Christianity and Tolkien

[tumhalad2]

Just to be clear, I did not start this thread with an intent to discuss the merits of religious belief. I made my own perspective clear because I wanted to be up-front about where I was coming from, and because this thread is in part about how our personally-held ideologies inform our reading.

Morthoron's post regarding my initial post was disingenuous, not to mention hysterical. That I have consistently posted on several themes in the past (Debates regarding The Children of Hurin, for example, or antagonistic critiques of Tolkien) should in no way invalidate my right to continue posting on the same or similar themes. I'm interested in morality in fiction and how writers instantiate moral perspectives in their fiction. I've often found that CoH is an interesting vehicle through which to discuss Tolkien's morality, his attitude toward religion, divine providence and other themes. I'm merely interested, not "obsessive".

Furthermore, I'm not arguing, as some seem to think, that Tolkien's work IS a Christian text, merely that some commentators on Tolkien have argued that in their monographs (see Joseph Pearce, for example). My motivation for making this thread was to ask why that might be the case.

My "list" of Christian beliefs and dogmas should presented in the first post should not be interpreted as exhaustive. As I explained there, not all Christians will believe all those propositions, some will believe more 'metaphorical' variants (e.g. that Adam and Eve didn't literally exist) and others might not believe any. I reiterate: the point was just to establish a baseline: many Christians have believed some of these propositions.

The most important of those relates specifically to Jesus, and his supposed mission to redeem humanity. If Christian commentators argue that Tolkien's work is, at its core, a Christian work, then surely it should bear some resemblance to this most central Christian story. Is Eru a lawgiver, or merely a desitic God? If so how does that impact on, for example, Joseph Pearce's argument that takes Tolkien's Catholic credentials very seriously. Are Tolkien's characters bound by an externally derived moral code, or do they, as Brian Rosebury argues, merely conform to a kind of secular "moral consensus" which most of Tolkien's readers will agree on (Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon: 147)? Does "sin" exist in Middle-earth, and do its denizens therefore require atonement on the Christain sort?

I would have thought that these are not negligible or inappropriate questions to ask, given that so many writers have lauded Tolkien's Christian credentials.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Morthoron's post regarding my initial post was disingenuous, not to mention hysterical. That I have consistently posted on several themes in the past (Debates regarding The Children of Hurin, for example, or antagonistic critiques of Tolkien) should in no way invalidate my right to continue posting on the same or similar themes. I'm interested in morality in fiction and how writers instantiate moral perspectives in their fiction. I've often found that CoH is an interesting vehicle through which to discuss Tolkien's morality, his attitude toward religion, divine providence and other themes. I'm merely interested, not "obsessive".

Please, refrain from using the word "disingenuous", as it certainly sounds insincere coming from you. In addition, there was nothing "hysterical" about questioning your motivation, given your altogether negative and caustic posting history. The phrase "beating a dead horse" pales in relationship to the predictable nature of your bleak offerings.

You've made a career here of posting disparaging reviews of Tolkien's work, and I am being disingenuous? That, my friend, is humorous, if only in a pathetically ironic manner. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in using the term "obsessive", because you perhaps did not see the pattern you had set. As you readily admit to this pattern as a planned and permanent avocation, then I withdraw the word "obsessive" and will, in future, use an altogether more appropriate epithet.

I am not referring to just a few posts in which you criticize Tolkien's work in a pejorative manner, I am talking about almost the entire corpus of the threads you've started. This blatant and seemingly endless reiteration of contempt is readily discernible to anyone who reviews your posting history.

It is also ironic that someone who clearly states "I not only disbelieve in any god, I also find many forms of theism morally objectionable", should dwell on Christian morality in the works of an avowed and ardent Catholic like Tolkien. You profess to love his literature, yet you make every effort to denigrate, belittle, undermine and obfuscate it. So who, then, is being disingenuous?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Furthermore, I'm not arguing, as some seem to think, that Tolkien's work IS a Christian text, merely that some commentators on Tolkien have argued that in their monographs (see Joseph Pearce, for example). My motivation for making this thread was to ask why that might be the case.

Why not? You can see Christian influences - characters, themes, ideas, virtues, plot, etc - in his works. That doesn't mean that all of Christianity is present, nor that it is present everywhere within the works. However, it is present consistently enough for some people to consider it a defining motif.

Personally, I would not say that Tolkien's work is Christian (see post 12 of this thread for my explanation). At any rate, it cannot be defined as "Christian" because it is not only Christian. However, for some people "most" is enough and "all" is not a requirement, so they have no problem with this.

With the same success one can call The Sil and COH "Norse". There are certainly many parallels and similarities - but the problem is that they are still not 100% Norse. You can't write 100% Norse mythology unless you are creating the Norse mythology, and living it, and etc. Tolkien created Tolkien mythology; hence, he wrote Tolkien. You can't write with only one influence; there will always be others that creep up, even subconsciously.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

My "list" of Christian beliefs and dogmas should presented in the first post should not be interpreted as exhaustive. As I explained there, not all Christians will believe all those propositions, some will believe more 'metaphorical' variants (e.g. that Adam and Eve didn't literally exist) and others might not believe any. I reiterate: the point was just to establish a baseline: many Christians have believed some of these propositions.

