We’re getting fairly far afield at this point, but regardless of how you would or wouldn’t decide when and where and who to engage, that’s not the point of mentioning Black Hawk Down. The point is that if you decide to engage and then demonstrate to the world that you aren’t willing to pay the price, everybody knows you’re a soft nation. And that is in spite of the fact that many of the men on the ground might well be willing.
Unfortunately, there’s no salute emoji, 'cuz this needs it.
2 Likes
Actually, this is pretty close to my previous point that the U.S. isn’t fighting wars to win.
Exactly. And we’ve had a long string of feckless leaders who have been writing checks they can’t cash. But wherein lies our decadence? I still argue that it has not yet been demonstrated that it is unwillingness of men to defend the fatherland. Rather I would guess it is unwillingness to take responsibility – Congress unwilling to go on record to officially declare war, the President unilaterally deciding to engage in a police action but unwilling to see it through against negative polling, the voters wanting something to be done to help out those poor people shown on TV but unwilling to actually sacrifice. Although I’m not sure the last is actually true – the American people generally seem to be much more isolationist than the political leadership.
1 Like
I don’t understand where the disagreement is @Joel. We are a decadent nation, correct? Therefore you argue that men should not feel guilty for refusing to join the military to potentially die in decadent “wars,” correct? I certainly don’t have any argument against that.
If I might chime in…on the one hand the thought of my beautiful tender daughter who is now only four, being forced to disassociate with her identity as God made her, to don the clothes of a soldier, to be not treated as a weaker vessel that she is, to be sacrificed as mere fodder for an agenda that clearly hates womanhood, makes my blood boil.
On the other hand, my son who is only almost three, who loves to “muscle” papa on the living room floor, who frequently dons makebelieve superheroe attire, could grow up to be soldier and keep within the identity of the one who made him.
The problem lies in that there is no honor in killing just anyone, there’s no glory fighting any mere enemy. We might say to him good job on fulfilling your duty if drafted to fight an unjust war, but only in the same vein of paying his taxes. He didn’t really have a choice to kill only the unrighteous, his leaders said go and kill and he would.
But add to that mandatory evil the wickedness of compulsory dewomanizing our daughters, and well it’s just plain…in reverse the moral equivalence would be like…maybe this is extreme…allowing NAMBLA to draft boys for their pleasure.
So to be frank I don’t care if this decision is seen as a win for men’s rights, or against feminism, my daughter isn’t a feminist, and I’m not a big fan of the draft in general, because our military leaders have not shown to be God fearing in their decisions to send our children to do their unjust bidding.
No doubt we have the nation we deserve. We are a people in rebellion against God so our leaders reflect that. But we can’t stop calling people to repent of their unjust desires, their unholy wars, and their hateful vengeful grievances that multiply and propel our sinfulness.
Anyways, I know I’m not saying much new here, and I’m not calling anyone out, but this issue has been stirring me up lately.
1 Like
For months now, the anonymous man who writes publicly as “Dalrock” has been claiming I denied the moral agency of women and did not rebuke women warriors in a report I wrote back in 2002 for the Ad Interim Study Committee on Women in the Military of the Presbyterian Church in America’s General Assembly. I encourage everyone to read this report, particularly now as it appears we are on the path to the conscription of women for our Armed Forces.
Of course, as is his habit in criticizing others’ work, Dalrock misreprented what I wrote. I haven’t felt the need to show his incapacity for accurate dialog in the past, but now that he is being discussed here and some of his supporters continue to quote his deceptions, this morning I read the report and pulled out of it a sampling of the text that faults women, and not just men. Here then are those texts from our Final AISCOWIM report to the 2002 General Assembly.
We speak of “woman’s inability to act independently of that male authority which God has placed in her life for her own well-being and protection.”
We state: “it behooves us to recognize that such teaching constitutes implicit guidance on the role and responsibilities of womanhood. But Scripture also teaches explicitly on womanhood…”
We state: “Devoting herself to her children and home is a central part of the curriculum older women are to teach younger women of the Church, warning that those Christian women who turn away from these things dishonor the Word of God…”
We affirm: “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God…”
We affirm: “…it is disgraceful for …women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures.”
We affirm this by Calvin: “The words of the heathen poet (Juvenal) are very true: 'What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?’”
