Finding God in "The Lord of the rings"

[LadyMorgana815]

[i] weird gods like you find in the swords and sorcery trash all too prevalent on bookshelves today [/B]


I am really sorry...but what you are saying isn't trash...are you trying to put down pagans? That is sure what it seems like to me. I don't know if that's what you are doing or not but if you are then please stop....we get put down for our beliefs all the time, it is a nationally recognized religion and I would really appreciate it if everyone would respect us for our natural beliefs. Thank you.

*Lady Morgana*


*Blessed Be*

[ReadWryt]

Ok, ok...Before anyone else says anything...

Morgana,

Firstly this thread is in the forums for the books, and we are discussing the Overt or Inadvertant insertion by J.R.R. Tolkien, a devout Catholic who's witness to C.S. Lewis brought the latter author to become Christian and write the Chronicles of Narnia...an overt allagorical fantasy series based in Christianity, the values and ideas that he was raised with from the age of eight when his mother began schooling him in the ways of Christ.

If you go back and read the discussion and take what is being said here in context you will see that I have made several postings which contain direct quotes from the author describing the nature of "religion" and the Deistic Qualities of the earliest inhabitants of Middle-earth as well as the lack of any official worship for Eru, the creator of Middle-earth in the Mythology he created as well as references to the fact that he made no conscious attempt at an allegorical insertion of Christianity, though the latter is more a commentary on literary style then anything else as others here have pointed out.

Tolkien indeed wrote that what he had created in his mythology was a "Natural Theology". What you saw in the film though was NOT representative (In my opinion) of a Faith/Religion/Magic as it (they) are depicted in the books, certainly not the magic which is "Not from Lore or "Spell" that the author speaks to in his letters.

He DOES though state that, unlike so much of Neo-peganistic Practices today, any theology in Middle-earth is a monotheistic practice...of "the wise" in Middle-earth...either good or evil...they all are aware of precisely who created Middle-earth and like it or not realise that Eru's song was the creative force that made everything.

[Ancalagon]

It seems this original debate has veered way off course and beyond the boundaries of sensibility.

Finding God in The Lord of the Rings was the original question I think! Lets try to revert back to the subject matter as the last few pages of posts bare no relevance to Tolkien and is simply a debate on the merits of relegion. I would suggest we return from whence we came or start a separate thread in Stuff and Bother, otherwise before we have our very own GOD Channel this will need to be frozen.

Please note, I would ask that you all try to refrain from making generalised or sweeping statements about individual faiths. This may be interpreted wrongly or found to be offensive to many members on this forum. I should not need to point out the sensitivity of religious debate and its inflammatory nature.

[Camille]

Mmm this thread is very polemic and I think that as it has been said we have not disscus about Cristianity, but the Religion factor is always polemic, i myself have been asking me some thing concerning the religion theme, , and the LOTR states some moral facts similar to our religion (Whichever it is) and in others is very different like in Tolkien's works we dont see a religion like in real life, a religion to Iluvatar or Valar, the men or elves do not venerated them in temples (save one time at Numenor)

But again, I think that when an author writes he does it influenced by his own belief, It seams logic that since tolkien was a "moral person" then his works has this moral influence too, and also he was a good one ( I think) at the end the evil is punished, and we dont have to scorn the little ones, they can make the difference.
I believe as others have said you can find God in everything!! and if someone sees Him in the LOTR is ok.

[Flame of Utumno]

I think Tolkien was more concerned with the MYTHOLOGY of his books as opposed to anything religious.

It is a fact that Tolkien was a devout Catholic and his eldest son is an ordained Catholic Priest, but that does not mean that he intended to convey anything particularly religious in his works.

However, if you really wanted to find any traces of religion in his books, it would be best to first look for any ethical and moral values upheld by the various characters.

[dpcooldude]

that he did not mean to make it a Christian allegory. As you may know, CS lewis himself did not make the Chronicles an allegory, but it seeped in because of who he was. If you are devoted to something such as a religion it becomes you. It will eventually seep in to everything you do. It was who Tolkien himself was, a devote Christian and it seeped in, and thats that

[Goro Shimura]

dpcooldude:

Sorry... Lewis wrote a very intentional allegory in the Chronicles.

Aslan is an obvious rendering of Christ-- that was certainly not an accidental "seeping in" of his beliefs that Aslan just so happened to be sacrificed on Stone Table for Edmunds sins.

Tolkien did not use the same obvious tactic that Lewis did. The ethical and moral principles that his characters uphold are essentially Christian-- and that was very intentional. (Thanks, Flame)

Both men used the medium of fiction to illustrate and communicate Christian values that they believed to be true in an absolute sense-- as true and fundamental as the laws of Physics.

Tolkien was obviously more subtle about it, but if you can't admit there is an intentional Christian element in the Chronicals... I don't suppose anyone could ever get you to admit LoTR was intentionally Christian either.

[dpcooldude]

I read a lengthy quote in a book I think was titled Letters From CS Lewis where he directly said what I said in my post. I admit in both there is some intentional allegory because any author will put some of them selves in intentionally but in these cases most was not. I I still had the link to that quote I would give it to you but unfortunatley i don't :(:(:(:(

[Goro Shimura]

Let's not get hung up on the definition of an allegory.

Pilgrim's Progress is definitely an allegory. If the Chronicals are an allegory, it's not as obvious and clear cut as P.P.

(Aslan is maybe more of a "type" of Christ, perhaps-- if you'll allow me to use that terminology.)

At any rate... Aslan's Christ-like characteristics are *not* the accidental "seepings" of a devoted person. That's the point I'm trying to hone in on.

Lewis and Tolkien were deliberate about the system of values they wanted to project through their fiction. The values were Christian. I understand that a Greek God shows up in the Chronicles... and that on a superficial level there are Pagan elements in LoTR. But the message of both books is nevertheless a Christian one.

Please show me the quote if you can find it.

[ReadWryt]

The big problem here is that people attempt to take a tale written by an author who's studies and writings predate post-modernistic style and apply the same type of scrutiny that is given to Moderistic authors like Joyce. If you want to read Ullyses and look for the messages that he purposefully placed in the story then you can find them, and any college lit. class will teach you how. Moderism started a whole style of writing that required a "decoding" of the story, the interpreting of them to find the hidden meaning of them, whereas when Tolkien said he disliked Allegory he was stating it in the broadest sense. He never intended his story to be "interpretted" for their meaning beyond the MEANING in the story. This is why, if you research the attempts from the 60s when the book became so popular in the US to interpret the "meaning" of the book from a modernist literary methodolgy they all come up empty handed and hollow, implying that the story is not "serious", but we all know better then that.

It's so serious that it's PERSONAL. That is the nature of Escapist Writings, instead of hiding meanings in the story, the meanings are lain out in plain sight...where the reader can EXPERIENCE them instead of anylizing them for their REAL meanings. The story makes you a participant instead of an observer, laying bare the workings of the character's minds and making us hold on to every line to see what will happen to them, and us, next.

We are free from being perpetually detached, eyes roving about to find that last metaphore that will tell us "Aha! This IS a retelling of the Christ Myth!!" or "Gee whiz, this is almost like Persephone's decent into hades to save her lover..."...instead it DEMANDS that we leave THIS world behind, get inside the heads of the protagonists for who they are and share an adventure we could never have here..because we like the good guys and hate the bad guys even though they are alien to any other protagonists we have seen before.

A mind trained to do so can find the metaphores in a Modernist tale just below the surface and scoop them up to examine them, but Escapism defies that kind of simplicity because no two readers SHARE these common points upon which to relate, so the story is as different for each reader as the readers are from each other...making this style of writing not SIMPLER, but instead on a certain level more Complex and Personal, which is why for such a seemingly un-notable tale of Good versus Evil this has become a personal favorite of so many hundreds of thousands of readers around the world.

[Goro Shimura]

ReadWryt--

I can't figure out who your comments are directed at. Do I you think that I have fallen into the "big problem" you refer to?


We are free from being perpetually detached, eyes roving about to find that last metaphore that will tell us "Aha! This IS a retelling of the Christ Myth!!"

Are you saying that the story of Aslan in the The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is not a retelling of the story of Christ? Please answer this one!



I do not believe I use the modernistic approach of literary criticism. (Indeed, it seems the modernists would go in more for the whole Freud/Jung approach and I detest both tactics....)

I'm trying to discuss the values that are projected by the literature. It seems like every time I raise the subject someone says something like "Oh, you can find anything in just about anything-- it's all in you're mind."

I think there's more to it than that. (All literature projects some sort of value system. Even "The Simpsons" television show has values. And I would never try to argue that you could find God in the Simpsons!!)

I think we try to get away from this subject because the longer we stay on it, the more likely we are to find God in the Lord of the Rings!!

[grishnak]

the quote outright says that tolkien did not mean to refer to anytyhing religious at all. You could link god and religion to any book in the world, even if the book is written by an athiest. Sauron is not mimmicking satin, but rathewr making a good story. you can't have a bad guy that does good things. therefore he could be nothing but satin, or a something like a satin.
Also. those people who wrote that book about "God and the lord of the rings" (or something like that) are probably just religious freaks who want to see the existence of god and religion in everything. They totally misunderstood the meaning of the books and have made the world a worse place by writig their stupid book.
Religion and god is sutch a joke, especially in LOTR!

[Tar-Ancalime]

I disagree with your statement religon is a joke.It is not,for many it is a way to explain the advent of humans and other life forms.I saw in a magazine tolkien was close friends with C.S. Lewis, a theologian who inspired many of tolkiens works.

[Bryheinnen]

just what *IS* the Lord of the Rings about, in your mind? Why is it so beloved by so many millions of people?

Sure---it's a good yarn. But just good yarns don't touch people as profoundly as LOTR touches such a broad spectrum of people.

Deny all you want. There is an intrinsic---for lack of a better word--holiness about this book. It's essence is, at the very least, spiritual. And if spiritual, how other than proto-Christian, Tolkien being the man of faith that he was?

If you don't find it spiritual in nature, then why have you read it? Go read some Silver Surfer or Jonah Hex, they would do just as well for ****s and giggles, but they are consumables. They don't feed the spirit, make you ache and yearn for goodness and beauty the way LOTR does.

If you are getting nothing spiritual out of LOTR, I pity you, because you have wasted a hell of a lot of time reading a book as long as WAR AND PEACE for very little profit.

