I really appreciate the detailed breakdown of the letter and response RedRoad. I appreciate the effort to engage with the issues raised and the attempt to address specific concerns. I do think it’s clear that while the Board’s responses suggest some willingness for change, they fall short in a number of key areas, particularly regarding accountability and transparency.

The language throughout the letter often feels defensive, with responsibility being shifted onto congregants rather than addressing the serious issues raised by members. The claim that the church is open to questioning and debate is undermined by the lack of concrete mechanisms for safeguarding and accountability. While policies are mentioned, there’s little indication of how these will be effectively implemented, or how congregants can trust that this will result in meaningful change. There have been policies before, they were dead pages in a folder on a shelf whilst leadership did what they pleased.

The comments about the leadership structure and appointment of leaders are also concerning. The use of subjective terms like "discernment" to decide leadership, without clear, objective criteria, leaves room for continued manipulation and control. A transparent, democratic process for appointing leaders is crucial if the church is to rebuild trust with its members, ex members, and wider communities.

Ultimately, while the response acknowledges some concerns, it doesn’t demonstrate a genuine commitment to change. True accountability isn’t just about promises, it requires actionable steps, consistently followed through, with independent oversight to ensure the wellbeing of all members and passers through.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2025 07:18AM by anonymousfornow.

Thanks for all the recent contributions, especially your very detailed analysis RedRoad.

A few quick thoughts just now.

1) The reply says Diana has no individual power, she only has a casting vote in a disagreement.

The Church website says:

Quote
Struthers Memorial Church Website
While officially the Executive Council has been replaced by the Board of Directors, in reality the task of overseeing the work of the Fellowship continues as it did previously, with Mrs Diana Rutherford now carrying the overall responsibility for the work, supported by the other directors and the members of the whole Fellowship.

This is why they hate putting things in writing - they know they will contradict themselves as it is all made up as they go along and changes from moment to moment.

2) The more I look at the reply, the more I see a total lack of any responsibility or accountability. What it all seems to be saying is, “The vase broke all by itself, please feel sorry for us as we try really hard to stick it back together”

Apart from the irony of Struthers leaders asking for others to emphasise with them, what is this nonsense about the vase breaking all by itself? No,


*THEY*

*BROKE*

*THE*

*VASE*.

“Read my lips” as folks used to say.

They were told they were in a precarious position, getting closer and closer to the edge of the table, and their response was, “Do not listen to these terrible people sent by the devil, we have it all under control.”

3) Oh, and the point about them being so much above St Paul’s command to appoint elders is also well made. Yet another example of the selective use of Scripture that ignores Biblical teaching and substitutes whatever they feel like at the time. My only additional thought on that is “what gifts?” What training, support, development, challenge, teaching and encouragement have people had to allow them to grow into mature Christians that evidence a gifted calling? I could write another page or two on that theme.

4) One final thought for now. If there is anyone on the Struthers side saying, "See, these people are just out to get us. This show they will just criticise anything." That is NOT TRUE. That is simply an "ad hominem" attack that attacks the person writing the statement rather than actually looking at what is said. It is a fallacious argument that distracts from the issues rather than addressing them. So please, whoever you are, please ignore who the author of a statement is and look at the statement itself. They is why Justice wears a blindfold - because justice does not get to see who is speaking, Justice evaluates the issues.



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

Hi again - I went back to Alan Martin's letter as posted by FF on p208. (Thanks GentlenessandJustice for prompt to go back.)
If you read his introductory paragraphs again, and then re-read the Board responses in each Section, you get a different impression as to how well the questions have been answered.

Alan's introductory paragraphs could almost be written by any one of us who left. And the comments from Phoebe2, anonymousfornow, TheGreek, ThePetitor in preceding pages highlight some of the same matters raised by Alan in his introduction.

Quote
p208 ff excerpt from full Alan Martin Letter
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.

... well perhaps we would not have written this sentence ... :)
"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."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2025 08:59PM by RedRoad.

On a possibly unrelated note, I thought some readers might be interested in a little bit of a distraction and might enjoy this story.

In his first FOUNDATION story (“Foundation,” Astounding Science Fiction, May 1942) there is a scene where a politician from the Empire, Lord Dorwin, has come to the new planet "Terminus" to provide reassurance from the decaying Empire. He talked the talk and walked the walk, and left with everyone happy and reassured. But the hero of the story, Salvor Hardin, knew better…

Quote
Issac Asimov, Foundation
Hardin threw himself back int he chair, “You know, that’s the most interesting part of the whole business. I’ll admit I had thought his Lordship a most consummate donkey when I first met him — but it turned out that he was actually an accomplished diplomat and a most clever man. I took the liberty of recording all his statements.”

There was a flurry, and Pirenne opened his mouth in horror.

“What of it?” demanded Hardin. “I realize it was a gross breach of hospitality and a thing no so-called gentleman would do. Also, that if his lordship had caught on, things might have been unpleasant; but he didn’t, and I have the record, and that’s that. I took that record, had it copied out, and sent that to Holk for analysis, also.”

Lundin Crast said, “And where is the analysis?”

“That,” replied Hardin, “is the most interesting thing.

