When Mamma Wears Combat Boots
by Mrs. M.L. Chancey
The
terrified face of Army Spc. Shoshana
Johnson broadcast over Iraqi television and the news that at least two other
women soldiers had been captured in Gulf II immediately re-ignited the debate
over the role of women in the military. Pundits pulled out the familiar
statistics about the numbers of women enlisted, the studies done on integrated
boot camps, and the pros and cons of women in "at risk" positions
during a war. Editorials from writers on both sides of the issue quickly filled
the papers. Feminist writers insisted that Pfc. Jessica Lynch's
action in the face of capture "rebuts the notion that women cannot bear
the burdens of combat." i On the conservative
side, stalwarts like Phyllis Schlafly, Mona Charen, and Jane Chastain responded that sending women into
harm's way is "a humiliation for America and a step backward for
civilization." ii But in the midst of a debate over a
question with crucial cultural implications, the Church at large has remained
strangely silent. I believe this is because we have already sold our birthright
and no longer have the foundations upon which to build an argument against
placing women in combat.
Women have
served in support positions during wartime throughout history. They have
provided food, clothing, and nursing care for soldiers, have worked hard to
conserve resources on the home front, and have inspired men to defend what is
more precious and vital for our survival than anything else: the next
generation. It is only in the last half century that the numbers of women
serving directly in combat support units has increased. Yes, there are the
stories in history of the few women who have disguised themselves as men in
order to serve in actual combat. The feminists love to trot these out as proof
that a woman can fight like a man and take a bullet like a man, but instead of
serving as evidence that women should be placed on the front lines, they reveal
a fatal flaw in the thinking of those who believe that women and men should be
treated the same in all situations. When it comes down to it, the question is
not and never has been "Can some women fight like men and go into
battle?" Obviously, there are historical examples of women who have stood
the test of the battlefield. But exceptions do not make the rules. The question
we ought to be asking is not "Can women stand in the line of fire?"
but "Should we place women in harm's way?"
When the
conservative commentators bring out all the studies and statistics that show
women lack the upper body strength that is a given for 95% of the male
population and that women tend to panic under fire, they have already given
away the premise. All it takes to destroy their argument is to have some
scientist come forward and demonstrate that placing women on steroids and
training them just like men will toughen them for battle and give us buff lines
of female fighting machines. Again, the question isn't "Can we" but
"Should we?" And, ultimately, who is to say whether we should or not?
If the Christian's answer is based upon anything (statistics, studies, stories
from history) other than the infallible Word of God, that answer will not
withstand the relentless pressure of the opposition.
All of our
actions and decisions must be led and determined by Scripture, which is
"given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." (II Tim. 3:16).
Principles for living in every possible area of life are contained in God's
perfect Word. We cannot rely upon our own hearts, which are "deceitful
above all things and desperately wicked" (Jer.
17:9). Our hearts can lead us into great error. When we have questions about an
issue, we should look first to the Scriptures, seeking God's principles so that
we can apply them carefully to the situations and issues we face in our
society.
Sadly, most
Christians seem to feel that God is silent about "modern-day" issues
like women in combat. We feel that if God's Word doesn't spell something out
word-for-word (e.g. "Thou shalt not put women in
combat"), then He doesn't have anything to say about it. It is truly
tragic if we need such a direct proclamation to prove to us that women are to
be protected, cherished, and defended, and that men are to do the work of
guarding them. From cover to cover, the Bible is packed with stories, laws,
commands, and examples of men laying down their lives to protect the innocent
and the weak. Christ is, of course, our primary example, and He calls men to
follow Him by sacrificing in order to cherish, nourish, and protect the ones
under their charge. The Groom of Scripture does not hide behind the skirts of
His bride. In fact, men in Scripture who hide behind women are roundly
condemned for their cowardice (see the account of Deborah the prophetess in
Judges 4).
The Bible
is clear. God never asks women to carry the sword in time of war. In fact, He
specifically teaches against this practice in Deuteronomy 22:5. This is the
familiar passage where God declares that women mustn't dress like men and vice
versa. But what the Hebrew actually refers to is the wearing of armor for
battle; not just everyday clothing. Clarke's Commentary on Deuteronomy says,
"[T]he [Hebrew] word geber
is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war." iii Women are not called to put on battle
dress or to train for battle. God calls it an "abomination," the
strongest term that could be used. It is a sign of judgment upon a nation when
women go into battle situations (see Judges 4 and Isaiah
Whom does
God call to enter the army? Deuteronomy 24:5 says, "When a man has taken a
new wife, he shall not go out to war or be charged with any business; he shall
be free at home one year, and bring happiness to his wife whom he has taken."
