Michael Reid 1943-2023. How a ‘Successful’ Charismatic Ministry became Corrupt.

It was announced in another blog that Michael Reid, the former head of Peniel Church in Brentwood, died on Friday 13th January 2023.  Those who have followed this blog for a long time will be familiar with the name.  My interest in this larger-than-life charismatic leader formed an important focus for this blog over a period in around 2015. 

Why was writing about Michael Reid and Peniel important to me in the early days of Surviving Church?  The simple answer is that Reid became, for me, a classic embodiment of many of the outrageous examples of spiritual power abuse that I was uncovering when I started my study of the topic 20 -30 years ago.   In the mainstream churches, by contrast, such things were being better concealed in the 90s.  My documented case studies, as readers of Ungodly Fear will know, came mainly from free churches on the fundamentalist/charismatic end of the spectrum.  Back in 1998 when I was writing the book, I was aware of Reid’s church, Peniel Brentwood, which was an independent charismatic congregation.  My wife and I visited the church and attended a service around that time, but loud alarm bells did not ring immediately.  It was only a little later, after my book had been published, that I realised that Peniel and its leader, Reid, was a vivid example of a church that contained many examples of the toxic abusive behaviour that I had been describing in my book.  I started to correspond with one Nigel Davies, a blogger whose family had been seriously damaged through membership of this congregation.  He has, right up till today, used the power of protest to demonstrate in person outside the church, now known as Trinity Brentwood.  Over the years his protests have been extended to include other congregations within the Elim network.  This is the denominational grouping that Peniel (now called Trinity Brentwood) chose to identify itself with after Reid was forcibly removed as leader in 2008.

For those of my readers who have the time/interest to look it up, there is a great deal of information on this blog from around 2015 about the appalling events in this congregation under Reid. After the forced resignation in 2008, there was a brief ‘Prague Spring’, but it soon reverted to its old controlling and abusive ways under a new leadership.  Peniel/Trinity cannot be the only church that finds it hard to face up to the legacy of a past abusive history.   Reid had been sacked for sexual misdemeanours (consensual? adultery), but the appalling trail of cultic intimidation and financial skulduggery was, arguably, even more serious.  Eventually the church agreed to investigate its own past after a credible complaint of rape was made against one of its own members.  The report that appeared in the autumn of 2015 and to which I attach a link at the end, is a very important document even seven years later. This report, written by an eminent evangelical lawyer called John Langlois, runs to some 200,000 words.  It was, and remains in my belief, the best and most vivid and detailed account of a British church committing abuse against its own membership.   At the time that it was released, I frequently referred to this Langlois report on this blog as a way of illustrating how the narcissistic behaviour of one man could create so much havoc and pain for so many.

The removal of Reid was not easily achieved.  Court cases had to be fought as Reid regarded the church buildings and plant as belonging to him personally. By 2008 the church had, through the dint of congregational financial sacrifice, acquired a considerable portfolio of property, including a large premises for a school.  This building later sold for £6m.  One part of the battle that Nigel Davies has been valiantly fighting for, is that some of this money, accumulated by the bullying techniques of Reid and his henchmen and women, should be used to compensate some of those who had lost everything in terms of education, mental health and financial stability because of their involvement in the church.  Although Reid’s name is now probably no longer discussed or remembered by the current congregation, Davies claims that much of the wealth of the church belongs morally to a past generation who were ruthlessly exploited and abused while members of Peniel.

When recording the death of an individual, it is customary to add the letters RIP to the name.  In this case I hesitate to do this.  This is because of the way that so many individuals, young and old at Peniel, lost their peace by having it taken from them.  My blogging work brought me into direct touch with several Peniel survivors, including an American girl who had come to Brentwood in the 90s to study at the so-called Peniel Bible School.  Instead of learning, this cadre of girls were exploited as cheap labourers for the Church.  Those who administered the scheme made sure that they could not escape by confiscating their passports on arrival and intercepting their letters from home.  Exploitation of vulnerable foreign girls sometimes extended to a situation of sexual abuse.   It was, in fact, in response to one specific complaint of such abuse, that the church was forced to set up Langlois’ investigation.  Also, the entire congregation had experienced forced labour, by having to turn out regularly to work on the estate and the grounds.  This was expected of the youngest children as well. All this is described in great detail in Langlois’ report.

