Some historical and global examples of tax resistance →
religious groups and the religious perspective →
United Methodist Church
, tax resisters John and Pat Schwiebert are living in “an intentional Christian servant community” and have taken a vow of poverty.
Rev. John Schwiebert’s pension goes directly into the community’s account.
But the IRS is still trying to recover the taxes the Schwiebert’s didn’t pay in (they instead wrote out checks for the amount they were resisting to the Board of Commissioners of Multnomah County, Oregon).
So this month, the IRS levied $1,641.21 from Schwiebert’s monthly pension payment.
The Schwieberts are asking their church, the United Methodist Church, to stop cooperating with this levy.
“It would be strange indeed,” says Rev. Schwiebert, “were the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits to offer nothing more than sympathetic verbal support to one of its own clergy, while actively collaborating with a government agency to penalize that clergy person and his family because they put their non-violent faith into action, based on the denomination’s social principles.”
If the General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits is unwilling to halt its payments to the Internal Revenue Service, the Schwieberts have said that they might voluntarily relinquish more than half of their monthly benefit from the General Board of Pension and health Benefits, for the rest of their lives, if necessary, to bring the benefit below the level that the IRS can legally levy.
Such an action would not be a new thing for the Schwiebert household.
Pat currently works full-time for a stipend of $350 a month, making it impossible for the IRS to collect thousands of dollars in federal taxes which she has redirected to non-profit social service agencies over the past two decades.
Also, for about fifteen years prior to his retirement, John voluntarily served as full time pastor of a United Methodist congregation at a compensation level that provided a less-than-taxable income.
“Civil disobedience can be a costly choice,” says Pat.
“But I can’t imagine the alternative, which would be to tell Jesus we can’t follow him because we care more about money, or because we have decided to obey the demands of a corrupt empire rather the than the clear commands of the Prince of Peace to love our enemies rather than kill them.”
But the Schwieberts clearly would prefer a decision by the General Board, to either engage in its own act of conscientious non-cooperation with the IRS, at least to ask the IRS to rescind the levy on the basis that it is inappropriate for the IRS to demand that a church body serve as its collection agent, especially when issues of religious belief are at stake.
According to the Schwieberts, “The church simply must do more than make statements about its opposition to war, and to such travesties as the current occupation of Iraq.
Our government is able to do such morally repugnant things only because Christians, who are a significant majority in this country, tend to quietly acquiesce to the principalities and powers of the world rather than to the clear call of Jesus Christ.”
As was reported here , the Schwieberts are asking their church’s General Board of Pension and Health Benefits to help them resist the levy.
The agency welcomes a presentation from the Schwieberts during its public forum, according to Colette Nies, communications director for the pension board.
However, the board’s position is that non-compliance with the federal levy could jeopardize the church’s other retirement plans.
“The general board certainly sympathizes with the Schwieberts and admires their personal convictions, but we also have an obligation to balance our sympathies with our fiduciary responsibility to over 44,000 pension plan participants,” Nies said.
[John] Schwiebert told United Methodist News Service that he and his wife have withheld the percentage of tax money they believe is intended for military purposes for about 30 years.
“It was during Vietnam when we realized that we were conscientious objectors,” he said.
Since he was past the draft age at that point, “our conclusion was that our conscientious objection had to take this form.”
At times, the Schwieberts’ savings accounts have been seized and salaries garnished by the IRS.
But more often, the couple deliberately has kept their income low enough to avoid taxes altogether.
When he retired in and started drawing a pension, their income increased.
For more than 20 years, the Schwieberts have lived “in community” with others in the house that serves as the base for the Metanoia Peace Community congregation and its ministries.
His pension benefit is deposited in a communal household account, along with Pat Schwiebert’s $400 monthly stipend as a full-time employee of Grief Watch, a mission of the congregation.
The current IRS levy is for the $7,500 that the government says the couple owes for .
The Schwieberts actually gave an equivalent amount to the Board of Commissioners of Multnomah County in Oregon, although they understood the gift was “an expression of conscience,” not a legal substitution for federal taxes.
“We’re willing to pay taxes; we’re just distressed with the military purposes for which the federal taxes are being used,” he said.
The couple did not file any tax returns for .
“We’ve sort of taken the attitude that we feel like we’re doing the right thing in not paying.”
Last December, Schwiebert received a letter from the pension board informing him of the levy, to begin at the first of the year.
The involuntary deduction takes more than half of the pension payment of about $3,000 a month, he said.
Schwiebert believes there are different legal interpretations over whether the IRS can levy a pension.
He also would like to see the Board of Pension and Health Benefits recognize statements in the denomination’s Social Principles that “reject war as an instrument of national foreign policy” and “assert the duty of churches to support those who suffer because of their stands of conscience represented by nonviolent beliefs or acts.”
“I feel like there is room for conscientious objectors to challenge the system,” he said.
“That’s what we would like to see the board do.”
The Board meets in Hollywood, Florida, to consider the Schwieberts’ proposal.
Back in January, I mentioned the case of John and Pat Schwiebert.
The Schwieberts are war tax resisters, now retired and living on John’s United Methodist Church pension.
The IRS levied this pension and has been demanding that the UMC send some of it to them instead of to the Schwieberts.
The Schwieberts responded by asking the UMC to stop cooperating with the IRS levies.
They cited the “Social Principles” of the UMC, which read in part: “We assert the duty of churches to support those who suffer because of their stands of conscience represented by nonviolent beliefs or acts.”
They asked the church to put some meat on those bones.
The pension agency of The United Methodist Church has sent a letter of protest to the Internal Revenue Service over the U.S. tax agency’s garnishment of a retired clergyman’s pension.
However, the Rev. John Schwiebert says he is disappointed that the only action taken by the United Methodist Board of Pension and Health Benefits is the letter.
The letter objects to the board’s role as “collection agent” while acknowledging “its obligation to obey the law.”
It was signed by Bishop Ben R. Chamness, chairman of the agency’s board of directors.
A check for the levy was enclosed with the letter, which stated: “We forward this amount under protest, however, feeling strongly that the levy forces us to be a collection agent for the IRS in a dispute between the federal government and a church member who is acting out of conscience and long-standing church teaching.”
Noting that The United Methodist Church officially supports conscientious objection to all war, including the payment of taxes for military purposes, the letter pointed out that the money owed by the Schwieberts “are amounts that they quite openly refused to pay because of religiously based conscientious objection to the primary purposes for which the money was to be used, namely U.S. military activity, including the war in Iraq.
“Their recent action is consistent with numerous other conscientious acts of civil disobedience or non-cooperation they have undertaken throughout and for which they have both incurred penalties, including the seizure of personal savings and property,” the letter continued.
“In some years, they have forfeited more than double the amount of the income tax owed because they ‘redirected’ the amounted owed to nonprofit agencies, only to have the IRS seize the same amount plus penalties.”
Because the denomination’s Social Principles support conscientious objection, the levy “has, in essence, coerced the General Board into violating one of the church’s deeply held principles of faith,” the letter declared.
“It has put the General Board in a position of punishing Rev. Schwiebert’s conscience, as opposed to supporting it, as the church so clearly teaches.”
In addition to refusing to withhold taxes from the salaries of tax resisting
employees (see The Picket
Line for ),
employers can also express their solidarity for such resisters by refusing to
comply with salary levies. Here are some examples:
The War Resisters League has a policy of not honoring
IRS
levies against their employees’ salaries. According to
NWTRCC’s guide to organizational war tax resistance, “though the
IRS
continues from time to time to send levies for other employees, they have
not been enforced, and there has been little interaction between the
IRS
and WRL
in recent years.”
Also according to
NWTRCC’s guide,
the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and the Friends Committee on
National Legislation have either resisted levies or established policies
to resist levies should they occur.
The “Fifth Avenue Peace Parade Committee,” which helped fuel the
anti-Vietnam War movement, refused to turn over to the
IRS
the paychecks of Eric Weinberger, a war tax resisting employee.
The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (of Quakers) has a strong and
well-thought-through policy on how to respond to
IRS
levies of the salaries of resisting employees. Excerpt:
If the conscientious, war-tax-resisting employee requests, in the event that
IRS
serves a levy on Yearly Meeting against the salary, wages or other employee
property alleged to be in the Meeting’s possession, Yearly Meeting will
follow the practice approved on and decline to submit to the levy. In refusing, the Meeting will
set forth its belief that military tax resistance is an appropriate
individual expression of the Friends Peace Testimony and that Yearly Meeting
is led, consistent with its most fundamental beliefs, to resist government
efforts to coerce an employee against their conscience in such historic
Friends’ testimonies.
The New York Yearly Meeting (of Quakers) in
approved a statement in which they agreed
that the meeting would refuse to honor salary levies directed at employees
who were refusing taxes for conscientious reasons.
The Baltimore Yearly Meeting of Friends has a similar policy, and responded
to one levy by telling the
IRS:
“The levy would require the Yearly Meeting to act against our employees’
testimony and witness. The Yearly Meeting is not ready to take that
step.”
The Quaker magazine Friends Journal had a policy
against paying such levies, and initially refused to pay $31,343 in taxes,
penalties, and interest, from the salary of its editor, Vinton Deming. The
magazine eventually gave in when it became clear they could not win a legal
challenge to the levy.
The Christian activist group Sojourners has
a policy of refusing to comply with government levies of the salaries of
its employees who are war tax resisters. Sojourners managing director Joe
Roos says, “To date we have been threatened with levies, with the
confiscation of our property, with arrest and prison terms and, most
recently, with the money we refused to turn over being taken out of my
personal account since the
IRS
views me as a ‘responsible person.’ Despite all these threats, the only
action they have taken is to levy our corporate account, taking the amount
they say is still due plus interest, plus penalty.”
When some American Mennonite farmers resisted the Social Security /
Medicare tax, the
IRS
tried to seize the money owed to them by the Amish-run milk cooperatives
they worked through. According to Brad Igou, who documented such resistance
for the Amish Country News, most cooperative
officials refused to comply.
When the
IRS
ordered the First & Summerfield United Methodist Church in New Haven,
Connecticut, to turn over the salary of their war tax resisting minister,
Carl Lundborg, in , the congregation
voted unanimously to refuse.
The
IRS
tried also to get war tax resisting Catholic pastor Cosmas Raimondi’s
parish to turn over his salary to them in
, but the parish council refused, saying
that “[a]lthough we personally do not feel called to war tax resistance
for ourselves, we do support the right of Father Raimondi to make that
decision according to the dictates of his own conscience before God.”
Freund gives a brief overview of the history of conscientious tax resistance
that seems to me to understate it, though it’s possible that in
less evidence was easily available.
[I]t was not until the Vietnam War that tax resistance became a significant form of Christian witness against war.
One of the early Vietnam-era tax resisters was William Faw, a minister of the Church of the Brethren, one of the historic peace churches.
Faw had not come to my attention before, but Freund tells his story as follows:
William Faw: “Here I Stand; I Cannot Do Other”
William Faw was born in in Nigeria where his parents were missionaries for the Brethren Church.
His father took a post teaching at Bethany Seminary, and the family moved to Chicago where Bill grew up.
He went to college in Indiana and then attended the seminary until his graduation in .
