Gloriavale’s Apology: Healing Words or Hollow Gestures?

Opinion piece: Liz Gregory.

(Thoughts, opinions and views expressed here belong to Liz Gregory and may or may not represent the views of the Gloriavale Leavers’ Support Trust, former or current members of Gloriavale.).

On January 19, 2025, Gloriavale delivered an apology following the conclusion of the Royal Commission report back in July 2024.

The Royal Commission’s report said physical and sexual abuse was normalised at Gloriavale, and much of it – including spiritual abuse – stemmed from the leadership’s authoritarian control over the community. They also noted the psychological and emotional abuse had left its toll on people who lived there. The Royal Commission requested that Howard Temple, in his role as Overseeing Shepherd, apologise on behalf of the organisation for the abuse that occurred.

Six months after the report was finalised, and out of the blue, an apology was given. Former member Gideon Benjamin stumbled on a link to the apology at the bottom of a page on Gloriavale’s website, and sent an email to Gloriavale to inform it would be passed to the media that evening for publication.
Leavers say they were blind-sided by it, and most found out about it via social media posts linking to the news articles. Members of Gloriavale said it was read aloud at the Sunday meeting, prior to the media release.

Gloriavale’s Apology:

“The Church at Gloriavale acknowledges that the Royal Commission of Inquiry into historic Abuse in Care during the timeframe from 1950 to 1999 found that abuse happened in this church community. We accept the Royal Commission’s recommendation to ensure the ongoing safety of people in our care.
To the people of Gloriavale and those who were part of the community that experienced this abuse while amongst us, we write to you with profound sorrow, acknowledging the pain and suffering that has been experienced by victims and families while within our church group.
We offer our deepest apologies that abuse had occurred in this time period. You were entitled to a safe and supportive environment, and we failed to provide that.
We thank the people who have spoken up and brought this sin into the light where it could be dealt with.
We honour your courage, and we also acknowledge those who struggle to find the words to express their pain.
We recognise the impact that abuse has had on your lives and sympathize with your pain.
The vision for the community life was to provide a safe and supportive environment, but this was taken advantage of. The trust that should have been honoured was broken, and for that, we are deeply sorry.
The Church at Gloriavale apologizes that the leadership at that time did not report known instances of abuse to state authorities.
As part of our commitment to change, we have provided, and will continue to provide, abuse awareness and prevention training to our children and families, promoting a culture of vigilance and care. We are committed to making our processes robust and consistent. We commit to the highest standards of pastoral care.
We will continue to listen to victims, and to support them to heal and receive redress.
To this end, the church is creating a page on its website where people can report abuse and find support from external agencies. We invite victims to request a personal apology from the leadership on behalf of the Church for not reporting known cases of abuse to appropriate authorities.
We will continue to engage with external agencies to provide assurance to all that people in this group are safe, visible, and heard.
To ensure the safety of families at Gloriavale, the church has implemented processes and documentation to enable, guide and support members to both be safe and get help from external agencies as required.
Howard Temple (On behalf of the Shepherds of the Church at Gloriavale)“
“I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” – Matthew 16:18
“The Church of the Living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth.” – 1 Timothy 3:16

Reactions

So what has the reaction been? The phone was busy in the 2-3 days following the apology as various leavers expressed their feelings about it. There was a pattern and theme to all the responses. The temperature was hot, there were raised, agitated voices, and there was a lot of head shaking. The general tone was incredulous, and every leaver had 2-3 points that really stuck in their craw.

John Ready found the apology “completely disingenuous saying, “If they actually understood what they were apologising for and they meant it and understood the gravity of it, they would resign…because they have left nothing but a trail of carnage for so many years and interrupted, disturbed and stolen so many people’s lives.”

Some leavers giggled and laughed about it, with one saying, “It’s funny, embarrassing and sad at the same. Sometimes I feel cross. Sometimes it’s hilarious. But sometimes I feel pity for them. When you’re living in there you’re so clueless to normal human beings lives and how everything works…. The Gloriavale leadership would have held so many meetings trying to craft the apology. Someone would have said, ‘We just need to do what we need to do to get this out of the way”. Someone else would have said, “We should say this”, and someone else would have said, “No that’s going too far, I don’t think we should say that.’ I can hear it in my head!”

