Beyond The Brand

A Biblical Look at ARC and the Church We’re Called to Build

Over the last two decades, the Association of Related Churches (ARC) has become one of the most influential church-planting networks in North America. Through coaching, financial assistance, leadership training, and other resources, ARC has helped launch more than a thousand churches in the United States and around the world.

There is much about that work worth recognizing. People have encountered the gospel through ARC-affiliated churches, pastors have received support in planting new congregations, and churches have served communities in meaningful ways. Whenever Christ is faithfully proclaimed and lives are transformed by the gospel, God deserves the glory.

But influence and effectiveness should never place a ministry beyond biblical examination.

As ARC has grown, questions have emerged surrounding church governance, pastoral accountability, leadership culture, preaching, discipleship, and the influence of modern church-growth strategies.

Those questions ultimately lead to a larger one:

Does the ministry philosophy commonly associated with ARC reflect the priorities of the New Testament church?

This article is not an indictment of every ARC pastor or congregation. ARC churches are independently governed, and practices can differ significantly from one church to another. Nor are the concerns discussed here unique to ARC. Many of them reflect broader trends throughout contemporary evangelicalism.

The purpose is biblical evaluation, not condemnation.

The Bereans were commended because they received teaching eagerly while still examining the Scriptures to determine whether what they heard was true (Acts 17:11). That same standard should apply to every church, denomination, network, pastor, and ministry philosophy.

Our ultimate allegiance is not to a ministry organization, church network, denomination, or influential leader.

It belongs to Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church (Colossians 1:18).

With that standard in mind, let's consider what ARC is, what it does well, and where its ministry philosophy raises important biblical questions.

A Note on Fairness and Biblical Evaluation

It is important to distinguish between documented facts about ARC and theological conclusions drawn from those facts.

When discussing ARC's history, organizational structure, mission, and practices, this article relies primarily on publicly available information, including ARC's own materials. Reports involving individual ARC-associated churches or leaders should not automatically be applied to every church within the network.

The theological evaluation is broader.

Rather than attempting to judge every congregation individually, the goal is to examine ministry philosophies commonly associated with ARC and the larger church-growth movement against the teachings of Scripture.

Every church, including churches we admire, should be willing to do the same.

---

What Is ARC?

Founded in 2000, the Association of Related Churches (ARC) is a cooperative church-planting network focused on launching what it describes as "life-giving churches."

ARC is not a denomination. Churches associated with the network remain legally autonomous and independently governed while participating in ARC for church-planting support, coaching, leadership development, relationships, and resources.

ARC was founded by a group of pastors that included Greg Surratt, Billy Hornsby, Rick Bezet, Dino Rizzo, and others who shared a commitment to church planting.

Since then, the network has helped launch more than one thousand churches.

ARC places significant emphasis on creating churches that are accessible to people with little or no church background. Church planters are trained to think intentionally about hospitality, children's ministry, worship, communication, leadership development, outreach, and the overall experience of people entering the church.

Much of this approach reflects principles associated with the modern church-growth movement: strategic leadership, intentional communication, organizational excellence, community engagement, and removing unnecessary barriers for people who may be unfamiliar with church.

None of those things are inherently unbiblical.

Church planting itself is deeply rooted in the New Testament. The book of Acts records the gospel spreading into new communities and local churches being established throughout the Roman world. Paul devoted much of his ministry to preaching the gospel, establishing congregations, appointing elders, and strengthening believers.

Therefore, ARC's commitment to planting churches deserves recognition.

But a ministry can accomplish meaningful things and still benefit from biblical examination.

The question is not simply whether ARC plants churches or whether those churches have experienced growth.

The deeper question is:

What kind of churches are we building, and how closely do their priorities resemble those given to us in Scripture?

Want to know if your church is affiliated with ARC?

ARC maintains an official Find a Church directory containing churches planted through ARC as well as network churches participating in its mission. According to ARC, listed churches are legally autonomous, independently led, and reviewed annually for inclusion.

What ARC Does Well

Any fair evaluation should acknowledge ARC's genuine strengths.

Church Planting

ARC has invested substantial resources into helping pastors establish new churches. At a time when many congregations are declining or closing, ARC continues to emphasize multiplication and the establishment of new local churches.

That commitment reflects an important pattern found throughout Acts.

Evangelism and Community Engagement

Many ARC churches intentionally seek to reach people who are disconnected from church. Hospitality, children's ministries, community outreach, and accessible environments are often designed around helping people encounter the gospel without unnecessary cultural barriers.

Many congregations also participate in food distribution, disaster relief, foster-care initiatives, addiction recovery, partnerships with schools, and other forms of community service.

Those expressions of compassion can provide meaningful opportunities to love our neighbors and demonstrate the gospel through both words and actions.

Leadership Development

ARC provides assessment, coaching, mentoring, conferences, and practical training for church planters.

Planting and leading a church is difficult work, and pastors can benefit greatly from wise counsel, relationships, and practical preparation.

Organizational Stewardship

Many ARC churches are intentional about communication, volunteer development, hospitality, children's ministry, and operational excellence.

Organization is not the enemy of spiritual ministry. Good stewardship can strengthen ministry when organizational systems remain servants of the Church's mission rather than becoming its definition of success.

And that distinction is important.

The very strengths that help a church grow can become weaknesses when they begin replacing deeper biblical priorities.

Growth can overshadow discipleship.

Leadership skill can become more valued than character.

Excellence can become image management.

Strategy can slowly replace dependence upon the Holy Spirit.

That brings us to several areas that deserve closer biblical examination.

---

Five Biblical Concerns

1. From Making Converts to Making Disciples

Jesus' Great Commission was not simply a command to gather crowds or produce conversions.

He commanded His followers to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19–20).

That distinction matters.

The early church devoted itself to the apostles' teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42). Paul described the goal of his ministry as presenting "everyone mature in Christ" (Colossians 1:28).

Modern churches naturally measure things such as attendance, baptisms, giving, volunteer participation, and campus growth. Those numbers can tell us something useful about a ministry, and numbers represent real people.

But they cannot tell us everything.

A church can become larger without necessarily becoming spiritually deeper.

The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes maturity, holiness, sound doctrine, perseverance, love, and Christlike character.

Therefore, the question should not merely be:

How many people are attending?

