Complementarian doctrine doesn’t require adherents to adopt a certain label for their view. It’s far more important for people to accept and affirm the Bible’s teaching on manhood and womanhood than for them to embrace any specific moniker for it. Having said that, there is great value in being precise and clear when thinking about and communicating Christian doctrine. For that reason, I still prefer and recommend the use of the term “complementarianism” to label our position over “biblical patriarchy.”
I have made a positive case for “complementarianism” elsewhere. In this essay, I want to respond to some of the critiques in Doug Ponder’s thoughtful essay weighing the relative merits of the terminology “complementarianism” versus “biblical patriarchy.”[1] He prefers “biblical patriarchy” while also acknowledging that there is significant overlap between a robust complementarianism and biblical patriarchy. That’s why he concludes that it doesn’t do much good for either side to fight about it. I appreciate Ponder’s spirit and agree with him that there is a great deal of overlap. I also appreciate his interaction with some of my previous work. Nevertheless, I remain unpersuaded that “patriarchy” is the best term to describe the biblical view of manhood and womanhood.[2] Here are three reasons why.
1. “Patriarchy” Is Not a Biblical Word
It is the duty of every Christian to define and defend the terms stipulated by Scripture. For example, the terms gospel, justification, holiness, and God are terms that Scripture itself uses and defines. When these terms become distorted by false teachers (or perhaps even unintentionally by well-meaning Christians), faithful Christians will be compelled to assert the truth in the face of error and offer whatever corrections are needed. This is a part of contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). It is especially the duty of pastors “to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Tit. 1:9). This duty would also extend to terms not found in Scripture but which nevertheless have a long track-record in the Christian tradition. For example, the word “trinity” doesn’t appear in the Bible, but Christians have long used it to refer to what the Bible teaches about the triune nature of God. There are ecumenical creeds that define the term and that are a touchstone for faithful Christian confession. Such non-biblical terms are also worth defining and defending.
The term patriarchy, however, does not fall into either of those categories. It is not a term with a long track record in the Christian tradition or with a long-established creedal definition. Nor does the term appear in the Bible. The term patriarch (Gk. πατριάρχης) appears in the Bible nine times—five times in the Greek Old Testament and four times in the New Testament (1 Chron. 24:31; 27:22; 2 Chron. 19:8; 23:20; 26:12; Acts 2:29; 7:8-9; Heb. 7:4). While it is true that the etymology of patriarch (πατριά + ἀρχή) suggests that it means “father-rule,” it would be a fallacy to reduce the term’s actual usage to its etymology.[3] That is not how language works. In every instance of the term in Scripture, patriarch refers to a “prime ancestor of a national entity, father of a nation, patriarch.”[4] Thus, a patriarch is someone who is at the head of a specified line of descendants.[5] For this reason, the use of the word patriarch in the Bible does not justify treating the word patriarchy as a biblical term. Although related etymologically, they are distinct terms referring to distinct concepts. Patriarch is a biblical term, but patriarchy is not. The use of the term patriarchy is thus a matter of prudence and wisdom, not a matter of Scriptural necessity.
If patriarchy does not mean the same thing as the biblical word patriarch, then what does patriarchy actually refer to?
2. “Patriarchy” Risks Miscommunication
The vernacular use of the term patriarchy does not derive from the Bible but from second wave feminism. As I have argued elsewhere[6], Kate Millet pioneered the concept of patriarchy as an oppressive system of male domination and misogyny.[7] For this reason, the vernacular use of patriarchy today has too much feminist baggage. Every time one uses the term, ordinary listeners don’t think “father leadership over the family,” as the etymology might suggest. On the contrary, ordinary users of English hear “patriarchy” and think male domination, abuse, and misogyny.
Doug Ponder raises specific objections to my argument on this point.[8] He disputes that the modern use of “patriarchy” is the coinage of feminists and instead cites usage of the term going back to the 1500’s. I do not dispute that the term has been around for centuries. Readers can see this older usage for themselves in the Oxford English Dictionary. That older usage would be relevant to the current discussion if there were any evidence that those handful of early uses introduced the term into the English vernacular. I can’t find any evidence that it did.
