Patron Lost

We have numerous unhappy encounters, some of them very recently published, with sexual egalitarians, particularly among Evangelicals, who are displeased because we persist in treating their convictions as though they signaled a departure from the “mere Christianity” that Touchstone, hypocritically and in a crabbed, non-Lewisian spirit, professes to represent. They are angry because we won’t let them join the club, when Lewis himself surely would have.

For our part, we wonder how much Lewis they have read—not just his notorious essay “Priestesses in the Church,” but the Space Trilogy, and most particularly That Hideous Strength, in which Jane Studdock is the young feminist doctoral candidate whose conversion requires she give up her egalitarianism, submit to Christ through submission to her husband (obedience being an erotic necessity!), give up the birth-control that has robbed the world of a great son who will now never be born, subject her career aspirations to her duties as a wife, and begin having children. 

Jane is a more than decent person, and lovable, but as an egalitarian she is not a Christian. Lewis is kind to her, but patronizes—she is not nearly as bright or as educated as she thinks she is, and although she compliments herself on her fiercely independent intellectualism, she is in fact a shallow and drearily conventional young woman of her age. He aggressively and unapologetically makes it plain he regards traditional Christian views on sexuality, seen by the unconverted Jane as unworthy of an educated person, as expressing the Divine Order, and egalitarianism (note the temptation scene in Perelandra) as the result of a diabolic attack upon it. Our egalitarian friends evidently mistake his paternal kindness toward those who have been duped for openness to the tale that has deceived them, and vaguely extrapolate from that to the notion that Lewis would have thought those who have embraced egalitarianism can, as egalitarians, be Christians. He didn’t.

Nor can they make of him the claim they so frequently do of older Christian teachers, that had he been provided with the enlightenment of a more advanced age he would have thought differently, for Lewis, as regards feminist doctrine, lived in our age, demonstrating by his responses to egalitarianism and the trouble he takes to refute it that he had listened to the same arguments we have and rejected them just as emphatically. His gentleness toward egalitarians was evangelical: he wished to win them to Christ. He did not think they could be mere Christians because he did not consider them Christians at all. To come to Christ is to leave egalitarianism; a church with priestesses, he gently indicated, was “not like a church.” The egalitarian may honor and admire Lewis, but cannot honestly retain him as a coreligionist, much less a patron, since he has rejected the cosmology that undergirt his writings.

It is worth noting that in this attempt to transform him into something he is not, Lewis is undergoing the same treatment his Lord receives at the hands of every hopeful neologian. The invention of a Jesus whose manner of life and most essential teachings and whose open, beneficent attitude welcomes them to the merely Christian club--and by implication condemns as scribes and Pharisees those who oppose them in the name of the ancient teaching of the Church, is an absolute necessity. In their hands he becomes the Jesus of the gospels the authors of the rest of the New Testament didn’t understand very well, and Paul, that nervous and power-conscious planter of institutional churches, least of them all. 

The cure for the “Jesus of the gospels,” however, is in reading the gospels, just as the cure for the Lewis of egalitarians is to read Lewis.

Comments

[Douglas]

>>>To come to Christ is to leave egalitarianism; a church with priestesses, he gently indicated, was “not like a church.”<<<

Correct. We can put a woman in vestments and put a mitre on her head and give her a shepherd's staff and call her a bishop, but that doesn't make her a bishop because there is simply no provision for women bishops in the Christian faith. It's no less ridiculous than me putting on a kilt, talking to my astonished neighbors about "me stout shillelagh," and proclaiming myself a Scot.

Thus, when confronted with the the traditional and organic institution, the egalitarians have no choice but to deconstruct the institution to fit the people rather than molding people to the institution. Like when we put cammies and black berets on women and call them "soldiers." Or when we indulge homosexuals in little ceremonies and house-sharing arrangements and call it "marriage." But it is the institution, not the individual person, that gives words like "bishop," "soldier" and "marriage" their meaning.

