CHRIST would park where?

In my 15^th post I detailed an incident which involved the Lertsinpakdees deliberately preventing me from parking, in Harris Street Fairfield, directly in front of the Uniting Church. That those individuals believe they had the right too, on behalf of the Uniting Church, to demand I not park is laughable if it were not so serious. It also highlighted to what lengths the leaders of the Fairfield Uniting Church will go to in their quest to control members and attendees of the Church. It also highlighted how they see their selfish belief, they have 'rights' above that of others in the community, is defining their lack of Christianity. That they were prepared to put their selfish convenience ahead of a severely disabled person is, had it not occurred, would not have been believed.

On the sign in front of the Fairfield Uniting Church is the word, in red, WELCOME.

Red is a significant colour to use for that word in the context of a Church sign. For it is the blood of CHRIST that was spilled for our sins. It is the recognition of Christ sacrifice, and why, which forms the cornerstone of, and why, ALL persons are welcome in the house of the LORD, except at Fairfield Uniting. To be welcome there requires an additional, personal, sacrifice. You are require to worship the Church leadership in the form of submitting totally to a set of rules, they have claimed exists, rules you will not find anywhere except in the minds of the Phar'.......* Oops! Sorry a Freudian slip ;-)

Writing (in these posts) about Fairfield Uniting is about contrast and as you will see WELCOME on a sign does NOT translate to welcome to all; only to those chosen by the *Tweed and Solifoni management are welcome; all others 'need not attend'.

Think I am wrong, think I have been un-just or un-truthful in speaking out (and blogging) about the goings-on at Fairfield Uniting? Well look what happened on Sunday last, the 21^st Dec'2014, the last Sunday prior to the celebration of Christ's birth – “the reason for the season”; indeed David Tweed!

As is necessary, having brought Jessie to Church, I left my car parked in Harris Street, a public street. When I returned a short time later I find a person has place a hand written note, on the windscreen, constrained by a wiper blade. As I walked toward the car, a person from another Church congregation, who I know, who had already seen the note and its contents, drew my attention to it and, simultaneously, expressed considerable concern.

The note read; “DONT PARK HERE GO TO YOUR CHURCH AND PARK There”

So there you have it folks a public declaration that I should, as a rate paying Fairfield City resident, not park on a public road I contribute too and, I should not “PARK HERE”, meaning in front of Fairfield Uniting Church and, that I should go and park at “MY CHURCH?”. You may be forgiven for wondering was I not parked at MY CHURCH.

I don't own a Church but you know Fairfield Uniting is the Church I grew-up in, married in am a member of, etc, etc, etc. Was I not at MY CHURCH? Well clearly in the eyes of the person who 'graffiti-ed' my car should not and neither should I.  What does that say about the Fairfield Uniting's leadership, the congregation and those guiding them spiritually?

Clearly the Church sign's WELCOME is NOT for me! Does this also apply to Christ. If Christ were to appear, again, by car, would he be allowed park in front of the Tweed and Solifoni's Church?

I asked a very pointed question in my previous post and pose it again, differently;

Are the Fairfield Uniting Leadership and Congregation, David & Pat Tweed and Foni &Rachel Solifoni meeting Christ's expectations?

Each and every one of the Fairfield Uniting Church Congregation bear some responsibility for the note found on my car and for ALL that has transpired in the last few years in relation to the matters outlined in my posts.

This coming CHRISTmas day Mr. Keith Suter, I understand will preach. On previous occasions he has mentioned his keenness in coming 'back' to Fairfield. This year I hope he sees through the 'greetings' and understands to what depth, in sin, Fairfield Uniting, and its leadership, has descended.

To Mr. Suter, Rev. Choi and Rev. Kava I wish you each a happy CHRISTmas but, like many others who should be worshiping with you, we will not be there because we have been told we are not welcome. I caution; continuing to preaching to the Fairfield Congregation and waiting for 'a fix to occur' is ruining the history of Fairfield Uniting Church by licensing and condoning the Tweed and Solifoni families conduct and actions.

To all at Fairfield Uniting I pray this CHRISTmas day may be the day your hearts will feel CHRIST's presence and your eyes will be opened to the reality of that which, in your midst, is terribly wrong and at odds with what the day and 'your faith' represents and what, our Lord, expects of you.

This one is for you Graeme Tweed.

That I “should take a tumble to myself” as you put it was an interesting comment the meaning of which is more significant to you than me. However for me the more significant of your two comments was the statement “you can't write about people in a blog and expect them to be your friends”.

My immediate (un-spoken) thought was, for you, Church is about “friendship” and that made me very sad for you. After all these years is that what Church and being a Christian is to you Graeme?

Friendship (in Church and life in general) is of some importance but it is a result of exercising more important traits towards people. (True) friendship is, in a way, a reward; it should never be expected and that is, quite obviously, a major sticking point for you and some others at Fairfield Uniting.

Which bring me to the word “expect”. What is expected of (not by me) a Christian and a Fairfield Uniting member is a Love of Christ with behaviour to match. Ask yourself, Graeme, could you not have contributed to the 'issues' of Fairfield Uniting by using more common-sense and not just “following the leader”. The legacy of Fairfield Uniting is yours, as much as it is others, and you are going to be around longer to carry that burden!

“Expect?” A further point to not loose sight of Graeme is it is not I who will makes the final judgement and my expectations of people are not of my choosing. It is well past time the Congregation of Fairfield Uniting looked deep into itself and ask the question, are we fulfilling Christ's expectations of us? Are you Graeme, are your parents Graeme, is the Fairfield Uniting Leadership and Congregation meeting Christ's expectations?

To help you answer those questions Graeme the following will document what happened when I arrived at Fairfield Uniting on the morning, of Sunday 14Dec2014, bringing Jessie to church.

It commences with the main player being Noi Lertsinpakdee rushing to stand, on the road, directly in the path of my vehicle, with the sole intention to prevent me from parking, in a vacant spot, directly in front of Fairfield Uniting. Not withstanding the inherent danger of Noi's actions it was his intentions which also need scrutiny. Noi clearly stated I was not to park as it was reserved for the Church bus. This is of course a lie and shows illegal intent to impede a vehicle on a public road whilst simultaneously causing significant danger to himself and other road users.

What makes Noi's action worse though is his statements, “he knows the law”, “he has the right to stop me parking”, “I am the caretaker of this Church, I have the right..”, “what are you (me) in the Church, nothing”. When I asked was he going to stop me from allowing Jessie (a severely disabled person) to get out of the car he said “yes”.

Just think for a moment Graeme, if Jessie was your father, would you like to have seen him treated the way Noi and you treated Jessie last Sunday morning? Ask yourself this Graeme, what friendship did you extend toward Jessie? Are you and Noi persons 'one' would want as friends?

Worse though; now think about how that altercation looked to the 'outside world'. Think about what those children sitting on the Church hall steps were witnessing and learning from that event. Were Noi's actions, your in-action, actions which fulfil the expectations of Christ?

The blog, Graeme, exist for one reason only: it is a record of 'recent' events. Done to ensure the truth about that which lays beneath the surface (the sin) of Fairfield Uniting is understood in the future. It is a warning to Fairfield Uniting's leadership and Congregation and to other Congregations just how NOT to behave when conducting the 'business' which represents Christ and his teachings.

