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!

Previously said, “In my next post I will reveal a human story which will show how the *sinful behaviour which has brought the bus to the state it is in has directly impacted on individuals who rely on its availability.”

So, in this third post I will follow through with that which I stated in the previous post and present a brief story about the personal impact of our bus not being used for its intended purpose.

What that story will highlight is, yet again, of some embarrassment for the entire congregation. The reason is because it show just how selective our church leaders are in choosing who can and cannot worship at Fairfield Uniting. It’s a power thing, who has what ‘rights’ at Fairfield Uniting.

An additional part of this post, linked to peoples’ rights’ will also be outlined and this component of the post will surely raise peoples hackles in demonstrating just how entrenched are the cultures of bullying, control, abuse and hypocrisy within portions of Fairfield Uniting’s congregation.

Now all of the points above can be measured against the backdrop of a letter I have previously referred to in the second post of this blog. The letter Fairfield Uniting’s Church Councillors used to unjustifiable attack my wife and who accuse me of “working against us”; “us” being, of course, the current Fairfield Uniting Church’s Elder and Church Councillors. The same people who, several times a day see and watch as the church bus deteriorates in front of them: the very same individuals who say I disrupt fellowship within our congregation.

Now let’s take that very last point first (I disrupt fellowship within our congregation) and detail what happened last Sunday (27July2014) before and after the morning worship service. On entering the church I was approached by a congregational member who asked if she could speak with me after church; I replied “yes”. After the service on the public footpath in front of the church I was again approached by the same person who had made the earlier request and, was asked had I come to “her place” and taken photos of the bus. She went on to say that her neighbour had seen me and that I had no right to do what I had done!

Now let’s take a closer look at those statements: her neighbour* had told her she had seen me and *she had; I did/do not deny that fact. I don’t know the neighbour nor she me so how was the link to me made? Furthermore, by that Sunday, the photos were already a part of this blog as featured in the second posting.

But there is a more sinister twist needing to be considered here; there was a very strong suggestion I had go ‘on to her property’. This point was made very aggressively several times during the confrontation. As you can all see ‘the bus’ was on a public road, in full view and accessible from all sides via public property!

The second part of that comment is that I had “no right” to photograph the bus. And there, in that part of her statement, you see an example of the control and bullying to be found in Fairfield Uniting’s Church congregation. The bus being property belonging to the church of which I am a member, parked on a public road in a municipal area in which I have resided for my entire 64 years and yet; I have no right to be on that road photographing something of which is the property of the ‘church community’ in which I belong; for almost the same period of time. What does this say about Fairfield Uniting Church? Is it a faith based ministry or a sect under the dictatorial control of a few? It’s looking a lot more like that latter than the former.

But it gets worse. I have indicated the approach was aggressive and it was: I did not deny what I had done and have no reason to regret my actions (taking the photos) and after the person had made her initial pronouncement she continue to aggressively threaten me (in full view of the congregation) repeatedly stating I had no right to go to her place and that I should never go there again. Having made her point I asked her to step away and when she did not and continued her tirade I walked away. In doing so I was followed, the tirade and threats continuing; I again asked her to step away and when she did not I indicated I should go to the police and crossed the road to break off the contact.

How many of you attend church services which conclude with this type of ‘fellowship’? Is it really me who is ‘disrupting’ the church? What level of protection and or support did I get from the Elders and other Church Councillors at the time of the confrontation or subsequently – NONE! When you know who delivered the tirade you will also know why not protection or support – for me!

Those events, of last Sunday, will have a sequel!

Now, to the second part of this post; a human story behind the un-availability of the church bus.

As previously stated the role of the church bus is to ferry those who are in need of transport to and from church to be able to do so.

Picture if you will a church congregational member who is severely disabled. A person for whom mobility is an extremely difficult and slow process: someone who should be able to count on being able to use/access a gift given to his church for the express purpose of transporting people with the need.

Add to that picture several components: one, this is person who, always with the disability, has attended for many decades. Two, even with the difficulties the person has, he did, for many years get himself to and from church but, due to changing circumstances involving distance this same person turned to using the amenity the church bus provided. That later arrangement has been in place now for probably over ten years. But it stopped, why? Well in part because of what you all now know; Fairfield Uniting’s bus is parked, un-registered and rotting on a public road.

