The big screen version of Prince Caspian, the much-anticipated second film installment of C. S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia, was released in theaters last week. Prior to seeing the movie, I read last week's World magazine cover story, "The Return of the Lion." One significant difference between Lewis's book and the Disney film mentioned in the World article caught my attention.

Readers may recall that in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, though Father Christmas gave Susan and Lucy Pevensie weapons, he did not intend for them to use them in battle, for "battles are ugly when women fight." In the film version, this is altered to "battles are ugly affairs." Thus, the question of women in combat is neatly avoided.

Not so in Prince Caspian. Unlike the book, the film clearly depicts Susan as a warrior, actively engaging in physical combat alongside her brothers. When asked about this deviation from Lewis's story, director Andrew Adamson "doesn't equivocate," says Megan Basham in World. Adamson responds,

When the issue of Susan not participating in the fight for Narnia was introduced in the first film, I rejected it then. I was like, ‘Well if she's just gonna make sandwiches then give her a plate and a knife.' It's something that I don't agree with so I wasn't going to make a movie like that.

On whether or not this change is a disservice to Lewis's work, Adamson continues, "You have to remember, these books were written in a different time and place by somebody who I think evolved in his views over the years." Adamson justified this to Lewis's stepson and film co-producer Douglas Gresham by arguing, "I think C. S. Lewis evolved after meeting [Gresham's] mother, and that's why you start to see stronger female characters in his later books."

I would like to offer a few thoughts regarding Lewis's work and Adamson's interpretation.

(1) It was not until I read the World article and did a little research that I realized anyone actually made claims about the "evolution" of C. S. Lewis's thoughts on gender. However, having read some recent debate on this very issue (Christian Scholar's Review vol. 36, no. 4 [Summer 2007]), I remain unconvinced that Lewis's later writings reflect an embrace of gender egalitarianism. In the end, of course, this question will remain unanswered, since Lewis is unavailable for questioning. Regardless, though, it seems the question was really moot from the start, for Adamson confesses, "It's something that I don't agree with so I wasn't going to make a movie like that." Ultimately, then, modern views eschewing any notion of gender roles for men and women won the day.

(2) Adamson contends that one starts to see "stronger female characters" in Lewis's later books. But what is meant by stronger? In Prince Caspian, Lucy sees Aslan, who beckons for the children to follow him. The other children are unable to see him, though, and reject Lucy's appeals. Eventually, they relent and take the route to which Lucy (and Aslan) pointed.

In the print version, Lucy's fortitude is much more evident (a fact strangely absent in the film). When she sees the lion a second time, he commands her to tell the others to follow. But even if they will not, Aslan urges, "Then you at least must follow me alone." Lucy is shaken by the prospect of telling people "something they probably won't believe and making them do something they certainly won't like." But she is resolute to follow Aslan in spite of her fears. Thus, when she wakes the others and urges them to follow, Lucy proclaims "in a tremulous voice,"

And I do hope that you will come with me. Because—because I'll have to go with him whether anyone else does or not.

Lucy is presented as a model of steadfast faith in the face of adversity. After she apologizes to Aslan for not obeying him the first time and announces her determination to follow him, he tells her, "Now you are a lioness. And now all Narnia will be renewed." Lewis chooses a female protagonist to play a crucial role (and not "just make sandwiches") in the overall effort to win back Narnia. It is difficult to see how anyone would not regard her as a "strong female character."

Unless, of course, women are only considered "strong" when they act like men.

(3) Recently, Douglas Gresham was interviewed by Rebecca Cusey for National Review Online. Gresham admits that Adamson persuaded him that "Lewis's attitude toward women changed to some extent after he married my mother." (However, the anecdote Gresham shares does little to convince that Lewis had changed his views of male headship as taught in Scripture.) What I found most interesting, though, is how Gresham responds to the thought of a world where women take part in battles:

That becomes a very difficult thing to define. I don't really think women should be involved in active combat. I don't think it's fair for the men who are fighting beside them, or the men who are fighting against them. And it's not fair for the women themselves. I think the idea that women have to become men in our current society is a very bad one.  

Tomorrow, we will consider this "bad idea" of our modern culture, which insists that "women have to become men" and the biblical response.

Part 1      Part 2

The California Supreme Court last week fired what was, shocking for many, an unexpected shot across the bow when its judges ruled 4-3 to strike down the state's ban on gay marriage.

This action overturns Proposition 22, which Golden State voters overwhelmingly approved in 2000 to protect the traditional definition of marriage. The ruling came as a result of a lawsuit filed by gay rights groups alleging that they were unlawful victims of discrimination. Unless it is stayed by another court, the ruling will take effect in 30 days. At that point, California authorities will be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses. California voters will likely have another opportunity to protect marriage in the November election when the electorate will consider a proposed constitutional amendment

Shannon Minter, attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the case, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called last week's ruling "a moment of pure happiness and joy for so many families in California."

