Deborah was a judge and prophetess. To this, many Christian women quickly add, “Deborah was also a courageous military leader in battle.” But, what does God’s Word tell us?
LET’S THINK ABOUT IT
Deborah was a prophetess. A prophet or prophetess speaks on behalf of another but not as a public speaker for God during a congregational gathering. A prophetess might give counsel, settle disputes, or offer thankfulness and praise to God. Deborah was also a judge. What was the condition of Israel in the years prior to her leadership? Read Judges 2:13, 16-17; 3:7, 13; 4:1-4.
Martin Luther took note of the service of Deborah and other women as rulers. He said that they “have been very good at management.” He suggested that women’s leadership in other areas of life might motivate men to properly fulfill their responsibility. It is important to note that Deborah became a judge after the people of Israel repeatedly “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.” Evil, in every way, opposes God’s created order for men, women, and the benefit of a thriving society.
We may think that Deborah was sent by God into combat against Israel’s enemy. But, is this the case? Carefully read Judges 4:4-15. Did God ask Deborah to carry the sword in combat… or did He ask Barak through Deborah? Victory was promised to Barak if only he would obey, but he chose not to. Barak said he would do the Lord’s bidding only if Deborah went with him into battle. Read Judges 4:9. Why wouldn’t the glory in battle go to Barak? The woman Deborah refers to in this verse is not herself, but Jael.
Dr. Vogel explains: “Deborah accompanied Barak to Mount Tabor, but no further. Consistent with Deuteronomy, she donned no battle gear nor engaged in the conflict. Barak (unaccompanied by Deborah) led 10,000 men into the valley to a resounding victory. The rebuke for Barak’s recalcitrance was rendered when a heroic woman, Jael, was given the opportunity to slay the fleeing enemy commander, Sisera. She did this in her own tent, with household equipment [a tent peg], not as a warrior on a battlefield.” (“Women in Combat: Two Views,” The Lutheran Witness, May 2003, p. 16-20)
Deborah served as a judge and prophetess. She counseled Barak as the leader of Israel’s troops. Yet, how did she sum up her role in Judges 5:7? Deborah was praised for her leadership, yet she does not sing about being raised up as a warrior. She sings of being a “mother in Israel.” Though no biological children of Deborah are mentioned, she is an encourager and helper for her people. In this way, she is practicing the vocation given to all women.
Read Genesis 2:18. Many women do not like being called a “helper.” Why might this be? The role of “helper” is not inferior, but is consistent with God’s order of creation. The Triune God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All are equal, yet each has a distinct role to play. Jesus is God, yet He submitted to the Father for the sake of our salvation. The Hebrew word for “helper” is ezer which has a sense of “assistant” or even “ally.” Now read John 14:16; 15:26 and 16:7. How is the Holy Spirit described in this passage? What might a woman think about this? How does this elevate her vocation of “helper?”
Is there a problem with women in the military? No, but as in any workplace, there will certainly be a changed environment and cautions to heed. A woman, by nature of her created purpose, will always be a helper. The question is: Will she help to the good… or the bad? Built up… or tear down? In what ways might a woman help her country without donning battle gear or compromising the service of men?
THE BEARERS AND NURTURERS OF LIFE
Specialist Hollie Vallence, quoted in Part 1 of this series, was asked by her country to sacrifice home and family. In doing so, she explained that she had to build an “ice wall around her heart” in regard to her husband and child. Is this consistent with God’s design? What are the consequences for women, men, and children if a mother hardens her heart? Luther noted that a woman is merciful by nature because she is born to show mercy and to cherish just as a man is born to protect. This is why, Luther says, no living creature has more mercy than a woman, particularly in respect for her infant.
It is often observed that men tend to focus on one project, putting all others aside, until it is finished. In times of war, wives of soldiers see their men bucking up for duty even in the face of leaving home and family for extended periods of time. Is it fair to say that men always feel brave and fearless? Where do they find wisdom and strength? In His faithfulness, God equips men for their vocation of steward and protector. He gives to men what is necessary so that they might do what they need to do for wives, sons and daughters; indeed, for future generations. It is not so much that men want to go into battle, but they are equipped for battle and can leave home and family knowing that their children are in the capable and loving care of mothers. How is the woman partnering with her husband to serve her country? She is guarding hearth and home while he is doing battle with the enemy of that home.
In war, as in work, men understand other men. When a country is serious about winning victory over its enemy, it brings well-trained men together, with no distractions, to focus on the job at hand. These men may return home “changed,” but most can resume life as usual. Mothers, as explained by Hollie Vallence, are not programmed to put distance between themselves and young children. Small tribes and great countries who honor the human rule of chivalry understand that great sacrifice may be necessary in order to protect mothers of children for they are a people’s future.
