The evangelical church is facing a challenging ethical moment amid a deep and widespread distrust of institutions. Scandals, cover-ups, and abuses of power have cast a long shadow on the reputation of many churches and their leaders. This has often fostered an environment where congregations are more skeptical than ever of the structures and leaders guiding them.
So, how do we move forward? In addition to personal and institutional repentance, we must ask: How can pastors prioritize faithfulness and cultivate a healthy institution?
First, it’s important to recognize that no denominational structure—whether hierarchical or congregational—can guarantee a system that will prevent abuse. The human condition, with its flaws, will always have potential for the misuse of power. Denominational structures alone cannot guarantee to protect communities from harm.
However, this does not mean that congregations should abandon efforts to create healthier systems of accountability and leadership development. In the Assemblies of God (AG), to which I belong, our governance structure balances the need for spiritual oversight with the autonomy of local churches.
The AG is a fellowship of churches where each congregation is locally governed by its leadership while also submitting to the broader fellowship for accountability, support, and guidance. This means that local pastors and leadership teams have significant authority within their congregations but are also connected to regional and national leadership bodies that can hold them accountable.
This hybrid system of shared authority can serve as a safeguard against unchecked power. The AG combines local autonomy with accountability through a tiered structure. District councils and the General Council oversee pastoral qualifications, maintain conduct standards, and provide pastoral training. Even ordination requires background checks and affirmation from both local and regional leaders, ensuring further encouragement for the pastor to remain faithful to biblical standards. When done well, this layered oversight helps prevent the concentration of unchecked authority in a single leader.
Yet, importantly, accountability in the Assemblies of God should not rely solely on this structure. It should also be rooted in a culture of mentorship and mutual responsibility. The tiered system allows AG pastors to build healthy relationships with peers in ministry, often seeking counsel and support from other leaders within the fellowship. Although they are not mandatory, healthy relationships between pastors and district leadership offer vital care and guidance, whereas unhealthy power dynamics can lend themselves to abuses of authority at higher levels.
A key distinction between the AG’s governance and more independent structures is denominational oversight. In many independent churches, governance tends to be centralized on the individual pastor, with little external accountability or supervision. Of course, there are fellowships of independent churches that mirror ethical accountability.
Nevertheless, a significant challenge that some of these types of congregations face is the lack of oversight, which can lead to a power vacuum where accountability becomes too vague or entirely absent. When a pastor’s behavior becomes problematic, no broader system is in place to offer correction. This may result in a culture of silence, where issues are ignored to avoid disrupting the congregation. While independent models can encourage freedom and flexibility in ministry, they can also create environments where abusive behavior goes unchecked due to the absence of an external authority with the power to intervene. This is also possible in AG churches, as local congregations are autonomous and do not always ask the fellowship for support.
Still, the Assemblies of God governance structure has created built-in mechanisms for holding pastors accountable, preventing leadership from existing in isolation. In cases of moral or doctrinal failures, structures are in place to offer accountability; correction; and, if necessary, discipline, protecting the congregation from long-term harm.
Of course, as with any system, there are areas where denominational structures can improve. No system is perfect. The history of church abuse within large denominations in the last few decades proves that even among tiered accountability structures, corruption is possible. Ambition for denominational positions or favoritism from higher adjudicatory leaders may stifle intervention and transparent reporting. However, the AG framework is a meaningful step toward creating healthier leadership and church environments. While it provides checks and balances, each church still largely leans on the integrity and courage of its leadership.
Healthy governance structures alone cannot solve abuse or misconduct. They are necessary, but insufficient, tools in building a faithful and restorative church. We must pair healthy structures with an unwavering commitment to biblical integrity, relational transparency, and a deep reliance on the Holy Spirit. Cultivating a culture of humility, self-examination, and mutual accountability will ultimately create the most fertile ground for flourishing.
Any system works only when leaders and the fellowship embrace accountability, transparency, and mutual responsibility. By strengthening our structures, cultivating integrity, and pursuing reparative work, we can build healthier, more faithful congregations and shepherds for the future.
Gabriel Salguero is pastor of The Gathering Place and president of the National Latino Evangelical Coalition.
In This Symposium
Proudly Independent. Humbly Collaborative.
Individual cooperation makes the Southern Baptist Convention a reckoning force.
I’m Grateful for My Bishop
Episcopal governance structure provides both discipline and care for its ministers.
A Marriage of Independence and Authority
A hybrid model of governance helps Assemblies of God churches succeed.
