Complementarians justified male-only combat as an extension of protective headship theology

Evidence

In 1996, in response to what it saw as President Clinton’s meddling with the military, CBMW promoted a “Resolution on women in combat,” which they recommended “to all interested denominations.” Alarmed that “Biblical norms for the exclusively male vocation of warfare” were being ignored, CBMW noted that the whole purpose of combat was “to kill, slay and destroy,” a purpose and essence that aligned with masculinity, not femininity. Moreover, the moral justification for war involved the protection of vital national interests, most essentially the security and welfare of families. In other words, moral justification for combat was derived from and thus linked to self-sacrificial male headship. On a practical level, integrating women into combat weakened unit cohesion and threatened military order by “escalating sexual tensions,” straining the marital fidelity of “male warriors,” and subjecting “female warriors” to rape and abuse when taken as POWs. In short, it threatened national security and fundamentally controverted the will of God. — Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne, 385

Categorization

• SEED: The protective-masculinity-to-combat-exclusion chain is a concrete, quotable specimen of how theology got militarized — a usable example for an essay on how gender doctrine becomes national-security policy.
• XREF: This links gendered family headship to national security and warfare, exactly the fusion Du Mez argues culminates in Trump support; connects to the earlier chapters’ civil religion analyses.