I must be honest outright: were I not a Christian, I think I might consider not paying my taxes. I understand that this would be pretty anti-social and most definitely radical, but I have a moral opposition to endorsing theft. And taxation, no matter what kind of consequentialist justification it is wrapped up in, is theft.
But I am a Christian - one who believes that the Bible is divinely inspired and requires complete and consistent obedience. So when I come to this passage, I have to remember where my allegiance lies:
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil… For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor (Romans 13:1-3, 6-7; NKJV).
The bible clearly tells me that I need to pay taxes. This is not because taxes are just or fair - the bible makes no such comment - but because I am to submit to authority. Taking this passage at its most basic meaning then, requires that Christians pay taxes because it is a demonstration of submitting to authority.
However, we all know the exception to this rule. What if authority asks us to start murdering people? Clearly, we have a dilemma between God’s authority (thou shalt not murder) and God’s “appointed” authority. In this situation, the ruling authorities have abandoned their qualifier for Christian submission; namely, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.” Christians are not obligated to follow authority that promotes evil works.
But what about theft? If it is agreed that taxes, despite what they pay for or how they are spent, are theft in principle - a taxing authority is demanding, under threat of jail or fines, that the victim give them some of their property involuntarily - then isn’t this wrong also? “Thou shalt not steal” is right there with murder in the ten commandments.
It’s not so clear. Paul specifically mentions taxes as though they are “owed.” Paul seemed to think that there is inherent debt owed to society and that debt is payed via taxation. Is Paul making a philosophical statement here that can be ignored or explained away by other passages? I don’t know, but he has done this in other places (1 Corinthians 7:25, for example).
If Paul is not making a man-based philosophical statement, then I have a couple of possible explanations, all of which still do not completely satisfy me:
- When rulers are enacting taxes for “good” then it is good to pay taxes
- Taxes are only “due” to “continually” good authorities
- Despite the “owed” language, Paul really means to voluntarily pay them
- Paul believed in a rudimentary version of social contract theory
It’s a true moral dilemma - I don’t want to disobey the bible, but I also don’t want to be supporting theft. I have reached my own compromise of voluntarily paying taxes, but trying to use as little services as possible so as not to support the theft from others. I’m comfortable with this as a pragmatic short-term solution, but there needs to be clarity in principle on this issue. What is the moral solution where God is obeyed, the bible is followed and earthly authority is served?
I think that your position is an accurate one, in that Paul often sets an example of not enforcing legal or moral rights for the furtherance of the gospel. He specifically points this out regarding his refusal to charge for his activities in teaching the believers. As he specifies, a person who provides you a service deserves a wage for that service, and a spiritual service is among the highest someone can do for you. Despite this, Paul chose to work as a tentmaker to pay his own way while planting churches and leading others to Christ.
When we DO see Paul exercising his rights, it is for the sake of furthering the gospel. He will declare his right to share his side of the story, and then preach the gospel to the gathered court. He will NOT leave a cell where he is illegally imprisoned so he can share the gospel with the jailer. He even states that he will submit to execution if he is in violation of laws that require he be executed.
The next point I would make is that submission to the law does not mean that you agree with it, or that you would enforce it on others. You could make a case that you would be unwilling to take part in the prosecution of a tax fraud case because you believe taxes are unjust. To not pay taxes yourself though does not help those around you to “not be stolen from”. Paul’s case is that a believer should willingly pay taxes requested of them, in the pursuit of law and justice as well as to demonstrate obedience to authorities. If you are voluntarily giving of your money (as Scripture commands) then there is no theft being committed against you. This would in no way restricts your right or obligation to care for those around you who ARE having their property forcibly removed against their will, of course.
Note: I do not accept the premise that all taxation is theft, believing that some “public” spending for the common good is legitimate. I do not support wealth redistribution programs, as defined by programs with the primary intent to enrich one group at the expense of another. For government to have a monopoly on force though, it must have the ability to exercise force which requires money. That said, the above logic was presented under the assumption that all taxation by force is theft.
