THE “FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST” (FEBCC) GENDER DEBATE:

ONE MANN'S PERSPECTIVE¹

Pastor Randy Mann

Bowmanville Baptist Church

In this article, an attempt will be made to give the pertinent details surrounding the gender debate in the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada (hereafter FEBCC). I will also seek to provide some analysis on points of concern in the gender debate and of the present state of affairs in the FEBCC. I write as one who is presently a pastor of a FEBCC church, and as one who has held several pastoral roles with FEBCC churches since 1997. Prior to my pastoral involvement with the FEBCC I also attended a FEBCC church for a number of years. I attended the last two national conventions (2002 and 2003) to vote, as one of our church's delegates, on the gender bylaw motions that were being presented. I do not write as an “insider” but simply as one of the many concerned pastors of the FEBCC. I respect and enjoy the privilege of serving God in a FEBCC church but others who have much deeper roots of involvement with the FEBCC will undoubtedly feel somewhat different than I do about this situation. Thus, it is “one Mann's perspective” [pardon the pun].

1. THE PAST

The year 2003 marks the 50^th anniversary of the FEBCC. It was in 1953 that the Fellowship of Independent Baptist Churches and the Union of Regular Baptist Churches of Ontario and Quebec after co-existing for many years and serving similar geographical areas of Central & Eastern Canada united to form the FEBCC. The initial 125 congregations have grown to around 500 stretching across Canada from sea to sea. The FEBCC has missionaries in Europe, Asia, Africa & South America.² The Union of Regular Baptist Churches of Ontario and Quebec arose out of a controversy within the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec in the 1920's. That controversy resulted in a number of churches being expelled from the Baptist Convention in 1927 and subsequently forming in November 1928 the new denomination called the Union of Regular Baptists of Ontario and Quebec.³

The origins of this current gender debate can be traced to discussions across Canada at local, regional and national levels on the role of women in ministry from 1995 to 1997, which culminated at the 1997 National Convention with the messengers passing a motion by an 87% majority that approved a “Position Statement on the Gender Issue in Pastoral Leadership in Fellowship Churches".⁴ A “position statement" does not require strict adherence by any congregation but simply states the denomination's position on the issue. At this vote the BC/Yukon region voiced their objection to it and yet at least 40% of their churches affirmed it. Since that vote in 1997 some within the FEBCC have desired to see the position statement elevated to the status of a bylaw. If the position statement were to receive bylaw status then it would become mandatory for all churches in the FEBCC to abide by it in their selection of pastors and so for many it has become a "test of fellowship" issue within the FEBCC. The original position statement of 1997 in note #1 makes the following statement, "For a Biblical understanding that supports these statements we encourage you to see the Danvers Statement of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood."⁵ Pastor William Oosterman indicates that he asked the President of the FEBCC, Terry Cuthbert, after the passing of the Position Statement what he planned to do to prevent women from being ordained and President Terry Cuthbert told him that he would see this through to bylaw status before he left office.⁶

Those who wanted to see the issue addressed in terms of a bylaw change respected the wishes of National Council to not bring a bylaw motion and were told the National Council would do so but nothing was done in 1998 or 1999. At the 2000 National Convention, this group of concerned complementarian⁷ pastors held a workshop on the gender issue but it quickly became apparent that those on both sides of the issue were threatening to leave the FEBCC. Egalitarians threatened to leave if the issue was pursued and complementarians if it was not pursued. It was apparent that battle lines had been drawn. A request to National Council to hold a workshop on the gender issue at the 2001 National Convention in British Columbia was originally denied until this group of pastors threatened to meet at a nearby FEBCC church. They then received permission not to meet as a workshop but during a lunch break, and about 50 met and composed a motion. They then gave notice of motion to the National Council at the 2001 National Convention, which meant it would be addressed at the 2002 National Convention in Toronto.⁸

After receiving the motion to raise the position statement to bylaw status, the National Council prepared a survey of four possible options in an attempt to address the situation. The results of the survey sent to all FEBCC churches show the following responses from the 230 respondents in order of preference: (1) 95 (41.3%) favor a motion to make the position statement a bylaw and a test of fellowship, (2) 60 (26.1%) prefer to keep the position statement as it is but not make it a bylaw, (3) 42 (18.3%) prefer to amend the bylaws to recognize men only as pastors but not make the gender issue a test of fellowship, (4) 33 (14.3%) prefer to amend the bylaws to allow individual churches the right to establish their own policies related to gender. Although this represented less than half of the FEBCC churches⁹ it clearly reflected a wide diversity of opinions and approaches to the matter.

The last two years (2002 and 2003) have witnessed large turnouts at the National Convention of the FEBCC. This could be traced in part to such fine speakers as Henry Blackaby (2002) and Don Carson (2003), but it is also certainly largely attributable to the contentious gender issue that was to be addressed at these National Conventions in the form of several bylaw motions.¹⁰ The first motion brought before the National Convention on Tuesday, November 5^th, 2002 espoused the survey position that received the greatest support from the survey respondents, which was to change the Position Statement to bylaw status. This was the motion developed at the 2001 National Convention by a group of complementarian pastors. The National Council could have supported this motion, since it did reflect the greatest percentage of the respondents to their survey, but they chose not to support it. Then, despite pleas from these pastors for the National Council not to bring a separate motion at the 2002 National Convention or to at least consider waiting a year until the 2003 National Convention, the National Council, decided to put forth its own motion contingent on the failure of the first motion to receive the required two-thirds majority. The National Council's motion represented the survey option which received the third greatest support, that is to officially recognize only male pastors in the FEBCC but not make the gender issue a test of fellowship.

