Water is Wet and Women Don’t Belong in Combat

There are some things that are just common sense and this is one of them.

Heather Mac Donald, in her article for the Wall Street Journal entitled “Women Don’t Belong in Combat” wrote a blistering condemnation of this “Obama-era policy”:

“The Obama-era policy of integrating women into ground combat units is a misguided social experiment that threatens military readiness and wastes resources in the service of a political agenda. The next defense secretary should end it.

In September 2015 the Marine Corps released a study comparing the performance of gender-integrated and male-only infantry units in simulated combat. The all-male teams greatly outperformed the integrated teams, whether on shooting, surmounting obstacles or evacuating casualties. Female Marines were injured at more than six times the rate of men during preliminary training—unsurprising, since men’s higher testosterone levels produce stronger bones and muscles. Even the fittest women (which the study participants were) must work at maximal physical capacity when carrying a 100-pound pack or repeatedly loading heavy shells into a cannon

Lowering these physical requirements risks reducing the American military’s lethality. A more serious effect of sex integration has become taboo to mention: the inevitable introduction of eros into combat units. Putting young, hormonally charged men and women into stressful close quarters for extended periods guarantees sexual liaisons, rivalries and breakups, all of which undermine the bonding essential to a unified fighting force.

The argument for putting women into combat roles has always been nonmilitary: Combat experience qualifies soldiers for high-ranking Pentagon jobs. But war isn’t about promoting equality. Its objective is to break the enemy’s will through precise lethal engagement, with the lowest possible loss of American life. The claim that female combat soldiers will perform as lethally as men over an extended deployment entails a denial of biological reality as great as the one underlying the transgender crusade.”

Heather Mac Donald’s is absolutely right that putting women into combat units and pretending that it good for increasing the lethality of  America’s military “entails a denial of biological reality”.

But let’s just remember that modern progressivism is actually a denial of the reality of human nature in general.  Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that if you take the average 10 men and put them up against the average 10 women in any athletic event the men will win every time.  That is why we have Olympic teams, and professional sports teams segregated by gender.  Now will you get outliers where a woman is as big and muscular as a man? Sure. But exceptions do not negate norms.

And you cannot build something as important as the military around exceptions.  You must build it based on norms.

Heather MacDonald also brings up what she calls the “taboo” subject of sexual affairs happening between male and female military members.  Again, this should be a common sense issue.  When you put a man and woman together, especially in emotionally intense situations bonds will form and those bonds often lead to sexual intimacy.  This is by the design of God and yet progressives want to pretend we can just reprogram human nature and say it isn’t so.

Rob Moll, wrote the following in his article for Focus on the Family entitled “The New Workplace Romance”:

“Today’s workplace has become the No. 1 spot for married individuals to meet affair partners. More men and women are breaking their marriage vows by engaging in office friendships that slowly become romantic relationships — relationships that would have been socially impossible just 30 years ago. As the boundaries that once separated the sexes crumble, so do the boundaries that protect marriage.

In her book Not ‘Just Friends’, Dr. Shirley Glass says, “The new infidelity is between people who unwittingly form deep, passionate connections before realizing that they’ve crossed the line from platonic friendship into romantic love. Eighty-two percent of the 210 unfaithful partners I’ve treated have had an affair with someone who was, at first, ‘just a friend.'” From 1991 to 2000, Glass discovered in her practice that 50 percent of the unfaithful women and about 62 percent of unfaithful men she treated were involved with someone from work. “Today’s workplace has become the new danger zone of romantic attraction and opportunity,” Glass writes.

Today’s careers offer more opportunity for extramarital affairs. Group interaction in coed workplaces, frequent travel and long hours create more opportunity and temptation than ever. Glass writes, “all of these changes and others allow individuals to mix freely where once they were segregated and restricted.” Studies published in the American Sociological Review and the Journal of Marriage and Family show that before 1985, divorce rates were about equal among working and homemaking women; however, “between 1985 and 1992, the annual probability of divorce among employed wives exceeded that for nonemployed wives by 40 percent.””

As any of my regular readers know, I am not a huge fan of Focus on the Family because of how much they pretend to be for the traditional family, yet they utterly gut Biblical gender roles with many things they teach.  But in this instance the author of this article is absolutely right that As the boundaries that once separated the sexes crumble, so do the boundaries that protect marriage.”

One of the many reasons I have argued against careerism for women is that mixing men and women together in a workplace for 40 to 50 hours a week, especially in fast paced or high stress level environments will inevitably lead to extramarital affairs.  And the stats as Focus on the Family has shown prove that.

The only men that women can be close friends with are close blood relatives or their husbands.  That is, it.  Otherwise you always run the risk of that friendship turning into something it should not.  Yet our progressive friends living in their pretend little world want to deny this basic tenant of human nature even though evidence to contrary surrounds them each and every day.

Whether it be socialism or egalitarianism, the only way these systems survive is on the backs of the capitalist and patriarchal systems they so detest.  The capitalists make all the money for the socialists to spend and the Patriarchal families produce the children for egalitarians to later indoctrinate.

So, at some point when enough of the capitalists and patriarchal families get tired of supporting those who detest their way of life and values and actually band together then these horrible social experiments will finally come to an end.

But until that day of reckoning comes, we as Bible believing Christians need to follow the command God gave to parents in Israel:

 “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:  And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.  And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.  And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.” – Deuteronomy 6:6-9

Whitney Houston, like Focus on the Family was often wrong in her life’s philosophies.  But she was right in her song that “The Children Are Our Future”.  That is Biblical.  The struggle for the future is a struggle for the hearts and minds of our children and young adults.

Conservative Christian families in America have far more children than secular progressive families do.  We just need do what Deuteronomy 6:6-9 admonishes us as Christian parents do and heavily indoctrinate our children with the Word of God.

We don’t need to shelter our children from the world, but rather we need to expose each and everything they see in the news and around them to the light of the Word of God.  We need to show them why God’s way is right and the world’s way is wrong.

But at the same time, we need to reach out to a generation of young adults whose minds are still moldable.  Many of these young people came from homes where they have never been exposed to the teachings of the Word of God.  We need to share these truths with them and expose the lies of socialism, egalitarianism and secularism humanism.

We can actually use ridiculous notions like this idea of putting women into combat units with men to open up conversations with young people.  We can show them how a Biblical world view that teaches the reality of gender differences and why they exist is far superior to these views that deny the real and stark differences between the genders.

 

 

Are women who want to submit to and serve their husbands mentally ill?

“The normal love that a woman feels for a man was seen as some sort of mental illness, any desire to submit to the natural authority of a man within a marriage was seen as ‘oppressive patriarchy’. ” This is how Emma, a young student from Australia, described what was taught to her in a gender studies course at a university in Australia.

What Emma is describing is  a sad but true reality in universities and colleges across not just America, but also the entire western world. See the rest of her comment below.

Emma’s Story

I just wanted to say how glad I am to find this site.

The reason I am moved to write to you is that I probably come from a ‘strange’ background for many of the people here.  I am a single, 23 year old woman, studying for an undergraduate degree at a liberal University in Australia.  I even did a unit of study in ‘genders studies’ last year !