"California sets the tone, and this will have a huge effect across the nation to bringing wider acceptance for gay and lesbian couples," he said.

Minter's comment seems to get to the heart of the original intent of the lawsuit: homosexual activists are hoping that the California ruling will have a domino effect on the rest of the nation and will lead to a carte blanche affirmation of same-sex marriage. R. Albert Mohler Jr., CBMW Council Member, said the ruling by activist judges is comprehensive and drastic; the ruling imbues "sexual orientation" with protected status equal to biological factors such as gender and race. 

"By a one-vote margin, their state Supreme Court renounced the will of the people.  The ruling is both revolutionary and radical.  It sets the stage for a much broader reorganization of human society.

"Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing for the majority, pushed the argument for same-sex marriage far beyond where any court had taken it before. The decision identified marriage as a ‘fundamental right,' thus opening the door for infinite challenges beyond same-sex marriage.

"The court also declared sexual orientation to be a class protected by a 'strict scrutiny' test of all legislation and regulation. In so doing, the California court became the first in the nation to apply this test on the basis of sexual orientation. This move also opens the door for much broader challenges to laws and regulations across the board.

"California voters will have another opportunity to protect marriage in November, when a proposed constitutional amendment will come before the electorate. The stakes now could not be higher."

Scripture is unambiguous regarding the place of honor that marriage — as defined by holy writ — must hold within the city of man among those whose future hope lies in the City of God: "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." (Heb 13:4)

As Dr. Mohler pointed out, there is indeed much at stake in the California ruling and the possibility of a marriage amendment next fall in that state.

Marsha DuCille feels that women are called to be church pastors and her new magazine "CALLED" is needed to serve them.  According to a recent story in the Times Daily, she plans to begin publishing this fall "to fill a void of resources for women in ministry." The article describes how it all began:

Marsha DuCille grew up the daughter of a female pastor. "As a by product, I naturally have been involved in ministry," she said.  About a year ago, she put her background in publishing and writing to use after receiving spiritual prophesy redirecting her future in academia. Shortly after, the idea for CALLED, a quarterly cross-denominational magazine, was born.

The website editorial page describes the magazine and provides insight into what the editors of CALLED feel is critically needed by female pastors:

CALLED is sophisticated and practical. We provide reliable information on marketing a ministry at all stages of its development, managing and growing organizational finances, nurturing a start-up congregation, and effectively tackling all nuances affiliated with "everyday" ministry.  Most importantly, CALLED does not forget about the reader herself. Our magazine equips female pastors & women in ministry with the inspiration they need to be all that God has called them to be-while never losing sight of their needs, beauty, and worth as women-inside and out.

John Piper and Wayne Grudem would dispute the premise that women are called to be pastors and likely would prescribe a different spiritual diet for all women.  They write:

We do not believe God genuinely calls women to be pastors. We say this not because we can read the private experience of anyone, but because we believe private experience must always be assessed by the public criterion of God's Word, the Bible. If the Bible teaches that God wills for men alone to bear the primary teaching and governing responsibilities of the pastorate, then by implication the Bible also teaches that God does not call women to be pastors. The church has known from its earliest days that a person's personal sense of divine leading is not by itself an adequate criterion for discerning God's call. Surely there is a divine sending of chosen ministers (Romans 10:15); but there is also the divine warning concerning those who thought they were called and were not: "I did not send or appoint them" (Jeremiah 23:32). Probably what is discerned as a divine call to the pastorate in some earnest Christian women is indeed a call to ministry, but not to the pastorate. Very often the divine compulsion to serve comes upon Christians without the precise avenue of service being specified by the Holy Spirit. At this point we should look not only at our gifts but also at the teaching of Scripture regarding what is appropriate for us as men and women.

The spring 2008 issue of the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood includes an article affirming the valuable and necessary role of women serving in the church and suggests biblical ways for them to contribute.

The Prime Minister of India delivered a brave and important speech recently. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared his nation's practice of sex-selection abortions to be a "national shame" and called for increased enforcement of laws that would prevent the practice.

Sex selection by abortion is widespread in both India and China, although it is practiced in many other nations as well. In both nations efforts to limit the size of families is part of the equation. In China, the nation's draconian "one child only" policy has led to a dramatic imbalance of males to females. In India, only 927 baby girls are born for every 1,000 baby boys.

Throughout India, ultrasound technologies and other diagnostic procedures are used to identify the sex of the unborn baby. Close nearby are abortionists ready to terminate a pregnancy of the unwanted gender — almost always baby girls.

As The New York Times reported:

Over past three decades, the increasing availability of ultrasound equipment has assisted India's cultural preference for sons and distorted the sex ratio across the nation. As the equipment has become more affordable, special ultrasound clinics have opened even in the most impoverished parts of the country.

