Helping to navigate the news about Mike Pilavachi
The following article was shared with our church family via our Digest email on 07/06/23:
We writing to you; our church family, about the recent allegations against Mike Pilavachi
Why are we telling you this?
This situation affects us and if we don’t talk about it we run the risk of suggesting some things are “off the table” of discussion due to their sensitivity or complexity. Jesus has asked us (Tom and Lesley) to lead and pastor you through life, to help you become all Jesus has called you to be. This means we must engage with topics even when they are sensitive, complex or where we have a possible vested interest. If we talk about these situations it should help us together work out how to navigate them with integrity and honour and how to learn lessons from them so we all grow as disciples of Jesus.
There are a number of relationships that you should be aware of:
Mike mentored Tom from the age of 18 through to 25, Mike was our Pastor for 2 years from 2004-2006 when we were on the lay leadership team at Soul Survivor Watford, Tom and Lesley encouraged Zac, our Worship Pastor, to attend the Soul61 gap year course that the allegations centre around, as a church we have encouraged our young people to attend the Soul Survivor festivals, we have taken some of our Staff Team to Soul Survivor Leaders Days, have promoted teaching content from Mike and have regularly heard Mike preach or teach in Vineyard contexts. From our time in Watford we also have long-running friendships or connections to a number of the people who have publicly made allegations against Mike.
So this situation affects us as individuals, us as a staff team, individuals within our congregation and it raises questions that we should think about across our church organisation as a whole. While we might want to duck our heads and not talk about this, we know from the Lord that we must do our best to lead you in the midst of this.
What is the situation?
On Sun 2nd April Soul Survivor Watford - the church out of which the Soul Survivor festivals emerged - announced that the CofE National Safeguarding team were investigating non-recent, non-criminal safeguarding allegations against Mike Pilavachi. At that moment Mike stepped back from public ministry and he and the church began cooperating with the investigation.
No details of the allegations were released.
Over the last few weeks stories in the Telegraph and Times have made public some allegations and these have been widely reported and repeated. New disclosures are regularly occurring on social media and we hesitate to try to summarise everything neatly. However, for clarity, it would appear the allegations might fall under three categories:
Inappropriate behaviour by Mike which ended up him wrestling and pinning down significantly younger men for extended periods in ways they did not enjoy at the time and which have caused them lasting harm
Mike abusing his relationship with his Interns, by conducting intimate massages upon them in private, on his bed, where the younger men had been encouraged to strip to their underwear.
A general sense of dysfunctional leadership or cult of personality around Mike that left vulnerable people subject to bullying, being ghosted or being dropped in emotionally painful ways.
In the light of these further allegations Soul Survivor have released updated statements which say:
That allegations could no longer be described as “non-recent”
That they did not act seriously enough at the beginning and have now suspended Mike Pilavachi
And they have encouraged anyone who has safeguarding concerns to raise them
As this story moves forward it is likely that the above will soon be out of date, but we hope the general framing of the issue will remain helpful.
As Christians how do we respond to this?
We recognise the range of emotions these events bring up
Some of us might not see this as relevant to us in many ways at all, but all of us should be active in allowing people to respond to these kinds of events with a whole range of emotions: anger, sadness, fear, anxiety, numbness. We may have lots of questions and this may bring up some trauma or memories in our own lives. Sometimes when a public Christian or Church leader is seen to sin or to disappoint us, it can bring up feelings or wounds we received from our own parents or primary care givers or authority figures in our lives. This is because these Christian leaders have a parental function. Just be aware of what is going on for you internally - even if Soul Survivor has no direct connection to you at all. All feelings and questions are valid.
We try not to make snap judgements, but find ways to take our emotions and questions to the Lord
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and he ministers to us and meets us in the complexities of life, often when those complexities are not resolved. While it might be tempting to want to close down all questions and “land” all our concerns quickly, we would do well to continue to go to Jesus with all of our feelings and questions and to sit with him with them even when ambiguity remains. The Psalms can be incredibly helpful for this as they not only express very strong emotions but do so in a range of different directions at the same time, doing it all in the framework of faith. A great way to take these things to the Lord is to talk to trusted people about them. Isolation is awful and so we do well to ask each other about these things, how they are affecting us and also to tell others how we have been affected. People who are helpful in these spaces will not push snap judgements on things but will help us stand together as brothers & sisters in Christ, carrying a heaviness together, taking all we have to our loving and wise Jesus.
We affirm the need for a safeguarding process and encourage people to use it
This is a good opportunity to remind our community that everyone in Croydon Vineyard must be committed to keeping children, young people and adults safe. We believe we have a good safeguarding system in place, which we review regularly, but we know it is helpful to keep on reminding all of us how to do this stuff well. Dave Prothero is our Trustee for Safeguarding, Lesley is our Designated Safeguarding Lead and Hannah Poole is Deputy Safeguarding Lead. If you have any safeguarding concerns about a child or adult please do report it. The best way to do that is by filling in a confidential form on the bottom of our website because that form will help you think through all the different things that might have gone on. But if you do not feel comfortable with the form you can always contact Hannah, Lesley or Dave direct. If your concern is about Lesley or Tom or their children then go over their heads and go straight to Dave or Hannah. We are transparent about this process and encourage people to use it. We also have membership of an umbrella organisation called ThirtyOneEight which provides support, guidance and accountability and you can always check out their website and resources any time.
We should ask hard questions as to whether safeguarding processes, in CV and across the broader church, are actually strong enough.
Although we believe our safeguarding procedures in CV are strong, we have used this moment to ask whether they could be made stronger. You should also feel free to ask us hard questions so that we can continue to refine our processes. The Trustees are looking at this as a matter of urgency, particularly at how to appoint a person other than Lesley as our Designated Safeguarding Lead with the aim to make our reporting and responding processes even more transparent and accountable. It is not our desire to comment from a distance on the Safeguarding processes of other churches, but it is our hope and prayer that the Church of Jesus in the UK comes out of this time far better at safeguarding people than we have been in the past.
As leaders we want to use opportunities like this to affirm the gospel of the Kingdom and how it forms our responses to every event in life.
Many people respond to events like this with a perspective that is influenced by Kimberle Crenshaw’s theory of Intersectionality. This way of looking at relationships charts people on lines of connection to other people, depending on particular attributes or life-circumstances they have. The line represents power with those on the top of the line seen to be the people group who hold structural and relational power over those at the bottom of the line. Intersectionality points out that all too often those with power reinforce structures and relationships in ways that oppress those at the bottom of the line. The privilege the oppressor has over the oppressed is expressed through the language they use, through what they convey to be normal, through the decisions they take and in various other ways.
This analysis can be helpful in spotting some forms of structural injustice in society. It was well used to illustrate institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police, for example. It can also provide some benefits when looking at individual situations.
Viewing the Mike Pilavachi situation from the perspective of Intersectionality
If we look at the reporting around Mike Pilavachi from the perspective of Intersectionality we would probably see that he held positions of power, was older, male, held spiritual authority and was very personally charismatic. He therefore would have been very able to use those privileges to oppress younger, weaker, less charismatic, less “positioned” people. It does seem that many of the allegations against Mike can be explained by this analysis. Something that God seems to be doing in the charismatic evangelical church is highlighting the way many male Christian leaders have indeed abused these structural powers to the detriment of their “followers”, and we should be grateful to Intersectionality for highlighting this to us. As a church we should be thinking deeply about the models of leadership that we have embraced and affirmed, and whether they are truly the model that Jesus used.
A follow on step from the Intersectionality analysis regards the proposed resolution to this problem. Many using this model suggest the resolution to the problem of oppression is to pull down those in power and reallocate it to those previously oppressed. If we follow this line of thinking most likely we would want to see Mike removed from all positions of any power with immediate effect, even before allegations had been fully investigated. We would also presume that all Mike has done in the past is tainted with oppression and we should therefore no longer use any of his material. As part of the reallocation of power to previous victims, we would encourage anyone who wants to publicly air their sense of oppression by Mike to do so. More extreme advocates of this “reallocation of power” would also suggest all forms of prayer ministry, all male leaders on stage, all forms or adults mentoring young people should now be questioned. In the Intersectionality grid, those conclusions do make sense
But there are criticisms of Intersectionality:
A primary criticism of Intersectionality is that it presents an overly simplistic view of the world. Is it true that all people who fall into a particular category are all defined by that category and oppress all people who fall into their “counter-category”? Surely life is more complex than that.
A second criticism of Intersectionality is that its prescribed remedy of pulling down oppressors and reallocating power to victims only sets up today’s victims to be tomorrow’s oppressors.
Connected to this is the insight that Intersectionality seems to offer no long-term vision of transformation of power. The assumption is that people with power will always use it to oppress others and therefore Intersectionality will always end in an anti-leadership, anti-authority place. But at the same time Intersectionality desires to give power and authority to those who currently don’t have it. This lack of true resolution of the problem is a major challenge for the Intersectionality model.
Another problem is a new term called the “weaponising of victimhood” where people claim to be a victim of an oppressor as a way of winning an argument. Critics claim that once someone has identified as a victim, they know that others are not permitted to question anything they say, which then turns their claimed victimhood into a trump card in all situations. A response would ask whether even the term “weaponising of victimhood” is an effort by oppressors to hold onto their power by invalidating their critics.
Finally, Intersectionality is that it ultimately seems to set people against one another, increases division, offers people in power no solution other than to give up power and therefore ultimately fails to offer much long term hope for society.
