Updated Saturday and again Wednesday
In November 2023 the Trustees of Soul Survivor festivals, Soul Survivor Watford, and Soul61 (collectively known as Soul Survivor) commissioned Fiona Scolding KC to conduct an Independent Review into the culture and practices of Soul Survivor, following the National Safeguarding Team’s investigation into Mike Pilavachi.
Responses
An initial statement from Richard Scorer is copied below the fold.
Updates
Further analysis by Richard Scorer: The Soul Survivor Report – Some Thoughts
God Loves Women: Scolding, Colluding or Both? My critique of the Scolding Review into Soul Survivor and Mike Pilavachi
Church Times: Scolding review of Soul Survivor scandal published
For further updates on Soul Survivor, I recommend weekly checking at The Soul Survivor Situation – A Timeline.
Richard Scorer, specialist abuse lawyer at Slater & Gordon who acts for some of the Soul Survivor complainants said:
‘This report confirms that senior leaders in Soul Survivor knew about Pilavachi’s behaviour and failed to stop it over a long period- a damning conclusion but an unsurprising one. However, the report leaves some issues unexplored and questions unanswered. Although Fiona Scolding KC has done her best within the limitations imposed on her, some victims and survivors were unwilling to speak to a review paid for by Soul Survivor itself. The Church of England National Safeguarding Team did not share all or even most of the information in its possession with the reviewer, so much of the picture remains hidden. This report concludes that many in the Soul Survivor leadership knew about Pilavachi’s behaviour, but there is too little forensic analysis of individual culpability. This means that those who enabled Pilavachi’s behaviour can hide behind the conclusion that ‘everyone knew’, whilst evading personal responsibility. A big question is how Soul Survivor can truly reform itself when the people leading it now were also in leadership roles during the years when Pilavachi did these things, and the report fails to provides an answer. ‘The report because of its limited remit could not address the wider lessons of this case for the Church of England as a whole. The report suggests that it was only under media pressure that the Church of England National Safeguarding Team started to probe this case properly, but we still don’t know what they really learned, and what action has been taken. As members of General Synod have said, there still needs to be a proper independent inquiry into the Church of England’s failings in this case. In the meantime survivors will continue to pursue every avenue to ensure that accountability is achieved and lessons are truly learned”.
Mr Scorer refers I think to the debate at General Synod in July 2024 about Robert Thompson’s Private Members’ Motion calling for the Archbishops’ Council to set up a KC led independent inquiry with a wider remit into Soul Survivor. I don’t think it is unfair to say that Robert’s PMM was derailed by the Lead Safeguarding Bishop’s amendment, which passed by narrow majorities. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/op-iv-july-2024.pdf. I’ve just listened to the debate again on Robert’s PMM on 7 July. I recommend a full listen but as we’re all busy, I’d especially recommend speeches by Sean Doherty (c 2.48) and the Deputy Lead Safeguarding… Read more »
A correction to my post yesterday about the debate on the Private Members’ Motion in General Synod in July 2024 from Robert Thompson calling for an independent review into Soul Survivor with a wider remit. The voting on the PMM as amended by the Lead Bishop for Safeguarding was close – but in the Houses of Clergy and Laity – not in the House of Bishops. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/item-060.pdf And here is the voting on the final, amended PMM which gave the responsibility to the Archbishops’ Council to decide, in the light of the Scolding Review, whether a further, wider reaching… Read more »
Who are Church of England National Safeguarding Team safeguarding?
Certainly not abuse victims.
This has been turned around quite quickly – unlike the Makin report. Despite Richard Scorer’s reservations, I think Fiona Scolding has done a good job of identifying some important issues (though I have only skimmed the re[port as yet). This despite swathes of information being withheld from her.
