Updated Monday
St Albans diocese recently (19 January) announced a grant of £2.3 million from the Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment Board (SMMIB): £2.3m awarded to equip leaders and revitalise churches in our diocese and there are links from that page to further details about this.
The Church Times reported this on 22 January: St Albans diocese plans to put faith and funding in Soul Survivor.
This report, and in particular the headline, provoked negative reactions from many people who were shocked that apparently Soul Survivor was to benefit in some way as part of this. The diocese then issued on 23 January a “clarification”, sent by email to all diocesan clergy and readers, the full text of which is copied here below the fold. (At the time of writing it has not appeared on the diocesan website.)
Updates
Religion Media Centre has a report (scroll down) : Soul Survivor named ‘engine of mission’ despite safeguarding scandal, which includes a link to the diocesan proposal for funding: DS-25-11v.2 – SMMIB Funding Application
Media coverage:
Telegraph Church at centre of abuse scandal ‘rewarded’ with new role and Church of England to overhaul internships after Soul Survivor abuse scandal
Watford Observer C of E to tighten rules after Soul Survivor Watford scandal
Premier Christian News Church of England to revise mission rules to avoid another Soul Survivor
Text of diocesan email:
Clarification regarding our strategic funding award
Many of you will have seen the recent Church Times article about the award of funding from the Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment Board (SMMIB) to the Diocese. We want to clarify some inaccuracies and impressions that may have arisen, and reaffirm our commitment to survivors and safeguarding.
Clarifications
The headline in the Church Times article was misleading. Soul Survivor Watford will not receive any funding from the SMMIB award. They are one of several churches involved in the wider work planned across Watford, Luton, and Hatfield to revitalise local churches.
Soul Survivor has been invited to offer volunteer and resourcing support to Christ Church Watford as part of its revitalisation journey. Any such support would only happen at the invitation of the parish and under diocesan oversight, and it would not involve any controlling or governance role for Soul Survivor Watford.
It is also important to address that the article named one individual in a way that may have given rise to misunderstanding. Safeguarding, oversight, and decisions relating to Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment funding are exercised collectively through established and properly governed structures, not by any one person. Including an individual name in this context does not accurately reflect how responsibility or decision-making is held within the Diocese.
Our commitment to survivors
We acknowledge the seriousness of Mike Pilavachi’s abuse and remain deeply sorrowful for the harm caused. The apologies made publicly and directly to survivors are current and stand.
Much has been done to restore trust, rebuild credibility, and transform the culture at Soul Survivor Watford under its current leadership. This work is ongoing and will always continue.
Culture is paramount, but it must be underpinned by strong governance and accountability. The experience of Soul Survivor Watford and the abuse by Mike Pilavachi, through the lens of the Scolding Review, has shaped our approach to Bishops’ Mission Orders and all mission initiatives in the Diocese and across the wider Church of England. These changes set a benchmark for safeguarding and healthier culture going forward.
Looking ahead
We regret that some reporting has caused confusion about the nature of this funding. The Diocese has been awarded significant support to strengthen mission and ministry, and we want everyone to have accurate information about what this means for local churches.
Full details of the programme funded by the SMMIB award are available on our information hub.
Let us now focus on the purpose of this funding: to strengthen our ability to share the love of God through Jesus Christ with more people, through leadership development, mission in schools, and revitalising churches.
With every blessing
+Richard Bishop of Bedford
+Jane Bishop of Hertford
Proverbs 26.11
Kyrie Eleison
Safeguarding does not exist within this organisation
So right. And so sad.
Sadly, this doesn’t clearly deal with the issue. We need clarity about where the funding is going and the rationale for this. Great to concentrate on traditional large Hertfordshire urban areas which have always been funded but what about those communites like Biggleswade and Leighton Buzzard and others which are experiencing exponential growth. I think LB parish is now one of the largest in the diocese in population terms and the Ouzel Valley Benefice is also the largest in the diocese. But sadly, we are not the favoured ones in Hertfordshire. Most of my diocesan involvement has been engaged in… Read more »
Sadly, Bedfordshire has for a long time been the Cinderella area of the diocese. Partly, and having lived there many years, there’s a general cultural difference – as a place it’s quite happy being ‘lower key’ than Hertfordshire. But equally, it works on an ‘area, Bishop’ system, rather than the two Bishops who oversee Hertfordshire jointly. This means the mission has for many years been led by a suffragan… which regardless of the merits of the post holder (and there can be reasons they haven’t gone onto greater things, let the reader understand) leads itself to being somewhat lower key… Read more »
“Yeah, Soul Survivor did some stuff, but their heart is in the right place and anyway they’re excitingly young and diverse, not like all you fuddy-duddy oldsters with your process and consultation and safeguarding. Squares think it’s just a noise, but the kids love that beat, daddio”.
