Here is the follow up to the complaint that was sent to Struthers Memorial Church.

Thank you for your response to our complaint of 19th June 2024. We are following up regarding this matter as we are not satisfied with the response.

At the simplest and most mundane level, we do not accept that your response fulfils the requirements of your own policy.

We do not understand how any complaints policy can “envisage” additional criteria not recorded in the policy and therefore do not recognise the need for there to be a “known complainant”. This is not mentioned anywhere in the policy and cannot be arbitrarily introduced after the fact.

You also suggest that you do not regard anything posted to the forum as a formal complaint to the church. There are two problems with this. The first is that your own policy does not distinguish between formal and informal complaints. It simply defines a complaint as a written or verbal expression of dissatisfaction. As mentioned in our letter of complaint, the vast majority of the comments on the forum clearly fall within this definition.

That is the definition in your policy and is therefore the one you must apply. To do anything else not only to fails to meet the requirements of your own policy but compromises the personal integrity and professional standing of all involved in that decision.

The second problem is that, even if you did not consider information posted on the forum as a complaint, you should consider our letter as a complaint. What we are asking is that our letter is considered a letter of complaint and addressed in terms of your own policy.

Part of that letter asks you to look at the issues raised in the forum. That does not mean the forum is a complaint: it is our letter that is a complaint. It is clear from your policy that you must address this complaint that we have raised. Whether it references material that you consider in itself a complaint is not the issue. The letter is a complaint, so should be investigated.

We would of course expect the investigation to reference any material that we have cited, which in this case includes the material on the forum.

Moving beyond the very clear breach of policy here, there are other important considerations that move from the legalistic and mundane through issues around values and then to Christian principles.

In terms of values, your policy indicates that, “Struthers Memorial Church views complaints as an opportunity to learn and improve for the future, as well as a chance to put things right for the person or organisation that has made the complaint.”

If sincerely held, values are the foundation of policies, not simply a clause within a particular policy. The values embodied in these statements are that it is important to treat issues that arise as an opportunity to learn, and that it is a good thing to strive to put things right. If these values are held by the organisation, they should apply to all activities and situations, not just to one narrow policy. If these ideas are only applicable in the context of one specific policy, they are not actually sincerely-held values but are a trivial statement that is only applied in very specific situations. That is not a value in any normal sense of the word.

This poses the question of whether the ideas of seeking to learn from criticism and to make things right are sincerely held values or not. If they are, then Struthers Memorial Church should apply these values in every context, irrespective of whether a particular issue fits within a given policy or not. Values are used to develop the detail of a policy and policies are measured against them. “Learning from mistakes” and “setting things right” should therefore be applied irrespective of whether they are directly referenced in a particular context.

This is particularly apposite in the context of the kind of complaints raised through the forum, as there are numerous examples of people who have in the past raised questions personally and directly. Witnesses on the forum confirm that these questions have not been warmly received and were certainly not embraced as “an opportunity for the organisation to learn”. The result is that in many cases, those who have complained do not feel they are able to raise these matters again in person.

In these circumstances, it is particularly important that complainants have to opportunity to raise issues anonymously.

As you will be aware, this is something that courts of law take into consideration, allowing vulnerable witnesses to appear behind screens or to maintain their anonymity in other ways. Given the clear vulnerability demonstrated by a number of those posting on the forum, any reasonable person would expect extra care to be taken to ensure that these people had the opportunity to voice their concerns in a way that protects rather than exposes them. Insisting that people who feel they have been abused identify themselves is heaping further abuse on the victims.

It is the failure of the organisation to practice its own claimed values of learning and seeking to put things right that has sent people to the forum, as it is currently the only place where grievances can be shared. The only way to resolve this is to convince people that complaints will be handled independently, fairly and in line with your own procedures, and that complainants will be valued and treated with care rather than pre-judged and maligned.

Regrettably, this has not proved to be the case to date. The initial attempts to use spurious arguments to dismiss this complaint suggest that Struthers Memorial Church would prefer to dismiss complaints out-of-hand rather than learn from them. The many reports of character assassination directed against those who have complained (commented upon further below) provides further evidence that parts of the organisation are not applying the agreed policies and values. This clearly requires investigation.

The only solution we can see is that the organisation moves away from what appears to be an almost pathological indifference to anyone raising a concern, and embrace with enthusiasm this opportunity to address a number of issues that have plagued the church for years, using this to do exactly what your policy says- to “learn from” these “expressions of dissatisfaction” and to “set things right”.

