FAQ
What is the motion?
Those who have signed the motion desire to celebrate the truth we hold in common and strengthen our unity for fellowship and mission by seeing our Fall 2025 Convention pass a simple motion on an already agreed upon position. The motion (stated in full at the end of this letter) is to raise our existing position statement, “On the Gender Issue in Pastoral Leadership in Fellowship Churches’ (formally adopted via vote at National Convention in November 1997), to the status of a ‘Fellowship Policy Statement.’ If successful, our proposed motion will turn a longstanding position document into binding policy.
What churches made the motion?
Rev. John C. Bellingham and Pastor Laurence Leriger (Rosedale Baptist Church, Welland
Ontario)
Rev. Dr. Christopher W. Crocker (Markdale Baptist Church, Markdale Ontario)
Rev. Dr. Timothy P. Stephens (Fairview Baptist Church, Calgary Alberta)
Pastor Paul Dirks (New West Community Church, Vancouver British Colombia)
Pastor Josh Claycamp (First Baptist Church, Kamloops, British Colombia)
Pastor Derek deVries (Park City Gospel Church, Winnipeg Manitoba)
Rev. Dr. Tony Costa (Park Lawn Baptist Church, Etobicoke Ontario)
Rev. Lucas Nosal (Evergreen Chapel, Smiths Falls Ontario)
Rev. Dr. David Robinson (Westminster Chapel, Toronto Ontario)
Pastor Darcy Van Horn (Renfrew Baptist Church, Vancouver British Colombia)
Pastor Steve Flippin (Fellowship Baptist Church, Saskatoon Saskatchewan)
Pastor Michel Mongrain (Eglise Baptist Evangelique, La Sarre Quebec)
Pastor Jason Hagen (Fellowship Baptist Church, Edmonton Alberta)
Pastor Paul Holden (Victory Fellowship Baptist Church, Hanover Ontario)
Pastor Richard T. Magill (Port Hardy Baptist Church, Port Hardy British Colombia)
Pastor Craig Montgomery (Cranbrook Fellowship Baptist Church, Cranbrook British Colombia)
Pastor Richard Chouinard (Eglise Baptiste Evangelique de Rosemont, Montreal Quebec)
Pastor Claude Caron (Eglise Evangelique Baptiste des Etchemins, Charny-Levis, Quebec)
Pastors Aurel Mateescu and Rob Krochenski (Southside Baptist Church, Port Coquitlam British
Colombia)
Rev. Arden Boville (Bethel Baptist Church, Winnipeg Manitoba)
Pastor Jordan Vetro (Faithway Baptist Church, Woodstock Ontario)
Rev. Justin Galotti (West Toronto Baptist Church, Toronto Ontario)
Pastor Mike Tourangeau (Binbrook Baptist Church, Binbrook Ontario)
Pastor Curtis Greenwood (Thornloe Crossroads Baptist Church, Thornloe Ontario)
Pastor Jhony Maceno (Eglise Baptiste Evangelique de Montreal-Nord, Montreal Quebec)
Pastor John Tucker (Providence Baptist Church, Kelowna British Columbia)
Pastor Scott Hurst (Northminster Baptist, Toronto Ontario)
Pastor BK Smith (Squamish Baptist Church, Squamish British Columbia)
Pastor John-Philippe Lapierre (Eglise Baptiste Evangelique Vie Nouvelle de Lanaudiere,
Quebec)
Pastor Dan Cavey (Faith Fellowship Baptist Church, Brandon Manitoba)
Pastor Narcisse Yopa (Eglise Baptiste Evangelique de Mont-Laurier, Mont-Laurier Quebec
Why was the ‘97 document chosen?
While no document is perfect, the 1997 position statement was chosen because of its simplicity and that is is an existing and longstanding position document. It is better to have some convictional clarity on the books than to have nothing at all.
What pastors of these churches sent the explanatory letter?
Rev. John C. Bellingham and Pastor Laurence Leriger (Rosedale Baptist Church, Welland, Ontario)
Rev. Dr. Christopher W. Crocker (Markdale Baptist Church, Markdale, Ontario)
Rev. Dr. Timothy P. Stephens (Fairview Baptist Church, Calgary, Alberta)
Pastor Paul Dirks (New West Community Church, New Westminster, British Colombia)
Pastor Josh Claycamp (First Baptist Church, Kamloops, British Colombia)
Pastor Derek deVries (Park City Gospel Church, Winnipeg, Manitoba)
These pastors co-wrote the letter and have been the informal steering team behind this motion.
Is this motion being rushed?
No. The motion followed FEB National bylaws. The motion is a simple elevation of an existing position. The motion is urgent because of the rise of egalitarianism in FEB, the suspension of 1 church and the threat of suspension 10+ more churches face in FEB Pacific for their complementarian belief. These and other may not remain if we do not act.
Why is the motion needed?
It is needed for three reasons:
- Our bylaw is clear but open to misinterpretation. This motion would add convictional clarity to our by-law and affirmation of faith.
- Because of the rise egalitarianism within FEB and as a cultural pressure.
- Because 1 church has already been suspended in FEB Pacific and 10 more are under the threat of suspension, all for their complementarian belief.
What is complementarianism?
Men and women are created of equal value and yet complementary in role. As to roles in the church, the form of church office of pastors/elders/overseers, and the function of governing and teaching mixed congregations, is reserved for qualified men.
What egalitarian practices are being permitted in FEB?
