Hi Chester

Thanks for your lengthy reply. I'm not going to try to respond to all your points because I think the one you want to hear is this:

Yes, I - and others - asked SMC what "detailed letter" they had received, after reading about it on this forum. The response was that the concluding report of the investigation would be released by OSCR (it has), and that it was neither in the interests of the charity, nor were they obliged, to disclose the details of the conversations they had with OSCR. The overall leader, and at least one other branch leader has gone on record in a church meeting as saying that there were "minor" changes recommended by OSCR but they were not conditions of the conclusion of the investigation, and that OSCR were apologetic about the investigation having had to be done at all.

I am curious (not agitated!) because the public report is pretty unambiguous that SMC has been cleared. I am not doubting you have the "detailed letter" but it is also obvious that OSCR cannot be setting conditions for SMC to be exonerated, as the final report has already been published!

I get the impression you are looking for a hidden agenda here. However since the condition you set above has been met (a request was made of SMC, and they did not send me - or anyone - the letter), I look forward to reading it when you post it.

As Chester put it:

Quote

You go to one of the 5 trustees – the only 5 “members” of Struthers Church – the only people with any vote or rights. You approach them with your influence and your credibility (to use your own words) and ask them if the “very detailed letter” from OSCR exists.

If they say YES – then I accept your apology.

If they say NO (and obviously we need to know which of the trustees made the claim) – I will publish the letter from OSCR which was sent to the people who had complained. I have seen two of the replies and I have a copy. People could then decide if the Struthers trustees are being honest about this.

Chester has offered a solution.

It is now up up to Cheery Lizard, not us, but Cheery Lizard, ask for a copy of that letter.

When Cheery Lizard obtains that letter, post it here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2015 08:38AM by corboy.

Hi Corboy

It's not a case of honesty as far as I can see. It is that the trustees are legally obliged to act in the interests of the charity. Clearly if such a letter exists and is as dsmning as suggested by Chester - it might not in the charity's interest to have it published. If OSCR wanted the public to know about it why didn't they publish it? All very confusing.

I don't really see what the problem is here: this forum was attempting to bring things to light that weren't generally known about SMC. This letter would be final conclusive evidence of OSCR supporting the posters here. That would be a good thing, no?

Cherrylizard

Once again you tell me what I really want. Wrong once again.

Read my last post and I was very clear.

You accused me of lying because I said there was another document not part of the final OSCR report. I said I had seen a letter saying that the detailed letter existed. Struthers have now confirmed there is another letter as an outcome of the OSCR review. Did I miss your apology?

So the letter exists. People in Struthers only know because we told them on here. They are going to keep it secret even from their long term contributors.

Looks like this forum got it right then.

Hi Chester

The fact is I am only telling you what I know. I have asked SMC if there was a set of detailed recommendations before I saw your post, and you have seen my reply.

It's pretty obvious there will have been discussions over a long period of time between SMC and OSCR. The investigation lasted 2 years! Whether or not this constitutes your "detailed letter", how could I say? The only time I heard of a "detailed letter" was from your post. SMC only spoke of recommendations, and then the investigation wound up. This seems inconsistent, that's why I was hoping you'd put the letter out there.

The SMC leaders have gone on record saying there were recommendations from OSCR. That in itself isn't very surprising. They said they weren't particularly lengthy or difficult to implement and were doing so. Meeanwhile OSCR released a statement saying SMC was cleared. That's all I know, and for that matter that's all the general public knows.

Hi Chester

No-one accused you of lying. You say there is a "detailed letter". I say SMC have not talked about such a letter, nor has OSCR. Why won't you just show the letter? That's the part I don't get. You are not obliged to act in SMCs interest, and I think me, along with the other forum users would be interested to see just what OSCR really said, not what SMC claim they said.

Well, isn't this interesting. We seem to have two different opinions about the letter - one party says that there are detailed recommendations - ones that apparently do not reflect well on the SMC leadership - and another party seems to say it was just minor issues.

But here is a strange thing - the people that are saying "it is all minor" refuse to make the information available! Sorry, that doesn't ring true to me. Why would they surprise it if it showed then in a good (our even reasonable) light?

As well as that, what is this "not in the best interests of the charity" and "not legally obliged" stuff? That is a far cry from the usual "we have a hot line to God and He tells us exactly what to do so we cannot possibly be wrong".

Seems like all the rhetoric about spirituality and values is just ignored when they want it to be - it is about preserving their own charity and interests, where t really should be about honesty and integrity.

It is VERY interesting that they are NOT saying "God has told us not to publish the letter." Why not? That would be the usual reaction. Is it perhaps they are scared they will be obliged to publish it at some point?

None of that is the real issue though - the real issue is why are thy not being open and honest. Does anyone remember Mr Black's story of a preacher who arrived in his pulpit to see a letter saying "I know they things you did, here are a list of the sins you committed. If you continue to preach I will tell everyone about these things." The preacher read out this list and then added a number of other sins he had committed that were not on the list." THAT is the standard Mr. Black advocated. Will the present leaders live up to it?

Petitor

I think the short answer is that since 2007 they became an incorporated company and have to act in accordance with the law.

Oops, sorry - readers may have realised that, "Why would they surprise it if it showed then in a good (our even reasonable) light?"

should read:


"Why would they suppress it if it showed then in a good (our even reasonable) light?"

Entirely right Petitor

There is now admitted by Struthers a letter from OSCR that is both claimed to be minor issues and damaging to the charity if published. (If Cherrylizard is correct)

If that is acceptable to their contributors, given the pain and hurt shared by people on this forum, it is getting harder to feel any sympathy for those that still give money to maintain this destructive church.

Most astonishing still is that people with no membership rights continue to give money to an organisation which feels it has no obligation to be open about its activities. I and hundreds of other people over the years have stopped contributing to this church and given instead to the work of God elsewhere where openness and accountability were making the work of the church sucessful. Meanwhile Struthers always claim special closeness to God and imminent church growth while their churches do not grow and many have closed.

There is a verse often quoted by Hugh Black in the old days. "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men everywhere to repent"

Those who give money to this church know what Struthers has done to the lives who have shared on this forum. (As the moderator recently pointed out the readership stats are huge). They are not as a result of OSCR going to become more open and accountable. Mrs Gault is the sole source of leadership and direction in that she is said to hear from God and in some way passes what he wants to tell all the churches and the couple of hundred people still attending the 10 branches, some of which she rarely even visits.

If you think this is acceptable biblical Christianity, that the damage people speak of is irrelevant, that your life and ministry gifts are valued, and that you give expecting no information about the organisation you are supporting in return - then give on that basis and do not pretend things are not really like that.

If these things concern you and you believe they should be answered, as many have over the years, then act. OSCR is not coming to make your life easier as many of you seemed to be hoping.

If God is calling you to give money to Struthers, knowing what we all now know, then do so and be able to justify it from the Bible.

If God is calling you to question then do it. Hold these leaders to the high standards of conduct they have droned on about for years but which never seem to apply to them

If God is calling you to repent and stop pretending everything is alright then it is time to repent.