Christianity and Tolkien

[tumhalad2]

Christianity and Tolkien

For what it’s worth, I’m an atheist, and an anti-theist. By this I mean that I not only disbelieve in any god, I also find many forms of theism morally objectionable. From the outset I want to say that this is not a post about religion per se, its merits or demerits. It is about the curious fact that as an atheist, and as an anti-theist, I still enjoy Tolkien’s books. On one level this isn’t really surprising at all: Tolkien’s books obviously appeal to a wide range of individuals of all types: his creations are diverse enough to accommodate many different world views.

Nevertheless, Tolkien was himself a Christian and his Catholicism was evidently a very central part of his self-identity. Along with the myriad other influences in his persona and especially professional life, Tolkien’s religion contributed to the form that his creation eventually took. There is one god, a set of demigods and a whole ambiguous theology that relates the destinies, fates and choices of these immortals to the more folkloric Elves and the hobbits.

There have been myriad books about Tolkien written from an explicitly Christian perspective. The most recent “The Christian World of the Hobbit”, by Devin Brown, continues this tradition. Of course most of the most well known and highly regarded critical work on Tolkien has taken place from a neutral perspective – Rosebury and Shippey come to mind. Nevertheless, there is a definite trend for academic and other works on Tolkien to approach his work from a perspective that already considers Christianity in some form to be true.

My questions are these: Do you think it is reasonable to approach an author, from an academic point of view, with a religious world view already in mind? Secondly, how do you think your faith or lack of it informs your reading of Tolkien? For example, are you more disposed to feel that Eucatastrophe should define Tolkien’s stories, and are wont to explain away its absence, as in The Children of Hurin?

The second part of my question concerns Christianity itself in Tolkien. How do you think that one can judge the effect of a certain worldview on a literary work? What counts as “Christian” and “not-Christian” in Tolkien? Do you think some Christians overemphasise the “Christian” themes in Tolkien’s work? To answer this question let’s take a look at what kinds of beliefs constitute Christianity:

Christians will probably believe one, some or all of these following propositions. Note, of course, that not all Christians will believe all of these propositions, so if you’re a Christian and you feel misrepresented, I’m telling you now that this list is neither exhaustive nor does it describe every individual who calls themselves a Christian.

1. There exists an eternal, all-powerfull, all-knowing creator God, who, though of one essence, exists in three distinct, but not separate, persons.

2. There exists a devil, Satan, and numerous other demonic beings as well as angels, archangels, etc.

3. The earth is not billions of years in age, but created by God six to ten thousand years ago.

4. There was an actual Adam and Eve in a literal Garden of Eden who sinned and brought upon the world the horrible suffering it contains

5. God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting all the evil that ever has or ever will occur.

6. A first – century Galilean Jew, Jesus, was born of a virgin as an incarnate God in the flesh and performed numerous miracles during his life.

7. This Jesus was crucified according to specific prophecies in the Old Testament as a divine sacrifice to atone for the past, present and future sins of the world.

8. Jesus was resurrected

9. There is life after death, and only people who have ace[ted a legitimate form of Christian belief will go to eternal bliss in heaven, while all others, with a few rare exceptions, will suffer an eternity of torment in hell.

For each of these points, it seems to me questionable that Tolkien depicted a universe in which they are true with any fidelity in his books. For example, it is indeed unclear that Eru is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing. There is certainly a significant demonic figure, Morgoth, but he is unlike Satan in many ways - he is incarnated and actually acts out deeds in person in the world. Moreover, any sufficiently powerful and malevolent being in Tolkien’s universe (e.g. Sauron, or Galadrial had she given in to temptation) would appear to mortals as a kind of Satanic figure. The precise age of the world in Tolkien is not really known, and certainly seems to be more than six to ten thousand years.

Of course there are vague similarities; Morgoth does resemble Satan in some respects, and Eru does indeed conjure a sense of the biblical God. Nevertheless I contend that it is in the moral dimension where Tolkien, consciously or not, most drastically departs from Christian doctrine. Unlike the Christian God, Eru is not in fact a lawgiver, nor does he make covenants with particular peoples, or punish others when they fail. Certainly, there is the example of Numénor, which is the most biblical of Tolkien’s stories, but in general Tolkien’s characters never decide upon their moral actions with reference to notions of “judgement” or “righteousness”. That which is good is good for its own sake (a very humanistic point that is often overlooked in Tolkien, I think).

Nor, in Tolkien, is there any notion of “Sin”. As I understand it, sin describes not merely wrongdoing, but wrongdoing that is in some sense an affront to God’s character, and which requires atonement. The ultimate atonement, the death of Jesus, is said, therefore, to be necessary because all humanity sins and only sacrifice is righteous enough in God’s eyes to expunge it. In Middle-earth, ethical choices carry great weight and consequence, but they are not made in the face of divine commandments or threats of retribution. Likewise, a Jesus figure would seem out of place in Middle-earth (and indeed we see no equivalent) as the whole notion of “sin” is never broached. Evil, both natural and human, in Tolkien does not come about as a result of some direct analogue to the Fall – whereby humans were once morally perfect before they descended into darkness – but from the beginning the capacity for evil in the world was incarnate within it. Likewise, notions like shame and guilt are out of place in Middle-earth: certainly individuals are morally judged by their peers, but they are never taught to be shameful of their humanity, due to some kind of inherent sinful nature.
In short, it seems to me that a case can be made that the Christian part of Tolkien’s work has been radically overstated, if you actually take his work and compare it to commonly held Christian doctrines. In the moral dimension especially Tolkien seems to drift away from Christian concepts of righteousness and wrongdoing, which revolve around the notion of sin, a concept that never makes itself apparent in Tolkien’s writing.

One might say, but of course Tolkien’s work is not explicitly Christian. In what way, then, is it Christian at all? If it lacks the Christian outlook on moral truth (that moral goodness is that which is pleasing to and sanctioned by God, and badness is “sin”) then how is Christianity manifested? Perhaps through the vague notion of a benevolent God? This is indeed more Christian, than, say, Buddhist, but it could equally be pantheistic or even polytheistic. For example, when Gandalf says to Frodo that he was “meant” to find the ring, nothing in the text leads the reader it is a somewhat Christianlike god pulling all the strings behind the scenes – the suggestion is suitably vague.

Thoughts?

[jallanite]

Your list of Christian beliefs appears to represent what may be called Fundamentalist Christian beliefs or Biblical Literalist Christian beliefs. Most people who identify themselves as Christians don’t accept some of them or at least are uncertain of some of them.

Tolkien was a self-identified Roman Catholic Christian and not a Biblical Literalist or Fundamentalist Christian. Like many Christians he was also a freethinker in many areas, rationalizing his own idiosyncratic beliefs as being in accord with his church or simply disagreeing with his church.

See http://www.simpletoremember.com/vita...redibility.htm for one example of where J. R. R. Tolkien very much disagreed with Roman Catholic practice. Did Tolkien think he was right and that the Pope and almost the entire Roman Catholic priesthood was wrong and most of the laity was wrong? Did he think God was against them? I can only guess what Tolkien might have thought.