For us, as Christians, the biggest problem with Intersectionality is that it is not the gospel of Jesus and in many ways actively contradicts the gospel of Jesus because it refuses to accept any spiritual reality, the redeeming and transforming work of Jesus or a clear concept of forgiveness. We know that the gospel of the Kingdom is a better and more hopeful way to view human relationships and we want to try to look at the world through the glasses of the gospel rather than through the glasses of intersectionality.
The other end of the spectrum
While we may recognise these challenges with Intersectionality, we should also note that the “loyalty” model of responding to these kinds of situations is also problematic. Under the loyalty model, there is a desire to remain loyal to those called by God to lead and to support them as people trying to do a hard job in a complex world. The heart behind the loyalty model is often a good one as it recognises the challenges of leading in complex situations, and doesn’t want opposition or criticism to tear down what God is doing. The biblical story of persecution and false accusation against Jesus is often cited, and this can be used to exonerate leaders and quieten down accusers. The loyalty model does recognise that not all allegations are accurate and that not all people will be happy with a leader, even if they are doing the right things all the time.
If we respond to the Mike Pilavachi situation under the loyalty model we will likely minimise or write off the allegations against him as malicious or poorly motivated. We will also probably question those making allegations and feel resentment towards them in our hearts. Under this model, even if we accept some of the allegations against Mike, we will still likely ask no further questions about the wider culture of leadership and safeguarding in the church.
There are also some very obvious challenges to the loyalty model:
Firstly, the loyalty model suggests that visible leaders are somehow more “called” or more valuable to the Kingdom of Jesus than those not in leadership. This is difficult to square with the biblical picture of the priesthood of all believers and of the counter-cultural value system of service that was initiated by Jesus
Secondly, and most crucially, it just seems to cut across the overwhelming testimony of the scriptures, which shows the ongoing necessity of holding leaders to account and publicly dealing with them when they fail.
The outworking of both of these challenges is that the Loyalty model presents a vision of the Kingdom that is naive to human sin, that elevates human titles above Kingdom values and which leaves members of congregations vulnerable to the abuse and dysfunction of an appointed “Man of God”.
The Gospel of the Kingdom
Joyfully, there is an alternative to both an Intersectionality Model response and an Intersectionality Model response to the Mike Pilavachi situation.
What follows won’t be the perfect expression of this response, but it is hoped that it will help all of us try to work out how the Gospel of the Kingdom gives us a deeply attractive and workable middle-road through these kinds of situations.
In the gospel of the Kingdom we see all humanity walking on a journey through time. As humans we are all given authority by God that we should use on our journey. And as humans we are all sinners who fail to walk this journey perfectly, at times deliberately and at times accidentally harming others and the world through our poor use of authority. Our future in this life and in the next, and the wellbeing of the earth is found through God restoring all humans to the sinless, good use of their authority in every circumstance all through their journeys. God’s solution is found in Jesus. Jesus models for all humanity the perfect use of authority. He demonstrates service, generosity, restoration and protection. Jesus then dies to release forgiveness to all who have at any time misused their authority or power, no matter how grossly they have done this. In his resurrection, ascension and pouring out of the Spirit Jesus releases God’s transforming power to help these forgiven people begin to learn how to use their authority in good and sinless ways. Our gospel therefore presents a “now and not yet” solution. Now victims can have Jesus meet them in their pain and be restored to holding the authority God created them to have. Now sinners can receive forgiveness and begin to learn how to use their authority like Jesus did. Now the world can begin to be redeemed and restored to God’s intentions. But there is also a Not Yet. Not Yet are all victims going to receive full restoration to all God intended for them - much of that must wait for the Day of Judgement. Not Yet are all sinners using all their authority for good things - much of that must wait for the Age to Come. Not Yet is the world restored to all God made it to be - much of that needs Jesus to come and install his Kingdom on all things in all ways.
And so, the gospel of the Kingdom gives us clear directions to hope and clear mandates to live, but it does it in the midst of complexity and disappointment. Our hope is that we see Jesus transform all people through his grace. We want all people to receive more power from Jesus and all people to let Jesus train them to use power like him; not to get their own way or to lift themselves up but to sacrificially and generously help others on the same journey as them.
We expect our learning on the road with Jesus to take years, as people are transformed from sinners to saints. We know some don’t get very far on that journey! We therefore know we need to find ways to both oppose all that is evil and love all that is good, even when they are both simultaneously expressed in the same person. We know this is complex and people will regularly need to be surprisingly embraced and robustly held to account, especially when their sinful use of authority has caused hurt or pain to the people around them. But we have hope that this journey is possible because of the grace of Jesus and the power of his Spirit who ultimately can lead us all into the fullness of his plans.
