One longtime worker in the investigation field who knows law enforcement men wrote to object to my previous post, and this on two levels: he claimed men don’t leave the Secret Service because of its feminization, but because of things like time demands and being away from home. He went on to claim that Scripture does not bar women from exercising authority over men, and that this is only a private rule for the Christian in his home and church. As he put it, “We are directed by God to have man over woman in the marriage and only men can be in leadership positions in the church. The rest………….no.”
First, he claimed that men who declined the White House detail did not do so because of the Secret Service being led by a woman and having to work next to women, but because of the heavy time and family burdens resultant from protecting the president there in Washington D.C. (rather than, for instance, watching over counterfeiting and human trafficking out in the hinterlands).
Of course, he’s right about these burdens being a large part of why Secret Service agents decline the White House detail, and certainly these are the only reasons they give for declining.
But as any of us know who have watched the aggressive corruption of all work forces by the diversity and feminism destroyers enforcing their ideologies, having to put up with it while hiding your opposition is a demoralizing work environment. Our congregation had a Navy Captain who’d held very significant responsibility and authority both here and in Europe, and he picked up and left when the Navy mainstreamed women. He was quiet and didn’t say anything, but privately I knew his convictions and how acutely he grieved the betrayal of the men giving themselves to the defense of their country by their superior officers clawing their way up the ladder of promotion through placing female sailors everywhere, including submarines.
Sailors, soldiers, warriors, and law enforcement officers will never speak freely about how they are abused by the mainstreaming of the female sex in training and combat. And the worst of them will actually defend this sexual revolution. We had such unprincipled men of no conviction on our PCA General Assembly Ad Interim Study Committee on Women in the Military, and they were merely careerists. It was obvious to all.
Real men have always been loathe to fight women; and in the workplace, even to disagree with them. So no, there has never been a rising up of soldiers against women admirals, generals, or all their human resource apparatus enforcing feminist mainstreaming of the female sex across the Armed Forces and law enforcement. But get the common soldier and cop talking privately, and…
Then there’s the matter of the mission of the Secret Service. I’ve talked to many men in law enforcement and the military through the years and what they say privately is that enforcing women’s participation sabotages their mission. Officially, they have to lie about it, but unofficially, they speak the truth. And as I pointed out earlier, this truth was on full display after President Trump was shot, visible in the inability of the two women to fill the space between any shooter and the body of the president. It was the one thing necessary as they stood the President up and walked/carried him down the stairs, and the women were incapable of doing the job properly as the men did it.
They were too small.
Now I know there are jobs that the Secret Service needs to use women for, and we’re all in favor of female Secret Service agents being hired and trained for those jobs. Infiltrating a crowd. Entering a women’s restroom. Investigating human trafficking. Guarding the wife of the President when it requires intimate private presence.
However, this is not what the affirmative action bullies are promoting and enforcing when Director of Secret Service Kimberly Cheatle announced she will ensure 30% recruits being women by 2030. What she is planning and implementing is the sacrifice of the mission of the Secret Service to the Ruling Class ideology they call “diversity.” To put it bluntly, she is more concerned about carrying out her sexual revolution than protecting Presidents and their families. When she has to make a choice between tall and strong men and short and weak women covering President Trump’s body from bullets, she made sure one-third of them were short and weak.
Can we stop to consider God’s command?
A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5)
There is no clothing more distinctively male than the uniform, badge, holster, and gun of the soldier or policeman. Yet the people of God today take this abomination in stride, priding themselves on being modern and progressive, absolutely petrified that anyone will accuse them of being a sexist.
As I’ve said, the whole enterprise should be repulsive. What God names an abomination to him should be repulsive to His sons and daughters, but we’re so deeply embedded in Sodom and Gomorrah that we merely shrug and carry on.
Now, on to the brother’s second claim, that “we are directed by God to have man over woman in the marriage and only men can be in leadership positions in the church. The rest………….no.”
Anyone who says that the Order of Creation applies only to the privacy of Christian homes and churches is sadly ignorant both of Scripture and of all those centuries of church fathers and mothers before us. Until complementarians came along with their halfway covenant, no one ever had proposed that God’s creation of Adam first, then Eve; and God’s command applying that order by forbidding women from exercising authority over man was for Christians, only; and for the privacy of the home and church, only.
No one across church history ever claimed this, and any of them who heard us today claiming this was the Biblical doctrine of sexuality would find such a lie incomprehensible and wonder what sort of decadent empire we were imprisoned in that we had to repeat such bald-faced lies about God’s Word and truth.
Explaining the nature and purpose of God’s prohibition of women wearing men’s clothing which I quoted above, from Deuteronomy 22:5, John Calvin writes:
This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency’s sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet (Juvenal) are very true: “What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?”
Did we need anything more on the subject, read God’s description of the curses he visited upon His people in punishment for their sin:
O My people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them.
O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths. (Isaiah 3:12)
For decades the church has been headlong in her pursuit of cultural inoffensiveness or acceptance, and nowhere have the wicked we live among been more insistent about our acquiescence to their many rebellions than God creating man male and female, from the beginning; and God’s Order of Creation being man first, then woman.
We ought not pretend that our acquiescence is a virtue.
It’s the opposite. It’s a vice and it’s shameful.