Many victims & survivors refused to take part in Fiona Scolding’s review because they distrusted SSW & the NST. Their decisions appear to be vindicated by the fact that: ‘NST did not share all or even most of the information in its possession’ ’little forensic analysis of individual culpability’ ’report could not address lessons for Church of England’ ’NST only started to probe the case because of media pressure’ ‘there needs to be a proper independent inquiry into the Church of England’s [including particularly the Diocese & Bishop of St Albans] failings in this case. etc etc It is not… Read more »
Reading your list above, Simon, makes me wonder if the urgent desire to create a ‘Third Province’ is motivated by a lot more than doctrinal issues…
This is an impressively nuanced report despite the limitations imposed on Fiona Scolding KC. I wish there had been some way to get around the ‘hiding’ behind data protection and give her access to all the material that she was asking for. I think her recommendations – all of which seem eminently sensible – would have had a bit more bite. I note that, while Mike Pilavachi and Andy Croft have resigned, no one further up the governance chain has either resigned or been the subject of any kind of disciplinary procedure. This happens time and time again in relation… Read more »
I can’t imagine an average CofE parish advertising its coffee mornings, bring & buy sales and youth club would include a semi-naked massage by the vicar. It is jaw-dropping that those working for Soul Survivor thought their extra-mural sporting and massaging activities were just part of Christian discipleship. Naivety hardly covers it. More heads should roll.
I’m of the view that the Bishops Mission Order should have been suspended or cancelled. I know there will be howls of protest for all sorts of reasons but the amount of damage that has been done and the cost to the survivors has to be justification in itself. SS may have been a prestige project as far as the Diocese is concerned but so what? Vanity seems to be worth the cost is the message that comes across.
For the uninitiated, apart from being a church in Watford, Soul Survivor was long running annual summer Christian festival attended by about 30,000 young people at which about 2000 made a commitment to follow Jesus each year. This hugely successful festival was closed in 2019 by Mike Pilavachi himself, so to the extent that SS was a vanity project it no longer exists. Clearly many people have been hurt by Mike Pilavachi’s behaviour, but some context is needed – we are not talking about normal church life, but a hugely influential youth movement that positively impacted thousands of people.
Adrian, in your view is the fact that Soul Survivor is not ‘normal church life’ an aggravating or extenuating factor? What concerns many of us is that these movements, including bishops’ mission projects, often are not subject to the same checks, restraints, and supervision as is the case with parishes. Though abuse sadly happens in parishes too, the scope for it is so much wider in para-church movements than within parish and normal diocesan structures. And while it’s relatively easy to count those who have made a commitment, those who have been damaged, disillusioned, or put off Christianity altogether by… Read more »
Separating the wheat from the chaff? But I have a nasty feeling that the positive impact you refer to may have been why so many who should have known better did nothing. ‘Look at the big picture’? Were I a victim I should be dismayed by this church. Indeed I’m dismayed any way.
I’m not sure about ‘positively impacted’. Some of my own children went to SS in the early 2000s. While it had an impact at the time, now they are shocked and questioning. It certainly has not helped them hold on to faith.
The Executive Summary says it will refer to him as Mr Pilavachi but then slips into calling him ‘Mike’. Almost as though his grooming made it onto the pages of his own judgment.
The Guardian this week writes about 82 year old retired priest Sue Parfitt who had her PTO removed for taking part in a Just Stop Oil protest. She is awaiting trial for allegedly damaging glass at the British Library, and there is a picture of her holding up a placard saying the government is breaking the law. Contrast this with the treatment given to the cohorts of ‘great and good’ who turned a blind eye to the goings on of Mr Pilavachi and who have sought to draw the teeth of anyone trying to make proper enquiries into his long… Read more »
Just to say that I am not sure that the PTO was removed, not for this or any other reason.
According to Crockfords she held a PTO in Bristol from 2002 to 2022. You will know more about the process than me but it seems that it ended in 2022. Was in an application for a PTO in the current circumstances that was refused? Would that have created a story?
Yes, and it did create a story. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/21/retired-priest-painful-treatment-church-climate-protests) According to the Guardian, Ms Parfitt’s PTO expired at the end of 2022 and she has been negotiating for its renewal ever since. It has been denied because she is facing criminal proceedings. And note that she has at least one previous conviction.
