It is awful to read what others have gone through . I pray and hope you recover .

In the 80's ... I don't recall any "safeguarding " in place .

So many now ... who may have benefitted from that .

I truly pray that justice will be done .

And ... if there had been "safeguarding " ... I would have contacted them with many questions .

Hi
This is a long post but it addresses some of the posts re safeguarding and other posts in the forum.

In short terms, safeguarding is what we do to prevent harm, while child protection is the way in which we respond to harm.

There was child protection in the Church in the late 80’s …I remember I had to fill out a PVG to work with young people, for example. So what’s changed?
This is my understanding…. If you have anything different just respond.
Before the new safeguarding policy was put in place (I think was 2023 where training was given at camps and in individual Churches)the following could and was happening:
1. A young person (under 18)could be prayed with without written consent from the parent or guardian. This could be for deliverance, baptism in the Holy Spirit (their understanding I.e, you have to speak in tongues to be filled with spirit)or any other reason that the ‘anointed’ person had revelation for! They could also be identified in a public meeting as having a demon and needing deliverance.
2. Whether vulnerable adults were considered..under child protection in Struthers I don’t know.
3. So at youth groups those who were recognised by those in charge were allowed to lay on hands with any youth attending. In addition the young person could have been told that there was a need for deliverance. Told that they had specific demons which needs to be cast out etc
4. Some of these youths/ children did not have parents or other family in the Church (a young person testified to this as an adult in a separate video)
5. In addition young people, certainly under Alison Speirs ministry were taught to lay on hands with each other at a young age (under 18) it wasn’t just the adult (over 18) who was laying on hands in youth conferences.

Now this has changed under the new safeguarding policy:
1. Written consent is needed from parent / guardian to pray with someone under 18.
2. Again consent would need to come from a parent to discuss matters of deliverance etc. to under 18.
3. There is no longer ‘free’ moving about the youth or adult meeting to lay on hands. My understanding is that this takes place for example at front of meeting and only by permission of church leader.
4. Even if an adult is prayed with consent must be sought first before laying on of hands.
These are just some of the changes. The new safeguarding policy was written by someone who knows what they are talking about re Scottish safeguarding policies is quite extensive and you can find it in the churches website.

So what about historical abuse?
‘child protection is the way in which we respond to harm’

So basically the church should have and should be responding to any harm done to any young person in the Church at anytime.
In 31:8 report they talk about the 80s being a different era to now and how things are done differently.
My response to them is even in the late 80s the Church had some sort of child protection in place so they should have responded in a protective manner. They should have responded to ‘harm done.’

In the response to Falkirkbairn they state ‘they did not identify any abusive practises but note that prayer practise would not be appropriate for todays standard’
How can they say this when real harm was caused by these practises to a number of young people? To say it was alright to allow abuse of power in the 80s but it’s not ok to allow it today is utterly ridiculous.
Harm is harm whether it occurred in the 80’s or whether it occurred yesterday.
31:8 also state that ‘(prayer)practice today is noted to be governed by appropriate safeguarding checks, including consent’
Do they understand this only came into place in 2023. I do believe these are positive steps for the present and future but hold absolutely no weight for the past. Historical abuse is just that ABUSE.

In addition 31:8 say ‘the reviewer suggested that the individual (presumably Miss Jack)may have known that there was an unspecified issue’ ….there is therefore no evidence of misconduct’

Harm was done to a young person and that harm was not addressed by the leadership at the time in a manner that should have been protective and they should have recognised that the other ‘young person’ was in fact not ‘young’ but older (certainly 16 years or over). 1976 act states that someone of 16 cannot legally have a relationship with someone under 16. I say ‘ relationship’ here only because SMC may state it was consensual.
Even if it was (but we know it wasn’t) it was still an illegal act and should have been reported to the police to not only support Falkirkbairn but also to protect other young females.
Falkirkbairn had stated she was 14/15 and he was a few years older.
This should have been addressed by the leaders and recognised by 31:8 as harm I.e. misconduct. It was not. Instead an alleged perpetrator was let loose and a vulnerable young person (14 15 years)was not appropriately protected.