We must also ask:

What kind of disciples are being formed?

2. From Expository Preaching to Practical Messages

Paul's instruction to Timothy was clear:

"Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching."
— 2 Timothy 4:2

Topical preaching is not inherently wrong. Scripture speaks directly to relationships, money, suffering, leadership, family, emotional struggles, purpose, and countless other practical areas of life.

The concern is not whether churches address practical subjects.

The concern is what governs the message.

There is an important difference between beginning with Scripture and allowing the text to determine the message, and beginning with a message we want to communicate and finding verses that support it.

Faithful biblical preaching asks first:

What does this passage actually mean?

Only then should we ask:

How should we live because of it?

Application should flow from interpretation.

When that order is reversed, sermons can become inspirational and even biblically flavored while failing to communicate the full meaning and authority of God's Word.

3. From Shepherds to CEOs

One of Scripture's most consistent pictures of pastoral leadership is the shepherd.

Jesus described Himself as the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep (John 10:11).

Peter instructed elders:

"Shepherd the flock of God that is among you... not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock."
— 1 Peter 5:2–3

Modern ministry often celebrates vision, organizational growth, strategy, innovation, communication ability, and executive leadership.

Those skills can certainly be useful.

But they are not the primary qualifications Scripture gives for pastors.

When Paul describes church leaders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, his emphasis falls overwhelmingly on character: self-control, faithfulness, hospitality, maturity, sound doctrine, and integrity within the home.

The pastor's fundamental responsibility is not building an organization.

It is shepherding people.

When charisma, vision, platform, or organizational success becomes more important than character and pastoral care, our definition of leadership has drifted from the biblical model.

4. From the Local Church to a Ministry Brand

There is nothing inherently wrong with branding.

Churches need websites. They need signs. They communicate through social media. Clear and consistent communication can help people understand who a church is and how to connect.

The concern begins when the brand starts shaping the church more than Scripture does.

The churches of the New Testament shared one gospel but were not identical organizations.

Corinth faced division. Galatia wrestled with legalism. Ephesus confronted false teaching. Thessalonica endured persecution. Each congregation existed within a particular context and faced particular spiritual needs.

Today, ministry networks can unintentionally reproduce the same leadership language, communication strategies, organizational systems, aesthetics, and ministry philosophies across numerous churches.

Learning from other churches is wise.

But replication can become dangerous when churches begin functioning more like franchises than local bodies of believers.

Scripture calls the Church a body, family, temple, bride, and flock.

Its identity is ultimately found in Christ, not in the strength or recognizability of a ministry brand.

5. Accountability Must Be Stronger Than Influence

Every church should be able to answer a basic question:

Who oversees the shepherds?

Scripture places an extraordinarily high standard on spiritual leaders.

James warns that teachers will be judged more strictly (James 3:1). Paul tells Timothy not to appoint leaders hastily. First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 emphasize character, maturity, integrity, and sound doctrine.

Recent conversations throughout evangelical Christianity—including controversies involving some churches and leaders associated with ARC—have raised important questions about governance, pastoral accountability, elder independence, restoration, and the concentration of authority.

Individual situations should always be evaluated on their own evidence.

But the broader principle remains:

Giftedness can never replace godliness.

Accountability cannot merely mean relationships with trusted friends or influential ministry peers.

Healthy accountability requires structures in which leaders can genuinely be questioned, corrected, and, when necessary, removed.

Church governance should protect the flock—not the reputation of the organization or the platform of the leader.

The greater someone's influence becomes, the more important meaningful accountability becomes.

---

What Does the New Testament Church Look Like?

If modern ministry models are going to be evaluated biblically, we need a positive picture of what Scripture actually describes.

Acts 2 gives us one of the clearest:

"And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers..."
— Acts 2:42

Luke later tells us:

"And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved."
— Acts 2:47

The order is worth noticing.

The early church was devoted to God's truth, fellowship, worship, prayer, generosity, and gospel witness—and God produced the growth.

Throughout the rest of the New Testament, several priorities repeatedly emerge.

God's Word Governs the Church

Scripture is not merely content used to support the church's vision. God's Word defines the Church's theology, worship, leadership, discipleship, ethics, and mission.

The Church must continually allow Scripture to correct its assumptions, even when doing so challenges methods that appear successful.

Discipleship Produces Maturity

The goal of ministry is not simply attendance.

Churches exist to help form people into mature followers of Jesus who know God's Word, pursue holiness, love one another, serve their neighbors, and faithfully proclaim the gospel.

Leaders Shepherd Rather Than Dominate

Pastors are entrusted with people who belong to Christ.

Biblical leadership therefore requires humility, character, sacrifice, accountability, and genuine care for the flock.

Administrative competence matters, but it can never substitute for shepherding.

Christian Community Goes Beyond an Event

The New Testament church was not built around weekly attendance alone.

Believers prayed together, practiced hospitality, cared for those in need, encouraged one another, confessed sin, carried burdens, and lived in meaningful relationship.

Programs can facilitate community.

They cannot manufacture it.

The Church Pursues Holiness

Grace does not merely forgive us.

Grace transforms us.

The apostles repeatedly call believers toward sanctification and lives worthy of the gospel (Philippians 1:27; 1 Thessalonians 4:3).

A healthy church therefore welcomes sinners while also calling every believer, including its leaders, to repentance and increasing Christlikeness.

The Church Depends Upon the Holy Spirit

Acts repeatedly attributes the Church's growth and effectiveness to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Strategies can organize ministry.

Technology can distribute it.

Leadership systems can coordinate it.

But none of those things can create spiritual life.

Only God can do that.

Christ Remains the Head

Ultimately, everything comes back to this:

Christ "is the head of the body, the church."
— Colossians 1:18

The Church belongs to Him.

That means every sermon, strategy, leadership structure, ministry model, budget, program, and definition of success must remain subordinate to His authority.

---

Final Thoughts

ARC has made significant contributions to church planting, evangelism, leadership development, and community outreach. Those contributions should be acknowledged fairly.

But ARC also provides an opportunity to examine a much larger issue within contemporary evangelical Christianity:

How do we define a successful church?

That question matters because success and faithfulness are not always the same thing.

A church can grow rapidly and still have unhealthy leadership.

A church can produce an excellent Sunday experience while struggling to make mature disciples.

