The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

[alatar]

Thanks for the reply - I'm glad that we can have this discussion in a gentlepersonly fashion (I wasn't sure what your reply would be as I never know how closely to the bone I'm cutting).

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

Well, Tolkien did say that he was trying to write something emulating history, but his works seem to be more of a mythology and legendary background. I could go on to discuss with some fervor about how his works actually seem to disagree with the Christian view of world history that he fervently believed in. I therefore tend to think he was trying to write a piece of entertainment and not actually something that was seriously trying to explain history. Sort of a joke if you will...

I tried to get my smilies in quickly but maybe not quick enough, but anyway I'm in total agreement - though I still like to pretend that it's the 'real' history.

Yes, you are quibbiling, but I have to beg your ear here as well. Yes, in many cases, with Mary, for example, the angel declares itself a messenger, but how do you know that the person sitting beside you on the bus isn't an angel? Perhaps the people you see walking down the street have a spiritual purpose in their comings and goings. But I digress into theology again.

Can't argue with you here - I think that it's put nicely in Isaiah 55:8-10 regarding God's ways and purposes.

I do have to bring up the fact that 'bones of unusual size' have been found in the Middle East, but they are not complete evidence I admit. Instead I rely on the tales and legends that speak of them, and tell of how they still live among some of us. And yes, since I believe that they were descendants of angels that descended, rather than fell, that angels can take physicality of some sort.

If you are referring to a photo of people digging around some huge bones, well, that's a hoax. And I would disagree regarding angels (spirits) taking physical form. I believe that in the cases in the Bible when they do, this was done by God, not the angel (unless the angel is an Old Testament Christophony). Demons would not have the ability to create a body that would allow for mating unless this were sanctioned by God.

Another thought is that Tolkien, as stated, permitted the mingling of Maia, Eldar and Edain 'blood.' The assumption is that they are all of one species (or Tolkien didn't consider biology). What was he trying to say regarding these pairings? Was he trying to show that some have the blood of a divine? Thoughts?

One must needs realize that without traces, or emblems, of religion, such as Faramir and co. facing the West, that tie back into this world, the entire necessity of the struggle dies. Even in this world, if we lose the emblems of religion, the need for us to be on the side of 'good' dissappears. If it has no meaning why should we not join with Saruman and Sauron? At least then we can enjoy power and opulence as long we are his faithful servants. He would enjoy good people with high rank like Gimli or Aragorn, Legolas or Gandalf.

The emblems of religion keep the good side, the right side, the thing we fight for.

So what you are saying is that the emblems are just manifestations/signposts/markers for the side to which our soul gravitates? (not sure that what I just wrote makes sense even to me ). What I am trying to say is that Faramir et al have souls, and these can choose the West or the East, and one of the outward demonstrable ways of choosing West is observing the Standing Silence?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'm reading Patrick Curry's Defending Middle-Earth and found some passages there which apply to this topic. He feels that there is no obvious use of one religion and its symbols (despite what Tolkien said about consciously revising it to be consistent with Catholic belief) because it is not limited to one specific set of doctrines. Here is one thought that I find particularly interesting:

The Lord of the Rings transcends any strictly monotheistic reading. Instead, it manifests an extraordinary ethico-religious richness and complexity which derives from the blending of Christian, pagan, and humanist ingredients. It is all of these, and no single one of them.

He also quotes Tolkien himself, from one of his Letters:

Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary "real" world.

That would definitely preclude outward signs of a specific religion.

It is his combination of mythological and religious elements that I find so fascinating in Middle-earth. The idea that the old "gods" are angelic beings works for me without requiring too much "willing suspension of belief". Yet there can be no usage of the most important icon of Christian faith, the cross, for example, since there is no incarnation of God himself there. He did try to include that possibility in his later writing, especially the Athrabeth.

[Lalwendë]

I want to pick up on a few interesting points here. Firstly, I see that the Valar and Maiar can be viewed as somehow corresponding to angels, though this is not something which comes through strongly to me. Maybe how we view them is to do with what we have learned in our own spiritual lives? I was brought up Protestant and such figures did not feature strongly in worship, whereas in the Catholic church (some relatives were strict Catholics), the angels do take on an almost mythical status (the saints could possibly be seen as corresponding to Elves?).

