“He can’t be serious” were my first thoughts to the On Line article “A Christian church” by Peter Bowden 22/2/2017.

He writes: “The dictionaries will tell you that the word Christian has two meanings: One is a follower of the Christian Church, the second is having qualities usually associated with Christians, especially those of decency, kindness, and fairness. This is an article about the second type of Christian. Or at least a second type of Christian Church.

A long term friend sent me recently two copies of the Uniting Church's magazine "Insights". He mentioned the article by David Palmer that was worth reading. But the article that impressed me the most was the one by the President of the Uniting Church of Australia on the marriage debate. He said: "We are committed to being an inclusive church that embraces LBGTIQ people."
And added: "And to culturally appropriate discussions about relationships and marriage across our diversity."

It is a far cry from the other churches. The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney has issued a call to arms for true believers to oppose same-sex marriage. The Catholic Church goes even further. In an address to a right wing think tank recently, Anthony Fisher, Archbishop of Sydney, suggested that Australia's democracy is at a turning point, that our democracy hinges on an upcoming plebiscite on gay nuptials…

The Uniting Church also opposes repeal of 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act . Another blog attacks it for this position. Yet that blogger is apparently unaware that the Moderator of the Uniting Church is a woman, and a Korean, brought up in a Buddhist family. It is Buddhism's Dalai Lama, we must remember, along with the Sikhs and Jains, who gave us what must be the overriding moral rule: Ahimsa: "If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them."

Read further here:

Why did I think of this? 
Let’s take Peter Bowden’s definition of ‘Christian’ to begin with.
‘Christian’ has two meanings:
1.  follower of the Christian Church
2.  qualities usually associated with Christians, especially those of decency, kindness, and fairness.
These days a ‘follower of the Christian church” could claim his/her beliefs are that of ‘a broad church’.  Along the lines of what the Liberal Party claims when defending some of its current policies:  “We are a broad church”.  In other words, Liberal beliefs today – and those of the ‘Christian’ churches - are a hotch-potch, a patch-work of cobbled together beliefs, that bare hardly any relation to what was once believed.

As to “qualities usually associated with Christians…”
Christians need to take stock here.  Just as the historical Jesus is preached as being gentle, meek and mild’ and they, His followers, are seen as ‘decent, kind and fair’ as well as ‘gentle, meek and mild, there is another side to Jesus Christ that is ignored.

Dorothy L. Sayers reminded her readers of this side to Jesus Christ in “Creed or Chaos” (1947) when responding to a Dr. Selbie’s “complaint ‘that insistence on dogma only affronts people and throws into relief the internecine quarrels of Christendom’, may I say two things?”
“First, I believe it to be a grave mistake to present Christianity as something charming and popular with no offence in it.  Seeing that Christ went about the world giving the most violent offence to all kinds of people it would seem absurd to expect that the doctrine of His Person can be so presented as to offend nobody. We cannot blink the fact that gentle Jesus meek and mild was so stiff in His opinions and so inflammatory in His language that He was thrown out of church, stoned, hunted from place to place, and finally gibbeted as a firebrand and a public danger. Whatever His peace was, it was not the peace of an amiable indifference; and He said in so many words that what He brought with Him was fire and sword. That being so, nobody need be too much surprised or disconcerted at finding that a determined preaching of Christian dogma may sometimes results in a few angry letters of protest or a difference of opinion on the parish council…”

Not only have the NeoMarxists invaded the campuses as Jordan Peterson exclaimed in his video (, the Old Marxists infiltrated the churches and teaching academies many years ago.

C.H. Douglas writing of the situation in the 1940s

“… I may dislike anything Dr. Hewlett Johnson says or writes in admiration of a (Soviet) regime founded on massacre and perpetuated in tyranny and marauding; but I can and do protest when it is done by the Dean of Canterbury, without a disclaimer of its fundamentally anti-Christian philosophy, principles and practice….”
 - - “The Realistic Position of the Church of England” p. 4 .

And then there was the exposure of the infiltration of the churches in Australia by former undercover agent Mrs. Anne Neill as published in The Sunday Mail 16/12/1961.  Anne Neill noted the presence of the Red Dean at a 1950s "Congress of the Peoples for Peace” organised “to proclaim the Communist doctrine”.

