We've sown the wind and are reaping...
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)
Matthew Henry's comments on this text: The distinction of sexes by the apparel is to be kept up, for the preservation of our own and our neighbour's chastity. Nature itself teaches that a difference be made between them in their hair (1Corinthians 11:14), and by the same rule in their clothes, which therefore ought not to be confounded, either in ordinary wear or occasionally. To befriend a lawful escape or concealment it may be done, but whether for sport or in the acting of plays is justly questionable. Some think it refers to the idolatrous custom of the Gentiles: in the worship of Venus, women appeared in armour, and men in women's clothes; this, as other such superstitious usages, is here said to be an abomination to the Lord.
It forbids the confounding of the dispositions and affairs of the sexes: men must not be effeminate, nor do the women's work in the house, nor must women be viragos, pretend to teach, or usurp authority, 1Timothy 2:11,12.
John Calvin's comments on this text: 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 are very true: "What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, her sex deserting?" Wherefore, decency in the fashion of the clothes is an excellent preservative of modesty.
The Sri Lankan rebel force, Tamil Tigers, have perfected suicide bombing, claiming a quarter of all suicide bombing victims during the 25 years prior to the war in Iraq. This week, they tried to assasinate Lieutenant General Sarath Fonseka, the recently appointed Sri Lankan army chief of staff. Fonseka was critically wounded; twenty-six others were wounded and eight were killed.
The bomber posed as a pregnant woman.
But there are many Christians who see no problem with women serving as military combatants...
In fact, many PCA teaching and ruling elders--I know because I served on a committee with a number of them and they didn't blush to defend this obscenity. But who knows, maybe seeing how easy it is to hide a bomb while pretending to be pregant will help them to see the error of their ways?
Somehow, I doubt it. The basic problem here is not that it's a pregnant woman, but that it's a woman at all. And that is precisely where they will never agree because they have lost any understanding of the nature of femininity, other than that the husband is the head of the wife and men are the only ones allowed to be elders. After all, most men still want to be king of their castle.
Men like this have absolutely no dotrine of sexuality, other than the bare-bones of adhering to the explicit rules of Scripture (where those rules don't cut too deeply into their lifestyle of libertinism, that is).