Ambiguous terminology has long played a subtle yet powerful role in shaping theological paradigms. Terms such as “leadership” and “complementarian” do not appear directly in Scripture, but they have been adopted to bridge the gap between ancient biblical texts and contemporary contexts. At first glance, these terms might seem like helpful tools for clarifying doctrine, but over time, their lack of precision often enables theological shifts, particularly toward more liberal interpretations.
“Complementarianism” was introduced in the 1980s to describe the concept that men and women are “equal but distinct” in their roles. However, the meaning of this phrase is open to a wide range of interpretations. In specific contexts, complementarianism emphasizes traditional male authority, such as limiting eldership to men. In others, it has been adapted to permit practices like women teaching in mixed-gender settings, provided they operate under male oversight. This flexibility in definition has created space for gradual changes, sometimes inching closer to functional egalitarianism. Russell Moore has even critiqued this trend, observing that many evangelical marriages may claim to uphold complementarian principles but function in ways that lean toward egalitarian practice. Similarly, terms such as “leadership” often draw from corporate concepts, like “vision casting,” which risks overshadowing the biblical model of shepherding and shifting authority away from God’s design toward human expertise.
This ambiguity also creates opportunities for cultural accommodation. Liberal theology, for instance, has long been characterized by its tendency to adapt Christian doctrine to modern intellectual trends. Words like “inclusivity” or “social justice” often retain a Christian appearance while moving away from orthodox foundations. Progressive Christianity, for example, frequently reinterprets sin as systemic oppression rather than personal moral rebellion. The theologian Gary Dorrien, who studies liberalism, has noted how ambiguous language allows modern ideas—such as naturalism or secular humanism—to subtly infiltrate theology while maintaining the appearance of traditional Christian terminology. This strategic vagueness makes these shifts seem less radical than they are.
This lack of clarity also shapes how Scripture itself is interpreted. Ambiguous terms encourage a kind of hermeneutical flexibility, where cultural relevance takes precedence over fidelity to the biblical text. A case in point is 1 Timothy 2:12, which prohibits women from “teaching or exercising authority.” The Greek word authentein, often translated as “authority,” is sometimes reinterpreted to mean “domineering” rather than referring to someone who exercises rightful authority. This reinterpretation has allowed egalitarian practices to develop within frameworks that continue to identify as complementarian. Similarly, specific theological movements, such as postliberalism, have moved away from treating Scripture as a source of propositional truth. Instead, they emphasize Scripture as a narrative- a communal story that evolves alongside the community that tells it. This perspective allows doctrines, including those on gender roles, to be reshaped based on shifting cultural or communal values, rather than being anchored in the fixed authority of biblical texts.
When ambiguous terms become widely accepted, they often pave the way for theological drift. Adopting “soft complementarianism”—like allowing women to teach in seminaries—demonstrates how unclear terminology can blur essential boundaries. Even well-known conservative phrases like “biblical inerrancy” have sometimes been stretched to accommodate historical-critical methods, thereby weakening the distinction between evangelical and liberal scholarship. Leaders like J.D. Greear have contributed to this movement by framing complementarianism as a “celebration” of gender differences, rather than as a framework rooted in hierarchy. While this approach may be well-meaning, it often opens the door to more progressive reinterpretations, as seen in churches that allow women to preach under certain conditions because they are valued as leaders while still claiming to adhere to complementarian principles.
All of this highlights how ambiguous theological language can act as a solvent, breaking down traditional boundaries and making it easier for cultural and intellectual shifts to take hold. This does not mean that ambiguity is inherently liberal—it isn’t. However, when theological terms lack clarity, they enable gradual redefinition, often aligning theology with Enlightenment values like autonomy and equality. As Carl Trueman points out, churches rarely disappear due to blatant heresy. More often, they drift slowly, giving in to cultural pressures incrementally while continuing to use language that sounds orthodox.
To guard against this drift, clarity is crucial—not only in the words we use but also in anchoring those words firmly in biblical authority. Without that foundation, it becomes increasingly complex to distinguish between faithfully adapting to the modern world and compromising with its cultural trends.
