Christianity and Tolkien

[littlemanpoet]

I am probably the most conservative Christian posting on this thread. That said, I propose that we refuse to take offense if another post-er says something insulting. For one thing, the one posting may not be aware that his or her words are insulting, having a worldview quite at odds to our own.

This has been said in a way already, but I hope to say it with greater clarity if I may be so bold. Also, much of what I say has been said by Tolkien, better, in his Letters.

Tolkien held that it is legitimate for a Christian author to create a Secondary world that is at odds with the Primary world in (a) details & (b) what is presented as true, on condition that the Secondary world has an inner consistency of reality, i.e., the that which is true within the world, makes sense to the reader. Another condition which Tolkien may not have felt necessary but I think is, is that the morality of a Secondary world cannot offend humanity; that is to say, murder can't be good and helping one's neighbor can't be evil. And if it is so in a Secondary world, the author had better explain why in order to keep the reader reading.

Some of what we are talking about here goes deeper than some of us may realize. Tolkien and Lewis, for example, did actually prefer a medieval worldview to the modern, one that was quite at home to the Roman Catholic church. Jallanite refers to Galileo and Darwin. These two scientists could not have said and did what they did, if not for a virtual Continental Shift in philosophical point of view that occurred in the late middle ages, from a Platonic worldview to an Aristotelian. Lewis, especially, preferred the Platonic, and wrote about it in The Discarded Image. If you have read his space trilogy, you will get a sense for some of what he was trying to portray about the medieval worldview.

But what about Tolkien? He deplored modernism and technological advancement for its own sake. But is that particularly Christian? Well, sort of. It is from the medieval worldview. Honestly, it would take a book to properly address Tumhalad's thoughts, and some have been written. Suffice it to say that Tolkien's Christianity was most certainly an influence upon his work, at least in terms of worldview, evil, and morality. But there are other influences as well, such as (1) his view of language and how language changes, (2) his love for things Nordic and Finnish, & (3) his love for Oxfordshire before it was 'ruined' by the encroachments of technology, just to name three.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

For one thing, the one posting may not be aware that his or her words are insulting, having a worldview quite at odds to our own.

Very true. And it is difficult to respond to a poster when the post appears to me to contain assumptions that don’t altogether fit with the subject of the post. The same is of course true of Tumuhald2 in reverse.

Also, much of what I say has been said by Tolkien, better, in his Letters.

Yes. Tumhalad2 nowhere indicates what Tolkien he has read. Has he read the Letters? Recently, in light of his concerns?

Tolkien and Lewis, for example, did actually prefer a medieval worldview to the modern, one that was quite at home to the Roman Catholic church.

Dubious. They very much understood the medieval viewpoint. But I doubt either really wanted to see the Holy Inquisition return, for example. And neither has much favourable to say about the French chansons de geste which are obsessed with the fighting of Christians and Muslims but continue to stress that Muslims are pagans who worship idols, and to be opposed for that reason. Particularly four gods named Mohammed, Apollyon, Termagant, and Kahu appear, only one of which is even known to Muslim tradition and that one, Muḥammad, was and is not considered to be a god. Medieval Christianity with its images of saints and veneration of individual saints was far more like paganism than was Islam. But lies about the gods of the Muslims persisted and persisted.

Jallanite refers to Galileo and Darwin. These two scientists could not have said and did what they did, if not for a virtual Continental Shift in philosophical point of view that occurred in the late middle ages, from a Platonic worldview to an Aristotelian.

Mostly agreed. Suddenly people were actually looking at the universe to see what they could find rather than mainly codifying received wisdom. But was it a change in philosophical view that caused the new viewpoint or was it the widespread discovery of new ideas not found in received wisdom that caused the philosophical shift to something more Aristotelian?

Discoveries about the nature of the universe were made by the early philosphers. The world was a sphere. Its size was measured. But then interest in investigation and discovery mostly ceased, until the Renaissance. Sir Isaac Newton, possibly the greatest scientist who has every lived, wrote mainly on the Christian Bible, attempting to date the Earth from its records.

Honestly, it would take a book to properly address Tumhalad's thoughts, and some have been written. Suffice it to say that Tolkien's Christianity was most certainly an influence upon his work, at least in terms of worldview, evil, and morality. But there are other influences as well, such as (1) his view of language and how language changes, (2) his love for things Nordic and Finnish, & (3) his love for Oxfordshire before it was 'ruined' by the encroachments of technology, just to name three.

Agreed. If Tumhalad2 finds it difficult that Tolkien was a Roman Catholic, then what must he think of a Roman Catholic science-fiction writer like Gene Wolfe or a Mormon science-fiction writer like Orson Scott Card? Neither of them are creationists and the writings of both are extremely popular, because they are good writers whose writings don’t appeal only to their co-religionists.

And there are many other religious people who write scence-fiction.

[Galadriel55]

I will try to be concise, answering the questions without going off on tangents.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Do you think it is reasonable to approach an author, from an academic point of view, with a religious world view already in mind?

