Tolkien and Christianity

[Child of the 7th Age]

I am wrestling with several questions and would appreciate insights from others in helping to think this through.

Everyone knows Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and was heavily influenced by Christian ideas and beliefs. Tolkien's concept of good and evil; the figures of Morgoth and Sauron; themes like Creation, free will, the operation of grace; and the necessity of sacrifice--all these can be traced back to Christian roots. According to sympathetic critics like Patrick Curry and Joseph Pearce, Tolkien can not be appreciated without understanding the spiritual values and religious sensibilities that underly his works.

Where does all this leave those of us who may hold deep religious beliefs, but who are not Catholics and/or Christians? Or what about those readers for whom formal religious beliefs of any type are of less importance?

Is it possible to understand Tolkien's writings in an emotional sense without participating in his own particular set of assumptions about history, redemption, and providence?

Finally, do some well-meaning readers go "too far" in drawing Christian/religous analogies so that the diversity of Tolkien's world is lost in the desire to look for an overarching framework or point of view?


With questions like these, I think it's only fair I tell you a little about myself. We are an observent Jewish family. Not surprisingly, I have found that some themes labelled "Christian" in Tolkien actually have roots in the Jewish tradition. I also have a gut feeling that, when talking about issues like guilt or redemption or evil, my own emotional responses may sometimes be different than others who were born in the tradition which Tolkien himself espoused.

Please answer this thread gently as I do not wish to incite people throwing bricks at each other. (After all, I'm a hobbit!) But I am genuinely grappling with this. sharon, the 7th age hobbit [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Mithadan]

My views on this issue are well-known. While Tolkien's Christian heritage and beliefs influenced his writing and Judeo-Christian mores or morality may have seeped into his work, the Hobbit, LoTR and the Silmarillion are not "Christian novels." No religious group can or should claim "ownership" of Tolkien's work; it transcends such labels. Tolkien himself repeatedly denied allegorical intent and I am inclined to believe him, particularly considering his intent and his sources.

JRRT stated that he wished to write a good yarn. However, his scholarly background in languages and history, his attention to detail as well as his personal philosophy created a synergy which resulted in his work becoming much more than a simple story. In the "valid criticisms" thread I suggested that Tolkien, a great fan of mythology and "fairie stories", wrote what he would have liked to read -- an adult myth, based upon a (fictional) oral tradition. His sources are generally, though not exclusively, what many now call "pagan" mythology; stories which pre-date Christian influence. But suffused as they are with Judeo-Christian morality in combination with ancient heroic themes, his work struck a chord in modern readers. But it is not solely a Christian chord. The appeal of his work approaches universiality and can be appreciated, discussed and interpreted notwithstanding the reader's world view.

To say that a Christian background is needed to appreciate or understand Tolkien's writing is simply erroneous. One might as well say that a background in the Icelandic Eddas, the Kalevala or Beowulf is needed to comprehend LoTR, a similarly erroneous position. Ironically, LoTR and Tolkien have periodically suffered from the same backlash that the Potter books are now experiencing. That, as fiction addressing the magical and the supernatural as well as non-human races, LoTR is antithetical to and in conflict with Christian belief. While I also believe this is not so, LoTR and the related works cannot be shoehorned into the category of "Christian writings".

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Mithadan ]

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Mithadan ]

[Mister Underhill]

I agree wholeheartedly with Mithadan. I’ve often found myself in the position recently of defending the validity of investigating and discussing the effects of Tolkien’s spiritual beliefs on his work, just as I would defend the validity of discussing the effects of his study of philology or Nordic mythology or a host of other influences. These sorts of inquiries are ways of keeping Tolkien alive and interesting after dozens of readings, at least for me – but at the end of the day I don’t think you need to reference anything outside of Tolkien to enjoy and appreciate Tolkien. I agree with Mith that the heroic themes and the morality espoused in LotR are not by any means the sole province of Christianity. On the contrary – the more one studies various world religions and mythic traditions, the more one begins to appreciate the universality of their underlying tenets. I think that the prof was at pains to avoid references to a specific tradition for that very reason – that he wished to preserve and transmit the universality of his themes. On the other hand, I do believe that the fact that Tolkien was coming from some kind of spiritual tradition and point-of-view is one of the key reasons that Middle-earth is as compelling as it is.