What does the Roman Catholic Church believe? You will find many quibbles by teachers within that church about what they believe and many differences in opinions. In my own country of Canada the province of Quebec is over 83% Roman Catholic. Over 60% of the population of Quebec has voted in polls that they accept same-sex marriage (which became legal in Quebec in 2004). Do the math yourself. The Roman Catholic hierarchy still officially and vehemently oppose same-sex marriage but over a majority of their parishioners disagree. So what does the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec believe? It depends on whether you define the Roman Catholic Church as only the official Roman Catholic Church hierarchy or also include the Roman Catholic Church laity.

See here for another eye-opener. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vita...redibility.htm . Judaism Online sent some queries about statements in the Christian Gospels to Pope John Paul II in 1995 and these queries were eventually passed on for response by the theologian Raymond E. Brown.

Raymond E. Brown indicated that the Gospels were not complete enough or sufficiently accurate in what they said to necessarily support a physical resurrection of Jesus or a virginal conception of Mary. For Raymond E. Brown′s prestige as a Roman Catholic theologian, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown .

Your supposed list of what Christians believe is nonsense when applied to all churches and even to all members of most churches.

Tolkien himself, like most Roman Catholics who considered it, accepted more-or-less the findings of modern geology over dead reckoning from Biblical genealogies for considering the age of the Earth. He wasn’t a crank. In Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, letter 211, he admits that his Three Ages of Middle-earth are entirely imaginary and writes:

I could have fitted things in with greater versimilitude, if the story had not become too far developed, before the question ever occurred to me. I doubt if there would have been much gain; and I hope the, evidently long but undefined, gap¹ in time between the Fall of Barad-dûr and our Days is sufficient for ‘literary credibility’, even for readers acquainted with what is known or surmised of ‘pre-history’.

I have, I suppose, constructed an imaginary time, but kept my feet on my own mother-earth for place. I prefer that to the contemporary mode of seeking remote globes in ‘space’.

———————————————

¹ I imagine the gap to be about 6000 years: that is we are now at the end of the Fifth Age, if the Ages were of about the same length as S.A. and T.A. But they have, I think, quickened; and I imagine we are actually at the end of the Sixth Age, or in the Seventh.

That is, the fall of Barad-dûr occurs approximately in 4,000 BCE, about the latest date which Biblical Literalists ascribe to creation, and in Tolkien’s legendarium the first year of the Sun occurs 7,063 years before that.

The Biblical creation takes seven days. Tolkien’s creation occurs as a model in a single musical session and then in reality in ages of time in which plants, and many living creatures are created, then ages later Elves first awaken, then Dwarves, and then Moon and Sun later still and Man awakens with the Sun, not even the order the same as the Biblical order.

In Morgth’s Ring (HoME 10) there are a group of late Tolkien essays under the group title of “Myths Transformed″ in which Tolkien attempts to reconcile his Silmarillion account, not with the Bible, but with science. Tolkien starts on it but finds it too destructive of the story to continue. Tolkien had been in a more playful mood when he invented the details of his cosmos. Tolkien then decides that his Silmarillion must be based on distorted Mannish histories in which Elvish truths are mixed with corruptions of Men.

In reality the Sun and Moon were not the fruit and flower of two trees and the Sun was at least coeval with the Earth.

There is no Sabbath day as the last day of creation upon which God rested. Tolkien has, somewhat carelessly provided modern English weekdays in The Hobbit and so is stuck with a seven-day week. He explains in Appendix D in The Return of the King that this as an expansion of an older six-days Elvish week, and explains that the English weekday names are simply substitutions in his English rendering for the Hobbit names. But the day of celebration in the week is Friday as in Muslim practice, instead of Saturday as in Jewish practice, and instead of Sunday as in Christian practice. Some days in the year have no special weekday which throws off any firm synchronism with our modern calendar.

Morgoth’s Ring also contains a somewhat vague story of the Fall in which there appear to be many people, not just Adam and Eve and death is shown to be misrepresented by Morgoth, not a punishment for the eating of a fruit.

Tolkien imagines his story as occurring in pre-Christian and probably pre-Abrahamic times. In a note to letter 153 Tolkien writes:

There are thus no temples or ‘churches’ or fanes in this ‘world’ among ‘good’ peoples. They had little or no ‘religion’ in the sense of worship. For help they may call on a Vala (as Elbereth), as a Catholic might on a Saint, though no doubt knowing in theory as well as he that the power of the Vala was limited and derivative. But this is a ‘primitive age’: and these folk may be said to view the Valar as children view their parents or immediate adult superiors, and though they know they are subjects of the King he does not live in their country nor have there any dwelling. I do not think Hobbits practised any form of worship or prayer (unless through exceptional contact with Elves). The Númenóreans (and others of that branch of Humanity, that fought against Morgoth, even if they elected to remain in Middle-earth and did not go to Númenor: such as the Rohirrim) were pure monotheists. But there was no temple in Númenor (until Sauron introduced the cult of Morgoth). The top of the Mountain, the Meneltarma or Pillar of Heaven, was dedicated to Eru, the One, and there at any time privately, and at certain times publicly, God was invoked, praised, and adored: an imitation of the Valar and the Mountain of Aman. But Númenor fell and was destroyed and the Mountain engulfed, and there was no substitute. Among the exiles, remnants of the Faithful who had not adopted the false religion nor taken pan in the rebellion, religion as divine worship (though perhaps not as philosophy and metaphysics) seems to have played a small part; though a glimpse of it is caught in Faramir’s remark on ‘grace at meat’. Vol. II p. 285.

From letter 165:

The only criticism that annoyed me was one that it ‘contained no religion’ (and ‘no Women’, but that does not matter, and is not true anyway). It is a monotheistic world of ‘natural theology′. The odd fact that there are no churches, temples, or religious rites and ceremonies, is simply part of the historical climate depicted. It will be sufficiently explained, if (as now seems likely) the Silmarillion and other legends of the First and Second Ages are published. I am in any case myself a Christian; but the ‘Third Age’ was not a Christian world.

There are other explanations which tend to repeat themselves.

If you really wish to understand Tolkien’s Christianity, then you should read all his writing carefully and note that, as people are usually polite about such things and not nosy and since Tolkien gave few interviews, there is not much information about his internal spiritual life.

You particularly should not assume the every Roman Catholic is a Biblical Literalist or Christian Fundamentalist. That shows enormous ignorance of religion as practised today.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Your list of Christian beliefs appears to represent what may be called Fundamentalist Christian beliefs or Biblical Literalist Christian beliefs. Most people who identify themselves as Christians don’t accept some of them or at least are uncertain of some of them.

As I said...

Originally Posted by jallanite

Tolkien was a self-identified Roman Catholic Christian and not a Biblical Literalist or Fundamentalist Christian. Like many Christians he was also a freethinker in many areas, rationalizing his own idiosyncratic beliefs as being in accord with his church or simply disagreeing with his church.

I agree, Tolkien certainly was an open thinker about many things, I never meant to stipulate otherwise.


Moreover, I don't disagree that many Christians believe many different things and always have. I was merely setting a baseline: these are some common Christian doctrines that have been widely believed throughout history. It is only in recent times that moderate Christians have even been able to reinterprete many biblical stories and dogmas less literally.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Your supposed list of what Christians believe is nonsense when applied to all churches and even to all members of most churches.

