You may recall I, on behalf of others, posted the complaint that was submitted to the Directors of Struthers and their reply.

If there are open letters or other similar material, I would be happy to post to maintain the anonymity of the person providing this info. Just send me a PM.

I don't know of any open letters. Very interesting to know of any. They were another few complaintsl what went in at sane time as myselfsl the one friendly face mentionedl in there post. I also know of another but that is a private individual complaint. And it's not my place to post that but the individual.

Lintar I just think of a few harmless nice individuals from struthers I have knowing for years.its not them to blame

I personally feel I am not in the position to judge anyone as I am no where perfect and have done alot of things I now regret. Theres no one innocent.Enough on this subject. I will now bow out from this discussion.

Iquitthestrutherscult : Yes and thank you. That fills in a gap in my ever-decreasing memory banks. I am interested in the concept of membership within SMC. There was certainly no official membership when I was around in the 80s. A membership with criteria sounds like a positive move has been made in the intervening years, if indeed that is the case. If the members (by definition)who sent the open letter still attend then the response from any leadership will be revealing. A negative response could lead to further departures. If the numbers on another site are to be believed, there are only around 165 actual regular church attendees over the various churches. An exodus could be detrimental to various aspects of the church from finances to practical and leadership positions. If SMC adopted a more transparenT, accountable and “mainstream” approach to church life I would count that as a positives at least for the current membership. Anyway, that is all speculation so I’ll leave that parked there.

FriendlyFace: Regarding the anonymous complaint forwarded to SMC, their response could be considered valid under certain circumstances. Let me outline an example of where their response would NOT be considered valid. Allow me to change the scenario to prevent being too specific. Let’s consider you attended a sports group as a member and, during your sessions with the coaches, you were physically and verbally abused in a way that made you feel uncomfortable and, in fact lead you to leave the club. If you then, anonymously, wrote to the club leadership outlining when the incidents had taken place, describing them and the persons involved as well as the outcome for you, a member, then the anonymous person does NOT need to be named. There can simply be, and should trigger, an investigation of the accused perpetrators by other members of the leadership team. This way anonymity is preserved and an outcome may be reached. If the outcome is not the one preferred by the complainant, that may be because there is not enough evidence provided initially and so an opportunity to provide more evidence should be given. I can see how SMC could easily dismiss a general forum-based set of complaints using their interpretations of the set guidelines on complaint procedures. These are my thoughts on the matter having read through the initial complaint and the response.They are offered for discussion and are simply taken from years of personal experience dealing with complaints in a business setting. Thoughts?

101

A Theist your last post is got my memory going. Interesting that you brought up Lesley Gough . I mind her well. I think she was in my year at High school. WhatI mind her parents were totally against her attending the church also. But Hugh Black didn't care about that. He still picked her up and drove about in his car. I always wondered what happened to her.Hugh Black to my knowledge never drove any young boys about.

Also I mind a few others . They were a couple of slightly older guys who were a hudge part of running the youth groups in Falkirk back then. I know one of them went to work in Canada. But other I am not sure what happened with him At that time. I had alot of personal things going on.So didn't attend that often and when I did ask I recieved the wall of silence again.

I have never ever attended a church who did not encourage friendship and fellowship with there members like Struthers. Children then were never encouraged to be friends. You were only meant to talk to others to get them to attend a meeting and once you got them there you were meant to drop any friendship you had grown.

I also mind at one camp a group of us was sitting having a sing song . Someone was playing the guitar. When one of the leaders came out the lodge and told us of for singing a certain song. But 2 days later the same leader had the full congregation singing the same song.

My Partner just can't belive of the rules were all lived by then.As a I told them all we wanted was the approval of the leaders. I mind the evil look Jennifer used to give to folk she didn't like . That stare you got when she didn't approve of somthing you did.

Blacksheep57 : Yes! Looks like several of us remember Lesley. May i ask a question? Is Jennifer Jack still around and leading the Falkirk church? I had always seen her as a mellower form of Mary Black but it appears that she too was responsible for adversely affecting the lives of many people who have shared on this forum. One has to assume that more lives have been affected than is evidenced by the messages on here. I don’t say that to dramatise matters; surely it’s simply a statistical reality assuming not everyone who ever visited SMC will have found this site.

I wonder if the chap on the guitar was one Paul McGhee from the Glasgow church. He needed no second invitation to get a song going and had a warm personable nature as well as being a decent musician. The hypocrisy you describe regarding the song being banned then being allowed reminds me that I never could quite take Hugh Black Uber seriously when preaching about moderation, abstinence or self-control.