The implications of the two motions were quite different. The first motion in elevating the position statement to bylaw status would have required that those congregations that were unwilling to recognize the complementarian position as biblical, would have had to consider changing their view or leave the FEBCC. Thus, there was a great concern that this would lead to a split within the FEBCC to some degree. The National Council's motion tried to avoid this fracture by recognizing the complementarian position as biblical but not making it a test of fellowship and allowing individual churches local autonomy on this matter. Thus according to their motion, a local congregation might choose to have a woman, who was recognized as a “pastor” by that congregation but the National Council would not recognize that woman as a FEBCC “pastor”. One might question whether that proposal really could have avoided division within the FEBCC or if it was a failure to understand the intensity of the convictions of those involved in this dispute. It appears that the National Council only chose to finally act when forced to by the notice of motion at the 2001 National Convention.

On Tuesday, November 5^th, 2002 in Toronto, the FEBCC met to address the two motions on the gender issue. Steve Jones, Chair of National Council expressed his concern that the bylaw vote had caused the delegates to lose focus on the theme of the convention, “seeking spiritual renewal” and he called for the delegates to pray in small groups before the bylaw discussion began. The first motion was moved by William Oosterman and René Frey to limit the role of pastor [elder and bishop/overseer are being understood as synonymous] to males only and make this a bylaw for all FEBCC churches. There was considerable discussion concerning the motion by both sides, but upon voting the motion did not receive the required two-thirds votes.¹¹ The second motion, which was proposed by National Council member, Allan Johnston, also failed to receive the required majority.¹² If the National Council had chosen to support the first motion would it have passed? From my perspective, in situations where sides begin to form, there is almost always a group who will side with whatever the leadership proposes, which in this case was with National Council's proposal, which means that group would have voted against the first motion. National Council members were instructed not to speak in favor of the first motion even though one prominent National Council member had signed the notice of motion for the bylaw amendment at the 2001 National Convention.¹³ The National Council members were to support their own motion, which took a complementarian viewpoint but would not make the gender issue a test of fellowship. Yet, Art Birch, a National Council member and egalitarian, had no qualms in speaking against the first motion, while knowing a fellow National Council member had signed it and agreed not to speak in favor of it! The attempt by National Council to pass a bylaw that could keep both egalitarians and complementarians together in the FEBCC was clearly rejected as a solution.

Ironically, despite their unwillingness to support the motion that would have required egalitarians to accept a complementarian position or leave the FEBCC, the National Council found itself in a situation where it then proposed that very thing! The group of complementarian pastors again sent a notice of motion for a complementarian bylaw vote for the 2003 National Convention, but agreed they would drop it if the National Council would draw up a bylaw that reflected a complementarian position. Subsequently, the National Council declared that it would, “set in motion a process that will result in a complementarian bylaw amendment being brought to the floor of the 2003 National Convention.”¹⁴ They subsequently drew up a bylaw motion which was very similar to the one they opposed at the 2002 National Convention and the notice of motion was dropped.¹⁵ It appeared that National Council was taking seriously the concerns of the 332 delegates who voted for the first motion at the 2002 National Convention.

The January/February 2003 issue of the Evangelical Baptist, had comments from National President Cuthbert about the intent to bring a complementarian bylaw as well as three articles addressing the gender issue.¹⁶ A letter was sent to all FEBCC churches in April 2003 indicating the National Council's bylaw amendment, but it was revised and resent on June 26, 2003 after consultation with some faculty from Heritage College & Seminary and Northwest Baptist Seminary, which are considered FEBCC approved training institutions.¹⁷ Also, in the spring of 2003, an e-mail was sent to FEBCC churches by a group of pastors asking churches NOT to support the National Council's bylaw motion. In the months leading up to the 2003 National Convention, FEBCC President, Terry Cuthbert, and the Chair of National Council of the FEBCC, Dan Shurr, met with those attending annual regional meetings and discussed the proposed amendment bylaw that was to be voted on at the 2003 National Convention.¹⁸

There were several significant developments prior to the National Convention in November 2003. The Evangelical Baptist contained an article by William Webb supporting the egalitarian viewpoint¹⁹ with a note that it was the first in a series of theological articles [not simply gender related] intended to encourage theological reflection. Also, in conjunction with the publication of the revised bylaw amendment, there was a note from National President Terry Cuthbert, which indicated the BC/Yukon region had passed a motion that read, “We move that in the interest of the unity of the National Fellowship that any bylaw which governs our faith and practice in such a way that it becomes a test of fellowship, should not be brought to the National Convention for approval until it is formally accepted by a majority vote in each and all regions of our Fellowship.” Also, just prior to the 2003 National Convention, the FEB French region at their regional convention added to its regional bylaws the following sentence, “The pastors (elders, overseers) who serve in our member churches should be men qualified according to biblical characteristics.”²⁰

