Community Page
- www.jesusmanifesto.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I realize I may have made it difficult for you to accept this as sincere, but you raise an excellent and challenging point. Thank you.
- Thinking over some of the conversation here, and remembering my observations during my years in seminary, I think I've realized something about the postmodern approach. Its focus on the ways...
- I might be the odd man out here (usually am) but I didn't read it as something that was ever to be taken apart from the Trinity in any way. I'm still not quite sure how that idea got thrown...
- I struck that last bit because even with the disclaimer, it seemed harsh in a way I did not intend. I just meant to invoke an incommensurability; I'm not sure we're playing by the same...
- I think we're at an impasse, because I'm sure I could write something that would make you feel better about things, but I'd be quite aware that we don't really mean the same thing.
the Jesus Manifesto
following the way of Jesus in the land of our captivity
You know the story…Jesus is minding his own business, when suddenly the Pharisees try to entrap him with a silly question about taxes. Trying to ensnare Jesus to pick sides between the Romans–who the people hated–and the tax-avoiding Zealots–who the people loved–they ask Jesus “should we pay taxes?”
Jesus, ... Continue reading »
Jesus, ... Continue reading »
11 months ago
That’s how I’m doing it. Check out my blog for details and a how-to guide: http://sniggle.net/Experiment/
11 months ago
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.
11 months ago
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.
11 months ago
11 months ago
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.
11 months ago
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.
11 months ago
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
11 months ago
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.
11 months ago
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! =)
11 months ago
11 months ago
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.
11 months ago
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.)
11 months ago
11 months ago
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
11 months ago
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.
11 months ago
11 months ago
11 months ago
11 months ago
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.
11 months ago
11 months ago
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.
2 weeks ago
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
2 weeks ago
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.