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.