There is a book by the American political commentator, George Lakoff, which much appealed to me when I read it some eight years ago. It had the intriguing title Don’t Think of an Elephant. The point of the title is that when you tell someone that they are not permitted to think about a thing or a topic, that forbidden object will automatically immediately come into your mind. No one can avoid thinking about a topic once it has been brought to one’s attention. Human nature and the thinking processes cannot be manipulated in this way to accommodate the requirements of authority, however much they might like it.
In the aftermath of the news that Mike Pilavachi, the founder of Soul Survivor, is stepping back from ministry while an investigation is held into safeguarding concerns, we are told ‘not (to) speculate or discuss this more widely, including on social media, while the process runs its course’. This statement is put out on behalf of the trustees of Soul Survivor, the Diocese of St Albans and the NST. Clearly someone believes that any reflection on the implications of sentences containing together the words, safeguarding, Pilavachi and stepping back, can be supressed as though they had never been said. The elephant has now been named and it is inevitable that people will want to react to the little that has so far been shared in the public domain. A responsible blogger, as I hope I am, is not going to claim to have new information on the matter based on rumour or speculation. However, there is already enough information in the public domain to see, even in the bare outlines of the story, a matter of significant public interest. It is also of massive concern to the Anglican circles of charismatic evangelicals where Pilavachi has held a position of some importance.
Soul Survivor, the organisation over which Pilavachi has presided and guided over three decades, has seen around 35,000 young people in Britain pass through its camps. The stepping back of its founder will inevitably cause consternation to these young people who will have regarded their camp leader with enormous respect, if not veneration. The dynamic of charismatic Christianity very much draws on a process involving hero-worship or projection. Having had no personal knowledge of the Soul Survivor organisation before this past week, I can make no further observations as to the inner workings of this, on the surface, highly successful and powerful organisation for the evangelisation of young people in Britain.
Although I cannot say very much about Pilavachi and his style of operation, there are some interesting parallels that can be made with another Anglican youth ministry which appeared at the same time in the 90s: the Nine O’Clock Service in Sheffield. The parallels are not perfect, and I do not want to suggest that the leader of NOS, Chris Brain and his known abusive behaviour towards women, is being echoed in the current Soul Survivor inquiries. The true parallels seem to occur in two main ways. First, both these networks have had a focus on ministering to young people. Secondly, because of the considerable level of success in each case, the organisations operated by Brain and Pilavachi have been able to negotiate a considerable degree of independence from traditional Anglican structures, while remaining part of the whole. It is this semi-detached relationship with the CofE that I want to reflect on as it appears in each organisation. The wider Church seemed to gain a great deal from this oversight, but it also puts itself in a position of peril if things were to go wrong.
It is one of the contemporary claims of the 21st century CofE to have a variety of structures within the whole. These have a flexibility and are able to adapt to a variety of ecclesial situations. Alongside the traditional parish structure, which relates a parish to others in a deanery and is answerable to an archdeacon and a bishop, there are a variety of other ways of doing ‘church’ under the Anglican umbrella. Many Anglican Christians in Britain belong nominally to a diocese, but they have structures of oversight which are little to do with traditional deaneries and dioceses. These churches, often with a distinctive conservative evangelical flavour, are far more likely to relate only to other like-minded congregations within their own particular network. The networks have names like AMiE, GAFCON, ReNew or New Wine. Some owe their identity to an association with a particular prominent mother church like Holy Trinity Brompton. The mother church may be the one that planted their congregation sometime in the past. Thus, we have a considerable percentage of churches that exist in a variety of independent ecclesiastical bubbles. The clergy, who serve one or other of these network congregations, will often move only to other congregations which are part of their group. Many clergy who serve within these networks will have begun their ministries in the ‘mother ship’ which has in a quasi-episcopal role over these satellite congregations. It is notable how some key mega-churches have up to a dozen curates. These junior clergy are all waiting for the opportunity to serve in a congregation within their own network. Such appointments are made not by bishops, as far as one can gather, but by patrons and others powerful positions in the network. One of the claims made about Jonathan Fletcher is that he possessed the patronage power equivalent to several bishops. He had the undisputed power to place favoured junior clergy in the parishes that once looked to him as their unofficial leader. It would be true to say that the occupants of many key evangelical parishes today owe their position originally to the patronage and support of Fletcher in his exercising considerable power within the broad evangelical network.
Soul Survivor began as a group receiving support from its founding congregation of St Andrew’s Chorley Wood. Here Mike Pilavachi worked as a youth leader. This church came to prominence in the 80s and 90s under the somewhat eccentric leadership of Bishop David Pytches. It was one of the first networks to promote what we can describe as charismatic evangelical worship. In this it was indebted to a number of transatlantic contacts. St Andrews was deeply involved in promoting the Kansas City Prophets and later the Toronto Blessing in 1994. There is not the space to recount the story of Pilavachi’s initiative but, suffice to say, his organisation has been, in the three decades of its existence, a massive influence on Anglican youth work and latterly on helping churches to exercise leadership. While we are unable to shed any further light on what may be being discussed as part of the current investigation process, we can comment that any ministries focussing on work with youth are always extremely vulnerable to safeguarding problems.
We have already mentioned the rise and fall of the Nine O’Clock Service which appeared at the same time as Soul Survivor. In each case the organisation negotiated for itself a considerable degree of independence from CofE structures. Both NOS and Soul Survivor, in not dissimilar ways, have been known for the large numbers of young people at their services. The readiness by the diocesan authorities to allow a semi-independent group to have control over finances (and safeguarding) was bound to be a risky matter. In the case of NOS, Brain was allowed total control of the group, while at the same time accepting the nominal control and oversight of the Diocese of Sheffield through being ordained as a priest. There seems to have been an implicit hope that Brain’s success in attracting large numbers of young people would somehow rub off on to the wider Anglican structures. When things were running well, everybody wanted to be part of the action, from the Archbishop of Canterbury (George Carey) downwards. Being identified with such avant-garde thinking in theology and liturgy, made the CofE appear to be up to date and in touch with popular culture. Brain had appeared to be discovering a new way of attracting young people to a modern expression of church through his grasp of technical wizardry and grand theatrical effects. Theologically speaking, he owed inspiration to ideas propounded in the States by Matthew Fox and his Creation Spirituality.
In the case of Soul Survivor, the powerful personality of Pilavachi also seems to have established a leading role in his organisation. In the annual youth camps which were held every year up to 2019, Pilavachi appears to have been a crucial presence. Also, he exercised a quasi-episcopal role in drawing together a cluster of affiliated parishes and congregations (not all Anglican) to be part of a Soul Survivor network. The temporary relinquishing of the leadership role by Pilavachi may create serious problems for the successful functioning of this network. The sheer force of a charismatic personality like Pilavachi’s is always important in holding together such a network. This need for such leadership cannot be underestimated. Only time will tell how the network will manage to hold together if the stepping back is anything more than extremely short-lived.
My brief mention of the role of a charismatic leader in holding together a group, large or small, is one that is familiar to students of cults. I have written myself about this dynamic as it is a familiar theme of cult studies and social theory. At its simplest form, there is a common tendency among most human beings to search for, in situations of stress, another on whom to project their longing to feel safe. Young adults, the 18-35 group, are especially vulnerable to this dynamic. There is an argument for claiming that everyone who ministers pastorally to young people in the churches, is ministering to a vulnerable segment of the population. As such there should be a special training for anyone engaging with this cohort in the name of the church to understand, at a considerable level of professionalism and expertise, the potential hazards of what could go wrong.
There is of course much more to be said on the dynamics of groups involving young people. One thing that became abundantly clear after the NOS debacle was the sense of the Anglican authorities being totally out of their depth in dealing with the matter after the whole thing blew up. In view of the importance and wide-reaching influence of Soul Survivor, it is to be hoped that whatever may need to be done to recover the situation with the organisation, it will be done with wisdom and proper expertise. The ability to influence large numbers of young people and speak to their spiritual needs is a great privilege but also carries great risks. The topic is too important for all of us to allow anyone to shut down our discussion of what needs to be done in the future.
Hi Stephen
Just a small note — you need to correct Pilavachi’s name in your article; it’s ‘Pilavachi’ not ‘Pivalachi’.
Thanks, now put right!
It’s taken Justin more than 6 weeks to come up with this?!
https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/news/news-and-statements/archbishop-canterbury-statement-soul-survivor
Just to say that not a single survivor I know would recommend going anywhere near the NST.
Plenty of other/better options are available.
Some commentators imply that the news might only affect current youth involved in Soul Survivor programmes. However this grossly underestimates the reach of a vast movement.
Tens of thousands of people went to the camps up until the last three or four years when the festivals were shut down. This had gone on for decades. Young people and people who wanted to continue being young were heavily invested in these events, their teaching, their music and their brand of Christianity. It was and still is an integral part of the spiritual formation of probably hundreds of thousands of people, some now well into their middle age.
Mike Pilavachi IS Soul Survivor. Theoretically it could continue without him, as a concept, an organisation, or a way of being, but not easily. His reach far exceeds this youth stream too, being a gifted and sought after speaker across many different networks including those Stephen refers to. This extends Mike’s influence deep into the heart of evangelical Christianity well beyond just its Anglican parts. Probably the only part not influenced by him would be the conservative evangelical corner.
Those of us who were affected by his ministry, will be shocked at the potential implications of what could have happened. The dangers of having one man so centrally essential to the brand are now being laid bare. We never seem to learn from this. One person’s enormous gifting trumps all else in the relentless pursuit of growth.
Soul Survivor is indeed a parallel power structure with significant influence across the Church of England. To connect with youth at at all is a rare gift. But with power comes people sidling up to it and adsorbing themselves into the structure. Here is another group now checking their positions carefully.
I very much doubt we will hear a great deal from the enquiry. Silence is the operative word, particularly when the C of E is calling the shots. Whether the main stream media abide by its rules is another matter of course. They haven’t so far.
And today the Daily Telegraph carries this update: ‘Christian youth festival founder resigns from charity amid ‘inappropriate massage’ claims https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/11/mike-pilavachi-soul-survivor-festival-founder-resigns/
Are we to pretend we haven’t seen it, or ignore that the rest of the readership probably has read it?
It depends on whether you believe in trial by media or not.
