Because my book was too long, I cut these definitions and promised readers they can find them on my website. It’s important to define terms so everyone is thinking about the same thing. Following is an overview of the terms, authoritarian, hierarchy, patriarchy, complementarian, servant-leadership, egalitarian, mutualist (or mutualism), complegalitarian, feminist (or feminism), manosphere, incel, trad-wife, theobro.

These definitions carry contextual connotations, so not everyone will agree, and we cannot cover all history, uses, or related terms here. Some readers are more unfamiliar than others and need guidance. I use these words in the book according to my own understanding here.

There are three basic categories of Christian terms on gender roles. 

1. The most conservative has three fairly synonymous terms of authoritarian, hierarchical, and patriarchal. 
2. The middle-of-the-road conservative category follows complementarianism, with positions ranging from “soft” to “hard.”
3. The third category is egalitarian or mutualist.

After examining those three categories, we’ll look at six outlier terms.

1. Authoritarian / Hierarchical / Patriarchal 

The dictionary definition of authoritarian is, “Exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others.” Some homes and churches practice “stay-at-home daughters,” who must submit all decisions to their father and remain under his authority until he gives her to a man he approves.

Families and communities train women to suppress their opinions, allowing husbands to control the household. They teach women to serve their husbands and develop skills only if those skills benefit him. An authoritarian parent or husband may answer “why” with “because I said so.” For young children, this might suffice, but it should also include reassurance, like “I love you and am keeping you safe.”

Patriarchal or matriarchal leadership of children and grandchildren is fine when elders have earned respect. The problem arises when authoritarian sexism treats wives and daughters as second-class. Complementarians may reject those terms, but when a whole group of adults submits permanently and unilaterally to another, it effectively creates a second-class system.

The world often associates “patriarchy” with hierarchical authority, and complementarians generally mean the same. I will use the word to describe vertical authority, not the respected grandfatherly figure. If “patriarchy” is used in a respectable sense, it should also recognize a matriarch who has earned respect.

2. Complementarian 

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, leaders, supported by Promise Keepers, sought to soften the harshness of patriarchy with ideas like the “tender warrior” while maintaining core patriarchal ideology. Some felt that shift of emphasis caused lost masculinity, hence there was a backlash “restoration” movement of “biblical manhood” and the popularity of preachers like Mark Driscoll (of Mars Hill infamy) who seemed to embody Christian masculinity. 

The supposed middle-of-the-road conservative view is “complementarian,” although it can at times be hard to distinguish from authoritarian. A very simplistic definition is that the wife’s role is to complement and help the husband, to whom God has given the “headship” or leadership role in both the home and church.

Complementarians acknowledge that God created both men and women in His image, so they describe the sexes as “ontologically” equal but assign them “different roles.” In practice, men always assume spiritual authority over women in these assigned roles. That is not actually spiritual equality since his role is immutable, based on birth. They do say these must be “worthy men” but again, the main qualification is physical maleness so women can never qualify. (So much for God only looking on the heart and not the outward appearance.)

Complementarianism has a broad range, all the way from a narrow role for women (hard complementarian) to a wider role (soft complementarian), while still recognizing the husband’s “headship” which represents the man’s supposed God-granted leadership. There is also variance on what it means for a husband to lead, from the husband assuming a lot of authority making it hardly distinguishable from “authoritarian,” to a more “servant leadership” that finds occasion for the husband to submit to his wife in matters that are more important to her or considered her (usually domestic) realm. The wife is “allowed” an opinion but must be careful to give limited “input” so as to not threaten his leadership, and they must recognize that the husband has “the final say” in all decisions.

I don’t think the term “complementarian” accurately represents the view it proports to represent. To “complement” another means to enhance the other, but it does not sound like the complementor is essential, and it does not clearly communicate the hierarchy which is a pillar of the complementarian view. Some proponents claim the husband and wife complement each other, but practically, it goes in one direction with the husband being the primary person in the relationship and her life augments his.

I have observed that men who strongly believe in complementarianism rarely yield to their wives’ desires when these conflict with their own, whether in major or minor matters, and they apply a double standard for discussions and agreements. These men make decisions and inform their wives afterward, but they consider it inappropriate if a wife makes a similar decision without consulting them. That is just my own observation, and the reader may have different, legitimate observations and experience. My experience is based on running in very conservative circles all my life. Other men shamed husbands who consulted their wives too much—or at all—calling them “not wearing the pants” in their homes.

