Re: Struthers Memorial Independent Pentecostal Church
Posted by:
Liz25
()
Date: March 09, 2025 10:47PM
Thanks to the Geek (!) for finding my original post from 2011 ( I mentioned it in my earlier post today )under my pseudonym Pilgrimess!
And thank you to Chesterk55 for answering it a few months later- which I didn’t ever see!
And thank you to Chesterk55 for answering it a few months later- which I didn’t ever see!
Re: Struthers Memorial Independent Pentecostal Church
Posted by:
ThePetitor
()
Date: March 10, 2025 09:15PM
I have had a look at the next section of the open letter and open reply and post my thoughts below. I am not sure this is the most important contribution, other have done a far better job of summarising the key issues, but I find it interesting to see how the specifics of the wording conveys a few hidden and not-so-hidden messages.
So, here is is - feel free to ignore!
I think I might need to go and lie down :-)
37. Authority in the church: What are the defined scope and limits of authority for leaders of individual churches and the senior leader of the movement? Are there clear boundaries for the appropriate exercising of this authority within the local church and movement?
a very good question
38. The Board/charity structure does not marry easily with the fact of being a church.
If this is the case, why was it not noticed before, perhaps during the 15 or more years the church was subsidising the school?
39. 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.
well… yes… but…that would need a bit of clarification. Let’s read on.
40. While according to the Articles the Board technically has the authority to tell the churches what to do, in practice this would be overstepping our remit.
Woah! So they are admitting they are lying in the Articles – they have no intention to actually do what they say.
This is exactly the problem with Struthers documents including the Articles of Association and any policies. They do not believe in them! They are just bits of paper that can be overruled whenever they wish. I presume the statement “this would be overstepping our remit” refers to the board, and they are saying that to take responsibility would be overstepping their remit.
This is illegal folks – it is saying the board are not fulfilling their statutory duties. Let’s be clear here – every one of the Directors could be struck off for this.
They ARE responsible – this is the point TheGreek has made a number of times. What they are saying here is illegal and wrong.
41. There is a spiritual oversight and authority that rightly belongs to the ministers and our congregations.
What is this oversight and authority? What is the scriptural basis? Does any authority remain with the board? What parts?
If these are the people with authority, these are the people who should be on the board. That is how it works – the people who have the real authority are the people who sit on the Board that has the legal authority vested in it.
42. We want any changes or developments to be in partnership with them.
It would be normal practice to make changes through consultation and partnership, that sounds ok, but wait a minute – partnership with whom? The above paragraph refers to “the ministers and the congregations” so this is a partnership between the board, which is a legal entity and another group. What is the constitution of this other group? What are their politics and aims? If a business is taking forward proposals in consultation with the unions, the unions have a constitution, aims and policies, so people know what they are dealing with.
And it has already be said above that the minister (and the congregations??) already have oversight. Messy.
43. 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 legal or financial issue.
They would not be in the position of telling a minister what to do? Really? What if they were preaching heresy – or what if their ministry was, just for example, not showing any love or fruit of the spirit? Is there not a responsibility here? This suggests there is no disciplinary policy of practice for ministers.
Any what then is the “spiritual oversight” referenced above? What does this mean if they cannot tell a minister what to do? How is this "spiritual oversight" exercised if they cannot tell people what to do? This simply does not make any sense.
44. One of our strengths is that each church context is unique and we need local insight to understand how the Board can support them in the real work - the gospel.
Interesting language about the board supporting the local church. I am not sure that is how it works in practice though.
As for strengths – hmmm.
45. 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 we can support them in sharing the good news? We pray for the day when that is a reality.
To claim this is all about structural and financial issues is a pack of nonsense. That is not what the main issues are. It is not what the letter asked about. Diversionary tactics.
46. While only our Articles of Association are available on paper and our current organisation isn’t written down it’s no less established because of that.
this is a key part of the problem – that the “current organisation isn’t written down”
47. Individual ministers are responsible for their own churches (some of them founded by that minister) but they remain part of a wider network, available for support, encouragement or challenge as required.
Legally, this I simply not true.
48. The Board has no desire or mandate to impose a single central structure or way of being.
so branches can chose to read from the Book of Mormon each week? What if they decide to have one-to-one meetings with young people in private? Don’t shoot the messenger here - that is what you are saying, that the board has no role in managing the branches. This is why unwritten policies do not work as it leaves open these sorts of ambiguities.
Is it not also the case that the board appoint the leaders of each branch?
49. In fact we want to encourage each of our churches to develop within their own context in the way God opens to them.
I am not sure what this means. Has this worked? Have the branches had things open to them and developed? Do you examine this? Could you perhaps publish some of this so that others (including other branches) might learn from how this works?
50. Finally the church is an entirely voluntary organisation.
This is messing about with history. The church has for the last 20 years employed many people, largely in the school and bookshops. As we know, the majority of the funds have been directed to that side so to say the church is an entirely voluntary organisation has certainly not been true in the recent past.
Of course they might argue that has and is changing but - wait a minute - in paragraph 46, they said their current organisation is no less established than the Articles of Association! This is misdirection and obfuscation. They have until very recently not been anything like a voluntary organisation. If they now are, that is a very recent development, so their “current organisation” is NOT well established, it is in fact a brand new structure.
51. No person will ever be compelled or forced by another.
This is a naïve and unworkable attempt by the board to absolve itself of its legal responsibilities.