I hope you noticed the word ‘allegation.’ Why are we publicising this, which is certainly published only my means of a serious breach of confidentiality?
Are any clergy entitled to the right of being considered innocent until proven guilty, or are we all now damned?
The resignations are a matter of public record:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/BcF_18HvUu6kBfvCKrGtz3qeglk/appointments
Why did they characterise this as a “stepping aside” when he’s actually resigned 2 of his directorships?
A principle of limited liability is publicly, encoded in company law. This is so that potential users of the company’s services, such as parents considering sending their children to it, can make an assessment of the quality of the company’s approach to its potential customers/clients/users. It’s important that there is as much transparency as possible about what is going on, surely.
He’s 65. The reasons are not a matter of record.
Why are you, and all the others here, incapable of waiting and allowing due process to take place?
Well yes, I still believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But the Church takes advantage so that 16 months after making formal complaints about my vicar and Bishop, my complaint has not been addressed. This leaves them innocent because the Church has allowed due process to be ignored. This leaves me making public comments because the Church still prefers to protect clergy. I am surprised you are not aware of these issues. Graham, Matt and others have been left high and dry for the lack of due process and so make public comments, as do I and others. What else would you have us do. Allow the Church to get away with offering protection to abusers and further harrassing victims? You ask why we are incapable of waiting for matters to be resolved. Many survivors have waited years for serious incidents to be resolved. Even making these issues public has not resolved them, but we hope to impel the Church to act justly. That’s why we keep an eye out for relevant issues. It helps to put an end to them being buried by the Church. Whilst waiting many are threatened. You ask where is justice? We do too. Please be aware you are contributing to a blog which has readers awaiting justice for years, some for decades. If you can find a way of forcing the Church to resolve our complaints we would all be most grateful. I then would have no need of this blog, and no need to make public comments. In the meantime we try to keep an eye on relevant issues. So if it turns out there are serious issues, the Church will not be able to bury them. I hope this helps you understand our position.
I am aware of these issues, and I am sorry to hear that you have been left waiting.
But why does putting someone else on trial by media help this?
This blog is needed for the reason you say—but this article is an abuse of its influence.
Stephen is hardly breaking the news: the Telegraph and the Church Times have already covered the story. Nor has Stephen expressed any opinion as to whether the allegations are true or false. I think your criticism of him is unfounded.
Nevertheless, it has to be said that if the C of E and other Christian organisations had showed any concern for justice and transparency, many of us would be more inclined to await the outcome of church processes. As it is, I have that certain journalists have a much keener sense of justice than most senior church people. I’ve been waiting for more than 30 years for the C of E to see justice done in my own case, and I know it never will. Sadly, this is as true of those falsely accused as it is of abuse survivors.
Nor does the Church have effective means to carry out a thorough investigation of any such matter. So an exhortation to ‘wait for the outcome’ effectively means ‘shut up and go away’.
It is not trial by media if you have the evidence on a public library, as Companies House is, referencing 3 resignations of trustees / directors in under 3 weeks in relation to Soul61 and Soul Survivor.
After watching a Soul Surviver camp meeting on TV, l wrote to Rev Pilavachi about his teaching on ‘tongue speaking’. He had called for young people to come forward, and then workers to join them and try to start them speaking in tongues. I was shocked to see this and emailed my concerns, as our niece attended these camps. He did send me a reply thanking me for being in touch, and promised he would seek more light on what the Bible teaches. I started my Christian life under the influence of charismatic teaching, but soon realised the error which is taught. The movement has caused untold damaging church division throughout the world. I have observed this for over 55 years. Matthew 15v13. ‘Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up…’
If you believe the charismatic movement is “error” then, yeah, you’re not gonna like Soul Survivor or Mike Pilavachi.
Then again, the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks in tongues.
I’m not sure why you’re shocked at the teaching about speaking in tongues? This has been one of the strands of Anglicanism, as of all the major denominations, since the 1960s.
Or since Anglican Alexander Boddy of Sunderland 50 years earlier.
But I don’t think he said he was shocked about the teaching about speaking in tongues.
Shocked is an emotional thing. Opposed is a rational thing. It is the rational that applies here, and again one is amazed that the emotional is being treated as default whatever the speaker says.
Secondly, accepting this as a good or valid practice is not at all the same as agreeing with everything that goes on under its banner.
“But I don’t think he said he was shocked about the teaching about speaking in tongues.”
“I was shocked to see this”.
Never let facts get in the way!
either way he clearly DOESN’T view speaking in tongues as a good or valid practice.
It’s like when people say Mike Pilavachi/Soul Survivor are evil and sending people to hell because they used to host Catholic Mass at their festivals as well as a Communion Service led by an Anglican Bishop.
You can believe that if you want, but you can’t use it as proof that they don’t belong in the CofE. Anglican (Arch)bishops are involved with the Catholic church all them time!
Read what I said.
What ‘shocked’ him was the practice. He is also opposed to the teaching.
For my part I am opposed to a large number of practices associated with it. And I think that (fakes aside) the real thing is a good thing and is a topic included in Christian doctrine.
You don’t think the Bible teaches speaking in tongues? Yes? No?
You do realise (I hope) that the consistent practice narrated in the book of Acts was that new believers, once baptised, were expected to receive the Holy Spirit in a way that would be visible to bystanders. Acts chapter 8 is the locus classicus for this. The book of Acts tells us that the first christians (including the first apostles) recognised that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the new christians by one or more of three indications: they praised God and/or or they prophesied and/or they spoke in tongues.
If you are aware of this, what problem do you have with it? It could be that you accept this but don’t like the way Soul Survivor handled this, but your post doesn’t read that way. The way it reads is that speaking in tongues is bad and undesirable and shouldn’t be taught or encouraged. If that isn’t your attitude/opinion I suggest you amend the wording of your post. If that IS your attitude/opinion than I don’t see how you can square it with the book of Acts. Do you think your attitude/opinion is in line with the book of Acts? Or do you perhaps think that the book of Acts is wrong and the first christians (including the first apostles) were wrong, but your attitude/opinion is right? Or do you think that speaking in tongues is of God and to be desired, but Soul Survivor is/was doing it wrong?
This article is written from such a place of ignorance it cannot be considered useful or a accurate – which is a shame because this blog is usually both of those things.
Comparing Soil Survivor to the None O’clock service (having decent knowledge of both) is way off beam.
The statement “ The dynamic of charismatic Christianity very much draws on a process involving hero-worship or projection.” is so reductive and dismissive of a massive chunk of the Church it makes it look like you have an axe to grind.
I’m afraid this article is based on poor knowledge, guess work and personal dislikes and doesn’t help anyone.
John, I’d like to suggest that while the ‘ignorance’ of specifics of NOS and Soul Survivor might be problematic to those who know them, and even more perhaps to insiders, the perspective the author brings from his deep engagement with a breadth of abusive situations / safeguarding failures across the church is something I’d suggest we all need to heed. Distance gives the perspective often needed. Stephen’s emphasis on the quasi episcopal role of influential leaders of movements ( I’ll avoid the use of the term ‘charismatic’ here) within the structures of eg. the CofE is I suggest wholly appropriate. He mentions Fletcher’s role in the Conservative Evangelical networks; I’d suggest the other major offenders of the past half century, John Smyth and Peter Ball, held a similar place in their networks. While we must be clear nothing in the public domain suggests Mike Pilavachi so used his position, we know Smyth, Ball and Fletcher had a status that effectively gave license with minimal structures of accountability.
(I should note that while I am a senior lay leader in St Albans diocese and have had a long standing relationship with many from Soul Survivor, I know nothing other than that which is in the media. However as one who is active in seeking to ensure safeguarding becomes deeply culturally embedded in our structures of church and especially youth movements, I’m keen we learn all we can at this time.
I am grateful for this comment and would add my own experience to support it.
I know I’m out of date in reading this, but I do have this question: “When you say ‘The statement “The dynamic of charismatic Christianity very much draws on a process involving hero-worship or projection” is . . . reductive and dismissive of a massive chunk of the Church’, do you mean that in your opinion charismatic Christianity DOESN’T draw on a process involving hero-worship or projection?
Or do you mean, perhaps, that in your opinion charismatic Christianity DOES draw on a process involving hero-worship or projection, but because charismatic Christianity is a massive chunk of the church we should keep quiet about it and not point to its faults?
Or perhaps you mean that drawing on a process involving hero-worship or projection is fine and OK and positive and should be welcomed and celebrated.
My concern is less with the question of whether or not the writer of the article has an axe to grind, and more with the validity or invalidity of the assessment that the dynamic of charismatic Christianity very much draws on a process involving hero-worship or projection. Whether or not he has an axe to grind, is that assessment true or untrue?
Naturally the Church does not want public comment. After all it was due to public comment that iicsa went ahead. It was due to public pressure that an independent person headed the inquiry. It is due to public pressure that the police may now finally investigate sexual abuse and rapes more thoroughly. It is due to public pressure that police officers who commit crimes will have action taken against them. As neither our government nor the Church has acted adequately to protect victims, the onus has been on public media to attempt to do what Church and government have so far failed to do. That is put in adequate structures to ensure our safety, and to take appropriate measures when these are violated. Many victims are living with the added strain of using public media in efforts to keep us safe. At a time when even female police officers are not safe from their male colleagues. and female surgeons are complaining about abuse from their colleagues, who else is going to take action?
I am sorry to read this unhelpful and irresponsible speculation. This is precisely what we have been asked NOT to do.
And the parallels are almost non-existent. Chris Brain’s NOS was small, experimental, and relatively short-lived. My understanding is that Chris did not accept oversight even from those quite close to him, and strayed into some borderline theological issues.
None of this is true of Soul Survivor, which day to day has been led much more actively by Andy Croft. Mike has had a more itinerant ministry of late.
But again—really unhelpful speculation and damning by association. Why, oh why, can we not do what has been asked—keep silent, and await the outcome of the process? Why treat people as guilty until proven innocent?
I have re-read the piece in the light of your comment, Ian, and think we can retrieve some non-partisan points from this dialogue.
