AFTER the exposure of “appalling practices and a shocking abuse of power” at Soul Survivor, in reviews by the National Safeguarding Team (NST) and Fiona Scolding KC, a bunch is being formed to perform further work, the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell, the lead bishop for safeguarding, said this week.
The working group will take a look at ordination processes, clergy training and supervision, and safeguarding and governance in church-plants, bishop’s mission orders (BMOs), and mission charities which have an Anglican focus to their work.
The aim was to make sure that Ms Scolding’s recommendations had an “adequate response”, but in addition “that areas which haven’t yet been fully covered are checked out robustly”, Dr Grenfell said. “Victim and survivor perspectives might be vital on this work.”
The commitment was made in response to an open letter from 30 members of the General Synod asking the Bishop what steps she would take to “fill within the gaps and rectify the incompleteness” of the review of Soul Survivor conducted by Fiona Scolding KC. Signatories include those that backed a motion dropped at the General Synod by the Vicar of St James’s, West Hampstead, in London, the Revd Robert Thompson, calling on the Archbishops’ Council to commission its own, also KC-led, report (News, 12 July).
Fr Thompson argued that the present reviews weren’t “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 a complete”.
The Synod carried an amendment from Dr Grenfell to remove almost your complete contents of the unique motion. It called on the Archbishops’ Council to make sure that learning from the Scolding review was “considered in any recommendations referring to the Future of Church Safeguarding”. It also committed the Archbishops’ Council to engaging “with relevant survivors to know their perspective on the review’s conclusions”.
Since the Scolding report’s publication last month (News, 4 October), some survivors of Mr Pilavachi’s abusive behaviour have been critical of the review. David Gate, a former Soul Survivor worship leader, said that “a completely independent investigation is important for any sense of justice and peace for the victims.”
The reviewers acknowledged constraints on their work: that they had been unable 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 had given evidence to the NST review had allowed their statements to be viewed.
The Synod members’ letter argues that “whole areas of (yet one more) safeguarding failure remain unexamined, obstructed by Ms Scolding’s inability to realize access to people and knowledge from the National Safeguarding Team and survivors’ insecurity within the integrity of an internal inquiry.” On the latter point, it says that the Scolding review’s terms of reference were “drawn up by the very people most vulnerable to criticism”.
Survivors who contributed to the NST review weren’t approached individually to hunt their consent to pass information on to the Scolding review, but made aware of the review and the request for information through online channels and the safeguarding charity Thirtyone:Eight, which was arranging therapeutic support for many who got here forward. It is known that this method was adopted out of concern a couple of “trauma-informed approach” to asking survivors to repeat their story.
The Scolding reviewers acknowledged that that they had “encountered some difficulty in identifying precisely who knew what about Mr Pilavachi’s behaviours and when”, and the open letter regrets that “those responsible are still left unaccountable for his or her actions.”
Addressing the Synod in July, Dr Grenfell said: “I don’t see enough profit in a costly reinvestigation of those actual events, with no guarantee that victims, survivors, and people involved in a wide range of other ways can be willing to place themselves through potentially traumatising further interviews.” She was also wary of a “side-swipe at church-planting and missional communities”, provided that abuse could occur in any a part of the Church.
In her response to the Synod members this week, she said that, having digested Ms Scolding’s review, “I do consider that there’s further work to be done. . . I’m committed to working with victims and survivors, and other colleagues and Synod members, to create higher foundations and systems for safeguarding within the Church.” She pledged to update the Synod commonly on this work.
Responding on social media to publication of the Scolding review, Matt Redman, a former worship leader at Soul Survivor, who has spoken about his own experience of Mr Pilavachi’s behaviour, wrote: “It’s not going to reply all the questions or heal all the wounds, but moments like this, bringing light, are a step in the fitting direction.”
