-
Saturday February 7- FEB Pacific voted to dismiss 8 churches for their convictional complementarianism from the Fellowship.
-
This website was originally launched to support the '97 Gender motion. The motion received majority support from delegates (57%), falling short, however, of the 67% needed to pass. The delegates sent a strong message that we are a convictionally complementarian fellowship.
With FEB National's new two-year complementarian congruency process, this site will continue to be a complementarian resource for news and networking.
Recent News
Eight Churches Removed from FEB Pacific
“Several themes emerged in the discussion on the microphones. From the “for” side, arguing for the removal of the churches, it was emphasized that the churches continued to advocate with National—proof they had not accepted the region’s decision at IMPACT 2025. It was also mentioned multiple times that the eight churches themselves viewed that egalitarian-practicing churches were beyond the bounds of their fellowship and so removing them was precisely what they themselves had been advocating for.
On the “against” side, arguing for retaining the churches that wanted to remain [one church already removed itself since IMPACT 2025], several themes emerged. Firstly, it was noted by several speakers that theological discussion had been repeatedly requested of the Board and was denied several times. Churches were thus being removed without ever discussing the relevant theological debate underpinning the dispute. In relation to this, at least two of the defense speeches argued against the contention, made repeatedly by FEB Pac leadership, that this isn’t a theological issue. On the contrary, it was argued that it is indeed a theological question whether this is a secondary issue, the sort which defines our boundaries as a fellowship, or a minor tertiary issue one.
A couple of the speakers also pointed out that a test of “joyful fellowship,” interpreted as it was by the Board, creates a problem when it is treated like a bylaw, and that the eight churches had indeed written of their desire to FEB Pac leadership to fellowship, save only that they could not, in good conscience, refrain from taking part in national dialogue and involvement around gender-related issues.”
…
“The elephant in the room during the discussion was the two-year process initiated by National Council in response to this dispute, and the call by over sixty Ontario churches to not remove churches during this process. In connection with this is the background relationship of Pacific to National and whether or not Pacific is permitted to contravene National Bylaws. Several of the churches expressed their desire to simply wait out the process. In the end, the delegates voted to remove the eight churches, with results ranging from 63 to 68% in favor. These churches are now no longer in the Fellowship, will have their benefits and licenses removed, and will no longer be able to partake in National processes on the Complementarian Congruency or Affirmation of Faith process.”
To access the entire summary: https://keepfebcomplementarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Summary-of-Speial-Meeting-to-Remove-Eight-Churches-Feb-7-2026.pdf
Haykin, On the Expulsion of Eight Churches
From Dr. Michael Haykin, eminent church historian and Heritage professor:
“Despite the fact that some 50-60 Fellowship Baptist churches here in the East pled with the BC churches not to move in this direction, the BC region went ahead with their expulsion.
Much more could be said, but I wish to go on record that I think this action to be quite unwise and out of sync with where the rest of our denomination stands on this issue. Ironically, it may well be that the BC region is acting divisively in this matter!”
To read the full article: https://michaelazadaghaykin.substack.com/p/the-expulsion-of-8-fellowship-baptist
Articles and Resources
TGC Canada: Is a Pastor the Same Thing as an Elder?
Paul Carter, a Fellowship Pastor, writes for The Gospel Coalition Canada:
“This passage [Acts 20:7-28] is particularly helpful because it uses the word for elder, presbyteros, again in the plural form, as well as the word for overseer, episkopos, also in the plural, and the word for shepherd, poimainō, in the infinitive, which can also be translated “to pastor”[1]. The English word pastor is based on the Latin word pastor which means “shepherd”. The fact that Luke refers to the group of people addressed by Paul as “elders” in verse 17 and then subsequently as “overseers” in verse 28 indicates that these terms were considered synonymous: an elder was an overseer. That he connects the oversight office to the task of shepherding/pastoring in verse 28 suggests a tight connection between those concepts.”
…
“Collectively, these five passages suggest that the terms elder and overseer should be understood as synonyms, referring to the authoritative leadership office in the church tasked with leading, feeding and protecting the flock of God. These tasks are properly understood and described in shepherding or pastoral terms. In the same way that a shepherd has a rod so as to lead and defend the flock, so too the pastor/elder/overseer is invested with authority to care for, correct and if necessary corral a straying congregant. Further, the fact that the terms presbyteros, episkopos and poimēn, when used in noun form referring to human leaders other than Jesus, always appear in the plural suggests that a plurality of oversight leaders was the norm in New Testament churches.”
To read the entire article: https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/ad-fontes/is-a-pastor-the-same-thing-as-an-elder/
Stephens, The Fellowship’s Unity Crisis
“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.”
…
“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.”