We can also look at other instances of misconduct / abuse re deliverance ministry that others have posted on the forum e.g Rainbow. Again to state that things were different in the 80’s / 90’s is also unacceptable. This was harm…

Let me ask the person(s)who did the report from 31:8 a question
‘If you had 15 year old child who attended Struthers Church in late 80s early 90s (you did not attend) who was pointed out in a public meeting and told they had a demon of uncleanness and then taken for hours of ministry. They were then left devastated not only by the public humiliation …because everyone now knows they are ‘unclean’ …but also terrified by the fact they are demon possessed which now left them with mental health issues would you shrug your shoulders and say oh well that was the 80s? All is well now that they have the correct safeguarding in place.
I think as a parent if I found out 10 or even 20 years later that this was one of the main causes for the mental breakdown of a 15 year old I certainly would not have shrugged it off as oh well it was the 80’s. I would act on it and want an appropriate apologetic response.

What needs to be recognised by SMC is that practises before the updated 2023 safeguarding did not protect those who needed protecting. That’s just a fact. Harm was done, not just to under 18 year olds but also to adults by the practises and preaching of SMC.
For example, Legalism abounded under Alison Speirs ministry because she did not know biblical standards. Even bringing in personality tests… called Enneagram which is recognised by orthodox Christian’s as arising from the occult:

‘It was left to another occultist, Óscar Ichazo, to connect the Enneagram to personality. Ichazo claimed to have discovered the personality type meaning of the Enneagram when it was taught to him by the Archangel Metraton while he was high on mescaline.’

Have the practises and preaching changed?
It appears they have changed their practises for the positive re laying on of hands, young people and adults.
What about the preaching ?
Well recent preaching has shown that this is not entirely the case… I’ll call it Diana’s radio sermon’
Advice for present and future leaders is to get proper biblical training.
Elim for example actually have trained ministers in place.
Get over the fear that biblical training robs you of the Holy Spirit. This is what I was told. No it doesn’t ….it’s actually the total opposite. The Holy Spirit rejoices in the proper teaching of the word
2nd Timothy 3;16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

What does each individual person on this forum want from SMC?
well that is for each of us to individually reiterate in a clear succinct statement.
What do I want:
A recognition that harm was done through
The preaching e.g. encouraged to remain single; dying to self in a manner that you had to strip away your personality which encouraged legalism; to go deep into God you had to ‘break’ to the leader in charge (came directly from the platform from Mary Black and Alison Speirs); wearing makeup, nail varnish, dying your hair, wearing certain types of clothes etc was a sin and you certainly wouldn’t be preaching or do any other ministry if you didn’t die to these; relationships outside of SMC were not approved of; the leaders were the anointed ones and you did NOT disagree or criticise them in any way even if it’s constructive; and deliverance ministry to quote some.
Teaching, Laying on of hands, discernment and word of knowledge was probably the one that caused most harm especially deliverance ministry.
That the above is now changed in a manner where
1. An individual is not shamed and left terrified by the supposed discernment of the appointed anointed ones.
2. Deliverance ministry is actually looked at in detail in the Bible …might surprise you what the word of God actually states about this ministry and how it is done. Certainly NOT in the way struthers have done it.
3. Teaching of the word is actually done properly using accurate exegesis of scripture I.e. to teach its intended meaning. Not take the word out of context for the purposes of relaying your ideology or using it to publicly discipline an individual or a group of people.
4. Use of the gifts of the spirit, e.g. use of prophecy….it is serious to say ‘the Lord or the Holy Spirit has said’ remember take not the Lords name in vain. There should be proper training in this and the congregation can’t just say to one another ‘oh the Holy Spirit told me to say that or thus….that’s not acceptable.
5. That there is never one to one ministry in a closed room in the Church or in someone’s home. Ministry should be carried out with two people that the individual completely trusts and consents to and also in a place that they feel comfortable with.
6. Proper training programmes so that all individuals can fulfil their calling in a Pentecostal Church re the gifts especially preaching and teaching.
7. the congregation also take part in decisions of finance, leadership, who is appointed as Directors etc. The Church is a body with Christ as Head, it is not an individual or a small group of individuals who separate themselves as the anointed ones, appointed by other anointed ones!
8. Where harm has genuinely been done to an individual in the past it is addressed and not ignored.

Am I asking too much?

Doesn’t have to be done overnight but steps in the right direction are a start!
Has all the above changed or changing with new safeguarding ….

