This piece has a narrower focus than most of my other writing. It concerns an issue facing my own denomination, the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada, or FEB (or the Fellowship) for short. I wasn’t sure at first whether I wanted to weigh in on this intramural debate, but finally decided to do so after some further thought and conversation.
I will give some disclaimers, some context, and finally my analysis.
Disclaimers
I am not a pastor, or currently an elder (I have served as an elder in my local church), and I do not speak for any group officially or unofficially. I do serve on the regional board of FEB Central, the region that represents Ontario churches and English-speaking churches in Quebec such as mine, and I served as co-editor for the 2023 revision of the Fellowship’s history book (quoted below), so I am at least somewhat familiar with the history and institutional structures of the Fellowship. (I do confess that I love the Fellowship, my home denomination, whose churches and leaders has nurtured my faith and the faith of my family.) What follows are simply my own thoughts and reflections, based on publicly available information.
Also, although I realize that there are disputed claims about personal misconduct, with one pastor and church being suspended in the Pacific region, I have no way of adjudicating such matters, and I think it prudent to focus on the substance of the policies and the history. Therefore I will not focus on the specific actions of any one person or church.
I want to state at the outset that my goal is to lay out some context that I think is important for making a decision on this motion, and then provide what I hope is a fair-minded analysis from my perspective. I have good friends on both sides of this motion and I can understand why someone would land on the other side of where I do.
Context
In a few weeks, on November 3-5, pastors and leaders from all across Canada will gather for the annual National Convention of the Fellowship. As I write these words, pastors and elder boards have been hurriedly discussing and debating what to do about an unexpected issue that arose in early September. A letter was sent to Fellowship pastors informing them of an upcoming motion that would be presented at Convention. The letter presented the issue as urgent.
The proposed motion is quite simple: it would elevate a complementarian position paper (a position paper is non-binding in the Fellowship) to the status of policy (a binding document). This motion is the result of a grassroots movement of conservative complementarian churches across the country who are concerned about the growth of egalitarian practice in the Fellowship, especially out West.
For more context from the perspective of the churches advancing the motion, see here. They have helpfully provided extensive documentation of the relevant communications. Aside from this recent activity, the next most important information is historical, so I now turn to providing some historical context.
Allow me to quote excerpts from A Glorious Fellowship of Churches, and specifically chapter ten, where Steven Jones, the president of the Fellowship since 2011, chronicled the events from two decades ago. I have created a PDF of the five pages that make up the section where this topic is addressed. I consider it required reading for having any kind of informed opinion, not on complementarianism, but on the institutional history of complementarianism in the Fellowship. If you haven’t read the book, let me encourage you to grab a copy. Here are excerpts from that relevant section:
Prior to the new millennium, the subject of women in leadership within Fellowship churches was often debated, sometimes heatedly. What leadership roles could women assume, or not assume, within The Fellowship? At a Fellowship National Convention, a Position Statement on the gender issue in pastoral leadership was affirmed by 83% on November 4, 1997.
While the 1997 Position Statement on Gender was the Fellowship’s official statement, many leaders discussed the possibility of elevating the position to bylaw status, making the position a test of fellowship among our churches.
This alone is a very important piece of information. We have been here before. The text goes on:
Some indicated a desire that this issue be brought to the Convention immediately. Those advocating immediate action graciously allowed National Council to postpone the matter so that the new Fellowship Ministry Plan 2000 might remain the focus of the upcoming Convention. At a National Council meeting in 2001, Council members discussed the ramifications of elevating the Fellowship’s Position Statement to bylaw status. The council reaffirmed the position and asked all churches to fully support the Position Statement. At National Convention in 2001, a notice of motion was presented from the floor informing the delegates that a motion would be presented at the 2002 National Convention, amending the bylaws to make the Position Statement a test of fellowship for member churches. In a letter dated April 24, 2002, National Council informed Fellowship churches about “possible bylaw changes relating to pastoral gender issues.” At the Fellowship National Convention of 2002, two motions failed, one from the floor of the Convention[10] and another from National Council.[11]
Footnotes:
[10] Minutes of Fellowship National Convention, November 4-6, 2002. The motion from the floor was moved by Rev. Willie Oosterman, Westboro Baptist Church, Ottawa. The motion proposed a change to the Affirmation of Faith and Bylaws concerning “qualified men as pastors (elders, overseers).” Thirty-eight delegates spoke to the issue. A motion concluded debate. The motion failed: 564 ballots were cast, 376 were needed to pass and there were 332 Yes to 227 No. There were 580 delegates from 252 churches at the 2002 Convention.
