The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

mark12_30 · 09-12-2002, 06:50 PM

InklingElf,

I'm going to address the born-again vs catholic issue first... (feel free to weigh in if you'd like, Sharon...)

I'm not sure which church Lewis was involved in, I'm embarassed to say, (I would have guessed the church of England but I could be quite mistaken!) but he was very good at working with the scriptures, which appeals to evangelicals, pentecostals and many other branches of Christianity that are heavily bible-based. I do appreciate that myself.

Some might, however, balk at classifying Lewis as "Born Again"; personally I wouldn't balk at it, since while he might not have been in a "Born Again" labelled denomination, the essence of being "born again" is deciding to follow Jesus as Lord, and I think that we can all agree that Lewis did just that.

However, do be sensitive to the fact that that last distinction is one that will confuse many people. I do not think that the majority of the people on this forum would consider Lewis "born again" and it might cause some backlash (on a bad day, anyway.) But you can avoid arguments along those lines by emphasizing that he was a devoted Christian and clearly scripturally based.

For that matter, it seems obvious to me that Tolkien, having clearly chosen Jesus as Lord, would also technically be considered born-again, but I do not think anyone on this board would label him as such! (I suspect that few catholics would relate to that term.) His theology is more primarily mystical in nature, rather than primarily scripturally based. I think this leads into your second question.

I hesitate to declare one writer over the otehr as "more" theological. What I will say is that Lewis's scriptural references are more immediately apparent, and therefore easier to grasp, and therefore often more immediately effective. Impacting the mind, it then secondarily affects the heart.

On the other hand, I think that Tolkien's theology, being more mystical (like George MacDonald, whom if you have not read, I earnestly recommend, and will gladly give you many links...) where was I?... Tolkien's theology, being more mystical, works on a more subtle level, permeating the heart and soul with wonder and curiosity and generating spiritual hunger. Many people that read Tolkien's work seem to come up with a desire to be more like Somebody Good that they read about in his books. I see many people wanting to be more elvish, more hobbit-like, or to be like Gandalf or one of the noble Numenoreans. I think that this would have pleased Tolkien, and I think that if those desires are allowed to flourish-- if we encourage the pursuit of that luminosity, the shining goodness, the glory, the beauty, the pursuit of truth and transcendance-- that is good theology of a completely different type; it is theology of the heart, which then, afterwards, slowly affects the mind.

There's a Vineyard theory that goes roughly like this: Theology of the heart, without theology of the mind, leads to wild excess and out-of-control self-indulgence. Theology of the mind, without theology of the heart, leads to dead legalism. A balance of theology of the mind and heart together, leads to God.

So-- which has the better theology, Tolkien or Lewis? As I see them, they are different in expression and purpose. Lewis is primarily of the mind (but affects therefore the heart), Tolkien is primarily of the heart (which then affects the mind.) But both are part of the same body, and one cannot say to the other, I have no need of you.

I've written more about mystical fantasy (regarding George MacDonald's works, but it applies equally well to TOlkien's work too) on my rather outdated reviews page. I would encourage you to visit and scroll down to the MacDonald section, and read it with Tolkien in mind. (My Tolkien section is very outdated at this point, I'm not sure how much of it I'd agree with now!) You can also follow whatever MacDonald links still work. Let me know if a bad link keeps you from a story you want.

If you want to continue along these heavy theological lines for Lewis and MacDonald, I'd encourage you to send me a Private Message for anything that is not strictly Tolkien related. The moderators are working hard these days to keep this board Tolkien-related and we all applaud their efforts. It's okay to continue to compare Lewis and MacDonald with Tolkien, of course.

It's also a big challenge to keep discussions like this from ruffling too many feathers. I've tried to keep this post within safe boundaries. However I have been known to stray-- So, please, All, if I've strayed outside boundaries (or been speaking too much Christianese again) please let me know. If anybody wants something I've said translated please ask!

