For those who are pacifists, or at least non-aggressionists: refusing war taxes only addresses part of the picture.
All government statutes are backed by threat of violence. All taxes support aggression, not just some of them.
If it is a worthwhile endeavor to fight war taxes, it is a more risky, but perhaps more worthwhile endeavor to fight all of them. Only an individual can make that judgment him or herself, based on the risks involved, and who all it would adversely affect (such as, does he or she have strong community or familial commitments, wherein persecution would endanger them as well, without their consent?) ___
As for the discussion above, my understanding is that the people DID have competing taxes at the time. Some went to the Temple, some to the Sword. ____
I believe it is telling that Jesus talked about and looked at the image on the coin, as if to show them that they had already accepted the idol.
Anything and everything belongs to God. None of it is Caesar's (or the Sword's, or Washington's).
I named my blog after this point.
new guy
· 1 year ago
I struggle particularly with the war taxes part -- of course it would only be a symbolic gesture since only part of our spending on violence comes directly out of the Pentagon budget. And how much of our current tax money goes to service the debt of previous wars or military machinery?
Anyway, I am opposed to refusing all taxes. We have a different situation than the Jews under Roman occupation. We live in a (admittedly flawed) democracy. I do believe we have a civic duty to ante up our fair share for roads, schools, emergency services, etc. Just as a church needs money to operate, so do cities, states and countries.
If it wasn't for our insane military spending, I would happily pay my taxes as simply my entrance fee to civil society.
markvans
· 1 year ago
Most of the money for roads, schools, etc. comes out of state taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. So, one could still refuse the federal income tax and still, for the most part, be supporting those good things while rejecting much of the tax base that is tied in miliarism....though it certainly isn't as clean and tidy as that.
gyakusetsu
· 1 year ago
Money for roads, schools, and emergency services could be donated or paid directly, if that is your only roadblock. This is true regardless of whether you donate to voluntary organizations (such as toll roads, private schools, security companies, volunteer fire departments, and the like) or State agencies.
However, I think there is a more important point. The good Samaritan didn't bypass the man and go to the nearby town, demanding money (under threat of theft, imprisonment, or death) in order to start an agency which would cater to the ill and poor. He did something about it himself.
That's what we, as Christians, need to return to. Helping our neighbors lovingly, rather than relying on the Sword to inefficiently, corruptly, and violently do it "on our behalf."
Obviously, we can't get to that point in one single, easy step, and I don't fault anyone who pays taxes, due to the threats behind them. (I pay them myself!)
What I do think we need to be cognizant of, however, is that any time we ask the State to implement a new restriction or initiate or expand a program, we are advocating it be done violently, rather than voluntarily; we are recommending it be done via the false idol of the Sword, rather than through the guidance of the Peacemaker.
Joel
· 1 year ago
Well, here are my 2 cents on this topic...
I think that Jesus did tell us to pay our taxes in these verses. But, our paying taxes shouldn't be done out of loyalty to the state. We are simply to pay them because we are expected to be good citizens. While witholding the portion of our taxes that go to pay for the military may seem like a revolt, we must remember that Jesus also rejected the revolt. Besides, its not as if the military won't get their money if Mark Van Steenwyk (or anybody else) witholds that portion of their taxes. The military will simply use the portion that was payed.
Here is what it breaks down to. Everything hinges on what is in your heart. If one does good deeds while holding murderous rage in his heart, that person is guilty of murder. If one pays taxes while rejecting the military might that their government might use, God will know and that person will be guiltless.
mountainguy
· 1 year ago
1. Is it possible (there in USA) to pay taxes only for education, health and other non-militar issues?
2. I'm in a strange situation: While I hate the concept of state, and thus I could be in the side of the ones who don't pay taxes, I see another approach: the laissez faire version ("I don't want a strong state that makes me pay taxes... I just want the minarchist state to protect my ass while I exploit my workers"). Our duty is find the other way... The Jesus' way
Ted
· 1 year ago
I have no quarrel whatever with the person who is convicted that paying taxes is ethically problematic and is willing to go to jail for not paying. For me, however, it seems a strange hill to die on. And I'm not convinced that sales tax, parasitic as it is upon an unjust economic system, is any less problematic.
Based on my income, I haven't paid any federal tax in years, and we are trying, in fits and starts, to be both more "green" and somewhat "anti-consumer" as a means of living out our ethical ideals. But trying to root out all of our complicity in the present system (which is simply the one we're subject to until the next one), all of our corruption or colonization by the fallen powers, can easily become a legalistic exercise in futility.
For instance, yesterday morning I got up, brewed some fair-trade/organic coffee, enjoyed the view of our garden, studied an ancient subversive text, checked up via internet on some of my subversive friends -- and then I gassed up my minivan and drove 70 carbon-choked miles to teach a class where, by my very presence, I am probably perpetuating the legacy of white male authority.
Perhaps by pointing out the image on the coin, Jesus was pointing them back, in a visceral way, to the root problems of empire in general, to the tenuousness of their situation and the complexity of human sinfulness that paying or not paying one's taxes barely touches. Interestingly enough, Jesus does pay the temple tax, albeit by extracting it from a fish, which seems less than helpful as guiding principle. Perhaps, however, his reason for paying the tax -- to avoid undue trouble -- is helpful, and there's always the voluntary poverty implied in the need to seek financial assistance from the local aquafauna.
Joel
· 1 year ago
(sigh...) I never seem to be able to say what I want to say adequately. My comments always come, out despite my best efforts to the contrary, sounding blunt and overly simplistic.
At any rate, thanks Ted, for stating this in a much clearer way than I ever could. I actually think that extracting the temple tax from a fish is a pretty good guiding principle. Maybe next time I'm looking for something to spend my money on I should simply go fishing instead! =)
markvans
· 1 year ago
Just a point of clarity: are you equating the Temple tax with the Imperial Tax? Not all taxes are created equal, and his response to one was to pull a coin out of a fish, and his response to the other was to say "give to caesar what is caesar's and to God what is God's"
Ted
· 1 year ago
I wasn't trying to equate the two; both have been mentioned, and I didn't take the time to parse them. Since the early Christians were at least as critical of the Herodian temple project as they were the Roman imperial project, I'm not sure by what calculus one would be acceptable while the other would not.
My point is more along the lines that neither response seems to be an unambiguous declaration pro or con. This could be because Jesus was deliberately being obtuse, in order to point to something beyond the question itself, rejecting the insistence for a simple answer. Or it could be that a passage like this had a much less ambiguous meaning for its early readers -- in which case the more subversive reading makes the most sense (the seemingly more obvious reading of compliance being a screen against confiscation of the document -- or in the case of the event itself, Jesus' premature arrest).
An instructive, if not conclusive exercise would be to examine the kinds of charges brought against early Christians to see if not paying taxes is among them.
Maria Kirby
· 1 year ago
I'm a little confused by your argument that there was not a separation of Church and State in 1st century Palestine. The Church was the Temple which had its own money system and its own tax, which was separate from the Roman money and tax. The Church was Jewish. The State was Roman and worshiped the Emperor among a pantheon of gods. So ethnically and religiously they were quite different.
