AP

The 52nd General Assembly of Australia (GAA) held its triennial meeting on 7–11 September 2026. To help pastors and congregations understand the business conducted at this important meeting, a summary of key decisions was circulated to churches. Under the heading “Women’s Ministry,” one bullet point stated rather matter-of-factly: “After extended debate, the Assembly did not reappoint the Women’s Ministries Special Committee … The Committee and its members were thanked for their work over the triennium.” It would be easy to read past this note without recognising the significance of the decision. Put more bluntly, the GAA rejected the majority of its resolutions and terminated the Women’s Ministries Committee.

For me, who voted to reappoint the committee, this was a startling turn of events. It prompted an obvious question: “What just happened?” And, more importantly, “What comes next for women’s ministry in the Presbyterian Church of Australia (PCA)?” I would like to offer my perspective on why the committee came to an end and suggest a renewed vision for both men’s and women’s ministry in our denomination.

What Went Wrong?

I believe the votes against the Women’s Ministries resolutions and the committee’s reappointment reflected concerns among many commissioners about its underlying agenda and ethos. Although the committee formally affirmed the Presbyterian Church’s complementarian position, its approach tended towards egalitarianism, placing greater emphasis on advancing women into leadership than on discipling women into godliness.

This tendency was evident in the ten principles drawn from the committee’s 2023 theological report, “Part One: A Biblical and Theological Framework for Men and Women Working Together in the Presbyterian Church of Australia.” The report itself is, on the whole, a commendable and balanced treatment of the subject, affirming both male headship and the significant contributions of women throughout Scripture. However, the ten principles (a-j) derived from the paper do not adequately reflect a complementarian framework, but rather seem to promote an egalitarian viewpoint. None of the stated principles affirmed male headship and men’s primary leadership role over God’s people. Principle “c,” for example, acknowledges that “men have led in specific, exclusive leadership roles in the religious and political life of God’s people,” but immediately qualifies this by noting that “and women have led in significant moments and ways.” While the contributions of women should certainly be recognised, this formulation downplays the distinct leadership responsibilities Scripture assigns to men.

The principles also repeatedly use language such as “equal/equally,” “both,” “together,” “co-heirs,” “co-workers,” “partnership,” and “each other.” These terms are not inherently problematic. Men and women are equally made in God’s image, share equally in the inheritance of salvation in Christ, and are called to work together for the gospel. Yet equality in dignity and salvation does not mean interchangeability of roles. Without a clear affirmation of biblical distinctions in leadership and responsibility, the overall impression we are left with from these principles is that, in Christ, men and women are ontologically the same and share the same roles in the life of the church.

The committee’s emphasis on expanding women’s participation in church leadership was also evident in its resolutions to state assemblies. These included proposals for women to lead public worship, participate in church leadership decision-making, be included in sessions, presbyteries, and state assemblies as associate members, and be actively considered for church staff and ministry leadership positions. These proposals raised legitimate concerns about the boundaries between encouraging women to serve and promoting them into roles of leadership that do not align with our church’s complementarian convictions. Although the committee may have intended to empower women for ministry, its proposals appeared to move beyond encouraging women’s ministry towards promoting polity changes that would expand their participation into governing and leadership structures.

The outcome at the GAA suggests that many commissioners were not persuaded by this direction. The committee’s failure to secure support for its resolutions, followed by the decision not to reappoint it, should prompt serious reflection on the purpose and direction of women’s ministry in our denomination.

A Renewed Vision for Men’s and Women’s Ministry

Where do we go from here? I believe we need a renewed vision for distinct men’s and women’s ministry in the church.

First, we must clarify what we mean by the terms “women’s ministry” and “men’s ministry.” Women’s ministry is not simply women doing things in the church, just as men’s ministry is not simply men doing things in the church. Men and women have many opportunities to serve together in gospel work. Bible studies, children’s and youth ministries, hospitality, building projects, cleaning and other church activities are not necessarily men’s or women’s ministry—they are simply ministry.

Rather, women’s ministry should focus particularly on women discipling women to grow in godliness as included in the responsibilities and relationships distinctive to women. Likewise, men’s ministry should equip men to grow in godliness and fulfil their unique responsibilities as men. Both should receive sound biblical teaching and theological instruction, whether in mixed or gender-specific settings. But there is also an important place for men and women to be discipled separately to address the particular challenges they face.

This vision rests on the conviction that though men and women are equally created in God’s image and united in Christ, God has created them with meaningful distinctions and given them different responsibilities in the home and church. Christ does not see his redeemed saints as undifferentiated humanity, but he uniquely sanctifies men and women to reflect his character as they serve him in their respective roles. Although there is no longer a national Women’s Ministries Special Committee, state assemblies, and local churches must seek to equip women to serve faithfully. The question is not whether women should be active in the church, but how best to nurture their godliness and strengthen their service.

Rather than concentrating primarily on expanding women’s participation into leadership structures, our committees and churches should prioritise discipling women to trust the Lord, grow in sound doctrine, love their husbands and children, manage their households faithfully, serve fellow believers and show mercy to those in need. These are not trivial or secondary concerns. Scripture presents such qualities as central to a woman’s godly character and witness (Titus 2:3–5; 1 Peter 3:1–6; Ephesians 5:22–33; 1 Timothy 5:5–16; Proverbs 31:10–31). Similarly, men’s ministry should equip men in sound doctrine and godly conduct, preparing them to be faithful husbands, fathers, elders, and servants who lead and bless their families, churches, and communities (Psalm 112; 1 Timothy 3:13; Titus 1:5-9).

Of course, men and women must continue to work together in the life and mission of the church. Distinct gender-based ministries should complement this shared service, not undermine it. Our commitment to the biblical teaching of male authority in leadership should not prevent us from recognising women’s gifts, listening to their counsel, or providing meaningful opportunities for them to serve within the church.

The challenge before us is to develop ministries that honour the distinct responsibilities God has given men and women and equip both to serve Christ faithfully. Rather than reshaping the church’s polity to conform to the culture, we must shape our lives and ministries according to God’s Word. Let us therefore use this moment not simply to mourn the end of a committee, but to reconsider how we can, moving forward, better disciple men and women in godliness and service.

– Andrew Matthews