Although almost all the students were women my age or younger who were vaguely interested in questions of gender and feminism, a large minority of us felt like quitting the course as we were amazed at the anti-male nature of the course.  The normal love that a woman feels for a man was seen as some sort of mental illness, any desire to submit to the natural authority of a man within a marriage was seen as ‘oppressive patriarchy’.  Some of the tutors even went so far as to say that ‘every woman’ was ‘raped’ whenever she had sex with a man:  the reasoning was that as women are oppressed, women cannot meaningfully consent, and therefore any sex is rape.

The other women who felt like me were in a minority, but not as few as you might think.  We know that women want to serve their husbands – everything from cooking nice food to pleasing him sexually.  Some of us had had premarital sex (not everyone is perfect) but we wanted our future husbands to be submissive to the will of Our Father, just as we will submit to the will and guidance of our husbands.   I have read everything on this website (although I knew most of the quotes already) and my feeling is that you are a Bible-believing Christian or you are not.  If you do say you are a Bible-believing Christian – the Bible is pretty clear on women submitting to their husbands.  Otherwise, it is a permanent battle for power that makes both people unhappy.

I am not married and am not even engaged.  But when I do, it will be to a man who is obedient to Our Father, as I will worship our Father by being obedient to my husband.  In my experience the women I know who have done this have been the happiest women I have seen, and live fulfilling and wholesome lives.

Emma

Australia

My Response to Emma

You are proof that God has reserved for himself a faithful remnant of women who who desire to remain faithful to God’s Word.  It is not a matter of us being perfect, but it is a matter of us recognizing that he is perfect, his Word is perfect and his design of men and women is perfect.  It is sin that has corrupted God’s design.

God speaks of those who would call good(women submitting to and serving their husbands) evil and evil(women’s rebellion toward their husbands) good:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

Also we need to realize that the attack on men and masculinity in our culture is an attack on God himself as God says that men are the image and glory of God:

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”

I Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

The rebellion against man’s authority over women is an attack against God’s authority over all mankind because the relationship between a husband and wife is symbolic of the relationship between God and his people:

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

Just remember Emma that we are not to be conformed to the wicked pattern of this world but rather we are to measure our lives by God’s Word:

“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

Luke 4:4 (KJV)

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Romans 12:2 (KJV)

I pray God will give you the courage to continue to live according to his Word and his design and that you will be an example to the women around you.

 

Does the Bible forbid Christian woman bloggers from teaching other women the Bible?

Does God allow women to teach other women the Word of God or does he only allow men to expound on the Word of God? Anyone who has read my blog for any amount of time will know that I believe that God has given different roles to men and women and he has given men headship over women in the home, the church and society.

Man’s headship over women in the Home

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

Man’s headship over women in the Church

“11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

I Timothy 2:11-12 (KJV)

“34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

I Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV)

“2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;”

I Timothy 3:2-4 (KJV)

Man’s headship over women in the Society

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

But what about women teaching other women the Word of God?

The Scriptures are clear that women are not to take authority over or teach men in the church. They are also clear that women are to ask their husband’s about spiritual things and to follow his spiritual guidance.

But while the Bible commands that women are to follow their husbands spiritual leadership, ask him questions about the Scriptures and they are not to teach men in the Church what about women teaching women? The Bible answers this question.

“3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:3-5 (KJV)

The Bible is clear that women may teach other women what it means to be holy, truthful, not drunkards and what it means to love their husbands, how to be discreet, pure, how to keep their home and how to be obedient to their husbands.  And what should be the source of what they teach? Christ told us what the source is:

“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

Matthew 4:4 (KJV)

So when women are exhorted to teach other women how to live godly lives – they are exhorted to teach them the Word of God.

Some Christians teach against women teaching women

I have just shown from Titus 2:3-5 conclusive proof that women may and should teach other women how to be good, holy wives and mothers and they could only do this by expounding upon the Word of God on these subjects.  Yet surprisingly there are some Christians that use Scripture passages on male headship (which I deeply believe in) to attempt to deny the truths taught in Titus 2:3-5.  If they don’t completely deny it they try and limit it literally by women’s age groups.

I am often an ally of some of these fellow Christian bloggers in our fight against feminism and it’s poisoning of the home, the church and society. We often stand together in our defense of male headship.  So it saddens me when I have to sometimes take my fellow Biblical male headship brothers to task but if the Apostles who were inspired of God had disagreements(Galatians 2:11) then it would follow that those of us who do not write by direct inspiration of God would probably have many more disagreements.

It is somewhat ironic that I find myself in the position of defending Christian women’s rights when I am so often accused of teaching women have no rights and must silently tend to the needs of their husbands, their children and their homes and do nothing else.

But the truth is when it comes to intelligent women who are well read in the Scriptures and spiritually mature I have consistently taught on this blog that they should be encouraged to use their spiritual gifts by their fathers and husbands in ways that compliment rather than contradict God’s roles for men and women.

With that being said here are some areas where I stand against these men on this subject of women teaching women.

Disagreements with Deep Strength over his post “Women teaching women in Church”

In a post entitled “Women teaching women in Church” Deep Strength writes:

“Dalrock rightly points out that exegesis of the preaching and of the Scripture is delegated to husbands in the 1 Corinthians 14 passage. When you combine this with the wording of the passage in Titus 2, it’s obvious that older women are to encourage wifely submission to their husbands. Therefore, it is the case that older women should not be “teaching” what the Scriptures mean to wives but rather encouraging wives to ask their husbands about how they would interpret it.”

Both Darlock and Deep Strength are wrong on this.  I constantly teach on this blog that we must take the Scriptures as a whole. We cannot take those passages that don’t fit what we think God was saying and simply dismiss them and this is exactly what Darlock and Deep Strength are doing.

Here is Darlock and Deep Strength’s logic in a nutshell:

Since women are to be silent in the church and ask their husbands at home about spiritual matters women are therefore forbidden from EVER expounding on the Word of God in any situation.  God only allows men to teach and expound upon his Word in Darlock and Deep Strength’s view.

Darlock and Deep Strength have errored because they have gone beyond “that which is written” (I Corinthians 4:6).

When the Scriptures tell us that women should follow their husband’s headship and ask their husband about spiritual matters at home it does not mean that the only source of spiritual teaching a woman can ever have is her husband.  It does not automatically mean women are forbidden from reading various books or blogs on line about the Bible or even marriage.  And it certainly does not mean women are forbidden from expounding on the Scriptures to other women especially as it relates to about to be good godly wives and mothers.  Titus 2:3-5 proves this to be the case beyond any doubt.

There are two references to women teaching in this passage from Titus.  The first is found in Titus 2:3.

“3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

Titus 2:3 (KJV)

The phrase “teachers of good things” is a translation of the Greek word “Kalodidaskalos” which means:

“teaching that which is good, a teacher of goodness”

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/kalodidaskalos.html

The NASB translates this phrase as “teaching what is good” and the NIV also translates this phrase as “to teach what is good”.  The consensus among commentator and translators is that this word literally means “to teach what is good”.  But the key concept is that women are in fact to be teachers.  This cannot be denied.

The second instance teaching is found in Titus 2:4:

“That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,”

Titus 2:4 (KJV)

The word that the KJV translates as “teach” in Titus 2:4 where it says “That they may teach the young women” is a translation of the Greek word “Sophronizo” which means:

“restore one to his senses

to moderate, control, curb, disciple

to hold one to his duty

to admonish, to exhort earnestly”

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/sophronizo.html

This word is only used in this particular passage of Scripture.

