There are several ways one could parse the above-stated title:

Ma-Lerevs.....Mal-erevs....Male-revs....maler-evs....

Which do you like? Which do you want? Which do I like and want?

I am seriously toying with the idea of buying a black, and a purple, clergy shirt (long-sleeved, of course) and the white (of course) clergy "dog collars" (as my clergy dad and his parsonage wife used to call such) to go with them -- if I could figure out how to attach the collar, and YouTube is seriously lacking vids concerning such, except for one Concordia Lutheran seminarian showing how.

It would certainly enhance my ego, per:

Matthew 23:1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to His disciples:
23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
23:3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
23:4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.
23:5 They do all their deeds to be seen by people; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long,
23:6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues,
23:7 and salutations [of "Reverend" or "Dr'] in the market places, and being called Rabbi by humans.
23:8 But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.
23:9 And call no man your [holy] father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Mark 12:38 And in His teaching he said: "Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and to have salutations in the market places
12:39 and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts,
12:40 who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation."

Luke 20:46 "Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and love salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts,
Luke 20:47 who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation."

My Augustana-Seminary-ordained Lutheran clergyman dad did occasionally appoint a woman teacher for one summer-camp week as one of the teachers to teach during morning Bible studies (but not during the Evening Services) in the Main Chapel (destroyed by Hinderlie and his accomplices) for whoever wanted to hear her at a Bible Camp near Alexandria Minnesota. She did not wear a clergy shirt nor a clergy collar, and was not called "reverend" or "bishop" or "pastor" by anyone - including my dad. No male was compelled to hear or listen to her, but if any did want that, they could attend. She admittedly was quite sound in her doctrine, and interesting in her presentation - especially for female audience members though, I guess.

And, could I qualify as a "reverend" - having attended but not graduated from a Bible college, attended literally hundreds and hundreds of church services, Christian lectures, Christian programs, sung in masterpiece Christian masses and requiems and oratorios, and much more so far in my life of now 66 years - amplified greatly by intense and continual tutorage from my now-deceased-at-age-95 both-close-buddy-and-clergyman-dad so as to, in effect, been thoroughly trained as his apprentice?

Even though I never attended and graduated from any 501(c)(3) "tax-exempt" "non-profit" religious seminary of whatever religious denomination (although "consecration hands have been laid on me" by one ordained clergyman and I do have a paid-for honorary S.T.D. or Doctor of Sacred Theology degree in my possession)?

A heady endeavor, indeed, to acquire and don the black or purple clergy shirt and white clergy collar, and so far pseudo-bishop and pseudo-"reverend" and pseudo-"pastor" pseudo-clergy have gotten quite a kick out of pretending to be the real thing in the estimation of the Lord and His bonafide disciples.

Putting on the garb of a priest or bishop for me would be my compensatory attempt to at least show my support for the Catholic Church who understandably and thankfully refuses to ordain women as priests and bishops and cardinals and pope, and to show my disdain for other liturgical "churches" (e.g. Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian, etc.) who, in close association with the demonic network media and secular IRS definitions of "church" and "clergy," do allegedly "ordain" women as rostered and self-proclaimed "priests" and "pastors" and "reverends" and "deacons" and "bishops."

The problem is that there is not only no basis whatsoever in all of Scripture for inferior-gender to become and be authority-over-men authentic clergy such as priest, deacon, bishop, pastor, etc. (except for prophetess), but very definitions of Biblical wording prohibits and excludes female humans from be given and acknowledged with such designated titles:

First Timothy 3:2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife [some mistranslations mis-read: "married only once" which has absolutely no Greek-Text basis], temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher...
First Timothy 3:12 Let deacons be the husband of one wife [some mistranslations mis-read: "married only once" which has absolutely no Greek-Text basis], and let them manage their children and their households well...

