I loved this biography of Lewis and, in particular, of his imagination. I have praised it left, right and sideways, when people have asked me about it. So for the record, I wish to add my voice to the chorus of praises being sung about this book, and will not restate the many strengths of this book here. However, unlike many reviews I've heard or read, I cannot praise it without reserve. Epecially since its one glaring error finds its place between the covers of the same book that does such a good job of recognizing and describing something so central and foundational to Lewis man and mind , and which has largely been neglected by previous biographers: Lewis as last of the Old Western Men.
I was disappointed with Jacob's handling of Lewis's take on gender roles/relationships and his stance against modern feminism as found in his writings. In light of Jacob's excellent description of Lewis as an Old Western Man (something Lewis described himself as), it boggles the mind how Jacobs can see Lewis's opposition to the ordination of women, as well as certain other of his statements and treatments of the differences in gender roles (husband's headship in marriage as found in Mere Christianity) as something which Lewis would think differently on if he were alive today. Far from Lewis being the one confused and conflicted over his own thinking on this issue, it is clearly Jacobs who is confused and can't seem to see past his own buy-in to the feminist understanding of gender of his own day and culture. Also, for Jacobs to base Lewis's opposition to the ordination of women ministers in the church to Lewis's high church Anglican (or Anglo-catholic) view of the celebration of the Eucharist, where the minister represents Christ to the Bride (church) and to state that this is not the view of the vast majority of Protestants is misleading at best and irresponsible and dishonest scholarship at worst. While it is true that the majority of Protestants don't hold such a high view of the priest's function in the Eucharist (or don't agree that a minister of the gospel is infact a "priest" any more than the rest of the congregation), it is not correct to say that the majority of protestants don't share Lewis's perspective on the ordination of women and the role of the minister to represent Christ to the congregation in some fashion. In fact, Protestants have traditionally seen this as part of the minister's role, though not in precisely the same way as Roman Catholics, High Anglicans or Orthodox. They still have seen, however, that when a minister is in the pulpit or leading the congregation in worship, the minister must be male (along with all the other biblical qualifications) so as to maintain the imagery of Christ the husband speaking to his bride, the Church, through a masculine spokesman (some recent or contemporary low-church Anglicans who hold to this are John Stott, J.I. Packer, and J.C. Ryle). It is only recently that much of the Protestant church has abandoned this view. So historically speaking, Jacobs stands in the minority view, one which has capitulated to the pressures of modern secular feminism, and Lewis stands in the historical majority view, one which is still shared by Christians seeking to remain faithful to Scripture in its instruction of the functioning of the church. Jacobs seems to be the one who is confused on this issue and who projects his wishes that Lewis had made himself more palletable to the feminist scholars in whose circles Jacobs no doubt presently labours. This was not the glaring inconsistency and sectarian oddity in Lewis's otherwise "mere Christianity" which Jacobs thinks it is but was a faithful and consistent part of Lewis's make-up as an Old Western Man and a Christian committed to biblical faithfulness and the traditions of the church as handed down from the Apostles. Feminism in the church is largely a result of pure reason applied to a given issue separated from the "mythology" of the biblical narrative. No wonder Lewis, the man who couldn't be won to the faith through pure logical argument and reason, but had to come to see the beauty of the story, rejected what is simply a philosophical and psychological argument from reason, divorced from the plain text of Scripture and from the sweep of the story it is telling, which is a romance (in the old sense) that we experience in the narrative and that we act out in our functioning as the Church, the Bride of Christ, who is as yet in the care of the groomsmen and under-shepherds (ministers).
Let no one who has ever read the Lewis canon go on thinking that Lewis had a low view of women or viewed them as generally weaker than or inferior to men. I've seen more than one feminist author tear a strip off Lewis for what he says about Susan in The Last Battle (interested in boys and clothes and parties, perhaps not unlike the girlfriend in his short work, The Shoddy Lands). Yet those same feminists all fail to recognize that Lewis also consistently describes Lucy as the character with the most consistent, most constant and strongest faith of all the children who ever visited Narnia. Lewis clearly viewed his mother as his father’s spiritual superior and viewed his wife Joy as his equal intellectually and probably his superior in strength of faith and bravery in suffering. Far from misogynistic, in his writings Lewis displays a high, biblical and complementary view of women. But his high view of women is not an egalitarian view and that is something that feminists can’t stand, interpreting Lewis’s deference and chivalry toward women as condescending and patronizing. But to really understand what Lewis thought, one has to get inside his mind as an Old Western Man, not observe his actions and read his works through the grid of modern feminist egalitarianism.
Other than that inconsistency, this truly was a great book and I very highly recommend it. Were I to write a comprehensive review of the entire book, this critique would be only a small part of the whole. However, as I haven't seen anyone else take Jacobs to task on this one flaw in his otherwise great biography, I squeaked up. But I do hope someone who is someone takes Jacobs to task on this point. If it hadn't been for this glaring inconsistency in this otherwise great book, I would have given it 5 stars (six, if it was an option). As it was, I barely convinced myself to give it 4 but someone has to.