Why I’m an Advocate: The Women Who Advocated For Me – My Maternal Grandmothers

It often comes as a surprise to people when I say that my autism includes being selectively non-speaking – I am an advocate, and so I end up speaking a lot (although thankfully much of it these days can be in written form, which is helpful now that I also have dysphasia).

I was born into a family where both of my parents and my sister, who was also learning disabled and later physically disabled, suffered from severe, and extremely stigamtised, mental health illness during a time when there was no medical treatment for them, and the pressure to keep it hidden was tremendous. Nevertheless, as a mental health carer to each of them, they all needed an advocate in different ways. I was the eldest child and a carer from the age of 5. But I wouldn’t have known how to advocate, how to do that, if I hadn’t had my maternal grandmothers, who were also advocating for me, and under tremendously difficult circumstances.

If you have read any of my most recent poetry, you might have gathered that I am coming to terms with another facet of my mother’s death almost 3 years ago: she never told me the truth about my biological father. In fact she never told me anything, not even to acknowledge that the man I grew up calling dad wasn’t my biological father. She had decided I wasn’t ever to be told, and perhaps more fundamentally, didn’t believe I had a right to know. She saw it as a secret about her, and if I were to be told, that could only happen if I “earned” her trust. I was never going to be able to do that.

And yet I knew from the age of 5 that my biological father was not my dad. How I discovered that is a story for another day, but I am deeply grateful that my grandmothers – my mother’s mother and grandmother – had both prepared for the day it would happen.

When my mother ignored my questions, I turned to them; because I was already acting as carer to my parents and helping my mother with my sister, they were helping me in turn as much as they could. We had a language between us, a code: I knew I could rely on them to be honest with me.

A promise had been made to my mother under the assumption that she would tell me once I was old enough – an assumption that my grandmothers were now regretting. So my grandmother told me there was a truth to be told but that I was a little bit too young to understand; and that, hopefully, my mother would tell me when I was a little older. [Note to parents: your child is old enough to be told, in an age appropriate way, at the age they ask the question]. In the meantime, if I was mixed race, then I should try to remember it was nothing to be ashamed of (quite a lot of people, most of all my mother, were acting as if it were), and my grandmothers would always remind me – and my mother – that I had no reason to feel ashamed.

What had led to my questions wasn’t ignored either; my grandmothers had my back, and what could have been an isolating and frightening situation was dealt with: they made sure that I would be safe, and I was; and I was particularly lucky because they found an ally in my Infant School headmaster. It was only later in my life that I realised that my grandmothers had also provided me with necessary tools that made so much difference by ensuring that I started school with the ability to read, and write, well beyond the normal scope of a 5 year old.

It hurt my great grandmother especially – she had never known her biological father, but her mother had been truthful with her all her life, and her step-father had given her his name and adopted her, which was very unusual for the time, so she had long since come to terms with it. And had my biological father been just another white guy, she would have been perhaps less hurt by mother’s dishonesty, but she had played a big part in my mothers upbringing and my great grandmother was a passionate (and active) anti-racist. She had raised my mother better than to seek to both hide my father and his identity from me, and me from my father – because of his identity.

I have universal vitiligo; its the rarest form of vitiligo and I’m scared to talk about it openly, because when it started my mother absolutely freaked out in a way that terrified me. I’m a white woman, but nevertheless I have that condition. We live in a post-Rachel Dolezal world, so that also makes me nervous: I’m in my 50’s and have never admitted to something which is pretty fundamental to who I am because my my mother freaked out about it. Vitiligo is an autoimmune condition, the first that manifested in me, and can also be genetically inherited. I don’t know if that’s the case for me. I can’t know, because of what my mother did.

I was left with 2 patches of darker skin, from when I had what my mother used to call my ‘Mediterranean’ complexion: one on my neck, which eventually also faded after my children were born, and another on my torso, which I somehow managed to keep hidden from my mother (although being a carer, as opposed to being entirely dependent on my parent probably helped that). I learned the hard way not to make any reference to it – my mother could be very nasty when she wanted to be and anything she felt might reveal what she believed was ‘her’ secret, always provoked that side of her.

The last time I ever tried was when I was about 16. We were clearing away in the dining room after tea one Sunday evening. Dad was asleep on the chair, my siblings were elsewhere in the house. I pointed to the patch on my neck.

“Where do I get this from anyway?” I asked, trying to keep my tone super casual and light.

“It’s just dirt, you need to clean your neck properly,” she replied. The response was fast, her tone flat, and cold.

I honestly don’t know what hurt more about the response – that I actually went up to the bathroom and tried to scrub it off, or that she had said it at all. I only know that I literally cried with relief the next morning when I woke up and it was still there.

I escaped to my grandparents’s house in Norfolk for a weekend to spend time with my grandmother. My grandmother was deeply creative, and was always looking for ways to reassure me I had no reason to feel ashamed – and later, she started looking for ways to tell me at least something about where I came from, and how I got here. That weekend we went to the local market and ‘happened’ to find this beautiful, silky mustard coloured material, decorated along the bottom with Arabian horses mounted with Ottoman horse riders. I suspect she had found it already and had asked the stall holder to save her some. She made me a skirt with it, which I loved. And sometimes, when my mother was being especially unreasonable, my grandmother would put herself directly between us and give my mother A Talk. She did that after that visit too. I won some peace for a while – but I lost the skirt. My mother found it.

Throughout all those years, gently, insistently, persistently, my grandmothers kept trying to get my mother to see that I needed the truth. My mother put me under an insane amount of pressure, and held my father’s identity over me like the Sword of Damocles: I couldn’t be trusted because of my father’s identity, so I had to earn her trust, but could not earn her trust because of my father’s identity. For a long time I couldn’t acknowledge, even to myself, the real problem; no mental health condition causes the racism that affected my mother’s reaction to my biological father.

My great grandmother took care of the spiritual stuff; she made sure that, before I ever came to faith, I understood that Jesus was an Arab Jew, and a revered prophet in Islam. She loved her Muslim neighbours; she loved cooking with the women, baby sitting for them when they needed it, and loved learning about the Islamic faith. She made sure my prayer life ran deep, and that I trusted my faith and my instincts. She was CofE, but also Quaker, Baptist, Anglo-Catholic – she worshipped as she felt led and that ability to see beyond denomination, beyond creed is very much part of my faith DNA now.

And then when I was 19, my wonderful great grandmother had her third stroke and moved out of her beloved corner of London to move in with my grandmother and grandfather. (His role in all this is ubiquitous, but again, that’s a story for another day). I could tell that my mother felt like she had won a reprieve – she became more strident at home again, getting angry at things in me that ought to make any parent happy: patience; forgiveness; loyalty; compassion. She saw him in me and I just felt lost, and utterly confused. The gaslighting was starting to wear me down. And yet… I also doubled down on those things which seemed to most remind her of him.

It’s an interesting way to rebel, to seek to be more forgiving, more compassionate, more patient, more kind, more open minded. Later – much, much later – I came to realise how much of an influence my biological father has been on me, even though we have never met, and are never likely to; and there is comfort in that.

My great grandmother had always promised me that she would be there for me until I was 21, and although she had 3 more strokes, she kept that promise. She even found a way to say goodbye, just as she had promised me too. When she died, I had locked away any questions about where I came from, and retreated into treating my mother’s inexplicable pressure and distrust of me as part of her mental health issues.

It was having my children that ignited the spark of anger, I think – they knew where they came from and I did not. My parents had divorced and still my mother could not tell me the truth. She had re-married and divorced again, and still could not tell me the truth. When she came to visit my ex-husband and I where we lived in Sheffield, with a vibrant Muslim community where I was making many friends, my mother stayed in our flat the whole weekend and refused to leave it, even to visit the Moroccan coffee house around the corner that displayed local artists work which you could buy.

One of the many things I had also personally been struggling with was serious gynecological issues for many years and whilst I was living in Sheffield I was due to have a scheduled hysterectomy; as they began the procedure they discovered I an ovarian cyst (my wonderful woman surgeon was seriously impressed with the size of it) which had just gone nuclear so my scheduled surgery became emergency surgery. My heart was re-started twice (it feels like an elephant has jumped on your chest), but they saved my life.

I returned to my home city as a newly single parent minus more than just a toxic spouse. It didn’t take long for my mother’s faux sympathy to melt and very soon she was once more wearing me down with endless criticism, pressure and gaslighting. My grandmother happened to phone after a particularly bruising encounter and for the first time in a few years I gave voice once more to my frustrations.

“What did I do? What is this thing that stands between me and her, Nan? I know I didn’t put it there, whatever it is. Why won’t she talk to me about it? Oh, gods, I’m sorry, it’s not your fault. Are you okay? How’s granddad?”

She soothed me. I know a phone call to my mother followed, and once more my grandmother put herself between her daughter and her granddaughter. It was an unenviable position to be in and I cannot imagine how hard it must have been for her. I was so much more aware by then of course, being a parent myself by that point, hence my apology.

I needed to find a way of advocating for myself to my mother.

It was the last time I ever asked my grandmother to advocate for me – I didn’t want to put her in that position again. She was becoming frailer herself and very soon was going to need my mother to help take care of her. She did not this making that harder.

