Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Brethren →
The Brethren Evangelist
As far as I could tell from what was published by Brethren periodicals during World War Ⅰ, the ostensible pacifism of the Church of the Brethren became a cowardly retreat in the face of public pressure to join the war bond purchase drives.
Today I examine the archives from the post-war period to look for signs of soul-searching in the wake of this capitulation.
The Annual Report of the General Mission Board, as found in The Missionary Visitor (source) crowed that “the war is over” and even went so far as to say that “Possibly the historian of future years will look back and recount, through numberless proofs, that the war was not fought in vain.” The Board compared its own struggle against Satan with the Allies’ victory in Europe, and said Brethren contribute to each: “[W]hile we have contributed our funds for Liberty bonds, and freed the world from autocracy, we must not cease our vigilance.”
In this vein, the magazine decided to market Brethren fundraising efforts as “God’s Liberty Loan”.
It is staggering to think of the amount of money that has been raised to finance the war, reaching the great sum of twenty-three billion dollars.
It is interesting to wonder how much of this large amount has been subscribed by the Church of the Brethren.
“Interesting” but not pauseworthy.
The author goes on to make an estimate, by assuming that the typical member of the church makes a little more than the average national income and that “it would be expected that we contribute our proportionate share” to the war bond drives.
The earliest issue of The Brethren Evangelist that I found in the archives comes from (41 years into its run).
By then, anyway, it seems that they saw no inconsistency in Brethren and Brethren institutions trafficking in war bonds.
The initial issue of that year noted that “The first Liberty Bond given to Kentucky Mission work was received as a Christmas Gift on Christmas morning,” named the donor, and asked that others follow their example to “send Liberty Bonds to be used to further the Home Mission work of the Brethren church” (source).
A later article compared a mission fund drive with the Liberty Loan, saying “We [emphasis mine] raised billions for Liberty Bonds time and again.
Now we are starting another drive.”
The Business Manager of Ashland College (a Brethren institution) wrote in to encourage donations in the form of Liberty Bonds, writing that “[d]uring the past year more than $20,000 in Liberty Bonds have been assigned to Ashland College in this way” (source).
By this amount had risen to more than $50,000 (source).
The Brethren in Falls City “could see that it was only good business to kill two birds with one stone, so they bought those Liberty Loans and gave them to the college” (source).
An accounting of the endowment of that college, in a later issue, indicated that it held $29,800 in Liberty Bonds and $1,256.62 in War Savings Stamps (source).
A note in a issue tried to explain what happened: “Did we buy Liberty Bonds?
We did.
Not because we were especially in favor of war; not because we were investors.
We gave because the spirit of giving and sacrifice was abounding.” (source)
A fundraiser for a Brethren project being pumped in a edition, on the other hand, said that “Liberty Bonds were bought, in a large measure not as an investment but to save the country’s credit” — so why don’t you donate them to us since you don’t really need the money (source).
By issue, a sanctimonious pacifism had returned, as shown by a reprint of a letter from another magazine in response to National Defense Day (source).
The editorial note before the letter said that “[t]he Christian patriot who has a true vision of world peace and of the only way to its attainment will not remain silent and passive and allow national propaganda for militarism to go on unrebuked.” The letter itself told the story of a Belgian family, some members of which had been killed by poison gas in an American bombardment: “American gas shells, made by American girls, paid for by your grandmother’s liberty bonds [emphasis mine], handled by skilled American artillerymen, blessed by American clergy, valiantly gassed this Belgian maiden.”
But aside from this pointed mention, the subject of the Liberty Loan, Liberty Bonds, War Stamps, and things of that nature was for the most part just quietly dropped in the Brethren Evangelist, and writers went on preaching peace as though nothing had happened.
(But Iremember them that are in bonds.)
Meanwhile, what was going on over at the Gospel Messenger?
A article by I.V. Funderburgh on “Our Response” (to the war).
He described the response of Brethren in part this way: “We pledge to the Red Cross; we subscribe for Liberty Bonds; we buy thrift-stamps; we conserve food, clothing, and fuel. Sacrifice! Yes, we do. ¶ But what of the summons, ‘Serve’? Oh, yes, we have served in responding to our country’s demand for money…”
In the issue, D.E. Cripe confronted the theory of war tax resistance more directly than I had seen done to this point (source):
Though we be strangers and pilgrims, while we are in the flesh, we can not avoid living in an earthly kingdom or nation, and therefore we have duties which can not be evaded.
One of these is paying tribute or taxes.
Even Jesus, through Peter, paid tribute, “lest we should offend them,” and he never asked what use would be made of the money.
Paul says we should pay tribute, not only for wrath but for conscience’s sake.
Very likely this tribute was turned into the treasury to support the Roman army, but Paul did not question this.
After the Christian has paid his tribute, he has done his duty, and he is not responsible for the use that the Government makes of it.
In the issue, J.A. Vancil urged Brethren who had purchased war bonds to “put those Liberty Bonds to work for the cause of Jesus Christ?
It was really the Lord’s money that purchased them, anyway.” (source) “If those Liberty Bonds were turned over to the church, there would be sufficient funds, from the accruing interest, to carry on all departments of the work of the church for the next five years.
Then, at the maturity of these Bonds, there would be a vast available amount.”
The General Mission Board, in a fundraising notice in the issue (source), wrote:
Liberty Bonds
A brother writes and asks: “Can you accept Liberty Bonds in the Conference offering?
Some of our brethren can give considerably more, if you can.” Most surely we can accept Liberty Bonds.
Through them you have helped to free the world from autocracy.
Now let us use them to free the world from the autocracy of sin.
Send them in to us!
We will put them to the Lord’s use.
An interesting note in the issue said that the following query had been sent to the Annual Conference (source):
We, the members of the Empire congregation, ask Annual Meeting of through the District Meeting of Northern California, to restate and define the position of the church upon war in all its phases, including the bearing of arms, drilling, buying war bonds, etc.
If the Annual Meeting took up this invitation, I haven’t yet found record of it.
The issue included an article entitled “In the War on War” by George Fulk.
Fulk wrote that “[t]o a very considerable number of highly patriotic Christian citizens, perhaps no question of ethics more difficult of solution ever presented itself than that of the proper relation which they should personally bear toward service in the World War… With [some] it became a question as to the purchasing of liberty bonds, which meant the furnishing of the sinews of war.”
This at least put buying war bonds back on the agenda as a problem and didn’t try to wave away what buying war bonds meant.
Fulk was back in to tell Brethren that they really must take a stand, because by default they were supporting war (source):
It is a stern fact also that persons are volunteering on both sides, and those who fail to volunteer, are being drafted on the side of war.
Circumstances, speaking in very general terms, are doing the drafting.
That is to say, circumstances have always been such, are now such, and promise indefinitely to be such, as to lead unfailingly to war unless counter-forces are brought to oppose.
If we fail to join the counter-forces, we not only offer circumstances a clear road to war, but we contribute directly, through taxes, and other means, which necessarily conform to the present system of war, as a method of settling disputes.
But in general, war taxes were presented as something to be regretted, not resisted.
The Messenger would sometimes allude to estimates that 93% of federal taxes being raised were going to pay for the expenses of the recent war.
But rather than wonder whether anti-war Brethren ought to pay such a bill, this was usually just a lead in to a sales pitch about how Brethren ought to be just as willing to contribute to the latest church fundraising campaign.
A note in a issue concerned Kees and Beatrice Boeke, the European Quaker pacifists who were pushing the limits of nonviolent action.
The note said that the couple “are likely to have their property seized again this year as last, because they can not, as a matter of conscience, pay their military tax.”
The couple’s “unflinching testimony against war, and their fearless preaching of the Gospel of peace and good will to all men” was described in nothing but flattering terms (source).
A lengthy article by L.R. Holsinger on “The Christian’s Duty to the State”, from the issue, attacked war tax resistance more or less directly, which at least suggests that somewhere off the pages of the Messenger that heresy was alive:
The matter of paying taxes has been considered obligatory ever since government has been a realization.
It was true thousands of years before Christ said, “Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.”… We therefore believe that in order to “Render… to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom”…, it becomes necessary to pay over our portion of the necessary funds to facilitate the effective and harmonious administration of the government of which we are a part.
There come times, however, that the government engages in activities such as war which their consciences justly raise a question about, but the experiences of the recent war have been of such a nature as to cause many to feel that the awful cost, not only in money, but in morals, happiness, and life, is the penalty for their neglect and indifference both in religious and civic affairs.
We are persuaded that if the amount of money and zealous effort that was expended each month during the war to promote it, had been expended during the ten years previous to the war to propagate the Gospel and promote the cause of the Prince of Peace, the history of the “world war” would never have been written, and the future generation would have “heroes” to admire and to emulate whose influence would not create a false patriotism which will result in a periodic repetition of a similar or worse upheaval but would hasten the day when “Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”… The fact that we find ourselves a part of a government that engages temporarily in war may be blamed on us as Christians as well as others, and though we may be justified in absolute refusal to take the life willfully of any individual, we cannot find justification in refusal to pay taxes as long as the government functions as such, not only for the purpose of war which is incidental, but “for the people.”
I’ve left out some references to war savings stamps and liberty bonds listed as donations or as parts of the holdings of Brethren institutions.
I saw very few signs that members of the Church of the Brethren — at least those who were represented in the periodicals of the period — had second thoughts about church-members or institutions trafficking in war bonds during World War Ⅰ.
There were many complaints about the continuing arms race, and many of these highlighted the burden placed on the taxpayer, but this was never presented as something that a conscientious taxpayer could or should confront directly.
Today I share the results of my hunt for war tax resistance sentiment in the archives of Brethren periodicals from the 1930s up to the point of the U.S. entry into World War Ⅱ.
A lot happened in this period, which came as a surprise to me after having viewed the vanishing of opposition to personal funding of war during and immediately after World War Ⅰ.
Gandhi’s Indian independence movement was frequently mentioned in columns of Brethren periodicals, and usually in a sympathetic way.
In the edition of The Brethren Evangelist, his tax resistance campaigns got a skeptical look in the light of Brethren teaching (source):
The Word of Christ inculcates obedience to the powers of civil government, the payment of tribute and tax money even to the emperors of Rome, the rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. Ghandi [sic] asks his followers not to pay certain taxes and foments a campaign of “civil disobedience.”
As a matter of fact, the “Way of Ghandi” is more like the method used by the English suffragettes of some years ago. And in some respects it is very successful as a political means.
George H.
Jones saw the writing on the wall in a article that began: “That the United States is nearer war now than at any time in the past twenty years, no one doubts” (source).
He urged conscientious objectors to war to prepare for the tough times ahead, and reminded them what had happened in the last war, for example:
The churches in many cases became simply the sponsors for drives to win the war by appeals for cigarettes and socks or chocolate and sweaters or Liberty Bonds to end the War for Democracy.
These were the major needs that sounded to the dome in many Christian churches.
The Gospel Messenger was also publishing at this time, and had absorbed the previously independent Missionary Visitor.
In the issue of The Gospel Messenger, Ben Stoner announced the “20,000 Dunkers for Peace” campaign.
The campaign aimed to get 20,000 Brethren (and other varieties of German Baptist and related sects) to sign a peace pledge.
This brief pledge explicitly mentioned war taxes (source):
I, ⸺, as a part of my program for peace, refuse ever to bear arms or to coöperate, in any way, in armed conflict; and, only under protest to pay taxes for military purposes.
In the accompanying article, Stoner explained that the tax portion pledged the signer “to do all within his power to keep his tax money from being appropriated for purposes which are inconsistent with Christiantiy and the basic laws of our land.” However, this stopped short of tax resistance: “At present perhaps the best way of protesting the use of tax money for military purposes is through petition to Congress when appropriations are being considered.”
The issue printed the following query from one congregation, and noted that it had been passed up for consideration to the Annual Conference (source):
We, the Eglon congregation, petition Annual Conference through District Meeting of the First District of West Virginia to tell us how we can best protest against paying taxes for military purposes.
A report on the conference carried in the issue explained what happened next (source):
The paper protesting military taxes resulted in several speeches before it was decided to make the answer of Standing Committee the answer of Conference.
And this was that the matter be referred to the Board of Christian Education for study and a report in .
This seems a fair disposition of the problem in view of the fact that the question is involved and study needed.
The answer from the Board of Christian Education came (source):
All lawful taxes should be paid. As Christians we differentiate between taxes for constructive and taxes for destructive purposes. Because war is unchristian, taxes for military and naval purposes should be protested.
Not less than 70% out of our taxes paid to the federal government goes directly or indirectly for military and naval purposes. Some of these federal taxes are: income taxes, estate taxes, federal stamp taxes, and the federal tax on gasoline, etc.
Ways of protesting against taxes for military and naval purposes.
Paste a small sticker on your income tax returns and other payments made to the federal government, which reads as follows: “That portion of this tax devoted to armaments and war preparedness is paid under protest.” The Board of Christian Education will furnish these stickers.
Write a letter once a year to your congressmen protesting against the appropriation of funds for military and naval purposes.
Protest personally when paying federal taxes, such as the federal gasoline tax.
Protest through resolutions from local churches, district, and Annual Conferences.
We favor a further study of this problem with the purpose of helping to develop a sound theory of taxation.
A later report on the Annual Conference noted that this “Protesting Against Military Taxes” committee report was adopted by the conference “after a single question… There was no argument.”
A front-page editorial by J.E.M. in the edition, entitled “I Hate War”, touched on personal war funding in a couple of places:
Later in the seventies I saw the war stamps on match boxes, and learned of other stamps and taxes that had to be paid because of the depression caused by the Civil War. My hatred of war increased, for those stamps and taxes in hard times seemed stained with human blood and reeked with human flesh.
I have seen university students being trained for war, trained with money that you and I pay, and I hate war.
I am paying taxes to help pay for past wars and to prepare for the next war, and I hate war.
In a article, Kermit Eby tried to explain that when the war comes, the pacifist position, if taken earnestly, will be see as a threat to the war effort and dealt with accordingly, and that Brethren should prepare themselves with this in mind (source):
The major task in the last war centered in the task of keeping up the will to win; no effort was spared in its achievement.
Most authorities on the “next war” believe that a greater effort will be made to mobilize the national sentiment needed.
If this is true, several significant developments may be expected concerning which members of pacifist churches should be aware.
Membership in the Church of the Brethren means that each member is opposed to the use of war as a means of achieving the policies of his nation; that because of religious, economic, social, and other reasons he is unable to give intellectual assent to the war system.
Having come to this conclusion, he refuses to support his government when to do so goes contrary to his conscience.
The assumption of such a position automatically places one in opposition to the government at war.
It is a situation in which there is no neutrality, no grey, simply white or black.
The mere intellectual assent to a pacifist position amounts to intellectual sabotage, for it implies an unwillingness to go with the group.
…[T]he success of war depends on the intellectual and emotional support given it, as much as on the material.
Hence, the pacifist position is the first step in blocking the successful termination of the war.
Furthermore, the greater the number of those who take the position of opposition, the greater the danger to them as individuals.
A few pacifists could be tolerated as religious fanatics; many pacifists become a stumblingblock to the war machine, and, as such, they must be removed quickly.
Frankly, members of a pacifist church should know that such a position may mean their removal from society, loss of jobs, persecution, and even death.
The only hope in a pacifist move lies in the possibility of it becoming a mass movement of such proportions that no government would dare risk annihilating it entirely.
Membership in the Church of the Brethren is not a passive act.
It puts one on record as an opponent of war.
It classifies one as a public enemy in war time, along with enemy aliens, deserters, labor and professional agitators.
The statement in the resolution concerning the refusal to support war by the payment of taxes adds to the similarity with the left wing labor groups who oppose international war for economic reasons.
The only distinction remains in the mind of the pacifist who ignorantly thinks that refusal to give economic support is non-aggressive in its opposition to the government at war.
