Appropriate Child Participation and the Risks of Spiritual Abuse

Abstract

How can churches empower children-at-risk as ‘vulnerable agents of God’s mission,’ while also protecting them from potential risks for manipulation, exploitation, or spiritual abuse? What is ‘appropriate participation’? What types of manipulation, exploitation, or spiritual abuse might occur in this participation? This essay seeks to define ‘appropriate participation’ in the church and mission, drawing substantially from Hart’s ladder of participation to analyze the participation of children-at-risk as agents of mission. With this as a foundation, spiritual abuse is defined, and a discussion of how this might happen within the realm of child participation in the ministry of the church and mission is presented. Finally, it presents principles and guidelines that the church should consider as they seek to protect children and youth from potential abuse during the process of participating in God’s mission.

Keywords

Child participation children at risk children in mission ladder of participation spiritual abuse spiritual exploitation spiritual manipulation youth participation

Introduction

Today’s children¹ have a wide range of experiences in the church. In many contexts there has been progress towards more child-friendly worship experiences, intergenerational ministry, and a variety of ways of making the church more accessible to children. And there are movements within Christianity where children are being discipled, equipped and empowered to share the gospel through both word and deed.² Yet, there are still many contexts around the world where children are either ignored until they become ‘tithing adults,’ or they are simply relegated to childcare or separate Christian education settings. At times, children are exploited or manipulated for adult agendas and may even experience spiritual abuse in the church.

When we consider the participation of children-at-risk in the church, it becomes even more complex. For some of these children, the church has been a place of refuge and love, where they are able to find restoration, community, and support to thrive. For many, however, the church is yet another place where they feel unwelcome. The church is often unclear about how to deal with children who attend alone, who might not be clean or dressed well, who have needs the church is unable to meet, or who have participated in immoral activities. These children may experience the church as a place of judgment rather than love, and are usually even more vulnerable to manipulation, exploitation, and abuse because they so desire love and belonging that they may do anything an adult asks of them.

With these varying experiences in mind, how might the church become a place where children-at-risk can participate fully as ‘vulnerable agents of God’s mission,’ while also being protected from potential manipulation, exploitation, and spiritual abuse? There is very little research on this topic, especially related specifically to children-at-risk in the church and spiritual abuse. As such, this article drew heavily from the few sources written from a Christian perspective on child participation. It hopes to contribute to an emerging conversation, suggest a possible way forward for the church, and urge further research and writing on this topic.

There is, however, a fairly substantial body of literature focused on the concept of ‘child participation’ in general. I will rely on this to begin to define ‘appropriate participation’ in the church, drawing substantially from Hart’s model of participation (1992) to help us analyze the participation of children-at-risk as agents of mission. Using this foundation, I will then define spiritual abuse and discuss how this might happen within the realm of child participation in the work of the church and mission. Finally, I will suggest some principles and guidelines that the church might consider as they seek to protect children from potential abuse during the process of participating in God’s mission.

What Is ‘Appropriate Child Participation’?

In order to define ‘appropriate participation,’ it is important to understand how the terms ‘participation’ and ‘child participation’ have been interpreted and operationalized. With this foundation, we can then consider what appropriate participation might mean, especially in relation to children-at-risk and the task of mission. In practice, children have always participated in the daily life of their families, communities, and nations, through their interaction at home, at school, at church, at work, etc. This participation has not always been acknowledged, however, especially since traditional historical views of children have ranged from children being property, to being completely innocent and vulnerable and having no agency of their own. In recent years, the ‘new sociology of childhood’ has begun to challenge these perceptions, emphasizing that children are not simply ‘mini adults’ or ‘socialized’ to become adults, but, rather, they are social actors in their own right. They are both acted upon and act upon their context, being shaped by it and also shaping it (Boyden and Mann, 2005; Corsaro, 2011; James and Prout, 1997; Qvortrup, 2005). This essay is delimited to the particular realm of participation that relates to children’s participation in the church and the mission of God. Child participation within the realm of the family is also very important. However, this article focuses on children participating in the wider family of God, the church, as agents of mission. Because the closest relation is the participation of children in community development projects and civic life, the relevant literature will be reviewed.

