C.S. Lewis and the Trans-Sexual

I used to amuse audiences at my Gift of Gender seminars by reproducing, up on the screen, a page from my wife’s first copy of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, the most read book of one of the most read Christian authors of all time. Mary K. had, in an earlier period of her life, taken a black pen and violently scribbled over the entire text, crossing it out with a vengeance. On that page, page 103, Lewis had tried to suggest that men and women have different “roles.” What was funny about showing this work of art—and she was fine with my doing it—was that Mary K. has long since been sold on the whole wives submitting to husbands thing and distinguishing gender in relationship. She is, in fact, exemplary on this point. It always drew a laugh.

I have done this demonstration many times but it never occurred to me until this week to wonder why Lewis had even included this passage in his work of defining minimal Christianity. I recall his discussion in the book justifying why he wasn’t writing anything about Mother Mary (for his Roman Catholic friends) or other matters that may loom large in the lives of Christians. There were so many subjects that he could have explained and, some might argue, should have explained, but he firmly denied them entrance into his small hall of exposition. In his severe effort at “mere-ness” he stripped away everything from his treatment except what he saw as essential to the faith. The resulting slim volume, yet while including his famous apologetics, is a masterful achievement.

But, then, why on earth would he include a passage about distinguishing men and women? Why needlessly raise the ire of Mary K., an otherwise nice and non-violent person, not to mention the same of countless others Lewis was earnestly hoping to convert? What is so essential, or mere, about gender?

The answer jumped out at me as I reviewed some material from his less-read but excellent “space trilogy.” You may recall, if you have read those science fiction books, that the last two, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength, involve a fair amount about gender. These stories bring out how deep Lewis thought gender was, how fundamental to what people are and what Christ came to redeem. Which brings us to the author’s use of the term, ‘trans-sexual.’

Yes, Lewis uses that very word in Perelandra, published in 1943. This surprises those of us who think that term belongs to post-modern era. The passage describes an argument between an academic and Ransom, a character with a secret adventure in his past. What he has seen provokes him to a certain contrary view about the resurrection at the end of time:

  I was his victim at the moment and he was pressing on me in his Scots way with such questions as “So you think you’re going to have guts and palate for ever in a world where there’ll be no eating, and genital organs in a world without copulation? Man, ye’ll have a grand time of it!” when Ransom suddenly burst out with great excitement, “Oh, don’t you see, you ass, that there’s a difference between a trans-sensuous life and a non-sensuous life?” That, of course, directed McPhee’s fire to him. What emerged was that in Ransom’s opinion the present functions and appetites of the body would disappear, not because they were atrophied but because they were, as he said “engulfed.” He used the word “trans-sexual” I remember and began to hunt about for some similar words to apply to eating (after rejecting “trans-gastronomic”), and since he was not the only philologist present, that diverted the conversation into different channels. But I am pretty sure he was thinking of something he had experienced on his voyage to Venus.

You see, Lewis understood gender, and gender distinction, to be a fundamental of the created universe. So he is using ‘trans-sexual’ differently than its usage today. Trans-sexual doesn’t describe an inner decision and ability to transgress the body. Rather, the word describes how the body is only expressing a far deeper reality. As a creation, it is a mere (pun intended) product of an unalterable principle of reality. That reality trans-cends and will engulf our corporeal experiences. We’ll get to see what gender means and has always meant, and how it is expressing, in a rudimentary way, a great truth. (Sam adds here: …a great truth about God!)

So yes, gender is very much a part of Christianity. This is why page 108 of Mere Christianity exists, and why Mary K. has come to agree with Lewis.

So she bought a new, unmarked, copy of the book.