Complementarianism functions as a political ideology in Harold Lasswell’s sense: controlling who gets access to authority, platforms, and credibility within ecclesial and social institutions. (This extends far beyond the historic bounds of the special office of pastor/elder). This essay argues that complementarianism’s origins in reaction to second-wave feminism reflect pragmatist assumptions rather than principled confessional grounding, that its institutional response to the SBC abuse crisis revealed this, and that a Reformed libertarian framework grounded in sphere sovereignty provides the analytical clarity neither complementarians nor egalitarians have been positioned to offer. Critiquing complementarianism as a political ideology is not an egalitarian argument; it is a principled one.
The Politics of Complementarianism
Complementarianism is more than a theological position on marriage and ordination. It is also a political ideology with implications for civil authority, women’s self-ownership, and the legitimate use of force. This essay examines what happens when a doctrine shaped primarily by a cultural reaction acquires the character of a political program. That character presupposes a particular role for the state, struggles to distinguish rights violations from ecclesial disputes, and has proven structurally ill-equipped to protect against abuse within its own ranks.
This dynamic was already clear in June 2019. The Southern Baptist Convention held its annual meeting with sexual abuse as the primary focus. SBC President J.D. Greear co-hosted the event with the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Rachael Denhollander spoke on a major panel, and a rally called For Such a Time as This supported abuse awareness.
At the same time, Founders Ministries held its conference, “Mature Manhood in an Immature Age.” Instead of supporting victims, speakers questioned survivors’ motives and portrayed them as advancing neo-Marxism through women’s ordination. They addressed abuse through speakers with no relevant expertise and framed it as a matter of lust and the fault of egalitarianism, which they called “the first sin.” Subsequent events confirmed what that contrast revealed.
What is Complementarianism?
Complementarianism is the standard position among conservative evangelical Christians who affirm heterosexual marriage and male-only ordination. It also functions as a broader theological anthropology attempting to address matters of sexuality, marriage, male-female relationships, gender, women’s ordination, and a proposed theoretical anthropology of masculinity and femininity.
The doctrine’s main architects were John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Wayne House, Dorothy Patterson, James Borland, Susan Foh, and Ken Sarles. They formed the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) after drafting the Danvers Statement in 1987.
While CBMW presents the Danvers Statement as a response to contemporary developments, its advocates often claim it represents the historic position of the church. No single denomination created it, though the Southern Baptist Convention and Presbyterian Church in America adopted it widely. In recent years, many Reformed and New Calvinist voices (not to be confused with Kuyperian neocalvinists) including certain Calvinistic Baptists such as those at Founders Ministries, have embraced it.
The Pragmatist Roots of Political Power
Harold Lasswell’s definition of politics (who gets what, when, how) best captures complementarianism’s political character. This definition is pragmatist, rooted in the Chicago School thought of John Dewey and George Herbert Mead. (It’s easily the root problem of what passes for political conservativism in the US today). On this view, political concepts are not grounded in fixed principles but serve as tools for solving social problems. Truth is what seems to work in practice.
Complementarians see themselves as principled. Yet the doctrine arose as a response to second-wave feminism by conservative leaders steeped in pragmatist assumptions. They built a system of doctrine that confirmed existing social biases, then clothed it in theological language. The driving question was not primarily what Scripture and the confessions teach, but rather what would preserve the desired social order. Theology followed function.
This explains why theological challenges are treated as threats to institutional function rather than arguments to be engaged. The abuse crisis was judged by its perceived danger to authority structures rather than on its own merits.
Who Gets What, When, How
Complementarianism’s political nature appears in how it distributes authority and manages challenges. CBMW defines the doctrine, sets acceptable interpretations, and polices boundaries. Adopting institutions then control access to ordination, platforms, and credibility. Women who conform gain standing; those who challenge it lose standing. This is a political dynamic in Lasswell’s exact sense.
Complementarianism obscures this by framing male authority as God’s creational design. Challenging it is thus presented not as legitimate disagreement but as defiance of God. This ideological move raises the stakes beyond normal argument.
The abuse crisis exposed this clearly. Institutional resources protected the authority structure rather than victims. Survivors were treated as threats to the arrangement. Egalitarians responded with the same logic, using the crisis to advance women’s ordination. Both sides evaluated harm through its usefulness to their institutional position rather than on its own terms.
What Happened Next
The 2019 concerns proved accurate, but reality was more complex than either side admitted. In May 2022, Guidepost Solutions released a 288-page report documenting over 700 abuse cases in the SBC from 2000 to 2021, a secret list of credibly accused ministers, and an institutional focus on avoiding liability. The study has been called into question for promoting a progressive political agenda and, if true, only supports my thesis here.
Egalitarians exploited the crisis to push women’s ordination, using victims as leverage in a pre-existing theological fight. This opportunism did not create the problem, but it made honest reckoning harder. Many complementarians and patriarchalists then minimized the abuse itself, treating any exploitation as evidence that the crisis was fabricated. Real victims lost advocacy from institutions that claimed to uphold biblical order.
