The need for love

Because of the evil in the world, there is pain. Terrible acts committed because sin gets the better of us... and some sin has a much more negative impact than other sin. But when a wound is made, we have a choice.

We can choose to hold the wound open, never letting the scars heal; a constant reminder of how we have been wronged.

Or we can choose to forgive the offender, to let the wound heal.

Although bad things happen – and in no way do I want to down-play such atrocities against our children and young people – we can choose to make a stand against it, to protect our children’s childhoods, to declare that we will not let evil dictate our policies.

We can focus on the past, living with the fear that because it has happened before, it may happen again...

Or we can look to the future... and decide that from this moment on we will strive for a better world: one in which our actions are more than just a reaction to evil; one which is dictated by love.

Love must conquer all.

Let's not exclude the young

Ishmael (Rev Ian Smale), a Kids worship leader and song writer with a big heart to see children come to know God and be a part of church life, wrote a song called "Little Troopers Revisited" (which follows on from his song "Little Troopers"):


Now I’ve grown older, I’m now in my mid-teens
My church has taught me well, through many ways and means
But still it seems to please them if I stay behind the scenes
I’ve still got a lot to give

I’ve been taught to study Scripture if I really want to grow
I’ve found the more I’ve read in depth, the more I want to know
But when I’m full of Bible, then where do I go?
I’ve still got a lot to give

I’m told I’ve got a ministry, one of the chosen few
I’m told there is a task in life that only I can do
But why can’t I begin it ‘fore my teenage years are through?
I’ve still got a lot to give, I’ve still got a lot to give
But who’s going to trust me?

You saw me as a child, now see me as I am
I’m wanting to be used by God in every way I can
But please will you include me in the strategy you plan
I’ve still got a lot to give

Leaders, will you listen as I bring to you my plea
Let me learn to cope with some responsibility
Has the church that you are building got any room for me?
I’ve still got a lot to give, I’ve still got a lot to give
This soldier’s got a lot to give
But who’s going to trust me?


My question is: How can we make sure that we make the most of our children and youth in our church and community?

The discrimination of young people

There is so much about “child protection” out there and the vast majority of the population has jumped on the bandwagon: protect children at all costs!

Yes, we should protect children... just like we should protect all those in our care or who we have contact with. I would hope that adults, as decent members of society, would be looking after each other as well as looking after the children.

But what’s actually happened is that we’ve now created a society where childhood is incredibly difficult. Because of all the “child protection” policies in place – as well as the suspicion cast on all strangers who happen to be near children – adults in a position of responsibility are so concerned with the ‘protection’ of children that the fun part of learning is being eradicated.

Young people are advised to not talk to people they don’t know (some even being scared of it), and yet this is an integral part of successful adult life. Children (as well as some of the elderly) are the only people who can get away with saying outrageous comments. By their late teenage years, ‘they should know better’ and are considered rude.

Young people are encouraged away from dangerous activities – the ‘responsible parent’ surely wouldn’t let their child climb a tree: they should know better! And yet it is when we are children that our bumps and bruises heal much more quickly and we have a much lower sense of fear. It is not good enough to restrict that sense of adventure until they are over 18.

Young people are rarely in a position of organising activities. They have lots of ideas, but it’s always an adult who sorts it out. Perhaps the adult overseeing the young people is more concerned about being labelled irresponsible if something should go wrong. And yet if we deprive young people of such responsibilities, how can we expect them to get it right when they enter into adulthood?

Young people often have adults supervising them. “Child protection” policies rule out young people ever being left on their own – they can’t be trusted! Adults are considered irresponsible if they are not constantly supervising those in their care. It is as if the adults are not doing their job properly unless everything is running smoothly. And yet how are young people supposed to learn to resolve disagreements? A hypothetical situation in a discussion context just doesn’t do it. They need to learn to put things into practice. And they need to learn to act responsibly when they are not watched all the time. Trust is something that needs to be built up, one step at a time. But we must not stop those steps being taken.

