THE abuse of power exhibited by Mike Pilavachi was enabled by a “wholesale” failure of organisational culture at Soul Survivor, where staff were afraid of the results of raising concerns — and, even when informed, trustees did from “little to nothing” in response, a KC-led review has concluded.
Its report, Independent Review into Soul Survivor, by Fiona Scolding KC and Ben Fullbrook, was commissioned by the trustees of Soul Survivor last November and published on Thursday.
The reviewers find “credible and consistent evidence” that Mr Pilavachi developed “inappropriately close relationships with young men” and exhibited “inappropriate levels of controlling behaviour”. He also engaged in “lengthy, one-on-one wrestling sessions in private with young men”, and gave private one-on-one massages to partially clothed young men.
Several former members of the Soul Survivor congregation have given accounts of informing its leadership of allegations (News, 12 April). But the reviewers admit that they’ve “encountered some difficulty in identifying precisely who knew what about Mr Pilavachi’s behaviours and when”. They conclude, nevertheless, that it’s “almost unimaginable” that no one in church leadership on the time knew in regards to the massages. They paint a highly critical picture of dysfunctional governance on the church, which was founded by Mr Pilavachi in Watford in 1993.
“There was a wholesale failure to inculcate each a culture where there may very well be open and honest raising of concerns, and in addition where there was no fear that raising concerns could cause detriment,” they write.
“Moreover, on the occasions when matters were dropped at the eye of the trustees . . . little to nothing was done. There was due to this fact an off-the-cuff feeling amongst many to whom we spoke that speaking up or speaking out wouldn’t make any difference but would make their lives untenable, not least because it might upset Mr Pilavachi. Many throughout the Church had seen that occur to their predecessors in post. They selected to depart to go to other churches or organisations, and even to lose their faith.”
Among those that have consented to be named within the review are the Revd Tim Hughes and the Revd Pete Hughes, who were “ostracised” by Mr Pilavachi after confronting him about his behaviour by letter in 2004 and “had little alternative but to depart the church consequently”. Other contributors told the review that “this episode was utilized by Mr Pilavachi as a narrative to elicit loyalty, and to speak that such concerns or complaints would result in ostracism.”
The review raises wider questions for the Church of England in regards to the governance of church-plants, and suggests that greater accountability must be built into Bishop’s Mission Orders (BMOs). It observes that, “for nearly twenty years, the Church which probably had the most important congregation within the diocese of St Albans had no accountability to that diocese in any formal legal sense.” Among its recommendations is that the diocese apologise for its “inadequate oversight” of the church.
THE review follows the review of the allegations against Mr Pilavachi by the National Safeguarding Team and the diocese of St Albans, of which the total report has never been made public. A press release issued in September 2023 said that concerns raised had been “substantiated” (News, 8 September).
While the Scolding review revisits these allegations, it provides more detailed accounts and, for the primary time, Mr Pilavachi’s response. In total, it received about 140 responses, while about 70 people were interviewed.
The consistency of the accounts given by a wide range of young men over a 35-year period was “remarkable”, the reviewers write. Mr Pilavachi “developed inappropriately close relationships with young men, which might then be followed by long periods of ‘ghosting’ whereby Mr Pilavachi would appear to interrupt off all contact with a person for no apparent reason”. It was this behaviour, which also affected women, “above any of the others described on this report, that appears to have been probably the most harmful”, they write.
In response to allegations of “ghosting”, Mr Pilavachi accepted that he had not treated people well, but told the review that he had “not intended to be hurtful or manipulative”. By way of explanation, he said that he felt like a “pretty broken” person at times, and would often feel “incredibly insecure”. He was an introvert and really afraid of conflict.
The review casts doubt on this explanation — and others given by Mr Pilavachi. It is, they write elsewhere, “somewhat disingenuous for Mr Pilavachi to suggest that he was unaware of his power over others, and that he was not seen by individuals as having a special relationship with God.”
It concludes that Mr Pilavachi engaged in “lengthy, one-on-one wrestling sessions” in private with young men within the Nineteen Nineties, 2000s, and possibly even the 2010s, during which, in some instances, he would attempt to pin the young person to the ground. This continued, it says, “even after he had specifically been told that it was inappropriate and, apparently, in full view of others”. He denied that there was any erotic motivation behind the wrestling, but accepted that it may very well be perceived in this fashion.