While at school Faw was compelled to confront the issue of the draft. “Both my
parents were pacifists so I had decided early on that I would either be a
resister or a conscientious objector; I could not accept a student or
ministerial deferment in good conscience,” explains Faw. Despite his religious
background it still required a two-year battle with the draft board to obtain
his CO
status. By the time he received
CO status
he had a family and was never required to perform alternative service.
He received his first assignment in at the Douglas Park Church of the Brethren, a poor, multiracial community on the West Side of Chicago.
It was during this period that Bill Faw became a tax resister.
Faw explains that decision, saying, “I was a self-employed pastor and my wife was not working so we had control over our tax payments.
Since my wife was also a pacifist, we felt that it was necessary to protest the Vietnam War.
The question was, ‘How can we do this together?’ We spoke with several other Brethren who had been refusing taxes and listened to political leaders who opposed the war.
By early we decided to refuse to pay our taxes in full knowledge that it could lead to criminal punishment.”
When the time came to file their income tax
return, the Faws sent the
IRS a
long letter explaining why there was no check enclosed. Other resisters had
engaged in resistance by refusing even to file a return, but Faw believed that
a religious witness should be made in an open and public manner. The Faws’
letter made clear the personal struggle which accompanied their decision:
We refuse to willingly contribute to a “war machine” which is engaged in the very brutal war in Vietnam… In the past we felt that the ambiguities of tax paying outweighed the war-tax issue.
That is, our government’s expenditures for foreign aid, law enforcement, programs in health, education, and welfare, agriculture, urban redevelopment, and poverty fighting are worthy of support… Events have occurred which lead us to reconsider our responsibilities as citizens.
We feel we can be true to our national citizenship only if we oppose a so-called “non-war” that has not been constitutionally declared.
We feel that we can be true to our international citizenship as spelled out at the Nuremberg Trials only if we disassociate ourselves from and actively protest our unjust, illegal, morally deplorable, aggressive offensive against human beings in Vietnam.
But most basically we feel that we can be true to our Christian discipleship
only if we oppose… the seizure of God’s prerogative by the United States in
attempting to become the philosophical, theological, executive, legislative,
judicial, and policing agency for the entire world; only if we oppose the
exploiting of American “racism” by
A-bombing, napalming,
scatterbombing Asians; only if we oppose the mode of “evangelistic effort”
our nation is making in Vietnam to show the Buddhists what being a
“Christian” nation means…
Thus we are led to withhold our income tax and to seek constructive alternative ways of sharing our income… In God’s name, and under his judgment, we pray that we might choose the best path to make our witness.
…As a result, they chose to donate the tax money to the Canadian Friends Service Committee for the relief of war victims.
They were well aware that some of those victims who would be helped by their money were North Vietnamese and Viet Cong; they believed this action to be consistent with Jesus’ command to “love your enemy.”
The Faws refused to pay their income taxes for the next five years, donating
the funds to various international relief agencies. The Internal Revenue
Service sent an agent to attempt to obtain the taxes directly. When this
failed the
IRS
placed a levy on the Faws’ bank account and was able to collect the back
taxes. The Faws were not threatened with criminal penalties.
Freund says the Faws were also resisting their phone tax, but returned to being taxpayers in the wake of the Paris Peace Accords.
However, as of the writing of the book, they were planning to become resisters again by refusing a percentage of their income tax:
The continuing military buildup, especially nuclear weapons, has led us to resume tax resistance… We are being lulled into accepting more and more.
Johnson tried to give us guns and butter, but Reagan’s policy of sacrificing butter for guns represents a barbaric reversal of priorities.
Freund asked about the practical effectiveness of individual tax resistance.
…Faw conceded that it would be far more powerful if institutions were to openly advocate and practice tax resistance. “If one church did it, even a small one like the Brethren, the Mennonites, or the Quakers, it would have a tremendous impact on some of the liberal mainline denominations,” Faw believes.
However, even the New Call To Peacemaking, a grassroots movement within the historic peace churches begun in , of which Faw was the local chairman for two years, has failed to adopt a position of total resistance to war taxes.
This has been a source of frustration for Bill Faw, but he nevertheless believes in the importance of individual witness, “I would still do it even if no one else did.
There comes a point, with Vietnam or the arms race, where you say, ‘I’m not going to participate in that, no matter what the cost.’ It’s kind of like Martin Luther saying, ‘Here I stand; I cannot do other.’ ”
Freund then briefly described “A Simple Methodology” for Christians who were considering war tax resistance, covering the options of 1) paying taxes under protest, 2) voluntary poverty, 3) refusal to pay.
He then tried to discern what sort of guidance might be found in the Bible, considering the difficult “Render unto Caesar” and “the powers that be are ordained of God” sections in particular.
Then he returns to the problem of the lack of institutional support for war tax
resistance among Christian churches:
War Taxes: Where the Churches Are
Bill Faw and tax attorney William Durland express frustration that the churches, as national institutions, have not taken clear positions in support of tax resistance.
Durland, who counsels tax resisters, says, “Some church body will have to declare that it stands by the Gospel and not by the IRS.
This could have a chain reaction effect and lead to a coalition of churches to make it work.”
What holds them back? According to Faw, many Brethren have expressed “concern
for the biblical ambiguities regarding taxes, concern over the maintenance of
a certain respectability, and fear of the consequences.” Durland is somewhat
more cynical, “The Pope speaks out against war and then honors the Italian
Army.”
What is the position of the churches?
The historic peace churches, representing 400,000 members in the United States, have been discussing the issue since .
In , the Church of the Brethren recommended that, “Although the Brethren cannot agree as to whether tax withholding is proper, they can all recognize the propriety of using the means of dissent which the social order itself recognizes… We recommend that all who feel concern be encouraged to express their protests through letters accompanying their tax returns, whether accompanied by payment or not.” Many employees of these churches have not been satisfied with this position and have urged church agencies to refuse to withhold their federal taxes, a violation of the law.
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), responded by challenging the constitutionality of withholding as an infringement on the right of religious expression.
In the Supreme Court ruled in AFSC v. U.S. that a lower court ruling in favor of the AFSC was invalid and ordered AFSC to continue to withhold.
The AFSC has complied with that order since.
Pressure from employees of the Mennonite Church to refuse to withhold led to the following resolution adopted in , “We request the General Board to engage in a serious and vigorous search to pursue all legal, legislative, and administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector exemption from the legal requirement that the conference withhold income taxes from its employees.”
The New Call to Peacemaking
(NCP), a
more radical caucus within the three peace churches, has gone somewhat
further. In and again in
the
NCP
called upon members of the historic peace churches “to seriously consider
refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes, as a response to
Christ’s call to radical discipleship.” However, attempts to go further and
adopt a position which called “paying for war a sin parallel to the sin of
fighting war” was rejected. As one pastor at the meeting said, “We are calling
my congregation into deep water when they haven’t even gotten their toes wet.”
The mainline Protestant denominations have reacted cautiously or ignored the issue.
There is a growing movement within the Unitarian Universalist Association to take a position in favor of tax resistance.
One of the leaders of this effort is Rev. Philip Zwerling of the First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles.
He says, “Nowhere is military madness more manifest than in the nuclear arms race… and on one day of the year — April 15 — we break down and pay for it all… Is it not moral schizophrenia to blithely pick up the tab for the military mania that we speak out against?
It’s time to put our money where our mouth is.” However, for all the strength of this statement, the denomination as a whole has not adopted this position.
At the General Conference of the United
Methodist Church a resolution was adopted calling for support of those “who
conscientiously object to the payment of taxes for military purposes.” Here,
too, the group stopped short of calling on church agencies themselves to
engage in tax resistance.
Although large numbers of Roman Catholics are engaged in various forms of tax resistance, the church has taken no official position.
According to Father Bryan Hehir, Associate Secretary for International Justice and Peace of the U.S. Catholic Conference, “We have no policy on tax resistance… and I have not adopted a position intellectually on it.” Activist and author Father Daniel Berrigan thinks this position is becoming increasingly untenable, “More and more the question of paying federal taxes is going to become a question of conscience.
The government is stealing money and turning it into blood money.
We’re going to be pushed into a corner on whether we can recognize… our Christianity.”
Freund then recapped the example of (Catholic) Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen.
Excerpts:
Addressing the Pacific Northwest Synod of the Lutheran Church in America… Hunthausen surprised his audience by suggesting what form their action might take, “I would like to share a vision of an action which could be taken: simply this — a sizable number of people in the State of Washington, 5,000, 10,000, a half million people refusing to pay 50 percent of their taxes in nonviolent resistance to nuclear murder and suicide… Form 1040 is the place where the Pentagon enters all of our lives, and asks our unthinking cooperation with the idol of nuclear destruction.
I think the teaching of Jesus tells us to render to a nuclear-armed Caesar what that Caesar deserves — tax resistance.”
Reaction in the community was mixed, but leaders of eight other Christian
denominations in Seattle announced their general support for the stand of the
Archbishop… However, they stopped short of endorsing tax resistance, saying
they would “encourage discussion of tax resistance” and offer support to
“those who refuse to pay taxes in protest of the arms race.”
At the time of his speech the Archbishop openly stated that he himself had not yet refused to pay taxes, but that it was troubling his conscience.
Several months later he acted.
In a pastoral letter published in the Seattle archdiocesan newspaper, Hunthausen declared, “After much prayer, thought, and personal struggle, I have decided to withhold 50 percent of my income taxes as a means of protesting our nation’s continuing involvement in the race for nuclear arms supremacy… I am saying by my action that in conscience I cannot support or acquiesce in a nuclear arms buildup which I consider a grave moral evil.”
…However, Pacific Northwest United Methodist Bishop Melvin Talbert said that “while the city’s ecumenical leadership is supportive of Hunthausen, none has indicated that he or she is prepared to follow suit with similar personal acts of tax resistance.”
Freund ends the chapter with a nod to the World Peace Tax Fund Bill idea, taking it at face value and noting that “[c]hurch support is broad.”
This is the thirtieth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today we continue to work through the early 1980s.
War tax resisters’ hour comes round at last in Bethlehem
On the ongoing issue of tax withholding, GB agreed to submit a resolution to delegates at Bethlehem to “authorize the officers [of the conference] to test the constitutionality of [the tax withholding] requirement… by refusing to serve as tax collectors in cases where individual employees have asked that their federal income taxes not be withheld from their wages, in order that they may conscientiously refuse to pay for war.”
The church which seeks to save her security by following only “legal, legislative and judicial avenues” to salve its war tax conscience will lose her life; the church willing to lose her security in supporting non-registrants for the sake of Christ will find life.
At the triennial sessions, the conference authorized the General Board to initiate a judicial action seeking exemption for the General Conference Mennonite Church from withholding taxes from the income of its employees.
James Gingerich, Duane Heffelbower, Larry Voth, Robert Hull, and Vern Preheim were appointed as a judicial action committee to implement the resolution.
William Ball was engaged as legal counsel.
In , Ball advised the conference that the general climate in the United States, the attitude of the present government administration, and the attitude of the Supreme Court as evidenced by some recent decisions dealing with religious conviction or conscience and taxes were such that the likelihood of the General Conference accomplishing its objectives through a judicial action was virtually nil.
The committee recommended and the General Board concurred to put the judicial action on hold and to bring the matter once again to the conference for further discernment and decision.
A more detailed report and a recommendation from the General Board to the conference that we honor the requests of employees to not withhold taxes on their wages will be sent to the congregations in advance of the triennial sessions.