In English, instances of the term patriarchy were very few and far between before the twentieth century. Google’s Ngram viewer tracks the frequency of words and phrases in books dating from 1500 to the present. The chart below shows the Ngram data on the use of patriarchy in its corpus of English books from 1550 until now:
“Patriarchy” does not really appear with any frequency until the 1960’s and after. This explains why the Oxford English Dictionary also points out that “patriarchy” in modern parlance is employed “frequently with pejorative connotation.”[9] Where does that pejorative connotation come from? The first example Oxford gives is feminist author Kate Millet in 1970.
I get the impression that many who espouse the label “biblical patriarchy” find the offensiveness of the term to be a feature and not a bug. That would be fine if the offense were due to the biblical realities it’s intended to signify. The problem is that current usage does not first evoke biblical realities but misogyny and abuse. And there is no virtue in risking that kind of miscommunication, which could easily result in needless offense.
3. “Patriarchy” Has No Creedal Definition
The term patriarchy has no creedal definition. Phrases like biblical patriarchy or Christian patriarchy also lack confessional standing and refer loosely to a movement that emphasizes male authority in every sphere of life. Because of this lack of definition, a number of fringe teachings and practices have flown under the banner of “biblical patriarchy.” Here I’m thinking about wife-spanking (corporal punishment for disobedient wives), false teachings about “umbrellas of authority,” the repeal of the 19th amendment (which granted women the right to vote), and more. Perhaps advocates of biblical patriarchy would agree that such teachings are abuses of an otherwise good term and that misuse should not preclude proper use. I would agree with that principle and would point out that such is also the case with “complementarianism.” Soft-complementarian abuse of the label complementarian is no grounds for abandoning the term complementarian altogether.
Both labels are often misused, but that fact does not mean that the terms are equal alternatives. If misuse forces both sides to issue clarifications, it is preferable to make clarifications about the misuse of the term “complementarianism” than the term “biblical patriarchy.” After all, the potential confusion generated by soft-complementarians is a far cry from wife-spanking. One of these things is not like the other. Also, complementarians have a specific doctrinal proposition called the Danvers Statement by which to measure soft-complementarian errors. I am not aware of any such doctrinal standard among proponents of “biblical patriarchy.” The lack of a confession defining “biblical patriarchy” is a big reason why there is a wide spectrum of aberrant practices and beliefs flying under the banner “patriarchy.” I am not accusing everyone who adopts the label “biblical patriarchy” of aberrant practices and beliefs. Nevertheless, it is a problem for the proponents of biblical patriarchy that there is no doctrinal standard or confession by which to adjudicate errors in their movement. Complementarianism has an advantage because it has the Danvers Statement as an objective definition of the teaching.
For example, advocates of biblical patriarchy advocate a “consistent biblical view of men and women where men rule in the home, church, and society.”[10] While I would agree that male and female difference has implications wherever men and women can be found, that does not mean that all men have God-given authority to rule all women. And this is one key area in which advocates of biblical patriarchy need some confessional clarity (which they currently lack). Scripture teaches that a husband is the head of his own wife, not the head of anyone else’s wife (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23). Likewise, the Bible teaches that a wife should submit to her own husband, not to all men (Eph. 5:23-24). While creation design has implications for all of life, it does not imply a necessary relation of authority and submission between men and women in every sphere of life. If a man steps on a bus and tells a random woman, “Get up, I want your seat,” he would not be exercising a God-given prerogative of authority. It would be an unauthorized exertion of power, potentially over someone else’s wife. If a strange man tells my daughter to get into his car, he is not exercising God-given authority based on his male nature. He is imposing an unauthorized exertion of power that she should rightly resist. And if I am nearby, he will learn very quickly and personally what an authorized exertion of masculine power looks like.
None of this denies that creation design has implications for every place where men and women can be found. Are there certain roles, occupations, or secular offices that might go against the grain of a woman’s nature? I think the answer to that question is a clear yes (e.g., women serving in combat). Likewise, are there roles, occupations, or secular offices that might run contrary to the grain of a man’s nature? The answer here too must be yes (e.g., a midwife). Also, any occupation that would subvert the order of the home would seem to be precluded as well.