[11] Minutes of Fellowship National Convention, November 4-6, 2002. The motion from the National Council was moved by Dr. Alan Johnson, Église Baptist Evangélique de Gatineau, QC. The motion proposed a change to the bylaws affirming “both men and women are gifted for service in the local church,” but “recognize that office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified in Scripture.” A flurry of motions (5) were offered and discussed until one motion directed the delegates to vote immediately. The original motion failed: 531 ballots were cast, 354 needed to pass. There were 237 Yes and 290 No. Dr. Henry Blackaby spoke on the topic of prayer as the Convention speaker for that year.
I included the footnotes text here as I think the details are important.
National Council informed the churches in a letter dated December 2002 that the motions had failed and that “the vote leaves the 1997 Position Statement as our official statement on this issue.” The council met again in November 2002 where the following motion was passed: “National Council will set in motion a process that will result in a Complementarian bylaw amendment being brought to the floor of the 2003 National Convention.”
As you can see, this issue took up a lot of energy in the early 2000’s, with many motions not at all unlike the one being voted on in 2025 being set forth. We continue the story into 2003:
A letter was sent in June 2003 to all Fellowship pastors and church leaders from the Fellowship National Council with the proposed modifications to the bylaws: “In the New Testament the office of pastor/elder/overseer is gender-specific. Therefore, in Fellowship Baptist churches, this office is for qualified men recognized by the local church for oversight of the doctrine and practice of the church.”
The motion was moved by the National Council at the 2003 National Convention and seconded by René Frey. There was a request for clarification of the motion which caused confusion among the delegates. The parliamentarian attempted to clarify the options stressing the vote was on the motion as presented and not an interpretation of the motion. Delegates were instructed to vote. The motion failed[13] and a motion to suspend the rules of order and extend the session fifteen minutes was carried.
Footnotes:
[13] Minutes of The Fellowship National Convention, November 3-5, 2003.
Motion failed: 524 ballots cast, 346 were needed to pass, 339 Yes and 180 No. Motion failed. There were 537 delegates from 232 churches in attendance.
A new motion from the floor instructed National Council to refrain from presenting any further motions concerning gender and church office prior to the 2005 National Convention, providing adequate time for more consultation on the issue. This motion failed and so the Chair instructed delegates that the Fellowship’s 1997 Position Statement would remain the Fellowship’s official position. The Fellowship constituency was notified of the results of National Convention 2003.
Soon after convention, the National Council received word that a group of over 50 pastors were proposing a notice of motion for a bylaw amendment at the Fellowship’s 2004 National Convention. In March 2004 the National Council gathered a couple of dozen Fellowship leaders from across Canada to continue the dialogue. Dr. Doug Harris facilitated this discussion and the minutes reported: “The options generated were compiled and a poll was done for each option to determine how many participants felt it would be a wise, viable option for National Council to consider.”
In a March 2004 National Council meeting, with the dialogue committee’s report in hand, the Council responded and affirmed the group’s notice of motion and communicated this in a letter dated May 11, 2004, sent to Fellowship church leaders.
At the 2004 National Convention, a new motion was presented amending the Fellowship bylaws and the required two-thirds majority was achieved. “In member churches, the pastoral office is reserved for qualified men recognized by the local church for the oversight of the doctrine and practice of the church.”[16]
[16] Minutes of the Fellowship National Convention, November 1-3, 2004, with 404 ballots cast and needing 271 to pass: 299 Yes and 103 No. There were 418 delegates from 196 churches in attendance.
