I'm looking for some advice, opinions, and biblical references on whether women should serve in combat roles in our military. It appears that some women are actually fighting for that right.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wow1.gif" alt="" /> But what will happen if they start up drafting again? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Eeeeeek.gif" alt="" /> I know the feminist movement, and eqalitarion views are just a few of the vehicles that have promoted this kind of thinking but what should the church's role be? Should Christians speak out of this issue? What action should they take?
Quote
Here's what Army Researcher's say:
Army researchers came up with a new study that concludes that, when a woman is correctly. trained, she can be as tough as any man. The report by the US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine at Natick, MA was led by senior analyst Everett Harman. "You don't need testosterone to get strong," Harman concluded. Through a regimen of regular jogging, weight training, and other rigorous exercise, more that 75 percent of the 41 women studied were able to prepare themselves to successfully perform duties traditionally performed by males in the military. Before training, less than 25 percent of the women were capable of performing the tasks. All but one of the females were civilian volunteers, and none had previously adopted a routine of strenuous physical activity. The women included lawyers, mothers, students, and bartenders. Several had recently had children and thought the training would put them back in shape. They were unaware that their performance might eventually be used to topple one of the last citadels of bias against women in both the military and society. The 24-week training study began in May 1995 with women spending 90 minutes a day, five days a week, building themselves up for endurance tests. They ran a two-mile wooded course wearing a 75-pound rucksack and performed squats holding a 100-pound barbell on their shoulders. Nationally certified trainers oversaw the conditioning. Improvement of over 33 percent was noted by the scientists who wrote the report.Nearly concurrently with this test, the Ministry of Defence in Great Britain conducted the same kind of study. The Sunday Times of London reported that "by using new methods of physical training, women can be built up to the same levels of physical fitness as men of the same size and build." The British article also notes that "contrary to the view of many traditionalists, the operational performance of groups improve greatly if both sexes are involved."
Quote
Are We America's Mothers?
The nurturers and civilizing influence on our children's lives, especially our boys. The necessary complement to aggressive men in a civilization which prides itself in the balancing of individual freedom with equality. A civilization founded by Christian men and women who, together, raised it to a state of prosperity beyond any civilization in the history of man. A civilization based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the complementarity of man and woman as the basis for a stable, solid and enduring family unit.
Quote
Are We America's Warriors?
Trained to kill another human being in an extremely hostile environment that does not grant privilege or leniency to those who do not 'measure up.' No society has ever survived which depended upon its female members to defend it. Nor will our American experiment with a special form of democracy -- our unique and fragile Constitutional Republic. Will our willingness to experiment with equality where none exists imperil our nation's ability to survive the threat of a determined and resourceful enemy?
I am definitely opposed to the placing any female in a combat role or situation. That piece by the "Army Researcher" is a joke. I have trained hundreds of people in traditional Martial Arts, many of whom were females. I can tell you without doubt that not one woman was on par with the men. Yes, there were some "weak" men but even when compared to them, no woman was able to withstand the rigors of the training on a consistent basis. However, I must admit that I have known a couple of women who were "terrors" and could take on several men with ease after many years of intensive training. However, that kind of training is not provided by the Armed Services. But aside from the physical demands of combat, there are the psychological and emotional demands. And yes again, there are some women who might be able to endure the horrors of actual combat, but they would be the exception rather than the rule. And lastly, although I have no specific biblical passages to refer to off the top of my head, my impression from Scripture in regard to the roles of women and men is that they are to be the care givers and men the providers and protectors of the family and society.
I'd also like to throw all my cards on the table, so to speak, and add that I also do not approve of women in law enforcement where they are involved in the apprehension of suspected criminals. Although the situations are for the most part less intensive and demanding compared to all out combat situations, they are nonetheless similar enough in kind.
Good points, Pilgrim. We live in an age when woman want to be fighter pilots and boxers, and men want to have sex changes and be nannies.
The only case I could think of where a woman could justly fight would be in resisting rape or any kind of attack on herself, her children, etc., or the kind of situation we used to have in Northern Ireland, when Protestant farmers' wives would stand guard with shotguns while their husbands worked in the fields during the time when the IRA was active, because many Protestant farmers were also part-time members of the security forces and thus prime targets for the terrorists.
It is natural and instinctive for the male to attempt to protect the female. In combat this works to the detriment of the unit when females are present, as consideration is instinctively given first to the women and then to the sometimes horrendous reality of combat strategy. NO amount of training will overcome this serious compromise of mission.
In speaking of cost alone, the inclusion and consideration of the female and her need for segregated "facilities" and privacy is prohibitive and an outrageous additional expense.
I don't have the figures but it has been well noted that as the danger of military mission increases, so does the occurrence of pregnancy of the females in the military.
