by Charles Clapham
Like many others, I have been following the unfolding and tragic saga of Mike Pilavachi and the abuse at Soul Survivor as it has been come to light over the last year: the coverage in the Telegraph, the Soul Survivors podcast from Premier Christianity, the video Let there be Light from Matt and Beth Redman, and online discussion on blogs and social media, as well as the official responses and investigation from the Church of England.
Whilst many church leaders still seem to be silent – not realising that their continued silence is part of the ongoing trauma and abuse – others are beginning to recognise the need for honest reflection. What went wrong? Why did we not see it? How can we make sense of it all?
In one way, it’s not my place to comment. I’m a vicar in a liberal and inclusive-minded church, and a longtime advocate for full LGBT equality in the church. I am not part of Soul Survivor or the movement surrounding it, and conversations about what went wrong are a matter for those associated with the evangelical-charismatic movement in the church.
But not entirely. By background, I came originally from a conservative evangelical church, and was converted through the charismatic movement. It’s what brought to me faith as a young person. I know the culture from the inside. Even after I’d left the charismatic movement behind, I attended Soul Survivor briefly in the late 2000s whilst a university chaplain and was very aware of its considerable impact on many of the students with whom I worked. On top of which – as is now drummed into us all in our training – safeguarding is a matter for everyone in the church.
So perhaps it is helpful from an outside perspective to say this: that what I find striking in the coverage of Mike Pilavachi that I’ve come across so far, is that the nobody seems to want to talk out loud about the homoerotic character of some of the abuse (the good-looking young men, the wrestling and massaging). It’s all there in the reports, hinted at or implied, but never made explicit. And that calls for comment.
As an outsider, the obvious inference is that Mike Pilavachi is gay, but that he was living in a church culture in which he was not able to acknowledge this openly to others – or perhaps even to himself. Instead, he sought sexual gratification through close physical contact (wrestling, massage) with a constant stream of good-looking young men. At some point he had decided that physical intercourse or mutual masturbation would be wrong; but he otherwise sought to push as close to this line as possible.
This seems to me the most plausible reading of the situation. But in discussions of the Soul Survivor scandal in evangelical circles, this issue of sexuality is never raised. Nobody says this out loud. And this is true also for some of the other big abuse scandals in the church in recent years: Peter Ball, John Smyth, Jonathan Fletcher – all engaging in abuse of a homo-erotic character, but unacknowledged as such, whilst operating in a church culture in which being gay was/is seen as unacceptable. Why can we not speak about this?
Of course, at one level people will rightly say that the issue of homosexuality is irrelevant here. Abusers are abusers irrespective of sexual orientation; abuse is about power and not about sex. In addition – and I want to say this very clearly – there is and should be no suggestion that gay people are more likely to abuse than heterosexuals.
But there is a more subtle point, which was flagged up by IICSA (the Independent Inquiry into Child Abuse), which needs teasing out. The issue is NOT that gay people are more likely to be abusers, as IICSA made very clear, but that a church in which honest acknowledgement and expression of homosexual identity is denied, creates a culture of secrecy around issues of sexuality more generally, which can then facilitate abuse. [1]
As Rowan Williams said in his submission to IICSA: “Where sexuality is not discussed or dealt with openly and honestly, there is always a risk of displacement of emotions, denial and evasion of emotions, and thus a lack of any way of dealing effectively with troubling, transgressive feelings and sometimes a dangerous spiritualising of sexual attraction under the guise of pastoral concern, with inadequate self‑understanding.”
This can become compounded by the fear that even raising the issue of sexuality in these cases will be seen as homophobic. As IICSA again noted, this is a concern shared by conservatives as much as anyone else. As Mrs Hind told the inquiry, the well known anti-homosexual view of Bishop Wallace Benn “made him bend over backwards to be fair, or perhaps even more than fair on occasion, to homosexual abusers.”
One contribution towards improving safeguarding in the church according to IICSA, therefore, was to encourage “clear, open and transparent conversation regarding human sexuality.” There are connections, in other words, between how we approach issues of human sexuality in the church, and our safeguarding failures. A culture in which sexuality has to be hidden can create safeguarding problems, and we need to have joined up thinking here.
But these are issues which the Church of England at large (and not just in its evangelical-charismatic wing) have failed to address. As Judith Maltby notes in a paper she produced for National Safeguarding Steering Group, despite these concerns being raised by IICSA (and by the Moira Gibb report, and by the Carmi review before that), the Church of England has still failed to find a forum in which to address the connections between safeguarding and sexuality. [2] The powers-that-be are simply too nervous to go there.