And your ****-** for Christians is very apparent. In my experience such animosity towards people of faith stems from one of two sources---either they have been truly aggrieved by someone who calls themself a Christian, or much more likely, righteousness is an affront to the unrighteous; Christians make them feel guilty because they know they themselves don't measure up to the moral, ethical, and spiritual standards that Christ has set for them. Hence they are angry for being inescapably revealed to themselves for what they truly are---sinners badly in need of redemption. The good news is that Christians are too---but they can accept themselves as sinners because Christ has paid the debt for their sin. All he asks in return is that they love Him and believe in Him.

[Kiwi]

And your ****-** for Christians is very apparent. In my experience such animosity towards people of faith stems from one of two sources---either they have been truly aggrieved by someone who calls themself a Christian, or much more likely, righteousness is an affront to the unrighteous; Christians make them feel guilty because they know they themselves don't measure up to the moral, ethical, and spiritual standards that Christ has set for them. Hence they are angry for being inescapably revealed to themselves for what they truly are---sinners badly in need of redemption. The good news is that Christians are too---but they can accept themselves as sinners because Christ has paid the debt for their sin. All he asks in return is that they love Him and believe in Him. [/B][/QUOTE]

Wow.
It shouldn't surprise me that a christian would use this public forum to push upon Tolkien fans their personal religious beliefs.
But somehow it does. What was that? An attack by a person of faith upon any who don't believe in their God?
If THIS (forum) is a place of worship (and preaching) it is the House of Tolkien...not a church.

[Goro Shimura]

Kiwi--

Your remarks to Bryheinnen are unfair-- even if they are consistent with the spirit of this age:

If some orc wants to wander in here and basically call us stupid religious fanatics for wanting to discuss a Christian moral element that is apparent in the works... well... that's okay with you apparently-- because at least the orc isn't pushing his faith!!

Surely you can see the double standard in this!!



A note to "Christians" that are about to make remarks about B's lack of broadmindedness, etc: Please don't make any pious remarks about how Bryheinnen isn't reflecting the "spirit of Christ" by having a ready answer for an orc.

He's just going beyond the moral standards imposed even by LoTR: he seems to think that Orcs can be cured of their spiritual condition just as much as Gollum might have been....

[ReadWryt]

Goroshimura,

Please go back and read my post, and this time don't ignore the fact that it is specifically written about Tolkien and makes no reference to Lewis whatsoever.

What I am refering to in my previous post is that so many people seem to have been taught to think that "Good Writing" means that there is some purposefully embedded message, like with so many modernist authors such as James Joyce, who's "Ulysses" is wraught with symbolism. The postmodern authors were all about Representation, in that for example the "Sirens" chapter is representative of an orchestral work...it is in fact a texural representation of "A fugue according to rule.", in Joyce's own words... It involves three classes of subject: (1) Andamenti, a complete melody, beautiful in itself; (2) Soggetti, a short passage with a characteristic interval; and (3) Attaco, a short figure, usually staccato. In the opening section of the fugue the subject is presented together with the answer and a repetition of the subject in a different key (if there is to be a countersubject it is introduced in this section). The next section, the exposition, is a complete statement of the subject(s) and/or answer(s) by all the voices. This is followed by the "free" middle section; the climax then presents the subject in its most exciting aspect; and the coda concludes the fugue with the "desire for home."

Other examples can, and often do, contain sections that critical readers can recognise as being representative of some Mythological or Religious figure or another, which is what I was saying in the quote you so eloquently took out of context...

All that I am saying is that books like Joyce's "Ulysses" can be TAUGHT, in that since each chapter is crafted in a different style, and since it is an updated retelling of a myth (As with the recent movie "Oh Brother where art Thou?") one can be taught the subtle manner in which the author has woven the original concepts from Homer's telling of the tale into his own version. As one professor at the University of Wisconsin in Millwaukee put it, 'The textual complexities have fueled a vast amount of scholarship. Joyce joked that Ulysses should "give Universities something to work on well into the next century."'

Tolkien's tale contains no deeply embedded allusion, no hidden bits of other mythologies because he set out to craft a mythology free from influence from other mythologies and histories, especially the Christianity that permiates the Arthurian and Canterbury Mythos. There is no scholorship one could persue as to what Tolkien MEANT when he wrote about the Council of Elrond..it is not representative of ANYTHING, and so requires the reader not to do any further thought about what it "Means" outside of the events and dialog as they occur.

As Orson Scott Card said it in the book "Meditations on Middle-earth",
..."escapist" reading is by nature wild, while "serious" reading is by nature domesticated.

"Serious reading is designed to bring readers to a common experience outside the story, by writing papers that attempt to persuade others that this is the (or a) "meaning" of this or that item in the tale (or attribute of the text).

But "escapist" reading brings readers together only when they are [i]inside]/i] the story; and the more closely they compare notes, the clearer it becomes that they have not had the same experience, not in detail.

This is not simply because readers inevitably come up with different visualizations of the characters and milieux - for the same difference between "serious" and "Escapist" can be found in the ways people make and watch movies, which forbid you to engage your visual imagination.

Anyone who has seen a Fellini movie like 8 1/2 realizes that he is showing us a lot more then a mere tale of a great Movie Director and the excentricities of his stressfull life. From the opening we see a suffocating man, trapped inside his car, inexplicably begins to float into the skies, only to be abruptly tugged back to the ground. We KNOW this is symbolic of SOMETHING.

But when you see the same basic tale retold through Woody Allen's eyes (Stardust Memories)there is different symbology...and the same is true when the same story is told in Bob Fosse's "All that Jazz"...and anyone who has seen these movies can imagine the same story told with the cold and straight forward directing of a realist, some director who focuses more on the characters and the story then they do trying to symbolize the stifling frustration of the story's protagonist by showing him suffocating in a floating car.

Tolkien never set out to symbolize things in his story and has admitted in several letters that he was a bit surprised in the cases where he felt he ended up doing so!

Bryheinnen,

I don't HAVE to find it "Spiritual" to enjoy the tale...nor do I have to find "Spirituality" in ANY of my reading in order to enjoy it. Anyone for whom "Spirituality" is a prerequisite for enjoyment of good literature is worthy of pitty because they will never enjoy a massive swath of books that have little or no "Spirituality" in them.

I'm sorry if I don't fit your apparently tidy little pidgeon hole perspective of what people are or should be, and that I am actually capable of doing what Tolkien himself suggested people do, which is read the story and enjoy it for the adventure it is. I'm horribly appologetic for not being capable of catagorization in whatever preconcieved Demographic you wish to label me as abiding in...

"Anyway most people that have enjoyed The Lord of the Rings have been affected primarily by it as an exciting story; and that is how it was written." --From The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #163

Any further arguments against it having been written merely to be enjoyed for being an exciting story should be directed to the person quoted above.

[Goro Shimura]

ReadWryt--

You're obviously a sophisticated and intelligent person, therefore I'm certain you are capable of answering a few questions:


Would you say that the story of Aslan in the The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is not a retelling of the story of Christ?

Is any discussion of values in regard to works of literature necessarily dependent on the "modernistic" literary criticism techniques that you refer to?

Is a discussion of the LoTR's metaphysical undergirding dependent on an analysis of "hidden inner meanings" and allegory?

[ReadWryt]

Ok, let us start at the beginning...

Would you say that the story of Aslan in the The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is not a retelling of the story of Christ?

By this do you mean, would I argue with the author when he said to a group of fifth grade students in Maryland in 1954, "I did not say to myself 'Let us represent Jesus as He really is in our world by a Lion in Narnia'; I said 'Let us suppose that there were land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as he became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen."? Of course not, because by saying this he demonstrated that he intentionally made it thus. What this has to do with a work that Tolkien himself stated he wrote in an attempt to create a Mythology that was exclusively England's and would not be hindered by Christianity as the Arturian Mythology had been is beyond my understanding, but I'm certain you had SOME point in asking, so I will, and indeed have given an, answer.

Is any discussion of values in regard to works of literature necessarily dependent on the "modernistic" literary criticism techniques that you refer to?

No. But these modernistic techniques I refer to are the reason that so many people come to erroneous conclusions that Tolkien was Racist, Anti-Soviet, Homosexual, Sexist and all other manner of things merely by presuming that he intentionally hid clues to the "fact" in his writings. I merely bring this up here because so many people keep posting statements that claim that it was an intentional act that caused Tolkien to insert Christianity into his story,which he did not as he states several times in his letters. I noticed that you claim that "The ethical and moral principles that his characters uphold are essentially Christian..". Interesting. What values do his characters have that could be called "Christian" that one does not find in the works of Homer? What morals are demonstrated that are alien to those refered to as virtuous in the Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Srimad Bhagavatam, Puranas, Upanishads or Vedas of Hindu writings? I'll assume you have read at least some of these writings I ask about because you presume that there is nothing in the Values or Morals that are comparable to those of Christianity, it having the absolute exclusivity on such things...

Is a discussion of the LoTR's metaphysical undergirding dependent on an analysis of "hidden inner meanings" and allegory?

Of course not, and that is what I have been claiming is the true and only way to percieve "God" in the Lord of the Rings...by avoiding the idea that it was an overt and conscious act on the part of the author. Instead I urge people to find it in the unconscious act of a man who was a Catholic, who professed his witness to the people he loved and brought many to bend their knee to the sovereignty of Christ as their lord and savior and who had developed, as a Christian, certain ideas about right, wrong, good, bad and proper and inproper that he carried with him as he set about creating Middle-earth and all that inhabits it.

[Aldanil]

I would send a hearty second to the wisdom of our Super Moderator, sagacious Ed of A! The catholicity of John Ronald Reuel's creation, by which I mean most of all its universality and depth of invention, was I believe rooted both in the Roman faith which cost so dearly the mother he loved and lost so young and in an earlier and deeper emptiness, a son fatherless since three. As more eloquently put in his essay "On Fairy-Stories", we are acting in the image of our Maker in being sub-creators, weavers of Secondary Worlds, as the Lord and Father of All, the Holy Shaper, sang the universe into existence in "The Song of Caedmon", and set Middle-earth within it as a home for men. Finding "God" in The Lord of the Ringsis indeed a lambent business; the Light within the woods of Lothlorien (which I have sometime seen in sunshine and leaf upon the eastern slopes of Mount Desert) shines with an unmistakable spirituality, and Gandalf is an archangel of the Valar, surely, but trying to pin of all this down doctrinally seems to me rather a dubious enterprise...

[Flame of Utumno]

Once again we need to look at the objective facts.

Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic and close friends and confidant of an equally devout Christian (C.S. Lewis).

Despite this, Tolkien was more focused on projecting a mythology upon us rather than a religion.

However, if we find shards of the 'divine' or reflections of some sort of 'holiness' in his works, then that is really a matter of personal interpretation.

My real question is whether Tolkien wants us to find God in his works or not.
And even if he did, does it really make a difference.

