NDAs at Bethlehem

*NDA - Non-Disclosure/Disparagement Agreement, used in some contexts to silence unhappy employees by promising severance in exchange for silence, an extremely harmful practice.  

When we sat down with two elders to discuss our letter prior to making it public (we had sent it to the elders 6 weeks before we went public with it), one of them observed that it appeared that we were claiming that since what we saw was so concerning, it must have meant there was worse elsewhere.  We said that yes, that was one of our fears - it felt like the church was this dark room and we were trying to shine our flashlight on something we saw was concerning and were pleading for them to "turn on the lights" (have an outside investigation).  That elder reassured us that there wasn't worse on other walls (to take the dark room analogy), implying even though things looked concerning, things were fine.  

I'm sad to say that the more we've learned, the more concerned we've become, and the more we see how egregious and nefarious some past actions were.  

One example:  When we wrote our open letter, we referenced a concerning remark made by Ken Currie (Lead Pastor for Strategic Implementation) at the July '21 Q&A, where he denied that there were any NDAs at Bethlehem, and it's never even been brought up in all his years (transcript of relevant section below).   He's a lead pastor and involved in hiring/firing, so that's a strong statement.  When we wrote our open letter, we thought his comment about NDAs was incomplete, as there were NDAs at BCS (called "non-disparagement clauses," but functionally the same), which other elders connected to BCS in front should have mentioned.  We were unaware that Ken was actually lying in his statement. 

In reality, Ken Currie, along with the organizational elders (over all campus discussions), had discussed an NDA for Ming-Jinn (though it didn't come to action).  Instead, the elders had an "understanding" with Ming-Jinn.  This information was emailed out to all elders in May (two months before the Q&A) [excerpt below].  Ken Currie openly lied to the congregation, and all the elders on stage allowed him to do it.  A few of the elders on stage with Ken are actually on the organizational elders committee, and Brian Tabb was the person who brought up the NDA to begin with.  None of them said anything to disagree.  Instead, Chuck Steddom stood up afterwards and affirmed Ken's remarks.  

This lie was later (slightly) backtracked at a smaller Q&A that I attended (8/12).  On that day, the elders, Tom Lutz, Jared Wass, René González, Chad Geyen, and Charles Kim, read a number of prepared statements addressing some of the concerning remarks that were made at at the July Q&A.  One of the remarks stated that Bethlehem hasn't done and didn't do an NDA, but an NDA and a lawyer was mentioned an an org elders meeting but didn't go anywhere.  This is true and good, and consistent with what Ken had emailed out.  

BUT, the tone and posture of the statement (not of significance, just a clarifying statement in a smaller gathering) led me to believe that "the org elders" was some sub-committee that Ken Currie was unaware of, implying that his words were still truthful ("that’s never been brought up in any of the conversations I’ve ever been in"). I didn't know who the org elders were so I merely wrote down a summary of what they said and moved on.

Only later did I realize that the org elders were the "level above" the campus specific elders, not some subcommittee, and that Ken Currie was one of the org elders. They did not acknowledge that Ken Currie openly lied to the congregation, emailed out all the elders, and every single elder on the stage allowed that lie to stand in place of the truth. By failing to properly address this lie with the proper proportion, those elders at the smaller Q&A have only continued the lie to the congregation and deepened it.

Additional background and information here

~~~~~~~

Sources: 

Transcription from July 11, 2021 Q&A.  Ken Currie (and Chuck Steddom) stating that NDAs were never brought up in any conversations they've been part of.  Bold is my emphasis.

[Questioner] (after some clarifying context): … Can you tell me and the congregations if the elders have ever used the presence of an attorney or a non-disclosure agreement on any employee or member choosing to leave. If the answer is yes, can you explain the biblical mandate to use an NDA or an attorney with any of your employees, specifically um pastors who might have just recently left. If your answer is “yes using NDA or attorneys” how many NDAs does the church presently hold? How frequently do you invite attorneys into any resignation process? I’m not sure if that was done in any of these situations or if an elder brought that up in any but I would certainly like to know that.

…(some explanations/exhortation)…

...So, if you could go into the issue of NDAs and the issue of attorneys. Did anybody specifically as an elder bring that up to the rest of the elders for these people [the pastors and members who have left unhappy]?

Ken Currie (bold is my emphasis): So NDA stands for non-disclosure agreement. I only learned that a month or so ago. I didn’t even know what that was. As far as I know, there was never been an NDA for any departing staff or pastor at Bethlehem. There may have been, but I don’t know about that. That’s not a... that’s not a... there’s kind of a process when someone's transitioning off and that’s never been brought up in any of the conversations I’ve ever been in. (turning to side in response to a comment from fellow elder) Yeah. Well I’ve been here for 18 yeah, you longer, yeah. You don’t remember either. (back to answering) The umm, umm. I would use the interaction with Pastor Ming as the example of my heart to say, and I’ve said to him directly, specifically in writing to him and in person personally, “it’s your story, brother. You share your story how and with whom you want to.” I think the letter from Gretchen probably illustrates, “I guess it’s possible” maybe you might be thinking, “it’s possible she was offered an NDA and she turned it down,” but we don’t have those discussions and clearly she left unhappy and wanted the congregation to know and we didn’t try to silence that. So in terms of “has that been brought up?” I can’t, I don’t know for sure, I think that maybe? And I think that would just be, when someone leaves in these types of matters it’s traumatic for everybody, so I don’t know, I don’t recall one way or another, but if they did I wouldn’t, I think that would be ok. I think the heart behind the thing [Name] is, my guess is, it’s just concerning that the leadership of the church would seek to protect their reputation by silencing critics and criticism. And umm I’m not aware of that at a corporate level. I say corporate because I don’t know everything they say individually but that’s not how they do things.

...(other conversation on second question clearing up misunderstanding)...

Chuck Steddom (my emphasis): I think umm I’m personally very much against NDAs. I think it flies in the face of our relational commitments to one another that we commit to. And I think that we have to speak the truth in love to one another. Some of those feelings sometimes are hard. But uhh in my 24 years I’m not aware of any NDAs or have we even talked about them. (Questioner: And no attorneys?) No attorneys.

Excerpt from email from Ken Currie to all elders, summarizing the Organizational Elders Meeting (OEM) indicating a discussion about an NDA did actually happen, bold is my emphasis.  As a side note, Ken regularly and improperly named Ming-Jinn as Ming: 

One thing that came up in our recent OEM was the question of Ming's attitude and the possible antagonism towards the elders. This was an understandable concern given the draft of the letter to the congregation that he provided at our request. The discussion among the OEs even included the question of any extended benefits or severance contingent on a non disclosure agreement. As Jared has mentioned Ming's heart is not to undermine the elders or try to empower folks among us who want to disparage the elders. I told him that I both wanted him to be able to share his story with those who will love and support him as well as guarding against enabling disgruntled members downtown who are looking to illustrate the lack of integrity or incompetence of the elders. Sadly, I think it is unavoidable that Ming's resignation will be used to bolster this perspective. However, it is important that Ming not fan these flames. We talked about this and I feel good about our understanding.