..

- ... -

The Limits of Obedience to Caesar: the Shape of the Problem

Study Conference, CHM, June 1978

John H. Yoder

-

.t. . . .,

'~

.~ ... _ .i: ;... .. ".i·:11 ~

PREAMBLE

.. . '"

,

Although the general beading in the earliest program outline under

which this presentation is supposed to fit was liThe Biblical Case for

ely!l Disobedience", my particular sub-topic properly does not focus upon Biblical .texta ,themselves but upon problems of interpretation . The ,Bub-heading "Theological Considerations" is on the other hand far

too broad for what I can try to do in this context. The four suggested app ILcat fons ("Anabaptist Nonresistance, Civil D1sobed1enc~, Non-Violent

. -

-Resistance, the Use of Forcetl)mix practical historical and ,logical

~.

~odels in the way that Simply identifies our problem rather than helping

solve it.

The limited goal of the present outline is to identify questions of logical or hermeneutic.procedure which we deal with either implicitly

r

or explicitly when we read the New Testament in our time, which 1s to

say when we bring-to the New Testament our own vocabulary and agenda of questions and concerns which have been formed partly by other experiences than those of the New Testament communities. We cannot simply ask what

the New, Testament writers think about "civil d1sobed1ence"1f the term itself was an invention of someone like Thoreau .

...

THE ·BASE LINE

For present purposes let us assume agreement that the New Testament picture is relatively clear as far as it goes. It tells us that Caesar has a right to some of our loyalty, especially as it is exp resaed in taxation. It also says that the support'due to Caesar is not unlimited,

because there are also things which are owed to God which should not be rendered to Caesar. For the New Testament situation, this means setting aside an anarchism of principle which would seek to destroy all government or to have no respect for existing·government. It also sets' aside revolution, insurrection, or tyrannicide, which would attempt to improve government by seeking to destroy the existing regime in favor of an alt~rnat1ve one.

I set aside for the present the question of whether any of these statements are ·true for all time or only for New Testament times. This

is a matter upon which different Christians will disagree and even different Mennonites will have different opinions. It is a statement in naive form

, of a complex hermeneutical problem. I am now only saying that the New Testament attitude was clear then, and that there is little debate about how it applied in that situation.

CRITERIA OF COMPARTMENTALIZATION

But how are we to determine what is Caesar's and· what is God's?

Here there is no SimPliCity even for the New Testament. we can assume, because we-know the first Christians were Jews, that caesar had no right

.

to aSk to be worShiPed as a GOd. Christians WOUld not have conSidered

it one Of the things belonging to caesar that he ShOUld have the right

to aSk them to worShiP him as God or to worShiP other gOdS at hiS command. But even that is not said in the text.

The most careful, ~n~erp-retat.~on .of . Romans, .. 13: 7 indicates that Paul is giving us a line of discrimination according to which "taxes and tribute" are Caesar I s to ask and" fear·. and honor" are not. This

... . .

interpretation has not dominated earlier New Testament research but is

the opinion of careful contempora~ New Testament scholars. Since it has arisen I am not aware that any New Testament scholar has refuted it on textual grounds. This means that when Paul says "render- to each his due",

he is actual.Iy .g~v1ng: a pr1~ciple of discrimination.· T:Qis makes his text

. · .... a commentary .on the t eachdng of Jesus about rendering .ee God, the. things

that are God's'f rather than following th~. older protestant interpretation according. to whl~h the' four items (taxes. .'. tribute, fear., and' honoe) in Romans 13:7 are a' 11st of.t~e things that we owe· to the-Chr1stiansovere1gn.

. ..

. ,.

"', ..

. Even .tle:r;e this moat . prcbab Ie interpretation must' recognize some ambivalence.! Peter 2 :13£f says . that· we · are to honor theK1ng. ;It

, ,also' says we are to· honor all·men .. · Even that passage agrees to the general principle of discrimination in repeating what was probably 4'famil1ar

proverb or a rule of thumb , "fear God and honor the King". Thus even I Peter

teac~es discrimination. Since honor is.4ueJto all people·of course it

is also due to the King.' The simple$~ linguistic solution to this difference

, .

would be to conclude that in different ·te~ts fear (timein) has significantly

different shades of meaning. · - Then 'Romans ',1~: 7 still means that fear is something due only to God,'whereas in -I P~ter 2 it 1s something more broadly

. .'

, '. :. . to be rendered . to all of one's. f.ellows aad ·in a particular way to kings •

. In any case the. pete.r - passage does not .set aside the ',principle of

• r

. discrimination. It · ot:lly draws .t.he l1n,e.,with .: different tellDS.

But that 1s as far as we can go in identifying the line between the two allegiances. In order· to bring from the N.T. to another culture the

__ • .. . I"

notion of a line between where we obey and where we don't. we must bring

to the text greater hermeneutical self-awareaess than be produced by

i : · the '.text· .itse~f·. ,What are, the _poss~ble ways of clarifying this?

. , .. . ~

... r ..

II

..

...

.,

.'.... .,. 1

. ~ . ~

. . One . principle of discrimil)ation is me:t.aphysical. One dtst:inguishes

different lev~ls of reality, the spiritual ,and the physical or the- religious and the ci1{i.:i. Especially .. since Christianity became the heir or neoplatonism, this has seemed.t~ b~ a helpful .discrimination for many. But when . one comes ;closer to act.ually d~awing the line, it does not become

easier to become: .. concrete about it ... The expressions -of what one' calls ·"_spiritual" or "~~lig1ous" are still in the civil ·realm·. such as the pagan religious ceremonies involved in being a Roman sol~ier. This distinction is thus always deceptive. It does not determine what to do with a moral challenge which is in both realms. Nor does i.t determine who :18 to make

J

the ruling_ about which r~alm 1s whicb and where the line r,ms .between them.

, .

, .

. ...

.

..

. _

The second form' 0;£ that d'ija11ty is .: -that which would identify. specific

"religious" actlv1ti~s~s belonging ~to God even though they are 'in: the

'. visible and '-1~stitut:lonal realm. Formal worship, doctrinal statements

4 • I •

like affirming or denying the diety of Jesus, celebrating the sacraments

would be activities which, although physical and institutional and social, are still God's business. This 1s probably the dominant solution in modern western expezfence , ~ It. permits. MarKie~t governments to say that they support religious liberty, because they let people do those things, as long as they do not.m.a.tter socially. It ~permlts church and state to be

..

conceived of "as separatedn the west by id{!ntifying in this narrow .sense of

.. ... -II. ", ..

religious gathertngs and sacrainental, practices the. area which· government

forbids itself ,to deal with.' Fro1Jl the perspect tve of Caesar and his heirs, perhapa th1~ ,d-i$~t:f.ncti'on _is acceptable, as it may. be to certain "high"

. '. 'I. ,

.. ... I •

~ .., ..