Dr. Vogel offers wisdom: “If God is indifferent to the woman-warrior concept and a woman chooses to serve in a noncombatant role, God is not offended. If, however, God is not indifferent to the woman warrior concept, and a woman seeks service as a combatant, does she not become a victim of her own will and disobedient to that of God?” (Vogel, The Lutheran Witness)
Will God bless a people or a nation that sends daughters and wives to the front lines of battle? Will He bless the men who send the bearers of life to meet the enemy? Should women be shot at, brutalized, or sacrificed in the name of “equality” or “rights?” God was not pleased with the man who used Deborah as a kind of “human shield.” That is because the Groom of the Church does not stand behind his Bride. He stands in front of her.
WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER?
It is not that God wants men to die, but that He entrusts to them the noble role of protector and defender. As the Man of Sacrifice, Jesus led the way into battle. He did not send others. Jesus faced the greatest weapon of mass destruction – the anger of God upon sinful people. He did not stand behind “human shields,” letting you and me die so that He might avoid pain and death. In the battle for the life of His Bride, Jesus “took the bullet.” He died so that we might live.
Jesus is our Savior. He is also a model for men and women. He wants us to follow Him and imitate His behavior. Sinful as we are, we will want to test the boundaries. We will put ourselves in God’s place, but such pride can put others at risk. Is all hopeless? No! The One who faced our enemy – and won the eternal victory – reaches to us with nail-pierced hands, saying: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that you may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (14:6).
Dear Lord and Savior, without Your Word for life we are a confused and desperate people. We seek to determine right and wrong according to our whims and pleasures, but we are filled with vanity and puffed up with pride. Have mercy on our country, dear Lord. Raise up brave men and women to serve nation and family in ways that honor You and resist all enemies. Bless the chaplains who serve in difficult circumstances. Help us to live this life in anticipation of Your coming, that we might be found faithful. AMEN.
This four-part study written by Linda Bartlett
is adapted from a larger collection of studies entitled
Men, Women, and Relationships first published in 1999
by Lutherans For Life.
This study is available for download
by visiting Titus 2 for Life.
Ezerwoman's Blog 
As usual. Well reasoned and executed. Please just take that as well intented because typing it I feel like it comes off at a pretentious level of 10 for 10.
I started at Part 4 and immediately had to go back and read 1-3 to get the full deal.
That said, having served (past and present) with many ridiculously capable women on active duty that serve in a very real combat capacity… let’s define that as being directly responsible for the death of another person, whether an aircrew member, or in a land/sea component… I will dissent here. If nothing else, take it as a unique perspective from a pilot who has killed in combat with women as integral parts of the team.
Implicit assumptions I will argue against:
Assumption 1: modern militaries depend upon the physical anatomy of their members. From Part 2—>
-Edwin Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation, writes, “The reason we all know the idea of women playing pro football is absurd is because we’re serious about football. It’s tough game, and if you allow yourself to be distracted by irrelevant issues like ‘sexual equity’ when you should be making your team the toughest it can possibly be, you’re going to get creamed. So why are we letting feminists impose ‘sexual equity’ on an area that makes football look like a tea party; something that is not a game, but a matter of life and death for our nation as well as for the ‘players,’ namely, our military?” How do you respond?-
Response: Outside of the most elite special ops units, the physical differences between male and female make absolutely no difference. A female in peak physical condition performs 99% of military specialties (combat and otherwise) physically the same as men. Due to the nature of warfare and the role our equipment and weapons play (i.e. orders of magnitude more than in Biblical times) killing is now an extension of will rather than a contest of physical prowess. Victory in battle is gained through superiority of thought as opposed to strength. Is fitness an essential part of military life and crucial to individual resiliency? Yes. Will a woman in the top 10% of her demographic in physical fitness ever be able to bench press as much as a man in the same percentile? No. Does that matter for modern warfare. Sure doesn’t.
Assuption 2: sexual tension hampers military units.
So, what are real soldiers saying? A classmate of my son served on board a ship in the Persian Gulf. In a conversation, this 21-year-old woman confessed a breakdown in respect for both women and men. Everything, she said, took on a “sexual connotation,” modesty was nearly “impossible,” and the rate of pregnancies on board ship was “higher than on shore assignment.”