Slowly – very slowly – I began to find my voice. I began to think more clearly than I had for a long time. I thought about the ways my mother herself could not contain the secret, how she saw my father in me every day, all the time, and as a result, said and did things that revealed small, tiny details that would seem like nothing on their own, but taken collectively began to make up more pieces of a shattered jigsaw puzzle.

I thought about all the ways that my grandmothers – knowing better than I would for years that my mother would not relinquish the truth – found creative ways of communicating little details to me. The skirt my grandmother made for me; my first school photograph, hung with my siblings first school photographs in my grandparents house – their pale skinned, red haired faces with mine, pre-vitiligo, always hung opposite the front door so that it was the first thing my mother and I saw when we visited. A reminder to me that I had a truth to fight for, and to my mother that she had a truth to tell. The summer my grandmother made me an Arabian Princess costume for a fancy dress competition at the village fete, when I was 7… my mother’s sucking-lemons face was priceless. (I won. My grandmother beamed). And my great grandmother, who taught me about listening to my instincts, to my inner voice, and how to trust God in prayer, who blessed me with a faith you could bend a rock around whilst still having a wide open heart.

Neither of them were perfect. My grandmother was a nightmare mother-in-law and my poor aunt put up with a very great deal over the years, with a great deal of grace. And my great grandmother had her own faults – mine is in averting my eyes from them. We shared the experience of not knowing our biological fathers, but more than that, she trusted me. She trusted my instincts and encouraged other people to trust my instincts too.

They held in the balance for decades an impossible situation – because whilst the reasons that my mother kept the secret of my paternity had nothing to do with her mental health, any attempt to raise the subject was taken as an attack and provoked issues with her mental health. And so they made skirts, and helped to make sure I never felt ashamed; they taught me to trust my instincts, and blessed me with faith.

It was the best they could do, and when I got my DNA test results, it confirmed that it had been more than enough, because I had understood correctly what they had found a way to say to me, without words. I guess it helps that I’m also selectively non-speaking to be honest.

I do not know my father’s name, and that hurt’s in ways I cannot put into words. I know that he is patient and kind, forgiving and open minded, loyal and compassionate; I am proud of him too, and pray for him constantly. There are some other things I might know too, because my mother was never very good at keeping secrets, but whether I will ever be able to confirm them, or find out what my father’s name is, I do not know.

My mother hid my existence from him, because of his identity. And whenever the pain of that bites down, I remember that my grandmothers fought to teach me pride, to help me remember where I come from, creatively, with great love, so that I can at least know I am some of the things that my father is. And I will try to honour him, and honour God with that – and advocate for anyone who is isolated, alone, and marginalised, as my grandmothers once advocated for me.

[*In the cover photograph, my grandmother is the woman on the left, my great grandmother is the woman on the right. The tiny white haired woman in the middle is my great great grandmother and the baby she is holding is my mother.]

Dear Anglicans: Jesus Was Palestinian. Whitewashing Him Left a Hole in Our Theological Heart.

The very first thing I was ever taught about what I ought to know before I became a Christian came from my great-grandmother. She taught me that Jesus was Palestinian, and that Islam loved and respected him as the Prophet Isa, as well as honoring his mother, Maryam. She told me that whilst other (she meant white) Christians couldn’t see it, because they saw their faiths as in competition, Islam kept the memory of the Jesus/Isa who walked among us. Not the blonde, blue eyed Jesus we had turned him into. And that Jesus and his mother, who they were and what they said, made so much better sense when placed in their proper context. Jesus and his mother Mary were Palestinian Jews. They were Arab Jews.

I didn’t really understand how important it was back then, of course. I was only a child, and it was probably only obvious to my extremely intuitive grandmother that I would be the child (the eldest of 3) who would come to faith. It makes a great deal more sense to me now of course. In fact its reached the point where I realise that Jesus only makes sense as a Palestinian.

Jesus always walked between two worlds, in more ways than one. He didn’t just walk between the worlds natural and supernatural, the human and the divine – he walked between the more earthly worlds of being an Arab and a Jew. Putting His mother Mary back into her Palestinian context also puts back a power and depth to her words on finding herself pregnant. As a poor Arab Jewish woman, she had no voice in her community, and no power to change anything for the better for poor Palestinian Jewish women like her. Romans might have had Arab allies in the Ghassanid dynasty, but that did not equate to good treatment of poor Arabs and poor Arab Jews in Palestine, the country they occupied.

But to be willing to risk being cast still further aside, by being unmarried and pregnant as Mary is, was a stunning potential risk for a young woman to take, even if you believe God has given you a child who would bring so much to those Mary cared the most about. Because she knew there was a risk Joseph would not stand by her. Under any circumstances in such a patriarchal society, to be pregnant, and to claim to be so in such a manner – to the society around her it would have seemed absolutely outrageous, a scandal. Yet Mary is full only with mighty faith, with great love, with tremendous conviction, and yet a certain humbleness too.

“My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my saviour, for He has looked with favour on the lowly state of his servant; Surely from now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things in me and holy is his name; indeed, his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm; He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He has brought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty. He has come to the aid of his child Israel in remembrance of His mercy, according to the promise he made to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.” Luke 1: 46-55 NRSV Updated Edition 2021

The Jesus that non-believers (who don’t buy into all the miracles) like, is the Jesus of the deepest, most patient, most abiding, most faithful, most brave, most forgiving love. And all of those things are true. That’s a big part of who Jesus was – its one of the parts that the ultra right wing ‘Christian’ Nationalists dislike the most, and work hard to avoid. But some non-believers find that kind of love hard to understand, perhaps because it comes in the context of a God who seems often the very opposite of loving in the OT. I would argue that, much as in politics, you get the God that you vote for.

“For he grew up before him like a young plant and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity, and as one from whom others hide their faces, he was despised and we held him of no account” Isaiah 53: 2-3 NRSV Updated Edition 2021

If you look at how Jesus challenged the established institutions, it required incredible conviction: teaching women as part of his ministry, equally to men; challenging ideas about just who our neighbour’s are (which still challenge people, just as much now); whilst these, among many other facets of his ministry, made him extremely popular with poor people, Jesus knew he wasn’t always as popular with some people. And here’s where Christians tend to fall down – into that trap of “the Jews murdered Jesus.” No. The Roman penal system, and people, murdered Jesus. People’s sin murdered Jesus. That’s kind of the point.

Jesus was also very, very specific about eschewing the need for material wealth, and insisted that his disciples give up all of their possessions when they became his disciples.

Jesus was Palestinian. Anyone who knows any Palestinians, or has worked with Palestinians will tell you that they have a capacity for love and generosity, even under the worst of circumstances, that is just wild. No material possession matters more than love, and hope is as important as breathing. Once they love you, they love you for life. They have reserves and depth to their patience that a ship could anchor itself to. And all of that love, and generosity, and patience and hope, is bottled into a people who have been occupied for thousands of years, and that breeds a special kind of courage.

“Today, everything is made in China. Except courage, courage is made in Palestine.” Anthony Bourdain

Jesus was a Palestinian because Jesus could only make sense as a Palestinian. For everything that followed in his ministry – everything he had to do; the sacrifice he was called to make… That kind of love, that sort of courage, the kind of sacrifice required – could only come out of Palestine.

“By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people. They made his grave with the wicked, and his tomb with the rich, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.” Isaiah 53: 8-9 NRSV Updated Edition 2021

And now here we are – in the middle of a genocide of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian Christians, who can date their bloodlines back to the time of Jesus, are nearly extinct. Just 10 weeks ago Justin Welby was declaring that ‘precious Israel’ was not an apartheid state. Now he pleads for a ceasefire, when he had already told Israel that he was willing to literally ignore one of Israel’s major forms of oppression. He has made no apology for this. Perhaps he thinks this is unimportant, but it is not. And it is not his only failing in respect of a marginalised community. His recent rearguard action, to deflect from his failings over Palestine, and the crumbs now given to the LGBTQ community, do little to make amends for this; there are wounded bodies piling up on Welby’s watch, from the victims of abuse, to the BAME communities, the disabled communities and the flaws in the crumbs offered to LGBTQ community – all of whom he has wounded through his managerial, conservative leadership.

“Rather, your inequities have been barriers between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lives; your tongue mutters wickedness.” Isaiah 59: 2-3

It is understandable that Welby is scared by what he is seeing – it is far, far more frightening to live it. But these are Jesus people. They meet it with the same love and courage Palestinians have greeted each and every day – since they have lived under one occupation or another for a very long time now. They still reach for freedom and peace, justice and equality as they have done since Mary’s day and before.

Jesus was a Palestinian – and whitewashing him created a hole in our theological hearts as white Christians. We are shocked and horrified by the pictures of genocide coming out of Palestine right now, but we must remember that this is not the first time Palestine have endured a genocide at the hands of Israel. There are elder Palestinian refugees today struggling to find safety who were refugees struggling to find safety in 1948. Hold space each day for prayer for Palestine. You don’t need to overthink it. Just pray for peace and an end to the killing. Let the babies grow up with their families now.

And I do like to hope that if smart phones had been available when Bosniak’s, the Bosnian Muslims, were under genocide in 1992-1995 that the majority of ordinary people then, as now, would object just as strongly, and demonstrate just as loudly, because we’re human beings who see these things and we just know what right from wrong is. And that every person coming out to demonstrate for Palestine now is feeling just some of that amazing spirit, that love of Jesus, who was Palestinian.

