Saeculum: government, law and culture

Much of the church’s response to child safety regulations has been driven by a desire to do the right thing, and to appear to be doing the right thing in the world’s eyes. The church has suffered a massive reputational hit with the revelation of abuse within religious organisations and wishes to repair the damage it has caused. This explains the enthusiasm, even zealotry, with which churches have implemented child safety regulations.

So, should the church hold itself to a higher standard than the world on child safety?

Yes. Obviously. But let us define what that means.

By “higher standards” church leaders and bureaucrats typically mean “more rules”. A proliferation of rules, codes, standards and compliance checklists, implemented with zeal, and regularly audited to ensure compliance.

But simply amassing lots of rules is not holding ourselves to a higher standard. In fact, arguably the contrary.

First, there is a distinction between protecting children, on the one hand, and, on the other, implementing rules relating to the protection of children. These are not the same thing. Now, it is wise to have some rules relating to the protection of children. But it is possible to protect children without lots of rules and it is possible to have a lot of rules and fail to protect children.

Secondly, a long list of rules and compliance is largely a box-ticking exercise, designed to create a paper trail in case of government audit or legal challenge. We can point to the checklists to highlight how diligently we are implementing the law and hope they shield us from liability. In case this sounds cynical, that is precisely the purpose of compliance checklists (I have had the unfortunate experience of drafting compliance plans and checklists in my professional career).

There is an interesting phenomenon in the literature around disclosure known as “coming clean but playing dirtier”. That is, disclosing a conflict of interest can develop trust and perversely create an incentive to give even more biased advice. Compliance plans can function in a similar way. If people rely on compliance plans to protect them against liability, they can get away with more. Hopefully this is not the case in the church, but it illustrates the point that having compliance plans of itself does little to protect children.

Thirdly, a proliferation of rules is counterproductive. It works against the goal which the rules ostensibly exist to protect. Why? The more rules that are implemented which do not directly serve the purpose of child safety (which is inevitable as rules proliferate), the more it seems to people who are subject to those rules that they do not exist to serve that purpose, but something else. And they begin to lose respect.

As an example, in my denomination a woman who leads a ladies’ Bible study which consists entirely of adults must obtain a Working with Children Check. Evidently, the rule is not there to protect children but rather for compliance reasons. Things like this are apt to create the impression that our system of child safety is not so much to do with protecting children but designed to minimise liability. And there is a good deal of truth in that.

(And to clarify a potential misunderstanding, this rule is the result of a choice, a decision to interpret the legislation in the most risk-averse manner possible. Other interpretations are possible, and probably preferable).

As I noted at the top of this post, the approach taken to child safety regulation is based on a desire to be seen to do the right thing and maintain a good reputation in society. But does that actually hold true? Scripture does indeed command us to maintain a good witness to unbelievers. However, this is to be achieved primarily through good works and godliness (1 Peter 2:12), not compliance with rules. Amassing rules is likely to send the message that the church is no different to every other bureaucratic institution that exists in the world today, against which people daily bang their heads in frustration. A rule-based approach does not in fact help the church rebuild its trust in the world’s eyes.

As a final point, it should also be noted that not all the rules that have been implemented by the church have been mandated by the government. That is, with some exceptions, the relevant government standards are expressed at a high level of generality and leave a lot of flexibility to churches to design their child safety policies.

So what does “higher standards” mean? Biblically, high standards can only mean high moral standards. And moral standards are defined by Scripture and the law of God. High standards means living according to the word of God. Fleeing sin and the occasion thereof. High standards means protecting the little ones in our care, lest a millstone be hung around our necks.

High standards means not entertaining accusations against people without affording procedural fairness (something I may have had occasion to remark on before).

High standards means showing love and compassion.

These are the “high standards” the church should be striving to implement.