In late June 2025, I attended an international interdisciplinary symposium on ‘Faith and Spirituality in the Wake of Scandal’ at the University of Erfurt in Germany organised by Mark Porter (University of Erfurt), Tanya Riches (Eastern College, Australia) and Patrick Becker (University of Erfurt).

The event brought together researchers from sociology, theology and media among other disciplines and focused on issues of abuse and scandal in churches across the world. This article reflects on some of the content of the symposium and the implications for youth work.  

The UK context – abuse and safeguarding in religious contexts

Most youth work in the UK is delivered by the faith-based sector and more specifically by Christians (Brierley, 2003; Green, 2006; Thompson, 2019). In the context of the decline of state-funded youth work since the post-2010 Government austerity programme, the ratio of Christian youth workers in relation to their secular counterparts has only increased. Many of the non-religious youth workers that remain find themselves working alongside churches and faith-based organisations in their communities (Thompson, 2019; YMCA, 2020).

Youth workers across the sector will also be working with young people who have experienced abuse in religious (and other) contexts. Recent public inquiries such as the UK’s Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) have begun to reveal the scale of abuse of children and young people in churches and religious organisations and the failure of these organisations to respond effectively.

Among its nineteen investigation reports into child sexual abuse in a range of contexts, IICSA published seven specific reports on churches and faith-based organisations including: a report on child protection in religious settings (IICSA, 2021); a report on abuse in the Anglican Church (IICSA, 2020a); a report on abuse in the Roman Catholic Church (IICSA, 2020b), and; four reports covering several specific case studies of large-scale child sexual abuse relating to the Catholic Church and Anglican Church (IICSA, 2018; 2019a; 2019b; 2019c).

IICSA reported that it was not possible to assess the scale of child sexual abuse in religious settings in a precise way because of issues such as under-reporting and there being no requirement for police forces to record whether reported abuse is linked to a religious setting. Their investigation, however, ‘leaves no doubt that the sexual abuse of children takes place in a broad range of religious settings’ (IICSA, 2021: vi). Whilst the evidence available was not consistent across settings, the inquiry identified that the Church of England received 449 complaints relating to recent child sexual abuse in 2018 alone (IICSA, 2020a) and the Roman Catholic Church received over 900 complaints between 1970 and 2015, relating to over 3000 incidents of child sexual abuse (IICSA, 2020b). The inquiry found that many religious organisations do not have adequate child protection policies and ‘others have procedures that are ill-defined or are not communicated and followed’ (IICSA, 2021: vii). IICSA (2021) cautions that in religious settings there needs to be careful attention given to abuse of power because it is a context where moral authority has been used by those adults who abuse children.

Alongside this, high profile Christian leaders have been exposed by survivors, activists and the media for their abuse of children and young adults while engaged in children’s and youth ministry work in churches. Within the Church of England, the Pastor of Soul Survivor, Mike Pilavachi and the Barrister John Smyth are recent examples – with the latter case leading to the resignation of Justin Welby from his role as Archbishop of Canterbury (the Anglican Church’s most senior figure) over his failure to report the abuse when he became aware of it (Maqbool, 2024; Walker, 2024).

Until now, churches and Christians conducting youth work have been exempt from statutory monitoring processes such as Ofsted, as have other charitable and voluntary organisations. The Department for Education (DfE, 2025) recently held a call for evidence to shape national policy about safeguarding in ‘Out Of School Settings’ (OOSS). The aim, following this call, is to develop more consistent safeguarding processes and standards across the sector. While some conservative faith-based organisations have responded to this with resistance (for example, see Christian Concern, 2025), it is a step in the right direction that organisations committed to safeguarding children and young people should welcome. Given that much Christian youth work takes place in homes and private dwellings (Howell, forthcoming), issues of safeguarding need to be considered as paramount when planning and delivering work with young people in such contexts.

