For best results, view this article on a computer rather than a mobile device so that the embedded PDFs are visible.
To my brothers and sisters in Christ, joined in a partnership of churches called Fellowship Prairies, greetings.
I regret that this correspondence will take away valuable time from your ministry and kingdom work. I’m not keen on writing to you about ongoing disagreement in our region, however the Fellowship Prairies Leadership Board (FPLB) has recently given notice of a motion to terminate three churches from our region and thus from the Fellowship (Park City Gospel Church, Fairview Baptist Church, and Fellowship Baptist Church Edmonton).
Our bylaws state that our churches are permitted a written submission before members vote on the motion to terminate. Therefore, I write to you in keeping with our bylaws such that your decision at the upcoming regional convention can be more informed than at present.
The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Proverbs 18:17
Recap of the Initial Dispute
The following is a recap of the ongoing difficulties in our region concerning the board and the three churches.
A private dispute was made public in 2024 when the Fellowship Prairies Leadership Board brought a motion to remove three churches from member status to non-voting status at the regional convention. It surprised our church as notice of this action against us was given just days in advance of the convention and when I was out of the country and unable to attend. Our church was not involved in any discussions with the board leading up to the annual convention in 2024. What concerned some delegates was the lack of details or sufficient justification as to why removing the voting status of these three churches was necessary.[1]
With opposition to this motion, the board withdrew the motion and convention delegates opted for a process of mediation rather than revoking the membership status of the three churches. Later in 2024, representatives from the board and the three churches met in separate meetings with outside parties (including David Horita from Fellowship Pacific and Clint Humfrey, pastor at Calvary Grace Church in Calgary).
Our first meeting appeared to be a step in the right direction. I have all correspondence between our church and the board during mediation as well as the recommendation letter of our mediator—which I was in full agreement and ready to move forward with. However, the mediation process took a different direction and raised more concerns than it addressed. Besides several longstanding grievances against the board, the mediation process revealed that the issue that drove the board to attempt to discipline three churches was precipitated by Park City Gospel Church raising a concern of ethical misconduct involving the Regional Director and Board Chair.
Rather than follow the recommendations of the mediator, the board insisted on arbitration with their arbitrator of choice along with the condition of strict confidentiality. The three churches were willing to participate in the arbitration process on the condition that the arbitrator be a true third-party. With the board refusing an independent third-party, the churches opted to appeal to the churches of our region at the 2025 convention with a motion calling for a third-party investigation into the boards conduct. This third-party investigation would be tasked to prepare a report of its findings and make it available to member churches. Transparency rather than confidentiality was our desire—especially since the matter was made a matter of public discipline by the board.
EQUIP 2025 and Aftermath
Our motion for a third-party investigation was successfully passed at the 2025 regional convention on May 1 (read motion below).[2]
The motion’s last paragraph (BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED) gave authority to Steven Jones, President of Fellowship National, to choose the third-party. The intention was to delegate the selection of an investigator and ensure complete independence from the board and churches in question. In September 2025, Steve Jones notified the churches of the region that he could not participate since he was informed by the regional board that the motion violated the bylaws.
On the same day, the regional board wrote to the churches asserting that the motion violates our bylaws and that Steve Jones’ legal counsel further confirms this. Therefore, according to the board, the duly passed motion is moot and arbitration must begin.
We disagree that the board can unilaterally strike down a duly passed motion of the convention. The churches of the region, not the board, are the highest authority in the region when it comes to interpreting the bylaws or other matters (see bylaw 5.02). The board’s disapproval of the motion was clear before the regional convention by accusing our churches of being sinfully divisive for even bringing this motion to the floor (see their letter to the churches here). However, the duly passed motion offered the rationale on why the matter at hand is not a dispute requiring arbitration but an accusation of sin requiring repentance or exoneration. Indeed, this overreach of authority by the board is consistent with the ethical concerns raised previously.
I responded by email, stating that the board does not have a greater authority than the churches in interpreting the bylaws, neither does legal counsel provide sufficient warrant to disobey a motion passed at convention. They chose not to bring this matter back to the churches but to overrule the churches.
On November 10th, the board wrote another letter to the three aggrieved churches. This letter indicated that the board was appointing an arbitrator: Brent Chapman, Regional Director of Fellowship Pacific. The letter sought to demonstrate their authority to appoint the arbitrator and appeal for confidentiality.
While having the appearance of legitimacy, neither the bylaws, Canada Not-For-Profit Corporations Act, nor the Alberta Arbitration Act give them authority to appoint an arbitrator. In fact, it is illegal for one party in the dispute to unilaterally select the arbitrator. In addition to this, their appointment of arbitrator is clearly biased since Brent Chapman recently co-wrote a letter to our National Fellowship calling our churches divisive because we were signatory churches in a national motion to elevate our 1997 position statement on gender to a policy statement (you can read that letter from Brent here.)
I wrote a response letter to the board on November 12. That letter summarized why the board was acting unethically and illegally. Their recent letter and appointment of Brent Chapman are not honoring the bylaws or the laws of our province, but in fact demonstrate a clear violation of them.
The board received but never responded to my letter.
I tried contacting some members of the board individually to discuss the matter further but in each case, I was told all communication must be directed to Ben Smith, the board chair, or Brent Chapman, the appointed arbitrator.
On November 28, Brent Chapman sent the following letter outlining the process for arbitration. Our churches refused to participate in the process, not believing the board had authority to overrule Equip, and believing the outcome was determined before the process began.
Preparing for EQUIP 2026
Our churches have received an arbitration report from Brent Chapman and the churches of the region have received a few pages from that report from the board without any of the supporting documentation.
The board has also given notice of a motion to terminate the membership of our three churches.
