Archive for category Is Female Leadership Biblical?
The CEEC’s spineless response to the first female Archbishop of Canterbury
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical? on October 7, 2025
In an article published on October 3, the Church of England Evangelical Council has given a response to the recent announcement of the first female archbishop of Canterbury in the history of the CofE. They go on to say that they join Anglicans across the world in “praying” for Sara Mullally in her role.
The article goes on to say about the difficult time the Church of England is in and how it is set against a backdrop of “global conflict and instability.” Challenges and declining church attendance are sweeping their way through the CofE and the LLF process has caused division.
For no fault but their own, the CofE is an absolute mess and now they have made a woman the archbishop of Canterbury and it seems the CEEC is not very disturbed about this ordination. Regardless of how expressively clear the New Testament is concerning an all male leadership, the CofE just doesn’t seem to care. Men like N T. Wright and liberal vicars and writers spell out their outright revisionist nonsense and claim that St Paul was actually in favour of women leaders.
I was at a meeting with the CEEC during their opposition to the same-sex blessings and N T. Wright was broadcast on the screen and I stood with the CEEC in their fight for orthodoxy but over time I saw how they were claiming orthodoxy in one sense while denying it in another.
The Bishop of Lancaster, a woman, was at the meeting and a number of female vicars were present and it occurred to me that people didn’t care if 1 Timothy 2: 12 was upheld, so long as the women vicars believed in traditional marriage. This is a major fault of the conservative evangelicals, they are picking and choosing the texts they want provided you agree to disagree on the the ordination of women vicars. But what if what Paul was saying in 2 Corinthians 11: 3 that any attempt at female leadership is not a secondary issue. What if Paul was claiming that he feared the work Christ accomplished by overturning the evil the serpent in Eden was about to be attacked again by the devil.
Paul writes,
“But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may be somehow led astray from the sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11: 3)
I have used the NIV in this quote for the benefit of CofE members who use this translation, because I want you to see the real truth of what is going on here. If you believe that it is ok for women to be ministers you are greatly deceived.
Paul gives his reasons why women are not to be bishops or vicars and why leadership in the church is reserved for men only because Adam was formed first and “Adam was not deceived, but woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2: 14)
Paul is here leaving one of his final commissions to Timothy on how the church is to be governed after his death. There was to be no alteration. This is why Paul wrote, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Paul’s greatest fear was that Satan was going to try and undermine what Christ achieved and overturn the restoration of Eden by deceiving women by manipulation just like he did in the garden of Eden.
Narcissists always manipulate women and Satan is the ultimate narcissist and he will not stop and cannot stop until he has tried to get anyone back of whom he has lost. That is what narcissists do. Once they have someone in their grips they never let go of them. Satan (the ultimate narcissist) is forever working to try and attack his antagonist Jesus Christ and undo everything He has accomplished. That too is what narcissists do. They hate losing.
For this reason, the CEEC has made a big mistake in letting female ministers join their stand for orthodoxy. They have lost the battle already. The ‘liberal bishops’ cannot consistently take them seriously because the conservative evangelicals once stood up against the ordination of women ministers and bishops, and now they have lowered their standards by regarding the matter as a secondary issue. It is not a secondary issue.
The officiating of the first female archbishop of Canterbury is not legitimate. Sara Mullally prays the rosary and catholic prayers to Mary and she will lead the church astray even further than you could possibly imagine. You cannot pray for that. You cannot pray for the Holy Spirit to use someone in an office that is contrary to Scripture. You invite the devil in when you do that.
You may disagree with me, you may think I’m going over the top and think I’m crazy, but I’m not, I’m warning you. Don’t fraternise with the devil. Don’t mess around with the darkness. Don’t think the Holy Spirit is guiding you if you are going against Scripture. Never forget that the darkest evil often appears as an angel of light.
The ordination of the first female archbishop of Canterbury is an act of hell and the Church of England is about to step into one of the darkest eras of it’s existence.
Turn back and repent and “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Ephesians 5: 11)
IC XC NIKA
It is time to leave the Church of England!
