Keep the Fellowship Complementarian

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.

In the 1990s, the Fellowship was pressed to deal with the issue of women in ministry. In 1997, the Fellowship passed a position statement, “On the Gender Issue in Pastoral Leadership In Fellowship Churches.” This statement referred 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 those who qualify for the biblical office, i.e., women should not have the title “pastor.”

This 1997 statement, while passed by a large majority at the national convention, was not a binding document, but it gave clarity on the shared convictions of the churches.^[1] As the debate among churches over the roles of women in the church continued, seeing the need for a binding policy, the bylaws of the Fellowship were amended in 2004 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.”^[2]

Despite these resolutions at the national convention, which affirmed the Fellowship’s complementarian convictions, there remained cases of female associate pastors, elders, and preachers/teachers in Fellowship churches and seminaries. These cases are not limited to one region but have been most common and most concerning in Western Canada.

Theological Division

I have been a pastor of a Fellowship church in Calgary, Alberta for eleven years. During this time I have had disagreements with regional leaders over this issue, as there are churches in our region who have women pastors and women preachers. I take no personal umbrage with these churches; however, our denomination is one of the few complementarian denominations in Canada, and I desire to see it remain that way.

Earlier this year, concerned churches from our region and the Fellowship Pacific region brought motions to our respective regional conventions seeking to affirm biblical complementarity through alignment with the 1997 position statement. While both motions were ultimately defeated, the churches who brought forward these motions were seen as divisive. In fact, one church in British Columbia has been suspended, with ten others threatened with the same unless they agree with the regional understanding of complementarity — that while the “lead” pastor must be male, women can hold the title and preach. This controversy parallels similar debate currently unfolding in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Herein lies the theological divide. Regional leaders in Western Canada maintain that women pastors and preachers are compliant with our national bylaw and can properly be called complementarian by affirming that the role of “lead pastor” is reserved for biblically qualified men.^[3]

This is problematic for several reasons. First, it is a denial of biblical teaching of two offices — elder and deacon — by supposing a third office of “lead pastor,” which alone is reserved for a qualified man.

Second, it divorces the title of “lead pastor” from its function. The prohibition for women serving as a pastor but not a “lead pastor” presumably comes from passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11–14. But this passage prohibits a woman from teaching or exercising authority over a man. That is, the prohibition is not regarding the title, but the function — of teaching and exercising authority. To maintain that women may function freely to teach and exercise authority under the authority of a male “lead pastor” is simply not in the text.

Third, it confuses and redefines what it means to be complementarian. Churches in the Fellowship who have women pastors or women preachers take exception to the egalitarian label. They affirm they are complementarian while disagreeing with the “hard complementarianism” I and likeminded pastors are allegedly espousing. The battle for truth is often a battle for words. Works like “love” and “tolerance” have fallen prey to redefinition in recent cultural battles. Thankfully, the men who coined the term — John Piper and Wayne Grudem — are still alive today and can provide us a definition. In the seminal work, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, both men define complementarianism to exclude women from authoritative teaching or leadership over men in the church.^[4]

Fourth, it is a watershed issue. The role of women in the church is certainly not a first-order doctrine; nevertheless it is an important secondary doctrine which undergirds our fellowship and unity within and between congregations. It is not an isolated issue. The issue is tangled with hermeneutics, biblical sufficiency, historic practice, and will set the trajectory for the future of the denomination.

One of the questions I have is this: Will the Fellowship follow the Christian & Missionary Alliance, which now ordains women pastors? Will steps toward a “soft egalitarianism” be tolerated by the national convention? It must be remembered that typically practice changes before policy. That is, one church then a growing number of churches adopt a novel version of complementarianism or “soft egalitarianism.” If there is no correction or enforcement, it will not be long before policy changes to match the practice, which is no longer novel but entrenched. This is how the downgrade works. It requires just a few to shift from historic beliefs while the many look away and do nothing.

For these reasons, several churches across our country have put forward a motion to our national convention, meeting November 3–5, 2025. This motion seeks to elevate the 1997 position statement to a binding policy statement. The desire is to reaffirm historic complementarian views and enjoy doctrinal and functional unity across the Fellowship on this important issue.

The need is urgent, as several churches may be suspended for having a “divisive spirit.” To be clear, we are not divisive. Churches who have adopted novel views on women in ministry have caused the division, not those who have pointed it out. We are for unity. The unity we desire is not an organizational unity at the expense of doctrine, but a functional and practical unity built upon a common doctrine. That common doctrine articulating the role of women in the church has been hammered out in our generation. The discussion has been had, the statements and books have been written, now it is time to stand.

Pray for the evangelical church in Canada. Pray for the Fellowship.

May Christ build his church and defend her.

Tim Stephens

Pastor, Fairview Baptist Church, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] The Fellowship defines a position statement as a document that offers clarity but is non-binding upon all churches. Whereas a policy statement is binding.

[2] Michael Haykin et al, eds., A Glorious Fellowship of Churches (Guelph, ON: FEBN, 2023), 451.

[3] https://keepfebcomplementarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-10-16-Fellowship-Pacific-response-to-the-two-letters-.pdf

[4] https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-women-preach-in-the-local-church