Many, perhaps most, of my readers will have watched the powerful video featuring Matt and Beth Redman entitled ‘Let There Be Light’. I don’t propose to analyse all the comments made by the Redmans about their experiences of working alongside Mike Pilavachi at Soul Survivor. But there was one telling remark made by Matt when he was recounting the difficulty of reporting Mike’s abusive behaviour to those in authority in the Church. The comment that came back, when Matt took the courageous and difficult task of disclosure about a close colleague, was something to the effect of ‘that’s just Mike’. In other words, the response of a senior churchman to a serious disclosure of abuse was to trivialise it and try to laugh it off. It needs hardly to be said that such a comment was insensitive and inappropriate. The jokey response failed Matt and, at the same time, it was failing many others in the organisation who were vulnerable to the predatory activities of Mike P.
Individuals who fail in their obligation to take action to stop abuse within an organisation are guilty of serious neglect. The guilt of those who have positions of leadership, responsibility and oversight is proportionately far greater than the ordinary members within a structure who have little power or influence. When scandals break in most secular organisations, the people at the top attempt to ‘do the right thing’ by resigning. This never seems to happen in the Church of England There appears to be a culture of hoping that the affair will blow over and that people will forget the role of shepherds who did so little to protect the sheep.
The church leader/trustee? who uttered those four words ‘that’s just Mike’ may never have pondered the likely damage caused to the Redmans, nor would he have considered the unhappiness and pain that was being unleashed on their future ministry by this inaction. The considerations that could possibly have entered the leader’s mind might have included one or more of the following.
- There is first the sheer hard work of taking someone to task for what may be criminal behaviour. Even if the behaviour reported does not constitute an actual crime, there may still be the need to cooperate with the police, solicitors etc., not to mention the phalanx of lawyers who work for the Church. The reason for laughing off a serious disclosure may simply be because the Christian leader knows that the path towards finding justice and closure for all involved is a long, tortuous and difficult process. Does anyone really have the time to manage and see through all the work demanded?
- The second reason for wanting not to be the one dealing with safeguarding complaints is that the likely respondent might be already known to the senior leader. In an organisation like the Church, individuals often have large circles of people they know directly and others they know through friends. Church networks, like the conservative evangelical world which is bound together by a shared experience of such things as Iwerne camps and university Christian unions, are not large. Public-school boys, the kind that were favoured in the Iwerne camp culture, appear to retain their ‘clubbable’ nature, and their loyalties to the institutions that reared them are often maintained with great devotion. Would an old boy of X school really be prepared to follow through with an accusation of someone with whom they played squash some thirty years before? Strong networking is of course not just confined to the evangelical tribes; we find such behaviour in other groups such as dining clubs with church links like Nobody’s Friends.
- One of the reasons for a reluctance to bring scandals into the awareness of the wider church group is the claim that the exposure of misdoing always damages the institution. A frightened abused young woman might be told by a member of staff not to bring accusations of assault against a leader, for fear that it will damage the leader’s important ministry. In fact, we see over and over again that the opposite is true. Suppression of scandal over a period of time does unbelievable damage to an institution. Most people would say that they can accept the inevitability of serious misbehaviour by an individual from time to time. It happens, but the institution can usually recover if the right protocols are followed. What is totally disastrous is the collusion of leaders in evil behaviour by refusing to expose it the moment they were first made aware. Cover-up is deeply corrosive to the reputation and integrity of the Church. Last year we saw the imprisonment of Martin Sargeant, an unofficial ‘fixer’ for the Diocese of London. It would appear likely that, to sustain his reign of dishonesty and the gradual theft of 5 million pounds from the diocese, he had gained the ‘see no evil’ cooperation of others, including members of the clergy. It is also hard to see in the case of the corrupt bishop, Peter Ball, how he could have continued so long with his nefarious behaviour if he had not had the tacit support of others, including clergy and senior bishops.
These three suggested reasons for laughing off Matt’s disclosure of abuse and inappropriate behaviour -sheer unwillingness to do the necessary slog of upholding justice, bonds of friendship or acquaintance and the fear of compromising the institution in some way – are likely to persist in the church’s life. The only solution, which will make these three impediments to justice impossible in practice, is the Professor Jay solution. That is the one that provides a completely independent structure for all safeguarding matters. Returning back to Matt Redman’s failure to find help from the system of oversight in the Church of England, we sense an inertia and closed shop atmosphere that will typically always place loyalty to the institution above truth. If that is the case, particularly among the senior members of the church, that will have a deeply corrosive effect on the life of the whole institution. If we ever reach the point where an acquiescence in protecting the system becomes a qualification for high office, then the death of the whole structure becomes only a matter of time. Young idealistic individuals will see the clerical profession, not as an opportunity to serve God’s people, but as the opposite, the gratification of a narcissistic need for status and power. The sleaze of UK politicians has thinned out the ranks of good people seeking to enter Parliament. If at any time young people see the clerical profession as a danger to their integrity, then the only ones still able to find fulfilment there will be those for whom integrity and honesty are of no concern. If the Church has only such people as its leaders, is there any point in lay people becoming members? One question in wide circulation in the 90s was ‘is your church worth joining?’ In the case of a Church that tolerates its leaders ignoring the needs of the suffering and abused, the answer has to be resounding No!
Soul Survivor festivals ended in 2019 but not before 100s of thousands of delegates over the decades had received its ministrations. Soul Survivor Church Watford persists in ministry. Mike Pilavachi was suspended a year ago but was an integral part of most of what happened at SS , as explained to us by Nicky Gumbel of HTB
HTB and its extensive network of churches, is the natural C of E successor to SS with many, if not most of its clergy, having had their formation there. Until last year Pilavachi was a well known and entertaining speaker widely platformed at other major Church groups and festivals.
Most in these places have remained silent about their allegiance to MP. They’re in a spot of bother here having platformed and celebrated his work so unequivocally. A deeper source of concern is their pre-scandal admission of how important Pilavachi was to their thinking, conversions, methodology and mindset, because it’s now completely clear how badly Pilavachi behaved for DECADES. Is the stage work completely ok still? Of course it’s not.
But the transition from recognising where people thought they were, basking in his anointed training, to having been taken in by a person you couldn’t possibly trust now, and his chocolate cake teachings.
Will it now continue, the ministry of Soul Survivor Watford, “Pilavachi-lite”? Is this even possible?
I’ve seen at first hand, and well away from Watford, SS camps and the like, its vast and direct influence being applied elsewhere. It’s a mix of some talent, a lot of smoke (literally with smoke machines) and some narcissistic mirrors. These guys are everywhere now, leading churches and worship in Mike’s name.
Whether this has been your experience too or not, can the Soul Survivor Mike Pilavachi influence be allowed to continue without being properly addressed and/or eradicated? I don’t know. There’s a massive job to do and I don’t think simply deleting links or spin will be sufficient
This article resonates with me in the ways Kenneth’s case has been treated. One being the ‘jokey response’ in which Kenneth’s evidences proving the unlikelihood of there being any truth in the allegation were viewed.
A significant witness statement from a chaperone, (who was present every time the boys sang), giving detailed reasons why such an allegation was not practically possible was ignored on two counts:
i) The Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser said any evidence which contradicted the complainant’s allegation was inadmissible. This despite the constant changes of the boy’s story. Kenneth still does not know what he is supposed to have done.
ii) The boy’s mother did not like that particular chaperone so that evidence was summarily dismissed by the Core Group who had a strong bias towards the mother and the boy.
There was a conflict of interest in the case with a senior member of the Core Group being a facebook friend of the mother and the boy. Other members of the Core Group were part of the boy’s ‘Fan Club Page’. There was documented evidence of the mother’s involvement with the case trying to discredit Kenneth’s reputation with serious fabrications which can be proved to be such. She was supported in this by the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser and others.
When the chaperone told the Canon Precentor the boy’s father tried to attack her with his walking stick and had only been prevented from making contact by another father nearby, the CP was very dismissive and said he could not become involved with parental quarrels.
The reason for the incident was the Chaperone asked the boy not to stand in a doorway because people could not get through. After he had been told of this by the boy the father shouted (brandishing stick), “Nobody tells my boy what to do!!”
When I told the Independent Investigator about these incidents he laughed and said he knew. He had been engaged to review the way the case had been addressed, not the case itself. Yet when I made this serious complaint about the rejection of valid evidence he laughed!
Yes indeed, Stephen is right when he says the only way to make justice possible in practice is the Professor Jay solution which provides ‘a completely independent structure for all safeguarding matters’.
Until then the comedy show continues but only the those perpetrating abusive safeguarding practices find amusement and cause for laughter.
“If we ever reach the point where an acquiescence in protecting the system becomes a qualification for high office, then the death of the whole structure becomes only a matter of time”
The CofE has probably already reached that tipping point. Regular church attendance is about to enter a Methodist death spiral. What will be left? Only the perks of a “performing” a role – which inevitably attracts narcissistic grifters.
There is one field in which the Church appears to excel. It is the finding of “reasons” , that is ludicrous excuses for not admitting evidence. Like the Post Office, if it chooses to ignore evidence, it can do so. As you and Kenneth and others have had the misfortune to learn, and Professor Jay and others have stated, there can be no hope of justice until safeguarding is finally wrested from the Church. It does make me wonder what role senior clergy believe God has called them to.
“It’s just Mike.”
I feel that over the years it was implied to me that certain behaviour which was actually very damaging – not just to say completely wrong – was somehow tolerated in churches. In fact, certain behaviour was almost seen as a necessary evil.
For example, I remember a Christian friend at university who, after his degree, went into ministry. I found this very difficult because his behaviour towards me and others was so cruel. Quite frankly, he was a bully. I struggled with the fact people knew him publicly as a servant of God and feted him – “isn’t he amazing” – while I remember him belittling other people, mainly for his own amusement.
I spoke with a friend at my church, and though this person at the church didn’t know the situation, his answer was, essentially, “yes, great Christian leaders often hurt people and walk over them, but that’s the price we pay for their various gifts.” It wasn’t a helpful answer because what I realised was that I – as someone not in ministry – was less important than a Christian leader and that a Christian leader had a licence to bully. I was told , really, that some sins were less important, and Christian character traits, like gentleness, for instance, were really not important.
I can think of different examples of Christian leaders behaving like abominable bullies and it being just accepted that, firstly, that’s what they’re like, and, secondly, it’s necessary for their ministry.
(and before anyone replies, saying but there are lots of decent Christian leaders, yes, I’ve met kind, gentle and humble Church leaders. Doesn’t change the hurt)
Loads of people now embrace a Benedictine or Anabaptist spirituality. Discomfort with the institutional Church pushes many people to leave, or only have limited association to receive the sacraments. The hardline evangelical wing of Anglicanism can be a curious mix. There are celebrity ‘anointed’ leaders and there are their wealthy backers. There can also be a warm welcome for skid-row or jailhouse converts. I have grown really weary of evangelical Anglicanism. There is exploitation, bullying and harassment. The MP case at Soul Survivor calls out a need for a reality check. ‘Children and VA Safeguarding’ dominate the agenda at times, but these are already statutory obligations, not things for evangelical website to crow about. Few within the evangelical wing of our denomination seems awake to what the scale of the MP cover up suggests. Is bullying of everyday (supposedly ‘non-vulnerable’) adults endemic?