Now the person I have outlined is NOT the only person who was being transported directly prior to the bus ‘becoming un-available’. His absence was not un-noticed and as one would expect the Elders and Church councillors would be right on top of a situation like this and arrange alternative transport? You know, go and pick the person up themselves and or announce or ask other congregational members if they could do so. That’s what you would expect: except as situations like this are under the CONTROL of Fairfield Uniting’s Elders and councillors it’s not what happens. But to be fair he did get mentioned, as not always being able to ‘attend’, in prayers, uttered by an Elder. Was he sick, choosing not come, or had he other commitments (?); some of us wondered.

After nearly six weeks I took it upon myself to visit him. Why the time span you might ask and, a reasonable question it is. We do have Elders in which we should be able to trust, we did have a minister who could well have been following through. But in the main, being honest, with the disquiet rife in a congregation did we want to lift the lid off and expose yet another example of the dysfunctional nature of Fairfield Uniting Church. That is, of course, is what has happened; our dysfunction is once again exposed and, it’s a disturbingly nasty thing which has been exposed!

In my visitation I was told the reason the person was not attending was because the bus had (told to them by a church councillor**) ‘broken down, was not working’ and that when it was fixed (at the end of the month) he would again be picked-up. Well we now know ‘not working’ is another way of saying un-registered and ‘end of the month’ was probably very ‘optimistic’ to say the least.

But, as with everything to do with Fairfield Uniting nothing is without a twist and, here is the twist in this story. Other congregational members, who were being transported up to the point the bus became un-available, broken down, not working and un-registered continue to be picked-up in the private cars of none other than church councillors! Oh dear! Why has one person only, who with the terrible infliction he lives with and who has demonstrated, through his perseverance and effort, his enormous depth of faith, been so appallingly treated by our church, Fairfield Uniting? And this is not the first time.

The fellow I have just talked about can barely walk but, given the opportunity, took it and came to church last week, transported in a private car. He made the effort, but many long term congregational members have given up and walked away from our congregation because of its management, our Elders and Church Councillors; the same people who accuse me of disrupting the fellowship of Fairfield Uniting.

There is yet another twist – after all it is Fairfield Uniting’s Elders and Church Councillors who have now been found ‘wanting’ in this case of ‘discrimination’. In the church hall, after the morning service, my wife was approached – by a **church councillor - about the fact the ‘person’ had been picked-up and asked why it had been done. She answered and, he continued with the question, was the arrangement going to continue. When he was told it would he was clearly ‘un-happy’; why, you might ask? The answer, of course, lays embedded not in the phrase ‘service to others’ but in the phrase ‘WE MUST CONTROL’.

What more do I need to say to convince the Uniting Church in Australia’s hierarchy as to why I have asked for their help only to watched as they just pass by?

In the next post more about control as the primary Pastoral Care tool exercised at Fairfield Uniting Church.  

I forewarned in my opening post, in the next post, I would reveal how the leaders of Fairfield Uniting had attacked my family and me. At the core of the leaders’ attacks is a distorted belief. To quote from their letter – “Unfortunately, we feel that you have been working against us, along with your wife (named) and your son (named), causing division within our congregation and we are trouble by this.”

Leaving me aside at the moment, that written attack on my wife and son is completely without basis. In particular, in relation to my wife, it was an untruthfully cruel personal attack on a person who has been a faithful and gracious part of the Fairfield Uniting congregation for many decades in many roles including teaching Sunday school. That is, until Sunday school was no longer a component of our church due to its destruction, with whole families, including those with young children and our grandchildren having left as a direct response to our leaderships’ (the Church Council) failings and actions!

It was an unjustified attack delivered for the sole purpose of hurting a person. In that respect it was successful and it brings not only shame to Fairfield Uniting’s Elders/Leaders but to all those who attend Fairfield Uniting and those leaders in the higher tiers of the Uniting Church who have failed to step in and support the rectification of that injustice. The un-truthful attack was delivered via a letter signed by EVERY MEMBER OF THE FAIRFIELD UNITING CHURCH COUNCIL including those who are “ELDERS”. Why you may be asking would Elders and Church Councillors stoop to this level; the answer(s) lay in knowing some simple facts.

