Christianity and Tolkien

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Your list of Christian beliefs appears to represent what may be called Fundamentalist Christian beliefs or Biblical Literalist Christian beliefs. Most people who identify themselves as Christians don’t accept some of them or at least are uncertain of some of them.

As I said...

Originally Posted by jallanite

Tolkien was a self-identified Roman Catholic Christian and not a Biblical Literalist or Fundamentalist Christian. Like many Christians he was also a freethinker in many areas, rationalizing his own idiosyncratic beliefs as being in accord with his church or simply disagreeing with his church.

I agree, Tolkien certainly was an open thinker about many things, I never meant to stipulate otherwise.


Moreover, I don't disagree that many Christians believe many different things and always have. I was merely setting a baseline: these are some common Christian doctrines that have been widely believed throughout history. It is only in recent times that moderate Christians have even been able to reinterprete many biblical stories and dogmas less literally.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Your supposed list of what Christians believe is nonsense when applied to all churches and even to all members of most churches.

That's rediculous. Do most Christians not believe in an all-powerful, all loving god? Do most Catholics NOT believe in the virginal conception of Jesus? I'm not talking about reified theologians, I'm talking about the general beliefs of most people who call themselves Christians. Indeed, I don't disagree that Tolkien probably accepted modern geology and science, indeed he was a scientist, but most many Christians do indeed believe in a literalist take on the bible.

In any case this was not meant to be about religion and as I said the kinds of precepts I outlines are not going to describe all Christians.

Originally Posted by jallanite

If you really wish to understand Tolkien’s Christianity, then you should read all his writing carefully and note that, as people are usually polite about such things and not nosy and since Tolkien gave few interviews, there is not much information about his internal spiritual life.

You particularly should not assume the every Roman Catholic is a Biblical Literalist or Christian Fundamentalist. That shows enormous ignorance of religion as practised today.

I'm glad you're here to order me about. Did I ever say every Roman Catholic is a Biblical Literalist? No, strawman fallacy. Before you accuse me of ignorance, read my post carefully. In any case, and I'll reiterate, that list was meant as a baseline. Throughout history, Christians have believed some or all of these things. Tolkien probably didn't believe all of them, of course not, and that was not the point. But writers often talk about "Christianity" in Tolkien's work, so I was keen to make a list of some of the dogmas Christians have believed throughout history and interrogate Tolkien's work in light of them.

Moreover, as I mentioned, I was particularly interested in the moral vision of Christianity. Do Catholics, in general, not believe in the necessity of the atonement for sin? Do Catholics, in general, not believe that original sin is a real force in the world? Perhaps not nowadays in the era of psychology and other social sciences, but it's much more likely that Tolkien wouldh've believed in some variant of it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

It is only in recent times that moderate Christians have even been able to reinterprete many biblical stories and dogmas less literally.

This is not historically true. The steadfast, sole belief in biblical literalism is in fact a recent development.

Originally Posted by Karen Armstrong, The Bible: A Biography

Readers have encountered what seems like a presence in these writings, which thus introduce them to a transcendent dimension. They have based their lives on scripture--practically, spiritually and morally. When their sacred texts tell stories, people have generally believed them to be true, but until recently literal or historical accuracy has never been the point. The truth of scripture cannot be assessed unless it is--ritually or ethically--put into practice. p.2

Her book examines the many traditions of biblical interpretation, particularly those which have argued for a symbolic or allegorical or spiritual reading as the highest form of understanding. For the sake of brevity, here is one example, from Origen.

Originally Posted by Armstrong, from Origen "On First Principles"

Divine wisdom has arranged for certain stumbling blocks and interruptions of the historical sense . . . by inserting in the midst a number of impossibilities and incongruities, in order that the narrative might, as it were, present a barrier to the reader and lead him to refuse to proceed along the pathway of the ordinary meaning. . . . p.112

Or, further:

Originally Posted by Armstrong quoting Origen

By means of the "impossibility of the literal sense", God led us "to an examination of the inner meaning." (quotations from Origen) p. 113

Or her discussion of Philo's use of the allegorical method.

