Is It Okay for Me to Opt Out of Social Security? My Response
— Monday, February 15th, 2010 —
Last week I posted the following question. You weighed in here. Now it’s my turn.
Dear Dr. Moore,
I’m a young Baptist minister. As I was about to be ordained, I was told that I’d now be considered “self-employed” for purposes of paying my Social Security payroll taxes. This means the church won’t pay th part an employer typically pays for social security, but I’d pay the whole thing on my own.
I was told though that there is a way ministers can “opt out” of the Social Security system altogether. It’s kind of a “conscientious objector” clause. What it means is that I don’t pay Social Security taxes now, and I won’t receive any Social Security at retirement, or in case of disability.
The reason I did this is because, frankly, I don’t think Social Security will be around for me when I retire anyway. I’m in my twenties and, given the entitlement mess our government is in, I don’t see any way the system is still around when I would need it.
Is it ethical for me to have opted out of Social Security?
Sincerely, Socially Secure
Dear SS,
The Social Security system isn’t based on voluntary “contributions,” but rather on taxes. Your money does not simply go into a pool for your retirement or disability but into a large system supporting those currently drawing benefits and providing the basis for the next generation of retirees.
Now, you may agree or disagree with whether Social Security is a good idea. You may believe Social Security is economically unstable. You may be convinced it won’t exist when you need it. You may think the entire project is unconstitutional and an illegitimate function of government. Whatever.
It doesn’t make one bit of difference when it comes to the ethics of this situation.
The Scripture commands believers to pay “taxes to whom taxes are due” (Rom. 13:7).
Keep in mind, these taxes were commanded to be paid to a Roman government made up of polytheist dictator-worshippers. Some of the taxes given by the New Testament Christians would have gone to pay for crucifixion stakes. Some would have gone to feed wild beasts for the bloody circuses. Some would have gone to buy incense to be burned in honor of the self-proclaimed deity of the Caesar. The believers are commanded, nonetheless, to pay their taxes.
Our Lord Jesus refuses to call his followers to withhold taxes from Caesar. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” Jesus announces (Matt. 22:21). This isn’t because Caesar is so monumentally important but because money is not. It isn’t worth subverting one’s witness or one’s God-ordained deference to authority.
You may wonder whether Social Security will be here for long. That’s debatable. Jesus clearly knew the Temple wouldn’t be there for long (Lk.21:5-6). But he paid the tax to maintain the temple, all the same.
“The sons are free,” Jesus tells Peter (Matt. 17:26), but he directs him to pay the tax “lest we offend them” (Matt. 17:27).
That’s really important. The payment isn’t because the resources are so important, necessarily, it’s because they’re not. Why would you make the distinctiveness of your kingdom identity seem to be about something as short-sighted as whether or not you pay your taxes? Mark the distinctiveness where the offense really is: the gospel of a crucified and resurrected King Jesus.
The so-called “opt out” for Social Security exists to protect the consciences of those preachers of the gospel who believe that public insurance is sinful, or who believe public insurance as it relates to ministry violates principles of the separation of church and state. I’m glad this conscience clause exists, for the same reason I’m glad there is a provision for “conscientious objectors” in our military policy even though I’m not a pacifist. These exception clauses protect religious liberty for all of us.
A Christian who believes all war is wrong, and that serving in the military would violate his conscience and Christian identity, can ethically register as a conscientious objector. A Christian who disagrees with the Iraq War as a misguided waste of American resources, should not use the “conscientious objector” provisions to avoid military service.
One might believe the decision to invade Iraq was unwise. One might believe American operations in Afghanistan are futile, because one thinks the Taliban will simply reappear once the troops leave. But one wouldn’t be right to resist a draft (if there were one) for those reasons.
The provision is there to protect the consciences of those who can’t fight without believing themselves to be fighting against their god. If the provision is used to allow anyone who disagrees with a particular war or with a particular military strategy to “opt out” of military service, the provision will no longer exist for anyone.
The same is true with Social Security.
There are times when Christians are called to resist the state. And there are times when Christians are right to avoid the payment of taxes. One thinks, for instance, of early American Baptists who went to jail rather than pay special taxes for the support of the established churches. In those instances, the resisters believed the payment to be a direct confrontation of obeying God or obeying men (Acts 4:19-20). And they went to jail for it.