But if we are serious about addressing safeguarding issues as we reflect on Soul Survivor, we need to have this public conversation. It is the elephant in the room. One of the crucial questions about Soul Survivor is: why did Pilavachi not feel able to come out as a gay man, and how can we change that culture in the future?
I am not really a fan of evangelical organisations like Living Out, since they want to propose celibacy as the norm for all gay Christians, rather than see it as a vocation for some (which would be my view). But Living Out are at least providing a structure of support for people who are gay in the evangelical world to come out, to live honestly, and strive for celibacy in accordance with their convictions. Had Pilavachi been able to acknowledge his sexual orientation publicly in this fashion, that would at least have provided much clearer systems of accountability for him, and greater ability to spot red flags.
What would have happened if Pilavachi had taken this option? In theory, it was the right thing for him to do as an evangelical. In practice? My guess is that most of those in the evangelical-charismatic world would not have been willing to accept an openly gay man, even one publicly committed to celibacy, in his role as mentor and pastor to their teenagers and young people. They would, I imagine, have applauded him for his honesty – and then quietly let him go. And Pilavachi must have known this.
This, then, is part of the problem IICSA identified: an church which discriminates against gay people fosters a culture of silence and denial with regard to sexuality, and opens the way for an unhealthy and abusive culture to develop as a result.
To which we might add: that if evangelical and charismatic Christians were more willing to recognise that there are LGBT people in their communities even when they aren’t ‘out’, they might more quickly have been able to spot the signs of abuse in this case. Had Pilavachi been massaging half-naked attractive young women, those around him would instantly have seen this as inappropriate and abusive. But in the heteronormative culture (to use the jargon) of evangelical Christianity, it was simply assumed that Pilavachi must be heterosexual: how could he not be? So his abuse went unremarked (‘Mike being Mike’).
The possibility that a key evangelical leader, so effective at bringing young people to Christ, could also be gay, was – literally – unthinkable or unimaginable to most evangelicals and charismatics. So they failed to spot it, even when all the signs were there.
So if we genuinely want to reflect on the systems and cultures which facilitate abuse, doesn’t part of the conversation about Soul Survivor and Pilavachi needs to be about how evangelical culture handles homosexuality? Unless we can at least name some of these issues out loud, we are not going to make progress in preventing more scandals in the future. It’s awkward, delicate and controversial, I know. But we have to go there.
Of course, I say this as an outsider, and someone who identifies with the ‘inclusive’ side in the church. I will be criticised as one of the usual liberal suspects, cynically ‘weaponising’ the Soul Survivor victims to advance a pro-LGBT agenda in the church. Or I’ll be attacked from the other side: with the accusation that even raising these issues openly is homophobic or discriminatory. I can understand both concerns. But this is why no-one talks about it.
So I offer these comments not only to evangelicals and charismatics but to the Church of England at large. There are homoerotic elements to Pilavachi’s abuse, as there were in the cases of Peter Ball, John Smyth, and Jonathan Fletcher before him; all occurring in a church culture in which open gay identity and expression were seen as unacceptable and sinful. IICSA identified this as a problem. Are we finally able to have an honest conversation about it? Or is it simply a matter of time before another scandal, with all the same elements, breaks again?
Revd Dr Charles Clapham
Vicar, St Peter’s Church
Hammersmith, London
[1] For what follows, see section B.11 on the ‘Culture of the Church’ of Anglican Church Case Studies 1, available at https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/investigation/anglican-chichester-peter-ball/case-study-1-diocese-chichester/b11-culture-church.html, accessed on 25.4.2024)
[2] Dr Maltby’s paper is now available at https://viamedia.news/2024/04/24/safeguarding-living-in-love-and-faith-learning-for-the-church-of-england-from-the-independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-abuse-lessons-learned-reviews1/, accessed on 25.4.2024.
David gate raised similar questions just recently on Twitter and it’s worth reading the thread that follows:
https://x.com/davidgate/status/1783017779739742464?s=46&t=LGAknkcOdRekjYaDJe_N3A
Indeed there have been numerous references to homoerotic aspects re eg Smyth and Fletcher even on this blog, as a a simple search references. Many are cautious too about making ill informed pronouncements and like me, concerned not to blunder about in this area.
It’s fairly obvious that some of Mike Pilavachi’s abuses had a sexual element, although I’m not qualified to pronounce on his exact sexuality, nor do I believe this is the main point. That said, his actions towards underage boys should surely be properly investigated by the police?
