The Silence of Adam: Sending Women into Combat

adam_and_eveMen have a long history of silently, passively, allowing women to fight and be attacked in their stead. It began with Adam in the Garden. Adam, the head of Eve, was her husband, pastor, and lord. Yet he stood by while she faced the assaults of the devil. By his silence, he allowed her into a battle that was his to fight.

This is what the Missouri Synod has mostly done to date concerning women in combat and conscription.

In 1992 a U.S. 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.

However, overtures condemning women in combat have been sent to the last several synodical conventions in the hope of speaking clearly to this issue, and giving protection to the women of the Missouri Synod against conscription.

[Note: The issues of women in combat and conscription go hand in hand. The rationale given by the Supreme Court for allowing women to continue to be excluded from registering for the selective service was the Department of Defense’s ban on women in combat. Once this cord is (has been!) cut, this weight will drop.]

These overtures were consistently ignored. Only in 2013, with the imminent reality of the opening of combat positions to women (and the logical result: the inclusion of women in the selective service program) was the matter finally brought to the floor of the convention. Unfortunately, the original overture, submitted by several circuits and congregations (mine included), was not brought before the convention by the floor committee. A weaker, but still helpful, resolution was brought to the floor.

The most pertinent section reads as follows:

Resolved, That the LCMS support those who have a religious and moral objection to women serving in ground combat positions and/or participating in the selective service system and being subject to a possible draft;

This is how the overture was to be presented to the convention–and was printed thusly in Today’s Business. However, before the resolution’s presentation, the committee chose to eliminate the section addressing conscription:

Resolved, That the LCMS support those who have a religious and moral objection to women serving in ground combat positions and/or participating in the selective service system and being subject to a possible draft;

The rationale, as was reported by the Reporter Online, was given by the chairman, appointed by the synodical president, of the Mercy committee, Rev. David Benke:

“Since no military draft now exists, Mercy committee members saw no need to address that issue at this time.”

How horrible that the Missouri Synod could possibly be ever so slightly ahead of the curve! Only those ignorant of the dynamics and legal history of the interrelationship between women in combat and conscription would consider this approach wise. And, yes, the committee was repeatedly made aware of this connection from within and without.

How Long Will Adam Dither?

At the 2013 convention, and amazingly to this day, I have heard similarly absurd things from people who do not understand how these issues hang together or cannot conceive of these tragedies actually coming to pass.

“That won’t happen.”

“This may make things hard for our military chaplains.”

“Don’t jump the gun.”

“We shouldn’t address the draft until it actually happens.”

“We ought to not be alarmists.”

This is as negligent as saying that there is no need to prepare for a fire because it is still two blocks away.

The 2013 resolution on women in combat directed the CTCR to “study this issue and produce a statement that can be considered and acted upon by the Synod in its next convention.” While it is neither necessary nor wise to spend the time, money, and effort on an issue so clear and so pressing, I hope and pray these men act like faithful watchmen and sound a clear note from their trumpet, though the enemy is already at the gate. The Synod needs to speak forcefully and decisively on this matter. However, looking at our track record, I fear the silence of Adam. I fear that the Synod will hide behind the excuse that there is no verse in the Bible that says, “Thou shalt not send women into combat,” and thus conclude that the Bible does not forbid it.

This is a juvenile tactic, worthy of cultists who deny the Trinity and fornicators that presume living together is fine because the Scriptures don’t have the terms and sentence constructions they arbitrarily demand, and probably wouldn’t satisfy them even if they existed. These excuses are merely begging the question, for the Scriptures are plenty clear on the relationship between men and women.

The fig leaf of “no verse” needs to be stripped away from this issue.

When there’s a bump in the night, if there is a man in the house, he goes to check it out. If he sends a woman, we rightfully despise him as a coward. This is not up for debate for Christians who believe in the Scriptures. Genesis 1-2 shows God’s beautiful design for the relationship between men and women. Men are to protect and provide for women as their heads. 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). Choosing to send your wife in your place to face such a danger is not a preference, it is a sin.

