It's a side issue with some interesting connotations; suffice to say, good one Graeme Tweed you really did put your foot right in your mouth eh! :-)

How blest, or fortunate, are/were we, at Fairfield Uniting, to have as part of our congregation (yesterday) two (2) good Ministers. Rev. Dr. Choi led the service and Rev. Kava – who has led services over the past weeks – was welcomed into membership of Fairfield Uniting along with his family.

The last time we were blest with two ministers in the congregation was when Rev. Mau Mau Monu and his family used to attend?

For a number of reasons, Sunday 7^th September was, for me, a bitter sweet day.

Rev. Choi, in commencing the service, asked “what did today represent”? Several responses indicated Fathers' day; however, Rev. Choi reminded us, it was a day to (meet together and) worship the Lord. Was that, I wondered, the thought foremost in ALL our minds: has that been the leading thought in the minds of the Fairfield Congregation for a long time? If, worshiping the Lord and following the teachings of Christ is 'the mission' of Fairfield Uniting would it have been possible for me to record that which I have in this, and previous posts?

Rev. Choi's message was anchored in a scripture verse read from Zephaniah 3:17; “The LORD your God is with you: his power gives you victory. The LORD will take delight in you, and in his love he will give you new life. He will sing and be joyful over you.” (GNB Ver.)

So why a bitter sweet day. It was a day to worship together but, for Judy and I worshiping at Fairfield Uniting is like being in a 'lions den'. There are those who still treat us cordially as members of the congregation; but there are those who would prefer we no longer attended Fairfield Uniting. Those people are the current leaders of Fairfield Uniting and as can be gleaned from what happened after the service that un-welcoming persona was yet again revealed.

Fortunate for families who had their children worshiping with them on that Fathers' day. But for me neither of my children, nor my grandchildren were there; they would have been there 'normally' except the environment which is Fairfield Uniting drove them away – not that long ago. I was not alone is this situation of having family members 'deliberately absent'; our leaders were 'in the same boat' and for the same reasons. The difference is – it could be argued – my family members were missing because of the actions of the Fairfield Uniting's leaders failed pastoral/leadership care and theirs were missing; for the same reasons! A sad an undeniable 'fact'* needing repair.

*'That fact' – missing family members – brings the focus of my posting directly to the core of what is one of the main troubling issues which exists within Fairfield Uniting and which is central to what is seen as an issue 'between' Fairfield Church Councillors and me! Both the Tweed and Solifoni Elders/leaders had family members missing yesterday for reason which are intertwined. Some might say complex, or even cultural, which ever way it is viewed the current situation is couched in selfishness wrapped in a vindictive veneer totally devoid of any sensible or forgiving thought and, has degenerated into stupidity. From NONE of those leaders has come even a modicum of effort to prevent, fix or forgive their situations and the effect that has had on many in the Fairfield Congregation. Despite both time and many opportunities/requests to addressed and rectify their positions, the leaders of Fairfield Uniting have stoically worked to keep their rage and hurtful regime in the forefront and ahead of the Christian value of forgiveness and commonsense. Their rage, and desire to control (the Ministers and congregation) was, again, on show yesterday**.

*Rev Choi, in his way zeroed in on Fairfields Uniting's (broken family) issue; by design, accident or because it was fathers' day I do not know but it was an important and poignant sermon referring to the importance of “fixing relationships”.

“Meet together (with your children/families) to sing, rejoice and praise God in the name of Christ”. Rev. Choi followed with, “forgive children with no limits or conditions”, children should also forgive their fathers (parents ed.) he intoned.

If Rev. Choi had fired, those points, as arrows at the congregations hearts there is no way they could have missed their mark. But, as we have seen so often before, the preachers words seem to last no longer than the time taken to say them. As with Rev. Kava's poignant sermon one week earlier there seems to be no effort by the Fairfield Uniting leadership to accept and practice what is laid out clearly before them!

