AP
Reformed Thought for Christian Living
In late July (2026), I wrote an article on here asking: ‘Should we be governed by the Scriptures or by the Sydney Morning Herald?’ https://ap.org.au/2026/07/29/whom-will-we-follow-the-sydney-morning-herald-or-the-scriptures/ I was using the SMH […]
In late July (2026), I wrote an article on here asking: ‘Should we be governed by the Scriptures or by the Sydney Morning Herald?’ https://ap.org.au/2026/07/29/whom-will-we-follow-the-sydney-morning-herald-or-the-scriptures/ I was using the SMH as a symptom of what the culture thinks. Another way of expressing this is by asking the question: ‘Are we as Presbyterians going to allow our church to be influenced in its government, worship and doctrine by what we fear the society may think?’
At its last meeting the General Assembly of New South Wales made a decision by a majority of two to one that eldership in the future would be male only. As is Presbyterian procedure, it goes down under the Barrier Act – which means that a majority of Presbyteries have to approve this decision for it to become church law. Presbyterian procedure is not followed when some people see as an opportunity to fight the issue all over again, to campaign against it, to send out circulars, and to lobby, even through the secular press, in order to get our decision annulled.
Darryl Soh, minister of Abbotsford Church, is someone who dissented from the original Assembly decision, and, as is his right, is campaigning in order to get Presbyteries to reject the overture. I believe his arguments are unbiblical and unpresbyterian. To be fair to Darryl, and in order to avoid quoting him out of context, I republish this letter here for you to read. (Note this letter was also sent out by a member of the Women’s Ministry Committee).
Dear brothers,
I am writing to you as you were someone who recently recorded your dissent in relation to Overture 1 (and I don’t have everyone’s email address – so please feel free to pass this email onto anyone you think would find it helpful).
I thought I would share what I’ve been doing in discussions I have with my fellow Presbyters, especially in light of the collateral that has come about through the media but also with the PLC Sydney community, of which I am a part of as I am a parent at the school as well as married to the Chaplain.
Background:
As you have seen in the media, there has been a lot of hurt and anger of this issue. With the PLC community, I have seen and heard that the hurt runs deep at all levels of the community (students, staff, ex-students, parents). I attended the P&F meeting just to support Eddy 2 Mondays ago and I was asked to clear up some of the misunderstandings of the Barrier act and say where we are exactly in the process (as a number of people thought the change has already been made, thanks to how the media have portrayed it). 75% of the P&F meeting was taken up to discuss this whole issue, where the majority of parents are non-Christians.
In short, the impact of Overture 1 I think is actually presenting a significant barrier to the gospel. It’s where the main thing is no longer the main thing and this overture is becoming an unnecessary stumbling block to the gospel. So, I think now Overture 1 has become a pastoral issue with implications not only in our own churches (which we had a sense due to the recent WHS Survey) but to people outside the church and are adjacent to our denomination. And so, from my perspective, I think it is become even more urgent and important that this amendment does not get approved.
My steps taken so far:
I raised the pastoral aspect of this matter of what I have shared above at our last Presbytery meeting and I am exploring the possibility of Dr Paul Burgis (through College Council) to share about the pastoral impact with the Presbytery. We are waiting to hear if the College Council will allow him to share.
My personal take is that I think in good conscience, people of a different theological conviction can disapprove the amendment because we can exercise freedom over this secondary issue and leaving the Code as it allows people to express their theological convictions on this matter, regardless what they are.
So given this, I’m having coffees with ministers in my own Presbytery who I know who are strongly support the amendment and for them to hear the pastoral concerns I have in the lead up to when we vote as a Presbytery. I am encouraged that everyone I have talked to about this so far have been willing to meet up with me so that I can share. I encourage you to consider doing the same.
If you want to find out more information about anything I raised in this email, please feel free to get back to me. Thank you for spending time to read my email
All the best in life and ministry as we serve the Lord Jesus.
Your brother,
Let me just go through the letter, which you may read and find perfectly reasonable, but I find profoundly disturbing. Let’s deal with each of the main arguments.
Why does Darryl argue in this way? He seems to do so on the basis of the issue that he considers women’s ordination as a secondary thing, and yet it is now becoming the main thing because of the reaction of people. In fact, he makes a significant but false claim that this is a pastoral issue. Now let’s ask the question: ‘What is pastoral?’ It is when the pastor or pastors care for the sheep. The sheep are those who belong to Christ’s flock. A pastoral issue is one which affects God’s sheep. A pastoral issue is not one that affects unbelievers.
