Download A Pastoral Letter to Candidates Regarding Social

A Pastoral Letter to Candidates
Regarding [Participation in] Social Security
Note: This document is from the minutes of the 198th General Assembly (1986),
Minutes, 1986, P. 674 ff. This version has been edited slightly for readability
only.
Over the past few years, growing numbers of candidates have chosen not to enroll in the Social Security program
following ordination. A Presbyterian Panel survey conducted in 1982 revealed that 21% of the pastors 34 years old
or younger, and 14% of those 35 to 44 years of age, elected not to participate in Social Security. This fact has raised
concerns in the church because of long-held ideas about social responsibility among clergy. Members of the Board
of Pensions, the Vocation Agency, the Board of Annuities and Relief, and the Division of Partnership Services have
also been concerned, since the denominational benefits plan is based on the assumption that ministers will
participate in Social Security. Without Social Security, benefits for spouse, as well as disability and retirement
benefits are considered inadequate.
At the time of ordination, candidates for the ministry are required to make an irrevocable decision regarding Social
Security. The purpose of this letter is to provide necessary information and a theological basis for candidates as they
make that decision. The letter presents a brief history of the Social Security program as it relates to ministers, a
summary of denominational actions regarding Social Security, theological considerations supporting participation in
Social Security, and an analysis of the implications of not participating in the program.
Social Security and Ministers
Social Security was not available to pastors until 1955 when an amendment to the Social Security Act permitted
ministers to waive their automatic exemption. Later the act was again amended and, since January 1, 1968, every
minister is automatically covered unless an application for exemption is filed.1 The only legal reason for claiming an
exemption is conscience:
“(e) Ministers, Members of Religious Order and Christian Science Practitioners
Exemption - Any individual who is (A) a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church or a
member of a religious order (other than a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of poverty as a
member of such order) or (B) a Christian Science practitioner, upon filing an application (in such form and
manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations made under this chapter) together with a
statement that either he is conscientiously opposed to or because of religious principles he is opposed to the
acceptance (with respect to services performed by him as such minister, member, or practitioner) of any
public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement or makes
payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance
system established by the Social Security Act), shall receive an exception from the tax imposed by this chapter
with respect to services performed by him as such minister, member or practitioner. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, an exemption may not be granted to an individual under this subsection if he had filed an
1
The exemption application must be filed by the due date for filing an income tax form for the second year in
which income exceeded $400 for service as a minister. (Persons already ordained in 1968 had until April 15, 1970,
to file this exemption.)
effective waiver certificate under this section as it was in effect before its amendment in 1967.” (Section
1402e Internal Revenue Code)
Denomination Actions Regarding Social Security
The denominational stance of social reality and responsibility rooted in Reformed faith has favored participation by
clergy and others in the Social Security program. Even before the 1955 amendment opened the plan to clergy, the
165th General Assembly (1953) of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America heard an overture from
the Presbytery of Rochester “On the Inclusion of Ministers in the Plan of Social Security.” That overture claimed
the exclusion of “ministers engaged in full time parish ministry” was discriminatory when other ordained ministers
serving seminaries or church agencies were included in Social Security. The 166th General Assembly (1954) took
action:
“That if Congress amends the Social Security law so that ministers may participate on a voluntary basis, all
churches and church organizations be urged to participate in Social Security with their ministers and that,
wherever possible, such participation be in addition to full participation in the service Pension Plan, thus
assuring more adequate pensions for ministers in the future.” (Minutes, UPCUSA, 1954, Part I, p. 130.)
Again, in 1966, the 178th General Assembly (UPCUSA) initiated a study of Social Security coverage for ministers.
The next year that study committee reported:
“That the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, acting only in concert with other
major denominations, should call for the enactment of Federal legislation which would bring all ministers
under coverage of the Social Security Act with ministers having conscientious scruples against original
coverage being given the option to decline coverage...” (Minutes, UPCUSA, 1967, Part I, p. A822b.)
The next year just such legislation was enacted.
Since then, UPC General Assemblies have repeatedly concurred with statements made annually by standing
committees on pension matters urging ministers and presbyteries to participate in Social Security and noting the
illegality of opposition which is based on personal, political or economic concerns rather than conscience.
In the Presbyterian Church in the United States, the General Assembly in 1963 approved the following
recommendation:
“That the Assembly encourage the Presbyteries to urge vigorously all ministers to avail themselves of Social
Security benefits as self-employed persons.” (Minutes, PCUSA, 1963, Part 1, p. 58.)
This same action was repeated by successive Assemblies. In addition, a 1978 Assembly action related to Ministerial
Relief Administration Policy made participation in Social Security by ministers a requirement for eligibility for free
Medicare Supplemental Benefits.
Thus, Presbyterian clergy must rely solely on personal grounds of conscience when applying for exemption from
participation in Social Security. There is no possible claim for support from denominational standards, since
confessional teaching and General Assembly policy urge such participation, explicitly or implicitly.