Response: This is a cultural issue not a military one. As women have become more common in the military, and the chauvinistic attitudes of the 50’s are mostly gone. The tolerance for sexual abuse (although it still happens I know) is at absolute zero. The damage caused by the 0.1% of the military is overcome by the overall gain in diverse opinions and styles of thought women bring to the table. I’m drinking the Kool-Aid of military doctrine here big time but this happens to be one of the “company lines” I agree with. As to the sexual tension, that is an issue that negatively affects every profession.
Assumption 3: Periods and excretion matter in modern warfare.
Response: It works. People deal with it. The quiet professionals I work with would politely decline to address this one but it gets taken care of and is a non-issue.
Assumption 4: War is like a thief at the door.
Rev. F.A. Hertwig asks, “If there is a threatening noise at the front door, who do you expect should be the first to investigate? Will the man sit back and send his wife, daughter or mother while he goes to the basement?”
Response: If you fight war like you would a thief at the door; reactionary, fearful, panicked; you’ve already lost.
“War is politics by other means.” -Clausewitz. The US is the premiere military superpower (debatable but suffices for this discussion) specifically because we DO NOT fight war like confronting the thief in the night. Our approach is cold, calculating, and extremely unfair. Our fight is asymmetrical, technology driven, and training intensive. The same women I fight with every day would most likely let their husbands address a strange disturbance in the night, but when they are challenged with the deliberate murder of an enemy that has clear malice against their homeland and families, they have zero hesitation. PTSD rates among men and women in the military are statistically the same. http://www.va.gov/health/NewsFeatures/2013/April/PTSD-Study-Men-Versus-Women.asp
Our current enemy can’t fight well at night. We have developed the best night-vision tech in the world. They depend upon the expertise of a few educated members. We have made a business of executing high level targeting since Desert Storm and the Deck of Cards. This is a separate discussion so I don’t want to dwell, but our proficiency is displayed most notably by the enemies’ tactics of large scale civilian-targeted attacks rather than a peer-to-peer confrontation.
Bottom Line: This is, overall, my own opinion with a few references thrown in to make myself seem legit. But actually being in the military and serving with women that I have instructed, commanded, and served with, they are absolutely just as capable as men and their inclusion in the armed service is an overall gain rather than loss to our combat capability.
– Lyndon
Huge Fan of Linda Bartlett and her works
Thank you, Lyndon. When you read some of the things I write, you are faithful to engage. I appreciate that.
The bottom line of this argument isn’t about physical strength, intelligence, or quick and efficient response in times of crisis. As a woman, I know that if I trained, I could be much stronger than I am and perhaps even “one-up” a man of similar size and stature 🙂 For sure, I know I am intelligent 🙂 and sometimes even quicker to respond in times of crisis than certain men I know. But women in combat–particularly in special ops, SEALS, and the Rangers–is about sending women (the bearers of life) to face the enemy when men are the ones assigned by their Creator for the task. God told the man (woman wasn’t created yet) not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil lest humanity die. In other words, man was entrusted with the role of defending life and keeping death at bay. Very soon, however, Adam failed in his duty. He stood passively by when Eve was targeted by the enemy. He allowed her to engage in the battle while he watched. Every human life bears the consequence of that disobedience.
I have no argument with women in the military. I can’t even begin to list the ways they can and do serve their country with intelligence, skill, and wisdom. But men and women are not the same. Aren’t created to be. Never will be. During my lifetime, I have witnessed some of the most insane social experiments ever known to mankind. This is one of them. A nation that sends the bearer of life into hand-to-hand combat with the enemy is a nation not particularly vested in its future. Of course women will defend home and hearth. They will do what is needed when it is needed and be very good at it. And I admit that the so-called “front line of battle” is different from your vantage point. Nevertheless, the whole idea of women in combat, or opening the SEALS and Rangers to women, or conscripting women is PC/feminist and, at its core, imagines male and female as commonly sexual in nature while seemingly ignoring the uncommon (holy) truth that male and female think, feel, communicate, and function differently.
It’s very progressive to imagine that we’ve reached a utopia where men and women can exchange roles and all is well. But, looking around, I see that all is not well. Perhaps it’s a fair question to ask of you who might, one day, find yourself to be the father of a daughter. Would you be ok with her being “just one of the guys”? Being purposefully placed in harm’s way? At risk of capture, torture, rape? Would you be ok with her fellow male soldiers repressing their protective, chivalrous instincts and letting her fend for herself?
I have great respect for you, Lyndon. You are a critical thinker and a man not afraid to engage. It’s difficult to converse on this topic (or other “hot button” issues) by way of a blog post, Facebook, etc., so I do look forward to a friendly dialogue next chance we get, ok?