“I am conscientiously opposed to, or because of my religious principles I am opposed to, the acceptance (for services I perform as a minister…) 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. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this application and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true and correct.”
Affix your signature to this, the key part of IRS Form 4361, Application for Exemption From Self-Employment Tax for Use By Ministers, Members of Religious Orders and Christian Science Practicioners, and free your exalted clergy self from having to pay the crushing 15.3% SECA tax, self-employment tax that we must pay. During the years I lived in a pastorium and did not have a mortgage payment, the SECA tax bill was my largest bill. In time health insurance surpassed it but the quarterly bills were always steep, and relentless.
But, early in one’s ministry there is a window to opt-out of Social Security, saving those steep tax payments…forever. My guess is that the average SBC minister, certainly younger ones in smaller churches with several dependents, have little income tax bill at all but get murdered with their SECA tax bill. It would be great to do without this, right?
Almost certainly, WRONG!
One of the things my state convention and SBC entities, GuideStone in this case, does well is in handling these kind of tax questions that affect us all personally. GuideStone provides regular, sober, and solid advice to ministers concerning tax matters.
On the Social Security opt-out GuideStone says,
Opting out of Social Security can be highly detrimental to your future,” says GuideStone President O.S. Hawkins. “Not only does Social Security provide a benefit upon attainment of retirement age, it also provides survivor benefits to your children should something happen to you while they’re young. All young ministers should think long and hard before forgoing valuable Social Security benefits for you and your family.”
On a purely economic basis, the general thinking is that Social Security is not a good investment and that most any private plan would prove more beneficial over time. You’ve heard of the Galveston opt-out experience, right? You think you are committed, highly disciplined, and super savvy in handling money and can provide for your family much better than the government?
Probably not.
Most of my clergy colleagues show little evidence of financial acumen or discipline. GuideStone’s staffer who deals with their Mission Dignity program said, “In 20 years of assisting retired ministers on low incomes, I have met quite a few who opted out of Social Security at a young age. In spite of good intentions, savings were never set aside and these ministers reached retirement without sufficient resources. Not one of our Mission:Dignity recipients has ever told me, in retrospect, that opting out of Social Security was a good idea.”
But the greater issue is the moral and ethical one. I do not know a minister who could sign the conscientious objection statement above who would not be lying if they did so. Not one. I know a great many who object to paying taxes, who think Social Security is a bad deal, and who distrust government. But I don’t know one who would not take the checks if offered.
In my own little foray as an ordained minister for these last several decades, I have had not the least bit of hesitation and timidity about taking as much in housing allowance, our only true tax break, as I legally can. But way back when I started out in a small church with a total package of under $15,000 annually (plus an old farm house as a pastorium and a pretty good pile of free groceries provided by the wonderful congregation) I opted out of Social Security due to a combination of influence from certain people and a heavy dose of plain stupidity. Soon thereafter, there was an opt-in window and I opted back in and have paid a ton of SECA taxes in the last 35 years.
I get a modest Social Security deposit every month these days. More significantly, MediCare has me feeling for the first time in a couple of decades that I actually have some decent comprehensive medical insurance, in case one of the medications I take like Xarelto ends up doing more harm than good. I would not want to be in the open market for health insurance these days.
Deal or no deal. There is no profit in lying to save a few thousand dollars. GuideStone offers some very stern advice on this. The definitive treatise for most of us on the moral question is from Russell Moore in 2010. He wrote,
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.
…
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.
One wrinkle on the opt-out that I have seen is that some advisors are promoting schemes whereby clergy can both opt-out of taxes on clergy income and receive benefits. Better consult a lawyer and/or CPA before trying this. Wouldn’t be a bad idea to consult The Almighty as well, since such a person would declare his objection to benefits for taxation purposes but not for getting the checks or deposits.
Considerable percentages of the US populace say (a) church is too much about money, and (b) they don’t trust religious leaders. Were it to be broadcast that the local minister is free from SECA taxes while at the same time getting the benefits, those in the pews would likely be aghast. “The pastor isn’t like us, he pays no FICA or SECA taxes but he still gets the benefits. How is this either moral or fair?”
If I were 26 instead of 66, I would have no idea what life would be like in the year 2056. The way it looks, we Baby Boomers are going to suck up all the taxes paid by our children and grandchildren and their Social Security and MediCare benefits will be somewhat less than ours. I don’t wish that for my younger colleagues but, hey, you guys keep slaving away and paying your taxes so I can have some free or low cost health services…and the monthly deposit, of course.
I do know that lying will still be sinful and for that primary reason, stick some wax in your ears and don’t listen to the siren song of the opt-out.
Moore goes overboard. The IRS objector clause states that one has objection to receiving funds from the state for services performed as a minister, not that one is objecting to the idea of Social Security period.
A person can conscientiously object without believing it is a sin against God to pay into our receive funds from SSA or a similar program for other work done.
Mike, another article can explore any debate about the morals. I understand your point but don’t think it compelling. I’m glad Moore was very strong in his words and I think it beneficial that GS is very stern in their warnings on this.
I agree with Mike here, your congregation is not receiving their income as a minister, it is not equivalent to argue you must think it is sin for all to opt out.
