Women and the Draft

Earlier this month, a group of Marine Corps and Army generals dropped a bombshell on an unsuspecting U.S. Senate committee. In doing so, they opened a can of worms that our society desperately wants to keep closed: the one containing the real-world consequences of denying the innate differences between men and women.

General Robert Neller, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, in response to a question from Missouri U.S. Senator Clair McCaskill told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I think that all eligible and qualified men and women should register for the draft.”

Neller’s position was seconded by General Mark Milley, the Army Chief of Staff.

While their responses delighted McCaskill, it put the current secretaries of the Navy and Army in an awkward position. While the Obama administration has pushed for the full integration of women into combat roles, it has not come out in favor of requiring women to register for the draft when they turn eighteen.

The problem is that in opening up combat roles for women, the Obama administration has removed the only legal justification for treating men and women differently when it comes to the draft.

In 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this differential treatment on the grounds that “the purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops.” Since women were excluded from combat, they could be excluded from registration. Doing away with the exclusion from combat logically leads to taking away any exclusion from the draft.

Andrew Walker of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission is absolutely correct when he wrote that the proposal to make women register for the draft isn’t just a military proposal; “it’s about an entire worldview built on the bankrupt ideology of egalitarianism.”

This ideology denies that there are any meaningful differences between men and women, and that all legal and cultural distinctions are impermissible discrimination against women, even when women are the beneficiaries of these distinctions.

This ideology has led to what Walker has called our culture’s “weakened understanding of masculinity that makes male obligation optional if women are willing to do the duty of men.” This weakened understanding is reflected in public opinion polls showing that strong majorities favor allowing women in combat units.

It’s against this cultural setting, and the “tectonic shift” it represents, that we must see this proposal. A society that is increasingly reluctant to make men fulfill their obligations as husbands and fathers is, not surprisingly, increasingly reluctant to make them fulfill their obligation to protect those in need of protection.

Let me be clear: I’m not against requiring young people to perform public service, whether in the military or in some other capacity. And I wouldn’t dare imply that women aren’t as tough or as capable as men. As a happily married man and the father of a talented daughter, I can tell you that if anything, the opposite is true.

But subjecting women to the military draft ignores the way God created us, male and female. As Walker says, “God didn’t make us automatons. He didn’t make us asexual monads. He made us gendered, embodied, and different. The differences extend to all levels of our being—our emotional, physical, and psychological selves. The Christian tradition finds these differences beautiful; and we embrace them with glad acceptance.”

And because we Christians embrace these beautiful differences, we should vigorously oppose drafting women into the military. It’s a bad idea—one that would sacrifice our daughters on the altar of an ugly ideology.

Experimental barbarism: Why drafting women is wrong
Andrew Walker | erlc.com | February 8, 2016

Threats Of Drafting Women Reveal The Lies Of Equality
D.C. McAllister | The Federalist | February 8, 2016

This article was originally posted at BreakPoint.org

10 Questions For Rule-of-Law Critics Of Kim Davis

Written by Joe Rigney

There’s much talk of late about Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She actually stopped issuing all marriage licenses, to avoid the charge of discrimination. She’s now out of jail, although it’s possible she’ll be sent back.

Among those who are sympathetic to her plight and the religious-liberty implications of the case, many (if not most) still think her decision to refuse to issue licenses was wrong.

For example, Russell Moore and Andrew Walker carefully distinguish between private actors (like bakers and florists) and agents of the state. The former should be allowed to refuse participation in a gay wedding, while the latter, when faced with the prospect of violating their sincere religious beliefs, should seek accommodation from the state, and, failing that, should resign. Others who agree with this principle include Eric Teetsel and Rod Dreher (Dreher mentions others in his post).

For all of these commentators, Davis’s refusal to issue the licenses is a radical move that threatens the rule of law and our fundamental constitutional order. Conservatives, they argue, rightly object when government officials refuse to perform their duties (see here and here). Therefore, we ought not join them in similar lawlessness. (Breakpoint has collected a bunch of additional reactions here.)

I respect many of the men making these arguments. Some of them are good friends. But I have some questions about this framing of the issue.

1. Did You Consider if Kim Davis Isn’t the Law Breaker?

Who has violated the rule of law here? Is it Davis or the U.S. Supreme Court? If, as many conservatives argue, Obergefell v. Hodges is a legal abomination, and there is no right to same-sex “marriage” in the Constitution, isn’t Davis actually seeking to uphold the constitutional order, the one that we wrote down so we wouldn’t lose it (as opposed to the one that’s rattling around in Anthony Kennedy’s head, which, like all marbles, tends to get lost rather easily)?