[Gilthalion]

Here is an article I stumbled across today that mentions this issue:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m10.../article.jhtml

This general issue has been debated at great length on several other threads, so much of what I might say has already been said, but here is my view of this particular angle on the issue.

Often when we speak in our modern days of Christian influence on government and culture we go so far as to say Judeo-Christian. The foundations of modern western civilization come from a unique combination of Northern European "althings," ancient Greek democracies, the ideals of the early Roman republic, and above all, the Laws of Moses and the moral teachings of Jesus (who I call Christ, or Messiah, the "Anointed One").

While Orthodox Judaism and Christianity differ on the identity of the Messiah, and therefore on the necessity of keeping the Mosaic Law in all of its detail (though its hard to beat good kosher food!), the basic precepts of these two religions are founded in the Law and the Prophets and are shared to this day by "true believers" of both faiths.

While there are separate issues between Protestants and Roman Catholics (and still others between the Roman and Orthodox churches), I find little that is uniquely Catholic in LOTR. People have cited Tolkien's treatment of Galadriel or Elbereth as a parallel to Mary as an example.

The creation that Tolkien has written was strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian understanding of the Creation account in the Bible, and the nature of the Vala and Maia and the evil of Melkor/Morgoth are all quite close to the Biblical churubim/seraphim/archangels/angels and the fall of Lucifer/Satan. And don't get me started on how Tolkien may have taken his Northern Eurpean elves and combined them with the vision of resurrected/glorified humanity!

Clearly, while Tolkien abundantly used the mythology of Northern Europe in his great effort, it all still hangs upon the central influence of his life, which was his own personal faith, as bequeathed him from the rich Judeo-Christian heritage of Western Civilization. Certainly, the strong moral example of his characters, and the morals that can easily be drawn from his stories, are fruit of his own strongly held beliefs about Absolute Good and Evil.

Is it possible to understand Tolkien's writings in an emotional sense without participating in his own particular set of assumptions about history, redemption, and providence?

Christians hold that "the law of God" is written on the hearts of men, and I think that this is a Jewish belief also (we have inherited so much!). Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, these are things that all people understand, hence the resonance of this work even in the hearts of those who tell others (and themselves) that they do not believe in such things. They are implicit in our very languages, which are the maps we have made of our reality. Attempts to prove otherwise tend to dissolve in vague words of little meaning and less power. One need not be a Jew or a Christian to understand that there is sin and evil in the world, and to take joy in the triumph of goodness and righteousness. Even those who deny these things still unaccountably (except by preposterous half-believed rationalizations) enjoy and understand such tales. Tolkien, the language expert, drew upon the archetypical understandings of the spiritual nature of life that are implicit in the very fabric of the English language, and its ancestral root languages. I think we need not be devout Roman Catholics to understand and appreciate what he has written.

Finally, do some well-meaning readers go "too far" in drawing Christian/religous analogies so that the diversity of Tolkien's world is lost in the desire to look for an overarching framework or point of view?

Yes.

But there is so much "diversity" in Judaism and Christianity that I am not sure what is actually lost. I know that I have paid scant attention to the Finnish influence upon Tolkien's work, and look forward to learning more. The National Geographic special on LOTR covered this in great detail, but failed to mention Christianity, much less Judaism, at all.

As the above referenced article points out, most of the reviewers of movies and books somehow manage to utterly ignore the obvious and strong Judeo-Christian influence upon Tolkien's works.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum, Tolkien himself did not like allegory as a story form. However, if people are finding analogies to the stories and Truths of the Christian (or the Jewish) faith, then this does not detract from the diversity of the work. It is only when the other influences are ignored that the reader fails to appreciate the complete richness of the work.

