is to goose readers into accepting Christian moral lessons by presenting them from the perspective of someone trying to undercut them
Actually, thinking about this, I'm not sure this is quite right. The pieces - as you note - ran in a church newspaper. So Lewis was addressing an audience who he could assume agreed about Christian morality (at a time where there was a much broader consensus within the church about ethics, at that) - it's not like Mere Christianity, where he's self-consciously trying to change people's minds. What he's trying to get people to do is examine their own short-comings, hypocrisies, and the ways in which they fail to live out the values they're (theoretically) committed to. The bit about gluttony is a good example, in that regard.
asks the unnecessary question, if the Middle East extends as far west as Libya, then where's the Near East?
A particularly pointless question, as the answer is "Turkey". (It is somewhat silly that we call Iran and Iraq the Middle East, though...)
no subject
Actually, thinking about this, I'm not sure this is quite right. The pieces - as you note - ran in a church newspaper. So Lewis was addressing an audience who he could assume agreed about Christian morality (at a time where there was a much broader consensus within the church about ethics, at that) - it's not like Mere Christianity, where he's self-consciously trying to change people's minds. What he's trying to get people to do is examine their own short-comings, hypocrisies, and the ways in which they fail to live out the values they're (theoretically) committed to. The bit about gluttony is a good example, in that regard.
asks the unnecessary question, if the Middle East extends as far west as Libya, then where's the Near East?
A particularly pointless question, as the answer is "Turkey". (It is somewhat silly that we call Iran and Iraq the Middle East, though...)