2. Is Kim Davis Required to Endorse Lies?

When Davis promised to fulfill her duties, did those duties include “tell lies about the fundamental institutions of society”? If that duty has been added in a blatant power grab by the judiciary, why does she have to go along? Why can’t she continue to fulfill the duties she promised to do (which, I think, incidentally, would mean that she should issue licenses to eligible heterosexual couples)?

3. Whatever Happened to Acting Like Lincoln?

Isn’t Davis doing more or less what Robert George recommended in this post-Obergefell First Things symposium (quoted in full, bolding mine)?

How shall we respond to a lawless decision in which the Supreme Court by the barest of majorities usurps authority vested by the Constitution in the people and their elected representatives? By letting Abraham Lincoln be our guide. Faced with the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, Lincoln declared the ruling to be illegitimate and vowed that he would treat it as such. He squarely faced Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s claim to judicial supremacy and firmly rejected it. To accept it, he said, would be for the American people “to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Today we are faced with the same challenge. Like the Great Emancipator, we must reject and resist an egregious act of judicial usurpation. We must, above all, tell the truth: Obergefell v. Hodges is an illegitimate decision. What Stanford Law School Dean John Ely said of Roe v. Wade applies with equal force to Obergefell: ‘It is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.’ What Justice Byron White said of Roe is also true of Obergefell: It is an act of ‘raw judicial power.’ The lawlessness of these decisions is evident in the fact that they lack any foundation or warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution. The justices responsible for these rulings, whatever their good intentions, are substituting their own views of morality and sound public policy for those of the people and their elected representatives. They have set themselves up as superlegislators possessing a kind of plenary power to impose their judgments on the nation. What could be more unconstitutional—more anti-constitutional—than that?

The rule of law is not the rule of lawyers—even lawyers who are judges. Supreme Court justices are not infallible, nor are they immune from the all-too-human temptation to unlawfully seize power that has not been granted to them. Decisions such as Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell amply demonstrate that. In thinking about how to respond to Obergefell, we must bear in mind that it is not only the institution of marriage that is at stake here—it is also the principle of self-government. And so we must make clear to those candidates for high offices who are seeking our votes, that our willingness to support them depends on their willingness to stand, as Abraham Lincoln stood, for the Constitution, and therefore against judicial decisions—about marriage or anything else—that threaten to place us, to quote Jefferson, ‘under the despotism of an oligarchy.’

4. Doesn’t This Response Legitimize Obergefell?

By condemning Davis’s refusal, are we not treating a lawless legal decision as though it were the rule of law? Does this not grant legitimacy to the decision?

5. Doesn’t This Incentivize Power Grabbing?

If the Left’s blatant power grabs will continue to be defended by conservatives under the guise of “rule of law,” are we not incentivizing them to keep doing it? Is that how this ride works: progressives giving the hand-basket a periodic push in the direction of hell, and conservatives ensuring that it never turns around (albeit, attempting to salvage our reputation with requisite grumbling)?

6. How Does the Rule of Law Exist Right Now?

In what sense do we presently live under “the rule of law”? Are we not truly living under the rule of Kennedy and the four lockstep liberals? How can we speak of the rule of law in light of the following: President Obama’s executive orders. Queen Hillary and the amazing, disappearing emails. No-knock raids on political opponents (with no elected officials in jail over it). Internal Revenue Service agents eating out the substance of law-abiding citizens and Lois Lerner still walking the streets. States who refuse to enforce federal drug laws. Sanctuary cities where federal immigration laws are adiaphora.

Completely apart from Kim Davis (who is, after all, simply trying to create sanctuary counties, where people who still know the difference between boys and girls can live in peace and harmony), in what sense are we presently living under the rule of law?

7. Should All Christians Resign?

Davis’s refusal is often framed as a decision of “conscience.” Setting aside for a minute whether the government should accommodate her conscience, as Christians, do we think her conscience should resist granting licenses to same-sex couples? As pastors and theologians, do we think that granting the licenses is a participation in an institutionalized lie, and therefore, if accommodations are not made, all Christian elected officials should simply resign? In other words, is this truly our Shadrach moment, our “pinch of incense to the emperor” moment?

