One of the hazards of using a computer is that occasionally documents disappear into cyberspace, never to be recovered. With all the recent excitement of a nomination for the new Archbishop of Canterbury, and the pressing need to say something on the topic for this blog, I put to one side a post I was writing on the Durham University Study of the survivors of Mike Pilavachi. Then I saw this earlier post disappear in a massive computer failure. I am now up and running again with a new s/h computer but have had to start completely from scratch with my assessment of this important Durham document. It is one which I commend to all my readers with some enthusiasm.
What is the reason for my strong approval of this Durham document written by Nina and Jonas Kurlberg and Mike Higton? I am struck, first of all, by the fact that is a document that turns the normal approach to safeguarding topics completely upside down. Most documents on abuse and safeguarding in the Church begin with an examination of the issue from the perspective of the institution. What went wrong and how can we in the church institution do better in the future? These are the typical questions faced by many reports over the last couple of decades. This new report, Resetting the balance – Listening to testimonies of harm in the Mike Pilavachi Case, starts in another place, the experience and reflections of survivors of an abusive ministry. The authors have interviewed a representative cohort of those who were harmed by Pilavachi and we, as readers, are allowed to glimpse the way these victims understood the dynamics and processes of these harmful events. This story of these events mentions bishops and safeguarding officers, but they are nowhere at the centre of the narrative. What is at the centre of the text is a vivid account of the experience of victims and their involvement and relationship with the chief actor, Mike Pilavachi. He was at the centre of the Soul Survivor movement over a significantly long period and much of the harm recounted in this report is as the result of his behaviour and actions.
In reading the report, I am reminded of the numerous books and articles penned by cult survivors. Cults (and this would apply to many ‘orthodox’ religious groups) seldom sell themselves to the outside public by promoting their teaching in a written form. Few ever became a Moonie, a Scientologist or even a member of a church plant through picking up literature and deciding that this was the way forward for them. While there may be exceptions to such a generalisation, the groups that proselytise (good and bad) suggest that religious conversion is almost always a social event. By this I mean to indicate the way that individuals, pre-conversion, may find themselves drawn to associate with a group of apparently congenial people. This normally begins as a social encounter, an invitation to a meal or a meeting. Over time those invited may be subjected to some social pressure or what is described in some cases as ‘love-bombing’. At some point they may find themselves caught up in the ideology of the group, much of which may have been hidden at the start of the association. Speaking generally, people are converted to cults successfully when one or both of two elements are in evidence. The first is a quality of community involvement which is unavailable elsewhere. The would-be convert is offered the chance to belong. Most of us were afforded the experience of belonging by our families of origin but, by the time we reach student/university age, we are ready for a different kind of belonging. The offer of belonging that all spiritual groups hold outto their young seekers is often compelling. A second important ingredient is the presence of a leader who possesses qualities of attractiveness and charisma to the would-be convert.
The ‘Pilavachi effect’, at the heart of the Durham report, meant that large numbers of young people were drawn into the orbit of Mike Pilavachi. They had become fascinated by his apparent spiritual giftedness, insight and sheer overwhelming physical presence. The dynamics that were in operation are well described in the report, and they give us a sense of how the control over individuals by a charismatic figure is experienced. The report is strongly focussed on Pilavachi’s relationship with individuals who formed part of the close inner circle of devotees. By being close to the leader, these ‘chosen’ individuals thought themselves to be highly privileged and special. In fact, they were placing themselves in a place of danger. Being close to Pilavachi meant that they risked being harmed by his habits of manipulation and fickleness shown to any he was close to. We are left to speculate on the reasons for the harm that was a feature of so many of Pilavachi’s relationships with his closest followers. These young people had to endure inconsistent pastoral care, ghosting and sudden inexplicable blanking or withdrawal from relationships built up over a period of time. One possible explanation for what was cruel behaviour, is to suggest that Pilavachi saw his relationships with his devotees as a means of obtaining some kind of sexualised gratification and power. To enhance his enjoyment of this kind of power, there had to be a constant supply of new and fresh relationships to be available. Once a new follower had been found who met his gratification needs at that moment, another existing relationship could be let go or switched off in some way. There was a significant sexual dimension to some of these close relationships, as suggested by the massages and wrestling with young male followers. These physical encounters, although highly unconventional and questionable, did not stray into actual criminal behaviour, so they were accepted as an example of an eccentricity – Mike being Mike. No one was sufficiently clear-eyed as to be able to see the pattern of a cultic system where a leader manipulates, for his own emotional ends, the feelings and affections of numbers of victims. His personality and giftedness were just too dominating for anyone to understand, let alone challenge. Years of ‘successful’ work with young people which the wider Church and the honours system wanted to recognise, gave Pilavachi a form of immunity from the demands of proper supervision or oversight. The Church of England seems to behave like an innocent in refusing to question the skills of those operating with the techniques of charismatic leadership. It also seems unwilling to accept the way that leaders and congregations can easily be corrupted by the power dynamics in such churches. There are dozens of examples of these dynamics in operation within the posts of this blog. The language of psychology and sociology helps us to recognise that styles of leadership are potentially dangerous and toxic. So much more work needs to be done that our Church can be protected from destructive styles of leadership which are incubated in superficial theology-lite styles of church practice emerging every week right across the country.