Defining and Operationalizing Child Participation

From a theoretical perspective, the operationalization of ‘participation’ comes primarily from work in the field of community development. “Since its emergence in the late 1970s, the notion of ‘participation’ has gradually become widely acknowledged as a basic operational principle of development programming” (Ackermann et al., 2003: 7), referring to the process of people working together in a community towards a common goal. Participation can be both a means to an end and an end in itself, as skills and experience gained by participating are often as valuable as the completion of the goal or project. After focusing on adult participation in community development, in the 1990s organizations began to embrace the importance of including children in the participatory process, largely as a result of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been almost universally ratified,³ has been foundational for defining child participation in the literature. The CRC supports the rights of children to form their own views, to express those views freely in matters affecting themselves, and to expect their views to be “given due weight in accordance with … age and maturity” (Article 12.1, United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1989: 4). In addition, children should be free to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds” (Article 13.1, United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1989: 4). Children’s rights extend to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” (Article 14.1, United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1989: 4), as well as “to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly” (Article 15.1, United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1989: 4).

In the years since the CRC was introduced, much has been written about child participation (Francis and Lorenzo, 2002; Hart, 1992, 1997, 2008; Jans, 2004; Lansdown, 2010; Percy-Smith and Thomas, 2010; Ray, 2010; Reid et al., 2008; Shier, 2001; Sinclair, 2004; Smith, 2002; Thomas, 2007; World Vision, 2005). Most of this literature has focused on children’s views being heard and considered in decision-making, especially in their communities and in civic life, such as government forums. However, others have argued that true participation is more than expressing views and must include action. It is this concept that applies most to our discussion since we are interested in children participating in sharing the gospel through life, word, deed, and sign (Myers, 2011).

It must be acknowledged that some Christians believe that the CRC takes away parents’ rights and/or does not place enough emphasis on the family. There is not space within this article to adequately address this debate. This essay is based on the belief that rather than being ‘anti-family,’ the CRC actually emphasizes the importance of family for child well-being and clearly describes the crucial role of parents in children’s participation. It includes phrases that delineate parental guidance and direction, beginning in the Preamble, which is often excluded in evangelical discussions of the CRC (Preamble, United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1989: 1). In addition, Article 5 delineates clearly the role of parents in guiding children (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1989: 2), as does Article 14, which explicitly states that parental rights are to be respected (Article 14.2, United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1989: 4). Thus, a foundational assumption of our discussion on children’s participation is that children’s rights must always be understood from within the framework of the family. The Bible exhorts parents to surround children with God’s words: “Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up” (Deuteronomy 11:19, NIV). This parental task is of utmost importance as a foundation for appropriate child participation.

It is important to note also that there is a strong biblical basis for the rights of children. Very briefly summarized, children’s rights spring from their humanity and the belief that all persons are made in the image of God (imago Dei) (Genesis 1:27, NRSV). It is this theological understanding that grounds a concern for seeking human rights and justice for children because “human rights flow from the innate dignity of the human being. The rights of children/adolescents are inherent in their identity and find their origin in the fact of being created in the very image of God” (Byrne, 2001, section IV.3).

With the biblical precepts as context, the CRC provides the most universally accepted foundation for understanding and applying the concept of child participation, as well as providing a framework for protection of children. As such, it is helpful in establishing clear understandings about appropriate child participation in the church and mitigating the risk of abuse.

Provision, Prevention, Protection, and Participation Rights

The right of ‘child participation’ must be understood within the context of the other rights laid out in the CRC, particularly those of provision, prevention, and protection. A child’s status in most societies places them in a position of having little power or voice, and also being in need of others to help provide and care for them. Children are still growing, often less experienced at making decisions, sometimes cannot communicate their desires or feelings, and are more at risk for abuse and exploitation (Montgomery and Woodhead, 2003: 142–143). This vulnerability to exploitation and abuse means adults must commit to provide for, care for, and protect them. Yet, too often historically, this led to an understanding that precluded children from being social actors in their own right. The CRC seeks to address this imbalance by providing for all four: Provision, Prevention, Protection, and Participation rights.

Provision rights enable healthy growth and development by providing for basic human needs. Prevention rights ensure that there are systems in place that prevent abuse or infringements on rights. Protection rights safeguard children against exploitation and abuse and provide intervention when necessary. Participation rights enable children to take part in decisions affecting them, hold opinions, and have freedom of conscience. These rights all work together to support appropriate child participation because children cannot participate fully unless their needs are provided for, systems are in place to prevent them from being abused, and they are protected from harm. The church needs to consider all of these areas when seeking to empower children to participate as agents of God’s mission. In particular, protection rights must be considered alongside participation rights to ensure that children are shielded from spiritual abuse.