What can be seen so clearly in the microcosm of the family is just as true for that grouping of families known as a people or nation. What is true for the family is doubly true for society as society is nothing more than groups of families and clans. And thus it is a sin to purposefully send women into battle or conscript them into a nation’s armed forces. This is a necessary conclusion from what we as the Lutheran Church confess concerning the orders of creation. It is a necessary and obvious exegetical deduction from the Scriptures which declare man to be the head of woman and the provider and protector of his family. (Gen. 1-2, Deut. 22:5, and Eph. 5:25)

[Note: For a more detailed argument see Pr. Heath R. Curtis’ paper from the Women in Times of War Conference, which was convened in 2008 by the Center for Lutheran Theology and Public Life at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.]

The unbiblical radical individualism (and coordinate radical egalitarianism) that has plagued Western Christendom since the Enlightenment refuses to acknowledge that the family, not the atomized and self-defining, sovereign individual, is the fundamental building block of society.

Western liberalism has run its course. The fruit is rotting on the tree for all to smell. Our armed forces will now certainly match our society—women dying for men, defending a country where men try to turn into women.

We live in a country that thinks UFC is entertainment and throws a parade for a woman who bashes and kicks other women whom God would have be treated with special consideration as vessels of life.

It is no revelation that we live in a barbarous, decadent time, yet it is the capitulation of the church to wear the whore-rags of liberation and decadent novelty that grieves me.

The idea of a woman warrior is an idea of the world, which is to say, from the devil. And what I keep hearing is that Lutherans are to engage the world, not be engaged to it.

Deafening Silence or Good Confession

Where is the “mercy” for our women? Where is the “witness” on an issue that has been building for decades? Where in our “life together” has the Synod, especially her leaders, been on this? I can’t help but see the parallels to a paper by Prof. Peter Scaer given at the Fort Wayne Symposia a couple of years ago on how tardy the Synod was to speak (on the official level at least) against abortion. But late is better than never.

Missouri, if you can’t say that it is wicked and against the Word of God for a nation of millions of families with millions of men to send their mothers and sisters and wives and daughters to face the horrors of war for their sake, then you give up everything behind it as well. We might as well stop talking about the orders of creation, headship, and the distinction of male and female. Or perhaps the real explanation to the silence of Missouri on this issue, which our forefathers wouldn’t have thought twice about, is that things such as the orders of creation were already functionally ceded long ago.

The Missouri Synod does not have a problem with liberal men. She has a problem with conservative men who are silent on issues upon which they ought to speak the Word of God.

I don’t buy it that in their bones men believe combat and conscription are meet, right, and salutary for the women in their lives whom they love. The actual problem is that modern men are afraid to tell women “No.” It is unquestionable that it is wicked and evil to purposely send women to fight and die in the place of men. Necessity, self-defense, extreme situations, yes, yes, yes, exist. But this is all besides the point that the Scriptures are clear that men are to protect women. This is a duty laid upon men, as they already confessed at their wedding:

Name of bridegroom, will you have this this woman to be your wedded wife to live together in the holy estate of matrimony as God ordained it? Will you nourish and cherish her as Christ loved His body, the Church, giving Himself up for her? Will you love honor and keep her in sickness and in health and, forsaking all others, remaining united to her alone, so long as you both shall live? Then say: I will.

(from the LSB Rite of Holy Matrimony; emphasis mine)

Men who refuse to confess this truth but rather silently stand by as their daughters, wives, granddaughters, and mothers are allowed into combat and forced into conscription are unfaithful cowards.

Does anyone actually believe that our Lord is going to say, “Well done, good and faithful servant. It is in accordance with my will that women are sent by a nation’s government to suffer and die for you.”

No, I think we all know that the question will be far more along the lines of, “Where were you when the bearers of life were made bearers of the sword?—Where were you when your helpmeets and daughters were sent into combat to kill and to die?”

May we in the Missouri Synod, and especially at this time—the men of the CTCR, give a good confession before God and man and not stand in the deafening silence of Adam.



