Of another world

[davem]

If you're arguing for a religious sub-text to LotR (TH, The Sil, et al) I don't disagree – as I've said. I don't think any of the examples you've cited would argue against it being a Jewish, Muslim or Hindu sub-text though. You haven't offered evidence for a specifically Christian sub-text imo.

Its impossible to argue against there being a loving Deity behind the events in Middle-earth, but apart from the reference in Athrabeth I can't see Eru bears any relation to Jehovah.

As an aside, on the news today the Government are planning to teach 'Britishness' in schools, in order to bring about a more 'integrated & co-hesive' society. Apparently this will include teaching children about 'tolerance, democracy & equality' as well as the contribution made by all ethnic groups to our culture. Now, I'm sure you'll agree that all those things are uniquely 'British' & cannot be found in any other country in the world

I can't help feeling that you're doing something similar with the examples you've given of 'Christian' themes in LotR.

Of course, one could argue that it is all down to chance, & that M-e is simply the kind of world where odd synchronicities & serendipities just happen – I'm sure many of the inhabitants believe just that, & I'm sure there are some readers who think the same.

However, even if one accepts a 'Christian sub-text' to the story all that proves is that Tolkien was a Christian & the story reflected his worldview. That said, he deliberately 'concealed' any explicit reference to his religion, which means that if you don't want to pick up on the sub-text you can safely ignore it.

The point being, the story can be understood & enjoyed without any knowledge of, or reference to, Christianity. The unique thing about Christianity is the Incarnation, nothing else. There is no actual Incarnation in the Legendarium, only a single reference to the possibility of something like that happening 'one day'. Again, most readers do not pick up on any Christian subtext, though they probably pick up on a religious one. I'm still not sure I see the relevance of it all though. And it certainly doesn't prove anything about the Primary world anyway.

There is no satisfactory explanation for WHY it keeps happening the way it does. Scientists are forced to answer, "Well, that's the law of (fill in the blank)." What's behind the law? God is behind the law.

Well, the scientists are merely being honest there & I can't see how you can criticise them for that. I don't think you can bring God into it as an 'explanation' without more evidence. That's just back to the 'God of the Gaps' again

For example, God's reality is in the very fact that the sun shines by day and the stars by night. That the planets continue to spin and revolve and our hearts keep beating. We take all of it so for granted that we don't even consider that God's creative and maintaining will are behind everything continuing to work.

Only if you want to see it that way. I'm not saying its not exactly like that, but I'm not smart enough (or, to be frank, interested enough) to decide which of the various religious or scientific 'traditions' are True.

[Lalwendë]

Well, what about Sam?

If the ownership of The Ring was being controlled by Eru because it had to be controlled by Eru, then what does this say about Sam, who gave it up willingly? Or more specifically, about his relationship with both Ring and Eru?

[drigel]

However, even if one accepts a 'Christian sub-text' to the story all that proves is that Tolkien was a Christian & the story reflected his worldview. That said, he deliberately 'concealed' any explicit reference to his religion, which means that if you don't want to pick up on the sub-text you can safely ignore it.

As I read this thread, I appreciate more and more the influence CSL had upon Tolkien. Perhaps seeing the success (in terms of the goals of CSL as author, rather than in the business sense) of Lewis' works set upon JRRT a stronger sense of mission in his own work. The application of the Christian concept not as a preachy lesson to be learned, but adding a layer of depth and meaning to the Ea universe, and also enforcing a validity to Fairy that otherwise would not be there (and not attempted before in literature). Not saying it was necessary or needed, but perhaps in the authors mind, a slight elevation in scope was a good thing.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

.. even if one accepts a 'Christian sub-text' to the story all that proves is that Tolkien was a Christian & the story reflected his worldview. That said, he deliberately 'concealed' any explicit reference to his religion, which means that if you don't want to pick up on the sub-text you can safely ignore it.

This is so.

