One of the most widely-revered thinkers of the 20th century is a man by the name of Clive Staples Lewis. I have personally met humans from a variety of Christian denominations and world religions who enthusiastically embrace and enjoy his work.
I marvel at this. Because Clive Lewis is not a man who avoids controversial topics; he’s not afraid to plunge into the provocative and unpopular points of Christianity …and yet somehow he remains amongst the most pervasively celebrated and cherished authors to have ever lived. I think the reason for this is owing to a blend of genuine humility, the art of analogy, and the craft of story-telling. The fullness of time invasion, life, work, death, resurrection, and ascension of the incarnate Word compels us to appreciate the sturdy and balanced blend of humility, imagination, and boldness wherever we encounter it.
This sturdy and balanced blend of humility, imagination, and boldness is what permits a person to proceed with maturity into the something unpopular remaining to be dealt with.
Here is one example of Clive’s work in this department:
Something else, even more unpopular, remains to be dealt with. Christian wives promise to obey their husbands. In Christian marriage the man is said to be the “head.” Two questions obviously arise here, (1) Why should there be a head at all -why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?
(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.
(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as 1 can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say “Poor Mr. X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.” I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own “headship.” There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside. The relations of the family to the outer world-what might be called its foreign policy-must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?
If you have a hankering to respond to Clive’s thoughts on this particular matter I encourage you to seek out a mature/humble human to dialogue with face-to-face about it. There are any number of unpopular somethings we could quote Lewis on, and I would invite all of us into healthy discourse on any and all of them. The main point of this post is simply to say, something unpopular remains to be dealt with, so let us beg God to brew in us a robust and balanced blend of humility, imagination, and boldness so that we can truly savor and enjoy the work that lies ahead.