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical? on October 3, 2025
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth,” (2 Timothy 4: 3-4. NKJV)
The above quote is taken from St. Paul’s letter to Timothy, a leader of an early New Testament house church. In his first letter the apostle instructed Timothy to “Fight the good fight of faith” (1 Timothy 6: 12. NKJV) and in his second to “Preach the word!” (2 Timothy 4: 2) He also made it abundantly clear that leadership in the Christian church is reserved for men (1 Timothy 3: 1-13)
Today’s headlines come as no surprise. The Church of England has announced that a woman has been made Archbishop of Canterbury. This is an act of hell and the bishops demonstrate the outright disdain a majority of them have for St Paul’s authority.
I have been saying they will make this decision for some time now and I wrote against the consecration of women bishops back in 2015. You can read that article here.
I have come to believe that Martyn Lloyd-Jones was correct in his disagreement with John Stott. Evangelical Christian’s should withdraw from liberal denominations. For me, the Church of England’s decision to make a woman the Archbishop of Canterbury is like icing on an already rotting cake and it is the straw that broke the camels back.
Sadly, there are many faithful ministers in the CofE and they are a good community of believers who hold together well to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. These are inspired by a statement made in Jude 1: 3 and they should be commended for it.
However, I cannot ignore the overriding influence of female ministers within the church and even many conservative evangelicals. This is big problem for me since they fail to see the importance of maintaining strict adherence to a male leadership that complies with the criteria set forth by St Paul in his epistles to Titus and Timothy. Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2: 13-15 cannot be ignored.
St. Paul did not permit women to teach “or to have authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2: 12) and the reason why women are not permitted to be ministers is because Eve was deceived by Satan. Adam was born first and then Eve and Adam was not deceived but Eve (1 Timothy 2: 13-14). But people have manipulated this clear teaching and have deceived people into thinking women leadership is Biblical. I have addressed these issues very clearly in my previous articles.
Read here why Phoebe was not a deacon in office.
Read here why Junia was not apostle.
Read here why Priscilla was not a joint leader with Aquila.
Read here why Acts 18: 24-26 does not say Priscilla was a preacher
Read here how I have already warned that the next Archbishop of Canterbury could be a woman, and now she is.
It comes as no surprise to me how the leading bishops wrongly interpret the Bible. They squeeze their interpretation into their trajectory to preserve an establishment that goes from one extreme to the other and faithful ministers are caught like boiling frogs in a hot pan. These bishops who have brought in the same-sex blessings know the church will eventually bring in same-sex marriage, just as the ordination of women priests has now led to the ordination of the first Archbishop of Canterbury. This is the way false teaching works, it creeps in and doesn’t creep back out again. False teachers are like that too, they crawl in unawares and manipulate women and well meaning people and have no respect for authority. False teachers reject the higher authority of Scripture and have no genuine love for God in their hearts.
I understand that the fabric of a state church has to flow with the winds of culture, but the problem then becomes an issue of people pleasing. Christians are not on this earth to be people pleasers, we are here to serve God. So because of this I believe it is time for separation, or even disestablishment.
Does Paul say Chloe was a church leader?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical?, The Bible on September 19, 2025
Continuing on my with my series on refuting women leadership in the church, today I’m dealing with another passage of the New Testament which advocates of female leadership misuse to promote their ideas.
Liberals and revisionists use 1 Corinthians 1: 11 to claim that a 1st century woman named Chloe was a leader of a church that met in her house.
Paul writes,
“For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you.” (NKJV)
That’s it! This tiny verse is used by revisionists as another pawn in their chess game to promote the tiny claims that women can be leaders and ministers in the Christian church. No such thing. This verse does not say that Chloe was in any kind of leadership. Let me show you why.
Paul is writing to the 1st century church at Corinth, this is an ancient city in Greece. Corinth was a place bustling with worldwide commerce and cultures. Religion played a huge role in that place and the church was full of problems, divisions and the difficulties of living in a pagan society. Chloe (or her family) had informed apostle Paul that things in church were not going so well. Immorality, and abuse of the Lord’s supper had been going on and people were mixing the practices of Corinthian culture with church practices. Paul sets them straight in this letter and he admonishes them and pleads that they “speak the same thing” and “that there be no divisions among” them (verse 10).
