Image: AdobeStock/ Iryna

Responding to Anonymous Allegations in Church

An unknown party seriously accuses a church leader. What should be done?

Bio

Many ministers have received anonymous letters. Some, such as those expressing criticism of a sermon or music, have little legal significance. But some accuse a staff member or volunteer of misconduct, and these messages may be legally significant depending on what they communicate and how they are handled.

Church leaders should consider the following points when deciding how to respond to anonymous letters that accuse someone of misconduct:

1. Ignoring anonymous letters

Some pastors adopt a policy of never reading anonymous letters, and some periodically inform the congregation of this policy. For some, this is a way of avoiding criticism. But for others it stems from a conviction that the views of persons who are unwilling to identify themselves are not worthy of consideration. But as noted below, such a response to anonymous letters may expose a pastor and church to liability.

Zimmerman, 2012 WL 2049493 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)

Several adult males (the “plaintiffs”) sued a private high school and members of the school board of trustees (the “defendants”), claiming they had been sexually molested by the school’s football coach, and that the defendants were legally responsible for these wrongful acts as a result of their inadequate and negligent response to numerous complaints of inappropriate sexual behavior by the coach.

The coach was employed by the school from 1966 through 1991. The plaintiffs alleged that in the 1970s the school’s principal received several anonymous letters accusing the coach of “doing terrible things to your students.” The principal threw out the letters and later testified that “unsigned complaints just should be tossed.”

The principal also received an anonymous phone call in which the caller reiterated language similar to that found in the letters, accusing the coach of “doing terrible things to our kids.” But, as in the case of the anonymous letters, he did nothing with this information and did not keep records of either the phone call or the letters in any way. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement in 2012 under which the school agreed to pay an undisclosed amount of damages.

This case illustrates the potential civil liability that churches face if pastors adopt a policy of ignoring all anonymous letters, including anonymous letters that contain serious accusations of misconduct by a church employee or volunteer that exposes others to potential harm.

Bernard v. East Stroudsburg University, 2014 WL 1454913 (M.D. Pa. 2014)

A state university was sued by several former students who alleged that they had been sexually harassed by a university administrator. In support of their claim, the students claimed that the university president had received several anonymous letters asserting sexually inappropriate behavior by the administrator with students, but failed to fully investigate these accusations or terminate his employment.

One letter made reference to the administrator’s sexual liaisons with students. Another noted that “people are disgusted with those that use their position to gain sexual favors from young people.” Another referred to the administrator as a “full fledged predator.”

The university had a policy of not accepting or acting on accusations “made solely through anonymous letters.” Nevertheless, because some of the anonymous letters alleged that the administrator had previously been arrested, the university asked campus police to check on prior arrests. No prior arrests or convictions were found. Nevertheless, some of the letters were turned over to the municipal police department and to the FBI.

The court concluded that the university’s response to the anonymous letters was adequate, and dismissed the students’ claim of sexual harassment. This case suggests that recipients of anonymous letters containing allegations of serious misconduct by a staff member may subject their employer to liability if they fail to respond to the allegations with a thorough investigation.

Melzer v. Board of Education, 196 F.Supp.2d 229 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)

Public school officials received an anonymous letter stating that a science teacher (whose identity was provided) was a member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). NAMBLA advocates the release of all convicted pedophiles, decriminalization of child pornography, and opposition to all attempts by the state to interfere with “consensual and non-coercive” sexual activity between men and minor boys. Upon receipt of this letter, school officials immediately launched an investigation which ultimately led to the teacher’s termination.

This case involved school officials who chose to investigate, rather than ignore, a serious accusation against a teacher. A duty to investigate accusations of misconduct in an anonymous letter is strongest when a failure to respond immediately with an investigation would place minors at risk of harm.

2. Negligence

Pastors who refuse to read anonymous letters containing accusations of misconduct may be guilty of negligence. Negligence is a legal term that simply means carelessness or failing to act with reasonable care under the circumstances. Negligence is more likely if a pastor ignores an anonymous letter that:

contains verifiable information; or
contains evidence of reliability, such as information demonstrating that the writer is familiar with facts that support his or her accusation.

The critical question is what kinds of evidence are sufficient to trigger a duty to investigate anonymous accusations of misconduct? Consider the following examples:

Example. A pastor receives an anonymous letter from a person who attended worship services the previous Sunday. Part of the letter includes: “I attended your church on Sunday for the first time, and was shocked to discover that your music pastor is a convicted child molester.” The pastor was not aware of any prior criminal behavior by the music pastor. He is not sure what to do. He considers discarding the letter. A better response would be to verify the letter’s central accusation—that the music pastor was previously convicted of child molestation. He accesses a state criminal records database and discovers that the music pastor was incarcerated for ten years for a prior incident of child molestation. The music pastor is terminated immediately.

Example. Same facts as the previous example, except the pastor elects to disregard the letter based on his policy of never reading anonymous letters. This response may expose the pastor, and church, to liability based on “negligent retention” should the music pastor sexually molest a minor on the church premises or during a church activity. Liability would be based on the church’s retention of the music pastor despite the anonymous letter’s allegation of a criminal record that easily could have been verified. This example demonstrates the potential legal risks associated with a policy of disregarding all anonymous letters.

Example. A pastor receives an anonymous letter claiming that the church’s youth pastor “engaged in inappropriate contact with a minor in a prior church.” Assume that this prior incident did not result in a criminal record that would be searchable and verifiable. Given the seriousness of an accusation of child abuse by a youth pastor, the church should investigate. While the prior incident did not result in a criminal conviction that would be verifiable by searching public records, the church could take the following steps that would help negate an allegation of negligence should the youth pastor engage in similar conduct in the future: (1) Interview the youth pastor and have him respond to the accusation. (2) If this was not done previously, obtain references from each church where the youth pastor previously worked in youth ministry as an employee or volunteer. (3) Conduct a criminal records check, and sex offender registry search, to uncover prior incidents that did result in criminal prosecution. Other precautions are summarized at the end of this article.

Example. A pastor receives an anonymous letter complaining about the music performed during worship services. Disregarding anonymous letters like this, that are critical of music and sermons, do not expose a church to any material risk since the pastor’s disregard of such letters does not expose anyone to a risk of injury.

Example. A pastor receives an anonymous letter claiming that “a registered child molester is attending the church’s worship services.” According to some courts, no duty to investigate arises when an anonymous letter is received containing no verifiable information (such as the identity of the sex offender), and no extrinsic evidence of reliability. If the identity of the sex offender had been revealed, the church could mitigate its risk by verifying the conviction using the national sex offender online registry, and instituting a conditional attendance agreement allowing the offender to attend under strict, specified conditions.

Example. A pastor receives an anonymous letter accusing the church’s bookkeeper of embezzling church funds. The alleged misconduct is not of such a nature as would place persons attending church services and activities at risk of injury. As a result, there probably are no adverse legal consequences should the letter be ignored. However, many would consider the investigation of such an accusation to be a moral imperative.

Example. A pastor receives an anonymous letter containing an accusation that a staff member has had her driver’s license revoked for reckless driving. The staff member often drives church vehicles on church business. This allegation involves behavior that could expose others to harm. A person’s driver’s license status can be easily verified by checking with the department of motor vehicles, a step a church should take. Based on my recommendations at the end of this article, the accusation should be investigated. If validated, the staff member must immediately be suspended from driving her own, or the church’s, vehicles on church business.

3. A child abuse reporting analogy

Every state has enacted a child abuse reporting law that requires persons designated as “mandatory reporters” to report abuse to civil authorities if they have actual knowledge or reasonable suspicion or belief that it has occurred.

Child abuse reporting laws can be helpful to church leaders in deciding how to respond to anonymous letters because the laws use the standard of reasonable suspicion or belief in triggering a duty to report. This is similar to my recommendations at the end of this article, which suggest that pastors have a duty to investigate anonymous accusations of misconduct if there is reliable and relevant evidence that creates a reasonable basis for the accusation.

State legislatures have struggled to define the threshold requirement of “reasonable suspicion or belief.” To illustrate, the California child abuse reporting law requires mandatory reporters to report abuse if they have “reasonable suspicion” that child abuse has occurred, and it defines reasonable suspicion as follows:

Reasonable suspicion means that it is objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a suspicion, based upon facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position, drawing, when appropriate, on his or her training and experience, to suspect child abuse or neglect. “Reasonable suspicion” does not require certainty that child abuse or neglect has occurred nor does it require a specific medical indication of child abuse or neglect; any “reasonable suspicion” is sufficient.

Such definitions provide little clarification, and this has left to the courts the task of defining reasonable suspicion or belief. This is a vital task since it will determine whether a mandatory reporter has a legal duty to report child abuse to the agency designated by the reporting statute.

“Reasonable suspicion or belief” that a child has been abused not only imposes upon mandatory reporters a legal duty to report, but it also serves as a potentially useful analogy for pastors to consider in deciding whether to respond to anonymous letters accusing an employee or volunteer of misconduct. As noted above, pastors who elect to ignore an anonymous letter accusing a staff member of misconduct may be liable on the basis of negligence or negligent retention if the staff member injures another person and, in the exercise of reasonable care, the allegation should have been investigated. This makes legislative and judicial clarification of “reasonable suspicion or belief” relevant in assessing an appropriate response to anonymous accusations.

Key point. If the circumstances surrounding an allegation of child abuse in an anonymous letter create a reasonable belief that it occurred, then: (1) the allegation should not be ignored on the ground that it was contained in an anonymous letter, and (2) it must be reported to the child abuse hotline by the recipient if the recipient is a mandatory reporter under state law.

Some of the leading cases interpreting “reasonable suspicion or belief” are summarized below:

In re O.K., 2015 WL 655106 (Ill. App. 2015). A state social services agency received several anonymous letters alleging incidents of abuse against children while in their foster parents’ care. The court noted that “as the allegations in these letters had not been verified, the state sought more time to determine the safety of the children while in the parents’ care.” This case suggests that an anonymous letter by itself, without any corroborating evidence, does not constitute reasonable suspicion or belief that child abuse has occurred, and so no duty to report arises.

Croft v. Westmoreland County, 103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997).A federal appeals court ruled that a child welfare agency must independently corroborate reports of child abuse from an anonymous informant in order to separate a child and parent. In other words, an allegation of child abuse in an anonymous letter does not, by itself and without any additional corroborating evidence, constitute reasonable suspicion or belief triggering a duty to report.

Kraynak v. Youngstown City School District, 889 N.E.2d 528 (Ohio 2008). A fourth-grade teacher asked her students to keep a creative-writing journal. Once or twice a week, the teacher instructed students to make entries in their journal. The journals were not turned in, and were only spot-read by the teacher because they were used only to practice writing. One student wrote entries in her journal that mentioned physical abuse by her mother. The teacher read this entry, but did not report the abuse to the child abuse hotline because the student “didn’t take this journal entry very seriously. He wasn’t crying. He wasn’t upset. He wasn’t scared. He wasn’t emotionally upset about it.” The student’s father later sued the school as a result of the teacher’s failure to report the abuse. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the school, concluding that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that the teacher knew or suspected that the student had suffered or faced abuse, and therefore she had no duty to report.

On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed that the school was not liable. It noted that the child abuse reporting law requires mandatory reporters who “know or suspect that a child under eighteen years of age … has suffered or faces a threat of suffering any physical or mental [abuse] that reasonably indicates abuse or neglect of the child, shall immediately report that knowledge or suspicion to the public children services agency or a municipal or county peace officer in the county in which the child resides or in which the abuse or neglect is occurring or has occurred.”

The Court concluded that the reporting statute established a “subjective standard” in deciding whether a person was required to report:

The statute asks whether the school employee knows of child abuse or suspects child abuse. The statute does not ask whether the school employee “knew or should have known” or “suspected or should have suspected” or “knew or had reasonable cause to suspect” that a child had been abused. Rather [it] simply asks whether the school employee “knows or suspects” that there has been child abuse.

The Court noted that the reporting statute had been amended following the filing of the lawsuit in this case: “The new version of the statute changes the standard from ‘knows or suspects’ (a subjective standard) to ‘knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect based on facts that would cause a reasonable person in a similar position to suspect,’ a clearly objective standard. Accordingly, we hold that pursuant to [the prior statute] in determining whether a person knows of or suspects child abuse for purposes of reporting it to the proper authorities, the standard is subjective.”

