Now this is a topic that I had not expected to be writing on but the sight of a female rabbi extolling the ‘good news' of homosexual church marriages was one mighty leap too far. So women's rights have now also been added to my personal rant. (Er, I wonder if she was actually a lesbian female rabbi? Sounds like a Monty Python sketch in the making!). As above, it is probably appropriate to start out by referring to the official Lords' Witnesses' position on women priests. This can be found at the True Bible Code web-site reference at:  The Role of Women in the Christian Church. The Lords' Witnesses' understanding covers a broader territory than I intend in this paper but the bottom line is that, whilst the LWs allow women to have authority in the church, they cannot attain to the role and status of a priest.
Whilst I have taken up the Christian faith, this tirade on female priests was initially sparked off by the inflammatory words from a female rabbi for which I reserve as much scorn as I do for any female vicar. So to start it is probably best to quote a few verses from the Old Testament that make it abundantly clear that, from the commencement of God's rule over the children of Israel, it was the sons (not children) of Aaron that were commanded by Jehovah to take the mantle of His holy priesthood:
9 And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons. (Exodus 29)
29 And the holy garments of Aaron shall be his sons' after him, to be anointed therein, and to be consecrated in them. (Exodus 29)
8 And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: (Leviticus 1)
So male priests were a requirement of our God for the Jews and, as we shall see, this did not change when the timeline moved to the first century AD. In fact, in those latter times, the nature of the male priesthood was defined in far more detailed terms.
A major support, for the ordination of males only, comes from Paul's first epistle to Timothy. In this the authority of men over women is made pre-eminent reminding us that even in the Garden of Eden it was the woman Eve (Adam's helper) that brought about the downfall of her man by rejecting Adam's authority over her:
8 Therefore I desire that in every place the men carry on prayer, lifting up loyal hands, apart from wrath and debates.
9 Likewise I desire the women to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb,
10 but in the way that befits women professing to reverence God, namely, through good works.
11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression. (1Timothy 2)
This same epistle then goes on to confirm that men should be represented in the hierarchy of the church. Whilst on this point it does not go so far as to explicitly exclude women from the reckoning they are clearly noticeable by their absence:
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (1Timothy 3)
However, all you lady vicars out there, do not get your hopes up since 1 Corinthians states that women must be silent and in submission when in church. If they want to clarify some theological point, they should wait and approach their husbands at home. Arguably these statements would totally preclude women becoming ministers or pastors:
33 ...As in all the congregations of the holy ones,
34 let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says.
35 If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation. (1 Corinthians 14)
Paul pointed out to the Ephesians that the male/female relationship should take as its example the love of Christ for the believers, and their reliance upon him in all things. This principle can be seen reflected in the arrangements for communal worship: the men are to represent Christ, while the women represent all the believers. Once again this clearly operates against women taking the lead role in worship in the congregation:
21 Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ.
22 Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord,
23 because a husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a saviour of [this] body.
24 In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, so let wives also be to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, continue loving YOUR wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it, (Ephesians 5)
This point is further reiterated in Paul's first letter to the Corinthian church. Clearly all female vicars should make a point of reading Paul's epistles since they evidently have not:
3 But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.
4 Every man that prays or prophesies having something on his head shames his head;
5 but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, for it is one and the same as if she were a [woman] with a shaved head.
6 For if a woman does not cover herself, let her also be shorn; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, as he is God's image and glory; but the woman is man's glory.
8 For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man;
9 and, what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. (1 Corinthians 11)
Acts 18 describes how Priscilla, a woman, and Aquila, her husband, both acted as teachers to a man from Alexandria, called Apollos. Whilst women can clearly help to advise in spiritual matters, there is no evidence that Priscilla carried out this role in anything other than a supportive role to her husband:
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. (Acts 18)
Now in all this sea of male spiritual authority provided in Paul's letters, there does appear to be a potential exception in the shape of one Phoebe in his epistle to the Roman congregation:
1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. (Romans 16)
The English ‘servant' in verse 1 is the King James' translation of the Greek word ‘diakonos'. The Strong's lexicon has the following description:
‘one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister
a) the servant of a king
b) a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use
c) a waiter, one who serves food and drink'
This word is used throughout the New Testament to refer to male disciples as well as to Paul himself thus potentially appearing to confer the status of spiritual priest upon this good lady.
Since this is in direct contradiction to Paul's teachings we need to consider an alternative explanation. This may be seen in verse 2 of this passage in the use of the English word ‘succourer' which is the King James' translation of the Greek word ‘prostatis'. The Strong's lexicon has the following description:
'1) a woman set over others
2) a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources'
Interestingly this word is feminine and only appears once in scripture.