We declare: “Deuteronomy 22:5 declares that God abhors woman camouflaging herself as a man (and vice versa). Man and woman are not to exchange clothing because to do so is an attack upon the glory God has attached to sexuality. Thus it is that the Church has condemned women warriors. For example, Luther comments on this text: 'A woman shall not bear the weapons of a man, nor shall a man wear female clothing.…for it is shameful for a man to be clothed like a woman, and it is improper for a woman to bear the arms of a man.’”
We affirm: “No woman shall put on the gear of a warrior…”
We declare: "If our church finds herself unable to say more than that it is ‘unwise’ for her daughters to enter the military because of the ‘difficulties attendant to her service there,’ what possible reason will PCA daughters give for refusing conscription? Will they tell their Selective Service Board that their church believes women should have ‘freedom of conscience’ in this matter, but that such freedom of conscience is a matter of their church’s counsel—not duty under the Word of God? Such an apology for conscientious objector status will not suffice.”
In other words, we here state this is not something women can disagree with. It is NOT a matter of her conscience. She is to obey the Word of God and make it clear to the civil magistrate this is her duty.
We declare: “We, the undersigned, are convinced that the creation order of sexuality places on man the duty to lay down his life for his wife; and further, that those who, in a sustained way, deny this duty in word or action thereby oppose the Word of God.”
“Those” is both men and women.
8 Likes
I’m sorry, @jtbayly, my intent is not to be the resident contrarian, but I think it is very important to identify what the specific problem is because if the problem is not properly identified, we will be working toward the wrong solution.
For example, is the problem that men are unwilling to die for the fatherland or that our leaders are leading us into unnecessary wars for utopian goals? The solution is not the same for each.
For another example, is the problem that men are unwilling to lead in all professions, government, and courts such that women merely step into the void, or is it that women are using force of law to push their way into these positions? Again, the solution is not the same for each.
Edited to add: it is not sufficient that we repent of decadence in general, but we must repent of how we have been specifically decadent (WCF XV.5).
2 Likes
There are lots of problems, Joel. Read the paper and you’ll learn more. Then there can be an informed discussion among men who have studied these issues. It’s a study paper. Love,
I gave it a good once over yesterday, with the unfortunate mode of allowing Siri to read it to me while driving across the state for work.
A couple impressions, I see how this work clearly saw coming what a lot of people were willfully ignorant to, as inevitable. I could see and appreciate the need to achieve majority opinion if not a consensus. But what struck me most, was that I thought there was no way the PCA General Assembly would affirm such a statement today, if put up to a vote.
I think even my former pastors, who prided themselves in being representative of the old school TR, and loved wearing robes and all, would necessarily wince at some of the points. Though they might breath a sigh of relief that no consensus was made on whether this was a matter of conscience or whether the church should actually require pastors to enforce it.
It struck me that it was so thoroughly consistent that to fail to act in subject matters related therein it would be clearly pastoral malpractice, but since the denomination refused to give it teeth, they pretty much were willing to wink at such malpractices. And hence here we are today.
It’s certainly no fault of the document’s primary author. He does not control the constituent make up of either his committee or the general assembly. But I can see why staying within that denomination subsequently would be just untenable.
I’m baffled frankly by the PCA. As a mere sheep I had truly hoped to be shepherded by men, who like David, were flawed but men after God’s own heart. I know such men are still in the PCA, but I don’t believe they hold a majority stronghold given the string of shenanigans we’ve seen in the last number of years. With the passing of RC Sproul I fear many enemies of the truth have become emboldened. 
Seriously praying for a faithful witness.
1 Like
Dear Ken,
The majority report was “received,” but not adopted. The majority’s recommendations were, in fact, adopted by the assembly, as follows:
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 entire record of the matter can be found in the PCA Archive under AISCOWIM (ten items, including the Minority Report.)
Note the assembly condemned as opposed to “God’s Moral Law” the service of women as combatants who are or might be pregnant. Really, the argument about little babies in their mothers’ wombs being taken into harm’s way is one of the most explosive truths in our whole work, but remains suppressed in any debate on any level. Did you read the footnote concerning Poythress?
Warmly,
6 Likes
I guess between my ignorance and my method of reception ala Siri speak text, I missed the distinction.
