Return to 2013Overtures


The following is an overture that was submitted to us for review by delegates or members of churches. We provide them with no recommendations, just in an attempt to give you ideas on what kinds of overtures you might submit through your church or circuit forum.


Information about overtures from the 2010 LCMS Handbook can be found here.


Women in Combat: Overture for the 2013 Synodical Convention

February 8th, 2013 Post by

airmanThe following overture concerning women in combat is already being considered by congregations in several districts (and hopefully more soon). I pass it on in the hopes that the pastors and congregations of the synod will consider it in prayer and love for neighbor.

I believe it to be a good overture. I hope and pray our Synod will pass it as a resolution this coming summer in convention.  However, you must move fast, overtures must be submitted by March 2nd.

Here is a good summary of how to properly submit an overture: http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=25311

There are two avenues remaining to submit this overture for the convention this summer:

1. A congregation, through the Voters’ Assembly, can submit this overture to the synod.

2. If possible, have your circuit convene a Circuit Forum to submit this overture to the synod.

This is a matter that we as Christians clearly should be against. It is also an important issue for us to speak publicly on–for the sake of our country, our families, and because our Lord bids us to confess His truth.

It is right for the church to prophesy to the king concerning this issue, especially out of Christian love for our mothers, sisters, daughters, and granddaughters. For it is they whom the government will ultimately attempt to conscript in this brave new world where men send woman to die in their place.

Please take the time to read the overture and act on it.

In Christ,

Pr. David Ramirez, Zion-Lincoln, IL

 

Here is the PDF version of the overture: Resolution on Women in Combat – final – Feb 6, 2013

To Condemn and Renounce the Employment of Women in Military Combat

 

Whereas: On January 24, 2013 the U.S. Department of Defense announced its intent to lift our nation’s 65-year-old ban against sending women into combat—an exclusion which the Supreme Court upheld in 1981; and

 

Whereas: In 1992 a Presidential Commission re-examined the use of women in combat. It conducted hearings inviting theological input. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod did not contribute or attend. The final report found that no major American religious establishment had adopted a theological position or spoken clearly on this issue. In 1993-4 the Secretary of Defense ordered the military services to permit women to compete for some combat assignments and to open some specialties formerly reserved to men. Regretfully we in the LC-MS must acknowledge: our silence wrongly implied consent to these changes which we did not intend and must extend no longer; and

 

Whereas: We recognize our nation’s freedom, prosperity and security as gracious gifts from God’s generous hand. These lie beyond the achievement of human capabilities alone. Dependent upon His mercies, we dare not defy His will; and

 

Whereas: God ordered His creation of man and woman in a good relationship with Himself and one another that His order of redemption does not erase, but confirms and fulfills. God designed woman as His vessel for bearing life. To employ a woman as an instrument of death and destruction inverts His design; to ignore His order is damnable abomination; and

 

Whereas: Moses’ fourth book (Numbers) established the principle: only men are to be counted for warfare. In cases of aggression, Israel’s army was to drive intruders back to their own cities, then extend an offer of peace. If this was not accepted, only men were put to the sword; women and children were to be excepted (Deuteronomy 20:12-15); and

 

Whereas: Advocates of women warriors often cite Judges 4 for support. In fact, this account is incomprehensible without the underlying presumption that men, not women, have the duty to go forth into combat. The Lord exposes the cowardice of Barak through Deborah and shames him by delivering the enemy leader into the hands of a woman, Jael. God sends neither woman into combat. He declares particular scorn for women as warriors at several points in Holy Scripture (e.g. Isa 19:16; Jer 50:31, 51:30; Nah 3:13). From Deuteronomy 22:5 Dr. Martin Luther concludes: “A woman shall not bear the weapons of a man, nor shall a man wear female clothing. … [S]uch things are not to be done as a matter of serious and constant habit and custom, but due uprightness and dignity are to be preserved for each sex … Through this law … [Moses] seems to reproach any nation in which this custom is observed” (Lectures on Deuteronomy, AE 9:219-220); and

 

Whereas: Christ confirms and fulfills this Old Testament pattern, as the New Testament makes clear. Just as Jesus gave up His Life, died, for His Bride, so also husbands should give up their lives, die, for their wives (Ephesians 5:25); and