We wait and see!

Here's what I would love to see:

The capitulation / deconstruction and ultimately, the closure of the entire organisation. It's history stained with the filthy stench of unrepentant shame, a track record of failed commercial enterprise and many members and ex-members riddled with psychological damage to varying degrees. Whilst I do have every sympathy for the impact to the children, I absolutely rejoice in the closure of the school.

No church in Inverclyde has generated the sheer scale of controversy that SMC has, and none, to my knowledge, has come close to inflicting the profound trauma and damage that SMC has wrought upon its members.

SHAME. No other word for it.

Anyone that says they know peoples sin, by gods revelations to humiliate them, is a false prophet.
They are happy to insist on tithes, yet keep people under control by targeted sermons and public humiliation.
Foxtrot Oscar and out

Daisy69 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone that says they know peoples sin, by gods
> revelations to humiliate them, is a false prophet.
> They are happy to insist on tithes, yet keep
> people under control by targeted sermons and
> public humiliation.
> Foxtrot Oscar and out

Absolutely spot on. An utter falsehood, a deception and a vile manipulation of trust. Nowadays, I'm deeply suspicious of anyone that claims special insight into how others should live their lives.

Do you know what history shows us? The more outspoken, the more they rail and preach against sin and degradation, the more likely THEY are to be deviant and depraved. The greater the appetite to point out the sin in others, the more likely it is that there is stuff going on behind closed doors that they'd rather you didn't know about. This psychological projection / moral hypocrisy should be called out and ended.

I think it may be destroying itself from within. There seems to be some -well, let’s call it confusion, as you could not possibly have unrest or discord- about the role Diana’s husband has.

Oh, and if it want an anti-Struthers quote from the greatly respected (even in Struthers circles) C.S. Lewis, he once said,

Quote
C.S. Lewis
Aristotle said some men were only fit to be slaves.

I do not contradict him.

But I reject slavery as I find no men fit to be masters.

There you go, even C.S. Lewis disagrees with the nonsense about always obeying you leaders and, in his usual succinct fashion, explains exactly why.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2024 01:54AM by ThePetitor.

I’ve been enjoying reading all of your posts in recent times. However, maybe “enjoying” is the wrong word because some of your experiences have been harrowing to say the least.

FalkirkBairn, the reply that you received from the Struthers Board in response to your complaint, is at best cold, callous and arrogant. And it skirts round addressing the main issue which you were complaining about, a very serious one, that of sexual assault. What does it matter when it occurred? That shouldn’t have any bearing on it being exposed and dealt with. As we know, there have been several cases of historic sexual abuse going back to the 1960s, which have been exposed and in some cases brought to Court, and which have been reported in the media in recent years. So, an incident which took place in the 1980s should be investigated in the same way. It is interesting about the number of views on the Forum skyrocketing after you put up the post about your complaint and the response. I know that many Struthers folk do follow this Forum regularly and I also know that some feel troubled about the recent revelations on here.

Amazing Grace, Thankyou for your detailed explanation regarding safeguarding and child protection. However, I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you on one point. In the 1980s there was no child protection, Disclosure or PVG certification, neither in Struthers nor anywhere else. At that time and on into the 90s, you could have kids in your house for Christian based Clubs, take kids in your car, take them to Kids Camps etc. All that was required was the parents’ permission. I had experience of this both in the secular and in church spheres.

The PVG scheme didn’t come into existence until well into the 2000s and it came about as a response to the Soham murders and the subsequent Bichard Enquiry which stipulated that any person who worked with children or vulnerable adults must be checked for past criminal convictions. This was to prevent a situation where someone like Ian Huntley could manage to get a job as a school caretaker.

Struthers had to comply with the law like everyone else and those who worked with children or teenagers had to get PVG certification. The problem with this is Struthers were only considering the dangers of people from outwith the church or new attendees and they were only considering abuse of a sexual nature. They weren’t considering abuse within the church in the form of spiritual or emotional abuse. None of that entered the leaders’ heads. So they have got away with spiritual and emotional abuse in the churches for years. Hopefully, now, with their more detailed Safeguarding Policy, they are having to be far more careful with laying on hands, praying for young folk and with deliverance, as Amazing Grace has outlined. I am certain that the exposure of their practices by people posting on this Forum, has forced them into making changes. Hurrah! Our Forum has had a big effect!!

