ThePetitor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, quite a response form SMC. Thanks
> FriendlyFace for passing this on.
>
> The first thing that strikes me about this
> response is the blatant disregard for their own
> policy. Their policy is very clear, and the
> follow up to the letter of complaint pointed out a
> number of implications and requirements of that
> policy. SMC have however ignored all of that,
> their answer is basically, “It says that in our
> policy, but that is not what we meant, so we are
> not going to do it.”
>
> What? That is like agreeing to work for someone
> for £200 a day and when you get your pay, you have
> only been given £100 a day. You complain and say,
> “There seems to be a mistake here, you said you
> would give me £200 a day” and get the Struthers
> reply, “yes, I know that is what we said, but now
> that we realise the implications of our £200 a day
> policy, we have decided not to do that.”
>
> That would not stand up in any legal court in the
> land, nor does it stand up to any moral scrutiny.
> This is lying, dissembling and totally dishonest.
> If you say you will implement a policy, you have
> to do so.
>
> This makes a farce of any meetings, policy or
> promises. What happened to the Biblical, “let
> your yes be yes and your no be no?” What is the
> point of taking this elsewhere? If someone
> complained to the Charity Commission, Struthers
> could simply issue a statement saying, “oops,
> sorry about that, we will sort it though, we have
> a new policy that we will in future implement our
> policies.” It would not be worth the paper it is
> written on though, they have just made it 100%
> clear that it does not matter what policies they
> have, they have no intention of implementing them.
>
> Nothing in their reply makes any reference to
> their existing policy and why parts should or
> should not apply. How can a sensible discussion
> be had when they are simply prepared to lie. That
> is what their “complaints policy” is – a blatant
> lie. It is not what they do, it is just a
> worthless piece of paper.
>
> No, it is worse than that, it is a deceptive piece
> of paper, offering hope where there is none.
> Appalling. If they had a paid HR department, the
> officers could probably be reported to their
> professional body and sacked over this sort of
> disregard for their own policies.
>
> The second thing that struck me was that the reply
> does actually come closer to what Struthers really
> thinks. They do not care about whether anyone
> went wrong whether anyone was hurt or any
> opportunity to learn (in spite of that being a
> stated aim), all they care about is
> “reconciliation”. Really? Think about a domestic
> abuse situation for a moment. If a woman is being
> abused by a man (not the only possible scenario,
> but still the most common by far) and they submit
> a complaint, the complaint will not be dealt with
> on its own merit, but will only be considered as a
> means to an end – as a way to broach
> reconciliation? So they have no interest in
> whether any abuse took place or whether anyone
> should be held to account, all they seek is
> reconciliation.
>
> You do realise that means that if Gisele Pelicot’s
> husband has been in a leadership role in
> Struthers, and she had submitted her complaint to
> them, they would have said they would only look
> into the complaint as a means to reconciliation,
> they would not have investigated any abuse or
> harm.
>
> This is horrendous. People are alleging serious
> abuse and the response is “we will only look at it
> through the lens of reconciliation”. No
> openness, no justice, no compassion, only
> (potential) "reconciliation". What is someone
> does not want to be reconciled? Do you really
> think for one moment that Gisele Pelicot would
> agree to that unilaterally imposed pre-condition?
>
> That means anyone not committed to reconciliation
> are not allowed to submit a complaint. So, in
> typical Struthers fashion, the first thing you
> have to do is agree to their terms and their
> authority. Only once you have kissed the ring
> will you be listened to.


Hi, but don't you think the point is that anonymous complaints cannot be appropriately addressed when they don't know what it's about?

And a couple of thoughts about reconciliation. I think it’s a Biblical goal to be reconciled even as God reconciled us to himself through the death of his Son.

Having said this, I don't think reconciliation means coming under someone's control. It means both parties listening, recognizing the hurt, going through the difficult emotions we have in our hearts and finally arriving at forgiveness.

It would mean each party apologizing for their own shortcomings, at meeting each other at the foot of the cross, at trying to understand the other person's point of view. It would require humility and Christlikeness from both parties.

To go through the process in one's own heart one may need therapy or counseling.