The presence of women in combat military units ALWAYS leads to moral and sexual complications and destruction of unit cohesion in the same way as the inclusion of homosexual men. Let's all just "pretend" that this doesn't exist!
The inclusion of women in the front lines of the military IMO is a very bad socialist, feminist and New Age joke. A joke that is presently costing not only vast amounts of additional money in training alone, but also American lives in Iraq, and who knows about the future?
There is so much more to this feminist idiocy and the destruction of American military mission, that any sane person should shake their head in disbelief.
Denny
Roms 3:22-24
Last edited by Adopted; Fri May 20, 20059:35 AM.
Denny
Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." [John 6:68]
"A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deu 22:5 ESV)
The term geber meaning warrior or valiant man wouldn't this be a saying that besides wearing men's clothers in particular they aren't suppose to wear the clothes of a warrior ie: military?
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
I also have a problem with women in the military. Many very good reasons have been given already so hopefully I will not overlap any of them.
One major thing I see about women in the military, is the fact that to accommodate women, standards by necessity need to go down. One example of this is if the average in shape women is between 130-145 pounds, how can they aspect to carry a back pack that a male of average weight carries?
A back pack in some cases can be the difference between life and death, if they don't have enough supplies they will not survive.
I wouldn't be too concerned about not being able to find any passage of Scripture that directly, explicitly, and unambiguously addresses this issue, since there are some things that were simply too absurd and outlandish for the biblical writers to have concieved without witnessing them (such as women serving in combat). However, Scripture does provide some basic principles that are quite clear about the distinctive roles of men and women, and to reject these is to reject the Word of God. Pilgrim's "impression" is exactly right: men are designed and called to be protectors and providers, and women are designed and called to be nurturers and caregivers. As Denny said, "it is natural and instinctive for the male to attempt to protect the female," and it is "natural" and "instictive" because that is the way that God made us. To try and change this through training, regardless of whether it is possible or not, is an abomination, as is training women to become killers.
When Scripture does speak of going to war, it always speaks of men doing the fighting and women staying home:
(All quotes from the TNIV)
Quote
Your wives, your children and your livestock may stay in the land that Moses gave you east of the Jordan, but all your fighting men, ready for battle, must cross over ahead of the other Israelites." (Joshua 1:14)
Quote
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married. (Deuteronomy 24:5)
Quote
The LORD spoke to Moses in the tent of meeting in the Desert of Sinai on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. He said: "Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one. You and Aaron are to count according to their divisions all the men in Israel who are twenty years old or more and able to serve in the army". (Numbers 1:1-3)
The only exception I am aware of is Deborah, but as Phil Lancaster says in an excellent article, "this was a period of great decline in Israel's history when everyone did what was right in his own eyes; it is hardly an example of God's ideal." Lancaster then goes on to say that the whole point of the story is "that in times of spiritual degradation, when men are wimpy and need women to take on the roles of men and to hold their hands, God is still faithful to deliver His people...hardly a commendation of gender role reversal." If saying that the example of Deborah is a notable exception and not normative sounds like special pleading, consider what Deborah did when it was time to go into battle:
Quote
She sent for Barakson of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, "The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: 'Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead them up to Mount Tabor. (Judges 4:6)
I think the burden of proof is on the side of the egalitarians and feminists, whether we are talking about practical, physical, psychological, sociological, cultural, or biblical considerations. In addition to the article by Phil Lancaster noted above, there are several other very good articles and sites devoted to this topic:
Similarly, there's been some controversy over girls wrestling boys in schools. I am definitely against it. The most powerful argument against it to me is that if girls wrestled boys, they would be touched in ways that would be considered sexual assault outside of the game.
I was about to say, "What's next? Women ___ ," but I can't think of anything to fill that blank that hasn't already been done!
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
As with the recent "Feminism" thread, I can't help but reference phenomena in popular media here as well, since this now plays such a pivotal role in shaping our culture's consciousness, values, and ideas. Has anyone noticed how many "woman warriors" or "[img]https://the-highway.com/Smileys/censored.gif[/img]-kicking babes" are on TV and in the movies these days? Sure, there used to be a few (e.g., Wonder Woman and the Bionic Woman), but today they're everywhere, and they're stronger and "sexier" than ever. There's Alias, Xena Warrior Princess, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charlie's Angels*, Tomb Raider, Kill Bill, La Femme Nikitas, and of course the more "realistic" G.I. Jane, just to name a few. Even though many of these are "fantasy" characters, I wonder if they are not contributing to unrealistic perceptions and expectations about what most women are physically capable of. You can see the same thing in cartoons and comics as well, and in virtually any movie these days where there's hand to hand combat, women not only fight as well as men, but more often than not they prevail.
