My Adventures with God 57: Set Free to Worship

Chapter 57 ... Set Free To Worship

At the November 1994 AGM the Nick and Shirley's group were voted out. There could be no disputing that. They had stacked the AGM with their people, They had run their own “ticket” for vestry and wardens. They had run a vigorous political campaign for votes. They had the PR advantage of the backing of the diocese. And they still lost.

For the parish it was wonderful. You could almost feel the sense of freedom in the air.

The first big change I noticed was financial. Shirley's husband Peter xxx had continued to be treasurer of the parish while Nick and Shirley’s followers had the numbers in vestry. Under his treasurership I had not been paid for over three months.

The new treasurer had my pay quickly restored, and everything including the parish assessment paid off in short order.

Peter xxx had been saying at monthly vestry meetings that there not enough money to pay me. Examination of the accounts showed that there had been ruses like drawing a large cheque just before the date the bank issued its monthly statement and then re-depositing it just afterwards to make it look as though there was no money to pay me when there actually was.

The diocese had also assisted in hiding away nearly $50,000 - mainly in the fear that if Nick and Shirley's people lost the elections the new vestry might use it to run the parish. We didn't need the money! There had apparently always been plenty of money. Once Peter was removed from being treasurer, they were not only to pay me, but to quickly make up my back pay and also to make up within a few months the back “taxes” owing to the diocese – which had been another of Peter's ruses to make the diocese think the parish was about to collapse financially!.

From then on we had no more money worries.

The next thing I noticed was the Archbishops anger. He was angry that the side he had backed had been voted out by the people. He was angry that as time went by the parish not only survived the departure of Nick and Shirley's group but bounded into life: flourishing now that their fifth column activities were inhibited.

The archbishop told me very angrily that they had assured him that they represented the most active and committed Christians in the parish, and that without them it would “fall apart within a few months”

The unspoken but obvious problem was that the archbishop had staked his reputation to some degree on this outcome. By flourishing when it was meant to fall apart the parish was making him appear to have misjudged the situation!

So what was happening in the parish?

The sort answer is that many more of the talented and deeply spiritual people who had been kept out of ministry by the Nick and Shirley now started developing all sorts of ministries.

Also, or perhaps primarily, the blessing and joy of God descended on the parish.

I said earlier that the 10 am service in particular needed a large team of people - 18 or 20 to fill all the rostered duties. Much earlier Nick and Shirley's followers had resigned from most of these over a very short space of time. They expected - I think they really believed their own propaganda here - that everything would collapse without them. It didn’t. There were plenty of people ready and waiting, and I suspect just itching to jump in and help. So all our services were singing along as they always had.

Readers who were in Melbourne diocese at the time may be saying “but didn’t we hear ...” Yes, you quite likely did hear all sorts of misinformation!! Nick and Shirley's people were mounting the most energetic propaganda campaign throughout the diocese. And the vestry under their control did pass a motion that “church services have been in disarray for over twelve months” but there was not a shred of truth in it.

The parish was also growing again healthily, new people were coming, people were being converted, people were being helped. In any other circumstances we should have been held up as the model of an effective, growing parish.

Importantly the dramatic decline which had begun several years before I went to the parish, had run its course. Interestingly when I charted the church attendances over the years I found that they peaked at a yearly average of about 250 per Sunday for the year 1985. Then they had been in decline from about the time Nick xxx joined the parish staff!

Certainly the decline was continuing after I came,but there were extenuating circumstances! I had had a group actively trying to destroy the parish, and for good measure I had had the diocese throw every obstacle they could in my way. Lastly when those efforts failed these people actively fomented a schism and actively recruited among the congregation - all with the public support of diocesan officials. The parish should have been just smoldering ruins! Instead I had about 110 people worshiping every Sunday. I think I did pretty well! (for US readers used to big churches, at that time in Melbourne I think the average Sunday attendance for an Anglican parish was about 40!)