Yes, there is a risk involved in encouraging young people to grow into adulthood – they may well get things wrong. But that’s a part of learning. How dare we deprive them of that? How dare we discriminate against young people – that just because they are under 18 they are therefore not able to learn to grow up?

The treatment of young people

I feel the need to ask this: as Christians, why do we allow society to dictate how much we can help people? In fact, if we strive to be decent members of society, why do we allow the "governors" of society to dictate our actions?

Here's the issue: I believe that when we are with other people, we ought to treat them as if they were one of our own family. Which means that girls should be treated as sisters, boys should be treated as brothers; older ladies given the respect of mothers, older men the respect of fathers; young girls treated as daughters and young boys treated as sons.

My experience tells me that when this happens, people feel loved and wanted, they feel a part of something. They know someone cares about them. It creates an environment for excellent growth (physical, mental, psychological, spiritual, emotional, etc).

I can accept that some people have family situations which are not good role models, but if we strive to be better people - if we strive to make our own family better than the one we were brought up in - then there can only be positive change.

Yet although society allows for a more familial interaction with peers and older people, they have drawn a line at the age of 18. Younger people who are not family are not allowed to be treated as if they were family. Which means that if their home situation is not good, then they can't get a good role model anywhere else. They are kept at a distance and interaction between an over-18 and an under-18 is made "professional."

I vote we kick professionalism in the head when it comes to people - especially when it comes to under-18s. We should think of how we would treat our own kids and treat other people's kids likewise. We should ask ourselves how we expect other people to treat our own kids... then strive to be better than that!

Should we leave young people stranded for fear of how it might look if we were on our own with them, making sure they returned home safely? Should we just watch as a young person cries for fear of what others may think if we were to put a comforting arm around them? Should we avoid telling young people off for fear of others thinking we were shouting abuse? Should we avoid encouraging young people and paying them compliments for fear of others thinking of us as "grooming" them?

No, that's ridiculous. We should have more respect than that. We should treat young people as they deserve to be treated. They are members of our society. More than that, they are the future of our society.

Give and take

Here’s a brief thought about rules and regulations.

The rules are there for the “takers” of society: those people who are always out for themselves, taking what they can to suit their own purposes. The rules prevent them from “taking” too much. They are an attempt to keep it fair for everyone. There is nothing wrong with that.

But not everyone is a “taker.” Some people – in fact, the majority of people – are “givers” to society: they help others, encouraging, educating and so on. Because of the current understanding of “equality,” the rules which are made for the “takers” are imposed on the “givers.”

A word on equality: the current understanding is that the same set of rules needs to be applied to everyone in order for it to be fair – to be “equal.” Whilst it may sound well and good, this actually isn’t right: it’s a simplification of something which is really much more complex. True equality is about individuals. Over time, as someone continues to be faithful in a certain aspect of life, they build up trust and the “rules” naturally need to be adapted: for that person.

For example, if someone has a reputation for stealing, it is not right to put them in charge of counting money in a bank. But a person who has been faithful in small things can be given more responsibility. If an ex-thief has managed to change their behaviour to build up a reputation for being trustworthy, perhaps they can be put in charge of something more. The rules change, but it is entirely fair because it is all about trust and responsibility.

We all give and take in life. Some people take to suit their own purposes; others take in order to give more. The rules should not prevent the “givers” from giving.

The value of a child

The “Children Act 1989” considers the welfare of a child to be paramount. (Section 1:1)

In section 1:3, the Act states:
A person who—
(a) does not have parental responsibility for a particular child; but
(b) has care of the child,
May (subject to the provisions of this Act) do what is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the child’s welfare.

Jesus says: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them.” (Matthew 19:14)

[Jesus] took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me.” (Mark 9:36-37)

Jesus is shown to value people above strict following of the law:

• Matthew 5:38-48: Jesus says that instead of taking lawful revenge, we should have love for others.
• Matthew 12:1-8: He values the wellbeing of his disciples above what is “lawful on the Sabbath.”
• Matthew 12:9-14: He states how valuable a person is and “works” on the Sabbath, despite complaints from those in positions of religious responsibility.
• John 5:1-11: Another healing on the Sabbath, this time with Jesus condoning “working” by carrying a mat.
• John 8:1-11: Jesus values the life of a woman above strict commitment to the lawful punishing of those caught in adultery.
  

