Posted on 01/26/2013 7:59:29 AM PST by ReformationFan
No one should be surprised at the announcement that women are now going to be serving in combat roles in the U.S. military. This has been heading toward us for a long time, and the only thing surprising about it is that so many people are surprised. Now the only thing that stands between your daughter and involuntary combat service is a determination by some president (or other) that we need to return to conscription, followed by one court decision.
There are three points to be made about this in response. First, opposition to this monstrosity is a function of biblical faithfulness. This is a straightforward application of the teaching of Scripture -- to which we must all submit. But once we have understood the Scriptures on the point, those of us in the CREC should reflect on what our communion has said about it. And if that were not sufficient, we should look at the issue dispassionately, in the light of nature. Hold it up and look at it, out in the sunlight.
First the Scripture:
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God" (Dt. 22:5).
This verse is a prohibition for cross-dressing when it comes to men. But the restriction placed on women here is not simply the reverse of that. When a man is getting kinky in the way described here, it is a straightforward transvesite problem. But going the other way, we should notice a different problem. Notice the odd construction -- "that which pertains to a man." The Hebrew underneath is keli geber, and should be read as the "gear of a warrior." Whether we are talking about a man in fishnet stockings, or a woman decked out in full battle regalia, we need to recognize that God finds it loathsome. So should we.
Another scriptural argument that should be noted is this. "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk" (Dt. 14:21b). Just as Paul noted that the law about not muzzling oxen was not simply about oxen, so this passage is not just about baby goats. The principle latent in this law is that we must not take that which was intended for the giving of life and transform it into an instrument of death. The milk was intended by God for sustenance, and so it should not be turned into death. Women were created and exquisitely fashioned by God to be life-imparters, and so they must not be transformed into death-dealers.
Having said this, we should remember that Scripture gives us the law, and Scripture gives us the parameters of any exceptions. It is not unlawful for a woman to take life under any and all circumstances. The woman on the tower was apparently a decent shot (Judg. 9:53), and Jael the wife of Heber knew she was supposed to do (Judg. 5:24). She didn't cook a baby goat in milk, but she did serve it up to Sisera. But these blows to the head were given to us as a type, and pointed toward the fundamental way that the woman would have her revenge on the serpent and his seed. Her child would finally crush the serpent's head, and would be bruised himself in the process.
Secondly, in our memorial on terrorism, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches has declared the following:
"It is not lawful for women to be mustered for combat service, for our Lord has declared it an abomination for women to don the martial attire of a man (Dt. 22:5). Christian fathers must protect their daughters from being seduced or coerced into such a circumstance, and the Church must support them as they do so."
It is therefore the formal position of the CREC that this egalitarian move, putting women into combat roles as standard operating procedure, is an abomination. We believe further that Christian fathers have a moral and biblical obligation to prevent their daughters from being seduced, such that they sign up for such a thing voluntarily, or coerced, such that they have no option. Both her family and her communion must stand against this terrible thing.
It is worth noting that those Reformed denominations which have declined to go on the record in this matter are far more vulnerable when the inevitable court battles come. This is a matter of conscience for us. If you have spent a great deal of time arguing that it is not a matter of conscience, it will be hard to turn around and find that conscience later on when you think you need it. If you have few principles, it is hard to take a principled stand. This is why Quakers don't have to fight, and why cowardly Presbyterians do. I believe that the pacifistic position is wrong, but at least those folks have the courage of their convictions. Presbyterians? Convictions? What are those?
And last, let me make one quick appeal to the light of nature. The egalitarians who are pushing for this are not true egalitarians -- they want the same access to the same positions for men and women, but they don't want the same qualifying requirements. A true egalitarian would insist that all positions should be open to both sexes, provided they both were able to meet the same standards. But this whole (very rigged) joke depends on running two entirely different sets of standards simultaneously, and shouting down anybody who notices. So then, o ye treat-everybody-the-samers! When do you think you will start doing that? It's your religion. Why won't you practice it? It's your temple. Why won't you go in? Is your god scary?
If we eliminated the double-standard here, we would still have the theoretical problem, but we sure wouldn't have a practical problem at all.
So then, in sum, Scripture is clear, clear-headed Christians are clear about it, and the science is settled. Boys and girls are different.
Yet the Israeli Army has women in combat roles.
So what?
If you think the Old Testament has anything to do with the current State of Israel, you've never read the Old Testament!
But, most folks never have, so you're in good company.
No: It doesn’t. It has women who are armed but they are not in combat roles.
http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/
One thing about this in the US. Women cannot blame men for this, They brought it on themselves, They asked for it.
That's what I thought, too, until I saw this article re-posted here on FR the other day.
(I searched and can't find the recent reposting, so here's the original).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1021028/posts
BTTT to your link
Ah, but I have read the Old Testament. If you think the current understanding of God is scary, that means you haven’t!
Thanks, both.
Now that women are allowed in combat positions, they must be forced to register with selective service at age 18.
i believe the israelis had women in combat roles in ‘48 but that was a different situation. like our women until now idf women will be in combat situations, defending a rear area position like a repair point or during an ambush but they aren’t assigned infantry or tankers.
“One thing about this in the US. Women cannot blame men for this, They brought it on themselves, They asked for it.”
Indeed.
I like this quote of Wilson:
“And last, let me make one quick appeal to the light of nature. The egalitarians who are pushing for this are not true egalitarians — they want the same access to the same positions for men and women, but they don’t want the same qualifying requirements. A true egalitarian would insist that all positions should be open to both sexes, provided they both were able to meet the same standards. But this whole (very rigged) joke depends on running two entirely different sets of standards simultaneously, and shouting down anybody who notices. So then, o ye treat-everybody-the-samers! When do you think you will start doing that? It’s your religion. Why won’t you practice it? It’s your temple. Why won’t you go in? Is your god scary?
“If we eliminated the double-standard here, we would still have the theoretical problem, but we sure wouldn’t have a practical problem at all.”
First off, the Israeli army only allows women in LIMITED combat roles. Since the distances are so close in Israel--this makes sense--as nearly everywhere in Israel would be a combat area, if they go to war. They tried full combat roles for women in the 1970s, and famously for a variety of reasons, it didn't work...
More importantly, a majority of Israelis are agnostic or atheist...and besides that, since when do Christians take ethical lessons from even very religious Jews?
Modern Judaism--from a Christian point of view--is a heretical belief system of those who, when the Jewish Messiah came, rejected him, namely Jesus--and whose leaders pushed for his execution. Therefore, to look for what is biblically right or wrong from such a peoples practices--from a Christian point of view--doesn't make sense.
There is no logical reason for Christians to rely on Jewish--let alone SECULAR Jewish--ethics to guide them, any more than they would look to Muslim sharia law...
Although Wilson didn't explicitly say so, I'm sure he meant that the standards applied to ability to do the job function, not extraneous factors designed to exclude the other.
I was wondering why if the requirement that women not be "decked out in full battle regalia" is something WE "need to recognize that God finds it loathsome" yet it is OK for Israel, a country where everyone can read the original Hebrew keli geber and appreciate the finer nuances of it as the "gear of a warrior" in their mother tongue has this:
As a matter of policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.