And so, in 2004, a firmly complementarian position was enshrined in the bylaws of the Fellowship. I am quite sure everyone involved felt the issue had finally been dealt with, after many years of discussion, debate, and dueling motions. But then something happened which I had not heard about until I was editing the book. Here is the very next paragraph in the book:
The Fellowship Pacific Region responded to the new national bylaw by passing a motion at their 2005 Pacific Regional Conference with an 85% vote. The motion specified that the Pacific Region would “apply the new National FEBC Bylaw regarding women and pastoral office as follows: 1. The FEBBC/Y Region only recognizes men as Senior Pastors…”
I don’t have a lot of information about how this precise motion by the Pacific region came about, or why they decided to land on this policy of restricting only the “Senior Pastor” position to men. I can see numerous problems with this policy, the first of which is that “Senior Pastor” is not a biblical category (unlike elder, pastor, or bishop — terms which I understand to be used interchangeably in the NT). The second problem is that the language of the National bylaw refers to “the pastoral office,” which (it seems reasonable to assume) was meant to apply to anyone who uses the word pastor in their job title, even if that was not explicitly laid out.
While I understand that Pacific maintains they are complementarian in light of this restriction, it is understandable that complementarians in other regions look askance at this state of affairs. It looks to many like something of a loophole. Not many complementarians recognize this manifestation—where women can serve as elders or pastors as long as they are not the Senior Pastor—as a legitimate expression of complementarianism. There certainly seems to be disagreement over these terms, which makes the discussion of all this all the more confusing and complex.
I lay out all this history because it is very relevant to the current discussion. Let’s get into the specifics of what this history can tell us and teach us about how to assess the upcoming motion.
Analysis
The first thing to make clear is that I have zero issue with the 1997 Position Statement. I am thoroughly complementarian.
But here is the reality: We already have a binding complementarian bylaw on the books. If anything the existing bylaw is more strongly worded than the position paper. Therefore, is it not wishful thinking to assume that a successful vote on this proposed motion would materially change the situation with FEB Pacific?
And this brings me to another important fact: The consequences of a successful motion are unclear. No one has clearly laid out what exactly will happen if the motion passes. Pacific writes in a letter (dated Oct 16), “if this motion passes, Fellowship Pacific could find itself forced out” of the Fellowship. No one seems to be sure what will happen. It seems to me that clarity on the consequences is critically important for everyone to be able to make a wise decision.
Remember that Pacific voted to interpret the 2004 bylaw by restricting only the senior pastor position in 2005 by a 85% vote. That is an overwhelming consensus. And this overwhelming consensus in the Pacific region is also why the motion that some churches in that region brought to their regional conference on March 5 of 2024 was guaranteed to fail. The motion contained extremely broad language: “BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, in accordance with 1 Timothy 2:12, Fellowship Pacific will only recognize churches in which their elders, or pastors who preach to or otherwise have authority over men, are Biblically qualified men.”
Given the position of Pacific, this motion was asking a large percentage of the churches represented at the regional conference to vote themselves out of the Fellowship. So it was never going to pass (it failed by 80%). I’m not sure what the point of such a sure-to-fail motion would be; perhaps simply to force the issue.
How does a normal pastor or elder board navigate all this? For most, they received the letter, and then subsequent communications, and they assume that the vote is basically on complementarianism. They are told the issue is urgent and that there is a rising tide of egalitarianism. But with a bit more historical perspective, we can see the situation in a different light. Whatever egalitarianism exists in the Fellowship, it has mostly been there since the early 2000s (sidenote: I think most would agree that having women pastors and elders is an egalitarian practice, but clearly there is disagreement about the meaning of these terms since Pacific considers its practice to be complementarian).
And while many instances of egalitarianism in evangelicalism has been a vector for a broader progressive agenda, honesty demands that we recognize that this is not always the case, and it is not far from bearing false witness to label any church less complementarian than ours as inherently on their way down the slippery slope. Yes, we’ve all seen that story played out a hundred times, but there are exceptions, too. I may wish FEB Pacific was more complementarian than it is, but it would be dishonest to tar them as theological and cultural progressives when it seems like their belief and practice hasn’t changed since the early 2000s.
I personally was quite surprised to find out about the history and the current practice of the Pacific region when I worked on editing the updated Fellowship History book in 2022 and 2023. I had assumed that the Fellowship was more thoroughly complementarian than it is in reality. I think many ordinary pastors are likewise surprised, and a little shocked, to learn this.
In hindsight, it looks to me like the Pacific decision in 2005, and National’s decision not to make a further issue of it, was the establishment of an uneasy truce. I can imagine that, after so much back and forth debate over a number of years, it was felt that it would be better to get back to a more positive emphasis on health and growth. Did some good come out of this uneasy truce? Of course. But it left the heart of the matter unresolved. Ultimately, it was not a sustainable state of affairs. The current hubbub is, I think, the inevitable consequence of not dealing with this more thoroughly. I say this not to fault those who made such decisions at the time.