Throughout , while pursuing judicial action, we also continued to encourage the enactment of World Peace Tax Fund legislation.
An editorial in the edition described the upcoming decision thusly:
At a special midtriennium conference in Minneapolis in , GC delegates voted 1,218 to 134 in favor of urging their General Board to “use all legal, legislative and administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector exemption from the legal requirement that the conference withhold income taxes from the wages of its employees.”
If no solution could be found within three years, the GB was to bring the matter back for further action.
At Estes Park in , a judicial test case on the issue was okayed by a vote of 1,156 to 353.
Bethlehem will bring GC delegates face to face with the fact that all three avenues, at present, look like dead ends.
As a result, the GB is proposing that the conference stop withholding taxes from salaries of employees who request such action in order to “assert the higher claim of Christ’s law of love.”
If approved, the resolution would take the conference one small but significant step into the sphere of divine obedience/civil disobedience.
It could become the most formidable — and challenging — business item for GCs, despite the fact that several other organizations have already taken the same action.
In advance of the Bethlehem gathering, the text of the proposed resolution was released in the pages of The Mennonite:
Among the resolutions for consideration by delegates at the General Conference Mennonite Church Triennial Sessions… is a formal action authorizing conference officers to stop withholding taxes from the salaries of its employees as required by U.S. law.
It also encourages Canadian Mennonites to obtain relief from the same requirement by Revenue Canada.
The conference’s General Board… will bring the "Resolution on Faithful Action Toward Tax Withholding" to Bethlehem delegates as their recommendation for resolving the moral dilemma which church officials feel they are facing.
If approved, the resolution could take the conference into divine obedience/civil disobedience.
Thus we urge our governments to sharply reduce military spending and use our resources for life-affirming purposes.
Furthermore, just as conscientious objectors have received exemption from military service, we also seek legislation exempting conscientious objectors from paying taxes for military purposes.
Thus we continue to work in the United States for passage for the World Peace Tax Fund Act and in Canada for the Peace Tax Fund, which would allow individuals to designate all of their federal taxes for peaceful purposes.
Both the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and Revenue Canada require the General Conference Mennonite Church to violate the consciences of its employees who are conscientious objectors to paying taxes for military purposes.
In the United States, we have thoroughly explored all legislative, administrative and judicial avenues for obtaining a conscientious objector exemption to these withholding requirements, as we resolved at the Minneapolis midtriennium conference.
Our explorations have convinced us there is no likelihood of relief in the near future for conscientious objectors to military taxes.
The time has come when, like Peter and the apostles, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
In Canada, equally thorough explorations of similar avenues for seeking a conscientious objection from withholding requirements have not yet been accomplished.
We commend the “Resolution on Security and Disarmament” of the Canadian Mennonite Conference in and the work of the Canadian Tax Task Force under the sponsorship of MCC Canada Peace and Social Concerns.
We encourage Canadian congregations to continue study of materials made available on the issue of military taxes.
As delegates to the triennial sessions of the General Conference Mennonite Church, we therefore:
Authorize the conference officers to test the constitutionality of the withholding requirements in the United States and to assert the higher claim of Christ’s law of love by refusing to serve as tax collectors in cases where individual employees have asked that their federal income taxes not be withheld from their wages in order that they may conscientiously refuse to pay for war preparations.
These employees will be treated similarly to the way General Conference treats ordained ministers, i.e. as self-employed persons, in that their earnings will be reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, but no federal income tax withheld.
We request that the Conference of Mennonites in Canada consider means to obtain relief from Revenue Canada withholding requirements as these apply to General Conference Mennonite Church employees.
We shall inform the U.S. government of this act of conscientious objection to their withholding requirements.
We shall again urge them to provide exemption from these requirements and exemption for people of peacemaking conscience from military use of their tax money.
At this moment of decision we commit ourselves to surround with our prayers the General Conference staff and government officials who will be involved in this action and all those individuals who refuse in conscience to pay taxes for war preparations, however costly their witness may be.
Jim Gingerich of Moundridge, Kan., chairperson of the conference’s judicial action committee, reported that the suit against the IRS approved at Estes Park was, in the opinion of constitutional lawyer William Ball, almost certain to fail.
Little progress was being made on the legislative or administrative fronts either.
In light of this, the General Board was recommending that the conference honor the consciences of its employees who request that their full salaries be paid to them, allowing the employees themselves to remit to the IRS what their consciences would allow.
After Robert Hull, secretary for peace and justice, had reviewed the experiences of other groups which had attempted similar actions, Duane Heffelbower of Reedley, Calif., outlined the points of the resolution in detail and spoke of their possible ramifications.
“We could scarcely devise a softer velvet glove to cast at the feet of the IRS,” he said.
“But the action does show our corporate willingness to stand beside our employees.
What will the government do?
We don’t know.”
What followed was probably the most vigorous interchange of viewpoints by GC delegates of the entire week.
Nearly two dozen speakers took their turns at the mikes before the vote was called for.
Viewpoints on the resolution ran the gamut from disassociation with it to praising God for it.
“We believe that the Bible says we ought to pay our taxes.
We want to be separated from and not have any part of this action,” said Paul Goossen, Wayland, Iowa.
“This resolution is creating an impossible situation for our government,” added John Voth of Meno, Okla. “We have emphasized that we love our enemy.
I wonder whether the government has become our enemy.
Have we adopted the same big-stick approach that we so often have criticized?”
Others, however, urged the conference to push ahead with the proposed action.
“Mennonites took a stand against slavery even though it was unpopular,” said Mark Winslow, Allentown, Pa.
“Today, the nuclear arms race is the primary social sin of our day.
We should take a stand regardless of the fact that it may be unpopular.”
Lois Barrett, Wichita, Kan., observed that “in the U.S., disobeying the law is the time-honored way of changing the law,” noting that the cause of civil rights in was advanced primarily through civil disobedience.
H.A. Fast of North Newton, Kan., prompted the only round of applause during the lengthy discussion.
“We refuse our selves in service, but we say nothing about our taxes,” Fast said.
“I have said to the government, ‘You can’t take my body to fight a war.’ I have said, ‘You can’t take my son.’ And now I am saying, ‘You can’t take my money, either.’ ”
When it was over and the ballots counted, the resolution passed by a 70 percent majority. [1,128 to 457]
One of the characteristic features of the discussion on tax withholding, as well as other debates during the week, was the sensitivity and willingness to listen with which delegates approached the microphones.
Several told of how they had come to the convention ready to vote one way, but were now moved to vote another.
Phrases such as “I want to respect your point of view…” or “I’m willing to learn more…” preceded many of the speeches.
And the tough debates of Bethlehem, during which emotions ran high and convictions deep, never seemed to overshadow the determination by participants to celebrate their common identity, their peoplehood, their unity.
After the convention, many attributed that prevailing unity to the moving of the Spirit.
Delegates at the conference were treated to a performance of The Plow and the Sword, a musical about American Mennonites during the Revolutionary War who disputed whether or not it was proper to pay taxes to the rebellious Continental Congress.
“The play’s content was powerfully pertinent to the delegates meeting at Bethlehem who discussed present-day responses to war taxes.”
Acting on the basis of a resolution adopted by General Conference delegates at Bethlehem , conference treasurer Ted W. Stuckey on issued the first paychecks on which federal income taxes were not withheld.
Seven employees of the denomination’s central offices made the request that the taxes not be withheld, so that they can remit to the IRS personally the amount of federal taxes their consciences will allow, given the U.S. government’s high rate of military spending.
Those making the request were Robert Hull, secretary for peace and justice; Lynn Keenan, Mennonite Voluntary Service associate director; Paula Diller Lehman, secretary for youth education; Fred Loganbill, assistant for peace and justice; John Sommer, overseas personnel secretary; Meribeth Sprunger, secretary for mission communications; and Elizabeth Yoder, general editor.
Several others have indicated that they may be willing to take part in the action at a later date.
Stuckey said that, beginning with the paychecks, the seven will have state and social security taxes deducted but be treated like self-employed persons as far as federal income taxes are concerned.
Under such a classification, they would be required to submit quarterly estimated tax payments to the IRS.
The seven plan to make a portion of those quarterly payments but put the balance — the amount they feel they cannot voluntarily pay because of high U.S. military spending — into a special account at General Conference central offices.
Stuckey and general secretary Vern Preheim informed Commissioner Roscoe L. Egger, Jr., at IRS headquarters in Washington by letter of the conference’s action, the motivation of employees for requesting the procedure, the reasons for the church’s granting the requests, the identities of the seven employees and the location of the account to which the IRS may initiate collection procedures.
“We’re trying to be completely open and above board with them about this matter,” he said.
Copies of the letter were also sent to IRS offices in Wichita, Kan., and Austin, Texas, as well as to state and federal legislators.
The pay period is the first opportunity for the conference to implement the “Resolution on Faithful Action Toward Tax Withholding” adopted by delegates to a churchwide convention in Bethlehem, Pa., on .
There, conferees voted 1,128 to 457 to “authorize the conference officers to test the constitutionality of the withholding requirements in the United States and to assert the higher claim of Christ’s law of love, by refusing to serve as tax collectors in cases where individual employees have asked that their federal income taxes not be withheld from their wages, in order that they may conscientiously refuse to pay for war preparations.[”]
Miscellany
A note in the edition mentioned that the Historic Peace Church Task Force on Taxes had decided to go all-in on the World Peace Tax Fund bill, promoting “dunamis groups which approach congresspersons in a spirit of compassion rather than confrontation… to obtain a dozen more co-sponsors for the WPTF bill in the coming year.”
The edition noted that “MCC U.S. Peace Section has put together a War Tax Packet, designed to equip individuals and groups with a variety of resources for study on the question of paying taxes for war.
Cost is $2.”
The edition included a profile of Cornelia “Nellie” Lehn, whose war tax resistance became the focus for much of the debate that overtook the General Conference Mennonite Church.
It summarized this as follows:
Nellie was… dealing personally with the perplexing issue of war taxes.
She liked to read Bible verses that say to pay your taxes, but began to wonder why she did not concentrate equally on those saying to love your enemies and put your sword away.
Finally she felt she could not pay that part of her taxes going to war purposes and asked the General Conference office not to withhold any of her salary for taxes.
“The time comes when you have to cut through all the complexity and be obedient,” she says, reminiscent of her stand earlier in life.
At the triennium she stated her views.
The conference continues to work on this issue even today.
I’m surprised I haven’t come across this amusing example of war tax resistance outreach before:
Mennonites in Harrisonburg, Va., gathered on to attach over $300 to about 75 helium-filled balloons.
Each balloon, in addition to a five- or ten-dollar bill, carried a note from a participant explaining why he or she had withheld the money from current income taxes.
“Because we are Christians who are trying to follow the peaceful way of Jesus, we cannot support this country’s military build-up,” said many of the notes.
“Instead, we have chosen to ‘waste’ our money in a more constructive way.”
Participants read Scripture, sang, danced, prayed, confessed their sins, and clowns passed out jelly beans as the balloons rose.
The shift of focus to “Peace Tax Fund” legislation would aggravate a decline in interest in real war tax resistance in the General Conference Mennonite Church that continues to the present day.
