ARISE FROM THE ASHES – The Rocky Path

[This is a personal post made by the author – and not connected to Family First in any way.]

PART 2 – THE PATHFINDING REPORT

“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” – Proverbs 18:17

BACKGROUND

As stated in the first of this series, I would reiterate that we should welcome the fact that individuals within a large church family (Arise Church in this case) had the opportunity to share their concerns and hurts.

As with any church, organisation, charity or group, these should be taken very seriously.

Any church should commit to enabling that process of listening & healing to be part of their regular church life.

As a church they should totally commit to improving the systems and policies which may have led to these grievances.

They should also continue to proactively engage with the NZ Police where necessary.

While Arise Church has positively impacted thousands of families (and continues to do that), there have also been some who, for various reasons, have felt let down, alienated or mistreated.

But at the same time, the church must stand strongly and continue to stand strongly as a biblically based church where God’s Word is the foundation, the basis of their teaching and their guide for living.

Not all will accept that, and every church understands and accepts that.

People reject the Gospel. Even Jesus warned us that this would happen.

If the Arise Church furore was about disgruntled ex-members or volunteers who have left the place because they no longer adhere to the rules or don’t like the environment or leadership, you can find those at the local tennis club – Greenpeace also. Even in Parliament or the Silver Ferns coaching team! And many workplaces and organisations, including some high-profile law firms.

Sadly, the ‘church’ is also littered with rear exit doors where disgruntled, ‘deconstructed’ or disillusioned members quietly leave.

But for what may be genuine and legitimate grievances, we have a biblical process of dealing with those scenarios.

Churches must deal appropriately with these genuine and legitimate grievances.

I reiterate – these grievances and hurts should definitely have been heard, with forgiveness, repentance and restoration.

In addition, there’s the Employment Relations Authority for employment grievances, and ultimately the Police (and Courts) for anything of a criminal nature.

Nowhere should the process involve ‘feeding’ information to activists or the media who clearly have no interest in strengthening the church (or organisation or workplace). Perhaps their agenda is the complete opposite.

In my opinion, this furore was actually about organisations and especially churches who opposed the recent “conversion therapy bill” (more on that in the next post in this series).

Any group or church or organisation who makes a stand against the radical left’s agenda around sexuality and gender ideology will be a target.

That’s why Family First was ultimately targeted for deregistration by the Charities Board. It all started with ONE complaint regarding our stance on the same-sex marriage bill.

READ MORE
https://familyfirst.org.nz/2022/08/17/mcblog-the-state-v-family-first/

THE ALLEGATIONS

As ChristianityToday reported (ironically by a reporter who had attended the church – but this was never disclosed to the reader):

New Zealand’s largest megachurch is being investigated by the country’s Department of Internal Affairs following a damning report that the church commissioned but then refused to release. According to the 49-page report, there were “egregious and systemic” failures in the leadership of Arise Church. The independent review, conducted by Pathfinding, a Christian critical response management company, called for board resignations and new leadership to address widespread problems, including the ill-treatment of volunteers and interns enrolled in the Arise Ministry School.

Interns were reportedly asked to work excessively long hours and do cleaning, driving, babysitting, and gardening for pastors. There were also allegations of sexual harassment, bullying, and manipulation. Pathfinding surveyed 545 current and former members of Arise, a 10,000-member, 13-campus Pentecostal church.

Interestingly, ChristianityToday pointed to a link of the report which was the illegally leaked report by activist David Farrier – despite a legal non-publication order on the report through the Employment Relations Authority.

According to the media report, Farrier’s coverage on Arise explored allegations of homophobia, sexual assault, and bullying.

Radio NZ & the NZ Herald also reported

Allegations of racism, sexual assault, homophobia, bullying and actively discouraging victims from going to the police are contained in a leaked copy of an investigation into Arise Church….

The review team heard accounts of what people faced following sexual assault, harassment or rape. “Sometimes these incidents occurred within the person’s life outside Arise but we also heard of incidents at the hands of other Arise members or staff.”

Remember – we now know that not a single complaint was made to the Police about claims of “sexual grooming, underage relationships, sexual harassment, assault or rape, indecent exposure” – despite one of the reviewers acting as a conduit for complainants to contact the NZ Police.

No complaints to Oranga Tamariki.

No complaints to the Human Rights Commission.

No breaches under the Charities Act.

An Improvement Notice from WorkSafe NZ was compiled with in just four months.

