[Gilthalion]

<I>...and here it is! EDITS are in [...] brackets or the word "DELETED" is used.<P>Please excuse the length of this post. I believe that an important topic of the thread is closely concerned with the objections that Christians might raise to Tolkien's work, and the questions raised in this letter were extremely representative. My answers satisfied the concerned Christian, who is now a great fan of LOTR.</I><P><BR>January 2, 2003<P>Dear DELETED,<P>Let me take your points in order, following the text of your letter...<P>> 1. Gandalf, by order of God Himself, would have been stoned to death <BR>> in Israel, and by teaching of the Apostle Paul, would not have been <BR>> allowed in a New Testament church, or in heaven (Leviticus 19:31; <BR>> Exodus 22:18; Galatians 5:21).<BR>> <BR>> 2. All of the sorcery and magic in Lord of the Rings is in direct <BR>> violation of Scripture (Acts 8:11; Revelation 9:21; II Kings 21:6).<BR>> <BR>Perhaps I can answer the first two in one shot. Grima Wormtongue, the agent<BR>of Saruman the White Wizard of Isengard, who was an agent in the control of<BR>King Theoden, would have been a candidate for stoning. Gandalf is actually<BR>an angel, in Tolkien's fictional mythology. Tolkien regarded "magic,"<BR>"sorcery," and "necromancy" to be things generally practiced by wicked folk<BR>seeking power. Similarly Tolkien's Elvish "magic" is not really magic, as<BR>one of the elves tells the hobbits. In fact, the elf is unsure of what they<BR>even mean by magic. Rather, what seems magical in Tolkien's Middle-earth is<BR>more often than not simply the inate abilities of "the elder race" of Elves,<BR>or in the case of Gandalf, the abilities of an angelic being.<P>> 3. Frodo is told by Gandalf to "trust yourself" in order to fulfill <BR>> his mission. This is in direct violation of Scripture (Proverbs 3:5-<BR>> 6; 28:6).<BR>> <BR>I think it is in violation of Tolkien, too, though that is more difficult to<BR>track down. It was a jarring note from the movie that I noticied as well,<BR>but I do not remember ever reading that false doctrine in Tolkien's pages.<P>> 4. While the books and movies contain significant Christian allegory, <BR>> the believers I have mentioned this to who have seen the movie all <BR>> look at me as if no such thought had occurred to them. I have found <BR>> this a bit troubling because my personal justification for the <BR>> problems with Rings has been the supposed underlying message of good. <BR>> However, I don't think that folks are getting it, at least in regard <BR>> to the movies.<BR>> <BR>I know that many Christians do "get it" from the books, for we have argued<BR>endlessly citing Scriptures and even Tolkien's own words (from a book of his<BR>correspondence regarding his works) to demonstrate it to those who will not<BR>see. As for the movie, I think that it is more difficult to pick out themes<BR>of Christian faith and doctrine. I don't think most folk are looking for<BR>it. When we are urged to "study that which is good" we should be doing so<BR>in an attempt to see the Truth in it. Most folk, even Christians, do not do<BR>this, especially with movies. A book inspires contemplation. A movie is<BR>simply absorbed. I can say that the writers (especially the director's<BR>wife, Fran Walsh) made note of the Christian underpinnings of the work.<P>Tolkien did not intend for his work to be a straight-up Christian allegory,<BR>like the Chronicles of Narnia. He, in fact, did not like that style of<BR>writing at all! He preferred the method of telling a really good story and<BR>letting the reader draw from it what they could. In the case of "Rings" we<BR>are not dealing with allegory, but fairy tale. And these are two different<BR>things. <P>> 5. In a generation such as ours in which witchcraft has infiltrated <BR>> the church (such as you and I talked about the other day), how do we <BR>> explain to our kids that this is a truly devilish evil to be avoided <BR>> if we allow them to be entertained by books and a movie steeped in <BR>> sorcery? Do we tell them that there is a "good witchcraft" as opposed <BR>> to a "bad witchcraft"?