As you make this decision, ask yourself whether you plan to preach and teach your people that participating in Social Security (as payer or recipient) is a sin against God. If the “opt out” provision were revoked, would you willingly go to prison rather than pay the tax? And, would your prison time be because you saw the choice as between Christianity and idolatry?
If the answer to these questions is “no” (as it seems from your question), then you are not a conscientious objector to Social Security taxes. To then “opt out” of paying them would be to refuse to do precisely what Jesus commands us to do: pay taxes. It would also give reason for offense to the mission field you’re attempting to engage with the gospel. And, by turning a protection of conscience into a political statement or a pragmatic economic benefit, it would imperil religious liberty provisions for your brothers and sisters in Christ.
Social Security may or may not be around when you retire. I don’t know. I do know this: your money definitely won’t be around when you’re dead. So why waste your religious liberty on holding on to a little bit more of it for a little while longer?
What’s your question or ethical dilemma? Send it to me at questions@russellmoore.com.
51 Responses to “Is It Okay for Me to Opt Out of Social Security? My Response”
Trackbacks
- Is It Okay for Pastors to Opt Out of Social Security? – Justin Taylor
- » Russell Moore on Ministers Opting Out of Social Security | Denny Burk
- Opt Out of Social Security? « Nelson Baptist Blog
- Should Christian Ministers Opt Out Of Social Security Tax? « lukefourteenthirtythree
- Ministers & Social Security - Delivered By Grace | Theology Blog
- Moore to the Point – What about Social Security? « Looking in and Past the Borders
- render unto Ceasar (as little as possible) « Don’t Stop Believing
- What’s Caesar Got To Do with Social Security? « ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (in Christ Jesus)
- A Letter to Dave Ramsey on Unwittingly Advising Pastors to Break the Law – Justin Taylor
- Should Ordained Pastors Opt Out of Social Security? No. » *shrug*
- Stuff I’m Learning: Ministers and Social Security | brandonandkatie.com
The law on opting out of Social Security has been tightened in recent years. In order to legally opt out now, you must renounce and never own any private life insurance or annuity products. Pastors who opt out today must sign a document to the effect that they do not and will not own a life insurance product or any investment product that guarantees income for life.
This ruling is not being strictly enforced today, but it is law, and it is conceivable that enforcement will be tightened in the future.
There is another point to remember, and that is that any pastor with a secular job where Social Security taxes are withheld and paid MAY NOT opt out of Social Security payments on church related income.
@Keith,
[quote] “In order to legally opt out now, you must renounce and never own any private life insurance or annuity products. Pastors who opt out today must sign a document to the effect that they do not and will not own a life insurance product or any investment product that guarantees income for life.” [/quote]
can you cite a source for this? i have looked over the forms as recently as 2008 and there was nothing about this mentioned.
@Keith,
I’ve been a financial advisor for about 15 years specializing in church and clergy. I’ve never seen this requirement either. Also, the “opt out” clause is for ministerial income only. If there is a secular job involved it does not negate the ability for a qualified individual to opt out. A key source to reference is Richard Hammar’s annual tax guide. BTW, I agree whole heartedly with the article and appreciate the perspective.
Dr. Moore:
You make an excellent point….
A follow-up question that immediately comes to mind would be, is the church wrong for treating the pastor as ’self-employed’, not paying the employer portion of Social Security, making him pay the whole portion?
God bless!
Thank you Dr. Moore for this post. 14 years ago, I was presented with this same choice. Many of my friends who had been in ministry awhile longer suggested that I opt out of S.S. The same arguments were made then as we hear today.
I decided to pay into S.S.
Why did I do this? At the time, I did not understand the theology of the decision, but I based it on what I saw around me. My grandfather’s each were living solely off of S.S. Both were blue collar workers who struggled throughout their entire lives. Why should I deprive them of their income? Why should I allow others to pay into the system that directly supports those I love and not do the same?
Granted, I believe there are better policies that can be adopted in our government, but, for now……this is what we have.
Looking forward to many more comments on this thread. Thank you for taking the time to post it…..