When I was writing my commentaries in 2015 on Reid’s behaviour as revealed by Langlois, I was always hoping that such behaviour would never be found in the Church of England.  While it is true that the cult-like atmosphere of Reid’s congregation would be difficult to find in an ordinary CofE parish, there are still many, some uncomfortably close, parallels in common church leadership styles.  Langlois described many of the classic power games and techniques at work in Reid’s leadership style.  We find the typical methods of coercion and control, including shaming and ostracism.  Reid also seems to have enjoyed playing off one family against another, retaining to himself the power of supreme authority.  It is first from reading about Reid that I learned some of the classic biblical texts used by abusive leaders against those seeking accountability.  ‘Touch not the Lord’s Anointed’ and ‘Obey your leaders and defer to them’.  These were the passages quoted endlessly by Reid in the ruthless manipulation of the people in his congregation.  Obeying Reid meant, for example, cruelly turning the back on those who decided to leave, after daring to question Reid’s leadership.

Peniel/Trinity Brentwood concerns have disappeared for seven years from the discussion in this blog.  I could be said to have moved on from considering the horrors of Peniel in Brentwood.  Reid’s death, however, has had the effect of triggering a memory of his abuse horrors. I am reminded of my own reflections and attempts to understand the wickedness of Reid and the way he acted with such appalling cruelty against the people he was supposed to care for spiritually.  The Langlois report continues to remind us that spiritual/power/sexual abuse is alive and well in the Church and those of us who see this must do all we can to expel it from Christian circles.

Some concluding reflections on church power abuse, triggered by the death of Michael Reid

1 Any church leader, who works in a pre-existing or created hierarchy, will experience the temptation to obtain gratification by ‘lording it over the flock’.  A church leader needs to have a strong system of self-awareness and accountability that makes it difficult to succumb to this temptation.   Just because a candidate for ministry may begin training strongly imbued with a desire to serve, it does not mean that this sense of humility will stay the course, without the need for constant monitoring.

2 A temptation to exercise power inappropriately in a church is normally found in one or more of three areas, power/status, sex and money.  Male pastors seem to be more readily attracted by power abuses than the female.  Female power gratification does, of course, exist.   I do not need to spell out the appalling damage that sexual power abuse can wreak in a congregation whether directed against adults or children.  Financial dishonesty, or even a preoccupation with financial power can also create serious damage to a church.  It does not have to be illegal to be corrupting. It is a temptation for some to see financial success as spiritual success when it may be no such thing.  Tithing is not biblical, whatever ‘prosperity’ teachers may declare.  There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that all our charitable generosity should be directed at and through our local church and its leaders.  Indeed, handing over so much financial power to church leaders may create the conditions for abusive power that are spiritually and morally dangerous.

3.  Michael Reid’s legacy of causing pain, humiliation and lasting damage to many of his flock at Brentwood is a learned lesson to be heeded by every congregation.  A full 14 years since his forced retirement, means that only a few will now remember his life and career. The fact that there exists an extensive and detailed report of all the failings of his congregational oversight and the sheer suffering he inflicted on young and old, means that something is left, albeit negative, of his ministry.  The events and pain inflicted on so many at Brentwood between 1980 and 2008 are episodes that should never be allowed to be buried in the mists of history.

The Langlois report on Peniel Church Brentwood 2015

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e3578t7pt87jvci/Langlois%20report.pdf?dl=0

About Stephen Parsons

Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Cumbria. He has taken a special interest in the issues around health and healing in the Church but also when the Church is a place of harm and abuse. He has published books on both these issues and is at present particularly interested in understanding how power works at every level in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.

8 thoughts on “Michael Reid 1943-2023. How a ‘Successful’ Charismatic Ministry became Corrupt.

  1. Many thanks. ‘Obey your leaders and defer to them’: what is it with the churches that they place such a ridiculous and often risible emphasis on ‘leadership’? Other church blogs are constantly harping on in eager, expectant and juvenile anticipation about the appointment of ‘bishop X’ or ‘bishop Y’ as though anyone outside the extremely narrow confines of the cultic kraal gives a brass farthing for the ludicrous pretensions of these people, or that the advent of one ‘leader’ or another will make a scintilla of a difference to anything (save perhaps only in a propensity for doing harm or acting as cover for the poor decisions of subordinates). It is very, very silly (a sign, surely, of impaired development) and, as your article notes, it can sometimes also be very, very sinister.

    1. Hi Froghole, Happy New Year! I am almost prepared to get excited about our Bishop! I’ll admit to an overall feeling that you don’t get to be a bishop without being a bit…. not always very nice? And I’m still suspicious of bishops in general. But ours, though not perfect, does seem to be closer to what you hope than most.
      RIP? Cue discussion of the meaning of eternity! Do you have to wait for it? Or is it immediate? Or, in a sense, are we there already? One hopes I suppose, that judgement means that Reid has been made to see the true horror of what he did. And we have no way of knowing if he did, in spite of everything, have some sort of relationship with God. I don’t think I could wish eternal agony on someone, although, some of the things some people have endured, must make that a reality for them. I’m kind of with Pope Francis on this. If Hell exists, let us pray it is empty.