2. THE PRESENT

On November 4^th, 2003 in Toronto, the FEBCC met to vote on the bylaw amendment proposed by the National Council. Dan Shurr, Chair of National Council, during discussion of the bylaw amendment and in response to a question from the floor, indicated that the bylaw amendment was understood by the National Council to only apply to the senior pastor in a congregation and not to other pastors [such as associate, youth etc.]. This was my first indication of the National Council's interpretation of their proposed bylaw amendment. There was no mention of this “interpretation” of the bylaw in the Evangelical Baptist article, which contained comments on the wording of the bylaw. The following statement was made however, “Men and women could serve on the staff of a congregation, exercising their spiritual gifts of shepherding, without being recognized as pastors/elders/overseers.” Yet, this clearly states women are not recognized as pastors. The statement by Dan Shurr immediately caused great confusion among the delegates. For some, it raised concerns that if this was the way the bylaw was going to be interpreted, should they consider changing their intended plan on how to vote? It is clear from the wording that this was not the “plain reading of the bylaw” which was communicated to the FEBCC churches, nor was it what the churches had discussed in mandating their delegates to either support or reject the bylaw motion.

I was not at the 2003 Ontario regional convention, but my inquiries indicated that this “interpretation” of the bylaw was not made clear at it. I am not trying to question Dan Shurr's integrity. He may have thought it was clearly presented in the discussions at ALL the regional conventions, but I am sure I would have been alerted to this “new spin” on the bylaw amendment if it had been presented at the Ontario regional convention. Regardless, what is totally unacceptable, is the failure of the National Council to CLEARLY indicate their unique “interpretation” of THEIR bylaw amendment, particularly when such an interpretation is patently not clear from a plain reading of the words. To argue, as Doug Harris did, that it was reflected in the last clause of the amendment “for oversight of the doctrine and practice of the church” is simply unconvincing. In a multiple “pastor/elder” church do the other elders or “pastors” [associate or youth etc.] besides the “senior pastor” not have a role in the “oversight of the doctrine and practice of the church”? If that is not the case, then just what do we mean by using the words, “elder” and “pastor”?

President Terry Cuthbert's speech addressing the delegates before the vote (2003) lacked passion in support of the bylaw amendment and instead focused [in my opinion] more concern on not doing anything “rash” like leaving the FEBCC. It is not just my opinion that the National Council has at both conventions (2002 & 2003) contributed at times to confusion rather than clarity. They did so, first, by bringing a second motion (2002) and then, by not clarifying clearly prior to the 2003 vote their “interpretation” of their bylaw amendment. Nevertheless, if the confusion caused by Dan Shurr's comment affected someone's vote it was not acted upon. Since, it was possible to have a re-vote if someone who voted “No” to the bylaw requested one [due to confusion on their part and a desire to change their vote], that option was presented, but no one came forward to request a re-vote, and the bylaw was very narrowly defeated.²¹

During the debate, Dan Shurr “confessed” he had not intended to bring confusion into the discussion and that “he was in way over his head” on this issue. Pastor Jon Vincent, extended a public forgiveness to Dan Shurr and if there was a “sin” involved in his actions, then I would extend forgiveness also. Terry Cuthbert stood by Dan at the podium, while Dan struggled with his emotions, but I wish Terry, as the President, had stepped forth to show greater leadership and take more responsibility in this situation. After all, it is my understanding that this wasn't simply Dan Shurr's “interpretation”!

Since the 2003 National Convention there have been several responses to the outcome. Pastor Oosterman sent an e-mail (November 13, 2003) to other FEBCC pastors giving his perspective on the history of the gender issue in the FEBCC and proposing the formation of a Coalition of Conservative Baptists in the FEBCC. The proposal indicated a desire to work with the National Council to resist liberal tendencies in the FEBCC and the need to address the teaching of egalitarianism in the FEBCC recognized schools. He also asked individual churches to pass as bylaws in their constitutions clear statements affirming the complementarian position. This would have the effect of limiting the churches where egalitarians could serve in the FEBCC.

The National Council has also responded with several communications since the National Convention. A letter from National Council (December 9, 2003) stated the results of the bylaw vote and acknowledged the confusion surrounding the situation and stated, “We did not provide a good service in process.” They acknowledged they should have either called for a recess or for a bylaw amendment to clarify the the motion. They asked for prayer and acknowledged that the vast majority of the FEBCC churches are complementarian and yet there is division as to whether they want to make this gender issue a test of fellowship and if so what is the most effective way of preserving the historic position of the FEBCC. An e-mail from National President Terry Cuthbert (December 16, 2003) indicated his agreement with the National Council's understanding of what happened at the National Convention and stated that any suspicions of malicious intent or collusion on the part of the National Council was totally unfounded.