The Durham report is an important one to be understood by church leaders across the board. By reflecting on and learning from the examples of damaging and toxic relationships in a church setting, we may be helped to prevent such styles of ministry ever appearing in the first place. Some churches, like that of Pilavachi, offer patterns of ministry and pastoral care that are damaging and abusive. When this is the case, we can usually trace the problem back to the social and psychological needs of the leader. As with cultic groups, we find gatherings of Christians meeting ostensibly to worship God. When we go deeper, we find that the congregation is operating to provide for the needs, not of its members, but to serve the emotional and narcissistic appetite of leaders. Such a dynamic must first be thoroughly understood and then be expelled from the Church, if it is to have a chance to meet the deeper spiritual needs of our nation.
The Durham Report is valuable. One thing that struck me was a relatively small sample size, or so it seemed to me, of the numbers of different testimonies available. Of course there are many reasons survivors might be understandably reticent about disclosure.
We’ve already discussed here in detail the scale of the impact of Soul Survivor across Christendom. Mike Pilavachi had a well-documented worldwide ministry across numerous different church streams and indeed age demographics, not just to the young people in his Anglican Church plant and the Festival.
When the Durham Report was published I was surprised how little coverage about it there was. But I’m realising that there is a sort of Pilavachi fatigue. It’s obviously not something people want to keep hearing about, probably because his persona and methodology remain integral to people’s Christian identity and formation.
Was it all real? Was God really doing the stuff they said he was? How much can we trust the people schooled in Pilavachi’s methods? Like can we trust ourselves?
No wonder people want this to go away, so we can carry on as normal. These are hard existential questions for a committed Christian. And we don’t really want to ask them, let alone know the answers.
My own perspective is that if we can’t face facts, our faith isn’t cracked up to much.
I recommend reading the Durham Report.
Young people can enjoy the same highs they had at Soul Survivor, or for that matter any mega church styled charismatic church, from sex, drugs, elite sport, rock and pop concerts.
We assume these highs are Holy Spirit experiences to our peril.
What Stephen doesn’t acknowledge at all here is the neuroscience behind somatic experiences on the vagus nerve, trauma, and the addictive nature and quality of them, including charismatic worship highs.
When 1 in every 4/5 young people experience self-harm, that is indicative of high levels of rejection, internal pain, and trauma.
The use of charismatic worship to induce highs in young people is no longer random but deliberate, and is equal, if not greater than the charismatic cult and increasing stage/d performance of personality Stephen highlights.
I think a discussion on post traumatic growth and the neuroscience involved would make a wonderful post.
In our survivor support group for men here in Australia a huge amount of healing comes from sharing the neuro science of trauma.
Perhaps you could write something that could be posted here Chrissie.
‘the neuroscience behind somatic experiences on the vagus nerve, trauma, and the addictive nature and quality of them…’ Thanks, Chrissie. Can you point us to where we might learn more?
‘The use of charismatic worship to induce highs in young people is no longer random but deliberate…’ There have always been some charlatans deliberately manipulating people to produce ‘religious’ highs, and not just in the charismatic movement. But some charismatics, such as John Wimber and the Kansas City Prophets, were particularly egregious.
Even Billy Graham deliberately scattered the trained ‘counsellors’ among the audiences at his crusades. These were primed to get up and move forward when Billy gave the ‘invitation’, so that people would think the counsellors were moving forward to be saved. The reasoning was that others would then be promoted to follow suit. It seemed to work.
