Do any mennonites use social security

[Jennifer]

Do mennonites or any anabaptist groups use or get social security income?

[Z_DC]

It depends on the group. My group, Keystone Mennonite Fellowship, allows this.

[Josh]

Do mennonites or any anabaptist groups use or get social security income?

Amongst liberal / progressive Mennonites and mainstream, evangelical Mennonites, yes, they almost always participate in Social Security.

Some conservative Anabaptists do and some don't. Generally speaking, the more conservative the group, the more likely it is some people will "opt out" of Social Security.

In an ultra-conservative group, it is likely Social Security will be outright taught against and members prohibited from participating. The Old Order Amish tend to be like this too.

For a seeker who comes in from the outside, I would expect things to be evaluated a bit differently on a case by case basis.

For a full list of groups the government considered eligible to be Social Security exempt several years ago, see this link:

https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/SSAGroups.xls

[Jennifer]

I tried opening that link but my phone won't open that file. I've heard of seekers being turned away from joining because they were receiving social security and could not give it up. I can't imagine what someone would live on if they had to give it up. Why do some groups have a problem with it? I understand Amish not wanting it but why some mennonite groups. Is there something biblical that calls them away from taking it? It would be awfully difficult for a senior to give it up. And how would they get by without it if they have no family and lots of medical expenses?

[Valerie]

I tried opening that link but my phone won't open that file. I've heard of seekers being turned away from joining because they were receiving social security and could not give it up. I can't imagine what someone would live on if they had to give it up. Why do some groups have a problem with it? I understand Amish not wanting it but why some mennonite groups. Is there something biblical that calls them away from taking it? It would be awfully difficult for a senior to give it up. And how would they get by without it if they have no family and lots of medical expenses?

I do know of Old Order Amish who receive social security-
I believe the reason for rejecting it was dependence on government for help instead of Christian community but the reality is, it is something YOU pay into, and receive back from. But it seems for Anabaptists, the focus on taking care of one another over the government taking care of you plays into this.

I know of a 60 year old divorcee who joined an OO Amish community in Maine and they are taking care of her but she also contributes in her way too- she would be in her later 60's now, probably doesn't need the social security in her situation among the Amish she joined (she had been an outsider who lived in an apartment in Boston!)

As with many other things, it all depends on the Church/community/conference that you are interested in joining from what I am told.

[ken_sylvania]

I tried opening that link but my phone won't open that file. I've heard of seekers being turned away from joining because they were receiving social security and could not give it up. I can't imagine what someone would live on if they had to give it up. Why do some groups have a problem with it? I understand Amish not wanting it but why some mennonite groups. Is there something biblical that calls them away from taking it? It would be awfully difficult for a senior to give it up. And how would they get by without it if they have no family and lots of medical expenses?

A person who wishes to be exempt from social security signs the following statement:
" I am conscientiously opposed to accepting benefits of any private or public insurance that makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement; or makes payments for the cost of medical care; or provides services for medical care. Public insurance includes any insurance system established by the Social Security Act."

Some of the objections include:
1) Participating in such an insurance program would be considered by some to be a form of "being unequally yoked together with unbelievers." (2 Corinthians 6:14)
2) Encourages members to rely on the government rather than on the brotherhood. The biblical model of taking care of elderly persons is for close relatives to provide if they are able, and if close relatives are unable (or do not exist) then the church should assist.
3) Insurance in general can feed a self-sufficient attitude, where I have less need for the brotherhood because I'm protected. If I have a fire, insurance can take care of it, I don't need the church to have a clean-up day and a barn raising bee for me. If I have a major illness, medical insurance can pay the bills and disability insurance can provide me an income. I don't need help from my church brethren and sisters.
4) Life insurance, and perhaps to some degree other types of health and disability insurance, is seen as trafficking in human life.

Some people console themselves by saying they are just getting back out what they put into the system all the years they were working. I say that's a very shaky argument. I've never heard of a one of them keeping track of exactly how much money they put into the system, and how much money the system is spending on them. Would they really cancel receiving their benefits once they've taken out as much as they put in? I've never heard of anyone doing that.

In groups whose members do not accept SS or Medicare, elderly members continue to work as they are physically able. People are taught to plan ahead for old age and often have savings that they can draw on. If an elderly parent needs more care and can no longer live alone, he/she might move in to a small apartment attached to the residence of one of their children. If this is a group that objects to all medical insurance, it would be typical for free-will offerings to be raised regularly to assist with the financial needs of members (distribution overseen by deacons). In general the model is that those who have more than they need give freely to assist those who need more than they have, and that all who are able will do what work they can.

[Hats Off]

I would agree with Valerie and Josh; it depends on the group. Usually the more conservative or old order groups will avoid government funding, either by choice or by group consensus.

How do the JW deal with social security, Jennifer? In Canada a family of 10 children would receive over $75,000 in child Tax Benefit.

[Jennifer]

How about the church of God in Christ Mennonites? Do they accept those who get social security benefits? I've read they aren't considered true Mennonites? Would you know what their views are on social security? And do they function the same way as other mennonite groups? Are they fairly liberal?

[Soloist]

How about the church of God in Christ Mennonites? Do they accept those who get social security benefits? I've read they aren't considered true Mennonites? Would you know what their views are on social security? And do they function the same way as other mennonite groups? Are they fairly liberal?

Josh would be the better one to answer, my personal opinion is they are more conservative in ways but less in others then a conservative western fellowship which would put them right below ultra conservative in my mind.
I'm not sure on the social security/insurance but I personally would feel like accepting some "insurance" like Medicare or social security but not normal insurance or welfare is inconsistent at best. That being said, you need to accept there isn't a perfect church and the one that may hold a position you like would likely have something you don't like.

I find the argument you pay into it to be a little lacking as well, but that would be closer to my church position.

[ken_sylvania]

It would probably also be fair to note that there are a certain number of people whose "conscientious opposition to Social Security" rests more in an opposition to paying the premiums that in an opposition to receiving the benefits.

I had a rather interesting discussion regarding this with a certain individual. Because he worked for a non-exempt employer, he had to contribute to the Social Security fund. He was considering revoking his exemption so that he would be eligible for benefits should he need them (after all, why waste all that money paying in). His concern was that if he revokes his exemption he would never again be eligible for the exemption, even if he were to start working for a Social Security exempt employer.
I told him that if that is his mindset, he really ought to revoke his exemption. I said he is only opposed to paying the premiums, not to receiving the benefits (the exemption requires a person to certify that they are conscientiously opposed to receiving the benefits.)
His reply went something like this. (a) A person cannot receive the benefits unless they pay in the premiums. (b) Paying the premiums (if one has the option to avoid them) is not good stewardship, because there are better, more worthwhile investments. (c) Therefore, receiving the benefits is the result of poor stewardship and therefore a violation of his conscience.
This argument very conveniently leaves room for receiving the benefits if one is forced to pay the premiums; in fact, it basically makes it a violation of conscience not to receive the benefits if one has paid the premiums already.
I can't speak to how widespread this attitude is, but it does exist.