THE abuse of power exhibited by Mike Pilavachi was enabled by a “wholesale” failure of organisational culture at Soul Survivor, where staff were afraid of the consequences of raising concerns — and, even when informed, trustees did from “little to nothing” in response, a KC-led review has concluded.
Its report, Independent Review into Soul Survivor, by Fiona Scolding KC and Ben Fullbrook, was commissioned by the trustees of Soul Survivor last November and published on Thursday.
The reviewers find “credible and consistent evidence” that Mr Pilavachi developed “inappropriately close relationships with young men” and exhibited “inappropriate levels of controlling behaviour”. He also engaged in “lengthy, one-on-one wrestling sessions in private with young men”, and gave private one-on-one massages to partially clothed young men.
Several former members of the Soul Survivor congregation have given accounts of informing its leadership of allegations (News, 12 April). But the reviewers admit that they have “encountered some difficulty in identifying precisely who knew what about Mr Pilavachi’s behaviours and when”. They conclude, however, that it is “almost impossible” that nobody in church leadership at the time knew about the massages. They paint a highly critical picture of dysfunctional governance at the church, which was founded by Mr Pilavachi in Watford in 1993.
“There was a wholesale failure to inculcate both a culture where there could be open and honest raising of concerns, and also where there was no fear that raising concerns could cause detriment,” they write.
“Moreover, on the occasions when matters were brought to the attention of the trustees . . . little to nothing was done. There was therefore an informal feeling amongst many to whom we spoke that speaking up or speaking out would not make any difference but would make their lives untenable, not least because it would upset Mr Pilavachi. Many within the Church had seen that happen to their predecessors in post. They chose to leave to go to other churches or organisations, or even to lose their faith.”
Among those who have consented to be named in the review are the Revd Tim Hughes and the Revd Pete Hughes, who were “ostracised” by Mr Pilavachi after confronting him about his behaviour by letter in 2004 and “had little choice but to leave the church as a result”. Other contributors told the review that “this episode was used by Mr Pilavachi as a narrative to elicit loyalty, and to communicate that such concerns or complaints would lead to ostracism.”
The review raises wider questions for the Church of England about the governance of church-plants, and suggests that greater accountability needs to be built into Bishop’s Mission Orders (BMOs). It observes 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 is that the diocese apologise for its “inadequate oversight” of the church.
THE review follows the review of the allegations against Mr Pilavachi by the National Safeguarding Team and the diocese of St Albans, of which the full report has never been made public. A press release issued in September 2023 said that concerns raised had been “substantiated” (News, 8 September).
While the Scolding review revisits these allegations, it provides more detailed accounts and, for the first time, Mr Pilavachi’s response. In total, it received about 140 responses, while about 70 people were interviewed.
The consistency of the accounts given by a variety of young men over a 35-year period was “remarkable”, the reviewers write. Mr Pilavachi “developed inappropriately close relationships with young men, which would then be followed by long periods of ‘ghosting’ whereby Mr Pilavachi would seem to break off all contact with an individual for no apparent reason”. It was this behaviour, which also affected women, “above any of the others described in this report, that appears to have been the most harmful”, they write.
In response to allegations of “ghosting”, Mr Pilavachi accepted that he had not treated people well, but told the review that he had “not intended to be hurtful or manipulative”. By way of explanation, he said that he felt like a “pretty broken” person at times, and would often feel “incredibly insecure”. He was an introvert and very afraid of conflict.
The review casts doubt on this explanation — and others given by Mr Pilavachi. It is, they write elsewhere, “somewhat disingenuous for Mr Pilavachi to suggest that he was unaware of his power over others, and that he was not seen by individuals as having a special relationship with God.”
It concludes that Mr Pilavachi engaged in “lengthy, one-on-one wrestling sessions” in private with young men in the 1990s, 2000s, and possibly even the 2010s, during which, in some instances, he would try to pin the young person to the floor. This continued, it says, “even after he had specifically been told that it was inappropriate and, apparently, in full view of others”. He denied that there was any erotic motivation behind the wrestling, but accepted that it could be perceived in this way.
The review had “no conclusive evidence that those in Church leadership at the time or trustees knew about these more intensive wrestling sessions”. But, given that there seemed to be “collective knowledge among interns and junior staff”, it was “very surprising that information about this activity did not reach those in senior leadership or trustees or that, if it did, no action was taken”.
Mr Pilavachi also gave one-on-one massages to young men in private in the 2000s, in which the men would be only partially clothed (sometimes only in their underwear), and would lie on Mr Pilavachi’s bed. Nine men reported this to the review, of whom two believed that the massages were sexually motivated.
The review records that Mr Pilavachi “strenuously denies touching anyone inappropriately or deriving any sexual satisfaction from them”. He told the review that he had “a particular passion for massage . . . he wanted to bless others by sharing something with them which he enjoyed himself.”
The reviewers write: “It does seem clear that Mr Pilavachi is a generous-hearted person who would often share things that he enjoyed with other people. For example, he also had a passion for food and would take people out to dinner or cook for them.”
