To say that Bereans are out of step with the times, and that we are, so to speak, “on the wrong side of history,” is axiomatic.  We are not reflexively conservative, but we do begin with the premise that not everything that has gone on before is systematically wrong or evil.  Indeed, we tend to think the opposite, that most cultural institutions have some rationale behind them which we ignore at our peril. This brings us to today’s discussion point.  The House Armed Services Committee recently included an amendment to extend military draft registration to females, since, in the words of the amendment’s sponsor, “not including them (females) in the Selective Service is not only a disservice to these women, but also to our nation as a whole.”  The question of how not being in a draft is a disservice to women, when they are currently able to join the military is not immediately obvious.  The whole point of a draft is that in a national emergency, we will compel by force those who would not voluntarily support going to war to join the military.  Clearly the women who are not drafted, and do not sign up when conflicts arise, have shown us by their actions that they do not wish to be part of a military fighting force.  But progressives know better what is good for them; they have a plan to end this “disservice.” Bereans generally argue that there is a “wisdom of the ages” that reflects much more than our current hubris allows for.  While we have this natural caution when it comes to change, as we fear that lack of careful reflection will lead to negative unforeseen results, our conviction is strengthened when we have sound Biblical justification for our concern.* 

This is just the latest in our cultural zeitgeist that argues that equality is inherently and universally good, and that any difference in either processes or outcomes is unjust.  Progressives have been successful in extending the argument that because racial discrimination is wrong (correct!) that any form of discrimination is wrong, yet it is a non-sequitur.  The extension of equality as a universal principle is the God that fails.  I have previously argued that we discriminate all of the time, and in most cases it is beneficial, so I won’t repeat that claim here.  I want to focus on whether equality between men and women is a necessary good.

First, I want to acknowledge that people who take the opposite position from me are making a good point from their perspective:  for them they are saying that treating people unequally means you value them less. This is quite false, but given they think this, I can understand why they fight so hard for equality.  But you should begin by noticing this:  when we are using the term “equality,” there is a conflation between the word as an objective state of fact and a normative valuation.  If I say that women and men are unequal, I mean simply they are not the same in important ways.  Others will hear my statement and think I think women are inherently inferior, which is not true.  But there is a second aspect of this that merits discussion, and that is if someone is saying something is equal with something else, we should ask the question, “in what sense do you mean that the two things are equal?”  In most cases things have some attributes which might be the same as some other thing, yet still have important differences.  For example, both my car and a golf cart could be considered equal if the metric were simply a question of whether they were personal transportation devices.  But their differences are actually far more important than are their equality.  So for example if I have two containers of white granular sugar, and one container is 16 ounces and the other is 1lb, these containers are exactly equal.  It would be foolish to say that one container is superior or inferior because they are equal in every sense.  But what would happen if I had 1lb of brown sugar and 16 ounces of white granular sugar?  Now there will be some senses in which the 1lb container would be superior and some cases where it would be inferior, obviously depending upon the intended usage.  And this gets us to why culture goes awry in the unqualified endorsement of equality.  Let’s consider the following logic trail:

1. Stronger is better than weaker
2. Faster is better than slower
3. Taller is better than shorter
4. Men, on average, are stronger, faster, and taller than women
5. Men are therefore superior to women

Now I don’t buy this logic trail.  But the question is why not?  Where does the logic trail break down?  The first three points are all normative (subjective value) statements, and we might even think them generally to be true.  But are they always true? The fourth bullet is a statement of undeniable fact.  But is it likewise always true in every individual circumstance?  The fifth is a normative conclusion that seems to flow out of the first four, but if the first three are not true, then the logic trail breaks down quickly. 

Let me give an example of why a simplistic look at the issue of equality breaks down.  Let me even assert that I agree that stronger, faster and taller are generally better than weaker, slower and shorter.  These qualities are always only part of something, and are often not the most important.  I often work with metal in fabrication projects and I am almost never looking for the strongest metal.  I am–at most–looking for the strongest metal which has other characteristics that are desirable.  So, for example, I don’t use a piece of ½” thick steel plate to make a bracket that will support a weight of 5 lbs.  I am looking for the best combination of strength, weight, ability to shape, corrosion resistance, etc.  Thus any attribute is almost always one of many that are rationally traded off.  The correct metal will depend on the requirements of the builder. 

In the same way, when we start looking at the equality of males and females, we must look to the designer—what God says about them.  In most senses, males and females are not objectively equal.  Yet these objective differences say nothing about intrinsic worth or value.  Bereans support a complementarian understanding of males and females, which can be explained as follows.  In the most important sense, the normative value of males and females, God explicitly defines them as equals—equally created Imago Dei, image bearers of God.  It is this equality which is the source of all human dignity.  No matter what the world says, God says that every human, born and unborn, male and female, are created in His image and have inherent dignity.  As God says in the first chapter of Genesis:

“²⁶ Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” ²⁷ So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. ²⁸ God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Despite their physical differences, both the male and the female are image bearers. And even though God is always addressed in scripture as Father, He describes his love for Israel with attributes of a mother as well, suggesting that neither the male nor the female alone can image God comprehensively. The male and the female (Adam and Eve) were joint heirs of creation, and they were given the task of mutual dominion (stewardship) over God’s creation.  Genesis 2:15 adds granularity to God’s creative activity, where we see Adam created and given the charge to “cultivate and keep” the Garden.  But the rest of chapter two is interesting; in V18 we see that God says it it’s “not good for the man to be alone,” and then He has Adam name the animals, where Adam saw that there was not a helper suitable for him.  In other words, Adam’s dominion mandate found him inadequate for the task alone; he needed someone that was like but different from him to complete God’s assigned task to cultivate and keep the Garden. It wasn’t just that God saw that Adam had this need; He ensured that Adam himself would know that he was lacking without Eve.  This dignity of being created in God’s image is why the death penalty is instituted for those that would murder an image bearer:  to strike down an image bearer is to strike at God himself (Gen 9:6).  It is why we should not talk badly about others (James 3:9).  Yet this is not the only sense in which males and females are equal; it is arguably not even the most important.  Males and females stand level at the foot of the cross: in our common rebellion against a Holy God, He offers the same unconditional offer of grace to all (male or female) who will repent and believe in His Son.  As Galatians 3:28 tells us,  

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Yet these most important equalities do not negate God’s plan for inequality in both role and functions.  The obvious physical differences are part of what God calls a very good creation.  When God calls our differences very good, we need to reject the cultural view that pointing out God-given differences between the sexes means that one believes that one sex is inferior to the other.  Objective functional differences in no way alter God’s declaration of our intrinsic value, which is equal in His sight.  God has created the female for the unique role of giving life, something that no amount of verbal obfuscation (pregnant people!) can change.  God has made the male physically stronger for multiple reasons, to include being the protector of his wife and family.  The Apostle Peter admonishes husbands “to live with their wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman”,  and to “show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life.”  It is clear to Peter that the objective differences in strength in no way alter the essential reality that males and females are both joint heirs of God’s promises.  The male is expected to love his wife to the point of dying for her, and the wife is called to respect her husband.  These differences are also reflected in the roles that God calls to each.  Males and females are equally called to serve and support the church and the family, but headship of the family and leadership of the church are reserved for males only.  The model of hierarchy is strictly regarded as outmoded and immoral by the secular world, but is embraced throughout scripture.  Perhaps the most difficult word for our rebellious natures to accept is the idea of submission, and yet Christ modeled submission even to the point of death on the cross as our supreme example. Yet this hierarchal submission of females is reserved for those two God-ordained institutions of the family (her husband) and the church (the elders, as men are likewise commanded to submit to). Nowhere are females required to submit to men generally, nor is headship in any other institutional context (e.g., a business) limited to males.

The reality that God delights in creating a beautiful tapestry out of the differing gifts and attributes of His people** is not limited to the differences in males and females.  We see this in the differing gifts that are manifested in his church in 1 Cor 12, Romans 12 and Ephesians 4, among others.  The example in 1 Corinthians is particular on point in this discussion because Paul was using this discussion to debunk false thinking in the church that differing gifts somehow meant an inferiority of some to others.  Because God is ultimately the giver of the diversity of our gifts, and everything He does is good, dare we join the rebellious culture by thinking that differing attributes in His creation (and corresponding roles and functions) mean that some individuals are intrinsically less valuable?  Or will we deny His creative making of differences at all, and declare there are only people, and we determine whether we are male or female or any combination thereof?

So back to today’s focus.  There is absolutely zero reason to be changing the draft registration process; nobody seriously believes that a pressing military need is that we need a larger pool of potential conscripts.  Further, the purpose of a draft is principally to augment the physical fighting forces of the standing army, where the greater average strength and endurance of males comes to the fore. This is just the latest salvo in the progressive war against traditional culture that wants to eliminate any institution that suggests there are differences between males and females that would lead to differing role responsibilities, something that the biblical worldview rejects.  While scripture does not explicitly speak to prohibiting women in combat (except by the lack of women fighting in the biblical record), God’s physical design differences between the sexes and God’s call on the male to die for the family*** suggest that physical combat roles should be reserved for males. I believe that Scripture shows that God created men to be men, to act courageously on behalf of others, to be willing to lay down our life on behalf of our families.  I do not believe that it fulfills God’s design order for women to fight in combat positions while men stay at home.  Indeed, I would feel the utmost shame if I was craven enough to stay at home while women went to battle.  This doesn’t mean that women are less valued, nor even that they are not capable (at some level) of fighting.****  It does mean we are called to be in alignment with the purposes of our God-given design and calling.

The world argues for an equality that essentially means sameness, and any deviation from that is suspect.  God has a much better plan than equality; His plan is for a diversity that is woven together in unity.  And the equality that He offers is not manifested in objective sameness, but rather in the inherent dignity of adoption as sons and daughters.  I like His plan a lot better than the world’s plan.    

* The obvious counter is that pretty much any ungodly perspective can be rationalized away with a reference to scripture, whether it is previous generations support of the institution of chattel slavery or some who currently justify both homosexual marriage and even abortion.  The fact that some people have used biblical values incorrectly in no way should suggest that we shouldn’t use biblical values at all.  It just means that we need to accurately divide the word of truth.

** Which necessarily flow out of God’s sovereign will, for what gifts do any of us have that we did not receive?

*** When the husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loved the church, husbands need to remember that Christ loved the church enough to die for it. Therefore, males need to be prepared to sacrifice all on behalf of their wives and children. And they generally are!

**** As Sisera found out when Jael drove a tent peg into his temple (Judges 4)