Christians and Jews hold that (to paraphrase) "it rains on the good and the evil alike." Believers in the Almighty Creator should not fail to appreciate His Hand in the genius of Gentiles and Heathens and Pagans, for we believe that the First Cause of all good, is God. We hinder our own delight in His creation if we fail to recognize His goodness and His truths in the lives and efforts of those who may not yet believe. I think this is especially true of those who believed differently in the days before the stories of God's interactions with humanity in the Holy Lands were known around the world (such as the ancient Finns). We are the poorer if we fail to appreciate the legends and myths of other peoples. I am the poorer for not knowing the myths of the Finnish people, for there are no doubt certain Truths and Beauties hidden there and these could only have come from the Hand of God.

I think that no "over-arching framework" of understanding can be formed WITHOUT knowing what made Tolkien tick. And that was his devout faith, above all else. Therefore, those who look only at the Christian influence may be closer to understanding Tolkien than those who ignore it, but are not so close as those who sympathetically look upon all of the influences of this greatest fiction of the 20th century.

I guess that "sympathetic" is really the proper word. It is possible for us, as humans, to put ourselves in the shoes of others, so to speak. In understanding any individual and his or her work, this is requisite. The Orthodox Jew will find Tolkien far more understandable than the Secular Humanist, who will understand him still better than the Atheist.

This is not to say that the Atheist will not "get it," but will he thrill in the same way to the triumph of Frodo, where his faith and sacrifice is rewarded with victory despite the hobbit's own failure? Does "the pity of Bilbo" mean as much to someone who holds that pity is merely an advanced survival instinct, or learned behavior, rather than a touch of the Divine? Would they find Saruman more sympathetic than Gandalf in reality?

Or even worse, would a murderous religious extremist, plucked from some cauldron of hate and forced to read it, only think the Fellowship all fools who should have taken the Ring from the weak pitiers who stood between the bold and what they would call a victory? Would they spit on the body of Boromir?

It is the resonances of Truth and Beauty and Sacrifice and Mercy and Righteousness in all of us that Tolkien plays upon, with his masterful hand. Those who seek after the Creator of these things will more greatly appreciate Tolkien's work, however flawed or incomplete their understanding.

I guess that while it is possible to make too much of Tolkien's personal religious influences, it is usually the case that too little is made of it.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Gilthalion ]

[Gilthalion]

As I was composing the last post, Mithadan and Underhill stated in different ways, but far more concisely, much the same thing!

Which I think illustrates the point beautifully.

Everyone except an outright Orc or Dark Numenorean will appreciate Tolkien to some degree!

(This, by the way, was post 777 for me, and if there is significance beyond coincidence in that, feel free to enjoy it and to praise the appropriate Authority!)

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Gilthalion ]

[Kalessin]

Gilthalion : you said -

"The Orthodox Jew will find Tolkien far more understandable than the Secular Humanist, who will understand him still better than the Atheist"

I would challenge you strongly on this. It implies that (either) intelligence, emotional depth, empathic ability, imagination and so on are somehow linked to one's personal spiritual beliefs (or simply the tradition one is born into).

I would say by contrast that a thoughtful and imaginative secular humanist would be very likely to appreciate Tolkien more than a unimaginative, parochial and impatient Orthodox Jew.

I do not buy the idea that being a Jew, Christian (or not), or other faith, or atheist, gives any human beings an automatic advantage in terms of literacy, perception and imagination. Neither is it a disadvantage. Even if, for an individual, their faith or spiritual belief is at the core of their existence and experience of the world (or equally their lack of faith, atheism, etc.) ... there are simply no guarantees that their judgement and/or appreciation of art will be 'better'. Their perception will simply be infused with this personal aspect of their consciousness.

On the more general note, I and many others have posted at length in the excellent Trilogy and Bible thread (which I recommend heartily to anyone interested) and I have already probably bored everyone (including myself) to tears on this topic [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] . Suffice it to say that I am generally with Mithadan in acknowledging Tolkien's Catholicism (along with other formative influences) as a key context to discussion and analysis of his work, but NOT as a pre-requisite to either fully and deeply appreciating and enjoying it, and NOT as evidence that he was proselytising under the guise of epic narrative.

