Sunday, Jun 26th

Last update:10:41:26 AM GMT

You are here: Christian Doctrine Church Life Women Priests & Pastors

Women Priests & Pastors

E-mail Print PDF

The Church of England finally decided, in early 1994, to accept women as full priests. But was this as momentous as it seems? No, not really. There is an irony in all this, for the Church of England male priesthood had been fighting against something that they themselves are guilty of - the priesthood itself!

The argument as to whether or not women should be ordained to the Anglican priesthood is variegated with layers of theological nonsense. The nonsense is not confined to Anglicans, however - it applies to all denominations who ordain so-called 'priests'/pastors, male or female. To see what this nonsense is, we must discover what scripture tells us about the components in this silly plot. The exercise will provide the definitions we need for the argument and once we have these definitions, the whole idea of the priesthood, let alone the female priesthood, falls like a pack of flimsy cards.

For our purposes, we will look at ordination, the priesthood and the role of women. This will spill over into other areas, such as God's creation of woman, His purposes for females, the qualifications of pastors, women in the early church as illustrated by Paul, and so on. We will not look at all these issues, so there is far more to examine! Once we have looked at these points of scripture, it will take but a brief analysis of them to come to a definite conclusion - that a female priesthood is a farcical and unbiblical entity (or, rather, a non-entity!). Similar conclusions apply to women 'pastors'.

Throughout the debates that led up to the first ordination of women priests, virtually all those male Anglican priests who voted to ordain them said that there was nothing unbiblical about it. And many priests who voted against the idea, did so for reasons other than the Biblical ones! In short, then, very few Anglican priests know their Bibles, or how to argue Biblically. Rather, they tend to argue from within an Anglican (not a Biblical) thought process and structure, as though the Anglican 'church' was actually a church! In fact, the name 'Church of England' is not a valid name. This is why we begin our study with a definition of 'church'...something most Anglican priests appear to know nothing about.


The word 'church' is only found in the New Testament but, it can also refer to the Old Testament saints and to the Israelites (though there is much debate about that!). One word is used for 'church' - ekklesia. This word has several meanings and so the meaning we use to interpret its use in any one case depends on its context.

The word, when applied to Christian settings, can mean one or all of the following:

  • An assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting;
  • A company of Christians who observe their own religious rites, meetings, etc., and who manage their own affairs (i.e., the local church is spoken of here, NOT a denomination);
  • Those who, anywhere (e.g. village, town or house), constitute the above and are united into one body (i.e. the 'Body of Christ');
  • The whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth (i.e. the Church universal);
  • The assembly of faithful Christians already dead but received by the Lord*.

(*Note: This is sometimes taken to mean 'received into heaven', but this is a loose interpretation, for scripture does not tell us that we immediately go to heaven when we die. However, we are told that Jesus and the thief went to 'paradise' - a place that is not heaven, but is an intermediate place. We know this because when Christ rose again, He had not yet ascended into heaven. Thus, He must have been in the place He said He would go to - Paradise).

When the context of ekklesia is about non-Christians, it can also mean:

  • A chance gathering of men, possibly for riotous purposes;
  • A meeting of citizens;
  • A meeting of a council for decision-making;
  • The assembly of the Israelites (although some within this assembly can also be the 'faithful remnant', i.e., saved by faith, as was Moses).

The word ekklesia is a compound of the word ek or ex, which is a primary preposition denoting origin. That is, a point from which action or motion proceeds. It means 'out of'' or 'from'. Also, ekklesia derives from kaleo, meaning 'to bear a name before men', or 'named', or 'invite', or 'call by name'. Because the word ek or ex denotes origin, it means that the church has its origin and very being in God. Thus it cannot exist outside of God. This is important when considering the actions and beliefs of those who call themselves Christian (including women 'priests' and 'pastors') but, who refuse to act according to declared Truth, God's word.

Readers are urged not to switch off when faced with these original-language words and meanings, for they bring a wealth of information to Believers and to their understanding of scripture. What the little word exercise above shows us is that The Church has been called out by name, a name that is to be known before all men. It has been 'called out of' the world by an Holy God. Believers can be known by various names, the most common of which is 'Christian'. Other names for a Christian include 'disciple', 'follower of the Way', etc. (Although Christians have various names, every name has the same 'qualifications for admission').

