THE General Synod voted to amend a motion significantly on Sunday afternoon, and thus headed off a latest investigation of abuses at Soul Survivor and the broader Church.
Moving his private member’s motion, the Revd Robert Thompson (London) quoted Jesus’s healing of the girl suffering a haemorrhage in Matthew 5. Jesus had allowed her “to inform her story in public . . . insisted that her whole truth can be told”. The text had been the topic of an essay by the Asian-American Episcopalian priest, Debbie Thomas, who had been abused by men at her church and had written: “My whole truth was too large, too scandalous, and too taboo to suit into any narrative they might comfortably accept . . . Whole truths like mine belonged within the darkness, and I used to be told to maintain them there.” His motion asked the Church to be “more Christlike”, and his paper had been written with survivors of abuse.
Coming to the response to the paper from the secretary-general, William Nye, he argued that the motion remained relevant. No evidence had been produced for Mr Nye’s claim that “because the conclusion of the core group process in relation to MP [Mike Pilavachi] most people involved appear to recognise that it has been effective in managing this allegation and any risk”.
Moreover, this limited abuse and risk to a person, whereas abuse was enabled by cultures, systems, and inadequate governance: “Bad apples are often the product of unhealthy trees.” His paper set out what among the branches of this tree is likely to be.
While the Bishop of St Albans, Dr Alan Smith, understood why many members had desired to hold the talk, he felt that the timing was “removed from ideal”, because the independent report by Fiona Scolding KC had not yet been received. There was a danger that “we’d jump to conclusions, and even criticise a report which we have now not yet seen.” Throughout the method, the diocese had “absolutely sought to follow the method that’s laid down for us”. This was vital so that “everybody goes to be treated fairly. It takes longer, but we want to ensure that we don’t jump to conclusions.”
Thompson’s paper contained a “misunderstanding”, he said, in its assertion that clergy had been told that they may very well be subject to a Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) in the event that they called for an independent investigation. The diocese remained “totally committed to exploring what went mistaken, what lessons could be learned, and the way we will minimise the opportunity of that occuring again.”
Canon Kate Massey (Coventry) shared with the Synod a message from a friend who was also survivor, who “loves and ministers throughout the charismatic Evangelical tradition within the Church of England”. Their “deepest desire” was “for his or her tradition to learn the teachings needed to be a secure and healthy place for all who grow in faith there.”
Canon Massey continued: “All traditions have their vulnerabilities. This motion just isn’t and must not turn out to be a witch-hunt against a branch of the C of E or individuals inside it. But somewhat, like all other traditions, there are cultural and theological facets of the Charismatic Evangelical tradition — which can be my very own — which may allow unhealthy or damaging leadership practices to develop.”
Her friend had three requests for what he considered a crucial, wider review: that it avoid “politicising” the pain of survivors, but keep the deal with learning lessons; that it was timely; and that the Church remember not only the survivors on the epicentre of events at Soul Survivor but in addition all those impacted by “the ripples of pain which have spread throughout the Church”. He asked that those leaders within the tradition, a lot of whom had endorsed Mike Pilavachi, arise and support these people now.
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs) wondered how many individuals present had been “positively impacted” by Soul Survivor and by Mike Pilavachi. The festival had been “instrumental” in his own journey of religion since getting into 1996, and serving as a volunteer persistently. He had “lost count” of the variety of ordinands who had come forward due to their experience at Soul Survivor. “I proceed to be so grateful to God for the various positive ways in which Soul Survivor has impacted my life and the Church.”
He had “no anti-Soul Survivor axe to grind”, but sought to support the motion as a “card-carrying Charismatic”. “This is a possibility for us to exercise some self-reflection and learn what lesson we possibly can about how our theology and practice could be misused and abused. It’s not about undermining our movement, but strengthening it by ensuring we have now as secure and healthy a culture as we possibly can.”
The Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Revd Julie Conalty (Northern Suffragans), the deputy lead bishop for safeguarding, had spoken privately to the NST in 2019 in regards to the risks when a review of allegations against Jonathan Fletcher was commissioned by his church, Emmanuel Wimbledon, somewhat than by the NST. Survivors were apprehensive that the terms of reference wouldn’t permit those carrying out the review to look into culture, accountability structures, or wider networks.