Roger Sharp
Texas
There is some conflation of the different exemptions permitted. The restrictions Keith mentioned are for Form 4029 (SS and Medicare), not Form 4361 (self-employment tax). While they are different tax regulations, Dr. Moore’s point about it being an issue of conscience rather than financial expediency applies to both exemptions.
Thank you for the thoughtful commentary. You raise challenging points regarding the decision one might make if the “opt-out” was revoked.
Why do you think it is that the “opt-out” is only offered to pastors an not any Believer?
Keith,
Actually, I don’t think your statement is true (though I am open to being educated on this issue if you happen to have an information source). The current IRS language does not prohibit private life insurance at all. The actual language from the IRS is as follows:
“I certify that I am conscientiously opposed to, or because of my religious principles I am opposed to, the acceptance (for services I perform as a minister, member of religious order not under a vow of poverty, or a Christian Science practitioner) of any public insurance that makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement; or that, makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care.”
Notice this is not include privately held insurances of any sort, but only speaks of objection to PUBLIC insurance. Thus, according to the IRS it is perfectly fine to object to public insurance (which has been labeled by the Supreme Court as a public welfare plan) while simultaneously purchasing private life insurance or other private investment.
Well said!
So the important question for those who have opted out: How do I opt back in? I know that the IRS offered an opt in period a few years back (late 90’s), but will they offer this again?
What would you suggest to those pastors who opted out without clearly understanding the kind of argument you make? How might they “render to Caesar” now that they are out?
Should they estimate what their taxes are, pay them and not accept a refund based on their status?
You argument is persuasive. It might be helpful to give a way back to those who erred in opting out of their tax duty to government.
Thanks for your insights Dr. Moore. With all due respect it seems that you are painting this as resisting the state, when in fact, the state is giving ministers the option, if they believe the government should not be involved in their ministry. It would seem that resisting the state would be to withhold when it is required, not when it is optional.
@Nathan,
Nathan,
This is the exact thought I had. How is it not rendering unto Caesar when the government GIVES MINISTERS the option. IF Christian COULD HAVE opted out of paying for Crucifixes then they probably should have.
On the whole that does not mean that I object to the thrust of the article…only that this is a point that seems to have been completely missed.
Seth
Dr. Moore,
Does your analysis here argue in favor of churches rejecting the property tax exemption customarily afforded to religious organizations and churches? If the Christian’s obligation is to “pay taxes to whom taxes are due,” what basis does a church have to apply for and accept a property tax exemption?
If the social security “opt-out” was not based upon a “conscientious objector” standard, but was instead neutral as to the reason for opting-out (i.e., pastors were permitted to opt-out for any reason or no reason at all), would you conclude that a pastor may freely opt-out of the social security system, despite the biblical command to pay taxes to whom they are due?
@Matt, This would likely apply to seminaries as well. They are a 501 c3 non-profit organization I would assume.
So for those of us who have messed and made a bad choice of opting out of social security, how do we rectify things now? :(
I would like to point out a few concerns I have with this argument. First, as Social Security has an opt-out mechanism, I don’t beleive Rom. 13:7 would apply to someone who chose to decline its payments and benefits. Second, we must remember the context in which Jesus said “Render unto Ceaser…”. At that point, the Pharisees were trying to entagle him in his words. Jesus successfully fended off their attacks by asking questions of his own. One of his questions was “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” indicating a denarius coin with the Roman emperor’s image stamped on it. He did not indicate the sacred shekel which was used to pay for temple maintenance. I would point out two things: (a) Jesus does not here permit Caesar to intrude upon the things of God. (b) His answer in no way sanctions the tax as moral or justified. The important question for us now is: what belongs to Caesar? In Jesus’ day, the poll tax in question amounted to a single day’s wage for a manual workman. Today, many entrust one-third or one-half of their income to the state which has taken over many of the traditional duties of the church. Is it not possible that we have allowed the things of God to be rendered unto Caesar in establishing such a system? The US is a constitutional republic where citizens have the right to challege the constitutionality of a statute that negatively affects them. I think Social Security belongs to a catalog of such welfare state laws that are detrimental to society. Today, a non-welfare state is hardly dreamed of, yet there is not an ounce of biblical support for it.