The NASB translates this word as “encourage” but puts in the foot notes that another word for it could be “train”.  The NIV translates this word as “urge”.

Even if this word means encourage we still have the first instance of women being commanded teach in verse 3.  And this is all part of one thought by the Apostle Paul and women teaching other women.  So even if it means “encourage” Paul is telling women “Be teachers of good things by encouraging women to do these things…”

How can women both teach and encourage other women to be good, to be holy, to be discreet, to love their husbands, their children and be obedient to their husbands without teaching them the standard for all these things which is the Word of God?

So while Darlock and Deep Strength want to deny the meaning of this passage because the Greek word  Sophronizo could mean encourage they cannot deny that the Greek word “Kalodidaskalos” found in verse 3 of Titus chapter 2 clearly involves teaching, not just encouraging.

And even if Sophronizo was the only word used in this passage it would be absurd to think that women could exhort other women to Godly living, to be good wives and mothers without ever referencing the Scriptures.

What about proper authority to teach?

We have proven that God’s Word does command women to teach other women how to be good wives and mothers from the Word of God from Titus 2:3-5. But what about the authority to teach the Word of God?

Deep Strength writes:

“All of this stems from as couple of things. Generally, In the Scriptures “teaching” and “preaching” are validated by “authority.” Authority is given in the Scriptures to specific roles such as husbands, pastors and elders, governments, and the like in order to love, shepherd, or maintain order and law.”

I agree that God has established various spheres of authority such as the family (which is headed by the husband) churches that are headed by Pastors and elders and of course civil government.

There are two types of authorities in the Bible – worldly authorities and spiritual authorities.

Worldly authorities would include Presidents, Governors, mayors, employers and school and college teachers and any other authority outside the home or the church.

Spiritual authorities would include people like our pastors or elders of our local churches and then husbands and fathers.

The uniqueness of the father/husband authority role

The father/husband is the only human role to which God has given both worldly and spiritual authority.  The husband and father roles are actually very similar to one another but the husband role is the most powerful human authority because a husband has authority to have sex with his wife but he does not have authority to have sex with his children.

The husband and father have responsibility for both the worldly affairs and spiritual affairs of their family. This is why husbands and fathers must teach their wives and children as well as discipline both their wives and children.

Each sphere of authority has its responsibilities, rights and limits. So for instance while civil government has some authority over family it does not have complete authority over the family.  For instance my local police department has the right to enter my home if they get a 911 call from my wife stating that I am trying to kill her.  But my civil governments (whether they be local, state or Federal) have no business telling me how to operate my marriage or what I teach my wife and children.

The authority of the Church also has it responsibilities, rights and limits.  All of the ministries of my church fall under the authority of my Pastor.  So if I were to teach in my church I must teach things in accordance with my Pastor’s interpretation of the Scriptures while participating in any official church activity.   However in my home I have the full right to teach my children Scriptural interpretations that are contrary to those taught in our church.

Let me illustrate with some examples.

A mother teaching her children

“Hear, my son, your father’s instruction And do not forsake your mother’s teaching;” – Proverbs 1:8 (NASB)

If a mother teaches her children the Word of God, she does so under the authority of her husband and their father.  This means that whatever his interpretations and applications are of the Scriptures this is what she must teach the children.  It does not necessarily mean that she agrees with all of them herself, but she must submit to his Spiritual views in how she conducts her life and how she teaches her children.

A woman teaching a woman’s Sunday school class

In the case of a woman teaching a woman’s Sunday school class she would first be doing so under the authority of her husband (if she is married) or else her father if she were unmarried.  But since she is teaching within an official ministry of the church she also falls under the authority of the church. So when she teaches she must teach in accordance with her husband or father’s interpretations as well as her church’s interpretations.  If the church would require her to teach something that conflicts with her husband’s teaching then she would have to resign that position in deference to her husband’s authority.

A woman has a Christian blog

When a woman has a Christian blog she is operating that blog under the spiritual authority of her husband or father. This means even if she disagrees with her husband or father on some interpretations and applications she is to teach what is in accordance with her husband’s interpretations and applications of the Scriptures.

Deep Strength is wrong that the teaching women is ONLY under the jurisdiction of their fathers or husbands

Deep Strength writes:

“Thus, in no situation is a woman “free unto herself” and thus given a voice within the Church in a position of authority whether over men or over other women. Daughters and wives are under their fathers or husbands authority. Likewise, older women are encouraged to teach younger women to obey the authority they are under and act in a godly manner.

Women teaching other women

As of now it should be quite clear that [older] women do not have the authority to teach or preach the meaning(s) of Scriptures to [younger] women because it is under the jurisdiction of their fathers or husbands. The Bible does not contradict itself on this front.”

Again let me reiterate from his statement the absurdity of what he is saying. He is saying older women should teach younger women to obey authority but why? Just because? Or is it because God’s Word says so? Do we live by our opinions or by the Word of God? So she can say “Ladies obey your husbands but I can’t quote the Scriptures that tell you to do that – only your husband can.”  Do you not see the absurdity of such a view?

I proved from the Scriptures that women do in fact have the authority to teach both their children (Proverbs 1:8) as well as other women(Titus 2:3-5).  The authority they have to do this comes from their husband or fathers first and secondarily from their church authorities if their husband or father allows them to do so.

Does God only allow older women to teach younger women?

Let’s look at Titus 2:3-5 again with the emphasis on ages of the women in question:

“3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:3-5 (KJV)

Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time knows that a Biblical literalist. I believe in interpreting the Bible as literally as possible unless it something like symbolism in prophecy or poetry.

But there are times when the Bible places an age restriction on something, and other times when it simply mentions age as an assumption.

We see an example of age restrictions when it comes to the church taking in widows that it would support and they would serve the church:

“A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man”

I Timothy 5:9 (NASB)

So a widow could not be brought in to be supported by the church and to serve the church full time until she was at least 60 years of age.  So here the age mentioned is not just an assumption, but a specific command.

But it is an error to connect this verse from I Timothy 5:9 with Titus 2:3.  They are talking about two different subjects.  One is talking about widows serving in the church and the other is talking about older woman teaching younger women how to be good wives and mothers.  Might some of these widows who were supported by the church does this very thing? Yes.  But Titus 2:3 does not restrict the ministry of women teaching other women to this group of women.

Paul’s command about aged women teaching younger women does NOT restrict teaching only to older women to younger women.  It was only an assumption that in most cases older women would be teaching younger women. The point of his statement was to allow women to teach other women how to be good wives and mothers according to the Word of God.

Yes God does restrict the exercise of the office of Pastor or elder to men who are not novices:

Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.”

I Timothy 3:6 (KJV)

This is talking about the position of Pastor or elder – official positions in the church.  Also being a novice has nothing to do with age but rather spiritual maturity.  In either case this would not stop a young teenager whether they be a young man or young woman from sharing the Word of God with their friends.  In fact they ought to and we should encourage our young people to do so.

But God does not restrict his gifts or his callings by age as Paul states:

Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.”

I Timothy 4:12 (KJV)

Are we to believe that while we are not allowed to despise the exercise of spiritual gifts by young men that we are allowed to despise the exercise of spiritual gifts by young women? I think not.

My 14 year old daughter expounds upon the Scriptures all the time at school to her fellow teenage girls.  She teaches them about the Gospel and how God wants women to live their lives. I would never dream of despising her for exercising her spiritual gifts.

