For thousands of years of military wisdom and noble instincts that reasoning would have been unintelligible. Of course, there are women of valor. But for a male commander-in-chief to say that since they are willing to die in combat, therefore we should arm them for it, is a non-sequitur, and a shame on the president’s manhood.
It’s a non-sequitur because more factors than valor go into fitting a person for combat, and it’s a shame because true manhood inclines a man to fight to protect women; it does not incline him to arm women for the frontline of combat to defend him.
That’s the main issue, not pull-ups. The main issue is: how God has designed manhood and womanhood to honor each other and to create a cultural choreography where men and women flourish.
(Read the whole article at, http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-folly-of-men-arming-women-for-combat)
Piper continues:
The Bible reveals man as a protector. Jesus came into the world to destroy the enemies of his bride (1 John 3:8). He came to rescue her at the cost of his own life (Mark 10:45). This was the ultimate paradigm of how a husband relates to his wife: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25).
The echoes of this ultimate manhood in Christ are found throughout the Bible as men take the initiative to protect their women. And when Barak insists that Deborah go with him to battle, she makes it clear that this will be to his shame: “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory” (Judges 4:9).
But what did the first man need to protect the first woman from in the garden?
The grass eating lion?
Before sin, there was no death. How do you protect someone who cannot die?
And why did Jesus come to die? Because of sin.
The idea that men must protect women is based on the hostile world of sin in which violence and death are ever present; it doesn't originate in the garden of innocence.
Shame on Piper for even suggesting it.
True, before sin, man could not have been made a protector. He was even made before woman, which is more reason why that really could not have been his created role.
ReplyDeleteOf course, since we humans now share a corrupted world, all of us need to help protect one another. This is not limited to one gender - the Hebrew word ezer (helper) for Eve probably mean protection too, seeing how it is used elsewhere in the Bible.
It is sad that some won't see the difference between the world ruled by sin and God's original creation, and end up calling good "evil" and evil "good."
ReplyDeleteadam did fail to protect eve from the lies and deception of satan by failing to speak up to her regarding what
ReplyDeleteGod had commanded when she decided to listen to satan and eat from the tree they were forbidden to eat from.
Here's the thing Bill, God didn't tell Adam that he had failed to protect Eve; God said, "Because you listened to your wife." God held Adam accountable for his own sin, not Eve's. Nor did he tell Eve she had failed to obey Adam, for she wasn't under the man's authority; in a world void of sin, what kind of authority is needed? They both disobeyed God, and God held them both responsible, just as he does with all of us now and will at the final judgment.
Delete