The Lord of the Bible?

[The Only Real Estel]

Originally Posted by davem

The point is Christian readers of LotR keep coming back to the 'Christian' themes of LotR, & I think that behind that there is a desire to claim Tolkien & LotR as 'one of us', that there are things in the Legendarium which have a special significance to them alone, & that therefore an extra dimension is added to the work which is only accessible to them.

LotR is what it is. Your personal interpretation of it is something else. The two things are, & must be, different. I'm tired of various groups out there claiming the book & its author for their own. Whether Christians, pagans, racists, or accademic 'experts'.

I'm sure some readers do go at it from that point of view. I personally have never had an experience with a Christian Tolkien fan who tried to claim the books as works of Christianity or anything remotely like that, but that certainly doesn't mean that no one has ever done that. Most of the Christian Tolkien fans I know seem quite content to discuss 'possible connections' that they see without trying to attach too much to it.

But you're quite right that "every reader finds something which resonates with them." Therefore, a Christian reader might very well 'find' something that someone else would not. That doesn't mean that he's making it up or stretching for it, but neither does it mean that Tolkien specifically intended the connection or parallel or whatever you wish to call it.

Of course some people will put their opinion of what Tolkien intended forward as fact - but I don't think that 'Downers have had a whole lot of trouble with that on this particular topic (fortunately).

Originally Posted by davem

The danger is that a reader who approaches the story as a 'Christian' story starts to 'fill in the gaps' & makes the story something it is not, makes it mean something it does not mean. Why is that a 'danger'? Because we then get the wholly erronious idea that LotR is a Christian allegory simply accepted without question by some readers. To me this is as unnacceptable as the idea that it is a racist work, or an allegory of WWII.

Very true. That is a real danger & a bit of a difficult thing to avoid because it's easy to slip into the "fill in the gaps" mode you mention. Again, I think this can be avoided if you take 'Rings' as 'Rings' - any parallels (of any kind) that might be discussed should be matters of opinion. Support those with what you can, but it's very difficult to actually say "I think Tolkien meant..."

Originally Posted by davem

Finally, I've seen no evidence for this 'Christian' interpretation of LotR that stands up at all.

I typically just watch these discussions because I think Tolkien did a good job of not making any one thing possible to draw parallels to. As Hookbill said, there are some "Christ-like" characters, but none of them are indeed "Christ." The closest connection I see is indeed Morgoth=Satan, as Squatter brought up, in fact that might be the only one that I would argue much.

But it's still fun to discuss similarities of other characters to things in the Bible, just like it'd be fun for me to discuss similarities of the characters to any other thing I am familiar with.

Originally Posted by davem

Plus, I enjoy the debate

Can't argue with that. The only thing is I don't want to commandeer a thread...it's difficult to tell whether this discussion is getting too far off the original topic or not. :/

[davem]

Of course, another danger in taking such a single minded approach to interpretation is that one misses or misinterprets events in the story which can't be explained from that angle of approach. How many readers pick up on the references to Northern myth & legend (for instance the way Bilbo passes Sting onto Frodo in his room in Rivendell by driving it into a wooden pillar is a direct 'echo' of an incident in the Volsungasaga). Such 'echoes' of Northern myth are far more significant & indisputable than the Christian ones - which are vague & general at best. I suspect they were also more important in Tolkien's mind as far as the actual storyline & events were concerned.

But all this is secondary. For the story to work it has to be self contained & not dependent on externals. The events must follow logically one from another, not simply be inserted to make a point, or illustrate a religious ideal. When they do this they are taken out of their original context & that context left behind. Tolkien may have chosen Dec 25th & Mar 25th for their Christian significance, but within the world of the story they actually take on a different significance & bear no relation to their original source. As soon as you see in Appendix B that the Fellowship set off on 'Christmas Day' you are in danger of finding yourself in another 'story' & out of Middle-earth. Tolkien disliked the Arthurian legends for their mixture of Christian & Pagan things. Here he was in danger of perpetrating the same mistake.

There have been numerous books & articles recently by Christians which focus exclusively on the Biblical themes & characters, & attempt to claim the story for the Church. The truth, however, is that Tolkien was inspired by many sources, & possibly least by the Bible in terms of actual events & individuals out of them. I note that he spent a great deal of effort in the Letters attempting to 'prove' the work's orthodoxy - many of his Christian correspondents challenged him on that point. Many of his replies show him pushing the boundaries of 'interpretation' of his work virtually to breaking point, seemingly inventing motives & background on the spot.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Only Real Estel

Can't argue with that. The only thing is I don't want to commandeer a thread...it's difficult to tell whether this discussion is getting too far off the original topic or not. :/

Indeed. Christian Tolkien fans are not the only ones who ride hobby horses hard.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Indeed. Christian Tolkien fans are not the only ones who ride hobby horses hard.

I wonder if this thread would have reached 86 posts & nearly a thousand viewings otherwise...

(I would also point fans of my 'equine tendencies' to my own Spun Candy thread & ask them to check out the number of posts & views there & ask them to recall the doldrums we were going through recently...)

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I wonder if this thread would have reached 86 posts & nearly a thousand viewings otherwise...

It's amazing isn't it how quickly the delight in the critical pixies makes ambulance chasers of us Downers, eh?

[The Only Real Estel]

Well I guess what it really comes down to then, davem, is that you are asserting that there are Christians out there who want to search Tolkien’s book for Christian-like themes so they can claim The Lord of the Rings “as their own” as you put it. I concede this. It is very likely that that isn’t just your perception of it, that there are actually those that are attempting that. It’s likely true because many circles of life are attempting to do that, as you’ve pointed out.

I am asserting that there is nothing that could even be considered remotely ‘wrong’ or out of place about discussing and debating possible parallels between Tolkien's great work and Christianity that fellow ‘Downers have discovered. As long as it is not trying to reduce it to a religious work (& it hasn’t been to this date) or have Tolkien’s motives dictated for him based solely on opinion then it’s simply individual readers discussing their individual interpretations.

Of course I’m not saying that interpretations should be offered and then shielded “because that’s just my interpretation of it and you can’t take that from me!”

They should still be debated...it’s just that it should be the interpretation, connection, or parallel that’s being debated and not a reader’s right to draw such.