Who will we follow - The Sydney Morning Herald or the Scriptures?

A response to Kylie Maddox Pidgeon

When I worked with Sydney Anglicans I came across what was termed ‘the Sydney Morning Herald test’: Will anything we are going to do land us in the SMH? Well, the Presbyterians in NSW have failed that test. We have ended up in the SMH. A hit piece was published about the NSW Presbyterian General Assembly – https://www.smh.com.au/national/this-christian-church-has-banned-women-elders-it-s-a-dangerous-move-20260723-p60hwd.html

On 28 July 2026 I submitted an edited version of the following article as a response to their attack. We wait to see if they will be diverse enough to publish it! Meanwhile AP have been gracious enough to publish the longform version here.

I was recently a member of the NSW Presbyterian Church Assembly which according to an opinion piece published in the SMH, puts women at greater risk of domestic violence. Apparently, I “committed an act of overt sexism and undermined the health and safety of women”. As someone who was born of a woman, is married to a woman, has two female daughters, four female granddaughters, and numerous female friends, you will forgive me for taking this a bit personally. Perhaps you will allow me to present the other side of the story?

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church voted to return to the biblical qualification of elders being men, not because we deny that women can lead in many spheres, nor because we believe that women are inferior, nor because we are a patriarchal institution seeking to return to the Stone Age, but simply because we believe it is what Christ commands. Nothing more. Nothing less.

This is not a new position. Kylie Maddox Pidgeon is absolutely correct to point out the history of the Presbyterian Ladies College. A school which has spent more than 140 years educating girls for lives of leadership. But for the majority of that time, the Presbyterian Church, which founded this college, did not have women elders. How is it possible that they could have a college which educated women for leadership whilst having this apparently neanderthal approach? If it is a contradiction now, then surely it was a contradiction then?

The problem is that Miss Pidgeon is reading the issue through the lens of a post-modern feminist. She is perfectly entitled to do that. But she is not entitled to demand that the church share either her ideology or her doctrines. As a church of Jesus Christ, we are obligated to follow His Word – whatever the passing fashions of the culture around us.

The Presbyterian church has not said that women are not suitable for leadership. There are many leadership roles within the church which women still do – and even more in the wider society. The problem is that Ms Pidgeon struggles with the notion of what eldership actually is. Fundamentally, it is not about power, but about service.

Jesus had clearly never heard that ‘diverse leadership teams tend to make stronger governance decisions when he chose 12 men as his apostles’. Paul was obviously ‘an enabler of domestic and family violence’ when he said that men should be elders!

Nor is our position unique. The Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox churches do not have women priests, and yet one can hardly imagine a hit piece being published attacking Catholic schools and the conclave of cardinals! Churches are free to move away from the biblical teaching but “She who marries the spirit of this age will be a widow in the next”. It is notable that churches which have followed the teaching of Ms Pidgeon are generally the fastest declining churches in the Western world – and there is no evidence at all that they are any safer for women.

Relying on an analysis by ABC News which did little other than perpetuate urban myths is not the way that the church should be guided. It is also an absurd generalization to state that the Presbyterian Church is not aware of domestic violence within our own communities. Every community, including those of journalists and academics, have issues with domestic violence. But just as Ms Pidgeon can cherry pick her own ‘expert studies’ I can point to peer-reviewed research which suggests the opposite. For example, Ellison, Trinitapoli, Anderson and Johnson have found that “religious involvement is correlated with reduced levels of domestic violence” and that “religious involvement, specifically church attendance, protects against domestic violence, “(Race/Ethnicity, religious involvement and domestic violence – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17951587/)

Our theology teaches us that none of us can say that we are without sin, and that no institution is without defect. Sadly, in my career, I have had to deal with issues of domestic violence occasionally (although more often outwith than within the Church). But the point is I have. Women are far more likely to be safe within the context of a loving community which teaches men that they have to love their wives and are honour bound to protect and care for them, than they are within a world which teaches might is right, pornographies women, and struggles even to know what a woman is!

It is also untrue to state that the Assembly had received ample feedback that this decision would cause women to be less safe in their congregations. We received some statements of belief from those who thought that that would be the case. When you have the ideological convictions of post-modern feminist theology, it is hardly surprising that you will tick the box in an online questionnaire which affirms your own prejudices. But there is no evidence that women in the other Presbyterian churches in Australia who already have male-only eldership are less safe than they are within the New South Wales Church.

Citing a methodologically flawed online report which was filled in largely by those interested in the subject, and perhaps with an axe to grind, does not constitute proof of deep fractures within the wider ranks. The Assembly was remarkably harmonious – despite the disagreements. It is often those from out with the Church, like Ms Pidgeon, who wish to portray this as some kind of deep division, and who tend to have an axe to grind and thus want to talk up division.

To claim that having the biblical model of eldership taught us by Christ and his apostles is something that drives men’s violence against women is a display both of ignorance and prejudice, which itself would be worthy of “1984.” It is demeaning and patronizing to the many women who have contacted me from within the Presbyterian Church to express their delight at the decision that has been made, to say that they are either so ignorant or stupid so as to undermine their own health and safety.

Ms. Pidgeon is not a member of the Presbyterian Church and clearly understands little of the theology and thinking behind the decision that we made. The vast majority of men within the Presbyterian Church will not become elders, but that does not mean that they are any less valuable or any less equal. The irony is that in a society which is supposed to advocate the equality of women, women have become less safe. We now live in a culture where many of our leaders are unable to say what a woman is; where rape and sexual abuse is often excused; and where women are left to the mercies of a culture which has become increasingly misogynistic, hateful, and violent.

Within the Presbyterian Church, we have ample scope for women in leadership. Our elders do not run the church like some kind of Orwellian dictatorship. They are undershepherds answerable to Christ for the way that they care for the spiritual needs of their flocks. There are many women in leadership within the Presbyterian Church in roles such as deaconesses, teachers, praise leaders, and committee members. This will not change.

In my own congregation, I have several women who are excellent Bible teachers, pastoral carers, administrators, and leaders in other fields. They will continue to be so. Incidentally two of them are female psychologists who do not share Ms Pidgeon’s’ psychological analysis.

There is one other aspect of the article that is troubling. Ms Pidgeon’s understanding of Orwell’s 1984 seems to be as limited as her understanding of the Bible. In 1984 the church has been replaced or suppressed by an authoritarian Party which demands that every citizen acquiesces to its doctrines. Totalitarianism in the West is not going to come from theocratic Christian clergymen who reinstitute the Inquisition, but rather from an ideology which demands that everyone, including the church, has to bow to its dictates, or be cancelled, abused and shunned.

The sad thing is that Ms Pidgeon’s caricature of the church will fuel the kind of prejudice and ignorance which leads to further misunderstanding, discrimination and hatred. Can I suggest that, in the words of our Lord, those who criticize our decision should take the beam out their own eye before they take the speck out of their sister’s.

– David Robertson

What Happened at the General Assembly