In my church there are people who think that there should be women elders. There are also people who are not Presbyterian and haven’t a clue what an elder is. I am happy to care for and pastor those who disagree with my view on this – it is not a first order issue. As I tell my congregation there are some things that you NEED to believe in order to be a Christian – male only eldership – or even eldership at all – isn’t one of them. Imagine then how difficult the Assembly bureaucracy could make this for me. Apparently, this is such a vital and important issue that we need to offer counselling for anyone who is affected by the Assembly decision.

“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” so said Marcellus in Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 4. He said this in response to seeing the ghost of King Hamlet. I have a great deal of empathy with Marcellus. I too have seen a ghost – or at least a reminder of the past – and it prompts me to reflect on the responses both to my dialogue with a wonderful female elder and my comments on the Assemblies offer for counselling ahead of the coming Assembly…. https://ap.org.au/2026/07/01/counsel-culture-and-the-church/ 

I wonder if there is something rotten in the state of the NSW Presbyterian Church? Now before people reach for their pens and their pills let me just clarify a couple of things. Firstly, all churches have something rotten in them. It’s part of being made up of fallible human beings. And secondly the Church of Christ, no matter how ugly, is always being beautified by the One who loved Her and gave himself for Her (Ephesians 5:25). But what I am concerned with here is what I would call a systemic problem. For example, a systemic problem within an institution can lead to institutional racism where not every member of the institution is racist – but the institution itself is – systemically. In a similar manner the institutions of the church can become systemically corrupt or weak without every member of those institutions being corrupt or weak.

I saw this back in Scotland – in both the Free Church and the Church of Scotland. Individually you would meet people who were really nice and who you could get on with – but somehow when you put them together in a committee, or gave them power within the institution, something seemed to go wrong. They became loyal to the institution which empowered them, as much as to the Christ who saved them. To call that out was a dangerous thing to do. You would be personally attacked. Someone within the power structures would ‘have a wee word’ with either you or your friends. Attempts would be made to silence and cancel you. And all the time there was the never-ending processes, often instituted by anonymous complaints, which wore you down and made you want to give up. We fought some bloody battles, from which I still have the scars – and there were some defeats and well as, thanks to the Lord, some great victories.

Now I am NOT saying that I have come across exactly the same here in New South Wales. But I am saying that I have seen the ghost of the past and it is disturbing me. Let me explain why.

When you read my article on Counsel Culture you may disagree with it – that’s fair enough and I do not mind that – it depends on your reasons. But is there any heresy in it? Is there any personal abuse? Or indeed any abuse at all? And yet it has been some time since I have written an article with such a reaction. I have taken a real battering.

There seems to be a general playbook that gets used in these cases.

1) Misrepresent what you are saying and then in the social media pile on, others comment on the misrepresentation, rather than what was actually said. For example, one person commented that he realised that I was not making the argument he was going on to critique – but he went on to do so anyway! Another goes on to comment about how I was against counselling despite the article stating clearly that I was supportive of counselling in the right circumstances and for the right reasons. I wrote that I was against the Assembly offer of counselling when we were discussing women elders, because it demeans real counselling. But what the critics do here is subtle and dangerous. They tell anyone who is a counsellor, or who has had counselling, this article is attacking you. This is the tactic of the world. If someone questions immigration, then they must be against all immigrants and therefore a racist.

2) State that you are causing harm. In making such an accusation, they don’t have to demonstrate any actual harm – they just have to allow the possibility of it. So, no one has at yet demonstrated that people have been harmed because of the Assembly discussing women elders – but because, as one man put, there might be someone there who has mental health issues and could need counselling then we should provide it. It’s the same kind of simplistic argument that the trans activists use – don’t you care about trans suicides? If you do not accept our ideology, then you are responsible for them! It is a reductio ad absurdum. But you would be amazed how often it is used in the church. And usually used inconsistently. As in the world – some are more equal than others. If we were to be consistent on this then I would have to offer professional counselling after every one of my sermons. I’m sure there are numerous trigger points. You may be interested to know that, according to one commentator, apparently my article could be ‘catastrophic’. The fact that someone actually wrote this in public makes me despair!

3) Play the hurt card – Make a long list of personal hurts and harms that they or others have been part of. You cannot help but feel appalled at the harm and hurt they have experienced. You cannot question it because to do so would itself be harmful and indeed much, if not all of it, may be true. And you can empathise with it. But then they go a step further. Because of the hurt they have experienced they then demand that you agree with them, otherwise you are just on the side of the hurters. It is a form of emotional blackmail – which is very powerful and invariably works. You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. You either agree with them and have to apologise and repent for what you have said – or you disagree and prove them to be right in regarding you as toxic, insensitive and cold hearted. Meanwhile those on the sidelines tick their like boxes and, in their minds, set you aside as one of the untouchables. And those with an axe to grind pick up the hatchet that has been so kindly provided for them and take great delight in burying it in your skull!

Another example which I have just seen, and which I can’t respond to (because to be frank the ‘loving dialogue;’ was just becoming a pile on) was this gem “I’m so discouraged that when women speak up, your concern is not for the sheep but the shepherds.” The kindest words I can say about such a statement is that it is a vicious lie – one that is designed to cause maximum harm. I never stated, nor implied, that I was more concerned about the shepherds than the sheep. Why would anyone make such a claim – and why would others like it? Because they want it to be true and they know it harms?

Read More