I agree that it seems unfair. At the same time, a policy of not renewing PTO of priests facing criminal prosecution is understandable. What is less understandable is that those enabling and covering up abuse face no sanction from the C of E at all.
Graham , I only know what I read in the Observer online last Saturday .
The article was written by Andrew Kersley and at one point it appears to quote Sue Parfitt saying how painful it is not being able to preside over a Eucharist again . What originally caught my eye was the fact – don’t laugh- she had to have a safeguarding check ….. which apparently recommended permission to officiate was granted .
Her bishop is none other than Vivienne Faull… she of climate lead if I’m not mistaken….
“she had to have a safeguarding check ….. which apparently recommended permission to officiate was granted .”
Surely safeguarding checks do not recommend PTOs or anything else? A green light lets a prior recommendation stand and nothing more.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2024/20-september/news/uk/retired-priest-refused-pto-after-climate-protest
Link to story here:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/21/retired-priest-painful-treatment-church-climate-protests
My understanding is that bishops are required to remove a licence or pto when a Reader or cleric has been arrested – even if the bishop thinks the person is innocent or if the arrest was over a matter of principle. If this is so, it is the reason why pto cannot be granted until the court case is settled. The bishop has no option but to refuse pto in these circumstances. We should maybe revisit this as there is all the difference in the world between protest and, lets say, a little light bank robbery at the weekend.
If “protest” involves delaying ambulances, preventing people from attending funerals or going to work, I fail to see how a little light bank robbery is any different. Just Stop Oil can cause terrible economic damage to a local economy. Clergy – whether retired and elderly or not – shouldn’t associate with such criminals.
On your point of maybe we should revisit the question of refusing-PTO if there is a court-case upcoming. Yes and no – – whilst I don’t subscribe to the idea that the CofE must be doing it’s best to be legal at all times irrespective of the law. It’s certainly not a bad start. I know a previous article/post went into great detail about the dangers of the church feeling above the law, and that it needed to be under the law of the land at every stage. But – it doesn’t take much imagination to think of laws that… Read more »
In response to you and FrDavidH – yes the complexities here are why we have the current practice. Being the established church also implies (surely) that we have to be careful to comply with and support the law of the land – after all,we are part of the making of it.
The day the CofE is ‘careful to comply with and support the law of the land’ will be the day it dispenses with its exemptions from the Equality Act — and perhaps the day it is saved from extinction as the established church
Yes I’d agree with the sentiment here – just trying to unravel the complexity of the lived reality. If we are to live out being the established church, there is, in my view, a compelling argument to take the Equality Act more seriously.
According to 2018 HofB guidance doc, there is no obligation to block PTO just because someone has been charged.
A licence cannot be removed other than by the CDM. A bishop can in some cases suspend a cleric from duties but they must follow due process and the suspension is subject to regular review to assess if it is still necessary. A PtO is entirely in the gift of the Ordinary and can be removed in seconds.
You are technically correct and maybe I used ‘remove’ a bit loosely. I have seen a licence suspended following an arrest.
Purely on the subject of the PTO, I would be interested to know how many holders of a PTO actively make use of that permission, and do the inactive have it as an item of vanity?
Why would having PTO be an act of vanity?
Those who have PTO can only exercise it at the invitation of incumbents. If some with PTO are inactive, it may be that they aren’t being asked to take services. Or, of course, they may have become too ill or too frail to officiate since it was last renewed.
I live in a parish where six retired clergy reside. None can exercise a ministry because the vicar claims the diocese forbids priests with PTO to operate. Obviously that is nonsense. It is very frustrating for people who feel called by God to say mass, when the vicar says they haven’t.
Some retired clergy like to be regularly taking services; others are happy to help out with holiday cover or sudden illness. Everything is at the invitation of the incumbent or the church wardens if they are acting as sequestrator during an interregnum.
