Calm down Clive.

I shared none of my political opinions.

If you look carefully, the phrase that so triggered you is simply a reversal of your 3 stated positions - anti republican, anti Christianity and anti Israel.

But at least you failing to notice that gave you the excuse to spew more abuse on some other groups too.

Those of us who believe that people are entitled to either the same or different political opinions from yours are busy here discussing Struthers Memorial Church

Thank you Friendly Face

This bewildering rambling document will no doubt be discussed at length and should be.

One thing I notice. It says:

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.


A perfect example of where Struthers sees itself as so far ahead of any other churches, so blessed "spiritually", it would be limited if it had to stick to the Biblical injunction of Paul to appoint elders in every place!

Too blessed by God to apply His clear Biblical instruction to their own church?

Do you think any of the executive have noticed the school and shops visions have expensively failed, the churches decline in members and number and the cries of the hurt caused by the way they do things rain down on them?

Have they not noticed they are not talking about Revival but survival?

Yet they think they are too blessed by God to risk being Biblical.


Can't argue with the written word. That's what they are saying. Run from these people.

Such a lot to process in FriendlyFace's report. (Perhaps I'm being unkind but The Greek's wonderful phrase "soggy, obfuscating prose" does come to mind). However, maybe some small signs of hopeful change? Just one comment at the moment, re Elders and Deacons - "traditional titles?- surely that should be Biblical titles? Or did St. Paul get it wrong?

The Greek - Sorry: hadn't read your post before I shot off my own remark about Elders and Deacons! Your comment is spot on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2025 06:45PM by Phoebe 2.

Rensil - thank you for the welcome. Not to worry I understand that the Miss T conversation was hugely engaging for many. I hadn't actually properly 'said hello' either, but had just leapt in with a remark as I was so stunned by a post. I have the experience of being associated with a number of branches over a number of years, but only having actually lived in the same place as the branch I attended for a total of about 3 years.

I am stunned by the response that FriendlyFace has just posted, to the extent that I went back and re-read Alan's original letter. Did the Board not read Alan's introduction explaining the basis of his questions? Did they not understand his concern ? Or is it further evidence of 'them' and 'us' even within the leadership?

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.

There was a discussion about teaching control techniques above - well there you go again !!!! Transparency is anathema.

I remain stunned and horrified by the lack of engagement by the board with the accounts of human cost that has been paid over the years on this forum. Surely they must have discussed this formally at board meetings, and this must have been minuted legally and appropriately - mustn't it ?!?! And before these situations have become accounts on this forum they were situations in the church to be dealt with - so as leaders the current Board must have been aware of them many years ago, mustn't they ? Is it so hard for them to admit they might have made mistakes that they now cannot face a real proper review ?

The hiding behind policy, and policy making, and articles of association cannot absolve them from responsibility on this front. It is not a requirement of charity law that policies be made, but policy making is a mechanism that 'manages' the situation of the charity trustees being legally responsible.

As charity trustees they must manage risk to the organisation - this is a top level risk, and they refuse to engage with it. This is a huge reputational risk to the charity. It is also (most probably) a financial risk. OSCR (The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator -the equivalent in Scotland of the Charity Commission in England and Wales) is very engaged with the value of the 'Charity Brand' across the country - this must be bringing 'the Charity Brand' into disrepute.

As charity trustees they must engage with, and comply with charity law yes, but also all other extant relevant laws and regulations. They appear to be ignoring multiple claims of harm done to individuals, including children.

I cannot believe that they are all so blind that they cannot understand this concern - but, if they are, then are they qualified to be charity trustees at all ? And if that is the case what about the people still in the organisation as members - where does their responsibility lie ? Are they enabling this to continue? And what about the responsibility of the external auditors - are they auditing the Trustees Annual Report fully - especially the part around key risks?

GentlenessandJustice Wrote:
------------
I remain stunned and horrified by the lack of
> engagement by the board with the accounts of human
> cost that has been paid over the years on this
> forum. Surely they must have discussed this
> formally at board meetings, and this must have
> been minuted legally and appropriately - mustn't
> it ?!?! And before these situations have become
> accounts on this forum they were situations in the
> church to be dealt with - so as leaders the
> current Board must have been aware of them many
> years ago, mustn't they ? Is it so hard for them
> to admit they might have made mistakes that they
> now cannot face a real proper review ?
>
> The hiding behind policy, and policy making, and
> articles of association cannot absolve them from
> responsibility on this front . . .
>
Gentleness&Justice -- Well said! I utterly agree. Have been re-reading the spiel, after a first cursory reading, with sinking hope and rising despair that there will everbe any real change.