A pastor can be gifted, charismatic, and influential while lacking the character Scripture requires.

A ministry can become widely recognized while slowly allowing its brand to overshadow the ordinary work of shepherding people.

None of those possibilities prove that a particular church is unhealthy.

They simply remind us why Scripture, not success, must remain our standard.

The Church has always faced the temptation to adopt the values of the culture surrounding it. In our generation, that temptation can appear through celebrity, platform, influence, organizational expansion, branding, and measurable growth.

Those things are not automatically wrong.

But they become dangerous when they begin defining what we believe a healthy church looks like.

The Reformers used the phrase Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda—the church reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God.

That principle remains desperately important.

No denomination, network, independent church, pastor, or ministry philosophy should ever become too successful, influential, or familiar to be examined by Scripture.

That includes ARC.

It also includes our own churches.

So rather than finishing this discussion by simply pointing at another organization, perhaps we should allow these questions to turn toward us:

Are we making disciples?

Are we faithfully preaching God's Word?

Are our leaders shepherding people with humility and integrity?

Is meaningful accountability actually present?

Are we depending upon the Holy Spirit or primarily upon our strategies?

And above everything else:

Is Jesus truly functioning as the Head of His Church?

Jesus promised:

"I will build my church."
— Matthew 16:18

That promise does not depend upon a network, denomination, celebrity pastor, marketing strategy, or church-growth model.

It rests upon Christ.

Our calling, therefore, is not to build the most impressive church.

It is to faithfully steward the Church that belongs to Him.

May we never confuse growth with maturity, influence with authority, giftedness with godliness, or success with faithfulness.

And may every church, ARC or otherwise, remain humble enough to continually return to Scripture and ask:

Are we building Christ's Church according to Christ's design?

---

Footnotes and Recommended Resources

Primary Sources

Association of Related Churches (ARC)

• Association of Related Churches. About ARC.

• Association of Related Churches. Our Story.

• Association of Related Churches. Statement of Faith.

• Association of Related Churches. Find a Church.

Biblical Passages Referenced

• Matthew 16:18

• Matthew 28:18–20

• John 10:1–18

• Acts 2:42–47

• Acts 17:11

• Colossians 1:18, 28

• Ephesians 4:11–16

• Philippians 1:27

• 1 Thessalonians 4:3

• 1 Timothy 3:1–7

• 2 Timothy 4:1–5

• Titus 1:5–9

• James 3:1

• 1 Peter 5:1–4

Recommended Books on the Church

Allison, Gregg R. Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church. Crossway, 2012.

Dever, Mark. Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. Crossway, 4th Edition, 2021.

Leeman, Jonathan. One Assembly: Rethinking the Multisite and Multiservice Church Models. Crossway, 2020.

Stott, John R. W. The Living Church: Convictions of a Lifelong Pastor. IVP, 2007.

Strauch, Alexander. Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership. Lewis and Roth, Revised Edition, 2017.

Recommended Books on Biblical Interpretation

Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Zondervan.

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Zondervan.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics. Zondervan.

Church History

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. 2 vols. HarperOne.

Bruce, F. F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Eerdmans.

Articles and Research

Readers interested in studying both praise and criticism of ARC and the broader church-growth movement may also consult investigative journalism and theological resources from a range of perspectives, including:

• The Roys Report

• Christianity Today

• 9Marks

• The Gospel Coalition

• Ligonier Ministries

Investigative reports and opinion pieces should be compared with primary documentation whenever possible, and every theological conclusion should ultimately be evaluated through Scripture.

Editorial Note

This article is intended to encourage thoughtful biblical evaluation, not to suggest that every ARC-affiliated church or pastor operates in the same way. ARC churches are independently governed, and practices may vary significantly from one congregation to another. References to broader ministry trends or leadership concerns should not be interpreted as allegations against any individual church or leader unless specifically documented. Readers are encouraged to examine primary sources, consider relevant evidence in context, and ultimately evaluate every ministry, including the conclusions presented here, in light of Scripture.

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?

Skeletons in the Closet: The Chi Alpha Scandal and the Crisis of Accountability in the Church

Why I Speak Out

There are moments when silence stops being wisdom and starts becoming complicity.

One of the hardest realities to wrestle with in church culture is how often people who know something is wrong choose to remain quiet because speaking up feels costly. Sometimes it is the fear of losing relationships. Sometimes it is fear of criticism, misunderstanding, or backlash. Sometimes it is the pressure to “protect the church” or “not cause division.”

But at some point, we have to ask ourselves a difficult question:

If those who recognize wrongdoing refuse to speak, then who will stand for the people who have been harmed?

If those who know the difference between right and wrong remain silent when vulnerable people are being ignored, manipulated, spiritually wounded, or silenced themselves, what does that say about the condition of the Church?

This is one of the reasons I speak out.

Not because I hate the Church.

Not because I want to tear ministries down.

And not because I believe every pastor or leader is corrupt.

I speak because I love the Church enough to want to see her healthy, honest, accountable, and spiritually whole again.

Too often within Christian culture, exposing serious sin or institutional failure is automatically labeled as “division,” “gossip,” “bitterness,” or “attacking God’s anointed.” But biblically, that is not always true. Scripture actually makes a distinction between malicious division and righteous exposure for the purpose of repentance, justice, and restoration.

Ephesians 5:11 says:

“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.”

In context, Paul is not encouraging self-righteousness, public shaming, or reckless accusations. He is calling believers to walk in the light and refuse participation in hidden sin and corruption. The purpose of exposure in Scripture is not destruction for destruction’s sake. The purpose is bringing darkness into the light so repentance, cleansing, healing, and restoration can occur.

Likewise, James 4:17 says:

“If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.”

That verse is often quoted broadly, but in context it speaks to the danger of knowing what is right while refusing to act. There are moments where remaining silent is not neutrality. It becomes participation through omission.

Even Jesus Himself publicly confronted religious leaders who abused authority, manipulated people spiritually, and prioritized institutional image over justice and mercy. Some of Christ’s strongest rebukes were not directed toward broken sinners seeking healing, but toward religious leaders who outwardly appeared righteous while inwardly protecting corruption.

None of this means accusations should be careless, reckless, or devoid of grace. Truth matters. Due process matters. Humility matters. But accountability matters too.

