The Lord of the Bible?

[davem]

May I return to my analogy of the 'Christian' car? A Christian mechanic makes a car, which he tells me in all seriousness is a 'Christian' car. He assures me that in the manufacture, the materials, the electronics, everything about it, it is in conformity with the scriptures (he never worked on the Sabbath, etc). He is not lying to me. From his perspective it is a 'Christian' car.

But suppose, when I go into the showroom this 'Christian' car is parked next to another one which is exactly the same model, same colour - absolutely identical, but made by a Muslim mechanic. It is a 'Muslim' car. Beside it is a 'Jewish' car, & making up the set is a 'Pagan' car & a 'godless commie pinko liberal bed-wetter' car .

Now, as I say, they are all exactly the same in terms of appearance, performance, everything. In what way is the 'Christian' car unique, or special, other than in the intent, or perception of the mechanic? That intent/perception is entirely subjective. All the cars have been built according to the same plans, in the same way, & are designed to do the same job.

Now I, not being a 'Christian' am unable to percieve any difference between the 'Christian' car & the others. They all seem exactly the same to me & the only difference the belief systems of the individual mechanics.

My question is, is the 'Christian' car actually a Christian car?

[Raynor]

My question is, is the 'Christian' car actually a Christian car?

I doubt any car could be a Christian car, due to the fact that, according to you, it should somehow actually have a refference to Jesus, the resurrection or other Christian themes you mentioned - but I interpret this to be un- (or even anti-) Christian thing to have on a car. Christianity requires, as a first commandment, to love the Lord "And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength" Mark 12-30 (hint)

And this is what Tolkien actually does; the work reffers, first and foremost, to the grace of the One, and this is more Christian than whatever "idolatry of other Christian movites" he could have put.

To continue your analogy with "hypothetical real life", what if Tolkien, the carpenter , set out to make an altar (put whatever other religious object here, if this doesn't come your way), but what he ends up with you consider to be a chair; useful for you to read a book in, to enjoy landscape in, to have a conversation in it, because this is what it is for you... Aren't you in fact missing the point? Isn't it that in this case, your are to say that "hey, go to that Tolkien gentleman, he is a great carpenter, he thinks he makes altars, although he may not realise he makes chairs?"

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

And this is what Tolkien actually does; the work reffers, first and foremost, to the grace of the One, and this is more Christian than whatever "idolatry of other Christian movites" he could have put.

No it doesn't. It refers, first & foremost, to an individual's self-sacrifice for the good of others, & his subsequent suffering & rejection by that same community.

On second thoughts, it refers, first & foremost, to the ennoblement of the humble.

On third thoughts, it refers, first & foremost...(fill in the blank)

To continue your analogy with "hypothetical real life", what if Tolkien, the carpenter , set out to make an altar (put whatever other religious object here, if this doesn't come your way), but what he ends up with you consider to be a chair; useful for you to read a book in, to enjoy landscape in, to have a conversation in it, because this is what it is for you... Aren't you in fact missing the point? Isn't it that in this case, your are to say that "hey, go to that Tolkien gentleman, he is a great carpenter, he thinks he makes altars, although he may not realise he makes chairs?"

No, I'm not missing the point at all. An altar would be supremely useless (& quite meaningless) to me. If I use the object as a chair at least I am getting something of value out of it. The fact that I can use it as a chair means that it is not specifically & uniquely an altar.

[Raynor]

No it doesn't. It refers, first & foremost, to an individual's self-sacrifice for the good of others, & his subsequent suffering & rejection by that same community.

On second thoughts, it refers, first & foremost, to the ennoblement of the humble.

On third thoughts, it refers, first & foremost...(fill in the blank)

Even if you are right, and I am not saying that you aren't, none of these would be possible withouth the Grace, that other power at work, which is refferenced several times in the very work.

An altar would be supremely useless (& quite meaningless) to me.

Then, if I follow you, you admit that you do not want to use it for its highest (and intended) function. Though your other use may be accepted by the author, it is, by no means, the most proper use possible; not necessarily an mis-use, but an "under"-use.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Even if you are right, and I am not saying that you aren't, none of these would be possible withouth the Grace, that other power at work, which is refferenced several times in the very work.

Yes they would. An individual can sacrifice themselves for others without God being involved, a humble individual may be ennobled without God. In Lotr what we see is not the presence of God as such, but rather a lot of characters who believe in God & refer things & events to Him. Maybe they're just a superstitious bunch...

Then, if I follow you, you admit that you do not want to use it for its highest (and intended) function. Though your other use may be accepted by the author, it is, by no means, the most proper use possible; not necessarily an mis-use, but an "under"-use.

No, I'm saying it 'highest & intended function' has no relevance to me. Therefore it cannot be a 'mis-use' as I could not use it for the intention it was designed. To imply that I would be 'under-using' it is to assume that which is to be proved - that somehow the object is 'more' of an altar than a chair. In what way, beyond the builder's wish/intent, is it specifically an altar?I think your analogy is based in the idea that the 'true' meaning of LotR is 'Christian', & that if I do not pick up on that, if, in effect, I do not use the book as a devotional work to aid in my specifically Christian prayers & meditations, I am not using it to its fullest, & am missing something. Needless to say I disagree ...