8. What About the Next President?

If the next president is a Republican, can he (or she) order the U.S. Department of Justice to not prosecute government officials in Davis’s position? Or would this also assault “the rule of law”? And if the next president could suspend prosecutions in this way, how would that be any different from Davis’s actions in this case?

9. Is Civil Disobedience Completely Illegitimate?

Do you oppose all notions of interposition and resistance to tyranny by lesser magistrates? Or do you simply reject it in this case? Are there any cases where you think lesser government officials should resist the unjust and unconstitutional decrees of higher authorities (rather than simply complying with the decrees or resigning from office)?

10. What Is the Hill to Die On?

Some have said this is not the hill to die on. What, then, is the hill to die on? What would the Supreme Court have to decree before other elected officials should use their offices to get in the way? What would they have to decree that would make us all—bakers, florists, and county clerks—refuse, lock, stock, and barrel?

Regarding this question, Dreher has answered, “When they start trying to tell us how to run our own religious institutions — churches, schools, hospitals, and the like — and trying to close them or otherwise destroy them for refusing to accept LGBT ideology. This is a bright red line — and it’s a fight in which we might yet win meaningful victories, given the strong precedents in constitutional jurisprudence.”

How will we have anyone left to fight if our elected officials resign to protect their consciences?

But this simply underscores the importance of question seven. How will we have anyone left to fight if our elected officials resign to protect their consciences? And if you don’t want them to resign, but to instead issue marriage licenses, why is it okay for elected officials to offer a pinch of incense to the emperor, but not okay for the bakers and florists? And if we’ve established the precedent that we’re comfortable issuing the licenses despite our religious objections on this hill, then on what grounds will we fight the battle on that hill? Once we’ve grown used to retreating, how will we break the habit?

Or, to come at this question from another direction, if, as Dreher supposes, we’re entering an era where we have a de facto religious test for public office, why would we not choose to have the fight now, when there are still lawyers, judges, and politicians in positions of authority and influence? Why wait until the ranks have been thinned by the American Bar Association, or by lawsuits like the latest from Oregon? While I’m not military strategist, surrendering the high places seems to me to be a poor strategy in a cultural battle.

A Response to Kim Davis Critics

Now a few comments on various and sundry points made by Davis’s critics. My restatements of their arguments are italicized, followed by my response.

There’s no way Davis wins. Therefore, aren’t her efforts counterproductive?

Two thoughts. First, since when does the prospect of winning and losing determine our moral duties? The possible outcomes facing Shadrach and his friends said nothing about whether they should worship the image (Daniel 3:17).

Since when does the prospect of winning and losing determine our moral duties?

Second, Davis’s impotence lies in her solitude. But what if she wasn’t alone? What if, instead of criticizing her, pastors and theologians were encouraging thousands of Christian elected officials to stay in office and refuse to participate in the Great Lie? What if, when some of them were removed from office or impeached, their successors ran on a platform of continuing the defiance? Lather. Rinse. Repeat. In other words, what if we encouraged thousands of leaders to follow Davis’s lead and George’s advice?

Let’s say we encourage more Kim Davises. Most people in this country won’t understand what we’re doing. They won’t see it as a pursuit of justice. They’ll just see bigoted Christians who are refusing to support “marriage equality.”

Again, two thoughts. First, part of the reason they don’t understand this kind of resistance is that we don’t understand this kind of resistance. Let’s get our own story straight and then we can start telling them about it.

Second, even if they still don’t understand, so what? George Wallace and Bull Connor didn’t regard the Freedom Riders as, you know, riding for freedom. The Babylonian tattle-tales didn’t recognize Daniel’s prayers as seeking the good of the city. But in both of those cases, God did. Perhaps we should be less concerned with what we can do to change the minds of others, and more concerned with how we can live faithfully so that God will act on our behalf?

Resist with Joy

Finally, a closing exhortation for my fellow Christians in these days. The author of the letter to the Hebrews commended the early Christians when they were unjustly treated because they “joyfully accepted the plundering of their property” (Hebrews 10:34). In our day, we are facing two challenges in relation to this biblical exhortation: some don’t want to call what’s happening “plunder;” and some don’t want to accept it with joy.

Deep joy in the midst of these troubled times is possible, because all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus, and his kingdom is forever.

Some don’t want to insist on the other side’s lawlessness, and some simply want to grumble, fuss, and shriek about the other side’s lawlessness. The questions above were directed at the first group. We need to get straight on who the lawless ones are here. But in my judgment the latter issue is more important, partly because we see it so infrequently.