Pastor Ian Campbell of Bramalea Baptist Church also petitioned the National Council to discipline Pastor William Oosterman for causing division in the FEBCC. Campbell considered Oosterman's e-mail of November 13^th divisive and he questioned Pastor Oosterman's use of the FEBCC e-mail directory “to undermine the work of that very Fellowship”. Subsequently, a further e-mail (December 19, 2003) from the National Council voiced their concern about William Oosterman's November 13^th e-mail. The National Council recognized the autonomy of Westboro Baptist Church and Pastor Oosterman's right of freedom of speech but were concerned with the “tone and spirit” of his e-mail. They acknowledged that the FEBCC gender issue is an ongoing concern that they are trying to work through in a spirit of love, grace and truth. In response, Pastor Oosterman in an e-mail (December 23, 2003) asked for forgiveness from those he offended and then proceeded to ask why the issues of his e-mail were not addressed but rather only the subjective “tone or spirit”. He also raised the question of hypocrisy by Pastor Campbell, who was one of those who previously, in the spring of 2003, used the FEBCC e-mail directory to urge FEBCC churches to vote against the National Council's bylaw at National Convention! Who is truly “undermining the work of that very Fellowship” Pastor Oosterman or Pastor Campbell?

3. THE PROSPECTS

The three articles in the Evangelical Baptist (January/February 2003) clearly indicate the lines of division. Although at the last two National Conventions there have been a majority of complementarians among the delegates, a bylaw amendment has failed to receive the required support. This is due primarily to the convictions of a number of those who would claim to be complementarians [I'm not doubting their claims] that this issue is not important enough to be a test of fellowship and/or that it infringes upon the autonomy of the local church. This leaves the FEBCC still with only a Position Statement on this divisive issue. It is clear by now that for many a bylaw amendment is the only acceptable goal. Many churches and delegates are frustrated. This is not a minor issue for many churches in the FEBCC and in my opinion, it is inevitable that some churches will leave the FEBCC in the next few years over this issue.

There were several voices from the floor of the 2003 National Convention expressing a desire that this issue would be finally dealt with and that too much time and energy had been spent on it already. We must recognize that the gender issue is being addressed, but the issue remains whether it will be addressed conclusively at the national, regional or local church level? The FEBCC will endure a split of some kind, whether minor, involving a few churches, or much more major possibly involving many churches. This latter possibility would be very ironic in light of the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the FEBCC in 2003. Yet a denomination that arose out of the theological controversy of the 1920's and 1930's cannot avoid its own division surrounding this theological controversy of the last quarter of the twentieth century!

Over a decade ago, Daniel Lundy studied the impact of feminism on evangelical churches as part of his Doctor of Ministry project from 1989-1992. He published the results of his study as two articles in The Baptist Review of Theology²² and as a booklet entitled, Women, The Bible and The Church - Currents of Change in the Evangelical World.²³ Of particular significance is the study of two FEBCC churches in Toronto. Each church was a congregation of 200+ with male pastors, who held to the principle of male headship in the home and in the church. Both pastors were graduates of Central Baptist Seminary in Toronto, a FEBCC seminary at the time, which in 1993 joined with London Baptist Seminary (also a FEBCC seminary) to become Heritage Theological Seminary. Although, a limited study and done a decade ago, its results are interesting.

The survey showed that in the two congregations, despite the fact that the two pastors were in support of the complementarian position, the congregations didn't evidence the same commitment! To the statement "the Bible forbids women pastors" the men in the two churches responded 62% & 100% in agreement, while the women responded 39% & 68% in agreement. Lundy concluded the FEBCC should prepare for growing pressure for women to be recognized for ordination in the coming years. Further support for this conclusion came from the results of those under 40 who voted only 43% and 58% in support of the statement "the Bible forbids women pastors". This seemed to indicate that if these two FEBCC churches were reflective of other FEBCC churches than the younger generation and many women within the FEBCC are quite open to women pastors. Lundy rightly concluded this would become a troubling issue for the FEBCC.

Despite fewer delegates voting in 2003, the actual “yes” vote total went up slightly indicating the clear conviction of many FEBCC churches for a complementarian bylaw. The 339 votes for the bylaw amendment in 2003 signals a viewpoint that says, “doctrine matters for fellowship and the role of women issue is an important matter of doctrine”! The votes for the 2003 gender bylaw amendment indicate that those delegates and their churches will not accept “unity at any cost”. These churches have decided that they are drawing the line on unity within the FEBCC over this gender issue and they do not choose to co-exist together with egalitarians in the FEBCC. Some would consider this uncharitable but it reflects the depths of convictions that surround this gender issue.

Some still maintained at the 2003 National Convention this issue is not important enough to become a point of division and is comparable to the differences of opinion that exist in the FEBCC over eschatology. Yet, as many responded, this IS a matter of great importance in “defending the faith delivered to the saints” and not an issue where one can “agree to disagree” while remaining in fellowship. The argument that this issue is not significant enough that it should divide or become a test of fellowship fails when considered from both a historical and theological perspective. Historically, for more than 1900 years the view held by most Protestant denominations was that of men only as pastors. This was a view that Baptists shared with many others. In contrast, there has never been any one unified viewpoint on eschatology in the history of the Christian Church or among Baptists.