Collin, I think First Peter 2:11-17 is somewhat of a parallel passage to the one in Romans 13 that might shed more light on the subject.
11Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
12Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
I would say the main reasons for paying taxes, which would be synonymous with honoring the king, is found in verses 12, 13, and 15. They are 1) so that unbelievers will glorify God because of our [perceived] good and honest works; 2) submission to the authority’s for the Lord’s sake; 3) put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. If I can paraphrase, “Don’t unnecessarily give people an opportunity to speak against the ministry by failing to honor the authorities, but rather allow them to see that you are submissive to them.” I think it always comes back to the reputation of Jesus, and whether we are aware of it or not, we do represent him. We are his ambassadors, so let us conduct ourselves in such a way not to bring reproach to his name. After all, Jesus paid taxes.
I hate to double post (even though I do it quite often) but I found the New Living Translation’s rendering of First Peter 2:11 and thought it was worth sharing.
“Dear friends, I warn you as ‘temporary residents and foreigners’ to keep away from worldly desires that wage war against your very souls.”
Notice that he prefaces his statement about submission to authority by saying that we are just “temporary residents and foreigners.” So the “fleshly lusts” (KJV) or “worldly desires” probably have something to do with resisting the unjust authority of governments. That seems logical when read in context.
Libertarianism is a relatively new idea, and I suspect Paul was just ignorant on that subject. I don’t think we can interpret Paul’s statements in Romans 13 as a commentary on political theory. When Paul says we owe our taxes he probably wasn’t thinking about whether taxes are truly owed or whether Christians should voluntarily pay them. He probably wouldn’t find the distinction meaningful, because he wasn’t concerned with politics.
At the same time, we have to try and understand the framework in which Paul was making his statement. If it’s just an off-the-cuff deal, then we need to treat it as such.
I’m not proposing that we look at Paul through libertarian-colored glasses, but that we look at Paul’s statement as part of a greater philosophy (I just don’t know what it was).
You’re not the first person I’ve heard expound on this idea, but I guess I just think it is a little crazy.
I guess part of the reason it seems crazy is I can’t imagine a country in our world who could pull off not having taxes. If we start a colony on Mars with a fresh start to running the place and ruling ourselves, maybe then it would work.
I just pay them and let it go. Yeah, I may not like how they are all spent, but on the other hand, I benefit considerably from roads, schools, etc. so I can’t complain too hard.
Do you consider the OT tithe to be voluntary? I’d say not very. It could be considered a tax to support the Levites.
In any case, your ultimate attitude of submission based on Christ’s commands is what counts.
Thainamu, I think you are missing my point just a little. It is not a gripe about paying taxes or the pragmatic effects thereof - it is a question of obedience. I want to ensure that I am being obedient - the bible says to pay your taxes, the bible also says not to steal. Paying the government, or supporting them when they steal from others is a sin just like paying an agent to kill someone for me. Heck, David is considered to have killed Uriah and all he did was put him at the front of the battlefield.
Do you consider the OT tithe to be voluntary?
The Tithe was not voluntary - but that went to a spiritually pure religious body. Taxes are theft and they go to support governments and thugs who (on top of the illegitimate principal upon which they are extorted) use these funds for all manner of ungodly pursuits. Tithes and taxes are totally different things.
I can’t quite bring myself to agree that being taxed is the same as being stolen from. But I do agree with the part about at least part of those taxes being spent for “ungodly pursuits.”
I don’t think it would be too hard to call the OT tithe a tax, and by doing so, acknowledge that it wasn’t voluntary so would also be “theft” by your definition. On the other hand, it did go to a good cause. But it was still a tax.
As I recall, the OT tithe was separate from whatever taxes the king and other rulers levied. It shouldn’t be viewed as a tax, at least not in the same sense as a government-levied tax. Whether we can consider it as evidence that taxation is legitimate is another issue. I would lean towards no, for the same reason that Colin cited: the tithe was given to a religious body instituted by God. God has the moral authority to demand our money. We can’t use that example alone to extrapolate that earthly governments have the same authority as God. So all we really have to go on are some statements in the New Testament by writers who are not concerned with politics and aren’t intending to make a value statement about the morality of taxation.