A Typology of Child Participation Applied to the Church

With the foundation of the rights of participation and protection in place, we now turn our attention to how this concept has been operationalized. Although there are several models that have been discussed in the literature and used by professionals working with children around the world (see Hart, 1992; Shier, 2001; Sinclair, 2004; Thomas, 2007; Treseder, 1997), our focus will be on one example.

The most widely known and used model is Roger Hart’s ‘ladder of participation’ (Shier, 2001). In his original essay, commissioned by UNICEF, Hart stated, “With the growth of children’s rights we are beginning to see an increasing recognition of children’s abilities to speak for themselves. Regrettably, while children’s and youths’ participation does occur in different degrees around the world, it is often exploitative or frivolous” (Hart, 1992: 4). He went on to propose a “beginning typology for thinking about children’s participation in projects” (Hart, 1992: 9) in the public domain, not within the social or economic spheres of their families, as a way to simply begin a dialogue.

Hart defined participation as “the process of sharing decisions which affect one’s life and the life of the community in which one lives” (Hart, 1992: 5). This definition does not focus exclusively on children, but, rather, on all people in a community collaborating to make decisions and intervene for change. He emphasized the importance of including children in what others in society are doing, while always considering how empowering children to participate might impact relationships within their family. He also discussed how values and practices for raising children in a culture may run contrary to the value of including children in decisions and allowing them to express themselves. Furthermore, adults in many situations where children are at risk may also be in a situation of disadvantage and disempowerment, lacking much voice in their communities. They may not value their children participating because they themselves have not been empowered to participate. Again, the goal should be to facilitate the participation of all members of society and of the whole family (Hart, 1992: 7).

This is very important to keep in mind in the church because there are some contexts where children making a decision to follow Christ, to evangelize, and to disciple others could be putting themselves at risk for shunning or worse within their families. We must always consider this before encouraging children to participate in the work of the kingdom, and whenever possible, work with the whole family, not just the child. This is particularly difficult with children-at-risk because often a main risk factor is the lack of a healthy, consistent family setting. Nevertheless, we should always seek to support, rebuild, and sustain the family even when this is not easy to do. These children are often more vulnerable to the risk of exploitation and abuse because of their family situation, and encouraging them to participate in the church should not exacerbate this, but, rather, should always help them in their healing process.

Finally, Hart emphasized that any discussion of participation inevitably must consider the power relations between children and adults because participation is about shared decisions. Generally speaking, children have less power than adults. Adults must be willing to give up some power in order to include children in the decision-making process, working towards justice and equality. “This is especially so for disadvantaged children, for through participation with others such children learn … to struggle against discrimination and repression” (Hart, 1992: 6). Empowering children-at-risk to be full participants in the church and the work of the kingdom will mean sharing of power by those in positions of authority and embracing a radical gospel that transforms both lives and societies.

With these foundational values and understandings of participation in mind, Hart set out to describe a typology for what he was observing about child participation in community projects. The stages (illustrated as rungs of the ladder, see Figure 1) describe degrees of participation, with the first three rungs actually being non-participation, and the last five demonstrating increasing levels of participation.

Figure 1.

Roger Hart’s ladder of participation (Hart, 1992: 8).

The first three rungs of non-participation include: 1) manipulation: when children participate in a cause or project within a community without understanding the issues or their actions; 2) decoration: when adults use children to support a cause in indirect ways and “do not pretend that the cause is inspired by children” (Hart, 1992: 9); and 3) tokenism: when children are included in the conversation, but they have neither been prepared nor consulted their peers in order to truly represent an informed opinion or broad range of children’s voices. These scenarios require little active listening or ceding of power on the part of adults.

The participation of children in ministry settings often falls within these categories of non-participation, albeit usually with good intentions. An example of manipulation would be taking children to a march against a particular moral issue without educating them about the topic, or about the complexity of views within the realm of Christianity, so they can understand their actions and make informed decisions about whether or not to participate. This could also be considered decoration, especially if only adults are talking, and children are simply holding signs or wearing a T-shirt related to the cause. Decoration also describes children ‘performing’ a song in church, rather than being taught that their singing is a part of leading worship. It could also apply to children-at-risk (or their photos or testimonies) being used in promotional or fundraising events or materials, or a when a group goes to a ministry, such as an orphanage, to ‘observe’ children-at-risk without any meaningful interaction taking place. An example of tokenism might be a typical annual ‘youth Sunday’ in some churches, where a young person preaches, but the pastor chooses the topic, and the youth is expected to present the sermon in an adult style with little training in preaching or biblical exposition. They are the ‘token child representative,’ but they have not been given any choice in the topic or style of communication, or opportunity to form their own opinions. Tokenism would also apply to some situations where children-at-risk are asked to give information about their lives or share in panels, forums, or ministries without proper preparation. Hart clarifies that children participating on panels can be considered true participation if other conditions are met, such as substantive preparation, consulting with other children, etc. Likewise, a child preaching is not always tokenism; it depends upon the amount of training, preparation, and opportunity to consult with other youth and to develop one’s own voice and style of communication.

