The General Assembly of Australia held in September 2010 in Sydney has performed the last rites on the overture originated by The Presbytery of Sydney South aimed at removing the right of women to become Elders of the Church. It has dismissed the issue and the matter is now dead.

Three state assemblies, New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria voted NOT to approve the remit sent down in 2007 from the General Assembly of Australia to lower courts for approval. This means that the absolute majority of assemblies and presbyteries that was necessary for approval cannot be obtained.

The decision was all but guaranteed after the Procurator of the NSW Assembly (the Church's barrister), who is also the Procurator of the General Assembly of Australia, presented an opinion to the NSW Assembly to the effect as follows.

a. The overture is incompetent and invalid on procedural grounds and
proceedings to date should be invalidated

b. It should have been originally sent out as two separate overtures, one
dealing with the proposed new powers over the eldership and the second
dealing with the rules under which those powers will be exercised.

c. Both overtures should have been remitted under Section III of the Basis
of Union (which requires 3/5ths majority)

d. There is a likelihood that Section IV of the Basis of Union (regarding
property rights of dissenting congregations) would be brought into play
because of the effect on the issue of Doctrine of any decision along the
lines proposed in the original overture. The Procurator qualifies this by
saying that it needs further investigation.

e. It is probably legal for the PCA GAA to take this power to itself but it
must follow the rules under Section III

This does not eliminate the possibility that an overture aimed at abolishing women elders could be legally introduced to the NSW State Assembly at some time in the future. However it is unlikely, with such a horrendously divisive outcome, that the assembly would approve.

The background to the remit is below.
    

The General Assembly of Australia, meeting in September 2007, voted to assume control of the qualifications for the ruling eldership. It went on to approve the form of a set of rules for the eldership including one that the office of Ruling Elder be confined to men.

These new rules were sent down to presbyteries and state assemblies for approval and, had they been approved, the 2010 Session of the General Assembly of Australia may have been able to confirm them.
Strangely enough, there were no plans to deny the office to women already ordained although new rules could have been expected which may have sought to achieve such purposes as:

a. limiting the rights of women to carry their eldership into a new congregation,
b. prevent women elders from acting as commissioners to higher church courts.
c. Restricting the ability of women to celebrate the sacraments
d. Restricting non-ministerial access to the pulpit to men.

The Presbyterian Fellowship is committed to opposing the changes and any others which may be made as a consequence, which we will do by providing, among other things, strong counter-arguments, support for those who speak out in opposition, information packages and publicity as to the catastrophic consequences of sustaining such a decision.

For further information select from the following:

  
What did the proposed new rules say?

What was the logic behind these new rules banning women from the eldership. What were the basic premises and what was wrong with these premises

What would this new decision have meant for the church?

Why has this issue caused so much trouble within the church?

What can I do in the future to oppose changes to which I can't agree?

The proposed changes to the Church's rules were:

1. Add to Article 2  of  the  Articles  of  Agreement  the words,
(h) the admission  of  persons  to  the  eldership;’

2. Add a new article to be known as Article 18 stating the following:

18. Regarding eldership in the Presbyterian Church of Australia:

(a) each congregation shall have elders elected by the communicants of the congregation through an election conducted by the session.

(b) each state shall encourage suitable training for and teaching about the eldership prior to the election of elders into the eldership. Such training should include, among other things, appropriate training in the doctrine of the Church.

(c) the eldership shall be only open to suitably qualified men (1 Tim 2:13-15; 3:1-7) having attained the age of 21 years and having already played an active part in the life of the Church as communicants.’

(d) this  article does  not  affect  the  status  of  any  woman  elder ordained  to  the  eldership  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Australia  at  the  date  of  enactment  of  this  Article

The following is the logic and the substance of the premises adopted by the 2007 General Assembly of Australia to deny women a place in the eldership of the church. The Presbyterian Fellowship believes that both the premises and the conclusions drawn from them are flawed. We deal with them in the column on the right.

Jesus himself NEVER spoke of separate functions in discipleship for men and women.

Any “inerrancy” of the scriptures, if that is the right word, is bound up in their integrity from cover to cover. Unlike Muslims we do not abrogate one section of scripture to be replaced by another. From beginning to end there is a unity revealed through the scriptures concerning, among other things, the nature of God and of His Creation, including Mankind, His eternal standards and His divine plan for the salvation of His fallen people. These understandings grow in the scriptures with time and God’s progressive revelations, ultimately taking the form of Jesus Christ himself.

• A new point of doctrine in the Church. Although it would have been questionable as to whether these proposed rules would have had any binding effect on church members, a decision would have surreptitiously changed the doctrine of the church. This is in spite of the fact that it left intact the subordinate standard of the church, the Westminster Confession of Faith read in the light of the Declaratory Statement. From enactment on, all ministers and elders, new and old, would have been committed to defending, as part of their vows on the “Presbyterian form of government”, the doctrinal view that women exist in a complementary relationship to men rather than in an egalitarian one. How many could have done that in good conscience is an open question. Others still ask whether we now have become an irrelevant voice in the modern age.
  
  
• New conditions are being placed on the Grace of God. Membership of the church comes from commitment to Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. The Grace of God comes to Humankind is a gift, but the Presbyterian Church would have effectively been saying that a commitment to the view that women occupy a lower place than men is now a membership requirement.
  
