In Part 1, we looked at the fact that God created a world with natural disparities (or differences), one of the most foundational which is the difference between men and women. Another difference we could think of includes the differences between mankind and animal-kinds. As a result of these natural disparities (or inequalities), Christians are not obligated to pursue a universal and non-discriminative egalitarianism, such as the kind of thing demanded by those who advocate for equality of opportunity or equality of outcome or equality of function.
Christians are not obligated to pursue a universal and non-discriminative egalitarianism
The result of this conclusion is that from both a general revelation (observable in nature) and special revelation (revealed in Scripture) foundation, we can conclude that seeking the inclusion of women in combat roles could be detrimental, given the natural disparity that exists between men and women.
Confronted with that reality, we asked the question, “What happens when the pursuit of absolute egalitarianism is confronted by natural disparity” and we gave 2 possible answers: The first is a kind of artificial interference that “levels the playing field”, so to speak. According to Pete Hegseth – Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense – this is what is happening in the military: the standards are being adjusted for female candidates, resulting in a military that is less effective and less lethal than it should be. So we opted for option 2, which is the abandonment of egalitarianism.
But is that all Christian doctrine can contribute to this issue? Let’s perform a thought experiment: what if we could adjust something besides the standards so that the natural disparity between men and women was neutralized? I can think of 2 ways that could happen, and I can use Marvel examples to do so. The first is based on the soldiers of “The Sovereign”, who control “drones” operated by video-game like controllers at a home base. In this case, running 20 miles with a 100lb load doesn’t really matter. While there could be some biological difference in response times, most physical disparities could be overcome through this technological innovation.
The second way I can see this happening is through technology that changes/improves female biology in such a way that physical disparity is minimized, and of course this is demonstrated by the super serum given to a little fellow named Steve Rogers. He went from being too physically weak to even qualify for service to the premier solider. Its conceivable that this could have been done to a woman with similar results. An extreme example of this is Captain Marvel, who is basically indestructible as a result of contact with an infinity stone.
You might scoff at these because they are the things of science fiction, but in reality both of them are already being done to some extent. For example, drone warfare has allowed Ukraine to keep Russian vessels from approaching from the Black Sea, preventing Russia from overcoming Ukraine through a land/sea strategy.
Regarding the “Captain America” scenario, while there is no such thing as a “super serum”, governments have long experimented with ways to artificially strengthen their soldiers. A couple of years ago I listened to a testimonial from a women in the military who, in her own words, had a voluntary hysterectomy so she could “keep up with the boys”. It was significant that she drew no connection between this decision and the suicidal depression she was experiencing.
So we can imagine a world in which either A) military engagements are carried out via technological innovations that negate the physical advantage of larger muscle mass or bone structure, or B) women desiring to “keep up with the boys” are offered various treatments to artificially increase endurance, muscle, etc…
A biblical objection to option B could be raised on the grounds of our bodies being temples of the Holy Spirit, but what kind of objection can be mounted for option A? If my daughters can sit in front of a computer, or strap herself into a mechanical supersuit (like Pepper Pots in Iron Man), then the objection to women serving in combat units based on physical disparity is rendered moot. Or is it?
What if physical disparity between men and women is only an exterior difference of a greater interior difference between the sexes? What if biology reflects a deeper, creational distinction between male and female? What if there is a telic difference between men and women?
1 Timothy 2:12-15 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Titus 2:3-5 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
(Numbers 1:2-3) Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls; From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Telos is a Greek word meaning “end”, as in the first question of the Westminster shorter chatechism, “What is the chief end of man?” To what end was mankind created, and to what end were they specifically created as male and female? The first question is answered by Westminster and applies to both men and women, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.” But the opening chapters of Genesis tells us more than that, as do passages in the New Testament quoted above. Man was created to keep and work the garden. Woman was created to be the man’s “help-meet” or “suitable helper”. Adam looked outward to the garden and Eve looked to Adam. This harmony allowed them together to exercise dominion over God’s creation. As such, I find 3 objections to women serving in combat roles, and cautions against women serving in the military in general.
Placing women in positions to take life orients them away from their telos to create and nurture life. It is lawful for a woman to defend her home and family, thus taking a life. When I travel, I make sure my wife knows that if someone breaks into our house that she is to kill them until they are so dead that even Miracle Max couldn’t bring them back. But when it comes to engaging in combat or even defending a realm larger than the home, I don’t want my daughters being life-takers. This applies to piloting jets or remotely manning drones.
Secondly, placing women in positions where fertility is an impediment to success violates the creation mandate. Although infertility can occur naturally (and is often a great grief to bear), the telos of her body is to bear fruit. Barrenness that is achieved by technological innovation works against the natural function of her body. But service in the military, particularly in combat roles, is hindered by this natural process, pitting the creation mandate against military achievements and pursuits.
Of course, fertility is an impediment in many places other than the military, and Western societies are experiencing historically low fertility rates which happen to coincide with historically high participation of women in the workforce. In short, we have already traded children for jobs. However, the military is a particularly demanding employer. From the initial commitment requiring the most fertile years of a woman’s life to the offer of a secure retirement just on the other side of a woman’s fertile years, it can rob a woman of her chance to fulfill the creation mandate in a more definite way than other industries.
Finally, placing women in a position where her loyalty to an institution exceeds her loyalty to her family is inadvisable. Since a woman’s telos is to be the help-meet, it will create conflict between her loyalty to the military and her loyalty to her family. One difference between men and women is that a man’s sense of responsibility is designed to run wide and a woman’s sense of responsibility is to run deep. A mother’s commitment to her children can be terrifying (Proverbs 17:12), and her jealousy for her husband unyielding. I want to reiterate that I am not saying men are NOT committed to their children or jealous over their wives, but I am saying that there is a discernible and universally recognizable difference for those who have eyes to see it.
As such, believers have good reasons beyond natural disparity to prohibit women in combat roles. In fact, believers have good reason to be skeptical about sending our daughters into military service in general. This is not to say that it is a sin, but that it should be considered carefully in light of a woman’s telos. If we want our daughters to marry, bear children, and keep their homes – AS THE BIBLE COMMANDS – then military service is more likely to hinder than to help.
Let me offer 2 additional areas of exploration. First, under what circumstances, if any, might we support a daughter’s pursuit of military training or a military career? Secondly, in what way should the biblical perspective of manhood and womanhood inform civil policy? Obviously, that is a huge topic for consideration.
Nathan Writes 