I Don't care who knows who I am. Think most do and if anyone wants to pm me

I have stayed anonymous..but I'm sure I'm known by many .

Why do I stay anonymous? ... because I'll be accused of being " demonic "...or " possessed" by the Devil .

The truth is I know what happened to me / us personally .

God loves us all x

If I ever have to stand up for what happened to us . I / we will .

I have also chosen to stay anonymous, at least for now. And in answer regarding guessing who people are; I get confused with all the names that people use that I sometimes think I know who they are then I’m not sure!
Open letters! Quite a read from both Pauline Anderson and the directors. The people who are supposed to be leading a whole movement couldn’t think of even one verse from scripture to use in their reply. How can so many words mean so little? The Directors reply drones on and on and on but fails to answer the questions or address the issues raised.
It would seem that both Alan and Pauline have seen the light in regard to all the bullying, freezing out, unchristian behaviour that exists within the leadership of SMC. Do they both still attend SMC? If so, what has been the attitude towards them both by the Directors since they wrote their letters? Pauline was once a leader in London and Alan it seems has (or had) some kind of role in Greenock. How are they viewed by the leadership now, I’d love to know.

Re the reasons for revealing identity or not. There was a reference to this on another website about Struthers some years ago:


Those leading Struthers have taken leadership and responsibility for a charity. Therefore they have no choice but to identify themselves publicly in this role and as a result they get significant tax and building rates benefits. Those benefits are the reason they are a public charity and not a private club.

The people posting on this forum are sharing their thoughts and stories seeking to help people come to terms with the problems they faced being part of Struthers Memorial Church. Many of us are doing this because we think it is the right thing to do and because we think it will be helpful to people.

After broad agreement from about 110 separate posters it now appears that it has been.

(Another 5 or so came on to defend SMC, were vaguely positive, but couldn't defend their views).

People can share their identities if they wish and sometimes do. Yet whether we do or not we gain nothing from this other than the chance to help others if they choose to read the posts and if they find them relevant. If we placed our names online then every future friend, employer, acquaintance or future marriage partner would be able to Google us and see that we were once involved with Struthers Memorial Church. As proud as the leaders are of their involvement in that organisation - we are not. The reality is we have been able to reach and help a lot of people by sharing the truth and some people choosing anonymity has not prevented that.

Regarding remaining anonymous, I think there is one other reason people may chose to remain anonymous, and that is because they think points should be considered on their merit and irrespective of the author. This is why the traditional depiction of Justice includes a blindfold – judges should consider the facts and merits of a case, not who is speaking.

If you read about an incident that someone is upset because of how they were treated, or a more theoretical argument about theology, or an analysis of the finances or the decision-making processes, you should look at the content of what is said, not the person saying it. That is one of the problems with the Struthers approach, they need to know who is speaking before they decide whether something is true. If it is one of the leaders, then it is true, and if it is a critic, then it is false. This is an atrocious way to go about making important decisions in life.

Anonymity can also be fun, as it allows you to post information and see if folk can guess who said it!

In that spirit, I have created a test. I have taken the letter from Pauline and the reply from Struthers and deleted most of the words, just leaving a number of common phrases from each of the letters. The test is to see if you can work out who the letter is from – Pauline or the leaders of Struthers.

So, join in the fun. Letter one – is it from Pauline or Struthers?

Wat about letter two, is it from Pauline or Struthers? See if you can work it out!

These extracts are selective, but they are not random. I have in large part selected the phrase that is the subject of the sentence, as it is the subject that is the key matter under consideration. More than happy for someone else to improve on this!

I am thinking of offering a copy of “The Freedom of self-forgetfulness” by Tim Keller for the first three correct replies.

====================================================================
Extracts from letter one – is this from Pauline or from Struthers?
====================================================================

Jesus Himself …

… in Christ’s church…

… reflects Christ’s humility

remembering Christ's words…

… Paul’s reminder that leaders…

the heart of God…

God convicts, but …

Jesus Himself…

the heart of Christ…

A preacher’s role is…

the same Spirit by which Jesus was anointed

rooted in the grace and love of Christ

called to embody the Spirit of Christ,

Christ’s gentleness

messages from God

God’s children

Scripture calls us to …

Paul also reminds us…

Jesus commissioned …

encourage God’s people.