We were getting unchurched people converted and growing into strong Christians. Just one story: One young man came to our Good Friday service because he got a flyer I had been putting in letterboxes. The young people all welcomed him and included him, and after the service - since numbers of them generally came over to the vicarage he was brought along with them. He became a regular part of things, he became a committed Christian and one day he came up to me and said “I need your advice” there was a pause, then he said “you know what my problem is don’t you” Well I had assumed he was from a homosexual culture, but that had not affected how any of us treated him. He was just who he was. I was a bit apprehensive because I wasn’t going to say either “Thou shalt not ...” or “its Ok to be ...” .

I feel we are all “damaged goods” in God’s repair shop. And I’ve found that the Holy Spirit has his own agenda for which dents he wants to knock out first. God, in my experience, likes to work it out personally with the person concerned without us either dumping on them our own little prejudices or pet ideas on one hand or undermining his laws with our personal or cultural blind spots on the other!

But I was not expecting what came next. He was actually in a gender reassignment program and had come to our area to cut all his ties and change identities. And here he had just joined a church and formed a whole lot of new relationships which were important to him.

In addition his experience of “maleness” to date had been of one stereotype: beer swilling, football playing, and boorish. He knew he was not that! After sampling our family life and seeing a different model of “being a male” he was thinking he could be that sort!

He was tremendous with the young people. He was a hairdresser. They used to descend on the vicarage after the evening service. Treat of the night was one of them having something special done to their hair in front of a rapt audience.

One anecdote I hope he won’t mind me telling was one time he came up to my then 17 year old son, put his arm round his shoulder and confided, “Oh Dave, I messed up over the weekend: I had sex.” then he brightened up and said “But it was with a girl!”

We had a flow of people staying at the vicarage. Many were young men who came from dysfunctional families before they were converted, and for them it was a chance to see how a “normal” family worked so that they would have something to model their family life on. I remember once feeling a bit sad watching my then 10 year old daughter leading a 38 year old morphine addict around the house explaining the “house rules”. Years later our older daughter was on a tram in Melbourne when a strange man came up to her and said “You are Elizabeth Greentree aren’t you?” with some trepidation she said “Yes” then he went on “My name is xxxxxx and I stayed with you years ago, Just tell your parents they saved my life. I’m even holding down a steady job.” So we also had unknown successes.

There is another person I really should mention (well there are many I really should mention, but this one is an absolute “must”). Brian xxx who took over as vicar’s warden after Roger and Helen xxx left. Brian was absolutely fabulous. He was a phenomenally mature Christian, and a man of sound judgment and absolute integrity. It was not easy for him – he was friends with many of the Nick and Shirley's group: he used to play golf with Nick; he was a keen member of the 4WD club. They were not kind to him when he appeared to back me (in reality Brian was always, I am proud to say, God’s man, never mine!), but he did what he believed was right and godly regardless of the personal cost. He used to drop around one day each week after work and we would talk over things and pray together. He was a very diligent prayer partner born in part from his involvement in the prayer counselling ministry. Brian was never slow to interrupt and correct me if he thought my prayers were off the point, or I was not taking proper responsibility – like praying “forgive me if I have...” instead of “… for what I have ...”They were really great times being co-workers with such godly people!

Church services.

8 am was a more traditional service. The old music group had ignored it. Now Midge the music director came and played so that we had hymns. Right through Ray xxx had been helping each week as lay reader. He was a tremendous person and absolutely solid. Between us we ran a pretty good traditional service, and he was an amazing support to us in the trials that were about to come.

10 am was the big service. There was a different “service leader” each week who led the congregation through the liturgy in a modern informal way. we had a number of very good service leaders who now all shared this attitude that had come in first through the re-formed music group that we were there to serve the congregation and assist them in their worship. Other members of the congregation did bible readings, led the prayers of intercession, children’s talk, helped with communion. The prayer ministry team offered individual prayer after each service. Finally there was tea and coffee to promote a time of fellowship.

The new music group grew quickly, and under Midge’s leadership very soon surpassed in every aspect the old music group. With our new ethos of serving God, each other and the congregation, there was a real bond and also an inclusiveness - which had been so lacking in the old group.