Tricky turf! Have Moravian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Catholic groups etc…etc…etc all seen revivals where raw emotion featured? But emotionalism and manipulation can be counterfeits. When business, money and numerical results are to the fore, then it’s easy to get cynical about some groups. Watch out for authoritarian figures who have zero respect for national law, agreed Church policies or biblical principles of justice. There have been a range of spectacular blessings with charismatic renewal in recent decades. But I saw some horror story stuff get cynically covered up by one group-NEW WINE.
Billy Graham was a freemason. How does one combine that with being a Christian I wonder.
The charismatic movement is simply the Montanist heresy …and ancient thorn in the side of Christendom, ….but it was repackaged and sold on in and 80s
The modern Charismatic Movement actually dates back to the Azusa St revival in the 1920s.
Do you have evidence for Billy Graham being a Freemason? I’d be interested to check it out.
The Azusa Street revival actually began in 1906. The fact that many of those were black wasn’t often mentioned! Interestingly, one of Pentecostalism’s chief early proponents in Britain, in about 1913, was Alexander Boddy, Vicar of All Saints’ in Sunderland. Another was Cecil Polhill-Turner, one of the famous “Cambridge Seven” missionaries who went to China in around 1890.
While we’re mentioning early Pentecostalism, let’s remember the Welsh Revival of 1904 (which Alexander Boddy attended), and that the movement was well under way at All Saints Monkwearmouth in 1908 (where Boddy had been vicar since the 1890s). Those more attuned to the movement than I am will no doubt have other things to add.
sorry, ‘prompted’ to follow suit
There’s a basic misconception within charismatic circles that anything in the way of emotional highs or dramatic experiences which happens in a church is automatically due to the Holy Spirit. ‘That ain’t necessarily so’…… and, I’m afraid is one reason why I prefer to stay well away from organised charismatic events.
And yet, without the Holy Spirit I have, and am nothing.
I’d suggest reading ‘The Post Charismatic Experience’ (forget who it’s by) for some good plain common sense. The charisma is all about being empowered by openness to our Saviour, for service to his body and the wider community; not about emotional highs from whatever source of input!
And it is most certainly NOT about self glorification. (Ambitious wannabee leadership candidates please take note….)
‘Years of ‘successful’ work with young people which the wider Church and the honours system wanted to recognise, gave Pilavachi a form of immunity from the demands of proper supervision or oversight.’
DARVO perhaps far better describes what we see with MP. Was there passive immunity? Or did victims and witnesses, seeking to whistleblow, get aggressively silenced or driven away?
I have seen DARVO with New Wine trainees. Innocent victims were unfairly accused of sexual misconduct, in very crude or foul language. Yet when they tried to report this they were branded troublemakers, dismissed, or illegally barred from ministry opportunities after completing a ministry training programme.
I just get really fed up with ‘lessons learnt’ nonsense. A report without clear and crisp conclusions is unhelpful. The fundamental problem, in many Anglican or para-Church scandals, is a blasphemous contempt for biblical principles of justice. But few senior leaders will ever honestly acknowledge this.
It’s like the queue to castigate gay or lesbian people in sections of the Church. Yet 10-11-12 million missing UK souls, as a result of abortion, mainly connected to heterosexual sex one might imagine, hardly gets a mention from most senior Anglican leaders. Doolally Mullally does not seem to mind abortion. Maybe she should abort the Church, or better still abort her own career.
The 10 to 12 million missing souls that you mention. There is much to unravel here.
Firstly, where would these babies (hopefully with mothers) actually live? We have a housing crisis and a million migrants have joined our population each year for the past 4 years. They get priority for social housing. Uk born mother and baby families, usually abandoned by the feckless man, are looking at homelessness. Secondly, if you want to stop unwanted pregnancy, then start with getting rid of Porn. Men and boys develop a hatred towards all females via porn addiction. These leads to attacks and unwanted pregnancies.
Lastly….my point is to put a spotlight on the men and boys whose stupidity creates a baby that is sadly destined to be aborted. They never get held to account for their actions. But the anti abortionists will not do much to stop the problem unless they communicate with those who create unwanted babies. That is the porn addicted men and boys.