You will notice in the other threads here that at various points self-declared Christians, of particular shades of belief, have argued that a number of popular fantasy works that include the concept of magic are in fact dangerous incitements to occultism. To my mind this illustrates my first point - namely, that that no-one has a monopoly on imagination and judgement simply by virtue of their faith or non-faith. It seems that because Tolkien was an avowed Catholic his use of pagan archetypes (elves - reinvented or no, tree-spirits, barrow-wights, Bombadil etc.) is somehow different and acceptable. However, I am not asserting that any of those views are typical or representative, nor making any kind of pejorative inference. The point is the variances in individual (and necessarily subjective) perceptions that occur across humanity.

I prefer to take Tolkien's own words at face value. And to be entertained, moved and enriched by the imagination and craft of an excellent writer.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

PS. I have pushed the Trilogy and Bible thread up to the top of The Books section. I cannot face cutting and pasting ... it's late, please forgive me
[img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

Even from my point of view, this is somewhat nauseating.
Can't anything - anything at all, be it book, person, movie, song - simply exist without getting some sort of label slapped on it?
Of course Tolkien was a Christian. I read that, say, "ooh, great, we've got somethin in common" and keep on reading. As a writer, everything in my life 'leaks' out onto what I write, including my ex-uncle, annoying (or not) siblings, and my religion. Tolkien might have felt the same way.
This in no way means the books are 'Christain' or are only for religious people. I know lots of non-religious people who adore the lord of the rings. A word of advice to practically everyone, though only a few are ever blatantly guilty of this:
Stop trying to label, catalogue and colour-code everything! It's getting old!

[Wormtongue]

All that AND a bag of nuts!
I firmly believe that he may have used some stray thoughts from his life's experiences, coupled with mythos and lore, added a good bit of imagination, and he's written a great fantasy story!
All this spiritual religious hooplah, I just don't see it. Any story can be twisted into mirroring the beliefs of just about ANY secular religion, the parables are parallel. I don't believe that's the case in this saga. It's a damn good fantasy story, but that's about it folks.
[img]smilies/cool.gif[/img] [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

hate to be picky, Wormtongue dear, but "secular religion" is an oxymoron. In everyday language, 'secular' means non-religions, but glancing at the dicitonary now, one defintion goes something like this:
"...pertaining to the world or to things not spiritual or sacred; relating to or connected with worldy things; disassociated from religious teaching or principles..."
sorry, i'm a very detail oriented person. I agree with you though: just like homosexuality, I didn't see any until people told me it was there. I guess its like Lothlorien: "It strikes me that folk takes their peril with them into Lorien, and finds it there because they've brought it." It's the same thing with books: look for good in LOTR, you'll find it; look for evil, you'll find it; and if you happen to search for anything else, guess what?...

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

Oh, and sorry: that quote was Sam in Book 4, chapter 5: The Window on the West
just in case

[Kalessin]

Wormtongue and Aosama, I think it is both reasonable and accurate to acknowledge the moral sensibility in Tolkien's work, and the specific faith from which that sensibility is derived. It need not add or detract from one's enjoyment, but respect for the author, and an interest in the inception of and creativity behind the works of Tolkien, do pretty much lead to you to accepting that aspect of his life and its relevance to LotR and other work.

Wormtongue, perhaps you can deconstruct anything into everything, but with a little moderation it is possible to assign the same importance that Tolkien himself did to his own faith as part of the critical framework within which you discuss his work. You can argue that the range of symbols and archetypes mean that LotR is not Biblical allegory (and I have done), but you can't argue that the work is imbued with Tolkien's spiritual values. It is, he himself made that clear.

Aosama, these are discussion boards and it is inevitable that we will be labelling, discussing, analysing etc. In my view, although this may not add to our enjoyment of Tolkien, the subtexts and contexts are themselves interesting.

Gilthalion, please scroll up for my initial response to your post [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

I know Kalessin. You're completely right, o'course. *sigh*. its just I have taken to many labels in my lifetime, okay? And I can't stand to have anything I like openly dissed. Its a complex, and I'm on medication. tee hee.