The events of Sunday are now also recorded publicly, in part, for the authorities to now see Graeme. You, Noi, your parents, the Solifonis and the Congregation may see breaking the law as being ok but does Christ? You, Noi, your parents, the Solifonis and congregation may see what Noi did as justified but, it was, in truth, dangerous, illegal and discriminatory.

Does that help you answer the questions asked above Graeme, I'll repeat;

Are you Graeme, are your parents Graeme, is the Fairfield Uniting Leadership and Congregation, Graeme, meeting Christ's expectations?

If you - or any other person in Fairfield Uniting and the wider Uniting Church - can answer yes to those questions I would welcome your response and reasoning.

Well I'm back and, it ain't with good news.

What would Jesus do with the Congregation of Fairfield Uniting Church?

Should, Fairfield Uniting Church be closed?

If you don't want to read all this post just go to the 2nd last paragraph starting with '*In closing.....' and let me know what your answers may be to the two opening questions.

In talking with a minister a couple of weeks ago there was a suggestion inferred these blog posting were not helping.

They are not meant to help! They have been done to record (the truth for the future) the un-Godly behaviour of Fairfield Uniting Church under the leadership of its current Elders and Church Councillors.

I use, un-Godly, in a strict sense meaning, quite simply, as a description of the behaviour of Fairfield Uniting's Elders and Church Councillors; behaviour which excludes (completely) God, the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Jesus, in every respect.

I also have used these posting to highlight the contrasts found at Fairfield Uniting: often very good sermons are book-ended by behaviour which is almost incomprehensible. Bullying, verbal abuse and physical intimidation can all be experienced before and after the Sunday services at Fairfield Uniting and, Sunday the 2^nd October 2014 was no exception. What happened, that day, is the subject of this post.

In addition to being a record, these posting gave the Elders and Church Councillors an opportunity to see another’s perspective of their actions and behaviour so as to allow, their actions and behaviour, to be addressed and fixed. A faint hope but I remain 'relatively' optimistic ;-)

So what did happen last Sunday. Well, for starters, my wife and I arrived late for Church due in no small part having travelled nearly 400km to get there; we arrived as Rev. Choi was concluding his sermon and just prior to the delivery of communion. Having not heard the sermon I am unable to comment but, if Rev. Choi's delivered a sermon similar to the past it would have been a worthy lesson.

Morning tea followed the service which was, in turn, followed by a Congregational meeting; the first since the 14 April 2013.

The meeting was opened (and was to be Chaired by the self appointed) Mr. David Tweed (an Elder and Chairman of the Church Council). Mr. D. Tweed opened with two statements: the first statement indicated the meeting would be run according to the 'Rules'. The second statement – which in all probability passed over the heads of all but two – was that only people in “good standing within the Church” were entitled to be there and participate.

Only people in “good standing within the Church” were entitled to be there and participate. A curious comment but one which was not lost on me as this is precisely the comment D. Tweed has directed at me personally many times and, has used when referring to me when misleading Presbytery in relation to my membership status. When it was (to my knowledge) first thrown at me, some years ago, I was taken aback. In trying to get to the bottom of why D. Tweed used and still uses, and directs, that statement at me has met a complete dead-end. D. Tweed's failure (for years) to tell me why he refers to me in this way has led me to the conclusion it is completely without basis in fact and is totally unjustified. It has now reached a point of being a discriminatory and defamatory statement. It was used, again, in the Congregational meeting, by D. Tweed (Elder) in an attempt and as a reason for denying my democratic right to speak*!

Now the Congregational meeting to which I am referring was to be our annual general meeting and one which elected two (2) persons to the existing Church Council. Following is the format of the agenda provided and printed on a Church letter head;

Agenda.

1. Minutes of last year

2. Minister report

3. Office

4. Diner

5. Annexe

6. Financial report

7. Ballot

It's a joke eh?

No joke, Yep, that's it folks a genuine agenda Fairfield Uniting Church style: a title and seven (7) 'points' of which only three (3) probably carry any real meaning outside of a guess. Now, to you the reader, if you know something about meetings of the type we were attending you would be probably thinking was the meeting organised by kindergarten children or experienced Elders/Church Councillors. As the Chairman/Elder D. Tweed is in his eighties and has an extremely dictatorial style, that agenda indicates, in just how much disdain David Tweed holds the Congregation and just how cavalier are all the Elders/Church Councillors in relation to the offices they hold.

In short, the meeting was an inconvenience to the Elders and Church Councillors and totally un-necessary, from their dictatorial point of view. As you will soon come to see the Elders and Church Councillors of Fairfield Uniting Church are a rouge council bent on protecting, at any cost, their positions and control over Fairfield Uniting's Congregation and The Uniting Church in Australia's property and assets. With behaviour which excludes completely God, the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Jesus, in every respect.

So to work our way through the agenda. The first item: well they actually didn't have the minutes from the previous two meetings what was presented was a 'recollection' of what occurred. That another way to say we'll present what we want you to hear not what happened. I do know why they do not have the original minute notes; because I have them ;-)

To continue: we ramble our way through the “Minister report”, Office, Diner and Annexe arriving finally at the Financial report which revealed some very interesting points. Of particular interest was information extracted in relation to Church owned vehicles destroyed and purchased. More on that topic latter.

The we get to the Ballot: this was of particular interest to me because it involved the election of two persons to the existing rouge Church Council.

Now cast your mind back to an earlier paragraph in which I said “Mr. D. Tweed opened (the meeting) with two statements: the first statement indicated the meeting would be run according to the Uniting Church rules. The second statement – which in all probability passed over the heads of all but two – was that only people in “good standing within the Church” were entitled to be there and participate.

You would be forgiven for thinking having said the meeting was being to the 'Rules' that he (Elder/chairman D. Tweed) meant Uniting Church rules and, you would be wrong! This is a Tweed and Solifoni show therefore it's their 'Rules' which apply NOT the Uniting Church's.

You see the nomination, for the two positions, were NOT done nor did the notification follow the Uniting Church rules. With the consequence that when to ballot papers were about to be handed out I stood and asked to speak. The immediate reply from the Chair was that I was not going to be allowed speak, he as the Chairman was not going to allow it and further more he angrily stated the reason why; it was because “I was not a person of good standing in the church”. There is that comment again and delivered as it was, very angrily, and in front of the entire Congregation you may now see why I consider it doth discriminatory and defamatory. What D. Tweed (Elder/Chairman) was attempting to do was to deny me my democratic right by discrediting my character – in public this time!

The meeting – understandably - descended into chaos and on the way other Church Councillors of the Congregation – one being, Foni Solifoni, a self appointed Elder – choose to take the opportunity, and NOT speaking to the motion in play, to also besmirch my character with one very lengthy dissertation culminating in telling everybody about this blog. Now if you have read the other posts, in this blog, you will be familiar already with the character Foni Solifoni and some of his earlier exploits (more on him later too in relation to him being a 'self appointed Elder').

