Sola Scriptura is Essential to Complementarians, Part 2

This post is the second part of a series responding to Molly Aley, a homeschooling mother of five, undergraduate psychology student, lover of God, Alaska resident and self-described "99% egalitarian" blogger who recently posted My Disassembling Protestantism: Sola Scriptura.

I understand that Molly is representing her own thoughts and not serving as the official spokesperson for all egalitarians everywhere.  (And I certainly don't pretend to speak for all complementarians!)  I understand that many egalitarians believe the Bible is the final authority, and a dialogue based on careful reading and exegesis of the Scriptures is a healthy process for the church.  CBMW is glad to engage in this ongoing civil discussion through JBMW, many published books, this website, and personal interactions.

The key point that I would like to make today is that a consistent complementarian could not make the statement, "I'm fed up with Sola Scriptura." Sola Scriptura is essential to the complementarian position.  Revelation from the Word of God is the only solid foundation for our understanding that men and women are equal in value and dignity, but distinct in their roles and functions at home and church.

The foundation of the complementarian position cannot rely on reason alone.  There is not a convincing rational argument about why I should lead my family and not my wife.  An argument for male headship could not be solely based on greater spirituality (not true, we have equal access to the Cross), greater intelligence (not true anyway), greater height (true, but not relevant), or greater strength (true, but domination based on strength is not the same as leadership).  The argument for complementarianism depends ultimately on Scripture alone.

I can't make a convincing argument for male headship in marriage based on my feelings alone.  Feelings are a helpful guide, and to me it feels good and right to hold a door for a woman or to hold my daughter protectively close during scary parts of movies.  In this sense, I agree with John Piper that God wrote manhood and womanhood on our hearts and deeper down men and women know it.  Unfortunately, sin has defaced this imprint.  In other words I would not trust the inclinations of my deceitful heart because the temptation toward pride, selfishness or laziness in marriage is too great.  On the other side, it seems to me that an argument against male headship based on feelings apart from the Scripture ultimately reduces to, "I feel patriarchy is yucky."

I can't make a convincing argument for male leadership in the church or headship in marriage based on tradition alone, even though it has been the long-standing practice of the Church for centuries.  Times and traditions change but the Word of God endures forever.  Tradition must be guided by revelation.

The complementary nature of manhood and womanhood and its implications for the home and church can only be defended from the Scripture alone.  Sola Scriptura is essential to the complementarian position.  But, praise God, we do have the Word of a speaking God to guide and correct our reasoning, feelings and traditions.  All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The Word of God is not only understandable and authoritative for matters of home life and church doctrine, it is also sufficient to fully equip a man or woman of God for every good work.  It is profitable.  Training in righteousness will lead to competence in loving headship and joyful submission. 

If the Scriptures are clear and sufficient, then why is there an ongoing divide between egalitarians and complementarians, Calvinists and Arminians, and other disagreements over interpretation in the church?  We will address that tomorrow in part III.