Unfortunately, complementarians have also confused the term “servant leadership.” One man defines service differently from another, depending on what he believes he deserves or must provide, such as the “umbrella of protection” or “priest of the home” concepts (explained further in the book). While one man might view service to his wife as washing the dishes (because he doesn’t consider it his responsibility), another might view it as a service to make unilateral decisions on all the important stuff, so she doesn’t have to worry her pretty little head about it. Clearly defined functional roles help the complementarian know when he’s “serving.” The alternative is to view everything as a team responsibility where everyone pitches in wherever possible and all chores are important to the family regardless of how much money they bring in because they enhance everyone’s quality of life.

Specific Beliefs in the Complementarian Range

Within the range of complementarianism, I have observed the following views and listed them in order from the most restrictive for women to the least restrictive: 

1. Those who believe the woman complements the man, who is the primary person in the relationship. Her role is to affirm all males in their pursuit of leadership and to assist in the fulfillment of her husband’s full potential. Period. Examples of well-known people who hold this view are John Piper (author of books such as Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), Wayne Grudem (co-founder of Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), and John MacArthur (author of God’s High Calling for Women).

“At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.”*

The woman’s role is framed entirely around men: affirming, nurturing, and receiving their strength and leadership. This focus ignores her own development and how the couple can mutually support each other’s growth. (One man I knew wanted his wife to not take employment she would enjoy more than doing housework.) Advocates instruct women to affirm men with a “freeing disposition,” described elsewhere as “joyfully.” I have heard that leaders in these circles discipline women who fail to express enough joy in their affirmation of men.

*Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Piper & Grudem (eds.), Crossway, 1991. Chapter 1 — “A Vision of Biblical Complementarity: Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible”

2. Some believe men and women complement each other like puzzle pieces, each with a distinct, pre-ordained role. Neither partner takes priority in development or leadership, but the husband has the final say in case of disagreements.
3. Some of these views allow women to lead in the church, but only over women and children. There must be a male in leadership over them. They may or may not answer directly to the church elders or senior pastor. Often, a male answers to those bodies of authority. Church authorities do not allow women to hold titles such as “pastor,” “elder,” or “deacon,” and they do not ordain women.
4. Some believers interpret the Bible to reserve certain offices, such as elder or bishop, for men, while allowing women to serve as deacons or exercise pastoral gifts. They permit women to hold offices as long as they do not occupy the “senior” or top leadership roles. Some license women to teach or under-pastor but restrict them from leading sacraments like baptism, communion, or marriage. Others say women can teach or pastor under authority, but not hold the church’s highest title.
5. Some believers hold that God imposes no limits on women in church ministry, as long as they operate under their husband’s headship, leadership, and blessing.
    
   All of these views fall within the range of complementarianism, although observers might label the first as patriarchal or authoritarian and the last two or three as “soft complementarianism.”

 

3. Egalitarian

When a view rejects both marital and church hierarchies based on gender, it falls into the egalitarian camp. This perspective holds that women are fully equal to men in practical and spiritual roles at home and in the church.

Egalitarians also have a range with fewer differing views. 

1. The most extreme egalitarian view is those who are very “progressive” to the point of androgyny, blending or denying differences between the two sexes. This view is, by far, the least common. 
2. Most egalitarians hold the more common view that men and women have distinct qualities, that these differences should be celebrated, and that both sexes deserve equal treatment despite their differences. They also resent when others lump them in with the extreme, “progressive” group described above.
3. The more common egalitarian view is now often called “mutualism” or “mutualist.” It recognizes gender differences, supports mutual submission, does not limit women, and considers the impact of gender theology on both men and women. People who dislike the androgyny of extreme egalitarians use the term “mutuality” to distance themselves from extremists and highlight concerns for both genders.

Complegalitarian 

I can’t see this term gaining traction just because of its pronunciation difficulty! This view is primarily soft complementarian as the “usual” circumstances, but recognizes that Scripture contains examples that don’t fit the complementarian view. Therefore, they give space for “exceptionally gifted women” to break the rules. There are plenty of authors with soft complementarian or complegalitarian views. I feel they are a poor compromise, causing women to have to prove they are exceptional (by whose ambiguous standards?) and implying women are inferior in general. Furthermore, the “exceptionalism” view does not solve the theological/biblical questions debated by complementarians and egalitarians.  

