Christianity and Tolkien

[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.

[Rhod the Red]

but can you really deny it exists?

He did himself in the forward to the second edition.

Declaring there is NO hidden message. Not even
'partially Catholic'. NO message at all. And
emphasies his annoyance with literary
incapacity to distinct allegory from
application & reader insistence to see
what the author doesn't intend.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Please refrain from personal comments on members with differing viewpoints. In the past, very few threads that address the question of religion as related to Tolkien's works have managed to escape closure, because the tone grew inflammatory.

This is a discussion forum, not a place for convincing others that you are right. Please allow each participant the courtesy that you would like to receive yourself. Because the internet is a written medium, words can sound harsher than you intend them to, so I ask you to write politely and address only the issues, not the persons. There is no need to repeat your views over and over again in the hope that all others will acknowledge them as superior. Post what you think, give reasons for that, and then step off your soapbox and read what others have to say. You just might learn something! At the very least, you will think about something new, and that is good for your brain.

[Bêthberry]

Thanks to Boro and our great moderator Estelyn for the reminders about civility and courtesy.

I'd like to add a few general comments about using a writer's letters as evidence in an argument. Some years ago, I wickedly decided to begin a campaign in favour of the reader (rather than the writer or the text) because of how Tolkien's letters were viewed as definitive writ by some of my friends here. They aren't. (Yes, Aiwendil, I come clean here about my philosophical perspective.)

A few points about letters: Letters are a personal and private communication between two or a few more people. When we read them, we are sneaking a look into something that was never intended to be read by others (even if some authors write with an eye to posterity). We are, essentially, spying or stalking on the writer and have to remember that we are not part of that interpersonal relationship, howevermuch it might seem we are kindred.

Letters are based on the relationship between the people involved; their context extends beyond the letter itself into the entire history of that relationship. They will of course include business aspects of the relationship if that is significant, but letters remain very different from public essays or academic reports and critical articles. Those forms of writings will address at length an issue or problem and will represent a writer's declared wish to make a public statement about the subject. But letters are a private communication which we are violating.

All human language varies depending upon its audience. The way teenagers speak with (or to!) parents differs from the way they speak with each other. The way adults speak with their bosses differs from the way they speak with co-workers. Linguistic research shows differences in the patterns of male and female speech. The language of the deaf community is utterly, utterly different from the language of the hearing community. Letters, although written language, still partake of this essence of spoken language. Anyone who has read the letters of Charlotte Bronte, for instance, has been struck by how she varies her voice according to her audience. And she isn't the only author who does so.

Furthermore, writers are not in fact infallible even about their own work. Their memories, like all human memories, are selective and can be mistaken about events. They may also be reticent about very personal details of their imaginative life. They may even change their mind, knowingly and unknowingly. And even more than people who do not have highly developed linguistic skills, writers manipulate language for effect as well as for fact.

Tolkien's letters are selected letters, not collected letters. We don't know the content, style, and form of letters that were not included in the book we now have and we don't know what the principles for selection were, for every letter that was included. And we don't know what was excluded.

What this all means is that any statement Tolkien makes in a letter needs to be examined in terms of the letter's audience and purpose in writing. Such a statement needs to be compared to other statements on the same topic, if any can be found. The context needs to be considered before the statement can be used as an all-encompassing piece of evidence for said fact.

Most often (not just here, but in many discussions) two of Tolkien's comments are particularly used without this kind of careful contextualisation: his comment about creating a mythology and his comment about an essential Catholic frame of mind. Tolkien himself later in life came to recognise that his early enthusiasm for creating a national mythology was a youthful enterprise that went on to take a different form. His comment about the Catholic nature of his universe was written to a Catholic friend (a priest, if I remember correctly--I don't have the letters at hand). I cannot recall if that particular expression and claim is made anywhere else in Tolkien's letters; I don't think it is. Was he simply trying to reassure someone who had qualms about creating a fantasy world or was he deliberately laying out a precise blueprint for his secondary world? I've spoken about this letter with a Downer who is deeply and profoundly a sincere Catholic and he doesn't think this particular letter can be taken as evidence of the fundamental Catholic nature of Middle-earth, because the evidence does not exist solidly elsewhere to substantiate the claim as a major tenet of the work. On the other hand, Tolkien's comments about the philological nature of his writing is something that can be extensively substantiated and is probably for that reason closer to his guiding ethos.

Letters can be helpful but they aren't jurisprudence; they can't provide legalistic evidence, however much we would like to use them that way. They need interpretation as much, if not more so, than a fictional text. If we grab on to a comment or claim because it feeds our wish for interpreting the text a certain way, then we are following a readerly form of interpretation for a text, creating our own personal version of the text.

There is a great deal in Tolkien's work that is not explicitly Christian. He draws from many sources and to focus on one to the exclusion of others is to deny his own unique creative crucible. Or, in his words, his leaf mold.