A BDO Financial audit found no issues.

Also remember that in December 2021, the Arise board approached a New Zealand law firm to conduct an independent HR review. Their findings included:

• • Most people spoke positively about the current culture of the organisation
  • The general view was that the culture of the Ministry School had improved for the better over the years and that the current culture of the Ministry School was viewed positively.
  • There are a number of health and safety polices and a framework for risk management and incident reporting which go a considerable way to meeting the organisations health and safety obligations, There is also evidence that these policies are largely being followed although there may be a lack of consistency across the campuses.

READ PART 1 – OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT
https://bobmccoskrie.com/arise-from-the-ashes-the-untold-details/

THE ‘REVIEW’

A three-team investigative team was then appointed.

While well-intentioned, it seems clear to all that this review was quickly hijacked by activists and those seeking to damage the church. The following details back up why I say this.

As ChristianityToday reported:

[One of the reviewers] joined Pathfinding’s three-person review team to peer-review the report before publication. This month, he published an extensive reflection on what he thought was theologically and culturally wrong at Arise. Areas of concern, he said, included centralized power, an honour culture, performance culture, and toxic positivity.

‘Toxic positivity’ – that’s a new one!

“Arise can be a community where all are honoured and their gifts contribute to helping one another grow in Christlikeness as a deep internal journey of formation in Christ through all the ups and downs of life—in the ordinary, everyday journey of living in 21st century Aotearoa New Zealand,” he wrote. “To get there Arise will need to put discipleship and formation in the way of Jesus at the heart of the community. It needs to take precedence over increasing budgets, buildings, attendance or ever more spectacular events.”

Interestingly, the ‘extensive reflection’ is no longer accessible.

There is also a concerning admission by the reviewer that before he accepted appointment to the review committee, he specifically contacted activist David Farrier to seek his ‘permission’ to be on the review committee. This admission was made at a public event at St Matthews in the City with then-Minister of Justice Kiri Allan, David Farrier, and others campaigning against Arise Church.

The other reviewer made, in my view, a most disturbing admission to a group of church leaders:

“It is to Arise’s credit that we were not tasked with proving the veracity of each of the allegations, but to develop a listening process and based on what we heard to bring recommendations to the Board. However, we only reported issues where there were multiple concerns raised.”

Allegations included:

• • Systemic racism and sexism
  • Opaque financial reporting
  • Sexual abuse
  • Bullying and exploitation of interns
  • No independent complaints process
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Poor pastoral care
  • Health and Safety breaches
  • Pastors pushing political comments from the stage
  • Homophobic comments
  • Body Shaming – not having the right image
    NB In fairness we also heard some very positive stories of the work of Arise. We reported these as well

[Editor’s note – one page of a 51-page report. See affidavits below]

…however, we were not tasked with a review of the ministry of Arise Church overall.

The 3^rd and lead reviewer was – amongst other things – a ‘same-sex marriage’ celebrant.

Significantly, the lead reviewer said about David Farrier, “you really care about people…”

[Here’s some of the ideology of David Farrier who “really cares”… READ THE FULL SUMMARY
(WARNING: There’s some very coarse language being used by this person who “really cares”)]

In discussion with church members, we were told:

– “It is known that at least one person has been making negative and false submissions from multiple email accounts” – suggesting a campaign underway
– A number of staff members felt their interview experiences were negative and indicative of bias in the interviewers. It appears that Pathfinding was already operating in a negative lens of ARISE, and interviews were framed in that light:
– The process was pitched to staff as our chance to make improvements to our church, and so many came with their constructive feedback
– Many felt that positive experiences or feedback were dismissed or brushed over, but negative feedback was dug into and detail was sought
– One staff member was asked ‘who told you to say that?’ after giving positive feedback of working at Arise
– One staff member had it suggested that they should ‘apologise’ for being involved with Arise
– some staff members asked for the transcripts of their interviews. When questioned about missing positive data, the answer given was that they were not recording anything that was positively disclosed.

What many people are unaware of – but was admitted by one of the panelists – is that the review committee did not read the submissions.

They simply received summaries.

They were “processed and summarised”.

The report admits:

Verbal submissions were received by a team of five counsellors and psychologists, all of whom are full members of a relevant professional association. 

What do we know about this team?

What was the relevant professional association? What is the view of professional association on so-called ‘conversion therapy’. What is the view of the professional association on gender identity, puberty blockers, surgical mutilation of healthy bodies….