It is, in fact, a most dangerous form of obstruction.
Since this is the case, a pacifist should be willing to accept the logic of his position and refuse all economic aid for support of war.
To put the case simply, no Dunker farmer dare ask his son to support the position of the church by risking death in opposition to war when he is guilty of selling his farm produce at a profit.
Wheat is as vital to war as soldiers, and we dare not refuse the former and advance the latter.
Finally, we must face the fact that even relief means support of the war system, for it releases others from the necessity of affording relief, it encourages the soldiers who are in need of relief, it gives support to the war by rehabilitating wounded for further service, it denies simultaneous aid to the enemy — no government would permit relief for its enemy.
Relief supplies are secured by independent funds; thus direct economic aid is given which would otherwise not be supplied.
More seriously than any of the above is the intellectual support which relief gives.
To be consistent, we must intellectually sabotage the entire system even to relief and bravely accept the consequences.
This was such a radical departure from everything I’d read before that at first I wondered whether it had been intended as a sort of Modest Proposal meant to exaggerate the pacifist position to logical conclusions that would be unpalatable to the typical reader.
But I think Eby was sincere.
The Annual Conference reaffirmed “our purpose not to participate in any war, and our protest against the application of such a large proportion of our taxes to military purposes” but did not elaborate (source).
In the Conference Committee on Counsel for Conscientious Objectors made a series of recommendations for that year’s Annual Conference “on the positions that our people should take in the event of war” (source).
These included the following three varieties of “peace testimony to register our convictions and to avoid our participation in war-related activities:”
The refraining from the purchase of such as Liberty Bonds to finance war.
The renunciation of, or the sacrificial use of, profits derived from industry, farming, or invested securities as a result of war; sacrificing always during war periods to build a fund for the furtherance of good will and for the support of families who suffer because of their conscientious objections to war.
The protesting against federal income taxes if used for military purposes.
This is the first explicit renunciation of the Church’s embrace of Liberty Bonds during World War Ⅰ that I have spotted.
A later report on the Annual Conference was difficult for me to interpret, but I think the gist of it was that this set of recommendations passed.
Rufus Bowman was a member of that Conference Committee, and in a later book on The Church of the Brethren and War he says that this was the high point of official Brethren opposition to war, at least up to the book’s publication in .
In the issue, Lorell Weiss predicted the trouble ahead, and how Brethren would be communicating their values to their children by their actions (source):
[T]here is a strong temptation to compromise principles for expediency’s sake.
Furthermore, the choice between principles and expediency must be made not once but often, by both parents and children.
We have not only to decide whether it is right to kill.
Other questions press for an answer.
Shall we buy defense bonds? Shall we assist in aluminum drives or patriotic demonstrations? Shall we remain discreetly silent and let our neighbors assume that we share the general war fever, or shall we boldly testify for what we believe?
A letter to the editor from Homer D. Kimmel (source) printed in the edition read:
This evening we heard a radio announcer advertising the sale of defense savings bonds with these words, “Buy a defense saving bond.
The $18.75 that you spend for a $25 defense savings bond will buy five bayonets.”
What a picture that calls to one’s mind! Five bayonets for five soldiers to tear the entrails out of five fellow men left lying helpless with their life blood flowing out on some ghastly battlefield! Yet all such are fellow men who love life no less than you and I.
Buy a defense saving bond!
Buy some death, some pain and suffering, some heartache, tears, hunger and privation.
An article by James L. Houff in the issue noted how frequently the government was tapping people for war funding (source). Excerpt:
Every time we go to the movies we pay three cents to the government for defense.
When we take a Sunday afternoon motor ride, about six cents out of every twenty goes to the government for tax.
At the post office we are reminded by our postmaster that he has defense bonds for sale.
Children are told they might help protect their country by buying savings stamps with their money instead of candy.
In the Bible Monitor of , B.F.
Masterson tried to put all this talk of protesting war taxes to rest (source).
Masterson advocated a strict distancing of the Christian believer from politics, of a sort that was going out of fashion elsewhere in the church.
Excerpts:
Paul did not suggest to the churches to write letters to Ceaser instructing him how to manage his naval tactics, that is the chief commander of the army’s business.
The church is not supposed, from a New Testament view point, to take part in the transaction of civil government.
The Jews who were under the Roman government, but not on good terms with it, conspired to draw Christ into politics when they asked Him, if it is lawful to pay taxes to Ceasar.
He said, render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s, He did not suggest to the Jews to make a protest against paying a certain per cent of the taxes.
He knew better than to get His foot in the trap.
[I]t does not pay for the church to enter into a confederacy with the world and for a Christian organization to advise, unsolicited, the commander of an army is beyond its jurisdiction and to protest against taxes that are applied for one[’s] protection is ungrateful to say the least, and would not coincide with the tenor of Christ’s doctrine.
Jesus was entirely free from the spirit of nationalism.
Although a Jew, He never protested against the Roman rule nor incited in His followers the spirit of rebellion.
The Bible Monitor also reproduced an article from the Gospel Herald (a Mennonite publication) in on the proper relationship between the Christian and the government (stand-offish for the most part), that included this section on taxes and Liberty Bonds (source):
Christians have the obligation to pay tribute and custom to and to fear and honor the “powers that be.”… This principle came acutely under test during the World war.
The problem did not arise with reference to the payment of taxes some of the proceeds of which were definitely used to carry on the war, but with reference to the purchase of Liberty Bonds which was voluntary, the proceeds of which directly supported the war program.
Here the nonresistant conscience asserted itself.
The former was clearly within the teaching of scripture, but the latter was voluntary and became a measure of one’s wartime patriotism.
Men who were physically unable on account of the rigors of warfare could render their bit toward the winning of the war by the purchase of bonds.
To sum up: the Church of the Brethren has come a long way since the willful blindness of the World War Ⅰ period, when Dunkers seemed happy to buy up war bonds with abandon.
Now there is explicit precedent for refusal to buy war bonds, and even some hints of emerging tax resistance, or at least tax reluctance.
But it remains to be seen whether this trend will survive Pearl Harbor.
The U.S. entry into World War Ⅱ gave the Church of the Brethren another chance to decide whether it would stick to its principles in the face of public pressure to join in the bloodletting.
As we’ll see, the evidence is mixed, but at least this time around the Church avoided the total surrender to war fever that it exhibited in World War Ⅰ.
The earliest mentions of war bonds I saw in the Brethren Evangelist were all of this basic opportunistic form (my paraphrase): “The government wants you to invest 10% of your income in war bonds; can’t you invest at least that much in our Mission Board?” There were also a few off-hand mentions of church institutions either investing some of their money in government bonds or taking government bonds as donations.
This mention was typical of the crass way this magazine saw war bonds largely as unwelcome competition for church fundraising (source):
Why not make your regular offering this year, and then make the added contribution of one of those “War Bonds” you have been buying.
This would help us look to the future in a fine way, if enough of those bonds were given each year so they would mature year by year…
Remember Jesus believed in Benevolence — so must we.
There was not even a hint in the Brethren Evangelist during the war years that there was anything ethically wrong with buying war bonds, unless it interfered too much with your tithing.
Things were a little different over at the Gospel Messenger.
The issue carried a resolution from the Brethren Service Committee that read in part:
Our citizens are being urged to help finance this war by many measures other than by direct taxation; and since [t]he official position of the Church of the Brethren involves nonparticipation in any war either directly or indirectly…
From there it did not counsel for or against anything specifically, but the flavor of the advice was for the reader to redouble his efforts for relief of war suffering and “look for the voice of God in his own Christ-enlightened conscience and obey that voice no matter to how great sacrifice and suffering it may lead.”
An Indiana section of the church held a peace conference on and “one subject of discussion was Shall We Buy Defense Bonds?” (source).
The issue carried “An Appeal for Patriotism” from W. Glenn McFadden, who noted that the defense bonds program had to bribe citizens with lucrative returns in order to get their financial support.
McFadden said that instead he would buy a Brethren Service Certificate and ask nothing in return.
an illustration of a Brethren Service Certificate
One issue noted without further comment that “Life insurance companies are putting well over half of all their funds for investment into United States government bonds.
On the average, each policyholder is owner of $120 in government bonds through his life insurance policy.” I am not certain how to interpret this, but if it’s not just a piece of trivia, it sounds like a veiled warning for conscientious objectors to military funding.
A note in another issue said that an annual “United Pacifist Conference” of some sort had adopted “[a] resolution demanding that Federal tax money collected from religious pacifists be used by the government for nonmilitary purposes only.”
This was only a one-paragraph short, and is the first I’ve heard of this conference or its resolution.
It might have been an A.J. Muste project from around the time when he was beginning to explore war tax resistance.
Some church leaders from the Michigan district approved the following resolution, which seems to allude to the pressure to buy war bonds (source):
In harmony with the historic attitude of the Church of the Brethren, we the representatives of the southern churches of the District of Michigan, declare ourselves to be in favor of all things constructive and opposed to all things destructive; and that when demands are made of us which we cannot conscientiously fulfill, that our attitude should be nonviolent, and that we encourage the churches of Michigan in the purchase of Brethren Service certificates and stamps.
In war life and money are conscripted.
Every nation demands of its citizens what they possess — service from the physically fit and money from everyone.
Taxes
Direct and indirect taxes are assessed against all citizens.
Investment in War Bonds
This is expected from all citizens who have investing power.
To date the government makes such investment a voluntary matter but community pressures are almost equivalent to compulsion.
Many persons with a conscience which prevents them from engaging in physical warfare are also deterred from voluntarily financing war.
a boy shows off his Brethren Service Stamps card
The article went on to talk up Brethren Service Certificates, which helped to fund the Civilian Public Service camps for drafted conscientious objectors who were doing alternative work.
There were also smaller-denomination “Brethren Service Stamps”, which were marketed to children in particular — “Children take their stamp books to school to indicate that, while they are not buying defense stamps, they are buying these stamps” — and also some so-called “peace bonds” and “peace stamps” that were meant as ways Brethren could participate in the bond drive mania without compromising their consciences.
In all of these cases, the amount spent on bonds or stamps was a pure donation — the bonds could not later be redeemed for cash like war bonds could.
“Civilian Bonds”
The article shared a letter from Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau in which he authorized the issue of government bonds “which are not designated by their terms as ‘war issues’ ” — or, as he put it in another place “securities not designated as ‘War Bonds’ ” — so that conscientious objectors could plausibly buy them.
Morgenthau’s language not so subtly indicates that this would be largely a fig leaf.
The bonds would not be “designated” as “war issues” or “war bonds” but there was no suggestion that their proceeds would be spent any differently than any other government bonds.
The accompanying article, however, went further and claimed that this new bond money was “to be used for civilian purposes” and would therefore be “a way to co-operate in government financing without violation of conscience.”
I think that was wishful thinking at best.
The Brethren Service Committee was taking orders for the bonds immediately, via the Provident Trust Company of Philadelphia, who would send the bonds out to purchasers when the government got around to printing them up.
In return for your order you would “without delay receive a reply which you may hold as tangible evidence to your community, if needed, to show that you are co-operating in financing the government.”
If memory serves, the Provident Trust Company ended up using the money to buy ordinary government F- & G-series bonds and then “registered” them as “conscience money” through some sort of hocus-pocus to distinguish them somehow from the bonds other people were buying without such conscientious decoration.
(If you want to delve further, this was also a project that was covered extensively in The Mennonite, and you can see what I found in that magazine starting here.)
A later issue gave further instructions on the program, and included a coupon employees could use, if their employers were withholding money from their paychecks to buy war bonds, to request that they be used for “Civilian Bonds” or “Brethren Service Certificates” instead (source).
The article explained the need for the new bonds:
“For us who hold sacred [pacifist] convictions, it becomes very embarrassing to refuse the purchase of war bonds to meet a community quota.
Our neighbors cannot understand and we are often looked upon as unpatriotic.”
A frequently-asked-questions section followed.
This mostly covered the practical issues of how the bonds worked and how to purchase them, and didn’t include any questions about just how conscientious or civilian the bonds really were.
The article seemed more careful than its predecessor in only implying without stating explicitly that the money raised by the bonds would not go to military spending.
There was, however, this somewhat telling answer:
Question: Does the purchase of a Civilian Bond give credit on the county war bond quota?
Answer: Yes.…
Often, subsequent mentions of the Civilian Bond program were careful to say merely that the bonds were not explicitly designated for war expenses.
But occasionally a stronger (and I believe, baseless) guarantee would be added, like this one from the issue (source):
The government assures us that the funds realized from the sale of these bonds are not used to finance the war.
Or this one, from (source), that you can just barely parse as not an outright lie if you try hard enough:
The historic peace churches through their committee have made arrangements that purchasers of government bonds may designate their money to be used in the civilian phases of our government program. Many citizens desiring to co-operate in the civilian program of the government but whose consciences do not permit them to aid directly and voluntarily in financing the war buy these bonds.
Or this carefully-constructed phrasing, from (source):
The peace churches have arranged with the government that… purchases may be made which constitute a designation that the money should be used in the civilian expenses of the government.
Purchasers of Brethren Service Certificates had more of a legitimately clear conscience, though they may not have found these certificates as useful as bonds in beating back the mobs of war bond enforcers, and of course they were also more expensive, being donations rather than loans.
But here is an example of how one taxpayer used this program to help assuage his guilt for taxpaying:
Enclosed please find a check… representing double the amount of the tax which has been deducted from my salary this month.
It is my conviction that the use to which this tax is being put — destructive alike of human life and of international goodwill — is incompatible with Christian ethics…
Since I can do nothing to prevent the withholding of this tax, I can at least protest the use to which it is put by trying to help counteract the damage it is doing to the cause of Christianity and democracy.
I am therefore sending double the amount of tax to organizations which are maintaining and strengthening the principles of Christianity and of true democracy by constructive work of goodwill.
I intend to continue sending this amount, in addition to my regular contributions, each time I receive a salary check from which this tax has been deducted.
As a receipt, the regular B.S.C. certificate will be ample.
Rufus D. Bowman
For the edition, Rufus D.
Bowman wrote an article titled “Our Brethren Heritage Is Being Threatened”.
One of these threats: “During World War Ⅱ the majority of the members of the Church of the Brethren are supporting the war system.” Bowman reported on the results of a survey he had conducted of Brethren practices that had reached 161 churches, representing about one-sixth of the Church of the Brethren.
In that survey, “forty-six per cent of the churches reported that the members generally were buying war bonds and stamps, while sixteen per cent indicated that a substantial minority were buying them, and seventeen per cent said that a few were purchasing war bonds.”
(Furthermore, more than 80% of Brethren draftees were going into the military without taking any sort of conscientious objector status, either noncombatant or civilian public service work.)
Along with the ministers all adults who have supported the war economically should repent.
War cannot be reconciled with Jesus Christ.
War is unchristian and is inconsistent with the most precious values of this universe.
The kingdom of God is not built through hate, but through love.
It is true that one cannot live without helping the war to some extent.
When the writer takes the train there is a war tax on his ticket.
But there are varying degrees of supporting the war and not supporting it.
Where the individual is free to choose, the spirit and teachings of Jesus and the position of the Church of the Brethren are clear that church members should not support a system that destroys personality.
Adults should repent of their part in this conflict.
In the edition, W.G. Willoughby took this now-that-the-war’s-over-let’s-repent thing and ran with it:
Let us confess to God and to one another that we have all shared in the dropping of bombs.
We have participated in the mass slaughter of God’s children.
Is the bombardier who released the bombs more guilty than the pilot who guided the ship; is he more guilty than the person who built the plane; is he more guilty than the person who bought bonds to pay for the ship, or is he more guilty than we who paid taxes to the government directing the whole operation?
The Etownian (Elizabethtown College student paper) covered a seminar held by Church of the Brethren officials who had been navigating the government’s conscientious objector / Civilian Public Service Camp bureaucracy (source).