I think it is impossible to approach anything without a religious world view already in mind. Suspension of disbelief has been mentioned already on this thread, and it works both ways. One can accept that there is/are god(s) - or the like - in a story even if they do not believe in God in RL. And one can also accept that there isn't a God, or not exactly the God that they believe in, in a story - while still believing in RL. It works both ways.

And if you think of it that way, atheism is also a kind of religion. And so is science. So whatever world view you have, whether it's Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant or Muslim or Hindu or atheist, when reading something from an academic point of view, you may either agree or disagree with it depending on its world view - and at that point, if you disagree, either continue stubbornly disagreeing because you're standing on two different foundations or accept (for the time being and for the sake of getting something out of it) the writing's view.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

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?

I do not appreciate it when people don't read books simply because they are built on a different foundation. For me, my faith is the least thing that matters when reading a book. I do not read books to tell me that the author has the same world view as I do; I read them to enjoy. If I disagree with something, I accept it as fact and true within the book.

If there is a eucatastrophe - good. That means it's there, and deal with it. No eucatastrophe - good. That means - guess what? - you have to deal with it too. I think that nothing defines an author's stories more than his stories do. That might sound stupid, but there's a point. Religion(s), personal experiences, ideals, and etc. may influence an author and his writing, and may even to some extent define him, but only his writing defines his writing. You can say that there is eucatastrophe in Tolkien - but you can't say that Tolkien is eucatastrophe. That just wouldn't be true, like with the example of COH that you bring up. So can you put together all of Tolkien's works and define them? Not if you want to measure how much Tolkien believed in eucatastrophies himself. What he believed in has an affect, but does not define the product.

The eucatastrophe is just an example, but this works for any aspect of any work. I think it's not right to define all the works of an author, especially someone who wrote as diversely as Tolkien, with one term or concept, because in most cases it will not be wholly true. The works are fact, within the works. You cannot disagree with fact. And the best way to explain such a complicated "fact" is to, well, say it.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

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?

Tolkien's work is not Christian. If you want a Christian work, go read the Bible. If you want to read Tolkien, you read Tolkien, not Christianity.

Tolkien's works cannot be defined as Christian, just like they cannot be defined as eucatastrophic. They have a Christian influence - certainly. But Christianity is not the only influence.

So while Tolkien's works are not, as you put it, explicitly Christian, there are elements of Christianily in them. An influence doesn't have to show 100% in order for it to be present.


Huh, seems like I failed epicly to be concise.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Tolkien's work is not Christian. If you want a Christian work, go read the Bible. If you want to read Tolkien, you read Tolkien, not Christianity.

Tolkien's works cannot be defined as Christian, just like they cannot be defined as eucatastrophic. They have a Christian influence - certainly. But Christianity is not the only influence.

If you really want to be concise the above almost does it. Just replace the first “Christian″ with “only Christian″, replace “Christian work” with “work that is only Christian″ and replace “not Christianity” with “not only Christianity”.

I think this makes the meaning stronger and clearer. My deepest apologies if I have misunderstood your meaning. You are an astounding writer and may have one of the clearest minds I have ever encountered.

In Letter 26 Tolkien writes:

But I know only too sadly from efforts to find anything to read even with an ‘on demand’ subscription at a library that my taste is not normal. I read ‘Voyage to Arcturus’ with avidity – the most comparable work, though it is both more powerful and more mythical (and less rational, and also less of a story – no one could read it merely as a thriller and without interest in philosophy religion and morals).

Yet this book is profoundly opposed to Tolkien’s own philosophy as it emerges in his writing. The author David Lindsey presents in this book the idea that Pain alone is true and that all appearances of delight and happiness are only a delusion fostered by the deluder Crystalman. Tolkien’s friend C. S. Lewis was also overwhelmed by the book, but also said the book was “on the borderline of the diabolical [and] so manichean as to be almost satanic”.

An author whom Tolkien ought to have liked by most criteria was George MacDonald. And so he did at one time. But when rereading some of his fantasy later in life Tolkien found the man intolerable and horribly preachy.

Tolkien also did not much like the writing of his fellow Inkling Charles Williams and very much disliked C. S. Lewis’ Narnia books.

The moral, such as it is, is that one likes what one likes.

[Rhod the Red]

Well if people read it with a kind of religious filter, they're idiots.

He didn't write the books as a religious kind of text, but to 'create a mythology' for the modern world. We know he was dissatisfied with the Aurthurian legends, etc.

And for the Hobbit; intended as a book for children.

Anything else for either book is pure intellectual dishonesty.

[Draugohtar]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

Well if people read it with a kind of religious filter, they're idiots.

He didn't write the books as a religious kind of text, but to 'create a mythology' for the modern world. We know he was dissatisfied with the Aurthurian legends, etc.

And for the Hobbit; intended as a book for children.

Anything else for either book is pure intellectual dishonesty.

Oh come now. Trying to separate Tolkien's writings from his deeply held Catholicism is disingenuous.

I mean in Tokien's own words, The Lord of the Rings is, "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work."

It's just not an allegory.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by jallanite

They very much understood the medieval viewpoint. But I doubt either really wanted to see the Holy Inquisition return, for example.

