anonymousfornow You've summed up the issues raised by this Forum in clear language once more. I don't think there's one sentence there I can disagree with.

But ... being inspired by one erudite poster to this forum who is not afraid to put forward another perspective, (and as I say, I cannot disagree with anything you have written, I and my family have personal knowledge of all you wrote) ... the letter was not written to the Forum contributors!
It was written to a single church leader (and possibly to the wider congregants). So at one level, they had no responsibility to answer the themes that we have brought up again and again.

I have gone thro the questions and picked out the phrases that I think are the Board's attempt to answer those specific questions. I'll put them together in a separate post. It might also be another means of shortcut for those who are struggling to take in the quantity of information in the Forum copy above.

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

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

Section 3 - Accountability Structures:
6. 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?
7. Can the values and principles of our movement regarding leadership be clearly articulated, so that everyone understands what is expected of a leader?

Section 4- Operation of the Board:
8. Is authority distributed equally among its board members, or does the senior leader retain ultimate decision-making power?
9. How is collective input, collaborative decision-making and accountability ensured?
10. 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?

Section 5- Written Documentation:
11. 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?

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

Section 1- Need for change
Questions 1 & 2 ask if there are “issues that require serious attention and action?” and “what changes” are “necessary”

Answer from text:
“we have pursued changes in how we manage safeguarding. 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”

“the tool the Board uses to change culture or practise within the church is policy”

Future change: “reconstitute our Articles of Association”

Alternative view: This suggests that the Board acknowledges there are “issues that require serious attention and action?” and says some changes they have begun and that one significant formal change is still to come.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2025 05:41AM by RedRoad.

Section 2 - Authority in the church
Questions 4 & 5 ask about “defined scope and limits of authority” for both “leaders of individual churches and the senior leader” and whether there are “clear boundaries for the appropriate exercising of this authority “

Answer from text:
Wish to not “be overstepping our remit”
“should never be in the position of telling a minister or local branch what to do”

“Individual ministers are responsible for their own churches … 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 being. In fact we want to encourage each of our churches to develop within their own context” (my personal bold annotating)

“the church is an entirely voluntary organisation. No person will ever be compelled or forced by another”

My comment: Has that answered question 4 & 5? I would suggest there is no definition here of “scope and limits of authority”. Left loose. That can be a practical solution. There is an organisational argument whether detailed prescriptive written rules and definitions are workable or capable of being adaptable to new situations. As an example, the UK does not having a written constitution (which France or the USA does). The UK unwritten constitution is an organic mixture of Parliament Legislation and Common Law created and tested by cases going through the courts. But I would say that 70 years of Struthers existence is not comparable to the evolution of the UK unwritten constitution. There is no judicial case law. Until some kind of recent past, there have been no organisational policies.

Would you not say that the answer given to Question 4 & 5 is still open to subjective interpretation?

And at this point of the letter, there is no reference at all to the Senior Leader. This was specifically asked about in Q4.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2025 05:42AM by RedRoad.

Section 3 - Accountability Structures:
Q6. 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?
Q7. Can the values and principles of our movement regarding leadership be clearly articulated, so that everyone understands what is expected of a leader?

Answer from text: (with my personal edit of bold annotating)
“Our developing policy framework will form the basis for dealing with the situations alluded to in the question”
“a decision is ‘demonstrably wrong’ because an individual or small group disagrees with it then we need to be robust enough to debate and defend our position.”

“In terms of values, we would aspire … be as Christ-like as they can be”
“In terms of articulating this we have included a code of conduct in our safeguarding policy.”

“This sets out what we expect from anyone who 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.”

“we also want mature believers who can weigh up and test what is being said and done. We are keen to encourage a balance of action and teaching on this in the church and promote the structures that make it possible.”

My summary of the Board’s answers are that mechanisms or structures will be outlined by Policy writing; if a few people disagree the Board does not need to change course but does need to be able to “debate and defend”, and values and principles will be covered by Code of Conduct within Safeguarding policy.

There seems to be a tilt at this point. You could say that the letter shifts from answering the questions to blaming the congregation. Or you could read it as a surprising, wholly new, never seen before direction: Allowing members to grow up. To leave the kindergarten. To do what this Forum has documented as previously unallowed. To question. “weigh up and test”??!! And the Board will “debate and defend” in return??

Can we believe this? Are any current members able to corroborate that questioning is now allowed without banishment?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2025 05:42AM by RedRoad.

Section 4 - Operation of the Board:
Q8. Is authority distributed equally among its board members, or does the senior leader retain ultimate decision-making power?
Q9. How is collective input, collaborative decision-making and accountability ensured?
Q10. 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?