Keisling v. Keisling, 196 S.W.3d 703 (Tenn. App. 2005). Following a divorce, the former wife filed a petition to restrict the former husband’s visitation rights with the couple’s minor child on the ground that the father had sexually molested the child. A Tennessee appeals court observed:

Accusations of child sexual abuse by one parent against the other parent presents one of the most difficult issues faced by a trial court. Suspicion of such abuse must be taken seriously and [was] investigated thoroughly, for the consequences to the child of allowing any abuse to continue are grave. However, mistakenly concluding that a parent has abused his child, when in fact there has been no abuse, has serious consequences as well, including the almost-certain destruction of the parent-child relationship and disgrace to the accused parent. In addition, determining whether abuse has occurred can be enormously difficult; there is frequently a paucity of physical evidence, and the alleged child victim may be unable to accurately relate pertinent events. Finally, even investigating the accusation is delicate; the suggestibility of the alleged victim is almost invariably an issue, and heavy-handed or repetitive interrogation or physical examination can itself inflict long-lasting trauma on a child. In this case, it is clear that the accusations of sexual abuse of the parties’ daughters were taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.

But the court cautioned that “in a case such as this, any concern about reporting allegations of child sexual abuse must be balanced with the awareness that false accusations of such abuse can be a reprehensible tool against an ex-spouse.”

This case suggests that anonymous accusations of misconduct should be investigated rather than ignored if the alleged misconduct is serious in nature and exposes others to possible harm. However, a duty to report must be balanced against facts suggesting a motive to lie.

O’Heron v. Blaney, 583 S.E.2d 834 (Ga. 2003). The Georgia Supreme Court explained the “reasonable cause” standard as follows:

Once a reporter has reasonable cause to suspect child abuse has occurred, she must report it or face criminal penalties. The trigger for the duty to report is “reasonable cause to believe,” which requires an objective analysis. The relevant question is whether the information available at the time would lead a reasonable person in the position of the reporter to suspect abuse.

4. A “probable cause” analogy

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects “the people” from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” also providing that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing … the persons or things to be seized.”

The courts frequently are called upon to determine if law enforcement personnel have probable cause of criminal behavior to justify the issuance of a warrant. In general, probable cause to arrest exists “when the officers have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a crime.” Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845 (2d Cir.1996).

Several courts have addressed the question of whether anonymous letters and tips can constitute probable cause. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that an anonymous letter can provide the probable cause needed for a search warrant. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983). The Court noted:

[Anonymous] tips, particularly when supplemented by independent police investigation, frequently contribute to the solution of otherwise “perfect crimes.” While a conscientious assessment of the basis for crediting such tips is required by the Fourth Amendment, a standard that leaves virtually no place for anonymous citizen informants is not.

Part of the Court’s reasoning was that the anonymous letter contained a range of details relating “not just to easily obtained facts and conditions existing at the time of the letter, but to future actions of third parties ordinarily not easily predicted.” In other words, there were “indicia of reliability” that strengthened the value of the anonymous letter.

How is this relevant to a pastor’s response to an anonymous letter? The argument could be made that just as anonymous letters, when combined with “indicia of reliability,” can constitute probable cause supporting an arrest or search warrant, so too may the credibility of an anonymous letter received by a pastor be enhanced by additional information in the letter—information that may create a reasonable basis for an accusation warranting further investigation.

Example. A pastor receives an anonymous letter accusing a staff member of misconduct. The letter also contains references to facts that are not widely known. The pastor has a policy of never reading anonymous letters, and so the letter is ignored. The letter, along with the “indicia of reliability,” would likely constitute probable cause supporting a search or arrest. The staff member engages in future misconduct that injures a member of the congregation. The victim sues the church, claiming that it is responsible for her injuries on the basis of negligent retention of the staff member. To bolster her claim, she asserts that the anonymous letter, together with the “indicia of reliability,” would constitute probable cause supporting a warrant to arrest. If the evidence constitutes probable cause to arrest, then it may suggest that the pastor had a duty to investigate the anonymous letter’s accusation. While certainly not conclusive, this argument may support the victim’s negligent retention claim.

Conclusion

Anonymous letters containing accusations of misconduct by staff members or volunteers present pastors with a difficult decision. This is especially true for anonymous letters containing no verifiable information supporting an accusation. Few, if any, courts have found churches liable on the basis of a pastor’s disregard of anonymous accusations of misconduct, but, as noted in this article, it is possible that a church could be found liable in such cases based on negligent retention.

The best practice, which will reduce legal risk and potential future harm to innocent victims, is to investigate anonymous accusations of misconduct that:

(1) are verifiable by available public records (i.e., criminal records, sex offender registry); or

(2) contain “indicia of reliability” based on:
information provided by references; information provided by the victim identified in the anonymous letter, or by other persons identified in the letter who may have information about the accusation; information provided by former churches where the accused previously served as an employee or volunteer; information provided by law enforcement officers who may have investigated the individual in the past; information provided by potential witnesses having relevant information regarding the accusation; other relevant evidence, such as the writer’s knowledge of facts suggesting personal knowledge of the information shared in the anonymous letter; or

(3) involve misconduct of such a nature as would place persons attending church services and activities at risk of injury. The duty to investigate is greatest when an anonymous letter accuses an employee or volunteer of behavior making him or her a risk of harm to minors.

Key point. Anonymous letters containing unverifiable allegations of misconduct by named individuals are the most troublesome. As we have seen, such accusations generally are insufficient to trigger a duty to report child abuse, or serve as probable cause for an arrest, and these analogies suggest that pastors have no legal duty to independently investigate such accusations and therefore they, and their church, cannot be liable on the basis of negligent retention for future harm caused by the accused. That may be true in a legal sense, but there is also a moral dimension to be considered. Jesus’ harshest words were directed at those who “cause one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble.” These words will persuade many pastors to investigate anonymous accusations of sexual misconduct by an employee or volunteer involving a minor victim, whether the accusations are verifiable or not.

Richard R. Hammar is an attorney, CPA and author specializing in legal and tax issues for churches and clergy.

Image: Adobe/touseef

Six Questions to Ask When Choosing a Church Management System

Six questions every church should ask when thinking about buying a church management system.

Justin Deeter

Last Reviewed: July 30, 2024

A Church Management System (CMS) is the administrative hub of a church. It stores pertinent information, including membership data, attendance trends, group health, and giving records. Today, there are more options than ever for church leaders to choose from. Here are six questions to ask when looking for a Church Management System for your church.

1. Is It Cloud Ready?

When choosing a CMS, the ability to have your database in the cloud is an important feature to consider. Without cloud services, you can only access your CMS at the physical site of the church. A cloud-based CMS allows you to put information in the hands of key leaders whether they are on site at the church, at home, or half-way around the world.

2. Is It Mobile Ready?

Ask if the CMS has mobile apps developed that are actively supported. Apps allow church leaders to reach into their pockets and with a few taps get the data that they need.

3. Is It User Friendly?

Is the interface cumbersome and difficult, confusing and overwhelming? What about frustrating and off-putting? Many companies allow you to trial their apps and programs for a period of time, which allows you to assess whether the CMS is user-friendly for your volunteers and leaders.

4. Is It Full of Features?

What are your needs as a church? Find a CMS that matches your church’s needs, but also one that your church can grow into as well. Does the developer regularly update the apps with new features? Do you need a CMS that manages group communication and attendance? What about children’s check-in? Online giving? Know the features you need before you go CMS shopping.

5. Is It Reasonably Priced?

An expensive CMS that is used is better than a cheap CMS that isn’t used. Check the pricing structure of each CMS you are considering. Many companies now offer a monthly service fee, which allows you to jump into the CMS with minimal upfront investment. In addition, most developers offer a scalable pricing model depending on the volume of your church’s needs.

6. Is It Actively Supported?

If you have problems with the CMS, how will those problems be fixed? How is their customer support? Does the developer offer any types of training that will help you educate staff and volunteers on how to use it? Everyone encounters snags at some point. When you do, you’ll want a company that’s quick to respond and help you in your moment of need.

Justin Deeter is the founding and lead pastor of Redemption Church in Wilson, North Carolina. He was formerly senior pastor of Forest Hills Baptist Church in Wilson, North Carolina. Find him at JustinDeeter.com and @JustinDeeter.

For information on church IT strategies and solutions, check out the latest version of Church IT by Nick B. Nicholaou.

Image: Adobe/IBEX Media

Matching Grants vs. Challenge Grants

Why one is better in church fundraising.

Christopher J. Kopka

Matching grants are a reasonably common tool used in churches, particularly for church planting, as well as ministries and nonprofit organizations. However, a small body of research strongly suggests that challenge grants work more effectively than matching grants in terms of overall fundraising.

Key differences

What’s the difference? A typical matching grant works along the following lines: For every dollar you give, another partner organization/foundation/donor “matches” your dollar with another dollar (or $0.50). According to research, a matching grant is at least somewhat more motivating than a direct appeal for funds.

A challenge grant is subtly distinct from a matching grant, and is often worded along the following lines: “If we raise $X in total, then we’ll also get $Y from some other source.” Or sometimes, “If we get X number of new donors, then we’ll also get $Y from some other source.” A challenge grant is, according to the findings, more motivating than a matching grant.

Challenge grants more compelling?

The fascinating question is, why are challenge grants more compelling than matching grants? My survey of the research has not returned a satisfactory answer. My hunch is that many people have an innate sense both of competition (“I want to meet the challenge”) and of cooperation (“If we do this together, we’ll achieve such-and-such goal”).

In other words, I think challenge grants are better able to bring out the best in us, both cooperatively and competitively. Future research, I’m sure, will shed more light on the validity of my hunch.

There’s a further consideration. Most matching grants I’ve heard about for church planting encourage the planter to go after bigger dollars, rather than a bigger pool of donors (even if those donors represent relatively small amounts).

“If you raise X amount for your church, we’ll match with Y amount.” The practical problem with this approach is obvious: If you lose even one high-ticket donor, you’re in trouble.

Wise to have large base of small donors

Contrast this with the approach of college alumni associations, which reveal the wisdom and long-term sustainability of amassing a large base of small, individual donors. Over time, a few of them will mature into large-dollar donors. But even if most don’t, the natural ebb and flow of donor rolls will have little effect on the association’s ability to meet its fundraising goals, based as it is on volume, not mass.

Ministries—particularly church planters operating under matching grants—tend to do just the opposite. They focus on relatively few, high-ticket donors, at the expense of growing their individual donor base. I strongly believe granting organizations should test a challenge grant structure that matches “sending church dollars” to benchmark growth of the church plant’s donor base. My hypothesis is that, compared to matching grants, the challenge to grow a broad donor base will result in more economically stable and sustainable ministries over the long haul.

Christopher Kopka conducts Habit of Asking workshops for churches. He is president of Thrivent Church Solutions Group. In this role, Kopka leads Thrivent’s church-related businesses and functions, which presently reach over 30,000 churches through products and services provided by Thrivent and partner organizations. He is also the senior vice president for Mergers, Acquisitions & Strategic Partnerships.

For more information on church fundraising check out Increase Giving at Church.

Image: AdobeStock/ Dar1930

Is Airfare for a Short-Term Missions Trip Tax Deductible?

Understand the rules for taxes on mission trip airfare, including what’s deductible for participants and donors under IRS guidelines.

Frank Sommerville, Attorney, CPA

Bio

Last Reviewed: January 24, 2025

Q: Each of our missionaries is responsible for purchasing his or her airline tickets. Would this be considered a tax-deductible contribution or just a personal expense? Further, a church member wants to purchase the ticket so that a participant can go on the missions trip. Is the payment—made directly by the church member to the airline for the participant’s airfare—tax deductible?

Short-term missions trips often involve participants covering their own travel expenses, raising the question: Is airfare for a missions trip tax deductible? Understanding the rules surrounding taxes on mission trip airfare is essential for both participants and donors to ensure compliance with IRS guidelines.

When Is Airfare Tax Deductible for the Participant?

