Hi all
and specifically west of Scotland.
Re
‘100% lies’ please take out the 100% …sorry west of Scotland I realised after I posted that the 100% referred to something else. But I posted really late last night and was waiting until today to rectify it….just needed time to do it.
But the rest of the post stands.
And as I’ve said in the above post it’s good to hear others views even if we disagree with them for example if you do support AS et all as the Petitor has said many times about opposite views that’s ok…you have an equal right to express your experiences.
But I’m certainly not ‘hounding you out’ by asking for clarification (as someone not you has pm me). I hope you don’t think that and are open to serious debate about clarifying what you mean by ‘some lies’ or ‘some fictional’
AG

Not at all wanting to detract from previous recent posts, but wanting to add in some further thoughts about Mary Black’s understanding of men. I’m not sure any man lived up to her father in her eyes and I think she manifest these feelings in her dealings with boys & men in her congregation.
I had moved my mother through to Glasgow and a friend (who also happened also to be our lawyer) & his wife helped us substantially with practical issues like decorating the house.
Mary asked me as I was leaving the meeting one night how my mum was settling in and how we were getting on with our house. I told her how much help we receive from this particular man and how he was definitely showing Christ in action.

The following week she pulled me aside, obviously very uncomfortable about something and said she was concerned about what I’d said. She was concerned that I’d said this man was showing Christ like behaviour and she wondered if that meant I felt she and her father weren’t.

I always thought this was a particularly odd thing to be upset about.

I am new to posting here, though I’ve been reading with great interest for quite some time.



Like many others, I too suffered years of spiritual and verbal abuse while at Struthers Memorial Church. While I’m not ready to share my story in full just yet, I want to express how grateful I am to those who have been brave enough to do so, your openness is deeply appreciated and often very healing.



I am choosing to write now as I’m concerned that some recent conversations in this forum may be drifting away from its original spirit; a place for sharing, raising awareness of potential cults, support and healing. Specifically, I was troubled by the naming and shaming of a couple who were part of the congregation and involved in an affair many years ago. To my understanding, these individuals were not leaders in the church. They were both married, with children, who may now read this forum. Publicly rehashing their past in this way could be incredibly hurtful, even damaging, and I question whether this aligns with the forum’s purpose.



During my time at Struthers, and even now, I am and was aware of many issues within the congregation: affairs, driving under the influence, substance misuse, gossip, unkindness, and more. But is it truly helpful or ethical to “out” past and present members of the congregation by name, on a public website, especially when they are not and were not in positions of power or influence? The emotional toll this could take is serious. Many people live in fear of being exposed and unless we have videos, photos or documentation then there is no proof of what the truth is. I could tell you many stories, good and bad, of my time in Struthers church, but ultimately it’s just words without being able to share the evidence. Of course, this is just my perspective, and I understand others may feel differently.



That said, it is important to talk, Esme, your courage in doing so is clear. I’m very sorry to hear what you've experienced, and I sincerely hope you’re able to access professional support. Many have found it invaluable. Are you finding some comfort in being able to share? I remember many of the people you mention including members of Radical Alternative, Sarah and Andy (as you referred to them) & Dougie and Kirsty. It’ sad to hear that some of them are not happy. I believe we may have known each other. I completely understand the need to alter details to protect your identity; I’m sure many of us have done the same, whether by changing names, family dynamics, gender, or age.



Personally, I believe the focus should remain on holding the leadership accountable. Falkirk Bairn touched on this as well; if Rhian and Andrew Jewell wish to have their voices heard here, perhaps they could engage directly, respond to the concerns raised, and, if appropriate, offer an apology. As individuals who were part of a harmful leadership structure, their response ‘could’ be meaningful. But, as we know, this is not a Disney movie, there may not be a ‘happy ever after’ for many. This is real life, with real people and real emotions. The damage has been done, an explanation or apology would be interestingly welcome but not necessarily received or accepted. It’s interesting to hear Esme, that you are still in touch with them and they are happy to share with you. It sounds like they do read here.