Our founder spent all his time with the little people and to the extent that he encounters the rich and powerful he gives them short shrift. Contrast that with the snooty hierarchy of the CofE hanging around the House of Lords puffing out their chests and trying to make friends with movers and shakers who appear to be impervious to their ‘charms’. Ms Parfitt may have been misguided but she was thinking not of herself but of future generations. It appears that she is not innocent until proven guilty. Denying an elderly priest what could especially at her age, be… Read more »
I haven’t seen any apology from Sue Parfitt for her eco-terrorism. Has she made one, or are you just playing left-wing good, right-wing bad?
Most thinking people are fearful of climate change whilst being very annoyed at the smug, holier-than-thou zealots in Just Stop Oil. Causing untold inconvenience to others, along with criminal damage, is no way to draw attention to the global threat to human existence. Clergy members of Just Stop Oil should have their PTO suspended, along with those who are abusive to others by sexual abuse, damage to property or preventing people from going about their lawful activities.
Oliver, I hadn’t passed any judgement about the rights and wrongs of Just Stop Oil- I was just contrasting the treatment of one elderly retired female priest for alleged (it still hasn’t gone to trial) abuse against property, and the fact that this was thought to merit a safeguarding assessment compared with the treatment of the great and the good in ignoring the abuse of people by one of their chums. I wonder how many of them were asked to undergo a safeguarding assessment?
But ‘culture wars’ is a great distraction isn’t it?
The safeguarding assessment is not connected with the impending trial – we do that before issuing a licence / pto in all cases.
Fr David did you mean to say that membership of Just Stop Oil is sufficient to warrant removal of a PtO, or did you mean that taking part in disruptive activities is the bar at which that sanction should be applied? There must surely be due process and ‘sanctions’ ought to be proportionate. Incidentally a PtO is entirely in the gift of the Ordinary and can be withdrawn without notice and strictly speaking without explanation. I gather some dioceses are very reluctant to grant anyone above the age of 80 a PtO at all.
Taking part in dangerous and damaging protests should bar clergy from PTO. Silent membership seems pretty harmless.
It could be argued that “causing untold inconvenience to others, along with criminal damage”is the sort of thing the Suffragettes did when campaigning for the vote, or Nelson Mandela when protesting against apartheid.
With 50 to 100 years of hindsight we can now see that their actions have been described as brave and far-sighted and justified. It may be that after another 50 years of climate change we might think the same of the eco-protesters.
Rev Sue Parfitt tried to destroy the Magna Carta. Others have thrown Heinz Soup over Van Gogh’s Sunflowers. I fail to see how such wicked vandalism is comparable to the bravery of the Suffragettes or Mr Mandela.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/27/just-stop-oil-activist-phoebe-plummer-jailed-throwing-soup-van-gogh-sunflowers
I think that is exactly my point. We look back at the Suffragettes and Mandela and see principled bravery. But they were doing exactly the same as the protesters today, and were regarded in the same negative light by contemporary people.
Smashing a glass over the Magna Carta is not principled bravery but crass stupidity and criminal damage. It’s an insult to Mr Mandela’s memory to compare a vandal with his colossal self-sacrifice.
I think this may be a category error. The suffragettes and Nelson Mandela were protesting about how people treat other people. How they acted had an impact on how others viewed their cause. The climate emergency is not like this. It makes no difference what you think of the actions of Just Stop Oil. The climate emergency is not sentient and will continue to escalate unless governments, banks and large corporations take action.
I agree. Throwing soup over a Van Gogh won’t make the planet cooler . And such vandalism is hardly likely to change the mind of governments and bankers.
“How they acted had an impact on how others viewed their cause.” I agree with this in the sense that, how activists act in any campaign for social change may either serve or do a disservice to their cause. I’m not sure if I grasp your wider point. How people treat other people is a function of the systemic. Racism may be not just about how people treat other people (behaviours). It may also be systemic, grounded in negative values, self interested choices, institutionalized, supported by state policy. Such was the case with Residential Schools in Canada, Segregation in the… Read more »
Have you seen the Tom Winton piece in today’s Guardian?