Historically, Baptists have enshrined their convictions on the gender of pastors in their confessions, while not always [although occasionally] expressing a specific eschatological view in their confessions. As René Frey noted, a number of other Baptist denominations have affirmed the complementarian position²⁴ including the largest Baptist and Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, who on June 14, 2000, “adapted” their Baptist Faith and Message Statement (BFM), Article VI “On the Church” to reflect their complementarian convictions of males only as pastors. The new addition to the BFM now reads: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”²⁵

Certainly, several of the oldest Baptist confessions clearly endorsed as the “historic position” males only as pastors. When one remembers that this gender issue was not a pressing concern at the time of the writing of these older confessions centuries ago, it is instructive to note they nevertheless clearly indicate their understanding and conviction in this matter. Thus The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 [rewritten in modern English]²⁶ # 26, 9. “The Church” reads,

“By Christ's appointment, any person who has been qualified and given the necessary gifts by the Holy Spirit for the work of bishop or elder in a church, must be chosen and called by the common suffrage of the church itself. He [my emphasis] must be solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer,...”

Likewise, The Philadelphia Confession of Faith²⁷ XXVI, 9. “Of the Church”

“The way appointed for Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in the church, is that he [my emphasis] be chosen thereunto by the common (Acts xiv.23 see the original) suffrage of the church itself;...”

If Baptists can trace their “roots” to these English Calvinistic Baptists²⁸ then in one sense the “historic Baptist view” on this issue clearly is that pastors are to be male.²⁹ This should remind us that those embracing the egalitarian viewpoint are actually abandoning the “historical” understanding of our Baptist forefathers on this issue. It was considered important enough to be included in their confessions along with other significant issues like the Trinity, the deity of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible and should not be considered today as a peripheral doctrinal issue as some have argued.

For years now many in the FEBCC have agreed that the egalitarian position does not have a biblical basis, evidenced by the 87% who accepted a complementarian Position Statement in 1997. Yet, one delegate in arguing against the 2003 bylaw amendment stated that God's will on the matter was known, since at the 2002 National Convention the two bylaw amendments were defeated. This is, in my opinion, a dangerous argument. Is God's will really discerned by voting? This argument, I assume, rests upon God's providential leading, in which case this delegate could undoubtedly argue that he is now twice as sure of God's will since the 2003 bylaw was also defeated! Yet, it is always difficult as finite beings to properly interpret the providence of God. Could it not be argued on the contrary, that God sends false prophets and false teaching among his people to test us in our loyalty to Him and to separate his children from those who would lead them astray (Dt 13:1-5, Acts 20:28-31) and maybe this is what is happening in the FEBCC?

When one reads the account of the issues that led to the forming of the Union of Regular Baptists of Ontario and Quebec and their break with the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, one might be surprised to see a number of parallels with the current situation in the FEBCC today. Dr. Watt comments that one of the first evidences of signs of trouble were that “teachings were being given and ideas expressed that could not be considered as being in harmony with the Word of God nor in line with historic Baptist convictions.”³⁰ This seems to parallel the situation in the FEBCC today. Although, 87% of delegates supported the complementarian interpretation as “biblical” in agreeing to the Position Statement in 1997 and the historical Baptist position has been complementarian, yet the egalitarian position continues to be accepted, promoted in the training schools of the FEBCC and implemented by hiring women pastors! I believe that God is testing the conviction and loyalty of the FEBCC and the issue is doctrinal and serious.

Lundy's study revealed how the influence of culture was shaping the thinking of some more than the Bible. This was also reflected, in my opinion, by a delegate from Maple Ridge Baptist at the 2003 National Convention who argued for egalitarianism. As part of his argument against the bylaw motion, he stated the FEBCC needs to be more relevant and “in touch” with society. Such argumentation, whether recognized or not, sounds more like the influence of the world than the Word. Watt defined the liberalism or modernism of the early twentieth century as, “modernism is taking a more up-to-date and enlightened view of the Bible than the old-fashioned view of it that was taken by our godly Baptist forefathers.”³¹

Other comparisons of the present situation in the FEBCC with the liberal controversy of the early twentieth century are discernible also. Hart in his study of the liberal/fundamentalist controversy as it touched on Presbyterians, spoke of how men like Eerdman and Stevenson [professors at Princeton] while holding conventional views on the Bible and salvation in Christ were willing to overlook “theological niceties”. He describes them as “theologically tolerant, pragmatic, and evangelistic in their outlook” and says they, “held different views of the importance of theology and its role in the nature and mission of the church.”³² This may be a fair description of many in the FEBCC today, as well as of some of the professors at Heritage and Northwest, and some in the FEBCC leadership. Watt commented, “If someone had said, 'Let's deny the infallibility and inspiration of the Bible', the plea would have fallen on deaf ears.” He noted that the erosion was slow and tied to the teaching of schools like McMaster that produced the pastors for Convention Baptist Churches. Watt writes how there was a failure to see how little steps were taken that reflected compromise or that seemed inconsequential but actually marked the inroads of modernism.³³

This is why I believe it is important to alert the churches of the FEBCC to the dangers before them now, as was done then. If 87% believe the complementarian position to be “biblical” then why did the bylaw motions fail? Could it be that some were not willing to sacrifice unity for a “little error” or they didn't feel they could “impose” their biblical convictions on autonomous congregations? If the latter is true, then why is the name “Fellowship” used and why must all congregations and their members subscribe to a specific doctrinal statement? In my opinion, the reason the bylaw amendments did not pass is not because of great numbers of egalitarians within the FEBCC [not yet anyway!] but because there are many, who don't see the signs of erosion that parallel the situation described by Watt. Is it possible that the President and National Council of the FEBCC also do not see this and this possibly explains their seeming lack of passion and commitment to persuade churches of the necessity of a complementarian bylaw?