I also realize that reconciliation doesn't mean we have to keep on going to a particular church or keeping in touch with a particular person. God can have different phases for our lives.

But reconciliation means we have tried to talk to that person or church, and done our best at our end. It means we've gone through the process in our own hearts.

While I don't agree on everything that's said on this forum,I can sense there's real pain in many a heart. And a sense that the pain has been neglected.

Then a couple of thoughts about the process of our own hearts I referred to above.

The pain in a person's heart can actually originate from our earlier wounds that we have received perhaps from our parents or other early caregivers. When we meet a similar circumstance later in life, it can trigger the old wounds and the old pain. If we don't realize this, we only blame the present circumstances.

I'm reminded of the words from Ezekiel 34: "I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord.I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak."

The Good Shepherd has a word for all those who are suffering: "Come to Me! I will heal you! I will lead you by the hand. I will show you your place. I will help you to forgive and to move on."

He loves you. He can heal you. He wants to give you a hope and a future. Take His hand now in yours. All will be well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2024 01:51AM by BlessedChild.

Anonymous complaints are very difficult for organisations to progress, and the approach to them varies particularly for charities.

That said, SMC needs to be asking:
- Why do people feel unable to identify themselves in complaints? Do they feel unsafe? Do they feel they would not be treated fairly? What are SMC doing to make people feel that way? (Blaming the devil for other peoples feelings from the pulpit, instead of taking accountability for their own actions and behaviours, is not good enough).
- What will they do with the information they have received given that there is a very clear pattern of abuse within the organisation that is mirrored in these complaints? The consistency of criticism against the organisation demonstrates that, although anonymous, the complaint is not vexatious. It should be taken seriously.
- Many people are currently leaving the organisation, including those who have held leadership roles. How will members feel that the abusive culture of the organisation is being addressed if complaints, even if anonymous, are so readily dismissed via technicalities.

It is clear as day that the organisation is in it's final season and will be wrapped up within a decade, but the research is clear that coercive and abuse organisations with fundamentalist and extremist beliefs and practices often intensify and double down in these stages. It's potentially more dangerous to be a member of SMC than it ever has been.

BlessedChild

Welcome to the Forum. I suspect you will be like other Stuthers sympathisers who have come on here: you will ask a few questions and expect people to answer, but will make no attempt at all to answer any questions directed to you. You will then get fed up and stop posting. I hope that is not the case and you are happy to get involved in some serious debate, but I will not hold my breath.

So, hey, let’s play the game and give it a go.

Quote
BleessedChild
Hi, but don't you think the point is that anonymous complaints cannot be appropriately addressed when they don't know what it's about?

What we are talking about here is anonymous complaints, we are not talking about “anonymous complains when they don’t know what it is about”.

Please re-read the posts from Friendly Face and confirm which of the two categories you thing the FF letter of complaint and follow up fit into:

1) An anonymous complaint where it is pretty clear what the complaint is about

OR

2) An anonymous complain where the recipients don’t know what it is about.

Quote
BlessedChild
The pain in a person's heart can actually originate from our earlier wounds that we have received perhaps from our parents or other early caregivers. When we meet a similar circumstance later in life, it can trigger the old wounds and the old pain. If we don't realize this, we only blame the present circumstances.

Yes, I agree that can happen. It is of course also true that

Quote
Slight adaptation of the words of BlessedChild
The pain in a person's heart can actually originate from our earlier wounds that we have received perhaps from a church that treated us badly. When we meet a similar circumstance later in life, it can trigger the old wounds and the old pain. If we don't realize this, we only blame the present circumstances.

In the former case, it is possible that other wounds are being falsely attributed to Struthers. In the latter case, it is possible that other wounds that should be attributed to Struthers are falsely attributed to a spose, a work situation of some other event.

Do you have any evidence that either of these are happening and, if so, that the former happens more often that the latter?

I have no argument with the verse you quote from Ezekiel, although the way you use it is more eisegesis than exegesis and, unsurprisingly, this leads to a bit of confusion. At one point you say, “To go through the process in one's own heart one may need therapy or counselling.” but you then say, “The Good Shepherd has a word for all those who are suffering: ‘Come to Me! I will heal you! I will lead you by the hand. I will show you your place. I will help you to forgive and to move on.” He loves you. He can heal you. He wants to give you a hope and a future. Take His hand now in yours. All will be well.”