Now as I have stated here and elsewhere throughout my blog men and women need to exercise their spiritual gifts within the bounds of God’s commands for each gender.  So that means women cannot teach or take authority positions over men in the church.  Women must exercise their spiritual gifts under the authority of their father or husband.

What about conflicts of authority?

The Bible never says we can only learn about the Bible from one source whether be men or women.  The Catholic Church taught this doctrine for centuries there was only once source for understanding the Bible and that was the Church.  They forbid anyone but the clergy from reading and interpreting the Bible for themselves.

I thank God every day for the brave men of the Protestant reformation that stood against the spiritual tyranny of the Catholic Church. If they had not we might not be having these discussions about the Bible – we would not even have Bibles unless we were clergy.

But what about when spiritual authorities conflict? Really it is very simple. If you are a wife or daughter and your father does not want you listening to a certain blogger, author, or Pastor  on a certain subject or if they do not want you listening to them or reading things from that all you obey your spiritual authority.

But what Darlock and Deep Strength are essentially arguing for is a spiritual “lock down” approach to how husbands and fathers teach their wives and children.

They are teaching that a father or husband must not just teach their wives and children the meaning the Word of God – but they are the ONLY people that can teach their wives and children the Word of God.  I have shown here in this article that their position is contrary to the Scriptures.

Think about it in practical terms and let’s take gender out of the equation. If my wife is sitting in a church service at my church and my Pastor teaches something that is contrary to what I teach her from the Bible (and he does from time to time) – should my wife and children have to stick their fingers in their ears or leave the room? Of course not. To do so would be utterly absurd.

Instead after the service when we get home I will take the Scriptures and explain to my wife and children where I disagree with the Pastor on the subject and why I do.  This is an exercise in maturity for my wife and children in learning that good Bible believing Christians will have disagreements on interpretations and this is the right way to handle it.

Why women don’t belong in politics

Do women belong in the political arena? Should we encourage our daughters to emulate the lives of women like Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin? Some Christians believe examples of women like the prophetess Deborah in the Bible answers this question with a resounding “Yes!” This was the position taken by a young Christian woman named Justice Forte who recently wrote a comment on my post “How to Help Women Learn Their Place”.

But does the example of Deborah and other prophetesses and prominent women in the Bible show us that God wants women involved in the political arena?

Before we seek to answer this question let me share Justice’s story.

Justice Forte’s Story

Larry Solomon,

While scrolling through my Facebook feed, I came across your intriguing post. Though I usually do not take the time to read articles shared by my friends, as I am a pre-law college student with hundreds of pages of reading assigned to me each night, the striking words “How to Help Women Learn Their Place” piqued my interest. I visited your blog and read the biographical information you provided and several of your comment threads. As a Catholic, made in the image of God, I share many of your beliefs and I have read most of the passages that you listed in your article during my years attending Catholic institutions. I have been fortunate in that I have had numerous mentors that have guided me in my faith, including my father, mother, and several teachers. I have had the opportunity to analyze philosophical and theological works, including those of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas with the great educators I encountered in my time at Pope John XXIII High School in Sparta, New Jersey. I have studied these topics with fervor, and I have strengthened my faith through constant inquiry, as my religion is not something that I take for granted.

However, I believe that your article reflects not only the loving messages given to us by God, but also several sexist attitudes embedded in our society. While it is clear that God created men and women with differing characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses, I do not think that it necessarily follows that the two genders must adhere strictly to narrow roles. While the Bible includes passages that guide women to be reverent and respectful to men, it also offers direction to men to love women and to treat them with kindness and understanding, and to acknowledge them as companions and partners in life.

As an 18 year old woman, I have struggled throughout my lifetime to discover exactly what your article claims to offer an answer to. I have struggled to learn my place in this world with this life that I have been given. The wave of feminism that you readily criticize has afforded me the ability to explore the vast possibilities of who I could be. It has allowed me to receive an education, and to read the works of insightful minds who have contemplated and established their places in life.

Through this education, I have found role models such as Deborah the fifth judge of the Old Testament referenced in Judges 4 and 5 and Hebrews 11:32-34. A thoughtful and effective leader, Deborah lifted the spirits of the downtrodden Israelites as she prophesied the word of the Lord under her famous palm tree. A courageous warrior, she led her army of 10,000 against the 100,000 Canaanites and proved victorious. The mother of Israel, the wife of Lapidoth, and the prophetess of God, Deborah serves as the ultimate example of a woman using her specific gifts to lead and to change the world in which she lived.

My education has also allowed me to ascertain and to ruminate on various attitudes and viewpoints regarding sexuality and gender roles that exist in the present day and to solidify my position on these crucial topics. Before beginning my studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, I had always referred to myself as a “traditionalist feminist.” I viewed myself as equal to my male classmates, as I had continually been able to interact and compete with them academically. However, I did not feel that I could properly call myself a feminist and all that this term has come to mean, as I agree with many of the roles set out for men and women. This internal conflict continued until I came across a page in my international relations textbook during my first semester at college which separated feminism into two distinct categories.

The definition of liberal feminism was familiar to me; it was an idea that I had heard recurrently, an idea that I could never bring myself to agree with. The theory of liberal feminism claims that there are no fundamental differences between men and women and that any perceived distinctions are merely the result of societal stereotyping.

To me, this theory seems entirely unrealistic, as I have experienced the inherent differences between the genders in countless situations, specifically during my time playing for the men’s ice hockey team at my high school. It is indisputable that I was not physically equal to the men on the ice, as I was mentally equal in the classroom. But, Authors Joshua Goldstein and Jon Pevehouse offer the definition of another strand of feminism, difference feminism, which focuses on “valorizing the feminine…valuing the unique contributions of women as women.” Difference feminism provides a way for a woman like me to both accept many gender roles and to work to compete academically and intellectually to shape their societies and to learn their places within them.

In your article, you stressed the need for parents, teachers, and pastors to teach young women how to behave as daughters of God and you argued that feminism has resulted in disrespectful behavior by women to their fathers and their husbands. Throughout my life, I have looked to my mother and father for guidance and they have been the measure against which I have evaluated myself. My mother is a devoted wife and homemaker, and she has worked tirelessly to instill in my brother and me values of compassion, kindness, and honesty. However, my mother has also served as my greatest advocate, and she has consistently demanded that I be afforded the same opportunities as my brother. She has taught me to be ambitious, and to embrace every task with passion and diligence.

My father, for whom I have immeasurable respect, has provided me with every possible chance to both better and challenge myself. He supported me throughout my eight year long career as a hockey player, understanding that this activity, though male-dominated, was important to me and would present many occasions for self-growth. It was my father who pushed me far beyond my own perceived limitations and encouraged me to apply to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, a school 1,250 miles from my home, and it was him who all but forced me to accept my full tuition scholarship to attend this institution of higher education. While my mother and father have taught me what it means to be a daughter of God, bringing me to mass, showing me how to present myself in word, deed, and dress, and providing examples through their own lives, they have never allowed my gender to inhibit my desire to learn and participate in my society.

In concluding your article, you offered a list of Bible verses to be used by women to guide their behavior. While I disagree with the connotations of several of your brief summary headings, as I feel you have misinterpreted some of the text due to the gender biases that our society poses, I have tried to model my life based off of teachings and verses such as these. I work hard to be trustworthy, to show discretion when it is necessary, to speak with wisdom kindness, and love, to dress modestly, and to look to my parents and grandparents for guidance when I have needed it.