I agree with Thainamu, I don’t equate taxes with theft, ESPECIALLY in a democracy. Whining about taxes in a democracy is like whining about a CEO when you’re a member of the board.
don’t equate taxes with theft, ESPECIALLY in a democracy.
I think you are assigning undue virtue to a democracy - as though theft is legitimate as long as it’s a mob coming after your property and not a king. John Stewart Mill wrote very eloquently of the tyranny of a majority. I should not be required to give up my property because an angry mob threatens me with fines or jail (even if the mob is ordered in a state). Moreover, I think it is unchristian, even sinful, of me to demand that others give their property to my selfish causes under threat of the same mob now working in my interests. Just because the mob is mobilized by voting does not make it legitimate. Ten of my neighbors holding a majority vote to take my land and kick me out of my house is not fair nor just.
Now are you talking about all taxes or certain uses of taxes? I would agree that Robin Hood uses of taxes like welfare, education, etc. are probably theft; stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. However, like Thainamu mentioned, what about roads, police, etc? Those are for all people, no theft involved.
How would the Founding fathers come at this topic?
However, like Thainamu mentioned, what about roads, police, etc? Those are for all people, no theft involved.
If everyone benefits, then there should be no need to use coercion and force. But the point is not that roads and such aren’t good but stealing to do good is still stealing. A Christian cannot support stealing and call himself a Christian.
How would the Founding fathers come at this topic?
Obviously there is a reason the founders almost unanimously opposed direct taxes - it is theft. You could argue that indirect taxes (sales and transaction taxes as well as tariffs) can be done in a more legitimate way - and it is fair in a sense that it is a premium on the security and framework of the national market. This is clear in the US legacy as direct taxes were not allowed until 1913 - the US paid for all expenses by tariffs and indirect taxes.
My position, and I think it is the clearest New Testament position, is that Christians should pay taxes as ordered by the governing authorities. And I do not personally think taxation equates to theft. When Jesus and his disciples paid taxes, were they endorsing theft? I don’t think so.
But with regards to the idea of direct taxation in this country (and I assume we’re primarily talking about the income tax here), I think an important point needs to be made. That is, that the indirect or apportioned taxes by and large are the ones that contribute to public infrastructure. The income tax, if I understand correctly (and correct me if I am wrong), mostly goes toward paying the interest on the debt to the Federal Reserve - the private (not federal) institution who creates the fiat dollar.
I will gladly pay my taxes in honor to the government and to God as I am instructed to do. I won’t complain about it. And if I feel I am being stolen from, I know my God shall supply all my need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus, so I won’t worry about it. But I will not be deceived into thinking that the tax is really helping Americans in any way. To me, that’s irrelevant since my primary motivation is to honor God.
Chris, my point is not that paying taxes is theft - the exaction of taxes is theft. I am not contributing to stealing by paying my taxes. I am contributing and endorsing theft by voting for taxes, spending taxes or in any way endorsing them being taken from others by force. But my Christian virtue is the only thing keeping me paying taxes - I am convinced I am being wronged by having my property forcibly taken from me, but as a Christian that point is moot. However, as a Christian I am called not to compromise with evil - that means I cannot steal, have a paid thug steal for me or a government official steal for me.
“Chris, my point is not that paying taxes is theft - the exaction of taxes is theft. I am not contributing to stealing by paying my taxes. I am contributing and endorsing theft by voting for taxes, spending taxes or in any way endorsing them being taken from others by force. But my Christian virtue is the only thing keeping me paying taxes - I am convinced I am being wronged by having my property forcibly taken from me, but as a Christian that point is moot. However, as a Christian I am called not to compromise with evil - that means I cannot steal, have a paid thug steal for me or a government official steal for me.”
I think I understand a bit more clearly what you mean now. I’m still not sure I agree, but its a complicated issue. I’ll give it some thought.