Male and female infantry Marines to share tents in the field


You can’t make this up.

Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be done. Contrary to the article, the controlling issue here shouldn’t be whether the mission can be successfully accomplished regardless of the Marine’s “gender.” Women shouldn’t be in that position in the first place.


Here’s my notes from a message I gave on this subject a year ago at Orwell Bible Church:

A Biblical and Theological Response and Statement of Opposition to Women Serving in the Military
Pastor Dan Greenfield

  1. The Bible is God’s Word stating His will for all of human life, teaching everything needful for faith and practice. No man or institution has authority superseding that of God’s Word.
  1. Men and women owe their existence solely to God, not any evolutionary process. God created both man and woman in his image, man (Adam) from the dust and the woman (Eve) from man’s rib (Gen 1–2).
  1. Men were specially created and constituted by God to lead, provide, and self-sacrificially protect their wives, families, and societies (Gen 9:6; Rom 13:4; Eph 5:25; 1 Pet 3:7).
  1. Women were specially created and constituted by God to help and support their husbands and give, nurture, preserve, and care for life within marriage and their various spheres in society (Gen 2:18, 20, 22; 3:20; 1 Cor 11:9; 1 Tim 2:11–15; 5:14; Titus 2:3–5). Their natural vulnerability is not a fault but serves their God given roles and demands loving care, consideration, and protection (1 Thess 2:7; 1 Pet 3:7).
  1. By God’s creation men and women are fundamentally distinct from one another in ability, constitution, gifts, and purpose. Women should not minimize such in order to attain equal status with men; instead, they should gratefully recognize, joyfully celebrate, and faithfully live to their fullest ability (cf. 1 Tim 2:11–15).
  1. Adam’s failure to obey God’s command and to protect his wife caused sin’s destructive effects to spread throughout the created order, of which warfare is one such sad but necessary effect (Rom 5:12ff; 8:20–21).
  1. The objective of warfare is for governments to inflict destruction and death on an enemy in order to protect the welfare, security, and good order of the nation and its citizens (Rom 13:4). This is in keeping with the role and responsibilities God gave men (cf. #3) but not women (cf. #4).
  1. Throughout Scripture only men were the subjects of military service and involved in combat (Gen 14:14; Num 31:3–4, 21, 49; Deut 20:5–9; Josh 1:14–18; 6:3, 7, 9; 8:3; 10:7; Judg 7:1–8; 20:8–11; 1 Sam 8:11–12 [contrast v. 13]; 11:8; 13:2; 14:52; 16:18; 18:5; 24:2; 2 Sam 17:8; 23:8–39; 24:2, 9; 2 Kings 24:14–16; 1 Chr 21:5; 27:1–15, 23–24; 2 Chr 17:12–19; 25:5–6; 26:11–14; Neh 4:14).

While Deborah did go with Barak, God commanded Barak to lead the army into battle, promising him victory (Judg 4:6–7). Barak’s unwillingness to go without Deborah demonstrated weakness on his part. Furthermore, Deborah did not take part in the battle (Judg 4:10, 12, 14b)

Jael’s action in killing Sisera (Judg 4:21) was not as a soldier in combat but occurred in her domestic jurisdiction against one who was not on the field of battle.

  1. While women could use their God-given gifts in military service and some may be able to effectively participate and contribute in warfare, this does not provide biblical grounds for doing so (just because they can doesn’t mean they should, cf. #4).
  1. Women can care for and treat those ill or injured as a result of military service, but such service should not necessarily require women enlisting in the armed forces.
  1. Those enlisting in the United States military must affirm the oath of enlistment, obliging the enlistee to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, obeying the orders of the President and the enlistee’s officers, and depend on God’s help to do so. Women enlistees would therefore take the role of military defender which is out of line with God’s Word and her created constitution. While some have attempted to distinguish between combatant and non-combatant roles, the enlistment oath makes no such distinction.

 U.S. Code § 502

(a)Enlistment Oath.—

Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:

“I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

  1. Civil authorities that intentionally place women in harm’s way or rely on them for military service violate God’s Word, demean rather than honor women, and disgracefully surrender the God-given roles and responsibilities of men. Furthermore, conscription of women into military service would force many to take an oath against their consciences to do what they believe is wrong.
  1. Women who are forced to register for the draft and/or conscripted into military service have biblical grounds for “civil disobedience.” While Christians must submit to government authorities (Rom 13:1), when such authorities blatantly violate Scripture, Christians must respond with “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
  1. Chaplains are not required to advocate, support, or agree contrary to their consciences in these matters, nor can they be forbidden to give biblical counsel regarding these matters as represented by this statement.