@Reed,
Amen! Well said. Why do preachers and teachers of God’s word so easily pass on by the answer to the question “What is Caesar’s?”. That is the absolute heart of the matter. In the American context, just Who is Caesar anyway? We do not have an all-knowing, divine emperor to decree the laws of our lives. We have a written Constitution and a Republican form of government. Truth is when one studies the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, the Internal Revenue Code itself, one finds that there is NO LAW requiring the average person to pay taxes on his LABOR. That is an outright lie that has been perpetrated upon the American people for decades. Income tax was to be paid on corporate earnings, or if one is a Federal government employee, but not in the private sector.
Moreover, Jesus himself said “the worker is WORTHY of his wages”. What does that mean? Does it mean that if you are an IRS agent with a gun it is ok to steal a portion of his wages before he gets his check?
Is the Federal Government one and the same as Caesar? How can we be a society under the RULE OF LAW (Constitution), but then when CORRUPT MEN pass a law that violates the Constitution, we are told we must obey the law? But in doing so we are accomplices to the violation of the Supreme Law of the land. This is schizophrenic, not virtuous or honorable.
The 8th Commandment says Thou shalt NOT steal. What is stealing? In this context is is taking money from someone without their permission. This is wicked, and God does NOT approve. Nor will he hold guiltless anyone who ASSISTS in this sinful scheme against their neighbor.
One may argue that a person should pay taxes on his labor because it will prevent him getting a bullet from a Federal Marshall, or IRS agent, but citing Romans 13:7 is woefully lacking and shows much ignorance of the truth of the Income Tax in America.
I would encourage everyone to Google the following:
Joe Banister (former IRS agent, learned the truth, was indicted for tax evasion and acquitted)
Tommy Cryer (attorney in Shreveport, LA, also learned the truth, was indicted on tax evasion and acquitted)
Dave Champion (former Army Special Forces, LAPD officer, paralegal, http://www.nontaxpayer.org, Author of Income Tax: Shattering the Myths at http://www.taxrevolt.us)
Larry Becraft (attorney in Alabama, has successfully defended many people against tax evasion indictments)
Pete Hendrickson author of Cracking the Code.
May God’s people learn the truth of the Income Tax and begin to stand against this wicked scheme.
Dr. Moore,
I must add my voice to those apparently few who disagree with you take on this issue. I find your line of reasoning to be fallacious at a few points.
First of all, the US tax code allows ministers to opt out of paying Social Security taxes. This not something that ministers do outside of the law,which would be a clear violation of Scripture. This is a provision of the law that is allowed to clergy.
Second, as a previous commenter stated, various municipalities in the US allow churches to be exempt from paying property taxes. If churches followed your view, then they would have to insist upon paying taxes that the government says that they do not have to pay.
Third, what about those Christians how live in a state with a property tax homestead exemption which allows them to exclude a certain amount of the value of their house from the computation of property taxes? Should those Christians refrain from taking advantage of the homestead exemption?
Fourth, should Christians claim any sort of deductions on their income taxes? The law allows those deductions, but should we ignore them and pay income taxes on our gross incomes?
Fifth, if you, as Christian, make an online purchase from a merchant not located in the state in which you reside, there is a great likelihood that you will NOT be charged sales tax on your purchase. Do you then remit to your state department of revenue the sales tax that would have been collected had you made the purchase at a merchant in your state? If not, then you are not making application of the very point that you are trying to make with the Social Security issue.
It is one thing for Christians to defy the state and refuse to obey the laws of the land [as long as those laws are not in conflict with the commands of Scripture]. Such a situation is sinful. It is, however, quite another thing for a believer to act within the parameters of the law and elect to pay less tax or to opt out of certain taxes altogether. In my view, there are just too many holes in your argument for it to stand. I do not think that it holds up to Biblical scrutiny.
@Mark Fuss, I think you are twisting his argument into something that it is not and then very aggressively pulling the straw man that you have set up. Dr. Moore is not against tax deductions from what I can read, but a misuse of the “conscientious objector” clause. If there is a legal way to not have to pay a tax that does not involve any immoral or illegal activity, then we shouldn’t pay it. However, claiming to be conscientious objector when you are not (according to the legal definition) is another story.
As far as I can tell, all five of your points are irrelevant because you have missed the crux of Dr. Moore’s argument. Perhaps you should consider rereading it with more opened eyes.