The Church does not become pure by hiding sin.

The Church becomes healthy when darkness is brought into the light, when repentance is genuine, when victims are protected, and when truth matters more than reputation.

That is why conversations like this matter.

Not to destroy the Bride of Christ…

…but because many of us long to see her healthy again.

How the Chi Alpha Scandal Became a National Conversation

Chi Alpha Campus Ministries has operated on college campuses across the country for decades, focusing on discipleship, evangelism, and student community.

For many people, the church has always represented safety.

It is supposed to be the place where truth is honored, where broken people find healing, where leaders are held to a higher standard, and where communities reflect the character of Christ. Campus ministries, especially, are often viewed as environments where young adults can grow spiritually during some of the most formative years of their lives.

That is what makes the ongoing controversy surrounding Chi Alpha Campus Ministries and the Assemblies of God USA so deeply unsettling for many Christians.

What began as allegations connected to Daniel Savala, a convicted sex offender and former missionary associate tied to Chi Alpha, has grown into a national conversation about institutional protection, spiritual authority, accountability, and the dangerous culture that can develop when preserving a ministry’s reputation becomes more important than protecting people.

And for many observers, the most disturbing part is not simply that abuse allegations emerged within a religious organization. Human failure can exist anywhere. The deeper concern is how religious institutions sometimes respond once those allegations become public.

Because in situations like this, the question is no longer simply:
“What happened?”

The question becomes:
“What was done once people knew?”

The Allegations and the Growing Fallout

Chi Alpha has spent decades building a strong presence on college campuses across the country. The ministry has influenced thousands of students and produced pastors, missionaries, worship leaders, and church staff members. Many former students still speak positively about the spiritual impact Chi Alpha had on their lives.

But alongside those positive experiences, disturbing allegations have surfaced involving failures in oversight, accountability, and protection.

According to lawsuits, investigative reports, and survivor testimony, concerns connected to Daniel Savala and individuals within his circle allegedly existed long before the situation gained widespread public attention. Critics argue that warning signs were missed, minimized, or insufficiently addressed despite multiple opportunities for intervention.

As investigations expanded, the controversy eventually contributed to the resignation of former Chi Alpha National Director Scott Martin and intensified scrutiny surrounding denominational leadership and organizational culture.

The situation quickly became about more than one individual. It exposed larger concerns about how churches and ministries handle accusations involving influential leaders and trusted institutions.

When Institutions Go Into Protection Mode

The controversy surrounding Chi Alpha has raised broader questions about transparency, accountability, and institutional culture within the Assemblies of God.

One of the clearest themes emerging from the Chi Alpha controversy is the tension between protecting people and protecting the institution itself.

When abuse allegations surface inside religious organizations, leadership often faces enormous pressure. There are concerns about public reputation, financial consequences, declining trust, legal exposure, and damage to the ministry’s image.

Unfortunately, that pressure can sometimes push organizations into self-preservation mode.

Instead of prioritizing transparency, accountability, and victim care, the focus subtly shifts toward controlling narratives, limiting fallout, and defending leadership credibility.

That is where cover-up culture often begins.

Not necessarily through elaborate conspiracies, but through a gradual institutional instinct to protect the ministry at all costs.

And ironically, organizations often convince themselves they are protecting “the witness of Christ” when they are actually protecting the reputation of the institution.

The Spiritualizing of Criticism

One of the most controversial aspects of the Chi Alpha situation involved how some leaders framed criticism and legal action connected to the allegations.

According to reporting from The Roys Report, a letter written in support of Savala described the accusations against him as an “absolute attack of the devil on his life” driven by “angry and bitter” individuals.

For many Christians, survivors, and advocates, statements like these were deeply alarming.

Why?

Because when abuse allegations are framed primarily as spiritual warfare, persecution, or attacks from Satan, the emotional focus of the conversation changes.

Instead of asking:

• Were vulnerable people harmed?

• Did leadership fail to act responsibly?

• What safeguards failed?

• How do we protect people moving forward?

the discussion becomes centered on defending the ministry from its critics.

This creates a dangerous dynamic where questioning leadership can begin to feel spiritually disloyal.

People who raise concerns may suddenly be viewed as:

• divisive,

• rebellious,

• bitter,

• lacking grace,

• or harmful to the church.

In environments like this, survivors and whistleblowers often become afraid to speak honestly because telling the truth feels like betraying the ministry itself.

That fear is one of the primary ways unhealthy systems survive for years.

The Legal Fight Over Transparency

Doug Clay, General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God, was reportedly ordered to be deposed as part of the ongoing legal proceedings connected to the Chi Alpha lawsuits.

As lawsuits surrounding Chi Alpha continued, scrutiny increasingly turned toward denominational leadership and the broader Assemblies of God structure.

According to reporting from The Christian Post, attorneys representing the Assemblies of God attempted to stop General Superintendent Doug Clay from being deposed in connection with the lawsuits tied to Chi Alpha. Additional reports from MinistryWatch noted efforts to limit depositions involving other key leaders, including former Chi Alpha National Director Scott Martin and General Secretary Donna Barrett.

More recently, courts reportedly ruled that Doug Clay could in fact be deposed as part of the ongoing legal proceedings.

For many observers, this intensified concerns surrounding transparency and accountability.

To be fair, organizations commonly defend themselves during litigation, and legal caution alone does not prove wrongdoing. However, abuse cases involving spiritual authority often carry a different moral weight in the eyes of many Christians.

People expect churches to model humility, honesty, repentance, and openness — especially when vulnerable individuals may have been harmed.

And when organizations appear resistant to examination, even legally, it can create the perception that institutional protection is being prioritized over truth.

Exposure Is Painful — But Sometimes Necessary

One of the hardest realities for Christians to wrestle with is that exposure often feels devastating in the moment.

When scandals surface, many believers fear what it will do to the Church’s witness. People worry about public perception, declining trust, damaged reputations, and the pain that comes when spiritual leaders fail.

But biblically speaking, exposure is not always evidence that God has abandoned His Church.

Sometimes, exposure is evidence that God is cleansing it.

Scripture repeatedly shows that God confronts hidden sin among His people not to destroy them, but to purify them. Throughout both the Old and New Testaments, the Lord consistently exposes corruption, hypocrisy, abuse of power, and spiritual compromise among spiritual leaders.