If a participant purchases their own airline ticket to participate in a missions trip, the expense can be considered tax deductible as a volunteer expense. To qualify, the participant must obtain a statement from the church confirming:

The airfare payment is required to perform volunteer services on the missions trip.
No goods or services were provided by the church in exchange for the purchase.

In addition, the participant will need:

A copy of the travel itinerary.
Proof of performing sufficient volunteer services during the trip.

If the trip includes a mix of volunteer service and personal or sightseeing days, only a portion of the airfare is deductible. Specifically:

If personal or sightseeing days make up less than 50% of the trip, a proportional amount of airfare may be deducted.
If personal or sightseeing days exceed 50% of the trip, the airfare is not deductible.

When Is Airfare Not Tax Deductible for a Donor?

If a church member directly purchases an airline ticket for a participant (other than themselves or an immediate family member), the payment is not tax deductible. However, the donation can become deductible if:

The donor gives the money directly to the church.
The donor only suggests that the funds be used for the participant’s ticket.
The church retains full control over how the funds are spent.

This distinction is critical, as IRS guidelines require the church—not the donor—to determine how designated donations are allocated for them to qualify as charitable contributions.

Additional Considerations for Churches and Donors

Churches should ensure proper documentation is provided for participants and donors to comply with tax regulations. Maintaining clear policies and transparent communication with members can help avoid misunderstandings and ensure accurate reporting.

FAQ: Taxes on Mission Trip Airfare

Is airfare always tax deductible for a missions trip participant?
Only if the airfare is directly related to volunteer services and meets IRS guidelines.
What documentation is required for deducting airfare?
A statement from the church, an itinerary, and proof of volunteer service are necessary.
Can a donor deduct the cost of a ticket they buy for another participant?
No, unless the donation is given directly to the church, and the church controls how the funds are spent.
Are mixed-purpose trips partially deductible?
Yes, but only if volunteer days exceed 50% of the trip; otherwise, no deductions are allowed.

For more information on tax-deductible donations, visit the IRS Charitable Contributions page. Additionally, review nonprofit volunteer guidelines on NationalService.gov.

Frank Sommerville is both a CPA and attorney, and a longtime Editorial Advisor for Church Law & Tax.

Image: AdobeStock/KN Studio

A Usable Metric for Any Church

Implement data-driven decision making to improve your church’s financial planning with a simple and scalable per-person giving metric.

Matthew Branaugh and Chris Lutes

Data can transform how churches operate, regardless of their size. By adopting data-driven decision making, churches can better understand giving patterns and make informed financial decisions. Norwood Davis from 12Stone Church emphasizes the importance of tracking a per-person-per-week giving metric as a powerful yet simple tool for any church.

How to Track the Per-Person-Per-Week Giving Metric

“Here’s what’s beautiful about this metric,” says Davis. “It’s flexible and scalable, regardless of your church’s size.” To start, follow these simple steps:

Step 1: Create a table with four columns: date, attendance, total giving, and per-person giving.
Step 2: Record the date in the first column, the number of attendees in the second column, and the total dollars given in the third column.
Step 3: Divide the total dollars by the number of attendees and record the result in the fourth column.

With consistent data collection, patterns will emerge. Seasonal highs and lows, holiday changes, and even trends tied to congregants’ pay periods become apparent. For 12Stone Church, these insights shifted their entire budgeting process. “Instead of dividing annual revenue projections equally over 52 weeks, we adjusted our budget to reflect seasonal and other variabilities,” Davis explains.

Visualizing and Interpreting the Data

Once you’ve collected enough data, Davis advises creating a simple graph to identify long-term trends. This process can be done using Microsoft Excel, which offers intuitive tools for graphing. For beginners, online tutorials and affordable Excel classes at local colleges can help build the necessary skills.

“The most important thing is to keep collecting data and think in terms of long-term trends,” says Davis. “The key is to take disciplined, small steps. Just start collecting the data, keep it going, and keep improving.”

Benefits of Data-Driven Decision Making for Churches

Implementing this metric offers several benefits:

Financial Accuracy: Aligning budgets with actual trends improves financial planning and stability.
Seasonal Insights: Identifying seasonal giving patterns helps churches prepare for high and low periods.
Scalability: This metric works for churches of all sizes and is easy to implement with minimal resources.

For additional tips on data collection and analysis, visit the U.S. Census Bureau’s Data Tools or explore the IRS nonprofit resources for financial insights.

FAQ: Data-Driven Decision Making for Churches

What are the long-term benefits of tracking this metric?
Over time, it helps identify patterns, align budgets with trends, and improve financial decision-making.

Why is per-person giving an important metric?
It provides a clear and scalable way to track financial trends regardless of church size.

How do I start tracking data for this metric?
Create a table with attendance, total giving, and per-person giving as key components.

What tools can help with data visualization?
Microsoft Excel is a great starting point. Affordable online tutorials or local classes can teach you graphing basics.

What I Learned from Advising the Boy Scouts of America During Their Abuse Crisis

An attorney’s advice for organizations on preventing and responding to child sexual abuse.

Richard J. Mathews

A real and critical issue for churches, ministries and youth-serving organizations

Churches, ministries, and youth-serving organizations today must recognize that child sexual abuse is a critical issue. The prevalence rate of people who are victims of child sexual abuse is estimated to range from 1 in 12 to 1 in 7 (8–14%) for men and from 1 in 6 to 1 in 2 (17–51%) for women. Estimates of abuse within organizations and institutions are not available, but media, lawsuits, and anecdotal information suggest it is significantly higher. Child sexual abuse is now the number one reason that churches are sued.

I know that reality only too well.

For 11 years, I was the Deputy General Counsel and then General Counsel for the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). I saw first-hand the cases of child sexual abuse and how devastating they can be on children, families, and even organizations. Organizations and institutions have historically focused on protecting children in their care from sexual victimization from “external threats” (e.g., “stranger danger,” such as breaches of facility security, intercepting children traveling to or from locations or activities, and so on). Particularly because of the experiences of BSA, it has only been over the last two decades that the attention has been turned to the victimization of children from within an organization by those inside, or affiliated with, that organization.

There are many lessons that churches and ministries can learn from the failures of BSA to protect children and protect ministries from the devastating consequences of child sexual abuse.

Lessons Learned the Hard Way

Acknowledgement and awareness of the threat

Data from the Centers for Disease Control in 2006 indicated that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men were sexually abused before the age of 18. BSA had thousands of reports of boys being sexually abused by volunteers, but continued to view them as “aberrations” not worth review and analysis because the number was such a small percentage of BSA’s total membership. Plaintiffs claimed that BSA ignored these reports primarily because it was concerned its image might be damaged.

Law enforcement, government ignored reports of abuse

Even law enforcement and government officials ignored the reports despite awareness of the incidents. It was not until decades later, and a punitive damages verdict of some $20 million in the case brought by six “Jack Does” (anonymous plaintiffs) against the BSA in Oregon, that BSA commissioned a detailed analysis of the more than 7,000 incidents of child sexual abuse in an attempt to determine the magnitude, root causes, opportunities for prevention, and reporting deficiencies.

Communicate, educate, and enlist others in recognizing, responding, reporting, and reacting

Failure to genuinely focus on the welfare of constituents and stakeholders (church congregations and families) can create a blind spot and an inability to be proactive. Churches are, by nature, trusting. According to at least one expert, 93 percent of sex offenders describe themselves as “religious.” By increasing the awareness and engagement of those who would be directly, or even indirectly, impacted by child sexual abuse in your church and community is fundamental in protecting children from abuse. Again, as a result of the Oregon case, BSA made its Youth Protection Training mandatory for all registered adult leaders.

Provide compassion, counseling, and honest responses to victims, victims’ families, and all others impacted by abuse

BSA’s failure to be open, transparent, and sincerely compassionate by its “canned” responses and its perception that victims were only interested in a financial windfall alienated victims, the media, and jurors. This helped result in tens of millions of dollars being paid out in verdicts or settlements. Being responsive, genuinely compassionate, and empathizing with the pain and anguish in incidents of child sexual abuse greatly assists in the healing process of those victimized. Genuinely empathizing with victims and apologizing on behalf of the organization can significantly help reduce the victim’s anger and sense of betrayal. It can facilitate not only a more acceptable resolution but is also an opportunity to learn from victims’ personal experiences how to improve safeguards and assist them and others who have been affected.

In fact, one of those victims whom I met in mediation many years ago is now a close friend. He credits my time with him in mediation as helping his healing and stopping him from finding and killing the perpetrator and committing suicide. I am thankful that despite the anguish he had suffered over the 40 years since he was abused, this wonderful husband and father decided not to end his life. That’s the power of empathy.

Implementation of consistently and universally applied policies and procedures for:

Screening and training of all employees and volunteers;
Reporting of any incident of actual or suspected abuse to the proper authorities; and
Supervision and accountability of all employees, volunteers, and participants, including reporting and addressing “boundary violations” before they might result in abuse.

There is no one-size-fits-all profile of child sexual abusers

Teachers, attorneys, doctors, senators, mayors, police officers, servicemen, youth leaders, church leaders, coaches, counselors, family members, neighbors, married, single, old, young, well-known, and strangers—all have been characteristics of child sexual abusers. This is why screening of all employees and volunteers, no matter how well-known they may be to you or others in your community, is important, along with training everyone as to the policies and the importance of promptly reporting any concerns.

Screening, backgrounding, reference checks and interviews are all essential

Because victims of child sexual abuse generally allege that the organization (church) is responsible for their injuries on the basis of negligent selection, retention, or supervision of the perpetrator, many such cases have been lost due to the failure to implement appropriate safeguards in the selection and supervision of employees and volunteers who work with children. This even applies to other children volunteers (e.g., youth staff). Therefore, screening, background investigations, reference checks, and interviews before the individual’s involvement are essential.

Spot the red flags and warning signs

In many cases, there were several warning signs, red flags that observers (even parents) ignored because they did not rely on their instincts. They overlooked “minor” boundary violations. In hindsight, it became obvious that the abuser had “groomed” the child to develop a relationship of trust and friendship that enabled the abuser to manipulate the child into complying with being sexually abused. Everyone must be trained to recognize and report any such occurrences. Early recognition and intervention can prevent abuse.

Children victimizing other children

So far, the sexual victimization of children in their care by staff members who have developed an acquaintance relationship has presented the greatest problems for such organizations. But organizations are now more often recognizing cases in which children are victimizing other children. Of all sexual crimes committed against children, over one third (36%) are committed by other children. Approximately 1 out of every 4 (27%) child sexual abusers started sexually abusing children when they themselves were children. The average age at which abusers committed their first criminal sexual assault was 14 years old.

The cost of developing and implementing a reasonable program to protect children is significantly less than the cost of a single adverse judgment for a serious incident. One of the biggest obstacles in implementing these strategies is getting organization members and the public they serve to accept and integrate the reality that the sexual victimization of children is not always by “evil predator strangers” and that there are ways to reduce the risk of child sexual abuse. But organizations have to be willing to change their policies and, in some cases, their cultures.

Richard J. Mathews is a licensed attorney in the states of Michigan and Texas. He served as the Deputy General Counsel and then General Counsel with the Boy Scouts of America for 11 years. He currently lives and works in Arlington, Texas, and can be reached at RichardJ.Mathews@gmail.com.

Image: AdobeStock/Cloud Cap

Who Should Know What People Give at Church?

Discover six approaches to managing church giving records and promoting financial stewardship with integrity.

Thom Ranier

Bio

Last Reviewed: January 24, 2025

The question “Who should be able to see individual church giving records?” is difficult to answer. Indeed, it is such a difficult question that I will not attempt to give a concrete answer. I will let you know what I’ve done in the past and six perspectives:

1. The lead pastor and one layperson

This perspective argues that financial stewardship is a spiritual discipline, and the pastor should have access to individual giving to be able to see how the members are doing in this regard. The layperson, of course, is the person who actually keeps the records.

2. One layperson who guides the pastor

The layperson again is the member keeping financial records. He or she is the only one who has access to giving records. But that person is able to share information with the pastor or other leaders as needed. For example, the financial secretary can inform the pastor or elders about potential future elders according to their giving patterns. I took this approach as a pastor. I did not have access to individual giving patterns, but our financial secretary would let me and other leaders know if a person should be eligible for a leadership role according to that person’s stewardship in the church.

