[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Christianity and Tolkien

For what it’s worth, I’m an atheist, and an anti-theist. By this I mean that I not only disbelieve in any god, I also find many forms of theism morally objectionable.

I just got around to reading this. I am willing to bet that somewhere in this diatribe you will mention The Children of Hurin, as that subject obsesses you, and no matter how many times your theories have been proven to be littered with fallacy and nearsightedness, you return to the subject in one form or another.

But for the moment, I shall pretend this is a well-meaning post. I am an atheist as well, and a lapsed Roman Catholic. I don't find theism morally objectionable. Why should I? What one believes is one's own choice. What I do object to is when religion or religious zealots attempt to impose their beliefs on others, but that would also be true of various secular political systems run by fanatics; god does not corner the market on impositions.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

From the outset I want to say that this is not a post about religion per se, its merits or demerits. It is about the curious fact that as an atheist, and as an anti-theist, I still enjoy Tolkien’s books. On one level this isn’t really surprising at all: Tolkien’s books obviously appeal to a wide range of individuals of all types: his creations are diverse enough to accommodate many different world views.

There is nothing curious about a wide range of readers appreciating Tolkien's work, because it is not analogous to Christianity, nor was Tolkien allegorical in the way C.S. Lewis was. I never really cared for what the Pevensies discovered in the wardrobe.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Nevertheless, Tolkien was himself a Christian and his Catholicism was evidently a very central part of his self-identity. Along with the myriad other influences in his persona and especially professional life, Tolkien’s religion contributed to the form that his creation eventually took. There is one god, a set of demigods and a whole ambiguous theology that relates the destinies, fates and choices of these immortals to the more folkloric Elves and the hobbits.

One could say the same for an impossibly wide gamut of authors. We are informed by our experience, which in turn shapes our beliefs. That being said, Tolkien's religion was a contributing factor to his creation, but not more so than linguistics or the synthesis of world mythos and folklore that combined to imbue Middle-earth with its unique structure.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

There have been myriad books about Tolkien written from an explicitly Christian perspective. The most recent “The Christian World of the Hobbit”, by Devin Brown, continues this tradition. Of course most of the most well known and highly regarded critical work on Tolkien has taken place from a neutral perspective – Rosebury and Shippey come to mind. Nevertheless, there is a definite trend for academic and other works on Tolkien to approach his work from a perspective that already considers Christianity in some form to be true.

Being a cynic, I would suggest that looking at Tolkien's work from different angles offers a greater chance of publication.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

My questions are these: Do you think it is reasonable to approach an author, from an academic point of view, with a religious world view already in mind? Secondly, how do you think your faith or lack of it informs your reading of Tolkien? For example, are you more disposed to feel that Eucatastrophe should define Tolkien’s stories, and are wont to explain away its absence, as in The Children of Hurin?

AHA! Tummy, you are so utterly predictable. One could set a clock to the uniformity of your specious suppositions. Yes, we are all aware that there is no eucatastrophic moment in The Children of Hurin. But there was no eucatastrophe for the Fëanorians either. Hundreds of characters in Tolkien's work missed out on their own private eucatastrophe. It is not unique to Turin and his family.

Now, some uncharitable folk would say that you are being a ...hmmm...what's the Internet designation for someone who makes inflammatory posts to provoke emotional responses? Ah well, it doesn't matter; I think that you are merely being obsessive. You touch on this subject, tinged with inveterate religion bashing in several posts, which can be readily reviewed by pulling up your posting history. In addition, the remaining balance of your threads contain negative criticisms of Tolkien from elsewhere: Mieville, Moorcock, Brinn, some imbecile named Dickerson (who wrote a thin volume entitled "How Tolkien Sucks"), a host of Internet blogging "dons", and, of all things, the addled worshipers of the Star Wars monomyth. Again, this continuing theme of referring to Tolkien's work in a pejorative manner can be easily discerned from your other posts.

That being said, given the corpus of your posting history it does make one question your objective, and your objectivity. You profess to love the works of Tolkien; however, you spend the greater part of your time attacking him (or acting as the fait accompli of other poison pens). I find that odd. Have you noticed this about yourself?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

1. There exists an eternal, all-powerfull, all-knowing creator God, who, though of one essence, exists in three distinct, but not separate, persons.

