My dearest Wormwood,

It has been nearly eighty years since we last corresponded. That you managed to evade me after losing your patient all those years ago still irks me. I guess you had friends in lower places than I was aware of. But never mind all that. You have moved down the ranks, I see. I applaud your achievements. Working with the Prince himself, highly impressive. But do not let your head get too big, for you once again answer to me, your dear, old uncle. If you have not yet been informed of the matter, the Lowerarchy has assigned you to my charge once again. How serendipitous for us both. And so I expect you to send me reports of your work as you have done in the past.

I see that you too are involved in the project to murder souls in the Protestant Reformed Churches. That has been the Prince’s goal for some time now, as you know—to destroy that denomination. The reason is obvious. The gospel—how I hate that word—was proclaimed clearly there for many years. I do think we have had great success lately in removing the gospel though and replacing it with our words. Much of what I hear and read and observe radiates the pleasant smell of sulfur. The Prince himself stands behind all our words, and when our words come out of men’s mouths, I cannot help but feel elated.

Since you have been otherwise occupied in years past, perhaps you are not familiar with the ruin that we have perpetuated against the Protestant Reformed denomination. I will briefly fill you in. It has been a fierce battle; no victory has been easy. And I refuse to give credence to the rumor that it is because our Enemy, the One whom it is said created us, restrains us so that nothing can happen without His appointment. Providence, His subjects like to say—another despicable word. Fear not, and do not listen to such rumors. There is no such thing. There will be a day yet when we will finally be victorious and achieve the Prince’s purpose to set up our Man. But I digress.

I was there in 1924 when the Prince instigated his plan of attack in the Christian Reformed Church. We were able to get many souls to believe that grace is common, that man can do the good, and that there is cultural good in the society of natural man; and then we expelled any man who taught otherwise. We thought we had carefully introduced just the right amount of our words. We were somewhat successful in our purpose to eradicate the gospel, but I despise to admit that we were thwarted somehow by a few who were filled with that One. (Oh, how I hate that One and hate how he makes all his own look like him. Despicable!) And that stench of the gospel kept emanating forth from the pulpits of the newly-formed denomination, the Protestant Reformed Churches. In fact the stink grew even stronger, and the Enemy’s truth sounded forth even more boldly. Putrid smell—at times reminiscent of a lily of the valley or a rose of Sharon, at other times of the sweet smell of incense. Keep this to yourself, but I think it was because the Prince’s stratagem was not foolproof. I am not saying that I am smarter than him—how dare you let that thought cross your mind—but I think he could have been more subtle. Subtlety is key in our line of work.

Then in 1953 we thought that we had the church rid of Him. We had the numbers and had made deep inroads, and the Wolf—so aptly named—and others were openly teaching that man’s act of conversion is a prerequisite for man to enter into His kingdom and that salvation is promised to all who hear on the condition that they believe. Man and his believing and working were made the determinative point. More of man is always a tasty morsel. But we should have been more careful, you see, with the words condition and prerequisite. We need to keep the people sleepy, and such bold words can cause them to jolt awake. The cause of that One prevailed once again, much to our anger, but not without great loss of their members and ministers.

We did, however, fare much better in 1953 than we originally thought. Some might say that we were thwarted then too, but I disagree. “We are only talking about our conscious experience.” Delightfully deceitful, I say. That rotten seed was planted, and we just had to tenderly care for it—a little sulfur here, a little fire there. The plant tried to spring up a few times, but the Prince did not think the time was right, so we waited a little longer until he gave us the go-ahead. (And do not tell me that this delay was due to providence or, just as detestable, according to some sort of counsel or purpose of our Enemy.) Ah, and then we released in full force the product of our black thumbs. Black, twisting tendrils of lies and deceit that, when they lay hold upon an unsuspecting soul, put it in a chokehold and drag it down toward death and hell with us.

We began to see more and more that the members in those churches began to get bored with what they call the gospel. I note with glee that the sound coming forth from their pulpits changed to less emphasis on the One and more emphasis on what the people were doing. The people began to clamor for “practical preaching” and a “balanced gospel” instead of doctrinal preaching. That just meant more of man and less of our Enemy. We gave them those terms to help them cover the blatant idea that man must work for his salvation! Many fall victim to such terms; it is a lovely abomination to hear. Use that to your advantage. Try to make sure that the people are uninterested in doctrine. Doctrine requires study and careful examination. Doctrine requires thought and prayer. These are all things we want the people to avoid. But practical preaching with its resultant emphasis on man and his working is the best way to displace doctrine. It is best if you can get it in the minds of the people that doctrine is cold, abstract, and divisive. I trust you understand what I am saying here, dear nephew. Doctrine is bad; the very idea needs to be expunged. Doctrine needs to be perceived as a dirty word that only “unloving” people learn. Make them divert all their energy and efforts to “practical” matters.

