This article was written for the NSW Presbyterian Church GA, but I would argue that the principles in it are applicable in any Church situation… The original was first published on AP here…. and on my substack here. …
Next week (14-17 July 2026) the New South Wales Presbyterian Church will be holding its annual General Assembly. I am a commissioner and I should be looking forward to it. A few days with Christian brothers and sisters, discussing the work of the Gospel and looking at how we progress it – what’s not to like? But as other seasoned Assembly goers will know, the story is now a little more complex.
My experience of Assemblies in Scotland was mixed – some were contentious and ugly; some were contentious and yet fruitful. Others were bland and dull. Others stimulating and encouraging. Two years ago, the GA in NSW was SO depressing (I wrote about it here – https://theweeflea.com/2024/07/25/37667/)
Last year was better but I suspect this year could be in danger of descending into chaos again because the issue we were forbidden from discussing two years ago – the question of male only eldership – is going to dominate. I am really not looking forward to it.
However, I have been reflecting on how we discuss such issues (including my own behaviour and way of doing things). After 40 Assemblies perhaps the following might be helpful to some. How should we argue/discuss? How do we speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15)?
- We should always argue from the Bible. Everything else is secondary. The Code, history, culture, politics, psychology, stories, emotions – they can all be used. But they are secondary to the simple question of ‘What does the Lord say?” When we know what the Bible says then that is the end of the discussion – other than how to apply it.
I was once sent a tape from a theology class in an evangelical college by a student who was surprised to find that I had been referenced in a discussion on women elders. A student asked about what the professor thought of my view (because I was considered more ‘modern’, but was opposed to women elders). I was astounded to hear his reply “Well, it’s David Robertson. At heart he’s a feminist. The trouble is, he believes the Bible!”
In that regard we must not add to, nor take away from the Bible. We are not a liberal church (nor charismatic) where people equate their own opinions with ‘the Spirit’: “The Spirit led us this way”. Nor should we use the Bible as proof texts or illustrations for our own views. Do not use the word of God as an illustration, as an afterthought, to bolster our argument. Instead, let the word of God be our argument and shape our judgements. “Consult the law and the testimony; if they do not speak according to this word, they have no light.” (Isaiah 8:20)
2. Do not personalise. In today’s cancel culture a great emphasis is laid on hurt. Are we engaging in hate speech which hurts people? No Christian should ever want to do that. However, there is a problem here. The whole idea of hurt being in the eye of the beholder is the same as hate speech being in the eye of the recipient. There is such a thing as hate speech when people intend harm, when they’re being hateful. But sometimes there is a false perception of that. Who alone but God can know the heart? Just because someone gets angry at what we say – or even hurt – does not mean that we shouldn’t have said it. “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.” (Proverbs 27:6) I would rather have someone tell me an uncomfortable truth than have comfortable words from someone who means me harm. How many times have I had the passive/aggressive ‘bless you’ said by someone who has just been accusing me of the most horrendous things!
The trouble is that in today’s culture we can easily turn the ‘don’t say anything hurtful’ into an argument that really limits discussion. We must never say anything that hurts anyone. But what that does is give people the opportunity to play the hurt card to manipulate, silence and demonise.
We need to be careful not to personalise the arguments. Again, I remember one man being surprised that I spoke in favour of a man I had argued with. ‘I thought you were enemies”. No. It is possible to disagree in love.
Another issue is that often we are discussing with people we do not really know. So, we should be careful about reading in between the lines. On the other side one problem at Assembly occurs when well kent {i.e. ‘well-known’ for English speakers} and well-loved faces speak in favour of a position, and it almost feels as if you are betraying them to disagree. Sometimes, sadly, they do take it that personally.
3. Do not demonise those you disagree with. Speaking the truth in love means that we will not demonise. Those who argue for women elders are not necessarily crypto feministas whose aim is to overthrow godly male rule. Those who argue for male only eldership are not necessarily members of the patriarchy seeking to oppress and squash women.
I remember two ladies visiting our church in Scotland who were genuinely surprised that they enjoyed the service and that I preached the gospel because their minister, a man in the same denomination, had told them that I wouldn’t. And all because he disagreed with me on the issue of whether we should sing psalms only. I have to say, it would never have crossed my mind that he didn’t preach the gospel. In fact, he was one of the finest preachers I’d heard. But they really believed that I was not on the Lord’s side.
There is what I would call active demonisation (‘he’s a horrible person, she is of the devil)’, and passive demonisation. An example of the latter is when you talk about your position as being one which ‘honours everyone’ – with the implication being that those who disagree with you don’t.
4. Don’t patronise. So many women have told me that they have felt patronised by those on both sides of this argument, as though they were poor little women who couldn’t cope with robust argument. That has never been my experience of the women in my life! One of the problems with the offer of counselling that I wrote about earlier https://ap.org.au/2026/07/01/counsel-culture-and-the-church/ is that some men may see it as an opt out. ‘If you are upset by this, you need counselling … you don’t need to discuss with me”.