That's rediculous. Do most Christians not believe in an all-powerful, all loving god? Do most Catholics NOT believe in the virginal conception of Jesus? I'm not talking about reified theologians, I'm talking about the general beliefs of most people who call themselves Christians. Indeed, I don't disagree that Tolkien probably accepted modern geology and science, indeed he was a scientist, but most many Christians do indeed believe in a literalist take on the bible.

In any case this was not meant to be about religion and as I said the kinds of precepts I outlines are not going to describe all Christians.

Originally Posted by jallanite

If you really wish to understand Tolkien’s Christianity, then you should read all his writing carefully and note that, as people are usually polite about such things and not nosy and since Tolkien gave few interviews, there is not much information about his internal spiritual life.

You particularly should not assume the every Roman Catholic is a Biblical Literalist or Christian Fundamentalist. That shows enormous ignorance of religion as practised today.

I'm glad you're here to order me about. Did I ever say every Roman Catholic is a Biblical Literalist? No, strawman fallacy. Before you accuse me of ignorance, read my post carefully. In any case, and I'll reiterate, that list was meant as a baseline. Throughout history, Christians have believed some or all of these things. Tolkien probably didn't believe all of them, of course not, and that was not the point. But writers often talk about "Christianity" in Tolkien's work, so I was keen to make a list of some of the dogmas Christians have believed throughout history and interrogate Tolkien's work in light of them.

Moreover, as I mentioned, I was particularly interested in the moral vision of Christianity. Do Catholics, in general, not believe in the necessity of the atonement for sin? Do Catholics, in general, not believe that original sin is a real force in the world? Perhaps not nowadays in the era of psychology and other social sciences, but it's much more likely that Tolkien wouldh've believed in some variant of it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

It is only in recent times that moderate Christians have even been able to reinterprete many biblical stories and dogmas less literally.

This is not historically true. The steadfast, sole belief in biblical literalism is in fact a recent development.

Originally Posted by Karen Armstrong, The Bible: A Biography

Readers have encountered what seems like a presence in these writings, which thus introduce them to a transcendent dimension. They have based their lives on scripture--practically, spiritually and morally. When their sacred texts tell stories, people have generally believed them to be true, but until recently literal or historical accuracy has never been the point. The truth of scripture cannot be assessed unless it is--ritually or ethically--put into practice. p.2

Her book examines the many traditions of biblical interpretation, particularly those which have argued for a symbolic or allegorical or spiritual reading as the highest form of understanding. For the sake of brevity, here is one example, from Origen.

Originally Posted by Armstrong, from Origen "On First Principles"

Divine wisdom has arranged for certain stumbling blocks and interruptions of the historical sense . . . by inserting in the midst a number of impossibilities and incongruities, in order that the narrative might, as it were, present a barrier to the reader and lead him to refuse to proceed along the pathway of the ordinary meaning. . . . p.112

Or, further:

Originally Posted by Armstrong quoting Origen

By means of the "impossibility of the literal sense", God led us "to an examination of the inner meaning." (quotations from Origen) p. 113

Or her discussion of Philo's use of the allegorical method.

Originally Posted by Armstrong, p. 50

In applying this method to the biblical narratives, Philo did not think he was distorting the original. He took the literal meaning of these stories very seriously, but like Daniel he was looking for something fresh. There was more to a story than its literal meaning. As a Platonist, Philo believed that the timeless dimension of reality was more 'real' than the physical or historical dimension. . . . The process of allegoria 'translated' the deeper meaning of these stories into the inner life of the reader.
Allegoria was a term used by rhetoricians to describe a discourse that meant something different from its surface meaning. Philo preferred to call his method hyponoia, 'higher/deeper thought' because he was trying to reach a more fundamental level of truth.

Armstrong is not the only scholar who has examined the multitudinous ways the Bible has been understood over the centuries, but she's the quickest and easiest one for me to reference here.

And, finally:

Originally Posted by Armstrong, p. 3

It is, for example, crucial to note that an exclusively literal interpretation of the Bible is a recent development. Until the nineteenth century, very few people imagined that the first chapter of Genesis was a factual account of the origins of life. For centuries, Jews and Christians relished highly allegorical and inventive exegesis, insisting that a wholly literal reading of the Bible was neither possible nor desirable.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Okay, let's start anew. Also, taking any religious beliefs or similar things into discussion is always like handling a barrel of gunpowder, because it can easily happen somebody with personal interest (either for or against) will take it personally or say something that will start an avalanche. But yes, from purely academic point of view... why not work with it.

Your list, tumhalad, with the note that it is selective, and also with the note what Bethberry had said, let's say we can work with it; after all, it's your thread and the question you pose. Although for the sake of discussion, even with regard to the questions you pose, I would put a bit different emphasis on some things.

For example, the sin of Adam and Eve - or so-called "original sin", a pretty important doctrine especially from the mainstream Catholic perspective. I would put a bit more emphasis on the fact of the sin itself, for the sake of your discussion, and also in regards to what we can tell from Tolkien's writings: the belief in single Adam and Eve is not really that important, but simply that there is a certain sinfulness present in human nature, or brought upon every human by the tangle of evil that exists already when an innocent child comes into the world, and humans cannot avoid it - that definitely is there in Tolkien's works. (And also, many Christians, even in the past, understood it not literally, but the way I have just outlined, as a metaphore.)

You very much omit one important thing, which is necessary part and in any case at least equally important to some things: "good deeds". Since you are asking about moral emphasis of Christianity, you cannot omit this. Because especially in Middle Ages, the appeal on morality has been very strong. The Reformation put more emphasis on the certainity of salvation despite one's sinfulness, but it never disappeared (and again some branches of Reformation put again even more emphasis on "personal holiness"). In any case, the moral appeal - the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, most of all Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in general, they are pretty essential and every Christian knows about them.

About the "similarity". You could speak of so-called "outward similarities", like that the world is couple of thousands of years old, that there is some supranatural battle between angels and some fall of angels (Valar x Morgoth and co.), the fact that praise to Elbereth resembles Catholic prayers to Virgin Mary, the fact that some people like Gandalf are resurrected, the fact that the Istari come in flesh just like Jesus did, and so on. Then there are the "inner similarities", like in the mode, or in e.g. what values are emphasised. Love, forgiveness, humility, gratitude. And so on. I think exactly those values are important and they are the main thing that connects LotR and Christianity. These values are essential to the Christian teaching, the attribute of God to be loving and forgiving is one of the most important ones, despite the abovementioned human sinfulness. Thinking of course especially about the famous words of Gandalf's about Bilbo not deciding to kill Gollum, but there are many other examples.

And what can be more humble than to have Hobbits as those who save Middle-Earth, instead of the shiny armies of powerful heroes? The refusal of power in the story of Jesus and his temptation by the Devil in the desert has the same basic ideas as e.g. Bilbo's refusal of the Ring. Gandalf's favourite "fool's hope" is the same thing - many draw the example of Frodo and Jesus, who is no big hero with shiny sword, but comes humbly in human's body, is born in a manger, and does not fight his enemies in power, but goes to the bitter end, knowing he must carry his cross (or his Ring, as far as the metaphore can go)... or (in my opinion with more trouble, but still) Jesus and Aragorn, because both are "Kings" in the same way, yet start with pretty humble beginnings, and only some people see them for what they truly are. Speaking of this, here's another core Christian belief you forgot to mention - the belief that Jesus will return, not anymore as the defeated one, but victorious, at the end of the days, when the evil shall be finally destroyed. *That* is, of course, the Return of the King, and also the view of Middle Earth, to the End of Days. Lots of it depends on the unpublished stuff, there are hints scattered throughout LotR and Silmarillion, but not much.