Originally Posted by davem

The unique thing about Christianity is the Incarnation, nothing else.

Oh really? As if the incarnation itself is no big deal...

Originally Posted by davem

Well, the scientists are merely being honest there & I can't see how you can criticise them for that.

How did you see my words as criticism? I wasn't pejoratizing them, just stating the way things are. Or do you presume that since I'm a Christian, I must be anti-science?

I'm not ... interested enough ... to decide which of the various religious or scientific 'traditions' are True.

Bull's eye.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Well, what about Sam? ... If the ownership of The Ring was being controlled by Eru because it had to be controlled by Eru, then what does this say about Sam, who gave it up willingly? Or more specifically, about his relationship with both Ring and Eru?

Yes, I found that very interesting. Tolkien states that Sam is the real hero of the story. He is the only one who gives it up freely. He is the only one for whom loyalty to, and love for, another are strong enough to overcome the temptation of the Ring. It's a powerful moment. The Ring wielded all the will it had to muster against Sam; Tolkien makes that clear, but Sam resists successfully. Plain horse sense? Is Sam just too mundane? Too humble of a gardener? Lacking in imagination such that the Ring's lure can only be deemed ludicrous? Nope. This Hobbit has grown. There's all kinds of transcendence going on here. The Elves already in the Shire started changing this Hobbit, and he gains wisdom. The Elves in LotR, are bestowers of wisdom and grace, and Sam readily receives. Because he loves and listens to the Elves, and listens to them and understands them (in his own way), he receives what he is able through them, of the mind of Eru, wisdom enough to now his own weakness, his own smallness, his right place in the scheme of things. That was wordy. Sorry.

Drigel, I believe that it was needed. And necessary. .... at least for the sake of mythic unities recovered. But that's another thread.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

However, even if one accepts a 'Christian sub-text' to the story all that proves is that Tolkien was a Christian & the story reflected his worldview. That said, he deliberately 'concealed' any explicit reference to his religion, which means that if you don't want to pick up on the sub-text you can safely ignore it.

Dearie, dearie me! Is davem arguing for a readerly interpretation here?

It is quite possible that Tolkien the author preferred a certain kind of reading, one which allowed, encouraged, demanded a personal responsiblity on the part of the reader. This is part of his famous rejection of allegory. His Christian message would be meaningless if forced upon readers, so he, as a sub-creator, created a readerly situation analogous to that which the Creator--in Tolkien's eyes-- allows, where the onus is on personal responsibility for how one makes sense of the world.

Whether this means "safely ignore" or merely "ignore" is up for grabs.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Dearie, dearie me! Is davem arguing for a readerly interpretation here?

It is quite possible that Tolkien the author preferred a certain kind of reading, one which allowed, encouraged, demanded a personal responsiblity on the part of the reader. This is part of his famous rejection of allegory. His Christian message would be meaningless if forced upon readers, so he, as a sub-creator, created a readerly situation analogous to that which the Creator--in Tolkien's eyes-- allows, where the onus is on personal responsibility for how one makes sense of the world.

Whether this means "safely ignore" or merely "ignore" is up for grabs.

Davem is arguing, as he always has, for reading the story with as little 'baggage' as possible, simply entering the world & allowing it to affect you, move you, & possibly even change you.

If we must choose a certain kind of reading, or interpretation, then out of courtesy we should go with the author's. However I think any 'baggage' (whether of the author or the reader) will get in the way of the direct experience of the story. If Tolkien had wanted to write a work of Christian Apologetics I'm sure he would have done so. This is not to say we are bound to accept the author's interpretation if if causes us 'pain' of any kind, merely that we should acknowledge it as more 'correct' than our own.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It is quite possible that Tolkien the author preferred a certain kind of reading, one which allowed, encouraged, demanded a personal responsiblity on the part of the reader. This is part of his famous rejection of allegory. His Christian message would be meaningless if forced upon readers, so he, as a sub-creator, created a readerly situation analogous to that which the Creator--in Tolkien's eyes-- allows, where the onus is on personal responsibility for how one makes sense of the world.