Surely this is singling Phoebe out as an exceptional woman but is it not also differentiating her from her male counterparts by describing her as a woman of means who acts as benefactor for those needy of her charity? So a wonderful caring lady yes, but a priest I think not. One is left thinking that this was the Word's way of telling us of the value that women have in the congregation albeit not in a priestly role but in one of assisting in the practical necessities of looking after the physical well-being of the congregation rather than their spiritual needs. This is a role that we know women can fulfil far better than many men.
Before I start out on my personal rant on the subject, it is probably appropriate to start out by referring to the official Lords' Witnesses' position on homosexuality. This can be found at the True Bible Code web-site references at:  Is Lesbianism a sin? , [25.1] What homosexual and Lesbian activity leads to disfellowshipping? and
 Do you have to become an LW to enter into the ark? Can gays be saved?
A brief survey of the above indicates the Lords' Witnesses' position that lesbian acts are, perhaps, not quite as serious as male homosexual acts and are, therefore, not to be policed and punished by the Church. Whilst such acts are disfellowshipping offences at the behest of the Church, I am certain that the Holy Spirit will not just leave it at that for offenders who do not show contrition for their unnatural ways. In addition we see that gays can, indeed, be saved through their faith and love since these will override their unrighteous acts if that be the judgement of the Holy Spirit.
The important thing to realise here is that masculine females and effeminate males are not condemned per se. It is their unnatural acts, if they partake of them, which are condemned although these ones, like all God's children, will be forgiven and taken into the bosom of the church and the Father if they show genuine contrition for their wayward appetites. Let us not forget that David loved Jonathan and Jesus loved Lazarus ( Lazarus was the Disciple whom Jesus loved and Lazarus Mary and Martha were at the last supper!) but I think it safe to say that neither of these close friendships involved their lying down together and exchanging bodily fluids:
1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. (1Samual 18)
20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? (John 21)
My personal anger is not aimed at individual homosexuals and lesbians. It is aimed at the false churches that may carry out same sex marriages and the false priests that will perform such ceremonies and especially those ones who today proudly proclaim that, as homosexual priests or female rabbis, they can also carry out God's services to their congregations in direct contravention to Holy Scripture. Oh yes I am sure they can, and do, come up with highly contrived scriptural interpretations that prove that black is white and white is the new black, but I think anyone without a personal agenda could only determine one meaning from the scriptures on this topic. So let us examine the key scriptures in this debate.
The old Hebrew law is unequivocal on the subject of male homosexuality. I cannot perceive of any interpretation on these verses that does not totally outlaw physical male homosexual relations. If anyone knows different please let me know, especially all you gay vicars out there:
22 "‘And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing. (Leviticus 18)
13 And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20)
Even before the Law was given to Moses, God was clearly reviewing mankind's righteousness and wickedness presumably by judging each man's behaviour and heart condition. He had judged Abraham as righteous whereas Sodom and Gomorrah were ajudged to be cities filled with evil-doers. Just before their destruction there is an account of the two angels who visited Abraham's nephew Lot to take him and his family out of Sodom just prior to its destruction. As if providing an example of Sodom's wicked ways a gang of male Sodomites demanded to have homosexual relations with the two male angels and were only prevented from doing so by being made blind just one day before they and all their fellow inhabitants of Sodom were destroyed by the hand of God. If this is not associating male homosexual activity with wickedness I am not sure what is:
4 Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sod´om, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob.
5 And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: "Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them." (Genesis 19)
11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. (Genesis 19)
24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. (Genesis 19)
Whilst not a definitive position on the subject, the English language defines a Sodomite as someone who practises anal intercourse thereby imputing the common meaning to the Genesis account. A further exposition of the Law is to be found in Deuteronomy which makes specific reference to outlawing the practice of Sodomy (as a male or female temple prostitute):
17 "None of the daughters of Israel may become a temple prostitute, neither may anyone of the sons of Israel become a temple prostitute. (Deuteronomy 23)
I am sure that this edict is as much to do with the worshipping of a false god, in this case the Babylonian goddess Venus, as it is to do with acts of fornication but, nonetheless, male homosexual (if not Lesbian) behaviour is clearly outlawed by this requirement.
The New Testament reinforces the outlawing of homosexual behaviour, both male and Lesbian:
26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;
27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error. (Romans 1)
One, perhaps, can only consider the potentially more physically damaging behaviour between homosexual males compared with that of their female counterparts to justify such differential treatment. What is the ‘full recompense' of Romans; could it be AIDS I wonder?
1 Corinthians continues on the theme of homosexual acts between males being sinful enough to exclude the perpetrators from inheriting the Kingdom of God although it does not explicitly mention Lesbian behaviour in the same holy breath. However, as with all other capital offences, those perpetrators may all be granted forgiveness upon their genuine contrition and cessation from such acts:
9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men,
10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God's kingdom.
