I have seen – in numerous articles, talks and other things – claims that those who do not root their understanding of complementarianism in creation gender differences are somehow deficient. More than once, I have heard the claim made that ‘because the Bible says so’ is not good enough. Such a position, they aver, makes complementarianism arbitrary. I want to stake a case here for why ‘because the Bible says so’ is not only fine, but the only appropriate position.

Before I get into that case, it bears saying that it is an unfair slur at any rate. Those who are complementarian because that is simply what they believe the Bible teaches are also trying not to make arbitrary rules of their own that the Bible simply doesn’t mention. I have been making this case lately in relation to the furore surrounding Alistair Begg (which you can read here and here as to its relevance). My point has repeatedly been that we should not add a little ‘Jesus says’ where he hasn’t said nor should we claim biblical authority for positions that the Bible hasn’t expressly stated. Those who insist ‘because the Bible says so’ isn’t good enough and who argue such a line makes the command arbitrary have to face that same charge as they utilise their non-arbitrary reason that isn’t expressly stated in scripture to arbitrarily create a whole load of rules that, by anybody’s reckoning, are absolutely not in the bible. All of which is to say, let he who can escape the charge of arbitrariness cast the first stone.

And it is here that I now want to cast exactly that stone. Because, before we get into the rest of it, the ‘because the Bible says so’ crew are not being arbitrary. They can rightly point to reasons behind the complementarianism they hold.

First, it is clearly not arbitrary to believe God’s commands are good simply because he is good and, whether he has given us any expressed reason for them or not, we will do them. The reason for any command is simply because God is good and we believe in his goodness; this is not arbitrary. Second, just because God may not have given reasons is not the same as saying there are no reasons. Knowing God’s reasons and a command being arbitrary are two different things. The claim to arbitrariness suffers from the problem of suggesting God is somehow arbitrary in himself. Third, however, in this particular instance, everybody acknowledges God has given us reasons. We don’t need to import potential reasons because we all recognise we have been told that God intends this to present a picture of Christ and the church. Others argue, on top of this, there are reasons implied in the order of creation and the order of deception in the fall. However you cut it, it simply isn’t true that anybody is claiming the matter is arbitrary.

By contrast, I am particularly troubled by the suggestion that ‘because the Bible says so’ is not sound enough on its own. For one thing, this seems to put us in God’s place. If God hasn’t given us specific reasons on an issue, we have the gall to suggest that unless he tells us why he asks this thing of us we either don’t need to do it or we can dismiss it as arbitrary. But there are plenty of things that God doesn’t tell us why they are, just that they are. The secret things belong to God after all.

We are not always privy to God’s sovereign will. Why has he chosen to save the particular people whom he saves and not others? I don’t know. I can push in a little, and make some comment about his glory in general terms, but why does one person being saved serve his glory and not another? I dunno because the Bible doesn’t say. Does that make God’s plan of salvation arbitrary because he hasn’t chosen to disclose his specific reason for saving every particular individual that he does and rejecting those he rejects?

But perhaps we want to limit the matter to specific commands. Sometimes we are given very specific reasons why certain things are wrong. Other times, we are just told point blank not to do certain things. Is God arbitrary when he simply commands? Paul’s answer in Romans 9 would seem applicable here: who are you, o man, to answer back to God? If God can make one vessel for honour and another for destruction simply because that’s what he wants to do, what is stopping him making commandments on the same basis? Just as God may well have his reasons for that which is honourable and dishonourable, but chooses not necessarily to share them with us, why should we assume some of his commands are any different?

The big problem with this refusal to simply accept ‘the Bible says so’ is it fails to recognise the highest authority. If we can say something is only enough if the Bible says so and offers us what we consider credible reasons, we are immediately putting our own reason above the scriptures. Reason becomes our highest authority. Yet interestingly, when Karl Barth was asked what the most important thing he learnt from all his theological study was, he said ‘Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so’. Do we need to know why Jesus loves us, and have God comprehensibly lay out all the reasons why he loves us, before we can believe it? Or, like Barth, can we simply believe it because the Bible says so? Why, then, should his commands be different? Isn’t the fact that Almighty God says it good enough for us?

The problems get bigger when we understand the practical implications of rejecting ‘because the Bible says so’ as enough. The moment we deny that is good enough, we end up importing reasons of our own. So, to take the complementarian example, the reason why I believe some err when they say things like women can’t be postal workers and men shouldn’t take directions from women, is because the Bible specifically doesn’t say any of that. Those are, as far as I can see, entirely imported reasons based on a similarly imported rationale and ‘the bible says so’ is what keeps us from it. If we want to talk about arbitrariness, the far greater danger – far from suggesting God is arbitrary simply because we take him at his Word – is creating a Pharisaical form of legalism based entirely on stuff God hasn’t said. All, it seems to me, because we aren’t content to say ‘because the Bible says so’ and we scratch around for made up reasons, often to bolster our position on other things we are desperate to uphold (potentially even rightly wanting to uphold them), and as a result create a library of arbitrary rules that God has nowhere given.

It’s not that ‘the bible says so’ makes God arbitrary, it is the very position that stops us from creating a load of arbitrary rules of our own. If we don’t run with ‘because God says so’ we inevitably end up with ‘because I said so’. If we are concerned about God appearing arbitrary at one point because he hasn’t given us his reasons (and I point you back to my earlier paragraph on that), we do far worse for the cause of arbitrariness and multiply arbitrary commands by refusing to accept what God has said and taking him at his Word and importing reasons that, in his sovereign wisdom, he has chosen not to give us. When we impose reasons on the text because the text itself is not enough, we don’t save ourselves from arbitrariness, but we become the very creators of it.