But it concludes that “at the very least, Mr Pilavachi’s massaging of these young men represented a significant abuse of power for which naïvety (if that is what it was) is no excuse at all.” It also observes that the circumstances of the massages “would be widely seen in society as a precursor to sexual intimacy, if not sexually intimate in and of itself”. In this case, again, the reviewers admit that it has been “difficult” to ascertain who in senior leadership knew of the massages. But they conclude that it is “almost impossible” that nobody in church leadership knew.
AMONG the leaders named in the review is the Rt Revd Graham Cray, a former Bishop of Maidstone, who chaired Soul Survivor, serving as a director from 2000 until his resignation in 2020. In 2016, he was “made aware of an allegation that Mr Pilavachi touched a man inappropriately whilst massaging him”. He put the allegation to Mr Pilavachi, who admitted to massaging the man, but not to touching him inappropriately.
Bishop Cray — who received the allegation via another trustee — decided to take no further action on the complaint, although he wrote a report that he sent to the Revd Andy Croft, another Soul Survivor pastor. Bishop Cray told the review that he had been told that the massages had stopped in 2005-07, on the instructions of either the Rt Revd David Pytches, Vicar of St Andrew’s, Chorleywood (from which Soul Survivor had been planted), or David Westlake (a former trustee, who has denied knowing about the massages). “We find it extraordinary that this alone (i.e. the fact that the massage took place) was not considered by Bishop Cray to merit further action,” the reviewers write.
In April, Church House confirmed that a Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) investigation into Bishop Cray had concluded, and “appropriate risk management steps are being taken” (News, 12 April). The Scolding review suggests that the CDM “as it currently stands is insufficiently flexible to deal with nuanced issues of overarching responsibility for safeguarding matters”.
The review also describes safeguarding failures at Soul Survivor not previously in the public domain. They include the case of a counsellor who was allowed to continue practising at Soul Survivor despite a warning from his previous church that he had told a member of staff to take his clothes off during counselling. He was prohibited from having a lodger, but Soul Survivor was subsequently told by a young person lodging with him that he had asked him to take off his clothes. The counsellor was immediately fired and left the country, prompting a lessons-learned review.
In the case of Matt Redman, a worship leader who has spoken out about Mr Pilavachi’s behaviour (News, 5 July), the review identifies “serious failures of child protection”. Mr Pilavachi and Bishop Pytches were aware that Mr Redman was being sexually abused by his stepfather for at least a year before the police became involved. There was first “counselling” of the abuser “by way of prayer and referral to counselling of him and his wife”. This focused on “whether Matt’s mother was to blame for the abuse taking place because of the nature of the marital relationship”. During this time, Mr Redman was subject to more abuse.
THE task of the review was to “examine the actions and behaviours of Mr Pilavachi, and how these were enabled, contributed to, dependent upon, or produced by, the wider culture of both Soul Survivor and the Charismatic movement and the Church of England in general”.
A significant finding is the extent to which Mr Pilavachi went unchallenged at Soul Survivor. It records that, in 2014, after trustees disagreed with him, Mr Pilavachi and two other senior members of staff threatened to resign unless all the trustees resigned and were replaced (they refused). Minutes show that Mr Pilavachi would attend and chair trustee meetings when available, despite not being a formal trustee. “There was limited advertising of many senior roles until 2024. The recruitment seems to have been, at best, informal and at worst ad hoc and based upon one’s personal connection with Mr Pilavachi.”
Among the challenges faced by the reviewers was that Soul Survivor seemed to have kept no record of “informal concerns” that participants in the review described raising with managers. Having admitted to difficulties in identifying who knew what, the reviewers emphasise that, “in our view, people should have known about these things. This is an unacceptable state of affairs and represents failures on many levels.”
The review is also critical of the diocese of St Albans, concluding that “there were ways and means of creating some form of oversight had the Diocese wished this to happen.” 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 do not appear to have been followed. Diocesan contributors 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 says.
“Those who wish to be in communion or part of the Church of England should recognise that this comes with rights, but also responsibilities. There cannot be a view that you can have the ‘badge’ but do not require the requisite governance and oversight structures to create a safe church.”
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 review said: “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.
WHILE the review observes that abusive behaviour is not unique to any one tradition, it suggests that risks may be particularly evident in Charismatic contexts, including “anointed leadership and the cult of the charismatic leader”.
Here, again, the reviewers cast doubt on Mr Pilavachi’s account: “His protestations of his lack of power must be seen against the backdrop of those who have spoken to us who certainly identified several occasions where he exercised that power and was unafraid to use it (for example, asking all the trustees to resign).”
It also suggests that the growth of Evangelical and Charismatic churches produces a risk: “The larger the numbers, the greater the power and the greater need to check oneself and reflect upon the opportunities to abuse power. An emphasis on the physical manifestation of spiritual gifts . . . may also give those who are perceived as being particularly gifted more personal power.”
Another “continued blind spot”, they suggest, is “a tendency to assume (wrongly) that Evangelical clergy or church members will not or cannot be gay”.