Clearly, some Mennonites perceived this danger, as Robert Hull wrote an article to defend the push for such a law:
An argument by some war tax resisters is that any peace tax fund is a means for conscientious objectors to salve their conscience with regard to diverting their own taxes, and that this provision then will encourage such COs to be quiet and passively accept the warmaking of governments which will continue more efficiently without their dissent.
When I have explored this argument, I almost invariably discover that the war tax resister speaking is drawing upon an analogy made with the 20th-century U.S./Canadian history of conscientious objection to military service.
The Civilian Public Service camps of World War Ⅱ by and large had this “quietistic” effect.
However, it should be noted that the provision for COs in World War Ⅱ came about because the government remembered the difficulties it had encountered with historic peace church resisters in World War Ⅰ.
Similar spokespersons on the eve of World War Ⅱ stated their convictions to “draw the line” again if acceptable provisions were not made.
But even during World War Ⅱ, the legal criteria for CO classification in the United States were broadened by the Supreme Court to include all religious objectors, then during the Vietnam War to include people holding a belief equivalent to that in a Supreme Being (Seeger, ), and later to all people morally, ethically or religiously opposed to all war (Welsh, ).
In the draft registration debate in , projections by the Selective Service of future CO claimants extended to 40 percent of all registrants.
It seems reasonable to conclude that at least one cause for this large increase in the potential CO population is a result of the public visibility of thousands of young men performing alternative service during the Vietnam War.
The recent response of the U.S. Selective Service to its own projections has been to develop plans for CO alternative service which seek to once more “contain” the CO visibility by centralizing the program under direct Selective Service administration in order to meet military mobilization priorities.
This policy is in turn quite likely to produce non-cooperators who will have registered but then find that such an alternative service program is unacceptable to their conscience.
A significant number of such non-cooperators would increase the already more than 500,000 draft-eligible young men who have not registered.
Twentieth-century CO history has lodged anomalous laws within the government structures.
That is, if these laws are interpreted by relatively tolerant regulations, the CO population may grow uncontrollably large; if the laws are interpreted by repressive regulations, the number of non-cooperators may grow uncontrollably.
Now let’s pursue this analogy with regard to peace tax legislation and war tax resistance.
I am convinced that Parliament or Congress will never enact peace tax legislation until the war tax resistance movement grows so large that such laws come to be viewed as an expedient accommodation, as Civilian Public Service was viewed on the eve of World War Ⅱ.
But several differences between the two are significant.
Bear in mind that peace tax legislation provides for the taxpayer to claim he or she is a CO and that the burden of the challenge and rebuttal lies upon the government.
Additionally, peace tax legislation’s provision for income tax forms and information materials to describe the military proportion of the federal budget in some detail will ensure that a far greater percentage of the taxpayers become aware of the peace tax alternative than the percentage of draft-age men who were made aware by the government of the CO alternative from World War Ⅱ through Vietnam.
Finally, the peace tax legislation provides for the diversion of CO taxpayers’ “military taxes” into a trust fund.
This is intended to result in a direct drain out of the general treasury available for war preparations.
Thus the peace tax legislation further raises people’s consciousness.
If peace trust funds in the United States and Canada are administered as the legislation intends, many millions of people will choose to support peacemaking alternatives to conflict rather than supporting warmaking preparations, and a “democracy of defense” may develop: those who rely on military weapons can pay for them without coercing the contributions of those who place their reliance upon other alternatives.
If the CO eligibility criteria are interpreted too restrictively, or inaccurate portrayals of the military proportion of the federal budget are published, or CO taxpayers’ funds are demonstrably rechanneled into the warmaking treasury, then increased numbers of informed citizens may respond with direct tax resistance.
The government will thus have on its hands another significant anomalous law, one by which millions of citizens can measure the government’s tendency to override their democratic rights in its clearing of the path toward war.
This then is the educational strategy behind the peace tax effort as I see it.
The legislation will reach millions of people with the message that there are alternatives to paying for the war system.
It will provide a step which millions of citizens can take, and whose aggregate pressure for peacemaking will be enormous, without overwhelming risk to the individual taxpayer.
After all, it is at least in part the risk involved in war tax refusal which keeps it an infinitesimally small protest movement in the total population.
I hope that thousands of active peacemakers will heed the call to war tax refusal and that the pressure for peace upon the warmaking tendencies of government will grow.
As it does, I believe it will prove disastrous if the peacemaking community has no legislative proposal to put forward which will secure as much of the “democracy of defense” goal as possible, and to which the government can turn as an accommodation.
The Church of the Brethren has long supported members who conscientiously object to the payment of war taxes.
Some members wish to refuse to pay taxes but are unable to because the taxes are withheld by their employers.
The delegates approved a paper that gives guidance to church institutions whose employees request, for reason of conscience, that their taxes not be withheld.
The annual conference recommended that all legal possibilities be explored first but affirmed civil disobedience for both individuals and institutions when it is a matter of conscience.
A United Methodist congregation in New Haven, Conn., backing their pastor’s right to refuse paying federal taxes for military use, has declined to turn over his salary to the Internal Revenue Service.
Carl Lundbord [sic], pastor of First and Summerfield United Methodist Church, has withheld federal income taxes in both and , telling the IRS his “obligations as a Christian and as a citizen are no longer reconcilable.
The 50 percent of my taxes that support the military I cannot pay.” IRS ordered the church to withhold the pastor’s salary until the amount was paid.
But church members voted on to reject IRS’s demand.
Our ancestors migrated to the United States so that they would not be forced to participate in European wars.
Eventually this government respected their deeply held beliefs about peacemaking and granted them the right to register as conscientious objectors.
Today we find ourselves in a technological age in which our money is more useful to the military than our bodies.
So we are being forced by law to participate financially in the preparation for war, which violates the biblical command to love our neighbors as ourselves.
When Caesar’s demands conflict with God’s, we cannot blindly obey our government.
These words from John S. and Sara L. Wengerd’s letter to the Internal Revenue Service echo the convictions of nearly 60 individuals and families who chose to contribute to Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Peace Section in lieu of paying a portion of their income taxes that would have been used for military purposes.
For some, the contribution was a symbolic amount, such as $7.77.
For others, it equaled the 36 to 54 percent of their tax dollars that would have financed military activity.
That portion is commonly referred to as a “military tax” or a “war tax.”
In another case, a couple’s taxes had already been withheld by the Internal Revenue Service, so they donated an amount equal to their military taxes, which they had already paid.
In all cases, these individuals felt that silent compliance with the tax collection process would be a violation of their consciences and religious convictions against killing and participating in war in any way.
Many noted that their dilemma of conscience could be ameliorated by passage of the World Peace Tax Fund (WPTF) Act…
Meanwhile, the federal government is attempting to crack down on various types of tax protests.
People who object to paying taxes for military purposes may face stiff penalties designed to deter those trying to evade tax collection or destroy the tax system.
The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of instituted an automatic $500 penalty for individuals filing “frivolous” tax returns.
The penalty can apply to people who take unallowable deductions, credits or exemptions or give incomplete information on their tax returns.
Those taking “war tax” deductions or credits or claiming an excessive number of exemptions to reduce their tax liability could be subject to the new fine.
Several conscientious military tax resisters have received notices from the Internal Revenue Service that the penalty has been imposed, according to the May–June issue of Center Peace, the news journal of the Center on Law and Pacifism.
Robert Hull, peace and justice secretary for the General Conference Mennonite Church, suggests that conscientious objectors to military taxation take steps to distinguish their non-payment of military taxes from secular tax protests and evasion schemes.
If taxpayers correctly compute and report the amount owed and indicate in an attached letter that they cannot with a clear conscience pay the military-related portion, their tax returns will go directly to the Internal Revenue Service Collection Division instead of to the overloaded Audit Division.
Hull suggests that this action be accompanied with letters to legislators to communicate the religious and moral grounds for such action, and to demonstrate the need for remedial legislation such as the World Peace Tax Fund.
Bill Samuel, member of the WPTF steering committee, suggests that taxpayers write a contract on the back of their check to IRS stating that deposit of the check constitutes a legally binding agreement (contract) that the money will not be used for military purposes.
Courts have held that contractual checks involving private parties are legally binding, but it is uncertain whether or not IRS would abide by the contract.
John R. Dyck
A article profiled Canadian war tax resister John R. Dyck.
Excerpts:
All his life, John R. Dyck of Rosthern, Sask., has been a law-abiding citizen.
He’s never been to court.
But he expects that to change when Revenue Canada catches up with him for non-payment of taxes.
Dyck is one of a small but growing band of Canadians who are refusing to pay the portion of their income taxes they feel is designated for the military.
Instead, they are calling for an alternative “peace tax fund” which would use their tax money for peaceful purposes.
Since that alternative does not exist and Dyck withheld 10.5 percent of his taxes for and for , he expects a court order to arrive eventually.
John R. Dyck is not a young radical defying authority.
Officially he is retired (though not willingly or inactively) and has given the better part of the past two decades to service with the Mennonite Central Committee, Mennonite Foundation and the MCC Food Bank.
A sudden stroke forced him to slow down over a year ago, but he has recovered and calls it “a real miracle.”
Now he can go on serving, and he places military tax resistance in that category.
The decision did not come easily or hastily.
“I don’t know where it (a conviction) began,” he commented during an interview at this year’s annual meeting of MCC Canada in Saskatoon.
He had come to listen to the discussion and spend time with his brother and fellow peace-seeker, Peter J.
He remembers that “Cornelia Lehn made us sit up and think” in .
John began with his tax return, filed while the Dycks were in Jordan under MCC and able to observe firsthand the effects of military exploitation.
He sent two checks to Revenue Canada, asking that the smaller one be used only for peaceful development work.
He heard nothing further and assumed that both checks flowed into government coffers.
Along with his tax return he sent only a letter of concern.
But with his return he again enclosed two checks, one for Revenue Canada and a second made out to the Peace Tax Fund.
Revenue Canada replied that such a fund did not exist (legally) and demanded payment in full.
Dyck then sent the check to the Victoria, B.C.-based Peace Tax Fund and began correspondence with government officials to explain why.
“I want to do things correctly and openly,” he says.
Now Dyck is expecting a day in court.
It is bound to come, since Revenue Canada wants his money and must obtain a court order before garnisheeing his account at the Rosthern Credit Union.
The sooner the better, he adds, since it may help establish a right of conscience that would allow other people to divert their hard-earned tax money from bombs to working for peace.
He also hopes to find a sympathetic lawyer to handle the case.
“I think a lot of people would rather not talk to me about it,” he says, summing up the reaction to his protest.
So far, any criticism has been muted, though one friend told him, “I admire you for it, but you’re wrong.”
Paula, his wife, is supportive, but most fellow members at Rosthern Mennonite Church are either uninformed or indifferent.
John R. Dyck firmly believes, “We don’t need the military.”
The threat of nuclear war hanging over the world means Christians must resist militarism with renewed vigor.
“I see this (nuclear holocaust) coming and we’re accountable.
The handwriting is on the wall.”
Dyck adds that there is a growing network of people asking about the peace tax fund, though the actual number withholding taxes is still small.
(Ernie Hildebrand, a teacher at the Swift Current (Sask.) Bible Institute, is another Mennonite who is doing so.)
“But people must think this through carefully,” Dyck concludes.
“You can’t legislate a thing like this… I’m glad the Lord led us to this position.”