A good read with an apocalyptic tone for Michaelmas, I should think, Father.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/30/our-leaders-are-collaborators-with-fossil-fuel-colonialists-this-is-the-source-of-our-communal-dread
The rhetoric used to describe the climate activists seems rather hyperbolic. Civil Disobedience may be considered from the perspective of moral theology. (link). A subset of the problem from moral theology and civil justice perspectives is the question of the matter of the arguably excessive prison sentences that may apply. (2nd link). https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/road-peace/discipleship-civilly-disobedient-jesus Fr. John Dear writes: “Twenty years ago, on Dec. 7, 1993, Philip Berrigan, Lynn Fredriksson, Bruce Friedrich and I walked on to the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base near Goldsboro, N.C., through thousands of soldiers to one of the 75 F-15E nuclear-capable fighter bombers on alert to… Read more »
Rod, the point I was trying to make was about how attitudes change over time.
We forget that many people regarded as saintly in hindsight were regarded as bad, and sometimes evil, by many people when they were active.
Nelson Mandela is regarded as almost saintly today. Forty years ago he was widely criticised as a communist and terrorist. In fact he was only taken off the US governments list of proscribed terrorists in 2008.
That’s why I wonder whether today’s climate activists will be looked back on kindly in 50 years time.
Yes, I agree. It works the other way as well. Powerful people who oppose controversial forms of activism eventually find themselves on the wrong side of history. Instance PM Thatcher and President Reagan with regard to Mr. Mandela. I’ve attached a link about Fr. Malcolm Boyd the ‘expresso’ Episcopal priest who was arrested during the American war in Vietnam for attempting to say mass in the Pentagon. Boyd was a life long activist campaigning for Gay rights, and earlier in his life against both Segregation and the war. His long life provides a perspective on these things in terms of… Read more »
Well, I won’t be around in 50 years’ time and perhaps you won’t either, so anyone can speculate. What do you think South Africa will be like then? I honestly don’t think it has improved much in the past thirty years, despite all the euphoria back in 1994. Instead, it seems to have become increasingly violent, with some of the highest murder and rape statistics in the world, a greater division of wealth and poverty, and insecurity over things like electricity provision. This suggests people had a pretty narrow understanding of ‘justice’ in the 1970s and 80s and missed ‘the… Read more »
The Suffragettes were criminals. The Suffragists were principled women. Big difference.
Sue Walrond-Skinner was partly in charge of my post-ordination training, back in the day. I didn’t think she would go completely off the rails but old age isn’t always kind.
“Terrorism”? Hyperbole does your argument no favours.
Yeah. I thought that after I posted it.
Mr Miller usually favours hyperbole when he refers to the clergy.
Yes, I noticed that. It suddenly changes the tone of the report to one of familiarity with Pilavachi and almost treats him as a friend. How did this escape the proof reader?
Thank you all for the useful and forensic contributions here. Ms Scolding has performed reasonably well considering her brief – but not as well as Dr Sarah Wilkinson who performed extremely well in skewering the Archbishops’ Council and Secretary General, notwithstanding the initial distrust over the formulation of her Review. Correct me if I am wrong but when I turned first to St Albans Diocesan page I would find their response and that of Soul Survivor but not a prominent link to the Report itself. Overall the official response owes too much to managerial crisis management. This is not a… Read more »
The report is a biggish button at the bottom of Diocesan page. Perhaps it should be higher up but it is there.
Given the limitations placed on the review it is shocking how much has emerged.
Despite every effort to ensure that Pilavachi’s side of the story (however implausible) was always given due prominence & level of credence, some of the material was truly jaw-dropping. The paid massages abroad saga is a case in point, and as an old sailor I roared with laughter at the very idea trying to explain away paying for the sexual services of a prostitute as ‘inadvertent’!
Clearly he was a bully, and it is interesting that that word is avoided in the report.
Maybe in the Daily Mail version.
This is a remarkable pair of sentences from the Summary: “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 in the church and those who came to learn alongside him”
These things are not ‘alongside,’ they are part of one whole. When will we learn that people who lead without proper boundaries are dangerously attractive? Being ‘ebullient’ and ‘bullied’ are two sides of the same coin.