The next five rungs of the ladder describe varying degrees of participation. The fourth step is called assigned but informed, where adults assign the task, but children understand the goals of the project, know who made decisions about their participation and why, have a meaningful role, and volunteer to participate after being fully informed of these things (Hart, 1992: 11). At the fifth level, children are both consulted and informed. Adults design and run the project and children’s input is sought, valued, and taken seriously at a variety of points in the process. At this level, children-at-risk might be more easily included in the church, especially in terms of gathering their opinions about a ministry the church offers, evaluating ministry efforts, giving suggestions for improvement, and bearing witness to the implementation of their suggestions.

The sixth rung is where adults initiate a project, but they share decisions with children. Children participate with not only a ‘voice’ but a ‘vote’ in decisions that are made in the planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of the project. In the example given above, the children would not only be consulted about their ideas and opinions on the ministry outreach, but they would actually have a say in how ministry is done.

The seventh level focuses on projects where children initiate and direct the project, with little to no interaction with adults. This happens in everyday life in children’s cooperative play and when they develop a plan for joint activities. For example, children living and working on the streets often organize themselves in this way for both play and subsistence activities, exhibiting their capacity for this level of engagement.

The eighth rung of the ladder is described as “child-initiated, shared decisions with adults.” Hart states that older youth are more able and likely to include adults in projects they have designed, but this level of participation is not common. This is usually not because the youth do not want adults to participate with them, but, rather, due to “the absence of caring adults attuned to the particular interests of young people” (Hart, 1992: 14). Placing a unified community at the top rung emphasizes that the goal is for all to participate together, a concept supported by biblical ideals of unity. An example might be where children living on the street have created systems for mutual care, but they come to the church to ask for help in certain areas, and with time, they develop collaborative efforts with adults.

This model provides a framework for ‘appropriate child participation’ in the church and mission. It reminds us that children will have varying levels of competencies and abilities, and adults in the church must develop those. It also provides a clear description of levels of non-participation that is helpful in analyzing how the church might actually be disempowering children through certain activities, or even manipulating, exploiting, or abusing them.

Defining Spiritual Abuse

Having this framework within which to understand participation gives us the ability to consider what is ‘appropriate’ participation and what might be manipulation or potential spiritual abuse. With this in mind, we now turn our attention to defining spiritual abuse and suggesting some guidelines for the church to help avoid manipulation, exploitation, and abuse of children-at-risk in their participation as agents of mission. This is a very difficult topic to address, due to the wide array of cultural and denominational traditions within Christianity; what may appear manipulative or exploitative to some might be completely acceptable forms of worship and witness to others. The task of empowering children-at-risk as ‘vulnerable agents’ adds further to a complexity that is beyond the scope of this essay. By establishing principles and guidelines for appropriate participation, the church in each context may take up the task of discussion, interpretation, and application within their own particular setting.

As discussed above, all child participation includes power differentials between adults and children, and participation and protection must go hand-in-hand. Empowering children to participate fully in decisions that affect their lives and contexts does not diminish children’s vulnerability and need of protection from spiritual abuse.

Understanding and defining spiritual abuse is not easy, especially as it relates to children.⁴ Much like psychological or emotional abuse, spiritual or religious abuse usually does not produce visible harm. This makes it difficult to ‘prove’. Adding the element that adults are sometimes skeptical about how much they can trust a child’s description of events, due to children’s active imaginations, identifying spiritual abuse among children is even more difficult.