What you said about there not being "sin against Eru" present in Middle-Earth - well, there of course IS. It is not so common, of course, but it appears. Just think about the Númenoreans making bloody sacrifices to Melkor and then the divine punishment coming only after Manwë and all called to Eru, who changed the shape of the world. Indeed, the sins of the Númenoreans were so terrible at that point that they "cried unto the heavens", to use that terminology.

Moreover, even in Christianity, there are two levels of sin, always, not just the one towards God, which you seem to emphasise. There is also sin towards fellow humans, and that of course can be seen in Tolkien a lot. They are interlinked, as is shown especially in the Old Testament understanding of holiness. The "twin commandment of love", which is called the essential summary of all the "law", goes this way: Love thy god with all thy strength, and love thy neighbour as thyself. One cannot exist without the other. Sin to human is also a sin towards God (or in Jesus' words: "whatever you have done to one of your bretheren, you have done to me").

Also, Tolkien seemed to work with the "looking towards redemption" in his unpublished works. To add, if you have access to it, you could read the tale of Finrod and Andreth. If there is anything that could bring some light to the topic of what is the role of Men in Middle-Earth and their relationship to divinity, it is this.

[Draugohtar]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Christianity and Tolkien

My questions are these: Do you think it is reasonable to approach an author, from an academic point of view, with a religious world view already in mind? Secondly, how do you think your faith or lack of it informs your reading of Tolkien? For example, are you more disposed to feel that Eucatastrophe should define Tolkien’s stories, and are wont to explain away its absence, as in The Children of Hurin?

Yes, it's reasonable, everyone brings their particular world view to bear in any work of interpreation. Not more or less disposed, the Eucatastrophe is a feature of an overarching plot/theme. As per Eru speaking about taking any evil and turning it his own end ultimately, creating good and beauty the originator did not think of.

The second part of my question concerns Christianity itself in Tolkien.
Christians will probably believe one, some or all of these following propositions...


For each of these points, it seems to me questionable that Tolkien depicted a universe in which they are true with any fidelity in his books.

Well of course Tolkien didn't set out to make an allegory or alternative history of Christianity.

For example, it is indeed unclear that Eru is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing.

The Ainulindalë is very clear that Eru is indeed all of these things.

There is certainly a significant demonic figure, Morgoth, but he is unlike Satan in many ways . ..

Of course, he's not an allegory. He represents the same motif though: the most powerful of the Valar (angels) who turns to evil through pride.

Of course there are vague similarities;... Unlike the Christian God, Eru is not in fact a lawgiver, nor does he make covenants with particular peoples, or punish others when they fail. ... That which is good is good for its own sake (a very humanistic point that is often overlooked in Tolkien, I think).

The highest ideal of Christianity is to be good for the sake of love of God, not fear of punishment. Further with regards to divine retribution, the Valar as proxies do make proclamations first against the Eldar of Feanor, and later against the men of Ar-Pharazon. Banishing any of the eldar from Aman is alike to eternal damnation in the context of their existences.

Nor, in Tolkien, is there any notion of “Sin” ...Likewise, a Jesus figure would seem out of place in Middle-earth (and indeed we see no equivalent)

You have multiple Christ-motifs: Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn at various times are strongly Christ-like: Frodo, the suffering servant; Gandalf who returns from Death reborn and in new raiment; Aragorn who is the returning King who brings peace and healing.

There is indeed a concept of 'sin,' people's choices and deeds is hugely influential in how their natures develop and their ultimate fates. Gollum is a fallen soul who struggles to find redemption and fails for example. Aragorn is redeeming the fallen line of the kings and making it new and worthy. Earendil restores the covenant between the Children of Illuvatar and the Valar etc. Where you have redemption, you have sin.

Likewise, notions like shame and guilt are out of place in Middle-earth: certainly individuals are morally judged by their peers, but they are never taught to be shameful of their humanity, due to some kind of inherent sinful nature.

And yet the Elves are inherently suspicious of the worth of Men from their actions in ancient days. Further there's an incredibly regular motif of both Eldar and Men, and Dwarves, getting things horribly wrong and needing some sort of divine intervention to get back on the right track.

One might say, but of course Tolkien’s work is not explicitly Christian. In what way, then, is it Christian at all? If it lacks the Christian outlook on moral truth (that moral goodness is that which is pleasing to and sanctioned by God, and badness is “sin”) then how is Christianity manifested? Perhaps through the vague notion of a benevolent God? This is indeed more Christian, than, say, Buddhist, but it could equally be pantheistic or even polytheistic. For example, when Gandalf says to Frodo that he was “meant” to find the ring, nothing in the text leads the reader it is a somewhat Christianlike god pulling all the strings behind the scenes – the suggestion is suitably vague.

Thoughts?

I disagree, I think that Tolkien's work is inherently Christian. You have Christ motifs and figures wandering all over the place, you have falls from Grace, and redemption. You have the value of suffering, and the hand of providence. You have one God who ultimately ensures all things end in good. You also have men who's fate is not known (but we know they go to an afterlife of some sort), and death as a 'gift' to men, not a punishment.

Yes, Tolkien's work is not one big Christian allegory, but if you take the Chrisitanity out of it, you'd have something very very different.

[littlemanpoet]

After doing a quick search on the two words that most caught my attention, "worldview" and "evil", it appears that my thoughts have not yet been represented.

First for the necessary background: I am an orthodox Christian. Enough said about that.

As to worldview, I think that not bringing a world view to a piece of literature is impossible. Everyone has a worldview. What that worldview consists of is going to determine the filters through which one reads a piece of literature. If, for example, one believes that only that which can be observed by the five senses are true, one will find it necessary to suspend one's disbelief when confronted with phenomena that don't fit that description.

As to evil, the curious thing about Tolkien (and C.S. Lewis as well) is that their view of evil is at odds with the modern view (think Star Trek). This has much to do with their worldview. Their view of evil is also at odds with that presented in the Star Wars mythos. In Star Trek (i.e. the modern), evil is seen as largely brought about by misunderstandings between people or cultures, and be overcome by enlightened discussion and a meeting of minds. In Star Wars, evil is seen as an equal and opposite to good, and the possibility that good can be ultimately defeated, is real. In Tolkien, the view of evil is that it is real, and it is a twistedness (think 'wraith') and a negative, "less than" good. That good will ultimate prevail is a given. This does not take away from the reality of evil, nor its power to ruin and hurt. Nor does it take away from its ability to corrupt that which is or once was good. But this view of evil is fundamentally Christian.

It is true that T.A. Shippey argues that Tolkien keeps the appearance of a Manichaean evil (i.e. Star Wars) before the reader, but if one does a keen reading of LotR, one finds that the prevailing view is that evil will not in the end prevail, indeed cannot. This is a Christian view of evil.

Even though it is a Christian view, that does not mean that it will not appeal to a non-Christian or atheist, because humans have an inherent need for good to prevail. It's just the way we're wired.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I was merely setting a baseline: these are some common Christian doctrines that have been widely believed throughout history. It is only in recent times that moderate Christians have even been able to reinterprete many biblical stories and dogmas less literally.

