Following on from what has been said, there were so many ‘add ons’ to the scripture that they could have brought out a Struthers ‘what not to do’ book of their own. No make up, no nail polish, no fancy hair, definitely but definitely no dyed hair (Diana said she wouldn’t let anyone on her platform with dyed hair!). How many people were scarred for life with all those incidental, non biblical rules devised by man that had no place in the church of Christ. And what about holidays? How many people went abroad in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s? That was definitely frowned upon as being worldly and holidays in general as being totally unnecessary. When did kids who grew up in the church eventually venture out of the U.K. without the feeling of judgement being brought down upon them? Lots of awful memories of those times, just glad we are well and truly out of it.

Anyone, within a relgious setting, that wants to tell you what not to do and say is to be avoided at all costs. Rarely are these people practising what they preach and often, are doing far worse.

Do you have a strong desire to tell others what to do? Stop it now - you're a wrong 'un.

Do you think god is speaking to you directly with special messages about how others should live? He / She / It isn't. Stop it now, you're delusional.

Re your post on the previous page, ThePetitor, I completely agree with you that the Struthers leaders who are still living, ought to make an apology for their controlling and in most cases, erroneous teaching in past years. Either a public apology, as you suggest, or individual apologies to those who were hurt and/or compelled to keep to the “Do not do this or that” instructions which have now been altered and watered down for new generations of SMC followers. Yes, I guess someone could be a Beautician and be a member of Struthers nowadays, which seems very ironic indeed to those of us who were banned from using makeup, hair-dye and fashionable clothing (at one time, jeans were not permitted for girls and boys!!)

I was once at a Saturday night meeting and the time came for the children to leave and go to a hall for their own meeting. Just after the last child had exited, the leader said from the platform, “You know, we really need to pray for these young folk. I notice that they’re already being affected by the world and we could lose them from God. I see the clothes they’re wearing and the hairstyles and I worry that the enemy already has a grip on their young hearts. Be careful how you raise your children. Don’t let the world get a hold of them.” I was puzzled because all I had noticed when the children got up to leave were little girls with pretty trousers and tops, hair in ponytails or loose with clasps and hairbands; one or two maybe had a mini-shoulder-bag; boys with chinos and t-shirts. I didn’t see anything that I could say was “worldly” or that suggested the devil was already getting a grip of them. I remember feeling disturbed about that experience that evening. It was just too much. Poor kids.

As you say, ThePetitor, maybe the female leader didn’t mean what she said. But if not, why did she say it about these church children, whose parents were sitting there in the meeting! And the female leaders regularly wore new clothes and wore jewellery, probably expensive gold items. How can they speak ill of others’ attire?

Anyway, back to the subject of apologies. There have been quite a number of accounts of spiritual abuse and sometimes sexual abuse carried out by Christian leaders in various churches and settings, in recent times. Many have been reported in the media. These include Mike Pilavachi and Soul Survivor, Ravi Zacharias ministries, The Jesus Army, Gerald Coates of Pioneer network, Mike Bickle of IHOP, plus various Church of England dioceses. But I noticed something: most if not all of these churches or ministries have issued a public apology to anyone who has been adversely affected by the abuse. Nearly every one has apologised. If the perpetrator themselves hasn’t apologised (some have passed away), then the organisation did. They admitted that abuse occurred. They didn’t hide from that.

So there’s no excuse really. We await the apologies.

Probably using the authority they already had to lure parents, especially already mothers, into additional emotional labor policing their children's upbringing.

Since mothers usually select and purchase children's clothes, this was also a sly reprimand to mothers in the audience. A sly insinuation they'd made wrong, 'worldly' choices for their children's clothing -- when they'd already done their utmost to select 'godly' clothing!

All that energy (and implanted shame) spent monitoring their children's clothing would have distracted from noticing the leaders' expensive clothes and jewelry.