 

Whereas: The common sensibility of “gentle-men” includes a special and particular responsibility to guard, protect, and defend women. People of every nation and any faith should counsel and encourage men to obey their innate impulse and outward duty: put “women and children first.” For men to employ women in their own physical defense and in killing can only be considered among the most profound abuses of women; and

 

Whereas: The spilling and shedding of human blood is far more than a “job” offering legal “employment.” To escape condemnation as mercenary murder, the call to arms for the taking and risking of human lives must only be conducted as a moral enterprise against evil threats, toward just ends, by just means. Among the fundamental principles of Just War is the need to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants; women have always been presumed as the latter. America must not ignore this basic presumption, and dare not attempt to overrule it. To employ women in military combat is intrinsically immoral and barbaric. Now, therefore, be it

 

RESOLVED: As pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, we confess as sin our failure clearly and boldly to speak to this issue of women in combat. We repent. We seek now to state our clear theological position on this issue and sound the clear trumpet of God’s warning (1 Cor. 14:8). Therefore, be it further

 

RESOLVED: From Holy Scripture we are convinced: God does not sanction and will not bless the purposeful exposure of women to any hostile environment which compromises His own created order, good design, and high and holy callings. We hereby declare our conscientious objection to any policy or practice which considers women eligible for assignment into combat situations or conscription. And be it finally

 

RESOLVED: To all who defy God’s clearly-expressed will in this matter, we declare His warning (Ezekiel 33): Hear the Word of the Lord and repent, lest you incur His condemnation, for on the final day you will face His judgment.






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. David C Busby
    February 8th, 2013 at 07:36 | #1

    I’m not sure that this is an issue upon which the Church should take a position.

  2. Carl Vehse
    February 8th, 2013 at 08:05 | #2

    David C Busby #1,

    What reason(s) do you have for your being “not sure”?

    Does it relate to whether or not the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions address the specific issue of women as combat soldiers?

    Or is it an uncertainty of whether or not Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions require Christians, who are with other citizens, the government, to denounce and condemn actions of their political and military representatives, which weaken our national defenses, give aid and comfort to enemy, and therefore can rightly be considered as acts of treason against the United States?

  3. Jean
    February 8th, 2013 at 08:11 | #3

    In Old Testament times, God allowed Christians advisers (Daniel, Joseph & others) to the unbelieving Kings. If the church says nothing and the “major” religious bodies are perceived to have no opinion, then how can we later blame the government. With that said we know that it may not matter what the religious opinion is in matters (i.e. abortion). However, we need to be prepared to stand on scripture and be prepared to answer questions about other similar jobs that Christian women have performed…. does this have an implication to women police officers?

  4. r
    February 8th, 2013 at 08:19 | #4

    “For it is they whom the government will ultimately attempt to conscript in this brave new world where men send woman to die in their place.”

    This seems really far-fetched to me. Have there been any whispers of a draft? What has got you thinking conscription is imminent? This seems like you are just itching to get the LCMS involved in yet another political issue. Why?

    And then this:

    “RESOLVED: To all who defy God’s clearly-expressed will in this matter, we declare His warning (Ezekiel 33): Hear the Word of the Lord and repent, lest you incur His condemnation, for on the final day you will face His judgment.”

    What are we, the Westboro Baptist Church? Convince me it’s the LCMS’ duty to tell the United States government that God will punish it if it doesn’t obey his will. What do you even mean by that? And what’s up with this “last day judgment” language? Are you saying that if the president or congress or whoever, as individuals, will be condemned to hell on the last day if they proceed with this legislation and allow women into combat? What about faith in Christ? This statement is making me confused about the distinction between Law and Gospel. What theological truths is this document professing?

    I feel like there’s some serious conspiracy theory, tea-party, fundamentalist conservative political posturing going on in the LCMS these days. I don’t feel good about it. Be a conservative, sure, but lose the paranoia. It’s neither flattering nor Christian. And anyway, Aldous Huxley says we still have over 500 years till the world is either brave or new.

