Reclaiming "Complementarianism": The Term They Co-Opted, The Truth We're Defending

Why a Word Rooted in "Equal To" Now Means "Submit To"

In December 1987, a group including John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and others met in Danvers, Massachusetts to draft what became the Danvers Statement. A year later, in December 1988 at the Evangelical Theological Society conference, they publicly announced the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and coined the term “complementarianism” to describe their position. Grudem explained they chose this word because it “suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women,” drawing from the Hebrew kenegdo in Genesis 2:18—”corresponding to.”

But true complementarianism didn’t begin in 1987. It began in Eden.

The irony is profound. These theologians reached back to Genesis 2:18 for their terminology, yet fundamentally misread the text. The ezer kenegdo, “helper corresponding to him”, describes a powerful partnership, not subordination. Ezer appears 21 times in the Old Testament, predominantly for God Himself as Israel’s helper. Kenegdo means “equal to,” “face-to-face with”—not “under” or “following,” but alongside as an equal partner.

This is true complementarianism—and it existed long before 1987.

What Genesis Actually Teaches

As I’ve written previously, Genesis 1:26-28 presents the creation of humanity with unambiguous clarity: “God created mankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.’”

Notice what’s absent: any hint of hierarchy. Both bear God’s image equally. Both receive the dominion mandate jointly. Both are blessed together. The command to rule extends over creation, not over each other.

Genesis 2 fills out this picture. Yes, the woman is created as ezer kenegdo. But as we’ve established, this describes a powerful ally, not a subordinate assistant. Adam’s response isn’t “this one will obey me” but “this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”—words of recognition, wonder, and equality.

This is complementarity without hierarchy. Difference that enhances rather than dominates. True partnership.

Man and woman were created different—wonderfully, necessarily different. But different doesn’t mean ranked. It means complementary in the truest sense: each bringing unique strengths to a shared mission that neither could accomplish alone.

That’s what complementarianism originally meant in Genesis. That’s what the 1988 definition co-opted and corrupted.

What Went Wrong

The problem with the complementarianism defined by Piper and Grudem isn’t that it acknowledges differences between men and women. The problem is that it baptizes hierarchy as God’s design rather than recognizing it as the curse we’re meant to resist.

Genesis 3:16 pronounces judgment on the woman: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” But this isn’t a prescription—it’s a description. God isn’t commanding male rule; He’s predicting what sin will produce. “He shall rule over you” is no more God’s ideal than painful childbirth or thorns and thistles. These are consequences of the fall, not features of creation.

Yet 1980s complementarianism took this consequence of sin and enshrined it as divine design. They repackaged patriarchy as “biblical manhood and womanhood,” arguing that male authority and female submission reflect God’s created order. In doing so, they fundamentally inverted the biblical narrative.

They claimed the name “complementarian” to distinguish themselves from what they called “hierarchicalists.” But their position is inherently hierarchical—just hierarchy with a smile. As Grudem wrote, they wanted to emphasize “equality” while maintaining “beneficial differences”, which is code for hierarchy. Those “differences” always break in one direction: men lead, women follow. Men decide, women submit. Men exercise authority, women support.

That’s not complementarity. That’s soft patriarchy.

Paul’s Vision of True Complementarity

When Paul addresses marriage in Ephesians 5, he begins with mutual submission: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21). This is the frame for everything that follows.

Paul then addresses wives and husbands differently—not because he’s preserving hierarchy, but because they faced different temptations in their cultural moment. Wives needed to hear that partnering with their husbands honored Christ. Husbands, who held absolute legal authority in Roman society, needed to hear something revolutionary: love your wives sacrificially. Die for them. Nourish them. Cherish them.

This is complementarity applied to a specific cultural context. It’s not hierarchy enshrined as a timeless truth. Paul moves his readers from where they are (patriarchy) toward where the gospel is taking them (mutual partnership).

The differences in Paul’s instructions reflect cultural application of a radical principle. He doesn’t preserve hierarchy—he subverts it by redefining what “headship” means. Christ, the head, gave Himself for the church. He didn’t rule; He served. He didn’t dominate; He died.

This is the complementarity the gospel produces: mutual self-giving, mutual submission, mutual service.

Reclaiming the Term

So when I reject complementarianism as defined in 1988, I’m not rejecting complementarity. I’m defending what it actually means.

True complementarity—the kind rooted in Genesis 1-2, modeled by Christ, and proclaimed by Paul—celebrates the beautiful differences between men and women while refusing to stack those differences into a hierarchy. We need each other. We’re incomplete alone. Our distinct gifts and perspectives enhance partnership rather than establish rank.

I affirm complementarianism, accurately defined by Genesis. I reject the co-opted complementarianism created in the 1980s, which is essentially patriarchy with better branding and marketing.

The question isn’t whether men and women are different. Of course they are! The question is: Do those differences justify authority and submission as permanent roles? Or do they call us to partnership, where both bring their unique strengths to shared leadership, shared responsibility, and shared flourishing?

The 1988 definition got the name right but the doctrine wrong. They reached back to ezer kenegdo for their terminology, but they missed what it actually means.

It’s time to reclaim complementarianism—the real kind, the Genesis kind, the kind where difference doesn’t require dominance and partnership doesn’t need patriarchy.

That’s the complementarity worth defending. That’s the vision Scripture actually presents. And that’s what biblical mutuality has always been about.