A Gospel of the Kingdom view on the Mike Pilavachi situation
There is so much unknown and the investigation is ongoing, but we can give some pointers about how the Gospel of the Kingdom might cause us to respond to this situation:
Firstly, and most importantly, we should have eyes like Jesus; we look for those who are hurting, those who are disempowered, those who mourn. We seek to release the blessing of the Kingdom to them through listening well and through seeking to lead them into the healing and the authority that Jesus has for them. We would also want to help them continue their journey into acting more like Jesus in every circumstance. We would encourage them to consider what it would look like to release forgiveness and to avoid gossip, while at the same time advocating for the value of all and using their experience to contend for those who cannot contend for themselves. In the age of Social Media, this is tricky ground. It cannot be right to ask people not to comment on Social Media and yet it also cannot be right for every thought or allegation to be made public. We would want all people to see every word as part of their use of the power God has given them, and to try to find ways to use them to release love and hope to all. (Although we cover it below, we stress again here, that to make a full disclosure or allegation to an appointed person in private should never be seen as gossip or slander - it is the entirely good and appropriate method we use to hold people to account and should be entered with an entirely clear conscience about doing so).
Secondly, we should happily recognise that Mike is a sinner being transformed. This means we will be happy to embrace robust and healthy checks on him and will be open to him being shown to have sinned. We will also know that the process required to investigate will be complicated. We will be praying for wisdom, transparency, and humility to be shown by everyone involved, particularly those making the final judgement on the allegations.
We will celebrate every disclosure that is made to the appointed investigators, and will want them to be received with huge compassion and utter seriousness. In biblical times, two or three witnesses were required for an allegation against a leader and multiple attestation remains incredibly powerful. We will therefore want to encourage affected people to speak to those who are running the investigation so that as full a picture as possible can be produced. We will want to ensure that those holding leaders to account are themselves using their power appropriately, like Jesus, not coming with an Intersectionality Model nor a Loyalty model but with a gospel of the Kingdom model.
We will want the investigation to tell us frankly whether Mike did indeed sin and in which ways. If Mike is shown to have sinned (as does seem likely) we should want the solution to be the gospel solution. In view of how churches have sometimes interpreted this gospel solution, here are several ESSENTIAL clarifications:
If Mike’s sin breaks a national law then the gospel solution includes the active engagement of all civil authorities including the police (Rom 13). It is never appropriate for criminal behaviour to be dealt with “in house”. (We are aware of no evidence at this point that the allegations against Mike are of criminal behaviour)
If Mike’s sin is repeated and systematic then it is appropriate that he remains out of leadership until such time that the forgiveness and transformation of Jesus shows the fruit of repentance in him.
The fruit of repentance should not be misunderstood. It is entirely inappropriate to declare that the fruit of repentance is someone simply saying they are sorry. Forgiveness before the Lord is immediate but neither remorse, nor forgiveness by Jesus is the measure we use for the fruit of repentance - transformation is. If Mike has shown a pattern of sin, he should not be reappointed to a position of leadership until those working with him first see clear evidence of the fruit of repentance in his life (ie he is living in a visibly different way over a period of time, not just saying different things). The bible teaches us that sinful patterns take time to be unlearned and sometimes people just refuse to learn that lesson. It might be that some leaders who have failed will never be restored to leadership.
However, we must assert that the goal of Jesus will be to restore Mike fully to everything Jesus intends for him (along with any who have suffered from his sin). This restoration would primarily be his transformation to the disposition of being like Jesus, rather than to the position of leader and teacher. The desired goal for Mike should therefore be primarily that he becomes more and more like Jesus in every circumstance, and to see any title or position he holds as secondary to that.
Finally we come to the question of whether or not Mike’s past teaching and ministry should still be trusted. Jesus does warn the church to watch out for false teachers. He does say that we discern a false teacher by the way they live. However, it doesn’t seem wise to label every leader who has been removed from leadership as a “false teacher”. The primary metrics for judging false teaching seems to be whether i) the teaching denies Jesus came in the flesh, and ii) whether it promoted non-Christlike living in those who sat under it. As people who have benefitted hugely from Mike’s teaching over two decades we cannot imagine him falling foul of metric i). We also would assume that much of Mike’s content would pass metric ii), although we acknowledge there is now ambiguity over whether what was modelled did indeed model a Christlike use of power. We hope those conducting the investigation will give us some clarity on that. Even if caution is recommended over some of Mike’s previous teaching, that does not invalidate a single encounter with Jesus that took place under Mike’s leadership. We can know that Jesus has always used sinners-in-the-process-of-transformation to minister his grace and build his church. Jesus’ model of ministry was to breathe life into people in any and every situation he found them in, irrespective of who else was around.
We hope this is helpful. If you spot something we have missed, or feel we have expressed something in a way that misrepresents the gospel of Jesus then we would love to hear from you. Equally, if you would like to discuss anything that has been mentioned in this statement or talk through any other things that it has brought up please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
Much affection
Tom and Lesley