It seems a long time ago now, but think back to the political turmoil of the weeks following the Brexit vote. Candidate for the leadership of the Conservative party, and so Prime Minister, Andrea Leadsom, made comments about how you shouldn’t employ men to do child care, because of the risk that they might be paedophiles.
Now, it is true that statistically, an abuser is more likely to be a man than a woman. However, despite what some tabloid papers might have you believe, there isn’t a paedophile around every corner. And the benefits of having men involved in children’s work far outweigh any potential risk.
First and foremost, it is incredibly beneficial for children to have healthy relationships with adults: both men and women. And in a world where more and more children have little or no contact with their fathers or other male relatives, churches can be places where children can find good male role models. Through these relationships, children see a whole variety of expressions of faith in action, as well a whole range of expressions of gender. They also see men and women interacting in positive, equal ways. If children don’t experience these relationships, their development can be hindered and their opinions can get distorted.
This is not to ignore the need to maintain a strong safeguarding policy in church, with robust checking procedures (including DBS checks) and ongoing training. This policy and practice must be in place, but both are a support to a dynamic and healthy team made up of both men and women.
As a male children’s worker, I instinctively exercise more caution than my female counterparts, and that’s a sad reflection on society and the mindset of people like Angela Leadsom. However, we shouldn’t let this distortion of the facts stop us recruiting male children’s workers. Our children’s ministry will be all the poorer without them.