I of course agree that Tolkien and Lewis deplored the abuses of the medieval period. I am speaking to the philosophical viewpoint, which is the basis for any other thought, deed, speech, etc.

As to abuses committed by a culture, you must admit that the modern is not pure as the driven snow in comparison to the medieval. If anything, it's worse: millions of decent citizens murdered for the sake of political ideology, for example. No matter how you cut it, orcs will behave like orcs, whether they look like one or not.

Originally Posted by Jallanite

Mostly agreed. Suddenly people were actually looking at the universe to see what they could find rather than mainly codifying received wisdom. But was it a change in philosophical view that caused the new viewpoint or was it the widespread discovery of new ideas not found in received wisdom that caused the philosophical shift to something more Aristotelian?

The great debate was between the Realists and Nominalists. In the medieval era, Realist meant something quite different than it does today. This debate did occur because of the changes you describe, but the Realist position was never disproven; it merely fell out of favor, the same fate of current day Christianity.

[Rhod the Red]

Trying to separate Tolkien's writings from his deeply held Catholicism is disingenuous.

It's disingenuous to conflate allegory with application.

A distinction he and I understand, but you apparently don't.

[Draugohtar]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

It's disingenuous to conflate allegory with application.

A distinction he and I understand, but you apparently don't.

I refer you to my earlier post where I clearly set out the distinction to begin with.

Further I suggest you refer to the man himself who is quite clear that the Lord of the Rings is a 'fundamentally religious and Catholic work.'

It is true Tolkien did not set out to write a 'Religious text,' however interpreting the Lord of the Rings without invoking Christian/Catholic ideals and mythos will never achieve an accurate result.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

Well if people read it with a kind of religious filter, they're idiots.

Anyone who attempts to find their own preferred beliefs in a book is often taking out of it only what they put into it. Garbage in and garbage out.

He didn't write the books as a religious kind of text, but to 'create a mythology' for the modern world. We know he was dissatisfied with the Aurthurian legends, etc.

But what did Tolkien mean by mytholology? Surely not a “bunch of false stories about multiple gods”? You are not even beginning to make an argument.

And for the Hobbit; intended as a book for children.

Completely irrelevant. There are books for children that push one particular religion or one particular philosophy. That the Hobbit just isn’t one of those books is all that matters, not that it is a children’s book.

Anything else for either book is pure intellectual dishonesty.

You are not posting clearly. You do not indicate what you mean by anything else.

Originally Posted by Draugohtar

I mean in Tokien's own words, The Lord of the Rings is, "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work."

True, Tolkien writes this.

Tolkien also states in Letter 142 (emphasis mine):

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’ to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

See also in Letter 146:

So while God (Eru) was a datum of good Númenórean philosophy, and a prime fact in their conception of history. He had at the time of the War of the Ring no worship and no hallowed place. And that kind of negative truth was characteristic of the West, and all the area under Númenórean influence: the refusal to worship any ‘creature’, and above all no ‘dark lord′ or satanic demon, Sauron, or any other, was almost as far as they got. They had (I imagine) no petitionary prayers to God; but preserved the vestige of thanksgiving.

First, Tolkien places his stories in a world which is largely secular in which prayer and worship is largely unknown to the Men of whom he treats, and unknown to the Hobbits. From Letter 165:

I am in any case myself a Christian; but the ‘Third Age′ was not a Christian world.

In short his work may be a Roman Catholic and religious as it is possible to be in a fictional place and time before Jesus was even born and not even Judaism existed and where religion itself is represented as almost unknown. There is a single all-powerful God, but he is represented as very distant from the affairs of the world at that time.

That is, the work is in reality not very Roman Catholic or religious beyond the working out of the plot in this pre-Christian time, and even there much that Tolkien put in that represented his own understanding of Roman Catholicism was common morality and not specifically Christian.

I am very tired of commentators attempting to bring in Christianity where one sees only common morality, or uncommon morality, which need not be especially Christian. American commentators especially bring in a hatred of anything Muslim. Roman Catholic commentators bring in Galadriel, an Elvish wife and mother of a daughter, as though she were a symbol of the Virgin Mary.

Tolkien writes in Letter 320:

I was particularly interested in your remarks about Galadriel. .... I think it is true that I owe much of this character to Christian and Catholic teaching and imagination about Mary, but actually Galadriel was a penitent: in her youth a leader in the rebellion against the Valar (the angelic guardians). At the end of the First Age she proudly refused forgiveness or permission to return. She was pardoned because of her resistance to the final and overwhelming temptation to take the Ring for herself.

Tolkien admits that probably some of Galadriel comes from Roman Catholic teaching about the Virigin Mary, but that, on the whole, she is quite different.

It's just not an allegory.

The Lord of the Rings is not an allegory at all. Tolkien insists on this again and again and again. But readers keep insisting on trying to misinterpret his story as an allegory. Christian interpreters often wrongly and sloppily bring this in.

Originally Posted by Draugohtar

It is true Tolkien did not set out to write a 'Religious text,' however interpreting the Lord of the Rings without invoking Christian/Catholic ideals and mythos will never achieve an accurate result.