Three News reported they understood, “…that it took a long time for the apology to come out because the leaders couldn’t agree on the content…Leavers also say it is rubbish that they pretend to honour the people who had the courage to speak out, because many of them are still being shunned for speaking out.”

A few different leavers said that they read it while in bed and it disturbed their peace. Two said they got up and paced the room. Some spoke of being angry and livid. One read it five times, and got madder on every read. Boaz Benjamin told Stuff, “When I read it last night I almost felt physically sick and I started getting quite upset and angry.”

However, a week or two on from the apology, leavers appear to have dismissed it and forgotten it was delivered.

How can this be?

Gloriavale had six months to craft this apology, and they used words and phrases that would generally be expected to be well received. On paper, it seems sincere, and as Boaz Benjamin pointed out to Stuff, “The real problem is that the everyday kiwi outside reads that, and sees that and says “Oh this is awesome. Great maybe they are changing”. But the reality is, from a leaver, from my perspective I look at that and say there’s nothing in that, that tells me they want to change.”

(What do leavers mean by change? It might help you to have a read of the recent blogpost.)

We might want to keep in mind that this Royal Commission looked at abuse across a range of institutions – some of which closed down decades ago. Not so Gloriavale. It’s currently still being hauled through the courts and leavers have regular contact with people still inside Gloriavale and the leadership. They say the apology given doesn’t match up with their behaviour and beliefs still held towards those who have been harmed.

An apology when given sincerely will be well-received, and it has the power to turn the corners of history and redirect energies towards healing and wholeness.

Dr Wade Mullen in his book Something’s Not Right said,

“A truthful apology will contain a majestic quality. A concession on the other hand will lack that freeing quality. It does more to confuse than heal because it doesn’t name specific wrongs, so you are left feeling unsure of what the wrong doer is taking responsibility for.”

“An authentic apology, especially when it is offered in response to significant and long-term harm, will be so clearly distinct from every other experience that it will be unquestionably received. It will appear like a flash of light in a darkened room, like an exploding clap of thunder in the dead of night, like the unveiling of a hidden treasure, like a resurrection from the dead – not because any of the apologiser’s qualities but because of the innate power of truth.”

So how did this apology stack up with that?

This apology could have been a turning point for reconciliation, but instead feels more like a missed opportunity. So let’s scratch the surface of the apology to see how it was carefully crafted to meet the expectations for an apology, while at the same time limiting the liability of the leadership.

Below are comments from leavers themselves. The apology was written to them, and for them, and so it’s important their voices are amplified.

It was requested Gloriavale make the apology

The Royal Commission requested that the overseeing Shepherd Howard Temple deliver an apology for the abuse. He was one of a list of church leaders asked to apologise.

John Ready said, “I think it is completely empty words. They don’t believe or understand the type of abuse that they had done and the effect they’ve had on people’s lives. I mean they have been forced to make an apology and that kind of tells you everything you need to know about the apology.“

Virigina Courage said, “A true apology would be reckless.“

Short and Sweet, and a long time coming

Gideon Benjamin spoke to RNZ and questioned why it had taken so long to come up with an apology that was less than a page long saying, “Surely there wasn’t that much to think about, you stuffed up and you should apologise.”

(In contrast, there were 84 pages of findings that either directly or generally related to Gloriavale’s failures in the Royal Commission report. Click here to read that report).

Use of language

One leaver pointed out that the apology included words that aren’t in common usage in the community, and certainly aren’t practiced (eg honour, courage, sympathise, profound sorrow, safe and supportive). Leavers said this made the apology sound like something out of an ‘apology textbook’. Another leaver said these concepts aren’t readily understood either. For example, sympathy is definitely something the Gloriavale culture has not nurtured.

