C.S. Lewis and gender equality
Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen’s lecture on C.S. Lewis was outstanding. Her talk, “A Sword Between the Sexes: C.S. Lewis’ Long Journey to Gender Equality” is available on CD at Equality Depot. Basically, she picked out all of Lewis’s statements on gender equality throughout his writings. Early in his career Lewis’s writings imply his advocacy of male leadership. Sadly there are passages in which Lewis degrades the equality of women in his book Mere Christianity. Van Leeuwen read a passage from Mere Christianity and then asked “is this mere Christianity?” It makes me not want to recommend this book as highly as I have in the past.
But as Lewis’ career progresses and he gets to know Joy, his thoughts on women become much more positive as seen in Till We Have Faces and A Grief Observed. Van Leeuwen analyzed the arguments of Lewis earlier in his career and found that they were not rooted in Scripture but rather in mythology and experience. Van Leeuwen also cited an article by Faith Martin in Priscilla Papers that noted how Elizabeth Elliot’s argument that women should never initiate is also rooted in mythology rather than the biblical text. Van Leeuwen’s lecture was a wonderful wakeup call for evangelicals to read their patron saint on the subject of women with more discernment and care.
– Andy
Of course, having just read A Grief Observed, I would point out that Lewis’ beliefs there were not grounded in Scripture either. Plus he never came out and embranced egalitarianism.
I find it curious that gender equality continues to be the crux of egaliterian viewpoints. Because, the complementarian argument is not that men are more valued than woman, but that as a builder may have different uses for a $5 hammer and a $5 wrench (which are equal in value), so God may have different purposes for men and for women. That in no way means that one is to be valued more than the other. Value is the same - they are both in the image of God, which is where all of humanity derives value.
Just my 2 cents. I found your blog curious. Thanks!
Sorry Nate, going to disagree with you here. Human beings are not wrenches and hammers. There are no such thing as predetermined gender “roles” in the Bible. They all seem to change with whatever era we are living in. Secondly, the word “role” is describing someone’s BEING not what they are doing. Women, by virtue of their femalenss could NEVER be a pastor. not because they lack the ability or even the calling, but bc their gender prohibits them from doing so. that is ontological subordination when you describe someone that way. that means that women could also NEVER be what they aren’t designed to be. in this theory, women also shouldn’t be capable of being leaders, as its not in thier essence, bc they always need a man to lead them. but obviously Condi Rice, however you may feel about her politics, throws this one out the window. now, obviously men can’t have babies or nurse them. but I am not talking about biological differences when we grapple with the question of whether or not women should be “allowed” to say pastor or a church or be treated as an equal in a marital relationship.
Its still patriarchy which is the second sin of the Bible and I think disgusting to God.