I enjoy reading his works regardless and independent of any purpose he intended. Let's face it, its not the Bible or some divinely inspired writing. Its simply the humble work of a human being, nothing more.

[Goro Shimura]

Thankyou, everyone....

This thread seems to be getting on topic again-- and the villification levels have dropped off dramatically. Let's please continue to try to "play nicely."

Thankyou very much ReadWryt for answering my questions-- irrelevent though they may have seemed. If you couldn't admit an intentional insertion of Christian ideas, scenarios, images, and reflections in the work of CS Lewis, then I would have given up hope! I just wanted to establish that there does exist some literature where that happens-- and that in the case of Lewis it wasn't "all in my mind."

What morals are demonstrated that are alien to those refered to as virtuous in the Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Srimad Bhagavatam, Puranas, Upanishads or Vedas of Hindu writings? I'll assume you have read at least some of these writings I ask about because you presume that there is nothing in the Values or Morals that are comparable to those of Christianity, it having the absolute exclusivity on such things...

I'm sorry if I seem unreasonably exclusivistic in my views. I have not conducted an in depth study of comparative religion. (Ravi Zacharias has, and being both an Indian and an American has an advantage over me in being able to "think" in two completely different world views: the "Eastern" Hinduism and the "Western" Christianity. Check out Jesus Among Other Gods if you are genuinely interested.)

Most of the moral principles I've learned have come from first Plato's writings on Socrates and later the Bible. When I do point out a moral principle in LoTR that I hold dear I do not mean to imply that Christianity is the only place that such notions have been thought. I was an agnostic for most of my life, so I can still see the world through those eyes and I can understand the difficulties that such people have with the Faith.

I believe that all men have an inner notion of right and wrong that comes from God. All men wrestle with feelings of guilt when they do something they know is wrong. All cultures have had to address the question of right, wrong, and sin: yet I believe that Christianity has within it the fullest and truest cure to these problems.

So when I speak, I speak as a Christian.

I wish there were actual Muslims and Hindus that loved the LoTR and thought it was just as Muslim or Hindu as I think it's Christian. That would create a very interesting discussion.

However, I must confess I balk a bit when agnostics and non-"bible believing" Christians make claims that the moral principles I see in the LoTR are "mere morals" that all religions have to more or less the same degree. Agnostics in particular have taken a position against taking a position-- so they would naturally say such things. They do not represent a point of view-- but are somehow opposed to all particular points of view. (Which to me makes them more bigoted and narrow minded than what most of the rest of the forum seems to think of Bryheinnen!!)



But let's take a look at a moral principle that is embodied by Strider and Frodo:

'Take heed that ye do not do your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets that they may have the glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.' Matthew 6:1-2

Jesus taught in the Sermon on the mount that he that gives in secret shall be rewarded openly. He spoke against the Pharisees that publicly gave huge gifts to charities and then bragged about it, that fasted and then let everyone know that they were fasting, and that prayed in the streets so that everyone could see how pious they were.

Strider and the Dunedain worked day and night for many years enduring many hardships and trials to protect the people of Bree and the Shire. They received little thanks, and no glory-- but rather they were called degrading names and thought ill of.

Boromir, on the other hand, literally "sounded a trumpet" before setting out on any qwest of good deeds and daring.

Maybe there are dozens of religions that teach the same principle. Whether it's exclusive to Christianity or not, we have to agree that is a Christian principle and that Strider embodies it more fully than most all other fictional characters.

Frodo embodies the same principle when he allows Pippin, Merry, and especially Sam to take all the credit for the good deeds done in the qwest. He quietly withdrew and took no glory to himself when the folk of the Shire treated him with less respect than he deserved. His honor and reward was "laid up in heaven" (the uttermost west) instead of in the world (the Shire.)

I also think that wether we are Christian are not, the principle is nevertheless true in an absolute sense. We respect Aragorn and Frodo for their integrity and are moved inside to emulate them-- even if we don't believe in the principle explicitly or absolutely!

And when we watch the Simpsons or Harry Potter, we are moved to emulate disrespectful arrogant pranksters that break all the rules and yet somehow live happily ever after anyway-- even if we do believe in the principles explicitly and absolutely.

If we weren't affected by what we read and watch, then why would companies bother to spend so much money on advertising???

Saint Francis of Assici said, "Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words."

My belief is that, even though the Gospel is not explicitly stated in the LoTR, the characters nevertheless uphold many of the teachings of Paul and Jesus to a degree that surpasses many of the most devout today. They practice the faith without talking about it or symbolizing or allegorizing it.

I also believe that the moral integrity of the characters endears them to us more fully-- because their lives have the ring of a higher truth. It is pecisely the morality of the LoTR that sets it apart from all of the other "me, too" fantasies that will be forgotten twenty years from now.

[Tar-Ancalime]

It is all simply a matter of reader interpretation???Ok,it sounds logical. tolkien may have taken on ideas of what some of you call "Christan mythology" and others call creation and salvation, but it is up to the reader to find this.So if someone who has no religon or an entirely different one in philosphy they would not discover any christan backrouns within.whereas if someone who was christan read it and found that philiosphy.

[Goro Shimura]

The difficulty for those that are arguing against the "Finding God in the LoTR" position is that they have to prove that something isn't there.

(Proving that something exists is much easier than proving something doesn't exist-- the latter requires omniscience!! That's why agnostics wimp out and claim to have no position on the existence of God.)

Because the Naysayers cannot easily build a case for their point, they have consistently sidestepped the real issues by

1) Mocking Christianity
2) Promoting a theory of the essential moral equivalence of all faiths
3) Pointing out inconsisties and failures in the Churches
4) Pointing out character qualities in Bryheinnen that they feel contradict the spirit of Christ

and my favorite

5) Saying that it's just a matter of interpretation or that it's all in our minds....



It is not a matter of interpretation.

It's a fact that Jesus taught that you should "give in secret" and not "sound a trumpet" before you do some deed of charity.

It's a fact that Aragorn practiced the former and Boromir practiced the latter.

Therefore, it's a fact that LotR illustrates a primary Christian principle.

The fact that Aragorn was ultimately "rewarded openly" (and that Boromir came to a bad end) sends a pretty clear message that it's better to obey Jesus than it is to disobey him. Snow White has "a moral to the story..." and LotR has several-- and it's no accident that the morals of tLotR illustrate fundamental Christian principles.

This is only one example-- I can (and have) produced many more.

The moral of Snow White ("Don't eat food given to you by strangers") doesn't evaporate merely because an immoral person reads the story. Likewise, the illustration of Christian principles that occurs throughout LotR is there whether you're a Christian or not! It's not just "all in your mind"! It's a matter of fact.

[Bryheinnen]

It seems to me that a lot of people on this board are so bent on denying ANY connection between LOTR (the writings, it should be noted, of a VERY devout Christian) and any hint of Christian (perhaps proto-Christian is a more appropriate designation, given the ME setting) spirituality that the effort must be crossing their eyes and giving them terminal constipation.
Much is made of some seemingly contradictory statements by Tolkien concerning the meaning of his creation. While these contradictions can cloud the issue, when you want to know the true inner meaning of a work of literature (or any art-form for that matter) you have to understand the the things that were central to the mind of the author/artist---in this case, Tolkien’s Christian faith. This is directly contrary to the drooling nonsense of the postmodernists and deconstructionists whose stance that the intent of the author or artist is irrelevant, and that only what the reader/viewer takes from a work is valid. This stance is, in my opinion, perverse---not only lazy puerile, narcissistic self-indulgence, but is nothing less than rank intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind, misappropriation of intellectual property. The filthy fingerprints and moronic blatherings of this deconstructionist/postmodernist crowd are are clearly the underpinnings of many of the arguments we see in this forum that seek to deny the Christian elements in LOTR.
To me it is both amazing and droll to see the contortions that the god-haters and deniers assume, the lengths to which they will go, to deny the essential spirituality---CLEARLY Christian in essence, as Christian as the font (Tolkien) from which it sprang---of the Lord of the Rings.
Makes me wonder why they waste their time reading LOTR. They are all too obviously getting nothing of the numinous, nothing of the holy, out of it which the author intended. They should be reading fellow God-haters and deniers like Rand and Nietzsche with whom they would be much more at home.
As for Read-Wryt---FYI, I've read Proust, Nietzsche, Kirkegaard, and a good many works that you might consider "deep". So don't pity me. Pity yourself for what is, in regard to LOTR, in front of your face but which you, IMO, willfully REFUSE to see. LOTR is not "escapism", in at least the sense you would describe that term. It is the postmodernist/absurdist/existentialist trash that pollutes our age that is the real escapism in the sense it calls us from the true into a sort of self-indulgent mental ************. With the clarity time will bring, in 200 years none of the works of those "schools" will be remembered, while Tolkien will be read, loved, and understood for the profound spiritual statement it is.
What many of you on this board call "tolerance" and pride yourselves on is just a vacuum of values. If you yourselves stand for nothing beyond a sort of superficial humanist pseudo-piety, anything will seem acceptable. But Tolkien said (and I paraphrase liberally), truth, good and evil are not one thing among men and another among elves. They are unchangeable and eternal. And like Sting, they strikes deep when all is said and done.

[stphrz]

I think we try to get away from this subject because the longer we stay on it, the more likely we are to find God in the Lord of the Rings!!Maybe.

What I think more likely is we will find that Tolkien did indeed, whether consiously or unconsiously (imho unconsiously), present a number of uniquely Christian principles in TLOTR. However, that does not mean that God, or rather the gospel message is in there.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

The Christian way to God and salvation is not through deeds but through the giving of your life to a higher power (Christ).

In a nutshell, the actions of characters like Frodo, Aragorn etc certainly are Christian in nature. Tolkien was a Christian, so it's no surprise that his heroes would act that way. But, God, or more precisely the Christian doctrine of the WAY to God is not found in TLOTR anywhere.

*Edit for sig test...

[Goro Shimura]

Good point stphrz.

I can't argue with you there.

Jesus and Salvation are not explicitly preached as if the LotR were some sort of Pauline epistle.

But remember:


Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. (2Cor 3:3)

The true message of Christianity is communicated best not through tracts, doctrinal statements, and high minded talk, but through changed lives.

Those that claim to know God and yet do not obey the teachings of Jesus cause the name of God to be blasphemed. (Rom 3:24) Jesus said, "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." (Mat 12:33)

What fruit did Aragorn, Gandalf, Frodo, and Sam bring forth? Did it include love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance? (Gal 5:22-23) I think so.