There came a point, in the chaos, which I did get to speak. Important to note, at this point, without any formal procedure a Ms. Ma'ata Solifoni took over the functions of the Chair (you now see why I say Fairfield Uniting is a Tweed/Solifoni circus with rules of administration to match). I commenced speaking and in doing so pointed out how D. Tweed had mentioned 'running to the rules' I also pointed out that only last Sunday Ma'ata Solifoni had given a long childrens' talk in church about the importance of following rules in society; the 10 commandments being the basis of that sermon.

With a small amount more to say about why the nominations were incorrectly done and why the Congregation should have the opportunity to nominate others, I was stopped by the 'self appointed Chair' and asked to summarise. In other word we don't want to hear what you have to say so make it brief. So I did by moving the following motion;

As the nominations of Janet McKinley and Lorna Field have not complied with the regulatory requirements of notification; I move (a procedural motion) the Congregation vote to defer, their vote, for or against their acceptance of the nominees, for the positions of Church Councillors, to an adjournment of this meeting to be convened on the 30^th November 2014.

The postponement will provide additional time and opportunity for the nominees to reflect on the responsibilities of the office; it will also provide additional time to ensure regulatory requirements are met and, will provide the Congregation its rightful opportunity to put forward other nominations for consideration.

Self explanatory and not a big deal actually and, if you were a person, in that hall, with a head on your shoulders and a brain within tuned in to 'GOD and doing things correctly in a Christian environment' you, may, have rationally discussed the reasons for and against and then proceeded. Don't forget this is Fairfield Uniting Church – the Tweed/Solifoni show. After putting the motion, in the melee which followed was when Foni Solifoni delivered his condemnations on my character. Normal and predictable behaviour on behalf of the Elders/Church Councillors and using their methods of coercion my motion, to postpone and, allow the Uniting Church rules to be adhered too,  for the opportunity of other nominations, was defeated and two new Church Councillors were elected.

Those two councillors now join the ranks of the rogue Elders and Church Councillors and, sadly, they will now - unless they stop what is happening (fix what has happened, ha! ha!) - become stained by association. Sad and true!

Voting done and dusted D.Tweed then asked what next? I said date of next meeting. D.Tweed then said to all assembled did they want to finish and that was then end of the first Congregational meeting since early April 2013. No date set for the next meeting is yet again a display of the contempt the Elders and Church Councillors hold the Congregation and is their way of displaying how they hold on to their power.

*In closing I am going to make a very important statement. Mr. David Tweed, an Elder, Chairman of the Church Council and self elected Chairman of the Congregational meeting told all those assembled that what is written in this blog is “all lies” and that I was a liar. Now this very serious accusation was from the mouth of a Fairfield Uniting Church Elder whilst he was Chairing a Congregational meeting – you, the reader, can draw you own conclusions about what I have written but what Mr. David Tweed did was witnessed by the Congregation and nobody, absolutely nobody at that meeting could challenged what was said.

In not seriously challenging Mr. David Tweed's character assassination of me – as it happened - condemns every person present, which in turns condemns the very spirituality and Christianity of Fairfield Uniting Church: leaving only questions to be asked: a key one being, what would Jesus do and a second, given the un-Godlyness displayed; Should Fairfield Uniting Church be closed?

Can It Be Fixed?

The million$ question: is it possible to 'fix' that which has occurred at Fairfield Uniting Church?

To be able to do that – 'fix' Fairfield Uniting Church – one first needs to define the 'problem(s)', who is behind the 'problem(s)' and (probably, the most difficult part) what might be driving them?

Before tackling those three questions let's recap. In an earlier post I argued the reason Fairfield Uniting is as it is – an irreverent mess – is because it is in the best interests of the Elders and Church Councillors that it remain so. To change or 'fix' Fairfield Uniting does mean the Elders and Church Councillors consider, in their minds, they are going to 'loose' something!

How did Fairfield Uniting Church get into the terrible state it is? Rev. Lunney said, on one occasion, if people would read their bibles the 'problems' would not exist. I responded along the lines, those causing the 'problems' know their bibles; reading is one thing applying is quite another. Application means following what God and Jesus expect us all to do in fulfilling the mission of a Christian Church; that is what is NOT being done at Fairfield Uniting!

Additionally, and also in an earlier post, I made the statement, “Fairfield Uniting's leaders, long ago, 'lost the plot'; Fairfield Uniting is most definitely about them and NOT Jesus and that must change!” That remains the case (aofn). God and Christ Jesus need to be brought back into the centre of Fairfield Uniting Church, which includes, making sure God and Jesus form the centre of every action, decision and comment made by the Elders and Church Councillors.

What might be driving them? I'll address that as a question first, because, at the time of writing this post, despite the protracted length of time involved and, number of people involved, the answer to that question I – surprisingly - may not have; but on the other hand I 'think' it can be worked out.

The reason I do not have a concrete answer is simply because the 'problem(s)', some of which appear on the surface to exist between me and the Fairfield Uniting Elders and Church Councillors have never been defined. The Elders and Church Councillors have been, for years, accusing me, of being the 'problem', using broad statements like - “your working against us”. When asked how or why they have refused to say. Not only have they refused to say, they have also refused to discuss – 'me the problem' – with me. That's right, Fairfield Uniting's Elders and Church Councillors have NEVER taken the opportunities provided (by me) to discuss the 'problem(s), nor have they attempted, in any manner, to create or encourage me to discuss what it is they believe I have and are doing 'wrong'. You know, its a process called counselling; the sort of thing you would expect Elders and Church Councillors to be able to do?

That very failing, the failing to discuss issues, has in itself become one of the major, if not the main issue/problem. Talking through and or discussing 'issues/differences', in a church environment, is a 'God given right' you might have thought. I am sure it is in many churches but, not at Fairfield Uniting. So what question(s) might, not wanting to talk/discuss raise? Well, time and repeated attempts to do so, has given me a good insight as to why and, it distils down to a very simple premise. The Elders and Church Councillors, of Fairfield Uniting, simple believe they are completely above being questioned by me (or any other person for that matter). They all believe I have absolutely NO rights, NONE; one Church Councillor has said as much to my face!

Rights aside, what question(s) does not wanting to talk/discuss a church member's 'conduct' – with the person - raise about the Elders and Church Councillors? Is choosing NOT to discuss a church member's challenging (sometimes referred to as disruptive) conduct an appropriate position for Elders and Church Councillors to take? If so when and how? Are the Elders and Church Councillors acting responsibly? Are they carrying out their responsibilities as defined in our biblical teachings and as they are laid out in the Uniting Church rules?

The answer to the first question - in the last paragraph – is, MANY. The answers to the remaining questions is a resounding NO therefore NEVER, NO & NO.

So, amongst the many questions their (Elder/Church Councillors) conduct raises, if following the teachings of Christ, if executing their roles in accordance with that which is outlined in the Uniting Church in Australia rules, is not what they are wanting to do; the most pressing question may be, what do they see is their role, as Elders and Church Councillors, in Fairfield Uniting Church?

If the Elders and Church Councillors are choosing to ignore the fundamentals of Christianity in following Christ teaching, and the requirements of the Uniting Church in Australia; then just what is their role as Elders and Church Councillors in Fairfield Uniting Church?

Answer; not known.