Psychological Maltreatment: Religious Abuse

From a legal perspective, Cooper (2012) claims that acts considered abusive in non-religious contexts are often protected under religious and family-autonomy rights.⁵ He argues that the focus should be placed on the “actionable behavior by adults,” rather than the “observable harm to the child” because it is much easier to determine agreed upon adult behaviors that are harmful to children than to see the harm that religious abuse causes to the child (Cooper, 2012: 16). He describes these attitudes and behaviors, stating that

according to the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect “[p]sychological maltreatment of children occurs when a person conveys to a child that he or she is worthless, flawed, unloved, unwanted, endangered, or only of value in meeting another’s needs.” The Committee identified several behaviors that, if severe or repetitious, may constitute maltreatment, including spurning, terrorizing, exploiting, corrupting, ignoring, rejecting, or isolating a child, or neglecting the child’s health or educational needs. Other experts or groups include verbal assault, over-pressuring to achieve or mature too quickly, ritualistic abuse, deprivation of valued objects, and humiliation. (Cooper, 2012: 11)

Some of these behaviors are present in the church at times, unfortunately. Spurning can happen when an overemphasis is placed on being sinful, where the child is led to believe that they are inherently bad and their actions and desires are evil and serve Satan. Children consistently presented with threats of devils and demons, spiritual warfare, eternal damnation, and an angry God who knows all of their secrets could be considered terrorizing. “The evangelical nature of many religions may cause parents or other caretakers to exploit children by turning them into miniature missionaries or to put unrealistic pressure on children to be perfect representations of holy living at all times” (Cooper, 2012: 24–25). It is important for us to understand how these behaviors might be perceived by those outside of evangelicalism.

Some examples of situations from Christian contexts that would be considered abusive within this definition are:

indoctrinating children with religious beliefs that over-emphasize eternal hell, the earthly presence of malevolent spiritual beings, and exorcism of children’s demons;

severe shaming, leading to feelings of worthlessness;

isolating children from common social activities or events;

expecting unrealistic levels of maturity, perfection or achievement;

harsh punishments and authoritarian style discipline to ‘break the will’ of the child;

extreme indoctrination of children, including hatred towards others, teaching that people from other cultures are worthy of death and/or eternal damnation;

preaching the doctrine of hell as a threat of violence and terrible pain, and with children sincerely believing this could happen to them, inducing tremendous fear and nightmares. (Cooper, 2012)

The church needs to analyze whether some of our well-intentioned approaches to faith development, evangelism, discipleship, and equipping children might actually fall within these categories at times.

What Is Spiritual Abuse?

Legal understandings help in defining categories of general psychological maltreatment within which spiritual abuse might fall, yet the need for a definition remains. Spiritual abuse has been defined as the “misuse of power, authority or trust by any person in a position of spiritual power or authority (whether within an organisation, institution, church or family), through controlling, coercing, manipulating, or dominating a child’s spiritual development” (World Vision, 2010: 2). This misuse of authority can be understood in two ways: “individual authority within a religious or denominational hierarchy; [and] the authority of Scripture” (Ennew, 2006: 24). For the purposes of this paper, we are interested specifically in how those in positions of authority might misuse their power or their interpretation of Scripture to undermine children as agents of mission in the church.

There is very little documented research on the spiritual or religious abuse of children as it relates to their participation in the mission of the church, perhaps because it is difficult to determine what constitutes abuse, especially if the practices are common among the adults of a particular tradition. There is, unfortunately, ample anecdotal evidence for practices which at the very least are manipulative or exploitative, many of which are described above. As such, it must be reiterated that this article has drawn primarily from the few written sources available; further research and writing are once again urged.

Spiritual abuse can also be more subtle, where through adult actions, a child’s spirituality lacks what is needful for thriving. There are a variety of ways in which adults do this, such as: negating children’s thoughts and feelings, devaluing children’s appreciation of awe, wonder, and imagination; making faith strictly cerebral, undermining trust through abuse and hypocrisy, and neglecting spiritual nurture (Ennew, 2006). Among children at risk, these actions are likely commonplace and multiplied. The church is to be a place where we protect children and nurture their ability to encounter God, love God and others, grow in faith, and make ethical and moral choices that lead to community-transforming actions.

Developing Guidelines for Child Participation in the Church

So, how can we help the church to avoid contributing further to the vulnerability of children-at-risk through adult actions of spiritual abuse, manipulation, or exploitation? One way forward is to develop clear principles, guidelines, and standards for child participation in the church and mission.