Mike, I agree with you. I would further emphasize that this is a “conscientious objection” clause. I can conscientiously object to something and not do it, while recognizing that others may not have the same conscientious objection and not charge them with sinning because they do what I wouldn’t do.
That said, I don’t have this conscientious objection, and very few Baptist ministers I know of do. Anyone who goes this route should honestly conscientiously object and not be just doing it for financial reasons. That’s dishonest.
To anyone who has opted out of Social Security – you had better be seriously putting significant money in your GuideStone Retirement fund!
When, and if, you get a raise, have them put all or most into your retirement fund.
And you better have it in something that will, over time, grow significantly.
Something like their Equity Index Fund that somewhat mirrors the S&P 500.
You will need about 20 times your salary, to retire on your salary.
So, if you are making $25,000 a year, and want that in retirement, you will need about $500,000 in your retirement.
Really, a little over $600,000, since Uncle Sam will tax you 20% on your retirement funds when you retire.
If you are on Social Security, put a large amount of money in your GuideStone Retirement anyway.
Then, if Social Security endures as well, when you retire you will have more money than you know what to do with.
David R. Brumbelow
We are retired, living pretty much the way we did when we were working, and we’re able to live within our Social Security income, barring any unusual purchases. And our SIMPLE Retirement Plan mandatory withdrawals either go into the bank or provide something like this year’s 11-day Panama Canal cruise.
I am glad I didn’t have the opportunity to opt out of Social Security. It would have been an immense mistake.
I think the point is, we should all opt out of SS, build a mega-church, write lucrative empowerment books, and retire in our “mansions over the hilltop.”
I’ve been attuned to this for a good many years. While it doesn’t come up in conversations much these days, when it does I don’t recall, ever, hearing any opt-outer express any objections other than that it is a burdensome tax to pay.
A number of people I respect have opted out and did so for what looked like good economic reasons at the time. Most of these regret the decision. Again, the conscientious objector statement is never mentioned.
The IMB recommends that all its missionaries stay in Social Security. I have not started to draw my SS benefit yet, but I estimate that SS will provide about 60% of our retirement income. SS also provides disability insurance and survivors’ benefits to widows and minor children. As to SS disappearing, don’t believe that. I am one of 76 million baby boomers who can vote. We’ll make sure that SS remains intact.
Great article, William. I agree with everything in it. Two quick thoughts: First, when I was a young preacher I considered opting out of Social Security,motivated strictly by my pocket book. When I actually read that the opt out was supposed to be based on conscience and not economics, my conscience wouldn’t let me opt out. The whole conscientious objection thing is a farce, preachers are opting out for economic reasons, which means that they don’t really qualify for the opt out. Second, although my dad wasn’t a preacher, he died during the Spring of my sophomore year. There were four of us kids left who were below 18 years old. Social Security helped my mama out for about 9 years. I thank God for Social Security.
Two Things: (1) Social Security has no stability and could disintegrate at any time. Anybody who says differently must believe government will always come through.
(2) Buying a Disability Policy and Life Insurance policy is far cheaper than the 15.3% you’re giving the govt. hoping they will provide and protect you with. Putting the remainder into a Roth and/or other investment opportunities will net you far more than what the govt. says they will give you.
Social Security benefits continue to become less and start later in life each year. You have no control over your investment or how it takes care of your family. Opting out of Social Security is far wiser and more beneficial than staying in.
If you don’t think you will be mature enough to set aside the money you need to for your family you probably don’t qualify as a pastor according to 1 Timothy 3.
Furthermore, the notion that I’m opting out purely for economic reasons doesn’t hold water either. One opts out because they don’t believe the govt. should be involved in ministry or leveling taxes and/or burdens on those in ministry. When Social Security first came out, pastors were not even allowed to participate due to the fact that the govt. separated themselves from religious activity. Later, in the 1950s, they changed the law to automatically include pastors, but gave them the opportunity to opt out if they felt govt. shouldn’t be involved in religious activities. In other words, the govt automatically started taking minister’s money figuring many would simply allow it. And, well, the rest is history.
Nate expresses the typical nonsense that often surrounds this issue for ministers. One notes that he makes his economic argument then appends moral justification as a supplemental comment. I doubt many are impressed.
That said, clergy can make their choice. GuideStone, IMB, and most sensible SBC leaders and knowledgable individuals caution against opting out.
Pay your tithe. Pay your taxes. Plan for the future with several streams of retirement income, SS being one.
William, your “typical nonsense” doesn’t present any facts whatsoever, just your desire to keep young pastors tethered to the chains of the govt.
I can easily provide statistical data to back my argument. 5,000 a year into a Roth for the 45 years from age 25 to age 70 (which is the age where you get max benefits — that is, if they don’t increase the age again) will net you 1.7 million dollars (if you average 7.5% per year, which is under what the market has performed every decade for the last 100 years). Moreover, that 1.7 million is YOURS, not the govt. and can be given to your descendants. Social Security is the corruption that takes, but never gives back, completely. A good disability policy and life insurance policy will provide your family far more protection than Social Security for penny’s on the dollar as well.
