Life.Church Responds to NDA Allegations — We Still Have Questions

A few months after we reported on America’s largest church and its alleged use of silencing NDAs, Life Church responded and offered further conversation about the practice. In this article, I’ll share their official response, outline my remaining concerns, and express hopes for how God might use this ongoing discussion.

Let’s start with their response to reported NDA use. You can read their full comments here.

It’s exceedingly rare to get a response from a church after reaching out. About as rare as me choosing brussels sprouts over Oreos. It was refreshing when we received a response from the largest church in the United States.

Their tone wasn’t combative. It was thankful, open, and honoring. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate that.

At the same time, I still have major concerns and questions. While I appreciate their comments, I feel obligated to challenge some aspects of their response, while remaining honest, hopeful, and honoring.

This article won’t bash Life.Church or offer blind praise. It will be more opinion-focused than usual, with necessary commentary. Let’s break down their response, holding the tension between love, hope, challenge, and honest criticism.

While their answer sounds good and I want it to be true, it raises some concerns.

They appear to have selectively quoted SAI’s definition of silencing NDAs, omitting key aspects—especially ways agreements can have a chilling effect on speech.

Life.Church acknowledges using severance agreements, which typically exchange severance pay for something in return. If the payment is truly a gift, no contract is needed. Contracts, by definition, involve mutual obligations.

So, what exactly is the severance payment in consideration for? While silence is rarely stated outright, provisions like confidentiality and non-disparagement are common and can have a chilling effect—particularly in church settings.

I cannot speak to Life.Church’s current agreements—only to the one we reviewed. Without seeing their current severance agreement, I cannot rule out silencing provisions. The document sent to SAI included multiple markers that would constitute a silencing NDA under our published definition.

This sounds really good. Unfortunately, it does not seem to match the document we reviewed. After multiple reviews, it was not clear that the consideration for severance only applied to false statements. Even if this were the case, state laws already protect against statements of defamation. So, it’s unclear why a separate legal agreement would be needed where existing laws already offer protections.

While confidentiality and proprietary clauses make sense in some agreements, what proprietary information does a church have?

There is only one Church—the body of Christ. Churches don’t compete, so proprietary trade secrets don’t make sense to me. Agreements should clearly define what information is confidential, leaving no room for confusion.

Life.Church emphasized “clarity” in their response, so I would expect it in their agreements. The document we reviewed lacked this clarity, raising important questions that led to our original article.

I appreciate Life.Church’s commitment to refining its agreements and practices. That’s admirable, but this line still raises concerns.

First, an agreement can meet legal standards, but still raise moral, spiritual, or practical concerns. It’s also possible for agreements to align with organizational values and still have a chilling effect on signers.

I wish they had mentioned refining documents to align with Biblical and Christian standards, which often surpass legal or organizational ones. Jesus often raised the standard for new-covenant Christians—on issues like adultery, divorce, and murder.

In the Church, Jesus raises our standards beyond legal and organizational alignment.

Here’s my question for Life.Church, do NDAs or documents that could be reasonably be understood to be NDAs align with the biblical standard of Jesus? When we ask that question, it’s difficult to look at NDAs the same way as we did before.

Intention does not erase impact. And the reality is that, based on our review, the document we received could be reasonably interpreted as restricting truthful speech.

If this wasn’t Life.Church’s intention, I encourage them to remove such language from current agreements and offer revised versions to former signers. That would resolve any confusion.

For church leaders to be above reproach, we must act when language—even from the past—could be interpreted as silencing. If Life.Church took this action, my respect would skyrocket, and their example could positively influence churches nationwide and worldwide.

This statement doesn’t match the NDA we reviewed. If it’s true of their current agreements, we would celebrate that. I’ve requested to review their current document and will share and celebrate it if it only protects against false statements.

But until we see evidence, we can’t speak to their current agreements.

I could not agree more. The good news is that all these pursuits can be accomplished without using any elements of a silencing NDA. The Church can provide clarity, protect employee freedoms, be transparent, and stay committed to lawful employment practices without using anything that even appears to be a silencing NDA.