Foundational Principles

A foundational principle undergirding all of the guidelines is that, after receiving solid Christian education (both through modeling and instruction from parents and church members), children must be given the freedom to choose their own beliefs and how they will act upon them (or not). The church must start from the premise that children should not be coerced to believe or act in any particular way; choosing commitment to Christ is a foundational belief in Christianity. Once again, this doesn’t negate the need for parents and other adults to guide, instruct, and teach children in God’s ways. It simply affirms that ultimately there are no “grandchildren” of God; each child must make their own decision for faith and for participation as agents of God’s mission. Certainly parents can and should encourage children to follow Christ and to choose to live out their faith, but this should never be forced or coerced.

A second principle is the affirmation that relationships between children and adults within the church should be mutual and respectful. That is, adults need to be open and willing to learn from children, including children-at-risk, just as much as they seek to teach them. At the same time, care must be taken not to place an undue burden on children to participate in leadership capacities for which they are not prepared, or to feel responsible for the spiritual growth of adults. Yet, in much of the church, adults will need to be challenged to view children as important, respected, and vital members of the church community today, not just ‘future church leaders.’ In this process, adults must learn how to listen more carefully and seek to help children develop capacities for all degrees of participation.

As well, we must be willing to revise our understanding of faith formation, allowing for more of the wonder and awe that children bring. We must trust that by suspending momentarily some of our traditional formulations, we will be opening ourselves to truly mutual relationships of spiritual learning and growth with children. Certainly we are called to teach, train, and disciple our children, through our own modeling, words, actions, and life, both as parents and as members of the body of Christ (Proverbs 2:26; Deuteronomy 11:18-21), but we must also be open to the ways in which the Spirit might speak to and through children. We see this in the biblical example of God calling the child Samuel to serve the Lord, and Eli helping him to listen to and follow God’s voice, even when the message was not good news for Eli (see I Samuel 3).

A final foundational principle is that the church must seek to educate all adults on how to appropriately use their authority in order to avoid spiritual abuse. The standards and guidelines suggested below should be discussed, adapted, and modified to each particular context, using a participatory method that includes all adults and children. It is not enough to simply train Sunday School teachers, youth pastors, and senior pastors. All adults in the church need to understand the concepts of participation and protection because it is through intergenerational relationships, both formal and informal, that children’s faith develops and thrives (Mazabane, 2007; Powell, 2007; Tiersma Watson, 2007).

Suggested Guidelines and Standards for the Church

With these principles in mind, we will close with some basic guidelines and standards for developing church policies and practices related to the participation of children, in conjunction with clear child protection policies.⁶ Due to a lack of sources written from a Christian perspective on child participation, I have relied primarily on the work of Save the Children and World Vision because they have clearly developed policies and practices, drawing upon a wealth of expertise and experience in child participation projects around the world (International Save the Children Alliance, 2005; Valdez, 2003; World Vision 2005, 2010, 2012; World Vision International, 2009, 2011b, 2012). The suggestions given here are adapted from their principles, guidelines, and standards.

Child participation in the mission of the church should:

be viewed as a child’s right and an adult’s responsibility, contributing to the fulfillment of other rights. A continuous process of educating all church members, including children and families, about the value of child participation is necessary;

include listening to children and their ideas with respect and considering them in decisions that affect them both directly and indirectly within the family and church;

be meaningful and sustainable, contributing to the child’s well-being, empowering the child to be active and responsible in the family, church, and community, according to the child’s age, maturity, gender, religion, differing abilities, and context;

be relevant to the daily life and concerns of children and their families;

be voluntary; children choose whether they want to participate. It must never be tokenistic, manipulative, or forced. Children and parents should give informed consent for all activities;

be ethical, transparent, honest, and accountable;

promote the safety and protection of children at all times, including effective child protection policies;

be done in a child-friendly, enabling environment and with age appropriate methodologies;

strengthen relationships within the family, church, community, and society, leading to transformation at all levels;

provide equality of opportunity for all children, be accessible and non-discriminatory;

be led by staff and volunteers who have the capacity and training to facilitate safely and competently;

include children in follow-up, monitoring, feedback, evaluation, and learning cycles to improve the quality of the participation experience;

Conclusion

These guidelines are necessary for all work with all children, but they are particularly important in the process of empowering children-at-risk.

