THE General Synod voted to amend a motion significantly on Sunday afternoon, and thus headed off a new investigation of abuses at Soul Survivor and the wider Church.
Moving his private member’s motion, the Revd Robert Thompson (London) quoted Jesus’s healing of the woman suffering a haemorrhage in Matthew 5. Jesus had allowed her “to tell her story in public . . . insisted that her whole truth would be told”. The text had been the subject 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 fit into any narrative they could comfortably accept . . . Whole truths like mine belonged in the darkness, and I was told to keep 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 “since the conclusion of the core group process in relation to MP [Mike Pilavachi] most individuals involved appear to recognise that it has been effective in managing this allegation and any risk”.
Moreover, this limited abuse and risk to an individual, whereas abuse was enabled by cultures, systems, and inadequate governance: “Bad apples are usually the product of unhealthy trees.” His paper set out what some of the branches of this tree might be.
While the Bishop of St Albans, Dr Alan Smith, understood why many members had wanted to hold the debate, he felt that the timing was “far from ideal”, as the independent report by Fiona Scolding KC had not yet been received. There was a danger that “we might jump to conclusions, or even criticise a report which we have not yet seen.” Throughout the process, the diocese had “absolutely sought to follow the process that is laid down for us”. This was important in order that “everybody is going to be treated fairly. It takes longer, but we need to guarantee 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 could be subject to a Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) if they called for an independent investigation. The diocese remained “totally committed to exploring what went wrong, what lessons can be learned, and how we can minimise the possibility of that happening again.”
Canon Kate Massey (Coventry) shared with the Synod a message from a friend who was also survivor, who “loves and ministers within the charismatic Evangelical tradition in the Church of England”. Their “deepest desire” was “for their tradition to learn the lessons needed to be a safe and healthy place for all who grow in faith there.”
Canon Massey continued: “All traditions have their vulnerabilities. This motion is not and must not become a witch-hunt against a branch of the C of E or individuals within it. But rather, like all other traditions, there are cultural and theological aspects of the Charismatic Evangelical tradition — which is also my own — which can allow unhealthy or damaging leadership practices to develop.”
Her friend had three requests for what he considered a necessary, wider review: that it avoid “politicising” the pain of survivors, but keep the focus on learning lessons; that it was timely; and that the Church remember not only the survivors at the epicentre of events at Soul Survivor but also all those impacted by “the ripples of pain that have spread throughout the Church”. He asked that those leaders in the tradition, many of whom had endorsed Mike Pilavachi, stand up and support these people now.
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs) wondered how many people present had been “positively impacted” by Soul Survivor and by Mike Pilavachi. The festival had been “instrumental” in his own journey of faith since going in 1996, and serving as a volunteer many times. He had “lost count” of the number of ordinands who had come forward because of their experience at Soul Survivor. “I continue to be so grateful to God for the many positive ways that 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 an opportunity for us to exercise some self-reflection and learn what lesson we possibly can about how our theology and practice can be misused and abused. It’s not about undermining our movement, but strengthening it by ensuring we have as safe 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 about the risks when a review of allegations against Jonathan Fletcher was commissioned by his church, Emmanuel Wimbledon, rather than by the NST. Survivors were worried that the terms of reference would not permit those carrying out the review to look into culture, accountability structures, or wider networks.
There was a risk that the organisation would “always prefer to focus attention on the one bad apple and not on the flawed and failing tree or apple crate”. She warned: “Pioneering, church-planting, and creativity cannot be at the expense of good safeguarding governance and practice. How many times do we need to read reports that highlight that risks were not 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 important for the Evangelical constituency. Many were doing their best to apply the lessons learned “deeply and radically”. “I’ve learned that I need 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 invitation from the vicar who holds a great deal of power, does not mean they are comfortable doing it, don’t think it’s weird, or think that consenting is the price to pay for a new 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 invite challenge and scrutiny and to eliminate competitiveness in 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 a long amendment that removed the call for a new review, and called instead for the Archbishops’ Council to “ensure that learning from the review into allegations of abuse within the Soul Survivor network currently being undertaken by independent King’s Counsel Fiona Scolding, is considered in any recommendations relating 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 lessons 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 hold this abuser fully to account. We need the culture across the Church of England to change.” The motion was not, however, the “most constructive” way of promoting the necessary culture change.
First, things had moved on since 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 benefit in a costly reinvestigation of those actual events, with no guarantee that victims, survivors, and those involved in a variety of other ways would be willing to put themselves through potentially traumatising further interviews.”