[interesting]

A little brash and over-the-top don't you think? Could have been worded differently to get a "Lewis" point across. Makes one wonder who really is a true follower of Lewis...

[gsk]

"A little brash and over-the-top..."

Would that be Lewis, Hutchins, or the feminists? One cannot play nice with some things. Either things "are" or they "are not." Good post.

[Nick]

Agreed good post. I can't help but read the brash comment though and believe he's pointing at Mr. Hutchens. In that case, I'll have to repeat Hutchens and point out that Interesting hasn't really read Lewis.

[Nancy C. Brown]

I appreciate your comments. Everyone would like a religion that they can feel comfortable with. Christianity isn't it--you can come as you are, but then you begin on the road to change, conversion, sanctification...and if you aren't struggling every day, well...

And just as people try to re-make Christianity into their own comfortable religion, just as Catholics do the "cafeteria" thing and choose which of the teachings they're "comfortable" with; so, too, do people re-make Lewis, and Tolkein for that matter, into whom they will.

Good points. Sorry you lost a reader but John 6:66.

[Jonathan]

I needed this post. I, as an Orthodox priest, just returned from visiting my brother, an evangelical minister. He told me, wincingly, that his friend, the "national denominational youth director," is insisting on paying big denominational bucks so that the Arch-Egalitarian Himself, Professor T. Campolo, can be the featured speaker at this year's summer denominational youth event.

I don't think there's much objective proof of this, but isn't it odd that the egalitarian and homosexual agenda seem to go hand in hand?

Good, good post. Viva Lewis, and his friends.

[Tony Esolen]

Steve,

You are absolutely right about Lewis, and you don't need me to tell you, either. Nor was Lewis going to learn any better from "enlightenment" views about absolute egalitarianism. He had long rejected those views, as not only unchristian but incoherent and unjust. He was steeped in the Christian literature of the middle ages and the Renaissance, when in fact one of the great and fruitful questions was the nature of the true equality among men (and not just between men and women) and the nature of a just hierarchy. Satan in Paradise Lost, when it suits him, is an egalitarian ... Then there's the great episode in Spenser with the presumptuous Egalitarian Giant ... And the goddess Mutability, who seeks to reduce everything to her authority ... The Wife of Bath, Henry Bolingbroke, the weak king Basileus ... None of the old poets had any patience with weak rulers, or with the uxorious (Adam, Cymbeline), or with mannish women who usurp the authority of their husbands and make other people's lives miserable (Lady Macbeth) ...

If the self-styled Lewis fan actually reads what Lewis has to say about obedience, submission, and authority, he'll find that it is almost none of it about juridical matters, and almost all about love. Charity and obedience are not for some people, but for all, and make us like unto the Son of God; and neither virtue ever seeks equality for oneself.

[Anon...]

Of course, I have this nagging idea for a THS fanfic in which Jane rejects Ransom's demands, joins Belbury, has a torrid affair with Fairy Hardcastle, and has the idea to get the animals on their side rather than alienating them. The climatic scene, in which Mr. Bultitude rips off Ransom's silly self-satisfied head, is particularly clear in my mind.

[Edmund C.]

Anon, does your version of THS end with the Head being paraded in the streets of London?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Anon, does your version of THS end with the Head being paraded in the streets of London?<<<

Placed in a bell jar and kept alive on a continuous infusion of Guinness.

[Kamilla]

Perhaps it's merely all this Denver snow, but I don't get it. Where/who is the lost patron?

Kamilla the snow-bound

[A Mere Lurker]

"...Isn't it odd that the egalitarian and homosexual agenda seem to go hand in hand?"

Coming out of regular lurkdom to echo that this is something I noted a few years back myself. During my days in the Episcopal church, I actually considered whether I might be suited for the priest(ess)hood. I had a Master's in English Lit, I loved studying and writing, I was good at public speaking, I cared about people, and I wanted to serve. But I knew I needed several more years as a mature Christian before I could rightly go to my priest about the topic. Over time (and, of course, in God's providence) as I matured in the faith and out of the "Me, too!" feminism I was spoon-fed in my youth, I began noticing that the falling away of so many churches seemed to be heralded by the ordaining of women. Acceptance of homosexuality was always riding the skirt tails of the priestesses, and soon thereafter Christ and Scripture were thrown completely out and all bets were off.

