We should get more specific terms for complementarians. For one thing, some mutualists call themselves non-hierarchal complementarians.
For another, some couples live a marriage of mutuality and equality in decision-making, but does not believe in female pastors or elders. Others believe women can preach or even be president, but wives should submit to their husbands at home.
Why would specific terms matter? For one thing, painting with a too broad brush comes close to false testimony. For another, it may be easier to influence someone on one topic if he know tho pair of you are discussing that one topic, you are not trying to bring down his entire world view. Complementarians could also, with proper labels, more easily avoid endorsing some very strange ideas of their allies.
Here is my suggestions, but not for category names. I am sure others could come up with more creative, accurate names. These categories of belief could, in my opinion, be seperately labelled:
Marriage hierarchists believe a wife should submit to her husband in the home, with the husband leading. Even then, there are degrees to how they understand submission.
Covering hierarchists believe every woman should be under a man. They believe, of course, in marital hierarchy. But they also believe the unmarried should be under a father or brother, and the widow under a son.
Church restrictionists believe there are certain authoritive church positions women should not hold. Even then, it would be useful to have terms to distinguish between
a) “women could preach, but under a male head pastor”
b) “women cannot preach or be pastors”
c) “women cannot be pastors or elders”
d) “women cannot be pastors, elders or deacons”
e) “women cannot even read scripture in church, or do announcements”
Gender role proponents (Generally called “Biblical manhood and womanhood”) say that there are non-biological things which all Christian men have to be and women should not, and others which believing women have to be and men not.
Isn’t say, believing in marital hierarchy, being a gender role proponent? No, because even if a husband should lead his wife in marriage, it says nothing of the behavior of an unmarried young male or an aged widowed lady. Gender role proponents say there is a complementarianism that influences how even the unmarried and widowed, and the men and women with no desire to be preachers, should live.
Servantists: Believing the male gender role is to lead in serving, sacrifice, and love, could be servantism, but in my opinion no complementarian actually pay more than lip service to it. Do anyone actually believe that the wife should ensure she spend less time serving the husband than vice versa, so he can lead on that score and she does not usurp his role? When the man is somewhat rude because he is in a bad mood, should the woman not lead in love by presenting love into this situation where the man did not? Should she sacrifice less (time, career opportunities, surname, whatever) than the man does? (Believing men should love, serve, and sacrifice, and women should too, is service egalitarianism. Believing women should serve more and sacrifice more is reverse servantism.)
Public restrictionists believe women should not have leadership tasks in politics or at work.
Gospel genderists believe that the message of Christ is compromised if complementarian ideas (Which complementarian ideas? Marriage hierarchy, covering hierarchy, church restriction, gender role living or public restriction?) are not lived out.
This blog, for example, have never said anything about church restrictionists, type a). The comments on marriage hierarchists and church restrictionists, type b), are rather tentative. It is “you could add this to your understanding”, not “stop submitting.” But I make no secret about disagreeing with gender role proponents. And a gender role proponent who quote (for example) Eph 5:23 to me when I oppose so-called Biblical manhood and womanhood is throwing down a red herring.
Such a distinction will also enable those who are, say, marriage hierarchists, to ask a public restrictionist: Why do you think women should not be employers to male employees? Or a church restrictionist could ask a gender role proponent: Now what does your doctrine mean to my unmarried 22-year old daughter and my 19-year-old son? What should they be to comply, and where in the Bible do you get it?
Could you suggest other complementarian ideas to distinguish between? Or perhaps better names for the different complementarian ideas?
PS: I made a minor edit to the sentence that used to say: “…I oppose Biblical manhood and womanhood…” It is now: “… I oppose so-called Biblical manhood and womanhood…”