You are right that until there is a proper fair ( and we both hope – impartial) investigation no safe conclusions can be reached. However when the authorities say too little it is equally problematic. The Percy case is an obvious example; it was the silence of the authorities which allowed widespread and lurid speculation to poison the atmosphere when, as we now know from the Judge’s decision, even if the single allegation could be proven( which it could not) the allegation did not amount to “serious misconduct.” it was important in that case to put the reality “out there” to kill the gossip
Blanket silence is maybe not the best approach, perhaps the “Goldilocks” approach is best – not too hot, not too cold – ‘just right.’ Others have pointed out attempting to close down responsible discussion can be problematic and even tip into bullying or cover-up.
That said I don’t think Stephen’s piece centres on the allegations but rather the problems of para-Church/ semi-detached Ministry which can centred on larger than life figures. In these cases there is an enhanced risk – whether or not that risk actually materialises. Knowing that risks arise out of bad structures is something we ought to take seriously. That said I am not sure how much the Church’s responsibility for letting the Nine o’clock service slip out of hand has really been investigated and lessons drawn.
By drawing on both Soul Survivor and the Anglo-Catholic Nine o’clock Service examples Stephen seems to have avoided attributing the problem to one part of the Church only, to make the broader structural point. I think this is important.
Iwerne Camps, Peter Ball’s giving a year to God project and even Jonathan Fletcher’s Emmanuel Wimbledon -a private Proprietary Chapel, all have similar structural inexactitude – indeed part of the Christ Church Oxford debacle arose out the institution being a “Peculiar” with the College /Cathedral amalgam having confused and confusing overlapping of jurisdictions.
One does not say that such projects cannot be safe, but they do rather appear to be overly represented in the scandals where nobody really has a handle on where the buck stops.
I have also heard the point made that when a para-Church becomes proud and over confident, so that it thinks it can can rely upon applying ” sound biblical principles ” rather than good methodical secular safeguarding routines, they can slip into the danger zone of the wolf in sheep clothing infiltrating the fold.
Having said all that the same problem arises when a bishop fails in his safeguarding duties.The starting points should always be Transparency and Accountability. If only there were a truly independent fully functional body one could place all these problems with to sort it out with professionalism and appropriate detachment…..
The NOS was not ‘Anglo-Catholic’.
‘Too little’ has not been said. We don’t even know whether the claims against Mike have any ground whatsoever. Where is protection against spurious or vexatious claims?
Soul Survivor is not ‘para church’.
At the moment, any ‘discussion’ is mere speculation, and that harms everyone.
I think this piece is very ill judged.
The problem is that the character of the allegation has come out and many will, in future other cases . I think maybe we have to face that and give “ enough”. Let’s remember that the Family Courts which deal with the most important and serious disputes are piloting ways
of improving transparency.
Perhaps we can agree that anything linked up the CofE needs to be under a clear consistent and impartial regime of control and accountability.
Can I add and emphasise that nothing can or should be read into the fact of the resignation which has jest been announced
Does ‘impartial’ and ‘accountability’ mean we do or do not believe in trial by media—including the medium of this blog?
Where is justice??
My last comment is a “ just” one: the risks inherent in charismatic leaders is not improper to remark upon, per se especially when linked to the need for robust oversight from outside the institution.some of my understanding of the internal workings of such structures comes from those who are still within the theological Con-Evo fold and I routinely praise them for their integrity – for no other reason than that it is deserved. Others may bevless praiseworthy, as the Makin report will examine
But this is not impartial. Church of England investigating one of its own. Why not have it completely independent. This helps all parties involved.
I agree with you. We should.
Good analysis.
Aha, ” sound biblical principles ” as you attributively quote, sometimes turn out to have no Bible meanings thus are functionally cessationist. Spirit Filled = decent working relationships and in good order, also no pressure on anybody. The real gifts are providential. The response reported as given to Greg (8.44 a.m) comes over to me as gormless too. Was its writer stuck in 1972 which I witnessed?
“Why treat people as guilty until proven innocent?”
That question is perhaps better addressed to the church. The “due process” which we are being urgd to wait for is described in Responding to, assessing and managing concerns or allegations against church officers practice guidance (2017) at https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/Responding%20PG%20V2.pdf where Section 3.3, Internal Church Investigation, emphasises
“The aim of an Internal Church Investigation is to establish whether or not there are ongoing
safeguarding concerns and whether the respondent is suitable to fulfill a Church role which
carries the potential for engagement with children, young people and/or vulnerable adults.
The aim is NOT to establish the guilt of the respondent.”
Under such a process, there is no question of an accused individual being found guilty or innocent: that question is simply not on the table. Whether or not this is desirable is another matter: that is the current state of affairs.
Interesting, but how do you know they are looking at this document? The statements say it is an independent investigation. That is internal investigations 🤷🏻♂️
The joint statement from the Church of England National Safeguarding Team and the Soul Survivor Watford trustees at https://www.soulsurvivorwatford.co.uk/latestupdates says “Non-recent safeguarding concerns relating to Mike Pilavachi have been reported to the national Church and, working closely with the Diocese of St Albans, these are currently being looked into according to the Church of England House of Bishops guidelines.” A second statement on that page reads “The investigation is being conducted by the Church of England and is – rightly – independent from Soul Survivor Watford and the trustees.”
The House of Bishops guidelines are at https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/policy-and-practice-guidance under the rubric “All the policy and practice guidance on this page has been approved by the House of Bishops and must, where relevant, be followed by all Church Bodies and Church Officers”. That is where the quoted link comes from.
Thank you, independence is great 🙈. I wonder whether the Trustees of SS and it’s other umbrella charity links, have the power to bring in a 3rd party to investigate 🤷🏻♂️
You ask; “Why, oh why, can we not do what has been asked—keep silent, and await the outcome of the process?” Isn’t the answer to that that the CofE has form, it has dirty hands: it has shown itself to be unwilling and/or unable to investigate accusations properly, and leaves allegations on the table without coming to a conclusion of accepting them or debunking them. By keeping silent as requested, aren’t you colluding with with an organisation that is either incompetent or malevolent (or both)? Aren’t you being too trusting of an organisation that has form for betraying trust? It’s fine to be innocent as doves but it is equally necessary (and equally acceptable) to be wise as serpents.
an interesting reference to ‘the somewhat eccentric leadership of Bishop David Pytches’ He’s a SAMS bishop, his daughter is married to the Bishop of Coventry, embroiled in his own difficuties as the author of LLF and the continued consequences for the wider Anglican Communion. Another SAMS bishop at St Andrew’s Chorleywood was Brian Skinner, came back from Chile early 1980s because of the political situation.
Barry Kissell?
Why would anyone comment in advance of hard information, unless for the reason that they could not resist?
The post depends on NOS being an apposite comparison. It could be that the comparable points are less relevant to this case and that the less comparable are more relevant. We do not know.
The reinforcement of the comparison with NOS could be ‘jamming’ (trying to convince by no better means than repetition) if one is not careful.
There is a recent trend (vide Roys Report etc) for very high proportions of standout Christian leaders to be shot down. The process is simple and can be replicated from the tabloids. Simply big up anything less or much less than perfect, and do not see it in context of a life or ministry as a whole, which life or ministry will include vast amounts of effort and pressure. See anything negative as essential to understanding and assessment and anything positive as tangential. By this means anyone less than perfect can be made to fall. In other words, all of us.
It is an enticing trend because it allows people to remain on the sidelines and feel virtuous simultaneously; more so than those who are getting their hands dirtier. The other trend is not to forgive, which of course is at variance with something central to Christianity.
I suspect that the Nine o’clock Service comparison was used to avoid suggesting this is a problem in one “ tribe “ only which might have been alleged had other cases been used to illustrate that the structural issue is known in other contexts.
I agree with the need of care which I expect from you also. The post doesn’t principally depend on a parallel with the concretes of NOS. Some writers may have chosen a different sample item. Our commenting is about church chaos. That is why we are commenting.
It would be invidious in your eyes for me to say on what channel i read that 70 % of christians in a certain country are under 10 % of pastors and on what channel (among others) I read where they “see it in context of a life or ministry as a whole, which life or ministry will include vast amounts of effort and pressure” and where good precisely isn’t tangential.
Does “standout” equate to proportional bosshood?
Please don’t second guess those who are precisely getting their hands dirty, such as the many places there aren’t sensible channels. I guarantee you this was made official because it couldn’t be kept pretty well alright all along, exactly like Christ Church, exactly like the long term theological carelessness among RZ hangers on (I assumed everyone else more involved than I, was as aware of which in 2011 as I was, merely browsing a bookshop shelf).
As I understand it, NOS started about 7 years before Soul Survivor did. It was a hybrid of evangelical, charismatic, Anglo-Catholic, and heterodox ‘creation’ spirituality, with state of the art tech, and its target audience was clubbers. Since its communion services were called ‘masses’, that certainly puts it somewhere in the Anglo-Catholic ambit. NOS may have been relatively small, but it did have a far-reaching influence. A number of churches, including St Michael-le-Belfrey where I was a curate at the time, started an outreach modelled on NOS.
The appeal for silence and an embargo on discussion is never going to succeed in the social media age. Not least because it is so often the powerful trying to shut people up, and the powerless at last finding a voice.
The call is for people to hold back from ill-informed speculation and prurient gossip.
Judging from this piece and many of the comments, it hasn’t been effective.
We haven’t said anything of the sort Ian, certainly not in comparison with the scale of suffering many of us here experienced at the hands of the Church. In my case it was sexual abuse by an Anglo Catholic priest at school. Others have had far worse experiences and yet I see remarkable restraint.
I am sorry to hear of your experience, and I agree that there are appalling injustices to be put right.
But why does putting someone else on trial by media help that?
This is a remote corner of the internet, gathering precious little notice and certainly doesn’t constitute a ‘trial’. On the other hand the Telegraph’s notice on Twitter today has had 11,300 views in 3 hours. Take it up with her if you think she shouldn’t be writing about church matters. Here we compare notes about our experiences of church processes, such as they are. Our aim is to reduce potential suffering for other victims. I’ve long since given up the idea of any kind of justice for myself. Sometimes the victims are people wrongly accused. Sometimes not. I started on hearing the news about Mike with a 50:50 probably in mind.
Well said
The idea of this site is that it’s a place to discuss and highlight abuse in church as it simply is not dealt with by the church (c of e) in anything like an appropriate manner. It used to be a place where victims could share stories and speak to each other for support
Sadly this seems to be changing due to a couple of extremely dominating men
The behaviours in soul survivor have been left unchallenged for decades. I hope the survivors are heard, and able to move on with their lives
https://archive.ph/NN5Mq
I will make no comment either way about Mike Pilavachi.