Dear all, I did say that, if I could see it, I would try to analyse the letter or response in terms of a number of criteria like whether there was anything related to humility, scripture or unsubstantiated assertions.

I have had a go at this but, as you may be aware, it is not easy to lay out a table in this forum. I may send it to the latigo site and see it can be published there.

I only got as far as sentence 37 (see below), so it is far from complete, but my findings so far is that there are few sprinklings of humility – things like, “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” and “These have been handled as sensitively and well as we are able.”

I have not yet found any scriptural references, but I have found quite few unsubstantiated assertions. Things like: “this [crisis] was primarily financial in nature”, “The real issue has been managing all the changes necessary, not merely recognising the need for change.” and, “What we can now say is that the charity is financially solvent, viable and has discharged its responsibilities to the staff it employed and the pupils/families of the school.”

I could find very little in the way of verifiable facts. The only things I found were statement like: “The Board of Directors are responsible for the legal obligations and management of the charitable entity.” and “The policy under review was heavily consulted and rewritten with the input of not only the safeguarding team but also interested individuals across the church.”

So, nothing too much to report on in terms of that analysis and I do not think I will continue with it. Anyway,leaving aside that analytical process, I enclose below my comments on the first 37 sentences. Not sure if and when I will get time to do any more.

1 Dear Alan,

2 As you have made your letter open and available to anyone on request, our reply is also open in the same fashion.
Well done!
3 Thank you for your patience in awaiting a response to your letter.
Fine
4 The Christmas holidays with its attendant family commitments plus activities in the church, including our New Year’s arrangements, have meant it’s been difficult to stop and find the time and space to properly consider our response.
Fine
5 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 continue to enjoy God’s presence while growing in strength and impact.
“in the same spirit you invoked” – it is good that they are accepting the letter is written in a good spirit. It is just a shame that similar letters in the past have led to the leaders saying they were written by bitter people and were an attack of the devil.
6 It would be our hope that this will settle many of the things you are concerned about or at least illustrate where we are in our current thinking and planning.
That would seem a reasonable position.
7 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.
I think they need more than that. They are not THE church, they are just a small part of the church. It is very clear they need outside help. They presumably accept outside help for the annual accounts and legal matters, why not in other areas?
8 If there are points of clarification required or subjects that you would wish to explore further then we would offer to meet to actually discuss these issues.
Cop out. There would be no record, no clarity, no accountability.
9 That doesn’t need to be with the full Board but some arrangement of it that would provide a more timely response than this current process.
Nonsense. These issues have been going on for 40 years. Continuing the approach they have tried over all these years, and which has failed miserably, would not be more timely – it would take at least another 40 years.
10 We have given responses to your questions below - 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?
I have not cross- referenced, but assume this is from Alan’s letter.
11 The real issue has been managing all the changes necessary, not merely recognising the need for change.
I totally disagree with this. In any management situation, the difficulty is generally knowing what needs changed. Actually doing the change can of course be difficult, but there is lots of advice out there about how to manage change in general and specific changes in particular This seems to be an admission that some things need to be changed. Indeed, “all the changes” suggests there is a lot to change. I wonder if we will find out what these things are?
12 The Board of Directors are responsible for the legal obligations and management of the charitable entity.
This is true. I suspect the Board (and previous members of the board)have little idea of just how much responsibility they carry.
13 When the new Board took office 15 months ago, we were faced with an unprecedented existential crisis.
“existential” means “relating to human existence”. It is really unclear what on earth this word means here. Is it suggesting the ongoing existence of the organisation was at stake? That would seem to be a reasonable interpretation, but it is not really clear.

The real question is how did this crisis arise? See below.
14 While this was primarily financial in nature, managing it and seeking solutions has consumed a huge amount of time and energy and to this date we are still seeking a conclusion in some matters.
“Primarily financial in nature” Wow. What happened to “God’s word, done in God’s Way, will never want God’s supply”? How can it be primarily financial rather than spiritual in nature?

How did they reach this point of financial crisis? Who was managing the organisation as it lurched towards this crisis? There were something like 15 years of warnings on this forum that the school was siphoning off an unsustainable amount of money. We know the leaders were aware of this because they regularly spoke about these evil people who had terrible motives who were trying (and succeeding apparently – how can that be?) in destroying God’s work. So they were well aware of the sound external advice. Who chose to ignore that? What lessons have been learned? Was the organisation mis-managed? What action are they taking against former directors?