If Paul teaches to submit to our earthly authorities and our earthly authorities tell us to pay xyz tax, then wouldn't not paying xyz tax be rebellion? Of course, we must obey God before men, but when we don't submit and pay our xyz tax then we usurp the responsibility of the authorities God has placed over us. We will be held accountable for taking that kind of authority. That's a lot of responsibility I don't want to have. I'm not sure I could govern as well as our leaders have.
Living below the poverty line so as to not paying taxes means that you receive benefits that others paid for. As part of the community of the USA, I would like to pull my own weight. I feel badly when I can't.
If you truly want to avoid submitting to Mammon, I would suggest living without money altogether. (I'm actually writing a book on the very topic.)
Luke
· 1 year ago
Maria I didn't read your comment until after I wrote mine below. I'd be very interested seeing your research on living without money. I'm trying to get there, and I think it's attainable but I'd love to hear your ideas.
Maria Kirby
· 1 year ago
I don't have a lot of research. A friend of mine put me in touch with a couple of people: Jeffrey Sawyer http://cfu.freehostia.com/Members/jeffreysawyer... and Scaughdt D. Mossway http://www.heartwoodsanctuary.com/may08.html. These guys aren't committed to living without money, but close. I would recommend a book by Steve Brill called Identifying and Harvesting Edible and Medicinal Plants in Wild (and Not-So-Wild) Places. He has a cookbook (which I have not tried) called The Wild Vegetarian Cookbook. His web site is http://www.wildmanstevebrill.com/
We humans used to live as hunter/gatherers and didn't use any money. Hunter/gatherers found all kinds of resources in the natural world that could meet their needs. To a large extent those resources are still there, you just need to know where to look. And modern society throws away so many things. I think if we were creative there's a lot we could make use of.
But more than that, I think God's economy is one of generosity. While I don't particularly like prosperity preachers, I think they are right when they say that God gives back to us when we're generous. There really isn't a lot that we absolutely need to have. And if we were to spend our time looking for ways to help others and actually doing it, at the same time refusing monetary payment, I think that we would find that God provided more than we needed, especially if we were trustworthy, faithful, and hard working. And when we get extra, we pass that along to others -it has a way of coming back.
Even if for some reason there was a season where we didn't get our needs gratified immediately, that wouldn't mean that God wasn't providing. We wouldn't die from some fasting. And God has a way of moving us along to different pastures. Part of depending on God is being able to listen to his leading. Besides this society has a lot of safety nets built in.
The book I'm writing isn't a how to, it's more inspirational fiction. I hope that helps. Best wishes. I'd love to hear how it goes. mariakirby at ameritech dot net
Luke
· 1 year ago
Beyond the issue of paying or not paying taxes, another possible and more far reaching meaning of Jesus' words here may be that we should not use Ceasar's money at all. Notice Jesus doesn't say "Render to Ceasar" what Ceasar demands (the tax), but Render to Ceasar what "is" his. And if the currency by Jesus' implication all belongs to Ceasar due to his inscription than Jesus might be indicating that he (Ceasar) ought to have all of it back. This, in Jesus' classic style, would create a trap for his (probably wealthy) trappers because he would be saying that to be faithful to God one should not be concerned about whether it is lawful to pay taxes, but avoid the problem of taxes altogether by giving all one's money away. That would be a perfect act of nonviolent rebellion, and probably would have stunned Rome and diminished its control over the Jews because much of Roman power in daily life was purchased through the paying off of already respected Jewish authorities with Roman coin. If a large percentage of the population stopped using the Roman coins, their value would have been significantly diminished because of the lower demand and the outright refusal of many to accept it. If this is possibly the meaning Jesus intended, then I wonder how possible it would be in our modern context to abandon the use of money and what that would look like and what sort of cultural impact it would have?
As a side note, under US tax laws, if you give enough money away, you can avoid all federal taxes. Anyone who wants to legally avoid income tax has this option always available.
geoffh
· 1 year ago
Luke, for me, this is exactly the point I think Jesus was making. Just get rid of money and problem is removed. I think the image on the coin should be contrasted with the image of God in humanity in general. Money is a means for obtaining objects/power at a distance (space and time) from the people who produced them, creating a veil to obscure the exploitation involved. Without money (and the images it bears) then would be in more direct proximity with the people (and God's image in them) who make the things we use.
Maria Kirby
· 1 year ago
Getting rid of money just creates other problems and does not prevent/avoid exploitation. I believe that it could be argued that the presence of money actually decreases the incidence of exploitation because there is a standardized means of exchange. The heart problems associated with money are greed and desire for power or control. Taking away the symbol or mechanism that people use to express their heart problems doesn't change the problems, they just come out in other ways.
hewhocutsdown
· 1 year ago
I definitely am with Maria...the problem is not currency, which will occur in whatever form as long as people trade goods and services, but with people's hearts which, unchanged, perpetuate the problems you describe, Geoff.
athada
· 1 year ago
And let's not forget about the industrial side of the military-industrial complex. America's military reach probably has as much to do with economics & physical prosperity as anything else - sustaining an industrial lifestyle as much as possible. I know the crowd reading here is mostly anti-consumeristic, but if they are reading this, they are using a computer, an output of the industrial machine, made possible by cheap energy secured by military & political means. A computer purchase that benefits Dell, Apple, & Gateway shareholders. Also, the rich own most of the stock and the rich pay almost all of the federal income tax (Google it).
I suppose a low (monetary) income and giving up an industrial lifestyle go together anyway. Just wondering how much of a difference not paying my VERY small share of income tax would make.
mschellman
· 1 year ago
I think that Jesus response is such a beautiful and profound thing. He says, "look at the coin. Who's image is stamped on it?" - by this he also implies the question "And WHO"S IMAGE IS STAMPED ON YOU?" when he says "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's - and to God what belongs to God". Ceasar's image, Caesar's money, Caesars system, God can accomplish his purposes without them. They will have their time in the sun and eventually fall under God's judgement. Simple obedience to God, will accomplish his ends without resort to traditional means of revolt.
new guy
· 1 year ago
This is a very interesting discussion, and I feel like I'm benefiting greatly from it.
I have a couple of observations to add to the discussion.
I can't remember where I heard this before, but I recall either hearing or reading someone talking about this very thing with a completely different twist.
I'm no biblical scholar so please correct me if I'm getting this wrong, but I'm going from memory. Apparently one of the reasons the temple coined their own money was because of the prohibition of graven images and what this commentator focused on was the fact that when Jesus asked for a coin and was given a Roman coin, that very fact showed that whoever gave him the coin (presumably one of the pharisees) was violating Jewish law. So his statement was more about pointing out that what he had was a Roman coin.
Again, I'm no biblical scholar so I'd be interested to hear the take on this interpretation of the story from more knowledgeable people.
The other thing I would like to point out is that we are in a VERY different situation from anybody who lived in Jesus' time. In reference to the Good Samaratin comment above, I would say that we definitely should directly and personally help those in need, but I would also say that as people who live in the historically unique situation of being our own political leaders (at least in theory) that we DO have an obligation to help the poor and protect the environment, etc. through the larger and (potentially at least) more efficient means of our government.
