How complementarianism limits Latter-day Saint women

You may not be familiar with the term "complementarianism," but you've definitely felt its effects.

If you’re unfamiliar with the term, add “complementarianism” to your vocabulary.

Let’s get a definition, to start:

Complementarianism is the belief that men and women have specifically designated roles given to them by God.

The idea is that men and women intrinsically “complement” each other, in their roles and their skills. But the problem is when those roles are assigned along gender lines, as we’re so familiar with: men are to be in charge, and women are to be subservient.

On its surface, the idea that different people can have complementary skill sets is not controversial. This is crucial in business settings—if your CEO is a visionary who is always thinking five years ahead, then you want them to have a strong #2 who can oversee the day-to-day operations. If you’re married, it’s likely that you are good at some things while your spouse is good at other things: one is organized, the other is spontaneous; one is good at starting tasks, the other at finishing them; one is good at making new friends, the other is good at keeping the old ones.

As described here, by leaders of the idea, those in favor of complementarian marriages emphasize that both men and women become “whole” when complemented by the other:

The complementarian position acknowledges that God created men and women equal in being but assigned different—but equally valuable—functions in His kingdom and that this gender distinctiveness complements, or harmonizes, to fulfill His purpose.¹

This doesn’t sound so bad, does it?

But complementarianism typically goes beyond that, and is about assigned or presumably God-given gender roles, especially in marriages. These roles are unabashedly unequal: the man is the head of the family (this is often called “male headship”; in Latter-day Saint circles we might use the word “presiding”), with the wife in an explicitly secondary role. This sets up men as decision-makers and leaders, with women blocked out of similar roles because of their gender. Here’s what critique of that brand of complementarianism sounds like:

I believe that it is foundational to the motivation of complementarianism that women are weaker, more vulnerable to sin, and that their emotions are deceitful. This naturally leads to a disrespect of the perspectives of women. His leadership is valued. Hers is vilified as controlling. His wisdom is ordained by God. Hers is "helpful" but also optional. He considers her opinion and makes the decision. She's along for the ride.²

There is plenty of debate pitting complementarian relationships vs. their opposite, egalitarian ones. At its best, complementarianism values different strengths and perspectives in a marriage that is a true partnership. At its worst, it’s a new coat of paint for 1950s sexual politics, starring bread-winning husbands who control the money and are emotionally unavailable, supported by pearl-wearing wives who do the cooking and cleaning, raise the children, and make sure their husbands are sexually satisfied. Those on the egalitarian side regard that as the 6-quart Instant Pot full of garbage that it is.

The term “complementarianism” doesn’t get used in Latter-day Saint circles, but members of the Church should recognize the concept immediately. We may instead use terms like “differences inherent between men and women” or “divinely appointed roles” that mean exactly the same thing—or suggest that the inequity is God’s doing, and not part of a cultural movement. The Family Proclamation very clearly asserts that men and women should have complementary gender roles:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

The concept also shows up plenty of times as taught by Latter-day Saint leaders. This isn’t in disguise, or anything—it’s a concept that has been clearly taught over many decades. Let’s start with this quote from Elder Boyd K. Packer, in 1993 (more than 30 years ago):

Some roles are best suited to the masculine nature and others to the feminine nature.

I’ve selected this brief excerpt because I want to call out that Elder Packer focuses on masculine and feminine characteristics instead of on the male and female genders. What we see as masculine and feminine attributes are social constructs, and vary from culture to culture (for example, in matriarchal societies where women hold most positions of leadership there may be a different understanding of what is “feminine”). So if Elder Packer’s overall point is that you need both decision-making leadership and loving nurturing in a family, I think I can agree with that.³

Beyond that, though, it’s straight complementarianism. Sometimes it even uses the word “complementary,” like Elder Quentin L. Cook did in 2015 (emphasis added):

Husbands and wives are equal partners. They have different but complementary responsibilities.

Sister Jean B. Bingham, as recently as 2020, does it too (emphasis added):

Whether at home or in our Church responsibilities, the most effective way to fulfill our divine potential is to work together, blessed by the power and authority of the priesthood in our differing yet complementary roles.

So—is that the final word? As a man and a husband, should I make sure I’m not too nurturing to my children, so as not to impede on my wife’s territory?

We can’t know the mind of God, of course. The Family Proclamation directly states that complementary gender roles in marriages are “by divine design,” with husbands presiding and wives primarily responsible for nurturing children. This isn’t the only time this claim is made, either.

The conversation can end there. But this is a topic that feels tied to both an era in history and a specific brand of politics, rather than to commandments or eternal concepts. I wouldn’t encourage anyone to trifle with the words of Church leaders, who I believe to be called of God—but we also believe them to be fallible. This would not be the first time, nor the last, that something has been taught that was later changed. If I look at divine precedent, I don’t see our Heavenly Parents in these defined “complementary” roles; instead of seeing our Heavenly Mother as subservient and incapable of leading, we see her as “co-creator of worlds, as coframer of the plan of salvation with the Father, and as a concerned and loving parent involved in our mortal probation.” This is a much stronger eternal principle. This is what partnership in a marriage really looks like.

Complementarianism further comes apart at the seams when you understand that it is not inclusive of all family types. It lacks support for single-parent families and LGBTQ+ couples, suggesting that neither is “complete”. I’d imagine complementarianism is most popular with people who are already in families that sport two heterosexual parents, as it reinforces what they are already doing.

And on a darker note, beyond just not being inclusive, complementarian male-centric power structures tend to create a fertile environment for abuse and violence toward women. Kristin Kobes Du Mez—author of the stellar book Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation, and a critic of complementarianism—cuts to the chase:

Let’s be honest. Complementarianism isn’t just about provision and protection. It’s about power over women. Which is at the heart of abuse.

She’s not alone either, as R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary poses these questions:

Is complementarianism the problem? Is it just camouflage for abusive males and permission for the abuse and mistreatment of women?

---

But complementarianism isn’t just about marriages. It happens at the organizational level as well, and it means the same thing: men have a role in the church, and women have a different role.

There are many Christian churches, even today, who do not allow women to become priests or pastors, often citing verses written by Paul in the New Testament⁴ as the reason. This is the basis of complementarianism as applied to church administration; leadership responsibility is for men, not for women. This is made clear in the official church statements we see from a variety of faiths, such as in the Baptist Faith and Message:

While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

…or in the Roman Catholic Church’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, from Pope John Paul II⁵:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance… I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment [or belief] is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

…or, closer to home, in our Latter-day Saint General Handbook:

Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood. Under His direction, priesthood keys are given to men to use in specific callings to help accomplish God’s work…

In marriages, it’s fairly easy to pin down the gender roles from a complementarian viewpoint. But in our Church organizationally, it’s a little more hazy. The role of men is clear: Men are to hold the priesthood, including the responsibility to lead and preside at all levels of the Church. And women’s role is to… not do that?

I posed this question to my wise and capable wife (who is equally or more capable of presiding in our home, but certainly not less). After explaining what I perceive to be the male role in the Church, I asked what she thought the defined, complementary role of women is in the Church.

She thought for a moment and said, “Support?”

“Or maybe, support and obey?”

Ouch.

Think about that for a moment. It made me want to throw up. We can hardly claim that men’s and women’s roles in the Church are equal when we can’t articulate what is equal about them. Women can hold leadership positions in the Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary organizations, for sure. But as Cynthia Winward said so succinctly, “There’s not one single decision a woman can make in this church that cannot be overruled by a man.”

I’d like to think we’re past the era⁶ where men claimed openly in society that women are too emotional to lead or vote, or that they’re not physically strong enough to be firefighters or run marathons. We have women who are powerful CEOs, and we have a greater societal understanding of softer mens roles. We are making space, bit by bit, for different forms of gender expression. And as these roles evolve societally, it highlights the outdated nature of “complementary” assigned gender roles.

This is what Beth Allison Barr is talking about, in her book The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth:

Christians in the past may have used Paul to exclude women from leadership, but this doesn't mean that the subjugation of women is biblical. It just means that Christians today are repeating the same mistake of Christians in the past—modeling our treatment of women after the world around us instead of the world Jesus shows us is possible.⁷

What exactly is possible? Is it possible that our Heavenly Parents aren’t concerned if women work outside the home? Is it possible that women can and will be able to make decisions in the Church? Will they someday lead—and by this I mean, will they lead men? Is it possible that Latter-day Saint women will someday be ordained to the priesthood—something that seems only as possible as allowing Black saints to hold the priesthood and receive temple ordinances before 1978? Is it possible that we don’t have a full picture, that the gospel has not yet been fully restored, and that we have a lot more to learn?

I don’t know what the future holds, but none of these seem outside the realm of possibility, when we have a prophet who not only can receive revelation from God, but has repeatedly reminded us that the restoration is far from complete.

In the meantime, here’s what I’m going to do (and you’re welcome to join me): I’m going to name complementarianism when I see it. And not the kind that suggests that husbands and wives should simply have complementary skills; I’m talking about the kind where roles are assigned based solely on gender. The more I name it, the more I’ll recognize it when it pops up. And the more I—as a man—will be able to speak up when others want to fall back on outdated ideas to be dismissive of greater roles for women in the Church.

1. Duncan, J. Ligon and Hunt, Susan, Women's Ministry in the Local Church: A Complementarian Approach (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006), 32.

2. Noelle Toscano, on Instagram.

3. There is plenty more in Elder Packer’s talk that is specifically about gender, and complementary roles. But I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt on this specific line from the talk.

4. See, if you want, 1 Timothy 2:11-12, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and others. Generally these statements seem to be context-specific and not intended for the entire church in perpetuity; note, for example, that Paul also talks about women praying and prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11:4, which seems to contradict his other statements about the role of women in the church.

5. The recent news headlines suggesting that Pope Francis is more open to the idea of ordaining women, or at least allowing women to play a larger role in church administration, are fascinating.

6. We’re not.

7. Barr, Beth Allison, The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth (Ada, MI: Brazos Press, 2021), 41.