      1. Many thanks, English Athena. My unhappiness about the concept of ‘leadership’ is not only that it tends to bisect boundaries of race, class, gender, status, etc., and amplify the pathologies associated with them, but that it perpetuates the notion of church as a quasi-militarised command-and-control institution, rather than a fellowship of mutual service, support and affection in Christ. If there is to be ‘leadership’ it ought to have little or nothing to do with rank or position, but good ideas and effort. Too often, in the Church of England at any rate, leadership and advancement is all about patronage and pushing (albeit that this is camouflaged by the rhetoric of ‘discernment’, itself an extremely dubious and self-serving concept), and one of the things I dislike in particular about church life is a minister on the make. Very best wishes for 2023.

  2. It’s so important to register history, remember it and hopefully learn from it and not fall for a person like Reid. Yet remarkably these situations have a nasty habit of recurring.

    In Christian circles (and presumably other religions) we don’t really register these catastrophes partly because we don’t like the association of evil with anything close to our own practice and partially because we assume his church was nothing like ours. Whilst others might think of us as “Charismatic”, we may have our own exclusive taxonomy to differentiate ourselves clearly from them. “We would never fall for that. It could never happen in our church.”

    W Bion explored our human affinity for deferring our wills to that of another beyond the rational ‘Basic assumption: Dependency’. But again I’m wrong there they say, because normal rules of human behaviour don’t apply in churches, it’s God’s will, angels and demons. This can’t possibly be analysed by anything secular, can it? Ordinary medicine is afforded some esteem of course, and Bion was a doctor, but also a psychiatrist and some of the psychological understanding he elucidates is immediately discounted as not applying.

    I fully understand the triumph of hope over experience. None of us is exempt from hoping for the best. But I’ve learned from long experience to plan for the worst. I appreciate this can seem faithless, but I don’t believe a working knowledge of history like this will do anything but help our churches.

  3. Leadership. I’ve been reflecting on Froghole’s comments and, with your permission, offer some brief thoughts on this area.

    Leading is being in charge and knowing what to do. For example Kate Bingham was put in charge of U.K. covid vaccines and pretty much nailed it. I can give examples in sport of successful leaders, such as in cricket with Robert Key and Brendon McCullum. Success in sport is not simply winning (although this helps) but in being entertaining.

    However in church leadership how do we judge “success”? Do you know any good leaders? I used to think I did but am transitioning away from some of the people I used to follow, such as at Willow Creek, because of behaviour evidence seriously discrediting what they were saying.

    I’ve defined leadership narrowly above, and since it is much more often observed in its breach, may I suggest the term “anti-leadership”? This is the tendency of the appointed leader to do the wrong thing, relatively easily discernible at the time by others, which then damages the organisation. This is a growth area.

    I still believe in leadership, such that even when a church tries to pretend it has no leader, there’s always someone calling the shots.

    Being appointed a leader still doesn’t make you one. Our recent short stay PM illustrated this principle. In different professions and work places I’ve seen a precious few who lead well. There aren’t exams in it.

    Leadership is an art and a gift, maybe even from God?

  4. Thank you Stephen for the detailed description of abusive power in leadership.
    I suppose that there are some leaders who show tendencies towards this and others who go the whole way. It would be good if there were some guidelines for assessing this in order to protect genuine churchgoers.

    1. A useful rule of thumb I developed (through hard experience) is: never join a group which isn’t comfortable with questions. I might add: never follow someone who can’t be questioned. The latter would apply to most bishops, sadly. If they’re not comfortable with being questioned, treat them with caution.

  5. I visited Peniel in the early 90s as a young Christian. It was an evening service I will never forget. They had a gospel choir of around 70 who sounded very good. Then Reid took the stage and harangued his audience for what seemed like hours, and was certainly more than 2. Throughout this time now one moved from their seat until after about 3 hours an elderly man left his seat presumably to head for the bathroom. I realised then that I was afraid to leave, and fortunately had the wits to recognise that I should leave immediately, which I did. At the time I could not fault the words of his teaching, but the tone and spirit of it was angry, confrontational, and displayed open contempt for views and the people he disagreed with.

    Later, I followed the scandal of his departure from Peniel, and around that time I finally washed my hands of any charismatic sympathies.

Comments are closed.