True also for Islam, Hinduism and other faiths. The turning point may have been Galileo, when a major change in wordview came from scientific investigation. In the 19th century the age of the Earth became a major focus of study. Then Darwin came along.

Yes, there are today those who still believe the medieval Christian worldview. There are even those who believe the world is actually flat rather than spherical. There are Hindus who literally believe the Mahabharata.

But to choose the medieval Christian worldview as a baseline doesn’t fit in a discussion supposedly about Tolkien’s religion. Tolkien didn’t believe in the medieval worldview in reality, any more than he believed in Elves in reality. If you want to talk about Tolkien’s religious beliefs, a supposed baseline that does not represent many of those beliefs is far less useful compared to one which represents those beliefs. But that would mostly be guesswork outside of areas where Tolkien has expressed a particular belief.

One finds oddities, such as Tolkien’s casual treatment of the Sabbath day, which historically apparently derives from a continuous seven-day planetary cycle apparently known both to Hebrews and Phoenicians. Tolkien casually breaks up the cycle and ignores the Biblical connection with creation. Your baseline misses much that should be there, either because Tolkien agrees with the traditions of traditional Christianity or presents a drastic modification of them which should equally be mentioned.

That's rediculous. Do most Christians not believe in an all-powerful, all loving god? Do most Catholics NOT believe in the virginal conception of Jesus?

Possibly.

But most Christian probably don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve or a creation in approximately 4,000 BCE. If you feel otherwise, I can′t change your feelings, but without firm figures you are not convincing. I can’t find any figures that seem convincing either. I formerly belonged to the United Church of Canada, by far Canada’s largest Protestant Church, which strongly did not and does not believe that everything in the Christian Bible is literally true and very strongly supports same-sex marriage. That may influence my opinions of your attempts to use a baseline that seems to me to be a parody created by ignorance.

But if you want to gratuitously insult your reader, go ahead.

There was formerly a large site on religious toleration which contained all sorts of religious statistics and studies but it seems to be gone.

Yes most Roman Catholics do believe in the virginal conception of Jesus. But Raymond E. Brown, who was arguably the most prestigious Roman Catholic theologian considered it very unlikely. I suspect Tolkien believed, but I don’t know because, so far as I know, he never explicitly said. Either did his friend C. S. Lewis. But Lewis tried to avoid talking about issues that divide Christians.

I'm not talking about reified theologians, I'm talking about the general beliefs of most people who call themselves Christians. Indeed, I don't disagree that Tolkien probably accepted modern geology and science, indeed he was a scientist, but most many Christians do indeed believe in a literalist take on the bible.

That is where you are confusing things, saying that because some or even many Christians have beliefs that your find superstitious and silly and because J. R. R. Tolkien was a Roman Catholic Christian, that you can assume that all the beliefs in your baseline apply to J. R. R. Tolkien. Then you admit that some of them don’t. And there are many other points that don’t fit, like my statistics showing that a majority of Quebec Roman Catholics support same-sex marriage despite the official position of their church. And Tolkien was definitely not a scientist in the normal meaning of the term, other than arguably in the field of linguistics. His friend C. S. Lewis was even less arguably that.

Tolkien apparently did not even believe in the Old Testament Bible sufficiently to even care that his legendarium didn’t fit into Biblical chronology. Tolkien very much did not try to fit his legendarium into Bible history and even put in some clear conflicts. Tolkien did base some of the moral underpinnings of his The Lord of the Rings on traditional Christian moral teaching.

I'm glad you're here to order me about. Did I ever say every Roman Catholic is a Biblical Literalist? No, strawman fallacy. Before you accuse me of ignorance, read my post carefully. In any case, and I'll reiterate, that list was meant as a baseline.

That was a Biblical Literalist baseline, representative of medieval Christianity, not of Tolkien’s faith. Order me to accept it all you want if you are talking about ordering. It still doesn’t fit with much of what Tolkien believed so far as I can tell. It looks like something devised to show how stupid Tolkien’s belief was. Your response seems to me to come down to: “If he didn’t believe it, well other Christians did, so its inaccuracy in respect to Tolkien doesn’t matter.” Accuracy does matter in scholarship, or at least it should.

Throughout history, Christians have believed some or all of these things. Tolkien probably didn't believe all of them, of course not, and that was not the point.

It is very much to the point if you really want to discuss Tolkien’s religion instead of to troll the poor benighted Christies who revere Tolkien by presenting a parody of Fundamentalist Christianity and apply that to Tolkien’s faith.

But writers often talk about "Christianity" in Tolkien's work, so I was keen to make a list of some of the dogmas Christians have believed throughout history and interrogate Tolkien's work in light of them.

Some of them fit, some of them partly fit, and some of them don’t. To take an extreme example I know of no Roman Catholic belief that requires even a belief in Elves. And the war between the Valar and Morgoth obviously represents the war between angels and Satan in Christian tradition, but then is Manwë to be equated with St. Michael, or is Tulkas?

Nor do I know of any Christian belief that the Earth was created flat and was changed into a round world on the fall of Atlantis. Tolkien was largely just having great fun and was fitting in some Christian moral tradition as part of that fun. It was a game, which Tolkien sometimes took very seriously, otherwise it wouldn’t be as much fun. And Tolkien was usually very much offended by literary works which were preaching any religion. Probably because it was too obviously easy to invent anything in a fiction and attribute it to God or to present as a fictional truth that the author’s religious opinion is real.

One finds books now written by Christians which amount to a plea that since the reader likes Tolkien’s fantasy, and Tolkien was a Christian, the reader should become a Christian. But Galadriel is really not much like the traditional Virgin Mary. She was a wife with a daughter named Celebrían and in Tolkien’s later writings a rebel against the Valar. And lembas being Christ in the guise of bread thousands of years before Christ existed doesn’t really make sense either. To begin with the writers forget it is not lawful in the Roman Catholic Church to allow any but Roman Catholics to eat the Holy Bread.

But no matter how often Tolkien would insist that he was not writing allegory, commentators will find it. Not only obviously Christian commentators either.

Perhaps not nowadays in the era of psychology and other social sciences, but it's much more likely that Tolkien would've believed in some variant of it.

Read “Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth” in Morgth’s Ring (HoME X) which is a story by Tolkien about original sin in Tolkien’s legendarium (without including the words “original sin”). This includes a parallel to the story of the Fall in which early people turn to Morgoth and reject Eru and Eru shortens their lives, although in this tale the early people have apparently always been mortal. You blame me for treating you as ignorant, yet you have apparently not even begun to read much that would answer many of your questions (and provide more questions).

[littlemanpoet]

I am probably the most conservative Christian posting on this thread. That said, I propose that we refuse to take offense if another post-er says something insulting. For one thing, the one posting may not be aware that his or her words are insulting, having a worldview quite at odds to our own.

This has been said in a way already, but I hope to say it with greater clarity if I may be so bold. Also, much of what I say has been said by Tolkien, better, in his Letters.