Let's take Rev. Choi's comments a little further and apply them to ME only. The first point is particularly important because there was a point I chose to separate myself from worshiping, at Fairfield Uniting on Sundays, with those of my direct and extended family. That was a response to how, I felt at being un-justly accused of wrong doing and causing the church much trouble. Statements made by (Elder/Church Council Chairman) D. Tweed, which have never been substantiated or detailed (despite my requests); which would have allowed me to correct “my behaviour”.

As I detailed in my previous post, partly, as a result of Rev. Wakefield's visitation, I did return, to worship at Fairfield Uniting, only to receive the hostile welcome I did and, to experience shortly thereafter, due to the pressures brought to bear by Fairfield Uniting leadership, my children, grandchildren and extended family members then were compelled to leave the Fairfield Uniting congregation.

It is important to say, at this point, my family where not the only ones to leave Fairfield Uniting, in disgust, in that period of time. There were many other long term congregational member and, significantly, *one individual directly connected to our Church Councillors. It is that association which is going to be the most un-palatable issue to be faced by the (Ministers), Elders and Church Councillors of Fairfield Uniting. Face it square on and address the issue, appropriately, they MUST or it is going to ruin their lives for some time to come. It also brings, directly into question, the efficacy of their positions as Elders and Church Councillors in the Uniting Church in Australia.

The leaders of Fairfield Uniting have worked hard to destroy families: however, the outcome of my families 'worship separation' though has not been as 'total' as they may have hoped for; but it has been very damaging for the Tweeds and Solifonis. Judy and I do get to see and have occasionally worshiped with our children and grandchildren within another congregation.

Rev. Choi's second point: “forgive children with no limits or conditions”. Again if applied to me first; at the risk of being seen as 'cockey' I have naught to forgive my crew for; as we have not split or separated in any way, there is no reason to forgive. For some of our leaders/congregation there exists many reasons to forgive to be forgiven. As disappointing as it was for me, to have my family (and extended family) leave the congregation, I must say the example being set by the Elders and Church Councillors of Fairfield Uniting are not examples of conduct, I believe, are appropriate in a Christian church, and are certainly NOT behaviours, attitudes and actions to which my grandchildren (or others' children) should be exposed.

I have and will rejoice with my 'crew' each time we have the opportunity to meet and worship together. It is the Fairfield Congregation which is missing out on the sparkle my two grandchildren bring to any room they walk into. They enjoy their time with other children at church and it shows. It is a sinful shame and a terrible indictment that Fairfield Uniting's leaders ruined what my wife (as their Sunday school teacher), our grandchildren, and other young children (who not that long ago attended) had and could look forward too, at Fairfield each Sunday.

I am going to take the vexing issue of 'split families' into a different realm now, and do so in keeping with my intentions that these posts are a record (for the future) of events – at Fairfield Uniting, their causes and consequences. In particular I am going to now focus on only two families; mine and the Solifonis, with a side salad of Tweeds, Presbytery, Synod and the Assembly.

These post have detailed the fact I (and my family) attract particular attention from Rachael and Foni Solifoni (a Church Councillor). In particular I have mentioned - without great detail – the un-truthfully vindictive and slanderous comments made by these individuals to me 'at church'. For those who have read these posts, what I have said must seem almost sci-fi. Christians would not do such things. A comment frequently heard recently in the press associated with the child molestation inquiry. In the main, I must admit, I was in no way prepared for the deterioration I have witnessed in the behaviour of people who were welcomed into our congregation some time ago.

But there is a reason, and a very un-palatable one it is: and, as can be the case, it involves family 'expectations'. To be truthful, 'the problem' was and is entirely fixable but, what makes it so bad, is it was entirely avoidable. The actual problem I am going to leave alone, for the moment, but what I am going to reveal here is that it is me who is being blamed, bullied, vilified and held responsible for what has been the decisions, and actions, taken by others and the Solifonis. There is a 'twisted' thought in the minds of the Solifonis it is my responsibility to order other adult individuals to do that which is contrary to their belief, wishes, their safety and indeed against the law.