I will make a comment about how the Church of England, and some members of the Con Evo subset, have responded in the past, and still respond today, to safeguarding whistleblowers based on my direct personal knowledge and experience of one matter that is in the public domain and is a matter of public record.
In 2017 I sought to confront Rev X, an individual who others believed at that time to ‘have an impeccable Con Evo background and track record’ on a host of safeguarding-related issues where I had serious concerns and documentary evidence about his behaviours. Despite initially being promised a face to face meeting, I was subsequently prevented from being able to meet him and raise my concerns.
It emerged last year that subsequent to my failed attempt to confront Rev X, we know 74 complaints were subsequently made against Rev X, apparently by 16 members of his own congregation. 72 of these complaints were time barred, apparently because they were made between (we are told by the PCC of his parish Y) 2018 and (indicatively) mid 2021. 2 complaints were made between (indicatively) mid 2021 and mid 2022, and were not time barred. The PCC specifically stated that they expected there were more complainants than this but others had chosen not to come forward at that time.
Apologists for inappropriate behaviour tend to belittle the trauma that whistleblowers and survivors have to go through to raise their concern once, let alone over the years or even decades that the Church may take to address their concerns.
Is it possible that at least 74 complaints from at least 16 people in his own congregation, and all that trauma the Y congregation went through as detailed in a 2022 PCC letter to the congregation, could have been prevented, if the Con Evo powers that be had not prevented that 2017 meeting from happening?
A deal was apparently subsequently ‘arranged’ between the then Diocesan Bishop and Rev X whereby penalties by consent were agreed, with none of the 16 complainants able to make their case to the Bishop or even volunteer an impact statement. Rev X accepted a rebuke, and agreed to undertake ‘appropriate training’ and that he would not return to ministry but would instead retire.
The PCC had first developed concerns about Rev X in 2018. Independent of the agreement between Rev X and the Bishop, the PCC subsequently ‘overwhelmingly agreed that Rev X should not return to public ministry at Y’. The prayer of the Y leadership team ‘remains that Rev X should repent of his sin in important areas of his ministry’.
To be continued …
Continued:
The point is that the Church of England has a proven track record of regularly disbelieving, decrying, abusing and delaying whistleblowers and survivors who are courageous enough to come forwards since at least the Peter Ball case of the 1990s and the John Smyth case of 1982. It should not be forgotten that Ball’s chief accuser, who was so outrageously ignored and dismissed by George Carey (see Moira Gibb report), subsequently committed suicide.
Other Church-related safeguarding whistleblowers have attempted suicide, some on multiple occasions, frequently because their complaint has not been resolved over decades.
None of this has any bearing on whether MP is guilty or innocent.
It does suggest however that a little more humility and repentance from Church of England leaders, might not go amiss when there is such overwhelming behaviour of the repeated historic and current gross misuse of power by a whole series of powerful charismatic individual leaders over at least 40 years (and FAOD I stress this is making absolutely no comment either way about the particular case of MP).
Finally I think the following item raises many pertinent issues about power dynamics within the Church of England and the way the Church treats whistleblowers & survivors.
https://mrsglw.wordpress.com/2023/04/05/the-problem-with-statements-mike-pilavachi-soul-survivor-and-the-importance-of-independence/
This is all cause for concern.
But what does any of this have to do with Mike Pilavachi? And if it doesn’t, why is this speculative and unwarranted article here?
I discovered years ago that the best cure for gossip is the facts!
The facts are that there is due process which is being followed. Can we bear to allow that to happen?
You’re very heavily invested in this, it seems. I commend the lack of fear which allows you to put your real name and face to your comments. Many of us simply aren’t able to do this. Are you as invested in other such scandals? Or the other commentating sites? You’re cross. I’m just sitting here wondering why *so* cross? Impertinent question. If you are simply supporting a friend, well, good for you.
I am not ‘heavily invested’ in *this*. I am heavily invested in actually following due process. (I know Mike a little in passing, but he is not a particular friend.)
Here is the irony: many, many people here are complaining that, as victims, they were let down by lack of proper process and accountability. Now, when this case (of an as yet unsubstantiated allegation) is following due process, they complain.
Stephen’s speculation about parallels between two organisations he confesses he does not know about is just that: speculation.
This whole conversation is doing great harm to the credibility of those who are wanting due process, and makes the conversations that I am having about safeguarding harder, not easier.
But no-one seems to want to engage with these realities. And no-one here seems able to say ‘Let’s keep silent and see where the process leads.’
This picture changed post-Savile, because of (a) the possibility of compensation, which necessitated jamming the *version* of the narrative, and the angles, maximally likely to eventuate in that; (b) the reassessment of such situations that took place in the light of Savile.
A small point is your use of ‘discredited’. The assumption is that whoever is discredited at one or points is discredited at all (at any other random point that one may choose). This is a well known logical fallacy.
But these points have already been answered more than once.
And rather than the answer being acknowledged and assessed, it has been ignored.
First, what can anyone in the UK do about something that is happening in Africa? You or I can do nothing about things that are taking place in Africa at this moment.
Second, they can and should have done so by proxy, since they had placed JS there. But that is exactly what they did. First by putting him under M Cassidy’s fine organisation. Second, through Chris Hingley of Wycliffe Hall being out there. Third, through contributing to the Coltart Report. The man was devious. But all of these details you simply gloss over, and selectivity will produce selective truth only.
You produce a stereotype (out of sight out of mind; ‘Go out and govern New South Wales [or anywhere so long as it is not SE England]’) and then not only treat the stereotype as evidence (it is not: stereotypes cannot be, because they preclude actual analysis) but treat it as the only evidence that needs to be mentioned.
To repeat: he was put far away from victims. The two stated priorities were to stop him and care for victims. The latter I saw happening and is recorded in Graystone. The former undoubtedly happened. Removing him from victims is no small thing – it was the priority of the time. This was coupled with putting him under strong oversight. Please can these central and salient points be included in discussions, whether or not they fit the approved narrative, which approved narrative is both entirely true (so far as it goes) and entirely incomplete and selective, thus falling far short of the whole truth. Truth is not comprised of the congenial bits of reality only.
No. We have learned to distrust what the C of E calls ‘due process’, because it’s a sham.
To be honest, after all the scandals, the critical reviews, IICSA, Christ Church/Martyn Percy, books like Bleeding for Jesus and Letters to a Broken Church, numerous survivors recounting their horrendous stories – I’m astonished that anyone could still expect people to wait passively for the result of a church investigation. It beggars belief.
I entirely understand that loss of faith.
But where now is hope? Your comment sounds like a counsel of complete despair—and if you are right, then we might as well shut everything down.
Is there no hope of a way forward?
The hope is that the C of E will finally agree to a completely independent body investigating all such allegations. There is no hope while the Church insists on dealing with safeguarding matters in-house.
They are also not playing by their own rules. Keep quiet don’t do say anything for us.
Meanwhile MP resigns silently from main Soul Survivor, Soul61 – along with another Director who is also Director for Arch-Bishops The Lambeth Trust.
They are redacting addresses from incorporation documents in past two days (can’t see them in public anyway)
All so hypocritical.
Janet I agree with you, and that is what I am pressing for at AC.
But what should we do in the meantime? Damn all who have allegations made against them? Or what?
Ian, I’m really pleased that at Archbishops’ council you’re pressing for independent safeguarding and investigations. That’s so important.
I don’t think anyone on SC is damning everyone – or anyone – as soon as an allegation is made. But neither do most of us think that a general discussion around a case which is already in the public domain is off limits. I don’t think anyone here has made a judgment as to whether Pilavachi, for instance, is likely to be guilty or innocent of whatever he has been accused of.
Para church organisations linked to the C of E (for instance) offer great opportunities for creativity outside the usual constraints of liturgy and church structures. They do also pose risks, and I think that’s the point of this blog.
I was at one time a member of such an organisation, with links to the C of E and a bishop as official Visitor. It was only when I became a trustee that I gradually became aware that the organisation was in many respects not what seemed to be. The constitution was not being followed; elections of officers were rigged; and basic safeguarding guidelines were being violated. The bishop, who came to preach at our annual conference, didn’t spend enough time with us to pick up on any of this. We had his imprimatur but he really didn’t know anything about us. He didn’t even speak individually to trustees, and I for one didn’t think he would be an approachable person to discuss my concerns with.
Such situations pose a risk not only to people coming into contact with such an organisation, but also for the denomination under whose umbrella the organisation shelters.
Thanks Janet. You were quite right to pick up those irregularities, and many organisations are still slow to see their importance.
You comment: ‘Para church organisations linked to the C of E (for instance) offer great opportunities for creativity outside the usual constraints of liturgy and church structures. They do also pose risks, and I think that’s the point of this blog.’
But all that could have been made without reference to SS (which Stephen does not know) and without making the spurious parallels with NOS (which Stephen also does not know).
One frequent commentator here has commented on the influence of MP and added a sad face emoji. Clearly some here really are assuming his guilt.
If Stephen had written more carefully, we could have separated the important issues here from the spurious. That would have helped everyone.
Ian Paul asks what hope is there as regards safeguarding and the C of E.
The experience of whistleblowers and survivors over the last 40 years teaches that the deference of those 40 years suggests that there is little or no hope.
However at Easter of all times we are reminded that the future need not follow the patterns of the past.
Any hope depends on the sort of people who have been GS reps since 2015, AC member since 2016, who received ‘We asked for Bread, you gave us Stones’ in February 2018, actually changing things.
So Ian, what have you and your colleagues done to transform the Church’s response to whistleblowers and survivors? What speeches have you made at Synod decrying the appalling performance of Church leaders and Bishops? When did you speak out against the leadership on behalf of whistleblowers and survivors in GS? How come whistleblowers and survivors are persecuted by the Church even worse in 2023 than they were in 2015?
What has been done about the likes of David Fletcher, Jonathan Fletcher, Iain Broomfield, Titus Trust etc and many others, the damage done, the lives and faiths ruined? We have had IICSA, Gibb, Elliott, ECW & many others. What evidence is there of repentance and changed behaviours by the Church?
