In 2004, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, among others, jointly issued this statement regarding women in combat:
http://www.pca-mna.org/chaplainministries/PRJCWomen2004.pdf
Reading this document is quite remarkable as it suggests that the primary reason that women should not serve in combat is that they might be carrying a fetus unawares thereby putting that fetus in danger. Also, women are described as being more "vulnerable" though to what it is not exactly clear.
The 1998 RPCNA synod encouraged women considering military service to "take counsel of their Sessions."
This document reinforces the view that women are chiefly to be valued as child-bearers, and that the idea that they indeed might have another vocation, such as serving in the military, is to be questioned. One wonders if Reformed chaplains were advised to counsel men considering military service the dangers of fathering a child unawares. And if the temptations are too great, should men really consider whether to pursue a career in the military?
This document reflects yet again gender essentialism which is breathtaking. One wonders if there is any situation where a man might be warned from certain career choices because they are not suitable or biblical? Or does a man have complete freedom? In this recession, my hunch is that some male breadwinners have lost their jobs, and their wives are the chief source of income. Is this situation unbiblical? Again, I suspect that even if some think that women should not work outside the home, that no session has counseled a family to do otherwise.
Perhaps the RPCNA could take on as a ministry helping those women veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD, rather than stating that their original choice was unbiblical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I humbly submit that if you, as a critic of the RPCNA, wish to refashion the denomination to your liking, there may be a more constructive method than the current direction of your blog.
ReplyDeleteRather than critiquing the RPCNA's positions on issues related to women (which are not particularly distinctive within Christendom, except perhaps that women serve as deacons in the RPCNA, unlike many other conservative denominations), it may be better to get right to the heart of the matter. Your disagreement seems to lie closer to more fundamental issues like your stance on the authority/interpretation/relevance of scripture. Probably if you wrote about your views on these things, your readers would not find your conclusions on "downstream" issues very surprising. You might also come to see that your quarrel is not as much with the RPCNA as it is with orthodox Christianity.
Or, if you want to make your blog really noteworthy, tell the world how your change of mind came about--what experiences or ideas led you to your new conclusions? I bet a good many Covenanters (and others) would be interested in learning from you.
Wow, this is pretty crazy. So the problem with women dying in combat is that...a fetus could die too?
ReplyDeleteWith regards to barbaric yawp's comment that the RPCNA's position are "not particularly distinctive with Christendom" you seem to be ignoring PCUS, United Methodist, Episcopal, ECLA, UCC positions!
ReplyDeleteAs for katz's comment about the paper on women in combat, that is how I read the document.
Hi, while I don't necessarily agree with where you are theologically, I think there is a lot more here that you haven't touched on. I would like to think that "barbaric yawp" has a point - we'd like to understand your journey and how you were led at those junction points. I do have concerns that barbaric yawp simply wants ammunition against you to accuse, but I've created a similar blog with the hope of clarifying the common themes and helping those who were hurt by the RPCNA to find healing and understanding.
ReplyDeleteWhere I am now is that the RP church has added to the true gospel a false sense of worth. The false sense of worth centers around "Theological Superiority" and "Visible Righteousness". I was subtly and continually abused by the RP church because the leadership felt threatened by my intellect. They couldn't defend their positions from scripture and instead worked to undermine my sense of worth by tearing me down at every opportunity in front of the congregation. I think we all have examples of how people who fail in visible righteousness get treated by the leaders and congregation.
I grew up dependent on the approval of leadership of my theological understanding and lived the all-too-common double life of being the good kid at church and not so good elsewhere so that I could be approved by the church. I've been amazed outside the RP church to see Christians that are actually ministering to the messy and loving people with whom they disagree theologically. That might happen inside, but it's pretty rare.
As a former child of a RPCNA member, women in combat is not what distinguishes them as evil. It is their belief of children being born evil and their belief in beating the living hell out of them.
ReplyDeleteAnon, I think that "Total Depravity" is somewhat a side issue. Total Depravity is a reasonable doctrine, but it gets sucked into a larger doctrine, called patriarchy, which is essentially the moral, spiritual and physical superiority of those "above" us. Therefore, beating the living hell out of children is more a function of establishing and maintaining the RP "pecking order" in terms of authority rather than a direct conclusion of Total Depravity.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way, sessions "beat the living hell" out of members, especially those members who do not mindlessly submit to every suggestion/whim/command of the leadership.
Ex-RP here. How can I contact you?
ReplyDelete