It is time to completely re-orientate and re-think our discipleship and theology, and reclaim and re-center Jesus the Palestinian Arab Jew, and Mary the Palestinian Arab Jew. Our faith, our theology and our churches will be better, and braver, for it.

Writing when words escape me…

It isn’t much fun having dysphasia – when it flares up, usually without warning as it did about a month ago, words look like, and often sound like, an alien language. If my relationship with someone depends on the ability to write, and that ability suddenly collapses, I can’t even tell someone “I’ll be in touch as soon as I’m better” – because even that simple sentence is beyond me.

Once the flare begins to ease, I still have to return to first principles, and practice writing just to myself, before I can start messaging people, or return to social media. Creative writing comes more naturally at these times, for some reason. I’ve always, since I was a child, written stories and poems, in part to escape the abusive environment and the pressure of being a young carer; conversations, written or spoken, have always been much harder work, with some exceptions – but I’ve always been a very introverted autistic human.

So whilst I’m waiting and working toward being able to process messages, and social media, again, I’m flexing my creative writing muscles, and hopefully soon I shall be able to communicate with the people I enjoy speaking to, working with, and advocating for. My creative writing is now on my Patchwork Poems & Other Stories, and my newest poem is here.

Catch up with you all soon.

Cloaked in Power, Covered in Shame: Where Is The Heart of Jesus For the Abused in ‘His Church’?

2024 was a stellar year for Anglicans and Evangelicals – that is, if you measure such things in the number of times, and ways, in which the so-called leaders of that church have ignored, stepped over, shunned, silenced, talked down to or just disbelieved victims of those abused by vicars, pastors, ministers and lay church leaders. If success were charted by the number of times men trivialised the pain, hurt, and betrayal of victims by the powerful – by their words, by their actions, but most usually by their stoney, unbending silence – then 2024 was probably a vintage year.

“Do Not Be Afraid” typed the oh-so spiritual Archbishop of York to his twitter account, with his annual advent ‘reflections’ – yet such was his fear of taking even a little responsibility for the pain of the very many victims of abuse, for whose spiritual welfare the former Bishop of Chelmsford is responsible, that he mostly left the ability to comment on these tweets turned off. Perhaps Stephen Cottrell makes the mistake of still thinking of himself as a working class council estate boy, when he long since left that behind and has for decades now, having held institutional power when ordained, and adding legislative power as a bishop (bishops sit in the House of Lords and can vote) for many years now. His heart for Jesus this Christmas was not so great that it allowed him to hear the abused and be moved to behave as a human being with power who can respond by divesting himself of it as a sign that this is the very least the powerless are owed. There are good reasons why the Archbishop of York, specifically, must resign and you can read about those reasons here.

The Archbishop of Canterbury did resign – the first to do so, after the first ever ‘uprising’ among lay Anglicans following the release of the Makin Review. It was poorly managed, requiring a further apology, frankly adding insult to injury in the process. What was the point of taking ‘institutional responsibility’ if you were going to be so glib about it? But with one or two minor exceptions, the other bishops named in the Makin Review as carrying responsibility for covering up the horrific abuse of John Smyth had no resignations, or even apologies, to offer – and the Church of England appears to be in no hurry to extract so much as a confession, far less sack them for such heinous behaviour.

The bishops may be the face of power in the Anglican church, but they don’t necessarily pull the levers and push the buttons that make it work, nor do they necessarily influence the direction the church takes theologically – there is, and has been for decades now, a much quieter power at work behind the scenes and that is something else the Makin Review laid bare but which the church, as yet, prefers to ignore. But it has already produced Archbishops (even if one of them has just become the first in history to resign), and it’s influence continues to grow. Yet it is at the heart of a number of ongoing situations, and cases, which will be coming to criminal trial this year – and this heart is stone cold, and as silent as the grave.

Nicky Gumbel mentored Justin Welby, the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, but had nothing to say about the whole matter that had eventually ended the tenure of the man he had once mentored. This came as no surprise to anyone who has endured or witnessed his permanent silence on the matter of Mike Pilavachi, who he regularly gave a platform to and who the Archbishop rushed to give special blessings to – this after the system had fast tracked Pilavachi’s ordination. Nicky Gumbel and Justin Welby were both a product of the Iwerne camps that enabled so much of the abuse of John Smyth in the UK.

Makin had come hard on the heels of the Pilavachi revelations and anyone who read both reviews would have needed to cover their eyes with their hands to avoid the parallels between the cases, that went beyond the repressed homoeroticism, violent as it was in Smyth’s case. Both cases ask questions of this ‘muscular’ evangelical Christianity that these men silently gather up the power to preach through the ordained church of the country: and when it all goes spectacularly wrong – because of the fatal, terrible flaws in this Muscular Gospel – they silently refuse to acknowledge it, waiting for it all to blow over, so that the cheap grace practiced and this ‘Muscular’ Gospel can once more be the tool used to silence troubling voices from within.

But let me tell you this ‘Muscular’ Gospel is as false a gospel as the Prosperity Gospel; it is practiced by those who target specific groups of people and then groom them for their cause; ie., it is predatory. It is explicitly not what Jesus taught: but then, it’s not Jesus they turn to when one of their anointed ones is revealed (to everyone except those who have been through it all before) to have abused their power in their treatment of those they led or held power over. This is the false gospel that opens its arms to the men who suddenly ‘find Jesus’ when they find themselves facing the possible consequences of their abusive actions; for ‘cheap grace’ is plentiful in this gospel, and forgiveness requires no repentance, baptism is given without church discipline and communion without confession. Dietrich Bonhoeffer – who faced execution by a brutal, genocidal dictatorship without flinching, and named cheap grace (which he must have seen a great deal of before leaving the established church and setting up his underground, antifascist resistance seminaries) for what it was – spoke truths that those who remain hidden by silence prefer not to address.

For Pilavachi – currently being ministered to by J John, who is also ministering to accused rapist Russell Brand – this cheap grace is all so much cool balm to a bring to a fevered brow. J John did not come out of the Iwerne camps, but he does subscribe to that view of “forgiveness” that Bonhoeffer warned so prophetically of; and so we come, somewhat unceremoniously, to the deeply unpleasant and horribly victim blaming Ministry of the Wounded Knee, as described to Christianity Today, by the erstwhile J John.

J John had held his silence for months for the sake of Mike Pilavachi, refusing to condemn the latter’s abuse after posting a comment supporting the man we now know he shepherds. His connection to Brand was revealed when he posted a picture of Brand having spent a day on Christian retreat with his pastor and 13 other men. Brand is currently under criminal investigation over sexual assault allegations, which police have now referred to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service). A great many women and other victims of abuse were horrified, and said so. Many of them contacted Natalie Collins, who posted very pointedly about it. And finally J John spoke – and it was Cheap Grace in all its dirty, shabby glory.

“Brand’s conversion is genuine!” exclaims this man, with a finality that exudes the assumption that we will accept what we are told, because, of course, J John is the one telling us. Such men have made similar exclamations before and been proved wrong, (see Makin), at an appalling human cost that need never have been paid, so J John speaking this with his whole chest may not age well in 2025, but time will tell. But if ever there were a demonstration of cheap grace, this is most certainly it.

Natalie rightfully pointed out that if forgiveness does not account for those harmed by abusers (the ‘forgiveness without repentance’ Bonhoeffer pointed to) then there is a problem with the forgiveness. J John responded:

“Maybe when the investigation is finished we can have a different conversation… if there is anything he has to do to make restitution. I pray and hope he will, like Zacchaeus did. But in the meantime let’s not be brutal in our judgment of people like him. Why are we so angry, so judgemental? Why do people want vengeance?” J John, Christianity Today, 14/10/2024, emphasis mine.

This is forgiveness without repentance, and if Brand’s highly public, heavily publicised baptism in the River Thames by Baer Grylls looked like baptism without church discipline to some, then it’s Eau De PR and Brand pushing suspiciously useless devices at high prices to the gullible certainly don’t help matters.

But J John is unmoved by the pain and trauma of the abused, despite his background in psychiatric nursing. With the tired, useless disclaimer that he doesn’t seek to minimise that pain, he goes on to do exactly that, by equating it to once injuring his knee.

“I still have the scars. Shall I complain? That must have been when I was 12, I’m now 66. Shall I now sue the Scouts for the trauma that they caused, or should I just get over it and move on?” J John, Christianity Today, 14/10/2024

Glad as I am to hear that wounding his knee did not traumatise the young J John, sexual abuse, sexual assault and rape (of which he knows nothing) are not the same thing and cause life long trauma. This response to Natalie Collins – herself a victim and survivor of abuse and rape – was disgusting, without compassion, and apparently based on some assumption that victims are a mob with pitchfork’s and burning torches baying for blood.

But we are victims, always minimised by people like J John, always overlooked, always talked down to and disbelieved, like J John does in the whole of that Christianity Today article (without challenge from the interviewer), and always always with some holier-than-thou speech about forgiveness, like the one J John gives, in Christianity Today.

But our point is – has Russell Brand asked for forgiveness for all of what he has done? Has he stood before God, lain stripped and bare in all honesty? Or does he have to be found guilty in a criminal court before he actually asks forgiveness for his crimes? If he even wants to, that is.