Just as a group of earnest Christians can conceivably accomplish more by pooling their money and other resources to accomplish something -- the government is simply that on a much larger scale. I acknowledge, though, that the collection of taxes backed up by the threat of force is problematic from a Christian point-of-view -- but I think that same point-of-view backs up in concept at least that we, as a people, have an obligation to backstop the poor and the elderly by pooling our money, collectively as a moral nation.
The implementation of our Social Security system and various forms of Medicare and welfare, etc. are of course flawed as are all human systems -- and I would argue they have gotten progressively more flawed over the years due to the corruption of money in our political system -- but in principle I wholeheartedly agree with them.
If every person was as generous as they ought to be and every church ran efficient programs to help the poor, the elderly, the widows and orphans, then we might not need those programs. But in a fallen world I think we can all admit that is never going to happen and so government steps in to help those who would not otherwise be helped.
I feel that we, as Christians, are called upon to walk that very fine line between being apart from the world, and yet still engaging the world to be instruments of God's mission to reconcile our broken world.
Nednetterville
· 6 months ago
I sure wish I had found this site and this discussion back when it was fresh ten or so months ago. My website, http:/www.jesus-on-taxes.com, offers a book-length essay on this topic entitled JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL TAX PROTESTER, free for downloading. The essay by me (Ned Netterville) with the help of many others is a comprehensive analysis of everything Jesus said or did relative to taxes and tax collectors in the canonical and non-canonical literature. Its primary purpose when it was first written 16 years ago, which evolved into considerably more since its initial draft, was to refute the oft-repeated but totally false interpretation by most orthodox exegetes of the render-unto-Caesar incident, which would Jesus approving the payment of Roman taxes.
I must say that the comments here are among the most interesting and insightful I have found on this question (Would Jesus have us pay taxes to the state?) on the WWW or elsewhere. The essay's conclusion is that Jesus would not approve. The essay's authors interpret the incident of the Roman coin very much as Mark does, and notes that in at least five places Jewish Scripture establishes the fact that everything belongs to God, which leaves nothing for poor Caesar.
One of the points that hasn't been raised in this discussion is the fact that taxes, with their essential reliance on force, violence and/or coercion for their collection are identical to the crime of extortion and thus a violation of the Decalogue's unequivocal (Thou shall not!) prohibition against stealing. It is my contention that using force to take property from some folks for the benefit of others--no matter how noble the cause nor how vast a majority favors doing so--is still extortion. To believe that the state can change God's law or otherwise escape its dictates is to elevate the state above God. A brilliant Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, dubbed this worship of the state with a most appropriate term: the practice of statolatry. I hope I will hear from some of you and perhaps reopen the discussion. Ned Netterville ned@jesus-on-taxes.com
paul munn
· 6 months ago
I'm not sure you read the essay carefully, Ned. It doesn't seem to me to advocate non-payment of taxes. Rather, I think the conclusion is summed up nicely in this line: "...it seems to me, given the context, [Jesus] is saying: “let Caesar have his stupid money…but give to God his due.”
I agree completely. I personally follow the second "option" offered at the end of the essay (living below taxable income), which seems most in keeping with Jesus' teaching about taxes and wealth and his example.
And your argument that we should give to God everything doesn't seem to apply to money (and therefore taxes). Because money is not a thing, unless you mean a piece of paper with printing on it. Money is a symbol—it has value because the government guarantees it as "legal tender for all debts, public and private." Its value is therefore truly "Caesar's." Most everyone in our society accepts that guarantee, and therefore it has value to them and they will exchange goods (like food, which we need, and which has real value in itself) for money. But to pay taxes is not to give Caesar any "thing" that is God's, but to only return to Caesar what is Caesar's.
Just as Jesus said.
Nednetterville
· 5 months ago
Paul, Perhaps I put too much emphasis on these lines in the essay, with which I heartily concur: "And so, the Pharisees and Herodians, knowing well that it was indeed UNLAWFUL under Mosaic Law to pay taxes to Rome (especially with idolatrous coins that contained an image of the Emperor). At the same time, however, a refusal to pay taxes would have been understood to be an act of rebellion against Rome."
Taxation was indeed unlawful under Mosaic law, for the law of God revealed to Moses is unequivocal: THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. Man-made laws, which abrogate the law of God by immunizing tax collectors from prosecution for extortion, are the only reason tax collectors do not go to jail for extorting money from their victims. I am persuaded that Jesus did not support the negation of his Father's law as expressed in the Decalogue, and nothing I've read in the gospels dispels that conviction.
It is, of course, an obvious fact that those who pay taxes--whether it be some or all of what they think they owe--support war making. Indeed, taxes are the one unchanging, essential ingredient in all wars. But there are many other matters of morality involved in this messy business of taxation, which suggest to me that Jesus would, as he was charged with doing by those who dragged him before Pilate, "forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar."
Certainly Jesus would oppose the payment of extortion if only because paying extortion is the most certain way of assuring that the extortion will continue. Of course it takes courage to defy a powerful extortionist, and Jesus was nothing if he wasn't courageous.
You say you avoid paying the federal income tax by keeping below the minimum, but it is virtually certain that virtually all but the rarest of birds will contribute to federal war-making through other less-direct federal taxes. While this methodology is certainly more in tune with pacifism, and one I have recommended (http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_4.html), there is little of the courage of Jesus involved in taking such a stand. I certainly don't view it as being "in keeping with Jesus' teaching about taxes and wealth and his example."
Furthermore, if one files a tax return revealing income below the level that triggers a tax liability, by the mere filing of such a return one very well may violate God's statutes and/or principles Jesus espoused.
paul munn
· 5 months ago
Your point about stealing doesn't carry much weight, Ned, if we accept that taxes are paying to Caesar what is Caesar's (or Paul's specific injunction to pay the taxes to whom taxes are due).
And your main point, about supporting warmaking, only works if we accept the assumption that giving the government money enables them to make war or is participating ourselves. I think it is obvious that giving money is not the same as fighting in war ourselves. And history shows that governments will wage war whether or not they get the funding through taxes; if they need more money, they just print it. They make the money, remember? And I want to reiterate what I said above, that money has value because of the government guarantee, not because the money has any inherent value in itself. We support and participate in war much more by voting and empowering leaders than through paying taxes.
And your argument that money gets into the federal warmaking coffers by other "less direct" ways extends infinitely. You give money to other people (by buying things) who then pay taxes that support war, so aren't you supporting war indirectly? It goes on and on, revealing the absurdity of the argument. Your legalism about avoiding giving money to the government can only lead to constant worry that our money will somehow end up putting a gun in a soldier's hands.
That accusation about Jesus forbidding the payment of taxes was a false accusation (as were many of the accusations against Jesus). Pilate even saw that, saying two verses later, "I find no crime in this man."