Though I have copious aspirations, including earning a college degree, attending and graduating from law school, and using all I will have learned to pursue a career in politics, I also hope one day to be a wife and mother.

Like your daughter, I look forward to fulfilling my role in God’s design and I intend to embark on that endeavor with the same ambition that I have put into my education, the same ambition that has been fostered for 18 years by my parents and teachers. I will treat my husband with respect and I will gladly support him in all that he does, and I will expect that he show me the love and kindness that God commands.

However, right now, I am an 18 year old woman, and I am subject and accountable to no one but my parents, educators, and myself. Right now I am a student and I intend to learn all that I can so that I may one day change my world, because my ambitions stretch far past the nuclear family unit and home. I urge you to contemplate my viewpoint, because I have combated attitudes similar to the one you expressed throughout my life. I have had boyfriends who claimed I showed them disrespect by simply having conversations with other males. I have had young men on opposing hockey teams cast disparaging remarks at me such as “make me a sandwich, bitch,” in an effort to help me learn what they think should be my place. I urge you to reflect on the possibility that there is more than one way for a young woman like myself, and like your daughter, to fulfill her role as a daughter of God and to learn their true place. I ask you to cogitate on my position because I feel it is imperative for today’s young women to understand that their faith does not have to stand in contrast with their aspirations, and you and I both have the power to spread this message. I respectfully ask you to take the time to read and respond to my post, as I would be interested to hear more about your perspective.”

My Response to Justice Forte

First and foremost Justice – I want to commend you for what I believe is a genuine faith in Jesus Christ and your belief in his Word.  I also want to commend you for your respect and admiration for your parents as this is something highly lacking in many young people today. I also commend you for listening to wise teachers and being curious about and studying schools of theological and philosophical thought. Being a critical thinker is never a bad thing but unfortunately in most generations there have been few of us that are critical thinkers.

What I want to do next is to zoom in on a few statements that you made and respond to them from the perspective of Christians who believe in a patriarchal view of society and marriage as well as more “strict” Biblical gender roles.

Prominent women in the Bible

First let’s take a look at some female characters that are often used by feminist Christians to assert that God encourages women to take active leadership in political and church arenas and see if any of these women resemble a modern feminist.

Miriam – prophet. – It never specifically says she exercised authority over men.

Deborah – prophet; judge; led the army of Israel into battle with Barak, their commander. She was a spiritual and moral leader. She did not seek to lead with Barak, he begged her to. She shamed him by telling him God would hand their enemies into the hands of a “woman”. It is interesting the Bible says she sat under a tree, and not at the city Gates as leaders typically did.

Hulda – prophet during the reign of Josiah. She served at a time when Israel had forsaken God, one of their darkest hours. Josiah sought to restore worship and the Word of God and sent messengers to her to seek the will of God.

Anna – a widow who became a prophet and pronounced Jesus to be the redeemer of Israel

Lydia – business woman in the Philippian Church, but the Bible never refers to her as a leader or a Pastor.

Priscilla – helped Paul while he was establishing churches at Corinth and Ephesus; with her husband Aquila, corrected Apollo’s preaching and helped him to learn of the new way in Christ.

Junias – contrary to feminist teachings, she was not an Apostle, but she was honored by the Apostles for her work in the Lord.

Phoebe – a servant in the Church at Cenchrea, She was not a deacon as feminists assert.

There is absolutely no Biblical evidence that any of these women sought to raise the social status of women or to challenge the role of a woman in the home and in her relationship with her husband.

Is Deborah a feminist role model for women?

Your Statement:

“Through this education, I have found role models such as Deborah the fifth judge of the Old Testament referenced in Judges 4 and 5 and Hebrews 11:32-34.”

I challenge you to present any Biblical evidence that Deborah was a “warrior”. She was nothing more than moral support and reluctant moral support at that.  If you look at the passage from Judges 5 Deborah only went with Barak because he asked her to and he refused to go if she would not go with him.  She was not the proud feminist that she is portrayed as.   In fact she said God would hand their enemy into the hands of a “woman” and this was not said in a proud way, but to shame Barak for refusing to go without her.  God did eventually give the honor of killing Sisera to a woman (Jael) to shame the men for their cowardly behavior.

The truth is this.  We have no evidence that Deborah neglected her duties to her home in her role as prophetess.  In fact we have no idea how old she was when God called her to this position. She may have been barren or raised her children and taken on this role much later in life after her children were grown and gone.

Women in leadership positions were the exception to God’s design not the norm

In no way does the Bible EVER paint women in leadership roles as a positive thing, but it is something God uses to shame the men into action.

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” -Isaiah 3:12 (KJV)

God is allowed to make exceptions to his own rules

God made these exceptions to his own design at limited and specific times:

God allowed a donkey to speak to a Balaam in Numbers chapter 22.

God tells the prophet Isaiah to go and prophesy naked for 3 years in Isaiah chapter 20.

God tells the prophet Hosea to go marry a prostitute (something clearly forbidden for priests) in Hosea chapter 1.

God took Enoch (in Genesis 5) and Elijah (2 Kings 2) directly to heaven without them first experiencing physical death.

In the same way that God made these exceptions to his rules God has sometimes allowed women to occupy positions of spiritual authority in an effort to shame the men of their society into action and obedience to God.

Are “sexist” beliefs always wrong?

Your Statement:

“However, I believe that your article reflects not only the loving messages given to us by God, but also several sexist attitudes embedded in our society. While it is clear that God created men and women with differing characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses, I do not think that it necessarily follows that the two genders must adhere strictly to narrow roles. While the Bible includes passages that guide women to be reverent and respectful to men, it also offers direction to men to love women and to treat them with kindness and understanding, and to acknowledge them as companions and partners in life.”

Let me first address the term “sexist”.  This term is often used synonymously with “misogynist” but the two words really mean two different things.

The truth is that while all misogynists (haters of women) are sexists not all sexist people are misogynists.

If by “sexist” you mean a person who believes that one gender may typically excel in certain tasks over the other gender than I and those others who believe that men and women excel over one another in different areas could be labeled as sexists. For example, men generally speaking are better at most physical sports than women and women generally are better at tasks that require nurturing and empathy than men.

This is why if you take the typical woman and throw her in a sports game with men she will get beat.  It is also why if you put a man in a room with toddlers and infants he will not do as well caring for their needs as the typical woman.  Are there exceptions to these norms? Of course there are.  But exceptions do not negate norms.

But based on your belief in “Difference Feminism” I would guess that this is not something you are including in what you think are “sexist attitudes embedded in our society”. You accept these types of differences between genders.  However, you do seem to believe though that it is “sexist” for a person to believe that a woman’s place is in the home.  If that is what you mean by “sexist” then I plead guilty.

To be fair to your position – I recognize that you are not condemning women who choose to be homemakers as your mother was.

But you seem to feel that it is “sexist” for a person to believe God did not give women a choice but instead directly commanded that a woman should spend the majority of her time, talents and energy in direct service to her husband, her children and her home.

Coed Sports force men to violate their natural God given instincts toward women

You reference the fact that you played hockey – a sport you readily admit is dominated by men. The reason that hockey is dominated by men is because it is not only physically demanding but it also a very aggressive sport not unlike football although football is even more aggressive.

