement from the conference.
About 60 persons attended a Saturday afternoon workshop which detailed tax resistance strategies.
Studying the War Tax Issue and Christian Civil Responsibility
The Mennonite General Conference had been asked to stop withholding taxes from the paycheck of one of its conscientiously objecting employees.
This led to a long debate over the advisability of such a policy that caused arguments about war tax resistance to echo throughout the Conference in .
A special General Conference delegate session was scheduled to convene in just to respond to this single issue.
In preparation for that session, congregations had been encouraged to put some
serious effort into understanding the subject, and some studies were written up
to help guide these investigations.
A Christian’s response to civil authority will be given concentrated emphasis by the General Conference during .
The study is an outcome of a resolution at the triennial conference in Bluffton, Ohio, .
That resolution called for a thorough study of civil disobedience which is intended to state an official position of the General Conference with respect to that portion of income taxes which are used for funding military expenditures, and in general, to research the whole question of obedience-disobedience to civil authority.
Responsibility for the study has been given to the peace and social concerns
committee of the Commission on Home Ministries. They, however, requested that
a special obedience-civil disobedience committee be formed to give general
direction and leadership. This latter group consists of Palmer Becker, Ted
Stuckey, John Gaeddert, Harold Regier, Perry Yoder, and Heinz Janzen.
To date three major aspects of the study have been planned — an attitudinal survey, an invitational consultation in , and a study guide to be ready by .
Included in the survey are twenty-eight questions with responses varying from
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” chosen to provide an inventory of
congregational attitudes towards the authority of the church, and of the
state. It will also indicate attitudes to particular issues such as abortion,
capital punishment, and payment of taxes for military purposes. A copy of the
questionnaire will be sent to every congregation to be duplicated locally.
A second major happening is scheduled for at Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart, Indiana.
An invitational consultation will bring together about thirty participants, including persons not committed to civil disobedience.
The gathering will include administrative personnel from the General Conference, lawyers, biblical scholars, as well as representatives from Mennonite Central Committee and the Mennonite Church.
It is expected that the study guide will evolve from the proceedings of the
consultation. Five of the thirteen lessons in the guide will focus on
peacemaking in a technological society. What sort of peacemaking should
Mennonites be about in an age of nuclear warfare and worldwide arms shipments?
The remaining eight lessons will center about the meaning of civil
disobedience. Was it practiced in the Bible? Is nonpayment of taxes a case in
point?
The study process will culminate in the special midtriennium conference scheduled for .
That gathering will be an official decision-making conference to which congregational delegates will come.
At that point a decision on the meaning and practice of civil disobedience will be made.
After the conference the questionnaire
will again be used to determine whether the churchwide discussion on
obedience-civil disobedience has generated any changes in attitudes.
A few more details came after the Commission on Home Ministries met in , and, according to The Mennonite:
Perry Yoder, part-time CHM staff member, outlined the process planned for dealing with the war tax or civil responsibility issue raised at the Bluffton conference.
Because of this issue’s “divisive and emotional potential in the conference,” a survey instrument has been designed to get congregational input; a consultation at the seminary will work toward a study guide, and congregations will be encouraged to use the study in preparation for a special General Conference delegate session at Minneapolis, called solely for the purpose of responding to the Bluffton resolution on tax withholding.
Another article said this study guide would be “available [and] will look at present militarism in North America, previous acts of dissent by Mennonites, and biblical texts on dissent, payment of taxes, and corporate action.”
During the first session on , board members locked onto the planning for the midtriennium conference on war taxes and civil responsibility.
Uneasiness about the process erupted quickly.
The structure of the invitational consultation on the issue was strongly faulted, as was the conference itself.
Board member Ken Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne, Indiana,
galvanized his colleagues with his allegations. “The consultation is not
structured for dialogue — it is monologue. The way it has been set up upsets
me deeply.” Later he declared that the Commission on Home Ministries should
not serve as the launching pad for the study and the planning leading to the
conference in . “Why ask
CHM?
The image of
CHM
is stacked. It should be the responsibility of the General Board.”
His assessment was the beginning of a fruitful debate which occupied several more sessions of the General Board, one session of CHM and hallway discussions.
The debate crystallized about several key questions. What is wrong with the
study process initiated by the obedience-civil disobedience committee of
CHM?
Is the issue of war taxes so divisive that a schism in the General Conference
is inevitable? Is the delegate
conference viable?
By , perhaps symbolically, the hard-hitting process of charge and countercharge had evolved into understanding and affirmation of the original plans.
On paper, little had changed, but in the minds of those who spoke for the “unheard,” — the “conservatives,” the “common person,” and the Canadians — there was a restoration of confidence in the process.
Tenseness was dissipated.
The mood became one of working together.
The consultation will meet at Mennonite
Biblical Seminary, Elkhart, Indiana. About twenty-five persons are invited.
These include theologians and biblical scholars, attorneys, administrative
staff of the General Conference, several
MCC
staff, and representatives from the Mennonite Church and the Mennonite
Brethren Church. The proceedings of the consultation are to serve as the basis
for a study guide on civil disobedience.
The committee planning the consultation and the midtriennium conference was called in to justify its ideas.
One member, Perry Yoder, observed, “Getting people to participate is very difficult.
People are very tense about this.”
“We thought the trust level would be quite high,” said another member, Harold
Regier. “Requests for speakers were made on the basis of scholarship and the
purpose is biblical. It is not a matter of pro or con.”
“We don’t know where the scholars will come out,” declared Don Steelberg, chairperson of CHM. (A complete list of scholars invited is not yet available — some are still considering the invitation.)
It was noted that since the concern on abortion had been handled insensitively
at the Bluffton conference, there was fear that the same thing would happen
with the issue of war taxes. So why should those who oppose withholding war
taxes bother to participate? They won’t be heard anyway.
Another fear was that the Canadians would also stay away. “My gut reaction is that it is a U.S. issue,” said board member Loretta Fast.
She was challenged on that.
“Don’t Canadians also pay military taxes?” queried Ben Sprunger.
“Yes,” replied another Canadian board member, Jake Klassen, “but we have not gone through the trauma and frustrations of the Vietnam War."
Hence, if both the Canadians and those opposed to withholding war taxes stayed
away from the delegate
conference, the gathering would be a farce. The conference would not be viable
if large blocs of delegates simply weren’t there.
For a brief time the board lost nerve.
Should the conference be canceled?
However, chairman Elmer Neufeld injected reality by reflecting, “The issue is not going to go away.
So, what is the next step?"
Over the board
recovered confidence in itself, in the planning already done, in the
possibility of bringing the dissenters into dialogue, despite differences in
theology and nationality, and in the voice of the discerning church. “I came
to the Mennonite church because of discerning congregations. If we cannot
discern in a process like this, then we have missed the boat,” reflected Don
Steelberg.
That was the next step.
They reminded themselves that the Anabaptist movement grew out of several
forms of civil disobedience.
They decided to adjust some of the personnel for the consultation.
They decided to promote serious study of the civil responsibility issue among congregations so that delegates would be conversant with it.
They decided to book the Leamington Hotel in Minneapolis as the place for the midtriennium conference.
The General Board also affirmed the action of its executive committee when they refused to pay a tax levy from the Internal Revenue Service.
The personal income taxes are owed by Heinz Janzen (general secretary) and his wife, Dorothea Janzen.
Under U.S. tax laws an ordained minister is self-employed, is not subject to normal payroll deductions, and hence, Heinz has refused to pay the military portion of his income tax.
Normally the
IRS
simply confiscates the amount owed from the bank account of the person
protesting. But with the levy the
IRS is
attempting to collect directly from the General Conference as employer. The
General Board agreed with the executive committee that the Janzen case is
civil disobedience by individuals, and not by an incorporated body, the
General Conference.
Editor Bernie Wiebe, himself based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, wrote an editorial for the edition expressing his unease about the direction Canada was taking, at how blasé his fellow-Canadian Mennonites were about it, and at how comparatively little concern there seemed to be there about the war tax issue that was roiling the Conference:
I am uneasy because I don’t hear my brothers and sisters protest against Ottawa.
Somehow we manage to wash our hands and keep pointing at the Pentagon…
At Bluffton, the majority voted for a midtriennium conference on the war-tax
issue. Every discussion I have since heard on this subject turns to the fear
that the Canadian third of the General Conference may refuse to participate;
after all, that’s a
U.S. question.
The conference was meant to bring in experts on the question who could help better inform the upcoming debate.
Participants in the General Conference Mennonite Church invitational consultation on civil responsibility have been named and the schedule outlined.
The consultation will convene
at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries, Elkhart, Indiana.
Beginning , Ted Stuckey and Reg Toews, representing the business administration arms of the General Conference and Mennonite Central Committee respectively, will present information on the administrative dimensions of the war tax question.
The question, Is there a biblical case for civil disobedience? will be the
focus of scholarly input Friday morning. Millard Lind, professor at AMBS,
will speak from an Old Testament perspective; confirmation from the scholar
asked to provide a New Testament analysis is still pending.
A more specific look at the issue of war taxes is scheduled for .
Is civil disobedience called for in this specific case?
David Schroeder, professor at Canadian Mennonite Bible College, Winnipeg, and Kenneth Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne, Indiana, will speak to the question.
Erland Waltner, president of Mennonite Biblical Seminary, will respond.
Corporate action and individual conscience is the theme for
. Speaking to this are J.
