Last time I was musing about the implications of imposing administrative checks and balances. I am picking off from there.
Some implications, the ones I mentioned yesterday, stem from inaction, and they are legal. The consequences are imposed by the world. The Word of God is pretty quiet when it comes to such things as administrative checks and balances, nevermind child safety policies and the like. The world however does things like sue you or refuse to grant insurance coverage or rescind charitable status. Mostly, these are undesirable, but in most cases survivable as well.
Theologically the implications are somewhat subtle. That is the case because theological implications are secondary concerns to most people, even most pastors. Most just don't think theologically. These implications revolve around loss of fellowship, a compromise of the relational integrity of the fellowship. This is where the trust issues come out. People get hurt, lose confidence in the church family, or feel trust has been lost, and they leave. These implications are also undesirable, and, arguably, less survivable.
Right away then I think we can conclude that if we are going to pay attention to consequences, then the ones we have to pay attention to are those that stem from theological implications. That tells us that if we are going to implement administrative checks and balances or child safety policies ten the reasons must be theologically based as well as informed by the world's requirements. It is one thing to follow legal requirements for sound theological reasons, regarding them as simply the cost of doing gospel business. It is another to let the world tell you to how and why to do business.
The discerning reader will have noted that I have yet to touch on what to do about people who feel the fellowship is compromised... Well, I guess I'll have to get to that next time. I do have some thoughts percolating though.