3. One layperson only

In this example, only the financial secretary (or equivalent) has access to individual giving records. He or she does not provide any input that would reflect this information.

4. A key group in the church

In some churches, this group is the elders. In some other churches, it is the nominating committee.

5. A staff person other than the pastor and a layperson

The pastor is specifically precluded from individual giving visibility. Instead, another staff person, such as an associate or executive pastor, has access to the records along with the financial secretary.

6. No church members

No church member can see the records. Instead, a non-member is recruited or hired to keep the records, but that person does not share the information with any church members.

There are certainly different options and different variations of these options. I can see some rationale in each of them.

This post was adapted from an article that first appeared at ThomRainer.com on April 13, 2016. Thom S. Rainer serves as president and CEO of LifeWay Christian Resources. Among his greatest joys are his family: his wife Nellie Jo; three sons, Sam, Art, and Jess; and ten grandchildren. Dr. Rainer can be found on Twitter @ThomRainer and at facebook.com/Thom.S.Rainer.

Image: Ozge Emir | Getty

Do Overtime Hours at Church Camp Qualify as an Exemption?

Overtime hours for part-time employees is just one of several key compensation considerations.

Ted Batson, CPA and Tax Attorney

Bio

Q: We have a camp trip this summer and are looking to send one of our part-time hourly employees. This will require them to essentially be working the entire trip. Are we required to pay overtime for all hours worked or are there exemptions for “camp” time? I have seen mention of exemptions of camp counselors, but it seems since they are already a regular employee that we may be crossing a line.

Understanding labor laws and regulations

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and US Department of Labor (DOL) regulations do recognize an exemption from overtime pay for employees of an organized camp operated as a “distinct physical place of business.”

See 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(3); 29 C.F.R. § 779.23. Under the facts described, it is unlikely the part-time hourly employee will qualify for this statutory overtime exemption, either because the employee is employed by the church, and not by a camp with a “distinct physical place of business,” or because the camp trip is not an organized camp (or perhaps for both reasons).

But the inquiry should not stop here.

‘Volunteer’ v. ‘Employee’

The DOL has recognized a narrow exception from the definition of employment, an exception in which an employee of a nonprofit organization “volunteers” in an activity sponsored by the organization. In determining whether an individual’s participation in an activity is as a “volunteer” and not an “employee,” the DOL considers several factors, including whether the services are:

Offered freely without pressure or coercion;
Of the kind typically associated with volunteer work; and
Different in nature from the employee-volunteer’s normal work activities.

Therefore, if the camp trip will be attended by youth of the church, and the part-time hourly worker’s normal duties include working with the church’s youth, then this exception would not apply.

However, if the employee’s normal duties are different in nature, such as providing finance and accounting services, then this exception for volunteers should apply so long as the employee is not required to participate (a requirement to participate would alter the nature of the employee’s participation from “voluntary” to “within the scope of employment”).

Set clear policies

To ensure that volunteer services are distinguishable from work performed within the scope of the employment relationship, the church’s governing body should establish policies governing the conditions under which church employees may volunteer and requiring job descriptions with sufficient detail to clearly distinguish employment services from volunteer services.

If the employee is not exempt from overtime pay and doesn’t qualify as a volunteer for the camp trip, then given that the employee will “essentially be working the entire trip,” the church must determine how many hours are considered “work hours” for the purpose of determining compensation, including overtime pay.

In general, an employee must be paid for hours worked.

The importance of “sleep time” arrangements

When an employee is essentially on duty around-the-clock, DOL regulations permit the employer and the employee to mutually agree to exclude from hours worked (i) sleep time of not more than eight hours, (ii) mealtimes where the employee is completely relieved of duty, and (iii) rest periods (e.g., breaks) of not less than 30 minutes (see 29 C.F.R. §§ 785.18, 785.19(a), 785.22). To qualify as excluded sleep time, the employer must provide the employee with “adequate sleeping facilities” where the “employee can usually enjoy an uninterrupted night’s sleep” (29 C.F.R. § 785.22(a)).

If the employee’s sleep time is interrupted by employment-related duties, then the hours related to the interruption must be included in hours worked (29 C.F.R. § 785.22(b)).

Further, if the employee cannot get at least five hours of sleep during the eight-hour sleep period due to employment-related interruptions, no portion of the sleep time is excluded from hours worked (29 C.F.R. § 785.22(b)). It is important that an employee’s sleep time, meal times, and rest periods are documented to ensure there are records supporting the hours worked.

Other considerations

Depending on the activities (both planned and unplanned) on the camp trip, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to allow the employee mealtimes where the employee is completely relieved of duty.

In addition, the nature of many camp trips, particularly those involving youth, often result in short nights with fewer than five hours of sleep. Accordingly, it is conceivable that an employee would be eligible to be compensated for every hour of the day.

The FLSA does not require that all hours worked be compensated at the same rate, however. Therefore, with advance notice to the affected employee, it is possible to pay the employee a lower rate for hours worked during the camp trip.

It is advisable to establish that the lower rate is consistent with the rate paid to similarly situated persons performing the same duties that the part-time employee in the question will be required to perform during the camp trip. For example, if the employee’s normal hourly rate is $15 per hour, but the industry standard for employees performing these duties is $9 per hour, then paying a lower rate for these services is permissible and defensible. Note that the lower rate cannot be lower than the applicable minimum wage.

Final thoughts

An employee cannot waive their right to compensation for hours worked or overtime pay.
While the camp trip may be to a camp facility owned and operated by the church, it is likely that the overtime exception for camp employees will not apply for a part-time church employee because of rules that do not permit interchanging employees between camp and non-camp activities.
From the description of the employee in the question as a “part-time hourly employee,” we can assume that the employee is a nonexempt employee for DOL wage and hour purposes and therefore not exempt under another regulation.
There are state wage and hour laws which should be examined to ensure that they do not provide an employee with additional benefits not provided by the FLSA.
If the part-time employee can be properly classified as a “minister,” additional research would need to be performed to determine if the so-called ministerial exception applies.

Ted R. Batson Jr. is a CPA and tax attorney, and serves as a partner and Professional Practice Leader – Tax for CapinCrouse LLP, a national CPA and consulting firm. He speaks and teaches frequently for national conferences and organizations on exempt organization and charitable giving matters.

Image: getty/boonchai wedmakawand

Creating a Successful Church Succession Plan

When planning for a ministry leader’s successor, the best time to start is now.

Vonna Laue, CPA

Bio

Many ministries only think about succession planning if they have a senior leader near or past the standard retirement age. This thinking does not take into consideration any surprise transitions, lengthy absences, or the importance of many other leadership positions: all considerations that are important from a risk-management perspective.

A few years ago, I knew three ministries that all experienced a tragedy unexpectedly striking their senior leaders. Two of those leaders passed away suddenly, and one was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. Each organization scrambled to find solutions, and some were better prepared than others. It was an eye-opening experience for me, as an outsider, to consider what should be learned from their difficulties.

For some denominationally-affiliated churches, there may be formal structures and procedures in place that must be followed for succession planning. (If in doubt, check with your denomination or governing authority first.) For churches without such a mandated structure, however, crafting a succession plan requires key considerations. For these churches, creating a succession plan requires the cooperation of the church’s governing board as well as the leaders whose roles are being considered. If the parties don’t understand the importance of this project, it is unlikely to get the support and attention required to make it successful.

Making a Plan: First Steps

Start by determining which roles are the most critical and therefore require contingency plans. This should certainly include the senior pastor, and depending on your church, it may also include associate pastors, the executive pastor, and the business administrator (as well as the school principal or other key ministry leaders).

After this is accomplished, make sure up-to-date job descriptions are available for each of those positions. The descriptions should include the required tasks and outcomes, desired education and experience, and necessary competencies.

Once you have considered “who,” you should look at “why.” An absence may be the result of any of the following:

Death
Serious illness or injury
Moral failure
Resignation
Firing

The circumstances will change the response, such as whether the vacancy should be filled temporarily or permanently. There are also different factors to consider depending on whether the individual left willingly or under duress. Clear and effective communication with the congregation during this time will be critical, and these factors play a significant role in that task.

Establishing a Final Solution

The next step is to determine what the ultimate solution is—and what steps are necessary to get from where you are now to where you would like to be.

Having replacements on staff who are trained for the position they would assume is optimal. While that is often not the case, it should be considered in this planning process (and also when hiring for any new positions).

The goal is to identify the best candidates and then adequately prepare them for their future roles. Often employees desire to grow in their careers and seek to take on new challenges. Recognizing their leadership potential and intentionally investing in them will likely lead to more engaged staff as well as better candidates for succession.

A formal mentoring and coaching program can be a helpful tool in preparing future leaders. As senior leaders identify staff members who may play significant roles in the future of the church and may take over their positions someday, they should invest deliberate and thoughtfully planned time in those staff members. It is important to gain a clear understanding of what their strengths are and what areas they need to develop to be prepared to take on the added responsibility.

Such mentorships can help potential future leaders prepare both personally and professionally. A leadership position can take a toll on an individual’s personal life; preparing future leaders in advance would be a blessing. Professional help could involve coaching through opportunities as they arise, suggesting professional readings or conferences to attend, and promoting an awareness of how specific situations could be handled more effectively. This takes an investment of time by current leaders in your ministry, but if done consistently and intentionally, it will yield beneficial results long-term.

Don’t Wait to Get Started

As with any other policies or procedures, succession planning is not something you can do once and put on a shelf. You should revisit your policy periodically to ensure the strategy—including roles and plans—is up-to-date. Remember, too, that after a transition is made, the planning process needs to start again to consider the possibility of that individual’s eventual transition out.

You don’t want your leaders to think you are planning prematurely for their home-going, but you do want them to understand the vital role they play and the impact their departure will have on the ministry. Those who desire to finish well or even leave a lasting legacy should be supportive of this process and appreciate its importance.

Rather than waiting for the perfect time or the perfect solution, get started now! Don’t delay any longer, and do make sure you are documenting the process as you go, so nothing gets lost through communication channels, committees, meetings, or the passage of time.

For more information on employment and staff transitions, see the articles “What to Do with a New Hire” and “Reviewing Your Church’s Employment Policies and Practices.”

Vonna Laue has worked with ministries and churches for more than 20 years. Vonna was a partner with a national CPA firm serving not-for-profit entities through audit, review, tax, and advisory services. Most recently, she held the role of executive vice president for a Christian ministry that works to enhance trust in the church and ministry community.

10 Commandments for Pastors, Politics, and Social Media

10 commandments for pastors thinking of preaching, speaking, or posting about politics in an election cycle. Or any other time.

Thom Rainer

There are few topics that evoke as much emotion as politics, and church leaders would do well to remember these 10 commandments for pastors when it comes to engaging in politics—particular on social media.

Pastors and church staff are not oblivious to political emotions. Indeed, some of them can be among the most intensely emotional.

The purpose of this post is not to imply that pastors and staff should abandon their convictions. Nor is it to suggest that silence is always the best option. Instead, I hope it is a gentle reminder of ten issues pastors and church staff may want to consider before posting political views and opinions on social media.

You shall remember you are an ambassador for Christ.

All of your written and spoken words should be a reflection of Him.

You shall remember you are your church to many people.

Your words, for better or worse, are a direct reflection on your congregation.

You shall not be a stumbling block to unbelievers.

Many are watching you. Many are reading your words.

You shall refrain from posting when your emotions are high.

Take a break for a day. If you don’t, you will likely regret it later.

You shall remember that others are often posting in the throes of their own anger and emotions.

It is usually best not to engage them then.

You shall remember your words are permanent.

The moment you post, someone has likely captured your article or post, even if you delete it later.

You shall understand some members of your congregation likely have a different view than you.

Is your post worth the disunity that may follow?

You shall not be a distraction to the gospel.

Politics are often an easy detour from that which really matters.

You shall be aware of the long political memory many people have.

Some people are talking today about the comments Christians made in the presidential election four years ago!

You shall be aware that your political opinions may cause disunity with other churches in the community.

Make certain the words are worth the price that is paid.