Whilst the word 'church' refers to groups of people, it must be borne in kind that every one within the group must ALL bear the same qualifying marks, as the following references indicate:

Matthew 16:18

"...thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church..."

Obviously, this refers to the universal church and not just to a local congregation of Believers. The same kind of reference is found in texts such as 1 Corinthians 14:23, etc. (Note: The 'rock' in this text is Jesus Christ and NOT Peter, as Roman Catholics suppose! Thus the church of Christ is built upon Christ, not on Peter).

Acts 2:47

"...and the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

Again, this means the church universal. Note that those who were added to the universal church were all 'saved'. We will look at what this means later.

Acts 7:38

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel..."

This text speaks of Moses 'in the church'. Primarily this means 'with the assembly of the Israelites'. However, we should bear in mind that there is no real split, spiritually, between the faithful Israelites and those who are saved in the New Testament. This is what is meant by the text telling us that not all who call themselves Israelites are true Israelites. Also, when God speaks of the faithful Israelites, He calls them a 'remnant' - a term He also uses to describe faithful Christians. Thus 'church' can refer either to faithful Jews or to Christians - the connection being their mutual faith which saves them.

(This will not be accepted by dispensationalists, who believe that there is an essential difference between Jewish Believers and gentile Christians. I can see no such difference theologically). However, the New Testament differentiates false religion and true religion - an example being Galatians 1:13 where there is an indirect distinction made between 'Jewish religion' and true preaching.

Acts 11:26

"...he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

The word 'church' in this context refers to the local church (at Antioch). We must refrain, though, from thinking that the local church is not the same as the universal church, for they share a symbiotic relationship - one is part of the other; the local church is merely a small part of the whole, universal church. And the universal church includes ALL Believers throughout ALL time, past, present and future.

Of course, because those who are in the church must be saved, it means that those who are not saved (the majority in any denomination, and in many local churches, so it seems), are NOT a part of the church. We also note in this text that the disciples were given a nickname that has stayed with us up to the present day – ‘Christians’. It is interesting that the name most used to identify Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ is one given to them by unbelievers as a slur!

Other marks are expected of those in the church. In Acts 20:28, for example, we are told that the church is "of God" Who "purchased it with His own blood". That is, we are redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Whose death paid the price for our sins. This, however, is not another qualification - it is simply another way of describing being 'saved'! It is also a reference to God's Grace; that is, we are saved by Grace alone and not by works. We must remember all of this when we look at the subject of women priests. Are they saved, or not? If they are unsaved, then they are not of His Church anyway.

A Christian family, or those who meet in a house, are also known as the church, e.g. Romans 16:5 and 1 Corinthians 16:19. Women priests invariably belong to a hierarchy of priests who are part of an organised and fixed edifice, such as the Church of England. Yet, the meaning of 'church' cannot include such definitions. This is because 'church' can be sub-divided into even smaller units - groups of individuals (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:22) who are saved!

Summary So Far

The first thing women priests must satisfy (to be a pastor) is the qualification. That is, are they Christians, or not? To be a Christian, one must be a disciple, one who follows Christ and who has been redeemed by His blood. It is a fact that many priests (male and female) do not have even this basic qualification! And if they are saved, are they actually disciples - 'of the Way'? Disciples of the Lord follow God's word. More than that, disciples give their lives to God, so that He may shape them to His will; they do whatever He commands. God's word tells us that women are subject to men and should not be in a position of 'leadership' in the churches. So, how can they profess to be disciples, if they reject and ignore such a basic precept?

Now, it is often assumed that a pastor is a 'leader', but this is not necessarily so - at least not in the usually accepted sense of the word. Every Christian may 'lead' in given circumstances at given times in their lives. (We are not talking about 'democracy' here). This is because we each receive gifts from God and those gifts give us a calling in particular situations. It is inevitable that a pastor does not possess all the gifts of God and so he may not lead in all situations! This does NOT mean that all Christians may be pastors. It simply means that pastors may not, necessarily, lead all the time, or even most of the time. This, in itself, questions the intrinsic role of 'priests' who assume an authority that is not theirs.