Nobody wants to deal with the facts. Oh… we can’t do this, Help us Federal Govt…
And, you could have at least engaged the argument that pastors weren’t even allowed into Social Security, but then were automatically included with the “out clause”. Most today keep insisting that Pastors have been in since the beginning and we are the ones looking to get out, when in fact, the govt. put us in just to collect more taxes and we were dumb enough not to opt out.
AND I might add: the conscientious objection only applies to funds the Pastor receives from the church. The minister who has had paying jobs outside of the church still has to pay those taxes. Do you have a moral issue with that minister receiving benefits based upon payments he made through other employment before, during, and after his church ministry? Even though he has paid in the system, but just not through his income by the church?
Rob
Nate had the last word on the economics.
Rob, you can do better.
I respect a number of opt-outees. Some I don’t. Those who wish to make the economic case (or the moral case) can submit the same to Dave.
I think that good clergy get caught up in some of the snake oil being hawked on this stuff.
Word to mostly younger brethren who may have the opt-out window open: Better to listen to the many who have been down that road and regret it. I’ve summarized some of the siren song rationales. GuideStone has sober counsel, Moore makes a strong case.
Well I have disturbed the censors with my replies it seems today. So I will try to be a little more civil with my retry.
The article above goes about to try to convince us that we should all still be paying into a system that is insolvent in the near or far future. That pastors cannot in their heart of hearts be truly conscientious with the heart beat of religious liberty and separation of church and state, but their only reason for opt out is purely financial. That anybody who signs the conscientious opt out is a bold faced liar, and therefore a sinner. Since significant and stalwart individuals and institutions in the SBC have discouraged young ministers from opting out, their voices should be considered more sensible than others who are not sensible, since all on the other side of the argument are money grubbing liars, While the author may take exception to this summary, it is what I read and perceived through it.
My perspective is more congenial (even though my previous replies were not). Good people can be both conscientious as well as sensible on both sides of this question. A pastor can set down and decide that they are conscientious objectors to the government system taking monies given to him by the church for his employ for his retirement benefits. It goes without saying if a person does this, then they need to plan well for retirement without the SS and Medicaid supplement; OR if bi-vocational or if they have the benefit of having employment outside the church to plan on utilizing the system in that way. Just because entities suggest something does not make them all wise; likewise those who are in positions of esteem. Each person needs to come to their own conclusion on the matter, and no one should disparage the other when making it.
This is my issue with this article. It is in my opinion inflammatory, written cavalierly, with a bit a smugness as icing. It give no credit to those who attempted to come at peace with God and their families and then made a difficult decision before them and God. It caricatures everyone on the opt out side as greedy and unwise. In some ways it is contemptible.
I hope that this is seen as more acceptable to the admin’s palate.
Rob
That is indeed better, although I stand by my article. It was meant to be provocative.
Strangely, both you and Nate make no small effort to address the economics of the opt-out which should be irrelevant to the moral question. If SS was the quickest route to being a millionaire, one should still reject it if one has a moral objection.
I have no compunction about raising serious moral questions about the opt-out. If there is some spiritual or moral issue about receiving government benefits, why should it make any difference if one is ordained clergy or lay preacher? Or a layperson, for that matter. We all priests representing our Lord. Why wouldn’t any objection apply to both clergy and laity? Moore made that point well.
It doesn’t help your explanation of the difficult moral decision to begin a justification with a sentence about “paying into a system that is insolvent in the near or far future.” Why does that matter in making a moral decision. If solvency were guaranteed for a hundred years, does that change anything? What this looks like is an economic/moral decision.
But, we all make our decisions and live with them. My aim is more for those who still have a choice, or who may one day have a window to opt back in.
I wish you well.
You can believe anything you want about my intent of the heart though that would give to you supernatural abilities. You started this by insinuating financial motives, and then are mortified by anyone who would argue with you on that level. You devised the sandbox = we are just merely playing with you in it so go ahead and yell “gotcha.” You have made the rules on what is moral or not in this discussion. My objection is “who made you King?”
My decision was based merely on my objection to church funds going to the government for my well being when the church should be shouldering the burden of maintaining servants who have served well (see 1 Corinthians 9). While Paul refused to have the church burdened with his employment so that he could say that he freely gave the gospel to them (v.11), he was in the minority of the rest of the apostles who maintained their ability to share with free will gifts and offerings of the churches. Since I truly believe in that the church and state are separate, and that my fundamental Religious liberty was at risk to freely share the gospel without government dependence, I opted out. Whatever I would have given to the government, I put in my Guide-stone account. I encourage everyone else to consider what I have shared here.
Those who would trust in horses and chariots can do so. I choose not to. If I win or lose – money and possessions are not really that important to me. In any regards I work about three or four different jobs. You have not answered the question directly (Dr. Moore is wrong by the way). Is it moral for a person to take out that which he has put in? Was that not the promise of the government despite the fact that a Pastor has opted out of funds the Church has paid in? Would you consider it moral not to receive those benefits that you put in?
Grace,
Rob
Thank you William for good advice.
