08/17/2026
THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD IS NOT McDONALDS’S
PART 5: WHEN IS IT TIME FOR A CHURCH TO LEAVE THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD?
Let me begin by saying something that should be obvious: leaving a denomination is a serious matter.
A church shouldn’t leave because the pastor got mad at the superintendent, lost an argument or didn’t get invited to sit at the right table. It shouldn’t happen in secret, and it certainly shouldn’t be driven by one person’s ego.
There’s a lot of good in the Assemblies of God. Many were saved, baptized, called into ministry and taught the Bible in AG churches. The AG has built an impressive missions program and given pastors a place for fellowship, training and accountability. Those things matter.
I’m an AG pastor’s kid. This isn’t a denomination I know only from reading its bylaws. It’s part of my history.
But history isn’t ownership, and gratitude isn’t a lifetime contract.
A local church doesn’t exist to keep a denomination in business. It exists to preach the Gospel, make disciples, worship God, care for people and serve its community. Affiliation is valuable only as long as it helps the church do those things.
There can come a time when a church has to ask a hard question:
Is this relationship still helping us fulfill our calling, or are we now spending more time protecting the relationship than carrying out the mission?
STAYING SHOULD BE A CHOICE
The Assemblies of God describes its General Council affiliated churches as autonomous, self-governing and self-supporting.
Those words sound good, but they have to mean something in real life.
A church can’t be called autonomous simply because it pays its own bills. It isn’t meaningful autonomy if the congregation is independent while raising money, buying property and assuming debt, but suddenly subordinate when it makes a decision the district doesn’t like.
If the local church is truly self-governing, it must be free to examine whether AG affiliation is still right for it.
A church should stay because it believes in the relationship, benefits from it and wants to be part of it. It shouldn’t remain because its leaders are afraid of losing credentials, relationships or property.
If fear is the main thing holding the relationship together, something is already badly wrong.
WHAT IS THE CHURCH RECEIVING IN RETURN?
There’s nothing unspiritual about asking what value a denomination provides.
A local church gives the Assemblies of God more than its name on a report. It contributes money, missions support, statistics, attendance, credibility and participation. Its pastor places his or her credentials and ministry standing under district authority. The congregation accepts certain doctrinal and organizational requirements.
In return, the church may receive fellowship, training, credentials, missions administration, educational programs and help during pastoral transitions or times of crisis.
That can be a fair exchange.
But every church’s situation is different. A mature congregation may eventually find that most of its ministry relationships, training and accountability already exist outside the denomination. It may be carrying the full financial and operational burden of the church while receiving very little practical support from the district.
At some point, it’s fair to ask whether the relationship still makes sense.
A healthy denomination shouldn’t be offended by that question. It should be able to answer it by showing the church why the relationship remains valuable.
If the only answer is a warning about what the church will lose if it leaves, that tells us something.
ACCOUNTABILITY HAS TO WORK BOTH WAYS
One of the strongest arguments for denominational affiliation is accountability. No pastor should be allowed to build a private kingdom and answer to no one.
But accountability has to run in both directions.
A district can investigate a pastor, affect the pastor’s credentials and potentially damage the pastor’s livelihood and reputation. What happens when the district is the problem? Where does the pastor or local church go? Who conducts an independent investigation? Who reviews the conduct of district officials?
If the same people receive the complaint, investigate the complaint and decide whether the complaint has merit, that isn’t much of an appeal process.
Credentialing authority carries enormous power. A pastor who raises a legitimate concern may also be risking a career, retirement, friendships and the ability to continue ministering within the Fellowship.
That kind of power can encourage silence.
I’m not suggesting that every pastor facing discipline is being mistreated. Pastors fail. Some become dishonest, abusive or dictatorial. Churches need outside help when that happens.
But districts and denominational leaders can fail too. When they do, the people affected need more than a private meeting followed by an instruction to submit and remain quiet.
A system that holds pastors accountable but resists accountability for itself is not healthy.