I would love to go through this in more detail, and really found it helpful. I just didn’t catch all the ecclesiastical/polity implications.
As for the Poythress point…I did actually allow Siri to read all the foot notes to me and did catch the comment from Poythress, which seems to be the essence of what was adopted. Did I get that much right?
Yup, and I’m sure you got the gist of it. Thanks for giving it your attention, brother.
3 Likes
I had a look through the docs this afternoon. It seems that the Minority Report essentially views womanhood in terms of bare function rather than inherent nature. So if modern-day warfare does not require the same strength as ancient warfare such that in the present day a woman can fight just as well as a man, then there is no biblical restriction on women engaging in military combat. This carries over to the adopted resolution that women should not be in combat if they are pregnant or might be – a pregnant woman is viewed as functionally a woman, but a non-pregnant woman is viewed as functionally equivalent to a man.
But in reality women are not functionally equivalent to men – if that were the case, then the military would not need to have substantially lowered physical requirements for women compared to men. This is why the assertion in the Majority Report that there is a dearth of men ready to serve their country in defense of their wives and children is a ludicrous falsehood – if the weaker physical requirements that women meet are good enough for the military, why not lower the requirements for men to the same level? That would provide an enormously greater pool of potential recruits than the military would ever gain from women alone. So it is disingenuous for the Minority Report to functionally argue that the prohibition against women in ancient armies was an issue of strength – the smaller frame of women could hardly be viewed as suitable for the rigors of ancient combat and heavy armor – because the same applies to the modern military, as demonstrated by the differing physical requirements for men and women.
I believe womanhood is something that is rooted in inherent nature and not just functionality, and frankly, it is astonishing to see PCA TEs put forward such reductionist arguments regarding womanhood and Scripture, but I guess I have been sheltered.
The final report seems like a big exercise in avoiding the critical issue that needed to be addressed in order to provide conscientious objector status to PCA women: is it biblically wrong and a personal sin for a woman to engage in military combat? A man can’t obtain conscientious objector status merely by asserting that his religion says it is a sin for him to be drafted; it needs to be a personal sin for him to take up arms, and his church needs to be on record that it will discipline any man who does so voluntarily. But this is what the final report studiously avoids stating concerning women of the PCA.
Resolution 2 condemns the use of women as military combatants, but all that does is shift the responsibility and sin onto the drafting authorities, for which they will happily take the risk. Why didn’t the resolution simply state something along the lines that it condemns women voluntarily acting as military combatants. We wouldn’t use the original style of wording for other sins, would we? For example, would we condemn only the one performing the abortion and not the one choosing to undergo an abortion?
A similar problem is in this statement from the final report:
it has become apparent that the sin of our present circumstances is not that of women who have taken on the role of warrior-defender, but that of brothers, fathers, and husbands who have abandoned their daughters, wives, and mothers to the androgyny and sexual anarchy
Why is it not a sin of our present circumstances that women have taken on the role of warrior-defender? That puts the PCA on record that it has no problem with the fact that women are currently serving in the military. If it had stated instead that it is a sin that women had taken on the role of warrior-defender, then PCA women would have better recourse to conscientious objector status. I don’t disagree that men have abandoned women to androgyny, but why is it that one is not a sin and the other is a sin rather than that both are sins?
The lengthy discussion of the prospect of women coming under session censure is odd. Would this be a worry for other sins? Would we hold back on producing a resolution against abortion on the grounds that some women in our churches have had abortions and therefore might come under discipline? Don’t we trust our elders in their handling of such situations? If the PCA had categorically condemned the service of women as military combatants, then sessions across the country could have worked with their members currently in such a situation to transition them out just as sessions work with members who have had abortions. Nevertheless, it is true that session censure would need to be applied to any woman high-handedly enlisting as a military combatant with full knowledge of the stance of the PCA (had it been such), just as session censure would be applied (or ought to be applied) to any woman seeking an abortion with full knowledge of the stance of the PCA. After all, if the PCA would be unwilling to carry out ecclesiastical discipline against its women members who voluntarily enlist as military combatants, then how could PCA women tell the draft board that it is against their religion to serve as military combatants?