52. If someone feels this has occurred or attempted we would hope to use our newly revised policies to understand and address the issue.
This is a really important issue as it is closely aligned with how spiritual abuse occurs. There is for example a fairly recent post that asks about things like having a TV or wearing hats. The point is that the leadership are largely saying, “oh, no, that was never a rule”, but that is not good enough. Everyone who was there at the time thought it was a rule. The leaders have a responsibility for communication as well as for making up rules. If everyone thought it was a rule, then it was a rule, whether it was ever written down or not, and whether it is now denied or not. There are all sorts of social and psychological pressure that can be brought to bear. An example is the “you will be missing God’s high calling for your life” line which has been mentioned a number of times.
So you do not need people to raise new issues, they are already there. You do not need new policies, as they are basically unworkable in a coercive culture (so current members cannot make use of them) and are not applied properly once people have left (as you then disavow yourself of any responsibility).
What you need to do is seriously examine the issues that have been raised. Only that will show you what policies you need and what actions you need to take.
53. Similarly if someone is unhappy with an aspect of church life we hope that would be raised and re solved at a local level.
And what if it isn’t? There are many, many examples on this forum of people who tried to do exactly that – to resolve things at a local level, with these attempts failing miserably.
The whole point of you having a complaints policy was to deal with this sort of situation, so that people knew where they stood and how matters would be resolved if local discussions failed to move things forward. That is why organisations have things like a complaints policy and why, unlike Struthers, other organisations actually implement their policies.
54. That being said we should be mature enough to recognise that we can hold different views or opinions without these constituting by themselves grounds for offence, complaint or divisive argument.
You are joking! People on this forum regularly display maturity in the way they express their different views, and the Struthers response is to malign them form the pulpit. Childish tantrums.
In a case like the information presented about the church and school finances, it never needed to be divisive – people on this fourm explained the financial situation and the leaders of Struthers could easily have noted and responded to that information in a positive way. Instead, they took the comments as grounds for offence, and for divisive argument. See where that ended up.
This is sheer hypocrisy.
55. Accountability Structures: What mechanisms or structures 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 principles of our movement regarding leadership be clearly articulated, so that everyone understands what is expected of a leader? The mechanisms are simply described.
Note this is the question asked. The answer to this has largely been given above – “we do not interfere”, “ministers can do what they like”, “no person will ever be compelled or forced by another” etc.
56. Our developing policy framework will form the basis for dealing with the situations alluded to in the question.
First, you have already made it clear that you do not plan to interfere in these sorts of matters – see paragraphs 43-51. Also:
You need to deal with this. You cannot write a new policy or new articles or new guidelines until you have recognised that failing to apply these in the past is dishonest and lacks any integrity.
So, here is is - feel free to ignore!
I think I might need to go and lie down :-)
37. Authority in the church: What are the defined scope and limits of authority for leaders of individual churches and the senior leader of the movement? Are there clear boundaries for the appropriate exercising of this authority within the local church and movement?
a very good question
38. The Board/charity structure does not marry easily with the fact of being a church.
If this is the case, why was it not noticed before, perhaps during the 15 or more years the church was subsidising the school?
39. 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.
well… yes… but…that would need a bit of clarification. Let’s read on.
40. While according to the Articles the Board technically has the authority to tell the churches what to do, in practice this would be overstepping our remit.
Woah! So they are admitting they are lying in the Articles – they have no intention to actually do what they say.
This is exactly the problem with Struthers documents including the Articles of Association and any policies. They do not believe in them! They are just bits of paper that can be overruled whenever they wish. I presume the statement “this would be overstepping our remit” refers to the board, and they are saying that to take responsibility would be overstepping their remit.
This is illegal folks – it is saying the board are not fulfilling their statutory duties. Let’s be clear here – every one of the Directors could be struck off for this.
They ARE responsible – this is the point TheGreek has made a number of times. What they are saying here is illegal and wrong.
41. There is a spiritual oversight and authority that rightly belongs to the ministers and our congregations.
What is this oversight and authority? What is the scriptural basis? Does any authority remain with the board? What parts?
If these are the people with authority, these are the people who should be on the board. That is how it works – the people who have the real authority are the people who sit on the Board that has the legal authority vested in it.
42. We want any changes or developments to be in partnership with them.
It would be normal practice to make changes through consultation and partnership, that sounds ok, but wait a minute – partnership with whom? The above paragraph refers to “the ministers and the congregations” so this is a partnership between the board, which is a legal entity and another group. What is the constitution of this other group? What are their politics and aims? If a business is taking forward proposals in consultation with the unions, the unions have a constitution, aims and policies, so people know what they are dealing with.
And it has already be said above that the minister (and the congregations??) already have oversight. Messy.
43. 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 legal or financial issue.
They would not be in the position of telling a minister what to do? Really? What if they were preaching heresy – or what if their ministry was, just for example, not showing any love or fruit of the spirit? Is there not a responsibility here? This suggests there is no disciplinary policy of practice for ministers.
Any what then is the “spiritual oversight” referenced above? What does this mean if they cannot tell a minister what to do? How is this "spiritual oversight" exercised if they cannot tell people what to do? This simply does not make any sense.
44. One of our strengths is that each church context is unique and we need local insight to understand how the Board can support them in the real work - the gospel.
Interesting language about the board supporting the local church. I am not sure that is how it works in practice though.
As for strengths – hmmm.
45. 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 we can support them in sharing the good news? We pray for the day when that is a reality.
To claim this is all about structural and financial issues is a pack of nonsense. That is not what the main issues are. It is not what the letter asked about. Diversionary tactics.
46. While only our Articles of Association are available on paper and our current organisation isn’t written down it’s no less established because of that.
this is a key part of the problem – that the “current organisation isn’t written down”
47. Individual ministers are responsible for their own churches (some of them founded by that minister) but they remain part of a wider network, available for support, encouragement or challenge as required.
Legally, this I simply not true.
48. The Board has no desire or mandate to impose a single central structure or way of being.
so branches can chose to read from the Book of Mormon each week? What if they decide to have one-to-one meetings with young people in private? Don’t shoot the messenger here - that is what you are saying, that the board has no role in managing the branches. This is why unwritten policies do not work as it leaves open these sorts of ambiguities.
Is it not also the case that the board appoint the leaders of each branch?
49. In fact we want to encourage each of our churches to develop within their own context in the way God opens to them.
I am not sure what this means. Has this worked? Have the branches had things open to them and developed? Do you examine this? Could you perhaps publish some of this so that others (including other branches) might learn from how this works?
50. Finally the church is an entirely voluntary organisation.
This is messing about with history. The church has for the last 20 years employed many people, largely in the school and bookshops. As we know, the majority of the funds have been directed to that side so to say the church is an entirely voluntary organisation has certainly not been true in the recent past.
Of course they might argue that has and is changing but - wait a minute - in paragraph 46, they said their current organisation is no less established than the Articles of Association! This is misdirection and obfuscation. They have until very recently not been anything like a voluntary organisation. If they now are, that is a very recent development, so their “current organisation” is NOT well established, it is in fact a brand new structure.
51. No person will ever be compelled or forced by another.
This is a naïve and unworkable attempt by the board to absolve itself of its legal responsibilities.
52. If someone feels this has occurred or attempted we would hope to use our newly revised policies to understand and address the issue.
This is a really important issue as it is closely aligned with how spiritual abuse occurs. There is for example a fairly recent post that asks about things like having a TV or wearing hats. The point is that the leadership are largely saying, “oh, no, that was never a rule”, but that is not good enough. Everyone who was there at the time thought it was a rule. The leaders have a responsibility for communication as well as for making up rules. If everyone thought it was a rule, then it was a rule, whether it was ever written down or not, and whether it is now denied or not. There are all sorts of social and psychological pressure that can be brought to bear. An example is the “you will be missing God’s high calling for your life” line which has been mentioned a number of times.
So you do not need people to raise new issues, they are already there. You do not need new policies, as they are basically unworkable in a coercive culture (so current members cannot make use of them) and are not applied properly once people have left (as you then disavow yourself of any responsibility).
What you need to do is seriously examine the issues that have been raised. Only that will show you what policies you need and what actions you need to take.
53. Similarly if someone is unhappy with an aspect of church life we hope that would be raised and re solved at a local level.
And what if it isn’t? There are many, many examples on this forum of people who tried to do exactly that – to resolve things at a local level, with these attempts failing miserably.
The whole point of you having a complaints policy was to deal with this sort of situation, so that people knew where they stood and how matters would be resolved if local discussions failed to move things forward. That is why organisations have things like a complaints policy and why, unlike Struthers, other organisations actually implement their policies.
54. That being said we should be mature enough to recognise that we can hold different views or opinions without these constituting by themselves grounds for offence, complaint or divisive argument.
You are joking! People on this forum regularly display maturity in the way they express their different views, and the Struthers response is to malign them form the pulpit. Childish tantrums.
In a case like the information presented about the church and school finances, it never needed to be divisive – people on this fourm explained the financial situation and the leaders of Struthers could easily have noted and responded to that information in a positive way. Instead, they took the comments as grounds for offence, and for divisive argument. See where that ended up.
This is sheer hypocrisy.
55. Accountability Structures: What mechanisms or structures 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 principles of our movement regarding leadership be clearly articulated, so that everyone understands what is expected of a leader? The mechanisms are simply described.
Note this is the question asked. The answer to this has largely been given above – “we do not interfere”, “ministers can do what they like”, “no person will ever be compelled or forced by another” etc.
56. Our developing policy framework will form the basis for dealing with the situations alluded to in the question.
First, you have already made it clear that you do not plan to interfere in these sorts of matters – see paragraphs 43-51. Also:
- [*] You already have a policy called the complaints policy.
[*] This was used to raise complaints (see posts by Friendly Face).
[*] You ignored these and your own policy.
[*] You have said above that you do not honour your own Articles of Association but act in opposition to them.
You need to deal with this. You cannot write a new policy or new articles or new guidelines until you have recognised that failing to apply these in the past is dishonest and lacks any integrity.
Re: Struthers Memorial Independent Pentecostal Church
Posted by:
ThePetitor
()
Date: March 10, 2025 09:26PM
Can I just add that, while I find the info above interesting and insightful, I recognise that there is a danger with looking at this level of detail, as it is easy to miss the big picture. So, let me repeat that one of the really big issues, which is the whole, "the vase just broke all by itself" problem.
They are speaking of financial issues, structural issues, policy issues and other matters as if these things just popped out of nowhere and they are doing a great job in thinking of wonderful new ways to manage all of this.
These issues arose as a direct result of the actions of the organisation. The current Board, who of course do carry the responsibility no matter what rubbish is spouted, need to understand what went wrong if they want to avoid it happening again. They are basically saying everything went wrong - everything. There is hardly an area that they are not "reviewing". Why do they need review if they are so perfect?
This question has to be faced.
They are speaking of financial issues, structural issues, policy issues and other matters as if these things just popped out of nowhere and they are doing a great job in thinking of wonderful new ways to manage all of this.
These issues arose as a direct result of the actions of the organisation. The current Board, who of course do carry the responsibility no matter what rubbish is spouted, need to understand what went wrong if they want to avoid it happening again. They are basically saying everything went wrong - everything. There is hardly an area that they are not "reviewing". Why do they need review if they are so perfect?
This question has to be faced.
Re: Struthers Memorial Independent Pentecostal Church
Posted by:
lintar123
()
Date: March 11, 2025 09:48PM
Thank you ,Petitor and others for your clear explanations of the response to the open letter . Obviously no questions from the past or present have been answered .
How is it possible that they have children as young as 9 sitting in their meetings listening to " death to self " sermons .
Children who are still developing physically, psychologically and spiritually . Please ignore any other new feed from me . Not quite sure how that happened .
How is it possible that they have children as young as 9 sitting in their meetings listening to " death to self " sermons .
Children who are still developing physically, psychologically and spiritually . Please ignore any other new feed from me . Not quite sure how that happened .
Re: Struthers Memorial Independent Pentecostal Church
Posted by:
Rensil
()
Date: March 13, 2025 03:58AM
lintar123, it sure is very concerning to think that children as young as 9 are sitting in meetings listening to Struthers sermons about “death to self” and living in holiness. I guess the same subjects are being taught in the meetings arranged for children and young people. At the present time, Struthers Cumbernauld is the only church I know of which has a sizeable number of children and teenagers in its congregation now. From reading the stories on here posted by young folk who were brought up in Struthers, it seems to be the case that spiritual abuse of children and teenagers is definitely occurring and has been for years.
Iquitthestrutherscult mentioned in their post on Page 226 that the Glasgow church has declined in numbers and has lost people even in the last six months. I believe they meet in the church hall because that’s all the space they need on a Sunday morning. I wonder if anyone has seen the ridiculous online advert for the Struthers Glasgow Church, which has been popping up on Facebook and Instagram. It’s a sponsored ad with The Herald and Glasgow Times online newspapers, which means SMC must have paid to get it set up. I gather it has been organised by Diana Rutherford since she is going on about it on her church Instagram thread.
The advert shows a photo of the Glasgow Church from the outside surrounded by a mass of flower-tubs full of colourful plants (which I don’t think are there all the time). The advert is headed, “Church in Glasgow’s Hyndland is proving popular for all age groups.” Now, isn’t that stretching the truth a bit?! Is it really popular, first of all, and is it popular with all age groups? Ie from babies to very elderly folk? How many kids do they have in the Glasgow church now? How many teenagers? I believe Diana is trying to hold a Student meeting. However, there are so many different churches in that part of west Glasgow, that students have a wide choice as to where to go. Please, if you’re a student reading this, don’t go to Struthers, try other churches where You’ll get proper Bible teaching and good fellowship.
I guess Struthers will be hoping that the advert will bring people in and make local people want to attend the church, so that the numbers will rise once more. The advert has a link which takes people to a list with further information about all that’s going on in the Glasgow Church.
On another note, the financial/shares mismanagement crisis which hit Struthers, happened in October 1987; it was a global financial crisis which started in Hong Kong then moved to the US, then the UK, starting on a Monday which was thereafter named Black Monday. It’s interesting to consider that Struthers was affected by a financial crisis which affected much of the world, because they think they are above such things and cannot be touched by such worldly affairs. But smack, it hit them and they could do nothing to stop it. They were caught, or rather Hugh Black was caught.
It was the same at the Covid lockdowns. Struthers leaders at the start did not want to close their churches. They thought they were above all that. It wasn’t until the First Minister announced in March 2020, that by law, all churches must close, that they realised they would have to comply. Then It was as though they were in mourning. This was unheard of, not to have any meetings on at all! For weeks, nay months. Well, I think it caused some Struthers folk to stop and think about what they’d been doing all these years. It brought change in the sense that people were forced to admit that one didn’t actually need to go to so many meetings each week. anonymous_2023 has said the the lockdowns caused her to see things more clearly and to consider a different way of living.
Bye for now!
Iquitthestrutherscult mentioned in their post on Page 226 that the Glasgow church has declined in numbers and has lost people even in the last six months. I believe they meet in the church hall because that’s all the space they need on a Sunday morning. I wonder if anyone has seen the ridiculous online advert for the Struthers Glasgow Church, which has been popping up on Facebook and Instagram. It’s a sponsored ad with The Herald and Glasgow Times online newspapers, which means SMC must have paid to get it set up. I gather it has been organised by Diana Rutherford since she is going on about it on her church Instagram thread.
The advert shows a photo of the Glasgow Church from the outside surrounded by a mass of flower-tubs full of colourful plants (which I don’t think are there all the time). The advert is headed, “Church in Glasgow’s Hyndland is proving popular for all age groups.” Now, isn’t that stretching the truth a bit?! Is it really popular, first of all, and is it popular with all age groups? Ie from babies to very elderly folk? How many kids do they have in the Glasgow church now? How many teenagers? I believe Diana is trying to hold a Student meeting. However, there are so many different churches in that part of west Glasgow, that students have a wide choice as to where to go. Please, if you’re a student reading this, don’t go to Struthers, try other churches where You’ll get proper Bible teaching and good fellowship.