In my previous post I alluded to the ‘autocratic/dictatorial’ leadership of Fairfield Uniting. It is a leadership which has – over time – crushed any person who attempted to object or challenge Elders/Church Councillor decisions or actions. Actions which are sinful, many and varied: actions which have contributed to an ‘eye-opening turn-over’ of ministers which should have, on its own, drawn more substantial attention from the Uniting Church hierarchy.

However there came a point where I decided enough was enough and yes I have challenged the Elders/Church Councillors. That is why the Church Council chose to attack: it’s a ‘strange’ form of pastoral care we have in Fairfield Uniting; some would be see it as bullying. It is the tool used and why many, long term members, and others, including ministers, have been forced out of (to leave) our congregation.

That said, this posting is also going to highlight the leadership’s poor management of church resources and assets (just one example) and in doing so reveal, in a significant manner, why I have stood my ground and draw the fire I do.

Below you will see several photos taken (only days ago) of ‘our’ church bus. The vehicle was purchased – new – in 1983, with money from a bequest (if I recall correctly), and for many years was used, on Sundays, to ferry congregational members, for reasons of need, to and from church and, on appropriate church outings. The bus has not been used for several weeks now; why? Well, truth is, as a congregation, we don’t know: however what I do know is the bus fell out of registration months ago!

Church members have not been told why, nor has there been any announcement/indication (forthcoming) as to the fate of the vehicle. Suffice to say however it is not a surprise to me; it is indicative, just another example, of the appalling handling of church affairs, we have been forced to accept and have ‘become used too’, at Fairfield Uniting.

Additionally, I am personally aware of the fact, even when the bus was still in use, it was in a state, had it been spotted by the authorities, which would have attracted defect notices. That point alone, given the vehicle is driven by a church councillor, says volumes about the handling of Fairfield Uniting’s affairs and the failure of our Church Councillors to ensure the safety of those being transported.

So where is the vehicle now and in what condition? Well, it’s an un-registered heavy vehicle parked on a public road. It’s not, and has not, been garaged/housed on church property for years (despite that being a requirement). It is, as the photos show, in a filthy state with rubbish stored in the rear of the vehicle and the drivers’ floor piled with trash and, dangerously, a loose fire extinguisher! It has one (inside rear) tyre fully deflated and other, quite visible, defect attracting damage. THE BUS WOULD NOT PASS A ROAD WORTHINESS INSPECTION and, the appropriate government authorities have been informed!

OUR CHURCH BUS HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY ALLOWED, BY OUR CHURCH COUNCILLORS, TO ROT ON A PUBLIC STREET WITHIN THE DAILY EYESHOT OF TWO FAIRFIELD UNITING CHURCH COUNCILLORS!*; WHY?

In its sign written state the Fairfield Uniting Church bus stands as a clear beacon, on a public road, next to a frequently used public park, as an advertisement of how appalling disrespectful our church is of gifts given in good faith for a purpose and the mission of the church.

The bus stands in a public place, as an advertisement to the world, of what Fairfield Uniting Church stands for; at the same time it is a reflection on the ‘brand’ which is The Uniting Church in Australia!

That this gift, a vehicle and church asset has been allowed to degenerate to this level of disrepair is an appalling disgrace which MUST be solely borne by Fairfield Uniting Church Councillors. This single example of careless disregard, by the church leaders, for the Fairfield Uniting congregation’s safety, assets, for the work, mission, integrity and reputation of Fairfield Uniting church and the wider Uniting Church in Australia is a disgrace which MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.

Look at the images below and weep!

  

In my next post I will reveal a human story which will show how the *sinful behaviour which has brought the bus to the state it is in has directly impacted on individuals who rely on its availability.

R.P.Waddington.

I open this blog/conversation/vent with an outline of the primary role of the blog, which is, to place on the public record something of the horror Fairfield Uniting Church has become. I am doing it now, in this manner, as a last resort; as the ‘pursuit by conventional means’ has proven it not possible to adequately address critical issues.

Importantly, it is to place on the public record an historical/time link to the current leaders of Fairfield Uniting and the wider Uniting Church in Australia. Doing so will ensure the actions of those leaders, (who are responsible), will not, in the future, be apportioned to other than those directly involved and those, who may continue to allow the practices of the current Fairfield Uniting leadership to continue without change, apology and or restitution. It will also prevent those same leaders distancing themselves from the truth and or to attempt to change or distort the facts.

