August 17 2014, yet another Sunday to remember at Fairfield Uniting. For the wrong reasons though and, yet again, it is the contrasts which highlight the conflicting tragedy Fairfield Uniting has become.

The worship service - again - experienced a 'technical hitch' preventing the use of both projector and video screen; the 'plan b', hand held hymn books with canned music. A great example of why, sometimes, with a slice of forethought what is seen as a step forward was little more than an un-necessary indulgence and a waste of a valuable resource.

In contrast, Rev. Kava's sermon “faith can work without prayer but prayer cannot work without faith” was delivered with a passion and a deep sense of spirituality and personal conviction. It was a pointed, relevant sermon – as have others he has given - and contained valuable advice and guidance for us all. Rev. Kava spoke from the heart and, in doing so left no doubt in my mind he was speaking wisely, to me and the congregation, whilst at the same time challenging us all to adhere, follow and apply Christian principles to all we do and say.

As this blog is about recording the personal experiences endured by some in Fairfield Uniting for the express purpose of ensuring the truth is not wall papered over, distorted or changed. Bearing the last sentence of the previous paragraph in mind, I'll continue in highlighting the contrasts and tragedy Fairfield Uniting has become.

As happened (to me) on the previous Sunday [and the one before that ;-) etc.....], the Sunday just past, whilst standing outside of Fairfield Uniting, prior to the commencement of the morning service, I was once again verbally abused by two women arriving for the morning service. For a brief period it was a joint effort: two on one. If it wasn't so serious you may be excused if you were thinking – what I write about - is a rehearsal for a tragic opera. But seriously speaking both these people revealed much about themselves and what I refer to as the driving force: which is in the main a selfish self interest driven by a belief right is on their side. It goes without saying neither of these women stop to consider, even for a split second, about what might be so wrong in unjustly heaping abuse on a person, in this way, at church (or any time for that matter). These episodes define the nature of the beast we are dealing at Fairfield Uniting; hopefully, at some point, those two and all who 'sit on the fence' watching will, with God's help, one day realize, just how 'wrong/unjust' they have been.

A look at some of the comments: Cathy's opening shot was about the previous post stating I should have talked with her directly not “through the blog”. A reasonable comment: except she provided no invitation or opportunity to explain myself when she first attacked me. Had Cathy asked me to explain my actions I would have been happy to do so. I did point out on this occasion she needed to know the full story, and that may change her perspective, but clearly that was not going to happen.

A second part of Cathy's “you should have talked to me directly” approach was to tell me I should have the courage of my convictions. Smiling (which she interjected offended her) as I replied “it is standing up for my convictions and what is right I am being castigated for”. Cathy followed with another gem stating, as I have indicated in the previous post, “I (Cathy) have not been coached”. Really. Cathy can that be true?*

I asked Cathy a question; “did she feel what she was doing was what Jesus would do or want done?”. Her reply was to say the reason she came to church was to do good. I replied that was, in part, what I want as well. To that Cathy replied, “*then why did you leave the church for four years”.

*This is a significant comment because not only is it un-true the mis-information has as its source the Solifoni's. That one comment, Cathy, demonstrates the priming I have previously referred too. Let alone it's irrelevance, a very large part of the on-going issues at Fairfield Uniting are fueled by seriously distorted facts farmed out deliberately, by a small band, for no other reason than to cause trouble and division.....

As I said in my previous post, Cathy's original attack was because she directly blamse me for the police for issuing an infringement notice relating to the 'church bus'. Interestingly on this occasion Cathy revealed her son was a policeman. So here we have something to consider; is Cathy saying what I did, in responding to Rachael's “go to the police taunt”, was wrong because in reporting what Rachael had said and done, in bullying me, I had drawn police attention to an illegal act. Is Cathy actually saying I should not report an illegal act? Would that be the position taken by her son (a policeman) if he were a member of Fairfield Uniting?

Which ever way you look at Cathy's comments they raise questions. If the Fairfield Uniting congregation, as it appears it had, broken the law, as a result of its representatives – the church councillors - actions then it does appear Cathy is OK with the fact a breach of the law should be covered-up and or ignored. Interesting stance for a policeman to consider.....? Does this line of thinking, which is also the church councillors stance ring any bells about the past actions – of Churchs' - being aired in the press. Cannot others see this type of thinking and action is NOT what Fairfield Uniting, nor any other church, should be engaged in or encourage!

But what of Rachael's involvement in the latest proceeding? Well more of the same it can be said; Rachael's last spit was full of her usual vehement, slanderous comments relating to me and my family. But there was a more revealing moment I must air. I stole an opportunity, in the tirade, to ask Rachael, as I had done Cathy, did she think what she was doing was what Jesus would want. Whilst Cathy dodged the answer, Rachael was more forthcoming, she replied, “Jesus has nothing to do with this”!

That folks says it all: finally Rachael has put in words that which is the root of the problems in Fairfield Uniting - “Jesus has nothing to do with this”!

Jesus is NOT a part of the 'processes' which are leading Fairfield Uniting and there was/is no way Rachael is/was going to let Jesus 'rain on her parade'. She continued her tirade demanding I leave and go home. Rachael repeated that demand clearly not wanting me to go into church. To this I angrily replied you go into church and ask Rev. Kava to come and tell me to go home.

That was not going to happen but I was so incensed with Rachael, like a petulant child I walked into church (which had commenced), walked to the front of the church and told Rev. Kava, Rachael had told me to leave.

I ask this question: if I am such a bad person, full of evil and evil intent as Foni and Rachael Solofoni and, as it does appear, other congregational members do, is not church exactly where I should be? Should each of the Elders and Church Councillors be moving heaven and earth to expose me to the teachings of Jesus to rid me of the evil they (appear) to see? Have David and Pat Tweed, Foni and Ma'ata Solifoni been 'appointed' as councillors for the purpose of doing God's work and in doing so use their posts of responsibilities, as Elders and Church Councillors, to throw me out of a church which I have been a part of for sixty plus years with no counseling, just or defined reason?

Who in the Uniting Church in Australia, or any other church, is equipped, or courageous enough, to answer that last question?

More importantly though, who in the Uniting church in Australia has the calling and commitment to step up to the plate and do, at Fairfield Uniting, what has been necessary for a very, very, very long time.

As they say, but wait there's more: At the church door, after the morning service, I asked our Church Council Chairman (Elder), Mr. D. Tweed if it were possible the fellow I had been bringing to church could be taken home in the 'new' church bus. My approach was not welcomed, but replied “we'll do what ever we need to do” and in doing so re-directed the question to Foni Solofoni who promptly replied “no”. In the ensuing exchange our erstwhile Chairman/Elder walked off not wanting to pursue the rejection (leadership?).

Now the person this is about I have previously outlined but I will remind the reader(s) he is a severely disabled church member who has, until 'recently' being ignored by the current church leaders/councillors, been attending F/U and for thirty years+ has made an enormous effort to attend despite his disability. For a great period of that time he has been assisted with access to the church bus – that is, until the 'recent' management**.

To return though to councillor Foni Solofoni: his rejection of my 'request' was, of course, and I am constantly told so, my fault (all of Fairfield Uniting's 'problems' are caused by me). 'Leader' Foni Solofoni was quick to remind me of a hostile question he asked me only one week earlier. The question was, “was I going to continue to pick-up the church member? My answer simple was “yes”. Foni Solofoni's question and my answer were part of the exchange outlined in an earlier post; the same one in which Foni said to another person, from a different congregation, I was a waste, rubbish etc.

It is important to note I knew the 'church bus' was an un-registered vehicle and would not be able to pick-up any person. I was not aware of, nor did Foni Solofoni, for his convenience it now appears, impart any knowledge about the fact he would have other transport available next week/soon; why was that you may ask?

Foni Solofoni pushed his argument in a numbers of ways, basing his argument (with his son's support) stating I had said I would pick-up the person and therefore he had no reason nor obligation to do so. He is effectively refusing (which he denies) to use church property, for the purpose it is for, to transport people to and from church, who he feels would be inconvenient to him! Why do I say that with such certainty?

