AP

The following is a lightly edited version of a speech delivered on 15th July 2026 at the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia in the State of New South Wales (GANSW). Dr Murray Smith and Rev Kristian Hartberg delivered the speech, presenting Overture 1 on behalf of the Special committee for Elders and Deacons. Overture 1 proposes amending the qualifications for elders in the PCNSW Code to include the qualification that an elder must be a mature Christian “man”, while preserving the rights of existing female elders. The Overture was sustained by 136 votes to 61 and sent down under Barrier Act procedure to the presbyteries. If the Overture receives support from a majority of the presbyteries, GANSW can enact the proposed new rule at its next regular meeting in July 2027.

Murray Smith and Kristian Hartberg

Murray:

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.” Since Colin Buchanan put those verses to a catchy tune, it’s hard to say them without breaking into song. As Colin sings, “That’s Proverbs 3:5–6.”

Moderator, brothers and sisters, we stand to state Overture 1, which proposes to “Insert the word “man” into The Code at rule 4.02 (c), so that it reads:

An elder must…

(c) be a mature Christian man, who demonstrates exemplary Christ-like character as defined by the Scriptures  in 1 Timothy 3 and  Titus 1

While also preserving the rights of exiting female elders who were ordained in good faith under the current rule.

The Assembly first asked the Elders and Deacons Committee to bring this overture in 2022, and it is good to have finally reached the point where we can state it.

This overture has evoked strong opinions and strong emotions on all sides. It is important, therefore, that we engage IN the debate with precision and care. We need a clear understanding of what is and what is not being proposed, we need to love each other by listening carefully, and—above all—we need God to teach us and to rule us by his Word. Those have been our prayers in the Elders and Deacons Committee, and so we want to begin by clarifying what this overture does not seek to achieve, before stating what it does seek to achieve, and explaining why.

First, the overture does not in any way seek to diminish the value of women in our church.

To recognise that the Bible assigns the office of elder to biblically qualified men does not diminish the value of women any more than it diminishes the value of men who are not elders. People are valuable—men, women, and children—not because of their role or their function but because they are made in the image of God. And we are all made in the image of God, just as we’re all fallen in sin, all redeemed by God in Christ, and all called to wholehearted service in his kingdom.

Second, then, the overture is not an attempt to restrict ministry by women, or leadership by women, or teaching by women any more than it restricts the ministry of men who are not elders.

The body of Christ grows to maturity and fulfils its God-given mission in the world as each part does its work (Eph 4:16). The elders are called to provide leadership to the church, but that leadership is to oversee, equip, and enable the whole church (Eph 4:11–12; cf. Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Tim 5:17; 1 Pet 5:1–4). In a healthy church, there will be many others—men and women—who exercise important leadership and teaching roles under the oversight of the elders.

It was my mum who first taught me Proverbs 3:5–6. She wrote those verses in the Good News Bible she and dad gave me on my 8th birthday. More than anyone else she led me to the Lord. As I grew up, I watched her lead large teams to run evangelistic kids’ clubs in our local church. I watched her teach Scripture in the schools, and train Scripture teachers for their important work. She’s been leading and teaching like that her whole Christian life, and she’s still doing it in her 70s— all without ever being an elder.

We can multiply stories like that in churches across the State – men and women who are not elders are employed as pastoral assistants and deaconesses, serve as deacons and on committees of management, serve on Assembly and Presbytery committees, lead local outreach teams, oversee weekends away, lead youth groups, teach children and adults in Christian education programs and small groups, and lead in prayer, read the Bible, share testimonies, and lead music in gathered worship. And I haven’t even mentioned all the informal ways women and men serve the Lord in the life of the church, and in their vocations outside the church.

This overture is not designed to stop any of that. In fact, back in 2023, it was the Elders and Deacons Committee, together with the Women’s Ministry Committee, who proposed 37 recommendations for Healthy Complementarianism, which we, as an Assembly, then embraced (GANSW 2024 BB Min 94 (1)–(37)). We have, therefore, already agreed that we need more ministry from people who are not elders—women and men—more leadership, more teaching, not less. We have already said an emphatic “yes” to the many ways in which Scripture calls us to live and serve together as co-heirs and fellow workers in the kingdom of God. There is, of course, always more that we can do to equip the saints for the work of ministry (Eph 4:11–12). But this overture does not stand against that goal. On the contrary, it seeks to actively promote men and women serving together in the work of the gospel under the leadership of godly male elders.