Because that teaching, that way of dealing with a Russell Brand or a Mike Pilavachi, is definitely not what Jesus calls us to. What J John preaches, and practices for very specific people, is forgiveness without repentance (*please read the T&C’s) , and that gave us John Smyth replicating his abuse in the Iwerne camps in Zimbabwe, at a horrific rate.

(*Cheap grace is not available to victims and survivors of abuse, assault or rape looking for justice, or any of their advocates – cheap grace assumes all such justice to be ‘vengeance’ and therefore all victims, survivors and their advocates are assumed to be ‘bitter’, unable to ‘get over it’ and therefore disqualified from receiving this gift. If you are a good victim, and subscribe to cheap grace, this may be reviewed, but can be withdrawn at any time.)

The Anglican church, at its be-robed institutional heart, and its evangelical, charismatic lay body, is in a poor state indeed. If you are vulnerable because of your age, your ethnicity, your gender, your sex, your sexuality, or your disability then the promise of Jesus in Matthew – Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matt 11:28 ESV) – is made void; and the Archbishops, bishops, (some) priests and (some) vicars, and some lay people make the church unsafe for anyone whose history or situation or circumstance makes them vulnerable to abusers of power because the church will look the other way, and having looked the other way, dispense cheap grace, then act shocked, and puritanical when you too do not preach and practice the same false teaching.

This is not the church Jesus founded. This is not the gospel Jesus preached. The bishops named in Makin should be sacked. The Archbishop of York should resign and who cares if it means a complete clear out of the top of the tree. These are the consequences of not taking responsibility where it should long since have been taken. The cold silence of Evangelicals like Nicky Gumbel – behind which they have hidden matters which only now are slowly coming into view – must end. If they are incapable of acting transparently (ie., they must be clear: what form is Gumbel’s own ministry to Pilavachi taking? Does he condemn abuse? Why has he maintained a silence that has hurt victims who have been part of his own church and church system? Was his attitude ‘that’s just Mike’?, etc), then they cannot be trusted with safeguarding. If they cannot be trusted with safeguarding, why are we turning to these people as spiritual leaders?

Jesus expected better. Jesus demanded more. Jesus never once preached cheap grace, or anything like it. His grace was always, always, costly. That is point of grace. Grace without cost is worthless. Grace without cost is faithless. Grace without cost is god-less.

Where is Jesus in ‘his Church’? I ask. He is not in the leaders of ‘his Church’. You will not find him there.

A Twisted Gospel: Part 2 – On Cults, Culture And Questions, Questions, Questions.

I lost a friend to a cult. It was a painful, difficult, stressful time and more than 25 years on the impact of that is something that’s still working itself out – I’ve prayed for her constantly since, and learned recently that she may have finally broken with it. Hope, when someone you care about who has become involved with a cult, can be such a fragile and dangerous emotion. It was a frightening time: my friend was bright, intelligent, curious and watching those things about her being weaponised and used against her, in order to to isolate her from anyone that would, in anyway, remind of the ‘sinful’ ‘fallen’ world, was confusing.

Cults, and cult leaders, don’t like to be challenged, about anything, because they desire total control – and that includes total control over what you believe. They – in their mind – have the pure truth, and it must be taught, and protected. Placing that in a religious context usually means that a cult leader/leaders will view any challenge to their authority as tantamount to a challenge to God. Cult leaders obviously really don’t like anything that looks like ‘oversight’ and are allergic to accountability in the same way that a vampire is allergic to the sun – or, perhaps a little more believably, someone with a nut allergy whose just misread the label on a packet of fruit and nuts.

What cults, and their leaders, want is power, and specifically dominance and control – and in order to accrue power they must also collect resources that will facilitate the purchasing and leveraging of power: money, knowledge, influence, social capital and most importantly, a small, trusted coterie of people who will fix, arrange and advise. And, if necessary, bully, cajole and silence. Bear that in mind as we dive into part two of the Mike Pilavachi audio, and enter stage left Nicky Gumbel.

*********

“…And I, when I was talking to Nicky, a while after and I said, “Oh, so-and-so, what he was saying about you, it’s really bad.” And he said, “Yeah, you know Mike, we love him, Pippa and I pray for him every day…” Mike Pilavachi 2012 [Emphasis mine]

Question: When did Nicky Gumbel – and the Charismatic Evangelical leaders that gathered around Pilavachi – know about his abusive behaviour? As Beth Redman says in the interview that Matt and Beth Redman did with Megan Cornwall for the Soul Survivors podcast* – for a victim, silence hurts.

On one level, this audio reveals an abuser who already knows what they are, is justifying to others and themselves their own behaviour and editorialising that in a way that exonerates himself. And yet there are two very subtle messages being delivered to these young people, and delivered deliberately: the first is – don’t challenge me, and if you do, I have heavyweight friends who will believe me and not you. The second is – don’t be gay. Being gay is bad.

And underscoring all of that is the constant tension that Pilavachi deliberately generates, the sense of the permanent threat ready to be unleashed should the need arise – and then like quicksilver, the “self-deprecating humour” appears. And it’s deeply, terrifyingly manipulative.

Victim Statement, 2024

“When you were ‘drawn in’, leading and preaching opportunities would flow. When you were ‘pushed out’ the opportunities would dry up. Mike would even restructure leadership teams, dependent on who was ‘in’ or ‘out’ at any given moment. At the time I viewed this as dysfunctional and unhealthy, but only later came to the realisation that it amounted to psychological abuse.”

All the way through the episodes of the Soul Survivors podcast, with every interview of those who had been deeply hurt and harmed by Pilavachi; and in Let There Be Light with the Redman’s, there is this constant mantra: “Oh, Mike had this self-deprecating humour, and he talked about his ‘brokenness’.” (It slightly unnerves me that it’s almost always described in just that way – even in the Scolding Review, which frankly bent over backwards to accommodate Pilavachi’s “self-deprecating humour” and “brokenness”).

Mike Pilavachi, 2012:

“Now, just to get perspective on that leader, just so that you know, what actually ended up making me feel a whole lot better is he then moved on to attacking Nicky Gumbel and he went around saying terrible things about Nicky Gumbel to everyone.“

From the manner in which its presented, to the words that he uses, none of this is as ‘off the cuff’ as it first sounds. These are deliberate words, deliberately chosen to make their point. But the language of the abuser is nevertheless there, just under the surface:

“And then he went on to someone else and the tragedy is, what goes around comes around. And everyone knows now that leader just says stuff, that it’s just lies and all of that.” [Emphasis mine]

Pilavachi is, of course, a faith leader so he needs to wrap this up in a ‘Christian’ package. It’s particularly notable that at no point at all does he quote scripture, or Jesus.

“And the trick is not to get bitter against those people and see them as the enemy, but to look at them and to love them.  Your brother or your sister is never your enemy. The enemy is the enemy. Your brother or your sister is always your brother or your sister. And if you start getting bitter…”

“And the honest truth is, like with this leader (who I had thought was a friend) for a while I was, I wanted to go around and kick his head in, I wanted to burn his house down, and all sorts of stuff. And then, when he started saying all that stuff about Nicky Gumbel, and it was terrible stuff about Nicky Gumbel!  I’ll repeat the stuff he said about me, because it’s me, but I don’t think I have permission to repeat what he’s said about other people. And it was lies, all lies!“ [Emphasis mine]

Pilavachi knows that the young people listening to him in that room are going to believe every word he says – they will simply accept everything he tells them. The lesson they are learning is simple enough: don’t speak out against Mike Pilavachi, because nobody will believe you. No matter what he says, or does, he has powerful friends who will protect him.

And don’t be gay. I know the massages and sweaty wrestling sessions are confusing, but really – don’t be gay. Being gay is the worst.

Victim Statement 2024

“I was obviously never going to say ‘no’ because I had been specially chosen by Mike… I didn’t want to jeopardise our new relationship. I think its safe to say the massages went too far up the inner thigh. He was an idol of mine. Who was I to question him? I was like putty in his hands, really.”

It really is notable that the ‘Christian’ portion of this ‘teaching’ (for want of a better word) isn’t from Jesus, and that’s not an accident.

“And I, when I was talking to Nicky, a while after and I said, “Oh, so-and-so, what he was saying about you, it’s really bad.” And he said, “Yeah, you know Mike, we love him, Pippa and I pray for him every day, we pray for him every day, and we keep trying to reach out to him, I don’t know, he’s just a broken guy, he’s just a broken guy.”

Not a word about forgiveness. if you come back, it’s on Pilavachi’s terms, and Gumbel’s terms… and they won’t be the ones saying sorry and asking for forgiveness. That’s what they expect him to do. (Or rather, whatever young person in the room who might one day foolishly try and speak up about what’s going on and what’s being done to them).

This post is long enough already. JJohn = and his ministry to Pilavachi, and what he said when he finally spoke – is another part of this web, and another one of the powerful leaders who gathered around Pilavachi.

*Incidentally, if you want an object lesson in the power and reach of a church leader: if you followed and listened to the Soul Survivors Podcast – which was presented and produced by Megan Cornwall on Premier Christianity – you’ll know that the 5th episode was spiked, without explanation by Premier Christianity, and with vague reassurances that it would be aired ‘at some point in the future.’ If you listen towards the end of episode 4, (starting around 44:25) when Megan is previewing what will be in the upcoming episode that never happened, you’ll hear a short clip of the audio we’ve been reviewing. There are, therefore, many more questions, for Nicky Gumbel, the Charismatic Evangelical church leaders that gathered around Mike Pilavachi – and, now, for Premier Christianity.