[Kalessin]

OK, sorry [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] dry rationality is a particular speciality of mine. We come to praise Tolkien, not to bury him (apologies to WS).

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Gilthalion, scroll up [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[NyteSky]

I think that the beauty of LoTR is that anyone can enjoy it. Being a Christian (and I am) may emphasize certain aspects of it and even help understand where Tolkien got some of his ideas (not to neglect other cultures etc that he also drew from) but of course it's not required to understand the books. Personally I think one of the reasons the LoTR is such a masterpiece is because it uses many fundamental truths, many from Christianity. These truths appeal to everyone. I doubt even the most rabid fanatic suicide bomber would hope Sauron wins or think Gandalf should have taken up the ring and been consumed by it.
Fascinating topic anyways.

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

I dunno NyteSky... maybe there are people who do think that way... or maybe there are some out there who sympathize with the villains (hopefully not). It'd be an interesting thread: "which villain do YOU mostly feel sorry for?"
and no offense taken. I get into very heated debates a lot about differnt things (not always with someone else...) and sarcasm is my little quirk. Everyone's gotta have one... otherwise there would be no supermodels. WE'd get to annoyed with their perfection.

[NyteSky]

Oh, I agree Aosama. Gotta have sarcasm. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
Actually I did forget about sympathizing with villains. I definitely do, in some books. (and what about Gollum? He's certainly pitiable at least) Though in LoTR it's a bit too clear cut good and evil for me to relate much to Sauron. Good points. As long as the heated debate's with people who have open minds they're fun.

[Thinhyandoiel]

Well, I think everyone here has it pretty much covered. Though, I would still put in my two cents. Why? Why not? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

You said that Tolkien was heavily influenced by Christian ideas and beliefs. You mentioned among them: good and evil, creation, free will etc. But all religion has these roots, not simply Christian, Jewish etc. My own culture (Native American) has the same themes and stories that are found in the Bible or other religious texts. The fact that each religion has it's own version of these archetypal (sp?) tales is proof enough of this. Also, Tolkien was a great lover of mythology. And it CAN be said that Norse and Celtic myth influenced him greatly as well. Now, to your question. Yes, we can appreciate him without being Christian, Catholic, or Jewish, as every religion has the SAME OR SIMILAR stories, myths, legends and beliefs. Even atheists, with no concrete belief in 'only this' or 'only that' grow up around them, and at least know of the general themes that are portrayed though they may not believe/agree with them. And, if by some wierd chance they haven't heard of any of it, then Tolkien's tales would be their first introduction to them all, and then they would know them.

Agh, again I'm going around in circles. Someone just slap me! [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

I can definetly relate. I am only now beginning to understand a few things about what really divides religion. There was a time when it all sounded the same. A lot of religions have the same basic patterns, there are only a few differences. But I guess that depends on who/what you believe, and since I'm decidedly Baptist, I can't give a Hindu's opinion or vision of things.
Sarcasm is one of those strange things about me: my mum DIScourages it, my aunt ENcourages it. And they're sisters.

[Jessica Jade]

I myself am a Catholic, but to be honest, the books did not at all affect me in a religious way. In answer to your question, it is certainly possible to understand Tolkien's writing in an emotional sense without knowing the background. For me, personally, LOTR affected me purely on an emotional level. I did not think much about the historical background or Tolkien's experience, which shaped his writing, as i read the book. If i had, it wouln't have changed the way I percieved his story. Now, after having read the books, i see a lot of religious relevence in them, rooted in Christianity. But these things are not completely necessary, because i know i'd still love and appreciate Tolkien for his story itself. Tolkien's wisdom shines through no matter what context or circumstances you look at it in. This leads me to the next question you brought up:

Finally, do some well-meaning readers go "too far" in drawing Christian/religous analogies so that the diversity of Tolkien's world is lost in the desire to look for an overarching framework or point of view?