Why, then, bother to wear the mantle of leadership at all?

Answer: POWER & CONTROL; it's the only sensible conclusion based on what I witness: POWER & CONTROL of the congregation; POWER & CONTROL over individual congregational members (in what they can say and do) and, POWER & CONTROL over the property and assets of the Uniting Church as entrusted, by the wider church, to the Fairfield Uniting Church Congregation!

To repeat the question, what might be driving the Elder and Church Councillors actions?

Answer: personal POWER & CONTROL!

The evidence abounds and it is ALL confirmed by their actions. Not tabling substance or evidence to support their accusations of 'wrong doing' and or disruption; then refusing to discuss the 'issues' raised. Offend and bully congregational members to 'encourage' them to walk away. Elders and Church Councillors strip volunteers of their roles: for the sole purpose of ensuring the person understands they are no longer welcome – by the Elders and Church Councillors of Fairfield Uniting Church; those members then feel compelled to walk away and leave the Fairfield Uniting Church. Embroil and use other un-thinking congregational members to encourage and support the ostracising of target individual congregational members. Actively seek to remove both congregational members and clergy who dare challenge their goal for total CONTROL! The evidence is plain to see by any person who might choose to take even a cursory look at the past and recent history of the administration issues, congregational and clergy loses at Fairfield Uniting Church.

So I started with three (3) overarching statements/questions: “one first needs to define the 'problem(s)'?, who is behind the 'problem(s)' and (probably, the most difficult part) what might be driving them?”. Having concluded CONTROL and POWER addresses the last of the three questions let’s now move (backwards) and tackle the second question, “who is behind the 'problem(s)'?”.

Who? There are those who would say all the ‘problems’ of Fairfield Uniting Church are caused by me and me alone. I did feel, for a period, I was an integral part of Fairfield Uniting's 'problems'. I no longer do, and have covered this situation in earlier posts. I drawing my conclusion based on knowing if I was the 'problem' what evidence could the Elders and Church Councillors show, to demonstrate they had made every or any effort to counsel, support and or address why they perceive me as being the ‘problem/issue’ in Fairfield Uniting Church.

The truth is, the Elders and Church Councillors have absolutely NOTHING to show which would support their accusations. They have not even come close to fulfilling the requirements and responsibilities relating to the positions held as outlined in the Uniting Church ‘rules’ and or the teachings of Christ. In failing at a fundamental level the Elders and Church Councillors have tagged themselves as ‘the who’ behind Fairfield Uniting Church’s ‘problems/issues’. They and they alone must now carry the full responsibility.

Who? David & Patricia Tweed, Talanoa, & Ma’ata Solifoni and Noi Lertsinpakdee are the main players. Those individuals form the current ‘rogue’ Fairfield Uniting Church Council who MUST bear the entire responsibility for the appalling ‘recent’ events which now define Fairfield Uniting Church as a disappointingly irreverent and fallen place of worship.

Two of my questions have now been addressed. From what I have recorded in this post and the others within this blog we see D.&P Tweed, T., L. & M. Solifoni and N. Lertsinpakdee are the persons responsible for the dictatorial control and, it can easily be said, 100% of the nastiness, un-pleasantness, irreverence and loses of generations of congregational members. Their drive, for POWER as individuals, to selfishly CONTROL Fairfield Uniting’s property, Worship services & congregational members, in preference to administering church affairs on the congregation’s behalf, is a key driver*.

The last of my three statements/questions; “one first needs to define the 'problem(s)'.

*In stating POWER and CONTROL are the key drivers of the Elders and Church Councillors it is only a small step to make to then understand it is the Elders and Church Councillors drive for POWER and CONTROL as also being ‘the problem(s)’. It is oversimplifying to a degree, but POWER & CONTROL does underline what I see as ‘a major problem/issue’.

To continue, a wee bit more focused – on the individuals – behind the overarching goal for POWER and CONTROL.

There is a litany of issues which have accumulated over the years in relation to D. Tweed (which are well known to many in Fairfield Uniting – past and present and to Presbytery). Much has been either ignored or simply counteracted by conscientious, gracious congregational members. Many of whom have left because ‘it’ just became too much to bear. But the issues which surround D. Tweed’s exertion of CONTROL, have been magnified – (in 'recent' times) - by his personal effect/attacks (on me, my family and a great number of other congregational members; including his OWN family members), are not the only problems. The merging of the desire to CONTROL by the Tweeds has been aligned with a similar intent of the Solifonis. The ‘problems’ experienced at Fairfield Uniting have been further enhanced by the introduction, by the Solifonis, of a particular ‘family issue’. An 'issue' T. & L. Solifoni seem to, on the one hand claim is of nobody else’s business and yet, on the other hand have made it EVERYBODY’S issue, at Fairfield Uniting, by their own actions. The Solifoni’s family issue is a root cause of the bullying, the physical and verbal attacks (some now recorded in this blog) on me and my family.

That said why do I seem to be a focus? As these blog postings mention and allude too, I am not the only person who has 'run foul' of the Elders and Church Councillors; there are many others including clergy. What probably stands proud – in 'recent' times - is that I have 'pushed back' and, challenged Elders and Church Councillors actions, to such a degree I am seen as a threat to their POWER and CONTROL end game. My belief the congregation's welfare and opinions, as a whole, is of more 'importance' than those who choose to dictate, is seen as a threat. It simple does not figure in their POWER and CONTROL quest I, or the congregation, should have any say in what does or does not happen at Fairfield Uniting Church.

So, we are closer to understanding what are 'the real problems/issues' at Fairfield Uniting. But, why has it been so difficult for me as a person? Firstly, I am going to zero in on the 'friction' which appears to exist between David Tweed (an Elder) and me. This will reveal two very significant points. The most important being, remember, D. Tweed is an Elder of Fairfield Uniting and Chairman of the Church Council. The second point being, the 'friction' (which by definition involves at least two bodies) is the creation of, and is perpetuated solely by D. Tweed.

Put bluntly, D. Tweed is - when it comes to particular issues – extremely dogmatic. His aggressiveness blossoms when 'questioned' about something he believes should be done in a particular or 'his way'. For me – in a community or congregational sense – that single minded approach is likely to always cause problems. Every person has a different approach, or view, of a particular problem or issue; however, should another person's view differ from that of D. Tweed, and the alternate view is voiced, trouble is sure to follow! That has been a feature of Fairfield Uniting since its earlier Methodist days.

So let's take a quick tour of what may have brought me into 'recent' - (recent being a relative term and for the sake of brevity ;-) I will be using 2009 as the start point) - conflict with D. Tweed; which, in turn, led to me choosing not worship at Fairfield Uniting for a period of time. This will also provide an insight as to why 'solutions to problems/issues' are so difficult when D. Tweed is involved.

There was an issue which arose some time back relating to a particular member of the clergy. Comments were made, about the individual, which I (and others) found very disturbing and offensive. Offensive because they had no substance and, partly because they truly challenged freedom of speech within and outside Fairfield Uniting Church. They were statements and instructions a church leader should NOT have made privately let alone to the congregation.