The comment describing Sarah M as doolally…seems unmanly and immature to me. I think that her attitude towards abortion would be that it is a terrible tragic thing. Obviously for the baby in the womb, but also for the victim of r@pe…or unwanted sex within marriage. But if a female arch Bishop can get men and boys to understand the enormity of the crime of creating unwanted people, then she should be respected. Your cruel attitude and use of playground bully language, does make me despair.
Totally agree.
One poster is displaying outright misogyny towards Sarah Mullaly.
Given it’s continued after Stephen’s warning I think a commenting ban is in order.
Yes, I agree too.
Durham Report really affirms what we know already about MP. Apologies in advance to vegans or vegetarians, but I cannot help seeing Anglican Safeguarding (and wider anti-bullying strategies) as being like trout fishermen going after salmon for the first time. The power and acceleration of a salmon mean that 4lb line and size 14 hooks will simply not do the job. Do the Anglican Church, and associated para-Church evangelical groups (e.g. New Wine), both lack the tackle to deal with bullying? The 12lb breaking strain fly cast used for salmon fishing is there for a purpose. Likewise, Anglicanism needs clerics and laity who will robustly challenge serial bullies, and independent safeguarding to examine bullying reports. There is no shortcut here. No amount of ‘lessons learnt’ or ‘scoping reports’ will do the job,
Nice allegory, James!
Physician heal thyself. Your comments give the impression that you are a bully, when you describe Sarah M. I know little about her. She is a human being who has survived a “hate women” culture of the Church of England. For that courage, she deserves respect. Do you understand? If so please stop being silly and man-up a bit.
Take a look at NHS website’s Dating Scan image of the unborn at around three months. How can ex-nurse be a Pro-Choice Archbishop of Canterbury?
A Primate who will not blow the whistle on UK abortion is a complete waste of space in my estimation? My prayer is for her to be replaced ASAP.
Also, how can we be serious on child and adult abuse, if we as a church fail to protect vulnerable unborn humans?
What has this to do with the report on Mike Pilavachi? Can we please stick to the topic?
This topic seems to have derailed into off topic areas . Agree that we should moderate our language especially in hot zone areas. By sticking on topic we preserve the safety of all of us followers of SC especially surrounding discussions about early terminations given the passionate feelings of both sides in the debate and for many who have lived experience reading these comments.
‘Words are precious cups of meaning’ according to one Church Father. I really cannot see a vast amount of harm in an honest exchange of ideas. Safety has been compromised in Anglicanism, by repeated attempts to be ‘nice’ rather than ‘honest’.
That can protect any (or every) form of abuser, and protect the senior leaders who cover up abusive maltreatment of people. The golden, and unavoidable rule, is how bullies need to be challenged. That is exactly what has not happened in the Anglican Church, with entirely predictable consequences.
Our Lord calls us to protect the vulnerable, and we ignore prophetic instruction from the divine lips when we do not do this, whatever the context where we have an opportunity to protect human dignity or life.
An honest exchange of ideas is one thing; honest criticism of actions is also ok. But personal insults of church leaders is not OK. If you must criticise, play the ball and not the player.
Besides, BP Mullally is a very intelligent woman and clearly not “doolally’, though her safeguarding record leaves much to be desired.
Gerald Bray 3 Oct 2025 posted: ‘Sarah Mullally: ‘Undertrained and inexperienced’. It is an interesting read. XXXXa VXXXXXXs was intelligent but had a little bit of baggage with the maltreatment of postmasters. Whoops! Do we need to avoid personal criticism-according to your rules-so blank out bits of the name?
The post was addressing the issue of the the ministry of Pilavachi and his creation of cult-like dynamics within the Church. The report gives us plenty to discuss without going down other avenues which are nothing to do with the topic. In future I may have to censor comments which bring unhelpful material into the discussion. Please, commenters stick to the point. Bringing in personal or irrelevant comments spoils the flavour of the discussion which, at its best, is of high quality.
Did trendy “evangelicals” take their eye off the protective prayer ball 55 years ago? Exactly around when Billy Graham was proclaimed a living saint for doing their heavy lifting for them?
Non-illegal sexual talk aimed by authority against schoolchildren in class (not the biology lesson) (promoting predation because “you know you want to / want to be on the receiving end of it”), non-illegal massages, non-illegal abortions, non-illegal fear, prospecting for debutantes, taxi rides or park encounters (such as depicted in a mural once), finessing by social workers (aided by solicitors), poisoned chalices for “distinguished public servants”, thousands of witnesses and no-one to take statements.