Well the answer is; because Foni flatly refused to take the fellow home in the 'new bus'; that is a refusal of kindness by a 'church leader'. However, bearing in mind why the bus exists, I pressed Foni Solifoni about picking up the fellow next week. It took several attempts but Foni, begrudgingly, agreed to do so, but with a caveat? That caveat was, if it is raining “I will not pick him up”. Interesting? So I asked why and the answer was if he slipped over he would sue the church.

Over thirty years of making the difficult effort to attend church and a church councillors main concern is being 'sued'. Goodness gracious me have you ever heard anything so pitifully ridiculous? Possible yes, plausible no. It was just another excuse among many, proffered as a reason to cover what amounts to being inconvenient effort to Foni & Co. Picking this fellow up for church is a work load and an effort beyond what Foni (a church councillor) wants to perform and that is the real reason he fabricates agreements to leave somebody behind.

Another example of how Jesus is left out of Fairfield Uniting's 'management'!

I must admit at this point in time I had had the proverbial 'gut full' and angrily said to Foni what he was doing was ridiculous. He was very quick to point out it was me who was being ridiculous (***); but there was a more potent statement made by Foni and that was, “I am in charge”. Foni went on to say I (the writer) should never have gone and visited the fellow he ignored (and inferred I should not have picked him up either) without asking his (Foni's) permission! “We are the council he followed, I (Foni) decided what happens!”. Ah! Now we see more of the real colours of Fairfield Uniting's management exposed; it's all to do with CONTROL. Do only as I (Foni and councillors) tell you and don't do anything, anything we have not approved.

I repeat: Do only as I (Foni and councillors) tell you and don't do anything, anything we have not approved.

This 'instruction' - from a church councillor (speaking for the entire church council) – a person who has openly flaunted Uniting Church in Australia rules and NSW laws; a person and group (the church council/councillors) who are openly hostile to individuals who have been part of Fairfield Uniting for their entire lives and or many decades.

I pose the following questions to Foni Solofoni – in part due to the importance he seemed to place on 'agreements of convenience' he had supposedly made with an individual about transport - but they are questions for all of Fairfield Uniting's church council, the Fairfield Uniting congregation, and the entire Uniting Church in Australia.

If accepting the challenge of being a Christian is and 'agreement' made to accept Christ as our Saviour, to follow, and apply, his teachings to our daily lives and in all we do and say, then why is it we, at Fairfield Uniting, are in the midst of the crisis we are?

Did anything said to me, on the Sunday(s) past, by Cathy, David Tweed (Elder), Rachael and Foni (church councillor) Solifoni reflect the agreements made in accepting the 'title/responsibility' of being Christian and up-holding the principles outlined for a Uniting Church Councillor?

Is it acceptable for the Fairfield Uniting Church Council/Councillors to flaunt the laws of our state and then to heap scorn and blame on another church member when caught out?

Lambasting, slandering and bullying individuals is a component part of Fairfield Uniting's current leadership; are they acceptable traits or required characteristics and component(s) when accepting Christ as Saviour?

What I have been doing in these pages, as I have previously outlined, is diarizing part of the life of Fairfield Uniting Church as directly applied to me, my family and a great many others who have fled; as I did for a short period. In the main it has been done as an historical record but it has also been very important to me in other ways.

I am not an overtly angry person: however; the past years of attendance at Fairfield Uniting have changed me and driven me to depths I would rather not have had to experience. My anger and rage have grown as each injustice has been delivered and exposed. It has also grown out of the shear frustration of having to watch as the leaders of Fairfield Uniting have purposely dismantled much of the past good, have been un-truthful, have vilified ministers, have caused splits in the congregation and families and defections of considerable proportions.

I know part of what is driving the 'hate' they feel they need to express; my anger is driven and multiplying with the frustration I feel in not being able to find a way, for these protagonist of evil, to see the error of their ways. I feel enormous sadness for them.

My anger has grown ten fold as I have witnessed the cruel and vindictive behaviour, displayed at Fairfield Uniting, being left un-challenged/corrected by the leaders if Uniting Church in Australia's apparent un-willingness to wade into our difficult situation; for their failure to demonstrate the moral courage, conviction and commitment their positions would give them the authority to exercise.