Natalie Collins has stepped back from direct activism now – this is hard, relentless work; for survivors there is always a cost, and everything she’s curated, written, and advocated will go on serving those of us who continue in this work. She has details about how you can support her directly if you are able, and thank you for steadfast witness and voice. You are covered in prayer.

The Connective Tissue That Cripples Justin Welby: Why He Must Now Resign

The long anticipated Makin Review of what it describes as the Church of England’s most prolific – and brutal – abuser was released two days ago, and it brings with it an overwhelming, and righteous cry: Justin Welby MUST now resign. The ultimate reason for that is simple: he lied. In his public statements he lied about when he knew about the abuse that was being perpetrated by John Smyth. From Makin:

On the balance of probabilities, it is the opinion of the Reviewers that it was unlikely that Justin Welby would have had no knowledge of the concerns regarding John Smyth in the 1980s in the UK. He may not have known of the extreme seriousness of the abuse, but it is most probable that he would have had at least a level of knowledge that John Smyth was of some concern. [Emphasis mine]

And lets be very clear: that abuse was horrific. It had, in fact, been fully detailed by Andrew Graystone, before the release of the Makin Review, in the book Bleeding For Jesus, which more fully fleshes out the cult of the Iwerne camps that enabled much of the grooming, physical, sexual, spiritual, and coercive abuse that Smyth perpetrated in the UK. It was in Zimbabwe that his horrifying, brutal and sadistic abuse became lethal, and industrious. At least 85 boys and young men were abused physically, sexually, spiritually, and brutally.

Guide Nyachuni – a child at one of Smyth’s camps in Zimbabwe – was found dead in Smyth’s pool, face down, in circumstances that authorities in Zimbabwe sought to bring Smyth to justice for. It is still unclear why the trial against him collapsed almost immediately, and this remains unexplained to this day. Authorities in both Zimbabwe and South Africa tried repeatedly to bring Smyth to justice, wthout success, until Smyth’s death.

As the victims themselves have made clear, whilst Smyth was, as far as we know, the most prolific, he was no “lone wolf.” But within the context of C/conservative Charismatic and Evangelical Anglican Church, there is what Matthew Drapper – author of Bringing Me Back To Me, and the survivor of the Christian extremism and conversion therapy that was investigated by Barnardo’s – calls the “connective tissue” between the Makin Review of John Smyth’s systemic abuse, and the Scolding Review of the abuse perpetrated by Mike Pilavachi.

All of the same characteristics exist: a charismatic man who groomed ‘sporty’ young boys and young men; operating in a patriarchal, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, queerphobic, ablest environment; a small coterie of insiders protecting the abuser within an extremely deferential culture – Andrew Graystone called the Iwerne camps a cult for a reason – and as we begin to unpick the recently released audio of Mike Pilavachi teaching a group of young people, it is becoming clearer that the Evangelical and Charismatic church has deep rooted flaws which are attracting, enabling and in far too many cases, protecting cult leaders who are abusive, coercive and a direct danger to the welfare of all who cross their path.

And Justin Welby will not stop that. That is abundantly clear. He does not have the courage, the integrity, the ethical basis, or any sense of compassion enough to do so. He has lied, to the victims, to their families, to all victims of church abuse in claiming no knowledge of Smyth’s abuse before 2013, and he continues to lie, to himself as to others. The culture of deference that must end must start somewhere – every single person who knew and did nothing to prevent Smyth’s abuse must also resign, but the head of this rotten system too must be seen to take responsibility.

Justin Welby must go, and go now.

A Twisted Gospel: Part 1, The Tale Of Two Mike Pilavachi’s (And You’re Supposed To Believe Both).

Question: How can a man who portrays himself as someone who is “pretty broken” also believe that to scrutinize his authority is akin to the betrayal of Jesus?

Natalie Collin’s released a transcript, and the audio recording of part of a youth leadership training session, led by Mike Pilavachi, which she received from one of Pilavachi’s victims. The session, link here, took place in 2012, and wisely, given that she is stepping back from direct activism now, she has simply transcribed the portion of the session relevant to the on going fight for justice for Pilavachi’s victims, especially in the wake of the disappointment of the Scolding Report. Natalie has done the lion’s share of both curating the advocacy, news and reporting, whilst also herself advocating and challenging the powerful figures who protect Pilavachi – and others.

So what we can now do is reflect on what Mike Pilavachi was saying in this audio, in response to a situation where his motivations were being questioned, and compare and contrast the Mike Pilavachi leading those young people that day, with the Mike Pilavachi to whom Scolding gave so much time to: and reflect on this window into what Pilavachi was saying – what he was teaching, both directly and indirectly – to those young people, and put that within the context of what J.John finally said. (Which will be part two).

First, it is important to remember, before listening to Mike Pilavachi speak consistently for several minutes about having, at the very least, his motivations for ministry challenged, that we are only dealing with one side of a conversation; or a report of likely a series of conversations, and that side of the conversation is Mike Pilavachi’s. Whilst he is speaking in 2012, he says that these challenges took place “seven or eight” years previously, which would place this event of series of events around 2004 or 2005 – a potentially significant time frame. Pilavachi makes it sound like a sour grapes situation, an informal series of complaints rather than anything formal – but again, we have to remember who is speaking. Was this a victim, trying to speak up? Or someone supporting the victim? These are some of the things it is important to have in mind when comparing how Mike Pilavachi portrays himself, dependent on the audience. It is important to remember that Pilavachi is both abuser and performer.

“…I haven’t had anyone… well, there are a few of us here that will say stuff about me…but I have had someone, a leader of a church, a large church somewhere else, who I thought was a friend, who seven, eight years ago started saying about me, that I’m a crap leader to everyone [unclear], and that I wasn’t strong enough to be a leader and it was all about the Mike Pilavachi show.” Mike Pilavachi, 2012

The reason that it is significant that he is pointing to this event happening around 2004 to 2005 is because it was in 2004 that Pete and Tim Hughes went to Bishop Graham Clay – the chair of trustees in Soul Survivor Ministries – with their concerns about Mike Pilavachi. That does not mean that he is referring to that complaint, or to the Hughes’ brothers, but nevertheless, he is referring to someone, “a leader of a large church”, who Pilavachi “thought was a friend.” This was someone who, he is clearly hinting, they would know instantly. However, the Hughes brothers were still in Soul Survivor ministries at the time, and hadn’t yet moved on to lead other churches.

From the Scolding Report:

“Pete and Tim Hughes… wrote a letter to him in 2004, setting out their concerns and their views. Mr Pilavachi did not respond well to this, and both leaders were ostracised and had little choice but to leave the church as a result.“ [Emphasis mine]

Mike Pilavachi, 2012:

And he said to people on my team when you’ve had enough at Soul Survivor, come to me and I’ll give you a proper job, because under Mike, you’ll never flourish because Soul Survivor is all about him and he’ll never let anyone get any prominence and he doesn’t listen to what anyone says, and it’s all about Mike and all that. Killed me! What happened afterwards? Yeah, he said to one of my team stuff like that! [Emphasis mine]

Pilavachi goes on (in reference to this same situation):

And then, I found out that he was, he went through a little phase… (I’ll tell you…and the reason I’m telling you is so that you get what it can be like)…he started going around telling a whole bunch of other people that maybe I was gay because I’m single and don’t you think that’s suspicious? That that he’s still single and that he goes around the world staying in hotels with young men?  And three different leaders came to me quietly and said, you need to know this is being said about you.

Now, that, for a while (I’m just telling you the truth) for a while, it just devastated me.[Emphasis mine]

Question two: Why are you, a fully grown adult who’s whole ministry is based on this amazing ability to connect with young people and who travels around the world with young men, not secure in your sexuality? And if some person is (by implication) homophobically bullying you, why are you (someone who also bases their ministry on their supposed amazing ability to connect with the Holy Spirit*) not feeling prompted to make a more honest assessment of yourself, given that it had such an impact on you?

Pilavachi cannot have his cake and eat it – he’s the one bringing up supposedly being persecuted for an accusation of being gay. Let’s step back and analyse what he’s saying: he’s saying that someone went around potentially bullying him on the basis that he might be gay. Going around other church’s (all of which likely condemn homosexuality just as Mike Pilavachi’s church does), saying that someone might be gay would be (if it happened in that way) a campaign of harassment. Being accused of being gay would be terrible in the ecosystem of the charismatic and evangelical church – it would certainly be the end of Pilavachi’s career.

From the Scolding Review:

“For his part, although he has denied some of the specific allegations put to him, Mr Pilavachi has accepted that too many people have commented on this behaviour for there not to be some truth in it. He has accepted that he has made mistakes** and not treated people well. By way of explanation but, he was keen to stress not excuse, Mr Pilavachi told us that he felt like a “pretty broken person” and would often feel “incredibly insecure.” He explained that he is an introvert and very afraid of conflict. He would often deal with stress or difficult situations by withdrawing…”

As others have pointed out, one of Scolding biggest failures (aside from privileging Mike Pilavachi’s voice, rather than the victims), was in the definition of terms and this idea, or theme of Pilavachi’s supposed “brokenness” is never contextualised, yet becomes the focal point of the report – and whilst it may not have been their intention, that is not a good thing. Not because Pilavachi has no right to be “broken” (however much the theology of that idea makes me fully body cringe) – but he has no right to use that unspecified brokenness like a sword of Damocles, held over people’s heads. “Sorry I violated your trust, in various ways, trust which I actively nurtured; stamped all over the close relationship which I actively sought out and encouraged, ghosted you the moment you began having relationships with women, or behaved in controlling and coercive ways, before having a tantrum and cutting you off. I’m broken, you see.”

Mike Pilavachi, 2012:

And I don’t know what to do. What do I do? Do I get a list? Do I, do I say come here, let’s get all the, everyone, all these leaders, come and be the jury?  Matt Redman, I travelled round the world with you, now married with five children. Did anything ever, you know?  Tim Hughes, and you know, and the whole list, anything, and I thought, “No! I’m not going to defend myself.”  I’m not going to, I’m not going to stoop to that level, and the fact that we… [Emphasis mine]

There’s a trope often used in TV crime and detective shows, of the perpetrator who returns to the scene of the crime. Here is Pilavachi, calling on 2 men, whom we know now, not only had been abused by Pilavachi, but who had raised concerns about Pilavachi’s behaviour, either with the leadership of Soul Survivor (as in Tim, and his brother Pete, Hughes case, 8 years previously), or other church leaders, only to be beaten back with the excuse that Matt Redman so baldly describes in Let There Be Light – the now infamous line “that’s just Mike.” What Pilavachi therefore goes on to say can and must be considered in that context.

Mike Pilavachi 2012:

But the truth is, I found it absolutely devastating, and frightening, that that could be said about me and no one ever came to ask me, they never came to ask me. I felt I’ll give up, I’ll give up, who needs this? Who needs that sort of stuff? All that stuff being said. And then it was like, I’m talking to the Lord and it’s like no! He’s called me, I’m going to serve Him till I die. [Emphasis mine].

Pilavachi is no fool. He is a skillful performer, and knows his audience – and knows that at some point, the situation with Matt Redman, the Hughes brothers and others might well catch up with him and he wants a loyal army of defenders, not people who will question him and challenge him later on. He also doesn’t want history to repeat itself. There is a very very subtle warning running throughout this narrative: speak out, and nobody will believe you. And another, more homophobic one: there is no worse sin to be accused of (in Pilavachi’s eyes, and the eyes of all those who support Pilavachi) than to be accused of being gay. Now whether this is internalised homophobia, or not, we get to talk about the homophobia that runs through this case now. Pilavachi himself has opened that door for us and it is, frankly, a relief. I don’t care if Pilavachi is, or is not himself gay. That is quite beside the point when you are weaponising religious homophobic abuse, potentially at the expense of the safety of unknown, untold numbers of LGBTQ young people.

Question three: How many more victims would be coming forward if those victims who were LGBTQ+ felt able to do so SAFELY?

Mike Pilavachi 2012:

And then it was like, I’m talking to the Lord and it’s like no! He’s called me, I’m going to serve Him till I die, and actually, Jesus was betrayed. Now if Jesus had Judas, what makes you think that you’ll get away without Judas in your life? If Jesus had Judas, what makes you think…? It’s par for the course. [Emphasis mine]

I’ve listened, and re-listened to that portion, and the highlighted part is one sentence, not two. Pilavachi is directly comparing this scenario that he has described to the betrayal of Jesus. This is someone who – when playing to the audience of Scolding – casts himself as being someone who sees themselves as “pretty broken” (undefined), and someone who is conflict averse. When you reach the point where a leader cannot ever be scrutinised because to do so is analogous with betraying Jesus, you’re in trouble. You are already knee deep in cult-of-personality territory. To what extent Pilavachi considers or considered any scrutiny at all to be the same thing as betraying Jesus is anyone’s guess, but if I were a betting person, I would not bet the house against it.

Mike Pilavachi 2012:

We go the way of our Saviour. We go the way of our Master. And actually Jesus promised us, said, “They persecuted Me, they’ll persecute you.  They killed Me, they’ll kill you.” And do you know?  The evidence is that all the surviving disciples died as martyrs. It’s par for the course. [Emphasis mine]

Human’s tend to prefer to be the heroes of their own story, and Pilavachi is no exception to the rule. He wants to be seen as a hero, and he wants to be seen as a hero to those young people. Nothing suits an abuser, who is also a performer, better than to be seen as a hero since it makes it hard for people then to see you as anything else.

At this point in the audio, Pilavachi then mentions and talks about how his working relationship with Nicky Gumbel assisted him, and this portion of the leading works to underline all that has gone before, and will be covered in part two.

*I have no idea if Pilavachi ever did have an amazing connection with the Holy Spirit, or if he was simply high on the smell of his own farts. But by his fruits you shall know him, so I guess he must fart a great deal…

**Pilavachi’s mistakes, like his ‘brokenness,’ are not considered worthy of introspection, since the Scolding report at least makes clear that he rejects the majority of charges even if he euphemistically refers to both of those concepts, still without proper challenge.

Dear Keir – There Is No Shame In No Longer Being Able To Work For A Wage. Disability Is Not A Dirty Word.

Dear Prime Minister

Your have talked about what you now expect of all disabled and chronically ill people collectively, irrespective of the facts of our reality and situations, alongside which your government has now clearly pushed forward with a continuation of austerity, and of the hostile environment for disabled and chronically ill people. The policies you want to push through will have profound and damaging consequences, on our health, on our income, and on our very humanity. You won’t allow any disabled people anywhere near the decision making process in government; and, having removed the department and minister of state for disabled people, you have cut us off from the direct route through which we could challenge your proposals.

I am not naive – you dropped that role from your shadow front bench upon becoming leader of the Labour Party, and this was very much your plan from the start. It is a regressive plan, that does not answer the needs of disabled and chronically ill people in this country, and it silences us at a crucial time. You are capable of choosing to listen to, and uplift, disabled people, yet you have consistently chosen not to do so.

For 15 years we have been existing under a brutally oppressive, dehumanising system that it has so far killed at least 335,000 of us. It has tormented, hounded and starved to death people who were disabled and chronically ill, but had committed no crime. We still do not know how many of those were under sanctions by the DWP. Before dying, every one of those human beings lived in horrific poverty, fear and pain and did everything they could to stop that from happening, but becoming disabled and chronically ill – or being born disabled – is something entirely outside of a person’s control. Not one of them was lazy, or a “scrounger”. None of them deserved to die. Because we are unable to work, we have been subject to false accusations, as a group, of “disability benefit fraud” since the financial crash of 2008 – a situation that was caused, not by disabled and chronically ill people people being unable to work due to reasons outside of their control, but bankers, playing high risk games with sub-prime mortgages. Nevertheless, it was disabled and chronically ill people in this country who are collectively financially punished for that, and you choose to continue to do the same.

Do you know what I find most offensive about the lie that there is a huge “problem” with disability benefit fraud? How easily disprovable it is. Even the constant steady figure of roughly 2% (which it’s been every year) is mostly representative of faults caused by those who administer the system – the actual figure is approximately 0.3%. Nine out of ten allegations made are proven false. The application process for disability benefits (PIP, ESA or UC) is so degrading, humiliating, belittling and horrific that to then propose policies that will collectively treat the most vulnerable as suspected fraudsters, as you are planning to do with the policy to snoop into disabled people’s bank accounts is to prolong that torture. That this is a breach of our human rights goes without saying – you are, purportedly, a former human rights lawyer. That is why you will appreciate the previous government’s abuses of our human rights came under fire from the UN three times; we wonder now if your government must too face the UN for the choices you make in regard to our lives.

All of us live in poverty, a great many of us falling below the poverty line. Despite the fact that our disabilities mean that we have more financial need, the cuts that were made to our benefits by the Conservatives at the start of austerity were never redressed; for us, austerity has never ended, so whilst costs have risen our benefits remain at the austerity levels of 2012. It was hard enough to make ends meet on £737, the average monthly amount received on PIP and ESA, then, and it’s utterly impossible now. And this, then, is the other reason why “disability benefit fraud” is such a bad joke – this poverty, this 2nd class existence, this constant abuse from the government, this hostile environment that has been forced on us and which you now perpetuate isn’t something anyone would choose.

John Prings of the Disability News Service has documented this horrific process in The Department, and as a Labour MP you will have been sent a copy by the disabled and chronically ill community. We worked extremely hard to raise the funds to purchase a copy for every Labour MP – have you taken the time to read yours yet?

And now we face further existential threats; not just further cuts to our income, but to our lives as 54 MP’s push to make Assisted Dying legislation that is due to be voted on (without any kind of review, assessment or consultation) widened to include “incurable distress” – an horrifically permissive phrase which our Canadian cousins know only too well result in disabled and chronically ill people being offered euthanasia instead of treatment and support. Euthanasia offered in the face of a fracturing healthcare system will always become eugenics.

A person’s dignity is not – and should not – be defined by whether or not they can work, because otherwise you might has well just admit that you think disabled and chronically ill people are nothing more than burden’s. Is that what you think? That if we are unable to work in traditional waged employment we must be “useless eaters”?