No apology is made to feminists in this Article! Women are subject to men. The New Testament tells married women to go to their husbands if they wish to learn anything spiritual. They are also to remain silent within the churches...that is, they may not preach, or teach men. (Of course, this presupposes that the husbands have knowledge and understanding to enable them to teach their wives. Their own shameful lack of such has no bearing on the subject to hand, though, and is a separate issue for discussion). This automatically precludes married women from being priests!

In 1 Timothy 3:5 we read:

 "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"

This 'rule' is mentioned elsewhere in reference to pastors, who are men. Nowhere are pastors said to be women. Indeed, the created role of women is one of subjection to men. Although texts such as Ephesians 5:24 speak of wives as being subject to their husbands, the injunction applies generally to all women, of any marital state, who must be subject to men. This is why we will now look at the role of women in general, as found in scripture.

Many men fear women's rights campaigners and feminists, who they do not wish to upset! Let me upset them myself, then - women's rights are inextricably bound to men. Their 'rights' are only those found in scripture - and they do NOT include the erroneous 'right' to be a priest or pastor. That women cannot accept this is, bluntly, irrelevant!


To the consternation of modern women, woman was created to be the 'help meet' of man. Man was not made to help women! Yes, there are Biblical examples of women who were rich business people, but this does not negate their proper place in God's creation.

As we see in Genesis 1:27, God created 'man' - not woman - directly in His own image. Possibly, this is because both male and female were one flesh, i.e. both were 'Man' or 'mankind', but one was 'female' of mankind and the other was 'male' of mankind. As we read in Genesis 5:2 "Male and female created he them...and he called their name Adam..." Note that they were both called 'Adam'.

Sounds odd? Only to an English speaker! The words 'man' and 'Adam' are the same in Hebrew. And they can both be used to refer to an 'human being' or to 'mankind' in general (a common usage in Hebrew). 'Adam', then, became synonymous with the male, particularly as it is the name given to the male by God.

Although the word is the same as for 'man' it also means 'red' or 'red coloured'. God's clues are marvellous - from the first male's name we know that he was a redhead, or at least rosy-skinned!

That woman was not created directly in God's image is seen in, say, 1 Corinthians 11:5-7, where we find that a woman must cover her head when praying, or she sins...but if a man covers his head, he sins! This is because man is the "image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man".

Yes, a woman is equal in the sight of God when it comes to salvation. But she is certainly not equal when it comes to her role. There is nothing authoritarian about this statement, for we all have our different roles to live by in life, as given by God.

As we have already stated, woman is man's 'help meet', or one who helps man. Man was not made to help woman. To put it another way, woman is subject to man and not the other way around. In Genesis 2:22,23, where we find reference to Adam calling the female 'woman'. He says "This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh", or the same substance, a blood relation, of the same body. "She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man". Notice this - she was taken out of Man, not Man taken out of woman. Also, Adam called her 'Woman' which literally means 'opposite of man or male'. A very subtle order of creation is thus given in this text.

When the woman, Eve (as she was later named by Adam), sinned, God told her that He would multiply her sorrow and that she would forever (and the fate of all women subsisted in Eve's fate) be subject to the male: "And thy desire (i.e. longing or craving) (shall be) to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.." (Genesis 3:16). That is, man shall 'exercise dominion' over the woman.

As we find in 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to the state of the married woman in a coming time of trouble - he says it would be better that she were not married, because her loyalties would be to her husband and greater than they would be to God. This is an indication of the real meaning of the word 'desire' in the Genesis text.

Some women may argue that these texts clearly apply only to married women. This, however, is only superficial, for the word for 'woman' in Genesis refers to wives and all females! Thus, what applies to the married woman concerning subjection in the New Testament text also applies to all women. As the Genesis 2:23 text clearly tells us, the female was called 'Woman' "because she was taken out of Man"!

This order of creation and subjection is repeated in several New Testament texts. For example: 1 Corinthians 11:23 says: "...the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman (is) the man..." This is because "man is not of the woman; but the woman is of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." This fact becomes more potent when it comes to the role of females within the churches....

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection..." (1 Timothy 2:11). The word 'subjection' here means 'obedience'. Verse 12 goes on to say: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." This verse carries more weight than is supposed. Firstly, it tells us that a woman must not teach. The teaching here is of doctrine and other weighty Christian matters.

