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]