And interpreting it as though it were true to specific Roman Catholic beliefs, or Christian beliefs, also often produces nonsense. You mentioned Christ figures all over the place. Where? Frodo, whom Tolkien himself admits failed in his task when he reached the limits of his strength. Aragorn? The resurrected Gandalf (but apparently not the resurrected Beren and Lúthien)?

Resurrected figures who are not related to Jesus appear in medieval tales and folk tales and even in the Christian Bible. For example, in the Finnish Kalevala the hero Lemminkäinen is killed when he attempts to slay the black swan of Tuoenela, the river of death. His body is ripped into eight pieces and thrown into the river. Lemminkäinen’s mother rakes up the body, puts it back together, and brings him back to life using nectar from heaven obtained through a bee. The Welsh romance of Peredur, which we know Tolkien studied, brings in the three sons of the King of Suffering who each day are slain by a monster known as an Addanc but are resurrected in the evening by magic baths in which their corpses are placed by their three lady loves. The Grimm’s fairy tale “The Juniper Tree″, which Tolkien liked very, very much, has its protagonist slain near the beginning but brought back to life at the end.

The so-called Chistianity in The Lord of the Rings is more subtle than much Christian interpretation which is nonsense. Christ-figures I see as such nonsense.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I of course agree that Tolkien and Lewis deplored the abuses of the medieval period. I am speaking to the philosophical viewpoint, which is the basis for any other thought, deed, speech, etc.

People often act from desire that is not in accord with any philosophical viewpoint. In short, philosophical viewpoint is often not the basis for thought, deed, speech, etc. Only sometimes is what you say true.

As to abuses committed by a culture, you must admit that the modern is not pure as the driven snow in comparison to the medieval. If anything, it's worse: millions of decent citizens murdered for the sake of political ideology, for example. No matter how you cut it, orcs will behave like orcs, whether they look like one or not.

No-one here has claimed the modern culture is as pure as driven snow. Nor has anyone claimed that medieval culture was as pure as driven snow. As for people killed for political ideological reasons, there are the various crusades, including the Albigensian crusade. And casual mentions or urgings of the killing of Jews in various texts.

Where does either Tolkien or Lewis clearly state that they would rather have lived in medieval times?

The great debate was between the Realists and Nominalists. In the medieval era, Realist meant something quite different than it does today. This debate did occur because of the changes you describe, but the Realist position was never disproven; it merely fell out of favor, the same fate of current day Christianity.

Then provide an experiment that would prove either medieval Realism or Nominalism, or at least show that either was theoretically falsifiable. That lack is the reason such arguments have fallen out of favour.

[Draugohtar]

Originally Posted by jallanite

True, Tolkien writes this.

Tolkien also states in Letter 142 (emphasis mine):

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’ to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

I refer you again to my earlier posting. I never speak of Allegory, period, thus I will disregard your commentary re: this issue, later.

Now onto this point: Symbolism. I rest my case.

First, Tolkien places his stories in a world which is largely secular in which prayer and worship is largely unknown to the Men of whom he treats, and unknown to the Hobbits. From Letter 165:

I am in any case myself a Christian; but the ‘Third Age′ was not a Christian world.

It's irrelevant whether the Third Age is or is not a Christian world. The question is whether the the underlying 'truth' of existence in Tolkien's fictional universe, is fundamentally Christian. The answer appears to be yes.

By this I do not mean it is an alternate universe 'version' of Christianity, but rather that 'good', 'bad' and the nature of truth are defined along very Christian lines.

[/INDENT]In short his work may be a Roman Catholic and religious as it is possible to be in a fictional place and time before Jesus was even born and not even Judaism existed and where religion itself is represented as almost unknown. There is a single all-powerful God, but he is represented as very distant from the affairs of the world at that time.

That is, the work is in reality not very Roman Catholic or religious beyond the working out of the plot in this pre-Christian time, and even there much that Tolkien put in that represented his own understanding of Roman Catholicism was common morality and not specifically Christian.

Your reasoning escapes me, Tolkien spends every quote you have referred us to affirming the fundamentally Catholic nature of the work, and yet you simply assert to the contrary? Further you can't 'reclaim' people's philosophies for 'common morality,' when they themselves do not root their beliefs, expressed in literature, there.

I am very tired of commentators attempting to bring in Christianity where one sees only common morality, or uncommon morality, which need not be especially Christian.

I'm sure you are, and yet we cannot escape the fact that Tolkien, whilst avoiding allegory at every turn, wrote a 'fundamentally Catholic' work. It's that simple my friend.

You then use the Galadriel/Virgin Mary example. I don't find this very interesting. The truth is as the author states, I don't see why this requires further discussion. Those attempting to read beyond this explicit explanation, are on a futile quest, we can all agree.

And interpreting it as though it were true to specific Roman Catholic beliefs, or Christian beliefs, also often produces nonsense. You mentioned Christ figures all over the place. Where? Frodo, whom Tolkien himself admits failed in his task when he reached the limits of his strength. Aragorn? The resurrected Gandalf (but apparently not the resurrected Beren and Lúthien)?

Resurrected figures who are not related to Jesus appear in medieval tales and folk tales and even in the Christian Bible. For example, in the Finnish Kalevala the hero Lemminkäinen is killed when he attempts to slay the black swan of Tuoenela, the river of death. His body is ripped into eight pieces and thrown into the river. Lemminkäinen’s mother rakes up the body, puts it back together, and brings him back to life using nectar from heaven obtained through a bee. The Welsh romance of Peredur, which we know Tolkien studied, brings in the three sons of the King of Suffering who each day are slain by a monster known as an Addanc but are resurrected in the evening by magic baths in which their corpses are placed by their three lady loves. The Grimm’s fairy tale “The Juniper Tree″, which Tolkien liked very, very much, has its protagonist slain near the beginning but brought back to life at the end.

The interesting question would then be why the resurrection featured in the LOTR is so very different from these other mythologies you refer to?

I roughly explained their Christ-natures as well, why not read what I wrote?

Of course Tolkien would never write a figure as an allegory of Christ. You clearly struggle to understand the Christ figure concept. Moses, for example, is considered a Christ figure. Yet he wasn't crucified, didn't get into the promised land and wasn't always that popular with the almighty.

As for Beren and Luthien - not everyone is a Christ figure. I don't believe I claimed: everyone in Tolkien's work is a Christ figure. I would also argue their resurrection is fundamentally different from that of Gandalf. Gandalf's is due to the direct intervention of Eru; B and L are via the limited intervention of the Valar.

The so-called Chistianity in The Lord of the Rings is more subtle than much Christian interpretation which is nonsense. Christ-figures I see as such nonsense.

You are of course, welcome to your opinion. However I suspect this stems from a misunderstanding of the term quite frankly. We aren't talking Christ allegories, or even Christ himself (Aslan) in the Lord of the Rings.

[Rhod the Red]

I did not go on with this sequel, for I wished first to complete and set in order the mythology and legends of the Elder Days, which had been taking shape for some years. I desired to do this for my own satisfaction, and had little hope that other people would be interested in this work, especially since it was primarily linguistic in inspiration and was begun to provide the necessary background of history for Elvish tongues.

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of this author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations,

I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varies applicability to the thought and experience of readers, I think many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

- Tolkien, Forward to the Second Edition, The Lord of the Rings

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Draugohtar

It's irrelevant whether the Third Age is or is not a Christian world. The question is whether the the underlying 'truth' of existence in Tolkien's fictional universe, is fundamentally Christian. The answer appears to be yes.

I would disagree.

Tolkien's Arda is without doubt theistic, as many here have noted, but in order to be Christian, there must be a parallel to Jesus Christ. There isn't one, and the Gandalf analogy doesn't hold up.
Why not? For one, Gandalf's sacrifice wasn't necessarily intended to be an act he alone could achieve. Since all the Istari had the same mission, any of them would have been capable of sacrificing their physical bodies in a free act of will to safeguard allies, or in general support of the struggle against Sauron. When it came to it, Gandalf was the one presented with both the situation and the choice. Whether that was "chance" (Eru's will) or not (I say it was), there is no evidence that Gandalf himself knew ahead of time that he would be called on to make that sacrifice. Christ on the other hand, knew what was required of him in that respect.

I have also seen Eärendil put forward as Arda's Christ, but that won't work either.
Eärendil apparently did have some foreknowledge of his fate, though:

Then Eärendil said to Elwing: 'Await me here; for one only may bring the message that it is my fate to bear.'

The Silmarillion Of the Voyage of Eärendil

And in a discussion of Eärendil's fate among the Valar:

Mandos spoke concerning [Eärendil's] fate; and he said 'Shall mortal Man step living upon the undying lands, and yet live?' But Ulmo said: 'For this he was born into the world'

Ulmo's statement has a Christlike air. Then again, Eärendil's "sacrifice" was comparatively not much of one. He did undertake a highly dangerous, and apparently hopeless sea voyage to fulfill his destiny. But that was done to enact a physical salvation for Arda from Morgoth, whereas Christ came to save spiritual Man from Sin. And Eärendil did not undergo physical suffering in the act, either.

If one can't see Jesus in Gandalf or Eärendil, I can think of no nearer alternative in the books. And how can the works be Christian, without Christ?

[Pervinca Took]

There are types of Christ in LOTR, rather than an actual Christ figure. Why would the absence of the latter stop it from being a Christian work? I've heard "Beowulf" described as a very Christian work in which Christ is never named.

Tolkien said in one of his letters that he would not dare to write more directly about God or Christ than he had done, and he disliked allegory, so there is no equivalent, say, of Simon in "Lord of the Flies" or Aslan in the Narnia books. But I don't think that stops it from being a Christian work, just because it is "absorbed into the symbolism" rather than being more overt.

[Draugohtar]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I would disagree.

Tolkien's Arda is without doubt theistic, as many here have noted, but in order to be Christian, there must be a parallel to Jesus Christ. There isn't one, and the Gandalf analogy doesn't hold up.

Absolutely not. To the Christian philosophy all time, even the millenia before the physical manifestation of Christ, were Christian. Further I wasn't claiming Arda, or Tolkien's universe more broadly, to be explicitly Christian ie Narnia.

I speak of the fundamental truths of the universe, the nature of good and evil, it's ultimate theoligical underpinnings, the nature of 'humanity' so on and so forth.

Why not? For one, Gandalf's sacrifice wasn't necessarily intended to be an act he alone could achieve. Since all the Istari had the same mission, any of them would have been capable of sacrificing their physical bodies in a free act of will to safeguard allies, or in general support of the struggle against Sauron. When it came to it, Gandalf was the one presented with both the situation and the choice. Whether that was "chance" (Eru's will) or not (I say it was), there is no evidence that Gandalf himself knew ahead of time that he would be called on to make that sacrifice. Christ on the other hand, knew what was required of him in that respect.

Quite, Gandalf, indeed, no character in the Lord of the Rings or the broader lore is a Christ allegory. This has not been claimed.

Ditto Earendil.

If one can't see Jesus in Gandalf or Eärendil, I can think of no nearer alternative in the books. And how can the works be Christian, without Christ?

I refer you to my earlier discussion of Christ-figures. Specific to Christianity Moses and Elijah are considered as pre-figures of Christ. They aren't at all 'the same' but they have certain parallels.

My argument is that you have at least 3 Christ figures ie characters who share some significant parellels with Christ.

I think we are disagreeing over terminology.

Let me restate to close: Christ figures or pre-figures are not identical parallel copies. For example Superman is considered a modern Christ figure.

[LadyBrooke]

Can I just say one thing? Some Roman Catholic commentators will stress a religious component. Other Roman Catholics, like many people in my father's family, think that people read too much Catholic belief into the books. So, can we stop acting like all Catholics, all Americans, all whatever believe the same thing? Even within groups, the people might disagree, and that's good.

Oh, and the Roman Catholic Church Tolkien grew up in would have been different from the one that exists now. There has been quite a bit of new Canon and clarification on the old in the past half a century or so. So, I'm not even sure we can try and make it fit into current Catholicism, though they're similar. I'm not schooled enough in the differences to say how that would fit in with the books. Just a thought to throw out there.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I believe there is much misunderstanding made by all sides when it comes to this one. First, it's important to remember Bethberry's point about using Tolkien's Letters. They were personal correspondence by Tolkien to someone else, not intended nor probably written with the mind of a wider public audience. My counter question to Bb, however, is what reasons would Tolkien have to deceive the recipients of his written letters?

I'm not Bb, but I wouldn't consider it so much deception, as tailoring what you say to your audience - I wouldn't go in and tell my college professors half the things I might tell my best friend. I don't speak the same way around my mom and her family as I do around my dad and his family. I think it's natural human behavior to stress certain things around certain audiences, and that could have played into what Tolkien wrote to certain people. And like you said, memory plays a huge part in it.

[Draugohtar]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

Can I just say one thing? Some Roman Catholic commentators will stress a religious component. Other Roman Catholics, like many people in my father's family, think that people read too much Catholic belief into the books. So, can we stop acting like all Catholics, all Americans, all whatever believe the same thing? Even within groups, the people might disagree, and that's good.

I'd first like to say alot of the discussion since my last posting seems to make a case I'm more than happy with. I do believe you have Christ figures dotted through LOTR, but that's my opinion; I don't require anyone else to hold it.

On this point I'd like to point out that there have only been peripheral alterations to Catholic belief in the past centuries. More a case of tinkering at the edges, further all Catholics are bound to believe the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. Put simply if Tolkien wandered into Mass tomorrow, he might be annoyed that it's not in latin, but otherwise it would all be 100% familiar.

Oh, and the Roman Catholic Church Tolkien grew up in would have been different from the one that exists now. There has been quite a bit of new Canon and clarification on the old in the past half a century or so. So, I'm not even sure we can try and make it fit into current Catholicism, though they're similar. I'm not schooled enough in the differences to say how that would fit in with the books. Just a thought to throw out there.

It's not a question of 'new' Catholicism, the fundamental teachings etc are entirely unchanged. Vatican 2 was more about 'opening' up the Church to be more accessible, however, what was bad before, remained bad after and vice versa.


P.S. On the Beren and Luthien issue earlier, the 'Harrowing of Hell' seems a reach to me, given that the Harrowing refers to Sheol, as opposed to the 'other place.' Further I'm not clear on how this achieved any sort of redemption, seeing as it was Earendil all those years later who actually sought forgiveness.

In the LOTR I content the Christ-figures (as literary allusion) all play a part in redemption. Again though, no one has to believe this, it's simply my own opinion.

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Draugohtar

It's not a question of 'new' Catholicism, the fundamental teachings etc are entirely unchanged. Vatican 2 was more about 'opening' up the Church to be more accessible, however, what was bad before, remained bad after and vice versa.

I'm not going to debate that, however, I'd like to say that still a matter of opinion. What is a fundamental teaching for some people would be a minor issue to other people - I can say that I know a lot of Catholics that have split from the church following Vatican 2. There are people who think the change from Latin to vernacular languages undermined the entire church. The doctrine hasn't changed, but the Church's view on things not specifically in the doctrine has changed. Also, weren't the dietary laws for certain things changed? As well as a completely revised and new Code of Canon Law and the habits of nuns...it is opinion, not a fact, that this is not a new type of Catholicism.

