Yup, and I’m sure you got the gist of it. Thanks for giving it your attention, brother.
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?
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.
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,
False. I told your Warhorn boys my identity as soon as they asked me. Ask your son.
I’m not in the least ashamed of what I wrote. In the least. Leadership is much different from grandstanding and heckling. Sir.
People like me, who actually gave up something because they did not want to carry women into combat, look to you as an ally, but find you accusing us of being the problem. Is it heckling and grandstanding for us to ask for a consistent position from you?
You are anonymous. To everyone. When you sign your name as these pastors you call “boys” and I do, you’ll no longer be anonymous.
“Actually” implies your interlocutors have given up nothing whereas their names are public and yours is not. Readers should ask themselves what a pastor gives up to serve the church…
Sign your name. Now.
Your son is your boy, right? They are all young enough for me to call them boys. They are young men. So, yes, they are still boys in the grand scheme of things.
They know who I am. And you do too if you ask them.
But this is a deflection on your part. Nobody is calling you a bad man. Nobody is saying Tim Bayly is not fit to be a pastor. Nobody is bringing a charge against you.
You have hurled a lot of thunder on this subject, and those of us who actually have skin in the game are asking how to make sense of contradictory statements you’ve made. How does it apply to us? Are we men who refused to carry women into combat at fault because women volunteered for the military, sued, and some unelected federal judge gave them what they asked for? Do we need to repent?
What are we supposed to do? Rebel? Insurrect? Overthrow federal judges?
How can a man like me have stopped women from volunteering for the military, suing, and being awarded a judgment by a lawyer/judge who statistically was probably a Roman Catholic or a Jew?
If you want to, fine, deflect and say you cannot answer because pseudonyms. That’s your decision. I don’t judge you for it. But, call me all the names in the book, you will lose face over this. If you cannot answer an honest question, then nobody who has ever served in the military will listen to anything else you have to say about anything, Mr. Bayly.
This would be humorous if it wasn’t so sad.
I mean, like, is it Rumpelstiltskin? Is that really what we’re doing here?
Let’s see you take a position on Biblical headship of husbands over their wives, Chris. Then we call your employer HR department and see what they think about it. Then tell me how brave you are and what a coward I am. You too, Jason. You both work in the software business. We know how fair minded the majority of software companies are these days.
Chris deleted his comment, after it was pointed out to him the risks posed to a man with a job opining on this subject of male headship. Enough, said. (I have no intention whatsoever to dox you Chris, I was just pointing out why this subject requires a pseudonym for gainfully employed men.)
When deployed the majority of women soldiers get pregnant on purpose, and then get airlifted to Germany for abortions, as happened in Desert Storm I & II.
(EDITED TO ADD: Writing this, I mistook Joel to be addressing the Majority Report, but it was the Minority Report he spoke of. Sorry for the mistake. I’ll leave the text as it is, though for the sake of context.)
I’ve been loath to respond to you for several days now, and so have set the matter aside. But knowing your comments will be taken by some as trustworthy, let’s examine this statement you’ve made that the report didn’t speak to woman’s inherent nature. It’s inconceivable how you could have arrived at that conclusion. Here are some excerpts:
We speak over and over again of “man’s duty to protect woman,” but never of woman’s duty to protect man. This never stops declaring the “inherent nature of woman.”
We state that woman taking on the work of warrior defender is “androgyny and sexual anarchy” and a “violation of God’s creation order.” Thus we declare the “inherent nature of woman.”
We wrote “the PCA declares that any policy which intentionally places in harm’s way as military combatants women who are, or might be, carrying a child in their womb, is a violation of God’s Moral Law.” Woman is lifegiver. Woman is mother of the living. This declaration could not be more tied to “the inherent nature of woman.”
We wrote “This Assembly …condemns the use of women as military combatants.” We said nothing about capacity, here. Only that woman is not to be used as a military combatant. Thus this too is a statement solely about “the inherent nature of woman.”
Now these are merely the first three pages of the report. Must I continue? Honestly, to do so strikes me as a fool’s errand.