Guest Post: A Response to William Nye

Photo by Markus Winkler on Pexels.com

This is a guest post.

As two people harmed by Mike Pilavachi’s psychological, spiritual and physical abuse, we write in light of Rev Robert Thompson’s Private Members Motion, which is to be debated at General Synod in early July.^[1]

The safeguarding investigation into Mike Pilavachi’s abuse has been incredibly challenging for us. We have not only had to reckon with our personal pain from past events, but also come to terms with the extent of Mike Pilavachi’s abuse and its decades-long cover up and enablement by those in positions of power.

• Like Matt and Beth Redman, we fully support Robert Thompson’s motion (their response can be found HERE).
• If victims/survivors had been listened to when they initially raised concerns, we, and many others, might not have suffered abuse. Our primary concern now is for the Church to focus its energy on gaining the fullest possible understanding of what occurred and learning the lessons it needs to, to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future. In our opinion, this is in the interests not only of victims/survivors, but also of the wider national church.
• Yet we believe that for this to happen, an independent KC-led review needs to be commissioned, on agreed terms of reference with victims/survivors. We strongly disagree that this is ‘no longer relevant’ (William Nye, GS 2361B, p. 4) and therefore welcome Robert Thompson’s motion.
• We were deeply disheartened to read paper GS 2361B, written by William Nye, Secretary General of General Synod.^[2] The paper seeks to provide ‘relevant information to enable Synod members to consider [Robert Thompson’s] Private Members Motion.’ We offer some brief comments in response to William Nye’s paper:

1. The paper begins with comments on the core group process (GS 2361B, p. 1). We see Robert Thompson’s motion as complementary to this process – the proposed independent KC-led review goes beyond the assessment and management of risk to address wider cultural and systemic issues (i.e. beyond Soul Survivor).
   • As stated in William Nye’s paper: ‘An important part of handling any safeguarding allegation is to reflect and learn from fundamental issues like; why and how these concerns happened and why these issues were not identified and challenged earlier’ (GS 2361B, p. 5). We wholeheartedly agree with these words, but believe that the Terms of Reference of the Scolding review are too narrow in scope to address these issues adequately.
   • For example, and as per Robert Thompson’s paper (GS 2361A, p. 3), questions that need to be addressed include those related to MP’s ordination: ‘what processes were followed here? What safeguarding considerations were operative? Was due diligence done both regarding the organisation and the individual person?’
2. After providing some background information, William Nye’s paper sets out the safeguarding concerns investigated by the core group (GS 2361B, p. 2). There is no mention of physical abuse here, despite the core group’s substantiation of allegations of this nature. This is unacceptable and minimises victim/survivor experiences.
3. The paper gives the impression that the CDM process is independent, but it is not. The core group – comprising individuals with considerable safeguarding experience – substantiated the allegations that resulted in CDM processes.
   • The references to these as ‘alleged’ in the paper (pp. 2 and 3) are profoundly upsetting; that the allegations brought under CDM processes did not result in disciplinary action does not diminish the findings of the core group, but merely highlights the inadequacy of the CDM process itself and lack of safeguarding knowledge on the part of the bishops responsible for decision-making. 
   • The Deputy President of Tribunals was not reviewing the evidence on which these decisions were based, but simply ensuring that the stated process was followed – a process designed to privilege the bishop’s role and therefore not independent.
4. William Nye notes that the Charity Commission ‘are now satisfied that necessary action has been taken’ (GS 2361B, p. 3); however, the Charity Commission’s primary concern is to ensure charities meet their legal requirements and obligations.
   • The fact that the Charity Commission have closed their involvement with the case does not negate the need for the present motion – a motion oriented towards creating a safer church. The Church may legally be a charitable body, but when it comes to abuse surely it should aspire to do more than meet the minimum requirements for such bodies.

In considering the motion, we implore you to take heed of the apostle Paul’s words in Ephesians 5:11-14a:

‘Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light.’

---

^[1] General Synod is the national assembly of the Church of England, whose members include priests, bishops and lay people. General Synod meets to discuss and vote on matters of importance to the life of the Church of England.

^[2] William Nye is a civil servant, and was previously Director in the National Security Secretariat as well as Private Secretary to the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall (2011-15).