I'm not saying Tolkien would feel the same way, I am just pointing out that depending on the way people feel about it, the Roman Catholic Church can be viewed as having gone significant changes since he was alive. This is something that I personally would always take into account when trying to determine a degree of Catholic belief into his books, that the beliefs he had are not necessary the same ones as the current Church or any given contemporary Roman Catholic, as well as the difference in time periods and how any given religion would be viewed.

No one has to agree with the above, but there are people that feel that way. And broad sweeping generalizations rarely do much good. *shrug*

Personally, I'd say that Tolkien's good characters have moral codes and beliefs that Tolkien felt were important, which were deeply inspired his own religious beliefs and therefore his Catholicism. However, the characters themselves are not bound to follow the entire teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, nor do I believe that Tolkien directly wrote any character that was supposed to be a Christ figure, the Virgin Mary, or any other important religious figure. Of course, later in life, Tolkien could have seen parallels between them and characters, as can we. But I doubt it was an intentional parallel, as seen by the many different characters that are proposed as the Christ figure.

...part of that might be that direct religious parallels make me uncomfortable. I haven't read the Chronicles of Narnia since I realized all the parallels.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Quite naturally Tolkien based the morality in the book on his own feelings for what was moral which is mostly shared, at least in word if not in deed, by non-Roman Catholics and non-Christians. He avoided dealing with controversial subjects. For example, capital punishment comes up only in a personal opinion by Gandalf that Bilbo was right to spare Gollum when he could have killed him.

Though we see an example of capital punishment in The Silmarillion, when Turgon orders Eol killed. It's curious because Turgon seems to be portrayed as one of the more moral characters. Of course, there are massive differences between Gollum and Eol, and the Silm and LotR.

[jallanite]

Bêthberry and Boromir88 have both given excellent posts, as is usual for both (and also Lady Brooke).

I personally do recognize that Tolkien in his letters often did not provide his full opinion on many topics and sometimes changed his opinion over the years.

I also recognize that Tolkien put many of his likes into The Lord of the Rings, including some of his religious beliefs, but not all of them. For his story supposedly takes place before Jesus (or Mary, his mother) ever existed. Also, unlike John Milton in Paradise Lost, Tolkien makes no mention anywhere of the Trinity, and refers to the single God as Eru ‘the One’ in his tales, presumably because he fictionalized the tales as records from long ago before Christianity existed, and before any known religion imagined any chief god to be three-in-one, at least so far as I know. The Greek goddess Hecate was sometimes three-in-one.

Much Roman Catholic and basic Christian belief does not appear because, as Tolkien often indicates in Letters, he designed his imaginary prehistoric civilization in a particular way, I suspect in part so that he might avoid many religious issues. Originally in making the Earth flat he may have intended to clearly indicate that this was only fantasy because Christians in general, though not always, had accepted a spherical Earth as they did in his own day.

The Lord of the Rings is fantasy tale involving Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits, none of whom existed according to general belief. There is no reason to think from anything Tolkien wrote that in real life he thought they had ever existed either. The tale shows a totally imaginary past to be viewed for pure enjoyment.

Quite naturally Tolkien based the morality in the book on his own feelings for what was moral which is mostly shared, at least in word if not in deed, by non-Roman Catholics and non-Christians. He avoided dealing with controversial subjects. For example, capital punishment comes up only in a personal opinion by Gandalf that Bilbo was right to spare Gollum when he could have killed him.

The law codes of Gondor and the Shire supposedly derive from old Númenórean law codes which largely derive from Elvish laws which derive directly from the teaching of the Valar. But Tolkien only provides a few glimpses of these laws.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

Well if people read it with a kind of religious filter, they're idiots.

Anyone who attempts to find their own preferred beliefs in a book is often taking out of it only what they put into it. Garbage in and garbage out.

He didn't write the books as a religious kind of text, but to 'create a mythology' for the modern world. We know he was dissatisfied with the Aurthurian legends, etc.

But what did Tolkien mean by mytholology? Surely not a “bunch of false stories about multiple gods”? You are not even beginning to make an argument.

And for the Hobbit; intended as a book for children.

Completely irrelevant. There are books for children that push one particular religion or one particular philosophy. That the Hobbit just isn’t one of those books is all that matters, not that it is a children’s book.

Anything else for either book is pure intellectual dishonesty.

You are not posting clearly. You do not indicate what you mean by anything else.

Originally Posted by Draugohtar

I mean in Tokien's own words, The Lord of the Rings is, "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work."

True, Tolkien writes this.

Tolkien also states in Letter 142 (emphasis mine):

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’ to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

See also in Letter 146:

So while God (Eru) was a datum of good Númenórean philosophy, and a prime fact in their conception of history. He had at the time of the War of the Ring no worship and no hallowed place. And that kind of negative truth was characteristic of the West, and all the area under Númenórean influence: the refusal to worship any ‘creature’, and above all no ‘dark lord′ or satanic demon, Sauron, or any other, was almost as far as they got. They had (I imagine) no petitionary prayers to God; but preserved the vestige of thanksgiving.

