I wrote a post a while back titled Why Am I Blogging? and I asked for feedback on topics people would like to see written about. One of the suggestions was current events. Do you have a friend with whom you email who either works at a law firm or a financial firm? If so, you’ve seen that endless disclaimer that tags onto the bottom of each of their emails to your no matter how insignificant the email. Here is mine… I am not someone who regularly watches the news or keeps up with the political nuances that come and go each day. I’ve never been that person. I do not have any qualifications that would garner respect from any current event research journalist. I have two qualifications in the eyes of the world. I have a piece of paper somewhere that says I completed all of the courses required to be a good student of the Bible. The other one says I can study culture. Neither indicate any expertise regarding politics.
I personally am not supportive of women in combat, but I don’t see Biblical grounds to deny it.
First, I’ll share some biblical thoughts and then I’ll share some personal opinions. I believe strongly that the Bible indicates a clear distinction between how women and men lead within the Church. I believe in what is now a minority and very unpopular reading of the Bible which is referred to as complimentarianism. I see Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as being very clear. He says, ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man…’ I reject the common objection of this being cultural because Paul grounds his argument in a supracultural manner by connecting his statement back to creation (the only moment when human culture did not exist). That being said, we readily and eagerly equip and empower women to lead in the life of our church. We have incredible women at our church who are gifted in amazing ways and our church is blessed tremendously by their leadership. However, we agree with Paul’s assertion that there are places that are appropriate for them to lead while there are other places that are biblically inappropriate.
As clear as these words from Paul are, it is also clear that the context and application to which he is speaking is the church. I do no see in Paul’s words as a blanket command to Christian men which would instruct them to never follow a female leader. For example, I do not think it would be appropriate for us to stretch these words to the extent at which one would say that in corporate America a man should not work for a female supervisor. Or, for that matter, I do not think we should say that the Bible paints a picture where a female leading a male into combat is inappropriate.
Personally, however, I am uncomfortable with supporting this for altogether different reasons. For the sake of argument, and out of my own personal ignorance, let’s say that the President’s anecdotal reference of physical equality through the knowledge of his female aid is generally correct (State of The Union Address 2013). Thus, assuming for the sake of this discussion all physical standards could be equally met by both. Even if there are no differing physical limitations for females I believe there are psychological limitations for the males who would serve alongside those females in combat. It is my opinion that culturally men are not ready to treat females in combat the same way in which they would treat fellow male soldiers. Therefore, if I am correct, then it would put additional lives at risk during front line combat missions as men are not able to think/react objectively with females at risk around them. Further, it seems that this reality would compromise the mission. Whether this reality is an appropriate feeling for those men is not under discussion here. Rather, if it is true, whether appropriate or not, it will put more lives and ultimately the mission at risk.
So, I do not see a Biblical position for evangelicals to oppose women leading on the front lines of combat. However, I personally am not supportive based strictly on cultural and social observations.
What do you think? Please share your thoughts freely yet GRACEFULLY!
Matt Powell serves as teaching pastor at Crossings Community Church, a body of believers whose mission is to engage, equip, and empower homes for gospel transformation in Katy, TX.
When Barak hesitated to lead the Israelites in battle, (Judges 4:8) Deborah effectively commanded the troops and later Jael (a woman) drove a tent peg through a mighty warrior while he was sleeping, but I’m not so sure we can draw too many precedents from the book of Judges. The Israelites were consistently doing evil in the sight of the Lord at this time.
Good reasons for women not to be in combat roles:
1) If the draft were to occur again, I would not want my daughter to be potentially slotted into a combat role due to this precedent having been set.
2) Combat often means men being in very close quarters for long periods of time doing very crude things (i.e. relieving yourself) without any privacy.
3) The military exists to kill people and break things in order to protect our country’s national interests. It’s not a place to try out social experiments that may cause it to be less effective in it’s primary mission
4) It’s kind of cowardly for men to even think about allowing it, IMO. But, I’m pretty traditional in that way.
Good thoughts, Joel. You have taken it from a theoretical idea to one that is very practical and personal with your first reason. Although I don’t believe a draft is ever likely to resurface for a lot of different reasons… your comment does cause a person to think differently about the situation.