Theological Considerations
Rooted deep in the doctrines of grace and covenant is the concept of social responsibility which underlies the
participation of Presbyterians in programs such as Social Security. The ancient Hebrews understood their wellbeing
as desert wanderers to be tied to their willingness to receive strangers into their tents, to wash their sandy feet and
offer them food and rest. Desert hospitality, vital to nomadic people, provided a basis for community. The ancients
also understood the extended family as a basic unit for which everyone shared responsibility. Care of the fatherless,
the widow, the poor, the sick, and the aged was everybody’s concern. Many provisions of the Deuteronomic Code
helped people live in community in ways that allowed everyone a measure of dignity, even when they had special
needs. The system of the tithe made it possible for the priests and the poor to live without begging, even though they
had no land of their own.
These elements of mandated community were based on more than sociological need. From early times, the Hebrews
confessed a God by whose grace they lived in covenant. “I will be your God,” said Yahweh, “and you shall be my
people.” The old suzerain treaties provided a pattern for understanding how God provided protection in return for
service and loyalty. This was a covenant with the community, made first with a patriarch but always with national
implications. The clear understanding was that if God was caring for the people, they must care for each other. That
was part of the covenant.
Reformed theology, beginning as it does with a sovereign God, has usually seen this God as acting graciously
toward the people. John Calvin taught that the God he knew was both sovereign and caring, a loving Lord. The
Reformer would have been distressed by later efforts to emphasize sovereignty but to make love conditional upon
human response. God’s covenant had no such condition. Grace went beyond the old secular model of the lords; it
went to unmerited atonement. The covenant was one-sided, lodged in the sovereignty of God and in the Sovereign’s
willingness to overlook the failure of the “party of the second part.”
The church has consistently confessed that our sinful nature cannot be overcome by any action of our own, but only
by an unmerited, gracious, divine, saving act. The children of God are protected when they need it most – when
they threaten to destroy themselves by their disloyalty and failure to be servants. In Jesus and in the presbyters of
the early church, the model for Christian ministry is the suffering servant. Jesus lived and died as “one of us,”
sharing our joys and sorrows, claiming no divine or earthly privileges. When his people feasted, Jesus feasted; when
they went hungry, he went hungry. Jesus’ lifestyle appears simple, but he made no public display of doing without.
Nor did Jesus condemn the wealthy as such. Instead, he criticized the clerical privilege invoked by the scribes, who
liked “to go about in long robes, and to have salutations in the market places. . .” but who “devour widows’ houses”
(cf. Mark 12:38-40 RSV). Like Jesus, Paul emphasized the role of the servant for himself and for the church in the
community:
“If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the
body of Christ and individually members of it.” (I Cor. 12:26-27 RSV.)
One learns from both Jesus and Paul that the servant identifies with the people being served; this solidarity with the
people has become a standard against which ministers measure their ministries. Many expect to live lives that
include the same limitations faced by most of their parishioners. Consequently, even though clergy are legally free
to choose against participation in Social Security, it is important to ask what this would mean for one’s ministry
with persons who do not have this choice, persons whose future security depends on the maximum of participation
by everyone in the society. For instance, what would be the effect of a Social Security failure or cutback that
brought hardship on parishioners but not on privileged clergy?
Next, a candidate must consider how inclusive the community is; how far the grace of God extends. Some religious
communions restrict their responsibility to “their own.” These groups tend to think it is their obligation to provide
totally for their clergy; some go so far as to restrict clergy participation in Social Security as a violation of
separation of church and state. In these churches ministers can exclude themselves on grounds of conscience based
on a denominational stance. The Reformed tradition, however, has moved in the opposite direction. Though
Presbyterians agree that their ministers should participate in Social Security and indeed urge them to do so, they
have nevertheless characteristically shied away from the use of the state’s power to compel such participation – the
decision must finally rest with the minister.
The Reformed tradition, since Calvin, has looked to the state to provide for the aged and infirm. Calvin established
The Hospital which was more than a medical system; it was a total welfare program through which Geneva
administered aid to needy persons including its “retired.” Presbyterians have tended to view Paul’s and Peter’s
expanding of the Jewish Christian community to include Gentiles, and Jesus’ reaching out to the Samaritan woman
as scriptural indications that the community of concern includes those beyond the sanctuary walls. In concert with
this inclusiveness, Presbyterians have also understood the wider community as responsible together, for the welfare
of all the people citizens and refugees, disabled and elderly and fatherless. The Confession of 1967 puts it this way:
“God has created the peoples of the earth to be one universal family. In his reconciling love he overcomes the
barriers between brothers (and sisters) and breaks down every form of discrimination based on racial or ethnic
differences, real or imaginary. The church is called … to receive and uphold one another as persons in all
relationships of life: in employment, housing, education, leisure, marriage, family, church, and the exercise of
political rights.” (Book of Confessions 9.44.)
The perceived flaws in the Social Security Act - its apparent discrimination against married women, for instance may cause some candidates to reject the system out of conscience. Such rejection would find support in
denominational positions but so would another approach: participation in the system while using the political means
to right its wrongs. The Reformed tradition has often stressed the duty of citizens to abide by the state’s rules and to
use the state’s programs while reforming them. The Westminster Confession of Faith includes this paragraph:
“And because the powers which God hath ordained … are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to
uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power
… whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.” (Book of Confessions 6.111.)
