The accreditation agency for over 2,700 evangelical nonprofits wants to boost its standards to deal with “considered one of the best financial risks” posed to churches and ministries today: moral failures by leadership.
For a long time, the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) has established guidelines around financial transparency, stewardship, and governance. This 12 months, the organization announced plans so as to add a recent requirement to deal with the integrity and character of a ministry’s leaders.
It’d be the largest change to ECFA’s standards in 45 years.
First introduced in March 2024, the proposed standard states, “Every organization shall proactively take care of its leader and support the integrity of its leader in conformity with ECFA’s Policy for Excellence in Supporting Leadership Integrity.”
ECFA members and experts within the Christian nonprofit agree with the thought of the brand new standard but aren’t sure exactly tips on how to implement it.
In an interview with Christianity Today, ECFA president and CEO Michael Martin likened the usual to a guardrail. While no written policy or accountability measure could eliminate sinful behavior by leadership—each leader ultimately bears responsibility for their very own integrity—organizations might be doing more to assist keep them in check.
“There’s consensus around the thought … that the board has a chance and responsibility to come back alongside a frontrunner to assist leaders be able where they will best thrive,” Martin said.
In 2021, ECFA surveyed greater than 800 of its member ministry leaders and board chairs, and 94 percent said leadership failures are impacting donor trust. Respondents also said they needed more resources for supporting the integrity of ministry leaders and wanted ECFA’s help.
A three-page commentary on the brand new standard includes the next direction for member churches and ministries:
- The board, or a board committee, should meet no less than annually with the leader to debate how the board “can provide appropriate support in proactively caring for the integrity and well-being of the leader as a complete person.”
- The leader is answerable for “investing of their relationship with Jesus and guarding their heart (Prov. 4:23), striving to live above reproach within the biblical expectations for leaders (1 Tim. 3:1–7; Tit. 1:6–9), and submitting in a spirit of affection and humility (1 Pet. 5:1–6) to the care and support offered to the leader by the ministry’s board.”
- The board also needs to ask the leader concerning the leader’s commitment to upholding biblical integrity principles, as outlined in a written code of conduct. According to the commentary, leaders should reveal traits like humility, growth, and the fruit of the Spirit. The board is then answerable for documenting these conversations in its minutes.
ECFA accreditation can provide a level of assurance to donors and participants, however it doesn’t exempt a ministry from high-profile moral failings. In 2021, ECFA terminated RZIM’s membership since the ministry’s resources “were improperly utilized in relation to sexual abuse and misconduct by the ministry’s late founder,” Ravi Zacharias.
In 2019, Harvest Bible Chapel lost its standing with ECFA within the wake of controversy over founding pastor James MacDonald, which culminated along with his firing.
Last month, Pursuit Church in Denver, North Carolina, an ECFA member, fired a pastor for sexual misconduct. Pursuit Church stays an ECFA member.
Scott Rodin believes ECFA’s approach to leadership integrity represents the form of “holistic pondering” that keeps ministry leaders and boards in healthy relationships.
Rodin is a senior consultant and chief strategy officer with The FOCUS Group, which helps faith-based organizations connect with their donors. He said leadership failures have a ripple effect through ministries, impacting employees, donors, and the larger community that ministries try to succeed in.
Though the emotional, spiritual, and physical well-being of a ministry leader won’t seem directly connected to donor trust, Rodin believes the health of a frontrunner is reflected within the health of the organization. He said the proposed standard represents the form of thoughtful work that boards of directors must be doing in the primary place.
“A pacesetter’s relationship with God, with themselves, their neighbors—it has an enormous impact on how they do their work,” he said. Leaders encounter opportunities for compromise on daily basis, Rodin said. “Fuzzy ethical edges turn into cliffs really quickly.”
Since announcing the proposed standard in early March, ECFA has solicited feedback from members through a form on the ECFA website. Martin said a lot of the organizations which have responded have affirmed the necessity for such an ordinary and asked ECFA for guidance on what implementation should seem like.
The integrity standard can be eighth on ECFA’s list of standards of responsible stewardship. The seven existing standards cover doctrinal integrity, governance, financial oversight, legal compliance, financial transparency, compensation and third-party transactions, and stewarding financial gifts. ECFA didn’t specify the form of integrity questions a board should ask a ministry CEO.
Frank Sommerville appreciates the intent behind the usual, but he says it’s unclear what compliance should seem like. As a practicing lawyer and CPA, Sommerville’s clients, about 70 percent of whom are faith-based organizations and ministries, are contacting him for advice about implementation.
“I applaud the trouble of ECFA to deal with the problem of leadership integrity. I even have seen in my 30-plus years that the dearth of integrity within the senior leader can harm or destroy a corporation,” he said.
Still, he wonders how ministries will implement an ordinary that ECFA intentionally left vague and open to many interpretations.
In its commentary on the usual, ECFA says its members have “much latitude to take care of and support the integrity of their senior leader … in a way that’s best fitted to their context.” The commentary also clarifies that the board doesn’t must be a frontrunner’s accountability group. But ministries might struggle with where to attract these lines.
Sommerville thinks ministries might need a tough time determining what variety of integrity they need to watch. Financial integrity? Sexual integrity? Daily Bible reading?
“Is it the job of the board to carry a frontrunner accountable for non-work, non-job performance activities?” Sommerville says. “Is that the most effective use of the board’s time?”
As Pursuit Church illustrates, ministry leadership failure doesn’t disqualify a ministry from ECFA accreditation.
Though cases of corruption and financial mismanagement grab headlines, Sommerville believes they represent a small percentage of ministries. In almost every case of failure, he says, board members believed it was their job to support the leader without query.
“You don’t need a board that serves the vision of the leader; you wish a board that ensures the leader is implementing the vision of the organization.”
Sommerville hopes organizations will take the usual seriously and never treat it as a box to envision without addressing root issues.
Most of ECFA’s members are parachurch ministries, though the group says churches make up the fastest-growing member segment, just over 10 percent. Members are in a position to comment on the proposed standard through the tip of May. ECFA expects to officially roll out the brand new standard in the autumn.
