THE Bishops and senior clergy and staff in the diocese of St Albans have reinforced their commitment to survivors, and to “more robust processes of oversight” of church-plants, in their formal response to the findings of the Scolding review of 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 — both 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 about 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 largest congregation in 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 apologise for its “inadequate oversight” of the church.
In its formal response, published on Wednesday, the diocese repeated its apology made at the time of the publication of the Scolding review. “We recognise that although we had systems in place to prevent abuse happening in our churches, in this instance, those systems were not sufficient to prevent harm from taking place or allowing it to come to light sooner. For that, we are truly sorry.”
The Scolding review concluded that “there were ways and means of creating some form of oversight had the Diocese wished this to happen.”
While acknowledging this criticism, the diocese goes on to issue an explanation for the events. Soul Survivor, Watford, it says, “was, and remains, an independent legal charity, with trustees who are responsible for its oversight and governance” — accountable to the Charity Commission — and that it predated the existence of BMOs by many years.
The intention, it says, had been to regularise the church when the Bishop of St Albans, Dr Alan Smith, was appointed in 2009, and that this was to be 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 resistant to 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 did not have any form of licence from the diocese until 2012. Even once a BMO was in place, measures set out in the code of practice did not appear to have been followed. Diocesan contributors had suggested that a BMO was “not adequate to meet the scale, size and reach of Soul Survivor”.
“It seems to us that Soul Survivor wanted to demonstrate it was part of the Church of England but also wanted to manage and have control its own affairs: that is not a situation unique to Soul Survivor but it is an issue that the Church of England needs to grapple with,” the report 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 current Visitor, the Revd Canon Dr Tim Lomax, in conjunction with the then Bishop of Hertford, the Rt Revd Dr Michael Beasley.”
Since then, the annual review had, the diocese says, included “questions to its leaders about values, relationships within the organisation and congregation, and safeguarding. The final question in the review was specifically open-ended: ‘Are there any problems you need to tell me about or issues you would like to raise?’”
The diocese insists that, “having checked all files, emails and other records, as far as we can ascertain, no one at any point either independently or in 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 formal complaint in 2022.
The Scolding review questions the extent to which Mr Pilavachi was engaged in these Visitor reviews. The diocese writes: “Indeed, this was a concern 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 at least every other year. With hindsight, his ambivalence to scrutiny was a warning sign. It may have contributed to a culture in 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 as 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 did not attend a bishops’ advisory panel. When it came to formation, the Scolding review says: “Mr Pilavachi told us that he attended some of the relevant courses but not all of them, as the course was designed and agreed to be a bespoke one for Mr Pilavachi.” He was not subject to ministerial-development review, because of his employment status.
In its formal response, the diocese says that “No concerns were raised about the appropriateness of his ordination at any point in the discernment process,” and that Mr Pilavachi, like others, had an “agreed bespoke training pathway that builds on their experience and addresses gaps in their formation. No concerns were noted or raised by any of those who interviewed him.”
In terms of further reviews, once his Initial Ministerial Education Phase 2 (IME2) pathway had been completed, the diocese says: “Where our support was lacking was in terms of ongoing mentoring and peer review once he had completed his IME2, for which we apologise.”
The diocese says that it is “currently consulting” on a new, more vigorous BMO for Soul Survivor, Watford, including mandatory reviews, and ensuring better accountability for its leaders and care where they are overstretched. It asks the national Church to provide more robust guidance for Visitors conducting these reviews. “It is especially important that the legal framework of a BMO and its Code of Practice are able to embrace both large, established mission initiatives and small experimental projects.”
The diocese concludes by repeating its “sincere apology to all those who have been damaged by Mike Pilavachi’s behaviour. As a diocese, we commit to putting survivors and victims at 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.”