A paraphrase of remarks of M.R.
Zigler included this: “The church must decide if it can purchase war bonds which are used to build more instruments of death, or if it should buy Brethren Service Stamps and Bonds which go to relieve suffering regardless of nation, race, or creed.”
The president of the student senate at Elizabethtown apparently decided in favor of bonds, when in a article (source), he wrote matter-of-factly that:
Today when we hear “Back the Attack” we know we must all cooperate by buying and investing in war bonds.
Without this cooperation our Government would be helpless and we might as well learn the “goose step.”
However, we know what we want and we will not let our Government down.
We have pledged to cooperate and we are cooperating.
And a front-page banner in the issue urged that “every alumnus and former student will adopt the slogan, ‘Buy a Bond for Elizabethtown College’ ” (source).
The Brethren Missionary Herald reprinted a statement from the Southern California District Conference on the propriety of non-combatant service, in its issue (source).
It included this:
In the matter of the purchasing of Government Bonds, War Stamps, and working in defense industries, we hold that the line of Christian duty, as well as of Christian privilege, is sometimes a very difficult line to draw; and, in these matters it must be left to the individual soul to deal alone with his God.
A news brief in the edition showed that the West 10th Street Brethren Church of Ashland Ohio didn’t find the line too difficult to draw (source):
Rev. Charles Mayes, pastor, received $10.25 in war stamps in the church offering plates.
Suggestion was made “that any other stamps appearing in the offering will be gladly received.
These can either be converted into a war bond in the name of the church corporation, or turned over to some of our creditors as stamps, probably at face value.
It honors the government to buy stamps even though the stamps may be turned into the church.
The government will not lose and the church will thus gain.
A sidebar noted that “War Bonds Will Be Accepted” in the Thanksgiving Offering of the Home Missions Council, so the line was not apparently very difficult for the Council to draw, either.
“Militarism and hate are sweeping the Church today,” complained the editor in (source).
“The gospel of love and grace has died in thousands of pulpits.
Many church members are complaining that they cannot buy war bonds and support the Church, too.”
I can think of one possible solution to that problem, but the editor had another in mind:
buy war bonds and then turn them over to the church!
When the government instituted an additional “Victory Tax” to be withheld from salaries, the Brethren Conference of Southern California sent a protest to the government about it, after a special meeting held for this purpose on .
Their protest was over the fact that the churches would be responsible for withholding this tax, which apparently they were not required to do for other taxes previously.
This, they evidently found to be an egregious violation of religious liberty, and they insisted that pastors of their district pay the tax themselves without the church doing the withholding.
Some lines were easier for the district to draw than others.
Clarence M.
Stump took an unusually radical stand in the edition of the Bible Monitor, criticizing other Brethren for helping the government establish, fund, and operate Civilian Public Service camps for conscientious objectors. “Some say, going to camp is not fighting, but nevertheless it is a defense program.
Trying to use one’s own power and not relying on God.” He recommended that draftees stand their ground and refuse to serve and take refuge in the Bible verse that says “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake.” So “Let us serve God and not Mammon.
Let us not take offerings to send our young men to camp, but rather let us pray for our boys that they may be faithful to God.” (source)
See “Why Should I Give?” by O.L. Strayer in the issue, on the other hand, for a passionate defense of the camps.
That defense included this admission:
We have paid taxes both direct and hidden for the carrying out of the business of the government.
None of us can be so foolish as to say that we did not know that a portion of those taxes have been going for the upkeep of the fighting forces of the country, and yet we have not scrupled to pay, nay, we have taught from our pulpits that the Christian will pay his taxes faithfully.
One of the arguments for participating in bond drives and for turning a blind eye to war taxes was that everybody was involved in the war somehow, directly or indirectly, so there was no point trying to take a risky personal stand to try to extricate yourself from it.
H.S.
Bender of the Mennonite “Peace Problems Committee” tried to address this in an article reproduced in a issue of the Bible Monitor (source).
Excerpts:
We are sometimes told that it is inconsistent for Mennonites to refuse to take part in the war because our Mennonite farmers are already in the war effort; hence all other forms of participation such as fighting, buying war bonds, working in war industry, must also be approved.
The argument is clear and logical: if farming is taking part in war, then we cannot logically refuse the other things asked of us in military service, in war bonds, or in war work; then we must either quit farming or give up our nonresistant position altogether.
Bender took the position that while the produce of the farmer is used by those engaging in war, this is not the same as manufacturing military materiel, operating under military orders, working in a war industry, or working for the benefit of the war.
While such a farmer does pay taxes, he did so just as much before the war.
In short: farming remains a peaceful industry, even if it is conducted during wartime.
The propaganda arguments used against nonresistant farmers come from chiefly two sources: either from the militarists who do not at all want to strengthen Christian conscience against war but who want to break down this conscience to get more war participation; or from men with weak consciences and convictions, often from some one in war industries or in military service who desires an alibi to justify his own lack of conscientiousness.
During World War Ⅱ the Church of the Brethren held somewhat more firm than they had in War Ⅰ.
At least they largely kept their misgivings about war funding, if they were not very consistent about following through on them.
A new pacifist war tax resistance movement began to gel outside of the traditional peace churches in the late 1940s, and I’ll be looking to see how or whether the Brethren contributed to this.
The Brethren Evangelist continued to look at war bonds mostly as a positive example of giving that ought to be emulated by Brethren in the post-war period through Church-directed giving.
For example, an article on that theme by the Reverend James E. Ault alluded to war bonds in this way: “We have assisted in meeting goals for War Bonds, Victory Bonds, or Community Fund drives until it has become a part of every day experience.
These goals would be of very little value if there were not some greater goal to be reached…” (source).
Things took a very different turn in the Gospel Messenger.
Harper S. Will presented “A Seven-Point Program for Brethren” in the issue.
Will suggested that the arms race and the normalization of military conscription and training meant that Brethren would have to be more active and persistent if they wanted to make progress for a peaceful world.
He asked his readers to “[g]o into your closet, quiet your mind, and seek the guidance of the Eternal Spirit” and gave this as one example: “Henry Thoreau did it in the days of the Civil War, and he ended up in jail because he would not pay his taxes.”
In the issue, Rufus D. Bowman addressed “The Church of the Brethren and the Cultural Crisis”.
According to Bowman, the Church was being overwhelmed by and absorbed into an unchristian culture.
One of the symptoms of this was the half-hearted way Brethren upheld their adherence to non-resistance:
During World War Ⅰ our members purchased war bonds and many of our young men went straight into the army.
During World War Ⅱ it is evident that the majority of our members compromised with the war system.
“Shall We Continue to Call Ourselves a Peace Church?” asked Ruth B. Statler in the issue.
Statler noted that most Brethren draftees in the last war went into the armed services without taking any sort of conscientious objector status, and that “[a] great many of our church members bought war bonds.”
The issue brought readers news of a war tax resister from the just-emerging modern war tax resistance movement (source):
Mrs. Caroline Urie. wife of a navy officer, a Quaker and veteran social worker, has publicly refused to pay the 34.6% of her income tax which, according to government figures, would go to military expenses.
Mrs. Urie wrote President Truman and the U.S. collector of internal revenue that the withheld money would be given to four nonprofit agencies engaged in removing the causes of war.
She is willing to pay taxes “for any reasonable constructive purposes.” As a Christian she said, “I must henceforth refuse to contribute in any way I can avoid toward maintaining the institution of war.”
that was followed up by this note:
This copy of a letter to the Collector of Internal Revenue came to the Messenger desk recently.
Enclosed herewith is my income tax return for .
I wish now to announce to the Collector of Internal Revenue and the Treasury Department that I cannot conscientiously continue to pay federal income taxes when so large a proportion of the funds is being used for purposes of war.
This country did not turn to peace at the end of World War Ⅱ, but instead sought to protect and expand an American Empire.
This mad attempt to dominate the world by force of arms, the threat of atomic war, and offers of economic aid only to future allies will lead to devastation and death.
I want to dissociate myself as completely as possible from these tragic, suicidal and evil policies, and to do all I can to convince my fellow citizens that we must completely renounce the way of war and violence. ―Marion Coddington, New York, N.Y.
There was also a note in the following issue about a woman who had been denied U.S. citizenship after she stated in her application that she would not be willing to “bear arms in defense of the United States [and] that she had refused to buy bonds in the last war because their proceeds were used to finance war.”
The issue noted briefly that “The National Baptist Sunday School and Training Union Congress at Cleveland, Ohio, recently urged churches and religious bodies not to invest in war or savings bonds which may be used in the financing of war.” (source)
The issue reprinted some resolutions passed by a Quaker gathering on the subject of conscientious objection to war (source).
Among these were that “Friends are urged… [t]o avoid engaging in any trade, business, or profession directly contributing to the military system; and the purchase of government war bonds or stock certificates in war industries. [And t]o carefully consider the implication of paying those taxes, a major portion of which goes for military purposes.” The issue also reported that the North Carolina Yearly Meeting of Friends had issued a statement on conscientious objection, which also “urged Quakers ‘to realize that by paying federal taxes we are supporting preparation for war,’ but did not advise that taxes not be paid” (source).
Up to this point, all of this sudden interest in war tax resistance has been focused outside the Church of the Brethren — neither Urie nor Coddington were Brethren, and the statements above are from Quaker and Baptist institutions.
But in the issue is a quote from Rufus D. Bowman, who up to this point has been hinting at war tax resistance without actually endorsing it, in which he finally comes out:
My conviction is that all war is sin and out of harmony with the spirit, life and teachings of Jesus.
It is, therefore, wrong to participate in war.
When war comes, it is difficult in a totalitarian state to keep from helping the war system.
The most Christian position is to remain apart from war as far as possible.
Accepting any service within the army puts a person under military orders and clouds his testimony against war.
Carrying on constructive service projects under church or civilian direction, the giving of a vigorous testimony against war and the payment of war taxes, and giving our lives for a vital peace program represents a consistent Christian position.
The issue continued the new trend of highlighting examples of war tax resisters from other denominations (source):
A Quaker of Moorestown, N.J., William B. Evans, paid his income tax three months ahead of time because he believes in the American government.
But he does not believe in war or in the preparation for it; therefore, he deducted from his payment the amount he estimated would be allotted to military purposes.
In a letter to the internal revenue office he said that he was giving that money to relief and rehabilitation.
Refusal to pay taxes that may be used for military purposes on the ground of conscience is being manifested by small groups of people in the United States, Switzerland, and Norway.
In Switzerland a growing group of women, many of them teachers, and in Norway Quakers are withholding taxes for military purposes, but stating their willingness to pay the same amounts for constructive projects.
The issue carried an update on Caroline Urie’s resistance (source):
Mrs. Caroline Urie, seventy-five year old Quaker widow, of Yellow Springs, Ohio, deducted 32.3 per cent of the first installment of her income tax and will donate the deducted amount to nonprofit agencies working for peace.
She estimated the deducted amount would be used for military purposes and expressed her opposition to this use of the tax money because “war and preparation for war in the atomic area is a crime against humanity.”
The issue reported on the blooming Peacemakers war tax resistance movement (source):
More than forty individuals throughout America, most of them from the peace churches, submitted only a part of their income tax to the government this year.
They sent an accompanying letter saying that they were contributing the rest of the tax to service or peace-making projects.
Their basis of refusal to pay all of it was that a high percentage of income tax revenue goes for war purposes.
The issue brought the news that “[i]n Norway the Quakers have decided to pay a peace tax to the government instead of the government defense tax recently voted by Parliament.
The government has agreed to this arrangement.” (source) No further details were given, though, so it’s difficult to guess what this amounted to practically.
The magazine repeated the news in its issue without adding much in the way of specifics.
There was clearly a hunger for news about war tax resisters, but in all of this there is still no mention of any actual named resister from within the Church of the Brethren itself, except perhaps Rufus Bowman by implication.
The issue included this representation of the debate about war tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren at the time (source):
How Does a Pacifist Act?
One says, “I have to stick my neck out.”
Vigorous efforts to break with a war system are necessary.
What kind of logic is it for a person to say he’s a pacifist and pay income tax — a large share of which goes for war?
If I refuse my income tax payment, I am protesting in the strongest way I know.
Anyone can write letters against a tax.
They mean little to our legislators.
What counts is conviction so strong that persons refuse to pay no matter what the consequences are.
If Gandhi had not been ready to go to jail for what he believed, the Free India Movement would have crumpled before it got well under way.
We cannot build a pacifist movement if leaders in the Church of the Brethren are unwilling to risk jail for what they believe.
⋮
Another says, “I must act with moderation.”
⋮
The extreme and antagonistic position of the tax refusers and nonregistrants seems out of harmony with the Master’s deeds and words:
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”
“Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.”
I don’t like it that I am forced through my income tax into supporting war preparations. However, if I refuse payment, the government will collect anyway.
The way to fight this tax is to work for a change in the law.
Meanwhile, over at the Brethren Missionary Herald things remained much in the vein of “you gave money for war, won’t you also give some to us?” For example:
the Brethren Home Missions Council held war bonds according to its financial statement
How much have members of our churches paid out in taxes and in purchase of war bonds during the past five years?
Dare we give the Lord less in the next five years? []
Today I’ll share what I found in the archives of American Brethren periodicals from the early 1950s concerning war taxes and war bond purchases.
I found most of the items of interest in the Gospel Messenger again, and for the first time these included specified war tax resisters from within the Church of the Brethren.
The edition gave readers this short notice:
Floyd M.
Irvin of Eustis, Fla., sent in only that part of his income tax which would not be used by the Federal government for war purposes.
The rest of it, he informed them, he was turning over to a useful church program.
He believes that if many more people would do this it would have a telling effect upon military expenditures.
This was the first I’d heard of Irvin.
There was a follow-up about his resistance in the issue (source):
A series of articles in a Lake County, Fla., local paper call attention to the activities of Floyd M.
Irvin of Eustis, Fla., on behalf of world peace.
While the articles tell a few facts concerning Bro. Irvin’s life, they give special attention to his advocating nonviolent techniques in place of war, and especially to his refusal to pay the share of income taxes which goes toward supporting the military program.
Through Bro. Irvin’s efforts a recent article in the Gospel Messenger was used as the basis for a feature in his local paper.
They don’t come right out and claim Irvin as a member of the Brethren here, but they do call him “Bro.” and make the Gospel Messenger connection.
I think this is the first explicitly war tax resisting member of a Brethren church named in a Brethren periodical from the modern war tax resistance era.
Another small note was found in the issue (source):
Again this year various people, who have conscientious feelings against the tremendous amount of our budget which is being spent for war, are withholding from their income tax the percentages which are used definitely for war purposes.
The rest of it they are paying.
I assume this refers to the Peacemakers, who were putting out press releases about organized war tax resistance around this time.
The issue included a note about the Monteverde Quaker emigrants (source):
Quaker Group to Leave United States
Twenty-five Quaker residents of Fairhope, Ala., have decided to emigrate to Costa Rica so that they may be free from military demands and from paying “war taxes.” This announcement came from Hubert Mendenhall, the spokesman for the group who range in age from twenty to eighty years.
Most of them are farmers.
“Our economy has become so involved with military effort throughout the world,” Mr. Mendenhall said, “that a person can hardly make a living here without being a part of that system.”
A spokesman for the American Friends Service Committee said that this would be the first instance in American history that a group of Quakers had left the country because of their religious pacifist convictions.
A letter to the editor from Mart Sheaffer, in the edition suggested that tax resistance was more Christian than the alternative (source):
Tax Refusal
Why do Christians continue to pay the government that portion of tax which is used to support war, since war is contrary to the teachings of the New Testament?
It seems that it would be more Christlike to refuse to pay that portion of tax and to give the same amount — or more — to some worthy Christian cause such as the program of the Brethren Service Commission or some other Christian denomination’s project.
We could then take a receipt for the amount given and turn the receipt over to the government.