Of greater importance though is to make an example of Fairfield Uniting: a warning to other (Uniting) Churches, leaders and congregations; an example of how a congregation should not function!

As part of the ‘make an example of them approach’ my following posts will publish specific details of discussions, meetings and letters relating to the issues of Fairfield Uniting. There is no reason why anything relating to what has happened, to me, my family and close friends should be considered confidential. As embarrassing as it may be, for me/us, it surely will be of more embarrassment to our leaders and those of our community who have supported our church in complete ignorance of the sinful undertone within. It is necessary to expose Fairfield Uniting to the disinfection exposure provides.

Hopefully other church leaders and Presbyteries - with issues similar to Fairfield Uniting – may look at what will be revealed herein and, having done so, will take a looong hard look at what damage they may be causing to individual congregational members, their congregation and the Uniting Church in general.

If it is the mission of a Uniting Church congregation to follow the teachings of Christ, support their members and congregations and to reach out to the community radiating Christian behaviour then Fairfield Uniting is NOT the example to follow.

A visitor or casual observer, walking in to worship at Fairfield Uniting, will not notice the hostile attitudes in play. Whilst projecting a congenial outwards persona (and community involvement) it would take only a short period of time for an astute observer to uncover some very disappointing truths. If Fairfield Uniting ‘s ‘personality profile’ fits, in any way, your congregation then please take immediate steps to restore your church to one of faith, love, support and outreach else you will go the route of Fairfield Uniting.

At the core of my concern is a non-inclusive church: a church without a spiritual heart, a church with an autocratic leadership whose ‘pastoral care skills’ border on brutal. Over time, if you participate/follow my ‘conversation’ you will learn more about why that is so.

That said there is one additional point I am going to make here which goes, some way, to explaining how Fairfield Uniting ‘was allowed’ to descend to the level of sinful decay it has. It has a lot to do with people ‘not wanting to cause waves’: reasonable to a point but wrong if it means bad practices are ignored, go un-challenged or are allowed to propagate, to the degree they ultimately impact detrimentally on individuals and the life and witness of the church. Locally that is bad enough; however, it is made worse when those ‘higher in the church’, for reasons best known to themselves, choose to ‘pass by’, and not help when asked to do so.

This is precisely what has happened and it has shaken my faith to its core. Simply put, I can accept Fairfield Uniting’s problems are ‘self generated’ and there is some considerable history but when Presbytery, Synod and The Assembly are asked to help and don’t, won’t or do not know how to, what hope do individuals in a congregation have, whilst being bullied, to bring things back on track?

Let me give one example of why I have made the statement I just have. Asking for help I wrote, simultaneously, to the leaders of the top three tiers of The Uniting Church of Australia. Two of those leaders have not responded (even months later) not even to acknowledge the receipt of my letter. One leader did respond but did so on the basis he believed “the matter is being dealt with by…..”, continuing with “it is not one in which the ….. should become involved”. Really – let me think, think…..ing, think….ing ;-) what was that road to Jericho story about…..?

So from this ‘beaten-up and damaged travellers’ point of view, I can only conclude I/we must wait until a ‘good Samaritan’ appears ;-) or, alternatively, a real leader can be found within the Uniting Church in Australia who has conviction, the space in their heart and schedule, who is prepared to step on to a very ugly plate, hold their ground and, help and guide/lead a congregation which is failing in its primary mission.

In closing (this post): the ‘problem that is Fairfield Uniting’ has for a long time been an ‘invisible’ problem of The Uniting Church in Australia. It has been wrongly believed, by those who should know better, Fairfield Uniting could be dealt with behind closed doors. Flawed thinking which has empowered and facilitated the consolidation of dictatorial rule within the congregation. Flawed thinking which has meant many have been very deeply hurt and have walked away from the church.

Fairfield Uniting must change: in the absence of appropriate leadership and support from the Uniting Church hierarchy or a ‘Samaritan’ this public record may or may not provide, “through exposure to sunlight”, what I am seeking but, what it will do, for the historic record, is correctly apportion ‘the credit’ to those responsible.

R. P. Waddington.