We have no need of priests today, female or otherwise

ordination of women to what the London papers are pleased to call the

priesthood. This will be the climax of a campaign which has taken years,

if not decades, to reach its OK corral: and it is an issue into which

all the world and her husband have leapt with both feet.

Be they left or be they right, be they single, straight or gay,

scarcely an institution or personality in the land has seen fit to leave

the luckless Anglicans to judge such matters for themselves. That

fearless warden of Christian dogma, the New Statesman, has lashed the

opponents of women's ordination time and again; that saint of Christian

mission, Emma Nicholson, MP, has darkly decreed that she will set loose

the dogs of parliamentary war should the Synod dare to deny the sisters.

Yesterday an editorial in the Independent, that noted theological

journal, gave Church of England conservatives hey-my-nonny. ''If late

twentieth century England cannot have female priests because St Paul

enjoined women to wear hats and be silent in church -- and that is the

clinching argument among the handful of evangelicals whose votes will be

decisive on Wednesday -- then much of the country will conclude that the

Church has little relevance to the lives of its members.'' So there.

It is, then, time for God's gangster, the pious woman's crumpet, to

weigh in with his usual merry blend of learning and vitriol. Oh, now,

don't take on. At least, unlike most of the pundits, I actually go to

church each sabbath.

In Scotland, of course, we do things differently: our national Church

is decadent too, but at least there is order in its decadence, and the

power structure is clear. The Church of Scotland has not been truly

established since 1929; unlike the Church of England, it is wholly

independent in the spiritual realm from the prejudices of politicians.

Besides, Presbyterianism is naturally democratic: Episcopal Anglicanism

is not and the General Synod is an unhappy addendum to Church of England

prelacy -- it is formed deliberately to upstage Parliament in the

decision-making process.

In Scotland, as the London papers have belatedly discovered, we have

had female clergy for many years -- in the Kirk since 1976, and the

United Frees since before the war. But an important difference eludes

most commentators. In Scotland, the Presbyterian minister fills a

biblical role, holding an office clearly outlined in the New Testament

for the Christian Church. He is episkopos -- a shepherd, a pastor -- and

his primary function is as a ''teaching elder'', one who preaches the

word and feeds the flock.

The New Testament grants him no sacramental role -- the word

''sacrament'', by the way, is nowhere found in the Bible -- and the

dispensation of baptism and communion is controlled by the local

Christian body as a whole. For expediency, Scottish Presbyterianism only

allows these to be administered by a pastor; but admittance to them is

decided by the Kirk Session of ministers and ordained, elected lay

elders. Episkopos, Caledonian-style, is first and foremost a preacher.

In England, poor souls, their Christian tradition was never properly

rid of the trappings of the Roman Church, which inherited much junk from

the pagan worship of the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, until the middle of

last century, the Church of England was a very down-to-earth and

reformed body. The Oxford Movement revived Roman Catholic rituals, and

the rise of liberal theology eroded commonsense.

Hence, today, all without a blush talk of Anglican priests -- a term

that would have horrified Cranmer, Burnett, Ryle and even Cosmo Gordon

Lang -- and the debate on ordination is one of sacraments. Episkopos

does the magic with the biscuits.

This is unbiblical and absurd. A priest is one who turns his back on

us to plead with God on our behalf; to him we confess our sin, and he

kills a sacrifice to sign atonement, and this is burned with fire.

Christ was our last priest who offered the last and utter sacrifice --

himself. He today is our priest on high and all Christians may confess

their sins and directly approach the Lord through him. Christ

established a human pastorate, not a priesthood: we have no need of

priests today, and those who call themselves such stand in an unbiblical

office that makes a mockery of the finality of Calvary. They stand at

altars without fire to make sacrifices without blood, and they stem from

a deformed Christian tradition that, in its heyday, had a habit of

burning its dissidents.

Hence tomorrow's debate is as clear as mud: bishops, clergy and laity

stand in unscriptural order to discuss the admission of women to an

unscriptural office. But ought women properly to be admitted to the true

biblical ministry: the preaching, guiding pastorate? The answer must be

''no'', because the Bible specifically forbids it. Not only does the New

Testament put the pulpit out of bounds for women -- ''let your women

keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to

speak'', wrote Paul to the Corinthians -- but we have the repeated

practice of God's people before us. Women were not made priests in the

Old Testament; Christ chose no woman to join his 12 apostles. Only in

our own era have any sought to overturn this order.

Paul was no misogynist. He had many lady friends, and writes

affectionately of them -- Eunice and Lois, Priscilla, Chloe. Christ

valued the fellowship of Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene; he honoured

his mother, and provided for her old age. Many of his key encounters in

the gospels were with women, with whom he talked on courteous and equal

terms.

Women have historically played an important part in his cause --

Deborah prophesied, Esther plotted, and both saved the Jewish people --

and have many valuable roles in the modern Church, in administration and

child-rearing and counselling and charitable works. They must on

biblical authority be excluded from teaching and executive office in the

body of Christ; they have, however, every right to high attainment in

the secular world, and it is a moot point if they should be barred from

the (Presbyterian) diaconate.

All this, of course, is premised on the acceptance of the Bible as the

infallible and sole authority for all pertaining to the Church of God.

It is the tragedy of our age that the Church has abandoned that

standard, and found no other, and instead rushed to embrace secular

wisdom and progressive opinion. For she can never placate the demands of

the ungodly, nor conform enough to their new things and old bigotry. And

she has nothing to offer thirsty souls. They seek a well of otherness,

of independence from the earthbound and temporal realm; they seek a

force that speaks with authority, and not as the scribes.

But the Church has abandoned the word of God. She has lost her

uniqueness. And her gathering tomorrow is no more exciting, and much

less relevant, than the annual assembly of the Liberal Democrats.

* John Macleod is Scottish Young Journalist of the Year