Yes, Jesus was courageous, but in other ways; resisting taxes is a fight that Jesus did not take up. His answer when asked about taxes, I think, points out why tax resistance even does more damage than paying taxes. Jesus showed that money was of no value to him ("give to Caesar what is Caesar's"). He would not fight over it. But tax resisters say the opposite: they confess belief in the power of money by trying to hold it back, by fighting with the tax collectors over it.
Jesus' answer undercut the whole argument and disempowered money. The tax resister's misguided struggle glorifies it.
Nednetterville
· 5 months ago
Paul, Thanks for engaging in this debate.
My point that taxation is stealing carries the full weight of logic. After several decades of asking many good people who believe as you do, I have yet to have anyone make a rational distinction between taxation and the crime of extortion, which I think you will acknowledge is a form of theft. Perhaps you would like to try, but be careful that in the process you do not implicate yourself in the practice of Statolatry, a religion that attributes superhuman powers to the state.
Of course I do not accept that taxes are paying to Caesar what is Caesar's, nor do I know anyone who does. People, including you and I, do not pay taxes because we think our money belongs to the state. We pay because we fear the punishment that is visited upon those who resist paying. As you know, all tax statutes include provisions for their enFORCEment. which allow state agents to employ force and violence--up to and including killing those who might adamantly resist paying--in order to collect. I have never known a person who pays taxes because they think their money belongs to the state. They pay because they are afraid not to pay. I am sure that the forceful and violent nature of taxes is the most likely reason why Jesus opposed the payment of taxes to Rome.
Your comment regarding Paul's words in Romans 13 is a bit disingenuous since the discussion we are having is in regard to Jesus' take on taxes, not Paul's. Notably, Paul did not suggest nor imply that he was speaking for Jesus in Romans 13. And, of course, Paul's comment on taxes in Romans begs the question: to whom are taxes due? Just as Jesus' "render-unto-Caesar" statement begs the question: what is Caesar's, Paul's statement in Romans begs the question: to whom (and when) are taxes due? For example, today, and undoubtedly when Romans was written in the first century, taxes are not due unless and until they are either levied against the victim, or confessed by the victim. So in the context of Romans 13, Paul's admonition is a non sequitur. Furthermore, as you may know, some biblical scholars have argued that Romans 13 verses 1-7 is an interpolation inserted into the text at a later date, perhaps after the church became enthralled to Rome and its taxes under Constantine. To me it seems ludicrous to suggest that Jesus and Paul endorsed paying taxes to the empire responsible for their own summary executions.
I certainly disagree with your argument that paying taxes to the state does not implicate one in the state's wars. I would argue that taxes are more essential to the state's ability to make war than any other factor, every bit as important as the bombs the tax money buys and the warriors who drop the bombs whose salaries are tax paid. Of course the state can borrow money or print money to finance its war-making machinery, but it is the state's power to tax, and that power alone, that makes it possible for the state to borrow money. No one would lend money to a state that had no tax revenues.
Furthermore, the state's power to tax alone makes it possible for the state to print money which has any value. Without the state's power to appropriate the wealth of its subjects by means of taxation, the state's currency would be worthless when it was printed. I am confident that no state today nor ever has issued fiat money, which, from you comments is what you are talking about, that has had any value whatsoever.
You say "And I want to reiterate what I said above, that money has value because of the government guarantee, not because the money has any inherent value in itself. " I ignored this statement of yours in my previous post because it is economic nonsense. The value of money, as is true of the value of every material thing that is not freely available to one and all, such as air, is determined by its marginal utility to those who use it. Your statement is facially wrong. Obviously, there is no such thing as a "government guarantee" of the value of money. Where did you ever get that notion? Nor can it possibly be urged that there is an implied guarantee, since the purchasing power or "value" of the US dollar, for example, has declined by over 95% since the Federal Reserve was created to preserve the dollars value!
Paul, you misconstrued my argument about "less-direct federal taxes" (those are my words) when you argue that "'less direct' ways extends infinitely." Only by misquoting me (you did use quotes) and substituting the word "ways" where I said "federal taxes," can you maintain that my argument contains a flaw. But I did not say ways, I said less-direct federal taxes than the income tax. I was thinking explicitly of the many federal excise taxes. You say you avoid paying federal income taxes by keeping your taxable income below the level that triggers the federal, personal income tax, but do you, for example, avoid purchasing items upon which the federal government levies an excise? Taxes other than the federal individual income tax account, I believe, for well over 50% of the government's tax revenues and thus can be said to provide most of the funding for the government's war making. So you see, my argument isn't so "absurd," for the fact that you would choose to assault a straw man of your own making rather than address my argument encourages me to think it is much sounder than merely absurd. I think we can rest assured that paying taxes does in fact pay for every gun in every soldier's hand. However, I do not think you should worry about it; rather I believe we should do something constructive about it.
You say that the accusation of the Sanhedrin that Jesus had been forbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar was a false accusation and you cite the words of Pilate to prove your contention. May I suggest that Pilate's words are less reliable than those of Jesus' accusers. Don't put too much faith in what Pilate said or did. He was a scoundrel of the first order.
Your statement interpreting the motive of tax resisters is pure hyperbole. In the first place, some of the tax resisters I have known are, like Jesus, true pacifists. They do not fight anyone over anything. Like Gandhi, they peacefully and vigorously and nonviolently resist oppression, and they do their best to prevent the fruits of their labor from being used to make war. Many of them have been impoverished and imprisoned by government agents for their unflinching pacifism. You do them a grave injustice by interpreting their motive as monetary or even material. Your own avoidance of the federal income tax as a means of depriving the government of money to make war confesses your own belief in the power of money quite as convincingly as the efforts of tax resisters. And, as the essay JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX RESISTER ( http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_7.html ) argues persuasively, I believe Jesus most assuredly did resist Rome's oppressive tax on the Jews, which was severely impacting and impoverishing many of his disciples.
Paul, you said this: "Jesus' answer undercut the whole argument and disempowered money." I am not sure what you mean by "the whole argument." I assume by "Jesus' answer" you are referring to his statement, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." But you must remember the context. There was no argument, only a question. When asked whether they should pay Caesar's tax or not (Mark 12), Jesus first asked his questioners to show him the coin of the tax. The coin they produced was a Roman denarius, which most bible scholars believe was the only money acceptable in payment of the tax. Evidently, Jesus didn't have any denarii on his person, nor is it likely that he would use that coin for it contained words confuting the Jewish belief in One God. It was only after being told the image and inscription on the coin were those of Caesar's that Jesus responded, "Give Caesar what is Caesar's, but give God what is God's." Unless Jesus was just being loquacious, which I hardly think is the case, it certainly seems clear that in first determining what money was required by Caesar's tax, and then being shown the Roman coin, when Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," if he meant give Caesar anything, he certainly had limited what should be given to Caesar to Roman coins only. And since Jesus, and presumably his close disciples, wouldn't use those idolatrous Roman coins, pursuant to Jesus' instructions, they need not pay Caesar's tax, which required said coins.
Finally, you also stated this, presumably referring to money: "The tax resister's misguided struggle glorifies it." That statement is unfounded. If you have any evidence to support your charge that tax resisters are misguided, or your charge that they glorify money, please back up these accusations with something more than mere assertions.