God’s people…

in the body of Christ

Scripture commands us to …

In the Old Testament…

God’s chosen kings …

under the New Covenant…

Through Christ…

anointed by God

every follower of Christ (1 John 2:20).

all believers are …

in alignment with God’s Word.

Scripture teaches that…

the New Covenant’s principle of …

the shared anointing of all believers in Christ

Scripture calls us to …

In the New Testament..

God’s people

Paul instructed Titus to …

the New Testament pattern.

Scripture seems to…

building up the church

Paul’s warning

The biblical model of …

Christ-centred congregations.

Paul reminds us that…

======================================================================
Extracts from letter two – is this from Pauline or from Struthers?
======================================================================

We appreciate…

We are…

The Board has…

We are…

our Charity Board is …

The role, rights and remit of the Board are …

our charity Board has the power to …

In practice the current Board

as a group of churches is…

we are engaged in a process of…

We are a small group of …

the original church

we have thriving churches in …

We also have …

we coalesce around …

we are not …

Our culture is…

The Board understands….

spiritual authority lies with ..

leader and church group

to our knowledge …

we offer…

our settings…

our leaders…

One of our strengths is …

within our setting. …

those in leadership

All of them are …

Their time, resources, energy, families and even jobs

They have also been marked by …

While we are always looking to…

we need to…

We also have a developing …

One of the things we hope to achieve…

some of the new ways we are developing and trying…

If we encounter difficulties…

we will use …

our message and hope is…

Within our churches there is also …

Christian preaching should encompass…

There is also something unique that different people can bring …

We want to be a church where …

Our new safeguarding policy …

we now recognise the need for …

We recently joined the …

Our developing…

we are spending time …

We would hope that in our churches …

our policies provide …

Our structures will provide…

We are blessed in …

when we have so many people …

we should draw comfort from …

Ultimately our policies are …

the new Board

we were faced with …

we would recognise …

What we can now say is …

the Board of Directors has …

Our ministers have also …

we have listened

We have attempted to …

We also did this at…

we’ve only known…

We’ve seen an…

our churches have been able to …

are changing us as we mutually share …

our understandings and revelations of God.

In our view…

we are not a …

We have different priorities that reflect …

we do have a number of people who …

While we could attempt to …

in response to what we’ve been through …

Our challenge is to find a way where …

we can..

we are no different to …

We are not the only organisation to have…

Various individual members of our congregation have a…

What we can say now is that we have engaged with…

we did apologise if …

We will shortly …

As a church we …

Our model

such as it is exercised in the church

Our church also benefits from …

While we have …

We have …

We also have …

And we would be …

We have a concern that…

Our current charity Board has …

we would view that as …

We’re more comfortable with …

Our creation of …

Our communication with …

We can enjoy and value coming together

We are heartbroken by ..

We are also heartened by …

We are actively seeking …

We ask that you…

There is so much in these letters it is hard to know where to start. I think what I will do, at least for now, simply pick specific parts as they come to the surface.

I would first like to comment on:

Quote
Reply from SMC leadership to Pauline Anderson
There is a specific issue with the Cult Education Forum.
…
Various individual members of our congregation have attempted to engage in dialogue over a number of years. These approaches have not proved successful. Positive entries to the site were removed by the administrator.

The moderator of the forum had a different view of why post were removed.

Quote
rrmoderator December 11, 2012 09:33AM
kelvin:

No.

That post was deleted because it violated the rules.

Personal attacks of the members of this message board is not allowed. You agreed to those rules when you signed up to post here.

BTW -- Resorting to such personal attacks typically signifies that you feel that you have lost the argument.

You never answered my question about what if anything you think that the group has done wrong?

Quote
Posted by: rrmoderator January 06, 2013 07:59AM
b4u has been banned from the message board.

Attacking the members of the message board personally is against the agreed upon rules of this board.

b4u attempted to post such attacks.

Quote
rrmoderator March 13, 2013 10:11PM
growing123:

"nit-picking"?

Please do not attempt to diminish the posts of others on this message board.

You have the right to your view of SMC, but so does everyone else that posts here.

Quote
rrmoderator September 10, 2013 04:48AM
"bingowings" was repeatedly attempting to post personal attacks regarding members of this message board now active on this thread.

These personal attacks were not approved and therefore did not appear here.

After bingowings' repeatedly submitted posts in violation of the rules bingowings was banned.

Is this what they mean by positive entries? Entries that broke the rules of the forum and made personal attacks? Calling these "positive entries" a load of tosh. This is just lies - lies not by "the old guard" but by the new, current directors.

