Evangelicals invoked hypercomplementarianism as a category to distance themselves from patriarchy.

Evidence

In assessing the role of complementarianism generally, some evangelicals argued for the need to separate out more extreme formulations of complementarianism—“hypercomplementarianism”—from a more moderate “biblical complementarianism.” In 2010, for example, Nathan Finn, a professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, complained in the pages of CBMW’s journal that it was unfair to group organizations like CBMW, Together for the Gospel, and Focus on the Family with figures like Doug Phillips and the Duggar family, with “the patriarchs and theonomists of the movement’s far-right extreme.” Though he allowed that “some of the convictions and terminology overlap,” he maintained that “the application is vastly different,” and confusing the two produced nothing but a “complementarian caricature.” Finn did, however, urge CBMW readers to be clearer about their beliefs so that their “normative complementarian” movement would not be lumped in with the wider patriarchy movement. — Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne, 660

Categorization

• QUESTION: Does the hyper-vs-biblical complementarian distinction hold up, or is it a rhetorical boundary-drawing move that the book’s evidence undercuts?
• DEFINE: Introduces and explains the term hypercomplementarianism as a distinction-marker within the movement.