A few days ago 8 churches were excommunicated from Fellowship Pacific—and thus, from the national Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches of Canada (FEB).[1] They were removed for maintaining that churches within the FEB reserve the roles of elder/pastor, and the office of preaching to biblically qualified men.
Bethany Baptist Church of Barriere, First Baptist Church of Kamloops, New West Community Church of New Westminster, Providence Baptist Church of Kelowna, Renfrew Baptist Church of Vancouver, Salt Spring Baptist Church of Salt Spring Island, Southside Baptist Church of Port Coquitlam, and Squamish Baptist Church of Squamish were all disfellowshipped.[2] These are faithful churches, the pastors of many I know to be men of character, competence, and conviction.
The Background
How did it come to this? How did complementarian churches get removed from a complementarian denomination for insisting on complementarianism?
Back in October, 2025, I wrote a short article to raise awareness on a crisis of unity in the FEB.[3] The issue at November’s convention was a member’s motion seeking to raise a position statement adopted at convention in 1997 to a binding policy statement.
The 1997 position statement, “On the Gender Issue in Pastoral Leadership In Fellowship Churches,” refers to the Danvers Statement of The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and clarified that the biblical office of pastor (or elder) is reserved for qualified men. It set forth the expectation that the title “pastor” should only be used for men who qualify for the biblical office and that the teaching and governing ministry of the church be reserved for biblically qualified men.
When the discussion on the roles of women was happening in the late 90s, some churches were not satisfied with a non-binding position statement and so pushed for a binding bylaw, consistent with the position statement, to be added to our national constitution. They were successful. In 2004, the bylaws of the FEB were updated to say, “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.”[4]
In the minds of many, the issue was settled. The 2004 bylaw, interpreted through the lens of the ’97 position statement, declared the FEB to be a complementarian fellowship where pastors, elders, and preachers were biblically qualified men.
However, what’s become apparent to many is that the issue is far from settled. Here we are, 20 years later, 8 churches have been excommunicated over the issue, and the FEB has put together a Complementarian Congruence Team (CCT) to begin a two-year process to address alignment between the Fellowship’s affirmation of faith, bylaws, and practices on this issue.
How Did It Come to This?
As the Fellowship grapples with this unity crisis, the question we must ask is: How did we get here?
I’m going to say something that may be unpopular. I assure you, it is not a personal attack. I want what is best for the Fellowship. The unity crisis was not caused by BC churches sounding the alarm. The unity crisis was not caused by member churches who brought a motion to last year’s convention and garnered 56% support.[5] The Fellowship’s unity crisis is the fault of FEB’s National Council.
Allow me to explain.
After the 2004 bylaw passed, the Pacific region—not in agreement with requiring all churches to conform to what they call “hard” or “narrow” complementarianism—inquired with the National board to see whether its understanding of complementarianism was compliant. Their understanding is that if the senior or lead pastor is a man then women could be elders, pastors, and preachers. The dust had not even settled after the 2004 convention, but National Council gave assurance to the Pacific region that their understanding was not out of step with the new bylaw.[6]
According to pastors in the Pacific region, the practice of the region continued to grow progressively more egalitarian with an increasing number of women preachers, pastors, and elders. While Pacific leaders maintain that their theological position has remained consistent, it seems that their practice has changed, seeing many more women in leadership and behind the pulpit today than 20 years ago.
Be that as it may, I’m not here to throw stones at Pacific. It’s apparent to me that many in that region have remained consistent with their beliefs, even if there is a proliferation of women preachers and elders today.
As I said, today’s unity crisis lies at the feet of the National Council. They would have known that Pacific was out of step with most churches in the rest of Canada. They would have known that the super-majority of churches who pushed for clarity on this issue and passed a bylaw believed they succeeded in ensuring that the Fellowship would not have women pastors, preachers, or elders. Yet they gave Pacific their blessing.
Now here we are 20 years later, the differences of theology remain and in fact are exacerbated. Eight faithful churches have been removed and more may be on the way. Our church has been in tension with our region for 10 years because I questioned why our region was not complying with national bylaws. Our region also has churches who have women elders, pastors, and preachers. For raising this issue our church is on the cusp of removal, accused of the same divisive spirit as the 8 faithful churches in BC. Yet, just like the 8 churches in BC that were removed, we all share the identical convictions of the majority of Fellowship churches. We’re told that we are the problem for pointing out the stark theological and practical differences that exist between churches on an issue that has been settled by passing a position statement and national bylaw more than 20 years ago. But our churches aren’t the problem, we just put our finger on the problem.
It is not that 8–10 churches in BC caused division, nor has our church caused division, it was the National Council that allowed (and continues to allow) regional leaders to defy a bylaw and refuse to respect the historic and present day majority of churches who affirm that Fellowship churches are complementarian—meaning that the pastoral office and its functions of preaching and oversight are reserved for biblically qualified men.
The Issue Under the Issue
My colleagues in this battle for doctrinal fidelity and unity recognize that while the presenting issue is complementarianism, the underlying issue is ecclesiology.