Not because He hates His Church.

But because He loves her too much to leave her sick.

Ephesians 5 describes Christ sanctifying and cleansing His Church so that she may become holy and without blemish. That process of purification is often painful because anything hidden in darkness resists being brought into the light.

Unfortunately, many church cultures have unintentionally taught believers that exposing sin harms the Church. In reality, unrepentant hidden sin is what harms the Church most deeply.

Exposure may damage reputations temporarily.

But concealed corruption damages souls.

This is why genuine biblical accountability matters so much. The goal is not public humiliation, revenge, or the tearing apart of ministries. The goal is repentance, healing, justice, the protection of the vulnerable, and, ultimately, the restoration of integrity within the body of Christ.

Sometimes, the most loving thing God can do for His Church is to allow what was hidden to be revealed.

Because healing cannot happen where denial exists.

A Biblical Response Requires More Than Statements

The Assemblies of God has publicly acknowledged failures connected to Chi Alpha and discussed safeguarding reforms and policy changes. Some leaders within the denomination have openly admitted that accountability measures need improvement.

Those steps matter.

But for many survivors and advocates, the broader response has still felt incomplete.

Biblically, repentance involves far more than carefully crafted public statements issued after pressure mounts. True repentance includes confession, humility, accountability, truth-telling, and a willingness to face consequences.

Scripture consistently holds spiritual leaders to higher standards, not lower ones.

Jesus repeatedly confronted religious leaders who prioritized image and institutional preservation over justice and mercy. The New Testament calls believers to expose darkness rather than conceal it.

That is why many Christians believe the Church’s credibility is not preserved through damage control or narrative management.

It is preserved through truth.

The Human Cost of Institutional Defensiveness

One of the most heartbreaking realities in situations like this is how easily survivors become secondary to the institution itself.

When conversations revolve primarily around protecting the church, defending leadership, or preserving the ministry’s reputation, victims can begin feeling invisible.

Many survivors of church-related abuse already carry:

• shame,

• confusion,

• spiritual trauma,

• fear,

• and self-doubt.

When they hear lawsuits or public exposure described as “attacks on the church” or “the enemy trying to destroy the ministry,” many begin wondering whether speaking up somehow makes them the problem.

That emotional and spiritual confusion silences people.

And silence is often where abuse survives the longest.

A Larger Problem Within Church Culture

The Chi Alpha controversy has exposed issues that extend far beyond one denomination or ministry.

Similar patterns have emerged across countless religious systems:

• celebrity leadership culture,

• lack of independent accountability,

• loyalty networks,

• image management,

• premature restoration of fallen leaders,

• and spiritual authority being used to suppress criticism.

These are not uniquely Pentecostal problems. They are human problems that can emerge anywhere institutions become more committed to preserving themselves than pursuing truth.

Over time, ministries can slowly drift from being communities centered on Christ into organizations focused primarily on survival, influence, and reputation.

And when that happens, protecting the brand can quietly become more important than protecting people.

Final Thoughts

The tragedy of the Chi Alpha scandal is not only that abuse allegations emerged within a Christian ministry.

The deeper tragedy is what happens when institutions respond defensively instead of transparently, when spiritual language is used to shield systems from accountability, and when protecting the ministry becomes more important than protecting vulnerable people.

Not every pastor, leader, or Chi Alpha staff member participated in wrongdoing. Many faithful leaders genuinely desire integrity within the Church.

But controversies like this force Christians to wrestle honestly with uncomfortable realities that can no longer be ignored.

Because the credibility of the Gospel is not protected by hiding sin.

It is protected through truth, repentance, humility, justice, and accountability.

And perhaps the most important question this situation leaves behind is this:

Are churches more committed to protecting their reputation — or allowing God to purify His Church through truth no matter the cost?

---

Resources & Documentation

The following reporting, investigations, and articles were referenced throughout this article for research, context, and factual background surrounding the Chi Alpha and Assemblies of God controversy:

• The Roys Report– Texas Dad Sues Assemblies of God, Allegedly Allowing Abuse by Chi Alpha Leaders

• The Roys Report– South Texas Assemblies of God Leader Says Victims’ Lawsuit Is “Work of the Devil.”

• MinistryWatch – Chi Alpha / Assemblies of God Investigations

• MinistryWatch – Assemblies of God Asks Court to Protect Its Superintendent From Deposition in Sexual Abuse Lawsuit

• The Christian Post – Assemblies of God Seek to Stop Deposition of CEO in Abuse Case

• NBC News – Assemblies of God Faces Questions Over Handling of Chi Alpha Abuse Allegations

• Chi Alpha Campus Ministries Official Website

• Assemblies of God USA Official Website

Editorial Note

This article is intended to encourage thoughtful conversation surrounding accountability, transparency, biblical leadership, and institutional culture within the Church. The purpose is not to attack Christianity, victims, or faithful pastors and leaders, but to advocate for truth, justice, repentance, and the spiritual health of the Church as a whole.

Why Do We Treat Some Sins Differently Than Others?

Alright, I already know this post may turn some heads, but honestly, these are the kinds of thoughts and questions that come to my mind often. I share them because I’ve come to realize that questions exactly like this can become major stumbling blocks for many people both inside and outside the Church. Whether we like it or not, we have to be willing to wrestle with difficult questions because they directly shape and reveal our worldview as Christians.

So here’s the question:

“If we disqualify those living a gay lifestyle from being used in the local church, then why don’t we also disqualify the gossiper, the glutton, the divisive person, or the arrogant leader?”

Now before anyone tries to twist what I’m saying, let me be clear: yes, sin is serious. Yes, Scripture calls ALL believers to repentance, holiness, and transformation. But somewhere along the way, parts of the Church became very good at spotlighting certain sins while quietly tolerating the ones that thrive within church culture every single week.

For example, a gossiping believer can still lead a ministry. A divisive person can remain on a team. An arrogant leader can continue holding a platform. A manipulative pastor can still preach. A greedy Christian can still be celebrated.

Yet the moment the conversation turns toward sexual sin, suddenly the tone shifts dramatically. And if we’re being honest, that inconsistency is part of why so many people struggle with the Church today.

This post is not about debating whether someone living a gay lifestyle should or should not serve in the local church. The deeper point is to challenge us to think about the hypocrisy and selective outrage that can exist within our man-made church systems.