Remember Jesus's words regarding his commandments in the sermon on the mount:

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:19)

The members of the fellowship practiced many of the teachings of Jesus. Here in this forum, I'm attempting to pick up the other half of the verse by doing the teaching that naturally goes along with their actions.

Some that read tLotR may some day aspire to live a life that embodies such high standards. I have to concur with stphrz in saying that they will not succeed until they allow Jesus to begin transforming them from the inside out.

[Kiwi]

Originally posted by Goroshimura
Kiwi--

Your remarks to Bryheinnen are unfair-- even if they are consistent with the spirit of this age:

If some orc wants to wander in here and basically call us stupid religious fanatics for wanting to discuss a Christian moral element that is apparent in the works... well... that's okay with you apparently-- because at least the orc isn't pushing his faith!!

Surely you can see the double standard in this!!

A note to "Christians" that are about to make remarks about B's lack of broadmindedness, etc: Please don't make any pious remarks about how Bryheinnen isn't reflecting the "spirit of Christ" by having a ready answer for an orc.

He's just going beyond the moral standards imposed even by LoTR: he seems to think that Orcs can be cured of their spiritual condition just as much as Gollum might have been....

---------

I apologise for being pious and inflamatory. And I am not calling anyone who finds God in LoTR a 'stupid religious fanatic'.
It is true, if you look and you want to, you will find god.

I think though that the story is just as sweet without..and wholeheartedly agree with Readwryt's more succinct and sophisticated thinkings...

-Orc

[Goro Shimura]

Oops...

I didn't mean that you were an "orc."

I was talking about that orc guy Grishnak that came through here trolling for a flame:

the quote outright says that tolkien did not mean to refer to anytyhing religious at all. You could link god and religion to any book in the world, even if the book is written by an athiest. Sauron is not mimmicking satin, but rathewr making a good story. you can't have a bad guy that does good things. therefore he could be nothing but satin, or a something like a satin.
Also. those people who wrote that book about "God and the lord of the rings" (or something like that) are probably just religious freaks who want to see the existence of god and religion in everything. They totally misunderstood the meaning of the books and have made the world a worse place by writig their stupid book.
Religion and god is sutch a joke, especially in LOTR!


I guess Satin and Silk were Sauron's evil twin sons?

(Can you speak orcish, Kiwi? I'm not sure I follow what Grishnak was saying...)

[Aldanil]

I must wholeheartedly agree with Goro's judgement on what will still be read and more highy valued in another two centuries, on the Dead Marshes of sterile post-modernist deconstructionism and the proto-Christianity of which Frodo's sacrifice is perhaps the best example. As I mentioned above (ten posts ago), Tolkien the niggler, the inventor of Elven-languages and archaeologist of Arda, the devout Catholic whose name is Ransom when C.S. Lewis sets him down in Perelandra, the imaginer of the Great Tree of interwoven tongues and tales whose roots and branches like Yggdrasill hold together a Secondary World, believed that such a act of sub-creation shows man in the very emulation of God: "we make in the image by which we're made."


That said, I think that any reading, or should I say hearing, of the horn of Boromir which insists upon the exclusive or even the primary significance of Christ's admonition in the Gospel of Matthew not to "sound a trumpet" without acknowledging at least an equal debt to the horn-blowing of Roland at Roncevaux is really missing the Forest of Story for the trees, in my opinion. In this way (among some several others) the histories of Middle-earth are much superior to The Chronicles of Narnia, where one occasionally feels the presence of allegorical Christian meaning quite palpably near, ready to spring out upon the unsuspecting reader at the turn of the next page; the "religious" elements to be found in The Lord of the Rings, and there are many, are much more carefully, perhaps often unconsciously, and subtly woven into the warp and woof of the telling. The Heir of Denethor is no Pharisee, though he falls to temptation; and any chiding of contributors to this thread for not recognizing the "fact" of Tolkien's incorporating specific strands of Christian theology into his Tale seriously distorts both the author's method and his intentions. Not merely because the Field of Cormallen comes long and long before the Hill of Golgotha, there are at most only echoes of any overt doctrinal idea in the end of the Third Age, if the return from death of Gandalf isn't resonant enough, and the wondrous music of the Ainulindale radically reimagines the account of the Creation afforded us in Genesis, to say the least. If I might offer a pan-religious example from another donnish English author, E.M. Forster of Cambridge: as Professor Godbole in A Passage to Indiareaches out to Mrs. Moore and to the wasp in imitation of God, so too did Professor Tolkien create Middle-earth in emulation of God the Scop, shaping his Secondary World in homage to our Maker, "weorc Wuldorfaeder, swa he wundra gehwaes, / ece Drihten, or onstealde."


(and on the minor matter of identifying those being appropriately ill-spoken of: if the self-styling choice of user-name alone isn't enough of a tip, the characteristically Orkish combination of rudely derogatory almost-thought and slovenly keyboarding should surely provide sufficient corroboration, thrakat u bagronk Grishnakh-glob bubhosh skai!)

[Goro Shimura]

Aldanil,

I agree that Boromir was no Pharisee-- but the areas in which he falls short only serve to highlight further the integrity of Aragorn.

I certainly cannot speak with authority on all of the influences of Tolkien-- but I can point out where biblical principles are illustrated. (When I do so, I do not mean to imply that the Bible was JRRT's only source of inspiration-- he definitely knew a lot of history, literature, etc.)


But here's another illustration:


‘Behold the Sun is setting in a great fire! It is a sign of the end and fall of many things, and a change in the tides of the world. But this City and realm has rested in the charge of the Stewards for many long years. And I fear that if I enter it unbidden, then doubt and debate may arise, which should not be while this war is fought. I will not enter in, nor make any claim until it be seen whether we or Mordor shall prevail. Men shall pitch my tents upon the fields and here I will await the welcome of the Lord of the City.’

But Eomer said: ‘Already you have raised the banner of the kings and displayed the tokens of Elendil’s house. Will you suffered these things to be challenged?’

‘No,’ said Aragorn. ‘But I deem the time unripe; and I have no mind for strife except with our Enemy and his Servants.’

And the Prince Imrahil said: ‘Your words, lord. Are wise, if one who is a kinsman of the Lord Denethor may counsel you in this matter. He is string-willed and proud, but old and his mood has been strange since his son was stricken down. Yet I would not have you remain like a beggar at the door.’

‘Not a beggar,’ said Aragorn. ‘Say a captain of the Rangers, who are unused to cities and houses of stone.’ And he commanded that his banner should be furled’ and he did off the Star of the North-kingdom and gave it to the keeping of the sons of Elrond. (RotK 167)




On the surface, Aragorn is just trying to be respectful an respectable. "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men," (Romans 12:18) as Paul said.

We do not have to look too deeply to find that we also have an illustration of the application of a more famous parable:

When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; And he that bade thee come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. (Luke 14:8-10)

[Gloer]

The Lord Of The Rings is not strictly a christian book. In fact Tolkien himself felt that christianity lacks certain type of heroism that is fundamentally present in the norse mythology.

In the Ragnarök - the end of the world of the Norse mythology - evil conquers the good. All heros that die before that shall feast and prepare in the halls of Odin in Alsgaard to fight in the last battle - and loose. This is common knowledge. The viking hero knows that the evil will win and there is no final reward what so ever for the one who still wants to fight for the good.

In christianity however we always have faith and hope of reward after the final victory of God and Christ. Martyrdom is rewarded in afterlife.

So in the final battle when Frodo's gear is shown to Aragorn, Gandalf and the lot, they know that there is no hope, no reward and no afterlife nor glorious martyrdom. There is no hope of salvation nor anything to set ones faith on. And still they choose to fight.
Why? Because Eru is good and intervanes? I don't think so. Instead I would say here we have a somewhat pagan heroism that needs no support, threat or gain from the almighty to do the right thing...

Comeon! Slaughter this one! If you can!
(I know I have no hope of winning this argument, hehehehe)

[ReadWryt]

Agnostics in particular have taken a position against taking a position-- so they would naturally say such things. They do not represent a point of view-- but are somehow opposed to all particular points of view.

This may be true ot the Agnostics whom you have met or who's writings you have read, but they are probably not so much Agnostics but in actuality merely lazy Atheists who are hedging their bets. When you get to those who study Comparative Mythology, as a profession or a hobby, you most likely find either faithfull believers who enjoy the Cultural Anthropological aspects of the study, Atheists or Agnostics who enjoy the rich tapestry of Man's beliefs, are GLAD that these people took a 'position' and realize that these 'positions' are actually sacred beliefs that guide and rule the actions of people in a deep and spiritual way. Agnostic simply mean "unknowing", and it is important to deliniate this term from Ignorant because to be the latter one would have to have seen some truth and denied it. To be Unknowing one can continue to SEEK, to follow the path of Ignorance one would avoid seeking and hide their head in the sand.

1) Mocking Christianity
2) Promoting a theory of the essential moral equivalence of all faiths
3) Pointing out inconsisties and failures in the Churches
4) Pointing out character qualities in Bryheinnen that they feel contradict the spirit of Christ

and my favorite

5) Saying that it's just a matter of interpretation or that it's all in our minds....

Anyone who Mocks Christianity for the sake of making an argument is indeed in the Ignorant catagory because it does nothing to promote anything other then hatred and more ignorance.

Anyone who promotes "essential moral equivalence" of all faiths is fooling themselves and in actuality know little if anything about "all faiths".

Anyone who points out inconsistancies and failures in the Churches simply has NO argument and seek to undermine the integrety of that which they cannot argue against. They are like animals lashing out at something they do not understand, and so attack it. It is much like pointing to the inconsistencies and failures in ANY form of Government, every single one of them having had their share of corrupetion at the cost of the population they govern, and decry ALL Government.

...but saying it's just a matter of interpretation or that it's all in our minds is not too far from the truth, but only if in using the word "our" you include Tolkien himself. Why do you suppose it is that Tolkien never mentioned, as Lewis had, the insertion of God into his story? Would this book not be a way that Christians could introduce the unfaithfull to the "values and morals" of Christianity if it was well known that the author had intentionally used these in the crafting of the most beloved book of the past millenium??

So in the final battle when Frodo's gear is shown to Aragorn, Gandalf and the lot, they know that there is no hope, no reward and no afterlife nor glorious martyrdom. There is no hope of salvation nor anything to set ones faith on. And still they choose to fight.
Why? Because Eru is good and intervanes? I don't think so. Instead I would say here we have a somewhat pagan heroism that needs no support, threat or gain from the almighty to do the right thing...


I'm not certain that the concept that drove the fellowship onward was necessarily Pegan. The idea that they should fight on to keep the sacrifice of Frodo being in vain is not dissimilar to things found in other mythologies.