No positive entires to the site were removed. Do your homework before you write this in a letter. Names and dates please. If leaders still want to claim that positive entries were submitted but not allowed, they could post a copy of these "positive entries" on their own website or reach out to any number of people through PMs or social media. We could then all see that there were indeed positive entries that were deleted, not personal attacks. If this happens, I for one (1) will apologise, (2) will include a copy of their "positive entries" as a quote in one of my own posts and (3) will publicly complain to the moderator.

Saying that it was positive entries that were removed is telling lies. This does not meet biblical standards.

If anyone is interested in how Christians should treat truth, Tim Keller's podcast "Love and Truth" might be worth a listen. It makes it very clear that making misleading statements is not good enough.
[podcasts.apple.com]

No member of this organisation should accept these lies. It is not good enough.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2025 04:58PM by ThePetitor.

Firstly, thankyou to FriendlyFace for managing to acquire Pauline Anderson’s two open letters plus the reply from the Struthers Board, and for putting the links on the Forum. It has taken me some time to digest all of the content and make some comments. I’d say that Pauline has shown great courage in writing these letters to the Board. She is saying things that many of us would like to say to the Struthers leaders about why SMC as a church is at fault in a lot of areas: autocratic leadership, preaching condemnation and harshness, disallowing freedom to speak for fear of being frozen out, misapplying the Bible verse “Touch not the Lord’s anointed, and no room for asking questions.

I heard that Bible text, “Touch not the Lord’s anointed” many, many times from the Struthers pulpit and it was years before I started to question what it really meant and before I came across whilst studying online, the correct meaning within its context. When misapplied, the text is used to silence people who have genuine questions regarding what a leader has said or taught. If you want to be clear about the correct meaning, Pauline has explained it in her first letter.

ThePetitor, that was a fun quiz you posted for us to guess whose letter the first words of sentences came from, Pauline’s or the Struthers Board’s! What a contrast between the first words of Pauline’s sentences, which are full of Bible texts and words pertaining to God and Jesus, and the first words of the Struthers Board’s letter which are mostly “We, Our, Our charity, our churches, We did, We thought etc”. For a church which is supposed to be at the forefront of holy living, death to self, looking to God in everything, it isn’t showing any evidence of that in the reply at all. In a previous post, ThePetitor also counted the number of Bible references contained in Pauline’s letters compared with the number in the Board’s reply. I do think that Diana Rutherford is behind a lot of the content of the reply to Pauline. It’s quite remarkable that SMC can gloss over the decline in numbers attending Struthers despite all the hard evidence, and go on about new people coming, new families, people from other countries etc. They are so in denial of the reality!

I was really pleased that Pauline mentioned this Forum in her letters instead of just pretending it didn’t exist as many in Struthers do. Most of the leaders tell their congregation not to read the Forum but that hasn’t stopped folks who are rightly curious, from doing so. I’m sure the forum has helped many others to see the light and pluck up the courage to get out of Struthers, in fact I know it has.
I don’t see the Struthers Board or the leaders taking seriously what Pauline has suggested and trying to implement her proposed Action Points. Looking at their reply, I think they are simply trying to justify the ways in which they do things and they’re not going to change.

Iquitthestrutherscult, I don’t think Pauline or Alan will be treated very well now, after raising these issues and putting them so clearly in letters to the Board. Perhaps they’ll decide to leave Struthers too. I haven’t heard definitively whether they have left or not.

Welcome to the Forum, LondonsCalling, and thanks for sharing your experiences of being at the Church Camps. I’m glad you didn’t get sucked in to start attending a Struthers branch-church full-time. You were wise not to return to the Camps. I’m sorry to hear about the bullying and had no idea that anything like that went on. Just shows you though, that kids raised in the church and attending Cedars School can be as badly behaved as kids anywhere. We were always given reports about how wonderful the kids’ meetings were at Camp and were given the numbers who had got baptised in the spirit or made commitments. I know they had fun playing around the grounds at Gartmore too.

We have on this forum had some interesting debates about whether Struthers is a cult. If you have been around for a while, you will know I have have argued it may well be, partly because of its doctrine (it only uses half the Bible and adds in strange things about spirit-filled Christians needing deliverance form demons) but largely because of its exclusivism and demand that the leaders cannot be criticised. Al Duff has on the other hand argued that it is not a cult, because he views it as preaching fairly mainstream doctrine (apologies Al if this is at all inaccurate, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to inform people that we have had this debate).