The writer of Ecclesiastes reminds us in chapter 3, verse 7, that there is “a time to be silent and a time to speak.” For the sake of the gospel, please make certain you have sought God’s wisdom to discern what time it is for you.

Lead Your Church With Confidence—Became a Church Law & Tax Member Today.

This post was adapted from an article that first appeared at ThomRainer.com on March 21, 2016. Thom S. Rainer serves as president and CEO of LifeWay Christian Resources. Among his greatest joys are his family: his wife Nellie Jo; three sons, Sam, Art, and Jess; and seven grandchildren. Dr. Rainer can be found on Twitter @ThomRainer and at facebook.com/Thom.S.Rainer .

For information on the tax and legal guidelines faith-based organizations need to know before jumping into the political fray, see the downloadable resource Politics and the Church .

Image: adventtr | Getty

Assumption of Risk Forms: A Legal Blind Spot for Many Churches

Without careful legal review, these forms are useless to churches.

Richard R. Hammar, Attorney, CPA

Bio

Last Reviewed: July 28, 2025

Editor’s note: This article has a companion article, “A 16-Point Evaluation for Assumption of Risk Forms.”

Key point 10-16.06. A release form is a document signed by a competent adult that purports to relieve a church from liability for its own negligence. Such forms may be legally enforceable if they are clearly written and identify the conduct that is being released. However, the courts look with disfavor on release forms, and this has led to several limitations, including the following: (1) release forms will be strictly and narrowly construed against the church; (2) release forms cannot relieve a church of liability for injuries to minors, since minors have no legal capacity to sign such forms and their parents’ signature does not prevent minors from bringing their own personal injury claim after they reach age 18; (3) some courts refuse to enforce any release form that attempts to avoid liability for personal injuries on the ground that such forms violate public policy; and (4) release forms will not be enforced unless they clearly communicate that they are releasing the church from liability for its negligence.

Overview: Why Churches Use Release Forms

The purpose of release forms

”The main purpose of a release typically is the voluntary relinquishment of a claim or right by one who, absent the release, could have enforced such a claim or right.” Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, 257 P.3d 1049 (Utah App. 2011).

Churches, schools, and youth-serving ministries often ask event participants to sign forms intended to protect the organization from liability for injuries caused by its own negligence. These are commonly called:

Release forms

Waivers of liability

Assumptions of risk

Many organizations use forms they find online without legal review—a risky move that can render the forms ineffective or even unenforceable.

Key Points Church Leaders Must Understand

What release forms are and how they work

Legal requirements for enforceability

State law differences

Why some forms are rejected by courts

Special considerations for minors

The role of indemnification and hold harmless clauses

How release forms impact insurance and risk management

This article explains each point and summarizes leading court cases involving churches and charitable organizations.

Definitions and Purposes of Release Forms

A release form is an agreement where one party releases another from liability. It can be:

Retroactive – Often used in legal settlements

Prospective – Used before an activity to waive future claims (most common for churches)

Waiver is a legal term for giving up a known right.

Assumption of Risk means a person voluntarily accepts the risk of harm from a known danger.

“Assumption of risk means that the plaintiff, in advance, has given his express consent to relieve the defendant of an obligation of conduct toward him.” —Cohen v. Five Brooks Stable (Cal. App. 2008)

“The main purpose of a release typically is the voluntary relinquishment of a claim or right.” —Penunuri v. Sundance Partners (Utah App. 2011)

Most release forms combine release and assumption of risk language.

Types of Assumption of Risk

Express: The participant signs an agreement.

Implied: The participant knows the risk but proceeds anyway.

“Express assumption occurs when parties agree in advance that one of them is under no obligation to use reasonable care.” —Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort (Wash. 1992)

Note: In many states, implied assumption of risk has merged with comparative negligence laws.

Exculpatory Clauses: These are sections of a contract that aim to relieve a party of legal blame. The term comes from “exculpate,” meaning to free from blame.

Why Legal Counsel Matters

Using generic or out-of-state templates can lead to serious problems. For example:

The importance of legal counsel

The importance of legal counsel in drafting release forms is illustrated by a 2015 federal court ruling in Tennessee. Hayward v. Trinity Church, 2015 WL 1924552 (M.D. Tenn. 2015).

A federal district court in Tennessee ruled that an agreement between a church and a church employee to arbitrate all employment disputes was enforceable, and therefore a dismissed church employee’s lawsuit seeking unpaid overtime compensation had to be arbitrated.

However, the court noted that the agreement contained a “venue clause” mandating that any arbitration occur in Orange County, California, and referencing several remedies employees can assert before the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Clearly, the church was using a template that was intended for use in California, and neglected to make it Tennessee-specific. An attorney would have flagged this provision, and spared the Tennessee church of the needless expense of litigating in California.

In Hayward v. Trinity Church (M.D. Tenn. 2015), a church used a California-based agreement with a venue clause requiring arbitration in California. The court noted this was inappropriate for a Tennessee church and enforceability was compromised.

Always consult an attorney to ensure your release forms comply with local laws and context.

What Makes a Release Form Legally Valid?

To be enforceable, a release form must meet standard contract requirements:

1. Two or More Parties

Typically between the church and participant.

2. Consideration

Something of value must be exchanged.

Example: Valid Consideration

“In consideration of participating in [event], I release the church from liability.”

Example: Invalid Consideration

“I release the church from liability.” —No benefit is offered in return.

Courts do not assess the amount of consideration. Even a “peppercorn” is enough. —Mandel v. Liebman (N.Y. 1951)

3. Definiteness

Terms must be clear and understandable.

4. Legal Capacity

Parties must be mentally capable and at least 18 years old.

5. Mutual Assent

Must be a “meeting of the minds.”

Cannot be obtained through fraud, mistake, undue influence, or coercion.

6. Legality

The agreement must not violate public policy or seek to excuse gross negligence.

Why Some Release Forms Fail

Courts may invalidate release forms for:

Gross negligence or intentional acts

Lack of consideration

Ambiguity

Unequal bargaining power

Violating public policy

Unconscionability (overly harsh terms or hidden clauses)

“The law does not favor exculpatory agreements because they encourage a lack of care.” —Walters v. YMCA (N.J. App. 2014)

Special Issues with Minors

Most states do not allow:

Minors to sign enforceable contracts

Parents to waive a child’s future injury claims

“The strong policy in favor of protecting children must trump any competing interest.” —Galloway v. State (Iowa 2010)

A few states have laws allowing parental waivers, but often only for specific activities (e.g., skiing, equine events) and with limits.

Practical Implications for Churches

Church leaders should:

Always consult legal counsel when creating or using release forms

Avoid relying on templates without state-specific review

Be aware that gross negligence cannot be waived

Understand that forms signed by or on behalf of minors may be unenforceable

Use clear, unambiguous language in all documents

Risk management tip: Even with a valid release form, insurance coverage may still be affected by how courts interpret liability.

Conclusion

Release forms are useful risk management tools, but they come with strict legal standards. Courts scrutinize them carefully, especially when they attempt to waive claims involving minors or gross negligence.

Churches that understand these legal nuances—and craft their forms accordingly—can reduce risk and better protect themselves legally.

State Statutes Allowing Parents to Sign Preinjury Releases on Behalf of Their Minor Children

Note: Do not rely on this information without first consulting with legal counsel.

State	Statute	Text of Statute
Alaska	AK Stat. 09.65.292	(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a parent may, on behalf of the parent’s child, release or waive the child’s prospective claim for negligence against the provider … in which the child participates to the extent that the activities to which the waiver applies are clearly and conspicuously set out in the written waiver and to the extent the waiver is otherwise valid. The release or waiver must be in writing and shall be signed by the child’s parent. (b) A parent may not release or waive a child’s prospective claim against a provider for reckless or intentional misconduct.

Arizona	AZ Stat. 12-553	A. An equine owner or an agent of an equine owner who regardless of consideration allows another person to take control of an equine is not liable for an injury to or the death of the person if … the person or the parent or legal guardian of the person if the person is under eighteen years of age has signed a release before taking control of the equine. B. Subsection A does not apply to an equine owner or agent of the equine owner who is grossly negligent or commits willful, wanton or intentional acts or omissions.
Colorado	CO Stat. 13-22-107	A parent of a child may, on behalf of the child, release or waive the child’s prospective claim for negligence. Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a parent acting on behalf of his or her child to waive the child’s prospective claim against a person or entity for a willful and wanton act or omission, a reckless act or omission, or a grossly negligent act or omission.
Florida	FL Stat. 744.301(3)	Nothing in this subsection limits the ability of natural guardians [includes parents] on behalf of any of their minor children, to waive and release, in advance, any claim or cause of action against a noncommercial activity provider, or its owners, affiliates, employees, or agents, to the extent authorized by common law.
Virginia	VA Stat. 3.2-6202	No participant or parent or guardian of a participant who has knowingly executed a waiver of his rights to sue or agrees to assume all risks specifically enumerated under this subsection may maintain an action against or recover from an equine activity sponsor or an equine professional for an injury to or the death of a participant engaged in an equine activity. The waiver shall give notice to the participant of the intrinsic dangers of equine activities. The waiver shall remain valid unless expressly revoked in writing by the participant or parent or guardian of a minor.

We’ve used a combination of AI and human review to make this content easier to read and understand.

Richard R. Hammar is an attorney, CPA and author specializing in legal and tax issues for churches and clergy.

Image: Regina Podolsky | Getty

A 16-Point Evaluation for Assumption of Risk Forms

Consider these key points in evaluating the validity of a release or assumption of risk form.

Richard R. Hammar, Attorney, CPA

Bio

Last Reviewed: February 13, 2025

Background

Many churches nationwide use some version of waivers and release forms with their events and activities, especially ones involving children and youth. Leaders wish to notify participants—or the parents or guardians of participants—about the potential risks involved.

They want a signature signaling the participant or parent acknowledges those risks and will not attempt to hold the church legally liable should one of those risks somehow result in an injury either to themselves or their children.

While waivers and release forms are an important part of a church’s risk management strategy, they aren’t perfect. They can help limit a church’s legal liability but often, they cannot fully eliminate it.

Unfortunately, many church leaders get lulled into a false sense of security about these documents, and these misunderstandings can lead to costly situations.

16 key points to consider when creating and using waivers and releases at your church

Point 1

Release forms will be strictly and narrowly construed against the church.

Point 2

The courts are more likely to enforce a customized release or assumption of risk form than a generic form found on the internet. Ideally, the form should be drafted, or at least reviewed, by legal counsel. The importance of legal counsel in drafting release forms is illustrated by a recent federal court ruling in Tennessee. The case involved a legal form used by a church that was found on the internet. Church leaders failed to notice that the form required all employment disputes to be arbitrated in California! Clearly, the church was using a template that was intended for use in California, and neglected to make it Tennessee-specific. An attorney would have flagged this provision, and spared the Tennessee church of the needless expense of arbitrating in California.

Point 3

Release forms will not be enforced if they are ambiguous.

Point 4

Release forms will not be enforced if the person signing the form does not do so voluntarily.

Point 5

Release forms will not be enforced if the person signing the form is not informed (by the language of the form) as to the specific risk that is being released. Activities giving risk to injuries must be specifically described along with a listing of the possible injuries.

Point 6

Releases and assumption of risk forms should contain language releasing the releasee from liability based on the negligence of itself or its agents “to the fullest extent permitted by law.”

Point 7

Releases and assumption of risk forms should refer to both known and unknown risks associated with the planned trip or activity.

Point 8

Releases and assumption or risk forms are contractual documents, and so the requirements for a valid contract must be met in order for such forms to be legally enforceable. One common mistake in drafting such forms is a failure to identify “consideration” provided by the releasee to the releasor in exchange for the releasor’s commitment to release the releasee from liability. The form should begin with this or similar language: “In consideration of my being allowed to participate in [name the event] and other valuable considerations the receipt of which is acknowledged, I hereby agree to the following… .”

Point 9

Several courts have ruled that release forms cannot relieve a church from liability for injuries to minors, since minors have no legal capacity to sign such forms and their parents’ signature does not prevent minors from bringing their own personal injury claim after they reach age 18. Some states have enacted legislation giving parents the legal authority to release their minor children’s claims. But, there are still limitations that may prevent parents from releasing their children’s claims (i.e., voluntary and informed consent, and no release of gross negligence or reckless conduct).