I do not argue that processes like Ofsted are a perfect tool to capture abuse (arguably, they are not) or that religious organisations are the only sites of institutional abuse. Abuse of children and young people also happens in secular and non-religious contexts. However, religious (and other voluntary) organisations should not be exempt from the same policies that govern the wider sector to safeguard young people, particularly given recent inquiries and their findings, both in the UK and internationally.

Given this context, it is crucial for UK youth work stakeholders to learn from safeguarding issues and regimes in other jurisdictions. Abuse in religious organisations is a global issue and many high-profile cases have also emerged internationally in recent years. Significantly, public inquiries in other countries have also found religious organisations to be some of the most substantial sites of child sexual abuse. The international context should inform the development of research and practice in the UK in relation to safeguarding in churches.

As someone with research and practice experience in both the faith-based and non-religious youth work sectors, I want churches to do better and all youth workers to work together to protect young people and help them to seek healing and justice where they have been abused.

Learning and reflections from the symposium

The ‘Faith and Spirituality in the Wake of Scandal’ symposium included presentations about church-related abuse towards children and vulnerable people and the institutional responses. Kelsey Fitz-Gerald from the University of Newcastle in Australia outlined how the responses of Evangelical Churches in particular have been under-explored following Australia’s public inquiry into child sexual abuse. She outlined that the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found religious organisations to be the most prolific offenders of abuse and provided specific implications for them. Fitz-Gerald’s ongoing research explores how Evangelical Churches are responding to, interpreting and implementing child safeguarding in light of the Commission’s findings and highlights how little focus there has been on them to date.

Christopher Longhurst from Aotearoa New Zealand explored the institutional responses from churches following publication of the final report from New Zealand’s Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry. In line with other contexts, Longhurst outlined that this commission also identified widespread abuse of power by religious organisations providing care to children. In this case, he identified from the report that Catholic institutions, including schools, were found to have been the worst offenders in relation to child abuse. His research identifies how institutional responses from churches, both those explored within the report and those by Catholic churches since its publication, have prioritised their own interests over healing and justice for victims, often silencing victims and survivors and refusing to be transparent with them about their responses and (in)action.

The failures of the institutional responses to abuse, and the focus on silencing victims and managing public profile, also emerged in other presentations from other contexts, often resulting in detrimental action towards survivors and activists. Jobson Joshwa from the University of Kerala in India explored a specific case within the Syrian Catholic Church in Kerala where a nun who reported repeated experiences of rape by a bishop was treated punitively, as were the nuns who engaged in protest and activism in support of their sister, and excluded from their religious community. He highlighted how this was despite public support for the nuns and the emergence of a new public awareness of gendered abuse in churches.

Other presentations explored responses to abuse at the highest levels in religious institutions, particularly from recent Popes. Renáta Sedláková and Veronika Mullerová from the University Palacký in Olomouc, Czech Republic explored shifting discourse in Papal communication from denial to apology. They traced how Pope John Paul II largely avoided any explicit official communication about abuse of children and how this has changed over time with Pope Francis acknowledging it as a systemic and institutional problem for which accountability was needed. However, this new discourse is not always consistently welcomed across the Catholic Church. For example, Damien Guzek from the University of Silesia in Katowice in Poland identified ongoing conflict between traditionalists and progressives in the Catholic Church in Poland in response to Pope Francis’s embracing of women’s rights and LGBTQ+ inclusion among other issues.

Several researchers highlighted the gendered nature of much abuse and the responses to it within churches, particularly in conservative movements. Tanya Riches from Eastern College, Australia explored the high-profile public scandals relating to leadership of the Hillsong Pentecostal Megachurches in Australia and beyond. The ‘celebrity’ status of male leaders among youthful and often female-dominated congregations was shaken by media exposure of scandals relating to financial corruption, exploitation, sexual abuse and adultery. Larney Peerenboom from Deakin University, Australia explored women’s experiences of ‘church hurt’ within Hillsong Church Australia from the actions of these leaders – and how these women have developed new forms of community, spirituality and recovery following such experiences. Her feminist analysis captures how women have rejected institutional authority as well as the binaries and absolutes of belief and belonging that are often embedded within large contemporary Pentecostal and conservative church movements.