People had become proud and claimed that they were worthy of note because they were of Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas or Christ (verse 12). These claims however were not related to doctrinal distinctions, since our Lord Jesus Christ, and saints Peter, Paul and Apollos all taught the same doctrines. No, the issue here was that people were claiming that they themselves were special because they were with Jesus during His lifetime or they personally knew Peter, or Paul, or Apollos. In verse 13 Paul refutes these claims and asked them a series of questions;
“Is Christ divided?
Was Paul crucified for you?
Or were you baptised in the name of Paul?”
Note that Paul does not bring Peter or Apollos into this section where he refers to crucifixion and baptism. This is because Paul himself rarely baptised anyone even though there were exceptions.
In verse 14 he says he did baptise “Crispus” and “Gaius” and didn’t baptise the others lest any of them claim that Paul baptised in his own name. Yet in verse 17 Paul makes it clear that Christ did not call him to baptise but to preach. Then in verse 16 he refers to his baptising of those from “the household of Stephanas” so he did baptise people on occasions. This brings us to an important section of the passage. By claiming that he baptised those of “the household of Stephanas” Paul is referencing a family here. The Greek refers to a family, a home. See (G3624). This sets the passage and verse 11 in the context of a family and brings us back to the verse in question, “For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you.”
Here Paul is in no way referencing Chloe being a leader of any church. Paul is merely stating that either Chloe or her family have reported to him that arguments and contentions have been going on at church and Paul wants this to stop. Prideful contentions, worldly practices and divisions have no place in Christianity. The church should be a place of purity and holiness, not a place where people behave like the world and the culture around them. The people of God are supposed to be different. God in Christ has given His people righteousness and redemption, and for those who know the Scripture, we have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2: 16). Because of this we do not need to conform ourselves to the culture of the day.
Once again we see another Scripture twisted and misused by preachers and pastors who manipulate the Scriptures to suit their own agendas and lead the masses away into false teaching and errors.
Please don’t listen to them, they will lead you astray.
Were Aquila and Priscilla joint church leaders?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity, Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical?, The Bible on September 8, 2025
Continuing on with my previous article on Priscilla, and my continued articles on Junia and Phoebe and we come to a passage of Scripture again used by liberal revisionists to usurp the unbiblical position of women leadership. This time we are looking at 1 Corinthians 16: 19.
Paul writes,
“The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.” (1 Corinthians 16: 19. NKJV)
Revisionists liberals use this passage to claim that women can be leaders in the Christian church. But the passage doesn’t say very much does it. It certainly does not say that a woman can be an archbishop, rector or pastor. In fact all it says is that a 1st century Christian couple sent their greetings to other believers in Corinth.
So what is all the fuss about?
The answer is, there isn’t any fuss. The passage says nothing about joint leadership as the modern revisionist liberals claim. Paul was simply writing to an early 1st century church and says, “The churches of Asia greet you”. That is the churches that existed in the 1st century in Asia Minor, on the western shore, now modern Turkey. Paul writes, “Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord” by which he offers a warm greetings along with “the church that is in their house.”. This was a congregation that met in the house of this Christian couple and the apostle is being courteous to them. Paul is not writing about a state church or an institution or denomination. There were no chapels at that time. No church buildings. No cathedrals. No paid clergy. No archbishops earning a salary of £85,000 per year. These good 1st century Christians opened up their family homes for assembly’s of fellow Christians to worship together in.
Perhaps when this is considered we can understand why Paul is mentioning this Godly married couple. They were clearly wonderful Christians and perhaps that is how we should view this passage. Paul is just being very courteous to a couple who have been of great service to him in his missionary purpose.
Aquila and Priscilla were tentmakers by trade who had been expelled from Rome (Acts 18: 2) and accompanied Paul from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts 18: 18) They played a significant role in bringing Apollos to faith in Christ (Acts 18: 26) as my previous article demonstrates. In Romans 16: 3 Paul refers to them as “fellow workers”. There is no mention of preaching or teaching and certainly no hint whatsoever that any woman could be a bishop, archbishop or pastor. and the greek word translated workers does not denote ministry. Thus, I see nothing in these passages of Scripture to cause me to agree that women should be ministers in the Christian church.