The analysis was the most difficult of the three by all odds. When Holk, after two days of steady work, succeeded in eliminating meaningless statements, vague gibberish, useless qualifications - in short, all the goo and dribble - he found he had nothing left. Everything cancelled out.

Lord Dorwin, gentlemen, in five days of discussion didn't say one damned thing, and said it so you never noticed.

:-)

To
Petitor and redroad
Thank you for sifting through as Phoebe 2 states ‘all the verbiage’
The forum have been looking for answers to similar questions that Allan has clearly stated in his letter for a number of years.
Friendlyface and others have tried to communicate with the leadership to answer these questions but the basic reply to the forum is SMC can’t because the forum is anonymous!
Well Allan (and Pauline) made themselves known. Yes did get answers but most of it was obfuscations.
I’m only going to comment on one of the answers because both redroad and the petitor and others have done a thorough examination of the answers.

I’ve longed believe that SMC do not hold to biblical New Testament Church order/ structure but rather see themselves through the lens of the Old Testament leadership where you have ‘Moses’ type leaders who hear from God and then the people follow without question because the leaders are the anointed ones called of God. These Moses leaders who are allegedly gifted and anointed then use their special gifts and knowledge to decide who else in the congregation will follow in their footsteps and then trained in their image. There is no policy which shows what qualifications (not academic necessarily) are needed to fulfil this role.
This is seen in they’re answers to one of the questions

‘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.”

And you’ve got it wrong!

“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.”
There is no structure in place!! That’s the point Alan was making.
Also have they not learned anything from the past couple of years or from the testimonies that actually say the opposite of this? there is no richness of gifts across the congregation and the people are not blessed as a whole body. This is arrogance and completely lacks humility. Has the New Testament got it wrong? These offices were given by God to His church for a reason.

“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.”

Again what arrogance!

The titles don’t diminish roles they simply recognise individuals who are properly trained and have the appropriate skills to serve the body of Christ in humility.
A few verses about elders (also referred to as overseers)
1. Churches are supposed to appoint elders
Acts 14:23
‘ 23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.’

Did Paul and Barnabas get it wrong?

2. Elders serve the church and don’t lord over it
1 Peter 5
1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder (obviously Peter got it wrong too!)
Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.
Do the leaders in SMC fulfill this scripture?
Eager to serve Gods people and not lording over them?

3. Qualifications of elders
Titus
‘For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:7–9, ESV)

How many of the above qualifications do the present appointed leaders have?
Also I don’t read here or other like scriptures about biblical elders (or overseers) that they must be people who ‘the spirit moves through and where the gifts operate’
Why?
Probably because the alleged signs of gifts do not necessarily mean that a person is actually serving Jesus as Lord and being His servant or moving in the Holy Spirit. It is the character and service of the person to others that exemplifies true service and being true to the biblical word with love and rebuking those who contradict it.
Jesus says
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:15–23 Esv
This is the root of the problem - relying on signs instead of biblical qualifications.

To Diana and the Directors
Let the axe be laid to the root of the tree. You genuinely seek change ….go back to biblical standards.
All you have done to date is ticking boxes, whitewashing and trying to fix financial mistakes that you yourself caused and that were actually recognised years ago. The root needs to be removed and a new biblical standard re-planted.
When the word goes hand in hand with the moving of the Holy Spirit then true Christianity is observed.
Take one step….biblical training of those who seek to be elders.
For example, a two year course in Cornhill Scotland will help with that:
‘The course is designed to equip Christians to:
Understand the Bible accurately. (SMCleaders don’t have an accurate understanding)
Teach the Bible effectively (SMC leaders do not teach effectively)
Apply the Bible appropriately. (SMC leaders do not apply the Bible appropriately)
Alongside this, we train men and women to teach the Bible in other contexts such as youth and children’s work and women’s ministries.’
Obviously there are other courses but this is just one example.
Start here SMC leaders if you are genuine.

But unfortunately I’m very pessimistic that the leadership & directors will in fact return to biblical standards for those who will lead their church. Why?
The opposite is seen in their answers to Alan’s letter.

"Amen" to all your comments, AmazingGrace. And oh how apt ThePetitor's quotation from "Foundations"!

I have not really had a chance to spend any more time on this at the moment, but I did have a couple of further thoughts. First, to repeat a point already made by some, the letter doers not really answer the questions.

Alan for example says:

Quote
Letter from Alan
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.

The answer to that was:

Quote
Reply to that letter
It was primarily a financial crisis.

That rather sums it up to me. A respected member of the community raises some important issues - exactly the same sorts of issues that have ben raised over decades - and the “answer” is actually a diversion from the question, not an answer.

This is an organisation that spiritualises everything. You are thinking about a new job? Come here and we will pray with you about it. You are considering a relationship? We will tell you God’s will for your life. You are thinking about leaving your husband? Good idea, that will give you more time for God. (Yes, this last one did actually happen, it is not made up.)