After all, sin is still sin.

I think the tension many people feel with this question comes from the fact that the Church has often treated certain sins as “category-defining” while quietly tolerating others that Scripture also speaks strongly against.

The Bible absolutely speaks against sexual sin, including homosexual behavior, but it also speaks very seriously about gossip, slander, greed, pride, division, hypocrisy, lack of self-control, unforgiveness, and abusive behavior. Scripture does not give us permission to minimize the sins that feel more culturally acceptable inside church circles while magnifying the ones that are more visible or controversial.

At the same time, there’s an important distinction that often gets lost in conversations like this:

The issue biblically is not whether someone has struggled with sin. If that were the standard, nobody could serve. Every believer is in a battle against the flesh in one way or another. The question becomes whether a person is living in ongoing, unrepentant, openly embraced sin while representing Christ in leadership or ministry without a desire for surrender, accountability, or transformation.

And honestly, that standard should apply consistently across the board.

A person who is openly divisive, manipulative, abusive, greedy, or habitually gossiping without repentance should concern the Church just as much as sexual sin does. Yet many churches have historically been far more willing to platform certain “respectable sins” while drawing hard lines around others.

Scripture actually warns heavily about sins of the tongue and character:

• Gossip and slander destroy communities.

• Pride corrupts leadership.

• Greed exploits people.

• Gluttony reveals lack of self-control.

• Division damages the Body of Christ.

• Hypocrisy harms the witness of the Church.

So in one sense, you’re right: the Church cannot be biblically consistent if it selectively enforces holiness based on which sins make people uncomfortable culturally.

But it’s also important not to flatten everything into “sin is sin” in a way that removes biblical nuance. While all sin separates humanity from God and all people need grace equally, Scripture still recognizes different consequences, different levels of damage, and different qualifications for leadership and ministry responsibility.

The goal should never be:

• “Which sinners do we exclude?”

Because all of us are sinners.

The goal should be:

• “Are we all submitting our lives to Christ in repentance, humility, and transformation?”

That includes the heterosexual person sleeping around.
That includes the gossiping church member.
That includes the arrogant pastor.
That includes the greedy leader.
That includes the person struggling with same-sex attraction.

The Church is supposed to be a community of repentance and restoration, not selective outrage.

What Happens When Reporting Abuse Leads to Family Backlash

Preface

What do you do when a child has been sexually assaulted by a family member, and after reporting it to the authorities, other family members respond by adding to the trauma, treating you like the problem, insisting it should have been handled privately, or acting as though involving the police was somehow the wrong thing to do?

Sadly, situations like this are not uncommon. When abuse is exposed, the pain often extends far beyond the original offense itself. Families can become divided. Some people respond with support and protection, while others react with denial, anger, blame, image management, or pressure to “keep it in the family.” In many cases, the focus quietly shifts away from protecting the vulnerable and toward protecting reputations, comfort, traditions, or the illusion that everything is fine.

If you are walking through something like this, it is important to hear clearly: protecting a child and reporting abuse is not betrayal. Choosing safety, truth, and accountability is not wrong. The responsibility for the damage rests on the person who committed the abuse, not on the person who refused to stay silent about it.

This is also why I chose to write about this, even though it strays from many of the topics I would normally discuss. Too often, people suffer in silence, carrying pain, confusion, guilt, shame, and isolation while feeling like nobody else could understand what they are going through. Many stay quiet because they fear backlash, rejection, division, or being treated as though they are the ones who caused the problem simply for speaking up.

But sometimes speaking up does more than tell a story. Sometimes it helps other people recognize they are not alone. Sometimes honesty becomes the very thing that gives someone else the courage to breathe again, seek help, protect someone vulnerable, or step out from underneath the crushing weight of secrecy and silence.

I hope that this conversation creates space for honesty, healing, discernment, and compassion for those who have had to walk through deeply painful and complicated situations like these. And if this helps even one person feel seen, understood, supported, or empowered to do what is right even when it is difficult, then it is worth having this conversation.

Protecting Children Is Not Betrayal

What you did by going to the police was the right thing.

When a child has been sexually assaulted, especially by a family member, the priority is the safety, protection, and care of the child, not protecting the comfort, reputation, or feelings of the offender or the family system around them.

A lot of families, unfortunately react in this way:

• Minimizing

• Deflecting

• Blaming the person who reported it

• Demanding “loyalty.”

• Saying it should have been handled privately

• Acting like the reporting itself is the betrayal instead of the abuse

That reaction is often part of the trauma itself. Sometimes people cannot emotionally handle the reality of what happened, so they redirect anger toward the person who exposed it. It does not make their response right.

You did not owe the offender a “heads up” before involving law enforcement. In cases involving abuse of a child, warning someone can:

• Give them time to manipulate stories

• Pressure the child

• Destroy evidence

• Coordinate narratives with others

• Intimidate family members

That is one reason these situations should go through proper authorities and trained investigators rather than “internal family handling.”

Right now, a few things matter deeply:

Your child’s emotional and physical safety.

Your child needs to know:

• They were believed

• They were protected

• What happened was not their fault

• Adults took action

Children often carry lifelong wounds when adults protect the family image instead of the child.

You need support, too

Parents and caregivers experience secondary trauma in situations like this. The grief, rage, confusion, guilt, and isolation can be overwhelming.

If possible, connect with:

• a trauma-informed counselor

• a support group for protective parents

• trusted people who will not pressure you to “keep peace” at the expense of truth

Boundaries are necessary

Anyone trying to shame you for reporting abuse may not currently be an emotionally safe person for you or your child. That includes relatives attempting manipulation, spiritual guilt, pressure, or image management.

Don’t let revisionist guilt take root.

People may say:

• “You destroyed the family.”

• “You should’ve come to us first.”

• “This could’ve been handled privately.”

• “You overreacted.”

But the person who committed the abuse created this situation. Reporting it did not create the damage; it exposed it.

If you are a person of faith, it’s important to remember: biblical forgiveness and love never require covering up abuse or bypassing justice. Protecting the vulnerable is deeply consistent with the heart of God. Scripture repeatedly condemns those who harm the innocent and those who use power to conceal evil.