Some 15 years ago, I was absolutely certain that the government should not take responsibility for what the church should be doing in providing for retirement and disability for ministers. So, I opted-out for that reason. I was bi-vocational and had no concerns with paying SS on my secular work. I also didn’t make enough for the economics to matter–when I filed, I had enough EIC to cover paying the SECA annually without a dime out of my own pocket.
I objected, and so I’m out of SS for my ministry income. I discussed it with the church I was serving (who ordained me) and they had no objection to it.
It wasn’t for economics. And it wasn’t with any foresight or contemplation of what would occur 40 years later when I retired. If it was just about the money, I’d have never done it.
At this point, I am perhaps less certain than I was, but at the time I felt very certain.
My objection never hit the level of Moore’s test—but then again, I have other things I object to that don’t reach that the level that I would go to prison for but I would object to, given the option. When I worked in the secular world, I objected to the informal future leadership gathering over beers on Friday night. I didn’t quit, but I took the career slow-down for it. Government-wise, I object to flying gay pride flags over Federal buildings (like embassies), but I’m not going to go cut one down and go to prison, either.
Every issue is not prison or not. If there’s a legal way to honestly not do something that you think you shouldn’t, then that’s fine.
Most of Guidestone’s advice is based on the economics. They’re right. It makes no long-term economic sense. Moore’s view reads like one must be willing to be imprisoned for a belief–I don’t think the SS rule requires that level of objection. It just requires being willing to pay the price for your objection, which is no benefits from ministry employment in the federal insurance scheme.
Practically speaking, if you took the objection as an “opt-out,” rather than an actual objection, then you lied. You violated letting your yes be yes and your no, no. Then, in an ongoing fashion, you have not paid taxes that you owed, because you lied about it.
But this is a personal conscience issue as to whether or not the church can farm off to the government its responsibility to care for those who served the church. I would suggest that we ought to look at a few other issues that the church has passed off to government (like widow care in general, orphan care, poverty/compassion…) and see if we obeyed Scripture by letting taxes and government substitute for the church.
That’s my view. Financially, it’s a long-term lose to be 4381. It’s the price I pay for being certain of some things many years ago. Would I do it again? With the law as it is, even hearing the Plodder’s opinion, I would. I maintain the view that the church should not shuffle the expense of old preachers and their widows off on to the government, though I can see the opposing side better now and wouldn’t class them near as harshly as I did then.
I appreciate the reasoned explanation, particularly the disclosure that you have had some second thoughts. Just to offer a slight correction, GuideStone, when they address this, consistently links or mentions Moore’s treatment of the moral issue. It is a fair reading of GS to note the emphasis on economics. They do this because, I surmise, that they understand that clergy will be looking at the economics of the decision.
I take it that you would decline any Medicaid or other government assistance because you believe the church should handle such?
One further thought…
I appreciate dheagle93 irenic tone. He has given me something to aspire to. For the record I too have had second thoughts from time to time. My decisions and my faith are continuously being tested. As with all good people everywhere.
However, this morality play can turn both ways – so if you want to play in this sandbox lets rumble. There are two sets of moralities here to consider: The morality of those who choose to opt out (for financial gain or conscience sake) and those who then opt in and then attempt to encourage young pastors to keep in for their own financial gain.
To put it frankly and concisely, Social Security is a ponzi scheme, If anyone else besides government were doing it, we would be belittling anyone involved and telling them to get out of it. As so designed, workers who are working today are paying for the benefits of those who are retired . Social Security was originally designed as a method to get those who were 60 (the original start age of the SS law) out of the workforce so that younger people could enter the workforce. The law was enacted during the Great Depression, and so there was a utility to get younger people engaged in the economy by paying older people to get out. The Government never expected to pay out much – their actuaries told them the average person died at 56-58 in 1936. It was sold as a patriotic way for older people to help out those who were older and of course vice versa = since payments to retirees would be made by those who were paying in then.
As alluded to in the post, the elephant in the room is the worker to beneficiary ratio. Because of multiple factors (decrease in fertility rates, longevity, economic factors) the w-b ratio has come from 5.1 in 1960 to a projected 2.6 in 2020 (and the projected number is most always better than the actual number in government math). In other words, the system is going broke – not because I said so or hope so – because the governments own actuaries predict so = and much much sooner than later.
So what is the moral purpose to guilt young pastors to remain in the system? The three arguments as applied here are 1) You actually have to have a conscientious reason to opt out; 2) No one can truthfully say that the reasons are totally moral; and since everybody in the Plodder’s experience were not morally pure in their reasoning then no one can opt out conscientiously and anybody who does is a liar: 3) Hey Guidestone and Russ Moore both say it is economically untenable if you opt out, and morally repugnant if you do, especially if you had other income from other sources you worked for and for which you make application to receive . Of course the Plodder does not mention with this morality play any connection to Veteran’s Benefits = those ministers who “opt out” of SS and yet sign up for the benefits they served for but I will give him benefit of the doubt: if you opt out and take anything from the government then you are a liar and a hypocrite. That is what Russ Moore says, and by golly he is a moral genius.