Some couples claim to be complementarian at home, but in daily life, they often function as egalitarians. For example, Tim Keller (who called himself complementarian) shared in a sermon that only two or three times in his marriage did he have to make a decision when they disagreed—and even then, he acted reluctantly at his wife’s urging. To me, that would be an example of a domestic, practical egalitarian unless there’s something else going on.

Keller believed in a limited role for women in the church so was an ecclesial hierarchalist (he would say complementarian). But he included women more in informal ways than his extremist complementarian friends in The Gospel Coalition. For example, he often had women read Scripture before he preached. At home, he might practice practical egalitarianism (complegalitarian), unless his wife held no differing opinions. Some women learn to anticipate their husbands’ wishes and comply before any discussion, sometimes without either realizing it. In other cases, he might be so disinterested in household details that he lets his wife handle nearly everything as she wishes. So, there are a number of ways people can claim to be complementarians but live like egalitarians.

I would say complegalitarian behaviors are confusing. It’s great for couples to privately compromise and figure out what works best for them. They just shouldn’t publicly claim to be complementarian and “biblical,” when their arrangement doesn’t fit their doctrine because their doctrine would actually be a miserable way to live. Data-driven evidence shows marriage is more satisfying when both people feel valued and respected and like they are in the trenches as a team. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+marriage+you+want+book

Feminism 

Historically, a “feminist” is someone who advocates social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to men. In the late 1800s, early feminists fought for the right to vote and marched for moral causes, such as prohibiting alcohol, because men visiting brothels threatened their families’ financial and moral well-being.

For the most part, women had to take extreme measures to gain social equal rights. In the 1900s, the women’s suffrage movement turned to economic strikes and, at times, physical protests after decades of speeches and peaceful protests failed to achieve reform. I do not condone violence, but I support strikes and passive resistance when voices are repeatedly ignored. Their cause was righteous and aligned with the nation’s founding documents, which declared that all humans were created equal.

After suffrage was achieved in 1920, there was another generation-long fight to normalize voting without intimidation and to address other social and economic inequities. 

From the mid-1900s, feminists fought for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Conservatives opposed it, fearing it would remove protections like women’s exemption from the military draft and combat, as well as alimony for women who stayed home while men earned higher incomes. Recent failed experiments with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) seem to be bringing more sanity to the subject. Since the late 1970s, courts have considered these factors in divorce proceedings, so alimony is no longer a significant concern.

Second-wave feminism (early 1960s to early 1980s) expanded the scope of legitimate issues but also promoted abortion under the label of “reproductive rights.” Third wave feminism (early 90s through present) sought to redefine feminism with many immoral and radical theories. Sexual abuse on the job and in churches remained rampant, but women feared reporting it due to severe consequences. The term “MeToo” was coined in 2006, and the movement gained momentum in 2017. I believe this widespread, tolerated abuse fueled the anger of radical feminists. The so-called fourth wave of feminism began in the 2010s, but it closely resembles the third wave and differs greatly from the original, more righteous movement.

Many God-fearing women cringe at the label “feminist,” and conservatives use it to shame women who advocate for equal rights. Complementarians sometimes call evangelical egalitarians “feminists” or “evangelical feminists” to cast them negatively—I once made this mistake myself. Although some understand the term’s historical and technical meaning, its current association with radical movements makes it inaccurate to label any Christian who believes in equality as a feminist.

I appreciate the distinction Kate Wallace Nunneley makes in her blog, Why I am a Feminist and an Egalitarian (And Why They Aren’t the Same Thing): 

“Both feminism and egalitarianism resist patriarchy as a corrupt and abusive system, but they do so in different ways and for different purposes: where feminism fights for equal rights, egalitarianism advocates for “equal access to servanthood.” We need feminism outside the Church to fight for women’s rights. We need egalitarianism inside the Church to advocate for mutual servanthood.” https://juniaproject.com/feminist-and-egalitarian-not-the-same/

Kaeley Triller Harms has an interesting article on our aversion to the word “feminism.” https://kaeleytrillerharms.substack.com/p/is-it-okay-to-use-the-f-word/

Manosphere, Incel

Some argue that the radical feminist movement’s excesses, after 150 years of fighting for rights, sparked a backlash called the “manosphere.” It began as a loosely connected network of online communities, blogs, forums, and social media spaces focused on men and masculinity. This separation mirrors how men and women often create their own spaces while still sharing common interests.

