Should Soul Survivor have been allowed to ‘mark its own homework’?

The recent decision by the General Synod to amend and thereby effectively dismiss the motion for an independent investigation into the Soul Survivor network is both perplexing and deeply troubling. The motion, championed by the Revd Robert Thompson, called for a comprehensive and truly independent review of the abuses linked to Soul Survivor and its founder, Mike Pilavachi. The Synod’s choice to sideline this motion not only undermines the gravity of the allegations but also raises pressing questions about the Church’s commitment to transparency and accountability.

The imperative for an independent review

Revd Thompson’s call for an independent review was not a mere procedural suggestion; it was a necessary step towards healing and justice. He quoted Jesus’s healing of the woman suffering a haemorrhage in Matthew 5. This biblical reference emphasises the importance of allowing individuals to “tell their story in public” and ensuring that “her whole truth would be told.”

This narrative underscores the Christian duty to listen to and validate the experiences of survivors. By advocating for an independent review, Revd Thompson sought to create a platform where survivors could share their truths without fear or suppression.

Moreover, an independent review would serve to examine not just individual misconduct but also the systemic issues that allowed such abuses to occur. As Revd Thompson aptly noted, “Bad apples are usually the product of unhealthy trees.” Without scrutinising the broader cultural and structural factors within the Church, any measures taken would be superficial at best.

The Church’s resistance to scrutiny

The Synod’s decision to defer to the forthcoming report by Fiona Scolding KC, as highlighted by the Bishop of St Albans, Dr. Alan Smith, is concerning. While due process is essential, the dismissal of the motion suggests a reluctance to engage in self-examination. Dr. Smith’s assertion that the diocese had “absolutely sought to follow the process that is laid down for us” rings hollow when juxtaposed with the lived experiences of survivors who feel their voices have been marginalised.

Furthermore, the claim that clergy had been cautioned against calling for an independent investigation under the threat of the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) is alarming. Such actions could be perceived as attempts to silence dissent and maintain the status quo, rather than fostering a culture of openness and repentance.

The perils of internal investigations

Relying solely on internal mechanisms or reports commissioned by the very institutions under scrutiny is fraught with conflicts of interest. An investigation funded and controlled by the accused party lacks the objectivity required to uncover uncomfortable truths. Independent reviews, free from institutional biases, carry greater credibility and are more likely to result in meaningful change.

A call to action

The Church must confront these issues head-on. Deflecting or delaying independent investigations not only erodes trust but also perpetuates a culture where abuses can continue unchecked. It is imperative for the Church to demonstrate genuine repentance through actions, not just words. This includes commissioning truly independent reviews, implementing their recommendations, and creating safe spaces for survivors to share their stories.

The decision to sideline Revd Thompson’s motion is a missed opportunity for the Church to align itself with the principles of justice and compassion that it professes. One must ask: what is the Church afraid of uncovering? And more importantly, how can it hope to heal and move forward if it refuses to face its past with honesty and humility?