The Charges Against Us
The board has charged our churches with being “sinfully divisive.” Evidence of this is seen in Brent Chapman’s report where we brought “allegations of abuse of authority and power and misconduct against the Regional Director and Leadership Board” (p. 10) and escalated the division “through suspension of regional giving, wider communication with other churches, demands for public admissions of wrongdoing, and continued entrenchment in their allegations” (point 4 on pages 9 and 10). Therefore, as noted in Brent’s summary, the charges against us center on allegations our churches brought concerning the Regional Director and Leadership Board. This is at the heart of why the board is now seeking our removal.
In response, first, it must be noted that our concerns over abuse of authority and misconduct were brought privately to the board. The matter became a public matter when the board attempted to move our churches to non-voting status without cause at the regional convention in 2024.
Secondly, without getting into the details of any ethical concerns privately raised to the board, consistent behavior is now out in the open. In the past few months the board has (1) vetoed a duly passed motion of the churches in violation of our bylaws, (2) appointed their arbitrator of choice in violation to the Arbitration Act, (3) selectively chosen which parts of that report it will release to the churches, and (4) charged churches laboring for the advancement of the gospel as being “sinfully divisive” for raising an ethical concern.
Third, the board vetoed the motion for a third-party investigation that would report to the churches and allow the churches to chart a path forward. The board maintains this motion violates our bylaws. However, the board has now chosen their own investigator to provide a report to the churches and call upon the churches to chart a path forward (i.e., our removal). The process that was approved at Equip 2025 was nearly identical to what the board has done. The important difference is that the report we requested was to be written by a truly independent party, and second, the churches are entitled to the full report to make an informed choice. How can an independent report given to the churches violate the bylaws while an excerpt from an internal report satisfy the bylaws? The process we desired was not materially different. The only difference we wanted was independence and transparency. In fact, our insistence on independence and transparency was interpreted as divisive behavior.
Fourth, it is true that our churches suspended giving (as is our right and not a violation of our agreement) but we were committed to covering any costs of an independent investigation. In fact, right after last year’s convention I wrote the board and said, “I’ll be speaking with my fellow elders about resuming financial contributions to the region immediately. I want to do this as a sign of good faith of our commitment to be involved in the region and not wanting the region to have the burden of carrying the costs of the third-party investigation.” However, the board refused to honor the duly passed motion.
Fifth, it is true that other churches were consulted after matters were made public. In my opinion, this is not widening the conflict, it was an effort to resolve it. The board is accountable to the members of our region. That is, the board is accountable to the churches of our region. If a board is acting unethically, it is incumbent that members have the information to keep the board accountable. The people on the board do not function like elders over the churches, they function like deacons of the churches. The churches are the “elders” of our region. To charge an elder of being “sinfully divisive” because he tells another elder about the inappropriate conduct of a deacon is without merit.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Our churches are left with limited choices:
- We could voluntarily leave the Fellowship entirely;
- We could be removed from the Fellowship through the board’s motion passing at Equip 2026;
- We could take the matter to the courts;
- We could make an appeal to the churches of our region (again), asking for true accountability for our board while we seek the health of our region and wider Fellowship.
The first option is not good. Our church has been part of the Fellowship since 1960. I wholeheartedly agree with the vision of the founders and believe our church can contribute much to our region and national Fellowship. We have been hindered from involvement for too long and would like to fully participate and see our region of churches increase in number and in health. My desire is to help plant/revitalize other churches, and equip men for ministry. By God’s grace our church has a track record of doing this and can come alongside others to see the Great Commission go forward in our day.
The second option is a real possibility. Before his involvement in our region, Brent Chapman has led the Pacific region to remove 8 churches. While the issue of our region does not directly involve complementarianism, it is a related or aggravating issue. I have been vocal that our fellowship of churches maintain our commitment that the pastoral office is reserved for biblical qualified men. If we are removed, it will not be coincidental that 11 conservative churches who signed a motion to hold the line on complementarianism will have been removed from the Fellowship.
The third option is out of the question. This is a matter which the churches of our region should handle, not an unbelieving judge.
The fourth option is what we seek. Our request to the churches is to put this matter on pause for one more year, allowing time for a truly independent party to prepare a report for our region’s churches. That report need not divulge nitty gritty details, but provide transparency, accountability, and independence so that the churches of our region can make an informed choice.
What is the nature of this dispute? How did it begin? Why has it not been remedied? How can we move forward together? Should three churches be excommunicated over this? Should the board be held accountable for their actions?
We cannot expect you to decide unless there is an independent, trusted party that can review the matter, listen to input from both sides, then skillfully and gracefully present the matter to the churches of our region for a decision.
Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!
1 Corinthians 6:3
Certainly, the churches of our region should be able to make an informed choice in these matters for the future health of our region and national Fellowship.
I would ask that you prayerfully consider these matters. My previous inclination has been to keep my head down and just pastor the church at Fairview. Having been brought into this conflict against my will, my desire now extends beyond Fairview and for the health of our region and to see our small fellowship of churches thrive.
Thank you for considering these matters.
— Tim Stephens (Fairview Baptist Church, Calgary) with Derek deVries (Park City Gospel Church, Winnipeg) and Jason Hagen (Fellowship Baptist Church, Edmonton).
[1] Our bylaws (section 3.04) outline to process for disciplinary action, including (1) 20 days’ notice to the churches; (2) written submissions of the alleged violations of the bylaws or doctrine; (3) a written response from the church about those alleged violations; and (4) allowing the churches of the region to consider those submissions before arriving at a final decision and vote.
[2] The churches also passed a separate motion at convention 2025 that the mediation process of 2024 had ended.