If it is permissible to teach the gospel, it also should be permissible to live it and practice it.
the magazine printed a letter in response, disagreeing by giving the old taxes-are-debts argument, and recommending instead prayer rather than civil disobedience (source).
Floyd M.
Irvin responded in the issue (source):
Taxes and Our Responsibility
I would like to express my disagreement with the brother from Grantsville, Md., who states that “taxes are a debt… when we pay this debt our responsibility ends.”
I would say rather that, as a citizen, I am a partner with other citizens both in managing and in financing the affairs of our government.
A citizen of a democracy has a definite responsibility in determining the purpose for which his tax money is used.
The denial of this privilege by the English government was one of the chief reasons for the revolt of the American colonists and for the birth of our republic.
Now that we have this privilege, it becomes a responsibility.
If the fathers of the American Revolution in their day felt an inner compulsion to refuse to pay taxes for the use of which they had no directing voice, ought not followers of the Prince of Peace in our day feel an urge to refuse to pay taxes which are used to finance the killing of our fellow Christians?
This is a question which needs careful consideration.
The following questions may stimulate our thoughts on the matter.
Do we as citizens have a responsibility in regard to the use of our tax money which should direct our actions beyond our choice of representatives?
In other words, after we have voted to the best of our ability, are we guiltless if our taxes are used to kill our fellow men?
Does the Scriptural injunction to pay taxes apply without exception, or is the payment of taxes to finance a war that destroys God’s children an exception when we should obey God rather than men?
How can we order our lives and finances so that if we refuse to pay taxes the government will not take more than we withhold?
Is it time for Christians to organize a non-violent resistance movement against war?
The edition again covered the Peacemakers (source):
Group Refuses to Pay “War” Taxes
Fifty-nine men and women, including four Protestant clergymen, in various parts of the country have refused to file federal income tax returns because they find it impossible to support the Korean or any other war.
This announcement was made by the tax refusal committee of Peacemakers, a national pacifist group, which released a statement by the fifty-nine saying:
“We are particularly concerned at this time about the situation in Korea, where a civil struggle has been provoked and aggravated by two power states to the point where it is already a major war — one which may be the spark that will set the world afire.
“We find it impossible to support policies and activities of this kind with our allegiance or with our money.
We must, therefore, refuse to give money for such purposes of conquest and massacre, and must give it instead to causes which build understanding and world community.”
A.J. Muste of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, sent a separate letter to the collector of internal revenue in his district, declaring that this is the third successive year in which he has refused to file a return or pay taxes.
He contended that “anyone who contributes to arming the United States today also contributes to arming Russia — which is the last thing I want to do — in the same way that Russians contribute to American armament, for each government mechanically matches the military preparations of the other.”
At the auction sale of her husband’s car, Mrs.
Arthur H.
Emery, Jr., begged those attending the sale not to bid.
She said she feared the proceeds might be used for war.
The U.S. bureau of internal revenue, which had seized the car, will apply the $145 on the income tax owed by Mr. and Mrs.
Emery.
They had refused to pay it because they thought it might be used for military purposes.
This letter from Ernest Bromley comes from the issue (source):
Tax Refusal
Many people who have been deeply concerned over the large and growing percentage of federal taxes going to war purposes have been prevented from taking any definite action because all funds paid to the federal government go into a common treasury, whether this money is for war purposes or for constructive purposes to which citizens willingly contribute.
The Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers calls attention to the fact that if the increased military appropriations now being voted by Congress under various heads are added together, this will mean a total of around seventy billion dollars for war purposes out of a budget of around ninety billion.
The increased appropriations will reflect themselves in a percentage increase in taxes, and this increase will be for purely military purposes and nothing else.
We would welcome correspondence from persons who feel a concern over this matter, which should be addressed to Rev. Ernest Bromley, Golay Road in Gano, Sharonville, Ohio.
Another war tax resister from outside of Brethren circles was featured briefly in the issue (source):
Woman Pastor Refuses to Pay “War Taxes”
A woman pastor in South Hartford, N.Y., paid only twenty-five per cent of her federal income tax because she is opposed to the government’s “warlike ventures.” The Rev. Marion C.
Frenyear, pastor of the South Hartford Congregational church, said she is a Christian pacifist and “cannot support war in any way,” that in her belief war is against religious principles and taxes should be used to bring peace and disarmament to the world.
For the same reason Miss Frenyear paid only twenty-five per cent of her federal tax bill.
Walter R. Sturr, collector of internal revenue at Albany, placed a lien against her salary and indicated the same method would be used this year to collect the unpaid taxes.
The delinquent taxes were paid by the treasury of the church and the amount was deducted from the pastor’s salary.
The Brethren Missionary Herald seemed to trend conservative.
It complained about high government spending and taxes (and saw creeping socialism at every turn), and didn’t hesitate to put the blame for this on the military budget, but this was about as far as it was prepared to go in protest:
The child of God will… pay his taxes….
It is our judgment that the general tenor of the teaching of the Bible allows for protest and even revolt against unjust and exorbitant taxation.
Beyond these considerations, however, the Lord’s servant will not try to evade the payment of tribute.
[]
The Brethren Evangelist was also largely sticking to its guns and not entertaining any newfangled tax resistance ideas.
But the magazine’s intolerance for legalized alcoholic beverages was intense enough that, in the midst of what was otherwise a standard render-unto-Cæsar article, they let this slip in the issue (source):
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” What things does Caesar have a right to claim?
Taxes?
Yes, we should expect to pay taxes for the privilege of living in such a land as ours.
We expect protection of life and property; good sanitary living conditions, and the like — and these cost money.
But there is, of course, a limit to which the Christian should be forced to go.
For instance, to be forced to pay taxes for the upkeep of hospitals for the criminally insane and penitentiaries where are housed the results of crimes brought about by a government-supported liquor program, is going beyond what any government has a moral (even if it has a legal) right to demand.
We could go on at great length with many other examples, but space forbids.
You think about them.
In the late 1950s, the Gospel Messenger covered the war tax resistance of Maurice McCrackin, and the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference took on the issue of war taxes and decided to try to work out some form of legalized conscientious objection to military taxation with the government.
The edition of Gospel Messenger introduced Maurice McCrackin’s war tax resistance:
A Presbyterian pacifist minister who has refused for ten years to pay part of his federal income tax he felt was for war purposes, was indicted by a grand jury in Cincinnati, Ohio, for failing to answer a summons from the Internal Revenue Service.
He is the Rev. Maurice McCrackin of West Cincinnati-St. Barnabas church, a racially integrated mission congregation jointly supported by the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio and the Cincinnati Presbytery.
Recently twenty-eight ministers requested the two groups not to yield to pressure for the minister’s removal from his church.
A Presbyterian pacifist minister who refused to pay part of his federal income tax he felt would be used for war purposes has been sentenced to serve six months in a federal prison camp in Pennsylvania.
Following his conviction thirteen clergymen appealed to President Eisenhower to intervene in the sentence.
A somewhat more in-depth news brief appeared later in the same issue (source):
Pacifist Minister Jailed for Contempt
Maurice F. McCrackin, a pacifist minister who has refused to pay the part of his federal income tax he felt would be used for war purposes, was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to jail for an indefinite period after ignoring a summons from the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. McCrackin is pastor of the West Cincinnati-St. Barnabas church, a mission congregation jointly supported by the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio and the Cincinnati Presbytery.
He has refused to pay income taxes for the past ten years because some of the money goes for military purposes.
Clergymen Ask President’s Intervention for Imprisoned Minister
Thirteen clergymen appealed to President Eisenhower to intervene in the “persecution” of a Presbyterian pacifist minister who has refused to pay part of his federal income tax he felt would be used for war purposes.
In a message sent by the Fellowship of Reconciliation the clergymen asked the President to bring Mr.
McCrackin’s case immediately to the attention of the Justice Department and urged that he be freed of the contempt conviction so the charges may proceed “in orderly fashion” to try him on the tax charges.
W. Harold Row, secretary of the Brethren Service Commission, was one of the twelve Protestant ministers who signed the appeal.
The message stressed that the signers were not associating themselves with the position Mr. McCrackin had taken or with the means he employed to appeal to the conscience of his fellow citizens to renounce war.
A letter-to-the-editor in the issue took inspiration from McCrackin’s stand (somewhat mangled source):
Objection to War Taxes
In the issue, you questioned the way the tax dollar is spent, and in another section you mentioned the plight of Rev. Maurice McCrackin, imprisoned for not paying the war taxes.
To me it seems that McCrackin and others like him are pointing the way out of a basic dilemma for all who profess to be pacifists, namely how to effectively oppose war when tax dollars are taken from us that go four fifths for war.
It is time that the Church of the Brethren and the other peace churches come out in favor of conscientious objection to war taxes and alternative service for the dollars we get for our labors in the form of giving an identical amount or more than the amount of taxes to the Brethren Service Commission, CARE, and other such organizations that are doing the needed job that the war-minded government of the U.S. refuses to do:
help the needy and suffering and undeveloped people all over the world.
The early Brethren did not pay taxes for war, and we are a poor shadow of our forebears if we let our dollars be spent to maintain the cancerous military machine of the United States. ―John Forbes, Castañer, Puerto Rico
Jeanne Jacoby of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, was in turn inspired by Forbes, in her letter in the issue (source): “I sincerely believe that we Brethren should oppose war taxes.
If we oppose war and preparation for war, why should we pay money for war.”
Perhaps not surprisingly, the war tax issue came up at the Annual Conference that year, though the focus seemed to be on trying to convince the government to accommodate conscientious objection to military taxation rather than on taking action in the here and now.
From the issue (source):
From the Brethren Service Commission came a recommendation to the Board urging that the Church of the Brethren begin making explorations with agencies of government in order to find some acceptable alternative for persons who, because of religious training or belief, are conscientiously opposed to the payment of the portion of their income taxes that goes for military defense.
It was pointed out that there is a growing interest among Brethren in finding such an alternative and that there is an increasing concern with regard to the large amount of tax money that is used for war preparation and various forms of military defense.
The Board recognized this interest and approved the recommendation that came to it.
It was pointed out that the difficulties confronting such a proposal would be extensive, but that a start should be made.
The church will attempt to work with other organizations having a similar concern, but if necessary, the church will proceed by itself to try to find some alternative to paying war taxes.
This evidently gave the editor of the Messenger permission to be somewhat more forthright about advocating war tax resistance.
In an editorial (source), Kenneth Morse wrote:
, the anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb, should not pass without every Christian deciding to take personal responsibility for some form of protest or non-violent action against the continuing arms race.
Some concerned persons have kept vigil at launching bases, others have demonstrated against policies by engaging in “walks for peace,” others have refused to pay taxes for war purposes.
W.A.
Ogden of Grace Seminary (Indiana) wrote an article on “Separation” for the issue of The Brethren Missionary Herald in which he set out his idea of the Brethren orthodoxy on how the Christian ought to behave toward the state.
When it comes to war bonds: “We recognize that there are many areas, such as purchasing bonds, war stamps, and so forth, which the individual must settle alone with his God.”
In the issue of The Brethren Evangelist, Percy C.
Miller reviewed the chapter on the Civil War from Rufus Bowman’s The Church of the Brethren and War (source).
He summarized the Brethren position on war taxes and related issues this way:
In the early days of the war, some of the Brethren hired substitutes.
The church members preferred to pay fines instead of using the system of substitutes.
But the records do not indicate that the Brethren clearly recognized the inconsistency with their peace position of employing substitutes or paying heavy war taxes to keep free from participation in armed conflicts.
The Society of Friends protested continually against war taxes.
The Brethren and Mennonites took the position that they [sh/c?]ould pay what the government required.
The brethren felt that the gospel required the payment of fines and taxes.
They based their opposition to war upon the teachings of Jesus but related their opposition more to the overt acts of war than to the whole war system.
They felt that the Brethren Church, for Biblical reasons, [sh/c?]ould not use the sword, but that the civil government, likewise because of Biblical reasons — “for the punishment of evildoers” (Ⅰ Peter 2:14) — might have to use material force.
In , suddenly Brethren couldn’t stop talking about war tax resistance.
By war tax resistance had gone from heresy to something that was considered one possible appropriate Christian response to runaway militarism.
Take, for example, this mention in passing from Ralph E.
Smeltzer’s long essay on “The Church and the World” in the issue of Gospel Messenger:
When the Christian conscience and the demands of the state conflict, as many feel in the case of military service, taxes for military purposes, and defense jobs, the Christian must follow his conscience.
A lengthy war tax resistance letter-to-the-editor on war tax resistance led off that column in the issue (source).
The page scan (here and elsewhere in this volume) is difficult to read in parts, but I’ll try to restore it as best I can:
Taxes for War Purposes
The three of us, two ministers and a layman, have come to the conclusion that we can no longer pay Federal income tax for war.
This may seem an astonishing stand; but much more astonishing is our general Brethren complacency about paying income tax.
In colonial times and during the Revolutionary War there was much tax refusal by Quakers, Mennonites, and Brethren.
An irate critic of the Church of the Brethren charged,
“They not only refused to take up arms to repel the savage marauders and prevent the inhuman slaughter of women and children, but they refused in the most positive manner to pay a dollar to support those who were willing to take up arms to defend their homes and their firesides, until wrung from them by the stern mandates of the law.
They did the same when the Revolution broke out. They might at least have furnished money.
But no; not a dollar!”
It is not certain whether this writer referred to taxes or only to the substitutionary sum paid in lieu of the militia draft.
In either case the Brethren then had an alert ethical sensitivity about turning over their money for war.
In the belief that many Brethren are becoming troubled about paying income tax, we submit for fraternal consideration the following statement on income tax refusal.
Because the per capita U.S. military expenditure rose from less than $8 in to $268 in ,
Because approximately 75% of the Federal budget for the past several years has been annually appropriated for military purposes,
Because the government has been spending less than one million dollars yearly on the problems of disarmament, in contrast to $47 billion on arms, a ratio of one to forty-seven thousand,
Because there is so little national conscience about what nuclear war would mean for man, what it would be under God,
We find ourselves constrained by the love of Christ to refuse paying Federal income tax and instead are giving a corresponding amount, plus no less than 20%, to UN or other peacemaking programs.
We reject, as blasphemy against Christ, the prevailing readiness to exterminate hundreds of millions, or even all mankind, in order to “defend our values, our faith.”
Since modern technological warfare is much more dependent on huge amounts of money than on manpower, we believe that refusal to turn over our bodies is not enough; we can no longer turn over our dollars for the present rush t[o our] mass annihilation. Let West an[d East] really take total disarmament a[s our] goal, and not merely toy with it [under] the pressure of world public o[pinion] as till now.
We do not discount the cons[tructive] aspects of Federal activity, a[nd we] welcome governmental endeavo[rs that] do make for peace. But with t[he best] prospects for disarmament fadi[ng fast] and the population of East and [West] mostly unaware of the imminen[ce of] and the certainty of disaster if [these] policies continue, we are impe[lled to] income tax refusal as a way of [calling] others to hear God’s warning:
[“I have] set before you this day life and [good, and] death and evil. Therefore choo[se life,] that you and your descendant[s may] live, loving the Lord your God, [obey]ing his voice, and cleaving to [Him.”]
Those interested in discussi[ng this] difficult issue should write Dal[e] [Auk]erman, Bechlinghoven bei [?] Glueckstrasse 3, Germany. [Dale] Aukerman, John Forbes, and [Jerry] Royer.
That letter got an enthusiastic reply from Dale Rummel in the issue (source):
Church Should Take a Stand
I read the letter on “Taxes for War Purposes,” by Dale Aukerman, John Forbes, and Jerry Royer in [the] Gospel Messenger for [.
I] feel that they are trying, const[ruc]tively, to reach the answer [to the] problem that has been plaguing Christians since the two world wars.
I would like to see Annual Conference take action along the line[s of] their statement.
