Hi ThePetitor,

Thank you. I appreciated your reply and am glad we’ve all had this debate.
Was good to read your early entry on P13 of this forum.
It’s helped me sort out some more thoughts, having let this all lie dormant for 19+ years.


RedRoad: I’m sorry I feel unable to answer your questions on P220 except to say that I’m pretty sure there was no training in control went on.
It was all done by observing and emulating what Miss T had experienced in her George Jeffrey’s meetings it seems.
Some of the possible places for training you mentioned were years after my first experience of Struthers.

PS

( wish this had an edit facility)
I specifically like the ‘one tool’ idea.

Quote from The Petitor

_{seems to me that applies to those leaders who have left as much as to those who have stayed. None have come on here to say they got things wrong and they distance themselves from some of the issues in Struthers, so they appear to also still have the head in the sand approach. It is unwise and unscriptural, and will fail.}

This is 100% correct. Yet reading it, it struck me that it is also true, and possibly more telling, that none have come on and defended the teaching and actions of Struthers so effectively that we all had to see their point and agree with their powerful Biblical arguments and deep spiritual authority.

The fact that they claim to possess that authority and Godly wisdom forms a large part of most of the sermons preached in Struthers. So why have they not used their superior knowledge of the spiritual to come on here and refute all the claims and highlight all the fallacies being detailed on this forum?

The only ones who did come on and try – Lorna and her mother Bingowings way back in 2011 - argued so poorly and behaved so badly that they had to be banned from the forum (by the Rick Ross moderator) for bullying and giving people dogs abuse. And in a sweet twist of irony (given their bitter rancorous departure from Struthers but 2 years ago) they may now be in vigorous agreement with the posters on here they sought to bully, insult and correct. Turns out Struthers became a controlling, authoritarian, problem place for them too.

I was also grateful for the post from iquitthestutherscult :

There is always briefly a hope that “this time” things might be different but it is no real surprise that the Alan Martin & Pauline letters were never going to be properly dealt with and fully answered. It is sad to hear of a letter from the executive consisting of soggy obfuscating prose – or what has recently been dubbed “a word salad”. Let me suggest there are 3 reasons.

1 To agree to introduce real biblical leadership admits what exists has been both unbiblical and damaging. It also requires the top 3 people in the hierarchy – all placed there after close personal mentoring by Hugh Black (according to Mrs Rutherford) - to surrender power to a much wider group within the church AND give that wider group a power to censure them if biblically required. They don’t want that. So the bible stays closed and the valid points are unaddressed. They heard it from God and that is enough for them.


2 To specify what is actually practiced as leadership in Struthers in writing would be holding them up to public and social ridicule. Marriage interference, claiming to be God’s infallible voice, condemnation, threats of punishment, public humiliation of the weakest in the church while covering up the sins of the leadership. This leadership practice has caused all the hurt and harm detailed on this forum and the spiritual poverty, fear and weakness of those in their dwindling congregations.

A new factor in the last year is all the new church executive members who have to sign off on this soggy letter. These people now have to think about and agree to policies and public statements which continue to enable Struthers to do the kind of things which lead to the harm documented on this forum. And also much other harm they (should) all know about. Strikes me that their secular work colleagues might be less than impressed in their involvement in this. They would have to explain to their colleagues they do this because God told them in a voice to run their church this way. Unfortunately for this argument the only way to test if God is speaking is to check that the “voice” you claim to hear from God agrees with His Scriptural guidelines.

So don’t write down what Struthers leaders do. That’s like accountability. Just let them do what they like, claim God told them to and if things go badly deny they have any responsibility.


3 This sounds like mocking but it isn’t. I believe I am making a statement of unfortunate fact.

No one in leadership in SMC has the brains or intelligence or theological knowledge to make any kind of serious and credible public argument for the way things are done in Struthers. It is impossible. They couldn’t even try. My evidence for this is that they haven’t ever tried. The reply to the public letters is another evidence they can’t.

Hugh Black did. He thought it was important to argue from scripture. He wasn’t very good at it and sometimes tried to contort scripture into conformity with his odder ideas. For that just read his books. Many thousands of copies are still available. Most of his teachings in these books which he claimed were essential to the Christian life have been thoroughly abandoned by Struthers in subsequent years. But he did at least try.

