What would you say if your children were being transported to Christian school events in a faulty bus, with a volunteer driver who, unbeknownst to the Board, had a suspended license… and the trip was to a camp that had not had a safety/building inspection in years? Wouldn’t you wonder why such negligence was allowed to continue undiscovered or, worse yet, uncorrected?

The board of directors, ultimately in charge of the school, might simply state that the school relies on many over-worked & under-paid workers and volunteers and thus lacks the resources to make it right. Well, if injuries occurred and the matter went to court, those “excuses” wouldn’t work.

So, now imagine it’s the same trip, same scenario – but it’s organized by your church, and the volunteer bus driver is a convicted pedophile. Of course, the stated reason for the church’s risky activities is that the church relies heavily on volunteers who are over-worked and have “real” jobs to attend to and the Council feels it lacks the proper resources to do the job right.

If you’re a council member, you have a duty to the church and its members and visitors to keep church activities as safe as possible. In fact, you run the risk of personal liability if you’re negligent in fulfilling this duty. And it may be that your non-compliance with an existing safe church policy means your insurance coverage is void and that means you’ve placed your church’s assets (and possibly your own) at risk.

Do I sound like a lawyer using fear of litigation as a reason for councils to get their safe church ducks in a row? Sorry! I know that for most of us, the motivation for keeping our flock safe is our “fear of the Lord” (our love and respect for the Lord) but, unfortunately, it sometimes takes the “fear of the law” to remind Councils to get things going.

The fact that a church is a charity, or that it relies heavily on volunteers, does not give it any special status in determining whether or not the church (and its Council members) will be liable for damages caused by its volunteers or employees. And that liability risk becomes greater when:

• the Council knew that a Safe Church policy was required (as all CRC Councils should know by now!) but didn’t put one in place, or
• an existing, valid policy wasn’t properly implemented or supervised.

It’s like inviting the church kids to go skating on a frozen pond but not ensuring that the skates are safe, that the kids are properly supervised or that the ice is thick enough. When the kids fall through the ice, using the excuse of “we’re a charity and we were too busy to check it out properly” won’t work for any level of court (here or hereafter)!

After all, at the end of the day we hope to hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant…”