One of the perennial questions in all the discussions about safeguarding, in whatever context, is how to establish exactly who are the ‘vulnerable adults’ to be protected from harm. No one argues against the idea that all children under 18 should be always regarded as vulnerable. Children need constant protection from any adults who might wish them harm of some kind. However, the creation of a fixed boundary between those under and those over 18 will often feel arbitrary and unsatisfactory. Men and women do not suddenly acquire wisdom and the ability to protect themselves after reaching a particular birthday. Thus, we have, in law and in the regulations that apply to social care, further attempts to describe the idea of vulnerability as it might apply to adults who have passed their 18th birthday. Without repeating these definitions, a vulnerable adult is any individual who is considered in need of an appropriate level of social or legal protection because of some mental or physical affliction. In many cases the existence of vulnerability is clear to the observer. The legal system does not pursue a case against someone who is deemed ‘unfit to plead’. Social workers become involved with other manifestations of vulnerability in parents, where their children are clearly uncared for, physically or mentally. Formal definitions of who is considered a vulnerable adult can easily be found through a google search. These definitions are going to be similar whether we encounter them in a social work context or in the setting of a church. Such definitions are fairly limited; some examples of what we might think should be regarded as coming into this category from a common-sense perspective are excluded. Is the adult brought up in extreme poverty and only able to survive through shop lifting to be judged in precisely the same way as someone who commits the same crime in a position of affluence? Vulnerability can be experienced in a whole host of contexts and the official definitions can only capture part of the reality. Every adult may also enter an experience of vulnerability at some stage in their lives. It is not a question of a fixed character trait; it may be one of situation and circumstance. An obvious and clear example I can mention is to say that any individual who suffers bereavement and the loss of a partner should be considered vulnerable. There are other displays of mental affliction, like severe depression, which affect judgement and decision making. Whatever definitions are offered us in official government documents and the safeguarding literature, vulnerability is probably a characteristic of every human being at some point in their lives. Instead of attempting to define the meaning of vulnerability, perhaps we should show the qualities of an individual who has been taught how to flourish and be able, as the Prayer Book puts it in prayer for the Sovereign, ‘to have a right judgment in all things’. I would like to see a list of definitions as to what to look for in the fully functioning human being who has achieved the stage of not in any way deserving the description of ‘vulnerable’. These definitions would probably only apply to a relatively small group.
I have recently come across a collection of online videos produced by a filmmaker Sam Howson who has had years of experience in the evangelical/charismatic world. He recognises and discusses the dilemmas faced by this culture and he says some interesting things about the ministry of Mike Pilavachi. Among the useful insights shared by Howson is summed up in a two-word heading – Adult Grooming. Grooming, the gradual building up of a trusting but potentially exploitable bonding by one who is powerful with another who is less powerful, is a well-understood dynamic in abusive relationships. Most people can see that the victim of such a relationship is clearly ‘vulnerable’, and Howson shows how the victims of grooming come from right across the age spectrum. In short, anyone can be made vulnerable when leaders, skilled in the art of grooming, direct these abilities on to another human being.
So far, we have identified three groups of people with different relationships to vulnerability. The first group are those that society and the caring professions identify as lacking agency and are in some way in need of care and protection. This group would include the sick, the frail and all children under 18, Then there is another group which consists of people who are the self-sufficient types. This group manage their lives with strength and confidence and make a point of refusing to admit any degree of vulnerability in their lives. This relatively small group are typically found among the leaders in an organisation like the Church. They have been conditioned by their social and educational background to believe that any sign of vulnerability is also sign of weakness and thus incompatible with the status of a leader. They thus put themselves above the experience of vulnerable individuals and simultaneously resist experiencing any identification with them. Is this disavowal of the survivor’s experience in church context on the part of leaders, and so frequently complained about by them, part of the psychological profile of the church leaders who deal insensitively with survivors? Is this another aspect of the narcissism that we have claimed is so rampant among the ‘ruling elite’ who manage our church but seem so disconnected from the pain and grief of those who have suffered abuse at the hands of church servants.