THE review concludes with 44 recommendations, among them that Soul Survivor, Mr Pilavachi, and other church organisations issue apologies. It suggests that the culture begun under Mr Pilavachi has “not yet dissipated” at Soul Survivor. “Those who are currently leading the Church need to reflect upon how they can make a break from the past.”
The authors also set out what the limitations on their review were. They had not been able to compel people to speak to them, and, while the “vast majority”, including Mr Pilavachi, had done so, some had not. They had also been unable to review all records because of data-protection legislation, while only 15 of the 46 people who gave evidence to the NST review had agreed for their statements to be viewed.
A general conclusion is that “when an organisation is seen as successful, people do not look carefully enough about what the price may be for such success.” Mr Pilavachi was, they write, “the goose that laid the golden eggs”.
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. That abuse of power has caused deep psychological harm to many with whom he worked closely over 30 years.”
AMONG those who have spoken out about the harm is David Gate, a former Soul Survivor worship leader who gave an account to The Sunday Times last year (News, 9 June 2023). On Thursday, he said that he was “hugely disappointed” with the Scolding review, which “consistently downplays the seriousness of Mike Pilavachi’s abusive behaviours and repeats back to the victims the same tired excuses we’ve heard for the last 30 years.
“It makes no mention of the grooming and narcissistic behavior and fails to connect the dots. While it is more thorough than the NST report, its conclusions of what occurred only serve Mike’s manipulative narratives and continue to shield those who oversaw it from accountability. A fully independent investigation is essential for any sense of justice and peace for the victims.”
Survivors had been given a copy of the 103-page report only 48 hours before publication. In this version, Mr Pilavachi had been referred to as “Mike” (despite an opening commitment to using “Mr Pilavachi”), which felt, Mr Gate, said, “very pally”. While plenty of space had been given to Mr Pilavachi’s account, those of victims were “wrapped up together in an amorphous criticism”, he said. He was particularly disturbed by the “horrifying” comparison of massages to the generosity of making meals.
In July, the General Synod amended a motion calling for a new independent inquiry into Soul Survivor so that the call was removed (News, 12 July). Mr Gate, who remains involved in Christian community, believes that such an inquiry is still needed, speaking to “a much wider range of people” and with fuller access to information. On the effect of Mr Pilavachi’s abuses, he said: “Probably from the age of 16 to 40, it had a pretty devastating effect.” It had affected both his relationships and career.
The Charismatic wing of the Church was “paranoid” that introspection would have a “devastating effect on the way they worship, which it won’t”, he said. “They just need to be really honest about their practices and look at ways in which they are unhealthy and ripe for abuse.”
A statement from complainants represented by Richard Scorer, head of abuse law and public inquiries at Slater Gordon, said that the review contained “too little forensic analysis of individual culpability”. They questioned whether Soul Survivor could reform itself, given that “the people leading it now were also in leadership roles during the years when Pilavachi did these things.”
ON THURSDAY, a statement was issued by the trustees and leaders of Soul Survivor committing them to implementing the review’s recommendations “in all respects”.
“To all those victims who have been deeply impacted, and continue to be, we are profoundly sorry,” it says. “As trustees and leaders of Soul Survivor we want you to know that we have heard you.”
There were, it acknowledges, “people in positions of leadership and governance of the ministries of Soul Survivor, who knew or were made aware of Mike Pilavachi’s behaviour. . . we also agree that a series of governance failures to provide proper management, accountability, and oversight of Mike Pilavachi facilitated a culture that gave him the licence to operate as he did.
“Throughout Soul Survivor’s history, there has been an overemphasis on Mike Pilavachi’s gifts and success, which contributed to the blindness towards his behaviour. Again, we’re sorry, particularly to those who tried to raise concerns and were not listened to.”
The changes made in the past 18 months include, the statement says, “a stronger collaboration between Soul Survivor Watford and the Diocese of St Albans in order to strengthen oversight and accountability”, changes to the Board, and introducing a complaints and whistle-blowing mechanism.
The lead bishop for safeguarding, the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell, welcomed the review, and said that its recommendations would be “taken forward”. Among work already under way was revision of the CDM. Criticism of individuals would be examined further.
“In order that the Church might learn all it can from this case and ensure that such a shocking abuse of power, perpetrated over many years, is not repeated, we will explore what further work needs to be done, including a specific focus in relation to the governance and scrutiny of new worshipping communities across all traditions in the Church of England,” she said.
A St Albans diocesan statement responding to the review says: “We deeply regret the pain and distress caused, and we offer our sincere apologies to all survivors and victims who have suffered as a result.” A full response to the review — which seeks to conclude within three months — will be “shaped by careful deliberation by the Bishop’s Council and other relevant diocesan bodies”. It pledges the diocese to “strengthen safeguarding practices, improve the formation of Bishops’ Mission Orders (BMO), and consider how the oversight of churches and clergy operating under the BMO framework could be enhanced”.
soulsurvivorwatford.co.uk/review