It is also my contention the Solifoni family was very poorly supported by the Fairfield Uniting Church, as a whole. Hindsight has its benefits but I am going to say much of what has happened could have been seen coming and indeed it forms one of the 'issues' between the the Elders P&D Tweed and me. Whenever I tried to raise the issue (on the side) to encourage they 'step in' I was roundly rebuffed – why? For me it was no brainer, but there proved to be a stumbling block; and a classic it is. You see when verbally bullying me it is what others have done that is the key subject and driver. What they have failed in, as leaders of their family, is in some way my fault: but the twist to this saga is that what they are experiencing, as a family, they believe is 'their problem' and of NO business of the church. Indeed this attitude is also reflected in the actions and statement coming out of Presbytery. Are you now confused?

As reported in the minutes of a meeting convened and Chaired by the Secretary of Presbytery, our Minister of the day (Rev. Lunney), the entire Fairfield Church council and myself it was stated “At this time a matter concerning the Solifoni and Waddington families (not relevant to Fairfield UC issues) was raised, causing considerable distress to some in attendance.” “The chairperson called a halt to proceeding.”

Now the first of those quotes, when I first read the minutes, incited considerable anger in me. I responded in a form I am not particularly proud of but I was insisting the minutes be corrected to reflect the TRUTH.

I stated there is not a 'matter' between the Solifoni and the Waddington families. There is little doubt Rachael and Foni Solifoni are un-justifiably holding me (and my family) responsible for an issue/matter of concern for them but it should not have be couched in the callously dismissive way it was by the Chairman who knows full well, in depth, what it is about. This is NOT a family feud its a Fairfield Uniting – Solifoni issue, not mine!

I, and my family, have NO case to answer to or for the Solifoni family issue outside of what the entire Fairfield Congregation and leadership also bears, a point I have tried to make, to all and to Elders Tweed, to no avail, long before it got to where it is now.

The Presbytery Secretary's comments were and are insulting and, I must point out, my requests for the correction have been ignored as have requests to Presbyteries leaders to provide me and my family an apology.

But lets look a little more closely at an end result of what was a very stupid (under the known circumstances) move/statement and, what have been the consequences of the Presbytery comment; this blog and it contents are one of the direct consequences.

You see the truth – about Fairfield Uniting – and all who sail in her and about all who have been thrown overboard needed telling (in part at least) and recording for the future. More importantly though it is my only outlet, why? Well because where do I turn to within the Uniting Church for assistance. The Elders and Church Councillors have gone 'rogue' and provide absolutely NO SPIRITUAL/PASTORAL CARE OUTSIDE OF CONTINUING ANGER AND ABUSE. Presbytery, Synod and the Assembly leadership have all either ignored or dismissed my requests for help. Those facts I have already mentioned earlier.

Is the Uniting Church in Australia a Christian church in anything but name? I question it is and I know, for a fact, Fairfield Uniting would struggle to claim competency if its leaders were audited academically for Christian duty, community mission and pastoral care.

But the greatest un-truth revealed in those Presbytery minutes is the statement “(not relevant to Fairfield UC issues).”

The fact is, what Presbytery was so quick to dismiss, is a MAIN issues for Fairfield Uniting, Rachael and Foni Solifoni have actively set out to make it so; that is patently apparent in their reported actions and comments. They are using 'their family issue' to assert control over the Fairfield Uniting congregation in the mis-belief more control will solve their problem. In doing so they have dug the entire Church Council and congregation into a hole from which extraction is going to be painful, painfully slow and fraught with added complications.

They have destroyed their friendships and hurt families but the loss has been mostly one-sided, theirs and the Tweeds. For whilst they have caused people to leave, Fairfield Uniting, they have not broken the family and friendship bonds of those who have left as a result of their bullying – quite the reverse, as you would expect. They have simple forced those people to into other congregations (Fairfield Uniting's loss) leaving the Church Councillors' family names and actions as a bad taste experience and a poor reflection on those who continue to support, or ignore, their actions.

There is no doubt now the Fairfield Elders and Church Councillor, D&P Tweed, F&M Solifoni carry, almost entirely, the burden and blame for Fairfield Uniting's 'issues'. There is no way forward for Fairfield Uniting until that group of people face the fact it is their attitudes, policies and actions which have brought Fairfield Uniting to where it is and, nothing will improve until they each face their demons, accept their personal responsibility and responsibilities and make good the damage they have caused.

