Setting the Context – A Clear and Present Danger to Presbyterianism in NSW – AP

This is my latest article on AP – may the Lord use it for his glory and to preserve this part of his church.  Although this refers to the NSW Presbyterian Church I think the basic principles set out in it are relevant every where….Be interested in your thought…

Setting the Context – A Clear and Present Danger to Presbyterianism in NSW

The Presbyterian church in NSW is facing a real existential crisis.  There is a clear and present danger to the doctrine, government and discipline of the church.     To many people this language may appear hyperbolic – the kind of click bait language that an online blogger uses to get more reads…. or that a politician uses to get more votes.  But I am being serious.

The issue facing us is one that on the surface does not appear to be that important.  It could be argued that whether or not individual churches can have women elders within the denomination is hardly an existential crisis – a threat to the very nature of our being and identity as Presbyterians.   My concern is not so much with that argument but rather how the decision is being made, and how the decision of the General Assembly to submit to State laws above Scripture is leading us into a nightmare.  The question is not only who governs, but how we govern ourselves.

What I warned about in this article https://ap.org.au/2024/07/25/erastianism-in-the-church/  is coming to pass – “ “Presbyterians are in danger of wrapping ourselves in bureaucratic bandages to manufacture the visage of life and competence, even as holiness and courage evaporate”.   ““By adopting an unbiblical and unspecified criterion for decision making (the concept of psycho-social harm), we have created a confused, bureaucratic and unclear decision-making process, which is first of all subject to the State, rather than the Scriptures.  Once again, the clear teaching of Scripture that Christ is the head of the Church is being undermined.”  All of this is illustrated in the ongoing mess over the decision of the General Assembly to move to a male-only eldership.

I wrote last week in response to Andrew Yager’s article on Changing the Lock – https://ap.org.au/2026/04/17/changing-the-lock/

Now Andrew has published a second article – https://andrewyager.com/2026/04/1 /reading-the-whs-eldership-survey-context-and-questions/  in which he seeks to advise those filling in the WHS eldership survey.  In it he inadvertently demonstrates what happens when you turn away from the Word of God for guidance, and turn to secular sources as your source of authority.     In a long article on church government and pastoral care the most astonishing thing is that the Bible is scarcely mentioned, and neither is Jesus, the head of the Church.

Paul tells Timothy:  ^“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)   We should be turning to the Word of God first for guidance.   We should be asking – what does the Bible have to say about these issues?  Not what will the lawyers say!

The Background

Andrew’s article repeats a lot of what he said in his first one – I won’t respond to what I have already dealt with.  However, in this one he goes a lot further.   I realise that Andrew is not an office bearer in the church, but his views reflect the views of at least some influential people, and we need to ensure that they are answered.

We should be aware that if we continue to go down this path then we will end up with the crippling of church government so that it becomes impossible to reform anything according to the Scriptures.   This road leads to the removal of Christ as the head of the church and replacing him with the bureaucrats, the lawyers and the government.What is being proposed is an attempt to govern the church through legal processes, secular authorities and limiting bureaucracy.  It is an attempt to stop the whole process of something that the Assembly had already decided.

I saw the same tactics being used on the floor of the Assembly – stoke up fear, warn of legal threats and be selective in presentation of ‘the facts.  For example, stating, as Andrew does that ‘the door closes permanently for everyone” is just a false claim.  If the General Assembly makes a decision, then it can change those decisions.  As the Westminster Confession says, “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred: therefore, they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.” (31:4)

I want to deal with some of the statements made in the article before turning to the question of the survey itself.  Andrews quotes are in italics

The current Code preserves the freedom of each congregation to discern, under the guidance of Scripture and the Spirit. The proposed change removes that freedom denomination-wide.

Andrew does not understand how Presbyterianism works.  We are not Congregationalists and we are not Anglicans.   I have seen the devastation wrought by ‘liberals’ who argue that the individual church should be free to discern by the Spirit.  It’s amazing how often the Spirit agrees with the political and social opinions of those who claim to be guided by Him!  I have seen ‘the Spirit’ guide churches to approve of same sex marriage, transgender ideology and even abortion. When the Scripture is clear individual congregations do not have the right to go against the Scripture – by claiming the guidance of the Spirit.  If the Spirit guides one congregation one way and another the opposite way, what you are left with is chaos.  God is not a God of confusion but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33)

The survey exists because changes to governance structures can create psychosocial risks — risks to the psychological health and safety of the people in our churches.

The church is in grave danger of allowing nebulous and ill-defined concepts such as ‘psychosocial’ to cripple us and prevent us from following the Word of Christ.   In today’s world almost anything could be defined a ‘psychosocial’ risk.

