A Statement from Fellowship Pacific

Regarding the February 7, 2026 Special Convention

Fellowship Pacific is a family of churches committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ, to one another, and to the shared life of the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada. It is with a heavy heart that we address the recent decision to remove eight churches from our fellowship, a decision that has generated significant public conversation and warrants a clear, honest account.

The four accused churches were in full compliance with Fellowship Pacific's established policies and in good standing within our National fellowship.

Rather than dismissing these concerns, our regional leadership responded with genuine engagement by personally visiting six of the eight churches (one church declined to meet, one had extenuating circumstances) who signed the letter to National Council, walking pastors and boards through the full history of our policies and giving ample opportunity for questions. In these meetings Fellowship Pacific sought to listen, explain, and find a way forward together.

Ten churches (plus a suspended church) then brought a motion, entirely within their rights, that would have changed Fellowship Pacific's current practices around women in leadership and would have resulted in churches who are currently in good standing being offside. The churches of Fellowship Pacific heard the motion and voted it down by 80%.

At that point, a second motion was brought from the floor directing the board to follow up with each of the signatory churches and ask each of them if they could "joyfully fellowship with us moving forward in support of the decision that was reached." The churches of Fellowship Pacific had spoken and wanted to bring this matter to a close. This was not a test designed to exclude. It was a genuine and gracious invitation. Churches were not asked to abandon their convictions. They were simply asked whether they could remain in fellowship with churches whose practices differed from their own, under policies they had agreed to when they joined.

One church withdrew from Fellowship Pacific voluntarily. One indicated they could accept the outcome. Another church, at the time of the special convention, had requested more time to consider, a request that was granted. The remaining eight were unable to make that commitment. Rather than accepting the will of the fellowship, they chose to escalate, actively campaigning against Fellowship Pacific at a national level, lobbying other regions, and working through external pressure to overturn what our member churches had clearly and democratically decided. Fellowship Pacific had offered conversation, and conversation had taken place. What followed was not a request for dialogue. It was an organized effort to override the democratic decision of our member churches through outside pressure. This pattern of behaviour, refusing the will of the churches, rejecting the offer of joyful fellowship, and escalating conflict rather than pursuing reconciliation, is what made continued fellowship untenable. It was not their theology. It was their conduct.