There was a risk that the organisation would “at all times prefer to focus attention on the one bad apple and never on the flawed and failing tree or apple crate”. She warned: “Pioneering, church-planting, and creativity can’t be on the expense of fine safeguarding governance and practice. How persistently do we want to read reports that highlight that risks weren’t managed adequately in semi-detached organisations across all traditions?”
The Revd Dr Ben Sargent (Winchester) spoke in support of the motion. The Thirty One:Eight review of allegations against Jonathan Fletcher had been vital for the Evangelical constituency. Many were doing their best to use the teachings learned “deeply and radically”. “I’ve learned that I have to be more intelligent to people’s consent to ministry activities” — particularly one-to-one meeting and sporting activities. “Just because someone has said ‘yes’ to an invite from the vicar who holds an excellent deal of power, doesn’t mean they’re comfortable doing it, don’t think it’s weird, or think that consenting is the value to pay for a latest opportunity or for recognition.”
He had also learned that leadership structure in his large rural benefice needed to be flatter and include more diverse voices. He was working hard to ask challenge and scrutiny and to eliminate competitiveness within the leadership team, any struggle for status, or any hint of favouritism or an “inner circle”.
The Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell (Southern Suffragans), the lead bishop for safeguarding, moved an extended amendment that removed the decision for a latest review, and called as a substitute for the Archbishops’ Council to “make sure that learning from the review into allegations of abuse throughout the Soul Survivor network currently being undertaken by independent King’s Counsel Fiona Scolding, is taken into account in any recommendations referring to the Future of Church Safeguarding”.
It was not, she said, a challenge to “much of the spirit” of the motion before Synod. The substantiated allegations against Pilavachi were “appalling”; his actions had “ruined people’s lives”. Among the teachings to be learned were those about “the leadership and theology that allowed such behaviour to go unchecked”, and “the disciplinary and other processes that weren’t adequate enough to carry this abuser fully to account. We need the culture across the Church of England to vary.” The motion was not, nonetheless, the “most constructive” way of promoting the crucial culture change.
First, things had moved on because the motion was conceived; the NST investigation had been “handled well”; and Matt Redman had written of his appreciation of this. She told Synod: “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.”
The paper accompanying the motion referred to a perceived safeguarding risk around using BMOs and the Myriad church-planting programme: there have been “complex governance issues” here. “But I’d feel that such an approach, which looks to me to be a little bit of a side-swipe at church-planting and missional communities, doesn’t help, and will even be counter-productive.” She said: “Abuse can happen in any a part of the Church; the remaining of us don’t get let off the hook that easily.” Good work was under way in safeguarding.
Responding, Fr Thompson denied that his paper was “a sectarian side-swipe on the Charismatic Evangelical a part of the Church from a liberal Catholic”. He had worshipped in a Charismatic Evangelical context for eight years, and benefited from it. He was “a little bit of a hybrid relating to church traditions”.
The proposed amendment “shifts the balance of power. . . Survivors want the structural facets, the systemic facets, the theological facets to be checked out, and that just isn’t in Scolding.” Survivors desired to be co-producers in writing the Terms of Reference. He said that trust within the Archbishops’ Council was “pretty low at present”.
Peter Adams (St Albans) spoke in support of the amendment. He mentioned that his children had worshipped at Soul Survivor and attended the festivals, as had the church youth group. He had desired to sign the motion, but, as lay chair of St Albans diocese, he had other paths open to him: governance structures may very well be used to make sure accountability and transparency. Much of what was called for in the unique motion had already taken place in his diocese. The Bishop of St Albans had said that, once the Scolding review was complete, the diocesan synod could recommend that an additional review happen. “It’s time we saw hope in safeguarding in our Church.”
Canon Judith Maltby (Universities & TEIs) also opposed the amendment. “Trust in safeguarding on the centre is broken,” she said. Just a yr ago, the Synod had watched the dismantlement of the ISB and its consequences had played out with no provision for the support of survivors. The Wilkinson review had provided a “forensic evaluation” of failures on the centre. “I confess to being slightly flabbergasted, that, in spite of everything that has happened, it has been suggested . . . that the group to handle the response is the Archbishops’ Council. That’s only a bit stunning within the context of very recent history. The lack of self-awareness here is the kindest way that I can put that.”
