Social Security: To Opt Out or Not to Opt Out?

On the internet over the past few years, Christian leaders have taken time to voice their opinion about IRS form 4361 (Russell Moore, Gospel Coalition via Justin Taylor, Matt Wittmer and Dave Ramsey have all spoken on the matter). For those unfamiliar, form 4361 is the form that a minister may sign within his first two years of ministry to opt out of Social Security.[1] In order to opt out the minster must sign the form certifying that he is:

… conscientiously opposed to, or because of my religious principles I am opposed to, the acceptance (for service I perform as a minister, member of a religious order not under a vow of poverty, or 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…-IRS form 4361

While I am not a minster, I have read and closely followed the argument on both sides. And I think it is time that something is written in favor of opting out on religious grounds. Before enumerating a couple of reasons, I believe a few comments are in order about my presuppositions and some of the opinion pieces that have been written before me:

1. I am in no way attempting to make my case based on economic reasons. Dave Ramsey’s argument that it would be better for you to do so because it will boost your personal finances falls flat because the IRS has specifically stated that this cannot be a reason. Thus, not only will I not take this line of reasoning, but the record should show that I repudiate Ramsey’s argument as unethical (even if it would be better stewardship). It doesn’t seem like a great idea to sell your character down the river in order to be a better steward.

2. I also find Moore’s analysis to be extremely shortsighted and lacking. Moore states that the conscientious objector clause is for those ministers who, “believe that public insurance is sinful.” Moore has pressed conscientious objection far beyond even the IRS’ own definition by doing this.

There are countless things that we do a daily basis which we are conscientiously opposed to but do not view as sinful. Some of my readers probably believe the United States has too many welfare benefits and are opposed to this but they aren’t ready to say it’s sinful if they don’t resist taxation with all their might. Conversely, I suspect that that some of my readers believe corporate profits are way too high. They are conscientiously opposed to sky-high profit margins but it doesn’t keep them from buying goods from various corporations.

Moore is pressing far too hard here and for that reason I reject his reasoning as well.

3. I assume that passages about rendering to Caesar do not have much weight in this conversation. In this situation, Caesar himself[2] has provided an opt out provision in which his subjects may willfully choose to no longer render certain taxes. As such, it is an entirely different situation then say, the income tax.

4. I admonish my readers not to sign form 4361 if they have not fully thought through and agreed with any of my reasons below. I recognize the danger in writing this article. Many young ministers could read this and simply refer back to my writing as their justification for opting out without embracing the ideas in their entirety or being able to articulate them.

Now here are at least two reasons that I believe a minister is justified in opting out of social security on religious grounds.[3]

1. The collection and payment of public insurance is not a God ordained function of the state. To avoid any misunderstanding let me state that this is not motivated by politics or the desire to make a political statement. Politics are only a necessary derivation of a theological construct that we see for the secular state in the Bible. And thus, this objection is based in what I believe God has ordained for a proper functioning of the secular state after the ascension of Christ.

As I have written about in the past, it is best to view our present situation in a two-kingdom type of construction. In a post about this topic I wrote nearly two years ago:

The two-kingdom model sees two spheres in which people must operate. First is that which Calvin labeled “the civil sphere,” which includes the state and other institutions where believers and non-believers alike find themselves having to work together toward a common end.  Second is the “religious sphere,” in which only those who are called by God’s grace are working toward a common end. Christ rules both spheres but he rules them in different capacities. In the civil sphere, Christ rules as the sovereign providential sustainer. In the religious sphere, Christ rules in the same capacity but, additionally, rules as Redeemer.

The idea of occupying a common sphere with non-believers stems from the covenant God makes with Noah in Genesis chapter nine. Indeed, God tells Noah that this covenant is between every living creature and himself as an almighty God (Genesis 9:10, 12, 15 and 16). This covenant deals with temporal non-redemptive realities. Among the vital components of the Noahic covenant is the capital punishment clause (v. 6), the command to procreate (v. 7) the promise to never again destroy all flesh with a flood (v.15).

Not only are there two spheres, but these spheres are ruled by different laws though they both emanate from God. The civil sphere is ruled by natural law whereas the Bible rules the religious sphere. Different laws for different spheres. Natural law is that law which issues from God and resides in the hearts of all men (Romans 2:14-15). Indeed, all men are captive to it (Genesis 20:9).

There is nothing in natural law that suggests that the government should be in the business of helping its citizens to save for retirement or redistributing wealth.[4] In fact, natural law is almost entirely related to protecting private property, not taking it. Since natural law is to be that which guides mankind in the civil sphere, this excludes public insurance as a valid function of government.

