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.
