The article responds to controversy within the Presbyterian Church of NSW following its recent decision in favour of male-only eldership. The vote was 136 in favour and 61 against. Robertson’s article addresses some of the shenanigans that have followed the vote.

When I saw the figures back in July, however, they confirmed my conviction that Australian Presbyterianism stands at a crossroads. Sixty-one members—nearly one-third of those voting—opposed male-only eldership. In my judgment, that vote revealed serious deficiencies in both biblical theology and historical understanding. It signals trouble ahead.

Robertson’s article has attracted considerable criticism, and I pray for him amid the battle. Victorian Presbyterians dealt with this question in 1997–98, with the initial decision made in 1997 and finally enacted in 1998. Consequently, I do not feel directly involved in the present NSW dispute. Nevertheless, one paragraph in Robertson’s article particularly struck me:

“The 5th clause of that statement tells us we are allowed freedom of opinion on matters in the Westminster Confession that are not essential to its doctrine, provided this liberty does not damage the church’s unity and peace. This is not arguing that you can hold any doctrine you want provided it is not a doctrine essential to salvation. You could not, for example, be a minister in the Presbyterian church and deny the doctrine of covenant infant baptism. I would regard the doctrine of how the church is to be governed as essential to its doctrine and that the process of setting up contrary systems within the same denomination will damage that unity and peace.”

Is David more naïve than I have been? I once believed that such hypocrisy could not exist in the church. I agree with his understanding of confessional liberty, but my own experience gives me little confidence that it is consistently upheld. At my previous Presbyterian church, an elder did not believe in infant baptism. He told me not to mention hell in a sermon—even though I had not done so—because he did not believe in hell. He also stated publicly that he could believe whatever he liked because the Westminster Confession was merely a document written by men and therefore possessed no real authority. The minister knew these things and, in his own way, also sidelined the Confession.

Is Australian Presbyterianism at a crossroads? Absolutely. I reached that conclusion not only through this experience but also through conversations I over-heard at the Presbyterian Theological College. Students who have since become ministers spoke openly amongst themselves of their willingness to say whatever was necessary to secure ordination.

The dispute over eldership is therefore not the underlying disease. It is a symptom of a deeper confessional crisis: whether Presbyterian office-bearers genuinely believe, uphold and are accountable to the doctrine they solemnly profess.