. . 1

•

._

. .

I has

l

lue" ,

:ext

~8 :10n

reign.

Deral

[ Peter

Ference :antly I

~adly

I.

• Kious

em.

Ie

l,

e Df

I.

-

,

- 3 -

understandings of re.l.Lgf.cn, From a biblical viewpoint however it leaves o~ Caesar's side·ofthe·d1v1sion very important matters of loving interhuman rela~1onsh1ps;··~rtd what it defines as specifically religious is not even tfie center· of the meaning of the church according to the free

church traditions. Thus on serious moral and theological grounds the

line of discrimination which says that all the chur~h cares about being free in· is-specifically ecclesiClstical organizational exp~essions is not an acceptable pattern. We do have to recognize, though, that it is one of the·ways of drawing the line which has been considered viable in modern

times· by both·eastern and western European traditions.

Let us not attempt to exploit for the present the peculiar contribution involved in the fact that many of the people who want to make this line

very firm in the modern western democracies (so ·that Christians should not radically criticize what government does as long as religious ceremonies are left alone) are very often the same people who consider it to be a sign of godless oppression when the Marxist governments of Eastern Europe

. . . I

use the same principle of discrimdnation.

The next way to attempt definition 1s to face the fact that.God and Caesar have conflicting demands in the same territories, and therefore that specific decisions will have to be made not by deciding between territories o~ competence but rather by admitting that in particQ~ar cases one must

.. "ob~y· God rather than man". Before going on to the later forms of this

. . - .

problem'let us recognize that there is already debate about what that

statement meant in the first place when "the apostles" were told to be silent and refused (Acts 5:29).

The narrow Lnt erpretiat fon says that since the apostles were preaching about Jesus and we of the modern world consider preaching to be "religious". Therefore the only realm in which this principle applies is that of religious liberty defined as above. Then this text becomes simply a reinforcement

of the pzLor position. If government tells you .not; to preach. then you

should not obey, but that lsthe only baat.s of disobedience·.

. .

. I

-

The later protestant tradition goes two different directions from

this point~ Should you simply disobey by insisting on p~eaching in public where it 1s formally· forbidden? May you meet the requirement -by preaching but dOing it in private where it either is permitted (as by Marxist

governments) or where the police will not catch you (as in the case of Anabaptist worship in sixteenth century Europe)? Or does it come to the point ~here a government which refuses the right to preach therefore becomes an illegitimate government and needs to be attacked or even replaced, in l·ine with a thought of the Huguenots of the late sixteenth century? This latter position can be held to· b~· compatible with the N~w Testament. In the New Testament case the C·aesar that Jesus was talking about was still permitting Jesus to preach. We must leave for later this element of continuing debate, having only noted that it means once more that the

. .

principle of freedom to be religious does not itself end the question.

The more serious historical problem with this text arises when we

• I

observe that the reason the preaching of .Jesus was forbidden was not

religious but poli~1cal (to the extent to which that distinction makes any sense at all).' The Jesus these apostles were preaching about was a

I

man WhO had been put to death bY the Romans With at least the a~qu1escence

Of the counCil before WhiCh the apostles now stOOd. The effect Of the

preaChing according to 5:28 was to make the counCil gUilty Of putting

(

- 4 ..

to death someone whom God had anointed. Thus both for the apostles and for , the Sanhedrin, ~the off~~se was civil and n~t doctr~~al or cult1c. It

had to do with the legitimacy of past govetnmenta~,$~t1ons of the Romans

~ and'the Council itself. It was for tbfs t'e'ason tnat the Council wanted

. ,. . . .. . . .. - .,..

, " the apostles to be quiet • - t

....

•

• ...... ... I

. ~ . ~ ~

, We muatset aside as well for present purposes the dis.cussions of

"; .. critical scholarship about the' difference between what . Luke .and ,the

'writers of his source may "have ~eal_lt to be saying by, ,formulating the

story in these words and placing it at this point in the narrative of

Acts, in case the report might not be a fully verbatim "historicallt account. As dis tinct from the similar story, of confrontat,ton in chapter 4,

this text speaks vag~ely of, ','the apostles" rather than specifically of Peter and John. _Both the ;rele-ase from prison and the debate with the

• ... I •

authorities are lessconcre'te and more' stereotyped. Thus ,a skeptical

'-critic could suggest that"' this text was ", recounted along the model of the

previous one in order to" have a story in: which all of the apostles would have been equally involved and in order to provide a context for the very important saying of Gamaliel. The more room we might make for hypothesizing ,redactional creativity on the part of Luke or his predecessors, the more 'important it would' become that the reason t~e Sanpedr1n gives for the

....

'prohibition of ,preachIng- is that it is polit,ical1y offen~ive.

. . .

~ .

•

..

~ ..

. .f I·,. .

'This particular rep-~rt: ,already represents ~}le, ongoing prob Iem we

have 'discriminating'between'the- realms rather 'than resolving it.

\

r

Nonetheless this (Acts 5:29) will continue to serve as a .prooftext for

. .

the notion that in particular cases there must be'a choice where both man

and God ask for obedience and it is obvious that it is God who must be obeyed.

.. .

, '

We set asade witho~t deep cr1t1cls~ still one more argument against givin

'this text much' we1~t,':". it'" is~hat the Sanhedrdn was itself a religious autho~ity and not Caesar: or" Pilate, so tbat thi~ is a matter of freedom over against' unfaf thful, <religious auth~rititls rather than having to do

with the civil realm. After Constantine this kind of notion can -make sense, bu~ the distinction between civil and religious, authorities in first century Palestine · cannot be sliced; in _that way, (or for ,that mat-ter in ~ny society where a foreign occupying a\i~hority. governs through an indigenous power

structure). ' · .

... • . .

,

. .

. ..

r I

THE CRITERION OF NOT SINNING

• I .... I.. ..

..