2. There exists a devil, Satan, and numerous other demonic beings as well as angels, archangels, etc.

3. The earth is not billions of years in age, but created by God six to ten thousand years ago.

4. There was an actual Adam and Eve in a literal Garden of Eden who sinned and brought upon the world the horrible suffering it contains

5. God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting all the evil that ever has or ever will occur.

6. A first – century Galilean Jew, Jesus, was born of a virgin as an incarnate God in the flesh and performed numerous miracles during his life.

7. This Jesus was crucified according to specific prophecies in the Old Testament as a divine sacrifice to atone for the past, present and future sins of the world.

8. Jesus was resurrected

9. There is life after death, and only people who have ace[ted a legitimate form of Christian belief will go to eternal bliss in heaven, while all others, with a few rare exceptions, will suffer an eternity of torment in hell.

This list seems to be compiled by someone who hasn't the faintest idea about Catholicism or Catholics. Whether Tolkien believed in three or four of these precepts matters about as much as what Tolstoy believed when he wrote War and Peace.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Nor, in Tolkien, is there any notion of “Sin”. As I understand it, sin describes not merely wrongdoing, but wrongdoing that is in some sense an affront to God’s character, and which requires atonement.

The Kinslaying and the Doom of Mandos, an integral part of The Silmarillion, would be an obvious choice. The destruction of Númenor in The Akallabeth would be another. Are we reading the same books?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Evil, both natural and human, in Tolkien does not come about as a result of some direct analogue to the Fall – whereby humans were once morally perfect before they descended into darkness – but from the beginning the capacity for evil in the world was incarnate within it.

I offered two specific instances that disprove your supposition.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

In short, it seems to me that a case can be made that the Christian part of Tolkien’s work has been radically overstated, if you actually take his work and compare it to commonly held Christian doctrines. In the moral dimension especially Tolkien seems to drift away from Christian concepts of righteousness and wrongdoing, which revolve around the notion of sin, a concept that never makes itself apparent in Tolkien’s writing.

One might say, but of course Tolkien’s work is not explicitly Christian. In what way, then, is it Christian at all? If it lacks the Christian outlook on moral truth (that moral goodness is that which is pleasing to and sanctioned by God, and badness is “sin”) then how is Christianity manifested? Perhaps through the vague notion of a benevolent God? This is indeed more Christian, than, say, Buddhist, but it could equally be pantheistic or even polytheistic.

Tolkien's works were not allegorical (the author states so on a number of occasions). But there is certainly a Christian ethos that moves through the books. Evil does not triumph. Wrongdoers are never rewarded for their wrongs. Faith is rewarded. In any case, Tolkien refers to the entire cycle as pre-Christian; therefore, Jesus as savior does not enter into the 1st through 3rd Ages, and Tolkien comments (in Letter 131) on the nature of Eru and the Valar not being directly parallel Christian deities, but rather a synthesis of ancient myth:

On the side of mere narrative device, this is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order, beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods' of higher mythology, which can be accepted - well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity.

The Silmarillion is quite different from Lord of the Rings in the subsumed nature of Christian intent. Tolkien mentions this on several occasions. Other posters have mentioned this on several occasions. Why are you beating a dead horse? Again, in the same Letter 131, Tolkien refers to The Silmarillion as having "Truths" that do not necessarily follow Christianity, but which represent ancient mythos:

In the cosmogony there is a fall: a fall of Angels we should say. Though quite different in form, of course, to that of Christian myth. These tales are 'new', they are not directly derived from other myths and legends, but they must inevitably contain a large measure of ancient wide-spread motives or elements. After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of 'truth', and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

For example, when Gandalf says to Frodo that he was “meant” to find the ring, nothing in the text leads the reader it is a somewhat Christianlike god pulling all the strings behind the scenes – the suggestion is suitably vague.

Did you want Gandalf to quote scripture in order to make the symbology more evident? The mere fact that Gandalf is there at all implies divine intervention, not to mention his subsequent resurrection. Again, I am not sure how you could miss such major plot points. But if Tolkien had been more strident it would have alienated many readers, including myself, and The Lord of the Rings would have been relegated to the status of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, and we most likely would not be having this discussion.

But as I mentioned previously, your posts seem to be inciteful rather than insightful, a recurrent theme that runs through your posting history.