So why guilt young ministers wavering on this issue? I agree – if you are doing it merely for financial gain and not for conscience sake, then don’t do it. But why is the Plodder so adamant that even those who have truly some moral issues really do not? Why is he so morally secure in to telling young ministers to stay the course in a failing system even if they have moral concerns? I think at the conclusion he lets out a Freudian slip. In the witty little second to the last paragraph he tells us he does not know what life will be like in 2056, but does imagine that things will be worse than better, but that is okay as long as his low cost benefits and monthly deposit come on time. As long as you, young Pastor, are putting into the system, then all is well in the Plodders world. If you are not doing that you are morally repugnant.
While I think the Plodder was trying to be witty in the end, all it came off to be is condescending. When King Hezekiah learned that the destruction of Jerusalem with his children’s children killed or rushed off as slaves to Babylon he did not lament but merely thought, “at least in my days I will have peace and truth.” How moral is that?
Rob
I see where someone has asked the question regarding why the government allowed pastored to Opt-Out in the rewrite of the 50’s.
I believe it may be because it was far more common then, before we were several generations into accepting the government as our provider during our “retirement”, that pastors objected to this idea of the government replacing God. I am not saying that all who agree to pay taxes should see it that way, but clearly, they believed that those who worked for God were exempted either by right of conscience or by way of their working for the church in such a role. Perhaps the government of those days saw the pastor differently because most churches did not have staffs that included so many other ministry capacities. Or, perhaps it may have even been because, gasp, the government saw that pastors perform a role necessary to the well being of this nation and felt 1) Their salaries are normally lower than many Americans making it difficult to pay the SS tax; 2) Churches could be trusted to always provide for their pastors. Clearly, there was a much more vocal tilt to air on the side of conscientious objection because the idea appears to have been a more common notion.
I believe that all those who do not believe the government should provide for me and my family, should be able to permanently opt-out of social security, not just pastors. We choose to live differently in our household and make decisions accordingly to do our best to prepare for the future, even though we are forced to pay into a system that may or may not provide for us. Certainly, it is providing for someone else at the moment though. No one can really be secure, even with social security. This is a form, although now more palatable, of socialism. All you must do is look at the name. No one was trying to hide it. I believe, and I am sure you would agree, that God is the only true provider. That said, sometimes it may be that He does it through social security. I am open to the idea that Christians can view this differently. However, I would like to note that I trust myself more to manage my money than the Federal Government. It seems that Americans may be better served by managing their own finances instead of allowing someone else to do it for them, and without their best interests at heart. The government is NOT trying to honor God in how they spend other people’s money.
Though it may be hard to believe, for those generations before our grandparents, individuals did save their own money and God blessed them in his provision. This idea of socialized retirement is still fairly young. It is proving to be a failed experiment I might also note. The government has put their hand in the proverbial cookie jar so many times nothing is really left except a bunch of IOUs that they will never earmark back to SS and the taxpayers will be forced to pay. Someone mentioned people not really saving like they should. Perhaps this is true for most. We are living well beyond our means in America and I think too many are banking on someone else paying their way later in life. I know, we pay into the “system”, but we have many who receive way more benefits that they ever paid in once adjusted for the cost of living. If I am going to trust a “king” to give me back my money he forcibly borrowed from me, it won’t be the king of this world.
I personally think it takes away from the church being able to minister directly to those families who would have previously come to the church or those within the church for help. I believe it may hinder the work that could be done for God. Many have turned away from God in their self-sufficiency just as Israel turned from God. Sometimes we need to trust Him daily for our needs. I read in an Amish prayer book that they would pray for God to supply their needs. They asked for just enough to live, but not so else they turn from the very one providing it. I never heard of an Amish starving or going without their needs met. This is not a condition they experience. Matthew 6 reminds us that God will provide our physical needs. It reminds me of George Mueller and his amazing testimony on how God continually witnessed to many by how Mr. Mueller was faithful and how God answered his prayer. I want my testimony to affect others the way Mr. Mueller did through faith in God providing for the orphanage needs. I am sure someone can argue this can still be done in the lives of those on SS. I would argue it is not the same because it MAY be God in their provision, but that is not the only answer men will see.
And to those who don’t mind paying because it goes to their elderly family members, I would just say I would prefer to give it to them and not rely on the government to take it from me and redistribute it to them. What an impact it would have if the world saw us provide for their needs of our own volition, and not because we are forced to by the government! (Let me clarify that I believe the SBC and members to be VERY generous and have no doubt they would! I would guess the SBC is the most charitable Christian denomination.)
I realize I am a minority, but I don’t believe I would have been so about 60-70 years ago.
I read an article about Social Security in which the writer described the SS system as “a compact between generations.” He meant that through SS the younger generation pays into the system to support retired workers. This was necessary because older folks began receiving SS benefits when the law was enacted in the 1930s. I have not resented paying into the SS system because I knew that my parents and inlaws were receiving benefits from SS.
Rob and dheagle, I appreciate your comments which have given me something to think about that I haven’t really considered before. I mentioned above that I don’t have a (religious) conscientious objection to paying into Social Security (I do have plenty of objections to it!). One reason is that I paid into Social Security before I was a preacher and have done so while a preacher as a bi-vocational minister, and also paid self-employment tax when working as a self-employed “handyman”/remodeler. So I guess I’ve never really given it much thought. But I think the churches farming out what they ought to do to the government is something worthy of consideration. With that, we probably also should consider how children farm out the care of their parents to the government (and maybe parents of their children as well).