The Silence of Adam: Sending Women into Combat — 22 Comments

  1. Most do not think about this : ” she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. “. ” As Adam ate what God had forbidden, he was deliberately rebelling against God. The fact that he was “with” Eve at the time meant that he had failed to carry out his God-given responsibility to guard and “keep” both the garden and his wife “

  2. PR. Ramirez-
    Thank you for the clarity of your writing. Christian fathers of daughters should take heed.

  3. Pastor, I find myself in the very peculiar situation where I completely agree with what you wrote, and yet… the piece remains emblematic of the very problem you address. You hit the nail on the head with, “The actual problem is that modern men are afraid to tell women ‘No.'” But you never actually tell women “no.” If this makes men cowardly, then this is no less an example of cowardice than what you condemn.

    I’ve seen no shortage of pieces like these condemning men for women in combat, but nary a word towards the massive proportion of western women in deep rebellion against the very order of creation you cite–women who insist on running into combat over and against God’s word and reject the authority given to certain men in their lives to deny them anything at all. I believe men are the ones who are predominately addressed because we are the easy and safe target–because so many conservatives are willing to posture at bravery without actually being brave.

    And so I agree with what you say to men, but it’s a hypocritical dead letter unless we address women as well. What then shall we say to women?

    Stop usurping the place of men as warriors.
    Stop usurping the place of your husband as head of the family.
    Stop usurping the place of pastors in the church.

    In your lack of charity, you have violated the 8th Commandment and presumed that these restrictions are merely for our self-aggrandizement. In your arrogance you have presumed that there is no need for our protection. In your envy, you have sought our place. But it is our sacrifice that puts us in harm’s way for your sake, and God’s command that we lead for your sake. God has made this provision so that you may flourish as women rather than be forced into a man-shaped mold. It is time to repent of your rebellion and recognize this as gift rather than burden.

    Rest secure; we have it covered.

  4. Thank you, Pastor. I fear the Synodical fiddling and delays could cost our daughters the right to secure conscientious objection if the need arises in future.

  5. Passing the 19th Amendment was the camel’s nose under the tent for eventually sending women into combat. The right to vote didn’t come without strings attached.

  6. I have long thought that if both husband and wife are in the military and have child/children that one of them(preferably the wife) should not be sent into combat. I remember seeing on TV during the Iraq War where both parents were deployed and children left with grandparents. That is very unfeeing and anti-family; the feelings and welfare of the children did not seem to be a priority!

  7. Thank you Pastor Ramirez! Great article!

    This also applies to women being police officers, security guards, etc., etc.

    The LCMS can’t even get women’s suffrage in the church right, so I don’t expect we will hear much about women in combat.

    By the way, your profile needs updating. Aren’t you in Wisconsin now? 🙂

    God’s Blessing in Christ Jesus,
    Ginny Valleau

  8. Pastor Ramirez,

    Your article is most helpful and thought-provoking. Thanks for writing it.

    What we are seeing with the LCMS’s reluctance to forcefully speak to the issue of women in combat is yet the next logical step the Synod took when it changed the doctrine of the Church in 1969 by permitting women to vote in congregational assemblies. This took place despite the fact that for nearly 100 years the LCMS insisted that to change their male only polity was to violate Holy Scripture. Unfortunately, in the full force of the Second Wave of the Feminist Movement in the 60’s and 70’s the Synod gave in to cultural pressure to open to women things that did not properly belong to them and simultaneously resulted in men abdicating their God-given roll as the spiritual head of the home and in the congregation. Since then the erosion of our formerly biblical position has continued. Now women may serve as Elders, congregational presidents and vice presidents, read the lessons in public worship and assist the pastor in the distribution of the elements a Holy Communion. Why should we be the least bit surprised that this erosion continues with a less-than-strong position of the LCMS regarding the inclusion of women in combat?

  9. “Where were you when the bearers of life were made bearers of the sword?” . . .

    There it is, and despite the wimyn’s movement into feminism and their sacred sacrament of abortion, it is as it was in the Garden.

    Well put. Kudos to Norm for also clearly raising the issue and the like.