, ~

.. ,

The best simple statenen~ of the ,majority tradit10n ,with regard to

obeying God rather than Caesar is found in th~ 1530 Augsburg confession, article XVI.,' ,It is significant that we can quote here a mainstream Lutheren statement" in a ,document which ,was written with a purpose of show1ngtha~ on as many matters as poss~ble Lutheranism was as much like medieval Catholicism as possible. This shows that this way of working at

".. .

, the question is old and well worn. ,~t' '1_. not par~icularly a free- church

r ' • ~ •• W·

prejudice.

• •

.

. . t

Th-e ,operative crite,ria is the'ccncept of "sdn", AlthQugh sin means

- •• • I ..

something e~,se _ elsewhere in Lutheran' thought in this' text 1 t means

. .

cornmitt'ihg, specific deeds which it' is against the. will of God for one to

commit.';" The concept appeare twice, in th~. text, which is what makes it a very helpful text to" clarify' the _though-t~ pattern •

...

-

I

for

I

r 4,

•

..

I

ry Lzing

..

•

for

ID ~eyed.

: givin~

ase, ttury ~ty

t

r : I .J

. ..: .

. .

, '.

..

~ ... '" .. ~,

..

- 5 -

We read:

• I

" ••• al1 government in the World and all established

rule and laws were instituted and ordained by God for the sake

of g~od order, and that Christians may without sin occupy

civil offices... render decisions and .pass sentence ••• punish evildoers with the. sword, ·engage in just wars, serve as soldiers .... Christians are obliged to be subject to civil authority and obey its commandments.and <laws in all that can'be done without sin.

. But when commande. of the civil autho,rity cannot be obeyed without sin, we must obey God •••• {~y italicsi

.

, For these phraatngs to make sense it is .e Lear that the concept of

sdn has been S,O cl~arlY defined that it can wit'hout serious: confusion

be identified in some cases as present and in other cases as absent. Let us not confuse ourselves by relating this question to other conceptions of sin which have place elsewhere in the thought of protestantism and very specifically in the thought· of Martin Luther. Here it is said that the

.notion of a given course of action as being "without sin" is a·usable concept; and that ,the case in which disobedience would be demanded could be identified. In fact it, could be identified rather simply :or clearly, if it were to have to provide the basis for such an important act of

. .

non-conformity as df.aobeddence to the divinely constituted authorities.

I

'It is striking that'qo sample of such sinful obedience needs to be

specified. Thus we cannot tell whether rhe writers were thinking

..

concretely about certain limits to obedi.encewhich might have.been real

po.ssdb Ll.Lt Lea around 1530 or whether .on the other hand t.heywer e only

" .

concerned on the theoretical level to say that the authority· of government

. .

~snot ~bsolute. In either case tbey did state that the line 'between

accept.ance and rejection of the ccmmands of government is the line between

.. - '

what cannot .and what .can be done withou.t sinning.

This is also the level on which some discussion· of matters of civil

. . .. i .

disobedi~nce ~eg~ns. Those least inclined to systematic rejection of

obedience to government; still do admit in principle the poas fbd.Lf.t y of such exceptional .caaes ,.of neceaad ty •. Most pacifists and the Adventists

would apply thi:$ at' ~he point of the accual, taking of life. Then they

. ,

would.differ amo 11 g' themselves as to whether other degrees of involvement

. . ~ . ~

~n the armed f.orces or government or in the total structure of a, society

at war would also be characteristically sinful in such a way.thatthey

~

should avoid it.

I respect this level of ethical seriousness for those for whom it

is culturally c~nvincing. In most of. human history a conception:of mo~ality which consists in 1dentifying;certain forbidden deeds and not doing them, identifying certain mandatory deeds and doing them, and seeking

I

to minimize the. gray areas of discretion in the middle, has been the only

. f " •

way to build a society in which we have any notion of what to expect of

.'

one another. It remains for most purposes the 'only level upon.which civil

law can operate. ,I theref~re refuse to reject out of hand (as do:some more cultured despisers of moralism) those patterns of doing ethics which are guided by rules about deeds, some of them forbidden, some of them mandatory, and others depending on the circumstances.

, We must however recognize~hat the matter of obedience to civ+l authority in the mOdern world cannot' adeqUatelY be dealt With on ·this level .

.

. " .... L ,

- b -

One set of objections to simple answers about what 1s not sin have to do with growing maturity as to the nature of moral decision, which is very seldom reducible to one distinct decision about one distinct act. Every decision is part of a longer story'~ Every action is part of a network of interrelated events.' To say that killing is wrong but serving in the army is right lata deny the corporate nature of the entire military enterprise. Thus without disrespect for the dramatic and simple times and places where "refusal to sinu'is a necessary and adequate form

of obedience (or rather of explaining obedience}',' we must call, especially in a context of concern for Chr1s't1an mltttir1 ty and che broader discerning ministry of the church, for deeds and persons and decision all to be

perceived in a more global way. Then saying simp~y "this is not a sin so I may do it" 'or "that is .a sin so I must not do it" will ~sually not be an adequa~e<basis for moral decision,- even by 'individuals, and even less

by commun1~1es., t{ •

~ ..... ,

III

, .

.:

4 ~

- I·

. . . .

oil

Th~ ~ fir.st critical observation was based on ·growing mat_urity as to the underarandfng of the meaning of moral thought. r'The second set of

II-

. reasons fo~ its ibadequacy has to do with continued historical development

.,' .... - in the nature, of the :decision-making situation. Wh:at we have to say here

. -- .. .

_ ~ ~ .. : might not apply in the same sense in Ch1n·a or Afghanistan, "as it .applies

in western world. For centuries governments have been claiming to serve their subjects. Under the "heading: of "democracy" they even claim that their subjects share in the process' of ruling the~elves. Even where democracy does not: apply, there is stIll the claim ,'to a moral solidarity

between thedecisi'on .: made by government and ·the real"1nte,rests and

.. welfare of the people. 'In most., of,the' world~ wh~re' '~ennon1tes' live these , ... ,: arguments, are stronger-, rather;.than weaker' i.e. the"'cla1m is not'simply

. . . . - . .

made that the people;benef1t from being rnled but that they help to rule

themselves and that, .the. actions of government are"taken on' their' behalf and in an indirect but· real sense at their beheat , This then raises a new set of considerations for those concerned about moral accountability.