  
• An inferior place for women. It would have left women in the position of having no voice at all in the strategic affairs of the church and of denying it the expertise of a large body of talent within its own ranks. New members and young couples would have faced the prospect of their children being raised with a theology of “complementary genders” in a climate of inequality where females occupy what in effect is a lower position than males. Why would anyone seek the fellowship of a church that promoted such ideas?
  
  
• It would have caused great grief within the family of the church. This proposal was an insult to women already inducted as elders as it told them that their ordination should never have taken place. It is a destruction of the hopes of all those people who have prayed for a church in tune with and able to communicate the Christian message to people of the 21st Century, people who recognise that women are equal to men in almost everything but physical strength. 
  
  
• There would have been a serious possibility of a division. The proposed changes involved the imposition of a new point of doctrine although it would have been contained in the Articles of Agreement, the rules under which the Presbyterian Church operates, rather than in the Church's doctrinal statement. This could mean, under the Basis of Union agreed to in 1901 by which the various state Presbyterian Churches united in that year, that congregations not willing to accept the changes may have been able to withdraw, taking their property with them. In addition, as the proposed changes appeared to have reinterpreted rules in the church’s own constitution, it may have been possible for whole state churches to withdraw from the union.   

    There is little doubt that the eagerness of a powerful bloc within the Presbyterian Church over two decades to exclude women from both the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments and the Ruling Eldership has served to cause great trouble and distress within the church.

It has caused the creation of two major factions, one seeking to derogate from the rights of women and another seeking to defend the rights of women to contribute to the strategic affairs of the church.

It has resulted in many members and elders, sick of the fighting, denigration and harassment, to seek peace and refuge in other churches.

It has distracted the church from other more important matters, most notably the fulfilment of Christ’s command to make disciples of all nations.

It has erected a barrier that discourages progressively-minded people from joining  the  Presbyterian Church.

Why has this happened?

One reason is that since Church Union in 1977 the Presbyterian Church has been attractive to people of an extreme Fundamentalist mindset, many of whom have found their way into the ministry of the church.

Another reason is that theological training for ministers in the Presbyterian Church has focussed since 1977 on Dogmatics, rather than on the kind of education that would enable them to better equip people for Christian belief in the 20th and 21st Century. In other words, it has taught its ministers what to think rather than how to think.

But the most significant reason is that the issue of women in the church has assumed a symbolic status. It serves as a form of “secret handshake” which identifies whether someone is a spiritual “friend or enemy”. To do anything other than adopt an  intolerant attitude towards women in the Ministry and the Eldership is to betray your allies. Non-conformists can find themselves occupying a “pariah” status within the family of the church.

Opponents of women’s ordination are uncomfortable co-existing with its supporters. Why this is so is open to conjecture. It is possible to argue that they are people of insecure faith who must remove from their eyes any views which conflict with their own, in order to buttress their own faith. It is also possible that they maintain a quaint idea of God in that He is seen as being displeased with our tolerance of the equality of men and women in the church, and is punishing us. We need, they argue, to purge our sin and purify the church. Only then will spiritual prosperity return.

The Presbyterian Fellowship holds the view as part of its foundation principles that we have nothing to fear from open debate, liberty of opinion on matters that are outside the substance of the faith, and mutual tolerance.

The changes referred to above are now dead in the water but this does not mean that matters may arise in the courts of the church that will bring them and other matters back for consideration. The immediate task is always to persuade them NOT to approve them. This can be done by letting them know what damage will be caused by putting these changes into effect.

• Don’t stay silent. Your silence gives consent to the proposed changes. Your voice not only indicates disapproval but strengthens others in their resolve.
  
  
• Join the Presbyterian Fellowship. Your subscriptions support its work which includes disseminating information, obtaining legal advice, supporting members and providing wider publicity. You will receive a copy of the “Presbyterian Review” at least four times a year.
  
  
• Keep yourself and others informed. Consider a congregational subscription for multiple copies of the Review. Attend meetings, conferences  forums and rallies that will be organised by the Presbyterian Fellowship.
  
  
• Inform your minister and elders of your views and of what your intentions would be if any new decision would be intolerable to you. and your family

• Demand that you be kept informed. Sadly many ministers and Sessions censor information directed at congregations on the argument that they are obliged to prevent dissention in the congregation or in the hope of preventing “wrong information” from reaching their people.
  
  
• Fulfil your vows as a minister or an elder, if you are one, in asserting, maintaining and defending the presbyterian form of government by
  • Seeking to persuade your colleagues of the dangers in an ill-advised decision
  • Seeking to become a commissioned elder on presbytery and the state assembly
  • Seeking to represent your presbytery or state assembly on the General Assembly of Australia if this is a relevant court in the decision-making process.
• Consider your giving. Consider carefully what your congregation wants to do about its giving to the wider work of the church.  It can indirectly support power-bases in the church but remember that there is much good work being done as a result of the General Mission Programme of the Church. If necessary, consider giving to specific causes rather than to the central fund. Bear in mind that if a congregation follows this course, potentially it can weaken the voice of your minister and commissioned elders in the higher courts.

          It is also one of the few avenues of protest available to congregations

• Write letters to your presbytery  and sessions expressing your dissatisfaction with this proposal. They may not always be received but they will be noticed.
  
  
  
• If a presbytery votes to approve unwelcome changes, commissioners to the Presbytery should register their dissent and give their reasons for the record.