<BR>> <BR>In the case of "Rings," the Christian parent should explain that Tolkien<BR>differentiated between good and evil acts even in the case of magic. To<BR>elaborate on the "Gandalf is an angel" theme, a theme made more clear in his<BR>other writings, at the end of it all, the only folk capable of "good magic"<BR>(which is to say those who were created with innate superhuman or<BR>supernatural ability) in Tolkien's fictional mythology, wind up in fact<BR>leaving the planet, or eventually just fading away. Tolkien's meaning<BR>behind this is that any and all magic practised after that "dispensation"<BR>was, and is, evil. <P>Hence, while I am quite concerned about Benny Hinn and the TBN network, I<BR>have little concern about "Rings" when active Christian parents are engaged<BR>in the raising of their children.<P>> 6. I gotta tweak you a bit here, in jest: you hate Santa Claus, <BR>> the "jolly ole elf", but you love what's his name, the blonde elf who <BR>> shoots arrows like machine gun bullets. <BR>> <BR>Everyone ought to know that Legolas is a fictional character. And while I<BR>certainly do not hate St. Nicolaus (indeed, I hope they do not disinter his<BR>resting bones again to move him back to Turkey!), I do hate the way that<BR>parents (Christian parents!) participate in the active deception of little<BR>ones. I know a fellow who believed in Santa Claus until he was in grade<BR>school. He was devastated when he learned otherwise, and I cannot help but<BR>think that to some measure his present disbelief in Jesus Christ is founded<BR>upon this great deception of his childhood. Tweak away, but ole St. Nick<BR>was NOT an elf, however jolly he may have been!<P>> 7. Is it true that Tolkien was a very profane man? I've heard this <BR>> from several sources over the years, but have not personally verified <BR>> it. [DELETED PASSAGE]<BR>> <BR>I don't know, as I have never heard that he was a profane man. (C.S. Lewis<BR>was held by some to have used bad language, but I've not tracked this down,<BR>either.) Rather to the contrary, Tolkien was held to be a very devout man<BR>in all that I have read. In his published (previously private) letters this<BR>certainly seemed to be the case. And he is attributed with leading C.S.<BR>Lewis to the Lord (though I suspect he didn't sit down with the fellow and<BR>take him down the Roman Road!). They shared a life long friendship, that<BR>cooled somewhat near the end of Lewis's life (due to some [remarks Lewis] made regarding the history in England of "Papism") but that the<BR>old fellow was so saddened by his death that he was unable to make remarks<BR>at Lewis's funeral, as his family requested. Tolkien wrote that he intended<BR>"Rings" to have a Christian undertone, and he is specifically thought by<BR>some to have used some of the Catholic conception of Mary in his depiction<BR>of Galadriel [...and Elbereth/Varda...]. In his own words, Tolkien stated that he drew upon all of the<BR>great mythologies, histories, and religions, except those of the East. He<BR>did not, however, deliberately intend any specific allegory, whether of<BR>Mary, or of Atomic Bombs (as some thought during the Cold War), etc.<P>> 8. I also find it troubling that among two families devoted to the <BR>> Lord Jesus, the Lord of the Rings dominated our time together <BR>> yesterday instead of the Lord of the Bible. I take personal <BR>> responsibility for this as pastor, father and husband, but as DELETED <BR>> said, the movie seems to have the same power as the Ring itself. It <BR>> dominates the attention of even sincere believers. <BR>> <BR>Not to be flippant, but one can say as much as Gone With The Wind. And<BR>don't give this away, but NO ONE could, in the end, resist the power of the<BR>Ring. Unlike the One Ring, you certainly can set book and movie down and<BR>never pick it up again! <P>Having said that, let me say that this is probably the most important point<BR>you raise, and the one that I share most deeply. In fact, Tolkien himself<BR>was worried that the fascination of Middle-earth was too strong upon<BR>himself, and that there were folk who would over do it, and spend far too<BR>much time on it, and not on more important things.