Charles Hodge on the Perspicuity of the Scriptures

chodgeFollowing the Puritan William Ames’ excellent teaching concerning the doctrine of the Scriptures are some helpful words from Princeton theologian Charles Hodge that the central message of Scripture is clear and understandable (“perspicuous”)–

The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this subject.

It is not denied that the Scriptures contain many things hard to be understood; that they require diligent study; that all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to right knowledge and true faith. But it is maintained that in all things necessary to salvation they are sufficiently plain to be understood even by the unlearned.

It is not denied that the people, learned and unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, but they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church. If the Scriptures be a plain book, and the Spirit performs the functions of a teacher to all the children of God, it follows inevitably that they must agree in all essential matters in their interpretation of the Bible. And from that fact it follows that for an individual Christian to dissent from the faith of the universal Church (i.e., the body of true believers), is tantamount to dissenting from the Scriptures themselves.

What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (1871), 1:183-84.

William Ames on the Doctrine of the Scriptures

WilliamAmesPortraitDuring our Bible study tonight I will conclude our study of the doctrine of the Scriptures. Part of my preparation involved looking at key systematic theologies (primarily Bancroft, Berkhof, Enns, C. Hodge, McCune, Thiessen and sometimes Grudem and Strong).

While looking over the theology books on my shelf today, I noticed I neglected to look at The Marrow of Theology by the Puritan William Ames (1576–1633). He has some excellent points I’d like to share under the following headings—

Verbal Inspiration

Only those could set down the rule of faith and conduct in writing who in that matter were free from all error because of the direct and infallible direction they had from God. §2

In all those things made known by supernatural inspiration, whether matters of right or fact, God inspired not only the subjects to be written about but dictated and suggested the very words in which they should be set forth. But this was done with a subtle tempering so that every writer might use the manner of speaking which most suited his person and condition. §6

The Sufficiency of Scripture

All things necessary to salvation are contained in the Scriptures and also those things necessary for the instruction and edification of the church, 2 Tim 3:15–17. §15

The Authority of Scripture

Scripture is not a partial but a perfect rule of faith and morals. And no observance can be continually and everywhere necessary in the church of God, on the basis of any tradition or other authority, unless it is contained in the Scriptures. §16

Progressive Revelation

All Scripture was not committed to writing at one and the same time, for the state of the church and the wisdom of God demanded otherwise. But beginning with the first writing, those things were successively committed to writing which were necessary to the particular times. §17

The Univocality of Language

There is only one meaning for every place in Scripture. Otherwise the meaning of Scripture would not only be unclear and uncertain, but there would be no meaning at all—for anything which does not mean one thing surely means nothing. §22

The Perspicuity of Scripture

The will of God is revealed in such a way in Scripture that, although the substance itself is for the most part hard to conceive, the style of communicating and explaining it is clear and evident, especially in necessary matters. §20

The Scriptures need no explanation through light brought from outside, especially in the necessary things. They give light to themselves, which should be uncovered diligently by men and communicated to others according to their calling. §21

There is no visible power established in the church, royal or magistrative, for the settlement of controversies in theology. But the duty of inquiry is laid on men; the gift of discerning truth both publicly and privately is bestowed upon them; and an endeavor to further the knowledge and practice of the known truth according to their calling is enjoined—to all of which is joined a promise of direction and blessing from God. §23

Translations of Scripture and Providential Preservation

Among interpreters, neither the seventy who turned them into Greek, nor Jerome, nor any other such held the office of a prophet; they were not free from errors in interpretation. §28

Hence no versions are fully authentic except as they express the sources, by which they are also to be weighed. §29

Neither is there any authority on earth whereby any version may be made absolutely authentic. §30

God’s providence in preserving the sources is notable and glorious, for neither have they wholly perished nor have they been injured by the loss of any book or blemished by any serious defect—though today not one of the earlier versions remains intact. §31

From these human versions all those things may be known which are absolutely necessary, provided they agree with the sources in essentials. Hence, all the versions accepted by the churches usually agree, although they may differ and be defective at several minor points. §32

We must not rest forever in any accepted version, but faithfully see to it that a pure and faultless interpretation is given to the church. §33

The preceding selections are from pages 186–189 of John D. Eusden’s edition of The Marrow of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968). The symbol “§” refers to the particular section of the chapter.

Girls Given Contraceptive Implants at School

As if there already weren’t enough reasons to avoid public/government schools, this is very disturbing and problematic.

Thirteen year old girls? Really? Not to mention conducting surgical procedures at school, without any word to the parents. It’s all wrong, period.

Christian parents, the public/government schools are no place for your children!