A lot of the safety net is in the DNA of the history of, in this case, the church. So you’re right if things keep going consistently wrong in the same way then there is no safety net for that particular issue. That is both a tragedy and worst sheer bloody minded wilful stupidity – i’m not gonna be hanging round there nor suggesting anyone should if that is the prevailing ongoing attitude demonstrated repeatedly over time.

I do think a board of trustees, or other clear public form of accountability isa safety net [you seem to be thinking it's not maybe?]. But in say ing that you are so right let’s work on trust issues and let’s fix the holes in the safety nets when they appear and more than that let’s try and learn from other holes we hear about and fix them in advance. Let’s try and be learning and loving churches.

With all the best will in the world every and any system is going to fail

We agree on that

and when it does lessons are learnt from it that makes it less likely to fail in that way again.

…and what I am saying, is, if those lessons are truly learned why are they not leading to changes in the structure which failed?

The Q which i think is more pertinient is can we learn to trust again, together? Can we take the fact that we are are flawed and still try and work together. What about the many examples we don’t hear about where the system works pretty much ok? It may be harder to learn to trust again but the other option seems to be to write off everyone else in advance based on a handful of cases?

I’m not saying, write them off – I’m saying, why not put in a safety net?

Have you heard the saying “Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results”? If my trust has been betrayed and someone says “trust again” and I can’t see that anything has changed – then isn’t that saying telling me it would be insane to trust again and expect different results?

I don’t want to minimize the real character differences between people. If I changed churches then maybe what you’re saying is, these people are trustworthy and that is a change.

But I’m going to be looking for the safety net and if I don’t see it I won’t feel safe. I will think “show me how much you want me to be safe by putting the net there – then I will believe you”.

In the last couple of days my ex-pastor (who now has his own ministry) mentioned a new travel policy he’s going to implement, that he never travels alone. He could have said “trust me”. But instead he decided to go for the safety net. I think that was a wise decision – not because I think he’s likely to get into trouble otherwise but simply because I believe in safety nets.

Why does it have to be an either/or? Why not work on trust issues and also put safety nets in place?

The Q which i think is more pertinient is can we learn to trust again, together? Can we take the fact that we are are flawed and still try and work together. What about the many examples we don’t hear about where the system works pretty much ok? It may be harder to learn to trust again but the other option seems to be to write off everyone else in advance based on a handful of cases?

I am sure there will be lessons learnt and hindsight being a wonderful thing people will start to see past events in a different light and say ah yes well that explains xyz. But then again, the fact that pastors have stepped down because they know they have a board that will scrutinise them maybe shows that in the examples you quoted the system worked and there was no cover up?

All i can say is that in the world i inhabit, in the role i have as a trustee i would seek to be fair to everyone and treat everyone with dignity and respect. I’m sure in that I’d make mistakes but I am sure as well that anyone else would and therefore its about learning from the process just as with anything else?

Thanks Helen, i think my wider point is that we have lots of relationships that we take on trust all the time, it is only when we experience something where our trust gets damaged do we then start to doubt that particular set of arrangements.

Paul, I guess where I’m differing from you is – you seem to be saying, this arrangement works fine – the only problem is that I don’t feel good about it because of bad experiences.

But the problem is not just in my feelings. It’s in the newspapers every time another Christian leader who supposedly was accountable to a board of trustees or elders fails.

My feelings didn’t cause the Seattle pastor to do what he did and his elder board to inappropriately defend him and vilify people who came forward and bravely told the truth. My feelings didn’t cause Ted Haggard to lie for three plus years and what he was doing and didn’t cause his elder board only now to start saying “We should have seen the signs”.

That’s why I don’t think the problem is my feelings – although I’m open to the possiblity that personal experience might cause me to be more upset at what I see happening at various churches than other people are.