I have a very close friend who is in Afghanistan now and it is his 4th deployment, I believe. There is part of me that definitely says that I don’t want him to be there. Yet at the same time I could not be more confident that he has had an enormous positive impact on the battle, the people of Afghanistan, and the soldiers he leads and influences.
But, how does a parent feel or process this… and I wonder if a parent of combat soldiers would articulate a different set of emotions between their son vs. their daughter being deployed in combat. I think that would be a tough one to guess if we haven’t ‘walked a mile in their shoes.’
I’m sure your phrase ‘social experiment’ would spark a reaction by those who are pushing this forward. Yet it does seem like it is a political agenda that is discussed in way that removes it from the realities it will create (like you mention in #2).
Hmmmmmm.
I can see both pros and cons. Half of me is happy for the women who will now have more opportunities to promote, train, and grow in a way that they were previously prevented from. The other half of me isn’t so sure it’s a great idea.
Quite honestly, when I first heard about it, being a female veteran myself, I rolled my eyes. I don’t know or care to know much about politics, but I do think that a staggering about of Americans (especially the politicians) are SO OBSESSED now-a-days with being ‘politically correct’, not wanting anyone’s feelings to get hurt, and doing everything they can think of to make everyone feel “equal”. Give. Me. A. Break. I mean, yes, there are plenty of women in the military that are just as physically and mentally capable as men to serve in combat positions, but there are so many other things to take into consideration…
First, I agree with you on your sociological/cultural observations, Matt…100%! In fact, my drill sergeant(s) explained the very same thing to us in basic training. As a soldier, male or female you are trained to always look out for one another. Nobody left behind. However, in P.O.W. situations, b/c of the biological nature in men to protect women, it is more likely for a man to give up Intel to his captor if he’s watching his ‘sister-in-arms’ being tortured vs. a brother-in-arms. If such a situation presented itself, it seems that this change in policy could have the potential to be a detriment to our national security.
Second, women have -technically- been ‘in combat’ for years! I’m sure that we can all agree that there really isn’t even a “front-line” in battle anymore. The danger in Iraq/Iran is EVERYWHERE!!! Just because there aren’t women on top of tanks manning the machine guns or sent out on patrol doesn’t mean that the women serving in administrative or medical roles within the base camp aren’t in as much danger…
Some other things to consider are: How will this affect the men of our military? Will some of them have contempt for the women taking advantage of this change? Will it ruin the camaraderie of a platoon that used to be all men once women begin infiltrating it? Will it increase the amount of sexual harassment/abuse that women deal with in the military? More importantly, (regardless of a woman’s ability to meet or even exceed the military’s standard in order to hold a combat position) knowing that God created men and women differently, are women’s bodies even designed the same way as men’s to withstand the levels of the emotional and physical strain that they will surely face in a combat situation?
I guess for me, I’m not sure where I stand on this. HOOAH?!
Katie, thanks for the comment… I was hoping you’d share some thoughts. I was also hoping that my words weren’t unnecessarily offensive in any way.
You sparked a rabbit trail in my mind when you, rightly, observed the changing face of battle today. The realities of warfare have changed with time, culture, and technology (to just mention a few). So, there is a real sense in which the Military Intelligence branched leader is ‘on the front lines’ with the current battle field (regarding influence). Also, the Ordinance branched female working through supply chain management is practically ‘on the front lines’ (regarding threat/danger).
Also (my rabbit trail), I think we have seen the increasing value of JSOC within the counterinsurgency mission as well. A not too far fetched possibility could be a politically motivated ‘equal opportunity’ mindset among our soldiers/operators which pressures them to have a certain number of females on a team/unit. As the battle field has flattened away from the ‘front lines’ it also seems as though it has become more precise regarding our combat missions (Ex Somalia or even the Bin Laden mission). In these situations we rely on a few highly trained soldiers to accomplish what technology still cannot. I cannot help but wonder if the erasure of the gender divide would create political pressures which would then compromise the prevailing strategies of modern warfare. ‘Equal opportunity’ is great as it by definition is objective. However, if it contains political agendas then it is no longer objective…. and opportunity becomes obligation.