I have much I could share about both ex Struthers Leaders Andrew & Rhian Jewell. However, my formal complaint regarding verbal and spiritual abuse is currently under investigation by the appropriate authorities, so I don’t feel it would be right to speak further at this time. I am aware that if found in my favour the outcome for them could be damaging with future attendance in any church, and a public acknowledgement and sharing of their historic and current behaviours in relation to working in a church and with young people and also many vulnerable adults. They chose power and leadership and were in a position of trust and responsibility. They should have been properly vetted to ensure that the inappropriate speech, damaging actions and wrongful disciplines that they gave to a younger generation did not happen. I understand that both Andrew and Rhian must have felt much hurt when Mary Blacks promise of leadership of the church did not come to fruition, which has resulted in them choosing to leave, but the pain they have and are experiencing will be little compared to what many on this forum experienced during their time in the Struthers Movement.

Au revoir



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2025 11:21PM by Extra.

Liz, I'd conclude that Mary's question belied a guilty conscience!

To AG, thank you for your kindness and supprot. I did not want to upset people but l was so annoyed at Spiers getting away with so much. I realised from your posts you understood.
I need to study so am finished now, this is my lats post.
Thank you again. AG.
May God be kind to you always.
Esme

Welcome Shug_the_pig, West_of_Scotland and Extra. It is always good to have new contributors.

Quote
Quote on this forum
These older boys basically waterboarded us ‘in the name of the lord’.

(I have on this occasion deliberately omitted the author as "justice should be blind" - it should don't matter who said this!)

Is no leader – current or past – going to investigate that? Not only to offer support to those bullied, but also to support the bullies to understand that is not acceptable? Do both the bullied and the bullies not need to be given a chance to reflect and recover from that? If it was your child doing the bullying, would you not want to know?

That also links to the recent comment by FalkirkBairn

Quote
Falkirk Bairn
But please everyone ask yourself have I anything to apologise for

It seems to me that is a pretty straight-forward request. Something like half of the new Testament is made up of letters pointing out things that were going wrong in local churches. Only Struthers thinks it is so perfect that it is better than these early churches and should not be subject to criticism. The early churches all had faults, and the letters correcting these faults have become key documents for Christians. That is the kind of things Struthers could be doing – seeking an independent review that would be published in full so that they and others could learn from anything that has gone wrong. Instead they “double down” and pretend they are perfect.

On a personal I am sure I made many mistakes (and indeed continue to do so). I know I tried to model the way Mr Black was, and that led to all sorts of arrogant and bullying behaviour. Looking back, that was wrong for all sorts of reasons. First and foremost it was simply wrong: people should be treated with respect and our aim should be to develop our ability to empathise and show compassion, not develop our ability to make others feel small so that they have to do what they are told. So... sorry folks. I am happy to apologise unreservedly for any arrogant, controlling and bullying behaviour, and to repeat that apology in person to anyone affected by my behaviour (and there were many!)

That sort of arrogant, controlling approach was also wrong in another way, as my foolish attempts to become someone I was never going to be was stunting my personal growth. There is no way I could ever grow and develop as a person as long as I was trying to develop into a role/ personality/ lifestyle that was not me, and not what I could and should be. So, as well as any “sins of commission” there were also many “sins of omission” - times I was not doing things I really should have, largely because I had not learned and grown the way I might have. In some ways I see that as the greater fault – not being there to support people who needed it, because I had decided that was not an approach I needed to develop. So… apologies also for the lack of support to those going through hard times.

Thinking of support brings me to another point, which is that Free@last_sometimes said,

Quote
Free@last_sometimes
Those days when I felt supported by those at SMC. Where my whole life revolved around meetings and events centred around SMC. And the sudden harshness of losing it all.

First I am so sorry that you suffered all that Free@last. If you have read through the posts on this forum you will I am sure see that you are not the only one that has felt that way. Many have felt empty and lost, not because they have “lost God” but because they have had a huge support network taken away. One of the many problems with Struthers is they tie the regular meeting attendance to (their idea of) God, that it becomes hard to separate the two.

This is of course a key strategy in the Struthers toolbox – make people dependent on the social network. Make sure that the social support is all tied to Struthers and attending meetings so that people feel bereft if they leave. That is just so horrible and disempowering. What they should be doing is exactly the opposite - saying to people that they will always be there and support them, no matter what they do. That gives people the strength to do what is best. If they do decide to stay, they are then doing it willingly, not just because they are punished if they leave, but for real reasons, not because they have become too dependent.

(As an aside, is that abandonment what they do with their own families? I do not know the family circumstances of the leaders, but I am sure those in the know will be able to think of current leaders and their supporting acts who have children who have left the church. Do these leaders cut off their own children and refuse to speak to them? Why then do they refuse to speak to members who have left? Just a thought!)

If anyone here is worried about leaving and being left with no friends and contacts, please do be assured that there are lots of people on this forum (and elsewhere) that are more than happy to chat or meet up with you and talk about Struthers, or to talk about everything in life other than Struthers if that is your preference. Unlike Struthers, there are no preconditions, and we will not suddenly cut you off if you disagree with us. So, if you are planning to leave and are worried about how you might cope, do reach out to any of the folks here. I suspect the leaders of Struthers make up all sorts of lies about folks on the forum, saying it is a small number (we know they say that, and we know it is a factual lie) that people are trying to destroy the work of God (another lie, many folk here are doing much more Christian work than folk in Struthers are doing), that folk outside of Struthers are all bitter and twisted (total rubbish - just chat to a few for ten minutes), that any critics are mentally unstable (contrary to medical opinion and, as the Greek pointed out, a totally immoral thing for them to say), and that any criticism is opposition to the work God is trying to do (the most subtle of all lies - most opposition to Struthers is probably God at work trying to show them a better path).

All of these things they make up are just unsubstantiated nonsense. There are good people out there – people who will help you build rather than destroy your capacity to manage independently of other human leaders.

If you still think the Struthers leaders have some sort of secret knowledge that comes from God, read Esme’s posts again. It is very clear the leadership at the time had no idea what was going on and made no effort to manage the situation, and the current leadership are trying to take the Matthew 23v30 position that Jesus himself warned against (see my earlier post).

As Extra said:

Quote
Extra, p240 of this forum
Personally, I believe the focus should remain on holding the leadership accountable. Falkirk Bairn touched on this as well; if Rhian and Andrew Jewell wish to have their voices heard here, perhaps they could engage directly, respond to the concerns raised, and, if appropriate, offer an apology. As individuals who were part of a harmful leadership structure, their response ‘could’ be meaningful. But, as we know, this is not a Disney movie, there may not be a ‘happy ever after’ for many. This is real life, with real people and real emotions. The damage has been done, an explanation or apology would be interestingly welcome but not necessarily received or accepted. It’s interesting to hear Esme, that you are still in touch with them and they are happy to share with you. It sounds like they do read here.

Extra (and FalkirkBairn and others) I fully agree they need to issue a detailed apology.

I also take your point that we are not in a Disney movie, but “real life”. I agree, but I also think we have to look at this from a Christian perspective, because that is the position they claim (with less and less evidence) to hold. From a Christian perspective, we are not in a Disney movie, but simple saying “this is real life” is not sufficient either. Jesus did not go about saying, “this is how life is”, He went about saying, “the Kingdom of God is like… a shepherd who had 100 sheep/ a woman who lost a coin/ a father who had two sons/ a farmer who sewed his seed… "

So, from a Christian perspective, the question is not whether we are in a Disney movie or real life, but “what behaviour resonates with the Kingdom of God?” Is it ignoring hurt and pain and pretending nothing wrong was done, or is it examining your own actions, confessing your sins and seeking to make restitution?

The answer to that may not lead to a Disney ending, nor to a recognition that life is tough and things do not always work out but, from a Christian perspective, the answer will either lead towards “the Kingdom of God” or lead away from it. That is the standard Andrew Jewell and others should be applying - which of these two approaches take us closer to these Kingdom of God?