There is also clear evidence that the schools that provide the FEBCC churches with its future pastors and workers demonstrate an increasing commitment to the egalitarian position. A decade or so ago, few if any of the professors teaching at Northwest Baptist, Central Baptist or London Baptist³⁴ seminaries would have espoused the egalitarian position, but that is not so today.³⁵ Dr. William Webb, is Professor of New Testament at Heritage Theological Seminary in Ontario, a FEBCC approved training institution. When Dr. Webb came to teach at London Baptist Seminary, after graduating from Dallas Seminary in the 1980's, he embraced the complementarian position.³⁶ Over the years, Dr. Webb has reconsidered his position and has published a book³⁷ and articles defending and promoting the egalitarian position.³⁸ Since those training future pastors, leaders, and members of the FEBCC churches, are promoting egalitarianism there is no reason to doubt that some of their students will embrace the egalitarian position and be welcomed into the churches of the FEBCC. It was not surprising to learn at the 2003 National Convention that Bramalea Baptist Church had recently hired a second woman, as part of their pastoral staff, who proudly proclaimed her title is “Pastor of Youth Ministries”. Historically, seminaries have been influential in the doctrinal demise of denominations and my concern is that it will not be any different for the FEBCC if things remain as they are at present.

Several delegates at the 2003 National Convention also made reference to “the slavery argument” [a major focus of Webb's book] in their defense of egalitarianism. One delegate from Maple Ridge Baptist even cast aspersions on complementarians as being similar to slave owners in their failure to “free women” for the role of pastor. A detailed critique of Webb's arguments in his book is available.³⁹ I will only address a few of these issues and begin by trying to give a little historical perspective. Mary Kassian provides a valuable historical overview of the feminist movement and shows how the movement went through three stages of naming self, the world and more recently God. The feminist movement sought to unite itself with the church and has had some success in its endeavor, evident in the number of denominations embracing egalitarianism since the 1960's. Some branches of the feminist movement moved dramatically away from Christianity altogether, repudiating anything perceived to be related to the masculine gender. Many rejected the Bible because it was perceived to be so patriarchal in its background (read: male biased), and because its God was portrayed as Father and Son and interpreted as male.⁴⁰

A common hermeneutical practice among egalitarians, for a while now, has been to argue that the epistles are ad hoc documents that addressed specific cultural and historical situations that are no longer relevant or universally applicable to our current situation.⁴¹ This has been the practice of those, who deny that the Bible condemns homosexuality. They argue that Scripture passages raised in opposition to their lifestyle addressed a totally different cultural situation or practice, which no longer applies.⁴² This same hermeneutical approach of “cultural deletions” from Scripture used by homosexuals has also been used by egalitarians in their handling of gender texts to support women as pastors.⁴³ Webb's book seeks to argue for a hermeneutic that can maintain a critique of homosexuality as sin, while arriving at an egalitarian conclusion in the gender debate. Interestingly, he manages to arrive at his egalitarian viewpoint by arguing that certain gender texts contain cultural aspects that one must not embrace in all of their “concrete” particulars anymore. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, one should recognize that there are hermeneutical parallels in these approaches.

Thus, Webb argues that women in the church in Ephesus were uneducated and other cultural factors made them more gullible (1 Tim 2:14) and this explains Paul's prohibition to teach or exercise authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12). Consequently, Webb maintains we should “lighten up on the concrete expression of hierarchy in this passage” or “give a little or soften in the prohibitions of 2:11-12 if the basis for the prohibitions has changed”⁴⁴ [namely, women are now educated and not as gullible]. Of course, if the whole support (1 Tim 2:13-15) for the prohibitions (1 Tim 2:11-12) is built on Paul's understanding of God's pattern for gender roles given at creation (Genesis 2-3) not cultural circumstances, then the prohibitions should remain in effect.

Webb also argues that the commands for women to “obey and submit” to their husbands must be softened today since the commands reflected a cultural situation where women were at a great disadvantage to men. Webb argues this is because women were much younger than men when they married, did not have an equivalent formal education, or financial opportunities, or social exposure or informational resources in the home.⁴⁵ What is interesting about Webb's argument is that none of these cultural conditions are ever listed anywhere in Scripture as reasons why wives should submit to their husbands!