To view the entire article: https://www.fairviewbaptistchurch.ca/the-fellowships-unity-crisis/
FEB Central Communication About Excommunication of 8 Churches
Haykin, On FEB Canada and Its Affirmation of Faith
“Christian denominations are created by confessions; and these confessions are liminal, they create boundaries. Hopefully, this liminality is about secondary matters and not tertiary issues. The distinction between secondary and tertiary issues is of vital importance here.1 In Romans 14, for instance, Paul deals with tertiary matters of food and holy days. In more recent history, the issue of the millennium should have been regarded as a tertiary matter.
Baptism, though, is not a tertiary matter: it is a secondary issue. One’s stance on it determines which community one belongs to. As a Baptist, I believe in the baptism of believers, not infants. I have many dear Paedobaptist friends, who are solid Christians, with whom I can work on many endeavours and from whom I have learned much (and in the most important matters of the gospel we agree as one), but on the matter of ecclesial identity we obviously must go our different ways.
Currently, there is a debate within the FEBC over the role of women in the public ministry of the church. In the late 1990s, the FEBC affirmed its commitment to complementarianism, though the affirmation was not one that was binding on the churches within the denomination. In recent days, some churches within the FEBC made a proposal to make it binding. A motion was brought to our annual denominational meeting last November to make it so, but it did not obtain the necessary percentage of votes to pass.
At the same time, a revised and expanded Affirmation of Faith was up for approval. All of the articles passed except the one on the church, which, it was felt obviously, did not clearly specify that ruling, teaching elders must be qualified men. A committee was then struck to come up with a clearer article on the matter over the next two years.
Involved in proposing the motion for making complementarianism binding on FEBC churches were a number of churches (8-10) in BC (as well as others across the FEBC). In the BC region of our denomination, they have interpreted our denomination’s complementarianism to mean that the “senior pastor” of the church must be a qualified man, but other pastors in the local church can be women. The 8-10 churches of this region that were involved in proposing the motion to make complementarianism binding across the FEBC have been deemed “divisive” by the region and next week, the BC churches are meeting to expel these churches for their “divisiveness.” Of course, in my mind, the real issue is that these churches take exception to the BC interpretation of complementarian.
In their defence, the BC region claims to be majoring on the primary issues of the Faith and that women in the ministry is a secondary issue. But then so is baptism, as I noted above. And by their logic, churches engaging in the baptism of infants can rightly belong to our denomination.”
To access the entire article: https://michaelazadaghaykin.substack.com/p/confessions-create-communities-on
Crocker, Gender and the Pastoral Office
Article by Chris Crocker, Toronto Baptist Seminary,
“Mankind, created by God, was male and female. This design He pronounced “very good” (Gen 1:27) and is to His glory Men and women were created equal in value and complementary in role to fulfil the Creation mandate of exercising dominion over the earth; reflecting the image of God together. Men are called to humble headship and women to humble help (Gen 2:7, 20; 1 Cor 11:3) Men and women are created of equal value and yet complementary in role Biblical teachings are not culturally bound but are related to the relationship of Father and Son in the economy of redemption (1 Cor 11:3), Creation (1 Cor 11:8; 1 Tim 2:13), and Christ’s relationship to His bride, the Church (Eph 5:32). Complementarity is a vital matter of orthopraxy that has been near universally held by orthodox churches for nineteen centuries—indeed amongst old covenant believers since creation. To embrace egalitarianism is to do a grave disservice to biblical hermeneutics and compromise on Scriptural authority, inerrancy, sufficiency, and clarity; dismissing not only numerous passages but the thrust of Scripture.”
To read the full article: https://keepfebcomplementarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Gospel-Witness-Nov-2025.pdf
FEB Central Communication on Upcoming Vote to Remove 8 Churches in FEB Pacific
TGC Canada: What Is a Complementarian Church?
Paul Carter, a Fellowship Pastor, writes for The Gospel Coalition Canada:
“Churches cannot plant other churches until they agree together who will preach the sermon, who will handle discipline and who will sit on the Board of Overseers. Denominations cannot run seminaries until they decide who they will admit to their MDiv programs, who they will prepare for pastoral ministry and what they will teach on matters of polity. Practically speaking, this means that seminaries and denominations will be required to achieve clarity as to what the term “complementarian” means and what that commitment entails at the congregational level.”
…
“Complementarian churches recognize and safeguard the unique status of the sermon within the primary worship gathering as the primary delivery vehicle for authoritative teaching. Whereas complementarian churches may vary as to the permissibility of women teaching in other settings and providing non-authoritative exhortation during worship services, they will typically reserve a portion of the main assembly for a time of official teaching provided by one or more of the recognized oversight officers.”
To read the entire article: https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/ad-fontes/what-is-a-complementarian-church/
Update Letter to Ontario Churches that Signed Letter to FEBPAC
It seems clear to us that the majority of Fellowship churches were unaware that FEBPAC had been granted, what we would deem to be, a kind of “leniency” on the complementarian issue. We believe this was done primarily to keep the peace and keep the BC churches in FEB National. (This evaluation has been verbally affirmed to us by multiple people on both sides of the issue, some of whom were part of those 1997-2004 discussions.)
