Should Christian Organizations Use NDAs?
This article examines the use of non-disclosure agreements by churches, ministries, and Christian organizations. It weighs legal, ethical, and biblical concerns, especially when NDAs are used in cases involving abuse, misconduct, or whistleblowing.
- NDAs may protect privacy, but they can also silence victims and shield wrongdoers from accountability.
- The article raises biblical concerns about secrecy, truth-telling, counsel, marriage, repentance, and protecting the vulnerable.
- Christian organizations are urged to consider narrower, more compassionate confidentiality agreements when confidentiality is truly needed.
By Anne Bachle Fifer
Many Christian organizations in the U.S.—churches, ministries, parachurch organizations—have resolved disputes against them by requiring claimants to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). But NDAs have come under increased scrutiny. Are NDAs wise? Should Christian organizations be using NDAs?
An NDA is a confidentiality agreement in which parties mutually promise not to tell anyone about the dispute or its settlement. NDAs originated a few decades ago to protect trade secrets when an employee left a technology company. Now they’ve expanded into all kinds of employment separations and other legal settlements and may be used at the start of employment as well. Plaintiff employees agree to them because they don’t want a reputation as a troublemaker (whistleblower, accuser, etc.), while employers agree to them in order to protect valuable employees who may or may not be wrongdoers (sexual harasser, bully, racist, etc.).
The NDA is especially controversial in the realm of sexual abuse, both within and outside the church, in part because it frees wrongdoers to further offend. A famous example is Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who privately paid off each woman who accused him of sexual abuse in exchange for an NDA, then went on to abuse other women (“What Happens if Someone Breaks a Non-Disclosure Agreement?” Nicole Einbinder, PBS Frontline, March 2, 2018). In the church, the first public cases involved abuse of minors by Catholic priests. Families who sued the Catholic Church (before 2002) had to sign an NDA in order to receive any monetary settlement. In many cases, the offending priest was re-assigned to another parish where he abused other children. The victims’ families were constrained from complaining or warning anyone, because they had signed an NDA. (See, e.g., “N.J. Catholic dioceses[sic] releases priest sex abuse victims from agreements, says victims are free to talk,” Kelly Heyboer, NJ.com, Sept 18, 2018).
What NDAs Typically Restrict
NDAs can be very broad. They typically address:
- Who can be told? – NDAs may prohibit disclosure to family members (even a spouse), clergy, therapists, as well as former colleagues.
- What can be told? – NDAs may prohibit disclosure of anything about the other party (including information unrelated to the dispute). They may prohibit disclosure of the existence of an NDA.
- When it can be told – Some NDAs have no end date; they continue in perpetuity.
- Consequences of disclosure – They may have a penalty clause, requiring payment or forfeiture of settlement if the party breaches the NDA.
NDAs (and their close cousin, the non-disparagement clause) help settle lawsuits. In most cases, the plaintiff’s only remedy is money, and the defendant will not pay unless the plaintiff signs an NDA. Rather than publicly litigate the claimant’s allegations, the defendant, in effect, buys the claimant’s silence. Parties agree to this to avoid a public trial in which their credibility and lifestyle will be challenged and exposed.
Christian Ministries Use NDAs
According to Christianity Today (CT), NDAs have been used by prominent churches and organizations to protect leaders accused of spiritual, sexual, or other kinds of abuse, including Willow Creek, Mars Hill, Dave Ramsey Ministries, Cru, and Acts 29 (“NDAs Kept These Christians Silent. Now They’re Speaking Out Against Them,” Daniel Silliman, Christianity Today, July 7, 2021). CT reports that many churches and ministries have NDAs in their employee handbooks. The Southern Baptist Convention used them to resolve complaints of sexual abuse by Baptist pastors (Guidepost Solutions Independent Investigation Report, p. 119, fn 320, p. 183). An NDA featured prominently in the scandal caused by Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias; a woman he abused settled a lawsuit in 2017 with an NDA that prohibited her from warning other potential victims (“Ravi Zacharias Hid Hundreds of Pictures of Women, Abuse During Massages, and a Rape Allegation,” Daniel Silliman & Kate Shellnutt, Christianity Today, February 11, 2021). After Ravi died in 2020, his estate refused to release her from the NDA, preventing her from participating in the subsequent investigation into his widespread sexual abuse.
Concerns About NDAs
There is certainly a place for confidentiality in the church. Proverbs 17:9 notes that it is loving to “cover over an offense,” whereas “whoever repeats the matter separates close friends.” And gossip is roundly condemned in Scripture (Proverbs 16:28, Romans 1:29). But we are also exhorted to address sin (Matthew 18:15-17, Galatians 6:1, 1 Timothy 5:20). When a church or ministry is sued, it naturally rushes to protect the organization and to be skeptical, if not dismissive, of the complaint. But Christians, of all people, should be aware of our blind spots. Jesus warned us about neglecting the logs in our own eyes (Matthew 7:3). Are Christian defendants using NDAs to avoid self-examination? The case examples cited by CT above suggest they are. “Those who conceal their sins do not prosper” (Proverbs 28:13, New American Bible).