Which is it? Should folks look to God for healing or look to therapy?

There are lots of other verses in the Bible as well however. What about “A new Commandment, I give unto you, that you love one another, as I have loved you.” Should the leaders of Struthers not be taking this to heart and seeking themselves to do all that you attribute to God - the healing, loving, giving of hope?

And before I leave that paragraph, I note that you have also used a standard Struthers technique by making up what God is saying to people.

Quote
BlessedChild, claiming these words are from God
I will help you to forgive and move on.

Really - how do you know that there is anyone on this forum who needs help to forgive? Is that a divine revelation - has God told you that there are people on this forum that need to forgive? Or is it perhaps some sort of private knowledge - have you spoken to individuals who post here who have said that they are struggling to forgive? If it is neither of these, is it perhaps human wisdom? Some sort of judgement you have made because you have expertise in this area? If so, what qualifications do you have to make that judgement? I know two psychologists who read this forum and neither of them think that is what is needed.


So, after all that, my question to you. Did Struthers Memorial Church correctly apply their own policies in the way they replied to the complaint posted by FriendlyFace?

Hi
Welcome to the forum blessed child.
Just commenting on some of your statements.
‘And a couple of thoughts about reconciliation. I think it’s a Biblical goal to be reconciled even as God reconciled us to himself through the death of his Son.’
reconciliation means we have tried to talk to that person or church, and done our best at our end. It means we've gone through the process in our own hearts.

I think you’re confusing reconciliation and forgiveness.
You have made the first of many presumptions.
Most of the people on this forum have actually forgiven the spiritual abuse, the unbiblical pastoring and true neglect of the sheep just to state a few.
To quote a biblical approach:
‘ However, many people make the mistake of treating this command to include both forgiveness and reconciliation as if they are synonymous, and must be packaged together. This is not the case. They are two distinct things, and they do not always go together. Forgiveness does not always lead to reconciliation’
And
‘The difference between forgiveness and reconciliation is that forgiveness requires nothing from the person we’re forgiving. They don’t even have to know we are forgiving them. Reconciliation requires repentance from the offender, and even then, he or she does not dictate the terms of reconciliation’

You see most of the people have went through a process ‘in our own hearts’.. a real life changing process where we realised by the grace of GOD that true forgiveness is freedom in Christ and also

that there may never be any reconciliation (or restitution)with regards to SMC.

This latter part for me was difficult, when I faced the truth of this, after talking to different people (including leadership or those in trusted positions)from SMC that there would never be any acceptance on their part that they had caused harm - in this case deep spiritual harm. Which can leave a lifetime of warped understanding of true Christianity. But as I said but the grace of God changed that. Years of listening to true biblical exegesis slowly unravelled all the wrong thinking .. it was truly amazing… the work of the real Holy Spirit .. as I realised ‘oh that’s what that verse actually means’!! Or that’s what a true minister of the Gospel is like.
As Christian’s we do need to accept that those in leadership do need to be held accountable for not only their teaching but also their actions.
This forum is bringing into the light the actions of leadership that need to be addressed. Yes there can be forgiveness for personal trauma but there is also the desire to see no more harm done. The latter is one of the objectives of the forum.

No more harm done means that the leadership and the congregation need to look at their unbiblical practises, repent and change so that the prisoner is truly set free into the freedom of Christ and not put into more bondage.

You also stated

‘The pain in a person's heart can actually originate from our earlier wounds that we have received perhaps from our parents or other early caregivers. When we meet a similar circumstance later in life, it can trigger the old wounds and the old pain. If we don't realise this, we only blame the present circumstances.’

This is yet another presumption I.e. that those in the forum are in bondage to childhood trauma. This statement is so wrong on many accounts.
Yes I believe that for some there maybe unhealed wounds from childhood trauma .. I don’t know everyone’s testimony but I also believe that this is also very private and also does not take away the fact that SMC caused harm!
But I would say
1. This is in fact not the case for many on this forum i.e. that we have unhealed childhood trauma that is affecting our present circumstances.
And
2. Do you not believe in your own leaders ‘anointing’ in that surely these wounds would have been healed because they would have been discerned and then ministered to?? Did Diana not actually preach that a couple of weeks ago that through her depth in the Holy Spirit that she feeds the flock and leads them to Christ?