Immediately, this brings into question the use of female missionaries. There have been some famous lady missionaries in this century - but their existence and goodness cannot be a substitute for scripture. Female missionaries should not exist, if we are to take scripture seriously. And what about female Sunday School teachers (bearing in mind that the concept of a Christian Sunday School is itself not found in scripture)? Pastors are always teachers, to varying degrees. Therefore, on this count alone, women cannot be pastors.

The woman may not usurp authority over the man. That is, she must not take it away from him, deliberately or inadvertently...even if he is lax and is unable to teach. There are many lazy male Believers in this world, men who sit back and allow women to do work males ought to do. But this is no reason for women to take away the authority which properly belongs to the man. It merely points out that the man is in error.

Women who preach (and, by implication, teach) compound their error when they become priests or pastors. The verse finishes with the command to "be in silence". Again, there is more to this than meets the eye. The silence here has a specific application - it includes the idea of staying at home doing one's own work! Thus, although feminists deplore the notion, the Bible is telling women that their place is at home, looking after their family and being 'housewives'. This does not prevent them from working or from having a business, but it is their fundamental task.

We will now look at the priesthood itself. This will be followed by a brief examination of eldership/pastorship. It will be seen that the priesthood as we have it today in the denominations is a denial of God's work and will, and that eldership is restricted to males.


Old Testament:

In Exodus 40:13-15 we read that Aaron and his sons became the first priests of God and that "their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations." That is, they were consecrated with ointment to their holy tasks of ministering to God and mediating between men and God. The word "everlasting" can have one of several meanings, including 'perpetual', 'indefinite' and 'continuously'. And the term "throughout their generations" can refer to a period of time and to those living during a period of time, i.e. their own lifetimes.

The meaning of "priesthood" is a simple one - it is the task of mediating between God and men in a priestly office. But, what began as a simple task quickly grew beyond its original boundaries. Later priests all came from Aaron's tribe, the Levites. It could be supposed that perpetuity of this priesthood was literally to last until the end of all time. But this does not tie in with New Testament teaching.

New Testament:

The Old Testament priesthood, which is really what Anglican and similar priesthoods are based on, was abolished by Jesus Christ Himself. He became the High Priest (to end all High priests) - a role superior to, and superseding, that of the human priesthood. Thus the perpetuity of the Levitical priesthood came to an end when Jesus Christ assumed the role of High Priest. See Hebrews 7:11-17. The text tells us that the previous command (i.e. the priesthood of the Levites) was annulled (v18) because of the "weakness and unprofitableness thereof". Christ thus "made a surety of a better testament". Always, in God's economy, what is better MUST take the place of the lesser, which is removed or negated.

Christ has been given an eternal Priesthood - He could not be given this role bound by time, because He is Himself eternal (v24). His once-only sacrifice ended the need for mediating - and meddling! - priests (v25-27). Indeed, this fact positively rejects any notion of a modern priesthood with its many outward works. Hebrews 8:1-5 summarises this position and continues to tell us that Christ's Priesthood is better in all ways (v6,7). That the old covenant and the priesthood were made void, is found in verses 8-13 (et al): "I will make a new covenant". Also see chapter nine.

The "first covenant" (9:1) consisted of sacrifices and all the outward show we normally associate with the old Hebrew way of religion. But the new covenant scrapped this outwardness and replaced it with an inward, spiritual priesthood in the hearts of ALL Believers.

This is how it is possible for all Believers to be 'priests' (1 Peter 2:5) - we now have direct access to God through our High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ. Added to this - we are a "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9)! So any form of outward priesthood is superfluous and a denial of God's word. It is quite correct to say that the structures we see today, including the C of E and the infamous Roman Catholic structure, are godless, for they build upon a foundation that was demolished by God 2000 years ago!

It is true that some of those we call 'priests' in history have been real men of God. But this does not sanctify their humanly-devised office, nor can it. As is so often the case, God works His works in spite of, not because of, what men do! The modern, hierarchical, priesthood effectively replaces what Christ Himself instituted - the inward, spiritual priesthood of every Believer.

If every Believer is a priest - then what on earth is a so-called 'ordained priest'? Is he more of a priest than an ordinary Believer? Of course not. Is he a 'priest's priest'? No, he cannot be better than others as far as priesthood is concerned, for all are equal in God's eyes. So, what is an institutional priest? The only conclusion is, that, as a priest, he is a non-entity, unrecognised by the Lord.