This is the focus of the first part of our letter of complaint -that each of the individual expressions of dissatisfaction mentioned on the forum should as a result of our letter of complaint be treated as opportunities to both learn and put things right.

We did also in our letter of complaint raise other related points which were about comments made about those contributing to the forum by Struthers leaders. These points are copied below for your convenience.

Whether any statements critical of the contributors to the forum have been made (for example, that they are insincere, motivated by bitterness, mentally ill, lying, or inspired by some form of evil). If so:
* to whom on the forum do any such statements apply?
* was any sort of investigation carried out prior to making these statements?
* are any of these statement based on any sort of evidence that would be acceptable in secular courts - for example direct quotes from a person, a professional psychological examination etc.?
* are any of these statements based on any sort of direct revelation from God, such as a vision, dream or prophetic utterance?
* do SMC stand by any or all of these statements? If so, will your policy be amended to show that one possible result of raising a concern is not to be treated with respect, but instead to be branded a liar and an emissary of the devil, or subject to some other derogatory comment by a SMC leader, either privately or publicly?
* are there any statements that have been made along this line that SMC would condemn as inaccurate or inappropriate?
* are there any such statements that SMC neither endorses nor condemns? If so, what position do they take in regard to these statements?

The overall allegation here is that issues that are raised currently are not treated as opportunities to set things right and to learn, but that those raising the complaints are instead informed that they are the problem. There is ample public evidence that this is the case. As noted above, when those raising a complaint are publicly told they are the problem, it is clearly unreasonable to ask anyone to identify themselves before raising a complaint.

The above bullet points provide you with an opportunity to address this issues, clarifying once and for all whether you see complaints as an opportunity to set things right and an opportunity to learn, as stated in your policy, or as an opportunity to point out to the congregation how evil anyone outside of Struthers is, as has apparently been the practice in a number of cases. If you do believe that expressions of dissatisfaction are an opportunity to learn and to set things right you should take this opportunity to benefit from the learning opportunities afforded by our letter of complaint. If you one the other hand believe that complaints are an attack of the devil, you need to amend your complaints policy to say that.

What possible harm could an investigation into “question 2” above do? If an investigation showed that there was no such action by leaders - that the leadership had not in any way criticised those raising complaints - then they would be vindicated and in a strong position to rebut these accusations.

If on the other hand it was discovered that statements along this line had in fact been made, then those involved could be advised regarding their conduct and assurances about future conduct could be issued. Would either outcome not be helpful?

Furthermore, even if none of the above apply, you are a church that claims to hold to Biblical standards. Indeed your complaints policy and procedures use a quote from Matthew’s gospel as a foundation for your approach. Even if it an investigation was not required by policy or sincerely-held values (which we believe it is) it is absolutely required by scripture.

1 Corinthians Chapter 12: 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!”

24. …But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

That is what is happening here. Fellow Christians - part of the body of Christ - are raising serious concerns and advising people have been hurt. Rather than being concerned that part of the body that you are also part of is in pain, you are saying, “no, they are not part of this body, we have no responsibility for them”. How can God’s church thrive when you refuse to even acknowledge you are part of the same body?

If you see this in more adversarial terms, which it really does not need to be, there are of course also verses like:

Matthew 5v25: Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.

That in many ways reflects the position you chose to put yourselves in. There is an opportunity to settle matters as parts of the same body before it is all dragged into a very adversarial public forum - and the court of public opinion. There are a number of people who, for reasons mentioned above, do not feel comfortable raising issues directly with Struthers Memorial Church. Some are however happy to post anonymously and many are very keen to speak to third parties, including the BBC Panorama team who we now know have a large number of people willing to be interviewed on camera.

We honestly believe it would be in your interest, in the interest of those with concerns and, most importantly, would be very much in line with what God would want of His church for you to respond to the above points and to reach out to those making “verbal or written expressions of dissatisfaction” so that you can “set things right” and “learn from” the issues raised.

And even beyond all of that – the policy argument, the values argument, the biblical argument and the pragmatic argument - each of which is in any reasonable view sufficient to require an investigation - there is the one argument above all of that, the argument of grace. The key message of Christianity is to love one another and indeed, even to love your enemies. To claim to hold to Christian doctrine and not reach out to those who are raising concerns is simply untenable.

Finally, these comments have been written in response to the reply to the original letter of complaint. They reference the points raised by Diana Rutherford in that reply to the complaint.

This follow up letter is however, like the original complaint, addressed to the Directors of the company. It is the Directors who carry responsibility for the organisation both in the eyes of the law and, according to your own Articles of Association, in the eyes of the company itself.

We would therefore ask that all of the Directors are given sight of the original complaint, the reply we received from Diana, and this follow-up. We would in any reply welcome confirmation that the response is from the Directors, or the delegated authority that is in place that allows someone else to respond on behalf of the company.

As one of those reported to have made disparaging comments about at least one complainant is Diana Rutherford, we believe it would not be appropriate for her to have any role in investigating or responding to this complaint.

We look forward to your response.

Hi just a reminder. Some of us have arranged a informal meet on the 3oth of November so we all can offer support to others friendly gathering to talk about our feelings.
This is not a slag Struthers meet its to meet fellow ex members .old friends everyones welcome .If anyone would like information on this please send us a pm here .We really need numbers ect whos coming ect .

FriendlyFace, thank you for the update which makes for interesting reading.

It's good to see the effort that's being put into holding SMC to account. Your words will, I'm afraid, continue to fall on deaf ears and the horse, no matter how hard it's flogged, will remain dead.

This thread has been running for almost 15 years. The opportunity to be gracious, to be kind, to be understanding, sympathetic and welcoming has never been taken. The chance to show humility, shunned. Why? There is simply no appetite for it. There is no love.

Did The Christ himself not say "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another".

How then are we meant to interpret this situation? One might reasonably conclude that it is "anti-christian". What do we call people that say they'll do one thing and then do the opposite?

If ever there was a verse that summed it up perfectly it surely has to be this:

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

Blackwatch, I think you are spot on in your analysis. There is no interest at all caring for others, their only interest is in empire-building (although they seem to have little success at that). I suspect you are right and the complaint posted by FreindyFace (thanks FF for keeping us all informed) will not receive any sort of response that is kind, concerned, empathetic or gracious.

On another, but I think very pertinent note, we learned a couple of days ago that the Archbishop of Canterbury resigned because he did not respond with sufficient urgency and clarity to the abuses perpetrated by John Smyth: abuses that were described by Prime Minister Keir Starmer as “horrific in their scale and their content”.

So what were these abuses we ask? We heard the answer to that in an earlier post by Amazing Grace which quoted from the book, “Escaping the Maze of Spiritual Abuse” by Justin Humphreys and Lisa Oakley

Quote
Amazing Grace quoting from "Escaping the Maze of Spiritual Abuse"
There was … a psychological and emotional component. But what John Smyth did to us first and foremost was spiritual abuse. Without the spiritual dimension to his behaviour, there would have been no abuse at all. He would never have succeeded, over time, in eliciting our cooperation.

In his letter of resignation, Archbishop Welby did NOT take the Struthers line and say, “these complainants are all wicked, bitter people who should not be listened to”. What he said was, “The Makin review has exposed the long-maintained conspiracy of silence about the heinous abuses of John Smyth.” We all know that the Struthers leaders will eventually have to say that, whether it is the current batch or a different batch of leaders in ten, twenty or fifty years time. The only question is when they will admit it.

Readers may also have noted that there are a few new articles on the Latigo site, one of which looks at the 3 November 2024 “thought for the week”. I would encourage everyone to read that article as it is very relevant to this issue.

You can get more detail and analysis on the Latigo site but, for now, it is worth noting that the “thought for the week” referenced apparently talks about “ the unity, the bond, and the trust that bound you in the body of Christ.” That seems to me reasonable Biblical, as long as it is referring to what it says – “the body of Christ”: the one and only Church of God, which is the body of all believers, and of course includes many contributors to this forum.

I am not entirely sure of the language used, as I can find no verses that talk about “trust binding you in the body”, but we are certainly all unified in Christ, and should treat all believers, not just those in our own denomination, as brothers and sisters in Christ.

That sort of statement we see in the "thought for the week" is one of the problems with a total lack of any real Biblical study I guess: making up terms that are a conglomeration of vaguely spiritual terminology (binding you in the body; creating a wedge between you and the prophets) and distorted concepts (calling fellow-believers who are part of the church of Christ “wolves” and “the enemy”; calling people 'prophets' when they fail the Biblical test for being a prophet ). It all sounds vaguely plausible on the surface but underneath it is neither logical nor Biblical.