Keep the faith, Ned
paul munn
· 5 months ago
I'm getting the impression, Ned, that this is less a debate and more you taking the opportunity to expound your ideas. You don't seem to be reading my responses very carefully, but just using them to spin off on topics that you wish to talk about.
But just to clarify for anyone else reading: The "government guarantee" I was referring to is printed right on every bill ("This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private") and it is signed by the appropriate government officials. Without that, and the acceptance of our society to honor the value of money (the society that also elects officials and agrees to taxation), it is worth no more than the paper it is printed on. Our money is just as much "Caesar's" as in Jesus' time.
You say tax resisters don't "fight" over money. Okay, I didn't mean fisticuffs. I mean they are struggling over money, trying to either keep it for their own purposes or for purposes of their choosing, trying to divert its power away from the military and use its power for something they consider good. This struggle to control and use the power of money glorifies the power of money in a way Jesus did not. He undercut the power of money by not withholding it from Caesar but letting him have something that Caesar valued but Jesus did not. Much more challenging and revolutionary than any tax resisting.
And I have to say, Ned, your complicated logical gymnastics may impress some people but a few wise words by Jesus (and his lived example) make all those unwieldy arguments look like desperate attempts in a futile effort.
Jesus beat Caesar. And he will "make wars cease to the ends of the earth." But not by resisting taxes.
Nednetterville
· 5 months ago
Paul, Isn't every debate an opportunity for the participants to expound their ideas? Isn't that one of the primary purposes of debates? I think so, and I am reading your responses with care particularly to discover any ideas or lines of reasoning that are new to me that might shed light on the very old question: What did Jesus think, say, or do regarding taxes and tax collectors.
May I presume by your silence on the issue that you now agree with me that, absent the immunity granted to tax collectors by the state, there is no distinction between their actions in taking people's property (OPM) and that of criminal extortionists?
Paul, it flies in the face of the facts and laws established by economics to argue that the legal-tender status of government's fiat money gives money its, as you stated the case, "value because the government guarantees it as 'legal tender for all debts, public and private.'" If that was true, the Zimbabwe dollar, whose value is less than that of the paper on which it is printed, would not have lost all of the value it had a year ago, for it is still legal tender. Any government guarantee of the value of its currency is not worth the paper it is written on. And let me reiterate: no government can or would make such guarantee. The sole purpose of legal-tender laws is to establish and preserve a government monopoly over a nation's money supply. It serves to prevent the use in commerce of competing forms of money, such as gold, and it can only do so by abrogating contracts between consenting adults. It is an insidious and onerous means of suppressing individual freedom. However, even the defenders of legal-tender laws do not pretend that legal-tender status has any relationship to the value of money.
Paul, when I said that some tax resisters I know do not "fight" over money, I was not even considering fisticuffs. I was (am) thinking in terms of Gandhi's "Satyagraha," defined as: nonviolent civil disobedience or recourse to truth-force or soul-force or passive resistance. It is precisely what Jesus was speaking of in his Sermon on the Mount when he said "resist not evildoers." (He most emphatically did not say, as the KJV mistakenly translates, "resist not evil.") Wise tax resisters, in accord with the teachings of Jesus, resist taxes but not tax collectors or other evildoers (judges, politicians, tax consumers, etc.,) who participate in the evil practice. The concept of enlightened tax resistance is essentially spiritual in its nature and in strict accord with the principles of righteous living that Jesus prescribed and lived.
Paul, I have no need nor desire to impress people by stating what I believe is obvious truth. Nor do I find it necessary to engage in ascribing motives to your lines of reasoning in this discourse with which I find fault. Your arguments may be wrong and your logic flawed, but that doesn't indicate to me that your motives aren't pure.
One final thought: The wisdom of Jesus is almost 2000 years old. The principles he prescribed for righteous living preclude war. And yet wars continue unabated. Could it be that one reason is that we have misinterpreted the meaning of his words regarding taxes? Can we, for example, use force in the form of taxation to obtain our wants and needs with impunity, or is it more likely that the use of force will, like Karma, produce only more evil. Jesus said, seek first the kingdom of heaven, and all of those other things will be give to you by our FAther.
All Comments
That’s how I’m doing it. Check out my blog for details and a how-to guide: http://sniggle.net/Experiment/
All government statutes are backed by threat of violence. All taxes support aggression, not just some of them.
If it is a worthwhile endeavor to fight war taxes, it is a more risky, but perhaps more worthwhile endeavor to fight all of them. Only an individual can make that judgment him or herself, based on the risks involved, and who all it would adversely affect (such as, does he or she have strong community or familial commitments, wherein persecution would endanger them as well, without their consent?)
___
As for the discussion above, my understanding is that the people DID have competing taxes at the time. Some went to the Temple, some to the Sword.
____
I believe it is telling that Jesus talked about and looked at the image on the coin, as if to show them that they had already accepted the idol.
Anything and everything belongs to God. None of it is Caesar's (or the Sword's, or Washington's).
I named my blog after this point.
Anyway, I am opposed to refusing all taxes. We have a different situation than the Jews under Roman occupation. We live in a (admittedly flawed) democracy. I do believe we have a civic duty to ante up our fair share for roads, schools, emergency services, etc. Just as a church needs money to operate, so do cities, states and countries.
If it wasn't for our insane military spending, I would happily pay my taxes as simply my entrance fee to civil society.
However, I think there is a more important point. The good Samaritan didn't bypass the man and go to the nearby town, demanding money (under threat of theft, imprisonment, or death) in order to start an agency which would cater to the ill and poor. He did something about it himself.
That's what we, as Christians, need to return to. Helping our neighbors lovingly, rather than relying on the Sword to inefficiently, corruptly, and violently do it "on our behalf."
Obviously, we can't get to that point in one single, easy step, and I don't fault anyone who pays taxes, due to the threats behind them. (I pay them myself!)
What I do think we need to be cognizant of, however, is that any time we ask the State to implement a new restriction or initiate or expand a program, we are advocating it be done violently, rather than voluntarily; we are recommending it be done via the false idol of the Sword, rather than through the guidance of the Peacemaker.
I think that Jesus did tell us to pay our taxes in these verses. But, our paying taxes shouldn't be done out of loyalty to the state. We are simply to pay them because we are expected to be good citizens. While witholding the portion of our taxes that go to pay for the military may seem like a revolt, we must remember that Jesus also rejected the revolt. Besides, its not as if the military won't get their money if Mark Van Steenwyk (or anybody else) witholds that portion of their taxes. The military will simply use the portion that was payed.
Here is what it breaks down to. Everything hinges on what is in your heart. If one does good deeds while holding murderous rage in his heart, that person is guilty of murder. If one pays taxes while rejecting the military might that their government might use, God will know and that person will be guiltless.
