ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: The hard truth questions church leaders must face in the Soul Survivor scandal!

Questions Galore

• Why do those with the power to speak out against Mike Pilavachi’s abuse, especially prominent leaders and influential peers, remain largely silent or vague in their public statements? Is their reputation or the church’s status more valuable than the safety of their followers?

• What kind of organisation continues to endorse or work alongside someone accused of predatory behaviour? Are these actions simply complicit, or do they expose an intentional culture of enabling harm within Soul Survivor and its affiliated networks?

• How can leaders who knowingly promoted Pilavachi, while aware of his alleged abuses, be trusted in positions where they are responsible for safeguarding vulnerable individuals? Shouldn’t they be held to account for every victim who suffered on their watch?

• Why have the leaders who knew about Pilavachi’s actions - and yet continued to endorse him - faced no meaningful consequences? Is the church not responsible for holding those in authority accountable, regardless of their status or contributions to the community?

• What does the prolonged silence say to the victims and survivors? Does it imply that their suffering is an acceptable collateral cost in preserving the reputations of the powerful?

• Is the church genuinely committed to preventing abuse, or is its primary concern the containment of scandal and preservation of its public image? How do we trust a system that prioritises institutional reputation over individuals’ wellbeing?

• What impact has the church’s response - or lack thereof - had on those who have left in disillusionment or fear? How many people must walk away before the church acknowledges that its silence on abuse is complicit in driving them out?

• How can a Christian institution claim to uphold values of justice, compassion, and love when it knowingly allows predators to operate within its ranks? Does this silence contradict the very tenets of faith that the church preaches?

• What specific actions, if any, have prominent leaders like J. John, Graham Cray, Nicky Gumbel, and others taken to address and rectify the harm caused by Pilavachi and Soul Survivor? Or are they betting on the public’s short memory to quietly let the scandal fade?

• Why are the victims of abuse forced to be their own advocates while those responsible for their harm remain shielded by institutional silence? Where is the accountability for those who ignored, enabled, or covered up this abuse?

• What does it say about the church when those who challenge abuses are isolated and exhausted into silence, while those accused of abuse enjoy support and status within the institution? How does this reflect on the moral integrity of the church’s leadership?

• How long will the public tolerate this silence from influential figures and institutions? Will future victims also be sacrificed in the name of preserving institutional loyalty, or will this moment finally lead to lasting change?

• How can we trust a church that fails to show empathy and action for its most vulnerable members, especially when faced with clear accounts of abuse? What assurances do current and future congregants have that the church will protect them, rather than turn a blind eye to their suffering?

• Are we witnessing a cover-up disguised as “healing,” with leaders using the church’s image of grace and forgiveness to avoid hard accountability? How can these so-called “values” be anything but hypocrisy if they allow abuse to go unchallenged?

• Finally, who will stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves if the church, the very institution meant to champion the oppressed, chooses silence over justice?

Brushed Under The Carpet

This cannot be brushed under the rug. What happened at Soul Survivor is more than a tragic oversight; it’s a betrayal of trust on a massive scale. Mike Pilavachi’s actions reveal the stark reality of unchecked power within religious institutions. His behaviour as a reported predator thrived not just because of his own narcissism but because the systems around him enabled and shielded him.

This isn’t just about one man’s abuse of power; it’s about a culture that allowed it to happen, even while knowing the risks to vulnerable people in his care. The leaders who remained silent or who failed to intervene are complicit-they allowed him to continue influencing and accessing young people. Their inaction sent a disturbing message: protecting the institution, their reputation, or their own influence was more important than standing up for those harmed.

Now, more than ever, there’s a need for relentless pressure on Soul Survivor and similar institutions to finally prioritise accountability, transparency, and a zero-tolerance policy for abuse. Real reform means exposing these failures, demanding justice for the victims, and permanently dismantling the systems that allowed this abuse to thrive.

Soul Survivor owes it to every person they’ve failed to take real responsibility-not in empty statements, not in superficial apologies, but through meaningful action. Shutting down would be a first step, but it’s nowhere near enough. Every resource, every penny that’s come from this community should be directed toward those whose lives have been impacted, toward counseling, support, and restorative justice for survivors.

For over 30 years, the people in positions of power allowed this harm to go unchecked, perpetuating a cycle of trauma and silence. Real accountability means dismantling the structures that allowed Pilavachi and others to operate without oversight.

IF Soul Survivor and Soul Survivor Watford Church truly cares, then they should strip down their institution(s), return its resources to the people who need it most, and create a public record of their failings so that others can learn from it. This should be about healing, not hiding.