"Government" is no longer a distant Caesar unconcerned for my welfare but rather a legislator'fl'oDrfmy:d1str1ct; or a 'bureaucrat with whom I may have a personal contact, or an executive elected' hi;' my ~ote. ~he radical

" ' distance which separated. the Christians' from Caesar:' at the t tme of Jesus

· can no longer apply -with soa1a1 realism, unfeas ," that 1s,. we shouf.d find some new way of' .makdng them' apply by disavowing thti" responsib~11ty which the official self"'understanding of the~democratie fofm'of government

· .:: affirms .. we have, This development of citizen respons1~111ty· gives a new meaning to the citizen's subordination and therefore 'a new reason for

responsible challenge. Caesar did not claim to be ruling the Palestinian

•

Jews either at their request or for their welfare. He may have claimed

that~the gods had put him where he was but. those were not the gods of the Jews. Thus it would never have occurred ·toanyone to ho-ld Palestinian

. .

.,Jews responatb Ie for the atrocities or even the routine injustices

. co~i.tted in the name of Caesar by hisatDiies and administrators. Today .~bat is different· when the American government acts in the name of American

- c·it1zens. Any .Ame;rican citizen who does not wish to be counted co-responsible

•

fo'r the action taken in his name must therefore disavow it in a way that

would. not have been ,conceivable and of course not necessary in the time of

-- .

..

.- I

. ,

. . .

Jesus.

.. .

,

..

-

..

~ .. .

But this notion of solidarity with deeds done in our name is still in a sense an extension of thenot1on of being respo~sible for sin or not.

o

The other shape'.of·,~mQral thinking has to do with a move 'from

•

evaluating deeds as right and wrong to evaluating them as part of a chain

Of causes and effects which prOduce an ultimate 8l~ Of gOOd and eVil

.t

::

.i ·1 I

"

1

- 7 -

results. People trained to think in this way, as almost everyone in our century 1s trained, move from asking whether something is forbidden

or not to asking what 'good or harm it would do. This does not lead us toa superficially different set of moral answers. " It is rather a different set -of questions. It does not move us away from solid and simple judgments about value, since deciding what is harm or what is good is still in itself not apragmat1c reasoning process. It does however place civil obedience and civil disobedience in a different context. Civil disobedience will now be evaluated not as abstaining from culpable complicity in an evil deed or an evil system·but as having a certain probability of moving the total social system in a basically desirable direction.

"_ ...

-+

I

One set of analysts of the problem of pacifism and its application in the modern world have made much of the distinction or distinctions separating these two or three different ways of reasoning. They suggest that one set of pacifists reject all killing because it is morally wrong

in the first sense (Law) and then they need no further ethical thinking. We -respect their devotion and thei:.ri: sincerity but have doubts about their

•

political relevance or accountability. Another set reject W.;:lr because they

believe that on the average or in particular cases it does more harm than good. Therefore their reasoning is relevant to the political community,

but "they also leave themselves open to the obligations of the extreme situation in which exceptionally war would seem to do more harm than good. Some hold that these two lines of reasoning are so different that each

is closer to the non-pacifist mainstream view of the duty to obey government than they are to each other. This dichotomy has been especially rendered convinc-ing by the thbught tradition of Reinhold Niebuhr, but it has been followed - by many paci·fists as well. It is basically this point that is

made by some Mennonites who insist on a deep difference between pacifism or non-violent action, i.e. pacifism which includes political action and

,

possible non-violen·t resistance as means of participating in the social

structures apart from war, and on -the other hand a non-resistance whose most consistent form is complete non-participation in the social process.

•

I

~

~ r

I

I

t

~

t

:t

t

j

.

.. ..

~ s ..

III "

-t

,.. . ..

..

Some conservative Mennonites have held t o 'this view as has the author William Robert Miller in his N'ln-V101~1?~e_:b''. a ... Chri!3ti!ln_!n-~,~!pr~~a~~oA. I cannot support thi-s simple dichotomy because I cannot share the prior acceptance of Niebuhr's logic which first put the question in this form.

...

I have followed this one track, the search for a firm rule against "sin" as a base for discrimination, farther t-han I might have had to,

in order to make it doubly evident that it is not a help-ful approach • -Asking for some firm rule to determine what we should refuse to cooperate

-·wi-th. on the grounds that it is sin, is not ultimately .a way to provide

" "

'guidance which takes account seriously of the great variety of social

situations and at the same time provides some degree of clarity in commitment. The Lutheran tradition which of all protestant traditions

has perhaps in the past been least critical of obedience to authorities still denies that that obedience is absolute, and yet the concept of "sin" as a reason for not participating is an empty set.

.... -,

- _,

.J

.. . ," ..

~... .....

...

.. ...

.. . _

...

~

- - _ ..

,..

le

; Other groups would more readily identify a point in which

to diSObey but never is the lOgiC the definition Of Sin ambiValent •

. seventh Day Adventists refuse to.' kill but see no reason for not accepting " the uniform. Mennonites, or at Leasr Mennonite leaders WhO have set the stated POliCies for denominational agenCies, have always conSidered induction and the uniform to be unacceptable, but bY so dOing have begun

o 11!1t7 .... 1...,..,_ ;... .. IW .... ' - - - ~ ..1 - "- ~,. ...

-

- 8 -

, ....

I I. • "I _. II

.. ... .. _"

.- .. -

,

~ ..

_, -~mi'litaI1i system as itself sinful rather than measuring the particular

; deeds'to which· the non-combatant soldier would be assigned. Yet some of the saine' thinkers' have rejected the same kdnd of system thinking. when app11ed'~ fb! taxation. Harold S. Bender was one of the f1rmest~, Old Mennonite L:·· -::.; leaders iIi the rejection of non .. combatant service (when some ~~f .the

Mennonite groups coming out of Russia would hav~ been somewhat more open

to it), on, ·the grounds that any thing- related to induction and th~ uniform

is by definit.1on unaccept ab Lee yet _ witn~ regard to t~ .• dollars it was

axiomatic for him that it is none of the, citizen's business what, the

, .

government does wi th tax money once they have been conscientiously paid.

. .

It is obvious that what is at stake in this kind of debate, is no longer

a definition of a specific act being sinful but rather divergent estimates

of the meaning of moral involvement in a system.·

..

I I... • ..

. '.

•

• .. .: t "

• I ~

•

t •

.. . . r

..

DISAVOWING THE SYSTEM

•

I .

, ~

. ,

We' have thus entered the realm of.,a-second str,uctural category of

~

thought: " the derivatio'n ,of ethical 'judsments from global. evaluations

of the sY$tems within which, specific' actions take on a special meaning.

The uniform 'means one thing in the Salvation Army, another thing in the American atmy, still another thing in the Soviet army. What a ~niform

" means is therefore to be det.erndned by' ·further inforlJ1ation about: the system to which it relates the individual •.

•

•

.f •

. .

Many allegiances and many actions-need to be evaluated in this way.

This is what the New Testament writers .spoke about wben they used such concepts as "the world" or "this present·.vil.age"; the earliest Anabaptist

. . -

confessional, document at Schleltheim (152'> spoke~ of non-conformity and

II avoidance. of the evils that the devil- 'bas planted in the world~' as this kind of. systemic judgment. Specific actions we:r~ identified which are fitting or not fitting for the Christian, not aimply,on ~he bas~s of the

~

act alone but with a view to the to,tal meaning of th-at activity in that

, ,

time and place. Church. at tendancej pat·roaizing resturants and making

economic covenants were denounced, not for reasons for which would lead

us to say that always and everywhere they should. be denounced, but because of specd fdc: .readdnga as ~~ what i~ meant to ,be~c;>rldlyin the, ~l'per

Rhine 'Valley', in 1527. Thus a systemic readfng about .. wo.~ld11ness or corporate'; .sin is always a time-bound readfng , never claiming abiding validity_ This calls therefore for a discernment of the times and seasons as the'~'Diean1ngs of actions and symbols change .. ,Tb~s is the reason it is

...

Lnadequace simply to leap from a few Biblical texts regarding the willing

subordination and payment-of taxe~ in the New Testament to an unquestioning payment of'military taxes in "our time, anymore than.it was prqper in the 19th century 'to' send run-away slaves back to their masters ~epause that

1s what Pau'l did with Onesimus",'or to deny education, to women because the

t

early church" accepted working in a society where women wer~e less literate .

•

~ " .

•

I r _ p •

,

, .

•

•

..

Despite the feeling ;of H.S. Bender that the matter is simply resolved

for all ',times and places ,.by the principae of:subordination .or ~the Biblical texts in favor of paying'Roman taxes~ Mennonite and Hutterite ~nd Quaker communf.t tes have in the past in numerous cases refused to pay voluntary certain taxes when dead.gnaced "specifically as war taxes. _ It is not my purpose to estimate 'how representative were those people, but simply to indicate that the concept of taking mQral responsibility for withholding specific tax dol1ars:'when they -w~re deE}i.gnated for that purpose was a POSSible pattern in a ,time .when 'B1bl~~~1' interpretation t echnfquee were

- .

less, SOPhisticated than ccday , '"

..

• ,

,

=

... ..

..

Lite

l

:es

•

tist

I

!

.lSe

ms I

19 ling

•

•

ae

:e.

,ed ~al

• ..

, t

.- - . ..._._.....---~

- 9 -

TIMES HAVE CHANGED

In making connections across the centuries at least two quite different hermeneutic paths can be taken. The one seeks to identify with - chapter and verse just how our situation has changed since Biblical

..... times and to work the awareness of· that change into the systematic evaluation.

#<

Most of the changes in question would probably work in that direction of

greater critical sensitivity and responsibility and therefore of making _~ ~ .~ t~x objection In modern wes~ern democratic .countries more fitting than

". in New Testament times •. It might well be however that some changes would

~

also work in the other direction:

, "j

a. The war potential of government s in our time is exponentially greater thana century ago, to say nothing about two millenia

ago. In ordinary combat in the time of Jesus and Paul one soldier could at· the most kill one other. soldier at a time: there was no tactical military advantage in ,killing· many civilians. Today

the destructive capacity represented by the military use of our

tax dollars is disproportionate~y greater.

b.

. .

We live in a society where the government claims to serve the people

and be governe4 by them. Part of this democratic theory is deceptive or mythical b~t it is still stated with sufficie.nt breadth and

• T T

repetition that our silence meansiconsent to ,what government does in

our name with our dollars more rhan was assumed to be the case for the Jews of the first two centuries, including the Christians.

. ..

-T

L

":

. c. We live in a culture in which thanks to the last two ,centuries

of the impact of puritan religion upon anglo saxon.society, the notion of conscientious objec~ion with regard to bodies has been established. The notion of conscience is itself '. very complex and contested but it is nonetheless the case that our -.governments are constitutionally and by common law committed not to do violence to individual conscience, as Caesar at Rome was not •

d.

The only Bibl~cal reference we have to .the payment of taxes to

Caesar is in a context dealing .specf Hcal.Ly wi th the domestic functions of government. The "sword" o~ Romans 13 is very clearly representative of domestic authority. There ia not in that text or elsewhere in the New

Te,stament aff LrteatLon of themor al, legitimacy of international

or intra-imperial warf~are as part of what . the ,."powers that be" properly do. Too much should not be read into this silence: It was not a part of the awareness of the ordinary subject of the Roman empire whether or not a major intra-imperial or international war

was going on across the borders. Palestinian Jews in particular were sufficiently exercised about the presence of Romans in Palestine t~at they would not have cared much whether the ,Romans were fighting Pursia at the same ti~e or not. But it is even less legitimate to read to silence in the other direction, namely as a moral approval

of something that is not mentioned at all in the texts dealing with payment of taxes.

i

.

. ,

•

..

•

I ~ •

~

- ..

Underlying several of the above changes is the simple fact that education, and the development of social sciences and communication, create a potential for Citizen awareness WhiCh is qualitat~vely incommensurate with anyt.hfng thinkable in the first cent ury s. .• ,~W'areness

. . - .

and actuallY ~tructured SOCial SOlidarity on a world scale Change the

moral Picture for us. we know it When peOPle are being killed in Vietnam

,

_ t

- L

:;,

...

•

.

•

..

. ..

~

• I

•

•

r

- 10 -

on our behalf because we see it on our television. That awareness itself constitutes a new dimension of moral accountability, even when it is

not linked with an equal escalation of a capacity to control.

The fact that government's form and self-understanding have changed means that the scale of our options has changed. Between suppo~tive subordinations and disobedience to what would be clearly sinful there are more intermediate possibilities.

One of the big questions for tod·ay is whether that basic notion of subordination is done away with inia society·which affirms the -rights of citizens. either because the government itself in affirming the rights

of citizens forfeits the claim to unconditional subordination, or because the contemporary ChTistian is no longer willing to live"within the archaic restraints of that kind of a backward view oft the authorities.

. II! ~

• ..,' { . rt

, ,~

.. ~

. ! ....