There’s something troubling about promising never to mention a person’s bad behavior in exchange for money. Paul warned Christians not to sue one another (1 Corinthians 6:1-7), and now we see another reason why: when victims of abuse sue their offender, or the offender’s organization, the lawsuit is settled, not by an admission of wrongdoing, but with a monetary payment in exchange for the victim’s silence. This leaves victims unsatisfied and offenders unrepentant—even un-confronted. This is not good for the church.
In fact, it’s questionable whether NDAs are legally enforceable. No one seems to know of a case where a court enforced an NDA in a settlement, beyond trade secrets and proprietary material. Not waiting for court decisions, several states (California, Illinois, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington) have passed statutes in the last couple years limiting or prohibiting NDAs in employment cases involving sex harassment and abuse (“Texas Considers Lifting NDAs for Some Abuse Survivors,” Rebecca Hopkins, Christianity Today, February 27, 2025).
NDAs also have the effect of compelling lying. An employee who is dismissed as a whistleblower and subsequently bound by an NDA is prohibited from telling potential employers the reason for leaving her previous employment. Either she gives the standard line, “I can’t talk about it”—words that are a red flag that she’s gagged by an NDA—or she says something untrue, so as not to violate the NDA. Similarly, an alleged perpetrator bound by an NDA must come up with a less-than-honest answer as to why they left their previous employment. If the NDA prohibits disclosing that there’s an NDA, the parties can’t even explain why they can’t talk about it. The NDA may also compel the former employer/ministry to obfuscate if a potential employer asks why the person left that position—even if the offender has now confessed and repented (“When Christian Ministries Ask Their Ex-Employees Not to Talk,” Morgan Lee, Christianity Today Podcast, November 6, 2019).
Biblical Questions Raised by NDAs
Specific provisions typical of NDAs could be unbiblical, such as those that prevent a party from:
- Discussing the matter with a counselor or therapist, contrary to Proverbs 11:14 and 15:22, which applaud consulting “a multitude of counselors.”
- Discussing the matter with one’s spouse, which controverts Matthew 19:5-6, because the “two become one” in marriage.
- Discussing the matter with a pastor or spiritual advisor, hindering the very role of the pastor, deacon, and overseer (see, e.g., 1 Timothy 4).
- Warning other potential victims, which is inconsistent with the command to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39).
- Ending the NDA when one party dies, as in the Ravi Zacharias case. Even that most sacred of covenants, marriage, terminates upon the death of one party (Romans 7:2-3).
Damage Done by NDAs
The NDA may block spiritual healing on both sides. The offender who isn’t held accountable forfeits the opportunity to repent, confess, and reform. And much has been written about abuse victims who suffered for years, mentally and spiritually, because the NDA prevented them from processing their feelings with anyone. One is Trey Carlock, one of the many child victims of sexual abuse at the notorious Kanakuk Kamps, who committed suicide when he was 29. According to CT reporter Rebecca Hopkins (“Texas” article, supra), Trey’s sister Elizabeth Phillips said “she believes he might still be alive if an NDA hadn’t condemned him to keep the horrible things that happened to him secret.”
Ban NDAs?
Because NDAs have been used to conceal abuse by pastors, missionaries, and other church leaders, there is an effort in the church to ban them altogether (“NDAs Kept These Christians Silent…,” Silliman, supra). Calling themselves “#NDAfree,” this movement invites Christian organizations and churches to pledge “to be free from NDAs” (www.ndafree.org/pledge). But, practically speaking, settling a case without an NDA would require some creative thinking by attorneys and insurance companies would have to alter their standard practice of insisting on an NDA in exchange for payment.
Another option would be for Christian parties simply to reduce the scope and extent of the NDA. Instead of blindly following the world’s example, Christians could take the lead in designing reasonable, caring provisions that strike a balance between maintaining needed confidentiality while respecting both parties.
Parties considering an NDA might ask themselves, “Whom are we trying to protect?” In the last few years, many ministries have rejected credible accusations of wrongdoing, protecting the perpetrator while humiliating or ignoring the victim. The Bible exhorts us to protect the fatherless, the widow, the poor—the powerless (Exodus 22:22, James 1:27). Use of an NDA should be consistent with that command to protect not just the wealthy and powerful, but the poor and weak.
At a minimum, a reasonable confidentiality agreement would:
- Permit the claimant to discuss the case with a spouse, therapist, pastor and other spiritual advisors, close friends, and family members.
- Allow both sides to admit the existence of the NDA as a reason why certain questions cannot be answered.
- Expire after a reasonable time, or at one party’s reasoned request.
- Include conditions that might terminate the NDA sooner, such as a party’s desire to make a public confession.
- Explain the purpose of the NDA. It should not be to entitle the claimant to a monetary payment, but rather for someone’s benefit (e.g., to give either party more time to be convicted by the Holy Spirit or to seek spiritual counsel).
A “reasonable” confidentiality agreement is also more likely to be legally enforceable. Drawing on principles to enforce non-compete agreements, courts are likely to approve reasonable restrictions on extent, content, and duration.
NDAs are not “bad” or “wrong,” but they are fraught with problems. Christians should be careful that they’re acting out of love, more than out of fear or self-protection, and design them to bless the parties and the wider church.
Author: Anne Bachle Fifer
Anne Bachle Fifer is a licensed attorney, mediator, arbitrator and peacemaker based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. A Certified Christian Conciliator, she is chair of the board of Peacemaker Ministries.