I have allowed and even encouraged my daughter to play basketball on a church league in our area – but it was not coed.  They have a separate league for girls and a separate league for boys. I would not encourage my daughter to do what your father encouraged you to do and play hockey with men.  There are two reasons I would not have done what your father did.

The first reason is that men will often instinctively hold back and do not play as aggressively when women are involved.  The second reason is that coed sports can also bring out frustration in men as they realize at a conscious or unconscious level that God meant for men to protect women and not to physically compete with women.  This is why I am firmly against any type of coed sports leagues because I believe anything that causes men and women to go against their God given gender specific design, nature or instincts is not something we should encourage.

This is also one of the reasons women do not belong in the military as men will instinctively afford more protection to female unit members which affects unit cohesion and effectiveness.

The Bible does not call a man’s wife his partner

You talked about a wife being her husband’s “companion and partner”.  While the Bible does refer to man’s wife as his companion it never refers to her as his partner – despite the NIV Bible translation which tries to use “partner” in some verses with no textual support for doing so. I dive into these passages in great detail in these posts.

https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2014/05/20/is-marriage-a-partnership-or-patriarchy/

https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/03/03/is-christian-marriage-a-master-servant-relationship/

7 Questions for young women with political ambitions

Question 1

How do you explain Biblical characters like Deborah as any more than an exception to God’s design and purpose for woman in light of the fact that God calls it a shame for women to rule over men (Isaiah 3:12), he calls it a shame for women to speak in the church (I Corinthians 14:34-35) and he says the head of the woman is the man (I Corinthians 11:3)?

Question 2

How can a woman occupy a position of political authority which would most like make her an authority over her husband when God calls women to be in subjection to their husbands in “everything” as the Church is subject to Christ in everything? (Ephesians 5:23-24, I Peter 3:1-6)

Question 3

How can a woman be the “keeper of her home”(Titus 2:5) and serve the needs of her husband, her children and her home while being gone 40 to 70 hours a week as most political jobs require?

Question 4

Do you think God is ok with other people raising your children and experiencing all the special firsts those children will have(like walking and talking) while you are gone pursing you political career 40 to 70 hours a week?

Question 5

If a woman pursues a career and her husband must dutifully stand behind her and support her in this career is this not a reversal of the creation order that woman was made for man, not man for woman (I Corinthians 11:9)?

Question 6

Could you honestly say if you pursue this course of action that you would be dedicating the majority of your time, talents and energy to serving your husband, your children and your home if you pursue this course of action?

Question 7

Are you willing to sacrifice seeing your child walk for the first time, talk for the first time and all those other special firsts as you most likely will if you are gone so much from your home?

I would invite you to read a recent post I did “Don’t fall for the feminist lie that women can “have it all”. In that post I show a comment I received from a woman who used to think as you do.  She believed she could have it all and found out years later that she was sacrificing her family and her marriage as well as not fulfilling the role God gave her by following her selfish ambitions. I encourage you to read her story.

Conclusion

Justice – there is nothing wrong with you having a love for studying the Bible and also other great writers in history. You could use your love of reading and desire to impact the world by teaching other women in your local church as Paul exhorts women to do (Titus 2:3-5). You might even consider having a Christian woman’s blog.

Neither of these uses of your talents would contradict with the primary mission God has given you.

For a man PART of his mission from God in this life is to lead, protect and provide for his home.  If he fails to model the love, leadership, provision, protection, teaching and discipline that God does for his people he will fail his mission.  But for a man the other part of his mission is to do what you are presuming to do and make an impact his world through his career.

For you as a woman your husband, your children and your home are not just a part of your mission as they are for a man. Your future husband, your future children and your future home ARE your mission.  Anything that takes away from your service to your husband, your children and you home must be put aside or you will fail your mission.

I encourage you to read my post “Young ladies – If you pursue a career you may fail the Christian race”.

Also see Does the Bible allow for a woman to be President of the United States?

Photo Sources:

Photo Source:https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/15142791621
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

By Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46897599

Is International Women’s Day a time for Christians to celebrate or a time to mourn?

Have divorce rates risen or decreased as a result of women being given social equality with men? Have children been better taken care of by their mothers as a result of women being given social equality with men? The answers to these two questions are unequivocal NO.

The ugly truth is that the woman’s rights movement has decimated God’s institution of marriage and the family.

Is this something we should be proud of? A society in which women mock and ridicule the role for which God designed them?

In the book of I Corinthians we read about a situation of immorality in the Church.  A man took his father’s wife (his step mother) as a wife and they were proud of this immorality.  The Apostle Paul said this to them:

“you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning”

I Corinthians 5:2 (NIV)

Are we not doing the same thing as a Christian people today in regards to feminism? Are we proud of what feminism has done to marriage and the family when we should be in mourning?

This is why for us as Christian’s International Women’s Day should not be a time for us to rejoice, but rather a time for us to mourn for our nation and our culture.  It should be a time to confront this sin in our homes and in our churches.

But doesn’t the Bible honor women?

Absolutely! The Bible honors women and encourages us as men to honor women. Children are to praise their mothers and husbands are commanded to praise and honor and their wives.

“Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” – Exodus 20:12 (KJV)

“Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.” – Proverbs 31:28 (KJV)

“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.” – I Peter 3:7 (KJV)

Holidays like Mother’s Day and our wedding anniversaries call us to honor our women for the position of wife and mother – the roles for which God designed woman.  Christians should be honoring the women in their lives on these days for these roles that they play.

But honoring women for their roles as wives and mothers is NOT what International Women’s Day is about.

International Women’s Day is about women celebrating their rebellion against God and his design for them.

But hasn’t some good come from giving women equal rights with men?

I will not deny that some good has come from giving women equal rights with men.  In the areas of protecting women and their children from real domestic abuse it has helped. It has also helped in making sure that if women were wrongly tossed aside by their husbands that they could still see their children and get some financial support. It has also helped in allowing women to be able to be educated which is something the Bible never forbids.

But the good that has come from granting women social equality has been far outweighed by the damage that it has caused.

Instead of women just being able to divorce their husbands for real physical abuse and also being able to protect their children we have seen these new rights used for evil purposes more often than righteous purposes. We see women divorcing their husbands because their husbands refuse to bow down and worship them.  In fact the vast majority of divorces today occur not because of physical abuse but because of emotional reasons on the part of the woman.  Nearly 70% of all divorces today are filed by women.

Instead of women using their new found right to be able to be educated in the service of teaching their children and other women they now use it for their own selfish ambitions. They walk out of their responsibilities to their husband, their children and their home and they do it with PRIDE!

Instead of women regarding their bodies as belong to God and their husbands they see their bodies as belonging only to themselves. They go out and have promiscuous sex and then if they get pregnant they just go and have an abortion. Does this sound like something we ought to be celebrating or mourning as Christians?

The woman’s equality movement has warped marriage into something that would be unrecognizable to people just a few generations ago.

God’s original design of marriage as a duty based Patriarchy and a model of Christ’s relationship with his Church has been tossed aside for a feelings based equal partnership relationship which bears little resemblance to what God intended.

Opposing feminism and women’s equality is not equivalent to misogyny

“You Bible believing Christians are just a bunch of misogynists”

“You just want to control women and make them the slaves of men”

Let me tell you something in all honesty and sincerity and I know I speak for many of my Bible believing Christian friends. If God had stated in the Scriptures that men and women were to be social equals and equal partners in marriage that is what I would strive for. It is not about what I want or you want – it is about what God says he wants in his Word.

