Paying for War while Praying for Peace.

There are those who for centuries have carried out the mandate of Jesus to kill fellow human beings, at the risk of being killed themselves. Their commitment to conscientious objection, however, has not always kept them from paying taxes for military purposes. Now as the artificiality of the distinction between bearing arms and paying for others to bear them has become clear, what is the Christian and what is the corporate body of Christ’s followers called to do?

The issue is clouded for many by a mixed history, and our general reluctance to struggle with the elements of risk and obedience involved. Often the feeling expressed is who can really discern the will of the Lord in this matter? Most have affirmed the legitimacy of taxation by governments and the obligation of Christians to pay taxes for all purposes which do not conflict with Christian conscience. How then can we obey God and not pay?

Agonized by the contradictions of paying for war while praying for peace, some persons have chosen not to participate knowingly in war tax payments or have earnestly sought alternative ways of meeting their responsibilities as citizens. In an effort to give authenticity to their peace witness, they have refashioned their lives to reduce their complicity in war and to increase their participation in peacemaking. Some have reduced their income; others have increased their contributions to kingdom causes--all in an effort to fight the monster of militarism and attempt to be faithful in their Christian calling.

Few of us are as consistent in practicing our beliefs as we would like to be. Even on the personal level our ethical behavior is quite prudential. If we have family responsibilities, we are likely to check out the consequences of our proposed strategy before we act upon it. That is a commendable thing. Jesus said we ought to know the cost of our projected action.

Unfortunately, even when we know what is right to do we may decide against it because we are not willing to pay the price of total obedience to God. On the issue of war taxes this may mean we decide to protest at a relatively safe level, like withholding payment of the Federal excise tax on telephone service, or perhaps only writing letters to express our concern, knowing very well that we are only making a token response. To act in ways which threaten our financial security, our reputation, or our physical lives is not easily under taken.

If this describes the predicament for individuals, is it not true many times over for institutions? Corporate structures, Reinhold Niebuhr tells us, simply are not as ethically sensitive to wrong doing as are individual persons: “collective self-regard of class, race, and nation is more stubborn and persistent than the egoism of individuals.”

Is the body of Christ an exception? Is there a difference between what God expects of us as individuals and what he expects of us when we participate in groups? Does God expect us to follow the dualistic “two-kingdom ethic,” whereby governmental demands take precedence over personal moral obligations? Do we have any responsibility for taxes’ use once “Caesar” shears us? Or are we accountable to both God and Caesar in equal measure?

The greatest crimes are easily perpetrated when responsibility for those acts is distributed among many persons. Sin seems to disappear whenever a group of people can be made to share the responsibility for what would be a sin if committed by an individual. The load of guilt rapidly lifts from the shoulders of persons when the guilt is shared. Eventually it evaporates for the individual. The lynching of blacks, the murder of Indians and Japanese by the U.S., and the Nazi attempt to liquidate the Jews serve as examples of group violence where the individual is less and less clearly accountable for the actions of the group. Karl Menninger, in Whatever Became of Sin, explains how this relates to war:

No one disputes the evilness of the dreadful acts of war, but who is guilty? Not I, I obeyed orders. Not I, I merely transmitted the orders. Not I, I issued the orders on the basis of command decisions. Not I, I was only the executive of the managerial group. Not we, we specified a general objective in keeping with the national purpose. Somewhere between personal and corporate responsibility lies the sanction which permits the tyranny of death systems to function.

Church people committed to peace and nonviolence would have little or no difficulty in affirming that their relation to God involves duties which are superior to those arising out of any human relation. For them, relation to God is the ultimate loyalty. Despite this orientation and commitment, the historic “peace churches” (Mennonite, Brethren, and others) find it exceedingly difficult to move forward on a challenge which does not have a clear historical precedent, especially if the proposed action presents a threat to its own existence because of government penalties. The risks of obedience to Christ loom large when privileges are threatened.