Particularly once the Nick and Shirley’s followers at last gave up trying to continually disrupt the service it was something that would be the envy of just about any parish.

5.30 pm was our youth service. The old one had been nominally “youth” but was continually in danger of being hijacked by “oldies” who wanted to re-create the 70’s charismatic music of their own younger days. I remember overhearing a man ask his then 14 year old daughter what she thought of it. Screwing up her nose she replied: “It’s dork music!”

So we wanted something better. The young people themselves formed the welcoming teams. They formed the singing group, and particularly the older ones in their 20’s the musicians. They got a great deal more participation in the service wherever possible such as leading informal prayers and the readings. We also had a “soup and bread” meal with the service so that it became a great social event - and as I have said large numbers trooped over to the vicarage afterwards.

Music was interesting. Midge of course liked traditional. But in keeping with the “servant-hood” ideal, she organized, encouraged, and often played keyboard with the young musicians and singers. They absolutely loved her ... there was a popular TV ad about this time which led to her being affectionately known as “Big M”.

As it developed we gained diverse, talented musicians. Ones like Kylie and Ben (who married and were missionaries in Russia) and Greg (now with his wife missionaries in Japan) who were studying at Bible College of Victoria, and really good classical musicians. Some of the newly converted men had been performing musicians in the “grunge” music scene.

These all worked harmoniously together to give fantastic music. Some songs were to paraphrase Star Trek: “Its Hillsong Jim, but not as we know it”!

“Hillsong” songs, popular in modern church services all over Australia can be a little too saccharin-sweet! A rock band approach can tighten them up nicely. My favorite was one called “Shelter” - I don’t know if I can do justice to it in writing. Imagine energetic drum roll with electric guitar descending riff as the intro, then rock band style the lead guitarist sort of sing-shouting “You give me shelter, you give me peace, you give me healing and ...” with second guitar, bass guitar, and the younger singers all joining in their part

Or I can still see Ben, brilliant on piano playing while Kylie led “His love keeps following me” with actions. Or Greg, a young successful lawyer who had been converted in his native Western Australia, convicted by God of a calling to preach in Japan and was now in training. He was the best and most passionate evangelistic preacher I have heard. He still had the lawyer’s precision but with the evangelists fire he was something! Japan’s gain was definitely Australia’s loss! Greg had a really good voice and loved the old hymns, and loved them sung at a good tempo. He could make a congregation feel these old hymns were new and alive.

What we had was all so amazing that later when our kids were looking for a church they tried St. Hillary’s - the Melbourne Anglican charismatic mega church, and said “not as good as St. Luke’s. They tried St. Jude’s - the crispy evangelical Anglican mega church and said again: “Not as good as St. Luke’s.

But but our success highlighted the archbishop's poor judgment in backing Nick and Shirley. Could he say “I was wrong” and change tack? Could he swallow his pride? What would he do?

My Adventures with God 56: Foul Play

Chapter 56: Foul Play

I was trying to act honourably towards everyone. Those campaigning against me showed no such scruples.

The diocese had a common goal with Nick and Shirley's people. (They also seemed to resonate with each other, which I think came from a common “progressive” world view.) So they played a sort of game of tag, each helping the other to stir up strife in the parish. Let me give you just a few examples.

There was an election of synod representatives from every parish. I announced it as required and asked people to nominate. By the due date there were only the same number of nominations as places, so next Sunday I announced these “elected unopposed”.

Next vestry meeting I was accused of not announcing the election properly. The vestry sent off a letter to the diocese complaining about my actions and asking the diocese to investigate.

At the following month's vestry meeting transcripts of my announcements (sermons were recorded, but I did not know till then that everything I said was being recorded!) were produced (by one of Shirley's associates who ran the PA group! - there were many in her camp who were themselves honest and honourable but had been swayed by her propaganda)) which showed I had indeed made all the announcements to the letter of the rules.

The vestry could not do anything more to me in the face of this – but they didn't need to – the allegations had been made publicly and to the diocese and were never retracted!