Christians who love the Word of God and practice the patriarchal form of marriage which models the relationship of Christ and his Church do not do so because of our hatred for women.  We do so because of our love for God.

“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” – I John 5:3 (KJV)

“You don’t view women as equal human beings”

This is another false accusation hurled at Bible believing Christians who embrace the Biblical patriarchal form of marriage. This is because our American and Western culture teaches us that all human beings (adult human beings that are not incarcerated) should have equal rights. If one set of human beings has any less rights than another it said the human beings with less rights are being treated as “less than human”.

But this thinking does not line up with the Scriptures. The Bible shows us God commanding that women have less rights than men:

“2 If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth;

4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.

5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.

6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul;

7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.

8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her.” – Numbers 30:1-8 (KJV)

“1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives…

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.” – I Peter 3:1 & 5-7 (KJV)

The Bible clearly shows us that a daughter is under the authority of her father and a wife is under the authority of her husband. Women did not have equal social rights to men under God’s design. Yet men were called to honor their mothers and wives.  Women were not considered less than human in God’s view, but rather they were humans that occupied a different social status.

Conclusion

International Women’s Day should not be a cause for celebration for Bible believing Christians. Rather it should be a day for mourning and reflection on the sinfulness of our society. It should cause us to compel our nation and our culture to repent.  It should give us renewed reasons to preach what God’s word says even though it is extremely unpopular in our sinful culture.  We would do well to heed the words of the Apostle Paul to a young pastor named Timothy:

“2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” – I Timothy 4:2-4 (KJV)

Is it wrong for Christian women to wear pants?

If a Christian woman wears pants is she violating the Bible’s command that “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man…” (Deuteronomy 22:5)? Are Christian woman essentially cross-dressing if they wear trousers? In this article we will seek to answer the question of the morality of women wearing pants.

The Bible is clear that God want’s women to dress like women and men to dress like men.

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.” – Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)

This is something that the vast majority of Christians would agree about. But where the disagreement comes in is what is masculine dress and what is feminine dress?

Before we dive into this I just want to share a little personal history here.  I grew up in Independent Baptist churches for most of my life(and still attend one today).  Back in the 80’s and still well into the 90’s it was very common for Baptist preachers to preach against women wearing pants.  While they are fewer in number today – there are still some conservative churches and Christians that believe it is immoral for a woman to wear pants.

Did God command all men to wear pants in Exodus 28:41-43?

Some Christians contend that the following passage from Exodus 28:41-43 shows that God wants men to wear pants:

“41 And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.” – Exodus 28:41-43 (KJV)

In Exodus 28:41-43 we see the first mention of “breeches” in the Bible. This English word was chosen to translate the Hebrew word “Miknac” which means:

     “underwear, drawers, trousers

a priestly undergarment of linen”

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/miknac.html

When we look at this passage in context God is telling priests that they had to wear breeches when they came near to the altar. These were commanded to be worn ONLY during their priestly duties around the altar.

There is nothing in the passage indicating that God meant for men to wear breeches outside of this very particular situation.

Who does the Bible mention wearing skirts?

While the Bible never commands all men to wear breeches it actually does mention the skirts of men:

“A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt.” Deuteronomy 22:30 (KJV)

“And it came to pass afterward, that David’s heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul’s skirt.” 1 Samuel 24:5 (KJV)

The fact is that while there are some ancient examples of men wearing pants for the most part men did not wear breeches or pants as we call them throughout the entire Biblical time period except in limited instances where priests wore them in their priestly duties and some warriors may have worn some ancient forms of trousers when riding on horseback.

Most men and women wore tunics. Were the male and female tunics made in different styles? Yes. But both of them were continuous pieces of cloth that were sometimes worn with some type of belt – there were no pants involved. Sometimes men would wear a robe over their tunic as well.

Did God command women to always wear dresses in I Timothy 2:9?

Some Christians contend that this passage from I Timothy 2:9 commands that women should always wear dresses and it forbids them from wearing pants:

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;” – I Timothy 2:9 (KJV)

The word “modest” here in I Timothy 2:9 is an English translation of the Greek word Kosmios, which means “seemly” or “appropriate”. In modern English, most people think of a woman dressing modest as a woman dressing in a non-sexual manner. But this was not the meaning of the original word used by the Apostle Paul. Can sexually revealing clothing be “unseemly” or “inappropriate” on a woman in certain situations? Yes. But the Greek word Kosmios is not specific to sexually revealing clothing.

The word “apparel” here in I Timothy 2:9 is an English translation of the Greek word Katastole, which comes from two Greek words, Kata and Stole. This literally refers to a “complete stola”. A stola in New Testament times was a one piece robe with holes for the head and arms. Often times a strap would be worn around the middle below the breasts to give the stola some form around the body. Sometimes a stola had sleeves, other times it was sleeveless.

The roman stola was a long flowing gown as pictured below in several varieties and was worn by women exclusively.

Men on the other hand wore togas or tunics which sometimes had an outer robe. A typical tunic that a roman man would wear is seen below.

The roman male version of the female formal stola would have been the toga as picture below.

RomanToga

The stola was typically worn by women for formal events such as weddings and other special occasions. But during their day to day work women typically wore tunics called peplos like men with the difference that a woman’s tunic typically went down to her feet where a man’s tunic might go to his knees at the most.

As we can see here from these pictures a Roman stola looks nothing like a modern dress that women might wear today. Likewise men don’t wear togas anymore. Paul was not saying that we had to have our clothing fashions frozen to Roman era dress. But the Apostle Paul was giving us three Biblical principles here regarding a woman’s dress:

Women are to wear clothing that is appropriate to the occasion

As we previously mentioned Paul by using the Greek word Kosmios is telling women they are to wear clothing appropriate to the occasion.

Women are to wear feminine clothing

Paul is remaining consistent with Deuteronomy 22:5 in admonishing women to wear clothing that pertains to women. While the roman stola may have been different than the clothing worn in Moses time he was enforcing the concept that whatever is considered feminine dress in our culture – that is what women should be wearing.

Women are to be fully covered for the occasion of worship

The context here of I Timothy 2:9 is referring to how women are to dress when they come to worship in the assembly. Paul is literally saying here in I Timothy 2:9 that women are not to look at the Church as a fashion show but in the same way they should not wear their normal work clothes to church. Rather they should wear a stola (clearly feminine clothing meant for special occasions) and make sure it is a complete stola or fully covering them when coming to worship in the Church.

Does I Timothy 2:9 apply to women in all occasions?

Some Christians have argued that Paul’s commands here regarding the “appropriate complete stola” which is literally what “modest apparel” is translating here applies to how Christian women should dress in ALL occasions.

The general principle that women should wear clothing that is appropriate to the occasion is a principle that women should apply to all areas of their life. The general principle that women should always wear clothing that pertains to a woman as stolas specifically pertained to women in Paul’s time should apply to all areas of a woman’s life.

But do women have to wear their best clothing – the modern equivalent of the stola every day of their lives? I don’t think this is what the Apostle Paul was saying and I will explain why.

Women typically did NOT wear stolas every day but rather they wore them only for special occasions like weddings or other more formal gatherings. Instead they wore much simpler “tunic like” peplos during their day to day lives as they went about their work.

