Back in April, Surviving Church was one of the first to jump in with comment about the Soul Survivor affair. In view of the fact that details of any abusive practices were then not being shared (though strongly hinted at), I focussed my remarks to some general points about some of the dangers in the dynamics of large congregations led by charismatic personalities and which are attractive to young people. Some who commented on my blog were extremely angry at my mention of the Nine o’ Clock (NOS) service in Sheffield led by Chris Brain in the 90s. My comparison was not to link the known facts about Soul Survivor to the accounts of abuse at NOS. Rather I wanted to draw attention to some common features inherent in both these novel ways of doing church. Both relied on drama and excitement and were backed up by what I believe to be an unhealthy focus on personality and celebrity. There has always been in Soul Survivor an apparent dependency on the big personality of the leadership. Mike Pilavachi, or MP, as we shall henceforth call him, is a big person in several ways. He certainly qualifies for the description that I would give him of being a larger than life charismatic and powerful personality.
In thinking about the way people react to dominant personalities, it is helpful, I think, to look back in our own personal histories. Most of us can remember being paraded as a child in front of an individual considered by the world to be important. Because our parents may have stressed the importance of being on our best behaviour in responding to this VIP, we probably stood tongue tied and silent while the distinguished person addressed a few words or questions to us. However we behaved or spoke in this situation, we were aware of strongly inhibiting forces at work. It would not be inaccurate to describe our feelings as those of awe or even fear.
I often wonder whether most of us ever completely grow out of these childhood inhibitions when encountering someone we, and the world in general, admire and look up to. The presence of charisma or obvious distinction exuded by another person certainly discourages any over-familiarity in our approach to them. Childhood memories of being introduced to an important person seem to re-emerge whenever we are brought face to face with people of some standing. Charisma is one of these manifestations of human power. It is a hard word to define, but most of us recognise it when we encounter it. It speaks of a power inherent in a personality which can be used to charm others. Equally it can express itself as a force to control and manipulate. In short, charisma seems to be describing a human ability to profoundly affect and even change another person. Whether this power is being used to raise the other person up or cast them down will depend on the motivation of the person with the charismatic power.
The circumstances of MP’s ministry and the way he was at the heart of a huge ‘successful’ institution we know as Soul Survivor, means that he had access to considerable power. Some was linked to the personal charisma which he undoubtedly possessed. This was combined with the power inherent in being in charge of the institution he had founded and led. His power also came from individuals constantly looking up to him for his gifts of teaching and leading worship. The dynamics of power flowing around Soul Survivor suggest that, without realising it, the leaders and members of the congregation were active participants in a kind of complex dance. Those outside MP’s immediate circle may have looked on with envy, wanting access to the self-esteem that came with an inclusion to the charmed group at the centre. The size of Soul Survivor suggests that there would likely have been a constant dance-like jockeying for position. Those close to the leadership wanted to continue to bask in the reflected glory of MP’s attention and his charisma. Others were patiently waiting for their opportunity to replace them. Many seeking a favourable place in the institutional hierarchy of Soul Survivor appear to have endured petty humiliations or even abuse. This was the cost of having a temporary place of esteem and privilege in the edifice of power created and sustained by MP.
My description of a ‘power dance’ going on at the heart of Soul Survivor is my attempt to make sense of the celebrity culture that seems to be at the heart of ministries of this kind. It remains to be seen whether SS can survive the departure of MP and Andy Croft. I make my observation about the possible demise of the organisation based on the way I suspect that the dramatic changes in leadership can seriously disturb the delicate power balance that has existed for so many years. The institution will not find it easy to survive the disruption that has followed the departure of key leaders.
In writing this blog I have come to have a measure of unexpected sympathy for MP. This allows me to suggest that the final version of the saga of MP may be a little less condemnatory towards him. My sympathy comes from the fact that, as a young man, MP was entrusted with a position of influence and power where there were few if any constraining forces. Overlooking for a moment the recent allegations of impropriety against groups of young men, we can suggest the amount of unsupervised power that MP was given in the early days of SS was, at the very least, completely inappropriate. From his early days it seems that he was treated as if he could do no wrong. Backed by the resources, financial and institutional, of St Andrew’s Chorleywood, MP was offered a path to success and adulation by the entire culture of charismatic evangelicalism across the world. To suggest that MP had his head turned by this success is probably a massive understatement. What seems to have happened in the MP story is that crowds of young people were drawn to the music of Matt Redman and the charismatic mesmerising gifts MP possessed. This created a situation which offered the possibility of indulging in undreamt-of levels of gratification through the exercise of power of different kinds. Without anyone in a position to check this power or question its corrupting potential, the path to MP’s eventual self-destruction lay wide open. A mitigating thought is that one can imagine that there are probably many other Christian leaders who might well have chosen a similar path of self-gratification, if someone had provided the means for them to do so. What separates MP from many other wannabes may be simply the external circumstances of his life story.
