They Were Warned
In May 2026, Daniel Savala appeared before a Texas judge by video from jail.
Savala pleaded guilty to continuous trafficking of persons and was sentenced to 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole. Authorities described a man who used faith and spiritual relationships to gain access to children he abused.
But Savala's story didn't begin in 2023, when allegations surrounding Chi Alpha were made public.
And it didn't begin with his latest criminal case.
Savala had previously been convicted of sexually abusing a minor in Alaska and was a registered sex offender. Yet reporting has documented that he continued exercising significant spiritual influence among people connected with Chi Alpha Campus Ministries in Texas. He wasn't an Assemblies of God-credentialed minister. Chi Alpha didn't officially employ him. But former members described him as a mentor and spiritual authority whose influence extended through relationships with Chi Alpha leaders and students.
And years before his 2026 sentence, someone tried to sound the alarm.
More than once.
The emails provided for this article document warnings reaching national Chi Alpha leadership and the Assemblies of God national office beginning in 2018.
They also reveal something potentially more consequential than whether one organization responded adequately to one individual.
They expose a structural question every denomination and ministry fellowship should be asking:
What happens when someone possesses significant spiritual authority but falls outside the accountability system designed to oversee spiritual leaders?
The Warning
On March 26, 2018, a former Chi Alpha student leader sent an email to E. Scott Martin, then national director of Chi Alpha Campus Ministries.
The writer identified Daniel Savala by name.
The email described Savala as a convicted and registered sex offender who had abused minors while serving in youth ministry in Alaska. It raised concerns about Savala's relationships with Chi Alpha leadership and his continued influence within ministry circles.
Most importantly, the writer wasn't merely passing along information about someone's past.
The email raised a present safeguarding concern.
“I fear for the safety of those students.”
The writer questioned whether students had been given a safe way to report concerns, whether Savala had undergone any background review, whether other AG ministers had been notified, and whether higher levels of Assemblies of God leadership were aware of the situation.
The writer also supplied links to supporting information.
This was not a vague warning.
It identified the individual, his criminal history, his ministry relationships, and the perceived danger.
Independent reporting later documented these warnings and Savala's continued influence among some Texas Chi Alpha leaders.
“Mr. Savala Has Had Influence”
On June 1, 2018, Martin responded.
His response is one of the most important documents in understanding the accountability questions surrounding this story.
Martin wrote that he had spoken with Assemblies of God legal counsel and had given counsel the links previously supplied by the whistleblower.
He also made two statements that deserve to be considered together.
First:
“Mr. Savala is not associated in any official capacity with the Assemblies of God.”
Martin similarly stated that Savala had no official capacity with Chi Alpha.
But then he acknowledged:
“Mr. Savala has had influence in the lives of some Chi Alpha leaders.”
That distinction sits at the heart of this story.
Savala apparently didn't need an official position to have spiritual influence.
He didn't need AG credentials.
He didn't need to appear on a Chi Alpha organizational chart.
He had influence anyway.
Christianity Today later reported that former Chi Alpha participants described a network of Texas pastors who regarded Savala as a mentor or spiritual figure and that students were sent to his home even after his earlier conviction.
Martin's email said inquiries with leaders had produced no indication of anything other than positive interactions and that no student or staff member had reported inappropriate behavior. He also referenced a Title IX investigation by Sam Houston State University and said Savala had not been around Chi Alpha there since that time.
Then came the institutional conclusion.
Because Savala wasn't an Assemblies of God minister or Chi Alpha affiliate and his conviction was publicly known, Martin wrote that “no further actions will be taken on our part beyond what I have previously explained.”
He also wrote that ministries connected with Savala would receive pertinent information.
And there was another notable sentence: Martin said Chi Alpha was being led to develop and adopt a mandatory reporting policy concerning sexual offenses.
That leaves us with a distinction that every church leader should consider:
The authority was relational. The accountability was organizational.
Savala's spiritual influence didn't depend upon credentials.
But some of the mechanisms available for holding ministers accountable did.
The Warning Reached the General Superintendent
The matter didn't end with national Chi Alpha.
In June 2018, the whistleblower sent the concerns directly to the Assemblies of God General Superintendent's office.
The email says it was the writer's second attempt at contacting the office.
It again identified Savala, described his conviction and sex-offender status, raised concerns about his relationships with AG and Chi Alpha ministers, and stated:
“I believe his criminal history is being concealed and that not enough is being done to protect the public.”
That statement is an allegation made by the whistleblower, not a finding established by the email itself.
But there is no similar ambiguity concerning whether the message reached the General Superintendent.
On June 15, 2018, then-General Secretary Donna Barrett responded.