Paul mentions Aquila and Priscilla (or Priscilla and Aquilla) together in six passages, and in 1 Timothy 4: 19, John Gill argues the Latin Vulgate adds “with whom also I lodge“. Thus demonstrating the generosity of the Godly couple.
Thus, if we look at 1 Corinthians 16: 19 in an open light we see there is nothing in this passage to cause any of us to believe Aquila and Priscilla were joint church leaders. Paul was simply informing his 1st century readers that a growing congregation was meeting at that time in their home and since Paul mentions Aquila first, we should assume he was the leader of this house group.
If you doubt what I am saying and have been persuaded by corrupted church leaders and revisionist liberals, ask yourself a question: wouldn’t you have the courtesy to mention the names of a married couple who let you have a house group or church meeting in their home?
If the answer is yes, then perhaps you can see why Paul mentions them.
Does Acts 18:24-26 say Priscilla was a preacher?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical archaeology, Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical? on September 3, 2025
In my previous articles on Phoebe (Romans 19: 9) and Junia (Romans 16: 7), I demonstrate my reasons for rejecting the modern revisionist claims that women can be leaders in the Christian church.
In this post I will be discussing another Scripture used by revisionists who argue in favour of female leadership. Revisionists like to claim that Luke in Acts mentions a woman named Priscilla as though she was a woman of Christian leadership. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Let me show you why.
In Acts 18: 24-26 St. Luke mentions a man named Apollos who met a Christian couple in Ephesus by the names of Priscilla and Aquila and at that time Luke claims that Apollos only knew the baptism of John the baptist.
Luke writes,
“Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.
So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” (Acts 18: 24-26. NKJV)
Ancient Ephesus is no longer part of civilization, it’s a historical landmark and an archaeological site. My wife and I visited Ephesus many years ago and walked the streets where this event happened. At that time I was involved in a great deal of church work. People knew my wife and I as a Christian couple and we had many discussions with people about the Bible and what it all means. Often times we would have discussions with believers who were not seeing Scripture rightly and engaging conversations would happen to show Christ more clearly. Yet neither of us believe in women leadership.
That is what I see going on here in this passage. Luke communicates how the man named Apollos was in Ephesus and he was very knowledgeable but didn’t yet know all he needed to know about Christ. Apollos only knew the baptism of John the baptist and had been teaching in the synagogue at Ephesus. The very fact that Luke states he taught in the synagogues and only knew the baptism of John sets this whole passage in its proper context. This is what happened.
When Aquila and Priscilla heard about him and how he was Jewish man who didn’t know about Christ, they delivered the truth to him about the Messiah. Some years earlier Apollos had likely returned to Alexandria after receiving the baptism of John and never fully knew that Jesus had fully come and had been crucified, risen and ascended. So the Christian couple explained what had happened and Apollos believed and received this truth.
Luke is communicating that Aquila and Priscilla evangelised to Apollos which they did in the ancient city of Ephesus. Please do not let modern revisionists distort the meaning of this two thousand year old text. Luke does not say that Priscilla was in any kind of church leadership, he merely communicates that the godly couple witnessed about Christ in the context of evangelism.
In short, all that happened in this passage of Scripture is that a married Christian couple witnessed Jesus Christ to a Jewish man from Alexandria. That’s all.
Does Romans 16: 7 say Junia was an apostle?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical?, The Bible, Theology on August 28, 2025
In my previous article I mention why Phoebe of Romans 16: 9 was not a deacon of the church in the sense of being a minister or preacher. Phoebe delivered a letter of Paul, and was a servant, and nothing more should be made of that.
In this article however I am continuing to explore the claims of revisionists who argue in favour of female leadership and I will show that Scripture does not affirm female leadership in the Christian church.
