Dear Editor,
In the January John edition of en, Benton drew a striking parallel between the recent advent of safeguarding officers in the church and the introduction of video assistant referees (VAR) in English Premier League football. Provocatively, John chose to transpose the initial, lumbering use of VAR (seen as ‘petty’, ‘unjust’ and ‘dominant’) with the worst-case scenario of safeguarding officers subverting their roles to wrest authority from local church elders.
Surely, when a series of major safeguarding reports is about to drop – critical for resetting the compass of our constituency – now is not the time to indulge conspiracy theories about coercive control by safeguarding? We need carefully weighed arguments, nuancing the legitimate scope of leadership authority with appropriate checks and balances, rather than an ill-judged ‘appeal to fear’. Indeed, we must be careful not to set ‘honouring the authority of elders’ against caring well for the spiritually abused – by depriving them of well-informed independent advocates.
Professional safeguarding agencies and independent reviews were the next to be initially fêted, then unfairly undermined. The unbalanced fears comprised: purported lack of accountability to a local church; non-denominational nature; and the possibility of ulterior agendas. Such scaremongering protests could easily be levelled at mission agencies, the police, and even en itself.
In place of inter-denominational, independent and dedicated expertise, networked sister churches were suggested as the more appropriate authors of abuse inquiries. However, good elders do not generally possess the professional insight – not to mention the slack in their schedules – to handle the complexities of abuse. Moreover, friendly local churches from the same stable lack the genuine independence of being outside of the situation. It is the subversion of close [church] family relationships that so often enables abuse to continue.
To take one recent example, spiritual abuse in Sheffield was not adequately dealt with by the leadership of the TCH network of churches for years. It was not until external pressure resulted in the elders correctly exercising their oversight to bring in an independent safeguarding agency to skillfully and impartially investigate on their behalf, but without usurping their pastoral authority, that help and healing arrived. As the integrity of their published reports is examined against their terms of reference, their accountability is ensured and their agenda can be evaluated by all.
Yours sincerely,
Lee Furney, Malawi
Dear Editor,
It should go without saying that safeguarding should be taken seriously. The surprise for me, moving from a youth justice background into pastoral ministry, was just how risk averse the advice of our safeguarding partner agency was. I understand the appeal of ‘best safeguarding practice’ when that is your full-time occupation. But really we needed advice that was realistic for the local church and restrictions proportionate for the people concerned. I would suggest that leaders listen very carefully to safeguarding specialists and then have the confidence to apply the principles themselves to situations for which they remain pastorally responsible.
Sometimes in the literature, safeguarding is rather lazily equated with Biblical goals of treating people well. Processes that we hope are there to prevent harm, may occasionally restrict good – one example would be when smaller churches refrain from starting children’s work for church children because they cannot guarantee recommended child/ adult ratios. Certainly good processes matter, but leaders sometimes have to manage processes in order to achieve Biblical aims.
I sense this is becoming more treacherous when it comes to what some want to call ‘spiritual abuse’. Everything the term connotes indicates serious failings in spiritual leadership (1 Peter 5:1-4). The misuse of spiritual authority can be extremely damaging. Then, the Lord has outlined processes for when believers feel mistreated in the church community (Matt.18:15-19). Society is rightly concerned about abuse; however, what is the threshold for when we want to call leadership failings a safeguarding issue?
If you do consult with your safeguarding agency over this, how sure are you that they weigh contemporary sensibilities against Biblical teaching in a similar way to you? After all, in a culture of victimhood, people can be quick to take grievances to authorities. Should you call in an external safeguarding investigation, leaders and church members may be forbidden to communicate, contrary to Matthew 18:15-19, whilst it is conducted. Churches would be wise to undertake due diligence with respect to their safeguarding organisation’s theology before they take this route. Far better, in the first instance, to go to a trusted outside leader, sensitive to safeguarding issues, who knows the church and can also bring a depth of theological and pastoral discernment.
In no way do I mean to give a green light to shoddy safeguarding practice, or to deny anyone’s suffering. I do though think some cautions are in order.
Yours sincerely,
Mike Hitchings, Bethel Baptist, Farnham