In time there will be forgiveness but only if they accept what they have done and do what I believe they must by way of apologizing, in writing, publicly and in person, to the entire congregation and those forced away, who have not already passed away or can no longer be asked for forgiveness. I personally believe, in accepting their fault, they must also disqualify themselves from holding office within the church as well. Only then Fairfield Uniting will be able to return, fully, to its mission.

“Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” Romans 12:21 (KJ ver.)

It's very difficult to remain at Fairfield Uniting, amongst the evil; I remain, for the moment only as an obligation. However, bearing in mind the passage (above) from Romans, a key component of Rev. Kava's previous sermon; I have asked both he and Rev. Choi to meet with me as (possibly) a final attempt to bring Fairfield Uniting back onto the straight and narrow; the result of those requests will, I trust, unfold over the next week.

The most memorable part of yesterday at Fairfield Uniting, for me, had to have been Rev. Kava's sermon. Once again, a message delivered with a passion and an obvious conviction. More about the sermon, its fit to Fairfield Uniting and, yet again, the technical hitches, later.

These post are, in the main, about recording and contrasts and I will continue that theme. Comparing the differences I have experienced in the last few weeks between Fairfield Uniting and another church/congregation.

Firstly, some weeks ago I was invited to a breakfast for men; the first (hopefully) in an effort/outreach specifically to men. It was attended by 50+ individuals, from the various congregations within a parish, with varied view-points and needs. The scripture verse chosen to underscore the event was 1^st Timothy 2:8.

The second invitation received, from within the same parish, was to attend a Sunday morning service which had a special meaning for a particular person. Both Judy and I attended and it was a joy to be able to worship amongst people who have a desire to share Gods word in a genuine manner, to be worshiping with other family members and to meet new people.

Why are those two events of significance and why do they draw attention to the contrast in attending, a worship service at, Fairfield Uniting?

Point one; after attending the two 'special' events I received a communication from the 'Superintendent' minister, of the church concerned, thanking me for my attendance, voicing his pleasure in meeting Judith, offering some biblical information to read and outlined the bible passage being followed for the next (the week just past) week – (part of) Romans 13. (Chap' 13 covers duties towards the state and one another: advice very applicable to Fairfield Uniting)

Now contrast that effort and outreach to that which I experienced when I arrived at Fairfield Uniting yesterday (31Aug'2014). On my entering, Fairfield Uniting, four others were in the same small entrance space: An Elder and Church Council chairman, another church councillor and two others. With the exception of the person handing out the order of service sheets each of the others made a particular effort to ignore my presence!

There are many ways to look at and react to the leader’s behaviour; in the main though, for me, I simply find it sad. It highlights the contrast of leadership and it shows how, if allowed, human nature and personal agendas can stand between what a functional Christian Church stands for and how it is run and viewed by others. When examined critically, it is not me who is hurt by the continuing process of vilification. It is pointless me feeling anything but disappointment in each of the individuals, Elders and Church Councillors involved. It is a crying shame they could not have listened to Rev. Kava's rousing sermon and, hearing what was said, take immediate remedial action; or is that too much to ask of Fairfield Uniting's leadership?

The contrast, in leadership, between the two congregations, highlighted herein, feeds directly into Rev. Kava's theme for yesterdays sermon; “Behave yourself like a Christian”. That theme and Rev. Kava's entire sermon went directly to the heart of Fairfield Uniting's (leadership/congregational) problems. Behaving as a Christian, to me, means placing Jesus's teachings at the core of all we do as a Church and individuals. At Fairfield Uniting this is not normal practice: that is so clearly highlighted in these postings.

Why is it so important, to the leadership of Fairfield Uniting, that me, my family (and many others who have been pushed away) should be made feel so un-welcome in a church which has been our life for decades. Additionally, why is it the leaders in Presbytery, Synod and the Assembly choose to 'pass us by on the other side of the road', ignoring our requests for help? I repeat: if I am not worthy, in their eyes, is it not church I should be attending, should not Fairfield Uniting leaders be encouraging me to follow their example, 'right principles' and actions; or is that the problem?

