Dear Editor,

I write this letter not out of anger, but out of disappointment and confusion.

For nearly three decades, my late husband and I were faithful members of the EFKS congregation in Vaiala. During that time, we gave generously to the church, supported its work, and believed in the values of fairness, stewardship, accountability, and Christian compassion.

Many years ago, I became one of the first tenants of the John Williams Building in Apia. I rented a space there to operate my café and boutique. When I first moved in, the premises were far from ready for the purpose for which they were being leased. At my own expense, I tiled the space, installed air conditioning units, industrial fans, and equipped the kitchen so that I could operate my business.

Over the years, whenever maintenance issues arose, I often found myself paying for repairs and upkeep because waiting for action was not always practical for a business owner. I even undertook renovations to the public restroom attached to my premises because it had fallen into a state of disrepair. These were improvements and maintenance costs that I absorbed over many years without complaint because I valued my business, my customers, and my relationship with the church.

When the time came for me to retire and relocate my business to my own property, I notified the church and began removing my belongings. Upon returning to collect my ceiling fans and air conditioning units, I discovered they had already been removed. When I inquired about them, I was informed that they now belonged to the church.

I chose not to pursue the matter. I accepted the loss and moved on.

What I did not expect was to later receive a demand for nearly $30,000 in alleged unpaid rent.

I was stunned.

Not because I believed I was above my obligations, but because I could not reconcile that figure against the decades of improvements, maintenance, repairs, and investments that I personally funded in a building owned by the church. I could not reconcile it with the property and equipment I left behind. I could not reconcile it against nearly thirty years of loyalty and support to the EFKS.

As a retired widow, I explained my circumstances and my concerns regarding the claim. The matter ultimately proceeded to legal action and was referred to mediation. During that process, despite my belief that the situation was unfair and failed to account for the many improvements, repairs, and assets I had contributed over the years, I agreed to a mediated arrangement to pay $200 per month.

I did so in good faith and in the hope of bringing the matter to a practical resolution, notwithstanding my continuing concerns about the circumstances that gave rise to the debt.

 This brings me to the question that has weighed heavily on my heart.

Recently, the public learned that church leadership chose to forgive a debt of approximately $960,000 in church funds that had allegedly been misappropriated. Whether one agrees with that decision or not, it was presented as an act of forgiveness and reconciliation.

That decision caused me to reflect on my own circumstances. As someone who spent decades supporting the church, investing in church property, and ultimately entering into a mediated repayment arrangement despite my concerns about fairness, I cannot help but wonder why similar consideration, understanding, or acknowledgement was not extended in my case.

The contrast is difficult for many ordinary members to understand.

If mercy is available for some, why does it appear unavailable for others?

If accountability can be set aside in one circumstance, why is it pursued so vigorously in another?

I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking for consistency.

The message being sent is difficult to understand. To many ordinary members, it appears that one standard exists for those in positions of influence and another for ordinary church members who have spent their lives contributing faithfully and quietly.

I have spent much of my life supporting the EFKS. I have donated, volunteered, worshipped, and invested in church property as both a tenant and a member. Yet today I find myself wondering whether those years of loyalty carried any value at all.

The church often teaches us about justice, compassion, forgiveness, and fairness. Those teachings should not only be preached from the pulpit. They should also be reflected in decisions made behind closed doors.

I leave these questions with the leadership of the EFKS and with the wider public, not out of bitterness, but in the hope that they will reflect honestly on what message is being sent to the faithful members who have supported the church throughout their lives.

Respectfully,

Savaiinaea Iliganoa D. Sapolu