And really, it isn't odd at all. Once you begin to say that gender doesn't matter here, there, or anywhere, why of course it doesn't matter who you sleep with. And once what God says about gender doesn't matter, and what God says about sex doesn't matter, it's really hard to think that what God says about anything else really matters either. The path leads inevitably towards our judgement of God's word and the rejection of the Word's judgement of ourselves.

[Douglas]

Lurker, that's just crazy talk. You're obviously some troglodyte bigot who hates women and is probably a repressed homosexual as well.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Geez, Douglas, I hope Lurker's been lurking long enough to realize yours is high praise!!

[Bill R]

"Perhaps it's merely all this Denver snow, but I don't get it. Where/who is the lost patron?"

Kamilla, C.S. Lewis is often taken as a "patron saint" of many egalitarians, but SMH's point is that he will be lost as a patron saint to those egalitarians who actually bother to read him.

[Kamilla]

Ah! I had my brain turned completely around - thought the reference was to a patron Touchstone had lost. Now it makes sense.

Kamilla

[Labrialumn]

I think it has to do with wedding the spirit of the age instead of Christ. Wedding the pneumon ton aion is always a bad idea.

[Judy Warner]

My daughter is in the middle of That Hideous Strength right now and she hates Jane as depicted in the first part of the book. I think Jane is much like some young women she has met whose shallowness horrifies her. She keeps asking me whether Jane will get better. I reassure her she will, but I don't want to spoil the fun of her finding out that Jane becomes just the sort of woman she most appreciates. I will send her SMH's post when she's finished the book.

It really is striking how well the character of Jane has held up as an example of a modern woman. Recent feminists may be more outrageous, but they are close cousins to Jane.

[GL]

SMH,

Don't you know C.S. Lewis didn't write any of the things you mention. His writings were perverted by a group of later followers who were intent on using him and his teachings to gain power over the ignorant masses, retaining what suited their purposes and rewriting what did not. Even what they retained, they twisted to seem to mean just the opposite of what Lewis intended. In fact, its entirely probable that Lewis never actually lived, that he is a creation of mysogynist men. If he did live, he most certainly supported priestesses and birth control and embryonic stem cell research or at least he would have supported ESC and anyone with even average intelligence can see that.

Those whom you condemn are merely uncovering the historic Lewis, if in fact he ever lived. It's always the same with you fundamentalists, you lack the enlightened mind to understand that words mean exactly the opposite of what they seem or else were corrupted by later usurpers. If you will only just let those of us who truly understand Lewis teach you what he meant (if he was even ever alive to mean anything) and quit reading what some editors working for the Man made him seem to mean, then you would surely come over to our side.

Dan Brown has a new book coming out that makes this all clear.

[GL]

Oh, and another thing, are you so blind that you cannot see the conspiracy surrounding Lewis' death (if he ever lived)? It was no accident that he, JFK and Huxley died on the same day. I've heard that Oliver Stone is working on an update of his movie regarding Kennedy's death which will tie the three events together. Kennedy was shot to distract investigators from realizing that Lewis and Huxley were the real targets of the conspirators. It all makes so much sense if you would just open your mind.

[Margaret]

Egalitarianism is anti-Christ for the same reason CS Lewis's master, George MacDonald, cites as to why Jesus would not turn stones into bread:

"And we shall see how the devil tempted him to evil, but not with evil.

"First, He was hungry, and the devil said, Make bread of this stone.
.....

"'Was he not to eat when it came in his way? And did not the bread come in his way, when his power met that which could be changed into it?'

"Regard that word 'changed.' The whole matter lies in that. Changed from what? From what God had made it. Changed into what? Into what he did not make it.