Her first paragraph establishes something important:
“General Superintendent Doug Clay read your e-mail and forwarded it to me for a response…”
The correspondence therefore indicates that the warning wasn't merely sent to an unattended national email address.
According to Barrett, Clay read it.
Barrett expressed concern about the situation.
But she also explained the organizational boundary facing the national office.
She wrote that local church issues weren't under the General Council's purview and explained that local districts handle local situations.
Her office had also researched Savala's name and determined:
“he is not a credentialed minister with The General Council of the Assemblies of God.”
Barrett then identified credentialed ministers connected to the concerns and their respective district jurisdictions. She notified North Texas and South Texas district leadership and encouraged the writer to correspond with those leaders.
She also said that anyone with knowledge of child abuse or an unregistered offender could contact authorities directly.
This response is significant not because it demonstrates that national leadership did nothing.
It doesn't.
District leaders were notified. Information was communicated. National Chi Alpha had made inquiries. Legal counsel had been consulted.
The harder question is whether the available response was adequate for the kind of influence Savala actually possessed.
The Accountability Gap
The Assemblies of God describes itself as a “voluntary cooperative fellowship.” General Council affiliated churches enjoy significant autonomy, while districts provide regional leadership and participate in ministerial credentialing.
In a 2025 statement concerning abuse reporting more broadly, the General Council explained that its direct authority is limited principally to credentialing ministers and that it doesn't control employment or volunteer practices within autonomous local churches and districts.
There are legitimate reasons for local autonomy.
The problem isn't autonomy itself.
The problem occurs when autonomy and credential-based jurisdiction intersect in a way that creates an accountability gap.
Consider what the 2018 correspondence documents:
Savala was not credentialed.
Savala wasn't officially part of Chi Alpha.
Yet the National Chi Alpha Director acknowledged that Savala had influence over some Chi Alpha leaders.
That should cause every fellowship to examine how it defines spiritual leadership.
Because influence doesn't require a credential.
Neither does mentorship.
Neither does discipleship.
Neither does manipulation.
And neither does abuse.
The Assemblies of God's Own Leadership Principles Raise the Question
Interestingly, the Assemblies of God's own position paper on church leadership provides language that helps identify the problem.
The document states:
“Accountability is essential for any model of governance to be effective.”
It also teaches that ministry-team members—both paid and volunteer—participate in important ministry roles and should be encouraged to seek ministerial credentials when appropriate.
And perhaps most importantly, the AG states that leadership titles in Scripture speak more to the function of ministry than personal position.
That's a valuable principle.
But it raises an unavoidable question.
If ministry should be understood partly by function rather than title, shouldn't accountability work the same way?
Someone shouldn't be able to exercise the function of a spiritual leader while escaping the accountability normally associated with spiritual leadership simply because he is called a mentor instead of a minister.
No one should possess more spiritual authority than accountability.
Then Came Another Warning
The paper trail continued.
On December 2, 2019, the whistleblower again contacted the General Superintendent's office, Martin and another AG official.
The email said it supplemented previous correspondence and alleged that photographs online appeared to show Savala attending a Chi Alpha leadership event in Durango, Colorado, in August 2019.
The writer stated:
“Let it be noted that the national offices of the Assemblies of God and Chi Alpha have been notified…”
The email itself establishes that another warning was sent.
It does not, standing alone, establish that Savala attended the event. That claim should be independently verified through the referenced photographs or other documentation before being presented as established fact.
But the correspondence demonstrates something important:
The concerns didn't end in 2018.
What Did the System Do With the Warnings?
This is where the conversation needs to remain fair.
It would be inaccurate to say the Assemblies of God received these emails and simply “did nothing.”
The documents themselves contradict that characterization.
Officials communicated with the whistleblower.
AG legal counsel was consulted.
District leadership was notified.
National Chi Alpha made inquiries.
Martin said relevant ministries would receive information.
A mandatory reporting policy concerning sexual offenses was being developed.
And the AG has since emphasized its background checks for credential applicants, child-protection resources and expectation that suspected child abuse be reported according to applicable law.
Those facts matter.
But they don't eliminate the larger question.
Were those measures sufficient?
And perhaps more importantly:
Did the organizational structure itself limit the response because the person exercising the influence wasn't officially part of the organization?
That's where the Chi Alpha story becomes relevant far beyond the Assemblies of God.
Years Later, the Consequences Were No Longer Theoretical
In 2023, allegations surrounding Savala and Chi Alpha erupted publicly.
Christianity Today reported accounts from men who said Savala had sexually assaulted or abused them while they sought spiritual guidance. It also documented the extensive relationships connecting Savala with Chi Alpha leaders and students.