I also doubt that anyone reading this forum would for one moment think that the crisis was primarily financial in nature. What is abundantly clear is that this is primarily spiritual in nature – they are disobeying the word of God and are suffering the consequences.
15 It has also had a significant human impact, directly on some people because of their employment situation or on families through the school or in the churches due to the unsettling nature of the crisis.
Well, at least they admit is was unsettling, but “the unsettling nature of the crisis” is written in the third person – “this happened” as opposed to the first person – “We did this”.

let us be very clear, this is not something that happened TO the organisation, this is something the organisation did, and something that would not have happene3d if the management had been at all competent.
16 These have been handled as sensitively and well as we are able.
Again, “this” has been handled. That makes it sound like it was an external event that precipitated this crises. That is not the case.
“As sensitively as we are able” An interesting change from “this is God’s word and we don’t care if you are offended by it.”
And that really begs the question of how sensitive they are able to be. What experience do thy have of being sensitive to the needs of others? According to all the accounts on this forum, very little. “As sensitive as they are able” may not be a very high bar.
17 That does not mean that everyone will see it that way or indeed we will have achieved a solution that suits everyone.
Again, so far from the core Struthers message of “all you need to do is find God’s will, nothing else matters”
18 Indeed we would recognise what a painful , disruptive and disquieting process it has all been.
Have you read this forum!!! What about all the others who have experienced a painful, disruptive and disquieting process? You really think that one short-term disruptive process is the issue? I know a number of people who have lost or changed jobs or not been able to develop their full potential because of Struthers-induced trauma that has lasted decades.

We also seem to have totally lost the point here. The question was, “are changes needed” The answer being given is “we had this crises to manage and we did our best.”
19 In a sense the human cost of this has been the most difficult to quantify.
Also very, very interesting in the Struthers context. I thought the leader knew what was going on in people’s lives, yet they cannot now quantity the human cost of something they did (presumably because God told them to do it). Surely if they were just following God’s will, there is no cost, is it all a benefit. Is that not what they preach? They have this inner knowledge that tells them the will of God, which is why everything is so successful?
20 What we can now say is that the charity is financially solvent, viable and has discharged its responsibilities to the staff it employed and the pupils/families of the school.
Again, “God’s work, done in God’s way will never lack God’s supply” (Hudson Taylor, frequently quoted by Mr Black). What are they saying here?
21 While your letter does not reference these events, they form the context in which the church has found itself.
Exactly – the letter does not reference these events. So you have, at least until this point, made no attempt to answer the actual questions. It also again uses the passive voice, “the context in which the church has found itself” . This is quite simply a deceptive use of language. The church had not “found itself” in this situation, the church has put itself into this situation.
22 It would be difficult not to acknowledge the distressing and unsettling impact these events have had on us.
Oh, please do feel sorry for the poor leaders. The impact this has had on us!
23 At the same time as managing the crisis we have pursued changes in how we manage safeguarding.
All organisations have to manage safeguarding. This should not be a major change.
24 We have reviewed and are in the process of rewriting our complaints policy and finance policy together with investigating and securing a new camp venue.
What on earth is the point of reviewing a policy where this is unequivocal evidence that you feel under no obligation to implement the policy? You know fine that you did not implement your policy in respect to the “letter of complaint” posted by FriendlyFace. In fact, the reason you are re-writing the policy is probably because you did not want to implement the last one.

You simply cannot do that with any integrity though. What happens if you do not feel like implementing the new policy? You simply write back to people and say, “yes, this is our policy, but that was a mistake, but don’t worry, we are going to write a new policy”. This is morally bankrupt, and is the real reason the organisation was close to financial bankruptcy. You cannot do this, and the organisation will never recover until you address the underlying moral issues.
25 This is important because the tool the Board uses to change culture or practise within the church is policy.
No, it clearly isn’t. You have shown that by your failure to implement your complaints policy. This is a lie. Until you reverse that appalling decision, none of your policies are worth the paper they are written upon.
26 For example, the safeguarding policy is part of our legal duty as a charity but also best practise as a church.
It should be, yes.
27 The policy under review was heavily consulted and rewritten with the input of not only the safeguarding team but also interested individuals across the church.
I wonder if it included anyone form outside of the church, but again, that it not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is that they feel under no obligation to actually implement policy, so it is totally meaningless.