Having suggested that MP deserves some understanding for surrendering to the waves of temptation that were poured over him from different directions, we should mention another factor in the mix -the sheer length of time that MP was left unsupervised to do his own thing. The traditional five years that Methodist ministers used to be allowed to remain in one post had a certain wisdom built into it. While the 5-year rule might have disrupted the education of many manse children, at least abusive relationships within a congregation were less likely to develop. Thirty years in a single role will always have some potential serious drawbacks. These would include the power to claim ownership over a church institution and the individuals in it. Such ‘ownership’ is dangerous and likely to be detrimental to both sides. There are many lifetime ministries to be found in the Anglican conservative evangelical world. While these do not lead to abusive relationships in most cases, there is something somewhat unhealthy about one individual occupying a position of influential and institutional power for a long period of time. If Jonathan Fletcher had been required to look for a new post after ten years, much of his devastating abuse of power might have been avoided. While there are arguments against setting time limits in ministry, there are arguments in favour. MP might have been forced to be accountable for his ministry if there had been a time limit at Soul Survivor.
The ministry of MP seems to have gone badly wrong, in part because of the wider church culture he inhabited. Any culture which allows unaccountable power to flourish, and fails to offer proper supervision and theological scrutiny, is bound to court danger. Far too many people seemed to have lacked the kind of common sense that might have been able to spot the danger signs in MP’s ministry. A ministry that depends so much on celebrity and a charismatic personality should always be subject to proper oversight. One of the disappointing revelations of the MP story so far revealed, is the way that the independent supervision, such as it was, completely failed. I am mentioning here the oversight of the Diocese of St Albans. Was there not, among the experienced clergy at the centre, someone able to question what was really going on in Watford? Had no lessons been learned from the maverick NOS experiment in Sheffield? Is it ever a good idea to dispense with the formation process before allowing an individual like MP to enter Anglican ministry? The Church of England is supposed to be known for its system of checks and balances. Such measures are designed to protect the institution from rogue and abusive behaviours by any of those who work for it.
The events at Soul Survivor have yet to be fully described and understood. My own reflections on what has so far been revealed, suggest that the Soul Survivor scandal is far bigger than the malfeasance of a single individual. Given the numerous opportunities to offend that were presented to MP over the years, it might almost have been surprising if MP, who had never been part of some formation process, had never taken advantage of his situation. Another way of putting it is to say that MP was himself failed by a Christian culture too interested in wealth and success to be properly aware and protective towards the vulnerable individuals in its midst. Blame should be apportioned to many places, among them St Andrew’ Chorleywood, the Diocese of St Albans and the whole culture of charismatic evangelical Christianity which had nurtured, but then failed to control MP. But It is also a sad and tragic day when so much trust is invested in a gifted charismatic individual and this trust is then so completely betrayed.
This is an example of how charismatic leaders are allowed to push and pressurise their followers to give money and give their lives up to the power of the charismatic culture.
As long as the churches have ‘bums on seats’ and economically viable, they are considered successful.
Many of us only knew MP from afar. He flew beneath most radar receivers because he was bumbling and self effacing as a speaker. He was an entertainer, brought out by many different church groups across the world to liven up a dull program. If you’re sleep deprived and weary after a week’s camping, he made a refreshing change. He is very gifted up front and as such, a rare commodity.
The Church of England wanted to keep him in-house as the goose that laid the golden eggs of large numbers of particularly young people filling its pews. Other Churches made similar plays for him.
Those in the ever changing inner circle at Soul Survivor Watford, are the most directly affected by (to quote the C of E) 40 years of abuse of power. Many lives have been damaged by him and faiths shipwrecked.
Many in the charisgelical world are scrabbling around to distance themselves from MP. This is a fruitless exercise as we all know everyone was connected to him.
The C of e has made an uncharacteristically swift statement, mentioned earlier, where in essence they find him guilty. They never do this. With the impending KC’s investigation and promises to publish her findings, the impression I get is that they are going to hang MP out to dry. Blame it all on him.
We as a church society have created and enabled MPs and all who proceeded him, and no doubt will succeed him. The exact methodologies he used up front, are ubiquitous in our world. Brain was discarded after the Nine o’clock Service blew up. But the methods continued.
They can’t let go of these ways of cultivating young and not so young people, because they are financially and numerically “successful”.