*(Choices for children's clothing is often limited - a nightmare for parents who have to do the shopping)

I have sadly come to the conclusion that SMC has for years been preaching and teaching a false Gospel -- or I should say a truncated Gospel. While they teach, rightly, that we are saved by grace, yes, they also teach, both implicitly and explicitly, that we are sanctified (become holy) by our own efforts. In other words, after our initial conversion, they teach that we go on to either earn or forfeit God's blessing and approval by our performance: hence the emphasis on "do this, don't do that, go there, don't go there, wear this, not that, etc., etc., ad infinitum. That is NOT the Biblical Gospel!

This truncated Gospel leads to at least three kinds of Christian: 1) those who feel perpetual guilt and condemnation because they can't measure up (and become exhausted in the process of trying but who keep trying nevertheless with perhaps an occasional "high" at a Camp or Conference); 2) those who become totally fed-up with a joyless life of oppressive drudgery, give up completely and abandon their faith in despair and disillusionment; 3) those who, like the Pharisees of old, believe they are attaining "holiness" and look down their spiritual noses at those who are not making the grade (on their terms). And no doubt there are other shades of experience in between these three.

The Biblical Gospel, on the other hand, teaches us that the pursuit of holiness is a joyful response to God's undeserved, unchanging love, motivated by our love and gratitude to Him for such a wonderful salvation -- a response of heart and life empowered by the Christ who lives within, not by legalistic pressures from without or our own morbid introspection.

For anyone who is interested in exploring these themes further, I recommend tuning in to John Fonville's podcasts on YouTube on "The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification". Don't be put off by his husky voice (!) -- at one time JF had a rare vocal condition and was told by medics that he would be mute for the rest of his life but is now an Anglican Rector with a wide teaching and writing ministry. As an Irish Baptist I don't share some of his Episcopalian theology but as my friends here on the forum will have learned, I believe we have much to learn from the wider Body of Christ even when we disagree on certain non-essentials!

Hello Phoebe.

I was struck by what you say at the end: "As an Irish Baptist I don't share some of his Episcopalian theology but as my friends here on the forum will have learned, I believe we have much to learn from the wider Body of Christ even when we disagree on certain non-essentials!".

This interests me because l've been toying with the idea of starting an online C. S. Lewis Book Club, where people who read Lewis could slowly discuss some of his books (e.g. The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, The Screwtape Letters, Out of the Silent Planet, Mere Christianity, The Four Loves), and hopefully relate them in a helpful way to our own life experience.
I have recently ruined my laptop by spilling water (okay, it was Japanese lager) on it, so would not be able to get going for a while, but l'd be interested to know if there's anyone on this forum who might want to be involved.

I should add that it wouldn't be any heavy commitment; it would be roll on/roll off, drop in as you please. Like many others, I've had my fill of Closed Brethren-style over-attendance, one of the Struthers leadership's original sins. Au contraire, I'm rather enjoying being a spiritual gypsy at the minute!

Do PM me if you might be interested.

Phoebe 2 wrote:
>
This truncated Gospel leads to at least three kinds of Christian:
1) those who feel perpetual guilt and condemnation because they can't measure up (and become exhausted in the process of trying but who keep trying nevertheless with perhaps an occasional "high" at a Camp or Conference);
2)those who become totally fed-up with a joyless
life of oppressive drudgery, give up completely and abandon their faith in despair and disillusionment;
3) those who, like the Pharisees of old, believe they are attaining "holiness" and look down their spiritual noses at those who are not making the grade (on their terms). And no doubt there are other shades of experience in between these three.

This description of the three types of Christians is such an accurate representation of Struthers teaching…
No 3… in particular expressed so openly by the “inner circle” and would especially criticise openly those desperate who keep coming back for more torment at a Wednesday night at camp. People would be feeling condemned the whole week, building up to the said event, then post Wednesday guilt and shame would kick in. So many of my peers would be feeling upset, and feel they wasting their lives, unnoticed, unappreciated, and not worthy of being part of the inner crew. So many others using up so much annual leave to be faithful loyal attendees at camps, conferences and missions, and have no other opportunities for proper rest and recuperation outwith that.