Yet, when a real spiritual issue come up – un-Christlike actions - the answer is “it was primarily a financial issue.” No. It is not. THIS is a spiritual issue – a matter of integrity, morality, ethics and behaviour. Read your Bible – these are the Spiritual issues, not what colour of socks to put on in the morning. Struthers leaders - these are the issues you have failed to confront over decades. You have spent years saying about how everything is actually spiritual at the heart of it, yet when something so obviously spiritual is raised, you say it is primarily financial (and that “it just happened”, with no-one having any responsibility). This is more than hypocrisy, this is deliberate self-imposed blindness and, worse, it is tying a blindfold around the eyes of your followers.

On a totally different point, the other thing I was thinking about was this whole idea that changing the constitution being a big piece of work. If it is simply changing a paragraph or two, that is pretty easy, so I am now wondering if they are thinking of something more.

The current structure is that they are a Limited Company that is also registered as a Charity. They could if they wished drop one of these two aspects, become a limited company that was not a charity (unlikely) or becoming a charity that was no longer a limited company (possible). They could also do other things like split the organisation by making each church a separate charity.

All these things have implications for their accountability.

If they for example drop the Limited Company status, they will no longer have to make their annual accounts public. The thing is, if they had done this years ago, we would not have been able to see the annual accounts, so could not have pointed out the fact that so much money was going to the school. That would have made it much easier for them to say, “see, we know nothing about this, is just happened all by itself – what happened was the vase just broke. No-one could have seen this coming.”

Forgive my cynicism, but it almost seems like they do not care about the way they have drained more than half a million pounds from the Lord’s work to prop up private education, or about the pain and distress caused to those who lost their jobs, or even that their process of hearing God’s voice has failed them miserably, all they care about is the fact there was published evidence that they have been incompetent. Instead of addressing the issues and exploring what went wrong, they want to make sure it cannot happen again not by increasing their accountability, which might stop mistakes happening, but by decreasing their accountability so that it is more likely to happen again, but it will all be able to be kept secret.

They could also decide to split into different charities, one for each church. If they do that, they would have to consider the financial side very carefully - should the Glasgow church for example be asked to carry its own liabilities including the six-figure cost of roof repairs? That would allow the other branches to be in a better financial position, but most likely at the cost of forcing the Glasgow church into bankruptcy. Is that a moral decision? Is it even legal? Will the financial implications of these sorts of choices be presented publicly and people given time to consider the issues and implications?

I will leave it to readers to judge how this plays out, but I suspect that, at every turn, what the leaders will do is try to hide and obscure information in the same way that they tried to hide the fact that over half a million pounds went from the congregation into the school and there has been no attempt at all to try to work out what might have gone wrong.

Thanks, Petitor and Redroad, for your good work in recent posts.

I would emphasise one simple point, implicit in what you and many others gave written, there needs to be an ADMISSION OF FAULT.

If over half a million pounds were transferred over several years to the now-defunct private school without the congregation's knowledge, then this is misappropriation of funds and deception on an industrial scale.

If true, it is profoundly unspiritual and unethical, and I suspect also illegal.

In addition, the leaders of the Struthers group of churches - it can hardly any longer be called a "movement", although it appears to be in freefall, and I guess that is movement of a kind! - should admit fault in how they have dealt with people, per the massive bank of testimony on this forum.

Fault lies not just with current leaders - who are in some cases I think less guilty - but with the immediately preceding leaders who have stepped back from the front line.

Al Duff

Indeed. I do agree with your thoughts about the past and current leaders, but the current leaders are regrettably becoming more implicated the longer they hold off from any real public analysis and apology regarding this (and many other matters).

For info, having looked again at the figures, I underestimated by quite a long way. There is a breakdown of a few random years of the accounts on p157 of this forum. All the figures are taken from the published accounts.

These show that the amount the school was subsidised by the church in various years was:

2009  £160,000
2010  
2011 
2012  £ 66,000
2013 
2014
2015  
2016
2017 
2018  £ 160,000
2019  £ 110,000
2020
2021
2022  £ 308,000

Adding these up gives a total of £750,000 so, even if the church did not subsidise the school at all in any other year, the total was £750,000.

I suspect the truth is that the subsidies were at least £100,000 per annum, probably £200,000+ per annum in 2020 and 2021. I reckon a conservative estimate is therefore that the church subsidised the school by something like £1.5 to £2.0 million in total since the matter was first drawn to their attention in 2009.

As they were and are a single organisation, this is an internal subsidy. I therefore doubt it was illegal as such. It may have broken the charity laws as trustees have to act in the best interests of the organisation, and need to either have or acquire the competence to do so.

I certainly think it shows incompetence, and not telling the members the true situation smacks of dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

Thanks, Petitor.

Wow. I am nearly beyond words.

This cannot not be against Charity law.

To think that I was hounded from the church for politely raising a red flag on the evening Miss B announced this foolish and unspiritual project.

And that I and everyone else sat innocently in the pews while the private school was syphoning off our hard-earned gifts.

If your analysis is sound, I demand to see admission of fault from the principal actors in the debacle, including the former treasurer, whose job was to safeguard the financial interests of the congregation.

And a written apology.

You're right about the current leaders. Although they have been left to deal with the results of decisions made by predessors, and I feel some sympathy for them, they need now to stop lying to each other and to themselves, and to come to the table.