Lawrence Burkholder, president of Goshen (Indiana) College, and William
Keeney, professor at Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas. Another person has
yet to confirm acceptance. Peter Ediger, pastor of the Arvada Mennonite
Church, will respond.
Elvin Kraybill, legal counsel for Mennonite Central Committee, will talk about legal questions related to civil disobedience.
Responding to his presentation are Duane Heffelbower, a member of the Division of Administration of the General Conference, and Ruth Stoltzfus, an attorney living in Linville, Virginia.
In addition to the formal input, various church leaders and administrative
staff will contribute to the consultation. These people are Heinz Janzen,
general secretary of the General Conference; Harold Regier and Perry Yoder,
cosecretaries of peace and social concerns of the General Conference; John
Gaeddert, executive secretary of the Commission on Education; William Snyder,
executive secretary of
MCC;
Urbane Peachey, executive secretary for
MCC
Peace Section; Hubert Schwartzentruber, secretary for peace and social
concerns of the Mennonite Church; Ed Enns, executive secretary of the
Congregational Resources Board of the Canadian Conference; Peter Janzen,
pastor, representing the Canadian Conference.
Six persons will form the findings committee.
They are John Sprunger, pastor, Indian Valley Mennonite Church, Harleysville, Pennsylvania; Palmer Becker, executive secretary of the Commission on Home Ministries; Elmer Neufeld, president of the General Conference; Hugo Jantz, chairperson of MCC (Canada); John Stoner, executive secretary for MCC Peace Section (U.S.); and Larry Kehler, pastor of the Charleswood Mennonite Church, Winnipeg.
Kehler is also the writer for the study guide which is to be published by fall.
[T]he issue was how Mennonite institutions should respond to those employees who request that the military portion of their income taxes not be withheld by the employer.
Several Mennonite organizations are facing the issue. The General Conference
is seeking the will of its 60,000 members in answering such a request from one
of its employees, Cornelia Lehn. The consultation in Elkhart was one part of
the discerning process leading to a delegate assembly, and a decision in
.
Bible scholars, theologians, pastors, administrators, attorneys — twenty-nine persons in all — presented papers, exchanged insights, and probed the issue.
Much of their analysis will be incorporated into a study guide to be published by .
There was general agreement that militarism and the nuclear arms buildup are a
massive threat to human existence. “We are in pre-Holocaust days,” asserted
John Stoner, director of Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section.
How does one change the direction of society?
How does one influence government policy so that it is prohuman?
Some individuals claim that the witness of taxes withheld from the military could do much to change American priorities.
Is civil disobedience biblical?
Is there a biblical case for civil disobedience?
Seminary professor and Old Testament scholar Millard Lind said the question was wrong.
He declared the question assumes that the government provides the norm for the person of faith, and asks whether there may be a religious basis for sometimes disobeying it.
On the contrary, he counseled, the biblical accounts emphasize the absolute
sovereignty of the God of Israel. Biblical thought challenges the sovereignty
of the civil authorities, calling it rebellion. Not only individuals, but
above all, the state, with its self-interest and empire building, are against
the rule and order of Yahweh.
Is civil disobedience called for in the specific instance of taxes spent for military purposes?
Two papers were presented on this question, one by David Schroeder of Canadian Mennonite Bible College, Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the second by Kenneth Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne, Indiana.
“It is clear,” said Schroeder, “that the New Testament speaks for civil
disobedience, but it is difficult to determine the form.” Interpreting the
will of God must be done in the community of believers. The Scripture must not
only be searched to know the will of God, but also to bind ourselves to doing
it.
He observed that the issue of taxes for military purposes is often seen in isolation from other options.
He counseled that the church needs to look at all avenues which would lead to peace, and then choose those options which would be effective at the individual and corporate levels.
A noticeable reaction of surprise was evident after Schroeder indicated that
as a Canadian member of the General Conference he would abstain from voting at
the mid-triennium conference in .
“Those (Americans) who must take the consequences of tax withholding must take the responsibility,” he opined.
When questioned on this Schroeder said he held the position because he would not, as a Canadian national, be able to effectively support an American practicing tax resistance.
Later in the conference, however, he appeared to modify his position.
Bauman’s paper was a careful overview of the tax situation in the time of
Christ, of Jesus’ stance relative to the authorities, and of Anabaptist
practice.
He indicated that Jesus’ political stance was not with the ecclesiastical nor with the social establishment.
Nor did Jesus identify himself as a radical social revolutionary.
Rather, Christ was a representative of the kingdom of God with a prophetic call to repentance, faith, and righteous living which transforms society through the transformation of the individual.
“It is amazing,” he reflected, “to see the early church and the Apostles show
such respect and subordination to a political system that crucified their Lord
and killed their leaders.”
When asked at what point he would practice civil disobedience, Bauman said, “For me it would be more than taxation; it would be when government becomes an object of worship.”
Mennonite practice he noted has been to pay taxes. Only the Hutterites have a
consistent pattern of resisting taxes.
Kings and prophets
In a humorous manner, J. Lawrence Burkholder, president of Goshen College, illuminated the tension between individual conscience and management responsibility.
“The Bible is stacked against managers,” he remarked. The managers (kings)
were always getting critiques from the prophets. Burkholder confessed that
before becoming a college president (a “king”) he had often been prophetic in
his utterances.
But now as a manager he values continuity, order, and making life possible.
Decisions often have ambiguity built into them.
Further, although individuals are free to order their lives as they wish, a corporation incarnates the many wills of its supporters into a limited function.
Is it right to expect a corporation to respond in the same way as an individual?
Burkholder did conclude though that a corporation must be willing to die for
the sake of principle. For a Mennonite school he suggested such a case would
be required ROTC (Reserve Officers’ Training Corps).
In his paper on the same topic, William Keeney of Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas, warned that biblical and Anabaptist history illustrate that the voice of the majority is not necessarily the voice of God.
He also noted that for many people there is a double ethical standard, one for the Christian, and one for the state.
Keeney said Christians should have a bias in favor of loyalty to the prophets, and to the way of the cross and costly discipleship.
From this he concluded that corporate action needs to respect the individual conscience.
In his response to the above papers, Peter Ediger, pastor of the Arvada
(Colorado) Mennonite Church, cried out, “I would hope that management could be
prophetic. Can leadership in institutions not give evidence of faithfulness to
God? Why do we see this question (tax withholding) as a threat to our
institutions? We need more faith in the powers of resurrection. Do we foster
fear or faith? Spread the rumor that the Lord is going to do wonderful
things.”
The attorneys present provided a legal framework, as distinct from a biblical rationale, for approaching the issue of not withholding taxes used for military purposes.
The General Conference could, if it wished, simply stop remitting taxes and wait for the government to take action.
A long process of litigation might ensue in which the church could argue that
using the corporate body to collect taxes violates the conscience of tax
objectors, and also violates the principle of separation of church and state
because the church is held hostage by the state, under penalty of fines or
imprisonment of its officers. The attorneys also observed that the
IRS
(Internal Revenue Service) could decide to avoid litigation and its attendant
publicity, and simply go to the individual to collect.
In essence the attorneys said there were ways of working on the issue through legal, legislative, and administrative channels.
Findings
A findings committee — Palmer Becker, Hugo Jantz, Elmer Neufeld, John Stoner, Larry Kehler — drafted a statement.
After hours of discussion and subsequent changes the persons at the consultation agreed that the statement fairly represented their thinking.
Some excerpts:
“Our Christian obedience has to find new and creative responses to the
proliferation of military weaponry and technology…
“Christians respect the governing authorities… which leads to a broad
range of activities in support of the public good. Nevertheless, at times
our call of prior obedience to God’s sovereignty leads us to disobey the
claims of the state…
“We… have differing convictions about refusing to pay taxes for the
military.
“Let us be open to the possibility that the Spirit of God may lead some of
us in a direction that is both prophetic and full of risks.
“We agree that a way should be sought which will facilitate the expression
of the convictions of conference employees who request that their taxes
not be withheld.
“We need to seek the counsel of and work with other Mennnonite groups and
denominations, particularly the historic peace churches, in developing the
most appropriate response to this issue.”
Two multi-part articles and two additional stand-alone articles stretched
across multiple issues of The Mennonite and also
served to summarize some of the points of debate:
“The North American military” by Harold Fransen (part 1 and part 2)
These articles begin with an unflattering look at U.S. military personnel, suggesting that even if you put the violence of war off to one side, the drunkenness, ignorance, and sexual immorality found among those in uniform is enough not to recommend the institution to Mennonites.
The first part ends: “If we have come to the realization that we can not go to war, maybe the time has come to… say that no one can go to war on our behalf either.
As we fill out out income tax forms this year, so that the military can do the job which we refuse to do, let us remember what effect it has on the lives that are bound up in its powerful grip, and be in prayer as we move toward the General Conference’s midtriennium session to deal with this issue.”
Part two looked at this issue from the Canadian perspective, noting that
Canada was deeply involved in the international arms trade and was boosting its
own military spending. “Can we any longer brush off war taxes as a
U.S. issue?”
“Is this our modern pilgrims’ progress”
This article summarized the recent history of the General Conference in grappling with the issue that would come to a head at the session:
If the conference delegates decide that nonpayment of military taxes is justified the decision is binding on the administrators of the General Conference.
Impetus for such an assembly began in when employee Cornelia Lehn requested the General Conference
business office not to remit the military tax portion of her paycheck to the
IRS.