<P>Other Christians on the internet and I have discussed this very point.<BR>Obviously, one can use anything in spending time away from the contemplation<BR>of our Lord. It is much easier and more easily justified, to do so when one<BR>has as well written and as well enacted a text and movie as "Rings."<P>How many of us spend too much time in contemplation of College Football,<BR>Politics, Signs & Wonders, Work, etc? DELETED recently told me that God<BR>told him to completely drop College Football, which was a consuming passion<BR>of his. I think that we are all called upon to sacrifice various matters as<BR>we walk the road of Calvary. I don't know if "Rings" is one of them for you<BR>and yours, but I could lead you to a world of [Christian] Tolkien-nerds [myself being one] who should pick<BR>up their Bibles (if they have them) and set down the Professor for at least<BR>a time. I'm sure he wouldn't mind.<P>> 9. My understanding is that Rings was one of the most beloved <BR>> literary pieces of the drug culture of the 60s and 70s, and that LSD <BR>> made the books especially appealing. This disturbs me a bit, <BR>> especially because of the Biblical relationship between drugs and <BR>> sorcery (same root word in the Greek).<BR>> <BR>I think that was coincidental with the book's time of publication (50s &<BR>60s). I am guessing it was one of the ammeliorating influences upon that<BR>generation. This points out again, by the way, the difference between<BR>Biblical sorcery (the use of drugs to jolt the mind into a different state<BR>of awareness to enable demonic possession and preternatural acts) and<BR>Tolkien's "magic."<P>> 10. As you mentioned the other day, Hollywood chose an atheist <BR>> homosexual to portray the Christ figure Gandalf. Is this not deeply <BR>> disturbing and troubling?<BR>> <BR>It bothered me quite a bit. I wish it were not the case. For what it is<BR>worth, Hollywood rejected the fellow last year for Best Supporting Actor. I<BR>thought he might be a shoe-in for those reasons alone. But, this was not<BR>actually a Hollywood production. I imagine that Hollywood would have<BR>seriously changed the entire message and all the worth that was in it. As<BR>it is, I suspect that Sir Ian McKellan was cast in the role, as were the<BR>rest, because of his ability to play the part. I've seen him in other<BR>roles, some more near his actual character, and in still other roles. I was<BR>curious about this fellow and have prayed for him. He is an absolutely<BR>brilliant actor in all that I've seen, and his Richard III is perhaps the<BR>best there's ever been. I have not heard what faith, or lack thereof, the<BR>other cast members have.<P>I suppose one could call Gandalf a "Christ figure," some have, primarily<BR>because of his seeming resurrection after his battle with the ancient demon.<BR>But Tolkien purists would say that since Gandalf was an "angel" this does<BR>not apply. I've seen others suggest that Frodo is the "Christ figure" for<BR>his self-sacrificing journey. Others still find "The Return of the King" to<BR>be Christian beyond words, and might suggest that Aragorn, at first dispised<BR>and lowly but then seen as lofty and regal, is a "Christ figure."<BR>Personally, I find that Tolkien wrote well enough that we could perhaps even<BR>see all of these things.<P><BR>> This is a pretty heavy load to throw at you, but DELETED'S question <BR>> won't go away in my mind and heart. I'll be interested in your <BR>> thoughts and consider them carefully.<BR>> <BR>As one who HAS spent more time in Middle-earth than I should have (or so the<BR>Holy Spirit tells me) I feel that that is the chief sin to avoid in these<BR>matters. Consider the difference between Harry Potter and "Rings." In<BR>"Potter," absolutely everything is bound up in magical this and magical that<BR>until one grows sick of it. In "Rings," magic is presented as dangerous and<BR>a passing thing, such that any remaining practitioners are clearly evil.<P>Hope this helps!<P>[GILTHALION]<P><I>OH! And it is to me a happy point that may not be entirely coincidental, that the films are promoted in association with Christmas!</I><p>[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: Gilthalion ]