Gender has become a rather contentious issue in recent years. From the Obergefell v. Hodges decision on marriage, to the transition of celebrity’s gender identity, to the bathroom issues within the private and public realm, it appears to be a defining time in our social history. Within the military community changes have also been made and achieved. Most recently women almost had to register for the draft. There are several military cultural factors that contribute to the discussion which have not been articulated well. I will attempt to address them as best as I can. In this part, I’ll consider the theological implications.
A brief summary of Complementarianism. It is a theological view that gender roles exist for men and women. This takes place in the home and church. As a single guy, I have never had to work out the exact details of what that will look like for the family I hope to have. I have had amazing demonstrations of what this looks like in practice with a number of families in my church. Of particular influence has been the example of the family I have lived with for the last several years. Their godly example has added numerous practical examples to a theology I embraced from a predominantly scholastic understanding. Men and women are of equal value as image bearers of God, but they are not the same. Based on my observations, outside of churches who make this position a distinctive, complementarianism is a minority view within the Christian community.
Perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of complementarianism is the confusion with chauvinism. Gender roles are not about ability or fitness. Given the whole of the Christian life is not about our abilities or anything we do but depends on who God is and what he has done, this understanding should not be difficult to receive. This probably makes more sense coming from a Reformed theological position concerning salvation.
How does a theologically conservative Christian integrate his somewhat libertarian political beliefs within this political discussion? Yes, I am a “combat veteran” according to the Department of Veteran Affairs. Excluding the infrequent basic combat training, my time in the Army were all as staff positions. Every level of training and every unit I was assigned was integrated. Throughout the totality of both my deployments I worked alongside of and was subordinate to women.
Being subordinate to women in those roles did not challenge my complementarian view of gender because Complementarianism concerns itself with the order of the home and church. I do not see it necessarily applying outside those institutions. I do not see a conflict between women in secular supervisory positions and a complementarianism. I do not see a clear theologically based teaching that would prohibit women from operating in combat roles.
Even in the designation of men as protector, the context is between a husband and wife. The Genesis account of the Fall makes certain implications that the man should be the protector, but again, that was a husband and wife context. The argument is “Why did God call to Adam even though Eve sinned first?” I think this implied that Adam should have protected his wife, he failed to protect her in that instance. The purpose of the text was not to articulate a firm position on gender roles, at best I have to insert my understandings to find that conclusion. The examples throughout the Old Testament where only men were designated as soldiers were descriptive over prescriptive. I think there are certain practical and strategic reasons why the armies in the ancient world were almost exclusively for men. Those reasons are not based in a theological understanding.
The best biblical instance of men being designated as the protectors come from the analogy of husband and wife to Christ and the Church. Once again, this is limited within the husband and wife relationship. This is where I derive that the man is to be the protector. To be the protector he does not have to have a disposition towards violence. In fact, I have known many women, Christ followers and not, who had better dispositions to physical hostility than men. Half jokingly even as ushers we have coined the emergency exit in the sanctuary adjacent to childcare as the “mama bear door.” Given the instance of an emergency evacuation, there is no question many moms will attain what might be superhuman strength and will to get to their children.
Whether one is predisposed to address physical hostility or not on a theological level is irrelevant. Remember, the basis of the Christian faith is to do things through God’s power and ability, not our own. Therefore the sacrificial husband needs only to sacrifice himself in obedience to God. Whether that means engaging in the fight he may or may not win, or he will pick up the extra shifts of work to provide, all of it is in obedience to Christ from the example he provided. To be the head means to set himself aside for the good of others. When there is a sacrifice to be made, it first comes from the man. Depending on the day, this may look like a burden or a joy, hopefully it will be a joy more than a burden.
Within the secular context, the sacrificial nature of the relationship tends to only exert itself in the dire circumstances. There is certainly a predominant view that men are natural protectors, whether this comes from an evolutionary understanding of society and social constructs or is an example of biblical masculinity, I would argue the popular understanding is a result of all the influences. Anecdotally, I have encountered many agnostic and non-theist men who held a “traditional” view of women and children especially when the issue relates to self defense. Especially in this nation of immigrants there are innumerable stories of poor families with hard working parents who provided opportunity for their kids they could not achieve. This is perhaps the most common and still compelling example of sacrifice in American society.
I do not see a clear biblical teaching which men ought to be generally postured towards violence. I know between my years in the military and working in numerous security capacities, I am not apprehensive to the idea of physical altercation. There is clear teaching that we ought to be Peacemakers. In the months that working as a Bouncer I have yet to get into a fight. Every opportunity so far, I have been able to de-escalate the tensions to prevent the fight that likely would have occurred. In contrast to the methods of my coworkers, the more I approach Security with an apprehension towards violence the more often the altercations are resolved peacefully. Throughout the process of conflict resolution one must be willing to recognize the real possibilities of harm, but one ought not look forward to it. Any violent action should only be done with the most reluctance. This is the same manner I approach my philosophy of self-defense. I have spent thousands of dollars in equipment and supplies. I’ve spent countless hours practicing at ranges and at home. These exercises are fun in their own right, but the purpose for which I train, I hope with the utmost sincerity will never be needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment