Beyond The Brand
ARC has helped plant more than a thousand churches, but growth alone doesn’t tell the whole story. How does its ministry philosophy compare with the biblical model of the local church?
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
Years before Daniel Savala was sentenced to 30 years in prison, warnings about his criminal history and spiritual influence reached Chi Alpha and Assemblies of God leadership. The emails raise a difficult question every church fellowship should consider: What happens when spiritual authority extends beyond the accountability system meant to protect people?
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?