  5. #4 Kitty
    February 8th, 2013 at 08:25 | #5

    Should pastors refuse communion to women who defend our country by serving in combat? Or should we merely mark and avoid them?

    And when will the church finally take on the issue of women and literacy? I mean there’s no evidence that Mary (Jesus’ own mother!) could read or write. It seems incomprehensible that we allow this abomination to continue.

  6. David C. Busby
    February 8th, 2013 at 08:50 | #6

    Carl Vehse :
    David C Busby #1,
    What reason(s) do you have for your being “not sure”?
    Does it relate to whether or not the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions address the specific issue of women as combat soldiers?

    Yes.

    Or is it an uncertainty of whether or not Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions require Christians, who are with other citizens, the government, to denounce and condemn actions of their political and military representatives, which weaken our national defenses, give aid and comfort to enemy, and therefore can rightly be considered as acts of treason against the United States?

    Christians may denounce things that weaken our national defense but the Church should not.

  7. David Rosenkoetter
    February 8th, 2013 at 09:25 | #7

    @David C. Busby #5
    So, are you trying to draw a distinction between the Church as a whole and individual Christians? We individually can only confess what our Lord, through His Word, has given the Church to believe, teach, and confess.
    This resolution is not based on whether we think/feel women have the right to go into combat. It’s based on God’s order of creation, which He bestows on us as a gift.
    We aren’t putting a qualitative value on how wel a woman can fight for her country. Instead, according to the order in which our Lord has made us, men bear the responsibility to love, protect, honor, and cherish their wives.
    So, the resolution is addressing not so much the limitations of a woman as it is the responsibility and vocation of men.
    In no way am I, here, seeking to extol the virtues of manhood over womanhood. NO. In fact, not all men are fit to take up M16’s, the controls of an aircraft, the helm of a ship.
    I’m totally blind. The last thing our military needs is a platoon of visually impaired or totally blind pilots. People with such physical disabilities would impair the military’s fighting force.
    Yet, women, people with physical disabilities, etc. can play a part in our military’s success as intelligence officers, consulate employees, strategic analysts.
    I would even grant on an embedded level, women fit in some aspects of espionage. But, to put them in the throws and emotions of war upset the tender care our Lord has for His creation.

  8. Carl Vehse
    February 8th, 2013 at 09:29 | #8

    @#4 Kitty #4: “I mean there’s no evidence that Mary (Jesus’ own mother!) could read or write.”

    Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

  9. Carl Vehse
    February 8th, 2013 at 09:31 | #9

    Focusing back on the topic of the thread, the overture to the Missouri Synod convention offers as evidence for its opposition to women combat soldiers:

    1. “we dare not defy His will” Such a statement indicates that having women as combat soldiers defies God’s will. Subsequent paragraphs refer to the order of creation, a principle in the book of Numbers, and the treatment of prisoners of war (Deut. 20:12-15)
    2. Various Scriptures (Deuteronomy 22:5; Isaiah 19:16; Jeremiah 50:31, 51:30; Nahum 3:13), in which it is claimed that God declares particular scorn for employing women as combat soldiers.
    3. Paul’s words in Eph. 5:25, noting that husbands should give up their lives for their wives.
    4. Common sensibility, innate impulse, and having women combat soldiers is a “profound abuse of women.”
    5. A so-called (and unreferenced) “Just War” principle.

    Based on this proposed evidence, the overture resolves that the Missouri Synod boldly proclaim:

    1. the “clear theological position” (i.e., doctrine) that God does not sanction nor bless such actions.
    2. our conscientious objections to the practice of women combat soldiers.
    3 imprecatory warnings (1 Corinthians 14:8 and Ezekiel 33) to our elected and appointed representatives to repent or face God’s judgment and condemnation.

    Among the questions to consider on this thread are whether the various evidences have applicable validity, and whether the proposed proclamations are warranted.

  10. Carl Vehse
    February 8th, 2013 at 09:34 | #10

    @David C. Busby #6 : “Christians may denounce things that weaken our national defense but the Church should not.”

    If Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions are clear that a government which has women as combat soldiers is in wanton violation of God’s will, then the Missouri Synod, and its individual and congregational members, should most definitely denounce and condemn such a policy.