This is important. There is simply no point in writing new policies when there is uncontroversial evidence you pay them no regard when a real situation arises.
28 It was launched through a training session at our summer camp with follow ups in our branch churches.
See above comment.
29 In addition the development of the policy led to the ministry training session we also held in the summer.
See above comment. Did no-one ask why they failed to implement the previous complaints policy? It is almost as if everyone had been trained not to question the leaders.
30 We are committed to annual review of the policy and are exploring the next stage is in ministry training.
Again though, what point are we actually on here? What is the question they have been asked to answer? Without looking back, can you dear reader even work out what the question was here? I for one am totally lost.
31 The feedback we received from the ministry and safeguarding training has been very encouraging and supported the conclusion we are heading in the right direction.
Feedback from whom?

And, again (yes, I am a bit repetitive) that is only feedback that the policy statement is heading in the right direction according to a group of people who have for decades been told the leadership are always right and it is wrong to argue with them.
32 These developments have had a real impact and represent a significant change from what we have done in the past.
So what was wrong in the past? How did you identify the need to change? Was it because God revealed it to you, which is how you say these things happen, or was it perhaps though complaints and incidents that arose, which pushed you into a change you had not though about? It is important that people understand how this process works.
33 A big challenge on the horizon is to reconstitute our Articles of Association.
A big change? Whit? This is a 1-hour exercise.
34 These set out the powers and scope of the Board.
35 They were originally drafted to oversee the financial running of the charity, not the constitutional matters of the church.
Who drew them up? Was this a mistake? Who was responsible for keeping them under review?

Again, the passive voice – “they were drafted” not by any responsible person or anything like they, they were just drafted. “It fell all by itself”.
36 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.
Fair enough. An hour’s work
37 So not only has there been change but there is more to come in the future.
I am losing the will to live here, so will refrain from commenting further at this point, but really, a change to the constitution is the thing you think about in terms of a “change management programme”. Really? Do you know how pathetic that sounds? You new vision for the organisation is to have a constitution that better reflects the fact you no longer have a school and the bookshops. This is according to you a “big change”.

My overall conclusion at this point is that they have no idea what the issues are. They seem to think the issues are all related to the financial crisis, which is total nonsense when people have been saying the same things for 40 years. To take a consistent set of questions that have been around for 40 years and say, "oh yes, you must be speaking about what happened last week" is misdirection.

Hello folks - if anyone wants an easier to read Word version of the above open response, I have taken the >transcription> above and put into Word, with the 5 areas, 13 questions and answers more easily laid out for digestion.

I have an anonymous email address that can be used and I will send back as an attachment.
rigged.sides@gmail.com

I can be big enough to give credit where credit's due - this is the start of thinking being out in the public domain. Written Policies?? With a review timetable?? And acknowledgement that the only legal members of the Charity for decision making and accountability being the Board is a mockery of the church being made up of many people?

As to what questions have truly been answered and which fudged, and how much still depends on how much your face fits ... I'm sure the forum members will contribute comments here.

L

Can you please send me it REDROAD THANKS



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2025 02:45AM by FalkirkBairn67.

The public response letter fails to meaningfully engage with the concerns raised in the original letter, offering little more than a surface level defence rather than a genuine attempt at accountability. It repeatedly frames criticism as misunderstanding or misrepresentation, rather than engaging with the substance of the complaints. Nowhere does it acknowledge the testimonies of former members who have described spiritual abuse, coercive control, and psychological harm within Struthers Memorial Church. Instead, it dismisses these concerns as "misconceptions," without providing any evidence to counter them. The letter claims that leadership is "always willing to listen," yet there are no mechanisms outlined for accountability, independent oversight, or meaningful redress for those who have suffered harm.

Rather than acknowledging past wrongdoing, the letter takes a defensive tone, insisting that Struthers operates with "love and care" while failing to address specific allegations of authoritarian control, public shaming, and the forced severing of family relationships. It makes vague assurances about "safeguarding," and also fails to engage with the longstanding issue of financial transparency. Struthers’ opaque handling of donations and lack of independent scrutiny have been raised repeatedly, yet the response entirely ignores these concerns.

More broadly, Struthers Memorial Church has long been criticised for its insular and authoritarian leadership structure, which operates with little internal or external accountability. On this forum we have all described an environment in which leadership exerts an unhealthy level of control over personal decisions, including relationships, careers, and even seemingly trivial lifestyle choices. The church’s exclusionary practices are also deeply troubling, with individuals who question leadership decisions often finding themselves ostracised. Reports of spiritual abuse, coercive control, and public shaming suggest a culture in which guilt and fear are used as tools for compliance rather than faith and community. Despite these longstanding concerns, there appears to be little in the way of external oversight or safeguarding measures to protect members from harm. Instead of addressing these issues head-on, the church’s response continues to deflect, reinforcing the very criticisms that have been levelled against it.