I believe that the answer is yes. I dislike allegory too, because when you think that the story has to "say something" about modern day life and society, you are not fully appreciating the story for its own sake. For example, i really like the book A Separate Peace by Knowles (its still 1 of my fave books), but when we studied it in english class, we studied the allegorical function of it...and then it just became overwhelming. Although i liked the allegorical meaning of the book and found it extremely interesting, the excessive symbolism and everything took away from the story itself. When you know a book is an allegory, or think that its suppose to be one, you spend the whole time pondering and analyzing every little thing, because you assume that it has to have a "deeper meaning," and then you have no time left to just enjoy the book. I like how Tolkien knew the value of being able to appreiciate and respect a story for its own sake.

I apologize if any of this has been said before. I am pressed for time, and i have yet to read this entire thread. I might have more to say later. This is a great topic! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] (growing very quickly too--i'll have to try to keep up, like with Kalessin's Valid Criticisms thread [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] )

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Certainly, the strong moral example of his characters... are fruit of his own strongly held beliefs about Absolute Good and Evil.

As I've said before, the common ground of most world religions is ethics.

Where they differ is in their philosophies, the reasons why.

Since this is the case, a delineation between good and evil in no more uniquely Christian than eyeballs differentiating between black and white. It does not even begin to prove a basic Christian nature of the LotR.

It's natural and understandable for those of a particular faith or leaning to see the LotR through the lens of their own values.

So can one understand the LotR without a Christian background? Of course! The sheer variety of religious faiths in this thread alone demonstrates this. I myself have been a practicing Buddhist for the last 17 years.

The only legitimate assertions we can make about the Christian nature of the LotR can be drawn from what Tolkien himself said on the subject. For those who wish to discuss the subject in depth, the Trilogy and Bible thread is a cogent, well-articulated and polite discussion of the subject from all angles.

I disagree that religion was the lodestone of Tolkien's life.

If that were the case, then why did he spend all that time mucking about in languages, and making up new ones the bible was not written in, and not studying the bible?

Terrible waste of time and effort that, for one whose life was solely devoted to Christianiity.

Was he not aware perhaps of the vast quantities of writings available on Christian theology, from Thomas Aquinas on down?

Or the monastic opportunities available in the Catholic church especially for one of his strong Christian inclinations?

One can spend a lifetime in the study and practice of one religion, if you're serious about it, and still only scratch the surface. Trust me on this.

Perhaps a command of Old Celtic, which he spoke fluently, was necessary for his devout faith?

Welllll.. fortunately for us, he left off of these needless distractions in the study of language to write the profoundly Christian work of the 'Lord of the Rings'. Outside of creating several varieties of elvish, the dwarf-language, etymologies of words of the Shire etc, etc, and ignoring his own statements to the effect that the LotR bagan out of his own interest in creating languages, these other interests are clearly secondary to his spiritual views.

Tempered sarcasm aside, this hyperbolic elevation of Tolkien's Christian values above all other Obvious interests and influences - the fact he was English, a WWI veteran and lost his friends in the war - is simply a desperate and tiresome attempt by some to claim Tolkien as their own. While I commend their taste in authors, this is both selfish, arrogant, and the reasoning behind it, flimsy. I grow increasingly tired of it.

That, my Jewish friend, is the real source of those statements by Patrick Curry and Joseph Pearce, and nothing else. It's telling that I've yet to find a non-Christian, or less than utterly devout Christian, who says the same.

[Gilthalion]

Wooooooh! Lots of touchy people! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

A careful reading of my post reveals that I covered all of these objections. The primary one seems to be: "Other worldviews believe in Good and Evil, too!"

A refresher...

Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, these are things that all people understand, hence the resonance of this work even in the hearts of those who tell others (and themselves) that they do not believe in such things.

For everyone who cites that Tolkien was out to tell a good yarn and hated allegory, there is another who cites Tolkien's admission that the tale was deliberately influenced by his religion.

These established facts are not mutually exclusive.