Therefore, when a minority group of churches within FEBPAC make motions to move church practice toward the 1997 Position Statement and 2004 Constitutional Amendment, this can be framed as divisive behaviour within the Region since special permission to interpret these statements as limited to “Senior Pastors only” was granted in 2004 by the FEB National board.
While we do not agree that calling for congruence to the Statement and Amendment is divisive, we understand how it appears that way to those who believe that congruence to these statements was settled some 20 years ago.
Upon reflection, this only heightens our desire for the FEBPAC Regional Board to cease removing churches in the present while the larger issues are addressed at a National level. We are not sure what else those dissenting churches were supposed to do? They could have raised the issue for theological discussion, but almost certainly such a motion would have been defeated since the majority of FEBPAC churches believe it is already settled
Access the full letter: https://keepfebcomplementarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Update-Letter-to-Ontario-Churches-that-Signed-Letter-to-FEBPAC.pdf
January FEB Gender Update Letter (Francais)
En tant que communauté d’Églises locales, nous vous écrivons au nom de l’équipe de pilotage de la motion de 1997 à la récente convention nationale 2025, car huit Églises sœurs fidèles de Fellowship Pacific (FEBP) risquent d’être immédiatement exclues du Fellowship pour avoir promu un complémentarisme de conviction. Cette situation est très préoccupante pour notre famille spirituelle. La chronologie ci-dessous est importante. Elle reflète notre compréhension, sur le terrain, des événements survenus depuis la convention FNC 2025. Nous souhaitons également partager avec vous des pistes concrètes pour dialoguer positivement avec l’équipe de concertation complémentaire (CCT) de FEB national. Cette lettre a été transmise au Conseil national de la FEB (FEBNC).
…
Le mardi 5 novembre 2025, la Convention n’a pas adopté la motion de 1997 (57 % contre 37 %, alors que 67 % des voix étaient requises).
- Encore une fois, de nombreuses raisons expliquent ce rejet (malgré l’opposition de certains sympathisants). Nous remercions ceux qui ont appuyé la motion. Bien que le vote n’ait pas atteint les 67 % requis pour rendre la déclaration contraignante, il a démontré :
- Que la majorité des Églises soutiennent clairement la théologie et la pratique de la déclaration ;
- Qu’une marge de près de 3 contre 2 (57 % contre 43 %) indique qu’elles souhaitent une application immédiate des engagements théologiques existants plutôt qu’un processus plus long ;
- On peut raisonnablement supposer qu’environ 68 % des délégués hors de la région pacifique (FEBP) ont voté en faveur de la motion de 1997 sur le genre pastoral en 2025 ; un chiffre qui atteint environ 71 % des délégués à l’est du Manitoba (témoignant d’une nette division est-ouest). À la lumière du vote de la convention régionale Impact de la FEBP de 2025, on peut conclure sans risque qu’une très large majorité de notre association est favorable au complémentarisme par conviction ;
- Un désir ardent d’unité confessionnelle sur cette importante question secondaire ; et
- Une critique de la décision de la FEBNC d’autoriser les régions à ne pas se conformer à nos statuts et à la déclaration de 1997 au cours des deux dernières décennies.
Voir la lettre complète: 2016.01.14 letter to Churches FRANCAIS
January FEB Gender Update Letter
As a fellowship of local churches, we are writing to you as a steering team from the ‘97 motion from FNC 2025 because eight faithful sister churches in Fellowship Pacific (FEBP) are facing immediate removal from the Fellowship for advancing our Fellowship’s convictional complementarianism. This is a matter of urgent concern for our shared Fellowship family. The timeline below is important. It represents our grassroots understanding of what has taken place since FNC 2025. We also want to share some practical ways you might positively engage the Complementarian Congruence Team (CCT). This letter has been shared with FEB National Council (FEBNC).
…
While the vote did not achieve the required 67% to make the statement binding, the vote demonstrated :
- That the majority of churches clearly support the theology and practice of the statement;
- That a margin of nearly 3-2 (57%:43%) indicated they want existing theological commitments to be immediately applied vs. engaging in a longer process;
- That we can postulate safely that roughly 68% of delegates outside of FEBPac voted for the Gender motion in 2025; a number that rises to an estimated 71% of delegates east of Manitoba (demonstrating an evident east-west divide). Informed by the 2025 FEBPac Impact vote, it is safe to conclude there is a supermajority in favour of convictional complementarianism;
- A longing for confessional unity on this important secondary matter; and
- An indictment of the FEBNC decision to permit regions to not be in congruence with our Bylaws and ‘97 statement over the past two decades.
Access the full letter: January FEB Gender Update Letter