Returning to the OP and away from issues of pto and licences…
I was, as you might expect given I work in theological education, interested in the comments on his (lack of) discernment processes and theological training / formation – the latter word being especially relevant here. This is not an isolated case but thankfully relatively rare. It is nevertheless disturbing.
Yes, what possible reason can there be to short circuit the process? And why did the TEI concerned not have sufficiently rigorous training, supervision and reporting processes in place to identify some of these concerns and raise them with Pilavachi and the bishop? Shades of the Nine O’clock Service here?
Exactly – the fast-tracking of Chris Brain was the first thing I thought of when I read here about Pilavachi’s ordination and the lack of supervision. A danger to laity – and an insult to all the plebs who followed the accepted route of ordination training. I am reminded of that great 18th and 19th centuries tradition of buying a commission in the army.
The entire report is highly disturbing, and some of the value judgements in it staggering. Admittedly the authors were highly constrained by their TOR, but the balance is bewildering to me as a retired safeguarding professional. Mr Pilavachi is described as ‘one of the most successful Christian pastors of his generation not only in the Uk but also internationally’ as well as the sentence quoted by Neil Patterson about him being ‘ebullient, generous hearted and kind to many’ That’s all right then . So what about the ‘many’ to whom he caused deep psychological harm over a 30 year period… Read more »
Well indeed:
“one of the most successful Christian pastors of his generation”
How does one measure that? What does ‘success’ mean in this context?
And why is he considered more ‘successful’ than someone who’s ministered for 25 years in a small parish?
Particularly if that ministry has been honest and faithful and not involved causing his/ her parishioners deep psychological harm?
The statement makes no sense if you look beneath the sound bites
Reminding of the longlasting (lifelong) damage to clergy and followers, who ‘put their faith’ in charismatic ‘leaders’, and were (and are) ‘encouraged’ by ‘senior clergy’ to seek and attain such ‘success’ and measurable achievement, and to deal with their ‘failure’, or ‘promotion’ on the basis of their success to a role such as ‘Mission Developer’ to give ‘further encouragement’ to such successful methods and manipulations. I’m wanting to be wrong about this fear.
Is success being measured by the number of butts on seats method? Surely the ‘success’ of an evangelist’s ministry should be measured not just by the number of converts at the rally, but by the number who last the course life long? That statistic, of course, is in the hands of a different person, and not easily accessible down here!
The use of the term ‘pastor’ here is odd. Pilavachi was primarily known as an evangelist rather than a pastor, and it was his ‘pastoring’ of those he was closer to that did the damage. Unless ‘pastor’ was used in the more general, free church sense of ‘minister’ – which again would be odd when referring to an Anglican priest.
I am also highly perplexed by the costing of these ‘successful’ enterprises. The issues over the funding (or lack of it) for small parishes is frequently aired on TA and plant churches are generally seen as the way to preserve the C of E from extinction. A contributor higher up this thread stated that the Soul Survivor annual Christian festival attracted 30,000 young people each year, and from these 2000 made a commitment to follow Jesus. I think this is about 6.6 (recurring) % of the attendees- and does anyone keep any figures on how long on average they remain… Read more »
I wonder if that is 2000 new people making the commitment? From what I gather from (some of- not a representative sample!) those who have attended Soul Survivor many attendees are already committed Christians from other churches- rather like Greenbelt for example or the Walsingham Youth Pilgrimage- so there may be an element at least of already existing disciples attracted to a currently buzzing event. This moving deckchairs phenomenon is exactly not unheard of in this neck of the woods. So certainly, there may be a sense of Soul Survivor, being generous, buoying up and encouraging the faithful rather than… Read more »
I agree with much of what you say – but networks, plants, and fresh expressions are the Church. They’re just not the traditional parish church.
Very much so Janet; my suggestion is that growing a part of the Church is not necessarily growing the whole. It feels very much as though our hierarchy is mesmerised by the shiny new things and not taking on board that there are limits to the growth potential of all parts of the Church.
I agree with that. We need a mixed economy, but it needs to be balanced between old and new. And for some years now there’s been an imbalance in the direction of resources.