@Reed. On your first point, Dr. Moore’s arguement seems to hinge on the definition of a conscientious objector. It doesn’t seem that he allows for a conscientious objector to be someone who simply disagrees with the policy. Maybe you do? Either way, you didn’t argue against his definition and the implications he drew from it.
In his explination, the Romans passage would apply since the gov’t requires that you pay into SS unless you’re a conscientious objector. See previous paragraph.
@Niles, You’re right, I didn’t expand on the fact that the opt-out mechanism is only for those who are conscientiously opposed to Social Security. But, as the language of the IRS requirement has been spelled out above, I think it’s evident that conscientious objection to Social Security can mean more than Dr. Moore says it means. The IRS language, “I certify that I am conscientiously opposed to, or because of my religious principles I am opposed to…”, certainly allows for more than the John Bunyans of the world to say no to Social Security. In fact, I don’t even agree with Dr. Moore’s definition of a conscientious objector. Shouldn’t we all be conscientious objectors to the My Lai Massacre of civilian Vietnamese women and children?
Mark,
I think you make some great points and I would love to hear Dr. Moore respond to them. The problem I have with the argument is that there was no “opt out” policy that we know of present during Jesus’ day. To equate that situation in which they were required by law to pay taxes and the situation minister’s face today is faulty.
I would also like to add that if we take Dr. Moore’s logic to it’s end then ministers should not take a “housing allowance” that is tax free (up to 40% of your salary can be claimed as housing). This affects the Social Security bottom line because you would only pay taxes on the 60% that is remaining.
The question is “How far down the rabbit hold do we want to go?”
@Michael, Not to get sidetracked, but the IRS has no 40% limit. You can claim 100% as housing, technically (though it has to meet a few criteria). Specifically, it must be the LESSER of the follow two: (1) The fair market rental value of the home, furnished w/ utilities & services factored in, or (2) the actual amount spent for housing. If that happens to be 100% of your income, then so be it (but I admit most times it will never reach that). SOME churches and denominations limit it to a percentage, but that is not an IRS rule.
@Michael, Sry, I forgot to also add that this would NOT affect the SS bottom line, as you must still pay SS tax on the full housing allowance. It only affects the ministers Federal Income Tax liability.
I opted out of SS 30 years ago, not for financial reasons, but because I did not believe that it was appropriate for a minister of the gospel to put himself in a position where the State could financially manipulate him to alter his message. The danger of that happening is all too apparent today when the preaching of certain passages of Scripture may be interpreted as a “hate crime”.
A few years ago, my mission board, never understanding this part of the issue, followed a similar line of reasoning as you have presented and insisted that all missionaries who had opted out, opt back in. I feel that it is a most regrettable position. I do not believe that one should feel guilty for being a conscientious objector.
Though I chose not to opt out of SS, I did struggle quite a bit with the decision. This was partly because there seemed to be so little counsel available on the subject. I focused heavily on the language of the law (See Josh’s post above). It does not say that you are opposed to receiving public insurance. It does say that you are opposed to receiving public insurance for services performed as a minister. So this discussion should have that parameter in view. In my decision-making process I also struggled with the “what if the opt-out were to be repealed” reasoning that Dr. Moore mentioned. But does the law require that you have a “I’ll go to prison for this” kind of objection? In my polling for counsel on the subject, many pastors felt that while they would submit and pay the tax if required, they were obligated to opt out because the option to opt out was available (and they desired to put the church in a more biblical position to fulfill their obligation to care for their pastor and not be tempted to rely on the state). I couldn’t sign the form, and even though I feel like I’m throwing money away I still wouldn’t sign the form. I did not believe it was a sin to pay SS as a minister even though an option to opt out existed. But some men who understand the law and the necessary motivation (unlike Mr. Socially Secure) do sign the form and opt out. What am I trying to say? I still do not see the decision to be as easy for everyone as it is for Mr. Socially Secure. See anything fuzzy in my thinking?