11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6)
The text of the first letter to Timothy continues the theme:
8 Now we know that the Law is fine provided one handles it lawfully
9 in the knowledge of this fact, that law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, lacking loving-kindness, and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers,
10 fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching
11 according to the glorious good news of the happy God, with which I was entrusted. (1 Timothy 1)
The final nail in the spiritual coffin of those who argue that homosexuals are righteous in the sight of God is provided by Jude who, in confirmation of our understanding of Genesis 19, describes the inhabitants of Sodom as ‘going after flesh for unnatural use':
7 So too Sod´om and Go•mor´rah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire. (Jude)
What is that about if not intended to include homosexual behaviour?
Given all the above texts from both testaments, it is quite clear to me that ‘God-fearing' homosexuals and their gay priests are in denial about their true God's requirements of them. They prefer to justify their behaviour by deliberately misinterpreting a very clear message in scripture for their own ends. I would argue that behaviour is considered by God to be worse than their original acts of homosexuality since it is blatantly changing or ignoring the meaning of scripture and encouraging others to copy their own behaviour by lying about God's view on the subject:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22)
I rest my case for the prosecution!
Lot Keeping Sodom's Homosexuals from the Angels
Call me a grumpy old man if you will, but I have really flipped on the subject of gay and women's rights after the prospective allowing of gay marriages to take place in churches in the UK. This is a topic that has been simmering with me for a long time and now it is about to explode on the internet. Here was a news article on TV not only giving me this wholly unwelcome news but having it supported by interviews with a gay vicar and a female rabbi no less. Just in case you are interested in the story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8320705/Gay-marriages-to-be-allowed-in-church.html. And then we have this rather more recent article: http://personalliberty.com/natural-rights-life-liberty-pursuit-gay-marriage/. So the shackles are off for all you so-called gay and feminist Christians and Jews that profess to follow God's laws. You clearly need some lessons from the bible. Rather worryingly my viewpoint on this puts me in strong agreement with the Pope; this is not a comfortable place for me to be! The reader should be aware that one of the JLW's daughters is gay so I am not untouched by the issue. She knows my views on the subject, which I am not about to change, but she also knows that I love her dearly regardless, as do our Lords even more than me no doubt.
Jewish Lords' Witness
So what have we learned from the above scriptures dear brothers and sisters in Christ? Well homosexual acts are clearly considered by scripture to be sinful. Stemming from this would be the logical conclusions that same sex marriages and gay vicars are anathema to our Lord. Also as a result of a female rabbi poking her (possibly lesbian?) nose into the above subject, female church ministers have come under the scrutiny of the JLW aka GOM (grumpy old man). Consequently:
1. Any vicar (or church official of higher rank) who openly professes his gayness (and who, one assumes, is therefore a practising homosexual) is a false priest and will spend a good proportion of the millennium in Gehenna unless repentent, according to the understandings of the Lords' Witnesses.
2. Any church that is prepared to sanctify a gay marriage is a false church and will be dismantled unless repentent, prior to the end of this system according to the understandings of the Lords' Witnesses.
3. Any female priest is a false priest and will spend a good proportion of the millennium in Gehenna unless repentent, according to the understandings of the Lords' Witnesses.
4. Any church that is prepared to sanctify a female priest is a false church and will be dismantled unless repentent, prior to the end of this system according to the understandings of the Lords' Witnesses.
Call me a grumpy old man if you will but I think an honest assessment of scripture can only lead to these conclusions. There are many so-called liberal commentators of the scriptures that, for some undisclosed agenda of their own, come up with very different opinions. However, those ones should not try to get us conservatives to change our minds. Instead, perhaps, they should look honestly and inwardly upon their own motivations and ask themselves what our Lords will determine from their heart conditions come judgement day. Some feminist commentators, for example, criticise Paul as being a misogynist for his staunch New Testament writings. Well, since Paul's pen was inspired by Holy Spirit, God's own wife according to Lords' Witnesses' understandings, they may wish to consider modifying their views on this point before the end.
I finish by confirming, as I started out, that this was not a paper that I had particularly wanted to write but, given the recent media fanfare publicising the advent of church-sanctified gay marriages, events forced my hand on the matter. I could not in all conscience keep my peace on this evil and libertine position declared proudly by several false churches and their leaders. Human rights campaigners originally had good moral positions to defend but more recent arguments for the politically correct represent a campaign for inhuman rights which, either deliberately or mistakenly, resist the will of Jehovah our God. This is truly unholy matrimony. Amen.
Paul Writing His Epistles on Female Priests?