If we weDeseeking to be fully fair to ali of the logical options present in the·field (and in the churches) we should not a priori exclude the notion that the time for subordination is past. MOst Mennonites now think this about slavery. Most Mennonites now think this about collective bargining; I~st Mennonites now think it about the authority of the minister

..

and many Mennonite women and young people think it about resisting

authority. Thus it· .shoul.d not be assuaed that; naive' transposition of

the notion ,of subord·11lat1on is sel'f-evident wfth regard to taxation in our times unl.esa .the person thus applying it wishes a'lso to be equally conservatdve on all' those mat-ters. Missionaries no longer; accept it with

regard. co c·olon·ial1sm. ·

;_. ' Nor ~ on the other hand it should not be assumed that those who wish

to withhold tax monies are thereby all reje'cting the notion of subordination I This is assumed by ntDerous neo-Anabaptist critics of tax objection, like Marlin Jeschke' and Vertlard El·ler,. and perhapa William Klassen. I can at

,

least· - say per'sonslly th:at -my tax'w1thholdin-g . 'does not 'seem to me to be

the ',outworking of a ,ref-usa! of suborddnaedon , but rather· an expression of that commitment in a changed situation.' ,.

/ L • • Since ancient times but- especially since ·tlle·Renaissance, and even

more clearly since the .enl.Lght.enaent-, the more civilized among us are aware of-the fact-that the nation-is not the limit of 'human community

. but that there exists moral bonds to wider sodi-al groupings, whether or not chese be . formally organized' in a league ·0£ nations. .. There are moral and increasingly there is 1nfact legal obligations which reach beyond

.. obedience to the nation. Some of those moral 'and legal-:·obl1gat1ons place

1.imi·t·s on loyalty to the nat ton', especially ·1f a nation" calls one to do something which is counter to· international law or destructive of the right·s and interests. of the citi·z·ens of othett nat Ions , When Soviet dissidents call fO'r the implement·ation of t.he Helsinki agreements which their government has signed they are exercizing subordination to the

j

total' network of governmental realities;of which Helsinki 1s part •

•

The .eo-caf Ied Numberg principles seace that a citizen should not obey

his own government when1t : asks him to do' 'some-thing counter to the rights of other nations or their subjects. An appea-l to the Nurnberg principles is a part of the legal brief used by A.J. Muste to support his tax

object Ion, '. ·

.

. .

II

~ II III •

, ~

+

The next level Of intensity in Objection to a modern government is

· indicated bY a moral jUdgment on ,the total,. qUality Of a soveflament rather

J

than OnlY upon its military operation. -The B~'Test t instructed

Christians at Rome Slid e18M1bere iD. the dispersiOD to accept the presence

f

It

..

Lc

..

...

re :er

l

:ion.

•

II'

. -- ----~~------,_~

..

- 11 -

of the government they had, excluding violent rebellion and anarchism, but not commanding absolute obedience. But the New Testament does not speak to a pos·sibility which comes alive later, at least by the sixteenth century, namely migration. In the sixteenth century migration was forced on Anabaptists by their governments. ~lennon1 tes have sfnce frequently emigrated with or without the wholehearted support of their rulers, sometimes putting pressure on governments to let them go, usually going

in the direction of countries which would give them more freedom exonomically as well as religiously. Migration is itself a strong political preference

or morality choice. Sometimes it does not mean a disavowal of political

loyalty in the homeland, especially if one is driven out by hunger or over-population. It does mean that disavowal of course when it is a form

of banishment for non-conformity or when part of its motivation is the avoidance of military service obligations. But even 'more we need to

recognize that migration 'represents a strong politically biased action in

the new host country. This ·does not have directly to- do with the question

of disobedience. Yet indirectly it contributes considerably to our discussion, precisely because it explains some of the otherwise inexplicitable dimensions of emotional loyalty of Mennonites in America and Canada, to

say nothing of Brazil or Paraguay. We are Less ready to df.sobey our governments here because they took us in and gave us at least certain freedoms. We in North America easily feel that this reflex of loyalty is exaggerated when we see our cousins in Paraguay·and Brazil applying it

to dictatorial regimes, but they are simply experiencing under greater

pressure a pattern of "response in which our North American immigrant

fathers preceded them. ' .

, . r

A further and more radical stage of disavowal constitutes the refusal to take signals from a'-government in whose territory one continues to

•

, liv:e, challenging the le-gitimacy ·of that structure without recognizing

responsibility to pitch in and change it. We find this in Tolstoy on the grounds of a simple reading of the Sermon on the Mount. We find it in Thoreau on the grounds of a·simple disavowal of the-immorality of violence itself, brought to the surface of awareness especially by the Mexican war. On what does Thoreau disavow the claim of the governments

of Massachussets in the United States to act on his behalf? On the grounds · . 'that; they claim to act on his behalf and yet do things which he is morally bound to condenm. A despotic government would not in the same· sense be subject to that need for disavowal. It is in the name of citizens in Massachussets that the American government was doing violence to Mexico

and Mexicans. We have no Lndfcat Lon in the New Testament that a part

of what Christians were instructed to accept was the morality of imperial

.. .

expansion by war, or the claim 'by Nero or Caius Caligula that·he was acting

on their behalf.

•

. ..

. t

But all of these resources from the past fail to reach the notion of civil disobedience which has been, developed in the last few-years as

a way of responsible citizen pare tcdpatdon in democratic societies which

. r ecognf.ae the rights of citizens and of conscience. Building upon the claim that government is supposed (by . it's own claim) ro serve the people, and on the awareness that the present mechanisms of government do not serve the people adequately, civil disobedience is one form (lobbying is another) of non-parliamentary participation in the changing of public- policy.

In the thought of .serious practicioners of civil disobedience since Gandhi there is carefUl diSCUSSion Of hOW the act Of diSObedience still constitutes a reCOgnition Of the law because one is readY to accept the penalty for diSObedience: hOW the diSObedience is a respect for one'S

'. '

• II, •

...... . .-:

.

•

, . ' •

I

•

.. -.-

• • I

.. ~ • I

\ "

...

~-

, ,

~

•

..

. , ..

\ ,

;,

, .

- 12 -

fellow man because of the safeguards for the respect which the

\ disobedt,eo.t person ~xe~c1ses· toward pers~ps in a~thority and social ad:versaries. • • The: "very fact; chat; it is very self-.critical .. and very .open makes di:sobed~ence of this kind .: very huaane and zespouafb Le ,

. ,

. beeakdng the law only when . ~t can be exp Ladned .that; it is 19. .. i~~l~ favor

•

- of a higher ,law.