"Why changed? Because the Son was hungry, and the Father would not feed him with food convenient for him!

"The Father did not give him a stone when he asked for bread. It was Satan that brought the stone and told him to provide for himself. The Father said, That is a stone. The Son would not say, That is a loaf. No one creative fiat shall contradict another.

"The Father and the Son are of one mind. The Lord could hunger, could starve, but would not change into another thing what his Father had made one thing."

---Unspoken Sermons, 1867

[Isamashii Yuubi]

GL please stop! I'm laughing so much my sides are hurting.

Mr. Hutchins: Thank you so much for bringing THS to my attention, I've never read it. I must now go and find a copy.

[James Kabala]

I haven't ever read the Space Trilogy (I don't know why; I read and enjoyed The Chronicles of Narnia at age ten or so and you would think the natural next step would have been to read the Space Trilogy, but for some reason it wasn't), but it seems to be stacking the deck a bit to have it as a climactic revelation that Jane is "not nearly as bright or educated as she thinks she is." It would have been a more difficult task to show how a genuinely brilliant woman (i.e., Jane Austen/Marie Curie/Rosamund Franklin IQ level) should nonetheless submit herself to a boorish or stupid husband - and therefore if it had been pulled off successfully, a better argument against egalitarianism than one based on "Of course the woman wasn't as smart as she thought she was!"

[Steve Nicoloso]

I'm going off a very old memory of Hideous Strength, but I don't think the argument against egalitarianism was, per se', that the woman wasn't as smart as she thought she was, but rather that insofar as "smartness" militates against virtue, that the truly smart thing would be to choose virtue, which she ultimately did, after convincing proofs... and thus proved herself smarter than she hitherto showed herself to be.

... assuming any of that made sense...

[Ethan Cordray]

>>It would have been a more difficult task to show how a genuinely brilliant woman (i.e., Jane Austen/Marie Curie/Rosamund Franklin IQ level) should nonetheless submit herself to a boorish or stupid husband - and therefore if it had been pulled off successfully, a better argument against egalitarianism than one based on "Of course the woman wasn't as smart as she thought she was!"<<

Perhaps a slightly better example is Damaris Tighe from Charles Williams' The Place of the Lion. She's not really stupid or uneducated; rather, it's her very brilliance and talent that makes her susceptible to the ideological temptations of the modernist intelligentsia. Of course, her lover isn't at all dull or boorish (rather, he's a somewhat super-heroic antitype of Adam), but she does have to learn not so much that she's less intelligent than she thinks, but that she's simply more foolish.

As Solomon learned, sometimes wisdom brings with it its own weaknesses to temptation.

[Ethan Cordray]

Oops.

[Ethan Cordray]

Oops again...

[Judy Warner]

it seems to be stacking the deck a bit to have it as a climactic revelation that Jane is "not nearly as bright or educated as she thinks she is."

The book isn't meant to be solely an argument against egalitarianism. It is more a commentary on the entire modern condition and mindset. It has been said to be the fictional version of The Abolition of Man. Jane is a nice and intelligent woman, but very modern in her sensibilities -- just like millions of other women. The level of her intelligence isn't as important as the revelation that this is not what matters. A modern woman would have an easier time seeing herself in Jane than she would in a genuinely brilliant heroine.

[Judy Warner]

Oops. Ethan, this must be catching.

[Judy Warner]

Huh? I'll try again.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It would have been a more difficult task to show how a genuinely brilliant woman (i.e., Jane Austen/Marie Curie/Rosamund Franklin IQ level) should nonetheless submit herself to a boorish or stupid husband<<<

Why would an allegedly brilliant woman marry such a man in the first place?

[Rebecca]

Jane is not the only person who undergoes a transformation in this book. Her husband Mark, who is indeed a fatuous boor at the beginning, also has to embrace virtue, and this seems to be a lot harder for him than for his wife, who actually comes off as his superior in many ways. I think that Lewis did make the point quite well here that one's role in a hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with one's intelligence or basic worth.