I have said it before, but I shall say it again, the Valar and Maiar can just as easily be recognised in figures from other religions/beliefs as they can from Christianity. They are strongly reminiscent of the various Pagan gods and goddesses, especially in how the Valar correspond to various aspects of the natural world. It is important to note that many of these were Universal figures, common to many cultures, and eventually absorbed into Christianity. Thinking of the Valar and Maiar in this way also solves another problem, and that is with figures such as Gandalf. Yes, he is not a mere mortal, but likewise, he is not a god. And I am sure Tolkien was keen to make sure we realised this, as part of what makes Saruman bad is that he attempts to behave in a god-like fashion. Gandalf is instead somewhat like Merlin, an intercessor between the Gods and men. He is very much real and can be killed, yet he is somehow 'apart'.

This is why I think that looking at Tolkien's work through the eyes of one belief/religion only is risky. There is much within from many religions, and so to interpret it against the tenets of only one religion can be troublesome.

Even if we use Christianity as our measuring stick then we can run into problems. Eru is clearly not a Trinity figure, so which branch of Christianity can we apply to him? He is definitely not a Catholic or Protestant God, is he a Unitarian God? And there is one immense difference. In Arda there has been no Christ, no redeemer. Those within Arda must atone for their own sins. It is not a Christian world, but nor is it anything else we have here in our world.

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

Eru is clearly not a Trinity figure

Is he not? Certainly if so it is not explicit. But then Christianity interprets the God of the Old Testament as a trinity, and this is certainly not explicit there (for indeed, Judaism interprets the same texts with a unitary God). Without a precise theological statement, one could view Iluvatar either way, I think.

But note that in the "Athrabeth" we do have what seems like a reference to a Messianic incarnation of Eru. Add to this the possible interpretation of the "Secret Fire" as something like Christianity's Holy Spirit and I think you do have a trinity.

[HerenIstarion]

Trinity in ME = Eru + Flame Imperishable + Incarnation hinted at as far-future event in Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth.

Backing up Aiwendil here. Or maybe pushing it a little bit further.

Symbols of [real/modern] religion(s) would not fit on the 'anachronism' basis, though. (On assumption ME is our world in some other [imagined] time)

Tolkien let slip some things, though. The colours, per instance. Blue and gold are colours of Heaven in Christian art. The serpent on Southorn or Harad banner, for another. Little things like that.

[Lalwendë]

Without a precise theological statement, one could view Iluvatar either way, I think.

How I see it is that if we can view him either way, then we can only go on what evidence we have, and that is that Eru is One. However, the idea of the Secret Fire being a possible link to the concept of the Holy Spirit is a good one - perhaps a theological concept expressed through an elemental one, which I like.

As there are differing concepts within Christianity of the nature of God, I find it interesting that the Catholic nature of God does not come through so clearly as it might be expected to, considering Tolkien's strong faith. We have to interpret the nature of Eru, while in Catholicism, the nature of God is central. Eru could as easily be One, as in other branches of Christianity, and indeed, in other religions.

Although, to further muddy the waters, what was Gandalf's true nature following his return to Middle Earth? Could he have been seen as a Messianic figure?

What's quite odd about this whole discussion is that as lmp said:

Tolkien asserted that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy

And yet, here we all are, looking for them. Would we look for them if we knew nothing of Tolkien's faith? Does it necessarily follow that because he personally was a Catholic that he would put his own religion in his work? If he made the statement that emblems of religion did not belong, then wouldn't he have taken great care that they were not there in the text? So when we find them it could be either that we want to find them, or maybe that such emblems of religion are unavoidable as they are shared across cultures and beliefs, and even across time.

[HerenIstarion]

Eru could as easily be One, as in other branches of Christianity

There is no branch of Christianity I'm aware of which does not accept the concept of Trinity

The concept of Christ's nature is where views may differ (Was He human or God by nature, or both. Most part of Christians believe that both)

And yet, here we all are, looking for them.

Not them exactly, I surmise. Slips of the tongue (conscious in the revision, no doubt ), as mentioned, mainly.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by HI

There is no branch of Christianity I'm aware of which does not accept the concept of Trinity

The concept of Christ's nature is where views may differ (Was He human or God by nature, or both. Most part of Christians believe that both)

Unitarians reject the Nicean Creed; this has been a tradition among some Christians (and a heresy) since the 4th century, as the Trinity was seen as something 'added' to Christianity by theologians who were in favour of strengthening the position of Christ as a divine entity. Prior to this, the Trinity was just one of many ideas. Interestingly, not all Unitarians would identify themselves as Christian with a big 'c', or even at all, and it is not a central creed or dogma that the Nicean Creed be rejected, as each person seeks their answers from whatever sacred texts/beliefs that seem appropriate. This embraces the concept of Christ as a prophet or teacher, but not an incarnation of God - a belief which many Christians share whether unitarian or trinitarian.