But the present generation of leaders, as we know, just lazily tell their people to avoid thinking about leadership and harm and try to frighten them into not reading on here because – you know - demons!!

How about the Struthers leaders tell us here, or their members in a sermon, what the specific teachings are that make all the years of this hurt, harm and damage and loss of their friends worthwhile in their eyes?

How about telling them what biblical examples they have of Jesus telling the disciples to behave the way they do and crawl up the hierarchy of the church while despising and if necessary harming and rejecting those they see as spiritually below them?

How about addressing the points raised on this forum?

Its not because they shouldn’t. They will never be able to claim in their defence of their conduct as church leaders (in this life or the next) that God told them not to. The truth I believe is that they have not one smart person left that would or could take this on. The reason for that is that the smart people see what is happening and see the pain caused to others. If they have the courage to ask about it they then see up close the callous and uncaring and ignorant responses from the Struthers leadership who seem to think they have more important things to do than care about the consequences of their own teaching and harsh practice. Then the smart people leave.

They did have smart people. Some of the people I knew in Struthers in my time there could have dealt with all the reputational problems they are facing now, fixed the budget, the leaky roofs, and still had time for evangelism and the churches would be growing. But they were despised, rejected, unwanted and - there is no other way to say it - replaced with clueless leadership who happened to be all female and who in spite of that spiritual advantage have run the organisation into the ground.

Given all the recent Trump and Musk government travesties and the very cultic behaviour of his followers - including of course**vital** support from US charismatic/pentecostal (overly white) fundamentalist evangelicals - I cannot but draw very telling - very personally *galling* parallels between all that and aspects of the Struthers church cult.

I too was surprised to see Pauline and Alan Martin’s open letters to “The Modern Day Church Of Goddess Diana”. However seems to me its a sheer rank hypocrisy plus all a very overdue mea-culpa , coming far too late - given Pauline, Alan and others in their London Struthers Satellite - “The Refuge” - were unquestioning enablers of all this cultic, abusive activity by Struthers leaders for many many decades - something I sensed was cult-like before there was even a “Refuge”.

Religion - particularly the fundie varieties - oh - and do I even need two bring up Israel?
best not... as far as gullibility/credulity/cultic-religous-leader-enabled bloodshed goes..
don't get me started! -

its clear: ...whether Christian or Muslim

.. RELIGION ... POISONS EVERYTHING



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2025 01:24AM by Clive.

Iquitthestrutherscult,

Thanks for letting us know that there has been an open response to the letter from Pauline. It would be interesting to see that.

If I did get a copy, what I would like to do is set out the contents of that reply in a table and consider it against a number of criteria like “does this comment show humility?”

For the record, I have not seen the letter from Pauline or the open reply, but what I am imagining is something like this:

| Contents |  Does this  |  Does this  | If so, does  |  Does this       | Does this        | If so,  |  Does this       |  
|   of     |  part show  |  part quote | is correctly |  part make       | part speak       | on what |  part include    |
| Letter   |  humility?  |  scripture? | apply the    |  unsubstantiated | authoritatively? | basis?  |  any verifiable  |          
|          |             |             | scripture??  |  assertions?     |                  |         |  facts?          |

There are probably lots of other criteria I could add, but these might do for starters. If anyone does have that open reply, they might want to have a go at this themselves.

I would also be happy to go through the letter from Pauline and tabulate which questions she raised were answered. (I clearly need to get out more.)

Liz – glad you found some value in the “one tool” illustration – I have found that idea quite helpful through the years.

TheGreek – only one thing I would add to your insightful post, and that is there may be some folks still in struthers who would have been capable of helping them through the crises if they had been allowed to grow and develop by being exposed to the challenges of life rather than being actively taught to bury their head in the sand.

Re Clive:

We remember your long standing online atheist flaming activism which you occasionally dragged onto this forum. Perhaps we should be glad there are peaceful, calm, wise atheists like you out there to heal the world from those on this forum who are still among the religious people you so despise?

Are you also involved in Pro-Kamala atheists for Hamas?

My guess is that most people are here to discuss Struthers Memorial Church.

Beyond that I don't think its wise to poison this thread with irrelevant vexatious politics.