• , r

. ' '" - - ...

•

+

, ..

, '~ .

'II

..

.~

'I

f

... ,

. ,

. .,

I .' I' ~.. • r

: · .The notio.n of '.'civil disobedience" itself is understandably not

• • r'" .. - III "".::. !

clear. There can be different kinds of levels of motivation and j ustificatic

. . . .. .

and obviously many different forms of express Ion of the refusal.lto do

. '. .

. wh4t a government asks. The term "civil d~~Q~edience" has been given the

greatest currency by peopl~,whos1nce Gandhi use it as a studied technique

l1li • ' • ..

,for .contr1bu~~ng to social ~change, but it.~eed not be restricted to that

. ccntext , Its .... earliest popular use in El1gl,ish was probably that of

Thoreau. He did not mean precisely that he was participating in a nonparlimentary way in American politics, but that he was disavowing the entire opezat fon , . We, referred above to a .dfsobeddence motivated and justified

.._ .... .. .... .. ... " ..

by a .simp~e tnOral~ty .of px:inciple: covered by, the proof text "obey God

'~ ,

rat~er.~han.man"!and by a u~iversally .present·strand of leg~l/Qloral thought

in our .culture.,: Civil df sobeddence is the strongest form of disobedience

since it makes. the most, podnt ed the ccnf Hct ef loyalit~es and the

ob l Lgauo ry quality of'. the disobediel1ce.. ,',,: :. . ' ~.

011

..

- ..

Next we ,turn to ways. of critical reasoning which ~ake a broader conteKt of r~ponsibility yet ,without disavowing a government as such: the refusal of war tax~s. (some~1mes) .in Mennonite history when, they were explicitly labeled ae .such , refusal of induction in the uniform, not

• • • ~ t.

;w9rk~ng:,.1n defense Lnduat rd.es or purchasing' war.bonds. In this .reaf.m,

11~nnonite moral judgmeI).t to l-lithdraw from the socd al, patterns dictated ~y~the surrounding culture hasb~en ~trong in·North American experience (less strong in European experience), but has not usually .~ant specific

, ,

disobeqience to a f9rrnal legal obligation.

"

It was a very significant test of the inherited Mennonite selfunderstanding when (was it about May,! 19677) Senator. Stennis of the Senate _. "Armed Services Commi ttee proposed what he thought, was a minor reshuff Lfng of Selective Service· process which· would provide. that conscientious

, objectors be assigned .. to alternative service after formal military induction rather than ~"ithout" induction. He thought it, was only a· technicality

which WQuld simplify,other things he car~d about especially with relation

,to the···Vietnam draft dodgers. He assumed it would. make no, difference

. ~

to the·genu1ne conscientious objectors. ~e was very ~~rprised·to see

the ium~diate arrival a~ Washington of a sizable delegation of senior Mennonite churchmen devoted to insisting that many Mennonite young men go to jail rather than" accept ·th~. foru18.1ity Of induction even though

it were Clear that their cons cient Loua objecto r -at.acus was not in danger.

, ~ ,

ThiS was the first time Since 1916 that maSSive diSObedience was threatened

Lcat I

lt1re

sght

:e

•

..

• ..

~te

.t Lon

~ •

Ded

- 13 -

by llennonite spokesmen, Here it is clear· chat .the global judgment about the ng of induction was the determining factor to define for those what is unacceptable, .without re£e~en~e to. any particular sinful

.. ~

.-et that would be required of the draftee, and. that the threat of

, -

disobedience was a lobbying tool.

-

,

I ..

. .,

,

Late in 196~ it was proposed by Lyndon B. Johnson that there be specific Vietnam war surtax, meaning that the tax would be both easier to get adopted because it would fall away when ho~tilities ended and

~ -

wo~4 at. the same time provide not onfy a sou_rce ofmecessary income but

.. -

a~ anti-inflationary pressure on the.economy. Mennonites studied very

.. ,

seriously whethe~ that would not be a time w~en cQnsciencewQuld oblige

them to specific objection to the amount of the surtax.

• I

CONSCIENCE

1-

~

We have looked most carefully at the two most structured approaches:

. .

the avoidance of sin and the interpretation of political reality •

... - .. .

•

\.

My contribution to discussions of this matter cannot be to evaluate

,. ~. .

th~s panoply of post-biblical developments, but only to point out that

they are post-bibli-cal and therefore must be evaluated. They cannot be br'ushedoff' ,with a proof text nor. assumed to be "progr es s" •..

.

. Yet another kind of testing to which others have recours.e to apply

general Biblical orientations to particular situations is the concept of "conscience." This is generally understood as relating to a potential for ,information about the will of God which is unaccountable, not subject to detai~ed logical or argumentative scrutiny, because it is a working

.

of the Holy Spirit in a most personal and intensive way.

This notion of abso lut e conscf.enceds not especially strong in Believers' Church tradition because of its individualism, yet it has

.. . ...

com~ into our thought, if ,only because the draft board uses it .. It has

..

the special disadvantage for community process that has usually understood

it as the most solid and valid when it 1s the least subject to discussion. Thus for me to appeal to .my conscience is seen by my brothers and sisters as a way of being headstrong. ,When someone on the ocher side of the

same discussion feels too conscientious it similarly makes critical and constructive interchange more difficult.

It is a partial aid with this problem when, as the government does it, one measurement of consci~ntiousness is.th~ willingness of .the individual .to take upon himself or he~self specific sacrifices ~hich are not asked .~f.others. This is obviously not a proof of-moral rightness· but it is a .test at least of che credibility .of the individual's appeal.

• • r

( ....

. ~ ,

. .

One of the senior MCC statesman in th~ debate in the late 60's

~ .

used the term "tender conscience" as .an expression of paat ora.l condescension,

descriptive of a spiritual immaturity which is bothered by little things.

I 'i )

He patronizingly advised . anyone- with that kind of "tiende r conscience" to

live on less and. give away more so as-not to be subject to taxation.

Whether "conacfence" is honored. as a symbol of inner spiritual aurhent Lc Lt y or looked down on as a sign of spiritual imma,turity, it is dn either case

.not amenable to ethical deliberation. in . communf.ty. ( .

..

. ,

..

. . , , .

t

-

..

- 14 -

j -

',; RESOlJI{CES 'FOR WORKING AT THE~ PROBLEl-I

........