  10. Excerpted from the ACELC’s DVD Study Guide: ( – ACELC Film Project – Role of Women)


    1864 Dr. C.F.W. Walther (first president of the LCMS) writes: “All adult male members of the congregation are entitled to active participation in the transactions of such meetings by way of speaking, delib-
    erating, voting, and resolving. But women and the young are excluded from such participa-

    1929 The first Lutheran Church to ordain women was the Evangelisch-Lutherse Kerk, Netherlands.

    1938 St. Louis Synodical Convention. A committee at the synodical convention offered a reso-
    lution that this whole matter [women’s suffrage] be restudied. Fifteen years elapsed before the question came up again as an item of Synodical business.

    1953 Houston Synodical Convention. The following resolution was passed:

    “Resolved, That the President of Synod appoint a committee of five members to prepare for the next
    convention a thorough exegetical study of I Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2, and all other applicable texts as they are related to the question of women’s suffrage in our congregations; and be it further
    Resolved, That, in the meantime, our congregations be urged to continue the present practice of our Synod restricting the privileges of voting membership to qualified male communicants.”

    1956 St. Paul Synodical Convention. The synodical Committee on Women’s Suffrage (LCMS) concluded its report to the Synod: “We believe that Scripture fully sanctions the basic polity set up in our church, and we foresee only evil results in any change of the polity.” [That is, male only suffrage.]

    1958 The Swedish Church permitted the ordination of women and the first ordination took place in 1960.

    1959 San Francisco Synodical Convention. Floor Committee Three submitted a report, which concluded: “Any congregation in the membership of Synod now or applying for membership which grants women suffrage is urged to reconsider this practice in the light of Scripture…and to consider the danger of offense to others and to conform to the historic position of Synod in this matter.”

    1965 Detroit Synodical Convention. The following resolution was passed:

    “Resolved, That we adopt the following statement for guidance in this matter:
    1. On the basis of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15 we hold that God forbids women publicly to
    preach and teach the Word to men and to hold any office or vote in the church where this involves exercising authority over men with respect to the public administration of the Office of the Keys. We regard this principle as of binding force also for us today because 1 Tim. 2:11-15 refers to what God established at creation.
    2. As stated at the St. Paul convention in 1956 and at the San Francisco convention in 1959, we consider women’s suffrage in the church as contrary to Scripture only when it violates the above- mentioned Scriptural principals.”

    1967 New York Synodical Convention. The convention passed a resolution that allowed women to serve on Synodical boards, commissions, and committees for the first time.

    “Resolved, that the Synod declare women eligible to serve as advisory on synodical boards, commis- sions, and committees within the framework of Scriptural principals; and be it further
    Resolved, That women be granted such membership…by appointment only.”
    1969 Denver Synodical Convention. Women’s suffrage was officially sanctioned (Res. 2-17), and altar and pulpit fellowship with the American Lutheran Church (ALC) was established. Most (but not all) LCMS congregations now have women’s suffrage.

    1970 First Ordination of a Woman in America. In America, the first ordination of a woman into the Pastoral Office occurred in the Lutheran Church in America (LCA), and in the American Lutheran Church (ALC).

    1973 New Orleans Synodical Convention. The LCMS declares fellowship with the American Lutheran Church (ALC) to be in suspension. Also, Res. 2-49 of the same convention said:

    “Resolved, That the Synod establish a task force (with at least equal representation of women) to study the role of women in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and that this task force be appointed by the President of the Synod in consultation with the CTCR and the leadership of the Lutheran Women’s Missionary League.”

    1975 Anaheim Synodical Convention. Synodical Resolution 3-07, “To Utilize Women’s Gifts” said:

    “That the convention encourage all congregation, Districts, and synod-wide departments and agencies to examine their existing structures and procedures and to develop plans to make any necessary changes in:
    a. personnel practices (hiring, promotion, salarying, etc.), to conform with the Synod’s personnel
    b. systems of nominating, electing, and appointing men and women to decision-making bodies, and
    methods of recruiting and selecting persons for full-time staff positions;
    c. images and role models of men and women portrayed in church curricula, publications, and
    actual styles of operation;
    d. language used in worship materials;”

    1979 Saint Louis Synodical Convention. Resolution 3-03 said: “That the LCMS remain in a state of ‘fellowship in protest’ with the ALC.”