Prior to 1974 the issue of “war taxes” had been discussed, and as early as
, delegates at the triennial sessions in
Fresno, California, passed a statement protesting the use of tax monies for
war purposes. The delegates also said, “We stand by those who feel called to
resist the payment of that portion of taxes being used for military purposes.”
However, the General Board did not think that directive from the delegates
authorized them to stop remitting Lehn’s military taxes. Her request was
refused.
Three years later… [at] the next conference… delegates called for education regarding militarism, reaffirmed the 1971 statement, and agreed that serious work be done on the possibility of allowing General Conference employees to follow their consciences on payment or nonpayment of military taxes.
Educational materials have included the periodical God and
Caesar and two study guides, The Rule of the
Sword and The Rule of the Lamb. In addition
to these efforts two major consultations were convened in
and in
. At these consultations scholarly
papers were presented on militarism, biblical considerations for payment or
nonpayment of military taxes, and Anabaptist history and theology related to
war tax concerns.
Despite the protracted input the General Board could not reach a consensus on the issue.
Consequently the problem was brought to delegates at the triennial… [where] the delegate body committed itself to serious congregational study of civil disobedience and war tax resistance during .
The delegates also decided to discuss the issue in detail at a midtriennium conference in .
In an effort to implement the Bluffton
resolution an eight-member civil responsibility committee was formed. Several
actions were taken by it to encourage serious study.
an attitude survey on church
and government was conducted. Approximately 2,500 responses were received,
including 463 from a select sampling in 31 churches. A scholarly consultation
was held in . One of the key ideas
which came out of this consultation was whether those who feel strongly about
not paying military taxes should be encouraged to form a separate corporation
within the General Conference. To assist churches in their study of the issue
two study guides were published. The Rule of the
Sword deals primarily with facts and concerns related to militarism.
The Rule of the Lamb centers about the sovereignty
of God and biblical texts on taxes and civil authority.
Each of the more than 300 congregations in the General Conference is being encouraged to prepare a statement to bring to the conference.
It is evident from the sale of the study guides that a minority of congregations are actually making an effort to study the issue, although all congregations have received sample copies of the guides.
Many Canadian churches feel the issue is strictly an American problem, and there is a considerable diversity of conviction and thought among American congregations.
Some congregations do not intend to send delegates.
What this means for the Minneapolis conference is difficult to assess, except
for one feature. There will be a lot of stirring debate. After
will there be some
resolution of the withholding question? No one is predicting the outcome.
“Countdown to Minneapolis”
This article tried to put the debate into a larger context of what it meant for the congregations in the General Conference to be deliberating together in this way.
It also seemed to be trying to drum up more attendance; there seemed to be some worry that Canadian Mennonites, and more conservative congregations, might just not turn up.
“Our Christian civil responsibility”
This article, by Larry Kehler (author of The Rule of the Lamb), attempted to put all of the pieces together for readers ahead of the conference.
Excerpts:
General Conference churches have the opportunity of either growing through the process of working on the war-tax question or of stagnating and splintering.
I am somewhat more confident now than I was even six months ago that we will mature through this experience, and in the process perhaps reassert some of our Conference’s flagging leadership in the field of peace.
Perhaps it is only because I have been talking to more optimistic persons.
But I do have the impression that General Conference people are more ready now to participate in the struggle for an answer than they were even as late as last winter.
The easy answer of letting this debate be the occasion for some congregations to sever their ties with the General Conference seems to be more of a “cop-out” than a reasonable response to a difficult question.
Will your congregation have delegates at the midtriennium sessions in Minneapolis?
If it won’t, both the conference and the congregation will be the poorer for it.
You see, the question is not only how we will respond to the issue of tax-withholding as a witness against war, but how we go about dealing with questions on which we have not yet achieved clarity or unanimity.
The process we go through may well be much more vital to us than the answer we finally come up with, and that is not to diminish the seriousness of the problem of militarism.
Coming to Minneapolis without advance preparation, however, could be almost as
destructive as not coming at all. Each congregation should do some serious
struggling within its own setting on the various dimensions which this issue
is raising for us.
The war-tax issue offers the General Conference one of its best opportunities in many years to work seriously at Bible interpretation on a question about which we have widely differing views.
How do we make decisions when we disagree?
The tax texts
What does the New Testament say about taxes?
Here are the four primary passages:
Mark 12:13–17
is a description of the Pharisees and Herodians trying to entrap Jesus with
the question: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Jesus responds by
taking a coin and showing them Caesar’s image on it and saying, “Render to
Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
Luke 23:1–5 recalls the accusations made against Jesus before Pilate.
Among them is the charge that he has forbidden his people “to give tribute to Caesar.” In response to Pilate’s question about his kingship over the Jews, Jesus replies ambiguously, “You have said so.”
Matthew 17:24–27
talks about the temple tax. Some Bible interpreters feel that the tax question
is a secondary issue in this passage. The writer’s main purpose in telling
this incident, some scholars say, is to underscore Jesus’ sonship.
Romans 13:6–7 urges followers of Christ to be subject to the governing authorities and to pay taxes where they are due.
A straightforward reading of these passages has led many persons to conclude
that taxes are to be paid regardless of the use to which they might be put.
“How can you argue against such clear, simple statements?” they ask people who
suggest that there may be more to these comments than can be seen on the
surface.
It is the tension between these two approaches to the Bible which lies at the heart of the problem which the General Conference is now facing in its attempt to come up with a biblical response to the “war tax issue.” How do we interpret and understand the Bible?
Is the easiest reading of a biblical passage always to be taken as the most likely intention of the writer?
Some Bible scholars say that it is sometimes quite deceiving to accept the easiest reading.
Others wonder if that sort of remark doesn’t simply underscore the Bible’s assertion that some truths will confound the wise and yet be very clear to more down-to-earth and average persons.
Well, maybe.
But doesn’t it cheapen the Bible if we think that a book which has come to us from another millennium and a decidedly different culture can be read on the surface — much like one reads a twentieth-century pop-psychology book — and applied to situations in our day without adaptation?
Can any statement in the Bible be taken by itself without first testing it
against the background from which it came and against related statements
elsewhere in the Bible?
Modern, easy-to-read paraphrases of the Scriptures and our general attitude toward the Bible have led us to believe that “hermeneutics” (the interpretation of the Bible’s message) is not a difficult task.
In some cases it isn’t, but in others it is.
In places the Bible is so inscrutable that we can seemingly never be quite sure about its full intention.
So we have to launch out in faith on some questions, hoping that more clarity will come as we proceed.
We may discover as we go that we have started off in the wrong direction.
Then we need the humility to admit our error and change our direction.
The major agenda item at the midtriennium sessions in Minneapolis may turn out
not to be “war taxes” at all. This issue may be God’s way of prodding us into
becoming more of a “hermeneutic community”…
The tax texts need to be studied intensely at the congregational level, each participant bringing an open mind and heart to the discussion.
If clarity and unanimity do not come immediately let us not be discouraged.
Other groups have had similar difficulties before us.
That is all the more reason why we should continue to struggle with this question.
The summary statement prepared by the people who attended the
war tax conference contained this paragraph:
“After considering the New Testament texts which speak about the Christian’s
payment of taxes, most of us are agreed that we do not have a clear word on
the subject of paying taxes used for war. The New Testament statements on
paying taxes (Mark 12:17 and Romans 13:6–7)
contain either ambiguity in meaning or qualifications on the texts that call
the discerning community to decide in light of the life and teachings of
Jesus.”
For Canadians too
The war tax issue is a U.S. issue and should be decided by them.
Right?
Wrong! It’s an issue for the entire General Conference.
But Canadians wouldn’t be taking any of the risks if the U.S. Government should bear down and hand out some jail sentences or fines for the Conference’s not withholding its employees’ income taxes.
Too much emphasis has been put on the possibility of fines or jail terms.
These consequences might come, but they’re not likely. The fear of a
confrontation with the law has taken the focus off the main point of this
whole exercise. The purpose is to give a firm, clear, and prophetic witness
against the diabolic buildup of the machines of war, which is occurring at an
ever-increasing pace in the United States and in many other nations. Are we
going to sit back and allow this escalation to continue without at least
giving our governments some sort of message that we cannot any longer go along
with this race toward self-destruction?
The arms race and the manufacture of war goods is very much part of the Canadian scene too… I have not yet been able to discover any tax resisters in Canada, but this does not mean that militarism is not a front-burner issue in Canada.
It is, and it should be.
I don’t know why there aren’t tax resisters in Canada. There are certainly
other forms of objection to the military buildup. “Project Ploughshares” is an
interchurch witness against militarism. Mennonites are actively involved in
its program of research and information-sharing. Thus, even though tax
resistance isn’t part of the Canadian experience now, Canadian Mennonites
shouldn’t withdraw from the General Conference discussion. They can
legitimately be fully involved on the basis of principle.
If the General Conference is going to say, “Yes,” to those of its employees who don’t want their income tax withheld, that should be the decision of the entire Conference, not just a portion of it.
The decision, whichever way it goes, will carry much more weight, I believe, if all the congregations in the Conference have participated in it.
Canadian involvement is important.
Some have indicated that the present set of options offered to the
delegates — that is to vote either yes or no on the withholding question — is
not sufficient. Other alternatives must be developed. If not, the Conference
may become polarized, and it might even split.
The question therefore is: How can the General Conference, as an international body, make a clear-cut witness against militarism without splintering the Conference?