And it also helps to get them so wrapped up in their own material goods that they never have time to study these matters. That is not so hard, really, considering the affluence of the age. The world’s goods are potent tools for us as well. Men love to serve the god called mammon. Try to get them interested in bigger houses, barns, cars, boats, and vacations. Maybe even attempt to sprinkle in a few vices: sexual enticements, mind-altering cocktails, and mind-numbing substances. If men will not overtly serve us, then it is just as well to have them serve mammon.

Perhaps one of our best wiles was employed at the now-infamous Synod 2018, where we succeeded in getting the entire Protestant Reformed denomination to adopt that phrase of which I am sure you are well aware: “We experience fellowship with God through faith (instrument) on the basis of what Christ has done (ground), and in the way of our obedience (way of conduct or manner of living).”

I advise you to use that phrase, specifically the last part, often in your labors. Plant the people on that phrase; make it their standard bearer and their banner. Avoid speaking about the first two parts; the people must have less of that and more of their obedience. Focus all of their debating and arguing over man, his working, and his doing. And, therefore, the first two parts will never enter in. I do not think the phrase will fail you; it is most diabolical. If the people you encounter do know and understand the doctrine for which they are fighting, let them use the phrase as a cover to seduce others. And if the people you encounter are ignorant and sleepy, which many are, then that is just fine—whisper the phrase in their ears; push it to the forefront of their minds; let it be the buzzword and the catchphrase that they grab onto and never let go, so that it becomes a mantra that they rattle off when they are questioned about what they believe, whether those doubts and questions arise in their own consciences or are posed by others who have not yet succumbed to our slumber-inducing chloroform.

You need the people to stop looking outward to Him but inward to what they are doing. Cover it up, of course, by saying that it is the work of Him in them. That sounds better. But after, add that they must do it in order to—use “in the way of” here—get something in their experiences and consciences. Do you understand what I am saying? Use the terms good works, obedience, responsibility, repentance and make the people think about getting something for themselves, not about thankfulness or gratitude—I have no use for those sentiments. I do not think you will be able to fool them yet by an outright rejection that the One did everything for their salvation objectively, which means their salvation is out there floating in the nebula; but you will deceive them if you say that for them to appropriate salvation and experience it subjectively, in their hearts and lives, they must work! Make the people understand that by their doing, in whatever form it may take, they obtain.

Do you see how, even though we did not gain the ultimate victory in 1953, it was not all in vain? We knew that to say outright that salvation is by grace and works would be too jarring and obvious. To teach that was not quite slippery enough to attain our goal. All throughout history we have had to come subtly. The great Tempter came in the garden in the serpent, you well know, to tempt Adam and Eve that they could be as God, knowing good and evil. And man believed our words. And really our work ever since then has been to slander our Enemy, His truth, and His One and instead exalt man, as that stands opposed to Him. But to say that salvation in man’s experience is by grace and works is not different than what the Prince told Eve in the garden. Man is really God. God is not God. It remains our task to push that vile idea into the minds of men, and it is of utmost importance that you keep that objective before you in all your work, whether with the worldlings or the religious types.

It really does not take much to get men to think that way. Underneath their veneer of piety, men are not so different than us, really—depraved. You find that the idea of man being God is right there, in their own minds and their own natures; you barely even have to introduce the idea yourself. All you need to do is fixate their attention on passages in their Book that say things such as “What must I do to be saved?” and “Labour therefore to enter into that rest” and “Work out your own salvation.” We must use our Enemy’s Book and twist the words to make it appear that man really is the most important one. The if-then clauses are also of great benefit to us in this. Going back to what I suggested before, keep the people from careful study of doctrine, and they will be fooled by those texts, by what they call the “plain meaning of the text” and the “orderly way God works.”

Do not forget either that they have something called the three forms of unity, which is supposedly a summary of the doctrine of His Book. They can be disadvantageous for us because they allegedly systematize the doctrine and make it easier for the people to understand. And unfortunately there is not really a lot of man to be found in those forms; when I read them I find that they are intended to bestow comfort, extol sovereign grace and election, and speak as one’s personal confession of faith. These are reprehensible views that I hate and that are injurious to our cause if these creeds are believed to their full intent. But no matter, all of these hurdles can be overcome. If you can use the few lines that appear to extol man and his working and take them out of their proper context and manipulate them just right, I have found that the people will latch onto those phrases as if those phrases have been the focus the whole time. It has seemed to work splendidly so far. But if all else fails, it might be better just to discredit the creeds as a whole. Personally, this is one of my favorite tactics. This makes some of His children very angry because they claim that the creeds are a result of “the Spirit’s leading the church into all truth” or some other such notion. But the creeds are not in reality His Book, are they? The creeds are not actually inspired, as they say the Book is, are they? Do you see? Now you have told the people that they can take or leave the creeds. This is a strategy we have used effectively for many years now.