Tolkien held that it is legitimate for a Christian author to create a Secondary world that is at odds with the Primary world in (a) details & (b) what is presented as true, on condition that the Secondary world has an inner consistency of reality, i.e., the that which is true within the world, makes sense to the reader. Another condition which Tolkien may not have felt necessary but I think is, is that the morality of a Secondary world cannot offend humanity; that is to say, murder can't be good and helping one's neighbor can't be evil. And if it is so in a Secondary world, the author had better explain why in order to keep the reader reading.

Some of what we are talking about here goes deeper than some of us may realize. Tolkien and Lewis, for example, did actually prefer a medieval worldview to the modern, one that was quite at home to the Roman Catholic church. Jallanite refers to Galileo and Darwin. These two scientists could not have said and did what they did, if not for a virtual Continental Shift in philosophical point of view that occurred in the late middle ages, from a Platonic worldview to an Aristotelian. Lewis, especially, preferred the Platonic, and wrote about it in The Discarded Image. If you have read his space trilogy, you will get a sense for some of what he was trying to portray about the medieval worldview.

But what about Tolkien? He deplored modernism and technological advancement for its own sake. But is that particularly Christian? Well, sort of. It is from the medieval worldview. Honestly, it would take a book to properly address Tumhalad's thoughts, and some have been written. Suffice it to say that Tolkien's Christianity was most certainly an influence upon his work, at least in terms of worldview, evil, and morality. But there are other influences as well, such as (1) his view of language and how language changes, (2) his love for things Nordic and Finnish, & (3) his love for Oxfordshire before it was 'ruined' by the encroachments of technology, just to name three.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Christianity and Tolkien

For what it’s worth, I’m an atheist, and an anti-theist. By this I mean that I not only disbelieve in any god, I also find many forms of theism morally objectionable.

I just got around to reading this. I am willing to bet that somewhere in this diatribe you will mention The Children of Hurin, as that subject obsesses you, and no matter how many times your theories have been proven to be littered with fallacy and nearsightedness, you return to the subject in one form or another.

But for the moment, I shall pretend this is a well-meaning post. I am an atheist as well, and a lapsed Roman Catholic. I don't find theism morally objectionable. Why should I? What one believes is one's own choice. What I do object to is when religion or religious zealots attempt to impose their beliefs on others, but that would also be true of various secular political systems run by fanatics; god does not corner the market on impositions.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

From the outset I want to say that this is not a post about religion per se, its merits or demerits. It is about the curious fact that as an atheist, and as an anti-theist, I still enjoy Tolkien’s books. On one level this isn’t really surprising at all: Tolkien’s books obviously appeal to a wide range of individuals of all types: his creations are diverse enough to accommodate many different world views.

There is nothing curious about a wide range of readers appreciating Tolkien's work, because it is not analogous to Christianity, nor was Tolkien allegorical in the way C.S. Lewis was. I never really cared for what the Pevensies discovered in the wardrobe.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Nevertheless, Tolkien was himself a Christian and his Catholicism was evidently a very central part of his self-identity. Along with the myriad other influences in his persona and especially professional life, Tolkien’s religion contributed to the form that his creation eventually took. There is one god, a set of demigods and a whole ambiguous theology that relates the destinies, fates and choices of these immortals to the more folkloric Elves and the hobbits.

One could say the same for an impossibly wide gamut of authors. We are informed by our experience, which in turn shapes our beliefs. That being said, Tolkien's religion was a contributing factor to his creation, but not more so than linguistics or the synthesis of world mythos and folklore that combined to imbue Middle-earth with its unique structure.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

There have been myriad books about Tolkien written from an explicitly Christian perspective. The most recent “The Christian World of the Hobbit”, by Devin Brown, continues this tradition. Of course most of the most well known and highly regarded critical work on Tolkien has taken place from a neutral perspective – Rosebury and Shippey come to mind. Nevertheless, there is a definite trend for academic and other works on Tolkien to approach his work from a perspective that already considers Christianity in some form to be true.

Being a cynic, I would suggest that looking at Tolkien's work from different angles offers a greater chance of publication.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

My questions are these: Do you think it is reasonable to approach an author, from an academic point of view, with a religious world view already in mind? Secondly, how do you think your faith or lack of it informs your reading of Tolkien? For example, are you more disposed to feel that Eucatastrophe should define Tolkien’s stories, and are wont to explain away its absence, as in The Children of Hurin?

AHA! Tummy, you are so utterly predictable. One could set a clock to the uniformity of your specious suppositions. Yes, we are all aware that there is no eucatastrophic moment in The Children of Hurin. But there was no eucatastrophe for the Fëanorians either. Hundreds of characters in Tolkien's work missed out on their own private eucatastrophe. It is not unique to Turin and his family.

Now, some uncharitable folk would say that you are being a ...hmmm...what's the Internet designation for someone who makes inflammatory posts to provoke emotional responses? Ah well, it doesn't matter; I think that you are merely being obsessive. You touch on this subject, tinged with inveterate religion bashing in several posts, which can be readily reviewed by pulling up your posting history. In addition, the remaining balance of your threads contain negative criticisms of Tolkien from elsewhere: Mieville, Moorcock, Brinn, some imbecile named Dickerson (who wrote a thin volume entitled "How Tolkien Sucks"), a host of Internet blogging "dons", and, of all things, the addled worshipers of the Star Wars monomyth. Again, this continuing theme of referring to Tolkien's work in a pejorative manner can be easily discerned from your other posts.

That being said, given the corpus of your posting history it does make one question your objective, and your objectivity. You profess to love the works of Tolkien; however, you spend the greater part of your time attacking him (or acting as the fait accompli of other poison pens). I find that odd. Have you noticed this about yourself?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

1. There exists an eternal, all-powerfull, all-knowing creator God, who, though of one essence, exists in three distinct, but not separate, persons.

2. There exists a devil, Satan, and numerous other demonic beings as well as angels, archangels, etc.

3. The earth is not billions of years in age, but created by God six to ten thousand years ago.

4. There was an actual Adam and Eve in a literal Garden of Eden who sinned and brought upon the world the horrible suffering it contains

5. God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting all the evil that ever has or ever will occur.

6. A first – century Galilean Jew, Jesus, was born of a virgin as an incarnate God in the flesh and performed numerous miracles during his life.

7. This Jesus was crucified according to specific prophecies in the Old Testament as a divine sacrifice to atone for the past, present and future sins of the world.

8. Jesus was resurrected

9. There is life after death, and only people who have ace[ted a legitimate form of Christian belief will go to eternal bliss in heaven, while all others, with a few rare exceptions, will suffer an eternity of torment in hell.

This list seems to be compiled by someone who hasn't the faintest idea about Catholicism or Catholics. Whether Tolkien believed in three or four of these precepts matters about as much as what Tolstoy believed when he wrote War and Peace.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Nor, in Tolkien, is there any notion of “Sin”. As I understand it, sin describes not merely wrongdoing, but wrongdoing that is in some sense an affront to God’s character, and which requires atonement.

The Kinslaying and the Doom of Mandos, an integral part of The Silmarillion, would be an obvious choice. The destruction of Númenor in The Akallabeth would be another. Are we reading the same books?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Evil, both natural and human, in Tolkien does not come about as a result of some direct analogue to the Fall – whereby humans were once morally perfect before they descended into darkness – but from the beginning the capacity for evil in the world was incarnate within it.