I don’t personally have much sympathy for Mike. He’s had a long career travelling all over the world, with no expense spared, and turning 65, he’s heading for a comfortable well funded retirement in South Africa.
Utilising someone with gifts like his, on the scale it was done, is lazy negligent christianity. Ultimately it has damaged many lives.
That’s exactly right
“They (the church) can’t let go of these ways of cultivating young and not so young people, because they are financially and numerically “successful”.”
If only we measured success in other ways. Not cash on bums on seats on a Sunday but happier and more connected communities, where no one is poor or isolated. Where we look after creation and each other. Where no man is up on a pedestal to take whatever they want from their worshippers – but where we are all working on equal footing to bring about the kingdom
I think parts of the church as it is now need to die out and make space for the new
You raise the pertinent question of the continuance of Soul Survivor. At the very least there has to be a long period of reflection, not just about hhe past, but how some kind of future can be considered and how that might look and work. All that before any kind of leadership succession can be considered. Let alone the question as to whether it is right to burden any one individual, or even a team with such responsibility or expectations. Perhaps the most mature approach would be to abandon the whole project as a mark of acceptance of what has taken place and as a gesture of penitence for what has happened.
I’ve just read a very lengthy article on the ‘God Loves Women’ blog, tracing the history of MP and all the other things which flowed from John Wimber’s ministry – one thing that I learned was how much a great many individuals and events all tie together, rather like the underground network of roots and fungi in a forest. Most of the ‘big names’ from Welby, Terry Virgo, J John, HTB and New Wine onward are interlinked, and MP is tied in to all of them.
Going back some forty years, my then minister asked my opinion of the decision to wind down Fountain Trust, which had acted as a broad, uniting body for the early charismatics. My response was that I was saddened – that in so doing it handed the public face of the charismatic movement over to extremists, on a plate. It closed the forum for checks, balances and the moderate middle ground.
Now at the time I was growing very disillusioned with the movement; my circle of friends was heavily influenced by Arthur Wallace’s Restoration movement, and I couldn’t get on with his world view. Then along came John Wimber, and shorly afterwards, Toronto, and at this point I walked – the lunacy of Toronto was the last straw.
It seemed at the time, as I said to my minister, that the charismatic renewal had become mired in sensation seeking, and was desperately seeking new spectacles to ‘prove something’ (ie ‘power evangelisim?) while it increasingly revolved around personalities who could do no wrong. This was reinforced by a small piece in Renewal magazine, a prophesy given at a conference, from an angry God threatening to take his spirit away unless his people repented of making the gifts and movement an end in itself. Nobody (to my knowledge) ever commented to it.
My conclusion was that we were in a waiting period, waiting for the froth, bubble and man-centred behavious to burn off or die away; those who were truly following the leading of the spirit would simply be waiting, ready for when the next genuinely new movement came about. Since then I’ve been in a variety of churches, both forward and backward looking, and seen the troubles come and go. It taught me just how limited the charismatic impact had, once you moved out of it’s active circle of involvement. It had become introverted, and much of the wider church seemed to ignore it – they might sing some of the songs, but that was about it.
When God moves in judgement, he always begins with the church. What we’re seeing now, I suspect, is just that – and there’s an awful lot of covering up being done. How can we hope to convince the world of our trustworthiness and the integrity of our message about Christ’s salvation when we behave in this way? MP’s antics have discredited the entire evangelical church world by active associtation, and it looks at the moment as if they’re compounding it. The house is built on shifting sand – and this could well have undermined the foundations. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for God’s…
I was curate at St. Michael-le-Belfrey from 1989-1992, a period when Wimber collaborated first with the Kansas City Prophets and then with the beginnings of the Toronto Blessing.
Initially I was rather impressed by Wimber, and learned how to use his healing techniques. But I began to be uneasy. One thing I observed was the phenomena seemed to have a rather addictive effect – people became dependent on them, and it took more and more extreme phenomena to produce the same ‘high’.
I think Theresa of Avila was right when she advised her nuns not to rate the ‘consolations’, as she called them, of the Spirit too highly. Nice to have, but don’t rely on them. They aren’t really that important, and the real demonstration of faith is when the tangible effects of God’s presence disappear and you are able to carry on regardless.
Excellent comments, John.
But I am not sure that MP has discredited the “entire evangelical church world by active association”. He had very little to do with the conservative evangelical movement, and I don’t think they have been hit by the fall-out. But they’ve already been discredited by their own scandals, namely Smyth and Fletcher.
I think it’s pointless to argue about which faction within the CofE is or is not discredited by any given scandal. Such discussions are almost entirely factional in themselves and lead nowhere useful. To the outsider, “church” as a whole is discredited, be it RC, CofE or televangelist.