The newly revised Mennonite Voluntary Service Handbook, published in 1975 states the following regarding “War Tax Resistance:”

Persons participating in programs of the General Conference Mennonite Church may use their own discretion in making decisions about their response to taxation and particularly to taxes that are used for the purpose of war. Person and unit making a decision not to pay taxes do so at their own risk and expense since the General Conference presently does not take responsibility for legal or other related expenses.

In response, one Mennonite, Jim Harnish, said that this is another example of how “we force people to make decisions of...import in the loneliness of individuality, rather than surrounding them with the warmth of community that alone makes possible the saying of yes to life and no to death.”

Is it possible that church institutions too can be part of the Christian’s support system whenever she or he is confronted with a very difficult ethical decision? Can institutions say, “We will say no to militarism with you by going to prison with you. We will not let you vanish like a vapor or go unremembered because they will have to deal with our whole community thus.”?

The Withholding Dilemma

Persons in the U.S. who would like to make a principled refusal of war taxes are confronted with an immediate, effective barrier: the withholding system. This method of collection would on the surface appear to violate First Amendment rights of employees who cannot pay war taxes because they are opposed to war in any form. Unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court does not see this as directly restricting the free exercise of religion, as shown by the case of the American Friends Service Committee v. the U.S., October 29, 1974. The result is that, “by collecting income tax at the source, the withholding method effectively forecloses the taxpayers’ ability to refuse payment, at least of the withheld sum.

As John Howard Yoder pointed out in 1962,

...there is something very questionable about the willingness with which Mennonite Church agencies, by withholding from their employees’ income, serve as arms of the federal government for tax collection, which thereby relieves the individual of any conscious choice concerning the bulk of his tax money. If we had different convictions concerning the relationship of church and state, or if we had no moral questions about the validity of the nation’s expenditures, or if we were not specifically church agencies, the issue would not be as important; the combination of these various factors makes the entire practice really questionable. We would object to the state’s collecting taxes to support the church; yet without compunction we let church agencies collect to support the state.

A recent case in point is that of Cornelia Lehn, employed by the General Conference Mennonite Church, who could not feel comfortable with “obeying the government when it was asking me to do an evil thing.” She became convinced that allowing her money to be used for armaments could not be God’s will and that if it was used in that way she must bear at least part of the responsibility. The big question for her was how to get out of being involved in this war crime.

I could not refuse to pay a portion of my tax, since the whole tax was already withheld. I asked our conference office not to withhold from my paycheck that portion of the income tax that goes for war but they could not grant that request. I considered the various options, like reducing my paycheck to the point that I would not need to pay any taxes I do now. Finally I decided to give half of my income to relief and other church work and thus force the Internal Revenue Service to return that portion of my tax which they had already slated for military purposes...I could no longer acquiesce and be a part of something as diabolical as war. I had to take a stand against it.

I wish that my church, which believes in the way of peace, would as a body no longer gather money to help the government make war. I wish all the members of our church would stand up in horror and refuse to allow it to happen. Then the conference officers would be in a position to say to the government, ‘We will not give you our sons and daughters and we will not give you our money to kill others. Allow us to serve our country in the way of peace.’

Defense spending in the United States comprises about 50 percent of tax expenditures by the government. The money for this “budget of death” is conscripted primarily through the Federal income tax--the chief link connecting each individual’s daily labor with the tremendous buildup for war. Under these conditions, how much have our members and institutions, who ostensibly believe in the New Testament way of love and peace, been paying for war?

The thought is absolutely frightening! With one hand we give generously for life-building purposes--and with the other we cancel out the good that we have done by allowing the secular power to conscript an even larger amount of money for the destruction of human life. Who will deliver us from this death--from rendering unto Caesar that which is not his?

Suppose Caesar leveled a 10 percent tax to pay for the extermination of Christians. Would we encourage every one to “render unto Caesar what he asks for?” In God’s eyes, does it make a difference whose death a government asks us to pay for?

It is not uncommon for Christians, in the words of Jean Lasserie, to “have a prejudice in favor of the state, which goes to the point of passive and unconditional obedience to it.” In the face of wrong, however, for citizens to say no, even through civil disobedience is a necessary Christian witness. Moses, Jeremiah, Micah, Amos, and Jesus all used demonstrations to bring conflict out into the open where it could be dealt with, in order to meet the needs of suffering people. Civil disobedience is one of the methods the church may use to affect change in the face of stubborn and deep-seated resistance. It is a valid instrument of persuasion for Christians to use, both individually and corporately.

