Tennessee Mega Church Launches Risky & Questionable New Ministry

At a time when public trust in pastors is at a historic low, an influential church is launching a new church-planting network in Tennessee—backed by bold promises but shadowed by serious questions and concerns.

For Christians, church planting is something to be celebrated. It’s part of the necessary and healthy lifecycle of the global Church. Few things make a more positive impact on a community than the addition of a new and healthy church. On the other side of the coin, though, few things can cause more damage to community than an unhealthy and unsafe church.

That’s why we should all care deeply and look closely when a new church planting network starts.

Perhaps nothing affects the health and reputation of the Church more than the new churches we plant. The American Church will only be as healthy and safe as the churches we plant, so protecting them and setting a high bar in the areas of transparency, accountability, and protective systems is a MUST!

Before we look into the details of the Win Network Launch and the questions it raises, let’s look at the history of church planting and how the rise of church planting networks has impacted it.

Throughout church history, healthy churches have planted, cared for, and supported new churches as they matured. Those churches would then plant other churches when they matured and were able. That was the tried-and-true model. In recent centuries, however, the rise of the “church planting network” has significantly changed the way Christians plant churches.

Networks like the Association of Related Churches, Acts 29, and denominational networks like the North American Mission Board have grown in popularity, and now organizations like these plant churches in mass. This larger scale approach to church planting has resulted in more new churches quicker, but at what cost?

Where is the long-term discipleship with pastors before they plant and decades into the future? We allow children 18 years to grow into adults, yet we expect new churches to be self-sustaining, autonomous, and mature after just a few years.

Where is the accountability and leadership? ARC plants more churches than perhaps anyone else and has become very good at it. Yet, when scandal, sin, or public moral failure happens in one of the churches it has planted, where is the accountability, leadership, and support from ARC?

In far too many instances, the answer seems to be “nowhere.” And if you visit their website to find an ARC church near you, you’ll find a convenient disclaimer absolving them from such menial tasks like holding their own church plants accountable.

Did you catch the concerning part of this disclaimer? “These churches are legally autonomous, independently led, separately operated, and solely accountable to their leadership, independent of the ARC organization.”

So, that means that while ARC church plants must “invest in the mission of ARC” including a significant financial investment long after they become self-sustaining, they can’t be held accountable by ARC. What does this look like practically?

In the case of Venue Church in Chattanooga, TN (an ARC plant,) when their lead pastor, Tavner Smith, faced allegations of moral failure, no one held him accountable. ARC leader Dino Rizzo had previously lauded and celebrated Smith as someone they wanted ARC planters to meet and learn from.

But when scandal erupted and the church faced hardship, they were silent.

Venue’s staff quit in mass, and attendance and giving took major hits. Yet today, Tavner is STILL pastoring the church, just under the new name of Hope House Church.

Other ARC pastors and churches have faced similar allegations and scandals by their leadership, and ARC leaders like Dino Rizzo and other ARC pastors continue to sit on many of each other’s boards, yet, no accountability or oversight seems to come from ARC.

When a local church plants a new gathering of believers, they not only support it financially, but are responsible for it and usually offer long-term mentorship, accountability, and support. It’s much like a parent caring for, supporting, and disciplining their child.

Church planting networks tend to operate more like large-scale cloning operations. They flash clone new churches that look and act just like them, using the same systems and strategies, and sometimes, even preaching the same sermons.

They grow them quick, send them out on their own, and benefit from the continued investment of member churches after the initial loans and/or bills are paid. Yet, when crisis hits down the road, churches can be treated like disposable clones rather than adult children.

And the nature of this relational arrangement seems to be most clear when scandal erupts.

That parent/child relationship seems to be a part of the DNA of the church from the beginning. Yet, are we forsaking that part of us for the microwave success of church planting networks?

So, when a new church planting network starts, I ask questions and encourage you to do the same.

When a new church planting network pops up, here are some questions we should always ask. I’m also including the reason for asking each question.

1. Is there a single church leading the network, or is it a standalone organization with a coalition of churches involved? If a single church starts it, does that church have a successful history or planting other local congregations?

WHY ASK this question?: Before planting local churches at scale, a local church should have a track record of doing so at a smaller scale. Without taking small steps first, the likelihood of failure rises tremendously.

2. How does governance, leadership, accountability, and financial transparency work in this network and with its member churches?

WHY ASK this question? A new church will rarely be healthier or more accountable than the church that planted it. A track record of proven accountability is a must for sending churches to ensure each church has the best start possible. Accountability is vital for the long-term success of church plants.

3. Is someone else already doing what this network aims to do, or do they offer a unique and potentially better way to approach church planting?

