Why the mainstream media’s reporting on alleged abuse at YWAM falls short

Last weekend, The Observer published an investigation into Youth With A Mission (YWAM) - an evangelical non-denominational missionary movement.

The headlines were pretty scary: ‘It felt like a demon was inside me’: young Christian missionaries allege spiritual abuse’ and ‘Christian missionary group accused of public shaming and rituals to ‘cure’ sexual sin’’

For those unfamiliar, YWAM was started in 1960 by American missionary Loren Cunningham, and is most famous for sending young people off on short-term self-funded mission trips around the world. Structurally, it is a decentralised organisation, built around independently-run bases operating in dozens of countries.

The core allegations are of spiritual abuse: public shaming, heavy-handed controlling behaviour and exorcism-like rituals for expelling sexual sin. These practices, the article claims, were commonplace at a number of different bases.

The allegations

Young British adults who joined YWAM described pressure to confess sins such as homosexual thoughts, sex outside marriage, abortions, watching pornography, or even “rebellious thoughts” often in group settings. Some were forced to apologise publicly, subjected to prayer interventions, or removed from their volunteer roles as a means of punishment. In more extreme cases, they described rituals akin to exorcisms.

While the allegations span bases across the world, many of the ex-YWAM missionaries who spoke to The Observer are British. One base in England - unnamed - was recently shut down by the English branch of YWAM over concerns about spiritual abuse.

YWAM’s response

YWAM said in response while most young people have had positive experiences, “we are aware and deeply regret that some have had harmful experiences of spiritual abuse and manipulation.” That said, the statement isn’t exactly brimming with heartfelt apologies. They spend several sentences explaining that “leadership styles” vary from culture to culture, and that “abuse can happen large and small organisations of all types,” emphasising that local bases are mostly accountable to local church leadership not the global YWAM movement, i.e. don’t blame us.

They do say, more concretely, that they are opposed to “pressured group sessions of public confession” and that “informed consent, trauma-awareness, and appropriate spiritual and pastoral oversight are essential”:

“We are deeply grieved to hear reports that spiritual practices intended for healing were instead used in coercive or shaming ways. We condemn any practice—past or present—that traumatises individuals or associates their identity with demonic influence.”

They end by thanking the former YWAMers who came forward, some anonymously, to The Observer to share their stories and pledge to continue improving their safeguarding procedures and culture.

Why this is complicated

For those of us who are familiar/sympathetic with the evangelical church culture YWAM grew out of, this story is complex. Not because of some tribal loyalty to the institution under attack, but because it’s often difficult to discern what exactly is being alleged.

To the secular journalists at The Observer, it’s obvious and goes without saying that weirdo conservative Christians gathering in small groups to confess their sins and pray for holy living is at best creepy and cult-like, and at worst actively abusive. But if you believe that God is real, longs for his people to walk in his ways and through that obedience to their creator find fullness of life, then it’s more complicated.

There’s certainly vulnerabilities through which accountability groups can become abusive, traumatising and profoundly un-Christlike. But I suspect mutual accountability done sensitively, with full consent and respect, and all under the banner of grace and Jesus’s saving work on the cross, would still look dodgy to The Observer (and possibly even be considered evidence of spiritual abuse).

The murkier bits

There’s lots in The Observer which is objectively bad for YWAM — no church movement should ever be trying to exorcise ‘demons’ from a young person who says they are struggling with their sexual identity. That is undeniably abusive and inappropriate. 

Likewise, the woman in a South African base who was told by its leadership she could not get dreadlocks because they’re associated with “rebellion, false worship, mind control, witchcraft…ostracisation from society, destruction and death” and would compromise the “integrity” of the base, is equally indefensible.

But other aspects make things murkier. One account describes a YWAM member telling those present in a prayer group that she had been raped, and they responded by praying for her. Is this really spiritually abusive and shaming? Or is it just kind, pastoral care?

Or what about the fact that some YWAM bases had rules about abstaining from alcohol and romantic relationships while on mission. Is this coercive and controlling behaviour? Or are these culturally appropriate guidelines to help the young people be useful and accepted by the locals they seek to serve?