(And, as a bit of an afterthought, if you do read the Latino article, I think you may wonder if Diana made typo and meant to call it "thought for the weak" as that seems to be what she is actually saying - that people who have sat under her Ministry for decades are all weak.)

I thought I would take the chance to look at the Makin review into the abuses by John Smyth. There are a number of very interesting sections and recommendations including:

Quote
The Makin review paragraph 21.2
There is evidence throughout of 'groupthink'[Footnote 103], where people are receiving all their influences within a closed group and becoming blind to external influence and thinking, and to other perspectives. John Smyth fostered such thinking himself, deliberately creating small, closed, groups, within which boys and young men felt special and party to a secret. There is a need for the Church to be sure that such introspective groupings cannot be created, with training and policies and procedures geared to spotting and preventing their development.

103 the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group, resulting typically in unchallenged, poor-quality decision-making

Sound familiar? I wonder what policies Struthers has to avoid this sort of dangerous groupthink!

Actually, the paragraph before that is pretty relevant as well:

Quote
The Makin Review paragraph 21.1
John Smyth was able to radicalise his victims, by using his misinterpretation and misuse of the Scriptures. He taught, preached, and exploited children and young people by applying a false theology, based on selected Scriptures, taken out of context. He mis-used the writings and views of various conservative theologians, primarily from the United States, including AW Tozer, Billy Graham, SD Gordon and Jim Packer. He contended that the way to Christ was through suffering, and he offered a “programme” which included ensuring that suffering was a route to the atonement of sins. This false thinking and perverted approach was known to the people around him and could have been challenged for what it was. Similar approaches were taken by him in Zimbabwe. He has been viewed by some commentators as being a “good Christian” who went too far. This Review’s conclusion is that he was a skilled and determined narcissist, who derived pleasure from the sufferings of others, as we have detailed in the narrative and has been analysed by Dr Elly Hanson in her report. It is the responsibility of leaders in the Church, and wider bodies and organisations, to be able to identify such false and dangerous theologies and to make sure that they are not allowed to develop.

Substitute a focus on a false, unbiblical form of holiness and the parallels are not hard to see. I wonder if John Makin or the psychologist mentioned (Dr Elly Hanson) would reach a conclusion similar to the above.

Defo misuse of the bible. I would sit there listening, and think what!!!!
It’s their spin on it.
Worst ever were the recent instagram sermons. It was like watching a dictator ranting.
And people pay money to go and be insulted.
Take this as a complaint leadership

I have made friendships here that will stay with me forever.
Those friendships gave me strength when I really needed it.
The church needs to look from within and understand what they have done wrong.

Daisy,

Exactly.

If you do a quick internet search (or, unlike those in Struthers, actually study some theology) you will find that:

Quote

]Exegesis is legitimate interpretation which "reads out of' the text what the original author or authors meant to convey. Eisegesis, on the other hand, reads into the text what the interpreter wishes to find or thinks he or she finds there. It expresses the reader's own subjective ideas, not the meaning which is in the text.

It is very clear which of these is practiced in Struthers.

As someone who was raised in the church during the 70's & 80's, I can assure you that no admission of any wrong-doing by church leadership will be forth-coming, EVER. They are never wrong and neither should their actions be questioned. Your petitions and letter-writing will simply fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.
As a child I was emotionally and spiritually abused in the most horrific manner leaving me with deep psychological issues which I worked through by simply living and enjoying a church-free life. At the ripe old age of 57, my parents apologised to me for exposing me to such an emotionally crippling and harmful regime. But have the church/leadership ever apologised? No. Don't be silly. As a 14 year old the incoming batch of youngsters was told by Jennifer Jack (Falkirk) to stay away from me as I was not good enough or Godly enough! I had never spoken to the woman in my life before so how could she come to that conclusion? I'm still waiting for an apology from her. Will I get it? No, of course I won't. And neither will you good folks.

Would it interest you to know that almost 30 long- standing members have left the church in the last 2 months? These particular members were nurtured and cared for by the leadership and ultimately given positions of leadership and responsibility. Things must be really bad if the "favoured ones" are detecting...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2024 07:31AM by Mulberry.