Point 10

Many courts have refused to enforce release forms that attempt to avoid liability for intentional acts, gross negligence, or willful or wanton conduct. If a release form does not explicitly exclude such conduct from its terms, the form may be invalidated by a court.

Point 11

Some courts refuse to enforce release forms if they are “contracts of adhesion” based on a gross disparity in bargaining power between the releasor and releasee. To illustrate, if the person signing a release form has no ability to change it, this may suggest an unenforceable adhesion contract. On the other hand, some courts have ruled that a release form is not an unenforceable contract of adhesion if the party signing the form could walk away from the transaction and do business elsewhere. This exception may or may not apply to a church, depending on the circumstances. After all, is it realistic to say that a church member has the right to walk away and attend another church, and therefore a release form is not a contract of adhesion?

Point 12

Some courts refuse to enforce a release form that is inconspicuous. To illustrate, if the language of release is not in bold font that is larger than the remainder of the document text, or is buried in another, larger document, without a bold heading and other devices to draw attention to it, it may be unenforceable. A release or assumption of risk form should be a separate document that is not commingled in a larger document, such as an application or registration form.

Point 13

Some courts have ruled that release forms that do not contain a signature by the releasor are unenforceable. To illustrate, if the language of release is contained in a larger document, a signature line should appear directly after the language of release as well as at the end of the document.

Point 14

Avoid use of release forms that contain the signatures of everyone on a trip. Each participant should sign his or her own form.

Point 15

Churches that send groups of adults to other locations for short-term missions projects should consider having each participating adult sign an assumption of risk form. So long as these forms clearly explain the risks involved, and leave no doubt that the signer is assuming all risks associated with the trip, they may be enforced by the courts. This assumes that the signer is a competent adult. Churches should consult with an attorney about the validity of such forms under state law.

Point 16

Churches should not allow a minor child to participate in any church activity (such as camping, boating, swimming, hiking, or some sporting events) unless the child’s parents or legal guardians sign a “parental consent form” that:

consents to their child participating in the specified activity;
certifies that the child is able to participate in the event (e.g., if the activity involves boating or swimming, the parents or guardians should certify that the child is able to swim);
lists any allergies or medical conditions that may be relevant to a physician in the event of an emergency;
lists any activities that the parents or guardians do not want the child to engage in; and
authorizes a designated individual to make emergency medical decisions for their child in the event parents or guardians cannot be reached.

Both parents should sign if possible

Ideally, a parental consent form should be signed by both parents or guardians (if there are two), and the signatures should be notarized. If only one parent or guardian signs, or the signatures are not notarized, the legal effectiveness of the form is diminished. Having persons sign as witnesses to a parent’s signature is not as good as a notary’s acknowledgment, but it is better than a signature without a witness. The form should require the parent or guardian to inform the church immediately of any change in the information presented, and it should state that it is valid until revoked by the person who signed it. The parent or guardian should sign both in his or her own capacity as parent or guardian, and in a representative capacity on behalf of the minor child.

Note: Churches should not use releases or assumption of risk forms without discussing them with their insurance agent and a local attorney.

For more information on the subject of release forms, see the “Assumption of Risk Forms: A Legal Blindspot for Many Churches.”

Richard R. Hammar is an attorney, CPA and author specializing in legal and tax issues for churches and clergy.

Image: gopixa | Getty

The Pastor’s Sabbatical and Tax Implications

Pastor sabbaticals are valuable ministry tools, but they have tax implications every church leader should know.

Elaine L. Sommerville, CPA

Bio

A pastor’s sabbatical is a time of refreshment and rejuvenation is common, but a sabbatical comes with tax implications.

While churches desire a sabbatical to be both beneficial to the pastors and a blessing, when it comes to taxes, many common practices surrounding sabbaticals create unanticipated adverse consequences for both churches and pastors. Several questions commonly arise from the practice of sabbatical programs offered by churches.

If a church wants to provide a month-long sabbatical to all full-time, credentialed pastors, can the church continue to pay a pastor’s regular salary during the sabbatical?

A sabbatical is generally a vacation and can be offered at will by the church. A sabbatical can be considered “paid” time off and compensation related to the time off is fully taxable. However, the extent of paid time off should be reasonable considering the pastor’s tenure with the church. For example, the IRS could consider granting an extended sabbatical a form of unreasonable compensation, if the pastor has only worked at the church for a few years.

If a church provides its pastor a sabbatical and agrees to cover the cost of a special trip providing a time of renewal with the pastor’s family, are the related expenses taxable to the pastor?

Yes, the payment of personal travel expenses is taxable to the pastor. While a church may see the benefit of a time of renewal, this purpose is not recognized as a business purpose by the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and a pastor cannot convert personal expenses into business expenses.

Our pastors are expected to study and pray for the future vision of the church during their sabbatical. Does this required activity allow the related expenses to be business expenses?

An expectation of spiritual development may appear to have a business purpose for a church, but it does not turn travel that is inherently personal in nature into a business trip. There must be a business purpose for the travel for it to be considered business travel. Since activities involving personal spiritual development and prayer don’t require a destination, the IRS doesn’t agree that traveling to another destination is required to accomplish these purposes.

Our pastor believes visiting various historical sites provides a better education or understanding of biblical events, places, and people and is planning on spending part of the sabbatical in the Holy Land. Can the church cover the expenses, tax-free, related to this trip?

IRC Section 274(m) disallows a deduction for any travel expenses where the travel itself is a form of education. While the “deduction” is not in question, amounts disallowed under IRC Section 274 generally fail the definition of business expenses allowed under IRC Section 162. These rules apply to trips where a taxpayer is not completing a specific course of study or attending a specific educational event, but rather the trips simply provide a greater knowledge and understanding of an area that will enhance the traveler’s abilities. In cases when pastors may determine their own itinerary, the trip is considered a personal trip and not a business trip.

Are there times when the church can pay sabbatical expenses without creating taxable income to the pastor?

For a church to pay sabbatical expenses tax-free, the trip expenses must rise to the level of a business expense as allowed by IRC Section 162 and Section 274. The IRC requires the predominant or primary purpose for travel to be the conduct of a business activity. Emphasis on the “predominant” or “primary” is an important attribute. Where the predominant purpose for the trip is personal in nature, integrating a small amount of a business activity does not translate the entire trip into a business trip.

For example, during a sabbatical a pastor and his family go to California for two weeks. During the trip, the pastor attends a conference for two days. Since the majority of the days are spent on personal activities, the trip is not considered as “primarily” taken for business. Likewise, travel expenses, such as airfare, are not considered business expenses in this scenario. The church may only pay for the conference fee and any of the related travel expenses on a tax-free basis, i.e., the cost of the hotel during the conference and any meals on conference days.

How are any taxable expenses reported?

Personal expenses covered by the church represent additional taxable compensation and must follow the compensation rules:

Payment of the expenses must be approved by the appropriate board or committee.
Payment of the expenses must not cause a pastor’s compensation to exceed reasonable compensation for services provided to the church.
Payment of the expense must be included in Box 1 of the pastor’s Form W-2.

Should the church be concerned about excess benefit transactions and intermediate sanctions under IRC Section 4958?

If the pastor taking the sabbatical is considered a disqualified person under IRC Section 4958, the church must be concerned about excess benefit transactions. There are two common ways excess benefit transactions are created from sabbaticals:

If the payment of personal expenses results in excess or unreasonable compensation, the amount of unreasonable compensation is an excess benefit; or
If the payment of expenses is not approved by the proper board or committee as additional compensation, and it is not included on the pastor’s Form W-2 as compensation, then it is considered an automatic excess benefit transaction even if the expenses would not have created unreasonable compensation if properly approved and reported.

What are the consequences of excess benefit transactions (EBT)?

The assessment of intermediate sanctions and the required repayment of the expenses to the church are the consequences of the EBT. Sanctions include an initial sanction of 25 percent of the EBT with a potential additional assessment of 200 percent if the expenses are not repaid to the church in a timely manner. Additionally, any individual who agreed with the transaction, for example a finance committee member or a board member or other executive officer, may be assessed a sanction of 10 percent of the EBT. In rare cases, and generally only when EBTs are extensive, a church’s tax-exempt status may be revoked (although the law does provide that the church’s tax-exempt status may be revoked at the existence of one EBT). In cases where an EBT could exist, the church should never pay for the expenses initially—thus avoiding any future potential sanctions or complications.

Conclusion

If a church is going to create a sabbatical policy for its pastors, the church should clearly state the expenses it will and will not cover during the sabbatical and what expectations it has of pastors during a sabbatical.

If a church is providing for personal expenses, a policy should clearly indicate the expenses to be included in taxable income. Not only does this create clear expectations between a church and its pastors, this allows both planning for the payment of expenses and planning for any related tax consequences. And, while we have addressed pastoral sabbaticals, in general, the rules apply to any staff member when working with a sabbatical.

Elaine L. Sommerville is licensed as a certified public accountant by the State of Texas. She has worked in public accounting since 1985.

IT Strategies for Churches: Expert Tips for Effective Management

Discover IT strategies for churches to manage technology, budgets, and personnel effectively.

Bobby Ross Jr.

Bio

Last Reviewed: January 27, 2025

Nick B. Nicholaou is president of MBS Inc., based in Huntington Beach, California. In his role with MBS—which stands for Ministry Business Services—Nicholaou has served churches as an IT (Information Technology) consultant and strategist for many years. Since 1987, he has helped churches through a number of IT transitions, and he wrote the forthcoming Christianity Today book Church IT: Strategies and Solutions. I spoke with him about how churches should approach IT.

What common mistakes do churches make when it comes to IT support and personnel?

Church leaders tend to think they need somebody who’s a network administrator or engineer, and network engineers are really only needed when you’re designing a network or doing major updates to the network, and I mean at the server level and the configuration level.

What they really typically need is a help-desk person, someone who provides basic technological help, who can answer the question, Why can’t I print? or Why can’t I connect to this webpage? Here’s why the difference is significant: engineers communicate very differently than help-desk people. Help-desk people tend to be very patient and much better at supporting folks who are in the church community.

Also, there’s a big difference in annual salary. The difference is between $20,000 and $25,000 lower for a help-desk support technician than it is for a network administrator or network engineer.

How difficult is it for a church to balance its desire to stretch its budget with the need to maintain essential IT services and proper security?

Well, it’s not difficult if the people setting your technological strategy and standards understand the balancing needed to do so. Typically, churches either underspend or overspend in their purchasing. The same is true for engineering needs.

Underspending would suggest that a church is looking for an inexpensive solution, typically the kind of thing on the shelf of a big-box store. But those are usually consumer-grade technologies rather than enterprise-level technologies—and the difference is significant, as far as how reliable the system is going to be on an ongoing basis. So actually, those inexpensive technologies can end up costing you much more over time. What churches really need to do is buy technologies with enterprise-level specs but be careful to not add a bunch of unnecessary features to those options, because that wastes money.

I recommend churches buy what they need now and up to two years into the future. Don’t buy thinking, Well, in the next four or five years, we’ll be at this level or that level, because technology is going to go down in cost by then. Plus, some technologies may move in a different direction.

The term you used was enterprise-level specs. What do you mean?

Enterprise-level specs are technologies that come with specs—or specifications—that fit the needs of businesses. Typically, you cannot buy enterprise-level specs in a retail store. Retailers stock consumer-grade items. You must purchase enterprise-level hardware and software directly from the manufacturer.

Generally, when people build computers for home use, they say, “Well, I need a hard drive,” look up all the specs, and then choose the one in the price range that will meet the target specs. If someone is looking for a less expensive price, the enterprise-level versus the consumer-level might not be a very big difference in dollars; it might only be $20.

But the consumer-grade solution won’t perform as well over time under stress in an enterprise (business) environment like a church office. As a result, churches end up spending more in the long run, not only on support issues, but also on the loss of time and productivity as staff members experience delays from the poor performance of the consumer-grade solution.

What are software charity licenses, and how can churches take advantage of them?