Virginia Courage said, “They’re not honouring people who had courage to speak out. I still have family who won’t speak to me because of what they’ve been taught about people who go to the law and speak up about wrong doing. If you speak up about what’s wrong in GV you’re working to destroy them. This is happening right now. When you’re in there you can’t speak up. You get shut down.”

One female leaver said, “It was so Gloriavale and so pathetic. You could tell it was made up. If they deeply felt that way they would contact the people. I would have been contacted. You can see it was for the sake of the media. You’d rather nothing than that. They don’t have any care empathy and understanding. They’re incapable of it. They can’t come up with something sincere. They have no feelings. They can’t.”

Pearl Valor said to RNZ, “The apology is full of carefully crafted words and to me they are like poison and as a survivor I don’t need an apology to heal. I choose to heal because I’m brave.”

Lazy method of delivery

Most leavers were disturbed that the apology wasn’t shared directly with those it aimed to address. Gloriavale instead put it on their website, gave the apology to the media and invited people who wanted a more personal apology to make contact.

We have heard there were people who were in Gloriavale who would have benefitted from hearing the apology, but they weren’t in the meeting at the time it was read aloud. No one knew it was coming and so there was no opportunity to prepare for receiving the apology.

Melody Pilgrim told RNZ that if she hadn’t seen a reference to it on social media she would not have known an apology had been made. She said the church could have made more of an effort to ensure former Gloriavale members received the apology in a personal and sincere way.

Another leaver said, “I wouldn’t have seen it if someone didn’t send it to me from the news. Nothing personal or anything. It’s pretty easy to see what it’s for. And this is Gloriavale through and through. Apologies are all about how they are seen to be – not about anything real. If it was in their hearts they would have done something already.”

The apology also noted that people were welcome to request a personal apology from the leadership on behalf of the church (albeit limited to “not reporting known cases of abuse to appropriate authorities”). A leaver noted, “Since when do you make the other person put the effort in? That’s not okay. Apology and true sincerity is you putting the effort in come what may. You put in the effort come hell or highwater.”

Gideon Benjamin wrote on a public Facebook page that he directly emailed and leader and also used the email address provided on the website to request an apology on the day of the apology, and has repeated this request every few days since then. Two weeks on he said he’d heard, “Not a peep.“

One recent leaver said that Gloriavale should have done road trips up and down the country until they found everyone. They should have run meetings and invited leavers. Others said they wanted to be present at Gloriavale when the apology was delivered, in the same room as current members.

In contrast, when the Government announced it was giving an apology they gave people a date, and there were a range of ways that people could choose to hear the apology. There could go to Parliament, or overflow venues, Marae, watch via live-stream with supporter groups, or alone. They could read it on the website, and a myriad of other ways. People prepared for it – practically and emotionally. They didn’t organise birthday parties that day, knowing they would be feeling emotional (anger or relief). Some had sessions with counsellors in preparation for the apology. Some people travelled so they could be with others for support during the apology.

Gloriavale just threw it out unthinkingly on a Sunday evening, hijacking leavers’ peace of mind for the days following.

No Victim-Centred Consultation

Gloriavale former members, many of whom have been deeply impacted by abuse and neglect, were neither consulted on its delivery or the content.

Other institutions who apologised made efforts to engage with survivors and support groups to find out how they would like to receive the apology, and what content would be included. In some instances former members of abusive organisations didn’t feel safe interfacing with the abusive groups, and so some of the discussions were mediated by third parties. They knew that formal apologies sit in the NZ historical record, and need to be done properly to ensure it is received and believed by a large number of abused people.

Not so with Gloriavale. They thought they knew best.

Depth of harm not recognised

Many leavers feel the apology failed to address the depth of harm inflicted over decades, and failed to recognise the leaders’ role in allowing a culture of abuse to develop.

In addition to physical and sexual abuse, the Royal Commission investigation found significant “psychological, emotional and spiritual abuse” at play in Gloriavale. This was not dealt with or acknowledged in the apology.