Elders and all volunteers are workers … and come under WHS

Those who argue in favour of using psychosocial and other such mechanisms are going against the Presbyterian doctrine of the Church – our ecclesiology.   We are told that all elders and volunteers are workers and are to be considered as the equivalent of paid workers.  Given that I regard all members and adherents as volunteers, this ridiculous definition, will handicap every change within the church.  All members, adherents, potential office bearers etc will have to be consulted … whether it is over a change of style in worship, a new evangelism outreach, the closing down of a youth group or the adoption of a new version of the Bible.

In passing it should be noted that the Assemblies’ decision to go along with the lawyer’s advice that all volunteers are to be considered as workers, is one that many lawyers regard as an extreme interpretation.  It was disappointing that the Assembly did not ask for a second legal opinion, and that we were not even allowed to see the legal opinion we did have.  We were making a blind decision – based on hearsay and blind faith.  It is not the way for a Christian church to be run.

SafeWork NSW’s guidance is clear that there is no set way consultation must occur — but it must be genuine, and workers must have a reasonable opportunity to express views and contribute to decisions.

It is clear from this example that the survey is being used by some as a referendum on women elders – despite the Assembly having agreed to uphold the biblical position.  As far as Andrew is concerned (and I suspect the lawyers) the decision has yet to be taken and this is part of that process.   Yet the committee tells us that “The purpose of the survey is not to assess whether individuals agree or not with the proposed change but to assess the impact if all future elders are male.”    Either the survey is an attempt to consult on what should be provided when the decision for a male-only elder policy is implemented, or it is a survey to determine whether the decision should stand.  It cannot be both.  According to Andrew (and I suspect he is right) it cannot be a proper consultation if the decision has already been made.  It becomes just a tick box exercise, which neither fulfills the intent of the law, nor satisfies the church.  The law suits we are seeking to evade, are waiting in the wings.

Professor Tuckey’s research with a major Australian retailer showed that when organisations change the structures that govern people’s working lives — reporting lines, authority, who has a voice and who doesn’t — the way they manage that change determines whether people are protected or harmed.

The UTS notice shows that regulators will now treat poorly managed change processes as psychosocial hazards in their own right. The proposed change to the PCNSW Code would alter who governs, who is heard, and who has formal standing in every congregation. That is exactly the kind of structural change that requires careful management. If it proceeds without adequate risk assessment, without genuine consultation, and without safeguards in place, the people most likely to bear the cost are the women who serve faithfully, the volunteers who raise concerns, and the children whose safety depends on governance that listens.

What Andrew is saying here is outrageous to the point of bordering on slanderous.   He is arguing that if the church implements this biblical policy, then it will harm women, volunteers and children.   He offers no evidence for this – and does not seem to realise that his statement, at least indirectly, condemns all the other Presbyterian churches in Australia, who have taken this step.

I should also point out that the proposed change does not alter who is heard and who has formal standing in every congregation.   In the Presbyterian churches all members have a voice, all should be heard, and all have a formal standing in the congregation.

The threat of legal action is never far from the discussion.  Indeed, it was that threat that got us into this mess in the first place.  When the Assembly put on hold a decision, it had made precisely because of that threat it set a precedent that ensures that anyone with a grudge, some money and a lawyer can hold up church processes for years.

The Questions (and answers)

Andrew suggests questions for those filling out the survey, His questions are loaded and biased.  They are often rhetorical and accusatory questions, based on unproven presuppositions.   They seem designed to sow suspicion and fear and they in effect turn the survey into a complainer’s charter. The issues raised are along the lines of the danger of legal action, the harm caused by not having women, as well as other matters.  Much of his first paper is repeated … such as claiming that clergy being male only is a danger, although he also seems to argue for clergy being male only.

Presbyterian governance was built on plurality and accountability — the conviction that unchecked authority corrupts. The Westminster divines established the ruling elder as a representative of the whole congregation. If ruling elders represent the congregation, and the congregation includes women, what does it mean for that representation when women cannot serve?

This is, at best, a disingenuous misuse of history.  It gives the impression that the Westminster divines were concerned with elders just as representatives.  They were not.  They regarded elders as being appointed by the Holy Spirit to shepherd, guide and lead the congregation – not as politicians elected in order to represent the congregation, while being led by them (see 1 Peter 5:1-4).  There was no argument at the Westminster Assembly that women, men, rich, poor, young, old, black, white, disabled, able bodied etc were to be ‘represented’.   Andrew is reading back into history his own sociological analysis.  And it is just simply not the case that women cannot serve, any more than it is the case that men who are not elders cannot serve.

But Reformed theology teaches us to build structures for the reality of sin, not the aspiration of godliness. What structures would your church need if this change proceeds?