As we resist the petty tyrants of our day, as we go to jail for refusing to bow down and worship their image, as our property is plundered because we won’t bake cakes that celebrate the lie, we must do all of this with joy in our hearts and laughter in our bones. No scowling and spittle. No sulky tantrums. No angry fits about the injustice of it all. Such things are unbecoming and ineffectual. Besides that, they’re tacky.

The Scriptures are clear that we have “a better possession and an abiding one,” and therefore we can gladly let goods and kindred go. Thus, as we develop and implement our theology of resistance, we ought to be ready to accept the consequences of such resistance gladly, going on our way rejoicing because we’ve been counted worthy to suffer for the Name (Acts 5:41).

Joy is not optional. It’s essential. What’s more, deep joy in the midst of these troubled times is possible, because all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus, and his kingdom is forever.

This article was originally posted at The Federalist.

Cowardice, Courage, and Cakes

In a recent article about the upcoming political protest in public schools sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), I referred to the “sickening sweetness” of increasing numbers of Christians. By that expression, I am not suggesting that Christians are sickening, as in disgusting. Nor am I referring to civility, kindness, compassion, or genuine love—which is inseparable from mercy, grace, truth, holiness, and justice.

Rather, “sickening sweetness” refers to the superficial “niceness” that so often passes for love within the body of Christ. It’s the equivalent of sugary candy that tastes oh-so-yummy, but provides no nourishment, nothing that can restore health to dying people. It sickens, rather than strengthens. Its sweetness attracts and deceives, making consumers feel good for a moment but contributing only to decay and death. It’s a cheap, easy counterfeit of biblical love, which Christians exploit to conceal the truth that they are avoiding the costly way of Christ. It ignores eternity while paving the way to eternal destruction.

When I refer to the sickening sweetness of Christians, I’m describing those Christians who misuse—make that torture—Scripture to argue that Christian bakers should make wedding cakes for homosexual anti-weddings.

I’m referring to Christians who misuse Scripture to defend keeping kids in school on the Day of Silence even as administrators and faculty use their schools to promote homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality and good.

I’m referring to Christians—including public school teachers and church leaders—who say nothing as five-year-olds are exposed to positive images of and assumptions about homosexuality and gender confusion in our taxpayer-funded schools.

I’m referring to Christians—including teachers and church leaders—who said nothing when the sacrilegious and egregiously obscene homosexuality-affirming play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes was taught at Deerfield and Highland Park High Schools or when the deceitful Laramie Project is taught virtually everywhere.

I’m referring to Christians—including teachers and church leaders—who said nothing when The Perks of Being a Wallflower was included by public school teachers on a middle school recommended book list in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

I’m referring to Christians—including teachers and church leaders—who say nothing when schools decide that restrooms no longer correspond to objective biological sex but rather to the disordered desires of confused children.

The exegetical positions that theological contortionists twist themselves into in their effort to avoid acting in accordance with Scripture on matters related to serving or attending same-sex anti-weddings are evident when Christians say, “But Jesus spent time with sinners, including even prostitutes and tax collectors.” Christians who say this conveniently omit inconvenient parts of these biblical accounts. Jesus didn’t merely hang out, eat, and chew the fat with sinners. He spent time with them, defining what constitutes sin, and calling them to repent of their sins and follow him.

And Jesus did not spend his time with sinners facilitating, participating in, or celebrating their sin. Jesus would not help a prostitute solicit johns or celebrate her career path. Jesus would not help tax collectors cheat their neighbors or celebrate their ill-gotten gains. Jesus did not sit passively by smiling benignly in the presence of men and women who were lost in spiritual darkness and at risk of spending eternity separated from God.

Some who claim to be Christians say that God does not hate, ignoring that God does, indeed, hate. He hates sin and so too should followers of Christ, even as we love those in need of the redemption we have found through God’s grace.

Purveyors of sickening sweetness claim that Christ came to bring peace, ignoring that he also came not to bring peace but a sword that will divide even families.

The peace Jesus brings is a peace constituted by reconciliation with a holy God. This peace does not include, nor will permit affirmation and celebration of acts that God abhors.

Since the fall of man, there has been enmity between God and Satan. Jesus came to bring peace by destroying the enemy—not by affirming and celebrating the sinful activity in which Satan tempts humans to engage.

Some Christians offer the unbiblical argument that Christians should never be angry, whereas God commands us to be angry, but sin not. The salient questions are what constitutes a sinful expression of anger, and what constitutes a sinful absence of anger about that which we should feel and express anger.