I guess Struthers will be hoping that the advert will bring people in and make local people want to attend the church, so that the numbers will rise once more. The advert has a link which takes people to a list with further information about all that’s going on in the Glasgow Church.
On another note, the financial/shares mismanagement crisis which hit Struthers, happened in October 1987; it was a global financial crisis which started in Hong Kong then moved to the US, then the UK, starting on a Monday which was thereafter named Black Monday. It’s interesting to consider that Struthers was affected by a financial crisis which affected much of the world, because they think they are above such things and cannot be touched by such worldly affairs. But smack, it hit them and they could do nothing to stop it. They were caught, or rather Hugh Black was caught.
It was the same at the Covid lockdowns. Struthers leaders at the start did not want to close their churches. They thought they were above all that. It wasn’t until the First Minister announced in March 2020, that by law, all churches must close, that they realised they would have to comply. Then It was as though they were in mourning. This was unheard of, not to have any meetings on at all! For weeks, nay months. Well, I think it caused some Struthers folk to stop and think about what they’d been doing all these years. It brought change in the sense that people were forced to admit that one didn’t actually need to go to so many meetings each week. anonymous_2023 has said the the lockdowns caused her to see things more clearly and to consider a different way of living.
Bye for now!
Re: Struthers Memorial Independent Pentecostal Church
Posted by:
Amazing grace
()
Date: March 19, 2025 06:28AM
Hi
Re - Rensil’s statement
‘ try other churches where You’ll get proper Bible teaching and good fellowship’
Was recently listening to a minister in one of these other churches and the theme was basically being a a good shepherd of the flock and what it looks like.
Interesting because it what the forum has been looking at.
Some statements from the pastor:
‘The shepherd is a picture of biblical leadership’
‘Pastor is a shepherding word - caring, nurturing, protecting, providing…’
But central to the theme is a good shepherd knows that ‘God is Holy and we only approach Him in his terms only’
How is this done?
‘The shepherd needs to teach the scriptures to God’s people so they know who he is’
This pastor uses an example of where not using the scriptures correctly can end in tragedy… in this case death.
It’s from the well known scriptures of moving of the ark of the covenant.
2Samuel 6
To summarise
1Chron 15
15 then the Levites carried the Ark of God on their shoulders with its carrying poles, just as the Lord had instructed Moses.
But did they do that in 2Sam 6.
No they thought they could change instructions and it would be alright. They decided to do things their own way not according to scriptures.
They put the ark on a cart drawn by oxen while on a hill.
What happened?
The ark fell of the cart and Uzzah stretched out his hand to steady it and was killed instantly.
David learned as a true shepherd that this was wrong and went back to the correct instructions and all went well when the arc was moved a second time.
What are the consequences when shepherds decide to change the instructions in scriptures.
The result is the sheep suffer.
Then when evidence of the suffering of the sheep is presented to them ….do they like David repent and then do what the scriptures say?
The answer with reference to SMC leaders they do not teach the word as instructed and don’t repent when evidence of their lack of correct teaching has harmed the sheep.
The pastor during his sermon said
‘If you are in a Church where the consistent tone of leadership is not shepherd-like then get out!’
The sheep also have a personal responsibility to hold any shepherd accountable if they are not shepherd-like.
And if the sheep are not listened to by the shepherds then I echo ‘get out’.
Re - Rensil’s statement
‘ try other churches where You’ll get proper Bible teaching and good fellowship’
Was recently listening to a minister in one of these other churches and the theme was basically being a a good shepherd of the flock and what it looks like.
Interesting because it what the forum has been looking at.
Some statements from the pastor:
‘The shepherd is a picture of biblical leadership’
‘Pastor is a shepherding word - caring, nurturing, protecting, providing…’
But central to the theme is a good shepherd knows that ‘God is Holy and we only approach Him in his terms only’
How is this done?
‘The shepherd needs to teach the scriptures to God’s people so they know who he is’
This pastor uses an example of where not using the scriptures correctly can end in tragedy… in this case death.
It’s from the well known scriptures of moving of the ark of the covenant.
2Samuel 6
To summarise
1Chron 15
15 then the Levites carried the Ark of God on their shoulders with its carrying poles, just as the Lord had instructed Moses.
But did they do that in 2Sam 6.
No they thought they could change instructions and it would be alright. They decided to do things their own way not according to scriptures.
They put the ark on a cart drawn by oxen while on a hill.
What happened?
The ark fell of the cart and Uzzah stretched out his hand to steady it and was killed instantly.
David learned as a true shepherd that this was wrong and went back to the correct instructions and all went well when the arc was moved a second time.
What are the consequences when shepherds decide to change the instructions in scriptures.
The result is the sheep suffer.
Then when evidence of the suffering of the sheep is presented to them ….do they like David repent and then do what the scriptures say?
The answer with reference to SMC leaders they do not teach the word as instructed and don’t repent when evidence of their lack of correct teaching has harmed the sheep.
The pastor during his sermon said
‘If you are in a Church where the consistent tone of leadership is not shepherd-like then get out!’