THS is one of my favorite books and I love most of what it says about men and women, but sometimes his tone here in regards to women is a bit hard to take. It is interesting, after reading this book, to go on to "Till We Have Faces," which does not show Lewis as having become an egalitarian, but does show a deeper, more understanding, and consequently gentler view of women.

[GL]

Isamashii,

While I was being sarcastic, I was actually making a point. The egalitarians who view Lewis as a patron don't have to lose Lewis as a patron; they can reinvent him. Their patron won't be the real Lewis, but if they want to claim him, they can find ways to convince themselves and others that he really would be with them were he alive today. Tony has undoubtedly seen this numerous times in his discipline, where secularist literary professor reinterpret the writings of great Christian writers from the past to suit their agendas. You see it in politics, where Lincoln is claimed by everyone.

If I might offer a suggestion, read the entire Space Trilogy in order, beginning with Out of the Silent Planet, then Perelandra, and then That Hideous Strength. While the latter can stand on its own, as Lewis notes in the preface, you will have deeper understanding of it if you read the other two first.

As Judy notes, That Hideous Strength is about the same subject as The Abolition of Man. Lewis explicitly makes the connection in the preface of the former work, writing, "This is a 'tall story' about devilry, though it has behind it a serious 'point' which I have tried to make in my Abolition of Man." If you haven't read the latter, I would suggest that you do so as well. I would also read it before reading THS, but that is not essential.

[GL]

Rebecca,

Yes, Lewis was not a misogynist or part of the "He-man Women-haters club" of Our Gang fame; he was opposed to 20th century feminism and its efforts to treat men and women as if we are the same. He was opposed to egalitarianism, not women.

[GL]

Liberals and secularist are not the only ones guilty of remaking past luminaries into men who "support" their agendas. Some on the so-called "Religious Right" do this as well. D. James Kennedy is notorious in this regard. All the founders were orthodox evangelical Protestant Christians to hear him describe them. He has even lauded Napolean for goodness sake.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>He has even lauded Napolean for goodness sake.<<<

But didn't you know that Napolean was a 5-point Calvanist...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>All the founders were orthodox evangelical Protestant Christians to hear him describe them.<<<

Charles Carroll of Carrollton had us all fooled for years.

[Rebecca]

GL,

I agree that Lewis was not a misogynist. I think he was far too humane for any of the "isms." One of the things I got from THS is that egalitarianism is unworkable in Christian marriage partly because it destroys proper humility in both partners -- remember the shift in Mark's attitude toward Jane at the end of the book.

[Tony Esolen]

Random comments in response to James K's fine question:

Lewis in THS decided to deal with an intelligent but by no means brilliant woman married to an intelligent but by no means brilliant man -- and at that, a man whose judgment about human beings, until the beginning of his conversion, is consistently appalling. But the Biblical injunctions regarding marriage have nothing to do with intelligence, absolute or relative (and, notably, nothing in Scripture encourages us to believe that there's a dime's worth of difference in intelligence between the typical man and the typical woman. There may be differences in capacities for this or that sort of thinking or activity, sometimes with the advantage for the man, sometimes for the woman; but the Bible seems unconcerned with the matter). We see instead that Mary -- whom Catholics and Orthodox believe, by the grace of God, to be without sin -- had to obey the lead of Joseph, though "had to" does not justly describe what in her was certainly a charitable willingness. Also, Saint Peter advises Christian women to defer to their husbands, even the most froward -- suggesting that their obedience may lead their husbands to virtue and the truth.

You can't get a full vision of Lewis' treatment of men and women from that single marriage in THS. Perelandra provides the example of an unfallen woman of incomparable wisdom and virtue, tempted to strike out on her own -- and thereby descend from her high station as queen of that new world. What really happens in the good marriage, as Lewis shows it (and Tolkien), is best described as a kind of dance, wherein the woman leads the man by means of her obedience (as Jane will lead her husband Mark), and the man submits to the best interest of his wife by leading her.