I, too, aspire to be congenial, irenic, affable, and generally likable; however, I have a curmudgeon gene and am helpless to overcome it. I blame it on the Cals.
Rob, here’s what I’ve seen in a few decades of watching this particular issue. The economic part of it is never absent (and is often given the priority in justification and comments) from a discussion. You are typical of the usual in this when you go to some length and use a number of the old saws about Social Security (“Ponzi scheme,” “failing system,” etc.) which are strictly economic. I think this undermines whatever elevated church-state moral choice you have made. Why the inclusion of the worker/beneficiary ratios. What has lifespan and retirement ages to do with a moral choice on this? Why bother with the economics at all if it is a moral choice? Could it be that the economics informs your moral choices? I could argue your position but if I did I’d not think a syllable about economics would be helpful in making my point.
In regard to my motivations for encouraging those with an opt-out window open (and those who may get an opt-in window), I think (a) the moral arguments are very weak, nonexistent for many opt-outees, (b) we have a spiritual obligation to pay our taxes, (c) this is another example of clergy privilege where the poor unordained saps pay their taxes or go to jail but we can get the benefits, not pay the taxes, and laugh all the way to the bank. There’s a reason clergy trust has eroded so severely in the past couple of decades, and (d) opt-outees, according to GS (and my experience, anecdotally) are losers in the long haul, mainly because no one requires them to save and invest SECA equivalent sums and because of health care costs.
I have a life expectancy of 17 years or so. If a thousand SBCV readers change their mind and stay in SS, that will have no impact on me, ever. But, you are welcome to speculate about my motivations. If my feelings are hurt, I’m retarred, and can do some fishing therapy and recover. Have at it.
It is unfashionable in our circles to do much of anything other than trash SS and Medicare. Unless the country ceases to exist, we will have some form of old age pension wealth transfer system. No one has to like it and middle-aged and seniors claim a birthright of complaining about the gummit. I hear the exact same trashing of SS that I did 40 years ago. I suspect my grandchildren will hear it a generation hence.
Mr. Thornton,
I would like to note that I am very glad to see this issue discussed. However, I was most disappointed to hear that you have never met a minister who opted-out for non-financial reasons or that could since the conscientious objection without being a liar. I know of a number of them. One teaches at DBU and would not think twice if he had it to go again last we discussed this topic. He is in no way a liar and I assure you he is deeply convicted in this. I know of two other pastors which I have had the pleasure of discussing this very topic and they object, and are not liars either.
I am new to this SBC Voices blog, but after only a short time being subscribed to the posts, I feel concerned that many of those things written have an inflammatory and disrespectful tone. It seems that on some matters, if you fail to agree you are either:
1) Not really a Southern Baptist (perhaps not even Baptist);
2) A sinner;
3) A liar;
4) A racist;
5) Stupid.
This pains me that we are not more civil to our brothers and sisters. I am not speaking directly about your post per say, but in general. I believe this does little to edify the body when we speak in such a manner.
James 3:7-12
7For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, 8but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers,c these things ought not to be so. 11Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? 12Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water.
Ephesians 4:29
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.
I believe this post could have been done to build up without all the accusations. Those who have disagreed would probably had less of a visceral reaction to it if they weren’t accused of being a liar, stupid, irresponsible at handling money or greedy.
Tiffany, I said I haven’t met a minister would not be lying if the signed the opt out. I accept that you may have met some. I wouldn’t call anyone here a liar. I’m not convinced by their justifications, though.
I have had more than one colleague call their opt out decision stupid and I have regularly seen and heard brethren being undisciplined and unwise in regard to their finances. For every opt outee who has saved sufficiently, I’d bet guidestone could offer a hundred who did not.
I meant to be provocative in the matter. Russell Moore had the strongest words on the morality of the opt out. These kind of frank, even rancorous discussions on the subject are practically unknown. I don’t think they are harmful. If a minister has convinced himself of his opt out rationale he can surely manage this debate.
SBCV is pretty tame compared to a couple of the other popular SBC sites but it never hurts to be reminded about being unkind.
I appreciate your sentiment, but I would challenge using harsh and uncharitable words because someone else said it. For example, I have heard it said by someone who is a member of an SBC church that the vote on the Confederate Flag held at SBC2016 was done to show the world that the SBC isn’t really racist rather than to keep from hindering the gospel. (I disagreed with the Resolution for non-racist reasons, but I would not categorize those who supported it by another who supported it as really being about doing what was necessary to try and reconcile. Although, there could be many there who also feel this way, it would not negate those who supported the Resolution from doing so primarily on the grounds that they would not do something that could hinder the gospel.
I believe that there are many highly intelligent Christians on here who could provoke a conversation about a subject they felt important without using accusatory and insulting verbage to make their point.
I read the posts on support religious liberty, inflammatory would best describe some of the comments. I read RM’s post on Trump, inflammatory and demeaning to those who feel that the Supreme Court nominations or choosing less evil is a Christian duty. His statements in the NY Times coupled with the comments on the post, quite frankly, did not seem to be written by Christian men who were acting in love to convince their brothers and sisters of doing what is scripturally correct.
