The Lord of the Bible?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

We are all sitting at a very large table with countless other readers, each with a uniqe perspective, taking part in an endless discussion. Once anyone starts making judgments about who belongs at that table (i.e. who qualifies as a "fan"), we risk losing the richness of that interchange. My impulse is to err on the side of inclusion.

As is mine. I actually (positively) repped Mark 1230 for an early post on here because she had clearly put a lot of effort into it. My own feeling (right or wrong) is that some posters on here have been using the thread as an excuse for having a Biblical discussion - which is not the point of this thread or this board. As I said, any comparison made, any analogy pointed up, will have a reason behind it.

Of course, a Christian will read LotR from a Christian perspective, a Pagan from a Pagan perspective, a humanist from a humanist perspective, & a pink elephantist from a pink elephantist perspective. The more important point though, is that even if LotR was a deliberate Christian allegory a Pagan will likely not pick up on that, or actually ignore it in favour of their own interpretation. Hence LotR (whatever Tolkien intended) is only a Christian book if the reader reads it in that way.

The very fact that there are so many other analogies which can be drawn, from other myths, legends, fairy stories, historical events & characters, means that no amount of 'proof' offered by Christians, Pagans, Jews, Buddhists, Humanists or anyone else will sway many readers. And yet, it is possible that a particular interpretation of any work can become the 'accepted' one. There is clearly a 'movement' at the moment which seeks to claim Tolkien's work as 'Christian', yet all of the authors & essayists see the Legendarium mainly as a means to an end (that 'end' being conversion). The Art is put in service of the 'Church': LotR is used to get people to read the Bible by repeatedly making these analogies. To me this treats the Art with disrespect, because a work of great Art deserves more than to be treated as one of those 'clever', slightly whimsical signs one sees outside Churches.

If you think about it, it is a very 'materialist', utilitarian, approach to Art. For Wright, Tolkien's work only has value to the extent that it can be used to evangelise. Other than that it is worthless - even dangerous - if it distracts people from reading the Bible. Now that is not to imply that LotR is equal to, or better than the Bible - it is merely to say that it deserves better, being the work of a man's lifetime, than to be treated as a 'Primer' for Bible studies.