One time I was called in to see the archbishop he told me that Shirley had threatened to sue over the letter I had sent her removing her from the music group. Next vestry meeting I reported this conversation. Peter (Shirley’s husband) jumped to his feet and called me a liar (again!) and assured the vestry that Shirley had never threatened to sue. So vestry wrote to the archbishop relaying all this and asking him to confirm or deny it.

The archbishop wrote back fanning the flames by saying he could not recall saying that and he could not think of any occasion when he could have said it to me. Seriously? He only had to check his diary to know that he had recently called me in to see him!

Interestingly he did put in his reply that he had checked his file and found a memorandum from the bishop which said: “Mr xxx (Shirley's husband Peter) has sought legal advice and has been told the letter is certainly a basis for legal action and that he should advise the archbishop that he intends to proceed.” (as I told the archbishop at the meeting, there was - as any lawyer would know - absolutely no basis for legal action! So I assume was a ruse to put pressure on the archbishop.)

This did not stop Peter getting up at the church AGM and accusing me of lying, because I had said that the archbishop told me that Shirley threatened to sue. “Shirley has never threatened to sue anyone!” purred Peter in to the microphone.

Each year we had to update the electoral roll. This is a roll of people who can vote at church meetings. Eligibility is pretty open. You just have to be over 18, attend the parish church services regularly, say “I am an Anglican” and declare you are not a member of any other church.

A number of people applied but said that they were still members of other denominations. As I was trying to “dot my i's and cross my t's” I asked the bishop what to do. He said they must be welcomed into the Anglican Church at a simple ceremony he would perform at the church. I had never bothered with this sort of formality before, but I obediently informed all those concerned.

The bishop came and all but one agreed to be welcomed into the church at this ceremony. One woman – one of Nick and Shirley's group - refused but still demanded to be put on the roll even though she had declared that she was a member of the Baptist church. I refused. Vestry took up her cause and wrote to the archdeacon.

The archdeacon (next rank down from a bishop) wrote back saying that of course she should be put on the roll, and obviously the vicar (me) was being totally insensitive! I obeyed his order and put her on the roll. Vestry members of Nick and Shirley's group had a field day abusing me and then wrote a letter – read out in church - apologising profusely to the woman for the vicar's “pastoral abuse” of her!

Besides this game of tag between the diocese and Nick & Shirley's group, there were some nasty things being done to fabricate false accusations which were then trumpeted far and wide. Here are just two:

For the first I am quoting, as before, from a contemporary “statutory declaration” made by the witness, The “meeting” she refers to was the one I had with the music group where Jane, the music leader had not told them what I intended as I had asked her to, but rather used the meeting to read out my private letter to Shirley removing her from the group and then to create mayhem.

“ It was a terrible meeting. Shortly after it I suffered a major panic attack and I had a minor breakdown. My treating doctor said that the meeting was the ‘icing on the cake’ which, on top of the family problems I was having at the time tipped me into that condition. I had never had an attack before.

As soon as David Greentree heard about it he contacted my home and spoke to my husband. At that time I was not able to speak on the telephone. My husband told David this, so ho didn’t ring me after that until I was much better and able to cope with phone calls.

However while I was sick I suffered a barrage of telephone calls mainly from Shirley xxx and some from (one of Shirley’s friends) even though they were told I found it difficult to speak on the telephone and needed rest and peace and quiet.

In these telephone calls Shirley said to me words to the effect “David doesn’t care about you” and “How many times has David been over to see you?”

I kept telling Shirley that David had rung up as soon as he heard and that I had asked people not to disturb me until I was feeling better, but it did not stop her constant calls and disparaging comments about David.

Whenever Shirley or (Shirley’s friend) rang me, the conversation would start with “How are you?” and then the rest of the conversation would be taken up with Shirley or (the friend) saying poisonous things about David.

Shirley often just referred to David as “Greentree” and kept saying such things as “This (meaning my breakdown) is all Greentree’s fault” and “Greentree’s going to pay for it” and “Look what Greentree’s done to you.”