In other words, the Christian should participate in the state, even the imperfect state, unless the tyranny cannot be
overcome peaceably from within. John Calvin understood the state to have a responsibility not to enhance its own
good, but to enhance the good of those being governed. Consequently, the Reformed tradition has counseled
obedience to a government that provides for the people. Calvin never cared much what kind of government a nation
had as long as those governing were benevolent. In a representative democracy, that responsibility falls, in part, on
those chosen to govern, and, in part, on all the people. Those who govern determine the method whereby the
community meets its obligations, but everyone has the responsibility to participate in that method according to their
ability and conscience. For Presbyterians in the United States, this includes participation in the Social Security
system, a major method of caring for the needs of people in our God-given community.
Inasmuch as Social Security is, in large part, a method for caring for the elderly, the commandment to honor father
and mother may also be seen as a theological basis for participation in the system. This is especially true because, in
community, the responsibility is not just for one’s self but for one’s parents and, even more, for all older persons.
Social Security is not just personal insurance, but an “intergenerational transfer system” in which the dignity of the
aged is maintained. In such an attitude we demonstrate community as the Hebrews understood it and the Reformers
preached it.
Economic Implications
Economic factors are not a legal basis for claiming exemption from the Social Security System. The choice not to
participate for sake of conscience, however, will have significant economic implications. Current studies indicate
that nonparticipation by Presbyterian ministers may have an adverse effect on them economically.
Social Security is a social insurance program that represents an organized effort by our society to provide insurance
against the loss of earned income due to old age, death, disability, and medical expenses incurred by those generally
eligible for the cash benefits. As a “social’’ insurance program, Social Security has certain characteristics: It is
almost universally compulsory (with the notable exception of ministers); uniform in benefit structure; and has a tax
structure that does not recognize individual risk factors such as age, health condition, dependents, sex, etc. As such,
Social Security has a benefit structure that is difficult to duplicate in annuity contracts, such as the indexing of
benefits for inflation and the range of dependents’ benefits.
Recent projections of the flows of revenue into and benefit payments out of the Social Security system, indicate that
the income maintenance component of the system will remain comfortably solvent for at least the next 75 years.
This conclusion was reached without having to assume changes in the taxing or benefit provisions of existing Social
Security statutes. Thus, the fear by many young church workers that the Social Security system, as we know it, will
not survive to their retirement years appears to be unfounded. Periodic minor adjustments in taxes and benefits to
keep the program in actuarial balance should not be interpreted as implying that the system is not economically
viable.
The benefit and tax structure of Social Security are intended to represent a reasonable balance between social
adequacy and individual equity. Necessarily, therefore, different generational cohorts and differing groups – within
cohorts will fare differently in the existing system. By and large, the purely economic payoff of “investing” in
Social Security now will continue to be higher for workers with lower incomes and lower for those with higher
incomes. The group with the least satisfactory return on their “investment” will be single white males. They tend to
live shorter lives; their unmarried status means they have no dependents to receive benefits; and they tend to earn
higher incomes in working years and, therefore, pay more payroll taxes. Moreover, some argue that the structure of
spousal benefits discriminates against married women. For the population as a whole, however, the system is fair
overall, and some of the existing discriminatory features can be eliminated by legislation. The Social Security
Administration is exploring legislation that treats married, working women more equitably.
When compared to the alternative of private annuity contracts, the Social Security system has several advantages,
which can be realized only in a social insurance program of national scope. First, administrative costs of private
coverage are generally much higher than for Social Security, for which the cost averages only 2 % of income. In
Social Security there are no costs for advertising, marketing, and administering tests for eligibility.
Private insurers must necessarily spread their fixed administrative costs over a much smaller group of annuitants
than does the Social Security Administration. Second, few private coverages index benefit payments for inflation.
Those that do, place severe limitations on the extent of indexing. Social Security benefits, however, are fully
indexed. Third, the capacity to pay benefits for private coverage is dependent on the economic viability of policy
providers over an indefinite period. Obviously, there are longer term economic risks in such plans. Social Security,
on the other hand, depends only on the maintenance of the social contract to allocate a sufficient portion of the
current Gross National Product to pay current benefits. Presently, this is accomplished by the payroll tax.
Finally, choosing not to participate in the Social Security system means giving up eligibility for old age, disability,
and survivor benefits. While under present regulations Medicare benefits are available to nonparticipants, they must
be purchased on an individual basis, which involves the payment of an expensive premium.
Conclusion
Reformed theology, with its emphasis on social responsibility as a response to a sovereign, loving God; our
Judeo-Christian understanding of and commitment to community; our denominational stance in favor of
participation; and economic implications, all strongly support participation in the Social Security program. A
candidate’s decision to request exemption from Social Security has far-reaching implications and long-term
consequences. Therefore, before making such a request, a candidate is under obligation to seek advice and counsel
from the candidates committee of the presbytery of care.