On Sunday I attended a CofE church and it was very unbalanced, women were leading the whole service, and there was hardly a male leader in sight. This is very unscriptural and leaves nothing for men who seek a male minister to talk to. Not only are there female reverends but female bishops too and there is not a single Scripture to support this. However, revisionists like to use Romans 16: 7 to claim that Junia (a woman mentioned by Paul) was an apostle.
Paul writes,
“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” (Romans 16: 7)
In order to understand the Scripture we need to get behind the text and understand it from a contextual viewpoint. Here it is important to acknowledge that as with Paul’s reference to Phoebe (verse 1) the apostle is writing to a house church in Rome. We know this because in verse 5 Paul references the congregation that met in the house of Priscilla and Aquila. Interestingly enough Paul speaks about the congregation not the place they assembled in, and since Paul previously mentions “Priscilla and Aquila” who were a married couple, it is probable that “Andronicus and Junia”were a married couple also. Ancient Christians recognised that Junia was a woman, however very little else is known about her. However modern revisionists like to boldly claim that Junia was an apostle yet there is not a scrap of evidence to re-enforce that claim. In all probability Junia was simply the wife of Andronicus and the both of them were known by the apostles.
When Paul wrote about “Andronicus and Junia” he used the term “my countrymen” or kinsmen. Paul uses this term elsewhere in Romans 9: 3 and this is within the context of fellow Jew’s so it is likely that Junia was Jewish or even a relative of the apostle. This is where the rubber hits the road, there is no way any Jewish woman could be regarded as an apostle in the 1st century.
When Paul writes Andronicus and Junia “are of note among the apostles” he is merely saying they were known by the apostles. Paul’s proceeding words affirm this when he says “who also were in Christ before me.” Here Paul is saying that they had been Christians longer than he had, and in order for a person to have been an apostle that person had to have known Christ and witnessed His resurrection (Acts 1: 21, 22, Luke 24: 48) and we have no record whatsoever of Junia witnessing that.
Commenting on this passage Albert Barns writes,
“it by no means implies that they were apostles All that the expression fairly implies is, that they were known to the other apostles; that they were regarded by them as worthy of their affection and confidence; that they had been known by them, as Paul immediately adds, before “he” was himself converted. They had been converted “before” he was, and were distinguished in Jerusalem among the early Christians, and honored with the friendship of the other apostles.”
This view is entirely consistent with Scripture and is contrary to the false claims of revisionists who claim Junia was an apostle.
Once again, there is no evidence for female church leadership in the Bible.
Does Romans 16: 1-2 say Phoebe was a minister?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical Scholarship, Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical? on August 23, 2025
Throughout Christianity today we see many Christian’s believing that women can be leaders in the church. Although a number of Scriptures are used to argue that point, some don’t even want to discuss the subject. They say female leadership is now established and it’s a secondary issue. We need to lay aside our differences and work together for the cause of the gospel.
But I can’t do that. I do not believe the idea of women in leadership is Biblical or a secondary issue. The New Testament is clear on the matter and I have not been persuaded to believe otherwise. In the Bible God always chose men to be religious leaders. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Peter, James, John, Paul, Barnabus, Timothy and Titus were all men chosen by God. In order for a woman to be a minister, she too would have to be chosen by God and we do not find that in Scripture.
Yet today many leaders claim the church has been wrong for 2000 years and they seem to pull New Testament passages out of thin air to support their weak claim of women leadership.
Now before I continue, I want to clarify that I am not writing against women leaders in a secular sense, neither am I supporting misogyny I am talking purely about church leadership, ministry and preaching within the complimentarian perspective. The opposite viewpoint does not agree with the Bible so it seeks to revise it to make the church fit in with a changing world. The Church of England is one such establishment. Revisionists make claim upon claim and hardly any of them are legitimate.
One such claim primarily begins with a 1st century woman by the name of Phoebe, who revisionists claim was a deacon in office in the early apostolic church. Yet very little is known about her and the singular reference does not provide enough certainty to make such a significant claim. All we have are two verses.