A person reading this when Paul wrote this would have understood that Paul did not mean that women had to wear their complete stola every day but rather that they should wear it for the assembly as this was a special occasion.

Conclusion

Both the command for men to wear breeches in their duties as priests and for women to wear complete stolas when coming to the assembly for worship were clothing commands regarding SPECIFIC and special occasions.

Nowhere in the Bible does the Bible say that men must wear pants at all times or that women must wear dresses at all times nor does it say for a woman to wear pants is a sin in and of itself.

The only way it is sin for a woman to wear pants is if her father or her husband forbids her to wear them or if she wears pants to her church when her Pastor has made it clear that female church members are to wear dresses for church services and activities.

But if a woman’s father, husband or pastor allows her to wear pants then there is no sin in her doing this as long as the pants she wears pertains to a woman and not to a man.

Where do I stand on this as a Christian husband and father? I have no problem with my wife or daughter wearing pants for their day to day activities.   But when we go to Church or any other formal type of gathering I have them wear dresses. When my wife and I go out to a nice restaurant for a date I like her to wear a dress. If my wife does wear jeans for other occasions I like her to wear jeans the accentuate her figure and I don’t like baggy pants on her.

Was there a time in our culture when it would have been wrong for women to wear pants? Yes. When they were viewed as only male clothing. But as the decades have passed clothing styles have changed and pants have been designed in very feminine ways for women.

A Christian woman can definitely find pants that do indeed “pertain to a woman” that a man would not be caught dead in. For men who claim that no pants can look feminine on a woman I would bet you would never want to wear a pair of women’s slacks or skinny jeans because you know that they “pertain to a woman”.

In my previous post “7 Biblical Principles for how to dress as a Christian woman” I listed these principles for how Christian women should dress:

Principle #1 – Your physical beauty is symbolic of the spiritual beauty of the Church

Principle #2 – You should dress appropriately for the occasion

Principle #3 – You should dress in feminine clothing

Principle #4 – You should dress to please your husband

Principle #5 – Don’t be lazy with your appearance

Principle #6 – What others think does and does not matter

Principle #7 – Do not hide your beauty from other men for fear of causing lust

I encourage you to read that post where I explain each of these principles in more detail.

Also for a larger discussion on I Timothy 2:9 please see my post “What does Modesty mean in I Timothy 2:9?

Roman Toga Source:

By Klaus-Dieter Keller, Germany – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=721508

Defense Secretary appeases feminists by opening all combat jobs to women

Despite what he acknowledged as “challenges” in doing so, Defense Secretary Ash Carter will order that all combat jobs be open to women in an effort to appease feminists.  He is doing this against the arguments of the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman according to an associated press report.

The military had already been aggressively looking to “diversify” itself to appease a feminist President and ease the pressure it receives from feminist groups each year.

“Carter’s order opens the final 10 percent of military positions to women, and allows them to serve in the military’s most demanding and difficult jobs, including as special operations forces, such as the Army Delta units and Navy SEALs.”

PENTAGON CHIEF TO MILITARY: OPEN ALL COMBAT JOBS TO WOMEN

In fact he did this despite warnings from the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman:

“The Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford, former Marine Corps commandant, had argued that the Marines should be allowed to keep women out of certain front-line combat jobs, citing studies showing that mixed-gender units aren’t as capable as all-male units. Carter said he came to a different conclusion, but he said the integration of women into the combat jobs will be deliberate and methodical and will address the Marine Corps concerns.”

PENTAGON CHIEF TO MILITARY: OPEN ALL COMBAT JOBS TO WOMEN

The Defense Secretary’s decision flies in the face of reason, common sense and the recent history of trying to get women into these more intense combat roles.

“That truth is particularly relevant in light of the recent failure of all 45 hand-picked, highly fit women to complete Ranger training and Marine-officer combat training. The 45 women were part of an effort to meet a 2016 deadline mandating that all combat roles, including special forces, be opened up to women — an ideologically driven, reality-challenged initiative.

Putting women into close combat roles isn’t fair to the men who will be relying on them, and isn’t fair to the women who will find themselves continuously at a deadly disadvantage. When we send our soldiers into combat we should be giving them the best possible chance of succeeding and surviving. While women are equal to or better than men at many tasks, they simply aren’t when it comes to combat. Substituting men with far less combat-capable women is profoundly unfair, immoral, and utterly unnecessary.”

Putting Women in Combat Is an Even Worse Idea Than You’d Think 

The Defense Secretary’s crazy defense of his new policy

“But the senior defense official said that while Carter recognizes there may be difficulties in opening the jobs to women, he has made his decision and all the services will follow it.

Answering a question from a Marine in Sicily, Carter said, “You have to recruit from the American population. Half the American population is female. So I’d be crazy not to be, so to speak, fishing in that pond for qualified service members.”

PENTAGON CHIEF TO MILITARY: OPEN ALL COMBAT JOBS TO WOMEN

So he claims that he would be “crazy” to ignore one half of the population when looking for qualified service members.   Ok first and foremost he knows how difficult it is to even find women who would even be interested in joining the military.  So really the vast majority of that “half of the population” is not even interested.

Then when you take the tiny fraction of the female population you have to take those who while being interested, can actually pass the rigorous physical tests required to do these jobs.   Then when you weed out all the women who can’t pass the rigorous physical tests and you get to those who can – they have to pass the mental training.

They have to be able to become a ruthless killing machine – that is what a solider is on the battlefield and especially in the special ops fields.  Can this woman who is physically able handle the emotional task of quietly slitting the throat of an enemy combatant when she is infiltrating any enemy strong hold?

So then if you find that one in a million woman who can physically and mentally do the job – then you have to think of unit cohesion.  This is a huge issue in the military.  If you don’t have good unit cohesion people die and the mission fails.

So no he is not crazy to ignore half the population (women) when recruiting for frontline combat jobs Mr. Secretary, rather it is crazy to try and pretend that even if you can find that rare woman who can actually do the job both mentally and physically that it will not affect unit cohesion and the capability of our fighting forces.

Trying to pretend that men and women are equally built for combat – that is crazy Mr. Secretary.

I grow tired of this President and those who serve under his command sacrificing our nation’s safety on the altar to their false god – diversity.

Sometimes diversity is a good thing, other times diversity can get a lot of people killed.

God did not mean for women to be in combat

God tells us in his Word the primary reasons that he made women.

He made them to be help meets for men:

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” – Genesis 2:18 (KJV)

And he determined that women should do these primary tasks in her pursuit of her help meet role:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

Women are to marry, bear children and take care of their homes in service to their husbands and in service to their God.

God does not call women to be soldiers.  This is something he made men to do as King David states:

“Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth myhands to war, and my fingers to fight” – Psalm 144:1 (KJV)

What about Deborah?

Some feminists try and point to Deborah as an example of women in combat.

But they ignore Deborah’s own opposition to going into battle with the men when she was requested –  and really she did no combat but was only their for moral support:

And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?

And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.

And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.

And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.” – Judges 4:6-9(KJV)

You can see here that Deborah was not anxious to go into the arena of men which was war.  She was begged to go by a cowardly man who should have led his men. She even shames him by saying God would take away the honor from him and give the honor of Israel’s victory to a woman – which was a shame on the men.

Just as Deborah knew – God did not design women for war.

We need to stop following the lies of feminism and egalitarianism and return to God’s design for men and women.