Andrew is working entirely on the assumption, based on secular narratives, that not having women elders would cause sin, whereas having them would hinder sin.  It is an unproven and entirely ideological assumption. The structures we need, are the structures prescribed for us by the Head of the Church, in His Word.   We need biblical godly elders, appointed according to the Word, and congregations, presbyteries and higher courts which hold them accountable.  We do not need focus groups, guided by lawyers which operate according to whatever legal interpretation of the NSW government’s WHS we pay for.

The Reformed tradition teaches total depravity — not that we are as bad as we could be, but that sin touches every part of human life, including the exercise of authority. We build structures — plurality of elders, higher courts, the right of appeal — because we know that good intentions are not a sufficient safeguard. Does this change add accountability or remove it?

This is another rhetorical question.  The answer is meant to be that not having female elders will remove accountability.  If only Jesus had had the wisdom of modern thinking, then He would surely have appointed women to the Twelve, to ensure accountability!  If only Paul had known about WHS provisions, then he would never have insisted that elders should be male!

But even more dangerous is the view that having higher rights of appeal somehow restrains total depravity.  I have been in Presbyterian ministry over 40 years, and I can testify that higher courts, rights of appeal etc sometimes enflame total depravity, not restrict it!  The greater restriction on total depravity is not Presbyterian legalese and bureaucracy.  When Paul warned the elders of Ephesus, he did not encourage them to set up governance structures in accordance with the local Roman authorities, which would help restrain sin.  No, he told them that they had to watch themselves lest they drift and that the only solution to prevent that was the preaching of the Word and warning with tears (Acts 20:25-31).

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12 that the body cannot say to any member, “I have no need of you.” How does your church currently say to its women, “We need you”? Would that change?

In a series of loaded questions, this is near the bottom of the pile.   Any church which by adopting a biblical position on eldership, thinks it is saying to women ‘we don’t need you’ should immediately disband – they are far away from any concept of the body of Christ.   I don’t say to, or think that, the 95% of people in my congregation who are not elders, should work on the assumption that they are not needed. Instead, like Paul, I argue that “the eye cannot say to the hand, I don’t need you!  And the head cannot say to the feet I don’t need you.  On the contrary those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable (1 Corinthians 12:21-22 – although I would recommend reading the whole chapter).  The ecclesiology represented by elders just being voting members of a committee, does not understand that the church is a body – an organic unit, not a corporate entity.

In passing, I am always wary of people who base their argument on the phrase ‘research shows’.  It is easy to cherry pick research to suit your own point of view.  If ‘research shows’ that trans teenagers are 20 times more likely to commit suicide does that mean that the church must adopt trans ideology?

The Royal Commission heard from more than 4,000 survivors of abuse in religious institutions. Its findings about male-only governance are not theoretical. They are based on evidence from institutions that believed they were serving God faithfully. How should those findings inform your answer?

Once again Andrew relies on, and misrepresents, secular authorities.  The Royal commission does not state that biblical churches which have a biblical eldership model are more likely to engage in abuse.  The impression Andrew gives is false.  I read the whole Commission report.  There was a grand total of 106 reports of abuse (out of 8,000) in all Presbyterian churches and institutions (including schools) in the whole of Australia.    The PCNSW has 245 churches.  This does not suggest that there is a greater prevalence of abuse in the PCNSW because of male eldership.

The Reformers insisted on building structures before granting authority. Knox and Calvin did not consolidate power and then design accountability later. They built the accountability first. What does that principle suggest about the sequencing of this change?

It suggests nothing.  Sixteenth century Geneva and Scotland are not remotely equivalent to the Presbyterian Church in NSW deciding to adopt the practice of male only elders – except insofar that both Geneva and Scotland would agree with male only elders!  Knox and Calvin built reformed churches on the basis of the Word.  They challenged the political establishment and challenged the laws of the land.  This is the precise reverse of what is currently happening in the PCNSW and what Andrew’s paper advocates.

Is there something about this issue that keeps you awake at night? Something you haven’t been able to say to anyone in your church? This is the place for it.

Yes – this is a complainer’s charter.  It causes me great distress and does keep me up at night to think that a church’s government and doctrine can be influenced or determined by a Monkey Survey.   It also causes me great distress that the church is in danger of allowing the State to determine its doctrine and government.  “Streams of tears flow from my eyes, for your law is not obeyed” (Psalm 119:136).

If your church has never had women elders, the proposed change might feel like it changes nothing for you. But consider: is there a difference between a church that has chosen its current arrangement and a church that has had the choice removed? What does that difference mean for the kind of denomination we want to be?