Kristian:

Third, this overture doesn’t seek to redefine eldership or to propose a new model of eldership.

Let’s be clear: if the rule proposed in the overture is adopted, the definition of eldership in Code 4.01 won’t change, the duties of elders in Code 4.03 won’t change, and the existing qualifications for elders in Code 4.02 won’t change. The overture does not seek to redefine eldership; it simply seeks to bring a single point of clarity to the qualifications of eldership.

This overture does not rely on any model of eldership other than our model of eldership in PCNSW: this model is firmly grounded in the Bible, and follows the GAA’s declaration on eldership which is now set out in our Constitution, Procedure, and Practice (§4.4). It’s the model reflected in the GAA vows on eldership, and outlined in chapter 4 of the PCNSW Code.

The overture does not seek to change any of this. It relies on the model of eldership we already have.

Fourth, this overture does not inappropriately seek to impose a rule on the church.

There has been some concern that the Elders and Deacons Committee, or the Assembly, is inappropriately attempting to impose its will against the will of local congregations. But this is not the case. While local sessions and congregations have plenty of authority over the life of their respective churches, there are some things they rightly don’t have authority over.

In the Presbyterian Church some decisions belong to sessions, some to presbyteries, and some to the Assembly. And important among the responsibilities of the State Assembly are the qualifications of elders. This makes good sense because elders are ordained not only to the local session, but to serve the wider church in presbyteries and Assemblies. Our Assembly is made up of ministers and elders. It’s not inappropriate for the Assembly to set the qualifications for its own members—it’s just good governance.

Fifth, this overture is not a distraction from the gospel.

We all want to see the gospel advance. I love that our church has that unity of purpose. While some have claimed this debate is a distraction from our gospel mission, we have to ask: what is the ordinary way God has ordained for his gospel to advance? It’s through his church. And what do churches need? Elders, the blueprint for which we find in his word.

Just because an issue is not “the gospel” doesn’t mean it’s not worthy of our time. God’s word addresses many important issues which are not the gospel. Issues which are important for us think through as they impact the God-given means through which the gospel advances— the church.

And here we get to the crux of the issue: Does God’s word teach that elders must be appropriately gifted and qualified men?

Murray:

That is the heart of the issue. Does God in his word teach that elders must be men?

Before we address that question, however, we need to consider a possible objection, because some have argued that our elders are not biblical elders. It’s important to see, then, that our Code repeatedly uses language from both New Testament “elder” passages and the NT “overseer” passages to describe our elders.

The Code describes our elders—together with ministers—as “shepherds” who exercise “oversight” (Code 4.01). That’s language that the New Testament reserves for elders or overseers in Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2, Ephesians 4:11, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:2, and Titus 1:7.

The Code explicitly appeals to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 for the qualifications of elders. Crucially, it relies on those passages both for the character of elders (Code 4.02 (c)), and for their competencies. It first says that elders must demonstrate “exemplary Christ-like character as defined by the Scriptures” and explicitly cites  “1 Tim. 3:1-7” and “Tit. 1:5-9”” (Code 4.02 (c)). It then says that elders “must … be competent to teach and to lead” (Code 4.02 (e)), using  language drawn directly from 1 Timothy 3:2–5.

The Code also alludes to New Testament elder passages when it says that elders “teach the word of God, including correcting false teaching” (Code 4.03 (c)). That’s Titus 1:9. And it says that elders “equip others to serve Christ” (Code 4.03 (c)). That’s Ephesians 4:11–12.

These biblical allusions describing our elders in our Code are no accident. In 2015 the Assembly asked the Elders and Deacons Committee to draft new Code regulations that would describe our elders in biblical terms. That’s what the Elders and Deacons Committee did, and that’s what we as an Assembly embraced. And so it’s no surprise that our Code characterises our elders as biblical elders.

Certainly, the Code distinguishes between the functions of ministers and elders. That’s good and right. Ministers have sole right to the pulpit (Code 4.06), and sole responsibility for the conduct of public worship (Code 4.05). There is nothing in this overture that seeks to change that.