The secular arm was always going to have its internal ups and downs. It was the duty of evangelicals – who never lacked influence – to not consider protective prayer unevangelical. Will general administrators have some harsh questions for the spiritual heirs of the spiritless Rector to the Nation at 29, John Stott in the hereafter?
When Maury Blair (see his memoir) reacted to a Billy Graham radio programme it was because the truthful churches stood ready in his neighbourhood that his life and his family’s lives were turned round.
The pretend charismatics don’t believe in Holy Spirit. The real gifts are part of Him. Mrs Jessie Penn-Lewis did much to help the better pentecostals of her time stay better. Some people have got put off the genuine by Wagner / Bentley / HTB style metastasis. The antidote to politicised Jim Jones became politicised moralising.
Thus I think the C of E will improve in cult-quashing and basic respect if there is more prayer (including matins and evensong) and especially if HTB / Church Society / Sozo / superannuated YWAM controllers don’t keep sabotaging local home groups.
We say: we were reduced to burnout and despair. They say: you all walked off in a huff because you won’t bow to compulsory fashion. In fact we did bow to it. We wanted the church to be a church.
They just wanted what they “can” call a church – not the same thing. It takes years or months to figure out what the values, doctrines and procedures are or aren’t (same sex weddings weren’t the issue).
They say: we’re not here for people for whom our “stream” is not to their taste. I call that selfish and denial of service. Never join a parish or “place” that has more than a sole affiliation – the nearest bishop.
Trusting Canterbury Cathedral has lightning and fire insurance……
Not sure how this thread went from legitimate comment to personal attacks on a new Archbishop, but I have to say, please, for Heaven’s sake, give the lady a chance! Play fair with someone who’s agreed to take on a job which seems to be a waking nightmare full of fractured egos and power hungry pressure groups, all nicely coated with a self-righteous varnish. I couldn’t do the job – and honestly doubt if anyone writing on here could, either, if they’re honest.
The comments on the Durham report, particularly from Stephen, Janet and Chrissie resonate with me – albeit I don’t understand the psychological terms Chrissie uses, not having the training. But I recognise the reality behind them from my own experience with a cult fifty years ago – whose greatest achievement was to appear on the cover of Renewal magazine!
That involvement made me very chary of charismatic groups, particularly highly organised ones ever since – and yet I believe very, very firmly in the experience of the Holy Spirit as an essential foundation of the Christian life. I simply keep very well away from anybody who says that I have to be like them, or I’m in some way spiritually wrong.
I’ll say no more at the moment, save that thankfully, Stephen and Janet in particular are very helpful in making sense of past experiences. I dare say we’ll talk more on this subject later……..
The Azusa Street revival actually began in 1906. The fact that many of those were black wasn’t often mentioned! Interestingly, one of Pentecostalism’s chief early proponents in Britain, in about 1913, was Alexander Boddy, Vicar of All Saints’ in Sunderland. Another was Cecil Polhill-Turner, one of the famous “Cambridge Seven” missionaries who went to China in around 1890.
Thank you for these comments and I would like to believe that genuine Christians follow the way of forgiveness and this could be a better basis of pastoral care. If we discover the Holy Spirit through love ‘which passes all understanding ..’ we trust in Him. When there is leadership that in anyway draws us from that truth we must be very wary.
‘Naming the elephant’ by James Sire is an excellent read. It featured on a course booklist some years back. ‘Outrage’ is often driven by unconscious biases, however much loud herd support for a position seems plausible.
There is a huge raw nerve on abortion in modern England, and internal conflict bubbles up because of this: ‘just like getting a bunion removed’ vs. ‘such a sensitive issue we cannot possible allow it ever to be discussed’.
King Charles presently seeks a more meaningful Anglican engagement with the Vatican, and a better ecumenical relationship. Why, then, can the pro-life viewpoint of Anglicans, identical or similar to the Catholic doctrinal position, not be freely expressed?
There is a curious twist here, how oligarchy and censorship have created a buried and covered up Anglican bullying-abuse crisis. Catholicism, in recent years, has been forced into letting the laity much more forcefully, and openly, challenge senior leaders.
A Catholic background person, expressing horror on UK termination of pregnancy, would get a fair hearing. Why should they not question how (or ‘if’) unlimited abortion can be reconciled with the Apostle’s Creed? So why can an Anglican not red-flag exactly the same concern?
The new Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement on abortion is an inconsistent mess. It diminishes my confidence in her ability to ever be a force for good, or a driver of any future clean ups of Church bullying-harassment-abuse.
This is a logical viewpoint, plainly and politely spelt out. Millions of UK Catholics, based on Church doctrine, would surely question the appointment of an Anglican Primate who is Pro-Choice. Anglicans deserve the liberty to do the same.
Any, yes, an Archbishop, who displays gross inconsistency on this big question, has a character flaw which makes her fundamentally unsuitable for the top job. Wait and see.
The fire at 1984 York Minster fire followed inconsistency expressed by a bishop on the Virgin Birth. Hope the fire insurance at Canterbury Cathedral is fixed up!!!
I will have to start removing comments if they go off piste like the last one. I am at a loss to understand how the issues raised in the last comment have anything to do with the main topic. Such random commenting makes it impossible to have a good discussion. Please stick to the subject!!
Paragraph four, above, on Durham Report, says: ‘There was a significant sexual dimension to some of these close relationships, as suggested by the massages and wrestling with young male followers. These physical encounters, although highly unconventional and questionable, did not stray into actual criminal behaviour, so they were accepted as an example of an eccentricity – Mike being Mike’.
Well, no, actually, because no UK factory or school or university or hospital or GP clinic would ever accept this-‘Mike being Mike’-behaviour.’ Boundaries on personal space are learnt extremely early in life. A caution, certainly police interest, might well have followed repeated touching of younger females by MP. Yet younger males suffered this indignity.
Police, clerics, senior overseers, adult church members, younger church members, other trainees, MP himself: the list is a long one, but we really need to ask serious questions about each person or group. I think many contributors to this forum already have a pretty good formulation on the real answer. Was there simply a massive ‘Project Fear’ at work?
https://freedomofmind.com/
The church needs to have a serious look at and understand the BITE model of authoritarian control from Steve Hassan’s work. This can apply to individuals and groups. There needs to be training on this subject maybe under Spiritual Abuse( when ever that comes out ?). The church also needs to understand narcissism and its effects especially in leaders. Chuck De Groat wrote a book when narcissism comes to church. There is quite alot of articles on the web. How long would that take?
A comment has been removed for trying to take the discussion away from the themes of this blog and the points made by other people. Please try and respond to the discussion points made by other people or the original post. We want to hear your insights and experience on the themes of this blog but not on totally random subjects. Individuals who have their comments removed may find that they are put in the queue for moderation before their material appears.
Thank you Father Stephen. Perhaps some of our group supporters and commentators occasionally have bad days often due to trauma triggers .
I value xxx greatly as they often express some magnificent points and has suffered like many of us.
One thing that has helped me when in trauma or triggered is to either do deep breathing, go offline for awhile to calm myself or dive down into compassion and care both for self and to consider how my posts could be read by others.
We all have bad days.
Some moderation keeps everyone safe .
Thanks for keeping this magnificent group a safe place for everyone with our diverse viewpoints.
This ministry is lifesaving and brings together so many good people committed to care compassion support and change.
I mentioned above that, as a very naive young Christian, I got drawn into a very well meaning but ultimately controlling minor cult – it was perhaps inevitable due to my own lack of life experience, hopeless idealism and the general church tenor of a time when Bugbrook and Noel Stanton were regarded as a potentially great role model.
Then it all went wrong – and this may be relevant for this discussion on the Palivachi report. My initial reaction was a severe depression, lasting two months or so, of despair and dread; a sense of hopeless lostness which, thank God, eventually drained away. For a long time, though, I struggled with unreasoning anger – downright hatred even – towards the two people whose behaviour had been responsible for the group’s collapse. That lasted for several years. Then one day I realised what was wrong, repented of holding onto the grudge and let it go.
I was amazed to discover just how much energy I’d been wasting by holding on to the past hurts in that fashion – and to have my experience confirmed by a visiting speaker at church.
It may be worth sharing here – some readers may well be struggling with similar past encounters and benefit from my experiences. Its hard to recognise sometimes, but thankfully we have a friend and saviour who can help us through it. And I’d second Richie’s comment above – this site is very, very valuable. God bless.