Lately, we have convinced the people of our words that they must repent first, and then their Father will forgive them. This is a tremendous source of ecstasy to me. The result of this teaching is twofold. The first effect is that some of them will actually think that they are giving something to Him for which He in return will impart a blessing. (Can you imagine such a ridiculous thing? It is laughable. A mere, mortal creature presenting his pitiful gift to a king and then expecting something in return? It would be one thing if man were an excellent creature such as you or me, but man is but dust, a worm.) Those ones will be filled with what is considered by some to be a fatal flaw: pride. And then we have them exactly where we want them. That one must first repent ungods their God and essentially makes man God—we have brought them full circle then, really, from our first victory way back in the beginning. So, dear nephew, keep bringing to the front of the people’s minds how good they are, how good their repentance is, how good they feel when they repent. In essence, make them focus on themselves and what they do and experience—make that come first and be the controlling factor.

The second effect is perhaps more amusing to me. There are some still who are spiritually sensitive, and oh, what torment this teaching will inflict upon their poor souls. The despair—I can almost taste it. Realizing that they can never repent perfectly enough (for their Father unjustly demands of them perfection), they will be driven mad in trying to repent of every sin they committed each day, only to lay their heads on their pillows and be struck by the thought that perhaps they missed some sins, and perhaps they did not repent sincerely enough, and perhaps they sinned even during their prayer for repentance, and then they will have to start all over again. They will work themselves to the bone and will never have any rest.

Turning to another matter, due to the unfortunate circumstance that only allows us to be in one place at one time, I was not able to attend the recent Protestant Reformed classis meeting held in February. I was only able to read the pre-advice and the decisions of Classis East, but from what I can tell it was a cacophony of our words. I gather that you were present at the meeting and that you were also involved in some of the work that led up to the meeting. I anticipate reading your report containing a firsthand perspective of the event and am more than willing, as usual, to offer my seasoned advice for your current labors.

From what I have gleaned regarding Classis East, one of their veteran ministers taught in a dry, dusty magazine (just the kind of magazine I like) that there is that which man must do to be saved. And he weaved an unholy web using many words and phrases in his writings. Men protested to the classis—some for, some against. And the final decision was that the minister’s words and phrases by themselves were ambiguous and may lead to false doctrine. I was practically rubbing my hands together with merriment when I discovered that. Ambiguity, confusion—those are our trademarks. None of this clear, simple gospel business. Our work thrives when the people are confused.

And so the classis did not condemn the minister or his doctrine, and he sat there silently the whole time? Is that all true? If so, it is splendid to hear that our words have found ready entrance into the members’ minds, and it appears that we will not have much trouble from here on out. Any man can teach our words in those churches with impunity. It opens the door to all kinds of our words!

I wonder if now is not the time to add in more. We have already gotten them to deny total depravity, marriage as a life-long bond (some have gone back to the idea that divorce is permissible on two grounds, adultery and desertion), the unconditional covenant and justification by faith alone (both in the people’s conscious experiences, of course), and the emphasis of faith being a bond. My advice to you is to think through what words and phrases of ours might be easy to add into their preaching and teaching in order to try and take away more honor from Him.

One last note before I sign off: I think you know better than to bring up the rumor that our scheme with Synod 2018 and its after-effects was technically a failure once again, due to what the Protestant Reformed leaders called schism (strange how they think that entertaining word is a negative term!) and other events, which led to the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches and the continuation of that niggling sound of the gospel. But I must admit in all of this that the formation of another denomination is lamentable. Our Enemy had once said that the gates of hell could not stand against His church, and every time we are within a hair’s breadth, it all seems to fall apart. And again, that deplorable gospel goes out louder, more powerful, and more clearly than the time before! I cannot understand how that happens.

But no fear, this is not a cause for your concern at this time. If he has not already, the Prince will be turning his personal attention there, for he hates nothing more than that bad news and has made it his utmost goal to exterminate the gospel and the One whom it represents. But you and the others will continue our objective in the Protestant Reformed Churches; there is still work to be done.

Regarding the new denomination though, we need to be careful about those who remain in the Protestant Reformed Churches, that they do not join. We have them on the right path away from Him, and we need to keep them there. I see your fingerprints all over the movement to slander and discredit those who joined the new denomination. Looking over your work, you were able to paste on them the epithets antinomians, radicals, and schismatics. That was a shrewd move that paid off. Very few have left the Protestant Reformed Churches for these new churches. Keep labeling those in the new churches with such terms; then the others do not have to think, read, or study too closely the words that we introduced.

I await your reply in the coming months.

Your affectionate uncle,

Screwtape