What Daryl is really suggesting is that, in passing this amendment, we will be hindering the gospel. The only evidence he offers for this is what I would call anecdotal. There are parents and pupils in the PLC who are unhappy. But that itself leads to significant problems. Since when was the church governed by the views of non-Christians? Since when was the gospel to be limited to the views of non-Christians? I suspect that many parents of pupils at PLC or Scots College would be quite happy with same-sex marriage and would be upset if the Assembly affirmed the teaching of the Bible about homosexuality. Should we change our policy on that issue lest it prove a barrier to the Gospel?
The school, never mind the church, should not let its teaching be determined by the whims of parents who read the Sydney Morning Herald and have been indoctrinated into a worldview which is fundamentally anti-Christian. As I said in my earlier article, our test is to do what the Scriptures say, not what the Sydney Morning Herald says. So, the concern is not pastoral, except insofar as it affects the members of our congregations. The concern is evangelistic. And my point on this is very simple. We must never trim the sails of the gospel ship to suit the currents and winds of the society. Those who are going to the Presbyterian Ladies College should at the very least expect that the education they receive will be Christian and indeed Presbyterian. Otherwise, what’s the point of having a Presbyterian school? They may not agree with the doctrine, they may not like the doctrine, but they decide to overlook that because of the quality of education provided.
There are rich parents who think that, having bought into the school’s traditions, they can then, through the school council, the media, and other means, undermine, water down, and even negate the specifically Christian teaching of the school. In fact, every professedly Christian school faces the same pressures.
3. It’s not a Gospel issue. This at first seems somewhat contrary. The previous point was that this was a Gospel issue because it could act as a barrier to the Gospel. But now we are told it is not a Gospel issue. This is a mantra I keep hearing repeated. For example, in another of these campaign letters being circulated Presbyterian elder Chris Mayhew, argues that ‘this is not a salvation issue’.
This is a self-defeating argument. There is very little that the Assembly discusses which are directly Gospel issues. Does that mean that each local church should just be free to ignore it? Infant baptism is not a gospel issue – is a Presbyterian church free to become Baptist? Communion is not a gospel issue. Elders themselves are not a gospel issue. But to reduce the church to that is a reductio ad absurdum.
Or let me put this another way. I’m an evangelist. My interest is in getting the gospel to people. My belief absolutely is that the gospel, or the proclaiming of the good news, is best done in and through the local church. Therefore, how the local church is governed, how it is run, what it does, is key to the proclamation of the gospel. And to have this ‘mere Christianity’ approach, where the gospel is limited to a few key doctrines, is a fundamental error – an error that is fashionable because of the individualistic temperament of contemporary society – but an error, nonetheless.
To argue that ‘these are gospel issues but on other issues we can do whatever we want’ is not the biblical or Presbyterian way. Jesus said that we were to evangelise by making disciples and ‘teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you’. (Matthew 28:20) He did not say: ‘these teachings of mine are gospel issues, and these other teachings of mine are not – so you can ignore them’!
4. We should permit diversity not uniformity in the Church. There are issues that are secondary or even thirdly. It is, of course, possible to become a Christian without being baptized. Take the thief on the cross. It’s possible to be a believer in Christ and yet think that the whole Bible is not inerrant. But that does not make these things good. The Westminster Confession, all Presbyterian elders sign up to, makes it very that in issues where the Scripture does not speak, there is liberty. But where the Scripture does speak, there must be uniformity.
In fact, the whole point of the Westminster Assembly itself was the direct opposite of what some pastors and elders are now arguing. The Assembly met so that there could be a uniformity of worship and doctrine and religion throughout the United Kingdom. It did not meet to permit individual congregations to determine what their own policy should be.
Of course, Assembly divines did not think that they could or should determine times of services, length of sermons, detail of church buildings or other such ‘circumstances or incidentals’. But how the church is governed and by whom was not an ‘incidental’. The later Independents, under Cromwell, would argue for precisely that it was – but that was against the Presbyterian position.