I offered two specific instances that disprove your supposition.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

In short, it seems to me that a case can be made that the Christian part of Tolkien’s work has been radically overstated, if you actually take his work and compare it to commonly held Christian doctrines. In the moral dimension especially Tolkien seems to drift away from Christian concepts of righteousness and wrongdoing, which revolve around the notion of sin, a concept that never makes itself apparent in Tolkien’s writing.

One might say, but of course Tolkien’s work is not explicitly Christian. In what way, then, is it Christian at all? If it lacks the Christian outlook on moral truth (that moral goodness is that which is pleasing to and sanctioned by God, and badness is “sin”) then how is Christianity manifested? Perhaps through the vague notion of a benevolent God? This is indeed more Christian, than, say, Buddhist, but it could equally be pantheistic or even polytheistic.

Tolkien's works were not allegorical (the author states so on a number of occasions). But there is certainly a Christian ethos that moves through the books. Evil does not triumph. Wrongdoers are never rewarded for their wrongs. Faith is rewarded. In any case, Tolkien refers to the entire cycle as pre-Christian; therefore, Jesus as savior does not enter into the 1st through 3rd Ages, and Tolkien comments (in Letter 131) on the nature of Eru and the Valar not being directly parallel Christian deities, but rather a synthesis of ancient myth:

On the side of mere narrative device, this is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order, beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods' of higher mythology, which can be accepted - well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity.

The Silmarillion is quite different from Lord of the Rings in the subsumed nature of Christian intent. Tolkien mentions this on several occasions. Other posters have mentioned this on several occasions. Why are you beating a dead horse? Again, in the same Letter 131, Tolkien refers to The Silmarillion as having "Truths" that do not necessarily follow Christianity, but which represent ancient mythos:

In the cosmogony there is a fall: a fall of Angels we should say. Though quite different in form, of course, to that of Christian myth. These tales are 'new', they are not directly derived from other myths and legends, but they must inevitably contain a large measure of ancient wide-spread motives or elements. After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of 'truth', and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

For example, when Gandalf says to Frodo that he was “meant” to find the ring, nothing in the text leads the reader it is a somewhat Christianlike god pulling all the strings behind the scenes – the suggestion is suitably vague.

Did you want Gandalf to quote scripture in order to make the symbology more evident? The mere fact that Gandalf is there at all implies divine intervention, not to mention his subsequent resurrection. Again, I am not sure how you could miss such major plot points. But if Tolkien had been more strident it would have alienated many readers, including myself, and The Lord of the Rings would have been relegated to the status of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, and we most likely would not be having this discussion.

But as I mentioned previously, your posts seem to be inciteful rather than insightful, a recurrent theme that runs through your posting history.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

For one thing, the one posting may not be aware that his or her words are insulting, having a worldview quite at odds to our own.

Very true. And it is difficult to respond to a poster when the post appears to me to contain assumptions that don’t altogether fit with the subject of the post. The same is of course true of Tumuhald2 in reverse.

Also, much of what I say has been said by Tolkien, better, in his Letters.

Yes. Tumhalad2 nowhere indicates what Tolkien he has read. Has he read the Letters? Recently, in light of his concerns?

Tolkien and Lewis, for example, did actually prefer a medieval worldview to the modern, one that was quite at home to the Roman Catholic church.

Dubious. They very much understood the medieval viewpoint. But I doubt either really wanted to see the Holy Inquisition return, for example. And neither has much favourable to say about the French chansons de geste which are obsessed with the fighting of Christians and Muslims but continue to stress that Muslims are pagans who worship idols, and to be opposed for that reason. Particularly four gods named Mohammed, Apollyon, Termagant, and Kahu appear, only one of which is even known to Muslim tradition and that one, Muḥammad, was and is not considered to be a god. Medieval Christianity with its images of saints and veneration of individual saints was far more like paganism than was Islam. But lies about the gods of the Muslims persisted and persisted.

Jallanite refers to Galileo and Darwin. These two scientists could not have said and did what they did, if not for a virtual Continental Shift in philosophical point of view that occurred in the late middle ages, from a Platonic worldview to an Aristotelian.

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?

Discoveries about the nature of the universe were made by the early philosphers. The world was a sphere. Its size was measured. But then interest in investigation and discovery mostly ceased, until the Renaissance. Sir Isaac Newton, possibly the greatest scientist who has every lived, wrote mainly on the Christian Bible, attempting to date the Earth from its records.

Honestly, it would take a book to properly address Tumhalad's thoughts, and some have been written. Suffice it to say that Tolkien's Christianity was most certainly an influence upon his work, at least in terms of worldview, evil, and morality. But there are other influences as well, such as (1) his view of language and how language changes, (2) his love for things Nordic and Finnish, & (3) his love for Oxfordshire before it was 'ruined' by the encroachments of technology, just to name three.

Agreed. If Tumhalad2 finds it difficult that Tolkien was a Roman Catholic, then what must he think of a Roman Catholic science-fiction writer like Gene Wolfe or a Mormon science-fiction writer like Orson Scott Card? Neither of them are creationists and the writings of both are extremely popular, because they are good writers whose writings don’t appeal only to their co-religionists.

And there are many other religious people who write scence-fiction.

[Galadriel55]

I will try to be concise, answering the questions without going off on tangents.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Do you think it is reasonable to approach an author, from an academic point of view, with a religious world view already in mind?

I think it is impossible to approach anything without a religious world view already in mind. Suspension of disbelief has been mentioned already on this thread, and it works both ways. One can accept that there is/are god(s) - or the like - in a story even if they do not believe in God in RL. And one can also accept that there isn't a God, or not exactly the God that they believe in, in a story - while still believing in RL. It works both ways.

And if you think of it that way, atheism is also a kind of religion. And so is science. So whatever world view you have, whether it's Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant or Muslim or Hindu or atheist, when reading something from an academic point of view, you may either agree or disagree with it depending on its world view - and at that point, if you disagree, either continue stubbornly disagreeing because you're standing on two different foundations or accept (for the time being and for the sake of getting something out of it) the writing's view.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Secondly, how do you think your faith or lack of it informs your reading of Tolkien? For example, are you more disposed to feel that Eucatastrophe should define Tolkien’s stories, and are wont to explain away its absence, as in The Children of Hurin?

I do not appreciate it when people don't read books simply because they are built on a different foundation. For me, my faith is the least thing that matters when reading a book. I do not read books to tell me that the author has the same world view as I do; I read them to enjoy. If I disagree with something, I accept it as fact and true within the book.

If there is a eucatastrophe - good. That means it's there, and deal with it. No eucatastrophe - good. That means - guess what? - you have to deal with it too. I think that nothing defines an author's stories more than his stories do. That might sound stupid, but there's a point. Religion(s), personal experiences, ideals, and etc. may influence an author and his writing, and may even to some extent define him, but only his writing defines his writing. You can say that there is eucatastrophe in Tolkien - but you can't say that Tolkien is eucatastrophe. That just wouldn't be true, like with the example of COH that you bring up. So can you put together all of Tolkien's works and define them? Not if you want to measure how much Tolkien believed in eucatastrophies himself. What he believed in has an affect, but does not define the product.

The eucatastrophe is just an example, but this works for any aspect of any work. I think it's not right to define all the works of an author, especially someone who wrote as diversely as Tolkien, with one term or concept, because in most cases it will not be wholly true. The works are fact, within the works. You cannot disagree with fact. And the best way to explain such a complicated "fact" is to, well, say it.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

One might say, but of course Tolkien’s work is not explicitly Christian. In what way, then, is it Christian at all? If it lacks the Christian outlook on moral truth (that moral goodness is that which is pleasing to and sanctioned by God, and badness is “sin”) then how is Christianity manifested?

Tolkien's work is not Christian. If you want a Christian work, go read the Bible. If you want to read Tolkien, you read Tolkien, not Christianity.

Tolkien's works cannot be defined as Christian, just like they cannot be defined as eucatastrophic. They have a Christian influence - certainly. But Christianity is not the only influence.

So while Tolkien's works are not, as you put it, explicitly Christian, there are elements of Christianily in them. An influence doesn't have to show 100% in order for it to be present.


Huh, seems like I failed epicly to be concise.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Tolkien's work is not Christian. If you want a Christian work, go read the Bible. If you want to read Tolkien, you read Tolkien, not Christianity.

Tolkien's works cannot be defined as Christian, just like they cannot be defined as eucatastrophic. They have a Christian influence - certainly. But Christianity is not the only influence.

If you really want to be concise the above almost does it. Just replace the first “Christian″ with “only Christian″, replace “Christian work” with “work that is only Christian″ and replace “not Christianity” with “not only Christianity”.

I think this makes the meaning stronger and clearer. My deepest apologies if I have misunderstood your meaning. You are an astounding writer and may have one of the clearest minds I have ever encountered.

In Letter 26 Tolkien writes:

But I know only too sadly from efforts to find anything to read even with an ‘on demand’ subscription at a library that my taste is not normal. I read ‘Voyage to Arcturus’ with avidity – the most comparable work, though it is both more powerful and more mythical (and less rational, and also less of a story – no one could read it merely as a thriller and without interest in philosophy religion and morals).

Yet this book is profoundly opposed to Tolkien’s own philosophy as it emerges in his writing. The author David Lindsey presents in this book the idea that Pain alone is true and that all appearances of delight and happiness are only a delusion fostered by the deluder Crystalman. Tolkien’s friend C. S. Lewis was also overwhelmed by the book, but also said the book was “on the borderline of the diabolical [and] so manichean as to be almost satanic”.

An author whom Tolkien ought to have liked by most criteria was George MacDonald. And so he did at one time. But when rereading some of his fantasy later in life Tolkien found the man intolerable and horribly preachy.

Tolkien also did not much like the writing of his fellow Inkling Charles Williams and very much disliked C. S. Lewis’ Narnia books.

The moral, such as it is, is that one likes what one likes.

[Rhod the Red]

Well if people read it with a kind of religious filter, they're idiots.

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.

And for the Hobbit; intended as a book for children.

Anything else for either book is pure intellectual dishonesty.

[Draugohtar]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

Well if people read it with a kind of religious filter, they're idiots.

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.

And for the Hobbit; intended as a book for children.

Anything else for either book is pure intellectual dishonesty.

Oh come now. Trying to separate Tolkien's writings from his deeply held Catholicism is disingenuous.

I mean in Tokien's own words, The Lord of the Rings is, "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work."

It's just not an allegory.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Boromir88]

This has been a very good compilation of essays talking about Tolkien's "Catholic Imagination."

http://tolkienandchristianity.blogsp...r-tolkien.html

This is not a statement that I agree with all of these authors, but I still maintain Tolkien's religious beliefs played an integral part in writing his "myth." Mind you a part, not the whole, possibly not even the most important influence, but an influence nonetheless.

I have not read all of these essays, and personally some of them like Joseph Pearce's "Why Tolkien says The Lord of the Rings is Catholic" seems to be reaching too far for my own tastes. A lot also tend to latch onto Tolkien's Letter stating it is "a fundamentally Catholic work." However, Clyde Kilby's "Meeting Professor Tolkien" and David Mills' essay about Divine Providence were illuminating and bring up if nothing else an interesting, thoughtful argument. And in my opinion, it's been a valuable set of links to give a comprehensive look to the Catholic interpretation of Tolkien's writing.

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.~Rhod the Red

This is rather a skewed gloss of what's written in The Foreward. First, the context is Tolkien saying there is no allegory, or message, was his annoyance of people thinking the Lord of the Rings was an allegory of World War II. To which, Tolkien correctly points out much of this story was conceived before that War. Broadly applied, I agree, one of Tolkien's stringent positions is he did not like allegory, he did not write it, and he just wanted to write a story he hoped that a variety of people could enjoy. However, lets also not take the position to anyone who says "there is a Catholic/religious influence of Tolkien's faith in the story" to mean people are arguing there is Catholic allegory. It's not the same.

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presense. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of author.

The bold is my emphasis, and to expand on the meaning of reader applicability, let's look at what he writes a little later in the Foreward:

It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of the author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences. One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years.

Simply because two peopled lived through common events does not mean their views and experiences are going to be the same. And this seems to be reflected in Tolkien's preference to history, in all its varied applicability, and not allegory, which would be (as Tolkien viewed it) "the purposed domination of the author."

This again doesn't mean if someone sees the religious influence in Tolkien's writing that they are arguing "Tolkien is a lying liar who lied about disliking allegory." It's a simple acknowledgement that his beliefs influenced his writing, just as his love for Anglo-Saxon myth, or Norse, or any other experience you want to plug in.

Much tends to be made by the Letter to Father Murray:

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 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 think the trickier part is understanding, as Tolkien also admits, there is much of his story that escaped him, or he forgot, because much had been written decades before writing all these letters responding to family, friends, and fans. Also, Tolkien becomes a conscious commentator and critic, and not the writer who did write in the "unconscious." However, there is no reason that Tolkien would have to be purposefully deceptive to anyone, whether it be to his variety of readers, or to a single correspondent. Now there may be unintentional misleading if Tolkien mis-remembered something he had previously written, but he's honest about that too! So, really, when reading Letters I don't see any reason to think Tolkien was not being upfront and honest in his responses. You've even pointed out to me before where he did not send a certain letter about the possibility of orc redemption because he seemed to be "taking himself too importantly."

My point here is, if the context and audience is known, and seeing no reason why Tolkien would purposefully deceive the recipients of his letters, then there can still be value in them beyond individual curiosity in wanting to know everyone's business.

So, with Letter 142 to Tolkien's Catholic friend, he does say it is a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work" at first when he was unconsciously writing, but in consciously revising he only re-affirmed and stuck to whatever religious influences were present when writing it. This does not mean, as some of the authors in the link I provided at the start of this post are correct in their interpretations, as some do reach too far into what I would define as allegory. And thus it assumes Tolkien was deliberately lying when he consistently stated a dislike for allegory.

However, to take the rest of that quote to mean all religion and Catholic thought was completely excised and eviscerated out of the story, is also misleading. Quite the opposite, it's directly in both his writing process and the revision process it was a fundamentally religious work. What he says was not put in, or what he did end up cutting out is any direct reference to established real world 'religion' in terms of their cults or practices. Instead the religious influeced is "absorbed in the story and the symbolism." I actually like Tolkien's word choice of "absorbed" here since it implies the religious influence is a part of the story. Not the whole, maybe not even the most important part, but a part nonetheless. And that is, in my opinion, different from allegory.

[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.

[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.

[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.