Some U.S. Mennonites have stated that Canadian participation is crucial to the process.
After the conference in Bluffton in it
appeared that there would be minimal Canadian involvement at Minneapolis.
There is still no guarantee that participation from Canada will be adequate,
but good efforts are being made to encourage Canadian churches to send
delegates.
The General Board of the Conference of Mennonites in Canada at its last meeting went on record urging Canadian participation.
It will communicate this concern to the churches.
Several congregations are making special efforts to prepare for the convention.
Bethel Mennonite Church, Winnipeg, Manitoba, held a weekend seminar on this topic.
Grace Mennonite Church, Regina, Saskatchewan, arranged a similar event.
The Winnipeg meeting was covered in a later issue.
About fifty people met and came up with a set of recommendations as they prepared to select their delegates to the conference.
Sharon Sawatzky of the Canadian Conference staff in Winnipeg prepared a Canadian supplement for the study booklet The Rule of the Sword by Charlie Lord.
Copies of the supplement have been sent to all Canadian congregations who have ordered the five-lesson study booklet on militarism.
Faith and Life Press, Newton, reports that to date (I write this on
) more orders for the study
materials (The Rule of the Sword and
The Rule of the Lamb) have been received from Canada
than from the United States.
The prophets and the managers
The tension created by the war tax question in the General Conference is heightened by people’s disparate understandings of what it means to be good stewards of our church-related institutions.
Some have seen it as a tension between the “prophets” and the “managers.”
Who shapes the direction and philosophies of our churches and their agencies?
Is it the people who have a “prophetic” vision of biblical responsibility? Is
it the administrators who have been charged with “managing” these
organizations and creating as few waves as possible? Both? Partially? Neither?
Questions related to this apparent tension are included in the study guide The Rule of the Lamb…
J. Lawrence Burkholder, who is himself the “manager” of a major Mennonite
institution (Goshen College), has frankly described the predicament in which
leaders of institutions find themselves.
Here is a summary of his observations…
An efficient and well-trained corps of managers has emerged to run the
Mennonites’ growing number of institutions. The “constituency” of each of
these institutions insists that it is to be run in a businesslike, fiscally
responsible, and basically conservative way. Actions which might jeopardize
the welfare of an institution are not likely to be looked upon with much
favor.
The war tax issue, said Burkholder, is a problem of personal ethics as opposed to corporate ethics.
Our way of understanding the Bible is based on a one-to-one decision-making process, where the individual can respond quickly and simply to a situation.
A corporation’s response to an ethical question, on the other hand, involves
many wills. A number of “publics” make demands on the institution to decide
the issue their way. This does not mean, the Goshen College president
emphasized, that moral demands cannot be made of corporations. Nor should it
be said that all institutions are alike.
Corporations tend toward the status quo.
They emphasize different values than “prophetic” Christians.
Corporations tend to take a positive view of the broader culture in which they operate, they recognize the ambiguity of the situations in which they are making their decisions, and they look less judgmentally on people than do the “prophets.”
On the other hand, prophets have the luxury, according to Burkholder, of being
able to speak abstractly, of idealizing certain things from the past, and of
talking about perfection and ideals in an imperfect society.
Managers of church-related institutions have a clear line of accountability to their constituency, he said, “but who holds the prophets responsible?” Prophets are usually judged to be true or false in retrospect.
A prophet, therefore, doesn’t have to take responsibility for actions, words, and decisions in the same way that a manager does. “Sometimes,” said Burkholder, “present-day prophets come off ‘cheap.’ ”
He emphasized that Mennonites should continue to identify with the prophetic
tradition. They should be aware, though, that this means they will have to be
willing to remain somewhat on the edge of society.
“We will also need to develop a theology of corporate life,” he added. “We already have a theology of fellowship, but we don’t have a theology of the institution.”
Debate in the Letters Column
There was plenty of debate about the propriety of war tax resistance itself in the letters-to-the-editor column, sometimes explicitly prompted by the debate over withholding and the upcoming conference, other times more general.
John K. Stoner said that if the Conference were to fail to endorse war tax
resistance, “I would like to be able to have the confidence that they made
their decision in full awareness and with truly informed knowledge of the
dimensions of the nuclear abyss into which we are staring. At this point I
do not find it possible to have that confidence.” In short, they seemed to
be unaware of just how bad things had gotten.
I do not wish to imply that tax resistance or some other form of civil disobedience is the only kind of response which faithful Christians should be making to the unprecedented evil of the nuclear arms race. (It is my judgment that the situation confronts us with more than adequate grounds for civil disobedience.) However, I do wish to imply that those who counsel against tax refusal and civil disobedience would be much more convincing if they were leading out in other visible kinds of response to the nuclear crisis.
Carl M. Lehman wrote in to again remind readers that there was no such
thing as a “war tax” and that such nomenclature comes from “a less than
completely honest persistence in using labels to create a straw man to
attack.”
Money is only a convenient medium of exchange and not a real necessity to conduct war…
I have no quarrel with the person who simply wants to refuse to pay
taxes as a protest technique. As an attention-calling device it may very
well be effective. It is not exactly the kind of role I would feel led
to play, but I would not want to condemn anyone who felt they must use
such a tactic. I would, however, strongly protest any attempt to make
such a tactic mandatory for all Mennonites, and this is exactly what is
being attempted. Not mandatory, of course, in the sense that it would be
a test of membership, but mandatory in the sense of a normal commitment
expectation for a nonresistant Christian.
I maintain that tax resistance is a deviation from our heritage of faith.
The fact that it is a deviation in no sense makes it wrong and certainly does not mean that we pay no heed.
It does, however, very much suggest that the burden of proof is on the deviant, and that the deviant ought not to equate obedience to God with conformity by others.
John Swarr called on Mennonites to repent for war and in true repentance
to “change our ways.” He disagreed with Lehman’s dismissal of the moral
import of money. “Money is indeed a medium of exchange, but as Christian
stewards of God’s gifts we must be concerned about the things for which
that money is invested, donated, or paid.” He also disagreed that war tax
resistance was a deviation from Mennonite tradition, pointing to examples
from history in which Anabaptists took the issue seriously and came down
on both sides.
Karl Detrich took a hard Romans 13
line on the question, saying that the question of whether Christians
should or should not pay taxes had long ago been closed by that chapter.
While the New Testament also contains examples of civil disobedience, “in
each case these men were following the dictates of a higher law, namely,
that we should have no other gods besides our Lord.”
Jesus tells us that in the last days there will be, among other tribulations, wars and rumors of war.
Rather than going against the teaching of God’s word in a vain effort to forestall the inevitable, should we not give our time and energies to the worship of God and the proclamation of his gospel, so that we can do our part to hasten the day of his coming?
Paul W. Andreas saw simple living as a key to avoiding war taxes, and
resisting war taxes as a key to avoiding despair:
The submission to evil (no government has been free of it) produces despair.
I believe that love of my fellow humans is fundamental to not only
Mennonite faith but to Christ’s message. If I am compelled to violate
that message by hiring killers and providing weapons, I despair. For me,
no charitable contribution undoes the evil I unleash by paying taxes
that are used for such ends. Fortunately the practitioner of the simple
life can reduce his wage and thus avoid the income tax used for evil.
James Newcomer, in the course of taking Mennonites to task for the
“red-baiting” he’d found in their midst, took some time out to praise war
tax resistance:
I am deeply moved… by the witness of Peter Ediger at Rocky Flats, Colorado, and by many others who through war tax resistance and protest are trying to focus their own understanding of the modern Christian experience at the risk of losing middle-class luxuries and future security.
Miscellany
And if that weren’t enough, there were several other news items that discussed war tax resistance without relating directly to the upcoming conference or the specific debate to be dealt with there.
For example:
“A weekend seminar on war tax resistance” organized by Philadelphia Mennonites at which “[s]pecific strategies for implementing war tax resistance were discussed,” and the usual biblical verses were hashed out.
A four-point resolution on peacemaking called the Eastern District to: (1) serious Bible study on peace and a General Conference resolution on “The Way of Peace” (2) involvement in disapproval (through congressional representatives) of national actions promoting war, poverty, and terror; (3) support of those who feel led to withhold portions of their taxes; and (4) a midyear assembly to promote peacemaking.
After vigorous discussion, point three was stricken from the resolution
and point two was amended to include encouragement for righteous actions.
The amended resolution was adopted.
The Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section (U.S.) met. But in spite of all that was going on around them, it merely “reaffirmed its recommendation to Mennonite institutions ‘to study the conflict between Christian obligations and legal obligations in the collection of federal taxes…’ ” When they would meet again “a resolution on militarism, the future of New Call to Peacemaking, and the question of alternatives to the payment of taxes for military purposes” would be on the agenda. At that meeting, they took a stronger stand:
We support those who resist the payment of taxes for military purposes and call upon all members of the church to seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes.
While Mennonite church institutions continue to struggle with an administrative response to the issue of “war tax” withholding, individual Mennonites are voicing their convictions through refusing to pay the portion of their taxes designated for military use.
About $4,000 has been received by the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section’s “Taxes
for Peace” fund, contributed by Mennonite war tax refusers.
Nonpayment of taxes violates national laws, but tax refusers are convinced that paying taxes is disobedience to God when slightly over half of that tax money is allocated for the past, present, and future military expenditures of the United States.