I also wrestled with this many years ago, and felt that there was no way that I could meet the conscietious objector status, given how the clause was worded. And Dr. Moore’s point seems to be that too many people take the line from the questioner’s email about “I don’t think it will be there anyway and I don’t feel like giving my money to a crummy money manager in the governement.” That line of reasoning is why many people opt out–but it does not seem strong enough to actually be a conscientious objector. Some people argue, “I don’t think the government should take care of me,” but they are glad to benefit from any other beneficial use of public money (roads, immunizations at the health dept, libraries, etc). I know there are Christians who feel like they meet the conscientious objector status–if you do then fantastic. That was the point of the pacifist analogy. Finally, the argument “We benefit from other tax structures in our government and the Social Security question is comparable” just doesn’t hold water for me. The other benefits–MHA, tax breaks–are part of the system and there is nothing wrong with taking those as far as it deals with conscience. Unless you have an awfully negative view of government and all roles it might play and you choose to personally not apply for MHA as a result. Then, perhaps you are a true conscientious objector and meet the test in the first place, thus causing little ethical dilemna.
All this talk about rendering to Cesaer is irrelevant. Do you know your constituiton? We the people are the government, so we are Cesaer and the people who run the government are our servants. If we dont want to give them money, or if we want to give them less, or tell them how the will or will not spend the money we give them, we have that right. the real question that should have been asked is, do American federal lawmakers have the right to apply direct taxes on the people (answer = no). Once we can answer that correctly the problem of social security and medicare and medicaid and federal taxes disapears completely.
For those who disagree with Dr. Moore, I haven’t seen any theological basis for taking the stand that Social Security is sinful. In order to be a consciencious objector you must be believe SS is “against your religion.”
Unless you can with clear conscience and clear biblical foundation say that SS is sinful then you cannot opt out.
Renee, you seem quite settled in your opinion, but you are clearly wrong. We the people are not Cesaer, we elect Cesaers to govern us. Whatever laws they create we must abide by. You do not choose what to obey or not obey (try that with the police!).
@Gabriel Powell, Where is the IRS documentation can you find a requirment that we must think it is sinful? It only requires that we have a religious objection.
Most, historically, have based their objection to the principle of the separation of church and state—not because it was thought to be sinful. Thus, Moore greatly misunderstands the IRS’s own position on the matter and seems to misunderstand the historical reasons for objection.
I don’t entirely disagree with Dr. Moore, but I do think the IRS language gives more flexibility than has been discussed here so far.
To the ministers: “Because of [your] religious principles”, which would hopefully include wise stewardship, it seems like there is a lot of reason to object to the acceptance of public insurance. A short list of objections:
- Object to receiving money that comes from young families who are being taxed for a service they are promised but will likely not receive
- Object to receiving money that comes in part from people who are illegally taxed without representation (residents of Washington D.C.)
- Object to receiving public insurance which provides less return than your own investments (do you prefer ten talents or five?)
In short, the IRS language does NOT ask whether or not you object to the point of being willing to break the law. It just asks if you are opposed, and that can be determined very easily. If the future of Social Security went on a ballot tomorrow, would you vote to keep it (”accepting the public insurance”), or would you vote to terminate it (even though this means losing money you’ve invested in the system)?
If you would vote to terminate the program, and that has to do with your biblical understanding of stewardship or the role of the state, then that means you are “opposed…because of [your] religious principles”.
All citizens have the right to oppose Social Security by voting for like-minded government officials. And by democratic happenstance, ministers have the additional right to voice opposition by opting out of the system. Because that legal option exists, taxes are not due to Caesar.
That’s my view anyway. Take it with a grain of salt.
So should I apply for the state-run and tax-payer funded health insurance through our state?
I would be paying HALF what my current monthly premiums are!
When I asked the state representative of the program why I should NOT enroll, as my biblically led conscience leds me to conclude it IS NOT the right of the government to provide for me, she said “It’s available, you might as well do it.”
I could also qualify for food stamps and even a few other similar programs; why shouldn’t I?
Senor Moore, I’m glad you are convinced in your own heart and mind, but I remain unconvinced after reading your sermonette.
Dr. Moore makes a great case here. I would submit some contrary thoughts.
Marvin Olasky wrote a very interesting book in the 90’s, “The Tragedy Of American Compassion.” In the book he articulated (convincingly) how the American government and the “great society” has taken compassionate responsibility to care for one another out of the hands of the church, where the responsibility formerly resided, and given it to the government.
Jesus chastised the the Pharisee’s for tithing what they ought to use for the care of their family.