As for Jane Austen, I think in this matter we can allow her to speak for herself:

Mr. Bennett is the head of his household, but he shirks his responsibilities, retiring into his library and his sardonic humor. His failure to lead is the direct cause of Lydia's being put in the way of temptation. He married badly, but if he had been more patient with his wife, she might not have descended into her pit of silliness and selfishness. He is much to blame for the state of his family.

Mr. Bertram (in Mansfield Park) appears to be a more determined head of household than Mr. Bennett, and he is more solicitous for the welfare of his wife. But he is often cold and distant, and his exercise of authority, for many years, has been limited to sharp rebuke and the stern expression of his will. He leads, but not like Christ. He fails ...

Jane Austen has no sympathy whatsoever for men who let their wives lead them by the nose: the weakling Mr. Elton, for instance. Nor does she have any admiration for the women -- they are the targets of her most severe criticism. Her ideals are men whom no woman need feel ashamed to obey: Mr. Knightley, Edmund Bertram ...

Marie Curie -- I don't know about Madame Curie's private life. She was taught science by her father, and she married her fellow Nobel winner, Pierre Curie, by whom she had a daughter who, with her own husband (whose name I can't recall at the moment), shared a Nobel prize with Mme. Curie. Neither woman seems to have promoted herself at the expense of her husband. Again, though, the Biblical injunction does not relate to intelligence or even to virtue.

There must be something good for both men and women who follow the advice of Saint Paul, and something bad for both men and women who reject it. There are, naturally, plenty of parodies of the man who leads and the woman who obeys -- the bully and the cringing weakling come to mind. That said, an ideal is not to be judged by its parodies. Giving egalitarianism every advantage -- well-tempered people, with enough material possessions to cushion them from worry -- I still see the egalitarian marriage suffering from ineradicable troubles: a lack of clear leadership; a confusion about who does what, and why; a failure to appreciate the wonder of the opposite sex, for the simple reason that the differences between the sexes tend in such marriages to be muted; a tendency to see what each partner gives to the marriage as part of a negotiation, between joint owners of a concern, rather than as an undeserved gift pure and simple (on the part of the receiver), or as a plain duty (on the part of the giver). I'm not saying that all egalitarian marriages are bad, but that they do fall short of the ideal in some fairly easily identifiable ways. Also, if you look closely at the marriages of men and women who say they are egalitarians, you'll often find that in fact the man naturally leads and the woman naturally follows, or that the woman "leads" by deferring to her husband, and the husband devotes his leadership to the interests of his wife and children. They obey Saint Paul, but are unaware of it, and would be mortified if they were shown it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>We see instead that Mary -- whom Catholics and Orthodox believe, by the grace of God, to be without sin -- had to obey the lead of Joseph, though "had to" does not justly describe what in her was certainly a charitable willingness.<<<

insofar as Mary and Joseph both subordinated their own will to the will of the Father, there could be no conflict between them. Thus we see the ideal of Christian marriage, in which both husband and wife suborninate their own desires to the will of God. The woman will find no reason to disobey her husband; the man will have no cause to give offense to his wife.

[GL]

We see instead that Mary -- whom Catholics and Orthodox believe, by the grace of God, to be without sin -- had to obey the lead of Joseph, though "had to" does not justly describe what in her was certainly a charitable willingness.

* * *

Perelandra provides the example of an unfallen woman of incomparable wisdom and virtue, tempted to strike out on her own -- and thereby descend from her high station as queen of that new world.

In Perelandra, we actually see the unfallen woman protected from her surrendering to the temptation to sin by a fallen man (Ransom). Here, Lewis actually has Ransom do what some accuse Adam (who was still then without sin) of not doing, protecting the unfallen woman from the tempter. The Woman in Perelandra was obviously in a superior moral state to Ransom, yet she needed this fallen man to help her preserve her unfallen state.

[GL]

Charles Carroll of Carrollton had us all fooled for years.