2. I'm in a strange situation: While I hate the concept of state, and thus I could be in the side of the ones who don't pay taxes, I see another approach: the laissez faire version ("I don't want a strong state that makes me pay taxes... I just want the minarchist state to protect my ass while I exploit my workers"). Our duty is find the other way... The Jesus' way
Based on my income, I haven't paid any federal tax in years, and we are trying, in fits and starts, to be both more "green" and somewhat "anti-consumer" as a means of living out our ethical ideals. But trying to root out all of our complicity in the present system (which is simply the one we're subject to until the next one), all of our corruption or colonization by the fallen powers, can easily become a legalistic exercise in futility.
For instance, yesterday morning I got up, brewed some fair-trade/organic coffee, enjoyed the view of our garden, studied an ancient subversive text, checked up via internet on some of my subversive friends -- and then I gassed up my minivan and drove 70 carbon-choked miles to teach a class where, by my very presence, I am probably perpetuating the legacy of white male authority.
Perhaps by pointing out the image on the coin, Jesus was pointing them back, in a visceral way, to the root problems of empire in general, to the tenuousness of their situation and the complexity of human sinfulness that paying or not paying one's taxes barely touches. Interestingly enough, Jesus does pay the temple tax, albeit by extracting it from a fish, which seems less than helpful as guiding principle. Perhaps, however, his reason for paying the tax -- to avoid undue trouble -- is helpful, and there's always the voluntary poverty implied in the need to seek financial assistance from the local aquafauna.
I never seem to be able to say what I want to say adequately. My comments always come, out despite my best efforts to the contrary, sounding blunt and overly simplistic.
At any rate, thanks Ted, for stating this in a much clearer way than I ever could. I actually think that extracting the temple tax from a fish is a pretty good guiding principle. Maybe next time I'm looking for something to spend my money on I should simply go fishing instead! =)
My point is more along the lines that neither response seems to be an unambiguous declaration pro or con. This could be because Jesus was deliberately being obtuse, in order to point to something beyond the question itself, rejecting the insistence for a simple answer. Or it could be that a passage like this had a much less ambiguous meaning for its early readers -- in which case the more subversive reading makes the most sense (the seemingly more obvious reading of compliance being a screen against confiscation of the document -- or in the case of the event itself, Jesus' premature arrest).
An instructive, if not conclusive exercise would be to examine the kinds of charges brought against early Christians to see if not paying taxes is among them.
If Paul teaches to submit to our earthly authorities and our earthly authorities tell us to pay xyz tax, then wouldn't not paying xyz tax be rebellion? Of course, we must obey God before men, but when we don't submit and pay our xyz tax then we usurp the responsibility of the authorities God has placed over us. We will be held accountable for taking that kind of authority. That's a lot of responsibility I don't want to have. I'm not sure I could govern as well as our leaders have.
Living below the poverty line so as to not paying taxes means that you receive benefits that others paid for. As part of the community of the USA, I would like to pull my own weight. I feel badly when I can't.
If you truly want to avoid submitting to Mammon, I would suggest living without money altogether. (I'm actually writing a book on the very topic.)
We humans used to live as hunter/gatherers and didn't use any money. Hunter/gatherers found all kinds of resources in the natural world that could meet their needs. To a large extent those resources are still there, you just need to know where to look. And modern society throws away so many things. I think if we were creative there's a lot we could make use of.
But more than that, I think God's economy is one of generosity. While I don't particularly like prosperity preachers, I think they are right when they say that God gives back to us when we're generous. There really isn't a lot that we absolutely need to have. And if we were to spend our time looking for ways to help others and actually doing it, at the same time refusing monetary payment, I think that we would find that God provided more than we needed, especially if we were trustworthy, faithful, and hard working. And when we get extra, we pass that along to others -it has a way of coming back.
Even if for some reason there was a season where we didn't get our needs gratified immediately, that wouldn't mean that God wasn't providing. We wouldn't die from some fasting. And God has a way of moving us along to different pastures. Part of depending on God is being able to listen to his leading. Besides this society has a lot of safety nets built in.
The book I'm writing isn't a how to, it's more inspirational fiction. I hope that helps. Best wishes. I'd love to hear how it goes. mariakirby at ameritech dot net
As a side note, under US tax laws, if you give enough money away, you can avoid all federal taxes. Anyone who wants to legally avoid income tax has this option always available.
Reminds me of Wendell Berry's essay "Why I'm Not Going to Buy a Computer" (http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berrynot.html)
I suppose a low (monetary) income and giving up an industrial lifestyle go together anyway. Just wondering how much of a difference not paying my VERY small share of income tax would make.
I have a couple of observations to add to the discussion.
I can't remember where I heard this before, but I recall either hearing or reading someone talking about this very thing with a completely different twist.
I'm no biblical scholar so please correct me if I'm getting this wrong, but I'm going from memory. Apparently one of the reasons the temple coined their own money was because of the prohibition of graven images and what this commentator focused on was the fact that when Jesus asked for a coin and was given a Roman coin, that very fact showed that whoever gave him the coin (presumably one of the pharisees) was violating Jewish law. So his statement was more about pointing out that what he had was a Roman coin.
Again, I'm no biblical scholar so I'd be interested to hear the take on this interpretation of the story from more knowledgeable people.
The other thing I would like to point out is that we are in a VERY different situation from anybody who lived in Jesus' time. In reference to the Good Samaratin comment above, I would say that we definitely should directly and personally help those in need, but I would also say that as people who live in the historically unique situation of being our own political leaders (at least in theory) that we DO have an obligation to help the poor and protect the environment, etc. through the larger and (potentially at least) more efficient means of our government.
Just as a group of earnest Christians can conceivably accomplish more by pooling their money and other resources to accomplish something -- the government is simply that on a much larger scale. I acknowledge, though, that the collection of taxes backed up by the threat of force is problematic from a Christian point-of-view -- but I think that same point-of-view backs up in concept at least that we, as a people, have an obligation to backstop the poor and the elderly by pooling our money, collectively as a moral nation.
The implementation of our Social Security system and various forms of Medicare and welfare, etc. are of course flawed as are all human systems -- and I would argue they have gotten progressively more flawed over the years due to the corruption of money in our political system -- but in principle I wholeheartedly agree with them.
If every person was as generous as they ought to be and every church ran efficient programs to help the poor, the elderly, the widows and orphans, then we might not need those programs. But in a fallen world I think we can all admit that is never going to happen and so government steps in to help those who would not otherwise be helped.
I feel that we, as Christians, are called upon to walk that very fine line between being apart from the world, and yet still engaging the world to be instruments of God's mission to reconcile our broken world.
I must say that the comments here are among the most interesting and insightful I have found on this question (Would Jesus have us pay taxes to the state?) on the WWW or elsewhere. The essay's conclusion is that Jesus would not approve. The essay's authors interpret the incident of the Roman coin very much as Mark does, and notes that in at least five places Jewish Scripture establishes the fact that everything belongs to God, which leaves nothing for poor Caesar.