First, Tolkien places his stories in a world which is largely secular in which prayer and worship is largely unknown to the Men of whom he treats, and unknown to the Hobbits (except for grace at meals as a tradition in Gondor and one case where Men cry out for the Valar to cause an elephant to swerve). From Letter 165:

I am in any case myself a Christian; but the ‘Third Age′ was not a Christian world.

In short his work may be a Roman Catholic and religious as it is possible to be in a fictional place and time before Jesus was even born and not even Judaism existed and where religion itself is represented as almost unknown. There is a single all-powerful God, but he is represented as very distant from the affairs of the world at that time.

That is, the work is in reality not very Roman Catholic or religious beyond the working out of the plot in this pre-Christian time, and even there much that Tolkien put in that represented his own understanding of Roman Catholicism was common morality and not specifically Christian.

I am very tired of commentators attempting to bring in Christianity where one sees only common morality, or uncommon morality, which need not be especially Christian. American commentators especially bring in a hatred of anything Muslim. Roman Catholic commentators bring in Galadriel, an Elvish wife and mother of a daughter, as though she were a symbol of the Virgin Mary.

Tolkien writes in Letter 320:

I was particularly interested in your remarks about Galadriel. .... I think it is true that I owe much of this character to Christian and Catholic teaching and imagination about Mary, but actually Galadriel was a penitent: in her youth a leader in the rebellion against the Valar (the angelic guardians). At the end of the First Age she proudly refused forgiveness or permission to return. She was pardoned because of her resistance to the final and overwhelming temptation to take the Ring for herself.

Tolkien admits that probably some of Galadriel comes from Roman Catholic teaching about the Virigin Mary, but that, on the whole, she is quite different. She is very definitely not the Virgin Mary.

It's just not an allegory.

The Lord of the Rings is not an allegory at all. Tolkien insists on this again and again and again. But readers keep insisting on trying to misinterpret his story as an allegory. Christian interpreters often wrongly and sloppily bring this in.

Originally Posted by Draugohtar

It is true Tolkien did not set out to write a 'Religious text,' however interpreting the Lord of the Rings without invoking Christian/Catholic ideals and mythos will never achieve an accurate result.

And interpreting it as though it were true to specific Roman Catholic beliefs, or Christian beliefs, also often produces nonsense. You mentioned Christ figures all over the place. Where? Frodo, whom Tolkien himself admits failed in his task when he reached the limits of his strength. Aragorn? The resurrected Gandalf (but apparently not the resurrected Beren and Lúthien)?

Resurrected figures who are not related to Jesus appear in medieval tales and folk tales and even in the Christian Bible. For example, in the Finnish Kalevala the hero Lemminkäinen is killed when he attempts to slay the black swan of Tuoenela, the river of death. His body is ripped into eight pieces and thrown into the river. Lemminkäinen’s mother rakes up the body, puts it back together, and brings him back to life using nectar from heaven obtained through a bee. The Welsh romance of Peredur, which we know Tolkien studied, brings in the three sons of the King of Suffering who each day are slain by a monster known as an Addanc but are resurrected in the evening by magic baths in which their corpses are placed by their three lady loves. The Grimm’s fairy tale “The Juniper Tree″, which Tolkien liked very, very much, has its protagonist slain near the beginning but brought back to life at the end.

The so-called Christianity in The Lord of the Rings is more subtle than much Christian interpretation which is nonsense. Christ-figures I see as such nonsense.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I of course agree that Tolkien and Lewis deplored the abuses of the medieval period. I am speaking to the philosophical viewpoint, which is the basis for any other thought, deed, speech, etc.

People often act from desire that is not in accord with any philosophical viewpoint. In short, philosophical viewpoint is often not the basis for thought, deed, speech, etc. Only sometimes is what you say true.

As to abuses committed by a culture, you must admit that the modern is not pure as the driven snow in comparison to the medieval. If anything, it's worse: millions of decent citizens murdered for the sake of political ideology, for example. No matter how you cut it, orcs will behave like orcs, whether they look like one or not.

No-one here has claimed the modern culture is as pure as driven snow. Nor has anyone claimed that medieval culture was as pure as driven snow. As for people killed for political ideological reasons, there are the various crusades, including the Albigensian crusade. And casual mentions or urgings of the killing of Jews in various texts.

Where does either Tolkien or Lewis clearly state that they would rather have lived in medieval times?

The great debate was between the Realists and Nominalists. In the medieval era, Realist meant something quite different than it does today. This debate did occur because of the changes you describe, but the Realist position was never disproven; it merely fell out of favor, the same fate of current day Christianity.

Then provide an experiment that would prove either medieval Realism or Nominalism, or at least show that either was theoretically falsifiable. That lack is the reason such arguments have fallen out of favour.

[littlemanpoet]

No thanks, Jallanite. I'm not involved in this thread to win a debate. I'm interested in an exchange ideas, hoping to learn something. Let me know when you're interested in that.