TheGreek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you also involved in Pro-Kamala atheists for
> Hamas?

>

Wow just wow -

by your own words you clearly lay down your own political leanings- and clearly one could be mistaken for thinking - probably pro-trump.

And the sheer lack of logic here ... well shouldn't surprise me - a total non-sequitur -

Seriously - you think Kamala Harris is the "enemy" here ? - on a day where Trumps government just enabled a hideous person like Andrew Tate to escape trial and the rest?

Kamala supports Hamas? Atheists support Hamas?

You think this has nothing to do with religion ? with pentecostals ?

Trump - the first president "anointed" by pentecostal leaders - the first President to become a mouthpiece for Putin, to side with the four most totalitarian non-democratic countries in the world, to pressure Romania to release Andrew Tate...

And what are today's pentecostals and charismatics doing to rein in this errant "David" ?

I suspect they are either in total denial or still acting as apologist for him - as shown here.

It's a certain type of mindset that enables church leaders in destructive and abusive churches to lord it over others. It's closely related to the way Trump got elected. Both in mindset - but also - sadly - due the actual tongues-speaking cabal that are right now enjoying their time basking in Trump's glory.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2025 06:23AM by Clive.

Firstly, someone new called GentlennessandJustice posted on the Forum on 13th February (see the foot of Page 214) and I don’t think you got a welcome because your post came just before the huge flurry of discussion about Miss Taylor. So, welcome to you!

RedRoad, you asked whether anyone thought there was some sort of training given in controlling others when they were being given leadership responsibilities. Well, I think there was, but the “training” was very subtle and the person wouldn’t be aware that they were actually being “trained”. Guidance was given in the form of dos and don’ts, in how to stop people from questioning things, in getting people to conform. Fear of disapproval and of disobeying a leader’s instructions on how to control others, comes into play too. I agree, Liz25, that being encouraged to emulate the leaders is a big factor in the control of a group, so that eventually, everyone acts the same, and speaks and prays in the same way.

In my very limited experience of helping with the children’s work in Struthers, I remember being told by a couple of leaders that children’s wills need to be broken and only then can they submit to God’s will. This used to scare me and I was never sure this was a healthy concept when dealing with children. I have never heard anything like this in any other church I’ve been to. Discipline of kids is one thing, but breaking their wills is quite another. Reading on the Forum about the hurt, trauma and damage which resulted in the lives of those who were brought up in Struthers from a young age, shows that children were not properly cared for emotionally in the church. And the opinions of parents were not considered if an issue arose.

I’ve also noticed that controlled people almost automatically start to control others. There were many controlling friendships in Struthers aswell, if you could call them friendships. I was probably guilty of this myself whilst in SMC. As I said, controlled people easily start to control others when the opportunity arises. Relationships do not function in a normal way in Struthers. I don’t think they can if there’s so much control, superiority and competitiveness, and a striving for approval from the leaders. Behaviours were and are abnormal in that church.

Clive, your point about the folks from the London church, The Refuge, being hypocritical in their writing of these open letters when they themselves have promoted the abusive teachings inherent in SMC for decades, reminds us that people can change their minds about what they thought was OK. People can see the light, come to their senses, realise the damage they’ve done, turn around and want change to come. Many of us ex-Struthers folk, who post on here, have gone through that enlightening realisation and got ourselves out of Struthers. We were once faithful followers, believing what we were taught, then we gradually began to see the truth about what is really going on and we eventually left SMC.
Not that I think these open letters will bring about change, as others here have said. The only way is to get out and get on with life elsewhere.

TheGreek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The only ones who did come on and try – Lorna and
> her mother Bingowings way back in 2011 - argued so
> poorly and behaved so badly that they had to be
> banned from the forum (by the Rick Ross moderator)
> for bullying and giving people dogs abuse.

As it was someone called Lorna who had originally introduced me to Struthers, I went back to the 2011 pages, and skimmed through the posts to try and work out if it was her. I remember 40 years ago her mother was fairly elderly and did not attend Struthers when I did though.

There is only one, benign, indroductory post by her on there though. Perhaps all the others were deleted when she was banned.

I suppose it doesn't matter if it's the same person or not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2025 08:11AM by MW89.

I have received a copy of the open reply from Struthers to Alan and been asked to post this here - see below.

