A few weeks ago, I wrote an article which was published by The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. That article was written because several churches within the Fellowship—ours included—brought forward a motion to re-affirm our 1997 position statement, “On the Gender Issue in Pastoral Leadership In Fellowship Churches.”[1] The statement is not a binding policy but was followed up by a binding bylaw in 2004, which says, “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.”[2]
Despite these affirmations, some churches interpreted and applied the bylaw as referring only to the role of senior pastor. As such, churches within the Fellowship—mostly in BC—had women serving as elders, pastors, and preachers (they were only forbidden from being the senior or lead pastor).
The issue was brought to the forefront as one church in the BC region was suspended with 10 others threatened with similar treatment unless they could “joyfully fellowship” with churches who had women pastors, preachers, and elders.
The Fellowship National Conference gathered today to consider discuss the motion and vote on it. At the National Convention in 1997, the statement on gender in pastoral leadership passed with 83% support. Today, the same statement received only 56% support, short of the 66% threshold required to make it a binding policy—thus, the motion failed.
There is more to this story as it continues to unfold. I’m not intending to recap all the details or predict what might happen next. What I want to do here is simply consider some of the arguments of those who spoke against the motion. The arguments against standing firm on reserving the pastoral office for biblical qualified men are oft-repeated and were articulated again during today’s National Conference.
1. Giftedness
It was argued that the various gifts mentioned in Scripture (Rom 12:6–8; 1 Cor 11:4–11) are not gender-specific. That is, whether administration or prophecy, these gifts are not reserved for men or exclude women. In this way, it is argued that the gifts of Ephesians 4:11 (apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds [pastors], and teachers) are not gender-specific and therefore not reserved exclusively for men. In this way, women can be gifted as pastors and shepherds to equip the saints for the work of ministry.
This argument assumes that if one is gifted, then one is called to use that gift. For example, if a woman is gifted such that she is eloquent and insightful, why forbid her from her (obvious) calling to preach?
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it equivocates on gifting and calling—assuming the former implies the latter. It’s a distinction without a difference.
It could be that a husband is gifted to be nurturing, and his wife has an incredible gift to be analytical, driven, but lacks the nurturing qualities of her husband. If their gifts are indicative of their calling, should the husband stay at home and care for the children while his wife goes to work? If they were to operate that way, they would be found disobedient to God’s call (Titus 2:4–5; 1 Tim 5:8; Eph 5:22–25).
In God’s design, giftedness is not the measure of one’s calling, and it can never be used to overturn God’s ordained station for men and women. Giftedness is not a call. First Timothy 2:11–15 is very clear that women are not called to teach or to exercise authority over a man regardless of their gifting. This prohibition is grounded in creation order. The text says that a woman’s calling is childbearing, that’s where she finds fulfillment and joy. I know this is offensive to modern sensibilities but let the reader understand. It is God’s word and therefore it is true, right, and good.
2. Eclipsing the Gospel
A second argument that is oft-forwarded by egalitarians or self-described “soft-complementarians” is that those who argue that the pastoral office be reserved for biblically qualified men are elevating a secondary issue above the gospel.
Bringing this motion forward was said to have hindered the gospel and the mission of the movement. It was claimed that, as a secondary issue, raising it to a test of fellowship is elevating this issue to the same importance as the gospel. If we want to be gospel people (and who doesn’t?), we need to allow for differences on this issue and move on.
This line of argumentation fails to understand what a secondary issue is. First order issues are those points of doctrines that cannot be denied while maintain that one claims to know Christ. If you deny a first order doctrine (i.e., the Trinity, deity of Christ, penal substitutionary atonement, etc.), you are not a Christian. Secondary doctrines are not tests of orthodoxy but are tests of fellowship.
For instance, baptism is typically regarded as an important secondary issue. Your position on baptism does not exclude you from the kingdom of Christ, but paedobaptists and credobaptists have distinct churches and denominations.
By saying that gender roles in pastoral ministry is a secondary issue, our opponents have rightly categorized the issue. You can most definitely be a warm-hearted born-again Christian and an egalitarian. However, as a secondary issue, churches and denominations should have agreement on whether they are egalitarian or complementarian. This is not a test of faith, but it is a test of fellowship.
Some might believe this is a tertiary issue not worth dividing over either in the church or in a denomination, but such a position is no different than a functional egalitarianism.
Let me return to the importance of gospel ministry. The very reason for coalescing as churches and denominations on secondary matters is for the cause of the gospel. No church or group of churches should be hashing over and over again the role of women in ministry or whether the recipients of baptism are infants or believers. It is when we have unity on these issues that the gospel goes forth. I celebrate the gospel going forth through my paedobaptist brothers. Their gospel-efforts would be hindered if we were part of the same denomination and were constantly discussing baptism. It is best for them to have unity on that issue and go forth for Christ, and likewise our churches.
In the same manner, there are many egalitarian churches and denominations, and I sincerely appreciate their efforts for the gospel. Yet we remain distinct so that the gospel can go forth without hindrance. Clear boundaries on secondary issues do not hinder gospel ministry, but enable it.
3. Lacking Love
In my opinion, the most egregious accusation against us in this pursuit of doctrinal clarity and precision is that we lack love. It is intimated that we lack love for other churches, lack love for women, and at least to one delegate, believed we were in league with or at least unwitting instruments of the devil to thwart and hinder the work of God in our fellowship of churches.
It is ironic that the “party of love” resorts to such bitter attacks against the motives of their theological interlocutors.
I’ve been blessed by the gentleness and grace of my complementarian brothers who are men of deep conviction and will not be swayed on this issue as they face constant accusations of having divisive spirits, pride, and a lack of integrity. To suggest that they are doing the devil’s bidding is outlandish, outrageous, out of place, and out of touch.
It must be said over and over again. Our contention is not personal. It is not spiteful. It is not driven by malice. It is an ideological and theological issue. We are driven by a passion to uphold the honor of God and the integrity of his word. We are convinced that the word of God is clear on the issue of women pastors—there is no such thing.
I also believe women should not be police officers or in the military. Is this because I hate women? No, it is because I love them and so believe they must be protected rather than put in harm’s way. Even though men and women are equal in dignity, value, and worth and co-heirs of the grace of God in Christ, there are profound differences that make men men and women women. I celebrate femininity because I love God and his design for women. Those who believe that a woman is held back unless she can do what men can do need to learn to appreciate womanhood as God intended.
Conclusion
This issue remains a live-wire and is not going away. Please pray for the unity of the Fellowship. Pray that this unity would be doctrinal and not just organizational.
Above all, pray that the churches of the Fellowship would gain clarity and conviction and be willing to affirm the goodness of God’s design for men and women in the church, home, and world. All for his glory!
— Tim Stephens
[1] The Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches of Canada (FEB) is one of Canada’s largest evangelical denominations, with roughly 500 churches and over 80,000 attendees every Sunday. The Fellowship was formed in 1953 through a merger of smaller Baptist groups in central Canada, later adding regional groups from Western Canada in 1963 and 1965. FEB is known for its conservative theology, missions, and church planting. It is affiliated with Heritage College & Seminary and Northwest Baptist Seminary which strive to train the next generation of pastors and leaders.
[2] Michael Haykin et al, eds., A Glorious Fellowship of Churches (Guelph, ON: FEBN, 2023), 451.