From Scandal to Curacy: Can the Church Afford to Ignore Its Past?

Yesterday, Soul Survivor Watford announced that Ali Martin will be undertaking her curacy at St Andrew’s Chorleywood starting next summer, following her ordination. While the church expressed sadness at the prospect of losing Martin and her family, they celebrated her new role and highlighted the blessing she will bring to the Chorleywood community. The statement noted there would be ample time to “thank her for all she’s brought to our church family over the last 30 years before her departure.”

This announcement should spark outrage, not celebration. Are they seriously considering this? It seems they have - in their so-called wisdom- decided that this appointment was a good idea. To me, this feels like some sort of sick joke. Ali Martin’s longstanding association with Soul Survivor Watford, and her leadership during the period when Mike Pilavachi’s abusive behaviour went unchecked, makes this move a dreadful idea. Although a Church of England safeguarding investigation cleared Martin of knowledge or complicity in Pilavachi’s misconduct, that outcome raises more questions than it answers. If Martin genuinely didn’t know what was happening under her nose, it reveals a dangerous naivety or a shocking disconnection from the culture of an organisation she helped lead. How can anyone trust her to hold a position of authority within the Church when she failed to see or address the harm being caused right in front of her?

The choice of St Andrew’s Chorleywood as her next destination only amplifies these concerns. This is the very church where Pilavachi began his ministry as an unqualified and inexperienced youth leader - a period that coincided with Matt Redman’s early and vulnerable years in the church. To appoint Martin to a leadership role in this same church reeks of cronyism and suggests a continuation of the insular culture that allowed harm to persist unchecked for so long. It’s as if the Church of England has learned nothing from its failures. Can they truly claim to be committed to reform and safeguarding when decisions like this are being made? I think not.

Martin’s continued presence in public ministry undermines any attempt to rebuild trust or provide justice to survivors. Regardless of the investigation’s findings, her leadership role symbolises an institution more concerned with protecting its reputation than taking genuine accountability. For victims and advocates, this transition - to a church so steeped in the history of these scandals - feels like a slap in the face and a painful reminder that their cries for justice remain unheard.

The Church of England must confront the optics and ethics of this decision. True accountability goes beyond safeguarding clearances; it requires addressing the systemic issues that allowed abuse to flourish and ensuring that leaders truly understand their responsibilities. This appointment sends the opposite message - that lessons have not been learned, and the old boys' and girls’ network is alive and well.

If the Church is serious about healing and reform, it must reconsider decisions like this. Transparency, humility, and a genuine commitment to justice are the only paths forward. Anything less is a betrayal of those who suffered under its watch and a tragic failure to live up to its calling.