This is a reflection on the label "complementarian" and why I don't think it's precise enough.
Complementarianism is a label for a softer, nicer version of patriarchalism when it comes to traditional gender roles in marriages, families and churches. But the label "complementarian" obscures that connection because it's not precise enough.
Generally speaking, complementarianism has two parts. The first part is that, according to complementarianism, a man and women are endowed with certain gifts and skills that, when combined in a heterosexual marriage, "complement" each other, two puzzle pieces that fit together to make a whole that reflects the image of God.
This aspect of complementarianism--that a husband and a wife "complement" or "complete" each other--isn't inherently hierarchical/patriarchal because there are egalitarian arrangements where this sort of thing happens all the time. The Apostle Paul's famous body metaphor for the church comes to mind. We can also think of any team or organization where our various gifts, skills and interests are lined up in a way that is "complementary"--you do that and I'll do this because I'm good that this and you are good at that--to get the best result for the group.
If that is all complementarianism was naming then it would be well named. But that's only half of the complementarian position.
The other half of the complementarian position is this: men and women have different gifts that combine to reflect the image of God and God created the man to have the gifts of leadership. That's the critical part. That is, when God divided up God's nature between the genders God gave the attributes of leadership to the male, putting him "in charge."
(Incidentally, I don't think this notion of "dividing" God's nature between the genders is cogent or biblical. Jesus, as a single, reflected the full image of God. Thus, in conforming to the image of Jesus every person, of whatever gender, is called to reflect the full image of God.)
It is this additional bit, that God gave the gifts of leadership to men rather than to women, that carries us well past the boundaries of what might properly be called "complementarian." Because as I've noted, every egalitarian marriage is complementarian in some form or fashion.
So what's the better term? The better term, the one I prefer, is hierarchical complementarianism.
Of course, many hierarchical complementarians might object to this label, but it is more accurate. Specifically, it distinguishes between the sort of complementarianism that egalitarians believe in, what might be called relational complementarianism, from the kind that hierarchical complementarians believe in, a complementing that isn't organic to the relationship (the relative gifts of the husband and wife) but is, rather, a fixed and preordained power-relation with men placed in leadership over women.
This is why hierarchical complementarianism is a form of patriarchalism. Hierarchical complementarianism is founded upon the belief of ontological ineptitude. To say that men and women are "complements" of each other and that men are given the gifts of leadership in this arrangement is to argue that women are ontologically inept when it comes to leadership. That is, women are permanently lacking and incompetent in leadership spheres (ineptitude) because of the kinds of beings they are, namely women (ontology). That is the belief at the heart of hierarchical complementarianism--ontological ineptitude--that reveals its patriarchal nature.
So maybe we step away from the labels egalitarian and complementarian and start speaking of relational complementarianism versus hierarchical complementarianism. A complementarianism that is organic to any given relationship versus one mediated by a fixed hierarchical power arrangement.
Addendum to Original Post:
As this post moves around the Internet it's getting some particular pushback so I'd like to add some clarification.
Specifically, some have argued that many complementarians don't believe that woman are inept in areas like biblical teaching, pastoral care, or administration. Thus it is argued that I'm attributing a belief (ontological ineptitude) to complementarians that they don't endorse.
Two responses.
First, many complementarians actually do endorse ontological ineptitude. They may not explicitly endorse it, but the belief is implicit in their argument that God differently gifted the genders, that men and women "complement" each other based upon matching competencies and incompetencies rooted in their natures.
Now of course, many complementarians do recognize the empirical reality that women can effectively teach, offer pastoral care and administrate organizational structures/teams. But if that is the case then why are the roles in patriarchal churches and homes assigned the way they are? That is, if it's not based on relative competencies why are men the sole teachers, pastors, and administrators?
At this point, an appeal will be made to a divine and created order, that God placed men in a leadership/headship role and that God did this not to offset/match competencies in men and women but to reflect a divine order or pattern.
In response I would simply say that I don't think that particular view is best described as complementarian. In the comment thread I've floated the label "creational hierarchy" for this view. The view being that men are the "head" not because they are "better" leaders (they often are not), but by virtue of their being men and, thus, creationally assigned to that role. This "headship" is not based on mirroring competencies (the general understanding behind the label "complementairan") but upon a created hierarchy that reflects the nature of God.
Either way, the goal of the post still stands. We need to stop using the generic label "complementarian" for these distinct views.