Answer from text: (with my personal edit of bold annotating)
“The Chair of the Board has no more authority in making a decision than the rest of the Board unless 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 occasions where close attention to the rules creates a point of absurdity, but our Articles don’t at the moment formally recognise the real passion, commitment and contribution our church members provide. 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 main mechanism for the charity Board to report to the congregational members.”
“Our communications around finance, the position of the school, safeguarding and the information regarding our new camp venue all provide opportunities to gain an insight into the thoughts and direction of the Board.”

“Individual Board members retain agency, trust and conscience to discharge their responsibilities towards the good of the charity trust and branch churches. Indeed one of the real concerns among the Board has been to consult and gain a mandate from what we view as our ‘real’ members.”

My comment – question 10 is not answered at all.

However, it being up to the “trust and conscience” of Board Members to act for the “good of the charity trust and branch churches” is not unusual or inappropriate. The same would be said for any regular charity trustee. I suppose the stumbling block is that Forum members do not trust the Board, do not trust their interpretation of “good of charity”.

But we are not members, well, in fact, no ordinary member of the congregation, not even Alan Martin, is a member of the official charity, but leaving that pin-head aside, we, on the Forum are not members of Struthers, so it is up to the current attendees to hold their Board to account. The previous section responses said they wanted the congregation to “weigh up and test”. They promised that as a Board they would “debate and defend” in return.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2025 05:43AM by RedRoad.

Section 5 Written Documentation:
Q11. 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?

Answer from text: (with my personal edit of bold annotating)
“We already have policies and more are planned”

“Policies can also fail to anticipate unforeseen circumstances or create unintended consequences or need to be adapted to meet new needs. This can be dealt with through review 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 timescales 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.”

“If our ministers and congregations express a desire for such constitutional documents, then we would view it as the Board’s role to coordinate such a task.”

My comment: So Board doe not think more needs done re constitution, but say they would accept the congregation's push for it if they so wanted constitutional documents? Presumably to be put forward and decided at an AGM? Again, Forum members are going to be skeptical. But it’s up to attendees again. Test the new regime.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2025 05:44AM by RedRoad.

Last one!!
Section 6 Appointment of leaders:
Q12. Does the Board believe that the movement needs to change its leadership structures and/or processes for appointing leaders?
Q13. Can the board clarify its position on 'eldership' and the public appointment of a plurality of local leaders who operate together as a team?

Answer from text: (with my personal edit of bold annotating)
“As a church we have a genuine desire to find, enable and have Spirit filled leaders. Our model, if we use that phrase, has been to try and discern who the Spirit is moving through and where the gifts are in operation. This process hasn’t been committed to writing within a constitution, but we’re no less committed to it despite that. This has been the path to leadership such as it is exercised in the church.”

“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.”

“There is a legitimate question to answer if the traditional structure of elders and deacons can capture the richness of gifts and service we are blessed to enjoy.”

“We have a concern 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 something to be cherished and may not be found in many other churches, even those with more traditional titles.”

“We’re more comfortable with a federal system than a central state. It’s only by recognising the fact that spiritual authority lies with our ministers and individual churches and that they need to be free to respond to how God is leading them in their context.”

My response to processes for appointing leaders – oh no, there’s that word “discern” warning, warning. What about an objective set of criteria – a person spec of knowledge, skills and experience? Something that is available for all to see. For all then to be able to “weigh up and test”, and that as a Board they would be able to “debate and defend” in return.

My response on the Elder/Deacon comments - Struthers exceptionalism once again. As if other churches do not also contain “treasurers, a Safeguarding Team, Health & Safety reps, Finance committee, Board members, tech people, a camp team. We also have all the people who organise Sunday School rotas or serve on the Sunday School themselves, transport, specific 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”.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2025 05:44AM by RedRoad.

RedRoad -- very helpful posts in trying to wade through all the verbiage. Thank you!

Re the Elders & Deacons comments again (yes, I know I have a bee in my bonnet about this but it really irks). The leaders don't seem to have any problem with using the traditional term/title minister. I wonder why?

Redroad thanks alot for your post .This has saved me alot of time and sleepless night trying to sort this out in my head. Got enough to sort out without adding more.

Alot of things are moving forward. But everyone we all need to support each other . Also we need to also mind some folk really don't want to talk about SMC and what happened to them all the time. I know me myself nearly a year ago. Meet some OLD friends.after 40 years so I could explain to them why I left the church. What was very hard to share. But the best thing I did as its gave me answers that I wasnt alone.Others have went through and felt the same as I all those years.I dont regret speaking up but zi do regret zi left it 40 years to do so.This forum has helped me alot also so thanks everyone.