We are not. We are capable of creating work for ourselves that works around our disabilities where we are able, but that work isn’t necessarily valued by governments beholden to corporate bosses. We do care for our communities, and we are some of the most amazing, resourceful and creative people you will ever meet, who give back to our communities in all sorts of ways, if only you would value it. But of course your main concern is the bottom line, where you know the price of everything and the value of nothing – least of all the value of a single human life. But given that we have been paying for one long financial crisis or other by being kept in the most appalling poverty already for 15 years now; given that the system that administers that poverty has tortured and humiliated us over and over again throughout that time, and before; and given that keeping us in that poverty hasn’t made your financial messes go away, hear this:

We are tired of fighting for our lives. We are tired of having to point out the same obvious facts repeatedly. Most of all we are tired of ablest governments treating disability and chronic illness like a dirty word, a source of shame, an easy target and a scapegoat for your financial fix. There is no more blood to bleed from this stone.

We want our lives back – and we want them back now.

Starmer’s Government Promise Only Further Attacks & Greater Poverty For Disabled People: So What Now?

The 4 Paragraphs which the Labour Party deigned to put in their 2024 election manifesto about disabled people deliberately didn’t make clear Labour’s full plans for further austerity measures for the country’s disabled and chronically ill communities. But they did adequately make clear that they would be pushing a narrative that would bully and harass the majority of the community, whilst possibly helping in a tiny minority of circumstances which they won’t be able to replicate, because of the overwhelming inaccessibility and intractability of the modern workplace, and welfare bureaucracy, which simply won’t allow for it – and nothing on the current showing of this government suggests that they have any new ideas or big policy announcements that are likely to change that. The board of ‘experts’ set up under DWP minister Liz Kendall has deliberately excluded disabled people, which will prevent input from the community about the reality of the current situation in order to continue to appear ‘anti-welfare’ to Labour’s corporate backers.

Instead they have resorted to the same thing that the previous incarnation of austerity government resorted to: attacking the human rights of disabled people by treating the whole group – and, most pertinently, punishing the whole group as – criminals, this time by providing new powers to allow the private bank accounts of disabled people to be searched. (Did Mrs Mason from No 37 buy a bar of chocolate with her PIP money? Our roving reporter has the latest shocking developments!) Yes, yet again, the flogged, dead horse of the ‘disability welfare cheat’ is back on the political agenda because despite being as real as the bogeyman under your bed, and despite claiming a mandate for ‘change’, that ‘change’ is – according Starmer – yet more of the same Tory austerity, since peering into the bank accounts of the disabled was originally a Tory policy. Starmer himself has made it clear that he expects every disabled and chronically sick person to be looking for work. This takes the potential for discrimination against every disabled and chronically ill person, irrespective of their circumstances, to frightening new levels.

This comes on the heels on the universally condemned removal of the Winter Fuel Allowance, which will impact disabled elderly the hardest. When the Labour Party in opposition conducted an impact assessment of such a policy in 2019 when it was proposed by the Conservatives (prior to the pandemic, and the newest round of the seemingly never ending cost of living crisis), they estimated that at least 4000 elderly people would die as a result of the policy. Five brutal years on, and that number will higher – maybe at least two or three times that figure.

And worse is to come – for those unable to work because of disability and chronic illness (which the government insist on calling ‘long term sickness’ as if people with incurable diseases will magically jump up and down with energy when given the ‘right’ job opportunity), the smoke signals are that, not only will this government go through your private accounts, but yet more cuts are on the horizon, though given that every disabled person who is reliant on benefits already exists below the poverty line, it is hard to imagine what else they will take from us.

Nor are the prospects good that Labour will take the care crisis for disabled people seriously. Wes Streeting studiously avoided answering any questions about the horrific levels of debt that were being placed on disabled people at the recent Labour Party conference, and when Labour are also looking to rush through MAiD – which has been so lethal for the disabled community Canada, where euthanasia is routinely offered now instead of medical treatments as what’s left of their socialised medical care collapses due to lack of investment – the 400,000+ death toll from the Conservative era austerity and (lack of) pandemic management threatens to be dwarfed in comparison.

Aside from the huge swing to the political right the Labour Party have taken under Keir Starmer, the biggest issue facing the disabled communities ability to fight these onslaughts is Starmer’s absolute refusal to allow disabled and chronically ill people anywhere near the decision making process. This was apparent from the moment he became leader of the party – his very first act as leader was to dump the role of minister for disabled people from the shadow front bench, and subsume the role into Women and Equalities, thereby making it harder for our specific needs to be heard. This was then carried over into government, with the dedicated department for disabled people being similarly wiped out. As disabled people at the party’s recent conference themselves pointed out, a “part time” minister – and one tied exclusively to the DWP – simply will not do. The sharp end of that stick was felt when a group of disabled and chronically ill people, having properly made arrangements for a meeting with government representatives, and to deliver copies of The Department to Labour MP’s, found on arrival the meeting cancelled without notice and a long process of negotiation required in order to deliver copies of the book.

The Department by John Pring of the Disability News Service is a hugely important book which exposes the systemic violence and discrimination metered out by the DWP over the last 3 decades. The community worked extremely hard to raise the money necessary to ensure that every Labour MP received a copy of the book, so that they could learn about what life is like living under such an oppressive, brutal bureaucratic system. The message that day, however, was clear: disabled peoples voices, unless they align precisely with Starmer’s authoritarian austerity narrative, will be silenced. So what can disabled people do about it, if Starmer’s government, in effect, intend to put their fingers in their ears and go “la la la we can’t hear you?” It remains vital for disabled and chronically ill people to find, and be, in community with each other, and it is especially important that our allies and the more privileged members of the community continue to do whatever they can too.

I would argue that we have 2 main tasks right now: harangue this government until they reinstate the dedicated department of, and minister of state for disabled people, but more importantly change how we fight.

When Starmer dumped the minister of state for disabled people, and I say this with love – the community rolled over. Many of the communities leading voices, in the run up to the formal announcement, refused to countenance the possibility it would happen (despite the fact that it already had happened in the shadow cabinet), and then when it did happen, ran with a “well lets try to make the best of it” narrative, when there was absolutely no reason at all to suppose there was any reason to do so. And that just will not do, when there are multiple threats to disabled people’s human rights and very existence, not just on the horizon, but rolling down the hill and engulfing us as we sit here, poking at each individual horror without any real chance of dealing with any of it effectively, because there’s no specific department in government to cope with sheer complexity of it all anymore – by design.

We have to be much more radical now, because unless we embrace that, we die. That is the consequence of Starmer is putting in action, and the sooner the community accept that, the better.

The God of My Faith Is One, Not Three: On Affirming Divine Unity

Long before I left the Church of England, and the Anglican practice of faith, and long before I arrived at the point where I could no longer think of Jesus as God incarnate without flinching; before that, in my private prayer life, I did not pray in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not usually. Often I would come to God in prayer in the name of Jesus, or sometimes I would end my prayers in that manner. But I always directed my prayers purely and simply to God. At the time, I did not see this as much of a distinction – to some it would still seem like an insignificant detail. But over time, I became more aware of it and more aware that I felt better at ease with it. For while, temporarily, the eucharist could ease my disquiet over being unable to fully reconcile the idea of a God who was both incarnate, yet prayed to himself whilst in the flesh, it could never erase it entirely. I used to say it was the place where the of faith my head, and the faith of my heart met, but the division of my faith in that way was part of the problem.

So, too, was the increasing sense that I was getting further away from who Jesus was, and what he taught, and that became increasingly difficult: the Jesus that I had met in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – and the Christ who was crucified – gradually grew further apart until I could find no reconciliation between the two. But it was largely the Jesus of the gospels, and what he said, what he taught and his living example that had drawn me to have faith in God the first place! Yet for as much as I was aware this would not do, I did not know what to do.

So I did the only thing I could, which was to keep praying. I have no interest at all in being perfect, because I cannot be perfect. What I wanted then, as now, is to be faithful to God, and to follow Jesus, who I wanted to know much better than I felt scripture allows, for this conviction so far is unchanged: that I am called to follow the prophet Jesus, who calls me by my name. So I have read and prayed, and prayed and read, and to me the conclusion is inescapable – that God is not three, but one, and though I have too much experience of Gods power (or holy spirit, or whatever you want to call it) actively working in my life to discount it, my theology is changing even if the practice of my faith, as a disabled chronically ill person who is usually housebound, isn’t necessarily changing. I still pray to God, but now I pray secure in my understanding of the unity of God, and so my faith – which has learned to become strong – now learns how to rest, finally, truly; and the promise of my master Jesus, to give rest to the weary and heavy laden, is borne out fully and at last.

God as Divine Unity was the original expression of Christian faith, and whilst it was later treated as heresy – and I expect that there will be those who will still consider me heretical for this – it was what the prophet Jesus taught. (Yes, I know some dispute that too). I’ll be writing about the scriptures and readings which have led me to this point, not to debate or to dispute, but I hope to help you understand why. This is not a place I have come to carelessly.

“We do then with all earnestness, though without reproaching our brethren, protest against the irrational and unscriptural doctrine of the Trinity… With Jesus, we worship the Father as the only living and true God. We are astonished that any man can read the New Testament, and avoid the conviction that the Father alone is God… It is a great excellence of the doctrine of God’s Unity, that it offers to us One object of supreme homage, adoration and love, One Infinite Father, One Being of Beings, One Original and Fountain, to whom we may refer all good, in whom all our powers and affections may be concentrated, and whose lovely and venerable nature may pervade all our thoughts…” William Ellery Channing, 1819

Jesus Wasn’t A Safe Space For Abusers – So Why Does The Church Make Itself One?

