Into the Wardrobe

Given his views, I might wonder if Lewis would stay within the Church of England. Perhaps he would have under one of the more traditional bishops. We will certainly never know the answer to that question.

The contributions on this issue have been interesting and varied. Although I would have liked Adam Linton to elaborate a little on the ways in which the classic Anglican understandings of "orthodoxy" and "tradition" seem markedly different from those articulated in the first post of this thread.
Yet, like Adam, I too have no particular desire to debate the issue of women’s ordination. Unfortunately though, that issue is closely aligned with my original point. That is, are there grounds for Jacobs’ sweeping statement that if Lewis were writing today he “would surely leave the subject alone because “what has emerged since Lewis’ death is a large body of orthodox Christians who see no difficulty with the ordination of women”. But there are no such grounds. What Jacobs claims to rely on is a body of opinion neither orthodox, newly emergent, nor large. More importantly, its point of view has been consistently rejected over the centuries. To now say that that point of view should be accepted seems like something Lewis is so much opposed to, – the arrogance of modernism.
In my opinion this links up with the general point that Lewis is driving at in Mere Christianity that the Christian religion is exactly that, Christ’s. His opinion and example are all that matter. Whether or not we happen to like it we are bound to it.

MJMANN raises an interesting point about whether or not Lewis would have remained within the C. of E. Basically the problem for Lewis would be the same as it is for all Anglicans. It is one of association. To what extent is it right to associate with those whose views, as he sees them, are just irreconcilable with Christian tradition? Does not association give tacit assent to those contrary views? On reflection I’m inclined to think Lewis would have sought the protective jurisdiction of the nearest orthodox Anglican bishop, even if that meant one outside the British Isles. In fact he would have been duty bound under canon law to do so. And that would have two effects, as I see it. On the one hand, he would, jurisdictionally speaking, be “walled-off” or “partitioned- off” from the jurisdiction of Canterbury, but on the other hand still continuing in the Church ‘of his Baptism’, having left nothing and joined nothing.

Regards,
John
[/quote]

[quote="rusmeister"]I, for one, don't find it inconceivable that Lewis might have felt it necessary to change churches at some point, if it became clear that the church he attended was coming into conflict with the teachings of Scripture or Tradition. Orthodoxy is the closest to Anglican tradition, closer in many ways than the Roman church.
The Orthodox Church is always ready to receive those who weary of churches changing their moral base and teachings every century or so, or in accordance with what "society" wants!

Somehow I find it hard to imagine Lewis 'going over to Rome' especially given his upbringing. As you say The Orthodox Church is closer to Anglicanism in many ways. What's more Oxford would be a good place to make Orthodox contacts, pursue Byzantine Studies etc

Well, church attendance is certainly low in some areas. If we make double figures on a Sunday, we think we've done well :) So, going on this alone, the CoE might be said to be 'threadbare'. But people still turn to the Church at the big moments in their lives - birth, death and marriage, suggesting that there is a purpose, and, therefore, strength in the old beast yet. I think that if this activity were to cease, the Church would certainly be in trouble, but there is certainly no reason to panic.

Our church building is used every day by tenants who rent office space from us, and many events (from concerts to private parties) take place on a regular basis. We try to see our building as a community resource, rather than simply a place of worship, although we do see that as its primary function and have arranged the furniture and fittings accordingly. I think this is the way forward for the Church in general - to see itself as there for the people to use, rather than finding ways of using the people.

The suggestion of the ordination of women in the CoE caused a great deal of debate at the time, but when it actually happened I think there was a collective sigh of relief. Certainly, there was not the huge exodus that had been threatened. There are pockets of resistance, certainly. A congregation can choose not to have a woman as their vicar, for example, and can object to a woman priest celebrating communion. But this is the exception.

The ordination of people who are openly gay is a much thornier issue, but when the time is right I am confident that God will move the CoE to accept them, just as it has accepted women priests. In fact, a woman priest was one of the first people to take advantage of the civil 'marriage' of same-sex couples here, so clearly, there are already gay people who are ordained.

I take your point that if the ordination of women or gays were to 'tear the Church to shreds' that actually points to a much deeper problem. But I don't believe that the Church is in such a state that it would crumble if the ordination of gays were openly permitted, any more than it did when the ordination of women began.