Are they Christians?

Do they adhere to a biblical viewpoint of sexual morality and integrity? (Unlikely if they belong to many “professional associations”).

Are they members of the LGBTQIA++ community?

According to the contract between the reviewers and ARISE, the Pathfinding Report was to be peer reviewed.

Was it? And if it was, by whom?

THE REPORT

As the 51-page report states, while the church has positively impacted thousands of families (and continues to do that), there have also been some who, for various reasons, have felt let down or alienated or mistreated.

Just one page highlighted the positive impacts – generalised rather than itemised – really just as an after-thought.

To accept the report as valid, accurate and credible, you have to accept the following recommendations / comments / criticisms:

• • Pathfinding admits “We were not tasked with putting allegations to those who were named”

This is a shocking admission from the outset.

Proverbs 18:17 “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him“. This proverb emphasises the importance of hearing both sides of a story before making a judgment.

• • Current staff were contacted directly to air their grievances. Reports have come back saying that the ‘negative’ has been emphasised, and much of the positive ignored. Leading questions have been asked. We have sighted affidavits be ex-staff which raise significant concerns about the proves of Pathfinding. (see below)
  • Pathfinding alerted Arise Church to a range of matters that, “if established”, would constitute serious misconduct. Have these been referred to the Police? Have staff been sacked?

The answer – as we revealed in the previous post – is NO.

Not a single complaint was made to the Police about claims of “sexual grooming, underage relationships, sexual harassment, assault or rape, indecent exposure” – despite one of the reviewers acting as a conduit for complainants to contact the NZ Police.

• • “We believe that these are all real people who had a genuine association with Arise Church.” They cannot actually conclusively prove this. What proof? They could not guarantee that activists had not hijacked the process – which was highly likely.
  • Of the 545 submissions, how many of the complaints and feelings of hurt have come from 188 ex members (people who have left the church for whatever reason, or who have rejected the faith – as happens in any church).

We don’t know the answer. But the answer would give important context.

It is also important to note that the inquiry was to be about the experience of the interns (141 submissions). This was then expanded to staff (117 submissions).

That means that more than half of the submissions were not from interns or staff members – former or current.

40% of the submissions from staff were ex-staff. No questions have been asked as to why they are no longer members of staff – why did they leave. Were they sacked?

32 submissions were not even members of the church.

40% of the submissions did not specify their current location or church location. A cynical view could argue that they were friends of David Farrier who lives in Los Angeles.

Maybe not. But who knows?

It begs the question – what specific attempts were made to ensure that the submissions were legitimately from people directly connected to Arise Church. Were the testimonies all checked against Arise membership records?

What assurance do we have that all the submissions were valid, and that the whole process was not captured by activists with an axe to grind.

These are all very valid questions.

• • The report says that “some of the [sexual grooming, underage relationships, sexual harassment, assault or rape] occurred outside of Arise.”

What proportion?

Were the police involved? (they should definitely have been!)

Nobody knows – because the report never disclosed this. But should a church be blamed for tragedies and criminal activity & abuse that may have occurred outside the church?

• • Incidents of nudity, “if established” would amount to indecent exposure. Was this investigated by the Police? We now know that not a single complaint was laid to the Police.
  • Older people and single people felt marginalised – but isn’t it a youth-oriented church? With many single young people?
  • The LGBTQI+ community felt marginalised because of “what they believe was said to be their ‘sin’.”

According to Scripture, is it sin?

Were those watching porn, committing adultery, having pre-marital sex, using foul language, having a love for money, using drugs, also feeling ‘marginalised’? We are all sinners – saved by grace (1 John 1)

• • To accept the report, you have to accept Recommendations 13-16 – including a specific ‘leader’ for LGBTQIA++, and thereby ignoring – and even affirming – sexual sin within the church life.

No biblically based church is going to accept this recommendation.

• • To accept the report, you have to also affirm that people wanting freedom from unwanted sexuality or gender identity issues should not be referred for counselling, as this amounts to ‘conversion therapy’. (Rec 15).

You can ban so-called ‘conversion therapy’, but you can never ban “conversion”.

That’s the church’s business. Setting the prisoners free – based on Scriptural Truth.

• • To accept the report, you have to agree that leaders should not be stood down if they are living a sinful lifestyle, or as the report says, “behaviour considered by the church to be sinful.”

