AP

Changing the Lock – A Response to Andrew Jaeger

Andrew Jaeger has written a lengthy and interesting paper on the current situation in the Presbyterian Church of New South Wales regarding women elders which can be viewed here.

Mr Jaeger describes himself as a member and a ‘lay leader’ within the church – although not an elder or minister.  I point this out, not to disparage him – but to praise him.  It is excellent that intelligent and thoughtful people like Andrew get involved in these issues – and it is a pleasure to interact with him.  (Although I should point out that I don’t really accept the clergy/laity distinction).   His expertise is in the field of child safety policy in community organisations – something which is important – although from his paper he does not appear to be too convinced about the BTS (Breaking the Silence) protection scheme of the Presbyterian church.

Overall, I think that the paper is confusing, and strains at a gnat whilst swallowing a camel.  My suspicion is that if you agree with women elders you will say this is a wonderful paper, if you disagree you will have a rather different interpretation.  

Andrew is arguing that for health and safety reasons we should not be changing the lock (that is who we ordain as elders) until we build a door.  The metaphor is confusing, but he seems to be suggesting that we cannot do what we consider the Bible to say, until we have found a way to provide health and safety for women.   The argument is confused and confusing.   Some will suspect that this is just another delaying, procedural tactic, but whilst there may be those who see it as such an opportunity, I think that Mr Jaegar has genuine concerns which should be addressed.   My concern is that the analogy and some of the arguments used really don’t help matters – but I also think that this paper gives an opportunity to highlight some of the key strengths that should be in our Presbyterian form of church government.  

I want to look at where the confusion lies.   In doing so I will also be interacting a little with what Craig Tucker’s paper says – as Andrew relies so much on it.  (Unless otherwise stated all the quotes in italics are from Andrew’s paper).

1. There is confusion about what Presbyterianism actually is

There was one sentence that took my breath away:  

The entire practical disagreement comes down to whether a woman may cast a vote in a session meeting.

If that is how we view the eldership – then we are really in deep, deep trouble.  We are a million miles away from the New Testament teaching about the elders.   An elder is not just someone who gets to vote in a session meeting.  This may be heresy, but I suspect the NT church would barely recognise our session meetings – especially if we regard them as little more than spiritual corporate governance boards.  

The question should be what does the New Testament say about elders?  Which brings me on to the second confusion.

2. There is confusion about what the New Testament says about elders

Who do the New Testament say should be elders?  What are the qualifications?    The problem with Andrew’s approach is that it suggests that the NT apparently says very little.  Relying on Craig Tucker’s paper to the Assembly, (which was not accepted), he falls into the same trap as Craig.   Apparently, what we currently consider as elders are not New Testament elders at all.  The New Testament barely mentions elders – because they are just governors as per Rom 12:7-8 and 1 Cor 12:28. The passages that have been traditionally understood as being about elders, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, are not about elders – they are about ministers or pastors. 

3. There is confusion about the History of the Presbyterian Church

The Westminster Model has played a prominent role in the PCA’s resolutions regarding eldership. The PCA has repeatedly affirmed female eldership not by abandoning complementarianism but by reaffirming our longstanding historical commitment to the WM. (Craig Tucker)

Craig (and Andrew following) gets to this somewhat novel argument by arguing it is not novel at all but rather that it was the position of the Westminster Assembly, and the Scottish and English Presbyterians, until the Americans under Dabney, came and spoilt it all.  The argument to put it simply is that the Westminster Divines believed that there were three main offices in the church, pastor, elder and deacon.    And that it was Dabney, who taught that the elder and the minister were essentially the same.  

The argument then goes that since elders are only governors, then the office can be open to women.   Women cannot be ministers.  But they can be elders.    If you think that the eldership is just about ‘governing’ (voting on a committee) then I can see how you get there – but it is a long, long way from traditional Presbyterianism and especially the Westminster/Scottish model that Craig continually cites.  I have lived and worked in Scottish Presbyterian churches for over 40 years, I have studied extensively Scottish church history, doctrine and ecclesiology and I have never come across this interpretation, nor seen it in practice anywhere.   It is one thing to argue for a novel approach.   It is another to claim historical support for it that just does not exist.   The modern trend of rewriting history in order to get it to fit in with our modern presuppositions is not a trend we should be part of.