What have you, Ian, done to deliver change?
Why instead have traumatised survivors had to do that work for the last 40 years, at massive cost to themselves?
Sure, but it would not be right to give this picture/narrative (which certainly has been being jammed and repeated) while leaving out many of the *most* central facts: that not only is it the case that all parents who were asked wanted anonymity and closure over 40 years ago, but more importantly not one victim – unsurprisingly – sought anything other than that for a full 3 decades. And that if they had (given the profile of the families) then the tabloids would have seen to it that a lot of lives would have been worse than otherwise. And that the only way things can seem otherwise is by imposing later norms on an earlier period. To paint David Fletcher in this way is quite at variance even with Graystone’s not unbiased account.
Sadly the distrust you quite rightly mention is still active.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/31-march/news/uk/chair-of-independent-safeguarding-board-resigns-with-immediate-effect
Christopher Shell’s comments, which bear close resemblance to those of the discredited Titus Trust Trustees of 2017, chair of whom was the now disgraced Iain Broomfield, (deliberately?) misleading.
(Off the central point but I would like to clarify that the current TT trustees have made small steps in slightly modifying their position from their 2017 predecessors).
Approx 4 of the approx 30 U.K. victims were underage, at Winchester College, when first beaten by John Smyth. All of the approx 100 African victims, one of whom died at a John Smyth camp, are believed to have been underage when first beaten.
The parents of between 2 and 4 of those U.K. boys anre known to have been asked by David Fletcher whether they preferred anonymity. The parents of Simon Doggart, a victim and perpetrator as identified on the BBC 10 o’clock news, and of one other victim (whose Identity is in the public domain and whose father had a prominent position at the time) definitely chose no publicity.
The vast majority of the other victims (>95%?) were afforded no such choice. I know because I was one of them.
David Fletcher knew I was a victim of John Smyth and Simon Doggart.
He knew I lodged with Mark Ruston for a year and David visited 37 Jesus Lane during that year. He never once spoke to me about my ordeal nor did he ever seek the views of myself or my parents on any matter to do with John Smyth.
To pretend otherwise is deliberate misinformation.
Adrian, so sorry to hear you were a victim of that heinous man and the cover ups. I did Iwerne as a kid, but after it all happened.
First, ‘Pretend’ suggests dishonesty. Second, so may ‘deliberately?’. Yet, third, if you look through what I wrote, you will not find anything untrue in it. And it is entirely compatible with what you wrote. Fourth, moving on briskly from something so unpleasant is (a) common sense, (b) normal for the time, (c) healthy in its resilience, (d) something that was accepted by all victims at least to the extent that they did not harp on but got on with their lives,
There are a couple of slight tweaks we need to give to what you write. First: it is certainly possible that the individual boy of whom you write was a victim, but we do not know either way. And secondly, those in Africa were not in the same category as those in the UK in one particular respect (aside from age): that what they suffered was more of a public nature and was more part of a more widely agreed protocol.
(This comment was previously put in the wrong place:)
A small point is your use of ‘discredited’ (TT). The assumption is that whoever is discredited at one point or more (i.e. everyone) is discredited at all points, or at any given random point that may be cited. This is a well known logical fallacy.
Christopher,
As far as the 100 or so African underage boys, the only thing that appears to have been different about them to the likes of David Fletcher, Mark Ruston, Winchester College and their fellow Iwerne Trust leaders in the 1980s was that they were all ‘not part of us’, ‘out of sight/out of mind’, and not ‘part of the work’.
i.e. as long as John Smyth wasn’t behaving as he did in SE England, it really didn’t matter what he did or to whom he did it, provided it was out of our sight.
We don’t even have to wait for the Makin Review to confirm this: we already have the Winchester College review.
https://www.winchestercollege.org/stories/a-statement-from-the-warden-and-fellows-of-winchester-college
Not immediately obvious how one squares those Iwerne Trust attitudes with any reasonable interpretation of the New Testament.
At this time of year the analogy with Pontus Pilate washing his hands immediately springs to mind.
Re Smyth, I’m astonished that anyone can still claim that the cover up was justified; that sending Smyth to Africa prevented further harm; and that keeping quiet and ‘moving on’ are appropriate responses to abuse.
There are enough facts in the public domain now to make it clear that all the above are false, and only enabled Smyth to inflict further damage on more boys and young men.
Let’s deal with Janet’s 3 points one by one. (She is saying that three things were said; but if any one of them was said, then pinpoint the comment.)
1. The first claim is that a cover up was justified. Far from being justified, the claimed cover up was not even a cover up but rather confidentiality – and a consensus of confidentiality at that. It has been said many times that this consensus was universally agreed, and not broken for 30 years. During those 30, anyone who wished to break it could do so.
The reasons that confidentiality was better are large reasons:
(a) so that people could live less damaged lives without this hanging over them,
(b) because those involved wanted it,
(c) because otherwise people would be outed as victims who did not in the least want that. Who did? And with what justification?
But the main point here is that this incontestable point is simply ignored, having been made so many times. I am interested to know how people would address it. Merely to avoid it suggests no answer can be forthcoming.
2. ‘Sending Smyth to Africa prevented further harm.’
???Who said that and where? Everyone knows the harm was as long as one’s arm.
3. Keeping quiet and moving on are appropriate responses to abuse? Abuse is of course a vague word, but apposite here. Moving on is always good. Keeping quiet is not always good, but it is good -indeed, absolutely essential – when that is what the victims want. It is post Savile, 30 years on, that some wanted something else, and that too is amply justified.
My letter re David Fletcher’s aftercare in the Church Times this time last year provoked an extraordinary level of misunderstanding on twitter. This led me to think that people are not reading what is actually said. Why would that be? Because there is just the one permitted narrative in mind, which may be entirely accurate so far as it goes, but is none the less extremely selective in what it includes and what it leaves out.
So, my suggestion: the debate must take on board points previously made – otherwise it is bound to look like inconvenient angles are being brushed under the carpet.
My answer to Adrian appeared above.
What I had said was that sending him to Africa had effects including removing him from those harmed, thus preventing further harm wherever harm had been done. Not future harm.
“The facts are that there is due process which is being followed.”
The point made several times here is that this is false: there is no such thing as due process in the Church of England safeguarding process. Cases are reported here of functions such as investigation and adjudication being carried out by the same or overlapping groups of people, confused or indeed not carried out at all; complaints and complainants have been ignored; cases have been lost shuttling between multiple jurisdictions; and blatant conflicts of interest have been tolerated.
In this case, the “due process” is confused by the multiplex status of the accused as an ordained minister of the church; as a charity trustee; and as an employee of a charity, leading to a risk of double or even triple jeopardy which is not resolved.
The notion that there will be an independent and timely investigation by professional investigators with experience and expertise; that an independent expert will review the strength of any case for prosecution; that an adjudication will be held promptly before an independent and qualified expert judge, with independent professionals presenting all aspects of the case and a panel of independent jurors to assess the strength of the evidence and make an unbiased decision; that the process and result will be subject to scrutiny and appeal by a further panel of independent experts; and finally that all this will be done in public so that justice will not only be done but be seen to be done — this notion in Church of England safeguarding is the purest fantasy, and we all know this.
‘You can shut the gates of the city, but you can’t shut the mouths of the people.’
Persian proverb
This is undoubtedly true, proverb or no proverb. But since it is not undoubtedly praiseworthy, all it is saying is: ‘People gossip.’. A. We obviously already knew that. B. The fact that they do it makes it a good thing? That would mean that things are good merely by virtue of happening or being in line with human nature.
The point of the proverb is not that people gossip, but that there are limits as to how far you can silence or suppress people. Trying to stop people from thinking for themselves or talking is like trying to stop the tide coming in – you might as well save your energy.
But ”suppressing” is done by an oppressor.
”Silencing” is done by a gagger, dictator or tyrant.
Someone who wants to stop the wilful inaccuracy and also the bullying inherent in gossip (as anyone knows who has been on the receiving end) is not slightly different but very different. Their intentions are good and obvious.
You don’t have to be as extreme as you say. Suppression etc comes from fear. Fear of losing a job, friends, upsetting people, ruining a ministry / company, not being believed, feeling there will be no justice, lack of self esteem. The list could go on.
It’s not even as if we want to impute anything to him. If authorities haven’t got anything to say, they should stop saying it. The discussion we want is the typical church chaos in almost all churches and it’s time we discuss it.
In my opinion a junior subordinate of a junior subordinate poked or rubbed someone like Selwyn Hughes told everybody they had to, and didn’t get admonished well enough. It’s natural that higher ups share in reponsibility. It’s serious enough to not put up with because the message in church has to be we have got room for you, and that has to include my body and my mind.
The other week I went to one of the churches I wrote about, for the first time in nearly 20 years (and I think it was one of the ones that used to talk about Soul Survivor). The vicar said during his sermon twice, get to know someone next to you. Both times I got what I call mauled, by people behind, leaning over the row of chairs. There were some other, nice looking, people present and I fear for their minds.
It’s time theologians stopped trying to stop us advocating for solutions to church chaos. “Leadership teams” don’t have clear remits and don’t know whether to listen to congregants or their favourite figureheads. Is that Biblical? Have they prayed about this?
Do you have evidence for that allegation against Selwyn Hughes; and for your view that ‘a junior subordinate of a junior subordinate poked or rubbed someone’?
It has been effective, because we are testifying to the impact of witnessed manufactured sensation in many styles of “churchmanship”, not dealt with properly or promptly. The real point is not to wait until a hypothetical occasional favourite may be stated to have just missed police action, but to address the triumphalism and shiftiness that has existed anywhere.
Almost this entire debate has not been about MP but is in line with Stephen’s subject: difficulties in ministries of all kinds. If I’d written I’d have picked at least three cases not two. And analogy never was an identical comparison. But the only time MP comes up in comments is to refer to anodyne procedural summaries and standard organisational records.
I don’t see why you deflect from the many problems onto MP. I wish someone would help misshapen and flaky 68 year olds to become disciples, instead of continually insinuating we’re not at the right church. Jesus was always saying “right church, wrong attitude” (and so was their beloved Paul) so why were we told we shouldn’t have?