Once again, any biblically-based church is going to have a standard of lifestyle to qualify for leadership – especially as it relates to sexual integrity. The media is always quick to highlight leaders who have been sacked or stood down from actions which have disqualified themselves as leaders.

• • To accept the report, you have to agree that
    • leaders should not have VIP seating (ooops! We had reserved seating for our international speakers at the front of our recent conference – sorry!)
    • shouldn’t share “political views” even though they may relate to important moral & social issues affecting church members (does this also apply to Common Grace Aotearoa and the small group of churches associated with them!?)
    • shouldn’t honour leaders – (despite 1 Thess 5:12, 1 Tim 5:17, Hebrews 13:7)
    • shouldn’t set modesty standards for what is worn on stage, etc

Most churches will simply (and rightly) laugh at this ‘recommendation’.

• • To accept the report, you have to agree that churches shouldn’t “focus on conversion” or building the church attendance.

STAFF SPEAK

We heard from three staff members involved in the review. One of them provided a letter that had been co-signed with other staff members.

Affidavit 1

Participation in the Pathfinding Process
I confirm that I participated in the pathfinding process that Arise Church engaged in during the year 2022.

Complaints Logged
During my involvement in this process, I registered specific concerns, including but not limited to the following:

• • I did not receive any written confirmation of my feedback, despite having requested it multiple times.
  • After my initial engagement, I was not given the opportunity to further participate in or re-engage with the pathfinding process, despite my inquiries.

 Interview Experience and Observation
I wish to also confirm the following observations regarding the interviews and communication I experienced:

• • On multiple occasions, the interviewer referenced that some individuals might have had negative experiences at Arise. This was mentioned even though I expressed that my experience with Arise was largely positive.
  • The interviewer repeatedly inquired if I ever felt “burnt out” or “tired” as part of my experience with Arise. Several follow-up questions were asked specifically about these negative aspects. However, I was not asked the follow-up questions about any positive experiences I may have had.
  • I was questioned regarding any financial impropriety I may have observed, despite the fact that I did not hold a role within Arise that would make this line of questioning relevant or valid.
  • The interviewer stated that they would focus on collating the negative feedback received but would not compile positive feedback regarding Arise.

Letter To Leader Of Pathfinding Report

Dear [Lead reviewer]
Pathfinding Report

We are current staff of Arise Church. We were invited to participate in the Pathfinding Review earlier this year, which we welcomed and were willing to participate in. We understood that the report to be issued by Pathfinding as a result of its review (Pathfinding Report) would include recommendations.

From a notice dated 6 July 2022 available on the Arise Church website, it appears that the Pathfinding Report has been provided to the Board of Arise Church but that it has not yet been released publicly or to staff owing to an “urgent non publication order”. We take from this that the Board intends to release the report once it is legally able to do so.

However, we have become concerned that the nature of the Pathfinding Report may be wider in scope than was represented to us at the time we were invited to participate in that review. We are also concerned that there has been no attempt to consult with us on the draft of the Pathfinding Report, which could mean that it may contain information that is unsubstantiated or could wrongly implicate current staff. To have incorrect information issued to the public could be highly damaging and possibly defamatory.

Therefore, we felt it was important to bring to your attention that if the Pathfinding Report is released without any attempt to consult with us, it may not only be defamatory, but also represent a breach of privacy, as well as possible breach of our employment rights and of Pathfinding’s own obligations under the NZCA Code of Ethics. We implore you to request the Board of Arise Church not release the report, and that you also do not release the report, without first seeking to consult with us on its contents.

Breach of Privacy

Our participation in the Pathfinding Review was premised on the basis that the published report would include only recommendations, not refer to specific, unverified claims. For example, a post on the Arise Church website dated 13 April 2022 (https://arisechurch.com/news/contact-details-of-independent-reviewer-released) states in relation to the Pathfinding Review: “Following the completion of the review, a report outlining the recommendations for change and the strategy to address these recommendations will be made publicly available on the Arise website”.

We supplied information to the Pathfinding Review for the purpose of a report being published with recommendations in keeping with these statements. However, our concern is that information we supplied may be used for another purpose, namely, to create a report that lists and details specific, but untested, claims.

Under Privacy Principle 10 of the Privacy Act 2020, an agency that holds personal information that was obtained in connection with one purpose may not use the information for any other purpose. If the Pathfinding Report were to be issued and include anything other than “recommendations for change and the strategy to address these recommendations” this would represent a breach of this privacy principle.