Their failure to intervene/lead when asked, is one thing; for me, the other is the/their complete inability/desire or willingness to provide guidance, a plan, a process or something else to assist in preventing the continued propagation of sin as exposed in Fairfield Uniting.

Rev. Luney's reply to a similar statement I put to him was to say, “if only people would read the new testament”. This seemed, to me, to imply reading the bible would fix the problems. In part that is correct; however it requires application, not just reading.

We, in Fairfield Uniting, have witnessed Church rules and laws of society broken in deliberate and calculated ways. Knowing the rules and laws does not prevent intentional breaches.

Knowing the bible has not prevented what has happened at Fairfield Uniting, quite the reverse.

I reached a point some time ago in which I decided I would stay at Fairfield Uniting to confront what I see as evil and that is also why (one reason) I have documented the events of the past few Sundays. To expose that evil as a warning, to others, and as a record for the future.

With the exception of the sermons over the past weeks, attending Fairfield Uniting for me (and my wife) is the worst day in our week: there is no joy, little reverence and absolutely no encouragement to return the next week. If that is seen as being a church of value then I throw the following question; if Christ was to return (in person), into Fairfield Uniting's midst what would he think or do.

I know he is in our midst but not all hearts and minds are open. Fairfield Uniting is a test we are all failing and for which, if we are not very careful and quick to change, we will be held accountable.

I close with the following: whilst Cathy and Rachael were lambasting me Cathy said, “I (me) should forgive people not do what I am doing!” In what way can her attacks and those of Rachael, Foni and Ma'ata Solofoni, David and Pat Tweed be interpreted as forgiveness. Is being told to, or forced to, leave the church a display of forgiveness worthy of Elders and Church Councillors?

“faith can work without prayer but prayer cannot work without faith”

At Fairfield Uniting faith, prayer coupled with courage, decisive and transparent action is the only way forward now; the alternative is to descend deeper into hell!

August 10 2014, another Sunday to remember at F/U. In the light of what occurred, this post, will continue my previous post's theme highlighting the contrasts between worship and action.

The service of communion was conducted by a Rev. Samata Elia and, for his part, he delivered a very good talk to the children 'attending' and a good sermon built on the story relating to Jesus's response to his disciples fear in a storm driven sea. Take heart, have courage, do not be afraid, we can put our faith and rely on Jesus and in his words, were some points Rev. Elia made, particularly appropriate/relevant when seen in the context of our dysfunctional congregation.

Rev. Elia expressed a thankfulness we were worshiping as a mixed group. He also commented on the number of children present. Little did he know only minutes earlier one member of the congregation had been quite openly, unjustifiably, castigated by another member arriving for the service. That the leaders of our church remain openly hostile to individual members of the congregation and that the children present were not representative of what we would 'normally' see in attendance!

Rev. Elia perceptions (he saw what was in front of him) are quite understandable. Just as it's possible to perceive a colourful, healthy looking piece of fruit is sound only to find, as you bite into it, it is full of worms and entirely inedible. So it is with Fairfield Uniting: cloaked in a thin skin of respectability; just below the surface tho' is.....rot!

As happened (to me) on the previous Sunday, the Sunday just past, whilst standing outside of Fairfield Uniting, prior to the commencement of the morning service, a person (we will call her Cathy for the purpose) arrived and with no warning (reason or justification) proceeded to verbally berate me. Some interestingly ridiculous statements were made; the abusive accusations culminating in me being told I had allowed the devil to enter my head. In her eyes am I evil and without religion(?). What brought on that extraordinary attack/display?

Well $675.00 in the form of a fine was probably at the root of her attack. Cathy specifically mentioned I was at fault; she asserted I had “allowed somebody” to be fined. Interesting, ;-( I don't issues fines nor do I hold a special position of influence which could cause or prevent an infringement notice from being issued (or not) if it was warranted.