One of the points that hasn't been raised in this discussion is the fact that taxes, with their essential reliance on force, violence and/or coercion for their collection are identical to the crime of extortion and thus a violation of the Decalogue's unequivocal (Thou shall not!) prohibition against stealing. It is my contention that using force to take property from some folks for the benefit of others--no matter how noble the cause nor how vast a majority favors doing so--is still extortion. To believe that the state can change God's law or otherwise escape its dictates is to elevate the state above God. A brilliant Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, dubbed this worship of the state with a most appropriate term: the practice of statolatry. I hope I will hear from some of you and perhaps reopen the discussion. Ned Netterville ned@jesus-on-taxes.com
I agree completely. I personally follow the second "option" offered at the end of the essay (living below taxable income), which seems most in keeping with Jesus' teaching about taxes and wealth and his example.
And your argument that we should give to God everything doesn't seem to apply to money (and therefore taxes). Because money is not a thing, unless you mean a piece of paper with printing on it. Money is a symbol—it has value because the government guarantees it as "legal tender for all debts, public and private." Its value is therefore truly "Caesar's." Most everyone in our society accepts that guarantee, and therefore it has value to them and they will exchange goods (like food, which we need, and which has real value in itself) for money. But to pay taxes is not to give Caesar any "thing" that is God's, but to only return to Caesar what is Caesar's.
Just as Jesus said.
Taxation was indeed unlawful under Mosaic law, for the law of God revealed to Moses is unequivocal: THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. Man-made laws, which abrogate the law of God by immunizing tax collectors from prosecution for extortion, are the only reason tax collectors do not go to jail for extorting money from their victims. I am persuaded that Jesus did not support the negation of his Father's law as expressed in the Decalogue, and nothing I've read in the gospels dispels that conviction.
It is, of course, an obvious fact that those who pay taxes--whether it be some or all of what they think they owe--support war making. Indeed, taxes are the one unchanging, essential ingredient in all wars. But there are many other matters of morality involved in this messy business of taxation, which suggest to me that Jesus would, as he was charged with doing by those who dragged him before Pilate, "forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar."
Certainly Jesus would oppose the payment of extortion if only because paying extortion is the most certain way of assuring that the extortion will continue. Of course it takes courage to defy a powerful extortionist, and Jesus was nothing if he wasn't courageous.
You say you avoid paying the federal income tax by keeping below the minimum, but it is virtually certain that virtually all but the rarest of birds will contribute to federal war-making through other less-direct federal taxes. While this methodology is certainly more in tune with pacifism, and one I have recommended (http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_4.html), there is little of the courage of Jesus involved in taking such a stand. I certainly don't view it as being "in keeping with Jesus' teaching about taxes and wealth and his example."
Furthermore, if one files a tax return revealing income below the level that triggers a tax liability, by the mere filing of such a return one very well may violate God's statutes and/or principles Jesus espoused.
And your main point, about supporting warmaking, only works if we accept the assumption that giving the government money enables them to make war or is participating ourselves. I think it is obvious that giving money is not the same as fighting in war ourselves. And history shows that governments will wage war whether or not they get the funding through taxes; if they need more money, they just print it. They make the money, remember? And I want to reiterate what I said above, that money has value because of the government guarantee, not because the money has any inherent value in itself. We support and participate in war much more by voting and empowering leaders than through paying taxes.
And your argument that money gets into the federal warmaking coffers by other "less direct" ways extends infinitely. You give money to other people (by buying things) who then pay taxes that support war, so aren't you supporting war indirectly? It goes on and on, revealing the absurdity of the argument. Your legalism about avoiding giving money to the government can only lead to constant worry that our money will somehow end up putting a gun in a soldier's hands.
That accusation about Jesus forbidding the payment of taxes was a false accusation (as were many of the accusations against Jesus). Pilate even saw that, saying two verses later, "I find no crime in this man."
Yes, Jesus was courageous, but in other ways; resisting taxes is a fight that Jesus did not take up. His answer when asked about taxes, I think, points out why tax resistance even does more damage than paying taxes. Jesus showed that money was of no value to him ("give to Caesar what is Caesar's"). He would not fight over it. But tax resisters say the opposite: they confess belief in the power of money by trying to hold it back, by fighting with the tax collectors over it.
Jesus' answer undercut the whole argument and disempowered money. The tax resister's misguided struggle glorifies it.
My point that taxation is stealing carries the full weight of logic. After several decades of asking many good people who believe as you do, I have yet to have anyone make a rational distinction between taxation and the crime of extortion, which I think you will acknowledge is a form of theft. Perhaps you would like to try, but be careful that in the process you do not implicate yourself in the practice of Statolatry, a religion that attributes superhuman powers to the state.
Of course I do not accept that taxes are paying to Caesar what is Caesar's, nor do I know anyone who does. People, including you and I, do not pay taxes because we think our money belongs to the state. We pay because we fear the punishment that is visited upon those who resist paying. As you know, all tax statutes include provisions for their enFORCEment. which allow state agents to employ force and violence--up to and including killing those who might adamantly resist paying--in order to collect. I have never known a person who pays taxes because they think their money belongs to the state. They pay because they are afraid not to pay. I am sure that the forceful and violent nature of taxes is the most likely reason why Jesus opposed the payment of taxes to Rome.
Your comment regarding Paul's words in Romans 13 is a bit disingenuous since the discussion we are having is in regard to Jesus' take on taxes, not Paul's. Notably, Paul did not suggest nor imply that he was speaking for Jesus in Romans 13. And, of course, Paul's comment on taxes in Romans begs the question: to whom are taxes due? Just as Jesus' "render-unto-Caesar" statement begs the question: what is Caesar's, Paul's statement in Romans begs the question: to whom (and when) are taxes due? For example, today, and undoubtedly when Romans was written in the first century, taxes are not due unless and until they are either levied against the victim, or confessed by the victim. So in the context of Romans 13, Paul's admonition is a non sequitur. Furthermore, as you may know, some biblical scholars have argued that Romans 13 verses 1-7 is an interpolation inserted into the text at a later date, perhaps after the church became enthralled to Rome and its taxes under Constantine. To me it seems ludicrous to suggest that Jesus and Paul endorsed paying taxes to the empire responsible for their own summary executions.
I certainly disagree with your argument that paying taxes to the state does not implicate one in the state's wars. I would argue that taxes are more essential to the state's ability to make war than any other factor, every bit as important as the bombs the tax money buys and the warriors who drop the bombs whose salaries are tax paid. Of course the state can borrow money or print money to finance its war-making machinery, but it is the state's power to tax, and that power alone, that makes it possible for the state to borrow money. No one would lend money to a state that had no tax revenues.
Furthermore, the state's power to tax alone makes it possible for the state to print money which has any value. Without the state's power to appropriate the wealth of its subjects by means of taxation, the state's currency would be worthless when it was printed. I am confident that no state today nor ever has issued fiat money, which, from you comments is what you are talking about, that has had any value whatsoever.
You say "And I want to reiterate what I said above, that money has value because of the government guarantee, not because the money has any inherent value in itself. " I ignored this statement of yours in my previous post because it is economic nonsense. The value of money, as is true of the value of every material thing that is not freely available to one and all, such as air, is determined by its marginal utility to those who use it. Your statement is facially wrong. Obviously, there is no such thing as a "government guarantee" of the value of money. Where did you ever get that notion? Nor can it possibly be urged that there is an implied guarantee, since the purchasing power or "value" of the US dollar, for example, has declined by over 95% since the Federal Reserve was created to preserve the dollars value!