Virginia Courage said, “The sad thing about this apology is that it hasn’t recognised the mechanisms that preceded how the community got to the point where there was this level of abuse. The apology starts with the imbalance of power – which is right in the seat of the Overseeing Shepherd. They haven’t said anything about the findings of the Royal Commission. They haven’t acknowledged they were factual. They are playing word games with their apology. They’re trying to say the smallest amount, but keep it so that nothing can be used against them. Where you’re doing that you’re being dishonest about what you’ve done. They’re still trying to protect and cover and hide.”

In the apology Gloriavale did accept the recommendation “to ensure the ongoing safety of people in our care” – but as Virginia notes, they did not accept the general findings of the Royal Commission. This is a glaring omission.

(It is possible that Gloriavale did not want to accept too much responsibility, because it’s likely the contents of this apology will come under scrutiny in upcoming court cases.)

Mel Pilgrim said Gloriavale likely needed outside help to identify how abuse occurred within the community in order to achieve redress. She said, “To me, it was very vague, and it didn’t seem sincere at all. If it is a real apology, it is going to identify the cause and effect of the abuse.”

On two occasions the statement said the Church was apologising for “not reporting known cases of abuse to appropriate authorities”, completely missing the point that the current leadership were involved in, allowed, taught others, covered up and set up an environment where all kinds of abuse flourished across decades. Their apology lacked specific details, causing people to ask if they yet have insight into what they did, why it occurred, why it was wrong, how it occurred, and what they will do to make themselves accountable.

A Timeline That Denies Reality

One of the most glaring issues that hurt leavers was the apology’s focus on abuse between 1950 and 1999, leaving out a large number of contributions to the Royal Commission report that extended well after 1999, and ignoring more recent abuses well-documented in court cases and testimonies.

John Ready said, “Personally as a family…we suffered after that date, so that was really upsetting.”

He expressed his frustration on Newstalk ZB saying, “I don’t believe it was sincere. It’s pretty clear that it’s not. Particularly the timestamp 1950 to 1999 leaves out the majority of the abuse from 2000 to this present day 2025. I was pondering the timestamp last night when I read the apology, which made me relatively livid. To be fair. Just the complete lack of understanding of the carnage that they have made in people’s lives and have left behind them under their leadership and mentorship – and that’s putting it nicely because it’s actually under their control and their complete control. It’s completely empty words.”

One female leaver noted, “What about the people abused after 1999? They don’t matter?”

Melody Pilgrim said she was unsettled it referred only to abuse within a certain timeframe, and did not specify the types of abuse that had occurred within the community.

(By way of explanatory note, the Commission’s Terms of Reference initially fell between 1950 and 1999, but after an outcry from survivors and advocacy groups, the Commission was given latitude to hear instances of abuse after this time. Gloriavale knew that, and yet in poor form did the bare minimum and chose to limit their apology to the original time period. This perhaps is a pretty good indicator of Gloriavale’s spirit.)

Lip Service Without Action

True repentance involves not just words but tangible actions to right the wrongs. Former members have consistently called out the lack of meaningful efforts by Gloriavale’s leadership to engage with victims, provide redress or resign from their positions.

One father said, “You have not supported victims to heal.”

Gideon Benjamin’s frustration was palpable: He said it felt “hollow” and there were no meaningful actions to support it saying, “Have they ever asked anyone what they could do to compensate them for what they lost or the abuse they suffered? To me, that is all part of putting it right, seeing what you can do to make something better, but to my knowledge they have never asked anyone that.” He said it felt like a ‘box-ticking exercise’ saying that it wasn’t good enough. “That’s not repentance and that is not meaningful change.”

John Ready’s said, “If they actually understood what they were apologising for and they meant it and understood the gravity of it, they would resign…”

As Theo Pratt pointed out on TV One, “To truly change, they need to start owning the court cases…”

Pearl told Newstalk ZB that she didn’t think Gloriavale were going to do an apology, but she believes there are many more actions they can take. “They could stop fighting us in the courts. I reckon that would be a step in the right direction, if they actually believed that they were wrong.”