And also consider this.   Is there a difference between a church that belongs to a denomination which insists all its congregations follow the Scriptures and one which just lets each congregation choose its own path?  Why not follow the same practice for baptism? Or bishops?   The irony here is that Mr Yager expects us all to be uniform in following the laws and codes of the NSW state, but not uniform in following the laws and codes of the Bible.

The Survey

Let’s come on to the survey.  You can find it here … and indeed you can fill it out.  In fact, if you hold to the biblical position on women elders, I encourage you to do so.  I won’t patronise you by telling you how to do so, but I would just simply ask you to be honest and try to answer the survey from a biblical perspective.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WHSEldershipSurvey2026

I do not blame the committee for this survey.   I blame the Assembly and its decisions to let lawyers dictate what we can and cannot do.  When I first read the survey, I was astonished that such a loaded survey, which encourages complaints, could have been written by pastors.  It turns out I was wrong.  It wasn’t.  The survey that the committee originally developed was changed by the lawyers, so we ended up with this dog’s dinner.  It just reads like the kind of survey lawyers seeking to avoid lawsuits would draw up, rather than pastors seeking to avoid harm to people would draw up.

The committee were handed a poisoned chalice which they have just passed on.  I don’t blame them – like the Assembly they were not allowed to see the legal advice on which we were all supposed to be proceeding.  Nor were we allowed to ask for a second opinion.  Just how it is just and reasonable to ask people to vote on something they haven’t seen has still to be explained to me!

The Danger and the Solution

But I want to finish on a more positive note.  It is easy to be opposed to something and point out the flaws in it.  But what is the biblical alternative?   Andrew Yager has done us a great favour by showing just how far down the rabbit hole this obsession with letting the church be ruled by the State goes.  For that we should be grateful to him.   But what is the alternative?

Firstly, as regards the issue of women.  We do not need the state to tell us how to treat women.  It should be abundantly clear from Scripture that men and women are equal, that we are both made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and that in Christ there is no male nor female for we are all one in Him (Galatians 3:28).  There should be no excuse for misusing the Scripture in order to mistreat, demean or patronise women.  It is imperative that each church reflect in depth on how the gifts of the women within the congregation (and the men) are to be used.  And it is just as imperative that action follows that reflection.  I would also add that personally I believe an apology would be in order to many women for the way we have handled this and for the way that at least some of them have been treated. 

Secondly, we need a return to biblical Presbyterianism. Part of the problem with the women elders’ issue is not the definition of women (that’s a problem the secular society has), but rather the definition of eldership.   We need to go back to basics and learn from Scripture what the role of an elder is.  He is not a mere vote on a committee.   He is not a manager on a board.  The elder is an undershepherd of Jesus Christ, caring for the flock, not lording it over them (1 Peter 5:2).   There is not a hierarchical structure within the Presbyterian church – Senior Minister, Associate Minister, Youth Minister,  Elder, Deacons, Members of the COM, members, adherents, children.   We are one body – and we do have a head.  But that is Jesus Christ – the one and only head of the Church. (Colossians 1:18).

We need to take back the Assembly.   I have witnessed in Scotland the dangers of committees and Trustees, which were initially set up to serve the Assembly, reversing the position so that the Assembly serves them.  In today’s world we do need committees to facilitate the decisions of the Assembly … but they are there to facilitate, not to dictate. There needs to be less politics, and more open and respectful discussion.   Certainly, let everything be done decently and in order – but not to the extent that we quench the Spirit.  In the film Dangerous Minds, a young man is persuaded by his teacher to go to the headteacher and warn him about a drug dealer who is seeking to kill him.  When the teacher goes into the headteacher’s office the next day she was delighted to hear that the young man took her advice.  Until she heard that the headteacher had turned him away.  Why did he turn him away?  Because he didn’t knock and the headteacher had a rule – if you don’t knock you are turned away.  He was killed.   Let us make sure that we don’t turn people away (or off) because ‘we have a rule’!

Thirdly, a return to the Word of God.   At one astonishing meeting we were told by one of the delegates that it didn’t matter what the Bible said – what did the Code say!  I’m sure that the speaker didn’t quite mean it to come out that way – but it did – and it reflected a practical problem that we have – in practice the Bible comes second.  I prefer the approach stated in Isaiah: “Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.” (Isaiah 8:20)  I have noticed that sometimes, just as preachers can use Scripture as AN illustration for their thoughts, so church courts use Scripture as a justification for what they have already determined to do.   We need to learn to stop seeing the church and the Scriptures through the eyes of the world, and instead see the world (and the church in the world) through the eyes of Scripture.  Brothers and Sisters, may God grant us the courage, wisdom, grace and love to do so.

– David Robertson

Women in Ministry – A Response to the PCA Report