The third category of the ‘vulnerable’ are the bulk of church members. They are not formally vulnerable or among the abused or damaged in some way; rather they recognise that they are, together with the vast majority, susceptible in some situations to bullying, controlling techniques like grooming or other forms of abuse. They are vulnerable in the sense that they have no built-in methods of complete protection from such behaviour. They may have some self-protection techniques, such as a degree of institutional status. This may not prove to be sufficient to see off the groomer, the manipulator or the bully. The victim will not aways have the right words or support to help them emerge unscathed from someone else’s bad behaviour. The group of ‘vulnerable’ adults that Howson is especially referring to in his videos are young people who have been manipulated by well-established group techniques of crowd control. There are also widely used methods of using music to render individuals open to particular mood states. Those of us outside this culture of charismatic ‘worship’ have surely good reason to ask about this style of music. Is this music directing a highly susceptible (vulnerable) congregation to find God or is it somehow cementing the control of a leader over a large group of young people? In criticising a figure like Mike Pilavachi, one would welcome far more informed discussion about the part music plays in creating a vulnerability to different forms of manipulation. If there is a form of control being exercised at such events as Soul Survivor; is it not about time that some expressions of worship were examined and understood as grooming and thus a safeguarding matter?
Howson’s reference to ‘grooming adults’ seems to be saying, as I have been, that control in a negative sense is a risk for far more people than just for those who are officially labelled as vulnerable. Most people are vulnerable at some point in their lives. This potentiality for being vulnerable goes up exponentially when they enter a crowd situation, skilfully manipulated by a toxic narcissistic leader. We need to understand these dynamics far better that we do as they flow through ordinary and charismatic churches alike. Ordinary Christians are convinced, often after minimal reflection, that the music and charged atmosphere in a church gathering is inevitably the work of God. There is no questioning or doubting. The lack of any scrutiny as to what is going on, makes these congregations vulnerable in a dangerous sense. Without scrutiny many Christians of the student generation become susceptible to grooming. They are thus ripe for emotional, financial or even sexual abuse. The tools of discernment are currently needed more than ever before. Unless the Pilavachis, Fletchers and Balls are called out and named before they wreak havoc, ordinary Christians will continue to be in danger and the church is everywhere weakened and discredited with the wider public. Each church scandal that appears in the pages of the Daily Telegraph inevitably weakens the church’s witness, and the power to transform society retreats further from the realms of possibility.
To conclude. Sam Howson is helping us to see more clearly that grooming and other forms of manipulation are a potential threat to large numbers of ordinary church members. While most church congregations are led by individuals of the highest integrity and skill, the recent decades have revealed examples of the dangerous havoc wreaked on ordinary congregations by leaders interested in wielding power. Their victims would never normally have been considered vulnerable, but opportunistic leaders have made them so. We note that the particular group most in danger of becoming vulnerable to malign activity of maverick leaders are the student population that are drawn to crowded ‘successful’ churches in the university cities of Britain. Historically speaking, this group seems to have suffered the most from predatory power-hungry leaders. The protection of this cohort from such exploitation, before it happens, should be the priority of older church leaders who have acquired wisdom and maturity through having moved in many settings and have learnt to identify the wholesome from what may be toxic and abusive.
One particular thing that concerns me, and Sam Howson touches on this too, is how reasonably well adjusted (and not obviously particularly vulnerable) young people get suckered into internships. Bishop Peter Ball offered “give a year to Christ” schemes, the Soul Survivor internships have been extensively critiqued by, for example James Heywood, and many other “successful” churches offer similar paths.
Young people may of course thrive in these schemes, but many don’t, wasting their early years and derailing otherwise promising careers. The “Soul survivors” podcast produced by Megan Cornwell (Premier Christian Radio) also illustrated this.
Healthy people were harmed. Let’s call this out.
Absolutely! Have seen harm done by groups like New Wine.
Sam Howson’s videos are “stream of consciousness” and take some patience and respect for him to watch and follow. I have yet to look at them all.
He is obviously trying retrospectively to understand his past experience….and raises real issues about “evangelical/charismatic” culture and work with Christian young adults.
I too continue with this task, which has continued for over half a century!
These early years are very formative……or good or ill.
There are many themes worthy of unpacking.
For example, In the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUhskyRuUcA he reflects on the infantilising nature of some of the theology and practice of “prophecy” current in many churches.
In my Phd thesis ” the well from which we drink is poisoned- clergy sexual exploitation of adult women 2009 ( London metropolitan University )explores grooming and entrapment .a high % of women had been abused in childhood. Both married and celebite clergy offended. groooming must be understood
Thank you for your comment and insight, Margaret. Clergy spouses are also vulnerable.
Deep, deep respect for you Margaret, for all you have achieved and for your thesis which is still being seen as ground breaking today. Perhaps you could add a link to it so that others may read it. Sadly little has moved on adult abuse is still seen as ‘affairs’ by both male and female senior clergy.