Why do I think that a religious person (I cited the Orthodox Jew), might have a greater appreciation than a Secular Humanist? And still greater than an avowed Atheist? Obviously, the greater the empathy with the nature of the work, the greater the pleasure. If a person's worldview does not resonate in harmony with the work, then that person will not enjoy it in the same way as the person who thinks more similarly. To be fair, I also pointed out that there are certain religious types who will actually find the least enjoyment of such a work. The bomb wielding religious extremist and Tolkien both thought that God created the universe, but that the civilized Atheist who does not believe this would still appreciate the Silmarillion more, because the Atheist and the author still had more in common.

Kalessin:

It implies that (either) intelligence, emotional depth, empathic ability, imagination and so on are somehow linked to one's personal spiritual beliefs (or simply the tradition one is born into).

The empathy/sympathy/resonance I speak of is not a commentary on the intrinsic capacity for such things that all Humanity is granted. Rather, it is a natural phenomenon that is prima facia. "Birds of a feather flock together."

I don't believe anyone said that only devout Roman Catholics will understand, appreciate, and enjoy Tolkien. But in the realm of literary criticism, it is demonstrable that those whose worldviews were opposed to Tolkien's did not appreciate his work, and vice versa. (Tolkien himself commented on this.) It is no great leap of the imagination to suggest that (all other things being equal) there is a qualitative difference in empathy (and therefore enjoyment) when divergent worldviews are present.

In Art, particularly Theatre, and by extension Storytelling, there needs to be a sufficient empathy with the work for the performance (or reading) to have effect. The greater that empathy/sympathy, the more moving and profound this effect will be. This is not to say that Vortimax the Goth will not enjoy the Greek chorus, but it is more likely that Eurymandas the Greek will enjoy it in ways that Vortimax will not.


To paraphrase another objection:
Can Christianity claim "ownership" of the books and say they are "Christian Books?"

No. I never said they (we) could. My case is that it is as wrong to disregard the strong Judeo-Christian influence on Tolkien's work as it is to disregard the other influences. The end result is a skewed understanding fashioned to satisfy individual desires for validation of their own worldviews. Certainly the subtle pleasures of finding a Biblical subtext (or a Finnish influence) are lost to those who see only well enough to read.

Most especially, the morally transcendant points of the story will just be pretty words to the mind that is confused about Good and Evil, or which denies its reality altogether.

Again, one need not be especially religious in an organized sense (don't get me started on 501(c)3 non-profit country club charity rackets posing as the Church) to empathise deeply and to appreciate Tolkien greatly.

But to argue that there is no qualitative difference in understanding, appreciation, and empathy from one reading to the next (I suppose on the grounds that we are all Humans and should be thought of as homogenous equals), and that these differences are largely due to the independent worldview of the reader, is what I would call "flimsy."

Marileangorifurnimaluim:
You have set up straw dogs to knock down that had nothing to do with my assertion and that stand opposed to the known facts of Tolkien's life.

...a delineation between good and evil in no more uniquely Christian than eyeballs differentiating between black and white. It does not even begin to prove a basic Christian nature of the LotR.

I've already covered the self-evident universality of belief in Good & Evil.

To be a basically Christian work, it must be basically about Jesus Christ. I've read the texts carefully and have not yet even found the name of Tolkien's Lord in them. Straw Dog Argument.

I disagree that religion was the lodestone of Tolkien's life.

If that were the case, then why did he spend all that time mucking about in languages, and making up new ones the bible was not written in, and not studying the bible?

Terrible waste of time and effort that, for one whose life was solely devoted to Christianiity.

As a practicing Buddhist do you work for a living or have any hobbies? Christians are not under orders to merely sit on mountaintops wearing white robes and singing hymns. The fact that Tolkien left a rich legacy of excellent literature is not antithetical to his faith. Tempered sarcasm aside (what happened to cogent and polite?) this is another Straw Dog Argument.

....this hyperbolic elevation of Tolkien's Christian values above all other Obvious interests....is simply a desperate and tiresome attempt by some to claim Tolkien as their own....this is both selfish, arrogant, and the reasoning behind it, flimsy.

Tolkien himself claimed to be a Christian, I see no debate on that fact. As the article I mentioned in my first post noted, most reviewers throw everything but the kitchen sink and Christianity into their essays about the works. What some Christians are seeking is merely the proper acknowledgement of that influence (one cited by Tolkien himself) upon his work.