Concluding Thoughts
If I had to guess, my sense is that the inevitable result, no matter how it plays out, will be a sizable exodus of Pacific churches. I think the Fellowship is, on the whole, firmly complementarian, and uninterested in blurring that line by having women serve as pastors and elders in our churches (although I could be wrong on that). So from my perspective, the question is how do we get to a point of charitable clarity to settle this question once and for all, in such a way that we won’t need to relitigate this next year (or in 20 years) but also without an acrimonious split that does injury to our precious unity and history.
Will the proposed motion accomplish this? Knowing the history, I just can’t see that it would. I can understand why my fellow complementarians are animated by this issue and why, given the short span of time they’ve been afforded to understand, discuss, and decide, they would opt to support this motion to elevate the 1997 Position Paper to a binding Policy. But I remind you: We already have arguably stronger language in the existing bylaws, and it has not been enough to settle this issue. Clearly we need something else. I fear that a successful motion, followed by a chaotic aftermath where the implications are not clear, will lead to a worst state of affairs, angry words, rash decisions, and injury to the body of Christ.
And that brings me to the process that Fellowship National has proposed: 2-3 year process (I would like to see it firmly settled in 2) to hear from churches and come to a place of clarity on what is permissible or not in the Fellowship. Here is what was communicated about this in an Oct 7, 2025 letter:
- National Council would encourage MEMBER churches to task National Council to steward a two to three-year process to bring congruence between the bylaws and our newly revised Affirmation of Faith if passed. However, this motion to make the 1997 Position Statement a Policy Statement was brought forward by 29 MEMBER churches. The signatory churches were asked on two separate occasions to consider not bringing their motion forward and allow National Council to steward a two to three-year process. These requests were denied.
- National Council remains convinced that before our churches decide on anything becoming a binding document and test of fellowship, a prudent and reasonable approach would be a longer process (two to three years) of dialogue, consultation, reflection, and prayer. A vote would happen after our constituency has adequate time to prayerfully consider the issue.
All things being equal, I think this is preferable. Clearly the language of the resulting policy or bylaw would need to be watertight, but without being so broad (like the regional Pacific motion quote earlier) that it would enshrine the most hard-edged interpretation of complementarianism possible, such as removing women from any kind of visible leadership (singing on a worship team, reading Scripture, praying publicly, teaching Sunday School), which indeed is the position of some. That would not represent the Fellowship either. Clearly, the time of the uneasy truce is over. We must settle this once and for all. My encouragement is: let’s do that in a thoughtful way that will honour all those involved, bring down the temperature, and properly set the foundation for healthy, biblical complementarian practice for future generations of Fellowship churches.
Related to all this is the need to rightly assess the seriousness and urgency of this issue. I do not think it is so urgent that it requires a hasty and panicked response, as if the Fellowship were about to fall into liberalism should the motion fail. This is not a situation that calls for a thunderous Luther crying out “Here I stand!” in a moment of glorious faithfulness in the face of error and compromise. Those moments do come, and thank God for the Luther-like lions who preserve the church’s doctrine and witness in those days. But we have seen other situations in the history of Protestantism, evangelicalism, and certainly Baptist history, where what was needed was just a wise sheepdog (to continue the animal metaphors) to guide the flock, but instead, the voice of the lions dominated and led to lamentable division, dissension, and rancor.
A cursory knowledge of church history teaches us that the church has always experienced a tension between the priorities of purity and unity. How to hold those two in healthy tension is not easy, and good, godly Christians can disagree on which one ought to be prioritized in this or that situation. J.I. Packer and Martyn Llyod-Jones famously disagreed on this question with regard to the Anglican Church, as have countless other Christians throughout history. I’ve made my case, but I can understand why some would choose to vote for this motion. It’s a matter of prudential judgment and the weighing of priorities. If nothing else, I hope this has been helpful as you think through this question.
May God bless the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada, for our good and his glory.
Phil's Scribblings 
Thank you for this succinct summary of the history of this debate and explanation of what is currently going on.