His abuse of power damaged many young people irrespective of their sexuality. A group of people went out and modelled his leadership practices in the wider Anglican and other Communions. An even broader group have assumed his extensively heard charismatic evangelical teachings were entirely valid, and are now having to revisit these assumptions.
The police DID investigate and found ZERO illegal activity.
Questions:
How do you know the police investigated? That’s not public knowledge, unless someone is charged.
Did all of the victims request a criminal investigation?
Where the victims supportive of a prosecution?
Lot’s of questions before it can be declared zero illegal activity. A sexual assault is an illegal activity. It is a sexual assault unless the victims consented to that activity.
“How do you know the police investigated?”
Because the police issued a statement saying they had investigated and that ‘no criminal offences have taken place’. If you don’t believe me, feel free to google the phrase.
“Did all of the victims request a criminal investigation?”
That’s not how the law works.
“Lot’s of questions before it can be declared zero illegal activity”
Which presumably the Police asked.
” A sexual assault is an illegal activity”
Yes it is. Seeing as the police investigated and concluded that there had been no illegal activity, it stands to reason that Pilavachi DIDN’T sexually assault anyone.
Maybe so, but he certainly indulged in some very ‘iffy’ activity if the complaints are true. There’s also the problem of whether or not the ‘victims’ were willing cooperators in the incidents, albeit under a certain degree of influence.
This featured some years ago in another case in which a respectable cov/ev/charis minister gave some very dubious advice to young gay men after councelling and praying with them (basically, start going out with girls) but really came unstuck when it got round to, well, shall we call it ‘psyiotherapy'(?) with women. Following police investigations, the CPS wouldn’t proceed with the cases because the plaintiffs had chosen to accept his ‘ministry’, but then grown unhappy about the ‘sanctified pawing’ which happened to them.
The ministry concerned featured in a big article in ‘Renewal’ magazine – but, like the current issue, they went very, very quiet about the subsequent problems.
I think we need to factor in an element of coercive behaviour here: one can be compliant then suffer “buyers regret”. In one instance it is unfortunate. When it becomes a habit of carefully calibrated conduct it is plainly unhealthy and will have bad consequences. It is an abuse of power and places responsibility on the weaker party.
Yes I regret mentioning the police earlier as this isn’t the main point.
There has to be a LOT of basis to religious culture / faith / belief BEFORE one reduces it to “do as thou would not be done by the police”. The normal public are supposed to help each other behave well enough?
Fran ly evangelicalism doesn’t approve friendship as a value at all, hence to have any support or company eeping at all means allow hysterical line crossing or have a rare marriage with someone not scared stiff of it yet: most of the spiritual offenders do advertise a spouse.
The comment about ‘police’ helpfully draws our attention to what we might call the ‘Get Out Of Jail Ace’. If interns are over 16 then they are as poorly protected as any other regular lay member of our Church. Interns are terrified, understandably, of upsetting ‘the wrong people’ and getting tattooed-‘Troublemaker’-by an Episcopal mafia chief. ‘Anglican Safeguarding Saints with Croziers’-yawn!- prophetically whip up a Diocesan website frenzy about protection provided (at huge cost) to protect VA’s and children. But most members of the UK public are now very well aware of child abuse by paedophile priests (and the wisdom of reporting suspicion directly to the police given Church mishandling of countless cases). The great sick joke here is how police and courts make a distinction between ‘criminal’ and ‘civil case’ burden of proof. Do Evangelical leaders protect perpetrators of bullying by paradoxically ignoring the book they supposedly revere so much? Do Torah, Gospel, Epistle refer to settling matters on the evidence of 2 or 3 witnesses? The scale of breaking Anglican spiritual abuse stories makes me wonder if some leaders need a media tornado of X200-300 abuse accounts going viral before any inquiry is fixed?
Interns don’t have the depth and breadth of christian knowledge, and time perspective, that Stephen or John or I have, and most clergy don’t.
In movements and fads which are supposed to be “contemporary” one is told time & again, that the sense will become clear in the end.
Moreover Pilavachi was irregularly appointed in the first place and after that, irregularly ordained.
Meantime all the other lookalike brand names continue to peddle the same froth (false charismatic, false ceremonies, no belief in meanings) only less fingery, “do as thou would not be done by the police”.
This is sold as the only milieu one will be able to relate and make friends (friendship has been replaced with casualness by the influential christian establishment – hence all the loneliness in the world).