I think the forum is richer for these sorts of debates and would encourage anyone with an interest to look back at the various arguments.

There is another person here who of course know a lot more about this subject. The founder and moderator of this forum is Rick Ross.

Quote
Info about Rick Alan Ross from the Amazon page about his book
Rick Alan Ross one of the leading experts on cults in the world today. He has consulted with the FBI, the BATF, and various other law enforcement agencies, as well as the governments of Israel and China, on the topic of cults.
He has been qualified and accepted as an expert court witness in eleven different states, including the US federal court. He has also worked as a professional analyst for CBS News, CBC of Canada, and Nippon and Asahi in Japan.
Ross has appeared in thirteen documentaries and numerous network television interviews and has been interviewed and quoted in media all over the world.
He is the founder of the Cult Education Institute, whose website is one of the largest sources of information regarding cults on the Internet. It was originally founded in 1996, but was recently redeveloped as a more modern database. See www.culteducation.com for more information.

In his comment on page 5 of this thread about Struthers, he said,

Quote
Rick Ross on p5 of this forum
Another view of cults is based upon group structure and dynamics, rather than doctrinal issues.

Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by three characteristics:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;
3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Also see [www.culteducation.com]

Some practical "warning signs" regarding a potentially unsafe group.

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
9. The group/leader is always right.
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

The reason I am introducing this is not to resurrect the debate about whether Struthers is a cult or not. Happy to continue that discussion, but I think we have aired it pretty well, and the real question is perhaps more “are there cult-like practices or tendencies” or something like that.

No, why I am introducing this now is that I have just re-read the SMC response to Pauline Anderson and actually wonder if they aspire to be not just one, but a group of cults. I am thinking especially of Rick Ross’s first point above, which is:

Quote
Rick Ross on p5 of this forum
1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;

now, read key parts of the SMC reply again:

Quote
Reply from SMC to PAA
At the moment, on paper our charity Board has the power to tell the churches what to do in terms of operation, organisation or structure. In practice the current Board feels that this would be overstepping our authority. One of our strengths as a group of churches is that we’ve been able to grow and develop in a way that reflects our local contexts. Strong central control would undermine this.

We are a small group of churches but no less diverse because of that. As well as the original church in Greenock with its sister in Glasgow we have thriving churches in Cumbernauld, Falkirk and Neath that were planted by the people who are running them.

…we are not carbon copies of each other. Our culture is more diverse than many people realise.

The Board understands this as well as the fact that spiritual authority lies with each leader and church group.

Additionally, when you consider our leaders, they are very different in personality and presentation.

Within our churches there is also a variety of preaching styles.

There is also something unique that different people can bring in their own ministry and understanding of God that may not be available through another.

We want to be a church where this type of diversity based on our individual expressions of God’s goodness and revelation is a powerful element.

We are not a mono-cultured organisation but a (relatively) complex living organism. We have different priorities that reflect our contexts

We’re more comfortable with a federal system than a central state. Our creation of a policy landscape around the churches allows us to be aware of the same standards but free to respond in a way that corresponds to the way God is leading them.

Good grief – they want to set up multiple cults! Note there is no scope for diversity within each branch, the entire focus here is that each branch is unique because the leader is unique. They are very keen to note that branches were planted by the people who are running them. They make a passing reference to things that “reflect the local context” but what evidence is there that is what they are doing? When have they ever reviewed the local context to see what the needs are, and had a discussion about how they can be met? When have they set local objectives and allocated tasks to teams? What I read into the above is that each leader is allowed to have a different approach, but in line with the whole struthers doctrine that individuals have to be subject to the leadership.

As for “spiritual authority lies with each leader and church group” I think we all know how much authority lies with the leader and how much with “the church group” whatever that means. We know it does not mean elders as they know better than St. Paul about whether elders are a good idea but, other than that, we have no information at all about what is meant by a “church group" no matter how they might be able to exercise any "spiritual authority".

And we all know what, "free to respond in the way God is leading them" really means, as the leader is the sole arbiter of where God is leading them so agin, it is about reinforcing the authority of the leader. It is all "me, me, me."

This is not about empowering the local congregation and meeting local needs, it is about empowering the local leader and ensuring they are immune from criticism. Using this model, you can no longer even say, "why does the leader in Falkirk do this when the leader is Glasgow does that?" That is no longer a legitimate question as each local leader haas their own "spiritual authority" to do whatever they like.