In the Scottish tradition there were two main offices in the church – the elder and the deacon (by the way I want to ask what has happened to deacons in the Presbyterian Church in Australia?  When did we decide to hand the functions of the Deacons Court over to a Committee of Management?! – but that’s a subject for another day).    The eldership was traditionally split into two – the teaching elder (the minister) and the ruling elder.   In terms of the church courts both had equal votes and neither was considered more important.  You could argue, as some did, that this was a three-office view, but it was never pushed to the extent that it is now being pushed in the NSW Assembly.   If John Knox, Rutherford, Chalmers, McCheyne etc. were still in their graves, they would be spinning at the idea that they were being cited in support of women elders!  As would all of the Westminster Divines.  To claim that the Australian Presbyterian church used to support women elders and ministers BECAUSE of their historical commitment to the Westminster Confession takes a great deal of chutzpah!  (note that the NSW Presbyterian church is now the outlier on this one – the other states have all returned to the more biblical position)

Presbyterian governance was designed, from its inception, to prevent the concentration of power. Calvin insisted on lay participation alongside clergy. Knox built Scottish polity around elder parity and appeals to higher courts.

That’s kind of the point.  There is elder parity.  We do not have this fundamental distinction between the minister and the elders.   Craig makes the astonishing assertion that ministers have authority whilst elders do not.

Unlike ministers who have significant formal authority as individuals, PCNSW elders do not exercise any formal authority as individuals. (Craig Tucker)

The notion of ministers acting as individuals who have authority whilst elders do not – is something that comes from Sydney Anglicanism – not Scottish Presbyterianism.

 Since the Reformation, the historic mainstream position in Presbyterian churches has been that “elder” is not the same thing as “elder” in the NT.  (Craig Tucker).  

As a student of Scottish church history and other presbyterian churches I have to say that now I am really confused.  I have never come across this position before.  The Presbyterian churches I knew argued that their position on elders and church governance was biblical – and that the appointment of elders in every church was precisely because they are the same as elders in the NT.   Why would a Reformed church create a new office which is not found in the New Testament?  Why would we call our office bearers elders if they are not elders in the NT sense?

4. There is confusion about what we are being asked to do

People are being asked to answer a governance and safeguarding question armed with nothing but instinct.

It is not true that we are being asked to answer this question with only instinct.  We are answering this question with Scripture.  The church is not governed by instinct any more than it is governed by health and safety regulations from the State government.

The Assembly should not proceed on trust alone… (Craig Tucker)

But no one is asking the Assembly to proceed on trust alone – although I would argue that our trust in God’s Word should come before our trust in government statutes, the advice of health and safety consultants, or the managerial processes that are currently in vogue.  I think we should trust that God knew what he was doing when he gave us his instructions on the government of the church.

5. There is confusion about government and doctrine

The 1997 GAA confirmed this was a matter of government, not doctrine.

There is a confusion here between what the WCF regards as church government, and what the secular State calls governance.  These are two different, but related issues.   The notion that church government is not a matter of doctrine would come as a great shock to my Scottish Presbyterian ancestors, who were prepared to be martyred over the issue of how the Church is governed.   I doubt they would have gone that far for ‘governance’.

6. There is confusion about what it means to be included in the church

The overture proposes to make all church courts exclusively male without first establishing any concrete mechanism for women’s participation in governance. No alternative has been designed, consulted on, voted on, or tested. The Assembly is being asked to remove an existing structure and trust that something will replace it.

This again misunderstands the nature of Presbyterianism.  The vast majority of men will not become elders.  Are they excluded?  And why restrict it to women?  What mechanism for participation in governance is available for young people, people of colour, disabled people, Scottish exiles?  Besides which in the government of the church, members get to vote for elders and at congregational meetings, there are (or should be) deacons courts – are women being excluded from these?  How did our ancestors cope when women were not allowed to be elders?

