Mind the Gap: When Bishop’s Mission Orders Outrun Governance

Bishop’s Mission Orders (BMOs) were created to give the Church of England flexibility, allowing new worshipping communities and mission initiatives to develop where traditional parish structures do not quite fit. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Mission should be able to innovate. But safeguarding has taught us repeatedly that flexibility without clear accountability can become a dangerous thing.

In a traditional parish, the governance architecture is at least recognisable: incumbent, PCC, churchwardens, safeguarding officer and established diocesan relationships. A BMO can be less straightforward. There may be a mission leader, leadership team, sponsoring parish, separate charity, Visitor, bishop and diocese, with responsibility spread between them.

So who actually governs? Who holds the leader accountable? Who owns safeguarding? Who scrutinises finances? If the concern is about the person at the top, where does it go? Who receives the whistleblowing concern? These are not boring governance questions. They are the questions that suddenly become very important after somebody has been harmed.

Former Soul Survivor Leader, Mike Pilavachi

And we really should know that by now. The Scolding Review into Mike Pilavachi and Soul Survivor was not simply about the conduct of one charismatic leader. It exposed uncomfortable questions about culture, power, governance, safeguarding and the structures around leadership.

We have already seen what can happen when charismatic leadership grows faster than the structures capable of challenging it.

Successful ministries can be particularly difficult places in which to challenge power. Growth becomes evidence that everything must be working. Loyalty becomes confused with accountability. Challenging the leader can start to look like challenging the ministry itself. Soul Survivor should have demolished that thinking.

Charisma is not governance. Trust is not scrutiny. And a packed church is not evidence of a safe one.

The connection with BMOs is not something safeguarding campaigners have invented. In February 2026, General Synod approved a revised Code of Practice for Bishop’s Mission Orders following recommendations arising from the Scolding Review, strengthening provisions around governance, safeguarding and leadership accountability.

In other words, the Church knows there is a gap. And that makes what happens next rather important.

There is something deceptively reassuring about the word “Bishop’s.” To somebody sitting in the congregation, a Bishop’s Mission Order sounds as though the bishop and diocese are closely overseeing what happens there. But authorisation is not the same as oversight.

When responsibility is divided between leaders, trustees, sponsoring churches, Visitors, bishops and dioceses, it becomes remarkably easy for everybody to hold a little responsibility while nobody quite owns the risk. That is fertile ground for safeguarding failure.

None of this means BMOs are inherently unsafe. The Church needs pioneering ministry, church planting and different ways of being church. But if you remove familiar governance structures, you have an even greater responsibility to make the replacement crystal clear.

A person walking into a BMO should be able to discover who governs it, who holds its leader accountable, who oversees safeguarding and where they can complain or whistleblow without needing to understand the internal machinery of the Church of England.

Synod has discussed the problem. The Code has been revised. Scolding identified the dangers. Soul Survivor showed us what happens when power outruns scrutiny.

So please, spare us the familiar cycle: harm, review, recommendation, revised paperwork, repeat.

The gap has already been identified. The warnings have already been given.

This time, there is no excuse for falling into it. Mind the bloody gap.

~ Michelle Burns

Guarding the Flock

If you enjoyed this blog and would like to support Guarding the Flock, you can buy me a cuppa ☕🐑 or become a member for exclusive merchandise, supporter perks and discounts. Absolutely no pressure, though. I’m just glad you’re here, reading, sharing and supporting.

Further Reading

1. Church of England (2024) Scolding Review: Statement from the Lead Safeguarding Bishop.

2. Church of England (2026) General Synod approves revised Code of Practice for Bishops’ Mission Orders.

3. Church of England (2026) Bishops’ Mission Orders.