And so obvious as to be completely standard: almost every church statement by almost every church is almost always absurd and directly aimed at causing perfectly practical question asking. What employment and / or trusteeships was leave of absence taken from, w.e.f what dates, what were the qualifications of the personnel (this one for instance does have some). Every ecclesiologist should be in favour. Churches are riddled with practical chaos because they are in spiritual chaos.
Of course this is not the only place where discussion is taking place on the recent news of an investigation into allegations made about Revd. Pilavachi
Another blogger takes an analytical approach to the very statements themselves.
https://mrsglw.wordpress.com/2023/04/05/the-problem-with-statements-mike-pilavachi-soul-survivor-and-the-importance-of-independence/
There are also other posts about personal reactions to such news.
As I see it discussion here or on other blogs is NOT “trial by media” or gossip but honest attempts to process such news and highlight the power of all in leadership for good or ill.
“highlight the power of all in leadership for good or ill”
I know more than a dozen people who have been hurt by the leadership of a single local church. Half of these have left the faith, the others are wounded. There is an omarta about talking about this and the church is too small to attract any press attention.
As a teenager in the nineties I went to Greenbelt with my youth group the year the Nine O’Clock Service was there, a couple of years later I went to Soul Survivor the year Kevin Prosch was leading the worship. After that I went to Oxford, its likely both the then Rectors of the main CofE evangelical student churches will be in the Makin Report, Jonathan Fletcher spoke regularly to the CU and Ravi Zacharias spoke at mission week.
I don’t think my experiences are atypical of many people sitting in pews trying to process the latest news.
I would love the current leaders to be talking about this with even half the energy they have given to the outcomes of LLF.
‘There is an omarta about talking about this’. I feel this very much. Only in the last couple of years a church I used to be involved with had an ‘incident’ involving a church leader who has now left the church, but almost no-one outside the leadership knows what happened. This has left its wider membership frustrated with the vagueness of details. I suppose they could argue it’s about discretion and protecting possibly sensitive information.
But…. one friend at the church once advised me while I was trying to process my own griefs about abuse in the church that “yes, that is horrible but the best thing to do is forget about it and move on.”
Funnily enough none of that was helpful. It just adds to the sense that no-one is really that interested in what the abuse of power does to people.
‘Forget it and move on’ means ‘We’d rather this was covered up’. But silence does not promote healing in the victims or the health of the church, and leaves the offender free to potentially damage more victims.
The concern of this blog has always been about abusive power in the Church, however it manifests itself. The power abuse in this account is not in the part leading up to a ‘stepping back’, but in the way that there have been attempts to gag any response to the simple fact of a safeguarding alert in a hitherto well-respected organisation. That is a notable feature of this narrative. There has also been one attempt to get me to remove the entire blog post by an individual.
The constant protest of survivors is that the response by church authorities is often woefully inadequate. Such a failure to deal with complaints is typically experienced as more damaging than the original abuse. No one here has contributed to any gossip, scandal or discussion about the actions of any individual. But the cyber-bullying that attempts to supress legitimate discussion, whether corporate or individual, will always be resisted. Thankfully the voices of the powerless and marginalised can be heard in this internet age, and Surviving Church is proud, in a small way, to enable this process to continue.
I asked you to remove this, because you are feeding unhelpful and unwarranted speculation, out of your own confessed ignorance.
To characterise this, as you do, as ‘cyber bullying’ is, I am afraid, paranoid. You could have easily replied to my email, rather than going public in this passive aggressive way.
I am working proactively with those concerned for safeguarding and pressing hard questions at Archbishops’ Council.
I welcome your previous accounts of safeguarding failures. But speculating in ignorance about a case like this is undermining your cause, not helping it.
It has been publicly announced that there is a safeguarding issue at Soul Survivor. It is perfectly proper to debate the failings of the current Church of England safeguarding system with special reference to the additional difficulties of safeguarding in situations where a semi-autonomous body is concerned, provided of course that existing cases are not improperly discussed.
However, since you are asking “hard questions” as a member of the Archbishops’ Council, I do hope that those questions will include asking how the AC came to set up an “Independent Safeguarding Board” which by design could never possibly have been fit for purpose; how the AC came to appoint a new chair who cannot possibly be said to be independent; who will be held accountable for the mess an in particular the waste of nearly a million in charitable funds; and what, if anything, the AC proposes to do to achieve a truly independent and effective ISB.
You are indeed making vigorous efforts to remove this. My experience , and that of other survivors is that vigorous efforts are made to silence everybody when the Church wants to bury unsavoury news. There is no need to make such efforts when the Church is aware there is nothing untoward going on. In such a case there is nothing to hide. Hence the many threats issued to survivors and bloggers who simply state the truth. You do not seem to be suggesting that Stephen has made untrue allegations, simply that writing about the issue is unhelpful (no doubt to the Church) and feeding unwarranted speculation. If you have evidence that it is unwarranted, that is there is nothing amiss and we need not be alert to further safeguarding failures, we would welcome it. If you felt your private email to Stephen was the right way to behave, you would not attack Stephen for making it public. You have made your point about your views but do not seem able to accept that those with different viewpoints have every right to act as they seem fit. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you have written that you sensed a call to write. I trust you do not believe that you alone have a call and the right to write as you please. Your behaviour is such as I can only assume you feel you have the right to tell others how to behave and that your views should be adhered to. It is this type of abuse of power we discuss on this blog.
I have a perfect right to point out that the parallels between NOS and SS are non existent, and that someone is innocent until proven guilty.
As Graham Charkham has pointed out, it would have been perfectly possible to make all the good points here about the issues in youth ministry without tarring by association someone who is in due process.
So why didn’t that happen? And why are people so unconcerned about the speculation?
Ian, you seem to completely miss my point. I am saying he had/has a massive (positive) impact on peoples lives. I have many friends, people who were my family who were at Soul Survivor Watford and running the events. I still know many. Hence, the sad emoji.
I am very sad because of the massive positive impact that Mike had on them. They are now dealing – as are many others, with the shock of the disclosure. Whether it is true or not.
Thank you for being honest and open enough to put on record that you ‘[have] no personal knowledge of the Soul Survivor organisation’… and that you don’t know the details of the allegations made against M.P. In light of this, having read your article very carefully, I believe it would have been better not to publish it since:-
a)You make a number of general points about the dangers of youth ministries. These are common sense and well known and is there is no evidence that appropriate safeguards were missing in Soul Survivor,
b) You make a number of general points about the potential difficulties/dangers of ‘semi autonomous’ groups within the Anglican Church. There is nothing to link the difficulties/dangers you mention to M.P or Soul Survivor. Why not make these points without reference to MP or Soul Survivor rather than insinuate that something untoward has happened (which remains an open question) and
c) Linking the NOS to MP or Soul Survivor is unhelpful. There is no link, no parallel and no grounds for doing this. It risks implying guilt by association and is therefore unfair.
All in all, I’d respectfully ask that you amend this blog entry to make the valid general points that you with to make but without reference to MP and Soul Survivor since such references are apt to mislead and cause prejudice and they detract from the force of what you are saying.
For what it is worth, I do not know MP I do not attend his church or Soul Survivor but my children did attend and they are now in their 30s and have nothing but praise for him and his organisation.
Very well put. Thanks.
Hi Graham. Any relative of Rupert Charkham, with whom I trained at Wycliffe? If so, what’s he doing now?
He has recently moved from Holy Trinity Cambridge to St Michael’s Chester Square in London.
Yes, twin brother.
Say hello from me when you next speak to him.
quote b) You make a number of general points about the potential difficulties/dangers of ‘semi autonomous’ groups within the Anglican Church. There is nothing to link the difficulties/dangers you mention to … Soul Survivor. Why not make these points without reference to MP or Soul Survivor rather than insinuate that something untoward has happened (which remains an open question) unquote
In the context of the C of E just like the RCC, being under the same “ultimate umbrella” doesn’t by itself untangle the actual (not potential) chaos referred to by U.N. at 6.21 p.m.
As to “untoward”, the public were informed by officialdom (apparently objectively) that a report has been handed in (perhaps it was by a senior colleague, you never know), once it was clear that specific Revd wasn’t going to be there much longer. Like I keep saying if we don’t know what it’s about why say it. Who it does blame is the whole structure. People brought up solely in “evangelicalism” (whatever that is) (like people of multi church experience) take a lifetime to gain deeper and wider perspectives, though I’ve no doubt times have been nice.
What’s untoward was that officialdom made this announcement. Your wording is “rather than insinuate”, but Stephen hasn’t, officialdom did.
If it was me I would add an extra thread in clarification, and of smaller scope than you are describing.
Perhaps it’s clear in one parish in Watford whose job is what, but country wide it isn’t, and maybe the working relationships have suffered in relation to the business as a whole (like so many that are enmeshed with C of E and similar churches) and couldn’t be safely stated until recently?
Bullying, hectoring, gentleness, courage, loyalty, graciousness, pain, narrow-mindedness, sensitivity…
All these components are present in this thread. Permit me to suggest (not for the first time) that this is typical of church.
I’d have headed a piece “the challenges of contemporary ministry” (almost the same) and I think it is wrong for theologians to wait until someone is said to have done something ill mannered before objecting to question askers.
I witnessed a parish with affiliation to Vineyard and Toronto, where a nasty man did horrible things to everyone’s hands at the church door before he would let them in (as well as other excitability problems present); I heard years later that it was some years before that man was stopped, and I have purposely left out the “headline problem”.
I witnessed a “non parish place” with affiliations to Bethel Redding, YWAM, Church Society, New Wine with its links to the theologically thin RZIM, and some more; remarks on an “amplifying ministry” that objectively destroyed the music were among things being remarked upon to deaf ears; an unusually high calibre (nominally “evangelical”) bishop of that place by alert outmanoeuvring eventually dampened down the sentimentality (to some degree) – again I’ve deliberately omitted the headline problem.
The craze, perhaps since Stott, has been to “look outreach oriented”. I think Lloyd Jones was more respectful of the evensong-and-flowers residue, some of whom still try to adhere to simpler structures (if their modernistic superior management will permit) (hoping problem personnel get dealt with quicker).
Roman churches mostly have several conflicting affiliations, up to the highest levels. This confusing phenomenon is rapidly infiltrating “independents” and even nonconformists.
Ian, can you please explain why your definition of parachurch is strongly relevant to your case against good order?