Our government can crush individuals when they take a stand which is “illegal.”
But if an organization like our whole Brotherhood took this stand and backed up [the] individuals who carried it out, [there] is much more chance for its [doing] some lasting good. I believe, [also] that if we take this stand [other] denominations will join us in it[.]
This is no time for the Brethren to become fearful and cowardly [and] be afraid to step forward and [go] where we know it is right to [go].
Let us, with God’s guidance, go [for]ward, regardless of the phy[sical] consequences, in what we know [is] right.
A note in the issue (source) said that the Michigan district conference had asked the Annual conference to “study the possibilities of making the pacifist movement a political force in our country” by, among other means:
Attempting to work out a proposal for an alternative tax arrangement, so that the taxes of those who object to war on conscientious grounds may be used for peaceful and constructive goals of government.
In the issue, J.
Robert Boyer encouraged his readers to take more courageous stands for their faith, and not like Peter deny Christ three times before the cock crows.
One example he gives of when one might take a stand: “Will you send your tax money to Cape Canaveral, where missiles are launched to kill the enemy?”
The following letter from Charles E. and Cleda P. Zunkel appeared in the issue (source):
No Tax for War Purposes
In keeping with our pronouncements concerning war, the last of which was made at the Annual Conference at Richmond, Va., we Brethren have encouraged our young men to seek alternative service, in lieu of military service.
Our young men, who have followed our teaching, have borne most of the brunt of this course of action.
Have we, their parents, kept faith with them, as we have continued to pay our income tax money, 75% of which has gone for the support of military preparedness and war? I think we have not.
Some of our young men have challenged us to action, by appealing to us to cease paying the 75% of our income tax which goes to military purposes.
It seems high time that we oldsters make our witness for peace, as we have asked our youth to make theirs.
My wife and I have been spurred to action by this appeal of our youth, and by the recent appeal of our President for $2 billion more to be added to an already staggering sum for military might.
The accompanying letter was sent to the Internal Revenue Service and to our President to clarify our position.
It seems to us that we are called upon to make clear our faith and our action, in keeping with our historic understanding of the life and teachings of our Lord.
Director of Internal Revenue,
Richmond, Virginia.
President John F. Kennedy
White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Sirs:
Since the late 1920’s we have been conscientious objectors to war, in the settlement of international disputes.
We believe in the historic faith of our church, The Church of the Brethren, that “all war is sin.
We, therefore, cannot encourage, engage in, or willingly profit from armed conflict at home or abroad.
We cannot in the event of war accept military service or support the military machine in any capacity.”
Believing as we have, we have had guilty consciences as we have seen our nation increase its military preparedness.
We have been aware that approximately 75% of all our income tax money has been spent for war, preparation for war, or mainten[ance] of military might. In 1938 the [total] military expenditure was $8 [per] capita; in 1958 it had risen to [$268] per capita.
From time to time, as we [have] filed our income tax returns, we [have] in letters to the government, [pro]tested this use of our money. [We] suggested that there be some [pro]vision whereby these funds now [used] for military expenditures be used [for] peaceful pursuits, such as the fee[ding] of the hungry of the world [and] the aid to underprivileged [people] through technical assistance.
Thus far, our protests have [not] been regarded. On , our local newspaper carried the notice that you, President Kennedy, were asking for $2 [billion] more than the amount already [pro]posed for military defense, ma[king] a total asking of $43,794,300,000[.]
Recently, we learned that two [nu]clear scientists warned the Nat[ional] Education Association in its co[nven]tion that we in the United States already have enough manufact[ured] fissionable material to blot ou[t all] life from the face of the entire [earth] and leave it pock-marked and vo[id like] the face of the moon.
In all good conscience, we ca[n no] longer give 75% of our income [tax] money for the support of mil[itary] might.
We are not opposed to pa[ying] tax, but rather, to paying tax for [that] purpose.
We feel as guilty as if [we] were giving our lives in the pro[gram] of the military method of settling international disputes.
Therefore, we are filing our income tax report as usual, paying [the] full tax for , but paying [only] 25% of the tax due for the first [quarter] of 1961.
The other 75% of our [income] tax will be given in quarterly [install]ments to the church, in addition [to] the 15% or more we already [give.]
We hope the time may [speedily] come when such vast military expenditures may cease, and the [money] so spent may be used to relieve [the] suffering and need in our world.
[We] hope, further, that in the [mean] time some alternative tax plan [may] be worked out whereby conscientious objectors may give their [tax] money to peaceful pursuits, just [as] young men may serve in alternative service in lieu of the military service.
The Gospel Messenger editor, Kenneth Morse, endorsed peace protest in general in his editorial, and war tax resistance as one possible protest: “Consider also the personal decision of the moderator of Annual Conference and his wife with regard to taxation for war purposes… It is always easy to criticize the stand that others take. But please note that some have at least taken a stand.”
A response from Jack Kline, however, in the issue, took issue with tax resistance on the usual render-unto-Cæsar grounds (source): “I think it well to protest the high military expenditure.
But the type of letter that was written to Mr.
Kennedy and to the Internal Revenue Department I think does not show good grace.
I am a bit embarrassed that leaders in our own church would write that type of letter and refuse to pay taxes which our Lord distinctly told the Jews, under a military occupation, they should pay.”
There was another dissent, from John L.
Mohler, in the issue (source).
His objection was more on the grounds of democratic political theory: “[B]y participating on the economic life of our national community and accepting our incomes from it, we obligate ourselves to payment of the tax which, by democratic procedures, a majority of our citizens have imposed upon us.” Mohler felt that if you were going to conscientiously object to the taxes on your income, you should do so by refusing the income in the first place: “It seems to me that, in the case of refusal to pay taxes, the removal [of the dissenter from the democratically-chosen endeavors] should precede and prevent acceptance of the income on which the tax is paid.” But he didn’t think that was such a great idea either.
He felt that the tax resister’s quest to morally isolate himself from the decisions of the democratic polis was futile, and that he should instead accept his share of guilt for those decisions and begin from there.
On the other hand, Virgil Rose, in a letter in the issue (source) “was moved with deep spiritual elation” by the news of Brethren war tax resisters.
Rose tried to contradict some of the arguments against war tax resistance.
For example, the individual contribution to the modern war budget, he says, dwarfs the tiny head tax in Judea that Jesus spoke of, and so they cannot be directly compared; and the idea that he straightforwardly counseled the payment of a tax to Rome contradicts the whole point of the render-unto-Cæsar parable.
Rose also wasn’t impressed with Mohler’s democratic theory, though as I interpret it, it seems they were talking past each other on this point (Mohler responded in the issue).
His conclusion:
Let us not shrug off the pricks of conscience that disturb us as we witness the courageous decisions these Brethren are marking.
What defense have we before God if knowingly and without protest we supply money to buy instruments for the destruction of our fellow men?
Russ Montgomery also chimed in, in the issue (source). “I would like to congratulate [Charles Zunkel] on the courage to take such a stand.
When such bold action is taken by leaders it seems to make them worthy of the name.”
The issue brought an update about Maurice McCrackin (source):
Presbytery Suspends Minister Who Refused to Pay Income Tax
The Rev. Maurice F.
McCrackin, pacifist Presbyterian minister who for some twelve years has refused to pay a major portion of his income taxes, has been suspended indefinitely by the Cincinnati Presbytery from his ministry.
Mr.
McCrackin has been pastor of the West Cincinnati-St. Barnabas church, a racially integrated mission congregation supported jointly by the Cincinnati Presbytery and the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio.
A spokesman for the Presbytery explained that Mr. McCrackin was suspended not for his stand on income taxes but for disobeying the law by ignoring a summons from the Internal Revenue Service, an offense for which he served a six-month prison sentence.
Many of the minister’s parishioners were reported sympathetic with his refusal to pay most of his income taxes on the ground that they were used for military purposes and that war is a sin.
The lead editorial in the issue (Morse again) again promoted conscientious tax resistance:
Just about the time that Valentine Byler, an Amish farmer in Pennsylvania, was ready to start his spring plowing, the Interal Revenue Service seized his three work horses and sold them at auction.
The reason was that Byler, who is conscientiously opposed to Social Security, had refused to pay a self-employment tax for that purpose.
Many members of the Amish sect regard Social Security as a form of insurance, and they are opposed to it. They have consistently refused to accept its benefits and do not take a Social Security number. While agreeing to the normal taxes on their property, they object to paying the Social Security tax required of farmers.
Thus we have another of those ironical situations in which the government finds itself [ba]nishing some of its most thrifty and self-reliant citizens.
Fortunately, as a result of the Byler case, several bills have now been introduced in Congress which would allow persons who are conscientiously opposed to Social Security to be excused from participating either in its support or its benefits.
We hope that some legal provision can be made for the benefit of those independent persons who have such scruples.
Many of us who would argue in favor of Social Security and even urge that it become available to more people still recognize the rights of conscience.
We respect the integrity of citizens who, like the Amish, may have some unique ideas as to how they contribute to the general welfare.
At the same time, is it not just as reasonable for the federal government to give some consideration to the scruples of citizens who are conscientiously opposed to paying taxes for war purposes?
A friend who is employed in the Treasury Department tells us it should not be too difficult for Congress to set up a general fund for nonmilitary purposes to which the tax payments of peace-minded citizens could be directed.
This would not satisfy all the concerns raised by taxprotesters, but it might at least provide an alternative more acceptable than the present arrangement.
A wise government should be able to find some way of conserving the conscientious contributions of citizens who cannot conform to policies they regard as wrong but who still desire to serve in constructive ways.
In the issue, an S.
Mohler (no idea if there’s any relation to the John Mohler referred to above) wrote in (source).
This letter began by saying that “in recent years I have read about a few Brethren suffering imprisonment for refusing to pay income taxes, because of the government’s military use of them.” I think this cannot be factually correct, as there were not very many Brethren war tax resisters at this point, and I don’t know of any who had yet been imprisoned for it.
Be that as it may, Mohler continues by saying that such “imprisonment for nonpayment of income taxes can be honorably and approvedly avoided” by increasing tax-deductible charitable contributions to the point where you do not owe taxes.
Mohler suggests that this is the method he or she has been using for “the past ten or fifteen years.”
Andrew R. Shelly, of the Board of Missions in the General Conference Mennonite Church, wrote in to second that suggestion, in the issue (source).
“Why should we not adjust our lives so that we can give very much more and at the same time materially reduce that which we pay directly to the war effort?”
(See ♇ 5 September and 9 September 2018 for Shelly’s contributions on this theme to the Mennonite Gospel Herald.)
The Brethren Evangelist was much more restrained in its coverage.
They did publish this wire service piece about Maurice McCrackin in the issue (source):
Presbytery Suspends Minister Who Wouldn’t Pay Income Taxes
Cincinnati, O. (EP)—
A pacifist Presbyterian minister who for some 12 years has refused to pay a major portion of his income taxes, has now been suspended indefinitely by the Cincinnati Presbytery.
The move not only halts his ministry but prevents his receiving communion in the church.
The Rev. Maurice F. McCrackin has been pastor of the West Cincinnati-St. Barnabas Church, a racially integrated mission congregation supported jointly by the Cincinnati Presbytery and the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio.
An Episcopal diocese spokesman explained that although the mission is a co-operative project in its religious program, disciplinary jurisdiction rests with the Presbytery since Mr. McCrackin is an ordained Presbyterian clergyman.
A spokesman for the Presbytery said that Mr. McCrackin has appealed this suspension to the Presbyterian Synod of Ohio, but it was reported unofficially that his only hope for reinstatement would be a formal declaration to the Presbytery that he would pay his income taxes in the future.
It was explained that Mr. McCrackin was suspended not for his stand on income taxes, but for disobeying the law by ignoring a summons from the Internal Revenue Service, an offense for which he served a six-month prison sentence.
Presbytery has been studying the case for nearly a year.
I did not notice any mentions of war tax or war bond refusal in The Etownian, The Pilgrim, the Brethren Missionary Herald, or Bible Monitor in .
Today I’ll look at war tax resistance among American Brethren in 1963 by hunting through the archives of Brethren periodicals.
In the issue of the Gospel Messenger, John Forbes introduced the idea of a form of tax resistance as a symbolic protest, rather than as a conscientious imperative (source):
Suggestions for Taxpayers
For the benefit of the readers of the Messenger and all others across the Brotherhood interested in the peace position, I would like to quote three statements and make a suggestion.
“We urge the Brethren Service Commission to continue its efforts to develop an acceptable proposal for an alternative tax arrangement” (Report of GBB to Annual Conference, adopted).
“My feeling has been that the initiative on this has to come from taxpayers around the country rather than from any organized effort here in Washington… that until there is widespread nonpayment of taxes by those opposed to war, there will be no change in government policy” (Edward F. Snyder, Friends Committee on National Legislation, letter to the undersigned ).
“I am as convinced as ever that all those who are opposed to preparations for nuclear extermination and who will owe any federal income tax should refuse some token amount.
I suggest holding back $10, an amount large enough to be noticed but small enough to avoid excessive penalty.
When Internal Revenue took $14.49 from my bank account, the ‘statutary addition’ was only 21 cents.
The year before, when I owed $5.90, it did not bother to collect at all.
“This ‘token ten’ could be given to some constructive project, and IRS so informed in a letter explaining the objection to over half of it being otherwise used for destruction.
Enough pacifists are interested in this, I feel, to make it become a significant force for peace” (Franklin Zahn to editor of the Peacemaker, ).
I think everyone in the Church of the Brethren with a concern for peace should take up this suggestion and apply it when income tax is due in April, if they can.
I am willing to act as coordinator of this project, if one is needed and someone in Elgin doesn’t want the job.
If enough Brethren and others take this action now, we shall surely see action in Congress or in the Treasury Department before long.
In a “Brethren Ministers’ Peace Retreat” was held.
The Church teachings on pacifism and peacemaking were given a thorough going-over.
Dale Aukerman reported on the retreat in the issue (source).
Aukerman had himself come out as a war tax resister (see ♇ 31 May 2020), so he would likely have been attuned to any mention of it, but except for one mention of Civil War-era refusal to hire substitutes for military service (but payment of tax), his article on the Retreat is silent on the issue of taxes.
The issue published a brief dispatch about Quaker war tax resister Arthur Evans (source), but a more in-depth dispatch appeared in the Brethren Evangelist so I’ll save it for that section, below.
The minister of the Unitarian Universalist church in San Anselmo Calif., has declined to pay sixty-one percent of his federal income tax on the grounds that it would go for “carefully planned machinery to kill millions of human beings.”
The Dutch-born pastor, Karel F. Botermans, who was a leader in the Netherlands underground during the Nazi occupation, sent the remaining thirty-nine percent of his tax to the Internal Revenue Service.
In the protest letter he sent to President Kennedy and Secretary of Defense McNamara he asserted the belief that he had international law on his side.
He referred to the Nurnberg trials, “where it was stated by our Allied judges that, in actions of genocide, every person in that society involved in those actions is to be held responsible.”
The pacifist clergyman points out that he would gladly pay the withheld sixty-one percent of his tax if the U.S. pledged to spend the money for other methods of settling international differences.
In the issue, O.E. Gibson raised a series of questions about conscientious objection, suitable for consideration by Brethren.
Several of these concerned war funding, and the others seemed designed to guide the consideration of those (source).
Excerpt:
Is there a difference in principle in supporting one’s government as a soldier and supporting its war plans with money?
Are those persons in the U.S. (some forty or fifty) who are openly refusing to give their money in tax to support the military plans of our government more radical or less realistic than the conscientious objectors who would not submit to the draft in World War Ⅰ?
Allowing that refusal may mean much more than a few months in prison — that it may mean a complete change in one’s way or standard of living as is the case with most of those who are refusing, should we condemn or should we uphold them?