How did Pilavachi last for so long in “power” over his extended clan?
For a serious attempt at an answer I recommend watching “Celebrity Traitors” on iPlayer. I’ll attempt not to spoil the plot, but it is very entertaining but also doubles as a valuable social experiment. The winner mirrors aspects of Pilavachi in an uncanny way, inducing an undying faith in him by those around him despite, on reflection, his traitorous antics.
Notably those otherwise recording high “intelligence” consistently failed to recognise his duplicity.
Don’t be put off by “celebrities” in the title, as I initially was. This is compelling viewing. There is also a supporting podcast “Celebrity Traitors uncloaked” which gives a parallel analysis.
But is there possibly a different and important question here? Do the Pilavachi types bullies survive via intelligence or stupidity? I think individual and collective stupidity is wrecking the Anglican Church, and driving convinced Christians away.
We risk deceiving ourselves, when reports come out into bullying and abuse scandals, if these are gigantic files reading like a novel or with multiple sub-points. I think a fundamental failure of natural justice is what underlies countless Anglican scandals. Blasphemous contempt for a central biblical principle of natural justice is at the very heart of our present problems: ignoring the witness evidence of ‘two or three’.
I have recently challenged the Irish Anglican Primate about multiple scandals, in the Down and Dromore Diocese, which have not been comprehensively addressed by the local GAFON Ireland Bishop (David McClay). But the Rt Rev John McDowell, Archbishop of Armagh, has declined to meet me.
I want to share concern red-flagged to me (in the context of my past medical employment) around how the local diocese has hidden a tragic child abuse scandal for almost 50 years. Multiple local Church members have expressed concern to me.
A celebrated human rights law firm, KRWLAW, have also publicised their concern: ‘Neely abuse: Church of Ireland Bishop ‘apologises’ for unnamed rector – ignores Belfast-Tipperary transfer’. Why is Bishop David McClay still not naming the late Canon W G Neely? Is it cowardice, immorality, leadership incompetence, or a combination of all these?
Problems in the Diocese extend into the modern era. Three former students, all from a training programme overseen by New Wine, have mysteriously vanished from the local Diocese in a highly suspicious manner. A trail of clear witness evidence, from trustworthy senior professionals, has been cynically disregarded by Bishop David McClay.
The evidence of 2 students being unfairly accused of sexual misconduct, in a sadistic and savage fashion, looks incontrovertible to me. Will it take a suicide to be discovered, a rape, or further hidden child abuse to emerge, or some other tragedies, before Archbishop John McDowell finally wakes up, and definitively acts in regard to a dire situation in the Down and Dromore Diocese?
An Australian company called Olive Tree Media posted a YouTube film 30.1.22 about inspiring growth and revival in a Down and Dromore Diocese parish: ‘Karl Faase interviews Joe Turner for Jesus the Game Changer Season 2’. Yet when you look up the parish website or social media pages, for St Brendan’s in the east Belfast district, is there now zero sign of Joe Turner?
Has yet another former New WIne student mysteriously vanished from Bishop McClay’s Diocese? Could David McClay perhaps be referred to using a different name: DARVO [Deny-Attack-Reverse-Victim&Offender] CLAYFOOT?
DARVO explains the elemental simplicity of how things work, in a denomination where bullies or abusers get protected, and victims get silenced-shunned-shifted. Why people like David McClay do this may have profoundly complex reasons, which a psychologist could write up huge reports on. But the core problem, the one Anglicans desperately need to see, is blasphemous contempt for biblical principles of natural justice.
Belfast is to host the 2026 Anglican Consultative Council meeting. Bishop David McClay [Bishop DARVO CLAYFOOT will probably be getting his vestments bleached and his Bo-Peep sticks prepared. There may well be ambitious plans to host visiting Anglican dignitaries at St Anne’s Cathedral, with its shiny £850,000 steel spire stretching Babel-like into the sky.
But do local professionals question if NDA’s, compensation settlements, plus legal fees related to the Canon W G Neely cover up, are also stretching skyward? Is it time for the Church of Ireland House of Bishops, and especially ‘Primate’ John McDowell, to stop-‘monkeying’-on a poorly concealed crisis? Why should Irish Anglican Church members not see how much of their money has been spent on the Canon W G Neely child abuse fiasco?