Microsoft and other companies have different license categories, more than just the retail category offered in stores and online. Most of the time we only think of retail because that’s all we know. But if a church is paying retail for its software licenses, then it’s most likely significantly overpaying.

Microsoft offers charity licensing, as do a number of other companies. In that, the church is able to save significant dollars. For instance, Microsoft Office, which might go for about $350 per license at retail, costs only about $50 with charity licensing.

How do churches learn more about charity licensing?

You can ask the company. When you do, make certain to read the fine print involved with the charity licensing to make certain the company’s requirements for qualifying align with your church’s beliefs and values.

What is the difference between a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephone system and a traditional telephone system?

A traditional phone system uses phone lines called POTS lines, and believe it or not, that stands for plain old telephone system.

VoIP systems transmit calls using network cables rather than POTS wires. With VoIP systems, it can all be done over the internet.

What are the pros and cons of VoIP versus POTS?

VoIP systems can be significantly less expensive than the normal telephone company, but that’s a very small slice of the savings. The bigger savings is the cost of the internal phone system for a church.

Typically, people will spend tens of thousands of dollars on a phone system, and VoIP takes the most expensive component of that phone system and reduces it to zero, or maybe a little bit because you’re going to have to pay somebody to configure it for the church, but it’s not very much money at all.

Some church leaders feel like their churches are IT-challenged, as far as strategy and direction. What advice do you have?

One of the things that will help them is to understand that there are really four disciplines in IT: audio/video, graphic design, social networking, and infrastructure, and each one has different strengths and weaknesses. So, you really need to think about the four disciplines to make sure you’re accomplishing all you want to.

If you’re a typical church with a limited staff, what’s the best way to get the most bang for your buck personnel-wise to deal with the most common IT issues?

As I mentioned, there are really four different disciplines in IT, so churches need to recognize the fact that if somebody is great at graphic design, they are probably not the best person to do infrastructure. Or, if somebody is infrastructure, they’re probably not the best person to do social networking.

It’s important to frame the question or identify the need in light of the four disciplines and look for a solution that is discipline-specific.

Image: Tetra Images | Getty

Why Financial Documentation Is a “Must” for Your Ministry

Keeping track of paperwork and processes is vital for your church.

Vonna Laue, CPA

Bio

One saying that’s been used in our organization for years is “If it’s not documented, it’s not done.”

Documenting your processes and procedures is important for efficiency and effectiveness. From a risk-management standpoint, it is also imperative. Consider what would happen if your key financial person was suddenly out for three months—a realistic possibility that has affected many ministries in the past. Would your ministry be prepared to have someone step in and continue providing the same level of financial service without significant difficulty?

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is commonly thought to only impact for-profit companies. However, it contains two provisions that apply to all corporations, including nonprofits: (1) whistleblower policies and (2) document retention and destruction policies. This reflects the importance that should be placed on documentation—not only what you document, but how long you keep documentation and how you dispose of it when an appropriate amount of time has passed.

If you don’t have effective written documentation in place, start by considering the following:

Corporate and administrative matters

Are you in compliance with your governing documents, such as the bylaws or constitution?
Do you have a conflict of interest policy, and are questionnaires completed annually by board members as well as individuals in leadership?
Have you adopted an accountable reimbursement plan to allow for non-taxable reimbursement of expenses?
If anyone in the church creates intellectual property (such as books, music, or dramatic presentations), do you have a policy identifying the owner of those works?

Human resource matters

Do you have a personnel manual? Are employees required to sign that they have read and understood its contents?
Are you consistently enforcing personnel policies?
Who is responsible for confirming that all employment laws are being followed?

Accounting matters

Consider documenting the following processes:

Risk management

Ensure leadership has brainstormed the various risks related to the organization, identified those of greatest concern, considered options to mitigate the risks, and created a monitoring policy to verify those practices continue to operate as planned.

Cash receipts

Document how money comes in and how it is controlled. You certainly have contributions, but even those amounts could be received through offerings, online, or in other ways. You also have various forms of program revenue, and those amounts can sometimes be the most difficult to control because you may not be certain when and how the funds will be collected. Create written procedures for handling cash received and distribute the instructions to anyone involved in those processes.

Cash disbursements

This is one of the most common areas in which fraud is committed. Review your current practices to ensure suitable segregation of duties are in place and document those procedures so everyone understands their role. You don’t want to put the ministry—or your employees and volunteers—at risk.

Payroll

Payroll processing should not only be well-documented for the sake of internal controls, but also from a procedural standpoint. Many of your employees will not be able to wait long if the person who normally processes payroll is unable to complete the task. Make sure that passwords, while still secured, are available to more than one person, and that others are cross-trained to perform these functions should the need arise.

General ledger activity

The process for recording journal entries, preparing month-end reconciliations, and generating monthly financial reports should all be thoroughly documented to include specifics related to your software. This is an area where efficiency will be most evident. Someone will eventually figure out how to perform these tasks, but having adequate information in a procedures manual will make it much easier.

Next steps

After you have considered the items above, the next steps are to:

Review corporate policies and make sure all needed documents are in place.
Update the personnel manual as well as the accounting policies and procedures manual.
Verify that you have a record-retention policy and that you are in compliance with it.
The lists above are not meant to be exhaustive; rather, they should encourage you to think about the operations in your own organization and what may be necessary. You may also want to retain an expert to help you, such as an attorney, accountant, or human resources specialist. It is better to be proactive, and paying a small amount now may save you a lot of staff time or a larger bill later.
Once you have documented the policies you understand to be important, make sure you have a routine process for updating them. Overall, it takes less effort to keep documentation up to date than it does to start over from scratch every few years. This is not an exercise in which you can check something off a list and never revisit it.
This process is for yourself, your staff, and anyone who may follow after you. Trust me, you will be appreciated for your efforts!

Image: AdobeStock/Nawarit

Protecting Your Church From an Active Shooter Scenario

A police officer’s advice on how to prevent and react to a gunman at church.

Andrew G. Mills

Churches are notorious for minimal security. And while acts of violence at church are rare, recent shootings at churches and schools beg the question: What can leaders do to protect their people? Based on experience in the pulpit and on the police force, here are four steps you can take to reduce risk—and possibly save lives—at your church.

Step 1: Work with local police

Most police agencies have adopted an “active shooter” philosophy.

Designate one of your church leaders to meet with the police and review their strategy for responding to a shooting in your building.
Educate your congregation on your church’s policies for responding to an emergency, perhaps through a brochure or a segment of your new member’s class.

Step 2: Create a survey of your facility for police

Include in your overview:

Blueprints and photos (digital and hard-copy) of every room in the church to guide officers as they secure the church building
Emergency contact information for the church pastor, property manager, medical personnel, and members of the church’s crisis-response team
Keys to outside and classroom doors
Shut off points for gas, water, and electricity
Designated rally points for families and medical triage
Any knowledge of existing threats, including anyone against whom the church or a member has a restraining order

Step 3: Create a lockdown policy

If your local police department has an active shooter policy, a lockdown may be the best way to protect the segment of your congregation that is in the building during a shooting but outside the immediate vicinity of the shooter. During a lockdown, certain areas of the church are required to shut, lock, and barricade their doors until police arrive. Those inside during a lockdown should stay away from windows and leave room lights on to ease the police team’s search. Before instituting such a policy:

Determine which church leaders can order a lockdown and under what circumstances.
Identify who can enter protected areas (such as the nursery), and how or if parents can retrieve children during a lockdown.
Provide telephones or intercoms that allow each lockdown area to communicate outside the building.

Step 4: Prevent an incident

Increase effort. If a shooter plans an attack on your church, he will likely arrive after the service begins. Make it difficult for an intruder to enter your church unnoticed and take a seat wherever he wants. A simple step involves closing sanctuary doors once a service begins and training ushers to meet latecomers and guide them to designated seating areas.
Reduce risk. Create visual or lighting obstructions, isolating threats from the body of believers.
Plan in advance. Every church should be prepared by appointing a crisis response team consisting of several people with police, military, or medical training.
Reduce provocation. Set guidelines for denying access to people who are unstable, agitated, angry, or intoxicated. Train ushers to identify the warning signs of such a person, and coach them to deny access firmly, but respectfully.

If a Shooter Gets In…

It is critical for leaders to be decisive. If the gunman targets a pastor or some other leader, those most visible should draw attention away from the congregation. If the shooter targets the congregation, direct confrontation is essential. This is dangerous, but you can improve your chances by distracting the shooter. Weaken his shooting ability by throwing hymnals, yelling from multiple directions, and tackling him from behind.

If the shooter does not penetrate deep into the sanctuary and is shooting randomly, take cover behind a pew, pillar, or balcony. Most shooters will be well armed and intend to inflict maximum damage. Recognizing the grave danger, church leaders and members of a crisis team can save lives by closing the gap between themselves and the shooter and overwhelming him.

Once a shooting begins, establish communication with the police as soon as possible. Avoid chaos by assigning only people on your crisis response team to call 911. Police will want to know the number of shooters, location of suspects, types of weapons, possible traps or explosives, immediacy of threat, and location of sensitive areas such as Sunday schools or nurseries. The emergency dispatcher will instruct the caller to stay on the line in order to provide real-time information to police on the scene.

When police arrive, stay on the ground until you are told to move. But movement creates confusion and complicates the situation for police. When you do get up, avoid sudden movements or any object in your hand that could be construed as a threat.

Andrew G. Mills is Chief of Police; Eureka, California.

Adapted from the downloadable resource Protect Your Church from Crime and Violence.

Getting Ministry Leaders Engaged in the Board Budgeting Process

Greater accountability and practical training may enchance and improve your board budgeting process.

Vonna Laue, CPA

Bio

Q: I’m trying to put the numbers together for next year’s budget, but I’m getting little cooperation from the church’s ministry leaders. Information isn’t submitted on time—or at all—and the board doesn’t mandate compliance. What should I do?

It is difficult if you don’t have the cooperation of ministry leaders or the board. Without cooperation from these principal parties, you are certainly fighting an uphill battle.

The best way to get ministry leaders to participate in a meaningful way is to include an element of accountability. Talk to your senior pastor about including budget results in the annual evaluation for ministry leaders. That means effort needs to be placed on tying the budget to ministry objectives and measuring results on a consistent basis.

To get the board more engaged, consider some practical training that includes information on historical trends (without overwhelming them). Information and education are power! If they clearly understand how financial results drive or restrain ministry, they will likely begin to take more interest in the process.

So, do what you can to help them realize the budget is there not to keep them from doing ministry but to make sure funds are available for the ministry they see as critical. When both ministry leaders and the board see the budget process as a tool to focus the efforts of the church, and not just a constraint, you will hopefully gain greater cooperation.

Image: AdobeStock/lashkhidzetim

How to Ensure Effective Board Training

Ideas for maximizing the work of your church board.

Vonna Laue, CPA

Bio

Board members volunteer their time, talent, and treasure for the sake of your ministry. They are often well-intentioned, but they are not always well-equipped. Fortunately, there are ways you can help your board members become more effective in their roles and therefore better at providing both oversight and insight for your church.

The role of a board member comes with significant responsibilities. Board members must exercise the duty of care and the duty of loyalty, meaning they must act in the best interests of the organization and set aside any personal opinions or agendas. They are held to the standard of doing what a reasonable person would do in the same situation.

At the same time, board members may wear several “hats” within the church. They might put on the volunteer “hat,” for example, when they lead a small group or help with the parking ministry. They may wear the parent “hat” when considering the impact of a ministry decision on their children in the nursery or the high school youth group. The donor “hat” is worn when they determine how they will tithe and what additional ministries or church needs they will support.

However, it is imperative that board members not put on the wrong “hat” when they act on behalf of the church, and that their role as board members is clear to them and to those with whom they speak. When wearing a board “hat,” someone speaks as a voice of the whole board and acts only as directed by the board.

Training Your Board

Churches have opportunities to improve the skill set of board members beginning with the start of their tenure and continuing throughout their term. An intentional focus on board development will yield significant results: not only will it be helpful to the ministry, but it will invest in those individuals and make the board an attractive place to serve.