Before I expand on the (possible) underlying 'reason' for Cathy's attack let me say, it is my belief Cathy was deliberately primed (to be used) by others. The content of her attack, being so wide of reality, and misplaced, can only be explained thus.

In continuing, I am making the assumption the $675.00 Cathy spat out is the result of the NSW Police issuing, to Fairfield Uniting an infringement notice relating to the church bus. I say assume because Cathy did not say as much but, as my earlier post outlined, I was aware one was in train.

If that is the infringement being referred too then Cathy's 'somebody' has not been fined; it is more likely Fairfield Uniting congregation* has been fined, as it should have been, if it was found to have breached the law!

*As an aside - (Alternatively, if it is an individual then who I wonder? ' Who' would also indicate the church bus is not actually owned by the church?????, whilst I am aware of a possible alternative scenario of ownership and why, it is informed speculation. The possibility of the alternative raises additional significant church councillor compliance/trust issues but does not change the thrust of this post, quite to reverse.)

This is why Cathy's attack on me was unjustified and misdirected: if the bus is the property of Fairfield Uniting then it is also true Fairfield Uniting (the congregation) has broken the law (un-knowingly) as a result of the deliberately planned actions of the church councillors; one of whom has legal training (who is professionally required to uphold the law?); one other councillor and a church member both being heavy vehicle drivers all of whom knew full well what was happening with the church bus and why and, why what they were allowing to occur was breaking the law!

It is also very safe to say those same individuals have knowingly operated the church bus, over a long period, for personal use and, whilst carrying congregational members (including Cathy and her father), in an un-safe and un-roadworthy vehicle!

Attempting to hide those facts and what they may intended for the bus are, of course, why Cathy was primed to do what she did; church councillors/members attempting to deflect scrutiny of their past, present and future pre-determined indefensible behaviour!

In my previous post I talked about being bullied after the morning service. During that tirade from Rachael I repeatedly asked her to move away and stop but, she continued until I said, if she did not stop I would talk with the police; sniggering, Rachael taunted me to do so. So I did!

In doing so I outlined what had occurred and why. Acting on that statement/information the police investigated then issued the infringement notice. And rightly so: Fairfield Uniting is part of the community it is NOT above the law.

It is important to note several points here; one being Church Councillors, Lesielli (Rachael), Talanoa (Foni) and crew seem to think they have some level of ordained right to bully, slander and dictate to all and sundry. Secondly, they have clearly used church property for their own purposes; quite interestingly being captured, some month ago, by a companies video which has since been published on the web (didn't see that one coming I'll bet). Additionally it would appear the Solifonis may have long been angling to 'get cheap possession' of the church bus for the purpose of self ingratiation. ;-o ?

A further point to be made here, which may be a tad distasteful for the likes of Cathy and those who either, have chosen to side with, and or participate with the appalling behaviour of individual church councillors/members and or of the church council as a collective. Ask yourself why (without the bus) it is some people have been regularly picked-up and transported to church whilst another, one in particular, has been ignored. I know what has been said and understood by all involved and the 'stories' don't match; not something new nor unexpected given who and what was involved.

Let's re-cap: Fairfield Uniting church councillors knowingly left the church bus parked on a public street, for an extended period, unregistered and in an un-roadworth state. As a direct result of those actions NSW Police issued and infringement notice – as they should. That, it would appear, has a $675.00 dollar penalty attached which, if it is the church's, needs to be paid from the offertory, gifts given freely by the congregation for the work of the church! Something which should not go un-challenged or corrected.

Add to those facts the verbal abuse and bullying I (and others) have experienced at the hands of the church council, councillors and other members for no other reason than daring to stand up and challenge councillors actions and yet, Cathy you chose to attack me!

Were Cathy's actions necessary, appropriate, informed, considered or considerate? A higher power/others can/will answer that question; what I will say is her actions were/are a reflection of what others, in the congregation, are equally guilty of supporting and propagating.

I hope Cathy and others in the Fairfield Uniting congregation see her actions, for what they represented and, more importantly, what were/are the driving forces. When they come to understand the sinful forces at work, within the Fairfield Uniting council/congregation, maybe then they will also see how Fairfield Uniting, as a church, its congregation, services, facilities and property have and are being hijacked.

Food for thought for all Fairfield Uniting members, members in association and other congregational attendees. There are those who appear to have un-wisely aligned their loyalty, a choice which may prove to be an issue. However, there exists a more dangerous choice, symptomatic of Christian congregations; that is to sit on the fence, to not speak up and or challenge wrong doing or to 'rock the boat'. Those who choose to sit on the fence, who choose to not challenge the councillors' wrong doing and to not speak up, have in fact, made a choice; they have chosen the side of, and to support the wrong doer(s).

I repeat and add to my closing paragraphs from the previous post; Fairfield Uniting Church needs prayer: our leaders need prayer, a severe dose of reflection, counseling and, much more besides > they need to step down – NOW!

The Uniting Church in Australia’s leadership should reflect on the damage Fairfield Uniting represents in human terms and from a ‘corporate image’ point of view.

Prayer is definitely needed; substantive action is also needed and, looooong overdue!

I am going to start this post by saying the sermon delivered by Rev. Semisi Kava was a very good sermon. Bread and fish being feed to the masses gathered to hear Jesus speak formed the anchor to his sermon. Rev. Kava made the statement the story was a demonstration, to all, about looking to what can be achieved in preference to what cannot be done. The disciples’ protestations, about not having anything to feed the people with, were more than adequately counted by the actions of Jesus. A clear indication of taking the small amount of what you do have, along with a strong faith, to satisfy real needs.

Rev. Kava went on to make other very good points, some of which were; Christians should confront problems not try to ignore them. Christians should not avoid providing help when needed and, if a need is seen we (Christians) MUST respond. I emphasize, as Rev. Kava did as his spoke, the word MUST.

Rev. Kava’s sermon was a poignant piece of sensible advice delivered to a congregation mired in sin, hurt, revenge and an overwhelming desire, of a few, to destroy others.

I thank(ed) Rev. Kava and against the important backdrop of his sermon I am now going to outline the remainder and contrast of my Sunday morning experience at Fairfield Uniting Church. The contrast is provided by Fairfield Uniting’s leadership and three particular members! However, before I do that, I must say I left church yesterday feeling unusually buoyant and more at ease than in a long while, why? My guess is I genuinely know who ‘has my back’.

Prior to the commencement of the service, standing alone enjoying the sunshine, I was approached – on her arrival – by a particular church member, the same member, mentioned as threatening me in the previous post. The purpose for the approach: well as before it was to harass and bully. Her foul rhetoric was delivered with the usual threats of harming me and causing me much trouble and telling me I have no rights. It included statements about members of my family brainwashing her children (sic) and that I should stay away from them and continued, denigrating my children, vehemently stating they were un-educated trash and that should, they appear, she would put them in that (indicating/pointing toward a council street bin) rubbish bin.

You might be asking yourself were these actions seen; did nobody try to stop this tirade. Well yes it was watched by other church members and yes it was eventually stopped by the woman’s husband, who, approached and said to her leave it, he’s not worth it, adding other denigrating statements. As we entered the church, the husband, now at the door of the church, told me I was rubbish and he had no idea why I even bothered to come to church.

This is the contrast I mentioned; that abuse and those accusations were followed by Rev. Kava’s sermon; both those people listened to the same sermon and one might reasonably expect an improvement in how I would be treated after the service. But it is Fairfield Uniting I am reporting about, the only thing normal here is the abnormal.

It is important to point out here ‘the husband’ is a Fairfield Uniting Church Councilor, one who it is advertised, and claims, to be a church Elder, but who was never elected – by the congregation – to that position of ‘respectability’. More about that in another post ;-)

Having listened too and learned from a good sermon, the service concluded and, we moved to leave. Part of the ritual of departure, as it probably is in other churches, the congregation files past the Minister/Elders/Leaders shaking hands in greeting and passing pleasantries. That may be so for some but not for all at Fairfield Uniting.