In addition you are also forgetting that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is also not limited to SMC. He leads us into freedom in Christ… if we had wounds from trauma in childhood can Christ not heal them? That is another presumption ..that they remain unhealed!

I wonder if you are someone prominent in SMC… that you do minister to the congregation in someway, maybe an assistant pastor. You may even be one of the directors?
But this is speculation on my part.. a bit like you are speculating because I don’t have all the facts. Also your privacy is also important.
I’m going on your last statement:

‘He loves you. He can heal you. He wants to give you a hope and a future. Take His hand now in yours. All will be well’
Which is just rhetoric.
You see the people on this forum do have a hope and a future… a very positive one (another presumption) We know Jesus can help because we have really experienced it.
Stating ‘all will be well’ in this life is also another presumption… rhetoric.

Suffering is also part of the Christian walk. We will grieve the loss of loved ones. We may have and may still encounter circumstance's that are beyond our control and of the kind that can shatter a soul….but Christ.

You talk of reconciliation, your first step towards that is to accept that genuine harm has been done. This should then lead you to look at what changes you need to make to help true change come about in the structure and leadership of SMC.
Maybe the leadership need training from outside SMC…start supporting the gospel by actually sending your up and coming pastors to a Bible school. There are Pentecostal ones out there in case you fear the loss of the Holy Spirit.

If you are in a position of authority in SMC please use that to see real change …have the courage to hold each other accountable which includes historical harm.

As I said I don’t know who you are but I pray that God will grant you the wisdom and grace on how to respond to what’s happening on the forum and what’s happening across the SMC churches at present and to see the truth.
We have a short journey in this life and I can only hope that the rest of your journey will reflect psalm 119:105

‘Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.’

Thanks Amazing Grace, you are absolutely right about the level of presumptions in the post by BlessedChild.

Your comments led me to have another look, and I have spotted another presumption, which is, "It would mean each party apologizing for their own shortcomings".

So BlessedChild, you are aware of every situation here and know that in every single case, there are shortcomings on both sides. Really? Even if a responsible adult took a child aside or (as been reported here) regularly took a young person under 18 out in the car with no-one else present and without parental permission and knowledge, then there are shortcomings on both sides?

That is actually a very nasty assumption that attributes blame to people where there is no evidence of any wrongdoing.

I guess you would apply that same logic to Gisele Pelicot - that she should seek reconciliation and be prepared to admit there were shortcomings on both sides. That really is quite a horrible way to treat victims.

Hi everyone. I hope you're well. I've been quiet for a long time for different reasons but I still read all your posts.

It’s interesting to hear so many have left struthers. But I have concerns.

I expect the recent leavers will come together and create a ‘new’ Struthers. Andrew Jewell will get the position of power that he so desired. They will bring in a new generation of young people who will sadly experience what so many of us did. Miss Black had promised him that he would be ‘next in command’. (I do know this for a fact) It was a given, so it must have come as a shock when Mrs gault stepped down and everything was passed to Diana. I believe the jewells and the rutherfords had a close relationship for many years so its interesting that this has happened.

I know his daughter and husband left the church because of the challenges they faced being a young and in love couple. I empathise with them. Maybe Andrew and his wife faced what so many parents did over years. That must have been hard. It's sad that they never offered any support to others, maybe if they had their experience would have been different. I know that many on here know who I am. I would rather be annonymous but its the way it is. I have no hate towards these people or struthers. I did have a horrible amount of hurt but I have had a lot of help that I have invested in to make sure I get better. Abuse is abuse. Physical, mental or spiritual. I'm very disappointed by the responses to the complaints.

If you are struggling after your experience at stuthers memorial church please do not play down what you have gone through. Please seek help.

I do fear for those still there or in the care of these people that have left. They have not changed. They are dangerous.

Did the current ‘leavers’ leave because they realised that the church was toxic and destroying lives? Or did they leave because they didn't get what they want?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2024 07:16PM by Rainbow.

I don't know if any of you have heard about the nasty happenings on Daystar TV, which pretends to be a Christian channel but is far from it.

Started by Joni Lamb and her now deceased husband Marcus, Daystar continues to promote false teachings.

Her son and daughter in law who worked for them for many years, spoke to Joni a while back about alleged sexual abuse that happens with their 8 year old daughter at Daystar. This was rubbished by Joni as God "told her" that the accused didn't do it.

The story is a long one that I won't go in to. They're is loads about it on YouTube

However Daniel Long and his wife Robin discuss here the abuse that goes on in"churches" and they touch on a lot of things that some on here may recognise. I'll put the link here

[youtu.be]

They also recommend a great book called 'Bully pulpit' by Michael J Krugar

I'd like to apologise publicly to Mulberry for calling her (or him?) Blueberry!! I'm fascinated by the pseudonyms people choose and even though they disguise our real names I think they are chosen for a meaningful reason, hence my apology.

Rainbow, that is an interesting speculation re Andrew Jewell. The creation of a new fellowship would certainly be an interesting development. Apart from anything else, it would I am sure draw even more people away from Struthers.

I have to say I do not really get this obsession with “going it alone” though – if people who leave Struthers have so much to offer, why not offer it to an existing church? Why not join some other fellowship and work there? What is it that can only be done in Struthers or in a Struthers clone? I am genuinely interested in that question.

Could they not for example look at something like Mez McConnell’s “20 schemes”, set up to bring the gospel to 20 housing schemes in Scotland? Would it not be better to work with them or some other organisation to reach new people rather than set up a cosy inward-looking group designed not to reach and serve the community but to make the leader feel good about themself?

Anyway, that aside, I wonder what people are thinking of it all. It must be a problem for those who have been taught that their “the leader is perfect and must be worshiped” as they now have to decide which one of them is perfect and which has lost their way. It is sad they do not question whether it might be the whole model of “you must obey your leaders” and “Struthers is so much better than everywhere else” that is wrong.

Instead of assuming that the only possibility is that it is one of the Struthers leaders that is right, could people not broaden their horizons a bit? How on earth do folk reach the conclusion that it is only one of the Struthers leaders that can possibly be the one who is “right”, and the only option you have is to follow either the ones that leave or the ones that remain? Who made that the choice you have to make?

Why not visit other churches, not to see how warm and cosy they make you feel inside (not a concept that is mentioned in the Bible), but to see how well they teach from the Word of God and practice what they preach.

That in itself would be a useful topic for exploration – what exactly is it you should be looking for in a church? Clearly anyone who gives a prophesy like the “New Year Word” that does not come true should be excluded as a false prophet - that is what scripture says very clearly - but, once you have excluded that option, how do you find a church to attend? If anyone is interested, there are a number of good websites that address that question.

While I could add my thoughts, I of course do not have all the answers to what makes a good church, but I would suggest that if Andrew Jewell is setting up his own church one thing he should do is speak to some people on this forum, not to hear or indulge in rumour or criticism, but to genuinely ask what went wrong and how it can be avoided second time around. He does not need to follow any advice given, but even the humble act of asking for counsel from others would go a long way to distance himself from the arrogant Struthers model.

I have not looked back, but I think there are also specific criticisms of him on this forum. If so, he should clearly apply Matthew 5v23&24, leaving his gift at the alter until he has first gone to be reconciled with his brother or sister by apologising and asking their forgiveness.

Whether he does these things will I suspect determine whether this forum effectively becomes “the forum about Struthers Memorial Church and also the offshoot that was set up when people left” or “the forum about Struthers Memorial Church but not the offshoot that was set up when a group of people left.”

Talking of people leaving.


It appears that Struthers Director and Board Secretary Pauline Anderson has resigned both those roles and is no longer part of the Struthers Church executive which she has been on since long before 2007 (when it became an incorporated charity).


Does that also mean she is no longer running the notional "church in London"?


No separate confirmation on that but if you look at the Cumbernauld website (which is now the one most often updated) and the list of churches within the Struthers Group you might notice England and London are suddenly no longer included.