William Stringfellow offers a helpful perspective on the place of civil disobedience in. the church’s witness to government:

Whenever a situation arises in which the Church stands over against the nation, or where it resorts to civil disobedience, it is important to understand that Christians do not engage in civil disobedience as anarchists. Christians do not believe in civil disobedience for its own sake, although they may resort to it from time to time as one of the tactics of witness vis a vis the nation. They engage in civil disobedience not in order to overthrow the rule of law and the authority of the nation, but to affirm the true vocation of the nation. They do so not merely as a means of changing public policy, but as a means of reminding the nation of its transience and ultimate impotence and of assuring it, even in the midst of its most grandiose pretensions to sovereignity over history, that only God is God. But wherever the Church and the Christians take recourse to civil disobedience they willingly, readily, and freely bear whatever are the consequences of that disobedience.

In the context of war taxes, if the really monstrous atrocities of our modern world are committed by the state itself, then the church of Jesus Christ is called to refuse the idolatry--the “pinch of incense”--demanded by the state. If the destruction of Vietnam and its people was largely made possible by U.S. citizens who paid for war, then it becomes the church’s duty to avoid complicity in that which is clearly a denial of Christian love. How else can we be a reconciling force in a world of conflict? Unless followers of Jesus, individually and corporately, dissent from paying war taxes, how are government leaders to know that there are Christians who are decidedly op posed to making war on people whom God has created?

Finally, civil disobedience is a means of expressing faithfulness to God, enabling the church to witness to others about her ultimate loyalty. In our sober moments we know that the hazards involved in defying the government weigh less than the hazards invited by defying God. As Stringfellow further states,

The relationship between the church or the members of the church and the nation is never one of uncritical allegiance or obedience. This means, concretely, that the church can never accede to any demand of the nation that the nation itself become the idol of men’s worship. That demand is made nowadays not only in the so-called totalitarian states, but also, more and more openly, in so-called democratic states like the United States. And if by thus exposing the idolatrous claims of the nation, the church suffers the loss of any public freedom for its institutional life, then so be it. The survival of the church does not depend upon such favors from the nation, but rather upon its obedience to the truth of the resurrection, which is the freedom given to the church by God and which no principality may destroy, diminish, or take away.

But the risk of loss is painful. Is civil disobedience justified when it endangers the very existence of the institution? Should church bodies be willing to die for the sake of the kingdom, much as we expect individual Christians to be “faithful unto death”?

According to the Bible, the Christian is called to obey God rather than man (Acts 5: 29) whenever he is convinced that God forbids what the state demands. It is unfaithfulness, not civil disobedience, which endangers the life of the church.

Viable Options for a Response

Despite the complexity of the issue, perhaps it is appropriate to suggest a few options for the organized church with respect to war taxes.

Explore and employ all legal means available to correct the injustice of war tax payments. Because of the last two decades, there is a new spirit of receptivity in governmental circles. With imagination and persistence it might well be that new alternatives to the present tax system could be developed. (See “Channeling War Taxes to Peace,” this issue.) Furthermore, the separation of church and state does not mean that Christians have nothing to say to, or ask of, the state, but rather that the state cannot ask everything of them. Believers need not be afraid to ask for religious liberty even when they think that “the powers that be” are disinclined to grant it.

Discontinue functioning as the tax collection agent for the IRS. This decision might provide an opportunity for testing in court the constitutional question of whether the government can require employers to take taxes from the paychecks of nonordained employees who want the option of refusing to pay war taxes voluntarily. It is important to recognize that nonordained employees’ freedom of conscience is limited if the institution in question does not allow them to pay their own taxes instead of taking the money from their pay checks.

Ruth Stoltzfus believes that criminal prosecution of a church agency would be “extremely unlikely, both in view of the lack of ‘evil motive’ and the reasonable cause to have acted on the basis of a district court case . . . If this were the case the employer would have avoided working a hardship on the employees consistent with its own ‘corporate conscience’ and the employee could express religious objection at the time yearly taxes are due.”

The ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States on October 29, 1974, does not seem to prohibit the American Friends Service Committee from repeating the procedure in which they did not withhold the tax, paid it voluntarily from their own funds, then filed for a refund from the Internal Revenue Service.

(A U.S. District Court judge in Philadelphia, Pa. held that religious interests of war tax refusers outweigh the government’s interest in the use of withholding methods of collecting taxes. In a landmark decision, Judge Clarence C. Newcomer upheld the right of the American Friends Service Committee to honor requests by employees not to withhold the military portion of their income taxes “because such with holding violates the free exercise of their religion as members of the Society of Friends.” However, the decision was appealed by the government and re versed by the Supreme Court on October 29, 1974. Although the court did not address the religious claim, Justice Douglas countered the majority opinion with the argument that the First Amendment rights of the employees were violated by the withholding method of collection because it “fore closes their ability to freely express that opposition (participation of war in any form), i.e., to bear witness to their religious scruples.”)

Increase our giving for missions and service. Refusing to pay war taxes has proved be a blessing for many people. To make one’s living without being subject to the tax withholding system has resulted in people finding or “backing into” a simple lifestyle. It has helped them to reorder their priorities. Those with large incomes have discovered that they can give more and live on less. By responding more generously to the needs of the poor they have experienced the joy of contributing to 1ife not death. Unless Christians discern clearly the interrelatedness of money and the military they will discover to their dismay that “the graves of our dead enemies” will have been dug “with the coins engraved ‘In God we Trust.’

Sacrifice ourselves so that others may live. Is that startling, or biblical, or both? The question arises, how accommodating ought Christian groups to be when there are grave moral issues at stake? Are there commitments to God which necessitate a total giving of the self? Jesus did so, and, by God’s power he has overcome the world. He was the Lamb who conquered by sacrifice. He recognized himself to be the suffering servant, one who would rule by loving, by suffering, and by dying. It was a love which made “peace by the blood of the cross.” It was Agape which lets itself be crucified. That is a radical love which people do not live by very easily.

Certainly Jesus had no intention of putting the emperor’s rights and God’s on the same level. He had reservations regarding the claims of the state but none in regard to God. For him, God was supreme even in those areas which Caesar claimed for himself.

“Dealing with a problem of this proportion will be costly,” John Drescher has warned. “It may demand a different lifestyle, the loss of property and institutions. We can be assured, however, that the way of obedience, even though it leads through the wilderness and death, is the way of Christ. Out of death we believe there is always resurrection. And how our world needs resurrection life!”

If God himself has accepted the unilateral risk of Christ’s nonviolent love to provide for our salvation, can the body of Christ do less? The cross tells us what Jesus thought really belonged to Caesar, and to God. As a community of God’s people, the church is clearly in a vulnerable position just as Jesus was. But reconciling love on the war tax issue cannot be lived without risking and suffering the consequences.

The gospel of Jesus Christ does not appear to have different ethical guidelines for individuals as compared to groups. Consequently, many hold that it is essential to practice New Testament Christianity as a personal code and that it is equally essential that we apply it as a people in our corporate acts. As John Swarr has written, “As we say no individually we must en courage our churches and agencies to also say no to war taxes as corporate bodies, even if it costs something such as the tax exemption privilege, or property, or social status.”

Much as we are tempted to separate our individual and corporate responsibilities, the power of discipleship rests in joining them.

Because the church of Jesus Christ is ultimately answerable only to God, there are those who believe that the church is free to act responsibly and faithfully. But is it? Our corporate decisions will answer that question for us. The early church worked for consensus: “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,” they said. Let us affirm that the spirit can make possible creative responses to seemingly impossible situations--even the impossible task of resolving the war tax problem. Seeking first his kingdom, we are therefore able to live.

When this article appeared, Donald D. Kaufman was a pastor in the Mennonite Church, and had worked for the Mennonite Central Committee. He is the author of What Belongs to Caesar?