(Yes, I know they are looking at central policy to manage specific aspects. I have issues about that as I have no evidence they will enforce them, but that is a different issue. What we are talking about here is about how the individual members are expected to accept the local leader has a unique ministry that is just perfect for the local context and they should be loyal to that.)

And what about, "There is also something unique that different people can bring in their own ministry and understanding of God that may not be available through another." What are they saying here?

This is quite seriously very close to setting up a framework that allows individuals to establish their own local cult supported by a centralised structure.

No wonder all the branches have a change in fortune every time there is a change in leadership – the whole model is to create, “a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power” (see point 1 from Rick Ross, quoted above). As soon as that individual leaves, the local branch goes into meltdown. We know exactly the same will happen with other branches. When JJ is no longer part of Falkirk, a third of the members will leave within a year. When DR is no longer part of the picture in Cumbernauld, one third will leave within a year.

This is important. One of the best tests of leadership is what happens after a leader leaves.

There is a way around this folks - return to the principles. Have an open discussion about where you are in terms of what the Bible teaches. What does it say about how you treat people? What does it say about the appointment of elders? What does it say about leaving your gift at the altar and seeking out those who have a concern? What does it say about consistency of doctrine and approach?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2025 06:08PM by ThePetitor.

Does anyone else remember Mr B repeatedly instructing us not to quote him as an authority when he was gone? I suspect that he was at least aware of possible dangers ahead.

A few years ago I acquired an old second hand book about the camp meetings held in America way back when that country was young. It was quite instructional about how to place the wagons in a circle, and under trees. Basically for those present it would probably have been the only 'church' meetings they would get to in the year because as pioneers their homesteads would have been so spread out geographically. It was very instructional about how to run the meetings too. The thing that really struck me was that the book strongly instructed that during the meeting, during times of prayer and response, hand selected people were to go around 'encouraging' those who seemed to be responding in the meeting. This to me is pure SMC camp - and something that I have seen no-where else.

I do sometimes wonder how much of the modus operandi, certainly in earlier years, was intentionally cherry-picked from other situations/organisations. (Also remembering here Finny's Lectures to his students on Revival.)

Possibly a level of self education, and reading around, was evident in the earliest generation that has been lost (as probably has been lost in society generally on a wide spread range of topics). That first generation would not have been taught to moderate their reading obviously.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2025 07:35PM by GentlenessandJustice.

Dear Petitor

I note you've resurrected the church v. cult debate but appreciate the irenic tone in which you have done so. I thought I would not respond, but, hey, I can't resist!

You have characterised my position accurately. I believe that SMC, for all that it has been badly misled, is a genuine church and doctrinally orthodox. The problem is that the baby of truth there, sad to say, splashes about in an extraordinary amount of disinctly murky bathwater.

I've specified previously, as have many others not least yourself, their erroneous and damaging teachings, so won't reprint the long rap sheet here.

You cite the moderator and list his many impressive achievements. I am eternally grateful to him for supplying this excellent forum and doing so for free and without the contamination of adverts.

However, his definition of 'cult' is predicated entirely on behaviour, bracketing doctrine completely. This seems to me to mean that a meaningful distinction cannot be drawn between, say, the 'Moonies' and the Footwashing Snake-Handling Baptists, Strict and Particular; nor between Jonestown and the Closed Brethren; nor between Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesuits. All of these outfits behave much the same, but while the former are cults the latter for me are churches, in that their 'theologies', while warped, have Christian truth at their core.

Incidentally, I was amused to see the SMC official response quoting Charles Spurgeon. I've read a fair amount of Spurgeon, and once attended his Metropolitan Chapel to hear the great Georgi Vins, fresh out of the Soviet gulag. But I don't think the cigar-smoking Spurgeon would have liked Struthers at all. His successor, Dr Peter Masters, certainly didn't: he gave me a right good ear-bashing in his study afterwards when I told him I approved of glossolalia.

I will leave it at that, if I may.

I think the main purpose that this strand of the forum is providing is two-fold: helping people who've been perplexed or damaged by Struthers leaders (not all of whom, in my opinion, were genuinely called into leadership; those who were thus called should have attended some kind of course or seminary first), and holding the church's feet to the fire over industrial-scale emotional and financial mismanagement.