As the General Conference pushed ahead with its support of war tax resisting employees, with the blessing of the majority of conferees, the U.S. “Peace Section” seemed more reluctant to take a stand, at its meeting. From the edition:
While agreeing that the church has an important role to play in saying no to preparations for [nuclear war], the members struggled with the place of military tax resistance as a method of saying no.
Several members observed that the constituency is “not of one mind on this matter,” while Darrel Brubaker of Philadelphia, Brethren in Christ representative, urged that “here is one place we need to be leaders more than representatives.”
After the matter was tabled overnight for further reflection, the group affirmed a recommendation commending the General Conference for the serious attention it has given the issue and urging churches to work more diligently at the process of prayerful discernment of their response to this issue.
The resolution also strongly encouraged constituents to initiate further action in support of the World Peace Tax Fund bill, which would provide a legal alternative to the payment of taxes for military purposes.
War tax resister Don Schrader wrote in on to insist that Mennonites can best criticize revolutionary and other violence if they are careful not to support violence with their taxes:
Until our nonviolence becomes revolutionary, revolutions will be violent.
[A]s long as well-fed U.S. pacifists pay war taxes to support the imminent nuclear terror and mass murder of our planet and the dictatorial repression of Central America, what integrity do we have in questioning or condemning those peasants’ use of violence for survival.
To be peacemakers in this perilous age, we must refuse to pay war taxes, we must renounce all materialism which breeds militarism, and we must denounce foreign policy regardless of the risks for our community standing and employment.
Over four years ago I confronted the question “How can I speak for peace and pay for war,” and I became a war tax resister.
This is the twenty-first in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
In there was a lot of discussion of war tax
resistance, and a lot of individual Mennonite war tax refusal and redirection,
but Mennonite Church institutions seemed more reluctant than their General
Conference to take corporate stands supporting their war tax refusing
employees.
The issue brought an update
in the case of a Mennonite war tax resister who was fighting his case in court:
Bruce Chrisman of Ava, Ill.,
a General Conference Mennonite who was convicted on
of failure to file an income tax return in ,
was sentenced on
to one year in Mennonite Voluntary Service.
Chrisman is a war-tax resister. He believes conscientious objectors should be
exempt on First Amendment grounds from paying that portion of federal income
tax that supports the military.
Judge J. Waldo Ackerman of the
U.S. District Court
in Springfield,
Ill. ordered the unusual
sentence, giving Mennonite Voluntary Service
(MVS)
staff 30 days to work out a program with Chrisman.
“I’m amazed,” said Chrisman. “I feel very good about the sentence. The
alternative service is probably the first sentence of its kind for a tax case.
I think it reflects the testimony in the trial and its influence on the
judge.” Chrisman could have been sentenced to one year in prison and a $10,000
fine.
Chrisman and his wife, Mary Anne, and two-year-old daughter, Venessa, live on
a small farm near Ava. Plans are for them to join
MVS
as a family. They will remain in their home community and engage in prison
ministries and peace education work along with their farming. Charles Neufeld,
regional
MVS
administrator, is working with the Chrismans and local support committee
headed by Ted Braun, pastor of United Church of Christ in Carbondale,
Ill., to give guidance to
this ministry.
At the trial Bob Hull, Jim Dunn, and
Peter Ediger joined with Chrisman in testifying to Christian conviction
against warfare, including payment of taxes for support of war. When the
prosecution cross-examined Chrisman from the Bible they also called Ediger as
a trial witness. Ediger, who is director of Mennonite Voluntary Service,
articulated Mennonite pacifist beliefs and how the tax code infringes on the
First Amendment rights to religious pacifists.
Dunn, who is pastor of the First Mennonite Church in Champaign-Urbana
(Ill.), was a character
witness. Hull, secretary for peace and social concerns of the General
Conference Mennonite Church, and Ediger testified about Mennonite beliefs
during the earlier pretrial hearing.
An appeal of the case has been filed by Chrisman’s attorney, Jeffrey Weiss,
not to contest the sentence, but to test the court’s rulings denying relevance
of First Amendment rights in this case. Persons interested in helping with
court costs may contact the General Conference Mennonite Church, Commission on
Home Ministries…
The Chrismans are ready to share their faith and concerns for peacemaking in
their community and beyond. Persons or churches interested may write them at
Route 2, Ava, IL 62907.
A prayer for believers who voluntarily pay war taxes: “Father, forgive them,
even though they know very well what they are doing.” ―from Daniel Slabaugh, a
conscientious objector to voluntary payment of war taxes, pastor of the Ann
Arbor (Mich.) Mennonite
Church.
Elam Lantz, currently residing in Washington, spoke on “First Amendment
Religious Freedom.” He spoke at some length on the “free exercise” phrase as
some have tried to apply it to war-tax resistance.
[T]he board responded to an inquiry from James Longacre, Mennonite Church
representative on
MCC
Peace Section
(U.S.). Longacre
sought counsel on whether Peace Section should approve a proposal for advocacy
of “war tax” resistance. The Board acknowledged that there is a lack of
consensus on the subject in the church and counseled caution, urging
sensitivity toward those who hold to different practices.
In a controversial decision, the bishop board reported that “after careful
consideration… we do not support promoting participation in a war tax
resistance campaign.”
Calling on congregations to stand with draft-age young people in a costly
peace witness, meeting participants urged “a stronger stand” in resistance to
the payment of taxes for military purposes and called for “increased
participation in existing and expanded service programs by young and old
alike.”
An commentary by Michael Shank
and Richard Kremer pushed Mennonites to take a stand with their taxes, if only
a small, symbolic one:
During the past year, the Mennonite congregation of Boston has felt a growing
concern about the enormous military expenditures of our government and about
our silence as a church. Events of the past months — Americans increasing
demands for military intervention to “solve” the stalemate in Iran, the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan, and President Carter’s requests for sharply increased
military spending, for opening new military bases near the Middle East, for
restoring draft registration — have made us realize, yet again, how close a
nation ostensibly “at peace” can be to war.
, we spent several meetings
discussing militarism and war taxes so that our congregational representative
could speak for us at the General Conference Mennonite Church consultation on
war taxes held in . Since that
time we have been grappling with our responses to the war tax issue, both as
individuals and as a congregation.
Why do we think this issue is so important? First we assume that as Mennonites
our commitment to reconciliation and our refusal to participate in war-related
activities remain fundamental to our understanding of the gospel. In this
respect, we remain in continuity with the conscientious objection to war
voiced by our predecessors, particularly during World War Ⅰ and the wars which
followed.
Although this commitment has not changed in any fundamental way, the world
situation in which we find ourselves is significantly different from that of
our parents and grandparents. Until very recently, manpower appeared to be the
crucial ingredient for war. Since we could not in good conscience participate
in war, we objected to the government’s demands for our military service. This
stance led to the imprisonment of Mennonites and other conscientious objectors
during World War Ⅰ, and later to alternative service legislation during World
War Ⅱ.
During , however, the
character of warfare has changed in drastic ways. The threats to human life
and peace presented by large armies, unfortunately, have been completely
dwarfed by nuclear weapons, which our country did not hesitate to use on an
earlier occasion. These weapons of large-scale and indiscriminate death
presently exist in quantities sufficient to destroy all human life many times
over, and the stockpiles continue to grow.
Under such circumstances, the military branches of our government no longer
need our bodies as badly as they need our money and our silence. Every year
they need new funds:
to research, develop, and test more accurate and efficient means of
carrying bombs to their targets;
to produce, deploy, and maintain these weapons;
to train technicians to use them; and
to attract, recruit, and pay people who presently “volunteer”
for the armed forces.
All of these activities take place without our direct participation (unless,
of course, the draft is cranked up again); none of them could take place
without money. These expenditures are authorized by our representatives and
paid for by the taxes we contribute.
In contrast to the Roman Christians to whom Paul wrote, we have alternatives
beyond silent submission or open revolt. Our government expects its citizens
to voice their concerns. Our constitution and laws have provided channels for
doing so. These include, among others, communications to representatives, and
provisions for challenging bad laws by testing their validity
(e.g., by refusing to comply so that a higher
court will need to examine the law). Under such circumstances, our government
and representatives can be expected to interpret our silence, both as
individuals and as a church, in only two ways: either we approve of their
policies, or we do not care.
Many in our congregation are convinced that the biblical teachings and
arguments which led Mennonites to the conscientious objector position in World
War Ⅰ (when this position was not legal) and in World War Ⅱ (when it was) lead
us also to object to the use of our tax dollars for weapons of mass
destruction. The quiet payment of war taxes today is as inconsistent with the
spirit of Jesus life and teachings as the act of joining the army was earlier
(and indeed still is). The same concern for obedience today demands a response
suited to the new circumstances into which military developments have placed
us.
There is yet another reason why we must voice our concerns. Many of us would
undoubtedly make use of the World Peace Tax Fund, if such an option were
presently open to us. But how will we honestly be able to call ourselves
conscientious objectors to war taxes in the future (if and when such a
possibility becomes legal) if we raise no objections whatsoever now? What
grounds will the government have for believing our sincerity if it has no
record of our past objections either as a church or as individuals?
, a number of our members took the
symbolic step of withholding $10 from their income tax payments and forwarding
this amount to the Mennonite Central Committee. Others included letters with
their tax returns protesting use of their tax monies for military purposes. We
plan to reconsider our tax-paying responsibilities as
approaches once again. We
encourage other Mennonite congregations to join with us in seeking to build
peaceful relations among all peoples and nations and to denounce the tendency
to solve world problems solely through military might.
D.R. Yoder wrote a
letter to the editor
in response, rejecting war tax resistance for lack of scriptural support.
Seminar participants elected workshops, Saturday afternoon on organizing
public peace witness, war tax alternatives, the draft and conscientious
objectors, and the arms race and the economy.
The Mennonite brotherhood stands firmly on the position that Christians should
not serve in the military. The basic reason for this position is that the
military is a force and a power of destruction, and it cannot be brought
together with the role of a servant as we understand the call to commitment in
the New Testament. To avoid military service in various countries and
centuries Mennonites have used different methods. Substitutes have been hired,
men have refused to serve and have been imprisoned and killed. Since the
1940s, Mennonites have been excused from serving and have been allowed to do
alternative service.
The methods of fighting wars and being a power have changed greatly since the
1600s. World War Ⅰ and most of World War Ⅱ were fought with the same methods
as for thousands of years, that method being vast numbers of men and hand
weapons.
World Wars Ⅰ and Ⅱ also brought new ideas and methods to the “act of
war”: the fighter plane and the bomber, that now destroys women, children, and
the old who are not in the military through the bombing of cities; tanks and
rockets and (the thing that ended the war with Japan) the atomic bomb, not by
destroying or defeating the army, but by destroying two cities and killing old
people, women, and children. War and power are not measured today so much by
the number of men carrying a rifle but by the number of atomic bombs, tanks,
bombers, jet fighters, aircraft carriers, submarines, other ocean vessels, and
even computers.
War is fought today not so much with men but with machines. I believe that
this change in war methods also calls for a change in the way we as Christians
respond. We need to refuse to serve, as we have done in the past, but we also
need to refuse to support the war machine with our material resources.
President Carter has recently asked for a large increase in military spending.