Lots of good stuff here, Phil, including the past history, of which I am aware, but I suspect many are not. I also appreciate the clarity about the uneasy truce that hasn’t worked and the fact that ultimately, our bylaws ought to be sufficient. A couple details could, I think, provide even more clarity. Firstly, it is not inconsequential that ten churches are on the cusp of suspension in the Pacific region for not being able to joyfully tolerate egalitarian practices. I would be in favour of a longer process if not for this urgency. Secondly, the practices of FEB Pacific have significantly changed in the last twenty years. Prior to three years ago, there had never been a woman preaching at our convention. Twenty years ago (and probably even ten years ago) there had never been female elders, regularly-preaching female staff pastors, or husband and wife “co-pastors” either. So although the discussion has been going on for some time, the practice in FEB Pacific have become increasingly egalitarian.
Thanks for your work and writing.
Paul Dirks
New West Community Baptist Church
Thanks for putting this together Phil.
I appreciate how you summarized the history of the discussion. This is required reading for sure.
I agree with you that this issue was settled in 2004 but has reappeared because of a lack of enforcement. Since that time, as women in our region and Fellowship Pacific serve as pastors, elders, and preachers, several churches have brought the issue up with regional and national leaders but no action was taken to uphold the bylaw passed in 2004 (which I believe should be sufficient and interpreted through the lens of the 1997 position statement).
This is one reason why several churches have brought this motion to the floor. The churches themselves are ultimately entrusted to uphold our confessional standards and bylaws and give direction to our regional and national leaders.
Another immediate reason for this motion is that our brothers in Fellowship Pacific are being asked to affirm the “loophole” (as you call it) or else face disciplinary action and risk being removed from the Fellowship. In this regard, time is of the essence.
Therefore, it is important to pass this motion and again affirm our commitment to this historic position of our Fellowship.
Tim Stephens
Pastor, Fairview Baptist Church, Calgary
Hi Phil, I appreciate your observations, interaction with the motion, and I just want to say thanks for weighing in on this question. As one of the signatories to the ’97 Position Paper Motion and as one of the churches under threat of suspension in FEB Pacific for being complementarian, I hope you won’t mind if I make a couple of observations.
First, symbolic gestures are still meaningful. I fully agree that this motion would not strengthen our complementarian stance any more than the National Bylaw. It is just a symbolic gesture, but it is one that I find meaningful. A rather poignant fact remains: 10 churches made a motion at a BC Regional conference, nothing more. As one of the authors of the motion and as a participant in the floor discussion, I was not belligerent in any way. I followed process. I was fully respectful of all parties involved and maintained an even tone throughout that time in the spring. Our BC motion pertained to the question of complementarianism and pointed out the fact that we were not in alignment with the National Bylaws. For this alone, just submitting a simple motion, I was told that I could not ever speak about our Region’s incongruence with the National Partners and if I did, I would be expelled. Does that seem right to you? A symbolic gesture of voting in favor of this motion would signal camaraderie with me and others, and it would send a strong message to National that maybe its time to revisit the way the bylaws are enforced. FEB Pacific is fully autonomous in its approach to these questions, and the Region will likely still expel me. I know that my time in the Fellowship is drawing to an end. Nevertheless, the symbolic gesture is important, and it could strengthen the bond of the Fellowship over this question.
Second, there’s no reason we can’t do both. I want unity among the brotherhood, and I also support National’s preference to steward a 3 year process after the fact. Since symbolic gestures are merely symbolic (yet meaningful), let’s vote in favor of this symbolic motion and then hand the process over to National. If, as National claims, nothing is actually gained by approving this motion… then the only harm is the harm that would come from voting no. So, let’s vote yes. And then let National run with it.
Third, you share your belief that the Fellowship is in no danger of theological drift at the current time. I agree, but I think it would be a mistake to vote no to this motion on that assumption. There were some rather solid egalitarians from BC who served on the AOF revision committee at the request of our Pacific Region. Some have noticed that some of the language, in certain articles in the revised AOF, is much more neutral on gender roles. Why would this be? Of course, the committee is honor-bound not to divulge what took place in the writing of these revisions, and I understand and respect that. But influence is being exerted in certain quarters, and I think it would be a mistake to underestimate that influence. Thanks.
Thank you for you work here, Phil.