    1981 Saint Louis Synodical Convention. Resolution 3-01 said: “That The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod with deep sorrow herewith declare that it is not in altar and pulpit fellowship with The American Lutheran Church.

    1983 Saint Louis Synodical Convention. Resolution 3-10 said: “That the CTCR be requested to give priority to the completion of its study [Women’s Role in the Church].”

    1992 Pittsburg Synodical Convention. Resolution 3-04 said:

    “That the full, appropriate service of women at synodical, District, and congregational levels be encouraged; and…
    That the Synod encourage continuing study and discussion of what the Scriptures teach concerning the role of women in the church…” Additionally, Resolution 3-05 urged that the CTCR study on the matter be completed before the 1995 Synodical convention.

    1995 Saint Louis Synodical Convention. Resolution 3-05 said:

    “Whereas, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod declared in 1969, and has subsequently reaffirmed, the position that ‘Scripture does not prohibit women from exercising the franchise in congregation- al…assemblies,’ thereby placing the matter of women suffrage into the realm of Christian liberty; and
    Whereas, Some members of the Synod continued to believe that women’s suffrage is not in the realm of Christian freedom, but is contrary to the Scriptures and that the Synod was in error when in 1969 it changed its position regarding the permissibility of women exercising the franchise in voter’s assemblies; and
    Whereas, Other member of the Synod agree with the position of the Synod that woman’s suf- frage does indeed lie in the area of Christian liberty, but for various reasons, including the sensitivity of consciences of individuals, believe woman’s suffrage is not advisable in their midst, therefore be it
    Resolved, That the Synod reaffirm the 1969 Res. 2-17; and be it further Resolved, That members of the Synod who are convinced that women’s suffrage does not lie in the area of Christian freedom but is contrary to the Word of God, be urged to make use of the established procedures for expressing dissent (Bylaw 2.39 c); and be it further
    Resolved That honest Christian conscience can and does exist on both sides of this issue, but such difference of opinion is not divisive of Christian fellowship; and be it further
    Resolved, That the members of Synod, with due sensitivity to those for whom change in this area is a matter of conscience, continue to exercise Christian love and patience in all discussions and deliberation on this subject; and be it finally
    Resolved, That we beseech the members of the Synod, by the mercies of God to honor and uphold its resolutions ‘until such time as the Synod amends or repeals them’ (Bylaw 1.09b).”

    1998 Saint Louis Synodical Convention. Resolution 3-26 said:

    “Resolved, That the 1998 convention of the Synod reaffirm its previous resolution on this issue [Women’s Ordination] and declare clearly and unequivocally once again that the Scripture teach that only men may hold the pastoral office.”

    2004 Saint Louis Synodical Convention. The following resolution, 3-08A, was passed by a vote of 576 to 520:

    “Whereas, the Synod at its 1989 convention requested ‘that the CTCR, in consultation with the Council of Presidents, prepare a study on the eligibility of women for services in all offices of the congregation, including that of chairman, vice-chairman, and elder and District and synodical boards and commis- sions where their official function would in effect involve public accountability for the functioning of the pastoral office…’
    Resolved, That the Synod affirm that women on the basis of clear teaching of Scripture may not serve in the office of pastor nor exercise any of its distinctive functions, and that women may serve in humanly established offices in the church as long as the functions of these offices do not make them eligible to carry out ‘official functions [that] would involve public accountability for the functions of the pastoral office.'”

    2007 Convention Workbook and Houston Missouri Synod Convention. No fewer than seven districts, eight congregations, two circuit forums, and one pastor’s conference submitted overtures to the 2007 Synodical convention of the LCMS seeking to rescind 2004 Resolution 3-08A. However, Presi- dent Kieschnick would not permit their consideration by the convention. Instead, 2007 Res. 3-07 simply referred them all to a 1985 and a 1994 CTCR document for further study on the matter.