Argument in the Spirit of “Iron sharpening Iron” is great. Anything less is doing more harm than the good that may have been done otherwise.
I am glad that so many take the time to share these concerns amongst one another. Many intelligent Christians may have failed to consider a particular issue or never really understood why one particular way is better than another.
For those who did disagree, they can stand their own ground. But, why should they be stereotyped into a certain negative category just because you have never seen otherwise? Perhaps someone you truly believe is wrong and is a liar really has opted-out because of his conscience. I would hope that I would be taken at my word unless tangibly proven otherwise. I feel sure you would want the same respect with regard to your motivations.
I think these posts have the potential to be great and hope to read additional thought provoking pieces. It would be a shame to loose the substance of an article in the midst of useless words that deflect and inflame.
Proverbs 15:1
A gentle answer deflects anger, but harsh words make tempers flare.
(I must confess I have been guilt of making tempers flare. I am trying to learn and pray the Lord will grant me discipline in this area).
Tiffany, um…It doesn’t sound like you really appreciate my sentiment…but I take your word for it. I remain unpersuaded by the arguments advanced by the opt-outees. There is no small amount of extremely poor advice dispensed on this, often for a fee. Folks can choose.
“…we have a spiritual obligation to pay our taxes, (c) this is another example of clergy privilege where the poor unordained saps pay their taxes or go to jail but we can get the benefits, not pay the taxes, and laugh all the way to the bank…”
Two questions:
Is Social Security legally considered a tax, retirement plan, benefit, all or the above or something else? In my current bi-vocational employment situation I am “opted-out” of this “tax” because we all pay into a retirement plan (TRS).
I believe that others (e.g. “laity”) should be able to opt-out for religious conscientious objections. But isn’t that possible? Is opting-out of SS limiting to clergy? I don’t think any Amish pay into it, but I may be wrong. (I would suppose, though, the opt-out options might be an incredible leap for a Baptist church member to get.)
I saw the question you posed about laity opting out of SS. They cannot to my understanding. Apparently, the Amish are a recognized group allowed to opt out of such programs because of their church doctrine teaching against such and as a group, standing upon this belief. If the Baptists had an official doctrinal stance on this matter, perhaps the government would allow us to opt out as individuals.
This is the problem w religious objections being applied and recognized. (i.e. objecting to a specific war vs. objecting to war altogether). One must do the latter to be placed in a non-combat role.
There are some Baptists historian types on here. Someone chime in on Baptist history if you will. Did we even have a specific teaching on these matters? Did the denomination push for an opt-out or opt-in? Curious…
Thanks, Tiffany, for your reply. That last paragraph of mine was kind of bungled up with typos. My assumption is that though “laity” in the Amish tradition can opt out (or perhaps automatically are), Baptist “non-clergy” would not be allowed to do so, only ordained ministers. Since what we are discussing re ministers is an individual opt out, it seems unfair that others who might have a sincere religious objection would not be able to opt out as well. Of course, I’m sure the government fear is that if everyone were able to opt out, too many would and down would go the whole system.
I don’t know the history of this and have never thought about it before. My guess (and that’s all it is) is that Baptists as a whole were not too politically attuned to such fine details of SS law in the 1950s.
William, you do realize that Teachers and Train Workers don’t pay into Social Security, correct? Why is there no “Moral Conundrum” with them? Why aren’t they contributing to the whole? Why aren’t they singled out for having an “OUT”? Now, the truth is those workers are “forced” into their own silo without voice, but nobody is complaining or throwing their hands up saying, “Why aren’t they helping all the others out.”
Part of the problem I have with those who think Pastors have to “Radically” prove some sort of Moral Indignation to paying into a Government program is that Nobody; Not You in this Article, Not Dr. Moore in any of his articles, nor Guidestone in any of their comments, ever speaks of Social Security’s creation and the fact that the Church (Pastors) were not permitted to take part. I have brought this up multiple times and you refuse to speak to it.
So, in the 1950s when the Govt. simply started including Pastors (but allowed them an out), why does everybody act as if the Moral Obligation falls heavily on Pastors and not the Government. The Government never wrote in the 1950s that they blew it, they should have included Pastors from day one; nothing. They simply began including Pastors, but gave them an out. For Pastors to simply “Opt Out” after the 1950s rewrite is simply affirming what was inherent from the beginning — Church and Government should stay separate. You have also refused to interact with this as well.
As for Medicaid, that is a completely different Tax and has absolutely nothing to do with Social Security. To try and connect the two is somewhat misleading. The govt. has put the two together (from a Tax collection purpose) but they are not the same “Program” and for the purposes of this discussion Medicaid is only relevant because the Govt. has forced it under the umbrella of Social Security. But Medicaid IS NOT Social Security
Look, if pastors want the Govt. to be their source of Retirement, Disability, and Insurance Let Them! But those of us who understand and believe that we have no Moral Obligation to let the Govt. handle the reigns should not be pressed to Prove some “Ethical Algorithm” that meets with your approval, Dr. Moore’s or Guidestones.