You were my first life line Margaret and your courage, perception and compassion are things I will always treasure.
That sounds like an important study, Margaret. Has it been published?
Here is an internet link
https://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/7608/
Vulnerable to sin or abuse? That’s the whole of humanity really!
Yes, you are right there. Bullies don’t necessarily pick on the obviously weak and vulnerable. Those who are orientated towards stoicism, outlasting their bullies, and bravery often suffer prolonged abuse without complaint. So too much strength can paradoxically be a weakness. Moderation in all things has a lot of merit!
Part of the groomong is ensuring that those around the predator will only see the positive side of the abuser so that allegations of abuse, when they arise will not be believed
Yes, odd how so many para-Church and Church abusers, plus con artists covering up their savagery, have a perceived ‘gift’ of charm and charisma. There should be a ‘Saville alert factor’! Life skills or qualifications often seem to be an obstacle in Church programmes.
‘Grooming’ and ‘ghosting’ can be unhelpful words to include in conversation or reports. Bullying, harassment and rape (or attempted rape) have a direct meaning, with no one reaching for a dictionary to try and work out the message conveyed.
Dumbed down theology, blaspheming Holy Spirit, has devastated everybody including the whole of society (because what they bound on earth is bound in heaven, but they will claim that was only advertising). According to doctrine, God doesn’t want to have your cooperation or discretion.
Reading this I begin to wonder if the combination of confident charismatic leaders and managers coupled with very complex procedures and voluminous paperwork sent late in the day to amateur volunteers results in general Synod effectively being
“groomed” into complacency and compliance.
Yes! Luke 1:1, 2, 3 etc…..
The primacy of plain witness evidence mattered to the Early Church. But not the modern C of E one suspects………..
The combination of an attractive, ‘charismatic’ and very confident personality , official role as vicar or bishop, direct line to the Holy Spirit and access to information can be very risky. When allied to deference and lack of suspicion in the congregation the ingredients are there for abuse.
There is a further difficulty inasmuch as any group that is trusted re abuse, whoever they might be, police, doctors, teachers, and social workers included as much a ministers, will be an immediate magnet for abusers to try to infiltrate so that they can carry on their abuse. We must have sufficient ramparts to stop them storming strongholds. That Savile was a ‘gatekeeper’ who fronted the video ‘Stranger Danger’, thereby leading children to think that if anyone was safe he was is something we must never ever forget.
I think ‘power imbalance’ is a better regulatory measure than ‘vulnerability’. All of us have the potential to be vulnerable if someone considerably more powerful and influential chooses to try and exploit, bully, ignore or abuse us. I certainly discovered this to my cost in recent years, after most of my adult life in Church of England ministry, and I’d view myself as extremely robust! Fortunately, with therapeutic support, I was able to see things as they really were and take the financial, mental and spiritual hit and walk away. Many cannot. The devastating experience won’t ever leave me.
Witnessed and was a victim of sadistic ill-treatment by senior New Wine/ Church workers. Instinct rang loads of alarm bells. But it took a distinguished senior cleric to intervene from the periphery-naming the beast (or beasts)at work-before I properly took stock of the savagery. The senior cleric advised me how there was kangaroo court justice, with national law and church rules wantonly being ignored. Eternally grateful for their wise advice on unethical and/or unlawful Church activity, and the need to urgently escape risk of further abuse………
This discussion reminds me of one, on a different social media platform, about “scams”. A women sent some huge sum of money to a scammer using AI to persuade her he was Brad Pitt and wanted to marry her. You could say she was catastrophically stupid (especially as her daughter was begging her not to do it….) or you could say she was desperately in need of love and affection. Did she contribute? What moral responsibility do we have to engage brain, use reason, think, seek guidance, to make ourselves less “vulnerable”?
Some people felt that any suggestion that victims of scams might share some responsibility was “victim blaming” and dismissed it out of hand. I’m not so sure.
If I leave a handbag full of money on the seat of an open car, am greedy enough to fall for an investment offer which seems “too good to be true”, or convince myself that somebody who wants to go to bed with me must really love me, do I not share some of the responsibility?
Topical, and a fair point on scams! But-and it’s a really big but-each human decision is based on a mix of intuition and reason. Logical positivists may try some counterarguments, yet human life in reality thrusts a conveyor belt of rapid choices, with options inevitably taken on the basis of incomplete-inadequate analysis. ‘Best guess’ is the best we have to go on often.
