LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 240

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

240

II. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
• Morale and Cohesion: Having women serving in
direct combat will hamper mission effectiveness by
hurting unit morale and cohesion.

In 1994, Defense Secretary Les Aspin announced a new
policy regarding women in combat. He rescinded the
1988 “Risk Rule” and replaced it with a less restrictive
ground combat policy.6 In 2013, Defense Secretary
Leon Panetta lifted the barriers preventing women from
serving in direct combat roles. Finally, in 2015, Secretary
of Defense Ashton Carter announced that all combat
positions would be opened to women.

• Military Readiness: Pregnancy can affect the deployability of a unit when the unit has a disproportionate number of women or is understaffed.

• Modern Warfare and Public Support: In the
modern world of combat (Afghanistan, Iraq),
all women serving in the military are exposed to
“front-line risks.” Support for women serving in
the armed forces has not wavered as warfare has
changed, a clear sign that the necessity of women
serving in combat is recognized.

• Tradition: Men, especially those likely to enlist,
maintain traditional gender roles. In some situations, men may act foolishly to protect women in
their combat units. Harassment and resentment of
the presence of women in a hyper-masculine military subculture would likely become a problem.

Since that time, many U.S. politicians, military
leaders and other government officials have publicly
indicated or intimated that they support the registration
of women for the draft. In February 2016, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Robert Neller, and
the Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. Mark Milley, voiced
their support for the inclusion of women in the Selective
Service now that all military positions, including combat
roles, had been opened to women. On June 15, 2016, the
Senate overwhelmingly passed the National Defense Authorization Act (85-13), which included an amendment
that would require women to register for the draft. The
House of Representatives, however, declined to include
this amendment in the National Defense Authorization
Act, and the issue was set aside for the time being.

• Career Advancement: Men and women are both
given opportunities to join the army, but with the
understanding that different roles require different physical and emotional attributes. This should
mean, in turn, that there are multiple routes to
promotion so that women have equal opportunities without having to fight to take part in combat
operations.

• Physical Ability: As long as an applicant is qualified
for a position, one’s gender is irrelevant. It is possible to calibrate recruitment and training standards
to women. Extra pre-training for muscle building
can also be used to reduce female injury rates. In
modern high-technology battlefields, technical expertise and decision-making skills are increasingly
more valuable than simple brute strength.
• Military Readiness: Allowing a mixed gender
force keeps the military strong. The all-volunteer
forces are severely troubled by falling retention and
recruitment rates. Widening the applicant pool for
all jobs guarantees more willing recruits. Women
who choose to become active combat soldiers are
unlikely to shirk their duty by becoming pregnant
after a call-up as these women have willingly joined
the army.

• Efficiency: Some women will be able to meet the
required standards, but most will not. While integration of women into combat is possible for those
qualified, the small number versus the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated
with integration do not make it a worthwhile move.
or greater than the risk in the combat units they supported.
6
As a result, 80 percent of all military positions could then be filled by
either men or women. By 1997, women consisted of 13.6 percent of
active duty end strength, and by 2011, women comprised 14.5 percent
of active duty end strength.

• Effectiveness: A blanket restriction for women
limits the ability of commanders in theater to pick
the most capable person for the job.

The “pro” and “con” arguments listed here are taken (slightly abbreviated and edited for stylistic purposes) from sistersinarms.ca/history/
women-in-combat-pros-and-cons/.

• Tradition: Training will be required to facilitate the
integration of women into combat units. Cultures

7

WOMEN AND MILITARY SERVICE: A LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE

|

PART 1

2

WHEREAS, Biblical arguments against women
serving in combat positions have been marshaled by
many Christians, including members of the LCMS,
who strongly object to the Department of Defense’s
decision, such arguments being based on specific
texts (Gen. 1–2, Deut. 22:5, and Eph. 5:25); therefore be it
Resolved, That the LCMS support those who have a
religious and moral objection to women serving in
ground combat positions; and be it further

• Career Advancement: As combat duty is usually
regarded as necessary for promotion to senior
officer positions, denying female personnel this
experience ensures that very few will ever reach
the highest reaches of the military and so further
entrenches sexism. Women have to be given the
same opportunities as men in the army; in order
to have the same opportunities, they have to be
exposed to the same risks.