Before undergoing an ultrasound test in India, pregnant women must sign a form agreeing not to seek to know the sex of the fetus. Doctors who disclose the sex during an examination can be imprisoned for up to five years. But the law is widely flouted. Studies suggest that doctors often give coded hints, by remarking for example, "Your child will be a fighter," or by offering pink or blue sweets, as appropriate, on the way out. Successful prosecutions are rare.

The Prime Minister's speech was amazingly candid and clear. He referred to sex selection abortions as "inhuman, uncivilized and reprehensible." He also argued that the practice was not justified by poverty or other considerations. He put the blame directly on those who demand and those who provide the sex selection abortion services, speaking of "unethical conduct" on the part of medical personnel and of "unscrupulous parents" who seek out those willing to perform the procedure.

In the most important sentence of his speech, the Prime Minister put it all on the line:

"No nation, no society, no community can hold its head high and claim to be part of the civilized world if it condones the practice of discriminating against one half of humanity represented by women."

Time alone will reveal if the Prime Minister's bold words are backed up by real action. Getting local authorities to prosecute these cases may be difficult. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister fired a significant shot in defense of human life and human dignity. The great tragedy is that he did not extend his moral argument to the "national shame" of elective abortion for any reason.

No doubt, many Americans will read of the Indian Prime Minister's speech with a degree of appreciation. Feminists find themselves in an excruciating moral bind on this question, because they have argued so assiduously for a woman's "right" to an abortion for any reason or for no stated reason at all. They are now on shaky ground to suggest that sex selection abortions (in particular, the elimination of female fetuses) are morally wrong and should be legally impermissible.

In a larger sense, however, Americans should recognize that sex selection abortion is practiced here as well. There is no law that would prevent a woman to abort her baby for this (or any) reason. While Americans recoil in horror at the widespread scope of the problem in India, the fact is that Americans are guilty of the same practice, only on a smaller scale.

Prime Minister Singh delivered an honest message to his nation on Monday. We can only hope that Americans will face this tragedy with equal honesty.

Consider this recasting and extension of the Prime Ministers comments:

No nation, no society, no community can hold its head high and claim to be part of the civilized world if it condones the practice abortion on demand — for any reason.

Those are the words we should all pray to hear.

______________________

The full text of the Prime Minister's speech is found here.

[Courtney Tarter is originally from Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, a recovering feminist, and regular contributor to Gender Blog.  Her love of the gospel and desire to serve women speaks for itself in this two part series. - David Kotter]

Because God changed my heart about discipleship first with Brittany, it freed me to be more intentional in pursuing ministry to women. I knew that I was discipling not because of my great intellect or righteousness, but because Titus 2 is for all of us—including me. I began working with senior high girls at my church in Minnesota after college. It was there that I met the Waldemar family. Whitney, their now 16 year old daughter, was in my small group and her parents had been praying about asking an older girl to mentor Whitney. After praying and talking about it, they asked me. We hardly knew each other, but they felt God leading them towards me. And for six months, the Lord allowed me to not only mentor Whitney, but be a part of her family as well. She and I went on a mission trip to a Jamaican orphanage this summer as a part of a team of mothers and daughters. Mrs. Waldemar and I would talk often, not only about Whitney, but about what God was doing in me as well. She was one of the primary encouragers of me coming to seminary. She was even my ride when my car broke down, and it broke down often. By the time I moved here, both she and Whitney had become like family to me. Their love for the gospel and desire to know Christ caused me to love him more.

I can remember many occasions where I walked away from meeting with Brittany and Whitney with an intense joy in the gospel because of what they were saying about their love for the Savior. Their walks with Christ challenged me and spurred me on to greater holiness and pursuit of Christ.

Often we feel strange talking about our discipleship of other people. We don't want to sound self-promoting or arrogant. But this stems from an unbiblical understanding of discipleship. It is not because of my merit that I discipled women. And it is not my merit that will enable me to continue discipling women. If discipleship was about my ability and righteousness, I would be doomed. It is the gospel that moves me to discipleship. God has commanded that we disciple younger women, even now, not because we are great but because he wants people to know him and grow in him. Titus 2 ministry is not based on merit, but on grace. And if I was not growing in my love for the Savior while I discipled these women, then there was something lacking in my life. There was not a moment that went by in my relationships with these women that I did not walk away praising God for the work that he had done in both of our lives. Discipleship is not just a one-sided effort, and there is no manual besides the Bible. Rather, it is a life-on-life relationship rooted in the gospel.

I still talk with both Brittany and Whitney. And there is not a week that goes by that I do not miss them and long for their friendship. God was so good to me in giving me them. They were, and are still, a blessing to me, and tremendously used by God to point me to the Cross.

-- Thank you for your friendship, Brittany and Whitney. Not only do I consider you dear friends, but I consider you my sisters, too. Our God is good indeed.