I said in my last post I would post the response to the complaint in about a week. You can find this below.

This is not the end of the story though, as a follow-up letter was then submitted. I will post the follow up in a few days.

The response, sent as a letter enclosed in an email message said the following.


To Whom It May Concern

I refer to your complaint of 19th June 2024. I have now had an opportunity to consider the terms of your email. It is correct that complaints may be made verbally or in writing. However, this has to be understood in light of the Complaints Policy as a whole. Pages 4 and 5 of the policy sets out the four stages of the complaints handling process. Stage 1 is an informal resolution stage which encourages face-to-face discussion and resolution. Stages 2 to 4 of the complaints process involve a written complaint being made. Overall, the complaints process envisages both a known complainant and the complaint being made directly, whether verbally in the stage 1 process, or in writing in stages 2 to 4, directly to the church.

Consequently, we are unable to consider this email or any posts on an online forum as being complaints in the terms of the complaints policy. However, if there are specific individuals who wish to make a complaint and who are willing to identify themselves and provide contact details, we would encourage them to make that complaint in writing, providing as much detail as they can to allow us to investigate the matter fully. All such complaints will be treated with sensitivity and confidentiality.

We regard that anything posted to the forum is not a formal complaint to the church. Someone making a safeguarding complaint to the church may do so anonymously but this will be about an identified individual as otherwise it is impossible to either investigate or keep the alleged victim safe. In certain situations, safeguarding allegations may be raised anonymously but to be dealt with effectively will require the person about whom the concern is raised to be identified and where possible contacted.

I hope that this is helpful.

Yours sincerely



Diana Rutherford
Chair of the Board of Directors
Minister of Struthers Pentecostal Church, Cumbernauld

Sundays sermon. Wow. Answers on the back of a postcard please.
I suppose I would need to be heavily sedated, not to see who really needs deliverance there.

> safeguarding allegations may
> be raised anonymously but to be dealt with
> effectively will require the person about whom the
> concern is raised to be identified and where

THIS IS TOTAL BULL ++++ AS THE HAVE NO SAFEGAUARDING PROCEDURE TO PROTECT MEMBERS


Thank you friendlyface for posting this answer back to a complaint letter.

I have been a little quiet past week but .I have been reading the forum and I am so happy others are now speaking up.
I posted this.last comment from Diana replay after . Speaking to the female and getting her ok to post about here.

Some of you know I have a real drive to help anyone who is going through the troubles I have came through with sexual and physical and emotional abuse. A few months ago a female who was a member of cumbernauld smc contacted me to ask for help with what was going on in her life. She had spoke to leaders from Struthers and Nothing had helped . This female .Partner was also a member of the church .Yes he was spoke to and both prayed with but things only got worse. To me this also is a total safeguarding issue the church failed on .They never once helped this female get to a place of safety. Or help her to seek help in other services outwith the church. They knew about the abuse what was going on and did nothing so here is another example that they are not doing what they have said to 31.8.

So I still stand with what I said away back I do not trust a word they say about my grandaughter would be safe attending a meeting and nothing would happen the same to her as I went through there.
This is only one example that I am putting up But I know off many others . And know there probably alot more I dont know about. This female is now out this situation after getting the appropriate help.What she should have been given from SMC.

So do zi belive in there policys no I don't

Back of my soap box

Please everyone we all need to speak up . Then something just might be done .

Daisy – I am reaching the conclusion that those in the pews are heavily sedated - by years of being told to sit down and shut up. :-)

AmazingGrace,

I have been meaning to thank you for you post about safeguarding and child protection for a while. I think that is a very useful distinction, and it is good to understand how some of SMC practices have changed over the years.

I fail to understand how this fits with their belief system however – I thought they taught that God was unchanging; that everything they did was because God revealed it to them; that they are the closest example we have to the early church; and that God tells them what is best for those they come in contact with.

So… how can they change what they do? How can it be right to treat people one way in one generation and a different way in the next generation? How can it be a requirement for women to wear hats in one generation and then not a requirement in the next generation? Which one is correct in a church? I have no problem with individuals or churches coming to different views on this, but not if they claim that God has shown them the one true way to be church.

This reminds me of the farmer who was accused of damaging a tractor he borrowed from his neighbour. His defence, which he thought was pretty robust, was that:

1) The tractor was damaged when he got it
2) The tractor was in perfect condition when he returned it, and
3) He never borrow the tractor in the first place.

You can’t have it all ways!

There is a more fundamental problem with Struthers policy on safeguarding and child protection though, and that is the bit of paper means nothing to them. I mean, come on, the Bible itself means nothing to them. There are some very clear instructions in the Bible about what to do, including the verse I have quoted a number of times:

Quote
Matthew 5v23, 24
Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

That is what the Bible tells them to do in these situations, but they have no difficulty at all in pretending that verse does not exist. They simply ignore it (and countless other verses). Why should their policy about safeguarding or the protection of children and vulnerable adults be any different? It is just words on a bit of paper, and they do not see the relevance, as God will always tell them what is going on in someone’s life and what they need to say to them.

This is 100% clear from the complaint and the reply that FriendlyFace posted, and from the specific examples given by FalkirkBairn (thanks both). The example FalkirkBairn gives shows exactly how much attention they pay to their policies.

AmazingGrace, I think this is the bit that is missing from the info you provided – do they actually care about these policies or their implementation? The evidence is they do not, it is just words to show to the Charities Commission or other agencies.

This is important stuff – a while back someone (TheGreek, I think) pointed out how the new Trustees were putting their professional reputations on the line, and that is clearly the case. I have sat on at least a dozen panels or appeals against dismissal. Let me assure readers that people get sacked for not upholding the values of an organisation because of things like sending text messages, even if the messages are “private” and are outwith their immediate work situation. I have seen this happen.

If the person mentioned in FalkirkBairn’s post went to an Employment Tribunal, this could end up in Trustees of Struthers being banned from being a Director by Companies House because they did not properly follow policy.

OK, it is unlikely this case would even be heard by a Tribunal, as it is not an employment issue (I assume), but the same laws apply. And a church should not be playing the stupid, “you are only guilty if you are caught” game, it should not matter to them whether it goes to court or not, they should be doing the right thing anyway.

The main reason I started to draft this was however none of the above, but was the pathetic response to the complaint FreindlyFace posted, so I would now like to turn to that.

Like the example from FalkirkBairn, this is an example of them simply ignoring their own policy.

1 Their policy says, “SMC defines a complaint as a written or verbal expression of dissatisfaction.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but that would simply seem to be a lie.

Their reply effectively says, “We have received and written expression of dissatisfaction, but, to avoid implementing our policy, we have decided that it is not a complaint”. The policy is clear, but it totally useless since they are doing the opposite.

Seriously, is there anyone reading the original letter posted by FriendlyFace that thinks that was not a complaint? Folks still in Struthers, I know you have been banned from reading this and from commenting, but I know many of you do still do at least read these comments. Will someone please take the post by FriendlyFace to work colleagues and random people on the local high street and ask whether they think it is a complaint. This is total nonsense, every single person reading this knows if they showed that to a stranger in the street they would agree it was a complaint. Struthers leaders have moved on from writing their own Bible with lots of verses missing, and are now writing their own dictionary.

2 Their policy says, “complaints are an opportunity to learn”

Correct me if I am wrong, but that would simply seem to be a lie.

They see complaints as an attack of the devil, and only ever as an opportunity for the complainant to learn how stupid it is to attack them. There is nothing in their reply that shows they want to learn how to do things better. Read the reply! What part of it says they want to learn from what has been submitted? None of it.

3 Their policy says complaints are, “an opportunity to put things right for the individual or organisation.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but that would simply seem to be a lie.

They make no attempt at all to put things right. What they really believe is that complaints are an opportunity for them to tell people how wrong the complainants are and that the only way the complainants can ever put things right is by returning to Struthers. That is not them trying to put things right.

(Note by the way, their policy says, “individual or organisation” – this policy explicitly recognises that complaints may not come from an individual.)

By the way, do not underestimate the subtle door they claim to hold open, “However, if there are specific individuals who wish to make a complaint and who are willing to identify themselves and provide contact details, we would encourage them to make that complaint in writing, providing as much detail as they can to allow us to investigate the matter fully. All such complaints will be treated with sensitivity and confidentiality.”

This is the usual divide and conquer approach – “we will get you alone in a room and tell you that you are the only one with this issue and it is all your fault”. That is why so many people were traumatised when leaving the church – they thought they were the only one that experienced this. Thankfully, people who leave now are less likely to feel traumatised, but that is not because of anything the church has done, it is because of this Forum where people can realise they are not alone, it is not “just them” that is the problem.

But this “talking to people individually” is not the way Jesus or the apostles worked, they debated openly where people could question them in public or in the open assembly.

4 Then, after all that, we have, “complaints will be treated with sensitivity and confidentiality,”

Correct me if I am wrong, but that would simply seem to be a lie.

Pretty well everyone in the congregation knew about FalkirkBairn’s complaint within a few days of it being submitted.

Their whole policy is just a sham – there is no attempt to apply what is in it, only attempts to justifying not implementing it.

Of course, most of that should not matter anyway, as the above quotation from Matthew 5 makes clear. Even with no policy in place, they should be doing what the Bible says – that should be a higher level of authority than any policy they prepare themselves, and should be what they look to when writing their policy.

What does the Bible say?

Quote
Matthew 5v23, 24
Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

However they manage to twist the words of their own policy to avoid doing what is right, they cannot escape the Word of God. What is says is “if your brother or sister has something against you”. It does not say you have to provide details in writing, make it a formal complaint or provide contact details, it simply says “if your brother or sister has something against you". Well, a number of brothers and sisters have something against you. Those who have testified here on this forum for starters.