[Gloer]

I think it is a bit berserker behaviour to fight for the sake of taking as many with you as possible and not very christian at all.

Christians fight as long as they have faith in God and salvation. The Christian religion ensures that there always is hope. In the Lord Of The Rings there hope is effectively taken from the heros. And still they manage to aim for the right thing. And things go right but not because of their fight. It's Gollum's accidental fall that saves the world.

Christians would prehaps say that this is "Deux ex machina" (a divine intervention". No one can save himself and only God/Christ is a saviour and we can only try our best and pray for His mercy.

A viking pagan would probably say that a good warrior always has a lot of good luck with him.

[Goro Shimura]

They weren't fighting to "take as many people with them as possible." They were attempting to distract Sauron long enough for Frodo to acheive the qwest.

Pippin might have been deceived by the Leuitenant when they were shown the elvish cloak, the Westernesse sword, and the dwarvish mail. But I think Gandalf and Aragorn had a hint there that all was not lost and that perhaps Sauron had actually taken the bait! (Aren't there quotes to that effect?)

The way the eagles sweep in to save the day is reminiscent of Angels sweeping in to fight for ancient Israel. (Would the Eagles have assisted if Boromir or Denethor were fighting Sauron by weilding the Ring? I doubt it... but that's not a major point, anyway....)



And as to Gollum's "accident".... Every major protagonist (Aragorn, Gandalf, Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam-- and the wood elves) shows mercy toward this unlovable creature... and all of them hold out in hope that he might be redeemed or cured.... And in the end... Frodo and Sam would not have even had half a chance of making it to Mt Doom without him.

The moral of the story is once again, that obeying the sermon on the mount ultimately results in the best outcomes-- even when doing so goes against "common sense."

The hand of Eru (God) is evident in the "accident" of Bilbo finding the ring. Gandalf himself knew that Gollum had some sort of God-ordained role yet to play in things-- this was not a "lucky guess," rather it came from his own intimacy with God.

Gollum, Frodo, and Sam all work together to acheive the qwest. (Gollum is admitedly ambivalent about it all, but nonethelss.. Smeagol does come through every once in a while.) The War of the Ring is won not through might of warriors (they were just a distraction) but through the remarkable inner strength of hobbits to resist evil.

(The small and weak triumphing over the mighty-- I imagine this is not something that comes up very often in Norse mythology.)

[Gloer]

...Gloer is getting upand back to the fight!

In the norse mythology the evil giants are usually stronger than the good gods of Aasgard.

So you managed to "intrepret" hope for those poor people in front of the gates of Mordor? damn, I was so close.

But...
How about Frodo!

Frodo has no hope for himself! Frodo knows that he is not going to be able to destroy the ring and therefore the quest is lost already. Frodo knows and still he pushes on until he is at the crack of Mt. Doom. He is not surprised that he claims the ring so he has foreseen it coming.

When Gollum gets the ring and it is destroyed, Frodo gets no salvation or peace! He has no hope!

Haa! Take that...

[Ancalagon]

The hand of Eru (God) is evident in the "accident" of Bilbo finding the ring. Gandalf himself knew that Gollum had some sort of God-ordained role yet to play in things-- this was not a "lucky guess," rather it came from his own intimacy with God.

I fail to see the relation between Eru (or the Christian God as you have conveniently labeled him), A Magical Ring which is invested with the power of Sauron and the link to Christianity.

Nowhere in the New Testament do we see any relation between magical inanimate objects or tools of Satan that Christians might use in bringing themselves closer to God or more to the point, finding God through Jesus. Surely the point of Christianity is faith in the power of the Son of God and not in the futile pursuit of a 'holy grail', a 'shroud of Turin' or a sample of cloth possibly belonging to Peter the Apostle.

Where exactly does the ring fit into this debate for the ring is not of the same stable as 'the Ark of the Covenant', for this would have been a deliberate tool of Gods own for the use of his chosen people.

Remember the ring 'wanted to be found', not because it was guided by Eru, but guided by it's own design and corruption, for it was a greater percentage of the power of Sauron......Satan if you really must label him, Oh, no that would have been Morgoth...Sauron can only be Morgoths right hand man then!

I certainly can find no evidence for Eru's interjection in The Lord of the RIngs, nor is he/she referred to as directing any aspect of the story. Surely a Christian work would have evidenced a strong influence of a Godhead in all aspects of its story, actually were this the case, more reference may be found of 'devine intervention' which is a deeply held Catholic belief. There is no basis to find any foundation for this arguement.

If you want to argue this work as a Christian work, then you must look at it through the eyes of a Catholic Christian, not a Protestand Christian; for both have a distinctly differing perception of their own faith and each others. You cannot argue with conviction on Tolkien ideaology if you cannot understand the foundations and widely held belief system of Catholicism. My example that you may wish to enlighten me with is where The Blessed Mother (the virgin birth of Christ) fits into this story of Christianity?

If anyone can explain these distinct, inherent core beliefs of Catholicism then I will agree you have captured Tolkiens personal ideals. God may be present in Tolkiens talent, that is undeniable to any who understands Gods role in our lives, however, Tolkien has not referred to God in the LOTR any more than he refers to a 'Son of God' a 'holy spirit' or a virgin mother. These are the core principles of Catholicism and therefore those of a devout Tolkien.

[Goro Shimura]

Gloer--

I'm glad that you keep bringing up the scenes leading up to the final destruction of the ring, because it is here that the illustration of New Testament principles becomes the most dense!


‘It is my burden, and no one else can bear it.’ (RotK 263)

For every man shall bear his own burden. Galatians 6:5

‘I can’t carry it for you, but I can carry you and it as well.’ (RotK 268)

Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Galatians 6:2

As Frodo clung upon his back, arms loosely about his neck, legs clasped firmly under his arms, Sam staggered to his feet; then to his amazement he felt the burden light. He had feared that he would have barely strength to lift his master alone, and beyond that he had expected to share in the dreadful dragging weight of the accursed Ring. But it was not so. (RotK 268)

For my yoke is easy, and my burden light. Matthew 11:30

It would be just to slay this treacherous, murderous creature, just and many times deserved; and also it seemed the only safe thing to do. But deep in his heart there was something that restrained him: he could not strike this thing lying in the dust, forlorn, ruinous, utterly wretched. He himself, though only for a little while, had borne the Ring, and now dimly he guessed the agony of Gollum’s shrivelled mind and body, enslaved to that Ring, unable to find peace or relief ever in life again. (RotK 273)

For he shall have judgement without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgement. James 2:13

Suddenly Sam saw Gollum’s long hands draw upwards to his mouth; his white fangs gleamed, and then snapped as they bit. (RotK 275)

But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the ring. (RotK 277)

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way of escape, that ye may be able to bear it. 1 Corinthians 10:13

As far as the hopelessness of the situation, I believe Gandalf answers that:

'It is not despair, for despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt. We do not. It is wisdom to recognize necessity, when all other courses have been weighed, though as folly it may appear to those who cling to false hope.' (FotR 352)

The New testament does not teach that an easy life will be had for all that follow Christ. On the contrary, it promises trials and persectution-- the Christian will live in this world as a pilgrim, a stranger, a foreigner, and as a soldier in a realm controlled by the Enemy. (The qwest of Frodo isn't too far off from that, eh?)

Yes, things looked pretty bleak. The chances of success seemed very small. Yet at every step of the way, all that was needed was supplied by the Creator, rather much in the same way that God is able to provide for us in 'the real world:'

And he said unto me, 'My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.' 2nd Corinthians 12:9

Now unto him that is able to do exceedingly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us... Ephesians 3:20

No Christian can look back at the end of his life and glory in all the great things that he accomplished. He can only marvel a gloriousness of a God that is able to supply his every need-- whether through the aid of other Christians (ie Sam) that help him to bear his burdens, or "thorns in the flesh" (ie Gollum) that prevent him from ultimately being overcome with pride.

[stphrz]

If you want to argue this work as a Christian work, then you must look at it through the eyes of a Catholic Christian, not a Protestand Christian; for both have a distinctly differing perception of their own faith and each others. You cannot argue with conviction on Tolkien ideaology if you cannot understand the foundations and widely held belief system of Catholicism. My example that you may wish to enlighten me with is where The Blessed Mother (the virgin birth of Christ) fits into this story of Christianity?


It doesn't. It simply doesn't. I said before in my previous post that there are certainly some principles in TLOTR that are uniquely Christian in nature. But that doesn't mean that the whole story/doctrine is there. It doesn't even mean the most important doctrine(s) are present. It's not. Tolkien's faith was a big part of who he was. Some of those principles got into the story because of that. In my opinion there is nothing more to it than that.

As for that Catholic Christian vs. Protestant Christian stuff, all as I can say is poppy**** :P I think that just clouds the issue more than necessary. The important core beliefs are the same. It's just that Catholics also have a lot of traditional practices that Protestants don't agree with because they feel they get in the way. In other words the differences are more political than theological (although there are some differences in the theological area as well).

[Thorin]

Originally posted by stphrz


It doesn't. It simply doesn't. I said before in my previous post that there are certainly some principles in TLOTR that are uniquely Christian in nature. But that doesn't mean that the whole story/doctrine is there. It doesn't even mean the most important doctrine(s) are present. It's not. Tolkien's faith was a big part of who he was. Some of those principles got into the story because of that. In my opinion there is nothing more to it than that.

It's just that Catholics also have a lot of traditional practices that Protestants don't agree with because they feel they get in the way. In other words the differences are more political than theological (although there are some differences in the theological area as well).

I agree with your first statements...Too much can be read into LoTR as a Christian parable or something...The fact is, is that Tolkien was influenced by Norse mythology as much as he was by Catholic theology and both found their way into the story in some form or another, but just as analogies and concepts.

Your last comments, however, are not fully exact. There are more theological then political differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, though some protestant churches are trying to bridge the gap betweent the two. Some differences are:

1) Adoration and devotion to Mary and her position
2) Sarcedotalism (Differing view on the role of the priest and his intercessary position)
3) Devotion to relics and worship of the saints
4) Birth control
5) Women clergy (though some protestant churches take a stand against that)
6) Transubstantiation
7) Confession to priests
8) Protestants must come back to the church to be saved (I saw a Catholic website that did indeed say that)

Many differences I would think....

[ReadWryt]

How amazing it is to me that so much intimacy is atributed to characters and their relationship with a creator that not a one of them ever mentions in any of their adventures...ever. I mean, if *I* were intimate with a diety you can bet that I would at LEAST know their name!

