Hello again. Alas, I have offended one at least of the other recent contributors and I apologise for that, unreservedly. I am certainly not accusing anyone of lying. I believe that all the factual claims made on this forum, including of course my own in earlier posts, have been genuine. All I have probed is the interpretation placed on some of the recollections. Nothing of what I have r
Forum: Destructive Churches

Hello again. I have been asked to clarify, so I will, although I am sorry that I cannot enter a long correspondence so if anyone does not like what I am about to say I will not be able to respond. Just too busy at the moment. Q. Is there child abuse in Struthers? A. No. Q. You mean just sexual abuse? A. No. Q. You mean physical manhandling as well? A. Yes. Q. But isn't demo
Forum: Destructive Churches

I hope you don't mind my saying this but I think one recent line of critique of Struthers is unsafe. I do not believe the Church or its leaders are now, or even have been, guilty of child abuse. Physical abuse of children is anathema to them. It is true that they lay on hands for spiritual purposes but that is no way abuse; it is an honest and pure-minded action, even if you think it mis
Forum: Destructive Churches

It is disappointing that someone should think they are entitled to invade with strident, wild accusations the muted, sympathetic and Christian discussion forum that is this thread of the rick ross website. Disappointing, but oh so typical of the Struthers approach! However, at least, Kelvin, you had the guts to venture onto the forum, unlike the remote leadership whose ways you so unwisely whi
Forum: Destructive Churches

Hi again everyone. Very interested to see all the activity in recent weeks, including the posts on Cedars School ('of Excellence', if you will!). I agree with most of you that the school is fair game for critique here because, whatever might now be claimed, it is an intrinsic part of the SMC mission. Indeed, when I questioned with its prospective head-teacher the plan to set up
Forum: Destructive Churches

There was a fascinating and thread-relevant programme on one of the 'God' channels last night. A lady explained her life in the Exclusive Brethren and how she escaped from it. Her story reminded me greatly of my experience in SMC. Indeed, I would suggest that Mr Black's background in the Exclusive Brethren explains much about what is wrong with Struthers. He claimed to have bee
Forum: Destructive Churches

Hello again. Some very interesting new posts. Can I make a couple of points: First, I am very uncomfortable indeed with the attacks on Latigo. It strikes me as a well-informed and useful website, one which clearly involves a great deal of thoughtful labour. Erroneous and pointless (not to mention, badly-spelled!) potshots at it are totally incongruous with what I take to be the spirit and pur
Forum: Destructive Churches

I am Latigo!
Forum: Destructive Churches

I was interested by Clive's question about The Godfather, and I think that if someone asks an honest question in this forum they should get some responses. Some have done this, but let me add a few thoughts of my own. 1. I saw The Godfather when I was a teenager so I cannot remember much about it. However, I watched The Godfather III recently, one sleepless night. 2. The Godfather III st
Forum: Destructive Churches

Hello everyone, and especially the new kid on our spiritual block: Anonymous 43762! It is heartening to read of someone else who is going to restart going to church, having discovered this website. Well done, Rick Ross. I should like to ask a simple question. Can anyone tell me who exactly benefits from lifelong attendance--perhaps 5-10 times per week--at SMC? Young men? I think not. The
Forum: Destructive Churches

To follow The Petitor's useful (and often amusing) points about Amy Carmichael - oh and thanks, CovLas, for picking up my whole thread about the 12 March sermon - can I say something? The speaker held up Amy Carmichael as a model. This has been a recurring theme for decades. But I would like to suggest that this is a major source of the errors we are alleging in the way Struthers is run.
Forum: Destructive Churches

I listened with interest to the Saturday night sermon of 12 March. It features an attack on this web-site. I'd like to make several points: 1. The speaker is correct to deny that SMC is a cult. Please see my previous postings. SMC is not a cult, because SMC is theologically sound on core gospel truths. It is not a cult, but an excessively insular church. 2. And it is woefully at sea on m
Forum: Destructive Churches

All very interesting. The commentary on the possible use of church funds to subsidise the church school are of particular interest to me. I vividly recall the announcement on a Saturday night that SMC had been led to start a private school. The speaker that night, one of the main leaders, took the opportunity not just to talk up private Christian schools but also to talk down mainstream state sch
Forum: Destructive Churches

Dear rrmoderator I am impressed that you should take the trouble to respond to my post, and so quickly. I would beg to maintain, however, that the definition of a cult must centrally include doctrine. It cannot be a matter of group dynamics alone. If not, you will not be able to distinguish between an excessively controlling church, such as Struthers Memorial Church or the Close Brethren, and,
Forum: Destructive Churches

Could not resist temptation to join in the fun! Let me say up front that SMC is not a cult. A cult is a religious group that denies the deity of Christ, or is in some other way unorthodox on core Gospel truths. SMC stands for real Christianity, no question. SMC also has many strengths, including passion for the Gospel, prophetic vision (albeit often with human opinions mixed in) and deep (b
Forum: Destructive Churches