I heartily concur with The Petitor in his comments about Andrew Jewell & other SMC survivors who may be tempted to set up their own little empires based on the (failed) Struther's model. I'm familiar with Mez McConnell's "21 Sshemes" and have good friends who are involved with that work, so certainly endorse Mez's vision of church planting. A whole new, exciting, fulfilling ministry could open up for the hurting, disappointed, disillusioned ex-Struther's contingent if they are indeed willing to broaden their limited horizons.

Thanks Pheobe, it is interesting that you too have heard of 20 (or 21?) Schemes and value the work they are doing. If others are interested, I am sure there is info online, and there is also a book called “Unexceptional” by Sharon Dickens that touches on their work and related projects at an individual and practical level. Well worth adding to the Christmas list.

On another note I find it interesting that we have not heard further from BlessedChild. There may of course be all sorts for reasons for that, so forgive me if I am wrong and there are other factors in play, but I am not really surprised at not hearing further. I suspect it was a Struthers leader who thought they would come on to the forum and amaze everyone with their incisive and irrefutable message.

That is the problem with surrounding yourself with sycophants who have been taught never to question their leaders. Because you are surrounded with people who are not allowed to question you, the result is… er… what is it again… let me think… oh yes, I know – that you are not questioned. Funny that.

Of course, when you are not questioned, you think you have all the best arguments and are right about everything – you must be, as no one ever questions you or is able to refute anything you say – wow, you are so wise!

That only works inside the Struthers bubble though – as soon as you step out of that bubble, people apply Biblical principles and test the word that you give. You are suddenly no longer the oracle who cannot be questioned but just another individual whose words are judged by their content, not by who it is that says them. I guess that is a tough lesson to learn if you have been surrounded by sycophants for decades.

Someone contributing like this does allow people to see just how poorly thought out the Struthers approach is though. The thinking is not really is not very robust if it can only be used within the non-criticism bubble and falls flat on its face if exposed to the real world.

Can you imagine St Paul working that way – “I will only preach if you promise not to criticise me” and “I tried arguing with people outside of my immediate circle but it was terrible – some of them argued back – I am certainly not doing that again.”

Is that the kind of leader you want to follow?

BlessedChild Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

This sounds suspiciously like a "Diana" sermon.

Phoebe 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Absolutely no offence taken. Apology not necessary.

Just one Question?
What's the aim of this forum? I have been asking myself this past few weeks would love everyone's view on this

Good question Falkirk bairn

Hi
Falkirkbairn ..I asked the same question back in post 197 and only blackwatch answered.
They were very clear what they want from the forum I.e. re SMC.
Rensil didn’t directly answer my post but did state they believed black watches statement was totally accurate and bang on so would presume they agree with blackwatch! No one else commented!

But it is good to be asked again?

I won’t re publish post here if any one is re-interested can see the question and my answer at end of my post on 197 after safeguarding comments.

If I don’t post again hope everyone has a lovely Christmas and all the best for the New Year 2025.

Thanks Amazing Grace.. Sorry to reask the question .Totally missed you asking it for some reason. Think I had alot on my mind back then.

I still would like some folks opion on this. AS its been on my mind latley after someone asking me this .

I know what I see this forum as and wonder if others think the same.

FalkirkBairn,
It is a fair question. Basilisk also asked something similar back on p183. A few folk gave helpful answers at that time. Look forward to any additional thoughts from folks.

I don’t have much to add, but I would say I think there is a deeper question, which is, “how does the world work”.

For clarity, I am not distinguishing “the world” and “the kingdom of God” here - I mean “how does creation work” or “how does life work” if you prefer that language.

I think it is very clear from everyday chats, from the news and from the Bible that one of the ways this life works is, “the truth will out”. There really are no matters that are discussed in secret that do not eventually come out.

So in my view, the kind of issues talked about on this forum will be discussed somewhere. The only question is where.

If Struthers or any offshoots approach people openly and publicly to say they are sorry and are willing to genuinely consider the issues, there would be no need for this forum. You only have to read their response to the letter of complaint (posted by FriendlyFace) to realise they are totally unwilling to do this however – they seek to avoid any sort of scrutiny or discussion unless it is held in their secret little club and in accordance with their (unwritten) rules.

The end result is this forum. That is not because people set out to create it or because it is an attack of the devil, or even really because there is some sort of coherent purpose behind it. It is just the way things work – if you try to block direct discussion, it will find another medium. It is never going to go away, that just does not happen. The discussion is going to talk place anyway, whether it is here, on the BBC, or if someone writes a book (now there’s an idea!) It will happen, we know that, so the only question is where.

All the Struthers leaders are doing are excluding themselves from that discussion because of their arrogance and lack of understanding of how thing work outside of their little bubble.

It would be much better for all if they actually tried to engage with the discussion, not try to control it, shut it down or divert attention from it. In my view, the underlying issues are fairly manageable, the problem is the response to these issues. It is that response that inevitably leads to issues being aired on this forum and elsewhere.

Hello everyone - I am catching up on the contributions since the summer. I tend to come back to good ol' SMC and this forum at holiday time because that is when I stop, my mind runs free to think about where I am mentally in life, how my family relationships are, and that by its nature involves some thinking around my family circumstances and SMC.

Christmas can be very difficult for SMC survivors who still have family members inside. I have to be careful about how I write here and it may be the same for some other readers and contributors. There is vast amount of family pain in the SMC orbit.

Anyway, Petifor's last post rings exceedingly true for me. I wholeheartedly agree that "the truth will out" and that it is a matter of time.

I left SMC 40 years ago after the financial scandal when my family was broken apart - some stayed, some left - and I remember saying to family who left - it will take another full round of generation before there will be change and upheaval again.

It will only be when the "stayers" children encounter sufficient emotional pain to shift the loyalty scale for parents that change will come ie face the question, "Do I protect my child, or do I protect SMC who are so definitely the Lord's Annointed and who will ostracise me if I speak up?"

There has been a change of Trustees. At least some of them are more familiar with an externl world than the previous power weilding ones ie they are not all teachers or homemakers (no denigration to homemakers, just power wielding maniacal homemakers!).

But unfortunately they are now in the circle. And power corrupts over time. Group think happens. Ostracisation is the very real consequence of speaking up.

I do notice there are still conflicts of interest. Too many repeat surnames. I am going to look up best practice governance and put some links in a future post in next couple of weeks.

And did anyone notice the heartbreaking changeover of the 2 trustees with the same surname - check out the dates of birth on Companies House - wouldn't like to be in that family this Christmas.

Coming back to the posts of the past 6 months - I couldn't believe it that SMC had actually approached thirty-one eight. That does show new thinking. I know contributors have been very sceptical about that involvement and the responses to official complaints, but I am still amazed it even happened and may suggest some of the new Trustees do want to be more accountable. But then they get caught up in survival mode and do all the wrong follow up - just like the Church of England is demonstrating just now.

I think offical complaints are an interesting and good way to move forward. And possibly passing same complaints on to thiry-one eight.

Okay peeps - I hope to do some Governance and Annual Account Review during holidays - but then will possibly lie dead again until my next break.