1.4 Why “good intentions” are not enough
Most safeguarding catastrophes are not caused by people who openly decide to do evil. They are caused by ordinary people who decide, one small decision at a time, to avoid discomfort.
Good intentions fail in predictable ways. You must learn to recognise these failure modes in yourself and in organisations.
1.4.1 The comfort bias
This is the desire for the situation to be less serious than it appears. It leads to minimising and delaying.
Comfort bias sounds like:
- “Surely it’s a misunderstanding.”
- “He would never do that.”
- “She is probably exaggerating.”
- “Let’s wait and see.”
The problem is that “wait and see” is not neutral when someone is at risk. Delay is a decision.
1.4.2 The reputation idol
This is the fear that truth will damage the Church, so the truth must be managed.
It sounds like:
- “Think of the scandal.”
- “The media will destroy us.”
- “We will lose donors.”
- “This will harm the mission.”
When the Church treats reputation as sacred, it sacrifices the vulnerable to preserve its image. This is not stewardship; it is idolatry.
1.4.3 The charisma trap
This is the belief that a charming, gifted, or spiritually impressive person could not be dangerous.
It sounds like:
- “He’s brought so many people back to Church.”
- “She is such a powerful minister.”
- “He’s always been kind to me.”
- “That doesn’t fit her personality.”
Safeguarding is not based on personality impressions. It is based on risk, evidence discipline, and protection-first action.
1.4.4 The “I can handle it” illusion
This is the belief that because you are compassionate or spiritually mature, you can safely handle safeguarding matters privately.
It sounds like:
- “Let me speak to him quietly.”
- “I’ll sort it out pastorally.”
- “I don’t want to escalate yet.”
This often becomes informal investigation, contaminated evidence, mishandled disclosures, and pressure on victims/survivors. Your role is not to privately investigate. Your role is to receive, protect, record, and escalate properly.
1.4.5 The false mercy shortcut
This is the attempt to use forgiveness language to avoid consequences.
It sounds like:
- “We must show grace.”
- “We all sin.”
- “Let’s not be judgemental.”
- “He’s repented.”
Mercy is real, but mercy does not eliminate accountability. Genuine repentance produces protective fruit: stopping harm, accepting restrictions, cooperating with lawful accountability, making restitution where possible, and refusing secrecy.
1.4.6 The conflict-avoidance failure
This is the fear of confrontation, especially when the accused is influential.
It sounds like:
- “If we challenge him, the community will split.”
- “She has powerful friends.”
- “This is above my pay grade.”
Safeguarding requires courage. If you avoid conflict at the point of risk, you simply postpone conflict until it becomes catastrophe.
1.4.7 The cynicism swing (the opposite failure)
Some people respond to weaponised allegations by becoming cynical about all allegations.
It sounds like:
- “People accuse clergy all the time.”
- “Safeguarding is just politics.”
- “They’re probably lying.”
This is another way the vulnerable are sacrificed. A safeguarding-standard minister refuses both naïveté and cynicism. You take every concern seriously enough to record and escalate properly, without assuming guilt or innocence.