Wow. I could not have said it better.

Originally Posted by davem

Davem is arguing, as he always has, for reading the story with as little 'baggage' as possible, simply entering the world & allowing it to affect you, move you, & possibly even change you.

... as long as that change does not include any logical results of a Christian subtext?

There are layers and layers of subtext in LotR. How could there not be, considering all the linguistic, cultural, mythic, historical, and other substrata he has layered into it? What I am saying is that the deepest subtext is the Christian one, only one deeper than the theist. In that deepest of subtexts lie principles of reality and of the Spirit that are simply not perceivable by those who choose not to believe Christian teaching. It is this deepest substratum that Christians find so satisfying about LotR. This in no way denies the satisfactions to be enjoyed at the theist, mythic, linguistic, historical, cultural, story, and other strata of LotR. I appreciate that you are at least no longer denying that the Christian subtext is, or at least might be, there.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Wow. I could not have said it better.

... as long as that change does not include any logical results of a Christian subtext?

There are layers and layers of subtext in LotR. How could there not be, considering all the linguistic, cultural, mythic, historical, and other substrata he has layered into it? What I am saying is that the deepest subtext is the Christian one, only one deeper than the theist. In that deepest of subtexts lie principles of reality and of the Spirit that are simply not perceivable by those who choose not to believe Christian teaching. It is this deepest substratum that Christians find so satisfying about LotR. This in no way denies the satisfactions to be enjoyed at the theist, mythic, linguistic, historical, cultural, story, and other strata of LotR. I appreciate that you are at least no longer denying that the Christian subtext is, or at least might be, there.

I accept a theist subtext, but as any reference to Incarnation is absent from the subtext, I don't see how it's specifically Christian.This is why I can't accept your position that there is something non-Christians miss. Apart from the fact that not picking up on it, they couldn't actually 'miss' it, I think you're bringing your Chiristian baggage into Middle earth with you & 'finding' it there because you've brought it.

What exactly is this specifically Christian meaning you're seeing there? All the examples you've offered so far have certainly shown a religious subtext, but not a specifically Christian one. There is no Incarnation in LotR, hence, it is not Christian as far as I can see. Mercy, compassion, self-sacrifice, the presence of a Loving Creator & 'Angelic' Guardians are not unique to Christianity.

I can see specificly Catholic reerences/symbols in there - Lembas, Elbereth, & such, but all those things are well enough accounted for in the context of the Secondary World that a primary world explanation is surplus to requirements. I don't believe bringing Christianity into M-e does anything but break the spell & pull you out of the Secondary world back into the Primary.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

What exactly is this specifically Christian meaning you're seeing there?

Originally Posted by davem

There is no Incarnation in LotR, hence, it is not Christian as far as I can see. Mercy, compassion, self-sacrifice, the presence of a Loving Creator & 'Angelic' Guardians are not unique to Christianity.

Originally Posted by davem

I can see specificly Catholic reerences/symbols in there - Lembas, Elbereth, & such, but all those things are well enough accounted for in the context of the Secondary World that a primary world explanation is surplus to requirements.

These statements succinctly give me the questions I will focus on answering, as I have the time.


Incarnation is not the only distinguishing characteristic of Chrstianity, but I'll get into that more later as well.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Incarnation is not the only distinguishing characteristic of Christianity, but I'll get into that more later as well.

Incarnation & Resurrection: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor. 15:14).

Everything else boils down to Love God & Love your neighbour as yourself - which is about as far from unique in religious terms as I can think of.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Incarnation & Resurrection: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor. 15:14).

Everything else boils down to Love God & Love your neighbour as yourself - which is about as far from unique in religious terms as I can think of.

There's more to it. I'll get into it as I have time. It's largely but not only implications of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. Largely but not only.