  11. T Rossow
    February 8th, 2013 at 09:58 | #11

    r,

    Seems odd that you criticize paranoia but then give “r” as your name?

  12. David C. Busby
    February 8th, 2013 at 10:00 | #12

    Carl Vehse :
    @David C. Busby #6 : “Christians may denounce things that weaken our national defense but the Church should not.”
    If Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions are clear that a government which has women as combat soldiers is in wanton violation of God’s will, then the Missouri Synod, and its individual and congregational members, should most definitely denounce and condemn such a policy.

    If I become convinced that Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions are clear that a government which has women as combat soldiers is in wanton violation of God’s will, I will support this resolution. To date, I am not convinced.

  13. David C. Busby
    February 8th, 2013 at 10:06 | #13

    David Rosenkoetter :
    @David C. Busby #5
    So, are you trying to draw a distinction between the Church as a whole and individual Christians? We individually can only confess what our Lord, through His Word, has given the Church to believe, teach, and confess.

    No. This appears to me to be an issue about which Scripture is silent, just as Scripture is silent as to whether or not there should be a minimum wage or what the correct level of taxation should be.

    This resolution is not based on whether we think/feel women have the right to go into combat. It’s based on God’s order of creation, which He bestows on us as a gift.

    I am not convinced that God’s order of creation prohibits women in combat. If I become so convinced, I will change my position. For the record, I am opposed to women’s ordination based on Scripture and the order of creation.

  14. Spenglergeist
    February 8th, 2013 at 10:31 | #14

    While there may not be a direct prohibitation in Scripture of women in combat, the principle of Head and Helper, and order of Creation certainly plays out in the military. I served on active duty and as a contractor in a war zone in combat support roles. I had both male and female supervisors, and worked alongside excellent women and men. Against our current enemy, women are inevitably in combat situations, whether MPs, Signal, or Medical branches, and women perform admirably in these roles. (The nurses at the hospital at Balad were some of the finest caregivers anywhere, and their hospital was routinely under threat.) However, problems of adultery, jealousy, shirking of duties, planned pregnancy to avoid deployment, and other similar issues spoke to both the practical and spiritual effects of confusing God’s established order. Actively putting women in combat roles such as Infantry not only invites strategic and social problems, but spiritual ones as well. I believe the Church is entitled to take a stance on this, and support the overture.

  15. Rev. Michael J. Bahr
    February 8th, 2013 at 10:36 | #15

    Women in combat is contrary to nature. The proof is that the government will inject women in combat roles with hormones so that they do not cycle monthly. Thus, the government turns women’s bodies into men’s bodies. The gift of life that comes through women is discarded so that she would become an instrument of death. The order of creation is turned on its head when men are made to be women and women are made to be men.

    One question is whether the government cares about this distinction between men and women. In many cases, the government does not. For example, the government does not care about the distinction on the questions of whether homosexuals may marry or whether a woman may abort the child in her womb. In the first instance, a man does not need a woman to marry. He can find a man. In the second case, the woman is made to be like a man in that man does not carry and bear life in his body. In both of these instances, the government’s disdain for the distinction between men and women has disastrous results. Likewise, sending women into combat will also have no good come from it. The government needs to be called to repentance on this.

  16. February 8th, 2013 at 10:52 | #16

    Amen, Rev. Ramirez. This is a conversation the LCMS should have had decades ago, but now it will kill us if we can’t start speaking with courage and remembering what it means to act like men.

  17. Spenglergeist
    February 8th, 2013 at 11:51 | #17

    @Rev. Michael J. Bahr #15
    Rev. Bahr, I appreciate your point on differentiating men and women. I have not heard, nor seen in my admittedly limited experience with the military, where hormone therapy is planned or instituted. I have found the opposite to be true, that exceptions to mission readiness (guard duty, medical restrictions) are made for women during their monthly cycle. Could you cite your source, please? I’d like to investigate more.

  18. Carl Vehse
    February 8th, 2013 at 11:59 | #18

    “It is right for the church to prophesy to the king concerning this issue”

    FYI (and for victims of the past 40 years of public school education) the government of the United States has no king, although one may, in a metonymic sense, consider the government, that is, the people, as king. Most certainly, our elected an appointed representatives, within our form of government, are NOT the king, although some of them act as if they were.