The review had “no conclusive evidence that those in Church leadership on the time or trustees knew about these more intensive wrestling sessions”. But, provided that there appeared to be “collective knowledge amongst interns and junior staff”, it was “very surprising that details about this activity didn’t reach those in senior leadership or trustees or that, if it did, no motion was taken”.
Mr Pilavachi also gave one-on-one massages to young men in private within the 2000s, wherein the lads can be only partially clothed (sometimes only of their underwear), and would lie on Mr Pilavachi’s bed. Nine men reported this to the review, of whom two believed that the massages were sexually motivated.
The review records that Mr Pilavachi “strenuously denies touching anyone inappropriately or deriving any sexual satisfaction from them”. He told the review that he had “a specific passion for massage . . . he desired to bless others by sharing something with them which he enjoyed himself.”
The reviewers write: “It does seem clear that Mr Pilavachi is a generous-hearted one who would often share things that he enjoyed with other people. For example, he also had a passion for food and would take people out to dinner or cook for them.”
But it concludes that “on the very least, Mr Pilavachi’s massaging of those young men represented a big abuse of power for which naïvety (if that’s what it was) is not any excuse in any respect.” It also observes that the circumstances of the massages “can be widely seen in society as a precursor to sexual intimacy, if not sexually intimate in and of itself”. In this case, again, the reviewers admit that it has been “difficult” to establish who in senior leadership knew of the massages. But they conclude that it’s “almost unimaginable” that no one in church leadership knew.
AMONG the leaders named within the review is the Rt Revd Graham Cray, a former Bishop of Maidstone, who chaired Soul Survivor, serving as a director from 2000 until his resignation in 2020. In 2016, he was “made aware of an allegation that Mr Pilavachi touched a person inappropriately whilst massaging him”. He put the allegation to Mr Pilavachi, who admitted to massaging the person, but to not touching him inappropriately.
Bishop Cray — who received the allegation via one other trustee — decided to take no further motion on the criticism, although he wrote a report that he sent to the Revd Andy Croft, one other Soul Survivor pastor. Bishop Cray told the review that he had been told that the massages had stopped in 2005-07, on the instructions of either the Rt Revd David Pytches, Vicar of St Andrew’s, Chorleywood (from which Soul Survivor had been planted), or David Westlake (a former trustee, who has denied knowing in regards to the massages). “We find it extraordinary that this alone (i.e. the proven fact that the massage took place) was not considered by Bishop Cray to merit further motion,” the reviewers write.
In April, Church House confirmed that a Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) investigation into Bishop Cray had concluded, and “appropriate risk management steps are being taken” (News, 12 April). The Scolding review suggests that the CDM “because it currently stands is insufficiently flexible to cope with nuanced problems with overarching responsibility for safeguarding matters”.
The review also describes safeguarding failures at Soul Survivor not previously in the general public domain. They include the case of a counsellor who was allowed to proceed practising at Soul Survivor despite a warning from his previous church that he had told a member of staff to take his clothes off during counselling. He was prohibited from having a lodger, but Soul Survivor was subsequently told by an adolescent lodging with him that he had asked him to take off his clothes. The counsellor was immediately fired and left the country, prompting a lessons-learned review.
In the case of Matt Redman, a worship leader who has spoken out about Mr Pilavachi’s behaviour (News, 5 July), the review identifies “serious failures of kid protection”. Mr Pilavachi and Bishop Pytches were aware that Mr Redman was being sexually abused by his stepfather for at the least a 12 months before the police became involved. There was first “counselling” of the abuser “by the use of prayer and referral to counselling of him and his wife”. This focused on “whether Matt’s mother was in charge for the abuse happening due to the nature of the conjugal relationship”. During this time, Mr Redman was subject to more abuse.
THE task of the review was to “examine the actions and behaviours of Mr Pilavachi, and the way these were enabled, contributed to, dependent upon, or produced by, the broader culture of each Soul Survivor and the Charismatic movement and the Church of England on the whole”.