Let me provide another contrast relating to the 'welcoming'. It has become a feature at the commencement of announcements made during the morning service to 'welcome' people. Not unusual, I would think, in any/other church(s), but at Fairfield Uniting it has a particular ring: a false ring. Sharp to the ear and, to those who know better, a hypocritical ring. The welcome often includes the statement “it is great to see you here.....etc.”. It points to the fact those attending the service are important (and they are) and welcome(?). But what it masks is the fact ONLY SOME ARE WELCOME, NOT ALL! Made patently obvious in the reception(s) I received yesterday and on previous (written up) occasions. You are and will be 'welcome', at Fairfield Uniting, if you understand it is a requirement of participation you MUST do only that which is 'defined' acceptable to the Fairfield Uniting Church Council. Said another way: you must adhere strictly to the Tweed/Solifoni dictums; one example, I quote Foni, “I am in charge!” therefore.....you must.....etc.

Rev. Kava's theme “Behave yourself like a Christian” is a particularly important energy which should be found radiating from all Christian Churches into their surrounding communities. Taking on the 'challenge' of being a Christian, in a world of contrast and contradiction, can be quite difficult. At the point you 'claim' to be a Christian the responsibility to act as one, in all you say and do, becomes an imperative. No longer do you get the varied choices the world has to offer: your choices now are reduced to two; continue to follow Christ and act accordingly or change you mind completely and turn your back on Christ and being a Christian. For me there is little middle ground. Equally, for me personally, that commitment has created great difficulty, highlighted in the absurdly contradictory situation I face at Fairfield Uniting. There is no doubt Fairfield Uniting is being tested, as am I, as are the Elders, Church Councillors and the wider congregation.

My considered opinion, at the moment, is we ALL are failing the test, and there can be no argument that is the case. But why?

I said earlier in this post, about Rev. Kava's sermon, “It is a crying shame they” - (Fairfield Uniting's leadership) - “could not have listened to Rev. Semisi's rousing sermon and, hearing what was said, take immediate remedial action; or is that too much to ask of Fairfield Uniting's leadership?”

The question to be answered first is, was the sermon applicable to me? Am I applying, to my actions, the Christian principles/advice Rev. Kava eloquently delivered. In particular his statement “do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good”.

In amongst all his other points his 'insistence' evil should be overcome by good is of particular relevance to me and, it is knowing the importance of this, I have followed the path I have. It may appear contradictory to some, but it is important to any person looking into what has/is destroying Fairfield Uniting to understand it has been a practice, at Fairfield Uniting, to not assertively enforce, the application of Christian principles into the decision making relating to the corporate management of the church; in particular when it came to challenging the decisions and actions of some leaders*.

I have mentioned this before by stating, whilst there were enough of those doing the correct thing it ameliorated the influence of the leaders doing the wrong and the damage being caused. But following the path of “not wanting to cause wave” and or just doing the correct thing anyway has not proven the correct course. Those who worked hard and followed a true path have been worn down and ejected, resulting in Fairfield Uniting being reduced to the management we have now; similar to the past, with the same wrong intent, but without sufficient 'opposing good' to prevent a slide deeper into evil.

“Peace should be your aim”, said Rev. Kava. How true. “Bend over backwards for peace” he continued; with the caveat “do not compromise”. I am going to take issue with the first two of those three points; not because I disagree but because they are applicable when looking at what is/does occur within Fairfield Uniting.

*The truth is it has been the aim for many to try and 'keep the peace' and 'bending over backward' - particularly where Mr. D. Tweed (Elder/Chairman of the Church Council) is concerned - is what people have done for as long as I can remember; as I eluded to earlier. The reward for that effort was not an improvement; it simply brought, those doing wrong, time and opportunity to wreck havoc and wheedle, for selfish reasons, greater control.