The sheep also have a personal responsibility to hold any shepherd accountable if they are not shepherd-like.
And if the sheep are not listened to by the shepherds then I echo ‘get out’.
Re: Struthers Memorial Independent Pentecostal Church
Posted by:
FatHippo
()
Date: March 19, 2025 05:16PM
Hi everyone,
Some great discussion on here since I last posted! I’ve enjoyed reading it all. The more we bring up these real memories, from more people, the better informed us former and current members can be about this destructive church.
My personal view is that the whole Struthers church is nonsense. Their logic just doesn’t add up. They believe that the only way to heaven is to subject yourself to regular abuse from the Struthers pulpit. If you don’t attend Struthers you have no chance of eternal salvation. Don’t live in the Central Belt where you can attend SMC? No heaven for you. Live in Orkney? Shame. Spain? Those Catholic churches just don’t cut it. Thailand? Straight to hell with you.
None of the SMC leadership past or present have any particular spiritual powers or even superior insight of the bible. They are nothing special - but I do however appreciate that they are ‘charismatic’ in their own ways, the same way that Donald Trump and other cult leaders are able to captivate an audience and create blind, fierce loyalty to the stupidest things. They make things up as and when required. They go down hard on anyone that dares to step out of line. Hugh Black’s obituary said that he “ruled with an iron fist”. Alison Speirs kept everyone on a very short leash. Diana Rutherford reigns with terror, fire, and brimstone.
I encourage you all now with the benefit of having been out for a few years to simply watch the Cumbernauld branch’s current sermons on their Instagram page and listen to the sermons uploaded to their website from the latest camps, New Year’s Word etc. There is very little actual substance in any of these. Most of it is just waffle and filler (and yes, some of it still in that voice) - more of a motivational or fearmongering speech, usually the latter. There is very little actual Christian stuff or values being taught, because so much of it is about berating the congregation yet again. I will provide examples later.
I watched some of Diana’s sermons from October and November 2024 and what is clear is that the walls are starting to close in. As if she is defiant in making her last stand while being holed up in her own bunker, while more and more of her previously loyal soldiers desert her every week. Everyone else is wrong. Everyone else failed her and God. She is the last True Believer, the holiest person on this planet. The only one who really understands what being a Christian is. Better berate my congregation again to make myself feel better…
Folks, you need to face the hard truth: Diana, Alison, et al will never, ever, ever admit that they could possibly have done anything wrong while leading Struthers. All of their instructions came directly from God, remember? To admit they were wrong about anything would be to admit that it did not come from God, undermining everything - and that the whole game was indeed just a big con, that we all wasted years, sometimes decades of our lives to their con. The one thing they simply cannot do is to admit they were wrong. Even former atheist Alison can’t admit to it now - can you imagine how angry everyone, especially her own family, would be with her?
On another note, let me ask a genuine question, perhaps someone who was in longer than me knows the answer:
What ‘good’ does Struthers Memorial Church actually do? What positive benefit do they bring to society?
Apart from the annual passion plays (attended mostly by their own congregation) or sometimes dressing up as Romans on Argyle Street, or singing in a shopping centre, how do they help the needy, the less fortunate, the hungry, and so on? In fact, how do they help anyone at all? Are they at all involved in their local communities in a positive way?
Do they love others? They don’t even love their own congregation. Are they kind and generous to others, especially the vulnerable? Nope. Do they bring people to God? Less and less as time goes on, because their actions and beliefs are simply deplorable, and they are being found out, thanks in part to this forum which acts as a very handy warning. The poor congregation are not unlike Scientology’s Sea Org, where members sign a billion year contract to save the planet, but end up simply doing pointless busywork their whole miserable lives.
I know that there are currently people in Struthers considering leaving (I will be watching out for this fact making it into a Diana sermon very soon). I remember being told from the pulpit pretty much every week by Alison Speirs that everyone living ‘outside’ of Struthers was miserable, sad, depressed, struggling, permanently unhappy, had the Samaritans on speed dial, etc etc. To everyone reading this still in Struthers: The truth is the exact opposite.
The ones still in the church are the ones who are constantly miserable, struggling and sad. You are getting spiritually abused and more at every one of the many meetings you are forced to go to. You are not allowed to live where you want to live, work the job you want to do, marry who you love, drink what you want to drink, have the friends you want, watch what you want, and even just stay at home and relax on a Saturday night when you want to. You are in a prison, and the only person who can release you from that prison, is you.
I encourage you to release yourself from the Struthers shackles, and enjoy the big world that God has given you. The Struthers bubble is but a drop in the ocean of life that we humans are able to live, experience, and enjoy.
Some great discussion on here since I last posted! I’ve enjoyed reading it all. The more we bring up these real memories, from more people, the better informed us former and current members can be about this destructive church.
My personal view is that the whole Struthers church is nonsense. Their logic just doesn’t add up. They believe that the only way to heaven is to subject yourself to regular abuse from the Struthers pulpit. If you don’t attend Struthers you have no chance of eternal salvation. Don’t live in the Central Belt where you can attend SMC? No heaven for you. Live in Orkney? Shame. Spain? Those Catholic churches just don’t cut it. Thailand? Straight to hell with you.