[Ancalagon]

As for that Catholic Christian vs. Protestant Christian stuff, all as I can say is poppy**** :P I think that just clouds the issue more than necessary. The important core beliefs are the same. It's just that Catholics also have a lot of traditional practices that Protestants don't agree with because they feel they get in the way. In other words the differences are more political than theological (although there are some differences in the theological area as well).

The issue 'is' very much clouded, for both denominations truly look with different eyes yet still under a single umbrella. Now, I am not pointing this out simply to twist the debate; I was brought up as a Catholic but changed my opinions on Catholicism in my early 20s. However, I fully understand the variations as so eloquently pointed out by Thorin in his most recent post.

The fact however remains that there is no actual referencing to interjection or petitioning of a higher being throughout the work. Therefore I have great difficuly in finding GOD in The Lord of the Rings. However, that is my personal opinion and I am not demanding that you agree with me as some have, simply that you accept this as my position.

[stphrz]

Your last comments, however, are not fully exact. There are more theological then political differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, though some protestant churches are trying to bridge the gap betweent the two. Some differences are:
Depends on what you mean by "core" beliefs. The core beliefs of both Protestants and Catholics are summed up in the Nicene Creed or the Apostle's Creed which are very nearly identical for Protestants and Catholics. The real difference is the interpretation of the words "catholic church". Protestants interpret this to mean the universal church of Christ, Catholics interpret it to mean the Roman Catholic Church. In otherwords, it mainly political.

1) Adoration and devotion to Mary and her position
2) Sarcedotalism (Differing view on the role of the priest and his intercessary position)
3) Devotion to relics and worship of the saints
4) Birth control
5) Women clergy (though some protestant churches take a stand against that)
6) Transubstantiation
7) Confession to priests
8) Protestants must come back to the church to be saved (I saw a Catholic website that did indeed say that)
Important beliefs they may be to Catholics, they are not the core beliefs (see above). #'s 5, 8 are prime examples of politics in action.(There are many Protestants that are of the opinion that salvation is impossible through the Roman Catholic Church). #'s 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, are examples of the traditional (ie not expressly stated in the Bible) practices that Protestants disagree with. #4 is actually a point of agreement between many Catholics and Protestants.

[ReadWryt]

Actually Tolkien only responded to the fact that a critic compared Waybread (Lembas) to the Eucharist. The fact that he never intended this to happen is refered to in a letter he wrote to Deborah Webster in October of 1958 when he followed up his description of this observation by the critic with the statement,

"That is: far greater things may colour the mind in dealing with the lesser things of a fairy-story."

which implies that his Catholisism may have unconsciously effected the description of the effect Lembas had on the Will as a viaticum and it's being more potent when fasting.

[Goro Shimura]

ReadWryt--

How amazing it is to me that so much intimacy is atributed to characters and their relationship with a creator that not a one of them ever mentions in any of their adventures...ever. I mean, if *I* were intimate with a diety you can bet that I would at LEAST know their name!

I think it's been established over in the "Gandalf and Illuvatar" thread that...

1) Gandalf is sent by God to Middle Earth to accomplish an important task-- much in the same way, perhaps that Denethor sent out his sons to accomplish important tasks for their kingdom/stewardship. If Gandalf has a "Father-Son" type of relation ship with the Creator, then I do believe that the word "intimate" is not necessarly a word that exagerates their relationship.

2) If there is any doubt concerning #1, then keep in mind the incredibly huge favor that God does for him by resurecting him and sending him back with greater powers at an important moment. I generally do not do really big favors for people that I'm not close with. The more intimate I am with someone, the bigger the favor I'm inclined to do for them.



Notice Gandalf's conversation with Bilbo at the end of the Hobbit:

“Then the prophecies of the old songs have turned out to be true, after a fashion!” said Bilbo.
“Of course!” said Gandalf. “And why should not they prove true? Surely you don’t disbelieve the prophecies because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself? You don’t really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You’re a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I’m very fond of you; but your are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!” (tH 317)
I believe that Gandalf does not believe in random chance-- rather he believes that most major events in the world are due to the influence of spiritual powers such as Iluvatar and Morgoth. The entire idea of prophecy presupposes supernatual powers that work in history, that order the future, and that communicate knowledge of future events to their servants:

‘There was more than one power at work, Frodo. The Ring was trying to get back to its master. It had slipped from Isildur’s hand and betrayed him; then when a chance came it caught poor Deagol, and he was murdered; and after that Gollum, and it had betrayed him: he was too small and mean; and as long as it stayed with him he would never leave his deep pool again. So now, when its master was awake once more and sending out his dark thought from Mirkwood, it abandoned Gollum. Only to be picked up by the most unlikely person imaginable: Bilbo from the Shire!

‘Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also were meant to have it. And that may be an encouraging thought.’

Gandalf is hopeful about the outcome of the War of the Ring because he knows and serves a power that is greater than the Enemy. No, he does not pray in the streets of Bree, nor does he hand out any tracts in Isengard-- nevertheless, he serves God and is confident of the Creator's ability to ultimately grace the admitedly minor and insignificant deeds (at least they seem so in the face of Sauron's onslaught!) in such a way that Good can ultimately prevail.

[Goro Shimura]

Found an interesting interview with Joseph Pearce, the author of "Tolkien: Man and Myth."
Q: Many lament the depravity in the mass media today. What can we learn from Tolkien about improving the quality of entertainment?

Pearce: The greatest lesson we learn from Tolkien is the objective nature of truth. Evil is real; and so is good.

Goodness is the real presence of God; evil is his real absence. Tolkien has no time for the amoral relativism that is so prevalent in much of what passes as modern entertainment.

The fact that Tolkien's myth contains more truth than most of what passes as realism serves as a damning indictment of the false vision being presented by today's mass media.

Click here for the whole article. (http://www.tolkienonline.com/docs/5258.html)

[Goro Shimura]

It is important in assessing Tolkien’s impact on modern consciousness to situate The Lord of the Rings in the fuller context of the body of the author’s writings. The ring trilogy is only entirely comprehensible, and properly understood according to its author’s intention, in the light of his foundational work The Silmarillion. With some leeway for imaginative expansion on his themes, Tolkien has given us the “theological” foundation to Middle-earth—one that corresponds in essence to the book of Genesis. It’s all there: the Creator, the creation of the universe, the revolt of the fallen angels, Satan, the corruption of Man, the ensuing battle between good and evil in the incarnate world. The names have been changed and the details of the battles enlarged, but this is a dramatic portrayal of reality itself. If New Age devotees have to some degree co-opted Tolkien’s writings to their own purposes, this does not negate the author’s original intention. The New Age has attempted to co-opt sacred Scripture as well—the cults are notorious for this—but does this negate the original intention of the Author of the Bible?

What is the context of J.K. Rowling’s Potter-world? What are its “theological foundations,” if you will? In a word, there are none. The Harry Potter series is a fantasy-projection of materialist man, homo sine deo, man without God, imagining himself to have god-like powers without any reference to the source of those powers, nor to any set of moral absolutes against which he can measure the rightness or wrongness of his thoughts and actions.
Witchcraft is not so much about love of nature, as it is about love of control over nature. It is about power—god-like power without accountability to objective standards, without obedience to the Creator of nature. It is about our root sin, pride. It is about rebellion against God’s authority.
--From another interesting link (http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2001-06/letters.html)

[Ancalagon]

I just wondered if those who have made reference to similarities between the bible and Tolkiens works noticed any resemblence between this from the Silmarillion;

The Aulë took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept. But Ilúvatar had compassion upon Aulë and his desire, because of his humility; and the Dwarves shrank from the hammer and were afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for mercy. And the voice of Ilúvatar said to Aulë: 'Thy offer I accepted even as it was made.

and this from The Old Testament;

GEN 22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
GEN 22:11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
GEN 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

Just wondering what your opinion is on this?

[Goro Shimura]

Okay Ancalagon... here goes....

There are several key points that I think are worth pointing out.


Even as Adam's sin brought a curse into the world... God immediately made a promise to rectify things somehow. This is one of the overriding themes of the Bible.
Gen 3:14-15 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Notice that even in Genesis, God sets forth the principle that the breakdown in the relationship between man and God can only be mended through the shedding of blood.

Fig leaves are not enough to cover Adam and Eve's sin:
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Cain's offering does not satisfy God for a similar reason:
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.


And so here's Abraham... thinking that God was going to bless the world through his offspring... and then God tells him to kill his own son. What does the author of Hebrews have to say about this??
Heb 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
So Abraham gives us a picture of what God would ultimately do in New Testament times: offer up His only begotton son for the sins of the world. The ram is a type and shadow of Jesus Christ dying in our place so that we do not have to pay the price for our sins.


How does this compare to the scene from the Silmarillion that you refer to?

It is a significant scene regarding the cosmology of Middle Earth, but it is no where near as significant as the story of Abraham and Isaac is to the rest of the scriptures.

As great as the LotR is both morally and metaphysically, we all have to admit that there is a great deal more of Christ showing up in the account of Abraham and Isaac than there is of Christ showing up in the entire LotR history.

[Aldanil]

Goroshimura's last point is right on target, and (in my opinion, unmistakably so) Professor Tolkien the devout Roman Catholic and dedicated sub-creator of Arda wouldn't have had it any other way, not least because in its imagined literary chronology the Red Book of Westmarch is a much earlier text than the Old Testament of Yahweh or the New Testament of Christ.

[Goro Shimura]

Yes... in my opinion, it is with good reason that this thread is entitled "Finding God in LotR" as opposed to "Finding Jesus in LotR."

Notice the areas in which Catholic author Joseph Pearce focuses his book:

LotR as a religious work "falls into three distinct but inter-related areas," writes Pearce. These areas are "the sacrifice which accompanies the selfless exercise of free will; the intrinsic conflict between good and evil; and the perennial question of time and eternity, particularly in relation to life and death."

from:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/bardallis6.html

[Aldanil]

Which is not quite the title of this ongoing line of discourse, I realize, but comes pretty close to something like Christian Echoes in Arda, and the particular point I'll offer certainly doesn't need a thread of its own; anyway...


Doing the New York Times Sunday crossword puzzle this evening, and answering the clue for 16 Down: "Sailor's Guardian" with the six-letter ST ELMO, I was struck by the similarity between the name of the patron saint and protector of seafarers and that of the mighty Ocean-Vala Ulmo, Lord of Waters.


That's it, then; whaddya'll think?

[Goro Shimura]

Our dear boyish philogist would not be above doing that sort of thing, though it may well be a coincidence.

I suspect there are a great deal of inside jokes inside that could only be unlocked through his professional art.