Men go off to war; not women. Numbers 26:2 says, "Take a census of all the
congregation of the children of
But
perhaps the most compelling evidence that women do not belong in the military
is found in God's directions for warfare contained in Deuteronomy 20. God
clearly shows that women and children are not to be harmed:
And
when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine
hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the
edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all
that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt
thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil
of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given
thee. (Deut. 20:13-14 KJV)
In normal
cases of warfare, God commands that women and children be protected from abuse
(even, as in this case, the women and children of the enemy). If the women of
the enemy were to be protected from harm, we could not infer that Israelite
women were free to head to the front lines and take an arrow. It is clear from
Scripture that women are not to be treated as combatants.
It should
come as no surprise that the increased role of women in the military has
corresponded with the steady advance of feminism in American society. And the
radical feminist movement of the last half century has only built upon the
foundations prepared by those in the century prior who wanted to change the
role of women from that which God ordained to one which fit their own agenda.
But we cannot conveniently point fingers here and blame the feminists for the
problems we face today. We must first point to ourselves, for it is the Church
that has failed to hold up God's blueprints for women, the family, and society
and has handed over so much ground to the enemy of our souls.
We lost
the argument against women in the military when we turned a blind eye to the
numbers of women flooding the workforce during WWI, in the 1920s, and the
1940s. We rationalized that this was all for a good end -- that women serving
on factory lines to produce munitions, jeeps, airplanes, and other wartime
material would "help the boys over there" and "keep
What is it
we Americans are fighting for anyway? Just warfare isn't centered upon
misguided nationalism ("the American way all the way") or upon
defending our materialistic gains. If we are sending men and women off to fight
for McDonald's and apple pie, we have missed the point. A just war is fought to
defend something more personal -- the innocent, the weak, and most importantly,
the young who will inherit the nation we leave behind. A society that does not
protect its young (and the ones who bear the young) is a society that has forgotten why it exists. We are not placed here to live
lives of middle class complacency, content with our Big Macs and our
technological gadgets. We are here to pass along the wisdom of generations to
the ones who will grow up behind us and take over for us when we are gone. We
are here to disciple our children and to infuse them with a long-term vision
for their children's children.
Allan
Carlson writes, "The strong and normal human instinct is to protect infants,
toddlers, and their mothers. Indeed, their well-being and security form the
central purposes of every healthy nation. From the smallest tribe to the
greatest empire, the human rule has been that all others must sacrifice, and
even die, to protect the mothers of the young, for they are a people's
future." vYet as mothers march off to war, we Christians seem able
only to look the other way or to bluster and stammer incoherently. We have no
answer, because we have already given away the question.
When
Christians send their women to work and put their children in daycare, they
have announced to the world that mamma is replaceable. If just anyone can train
up a child, why bother having mamma at home? Indeed, if daycare centers can
feed and clothe our children and teach them what they need to know, who needs
families at all? We may as well all go off in our own separate directions and
make money so we can buy all the stuff that the "American dream" is
made of. And if mothers do not have a special, God-given role in the lives of
their children, then why should it matter if mamma wears combat boots or takes
a bullet?
Unfortunately,
we have slowly bought into the lie that mothers can be replaced by just about
anyone else. The feminists have worked hard to convince us that being a mother
is just another menial job -- one that anyone with half a brain can do well --
and that only a paying career can validate a woman in the eyes of the world.
Brian Robertson writes, "Because it is uncompensated, the work of the
mother and homemaker is too often taken for granted in the economic theory, and
a materialistic analysis that sees man in purely economic terms is bound to
undervalue domestic work." vi Because we do not treasure the work of
the mother and cherish the role of women in the family, the world sees no
reason to do so, either. Now, I am not downplaying the vital role of fathers in
the health of the family. Fathers and mothers are equally important in the life
of a child. However, God has given the unique role of childbearing and
nurturing to women, and He has given the work of providing for and defending
the family to men. This is not a popular position in our
"enlightened" times, but it is the truth. We cannot get away from the
fact that women were designed to bear children. Men will never be able to have
babies. God has given that precious privilege to women only. And because of
this unique role, women must be protected and defended at all costs if a
society is to survive.
If mothers
go into the front lines in the same proportion that fathers do, we will be in
serious trouble. Like it or not, the truth is that mamma isn't replaceable.
Daycare cannot do the job of the mother. We have the studies that show us the
detrimental effects of daycare upon children, but we really do not need them.
Deep down, we know that mothers are the best providers of care for their own
offspring (with only extremely rare exceptions). No hired caretaker can love a
child as much as his own mother does. No one else has that particular child's
best interests at heart -- no matter how well intentioned that person might be.
Mother love isn't a commodity that can be bought or traded on the open market.
And it is absolutely not dispensable.
Again,
Brian Robertson says, "When not directed toward providing security and
stability for family life, particularly the rearing of children in the home,
work outside the home loses much of its traditional meaning." vii Change the wording just a bit, and this
statement applies just as much to women serving in the military: "When not
directed toward providing security and stability for family life, particularly
the rearing of children in the home, going to war loses much of its traditional
meaning." Throughout history, the average man (no matter what
"cause" his leaders may have embraced) has fought to protect his
home, his wife, and his children. A woman's role in war was that of the
supporter on the home front -- the one who prayed, wrote letters, made
clothing, sent medicine, and nursed the wounded back to health. When we send
women into harm's way, we only complete the circle of violence to the family
that we started when we declared that mothers didn't need to stay at home or
nurture their own children.