·WHY ASK this question?: If the network is starting to fix an existing problem or offer a novel solution, then it makes more sense than if it is essentially copying and pasting the model of another organization.

If that’s the case, then SAI recommends supporting existing organizations with proven track records instead so that every dollar given and every minute volunteered achieves maximum impact.

4. What are the costs involved for church plants, both initially and long term? And is this clearly defined and publicly available?

WHY ASK this question?: The money trail always tells a story in non-profit organizations and churches. Knowing the costs and expectations for churches as well as how the money will be strategically spent helps to ensure the network stays focused on planting new churches and not becoming a Christian MLM.

5. How are church planters screened to ensure both readiness and health?

WHY ASK this question?: Church planting draws both pastors with hearts to reach the lost and potential narcissistic predators who want to build a brand of loyal followers. This is why screening church planters is important.

As Chuck DeGroat discusses in his book When Narcissism Comes to Church, a lot of bad actors and unhealthy people can be drawn to starting churches at times. A good screening process protects everyone involved and goes a long way to establishing healthy churches that will stand the test of time.

6. How does the network define success for individual church plants and for the network as a whole? Is it biblical?

WHY ASK this question?: When churches define success by attendance and giving numbers, leaders are more apt to do whatever it takes to accomplish those goals, even if it harms people in the process. When success is determined by things like people being discipled and churches becoming self-sustaining, it tends to lend itself to healthier and safer churches over time.

7. How does the church determine where to plant new congregations? Is there a well-thought-out strategy behind it to plant churches in the areas they are needed most instead of saturating areas that already boast a significant church presence?

WHY ASK this question? For far too long, church planting has often been focused on the areas that need new churches the least. Having a strategy for determining where church plants go and for what purposes is helpful and healthy for the larger Church body.

8. Are the promises believable and practical, or just big and inspiring?

WHY ASK this question?: Like anything else in life, if it’s too good to be true, it probably is. And if a network’s language is grandiose and shows markers of manipulative behavior, then the likelihood of narcissistic leaders and systems in the churches it plants grows tremendously.

No one wants to be a part of a cult or a high-control environment, but one common way people are drawn into them is through grandiose and inspiring language about a future they want to be a part of.

So, Christians must be on guard for such language and ask deeper questions if they see it.

Now that you know the questions we ask about new church planting networks, let’s apply them to the Win Network and see what story it tells us.

(NOTE: We sent a list of 18 questions to representatives of the Win Network for this story. We also requested any comment they wished to provide and an interview. We received no response by email, and the only response we received was being blocked multiple times after reaching out to the church and its leaders on social media.)

1. Is there a single church leading the network, or is it a standalone organization with a coalition of churches involved? If a single church starts it, does that church have a successful history or planting other local congregations?

The Answer:

The Win network looks to be led and started by Faith Promise Church in Knoxville, TN. While the Win Network did not respond to our request for comment, an examination of Secretary of State filings did not turn up any organization under that name.

Multiple people are listed on the Win Network website as contacts, and all of them also work at Faith Promise, including Chase Depew, who in addition to leading the Win Network is also the campus pastor of the broadcast campus at the church.

After the network’s initial gathering on March 24-25, 2025, images on social media showed the gathering took place at Faith Promise with several Faith Promise leaders teaching sessions.

It was then confirmed that the Win Network is one and the same with Faith Promise when lead pastor Zac Stephens and his wife Rachel Stephens discussed in the sermon on April 30th.

As for the second part of the question, No, Faith Promise Church does not seem to have any discernable track record of planting local church congregations. While they do have a history of planting several multi-site campus locations, this is not the same as planting churches.

And based on reports we have received from several anonymous sources who previously served on staff at Faith Promise, very few of those locations are financially self-sustaining years after their launch. One source went as far as to call one location “a financial black hole.” So, based on this history, that campus expansion model would not seem likely to translate to planting autonomous local churches.

Have they hired staff members with church-planting experience to lead the network? Not that we can tell. Based on the staff we are aware of, Faith Promise and the Win network do not seem to have anyone with significant church-planting experience.

2. How does governance, leadership, accountability, and financial transparency work in this network and with its member churches?

The Answer:

The Win Network's website does not address governance, leadership structure, accountability, or finances. Since they did not respond to questions for this article, we can only assume these areas will mirror how Faith Promise handles them currently.

Things don’t get much clearer when looking into Faith Promise, though. Their website lists very little about governance, accountability, or leadership structure. No elders or board members are listed. And the church is not an organization with members based on our most recent information, which means congregants have no vote or ecclesiastical authority.