Most of these tax refusers paid only 47 to 50 percent of taxes owed to
the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS),
forwarding the remaining amount to
MCC
and other Mennonite agencies. Statements to
IRS
clarified that the withheld tax money was not for personal profit but
rather for meeting human needs, promoting peace and reconciliation, and
supporting life instead of death.
James Klassen, Newton, Kansas, who claimed a Nuremburg Principle tax deduction in an amount sufficient to result in a 50 percent refund of the amount of taxes due, recently received the refund in full and forwarded the check to MCC. (The Nuremburg Principles, unanimously affirmed by the United Nations after World War Ⅱ, specify that crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are crimes under national law.)
“This is the first time we have deliberately broken the law of our
country,” say tax refusers James and Anna Juhnke, North Newton, Kansas.
“It is not an easy decision. We love our land and we respect the
authority of the government. We want to show our respect by making our
civil disobedience a public act and by accepting the penalties which may
result from our action.”
“As a Christian who accepts the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament as normative for life and ethics, I am a ‘conscientious objector’ to participation in war and to the resolution of human conflict by violence,” concludes Marlin Miller of Goshen, Indiana. “It is my conviction that the financial support of war and military expenditures cannot be reconciled with this stance any more than actual military service itself.”
They and other Christians feel that Christ’s calling to a life of love,
nonviolence and reconciliation supersedes demands of the state.
Thirty-three persons and families thus far have identified themselves as “war tax resisters” after God and Caesar in its issue provided the opportunity for people to do so.
The respondents represent eleven denominations as well as those with no church affiliation.
One recent case of a non-ordained employee at a Mennonite institution
hoping to resist paying war taxes involved Esther Lanting, a teacher at
Western Mennonite School
(WMS),
Salem, Oregon, who on
wrote a letter to the
WMS
board requesting that her income tax not be withheld from her check.
On , Lanting was invited to meet with the board to explain her reasons.
The board decided to seek the counsel of the conference executive committee, and secure study papers on the tax issue.
Finally, on , after
extended study, the peace and social concerns committee of the conference
recommended that the
WMS
board grant Lanting’s request and discontinue withholding her taxes.
On , the WMS board considered the committee’s recommendation.
By a vote of six to two they decided not to follow the recommendation, but to continue withholding all tax as legally required.
At this same board meeting three other WMS teachers or staff members acted as follows: Ray Nussbaum submitted a letter requesting that the board stop withholding his tax; Floyd Schrock made a verbal request that his tax not be withheld; and Cindy Mullet asked that the board decrease her salary to the level where she will owe no tax.
The board granted Cindy Mullet’s request for a reduction in salary. The
board is willing to reconsider the issue if more faculty members should
make the same request to have the board refrain from withholding taxes.
MCC has taken no official position on the refusal to pay taxes for military use, but MCC Peace Section (U.S.) adopted a statement in which in part recommended “that Mennonite and Brethren in Christ continue to work toward reduction of military spending, not resting content with special provisions exempting us from payment of taxes for military purposes.” It affirms “those in our midst who feel compelled by Christian conscience to refuse payment of all or some federal tax because of the large percentage of such taxes used for military purposes.”
In concluding his war tax talk Yoder said church members are generally more ready to disregard what the church has to say than what the government says.
Issuing a direct challenge to those who believe war tax resistance is wrong he counseled, “It would be more credible if those who are in favor of paying all their taxes would show through some other action what they are doing to love our national enemies.”
This is the thirty-second in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today we reach the middle-1980s.
A conference held in and sponsored by the Mennonite Church General Board (I think this is distinct from the General Conference Mennonite Church’s General Board, but it gets confusing) concerned “The Church’s Relationship to the Political Order.”
War tax resistance was among the topics discussed:
John and Sandy Drescher Lehman of Richmond, Va., told how they followed their conscience and decided a few years ago to withhold the part of their income taxes that they figure goes for military spending.
Now they have become employees of Mennonite Board of Missions in their role as co-directors of the Richmond Discipleship Voluntary Service program.
“What should an institution do when its employees, following their consciences, ask that we stop withholding taxes from their paychecks?” asked MBM president Paul Gingrich.
A panel of four attempted to answer the question, including Robert Hull, soldier-turned-tax-resister who is peace and justice secretary of the General Conference Mennonite Church.
He explained how his denomination, with the instruction of its members, is now breaking the law by not withholding taxes from the paychecks of seven of its employees who have requested that.
In an editorial in the edition, E. Stanley Bohn wrote that war tax resistance is an example of Christians taking their doctrine seriously and taking risks for it, and that this is useful in missionary work.
Excerpts:
While my wife, Anita, and I were in a language school in Mexico, we stayed with a family that claimed to have a faith but had no relation to any congregation.
They had a good supply of humorous imitations of TV preachers and stories of inconsistencies of church people.
They also had the feeling that churches were exploitive of people and supported the exploitive governments to the north and their manipulation of governments in Latin America.
When I explained one night at the evening meal that in my denomination people often took a different position than the government, they listened politely.
But when I explained there were Christians who took the New Testament so sincerely that they accepted fines and jail terms, they wanted to know more.
Accepting penalties for conscientious objection to war, non-registration, refusing to pay a war tax and offering sanctuary to Central American refugees caused at least the son in that family to reconsider a faith he had earlier ridiculed.
The second incident happened in Japan with a Japanese friend who had lived in our home as an MCC trainee.
Christianity is not sweeping the country in Japan.
Although the door is not closed to Christian missionaries, it may be that a large percentage of the people are closed to a Christ who has been identified with what the West did to Asians in Vietnam, their parents in World War Ⅱ and with the current pressure on Japan to violate its constitution and establish armed forces capable of international war.
Our friend had arranged for a meeting of a group of his student friends, some of them non-Christian.
He asked me to speak while he translated on the topic of peacemaking efforts of Mennonites in the United States.
Topics like draft registration, prayer vigils at missile sites or war taxes — that are controversial for us — were in his eyes exactly what was needed to make credible what the church was teaching and to open the minds of his friends to the Christian faith.
In Canada and the United States we often see the more controversial peace witness and overseas missions as opposite kinds of religious expression, having little to do with each other.
Yet in some overseas situations the unbelievers we met were more open to the gospel if it included a peace witness that was clearly international and repudiated protecting ourselves at the expense of others (not that their governments would be any more receptive to that than ours is).
From their viewpoint it is clear that such witness efforts as those of Christian war tax refusers actually aid the work of overseas missions.
This may put our triennial conference action in a different light.
At the Bethlehem conference our delegates voted that we would not accept the position in which the U.S. laws put us: that the church act as a tax collector, taking taxes for war from those who are conscientiously against war.
That stand may some day require us to pay for legal assistance.
Since our conference was not unanimous in taking this stand, it was agreed that costs should be covered by donations from those who believe this was the right path to take.
Those who contribute to such legal expenses, if and when they come, may feel they are paying a penalty for having a conscience.
However, whether the ruling is favorable or unfavorable, their dollars may help our overseas mission dollars accomplish more.
They may be helping to open some minds closed to national and tribal gods and hungry for the God of all nations who makes a difference in people’s lives.
This news comes from the edition:
About a year ago, Mennonite Central Committee established a task force to study how MCC should respond to employees’ requests that MCC not withhold federal taxes from their paychecks.
This was to enable them to keep that portion of their taxes used for military purposes.
After meeting with leaders from eight conferences, the task force reported in that none of the conference groups was in favor of honoring the employees’ requests.
Even though the General Conference honors such requests by its employees, the executive committee of its General Board did not favor MCC taking similar action.
The former moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) has called for the creation of a peace army committed to withholding the 13 percent of income taxes that the British government spends on defense.
Lord MacLeod of Fuinary hopes such an army will be able to persuade the government to allow people to give an equivalent amount of their taxes to relieve world hunger instead.
Even if the government refuses to go along with the idea, he said, taxpayers should still withhold the money and give it to famine relief.
In the edition, Richard McSorley wrote about having taken “a vow of non-violence.”
The Catholic peace group Pax Christi was encouraging people to take such a formal vow annually, and was encouraging the Catholic Church to support such vows by providing a ritual context for them.
In my formulation of the vow I said, “I, before the cross of Jesus Christ, vow perpetual non-violence in fulfillment of the command of your Son, ‘Love your enemies.’ ”
It seems to me beyond doubt that I cannot love a person in the same act in which I kill that person.
The vow means I will not take part in killing anybody.
That means I will not pay taxes for weapons of death and be a part of the preparations to kill done by the military or the hangman or the abortionist.
Neither will I hold, as morally acceptable, the program of killing some to save others.
Discussion about payment of U.S. federal income taxes used for military purposes — or “war taxes” — was prompted by a request from four MCC Akron employees who asked MCC to stop forwarding the portion of their income taxes which go for military spending.
In letters last year to the executive committee, the four cited deployment of missiles in Europe, U.S. funds for war in Central America, MCC’s support of conscientious objection during the Vietnam War and the deaths of friends killed by American-made weapons as basis for the request.
A tax withholding task force reported to the board that, after discussions with eight Mennonite and Brethren in Christ conferences, “no group counseled MCC to honor the requests.”
MCC Canada indicated that payment of military taxes is not an issue among Canadians “at this time.”
The task force recommended that MCC “continue to withhold and forward taxes to the (U.S.) government.”
Possible penalties for not forwarding an employee’s tax include the amount plus interest, a $10,000 fine and/or five years imprisonment.