Amazing Grace, re your comments about Alison Speirs, it wasn’t the Enneagram that she was teaching from re personality testing. It was Myers Briggs Personality Tests which are not the same and are based on Jungian psychology. The Enneagram is based on Sufi mysticism and is of course the occult. Whether Alison Speirs should have been doing sessions and testing folk on Myers Briggs on a Tuesday evening in place of a so-called Bible Study, is up for debate, but it wasn’t the worst thing she did in my view. Her reason for doing the sessions was to help people in the church get on better with one another. Well……..say no more.

Blackwatch, your descriptions of the state of affairs at Struthers is bang on, totally accurate and well put.

I was interested to read Diana’s “Thought for the week” this week (dated 20/10/24). It was based on Matthew 18v31, which says, “When some of the other servants saw this, they were very upset. They went to the king and told him everything that had happened.”

It advises readers to go to the King (referring to God), saying things like:

Quote
Thought for the week 20/1024
Even when you are ‘very upset’ as in this story, take the matter to the King. It will help enormously as you talk to Him about it all. He may lift the burden, give you a deeper understanding of the situation, or suddenly fill you with compassion for the one causing the upset. He may even ask you to deal with the situation.

There is little wrong with that as generic advice, especially as it includes the possibility of action. I am less impressed with the conclusion however, which is:

Quote
Thought for the week 20/1024
This is what God wants for His church. And so when you are very upset, take it to the King and tell Him everything that has happened. I guarantee it will lead to peace.

The problem here is that the idea of action has suddenly been dropped, and the message is that what you do when something upsets you is take it to God and you will then feel better. This is very far from the message of this passage.

First of all, this is a parable that Jesus told. The message of the story was about how you should treat others, not about how you should take things to God. As is often the case in Struthers, they take a single verse out of context and use it to say what they want to say. I know this is a "thought for the week" not a full-blown sermon, but it is still mis-using the Word of God, as it is using a verse to say the opposite of what it actually says in context. This is exactly the kind of thing that is done in sermons, where it is totally inappropriate.

The story is in fact not about taking things to God at all, it is about taking things to a human ruler and the human ruler taking action as a result. There is nothing about anyone feeling more peaceful.

It is also about a person who did things wrong. The servants were “very upset” because they saw injustice. They took this injustice to the person in charge and that person acted to correct the injustice. So this would be like, oh, I don’t know, someone noticing something that was wrong in the church and taking it to the leaders - who would immediate tell them they were wrong to criticise. Oh, sorry: I don’t know how that slipped in, I thought for a moment that was what happened in the parable – the servants went to the King and the King told them they were wrong to criticise him because he was the king and so he threw them all into prison.

I think I may have to back and read that passage again.

Seriously though folks, this is not Biblical teaching. This is taking a single verse out of context and teaching exactly the opposite of what it says. This passage says it is OK to tell Kings they are wrong and, if the King is wise, they will listen and act to correct injustice. Struthers never seems to preach about the Biblical requirement to ensure justice in the here and now and they say it is wrong to be critical, which is exactly the opposite of what Jesus is saying here.

There is also a huge part missing here, which relates to that justice question. The servants were upset because what they saw was unjust. They did not need to be comforted or made to feel better, they needed to see justice.

Take the case of David being confronted by the prophet Nathan. I am sure that he was “very upset” at what Nathan had just said. The answer in that case was not to “take it to God so that God would make him feel better”. It was to realise he had been in the wrong and to repent. Seems to me that is the kind of thing the leaders should be stating in their “thought for the week” – “I was wrong: I need to repent”. Not “you are wrong to be feeling upset or depressed and it is all your fault because you are not doing things right”.

What would have happened if David had reacted this way? He could have said – “look folks, I am really upset here, I need to take it to God and tell Him about it” then returned an hour later and said, “it is OK, I am much more peaceful now”.

This is not scriptural folks. This is not a good shepherd feeding the sheep, this is a bad shepherd who has lost a number of sheep over decades and, instead of doing what the Bible says and going out to find them, is barricading the doors so that no more can escape.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2024 02:45AM by ThePetitor.