  19. Jeff Stillman
    February 8th, 2013 at 12:58 | #19

    First a bit of background.

    My father’s oldest brother served in the US army in WW1. He was gassed in the trenches, and later as a civilian died at the young age of 30 from a lung disease.

    My father and one other brother served in the US army in WW2. They served in the pacific theater.

    I served in the US army and did one tour in Vietnam.

    My son-in-law is in the National Guard. He did one tour in Iraq, and recently completed another tour in Kuwait.

    From this perspective, what I frequently witness in Lutheran blogs and LCMS worship services is pretty shameful. Here are but a few examples.

    1. Complaints about the indebtedness of seminary graduates, but never any advice that they serve in the US military (pre/post college/seminary) as a means of obtaining financial assitance with their educations.

    2. Complaints and resolutions about women in combat but never a call for men to man-up and take their place.

    3. Videos from miltary-grade gun totin’ clergyman who never put themselves in harm’s way of such weapons in defense of others.

    4. Occassional insinuations during worship services that the Vietnam war was immoral and therefor so must be those who participated.

    5. Complaints about participation in nondenominational worship services. Just what do you think military chaplains (including not a few confessional Lutherans) are up to?

    6. Etc. etc.

    As a brother of four women, father of three women, and a grandfather of one pre-school girl (who was without her daddy for a year), I would prefer that women not experience any of the things I mentioned above in my background info.

    BUT!! To all US military people (past , present, and future), regardless of gender, I thank you and consider you to be my comrade. Our country is indebted to you in ways that those who did not serve will never understand or appreciate. I admonish you to take consolation in the Lutheran Confessions which describe military service as honorable. Please ignore and forgive those to whom freedom of speech is such a cheap commodity.

  20. Rev. Michael J. Bahr
    February 8th, 2013 at 13:29 | #20

    The military has always had interest in cycle suppression for women deployed.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19911522
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21185993

    “Oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) afford numerous health and operational benefits,… as well as menstrual suppression”
    “despite OCP experience and desire for amenorrhea…”

    That interest combined with the continued development of contraception that suppresses the cycle (depo-provera, seasonique, yaz, danazol, lybrel, etc.) will only increase the pressure on women (and their superiors) to suppress their cycle when they are put into combat roles.

  21. February 8th, 2013 at 13:34 | #21

    Our sinful silence on this issue harkens back all the way to Adam’s silence in the garden as Eve went into combat with the serpent. We have strayed so far from a Titus 2 understanding of womanhood that it is difficult for most people to even comprehend why ANY role should be denied to modern women.

  22. Stan Slonkosky
    February 8th, 2013 at 13:39 | #22

    Five years ago, I attended an event at Concordia University Irvine.

    Male and Female He Created Them: Fighting and Nurturing in Times of War

    Moderated by Dr. Siemon-Netto,
    (http://uwesiemon.blogspot.com)
    leading theologians and military
    experts will discuss the divine orders of creation and natural law in
    the context of America’s current wars. Among the topics:

    Women in combat
    Fathers in the role of mothers
    Heroes and heroines when wars are won
    Heroes and heroines when wars go wrong

    Featuring:

    Dr. James Bachman, Dean of the School of Theology, Concordia
    University, Irvine

    Dr. Horace Hummel, professor emeritus, Concordia Seminary St. Louis

    Robert H. Miller, CAPT, USN ret., executive director, Hope For America
    (https://sites.google.com/site/hopeforamericamiller/front)

    Veterans, both male and female

    Saturday, February 16, 2008
    9 am to 1 pm
    DeNault Auditorium
    The campus of Concordia University Irvine
    Free will offering will be taken

    —–
    Dr. Hummel and Dr. Bachman are both on the clergy roster of the LCMS and contact information can be found by searching at lcms.org

    Dr. Hummel is, as far as I know, a member of Gloria Dei Lutheran Church in Escondido.

    Capt. Miller is a member of some protestant denomination, but I don’t know which one. He is a personal friend of Dr. Siemon-Netto.