Both Riches and Peerenboom highlighted how young adults are often coached into leadership and then exploited on low wages and punitive conditions within such churches including through over-regulation and judgment of their lifestyle. This was experienced particularly sharply by young women, reflecting the gendered nature of much church-based abuse and its consequences. For example, within the global Hillsong movement, they highlighted how one lead Pastor’s wife had to resign alongside her husband who was at the heart of the corruption scandals and abuse of power. Despite the extent of his sexual misconduct also being exposed, the married couple presented a united front, highlighting the apparent lack of women’s agency in the responses to scandal at the leadership level in such churches.

However, some researchers further highlighted how women who remained as insiders within churches were part of developing co-produced solutions and responses. Elizabeth Lee from Pilgrim College (University of Divinity) in Australia presented her research within a progressive and inclusive church where congregants are collectively developing their own responses to individual and communal trauma. Lee outlined a new model of theologically-informed, feminist trauma recovery that is emerging from her research that includes justice for survivors of sexual and spiritual abuse as a key principle.

Implications for youth work and youth workers

While the ‘Faith and Spirituality in the Wake of Scandal’ symposium wasn’t specifically an event for youth workers or only focused on young people’s experiences of abuse, there are some implications we can reflect on in our work with young people, whether from a religious or non-religious perspective.

Youth workers are working with young people who may have experienced hurt or abuse in a range of contexts including churches. In recent years, Firmin (2020) has developed the concept of ‘contextual safeguarding’ for understanding the risks young people face beyond their home and how they can be kept safe – including in their communities, social groups, schools and online. Her initial engagement with the idea of contextual safeguarding was, in part, in response to hearing about cases of abuse in churches. ‘Contextual safeguarding’ is the implementation of appropriate safeguarding interventions in all contexts in which young people engage with each other and with adults, in recognition that safeguarding has often lacked emphasis outside of formal contexts. It can be interpreted as safeguarding in community, developed to respond effectively to the particular context, through relevant internal development of policies and processes, and not just external scrutiny or interventions when concerns are raised. It is nuanced and preventative, rather than simply reactive, and seeks to avoid harm rather than simply respond to it. Youth workers, who engage with young people in community, have a clear role in developing these contextual safeguarding responses and frameworks in context. However, while contextual safeguarding as a concept has gained in prominence in public discussions of youth work more broadly, churches do not yet appear to have paid it much attention.

Secular youth workers will increasingly find themselves working with faith-based youth workers who do much of the work with young people in our communities – much of it positive and empowering rather than abusive. They need to be both advocating for consistent safeguarding across all areas of the sector and working in dialogue and collaboration with religious organisations, which overall want the best for young people. This needs to be done without reinforcing suspicion and mistrust or the stigmatisation of religious groups (Thompson, 2019).

The separation and silos that sometimes manifest between faith-based and non-religious practice and training in the youth work sector are part of the problem and both sides have work to do to support young people and communities more effectively through collaboration. There are many good examples of this that have emerged in recent years including where Christian organisations have employed non-religious youth workers and volunteers to support their work, Christian organisations being commissioned to deliver open access youth work in communities, as well as faith-based and secular youth workers developing equal partnerships to deliver youth work projects (Thompson, 2019).

As already stated, I am not arguing that there is no abuse or bad practice outside of faith-based settings, but that safeguarding standards and monitoring should be consistent across the sector. No part of the sector is immune to abuse or should be exempt from statutory processes to ensure the safety of children and young people. There should be statutory regulation of all contexts in which adults engage with children and young people. Given the serious issues that have emerged in church contexts, there needs to be a particular emphasis by church leaders and youth ministers on developing consistent and robust internal safeguarding policies, complying with (rather than resisting) new statutory processes as they emerge, and addressing how religious and moral authority is abused in such contexts by those who harm children and young people.