Both sides subordinated actual harm to ideological goals, and in doing so, revealed that neither was operating from principled ground. Political critique can expose that failure. It cannot supply what is missing. Questions of men and women, office, and the Gospel require a return to the primary sources: Scripture and the confessions, read carefully and applied honestly.
The Confessionally Reformed view (which will be argued at length in a forthcoming Dare to Think series) does not split the difference between complementarianism and egalitarianism. It argues that the Westminster Standards, applied without the Trinitarian errors, totalizing hierarchies, egalitarian flattening, or feminist social theory each camp imports, produce a view none of them has captured. That is the argument this series will make.
A Reformed Libertarian Response
In 2014, Albert Mohler claimed libertarianism is incompatible with orthodox Christianity. A 2016 debate with Norman Horn addressed this directly. The politics of complementarianism show why the distinction matters.
The Reformed Libertarianism Statement limits civil governance to adjudicating disputes over civil rights, with coercion reserved for aggression against persons or property. Sphere sovereignty keeps civil and ecclesial jurisdictions distinct. God assigns distinct jurisdictions based on the nature of each community, not on what outcomes each produces. That principled grounding is what makes it possible to say, without ideological interest, that sexual abuse is a civil matter, that ordination is an ecclesial matter, and that no institutional power consolidation gets to collapse those distinctions.
Sexual abuse is aggression against a person (a rights violation) not an internal church matter. Exploitation by egalitarians does not change this. Not all harms qualify as aggression; emotional, psychological, spiritual, and financial abuses require church discipline, community accountability, and other non-coercive mechanisms. Sphere sovereignty assigns these to the appropriate spheres not to minimize them, but because coercive civil enforcement is not the right instrument for every wrong.
This jurisdictional clarity is the Reformed libertarian contribution. It avoids the blurring of spheres common to both complementarian and egalitarian approaches. Theological questions about men, women, and office belong in my forthcoming Dare to Think series, Confessionally Reformed View of Womanhood. The political critique stands on its own: regardless of one’s views on ordination or marriage, complementarianism’s jurisdictional claims create problems, and its failure to separate civil violations from ecclesial disputes has left real victims without proper protection.
Does arguing against complementarianism make me an egalitarian? No. Rejecting a false paradigm does not commit you to its mirror image. This essay critiques complementarianism as a political ideology; the distribution of power, access, and authority within ecclesial and social institutions, not as a doctrine of qualified male-only ordination, which I affirm. Readers who assume the only alternative to complementarianism is egalitarianism are operating inside the very paradigm this essay is written to challenge.
FAQs
What does it mean to call complementarianism a political ideology?
“Political” here is used in Harold Lasswell’s sense: who gets what, when, how. Complementarianism functions as a political ideology because it controls the distribution of authority, access, and credibility within ecclesial and social institutions. CBMW defines the doctrine, sets the boundaries of acceptable interpretation, and determines who gains standing within the framework. That is a power structure, not merely a theological position.
What is the connection between complementarianism and pragmatism?
Complementarianism arose as a reaction to second-wave feminism by leaders already steeped in pragmatist assumptions inherited from the Chicago School tradition of John Dewey and George Herbert Mead. On that account, truth is what works in practice and institutions are tools for achieving desired outcomes. The Danvers Statement was not driven primarily by careful exegesis of Scripture and the confessions. It was driven by the goal of preserving a particular social order. Theology followed function. The principled language came after the institutional motivation.
How does sphere sovereignty apply to the complementarianism debate?
Sphere sovereignty is the Kuyperian-Dooyeweerdian principle that God delegates distinct and limited jurisdiction to different kinds of communities (eg. family, church, state) based on the nature of each, not on the outcomes each produces. Applied here: questions of women’s ordination belong to the ecclesial sphere, adjudicated by church courts under the relevant confession. Sexual abuse belongs to the civil sphere; it is aggression against a person, warranting civil remedy. Complementarianism’s consolidation of authority across spheres collapses these distinctions in ways that have left real victims without proper recourse.
Did the 2022 Guidepost Report confirm the concerns raised in this essay?
It confirmed the institutional failure. Over 700 documented abuse cases in the SBC from 2000 to 2021, a secret list of credibly accused ministers, and a pattern of liability-focused cover-up. It also confirmed the complexity: egalitarians exploited the crisis to advance women’s ordination, making honest reckoning harder, while complementarians and patriarchalists minimized the abuse itself by treating the exploitation as evidence against the crisis. Both failures followed the same logic; subordinating actual harm to ideological stakes.
Does the non-aggression principle apply to all forms of abuse?
No, and the distinction matters. Physical and sexual abuse constitute aggression against a person and fall within the legitimate scope of civil enforcement. Emotional, psychological, spiritual, and financial abuse are real and serious harms, but they do not necessarily meet the threshold of civil aggression under the non-aggression principle. These belong to non-civil accountability mechanisms — church discipline, community accountability, market consequences, family relationships. Sphere sovereignty assigns them there not to minimize the harm but because coercive civil enforcement is not the right instrument for every wrong.