You are likely grieving multiple things at once:

• What happened to your child

• The betrayal

• The family fracture

• The reactions of people you thought would support you

• The loss of trust

• Maybe even the loss of your image of certain people

That’s a lot for one heart to carry.

If your child has not already been connected with a trauma-informed therapist who specializes in child sexual abuse, that would be an important next step. And honestly, counseling for you and other safe caregivers matters too.

You protected your child. That matters.

Final Thoughts

Situations like these are painful, complicated, and deeply personal. They leave wounds that often extend far beyond the original act itself. When abuse is exposed, it has a way of revealing the health or dysfunction of the systems and relationships surrounding it. Some people respond with compassion, accountability, and protection for the vulnerable, while others respond with denial, anger, blame, or attempts to preserve appearances at all costs. But no amount of discomfort, embarrassment, or family tension changes the reality that protecting a child is always the right thing to do.

Silence has never been true healing. Ignoring abuse, minimizing it, or attempting to handle it privately for the sake of reputation only creates environments where pain continues unchecked, and victims feel abandoned. Accountability may be uncomfortable, but it is necessary. Truth may create division for a season, but it also opens the door to genuine healing, justice, and restoration where possible.

For those who have walked through situations like this, especially those who have faced backlash simply for speaking up or protecting the vulnerable, I hope you understand that you are not alone. The emotional weight, grief, confusion, and exhaustion that often follow these situations are real. But doing what is right is not determined by how others react to it. Sometimes obedience to truth and protection requires standing firm even when misunderstood by people you never expected would turn against you.

My hope in writing this is not to create outrage or division, but to encourage honesty, discernment, compassion, and courage. If this conversation helps even one person feel seen, empowered to protect someone vulnerable, or willing to step out of silence and seek help, then it is worth having. Protecting the innocent is not betrayal. Speaking the truth is not cruel. And refusing to hide darkness does not make you the problem.

Does the Church You Attend Show Indicators of a Cult-Like Shift?

Healthy vs Unhealthy Church Culture, Biblical Accountability, and Christ-Centered Leadership

Introduction

Many believers struggle to recognize the signs of a cult-like church because unhealthy church leadership and spiritually controlling church culture often develop gradually over time. Most churches that drift into unhealthy patterns do not begin with obvious corruption or blatant abuse. In many cases, the church may appear spiritually vibrant on the surface. The sermons may sound biblical. Worship may feel powerful. Attendance may be growing. Programs may be thriving. Yet underneath the surface, unhealthy leadership systems can slowly develop until the church begins functioning more like a controlled institution than the Body of Christ.

This is why biblical discernment matters.

Many sincere Christians have spent years in spiritually controlling churches without realizing it because unhealthy church culture became normalized to them. Over time, fear, manipulation, intimidation, and emotional dependency begin to feel like normal expressions of spiritual authority. Questioning leadership becomes labeled as rebellion. Loyalty to the institution becomes confused with loyalty to God. Protecting leadership becomes more important than protecting people. What begins as “strong leadership” slowly becomes authoritarian leadership.

This article is not written to attack the Church. It is written because many believers genuinely do not realize that what they are experiencing may not actually reflect healthy biblical church culture or Christ-centered leadership. The goal is not to encourage rebellion, cynicism, or church division. The goal is to help believers discern the difference between healthy church leadership and spiritually controlling church systems that have drifted away from the example Jesus established.

Jesus never manipulated people through fear. He never built systems designed to insulate himself from accountability. He never discouraged people from examining the truth. Instead, Christ consistently pointed people toward the Father, toward truth, toward freedom, and toward spiritual maturity. Healthy churches do the same.

The Apostle Paul instructed believers in 2 Timothy 2:15 to “study to show themselves approved unto God… rightly dividing the word of truth.” In context, Paul is emphasizing the importance of accurately handling Scripture. The phrase “rightly dividing” means to correctly interpret and properly handle truth. This matters because spiritually controlling churches often misuse Scripture by removing verses from context or practicing eisegesis, which is reading personal agendas into biblical texts rather than drawing out the intended meaning from the passage itself. A church can quote Scripture constantly and still misuse it. Satan himself quoted Scripture in the wilderness temptation of Jesus. The issue has never simply been whether Scripture is quoted, but whether it is rightly understood, rightly divided, and rightly applied.‍ ‍

Healthy vs Unhealthy Church Culture

‍One of the clearest distinctions between a healthy church and an unhealthy church culture is the way leadership authority is exercised. Scripture consistently presents church leadership as servant-oriented rather than authoritarian. Jesus directly addressed abusive leadership structures in Matthew 20:25–28 when He told His disciples, “The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them… It shall not be so among you.” In context, Jesus was contrasting worldly leadership models built on domination and control with Kingdom leadership built on humility and servanthood. The phrase “lord it over” refers to oppressive authority structures where leaders exercise power for self-preservation and personal control. Jesus explicitly rejected this model for spiritual leadership within His Church.

Instead, Christ declared, “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant.”

This is important because many spiritually controlling churches function through the very leadership model Jesus condemned. Some pastors control every major decision within the church while simultaneously surrounding themselves with people whose primary role is protecting leadership rather than protecting the congregation.

I witnessed this firsthand during a church board nomination process. Before the congregational meeting where members would vote on board nominees, the pastoral staff was brought into a private meeting. During this meeting, names of potential nominees were discussed, and staff members were asked whether there were concerns about certain individuals. At first glance, the process appeared collaborative and spiritually responsible. However, the reality was very different. At the end of the process, the pastor himself retained final authority over which names would actually appear before the congregation for voting. While members believed they were participating in a meaningful process, the options had already been carefully filtered beforehand.

The pastor was not primarily searching for spiritually mature leaders who would help provide healthy accountability or make difficult decisions for the good of the church as a whole. He was searching for “yes men.” Men who would defend him. Men who would preserve his authority. Men who would avoid challenging leadership decisions. Men who would function more as insulation around the pastor than as shepherds for the congregation.

This is not healthy church leadership.

This is institutional self-protection.

And unfortunately, this pattern exists in far more churches than many believers realize.

A healthy church protects truth even when it is uncomfortable. An unhealthy church culture protects leadership image and institutional power at all costs. Healthy pastors understand that the Church belongs to Jesus Christ, not to themselves. Their role is to equip believers for spiritual maturity, not emotionally condition people into dependence upon leadership approval.