There is absolutely no legitimate nor acceptable way to get around the obvious gender-designation or inference factors in the two verses above - including heretics claiming apostate twisted irrationalizations and misapplications of:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

or (and the one my own mother-in-law concocted):

Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not humans pull apart."
Mark 10:8 ...and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Indeed, the very opposite of letting women have religious or even non-religious authority over men abounds all throughout both Old and New Testament Scripture:

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Leviticus 27:1 The LORD said to Moses:
27:2 'Say to the people of Israel: "When a man makes a special vow of persons to the LORD at your valuation,
27:3 then your valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary.
27:4 If the person is a female, your valuation shall be thirty shekels.
27:5 If the person is from five years old up to twenty years old, your valuation shall be for a male twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels.
27:6 If the person is from a month old up to five years old, your valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver.
27:7 And if the person is sixty years old and upward, then your valuation for a male shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.
27:8 And if a man is too poor to pay your valuation, then he shall bring the person before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to the ability of him who vowed the priest shall value him.'"

Numbers 5:31 The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.

Numbers 30:9 But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.
30:10 And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound herself by a pledge with an oath,
30:11 and her husband heard of it, and said nothing to her, and did not oppose her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand.
30:12 But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning her pledge of herself, shall not stand: her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her.
30:13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.
30:14 But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them.

Isaiah 3:12 My people: children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. Oh my people, your leaders mislead you, and confuse the course of your paths.

Nahum 3:13 Hey, your troops are women in your midst. The gates of your land are wide open to your foes; fire has devoured your fortresses.

First Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
11:4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
11:5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head - it is the same as if her head were shaven.
11:6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair [and I wish that obscenely-hairstyled publicly-mopheaded gals erotically enticing with loose long hair would do just that!]; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, being that he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
11:10 That is why a woman ought to have some superior-gender's authority ruling over her inferior-gender head, because of the angels.

First Corinthians 14:33 God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,
14:34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
14:35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
14:36 What? Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
14:37 If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.

First Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
2:12 I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; [Note that this is not confined to merely be "within the church" but instead applies to all human organizations sacred and secular, being that Adam and Eve represent that for all humankind]
2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
2:15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with sensibility.

First Peter 3:7 Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman who is the weaker [or inferior] gender, being that you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.

Whenever one mentions the word "catholic" to a street person, the usual assumption by such person is: Roman Catholic - and they are correct. And, thank God that the Roman Catholic Church in general yet forbids women from becoming and being ordained as priests. I do not know if the United Presbyterians, Methodists, and ELCA Lutherans will ever get back to that. My hope is that they will, but don't count on it. Satanic-based feminist sexism has so permeated and engrained itself with its rebelliously pugnacious and arrogant foot in the door, that it might now be impossible to rectify such disgusting and infuriating aberration - necessitating such chauvinists to be marginalized, de-funded, and de-membered away from the company of genuine authentic Christians as much as possible, whenever possible.

One problem of women being "ordained" as "reverends" or "priests" is that the general and expected impression people have is that they then are presumed to be in religious authority over both genders instead of simply women and children. That lack of discriminatory qualification is neither tolerable nor acceptable!

Hence, I cannot advocate "women being allowed to become priests" because of that lack of qualification for people in general to understand that any priesthood or bishopric or pastorate of such inferior gender individuals must exclusively and always be limited and restricted to ministerial duties over and for other women and children - not even allowing women professors to blatter and beller, rant and rave with their cutesy sexy voices harassing young men in college or university classrooms.

As a non-IRS-seminary-ordained "reverend" wearing a clergy shirt and white clergy collar, would people call me "Father?" Probably. And would I correct them with the response:

Matthew 23:9 ...Call no man your father on Earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. (?) They might then say: "Well, reverend, could I then call you "Pastor?"

Before I could answer, they might request me to do, for them or theirs, a baptism....or burial.....or "officiate" as witness to their celebratory wedding (more controversially: sign their State Marriage License document as having performed a non-homoqueer heterosexual "legal" marriage of and for them).

The Government currently has no compelling interest to accredit those who claim to be and consider themselves "ministers" for the separated-church/synagogue/mosque-from state ritual of religious baptism -- which is clearly a mere religious phenomenon which the Government has no desire nor need to become involved in or regulate - unless unconstitional harm is done against someone by someone in the process.