Since the peak of the Vietnam War in , the
amount spent on military in the
U.S. has gone from
$77.3 billion to the $142.0 billion projected for
. What is or should be our response as
followers of the Prince of Peace? Do we continue to pay our taxes without
speaking out against or doing something about the insanity of war and the
terrible waste of money and natural resources, to say nothing of the potential
for destruction? What should be a Christian response to the enormous spending
for the military? I will not argue with the right of the state to determine
its own course, but I believe that we as Christians have a responsibility to
decide whether we participate with the state in destructive goals.
My wife and I have attempted since the early 1970s to avoid supporting the war
machine by not paying income taxes. We have not withheld payment from the
government but have used another method that has been taught in our
fellowship. I must say, we have not been 100 percent successful with our
method. In the last six years we have paid small amounts of income tax of
under $100 for two or three years, one year we paid a larger sum and the other
years we paid nothing.
This method is adaptable to just about everyone and is very legal. We
have attempted to reduce our income below taxable levels by giving it to the
work of the church and deducting it from our income taxes as an itemized gift.
This method has two very positive goals; the first, it gives needed money to
the mission and service programs of the Mennonite Church and, second, it
speaks out against our consumeristic society because we have to learn to get
by on less than normal in the line of material possessions, but usually still
more than we actually need.
The second goal is difficult to fulfill. We find out continually how our
society has an influence on our lives. Simple living is not easy to
accomplish, but by reducing our incomes we can speak out forcefully against
the excess consumption and the senseless military spending. I believe that our
money is an extension of ourselves, that is, when we give money to
MCC
or a mission in the Mennonite Church we are in reality there working, where
that money is being used. In the same way when we give money to the government
for taxes and the government buys and builds weapons of destruction, we are
there too, every bit as much as on the mission field. Can you imagine the
force for good and the amount of work that could be done in the world today if
the people in our brotherhood would reduce their income in an attempt to defer
support of war through giving to our church missions and relief organizations?
The decision is yours and mine whether we want to further the kingdom of God
or give our money to the building of a war machine. Let us seek the Lord and
seek broader counsel in our brotherhood for the answer on how to be faithful
today.
A letter to the editor,
from Jon Byler () also promoted
the simple living technique:
Why, when the Lord Jesus spoke so clearly about the dangers of wealth, and
when we have so many people seeking ways to avoid supporting the military
machine, has this been overlooked? If we are willing to reduce our standard of
living to help our brothers, we can speak positively against the consumer
waste, materialism, and disposable society; we can similarly be in complete
obedience to all the laws, and still refuse to support a military machine that
we all believe is wrong. I realize this is easier for myself, being young (25)
and single, but I am happy to say that I have never paid a single
cent that was used to bomb innocent children or to burn their homes, or to
support political torture by our “allies.”
The payment of taxes for military purposes is a growing source of concern for
more and more people. In response to the increasing awareness of the function
of taxation in the world arms race. Peace Section
(U.S.) is
sponsoring an educational effort to aid in the search for a biblical response.
As part of that effort, Paul and Loretta Leatherman were interviewed by Ron
Flickinger for Peace Section. Excerpts from that interview are presented in
the hope that the Leathermans’ convictions and experiences will provide useful
information to those who are considering their own action in the future. Paul
and Loretta began resisting war taxes when they returned from an
MCC
term in Vietnam in . Paul is presently
employed by
MCC
as director of the Self-Help program and Loretta is teaching in the Ephrata
public school system. Their home is in Akron,
Pa.
Question:
What led you to begin resisting war taxes? Did your
experience in Vietnam influence your decision to do so?
Loretta:
We saw the war effort change from manpower to money
power. Men aren’t used as much anymore and, instead, our money was being used
to do intensive bombing. We would not go to war ourselves and so we thought we
should resist having our money being sent to war also.
Paul:
I think serving in Vietnam radicalized us in that sense.
About every night we were there, we went to sleep with the sound of bombing
and we saw bombs exploding from our house. We lived in the middle of the war
and saw what it did to children and families. You recognize that it’s done
through your taxes and you begin to take a pretty serious look at it.
Question:
Do you also see consequences in the future if people do
not start resisting the use of their money in this way?
Paul:
Well, this is supposedly peacetime but I see the military
budget increasing in real dollars. It goes up in addition to inflation while
many other government programs are being trimmed. It doesn’t make much sense
to keep building up and building up the military machinery which is capable of
destroying the world. I think history shows that whatever military equipment
is made is always used, so I think sometime there is going to be a big nuclear
war.
Loretta:
There isn’t much sense in being able to destroy oneself
so many times. It’s a terrible waste.
Question:
Many people who are resisting war taxes have voiced
specific concerns for their families, their children, their grandchildren. I’m
sure this has a part in your thinking, too.
Paul:
Well, I think it does. I don’t know that we’ve specifically
said we’re going to resist taxes because of our own children, but more simply
for the world community. Our children are certainly a part of that.
Question:
Do you feel as Christians that you have something to say
to government? Many people don’t think they are responsible for what the
government does with their money once their taxes are paid.
Paul:
I’m pretty convinced that we have to say something. If
Christians don’t, who will? Where does the conscience come from? How is man
going to see the sin and evil of his ways unless someone speaks up to it? As
we would understand the way of Christ and what He has taught us, we need to be
prophetic in terms of what that means in the world. We can’t be Christians and
be quiet about it. If we are going to be citizens of another kingdom, then we
have to speak out about what it means and live it out as well.
Question:
What kind of reactions do you get from friends and
acquaintances?
Paul:
I think we get a strong resistance from people in the church
who are thoroughly convinced that we must pay all of our taxes and that any
tax resistance is going directly against biblical teaching. Mark 12:17 says,
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…” and those who don’t pay all
of the taxes Caesar asks for are specifically disobeying the teachings of the
Bible. I don’t know all of their motives behind that sort of conviction, but I
think there is a stronger resistance there than any place. Now, there are also
outside the church the superpatriotic people who believe that anything that
tends to speak against the structure of the
U.S. military is
bad. But there are also a lot of people who are sort of questioning the
direction of things in the world today. They are open to thinking about ideas
and, while they may not agree with all of it, at least they see some of the
reasoning behind it all.
Question:
How do you respond to people who don’t agree with
you?
Paul:
That depends very much on who it is. I don’t think there is
much point in arguing, but if people want to discuss it in a real way, then I
think we can. It’s not a point one can win by arguing and I think we could
probably do more harm than good by doing so. We’re not out waving the flag of
tax resistance every place we go, not at all. Simply when the opportunity
presents itself, we will discuss it. I think we have felt the importance in
doing this as much within our own church as any other place. It’s within our
own church fellowship that we need to help our brothers and sisters understand
what our tax dollars are doing around the world, such as we saw happen in
Vietnam. We want to try to help sharpen consciences on this issue.
Loretta:
You have to think of the saying, “Those who do not stand
up for the powerless are acting against them.”
Paul:
The thing that we’ve been doing on taxes has given us the
chance on numerous occasions to at least talk about it, share it in a way that
has helped us as people in the church understand what it means to live in a
complicated world.
Question:
What has been the
IRS
reaction? Tell us about some of your contacts with
IRS
agents.
Paul:
One of the first years we resisted paying war taxes, we
actually owed a little bit of money at the end of the year. We claimed a war
tax credit and asked for a refund. The
IRS
turned it down and called us in to audit the credit and also our
contributions, which were somewhat above the norm. The inspector took 25
minutes to audit our contributions and concluded that they were exactly right
to the penny. He said that was okay but that he simply could not allow the war
tax credit and there was no use in talking about it.
“Now look,” I said, “you asked us to come in here for an audit and we had to
leave our jobs to come. You’ve taken 25 minutes of my time auditing something
which I knew all along was correct and I’m equally convinced that I’m entitled
to the war tax credit. I’d like at least 25 minutes of your time to discuss
it.” He said okay, let’s talk. We discussed the pros and cons of why we were
opposed to paying war taxes, why we thought it was wrong. He listened and sort
of entered into the discussion and then at the end of 25 minutes, I said,
“Well, you’ve given me 25 minutes now, but there are still many more things we
could talk about. Would you be interested in reading a little more about this?
He said he would, so I gave him Kaufman’s What Belongs to Caesar? and a few other things.
Then I said, “After you have had a chance to read these, why don’t you come over for dinner next Wednesday and we can talk about it some more.”
He accepted the invitation. We weren’t sure if he would come but he showed up
and we had a very good discussion with him for about three hours. He was very
much against the Vietnam war but he thought that our tax resistance was
completely useless and that there was no way to succeed.
One year, we took our case all the way to court. Loretta didn’t take off from
teaching but I took our case all the way through the appeals process. We were
turned down at each place and were finally scheduled to go to the tax court in
Washington,
D.C. At that
point, I decided to take it out of that court and asked to have it tried in
the small tax court in Harrisburg,
Pa. The decision in the
small tax court was not precedent setting nor could it be appealed. If I had
kept the case in the tax court in Washington,
D.C., I
would have been able to appeal that decision all the way to the Supreme Court.
I decided not to do that because the preparation for the case would have had
to be much more careful in order to be heard and not simply dismissed on a
technicality. I wrote my own briefs and presented the case myself. It was
about three to four months before we got the judge’s opinion turning it
down.
Question:
Have you ever felt that you have risked a prison
sentence by refusing to pay?
Paul:
Well, that’s another story I can tell. After the court
trial, an
IRS
agent came to see me at the office. The receptionist called me and told me
there was someone out there to see me but I didn’t recognize his name. Only
when I got out there and he showed me his credentials did I realize who he
was. That was when we had the open office at
MCC
so rather than taking him into a conference room, I brought him in beside my
desk. I wanted to be on my own turf when he questioned me.
He asked me about the bill and I said, “Yes,
IRS
thinks I owe that amount and the judge thinks I owe it. I acknowledge that
from the
IRS
perspective it is a legitimate bill but I don’t have any intention of paying
it.”
He replied that he was here to collect the bill and he didn’t expect to leave
until I paid it.
“Well,” I said, “I already told you that I don’t expect to pay it and since
I’m not expecting to pay it, I think you ought to put me in jail. My wife has
been expecting that you might come around sometime and she said that if I go
to jail, she’d like to know where I’m going so she could write to me. I would
also like to know how soon it would be so that I can make arrangements for
somebody to take my place at this desk.” He looked at me and said he had never
heard anybody talk like that before. He went up to the bank the next day and
issued an order to draw the money out of my bank account.
I must admit that even when I was talking to him I didn’t think I was risking
a jail sentence. I didn’t think the
IRS
would put anyone in jail because they have other ways to collect the money. It
is too hazardous for them to take someone out of the
MCC
office and put them in jail. I don’t think they can risk that.
Question:
What has been your experience with the
IRS
attaching your bank account?
Paul:
Usually they have just issued an order for the money and the
bank notified us that the money was being withdrawn. One time, though, we
didn’t have enough money in the account to cover the bill, so the
IRS
attached the account and nothing could be paid out of it until they got their
money. It took about a month before we got our account cleared again.
Loretta:
Every time we wanted to cash a check they would have to
call Lancaster to find out if the account was clear. It was embarrassing. I
wanted to run in quick to withdraw some cash and it would take all of 45
minutes before I found out I couldn’t get any.