As it happens, I did the cliched Christian gap year short-term overseas mission (not with YWAM), and our team was also asked in advance to not drink alcohol while we were overseas. Not to control us and not because alcohol is sinful, but because in a South African context, alcoholism was a huge problem and most churches were teetotal. It was about cultural sensitivity to open doors to mission — not puritanical control.

The Observer makes a lot of how some YWAM leaders would encourage the missionaries to pray and seek God’s guidance on whether to stay or go home. Of course, claiming to have heard from God and using that to manipulate someone into doing what you want them to do is a big problem in lots of church contexts, especially charismatic and Pentecostal movements. But there are also good and non-coercive ways of seeking to hear God’s voice and encouraging the young believers you’re leading to attend to the Spirit’s promptings. Which side of the line did YWAM fall? It’s not really very clear.

Conservative theology is not abuse

Then we come to another major plank of The Observer’s reporting - the conservative positions of YWAM leadership. The movement has always been pretty evangelical when it comes to things like marriage and sexuality, and that gives the newspaper plenty of material to cast further opprobrium. They report, “In 2020, Lynn Green, one of YWAM’s most senior leaders and the founder of YWAM England, published a blog post urging the human race to “repent for ignoring the laws of God”, blaming abortion and “the homosexual agenda” for “bringing destruction”.”

It’s not great stuff, and I say that as an evangelical myself. It’s certainly not the most thoughtful way to frame things, but simply holding to traditional conservative Christian beliefs, shared with billions of other believers worldwide, is not by itself evidence of abuse or harm. YWAM England said in response: “YWAM holds to traditional Christian views on sexual morality and marriage. These beliefs should not, however, be used to shame others. We affirm the dignity and worth of every individual.”

I think this strikes the balance about right. It’s fine to hold conservative views, but not if they are bleeding over into abusive practices. But in truth, the kind of theology swimming around YWAM bases is not that strange if you’ve been to one of the thousands of evangelical churches of all denominations in the UK, and it’s unfair and inaccurate to imply that it necessarily leads to the harm experienced by many YWAMers.

I don’t want to minimise some of the very serious mistakes YWAM bases have clearly made, nor the harm caused to far too many young people who spent time there. We should be grateful to those who bravely spoke out, and to The Observer for taking the time and effort to investigate these reports and publish them.

But, as is often the case for those of us who are believers, we are left wishing there had been a bit more precision and more contextualising in the reporting.

A familiar fallout

It reminds me of the frenzy that followed the emergence of the allegations against Mike Pilavachi at Soul Survivor. That investigation rightly exposed spiritual abuse and led to his permanent removal.

Nobody doubts that Pilavachi was spiritually abusive and harmed many people, as Premier Christianity’s own investigative podcast series explained. Unfortunately much of the mainstream media’s reporting featured a cult-like portrayal of summer festivals that enact hyper-conservative theology and creepy charismatic practices.

Soul Survivor, like any church movement, has made plenty of mistakes in the past, which go a far beyond simply allowing Pilavachi to remain in post so long. But, as I wrote for this publication at the time, it’s objectively not a cult. Its beliefs are very mainstream evangelical ones and its practices, while unusual to outsiders, are quite ordinary charismatic renewal stuff. As I concluded: “Churchgoers reading some of this vague-yet-deeply-foreboding coverage are able to skim past this and focus on the substantial and very concerning safeguarding allegations against Pilavachi. But for those unfamiliar with this part of the church, it seems to corroborate the allegations unjustifiably. And it reduces a complicated organisation full of hundreds of individuals each trying and failing to build the kingdom to a cartoonish parody; a sinister cult dedicated to facilitating one man’s alleged abuse.”

Religious illiteracy (and perhaps a smidge of smug progressive dismissal of those wacky Christians) renders some reporting on church scandals difficult to penetrate. It makes it far too hard to separate out the bad stuff that needs exposing and stopping, from the strange yet faithful stuff that the wider society doesn’t understand but is core to how God’s people live and work.