But ministers and elders together are responsible for ruling the church and for the church’s official teaching. That’s why ministers and elders take the same vows to “assert, defend, and maintain” the doctrine, worship, and government of the church. It’s why ministers and elders sit together with equal votes in sessions, presbyteries, and Assemblies.

Finally, that brings us to the simple question at the heart of this overture. Does the Bible teach that elders must be men? The simple answer to that question is “yes”.

The Bible teaches that elders must be men both by example (there’s a biblical pattern), and by explicit command (there are biblical prescriptions).

First, in both the Old and New Testaments the “elders” who hold office are always described using the masculine form of the word “elder”—never the feminine. Several passages explicitly refer to elders as “men” (Num. 11:16, 24–26; Deut. 29:10; Judg. 8:14; Ruth 4:2; 1 Kings 21:11; Ezek. 8:11). In the New Testament, named Jewish elders are always men (Mark 14:53; Luke 23:30; John 3:1; Acts 5:34; 23:1, 6). The Scriptures, of course, provide multiple examples of women ministering, leading, and teaching in important ways—from Miriam and Deborah to Phoebe and Priscilla. But there is no biblical example of a woman holding the office of elder.

More importantly, the Bible assigns the office of elder to godly men by explicit prescriptions. The two most important passages are 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. In case there is any doubt that these passages apply to our elders, we should remember that the Special Meeting of the General Assembly of Australia last year explicitly advised us that they do, and not merely in regard to the character of elders, but in their entirety. There is “no constitutional barrier,” the GAA has advised us, to applying the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9 to our elders (GAA 2025 Min 46 (4)).

Notice, then, that the language in those passages is strong and clear. Paul lays out what an elder or overseer “must be” (1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:7). It’s a God-given necessity. He says this is part of how we “ought to behave in the household of God” (1 Tim 3:15). It’s a moral obligation. And part of what must be is that an elder or overseer “must be … the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:6), the “man of one woman”.

Further, Paul requires that an elder or overseer “must be … able to teach” and “to rule” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5), to exercise the very functions he prohibits to women in the immediate context (1 Tim. 2:12). Paul is not here prohibiting women from any and every kind of teaching and leadership because he elsewhere encourages women to teach and to lead (Tit 2:3–5; 1 Cor 11:5; Col 3:16). It’s a prohibition that applies, as John Calvin says, only to the church’s official teaching and leadership, which is the responsibility of the elders.

Yet further, Paul requires that an elder or overseer must “manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive” (1 Tim. 3:4–5; cf. Tit. 1:6). Paul elsewhere specifically charges husbands and fathers with this responsibility (Eph. 5:21–33; 6:4; Col. 3:18–19, 21). So its clear that, according to the apostle, elders must be men.

The clarity of this biblical teaching is what stands behind the long tradition of male eldership in all branches of the Christian church until the late 19th century. It continues to be recognised by many Presbyterian churches around the world, and in every other State Church in the Presbyterian Church of Australia.

Kristian:

If the answer is “Yes, God’s word directs us that only biblically qualified men are called to the office of elder” then the answer to the question, “Why should we change the Code?” is obvious. Since male-only eldership is biblical we can be confident that it is also good for God’s people and good for the church’s gospel-centred mission.

Adopting male-only eldership will provide clarity and order to the church, and so free men and women to serve as God intended. It will also provide us with an opportunity to bear witness to God’s good design in a world confused about sex and gender.

Does that mean it will be pain-free to implement? No, but conforming to the word of God is often not easy and sometimes painful, particularly when it cuts against the prevailing culture. It may not be pain-free but it’s biblical and therefore ultimately good.

This overture doesn’t devalue women or prevent them from using their God given gifts for the good of the church. It serves to conform our practice to God’s word and therefore will help build the women of our church up to use their gifts for the good of the church and her God given mission.

This overture doesn’t redefine eldership or impose a new model.  It seeks to be faithful to the biblical model we already have.

This overture doesn’t inappropriately seek to impose a rule on the churches but to help our churches conform to the word of God concerning eldership.

This overture is not a distraction from the gospel but will help serve the church’s mission to proclaim the gospel as it brings clarity to the complementary roles God assigns to men and women in the life of the church.

The heart of this overture is this: Is it biblical? And if you are convicted that male only eldership is indeed biblical, then the next step for us as a church is clear. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight” (Prov 3:5–6).

– Murray Smith and Kristian Hartberg