In BC, there are women serving in FEB churches as elders, associate pastors and regular preachers. Across the rest of the nation, there are other examples of women preaching and serving as associate pastors.
Is Scripture clear on this issue?
Yes, an abundance of Scripture speaks to this issue.
1 Timothy 3:1–2 maintains that those who hold the office of overseer in the church must be men. "The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach."
1 Timothy 2:11–12 states, "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”
Gen. 1:26–28, 2:7, 18–25, 3:1–22; Rom 8:16–17, 12:3–8; I Cor. 11:3–9, 12: 1–31; Gal. 3:26–29; Eph. 5:21–33; Phil. 2:3–4; Col. 3:12–19; I Tim. 2:11–14, 3:1–7, 5:17–20; Tit. 1: 5–9; I Pet. 2:13–25, 3:1–7, 4:10–11, 5:1–6.
How important is this issue?
Great! As a matter of orthopraxy, it intersects with the relationship of Father and Son in the economy of redemption (1 Cor 11:3), Creation (1 Cor 11:8; 1 Ti 2:13), and Christ’s relationship to His bride, the Church (Eph 5:32).
Mainline churches who have embraced egalitarianism are examples to us of the danger of tolerating egalitarianism.
Why was one church already suspended in the Pacific region?
One church was suspended because they asked FEB National to assist complementarian churches in requiring FEB Pacific to keep our bylaws. This was deemed as divisive and so they were suspended.
Why do 10 churches face suspension in the Pacific region?
At IMPACT April 23–25, 2025, ten churches brought a complementarian motion (in keeping with our ’97 document) to the floor and it was defeated. Following this, a prepared motion was made and passed for FEB Pacific to follow up with these ten churches to see if they could “joyfully fellowship” with the region, though they are in keeping with National. On August 5, 2025, these ten churches received a letter stating that part of joyful fellowship was the requirement to accept the region’s egalitarian practice, leave, or be removed. The deadline was Sept 15.
Is FEB Pacific really egalitarian?
FEB Pacific claims to be complementarian. However, their stated belief and practice are egalitarian. They reinterpreted the FEB National 2004 bylaw in 2005 to refer only to ‘senior pastor,’ (Minutes of Fellowship Pacific Regional Convention, April 27, 2005). This is an office unknown to the New Testament. In practice there are women serving as pastors, elders, and those who preach regularly.
Aren’t our existing by-laws sufficient?
Our By-Laws clearly state, “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.” (Bylaw 4.1.a.iii.) However, this is being interpreted in creative ways or ignored to allow for female pastors/elders/overseers. While our current By-Law is sufficient it is clear that greater convictional clarity is needed for both our By-Laws and our AoF, something this motion provides.
Are our By-Laws, Affirmation of Faith and Policies binding
Yes. Any policy is binding. FEBN Bylaw 1.1.r and 15.1.d.
How has National Council responded?
On May 26, 2024, nine churches asked National Council to hold FEB Pacific to our bylaws after expressing concerns to FEB Pacific. National Council responded on Oct 8, 2024, stating “After due deliberation and conversation with FEB Pacific, National Council has concluded that the Pacific Region is not in violation of Fellowship National’s binding document for our churches.”
In March 2025, National wrote: “The Fellowship National Council has heard from the constituency that there is some confusion over the leadership roles in the church that are reserved for men only. National Council is prayerfully considering a prescribed process to review the relevant Bylaw sections to address this issue and will seek our constituency’s input. National Council wants to hear from our churches on this issue.”
As recently as August/September, Council requested the 31 churches hand over the motion/process to FEBN to steward a multi-year process. However, they did not give any further details about the process, how it would be handled, and if they would be willing to advocate that the ten churches in BC not be suspended.
Do we need clarity about whether our documents are binding?
FEB Pacific Regional Director, together with the board, have clearly stated that they are under no obligation to obey National bylaws.
President Steve Jones stated in a recent email newsletter, "Furthermore, enforcement of the Fellowship National bylaws is the responsibility of each autonomous Region, and so, if a Region has a 'narrowing definition' of binding documents, then it is unlikely the specifics of a National policy will be enforced.
These statements call for clarity about which, if any, of our binding documents (Affirmation of Faith, bylaws, policy statements) are binding upon regions. And if convention rules that they are not, what unifies us?
If it passes, will the motion be binding test of fellowship?
Yes. While some seem to be suggesting it will not be, our By-Laws clearly state that policies are binding like the By-Laws and AoF (FEBN Bylaw 1.1.r and 15.1.d.). We need to be consistent with our bylaws. Just imagine if we didn’t hold churches to account who stopped believing in the Trinity or became affirming. Member churches must adhere to these documents to be part of the FEB family.
The wording of ‘expectation’ related to titles of pastor must be viewed through the clear stance of form and function outlined in the rest of the document. It also must be understood, not by how that word is used today, but how it used to be used (i.e. if a parent said to a child, ‘I expect you to clean your room,’ expect means I want you to clean your room and if you don’t there will be a consequence).
If Baptist churches are independent, how can it be binding?
There is a way to balance the Baptist distinctives of independence, inter-dependence and confessionalism and it is this:
Independent congregations freely subscribing to common biblical beliefs is not only entirely consistent with free-will association, but is its very basis (Amos 3:3). A church is free to believe what they wish, however, to be part of a fellowship means subscribing to a shared set of beliefs. We must maintain a confessionalism as a family of churches if our beliefs and documents are to have any value, and if we are to remain unified moving forward. We cannot increase the unity and love amongst us by diminishing the truth we hold in common.