Paul writes in Ephesians 4:11–13 that church leaders exist “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” The purpose of leadership is, therefore, equipping believers, not controlling them. Healthy churches ask, “How can we help people grow in Christ?” Spiritually controlling churches often function from a different question: “How can we preserve loyalty to leadership and the institution?”

Signs of Spiritually Controlling Churches

‍One of the clearest signs of spiritually controlling churches is the use of fear to maintain loyalty and compliance. In unhealthy churches, members may hear statements such as, “If you leave this church, your life will fall apart,” or “You are stepping outside God’s covering,” or “Questioning leadership opens the door to deception.” These statements create emotional and psychological dependence on the institution rather than on Christ.

Yet Scripture teaches something very different about the nature of God’s leadership. Paul writes in 2 Timothy 1:7, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” In context, Paul is motivating Timothy to exhibit bravery and perseverance in the face of adversity. The biblical principle remains clear: fear is not the primary mechanism through which God leads His people.

Conviction is different from control. The Holy Spirit convicts believers toward repentance and freedom. Manipulative leadership uses fear to produce compliance and dependence. This distinction is essential because many emotionally controlling church cultures confuse intimidation with spiritual authority.

Another indicator of a cult-like shift in church culture is when questioning leadership becomes spiritually dangerous. In healthy churches, leaders may not always agree with criticism, but they remain accountable and open to examination. In unhealthy environments, however, disagreement is often labeled as rebellion, division, gossip, or spiritual attack. Over time, members become afraid to ask questions for fear of being labeled disloyal or spiritually immature.

Healthy churches encourage discernment. Spiritually controlling churches often fear it.

Biblical Accountability in Church Leadership

One of the most dangerous aspects of unhealthy church leadership is the misuse of Scripture to justify manipulation and silence accountability. One of the most common examples is the misuse of the phrase “touch not mine anointed”. In many spiritually controlling churches, this verse is used to discourage members from questioning leadership or addressing misconduct. However, this interpretation completely ignores the broader context of Scripture.

The New Testament repeatedly teaches that leaders are accountable before both God and the Church. In 1 Timothy 5:19–20, Paul instructs, “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” This passage demonstrates balance. Leaders should not be falsely accused carelessly, but neither are they immune from correction or accountability.

Healthy leadership welcomes accountability because accountability protects both the church and the integrity of leadership itself. Controlling leadership fears accountability because accountability threatens control.

Leaders who operate through fear, manipulation, intimidation, coercion, or total control are fundamentally disqualified from leading God’s people in a Christlike manner. The pulpit was never intended to become a throne from which leaders build personal kingdoms or surround themselves with unquestioning loyalty. A shepherd leads people toward Christ. A controller leads people toward dependency.

Churches Without Accountability

‍This raises another deeply important question many hurting believers eventually ask: Where are the overseers? Where are the district leaders, denominational authorities, bishops, executive presbyters, and spiritual overseers who were entrusted to provide accountability for pastors and churches? Why are so many unhealthy leaders allowed to continue operating without meaningful correction?

Scripture clearly establishes the importance of oversight within the Church. In Titus 1:5, Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders and establish order within the churches. Throughout the New Testament, leadership was never intended to function independently without accountability. There were systems of correction, doctrinal examination, mutual submission, and shared oversight.

Yet in many modern church structures, oversight has become passive, political, or performative. In some cases, overseers avoid confrontation because the church is financially successful, numerically growing, or influential within the denomination. In other situations, leaders protect one another because exposing serious problems could damage reputations, ministries, giving structures, or organizational stability. Sometimes relationships between leaders become so intertwined that accountability becomes almost impossible.

The result is devastating. Hurting members are often ignored. Whistleblowers are labeled divisive. Concerns are minimized. Manipulation is excused as a personality issue. Control is rebranded as “strong leadership.” Meanwhile, the people suffering underneath these systems are left spiritually confused, emotionally wounded, and questioning whether anyone actually sees what is happening.

Oversight without courage is not true oversight. Accountability that only exists on paper is not biblical.

What Does a Healthy Biblical Church Look Like?

A healthy biblical church equips believers to stand firmly upon Scripture and grow in discernment. The goal of discipleship is not to create emotional dependence upon pastors or organizations, but to help believers become rooted in Christ. The Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 provides an important example. Scripture says they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” The Bereans were praised because they examined Paul’s teaching against Scripture itself. Paul did not condemn their discernment as rebellion. Their willingness to examine truth carefully was considered spiritually noble.

Healthy leaders encourage this type of discernment. Spiritually controlling churches often fear it.

One of the clearest indicators of an unhealthy church culture is whether members become increasingly incapable of functioning spiritually outside the institution itself. If believers feel unable to trust God, interpret Scripture, make decisions, or maintain relationships without leadership approval, discipleship has likely been replaced with dependency.

Healthy churches produce believers who are humble, loving, biblically grounded, emotionally healthy, spiritually mature, and increasingly dependent upon Christ. Spiritually controlling churches often produce people who are fearful, defensive, emotionally exhausted, dependent upon leadership approval, afraid to ask questions, and suspicious of outsiders.

In Matthew 7:16, Jesus taught His disciples, along with the surrounding crowd, during the Sermon on the Mount, “You will know them by their fruits.” The fruit always reveals the root.‍ ‍

Conclusion

The Church was never intended to become a system of spiritual control built around personalities, institutional loyalty, or authoritarian leadership structures. Jesus Christ established His Church to be a community where believers grow in truth, freedom, humility, accountability, discernment, and dependence on God.

Therefore, churches that consistently operate through fear-based leadership, manipulation, suppression of questions, emotional dependency, leadership insulation, and unaccountable authority display clear indicators of a cult-like shift away from healthy biblical Christianity.

This issue is not about promoting rebellion against leadership. It is about defending the biblical model of leadership that Jesus Himself established.

Healthy churches point people toward Christ. Controlling churches slowly trains people to depend upon leadership and the institution instead.

And only one of those reflects the heart of God.

Sources & Recommended Reading

The Holy Bible – English Standard Version (ESV)

Bible Gateway Scripture Reference Tool

GotQuestions: What Is Spiritual Abuse?

The Gospel Coalition – Church Leadership Resources

Christianity Today – Church Leadership & Accountability Articles