When I approached D. Tweed, in relation to that which was said, expecting to be able to discuss it; imagine my surprise when D. Tweed immediately launched a vitriolic attack, not only on the person previously mentioned but on me and my character as well! D. Tweed's character attack on me was very personal and indicated I had caused much trouble too and in the church. What was significant, at the time and subsequently, is what D. Tweed was indicating, or alluding too, was simply not true.

Indeed when asked, at the time (and subsequently a number of times), to qualify his comments he WOULD NOT. To this day that remains the situation: D. Tweed refuses (“I will never give you an answer to your questions!”) to justify his assertions of my 'wrong doing'. Whatever is going on in the mind of D. Tweed there is no doubt he is harbouring distorted thoughts which influence his questionable decisions and actions.

There you have it, in a 'nut shell', almost the ultimate problem for any concerned person. I said earlier an insight as to why 'problems' are what they are and have become, at Fairfield Uniting, would be forthcoming and there it is. D. Tweed leads the Church Councillors in 'throwing mud' at perceived threats and at no stage are they prepared, to consider the contradiction of their actions, to alter course or to discuss, why!

It is worth understanding I did stop worshipping at Fairfield Uniting for a period of time as a direct result of D. Tweed's actions and continuing refusal to accept his responsibilities as an Elder and to conduct himself accordingly. It is also worth adding here, when I returned to worship at Fairfield Uniting – the direct result of the efforts of several people – I was NOT welcomed back by the leaders. Yet another contradiction?

My family and extended family continued to worship at Fairfield Uniting which allowed me to remain 'attached' as it were and to gauge whether or not my self-imposed exile improved 'church' for those who I had been told I had caused trouble; the truth is it did not. In the period I was 'away' I was able to look very closely at what I thought I may have done to 'cause the trouble' and, watching was continuing to occur, concluded I was not the problem D. Tweed believed I was. It was at this time I also concluded it was simply because I would NOT let D.Tweed's appalling behaviour go un-challenged that was the 'cause' of his angst. It also is why he cannot discuss or justify his attacks and accusations; because that would mean he would have to question or change his actions and, he is simply NOT prepared or man enough to do so!

But how far was this fellow, and Fairfield Uniting Church Councillors, prepared to go in attacking me as a person; well 'all the way' at it turned out.

D. Tweed often referred to me as a “person of not good standing”; this statement he used both to my face and when speaking of me with others, including presbytery's secretary, Mr. J. Cutts. The statement is a curious, an 'old world', expression but its use was intentional and used to insult. D. Tweed used the statement as a weapon and as a shield. As a shield, to justify his REFUSAL to accept his responsibility as an Elder. As a weapon, it was effectively used to deliberately prevent Fairfield Uniting's congregation's right to call a special congregational meeting.

D. Tweed and the entire Church Council called my character into question for the sole purpose of thwarting the democratic rights and voice of the then Fairfield Uniting congregation. That dictatorial act was achieved with the Presbytery's assistance. Presbytery swallowed 'hook line and sinker' D. Tweed's assertion my character was not good leaving J. Cutts with a belief my membership of the Uniting Church was in doubt. How do I know that; because J. Cutts asked me (personally) to write a letter to Fairfield Uniting's Church Council to have my membership clarified and or confirmed.

I was not happy to write the letter as I saw it (and that turned out to be correct) was nothing more than a smoke screen; a fabrication of D. Tweed and Fairfield Uniting Church Councillors to allow them to justify not doing what the Uniting Church Rules required them to do and, up until now they have got away with it.

For those of you who know the 'rules' you will know there is a procedure laid out to discipline Uniting Church members and at NO stage have those rules or procedures been followed by the Fairfield Uniting Elders and Church Councillors nor by Presbytery and Mr. J Cutts. To this day those procedure have still NOT been applied or followed; the reasons for must now be obvious to you the reader.

To follow the disciplinary procedures requires counselling 'of the person'. Counselling requires discussion: as I have outlined D. Tweed, as an Elder, and the ENTIRE Fairfield Uniting Church Council are REFUSING to discuss anything with me! That situation should be of grave concern to the entire membership and leadership of the Uniting Church in Australia: but I don't think any could care less!

Can Fairfield Uniting be fixed?**

I started with three components in a statement which are also question;

One). First define the 'problem(s)': In the main, whilst there are many issues, the 'problem' at Fairfield Uniting is the Elders and Church Councillors. Central to them being the 'problem' is their inability to accept and carry-out their responsibilities as leaders, as defined in the Uniting church in Australia rules;

Two). Who is behind the 'problem(s)'?; self-evident. The Fairfield Uniting Elders and Church Councillors are a 'rogue' Church Council. It would appear inconceivable leaders in the Uniting Church in Australia could act as they do at Fairfield Uniting, but they do and will continue to do so until the congregation, with the support of the wider Uniting Church, bring them to account;

Three). What might be driving them? POWER and CONTROL. Nothing more and nothing less. Fairfield Uniting Church's Elders and Church Councillors want to totally CONTROL all aspects of the Fairfield Uniting Church. They believe it is only they who can and should decide what occurs at Fairfield Uniting Church and what clergy and congregational members can say and do. This is of course totally at odds with the requirements and teaching of the Uniting Church in Australia but, it is what they are currently doing with the tacit support of the congregation, and the leaders of Presbytery, Synod and The Assembly.

**So I return to the question; Can Fairfield Uniting be fixed?

YES, with GOD's help/guidance. Which does, of course, mean D. & P Tweed (Elders), T. & M. Solifoni and N. Lertsinpakdee are going to need to, firstly, listen to what God wants of them, then do the un-thinkable; accept their responsibility and their role in all that has 'gone wrong' at Fairfield Uniting Church. They must stop their vindictive behaviour, apologise and accept the inevitable in line with what I put forward at a meeting with them and Presbytery.

Then and only then will Fairfield Uniting Church be able to be said to be a place of true worship, reverence and of peace. Only then will Fairfield Uniting become, once again, a place my entire family, and those who have been forced to leave, would want to once again worship within.

A conclusion of sorts but I have not finished this post;

The direct interaction between D. Tweed and me I have outlined as an example of the 'problems/issues' at Fairfield Uniting. Earlier in this post I stated issues experienced by the Solifoni family had combined with the existing 'D. Tweed based' issues and that needs clarification. The full details of their issues I will leave to another time but suffice to say the reason their issues have wrought the havoc, within Fairfield Uniting, they have distils to a relatively simple premise.

The handling of the Solifoni 'family issue' was completely mis-handled right from the start. It was handled incorrectly by the Solifoni parents and by the Elders. To the best of my determination and as a result of a statement made by D. Tweed (Elder) there was no intention nor attempt made by the (current) Elders of Fairfield Uniting to counsel and or assist in what was becoming a very serious issue with wider implications for several families and Fairfield Uniting Church. Not to get involved was flawed thinking and a fundamental failing by the Elders, D. & P Tweed. There was much more they should have done to ensure what has happened did not!

However, whilst I believe they, as Elders, 'dropped the ball quite badly' I am also aware of the Solifoni 'resistance'. As previously mentioned, there appears to be a belief their problems are not the business of the church, and yet by their own actions, bullying and abuse, of church members, they have ensured it is the business of Fairfield Uniting Church. It is simply NOT possible for them to say it is not: this is a critical point, for if, their issue is not the Church's', then their angst directed towards me and my family simply would not exist!

