THE Bishops and senior clergy and staff within the diocese of St Albans have reinforced their commitment to survivors, and to “more robust processes of oversight” of church-plants, of their formal response to the findings of the Scolding review into Soul Survivor and its founder, Mike Pilavachi.
The Independent Review into Soul Survivor, by Fiona Scolding KC and Ben Fullbrook, was commissioned by the trustees of Soul Survivor in November 2023 after an internal church investigation concluded that Mr Pilavachi had exhibited “coercive and controlling behaviour” over 40 years of lay and ordained ministry.
Mr Pilavachi founded Soul Survivor — each an annual summer festival and a church, Soul Survivor, Watford — in 1993 (News, 9 June). At its peak, 30,000 people — mainly teenagers — attended the festival. The church was placed under a Bishop’s Mission Order (BMO) in 2014, two years after Mr Pilavachi was ordained. For almost 20 years, he led Soul Survivor, Watford, as a lay person.
The Scolding review, published on 27 September, raised questions for the Church of England in regards to the governance of church-plants, and suggested that greater accountability needed to be built into BMOs.
It observed that, “for nearly twenty years, the Church which probably had the biggest congregation within the diocese of St Albans had no accountability to that diocese in any formal legal sense.” Among its recommendations was that the diocese of St Albans apologised for its “inadequate oversight” of the church.
In its formal response, published on Wednesday, the diocese repeated its apology made on the time of the publication of the Scolding review. “We recognise that although we had systems in place to forestall abuse happening in our churches, on this instance, those systems weren’t sufficient to forestall harm from going down or allowing it to return to light sooner. For that, we’re truly sorry.”
The Scolding review concluded that “there have been ways and technique of creating some type of oversight had the Diocese wished this to occur.”
While acknowledging this criticism, the diocese goes on to issue an evidence for the events. Soul Survivor, Watford, it says, “was, and stays, an independent legal charity, with trustees who’re liable for its oversight and governance” — accountable to the Charity Commission — and that it predated the existence of BMOs by a few years.
The intention, it says, had been to regularise the church when the Bishop of St Albans, Dr Alan Smith, was appointed in 2009, overseen by the then Bishop of Hertford, the Rt Revd Paul Bayes. Two consultations were undertaken with the church, Watford Deanery, and “ecumenical partners”, but “Negotiations were protracted because Mike Pilavachi was initially proof against the proposal. As a result, it was not until 2014 that agreement was finally reached,” and the church was formally recognised through a BMO.
The Scolding review stated that 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 of practice didn’t appear to have been followed. Diocesan contributors suggested that a BMO was “not adequate to satisfy the size, size and reach of Soul Survivor”.
“It seems to us that Soul Survivor desired to exhibit it was a part of the Church of England but in addition wanted to administer and have control its own affairs: that will not be a situation unique to Soul Survivor nevertheless it is a difficulty that the Church of England must grapple with,” the review said.
In its response, St Albans diocese says that, “although the Code of Practice that accompanies a BMO provides no structure or format for an annual review of a BMO, since 2016 it was shaped by a rigorous and comprehensive set of questions drawn up by the present Visitor, the Revd Canon Dr Tim Lomax, along with the then Bishop of Hertford, the Rt Revd Dr Michael Beasley.”
Since then, the annual review had, the diocese says, included “inquiries to its leaders about values, relationships throughout the organisation and congregation, and safeguarding. The final query within the review was specifically open-ended: ‘Are there any problems it’s essential to tell me about or issues you desire to to lift?’”
The diocese insists that, “having checked all files, emails and other records, so far as we are able to ascertain, nobody at any point either independently or within the context of the reviews conducted by the Visitor, raised any concerns with the diocese about Mike Pilavachi’s behaviour” until the NST received a proper grievance in 2022.
The Scolding review questions the extent to which Pilavachi was engaged in these Visitor reviews. The diocese writes: “Indeed, this was a priority of the Visitor at one stage which necessitated the intervention” [of Dr Beasley].
“In spite of Mike Pilavachi’s extensive programme of national and international speaking commitments, Dr Beasley insisted that he attend in person the Visitor’s review not less than every other 12 months. With hindsight, his ambivalence to scrutiny was a warning sign. It could have contributed to a culture within the organisation without sufficient accountability that in turn allowed for destructive behaviour to go unchecked.
“We are committed to a wider range of voices being heard because the Visitor carries out reviews and annual governance health checks.”
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, the Scolding review says: “Mr Pilavachi told us that he attended among 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.
In its formal response, the diocese says that “No concerns were raised in regards to the appropriateness of his ordination at any point within the discernment process”, and that Pilavachi, like others, had an “agreed bespoke training pathway that builds on their experience and addresses gaps of their formation. No concerns were noted or raised by any of those that interviewed him.”
In terms of further reviews, once his Initial Ministerial Education Phase 2 (IME2) pathway had been accomplished, the diocese says: “Where our support was lacking was by way of ongoing mentoring and peer review once he had accomplished his IME2, for which we apologise.”
The diocese says that it’s “currently consulting” on a latest, more vigorous BMO for Soul Survivor, Watford, including mandatory reviews, and ensuring higher accountability for its leaders and care where they’re overstretched. It asks the national Church to offer more robust guidance for Visitors conducting these reviews. “It is very necessary that the legal framework of a BMO and its Code of Practice are in a position to embrace each large, established mission initiatives and small experimental projects.”
The diocese concludes by repeating its “sincere apology to all those that have been damaged by Mike Pilavachi’s behaviour. As a diocese, we commit to putting survivors and victims on the forefront of our concern. In our safeguarding, we commit to being vigilant and to fostering a culture of transparency, integrity and care across all we do.”