Board member Phil Rich, who served on the task force, emphasized that conference leaders “agonized” over the decision and observed that “none of the groups said that civil disobedience is absolutely wrong.”
Some of the leaders, he indicated, “are in favor but do not think their people will go along.”
He also noted that most conferences are open to dealing with the issue in the future.
During a lengthy discussion, board members wrestled with the issue.
Ray Brubacher, a Canadian, indicated that his church allows him to withhold the military portion of his income tax.
“I cannot,” he said, “vote against their request if I can [have taxes not withheld] myself.
I don’t want to vote against the constituency, but I cannot vote against my conscience.”
Larry Kehler of the General Conference noted that his denomination had decided in not to forward the tax of individuals who had made such a request.
As a member of that conference, he indicated that he “could not vote for the recommendation.”
Both said that their vote would be made with “much pain.”
Other board members shared their pain but agreed with MCC Canada representative Ross Nigh that “we are bound by the process.
We went to the conferences in good faith, and not one recommended that we withhold taxes.
In the interest of the wider brotherhood, we must vote for it.”
The recommendation passed with four against and two abstentions.
The board also passed recommendations that affirm the four and others who make a similar request and that encourage MCC to find ways for them to resist payment legally.
Staff were also encouraged to increase efforts to educate the churches about the relationship between militarism, hunger, development and refugees.
The task force also suggested that MCC and the conferences hold a study conference on church/state issues.
In a prepared response, Earl Martin read a statement on behalf of the four that expressed appreciation for the process and deliberation but appealed to the conferences to discuss the issue at their next annual conventions.
The four also asked MCC to help facilitate the discussion and invited the conferences to report their findings at the MCC annual meeting.
Martin also pointed out that while U.S. members of MCC’s seven constituent conferences donated $9.4 million to MCC in , they paid an estimated $159 million in military taxes.
Approximagely $880,000 was paid during the course of the meeting.
When the General Board met in , however, they backpedaled from their own participation in this decision:
[The board] passed a motion brought by CHM U.S. that GB reverse its recommendation to the Mennonite Central Committee that it continue to withhold taxes from its employees even when they request otherwise.
Staff member Robert Hull… disagreed with MCC’s decision not to stop withholding taxes of employees.
He said the General Board is partly responsible because it was contacted, along with seven other denominations when the decision was being made.
The committee continued to struggle with the issues posed by MCC employees whose request not to have income taxes withheld was rejected after long debate at the MCC annual meeting in .
It was decided at that time that, despite this decision, MCC should continue to affirm the integrity of those objecting to war taxes and establish a committee that would study and create broader awareness of the impact of militarism on refugees, hunger and development.
But the mandate of that group, which is to begin meeting in , was not clearly defined.
Executive committee chairman Elmer Neufeld said that there seems to be a “strong expectation” from some that the special committee will continue to work specifically on the tax withholding issue.
Others said the committee’s task was to struggle with congregations to find legal ways to express a Christian witness on the issue of militarism.
It was also reported that the General Conference Mennonite Church has had further discussion regarding how to counsel MCC to respond to the request from its staff on income tax withholding.
At MCC’s annual meeting it was reported that MCC representatives had met with constituent conferences and that none had counseled MCC to honor the request of staff.
In the General Conference’s General Board decided to counsel MCC “that they honor requests of their employees to not have their taxes withheld, in line with General Conference policy.”
As authorized by the triennial sessions, the conference is honoring the requests of four employees not to withhold income tax due to the U.S. Government.
Thus far, Internal Revenue Service has not taken action against the conference.
Originally, seven such employees had requested not to have taxes withheld.
This was later reduced to five.
Now it’s four.
I can’t tell whether this is from a general shrinkage of staff or from a flagging of enthusiasm for war tax resistance.
This is the nineteenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was
reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
The Mennonite Church Peace Section
(U.S.) met on
. I found
this cryptically-worded note
in a Gospel Herald report about the meeting:
The arms race and war tax questions remains a vital one. Its focus seems to be
shifting from tax withholding to the issue of civil disobedience for
conscience and God’s sake.
A Christian’s response to civil authority will be given concentrated emphasis
by the General Conference Mennonite Church during . The study is an outcome of a resolution at the triennial
conference in Bluffton, Ohio, . That
resolution called for a thorough study of civil disobedience leading to a
special conference , which is
intended to state an official position of the General Conference with respect
to that portion of income taxes which are used for funding military
expenditures, and in general, to research the whole question of
obedience-disobedience to civil authority.
Responsibility for the study has been given to the peace and social concerns
committee of the Commission on Home Ministries. They, however, requested that
a special obedience-civil disobedience committee be formed to give general
direction and leadership.
To date three major aspects of the study have been planned — an attitudinal
survey, an invitational consultation in ,
and a study guide to be ready by the fall quarter.
Included in the survey are 28 questions chosen to provide an inventory of
congregational attitudes toward the authority of the church and of the state.
It will also indicate attitudes to particular issues such as abortion, capital
punishment, and payment of taxes for military purposes. A copy of the
questionnaire will be sent to every congregation. If the congregation decides
to use the survey it will be duplicated locally to save on costs. After the
conference the same questionnaire will
again be used to determine whether the churchwide discussion on
obedience-civil disobedience has generated any changes in attitudes.
A second major happening is scheduled for at Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart,
Ind. An invitational
consultation will bring together about 30 participants, including persons not
committed to civil disobedience. The gathering will include administrative
personnel from the General Conference, lawyers, biblical scholars, as well as
representatives from Mennonite General Committee and the Mennonite Church.
It is expected that the study guide will evolve from the proceedings of the
consultation. Five of the 13 lessons in the guide will focus on peacemaking in
a technological society. What sort of peacemaking should Mennonites be about
in an age of nuclear warfare and worldwide arms shipments? The remaining eight
lessons will center in the meaning of civil disobedience. Was it practiced in
the Bible? Is nonpayment of taxes a case in point?
The study process will culminate in the special midtriennium conference
scheduled for . That gathering
will be an official decision-making conference to which congregational
delegates will come. At that point a decision on the meaning and practice of
civil disobedience will be made.
There was a followup in the
issue. From the coverage, I get the impression that the Mennonite Church was
playing spectator and taking a wait-and-see attitude:
If debate among members of the General Board of the General Conference
Mennonite Church is the litmus test of what it means to be a discerning
church, then the denomination is pointed toward an exciting future. The two
issues, war taxes and fundraising, were the preeminent concerns during
meetings in Newton, Kan.,
.
Although thorough reports were heard by the 16-member board on all aspects of
programming — overseas mission, education, home ministries — and dozens of
decisions were made, the two keynote issues were civil disobedience and how to
communicate the need for increased giving.
During the first session on , Board
members locked onto the planning for the midtriennium conference on war taxes
and civil responsibility. Uneasiness about the process erupted quickly. The
structure of the invitational
consultation on the issue was strongly faulted, as was the conference itself.
Board member Ken Bauman, pastor of First Mennonite Church in Berne,
Ind., galvanized his
colleagues with his allegations. “The consultation is not structured for
dialogue — it is monologue. The way it has been set up upsets me deeply.”
Later he declared that the Commission on Home Ministries should not serve as
the launching pad for the study and the planning leading to the conference in
. “Why ask
CHM?
The image of
CHM
is stacked. It should be the responsibility of the General Board.”
His assessment was the beginning of a fruitful debate which occupied several
more sessions of the General Board, one session of
CHM,
hallway discussions, and coffee confabs.
The debate crystallized about several key questions. What is wrong with the
study process initiated by the obedience-civil disobedience committee of
CHM?
Is the issue of war taxes so divisive that a schism in the General Conference
is inevitable? Is the delegate
conference viable?
By ,
perhaps symbolically, the hard-hitting process of charge and counter-charge
had evolved into understanding and affirmation of the original plans. On paper
little had changed, but in the minds of those who spoke for the
“unheard” — the “conservatives,” the “common person,” and the
Canadians — there was a restoration of confidence in the process. Tenseness
was dissipated.
The consultation will meet at
Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Elkhart,
Ind. About 25 persons are
invited. These include theologians and biblical scholars, attorneys,
administrative staff of the General Conference, several
MCC
staff, and representatives from the Mennonite Church and the Mennonite
Brethren Church. The proceedings of the consultation are to serve as the basis
for a study guide on civil disobedience.
Asked about his personal goals for the peacemaking initiative, the pastor
listed: 1) a more radical community in all three denominations that will break
down barriers in talking about peace with other Christians and non-Christians,
2) a radical change in our attitudes toward material things, and 3) a unified
position on the problem of war taxes.
Fahrer has recently finished work on a four-unit war tax Bible study guide. He
anticipates its publication by Ohio and Eastern Conference.
The Lancaster Conference had its own war tax study guides in the works, as
shown in these excerpts from the
and
issues:
Mennonites and War Taxes is a 28-page booklet by
Walter Klaassen which traces the history of the war tax issue in Anabaptism
and suggests how Mennonites might relate to that history. It was first
published by the Lancaster Conference Mennonite Historical Society but is now
published by the Commission on Education of the General Conference Mennonite
Church. Copies of the booklet may be ordered from Faith and Life Press…
“Honoring God with My Tax Dollars” is an excellent little pamphlet that deals
with some big questions. Produced in (and
revised in ) by the Peace Committee of
Lancaster Mennonite Conference, this piece was prepared as “a study guide to
be used in congregational or group discussion settings.” A bibliography of
related resources is included at the end. Available at no cost from Lancaster
Mennonite Conference…
The world arms race, nuclear threat, and militarism were the backdrop for a
discussion of war tax resistance. The Section reaffirmed its
recommendation to Mennonite institutions “to
study the conflict between Christian obligations and legal obligations in the
collection of federal taxes, especially when employees request that war taxes
not be withheld from their wages, and that institutions be encouraged to honor
such requests.”