Yet with all of that being said, I know that the separation of politics from the military is not a reality.
Like I said, I rabbit trail…. but that’s what the comment section is for, right?
You raise some really good questions from a great and unique perspective.
Love Katie’s comment above. Very true that technically women ARE currently in combat, as the traditional “rules of war” just don’t apply anymore.
For what it’s worth – I am what would be called a Biblical Egalitarian. I believe that the Bible, Jesus and the Apostles taught equality between the sexes (not just “equality in God’s eyes”, but in terms of equal responsibility as well). I definitely believe that there are differences between men and women, but how that plays out differs from Complementarianism. That would be a long discussion in and of itself. However… I would not agree that Complementarianism is the minority view, at least not in the American Christian culture. In secular culture, sure, but not if we’re talking about Christians and the church.
There is no easy answer for the women in combat question – as in, being purposely placed on the front lines. It’s not a great deal for anyone on the front lines, male or female. But like Matt and Katie said – our male soldiers are not prepared to treat female soldiers the same as any other male soldier, and that could or will harm the mission. The female military personnel will/do face harassment and/or decisions are made to protect the female personnel at the cost of the mission or more lives. This is because of the good and bad parts of our culture. However, even as an Egalitarian, I could definitely argue that perhaps women shouldn’t be on the front lines, simply because they are women… sound like a strange statement from an Egalitarian? Well, let me explain. In 1 Peter 3:7 states that wives (let’s say women in general) are the weaker vessel. Traditionally, this has often been interpreted or used to mean that women are lesser than men in some way (as in mentally or spiritually inferior). Not so – there is no reason to interpret that verse as meaning mental or spiritual inferiority – physical weakness is the only explanation (well actually, I think there is one other possible explanation, but I won’t get into it here). The fact is, women’s bodies ARE weaker in many ways than men’s bodies. Women’s bodies are also stronger than men’s bodies. It varies, based on the situation and the individuals in question (not ALL men are stronger than ALL women). However, women are more *vulnerable* than men in many ways – just because they are female. Women are more likely to be raped, mugged, kidnapped, murdered, etc. Women can and often do die in childbirth – that is a weakness of the female body. However, women can GIVE BIRTH! That is an incredible strength of the female body. See what I mean? Our weaknesses are also often our strengths. But because we are more vulnerable and likely to be taken advantage of physically or injured, Peter instructed the men to be understanding of that (keep in mind I said there was another way I thought that instruction could be understood, but I don’t think that explanation precludes this one). How better to treat someone as you would treat yourself? I’m not claiming to offer flawless exegesis of ancient languages here – just giving my take on the verse. In the context of a war zone – it could be argued that the way to live with female military personnel in a way that is understanding of physical differences, would be to not assign them to front line combat positions where they might actually become a liability in the name of “equality of the sexes” (at least not if the woman can’t meet the same physical standards as the men who will be fighting along side her – and even then, that doesn’t solve the cultural implications of how men will treat women in combat). As I said, I do believe men and women are different… although those differences should not define us, and the stereotypes shouldn’t become a box that we try to put all men or all women into.
So all that goes to say…. I also think that women probably shouldn’t be placed in combat positions, but potentially for different reasons.
Vanessa, thanks…. really great thoughts on such a difficult situation.
I agree with much of what you are saying here and also with your applications from Peter’s writing. I love how emphatic you are that there are differences and we just need to acknowledge that reality. While at the same time, we shouldn’t allow stereotypes to define… that really undermines God’s creativity, I think.
I usually try to avoid these categorical terms (ex. complementaranism) because so many times we use words which mean different things to those using them….. AND unfortunately those terms get widely used in different ways. It becomes impossible to find a true definition because of the varying application of terms.
So, I do want to be clear in saying the Bible does teach equality in so many different ways between men and women (form, value, etc… etc…). A great example of that is Gal 3:28.
So as I specifically use the term here I am affirming Paul’s words that although equal in many ways we (male and female) do have differing God-intended functions within the church (clearest example in the Bible being the office of elder in 1 Tim 3).
I know these terms were designed to be helpful but I don’t know how helpful they truly are in these discussions.
Thanks Vanessa!