Investigations followed.
Some credentialed ministers connected to the controversy lost their positions or credentials.
And eventually criminal prosecution followed.
In May 2026, Savala pleaded guilty to continuous trafficking of persons and received the 30-year sentence without parole.
Putting Savala in prison provided criminal accountability.
But it doesn't answer the institutional question.
Could a better accountability system have reduced the opportunity for further harm?
That's a question worth asking, not merely to assign blame for the past, but to protect people in the future.
The Litigation Adds Another Layer
Civil litigation involving survivors and the General Council continues to examine questions surrounding institutional responsibility.
That litigation has included disputes over depositions and discovery.
Most recently, a Texas trial court issued a May 27, 2026 order requiring the General Council to provide dates for General Superintendent Doug Clay's deposition. The General Council petitioned the First Court of Appeals for mandamus relief challenging that order. A July 7 appellate order documents the dispute.
That legal resistance shouldn't automatically be called obstruction.
Defendants have the right to challenge discovery requests, seek protective orders and contest depositions.
But churches should recognize an important distinction:
Legal defense and Christian accountability are not necessarily identical responsibilities.
A lawyer may legitimately ask:
What must the organization disclose?
Christian leadership has to ask something larger:
What does truth, protection of vulnerable people, repentance and integrity require from us?
Those questions can lead to very different conversations.
Local Autonomy Cannot Be the End of the Conversation
The Assemblies of God publicly explains that General Council affiliated churches are autonomous and that the General Council doesn't control local staffing and volunteer decisions.
Again, that's a legitimate feature of AG polity.
But autonomy doesn't necessarily prevent a fellowship from establishing conditions of affiliation.
The AG already establishes doctrinal expectations.
It establishes ministerial credentialing standards.
It determines requirements for recognized churches.
Its own leadership paper says General Council affiliated churches are self-governing while remaining subordinate to the General Council in matters of doctrine and polity.
So perhaps the question isn't whether national leadership should control every local church.
Perhaps the question is:
Should safeguarding and accountability for people exercising substantial spiritual authority become part of the minimum standards expected throughout the fellowship?
Those are two very different things.
What Other Fellowships Need to Learn
Chi Alpha should not become an opportunity for leaders in other denominations to point across denominational lines and say:
“Look what happened to them.”
The appropriate response is:
“Where could this happen among us?”
Church fellowships should consider several reforms.
Accountability should follow function, not title. If someone regularly mentors, disciples, counsels, teaches or exercises substantial spiritual influence, meaningful accountability should follow that influence whether the person is called pastor, missionary, director, mentor, volunteer or friend of the ministry.
There must be somewhere else to go. If a complaint reaches someone's supervisor and that supervisor refuses to act, the accountability process cannot simply stop. Serious allegations need an independent escalation process outside the immediate chain of command.
Credentialing cannot become an accountability boundary. Credentialing can provide valuable oversight, but an uncredentialed person exercising substantial spiritual authority shouldn't consequently receive less accountability.
Local autonomy should include minimum safeguarding expectations. A fellowship doesn't have to control an autonomous congregation's employment decisions to require affiliated churches and ministries to maintain meaningful safeguarding systems.
Conflicts of interest matter. Leaders shouldn't be the sole investigators of allegations involving close friends, mentors, employees or people whose misconduct could reflect upon their own leadership.
Whistleblowers need protection. People who raise credible concerns shouldn't have to fear retaliation, loss of ministry opportunities or reputational destruction.
Major systemic allegations deserve independent review. When the question becomes whether the institution itself failed, asking the institution alone to investigate itself rarely produces maximum public confidence.
And finally:
Tell people what changed.
After something this serious, the public shouldn't simply hear:
We take these matters seriously.
Churches should be able to explain:
What failed?
What changed?
Where can someone report a concern today?
Who reviews that complaint?
What happens if local leadership refuses to act?
Accountability Is a Biblical Issue Before It Is a Legal One
This isn't simply about organizational risk management.
It's theological.
Paul's qualifications for spiritual leadership emphasize character, reputation and self-control in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
Peter tells shepherds not to domineer over those entrusted to them in 1 Peter 5:2–3.
James gives teachers a sobering warning:
“We who teach will be judged more strictly.” — James 3:1
Greater spiritual influence carries greater responsibility.
Church structures should reflect that principle.
And there's something particularly striking about the Assemblies of God's own leadership paper.
It says accountability is essential.
It says leadership is about function more than titles.
And it says district and national leadership provide ministers with needed accountability.
Those principles point toward the very reform this situation seems to demand:
Accountability should follow spiritual influence wherever that influence exists.