Starting Off Right

When new members join the governing board or a committee, make sure they have the information necessary to start well. Provide them with organizational documents, such as bylaws and the constitution, as well as meeting minutes from the last couple of years. In this way, they can better understand the inner workings of the ministry. They may have been involved or participated in the church for a long time, but the average churchgoer doesn’t typically understand the church’s corporate activity or the information that was considered before decisions were made.

New members need to understand the board’s type of governance. Does it follow a policy governance model or is it more of a decision-making or operational board? Help individuals know what that means for them specifically and what their roles are. They should also be made aware of the overall organizational chart of the ministry, their primary contact for questions, and information about various committees and terms of service.

Keeping Up the Momentum

Ongoing training should be considered as part of each agenda or at least at regular intervals (e.g., quarterly). The topics can vary, but they should eventually cover all areas of key oversight. Encourage ministry leaders to bring information regarding their involvement in different programs and the effect of those programs.

Be sure there is specific training provided for committees such as finance and personnel. Information can change rapidly in these areas, and the effect can be significant; you can’t risk being out-of-date. A broader perspective with updates should be provided to the overall board, so that they are aware of the risks and have the necessary knowledge to make decisions.

Potential topics for board member training include:

Risk management
Understanding financial statements
Human resource compliance
Housing allowance and tax matters
Internal control structure
How to build reserves
Budgeting for ministry
Legal exposure

Bringing in Outsiders

An outside perspective for some of the training may be beneficial. Qualified individuals in your church can provide great context and invaluable history, and sometimes it’s appropriate to tap into the expertise of a specialist, whether that specialist is an attorney, HR consultant, or CPA. A specialist could also be a facility expert, a banker, or someone from within the denomination. Any outside resource, though, must understand what you are seeking to accomplish, and they must be well-versed in how ministries operate. As there are many unique areas in a church, the trainer must clearly understand them.

Board training needs to be a joint effort between the board and leadership. Colossians 3:23 reminds us that whatever we do should be done with excellence, and serving as a board member (along with assisting those who do) should be no exception. Any training plan you create will certainly be adjusted over time, but the important first step is to start with an idea of what constitutes effective training and how it can be accomplished.

Vonna Laue previously wrote about “ Communicating Financial Information to Church Leaders .” More training for boards is available through several Church Law & Tax resources, such as:

Image: Adobe/Song_about_summer

Lessons Learned During Our Church’s Capital Campaign

Six key insights from a church capital campaign, from planning to maintaining unity and donor engagement.

Rich Birch

Bio

Last Reviewed: January 27, 2025

We’re in the middle of the “public phase” of a capital campaign at my church, and during the whole process I’ve learned:

1. You’ll repeat yourself … a lot!

Our teaching pastor repeated the core message of our campaign 19 times before it was finally released in the last public message. We worked on the core messaging for months and then talked with leaders and core donors multiple times. We were prepared to repeat ourselves.

Campaigns like this require leaders to communicate the same thing over and over in a number of different ways. Choose your campaign focus wisely because you’ll be living with this content for an extended amount of time. (The public phase is just the beginning. You’ll be talking about these areas for years as you keep people excited for the mission!)

2. The strategy isn’t magical. It’s a lot of work.

We’ve been planning for our campaign over the last two years. We talked with multiple firms that help with this sort of thing. We interviewed other churches who have been through it. I wanted to make sure we understood the dynamics at play that make campaigns “successful.”

I found that most churches and campaign companies follow a similar pattern or strategy in communicating a campaign like this. It generally falls into this sort of timeline:

Leadership: Church leaders sort out the core elements of the campaign.
Core Donors: A small percentage of donors that represent a disproportionate amount of the church’s revenues will be invited to a series of meetings to get them in on the ground floor
Volunteers and Other Donors: Church leaders talk with all the other donors and people who donate time to the church to get them fired up for the mission.
Public: A series of Sunday services will be aimed at everyone else to bring them along.
Pledge Weekend: Everyone is asked to let the church know how they will respond to the vision
Follow Up: An extended time is given to vision casting and following up with everyone who has pledged to give to the campaign

It’s actually not that complex but each of those steps is a tremendous amount of work. Doing them well is an all-consuming process. It requires an “all hands on deck” approach to ensure everyone is pointing in the right direction.

3. Many churches don’t meet their pledges.

Go talk with a bunch of churches who have completed their campaigns, and you’ll see an unsettling trend: Many churches have great initial pledges come in but they don’t collect on all those good intentions. It seems like people are fired up to be part of a campaign on the front end but then lose steam over time.

The problem is many churches make financial commitments on the back of these campaigns and end up taking on debt to make their plans come through. Ensure your campaign consultant is on the hook to help you through the follow-up process. Make sure there is a clear plan of attack for how you are going to keep people interested in the vision long after the pledge weekend.

4. It’ll take longer and cost more.

You can’t do this overnight, and it’s going to cost you a bunch of money to do well. The “public phase” of our campaign is six weeks long. We spent six months—hundreds (maybe thousands) of team hours in preparation. There was a budget for all the support materials and events. Most of that money was gone before we were a third of the way through. We needed to reassess what it was really going to take and increase our spending. It costs a lot of money to communicate clearly and raise these sorts of resources.

5. It’ll strain your team unity.

At the beginning of our campaign, our coach, George, met with our staff and charged us to protect our unity through this process, and I’ve valued that input many times.

During the capital campaign, a lot of money will be focused on a few areas at your church, and that imbalance may make some leaders feel left out.

Your team members will also have extra events to run, people to meet with, materials to produce, videos to edit—on top of their normal work. People will be stressed and might be tempted to get short with one another. Intentionally work hard to pull everyone back together and work toward unity.

6. Weekend attendance will take a hit.

Before we launched the campaign, a number of churches that have completed campaigns told us that weekend attendance will take a hit, and it’s happening to us. We put the “public phase” in a time when we normally see increasing attendance growth in our campuses, but we’re seeing the opposite trend during this campaign. It’s a part of the cost of launching this sort of initiative. Some people will simply opt-out of all this “vision” talk and simply not come. Make sure to plan a strong “recall” campaign after the “public phase” to encourage people to come back.

Rich Birch serves as part of a four-member Lead Team at Liquid Church in the Manhattan facing communities of New Jersey.

This post is adapted from “6 Things Consultants Won’t Tell You About Capital Campaigns.” Used with permission.

Learn more about church capital campaigns in this downloadable resource.

Image: georgemuresan | Getty

Can We Give an Honorarium to a Visiting Missionary?

Explore guidelines for giving honorariums to missionaries, including legal and tax considerations for churches.

Frank Sommerville, Attorney, CPA

Bio

Last Reviewed: January 24, 2025

Q: We have been supporting a pastor in South Sudan for many years. However, we have not been able to send him support for some time, due to the lack of a qualified organization (he’s currently displaced in Juba and serving other displaced people).

Churches often wish to support visiting missionaries through honorariums, but the process raises important legal and tax considerations. When deciding whether to give an honorarium to a missionary, factors such as visa restrictions, IRS guidelines, and international tax rules must be carefully evaluated.

Understanding Visa Restrictions

The ability to provide an honorarium depends largely on the type of visa the missionary holds. For example:

Tourist Visa: Missionaries with a tourist visa cannot legally receive compensation for services rendered in the United States.
Appropriate Work Visa: If the missionary’s visa permits them to receive compensation, a reasonable honorarium may be provided, similar to what you would pay any other guest minister speaking at your church.

Always confirm visa eligibility before offering any payment, as violations could result in legal complications for both the church and the missionary.

Tax Implications for Honorariums

When compensating nonresident aliens, US tax regulations apply based on specific criteria:

Personal Presence Test: The individual must be in the US for fewer than 90 days within a calendar year.
Income Test: Payments for services in the US must not exceed $3,000 in a calendar year.
Canadian and Mexican Residents: The individual must be in the US for fewer than 183 days in a calendar year.

If these conditions are not met, churches must withhold 30% of the payment, unless a tax treaty provides a lower rate. To confirm eligibility for reduced withholding, the missionary must provide the church with IRS Form W-8ECI.

Exemptions and Documentation

Some missionaries may qualify for withholding exemptions by submitting IRS Form 8233, which requires a taxpayer identification number (obtained using Form W-7). The church must send Form 8233 to the IRS at least ten days before issuing any payments. Without proper documentation, the mandatory 30% withholding applies.

Steps for Churches to Follow

To ensure compliance, churches should:

Verify the missionary’s visa status and eligibility for receiving compensation.
Determine if the personal presence and income tests are met to avoid unnecessary withholding.
Obtain and submit all required IRS forms, such as Form 8233 or Form W-8ECI, in a timely manner.
Issue Form 1042-S to the missionary for tax reporting and file the original with the IRS.

FAQ: Honorariums to Missionaries

Can a missionary with a tourist visa receive an honorarium?
No, a tourist visa does not permit compensation for services rendered in the United States.
What forms are needed to reduce or exempt withholding?
Missionaries must submit IRS Form 8233 or Form W-8ECI, depending on their circumstances.
What is the standard withholding rate for nonresident aliens?
The standard rate is 30%, but treaties may allow for a lower rate with proper documentation.
What documentation should the church provide?
The church must issue Form 1042-S for any withholding and file it with the IRS.

For additional guidance on withholding and tax treaties, visit the IRS International Taxpayers page or consult resources from the US Department of State Visa Services.

Frank Sommerville is both a CPA and attorney, and a longtime Editorial Advisor for Church Law & Tax.

1. Ignoring anonymous letters

Zimmerman, 2012 WL 2049493 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)

Bernard v. East Stroudsburg University, 2014 WL 1454913 (M.D. Pa. 2014)

Melzer v. Board of Education, 196 F.Supp.2d 229 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)

2. Negligence

3. A child abuse reporting analogy

4. A “probable cause” analogy

Conclusion

1. Is It Cloud Ready?

2. Is It Mobile Ready?

3. Is It User Friendly?

4. Is It Full of Features?

5. Is It Reasonably Priced?

6. Is It Actively Supported?

Key differences

Challenge grants more compelling?

Wise to have large base of small donors

When Is Airfare Tax Deductible for the Participant?

When Is Airfare Not Tax Deductible for a Donor?

Additional Considerations for Churches and Donors

FAQ: Taxes on Mission Trip Airfare

How to Track the Per-Person-Per-Week Giving Metric

Visualizing and Interpreting the Data

Benefits of Data-Driven Decision Making for Churches

FAQ: Data-Driven Decision Making for Churches

A real and critical issue for churches, ministries and youth-serving organizations

Lessons Learned the Hard Way

Acknowledgement and awareness of the threat

Law enforcement, government ignored reports of abuse

Communicate, educate, and enlist others in recognizing, responding, reporting, and reacting

Provide compassion, counseling, and honest responses to victims, victims’ families, and all others impacted by abuse

Implementation of consistently and universally applied policies and procedures for:

There is no one-size-fits-all profile of child sexual abusers

Screening, backgrounding, reference checks and interviews are all essential

Spot the red flags and warning signs

Children victimizing other children

1. The lead pastor and one layperson

2. One layperson who guides the pastor

3. One layperson only

4. A key group in the church

5. A staff person other than the pastor and a layperson

6. No church members

Understanding labor laws and regulations

‘Volunteer’ v. ‘Employee’

Set clear policies

The importance of “sleep time” arrangements

Other considerations

Final thoughts

Making a Plan: First Steps

Establishing a Final Solution

Don’t Wait to Get Started

10 Commandments for Pastors Posting About Politics on Social Media

You shall remember you are an ambassador for Christ.

You shall remember you are your church to many people.

You shall not be a stumbling block to unbelievers.

You shall refrain from posting when your emotions are high.

You shall remember that others are often posting in the throes of their own anger and emotions.

You shall remember your words are permanent.

You shall understand some members of your congregation likely have a different view than you.

You shall not be a distraction to the gospel.

You shall be aware of the long political memory many people have.

You shall be aware that your political opinions may cause disunity with other churches in the community.

The purpose of release forms

The importance of legal counsel

1. Two or More Parties

2. Consideration

3. Definiteness

4. Legal Capacity

5. Mutual Assent

6. Legality

Background

16 key points to consider when creating and using waivers and releases at your church

Point 1

Point 2

Point 3

Point 4

Point 5

Point 6

Point 7

Point 8