But is it always clear how to apply the grain of nature in scenarios when there are imperfect alternatives? What if in a presidential election a pro-life conservative female candidate runs against a male pro-abortion candidate who also favors LGBTQ-rights and so-called gay “marriage”? Does creation order mandate a vote for the man just because he’s a man? Complementarian John Piper argues that while a woman should not run for president, it may be nevertheless wise to vote for her.[11] Piper’s argument suggests that the application of creation order may sometimes be a matter of prudence and wisdom in weighing alternatives and not a matter of an inflexible absolute that no woman may ever hold high office.
Working out these implications is complicated by the fact that there is no chapter and verse specifying which roles are prohibited to whom. Some roles may be obvious. Some may not be. While it may go against the grain of nature for women to “rule” in certain roles, that does not mean that all men have authority over all women in every sphere of life. It is these kinds of distinctions and definitions that are sometimes missing from the biblical patriarchy movement. The result is that much of the movement relies heavily on masculine “vibes” rather than on confessional clarity about how creation order cashes-out in the various spheres of life. Confessional clarity would offer an articulation of principles that can be true no matter the vicissitudes of life in this fallen world.
Conclusion
The lack of definition of “biblical patriarchy” opens up the door to consequential differences between the two groups—complementarians and biblical patriarchy advocates. Nevertheless, that shouldn’t keep us from recognizing the possibility of substantial overlap between a robust complementarianism and biblical patriarchy (e.g., male headship, male-female distinction, opposition to feminism, etc.). Nor should it lead us to engage in pointless controversies or wrangle about rhetorical minutiae (2 Tim. 2:14). After all, who wants to quarrel over words? I certainly don’t, and that’s why I view this discussion as a prudential matter. That’s also why I have many friends who disagree with me about this and who have contributed in one way or another to the work of CBMW.
Having said that, there are many people on the “biblical patriarchy” side of things who do not feel so constrained. Some of them lambaste anyone flying under the banner of “complementarianism” as if the sum total of the movement consists in the worst caricatures of soft-complementarian error. The charge is demonstrably false, but you wouldn’t know it from some of the critics. So yes, let’s call off the dogs and have a reasonable discussion about nomenclature. And let’s also discuss the theological substance. There are still some differences there as well. In the meantime, I still maintain that “complementarianism” is the better term to describe the biblical position and have yet to encounter any compelling reason to replace it with “biblical patriarchy.”
[1] Doug Ponder, “After Complementarianism, What? Why Egalitarians Are (Still) Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate,” Christ Over All, June 30, 22025, https://christoverall.com/article/longform/after-complementarianism-what-why-egalitarians-are-still-winning-the-evangelical-gender-debate/.
[2] I have made this case elsewhere in Denny Burk, “Mere Complementarianism,” Eikon 1, no. 2 (2019): 28–42. This essay is necessary background for understanding the current one.
[3] See “the root fallacy” in D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 28-33.
[4] BDAG, s.v. πατριάρχης.
[5] In Old Testament usage, there seems to be a connotation of authority on the part of the patriarch, but such does not seem to be the case in the four New Testament uses of the term.
[6] The “elsewhere” is my forthcoming book titled Mere Complementarianism (Christian Focus, 2026). I Have also discussed it on the CBMW Podcast. See What about the Term “Patriarchy”?, with Jonathan Swan et al., The CBMW Podcast, 2025, 22:27, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2oC9RRPe8k.
[7] Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 33: “Patriarchy’s chief institution is the family. It is both a mirror of and a connection with the larger society; a patriarchal unit within a patriarchal whole. Mediating between the individual and the social structure, the family effects control and conformity where political and other authorities are insufficient.”
[8] Ponder, “After Complementarianism, What?”
[9] Oxford English Dictionary, “patriarchy (n.), sense 3,” July 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/8234029374.
[10] Zachary M. Garris, Masculine Christianity (Reformation Zion, 2021), ix. Garris writes, “The same nature that prohibits a woman from exercising familial authority prohibits her from exercising civil authority,” (Garris, Masculine Christianity, 244).
[11] John Piper, “Why a Woman Shouldn’t Run for Vice President, but Wise People May Still Vote for Her,” Desiring God, November 2, 2008, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/why-a-woman-shouldnt-run-for-vice-president-but-wise-people-may-still-vote-for-her.