None of the SMC leadership past or present have any particular spiritual powers or even superior insight of the bible. They are nothing special - but I do however appreciate that they are ‘charismatic’ in their own ways, the same way that Donald Trump and other cult leaders are able to captivate an audience and create blind, fierce loyalty to the stupidest things. They make things up as and when required. They go down hard on anyone that dares to step out of line. Hugh Black’s obituary said that he “ruled with an iron fist”. Alison Speirs kept everyone on a very short leash. Diana Rutherford reigns with terror, fire, and brimstone.
I encourage you all now with the benefit of having been out for a few years to simply watch the Cumbernauld branch’s current sermons on their Instagram page and listen to the sermons uploaded to their website from the latest camps, New Year’s Word etc. There is very little actual substance in any of these. Most of it is just waffle and filler (and yes, some of it still in that voice) - more of a motivational or fearmongering speech, usually the latter. There is very little actual Christian stuff or values being taught, because so much of it is about berating the congregation yet again. I will provide examples later.
I watched some of Diana’s sermons from October and November 2024 and what is clear is that the walls are starting to close in. As if she is defiant in making her last stand while being holed up in her own bunker, while more and more of her previously loyal soldiers desert her every week. Everyone else is wrong. Everyone else failed her and God. She is the last True Believer, the holiest person on this planet. The only one who really understands what being a Christian is. Better berate my congregation again to make myself feel better…
Folks, you need to face the hard truth: Diana, Alison, et al will never, ever, ever admit that they could possibly have done anything wrong while leading Struthers. All of their instructions came directly from God, remember? To admit they were wrong about anything would be to admit that it did not come from God, undermining everything - and that the whole game was indeed just a big con, that we all wasted years, sometimes decades of our lives to their con. The one thing they simply cannot do is to admit they were wrong. Even former atheist Alison can’t admit to it now - can you imagine how angry everyone, especially her own family, would be with her?
On another note, let me ask a genuine question, perhaps someone who was in longer than me knows the answer:
What ‘good’ does Struthers Memorial Church actually do? What positive benefit do they bring to society?
Apart from the annual passion plays (attended mostly by their own congregation) or sometimes dressing up as Romans on Argyle Street, or singing in a shopping centre, how do they help the needy, the less fortunate, the hungry, and so on? In fact, how do they help anyone at all? Are they at all involved in their local communities in a positive way?
Do they love others? They don’t even love their own congregation. Are they kind and generous to others, especially the vulnerable? Nope. Do they bring people to God? Less and less as time goes on, because their actions and beliefs are simply deplorable, and they are being found out, thanks in part to this forum which acts as a very handy warning. The poor congregation are not unlike Scientology’s Sea Org, where members sign a billion year contract to save the planet, but end up simply doing pointless busywork their whole miserable lives.
I know that there are currently people in Struthers considering leaving (I will be watching out for this fact making it into a Diana sermon very soon). I remember being told from the pulpit pretty much every week by Alison Speirs that everyone living ‘outside’ of Struthers was miserable, sad, depressed, struggling, permanently unhappy, had the Samaritans on speed dial, etc etc. To everyone reading this still in Struthers: The truth is the exact opposite.
The ones still in the church are the ones who are constantly miserable, struggling and sad. You are getting spiritually abused and more at every one of the many meetings you are forced to go to. You are not allowed to live where you want to live, work the job you want to do, marry who you love, drink what you want to drink, have the friends you want, watch what you want, and even just stay at home and relax on a Saturday night when you want to. You are in a prison, and the only person who can release you from that prison, is you.
I encourage you to release yourself from the Struthers shackles, and enjoy the big world that God has given you. The Struthers bubble is but a drop in the ocean of life that we humans are able to live, experience, and enjoy.
Re: Struthers Memorial Independent Pentecostal Church
Posted by:
ThePetitor
()
Date: March 19, 2025 11:35PM
Quote
FatHippo
On another note, let me ask a genuine question, perhaps someone who was in longer than me knows the answer:
What ‘good’ does Struthers Memorial Church actually do? What positive benefit do they bring to society?
That is a pretty good question. I presume they have somehow convinced OSCR that they do some good as they could not otherwise be a charity. I suspect OSCR have not looked too closely at this however or they could not really reach that conclusion.
On another note, it is interesting to see renewed interest in the shares scandal. I am not sure that anyone here knows all the details, but we do know that people were asked to complete share applications on behalf of the church and that, in spite of the individuals signing to say they were applying in their own name, the application was in reality from the church who stood to gain if the shares increased in value and to lose out if they decreased in value.
in that regard, there is an interesting Wikipedia article on Kieth Best that confirms he was convicted for submitting multiple share applications.
Quote
Wikipedia article on Kieth Best
During the privatisation of British Telecom, individuals were limited to a single allocation of shares. Best submitted several applications by using minor variations of his name. On 30 September 1987, he was sentenced to four months' imprisonment for this deception and was fined £3,000. On 5 October 1987, the Court of Appeal ruled that his jail sentence was too harsh, and Best was released but his fine was increased to £4,500.
It seems to me that the church has to explain exactly what happened during the "shares scandal" and how much money was lost.
Perhaps that would be another matter for the AGM to make a decision about if they are given the democratic powers that the leaders claim should belong to them. If you recall my earlier post, I pointed out that the reply to the letter from Alan Martin said things like:
Quote
SMC Reply to Alan Martin
we also want mature believers who can weigh up and test what is being said and done
Quote
SMC Reply to Alan Martin
one of the real concerns among the Board has been to consult and gain a mandate from what we view as our ‘real’ members.
and
Quote
SMC Reply to Alan Martin
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.