St. Paul writes,
“I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and myself also.” (Romans 16: 1-2. NKJV)
According to some, Phoebe is described by Paul as a deaconess and in a regular order which implies she held the office of leadership in the church at Cenchrea. This I argue is a false claim and unsupported by Scripture. Let me show you why.
Firstly, in the Epistle to the Romans the apostle was not speaking to a modern 21st century church, neither was he writing to the church where Phoebe was from, he was writing to a congregation in Rome (Romans 1: 7). This congregation probably met in a Roman house church and Paul “commends” Phoebe to them. This act of commending someone is significant and should not be overlooked. In 2 Corinthians 3: 11 Paul uses the same custom of commendation, but if Phoebe was already known for being in office as a deacon Paul would not need to commend her. The very fact that Paul commended her implies that she was not acquainted with the congregation at Rome, or she would have already be assumed a deacon by them. This implies that Paul’s request to make her welcome was that the Roman Christian’s would receive her, why? Why would he need to make such a request if she was already a known preacher and teacher?
Paul follows this important point by using the word “servant” “diakonos” which does mean deacon and can also mean “to run on errands” (G1249 Strongs) This word is used in a variety of places in the New Testament and is used in around thirty contexts, including John 2: 5 where Mary (the mother of Jesus) calls for the servants. The greek word used in John 2: 5 is also “diakonos” yet the servants mentioned in this passage were not leaders in the church, they were simply servants. John also uses this word in 2: 9.
Likewise, we also find “diakonos” in Matthew 22: 13, which does not imply a position of leadership. This means that New Testament Greek has a limited vocabulary that uses words in a broad spectrum.
When Paul refers to deacons in office he does not always use ‘diakonos‘ but rather“diakoneo” (G1247 Strongs) which means a minister, or teacher or a deacon in office. When Paul uses “diakonos” he places deacons and bishops in the same sentence (Philippians 1: 1) and makes it very clear that deacons are to be the husbands of one wife (Timothy 3: 12) thus, if he was affirming that Phoebe was a deacon in office he would be totally contradicting himself. There is no way that Phoebe could be the husband of one wife.
When Paul uses diakonos in Romans 16: 1-2 he is simply presenting a position compatible with a ‘complimentarian view’ teaching that some women in the apostolic church were appointed to visit the sick, mainly women, and to help out. Paul is not implying that women were to teach or have the pastoral office of a deacon. He is merely using a general word to communicate a servant of the church.
John Wesley in his commentary on this passage wrote this,
“In the apostolic age, some grave and pious women were appointed deaconesses in every church. It was their office, not to teach publicly, but to visit the sick, the women in particular, and to minister to them both in their temporal and spiritual necessities.”
Obviously modern churches can and do disagree with a correct understanding of Paul’s use of diakonos but people should also consider that if Scripture interprets Scripture Acts 6: 3 affirms how the apostles gave instruction for seven men to be chosen as deacons, not seven women. The Biblical criteria is very clear and although many are now persuaded against this, the institution of women leaders in the church is just one of many signs of national apostasy and these revisions have caused the very foundations of church leadership to be weakened.
In Romans 19: 2 Paul affirms that the people of Rome should “assist her (Phoebe) in whatever business she has need of you”. The Greek word translated “business” (G4229) is used 11 times in the New Testament and does not mean preaching or teaching, it only means a task or a legal process. In fact Paul mentions nothing about Phoebe teaching or preaching but rather that she has helped many people including himself. This is within the context of a servant to run on errands or have some kind of business to attend to rather than an ordained ministry of preaching and teaching. If Phoebe were to be here today she would be a clerical worker in the church.
Thus, to claim Romans 16: 1-2 proves Phoebe was an acting deacon in office is a far fetched claim and makes the Bible out to be self contradictory. The Bible does not support the idea that Phoebe was a deacon in office, and if Scripture interprets Scripture Phoebe was merely a servant, and possibly the widow of a deacon. She helped many people and Paul out and delivered his letter, that’s all. There is no mention of preaching or teaching and certainly no hint whatsoever that any woman could be a bishop, archbishop or pastor.
I will address the other Scriptures in due course as time moves on.