Nate, Church and government do stay separate in this. You as a minister are not the Church, you are an individual citizen subject to all the laws everyone else is subject to. Following your train of thought, you should be required to pay any taxes on your income at all simply because you are a minister. That is faulty thinking.
Not all John, nor have I ever insinuated that I shouldn’t pay Taxes. Social Security was a Govt. program designed to assist those who reached retirement, but did not have sufficient funds to live on. It has exploded into a full-fledged “Retirement Package”. However, you still did not interact with my point. Why didn’t the Govt. include all “workers” at its creation and why did the govt. still allow Pastors to opt out in the 1950s re-write if this were merely a Tax?
Social Security is merely a tax Nate. It’s referred to as Social Security Tax. People like preachers are considered self employed so we pay the entire 15.6%, which is referred to as self employment tax.
In answer to you question, I don’t know why the government did that.
John, I completely understand it has become a “Tax” today. However, the question remains, why at its inception were Pastors excluded and why in the 1950s rewrite were they given an option to Opt Out. This is what nobody seems to want to clearly speak about in today’s conversations concerning Young Pastors, their responsibilities to participate, and what Constitutes a Moral/Ethical objection to allowing the Govt. to, and I quote from the top of the article.
“[be provided by the govt.] 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.”
I continue to assert that this is not, as the article implies, an almost impossible moral/ethical decision. I am completely against having the govt. take over my responsibility to cover myself and my family in the matter of these things. Therefore, since I have an Option not to Participate… I will not Participate.
Mr. Wylie,
I must have missed something. What “law” are pastors subject to that requires them to pay SS? What about the Amish? What about American Indians? What about government workers who pay into TMRS? What about police/fire retirement plans? I am not sure I understand why someone who doesn’t take from the system has to pay for the system. I mean, I cannot even believe any person has to pay in against their will. That is socialism pure and simple. There certainly is no biblical requirement except to give to Caesar what is his. The gov does not require pastors to participate. It doesn’t require certain religious sects to participate, although I would argue someone can view this is the same light and be a Baptist. (I am a Baptist). Government workers and many in civil service jobs pay into another, separate retirement through TMRS (Tx Municipal Retirement System).
We have been so accustomed to the socialized America we have lived in that we do not know what it was truly like before Old Age Pension became Social Security.
I don’t gamble in the stock market. I don’t pay $8k/year for health insurance (I pay the tax and still come out ahead. Another socialized program many Baptists wouldn’t advocate for since it doesn’t benefit most of them).
I would argue that perhaps those most guilty of a moral failure here is one who believes it right to forcibly take from another for the good of the many. That is not biblical charity or a retirement plan build on biblical principles. I cannot support it and many other cannot as well.
I believe Ronald Reagan said it best. “Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don’t need it and hell where they already have it.”
Tiffany,
All I said above was that when I assessed the conscientious objection requirement for opting out, I did not meet the requirement. My conscience objected to me lying. I personally am so glad I did not opt out.
I’m getting a whiff of old-fashioned anti-government boilerplate. Maybe the subject for its own topic.
I am puzzled. What is anti-government about someone believing that some things are best left for the church?
I have served in my local government. I do not have a problem with government. I have a problem with how it has used its power to force participation in programs that are not essential, but that may be cause for concern for those who oppose them.
This is a slippery slope. One I believe many might agree should concern us all on the matter of conscience on paying for abortion services, the decision this week forcing pharmacists and pharmacies to fill prescriptions for drugs they consider abortifacients, paid for with taxpayer funds either through Medicaid or a state expansion of that program. Either people, I speak more specifically to Christians here, have an absolute right to act according to their conscience, or they are enslaved to the leader du jour.
Forced participation in a retirement, not essential to American life, has paved the way for loss of additional free to choose not to participate. Take Obamacare for example. Social Security and Medicare are the pre-Obamacare programs. The young and healthy pay for insurance they may not want or need or can afford in order to provide for those who need expensive services, but cannot or will not be able to afford them.
It seems clear to me now that having a different view is now something to be considered circumspect. I will now add 6) Anti-government to the list of things that must precipitate one believing that social security and similar programs are in opposition to the principles I am convicted by in the scriptures.
I should hope that if you should dare to disagree with someone and choose to present a differing opinion, the recipient would care to listen to your position and respect you; not lowering the conversation to speculations and name calling. Surely we have more common ground than not.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
? Socrates
Nate, most of your points are irrelevant and I am aware of the small proportion of citizens who aren’t under SS. If you opt out and eschew all government payments or assistance because you believe the church should do these things, you have my respect and admiration. If you opt out for your clergy income but take the payments for other income I remain unconvinced but recognize that many do this and have justified it for a number of reasons.
A number of people who have opted out have my respect because they acknowledge that they made a bad decision for the wrong reasons.
My counsel to those who have to make this decision is to listen to GS, RM and not to take the bait.
Well, it is convenient that you have the ability to delete posts (which this one will probably be as well), so that when others, as Rob did yesterday, chide you for actually not rebutting arguments, but merely dismissing them, you simply delete those so nobody else will catch on….
Since you obviously don’t want a serious interaction with opposing thoughts, I’m done…
No problem, Nate. Have a nice holiday.