“Having no regard for the command of God, you hold fast to human tradition.” He also said to them, “You neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you would have received from me is corban’ (that is, a gift for God), then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.” -Mark 7:8-13
The text makes it clear that Jesus regarded the responsibility of caring for “father and mother” belonged to the individual not the state. And practicing the tradition over the intent of the law was wrong. It’s possible that we hold to this idea of “rendering unto Caesar” in the same way. We all pay taxes, we pay too much tax according to most of us. And, as has been stated, our government is “by the people” so we have a say in that. But welfare and social security as we have it today is neither biblical nor even that old. It’s part of the nanny-state.
Seems to be a halfway argument. (Granted blogs are terrible places for developed thinking due, mostly, to the constraints of space.) Dr. Moore, who I thank for this opinion, does not seem to develop it fully.
Essentially the point is that unless I am willing to openly teach against Social Security and/or be willing to go to jail for refusing to pay taxes than I have made a less then moral decision those many years ago when I opted out of the Social Security system.
Now I completely agree that this young minister (ah, to be young again) should have better reasons than simply it won’t be around anyways.
In my personal convictions Social Security is a pagan system that, because of my firm belief in separation of church and state, I want no part of. (I also am a pacifist.) I do not, and will not, own government bonds or any other kind of support mechanism. My beliefs on this, and the rest of my political theology, run deep. Will I ever preach a sermon or teach a Bible study against Social Security? Surely not, our time is better spent encouraging others in more significant matters.
Yet concerning the Scripture Dr. Moore cited (which was thankfully robust) I don’t see the correlation between them and the current case. Granted it is mightily difficult to apply a first century oligarchy to our modern federal constitutional republic, but the prescient point here is that if the government does not compel me to pay into a pagan system I will not.
Now if the government ever removes this exemption, which I fear we are close to seeing happen, and demands me to pay (or even repay on previous income) I will because of my submission to their rule. Yet right now, as case law and the tax code stands, there is no compulsion or legal requirement since I have decided to withdraw voluntarily.
Perhaps our gracious host will consider these points and formulate a response. I am certain it would round out his reply, and be wonderfully rooted in sound logic.
On the personal side. I know many people who worked for Christian organizations, who opted out and now have arrived at retirement age. They failed to set aside the money they should have for their future. Now they face being on public aid, living the life of paupers with barely enough to eat.
As a minister, I opted out of SS, but the Lord changed my situation and the para-church organization I founded became a sideline within but 3 years. I was forced back into the secular world where I was required to pay into SS. I am thankful to God for that. As a result I now have enough SS income to live on. I feel deeply for my dear friends who now suffer from what was a very bad decision.
What people faced with the choice need to remember is that we are all so very human…so prone to failing to be realistic about our spending. When we have the money we try to use it wisely, but we use it. With none set aside, there is nothing but public aid in the future. How ironic that some of us sought to avoid the “secular” system by opting out, and now depend on the charity of that system in a somewhat self-created hour of need.
I have been following this subject for the past couple of hours and I think the one comment that I believe gets at the heart of this matter is how many of the CO would opt out if SS was providing a 50% return?
Can I encourage you to include links to the relevant government documents? Might help folks to have the actual text of the IRS provision in assessing your view on the matter:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4361.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p517/ar02.html
I encourage anyone wrestling through to make sure you are looking at the actual wording of the provision.
“Conscientious objector” is not the only language of the exclusion.
I am wondering if a pastor who objects to paying into a public insurance system has a problem with advising congregants who are in financial distress to then avail themselves of public benefits.
While I think the Social Security system and Medicare are great examples of what the government can do to take a problem and turn it into a financial catastrophe and while I hate how much of my money goes into that very system, I don’t have the option to opt out.
I don’t think a pastor who opts out has much credibility in sitting down with a family that needs help and sends them off to get a welfare check, apply for food stamps or any other public assistance. If you REALLY have an objection to the system then please tell me that you preach that to your congregation. Is any actually being consistent about this? Please don’t tell me that it’s okay for your congregation to avail themselves of the benefits because they paid into it.
Why itemize - just pay all of your taxes! Render to Caeser! I don’t think so, the actual wording of the IRS form is not limited to “conscientious objector”. We are to follow the law, if the law allows for a pastor to opt out what is the problem?