In late November of 2012, just a few weeks ago, the Church of England voted against the ordination of women bishops. In 1975, they had voted for women priests, and the ordination of women bishops was considered to be the next logical step.  On 12 March 1994, the first 32 women had been ordained as Church of England priests.

The measure to consecrate women as bishops was backed overwhelmingly by the Church of England Synod, but fell short of the required two thirds majority among the laity.   Having set up their own voting system, it appears that when that system doesn’t deliver what the majority wants, then recriminations start.

Many prominent people uttered their dismay.  The current Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, warned that the decision would diminish the Church’s credibility in the public eye.  The Archbishop elect also wanted the measure to go through as did Lord Carey, a previous Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Prime Minister was disappointed with the outcome, and one prominent politician said that there was no theological reason why women shouldn’t be bishops, and he was bemoaning the lack of political considerations in the church!

The good and the great lined up to decry the result, and there was talk of having another vote soon. One speaker said that the church must reconvene to discuss this, meaning that the wrong result was reached. That reminded me of the situation where the Euro was voted against by Ireland and another vote was taken later when the decision was overturned. Just keep voting until you get the answer you want!

Headlines in UK newspapers included “Women bishops: a failure of leadership”; “Women bishops: Did feminism undermine the campaign?”;  “Church has lost credibility in society, says Archbishop”; plus many others.

There was discussion about the “antidisestablishmentarianism” issue, which means “opposition to the disestablishment of the Church of England”; that is, not to remove the Anglican Church’s status as the state Church of England. Some thoughts were expressed that perhaps now was the time to separate the national church from the state.

In the interviews I saw and the reports I read, Scripture was generally conspicuous by its absence. The biblical teaching that women are to keep silent in the churches (1 Corinthians 14:34; 1 Timothy 2:11-12) was raised once in my hearing, and not answered. One submission was that since Jesus was born of a woman and the first person to see Jesus after the crucifixion was also a woman, women should be allowed to become bishops!! I felt that that was hardly a convincing argument!

Should we be surprised? For years, the Church of England has had senior figures giving the distinct impression that they didn’t believe in the Word of God.  Some years ago, one bishop was reported as saying that the crucifixion was a “conjuring trick with bones.” This same person became one of the first clerics in the Church of England to publicly bless a civil partnership between two homosexual men, one of whom was a vicar! It seems that it is expected that God has to conform to the requirements of modern society.

There is little fidelity to the Bible today in the world outside of the true Church of God. His instruction manual is consistently ignored. Those of us who believe in the Bible are not subject to the dictates of men or political pressure; nor are we pressed into “modernising”. We simply let the Bible be our guide and had the Church of England taken the same stance, the voting over women priests and women bishops would never have been undertaken in the first place, and much angst and difficulties would have been eliminated.

For more information, please read our Q&A, entitled “Sermons by Women?” and our booklet, “The Keys to Happy Marriages and Families“.

The day following the recent US Presidential election, I tuned in to BBC radio and television programmes to see what the reaction was. One question was asked about what the Republican party now had to do in the light of this defeat. Answers given by several commentators and American politicians were that President Obama and his team had understood the mood of the country about such matters as gay rights and abortion, as the liberal agenda moved forward. In fact, one “blogger” said that the Republican party was primarily a religious party and would have to leave religious matters alone, if they ever wanted to get elected again. Such, it appears, is the antipathy towards God and His Word.

A few days before the election, hurricane Sandy hammered the eastern coast of the United States and caused billions of dollars’ worth of damage. Hurricane Katrina caused huge damage to New Orleans in 2005, and there have been many other disasters in between.

Not one commentator I heard mentioned the sowing and reaping principle.  The agenda of approving perversion, killing in war and murdering the unborn (just three of a raft of immoral behaviours) seems to have no connection in their minds with the punishments now being experienced. But the Bible says: “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Galatians 6:7).

God promises blessings for righteous behaviour and punishment for unrighteous behaviour (see Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28–these are principles that still apply in our time). There seems to be little or no recognition of this in society today, and these connections still go unrecognised.

The Church of God has forecast the downward spiral of our nations for many decades but, unfortunately, as people grow ever more distant from God and His ways, so the punishments will continue and increase. If ungodly practices were repented of and eliminated, countries would benefit enormously, but there seems to be no general recognition that behaviour is wrong!

As our nations continue to lurch from crisis to crisis, many more bad days lie ahead. After the Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord, the world will have the righteous rule and government of God on earth. But until that time, with no leaders having the answers and none of them truly trusting God, more punishments will inevitably follow.

In Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet”, the opening line is, “to be or not to be, that is the question”. This was brought to mind when comments were received about our weekly Updates. The reader appreciated some valid statements. However, he felt that there was too much emphasis on the “end time”. Whilst he conceded that the Q&A’s were often genuinely educational, he criticized that they were sometimes too dogmatic.

The weekly Update is to keep all readers apprised of what is going on in the world and often quotes sources that we normally wouldn’t have access to, or come across. Matthew 24:42 tells us to “watch”, as do other Scriptures, and we cannot be watching if we ignore all that is going on in the world. What else would we put in our “Update”? The very word means “the latest information about something” (compare “The Oxford Dictionary of English”), and what could be more important than world news that is leading to the collapse of this civilisation and the ushering in of the World Tomorrow?

Should we be dogmatic in our Q&A section?  Again, “The Oxford Dictionary of English” defines dogmatic as being an adjective that “is inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true”.  As we prove the question from the Bible, why should we be anything other than dogmatic? To be otherwise would show that we are not sure about our answer, and that would be wrong. We see a world where “diplomacy” can rule and where answers are given that can be taken either way, thus satisfying both or all parties.  We take no such stance.  