Those who support the opening of all combat roles to
women often make arguments such as the following:

• Physical Ability: While the majority of jobs in the
armed forces are open equally to men and women,
there are some for which women are not physically
suited. The standards of physical fitness have been
set to suit men, and women attempting to reach
them will over-stretch themselves. In addition, combat units engage in activities designed to suit men’s
capabilities. Women serving in integrated units will
suffer higher injury rates as a result.

WHEREAS, The women of the LCMS may be subject
to registering for selective service and a possible draft,
as the rationale provided by the U.S. Supreme Court
in prohibiting this practice was the Department of
Defense’s ban on women in combat; and

• Cultural Differences and Demographics: Women
are more effective in some circumstances than
men. Allowing women to serve doubles the talent
pool for delicate and sensitive jobs that require
interpersonal skills not every soldier has. Having a
wider personnel base allows militaries to have the
best and most diplomatic soldiers working to end
conflict quickly.

• Abuse by Enemy: Both male and female prisoners
are at risk of torture and rape, but misogynistic societies may be more likely to abuse female prisoners.

In the social and political realm, those who oppose
the employment of women in direct combat roles often
make arguments such as the following:7

WHEREAS, On January 24, 2013, the U.S. Department of Defense announced its intent to lift our
nation’s Department of Defense ground combat
exclusion which presently prohibits women from
serving in ground combat positions, an exclusion
upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court; and

change over time, and the masculine subculture can
evolve too. Many previously masculine professions
have been successfully opened to women over the
past century.

Resolved, That the CTCR study this issue and produce
a statement that can be considered and acted upon by
the Synod in its next convention.
Most recently, in 2016, the Synod in convention
adopted Res. 5-11A, “To Protect Christian Consciences
and Address Conscription of Women,” which includes
the following “Resolveds”:
Resolved, That the Word of God and the LCMS in
convention supports individuals in the LCMS who
conscientiously object (1) to a woman’s service in the
military in general or (2) to a woman in the military
being required to serve in a combat capacity; and be
it further

Questions regarding women serving in combat were
first brought to the attention of the Commission on
Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) by the president
of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) in
November 2001, following the attacks of Sept. 11 and the
subsequent launching of Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).8 Overtures
directed specifically to this issue were formally submitted to the Synod in convention in 2004, 2007 and 2010,
but no resolutions on this matter were adopted by the
assembly. At its 2013 convention, the Synod adopted Res.
2-12A, “To Speak re Employment of Women in Military
Combat”:

Resolved, That due to deep and widespread concern
among many members of the LCMS — rooted in biblical convictions, historic understandings of natural
law, and reason-based common sense — about the
negative impact of the conscription of women on individual consciences, marriages, families, and society
as a whole, the LCMS in convention strongly oppose
any legal action that forces the compulsory service of
women in the military, also called the conscription of
women, by mandatory participation in Selective Service registration, a draft, or by any other mechanism;
and be it further

8
An initial response to the issue of women in combat appeared in the
May 2003 issue of The Lutheran Witness, which published articles by
two theologians who had been invited by the CTCR to share their (differing) perspectives on this issue. One article (by David Wollenburg)
took the position that there is no “clear guidance in the Scriptures
regarding the subject of women in combat,” while the other (by Leroy
Vogel) argued that God’s Word does speak to this issue in various ways.
See “Women in Combat: Does God’s Word Give Guidance?” (The
Lutheran Witness [May 2003], 17–20).

WOMEN AND MILITARY SERVICE: A LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE

Resolved, That we also defend the informed consciences of women who have carefully considered

PART 1

|

3

their station in life and Holy Scripture on this issue
who wish to voluntarily serve in our nation’s military;
and be it further
Resolved, That the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations (CTCR) continue their diligent
and beneficial work as tasked by the 2013 convention
(Res. 2-12A) to study the issue of employing women in combat and bring it to a swift conclusion for
widespread distribution and use in the church; and be
it further

Women and Military Service: A LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE

Resolved, That at its earliest convenience, the Council
of Presidents become familiar with and discuss together this topic and the information readily available
(along with the forthcoming CTCR document) to
better assist pastors and congregations and those
LCMS individuals “whose position is firm, fixed,
sincere and deeply held” (DoDI 1300.06) who are
bound to apply for conscientious objector status; and
be it finally

Part 2:

Theological Considerations
The Faithful Service of Christians in Governmental Vocations

