Note: this essay was first published in Time and Tide in June 1942.

Lewis takes news that Germans ranked a Nordic villain as more heroic than Siegfried, the hero of the saga, as evidence that they misunderstand the myth. He claims that valorizing their cultural background has caused them to fundamentally misunderstand it. 

In the same way, Lewis attributes the problems of modern society to a collective obsession with society itself. Lewis argues that a healthy society can only exist if humanity is working towards some greater, original good. He suggests that finding and prioritizing that greater good is the only hope for humanity.

Note: this essay was first published in the Church of England Newspaper in September 1945.



Lewis outlines principles for encouraging a Christian domestic life. To begin with, clergy must admit that, for most people, including themselves, home life is not perfect. As a result, the call to domestic life must be based on more than simple family affection, or it will not last. Lewis argues that the home cannot be a place to escape from society or relax the expectations of Christianity. On the contrary, clergy must develop and preach strict regulations for Christian home life.

Note: this essay was first published by Lewis in 20th Century: An Australian Quarterly Review in 1949.

Lewis defines the humanitarian theory of punishment as the idea that the criminal justice system exists not to enact deserved punishments, but to rehabilitate existing criminals and deter future criminals. He argues that this theory is not humane, but in fact leads to the dehumanization of the offender. If crimes are attributed to pathology, then anything identified as a pathology can be criminalized. Lewis speculates that this could result in people jailed for crimes that do not exist, and held until authorities determine they are cured. He argues that punishment for the sake of deterring others is equally dehumanizing because it makes the condemned person a tool of the state. Punishment as a deterrent also opens up the possibility for corruption; Lewis argues that the government may invent crimes and criminals to terrorize the public.

Note: this essay was first published in Time and Tide in December 1954.

In a parody of the ancient writer Herodotus, Lewis describes the twin festivals of the island nation of Niatirb (Britain spelled backwards). He describes the festival “Exmas” as an exhausting 50-day rush of capitalist activity in which participants exchange unnecessary gifts and eat and drink to excess. At the end of this festival occurs a lesser-known festival called Christmas, during which a select few attend religious services and share a communal feast. Lewis remarks that celebration of Exmas prohibits the people of Niatirb from fully experiencing Christmas.

Note: this essay was first published in Twentieth Century in December 1957.

Lewis condemns the modern practice of exchanging gifts and cards with a wide group as a part of Christmas celebrations. He argues that the process is so exhausting that people are unable to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, and that the pressure to give gifts often negates the feelings of good-will gifts are intended to produce. Lewis contends that gifts are often useless, and that the only benefit is to the capitalist system.

Note: this essay was first published in Time and Tide in December 1957.

When youths who once stole from Lewis’s home demand money for singing Christmas carols, Lewis reflects on the failings of the criminal justice system. Lewis argues that the judge’s dismissal of the theft as a harmless prank will lead the boys to steal again. He claims that, because the government is no longer protecting its citizens, it has no recourse to stop citizens from defending themselves. He warns that such a vigilante movement would quickly prove dangerous. Despite this, Lewis decides to pay the carolers so that they will go away.

Note: this essay was first published in The Observer in July 1958.



Lewis argues that scientific progress is morally neutral: It has the power to cure diseases and create them, to protect from weapons and develop new ones. He considers the changing relationship between people and governments to be the more important issue. Lewis argues that Hitler’s extermination of Jewish people in concentration camps is a violent extension of the pathologization of crime. He warns that any government could behave similarly, and speculates about a future where Christianity is deemed a neurosis and he is locked away until doctors decide he is cured.

Lewis admits that it was necessary to concede control to the government during the war, but argues that people have become fully subservient to the state. He argues that technocracy and big government is the greatest threat to human progress because it impedes true freedom.

Note: this essay was first published in The Saturday Evening Post in December 1963, one month after Lewis’s death.

Lewis condemns the popular acceptance of infidelity and divorce, arguing that the right to pursue happiness does not extend to indulging all sexual desires. He argues that the laws of nations and reason prevent people from exercising all their impulses freely, and that sexual desire should be no different. Lewis contends that infidelity violates the bonds of trust established in marriage, and that widespread acceptance of infidelity will lead to violation of other social bonds.

Note: this section contains brief excerpts from 12 letters written by Lewis to various individuals and publications.

In response to an article outlining six conditions for a just war, Lewis argues that it would be impossible for all Christians to agree on whether the conditions are met. He concludes that individual Christians must follow their conscience during times of war.

In a sarcastic correction, Lewis suggests that modern society is defined by its capacity for hate for all groups, not just liberals.

In response to criticism of his book Miracles, Lewis insists that his correspondent is misreading his arguments.

Lewis fiercely disputes the accusations that he supports compulsory religion, offering to donate £5 to a charity of the critic’s choice if he can find evidence in Lewis’s writing.

Lewis shares a letter sent to him by a fictional neighbor complaining about the useless village priest, who never engages the community. The neighbor blames the Church for the villagers’ lack of faith.

When asked to provide feedback on a new hymnal, Lewis declines, claiming that no one he knows enjoys singing hymns. He explains that the British have no natural ability to sing, but agrees to reevaluate his position if this changes.

Lewis argues that unexplained changes in the language of liturgy is likely to be confusing to the average church-goer. He suggests that such changes cannot be made until they are explained by the Church to the body of believers.

Lewis claims that it is not necessary to use the word “Blessed” in front of the name of Mary, describing it as a stylistic choice, rather than a doctrinal one.

Lewis argues that the Church of England and the larger Evangelical church are united in their belief in supernatural miracles such as the Incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He suggests that this similarity is more important than their differences.

Lewis argues that the canonization of saints is antithetical to the Church of England because, unlike their Catholic counterparts, the English Archbishops cannot speak with certainty about the status of people in Heaven.

Lewis declines to translate the Bible for Americans, arguing that the differences in the English and American vernacular are too great.

In response to criticism of his views on capital punishment, Lewis argues that death is no less irrevocable a sentence than incarceration.