FF


Dear Alan,
> As you have made your letter open and available to
> anyone on request, our reply is also open in the
> same fashion.
> Thank you for your patience in awaiting a response
> to your letter. The Christmas holidays with its
> attendant family commitments plus activities in th
> e church, including our New Year’s arrangements,
> have meant it’s been difficult to stop and find th
> e time and space to properly consider our response
> .
> We have carefully and prayerfully considered what
> to say and we share our answers in the same
> spirit you invoked of wanting the church to contin
> ue to enjoy God’s presence while growing in
> strength and impact. It would be our hope that thi
> s will settle many of the things you are concerned
> about or at least illustrate where we are in our c
> urrent thinking and planning. There is much to do
> and we need the prayers, support and wise counsel
> of each of our associated churches in order to be
> successful as a Board.
> If there are points of clarification required or s
> ubjects that you would wish to explore further the
> n
> we would offer to meet to actually discuss these i
> ssues. That doesn’t need to be with the full Board
> but some arrangement of it that would provide a mo
> re timely response than this current process.
> We have given responses to your questions below -
> Need for change: Does the board recognise the conc
> erns 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 nee
> d for change?
> The real issue has been managing all the changes n
> ecessary, not merely recognising the need for
> change.
> The Board of Directors are responsible for the leg
> al obligations and management of the charitable
> entity. When the new Board took office 15 months a
> go, we were faced with an unprecedented
> existential crisis. While this was primarily finan
> cial in nature, managing it and seeking solutions
> has
> consumed a huge amount of time and energy and to t
> his date we are still seeking a conclusion in
> some matters. It has also had a significant human
> impact, directly on some people because of their
> employment situation or on families through the sc
> hool or in the churches due to the unsettling
> nature of the crisis. These have been handled as s
> ensitively and well as we are able. That does not
> mean that everyone will see it that way or indeed
> we will have achieved a solution that suits
> everyone. Indeed we would recognise what a painful
> , disruptive and disquieting process it has all
> been. In a sense the human cost of this has been t
> he most difficult to quantify. What we can now
> say is that the charity is financially solvent, vi
> able and has discharged its responsibilities to th
> e staff it
> employed and the pupils/families of the school.
> While your letter does not reference these events,
> they form the context in which the church has
> found itself. It would be difficult not to acknowl
> edge the distressing and unsettling impact these
> events have had on us. At the same time as managin
> g the crisis we have pursued changes in how we
> manage safeguarding. We have reviewed and are in t
> he process of rewriting our complaints policy
> and finance policy together with investigating and
> securing a new camp venue. This is important
> because the tool the Board uses to change culture
> or practise within the church is policy. For
> example, the safeguarding policy is part of our le
> gal duty as a charity but also best practise as a
> church. The policy under review was heavily consul
> ted and rewritten with the input of not only the
> safeguarding team but also interested individuals
> across the church. It was launched through a
> training session at our summer camp with follow up
> s in our branch churches. In addition the
> development of the policy led to the ministry trai
> ning session we also held in the summer. We are
> committed to annual review of the policy and are e
> xploring the next stage is in ministry training. T
> he
> feedback we received from the ministry and safegua
> rding training has been very encouraging and
> supported the conclusion we are heading in the rig
> ht direction. These developments have had a real
> impact and represent a significant change from wha
> t we have done in the past.
> A big challenge on the horizon is to reconstitute
> our Articles of Association. These set out the
> powers and scope of the Board. They were originall
> y drafted to oversee the financial running of the
> charity, not the constitutional matters of the chu
> rch. Amendments are necessary to reflect our new
> reality without the bookshops and school but also
> to better capture the fact we are first and
> foremost a church. So not only has there been chan
> ge but there is more to come in the future.
> Authority in the church: What are the defined scop
> e and limits of authority for leaders of
> individual churches and the senior leader of the m
> ovement? Are there clear boundaries for the
> appropriate exercising of this authority within th
> e local church and movement?
> The Board/charity structure does not marry easily
> with the fact of being a church. The Board has a
> legal obligation for the management of the charity
> but as a church we would recognise there are
> other forms of authority as well as the law. While
