JACOBS, Alan (author)
THE NARNIAN : The Life and Imagination of CS Lewis, New York, Harper Collins 2005
I have been searching online for references to or commentaries on the abovementioned book, but sadly, without any success, hence the new topic.
I enjoyed “The Narnian” immensely. However, the author’s meaning eludes me where, on pp254-5 he refers to the Lewis outlook on women generally, and, more particularly, his 1948 contribution to the debate about the ordination of women “Priestesses in the Church?”
Jacobs prefaces his remarks by properly describing Lewis’ ‘true image theory’ of the Christian priest as necessarily a man in order “to impersonate (as it were) Jesus Christ” and granted, Lewis’ Christian apologetics are delivered in the pastoral tradition in which controversy is muted. Yet, even so, what I find hard to understand is Jacob’s bold assertion that if Lewis were writing today he “would surely leave the subject alone (i.e. ordination of women) because “what has emerged since Lewis’ death is a large body of orthodox Christians who see no difficulty with the ordination of women”
Yet, this is no novelty. It was ever thus. Since at least New Testament times there have been those (some otherwise near to orthodoxy, some far from it) who ‘see no difficulty with the ordination of women”. Indeed, priestesses were the norm in New Testament times themselves the Jews being, thereby, a conspicuous exception. Nevertheless, the great Church has consistently adhered to her Jewish heritage in this regard although not, of course, in others. One may well ask why this is so and there are various theories including the image theory referred to before. However, all we know, and all we really need to know, is that Christ called only men. So then, at the heart of the matter is a mystery - the mystery of vocation and the sacrament of priestly ordination; part and parcel of orthodoxy.
By the way, when we talk of orthodoxy we refer to a received tradition. If one departs from the tradition in one respect (in this instance ordination of women) one is, ipso facto, unorthodox. Consequently, it doesn’t matter whether or not Lewis anticipated a ‘falling dominoes effect’, as it were, whereby all sorts of other beliefs that have historically constituted orthodoxy would also go into oblivion.
Lewis’ would scarcely have been ignorant about the long and binding precedent for the rejection of women’s ordination. Therefore, for him to leave the subject alone today would seem unlikely, in my opinion.
Any comments?