All this being the case, it is rather obvious that the organised priesthood does not exist in God's scheme of things, because it was totally abolished by Jesus Christ. Thus, if the male priesthood has been a non-entity since Christ’s earthly existence, any talk of being a female priest is equally nonsensical and unbiblical! So, we have yet another reason why women cannot be priests. How many more reasons are needed? Knowing the penchant for argument by feminists in the face of scripture, let us look at yet another reason why women must not be priests.


The scenes that led up to the Anglican ordination of women priests were pathetic - there were women who cried publicly because they did not at first get their own way; some shouted abuse at 'higher' male clerics; some were stridently feminist. Many wore silly clerical garb with large crosses hanging from chains. They all stated that women have ‘a lot to offer’ the (non-existent) 'priesthood' and that they had the 'right' to become priests. They all believed they had been 'called by God' to the priesthood. (Being 'called by God', when no such call is evident, is a handy way of bypassing reason and Biblical command!). But, how can women be 'called by God' to what He has previously abolished?

One fact is very simple and easy to observe - in scripture there are no instances of women priests, except in pagan temples. And there are no examples of women pastors. It is a mistake to think that New Testament pastors were just 'priest-equivalents'. Pastors are not priests, nor do they 'replace' them. Let it be repeated again - the physical, hierarchical priesthood no longer exists in God's eyes; it has no place within the Church; it is, then, unbiblical and sinful to continue its presence; it serves no useful purpose; it is a man-made structure and office. In other words, even if a woman calls herself a 'priest' she is not thereby a pastor!

Sadly, during the many debates on this issue, some clerics claimed that scripture is silent about it! As we have shown thus far, this is absurd. Also, male clerics do not realise that their own positions as priests are invalid. The whole argument is a farce and is like two men debating which poison to use to murder someone....surely they ought to use one that does not harm the environment? Neither of them understands that to murder is wrong anyway, so the argument surrounding a minor point is irrelevant! When it comes to women priests, then, there has been much ado about nothing - the priesthood should not exist and has been abolished and women may not be pastors, as the next section will indicate.

What Scripture Says

What the Anglican hierarchy, its male priests, women ordinands, the government, the Anglican membership, or the general public think about women priests is all irrelevant. Put bluntly - who cares what they say! What matters, as in any other situation, is, what does scripture say about it? Just in case the fact has escaped Anglican clerics, scripture is actually God's word. What God says is the beginning and end of all wisdom and knowledge. If God says it, then we do it, or don't do it. To this juncture, a number of scriptural reasons have been given against the priesthood itself and against women 'usurping' authority over the man. Now we will find that scripture teaches a male pastorate, where there is no place whatever for women.

The word pastor - ra'ah - is used only once in the Old Testament, but there are a number of references to the plural, ‘pastors’. The definition is 'to shepherd', or 'teacher', or 'to feed’, or to 'shepherd Israel as a flock'. In Jeremiah 3:15 God says: "I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding." Evidently, this text contains several points:

  1. That pastors are chosen (ordained) by God and not by men.

  2. That God gives pastors to a particular church - a local church or denomination cannot choose a pastor, by whatever means. They may only recognise whom God has chosen.

  3. That pastors are to feed the flock with God's knowledge and with His understanding. Many who call themselves'pastor' do not do this. Therefore (if they are saved men), they are not true pastors, for one of two reasons:

  1. They were never chosen of God in the first place, or

  2. Their love of Truth and of God has waned through sin.

Pastors are not immune to God's chastisement or punishment, as we read in Jeremiah 10:21: "...the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the LORD: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered." Then, in Jeremiah 12:10, God says that "Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard..." I do not hesitate to apply the same judgement of God to the bulk of Church of England clerics, past and present.

Now that female priests advance their cause (which is their cause and not God's), the vineyard will be further destroyed. As has already been noted elsewhere, the Reformers gave us a new start, but we merely remained in the same position. Thus, the renewed 'Church of England' became a stagnant pool, killing off any fish it may have borne.

But the main point here is that the Old Testament pastor was always a male! The word ra'ah can also refer to a female shepherd...but a literal shepherd of sheep, not of men or of Israel.