A major finding is the extent to which Mr Pilavachi went unchallenged at Soul Survivor. It records that, in 2014, after trustees disagreed with him, Mr Pilavachi and two other senior members of staff threatened to resign unless all of the trustees resigned and were replaced (they refused). Minutes show that Mr Pilavachi would attend and chair trustee meetings when available, despite not being a proper trustee. “There was limited promoting of many senior roles until 2024. The recruitment seems to have been, at best, informal and at worst ad hoc and based upon one’s personal reference to Mr Pilavachi.”
Among the challenges faced by the reviewers was that Soul Survivor looked as if it would have kept no record of “informal concerns” that participants within the review described raising with managers. Having admitted to difficulties in identifying who knew what, the reviewers emphasise that, “in our view, people must have known about this stuff. This is an unacceptable state of affairs and represents failures on many levels.”
The review can be critical of the diocese of St Albans, concluding that “there have been ways and technique of creating some type of oversight had the Diocese wished this to occur.” Soul Survivor was led by individuals who didn’t have any type of licence from the diocese until 2012. Even once a BMO was in place, measures set out within the code don’t appear to have been followed. Diocesan contributors suggested that a BMO was “not adequate to fulfill the size, size and reach of Soul Survivor”.
“It seems to us that Soul Survivor desired to show it was a part of the Church of England but in addition wanted to administer and have control its own affairs: that just isn’t a situation unique to Soul Survivor however it is a problem that the Church of England must grapple with,” the report says.
“Those who want to be in communion or a part of the Church of England should recognise that this comes with rights, but in addition responsibilities. There can’t be a view that you may have the ‘badge’ but don’t require the requisite governance and oversight structures to create a secure church.”
Mr Pilavachi was ordained in 2012. While there was a discernment process, including three meetings with a psychoanalyst, he didn’t attend a Bishops’ Advisory Panel. When it got here to formation, he told the review, he attended “a few of the relevant courses but not all of them, because the course was designed and agreed to be a bespoke one for Mr Pilavachi”. He was not subject to ministerial-development review, due to his employment status.
WHILE the review observes that abusive behaviour just isn’t unique to anyone tradition, it suggests that risks that could be particularly evident in Charismatic contexts, including “anointed leadership and the cult of the charismatic leader”.
Here, again, the reviewers solid doubt on Mr Pilavachi’s account: “His protestations of his lack of power have to be seen against the backdrop of those that have spoken to us who definitely identified several occasions where he exercised that power and was unafraid to make use of it (for instance, asking all of the trustees to resign).”
It also suggests that the expansion of Evangelical and Charismatic churches produces a risk: “The larger the numbers, the greater the ability and the greater need to ascertain oneself and reflect upon the opportunities to abuse power. An emphasis on the physical manifestation of spiritual gifts . . . may give those that are perceived as being particularly gifted more personal power.”
Another “continued blind spot”, they suggest, is “an inclination to assume (wrongly) that Evangelical clergy or church members is not going to or can’t be gay”.
THE review concludes with 44 recommendations, amongst them that Soul Survivor, Mr Pilavachi, and other church organisations issue apologies. It suggests that the culture begun under Mr Pilavachi has “not yet dissipated” at Soul Survivor. “Those who’re currently leading the Church must reflect upon how they’ll make a break from the past.”
The authors also set out what the restrictions on their review were. They had not been in a position to compel people to talk to them, and, while the “overwhelming majority”, including Mr Pilavachi, had done so, some had not. They had also been unable to review all records due to data-protection laws, while only 15 of the 46 individuals who gave evidence to the NST review had agreed for his or her statements to be viewed.
A general conclusion is that “when an organisation is seen as successful, people don’t look rigorously enough about what the worth could also be for such success.” Mr Pilavachi was, they write, “the goose that laid the golden eggs”.
He was “ebullient, generous-hearted, kind to many, and an inspirational figure. But alongside that, hiding in plain sight, was someone who manipulated and controlled others, bullied and sought to abuse his power over those whom he worked alongside within the church and those that got here to learn alongside him. That abuse of power has caused deep psychological harm to many with whom he worked closely over 30 years.”