[Goro Shimura]

And you then basically go on to imply not believing in Christianity is the start of a slippery slope towards totalitarianism and fascism. I simply won't have this and I hope you will clarify to say you don't believe this. -- VK

I'm going to shock you and say I DO believe this is a danger. Once we start making up our own moral codes, and cut ourselves loose from the anchor Christian morality supplies, there is nothing to prevent us (or our rulers) saying that anything that suits our needs is right. (Here we find Saruman!) You can say "NO. Our consciences will tell us what is right and not right." But lots of human cultures have in good conscience ripped out their enemies hearts, massacred whole cities of people - and thought these were good things to do. Could that happen here? Well. Look at the arguments over Abortion for the young, and Euthanasia for the old and ill. (Not that I want to start that argument in this thread). Both involve taking human life, so we have already started on the path away from "Do not kill."
-- proudfoot way back on page 10
No-one can deny that from Robespierre to Stalin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, Mao and other leaders who shared your view that God and moral principles are part of "the past" have killed more people and caused more human misery than anyone, before or since
-- proudfoot way back on page 11
Where has old proudfoot gone??


Found an interesting article on Tolkien that reminded me of our dear departed poster. It's Tolkien, Hitler, and Nordic Heroism by J.P. Zmirak.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/guestcolumnists/zmirak12-20-01.htm

[Goro Shimura]

What attracted Tolkien to these tales was their unique, heroic ethos. Written down by recently Christianized barbarians, stories such as Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight intertwined the old, pagan values of individualism, courage and promise-keeping with Biblical themes of self-sacrifice, defense of the helpless, and piety towards the One God. Thus were the warriors of the North civilized, and urged to restrain their swords by the codes of Hebrew prophets and Christian theologians. The grandsons of the Viking raiders began to bind themselves to the Ten Commandments and Augustine’s "just war" theory.

This is from the aforementioned link.

If this is true... then the so-called "pagan source material" on which Middle Earth is based is actually the work of Christianized barabarians!!!

[ReadWryt]

What it appears to me to be here is that the author is presuming that "the sacrifice which accompanies the selfless exercise of free will; the intrinsic conflict between good and evil; and the perennial question of time and eternity, particularly in relation to life and death." are all exclusive to Tolkien's "God" and the people who worship it. These are all handled in the concepts and precepts of Hinduism through Dharma and the like, and the conflict between Good and Evil as will as the question of Time and Eternity in relation to Life and Death are addressed in the Upanishads and Vedas as well as several other Hindu references.

Indeed it may be true that Tolkien created a mythic hitory, the characters of which reflected his personal moral beliefs in what Good and Evil are...it is most likely a fact that he used models from the Bible he adored for different aspects of characters in this Mythic History and that he used as a moral yardstic his Catholic Upbringing, but beware attempts to trace these back to the author as overt acts...

[Goro Shimura]

God redeemed the corrupt making creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces the essence of fairy-stories… among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe. But this story has entered History and the primary world.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien
from Tolkien's On Faerie Stories
http://www.christians.org/manmyth/man04.html


Readwryte,

1) Tolkien believed that the Gospels were true.
2) Tolkien believed that Christian moral values were universal and applied to all people in all cultures.
3) Tolkien was very concerned about passing his values on to his children.
4) I've demonstrated numerous examples of Christian moral principles illustrated in LotR in this thread.
5) "With some leeway for imaginative expansion on his themes, Tolkien has given us the “theological” foundation to Middle-earth—one that corresponds in essence to the book of Genesis. It’s all there: the Creator, the creation of the universe, the revolt of the fallen angels, Satan, the corruption of Man, the ensuing battle between good and evil in the incarnate world. The names have been changed and the details of the battles enlarged, but this is a dramatic portrayal of reality itself." (from a link cited on the previous page of this thread.)
6) Many of the faerie storys that he studied and upon which he based his work in part were actually written by Christianized barbarians.

See our discussion on the Ring for more on #5.
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2866&pagenumber=1

The case is getting quite large, if I do say so myself.

I suppose the Hindoo writings address questions of Good and Evil, mortality and immortality... but somehow I do not think the answers they offer are consistent with Christianity, with Tolkien's personal views, or with what he attempted to illustrate in his own tales.

The "Christian-ness" of LotR is especially apparent when you compare and contrast it to the work of other fantasy authors-- especially J.K. Rowling.

[Samwise]

I'm new to this discussion and I agree that you will find God everywhere. In the LOTR, Tolkien has just hidden it. God is there, just if you don't take the time to look, you won't find what's really there. JRRT was a friend of CSLewis. In lewis' the Lion, the witch, and the wardrobe, it's very obvious what he's getting at but Tolkien made his more hidden so that you have to try and look at it the way Tolkien did. If you read the Silmarillion, (if you haven't already) you will find that many of the things about Eru and Melkor are like God and Satan. There are many similarities in all of Tolkien's books as he tries to help others understand more about Christianity. Sorry if I'm just repeating what has already been said.

[ReadWryt]

Do you have some evidence that Tolkien intentionally "hid" God and Christianity other then the parallels you see yourself?

[Samwise]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Do you have some evidence that Tolkien intentionally "hid" God and Christianity? September, 1931
It was a dark and stormy night. Well, windy, at anyrate. On the grounds of Magdalen College, Oxford,two tweed-jacketed, pipe-puffing professors gocrunching down the gravel path known as Addison'sWalk, under the deeper shadows of a grove of trees."Look!" says one of them, a tall, long-faced fellowwith the furrowed brow and twinkling eyes of a sage . . .
or wizard.

He points to a large oak. "There itstands," he says, "its feet in the earth, its head among the stars. A majestic miracle of creation! Andwhat do we call it? A tree." He laughs. "The word falls absurdly short of expressing the thing itself."

"Of course it does," responds the other, around-faced, slightly balding, bespectacled man in his mid-30s. "Like any word, it's just a verbal
invention—a symbol of our own poor devising."

"Exactly," says the first man. "And here's my point: Just as a word is an invention about an object or an idea, so a story can be an invention about Truth." The other rubs his chin. "I've loved stories since I was a boy," he muses. "You know that, Tollers! Especially stories about heroism and sacrifice, death and resurrection—like the Norse myth of Balder. But when it comes to Christianity . . . well, that's another matter. I simply don't understand how the life and death of Someone Else (whoever He was) 2,000 years ago can help me here and now."

"But don't you see, Jack?" persists his friend. "The Christian story is the greatest story of them all. Because it's the Real Story. The historical event that fulfills the tales and shows us what they mean. The tree itself—not just a verbal invention."

Jack stops and turns. "Are you trying to tell me that in the story of Christ . . . all the other stories have somehow come true?"

A week and a half later, Jack—better known to most of us as C.S. Lewis, teacher, author, defender of the Christian faith, and creator of the beloved Chronicles of Narnia—writes to his friend Arthur Greeves: "I have just passed on from believing in God to definitely believing in Christ—in Christianity. My long night talk with Tolkien had a great deal to do with it."

Maybe you have heard this before. This is one of the talks that Tolkien had with C.S. Lewis. This is a quote I got from a website. If you want to find out more about proof that Tolkien hid Christianity in LOTR, click here: http://www.family.org/pplace/pi/lotr/A0018586.cfm

P.S. another quote of Tolkien's from one of his letters: "The Lord of the Rings," he wrote in a letter to a friend, "is of course a fundamentally religious and Christian work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

[Aldanil]

This somewhat lengthy quotation may well have been posted many pages ago; it's only my lamentable slothfulness that prevents me from going back to check. As Samwise put it a few days ago, "Sorry if I'm just repeating what has already been said." The passage does seem remarkably apt, however, and certainly bears rereading. Anyway...



From Humphrey Carpenter's Tolkien: A biography, p. 91:

Some have puzzled over the relation between Tolkien's stories and his Christianity, and have found it difficult to understand how a devout Roman Catholic could write with such conviction about a world where God is not worshipped. But there is no mystery. The Silmarillion is the work of a profoundly religious man. It does not contradict Christianity but complements it. There is in the legends no worship of God, yet God is indeed there, more explicitly in The Silmarillion than in the work that grew out of it, The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien's universe is ruled over by God [Eru/Iluvatar], "The One". Beneath Him in the hierarchy are the Valar, the guardians of the world, who are not gods but angelic powers, themselves holy and subject to God; and at one terrible moment in the story they surrender their power into His hands.

Tolkien cast his mythology in this form because he wanted it to be remote and strange, and yet at the same time not to be a lie. He wanted the mythological and legendary stories to express his own moral view of the universe; and as a Christian he could not place this view in a cosmos without the God that he worshipped. At the same time, to set his stories "realistically" in the known world, where religious beliefs were explicitly Christian, would deprive them of imaginative colour. So while God is present in Tolkien's universe, He remains unseen.

[Greenwood]

Samwise

You have shown that Tolkien was a religious man. I do not believe there is any dispute on that question. Given that Tolkien was a religious Christian man I do not find it in the least surprising that his fundamental beliefs would be reflected in his writings, especially when he is writing what he called a "fairy story" or a "myth" about a battle between good and evil. I find it unthinkable that such a man would write a story in which evil triumphs. Also given that Tolkien hoped to publish LOTR it is not likely that he would write a story that most people would find objectionable or whose fundamental principles they would reject. Having said all that it is still a huge leap to say that Tolkien meant LOTR to have a hidden religious subtext, or at least anything more than the usual fairy story of good triumphant over evil. All I can add is what I posted recently on another thread when this subject came up for the millionth time:

In these seemingly endless back and forth debates about whether Tolkien meant LOTR to be a religious book I see many quotes from his letters tossed around by both sides to justify their position. It seems to me that the prime source to look for evidence should be the four volumes of the History of the Lord of the Rings in the HoME series. Afterall, these are Tolkien notes and drafts for the book and we can see how the book developed and evolved in his mind over the years he wrote it. In particular I would expect to find evidence of Tolkien's intent in the chapters in those books that outline Tolkien's view of where the story was going, i.e. The Story Foreseen from Moria, The Story Foreseen from Fangorn, etc. Now, I must confess that I have not read read all four volumes, but I have read a fair amount and skimmed even more. I can find no evidence that he was plotting the story with any religious subtext or message in mind. What comes across is Tolkien planning an exciting story and at times being forced in certain directions by the logic of the choices he had made as the story progressed. At times as he made a decision about a certain event he had to go back and rewrite earlier events to get everything in line with what he now saw should be happening. But no where do I see any mention of religious themes or making certain characters or events fit in with a planned religious message.

[ReadWryt]

Samwise,

Rather then waste the hard drive with re-typing the myriad quotes I have shared in this thread to date, here are some of the URLs which explain my position that Tolkien did not purposely insert the God of Abraham into The Lord of the Rings...