AS and her crew were the worst. Would dismember camp at the end of it and discuss confidential information as well as criticising other leaders and discredit all other things. So much condescending behaviour and hypocrisy as well as disrespect for individuals. People lived in unspoken fear, trying to fit it and be good enough, worthy enough to be a part of the group.

Why were we deceived for so long to be part of such a damaging and dangerous divisive cult like community. Destructive ideology. Destroying lives.

But looking back, not with regret but with determination to support others and help them find real freedom and happiness following Jesus.

I have been asked to publish the following information:

I am an ex-attendee of SMC who still follows some of their sermons as I am concerned that people I know are still listening to what is preached from the platform. I was particularly concerned about the Friday morning sermon at the recent church camp (which can be accessed via the SMC webpage). Rather than taking the opportunity to preach from the bible or encourage the congregation to continue in their christian endeavour it was another sermon about not criticising the leadership. What concerned me the most was the number of people in the congregation who were full of praise for the sermon which was what prompted me to listen in the first place.

In order the summarise the sermon I took the full text transcript and ran it through ChatGPT to generate a summary which can be seen below, particularly noting the controversial points that are raised.


### **Key Points**

1. **Theme of Joy and Fellowship**

* The speaker emphasizes happiness, joy, and togetherness at the camp, highlighting the positive communal spirit, even in small or crowded spaces.
* Personal anecdotes illustrate the value of encouragement, loyalty, and shared worship in fostering a sense of unity.

2. **Psalm 16 as a Spiritual Foundation**

* The psalm is described as “the golden psalm,” focusing on God as protector, guide, and source of blessing.
* Key verses emphasize seeking refuge in God, recognizing God as master, and the importance of loyalty to godly people.

3. **Discontent as a Spiritual Danger**

* The sermon connects discontent to Eve’s first sin, describing it as dissatisfaction or rebellion against authority.
* Discontent and criticism are likened to pests or “larvae” that destroy spiritual growth.
* Listeners are urged to guard against negative influences in the church and protect the unity of the community.

4. **Role of Authority and Loyalty**

* The minister’s role is framed as one under authority while also being a protector of the congregation.
* Stories illustrate challenges of balancing leadership, handling criticism, and maintaining unity.
* Loyalty and trust within church relationships are highlighted as critical to spiritual fruitfulness.

5. **Spiritual Growth and Protection**

* Gardening metaphors illustrate the need to protect spiritual life from “pests” (criticism, discontent, division).
* Experiencing storms (life challenges) without losing faith reflects spiritual resilience.
* The goal is a fruitful church, spiritually nourished, growing in numbers and depth.

6. **Vision of Growth and Outreach**

* The speaker envisions a church expanding beyond physical walls, emphasizing personal responsibility in bringing others to Christ.
* Trust in leadership and the Holy Spirit enables effective evangelism and ministry.

7. **Prayer and Settling in God**

* The conclusion stresses being established, strengthened, and settled in God, moving past discontent and doubt.
* Settledness is associated with peace, security, and the freedom to serve without distraction from criticism.

---

### **Controversial or Notable Points**

1. **Discontent as “the first sin”**

* Connecting discontent to Eve’s sin may be debated; traditional interpretations often emphasize disobedience or pride.
* The framing of church criticism as spiritually dangerous might be seen as discouraging legitimate questioning or discussion.

2. **Authority and Hierarchy**

* Strong emphasis on loyalty to ministers and church authority could be controversial, especially in more egalitarian or questioning congregations.
* Stories of handling criticism and authority may reflect a hierarchical model that not all communities accept.

3. **Spiritual Protection as Control**

* Advice to avoid listening to criticism or negative thoughts could be seen as suppressing dialogue.
* The metaphor of “pests” and guarding the church may feel like exclusionary gatekeeping to some.