Not only would no-one admit to being identifiably liable to carry a can, but who knows whom to report anything to, let alone how long to wait for a response or in what format?
Scriptures were given, intending to show principles to apply. But ministry is presented (to everyone under 80) as something to get us to react and not reflect. This is so, regardless of the gravity or trivialness of the “precipitating incident” which theologians and bureaucrats have been waiting around for (instead of their being ahead of the game in church order and doctrine).
I for one am grateful this present “precipitating incident” was such a small one to cause our overdue debate on all the unneeded and morale sapping church tangles. “Vibrant” (and 50 years ago calmness was being badmouthed) means just about the same as “shaky”.
I didn’t get anything outside that from Stephen. One point – who retired at 65? If it was someone involved why can’t we report things in church or in a movement (to some effect) while someone is in post; while it may be a chance coincidence.
So obvious it was easy to forget: both those churches were under the HTB thumb as well.
What I think people are struggling with – maybe this is just me, but we were told that this is all along time ago, nothing is serious, no discipline etc.
MP stepping back to allow a complete investigation. OK.
But what we now see is not stepping back. While the investigation was announced actions had started. 31st March a Director resigns Soul61, before announcement. 4th April, first working day after announcement. MP resigns from Soul Survivor and Soul61.
Why would this happen during an ongoing investigation. So for me this has opened a whole can of worms that was never mentioned in their statements.
We are now stuck in what I believe is a deafening silence.
It’s quite possibly a coincidence. Soul Survivor’s year end is 31st March and that’s a normal time for trustees to step down.
Companies House has SS year end as end of December and Soul61 year end August. The other director / trustee had been there since 2011.
Hard to see this as a coincidence ?
that’s inconsistent as the Charities commission has the SS annual return for each year end dated 31st March.
I’m not an accountant so you may know which has primacy.
SS Watford is 31st March but they are only Charity Commission so hard to see if MP has resigned trustee or his serving time was up.
This multiplicity of interlocking charities and trustees further compounds the problem, especially when a leading figure is an employee of one charity and a trustee of another. It raises the risk that responsibility for safeguarding issues will be further confounded.
Completely, there must be a reason to do it though. Setting up multiple charities all linked must be far more complex. Maybe someone in the know can help with that,
Telegraph now onto a third article, released on their site about 20 minutes ago.
Can you summarise what it says, for the benefit of those who are not subscribers?
Not much new. It seems The Telegraph have found out that the Charity Commission has apparently asked the SS Watford trustees for more information, than they originally provided.
‘The charity watchdog has since asked trustees of Soul Survivor for “additional information”. There is also an alleged date of 20th of March when trustees submitted the details to Charity Commission.
‘serious incident report was submitted on March 20, 2023’
Dear Stephen Parsons. Unfortunately, you are falling very much so under the scope of the title of the book use at the start of your article ‘Don’t think of an Elephant .’ This is because in the fourth paragraph of your article, the one starting “Although I cannot say very much about Pilavachi…” somehow you have managed to compare (quite naively) the character of Pilavachi with that other of the leader of the 90s Nine O’clock Service (Sheffield) Chris Brian. While you try to so your outmost to caveat any direct comparison, you are actually stating a paralelism between both Christain leaders. You are implicitly assuming something very wrong done by Pilavachi. So far, and although he has done (or invited to do) the ethical course of action, your above cited comparison has opened the ‘Pandora box’ by asking the readers of your article to ‘Don’t think of an Elephant.’
I think you’ve underestimated the influence of Pilavachi. Festival attendance is up to 35,000 per year. Multiply that by about 25 years and that’s a lot of people. Obvs smaller in the early years.
Also books: amazon.co.uk/Books-Mike-Pil…
Record label: discogs.com/label/27879-Su…
Even published a magazine in 1990s
Current church has a turnover above £1m
Don’t forget all services now online. You tube full of him too. The numbers are massive 🙁
SS never had a record label. It was wholly owned by music label and they called it “Survivor records” because a) they had a lot of Soul Survivor type people recording albums and b) they thought it would be good to tap the SS festival attender market and it would give prestige to the non-SS “artists” who had “Survivor Records” music albums.
MP did however have the relational power to veto anyone (working for/with him) from being given a record deal.
I did a ballpark estimation and reckoned 500,000 unique attendees across the whole history of the festivals. This is partly based on people putting their hands up when asked if it was their first time – usually about half of those present. A very rough estimate is that between 1 and 2% of those born in the UK between the years corresponding to being 18 the first year of SS Festivals and 12 the last year did go on to attend the festivals – and that’s a 35 year spread. The number of people left reeling is massive.
According to Wikipedia, Mike was a Senior Pastor at the inception of Soul Survivor in 1993, but wasn’t Priested until 2013. I’m hoping that all concerned are being cared for as stated, but I’m just curious as to what licence he was ministering under during that length of time and where the lines of accountability were? It would appear from information in a public forum that he didn’t hold a minimum licence (Deacon/Priest) to lead a Church within the C of E for some 20 years.
Good question. Do you mean the events or the church SSW or both? Straight from being youth leader at St Andrews Chorleywood (not sure what qualifications he had for that role). David Pytches was his boss. I believe SSW was set-up under St Andrews authority at the start. Or with their permission. Most of The events at the start were ex St Andrews congregation. But those questions about accountability were asked by some critics at the time. Most for it, would say, God anointed them and called them to it, that was meant to be accepted.
History has a habit of repeating itself. I hadn’t thought of the Sheffield NOS association of ideas before this blog but I don’t see it as unhelpful. If no wrong has been done, there is nothing to fear.
Looking back at New Wine festivals, I think it was 2003/4, a group was using club-style worship which I found particularly engaging and powerful. Had I known of its antecedents in Sheffield I’d have been far more wary.
In any case, the NOS was on a tiny scale compared with Soul Survivor. We should consider not just the young people attending, but their parents anxious about safeguarding concerns. I’d be gutted to know people in charge of my children were manipulating them in the ways I may inadvertently have experienced and others may have described here and elsewhere.
Show transparency and make a clean breast of things, if you ever want to be trusted again.
It appears the Charities Commission is now looking into the disclosures from Watford. I had been sceptical about it having sufficient “teeth” to do look into great Establishment cover ups and malfeasance, but have modified my opinion after Oxford, where abuse of charity funds was called out and put a stop to. Allegations were not substantiated against the Dean. There were no real winners, but at last some due process of sorts. An external one.
As was pointed out at the beginning of this thread, placing all our hope in one man’s gifting, or at least allowing the perception of that to infuse a substantial movement, is a recipe for disaster. That said, human nature tends towards undue elevation of these characters, and the perils of doing so are evident in history across all types of church style. The fault is not within the gifted per se, but with us who over-promote them, if indeed there turns out to be any finding of fault.
Steve, one clarification on the Oxford scandal, we are still some way from due process having been commenced let alone finished. Yes the initial allegation has been adjudicated upon by e genuinely independent and skilled Judge. Yes, College procedures for the future are being considered by a respected outside agency, and Yes the governance of the College is subject to the Grieve Review – but that is about future matters and is not specifically reporting upon alleged malpractice in the persecution of the Dean and the wasting of £6m++++ of Charity money in pursuit of a vendetta . Yet the foxes are still in control of the henhouse and one of the primary persons allegedly involved in strategising the persecution of the Dean has been installed as Dean.
She, a priest, and multiple others in the Cathedral and beyond are still standing unaccountable for their conduct; acknowledging as Ian properly reminds us, the principle of innocent until proved guilty, it is outrageous that Dr Percy’s complaint of institutional bullying – acknowledged as capable of belief and in need of investigation by the Archbishops – has been removed from the imploding ISB but remains with no proper mechanism for resolution in all parties’ interests. Justice delayed is justice denied. I know that some insiders share my frustration but ultimately Archbishops’ Council is failing to do its duty t get these allegations impartially and competently adjudicated
I hesitated about making a similar response. I’m afraid it’s clear that some are unaware that ‘business’ at Oxford is far from finished.
My other beef is all of the emphasis on the position of the College. I see few, if any, comments about the anomaly of the Cathedral deanery: surely more important in Christian terms than the headship of a college however prestigious, but yet seeming to be treated as the subsidiary role and sometimes not mentioned at all. I assume, and hope I am not wrong, that Dominic Grieve is addressing that very issue. His terms of reference were rather woolly and included personal requirements to “demonstrate appropriate knowledge of charity governance, an understanding of collegiate educational foundations, and ideally familiarity with the Church of England”. ‘Ideally’ familiarity with the Church of England has an appearance of rather putting the Cathedral and C of E at the bottom of the list. As there is a specific requirement to consider the terms of the Cathedrals Measure 2021 one hopes that this implies that the position and, ideally, independence of the Cathedral Dean will be addressed.
It is, of course, on record that Dominic Grieve is a committed Christian.
Thanks. I won’t add comment further as the thread has now enough material for at least 4 further blog updates on important matters being discussed.
Martin, I think the fact that General Synod and the Archbishop’s Council have demonstrably failed to do their duty to get all allegations impartially and competently adjudicated, and then crucially acted upon, is the one consistent theme of all the myriad safeguarding and whistleblowing failures of the Church of England across the last 40+ years.
All despite the heroic efforts of a tiny minority, yourself included.
Thank you Adrian, and I am not planning to walk away anytime soon. Things are getting worse not better
I have just read your open letter to The Charity Commission. Thank you for standing beside the broken.
I believe this is true:
Soul Survivor Watford was “sent out” from St Andrews Chorleywood and set up in the Parish of St Peter’s in Watford under a Bishops Mission Order.
The vicar of St Peter’s was to be the chaplain of SSW and to preside at the Eucharist at communion services. He was VERY enthusiastic about them coming and pushed hard for it to happen as he felt that his church couldn’t attract a certain type of person living in the parish.
At some point I believe the relationship changed legally. SSW hired at least one “pastor” who was also ordained in the Anglican church, and given a Bishops licence, to be able to take the communion services. The vicar of St Peter’s continued to have a good relationship with SSW after this happened eg his youth group would often come to SSW monthly celebrations and/or evening services and he would personally attend SSW as a congruent occasionally at services that didn’t clash with his.
The current vicar of St Peter’s grew up in St Peter’s and worked for both SSW and SS previously.