“Interns don’t have the depth and breadth of christian knowledge, and time perspective, that Stephen or John or I have, and most clergy don’t.”
Tell me you nothing about Soul Survivor interns, without telling me you know nothing about Soul Survivor interns!
Most SS interns were above average intelligence, came from homes where a high level of education was expected, and had a great deal of experience in at least one Christian denomination, most of them at least two.
“Moreover Pilavachi was irregularly appointed in the first place ”
No he wasn’t. Not only did the Bishop ok planting Soul Survivor Watford, Pilavachi was explicitly invited by the Parish Priest who was an avid New-Wine-er, the Priest was appointed the chaplain of SSW, always presided when the Eucharist was celebrated and sent his youth (which includes the current Priest their when she was younger) to the SSW evening services.
You might not like it, but there was no reason the leader of a group of 18 kids in that situation needed to be ordained rather than their youth leader.
The only reason I made a comment about ‘Police’ is because the question got asked as to why they weren’t called. The Police were called, so I pointed that out, they found no wrongdoing, so I pointed that out. Don’t shoot the messenger just because you don’t like the truth!
This is a careful sympathetic and responsible analysis and there is indeed a need for the Church to untangle its thinking as Judith Maltby’s analysis also makes clear. IICSA identified such problems to no avail.
There is a need for subtlety but also one for blunt simplicity.
We are in this mess of incompetence and cover-up precisely because people who have not resolved their thinking are still in control of safeguarding.
Extract safeguarding into the hands of independent safeguarding professionals with no conflicts of interest and their attendant unconscious biases and life is made easier for all- complainants respondents and Church leaders alike.
The Jay proposals can be bench tested against not only Soul Survivor but each of the major scandals: I cannot see them being replicated under
her model built upon the basis of extensive listening and analysis.
Those telling us the Bishops have to be involved in safeguarding in a direct hands on manner need to be able to explain why the complications identified by Charles and Judith will not infect any half hearted compromise proposed by the “Response Group” which Church House established to second guess Jay with Synod’s compliance.
Piliavachi actively, openly promoted Living Out. He was featured on their website encouraging people to work with them. He was taken off their website after all this came to light and a twitter keyboard warrior bombarded Living Out with demands to know why they were “promoting” Pilavachi.
Soul Survivor platformed serval always openly gay (celebrate) people- the most prominent being sean doherty, the current principal of Trinity in Bristol.
I don’t think the charismatic evo world in the uk would have had a problem. In the con evo sphere Vaughn Roberts is still very credible. Maybe Pilavachis American invites might have dried up.
The new KC led NW (New Wine) inquiry has 10 pages of ‘terms of reference’. Might a key point of the MP scandal be obscured? MP did not arise or operate in a vacuum. Would an inquiry be better if broader? Seeking to understand wider NW (or Anglican) ill-treatment of interns, employees or others is surely of critical importance. MP may have been a shark alright. But were there lots of ravenous dogfish or smaller sharks biting and snapping aggressively as well at NW? Not establishing this point is an Achille’s Heel.
Does anyone know how these KC enquiries are progressing? Fiona Scolding KC heads up both I understand. Do we have any idea of timescales?
‘DISABUSING THE CHURCH’ was posted online by ‘Faith Today ‘ on 2.3.24.
A report of the same title is in the March-April edition of ‘Faith Today’ magazine. Anyone with Pressreader can access it.
Does the perfect formula for abuse cover up benefit from being uncomplicated? An in-house and informal inquiry-including ‘hybrid’ groups of chums (whether from Church or para-church groups, or both)-avoids having an independent inquiry make trouble by exposing abuse and give victims an unfettered voice.
‘Conflict of interest’ can be conveniently ignored, and witnesses ignored or dismissed. Church rules do not matter when authoritarian bullies are in charge, and might there also sometimes be contempt for national law?
The UK’s system of natural justice is rooted in a biblical principle of letting the witness evidence of ‘2 or 3’ speak for itself (shades of the Torah, Gospel, Epistles). But has there often been blasphemous contempt for biblical principles of justice, when we look at how abusers have been serially protected and witnessed ignored?
Dioceses and parishes can seek to look good or curry favour, by posting up how they religiously follow statutory requirements on ‘safeguarding children and vulnerable adults’ (as if they had any choice to avoid mandatory requirements). Yet when it comes to everyday adults (interns, junior clergy, junior employees or Church members) has it frequently been-‘carte blanche’-to maltreat them, because anyone who dares to complain is often just pressurised to leave the Church and/or branded “a troublemaker”.
