In the light of the recent collapse of longstanding Struthers Church ministries due to leadership and financial failures the membership of SMC need to address these failures according to New Testament biblical principles. These failed ministries were from day one claimed to be the "Vision of God for the church revealed to the senior leader". As a result their many obvious weaknesses, opportunities for favouritism and nepotism, and likely massive financial drain on the churches were not to be mentioned or even contemplated.

And failed they did in a manner very damaging to the then leadership team and resulting in their public apologies, executive resignations, church schisms, church leader departures and a significant loss of members.

As a result Struthers adherents - among their many, many other problems - still face Two Particular Existential Questions

If there is no paid pastoral team – what is the plan for the Congregants Offerings, the “London” properties Rental Income and the School Leased Out Income?

Are churches expecting a steady repaying of the £3 million subsidies taken from their church bank accounts to fund the Coffee Shops and School losses?

Will every swish of loss covering money taken from their bank account to be returned in full over time? 

Is Greenock expected to take its £680,000 Coffee Shop losses on the chin?

Has a repayment plan been put in place for the Greenock congregation to repay the other churches that £680,000?

Is the Greenock church allowed to cut its Coffee Shop loss down by offsetting the “profit” made after the sales of both Denholm Street and FIDRA residential properties?

Is the Glasgow Church to receive a rescue package to enable the building’s survival?

Or are churches to be now independent in their financing, that it is up to Glasgow to fund its own repairs? Or Neath its own extension?

Will there be yet more magic disappearing tricks to take away the painful reality of expenditure compared to the income and reserves capabilities of any one venture.

If £3 million is to be returned to the churches, say via the “London” properties and leasing out of the school building, that is going to be a lot of cash reserves inflowing to certain church bank accounts. But only because that is where it was originally taken from.

Which leads to a 2nd existential question. Who controls what happens to the excess funds after the expenses of “normal” church have been paid?

The Corrupting Temptation will not have gone away. Despite all assurances to the contrary, the nature of the beast means it cannot have gone away.

Any movement, that presents a glorious vision and asks people to emotionally and financially contribute to it without there being any transparent means of changing who is in charge and making decisions, will face the same universally repeating cycles of power and temptation to inappropriate control. At some point, the same type of ethical decisions will be in front of those now in charge of SMC as existed in the previous 30 years, and the previous decades before that.

The same challenge to allow accountability will exist.

Ethical behaviour cannot be assumed when large sums of money are flowing through voluntary organisations.

The only way to counter such corrupting temptation is for structures holding to account to be built in, to become the routine norm. For the highlighting of conflicts of interest in any set of decisions, even the appearance of conflicts of interest, to be a repetitive and routine event and for the possibility of “related parties” and “close family” transactions and decision making to be minimised. If multiple related persons do not have decision making responsibilities, you lessen the corruption and control possibilities.

The previous regime that benefitted a few families and their approved connections may have had no close family link to the Director with Significant Control. However, there is no doubt that Financial Control is NOW directly connected to that person.

Their spouse is a Director, indeed is the Director specifically assigned responsibility for Finance and Administration. Their son is on the Financial Expenditure decision making committee. The Central Treasurer, although not a Director, is married to a Director, who in turn has been a long-term friend of the person with Significant Control since school days.

The Board now has a variety of working experience that goes beyond the Education Sector. That is a good thing and a huge step forward: The Doctor who is trained in ethics and safeguarding. The Independent Financial Adviser, trained in ethics to counter the systemic temptation of handling other people’s monies. The friend from School, trained in safeguarding and health and safety. The Human Resource manager trained in disciplinary structures, policy writing, governance standards, complaint handling and whistle-blowing.

However, anyone who has had knowledge of SMC over the past 30 years will be able to see that some of the current Board owe their ministerial progression and now board appointment to the Director with Significant Control. Has control simply moved geographical location from Greenock to Cumbernauld? Has control become centred around a different family and their approved connections? Does the reader still see a system of patronage at work?

Given the messes of previous years the current directors are likely to be much more aware of their legal, ethical, safe-guarding, financial, charity governance responsibilities. They will have attended other non-SMC Board meetings where the first matter minuted are the Conflicts of Interest. They will be used to, in their professional lives, to filling out annual declarations of interests, and that such declarations would include family, property and loan connections.

Does the reader have hope that an ethos of working “for the least among you” has replaced the previous decades of pushing money and leadership opportunities towards Related Parties and Close Family nepotism?

Does the reader have confidence that sufficient accountability structures and repetitive cycles of training have been put in place to counter act the never-going-to-go-away corrupting temptation to gather power and use funds?

Does the reader think the Board can be capable of independent thought and action that may counter that of the Director with Significant Control?

What do the Congregants of SMC want to happen to the repayment of the £3million losses, and ongoing excess funds once the financial position is stabilised, and do they have any say in who is involved in making those decisions?

As ever with articles about Struthers Memorial Church we will be happy to acknowledge and correct any errors of fact that are pointed out to us. 

Our email address is available on this site.

However we would point out that in the 15 years we have been publishing articles we have never received any requests to change any of the facts we have presented from anyone in leadership in SMC.