Would history or reason suggest that a law allowing that one might divert his tax money into religious or peace work be passed by our Congress without a comparable amount of suffering as that endured to get our “alternative service” law?
The issue of The Brethren Evangelist printed a wire service article about Quaker war tax resister Arthur Evans:
Colorado Springs, Colo. (EP)—
A Colorado Quaker who long has refused voluntary payment of that portion of his federal taxes earmarked for military spending plans the same course of action .
For 20 years, Dr. Arthur Evans, a Denver physician, has donated the amount of money equal to his tax burden of military spending to a charity and has sent the receipt to the Internal Revenue Service.
Every year the IRS attaches his bank account, collects the amount due and adds a 6 per cent interest charge.
, because the IRS was “using the information I was voluntarily giving for evil purposes,” Dr. Evans did not file any federal return.
To make up for his tax liability, the physician sent the IRS five checks for $200 each — payable to the United Nations, the Peace Corps, and the AID Program.
Dr. Evans contends he is meeting his obligation by contributing to organizations such as the United Nations, which are supported at least in part by the U.S. government.
The IRS, in returning the checks, stated “they have no connection with any tax liability and cannot be accepted by this office.”
The Quaker, who terms military spending as a “Doomsday Machine,” continues to pay his state income taxes because they have no military spending connection.
The debate about war tax resistance continued among Brethren in , and for the first time a Brethren church began resisting taxes corporately.
In , representatives from Mennonite, Quaker, and Brethren congregations — the “historic peace churches” — met in New Windsor, Maryland to figure out how to be a peace church in the middle of the Vietnam War.
According to Messenger coverage of the event , war tax resistance was a footnote (source): “Spurred on by the youth delegates to the consultation, a group at New Windsor prepared a brief statement calling for… ‘counseling on the draft and nonpayment of war taxes for those who need it.’ ”
In (see yesterday’s Picket Line), the Messenger had invited four writers to explain their diverse ways of confronting taxes for war.
One, Russell Bollinger, paid his taxes willingly and thought tax resistance was dangerously corrosive of democratic cooperation.
That led to a rebuttal from David Coppock in the issue (source). Excerpts:
Mr. Bollinger expresses a fear that no government can exist as long as the people pay taxes only as their conscience guides them.
Since I put the conscience first, I am more afraid of a government that does not allow the people to live as their consciences guide them.
Our first concern as Christians should not be to see that our moral inclinations are in harmony with man-made laws.
We don’t have to answer to man for our acts if we believe we have been guided by God.
We need only to answer to God.
To allow one’s personal convictions to be molded and shaped by society and government is to allow one’s very being to be taken from the hands of God and placed into the fallible hands of man.
Mr. Bollinger states, “All attempts to change the behavior, attitudes, or values of mature responsible persons by force are degrading and destructive to personhood.”
When I think about Vietnam, Biafra, race prejudice, and a so-called Christian nation with Dow Chemical and A-Bombs, I ask where are all the mature and responsible people?
And by paying taxes don’t you willfully and knowingly give most of that money to a war that is as degrading and as destructive to personhood as anything can be?
He challenges tax withholding on the basis of whether or not it can be universalized.
Since he doesn’t believe that it can, he rejects such ideas.
Does this mean that he believes that a willful support of the war effort can be universalized into a law for all men?
I certainly want to challenge his last main point.
“Our impatience to reconstruct the world after our own particular blueprint must not lead us into betraying noble ends for unworthy means.”
The Christian must recognize that America’s blueprint is being felt right now in Vietnam.
Our government would have us believe that the Vietnam war is being fought for noble ends — democracy, freedom, end of communism.
And since it found no other alternative but war, it would have us believe that this is a worthy means.
The Christian can never accept war as a worthy means.
And the Christian must recognize that the noble ends which he seeks are higher than those which the government seeks.
Therefore, withholding taxes can hardly be considered an unworthy means when that money would have been used for the most degrading and evil acts of man.
In the issue, Richard G. Young raised a dissenting voice against the attempt to lobby the government to accommodate conscientious objectors to military taxation. “A hard line should immediately be taken against any suggestion to seek tax exemption for pacifists,” wrote Young (source).
According to Young, war tax resistance is only a pacifist action if it confronts and resists militarism. “Once the military power accommodates (removes the confrontation of) an action, it is no longer antimilitaristic.”
We can be sure that if all young men eighteen years old demanded alternative service, our government would rescind the conscientious objector alternative.
It should be recognized also that our militaristic government embellishes itself with the boast that it offers a conscientious objector alternative in the “true spirit of democracy.” In this manner the antimilitaristic action, well intentioned as it may have been, has ceased to be pacifistic in that the military system has neutralized its effect.
Similarly, any agreement with the government to exempt pacifists from paying war taxes would not be pacifistic.
We would not be threatening the military but perhaps adding another plume to its hat.
The edition brought the news that a Brethren church had decided as an institution to begin war tax resistance — the first such example that I am aware of (source):
Both as a witness and as a protest, the Wilmington, Del., Church of the Brethren decided by board action to refuse to pay the federal excise tax on telephones.
In a letter to President Richard M. Nixon from the board of the Richardson Park congregation, Dale W. Good, board chairman, and Robert D. Cain Jr., witness commission chairman, noted that the 10 percent federal telephone tax was restored by Congress in to help pay for the war in Vietnam.
They also quoted from the Statement of the Church of the Brethren on War, in which the denomination stated its opposition to the use of taxes for war purposes and called upon congregations and boards to study the issues and press for alternative uses for tax money.
Meaning: “We recognize that the act of refusing to pay this tax is small, but the meaning is large in that it is a direct and tangible means of expressing our dissent to the United States’ action in Vietnam and also a protest to the enactment of taxes for war purposes,” the letter stated.
It further urged Mr. Nixon “to use all resources and power available to you as President of the United States to achieve world peace” and to give consideration to a government provision for an alternative use of tax money for peaceful, nonmilitary purposes.
The decision to take the action followed a recommendation from the witness commission and was voted 8 to 6.
Individual members of the parish were asked in turn to consider withholding the excise tax on their personal telephone bills.
The pastor, Allen T. Hansell, said that he personally had been withholding the 10 percent tax on his own telephone bill payments since .
First: Ralph E. Smeltzer of the World Ministries Commission commented that to his knowledge the action is the first taken in the Church of the Brethren by a congregational board.
In several areas Brethren individuals have practiced telephone tax refusal for up to two years.
A lengthy interpretation of the action taken by the Richardson Park church board appeared the next day in Wilmington’s Morning News.
The article stated the Church of the Brethren believes that its historic opposition to all war “is compatible with good citizenship” and that the church endorses support of “worthy government functions.”
But the article also cited Brethren concern over the trend toward a permanent militaristic outlook by the nation.
That news was interesting enough that it was also covered in The Brethren Evangelist , interrupting that magazine’s silence on the issue (source).
in the Church of the Brethren made available this book, which included a chapter on “Payment of Taxes for War Purposes” by William Few
In the “General Board” had put together a policy statement on civil disobedience that it hoped the Annual Conference would adopt.
The Messenger published it (source).
It alluded to “laws which require payment of taxes for war purposes” as an opportunity for “reactive” civil disobedience — conscientious objection — as opposed to “initiatory” civil disobedience, which is designed as a pressure tactic to change government behavior.
And it gave favorable mention to “the Christians who refused… to pay taxes to Caesar’s pagan temples”, “Quakers who refused to pay taxes for war against the Indians”, “Henry David Thoreau”, and, within the Church of the Brethren, “refusal to… pay war taxes during the Revolutionary War”.
But it did not come down on either side of the question of whether war tax resistance ought to be recommended.
It instead recommended a careful process for assessing proposed individual and corporate civil disobedience actions.
[We] separate our total tax obligation into two parts.
That portion required to pay our part of the indispensable, nonwar services of our government as loyal citizens we gladly pay.
The part that would go to war purposes, which we cannot conscientiously support, we withhold by making contributions to relief, to the church and her ministries, and to other worthy, nonwar causes — contributions large enough to wipe out our war-tax obligation.
If the government takes part of the tax dollars we pay for non-war services and uses them for the war, we can’t prevent that.
We couldn’t prevent it if we refused to pay all taxes and went to jail.
Our alternative service for tax dollars is a matter of conscientious objection to the war, and we so state on our tax return.
This is not just “tax avoidance.”
It is costly.
It costs far more than a dollar to divert a dollar from the war.
Since the tax rate begins at fourteen percent of taxable income and increases with larger incomes, we have to give away six or seven dollars to withhold one dollar from the war.
But wouldn’t you gladly give seven dollars to lessen a little the suffering of a wounded refugee child rather than to pay one dollar to buy napalm to burn more babies?
How much should we withhold?
Should we proportion our withholding to the direct cost of the Vietnam war (fifteen percent of the national budget)?
Or should it be in proportion to the total defense budget (forty to fifty percent of the total national budget, depending on whose analysis you accept)?
One’s own conscience must be the guide.
One legal limitation will affect those with higher incomes: deductible contributions cannot exceed thirty percent of total income.
The legal withholding of war taxes by contributions is especially suitable for retired citizens, for most of them have a nontaxable income on which to live.
Social Security for a retired couple, both over sixty-five, now is approximately $3,000 a year maximum for those who have been fully employed at average or better-than-aver-age incomes.
In addition, there is a nontaxable exemption of $2,400 on any other income they receive from pensions or investments.
And Medicare pays major health care expenses.
In short, a retired couple who have any income tax at all to pay have a nontaxed income sufficient for a modest but comfortable living.
Their income taxes come out of the surplus which they have for hobbies, travel, gifts to family or church, or other good causes.
It is out of this surplus that we “lay up treasure in heaven.”
Perhaps we oldsters who conscientiously oppose war should, by choosing alternative service for our tax dollars, prove ourselves worthy brothers to our young men who choose alternative service to the military.
What I was hoping to see in but didn’t was the results of the survey the magazine had sent out the previous year asking readers how they were responding to war taxes.
The Brethren Evangelist was again much more reluctant than the Messenger to discuss war tax resistance in .
There was a mention of the Richardson Park Brethren Church’s corporate phone tax resistance decision.
In the issue, Steve Haller addressed “Christian Pacifism”.
He mostly reflected on his own experience in Brethren alternative service for conscientious objectors, but also approvingly quoted Larry Kuenning who took the perspective that to a Christian, war is already over, and so:
In a war you have to pay taxes to support the army.
But the war is over: you don’t have to pay taxes for war.
You can use the money to help the victims of war instead.
The Church of the Brethren decided to divest from U.S. government bonds, and considered engaging in corporate phone tax refusal as well, and in the debate began to spill over into more conservative branches of American Brethren.
Chuch Investment in U.S. Bonds
In , the Church of the Brethren General Board met, and among the items on the agenda was Church investments in the war industry and in U.S. government bonds.
The Messenger covered this in its edition (source).
Excerpt:
Government bond ownership by the church, like the war that bonds are said to support, may be winding down, but not winding up — as some persons are urging.
Replying to the National Youth Conference resolution calling on the church to dispose of all government bonds, the General Board rejected a proposed reply from its investment committee and asked the Administrative Council to bring further options in March for handling fiscal operations without the use of bonds.
Board members also called for the investment committee to consider selling any stocks held with the dozen top corporations supplying war materials.
The rejected proposal would have put the board on record as reconfirming its opposition to war, not purchasing additional bonds as long as the national budget is so heavily military oriented, permitting the sale of bonds held as cash needs arise, and opposing immediate liquidation of the remaining bonds held.
Board views ranged from those who sought to dispose of the $617,933 in bonds held by the church “as a witness to the nation” for peace, to those who saw the bonds supporting many good things of government.
Other arguments against disposal included the cash liquidity on short notice of the bonds, the loss that would be suffered in the sale of the bonds, and the fact that $259,880 of the total is pledged for a Bethany Seminary loan.
One staff member challenged the assumption that the bonds are a means of financing the war, but rather lend stability to the government.
Another indicated that the cash put into a savings account could be invested by the bank in bonds anyway, and that the church owed a fiscal responsibility to donors of the money in not risking a financial loss in any premature sale of the bonds.
“The government bonds in the investment portfolio are not considered war bonds,” noted the board’s investment committee, “but are issues which were put out from time to time for general government operations, including programs that we enthusiastically support.”
Many of the bonds held by the Brethren were purchased in the 1950s, and no further purchases have been made since 1965.
During the past fiscal year the church sold half a million dollars in government bonds.
Likely to come before the Cincinnati Conference next year is a query from Southern Ohio that the church investigate payment of the telephone tax and the holding of U.S. government securities which are believed to support war.
The issue brought more details about where these queries were coming from (source).
Excerpt:
Southern Ohio district is bringing a query to the Conference asking for a study of the payment of the telephone tax and the holding of U.S. government securities by the church’s national offices.
Likewise, the Pacific Southwest Conference, at the initiation of some youth and the Lynnhaven, Phoenix, and Glendale, Ariz., congregations, has requested Annual Conference to “consider the moral question of holding United States Savings Bonds when we as a church are trying to divorce ourselves as far as possible from the military-industrial complex.”
The General Board gave in to the pressure, as reported in the issue (source).
Excerpt:
The Church of the Brethren General Board will sell its stock holdings in corporations directly producing defense or weapons-related products and its governmental securities that are believed to channel funds into military appropriations.
Meeting at Elgin, Ill., in , the board also tightened its investment guidelines, declaring that words and acts should be brought together “so that the clearest possible witness can be given to the inclusive reconciling love of Christ.”
The statement recognized, however, that “at any given moment the commitment can be one of direction only — it cannot be one of absolute achievement.”
The implication is that mergers and company reorganizations sometimes bring into the firm products or ideals inconsistent with the Brethren stance.
Based on market prices the divestment of stocks represents four percent of the general investment portfolio and 6.5 percent of the pension fund portfolio.
US Treasury bonds being sold amount to $248,813.
The board declined, however, to sell the $274,894 in bonds pledged for a loan to Bethany Theological Seminary.
They will be sold only as they are released from escrow.
Board treasurer Robert Greiner estimated a loss of $18,300 instead of an $18,000 gain that would have been realized if the bonds had been held until maturity.
Any possible loss on the stock investments being sold and reinvested was not known.
Last year’s National Youth Conference in a resolution urged the board to sell its
US Treasury bonds.
And in the National Council of Churches’ Corporate Information Center, in which the Brethren participate, divulged the stock-holdings of ten denominations in the top 60 firms in military sales.
The Church of the Brethren had investments in nine such companies, totaling $329,258 in cost value prices.
The church’s pension fund also held $613,303 of common stocks in 13 corporations appearing in the list.
The revised guidelines now declare that the board will not knowingly invest in corporations producing defense or weapons-related products; in companies which fail to practice fair and equal employment opportunities; nor in banks or firms which transact business with governments having apartheid policies.
Similarly prohibited are investments in the tobacco and alcoholic beverage industries and companies making excessive profit.
More positively, the guidelines stipulate the board will invest in companies working to improve the environment, in government agencies that are clearly non-military, and in such industries as food, housing, clothing, utilities, education, and medical supplies.
When the board discovers that it has holdings in a company that does not meet the religious, racial, or social ideals of the church’s official statements, the investment committee may approach the company or speak at stockholders’ meetings.
Failing to effect a change in company policy, the stocks are to be sold.
Producing the sharpest disagreement was the question as to whether government bonds contribute to the Vietnam war effort or simply toward regular government operations.
Still, a strong majority of the board believed that the bonds directly supported the war effort and should be divested.
Such action, some contended, bespeaks a “disengagement from the US government” and fails to recognize that a large part of the federal budget goes toward programs of which Brethren could heartily approve.
On the other hand, a couple speakers noted that even in such nonmilitary programs as agriculture and economic development, government policy can be repressive and manipulative and divergent from Brethren ideals.
Moderator Dale W. Brown of Lombard, Ill., said that the church needs to confess its credibility gap. “I’m calling for an acknowledgment that we haven’t done our best.”