As men felt hostility from women protesting patriarchy, many responded with hostility in their own spaces, turning the cold war between the sexes into a hot one. Some women openly claim it is acceptable to hate men, and the manosphere has become associated with misogyny, harmful ideologies, and extreme subcultures. Online rants from both sides frequently repeat terms like “patriarchal” and “feminism,” radicalizing participants and encouraging mutual blame. I understand why some white men feel vilified rather than praised for their achievements. At the same time, I notice how tone-deaf they can be to women who must stay constantly vigilant for fear of physical attack or manipulation.

Both men and women feel more discouraged than ever about relationships and marriage, citing real challenges such as economic struggles, loneliness, immaturity, and rejection. This environment helped create the “incel” subculture, which now primarily links to men and misogynistic rhetoric. Some men who follow this culture become violent and boast about using “pickup artist” techniques to manipulate and harm women for entertainment. We face a troubling gender conflict. The church has a chance to promote peace by addressing the issue, but often it either ignores the problem or handles it in an equally polarizing way.

Trad-wives

Trad-wives (short for traditional wives) form a loosely defined online and social movement. These women promote what they see as traditional domestic roles, emphasizing homemaking, childcare, and supporting a husband as the primary breadwinner. The movement is most visible on IG, TT, YT, blogs and Podcasts. The spectrum runs from harmless nostalgia to strict gender-hierarchy advocacy. 

I believe that when one adult can stay home, it increases the quality of life for everyone in the household. Not everyone can afford this, but everyone should examine their options to determine whether they can make sacrifices to achieve it. If the stay-at-home person manages the household affairs well, they can decrease expenses in several areas. They can also gain marketable skills and supplement the primary breadwinner’s income. Sharing these realities on social media helps show that the stay-at-home person works hard to provide a healthy lifestyle.

It becomes unhelpful when creators post highly curated videos, portraying an ideal, nonworking life and perfecting every aspect of homemaking. All the while, working hard at gaining a following with ad revenue and as a paid influencer. Please show me this same woman shopping for the best insurance while pacifying an infant. Teaching strict patriarchal principles as if they were absolutely biblical and unchangeable can harm women whose husbands might take advantage.

I watched a young woman on Instagram strongly teaching one-sided submission of women and that women shouldn’t be pastors, etc. Standing in her living room didn’t stop her from preaching. Her large following showed she was shepherding many people. She clearly has the gift of exhortation, and I believe she should exercise it in person rather than online while pretending she isn’t preaching.

Theobro

A “theobro” is a man—often on YouTube, TikTok, or Instagram—who shares strong, absolute opinions on Christian doctrine, gender roles, or cultural issues. He speaks assertively, dogmatically, and sometimes condescendingly, aiming to correct others. He calls out “heretical,” “feminist,” or “liberal” Christians, emphasizes stereotypical masculine authority, and prioritizes certainty over nuance or humility.

Many visible online “theobro” personalities come from the “Young, Restless, Reformed” subculture of Neo-Calvinist influencers. They emphasize doctrinal precision, debate, and correct theology. While these traits are not inherently bad, they can be taken to extremes.

You can also find theobro-style personalities in Fundamentalist Baptist circles, Complementarian megachurches, Charismatic or neo-apostolic spaces, Catholic traditionalist groups, and among Orthobros—Eastern Orthodox men with a similar style.

So, the attitude—hyper-certainty, masculine posturing, debate-brain, and rebuking strangers online—is portable across many traditions. This is a sociological dynamic where young men often use theological correctness to signal intelligence or authority. The aesthetic (beards, cigars, leather Bibles, and “manly” theology overlaps with the “bro” persona.

~~~~~

I hope you allowed yourself to enjoy this overview of terms without letting it raise your blood pressure. As the church, we have an opportunity to bring peace to our culture. Unfortunately, we often add to the polarization of the gender war. I hope we can educate ourselves, show empathy for the struggles of the other gender and emphasize our commonalities.