It’s worth pointing out that SSW is the single biggest source of ordinands to the St Albans diocese and produces VERY few MP-mini-me’s. There are a surprising amount who become Anglo-Catholic.
I’ve also heard it said that a large % (can’t remember if it was a third, or more than half) of ordinands under 50 not only went to SS festivals but said that they either first felt a call to priesthood at SS festivals or seminars on ordiantion at the SS festivals was a major reason and spur to them pursuing ordiantion.
Whatever SS/SSW is it is clearly NOT a parallel structure to the CofE. If anything it’s singlehandedly kept the supply of priests to stop the CofE collapsing for another generation
Thanks for adding some actual facts.
How do you know it is facts. It starts with I believe this to be true 🤷🏻♂️
It is, as you believe “ Soul Survivor Watford is a Bishops Mission Order within The Church of England” source https://www.soulsurvivorwatford.co.uk/legal-information accessed 13/04/2023 12.50pm
I can’t imagine why a just turned 65 year old with serious health problems who is being featured with allegations he can’t defend in national papers, and who will clearly be accused of “getting away with it” (going by comments here, the other blog and online) if the allegations are found to be baseless, might want to resign directorships and in doing so get his home address taken off the internet?
I certainly won’t be saying your assumption of getting away with it. Most commenters here seem to want an independent fair process for all parties involved. He will get his say in the investigation. His directorship removals don’t remove any addresses. The documents with addresses changed are not in the public eye.
I understand that Bishop’s Mission Orders are a more recent innovation circa 2007. Very happy to be corrected. So it appears that Mike was made Senior Pastor of Soul Survivor Watford without any formal ordination training/formation and without any Episcopal oversight? So how is that not a parallel structure and is this still happening anywhere else?
There is an update from Christian press. It also asks for prayer at the bottom.
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/charity-watchdog-looking-into-safeguarding-concerns-at-soul-survivor
Looking at the soul survivor website i note that both Mike and his successor are referred to Rev, this gives some of the assurance that they are part of c of the e. However i wonder in other areas they adopt standard c of e practice. Was the position of Mike’s successor advertised, they appear to have gone with someone who has spent most of their life at Soul Survivor. Andy Croft wife and maybe him too was in their youth group less than 20 years earlier.
Jonathan’s Flectchers former church is looking for a new Rector. I wonder if they have changed their process from the last time around?
Mike and Andy are both ordained priests in the Church of England.
I don’t believe that employers (including churches) have any legal obligation to advertise positions or promote existing employees do they?
I know that Andy Croft was employed directly out of Uni (1st in Theology from Cambridge) by the Soul Survivor festivals charity as Associate Director. I’m pretty sure he almost immediately started occasional preaching, leading a small group etc at the church, the he started acting as an unpaid volunteer assistant pastor . He was eventually named co-senior pastor with MP before the festivals stopped. SSW didn’t pay him. The SS (festivals) charity continued to be his only paycheck, but SSW paid SS a percentage contribution to his existing wages.
Andy went through the usual DDO process, the Bishop decided that he’d continue his work with SS/SSW while being an ordinand, and would serve his curacy at SSW and the plan was for him to eventually take over from MP at SSW when Mike retired if he wanted… or be fast tracked to becoming a bishop!
I’m pretty sure Mike was recommended by the Bishop to be ordained without the DDO process, and stay working for the festivals (at the time) and the church too (which was all run by the Archbishop for his blessing first. I think it was Rowan still).
I would be shocked if Andy Croft was in a SSW youth group unless you think the current Bishop of Oxford had time to ferry his son on a round trip from Durham to Watford every week while he was Warden of Cranmer Hall.
Thank you for clarifying, I don’t know Andy nor had I ever heard him speak. Having been in Charismatic Evangelical circles all my life, I know the massive impact Soul Survivor has had on the church.
I came back to the CofE after spending years in Newfrontiers, something that ended painfully. NB: Mike is scheduled to speak at one of their summer festivals this year.
In Newfrontiers they don’t advertise jobs other than admin or children/youth workers. Almost all ministry jobs are directly appointed by elders or apostles. So I agree you don’t have to advertise jobs.
One of the things attracted me back to the CofE was appearance of checks & process (not perfect as many on this thread have already said) but more formal processes. e.g. Ministry jobs are advertised and any qualified candidate can apply, there is a process for getting ordained. It was good to see this process stopping Ben Field from Stowe. Again there are others on the blog much more qualified to comment on Anglican process.
Which is why its important to know where Soul Survivor Watford sits. Is it a CofE church with an atypical name, does it send reps to the Deanary Synod and do all those other things Anglican churches do or is it some hybrid with Archbishop level sponsorship?
I mentioned the timeline/how they started in a thread above somewhere.
Basically they are a non-parish CofE church, started with the blessing of the Bishop and the local Parish priest who was also their Chaplin.
Over time they grew big enough to hire ordained CofE clergy as associate pastors, who were licensed to serve in the Diocese by the Bishop and so didn’t need the local vicar to be Chaplin/perform the Eucharist any more but they still have a great relationship with them.
They exist under a Bishops Mission Order (you can google and see more about them), but they wern’t “taking over”, the local parish was happy to have them.
I’m not sure about synod, SSW has the Bishop do confirmations, pre-covid they would hold youth events with St Albans Abbey, they have a a great working relationship with the diocese, etc.
Their pay structures don’t seem to be like other Bishops Mission order churches, stipend etc. There is one employee on 70 to 80k and I can see they give a grant to Diocese for 28k but that seems very low to be anything like a Parish share.
Would it not be better to have this conversation elsewhere? A blog is not really for serious accusations etc 🤷🏻♂️
This thread is now closed. Any further comments will be removed. For the sake of clarification David L is not David Lamming. The personal attacks on David will be removed.
A statement by Soul Survivor Watford, 28 April at https://www.soulsurvivorwatford.co.uk/latestupdates
We have amended the statements below to remove the words ‘non-recent’ as we were today informed by the independent team conducting the investigation that allegations about recent matters have come to light. Whilst it does not appear these recent allegations include physical contact they are no less significant because of that
Thank you, Stephen, for this post. I realise that some have found it contentious but yours is an important voice for victims of church abuse, especially at a time when the Church of England’s safeguarding processes remain broken. I note too your integrity in pointing out the poor handling of these matters in relation to alleged perpetrators as well as victims. Sadly, as far as I am aware, your comments have proved well judged in terms of the outcomes of previous inquiries, investigations and prosecutions but we shall have to see in this case.
I think it is obvious to all, including to you, that the investigation should take its course and not be compromised in any way.
However, there are aspects in the public domain that are not disputed and which are deserving of comment as you have done.
The primary one, which you have referenced, is the accountability of para-church groups including their precise relationship with the Church of England and the propensity for leaders of them to be set on a pedestal, which in turn does not protect them. I don’t think you chose the best example with NOS – my understanding being that was actually fully part of the Diocese of Sheffield – but others abound including the Iwerne Camps/Scripture Union and the set-up with Peter Ball.
A second one is that there are multiple alleged victims in this case and that the story was broken by The Daily Telegraph. So, even if unfounded, this is will not transpire to be a case of a single malicious allegation as implied by some comments in this thread. Of course, there should be a fair process for the alleged perpetrator, but this should apply to those bringing the allegations too. It should also be noted that, although the Church has apparently changed its response to include reference to current as well as historic allegations (which in itself doesn’t inspire confidence), it’s clear that this is not a criminal investigation. My understanding in such a context is that the investigation needs to establish the facts and that presumption of innocence is not necessarily the starting point – a lawyer might like to correct me though! Finally, what does it say about alleged victims’ confidence in the Church’s processes when they appear to go straight to the press? Surely that in its own right is a massive cause for concern?
I fear this will be yet another example where *no one* has been properly protected either by the church or its parachurch partner. That’s the pattern from previous cases. However, there must be due process first and then these wider issues must be properly addressed once for all.
Thank you, again, for your important work. I continue to hold you and all parties involved in this case in the light.
Of course victims go to the police and the press first: so they should. After meeting a Smyth victim at a small demonstration in 2017 , I took his grievance to Church House but was told they had no intention of investigating. It only changed when Cathy Newman investigated and confronted The Archbishop. Because of under resourcing and obstruction, the review is about 1050 days overdue and I doubt it will be debated at Synod- the powers that be resist accountability. It will not be published till October at the earliest.
As far as I recall, you’re right about NOS being part of Sheffield Diocese. Archdeacon Stephen Lowe was supposed to be keeping an eye on it, but ignored the complaints of abuse brought to him by several different women independently.
However, Brain was fast-tracked to ordination without going through the usual procedures of selection and training, and that does seem to provide a parallel with Pilavachi. The Church will occasionally waive the usual procedures and checks for someone with an exceptionally successful ministry with the young. That, it too often turns out, is not a good idea.
I am surprised there hasn’t been more discussion here following the reports in the Telegraph on or around 2 May, which have been picked up by a number of other media outlets, including the Church Times. Pilavachi has been accused of (1) getting young men, interns at the church, onto his bed in just their underwear, and giving them full-body massages whilst straddling them, (2) engaging them in vigorous wrestling matches, and (3) psychological abuse, in particular bringing people into his inner circle but later shunning them. It is reported that these behaviours have been happening for at least 20 years until recently. I believe the allegations are true.
The one point I want to comment on is this:
Soul Survivor is comprised of various charities – one for the festivals, one for the church, and one for the training programme. All these charities have trustee boards. These trustees are legally in control and could have disciplined or even sacked Mike Pilavachi. The Telegraph reports suggest concerns were raised and trustees were aware many years ago.
So we need to ask what went wrong. How did Pilavachi create an apparent culture of silence and inaction that enabled him to allegedly abuse people for so long? I suspect that at least some trustees are victims themselves, and I can understand them being unable to take action. But what about the rest? Did Pilavachi manipulate them in other ways? Or did they choose to turn a blind eye? It seems there has been a very serious failure of governance at all the charities, and I hope the investigation will take a close look into this.
Who selected the trustees? Good trustees are not easy to find; the task is time-consuming. Even with best will in the world, it can be difficult to get a high-calibre board of trustees. And it’s all too easy for a rogue or dishonest leader to select trustees who are compliant, complacent, or just blind to what’s going on.