In that event, Pathfinding, as an agency itself but also as an agent of the Board of Arise Church, may be liable for any consequential personal or reputational damage that the release of the Pathfinding Report may cause in breach of the Privacy Act 2020.

Assistance to Breach of Employment Obligations

Arise Church has an obligation as our employer to deal with us in good faith under s 4 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. There is also an implied term in its contract of employment with each of us that it will treat us reasonably and fairly, including consulting with us on matters that may affect us in our employment.

We consider that Arise Church has not complied with these requirements because it has not yet consulted with us on the content of the Pathfinding Report.

Under section 134(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, every person who incites, instigates, aids, or abets any breach of an employment agreement is liable to a penalty of up to $20,000 imposed by the Employment Relations Authority.

If the Pathfinding Report is released without affording us the opportunity to be consulted on its contents, it would be a breach of our employment agreements with Arise Church and penalties could be sought against Pathfinding for assisting these breaches.

NZCA Code of Ethics

We understand that Pathfinding is obliged to adhere to the NZCA Code of Ethics. If the Pathfinding Report is issued publicly and we are not consulted on its contents and we are affected as a result, then that may represent breaches of the following items in the NZCA Code of Ethics:

• • Principle 4.2.  Avoid doing harm in all their professional work.

This principle may be breached if the Pathfinding Report contains incorrect information that causes unwarranted harm by its public release.

• • Principle 4.8.  Practice within the scope of their competence.

This principle may be breached if the Pathfinding Report contains any findings or recommendations that are beyond the expertise and competence of Pathfinding.

Conclusion

We urge Pathfinding to require the Board of Arise Church to not release the Pathfinding Report, nor to do so itself, until such time as we are consulted on its contents and any incorrect information is removed.

Affidavit 2

I had an appointment with Pathfinder to share feedback about my experience at Arise.  This was booked in following Pathfinder contacting me a couple of times asking for my feedback. 

In this session I spoke positively about my time, having been a part of Arise and on staff for a number of years [our emphasis added]. As part of my feedback i started to share my positive experiences with John, Gillian, and Brent. When I got to Brent, the Pathfinder person stopped me to ask if I had been instructed to say these things? I clarified I hadn’t spoken to anyone about my meeting. To which they seemed dubious of my answer.

The Pathfinder person then moved the conversation away from hearing the remainder of my prepared feedback, asking if I had any negative experiences to share. I was a little caught off guard, however mentioned one person whose treatment of me I didn’t appreciate. They pressed for a name, but seemed uninterested when I provided it, and they moved the conversation on. (My assumption is it wasn’t someone they anticipated to hear about).

They then asked me about times when I had hurt and offended people, pressing me to name those that I needed to apologise to. I shared that I wasn’t aware of anyone,  but would be happy to apologise if made aware/approached. They expressed their disbelief that I couldn’t think of anyone and continued asking for me to think of people. 

At this point I chose to end the conversation, feeling as though the person I was speaking to didn’t have an impartial standing. The Pathfinder person left me with the thought that I should ‘go away and have a think about who I have offended and apologise to them’.

Overall, I left feeling disappointed by how the feedback meeting was handled, as it seemed more about guiding me toward certain responses than truly listening to my experience. 

CONCLUSION

At a time where the ‘deconstruction’ of the Gospel is happening amongst liberal (and mostly dying) church circles, we should all understand that not all will accept biblical authority being taught from the pulpit and applied to the members of the church body, and every church understands and accepts that.

People reject the Gospel. Even Jesus warned us that this would happen.

While humans are imperfect and this report could apply to many churches and institutions and workplaces, it is vital to discern how much of this is an attack on the culture of Arise (which can be changed and improved), and how much is an attack on biblical authority (which will never change).

The report fails to do this.

Very serious allegations made against the Arise church which troubled us all – but they were only ever ‘allegations’. 

And many of the allegations were made in the media – which we should always be very wary of. 

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
(Winston Churchill)

The church must stand strongly and continue to stand strongly as a biblically based church where God’s Word is the foundation, the basis of their teaching and their guide for living – even if!

I reiterate – legitimate grievances and hurts should definitely have been heard, with forgiveness, repentance and restoration.

But not through the media, and definitely not through a review process which failed (spectacularly – in my view) to seek truth and justice in a biblical way.

IN FUTURE POSTS:

• The underlying agenda

---

 

Also recommended listening