The voices
from the other side will naturally respond, "You can't tell women what to
do. Some women want to go into the armed services and be in combat. Who are you
to dictate that all women stay at home and nurture children?" Here is
where we must not fall back upon man-made arguments, statistics, and studies.
We do not have the right to dictate what roles women will fill in this world,
but the God Who created us does. Why can't we put women at risk? The answer
comes directly from Scripture:
Husbands,
love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,
that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,
that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or
wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So
husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his
wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and
cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are
members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. "For this
reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and
the two shall become one flesh." This is a great mystery, but I speak
concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in
particular so love his own wife as himself... (Eph. 5:25-33a
NKJV)
In the
Christian faith, the Groom dies for the Bride. The strong lays down his life
for the weak. Women and children are of vast importance in God's economy,
because children nurtured and diligently trained are the future of the Church,
the community, and the world. For a culture to put mamma on the front lines and
say, "Take it like a man," that culture first has to have lost its focus
upon the importance of the ones who will inherit what we leave behind.
The
traditional blessing given during an Anglican marriage ceremony in the Church
of England comes from Genesis 24:60: "Our sister, may you become the
mother of thousands of ten thousands; and may your descendants possess the
gates of those who hate them" (NKJV). Our vision must be a long-term one
that thinks of children's children and plans for their care, their education,
and their safety. From beginning to end, God's Word is filled with beautiful
images of mothers caring for their children: nursing them (Ps. 22:9),
comforting them (Ps. 131:2), instructing them in wisdom (Pr. 6:20 & 31:1;
Song of Solomon 8:2; II Tim. 1:5), and praying for them (I Sam.
Theodore
Roosevelt said it best when he addressed the nation in 1905 on the importance
of motherhood:
No
piled-up wealth, no splendor of material growth, no brilliance of artistic
development, will permanently avail any people unless its home life is healthy,
unless the average man possesses honesty, courage, common sense, and decency,
unless he works hard and is willing at need to fight hard; and unless the
average woman is a good wife, a good mother, able and willing to perform the
first and greatest duty of womanhood, able and willing to bear, and to bring up
as they should be brought up, healthy children, sound in body, mind, and
character, and numerous enough so that the race shall increase and not
decrease. There are certain old truths which will be true as long as this world
endures, and which no amount of progress can alter. One of these is the truth
that the primary duty of the husband is to be the home-maker, the breadwinner
for his wife and children, and that the primary duty of the woman is to be the
helpmate, the housewife, and mother... No wrong-doing is so
abhorrent as wrong-doing by a man toward the wife and the children who should
arouse every tender feeling in his nature. Selfishness toward them, lack of
tenderness toward them, lack of consideration for them, above all, brutality in
any form toward them, should arouse the heartiest scorn and indignation in
every upright soul... Into the woman's keeping is committed the destiny of the
generations to come after us... The woman's task is not easy--no task worth
doing is easy--but in doing it, and when she has done it, there shall come to
her the highest and holiest joy known to mankind; and having done it, she shall
have the reward prophesied in Scripture; for her husband and her children, yes,
and all people who realize that her work lies at the foundation of all national
happiness and greatness, shall rise up and call her blessed. viii
If we want
to call a halt to women's participation in the military, we must first
acknowledge our own faults in denying God's Word. Instead of blaming the
feminists or faulting the legislators we've elected, we need to take a
searching look into our own hearts and ask if we have bought into the lie that
women are no different from men. We need to take a hard look at the way the
Church instructs its daughters. Are we preparing a generation of capable,
intelligent, and wise mothers and sisters, or are we lining our girls up to
march in lockstep with a culture that does not cherish women or their unique
role? The issue is not women in the military -- the issue is our lack of
faithfulness to God's decrees for men, women, and children. Until we return to
the "old paths" of Scripture in the way we honor our husbands, bring
up our children, and protect our families, we do not have a leg to stand upon
when it comes to rebutting the feminists on this issue. We've already sold our
birthright for a mess of pottage. And the deepest grief of all is that, unlike
Esau, we do not have the sense to weep over what we have lost.
i "Women Fit for Front Lines? Ask Jessica Lynch" by Mary Schulken
ii "The Unwitting Victims of Feminist Ideology" by Phyllis
Schlafly
iii http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkedeu22.htm
iv For just a few examples of this, see the historical data on
federal funding for daycare centers at A brief History of Federal Financing for Child Care In the
United States. There is also an example of a day care started with WPA
funds at lib.virginia.edu
v Carlson, Allan. "Mothers
at War: The American Way?"
vi Robertson, Brian. Forced
Labor: What's Wrong with Balancing Work and Family.
vii Ibid, p. 87.
viii Roosevelt, Theodore. "On
American Motherhood," a speech given in
©2003
The Patriarch's Path. All rights reserved.