Australia’s Own 1950s Undercover ‘Housewife’ Agent
Older League supporters will remember either hearing personally (the lady spoke on a number of League platforms) or reading stories of Mrs. Anne Neill. As a 52-year-old Adelaide housewife, she spent seven years as a member of the Communist Party whilst carrying out doing undercover work for the Australian Security. Mrs. Neill's story was published in The Sunday Mail, 16/12/61. Australia had her own "clergymen who then walked serenely and happily through the anti-God museums, the politicians who claimed that no system of society could possibly be more equitable and just, lawyers who admired Soviet justice, and economists who praised the Soviet economy...." thus, the public release of the story of Anne Neill must have come as quite a shock to the 1950-60s Communists in Adelaide, Australia.
As a worker in 20 different Communist-influenced groups, she reported regularly to Australian Security about their activities. This was surely one loyal Australian lady who could have told us more about the Communist use of 'fronts' and well understood Babette Gross' directive:
"You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a Communist. You do not call upon people to support the Soviets. Never. You claim to be an independent minded idealist. You don't really understand politics but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break."
Called Upon to Take on Role
When Mrs. Neill was asked to take on the role of security agent, she wondered what were her qualifications for such an onerous task; "… in my family we had grown up with a tradition of service... accustomed to accept responsibility. My father was respected as a good neighbour... This for me was a path of duty".
She spoke of the starry-eyed comrades who attended the 1950s "Congress of the Peoples for Peace" at the Konzerthaus in Vienna. Here in the great hall, "representatives from all over the world had gathered to discuss 'peaceful co-existence' – and to proclaim the Communist doctrine... The Red Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Hewlitt Johnson, was there", as was "... the Rev. Allan Brand," from Australia.
Anne Neill's report reveals the rot had well and truly set in and was eating away at the foundations of our Society including the Christian Church more than fifty years ago. Yes, "by attacking the social fabric, the feminists inflicted more damage to Western society than Communists ever dreamed possible..." But, this may not have happened had the faithful not been blind to 'the enemy within', an enemy who managed to penetrate to the very heart of our Faith and Culture.
As reported in: 15 August 2003.
And What of Those ‘Starry-Eyed Comrades’ ?
Here we quote that great Russian writer who actually lived under the system – and survived to tell the tale.  Alexander Solzhenitsyn sets the scene:

“My friend Panin and I are lying on the middle shelf of a Stolypin compartment and have set ourselves
up comfortably, tucked our salt herring in our pockets so we don’t need water and can go to sleep. But
at some station or other they shove into our compartment . . . a Marxist scholar! We can even tell this
from his goatee and spectacles. He doesn’t hide the fact: he is a former Professor of the Communist
Academy. We hang head down in the square cutout——and from his very first words we see that he is:
impenetrable. But we have been serving time for a long while, and have a long time left to serve, and
we value a merry joke. We must climb down to have a bit of fun! There is ample space left in the compartment, and so we exchange places with someone and crowd in:
“You’re not too crowded?”
“No, it’s all right.”
“Have you been in the jug a long time?”
“Long enough.”
“Are you past the halfway mark?”
“Look over there: how poverty-stricken our villages are—straw thatch, crooked huts.”
“An inheritance from the Tsarist regime.”
“Well, but we’ve already had thirty Soviet years.”
“That’s an insignificant period historically.”
“It’s terrible that the collective farmers are starving.”
“But have you looked in all their ovens?”
“]ust ask any collective farmer in our compartment.”
“Everyone in jail is embittered and prejudiced.”
“But I've seen collective farms myself.”
“That means they were uncharacteristic.”
(The goatee had never been in any of them-—-that way it was simpler.)
“Just ask the old folks: under the Tsar they were well fed, well clothed, and they used to have so many holidays.”
“I’m not even going to ask. It’s a subjective trait of human memory to praise everything in the past.  The cow that died is the one that gave twice the milk. (Sometimes he even cited proverbs!) And our people don’t like holidays. They like to work.”.
“But why is there a shortage of bread in many cities?”
“Right before the war, for example.”
“Not true! Before the war, in fact, everything had been worked out.”
“Listen, at that time in all the cities on the Volga there were queues of thousands of people . . .”
“Some local failure in supply. But more likely your memory is failing you.”
“But there’s a shortage now!”
“Old wives’ tales. We have from seven to eight billion poods of grain.”
“And the grain itself is rotten.”
“Not at all. We have been successful in developing new varieties of grain.” . . .
And so forth. He is imperturbable. He speaks in a language which requires no effort of the mind.  And arguing with him is like walking through a desert.  It’s about people like that that they say:
“He made the rounds of all the smithies and came home unshod.” 
And when they write in their obituaries:
“perished tragically during the period of the cult,” this should be corrected to read: “perished comically.”…
To argue with him was useless. It was much more interesting to play with him . . . no, not at chess, but at the game of “comrades.” There really is such a game. It is a very simple game. Just play up to him a couple of times or so, use some of his own pet words and phrases. He will like it. For he has grown accustomed to find that all around him . . . are enemies. He has become weary of snarling and doesn’t like to tell his stories because all those stories will be twisted around and thrown right back in his face.
But if he takes you for one of his own, he will quite humanly disclose to you what he has seen at the station:
People are passing by, talking, laughing, life goes on. The Party is providing leadership, people are being moved from job to job. Yet you and I are languishing here in prison, there are a handful of us, and we must write and write petitions, begging a review of our cases, begging for a pardon. . .  .”

We conclude with the words of C.H. Douglas:
 “The business of the Church in politics is to be The Authority on the Mills of God, which are, inter alia Political Principles which can be checked like any other genuine Laws, by their observed operation over a sufficient period of time…”

The Mills of God may grind slowly – but they do grind exceedingly small, as we are living to find out!