Some disappointment was expressed that, with a few exceptions, constituent
conferences and congregations of
MCC
have not wrestled with the war tax question.
A cross-organizational consultation on how Christians ought to behave in
relation to the governments they live under was held in
:
Five themes — the nuclear menace, taxes for military purposes, the lessons of
biblical and Anabaptist history, faithfulness, and effective
witness — dominated a consultation on civil responsibility in Elkhart,
Ind.,
. In its sharpest focus the
issue was how Mennonite institutions should respond to those employees who
request that the military portion of their income taxes not be withheld by the
employer. Under current law employers must deduct income tax from payrolls and
remit the tax to the government.
Several Mennonite organizations are facing the issue. The General Conference
is seeking the will of its 60,000 members in answering such a request from one
of its employees, Cornelia Lehn. The consultation in Elkhart was one part of
the discerning process leading to a delegate assembly, and a decision in
.
Bible scholars, theologians, pastors, administrators, attorneys — twenty-nine
persons in all — presented papers, exchanged insights, and probed the issue.
Much of their analysis will be incorporated into a study guide to be published
by .
A findings committee — Palmer Becker, Hugo Jantz, Elmer Neufeld, John Stoner,
Larry Kehler — drafted a statement. After hours of discussion and subsequent
changes the persons at the consultation agreed that the statement fairly
represented their thinking.
Some excerpts from the statement are listed below:
“Our Christian obedience has to find new and creative responses to the
proliferation of military weaponry and technology…
“Christians respect the governing authorities… which leads to a broad
range of activities in support of the public good. Nevertheless, at times
our call of prior obedience to God’s sovereignty leads us to disobey the
claims of the state…
“We… have differing convictions about refusing to pay taxes for the
military.
“Let us be open to the possibility that the Spirit of God may lead some of
us in a direction that is both prophetic and full of risks.
“We agree that a way should be sought which will facilitate the expression
of the convictions of conference employees who request that their taxes
not be withheld.
“We need to seek the counsel of and work with other Mennonite groups and
denominations, particularly the Historic Peace Churches, in developing the
most appropriate response to this issue.”
While delegates from nearly every government in the world met at the United
Nations to debate whether they should continue the arms race, some 30
Mennonites representing North American conferences met at the Associated
Mennonite Biblical Seminaries to debate whether they should continue to pay
for it. Most Mennonite delegates likely knew something of the
U.N. Special
Session on Disarmament although probably none at the
U.N. knew about
the Mennonite meeting. The two groups had in common a deep concern about the
crushing momentum of the arms race which places in jeopardy the very survival
of the human race.
The Consultation on Civil Responsibility was initiated by the General
Conference Mennonite Church with the support of the Mennonite Church and
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.) for
discussion of paying taxes used for military purposes. Christians living in
nations with nuclear weapons face a crisis of faith and morals. Such
Christians live amidst wealth that is heavily generated and protected by
military/economic systems whose focus is the perfecting of weapons for
massive, indiscriminate global destruction. How can the church give a faithful
and credible witness that its trust is not in these powers of death but in the
life-giving power of Jesus Christ?
Mennonite Central Committee was represented at the consultation by four staff
persons — William Snyder, Reg Toews, Urbane Peachey, and John Stoner.
MCC’s
interest in the war tax question grows out of (1) Peace Section’s assignment
to explore issues related to the historic Mennonite and Brethren in Christ
testimony of peace and nonresistance, (2) MCC’s administrative problem with
war tax withholding, and (3) the relationship between the arms race and world
hunger. Janet Reedy of Elkhart,
Ind., attended in a dual role
as a member of
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.) and as a
representative from the Mennonite Church.
The question of tax collection came up as a part of the report from Peace and
Social Concerns secretary, Hubert Schwartzentruber. In increasing numbers,
workers in church institutions have asked that their federal income taxes not
be deducted from their paychecks so that they may refuse voluntary payment of
the part of their taxes that goes for military purposes.
The Board reacted to this possibility with caution. For one thing, to fail to
collect taxes is a federal offense. All persons responsible for such refusal
are liable to prosecution, from the lowest to the highest in terms of
responsibility. Also there was expressed a strong opinion in favor of positive
instead of negative witness for peace, a position separated from civil
disobedience on the one hand and civil religion on the other.
The question of tax withholding was designated for further study.
We readily pay our taxes. In paying our taxes, we not only pay for the many
services we receive from the government, but we also pay to help care for the
needy among us and beyond our borders. In willingly paying our taxes, we still
have the opportunity to be critical and communicate our concerns about how the
money is being used such as in military spending. We remember it is through
paying our taxes that good is promoted and evil restrained.
And in
an interview with John Howard Yoder
in the same issue, he complained that the church had been lagging on coming to
a sensible consensus about war taxes:
Where is our Mennonite peace testimony in danger?
We are not any clearer than before on the old problems such as separatism,
civil disobedience, and tax resistance. We have made no progress in
fashioning creative responses to these issues. They are talked about but
there is no united action.
War tax resisters in Japan were back in the news as well. Michio Ohno spoke at
the Mennonite World Conference, Peace
Interest Group, giving his talk a provocative title:
Over 80 Japanese citizens did not pay all or part of this year’s income taxes
or asked for refunds, says Michio Ohno, Japanese minister who spoke on war tax
resistance in Japan at the MCC-sponsored
Peace Interest Group at Mennonite World Conference. Ohno is chairman of the
Mennonite and Brethren in Christ Evangelical Cooperative Conference.
Ohno was introduced to pacifism while studying at the Mennonite Biblical
Seminary in Elkhart, Ind., in
. He was pastor of a church in
Kyodan for six years and for the past year has taught English and led Bible
studies in his home.
Ohno says he became involved with war tax resistance in
when he owed the
U.S.
[sic] $4.40 in taxes. “I was troubled by the table on the
back of the income tax form which stated that 6.5 percent of the tax money had
been used for the military’s so-called “Self-Defense Forces” during the
previous year.
“Shortly before, I had read in The Mennonite
periodical about the World Peace Tax Fund Bill, a
U.S. legislative
measure, which if approved would allow conscientious objectors to rechannel
their tax money to nonmilitary purposes. This idea impressed me because I knew
that as a pacifist, I could not pay for war and war preparation.
“The next day I visited Gan Sakakibara, one of Japan’s leading Anabaptist
scholars, to discuss this. I remembered his answer to a high school boy who
had once asked him why Christians were not persecuted like the early
Anabaptists had been.”
He answered, “That is because we are not true Christians. We are not good or
bad. We are not the medicine or the poison. If we were, we would be
persecuted.”
Ohno said he visited the tax office and explained why he could not pay the
tax. “I told them I didn’t mind if they took my possessions.”
A group of people favoring conscientious objection to war taxes began meeting
in Sakakibara s home.
When a civil lawyer sued the state for repayment of his tax money, believing
that conscientious objection to war taxes was legal, he was invited to speak
to the group. The lawyer’s visit resulted in the formation of Conscientious
Objection to Military Tax
(COMIT),
a citizens’ group of 250 members including Mennonites, Quakers, Catholics,
Buddhists, and nonbelievers.
COMIT
now holds summer study seminars and publishes “The Plowshare,” a bimonthly
paper.
The 80 people who have not paid their taxes for this year have received
notices demanding payment, but none has been arrested and no property has been
seized. Additionally, 120,000 members of the General Conference of Trade
Unions in Japan have asked for a tax refund to express their desire for peace.
“A huge olive tree grows up from a tiny pit,” he concluded. “We are sowing
olive pits and tending seedlings. Someday there will be a stout olive tree,
and one of the big branches, I hope, will be conscientious tax objection.”
The “New Call to Peacemaking” initiative was ramping up, with Mennonite
participation:
During the last year, 26 regional New Call to Peacemaking meetings, involving
more than 1,500 persons, took a new look at the teachings of their churches
with special attention to violence, war, and peace.
The Wichita, Kan., group gave
its encouragement to “individuals who feel called to resist the payment of the
military portion of their federal taxes. The Wichita meeting also asked its
churches and agencies to discontinue collecting taxes from its employees so
that “they can have the option to follow their consciences in war tax
resistance.”
When the national New Call to Peacemaking conference convenes in Green Lake,
Wis.,
,
it will be receiving requests from the regional meetings for a strong position
on tax resistance proposals. It will also be asked to give guidance to
individuals and church organizations on approaches to tax resistance.
The Green Lake Conference, which will be attended by some 300 members of the
three sponsoring Peace Churches (Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites), will look
at theological issues as well as matters of economic and social justice,
including respect for human rights.
The New Call to Peacemaking conference is just around the corner. It is
scheduled for
at Green Lake, Wis. Invited
to the meeting are 300 Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites. Leaders of the
conference have called for effective steps toward international disarmament
and support for the United Nations,” saying that “mutual trust and cooperation
are the only bases for long-term national and international security.” Citizen
action, refusal to pay war tax, and other measures will be considered as ways
of undercutting war. The Green Lake meeting, according to Dale Brown, Brethren
theologian who will open the conference, will issue a call to the peace
churches and those who sympathize with their aims to take new risks.