Virginia Courage said, “At the moment Gloriavale can’t convince anyone with their words because they have told so many lies. No one trusts their words. So a real apology will actually be something physical and tangible that can be seen, an action, and they won’t need words.”

One man said, “the fact that the Gloriavale leaderships keep fighting in court about the abuse and harm, and their blatant disregard for court orders, show your deep insincerity”. (He is referring to a payment that Gloriavale was ordered to make to the lawyers for the leavers in Employment Court cases. Gloriavale has defaulted on this payment.)

Who gave the apology?

Theo Pratt told TV One that, “Howard is apologising for all these things but at the same time he is pleading not guilty for his current cases.” (27 charges of indecent assault against young girls). This glaring contradiction undermines any claim to sincerity.

Mel Pilgrim expressed concern that the apology came from the church and not the leadership.

Another former member said that Howard should not be made to apologise for the abuse of others. They said, “…there are abusers still hiding behind the leaders.” She believes everyone should be apologising for things they have done wrong – those inside and those who have left.

Scripture Weaponized

A chilling aspect of the apology lies in the two Bible verses included at the end of the letter footer – “I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” – Matthew 16:18 and “The Church of the Living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth.” – 1 Timothy 3:16

A former member shared his reaction on a private Facebook page saying, “It shouldn’t happen, but reading those two scriptures at the bottom of the page sends shivers through my entire body!” Another leaver agreed with him.

Who is the Gates of Hell referring to? People in Gloriavale say these verses have been weaponised and they have been taught it means anyone who speaks up against or expresses opposition to Gloriavale. Perhaps in this instance the Gates of Hell might be the Royal Commission, the courts, the leavers themselves, media or the general public of NZ.

Many leavers commented that these verses are there as a reminder to leavers that the “true” church is unable to be destroyed – regardless of how many people speak up against them.

Invitation to report abuse on their website:

Gloriavale stated they will create a section on the website where people can report abuse.
Gideon Benjamin said, “People can’t trust them. They’re not going to just readily come all of a sudden and tell you about things that happened.”

Theo said, “That environment doesn’t support people in there that are wanting to speak up.”
With a long list of proven failures in this area, and multiple failed internal investigations on a raft of issues over time, we’re not sure anyone inside or outside of this community will have confidence reporting to a website that the Gloriavale leadership manages!

Lauding their own good deeds

In the apology Gloriavale spent time redirecting our attention from their past to the progress they have made, pointing people to a page on their website where they have proudly listed all the things they have been doing to make children safe, including “full cooperation with the Police during 2020 child abuse allegations”. It’s difficult to respect this when it has been disproven in court. The leadership did not reveal to Police what it knew about historic sex offenders in 2020, and it took outsiders blowing the whistle before some of the historic abusers were arrested. Gloriavale is not being honest here.

Yes there has been agency intervention because Gloriavale’s abuse was so widespread and shocking, but that list doesn’t tell the backstory.

Dr Wade Mullen in his book ‘Something’s Not Right’ notes that many public statements of apology put out by organisations or leaders, “Quickly become pictures for why they are still worthy of continued support engagement from their followers. They acknowledge the past wrongs while still wanting to be seen as incapable of future wrongdoing.”

A Call for Accountability

If Gloriavale’s leaders truly wish to move forward, they must do more than issue an insincere statement. They must acknowledge the FULL scope of harm, engage with survivors, and take actionable steps to redress their wrongs. Until then, their words will remain just that—words.

This apology could have been a bridge to healing. Instead, it feels like a barricade, leaving survivors to continue their journey of recovery without the acknowledgment they deserve.

So why be critical of this apology?

A former member wrote, “A true apology consists of words and actions existing together in harmony, showing true repentance to the wronged/abused person. It also removes any power imbalance between the abuser and the abused.”

By these standards, Gloriavale’s apology falls short. It is not victim-centered, it lacks transparency, and fails to address the systemic failures that allowed abuse to thrive. It made some acknowledgments of wrong doing (issues that they can’t deny thanks to court rulings), but it used language that felt like it was picked up out of a “how-to-apologise-properly book”. It was poorly delivered by way of a media statement, has not made its way into the hands of everyone who were owed it, and involved no attempts to find out how survivors might like the apology to be delivered, or the content of the apology.