    1. Considering that for 122 years the LCMS believed, taught and confessed that it was a doctrine of Holy Scrip- ture that women should not exercise authority over men (clearly inclusive of women’s suffrage in the congregation), what changed in 1969 for Synod to be able to say that Scripture no longer says so?
    2. In 1965, a new way of describing women’s service was used to “…declare women eligible to serve as advisory on synodical boards, commissions, and committees within the framework of Scriptural principals…” Again in 2004, this new language is employed, “…where their official function would in effect involve public account- ability for the functioning of the pastoral office…” Is this change in language a limiting or an expansive influ- ence to open up previously prohibited female participation in these offices? Why?
    3. Do you think that other Lutheran church bodies approving women’s ordination had an influence on the LCMS’s change of mind respecting women’s suffrage and the expansion of congregational offices to include congregational president, vice president and elder?
    4. Could it be a simple coincidence that these major changes to LCMS polity happened in the midst of the feminist movement of the 60’s and 70’s?
    5. Who is called by God to publicly proclaim God’s Word and Administer the Sacraments?
    6. Is not the public reading of the Word of God, the public proclamation of God’s Word?
    7. Is not the public distribution of the Lord’s Supper part of the pastor’s call to administer the Sacraments?
    8. Are congregational Elders to assist the pastor in matters of Christian discipline and isn’t Christian discipline the exercise of authority?
    9. Virtually every congregational Constitution indicates that the President/Chairman of a congregation is an ex- officio member of every board and committee of the congregation. Does this include the Board of Elders? Since the Board of Elders deals with the spiritual lives of the members and with matters of Christian discip- line, would a woman congregational chairman or vice chairman be part of that exercise in authority over a man?

  11. Dick –

    Perhaps, to a degree, what you wrote is tangential to Pastor Ramirez’s article, but not at all what he was talking about. Missouri’s polity, and/or failure to hold to it, is not the issue he addressed nor is it the reason why.

    He was addressing Ashton Carter and this, specifically.

    Pax – jb

  12. JB,

    The point of my posts was to indicate that the current lack of LCMS strong attention to this matter is directly an outcome of the process that I’ve outlined above. This is where false teaching goes. It just gets worse and worse. It was not my intention to derail the original posting but just to place the problem in its historical context.

  13. @jb #12

    Missouri’s polity, and/or failure to hold to it, is not the issue he addressed nor is it the reason why.
    He was addressing Ashton Carter and this, specifically.

    Is it unreasonable to assume that the placement of women in offices which they should not be holding in the Synod makes it hypocritical (to put it mildly) to pronounce on what women may be doing in secular vocations? Won’t happen!

    We can’t even divest ourselves of an RSO which is engaged in bringing potential enemies to this country. [If it can’t help Christians, it should go out of business.]
    As things are, women may have to fight in their own backyards.


  14. Helen –

    I am not going to belabor my point, nor take the thread in a direction other than that of the context of the post itself.


  15. I wonder if you are a transvestite if they would allow you to serve in combat. Heck, you can work at the White House.

  16. Pr. Ramirez:
    I fail to understand why any woman would want to be in combat. Actually, the issue is not about being in combat, these women want to be in the Infantry, in the line of fire. They want to be to use the Marine Corps MOS designation, they want to be 0311s, GRUNTS, riflemen. From the experience I have had, I don’t want them anywhere near the field of battle. There are few words that describe combat, you can call it Satanic, gruesome, horrific, bestial, gory, brutal, an atrocity. Or any combination of these and many others. I am not acquainted with any woman whom I believe would be able to fix a bayonet to the front of a rifle and use it for the purpose for which it was designed and do so repeatedly if that became necessary. I know of no woman who would be able to retrieve me (I weigh 205 lbs. I am not fat, muscular, yes) using the fireman’s carry taking my rifle with me. And yes, even as an officer, I am expected to be a rifleman. All Marines are riflemen, first and foremost. Currently, Women Marine recruits fire the service weapon of their MOS for weapons qualification.
    It is morally and theologically wrong for women to serve in combat. That has been established already even if the current President and his Secretary of Defense think otherwise. I do believe that once the body bags begin to return to CONUS with women infantrymen who have been killed or worse, executed by beheading, the general public will cause a rethinking of this most egregious act.
    I speak from experience.
    Semper Fidelis,
    Simul justis et peccator,
    1st. Lt. John L. Hodson, USMC, Combat Engineer, RVN 1971