The pastor - poimen - of the New Testament has essentially the same task as his Old Testament counterpart - that of shepherd; one who cares for others and teaches them; an overseer of a Christian assembly/local church. We find that the words 'pastor', 'bishop', 'presbyter' and 'elder' are used interchangeably in the New Testament. Thus, they are one and the same person.

'Elder' - presbuteros - in the New Testament has two main meanings:

  1. Amongst the Jews he was an older man, who often held rank or office. This is because the Jews always chose their officers from amongst the older men, for reasons of maturity and experience. They became the judges, rulers, etc.

  2. Amongst Christians, he presided over a local church or assembly...again, he was an older man (one of the qualifications of a pastor - therefore, all those young men who become pastors today, do so without God's blessing or calling!).

The word 'bishop' - episkopos - means an overseer of a local church. Thus he has the same definition as the presbyter. The word episkopos is based on skopos, meaning a watchman or observer. And skopos is rooted in skeptomai, meaning sceptic. One of his tasks, then, is to examine everything said and done in a local church, to see that it is according to God's word.

'Overseer' does not imply a pastor over other pastors. Being a shepherd, he has to guide (not order or force) the flock of Christ along the right paths, according to that same word. There is a great deal more to say about pastors, but one more fact will suffice - that Christ is also called the "Bishop of your souls"...and Christ is male. (This is important: see Article, 'Is God Mother?'). All references to pastors/bishops/presbyters/elders in the New Testament are to males, not females. Rather, females have a different role to play within the church (which is another study of its own!). Females may not 'share' the role of pastor. Indeed, no-one may be a pastor unless he has been chosen/ordained for the work by God Himself. We often hear of whole congregations 'sharing' the 'pastoral role'. This concept should be carefully examined, for the pastorate is not a democratic role!

If by the statement Christians mean that all have a duty to care for others, then that is acceptable. But if they try to say that they share the role of the pastor or try to 'help' him in his tasks by 'taking on some of his workload', then they are wrong. Only the pastor may do a pastor's work, because that is how God determined it.

It was not the aim of this Article to fully define the role of a pastor, but we can claim, in this context, that it is not particularly the role of a pastor to, say, always visit the sick. Nor is it his task to perform menial or mundane tasks - not because these are below him, but because his role is specifically a spiritual one. Anything that takes him from that role is wasteful and is not in God's plan for the pastor.


There is no such role in the Christian church as 'priest', because the priesthood as a ruling, physical body, was abolished by Jesus Christ. He became the High Priest and ALL Believers became a 'royal priesthood'. The simple meaning of this is that we are all individually accountable to God, through our High Priest, Jesus Christ. We also have direct access to God, through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, a mediator (priest) between Man and God is now not needed. Indeed, to replace what God has abolished is heresy and sin! And to add further injury, clerics, male and female, insist on referring to themselves as 'Reverend' (as do many other 'ministers'). See Article 'Who is Reverend?'

There being no such role as 'priest' within the Church, it is obvious that neither men or women may become priests in the clerical sense! Nor may a woman become a pastor, given the role assigned to her at creation and in later commands. That some women see all this as 'negative' is beside the point. The strident cries of ardent feminists make no impression upon me, nor will they cause me to be swayed into accepting their arguments - I don't care a jot what they say. Rather, I view them with pity, as they act out a melodrama with vehement pathos and blatant unscriptural sinfulness.

To women who think they are 'called' to be 'pastors' or 'priests' I say - renounce your claim and repent. If you have already been 'ordained', then renounce your ordination, for it was false and, according to scripture, was conducted, and given, unlawfully; you must also give up your pastorate. In all of this you may have been unknowing. But, to continue in your claims, now knowing the truth, you err greatly, and deserve no toleration or sympathy. Think carefully and do what God declares, for you have no 'rights' in the matter!

Note: This Article has nothing to do with respect for Christian women...we have that respect. Nor does it derogate the true role of women in the churches. Women have a vital role to play – but it is the role set out for them by God, not by their own imaginations or desires, or by feminists, or by ‘equal rights’ campaigners! The Article is, then, calling Christian women back to Biblical roots. For all the others, who are not saved but have taken on priestly roles, this article has absolutely nothing to say, for scripture cannot be properly understood by the unsaved,

© June 1994

Published on

Bible Theology Ministries - PO Box 415, Swansea, SA5 8YH
United Kingdom