The Question Is No Longer Simply Whether Someone Was Warned
The emails change the nature of the conversation.
We know warnings were sent.
We know national Chi Alpha leadership received concerns.
We know AG legal counsel was consulted.
And according to General Secretary Donna Barrett's June 15, 2018 response, General Superintendent Doug Clay read the whistleblower's email before forwarding it to her.
We also know officials took some responsive actions.
So the most useful question isn't:
“Did the Assemblies of God know?”
That's too simplistic.
The better question is:
“What did the system do with what it knew?”
And then comes an even more important question:
Has the system changed enough to prevent it from happening again?
Because this story shouldn't ultimately be about protecting or attacking the Assemblies of God.
It should be about protecting people.
It should be about asking whether our church structures are designed to respond when relationships don't fit neatly into organizational charts.
It should be about recognizing that spiritual predators don't necessarily apply for credentials before gaining influence.
And it should force every church leader, denomination and ministry fellowship to answer one uncomfortable question:
If someone possesses significant spiritual authority within our ministry, and the person responsible for holding them accountable fails to do so, where does the vulnerable person go next?
If the answer isn't immediately clear, there is a hole in the accountability system.
And we shouldn't wait for another victim to discover it.
Documented Timeline
March 26, 2018 — Warning to National Chi Alpha
A former Chi Alpha student leader contacts National Chi Alpha Director E. Scott Martin concerning Savala's conviction, relationships with Chi Alpha leaders and perceived risk to students.
June 1, 2018 — National Chi Alpha Responds
Martin says he consulted AG legal counsel, acknowledges Savala's influence among some Chi Alpha leaders, emphasizes that Savala isn't officially affiliated with Chi Alpha or an AG minister, describes steps already taken and says no further action will be taken beyond those measures.
June 2018 — Concern Escalated to General Superintendent
The whistleblower sends the concerns to the General Superintendent's office, describing it as a second attempt.
June 15, 2018 — National Office Responds
General Secretary Donna Barrett states that Doug Clay read the email and forwarded it to her. Barrett explains the national office's jurisdictional limitations, confirms Savala isn't credentialed and notifies district leadership.
December 2, 2019 — Another Warning
The whistleblower contacts national leadership again, alleging photographs showed Savala at an August 2019 Chi Alpha leadership event.
2023 — Scandal Becomes Public
Survivor allegations and reporting reveal the extent of Savala's relationships and influence within portions of the Texas Chi Alpha network.
May 7, 2026 — Savala Sentenced
Savala pleads guilty to continuous trafficking of persons and receives 30 years in prison without parole.
May–July 2026 — Deposition Dispute Continues
A trial court orders the General Council to provide dates for Doug Clay's deposition. The General Council challenges that order through a petition for writ of mandamus.
Resources & Documentation
The primary-source correspondence reproduced in this article consists of emails dated March 26, 2018; June 1, 2018; June 2018; June 15, 2018; and December 2, 2019. Copies were provided to the author with identifying information of the whistleblower redacted.
Assemblies of God — Official Statement on abuse, credentialing and local autonomy— The General Council explains its position on child protection, credentialing jurisdiction, local autonomy and its lack of authority over local employment and volunteer practices.
Assemblies of God — Leadership and Governance in the Local Church— AG's General Presbytery position paper addresses accountability, ministry teams, credentials, spiritual leadership and local-church governance.
Assemblies of God — Local Structure and Form of Government— AG's explanation of local autonomy and district/national responsibilities.
Christianity Today — Registered Sex Offender Continued to Minister to Chi Alpha Students — 2023 investigation documenting Savala's relationships with Chi Alpha leaders, survivor allegations and the 2018 warnings to AG leadership.
KBTX — Daniel Savala sentenced to 30 years— May 2026 reporting on Savala's guilty plea and sentence.
Texas First Court of Appeals — July 7, 2026 order— Court record concerning the General Council's challenge to the order requiring dates for Doug Clay's deposition.
Editorial Note
This article distinguishes between documented facts, statements contained in contemporaneous correspondence, allegations, and questions about organizational policy.
Statements made by the whistleblower are attributed as such and should not automatically be understood as independently established facts. Allegations in ongoing civil litigation likewise should not be treated as findings of liability unless adjudicated.
The Assemblies of God maintains that abuse has no place within the fellowship, emphasizes its longstanding credentialing and child-protection practices, and states that autonomous churches and districts—not the General Council—control their own staffing and operations.
The purpose of examining these documents is not to presume the legal liability or personal motives of any individual. It is to examine a broader question raised by the documented record:
Can a church accountability system adequately protect people when spiritual authority exists outside the organizational boundaries through which accountability is enforced?