I shook Rev. Kava’s hand and thanked him for his sermon. I then offered my hand to the person standing alongside Rev. Kava, an Elder/Chairman of the Church Council, it was ignored and he attempted to look away. I left my hand in place out-stretched and, whilst continuing to ignore my hand, the Elder then said, “I don’t shake hands or talk to bloggers”, followed by, “don’t you blog me again” (sic).

Well David, this post I dedicate to you. The stated reason for this blog is to put on the historic record the leadership of Fairfield Uniting as it currently exists and has existed for some considerable time! Thank you David for the reason too, the fodder and fuel ;-)

Outside now and awaiting to take an elderly member home I am again approached by the Husband/councillor from the earlier encounter. An interesting mix of statements and un-truthful comments flowed from him, part of which was to enquire about whether or not I was going to continue to pick-up the elderly parishioner I was waiting for. I answered “yes”.

Now the person we were referring to is the person I mentioned in the previous posting; the one who had been ignored, by the church leaders, and not picked up by the church bus. We know something of the reasons why and I described that situation in the earlier post.

The response to my answering “yes” (I was going to continue to pick up the person) the leader then responded with this little gem; “well if you’re going to continue to do that if you don’t (I guess if I am away, sick or whatever) then I won’t”. Lovely: another great example of compassionate Christian leadership. That comment was then followed with a verbal barrage similar to that which I experienced before church; I will spare you the details…..

Toward the ending of that barrage I was approached and greeted by a person arriving for a church service, which is conducted by another denomination, in our church after our service. As we exchanged greetings it was obvious he had witnessed and heard some or all of that which had just transpired. As he moved to enter the church he was greeted by the same person had just berated me who then said to him – indicating me - “I don’t know why you would bother with him he is nothing, nothing but rubbish”. Somewhat taken aback the person returned to me and we talked about what had just happened. Several others of his church then arrived, we exchanged greetings and, as my passenger was now ready to leave I drove away with some interesting thoughts about how to absorb a morning at church like the one I had just experienced. Abuse followed by a good sermon followed by abuse and then greetings and conversation (with members of another church).

Now this reflection of last Sunday (yesterday) morning requires some balanced reporting. There was an incident for which I must take responsibility.

Church announcements, such as they are, are delivered in church by the same Elder mentioned in the ‘passing out’ parade incident.

Announcement are prolonged and a confusion of preaching, paper shuffling not very relevant or repeated ‘news’, long gaps/pauses between ‘subjects’ etc. In the morning service, subject to this post, it also included several questions, to ‘a part of the congregation’, asking does it get cold in Tonga and how do they cope with our cold? Duh!

During one of the protracted pauses I asked David to “tell us about the bus”. His immediate reply, “I do not answer questions of that type here Paul, in the hall”, (pause)… indignantly, “with that I will close”. He sat down.

The congregational responses (I know of) to my interjection: one person said, “well at lease we now know how to shut David up; ask him controversial questions”. Another person asked my wife “was I trying to cause trouble?” My answer is no: however, and I will not turn away from the fact the Fairfield Uniting congregation is being very poorly led and is being misled by the current Church council. If exposure means causing trouble then that is what I am doing!

Is what I am doing right or wrong? (As a person reading this post) your answer will be based on your personal views/opinions, involvement etc. If you measure what I am reporting, and recording, against the aims of the Uniting Church in Australia, Christian ethics and Rev. Kava’s sermon in the same way I do then, I would hope you would not stand for and would also speak out about the conduct of the Fairfield Uniting’s leadership.

In one final piece of news, (about which for the moment I believe the leaders do not yet know as I write this post – but they soon will), I have been told, Fairfield Uniting Church has been served an infringement notice, by the Police, for breaking NSW road rules in relation to our church’s bus. It’s going to be interesting to see how that situation – when known - pans-out; more fodder for my next post ;-)

In closing: our church needs prayer: our leaders need prayer, a severe dose of reflection, counseling and, much more besides.

Fairfield Uniting is a ‘reflection’ of the wider church’s failings. The Uniting Church in Australia’s leadership should reflect on the damage Fairfield Uniting represents in human terms and from a ‘corporate image’ point of view.

Prayer is definitely needed; substantive action is also needed and, looooong overdue!