I don’t know who started the trend. I don’t know who made it a thing that everybody now copies. It is good that I don’t know because it means I’m not pointing any fingers. But I am here to make a plea to everybody else who seems to keep doing the same thing.

Terms tend to be in or out of vogue. We can all think of the buzzwords that were once cutting edge but are now passé. When discussing doctrines or positions that lie on a spectrum, I have noticed an increasing tendency to refer to them as either ‘thick’ or ‘thin’. I have noticed it most in the vexed conversations over complementarianism, particularly the intramural discussion over its scope and bounds. I really want us to develop some other wording.

What seems to be meant by ‘thick’ or ‘thin’ complementarianism is how far and wide one might apply the basic concept of headship. The former would argue that the roots of complementarianism at creation means there is a very broad application of the doctrine that stretches into all aspects of life. John Piper might be considered a well known advocate of this view. The latter position takes a more minimal approach to complementarianism and views the issues as rooted exclusively in church and home, often drawing even tighter boundaries around specific activities in those spheres.

When those terms are discussed in context, their meaning is discerned reasonably easily. Particularly, it has to be said, when they are discussed together. The terms are foils for one another. The problem comes when these terms are not discussed together or the discussion narrows in to focus on only one end of the complementarian spectrum. We are frequently asked to engage with ‘thick complementarians’ whose thick complementarian position we are then invited to consider. I think the issue is worse when we’re being asked to disagree, but it hardly helps when agreement is sought.

If you still can’t see the problem here, let me spell it out. The word thick has a semantic range. When referring to inanimate objects, like a loaf of bread, thick is usually the opposite of thin. Liquids like paint are often described as thick or thin. Though you rarely see ‘thin cut bread’ (though ‘thins’ exist as a thing for reasons beyond my understanding), you do see thick sliced bread and thin sliced meats. But whenever we are referring to people, the word thick in British parlance is generally the opposite of clever. It comes from being thick in the head. It is only very recently, thanks to American hip-hop culture, that thick has come to refer to shape when applied to people. This second meaning only comes to mind for a certain subset of people; it would not, in the British context, necessarily come to mind at all.

When it comes to complementarianism, though we are often discussing an idea, that idea is frequently designated to people. We don’t merely speak of thick or thin complementarianism, we quite often speak about thick or thin complementarians. That is, thick and thin become properties of people.

It’s not great to speak about ‘thin complementarians’, which carries connotations of not being very well thought out, but it is even worse when we speak about ‘thick complementarians’. Many will hear this term ‘thick complementarians’ as stupid or moronic complementarians, presumably in contrast to clever, smart or bright complementarians. Except, those clever complementarians, it turns out, are a bit ‘thin’ which sounds like they’re quite ill-considered. The upshot of all this is that these terms sound like they are question begging and giving away allegiances from the get-go (whether we are actually against the position or not!) Perhaps it was an egalitarian who devised this nomenclature?

What we want to describe is a narrow application of the complementarian principles or a broader application of them. We are either describing people who take a maximal view of how they apply or a more minimal view their application. One position tends to theologise beyond the text whilst the other tends to focus doggedly on the text (one might, probably unfairly, characterise it as a spectrum from theologising to biblicism). But what is clearly in view is a spectrum of complementarianism, one end of which sees application of the principles from creation to a multitude of aspects of life whilst the other end sees some quite particular principles that are rooted in the text, for specific contexts, and are not intended to be read too broadly outside of them. Both are complementarian, both differ not on the principles but on the breadth of their application.

So my little plea is that we drop the terms ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ when discussing complementarianism. For what it’s worth, I think the same problems exist on any discussion of any doctrine that might have a spectrum of belief or application. I don’t think the terms ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ are very helpful. They don’t really describe what we intend and they carry connotations that are deeply unhelpful. I don’t land quite as hard on my alternatives, but I do think narrow/broad or minimal/maximal are probably better, less loaded terms (even if the load the existing terms carry isn’t fully recognised or intended by those who employ them).