5. Be aware of the consequences. Those who argue in favour of male only eldership need to be aware of some consequences that could occur. For example, there are men who will use that to abuse and then attempt to give that abuse a scriptural justification. On the other hand, those who are for women elders don’t seem to grasp the consequences. It will separate us from our fellow Presbyterians in Australia – none of whom have women elders. It will not stop at women elders – if women can be elders then why can’t they be ministers? – there is no logical or biblical reason to have the one without the other. If you want to see where that road leads just look at the disaster of our mother church in Scotland!
And there are legal consequences. If the church determines that it is scriptural for there to be women elders, then any church which refuses to do so cannot use the reason of saying that that is the doctrine of the Church. Legally they will be guilty of sex-based discrimination. In Scotland we had passed a motion at our General Assembly saying that it was against the teaching of the church to perform a same sex marriage in our churches. At the time I thought it was completely unnecessary to put into writing what we were never going to do anyway. But it was done for legal reasons. No minister could be sued for not doing something which the church had forbidden him to do. But if we were a church who permitted SSM, then in the eyes of the law that protection was gone. Likewise with women elders.
And one further consequence is that what starts off as permissive will in time become declarative. When the Church of Scotland first permitted women elders in 1966 (women ministers followed in 1968), it was promised that this was just permissive – no one had to do it. But over the years that changed so that it eventually became the law of the church that a man could not be ordained unless he agreed with women elders.
However, having said that about consequences we must be careful not to threaten people. I was astounded to hear one man at an Assembly say that he was going to vote a certain way because someone had threatened the Assembly with being sued if we did not vote that way. In public he declared he couldn’t afford to be held liable. It was a chilling statement.
6. Don’t play with words. It is a feature of contemporary society that people seek to confuse with language. We live in an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ world where words mean whatever we want them to mean. I remember one minister who vehemently denied accusing another of having committed adultery. “I did not say he committed adultery, I said he had an affair”! We should speak plainly. We should say what we mean and mean what we say. “We do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God”. (2 Corinthians 4:2)
7. Beware of novelty in argument. You (or the people you read) may have discovered something new, but it’s highly unlikely. It is possible that the practice of the Church throughout the ages may have been wrong – and needs to be redone – but if what we are proposing is novel, or has been rejected by the Church in the past, then that should at least cause us to pause. Aware of this, some people then try to rewrite the past or at the very least re-read through 21st century perspectives. As someone steeped in Scottish Presbyterianism, I have been quite astounded to hear entirely novel approaches on what the Scots are supposed to have done!
Another aspect of this is the habit of quote mining. We have a position and then we google as many quotes as we can that seem to back up what we are saying. We can do the same with the Bible. A text without a context is just a pretext for – whatever we want.
8. Don’t play politics. I hate church politics, but in some sense they are unavoidable. The ‘polis’ is, after all, about the government of the church. But what I object to is what I would call ‘party politics’ where people vote according to group or think, like the world, in terms of right and left. Another way is when people use procedures to block and obstruct. When bureaucrats and lawyers are in charge of the Assembly, it becomes very difficult to get anything done. Nice words are said (‘it’s all about Jesus’) but the power is wielded to prevent and prevaricate. We should be prepared to compromise but it is important that we don’t back down if it is going to impact our integrity.
9. Don’t assume that you speak for everyone, and remember to allow for difference and nuance. I cringe when someone says that they are speaking on behalf of one particular identity as though everyone with that identity thinks the same. For example, I have been told that my position on women elders is against women and yet as this article from Alison Smith demonstrates, not all women think the same way. https://ap.org.au/2026/07/09/a-plea-to-the-men/
I don’t assume that I am speaking on behalf of any group. I try to think for myself and try to apply the Word of God. To speak on behalf of everyone in your group is both tribalistic and false.
10. Pray – and listen. Of course, we all agree with prayer. But sometimes such is the deceitfulness of our hearts that we can weaponise that. I was recently asked in public if I had prayed before I wrote something – the implication being that if I had prayed, I would not have written such rubbish! Let’s be careful that we pray – without fanfare and without using prayer as a weapon.
“Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.”(Colossians 3:12-14)
Conclusion
I want to return to the basic principle that we should make our decisions based on the Word of God. “Rivers of tears run from my eyes because your word is not obeyed” (Ps 119:136). There is a rather subtle diversion from that which I have heard expressed in many evangelical circles – it goes along the line of ‘we just love Jesus … it’s all about loving Jesus and seeking to share him”. But how that is quickly turned into another means to silence people, or justify going against the Word of God. It sounds good but it is too often a meaningless meme.
When we argue that it’s all about getting people to ‘know Jesus’ we need to remember Jesus’s own definition of mission: “Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:18-20)
Part of spreading the Gospel is to ensure that we teach ‘everything’ Jesus has commanded us. We don’t get to pick ‘n’ mix the Word of God in order to suit our personality, politics or culture. Maybe if we were more concerned about His Word, our words would be better?
– David Robertson, Scots Kirk, Hamilton.