The proposed change tells more than half the body of Christ that their voice has no formal standing in the governance of their own church. Not because they lack character, competence, or calling. Because of their sex. That should trouble us — not because complementarianism is wrong, but because this particular expression of it contradicts the very logic of the governance system we claim to value.

Again, note the confusion between governance and government.  And the misunderstanding about what Presbyterianism is.  We are not independents where members can vote on doctrine.  We are Presbyterians where every single member of the church has a say in the governance of the church – but the spiritual oversight and the undershepherding is undertaken by those men who are suitably qualified.  This does not mean that other men, women and children are any less valuable members.

Less than 50% of women believed they were consulted by elders regarding church direction. More than 30% of women felt limited in what they could do.

The same argument as above applies.  But it also depends on what we mean by ‘consulted’.  Should we vote on doctrine?  Should ministers consult their congregations about what they should preach?   If a man is not an elder, is he limited in what he can do?    A wise minister and wise elders will ‘consult’ by their pastoral care, visitation of members and teaching of the Scriptures.  A foolish Kirk Session will be having endless ‘consultations’ about what they have already decided to do, just so they can tick the ‘we have consulted the congregation’ box.

7. There is confusion about the distinction between the clergy and the elders

The Commission identified clericalism — the elevation of ordained or ministerial status above laity — as a significant contributing factor in some religious institutions.

This is a self-defeating point.  If male only clergy is a significant factor in creating abuse, then why argue for the clergy to be male only but the elders not?    

8. There is confusion about the basis on which we make decisions

Tucker’s paper notes that it is acknowledged on all sides of the debate that governance bodies comprising men and women working together make better decisions and achieve better outcomes.

Adams and Ferreira’s 2009 study in the Journal of Financial Economics found that female directors have better attendance records.

Are we really arguing that we should have female elders because a study in the Journal of Financial Economics suggests that we would get better attendance of male elders if women were present?  Or that if we do not have women elders then we will get worse decisions and outcomes?   This is arguing entirely from a pragmatic, worldly approach.   Why not go the whole way and introduce quotas, not only for women, but for other groups?  After all, ‘studies have shown’ that this leads to better outcomes! 

My other concern here is the confusion about gender.  Are we buying into the world’s stereotypes that because men are de facto more violent, we need the gentleness of women to balance things out?  Are we not missing out the difference that Christ makes?    If it were the case that any group must have a balance of male and female, was Christ wrong to chose only men as his disciples? 

Please let’s stop making decisions based on what the latest fashions in worldly decision making are.  Let us instead stick to, or return to, biblical principles.  We are radical Christians – not just followers of cultural trends.

9. There is confusion about what BTS and other ‘safety mechanisms’ are meant to do

I was quite surprised at the criticism of BTS (Breaking the Silence) – and the suggestion that women elders would be better.   I think the problem comes from overestimating what institutional programmes can do.

The harder question is not whether BTS exists, but what public evidence is available that it changes reporting behaviour and outcomes over time. 

That’s not a hard question.  The harder question is what public evidence is available that having female elders changes reporting behaviour and outcomes over time?    It is also deeply wrong for any Christian organisation to think that just by changing our systems we can deal with sin.  Our systems can, at best, help restrain the evil doer – but they will never create anything that changes the human heart – indeed they may just encourage hypocrisy.  Those who know the systems can learn how to play them.   This is not to argue against having any systems – it is just to recognise their limitations.

10. There is confusion about what ‘governance structures’ can do to deal with the consequences of the Fall

So, here’s the question we need to sit with: if you believe Genesis 3:16 predicts that male authority, post-Fall, will tend toward sinful domination — and you do believe that, it’s in your own literature — then what governance structures guard against that predictable distortion? 

This is the same problem as above.  But it’s an argument that proves too much – in that it goes against the teaching and practice of the rest of the Bible.  To argue that we must have women elders because male leadership is flawed is to argue against the teaching and practice of Scripture.  It also selectively quotes Scripture by missing out the role of women in the curse.  What guards against the distortion is that our ‘governance’ structures, and those involved in them, must be governed by the Word of God. 