The action he and others take will tell us whether they are really seeking the Kingdom of God or their own glory.

I was looking back at the first few pages of this forum and found it made interesting reading. In those early days, one defender of Struthers (anon201062) did try to make some rational arguments in favour of Struthers but inevitably tied themselves in knots trying to defend the confused chaos that is Struthers doctrine. There were some good discussions though and it is a shame they did not continue the debate, as this might have led to a bit more clarity about what Struthers believes, and may indeed have led to them re-examining their practice back in 2010 rather than allowing things to continue and fester.

One thing that I thought linked in closely to recent discussions was the reference to the “abomination sermon” quoted on the Latigo site. Way back in 2010, I said,

Quote
ThePetitor, p2 of this forum
… In an earlier post I mentioned a site I came across (http://www.latigo214.info/index.html) which states its purpose as, 'To place in the public domain information and articles for people who have questions about the practices, teaching and beliefs of Struthers Memorial Church.’ One of the articles on that site is about the abomination sermon preached in a Struthers Church (see [www.latigo214.info]). Is this the kind of "advice" you refer to? I must admit I have some concerns if this is what is meant by offering advice.

…[lots of other stuff – read the original post if you want the detail]…

... it is recognised that the "abomination sermon" approach is NOT "giving advice" but is in fact unconscionable bullying.

The questions I have are:

QUESTION 1
+++++++++++
Does Struthers Church accept that the approach taken to correct this (apparently) aberrant behaviour ("the abomination sermon") would, in any work situation, be considered as potential bullying and that the leader would be subjected to a disciplinary enquiry?
+++++++++++

…

QUESTION 2
++++++++++
Does Struthers agree that point 1 above is not just standard practice, but is GOOD practice, and therefore aspire to applying it in their own organisations? If so, I expect that there will be a disciplinary enquiry and that the sermon will be removed from the website pending the outcome of this enquiry.
++++++++++


QUESTION 3
++++++++++
If you do not agree that is the correct approach, there is another problem, as Struthers has a number of related ventures including coffee shops, bookshops and a school. If the leadership of the church do not accept the need for an anti-bullying policy and processes to enforce this, staff in all of these organisations need to know that any issues will be dealt with in some other way. If the church believes that the correct way to deal with non-conformist behaviour is to publicly identify and chastise individuals, then I presume they would want to use this alternative "best practice" in their school and other ventures. Is this the position adopted by Struthers and its satellite organisations?
+++++++++++


Finally, QUESTION 4
+++++++++++++++++
You said leaders, "only offer advice". As the abomination sermon is currently still available on the Struthers website, I presume that it is currently an accepted part of the doctrine and practice of the church. Are you happy to include this sermon within your definition of "only offering advice"?
+++++++++++++++++

Note point 2 in particular. Referencing “the abomination sermon” by Alison Spears, I said, “If so, I expect that there will be a disciplinary enquiry and that the sermon will be removed from the website pending the outcome of this enquiry.”

They were told in 2010 that this sort of thing was happening. Sure we did not at that point have the testimony of Esme and others, but this is all part of the same picture. THEY KNEW. The leaders knew and, instead of acting responsibly, they allowed this to continue, deepen and fester. They (Grace, Jennifer, Diana, Chris, Pauline – have I forgotten one?) should at that pint have removed that sermon and conducted a disciplinary enquiry. They could have saved Esme from all that pain if they had acted appropriately at the time.

Of course this requires an investigation and apology from the leaders. Of course it does.

Leaders, you were told in 2010 what you should do and you failed to act. Past and present leaders, you are now being told in 2025 what you need to do. Just swallow your vanity, seek external advice and act. Save yet more people from having to suffer pain and trauma.

Thanks for your welcomes Rensil and The Petitor. It is great to be in a forum community where we all share experiences of the same place. Although each story is different and unique, there are many common themes.