Stuart undoubtedly believes that Carroll was Catholic. That is the generally accepted "history." It is, of course, a lie created out of whole cloth by the Vatican. In fact, Carroll was a respected member of a pan-denominational mega-church, with a theatre-in-the-round design, a musical service that included lyrics set to Bee Gees' tunes, and a weekly observance of the sacrament, practiced by smoking peyote from a peace pipe.

[GL]

insofar as Mary and Joseph both subordinated their own will to the will of the Father, there could be no conflict between them. Thus we see the ideal of Christian marriage, in which both husband and wife suborninate their own desires to the will of God. The woman will find no reason to disobey her husband; the man will have no cause to give offense to his wife.

Well said and amen.

[Labrialumn]

Kennedy isn't wrong about the founding fathers, I've read enough of the primary source documents. Of course, you are erecting a straw man and proceeding to demolish him with mockery.

And you should be praying for him, he suffered a massive heart attack the other day.

I would be astounded if he had lauded Napoleon.

[Anon]

Re: The Head...
In my version, Jane persuades Belbury that trampling on the animals is a bad move, and that instead they should harness the vicious side of the animals to destroy the sick patriarchy of St. Anne's.
As part of this, they ritually destroy the Head's physical being, (it is the head of a male, after all !) and soon Jane and Fairy take over as spokeswomen for the God/ess. (The evil spirit in the Head, of course, is untouched by this, and even relieved that it no longer has to be imprisoned in matter for its will to be effective !)

[Ethan Cordray]

Gee, Anon, I thought I was supposed to be the resident pessimist here...

[smh]

I can understand why several saw fit to comment on my remark that Lewis painted Jane as not as bright as she thought she was, for that is not immediately obvious, and I did hesitate for a bit before I went ahead and wrote it down.

Note I did not say Jane was unintelligent. Dr. Esolen is correct in noting that both Jane and Mark are depicted as intelligent but not brilliant. Had they been brilliant, they would have had the kind of penetration that allowed them to forego the painful pedagogies of Belbury and St. Anne's--then where would Lewis's story have gone?

My remark came from his depiction of the uncoverted Jane's complacent acceptance of feminist orthodoxy as obvious to the intelligent. This is all it takes to make her, certainly in the opinion of the Lewis who was well-known in his role as an educator not to suffer people like Jane and Mark gladly, "not as bright as she thinks she is."

[hibernicus]

Speaking as an orthodox Catholic (and a bachelor) I'm not sure Lewis is a good example to build this case on because (a) he had noticeable sadistic tendencies - expressed in his letters to his friend arthur greeves, for example, which he was well aware of and struggled against. This means that his reflections on dominance and submission need to be handled cautiously - especially since unscrupulous detractors like AN Wilson in his dreadful, error-riddled biography use this to try to discredit everything Lewis wrote. (b)HIs biographies leave the distinct impression that in his relationships with Mrs. Moore and Joy Gresham it was the woman who "wore the trousers", so to speak.
This particular argument is better conducted on first principles, not on using Lewis as an authority.

[Ray Dubuque]

Kamila & co.
As a former male chauvinist Catholic priest, I ask you:
when you say "I began noticing that the falling away of so many churches seemed to be heralded by the ordaining of women. Acceptance of homosexuality was always riding the skirt tails of the priestesses, and soon thereafter Christ and Scripture were thrown completely out and all bets were off.

And really, it isn't odd at all. Once you begin to say that gender doesn't matter here, there, or anywhere, why of course it doesn't matter who you sleep with. And once what God says about gender doesn't matter, and what God says about sex doesn't matter, it's really hard to think that what God says about anything else really matters either. The path leads inevitably towards our judgement of God's word and the rejection of the Word's judgement of ourselves."
Why do you think ordaining women would be a departure from Jesus' teaching when Jesus said nothing to rule it out, and yet Catholics and Episcopalians have no problem with all the pomp and circumstance of clergy that has been such a huge part of the hierarchy for centuries, when THAT is what Jesus condemned?????
IMHO you all have your priorities wrong, thinking that you are following Jesus, when it is people like Lewis that you are REALLY following!
See http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/
I came here by accident and probably won't be back again, so use my email if you want to communicate with me.

