Some thoughts on Mike Pilavachi and Soul Survivor
I tried to think of a clever title, but couldn't think of one that didn't undermine the gravity of this.
I was sixteen when I first went to Soul Survivor, frustrated that I hadn’t been able to go the previous couple of years as our church was involved in its own summer event and only a few of the older youth went. By this point – 2000 – Soul Survivor was already the centre point of Christian youth ministry in the UK. That was also the year that thousands of young people descended on Manchester to engage in social action and evangelism.
I was part of a youth church that was in many ways part of the same wave of activity around this time. This saw the Cutting Edge events that launched Delirious’ rise, and organisations for youth and young adults spring up all over. Events with titles like ‘Cultural Shift’ sought to engage in youth culture and hold conferences in nightclubs. Around this time I went on mission trips to Canada, the US and Germany to advance these innovative ideas that put young people at the centre of church for young people. I remember, somewhat ridiculously, speaking at a conference in Vancouver about how to lead youth cell groups – I hadn’t led one myself at that point.
We were a youth congregation of a hundred or so and Soul Survivor was what was taking this passion and commitment for church for young people by young people to a much wider audience. Over the years I returned, I helped run the seminar programme while I was a student at university, and returned to bring students to Momentum in slightly more recent years. When I got to give a short talk in a seminar I considered it a huge honour.
Mike Pilavachi was, in my estimation, the Christian leader with the second widest reach in the UK – the widest being Nicky Gumbel, and then only really through the Alpha course. He was invited to countless conferences, was involved in diverse initiatives. And when the news broke earlier this year that he was suspended as part of an investigation into abusive practices I was shocked.
If someone had asked for an example of longevity in Christian leadership he would have been one I would have pointed to. I remember him saying words to the effect that the mission of Soul Survivor wasn’t to run festivals or grow bigger but to help young people know Jesus, and when they shut down the festivals a few years back that seemed like that motivation working its way out.
My interactions with Mike were negligible. When I served on the teams at Soul Survivor one of the tasks was to look after the speaker’s lounge so I spoke to him in passing a few times. In hindsight one encounter is more interesting, he and Tim Hughes had seminars on at the same time and I was co-opted into being a messenger as to who had the largest crowd – all in the name of banter.
Mapping his connections and links with churches and organisations across the Christian landscape may be of interest but it should be no surprise that there were many. Mike reached across denominational and theological divides, it wasn’t just in youth ministry contexts, he regularly spoke at conferences and churches.
That’s my preamble. I set that out to establish the importance of Mike Pilavachi and Soul Survivor for me personally, for many if not most in the charismatic church who are under 45, and his connectivity in organisations across the UK. I think that’s why so many organisations have both felt the need to say something but not wanted to speak prematurely, and struggled to know quite what to say.
The Church of England’s safeguarding inquiry reported last week and substantiated the allegations of abuse and concluded: “he used his spiritual authority to control people and that his coercive and controlling behaviour led to inappropriate relationships, the physical wrestling of youths and massaging of young male interns”.
There is undoubtedly more to be investigated, and while the terms of the independent investigation commissioned by Soul Survivor are to be set out, I’m hopefully that this will be a full and transparent inquiry into the governance and culture of the organisation and how this went on for so long.
One thing to say about the organisation I work for – and these are my personal reflections on this situation but I felt worth setting out this bit of information – it has been pointed out that Mike Pilavachi was a director of the Evangelical Alliance charity between 1998 and 2000. He was, although prior to 2000 everyone who was on our council (60-70 leaders from across the UK) were directors and for good governance reasons we changed that to a smaller board in 2000.
Before the outcome of the review was published last week it was hard to know what or how to speak. It has been, and continues to be, vital that those who have suffered harm because of Mike Pilavachi’s actions are able to speak of their experiences. It’s important that we are honest about the depth and reach of connections across the Christian world – there’s really no point hiding that. It is essential that we don’t circle the wagons and try and minimise what has gone on. But I also think prior to last week there was an understandable silence or hesitancy by many that wanted to respect the process and not presume guilt.
I do think, however, that there is an importance to recognise that churches and organisations have provided a platform, and the person on that platform has been significant in many people’s faith journey, and the exposure of Mike’s behaviour and leadership means for many they will be asking questions. Organisations and churches are not responsible for his behaviour – you’re not responsible for something you don’t know about (although that leaves the inevitable conclusion that those who might have, are).
It is understandable that the accounts of wrestling in underwear have garnered media attention, but what struck me was something that I hear the echoes of in various different church contexts. Young people who have been promised leadership development, given patronage and opportunities, find it suddenly vanishes, sometimes silently, sometimes harshly, sometimes both. Abortive leadership development and the harm it has caused is something I hear and see regularly from Christians of my generation. Who came to faith amid the enthusiasm of 1990s youth ministries, often stepped into leadership early, and have been burnt and exhausted by it. And there’s something systemic to consider in this.
And that’s where I get to the two points I had in mind when I sat down to write this piece.
First, what does it mean for so many people to have encountered Jesus, committed to follow him, experienced the Holy Spirit, been called into ministry or other vocations in the context of an event where at its heart was a leader with seriously problematic behaviour?
Second, what can we learn about how we accept leaders have authority but ensure they are accountable? And what do we do about platforms and power?
To be honest, I’m not going to try and answer the second one now. It’s one that we – Christians in the UK – will have to grapple with, and I think some of the examination of what went on at Soul Survivor in this regard will have to await the conclusion of the next phase of investigation. I do actually think we’re less inclined towards Christian celebritisation than we were in the last few decades, maybe it’s the scandals of leaders failing that mean fewer are placed on those high pedestals, and maybe it is because Mike Pilavachi has been on one for so long that this has hit so hard.
And it has hit many people hard. There are some who look back at experiences at Soul Survivor with a mixture of confusion and nostalgia and think it was a bit weird, where their faith may be in a different place now than it was then. Maybe they consider some of the ministry emotionally manipulative, some of the theology and teaching wrong.
For what it’s worth in the years I was peripherally involved I felt there was a serious effort to downplay the emotional aspect of ministry, and speak normality into situations rather than hype. I also think it’s a crude move to take the failings of a leader and use that to drive opposition to theology and teaching that needs not be connected.
But for those such as myself who look back with gratitude I’m sitting with the quandary of what does it mean to have benefited much from a ministry which for some was significantly damaging? I want to acknowledge the positive contribution, but also be able to deconstruct and reconstruct in a healthy way that places Christ at the centre.
This means being able to strip away the personalities and paraphernalia of Christianity and ensure that what is being rebuilt is not on myself or what culture says Christianity should look like, but on the goodness, justice and mercy of God.
I want to see that the good does not minimise the bad, or whitewash scrutiny. I want us to be able to ask, and continue asking those questions of accountability and authority, of power and platforms.
And there are many who are closer than I and asking questions harder than mine about what they have benefitted from and yet now see crumbling. What comes next is not about propping up a ministry or maintaining a façade but the reaction to bad leadership isn’t no leadership, there is a need for godly leaders more than ever.
There are those who have been directly affected and their accounts need to be heard. There are those responsible who need to be held to account. But there are also many more who need to wrestle with the conflict of how they continue to follow Jesus and not a man who failed and failed them.
Has Nicky Gumbel said anything? What did he know?
Great read, thank you. Could you expand on what you mean by:
'For what it’s worth in the years I was peripherally involved I felt there was a serious effort to downplay the emotional aspect of ministry, and speak normality into situations rather than hype.'?