Paranoia can paralyse us into making no meaningful choices, perhaps paradoxically the worst choice in lots of situations, but over-adventurous zeal and excess optimism can see us commit time or money to groups or people who exploit us and disappoint. No easy answer! Is taking zero risks the very riskiest way to live? Of course, this in no way exonerates charismatic-evangelical leaders or teams, who exploit other people’s naive generosity, time or wages.
The leading strand of the Church of England is the HTB movement. Soul Survivor- trained interns populate its leadership across a vast network of taken-over churches and seeded congregations. It has its own summer festival “Focus”, and extant festivals such as New Wine offer similar belief systems.
Are these beliefs myths?
The majority of people who participate, do to a lesser extent than to have much real impact on their lives, one way or another. They are bystanders. A few of our number push on to take things further. They get earmarked for further ministry, a calling that resonates with their deep desire for God, or is it to be up front perhaps in a narcissistic way? We all have this propensity.
In retrospect what we saw with Pilavachi (isn’t hindsight a great thing?) was that he applied cynically his ministrations on numerous young (usually good looking) people. Individually and privately he told them what a great future God had for them. He cemented this initially with tricks of temporary closeness and glamorous overseas “ministry trips”. Once he’d fallen in love, and became too close, you were dropped and replaced with the next gifted person.
Being on stage and being “anointed” or otherwise preferred are intoxicating experiences. Being in music, particularly so. These are hard drugs to ignore. That the rest of the vast swathes of encouraging bystanders seem to affirm us in this, makes it a very unusual choice indeed to step off the stage. Rationally you would stay, wouldn’t you? Of course as we have heard from many, despite their impressive commitment to the tasks (and to fleeting glamour dare I say it) many are called and many were dispensed with.
The group dynamic perpetuates these aforementioned traumas to a continuing set of young(ish) casualties. There are hundreds of thousands of bystanders still participating in this system. A few are learning what happens when you get too involved, but most are blissfully ignorant. Still. Now.
Until everyone wakes up to what’s going on in our midst, stops sending their young people “over the top” like this, then we will continue to generate long term abusive leaders like Mike. It’s all our responsibility.
I recall hearing a grovelling New Wine star implore teenagers and younger people to radically commit, and pay their full tithe because this was ever so important. An older adult understanding of the Bible makes me question if the tithe conveniently undercuts what the NT actually directs, and if the NT priority is provision for the poor, not Church and para-Church tyrannies or bureaucracies. The New Wine star of course promised how blessings would always follow the tithe etc…….Not sure if avoidance of suffering is a biblical promise! Prosperity preaching etc…..
Anyone can be, or become vulnerable. And while you’re in that state, …. Well, people say “why didn’t she just leave?” Anyone who has had experience of abuse should know the answer to that .
We have had to consider who is a vulnerable adult in our church following the grooming of several members by someone who would be described as powerless in our community, but who was adept at ‘borrowing’ money – collectively around £100,000 and a car. Those who ‘lent’ the money could not objectively be called ‘vulnerable’ except they were generous and trusting. The abuser was eventually arrested and charged, but the money was gone on gambling. Any adults can be groomed. It is often adults who are groomed by the abusers of their children – even cases like John Smythe could not take place if powerful people were not seduced into believing he was ‘good’.
‘The Church family’ is a much thrown around word cluster. Various demands for money, from treasurers or vicars or other congregation members, can play into the ‘contributing to the family’ theme. I have witnessed lots of financial abuse and bullying cases. There is one very large question just now, for those disillusioned people staying on the fringe of Anglican life after negative experiences. Is there a strong case for a zero (or minuscule) yearly Church contribution just now, perhaps with an appropriate explanation for this to the congregation, treasurer or vicar?
I recall a case, early in my Christian experience, in which a vicar got the treasurer to ‘divert’ the income from a relatively minor bequest to one of his pet projects; she had seen what happened to people who crossed him, was frightened of the same happening to her, and did what he wanted. It ended with him leaving – in an unseemly hurry.
Part of the problem is to do with evangelical psychology – we’re conditioned to trust one another and constantly pressurised to give financial support to differing ‘ministries’ etc – ‘God loves a cheerful giver’ and ‘you can never out-give God’ kind of routine. Certain American evangelists are dab hands at it, and imported it into this country via the so-called ‘Prosperity Gospel’ – which isn’t a gospel at all. The church is very good at making us feel guilty if it thinks we haven’t done or given enough – past masters at psychological manipulation.