Dr Jamie Harrison, chairman of the House of Laity, warned that a KC-led review could slow the method down. He spoke of the Nine O’Clock Service scandal in Sheffield, Peter Ball, and the networks around John Smyth and Jonathan Fletcher. “This is a systemic issue, which worries me deeply about . . . para-church networks. . .
“I think that, on the bottom, safeguarding is way stronger that it has been, but we’re still seeing the impact of a scarcity of governance, a scarcity of control, of understanding of those other networks, which kind of sit halfway out of the Church.” He was not apprehensive about the price of the proposal, he said, but about the price of asking the survivors to reply.
The Revd Paul Langham (Bristol) had been planning his own amendment, the wording of which had been combined with the one recommend. It was, he said, “possible to misread this motion as one specializing in one particular church tradition, and it might send an unlucky signal were Synod to provide the impression that our safeguarding eye is simply too narrowly focused”. Mr Thompson had been “at pains” to reveal that this impression was “unintentional” — the amendment “removed all doubt”. He was concerned that the Synod might “baulk” at asking for a second KC-led review while the primary had not yet been accomplished.
The amendment was carried by a counted vote in all three houses: Bishops: 20 to 2, with eight abstentions; Clergy: 84 to 75, with seven abstentions; Laity: 80 to 78, with six abstentions.
Continuing the talk on the amended motion, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that, having been cross-questioned by Fiona Scolding KC during IICSA for greater than five hours, he could tell Synod that she was “really very formidable, and she’s going to do a superb report”. In addition, the NST was doing a “excellent job” on this case, he said, and he didn’t want the present discussion to imply otherwise.
The motion had “very helpfully brought out” the ”slight gap in the best way we take a look at things as to how we take care of very powerful leaders. . . You don’t wish to quench them, but you do wish to be certain that that they don’t go bonkers . . . and will not be irresponsible of their actions.” He wondered whether, as a substitute of a KC-led inquiry, this aspect may very well be checked out.
The Revd Matthew Beer (Lichfield) said that, when the Soul Survivor news broke, he was “sickened to the very core of my being, pondering that I could have unknowingly put young people in danger”. After soul-searching, he had concluded: “I hadn’t done anything mistaken, and we will’t know people’s private lives; we don’t have a window into their souls. But God does. And the Holy Spirit’s work will uncover the abuse that’s in every a part of the Church.”
He was thankful for the amendment, but in addition to Fr Thompson. He hoped that the KC investigation would “lead us in all of our organisations to reflect deeply that this might occur anywhere. This just isn’t of 1 theological persuasion or one other. . . We must root out abuse at every level of our Church.”
Simon Friend (Exeter) was “distressed” on the passing of the amendment. To have the Archbishops’ Council look into the matter, given its recent history, was “shocking”. “I don’t think that is going to be received well outside of this chamber.”
He had been a part of the Charismatic movement for the past 40 years, in churches that had sent young people, including his own children, to Soul Survivor. “We need to have a look at how power operates in large, successful churches, where it is amazingly difficult to call that power out. . . It’s so difficult to call out something that’s going mistaken without it being extremely costly personally, because you find yourself being excluded from the group, and by some means being marginalised.”
The amended motion was carried, 303 to twenty, with 38 abstentions:
That this Synod,
conscious of the continued safeguarding work around independence under way following the publication of the reports by Dr Sarah Wilkinson and Professor Alexis Jay,
a) express deep sorrow for all instances of abuse inside God’s church, no matter who committed them, and condemn within the strongest possible terms any and all attempts to cover up abuse;
b) reaffirm its commitment to hearken to survivors and seek justice on their behalf;
c) call upon the Archbishops’ Council to:
i. make sure that learning from the review into allegations of abuse throughout the Soul Survivor network currently being undertaken by independent King’s Counsel Fiona Scolding, is taken into account in any recommendations referring to the Future of Church Safeguarding;
ii. engage with relevant survivors to grasp their perspective on the review’s conclusions;
iii. proceed to embed the National Safeguarding Standards into every Church of England ministry setting, and commend the points raised in GS 2361;
iv. highlight the importance of healthy cultures and urge further theological reflection in guarding against potential abuses of power and promoting secure and smart leadership, and across the ethics of social media;
v. commend the steps being taken by the National Safeguarding Team to make sure that victims and survivors have proper support including explanation of any legal processes — including the Clergy Discipline Measure — they find themselves involved with.
