The Ring and the Cross
 

This article is pretty interesting food for thought:

The Ring and the Cross

But no discussion of Tolkien and religion should miss this:

Light From an Invisible Lamp

I find both treatments really interesting; they present a somewhat different view to the usual "Tolkien was Catholic writer, period" argument. Madsen's essay in particular is thought provoking.

I would dispute that's the "usual view" at all; it's the view of some commentators. (And, in fact, note that the first article says, "quite a few" critics take this tack, not that it's anything like a universally accepted opinion.) Although I don't think this is mentioned in either the article or the book extract, I'd guess a good deal of it has been a response to the various scares associating fantasy fiction with the occult.

Apart from that, though, some people in general have what I consider a very odd attitude to reading books; they feel it somehow wrong to enjoy anything that doesn't actively and explicitly promote their religious beliefs– or, as it may be, their political and social views– and have to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to "prove" that it's okay to like whatever they happen to like. (I'm not, in fact, sure that the author of the second piece isn't doing this a little bit herself)

So, indeed, a writer who is a Catholic is not necessarily a "Catholic writer" in the sense you evidently mean.

The ONE THING that turns me off more than anything in the world..... is trying to find religion in The Lord of the Rings, especially Christianity, if anything it is Paganistic. Why do they continually try a promote one myth through another.

I think people generally see in works of art, be they paintings, songs, or books, what they want to see, and what they can see based upon their own experience. There are elements in the book that appear to have Christian overtones. As you say though, there are also bits that aren't necessarily in line with Biblical teachings and are based on other things. I think that's a prime reason for the popularity of the books across so many varied ethnicities and backgrounds.

I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out Christian elements; that's not the same thing as making out the whole book's a tract or allegory, though.

That's not limited to LOTR. I've seen people ascribe the meaning of Orwell's 1984 as everything from merely anti-communist, to a warning against the dehumanization of mankind, to the claim that "the point of 1984 is that a productive and free society cannot help but be luxurious and self-governing". Maybe it's none of the above, or all of them at once. People are going to read into works whatever meaning they like.

And here I thought that 1984 was all about selling Apple personal computers. ;)

Wait, 1984 -- wasn't that a disco tune by David Bowie?

Indeed it was.

Anyway, as for the original question, I think what's been said about reading too much into stuff. Tolkien himself warns people that there is no clear allegory or anything in his books. Repeatedly. Or that it should not be read like that. Or that it should not be read just like that, anyway. It was not his main point, or in fact, not his point at all. This is still what I believe is the main and relevant comment:

In any case, if anybody wanted to operate with this, it is necessary to take it in the context: he was writing this letter, if I am not mistaken, to a Catholic priest and it is basically an "answer" to a specific question, i.e., they were talking about this topic. It was not Tolkien's initiative to start about it. Anyway, the "unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision" is the fundamental part, in my opinion. Quite simple: you are a Catholic (or whatever), you write a book, thinking of it simply as of a book. And then you reread it and since you are taking a bit of distance from it, maybe you realise (maybe not, but it most likely still is there, even if you don't realise it yourself) that it contains the kind of elements, underlining worldview, morality etc. as the one you uphold yourself.

I agree with the writer of the second article in that I prefer Tolkien to, say, Lewis or others exactly because of that he does not press any message in there forcibly, intentionally, with the wish to put it there (and that being a Christian myself). And yet, it is there - "unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision" (I believe that's the best formulation he could have used. That man is just amazing).

A note as an illustration: after I became a Christian, it took me like two years to realise that there are any parallels (okay, I haven't been reading LotR during that time, otherwise I would have probably find out on my own and sooner, but still, LotR has been a large part of my life for years, and still I didn't think of it immediately after I started getting myself more familiar with Christianity), only after I have heard "Tolkien was a Catholic", then I was like "oh yes, now this and this and that makes a lot of sense!" Yes, when you are conscious of both LotR and Christianity*, you start to see the parallels there and I believe they are undeniable. Some of them, like the fact that Frodo's journey-suffering-road is Christ-like, are pretty much clear as much as they can be. I have also read about others which start to seem a bit far-fetched, but whatever, there are at least some for certain. But they are not, well, intended to be necessarily read there.

*I believe (now taking into account my personal experience) that it may very well be determined by what position you are in, as a reader: like, I believe any Christian who sees Frodo says "now this is clear!", whereas as long as I haven't been a Christian, I didn't look at Frodo and think "ha, Christ-like figure". That was given by my unfamiliarity with Christ, though, not with Frodo. So yes, I believe that if people don't see the Christian parallels, or not see them so clearly, it is because they are not Christians, in the same way that people don't see references to, say, old Germanic mythology if they haven't read it. And of course, Tolkien was a Christian, so he saw it, simple as that.

What I was trying to say was that it bores me. Yes I can see the christian parallels in Tolkiens work, if I look for them, which I don't want to because it spoils the book for me. If I wanted to read christian doctrine I would pick up a bible and read that. I personally equate the orcs to christians burning and destroying everything and everbody that once got in their way. The fact that the bible itself has nothing original in it and is full of parallels to older religions, especially the crucifixion of yet another son of a god born of virgin birth, is missed by those looking for christianity in Middle-earth. If you want to find meanings in Tolkiens work, move Noah out of the way and replace him with his older counter-part Utnapishtim and The Epic of Gilgamesh, where the God Ea instructs Utnapishtim to build a great boat and save his family, sound familiar. A lot of the bible has been borrowed, probably from the time of the Israelite captivity in Babylon. So no I don't really look for christianity in Tolkiens works, I find it more interesting in finding where the stories in the bible were stolen from.

