Ben, you mean this PCA report, right?
The format is easier to read here:
You ignore the condemnation of women who serve in the military that the document contains.
You need to re-read the document, Ben. While it notes that Calvin and Luther forbade women wearing warrior’s garb, the document itself does not anywhere condemn “women who serve in the military”, and the longer document on the PCA website actually devotes a considerable section to stating why they couldn’t do that because it would have the effect of placing all the women in the PCA currently serving in the military under censure.
Here is what the final conclusion actually says:
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF AISCOWIM TO 30TH ASSEMBLY
Acknowledging that the child in the womb is “a person covered by Divine protection” (Statement on Abortion, Sixth General Assembly); and that women of childbearing age often carry unborn children while remaining unaware of their child’s existence; and that principles of just war require the minimization of the loss of life-particularly innocent civilians; the PCA declares that any policy which intentionally places in harms way as military combatants women who are, or might be, carrying a child in their womb, is a violation of God’s Moral Law. Adopted
This Assembly declares it to be the biblical duty of man to defend woman and therefore condemns the use of women as military combatants, as well as any conscription of women into the Armed Services of the United States. Adopted
Therefore be it resolved that the Thirtieth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America adopts the above as pastoral counsel for the good of the members, the officers, and especially the military chaplains of the Presbyterian Church in America. Adopted
Be it further resolved that the Presbyterian Church in America supports the decision of any of its members to object to, as a matter of conscience, the conscription of women or the use of women as military combatants. Adopted
TE Steve Leonard
RE Bentley Rayburn
TE Tim Bayly RE Keith Stoeber
TE Peter Lillback
RE Don Weyburn
The principle of avoiding “evil surmising” is that we do not presume evil intent in the actions of others if another possibility exists. We presume good faith until proven otherwise. Yes, the document discussed Calvin and Luther’s opinion that women should not even wear the clothes of a warrior. But that did not make it into the conclusion, which is the actual resolution.
So, no Ben, the PCA resolution does not condemn women in the military. It uses very carefully chosen passive language so as not to blame women for the choice of joining the military. Here are a few examples:
The dearth of men ready to serve their country in defense of their wives and children is a concern shared by our entire committee.
Sorry, there has been no such dearth of male volunteers ever in American history, though Vietnam is a little more complicated…
Rather, the problem is that we have placed our daughters and sisters in the untenable position of seeking to be killers even as they naturally, and even at the same time, seek to bring forth life.
…in a nation which has decided to use its women as warriors, what is to stop our civil leaders from asking the infirm, the aged, and children also to pick up arms?
Dalrock’s point was that feminists have forced their way into the military with lawsuits for the past 40 years. They steadily filed lawsuits to force their way into the military academies (1980s), VMI and the Citidel (1990s), Air Force combat aircraft (2000s) and now the infantry (2010s). This had nothing to do with any shortage of male volunteers. And, the court rulings are always in response to feminists suing to demand absolute equality in the military, not men suing to force women to carry an equal burden.
The PCA resolution condemns men for “the use of women as military combatants” and for “any conscription of women”.
But, although the report quotes Calvin and Luther who condemned women even wearing a uniform, the resolution never touches the third rail of holding women in the PCA responsible for making the voluntary decision to enlist in the military.
Dalrock’s point was that after noting all of those things, the report concludes by condemning men for making women serve in combat. The conclusion, which is the binding part of the resolution, completely ignores the moral agency of a woman making the decision to voluntarily join the military.
As it turns out, Dalrock’s summary of the document’s conclusion was reasonably good, not a sneaky lie as you asserted on the podcast.
Now, Pastor Bayly has made it clear in his post above that he personally believes that it is sinful for women to choose to enlist in the military. But, the document he signed makes no such binding conclusion. I understand that had the document included that conclusion it never would have been adopted in the increasingly-liberal tending PCA.
So we can gather that political friction in the PCA prevented the final report from going as far as Pastor Bayly would have preferred. But I’m not sure how Dalrock could have known that without Pastor Bayly stating it as he has here in this forum. After all, Pastor Bayly, did sign his name to it.
But that is Dalrock’s point. The church has become so politicized that holding women responsible for their moral choices has become the untouchable third rail. Whether it is abortion, or joining the military, we blame men over and over, but precious few words are spent exhorting the women to repent.
Pastor Bayly asserts:
Nothing less than “Everything in the world that is wrong is the fault of women” will suffice to silence criticism of such men.
Dalrock has rejected that. I reject that. I’m not sure what “such men” are, but Dalrocks point is not that women are the source of all evil. It is that the church in the past two generations has steadfastly refused to hold women responsible for their own sins. The church is incapable of telling women, no, it is sinful for you to join the military and dress and fight like a man. It is incapable of saying women should be prosecuted for killing their own children, along with any man that pressures, helps or pays for it.
Do you have any other lies you wish to expose by “men like me”, Ben? The tone of this discussion, where you presume evil intent in Dalrock, and now me, is highly uncharitable. I would not presume such evil intent from you, but you guys already admitted in the podcast that you had already drawn your conclusions before the conversation even began. So perhaps I should take you guys at your word, that you did not actually have any interest in a real conversation. Your stated goal was to paint Dalrock and those “men like me” as a “caricature”. Indeed you have.
Pastor Bayly can complain about it, but Dalrock didn’t come to Warhorn asking for an interview. You guys asked for the interview. He responded in good faith. Then you admitted bad faith up front in the actual podcast, and then call us a bunch of nasty names. That does not reflect well on any of the Warhorn team.