Grace & peace, --mark12_30

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

09-12-2002, 06:50 PM	#18
mark12_30 Stormdancer of Doom Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Elvish singing is not a thing to miss, in June under the stars Posts: 4,349	InklingElf, I'm going to address the born-again vs catholic issue first... (feel free to weigh in if you'd like, Sharon...) I'm not sure which church Lewis was involved in, I'm embarassed to say, (I would have guessed the church of England but I could be quite mistaken!) but he was very good at working with the scriptures, which appeals to evangelicals, pentecostals and many other branches of Christianity that are heavily bible-based. I do appreciate that myself. Some might, however, balk at classifying Lewis as "Born Again"; personally I wouldn't balk at it, since while he might not have been in a "Born Again" labelled denomination, the essence of being "born again" is deciding to follow Jesus as Lord, and I think that we can all agree that Lewis did just that. However, do be sensitive to the fact that that last distinction is one that will confuse many people. I do not think that the majority of the people on this forum would consider Lewis "born again" and it might cause some backlash (on a bad day, anyway.) But you can avoid arguments along those lines by emphasizing that he was a devoted Christian and clearly scripturally based. For that matter, it seems obvious to me that Tolkien, having clearly chosen Jesus as Lord, would also technically be considered born-again, but I do not think anyone on this board would label him as such! (I suspect that few catholics would relate to that term.) His theology is more primarily mystical in nature, rather than primarily scripturally based. I think this leads into your second question. I hesitate to declare one writer over the otehr as "more" theological. What I will say is that Lewis's scriptural references are more immediately apparent, and therefore easier to grasp, and therefore often more immediately effective. Impacting the mind, it then secondarily affects the heart. On the other hand, I think that Tolkien's theology, being more mystical (like George MacDonald, whom if you have not read, I earnestly recommend, and will gladly give you many links...) where was I?... Tolkien's theology, being more mystical, works on a more subtle level, permeating the heart and soul with wonder and curiosity and generating spiritual hunger. Many people that read Tolkien's work seem to come up with a desire to be more like Somebody Good that they read about in his books. I see many people wanting to be more elvish, more hobbit-like, or to be like Gandalf or one of the noble Numenoreans. I think that this would have pleased Tolkien, and I think that if those desires are allowed to flourish-- if we encourage the pursuit of that luminosity, the shining goodness, the glory, the beauty, the pursuit of truth and transcendance-- that is good theology of a completely different type; it is theology of the heart, which then, afterwards, slowly affects the mind. There's a Vineyard theory that goes roughly like this: Theology of the heart, without theology of the mind, leads to wild excess and out-of-control self-indulgence. Theology of the mind, without theology of the heart, leads to dead legalism. A balance of theology of the mind and heart together, leads to God. So-- which has the better theology, Tolkien or Lewis? As I see them, they are different in expression and purpose. Lewis is primarily of the mind (but affects therefore the heart), Tolkien is primarily of the heart (which then affects the mind.) But both are part of the same body, and one cannot say to the other, I have no need of you. I've written more about mystical fantasy (regarding George MacDonald's works, but it applies equally well to TOlkien's work too) on my rather outdated reviews page. I would encourage you to visit and scroll down to the MacDonald section, and read it with Tolkien in mind. (My Tolkien section is very outdated at this point, I'm not sure how much of it I'd agree with now!) You can also follow whatever MacDonald links still work. Let me know if a bad link keeps you from a story you want. If you want to continue along these heavy theological lines for Lewis and MacDonald, I'd encourage you to send me a Private Message for anything that is not strictly Tolkien related. The moderators are working hard these days to keep this board Tolkien-related and we all applaud their efforts. It's okay to continue to compare Lewis and MacDonald with Tolkien, of course. It's also a big challenge to keep discussions like this from ruffling too many feathers. I've tried to keep this post within safe boundaries. However I have been known to stray-- So, please, All, if I've strayed outside boundaries (or been speaking too much Christianese again) please let me know. If anybody wants something I've said translated please ask! Grace & peace, --mark12_30 [ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ] __________________ ...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve.