SAFEGUARDING and disciplinary bodies within the Church of England could also be “marking their very own homework”, the songwriter Matt Redman, a victim of Mike Pilavachi’s abuse, has suggested.
In a press release issued on Wednesday, Mr Redman and his wife, Beth, raised concerns that the National Safeguarding Team (NST) had attempted to “sanitise” Mr Pilavachi’s abuse, that the Bishop who chaired Soul Survivor had not been held to account, and that when it got here to sanctions for Mr Pilavachi, “it appeared that the Church of England was unable or unwilling to discipline considered one of its own”.
The statement was issued in response to a personal member’s motion (PMM) brought by the Vicar of St James’s, West Hampstead, in London, the Revd Robert Thompson, which is resulting from be debated on the General Synod on Sunday. The motion suggests that neither the National Safeguarding Team’s (NST’s) accomplished investigation into Mr Pilavachi’s conduct, nor the independent review commissioned by Soul Survivor (currently being conducted by Fiona Scolding KC and resulting from be accomplished in July) are sufficient. It calls on the Archbishops’ Council to commission its own, also KC-led, report. This should include, Fr Thompson argues, scrutiny of charismatic theology and practice.
In a video, Let There Be Light, published on his own Youtube account in April, Mr Redman described how Mike Pilavachi would wrestle him, immediately after counselling him in regards to the sexual abuse that he had experienced as a baby (News, 12 April).
The Redmans eventually spoke to the NST, which, last September, concluded that safeguarding concerns about Mr Pilavachi had been “substantiated” (News, 8 September 2023). An announcement detailed “an abuse of power regarding his ministry, and spiritual abuse . . . he used his spiritual authority to manage people . . . his coercive and controlling behaviour led to inappropriate relationships, the physical wrestling of youths and massaging of young male interns”.
Last week, the Redmans suggested that the drafting of this statement — which they’d sight of before publication — was one example of why the accusation that the Church had been “marking their very own homework with regards to matters of safeguarding and leadership accountability . . . might well be a sound criticism”.
They write: “Initially it only mentioned that claims of psychological and spiritual harm under Mike Pilavachi’s leadership had been substantiated — and there was zero mention that claims of physical abuse (wrestling, semi-naked massages etc) had also been substantiated.
“After some outside intervention, this wording was corrected. But it struck us as very odd — almost as if the initial wording appeared to have been sanitised and minimised, in order to not draw attention to the dimensions and spectrum of the substantiated abuse. In such an instance, a more open, independent investigation would perhaps be desirable.”
It is known that the initial draft was based on the assumption that the physical features of the abuse were covered in a reference to “coercive control”, but that the statement was modified in response to survivors’ feedback to: “his coercive and controlling behaviour led to inappropriate relationships, the physical wrestling of youths and massaging of young male interns.”
Another concern voiced by the Redmans pertains to a former chairman of Soul Survivor.
In Let There Be Light, Mrs Redman described how young men who worked for Mr Pilavachi had attempted to lift the alarm. She recalled: “The chaps went to the chair of the trustees, just said, ‘This is what is occurring,’ and described these patterns of behaviour that had been happening, at this point, for quite a number of years, and mainly, in summary, [he] just said ‘You are silly boys. You must grow up.’
“It was completely shut down. It wasn’t validated, wasn’t concerning; it was a maturity issue. That was really brutal. And the very last thing you would like is for somebody to suggest you might be causing trouble, or being disruptive, or it’s on you. It’s a really shaming, confusing moment. . . So off all of us went.”
In last week’s statement, the Redmans report that the NST had been told by several survivors that they’d reported Mr Pilavachi’s conduct “to a senior Bishop, who was chairman of Soul Survivor, on the time of the abuse”.
They write: “This Bishop has not been named or called to account, and our understanding is that a Clergy Discipline Measure was not implemented because a senior figure within the Church of England deemed it not essential. This is alarming — not only that the leader in authority over Mike Pilavachi was approached by several victims, on several occasions, about Pilavachi’s abuse and never acted upon the knowledge — but that now this has come to light within the investigation, the Bishop in query has still not been called to account. From the surface looking in, it again speaks of a necessity for a more independent process.”
The Rt Revd Graham Cray, a former Bishop of Maidstone, chaired Soul Survivor, serving as a director from 2000 until his resignation in 2020. He retired from ministry in 2014. In April, a C of E spokesperson said: “We can confirm that an investigation under the Clergy Discipline Measure into the concerns raised regarding Bishop Graham Cray, for failing to pass on information within the Mike Pilavachi case, has concluded, and under House of Bishops guidance, appropriate risk management steps are being taken.”