> according to the Articles the Board technically ha
> s
> the authority to tell the churches what to do, in
> practice this would be overstepping our remit. The
> re
> is a spiritual oversight and authority that rightl
> y belongs to the ministers and our congregations.
> We
> want any changes or developments to be in partners
> hip with them. Certainly we should never be in
> the position of telling a minister or local branch
> what to do - unless there is serious error or a le
> gal or
> financial issue.
> One of our strengths is that each church context i
> s unique and we need local insight to understand
> how the Board can support them in the real work -
> the gospel. How lovely would that be? To see an
> end to financial or structural issues and for the
> Board’s role to be asking each branch church how w
> e
> can support them in sharing the good news? We pray
> for the day when that is a reality.
> While only our Articles of Association are availab
> le on paper and our current organisation isn’t
> written down it’s no less established because of t
> hat. Individual ministers are responsible for thei
> r
> own churches (some of them founded by that ministe
> r) but they remain part of a wider network,
> available for support, encouragement or challenge
> as required. The Board has no desire or mandate
> to impose a single central structure or way of bei
> ng. In fact we want to encourage each of our
> churches to develop within their own context in th
> e way God opens to them.
> Finally the church is an entirely voluntary organi
> sation. No person will ever be compelled or forced
> by another. If someone feels this has occurred or
> attempted we would hope to use our newly
> revised policies to understand and address the iss
> ue. Similarly if someone is unhappy with an aspect
> of church life we hope that would be raised and re
> solved at a local level. That being said we should
> be mature enough to recognise that we can hold dif
> ferent views or opinions without these
> constituting by themselves grounds for offence, co
> mplaint or divisive argument.
> Accountability Structures: What mechanisms or stru
> ctures are in place to address instances where
> a leader—whether at senior or other level—exercise
> s their authority inappropriately or makes
> demonstrably wrong decisions? Can the values and p
> rinciples of our movement regarding
> leadership be clearly articulated, so that everyon
> e understands what is expected of a leader?
> The mechanisms are simply described. Our developin
> g policy framework will form the basis for
> dealing with the situations alluded to in the ques
> tion. The question does however leave a number of
> things open. What constitutes a ‘demonstrably wron
> g decision’? Is it a legal or moral standard we’re
> applying? Is it a point of doctrine? Is it all of
> the above? Clearly these would all be standards we
> would apply, but if a decision is ‘demonstrably wr
> ong’ because an individual or small group disagree
> s
> with it then we need to be robust enough to debate
> and defend our position. We would generally
> seek consensus and understanding within decision m
> aking. While in an ideal world this may mean
> explaining the rationale behind why something is d
> one in practice especially when pastoral issues ar
> e
> involved confidentiality may mean it’s not always
> possible.
> In terms of values we would aspire to the fact tha
> t everyone in our churches would be as Christ-like
> as they can be. While some individuals may be high
> er profile in terms of activity and therefore more
> easily under public scrutiny, we should all be coo
> perating with the process of sanctification. This
> also
> means we are able to acknowledge none of us are pe
> rfect and allow each other the time and grace
> to change. In terms of articulating this we have i
> ncluded a code of conduct in our safeguarding
> policy. This sets out what we expect from anyone w
> ho carries out any role in the church, not just a
> leader.
> We also need to give thought to specific teaching
> around the responsibilities of our congregations.
> The fact that people have gifts supernatural or ot
> herwise does not negate individual agency. The
> bible is full of examples of leaders and prophets
> who shared their God given insight with people, bu
> t
> the people remained responsible for their own resp
> onses. Our position should be that we want
> anointed, gifted leaders with powerful ministries,
> but we also want mature believers who can weigh
> up and test what is being said and done. We are ke
> en to encourage a balance of action and teaching
> on this in the church and promote the structures t
> hat make it possible. Additionally going forward,
> there is an important discussion to be had about h
> ow to effectively promote the core things the
> church believes without becoming overbearing to mo
> dern sensibilities. While we cannot
> compromise over the fundamentals of our salvation
> we need to understand how we share the good
> news in a way that reaches the modern world.
> We are blessed in being among the many churches wh
> ere God moves. This means we encourage the
> sharing of personal experience and testimony where
> people say things that are often spontaneous
> and heartfelt. They may not be perfectly thought o
> ut or completely theologically accurate. Further