When the national board received the inquiry from the Pacific region, they felt the prerogative to rule on a potentially contentious and significant matter without consulting the churches or having the churches ratify their decision at the national convention. In fact, as far as I’m aware, most Fellowship churches did not even know that the National Council made such a decision or that Pacific had a different definition of complementarianism. Regardless, the will of the collective churches was not honored nor consulted nor informed.
Like many, I’m indebted to 9Marks and their recovery among evangelicals of a robust ecclesiology. They have done good work to recover a biblical vision of elders and deacons. The elders are entrusted with oversight, doctrine, and teaching, while the deacons serve and carry out the will of the church through the direction of the elders. Without this biblical model, confusion or powerplays can develop between elders and deacons. Many have experienced the tension between a deacons’ board and an elders’ board that is jockeying for power. Who wins in such a scenario? It could go either way, but one thing is certain, the church always loses.
How does this ecclesiology translate to an association of churches? I suggest that the delegates gathering at convention are the “elders” of an association. The highest authority in a Baptist association is the convention of churches when delegates gather and make proposals, bylaws, and set doctrinal boundaries. Of course, the delegates can’t do this task alone, so they delegate to the board or council—the “deacons”—to write proposals, policies, or statements that the delegates either approve or send back for refinement.
Therefore, the churches—or delegates—are the elders, and the board, whether National Council or regional board, are like “deacons” who carry out the will of the elders. When the deacons act like elders, or act apart from the elders, we’ll have conflict and a crisis in the church.
The Case of “Fellowship Baptist Church in Timbuktu”
Let me tell you the story of Fellowship Baptist Church (FBC) in Timbuktu.
FBC is a large church that ministers to people from a wide area. They have hundreds of elders. The church has elected these elders to exercise authority, teach, guard its doctrine, and govern the church. The elders have one yearly meeting to set direction, make policies, and decide on doctrinal issues.
To carry out the will of the elders, FBC has deacons formed into groups who represent different regions of Timbuktu. One deacon, Nat, works with the various regional deacons to ensure coordination and cohesiveness.
More than 20 years ago, a few elders noticed a problem in the church. There were differences of opinion on the roles of women. The elders discussed the issue for many years and made a ruling, adopting a policy statement and writing a church bylaw.
Not everyone in the church agreed with the decision made by the elders. In one part of Timbuktu, they approached the deacons in their region to ask if women could serve as pastors, elders, and preachers. The regional deacons called up Nat to check. Nat assured them that this would be fine, but he never told the elders nor the other people in the church.
Several years later, a whistleblower, concerned about the biblical roles of women and unity within the church—and knowing the elders’ decision from 20 years ago—sounded the alarm and took it up with the elders. FBC is now embroiled in a full-blown unity crisis with fingers being pointed at each other.
Who caused the division? The whistleblower? The elders? The bylaw or policy? Women pastors? No. The unity crisis was caused by Nat, the deacon who defied the will of the elders, or at the least did not bring it back to the elders, knowing how contentious this would be.
This is the story of the Fellowship’s unity crisis.
Conclusion
Doubtless the FEB will get past this season of turmoil. These years will be remembered as bumpy years for the cause of unity. The doctrinal issue of “women in ministry” and “divisive” churches will likely be blamed for the cause of the division. How many churches will be removed before it’s over? Only God knows.
My prayer is that current regional and national leaders would admit to and learn from the mistakes of the past, honor the position statement and 2004 bylaw, and call upon the churches of the Fellowship to clarify, not just our views on women in ministry, but on ecclesiology and what it means to be part of a Baptist association.
For most people in the pews, this discussion will not affect you, but please pray for your leaders and those seeking unity across their region and nation for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom and the clarity of God’s truth in a world of lies. Pray for the churches that have been unfairly removed from the FEB for holding fast to the biblical and historic position of the Fellowship. Pray that their congregations would not suffer harm or disunity but be encouraged to press on for the sake of Christ. Above all, pray that Christ be honored, his word heralded, and his truth upheld.
—Tim Stephens
[1] Fellowship Pacific is one of the regional associations that make up the Fellowship.
[2] Two churches were given more time and remain under threat of removal. They are Port McNeill Baptist Church and Mountainview Baptist Church of Vancouver.
[3] The article provides more background information. In addition, visit https://keepfebcomplementarian.com/ for more information.
[4] Michael Haykin et al, eds., A Glorious Fellowship of Churches (Guelph, ON: FEBN, 2023), 451.
[5] The motion to raise the policy statement to a position statement failed as it did not reach the 66% threshold. In 1997, the same statement passed with 83% support.
[6] In 2005, the Pacific region made their views explicit at their convention that they would be in compliance with the national bylaw if the lead pastor was a man (thus allowing women pastors, elders, and preachers). “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'” (Michael Haykin et al, eds., A Glorious Fellowship of Churches [Guelph, ON: FEBN, 2023], 451).