Among a few board members disassociating themselves from the majority action was Jesse H. Ziegler of Dayton, Ohio.
He described the sale of the government bonds as a “divisive act that finally will drive the Church of the Brethren to the point of increasingly making people ask what we’re about.”
He pleaded for the board to take healing and compromising action that would leave room for various views among the membership.
The board’s officers were instructed to estimate any loss of principal or income that may accrue from the divestment of Treasury obligations and issue an appeal for interested members to make special contributions so that the ongoing ministry of the church or the equity of the pension funds will not be curtailed.
The guidelines are also commended to other church agencies and to individuals.
Despite the eight hours over two days of sometimes intense debate, David B. Rittenhouse of Dunmore, W. Va., expressed the feeling of most board members in saying that he voted for divestment of the stocks and bonds not with enthusiasm, but out of genuine humility, struggle, and soul-searching.
The discussion of the issue at the General Conference was covered in the issue (source):
Investments: What is Caesar’s, what is due to God?
⋮
the General Board voted (not unanimously) to divest itself of government bonds and stocks in corporations involved in defense-related contracts.
The action resulted in some loss of income and brought severe criticism from many individuals and from some congregations.
Conference delegates, however, voted to approve the Board’s investment guidelines which state that the Board will not knowingly purchase securities in corporations or industries that are “direct producers of defense or weapons-related products; involved in tobacco and alcoholic beverage produce: involved in unfair employment practices; or involved in excessive profits.”
In reporting to the Conference the Board indicated that it had decided to sell all US Treasury bonds or notes except for those pledged to secure a loan for Bethany Theological Seminary.
Disposing of these prior to their maturity resulted in a loss of more than $20,000.
The church’s holding of US Government bonds was questioned at its last Annual Conference and forcefully opposed by the national conference of Brethren youth.
In commending the Cincinnati conference for its support of the Board’s action, the Rev. Wendell Flory, a delegate from Staunton, Virginia, noted the persistence of youth in their opposition to war and urged them to help make up the financial loss resulting from following the new investment policies.
War Tax Resistance
In addition to the bond investments issue, ordinary war tax resistance was also a topic of discussion.
The inaugural issue of included a profile of Church of the Brethren moderator Dale W. Brown (source) that noted: “He refuses to pay his telephone tax because it was levied specifically for war.”
The issue noted (source): “The La Verne, Calif., church board voted to support the Southern California Telephone War Tax Suite, involving the withholding of the ten-percent federal excise tax.”
The Annual Conference debate over whether the Church of the Brethren should resist the phone tax corporately was covered in the issue (source):
Telephone tax: Delegates decline to counsel tax refusal
…[D]elegates in are not quite ready yet to counsel tax refusal for their Board and its offices.
They were made aware that a growing number of individual Brethren as well as some Brethren institutions have been refusing to pay the telephone excise tax, which they say is specifically designated as a “war tax” helping support the Vietnam war.
The Conference agreed to appoint a committee of five to study “the problem of the Christian’s response to taxation for war.”
But they voted down a proposal directing the General Board to withhold payment of the tax on the telephone service to its Elgin, Ill., headquarters.
Board officers said that the tax, which amounts to about $130 a month, currently is paid under protest.
Earlier conference statements on the payment of war taxes, while deploring the use of tax monies for war purposes and recognizing the right of tax refusal, noted several optional choices and left the decision up to individuals.
General Board member Leon Neher, Quinter, Kan., said in the floor debate that he regarded refusal to pay war taxes as being compatible with a positive attitude toward government.
He said “resistance comes because of our love for our nation.”
Other delegates noted that a study was needed so that members could be aware of the legal implications as well as the moral implications of tax refusal.
(The members selected “[t]o study a response to taxation for war” were Dene E. Denlinger, Galen Detwiler, Vemard Eller, James F. Meyer, and Robert B. Myers.)
The issue brought this news: “In Illinois the York Center congregation has voted to ‘instruct the church treasurer not to pay the federal excise tax on the church telephone as an act of conscience against the Indo-China war, and that the Internal Revenue Service be informed of the decision.’ Pastor Dean Miller noted, ‘We felt we’ve tried all [other] channels open to us.’ ” (source)
All this while I’ve been scanning through issues of the Elizabethtown College student newspaper, The Etownian to see if there has been any mention of tax resistance there.
Finally, in the issue, there’s a mention of “A Tent (‘Freedom’) City” that was being erected on campus and hosting teach-ins (source).
The first one on the agenda: a 45-minute discussion of “tax resistance.”
A later report (source) said that a rainstorm had cut into attendance, but that the teach-ins had gone on:
Ted Landon started the morning by speaking on the background of resistance and its meaning for the individual who practices it.
Bob Blatt enlarged on this as it related to tax resistance.
He pointed out that 61% of the nation’s yearly budget is spent for military matters, and that all other pressing bills must be paid from the remaining 39%.
The stodgy Brethren Evangelist was forced to take note when the General Board of the Church of the Brethren decided to divest from military industries and U.S. government bonds, though they merely reprinted a wire service dispatch about it (source):
Brethren Will Drop Defense Investments
Elgin, Ill. (EP)—
All holdings in corporations directly involved in defense or weapons-related industries will be dropped by the General Board of the Church of the Brethren.
The vote, not unanimous, was seen as an attempt by the denomination to bring its investment practices into line with its peace pronouncements.
The church officials also voted to sell $248,813 in U.S. Treasury bonds and not to purchase new governmental securities that might channel funds into military appropriations.
The board of 25 members also voted to withhold investments from companies failing to practice fair and equal employment opportunities, and from banks or firms which transact business with governments having apartheid policies.
Even the Bible Monitor finally added its voice to the debate.
It included an article on “The Christian’s Relation to the Nation” in the issue that touched on the war tax resistance issue:
The Christian also obediently pays his taxes (Romans 13:6,7; Luke 20:25).
One pacifist used his “fist” against the government by calling upon Christians to withhold some of their taxes (war taxes) by saying that when Christ said, we are to “render… unto Ceasar the things which be Ceasar’s,” He did not say how much.
May we remember that Christ did tell us how much to pay to the state when He said that we should render that which bears his image.
Therefore, when the nation asks for it, we give it to them and it is never our responsibility to tell the government how it may use its money.
If I owe a person some money, I have no right to refuse to pay it on the grounds that he will not use it properly.
Nor can I refuse it unless he promises to use it the way I say he should.
While we find it our duty to pay Ceasar his required tax, it would be contrary to the principle of the Scripture to voluntarily or otherwise invest in war bonds, thereby becoming an investor in the war program.
No non-resistant person would want to make a profit on the war.
In , Cliff Kindy wrote a full-throated encouragement of war tax resistance for the Church of the Brethren Messenger, the Camp Mack / Waubee conference enlisted people to sign a war tax resistance pledge, and a “New Call to Peacemaking” conference brought representatives of the three traditional peace churches together.
Wilbur J. Stump wrote in to the issue to promote the World Peace Tax Fund bill, which he claimed “would enable me, and others who feel as I do, to have the war part of my taxes used for peace projects” and would be “a legal alternative to paying taxes for military purposes” (source).
That proposed legislation was also boosted by an article a few pages further on in the same issue (source).
That article quoted a card that the National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund was asking supporters to send to Washington as saying that the bill “would allow conscientious objectors to have that portion of their taxes which would normally go for military purposes used instead for peace projects.”
The article quoted Brethren bill booster Dean M. Miller:
It is obvious that the payment of federal taxes inevitably involves us in war and preparation for war, since tax monies are not clearly differentiated into military and non-military categories…
One avenue of escape for this dilemma is to refuse to pay taxes.
However, money refused from tax payments is refused as much from the humane programs of government as from military programs.
We are not always able to make clear that we are protesting war and not taxation itself.
Furthermore, whatever taxes are withheld as an act of conscience, the government is able to collect by means of levies and confiscations.
An article in a later issue noted that an accompanying Senate bill had been introduced by bipartisan sponsors.
Another noted that the United Church of Christ had also endorsed the legislation.
And that’s it for .
All of the talk of war tax resistance that used to fill the pages of the Messenger is gone, replaced with this (ultimately fruitless) lobbying.
It’s worth noting that the “peace tax fund” legislation originally being promoted was better in many ways from the similar legislation that’s floundering today.
That said, this goes to show that from the very beginning, the “peace tax fund” movement has discouraged war tax resistance.
The issue brought the first full-throated encouragement of war tax resistance in a long time, from Brethren resister Cliff Kindy (source):
What to render unto Caesar
, 44 people from seven states gathered at Camp Mack in Northern Indiana to study and fellowship together to discern God’s will for the church as it faces requirements from the US government to pay vast sums of money for military-related purposes.
We were a mixture of Methodists, Mennonites, and Brethren who had been struggling with this issue for many years.
In the face of the fact that as church people we are paying over three times as much money in only the military-related portions of our taxes as we give for all church and charity purposes, our Bible study of the weekend focused on the clear word that Jesus is Lord of the earth.
Our time together was filled with joyful singing, unifying times of worship, meaningful moments of sharing our feelings and experiences, and deep periods of Bible study with openness to Jesus’ call changing our very lives.
The retreat was pulled together by Chuck Boyer of On Earth Peace and the BVS peace team from New Windsor.
There was a real openness on the part of the leadership (Donald Kaufman, author of What Belongs to Caesar?, and Lee Griffith from Advaita House in Baltimore) to allow the Spirit to change the agenda of the weekend to fit the call coming out of the discernment process.
Although retreats such as this are often little more than times of learning and fellowship, this gathering was an exciting exception with the potential to call the church to a fresh understanding of how total are the demands on those who profess Jesus as Lord of their lives.
On , out of moments of worship, listening for the word of the Lord, and sharing together came the Waubee Peace Pledge (named for Lake Waubee, the location of the Camp Mack retreat) and commitments to continuing activities of witness to our church and the world around us.
Although we were at different positions in our own lives, there was an amazing unity in feeling at Camp Mack that the pledge should be one written as strongly as the Word of God dictates and yet shared with the humility which the sin of our own lives necessitates.
What follows is the pledge in its final form with an invitation to each of you to join, if after deep, prayerful searching you find that you must.
Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅰ
Jesus Christ is Lord and we pledge our lives to his Lordship.
This is a pledge which we do make and we can make because the Lord fills his people with faith, hope, and love.
This is a pledge which we make with humility, but also with conviction, aware of the risks, since under all circumstances, we must obey God rather than people.
We believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, knowing that it is in the resurrection that we have our life.
We need follow death no more.
Death is conquered.
God chooses life for us.
We therefore pledge ourselves to the service of life and the renunciation of death.
Jesus Christ is the way and the truth and his way is the way of peace.
We will seek to oppose the way of war.
Specifically we make this pledge to our brothers and sisters in Christ:
Since we do not give our bodies for war, neither will we give our money.
We will refuse payment of federal telephone taxes and federal income taxes which go for military purposes.
Where our treasure is, there our hearts will be also.
If our treasure is involved in making war, our hearts cannot be set toward making peace.
We will pay no taxes for war, and if that means legal or other jeopardy for any of us, we will seek to support one another as sisters and brothers.
The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.
Render unto God what belongs to God.
We further pledge ourselves to urgently communicate with brothers and sisters in our churches, urging them to join us in refusing money for war.
We will also work to have annual meetings of our churches take a firm position against payment of war taxes, and to have church agencies agree to refuse withholding of these taxes from the pay of employees.
We believe that we who are the body of Christ should not serve as a military tax collection agency.
We further pledge ourselves to keep our hearts and lives open to the movement of God’s Spirit and to follow where Christ might lead us on the path of peace.
We pray for help and guidance — that we might be instruments of God’s peace.
We invite others to join in doing the words of this covenant and we seek to support those who are struggling toward this and other means of witness against war in the world.
We want to join you in whatever ways of sharing and commitment are possible through our common life in Christ.
Peace be with you.
Because we are at different points of commitment, a second pledge came out of this conference.
There was a common understanding by participants in the conference that Jesus is the King of Peace and that it is wrong to pay taxes for war, but for some that witness to life takes a different form.
Support for the World Peace Tax Fund is the form that takes for some of us.
Overall, though, the feeling of the conference was that, as a church, God calls us much beyond that in our witness for peace and our no to war.
As signers of Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅱ, we invite you to join if you feel God’s leading in the matter.
Waubee Peace Pledge Ⅱ
We, in spirit and in conscience affirm the Waubee Peace Pledge and fully support our sisters and brothers of that covenant.
At this time in our lives we feel unable to commit ourselves to non-payment of income and phone taxes.
We do commit our time, energy, and resources to searching for alternate channels of resistance, and pledge ourselves to continued seeking of God’s will for us in acting definitively to oppose those taxes for payment of war.
We give thanks for the freedom given us through Christ which enables us in this search, and we pray for the strength and hope to use our freedom as servants of God.
Out of these pledges and the activities of the weekend came several commitments and decisions.
It was felt that there was no need for a new newsletter but that our effort should be joined with the God and Caesar newsletter (Commission on Home Ministries, General Conference Mennonite Church, Box 347, Newton, KS 67114) and be supplemented as needed by a memo from the BVS peace team.
An exciting development was the surfacing of a group interested in serious Bible study of scriptures dealing with the issue of taxes.
Tony Sayer will be coordinating that study through the mail.
Three commitments relating to the church were to 1) share with congregations and individuals on the topic of the church and taxes which are used for war; 2) ask the decision-making bodies of our churches to endorse a statement calling all our church-related institutions to stop withholding taxes for IRS when most of those go to the US military; and 3) offer ourselves if the need arises to fill (in name only) the positions of high risk which might be threatened with prosecution by IRS because of the radical nature of some of our stances for peace.
Many at the conference will be working toward a concerted witness in the spring with the institutions of the US government that are ignoring the breaking of the Kingdom of God into our midst.
Whatever our point of commitment we want to encourage each other to deeper Christian discipleship in spite of the radically scandalous nature of the kingdom as it takes shape in our world.
May God grant us the grace to travel in that way.
Following this was a list of the names of twenty-two signers of pledge #1, and five of pledge #2.
The issue went back to peace tax fund stuff, with a profile of National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund promoter Wilbur Stump (source).
Stump was an attendee at the Waubee / Camp Mack conference, and one of the signers of pledge #2.
Anita and Richard Buckwalter shared their letter to the phone company in which they announced “we are no longer going to pay ‘protection’ money (blood money) to support [Uncle Sam’s] death machine” (source):
P.S. We donate the amount of our withheld phone tax to the Peace Tax Fund at Lansing Church of the Brethren, to be used in ministries for peacemaking.
They also shared their letter to the IRS in which they explained their refusal to pay a portion of their income taxes. Excerpt:
If you check your files, you will see that our protest has been consistent and lengthy.
Our purpose was then and is now to witness to the way of the Prince of Peace and to register our conscientious opposition to the use of our taxes for war-making.
To this end, we now feel called to move one step farther in our witness.
We can not in good conscience or in good faith sign over to you that portion of our taxes — roughly 35 percent in — that goes for present military use.
We refuse to take the initiative in paying for death and the destruction of God’s creation.
Therefore, we will not willingly forward this money to you; this is our witness to the powers that be — that God’s will for peace lives on in the victory of Christ over the powers of death.
Please note that we do not argue with the government’s power to collect taxes.
We accept the legitimate taxing powers of the state and willingly submit our taxes when we conscientiously can; we will even help to pay for past sins and wars of this nation — otherwise the percentage would be much higher.
But after much study of the Bible, prayer, and dialogue, we have come to the conviction that we will make this witness to the gospel of peace as over against the insanity of planning for war and nuclear holocausts.
Unfortunately, because the World Peace Tax Fund Act has not been enacted yet by Congress, our actions mean some inconvenience to you.