As an aside, I grew up in the devout conservative evangelical world of Jesmond, where (in the 1970s) David Watson was a welcome and esteemed speaker. So much so, that he was once guest speaker at the annual Otterburn Conference. I can even remember one of his talks at church, when I was a child, using the visual aid of a steadily inflated balloon to represent the head of the Rich Young Ruler. Eventually it burst.
But Watson suddenly became a charismatic. I was too young to grasp the politics of how this change in him was perceived, except that We didn’t agree with things like that. However my family did arrange a surreptitious visit to St Michael-le-Belfry one Sunday in York. There seemed to be a lot of larking around, a million miles from the arms-by-your-sides and no grinning (and certainly no clapping) of JPC. It wasn’t for us. There was still a warmth for David Watson somehow, and I pursued the charismatic evangelical world a decade or two later, slowly and tentatively and then eventually wholeheartedly. Because I respected the man, I couldn’t completely reject his argument.
In both extremes of evangelicalism senior men are held in high esteem. Their views and proclamations are taken by most of us as a proxy for biblical authority.
On the ground either from relative youth or inexperience, or later from easy acceptance, a majority seems just to go with the flow. Many seem to have difficulty thinking for themselves, but often insubordination is unwelcome and frequently punished, particularly for paid staff.
I’ve encountered both Fletcher and Pilavachi, but fortunately not Smyth. There are similarities.
There is a momentum, an inertia in the way the group holds them in high esteem, long after this esteem is entirely justified.
Was Peter Pan’s activity a good idea? Little appears to have been discussed, as far as I am aware, of the wisdom or otherwise, of hiving off a significant youth strain into another place.
As we’ve heard, Soul Survivor grew out of New Wine. What were they thinking of when they palmed it off onto Pilavachi? Couldn’t they be bothered with the young people and were glad of him taking them off their hands? Did they think it would be difficult work and he’d be unable to get very far? It certainly looks like they realised he was talented with youth, not perhaps fully realising how far his predilections might go.
In any event the festivals became extremely successful, arguably more successful than New Wine. But how old do you allow your youth pastors to be before suggesting they move on? 30? 35? 40? 50, 60? pilavachi was 65 when he resigned from the Soul Survivor Watford, and around 60 when the festivals closed.
Hiving off a youth cohort, or even older ones such as 20s-30s creates advantages and significant challenges. It’s much more fun being away from adults and older people, the intense heat of worship together is all the more intensified by the commonality of age and life stage. But the very same thing gives rise to a hole host of unfortunate dynamics. Wisdom is lost, and anything can go. There was little oversight. Each yearly cohort gets a year older every year. 18s become 23 marry and start having children. That’s not particularly “cool” for the new entrants to have to associate with. So they started a further group called “Momentum”.
Other groups like 20s-30s become 40. No one aged 20 is going to want to join this group who are starting to resemble their parents.
Eventually the groups are closed down, a move which their residue find extremely painful, or they self-destruct. A combination of this is happening at the minute with SS Watford.
Generally the cycle then starts over. Will lessons be learnt next time?
It’s looking increasingly clear that Pilavachi was dumped — in that trustees chose to start to hear the complaints being made against him — when his usefulness to the movement was on the downswing.
1 – Matt Redman was cynically used by that wider clique.
2 – False charisms crowd out true alertness, balance and agency by ordinary people during the week.
3 – Fountain Trust, through their books, formed my beliefs in my late teens (as a fulfilment of simpler childhood faith). I’ve found the writings of Stott (the influencer) and Virgo unreadable.
4 – I was patient with the crazies from Wallace onwards but not convinced.
5 – At both my two most recent C of E churches (within the last 25 years) I used to tell everybody that they were coming back from the camps (NW, SS, Focus) in a worse state every autumn year on year.
In both cases I walked out in desperation BEFORE “official scandal surfaced” (ostensibly about something I didn’t know of). When these days I am conversing with those involved they still show no sign of having understood.
6 – Always check out trustees / executives / SLT and their portfolio careers.
All of the big charismatic ‘brands’ are failing in the same – the performative/transactional nature of modern evangelical culture elevates narcissistic traits in everyone and provides a pathway for actual narcissists to secure leadership roles.
Yes – this is exactly what happens. I was brought up in the Exclusive Brethren in the 50s – 70s and the same culture of deference and narcissism emerged. Together with a total lack of accountability, this enabled a cult to develop which survives to this day, splitting families and damaging the spiritual lives of many people. And they masquerade as a “Christian Church”.