[Ethan Cordray]

Hibernicus, given (a), it seems even odder that Lewis would be co-opted by egalitarianism, doesn't it?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Why do you think ordaining women would be a departure from Jesus' teaching when Jesus said nothing to rule it out, and yet Catholics and Episcopalians have no problem with all the pomp and circumstance of clergy that has been such a huge part of the hierarchy for centuries, when THAT is what Jesus condemned?<<<

Assuming you are who you say you are, it's pretty clear the Catholic Church suffered no great loss from your departure from the ranks of the presbyterate.

[Ethan Cordray]

Ray seems to have tried to get all his question mark use out in one post. Interesting website, too. Apparently, "many visitors consider this the best site on the internet when it comes to the intersection of religion and politics in America today." I do hope you'll all follow the link!

Oh, dear, I'm so turning into Stuart. It's so much easier when someone tells you they won't be back.

I do hope we don't have to have this discussion all over again on this thread. If I come back tomorrow and there's 200 entries, I promise I'm not going to read any of them.

[Kamilla]

Stuart,

I don't think Touchstone has suffered a great loss from the hit and run poster, either.

Mr. Dubuque,

I'm not sure why you chose to include me, but if you do in the future, please spell my name correctly. Please also do me the courtesy of not assuming what my views are simply because I post here.

Kamilla

[Ethan Cordray]

Oh, dear me! I've just discovered the background music! I hereby declare it indeed the best site on the internet!

[Kamilla]

Hi Ethan,

I'm at work tonight so I didn't turn on the background music, I guess I missed out. I can't wait to see Mr. Dubuque's response to Arthur C. Brooks' new book, "Who Really Cares".

Kamilla

[GL]

Labrialumn,

Sorry if I offended you with my remarks about Dr. Kennedy. I started to write a long post explaining my problems with D. James Kennedy and his methods, but he is not the subject of this thread. If you like his teachings, I have no interest in adding further offense by explaining why I do not.

May God Bless you in the coming New Year!

[Bobby Winters]

>>>I do hope you'll all follow the link!<<<

And I thought you were my friend. Golly gee whillikkers, do they all have to fit the stereotypes.

[Bobby Winters]

From the site

The Mason's have controlled this country from the beginning.

I wonder if our hit and run poster has a little tin foil hat.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The Mason's have controlled this country from the beginning.<<<

Ask any son of a widow.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>Ask any son of a widow.<<<

I don't understand.

[Kamilla]

I don't get the widow comment, either. But I did see "National Treasure", and when I get a chance, I'm gonna steal me that ole Declaration and Ben Franklin's funny glasses (but I don't know what Joseph Smith did with them when he was done. . .) and find that masonic-eqyptian treasure, and then I won't have to listen to night shift complain about the lab management anymore, bwahahahahahaha!

Kamilla

[GL]

Now I'm confused; I thought the Trilateral Commission and David Rockefeller ran the world. I thought the Masons were just a diversion to confuse the masses. (Cf. assassinating JFK to distract from the real targets of the conspiracy: Lewis and Huxley.) But if our visitor says it really is the Masons who run things, who am I to contradict him?

[Ethan Cordray]

Both of them are just diversions from the cabal of Jewish Catholic Mason Nazi Space Aliens who really run things! Open your eyes, man, the evidence is so obvious!!!!!!

[smh]

OK, folks, we're way off track now. I have just discovered that I am able to close the comments, which I shall henceforth do when they dribble off like this. If I don't find it too time-consuming, I am also going to begin this year to edit out comments that do not stay at least somewhere near the subject.

I don't, by the way, object to ad hominem attacks (which our Lord apparently used with some frequency) against myself, and will tend to permit them as long as they don't contain vulgar language. But I will give those who favor them fair warning that these generally tell the reader far more about themselves than the object of their remarks.