The clearest information we found on the website was that “Faith Promise is a pastor-led church.” Given all the available information, it looks as though Faith Promise is led by pastor Zac Stephens and that there is little in the way of accountability or governance beyond his pastoral leadership.

Based on that, I would reasonably assume that the Win Network is governed by Zac Stephens as well. From a governance and accountability perspective, this does not meet the SAI recommended standards for a safe church, let alone a church planting network.

If Faith Promise doesn’t meet the accountability and governance criteria, it is highly unlikely that churches planted by the Win Network will either. From my perspective, this is a major red flag and concern.

Financially, the church does offer some insight on their website by listing an auditor’s report from June of 2023. However, there is no updated information since almost two years later.

And while the auditor’s report is helpful, it lacks the level of detail required by law for regular non-profits and does not meet the standards of the Safe Church Pledge from SAI.

Altogether, significant questions and concerns remain for me regarding the areas of accountability and financial transparency.

3. Is someone else already doing what this network aims to do, or do they offer a unique and potentially better way to approach church planting?

The Answer:

Yes, other organizations are already doing eerily similar work as the Win Network. Acts 29, the Association of Related Churches, and the Send Network are all similar church-planting organizations. Oddly enough, Faith Promise is an active member of ARC and is listed on the Southern Baptist Convention’s website.

So, if they are already a member of ARC, give to ARC, and go to ARC events, then why start a new network instead of partnering at a greater level with ARC? And why would a church planter partner with the Win Network over ARC given that Faith Promise is a long time ARC member? The incentive remains unclear.

Now, ARC has its fair share of concerns. So, if Faith Promise was starting the Win network to address those concerns and plant healthier churches, then that would make sense. However, I see no evidence that would be the case, especially since Faith Promise leaders were recently at Church of the Highlands, who essentially runs ARC.

Simply put, I see no reason I could share regarding why starting a new network is better than partnering with ARC or the SBC who Faith Promise is already partnered with.

4. How are church planters screened to ensure both readiness and health?

The Answer:

Very little is said about this that I could find on Win Network’s website. The only information I could find regarding screening or church planter requirements is what is NOT required.

In an FAQ section on the website, the question is asked: “Do I need prior experience in ministry to become a church planter with The Win Network?” The answer? “While prior ministry or leadership experience can be beneficial, it’s not a requirement.”

They go on to say, “Our training and coaching programs are designed to equip you with the necessary skills, regardless of your background.” However, there is not much information regarding these coaching programs, their curriculum, who is teaching them, or church planters will be equipped through them.

5. How does the network define success for individual church plants and for the network as a whole? Is it biblical?

The Answer:

The mission seems clear for the Win Network: to “engage 1% of Tennesseans, spark a flame that grows into a transformative 3%, and ultimately reach the tipping point of 10%.” However, questions remain.

What does “winning” or “engaging” 1% of Tennessee look like practically? How will you know when the network or a church has “won” and “engaged” someone? And what is the statistical significance of reaching 1%, 3%, or 10% of the state’s population?

While we could not find an answer on the Win website, Rachel Stephens clarified the issue in a sermon at Faith Promise Church on March 30th.

“How do we know that we're seeing 1% of Tennessee reach? Oh, I'm so glad you asked 'cause I know you were gonna ask me. Every church in the network, including Faith Promise, 'cause we are a Win Network church, are gonna turn in their baptism numbers and each week we're gonna be encouraged by those steps that are being taken in the body of Christ across our state through a gift that was given by you. Every week there, you're gonna see the numbers change on these clickers, and they're at every single Faith Promise campus and in every Win Network church. And on Monday, the sound of that click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click is the sound of the vision moving forward.”

So, baptisms seem to be the marker of success. But are they counting second and third baptisms or only a person’s first baptism? Is a person “won” if they are baptized but then disappear from church and practicing Christianity in a few weeks or months?

This is a start, but I would recommend outlining a narrower definition of success and one that is based more on discipleship than a raised hand or baptism. Those are important actions, but based on the parable of the sower, it would seem that success in the Kingdom of God is more than that.

6. How does the church determine where to plant new congregations? Is there a well thought out strategy behind it to plant churches in the areas they are needed most instead of saturating areas that already boast a significant church presence?

The Answer:

The only mention of strategic church placement that we could find is the Win Network’s focus on the state of Tennessee. However, this raises more questions than it answers, as Tennessee is already one of the more church-heavy states in the nation.

According to recent Pew Research, 72% of Tennesseans already identify as Christians, which seems to be the marker of success for Win based on counting baptisms. And even more Tennesseans say they grew up in church and with church being important to them.