We regret this, and for your sake hope for the day when that law will make our witness “legal.”
Until then, we know that you have the power to collect our money.
We will not obstruct your efforts in that direction; neither will we hide or make personal gain from the money.
We are now and always will be open and direct with you about our intentions; we don’t wish to cause offense.
And we will forward copies of this letter to our elected representatives.
If you have any questions regarding our beliefs, we would be glad to dialogue with you.
There were three queries, from three separate congregations, concerning the World Peace Tax Fund Act, on the agenda at the Annual Conference.
A Standing Committee drafted a statement in response, “urging that Brethren support the WPTF through Annual Conference communiques to the President of the United States and appropriate Congressional committees, dissemination of information from the General Offices, continued promotion by the Washington Office, and congregational and individual letter-writing to members of Congress.” (source)
But some skepticism began to emerge:
While the Standing Committee recommendation passed with negligible delegate opposition, discussion of the issue included challenging questions about means of conscientious objection to war.
Cliff Kindy asked the church to consider the link between affluent life-styles and warfare, and suggested that living below a taxable income level is one response to the tax issue.
He urged the church to grapple again with tax refusal as a form of resisting participation in war.
Another speaker warned that the WPTF is “an attempt for us to be more comfortable with what is happening in the world” by seeking government approval of our resistance rather than acting boldly regardless of legal sanction.
John Reimer, of Western Plains District, asked if the WPTF would actually reduce military spending, or merely create a fund for peace research and education by reducing civilian sectors of the federal budgets while leaving the growing military budget unchallenged.
The issue noted that the Shenandoah District Board had begun a sort of conscientious objector census, asking draft-age youth to register their conscientious objection, while “[p]ersons who are supportive of conscientious objection to the payment of war taxes may register their beliefs on a third form.” (source)
Finally, the “New Call to Peacemaking” conference was also covered in the issue (source).
That conference was the first attempt to convene for a coordinated peacemaking response from members of the three traditional peace churches.
Excerpt:
Reaching consensus on war tax resistance was not as easy.
Although it was listed third among the concerns of this section, tax resistance was clearly the most widely debated item at the conference and support for the idea came from many of the regional meetings.
Finally, in five strong statements, delegates called upon Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites to “seriously consider refusal to pay the military portion of their federal taxes as a response to Christ’s call to radical discipleship,” challenged congregations to uphold those who do resist with spiritual, legal, and material support; called upon church and conference agencies to seriously consider the requests of their employees who ask that their taxes not be withheld; suggested that alternative “tax” payments be channeled into a peace fund established by New Call to Peacemaking; and called upon the denominations, congregations, and meetings to give high priority to the study and promotion of war tax resistance.
Dale Brown of the Church of the Brethren also penned an article on “The Bible on Tax Resistance” for Sojourners magazine in .
The very different attitude toward war taxes (which usually went without mention) at The Brethren Evangelist can be illustrated by this excerpt from the convocation delivered by Ashland College dean Joseph Schultz (source).
Schultz was an ordained minister in the Brethren Church, with which Ashland College is affiliated:
One cannot visit the Strategic Air Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, without experiencing a welter of conflicting emotions.
Predominant is gratitude for the sense of security which those enormously complicated defense systems can generate, and a more tolerant attitude even toward taxes.
There is, of course, a feeling of awe, mixed with a tinge of doubt as to whether man actually can master such technological refinements.
And there is also an overpowering tug of regret that so much money must be spent for such expensive gadgets which may never be used.
A still greater foreboding is that they may be used, and expanded.
In readers of the Messenger learned the legal how-tos of war tax resistance, while even the conservative Brethren Evangelist was willing to publish “New Call to Peacekeeping”’s summons to war tax resistance.
an ad promoting the World Peace Tax Fund, from the edition of the Messenger
As had become common at this point, discussion of the World Peace Tax Fund bill often overshadowed war tax resistance when war taxes were discussed.
The bill was boosted in
(source),
(source), and
(source).
Here’s another example mention, from an profile of Charles Anderson (source):
Charles admits some pangs of conscience over his life-style.
His own affluence is difficult for him to reconcile with peacemaking, since he believes that the gap between the prosperous and the poor breeds violence.
His payment of tax, more than half of which is used for military purposes, is also stressful.
Support of the World Peace Tax Fund is an effort to resolve this personal conflict.
In the magazine reported that the Mennonites seemed to out in front of the Brethren on the war tax issue (source):
Church as tax collector protested by Mennonites
Delegates attending a special meeting of the General Conference Mennonite Church in Minneapolis in voted to launch a vigorous campaign to exempt the church from acting as a tax collector for the state.
The 500 delegates at the conference, called to discern the Christian response to militarism, passed the resolution by a nine to one margin.
A central focus of discussion was tax resistance already being practiced among Mennonites and the request of one such person, a General Conference employee, that the church stop withholding war taxes from her wages.
The General Board denied her request because it is illegal for an employer not to act as a tax collector for the Internal Revenue Service.
Delegates affirmed that decision but instructed the General Board to vigorously search for legal avenues to exempt the church from collecting taxes so individuals employed by the church would be free to follow their own conscience.
The issue profiled Ralph Dull, and noted that “throughout the past 25 years… the Dulls have withheld from their taxes the portion allotted to the military.” (source)
“Sometimes you get so frustrated, you just have to do something,” Ralph said.
For the past two years Ralph and others have taken food to the IRS as a witness that taxes should be used for feeding the hungry instead of supporting the military.
“I’m not sure it does any good, but it raises the issue.”
Phil Rieman wrote in to the issue, urging Brethren to stick together in order to overcome the fear of government reprisals when considering war tax resistance (source).
The issue reprinted a lengthy article by William Durland, a lawyer who founded the Center on Law and Pacifism (and later helped found NWTRCC), on the practical and legal aspects of war tax resistance:
When President Carter’s military tax budget for was criticized, he replied that he would not apologize for it.
While recommending cutbacks in health, education and human needs, he increased the portion of the budget allocated to bombs and bullets.
Many Christians are beginning to realize that they cannot use mammon for murder and expect a welcome at the millennium.
So they are looking for advice on ways to refuse complicity with the war machine.
Recently the Center on Law and Pacifism was organized in Philadelphia to serve people who need advice and support in the relationship of their radical religious, pacifist convictions to the laws which attempt to obstruct their conscientious objection to violence.
One of the main projects of the Center has been to aid people in their quest for information on how to be military tax refusers.
The Center is in the process of publishing such a study and the following is an overview of that report.
People want to know how to withhold their taxes, what happens if they do so and what legal remedies exist for them to witness to their conscientious objection in the courts of this land.
Usually people who are in this position are employees.
So we will talk about them first, then the employer, the corporation, the income tax refuser and the telephone tax refuser.
Employees receive their income in the form of wages which are subject to withholding before they see their check.
Employees must fill out a W4 form with their employer.
The W4 form determines the amount of money to be withheld from each paycheck.
The more allowances you claim the less money is withheld.
You are allowed a number of allowances on your W4 form depending upon how many dependents you have and what your anticipated itemized deductions are.
The employer determines how much money to withhold from your weekly paycheck on the basis of your W4 form.
Therefore, in order to reduce or eliminate withholding, you can file a new W4 form claiming more allowances.
There is nothing fraudulent about this procedure as long as you inform the IRS when you file your income tax return as to why you took the allowances on your W4 form.
When it comes time for your income tax, it is important that it be consistent with this claim.
This is done by taking a war tax deduction on your income tax form under “miscellaneous deductions.”
This is one of four methods to avoid withholding.
The second method is by working in an occupation exempt from the withholding law.
A third method is by becoming self-employed as a consultant or independent contractor.
Fourth, by earning less than a taxable income you can avoid not only withholding, but also any income tax liability whatsoever.
If you are successful in computing the sufficient number of allowances — which will constitute rendering your withholding to a point where you can take your deduction on your income tax — then no further problem remains until that time for the employee.
However, should the employee choose not to use the allowance method, but rather to ask the employer not to withhold any of the withholding tax, then there is a problem for both employer and employee.
The Internal Revenue Code of , as amended, requires employers making payment of wages to deduct and withhold from such wages a tax determined in accordance with IRS tables.
The employer is liable for the amount required to be deducted and withheld.
Any employer who fails is liable to the IRS for that amount plus a civil penalty equal to the tax amount.
There is also a criminal penalty of $10,000 fine and/or five years imprisonment for willful failure to pay or collect the amount due.
Some employers have wanted to protect the right of their employees to exercise their rights of conscience even though the employer does not share the same viewpoint.
In this event, employers have refused to withhold and have been taken to court.
Eventually they wind up paying and requiring the employee to reimburse them.
But what if the whole corporation becomes a war tax refuser, rather than just one of its employees?
In that event the corporation will not withhold any tax at all because they are conscientiously opposed to paying military taxes.
Recently we have seen some organizations which were created on radical religious, pacifist principles beginning to refuse to pay military taxes as a corporation rather than simply to support the conscience of one or more of their employees.
They see this as their own witness to the immorality of war taxes.
There is a possibility of losing tax-exempt status and other rights, but they are willing to witness in this way and suffer for conscience’s sake.
Everyone who makes a minimum amount of money a year is required by law to file an income tax return.
Whether you made your money as an employee, an employer or are self-employed, you must file form 1040 and complete Schedule A (“Itemized Deductions”) in order to take an income tax deduction for war.
Those who are self-employed can write in a “war tax credit” instead of a deduction, and simply withhold a percentage of the tax owed and send a letter to the IRS explaining what they are doing.
Another popular way of resisting military taxes has been refusal to pay the tax on the telephone bill.
In times past, the IRS took quite a bit of time tracing down telephone tax refusers.
Since the end of the Vietnam War, this has not been the case, although we have heard of one case recently where the telephone company closed down the service of a telephone tax refuser.
Whatever category you are in, you must decide how much to refuse and what you are going to do with that money.
Many organizations, such as the World Peace Tax Fund and the various chapters of War Resisters League, are equipped to advise you on the breakdown of the national budget.
But generally, from year to year, the military portion of the budget is calculated anywhere from 35 percent to 53 percent, depending upon whether current military expenditures for past wars are included.
For those who wish to put their money to good use while it is being withheld, there are various alternative funds which invest in human resources and use your money for that purpose.
Many people hope that the World Peace Tax Fund Act — designed to allow the taxpayer to earmark a specific amount of tax money to go into a federal fund to be used only for peaceful purposes — will be approved by Congress soon.
What happens when you take these steps?
How do you cope with the IRS?
No matter what category of refuser you are, what generally is going to happen to you is something like this:
If a tax is owed, a notice of tax will be sent to you.
The IRS is required to issue this bill which is a demand for payment.
You are then required by law to make payment within 10 days of the date of this bill.
If the tax remains unpaid after the 10-day period, a statutory lien is automatically attached to your property.
The law also provides for interest and penalty for late payment at this time.
Once this notice of tax lien has been filed at your courthouse, it becomes a matter of public record and may adversely affect your business transactions or other financial interests.
It could impair your credit rating; therefore, it is normally filed only after the IRS has sent you a second notice of deficiency and tried to contact you personally, giving you the opportunity to pay.
After the lien has been filed, a levy may be taken.
A levy is the taking of property to satisfy tax liability.
The tax may be collected by a levy on any property belonging to you.
In the case of levies being made on salaries or wages, you will usually be given written notice, in addition to the notice of demand, at least 10 days before the levy is served.
Generally, court authorization is not required before a levy action is taken, unless collection personnel must enter private premises to accomplish their levy action.
The only legal requirements are that the taxes are owed and that the notice and demand for payment have been sent to your last known address.
In taking a levy action, the IRS first considers levying on such property as wages, salaries and bank accounts.
Levying on this type of property is referred to as a seizure.
Willful failure to file or pay income tax can result in a criminal sentence of one year and/or $10,000 fine.
However, we know of no cases which have ever resulted in criminal penalties, except where there is a total failure to file any income tax form at all.
When you receive your notice of deficiency from the IRS, you will also be notified that you may elect to appeal your case to the US Tax Court;
if you decide to do so within 90 days of that time, the IRS process against you is halted for the duration of the case.
Several people have gone to Tax Court following this procedure, although in no case has anyone “won” there.
The Center on Law and Pacifism has advised and supported people filing cases in Tax Court and on the Appellate and US Supreme Court levels also.
If you lose your case in Tax Court, you may appeal to higher courts, and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
These appeals are based on the First Amendment free exercise of religion and other constitutional provisions.
Many of us are presently refusing 35 to 50 percent or more of our income taxes.
For others just beginning to consider war tax refusal, or those reluctant to refuse taxes in those quantities, a new project called People Pay for Peace, under the auspices of the Center on Law and Pacifism, offers an opportunity to participate.
The Center is coordinating this symbolic tax refusal movement by new reformers who withheld from their tax returns a few dollars, symbolizing their witness against military armament.
The amount is so small that it is unlikely the IRS will try to levy it.
Multiplied by thousands of people, this small amount will constitute a significant conscientious objection to payment for war.
There is still time to build the kingdom, time to protest armaments, time to create a spiritual community for those who turn from the idols of fear.
If I were to say to you, “I will not kill my neighbor, but I will pay someone else to do it,” would you not hold me accountable?
If we refuse to kill our neighbor but allow our government to do it with our money, are we not to be held accountable?
But then we must witness and suffer the consequences of our military tax refusal for conscience’s sake.
This is the price some Christians are paying for peace in .
According to another article in that issue, of 200 people who responded to a “Survey on Life-Style Changes” in an earlier issue of the magazine, 20% had taken the step of “keeping income down in order not to pay taxes.” Another 25% wanted nothing to do with such a step. (source)
I was a little surprised to see the fairly conservative Brethren Evangelist devote several pages of its issue to reprinting part of the Statement of the Findings Committee of the “New Call to Peacekeeping” conference (source).
The Brethren Church was not (as the Church of the Brethren was) a partner to this conference, but they did send an observer.
The magazine was careful in its preface to say: “The printing of this Statement does not mean that either the Peace Coordinator [Doc Shank of the Brethren Church, who attended the conference] or the Brethren Publishing Company endorses it in its entirety. It is our hope that it will be read carefully and with an open mind.”
Mention of tax resistance was brief in the published excerpt (“We urge the development of support groups within congregations and meetings for those individuals who are working at peace issues such as war tax resistance, simple lifestyles, and nonviolent action.”) but this makes for a rare positive mention in this usually more stodgy magazine.
In the magazine followed up with a second excerpt from the Statement (source).
This one was more explicit and direct:
We call 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.
We challenge ourselves and also our congregations and meetings to uphold war tax resisters with spiritual, emotional, legal, and material support.
We call on our church and conference agencies to enter into dialogue with employees who ask, for reasons of moral conviction, that their taxes not be withheld.
We suggest that alternative “tax” payments be channeled into a peace fund initiated by the New Call to Peacemaking or into existing peace funds of constituent groups.
We call on our denominations, congregations and meetings to give high priority to the study of war tax resistance in our own circles and beyond.
Another element of the statement gave a thumbs-up to the World Peace Tax Fund legislation.
There were a couple of horrified letters to the editor that followed, from Brethren who didn’t want to see their church tangled up with the anti-war movement, but otherwise not much discussion.
![$25 Certificate. Brethren Service Commitee. Church of the Brethren. General Administration Offices, Elgin, Illinois. This certifies that [blank] has contributed the within stated sum to the Church of the Brethren to be used in Civilian Public Service, in relieving suffering, in creating good will, and in making Christ known as Prince of Peace. Contributor’s Statement of Purpose: This contribution, made in addition to my normal giving, is in consideration of tragic world need, of the sacrifice of life and money which many are making in war and of my desire to support constructive service to humanity. This contribution is intended as an alternate service to war, in which my conscience does not permit me to engage. I give it voluntarily, asking neither interest nor return of principal.](brethren-service-certificate.png)