Originally Posted by Armstrong, p. 50

In applying this method to the biblical narratives, Philo did not think he was distorting the original. He took the literal meaning of these stories very seriously, but like Daniel he was looking for something fresh. There was more to a story than its literal meaning. As a Platonist, Philo believed that the timeless dimension of reality was more 'real' than the physical or historical dimension. . . . The process of allegoria 'translated' the deeper meaning of these stories into the inner life of the reader.
Allegoria was a term used by rhetoricians to describe a discourse that meant something different from its surface meaning. Philo preferred to call his method hyponoia, 'higher/deeper thought' because he was trying to reach a more fundamental level of truth.

Armstrong is not the only scholar who has examined the multitudinous ways the Bible has been understood over the centuries, but she's the quickest and easiest one for me to reference here.

And, finally:

Originally Posted by Armstrong, p. 3

It is, for example, crucial to note that an exclusively literal interpretation of the Bible is a recent development. Until the nineteenth century, very few people imagined that the first chapter of Genesis was a factual account of the origins of life. For centuries, Jews and Christians relished highly allegorical and inventive exegesis, insisting that a wholly literal reading of the Bible was neither possible nor desirable.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Okay, let's start anew. Also, taking any religious beliefs or similar things into discussion is always like handling a barrel of gunpowder, because it can easily happen somebody with personal interest (either for or against) will take it personally or say something that will start an avalanche. But yes, from purely academic point of view... why not work with it.

Your list, tumhalad, with the note that it is selective, and also with the note what Bethberry had said, let's say we can work with it; after all, it's your thread and the question you pose. Although for the sake of discussion, even with regard to the questions you pose, I would put a bit different emphasis on some things.

For example, the sin of Adam and Eve - or so-called "original sin", a pretty important doctrine especially from the mainstream Catholic perspective. I would put a bit more emphasis on the fact of the sin itself, for the sake of your discussion, and also in regards to what we can tell from Tolkien's writings: the belief in single Adam and Eve is not really that important, but simply that there is a certain sinfulness present in human nature, or brought upon every human by the tangle of evil that exists already when an innocent child comes into the world, and humans cannot avoid it - that definitely is there in Tolkien's works. (And also, many Christians, even in the past, understood it not literally, but the way I have just outlined, as a metaphore.)

You very much omit one important thing, which is necessary part and in any case at least equally important to some things: "good deeds". Since you are asking about moral emphasis of Christianity, you cannot omit this. Because especially in Middle Ages, the appeal on morality has been very strong. The Reformation put more emphasis on the certainity of salvation despite one's sinfulness, but it never disappeared (and again some branches of Reformation put again even more emphasis on "personal holiness"). In any case, the moral appeal - the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, most of all Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in general, they are pretty essential and every Christian knows about them.

About the "similarity". You could speak of so-called "outward similarities", like that the world is couple of thousands of years old, that there is some supranatural battle between angels and some fall of angels (Valar x Morgoth and co.), the fact that praise to Elbereth resembles Catholic prayers to Virgin Mary, the fact that some people like Gandalf are resurrected, the fact that the Istari come in flesh just like Jesus did, and so on. Then there are the "inner similarities", like in the mode, or in e.g. what values are emphasised. Love, forgiveness, humility, gratitude. And so on. I think exactly those values are important and they are the main thing that connects LotR and Christianity. These values are essential to the Christian teaching, the attribute of God to be loving and forgiving is one of the most important ones, despite the abovementioned human sinfulness. Thinking of course especially about the famous words of Gandalf's about Bilbo not deciding to kill Gollum, but there are many other examples.

And what can be more humble than to have Hobbits as those who save Middle-Earth, instead of the shiny armies of powerful heroes? The refusal of power in the story of Jesus and his temptation by the Devil in the desert has the same basic ideas as e.g. Bilbo's refusal of the Ring. Gandalf's favourite "fool's hope" is the same thing - many draw the example of Frodo and Jesus, who is no big hero with shiny sword, but comes humbly in human's body, is born in a manger, and does not fight his enemies in power, but goes to the bitter end, knowing he must carry his cross (or his Ring, as far as the metaphore can go)... or (in my opinion with more trouble, but still) Jesus and Aragorn, because both are "Kings" in the same way, yet start with pretty humble beginnings, and only some people see them for what they truly are. Speaking of this, here's another core Christian belief you forgot to mention - the belief that Jesus will return, not anymore as the defeated one, but victorious, at the end of the days, when the evil shall be finally destroyed. *That* is, of course, the Return of the King, and also the view of Middle Earth, to the End of Days. Lots of it depends on the unpublished stuff, there are hints scattered throughout LotR and Silmarillion, but not much.