Two films on television commercials and a slide/cassette set on war taxes have
recently been added to MBCM
Audiovisuals, the rental library of Mennonite Board of Congregational
Ministries… “Conscience and War Taxes” is an excellent 20-minute color slide
set/cassette presentation produced by the National Council for a World Peace
Tax Fund. It traces the history of the
U.S. income tax,
gives information on the military budget, and examines some of the economic
consequences of military spending. The World Peace Tax Fund is discussed as a
legal alternative to paying for war which could provide more than two billion
dollars for funding peaceful solutions to world problems and at the same time
provide more jobs for peaceful pursuits than are currently provided by
war-related industries. The “Conscience and War taxes” slide set, cassette
tape, and a resource packet can be obtained from MBCM Audiovisuals…
“New Call to Peacemaking generated 26 regional meetings in 16 different areas
of the U.S. during
,” reported Maynard Shelly to the conference in a summary paper, “A
Declaration of Peace.” The records showed that more than 1,500 people were
involved in those meetings and they generated 170 pages of reports,
statements, and resolutions.
When asked what he expected to come out of this conference, before the
sessions began, Peter Ediger, of Arvada,
Colo., said, “Words, plenty
of words.”
A number of delegates, for instance, were calling for “dramatic action,”
whatever that might have been. As it turned out, because of the task
orientation of the conference, the “action” was a statement agreed upon by the
assembled, which covered the waterfront, but probably pleased only a few.
One of the central themes which stirred the most emotions turned out to be
war-tax resistance. This was an issue the Mennonites felt strongly about.
Those presenting the issue wished for action that would have given them a
context for action. As in the case of the “dramatic action,” so much desired
by some, this desire was also frustrated.
Organizers and conference leaders had projected the Green Lake meetings to be
a working conference. The meetings were set up to assure some kind of action
and/or product. Finally, after much careful shifting on the part of the
findings committee, and public discussions that were sometimes hotter than
illuminating, the conferees agreed to approve a revised statement of the
findings committee. This heavy emphasis on task fulfillment almost restricted
the creative work of the conference too much, according to some observers.
But, of course, the conferees had been informed of the nature of the
conference beforehand.
The findings statement was accepted by most participants, yet could count on
ownership by few. Besides the document, inspiration, fellowship, and sharing
that went on, there was little to show for everyone’s efforts. Nevertheless,
“We see this not as the end of our journey but as the beginning stage of a
continuing pilgrimage,” read the statement.
A world alternative to taxes for the military was endorsed and encouraged. And
while the “children of the sixties” worried about war taxes, the younger set
was most concerned about conscription, which seems to be looming over the
horizon.
“We’re releasing a new focal pamphlet in
titled The Tax
Dilemma: Praying for Peace and Paying for War. Peace is central to our
theology, not an option added on.”
The issue gave a preview of
the upcoming General Conference Mennonite Church midtriennium meeting which
they had convened especially to hash out the war tax withholding issue:
The program for the midtriennium conference of the General Conference
Mennonite Church (GCMC) has been finalized.
As an official meeting of the denomination delegates will discuss the nature
of a Christian’s civil responsibility, particularly the question of a
Christian peace position in a militaristic society. For some participants the
question is whether the withholding of payment of the military portion of
their income taxes is justified. If so, then several employees of the GCMC
would like the denomination to stop remitting the military portion of their
taxes to the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS).
For , the
issue will be debated in the Leamington Hotel in Minneapolis,
Minn. If the conference
delegates decide that nonpayment of military taxes is justified the decision
is binding on the administrators of the GCMC.
Impetus for such an assembly began in when GCMC
employee Cornelia Lehn requested the General Conference business office not to
remit the military tax portion of her paycheck to the
IRS.
Prior to , the issue of “war taxes” had been
discussed, and as early as , delegates at the
triennial sessions in Fresno,
Calif., passed a statement
protesting the use of tax monies for war purposes. The delegates also said,
“We stand by those who feel called to resist the payment of that portion of
taxes being used for military purposes.” However, the General Board of the
GCMC
did not think that directive from the delegates authorized them to stop
remitting Lehn’s military taxes. Her request was refused.
Three years later, St.
Catharines, Ontario, was the location for the next conference. There delegates
called for education regarding militarism, reaffirmed the
statement, and agreed that serious work be
done on the possibility of allowing GCMC
employees to follow their consciences on payment or nonpayment of military
taxes.
Educational materials have included the periodical God and
Caesar and two study guides. The Rule of the Sword and
The Rule of the Lamb. In addition to these efforts two major
consultations were convened in
and in . At these consultations
scholarly papers were presented on militarism, biblical considerations for
payment or nonpayment of military taxes, and Anabaptist history and theology
related to war tax concerns.
Despite the protracted input, the General Board could not reach a consensus on
the issue. Consequently the problem was brought to delegates at the
triennial conference in Bluffton,
Ohio. At this juncture the delegate body committed itself to serious
congregational study of civil disobedience and war tax resistance during
. The delegates
also decided to discuss the issue in detail at a midtriennium conference in
.
In an effort to implement the Bluffton
resolution an eight-member civil responsibility committee was formed. Several
actions were taken by it to encourage serious study.
an attitude survey on church and
government was conducted. Approximately 2,500 responses were received,
including 463 from a select sampling in 31 churches. A scholarly consultation
was held in . One of the key ideas
which came out of this consultation was whether those who feel strongly about
not paying military taxes should be encouraged to form a separate corporation
within the General Conference. To assist churches in their study of the issue
two study guides were published. The Rule of the Sword deals
primarily with facts and concerns related to militarism. The Rule of the
Lamb centers in the sovereignty of God and biblical texts on taxes and
civil authority.
Each of the more than 300 congregations in the GCMC
is being encouraged to prepare a statement to bring to the
conference. It is evident from the sale
of the study guides that a minority of congregations are actually making an
effort to study the issue, although all congregations have received sample
copies of the guides. Many Canadian churches feel the issue is strictly an
American problem, and there is a considerable diversity of conviction and
thought among American congregations. Some congregations do not intend to send
delegates.
What this means for the Minneapolis conference is difficult to assess, except
for one feature. There will be a lot of stirring debate. After
of searching will there be some
resolution of the withholding question? No one is predicting the outcome.
My job is managing public communications for a large organization. In simple
terms, I’m a propagandist — one who, according to my dictionary, spreads
ideas, facts, or allegations deliberately to further a cause.
Interestingly, the root of this widely misunderstood word is in a division of
the Catholic Church established to propagate the faith,
i.e., to ensure that the church membership
continue to be convinced of the church’s teachings and that others might
become so convinced. Church-owned periodicals, such as this one, can thus
rightly (and proudly) be said to be propagandistic.
As a propagandist, I am writing to point out some of the things I see in the
current reporting by the Mennonite press of the war-tax-resistance movement.
Not surprisingly, the reason I am writing is because I do not agree that
resistance, nonviolent coercion or force,
etc., are highly
ethical strategies for Christians or that, specifically, war-tax resistance is
an effective tactic in achieving peace.
Please understand that, while I personally think that war-tax resistance is
getting considerably more than equitable coverage in the Mennonite press, that
is not my point of concern. Rather, it is the aspects of that coverage that I
believe Mennonites should question. These are:
First, source. The articles seem overwhelmingly to originate in the several
information offices of Mennonite boards and agencies. Like me, the authors are
propagandists who, it can be assumed, for whatever reasons, are producing
releases representing their own biases or those of the persons employing them.
Second, style. The articles on tax resistance are written as news stories, not
as expository pieces which are the common vehicle for the expression of both
majority and minority opinions in the Mennonite press.
The last concern, and closely related to the second, is perspective. By
adopting the news-reporting style, the tax-resisting position is presented as
a given, accepted method of Christian witness. This style boldly assumes that
not paying one’s taxes is widely held among Mennonites as Christ’s way, as
well as that tax resistance is a rational means of bringing peace to the
world.
Am I suggesting that Mennonite papers quit giving space to the tax-resistance
movement? Definitely not. Nor, even that such coverage be necessarily reduced.
For, despite my personal feelings, I am interested in the faith of my brothers
and sisters who feel Christ is calling them to resist taxation.
Rather, I’m suggesting that coverage continue, but in the form of exposition,
advocacy, and response; that brothers and sisters who are tax resisters be
invited, even urged, to present the scriptural and other bases of their
convictions and actions. And the same goes for other practitioners of
nonviolent direct action: marching, sitting-in, disruption.
While the rest of us are waiting for these articles to emerge, brother editor,
I would not want to be guilty of demanding that this or any other subject be
suppressed. But, I know at least a few of us wonder sometimes if
demonstrations and acts of resistance are really the most newsworthy events
going on in the Mennonite subdivision of Christ’s kingdom.
Hubert Schwartzentruber with
a commentary
in which he wrote:
It is no secret that our nuclear capabilities have brought the whole world to
the brink of suicide and murder. Yet only a few people are blowing the
trumpets of warning. There is still strong resistance by most Christians even
to think of becoming war tax resisters. There seems to be little urgency to
adopt a lifestyle which would model peace for all the peoples of the earth.
The courage to confront the principalities and powers seems to be lacking.
Was it true that the growing war tax resistance movement in the Mennonite
Church was beginning to lose its momentum?
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).
