We have been encouraged by our readers’ response to the last editorial

We have been encouraged by our
readers’ response to the last editorial. Realizing that a question openly
voiced by one is often in the hearts of many, we undertake to discuss questions
sent in response to the Income Tax article in the March issue.

 

A reader writes, "As to the
matter of a name . . . would you consider it unscriptural to list our
contributions on our tax return as having been given to ‘Christian
Brethren’?" There are many terms used in Scripture to designate believers
in the Lord Jesus Christ which are meant to distinguish them from the world or
unbelievers. Since the early Christian testimony consisted of only Jewish
converts, they were identified as being simply "of the Way" (Acts
9:2; 19:9, 23, F. W. Grant trans.). These were persecuted by Saul of Tarsus.
The name "the Way" seems to be uncomplimentary in its use. It was
later in Gentile Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians (Acts
11:26). Later when King Agrippa used this term, it does not seem that it had a
particularly complimentary character either (Acts 26:28). Other scriptural
terms used to describe believers in general are saints, elect, called ones,
disciples, brethren, friends, etc. The Church is termed variously, the "church of God," the "assembly," the "body" of Christ, etc. We know
of no scriptural objection to applying these terms to Christians today. What
then is the objection to Christian groups assuming such names today?

 

In the days of the apostles when
any of the above terms were applied to believers or to the church, they
included all the Christians, and the term merely identified them in contrast
with the world. But never in Scripture is such a term sanctioned to designate
one company of Christians to the exclusion of other Christians. Some said they
were of Paul, Cephas, Apollos, and Christ and drew forth inspired rebuke (1
Cor. 1:12).

 

Today many of these scriptural
terms are used in a sectarian way:that is, they are rightly applied to
believers but limited in intended scope so as not to include all believers.
Suppose I were to ask you, "Are you one of the friends?" You might
answer, "No," thinking I meant the Quakers. Yet if you knew that by
the term "friends" I meant simply believers, as in 3 John, you would
have answered, "Yes." Or again suppose you are asked if you are one
of the brethren. How do you answer? Every Christian can scripturally answer,
"Yes"!

 

Our inquirer asks about the name
"Christian Brethren." Surely if this is but a general term to
describe the recipients of contributions, there can be no objection. But if it
is a term assumed to designate some company of Christians in distinction from
the rest of the body of Christ, and if this company is registered as a
religious body by that name with the government, then would it not seem but
another instance of an acceptable name applied in a sectarian way? This is the
distinct danger of any particular name being applied restrictively to only a
portion of the body of Christ.

 

If the Lord’s people meet in
public quarters, it is proper that the meeting place or room be named or
identified by any convenient designation. It is important in those instances
that the name pertain to the building (Gospel Hall, Bible Truth Hall, etc.) and
not to the people (Christian Brethren, Friends, etc.).

 

Another sincere question put to
us is, "What Christian testimony could we possibly give to government
employees who audit our income tax returns if we all took no church
contribution deduction or if we all took the standard 10% deduction? Wouldn’t
we be placed in the same category as atheists and infidels?" We impute to
this inquirer none but the best intentions before God and his fellow men. Would
to God that more of the Lord’s people so thought of every aspect of their
lives, even the income tax form, as testimony for Christ. On pondering the
question further, let us consider the testimony rendered to "government
employees who audit our income tax returns." Suppose, being concerned for
the Lord’s glory as we are, one has given not only the 10% commanded by Moses’
Law but also 20% or even the legal maximum allowable as a deduction, 30% of the
adjusted gross income. If the "government employee" in looking over
our tax form is impressed with our generosity, is not this exactly what our
Lord cautioned us against—the praise of men? (See Matt. 6:1-4). We do not
impute such a motive to our inquirer, nor to any for that matter. Yet, we are
to commend "ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God"
"by manifestation of the truth" (2 Cor. 4:2). If it is the truth that
our contributions are to be given in secret, let us manifest it with
contentment knowing that "thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall
reward thee openly."

 

Another question we received is
as follows:"As stewards of the money which the Lord entrusted to us, why
should we pay more to the government than the law requires, when we know that
over 50% of the taxes goes for military purposes?" In answer, we will
divide this question into two parts. First, neither we nor the government feel
we should pay more than the law requires. Our previous editorial discussed the
question of how far the Christian and the local assembly feel free to comply
with Internal Revenue Service regulations in order to be allowed tax deductions
partially compensating our contributions. We do not feel that the Christian is
bound in any way to render any more to Caesar than Caesar’s law claims.

 

The second part of this inquiry
questions our attitude as Christians rendering to the government, "when we
know that over 50% of the taxes goes for military purposes." No doubt many
Christians share a disappointment to find their taxes being spent in these
ways. But, what saith the Scriptures? We are impressed with the appropriateness
of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, wherein he takes up the subject of the
Christian’s relationship with government while world-ruling Caesar was on the
throne. After plainly instructing us to be in subjection to the "higher
powers" or governments, we are told that the rulers are ministers of God
to us for good. Furthermore, it is added, "He (the government) beareth not
the sword in vain:for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute
wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Romans 13:4). "For this cause
pay ye tribute also" (Rom. 13:6). What cause? "This cause?’
pertains to Caesar’s efforts to "execute wrath" as he wields
"the sword" in suppressing evil, thus serving God. In plainer
language, we are exhorted by God to pay tribute (or taxes) to support Caesar’s
police or military efforts. Strange words indeed to peace-loving Christians!
But not so strange when we realize that God uses governments to restrain evil,
internal as well as international. Caesar is therefore responsible to God as
His servant. Christians are not responsible for what Caesar does with tax money
but are to pray for him and "all that are in authority; that we may lead a
quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" (1 Tim. 2:2) and to
pay taxes to support his military efforts required to accomplish just that.

 

It is a lively topic of the day
to debate the propriety of this nation’s international involvement, especially
in Viet Nam. We do not profess to have the insight or wisdom to proclaim in
these matters of state. We do see that the Scriptures are plain, however, in
our supporting the government financially and in being subject to its laws.

 

Be it
plain that this position in no way alters the Christian’s personal position of
having no involvement in Caesar’s police efforts or military service. Our
mission is to hold forth the words of life (Phil. 2:16) lifting up holy hands
in prayer (1 Tim. 2:18) and to turn the other cheek to personal aggressors
(Matt. 5:39). Caesar’s position is manifestly the opposite. Thank God for
citizenship in this highly favored land, and above all, for heavenly
citizenship in a sphere beyond this scene (Phil. 3:20, J.N.D. trans.) of the
strivings of the potsherd of the earth.