What you said about there not being "sin against Eru" present in Middle-Earth - well, there of course IS. It is not so common, of course, but it appears. Just think about the Númenoreans making bloody sacrifices to Melkor and then the divine punishment coming only after Manwë and all called to Eru, who changed the shape of the world. Indeed, the sins of the Númenoreans were so terrible at that point that they "cried unto the heavens", to use that terminology.

Moreover, even in Christianity, there are two levels of sin, always, not just the one towards God, which you seem to emphasise. There is also sin towards fellow humans, and that of course can be seen in Tolkien a lot. They are interlinked, as is shown especially in the Old Testament understanding of holiness. The "twin commandment of love", which is called the essential summary of all the "law", goes this way: Love thy god with all thy strength, and love thy neighbour as thyself. One cannot exist without the other. Sin to human is also a sin towards God (or in Jesus' words: "whatever you have done to one of your bretheren, you have done to me").

Also, Tolkien seemed to work with the "looking towards redemption" in his unpublished works. To add, if you have access to it, you could read the tale of Finrod and Andreth. If there is anything that could bring some light to the topic of what is the role of Men in Middle-Earth and their relationship to divinity, it is this.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I was merely setting a baseline: these are some common Christian doctrines that have been widely believed throughout history. It is only in recent times that moderate Christians have even been able to reinterprete many biblical stories and dogmas less literally.

True also for Islam, Hinduism and other faiths. The turning point may have been Galileo, when a major change in wordview came from scientific investigation. In the 19th century the age of the Earth became a major focus of study. Then Darwin came along.

Yes, there are today those who still believe the medieval Christian worldview. There are even those who believe the world is actually flat rather than spherical. There are Hindus who literally believe the Mahabharata.

But to choose the medieval Christian worldview as a baseline doesn’t fit in a discussion supposedly about Tolkien’s religion. Tolkien didn’t believe in the medieval worldview in reality, any more than he believed in Elves in reality. If you want to talk about Tolkien’s religious beliefs, a supposed baseline that does not represent many of those beliefs is far less useful compared to one which represents those beliefs. But that would mostly be guesswork outside of areas where Tolkien has expressed a particular belief.

One finds oddities, such as Tolkien’s casual treatment of the Sabbath day, which historically apparently derives from a continuous seven-day planetary cycle apparently known both to Hebrews and Phoenicians. Tolkien casually breaks up the cycle and ignores the Biblical connection with creation. Your baseline misses much that should be there, either because Tolkien agrees with the traditions of traditional Christianity or presents a drastic modification of them which should equally be mentioned.

That's rediculous. Do most Christians not believe in an all-powerful, all loving god? Do most Catholics NOT believe in the virginal conception of Jesus?

Possibly.

But most Christian probably don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve or a creation in approximately 4,000 BCE. If you feel otherwise, I can′t change your feelings, but without firm figures you are not convincing. I can’t find any figures that seem convincing either. I formerly belonged to the United Church of Canada, by far Canada’s largest Protestant Church, which strongly did not and does not believe that everything in the Christian Bible is literally true and very strongly supports same-sex marriage. That may influence my opinions of your attempts to use a baseline that seems to me to be a parody created by ignorance.

But if you want to gratuitously insult your reader, go ahead.

There was formerly a large site on religious toleration which contained all sorts of religious statistics and studies but it seems to be gone.

Yes most Roman Catholics do believe in the virginal conception of Jesus. But Raymond E. Brown, who was arguably the most prestigious Roman Catholic theologian considered it very unlikely. I suspect Tolkien believed, but I don’t know because, so far as I know, he never explicitly said. Either did his friend C. S. Lewis. But Lewis tried to avoid talking about issues that divide Christians.