The Bible then says “go and be reconciled”: not “stay where you are and wait for them to come to you to be reconciled”, not “make up lots of conditions to make it more difficult for people” not, “work out whether it fits with the policy as a whole” [whatever that means] or anything else – just do it. Go, find them and be reconciled. Don't try to be clever with words to avoid your responsibility, just do it. Do what you are asked.

Even if you can somehow ignore your own policies, you cannot ignore the Word of God, so do not remain at the altar and make an offering that will not be accepted, leave your offering behind and go and go and be reconciled. These spurious attempts to do anything except the straight-forward, honest, caring, humble thing are just embarrassing.

After the forum has been so active lately I thought I would have a quick browse of the Cumbernauld Instagram again just to see if there had been any veiled response - surprise, surprise, a "sermon" from Diana about how the devil is at work against the church, leadership should be venerated, and the solution for any questions or concerns about criticism arising is to sing. Sing away your problems!

The accusations of SMC on here aren't someone putting their foot in it or being a little bit problematic, it's historic sex abuse, it's secret exorcisms on children, it's manipulation and control over major life decisions, it's public humiliation and it's financial extortion.

These thing's cannot be solved with a hearty song.

It’s utter rubbish I wouldn’t want to be paying a big chunk of money monthly to fund it



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2024 08:51PM by Daisy69.

anonymousfornow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The accusations of SMC on here aren't someone
> putting their foot in it or being a little bit
> problematic, it's historic sex abuse, it's secret
> exorcisms on children, it's manipulation and
> control over major life decisions, it's public
> humiliation and it's financial extortion.
>
> These thing's cannot be solved with a hearty song.


Beautifully put!

These are serious issues requiring a serious response.

So far all we are getting from the present Struthers leaders is self-agrandising sermoning and a demand for their followers to be more juvenile in their understanding of the serious, long term, moral and financial crisis which is causing floods of departures from their churches.

But it strikes me that this would not have been the teaching of the founders Taylor and Black. I am clear in my mind what I heard them say on multiple occasions when the leaders of today were all always also present.

Taylor frequently (almost incessantly) preached that in Struthers it was "time for the church to stop playing at churches" (a direct quote). Then get on its knees and repent of its own foul sinfulness as a people. Then not get up off its knees until it was broken and ready to walk the way God instructed, no matter how humbling. This would be the road to success and revival.

Black would have added a further caveat. His study of revival showed this had to begin with the leaders of the people of God. If the leadership of a church are not on their knees repenting their own sinfulness and confessing it into the church publicly - as an example - God makes no promise to forgive that sin and heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)

That was his teaching. I heard him speak on this 100 times or more. I'm not even saying I agree or disagree. I'm saying that such teaching at least begins to acknowledge, rather than attempt to cover up, the failings and harm which are 100% the responsibility of the present authoritarian Struthers leaders.

The people sitting in the pews may indeed be vile sinners, but they bear little or no responsibility for the churches problems. An acknowlegement of this would at least be a serious response to the present crisis and the damage caused to peoples lives over decades.

Or - maybe just sing a bit.


It may be time for people to choose.

No one needs to stay there and be falsely accused of causing the problems in the church. And that seems to be a fact that is dawning on the many who are leaving. But it seems it hasn't yet quite been understood by the false teachers driving them away.

What you say ,Anonymous for now, is absolutely "spot on " . The sad facts are that anyone who challenges their authority ,or criticises or questions anything was and is deemed to be "The Devil " .

The sad truth is that they are not " anointed " and should not be " venerated " as they want to be . That is like dictatorship .

Every single person who has written on this forum has suffered in some way ...and that is fact !
Every single person has been traumatised and that's why they try to protect their anonymity . To sit in a room with D.R. would be to again be " judged " and " blamed " and "condemned " to be demonic and anti Christ .

What they fail to realise is that people on this forum found their strength in God and have been freed from the Struthers shackles ...to be able to speak up about their individual traumatic experiences .

I , too, have watched the sermons the testimonies , the comments made . I genuinely feel sorry for those who are " caught " ....in the trap of venerating these people . PARTICULARY those who are asked to give testaments who are young and vulnerable .

I laughed at a recent sermon when Mary B apparently asked D.R.if she would stay in the Church ...if all the other young folk who she had " brought in " left . How ridiculous she went on to say " oh she didn't mean X and Y " . X and Y apparently are the only 2 from the group who stayed lol .

My final wonder ,for the moment , is ...if the safeguarding group who they involved read this forum ? I do wonder WHAT they would think ??
We are all genuine in our traumatic experiences after all .

God bless and guide each person on this forum through their struggles of what happened to them and remember there is no hierarchy in Heaven .

>
> My final wonder ,for the moment , is ...if the
> safeguarding group who they involved read this
> forum ? I do wonder WHAT they would think ??


I know for a fact 31.8 was told about this forum

Also Struthers have refused to speak to the BBC .

What we all should do is put in complaints. Alos I myself am not happy with there replay to myself and I have seeked legal advice now asking what can be done.