ARE WE REALISTIC ABOUT OURSELVES?
Safeguarding children and protecting vulnerable adults are very important issues and rightly demand careful systems to ensure they are carried out properly. But these issues have caused quite a furore in the last week because of changes to the administrative system that are being introduced. Soon, anyone taking part in activities involving “frequent” or “intensive” contact with children or vulnerable adults three times in a month, every month, or once overnight, must register under a new Vetting and Barring Scheme.
Many workers and some volunteers working with children have been subject to checks through the Criminal Records Bureau for some time. But now the checks are being extended to volunteer drivers and others whose contact may be fairly limited. It is thought that 11.3 million people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - close to one in four of all adults - may register with the Home Office's Independent Safeguarding Authority [ISA], who will oversee the new system and will register approved people. After November 2010 failure to register could lead to criminal prosecution and fine. The clubs or organisations themselves also face a £5,000 penalty for using non-vetted volunteers.
The intrusiveness of government departments and the level of suspicion being attached to ordinary people have caused many to feel this is one step too far. But John O’Brien, programme director of the Vetting and Barring Scheme, said it would be a “once-only, simple step”. He denied it was a “presumption of guilt”. The children’s minister Delyth Morgan said: “It is about ensuring that people in a position of trust who work frequently and intensively with children are safe to do so ... Ultimately safeguarding children is the government’s priority.” The arguments for and against the new procedures should not forget the significance of safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.
Bob Reitemeier, chief executive of the Children’s Society, said the new safeguards were the result of many years of research into abuse. “What we have to understand is there’s a great amount of learning that has been taking place over the years in looking at how people are abused and we have to apply that learning.” He went on to say that if one child were to be saved from being abused then all the inconvenience caused by the new procedures would be worthwhile.
The problem that these new procedures raise is that of appearing to suspect everyone of being guilty of abusing children. Of course, it does not do that but the blanket approach raises that spectre and people rightly feel offended by the slight suggestion. At the same time it is felt that the whole approach sends a message to children that every adult who approaches them is a potential threat. It is this aspect that has upset Philip Pullman the children’s author who has objected to having to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority because he used to go into schools reading and talking about his books and writing. He claims the whole idea is “corrosive to healthy social interaction.” That is also a very important issue.
So there are arguments on both sides and they both have important points to make. But it is interesting to note the strength of the reaction against the proposals which arises because people feel they are being accused of having the capacity to do something very nasty. Human nature is very self-defensive. We all like to nurture an over-complementary view of ourselves. The fact is that about one million incidences of child abuse take place each year, and somebody does it. So we must safeguard children and we must avoid suspecting everyone of being guilty. That is a delicate and difficult balance to achieve.
But we tend to take such things very personally and certainly we do not like others to think we are capable of doing bad things. A low self-image is a bad thing, but an over positive view of ourselves is equally deceptive and dangerous. Yet most of us have that. That is why people resent the doctrine of original sin and the Bible’s teaching that we are all sinners by nature.
I doubt if most people reading this will ever be guilty of child abuse. But that should not blind us to our capacity to do all sorts of other wrong things. It is not our sins that make us sinners. It is because we are sinners that we sin. That is the common plight of all men, and we need to face the reality of it. We are too quick to assert our innocence, and while we may be right to be upset at the suggestion that we might commit child abuse we must face up to the fact that in other areas we do wrong. We are all sinners. God has given us His Law and shown us how we are to live. The Bible makes these things very clear and in Jesus Christ we have an example of a pure man which we are to emulate. But we do not do so, and we are guilty before God. That is why we all need to hear the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Only in Him is there a means of forgiveness from God for our sinfulness and sins. And through Him there is also grace to resist sin (although we still fall too often) and to live good and holy lives. The question is not are we guilty of child abuse - I trust that is never the case. The real question is, “are we realistic about ourselves?”