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=27870#post27870

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=28575#post28575

[Bucky]

>>>> And you then basically go on to imply not believing in Christianity is the start of a slippery slope towards totalitarianism and
fascism. I simply won't have this and I hope you will clarify to
say you don't believe this. -- VK

I'm going to shock you and say I DO believe this is a danger.

Yup, me too.
Although, I would change 'christianity' to 'Judeo-Christian' principles.

But, the PC's are coming to power and.......

'And you will be hated by ALL nations for my name's sake" - Jesus

BTW, I like talking about God & Jesus (sorry to be redundant - LOL!) more than most or all, but this discussion was long ago played out......

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by Aldanil
The Silmarillion is the work of a profoundly religious man. It does not contradict Christianity but complements it. There is in the legends no worship of God, yet God is indeed there, more explicitly in The Silmarillion than in the work that grew out of it, The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien's universe is ruled over by God [Eru], "The One". Beneath Him in the hierarchy are the Valar, the guardians of the world, who are not gods but angelic powers, themselves holy and subject to God; and at one terrible moment in the story they surrender their power into His hands.

Tolkien cast his mythology in this form becasue he wanted it to be remote and strange, and yet at the same time not to be a lie. He wanted the mythological and legendary stories to express his own moral view of the universe; and as a Christian he could not place this view in a cosmos without the God that he worshipped. At the same time, to set his stories "realistically" in the known world, where religious beliefs were explicitly Christian, would deprive them of imaginative colour. So while God is present in Tolkien's universe, He remains unseen. Wow... this is exactly what I would have said if I could say things the way they ought to be said!

As we have discussed in the other threads on Providence, God is the primary character of the LotR. References to Him are indirect, subdued, and often in the passive voice. And yet...

He it was that sent the Istari.

He it was that meant for Bilbo to find the ring.

He it was that arranged for Gildor and Tom Bombadil to arrive at just the right moment.

He it was that called the leaders of the Free Peoples to the Council of Elrond.

He it was that appointed the task of destroying the Ring to Frodo.

In all respects, the God of the LotR behaves as the doctrines of Orthodox Biblical Christianity dictate that he should. Tolkien elaborates on a mythical time of the past without contradicting what he thought (as a Christian) to be the truth about God.

If we took, for a moment, Tolkien's view to be "the truth" behind the notion of the gods as promulgated by the Greeks and Romans, then we would see that these other gods are actually misrepresentations of the Valar with all kinds of spurious and ridiculous tales and notions mixed in. The Pagans forgot the One that ruled their "gods" and instead served but an echo, a corruption, and a false memory.

Finally, the concept of elves & dwarves & ents come not from pagan sources, but rather from philology. Tolkien attempts to show what the "true source" of these words are in a mythical setting where the ruling creator God is behaves in an essentially consistent way as what a traditional Christian view would hold him to behave. He does not so much "borrow" from Pagan sources-- rather he reveals the "truth" behind the stories and myths that come down to us.

Even though God is in the background, nevertheless, He is there.

[ReadWryt]

...so what you are saying is that Elves, Dwarves, Ents, Goblins and the like are actually inherant to the languages that Tolkien studied?? Could it be that what you are saying is that the stories written by polytheistic peoples that Tolkien read in their original tongues were the inspiration for these concepts instead? To say that the Study of ancient languages was the inspiration for these creatures is like saying that the study of Film Making was the inspiration for Lucas' Star Wars series. It discounts that fact that the CONTENT of what Tolkien was translating was filled with these mythical beasts and that these were composed, not by Christians, but by Polytheistic ancient peoples, who in otherwords would be Pagans.

[Greenwood]

He it was that sent the Istari.

He it was that meant for Bilbo to find the ring.

He it was that arranged for Gildor and Tom Bombadil to arrive at just the right moment.

He it was that called the leaders of the Free Peoples to the Council of Elrond.

He it was that appointed the task of destroying the Ring to Frodo.

Maybe He was Thor? Or Zeus because he had taken a disliking to Sauron?

Following your logic a believer of any faith, Christian or non-Christian could subsitute their faith's god into the above. And that is the point. Tolkien was writing a "fairy tale/myth" about the battle between good and evil. Much of what he wrote is applicable to many of the faiths of humanity. I am happy that you find your faith reflected in it. I am unhappy and think it is wrong to attempt to appropriate a wonderful work of literature for a particular religion rather than allowing it to have the broad appeal that I personally believe Tolkien was aiming for.

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by Greenwood
Maybe He was Thor? Or Zeus because he had taken a disliking to Sauron?At what point in the Silmarillion does He spawn all manner of heroes and god-men by assuming human form and chasing after beautiful damsels until Hera (or her equivalent) catches him in the act of infidelity?

It doesn't happen.

Eru behaves more like the God of the bible than like Zeus or Jupiter.

[Greenwood]

At what point in the Silmarillion does He spawn all manner of heroes and god-men by assuming human form and chasing after beautiful damsels until Hera (or her equivalent) catches him in the act of infidelity?

It doesn't happen.

Eru behaves more like the God of the bible than like Zeus or Jupiter.


And the any number of things that the Biblical God does that are also not in the Silmarillion. That Tolkien, a religious man, should right a creation myth with similarities to the Bible he believed in is not a surprise. This still does not prove that Tolkien meant LOTR to be a dusguised religious work.

Also, the last time I looked Eru was not in LOTR.

[Goro Shimura]

"And the any number of things that the Biblical God does that are also not in the Silmarillion."

The obvious answer to that is that LotR takes place before the institution of Israel.

I speak primarily of the attributes of God when I mention these similarities. ("The One...." And does Tolkien not use the word "Holy" to describe the Ainur?) If you're looking at character qualities and temperament, Eru is more like the God of the bible than like any of the Greco-Roman gods.

The destruction of Numenor reflects a synthesis of the actions of God both in expelling Adam and Eve from Eden and in destroying the world with a great flood.

"Also, the last time I looked Eru was not in LOTR."

Maybe he didn't have any lines... but really, who sent the dreams to Faramir? Who resurrected Gandalf? His invisible hand is there at practically every turn of the plot even when He's not doing such overt acts of intervention.

Be sure to read the Psalm of the Eagle! (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3479)

[Samwise]

I think that MAYBE we're all missing the point. Readwyrt has quotes where Tolkien says he didn't write it intending to add Christianity and we (who believe he did) have examples of similarities and other quotes. MAYBE he didn't intend to but being Roman Catholic, he could have made much of the story like the bible which he had drilled into his head all his childhood. MAYBE we should go back to the thread subject of FINDING GOD IN THE LORD OF THE RINGS. MAYBE he did intend to and MAYBE he didn't, but what we started asking is where can you find God in the LOTR. As Tolkien did, maybe we should go over the book again and notice all the simalarities whether they were unintentional or not. We can't be 100 percent sure what he had in mind but we can be sure that you can learn alot about Christianity in LOTR and especially the Silmarillion.

[Greenwood]

The obvious answer to that is that LotR takes place before the institution of Israel.

It also takes place before the institution of ancient Greece (or Norway), so I guess Zeus and Thor are back in the running.

[Aldanil]

Originally posted by Greenwood


Also, the last time I looked Eru was not in LOTR.


This is a relatively minor point which was mentioned a little way back in the thread, but as the error (or editorial insertion) was mine, I thought that I'd try and correct it.


There is indeed no direct reference to Eru in The Lord of the Rings; no more is there any such reference to that name in the biography of JRRT from which I cited the passage in question. Its author Humphrey Carpenter, although proceeding with the friendly and close cooperation of Christopher Tolkien, published his very useful and illuminating book while The Silmarillion was still under posthumous preparation. I supplied, using the proper editorial punctuation [of brackets], the appositive names "Eru" and "Iluvatar" only in order to augment Carpenter's point with information which was unavailable to him at the time that his work went to press.

[Greenwood]

Aldanil

Thank you for your clarification. The point I was trying to make to Goroshimura was that we were talking about LOTR and he suddenly shifted everything to The Silmarillion in an attempt to bolster his argument. My point is that Eru (or Iluvatar) is not mentioned in LOTR. Taking every instance in the book when a character says something was "meant" to happen, or that something did not happen by "chance", or every close shave that works out for the best, and turning all of these into "proof" of Tolkien's intent to make LOTR a religious text I believe says far more about the reader's intent than Tolkien's. Using these arguments you could pick up any novel ever written, point to favorable occurrences or lucky breaks and say: "There is the proof that the author was religious and meant this to be a religious work." I repeat, that Tolkien was a religious man I do not dispute. As a religious man I do not find it surprising that his personal beliefs would be reflected in his writings, it is unlikely to be otherwise. This in no way proves that he meant LOTR to be taken as a religious text or that he was placing all sorts of hidden religious messages in it. I believe this no more than I believe the arguments that it has hidden homosexual messages.

[ReadWryt]

Oh great...here we go! Let's start a discussion about "Did Tolkien intentionally put Eru in The Lord of the Rings?". Bahahahah! :D

[Goro Shimura]

Greenwood--

I'm sorry to have provoked you to wrath, but I fear that you are mischaracterizing my position.

We've discussed Providence at length in the forum these past couple weeks:

Did Aragorn Make the right Choice? (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3085&perpage=15&pagenumber=5)

Free Will vs. Divine Intervention (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3269)

The Teeth of God (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3447)

How Tolkien Reconciles Providence and Freewill (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3421)

I admit that if you reject the idea of Providence as being a major theme of LotR, then my argument in this thread breaks down to a great extent. HOWEVER... even Harad seems to believe now that this theme is integral to the work-- even though he personally disagrees with the ideology behind it.

I'm not sure that you want to make the case that Providence is not a major theme of LotR.


PS Faramir's Men call on the Valar for divine intervention... and Arwen refers to Eru as "The One" in the appendix. I think it's obvious that the LotR cannot be understood fully without the Silmarillion.

[Greenwood]

Goroshimura

Heaven forbid that you should think I have been provoked to wrath! :D

I am also not for a moment arguing against Tolkien having "higher powers" playing a role and "taking a hand" in LOTR. I have been active on the "Did Aragorn Make the Right Decision" thread and have strongly supported the side that says Aragorn followed his heart and I have posted quotes from the book on both that thread, and I believe other threads, where characters have said something was "meant" to be. You get no argument from me on "fate", "providence", whatever you want to call it, playing a part in LOTR. You also get no argument from me on Tolkien being a devout Catholic. That you find reflections of Tolkien's faith in his works, I also do not dispute. I would be amazed if there were no such ref