Is peace my aim? It sure is and always was and quite frankly I have 'bent over backwards' in looking for different ways to get those who are taking Fairfield Uniting down a very treacherous path to recognize what they are doing, why they must reconsider and change, or perish! In taking the route(s) I have, I have proven beyond doubt who is responsible for and on whose shoulders Fairfield Unitings problems rest.

Is it me who rocks-up to church and verbally bullies people? Is it me who slanders family and church members? Is it me who tells people they are not welcome at church and to leave?

“Do not compromise” said Rev. Kava, again he is correct. Compromise is what too many of us have done for too long at Fairfield Uniting. What I now also know is Presbytery is guilty of this as well; they have understood for many years about existing, and looming, problems (at Fairfield Uniting) and have made some curious 'decisions' which, for all intense and purposes, seems to be mostly to sit on their hands, the fence and ask for things to be done which leave the issues in place and make 'the problems' worse. Synod and the Assembly, well, they just don't seem to care.

Rev. Kava had another point to make, I thought it a cracker. He said, “to overcome your enemy make him your friend”. A classic statement for the simple reason it defines what I have often been employed to do in the industries within which I work. “Fire fighting” is an expression some have used to describe what I have done and, whilst the requirement to “put out the fire(s)” has often been why I was inserted it has always proven important, in each of those situations, to 'win over the enemy by making h/er/im my friend'.

What is so frustrating about Fairfield Uniting is that 'the issues' in contention have absolutely smashed long standing friendships. Many of those who have left, unhappy, Fairfield Uniting are people and direct family members with whom my family have grown up with, with some family ties being several generations in length. The Solifoni family were welcomed along with many others into an existing Fairfield Uniting congregation 'maybe' sixteen years ago, what's happened there?

So, within a 'Christian environment', Fairfield Uniting Church, friends have become enemies. How is that possible? Can friends who have become enemies, once again, become friends? The answer lays in understanding forgiveness and what that may mean in the context of Fairfield Uniting. The lack of thought, consideration and an un-willingness**, by the entire Fairfield Uniting Church council, to consider the importance of their actions and their failings in suing for peace and forgiveness is the sin standing between Fairfield Uniting growing as a church – in more than numbers of attendees – into a church based on the Christian principle of loving your neighbours, enemies, those in need or seeking spiritual guidance.

Making an enemy a friend in my business dealings firstly required me understanding why they were, or had become, an enemy of the company. It needs to be understood, in the context of Fairfield Uniting, I would appear to be the enemy and yet, I have no animosity toward those who see me as such. Curious ain't it. Cranky I am, at each of them, of that there is not much doubt, but that's it. If there is one thing I do know it is, if the Fairfield Uniting Church Elder/Councillors do not address their problems I will not be their judge. My anger and frustration, with the Elders and Church Councillors, is the knowledge they may suddenly find they are in the position of not being able to rectify their wrongs and as a result will be brought to account by the one who will judge us all.

In truth that has already happened: several of those long standing members, who have been pushed away and out of Fairfield Uniting are no longer with us; no longer can they be asked for or grant forgiveness. That is very sad and is quite likely to be repeated.

Another of Rev. Kava's points follows; “when anger lingers in the (your) heart it poisons all you do” Nothing could be closer to the truth and I know this at a very personal/family level. That experience is one of the main drivers behind what I am doing right now, and in writing these posts. I get very angry on occasions, for differing reasons, but in the main it is almost always to do when I see another person doing something wrong toward another or, in a business environment, if dangers or safety, too personnel is ignored.

Being very open now, I must say, Fairfield Uniting makes me very angry on occasions for 'spiritual safety' reasons. The actions of the Elder and Church Councillors, toward me, my family, the congregation and others, is putting their salvation in danger and they, for some inexplicable reason, cannot see that fact. Why?