Why, are the Babylonians and Sumerians filing copyright claims?:eek:

Or who is filing them, anyway... But to use this to move back on topic: there is one point related to the question of looking for parallels in Tolkien's writings, and that is that I would say it is the interpretation the author gives to the myth which is relevant. You cannot say that Little Red Riding Hood is the same as WWXVI. just because it both has evil Wolves and women being eaten in it. Tolkien uses, say, the myth of Atlantis for Númenor, but gives it partially a new meaning in the context of the whole story he unfolds in front of us. You can keep the "visual" parts of the story, or how to call it, the "sceneries", but the point is completely different. I really dislike is when people say "this is the same as...", which is what people do even with Tolkien: somebody unfamiliar with him reads a random bad paperback fantasy and says "yeah, this is something like that Tolkien, it has dragons and stuff".

As for your relation to the possible parallels, narfforc, I believe that if you don't want to look for them, nobody forces you to, right? Tolkien in any case didn't want to (see my post above), and as it has been pointed out before, there are thousands of articles out there on the internet which would want me to read 1984 as anti-communist and others as anti-capitalist and others that want me to read it as a warning against the current political situation in Southern Shcmurtiania, yet I don't have to read them... or, if I want to use my critical thinking and possibly widen my horizons, I will read a couple of them (and if possible, some which I can trust to be a bit more than random rant of an angsty blogger), and then I can judge how much of them is in fact relevant and how much of them is not.

Anyway - to return again to what I have started with - if there are Christian parallels to be found in the story, then I would think they are in on the level of "inner meaning" rather than just on the "outer-visualisation" level. I mean, yes, they are there on both, but if I speak of "Christian parallels", I would be looking first and foremost for the meanings: if I take the already mentioned Frodo's journey, it is a story of selflessness, the willingness to go for the sake of others up to the point of where one's own life may become part of the necessary sacrifice - forfeiting my own gain, the possibility to rest happily in Rivendell, but going on with the motivation of love for those I am leaving behind (in Frodo's case the Shire, and later the rest of Middle-Earth and all the folks he met on the way, from the merry Elves to Faramir). That is the Christian part I would find there - and not the fact that, say, it takes three days for Frodo to reach Mount Doom, which corresponds with the three days since Christ's death to his resurrection or the three days Abraham took to reach the mountain of Moria (or not even the fact that a certain place is called "Moria", while we are at it! Also because Tolkien himself said that it was a coincidence, and I don't see very many parallels between these two Morias in general). These I do not find relevant (although once again, I do not deny some of those might have been inspired here and there), mostly also because of that, as narfforc has pointed out, things like three days are a common mythological operator not limited to Christianity (or Judaism, for that matter) alone.

The Lord of the Rings has much more basis in pagan material than in Christian, really. Certainly there are parallels with Christianity, but, on the whole, they're not elements that are exclusively Christian, like crosses and eucharists and so on; they're things like mercy and self-sacrifice and resurrection.

There's that wiff of snark in the last sentence that tells just how valuable this piece is.

Anyone, from any religion, or any theoretical literary perspective, or any literary taste, who uses LotR to evangelise the world according to their own particular point of view, is doing a great disservice to Tolkien's work.

As narf and others have pointed out, LotR and the entire Legendarium has an imaginative breadth that beggers the blinkered minds of those who want to reduce it to their particular hobby horse. And I use 'hobby horse' quite intentionally to imply how limited their treatment of LotR is. Note that I"m talking about how people choose to use a text. It is the misappropriation of a text that is rightly a turn-off. Note that I am not disparaging those who feel kinship between LotR and their own faith: I am dismissing those who use Tolkien to further their own ends.

Madsen does not do that. Her distinction between "witnesses to the Gospels" and "echoes" demonstrates the subtly and breadth of her approach and she finds Tolkien's letters which provide a gloss those which are usually used to claim a religious motivation. [What would be good to see is a thorough examination of Tolkien's Letters to show how variously he treated the topic.] And, interestingly enough, she seems to have come closer to explaining the spirituality which many feel in LotR than Mooney.

There, she said it much better than I have. She's discussing spirituality and not dogma and for that reason I think her analysis comes far closer to providing a meaningful interpretation of Tolkien's work and how incredibly it lends itself to something almost impossible to conceive of: hope.

It should be clear from this that I have no truck with evangelists. :D

"According to Peter Kreeft, a Catholic philosopher at Boston College, Tolkien was under the divine spell when he composed his sprawling trilogy."

What a load of bollocks. It's a NOVEL, nothing more, nothing less.

So are a lot of books. Some of them are meant for decifering; the author actually put some hidden meanings or allegories in there. I don't think Tolkien did that. Sometimes you just write, and later on realise that you wrote something with a hidden message... not just the usual "themes" (or whatever you prefer), but real-life-connected-to-author-things... :)