Lewis vs Solzhenitsyn, the debate

My two great literary heroes, C.S. Lewis and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, had almost a published debate, even though as far as I know neither was aware of the other's existence. But each wrote an essay on national repentance, and while Solzhenitsyn favored the idea, Lewis saw dangers in it. I think the opinions of each can be largely reconciled.

Solzhenitsyn's essay asserts that the modern assumption that moral criteria cannot be applied to nation-state actions is false. I think Lewis would have agreed with this. Solzhenitsyn goes on to say that when a nation has done wrong, the people ought to acknowledge and repent of it. I think Lewis would have agreed with this as well.

But what Lewis wrote in his essay "Dangers of National Repentance", was that what he saw in English culture labeled 'national repentance', was really self righteousness. It was predominately leftist intellectuals condemning English tradition, denouncing the sins of others.

Lewis does say that the church should preach national repentance. But it should be something done with reluctance, not with eagerness. He makes the analogy of someone criticizing their mother, saying it could be virtue 'only if we are quite sure that he has been a good son and that in his rebuke, spiritual zeal is triumphing, not without agony, over strong natural affection.'

Solzhenitsyn does acknowledge that national repentance can have negative effects, he mentions the mood of the Russian intelligentsia at the end of the Czarist period having counterproductive consequences. I wish in this essay he developed this thought further, but he certainly did develop the thought in the Red Wheel novels. He shows the belief of liberal society that the Russian state was always wrong opened the door to the Bolshevik revolution.

So I think in the end, the two agree, national repentance can be good, but can be badly done.