Any grievance against a bishop under the CDM is handled on advice by the Archbishop of the respective province — on this case, York.
The Redmans also raise concerns in last week’s statement in regards to the treatment of Mr Pilavachi under the Clergy Discipline Measure. In January, it was announced that Mr Pilavachi had received a written warning, concerning a selected safeguarding grievance related to his time in ordained ministry (News, 26 January). The allegation concerned “Mr Pilavachi’s verbal interactions with a vulnerable person”.
A bishop from outside the diocese, who has not been named, considered the allegation and Mr Pilavachi’s response. The bishop concluded that no further motion needs to be taken regarding the precise allegation, but said that Mr Pilavachi’s conduct had “fallen in need of that expected of a priest within the Church of England”.
Last September, Mr Pilavachi returned his licence to the Bishop of St Albans. The statement regarding the CDM clarified that he didn’t have a licence to minister, and said that “should he want to return to any ministry within the Church of England this might be fully risk assessed”.
The Redmans’ statement suggests that the consequence of the disciplinary process made it appear “that the Church of England was unable or unwilling to discipline considered one of its own. What message does this give the common person, inside or outside of the Church, when an investigation hears from nearly 150 people, lots of them victims, then substantiates the abuse allegations — but no actual discipline is carried out?
“This form of scenario invites criticism and even suspicion from those that are outside, looking in. Perhaps a more open and independent investigation would put more pressure on those involved in these disciplinary processes to act more in accordance with the report findings.”
There is, they conclude, “a powerful case to commission an independent KC-led review”.
Soul Survivor announced in its statement last September that it had commissioned Fiona Scolding KC “to guide a full and independent review (News, 8 September 2023). Ms Scolding was lead counsel to a few different investigations by the Independent Inquiry for Child Sexual Abuse, regarding the Church of England and Church in Wales, schools in England and Wales, and other religious institutions (News, 9 March 2018).
The paper accompanying Fr Thompson’s PMM argues that neither the finished investigation by the NST nor Ms Scolding’s review are “sufficient of their Terms of Reference or scope to satisfy each the needs of those that are victims and survivors of this abuse nor matters that needs to be of interest to the broader Church of England as an entire”.
The remit of the 2 reviews fails to take care of “the broader cultural and systemic contexts that allowed this abuse to occur, to proceed and to go unchecked for nearly 40 years”, it argues. The ToR of the Scolding review “fail to comprehensively engage with the connection of the assorted Soul Survivor organisations to the diocese of St Albans and in turn the connection of those organisations and the diocese to the Church as an entire”.
A review commissioned by the Archbishops’ Council should, he suggests, explore “charismatic theology and practice”, including “the character of ‘tribal’ loyalties inside charismatic networks throughout the C of E as an entire”, and “the increasing impact of the charismatic revival on the lifetime of our Church”.
The review should explore the part played by “semi-detached organisations” within the C of E, including the rise in the usage of Bishop’s Mission Orders (BMOs), and the Myriad initiative to plant 10,000 mainly lay-led churches over the following ten years (News, 2 July 2021). Myriad is an element of the Gregory Centre for Church Multiplication, under the leadership of the Bishop of Islington, Dr Ric Thorpe.
During last 12 months’s debate on the Mission and Pastoral Measure, Dr Thorpe argued that proposals to subject BMOs — a “major growth area” — to statutory five-yearly review seemed “arbitrary and centralising” (News, 14 July 2023).
A response paper has been issued by the secretary-general of the Synod, William Nye. He writes that the PMM was first drafted greater than a 12 months ago, and that the proposal for an additional KC-led review is “now not relevant”. Such a review “would have been unable to deal with a number of the fundamental issues i.e. the Risk Assessments under Canon Law”, he argues.
”There isn’t any process in law for such an independent inquiry and subsequently it might don’t have any statutory force. As such there could be no ability to require MP or others to cooperate with such a report. This approach would have been contrary to the required processes approved by the General Synod and Parliament.”
He writes: “On receipt of the Scolding review the core group will consider how best to discover and learn lessons from the case as required in practice guidance.”
Mr Nye reports that, through the NST’s investigation, “wider safeguarding concerns got here to light in regards to the culture at Soul Survivor and the alleged failure by senior clergy, and others, to properly take care of known safeguarding concerns about MP, which were handled individually”.
No further detail is provided, and Mr Nye writes that “there are limits on what may be disclosed about confidential processes, and far of the knowledge is roofed by data protection laws.”