I wanted to comment on the three letters recently posted on here by Friendly Face. It is odd that none of the three seem to be attributable - if the forum posters are correct when they say that the 'Pauline' letters were group efforts. But anyway, I'd say both 'Pauline' letters are good letters, the first in particular. I sampled the Bible references and looked some up and they are accurate. But given the response of the SMC Directors, I don't think letter 3 is realistic; more on that after I comment on letter 2.

Letter 2, a reply from the board of directors, is an extraordinary piece of work.There is really no formal response to any Biblical arguments made in letter 1 and any reference to scripture doesn't define the scripture referred to. There is also very casual and skimming over referencing that the body giving the response sees itself as a church. A lot of the language and concepts seem borrowed from far away e.g. "a developing policy landscape". This and similar terms seem borrowed from somewhere like social work, law, a public body, local government, social policy or somewhere else. The mixed-up language indicates a church that is in a quandary as to what it is and how to communicate what it is and what it believes. The letter is devoid of any clear Biblical presentation of collective belief.

A lot of it comes across as disingenuous and scarcely credible. Variety of preaching styles, possible unintended impacts on individuals, and so on. It is clear from the many post creators on this forum, around 105 individuals to date, that their experiences of different preachers in SMC is characterised by how oppressive and uniform they have all tended to be. And it is not possible to have unintended impacts when we are talking about many scores of complainants over many decades. The effects are, of course, deliberate and the impacts such as PTSD and other illnesses are the effects of compounded attacks from the platforms and from elsewhere such as camps on the same individuals over a very long time.

Strangely letter 2 from the board goes on to say that they 'did apologise if anyone had invertedly suffered distress'. This means that anyone who suffered in that way was turned upside down or reversed. That may well have occurred but perhaps it is just poorly written and poorly checked. Did they mean to say 'inadvertantly'? But then we are back to the weasel words and the nonsense that abuse by accident could, in theory, have occurred once or twice in a time far away when leaders were always acting and speaking only with grace and kindness in their hearts. Nonsense.

And to return to letter 3 which requests there should be a shift to biblical teaching and away from mere exhortation. Letter 2 shows just how lacking this church is in any Biblical insight. None of the leaders have any formal training at all in OT, NT, pastoral care or counselling. They can't provide biblical teaching. They have no foundations in it and all their years of preaching have given them no experience in it either. It is too late for them to get any training, age-wise I mean. And if any did and applied it, it would only gradually create and widen a gaping chasm between what they were now saying and what they had spouted in their decades long power-crazed, destructive days of oppressive exhortation.

Extra, l have apologised already re naming JH, l was meaning a dig at how cruel E Mc K D had been. My
My name has not been shared apart from F B as l knew she would keep confidentiality.
Tr AS, Spiders Spiers she had people she loathed and l often heard discuss the following with E. Mc K Smith.
Drum roll of loathing for. :

LG
RG
LB
JT and some others. Their crime well they wanted real bible study! More than the usual 1 text from Hebrews.
She found JT a bit of a moaner re health and RG though free church was the only way. LB annoyed her as she was quiet and wanted more of yge bible. L G turned up with photos of herself when she was yound well move in with that as surprise where is death to self in that?
But, where was God's love in such judgement. Surely we have one Judge and before him alone we should bow the knee.
Thanks to FB for keeping confidentiality re name.
Thanks FB

Amazing grace Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------

> Petitor has said many times about opposite views
> that’s ok…you have an equal right to express your
> experiences.
> But I’m certainly not ‘hounding you out’ by asking
> for clarification (as someone not you has pm me).

I really hope that is not happening folk getting hounded in pm.

The last few weeks has really been hard for me on here and in things what's happening to me in the back ground. It's a year since I meet the friend who told us about here. And what's a year it has been . So thanks for all the support I have been given.on here and off. I have been requited with many great folk. I have laughed and cried loads this year..

I stared a thread a few weeks ago and at the moment I really could be doing with hearing some fun and funny memories of your times in struthers . Also let's mind some fond memories.

I mind one of the older ladies making us all French bonnets to wear. I know I loved my white one she made me. Does anyone else mind this or have nice memories ?

FALKIRK BAIRN