    Dr. Bachmann and Dr. Hummel stated that there were no scriptural grounds for prohibiting women from serving in combat. Capt. Miller and Dr. Siemon-Netto (who is a Lutheran lay theologian) thought otherwise.

    The event was recorded and it might be possible to get a copy of it from Faith Lutheran Church in Capistrano Beach. I don’t think it’s available at their web site, but you can search http://faithcapo.com if you want.

    —–

    Support for this overture seems to me to be based more on feelings than on theology.

    In any case, it is really a moot point. Women have been serving in combat for years. An podcast discussing this was recently aired on KFI. To hear it, go to http://kfi640.com and search for the “Dark Secret Place” podcast for 1/26.

  23. Spenglergeist
    February 8th, 2013 at 13:50 | #23

    @Rev. Michael J. Bahr #20
    Thanks! As stated, my experience is limited, and did not know of such practice among the women in units which I served, so I appreciate the info.

  24. r
    February 8th, 2013 at 14:44 | #24

    @T Rossow #11

    Very good, but how about a reply to the actual argument?

    I’ll narrow it down for you: what I’d particularly like explained is the very last Resolution. What does this Resolution imply? What is it saying about our doctrine of justification? And how is this relevant as addressed to the government? Really, does nothing about it seem over-the-top or problematically contexualized?

  25. Carl Vehse
    February 8th, 2013 at 15:05 | #25

    From Render unto Caesar… and unto God: A Lutheran View of Church and State, CTCR, September 1995:

    Direct and intentional Influence

    Obviously, even greater risks are involved when the church speaks not only intentionally but also directly to the state—when the church aligns itself publicly with a specific social or political position or strategy or when it speaks directly to the state regarding matters that, properly speaking, are the responsibility not of the church but of the state. Such risks notwithstanding, the Synod has chosen to engage in this type of speaking on a limited number of occasions regarding issues that it deemed to be of critical importance for the church’s life and work, its witness, or its own moral responsibility (as church) to seek and promote the welfare of the state and its citizens. [p. 82]

    Direct and Intentional Action

    The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has rarely, if ever, ventured into the arena of Benne’s fourth connection between church and state by taking “direct and intentional action” with the explicit goal of changing or effecting policy in the civil sphere. The reasons for this (whether or not always expressly stated) are precisely those mentioned earlier: not only does such action have great potential for dividing, politicizing, and even corrupting the church, it also runs the risk of compromising and undermining the unique and primary mission of the church as defined by Scripture, and thus compromising and undermining the Gospel itself…. [p. 86]

    We stated earlier that “direct political action by the institutional church involves the exercise of civil power and that power has always had a corrupting influence on the church.” It is necessary to emphasize, therefore, that even with an issue as critical and “clear-cut” as abortion, the church cannot avoid the serious consequences of direct political action. This fourth connection between church and state must be regarded as a “last resort” when all other forms of influencing the state have clearly proven to be inadequate, and when it is clear that direct action in a particular situation is necessary. Even then, such action will very likely not have the intended effect unless the other “means” of influence are also being used consistently and effectively. Finally, such action must always be characterized by great restraint, prudence, and studied readiness on the part of the church “to give an answer” to those who would (and no doubt will) question the necessity or propriety of such action. [p. 90]

  26. Joyce D
    February 8th, 2013 at 15:20 | #26

    What does everyone make of the Israelites celebrating the bloody victories of Deborah and Jael? Did these women also invert God’s design by becoming instruments of death and destruction?

    Like Kitty, I’d also like to hear what bearing this may have on the vocation of female police officers, Secret Service agents, bodyguards, etc.

  27. Carl Vehse
    February 8th, 2013 at 16:06 | #27

    @Joyce D #26 : “Like Kitty, I’d also like to hear what bearing this may have on the vocation of female police officers, Secret Service agents, bodyguards, etc.”

    And since this thread raises questions about women’s roles in (hot and cold) wars, don’t forget the question about the femme fatale, who uses her femininity (usually) rather than violence against the enemy.