> when we have so many people speaking in live setti
> ngs, even with the most carefully prepared
> materials, there is always the danger of presentin
> g something in a way that can be misunderstood or
> gives undue emphasis to something in an unbalanced
> way. In regards to preaching we should draw
> comfort from CH Spurgeon who encouraged and recogn
> ised the value of both well planned and
> thought-out sermons as well as spontaneous preachi
> ng from the heart. There is an attendant issue in
> all live communication, that of people being left
> with a wrong impression of either what we believe
> or how we operate. Recognising that this is a poss
> ibility and being able to manage it is not a
> weakness but rather a strength. Ultimately our pol
> icies are shaped to deal with these situations, bu
> t
> they are probably better handled through the wisdo
> m, insights and relationships available in local
> congregations and leaders.
> Operation of the Board: Is authority distributed e
> qually among its board members, or does the
> senior leader retain ultimate decision-making powe
> r? How is collective input, collaborative
> decision-making and accountability ensured? Are th
> ere plans to publish the topics considered and
> decisions made in Board meetings so that members c
> an be informed about actions taken on their
> behalf?
> The powers, organisation and functions of the Boar
> d are prescribed in our Articles of Association.
> They constitute a legal document and require speci
> alist input to adapt or amend. They set out the
> conditions and requirements for Board members, reg
> ulate meetings and describe how decisions may
> be taken and any disagreements settled. There are
> provisions to ensure meetings are quorate,
> agendas are published and decisions recorded. The
> Chair of the Board has no more authority in
> making a decision than the rest of the Board unles
> s there is a disputation where they may cast a
> deciding vote.
> One pressing issue in the Articles is the way they
> are framed means only members of the board are
> members of the charity. This may be one of those o
> ccasions where close attention to the rules
> creates a point of absurdity, but our Articles don
> ’t at the moment formally recognise the real passi
> on,
> commitment and contribution our church members pro
> vide. This needs to be changed although our
> aspirations here may be reduced or tempered by the
> legal advice we are offered. This advice will be
> provided by the legal firm retained by the church
> on these matters.
> At the moment our Annual General Meeting is the ma
> in mechanism for the charity Board to report
> to the congregational members. At our last AGM eac
> h of the directors gave a report on the specific
> areas where they held oversight and responsibility
> . They communicated not only where each area
> stood but also outlined plans for future developme
> nts. The AGM was very well attended and
> feedback from those there in person as well as tho
> se online was very positive. While the AGM
> represents the statutory process for reporting to
> the wider church community there have also been
> numerous others. Our communications around finance
> , the position of the school, safeguarding and
> the information regarding our new camp venue all p
> rovide opportunities to gain an insight into the
> thoughts and direction of the Board.
> In practice though being a church rather than a bu
> siness softens the Articles. The Board meetings
> are not adversarial in nature and consensus and ma
> jority decision making have been the norm.
> Individual Board members retain agency, trust and
> conscience to discharge their responsibilities
> towards the good of the charity trust and branch c
> hurches. Indeed one of the real concerns among
> the Board has been to consult and gain a mandate f
> rom what we view as our ‘real’ members. In this
> we’ve hopefully captured the spirit of what was or
> iginally intended rather than what appears in blac
> k
> and white. While recent events have created the ne
> ed for far more meetings than was initially
> planned the Board hope we have demonstrated the ab
> ility to work collegiately internally and
> cooperatively with others to review, plan and act
> effectively to protect the charity and thereby the
> church.
> Written Documentation: Are there, or will there in
> future be, written policies or constitutional
> documents that set out the movement’s principles i
> n relation to the areas covered by the issues
> and questions raised in this letter?
> We already have policies and more are planned. Som
> e of these policies touch on areas highlighted in
> the letter. Whether they will have an impact will
> take time to judge because while producing policie
> s
> is relatively straightforward, implementation and
> impact are much slower. Policies can also fail to
> anticipate unforeseen circumstances or create unin
> tended consequences or need to be adapted to
> meet new needs. This can be dealt with through rev
> iew and amendments, a process we have
> committed to complete annually or every few years
> in regard to our policies – depending on which
> policy is in question. Details of review timescale
> s are provided in each policy.
> Constitutional documents are something altogether
> different. By their nature they are foundational
