Christianity and Tolkien

[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.

[littlemanpoet]

As to Christ-figures, one may run the risk of spreading one's net so wide that many things one does not want, gets caught in it. For example, though Superman may be seen as a Christ-figure, he makes a better figure of "the hero with a thousand faces".

I do understand that a Christ figure need not die and be raised and ascend to the heavens to be one, but there may be other types that Gandalf fits better, such as an incarnate angel ... which Tolkien indeed says he is.

I do agree that there are clearly Christian themes and aspects in LotR which separate it from other modern myths aka Star Trek and Star Wars. I think it might be apt to point out that Harry Potter is more of a Christ-figure than any character in LotR or any of the Tolkien mythos.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by 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.

I am interested in that. How dare I ask questions when I think you are wrong? Perhaps it is you who aren’t interested.

Originally Posted by Draugohtar

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

You posted: “It's just not an allegory.” Perhaps I was misreading the word just.

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.

True enough, when are talking only about what is left over when you are telling a story which supposedly takes place long before Jesus was born. I am not being sarcastic here. The Forty-two negative confessions found in pagan Egyptian mythology might also serve instead of Christian teaching. See http://www.wheeloftheyear.com/refere...Confession.htm . Or the tao which originated in China. Many Christian commentators talk as if Christian morality is different from pagan morality, but similarities are usually more noticeable than differences. The same is true about Islam.

Is this ignoring similarities in religious teaching between religions just religious bigotry?

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.

You reasoning escapes me. The only quotation where Tolkien confirms in words the “fundamentally Catholic nature of the work” is one where you leave out Tolkien’s statement immediately following which in my view distorts what Tolkien means. Tolkien does not repeat this anywhere else though you claim he does. Your last sentence here doesn’t make sense to me either logically or grammatically. Unless you mean that no-one except Roman Catholics are moral and believe the true religion.

Rhod the Red has given this thread some excellent quotations which include one where Tolkien contrasts “the freedom of the reader” with “the purposed domination of the author”.

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 repeat and repeat and repeat ad nauseum the first part of Tolkien’s statement and ignore the second part entirely which in my view it is hard to see as anything but dishonest. I agree that The Lord of the Rings is intended as and by most definitions is a Christian work and even intended by Tolkien to be a Roman Catholic work. I also see why some fundamentalist Christians feel differently and why some who themselves believe a similar morality to that which appears in the book but are not Christians also feel differently. I can also see why some Roman Catholics might disagree with Tolkien’s belief that his work was fundamentally Roman Catholic and believe that it contradicted Roman Catholic teaching. Some did, and their comments and Tolkien’s responses appear in Letters.

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.

But many purported Christian commentators don’t agree. Many bring in Christ figures, as you did.

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

Most storied resurrection are different from each other. Of course Gandalf’s resurrection is also different. What important differences do you see that I cannot find parallels to in folklore or mythology? I doubt I can find any that is exactly the same. Why would this be so interesting?

Of course Tolkien would never write a figure as an allegory of Christ. You clearly struggle to understand the Christ figure concept.

Not at all. Socrates might be considered to be a Christ figure, or Krishna, or even Muḥammad, or Apollonius of Tyana. The minimum needed to be a Christ figure in a book is to be like Jesus in some way. In Thomas Mann’s Joseph and his Brothers the Pharoah Akhnaton is a Christ figure. In the Arthurian tales Galahad is to some extent a Christ figure. In Chrétien de Troyes’ Lancelot, it is Lancelot, the adulterous lover of Queen Guenevere, who is played as a metaphorical Christ figure much to the puzzlement of readers, including myself.

I am not struggling at all. Why do you imagine I am?

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.

My intent was to indicate that those who see Gandalf as a Christ figure because he is resurrected should perhaps at least indicate why they don’t also consider Beren and Lúthien similarly. After all, Beren and Lúthien harrowed Hell and defeated (temporarily) the Dark Lord. Your explanation of the difference seems forced to me. You apparently have some criteria by which you can distinguish absolutely who is a Christ figure and who is not. I see no such firm line, and think it not at all important to draw a firm line in this matter.

Christ figures may be recognized by those who wish to recognize them even in non-Christian works. They don’t indicate anything unless the author deliberately makes a parallel to Christ as Thomas Mann does.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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.

Not so, unless you define any work telling a story that takes place before Jesus’ supposed resurrection as non-Christian without a parallel, for example John Milton’s Paradise Lost. But to call that non-Christian would be absurd considering all the references to the future Christ that appear.

