Is Australian Presbyterianism at a Crossroads – A response to Chris Morphew
(This article first appeared on my Substack here)
Around 1872 a young bible study leader, Charles Taze Russell, and his congregation met to have bible study. As they worked through various issues, they decided that doctrines such as Hell and the Trinity were unbiblical. Eventually that was to lead to the formation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses – a cult with about 9.2 million active members today.
(JW’s on my daily esplanade walk at Warners Bay)……
In 1820 Joseph Smith had a vision where God told him not to go to church – he later received a visit from the angel Moroni who revealed to him the Book of Mormon through buried plates in Palymra, New York. He founded the Church of Mormon – or as the Mormons would put it – he returned to the original church of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible. The Mormons today have about 17.9 million members.
It is notable that many of today’s cults came out of the Christian church and Christian bible study groups. Why is that relevant for us today?
In the NSW Presbyterian church at the moment there is a campaign which has been mounted to seek to get Presbyteries to reject the Assemblies decision to have male only eldership. Circular letters, pamphlets, online arguments are in full circulation. It reminds me of how Scottish Presbyterians in the 19th Century used to have their theological disputes – with pamphlets, sermons and even books being used. I suspect some of them would have loved the internet!
Last week I looked at a letter from Darryl Soh which was circulated by a member of the Women’s Committee.
https://ap.org.au/2026/08/28/is-male-only-eldership-a-gospel-or-a-pastoral-issue/
In this article I want to respond to a well written, and well argued, open letter from Chris Morphew. I am very thankful for it because it states starkly the key issue involved – which is not whether we have women elders or not – but the basis on which we should make the decision. Chris is well placed to comment – as he states in his letter ““I’ve spent most of my life in Presbyterian churches—in Leeton, Ashfield, Darlington/Central Sydney, Abbotsford, and now Petersham Presbyterian Church. During that time, Ive served as an elder, coordinated various ministries, led and preached in my own church context and at Presbyterian Youth camps, served as a chaplain and Christian Studies teacher at PLC Sydney, and written gospel-centred books for young people that are published by The Good Book Company and distributed in Australia through Reformers Bookshop.”
In the letter he explains how his previous church Abbotsford came to the decision not to have women elders but goes on to state why the Assembly Overture should be rejected. He repeats the mantra which we dealt with in the last article – that this not a salvation issue. Neither are most things which distinguish the Presbyterian Church – but that does not mean that we should no longer have them.
And he, like others, casts doubt on the clarity of the biblical teaching on this subject – so much so that it will require Jesus to return before we can really know! “When Jesus returns to judge the world, we will no doubt learn which stance on eldership is, in objective reality, the most biblically faithful.” I struggle with that – simply because it seems clear to me that Jesus set up the structure of the Church precisely because he wanted it to be governed by his Lordship until he returns! Why would he have been so unclear? Did Jesus really say?
But the real issue is when Chris argues that to have the Assembly decide on this issue is itself unpresbyterian. It is such an extraordinary statement that I want to cite it is full…. speaking of the necessity of the local church making a theological decision he argues:
“This is the ordinary work of the local Presbyterian church—the kind of work our system was set up to facilitate. My concern is that the Assembly’s overture takes that ordinary work out of the hands of individual congregations. Rather than grappling with this important theological issue, our congregations would instead have a position imposed on them by the Assembly. Rather than allowing for liberty of opinion, we would be enforcing uniformity of opinion—at least in practice. Intentionally or not, I believe this overture expresses a lack of trust in local congregations to be local congregations—to search the Scriptures, to pray together, to exercise pastoral wisdom, and to discern how best to apply God’s Word in their shared life. On an issue where faithful Presbyterians have long disagreed, and where our Declaratory Statement makes a provision for liberty of opinion, I believe we should resist the temptation to impose uniformity where our church’ s constitutional principles make room for charity and conviction to coexist.”
Almost every statement in this is the complete inverse of what Presbyterian is about.
It is NOT the ordinary work of the local church to determine theology. That is why we have a Confession of Faith. Of course our theology is ‘imposed’ on us by the Assembly. That’s the point. We have a shared doctrine and theology. If you don’t want that become an independent! If you want to change the theology, then you go through the whole process so that the wider church can decide. Of course we don’t trust local congregations to determine what theology is. We have a shared doctrine – which the local congregations are free to express – within the limits of that doctrine. They don’t get to vote on, or make up their own.
