Should Mike Pilavachi’s preaching videos be removed?

A Reflection on Accountability and Respect for Victims

In the wake of the scandal involving Mike Pilavachi, former leader of Soul Survivor, questions have arisen about the continued presence of his teaching and interviews online. With allegations of abuse now substantiated, many are asking if it is appropriate for his sermons and talks to remain accessible on platforms like YouTube. This issue goes beyond the logistics of content removal; it strikes at the heart of accountability, institutional responsibility, and the message sent to survivors of abuse.

The Context: A Breach of Trust

Mike Pilavachi was, for decades, a towering figure in the evangelical Christian community, particularly among young people drawn to the dynamic worship events of Soul Survivor. His teachings inspired countless individuals and shaped their spiritual journeys. However, the revelations of spiritual and emotional abuse have cast a long shadow over his legacy. The gravity of the allegations has not only discredited him personally but also called into question the structures and systems that allowed such behaviour to go unchecked for so long.

The Continued Availability of Pilavachi’s Teachings

Despite these revelations, videos of Pilavachi preaching, leading seminars, and giving interviews remain widely available online. Some argue that his past teachings should not be erased because they may still hold value for those who were positively impacted by them, others contend that keeping these materials accessible perpetuates harm, particularly for the victims who endured abuse under his leadership.

Leaving these videos online creates a troubling paradox: while the man behind the message has been discredited, the message itself continues to be platformed without context. What does this say to the victims? Is their pain being dismissed in favour of preserving a facade of spiritual wisdom?

What Should Soul Survivor Do?

Soul Survivor, as the organisation most closely associated with Pilavachi, has a moral responsibility to lead the way in addressing this issue. So far, their response has been criticised as reactive rather than proactive. While they have acknowledged the allegations and sought to distance themselves from Pilavachi, the continued availability of his teaching suggests a lack of decisive action.

Removing his content from online platforms would not erase the impact of his past work but would signal that Soul Survivor is serious about rejecting the abusive practices he has been accused of. Moreover, such a move would demonstrate solidarity with the victims, affirming that their experiences matter more than preserving the reputation of a disgraced leader.

The Broader Implications

Allowing Pilavachi’s teachings to remain accessible sends a mixed message to the broader Christian community. It risks normalising a culture where charisma and influence can overshadow accountability. It also raises difficult questions about the separation of message and messenger. Can the spiritual insights of a leader later revealed to be abusive still be considered valid or does their personal failings render their teachings void?

While there is no easy answer, the continued platforming of Pilavachi’s sermons without addressing the allegations directly feels disingenuous. At the very least, these videos should carry disclaimers acknowledging the allegations against him, so viewers can engage with the content critically and in full awareness of the context.

What Does This Say to the Victims?

For the victims of Pilavachi’s abuse, seeing his teachings remain available and unchallenged could feel like a slap in the face. It may convey that the institution values the preservation of his legacy over their wellbeing and healing. Removing these materials would not undo the harm caused, but it would send a powerful message of support to those who suffered under his leadership.

In failing to act decisively, Soul Survivor risks perpetuating the very culture of silence and complicity that allowed Pilavachi’s behaviour to persist for so long.

A Call for Accountability

Ultimately, the question of whether Pilavachi’s teachings should remain online is not just about the content itself but about the values and priorities of the Christian community. Is the preservation of past teachings worth the cost of retraumatising victims and failing to take a clear stand against abuse?

Soul Survivor and other institutions associated with Pilavachi have an opportunity to demonstrate real accountability. This moment demands more than words of regret - it requires action that prioritises the voices of the victims over the reputation of a former leader. Removing Pilavachi’s preaching from public platforms would be a step in the right direction.

In the end, the integrity of a faith community is not measured by its ability to produce charismatic leaders but by its willingness to protect and uphold the dignity of every individual - especially the most vulnerable.