Same non-interference/non-involvement thing is the case regarding "saying a few words" for burial at a graveside, where the funeral director instead of the pastor has "legal" interaction with the State rather than the reverend who utters mere religious words of hopefully-non-slanderous commemoration.

Administering communion (i.e. "the Lord's Supper") on demand would be another request to me wearing a clergy shirt and white clergy collar, especially for those on their deathbed ready to expire. I personally would prefer to not give tidbits of cracker and juice (or wafer and wine) to anyone except annually at Passover time during Holy Week, being that the "...as oft as you do this..." words were never recorded as being uttered by Jesus Himself in any of the four gospels, but sort of "came out of the blue" from Paul in a tiny tad of one of his chapters in one of his New-Testament-epistle books (i.e. First Corinthians chapter 11). No where else in all of Scripture! Why mainline denominational churches make such a big deal about the supposed sacramental requirement of "the Lord's supper" in applying it to themselves personally to ingest such appetizers is not only perplexing, but enraging if such is blasphemously presumed to be mandatory for weekly or monthly self-atonement.

So, I could baptize infants or even immerse grown-ups while wearing black or purple clergy shirt and white clergy collar, using Augustana-Black-Hymnal or LCA-Red-Hymnal or Anglican-Hymnal liturgy I have become accustomed to as church organist for several churches throughout the metro area and elsewhere (even temporarily in Vienna Austria).

I also could do burial liturgy wearing the same-colors clergy shirt and white clergy collar.

After all, Bing Crosby and Tom Cruise and other Hollywood actors wore clergy costumes in some of their movies....without being stoned for blasphemy.

So, why couldn't I also "get away with it?" It would not be play acting on my part if I did, but would proclaim oaths done for real under the jealous and watchful eyes of the Trinitarian Almighty God, who would have an avid concern that I do not misrepresent Him while in clergy-shirt-and-collar uniform.

As far as preaching sermons go, I do not need a clergy shirt and white clergy collar for that. You are reading a Spirit-inspired sermon of mine right now, for pete's sake.

Baptists do not have synods to ordain their ministers, but instead their local churches commission men as "pastors," although some do have seminaries, many of which (like aforementioned non-Baptists/Covenant/Evangelical-Free liturgical ones) are legalistically and strictly registered with the IRS as 501(c)(3) "non-profit" tax-exempt entities - alleviating massive expenses of what would otherwise be huge property taxes on and against their magnificent cathedrals and mega-church structures and rather large areas of land such as situated on.

To claim "reverend" status signed on State Marriage licenses, related to the State and Federal Dept of Taxation, could be kind of tricky. A "justice of the peace" and even a ship's captain can "officiate" a "wedding" (or, worse yet: a "marriage"). But perhaps the homosexual activists have done bonafide Christians a service, in that they have gotten at least parts of the government to acknowledge, as supposedly "legal," "marriage" unions (with taxpayers-subsidized monetary benefits) but which are Scripturally in no way, and never can be, considered "marriages" - but instead are simply same-gender homosodomy-unions licensings.

Such has horrendously and perhaps irreparably skewed not only any real meaning of the word "marriage" (and, more disasterously and dangerously, but especially definition of "gender" as to who is considered or misconsidered the "husband" and the "wife," the "man" and the "woman")....and, by default, has therefore also skewed the definitions and qualifications for so-called "clergy" performing (or instead committing - depending on whether heterosexual or homosexual unionizing) "marriage."

Suffice it to say that it is presently safest for non-IRS-ordained "clergy" (in or out of clery-shirt-and-clergy-collar uniform) to "officiate" non-State-registeredcommon-law-equivalent permanent marriages (with or without wedding ceremonies celebrated thereafter) involving man and "concubine" spouse, rather than man and "legal" "wife" spouse.

Martial Status proclamations on Form 1040 should reflect such discreet and carefully-declared "single" or "married" designations.