All of these suggest that some of the decision-making should rest with the ‘real’ members.
So, go for it folks. The board has said that, "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." So use that power. Ask for this document - a document that explains what happened during the "shares scandal". That is the Christian way to proceed, to openly confess your sins and repent of them, not to cover them up.
To save the Board the hard work, I could draft a paper that asks the AGM to vote on whether there should be a full review of what happened and a published report into the incident or whether the church wants to implement a policy of coving up things that are embarrassing to them. Seems to me that sort of decision would be a good use of the powers that will, according to the reply to Alan Martin, be vested in the 'real' members.
Re: Struthers Memorial Independent Pentecostal Church
Posted by:
Amazing grace
()
Date: March 21, 2025 06:24AM
Re shares scandal
The Petitor states
we do know that people were asked to complete share applications on behalf of the church and that, in spite of the individuals signing to say they were applying in their own name, the application was in reality from the church who stood to gain if the shares increased in value and to lose out if they decreased in value.
I came into the Church when this had just happened and a number of people left. I actually remember a vote on a Saturday night in Greenock re Mr Black remaining as leader of SMC.
However, the facts were very much covered over. You heard small details but definitely didn’t get all the facts.
So a couple of questions from someone who isn’t a financier or accountant!
1. Did the congregants who signed for the shares use their own money or did SMC leadership transfer the money from church funds to them?
2. If they used their own money I.e. as a gift to the church did that mean fraud wasn’t committed? what I mean is if the congregant had gained money from the shares and then chose to give it to the church is that seen as fraud if it’s their own money?
3. If this was fraud ..were the congregants aware that they were potentially committing fraud for the church and chose to turn a blind eye to it?
4. Were all the leadership happy with asking their congregants to commit potential fraud or was this decision only between Mr Black and a chosen few.
I suppose I can’t understand how congregants willingly took out shares knowing that it was illegal or was this fudged over.
I am aware that there was a lawyer at the time who warned Mr Black that this was wrong but Mr Black didn't take on board his advice.
It would be interesting if there was anyone who was actually part of this shares debacle or knows someone who was if they could share how they were asked or coerced into doing it!
The Petitor states
we do know that people were asked to complete share applications on behalf of the church and that, in spite of the individuals signing to say they were applying in their own name, the application was in reality from the church who stood to gain if the shares increased in value and to lose out if they decreased in value.
I came into the Church when this had just happened and a number of people left. I actually remember a vote on a Saturday night in Greenock re Mr Black remaining as leader of SMC.
However, the facts were very much covered over. You heard small details but definitely didn’t get all the facts.
So a couple of questions from someone who isn’t a financier or accountant!
1. Did the congregants who signed for the shares use their own money or did SMC leadership transfer the money from church funds to them?
2. If they used their own money I.e. as a gift to the church did that mean fraud wasn’t committed? what I mean is if the congregant had gained money from the shares and then chose to give it to the church is that seen as fraud if it’s their own money?
3. If this was fraud ..were the congregants aware that they were potentially committing fraud for the church and chose to turn a blind eye to it?
4. Were all the leadership happy with asking their congregants to commit potential fraud or was this decision only between Mr Black and a chosen few.
I suppose I can’t understand how congregants willingly took out shares knowing that it was illegal or was this fudged over.
I am aware that there was a lawyer at the time who warned Mr Black that this was wrong but Mr Black didn't take on board his advice.
It would be interesting if there was anyone who was actually part of this shares debacle or knows someone who was if they could share how they were asked or coerced into doing it!
Re: Struthers Memorial Independent Pentecostal Church
Posted by:
RedRoad
()
Date: March 21, 2025 07:57AM
Amazing Grace I can add some things, but it will need to wait a couple of days! And it is neither a simple nor a single story. I suspect it is an amalgam of factors, some deliberate, some "unlucky", with the possibility of limited enforced accountability occurring which had a negative financial impact. We are not going to know for sure unless the last remaining person(s) who had access to bank accounts and trustee meetings at the time comes forward.
I will endeavour to answer your questions, expand the story, but unfortunately that will more than likely add to the list of things that are unknown.
I too have been thinking a lot about this in the past two weeks. I have gone back through all the forum posts and pulled out into a separate document who has said what. I have been in two minds whether to contribute on the topic because we cannot factually prove many aspects.
My conclusion after re-reading posts this week was that it is a bigger picture that is the more reliable ground. Lack of transparency, deviousness, attempt to prevent mistakes and wrong decisions being made public.
Has that only happened once???
I think of school funding, safeguarding complaints, letters from past members to current/past leaders, the 2 phase purchase of Cedars private house, coffee shop losses, employment nepotism.
I will endeavour to answer your questions, expand the story, but unfortunately that will more than likely add to the list of things that are unknown.
I too have been thinking a lot about this in the past two weeks. I have gone back through all the forum posts and pulled out into a separate document who has said what. I have been in two minds whether to contribute on the topic because we cannot factually prove many aspects.
My conclusion after re-reading posts this week was that it is a bigger picture that is the more reliable ground. Lack of transparency, deviousness, attempt to prevent mistakes and wrong decisions being made public.
Has that only happened once???
I think of school funding, safeguarding complaints, letters from past members to current/past leaders, the 2 phase purchase of Cedars private house, coffee shop losses, employment nepotism.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.