Furthermore, this is NOT an issue where ‘faithful Presbyterians have long disagreed”. The Presbyterian Church in Scotland first ordained women elders in 1966 (Australia was 1967) – 406 years after the Presbyterian church was formed. And it is highly debatable as to whether they were being ‘faithful’ to the Scriptures. The Church of Scotland since then has been in steep decline. It is without doubt that much of this was caused by the introduction of heresy into the church being made much easier by the ‘let each church decide what it wants to do’ mantra – which sounded so reasonable and proved so poisonous. As for the Australian Presbyterian Church – two thirds of the Church joined the Uniting Church in 1977. The one third who refused to join did so largely because they feared doctrinal compromise and a diminution of Presbyterian principles. It seems that that fear has been forgotten.
Finally, even the statement about the Declaratory statement is wrong. The 5th clause of that statement tells us we are allowed freedom of opinion on matters in the Westminster Confession that are not essential to its doctrine, provided this liberty does not damage the church’s unity and peace. This is not arguing that you can hold any doctrine you want provided it is not a doctrine essential to salvation. You could not, for example, be a minister in the Presbyterian church and deny the doctrine of covenant infant baptism. I would regard the doctrine of how the church is to be governed as essential to its doctrine and that the process of setting up contrary systems within the same denomination will damage that unity and peace.
Conclusion:
Some wondered why I mentioned FIEC in the last article. It wasn’t to attack them – they are doing a great work – but just simply to point out that we are not independents – deciding doctrine by congregations (just as we are not Anglicans – letting bishops decide – or if you follow the Knox-Robinson ecclesiology so beloved by Sydney Anglicans letting individual congregations decide – because they after all are the only church). However, it appears that in this area the FIEC (whom I often suggested in Scotland were Presbyterian light) are more Presbyterian than the Presbyterians. If you join an FIEC church you have to sign up to a quite detailed statement of faith (the draft revision of that statement runs to some 14 pages) – which you have to renew every four years – and there is no ‘declaratory statement’ which gives you wriggle room! In other words, FIEC churches in Australia do not get to determine or choose their own doctrine – they are pledged to uphold the same doctrine. Isn’t this what we are supposed to be? Rather than each congregation wrestling with each subject and coming to different conclusions.
When a former charismatic leader because an elder in my church in Scotland he told us what a relief it was to belong to a local congregation where we would never vote on doctrine. It meant that individuals could become members in the church even though they did not agree with some of the ‘non-essential’ doctrines – because they would never get to vote on them. And it meant that elders did not have to continually be engaged in battles about what doctrines actually should be taught – because we had sworn to uphold the teaching of the Confession. Rather than being oppressive – it was liberating and inclusive.
To go down the road of letting individuals’ congregations decide on a theological issue is a road fraught with danger. I began with the JW’s and the Mormons for a reason. Not to equate those who are arguing for female elders, or especially Chris Morphew, with the JW’s or Mormons – that is absolutely not the case. The point I am trying to make is that once you adopt a system whereby individual churches choose their own theology then you remove the checks and balances from a wider association – with all the dangers that involves. The reason we have a common creed and confession is to prevent such dangers. Note that this also deals with the Roman Catholic church’s accusation against Protestants – that because we have no Papal authority then we get theological chaos where each does what seems right in their own eyes – but we do have a church authority creeds and confessions based on the Scriptures. That is why this issue is so much more important than just an internal dispute about women elders.
When the Church lets individuals or groups determine what is biblical then there is enormous danger that a charismatic personality may lead many astray. Perhaps that is the worst-case scenario (although one that is evidenced throughout history) but at the very least the system of letting each congregation decide its own, within a supposedly Presbyterian system, will lead to confusion and disunity. Brothers and Sisters, let us not do down that route. It will be the end of the Presbyterian Church. We are standing at a crossroads – will we follow the new way of ‘presbyterian’ independency, or will we return to a more biblical and coherent Presbyterianism?
“This is what the LORD says: ‘Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.’ But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ (Jeremiah 6:16)
Is Male Only Eldership a Gospel or a Pastoral Issue? AP