So, overall, Tennesseans are very familiar with the church and likely have been to many churches.

Win’s goal to eventually reach 10% of Tennesseans would have them carrying the weight of engaging a significant portion of the state’s unchurched population on their own.

And all of that under the governance and eye of a first-time senior pastor in his mid-30s. That feels like a very heavy burden for one pastor, one church, and one network they are starting.

Beyond that, I still have questions about how and why engaging 10% of the population is a “tipping point” if almost ¾ of Tennesseans already claim to be Christ followers. It would seem the state passed this tipping point a long time ago.

7. Are the promises believable and practical, or just big and inspiring?

The Answer:

The language and goals the Win Network talks about are huge. They are MASSIVE! They are perhaps, a little too big for me to believe.

The network wants to “win” 1% of Tennessee, which, by my count, is 75,000 people. 3% is their next goal and would be around 225,000 people. And 10%, three-quarters of a million people, is their ultimate aim. That’s inspiring for sure, but based on Faith Promise’s own track record and the already heavily Christian population of Tennessee, this seems more pie in the sky than believable to me.

But more so than that, I see language on the website that concerns me at an even greater level. The talk of “a movement on a mission to ignite a spiritual awakening,” “re-shaping hearts and homes,” leaving a “legacy that will echo through generations” sounds good, but it also reminds me of the type of language often used in cults and high control environments.

I was concerned about this and the potential of some of the language used to describe the network as exhibiting markers commonly associated with narcissistic language that I ran it through AI to do some research and see if it was just me, or if there was perhaps a legitimate reason for concern.

After feeding some of the language from the website into AI and asking it to review the language for any signs of markers commonly associated with cults and narcissism, it raised a lot of red flags, confirming my reason for my concern.**

Now, to be clear, none of that means that Faith Promise or the Win Network is a cult or narcissistic. It only means that some of the languages fits the mold of what we have seen exhibited from cults and narcissistic systems before. It did confirm to me that asking questions and for clarification did make sense though.

Also, to test the AI, I asked it to review the SAI website and others in the same way, and it did not raise similar or the same concerns for those, leading me to believe that, again, it is at least worth asking questions about why Win employs such grandiose language throughout its website.

For more information on the concerns AI raised, check out episode 77 of the Church Disrupted Podcast, where I discuss this in more detail.

So, what’s the verdict on Tennessee’s newest church planting network? I think the verdict is simply that it’s a questionable venture, and that it’s a risky move until more questions are answered and clarity is gained. There are simply too many questions unanswered to know what the Win Network is at this point.

And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Now, I’m not saying that the Win Network or Faith Promise is dangerous. What I mean is that launching a church planting network without being able to answer these questions is dangerous. But why does that pose a danger?

Well, in an era and culture where the Church has lost a lot of public trust, and churches from large networks like this have been a part of losing that trust, it’s vital to me that we as Christians put safety, transparency, and accountability back on the forefront of the church growth movement.

We can’t afford to lose any more trust, and I believe it breaks God’s heart that we have lost as much public trust as we have.

And like it or not, organizations that plant other churches, like the Win network, have to be held to an even higher standard than other local churches because they affect so many congregations.

This is especially true when their goals are as big as reaching between 75,000 people and 750,000 people with a single network. That’s a massive spiritual responsibility—and one that deserves serious scrutiny.

I wrote this article and recorded the accompanying podcast episode precisely because of what’s at stake! This isn’t a witch-hunt. It’s about pursuing accountability and transparency from a church network aiming to reach almost a million people.

It’s about educating Christians everywhere about good questions to ask about church planting networks, denominations, and other large and influential parts of the Church. And the end goal is to protect the larger Christian Church in a time when spiritual abuse allegations are on the rise and public trust is eroding.

We can do better. We have to do better. But it starts with us. It starts with everyday Christians holding churches and church leaders accountable and being brave enough to ask questions if things don’t make sense.

So, when you hear of a new church-planting network, ask questions about its health, accountability, experience, track record, and strategy before blindly supporting it. These things matter more than a big-name church or leader behind it, and they matter much more than a track record of church attendance.

It’s time for the Church to prioritize healthy church planting over mass duplication. As the body of Christ, we should be fruitful and multiply; that’s healthy. However, when a body replicates unhealthy cells, its called cancer and brings sickness and death.

Let’s work together to create healthy churches, not cancerous churches in the name of fast growth. Healthy growth takes time, but it lasts a lot longer!

So please, for the love of the Good God we serve, let’s return to a healthy lifecycle of church planting instead of the quick service congregational cloning we have settled for far too long.

- By Jeff Cochran