Paul:
Our banking was really skewed. The checks we issued that had
not been cashed all bounced because the
IRS had
withdrawn all the money. The bank stamped on the cheeks that the account had
been attached by the
IRS. One
of the checks we had written was a contribution to the World Peace Tax Fund.
When it bounced we got a note from the
WPTF office
saying, "Good work, brother. Keep it up. We don’t mind losing this kind.” That
was sort of interesting but it was a very marked inconvenience for us. That
was one of the worst experiences we have had in tax resistance.
Loretta:
That was when the people in the bank knew what was going
on.
Paul:
Yes, one of the brothers in the bank is from the Mennonite
Church. The first time my account was attached, he took the money out and I
just got the notice in the mail. I scolded him for that and told him that he
should at least let me know before he took the money out. The next time it
happened, he called me saying he had a notice to attach my account and asked
me to write a check to the
IRS so
he wouldn’t have to attach the account. I said, “No way, brother. Thanks for
calling me, but now it s on your conscience. If you think you can be a tax
collector, then go ahead and do it.” I was kind of mean to him. I won’t think
less of him if he pays the
IRS, but
as least he has to think through what he is doing.
Question:
What keeps you working at this in spite of the
inconveniences and the people that disagree with you?
Paul:
I thing we’re getting a little tired. That’s our mood
actually now, that we re getting a little tired.
Loretta:
It’s kind of a lonely struggle.
Paul:
It’s a question of how much you really ought to share what
you are doing, whether it’s a real sharing of where you are or whether you are
bragging about what you are doing. In the final analysis, when the time comes
to fill out your
IRS
form, you’re not doing it in a support group and the consequences are going to
be yours.
Question:
What suggestions do you have for someone who is thinking
about resisting war taxes?
Paul:
Do it. The first time we did this it was a very difficult,
emotional experience.
Loretta:
And even when the telephone rang. I was just terribly
worried about what it might be.
Paul:
Well, I have a strong feeling that we ought to pay what
is due. I think it’s correct that we ought to render unto Caesar or anybody
else what is their due. We also give unto God what is due and I think that is
the important thing. When these two come in conflict, then my moral, ethical
training is not to pay Caesar. But not to pay becomes a very difficult
struggle whether it’s 34¢ or $34 or $340. The one was about as difficult as
the other when we started, and starting this is not easy. But in starting, you
make a kind of commitment that does something to you.
The other thing is the time and energy to do it. You know it’s easier to do
the status quo thing. Resistance takes a lot more energy and time.
A letter to the editor in response
() from Allen King noted “There
are a number of people in our community who believe the same way but do not
know how to go about it.”
In an
International Mennonite Peace Committee meeting
was held, which allowed for an update from the war tax resisters of Japan,
though this is all that Gospel Herald readers learned
about it:
Michio Ohno of Asia, remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki, demonstrates his
concern about the destruction of nuclear war by his resistance to payment of
taxes used for military purposes. He is president of the Tokyo (Japan)
Mennonite Conference.
A pair of Mennonites went to court to try to gain legal conscientious objector
to military taxation status:
On , a federal circuit court judge
agreed that Janet and Stan Reedy of Elkhart,
Ind., had a case worth hearing
after they had claimed a conscientious objector deduction on their income tax
report.
Supported by members of their church, the South Side Fellowship of Elkhart,
the Reedys presented testimony in opposition to the motion of the Internal
Revenue Service that the petition for a conscientious objector deduction is
“insufficient, immaterial, and frivolous.”
“As the motion to strike points out,” said Janet Reedy, “there is presently no
provision in the
IRS code
which authorized the deduction we are claiming. That is precisely the problem.
The First Amendment to the (Constitution states, ‘Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof…’ I want to argue that the present
IRS law
violates our rights and the rights of all persons who are conscientiously
opposed to war by requiring us to pay for war even though it is contrary to
our religious beliefs. Thus we are denied a right guaranteed to us by the
First Amendment.”
In support of this argument, Janet told of her conviction that killing is
wrong and that paying the tax for killing is no different than killing. She
asserted that “the law should recognize the right to refuse to pay the taxes
that make it possible for others to kill.” She concluded that “the First
Amendment guarantees us rights to the free exercise of our religious beliefs
which are not being honored by the present
IRS
code.”
Stan followed with corroborative testimony, stating that “the United States
government, through its instruments of the
IRS and
the courts can of course force what appears to be obedience… But some day the
hard, inflexible, and brittle mass of the
IRS code
will shatter upon or be dissolved by the soft voice of conscience.”
As reported by Kathy Rohrer, one of the Fellowship members in attendance, when
Stan was seated the judge asked one question: “Do you come to this court with
a new argument?” Janet answered that they had never before claimed the First
Amendment in their arguments. The judge was so impressed by their evidence
that he denied the
IRS
claim that their petition for a hearing was “irrelevant, immaterial,
impertinent, and frivolous” and granted them a hearing in federal court where
the constitutionality of the case will be judged. No date has been set for
this hearing.
Ken Reed: The Mennonite Church has been a beautiful experience for me, but
it’s only been the past several years that I’ve seriously asked myself:
What is the vision of the Anabaptists? and I’ve concluded it says
something about us being both a community of love and a community of
resistance. We’ve emphasized the love side perhaps — MCC,
Voluntary Service, and giving ourselves in service (the towel and the basin).
Perhaps we haven’t emphasized resistance to evil. Then I look at
Luke 4,
where Jesus says: “This is what my mission is all about in coming to the
world” — He talks about a mission of love and a mission of resistance, a
mission of identifying with people and also a mission of saying “no” to the
evil that was around Him. I take His life as a model for my own.
, I was thinking
about taxes and where my tax dollars go. I was looking through a book on
Hiroshima which was produced by a committee of Japanese journalists and it
just struck me that my money is paying for future Hiroshimas. At that moment,
I made a commitment to myself, “I don’t want to be part of that.”
The General Conference Mennonite Church will “initiate a judicial action
seeking exemption from withholding taxes from the income of its employees” and
take its case to the
U.S. Supreme Court
if necessary. It is planned to base the case on the First Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution,
which embodies the separation of church and state. The action was approved by
delegates to the church’s triennial sessions at Estes Park,
Colo., held
.
Duane Heffelbower, a Mennonite attorney from Reedley,
Calif., and member of the
conference’s task force on tax withholding, said that the suit would be aimed
at seeking an injunction against the Internal Revenue Service, which presently
requires the church’s central offices to withhold the income taxes of its
employees. “We hope to move the suit to the district court level within a
year,” he said.
The Estes Park resolution stated further that all General Conference churches
in the U.S. and
Canada support the Task Force on Taxes through special offerings or budget
allocations and that
U.S.
congregations support efforts for the passage of the World Peace Tax Fund.
This proposed fund would allow those who object to paying taxes in support of
military causes to channel their taxes toward peaceful and humanitarian
projects. The church hopes to find some support for its tax collection test
case among its fellow historic peace churches; namely, the Church of the
Brethren, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Mennonite
Church.
The newly adopted resolution grew out of a motion passed at a special
conference session in Minneapolis,
Minn., in
which asked the General Board of the
conference “to engage in a serious and vigorous search to use all legal,
legislative, and administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector
exemption from the legal requirement that the conference withhold income taxes
from the wages of its employees.” Should the GCMC
be successful in gaining the injunction against forced tax collection, the
conference’s employees would receive their wages in full and then follow their
individual consciences in deciding whether to pay or not pay war taxes.
A pair of commentaries from Peter Farrar ( and )
urged Mennonites to “Refuse war taxes! Refuse registration!” without waiting
for the government to grant them special conscientious objector status. Farrar
wrote of the traditional Mennonite “nonresistance” position: “We may choose not
to resist aggression against our persons. We cannot countenance being the means
of aggression against others.”
Pax Christi continued to highlight how taxpaying made citizens complicit in the
arms race, and continued also to encourage war tax resistance as a response
():
A Catholic peace group has called on the
U.S.
bishops to reinstate meatless Fridays as “a penance for and protest against
the arms race.” The statement, issued by Pax Christi
U.S.A.,
at a two-day meeting in Maryknoll,
N.Y., also calls for the
establishment of a National Catholic Peace Week to promote disarmament, and
urges American Catholics to “refrain from the manufacture or use of nuclear
weapons” and to “support those people who refuse to pay for the war machine
with their taxes.” Pax Christi
U.S.A.,
is a branch of the international movement founded in France at the end of
World War Ⅱ. The American unit was begun in .
Spurred by the return of draft registration, a number of Christian groups
have increased their continuing efforts to counter what they see as a growing
tide of militarism in the United States.
Some members of the Society of Friends, disregarding possible penalties of
fines and imprisonment, have advised young men to refuse to register with the
Selective Service System when they come of age. The Church of the Brethren has
affirmed “open, nonevasive withholding of war taxes as a legitimate witness to
our conscientious intention to follow the call of discipleship to Jesus
Christ.”
Going one step further, the General Conference Mennonite Church, meeting at
Estes Park, Colo., in
, committed itself to go to the Supreme
Court, if necessary, to secure release from its current obligation to collect
from its employees income taxes used in large part to support military
programs.
All three bodies work together in the New Call to Peacemaking. This coalition
has invited 400 delegates to a national conference in Green Lake,
Wis.,
,
to devise additional ways for its members to reply to conscription, war taxes,
and what they see as the growing hazards of so-called military security.
Approximately 300 Mennonites, Brethren, and Friends from across the
U.S. have called on
their meetings and congregations to intensify efforts in the search for
alternatives to militarism, conscription, and the payment of war taxes.
The conference’s eight-page findings report was written and revised by a
committee which attempted to integrate the minutes of 27 discussion groups
which met regularly throughout the weekend. The final statement dealt with the
tasks of envisioning peace, nurturing peacemakers, countering militarism,
responding to the conscription of youth and taxes for war, and witnessing to
peace.
With respect to the issue of payment of taxes used for war purposes, the New
Call restated its commitment to urge
Christian peacemakers to “consider withholding from the Internal Revenue
Service all tax monies which contribute to any war effort.”
The statement of findings recommended the following as alternatives to the
payment of war taxes: (1) active work for the adoption of the World Peace Tax
Fund bill which, if passed by the
U.S. Congress,
would serve as a legal alternative to payment of war taxes just as
conscientious objector status is a legal alternative to military service, and
(2) individuals are urged to consider prayerfully all moral ways of reducing
their tax liabilities, including sizable contributions to tax-exempt
organizations and reduction of personal income.
The concern that New Call not issue a declaration more radical than meetings
and congregations would be willing to hear was raised at several points during
the meeting.
The Mennonite Church general board met in
and cautiously decided to
throw its support behind the General Conference Mennonite Church’s legal
challenge to withholding taxes from objecting employees. This was one of the
earliest examples of corporate support for war tax resistance from a Mennonite
Church institution:
One other action of significance had to do with an invitation from the General
Conference Mennonite Church to join in its effort to “initiate a judicial
action seeking exemption for the General Conference Mennonite Church from
withholding taxes from the income of its employees.”
On the basis of action taken at the last Mennonite Assembly in Waterloo,
Ont., which reads: “We
encourage our congregations and institutions to seek relief from the current
legal requirement of collecting taxes through the withholding of income taxes
of employees, especially those taxes which may be used for war purposes. In
this effort we endorse cooperation with the General Conference Mennonite
Church in the current search for judicial, legislative, and administrative
alternatives to the collection of military related taxes.”
