Skip to main content

When a minister and a church decide to separate from one another, they often use a separation agreement to name and commit to key details of the separation. They often build the agreement using a separation agreement template, provided by the denomination. That template went through a number of key changes at Synod 2022 and again at Synod 2024.

Curious about the changes? Here's what you need to know: 

1. Refined guidance on who actually brings to the classis a request for an Article 17 release. The introduction now includes the indication that, in all cases, it is the council that formally presents to the classis the request for separation that is contained in the separation agreement, whether on behalf of itself or the minister or both. The guidance also includes a number of suggestions for addressing disagreements between the council and the minister on the terms of the agreement.

2. Additional resources: The document now includes information regarding the work of negotiating a separation agreement and regarding severance, one of the most common areas of contention in such negotiations. 

3. Suggestions for naming why the separation is taking place: In the first provision of the template, called “Termination”, there is guidance on what might be conveyed by the council to the classis regarding the reasons behind the request for separation. This is an important way for the council to indicate if the separation request is not related to conflict.

4. More clarity on what is, and is not, covered by the agreement to confidentiality. A change to article 5 of the template, which deals with confidentiality, narrows the confidentiality requirement so that, for both minister and church, it covers only the terms of the separation agreement rather than all of the circumstances and discussions that led up to the separation. This change permits parties to share pertinent and helpful information without disclosing the specific terms of separation that have been agreed upon. It also frees both the church leadership and the minister to be open about whatever mistreatment, misconduct, and abuse may have led to the separation, without worrying about violating the separation agreement.  

  • New article 5: Minister agrees to maintain the confidentiality of the terms of this agreement and of the non-public matters of Church that came to his/her attention during the course of his/her ministerial service. Church, through its Council, agrees not to disclose the terms of this Agreement.
  • Old article 5: Minister agrees to maintain the confidentiality of this agreement and of the non-public matters of Church that came to his/her attention by virtue of his/her ministerial service. Church, through its Council, agrees not to disclose the terms of this Agreement.

5. More clarity on what churches and ministers can say about one another publicly. 

Article 6 of the original template was entitled “Non-Disparagement”, and required that the minister and the church not make disparaging comments about one another. Makes sense, right? The problem was that this provision had the effect of closing down a lot of public communication that could have actually been helpful. Councils in particular were afraid to speak clearly with their congregations about why they were separating from their ministers for fear of exposing themselves to legal action. They wondered, “Could this or that statement about the minister violate the non-disparagement requirement?” That ambiguity forced councils to remain silent. For similar reasons, when councils were sorting through situations of pastoral misconduct, they were afraid to speak openly with those who were investigating allegations against the minister (or former ministers). Again, they were concerned that anything they said might qualify as disparagement.

In addition, those who had experienced mistreatment by churches or ministries felt silenced by this provision, unable to expose the harm that had been done to them and the need for institutional reform out of fear that they might violate the non-disparagement clause. For some ministers, in being asked to sign such an agreement, it felt like their silence was being bought.

The new article 6, entitled “Public Communications”, narrows the prohibition against all disparaging disclosures, and now focuses only on false disclosures. This change allows councils to speak truthfully and forthrightly with, for example, their congregations about the reasons for the releases of their ministers. It certainly can reduce the amount of fear that councils can experience in such situations. It also allows ministers to speak truthfully and forthrightly to others who might wonder about the circumstances of their leaving.

  • New article 6: Public Communications: Minister agrees not to make, or encourage others to make, false statements about a church, classis, or the CRCNA. The church, through its council, agrees not to make, or encourage others to make, false statements about the minister.
  • Old article 6: Non-Disparagement: Minister agrees not to make disparaging comments about a church, classis, or the CRCNA. The church, through its council, agrees not to make disparaging comments about the minister. 

Of course, this change comes with a tradeoff. The proposed revision might permit public disclosures that, while thought by ministers or councils to be true, may actually be false. After all, sometimes understandings of what is “true” and “false” can vary from person to person. However, the benefit that is gained by this change seems to outweigh the risk that comes with it. Furthermore, this provision compels pastors and councils to seek to do their best to act honorably toward each other. 

6.  A new name!

The pre-2022 version of the template was called a “termination agreement template” while the new version is called a “separation agreement template”. Why might “separation” be a better word? Because it seems to align more closely with our understanding of ordination and the intent of Church Order article 17, the article under which such separations are usually processed. Article 17 provides a way for an ordained minister to continue to live under the call of God to ministry in general (and to retain his/her ministerial credentials) while concluding the specific call to a particular congregation. The word “termination” might better fit a situation in which a minister actually leaves ministry altogether, not just a particular congregation, usually after being placed under special discipline (Church Order articles 82-84). 

Why the changes? 

This template revision has its roots in an overture to Synod 2018, which raised awareness of abuse of power in the church, and asked synod to act on behalf of victims and potential victims (Agenda for Synod 2018, pp. 282-307). Synod 2018 responded by appointing a small team to “bring recommendations through the Council of Delegates to Synod 2019 regarding how the CRCNA can best address the patterns of abuse at all levels of the denomination.” (Acts of Synod 2018, p. 523)

That small team did so, and Synod 2019 then asked the executive director to “develop good practices and protocols on the use of NDAs [nondisclosure agreements] for distribution to classes and councils when faced with situations that might lead to the use of a nondisclosure agreement.” (Acts of Synod 2019, p. 797)

The new Separation Agreement Template was initially approved by Synod 2022, and then revised by Synod 2024, following the recommendations in the report of the Church Order Review Task Force (Acts of Synod 2024, pp. 63-166). That report had brought to synod a number of recommendations regarding the church order’s provisions related to the calling, supervision, and release of ordained ministers.