My experience also matches your comments about not encouraging fellowship outwith the meetings. Luckily I shared a flat with another 4 SMC attendees which allowed for such fellowship but speaking to a girl was frowned upon and actively discouraged. I know that not everyone adhered to those rules but there was a sense of them being naughty even though seeking human connection is such an instinctive desire. COVID surely taught us that.

You make a very astute point when indicating that it was seeking the leaders’ approval that motivated many members. It’s not that they were unspiritual by doing so, I suggest that the system was set up in such a way to encourage “leader adoration/worship”. A post from many moons ago mentioned the reverential attitude towards Miss Taylor (I never knew her first name). I can hardly remember seeing her at meetings but on the rare occasions she would turn up it seemed the congregation numbers were swollen and the air of excitement felt similar to going to watch a famous pop/rock/country star. Personally, i only had one encounter with her. It didn't go well. I’ll save that for another time when i haven’t rambled on quite so much!

101

A Theist 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blacksheep57 :
>
>
> I wonder if the chap on the guitar was one Paul
> McGhee from the Glasgow church. He needed no
> second invitation to get a song going and had a
> warm personable nature as well as being a decent
> musician.

I remember Paul McGhee. He was a nice guy.

I remember Paul McGhee as well. He was accomplished on the guitar. He married a girl called Darryl if I remember correctly. There were a lot of nice people around at that time. Needless to say, very few of them stuck around. What a shame. Such nice folks who were being bullied and manipulated.

Blacksheep57: He was indeed a lovely guy.We bumped into each other a while back and then we met regularly for a few years for musical evenings but somehow we drifted apart again. I will rectify that this year and make sure he knows he is well thought of by some.

Iquitthestrutherscult: You are correct; well remembered. Besides being a decent guitar player he was also an excellent song writer. I still have several of his songs in my collection. Without speaking on their behalf, both He and Darryl told me that a main reason for them leaving SMC was a series of leadership incidents not dissimilar to those outlined by several people on here. It is Their story to tell however and maybe one day they will share that with the community here. I’m sure they would take comfort from knowing they weren’t alone.

101



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2025 09:39AM by A Theist 101.

A number of people have mentioned “open letters” to the leaders of Struthers. I have been told there are two of these, one from Pauline Anderson and one from Alan Martin.

I enclose below a copy of the letter from Alan Martin which I have been asked to post.



Dear Members of the Board and Ministers

I am writing to you at the end of many weeks of thought, prayer and reflection on recent events, as well as my experience during the many years I have been part of our movement. For transparency, I have made this an open letter, available to anyone upon request. It has been copied to both the board and the ministers of our church. I recognise that others have already communicated their views on these matters, and I appreciate your patience if any points overlap. However, as a church leader without a formal voice on the Board, I feel it is important to share my perspective. I write with love and a heartfelt desire to see our church well-prepared to face the future and fulfil God’s calling. I trust you will receive this letter in that same spirit.

I recognise that a lack of clarity would make it difficult for the Board to give this letter proper consideration, so let me explain what I mean by “recent events”. Specifically, I am referring to the loss of many long-term members from our community, along with the concerns that have been raised regarding unwise or un-Christlike actions, behaviours, or attitudes exhibited by leaders, whether in the past or as ongoing issues. These have in some cases caused harm. Examples of the concerns raised are:

• A culture where unquestioning acceptance of the leader’s authority is encouraged or seen as loyalty, making it difficult to challenge decisions or raise concerns.
• Making decisions that affect members in a way that appears to lack respect or courtesy and reflects an authoritarian style, without consultation or appropriate communication.

• Toleration of poor behaviour by leaders, rationalising it as an opportunity for others to exhibit Christian virtues such as patience, forgiveness, and humility.

• Fostering a perception that alignment with the leader equates to being right with God, creating an unhealthy dependence on a leader rather than Christ for spiritual security and affirmation.

• Public criticism from the pulpit, where individuals are labelled with harsh terms instead of being approached with dignity, care and respect in private.

• A tendency to sideline individuals who question leadership decisions or the status quo.

These concerns have been raised by members who have given faithful service to our movement over many years, and I have personally witnessed or been impacted by some of these failings over the years. For these reasons, I believe these concerns must be addressed and appropriate action taken, both for the spiritual health of our movement and the welfare of our people. Whilst we recognise the devil can exploit turmoil within our ranks, this must not prevent us from addressing the root causes of that turmoil. We must seize the God-given opportunity to make changes that would benefit us all, members and leaders, and ultimately benefit the work of God amongst us.

It is, of course, tempting to seek to move on and leave these events behind us, and I understand the desire to do so. However, although we must not be shackled to the past, it is vital that we learn from it. We must not only take steps to prevent similar mistakes in the future but also visibly demonstrate that such steps are being taken. From listening to those who have raised concerns, it is evident that their motivations are not rooted in petty grievances or a desire to maliciously attack leaders. Instead, they stem from a failure in church governance to adequately address the behaviours and culture within the leadership that have caused hurt and harm. Moving forward without addressing these concerns with appropriate action sends a damaging message: that un-Christlike behaviour or unbiblical attitudes are somehow acceptable or not a serious issue. For any believer seeking to serve Christ faithfully under the authority of their leaders, such a message is deeply troubling and causes confusion and frustration.

Please let me make it clear that I believe we have been blessed with spiritually gifted leaders who are committed to Christ, and for whom I hold lasting respect and affection. However, experience within our church—and the wider Christian community—shows that being spiritually gifted does not safeguard against mistakes, errors of judgment, or wrong behaviours. Paul, in 1 Timothy 3, highlights that character and wisdom, not just spiritual gifting, is the key qualification for leadership. He also establishes a model of church leadership based on mutual support, authority and accountability, with processes for ensuring both leaders and the church community are treated with love, respect and fairness. In light of Paul’s teaching, our structures should ensure proper checks and balances so that both leaders and members flourish together.

Related to this is the process by which we evaluate and appoint people to leadership positions. This is an area that needs serious consideration by the Board. Currently, these decisions are largely based on the judgement of individual ministers or the leader of the movement, and positions other than that of ministers are generally unofficial. We must question if the lack of proactive appointments to officially defined roles has led to some unintended negative consequences. One such consequence is individuals in those unofficial roles (e.g. on a pastoral team or assistant ministers) being uncertain if they have real authority to challenge or offer guidance to other leaders, or liberty to initiate action, undermining their effectiveness. The consequence of the lack of a structured process for involvement in church work, eg through a locally constituted leadership team, is that involvement in church work tends to be based, in practice, largely on individual leaders’ personal relationships—people they know well and who have access to them. This approach may cause us to overlook God-given leadership and ministry potential as a result. We should examine our current governance model in the light of that found in the New Testament, which includes positive and public commissioning of a plurality of leaders (elders/overseers) with an equality of authority.

The preceding paragraphs hopefully provide insight into my heartfelt concerns which have given rise to this letter. I respectfully submit the following questions in the hope they will stimulate a thoughtful and constructive dialogue. I would be grateful if the board would consider each question and offer a clear written response.

1. Need for change: Does the board recognise the concerns raised as issues that require serious attention and action? Does the board believe that changes are necessary, and if so, what changes? If not, why does the Board believe there is no need for change?

2. Authority in the church: What are the defined scope and limits of authority for leaders of individual churches and the senior leader of the movement? Are there clear boundaries for the appropriate exercising of this authority within the local church and movement?

3. Accountability Structures: What mechanisms or structures are in place to address instances where a leader—whether at senior or other level—exercises their authority inappropriately or makes demonstrably wrong decisions? Can the values and principles of our movement regarding leadership be clearly articulated, so that everyone understands what is expected of a leader?

4. Operation of the Board: Is authority distributed equally among its board members, or does the senior leader retain ultimate decision-making power? How is collective input, collaborative decision- making and accountability ensured? Are there plans to publish the topics considered and decisions made in Board meetings so that members can be informed about actions taken on their behalf?

5. Written Documentation: Are there, or will there in future be, written policies or constitutional documents that set out the movement’s principles in relation to the areas covered by the issues and questions raised in this letter?

6. Appointment of leaders: Does the Board believe that the movement needs to change its leadership structures and/or processes for appointing leaders? Can the board clarify its position on 'eldership' and the public appointment of a plurality of local leaders who operate together as a team?

The concerns detailed in this letter reflect issues that I believe require urgent attention and thoughtful dialogue. I have outlined several critical questions for the Board’s consideration, hoping they will spark a constructive discussion and lead to meaningful change. It is my sincere hope that by addressing these issues transparently and proactively, we can strengthen our church’s foundation in Christ-like service, humility, and respect for all. Such actions will not only build confidence in our leadership but also foster a community united in its commitment to Christ and His Gospel.

I look forward to receiving your written response. Wishing you every blessing in Christ
Alan Martin

What a letter! And what an opportunity now for the SMC leadership to address the concerns raised -- if it is received with the same gracious and godly spirit in which it's been written. This could be a watershed in the movement and an opportunity for a whole new beginning.