Gordon Fee argued that one must obey the “spirit” [his emphasis] of the passage even if the specifics are not always followed to the letter.⁴⁶ Webb, since embracing egalitarianism, now speaks of the “redemptive spirit” of texts, while seeking to move away from some of the “specifics” of the gender texts.⁴⁷ What he doesn't focus on as Schreiner points out is the “redemptive history” of the text, by which, many of the cultural examples Webb uses can be easily explained.⁴⁸ The Bible as a historical document is of necessity also a cultural document and reflects redemptive movement or progress. Nevertheless, it speaks God's unchanging truth to all cultures. Thus, a wife's submission to her husband will certainly look somewhat different in its cultural expression in an Islamic country than in a democratic country such as Canada. In one culture, clothing may continue to be used as a symbol of submission while another culture won't use that type of cultural symbol. The problem with Webb's approach is that he seeks to remove the underlying truth (gender roles) by arguing that there were some cultural factors involved in the church situations that address the gender roles. Not only are these cultural factors never part of the argument for the assigning of gender roles, but the NT writers appeal to a foundation for gender roles prior to the Fall (Genesis 2). This negates the argument of egalitarians, that the Fall (Genesis 3) introduces gender roles and so we must move beyond such hierarchy to egalitarianism now in Christ.

Nor is Webb's argument the first to attempt to tie the egalitarian position to an argument from the role of slavery in the Bible. Webb's hermeneutic is “not new” in its basic approach of bringing together the combinations of slavery, egalitarianism, and a “progressive” [Webb's term is “redemptive-movement”] hermeneutical approach. While egalitarians deny the validity of the “slippery slope” argument there are historical precedents that should not be ignored, even while maintaining that not all will “slide down the slope”. Others have argued from a similar position and one should recognize that such an approach often undermines the authority of Scripture and opens the door to the acceptance of homosexuality. Denominations which long ago embraced egalitarianism and women as pastors are now addressing the issue of homosexuals as pastors?⁴⁹ Heimbach has argued that egalitarians in their denial of distinct gender roles open the door for the homosexual argument, whether they recognize it or not.⁵⁰

Others employing a similar hermeneutical approach and professing to be evangelicals have undermined the authority of Scripture. Thompson, like many egalitarians, is willing to speak in terms of a broad theme [read: his egalitarian interpretation of Gal 3:28] overcoming the particulars of texts [read: 1 Tim 2:12 and its restrictions on women] as the Biblical authors move in a “trajectory” towards egalitarianism. He writes, “Foundational theological claims in Scripture...could well imply conclusions ultimately at odds with specific legal, narrative, and pastoral instructions, and could take priority over them on given issues.”⁵¹

Webb's arguments have parallels with an article by Kevin Giles⁵² in which Giles argues that the Bible endorsed the institution and practice of slavery and this gives us insight as to how one should view the Bible's teaching on the subordination of women. Giles states, "We will have learnt that Scripture can endorse social structures no longer acceptable, just as we have learnt that the Bible can endorse scientific ideas no longer tenable. The Bible is authoritative in matters of faith and conduct but not necessarily in science, or on how to order social relations."⁵³

Recently, Glen Scorgie, who has embraced Webb's “trajectory of the Spirit” methodology, presented a defense of how this methodology could relate to inerrancy.⁵⁴ Scorgie makes several statements that indicate he is trying “real hard” to give Paul the benefit of the doubt without calling his statements “errors”. He speaks of “some shifting and growing going on in the biblical author's grasp of the trajectory of the Spirit” and that “the authors of Scripture themselves may have been at the time of writing still in process of theological growth and formation” and of the biblical writers being permitted “to retain certain technically deficient world-view assumptions”⁵⁵ This it seems to me is treading on thin ice for one who affirms inerrancy.

At present, Webb continues to maintain that Paul was not “sexist” or “in error,⁵⁶ but he does speaks of Paul's “minimalist-contribution argument” from 1 Corinthians 11:12b [with reference to the phrase “through women”] in light of scientific evidence on embryology and has written another book on biblical authority which is forthcoming.⁵⁷ Webb's argument from the scientific or social scientific evidence seems to give the impression that he implies the Bible has or promotes a culturally or scientifically mistaken worldview.⁵⁸ The thrust of Webb's argument is that the pertinent gender texts are so heavily affected by their culture that we must not take them at “face value” [my words] or in his words in their “concrete frozen in time aspects/particulars” or “time-locked components” or “bound-in-time components”⁵⁹ His hermeneutic allows him to support an egalitarian position by denying the texts have any transcultural application in terms of women taking a subordinate role in the church or home. Thus in a somewhat subtle manner, he does affirm inerrancy while virtually denying scripture's authority in practice through the employment of his hermeneutics! Of course, there are other ways of denying inerrancy as well.⁶⁰

Webb argues that we must move beyond Scripture in its cultural application if we truly understand its “redemptive spirit.” He writes, “We are unable to argue cogently for a pro-active abolitionist position in today's world based upon a words-on-the page understanding of the NT. An isolated, stationary understanding of Paul's words simply does not reveal an abolitionist perspective.” Later in his argument, he says he challenges complementarians to “show me a NT text that calls for the abolition of slavery.”⁶¹ One that comes readily to my mind is Matthew 22:39 “And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'” This was, is, and will always be, the underlying ethic/command for the abolition of slavery, both in the past, the present and in the future and explains why Christians were at the fore of the endeavor to abolish slavery.