Christ figures need not be exactly like Christ as you seem to expect and may be found if one looks for them in non-Christian works as well as Christian works. But usually commentators use terms like dying god over Christ figure when it is the death of a god which is being considered. A god who comes back to life used to be commonly called a corn king, when James Frazer’s The Golden Bough was still popular. Or what some might well call a Christ figure others may call a teacher or sage.

Christianity in The Lord of the Rings is more subtle than identifying an exact or even an approximate Christ figure. It is that the world as presented follows Christian rules. In which case, if Christianity is true, then the rules it follows, outside of the obvious fantasy elements, must also be true. If Christian worldview is not true, well, it still makes for a good story, especially when set in a supposed time in which religion is almost non-existent but morality is congruent with Christian morality (and with similar pagan teaching of course).

Tolkien thought that readers would perhaps realize that The Lord of the Rings was written by a Christian and was surprised when some even deduced it was written by a Roman Catholic. What these readers spotted was Christian and Roman Catholic influences on Tolkien’s writings. That alone would not prove that Tolkien was a Roman Catholic. The same has been spotted in the writings of James Joyce who was once a Roman Catholic and possibly still was.

The Christianity of The Lord of the Rings is something like the Christianity of C. S. Lewis’ Till We Have Faces set long before the birth of Christ in which all the characters are pagans and remain pagans. But Lewis saw the philosophy that underlay this book as Christian.

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

I've heard "Beowulf" described as a very Christian work in which Christ is never named.

Beowulf seems to me to be an excellent example of a work that is recognized as Christian despite the lack of any mention of Jesus and the lack of any Christ figure. Although it would not surprise me that some has tried to interpret Beowulf himself as a Christ figure.

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.

Exactly. One may also note that others besides Tolkien and other Roman Catholics and other Christians share a similar morality and that other religions share and have shared similar beliefs.

Originally Posted by Draugohtar

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

And I have listed many more. Even in the Bible there are Jeremiah and other prophets. I am at a loss why characters who in some way parallel Jesus make any work a Christian work.

[Boromir88]

Perhaps there needs to be a reminder that there is no need for passive-aggressive inflammatory language towards groups of people, and certainly no need to be calling people idiots. There seems to be a new inclination on here to rudely resort to rhetoric and ad hominen attacks in the effort of winning a debate. It's a discussion forum, welcoming a variety of ages, background, beliefs...etc, just please keep that in mind.

As far as this thread, if I may Draugohtar, get the points you have been trying to bring up. I for one get annoyed at commentators who insist in a hardline Christian/Catholic reading of what Tolkien "must have said/meant." However, I also get annoyed at the opposite in commentators who insist in a firm denial of no religious worldview exists in Tolkien's writing. Or put more simply by G55's post, if someone wants to read a Christian book, read the Bible. If you want to read a Tolkien book, read Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit...etc. If it contains Christian elements you'll have to deal with that in whatever way fits you, but can you really deny it exists? If it doesn't contain Christian beliefs, you'll have to deal with that too.

Now, from what I understand of Catholic belief is there is Truth, which is sort of a universtal truth, it can be known and found, acknowledged as Truth exists. Universal truths go beyond Catholicism, in the sense it exists in all manners of religion and faith...such as loyalty, courage, humility, perserverence...and many more. These are all virtues, for the fact these get universally accepted as Truth. These need to be separated from specific Catholic/Christian/Insert any religious beliefs that only apply to the specific religion. And in Christian teaching, what is good, then is good.

What I mean here is, there are virtues, these are good...truths that exists. However, simply because Evil can use these virtues, does not change the nature and fact of virtues being good. I find that this fits very well with at least The Lord of the Rings. If we look at what Tolkien says about Sauron:

He [Sauron] still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and co- ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction.~Home X: Morgoth's Ring, Myth's Transformed (Text VII)

Sauron maintained "relics of positive purposes," he used the virtues order and co-ordination to effect his purposes. This does not change the nature of these virtues, they are still good, or else they wouldn't be virtuous. However, this also means that simply because Sauron uses good virtues for his own purposes, does not change the fact of his "fall from grace," his fall into becoming the story's big bad evil. Or we see Tolkien's comments about Gollum's possible redemption in Mount Doom.

Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate "Goddes privitee," as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.~Letter 181

Again pointing out the virtues of courage and endurance, but Tolkien makes it very clear (at least in his personal opinion) Gollum's actions may have led to good in the destruction of the Ring, however his intentions were entirely selfish and with the purpose of malice and evil. Good coming out from Gollum's evil, does not make Gollum redeemed (again in Tolkien's opinion). What this means about Tolkien and Christianity, his writing...etc I don't know enough about specific Catholic, or religious teachings to comment on.

[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.

[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]

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.