The Board acted to: (1) support the judicial action of the General Conference
Mennonite Church to seek exemption of our institutions from withholding taxes
from the income of employees with the understanding that this implies an
invitation to Mennonite members to join in financial support for this judicial
action and (2) we encourage the MBCM
to the task force on taxes to seek to generate a wide support for the World
Peace Tax Fund throughout our constituency by appropriate General Assembly
action and encouragement.
The Board was careful to clarify that this action does not constitute civil
disobedience but rather attempts to work within the domain of the first
amendment in the
U.S. constitution.
Again in , only the Messenger (of those Brethren periodicals I reviewed) covered war tax resistance, but they did so often.
In a Brethren church in Indiana hosted a war tax resistance workshop:
A concern for active Christian peacemaking was the motivation for the gathering of over 50 people from at least seven religious traditions .
The event, sponsored by the Peace Action Committee of the Northern Indiana District and held at Prince of Peace Church of the Brethren, was a war tax resistance workshop led by Dale Aukerman of the Brethren Peace Fellowship.
The two main body presentations dealt with “our peacemaking and the end of the world,” and “war tax resistance as seen from the perspective of Matthew 18:15–17.” Participants were called to “claim the sovereignty of God and take our Christian discipleship seriously.
The key to our peace witness is to strive to be faithful to God.”
The workshop is one of a growing number being held throughout Brethren churches, often in conjunction with other denominations.
The groups explore nuts-and-bolts alternatives of withholding taxes and support each other in maintaining the witness under Internal Revenue Service pressure, as well as sharing the vision of peace inherent in faithfulness to God.
“Participants in the war tax resistance workshop led by Dale Aukerman (lower left corner) explore peacemaking theology and alternatives of withholding taxes.”
Kevin Zimmerman shared the thinking that went into his war tax resistance in the issue of Messenger (source).
Excerpt:
Although my body is not being conscripted to support war, my tax money is, and at this point in history which do the military powers need more?
My money!
As Dale Brown notes, “If it becomes possible through automated warfare to kill and destroy with unmanned aircraft and minimal personnel, then the witness of withholding economic support may become an issue of even greater importance to the conscientious Christian peacemaker.”
I am not opposed to supporting my government or paying taxes to my government.
But I believe when our government goes directly against Christ’s teachings we are to follow Christ.
Peter and the apostles found themselves forced to resort to civil disobedience in an attempt to fulfill Christ’s teachings and, when arrested, responded, “We must serve God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
I would like to see Congress pass the bill supporting the World Peace Tax Fund.
That portion of my taxes supporting our military could instead be put into this fund to be used for such peaceful purposes as United Nations activities, research into nonviolent solutions to international conflicts, disarmaments efforts, and international education and welfare.
In this way I can support my government as well as the peaceful lifestyle demonstrated by Christ.
Christianity has never been and will never be a spectator sport.
We are commanded to go out and spread the word by helping our neighbors and sharing their burdens, but also by letting our government know too, by letter or by civil disobedience, when they have broken God’s laws.
By sharing my feelings, I hope others will seriously and prayerfully consider how their tax money is being spent, their role in our military machine, and Christ’s teachings to “love our enemies.”
The issue covered the Supreme Court ruling against Old Order Amish who wanted their conscientious objection to the social security system allowed by law (source).
Excerpt:
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger agreed with the IRS, saying, “The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge tax systems because tax payments were spent in a man-er that violates their religious belief.”
Such an attitude could seriously hamper efforts to establish an alternate peace fund into which conscientious objectors could channel taxes that now fund military budgets.
That issue also announced the formation of a “Tax Resister’s Penalty Fund” (still going strong today as the War Tax Resisters Penalty Fund):
Dave Leiter, of North Manchester, Ind., is heading up a network of people interested in distributing the burden of penalties or interest levied against military tax resisters.
An example of such support would be for 200 people to share a $500 penalty by each contributing $2.50. If interested, write the Tax Resister’s Penalty Fund…
Another article in the same issue, on possible responses to the nuclear arms race (source), recommended war tax resistance as one of the possibilities:
Refuse to pay some of your Federal income taxes as a witness to your faith.
If you’re scared, try a small amount like $7.77. If that’s too scary, at least send a letter describing the difficulty of praying for peace and paying for war.
Mike and Carol Zuercher Stern shared their war tax resistance journey in a letter-to-the-editor in the issue (source):
The way a person spends money is an indicator of one’s personal priorities.
In the past year (perhaps more clearly than any other time in recent history) our country has corporately demonstrated what it considers to be most important by how it spends money.
Top priority is military superiority over all other nations — bigger and better bombs, submarines, missiles, and napalm.
As Christians and conscientious objectors to war, we cannot accept this national priority as though it were our own.
We oppose the building of weapons whose ultimate use means the shedding of human blood.
Each April 15 we are reminded of our personal participation in funding a national priority which we believe stands in direct contradiction to our Christian faith.
Our response each year has been to file all the legally required tax forms while witnessing by a variety of symbolic protests against the use of tax dollars for weapons of war.
This year we felt compelled by conscience to refuse to pay the entire amount of taxes which had not been withheld already from our salaries.
This $438, less than 25 percent of our total tax obligation for the year, will be given instead to charitable organizations.
In doing so, we affirm our commitment to the gospel of love, healing, and reconciliation.
That issue also reported on Ralph Dull’s theatric tax resistance protest:
Ralph Dull, of the Brookville, Ohio, Church of the Brethren, has refused to pay a portion of his income taxes each year as a protest against military spending.
This year he chose a new way to draw attention to the issue.
On he pulled up in front of the Federal Building in downtown Dayton to offer the Internal Revenue Service 325 bushels of corn in lieu of taxes owed.
The action was “to dramatize and emphasize the need for the Federal government to turn its priorities around and support constructive people programs,” Dull said, “rather than use our resources for an arms race that is murderous and suicidal.”
He asked the IRS to sign a statement acknowledging the value of the grain and guaranteeing that its value would be used only for non-military purposes.
When the IRS refused to sign.
Dull sold the corn to a local elevator.
A check for about $777 was made out to Church World Service and given to the National Farmers Organization’s Food for Poland project.
“Apart from the religious aspect of this issue,” said Dull, “what this symbolic action lifts up for consideration is human decency.
It is vulgar to squander material and human resources while there is so much opportunity to relieve existing human misery.”
a classified ad from the issue
An article from the issue, focused on resistance to draft registration, noted in passing that “The United Methodist Church… said [in ], ‘We… support all those who conscienttiously object to preparation in any specific war or all wars; to cooperation with military conscription; or to the payment of taxes for military purposes; and we ask that they be granted legal recognition.”
A report on the Annual Conference in that same issue noted that war tax resistance was a last-minute addition to the agenda:
Brethren war protesters who decide to withhold tax money going to war purposes may find their employers less than enchanted with the idea.
Brethren employers may be sympathetic to the idea but are up against federal regulations to withhold taxes.
So what’s a body (such as Annual Conference) to do?
Acting on a late-breaking query from Northern Indiana District, Annual Conference elected a committee of five to study the problem and report in .
The committee is charged to come up with helpful guidance for church institutions so they can adequately respond to their employees employees who wish to withhold their “war taxes.”
The study was approved, despite at least one speaker grousing that he hadn’t “heard one good thing about the US government this week.”
Chances are he was correct.
The Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren will not be remembered as an exercise in flag-waving patriotism.
For the majority of the delegates to Wichita, judging by the voting record, patriotism was best evinced in responsibly and prayerfully calling one’s government to account in the areas of justice and peace.
That committee would include Dale W. Brown, William R. Faw, Ramona Smith Moore, Phillip C. Stone, and Marty Smeltzer West.
In the issue, Ingred Rogers reported on a war tax resisters’ alternative fund that her Brethren church established:
The Manchester Church of the Brethren has established a “Fund for Life” as an expression of support for those who feel moved to refuse payment of war taxes.
This was a significant step in a long process of soul-searching and consciousness-raising.
The process began in when several members formed a tax-concerned group.
Driven by the conviction that to contemplate nuclear holocaust is sin against God and humanity, we came together to discuss how to express our conscientious objection to war taxes.
Careful reading of the Bible convinced us that the Scriptures give no single, absolute statement about payment of taxes.
But we are indeed called to obey God above all, and trusting in weapons of mass destruction is clearly idolatrous.
From the beginning, we saw our action as an effort to maintain faithfully the Brethren peace testimony.
It became increasingly important to us to allow the church to make a witness on behalf of tax resisters.
Our denomination as a whole had already committed itself to recognition of war-tax resistance as a form of conscientious objection.
Now it was a matter of asking for support from the local congregation that had nurtured us and had had a vital influence on tiie formation of our peace position.
After the first church board discussion on the issue, the tax group prepared a proposal for a Fund for Life.
The original draft provided that resisters would deposit in the fund the money withheld from taxes.
Money unclaimed by the Internal Revenue Service was to become the property of the Manchester church as a completed gift by the original depositor and used for peace work.
As in an escrow account, money up to the amount deposited could be returned to the individual if the IRS should claim the sum.
The church board raised two objections.
If the money can be returned in full to the original depositor once the IRS demands it, where is the witness, the risk, the sacrifice?
If the church holds money owed to the government, might the whole congregation legally be implicated?
The board decided to bring the proposal to the next council meeting for discussion, and to delay a final vote for another six months to allow the congregation to reflect upon the issue of war-tax resistance.
The resulting education program was thorough and rewarding.
As expected, we met with disagreement and heated debate.
A second draft suggested that the money should be a completed gift from the beginning without strings attached.
Also, money deposited would not necessarily have to be withheld from taxes; anyone could contribute as an expression of support.
The tax group found this second draft more true in some ways to the original intent.
Both drafts were presented in Sunday school classes.
After three more modifications, the group settled on this wording:
The congregation leaves the withholding of war taxes to the individual conscience of each member or friend.
Any member or friend of the Manchester Church of the Brethren may contribute money to the Fund for Life.
The income from said gifts and the gifts themselves shall be used by the church for activities that are expressly peace-making, including the support of those persons mentioned in item four.
None of these gifts or the income from said gifts shall be used for the operating budget of the church.
Upon request, our congregation shall financially assist any member or friend who withholds war taxes if the Internal Revenue Service presses for collection of his/her tax liability.
Such contributions shall come from the fund or from special contributions of individual members of the congregation.
This latest version was adopted by the church in the .
Our need for education and discussion on this subject increases.
Every year we are painfully made aware of the shift in priorities in our national budget; every year more billions are sacrificed for weapons which will destroy God’s creation.
The Fund for Life has been an attempt to seek alternatives to quiet acquiescence.
It is a small but significant step in accordance with the faith we proclaim.
The study of peacemaking has led some Brethren to question the payment of taxes that support the military system.
Southern Ohio has a special committee on the World Peace Tax Fund.
Michigan’s district conference in will act upon a resolution that urges congregations not to pay telephone taxes.
Manchester (Ind.) church has created a Fund for Life (see [above]).
Galen and Wanda Miller, of Oregon/Washington District, divide their Federal tax into two checks — one made out to the Department of Health and Human Services and one to the Internal Revenue Service — and include a letter stating that they don’t object to paying taxes for constructive programs.