If we have biblical proof on a particular subject, we feel obliged to be dogmatic about it. God says in Isaiah 58:1 that his servants are to “Cry aloud, spare not”, and whilst this is about telling “My people their transgression, And the house of Jacob their sins”, the same principle applies to answering questions about God’s Word. We are not to hold back when the answer is in the Bible. If we don’t know the answer, or are unsure about a matter, then we will say so.

Our gentle critic perhaps might like us to be less sure of what God’s Word says. That is not what we will do in the future. Our Update which comprises, amongst other things, world news, editorials and the weekly Q&A’s, is posted or e-mailed, free of charge, to all who wish to receive it. And all who do receive it are left in no doubt as to the gravity of world conditions and of answers to biblical questions which are “undeniably true”.

To be or not to be… dogmatic? Yes, we must be dogmatic, because the sure foundation of our answers on biblical questions is always the Word of God.

In my diary there is a list of religious festivals and today (20th July) is shown as the first day of Ramadan, which is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, and the month in which the Quran was “revealed” in the 7th century.   This is the month that Muslims spend fasting during the daylight hours from dawn to dusk.

My diary also shows festivals and dates for a number of different religions: Christian-Western, Christian-Eastern Orthodox, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish and Chinese.   Quite an eclectic mix!   And most churchmen today would probably welcome such religious diversity.  

In her essay “Religious Diversity: Some Implications for Monotheism”, Rita M Gross, an international writer, states that “many people value the feeling that their religion is indeed superior to others and regard such religious chauvinism as a necessary component of religious commitment, or even a virtue to be cultivated among the faithful.   In their official theologies, most religions have dealt with religious diversity only in a cursory or inadequate fashion. Frequently, religions have encouraged mutual hostility by teaching that foreign religions are not only different, but also demonic, or at least inferior.”

However, if we believe the Bible, we will read that God says: “… the LORD Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other” (Deuteronomy 4:39), and: “Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me” (Deuteronomy 32:39), and: “I am the LORD, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me” (Isaiah 45:5).   There are many other references, but suffice to say that the God of the Bible is very specific on this matter.

In 1 Corinthians 14:33, God states that He “is not the author of confusion”, and my diary contains a page that is a litany of confusion when it prints out all of these various religious festivals.    As if that isn’t enough, professing Christianity is, likewise, a place where there is much confusion and even contention.

The true Church of God that Jesus founded on the day of Pentecost nearly two thousand years ago, is where the true festivals can be found.   There will come a time, after Christ’s return, when any diary will only contain the true Holy Days, and confusion will be gone.   I am sure that all of God’s people pray for that time to come.

And then religious chaos will be no more!

A religious minister in the UK founded the Polite Society in 1986. Later they changed the name to “the Campaign for Courtesy” as they decided that the word “polite” had passed its sell-by date. Politeness can be defined as “The act of showing respect or regard for others”. Wikipedia defines it this way: “Politeness is best expressed as the practical application of good manners or etiquette”.

However, there is the “Polite Society” organisation in the USA which is actually about guns and weapons, and they state that “Our name derives from Robert Heinlein’s famous quotation, ‘An armed society is a polite society.’” I would suggest that the quotation, and their adoption of it, is a misuse of the phrase.

One writer on an Internet forum opined: “Yet, it is that acceptable social condition called politeness that polite society itself, through its repression and recrimination has been the greatest source of the travesties and injustices of Man against Fellow Man.” Having read that phrase a number of times, I’m still unsure what he means except that politeness does not rank high on his list of attributes.

Showing respect and regard for others is not about carrying and using guns, nor is it repressive or recriminatory. It is simply another definition that echoes the requirement of a true Christian. It is certainly about courtesy, good manners and etiquette and considers others as much as self.

It was interesting to read the story that youngsters gave up their seats on a bus to two pensioners (who were two of the founder members of the National Polite Society). The couple was so impressed by their courteous behaviour that they nominated them for a Polite Society award. I am sure this was encouraging to the recipients, but it does reflect that which should be the norm in society is now considered old fashioned, out of date or unnecessary! Not so, some decades ago, but politeness is not something that seems “cool” today.

One quotation I read was very interesting when the writer said: “One of the greatest victories you can gain over someone is to beat him at politeness.”

William Arnot, a clergyman, wrote in his book “Illustrations of the Book of Proverbs”: “I do not say that politeness will do as a substitute for religion; but politeness is of use as the handmaid of religion. Indeed, rude speech and manners are both the signs of moral evil already existing, and the causes of increasing it… Christianity with its living power in the heart will produce refinement in the manners; and outward refinement will throw a shield round inward principle, and keep it out of harm’s way.”

The Bible sums up, succinctly, the qualities needed to reflect our calling, showing politeness and courtesy:

• “Nothing is to be done out of jealousy or vanity; instead, out of humility of mind everyone should give preference to others” (Philippians 2:3 NJB).  
• “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12 NIV).  
• “Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another” (Romans 12:10 NIV).  
• “Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous (1 Peter 3:8 New King James Version)

Pentecost, which we’ve just celebrated, was the time when the Holy Spirit was given to the New Testament Church (See Acts chapter 2). Today, baptised members of the true Church of God can reflect their calling by being polite and courteous in a dark society, which emphasises the promotion of self and other carnal traits. Our way is the opposite to that, as Scripture reveals. It is a way that improves society, creates happiness and ensures that we are moving towards being in the Kingdom of God at Christ’s return.