PRIVATE MEETINGS DON’T ALWAYS FIX PUBLIC PROBLEMS
Whenever someone publicly challenges a religious institution, somebody will say the matter should have been handled privately.
Sometimes that’s true. Private conversations can resolve misunderstandings and repair relationships.
But a private process works only when the people involved are honest, reasonably equal in power and willing to correct the problem.
What happens when the problem is built into the institution itself?
A pastor goes into a private meeting alone. The district controls the room, the process, the records and the outcome. Nobody else knows what was said. Other pastors who may have experienced the same conduct remain isolated from one another.
The meeting ends, nothing changes, and everyone is told the matter has been “handled.”
That isn’t reconciliation. Sometimes it’s simply containment.
A church may reach a point where it has raised concerns respectfully, followed the proper channels and waited for a meaningful response, only to receive delay, dismissal or retaliation.
At that point, remaining may give credibility to a system the church no longer trusts.
THEN THERE’S THE PROPERTY
Property is where all the talk about autonomy gets tested.
The local congregation buys the land, signs the mortgage, raises the construction money, pays for repairs and creates the equity. Members give sacrificially because they want a church in their community.
Years later, the congregation may discover that a clause in its governing documents gives the district a claim to the property if the church leaves the AG.
That clause may have legal consequences. A church would be foolish to ignore it. But a clause can be legally significant and still raise serious questions about fairness.
If the district bought the land, guaranteed the debt or contributed substantial money under a clear agreement, then it has an investment to protect.
But if the district didn’t put money into the property, why should it receive the benefit of decades of local sacrifice?
Some say the clause protects donor intent. Maybe it does for a donor who expressly said, “This money is being given only for permanent Assemblies of God use.”
But did every donor say that? Did the grandmother who gave from her Social Security check intend to enrich a district office if her local congregation later changed affiliations? Or did she intend to help her church preach the Gospel and serve her neighbors?
We shouldn’t invent donor intent years after the gift was made.
If a denomination believes the local property ultimately belongs to the district, it should say so clearly before the first building-fund offering is collected. Every donor should understand the arrangement.
It shouldn’t take a threatened disaffiliation for the congregation to learn who supposedly owns the building.
SOMETIMES THE CHURCH HAS SIMPLY OUTGROWN THE RELATIONSHIP
Churches change. Communities change. What worked 30 years ago may not work today.
A congregation may now include people from many different church backgrounds. Its identity may no longer be primarily denominational. It may work closely with local ministries and churches outside the AG. Its training, outreach and accountability relationships may come from several places.
The church may still be listed as Assemblies of God mostly because it has always been Assemblies of God.
Tradition deserves respect, but “we’ve always done it this way” isn’t enough by itself.
A church needs to ask whether the AG label still honestly describes who it is, what it believes and where it’s going.
If it does, stay and strengthen the relationship.
If it doesn’t, an honest separation may be better than an affiliation that exists only on paper.
CONSCIENCE MATTERS
There may also come a point when church leaders can no longer defend the actions or policies of the denomination in good conscience.
The disagreement may involve doctrine, finances, disciplinary practices, governance, property or the treatment of pastors and congregations.
Not every disagreement is a reason to leave. Nobody gets complete agreement in any organization.
But there’s a difference between disagreeing with a policy and being asked to defend something you believe is wrong.
If continued affiliation requires leaders to remain silent about abuse, excuse unfair conduct or place institutional loyalty above truth, the church has a serious decision to make.
Christian unity doesn’t require pretending that everything is fine.
Sometimes leaving is less divisive than spending years living in a relationship built on distrust and fear.
LEAVING DOESN’T SOLVE EVERYTHING
A church should be honest about the risks of leaving.
Members may disagree. Some may leave the congregation. Longstanding friendships can be damaged. Missionaries may be affected. Pastors may face credentialing consequences. Staff benefits, insurance, loans and contracts may have to be replaced or renegotiated.
The church will also need a new accountability structure.