These posting are a reflection of my anger: having exhausted so many other avenues to 'bring Fairfield Uniting's leaders to their senses' and having been unsuccessful due to their un-willingness** I have chosen to 'vent my spleen' and record the pain. Maybe that will cause some reflection on their behalf, maybe it might lead another to intervene and make them see the error of their ways. Who knows what tomorrow may bring ;-)

Does anger poison what you do? Yes and no I would answer; Cyanide is recognized as a poison but it is used in medicines as are other chemicals and compounds. Anger in a person can serve to bring focus and this is the case with me; anger does not frighten me as it does others and when I feel anger, even to the point of rage, I know I need to check myself and ask why.

As applied to Fairfield Uniting my anger/rage is also against the injustices metered out by our Elders and Church Councillors. eg. The unjustified attack on Judith, the forcing of Ruth (and others) out of the church, the physical, verbal/slanderous bullying experienced, all make me angry. However, all of the problems which currently plague Fairfield Uniting can be laid squarely at the feet of the Elders and Church councillors/family members who have allowed their anger to poison their thoughts and have controlled their actions at church, and beyond, for a long time and, include those laid bare in my posts.

“Are you quick to condemn or forgive?” asked Rev. Kava.

A question we all need to direct to ourselves before applying it to others. I know exactly what it would take for me to forgive Fairfield Uniting's Edlers and Church Councillors, Presbytery, Synod and Assembly leaders, for all they have done or not done in relation to the matters I, and others, have endured and highlighted.

Focusing on Fairfield though, do David & Pat Tweed, Foni, Rachael and Ma'ata know what they need to do to be forgiven? I wonder? Who, in 'maintaining his rage' has fought to have the 'wrongs righted' and, who, in 'maintaining their rage' have collectively sought to continue their hurtful, selfish, vindictive, slander, 'exclusinistic' control of the Fairfield Uniting Church and congregation?

For 'enemies', at Fairfield Uniting, to become friends again rest entirely in understanding the answers to the immediately previous questions and understanding just how Fairfield Uniting has arrived to the point where those questions need to be answered.

Rev. Kava's sermon had a more subtle message which I understood to indicate if you try and correct a (persons) wrongs and they fail to listen or correct their 'miss-deeds' then it is no longer 'your fault'. It was a fleeting reference which I may have miss-understood but it was very similar to a comment Rev. Lunney once made, directly to me. In Rev. Lunney's case it was in response to a comment of mine about having to carry others burdens. Rev. Lunney's inference was clear: to him, I had made my point, got nowhere and should therefore walk away. I was appalled, then I felt enormous disappointment. Here was a clear indication that the hurt and damage wrought at Fairfield Uniting should be just simply ignored & “passed by”. I think Rev. Kava's reasoning is somewhat different.

**I am going to float one last argument I this post. We know Fairfield Uniting 'problems' continue as a direct result of the actions of the Elders and Church Councillors. The responsibilities of Uniting Church Elders and Church Councillors are well documented and (in theory) understood. So why is it that we do not see those attributes reflected in Fairfield Uniting's Elders and Church Councillors working towards a solution. 'Fighting corporate fires', rebuilding co-operation and trust with the aim of improving the business environment is often about loss! Who loses what and how much.

Negotiators talk about 'win win' etc. 'Win win' is another way of saying, reduce the loss. Once there is a joint understanding of who loses what and how much, solutions are often found. When no solution 'can' be found there exists a loss which has not been addressed, not been tabled for consideration/discussion; often deliberately. That is what we face at Fairfield Uniting.

David and Pat Tweed have an arena of losses to face and the Solifoni's have similar problems multiplied by several distinctly proprietary personal issues. When each of those individuals are prepared to willingly face 'those demons' then it will be possible to find the solutions sought and for them to ask for and, be forgiven. Then also, Fairfield Uniting will be able to move forward as a Christian community.

I close with; having delivered his sermon Rev. Kava concluded it by asking the entire congregation to read allowed, with him, a paraphrased version of Romans 12:9-21. It was a brilliant way to conclude his poignant and strongly delivered message. It had the power, if taken on board, to bring about a substantial re-think in the Fairfield Uniting congregation. Will it?

I thank Rev. Kava for his considered, forthright approach and I look forward to what he might be instrumental in achieving at Fairfield Uniting.

“Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good”

Romans 12:21

(King James version)

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!