I’m sure it would make headline news, if it were ever to come to pass: Christians Agree – Jesus Did Not Give A Safe Space To Abusers and Did Not Treat All Sins Equally. It would be impossible to take all the times that Jesus tells abusers of every stripe that the only way to salvation is through cutting off their own flesh, because it’s that or the fires of hell, and still claim that Jesus was prepared to accept excuses for abusers not doing so. This also includes the ones who describe themselves as “falling into sexual sin”, or “having inappropriate relationships”, or being “insecure introverts”.

“Falling into sexual sin” or “having an inappropriate relationship” has long been the considered the favoured Christian lingo to describe infidelity and abusive relationships by Christians of various denominations, and it reared it’s head in the last few days in a church in the US. In Dallas, Steve Lawson has been removed as lead preacher from the Trinity Bible Church of Dallas due to an “inappropriate” relationship with a woman. The announcement on the church website talks about the elders “coming alongside” Steve to pray for him with the “ultimate goal of repentance,” and then makes the assertion that “we are ALL sinners” and leaves the matter pretty much there, otherwise only asking for prayer for Lawson’s family.

Despite Jesus teaching very clearly that married men who have affairs are acting abusively, the Church immediately softens Lawson’s behavior, in the first instance by implying that Lawson’s sin is no worse than any other, and in the second by failing to recognise and make mention at all of the harm and hurt Lawson’s behavior will be causing his family, and the wider congregation. It also implicitly imposes on a congregation – some of whom may be more directly impacted than others – the manner in which they are supposed to grieve and process what has happened. This man preached one thing from the pulpit, whilst practicing another. There may be further abuses of which the elders are as yet unaware, and this statement makes the matter a closed business. Whilst Lawson has rightly been removed from his leadership & paying roles, his church are teaching the congregation that Lawson needs only to repent “on the cross” is some form for all to be well again. That’s bad theology, which fails everyone involved, especially Lawson’s family. It also doesn’t take into account that for Lawson to make this confession to the elders (of an “inappropriate relationship) there needed to have been a trigger, and this suggests that there is a bigger picture that we are unaware of at the moment.

The other problem with this “all sins are equal” teaching, and using language like “falling into sexual sin” when you mean adultery (like Jesus did) or “inappropriate relationship” instead of infidelity, is that this can often be used to mask worse abuses; hence why Jesus was clear about infidelity, a behavior often accompanied by manipulation, deceit, and coercion. But let us suppose for a moment (and let me emphasis that this is a ‘what if’ question, not necessarily about Lawson); let us suppose this was a situation involving someone with significant power, who has used that power to abuse this woman, who was leveraging it to continue the arrangement. Let us suppose she was particularly vulnerable for some reason, and this more powerful individual abused that vulnerability to pursue his pleasures, even if she perhaps would have preferred not to but felt unable to say no. In such a scenario (and no church is immune to this), that would make the woman a victim. But how would you be able to tell, if his sin is to be treated as no better or worse than any other?

People outside of particularly conservative church’s often wonder how and why their theology around sexual abuse ends up victim blaming and giving the abuser a shoulder to cry on, and it’s partly because people don’t want to hear what Jesus taught. Of course, if you believe that you all you have to do is repent on a man nailed to a cross who’s had his flesh gouged out, it’s going to short-circuit your brain when you read that man actually taught you that your route out of your abusive infidelity is via choosing instead to gouge out your own flesh, penitent self-discipline and proving you mean sorry by your actions, absolutely no excuses permitted, (and which does not in any way take from the teaching of forgiveness, if you’re paying attention).

Then finally on Thursday the Independent Review into Mike Pilavachi, conducted by Fiona Scolding KC, was released, and whilst the report is detailed, and makes a number of recommendations, it has already come under fire from victims and advocates for its contextual failures and much of what flows from that, since it does not, as David Gates points out, “…mention…the grooming and narcissistic behavior and fails to connect the dots…” and “…it’s conclusions only serve Mike’s manipulative narratives and continue to shield those who oversaw it from accountability…“

An example of what David Gates is describing is Scolding’s misunderstanding of basic terms, that allow Mike Pilavachi to paint himself as a victim, using the time to seek sympathy and understanding, rather than as the abuser who must answer for his choices and actions:

“Mr Pilavachi told us that he felt like a “pretty broken” person at times and would often feel “incredibly insecure”. He explained that he is an introvert and very afraid of conflict. He would often deal with stress or difficult situations by withdrawing.” Scolding Review

In fact an introvert is simply someone who gets their energy from being by themselves (an extrovert is someone who gets their energy from being in company); what Mike Pilavachi is actually describing is conflict aversion. However, it should also be noted that Mike Pilavachi created a lot of conflict, and sulking (or ghosting) is less to do with conflict aversion than it is to do with the avoiding the consequences of your choices.

Natalie Collins has written an extensive critique of Scolding covering it’s definitions of safeguarding, limiting its remit to judge based on systems and governance, authorship of Mission Shaped Church and the privileging of Mike Pilavachi’s voice, and it is perhaps in that which Scolding has failed most significantly. Natalie does not just iterate some of the ways Mike Pilavachi himself was given privileged access to Scolding, but how difficult his victims found it to be heard at all. Given the time that was taken in this review it is heinous that such a tiny number of victims should have been given access to it.

It is likely that Pilavachi’s champions will consider Scolding, if not a vindication, at least a step closer to being able to rehabilitate him back into the fold, despite the fact that he has never uttered one word of repentance to the victims, nor have his champions ever once said that ‘abuse is wrong’ in any manner or form. Indeed all concerned, from all at Holy Trinity Brompton, to JJohn, and Bishop Graham Cray have remained utterly silent, since they have not the courage to stand on whatever principle of supposed faith that propels them.

When I am wearied by the excuses of the world, particularly the excuses that men make for themselves in order that they might continue to abuse others without ever once having to answer for it; I give thanks to God for the prophet, my teacher Jesus, who would provide not one excuse nor give not a moment’s respite to an abuser, knowing God’s will, knowing the harm that it does to those the abuser harms. These men, who claim to know best about Jesus and God, yet preach about abuse as if Jesus never uttered a word, nor gave a direct teaching. These men, some of whom now hide behind silence because the words they want to use will not tickle our ears, but stir us to righteous anger; these men, who have always misunderstood – we who speak do not do so to pay attention to them, or to attack them or because we care about them at all.

But to reach even one victim – for that we would speak for as long as it took.

The Charismatic Boys Club And The Jolly Good Get Together

“Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks’ wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices… Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate…” Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

For anyone following the developing situation around Russell Brand, since being accused by four women of rape and sexual assault – in the context of years of misogynistic, abusive treatment of women, and growing a following via his YouTube channel which has seen his political agenda become increasingly conspiratorial and right wing – his “conversion” to Christianity may not be that surprising. His recent performance on stage with Tucker Carlson is very much on brand, for Brand.

For those of us who are victims, survivors and advocates and therefore used to performative Christianity, we were naturally keeping Brand at arm’s length. But cheap grace abounds; JJohn, as one of it’s adherents, having appointed himself apostle to the abusers, invited Russell Brand to join a retreat he was leading, as a guest for a day. It is not hard to see why Brand is drawn to John, teaching as he does “some other Jesus” who does not require Brand to confess, to repent, to live a faith that works out the repentance owed for the terrible physical, emotional and psychic harm done to the victims. [At this point it would be worth reading Natalie Collins here first, then here, for some important context for what follows – and also for some spitting fire and some naming of names].

There’s nothing that needs to be added to Natalie’s response to Greg Down’s statement, in terms of his victim blaming theology, his base sexism, his complicity or his unwillingness to examine his own evident discomfort with women. There are, however, a couple of things that Downs said, during his blustering self-justifying defense for being photographed with Russell Brand, that are worth pulling out, because it’s never just misogyny that informs this Charismatic excess towards cheap grace – paid at the cost of the victims, every time.

Downs’ draws a parallel to a previous occasion, when he posted a photograph of himself “…smiling with the presiding bishop of the Episcopal church USA..,” and he was, he tells us, accused of “theological liberalism.” It certainly says something about the Charismatic church if they think that being “liberal” and being an accused serial rapist is somehow an equal social faux pas, yet think the serially accused rapist is more worthy of the cheap grace that J John and his disciples are otherwise eager to dispense, than the Episcopalian or, come to that, the accused rapists victims.

He then did exactly what a white man in his position always does, by reaching for a quote by a great Black theologian, in this case the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu (who was an Anglican, a human rights activist who was actively Pro-Palestinian liberation). And I’d like to ask Mr Downs if he reached for a quote by the late, liberal Tutu before – or after – he realised that the photo of the Jolly Good Get Together With The Accused Serial Rapist reflected that there was only one Black ‘associate’ (or at least only one who was with the group there that day).

Purely out of professional curiosity mind.

What is becoming clearer, however, is in J John’s burgeoning ministry to the abusers – although the basis on which he ministers is mired in silence, and his refusal to provide transparency continues to shroud his private actions in mystery – he covers Russell Brand’s & Mike Pilavachi’s ears from Jesus’ words, that it would be better for them to cut off their own flesh, than continue on as they are.

Such disciplined, costly, words are not for him to preach.