Clarity and support are important, and churches should offer them to outgoing employees. However, it’s unclear why an NDA or separation agreement is needed for this, beyond documenting pay and benefits. All of this can be done without any aspect of a silencing NDA.

Great! Otherwise, given that churches don’t usually participate in unemployment insurance, a fired church employee could face homelessness and food insecurity for their family immediately after termination of employment.

It’s good for churches to do this, but should we celebrate the bare minimum? If a church doesn’t pay into unemployment or offer severance, that’s worse than secular employers and could be considered unacceptable for Christians.

This is good information to give. How an employee will separate (when their employment officially ends,) when benefits will stop, and what a person’s final pay will be all provide clarity. My concern arises with “and any other mutual understandings.”

This is incredibly vague.

Such “mutual understandings” could include non-disparagement provisions, lifetime terms, punitive clauses, threats of lawsuits, liquidated damages, confidentiality extended to family members, etc. A line like this doesn’t seem to embody the “clarity” that Life.Church continually spoke of in their response.

Also, these “understandings” aren’t always truly “mutual.” Of course, they are presented as mutual and voluntary in any good contract. However, can the terms of a contract truly be mutual when one party needs the severance money to support their family, put food on the table, and avoid losing their home?

I’ve heard stories like that too often, and in those cases, the contract rarely feels mutual or voluntary. It can feel like the only option for survival. And it often must be signed during time of extreme emotional turmoil.

Not only has the person been fired and lost their job, but they were fired by their “church family.” They likely feel rejected by their own body (the body of Christ.) It can almost feel like God fired you and rejected you.

They may be worried about supporting their family while job hunting—especially if their spouse is a stay-at-home parent. In such situations, it’s very difficult not to sign any severance agreement offered.

If this had been true of the document we reviewed, there would have been no need for an article. But this doesn’t adequately describe what we received.

The answer was yes, but the extended explanation seems to conflict with that.

The response focuses on “departing employees,” meaning staff aren’t aware of these documents until they’re presented to sign. Employees and parishioners should know about severance agreements before anyone is asked to sign one.

When my wife was presented with a church NDA, we didn’t sign because we had already decided against it. We prepared financially for that possibility. If we’d been blindsided by the existence of church NDAs, we probably would have signed—and regretted it.

What is a “reasonable amount of time?” Often it’s just 2–3 days. Is that really reasonable when a church employee is in emotional turmoil?

This raises an interesting question. How many church employees are in a financial position to pay an attorney hundreds of dollars an hour to discuss their document? How many church staffers have an attorney on retainer?

For those who don’t, is it realistic to find an attorney that quickly? It has sometimes taken me weeks to get an appointment. While it sounds good to offer legal consultation, it’s not always practical—adding to the concerns about this practice.

What does this “clarity” look like? Is a neutral attorney or arbitrator with legal expertise present? If not, how can the employee trust what the church is saying? For instance, what if a church said “clarifying things” like the statement Life.Church gave, but the reality of their document was more murky or potentially chilling upon expert legal review?

I’ve heard of just this happening. An employee takes a church’s word for it, only to find out years later that what they signed is much more akin to a gag order.

I’m not saying this happened at Life.Church, but could it reasonably happen without legal counsel? I think it’s possible, though I hope not.

Yes, the severance payment is generally given in consideration for getting something from the departing employee. That is standard practice. However, that doesn’t mean it can’t be problematic. Hence, our work to educate the public about NDAs in church settings.

Remember, a church is usually not legally required to provide unemployment benefits or severance. So, if they only provide what is legally required, then departing employees would be left with nothing but a final paycheck, and likely only a partial paycheck.

Maybe it’s just me, but a church talking about doing what is legally required feels like the lowest possible bar here.

This sounds good at first, but raises questions on closer inspection.

While the congregation doesn’t need every employment detail, there’s no good reason to keep NDAs and severance agreements hidden from them.

Trust is foundational to ministry. But when church members learn NDAs are used, it raises questions and erodes trust.