The telephone calls became so frequent and so bad that I had to ask David to announce in church that no-one should phone me for the time being.

When I was feeling a little better one Sunday I came to church. Almost as soon as I set foot in the door, Andy xxx [an associate of Nick's] came up to me and said “Are you aware that your name has been left off the prayer sheet? Did you request that?” I was bewildered and said that I didn’t know anything about it.

When I went up to take Communion Shirley xxx and Judy xxx both came up beside me as I stood in the line, saying such things as “How do you feel about taking Communion from a man who cares so little about you that he takes your name off the prayer list without consulting you?”

I was so upset by their comments that I ran out of the church in tears.

I was followed out into the car park by Shirley xxx Judy xxx (and two of their supporters) to “comfort” me, saying such things as “David Greentree will get his just desserts” and “The man is evil” and “He will pay a price for what he has done to people like yourself.”

After all this I found out that David had not removed my name from the prayer list, but that Judy xxx (vicar’s secretary) had made an error and left it off the list when she was typing it. Yet she was one of the ones suggesting that David had done this to me.

David and Sue Greentree played a very great part in my recovery.”

(I have as usual put “xxx” in place of surnames, and I added the information that Andy was one of Nick's associates. Judy was indeed vicar's secretary – her employment was in the hands of vestry not the vicar! She was a close friend of Shirley's)

There was an elderly shut in lady who lived with her slightly retarded daughter. They were not able any more to sit through a church service, so I took communion to them once a month.

While I was on holidays the old lady died, (though only just before I returned). I came back to find that the funeral was to take place in the next door Anglican church. I rang the minister and he told me that the daughter had come to him as she had been told that I would not allow her mother’s funeral to take place in St. Luke’s. He graciously let me be part of the service at his church, which was attended by a large number from both St. Luke’s and the dissident’s church (this happened after Nick and Shirley's group had been given their own church just down the road from St. Luke's).

I visited the daughter later and obliquely tried to find out what had happened. She was reticent in a way that made me think she had been frightened into not to telling me anything. However she said enough to convince me that a certain woman had gone to her (possibly just before her mother died) and convinced them of the lie that I would not allow the funeral at St. Luke’s. Though how this person persuaded them of this when I had been faithfully taking them Communion every month I don’t know.

What I do know is that the Archbishop personally reprimanded me for “refusing to take this funeral”. He was not interested in my explanation, but named the person who had complained to him. You guessed it, the woman who complained to the archbishop was the same one who had set up the whole situation by lying to the two ladies!

So in both these, and who knows how many other instances Nick and Shirley's people themselves did something to cause hurt to someone, then blamed it on me, and then used it to cause trouble for me or to try to make the person turn against me and join their camp!

My Adventures with God Ch 48: "The Empire Strikes Back"

Ch 48 “The Empire Strikes Back”

Retribution for my very mild attempt to restrict Shirley's power was swift.

At the next meeting of the church council there were bitter recriminations that I had “left off” Shirley from these two ministry areas as she had a large and devoted following.

Looking back I suppose this was meant to be my opportunity to apologize and put her back into these positions. I didn't.

Then from about March (1992) there was s sudden (clearly orchestrated) and substantial decrease in church contributions from the congregation.

Next two of Shirley's followers offered parley. Sue and I went and met with these emissaries. Shirley herself had refused my offer that she meet with me so that we could talk and pray about whether she should be reinstated to leading services and assisting with the Communion chalice.

At the meeting “their” terms were uncompromising, also surprising. For Shirley to receive an apology and be reinstated came as no surprise, but the other demand did. Rodger was to be dismissed from being a church Warden! They assured me “If you get rid of Rodger everything will be all right!”

During the meeting it had become clear that the emissaries, and I believe they were voicing the opinion of their entire group, thought I was a weakling who could not possibly take any action except as someone else's puppet. It says a lot about their own relationships with God that it clearly never entered their minds that I might actually pray about things, and that I might – as indeed I had done in this instance – have taken action because I believed it was the right and godly thing to do. By contrast, Sue, in talking about why she married me said I made her feel safe because while she knew she could do things which would make me upset and angry, nothing she could do would make me do something I believed was morally wrong. 