> organisational and regulatory. There is no current
> plan for the Board to produce a constitution for
> the church beyond trying to amend the Articles of
> Association to reflect the central position and
> importance of the church. Even if the Board decide
> d that this was something they wanted to see, its
> production would be something that would be much w
> ider than the Board itself. We have huge
> wisdom, spiritual insight and experience in our le
> adership and congregation. This has been
> demonstrated in a very real way by the number of p
> eople in the church who have stepped up in
> recent days to give freely of their talents, time
> and resources to see the church through the crises
> .
> If our ministers and congregations express a desir
> e for such constitutional documents, then we
> would view it as the Board’s role to coordinate su
> ch a task.
> Appointment of leaders: Does the Board believe tha
> t 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?
> As a church we have a genuine desire to find, enab
> le and have Spirit filled leaders. Our model, if w
> e
> use that phrase, has been to try and discern who t
> he Spirit is moving through and where the gifts ar
> e
> in operation. This process hasn’t been committed t
> o writing within a constitution, but we’re no less
> committed to it despite that. This has been the pa
> th to leadership such as it is exercised in the
> church. As in every organisation there will be pro
> blems and issues. A cursory glance at the news
> unfortunately reveals many other denominations wit
> h different and far more elaborate leadership
> structures still experience problems.
> What we can claim though is that those in a positi
> on of leadership within our church have
> demonstrated a huge personal commitment to the thi
> ngs of God over a number of years – in most
> cases – over a lifetime. All of them are unpaid fo
> r the role they carry out. They have also been
> marked by the operation of the gifts of the Spirit
> and we have an expectation that there would also
> be evidence of the fruit of the Spirit. There is a
> discussion to be held about how we teach this,
> identify and promote the full range of spiritual g
> ifts. While we are always looking to God to raise
> up
> a new generation and other people we need to have
> the understanding and structures in place to
> nurture this. The ministry training session at the
> summer camp was a step in this direction.
> Our church also benefits from countless hours of (
> again unpaid) faithful love and service from
> generations of its members. There is a legitimate
> question to answer if the traditional structure of
> elders and deacons can capture the richness of gif
> ts and service we are blessed to enjoy. While we
> have committed members who faithfully fulfil the t
> raditionally understood functions of elders or
> deacons (although we don’t normally use those term
> s) we also have many other forms of service.
> We have treasurers, a Safeguarding Team, Health &
> Safety reps, Finance committee, Board members,
> tech people, a camp team. We also have all the peo
> ple who organise Sunday School rotas or serve
> on the Sunday School themselves, transport, specif
> ic services or outreaches for individual churches,
> catering, cleaning, admin, organisation, websites,
> people who offer social care, financial support or
> generally help others in the church ... there are
> actually too many to list ... and we would be huge
> ly
> damaged and much poorer without them. We have a co
> ncern that using terms like Elder or Deacon
> somehow diminishes or dismisses the very real and
> valuable service of roles that are not recognised
> by those titles. This richness of service is somet
> hing to be cherished and may not be found in many
> other churches, even those with more traditional t
> itles.
> Our current charity Board has the power on paper t
> o impose a central solution on our individual
> churches about structure or indeed anything else.
> In practise we hope you decipher from the tone
> and ideas of this response that we would view that
> as overstepping our role. We’re more
> comfortable with a federal system than a central s
> tate. It’s only by recognising the fact that spiri
> tual
> authority lies with our ministers and individual c
> hurches and that they need to be free to respond t
> o
> how God is leading them in their context. So as a
> group of churches we recognise the strength in
> the diversity that we have. No two branch churches
> are identical in their expression and outworking
> of our collective faith. Our creation of a policy
> landscape allows us all to be aware of the same
> standards but free to respond in a way that suits
> our local branch church context. Our
> communication with the churches to date has been t
> o inform them of developments, seek their
> views about the way ahead on a range of issues or
> to highlight upcoming events. There have been
> no commandments. We can enjoy and value coming tog
> ether at key points to celebrate and seek our
> God. To share the gifts and insights He has given
> us and the diversity of our contexts, but again th
> is is
> a consensual union and not imposed.
> Many thanks for continuing to pray as we seek God’
> s blessing as we move forward.
> Best wishes
> SMC Board of Directors and Ministers