The most important of those relates specifically to Jesus, and his supposed mission to redeem humanity. If Christian commentators argue that Tolkien's work is, at its core, a Christian work, then surely it should bear some resemblance to this most central Christian story.

I would disagree. For me the "physical", hostory/story part of a religion is certainly interesting but it does not make up for what stands behind the story. Jesus may be the central figure, but what central message comes with it? You do not mention any value or virtues in your list.

Religious stories / mythology are but the outside walls of what this people believes in and holds in value. Since before I knew how to read myself, I was fascinated with Greek mythology. It used to be just names and fun stories. But after a few more years of reading and thinking I saw that a story that it merely "fun" because of its plot also gives insight into the culture of these people, into their mentality, customs, beliefs, values, prejudices, and etc.

Jesus, Mary, Adam, Eve, and etc are only the plot. It may or may not be mirrored in Tolkien's work, depending on how you perceive it yourself. But the message they carry is that of peace, wisdom, charity, humility, patience, and etc. I don't think you can deny that at least one of these appears in Tolkien's work.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Draugohtar

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.

You hold only to certain figures and not to others, no Beren and Lúthien for example, despite their entering and temporarily defeating Morgoth (Satan) in the Hells of Iron. Of course Tokien certainly knew that Hell was simply an English word used to translate Hades which in turn, in the Old Testament, translates Hebrew Shᵊʼôl. But Tolkien still refers to Morgoth’s second earthly dwelling as the Hells of Iron. For the figures you recognize you stress that they are not parallel to Christ in all details but then suddenly start insisting on a discrepancy in the story of Beren and Lúthien.

I think your Christ figures and mine make sense only in the same way that a pagan figure who is resurrected could be called a Christ figure meaning that the figure parallels in part the story of Christ. But all these characters are also both more and less than that. They are themselves, mainly and chiefly: for example Aragorn is the chief hunter of his age who, like Muḥammad, also becomes a great king in his own lifetime, and who marries an elf-woman as does the similar Dietrich von Bern to the Elf queen Virginal in one tale, and who dies by what amounts to suicide.

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.

As described by his son, J. R. R. Tolkien was more than just annoyed and it was definite, not just “might”.

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

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.

Consider also that Tolkien’s discussion of original sin in “Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth” and his associated idea that good rulers of Númenóriean descent die by suicide (if they are not killed earlier). I know nothing in Roman Catholic tradition that would support this, other than the account in La Queste de la Sante Graal which explains that Lancelot’s father King Ban had to same gift from God of dying whenever he wished to and that was really how he died, not as the common version tells which relates that King Ban died of sorrow when he saw from a distance his last castle burning.

Considering that Ban’s death left his wife and infant son abandoned in the wild, I see the earlier version as more moral, that Ban died from what we would now call a stroke and so was blameless in his own death rather than that he would rather die and abandon wife and child then live without his castle.

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.

The current Roman Catholic position is that, as much as possible, capital punishment is to be avoided and there is now no capital punishment in Vatican City. But the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the general legality of capital punishment ordained by governments as sometimes reasonably deemed necessary for the protection of the state and citizens. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital...n_Vatican_City . I think that Tolkien shows nothing that disagrees with the current Roman Catholic position in the execution of Eöl, considering that Eöl had killed his own wife and Tugon’s sister with a poisoned spear in trying to kill his own son, and that Eöl now knows the location of Gondolin which Turgon insists be kept entirely secret.

Also Elves believed that mostly death was not a permanent end of their lives, but merely the beginning of a temporary imprisonment in Mandos.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

With the same success one can call The Sil and COH "Norse". There are certainly many parallels and similarities - but the problem is that they are still not 100% Norse. You can't write 100% Norse mythology unless you are creating the Norse mythology, and living it, and etc. Tolkien created Tolkien mythology; hence, he wrote Tolkien. You can't write with only one influence; there will always be others that creep up, even subconsciously.

I personally do not see The Silmarillion as even 50% Norse. It is too much Tolkien’s own invention and when it borrows, it borrows as much from Finnish and Classical mythological tales. I also feel a hint of Zarathustran mythology and Irish tales of the Tuatha Dé Danann. The story of creation owes more than anything to Hebrew/Christian traditions but radically alters them. The Middle-American Popol Vuh tells that people were created before the sun and moon and lived for many generations before the sun first rose.

I would disagree. For me the "physical", history/story part of a religion is certainly interesting but it does not make up for what stands behind the story. Jesus may be the central figure, but what central message comes with it? You do not mention any value or virtues in your list.

Tumhalad2 appears to have taken nothing from what anyone has said here. Quite possibly he is just a troll.