So Shirley's people had taken it into their heads that simce I had acted to slightly reduce Shirley's scope of ministry in the church, Rodger or his wife Helen must have put me up to it. They were wrong, quite wrong! But even if they had been right, to publicly sack Rodger from being one of the three church wardens would have been a humiliation and “punishment” far out of proportion to Shirley being quietly dropped from service leading and administering the chalice. Far more than “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” let alone following Jesus' commandments!

I refused to sack Rodger. No other “peace” terms were offered to us.

The shortfall in church income remained at a constant rate which would amount to about $30,000 in a year.

About July the Wardens and church committee decided to issue a questionnaire to the congregation ostensibly to find out the reason(s) for this decrease. This action was put forward by supporters of Shirley, and they wrote the text of the questionnaire, which invited negative comments.

There were only replies from a third of the congregation, however these were tabulated and reported back to the three church wardens and myself.

But the data from replies that did come in was very interesting.

Some said they did not realise there was a problem and would try to give more.

Some said they had cut their giving because they had lost their job, or had reduced incomes. Some of these were very touching in the selfless and generous spirit the writers displayed.

Many said they had not altered their giving.

A group boasted that they had reduced or ceased giving and they accompanied that statement with really nasty comments about me. Amazingly the total number who voiced dissatisfaction only amounted to 11% of the morning congregation. And one did not have to look far beyond Shirley's home group to find that number. Also as I said, Shirley's home group included many of the wealthier people in the church.

Also while not every one who said that they had decreased or stopped giving gave a figure, when one added up the amounts that were stated, it came near the decrease the church had experienced. It was not rocket science to deduce that while only a third of the congregation as a whole had replied, nearly all those who were “dissatisfied” had taken the opportunity offered them to do so!

I decided to present this (not naming Shirley or her home group of course – just the numbers!) to the congregation. So Sunday 13^th September 1992 I handed out the tabulated numbers – showing that the church's shortfall in income came from just 11% of the morning congregation.

Shirley's people were furious at my disclosure! There seemed no limit or end to their rage.

I had to endure abuse from them about disclosing what should have been “secret” information, I was accused of lying, because the real figures did not suit their agenda. And so on.

Roger and Helen also had to endure abuse and vilification – although I had deliberately not consulted or even informed Roger about presenting the tabulated figures to the congregation. Shirley had even come to see me and demanded that Helen and Roger be expelled from the church!

At the beginning of December Roger came to see me to tell me that he and Helen were crumpling under the hatred that was being directed at them. He said that, after much prayer they both felt that God was releasing them to save their health by leaving the church.

I made no attempt to dissuade him. I understood perfectly how God in his infinite kindness often pulls his servants out of the fray when they are wounded and wearied. God loves us. So different for the devil who comes only “to steal and destroy” and who drives those who serve him on and on until they too are destroyed! 

But I was really sad to lose Roger and Helen. They had met regularly with Sue and me to pray for and about the church. They were good and upright people and faithful servants of Christ.

Roger sent a letter of resignation to the secretary of the Church Committee (and a more explicit one to me). The one the secretary read out included as the reasons: “the rumours and innuendos about us” and the one to me added “the level of criticism directed towards us has gone unabated … I also realise that you and Sue have been criticised for your relationship with us ...”

I announced Roger's resignation in church the next Sunday.

Shirley's husband Peter – a member of the church council – then circulated a letter accusing me of lying in this announcement:

“What right have you (David) then to stand up in front of the congregation and tell us all, the (name deleted)'s are leaving because of a two year “campaign: against them? David this is by no means the first time you have mislead the congregation with extremely inaccurate statements, and I would expect that this matter is put right without delay.”

Always the same call! Obey us! (in this thing for a start but in everything in the long run) and all will be well!

For any Christian minister the only reply is the quote: I am, for Christ's sake, every one's servant: but I obey only one Master!