“Then their angst directed towards me and my family simply would not exist!” If that were so then there was never any reason to bully, abuse and attack me, my family and extended family. Equally there would never have been the situation nor the material available for me to write much of what I have written in these post. So why have the Solifoni's continued to rail against me and all who they see I represent? Because it suits their pursuit of POWER and CONTROL.

To even consider talking about their 'supposed' disappointment would mean, as it does for D. & P Tweed, facing some un-palatable truths about themselves. Which in turn, would mean they would no longer be able to blame others for their failing and shortcomings; they would have to face the bare fact they have made some very big mistakes! Mistakes which will take a long time to fix and, as I can speak from experience, will mean their family will NEVER be as it may have been or what they would have wished for. The Solifonis' should be prayed for of that there is no doubt; equally of no doubt is the fact, they could have and should have, availed themselves of the help being offered.

They made the choice to take a very narrow view of 'their' issue and refused that which was being offered. It's was a choice not an imposition the Solifonis' needed to make; they made an un-wise choice, one I do not agree with, but it has been accepted. Problem is, not content with making the choice to refuse help, the Solifonis' then chose to heap the blame, un-justifiably, on to others. Most notably me!

T. Solifoni asked me, to my face, to step into the situation he faced, and when I had done some preliminary work he then roundly rebuffed my request for 'his side of the story' claiming, through another person, my involvement was offensive. Then through that same third party issued an instruction which, had I have done, was morally in-defensible and would have all but broken the law! Since then, even when given additional opportunities to discuss and or help, he continues to refuse to talk.

Time, in these situations, is a tool which one can use to assess different approaches, scenarios and possible outcomes. Time, in relation to the Solifoni issue, has given me an insight into the inflexible thought processes being applied by these people and it leads me yet again to conclude CONTROL and POWER, this time over an individual, is at its heart. To consider there may be an alternative does not figure on the 'Solifoni radar', because it does NOT fit their ultimate goals. They cannot bear the thought they may have to share in another person's life in preference to CONTROLLING it! Sad, and true, a situation crying out for prayer and support but.....

So it is quite easy now to see why Fairfield Uniting's Church Council has become, as I put it, a 'rogue' council. You have the desire to CONTROL and DICTATE permeating the entire Church Council membership. With differing underlying causes and motives but, when they perceive there is a 'common enemy' they have chosen to 'protect' their CONTROL and POWER by closing ranks to bolster their indefensible positions in preference to performing the duties their positions, and the rules, require them to do. In taking this treacherous path they have chosen to abdicate their responsibilities as Elders and Church Councillors but, want to retain the positions and titles. A hypocritical stance, in the true sense!

**So, yet again, I return to the question; Can Fairfield Uniting be fixed?

YES, with GOD's help/guidance. Which does, of course, mean D. & P Tweed (Elders), T. & M. Solifoni and N. Lertsinpakdee are going to need to, firstly, listen to what God wants of them, then do the un-thinkable; accept their responsibility and their role in all that has 'gone wrong' at Fairfield Uniting. They must stop their vindictive behaviour, apologise and accept the inevitable in line with what I have previously put forward at a meeting with them and Presbytery.

Then and only then will Fairfield Uniting Church be able to be said to be a place of true worship, reverence and of peace. Only then will Fairfield Uniting become, once again, a place my entire family, and those who have been forced to leave, would want to once again worship within.

Not a conclusion either, but a 'road map of sorts' with one confronting consideration to follow;

For me the most confronting piece of sadness Fairfield Uniting Church represents is one which no gracious, self-respecting or competent Elder or Church Councillor could possibly want as a display of their leadership capabilities. There are Fairfield Uniting members and family members of the Fairfield Uniting Church's Elders and Church Councillors who are not worshipping at Fairfield Uniting because of their actions and they know full well why. There are also those who continue to worship at Fairfield Uniting Church who are far from 'happy' with the situation they find themselves; again the Elder and Church Councillors know why and are the central cause.

To know those situations exist and to be not actively working to rectify them demonstrates very loudly just how much of the 'problem' Fairfield Uniting Church is, is of the Elders and Church Councillors creation. They are, in the main, the problem! Their ill-considered drive for CONTROL and POWER has destroyed their love and compassion for the church; from their point of view there must appear no good reason to make Fairfield Uniting Church one which welcomes all in the name of Christ.

I conclude with the following tease, a question and an answer;

If you want to see a prime example of exactly how Fairfield Uniting's Elders and Church Councillors perceive Fairfield Uniting Church, within the community of Fairfield, with your eyes wide open, take a look at what is handed out each week. Do you see what I see?

Can Fairfield Uniting Church be 'fixed'?

YES, if God and our Saviour Christ are re-instated at the centre of Fairfield Uniting Church.

Left behind, why?
Whilst visiting family a considerable distance from home, in a phone call I was told an elderly parishioner would like to go to church today.
Unable to pick him up because of my location I sent a message to another church member asking for the pick-up to be done.
Have just received a message from the fellow's family to say "the bus has not arrived".
Has the fellow been picked-up or not?  I guess I will find out when I return.
If he has not I could assume the message - I sent - was not received or, I might also assume the person who received the message ignored the request in yet another demonstration of how personal animosities/agendas control what the leaders and members of Fairfield Uniting Church dictate who gets to go to church and who does not!  Which of the two options is correct, I wonder.
Pray for these fellows souls.

from Romans 15:

“We should not please ourselves. Instead, we should all please our brothers and sisters for their own good, in order to build them in the faith.”

Sunday 28 Sept’ 2014 back to worship at Fairfield Uniting and it was of no surprise the ‘welcome mat’ was not rolled out for me ;-) and, as we are well used too it was a morning of contrasts.

As I started writing this post a live show played by the Monty Python cast was on the television. Monty Python is a 'comedy' show of sorts often featuring very irreverent sketches which poke fun at religion; the show running in the background was no exception and I could not help drawing a parallel with Fairfield Uniting Church.

I have said before if these post were not recording the very serious state of Fairfield Uniting irreverence, they could be seen as a bad script for a tragic opera. There is a small group of individuals who have jointly combined to re-define the reverence of Fairfield Uniting from a church of love and friendships to one of personal vendettas. That group comprises the entire Fairfield Uniting Church Council, a rogue council; to a man and woman Fairfield Uniting's Church sunk today to a still greater low than before solely at the hands of the Elders/Church Councillors and one particular church member.

Picture if you will a cream biscuit: three layers. The outer two layers are brittle, none too sweet and crumble when bitten. The middle layer, creamy in texture, sweet and full of flavour. In truth, as it is described as a cream biscuit, it is the centre most are wanting to eat.

Fairfield Uniting service/sermon was the cream: led by Rev. Choi it was full of meaning, substance and a touch of a warning. The children’s message was delivered by Penny Solifoni.

The biscuit/wafers were Foni and Rachael Solifoni.