1 Like
The silence in response to Joel is deafening. I’ve made the same exact point to Bayly/Warhorn privately. By failing to declare it a sin for women to volunteer for military service (combat or not), the PCA resolution failed to provide legal justification for conscientious objector status for the wives and daughters of men in the PCA. Considering that was the point of the exercise, the resolution was a complete waste of time and energy, and it doesn’t give kudos to anyone, particularly, Mr. Bayly.
I know of two men who resigned from prestigious and hard won military positions rather than carry women into combat. I was one of the two. (There may be more, that’s just the two I know of.)
Has anybody in the Warhorn crew even served in the military, much less given up a career for taking a conscientious position on it? How can we men simultaneously be to blame for women serving presently in the all-volunteer military because of the (mythical) “dearth of male volunteers”, while simultaneously, Bayly is on record as discouraging young men from enlisting in the military (for quite valid reasons) - thus contributing to the (mythical) dearth of male volunteers?
Reality is Bayly’s past position on women in the military and young men enlisting suffers from cognitive dissonance. Will all due respect, he needs to stop blaring dissonant tones from his war trumpet and come up with a logically consistent biblical position on women and men in the military. If he were to do so, he would earn real respect from men.
Dalrock’s sins in the eyes of Warhorn appear to be:
-
He critiqued Bayly’s inconsistency on two issues, women in the military, and romantic love sanctifying sex in marriage.
-
He tolerates comments on his blog from a wide variety of backgrounds and spiritual conditions, without filtering them. (Reality is he does filter them, but not as much as some might like.)
-
He uses a pseudonym.
Of the three objections, the second one is the only one I see as a real issue. But, guilt by association is not a valid argument. The fact that he allows men, many of whom have been burned by their ex-wives, and lost their home, their children, and a substantial chunk of their past and future income, to work through their grief, anger, and bitterness in the comment section of his blog, is not an endorsement of bitterness. The reality is that such men have great difficulty finding a church willing to listen to them. If Bayly would stick up for husbands, then perhaps they would be coming to him for help instead of Dalrock. It is such as it is.
I personally do not get how Bayly and Warhorn can on the one hand claim to support patriarchy, and on the other hand completely ignore the massive number of wounded and bleeding men who were divorced and/or cheated on by their spouses, lost their kids, their house, their income and their self respect. There is a ministry niche here. Dalrock has ten times more followers than Bayly because he is speaking to wounded hurting people that nobody else seems to care about.
In response to my post last week where I pointed out that men cannot be responsible for women who voluntarily enlist in the all-volunteer military, Warhorn replies that the world is a patriarchy and those wives or daughters enlisted with the permission of their fathers/husbands.
While, yes it is technically possible for a 17 year old to enlist in the military with parental permission, the vast majority are over 18, and therefore considered adults by law. If a father or husband has a daughter or wife age 18 or above who chooses to enlist in the military, there is no remedy whatsoever in the law. She is an adult, he has no authority to stop her, according to the law.
So, then there is the church. The point of the PCA resolution on women and combat, might have been to provide grounds for conscientious objection of women who DO NOT want to be drafted. However, the failure of the resolution to call females volunteering to serve in the military as a sin, means that a PCA-member father/husband whose daughter or wife chooses to enlist cannot even take it to the elders. According to the PCA it is not the women who volunteer to serve in the military who are sinning, but somehow the men who made them do it - in an all-volunteer military. It’s mysterious to me, that’s for certain.
I do not understand how Mr. Bayly can claim to be the author of the PCA women-in-combat resolution, and simultaneously claim that men whose wives are daughters enlist are morally culpable, but the wife or daughter who chose to enlist is not culpable. If it is not a sin to enlist, how can it be a sin to let your daughter enlist?
You’re so wise. So clear. So bold.
Wish I could have had your counsel during those years I served on the committee. It would have made such a difference.
Disgusted.
2 Likes
You knew me then. Could have asked. Would have been happy to help.
Mr. Bayly, you can argue that you erred. Or you can argue that you are perfectly consistent. But instead you argue that, yeah you wrote that, but it isn’t your fault because there were liberals on the committee. What are we supposed to do with that?
By the way, we do still note that both Nereus and Dalrock hide their identities. The longer they spew their bold truth-speaking, the more I’m convinced that is the single salient point. The man who hides never suffers and never has to answer for anyone. I’ll get back to this, but concentrate on this point. Love,
2 Likes