Becoming independent can sound appealing until the senior pastor realizes nobody has the authority to tell him no. A church should never leave denominational control only to become controlled by one personality.
If a church leaves, it needs strong bylaws, an independent board, financial controls, procedures for investigating misconduct and a real plan for pastoral succession.
There has to be somebody outside the pastor’s immediate circle who can speak honestly and intervene when necessary.
Leaving should produce better accountability, not less.
DON’T LEAVE JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE ANGRY
Anger can alert us to a problem, but it can’t be the plan for what comes next.
Before voting to leave, the congregation should know what it is moving toward.
Will the church become independent? Join another fellowship? Build a network with like-minded churches? How will ministers be trained and evaluated? Who will handle complaints against the senior pastor? How will doctrine be protected during a future leadership change?
If the only vision is “we won’t be under the district anymore,” the church isn’t ready.
The decision also cannot belong to the pastor alone. The members paid for the building, supported the ministry and built the congregation. They deserve complete information, enough time to consider it and a genuine vote.
A pastor should present the facts, including the strongest arguments for staying. If the pastor is afraid to let the congregation hear both sides, that is a warning sign of its own.
BEFORE ANYONE ANNOUNCES ANYTHING, READ THE DOCUMENTS
A church should not begin this process with a Facebook post or an emotional announcement from the pulpit.
It should begin with the paperwork.
Before anybody talks publicly about leaving, the church needs independent legal advice. Not the district’s lawyer and not simply the pastor’s friend. It needs an attorney who represents the local church.
That attorney should review the articles of incorporation, bylaws, deeds, mortgages, loan documents, donor restrictions, employment agreements, benefit plans and insurance policies.
The church also needs to know its current classification. Is it General Council affiliated or district affiliated? What do the national and district bylaws require? What notice and vote are necessary? Must district officials be invited to the meeting? Is there a reversionary or asset-distribution clause? Could discussing disaffiliation trigger an effort to place the church under district supervision?
Those questions need answers before the district receives notice that the church is considering departure.
That isn’t being sneaky. It’s the same kind of preparation any responsible board should undertake before making a decision affecting the church’s ministry, employees and property.
LEAVING THE AG ISN’T LEAVING CHRIST
This may be the most important point.
The Assemblies of God is part of the Church, but it is not the whole Church. It was organized in 1914. Christianity did not begin in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and the Kingdom of God is not administered from Springfield, Missouri.
A church can leave the Assemblies of God without leaving Pentecostal faith, abandoning missions or turning its back on Christ.
It is ending an institutional relationship—not renouncing the Gospel.
For many congregations, remaining in the AG will be the right decision. They value the fellowship, share its doctrine and believe the relationship strengthens their ministry.
Other churches may conclude that the relationship no longer works. The district may exercise more control than the value it provides. Accountability may flow in only one direction. Property may be used as leverage. Leaders may no longer be able to remain in good conscience.
When those conditions exist, staying isn’t automatically faithful and leaving isn’t automatically rebellious.
A healthy denomination should want churches to remain because they are valued, supported and convinced—not because they are afraid of what will happen if they go.
In the end, the question isn’t whether leaving will upset the district. It isn’t whether the church has always carried the AG name.
The question is whether continued affiliation helps that particular church do what God has called it to do.
If the answer is yes, stay.
If the answer is no, and the church has prayed, studied the documents, counted the cost and involved its members honestly, then leaving may be the most responsible thing it can do.
It may even be the faithful thing.
Edward Roush, Jr.
Dallas, Texas
An AG PK
www.edwardroush.com
THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD IS NOT McDONALD’S
Catch up on the series:
PART ONE
The AG Wants the Control of an Owner Without Making the Investment of One
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18yyRL6JgB/
PART TWO
McDonald’s Is More Than a Franchisor
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/193CNPHo6R/
PART THREE
A Franchisor Cannot Pretend to Be the Landlord
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CMYjMRrSR/
PART FOUR
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EU2e7UtLG/
EPLAINER VIDEO:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BpW2uvGq5/