The morning unfolded thus but not in the order written;

The service commenced led by Rev. Choi with a greetings, prayers and a hymn. Penny Solifoni's talk was based on the reading from Exodus 17:1-7; a story outlining Moses following instruction to strike a rock to obtain water for those he was leading in the wilderness. Penny's 'punch-line' stated the thirsty were facing a seemly impossible situation which needed them to trust in God.

Here, yet again was a display of the contrast of Fairfield Uniting, a children's story delivered by a young member of a family who face some very real personal crisis and are deliberately using their problems, as an excuse/foil, to destroy the very fabric of Fairfield Uniting by blaming others for their shortfalls; by targeting, slandering and bullying other individuals. It is so terribly sad. However, until their stone hearts submit to the teachings of Christ and let God direct their thoughts and deeds they will continue to direct and inflict their pain, through their unjustified actions, onto others. A normal Sunday at Fairfield Uniting!

Rev. Choi continued the theme developing it more fully by initially outlining, then expanding on, two question he said 'confronted' him. “Have you ever felt desperately thirsty?” “Have you ever demanded proof of God?”

In the context of these posts, the answer too “Have you ever felt desperately thirsty?” is a resounding YES. Think of Penny's “impossible situations” and another question posed by Rev. Choi' “can we drink water from him (God) even in the hardest and most unlikely places?”

Fairfield Uniting's Elders and Church Councillors are the closest any of us will get to meeting the Pharisees of old. If ever there were any in need of drinking the life giving waters of the scriptures it is the entire congregation of Fairfield Uniting not withstanding the Elders and Church Councillors. There exist a huge need to quench the thirst for revenge - at play in the leadership at Fairfield Uniting.  We need to quench that thirst with compassion, understanding and love as taught, and displayed, by Christ.

Rev. Choi finished with; “Use what you have in your hands, today, for the work of the Lord”

Let's now look at the brittle biscuit either side of the service. That is, what happened to me before the service and what happened in the aisle of the church as we were leaving.

Firstly on arrival, by virtue of circumstance, I needed to walk past several people standing near the entrance of the church. I offered my hand to the first person, who reciprocated with words of welcome. To the person standing beside him I then, also, offered my hand. Saying nothing, looking away and leaving his hands in his pockets he nodded only at my gesture. Rejecting a hand offered in friendship says much about a person but, when that person is a Church Councillor it says volumes about the person and Fairfield Uniting as a Church.

In his response, Foni Solifoni did not reject me, he rejected our Lords wishes, abdicated his responsibility as a Church Councillor and demonstrated to those around him just how brittle he is and how much guidance and support he is, personally, in need of. What more can I say or do except pray for Foni's heart and soul! One brittle wafer.

Now for the other: as we were to leaving the service, in the ensuring traffic jamb, I said good morning to a woman standing on the other side aisle. Her reply was initially indistinct. When I asked what she said I was told and she followed with a repeat that “we should leave the church for good”. Rachael Solifoni's reply was no surprise and, just as her husband did earlier, by rejecting a pleasantry Rachael demonstrated, yet again, just how brittle and bitter she is. Yet again Rachael Solifoni displayed how desperately she wants to blame and hurt others for her shortfalls. As with Foni, what more can you say or do except pray for Rachael's heart and soul!

So consumed, by their family and personal issues, are these two, they are completely abandoning the very principles taught by Christ whilst at the same time attending and participating in morning worship. Curious or.....?

“Use what you have in your hands, today, for the work of the Lord” said Rev. Choi. Both Foni and Rachael Solifoni used what they had in their hands/hearts: but were their actions/words the tools to hand Rev. Choi was was alluding too, were they working for the Lord? I think not.

“Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” Romans 12:21 (KJ ver.) Was a key statement made by Rev. Kava – in an earlier sermon – and is a great piece of advice. However, as with much else Foni and Rachael choose to NOT accept 'hands offered in friendship' because, as I said in previous posts, it does not suit their current purpose and they see it as not being in their best interest to do so.

Sad, but true, which means, of course, they – nobody else - are the single biggest stumbling block to finding a solution to their problems.

The tragedy Foni, Rachael and Ma'ata Solifoni represent, along with their partnership and the different tragedy Pat and David Tweed have created for themselves and their family, have combined as one in Fairfield Uniting's Church Council. The net result is that Fairfield Uniting's congregation is now defined by the Tweed/Solifoni combo: the 'problem' Fairfield Uniting has become, is because Fairfield Uniting's Elders and Church Councillors have moulded the Fairfield Uniting Church/Congregation into a form of themselves. Fairfield Uniting Church is all about the Tweeds and Solifonis: if it were not so I could never have written these posts.

If he belongs, where does Christ fit/figure in the Tweed/Solifoni hearts and church?

At the tail end of Rachael's comment was another gem, as usual; a reason Rachael gave for me going is because, Rachael says, “you have brought your bad mouth into church”. Was this a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black' or does it have substance. Others can decide and I know when the time comes there is only one judge who counts.

Rachael is, of course, mentioned through these posts as a person quick to bully and slander not only my family and others church members, but her own; and she does all this in front of and within the Fairfield Uniting congregation on Sundays. The reason these posts can exist, as a record, is in greater part, due to Rachael's (Elder and Church Councillor supported) behaviour. Without meaningful spiritual leadership within Fairfield Uniting there was a need to expose publicly and record, for future reference, what Fairfield Uniting has become.

“Always look on the bright side of life, always look on the bright side of life.....etc” as sung in Monty Python maybe a light-hearted finale to this post about Fairfield Uniting but I am going to add one more observation;

In the 'satirically contradictory' stage show which is played out, at Fairfield Uniting, each week - with a cast consisting of the Fairfield Uniting's Elders and Church Councillors, Pat & David Tweed, Foni and Ma'ata Solifoni + Rachael - just what is the show about, for them? Christ our Lord and Saviour, about what he did in dying for us all or, is it about what the main players can take by way of 'a thrill and reward'; for the hurt they inflict, the power they engineered and enforce over individuals and the Fairfield Uniting Congregation as a whole? What do you think?

For me it is sad to see people consume there souls in a fight they cannot win; they are fighting God's will. Fairfield Uniting Elders and Councillors need to stop, reflect and pray: they have already missed out on the opportunity to fix the damage they have inflicted on some but, there is still opportunity, if they choose, to restore some of the respect they have lost and fix some of what they have destroyed; with God's help.

From the previous post as preached by another minister;

“rebuke us (the ministry team/leaders) if 'it' becomes about us and not Jesus.”

“Partner with leaders. 'You' cannot do ministry on your own. Minister to one another.”

Pat & David Tweed, Foni and Ma'ata Solifoni and Rachael; accept the rebuke(s) in the spirit they are offered and for the opportunities it presents. Partner with God and the Fairfield Uniting congregation. 'You' cannot do ministry on your own. Minister to one another.”

You have tried to do 'ministry on your own', in 'your own way' and, its has failed. You have hurt and split your families and friends whilst strengthening those you have targeted and who you continue to want to hurt; sooner better than later, I hope and pray, you will see that more clearly.

Learn to Minister to ALL in preference to only those who you decide are 'worthy'.

“Use what you have in your hands, today, for the work of the Lord”.