S

cripture makes clear that God oversees and is
intimately involved in everything that He has made
(Acts 17:28; Heb. 1:3). In the Church (the right-hand
kingdom or realm), He works through His Word and
Sacraments, bringing the Gospel message of forgiveness
and salvation through Jesus Christ. In the world (the
left-hand kingdom or realm), He works through earthly
(yet God-given) vocations, offices and office-holders.9
Vocations serve as “masks of God.”10 The most foundational institution in God’s creation is the family, “with its
offices of marriage — comprising the vocations of hus-

Resolved, That the LCMS in convention strongly
support the responsibility and necessity for men and
women to live and act according to the Word of God
and their consciences in this matter while respecting
the consciences of others (Rom. 14:2–3, 13–23; 1 Cor.
10:29; 1 Tim. 1:5; Heb. 13:18). (Yes: 946; No: 89)
This document has been prepared by the CTCR
in response to these 2013 and 2016 resolutions of the
Synod. The moral question of whether a society or a
government should conscript women or employ them
in combat is an important one. In view of the American
social, political and legal context — especially in view of
very recent decisions opening all combat roles to women
and recent legislative discussions regarding the possibility of requiring Selective Service registration for women
as well as men — the primary focus of the present study
is on the moral deliberation of women who are serving
in or contemplating service in the military, or who could
potentially face registration for or conscription by a
military draft.

band and wife — and parenthood — with its vocations of
mother, father, and child.”11 The vocation of citizenship
ultimately has its foundation in the family as the most
basic social unit.12 Individuals will have other vocations
as well, such as employee or employer, citizen, neighbor,
church member — or for some, the vocation of military
service.13 Vocation involves certain “givens” about where
God has placed each of us here and now, which impact
considerations about what we might or might not do to
serve our neighbor in the future. If a person is married,
that is his or her God-given vocation; if a person has
children, then that is also his or her God-given vocation.14 Problems arise when people ignore or disregard
the essential responsibilities God has given them in their
current or primary vocations, or fail to consider how
their various abilities, inclinations and stations in life are
to be properly exercised in service to their neighbor.15

9
See, for example, Rom. 13:1–7; Matt. 22:15–22; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter
2:13–15. Martin Luther identified the two kingdoms (or realms or
governments) in this way: “For this reason God has ordained two governments: the spiritual, by which the Holy Spirit produces Christians
and righteous people under Christ; and the temporal, which restrains
the un-Christian and wicked so that — no thanks to them — they are
obliged to keep still and to maintain an outward peace.” Martin Luther,
“Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed” (1523),
Luther’s Works, vol. 45, ed. Walther I. Brandt, (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1962), 91. The means or instruments through which God works
in the left-hand kingdom include earthly government, rulers and
laws, which also entail the use of force (the “sword”). The means or
instruments through which God works in the right-hand kingdom are
the Word of God (both Law and Gospel, but especially the Gospel)
and the Gospel as it is connected to visible means (i.e., the Sacraments
administered in and by the church). See CTCR, Render Unto Caesar …
and Unto God: A Lutheran View of Church and State, September 1995,
34ff, lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=360.

11
Ibid., 96–97. “Every Christian — indeed, every human being — has
been called by God into a family. Our very existence came about by
means of our parents, who conceived us and brought us into the world
… . The family is the most basic of all vocations, the one in which
God’s creative power and His providential care are most dramatically
conveyed through human beings.” Gene Edward Veith, God at Work,
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2002), 78.
12

WOMEN AND MILITARY SERVICE: A LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE

2019 Convention Workbook

|

PART 1

4

WOMEN AND MILITARY SERVICE: A LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE

Ibid.

13
Gustaf Wingren, Luther on Vocation, trans. Carl C. Rasmussen
(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957), 4–5. Veith, Spirituality of the
Cross, 103–104.

“Though justification has nothing to do with good works, vocation
does involve good works. The Christian’s relationship to God is based
on sheer grace and forgiveness on God’s part; the Christian’s relationship to other people, however, is to be based on love put into action. As
Wingren puts it, ‘God does not need our good works, but our neighbor
does.’” Gene Edward Veith, The Spirituality of the Cross (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 2010), 99.
10

14

Veith, Spirituality of the Cross, 104.

15
Ibid., 107. Your “station in life” includes such things as age bracket,
marital status, whether or not you have children, whether you are a
church worker or layperson, perhaps your work status (i.e., if you are
an employer or not).

|

PART 2

5