Will the next Archbishop of Canterbury be a woman?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical?, Reform, Theology on July 25, 2025
It has been six years now since I returned to the Church of England and during that time I have witnessed a very controversial era within the history of Anglicanism.
In February 2023 a majority of the synod chose to pass the unorthodox motions of the liberal revisionist bishops concerning the blessings of ‘same-sex unions’.
Since then the CofE has remained divided.
Personally I have been through great turmoil being in this denomination. Being very fond of the history of the Church of England, the early English Bibles, the Book of Common Prayer, the great hymns and the lives of the 16th century reformers who were ministers within the Church of England, there is no doubt to me that the present CofE (on the whole) is no longer the same church. After years and years of revisionist liberalism, scandals and corruption, each moment has slowly demolished the denomination brick by brick, and it seems likely that we yet again face another bigger problem that will not go away.
For the first time in history, the next archbishop of Canterbury could be a woman. With very few conservative evangelicals disagreeing with women leadership, it appears that many could embrace this choice and few will oppose it.
This could be an even bigger problem than upholding a Biblical view of marriage.
The reason I say this is because the Biblical view of marriage is plain and obvious. All religions generally agree that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. However when it comes to the issue of women leadership, even the conservative evangelicals have gone astray and many have played the hypocrite by embracing woman bishops who agree with traditional marriage, to their own advantage.
I say this because conservative evangelicals (within the CofE) speak against the liberal bishops and the synod for going against Scripture concerning ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘the blessing of same-sex unions’ yet they themselves go against Scripture when they embrace and promote female leaders.
Yet the Bible does not support female leadership and in the New Testament there are no female leaders in the Christian church. Yet revisionists pull out text after text and radically re-interpret them and the CofE embraces their claims because fewer and fewer men are putting themselves forward for ministry. So they play a legal game and use the Scriptures to create loopholes that allow for women to become curates, vicars and bishops. Pheobe was a Deacon they say, Priscilla was a co-leader, they say and apparently Junia was an apostle. It’s absolute nonsense.
The reality is that Pheobe (Romans 16: 1) was just a servant of the church who delivered a letter and judging by the context Pheobe was probably the widow of a deacon. Priscilla was simply the wife of Aquilla they had a church in their house (1 Corinthians 16: 19) so that doesn’t prove she was a leader, and Junia was known by the apostles, (Romans 16: 7) and there is nothing in Paul’s text to say that Junia was an apostle. Thus, despite the revisionists claims, these verses do not affirm woman leadership at all and in reality if Paul did affirm female leadership he would be totally contradicting himself.
On the contrary, Paul does not contradict himself and a majority of the Bible is crystal clear that leadership in the Christian church is reserved for men. If you don’t believe me ask yourself why Jesus chose twelve men to be His disciples and then read Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus. Read them for yourselves and let the Bible speak. Don’t turn to revisionist teachers who promote their agendas and use you as tools for their rhetoric. Paul is very clear to Timothy that the reason men alone are to be leaders in the Church is because man was formed first then Eve and Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and fell into transgression (1 Timothy 2: 13-14)
It is clear from 2 Corinthians 11: 3 that Paul was afraid that as the devil deceived Eve so also the Christians in Corinth would also be led astray by the same cunningness. Now imagine what St. Paul would say if he was writing to the Church of England today. They would probably reject his initial application for ministry and try and indoctrinate him with a series of sermons led by woman curates and liberal vicars and then hope and pray that he changes his mind when they’ve finished.
In Colossians 1: 18 Paul explicitly states that Christ is the head of the church and as far as I am concerned if Christ is not the head of this church then the body does not belong to Him.
Since the CofE has been attempting to liberalise practically every Biblical viewpoint in history and distance itself from the great reformers of the past, it has been anything but stable and I think their decision to make woman leaders will eventually be their ultimate downfall. Whether the decision to make the Archbishop of Canterbury a woman comes into effect this year or the next time around, it is only a matter of time before we witness yet again another great apostasy within the CofE.
-
You are currently browsing the archives for the Is Female Leadership Biblical? category.
Simon Peter Sutherland
-
Simon Peter Sutherland 