Is "Tribal" Complementarianism Coherent?

Photo by Rosie Sun on Unsplash

Okay, the title is bit a click-bait-esque, but I’m trying to make a legit point, so bear with me.

There are different types of Complementarianism.

There’s the male priestly hierarchy of Roman Catholics. There is the neo-Patriarchy of certain Reformed circles. There is the Danvers Statement as a pan-evangelical statement of male headship in ministry and family. Then there are “soft” Complementarians that permit women to preach under the authority of a male senior pastor. Then there are those that have women pastors but not women preachers. Plus, further variations.

Now the notion of diversity within any tribe or tradition is to be expected. Even egalitarians disagree among themselves on many things, particularly how equality and authority relate to family, home, and marriage.

But I do find it a little baffling how Complementarianism can be a central node of unity for anything given how radically disparate versions and practices there are among Complementarians themselves.

Just to be clear, I understand some people have Complementarian convictions in church and family - I can respect people’s sincere consciences on this topic. But I’m confused as to how certain networks and para-church organizations are able to make Complementarianism a unifying node given the diverse ideas of authority, submission, and gender norms that they have among themselves.

Let me explain what I mean.