AMONG those that have spoken out in regards to the harm is David Gate, a former Soul Survivor worship leader who gave an account to The Sunday Times last 12 months (News, 9 June 2023). On Thursday, he said that he was “hugely dissatisfied” with the Scolding review, which “consistently downplays the seriousness of Mike Pilavachi’s abusive behaviours and repeats back to the victims the identical drained excuses we’ve heard for the last 30 years.
“It makes no mention of the grooming and narcissistic behavior and fails to attach the dots. While it’s more thorough than the NST report, its conclusions of what occurred only serve Mike’s manipulative narratives and proceed to shield those that oversaw it from accountability. A totally independent investigation is crucial for any sense of justice and peace for the victims.”
Survivors had been given a replica of the 103-page report only 48 hours before publication. In this version, Mr Pilavachi had been known as “Mike” (despite a gap commitment to using “Mr Pilavachi”), which felt, Mr Gate, said, “very pally”. While loads of space had been given to Mr Pilavachi’s account, those of victims were “wrapped up together in an amorphous criticism”, he said. He was particularly disturbed by the “horrifying” comparison of massages to the generosity of constructing meals.
In July, the General Synod amended a motion calling for a recent independent inquiry into Soul Survivor in order that the decision was removed (News, 12 July). Mr Gate, who stays involved in Christian community, believes that such an inquiry continues to be needed, talking to “a much wider range of individuals” and with fuller access to information. On the effect of Mr Pilavachi’s abuses, he said: “Probably from the age of 16 to 40, it had a reasonably devastating effect.” It had affected each his relationships and profession.
The Charismatic wing of the Church was “paranoid” that introspection would have a “devastating effect on the way in which they worship, which it won’t”, he said. “They just should be really honest about their practices and have a look at ways wherein they’re unhealthy and ripe for abuse.”
An announcement from complainants represented by Richard Scorer, head of abuse law and public inquiries at Slater Gordon, said that the review contained “too little forensic evaluation of individual culpability”. They questioned whether Soul Survivor could reform itself, provided that “the people leading it now were also in leadership roles throughout the years when Pilavachi did this stuff.”
ON THURSDAY, a press release was issued by the trustees and leaders of Soul Survivor committing them to implementing the review’s recommendations “in all respects”.
“To all those victims who’ve been deeply impacted, and proceed to be, we’re profoundly sorry,” it says. “As trustees and leaders of Soul Survivor we wish you to know that now we have heard you.”
There were, it acknowledges, “people in positions of leadership and governance of the ministries of Soul Survivor, who knew or were made aware of Mike Pilavachi’s behaviour. . . we also agree that a series of governance failures to offer proper management, accountability, and oversight of Mike Pilavachi facilitated a culture that gave him the licence to operate as he did.
“Throughout Soul Survivor’s history, there was an overemphasis on Mike Pilavachi’s gifts and success, which contributed to the blindness towards his behaviour. Again, we’re sorry, particularly to those that tried to boost concerns and weren’t listened to.”
The changes made up to now 18 months include, the statement says, “a stronger collaboration between Soul Survivor Watford and the Diocese of St Albans with a purpose to strengthen oversight and accountability”, changes to the Board, and introducing a complaints and whistle-blowing mechanism.
The lead bishop for safeguarding, the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell, welcomed the review, and said that its recommendations can be “taken forward”. Among work already under way was revision of the CDM. Criticism of people can be examined further.
“In order that the Church might learn all it could actually from this case and make sure that such a shocking abuse of power, perpetrated over a few years, just isn’t repeated, we are going to explore what further work must be done, including a particular focus in relation to the governance and scrutiny of latest worshipping communities across all traditions within the Church of England,” she said.
A St Albans diocesan statement responding to the review says: “We deeply regret the pain and distress caused, and we provide our sincere apologies to all survivors and victims who’ve suffered consequently.” A full response to the review — which seeks to conclude inside three months — will likely be “shaped by careful deliberation by the Bishop’s Council and other relevant diocesan bodies”. It pledges the diocese to “strengthen safeguarding practices, improve the formation of Bishops’ Mission Orders (BMO), and consider how the oversight of churches and clergy operating under the BMO framework may very well be enhanced”.