The challenge for Christians working with abused, neglected, impoverished, war-affected or orphaned children is to find ways of conveying to them that God loves them despite apparent evidence to the contrary. At the very least this means programmes with inbuilt respect for children’s experiences, views and vision, fulfilling their rights to express their views, be involved in decisions made on their behalf and represent their own interests. (Ennew, 2006: 25)

Too often in our urgency to ‘rescue’ children, we fail to consult with them, or even inform them, about decisions related to their well-being and often ignore their spiritual needs. The church must learn how to listen to vulnerable children, even when this may require more patience on our part because they often are hesitant to trust those in positions of authority (Ray, 2010; World Vision International, 2011b). Children-at-risk often have valuable ideas about solutions to their problems and seek a meaningful role in addressing these (Boyden and Mann, 2005). Empowering children-at-risk to participate as agents of transformation through appropriate participation will likely begin with consulting and listening, and when that becomes normative, meaningful participation in church services, social outreach, evangelism, etc. can be implemented.

Denominations and local churches will need to carefully and prayerfully consider how to adapt these guidelines for their particular context. These ideas provide a place from which to launch ongoing conversation about empowering children-at-risk to be agents of mission, while protecting their vulnerabilities and learning with and from them. Developing clear policies that protect against spiritual manipulation, exploitation, and abuse, as well as support appropriate participation, will help to release children, even children-at-risk, to be agents for God’s mission.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Author Biography

Dr. Desiree Segura-April has served as an Assistant Professor of Children at Risk at Fuller Theological Seminary; Affiliate Online Faculty for Asbury Theological Seminary; and as a Children’s Pastor. She is currently a missionary with the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, serving as the Resource Person for Children at Risk Ministries in Nicaragua.

References

1 for 50 (n.d.) 1 for 50: Reaching and discipling children around the world. Available at: http://1for50.net/ (accessed 25 September 2014).

4/14 Window Movement (n.d.) About the 4/14 window movement. Available at: http://4to14window.com/about/overview/ (accessed 25 September 2014).

Ackermann

Feeny

Hart

. (2003) Understanding and Evaluating Children’s Participation: A Review of Contemporary Literature. Oxford: Plan UK and Plan International.

Aim Lower (n.d.) About Aim Lower. Available at: http://www.aimlower.com/about/ (accessed 25 September 2014).

Bataillard

(2011) The global children’s forum: Working together. The Lausanne Movement. Available at: http://www.lausanne.org/en/blog/1741-the-global-childrens-forum-working-together.html (accessed 25 September 2014).

Boyden

Mann

(2005) Children’s risk, resilience, and coping in extreme situations. In: Ungar

(ed.) Handbook for Working with Children and Youth: Pathways to Resilience Across Cultures and Contexts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 3–26.

Byrne

(2001) Some Notes That Might Be Helpful in Writing a Pastoral Instruction on the Human Rights of Children/Adolescents. Lima: Padres de Maryknoll.

Caldwell

(2004) Safe Kids: Policies and Procedures for Protecting Children in the Church. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City.

Child Theology Movement (n.d.) Child theology movement. Available at: http://www.childtheology.org/ (accessed 25 September 2014).

10.

Cooper

(2012) Confronting religiously motivated psychological maltreatment of children: A framework for policy reform. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & The Law 20(1): 1–42.

11.

Corsaro

(2011) The Sociology of Childhood. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage/Pine Forge Press.

12.

Ennew

(2006) The spiritual rights of children. Unpublished not for circulation draft of discussion paper. Monrovia, CA: World Vision International.

13.

Francis

Lorenzo

(2002) Seven realms of children’s participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22(1): 157–169.

14.

GCF (n.d.) The global children’s forum (GCF). Available at: http://www.max7.org/resource.aspx?id=cdc66d0d-87cd-4282–88b0–99ba7b695014 (accessed 25 September 2014).

15.

Hart

(1992) Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. Florence: UNICEF.

16.

Hart

(1997) Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan, published in association with UNICEF.

17.

Hart

(2008) Stepping back from ‘the ladder’: Reflections on a model of participatory work with children. In: Reid

Bruun Jensen

Nikel

. (eds) Participation and Learning: Perspectives on Education and the Environment, Health and Sustainability. New York: Springer, pp. 19–31.

18.

The HCD Global Alliance (n.d.) The HCD global alliance. Available at: http://www.hcd-alliance.org/ (accessed 25 September 2014).

19.

International Save the Children Alliance (2005) Practice Standards in Children’s Participation. London: Save the Children UK.

20.

James

Prout

(eds) (1997) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

21.

Jans

(2004) Children as citizens: Towards a contemporary notion of child participation. Childhood 11(1): 27–44.

22.

Keeping Children Safe Coalition (2011) Keeping Children Safe: A Toolkit for Child Protection. Available at: http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/keeping-children-safe-toolkit-child-protection (accessed 24 August 2014).