And as such, a minister may sign form 4361 in very good conscience.

I recognize that those who do not agree with my theological construct will not be able to sign the form in good conscience. This objection fits a very narrow window of people who hold to certain theological beliefs about the two kingdoms (and perhaps even a narrow subset within that). It only applies to those who subscribe to an anarcho-capitalist/austro-libertarian politic that is based in a certain theological construct.

The next reason, will fit a much wider swath of people.

2. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and no Christian should willingly participate in such criminal activity. Not only do I believe this line of reasoning provides sound ground for those opting out, I believe that if this is in fact true (which it is) that every minister should opt out for the sake of conscience.

Some will undoubtedly roll their eyes at seeing this point. There he goes, the hard right-winger shows his true feathers with this point. Frankly I’m not very interested in politics. I have only voted in one election of the three in which I have been eligible and in the one election I voted in (2012), I did not vote for Obama or Romney. I am not interested in the political side of things. I am interested in the ethics of the financial plumbing in Social Security. This means that consulting political talking points is unnecessary. Either the plumbing creates a Ponzi scheme or it doesn’t. If it does you opt out. If not, you stay in.

Or perhaps you think I am cranking up some conspiracy theory. But let’s be perfectly clear about this, calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme is nothing new. There are articles about its Ponziness that comes from all corners of the political spectrum (here, here and here). Even PBS has an article about it! PBS! PBS calls the Ponzi, “an ongoing moral outrage!”

So let’s clarify. What is a Ponzi scheme? A Ponzi scheme is when an entity pays out promised returns to old investors with new money being poured into the “investment,” by newer investors. In others words, no investment is ever made. The people who paid in first are getting paid by those paying in later. The operator tells the investor’s that their money will be invested but it never is. It is just taken and given to another person.

In Social Security’s case, those receiving “benefits” now are simply getting new monies from the younger generation of workers. There is absolutely no investment of the monies being paid in by workers today.

Ponzi schemes are illegal. More then that, they are immoral. And just because the government has mandated that you pay into one does not make it moral for you to do so.

It actually remains quite immoral, despite the government mandate. On very religious grounds.

And as such, a minister may sign form 4361 in good conscience.

Conclusion

While there has been much chatter over the years about whether a minister may sign form 4361 with religious objections, it is good to consider all angles of the prism from which this problem may be approached. I have attempted to evaluate this issue from a few angles that I believe are lacking in the current conversation and I fully acknowledge that other aspects of this prism need to be considered as others contribute to the conversation.

No single one of us should expect to resolve this issue alone. Rather it is best to address this issue in the fellowship of believers as we interact with the Word together.

Even as I believe there are valid grounds for opting out such as subscribing to the two-kingdom framework or viewing Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, I anxiously await other believers participation in the advancing dialogue.

_________________________________________________________________

[1] It is technically opting out of more than Social Security but this is how it is phrased in common conversation. For all the details, refer to the IRS form and other IRS guidelines. Additionally, I am not a tax attorney and nothing in this article should be construed as tax advice or anything materially related to tax advice. Contact your tax accountant or attorney for any question on these matters.

[2] Although I have no intention of addressing this in the present article, I do think it is worth debating who Caesar really is in our Constitutional government. Is it our duly elected officials or is it the Constitution or is it God or is it something else? There has been far too much acceptance of positive law theory in protestant circles and I think it is time that we reconsider this position. Positive law is not a historically protestant (or Christian for that matter) idea. This situation needs to be evaluated in order for us to think more clearly about our ethical obligation to various laws and taxing authorities.

[3] I believe that there could very well be other reasons. One of those reasons could be for financial concern for one’s family. Moore seems to exclude any possibility of opting out for financial reasons. He is right to do so because the IRS form says this is not a valid reason but we should at least leave the door open to some of our brothers in Christ who genuinely can’t care for their family on their existing salary if they are forced to pay SECA. To be clear, I doubt there are many out there like this but especially in poor rural or urban areas we should at least leave room for this possibility. It begs the question: If the government taxed its people at 90% and a pastor had no food for his family, would he still then be obligated to “render to Caesar,” or does he have a higher obligation to feed his family? This is a fair question and should be considered when discussing this question. I have however, left it out of this essay because the scope of this essay is limited to reasons that the IRS deems acceptable, not reasons where a Christian may be forced to disobey the government for higher purposes.

[4] I have brought up the issue of wealth redistribution because Social Security is not really a trust fund as it is proclaimed to be. I will address this issue next.