I'm not talking about reified theologians, I'm talking about the general beliefs of most people who call themselves Christians. Indeed, I don't disagree that Tolkien probably accepted modern geology and science, indeed he was a scientist, but most many Christians do indeed believe in a literalist take on the bible.

That is where you are confusing things, saying that because some or even many Christians have beliefs that your find superstitious and silly and because J. R. R. Tolkien was a Roman Catholic Christian, that you can assume that all the beliefs in your baseline apply to J. R. R. Tolkien. Then you admit that some of them don’t. And there are many other points that don’t fit, like my statistics showing that a majority of Quebec Roman Catholics support same-sex marriage despite the official position of their church. And Tolkien was definitely not a scientist in the normal meaning of the term, other than arguably in the field of linguistics. His friend C. S. Lewis was even less arguably that.

Tolkien apparently did not even believe in the Old Testament Bible sufficiently to even care that his legendarium didn’t fit into Biblical chronology. Tolkien very much did not try to fit his legendarium into Bible history and even put in some clear conflicts. Tolkien did base some of the moral underpinnings of his The Lord of the Rings on traditional Christian moral teaching.

I'm glad you're here to order me about. Did I ever say every Roman Catholic is a Biblical Literalist? No, strawman fallacy. Before you accuse me of ignorance, read my post carefully. In any case, and I'll reiterate, that list was meant as a baseline.

That was a Biblical Literalist baseline, representative of medieval Christianity, not of Tolkien’s faith. Order me to accept it all you want if you are talking about ordering. It still doesn’t fit with much of what Tolkien believed so far as I can tell. It looks like something devised to show how stupid Tolkien’s belief was. Your response seems to me to come down to: “If he didn’t believe it, well other Christians did, so its inaccuracy in respect to Tolkien doesn’t matter.” Accuracy does matter in scholarship, or at least it should.

Throughout history, Christians have believed some or all of these things. Tolkien probably didn't believe all of them, of course not, and that was not the point.

It is very much to the point if you really want to discuss Tolkien’s religion instead of to troll the poor benighted Christies who revere Tolkien by presenting a parody of Fundamentalist Christianity and apply that to Tolkien’s faith.

But writers often talk about "Christianity" in Tolkien's work, so I was keen to make a list of some of the dogmas Christians have believed throughout history and interrogate Tolkien's work in light of them.

Some of them fit, some of them partly fit, and some of them don’t. To take an extreme example I know of no Roman Catholic belief that requires even a belief in Elves. And the war between the Valar and Morgoth obviously represents the war between angels and Satan in Christian tradition, but then is Manwë to be equated with St. Michael, or is Tulkas?

Nor do I know of any Christian belief that the Earth was created flat and was changed into a round world on the fall of Atlantis. Tolkien was largely just having great fun and was fitting in some Christian moral tradition as part of that fun. It was a game, which Tolkien sometimes took very seriously, otherwise it wouldn’t be as much fun. And Tolkien was usually very much offended by literary works which were preaching any religion. Probably because it was too obviously easy to invent anything in a fiction and attribute it to God or to present as a fictional truth that the author’s religious opinion is real.

One finds books now written by Christians which amount to a plea that since the reader likes Tolkien’s fantasy, and Tolkien was a Christian, the reader should become a Christian. But Galadriel is really not much like the traditional Virgin Mary. She was a wife with a daughter named Celebrían and in Tolkien’s later writings a rebel against the Valar. And lembas being Christ in the guise of bread thousands of years before Christ existed doesn’t really make sense either. To begin with the writers forget it is not lawful in the Roman Catholic Church to allow any but Roman Catholics to eat the Holy Bread.

But no matter how often Tolkien would insist that he was not writing allegory, commentators will find it. Not only obviously Christian commentators either.

Perhaps not nowadays in the era of psychology and other social sciences, but it's much more likely that Tolkien would've believed in some variant of it.

Read “Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth” in Morgth’s Ring (HoME X) which is a story by Tolkien about original sin in Tolkien’s legendarium (without including the words “original sin”). This includes a parallel to the story of the Fall in which early people turn to Morgoth and reject Eru and Eru shortens their lives, although in this tale the early people have apparently always been mortal. You blame me for treating you as ignorant, yet you have apparently not even begun to read much that would answer many of your questions (and provide more questions).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.