I finished my last post by stating power and control, of the Fairfield Uniting Church and Congregation, was a driving force behind Fairfield Uniting current problems. I also stated a reason the 'problems' don't 'get fixed' is primarily driven by the Elders and Church Councillors NOT wanting to 'lose' the dictatorial control they currently enforce because it is not in their best interest to do so.

“Because it is not in their best interest to do so.” Let's return to that point toward the end of this post*.

Yesterday (Sunday the 21^st) was a very enjoyable day. We attended two church services; one quite close to Fairfield Uniting and one some distance away. The reason? Well because we could and, it provided us the opportunity to worship with members of our family who have previously been driven away from Fairfield Uniting. In doing so it reminded me of just how different Fairfield Uniting is to other churches. The most stark difference being the welcome we received; even knowing who we were we were still welcomed; not a feeling we have been accustomed too at Fairfield Uniting for a very long time.

Attending two services means two sermons: the first being about the role music, in particular, singing plays in Christian worshiping. An interesting choice of subject, by a young minister, which focused on the reasons music, singing in praise in particular, was important. The sermon came with some warnings though; one warning being that we should pay close attention to the words and their meanings**.

At Fairfield Uniting singing, led by an organist/pianist, has always played a significant part of worship. At least that was the case until Fairfield Uniting Elders and Church Councillors decided to push her away from the congregation and switch to appallingly discordant canned music – with one exception of course. That exception is, of course, the Solifoni singer's see how good are we - when it suits us – segment. **Pleasing to the ear if not to the soul: indeed my current thoughts turn to the Solifoni's singing (recently) about being Sunday Christians. I remember thinking how appropriate (ironic maybe) the song was being sung by Fairfield Uniting's (pseudo self appointed Elders) Church Councillors!

The second sermon started with the minister posing the question, “what do I do?”. What do ministers actually do? Great question(s) and one some, in some congregations, might struggle to answer if asked to express their knowledge, of the tasks/jobs their ministers did on days other than Sunday.

The minister delivering the sermon proceeded to outline what tasks/jobs he and his ministry team (of four) did on any given week and it was a considerable list. But there were important points he was about to make and as a backdrop to his sermon he referenced the words of Paul as recorded in Romans 15 specifically verses 14 to 33.

The initial question asked and the 'works' of Paul were and, are not about their effort, they are about the opportunity which was and is provided to each of these individual, and us all, to pass on, to others, the teachings of Christ. For Paul, in his travels, it was to take Christ teachings to the gentiles. In a similar manner so it is for each of us and whilst we may not be (always) forging new ground as did Paul, none the less, as Christians, we are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that which we do, with the opportunities presented, does reflect Christ's teachings. Gods work is not about us or the time we spend doing it***!

There were several other questions posed to the congregation, during the sermon, but there was one in particular which struck a cord with me. It was this; “what happens when it goes pear shaped.....”? When what goes pear shaped you may be asking? For the person preaching he was referring to churches which may be failing in one form or another and he suggested the reason may well be rooted in the fact Christ and his teachings were no longer the centre of focus. He suggested if the focus of a church's activity had shifted to its leadership in preference to Christ then it was in trouble.

He continued, and ended by asking his congregation to do four things, all under the heading of “Keeping God at the Centre”.

One) Pray to be humble and to glorify God.

Two) To give thanks for the ministry team. (Minister(s), leaders.

***Three) To “rebuke us” (the ministry team/leaders) if 'it' becomes about us and not Jesus.

Four) Partner with leaders. 'You' cannot do ministry on your own. Minister to one another.

Four (4) very important points, applicable to all churches, including Fairfield Uniting, but the two which hit home for me were points Three & Four. The minister speaking was inviting his congregation to “rebuke” him and the church leaders if they 'strayed' onto a path which was about them and not All About Jesus. Sound familiar?

Can you imagine Fairfield Uniting's Edlers and Church Councillors being rebuked by any person in the Fairfield Uniting's congregation. Truth is, the 'problems' of Fairfield Uniting, are very heavily embedded in the forced control exercised, by Fairfield Uniting's Elders and Church Councillors, the root cause of the 'problems' at Fairfield Uniting is the focus demanded by the Elders and Church Councillors on their rights, privilege and their right to control!

The Elders and Church Councillors have morphed their privileged positions into posts which they perceive are separate to the congregation, and above being challenged or questioned in any way. That is more than evident each Sunday as the Tweed and Solifoni show raises its curtain, struts down the aisle, parades and performs its stuff around and throughout a Sunday service.

Is Sunday at Fairfield Uniting about Jesus or the Tweeds and Solifonis? Working two full days in the diner we were told at length without one single mention about Jesus? Driving the bus is a Foni responsibility; “I am in charge” he scolded me continuing with, it is only he who will decide who is to be picked up or not and when it suits.

The Elders and Church Councillors, of Fairfield Uniting, have set themselves above being questioned by any person in the congregation; their dictatorial approach is why Fairfield Uniting is not a place which has or keeps God at the Centre.

Point Four); “Partner with leaders. 'You' cannot do ministry on your own. Minister to one another.”

Taking these three points backwards:

“Minister to one another.” How do you see this playing out at Fairfield Uniting?

“You cannot do ministry on your own.” This is true but I perceive, at Fairfield Uniting it is understood the Tweeds and Solifonis have the task of Ministry well in hand no need for any further assistance and even then only if it's done exactly as they define. Control!

“Partner with leaders.” ;-) at Fairfield Uniting, yeah right. Not easy to write anything in response to this statement except it ain’t going to happen/work effectively, at Fairfield Uniting, whilst the Elders and Church Councillors continue down the very treacherous path they have been following for a very long time.

Can Fairfield Uniting ever be 'fixed'? I do, and always have, believe it can. However that is going to require a huge shift in the thinking by the entire congregation but mostly by the Elders and Church Councillors.

Fairfield Uniting's leaders, long ago, 'lost the plot'; Fairfield Uniting is most definitely about them and NOT Jesus and that must change!

* So we arrive back at the beginning of this post which started with “a reason the 'problems' don't 'get fixed' (at Fairfield Uniting church) is primarily driven by the Elders and Church Councillors NOT wanting to 'lose' the dictatorial control they currently enforce because it is not in their best interest to do so.

“Because it is not in their best interest to do so.”

Once you understand why that previous statement is true, the 'problems' of Fairfield Uniting are obvious!

Am I wrong in emphasizing this point over and over again? I really don't think so.

It is so obvious God is not centered nor factored into Fairfield Uniting's Elders and Church Councillors decisions, enforced congregational control, the rage and abuse exercised; “Because it is not in their best interest to do so.”

I conclude this post with Romans 15:1-7 from the Good News Bible;

We who are strong in the faith ought to help the weak to carry their burdens. We should not please ourselves. Instead, we should all please our brothers and sisters for their own good, in order to build them in the faith. For Christ did not please himself. Instead, as the scripture says, “The insults which are hurled at you have fallen on me. Everything written in the Scriptures was written to teach us, in order that we might have hope through the patience and encouragement which the Scriptures gives us. And may God, the source of the patience and encouragement, enable you to have the same point of view among yourselves by following the example of Christ Jesus, so that all of you together may praise with one voice the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Accept one another, then, for the glory of God, as Christ has accepted you.