There is an even greater irony here. Mr. Soh’s church, according to Chris Morphew, has a policy of not permitting women to be elders or preaching. Why do they impose a rule on their own congregation, and yet one they will not allow the General Assembly to make uniform throughout the church?
That is a recipe for division, divisiveness, and schism. In the Presbyterian system, we do not just elect elders or ministers to a local congregation; they become part of a presbytery and a general assembly. We would end out with a situation where people with my views, who do not think that the church has the right to ordain female elders, coexist with those who think that it’s perfectly permissible. The church has made a decision, and that should be accepted. Or if it is to be argued against, it should be argued against on biblical grounds, not on alleged pastoral concerns, which in effect means a kind of mob rule by non-Christian parents.
5. We should permit diversity of opinion. It is to misunderstand Presbyterianism when it is argued that we need to reject the overture because then people should be free to express their theological convictions on this matter. To apply that across the board would lead to absolute chaos in the church.
It is quite in order for people to remain a part of the PCNSW when that church ordains only male elders, and even be prepared to argue from Scripture that this is wrong, providing that they will go along with the practice because we are a Presbyterian church. If they no longer regard this as a secondary issue, but as a primary one, they would be more comfortable in a church like the Uniting Church, which often despises and rejects the word of God.
Should individual congregations be permitted to conduct same-sex marriages or have a man who identified as a woman or a woman who identified as a man on the eldership?
Other issues
The legal perspective is also important – and it is something which we are continually told we must consider. If the Presbyterian Church permits women elders, then a woman in a particular congregation, like Abbotsford, who do not permit women elders, could sue them for discrimination on the grounds that it is not the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church to have male-only elders. It is a decision by a local congregation, which it could be argued was entirely discriminatory.
Finally, Darryl is encouraging his colleagues who agree with him to go and have a friendly word in the ear with other ministers over a coffee. “This is a pastoral issue. You will hurt people. You will hinder the gospel if you go ahead with this. Sure, have your conviction on it, but keep that to yourself. Do not let it impinge on the wider work of the church.” This is a not-so-subtle form of emotional and spiritual blackmail, and should have no place within the Presbyterian denomination. It is playing worldly politics with the word of God, the church of God, and the people of God.
So how should this be dealt with? Presbyteries should decide on the basis of the word of God. That is the first thing. Secondly, the opinions of non-Christian parents who do not even attend a Christian church ought not to have any influence over how we determine doctrine or practice. Thirdly, the fear of how this will look in the Sydney Morning Herald should be firmly resisted. Fourthly, people should pray. If you wish people to change their minds and their hearts, present a biblical case and pray that the Lord would change their hearts rather than have a conversation over a cup of coffee as part of a lobbying campaign.
What Happens if these Campaigns Succeed?
If, as a result of this campaign and the publicity in the secular press, a majority of presbyteries do not affirm overture 1, we will have created a situation whereby the Presbyterian Church government will be deeply wounded. It would paralyse our assembly decision-making, and be an embarrassment to the world, and a barrier to the gospel.
Why would it be a barrier to the gospel? Because having a biblical church, i.e., one run on Presbyterian grounds, is, in my view, imperative for the Presbyterian Church, at least in terms of communicating the gospel. I would suggest that the majority of our churches in NSW are not really viable, and that we urgently need a renewed vision, and we need to work together. Employing divisive tactics will not bring harmony. It will turn us into a lesser version of Sydney Anglicans and the FIEC with all their weaknesses and without their strengths.
But I like Darryl’s ending: “All the best in life and ministry as we serve the Lord Jesus.” And that is the question: Whom are we serving? Has Christ given us His church? Has He given us specific commands as to how it should be run? If we are going to serve Him, why would we go against those commands? Why would we think we know better than the apostles? One of the fundamental doctrines of the Presbyterian Church is that the Lord Jesus Christ is alone head of the Church and that his church is a body which is a unity (Colossians 2:19). We are not separate individual components who each decide what we want to do on the basis of our cultural context rather than Scripture. That is why this is actually a gospel issue, because I want the freedom to tell the good news in the context of a Presbyterian church, where I can say to anyone who comes in, ‘Wherever you walk into a Presbyterian church in New South Wales, you will hear the same gospel, you will have the same church government, and the same ethics and view of worship.’ Gospel proclamation is best served by Gospel unity. It is not helped by fostering doctrinal confusion.
– David Robertson
