Women in combat inconsistent with divinely appointed gender roles, CBMW leader says

The major Democrat presidential candidates believe women should register for the United States military’s selective service, but the notion of women in combat is a confusion of the roles which God has created men and women to fulfill, said David Kotter.

The major Democrat presidential candidates believe women should register for the United States military’s selective service, but the notion of women in combat is a confusion of the roles which God has created men and women to fulfill, said David Kotter, executive director of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards recently said they would favor having women register for selective service when they turn 18. Only young men currently have to register. A failure to register for the service disqualifies them for federal student aid and federal employment and could lead to imprisonment.

Some Democrat candidates would like to see females placed under the same compulsion; Clinton said it is “fair to call upon every American” to serve in the military. In a Baptist Press story, Obama said having females register for service would “send a message to my daughters that they’ve got obligations to this great country as well as boys do.” Obama said females might register for service while not necessarily filling combat roles.

Kotter says such a push for what is perceived as unilateral “fairness” risks sending women into combat, a reality that would overturn divinely-ordained gender differences between men and women.

“In one respect, this call for ‘fairness’ is consistent with Romans 13:1,6that girls and boys, men and women, are equally obligated to pay appropriate taxes to God-appointed governments and be subject to godly laws,” he said.

“Nonetheless, I am concerned that this ‘fairness’ will be pressed to the point that it squashes divinely-designed differences by calling both men and women to serve in military combat. “Protecting vital national interests such as the security of families forms the moral justification for the deadly harm and destruction of combat. For this reason, military combat cannot be separated from the divinely-assigned role and responsibility of self-sacrificial male headship of the family (Eph. 5:23-24).”

During the presidential administration of Bill Clinton, CBMW adopted a resolution that opposed women in combat and called on the federal government to reverse the new policy. President Clinton and Congress abandoned the nation’s traditional stance of limiting combat to males. (View resolution.)

The resolution points to biblical examples of women in combat which the Scriptures present as contrary to proper and normal gender-based distinctions between men and women. That men only should be involved in combat is commensurate with the father’s role to lead and protect his family as head of the home, the statement argues further.

Said Kotter, “In the past, CBMW has called on all government and military leaders to reverse the present policy and to reinstate the historic limitation of military combat service to males only.

“In light of the blurring of combat and non-combat roles experienced in war in Iraq, our leaders should reconsider how women are deployed in the armed forces. Unfortunately, in modern warfare against insurgents, there are few assignments that are not exposed to combat.”

Kotter points out that fathers, and not the government, should be teaching their children about their duties toward God and the state. “Rather than relying on Selective Service registration to send a message to children,” he said, “I would encourage fathers to directly teach these specific and wonderful biblical truths to their families.”

View the Baptist Press article on the push by Democrat candidates to have women register for service.