23.

Lansdown

(2010) The realisation of children’s participation rights: Critical reflections. In: Percy-Smith

Thomas

(eds) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation: Perspectives from Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge, pp. 11–23.

24.

Mazabane

(2007) Nurture and the family of faith. In: McConnell

Orona

Stockley

(eds) Understanding God’s Heart for Children: Toward a Biblical Framework. Colorado Springs, CO: Authentic, published in partnership with World Vision, pp. 238–245.

25.

Montgomery

Woodhead

(eds.) (2003) Understanding Childhood: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

26.

Myers

(2011) Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books

27.

NSPCC (2013) Writing Organisational Child Protection Policies and Procedures. Available at: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/briefings/writing-cp-policy_wda93825.html (accessed 24 August 2014).

28.

Percy-Smith

Thomas

(eds) (2010) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation: Perspectives from Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.

29.

Powell

(2007) God welcomes children fully into the family of faith. In: McConnell

Orona

Stockley

(eds) Understanding God’s Heart for Children: Toward a Biblical Framework. Colorado Springs, CO: Authentic, published in partnership with World Vision, pp. 227–237.

30.

Qvortrup

(ed.) (2005) Studies in Modern Childhood: Society, Agency, Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

31.

Ray

(2010) The participation of children living in the poorest and most difficult situations. In: Percy-Smith

Thomas

(eds) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation: Perspectives from Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge, pp. 63–72.

32.

Reid

Bruun Jensen

Nikel

. (eds) (2008) Participation and Learning: Perspectives on Education and the Environment, Health and Sustainability. New York: Springer.

33.

Shier

(2001) Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations. Children & Society 15(2): 107–117.

34.

Sinclair

(2004) Participation in practice: Making it meaningful, effective and sustainable. Children & Society 18(2): 106–118.

35.

Smith

(2002) Interpreting and supporting participation rights: Contributions from sociocultural theory. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 10(1): 73–88.

36.

Thomas

(2007) Towards a theory of children’s participation. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 15(2): 199–218.

37.

Thornburg Melton

(2008) Safe Sanctuaries: Reducing the Risk of Abuse in the Church for Children and Youth. Anniversary ed. Nashville, TN: Discipleship Resources.

38.

Tiersma Watson

(2007) We have forgotten that we belong to each other. In: McConnell

Orona

Stockley

(eds) Understanding God’s Heart for Children: Toward a Biblical Framework. Colorado Springs, CO: Authentic, published in partnership with World Vision, pp. 282–286.

39.

Treseder

(1997) Empowering Children & Young People: Training Manual. London: Save the Children.

40.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm (accessed 1 February 2013).

41.

Valdez

(ed) (2003) Protecting Children: A Biblical Perspective on Child Rights. Monrovia, CA: World Vision International.

42.

White

Willmer

(2006) An Introduction to Child Theology. London: Child Theology Movement.

43.

World Vision (2005) An Annotated Bibliography of Select World Vision Publications Relating to Children’s Participation. Available at: http://www.transformational-development.org/ministry/transdev2.nsf/5B1446AE7A4C9D278525720D0066B307/$file/Annotated%20Bibliography%20on%20Child%20Participation.pdf (accessed 15 August 2014).

44.

World Vision (2010) Principles to Guide Formation of National Policies on Spiritual Nurture of Children. World Vision Internal Policy Document, April.

45.

World Vision (2012) Child Well-Being Reference Guide. Available at: http://www.transformational-development.org/ministry/transdev2.nsf/ChildWell-beingReferenceGuide.pdf (accessed 26 October 2014).

46.

World Vision International (2009) World Vision’s Guidelines for Child Participation. Available at: http://www.wvi.org/child-rights-and-equity/publication/guidelines-child-participation (accessed 18 August 2014).

47.

World Vision International (2011a) Analysis, Design and Planning Tool (ADAPT) for Child Protection. Monrovia, CA: Integrated Ministry on behalf of World Vision International.

48.

World Vision International (2011b) What Do Children Think? Children’s Views On Being Cared for, Protected and Participating. Available at: http://www.wvi.org/child-participation/publication/what-do-children-think (accessed 18 August 2014).

49.

World Vision International (2012) Preventing and responding to distress in all child participation activities. Available at: http://www.transformational-development.org/ministry/transdev2.nsf/Responding_to_Distress.pdf (accessed 26 August 2014).