If a church uses agreements like this, proactively disclosing the practice would best engender trust. Life.Church claims transparency and stewardship—so wouldn’t the most transparent act be to share openly about these agreements, especially with the donors whose gifts fund them?

If members and donors discovered potentially silencing severance agreements, would they see these as aligned with church values, or would it create distrust?

I can’t answer that for them, but I believe proactive honesty and transparency about this practice would yield better results than people finding out about it in other ways.

This was refreshing to hear. Written separation agreements shouldn’t be hidden. A giga church like Life.Church openly sharing its practices is a pleasant surprise and a helpful example.

Beyond that, I appreciate their commitment to ongoing refinements, their openness to change, and the heart of this paragraph. However, I still see blind spots that need to be addressed.

While they claim that the use of written separation agreements isn’t hidden or secret, it’s also not transparent. Transparent means “see through.” However, being “open to sharing our practices with anyone who asks” is translucent at best.

Transparency means all the light passes through; translucence means only some does. Sharing details only with those who ask is still a form of obfuscation.

Most people don’t know what to ask about severance agreements or what qualifies as a silencing NDA, and few parishioners will ever think to ask.

So while I appreciate their willingness to share with those who ask, the practice will remain hidden to most people unless it’s shared transparently.

It’s good for any organization to be “committed to ensuring [their practices] are fair, lawful, and non-silencing.” But it’s also expected.

These are things expected out of secular businesses and non-profits, let alone the Church!

For the Church, a commitment to being fair, lawful, and non-silencing is such a low bar that its jolting. It’s like a church saying they are committed to being loving, honest, and Christ-like. That’s good to hear and all, but isn’t that the whole point?

Should we celebrate when churches do these simple things that Christians should do? NO! We don’t generally celebrate what is expected. My wife doesn’t celebrate me every day I don’t cheat on her. She expects my faithfulness, fidelity, and love. I don’t get brownie points for doing what is expected as a Christian husband. And neither should churches get props for doing what is expected of the Church. I’m glad Life Church is committed to these things, but it would only be surprising or newsworthy if they weren’t.

The most hopeful part of Life.Church’s response came in the final lines.

I believe this. I believe they mean it. And that makes my heart swell with hope! So, I want to close this article by sharing some of my hopes with you.

I hope Life.Church’s ongoing refinements have led to completely non-silencing severance agreements. While I can’t celebrate that until I see it, I choose to believe that day is coming—and when it does, I’ll celebrate publicly.

Not just because they don’t use silencing NDAs, but because they’re committed to learning, growth, and accountability. Such an example from one of the world’s largest churches would be powerful.

My greatest hope comes from their final line:

SAI raised our concerns, and I hope we did so lovingly. Life.Church thanked us for our thoughtful approach, so it’s good to know that came across.

It’s even better to hear they embrace accountability and are open to review, even when concerns are raised by outsiders like us.

That’s rare, but always life-giving.

For instance, similar conversations with Pastor Daniel Goulding and Echoes Church led them to completely revamp their severance agreements to avoid even the appearance of evil. Not only did I celebrate the heck out of that in episode 101 of the Church Disrupted Podcast, but now Echoes Church is our gold standard when it comes to the use of NDAs and helpful severance agreements.

I hope and pray for a similar outcome with Life.Church. If they follow through, it would send ripples throughout the American Church and make Kingdom waves globally—setting a new standard and showing the power of large churches willing to be transparent.

Most importantly, it could help restore trust in the church from a watching world.

I waited to write this follow-up article to try to set up a conversation with Life Church representatives about this issue and to discuss the safe church pledge. They seem open to continuing the conversation, and even though it hasn’t happened yet, I am hopeful it will soon.

Nothing would make me happier than real conversations like this leading to real change.

Some assume we’re anti-church. That couldn’t be further from the truth. We love the Church and want to see churches thrive.

I hate calling out churches, but I’ll do it when necessary. I’d much rather celebrate churches than discuss concerns.

Would you join me in praying for continued conversations with Life.Church? I believe these conversations put a smile on Jesus’s face—and that makes them worth it.