4. **Personal Anecdotes**

* The sermon relies heavily on personal experience (family, church, gardening), which may resonate with some but feel less universally applicable to others.

---

### **Overall Message**

The sermon emphasizes unity, loyalty, joy, and spiritual protection within the church. It highlights vigilance against discontent and criticism, encourages trust in God and church leadership, and envisions both spiritual and numerical growth for the congregation. Controversy may arise around interpretations of sin, authority, and the handling of dissent.

What a fascinating post published by FriendlyFace. Thanks FF for providing this service.

I find this particularly fascinating as the response from Struthers leaders to posts that appear here and on the Latigo website has often been that the people writing the posts have “seeds of bitterness”, or to use some other form of ‘ad hominem’ attack.

According to Wikipedia:

Quote
Wikipedia article on ad hominem
Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.

That has always been a favourite response form the Struthers leadership – it is pretty well the only response to be honest, as they never actually engage in the substance of the argument. Even their response to the letter from Pauline (also published here by FriendlyFace) did not deal with the issues and arguments. No Bible verses, exposition or logical argument, just "we do whatever we feel like doing".

To return to the recent post though, the leaders cannot criticise this post for being prejudiced or opinionated in any way. This post was not written by a person subject to bias, it was written by an algorithm designed simply to draw out what is there. So the content of that post does accurately summarise the content of the sermon - and there are so, so many questionable points in this sermon.

The first that struck me is that the sermon claims,"Key verses emphasize seeking refuge in God, recognizing God as master, and the importance of loyalty to godly people."

Three claims, and I can find none of them mentioned in Psalm 16.

First, no verse in that psalm mentions seeking.

Neither is there any verse that says anything about God being “master” or being recognised as master.

Finally, there is nothing at all that says anything about being loyal to Godly people. Hardly surprising as that is the opposite of what the Bible tells us to do. As I have pointed out a number of times, the whole Christian message is we all make mistakes, which is why we are asked to judge whether specific actions are good, not to exalt some individuals as worthy of loyalty. This is totally unscriptural.

I could spend hours on the remainder of the sermon summary. If you for example look at section 4, “Role of Authority and Loyalty” there is absolutely nothing in this section which comes from the text. Nothing. Again, not surprising as none of it is scriptural. The last of these, that “Loyalty and trust within church relationships are highlighted as critical to spiritual fruitfulness.” is totally unscriptural and is not a message that would be preached by any other church on the planet.

In short, this is not a Christian sermon. It does not take a passage of scripture and examine what it says, it takes a passage of scripture then talks about a number of things that are not in that passage of scripture.

There is little point in me adding my comments though, as ChatGPT has already done an admirable job of pointing out the “controversial or notable points”.

These points that are listed are not a personal opinion, it is not someone with seeds of bitterness, it is not some sort of biased view, this is simply an objective analysis of the points made in the sermon.

What really horrifies me is however the statement in the post that:

Quote
Quote from previous post published by FriendlyFace
What concerned me the most was the number of people in the congregation who were full of praise for the sermon which was what prompted me to listen in the first place.

Are there really people in Struthers that think that was a good sermon? Taking a scripture and then making up stuff that is not scriptural and pretending the two are linked? For goodness sake, read the "controversial or notable points" above. If you were looking for another church to go to and read that, what would you think? Remember, this is not someone who is bias against struthers making these points, this is a system build to be objective. This is what is being said and it does not even meet normal earthly standards of what is reasonable. Even an AI system with no morality knows that.

Was re -reading posts and thinking about ALL the hurt and damage that people suffered , and no doubt are still suffering as a result of Struthers . No one has ever received acknowledgement nor apologies .

I laugh when I've heard some of the recent sermons preached state " we never tell you what to do or what not to do " .

Oh ... indeed they did and still do . any genuine person who dared disagree or ask a question was deemed to be demonic or " back sliding " .

So many genuine people ... hurt .
So many , damaged .

I pray for all those who are still caught up in it .