* Yes, I know there was a television show called Charlie's Angels that was on back before I was born, but the movies are unlike it in many respects, not least the anabolic "super powers" the gals now possess.
The most powerful argument against it to me is that if girls wrestled boys, they would be touched in ways that would be considered sexual assault outside of the game.
As a former high school amateur wrestler myself, I say amen to that! When I was a wrestler, if I had to worry about touching in an inappropriate way, I might as well have conceded defeat before the match even began. In order to win a match, a wrestler needs to learn how to take advantage of a situation as it happens. Miss a good opportunity especially against an experienced wrestler and chances are you will not get another. Not to mention a few things that are better left unsaid.
I appreciate your comments as well as others on this topic. Thanks also for the links you've provided. They were interesting to read. I noticed you quoted from the TNIV which has been labeled by some the "gender neutral" version. However, it's interesting how clearly even the TNIV version of the Bible tells us that men should be the ones who go to battle. I think the article you provided a link to entitled When Mama Wears Combat Boots makes an interesting summary.
Quote
M.L. Chancey writes:
If we want to call a halt to women’s participation in the military, we must first acknowledge our own faults in denying God’s Word. Instead of blaming the feminists or faulting the legislators we’ve elected, we need to take a searching look into our own hearts and ask if we have bought into the lie that women are no different from men. We need to take a hard look at the way the Church instructs its daughters. Are we preparing a generation of capable, intelligent, and wise mothers and sisters, or are we lining our girls up to march in lockstep with a culture that does not cherish women or their unique role? The issue is not women in the military — the issue is our lack of faithfulness to God’s decrees for men, women, and children. Until we return to the “old paths” of Scripture in the way we honor our husbands, bring up our children, and protect our families, we do not have a leg to stand upon when it comes to rebutting the feminists on this issue. We’ve already sold our birthright for a mess of pottage. And the deepest grief of all is that, unlike Esau, we do not have the sense to weep over what we have lost.
Can and should we (the church) first acknowledge our own faults in denying God’s Word for not being more clear on this issue? Certainly we must ask ourselves the questions about "how we are raising our daughters?" But are we failing to show them God's plan for men and women which is complementary or are they being taught to compete with men for the roles men play in the home, church, and society? If we are letting our godless society teach them a different choice who's to blame?
I read somewhere in one of the articles you provided links for that several denominations are working on a statement addressing this matter. I'd like to see some of the work that is being done by others on this topic.
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has made the following resolution.
Quote
Women in Combat A Resolution From CBMW
WHEREAS, President Bill Clinton, supported by the United States Congress, has succeeded in moving leaders of the military services to abandon their historic policy of limiting combat military service to males, and has opened military combat categories to females as well as males; and
WHEREAS, The military services of the United States are now recruiting and training women for combat, are assigning women to combat billets, and are planning for and deploying women into combat situations; and
WHEREAS, God created male and female with specific and complementary characteristics (Gen. 1:27), declaring them "good" (Gen. 1:31) so that male and female in relationship constitute a complete expression of the divine order for humanity, yet without blurring or denying the meaning or significance of gender-based distinctions established by God in the created order; and
WHEREAS, The equality of male and female as to dignity and worth, following from their creation in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), is fully consistent with and is in no way contrary to gender-based distinctions as to roles and responsibilities which are also established in the created order; and
WHEREAS, God, by creating Adam first (Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:8) and also by creating woman for man (Gen. 2:18,20,22; 1 Cor. 11:9), has set the gender-based role and responsibility of males in the most basic unit of society (the family) to be that of leader, provider and self-sacrificial protector (also cf. Eph. 5:25; 1 Peter 3:7), and likewise has set the gender-based role and responsibility of females to be that of help and nurture (Gen. 2:18) and life-giving (Gen. 3:20) under male leadership and protection (cf. 1 Peter 3:7); and
WHEREAS, The purpose of "combat" is to inflict deadly harm upon an enemy, and the essence of "combat" is to engage an enemy in order to kill, slay and destroy--a purpose and essence aligned with the gender-based role and responsibilities of males but opposed to the gender-based role and responsibilities of females; and
WHEREAS, The moral justification for military combat service is the duty to protect vital national interests, of which the most vital and most essential is the welfare, security and good order of families; and so moral justification for combat service is derived from, and is thus essentially linked to, the divinely assigned role and responsibilities of self-sacrificial male headship of the family (Eph. 5:23-24); and
WHEREAS, Intentional rejection of the connection between male headship in the family and the male protective role that defines and justifies service as a soldier in military combat necessarily strikes at the complementary nature of male and female relationships established in the order of creation, and unavoidably undermines the order, structure, strength and stability of families within any society that determines to ignore, deny or erase this gender-based distinction; and
WHEREAS, The pattern established by God throughout the Bible is that men, not women, bear responsibility to serve in combat if war is necessary (Gen. 14:14; Num. 31:3,21,49; Deut. 20:5-9,13-14; Josh. 1:14-18; 6:3,7,9; 8:3; 10:7; 1 Sam. 16:18; 18:5; 2 Sam. 11:1; 17:8; 23:8-39; Ps. 45:3-5; Song of Sol. 3:7-8; Isa. 42:13); and
WHEREAS, Biblical examples that record women serving in combat (Jud. 4:4-23) are presented as contrary to proper and normal gender-based distinctions between male and female roles and responsibilities, and as caused by a failure of male leadership that is worthy of shame (Jud. 4:9-10); and
WHEREAS, Willful rejection of the propriety, value and practice of a gender-based role distinction that limits combat military service to males is a foolish social experiment that: (1) threatens good military order and discipline by unnecessarily escalating sexual tensions among combat warriors, (2) weakens unit cohesion by adding the stress of sexual competition between troops under fire, (3) generates the certitude of female warriors taken as P.O.W.s and subjected to the special trauma of rape and sexual abuse, (4) places a major new strain on the marital fidelity of male warriors separated from their wives by ensuring they are kept in intimate isolation for long periods with females who are not their wives, and (5) risks the nation's military security on a scrambling of the moral framework defining male/female relationships among combat forces that has never before proven successful, and has never before been tried by a world military power that expects to maintain its security responsibilities.
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that we do, with loyal respect and deep concern, warn against and oppose the opening of military combat service to females: because it rejects gender-based distinctions established by God in the order of creation; because it undermines male headship in the family by failing to recognize the unique gender-based responsibility of men to protect women and children; and because it subordinates the combat readiness of American troops, and the national security of the United States, to the unbiblical, utopian, social agenda of ideological feminism; and
Be it finally RESOLVED, that we call upon the President of the United States, each Senator and Representative of the United States Congress, and all military leaders to reverse the present policy and to reinstate the historic limitation of military combat service to males only.
Since there seems to be a lot of material out there, what should be the response of the organized church? Should this be a matter we insist our legislators address or should we remain silent?
If anyone knows of a church or denominational organization that has taken political action on this topic please let me know. I'd be interested in seeing what they did.
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
I read the essay that you linked "Turning Women into Cannon Fodder". I was struck by a sentence in the body of that essay:
"Naval officers who could fearlessly face down enemy fire cowered before the, uh, ladies."
Isaiah noted this phenomenon in Israel during times that I believe are a lot like ours.
"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people! those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths." Isa. 3:12
This verse is more than interesting to me and I believe fits perfectly into this thread.
Denny
Roms 3:22-24
Denny
Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." [John 6:68]
I don't know of an organization that has taken political action on this matter. However, when I read what you said it reminded me of a thread over at the Reformed Reader Board
I noticed you quoted from the TNIV which has been labeled by some the "gender neutral" version.
Yes, my quoting from the TNIV was no accident, and I have alluded to my views on it in another thread. Though most of your questions appear somewhat rhetorical, I'll nevertheless respond to them in short order:
Quote
Can and should we (the church) first acknowledge our own faults in denying God’s Word for not being more clear on this issue?
Yes!
Quote
Certainly we must ask ourselves the questions about "how we are raising our daughters?"
Indeed!
Quote
But are we failing to show them God's plan for men and women which is complementary or are they being taught to compete with men for the roles men play in the home, church, and society?
Yes! And Yes!
Quote
If we are letting our godless society teach them a different choice who's to blame?
We are!
Quote
Since there seems to be a lot of material out there, what should be the response of the organized church? Should this be a matter we insist our legislators address or should we remain silent?
I think our response should be to denounce and resist it, especially when "conservative" legislators come cozying up to us for our "values" votes. It also needs to be addressed by pastors and elders in local churches to their congregations, BEFORE female members consider signing up for National Guard or Armed Forces training or service. Since combat is now a VERY likely possibility, our responses must take account of this fact. Here is where "patriotism" and being a good, red-blooded, red state, Toby Keith listening American may come into serious conflict with being a good biblical Christian. During the entire Jessica Lynch episode the main local Christian radio station in the town where I live said NOTHING negative or critical about women serving in combat roles or too close to combat or about gender integration in the military. It was all positive, heart-warming, all-American, feel-good, we love ya Dubya, support our troops agitprop (I may sympathize with some of this, but it was all beside the point). Needless to say, about the only thing I listen to on that station now is John MacArthur's Grace to You and occasionally Hank Hanegraaff. Certainly individuals, churches, and traditions will vary in terms of how much and in what ways they speak out or "insist" their legislators address this issue, but to "be silent" is to be sinful in my opinion.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
