<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Sword Between the Sexes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/05/a-sword-between-the-sexes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/05/a-sword-between-the-sexes/</link>
	<description>A First Things Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:35:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention A Sword Between the Sexes » Evangel &#124; A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/05/a-sword-between-the-sexes/#comment-10802</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention A Sword Between the Sexes » Evangel &#124; A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 21:14:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=6563#comment-10802</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Paul Vander Klay, ThinkChristian. ThinkChristian said: RT @PaulVanderKlay Review of Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen&#039;s book on CS Lewis and femininity &quot;a sword between the sexes&quot; http://bit.ly/da1IFU [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Paul Vander Klay, ThinkChristian. ThinkChristian said: RT @PaulVanderKlay Review of Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen&#39;s book on CS Lewis and femininity &quot;a sword between the sexes&quot; <a href="http://bit.ly/da1IFU" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/da1IFU</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orthodoxdj</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/05/a-sword-between-the-sexes/#comment-10751</link>
		<dc:creator>Orthodoxdj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 20:00:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=6563#comment-10751</guid>
		<description>A female priesthood has never been the mind of the Church. That&#039;s the bottom line. I don&#039;t care who does it; it&#039;s as nonsensical as square circles and gay marriage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A female priesthood has never been the mind of the Church. That&#8217;s the bottom line. I don&#8217;t care who does it; it&#8217;s as nonsensical as square circles and gay marriage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Lee Anderson</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/05/a-sword-between-the-sexes/#comment-10746</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Lee Anderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 16:18:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=6563#comment-10746</guid>
		<description>Erin, to be clear, I don&#039;t think it&#039;s a problem that you are revising your opinion in light of the book.  She makes a great case for her position--about as good a case as could be made, really, without it being a knock-down argument.

It does a great job of doing what all secondary sources are supposed to do:  return us to the primary works themselves to evaluate the arguments with a fresh set of eyes.  Because Van Leeuwen does that well, I&#039;m comfortable highly recommending it (something I didn&#039;t make clear in my review).

matt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Erin, to be clear, I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a problem that you are revising your opinion in light of the book.  She makes a great case for her position&#8211;about as good a case as could be made, really, without it being a knock-down argument.</p>
<p>It does a great job of doing what all secondary sources are supposed to do:  return us to the primary works themselves to evaluate the arguments with a fresh set of eyes.  Because Van Leeuwen does that well, I&#8217;m comfortable highly recommending it (something I didn&#8217;t make clear in my review).</p>
<p>matt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Albert</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/05/a-sword-between-the-sexes/#comment-10743</link>
		<dc:creator>Albert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 15:59:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=6563#comment-10743</guid>
		<description>That sounds like an intriguing book.  

In this narrow case, though, I believe C. S. Lewis&#039;s theory was better than the man because the man struggled sexually: specifically, if Alan Jacobs&#039;s biography is right, he struggled with some sadomasochist temptations and he knew it.  Knowing that, I trust his theory because of his capacity to critique ideas in light of tradition and Scripture, even when his experience seems to point a different way due to our fallen flesh.  I know this isn&#039;t a full argument, since this is a blog comment, but I&#039;ll throw it out there.

Also, I suppose I fall into the camp that believe that being created male and female in the image of the Triune God means there is a connection between Trinity and sexuality.  Perichoresis, dance, implies different parts, i.e diversity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That sounds like an intriguing book.  </p>
<p>In this narrow case, though, I believe C. S. Lewis&#8217;s theory was better than the man because the man struggled sexually: specifically, if Alan Jacobs&#8217;s biography is right, he struggled with some sadomasochist temptations and he knew it.  Knowing that, I trust his theory because of his capacity to critique ideas in light of tradition and Scripture, even when his experience seems to point a different way due to our fallen flesh.  I know this isn&#8217;t a full argument, since this is a blog comment, but I&#8217;ll throw it out there.</p>
<p>Also, I suppose I fall into the camp that believe that being created male and female in the image of the Triune God means there is a connection between Trinity and sexuality.  Perichoresis, dance, implies different parts, i.e diversity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Truth Unites... and Divides</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/05/a-sword-between-the-sexes/#comment-10732</link>
		<dc:creator>Truth Unites... and Divides</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 20:41:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=6563#comment-10732</guid>
		<description>Egalitarianism does mean priestesses.  Ergo, Orthodoxdj will never be an egalitarian.

Hooray for orthodoxdj!

P.S.  Church of England has priestesses.  They are now moving to having bishopesses.

ACNA has priestesses.  They just ordained one recently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Egalitarianism does mean priestesses.  Ergo, Orthodoxdj will never be an egalitarian.</p>
<p>Hooray for orthodoxdj!</p>
<p>P.S.  Church of England has priestesses.  They are now moving to having bishopesses.</p>
<p>ACNA has priestesses.  They just ordained one recently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orthodoxdj</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/05/a-sword-between-the-sexes/#comment-10730</link>
		<dc:creator>Orthodoxdj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 20:19:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=6563#comment-10730</guid>
		<description>If egalitarianism means a female priesthood, I will never be an egalitarian.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If egalitarianism means a female priesthood, I will never be an egalitarian.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erin</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/05/a-sword-between-the-sexes/#comment-10728</link>
		<dc:creator>Erin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 19:02:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=6563#comment-10728</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m about two-thirds of the way through this book, and I must be one of the few whose minds might be changed by it, at least as regards the way I understand Lewis. Prior to reading Van Leeuwen&#039;s analysis, I thought highly of the gender types in That Hideous Strength. My regard for Lewis as a writer is as high as has always been, but I see certain parts of works through a more critical lens.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m about two-thirds of the way through this book, and I must be one of the few whose minds might be changed by it, at least as regards the way I understand Lewis. Prior to reading Van Leeuwen&#8217;s analysis, I thought highly of the gender types in That Hideous Strength. My regard for Lewis as a writer is as high as has always been, but I see certain parts of works through a more critical lens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