Can any good come from this?

Can any good come from an apology that was requested by the Royal Commission, didn’t follow appropriate apology protocol, and lacked real awareness and understanding of and how the abuse flourished?

Perhaps yes. It may offer these things:
A chance for others to reflect and apologise to others – It gives people a chance to reflect on how important making apologies is, and how people often have an innate yearning to receive a true apology. Everyone who participates in a cult ends up harming other people, so this might prompt other people to make genuine apologies to others they have hurt. I know many leavers have done this – and it’s been powerful for the recipient.

Power of Acknowledgement – If someone felt this apology was sincere, and they have seen evidence to back it up, then this might well assist people on their healing journey. Perhaps this might help people to talk more freely about abuse they have suffered. Perhaps they will feel validated that it wasn’t their fault.

Encourage more people to speak out – Gloriavale stated that “they honour the courage of people who speak out” (and even though most leavers scoff at this statement), perhaps some trusting people inside Gloriavale might believe it and choose to speak up. We would be fools to think that all the abuse that occurred has come into the light. It hasn’t.

Can be used in court – Public written apologies and promises can also be used in legal proceedings, to save old ground being traversed.

Keep the group accountable – Gloriavale have promised to “…continue to listen to victims, and to support them to heal and receive redress.” Redress can be a system of monetary payments to compensate victims of abuse. This is a promise of that.

They also promised to “Commit to the highest standards of pastoral care.” From my perspective I don’t believe they have much of an idea what those words even mean, but perhaps they will be willing to listen to those who wish to educate them on these matters?

They promised they will, “continue to engage with external agencies to provide assurance to all that people in this group are safe, visible, and heard,” and “the church is creating a page on its website where people can report abuse and find support from external agencies”. We welcome this commitment. The Gloriavale Leavers’ Support Trust looks forward to engagement from the Gloriavale leadership. We also look forward to their website hosting a link to the Gloriavale Leavers’ Support Trust and related informal networks of volunteers, staff and trustees. This team have assisted more than 250 people over the past decade and are well-placed to offer compassionate support. (Or will we still be seen as the enemy who is trying to destroy the church? Will young people still have to make promises to their families inside that they won’t receive help from us, in return for more access to their family and siblings who still remain? Surely if the apology is real, all these actions will cease immediately, and Gloriavale will realise how important support is for survival, no matter what quarter it comes from.)

Conclusion

However, although good may come from inadequate, insincere, and thoroughly insufficient apologies, I don’t believe that outweighs the damage they do to victims. It appears they are quite hurtful and just rips open the bandaid again, and creates division, not harmony. It reminds them again that truth is not being pursued fully by the leadership at Gloriavale.

Dr Wade Mullen says, “The victims deserve, and therefore bystanders ought to demand, immediate truth seeking and truth telling. If leadership is governed by truth and not by deception, then they will seek and speak the truth no matter the cost, and if that cost entails lawsuits, falling attendance, or even shuttering the doors of the institution, then it is worth the cost, because the establishment of truth will always matter more than our establishments.”

I haven’t come across a leaver who felt the apology was telling the full truth.

In a further blog post, we will outline what leavers would have liked the apology to say.

News articles related to the Apology:
Stuff Video Clip Boaz Benjamin & Virginia Courage: https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360554071/gloriavale-apology-feels-hollow-former-member

Newstalk ZB John Ready Radio Interview: https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/john-ready-former-gloriavale-member-criticises-insincere-apology-from-leader-howard-temple/

TV One Theo Pratt & Gideon Benjamin Video Clip: https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/20/gloriavale-apologises-to-survivors-for-historic-abuse-in-community/

RNZ News Article Melody Pilgrim, Gideon Benjamin & John Ready: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/539480/former-gloriavale-members-reject-apology-from-leader-regarding-historic-abuse