The paper accompanying the motion referred to a perceived safeguarding risk around the use of BMOs and the Myriad church-planting programme: there were “complex governance issues” here. “But I would feel that such an approach, which looks to me to be a bit of a side-swipe at church-planting and missional communities, doesn’t help, and may even be counter-productive.” She said: “Abuse can take place in any part of the Church; the rest 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 at the Charismatic Evangelical 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 bit of a hybrid when it comes to church traditions”.
The proposed amendment “shifts the balance of power. . . Survivors want the structural aspects, the systemic aspects, the theological aspects to be looked at, and that is not in Scolding.” Survivors wanted to be co-producers in writing the Terms of Reference. He said that trust in 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 wanted to sign the motion, but, as lay chair of St Albans diocese, he had other paths open to him: governance structures could be used to ensure accountability and transparency. Much of what was called for in the original 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 a further review take place. “It’s time we saw hope in safeguarding in our Church.”
Canon Judith Maltby (Universities & TEIs) also opposed the amendment. “Trust in safeguarding at the centre is broken,” she said. Just a year 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 analysis” of failures at the centre. “I confess to being a little flabbergasted, that, after all that has happened, it has been suggested . . . that the group to handle the response is the Archbishops’ Council. That’s just a bit stunning in 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 process 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 believe that, on the ground, safeguarding is much stronger that it has been, but we are still seeing the impact of a lack of governance, a lack of control, of understanding of these other networks, which sort of sit halfway out of the Church.” He was not worried about the cost of the proposal, he said, but about the cost of asking the survivors to respond.
The Revd Paul Langham (Bristol) had been planning his own amendment, the wording of which had been combined with the one put forward. It was, he said, “possible to misread this motion as one focusing on one particular church tradition, and it would send an unfortunate signal were Synod to give the impression that our safeguarding eye is too narrowly focused”. Mr Thompson had been “at pains” to demonstrate 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 first had not yet been completed.
The amendment was carried by a counted vote in all three houses: Bishops: 20 to two, with eight abstentions; Clergy: 84 to 75, with seven abstentions; Laity: 80 to 78, with six abstentions.
Continuing the debate on the amended motion, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that, having been cross-questioned by Fiona Scolding KC during IICSA for more than five hours, he could tell Synod that she was “really very formidable, and she will do an excellent report”. In addition, the NST was doing a “very good job” in this case, he said, and he did not want the current discussion to imply otherwise.
The motion had “very helpfully brought out” the ”slight gap in the way we look at things as to how we deal with very powerful leaders. . . You don’t want to quench them, but you do want to make sure that they don’t go bonkers . . . and are not irresponsible in their actions.” He wondered whether, instead of a KC-led inquiry, this aspect could be looked at.
The Revd Matthew Beer (Lichfield) said that, when the Soul Survivor news broke, he was “sickened to the very core of my being, thinking that I may have unknowingly put young people at risk”. After soul-searching, he had concluded: “I hadn’t done anything wrong, and we can’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 is in every part of the Church.”
He was thankful for the amendment, but also to Fr Thompson. He hoped that the KC investigation would “lead us in all of our organisations to reflect deeply that this could happen anywhere. This is not of one theological persuasion or another. . . We must root out abuse at every level of our Church.”
Simon Friend (Exeter) was “distressed” at the passing of the amendment. To have the Archbishops’ Council look into the matter, given its recent history, was “shocking”. “I don’t think this is going to be received well outside of this chamber.”
He had been 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 look at how power operates in large, successful churches, where it is extremely difficult to call that power out. . . It’s so difficult to call out something that is going wrong without it being extremely costly personally, because you end up being excluded from the group, and somehow being marginalised.”
The amended motion was carried, 303 to 20, with 38 abstentions:
That this Synod,
conscious of the ongoing 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 within God’s church, regardless of who committed them, and condemn in the strongest possible terms any and all attempts to cover up abuse;
b) reaffirm its commitment to listen to survivors and seek justice on their behalf;
c) call upon the Archbishops’ Council to:
i. ensure that learning from the review into allegations of abuse within the Soul Survivor network currently being undertaken by independent King’s Counsel Fiona Scolding, is considered in any recommendations relating to the Future of Church Safeguarding;
ii. engage with relevant survivors to understand their perspective on the review’s conclusions;
iii. continue 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 safe and wise leadership, and around the ethics of social media;
v. commend the steps being taken by the National Safeguarding Team to ensure that victims and survivors have proper support including explanation of any legal processes — including the Clergy Discipline Measure — they find themselves involved with.