  28. justiceday
    February 8th, 2013 at 21:15 | #28

    If the church cared about women they would be most concerned with the fact that one in three that serve is raped or sexually assaulted by our own military. And there are women outside of the military our troops are assaulting.
    http://www.theusmarinesrape.com/MarshmallowHead.html

  29. Paul Nus
    February 8th, 2013 at 22:54 | #29

    @David C. Busby:
    “God declares particular scorn for women as warriors in Isaiah 19:16; Jeremiah 50:31, 51:30; Nahum 3:13 and other Scriptures. In Deuteronomy 22:5 God explicitly declares that no woman shall put on the gear of a warrior. He condemns trans-vestment: “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” (NASB). He uses the Hebrew noun “keli-geber” which specifically denotes the equipment worn by a “mighty man” or warrior (cf. Judges 18:16).

    These are clear passage of Holy Scripture — the revealed Word of God.

    From this verse Dr. Martin Luther concludes: “A woman shall not bear the weapons of a man, nor shall a man wear female clothing. The prohibition of a woman’s bearing the weapons of a man and of a man’s wearing female clothing does not apply to cases where this is necessary to avoid danger, or to playing a game, or to deceive the enemy. Nevertheless, such things are not to be done as a matter of serious and constant habit and custom, but due uprightness and dignity are to be preserved for each sex; 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. Through this law … [Moses] seems to reproach any nation in which this custom is observed” (Lectures on Deuteronomy, AE 9:219-220).

    This is a clear explanation. If this won’t convince you, then you will not be convinced.

  30. Albert Hughes
    February 9th, 2013 at 07:38 | #30

    Welcome to the logical conclusion of the Feminist Movement and the Abortion Movement where in the former movement women are proclaimed to not only to be equal with men but better than. And the latter movement where it is proclaimed the woman is superior to the baby,’fetus’, inside of her and any reason to extract said cells is justified.

    But consequences need to be experienced and lived with in order to gain knowledge and understanding.

    Many women in our Lcms will not be able to use the Order of Creation as a conscientious objection when they totally ignore it when it suits them. And don’t think the government will not use our hypocrisy against us when the time comes for church women to ‘man up’ and take their rightful place in combat, through the draft or any other means.

  31. Albert Hughes
    February 9th, 2013 at 07:49 | #31

    Having said the above let me say categorically and with conviction that any ‘man’ who would want to or provide any excuse to allow any woman to fight for him in any context is a ‘man pussie’ who lost the use of their manhood long ago or never had it in the first place.

    How any son of Adam could be so indifferent and cold and calculating in such a manner is beyond words to express or hold in contempt.

    Talk about the effeminization of the church male.

  32. Nicholas
    February 9th, 2013 at 22:17 | #32

    Here are some more good articles against women in combat:

    http://bible-researcher.com/women/women-in-combat.html

    Check out the quote from St. John Chrysostom at the very bottom. He points out the moral bankruptcy of those who would argue for women in combat (like @#4 Kitty #5 )

  33. Jeff Stillman
    February 10th, 2013 at 10:41 | #33

    To all men who have neglected their military obligation and now say “Shame! Shame!”:

    It matters not the race, gender, politcs, theology, etc. of the those who provide (y)our defense. The shame, if there be any, is yours and yours alone.

  34. Nicholas
    February 10th, 2013 at 12:02 | #34

    @Jeff Stillman #33

    Christians are under no obligation to serve in the military where it is not required, or to serve in a pagan army of a pagan state.

  35. Nicholas
    February 10th, 2013 at 12:27 | #35

    Moreover, Christians are not obligated to serve in the armies which invade other countries. A just war is a defensive war against invaders. Therefore, the crusades were not justified, whereas the battles to keeps the Arabs and Turks out of Europe were justified.

  36. February 10th, 2013 at 15:51 | #36

    For additional materials on women in combat and related matters:

    http://concordiatheology.org/2011/03/pagan-dualism-%E2%80%93-alive-and-well-in-20th-century-america/

    http://concordiatheology.org/2013/02/women-in-military-combat-a-post-decision-perspective/

    If you have a copy, please see also
    “I, monad, take thee, monad.” Logia 20, no. 3 (Holy Trinity, 2011): 41-44.