.. •• "II ~

. ,

..

,. ~

.. You will have seen' that thus far I am simply identifying problems

of the structuteof ethical deliberation Wilich illuminate more of our difficulty than they help U8 resolve it .. We talk' past . one ,anothe'r because

we use different.contextualizing fIlters. In the face of the difficulty thus seriously uIiderstood, are there any guidelines?

,

~ .

- ..

.. ~

~.. ...

, ThEre is; first: of all" the 'biblic'al conviction, stated especially

_ firmly in -Johu 14~i 7, presupposed els'ewh'ere in the ~New Testament,

• t ~ • .

restored to vit'aiJ· functioning 'in the radical reformation', that God the

. Holy Spirit act1~'ly" makes his will' known in contemporary form when his children gather in the name of Jesus to bring into 'new juxtaposition the witness of the Scripture and the challenge of the present. As distinguished from liberalism and t.heo Iogy and from situationism in ethics, which claim

. that the present is almost a rule unto itself" and in distinction from

T r

fundamentalism of which denies the eXistence of' a~y probLeas of

contextualization, the' radt caf ref'ormation cOMlliunitiea have al~ays expected a fresh word ,of the Lord to break into every situation of challenge. This

, · is'" not a hope vfo'r a' prophetic bo Lt from the blue without personal struggle, but neither is it trust· in ordinary democracy or committee prccesa, A

. ,

gathering ·in the! 'Spirit must have time for all ser·1ous.voices' to be heard:

there must be a spiri't of mutual covenant in which all participants are willing to change their minds through listening deeply to one another:--a host of· further' large and small procedural guidelines could be drawn from Believers' Church history, enriched and translated with the help of

contemporary group process insight and' charismatic expectancy. Whether in the first mode of thought'we think we can identify specific sins to be

... avoided , or' in the second mode we seek, .to identify trhe point at which

our action becomes a' celebration of conformi.ty to 'the world, or in the third mode we try to measure one by one the dimensions cultural change

~y

.5 over the 'centuries ot· in mode four we dfscern :the .autbentdcf.ty of the

I .

" . promptings of initially: 'an 'articulate conscience, all of these ,tasks of

, ~ .

; evaluation demand rtbe int'er'locking df past and present concerns in

.. .. ... .. r"

.... ." ~/a context of' trust.

... .

, +

•

.. .

, -'

, ~ . . "

.. ~

~ .

. ~ , ' ~

. . "The lines above -proceeded almos't as i'f we' were ob Lfgat ed by logic

•

or by' "histo'ry to 'choos'e just one' among the four modes of thought identified

above , There are times' when' such a choice seems unavoddahLe , because the different modes of thought'do seem at first sight to lead indifferent directions.

! ,

. t, •

. .

, . . .

L

...

r •

- .,

•

•

~

- .

~

~ . ,"., ,. That should howe\ter not be ···the ·Ias·t word in our -expectation for a

... .

'study 'process. The strength 'of Mennonite consc tenmoue obj ection in

the last two world wars arose rather·largely from-the fact that 'more than one of these styles of moral decision coincided· •. The Hutterite, ~oldeman and Amish communities simply refused to bargain with the

; world; even to the point of refusing· to"~sign receipts ~r' payroll checks

.. to pay for their bills at the army laundries in the First "Wo~ld War.

The more accommodated land" educated younger generations, with 'some help

. ". from the' Fellowship ee Reeonciiiation, rejected war· as ·a bald-way to run

r . • 'the country and .conscrdpcdcn as placing an illegitimate demand upon the

citizen.' A few individuals of revival and holiness· orientation made a

. decision on the basis of ind'ividual convfccdon about Leaddng , and a few more by appeal to the rights of conscience 'as defined in Anglo American common law (notablY the refusal Of peter Dyck to accept from the British

tribunal that hiS bieng dispensed from military serVice be conditioned on

, ..

..

- ....

...

luse y

,e 1shed 1m

cted bis pe,

rd:

1n

IIOre D

D

...

Drafted but not prOOfread, June 1978

- 15 -

eBS to serve under the MeC, even though he was so serving) letting the authorities have that much to say was already an

t on the liberty of conscience.

_, hope that it would be one of the fruits of continuing due process ~ty search that again the several strands of Mennonite peace

~. instead of pulling away from each other, would be again woven r. This however would have to mean that the representatives of

.. rioue inherited styles should come into the decision and discussion

p with the intentional desire of seeing the various styles inter-

,...trate. rather than with a sense of moral obligation to impose only ODe style on the other participants.

.

A PARENTHETICAL AFTERTHOUGHT

In drawing out the set of four reasoning patterns, I have tacitly

set aside a nun~er of others which have also had significant play in the field of tax objection, especially non~Mennonite circles. By saying that they are culturally alien to Mennonite past experience I do not mean

to a moral judgment either way on their intrinsic appropriateness.

a. There 1s the motivation which concentrates on trying to keep dollars away from the government: by living on less, by.channeling one's income in ways not subject to governmental supervision or dollar ca~culatlon, by incorporating oneself as a trust, or otherwise by arranging not personally to contribute anything to the government. To the extent to which this tactic is successful it constitutes no visible witness against the war although the life style which it takes to avoid being liable to taxation may well be a witness

against consumerism or materialism. It also means of course that one is not contributing to the half of governmental activities which are

not military. .

b. Another set of considerations aim directly at changing the system: i.e. the refusal to obey is a calculating effort to bring about change or decision on the part of the civil authorities. Often in the writings of Gandhi or King, "civil disobedience" is thought of not simply as a refusal to obey but as a technique or tactic of

social pressure. Then it is evaluated with a view to how likely it

is to produce certain results within a certain time. One is making calculations of timing and strategy, and not simply of morality. Then the number of people involved, the particularly representative point at which one chooses to disobey, and many elements of symbolism and stragetic sensitivity enter into the choice.

c. It is probably a variation or a sub-case of one of the other patterns when it is proposed that there should be an alternative way of meeting tax obligations. Today a World Peace Tax Fund is being seriously pursued in the Congress.

Each of these paths has logical merit. Each reaches beyond refusal to put the refusal in the context of a precise idea of government. Each thereby shifts slightly away from the simple "I cannot do otherwise" to a fuller accountability for "then what ?" They differ not in how they justify Objections but in hOW they propose to act it out. we Will be helPed if we reCOgniZe that thiS is a different issue.

JHY/jk