One of the intriguing things going on in social media at the moment is that some people are asking organisations, like Newfrontiers with whom I am associated, to take responsibility or even apologize for inviting someone like Mike Pilavachi into their circles, into their churches and onto their stages. For example, Michael Tinker writes this in a post titled ‘Just say sorry’:

No one wants someone to apologise for something they didn’t do. But there are lots of levels of apology. So in these particular cases I think there can be acknowledgement of the relationship that was there (instead of the minimisation of that relationship) and then a ‘We’re sorry that we missed this. We’re sorry that we platformed someone who was hurting people behind the scenes.’

The challenge seems to have shifted from not just critiquing the silence that followed the allegations (which I think is fair enough), but for ever inviting him in the first place. The sin was ‘platforming’ him, for contributing towards his celebrity, for increasing his power. As if, by doing so, they were aiding and abetting him.

This idea has echoes in this post by Phil Duncalfe. He quite rightly points out it’s tricky to blame someone for something they didn’t know and couldn’t have known but still there’s something there to be sorry for.

We don’t expect churches and church movements to get who they platform right 100% of the time. Obviously they can’t know the hearts of people. However when things go wrong, communication and repentance is important to build trust.

But what exactly do they need to repent of? This sort of thing can be a bit fuzzy and so people make statements that just seem to make things worse. I think Stephen Kneale articulates this well writing,

What, exactly, is an organisation that isn’t directly involved – but clearly has some relational links with those involved – supposed to say sorry for? Sorry we knew the person at the centre of the matter but had no jurisdiction over them? Sorry we worked with them, not knowing anything about the matters that have come to light, but nevertheless sorry anyway? The further the degree of separation – even if we can draw some relational lines – the harder it becomes to know what these other groups and individuals are meant to say sorry for. I suspect, some of the time, that is why they don’t say it. They just don’t know exactly what they are meant to apologise for.

In this environment people are trying to think about what they can do and one possibility is the whole process of invitation. At least one group, Catalyst (a Newfrontiers movement), is trying to respond to that. They wrote in their statement, ‘Catalyst is dedicated to reviewing our accountability measures and safeguards around those we invite in to speak to us as a movement.’

I think that’s a laudable aim but is it possible? What could Catalyst have done in regards to Mike Pilavachi prior to April 2nd 2023? Prior to that, as far as anyone not a victim was concerned, there was no problem or was there? How could you know? How could you know the next time? What possible process could there be to know whether to invite someone or not when there are no complaints and no suggestion of a problem?

Now if it turns out that there was wider knowledge of the culture of Soul Survivor that was somehow hushed up and people continued to platform him then that’s a serious problem. Which is why we need a full report. If the invitations continued then you’re going to have to own that and take what comes your way. But that’s not (as far as we know) what is happening here.

I don’t think there’s any suggestion that the bullying culture, massages, wrestling with interns was widely known but maybe there were some things in Mike’s public persona that should have troubled us more than they did. Michael Tinker concludes his post with this paragraph with reference to Steve Timmis (another sad case of a bullying culture):

I should add that there are often more signs to these behaviours than we care to admit. Timmis’ ‘style’ was well known around the country years and even decades before things came out in 2020. The fact that this was missed, ignored, minimised (even joked about) can be apologised for legitimately. I think there is some fear in doing this because it calls into question one’s discernment and wisdom having celebrated such characters. But I would say the gospel allows us to humbly call it into question.

And I think he has a point. A good point. And it’s not the first time I’ve heard it because I (and others) reflected on exactly that in relation to Mark Driscoll. So that makes at least three cases. In the case of Mike Pilavachi, part of the stage persona was the jokes at the expense of the interns (praying for the healing of their ugly faces for example, a ‘joke’ he managed to repeat for decades). It was something we got used to but maybe we shouldn’t have done. Maybe it actually wasn’t funny even when we were laughing. Maybe kindness and gentleness in our speech needs to be more keenly upheld. Something to think about there. Maybe that’s the sort of thing Catalyst has in mind, in which case, very good.

There is also the question of of platforms, conferences, festivals and the like and maybe I’ll post some thoughts about that on another day because one of the easiest things to blame here is ‘celebrity culture’, whatever that is, but dealing with that is likely to need far more radical action and I don’t think anyone has good solutions for that.

But there is the important question of distancing and minimising the relationship. New Wine are not the only ones accused of doing this but they’re a good example. They made a statement and then had to quickly apologise for it because it looked like they were trying to wash their hands of the whole thing.

You can argue that the apparent ‘club’ that is closing ranks around a friend is in fact doing no such thing. The one who was ‘in’ is now very much ‘out’. The invitations gone, the doors closed, the mic turned off, the conferences cancelled, the praise silenced. One response would be to say they are simply protecting their brands from someone who is now ‘toxic’. It wouldn’t be shocking at all to think public reputation at some point might be part of the calculation but what else were they supposed to do? After all no one thinks Mike Pilavachi should continue to get invitations to speak to churches, do they?

No the problem was, and is, the silence. The quiet removal of names from websites, the scrubbing clean of all references, the stealth disavowals. Those steps without public recognition of the previous relationship and recognition of the pain of the victims suggest that reputation is more important than truth & justice.

It is also worth remembering that these leaders are people too. They are also dealing with the fact that in some cases a friend they thought they knew was not the person they thought they knew after all. Instead of it being someone they saw on a stage this is someone they sat across the table from. That doesn’t excuse silence but it does mean they have to wrestle with their own feelings of hurt and betrayal. In those circumstances waiting to speak (which is not the same as silence) is at the very least understandable on a human level.

All of that means though, that we should, no must speak, in a more transparent way because what people need in such moments is a way through. A way to hold onto faith, to get their perspective on the right things, to keep in mind the right things, to speak when we speak with grace and truth. And if we don’t do that, then we should say sorry.