A teenager or student is often enticed to ‘tithe’. This can continue into people’s 20’s or 30’s. Evangelical groups harvest in money from lots of naive and time pressured people. A lot of that money can be spent on fundraising and marketing. The cycle continues!
Money to a local Church has the advantage of the giver witnessing what the Church actually does. UK charity rules mean the yearly parish accounts can be given some degree of online scrutiny.
But the yearly finances of bigger evangelical groups can be harder to comprehend. I see huge merit in believers just familiarising themselves with core evidences like creation, conscience and the life of Christ. Why pay others to share the Gospel?
Also, why give para-Church mission groups money, when there are deals like ‘Your Verdict on the Empty Tomb’ X100 copies for £100 with 10ofThose? To make some personal effort to share the evidence for belief has merit.
What does the NT direct? Is money to para-Church group’s referenced, or is kindness to the poor the main NT emphasis on money?
What about the query of sexualised grooming by Pilavachi? Should there be an immediate and acute look into that by a new and independent panel? The question of adult grooming may be very much alive. But how are Church and para-Church groups handling this?
New here after googling something else. Excuse my lack of eloquence, I’m no intellectual or expert and indeed I understand if my post is deleted. Not born into a ‘Christian’ family I was just a working class kid who tried to make something of her life. I emigrated to South Africa in the 1990s and finally attended a Rhema church in 2012 after years of severe depression. To be honest it was life changing, in that I was grabbed by Jesus and led back to him. I had been into the occult for years and all that nonsense. I’m a single mum, I’m also a social worker (or was). I had a profound experience in South Africa where I felt the love of Jesus, that’s the experience I take with me daily. However, I was a bit of a pariah in church, an ex tarot reader, single mum etc etc. I finally retuned to the UK in 2013. I joined one of the vineyard churches and of course was ‘put forward’ for lots and lots of deliverance. I was very vulnerable at the time. However, I did see clearly how vulnerable, depressed people are by some churches manipulated by those seeking a way into the narrow door. Even though years before I had stopped all the occult stuff, met Jesus (I can’t even explain that in words). The church said it was the devil I met with, and I felt like ‘A beginner’. I’ve had more deliverance than hot tea, no single man came near me in church as I was tarnished in their eyes. Then at some point, I ran a service for adults suffering with mental illness and I saw grooming in action from the church. This wasn’t your typical grooming you see on the TV, it’s subtle and manipulative. Sometimes it really set the client back, they felt so unworthy and then guilty if they didn’t return to church. What I disliked the most was the way the church ‘sat on the fence’ with our clients. They needed love, acceptance and hope – everything Jesus came to teach, but received an almost rehearsed script from our church visitors . I wasn’t popular with our church visitors, I wasn’t bothered. But I was bothered by the after effects of clients never feeling good enough. I haven’t joined a church again since getting sick of being ‘delivered’ over and over. To be fair, in the end I realised I was never going to fit a church mould and was far too outspoken not to take the church on, head on. You know, grooming is a funny old thing, it’s subtle and pleasing, it’s everywhere. One wonders how many people who attend church don’t speak up. I guess as a social worker I may see grooming in all its levels but it can at times be so subtle. It’s subtle because when people explain what is happening to them, they don’t see it as grooming. Giving smaller then larger amounts of money away, throwing away all their belongings to live a ‘pure’ life. Coming off of medication is the big one, the church tried this with me and it was disastrous. I’ll be on anti depressants for the rest of my life. If I go back to church and tell them this I’m sure I’ll be directed to the ‘deliverance chamber’ again.
Hi Milly, thanks for your powerful testimony. Much appreciated, Steve
Often typical! Before I became openly analytical I would intuit when things didn’t quite stack up and then my body language would give away my semi detachment anyway! I’ve always been adamant since earliest infancy that Jesus was not given me by any institution (even if their ancestors played a role in passing on some insights). The tragedies were when I temporarily fell for it, and later when I watched others suffering this.
Thanks for sharing this, Milly. I adore the plain words of Ezekiel 36: 25-26, as a later life convert from atheism. There can be a lot of huffing and puffing in some modern versions of so-called deliverance. Our Lord simply spoke and things typically happened immediately. I have come to view some people who excessively promote deliverance as bullies and abusers. A distinguished senior cleric advised me to seek distance from one such group several years ago. It was some of the best advice I have ever received. That really was deliverance!!! Abusers can use camouflage, manipulation and craft with incredible skilfulness.