Jesus values people above the way his actions may look to others:

• Matthew 12:22-37: Jesus is accused of drawing power from Satan.
• Mark 2:1-12: Jesus is accused of equating himself with God. It could be argued here that Jesus deliberately gave his actions a particular image in order to make a point.
• Mark 6:45-51: Jesus walks on water, despite his disciples thinking him a ghost.
• Mark 7:24-30: Jesus heals a Gentile woman’s little girl, despite his priority being to the Jews.
• Luke 7:36-50: Jesus allows a sinful woman to bless him, rebuking those who disliked the image it gave him.
• Luke 19:1-10: Jesus spends time with a tax collector, despite the crowds’ disapproval.
  

It’s great when the Bible and the law can work together for the good of the people. But sometimes people make laws or policies which cause a bit of contradiction. Sometimes to ensure the “welfare” of a child is paramount, we may need to disregard a minor detail of a particular policy. I’m not just talking about extreme circumstances where a child’s life is in danger; this can happen with more minor instances.

When there is a clash within the law itself, it can be hard to know what to do. When the law and the teaching of the Bible clash, there will naturally be two camps: those who feel that the law/policy should be upheld at all costs; and those who feel the Biblical principles should be upheld at all costs.

Jesus says, “Your approval or disapproval means nothing to me.” (John 5:41) All that matters is that we are sure of our actions before God. The praise of mankind is not sufficient justification for taking a certain action. However, if we can get approval from people and from God, then all the better!

In relation to children, this means doing what is right for the child, with God’s authority, regardless of whether you have approval from people. By doing this, we will be able to ensure that the welfare of the child is paramount... which actually fulfils the law as well!

Expanding the parameters of "child abuse"

Currently there are 4 types of child abuse which are recognised: neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse. Whilst each one is important to recognise and understand, they are all variations on a theme: preventing children from a healthy upbringing.

It is this theme which I believe is even more important to understand. Each of the types of abuse involves something done (i.e. an action) by another person. Yet prevention of a healthy upbringing can also involve something not done (i.e. inaction).

Some parents are so concerned about external dangers that they do not let their children play outdoors on their own (Frank Furedi, Paranoid Parenting, p119). Those children may not be experiencing any of the types of child abuse recognised by the law, but they are still prevented from a healthy upbringing. (If anyone can explain how a child can have a healthy upbringing by being kept away from their local community, please let me know.)

I remember when I was at school. There were often trips to go to an indoor climbing wall, or to do a ‘night exercise’ (effectively a huge wide game done at night, usually in an area of public woodland), as well as opportunities for a wide range of other trips. A few years after I left, I found that many of those trips could not be done anymore. There were problems with having the right ratio of adults to children, not having the right first aid certificate and various ‘health and safety’ issues. Food hygiene could be a problem when it came to wild camping. Is it any wonder now why teenage boys would rather be sat indoors, playing computer games than outdoors, enjoying their freedom?

Young people need to be encouraged to learn how the outside world works. There is only so much that parents can do. Yes, there are specialised groups for particular things: football clubs, music groups, cooking classes, etc. Although each specialised group has its advantages (the adults involved will hold the right certificates), there is little promotion for other activities and it becomes very focused.

More general youth groups, trying to provide a wider range of activities for young people, are then much harder pushed. They need more money to hold more qualifications just so they can provide the activities with an amount of protection from the suing culture we live in. It is these groups which actually broaden the experience of young people, encouraging them to try new things, equipping them with the knowledge and foundations for what may come their way later in life. If these groups cannot afford the qualifications, their potential impact on young people is limited. If these groups are prevented from conducting such activities because they do not hold the qualifications, their potential impact on young people is limited. As a result, young people are prevented from gaining the experience which could be of enormous benefit to their adult lives. It is not enough to just tell them to wait until they are older. Childhood must start before the age of 18.