[Raynor]

Yes they would

I disagree; the Grace is evident at all the important steps: Bilbo finding the ring, the winning of the game by Bilbo, the elves finding the hobbits in the forest, Gandalf reluctance to talk to Saruman, the coming of the ring to Frodo, the coming of all of the fellowship to Rivendell, etc ETC - and these all are recognised, in the books, as manifestation of, what I call, Grace.

No, I'm saying it 'highest & intended function' has no relevance to me.

Then why do you have a problem with the fact that your understanding is not the highest possible?

To imply that I would be 'under-using' it is to assume that which is to be proved - that somehow the object is 'more' of an altar than a chair

If the most of its applicability, for you, is a chair, fine by even the author. Not the best intended and possible use though..

In what way, beyond the builder's wish/intent, is it specifically an altar?I

In its potence to give access to the Truth. To take you back before the Fall. That is, if you accept the likes of such concepts. If you don't, it will most likely forever remain a chair.

I think your analogy is based in the idea that the 'true' meaning of LotR is 'Christian', & that if I do not pick up on that, if, in effect, I do not use the book as a devotional work to aid in my specifically Christian prayers & meditations, I am not using it to its fullest, & am missing something.

Not in your prayers; its cathartic effect should directly come from simply reading it. Enjoying this aspect should not require any other ingredient.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree; the Grace is evident at all the important steps: Bilbo finding the ring, the winning of the game by Bilbo, the elves finding the hobbits in the forest, Gandalf reluctance to talk to Saruman, the coming of the ring to Frodo, the coming of all of the fellowship to Rivendell, etc ETC - and these all are recognised, in the books, as manifestation of, what I call, Grace.

Only by some. They aren't categorically 'moments of grace' by a long way. In fact there have been several threads on here discussing whether the Ring itself is sentient and has deliberately betrayed its bearer or left them. There is also the thorny topic of fate vs free will to consider, including whether all the actions of the characters are fated (or determined by Wryd, considering the influence on Tolkien, too, of Beowulf), which would necessarily have implications for both characterisation and on the significance of events such as Frodo's acceptance of Gollum.

[Boromir88]

But why should we accept that LotR is a Christian work just because the author tells us it is (if indeed that is what he has told us) if it is not necessary for our appreciation of the story? And, if you were to tell me that it is necessary to my appreciation of the story, I would reply that, as far as I am concerned, it is not.~SpM

I think part of the confusion has been that I haven't been all that clear. Now that I have some more time, perhaps I can speak (or type?) with some more clarity.

Some have been mentioning an irritation of having others tell them the 'meaning' of LOTR and shoving it down their throats. Personally, I find that irritating as well. But is it not just as irritating to deny that religion, that christianity, was an important influence in Tolkien's life, and absolutely cannot be found in his books? For one to even imagine something as 'Christian' in LOTR is flawed, useless, and serves no purpose

One of my good friends is a minister, and we both share the same passion for LOTR. He is able to connect things with the bible that I never thought of, nor would I ever have considered. And we have had some interesting conversations over the years. One of which he compared the friendship between Sam and Frodo like that of Mary and Joseph's. I don't see it that way, and I don't agree with him, but I understand where he's coming from, and I understand how he sees that. For more information check out this old, old, old thread...

History and literature are big passions of mine. So, I see things that my friend would not, and vice versa. The question is who is right, who is wrong, which is the intent of the author?

The answer is neither, neither of us is more right than the other. And as far the intent of the author goes, personally I think both can be in line. Tolkien as well as being a professor and a historian, was also tied closely to his faith, so I certainly understand why two different people, can see things from Tolkien's books two different ways. Perhaps, if I give an example of a flawed interpretation, it may be a little clearer. I've heard often that the Ring is a representation of Nuclear power, and the Nuclear threat...Tolkien comes out and says in a TV interview on BBC Radio:

'May I point out that I wrote these stories before the H bomb was even heard of.'

Whoever, believes that the Ring is a representation of nuclear power, quite frankly, in this case is wrong. It is completely conflicts with the author's purpose and designs. The person may keep going on to believe that the ring is Tolkien representing nuclear power, but bottom line is, this is something Tolkien comes flat out and denies.

The vast majority of the time, we don't have a case like this. But we do know what Tolkien was passionate about, what influenced him, and what he loved, and therefor we can draw our own conclusions.

So, to my friend, to christians, or anyone who chooses to see it that way, LOTR is a 'Christian book.' To me, it's not a Christian book, but it's a historical fantasy adventure. To others it may look like a Hindu book...etc. Which one of us is right? No one is more or less right than the other.

Eventhough to me I don't see it as a Christian book, I see no purpose to be stubborn and say, "whoever believes it is, is wrong, flawed, and it is useless to read it as a Christian book." Because that would deny one of the very many and passionate influences of the author.