  17. @Rev. Richard A. Bolland #-37

    JB, I appreciate the concern to focus on the specific issue at hand, however, I believe that Rev. Bolland’s timeline and point is very appropriate to the discussion as it shows the decline of Missouri’s former confession on the orders of creation. While discussing in depth those specific issues would be out of place here, I think he has helpfully fleshed out (showing how error leads to more and worse error) what I was getting at with this paragraph:

    “Missouri, if you can’t say that it is wicked and against the Word of God for a nation of millions of families with millions of men to send their mothers and sisters and wives and daughters to face the horrors of war for their sake, then you give up everything behind it as well. We might as well stop talking about the orders of creation, headship, and the distinction of male and female. Or perhaps the real explanation to the silence of Missouri on this issue, which our forefathers wouldn’t have thought twice about, is that things such as the orders of creation were already functionally ceded long ago.”

    I do fear that a church body’s men that have systematically handed over their headship for so long, have an upward battle, even to speak against such an obvious evil as women in combat and the conscription of women. May the Lord be with us!

  18. @1st. Lt. John L. Hodson, USMC #18

    1st. Lt. John L. Hodson,

    Thank you for your further testimony of how dangerous and wicked this development is. Not only is it absurd, but even IF a woman COULD actually do what is necessary, she SHOULD not do it. Nor should a nation let her.

    I wonder though: Will the horror of women being sent back in body bags change the heart of a nation that seems pretty compliant and resigned on sending them?

    I tend to fear otherwise though I hope you are correct.

  19. @Pastor David Ramirez #20: Will the horror of women being sent back in body bags change the heart of a nation that seems pretty compliant and resigned on sending them?

    Will the horror of babies butchered for parts and disposed of in garbage bags change the heart of a nation that seems pretty compliant and resigned on murdering them?

    It seems that after a flurry of hand-wringing editorials following the showing of the videos, things are pretty much back to the usual pro forma level of politically correct protests.

  20. @Carl Vehse #-29

    ” Will the horror of babies butchered for parts and disposed of in garbage bags change the heart of a nation that seems pretty compliant and resigned on murdering them?
    It seems that after a flurry of hand-wringing editorials following the showing of the videos, things are pretty much back to the usual pro forma level of politically correct protests. ”

    And so with the slow painful slide of the LCMS away from the Holy Scriptures…….

    Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
    vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

    What does man gain by all the toil
    at which he toils under the sun?

    A generation goes, and a generation comes,
    but the earth remains forever.

    The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
    and hastens to the place where it rises.

    The wind blows to the south
    and goes around to the north;
    around and around goes the wind,
    and on its circuits the wind returns.

    All streams run to the sea,
    but the sea is not full;
    to the place where the streams flow,
    there they flow again.

    All things are full of weariness;
    a man cannot utter it;
    the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
    nor the ear filled with hearing.

    What has been is what will be,
    and what has been done is what will be done,
    and there is nothing new under the sun.

    Is there a thing of which it is said,
    “See, this is new”?
    It has been already
    in the ages before us.

    There is no remembrance of former things,
    nor will there be any remembrance
    of later things yet to be
    among those who come after.

    And so time marches on.

    As for those Ignorant persons who call for “The Day Of The LORD”

    Always remember:

    Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord!

    Why would you have the day of the Lord?

    It is darkness, and not light,
    as if a man fled from a lion,
    and a bear met him,
    or went into the house and leaned his hand against the wall,
    and a serpent bit him.

    Is not the day of the Lord darkness, and not light,
    and gloom with no brightness in it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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