In a novel but futile attempt to ennoble cowardice, Andrew Walker writing on First Things advocates fiscal fungibility. He penned an open letter from a fictitious Christian baker to his customers acknowledging that he would be caving in to Leftist tyranny and bake cakes for homoerotic anti-weddings, but that he would donate his 30 pieces of silver to organizations that are willing to suffer for Christ.

Walker argues unpersuasively that “If Caesar insists that bakers must be made to bake cakes or else close up shop, we’re going to see to it that Caesar’s edicts get undermined by channeling resources designed to fight Caesar.”

I think Jesus said something slightly different: “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22: 21). Our gifts, time, and labor are God’s.

In a blog post Jessica Kantrowitz argues that Jesus’ command to his followers that “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles” constitutes a mandate to provide goods and services for same-sex faux-marriages.

It’s important to note that Kantrowitz admits to believing that “gay marriage” is not immoral,” so we know that even as she cites Scripture as the authority for baking cakes for same-sex faux-marriages, she rejects biblical authority on both marriage and homoeroticism.

Kantrowitz ignores critical differences between being commanded to carry a soldier’s pack and being asked to bake an anti-wedding cake. In the first instance, a Christian is being forced to do something, whereas in the contemporary case, a baker is being asked. Second, there is nothing inherently immoral about carrying a pack for someone—not even for a Roman soldier—whereas volitionally making a cake to adorn a homosexual anti-wedding is, indeed, immoral.

The only way that creating a product to enhance an anti-wedding can be construed as morally neutral would be to argue that an anti-wedding is ontologically identical to a true wedding. But at some level even Leftists must recognize that as false. Would Kantrowitz make this argument in regard to a commitment ceremony between a 40-year-old and a 14-year-old? Would she make the same argument in regard to a commitment ceremony between two brothers? If plural unions are legalized—as they will be in the not too distant future—would she argue that Christian bakers have a biblical mandate to create goods and provide services for a polygamous or polyamorous wedding?

Would she make this argument in regard to a commitment ceremony between a person and an animal? This is not to suggest that a homosexual anti-wedding is identical to a zoophile’s anti-wedding. It’s to suggest that Kantrowitz likely holds a prior and unspoken assumption about same-sex faux weddings. In addition to believing that they are inherently moral, which she has already admitted believing, she likely believes same-sex anti-weddings are, in reality, weddings.

What if the government commanded Christian restaurant-owners to refuse to serve blacks? Would Kantrowitz cite Matthew 5:41 as proof that Christians have a biblical obligation to comply? Is Matthew 5:41 an absolute command for Christians always to do the bidding of non-Christians, including when force is not involved and the act requested violates Scripture? Was Jesus’ command intended to compel Christians to carry a pack that they knew would serve a profound evil and even to do more in the service of the evil? Would Kantrowitz argue that as a Christian she has a biblically mandated duty to engage in an activity that she believes is profoundly immoral and which she believes God detests (e.g., refusing to serve blacks in her restaurant or providing goods for a “wedding” between a human and an animal).

And then there are those other pesky biblical passages that point uncomfortably to God’s countercultural mandate:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Eph. 5:11)

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. (James 1: 2-4)

And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. (Mark 8:34-35)

Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. (1 Pet. 4: 12-16)

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. (John 15: 18-21)

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matt: 10: 34)

[A]nd anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (Matt. 10: 38)

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matt. 5: 10, 11)

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart.But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor. 4: 1-2)

How many rationalizations will Christians, in their fear and desperation, attempt in order to avoid doing what they must know is expected from those who claim to love Jesus? God is calling his people in America to deny themselves, to take up their crosses and follow him, and to rejoice when people falsely say all kinds of evil against us.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote this in The Cost of Discipleship:

The messengers of Jesus will be hated to the end of time. They will be blamed for all the division which rend cities and homes. Jesus and his disciples will be condemned on all sides for undermining family life, and for leading the nation astray; they will be called crazy fanatics and disturbers of the peace. The disciples will be sorely tempted to desert their Lord. But the end is also near, and they must hold on and persevere until it comes. Only he will be blessed who remains loyal to Jesus and his word until the end.

And let’s not forget that our children are watching us. Perhaps we can set an example of courageous, faithful self-sacrifice for them, and perhaps we can gain a moment more of freedom for them and their children.

IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett
April 10-11, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details