Alternatively, “you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, and Mike was a hell of a short-order egg cook”.
You can tell that the diocese is being economical with the truth because their “statement” is incomprehensible. If they had a clear position, they could write it down clearly. They don’t, so they can’t.
“Much has been done to restore trust, rebuild credibility, and transform the culture at Soul Survivor Watford…”. Surely, such a statement would be more credible if it were to come from someone other than the bishops.
“Let us now focus on the purpose of this funding…”, which might be interpreted as “shut up and stop asking questions”.
Did no-one get the memo that we’re supposed to be attentive to culture nowadays?
And the sums look interesting too, though it is probably vulgar to say so .
1) cost of the Scolding report – this was commissioned by the diocese we kept being told. Did they actually pay? A lot of struggling parishes could have made good use of a share of that money.
2) compensation for victims….Thats easy- I bet none of them has seen a halfpenny on top of whatever apology they’ve been given…
3 and the widow’s cruse of oil suddenly finds £2.3 million to set off all over again
I’m not in that area but as safeguarding lead for my PCC I am disgusted by the C of E generally wrt Safeguarding. Were it not that the village church depends upon me and that all the (growing) congregation are my chums, I’d have left in protest. I’m not sure where I’d go to however. What happened to that big report that was commissioned? Lying in long grass somewhere.
The CofE ‘hierarchy’ in its wisdom decided against the view of its ‘rep’ in Parliament (Marsha de Cordova) and people in the know (like Prof Jay) in plotting its own way ahead on safeguarding rather than accepting independent safeguarding. An ‘own goal’….
The whole Soul Survivor issue has been handled terribly. The Diocese promised independent oversight, but those appointed to oversight and leadership roles have had strong ties to Soul Survivor. Many of those in the leadership of the diocese have close ties to Soul Survivor, the churches named from Watford and Luton have both been planted by Soul Survivor, and now the church that planted Soul Survivor is under investigation. I don’t say this to criticise individuals working hard in their contexts, but to point out that the Diocese promised a change in culture and independent leadership; instead, they have changed… Read more »
Stephen Parsons has written: Pilavachi, Soul Survivor and the Church of England
https://survivingchurch.org/2026/01/27/pilavachi-soul-survivor-and-the-church-of-england/
HTB is not Soul Survivor or Nine O’Clock service and does not rely on one charismatic leader who avoided diocesan oversight and carried out abusive practices in plain sight. All the many ministers of HTB church plants have been through the normal C of E training process, overseen by their dioceses, minister day in day out without just complaint. This is no more than guilt by association.
The single allusion to HTB in Stephen Parsons’ blog does not speak of ‘guilt’, nor of safeguarding, nor of a single charismatic leader. He mentions HTB only in terms of those who maintain an uncritical approach to charismatic worship and charismatic phenomena. Stephen makes it clear that he remains sympathetic to the charismatic movement as a whole.
If you wish to be critical of HTB regarding safeguarding then please come up with hard evidence that can be thoroughly investigated.
I have no evidence of anything in the HTB/CRT network, but I do think that network has the perfect storm for something unhealthy to develop: large sums of money; charismatic leaders; large numbers of young and attractive people; and a national C of E leadership that is unwilling to ask too many questions of anything that appears to be successful. If at some point a scandal emerges from within that world, I will have no sympathy for the important people who will shake their heads and wonder how on earth such a thing can have happened.
Well, there was the involvement of some in those circles in the case of John Smyth – as covered in the Makin Review.
I said nothing in my comment about HTB safeguarding, either positive or negative. I don’t see how you could have read my comment in that way.
I think you know why, queue the comments above.
No, I don’t. Please read my comment again.
The whole debacle is certainly odiferous.
Coming late to this. The CT headline was not accurate – but we do not choose our headlines. I personally think their clarification was clear and helpful. My concern is the issue of the funding. If any diocese wants the funding they so urgently need they have to conform to the highly detailed and very particular requirements of a central funding body that insists on a very particular understanding of growth and mission. For some time now this has been taking away the initiative from the diocese and forcing upon them a non-negotiable strategy from outside. A bishop and diocesan… Read more »
Indeed. Interestingly, I attended a diocesan study yesterday in which some of the evidence of the ‘quiet revival’ was examined. Some of what came out of that suggested that many of the things underpinning current thinking about mission may be unhelpful. I wonder who is listening.