    Rev. Bahrs’s comments and citations re “cycle suppression” are news to me and well worth pondering. Modern chemical technology suppresses women’s natural bodily processes to enhance their combat readiness. As we know, there are other chemicals, most notably a hormone, that can make them even more combat ready. Certain baseball players and cyclists have demonstrated its effectiveness. Surely, that is outside the realm of possibility.

  37. Jeff Stillman
    February 10th, 2013 at 16:56 | #37

    “Our churches teach that lawful civil regulations are good works of God. They teach that IT IS RIGHT FOR CHRISTIANS to hold political office, to serve as judges, to judge matters by imperial laws and other existing laws, to impose just punishments, TO ENGAGE IN JUST WARS, TO SERVE AS SOLDIERS, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to take oaths when required by the magistrates, for a man to take a wife, or a woman to be given in marriage.”

    – The Augsburg Confession, Artticle XVI Civil Government.

    In the above list of good civil works, should the word “Christians” be interpreted as “male Christians”?

    Now concerning “just wars”:

    My LCMS pastor was of military age during the Vietnam conflict. He opted out. He has on occasion questioned the morality of that conflict during worship services and chooses to leave the question unanswered.

    I am not interested in his opinion in this manner, nor of that of any one else who opted out.

    However, in my neck of the woods (Twin Cities, MN) there is a large population of Hmong. You can read about them using the following link.

    http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=26210

    I would be interested in their opinions in this matter.

  38. Paul Nus
    February 13th, 2013 at 22:45 | #38

    The annual joint Voters’ Meeting of Trinity Lutheran Church in Millersburg, Iowa and Calvary Lutheran Church in Deep River, Iowa *unanimously* adopted this resolution at our meeting on Ash Wednesday, February 13, 2013 — as our own position, and as our recommendation to The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. — Pastor Paul Frederick Nus

  39. Nicholas
    April 3rd, 2013 at 18:43 | #39

    justiceday :If the church cared about women they would be most concerned with the fact that one in three that serve is raped or sexually assaulted by our own military. And there are women outside of the military our troops are assaulting.http://www.theusmarinesrape.com/MarshmallowHead.html

    That is another reason why women should not be in the military.

  40. Nicholas
    April 3rd, 2013 at 18:46 | #40

    @David C Busby #1

    The Church has taken a position, and it is the right one:

    “O ye subverters of all decency, who use men, as if they were women, and lead out women to war, as if they were men! This is the work of the devil, to subvert and confound all things, to overleap the boundaries that have been appointed from the beginning, and remove those which God has set to nature. For God assigned to woman the care of the house only, to man the conduct of public affairs. But you reduce the head to the feet, and raise the feet to the head. You suffer women to bear arms, and are not ashamed.” —John Chrysostom (AD 344-407), Homily on Titus.

    @David C. Busby #13

    If you respected the Scriptures and the order of creation, you would be opposed to women in the military.

  41. Dave Schumacher
    April 3rd, 2013 at 19:13 | #41

    Erich Heidenreich, DDS :
    Our sinful silence on this issue harkens back all the way to Adam’s silence in the garden as Eve went into combat with the serpent. We have strayed so far from a Titus 2 understanding of womanhood that it is difficult for most people to even comprehend why ANY role should be denied to modern women.

    Dr. Heidenreich,
    Good to hear from you. Hope all has been well with you and family.
    As for your statement above, I have an issue. Adam did not sin first by his silence.This idea is not biblical.

  42. Rev. Dean Kavouras
    July 17th, 2013 at 12:20 | #42

    This overture begs the question left and right. It assumes into evidence as valid notions things that are not necessarily so, nor agreed to be so by all the parties.

    Or, as it is nicely stated in a comment above: Among the questions to consider on this thread are whether the various evidences have applicable validity, and whether the proposed proclamations are warranted.

  43. sue wilson
    July 21st, 2013 at 09:40 | #43

    Perhaps women are only called by God to direct the combat. Remember Deborah?

  44. July 21st, 2013 at 11:30 | #44

    @sue wilson #43

    Perhaps you’re digging pretty deeply to find Scriptural support for what you already have determined to believe…

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.