11. There is confusion about what Andrew Jaeger’s paper is trying to achieve 

I’m not saying “never.” I’m saying “not yet.” And I’m saying the burden of proof is on those proposing the change to show that these conditions are met.

If Andrew believes what he says, and I am sure he does, then he is saying never.  Because he believes that women should be elders and that this is biblical.   Although I accept that Andrew is genuinely concerned about the health and safety aspect, there is no doubt that this will be perceived as yet another delaying tactic.  After all, who does not want to protect women?  The notion that we cannot go to having male elders only, without a suitable additional governance structure to protect women, is quite frankly insulting to those who for many years have had male only eldership.  The idea that setting up yet another committee, or programme, will somehow protect women, is at best wishful thinking.

If the aim of the paper is to ensure that women are safe within the Presbyterian church – then I would hope that there is no one who is opposed to that.  My concern is that this issue is being used to prevent a necessary biblical reform – on the basis of worldly considerations, rather than biblical ones.

So how do I suggest we deal with the misogyny, abuse, misuse of power, violence etc that exists in every area of society – including the church?  We need to teach and practise the Bible.  We need to treat ‘older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity” (1 Timothy 4:2).  Husbands should love their wives sacrificially as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25).  We must ‘submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21).  Elders are to be shepherds of God’s flock that is under our care … not lording it over those entrusted to us, but being examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:1-4).

We must not patronise and make largely symbolic gestures of ‘inclusion’.  Women don’t need to be included.  They are included – as much as any man.  To speak the language of exclusion, as so often happens, is to speak the language of division.  In Christ there is no male or female for we are all one in Christ (Galatians 3:28).  

It would be enormously helpful if we returned to a more biblical form of church discipline – ensuring that those who break the qualifications for eldership, including those who disrespect or abuse women,  are suspended or removed from office. 

In terms of our church structures – there is no reason that women cannot be involved in leadership in other roles.  All female members, like all male, vote for elders, vote at congregational meetings and have the right to petition the Kirk Session and the courts of the church.  The current Management Committee system enables women to serve on this committee.  When we move to a more biblical system of deacons, there is no reason that women cannot be, like Phoebe, deaconesses (Romans 16:1). 

Above all it is the fruit of the Spirit within the lives of the leaders that will ensure the best possible conditions for all within the church.  

12. There is confusion about the doctrine of the Church

 You don’t remove a structural safeguard before you’ve built the replacement.

Andrew thinks that women being elders is a ‘structural safeguard’.  (Surely the same argument could be applied to female ministers?).  But that is not the purpose of the Kirk Session.  That is the language of the corporation, rather than the language of the church.  We do not build doors.  And we do not change the locks.  The analogy is unhelpful because it is unbiblical. 

When Peter confessed Jesus as the Messiah, Jesus told him that he would build his church on that rock (I note that some people consider the rock to be Peter and then from that have drawn out a rather convoluted hierarchical system of church government – but we don’t accept that).  Jesus went on to promise that he would build his church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.   He went on to tell Peter: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16:18-19).  Christ has done that.  He has built, and continues to build his church on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with himself as the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:19-22).  We do not create new doors, or new keys.  We stick with what Christ has given us.  New Testament ecclesiology is brilliant.  It is simple, flexible and spiritual.    When we seek to change it, whether by subtracting or adding to it, then we are in effect declaring that Christ is no longer the Head of the Church and that we know better how it should be run. 

It is through the church that the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the heavenly authorities (Ephesians 4:10).  It is in belonging to the church that we all equally become a holy dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit (Ephesians 2:21-22).   It is in the church that the fullness of Christ is experienced (Ephesians 1:22).  God has given us the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to equip us for works of service, so that we can become united, mature and reach the fulness of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-13).  We are not a corporate, hierarchical structure.  We are an organic body which is joined and held together by every supporting ligament,  and so we grow and build ourselves up in love, as each part does its work (Ephesians 4:16).

It is as we build together on the foundation that we will become what Christ intended us to be.  Let’s stop tinkering around the edges.  Let’s stop playing church politics.  And let’s just be what we are called to be – the church of the living God!

“Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, ²¹ to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen” (Ephesians 3:20-21).

David Robertson