The fact that there is no specific text that makes a specific statement applying this specific command to the specific practice of slavery in NT times, is not surprising. Not all applications of the Christian ethic that flow from “the two great commandments” (Mt 22:37-40) could possibly be given and the Bible doesn't primarily address itself to social issues except from the context of the community of faith/Christ's church. The Bible is a covenant document. The OT reflects God's covenant communication with Israel, while the NT reflects God's covenant communication with Christ's church. This explains why Paul does address slavery with Philemon but doesn't issue any challenges to Rome to abolish slavery. There are no “epistles” to the government of Rome but only to Christian churches, where ethical issues are addressed in light of the fullness of God's ethical directive that Jesus gave (Mt 22:37-40). That directive incorporates his ethical love directive to his disciples, to love one another (Jn 15:12-13), which undergirds Paul's arguments against slavery in Philemon. The ethical foundation for the church, which is Christ-centered, is found in the NT and is complete and satisfactory (2 Pet 1:3-4). We live in this “end of the age” period with the eschatological tension of the now [a world affected by sin] and the not yet [a new heaven and earth], a time when the fullness of God's redemptive work will be completed. The applying of our Christian ethic to society is a matter of being “salt and light” in the world (Mt 5:13-16) as we fulfill the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20) and live out the two great commandments (Mt 22:37-40).⁶²

4. THE PROPOSAL

The failure of the National Council to bring a bylaw amendment since 1997 has led to a divisive situation where now the FEBCC must deal with regions setting their own bylaws on the gender issue. This may be the way the other regions determine to go. If it was pursued in the Ontario region it could force churches like Bramalea Baptist and Chartwell Baptist, that promote egalitarianism, to decide whether to change their position or leave the FEBCC. Maybe it is best to remove a “little leaven” at a time while working to ultimately remove it all. If the National Council fails to endorse, promote and see through to passage a complementarian bylaw amendment for all the regions and churches, then the FEBCC will remain a divided and divisive group. I would also suspect that if this issue is not addressed in the coming year, that within another year or two at least a few if not more FEBCC churches will choose to leave the FEBCC. The issue of the teaching of egalitarianism at the training schools will also need to be addressed. There are several ways for churches to make their concerns heard at present. One is to cut off financial support and the other is not to send students to such schools. Those who are aware of the situation and looking for alternatives to recommend to their prospective students, in Ontario, may choose a school like Toronto Baptist Seminary, since it not only has several former Heritage professors, who have had association with the FEBCC but it takes a firm complementarian stand. It is time the churches and the National Council of the FEBCC remember that, “The Christian does not fear the consequences of doing the right thing; he fears the consequences of not doing it.”⁶³

ADDENDUM

Kassian's evaluation of the feminist movement and the third stage of naming God, is also helpful in understanding another recent aspect of the egalitarian approach. Evangelicals acknowledge that the Bible teaches that God is identified as Father, Son and Spirit, but how do these terms impact the gender debate? Since those in the feminist movement are actively involved in a reinterpretation of the Trinity, it should not be surprising if there were signs that indicated such teaching has impacted evangelical egalitarians on gender relationships.⁶⁴ Some evangelical egalitarians have argued that there is an equal submission of the members of the Trinity to each other, so that the Father submits to the Son.⁶⁵ This is the teaching of Willow Creek Community Church,⁶⁶ [which has become the paradigm/model for many evangelical churches in its seeker sensitive approach, including some FEBCC churches],⁶⁷ the missionary organization, YWAM,⁶⁸ and was even affirmed in a report brought to the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination.⁶⁹ At the heart of the egalitarian argument is the premise that differentiation in roles implies differences in status or worth, which is why they argue that to keep women from a role such as pastor is to treat women as inferior.⁷⁰ As Ware notes, “They see clearly that if an eternal relationship of authority and obedience is grounded in the eternal immanent inner-trinitarian relations of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then this gives at least prima facie justification to the notion of creational human relations in which authority and submission inhere.”⁷¹ Such a viewpoint is endorsed by complementarians and has been labeled a recent innovation by some egalitarians.⁷² A number of complementarians have responded⁷³ arguing that the early church did teach the eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father, while rejecting the heretical doctrine called subordinationism. Schemm comments that “[T]here is room in trinitarian orthodoxy for both views.”⁷⁴ Thus the “new or revisionist” view is actually that of the egalitarians and one might be concerned, where they are going!

There are signs though that some evangelical egalitarians are moving in directions that would be considered heretical in their understanding of God. The particular area where this is becoming evident is in the use of feminine God-language. Stinson, in a recent article, documents how well known evangelicals like Tony Campolo, Richard and Catherine Kroeger and others have called for embracing the feminine side of God and even allowed for the appropriateness of calling God both “Father and Mother, both he and she.”⁷⁵ As Kassian, rightly pointed out this is stage three of the “feminist progression” and it is therefore not surprising to see signs of a similar progression within evangelicalism.