To see the new separation agreement template, please click on this link: Separation Agreement Template

For more information on the Article 17 process, the process in which this template is commonly used, please click on this link: Article 17 Guidance

Comments

Dave, was there any conversation on the role of the spouse in separation agreements?   I see it as an increasing trend in my Stated Clerk and Classis Counselor work and church coaching conversation.   More Councils are having the spouse sign off on the agreement as well because they are proactively involved in many struggles.

 

Thanks for your question, Pete. No, there wasn't conversation about having spouses sign separation agreements. On one hand, the separation agreement template, as it stands, governs only the ongoing relationship of a (former) pastor and a council. There is no need, technically speaking, for a spouse to sign it as well, even if a spouse has been involved in the conversations that produced the separation agreement. On the other hand, I suppose councils could adapt the template so that spouses are bound by it as well (and then asking those spouses to sign the agreement). They might opt to do that after observing a spouses' public expressions of false statements about the church, the council, or particular council members. In any case, we see again the need for what we read about in the new introduction to the template: A separation that is characterized by love, respect, and care for one another.  

No, the pastor is the employee of the church, not the pastor's spouse.  Spouses need to be left out of it.  No other place of employment mentions the employee's spouse.  The church shouldn't either.  If the spouse is an issue, she should be put under discipline.  No Article 17 should occur because of the spouse, although there may be a few exceptions.

Just FYI, pastors are not "employees" of the church. They are self-employed, private contractors, who happen to be "contractually" bound to a specific congregation by means of the unilaterally binding document, which we commonly refer to as the "Letter of Call". We are not "employees"...The church order specifies our job description. We get W2 because of the convoluted IRS stipulations governing our income tax obligations. So, when pastor's are "Article-17ed" it is entirely appropriate that the spouse be included in the discussions because the letter of call outlined provisions for financial support, not only for the pastor, but also for the family (housing, tuition support, vehicle expenses, hospitality reimbursements etc...) Pastors are not "at-will" employees. Article-17s, like all divorce situations (and these are a type of "ecclesiastical" divorce) harms congregations and clergy families, not just the pastor. By all means the spouse needs to be considered and ought to be included in the discussions about "ending" a profoundly personal relationship. 

Who is the letter of call addressed to?  Just the pastor? The pastor and his spouse?  The pastor and his family?  My understanding is that the letter of call is addressed only to the pastor.  I realize that pastors are not "employees" of the church, but when I accept a "call" to work at another job, my spouse and family are not considered in the terms of employment or the termination of said employment.  It should be the same in the church.  Only the pastor is "contractually" bound to a specific congregation."  The spouse and family members are simply regular members of the congregation, just like all the other members of the congregation.  Unfortunately, most congretations act as if they "own" the pastor's spouse and family.

If you believe that the spouse of a pastor is just like the rest of the "regular" believing members of the congregation you're mistaken. They are not. In theory or abstraction they are, but in reality they are integral to the overall effectiveness of the pastor. Of course the spouse is not listed on the "letter of call", but it is naive to believe they are not extremely significant in the pastor/church relationship matrix. Consequently, it is wise to include both in the conversation about the dissolution of the relationship between a pastor and the congregation. I think that if they were included, councils might be a little more cautious about granting Article #17s in the future. Spouses bring a perspective into the relationship they might very well lead to modifications and solutions that would permit the relationship to move in new directions. The pastor/church relationship is simply not like a regular employer/employee relationship. 

interesting updates on NDAs...  I've been wondering about this over the years since I presented this recommendation to Synod in 2018.  It is confirming to see that this recommendation helped the CRC be a bit ahead of the curve re addressing NDAs.

The secular culture has had some pretty amazing changes to address NDA type documents in the last 7 years. NDAs were not just a problem in the CRC, but other denominations and institutions as well in covering up abuses of power and preventing necessary changes to address the abuses of power due to the silencing of those involved. 

One of a number of reasons I find NDAs egregious in the Church is that there is no time limit.  People were silenced for their entire life which often protected leaders who were abusing their power, for a short-term severance in return. RZIM (Ravi Zacharias Int'l Ministry) is a classic case of this. These abuses of power caused the deep wounds of God's daughters/people that Jeremiah 6 &8 mentions that the leaders failed to address well.

God's way is in the light.  Even the Gov't is promoting transparency.  We all still have a ways to go, but hopefully/prayerfully we can keep heading in the right direction.

here are a few examples of how NDAs are being addressed theologically, legislatively...

#NDAFREE started in 2021 addressing NDAs in the Church/ministry context...

https://julieroys.com/nda-free-christian-orgs/

https://www.ndafree.org/stories/

https://www.ndafree.org/resources/theological-reflections/

TEXAS in 2025:

https://julieroys.com/tx-law-prohibit-misuse-non-disclosure-agreements-approved-house-vote/

FEDERAL AND WA STATE in 2022:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-signs-law-curbing-nondisclosure-agreements-that-block-victims-of-sexual-harassment-from-speaking-out

https://nwsidebar.wsba.org/2022/06/06/what-you-need-to-know-about-washingtons-silenced-no-more-act/

Let's Discuss

We love your comments! Thank you for helping us uphold the Community Guidelines to make this an encouraging and respectful community for everyone.

Login or Register to Comment

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post