Immoral or incompetent senior leaders, overseeing their own patch, is a disastrous folly. Authoritarian abusers can then develop absolute confidence (encouraged by there being no fear of restraint) to do pretty much as they please.
Interns are one group who can be hugely vulnerable, and afraid to speak out. Over time, if serial spiritual abuse is ignored, interns may just give up and be silenced into submission.
They display-‘learned helplessness’-and sadistic or sarcastic abuse of various forms can then be heaped upon them. The great and hidden Achille’s Heel, of Church inquiries into bullying, comes when an assessor inflicts the ‘criminal burden of proof standard’ on witnesses or victims.
That’s a hugely valuable point spelt out in ‘Disabusing the Church’. The Canadian report may be worth sharing around widely or referencing. Does it say what a lot of Anglican victims (or their representatives)have been saying in the UK for years?
Did you back Mike Pilavachi? I did, having heard him many times as a big stage speaker. I wasn’t massively “sold” on him, but he was entertaining. He was self effacing, bloke-ish and almost none of the behind the scenes behaviour was visible or discernible. In retrospect the onstage prophetic “words” could have been manipulative, but I’ve seen this many times and it didn’t mark him out as particularly unusual.
How heavily we’re invested in a Christian leader (or Movement), determines how we behave when questions start arising about that leader’s past activities.
Backing a leader is a bit like gambling, the basis of all investment activity. Almost all of us invest (via pension funds) even if we’re not aware of it, and those investment (gamble) decisions are delegated to others.
When I attended conferences which platformed MP, I was delegating responsibility for checking his validity to others. I accepted their decision without much question. In some ways, hearing the comedy show was a bit of a relief after a long week camping in a field sleep deprived. He wasn’t particularly my cup of tea, so to speak, so when the news came, it was a shock but no great personal loss, as I wasn’t particularly invested in him. However what it did undermine further for me was the credibility of the Charismatic evangelical world he represented.
Some people were HEAVILY invested in him. And these people who backed the wrong horse have had some difficult decisions to make. Some quickly saw they should cash out their investment, swallow losses and back the survivors. But most didn’t.
There is still the outside possibility MP could be reinstated somewhere. I’d put nothing past the C of E, although their own National Safeguarding Team publicly denounced his 40 years of coercive control. I suggest they’ve cashed out.
Most people have gone silent, or issued mealy-mouthed minimising statements or repositioned themselves some distance from MP. They want to be seen on the right side of history when the dust settles.
Some people dig in and continue backing their horse. They’ve already lost their money, so figure they can’t lose any more, whereas if they had pulled out earlier they could have salvaged some credibility for their own reputations.
Leaders are to be held to a higher standard of conduct, not have decades of really bad behaviour covered up. This was enabled by a celebrity culture of mutual backslapping. This MUST change.
However I suspect what will actually happen is that all the Pilavachi-esque techniques will be retained like similar techniques were retained after Sheffield. MP will continue to be quietly edited out of (website) history and eventually the toxic “Soul Survivor” brand name dropped.
How many other high profile leaders will we continue today back unquestionably? Let’s learn an important lesson here, not to put our faith in idols?
Jesus said “Simon, Simon, Satan has desired to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you. When you have turned back – strengthen your brethren.”
God does not give up on any of us – we are all very fallible mortals saved by grace, and he forgives, renews and rebuilds if we turn to him, whoever we are, whatever we’ve done since becoming Christians. That is his eternal policy.
Like Steve, I have no ‘investment’ in Mike – indeed never heard of him (!) till this trouble and have no interest in kicking a brother who’s down. But this is not his end – I sincerely hope that God will bring him through all these troubles and give him a fresh start where he can use the experiences to help other people struggling with life. And the same applies to every single one of us. We all have the potential to go wrong – sometimes very badly wrong, so need to walk closely and humbly with the one who keeps us safe.
The basic problem is not Mike, or HTB or anything else – the problem is US. We have a very bad habit of putting people on pedestals, subjecting them to pressures they are not able to bear, and then wondering why it all goes wrong. We need to remember God has declared it a level playing field – we’re all sinners, saved by grace and none of us are actually any better than the rest. What’s wrong with the church? Well, me for a start – never mind the person next to me.
What matters is that God’s grace renews us – Christ restored Peter, and would have done so for Judas, had he chosen to repent. “His blood can make the foulest clean – his blood availed for me…” We all need to hang on to that.