Paul, you misconstrued my argument about "less-direct federal taxes" (those are my words) when you argue that "'less direct' ways extends infinitely." Only by misquoting me (you did use quotes) and substituting the word "ways" where I said "federal taxes," can you maintain that my argument contains a flaw. But I did not say ways, I said less-direct federal taxes than the income tax. I was thinking explicitly of the many federal excise taxes. You say you avoid paying federal income taxes by keeping your taxable income below the level that triggers the federal, personal income tax, but do you, for example, avoid purchasing items upon which the federal government levies an excise? Taxes other than the federal individual income tax account, I believe, for well over 50% of the government's tax revenues and thus can be said to provide most of the funding for the government's war making. So you see, my argument isn't so "absurd," for the fact that you would choose to assault a straw man of your own making rather than address my argument encourages me to think it is much sounder than merely absurd. I think we can rest assured that paying taxes does in fact pay for every gun in every soldier's hand. However, I do not think you should worry about it; rather I believe we should do something constructive about it.
You say that the accusation of the Sanhedrin that Jesus had been forbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar was a false accusation and you cite the words of Pilate to prove your contention. May I suggest that Pilate's words are less reliable than those of Jesus' accusers. Don't put too much faith in what Pilate said or did. He was a scoundrel of the first order.
Your statement interpreting the motive of tax resisters is pure hyperbole. In the first place, some of the tax resisters I have known are, like Jesus, true pacifists. They do not fight anyone over anything. Like Gandhi, they peacefully and vigorously and nonviolently resist oppression, and they do their best to prevent the fruits of their labor from being used to make war. Many of them have been impoverished and imprisoned by government agents for their unflinching pacifism. You do them a grave injustice by interpreting their motive as monetary or even material. Your own avoidance of the federal income tax as a means of depriving the government of money to make war confesses your own belief in the power of money quite as convincingly as the efforts of tax resisters. And, as the essay JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX RESISTER ( http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_7.html ) argues persuasively, I believe Jesus most assuredly did resist Rome's oppressive tax on the Jews, which was severely impacting and impoverishing many of his disciples.
Paul, you said this: "Jesus' answer undercut the whole argument and disempowered money." I am not sure what you mean by "the whole argument." I assume by "Jesus' answer" you are referring to his statement, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." But you must remember the context. There was no argument, only a question. When asked whether they should pay Caesar's tax or not (Mark 12), Jesus first asked his questioners to show him the coin of the tax. The coin they produced was a Roman denarius, which most bible scholars believe was the only money acceptable in payment of the tax. Evidently, Jesus didn't have any denarii on his person, nor is it likely that he would use that coin for it contained words confuting the Jewish belief in One God. It was only after being told the image and inscription on the coin were those of Caesar's that Jesus responded, "Give Caesar what is Caesar's, but give God what is God's." Unless Jesus was just being loquacious, which I hardly think is the case, it certainly seems clear that in first determining what money was required by Caesar's tax, and then being shown the Roman coin, when Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," if he meant give Caesar anything, he certainly had limited what should be given to Caesar to Roman coins only. And since Jesus, and presumably his close disciples, wouldn't use those idolatrous Roman coins, pursuant to Jesus' instructions, they need not pay Caesar's tax, which required said coins.
Finally, you also stated this, presumably referring to money: "The tax resister's misguided struggle glorifies it." That statement is unfounded. If you have any evidence to support your charge that tax resisters are misguided, or your charge that they glorify money, please back up these accusations with something more than mere assertions.
Keep the faith, Ned
But just to clarify for anyone else reading: The "government guarantee" I was referring to is printed right on every bill ("This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private") and it is signed by the appropriate government officials. Without that, and the acceptance of our society to honor the value of money (the society that also elects officials and agrees to taxation), it is worth no more than the paper it is printed on. Our money is just as much "Caesar's" as in Jesus' time.
You say tax resisters don't "fight" over money. Okay, I didn't mean fisticuffs. I mean they are struggling over money, trying to either keep it for their own purposes or for purposes of their choosing, trying to divert its power away from the military and use its power for something they consider good. This struggle to control and use the power of money glorifies the power of money in a way Jesus did not. He undercut the power of money by not withholding it from Caesar but letting him have something that Caesar valued but Jesus did not. Much more challenging and revolutionary than any tax resisting.
And I have to say, Ned, your complicated logical gymnastics may impress some people but a few wise words by Jesus (and his lived example) make all those unwieldy arguments look like desperate attempts in a futile effort.
Jesus beat Caesar. And he will "make wars cease to the ends of the earth." But not by resisting taxes.
May I presume by your silence on the issue that you now agree with me that, absent the immunity granted to tax collectors by the state, there is no distinction between their actions in taking people's property (OPM) and that of criminal extortionists?
Paul, it flies in the face of the facts and laws established by economics to argue that the legal-tender status of government's fiat money gives money its, as you stated the case, "value because the government guarantees it as 'legal tender for all debts, public and private.'" If that was true, the Zimbabwe dollar, whose value is less than that of the paper on which it is printed, would not have lost all of the value it had a year ago, for it is still legal tender. Any government guarantee of the value of its currency is not worth the paper it is written on. And let me reiterate: no government can or would make such guarantee. The sole purpose of legal-tender laws is to establish and preserve a government monopoly over a nation's money supply. It serves to prevent the use in commerce of competing forms of money, such as gold, and it can only do so by abrogating contracts between consenting adults. It is an insidious and onerous means of suppressing individual freedom. However, even the defenders of legal-tender laws do not pretend that legal-tender status has any relationship to the value of money.
Paul, when I said that some tax resisters I know do not "fight" over money, I was not even considering fisticuffs. I was (am) thinking in terms of Gandhi's "Satyagraha," defined as: nonviolent civil disobedience or recourse to truth-force or soul-force or passive resistance. It is precisely what Jesus was speaking of in his Sermon on the Mount when he said "resist not evildoers." (He most emphatically did not say, as the KJV mistakenly translates, "resist not evil.") Wise tax resisters, in accord with the teachings of Jesus, resist taxes but not tax collectors or other evildoers (judges, politicians, tax consumers, etc.,) who participate in the evil practice. The concept of enlightened tax resistance is essentially spiritual in its nature and in strict accord with the principles of righteous living that Jesus prescribed and lived.
Paul, I have no need nor desire to impress people by stating what I believe is obvious truth. Nor do I find it necessary to engage in ascribing motives to your lines of reasoning in this discourse with which I find fault. Your arguments may be wrong and your logic flawed, but that doesn't indicate to me that your motives aren't pure.
One final thought: The wisdom of Jesus is almost 2000 years old. The principles he prescribed for righteous living preclude war. And yet wars continue unabated. Could it be that one reason is that we have misinterpreted the meaning of his words regarding taxes? Can we, for example, use force in the form of taxation to obtain our wants and needs with impunity, or is it more likely that the use of force will, like Karma, produce only more evil. Jesus said, seek first the kingdom of heaven, and all of those other things will be give to you by our FAther.