It's telling that I've yet to find a non-Christian, or less than utterly devout Christian, who says the same.

It tells me that a blind man does not appreciate a sunset in the same way as one who sees. I think that I can reliably report that folk of deep moral conviction will find joy in Tolkien's work that the shallow will not. This is not to say that such readers will not enjoy a "good yarn."

Not to see certain nuances and influences in a great work is understandable.

But if a blind man denies that there is beauty in seeing a sunset, he will only convince the blind.

And I suppose that is tiresome.

[Wormtongue]

I was born and raised Roman Catholic and when I was old enough to learn fantasy from reality, I gave it up. I absorb more Christian views watching five minutes of Monty Python's "Life of Brian" than I have in reading the works of Tolkien. I read constantly, and most of it is medieval-tinged fantasy. I can't seem to draw any parallels between most fantasy epics and religion, unless of course some type of religion is contained in the story. I can tell you, I'm captivated more by ingenious yarn-spinning than warping a book with views of one's personal religious dogma. I find life is much easier without having to include faith in mythos. Faith is not concrete, and sometimes a backup plan rooted in reality is desperately needed and would actually help. Tolkien's masterful stories may be stuffed to the gills with Christianity but since I wasn't looking for it, it did not reveal it's profound fairy tales to me. That is precisely why Tolkien is such a master of the craft. Even a disdainer of religion, yet one well versed in that religion, did not pick up on any use of that particular set of beliefs in his writings.
The man was a genius at his craft. [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

My point is, the primary influence of Tolkien's life and work, particularly where it concerns the Lord of the Rings, is demonstrably his interest in language, as stated in his own words. The spiritual came later, in revision.

If any influence is put first in line, it is that of language. There is no straw dog. Or cat for that matter. Christian influence should be mentioned, and it is, as you say (along with everything, including the kitchen sink). It’s given its proper weight and context, outside of some with a clear personal bias, who wish to exaggerate this aspect.

Gilthalion, you have a circular and unprovable argument.

Essentially what you are telling us is that those 'blind' who are not Christian (or a vague classification of those whose views concur?) cannot see the fundamental Christian nature of Tolkien, so therefore can't appreciate the LotR for what it is.

This precludes anyone who is not Christian from even participating in the discussion, as they are ‘blind.’

So therefore we should just take your word for it, as a Christian who knows better?

Really?

To delve into this a little deeper: people are converted to Christianity every day.

When does this non-blindness occur?

• The moment they are baptized?
  But they did not believe in Christianity before, and do not have the socialization and background to understand its mores (note historical problem in converting multi-theistic societies to Christianity, where they merely translated Christ to be one of many Gods).
• When they study the teachings of Jesus?
  But there are many people who study the bible, who can quote chapter and verse, who do not consider themselves Christian or adhere to its tenets, and in fact study it to argue with it more effectively.
• Is it the function of general moral sensibilities, of being a good person, (which is what you seem to imply here)?
  (So only good people agree with your position therefore, so those who disagree - fill in the blank.)
  Well there are many of different views, who can be considered good people of sound morality from the perspective of their ethical conduct. That is my definition, it tends to be commonly accepted, please let me know if you have a different one.
  
  Many person with good ethical conduct disagree with the position that Christianity is of pre-eminent importance in the Lord of the Rings.
  
  Does this prove they are not of such sound moral sensibility, as could be inferred from your statements?
  
  That would be a tiresome, and arrogant, perspective.

Then is it therefore impossible to understand the Lord of the Rings unless one is a) Christian b) of good moral character and c) have been an indoctrinated Christian all ones life and so can see from this perspective?

Well, aren’t there are also Christians who don’t feel Christianity is of pre-eminent importance in the LotR?

Are these Christians 'blind' to this subtle morality and influence?

There are even some Christians who feel references to magic in the LotR are indicative of amorality, so wholeheartedly disagree with this perspective.

Are their perspectives of no value?

Should we therefore only listen to a small percentage of views, to be representative of all “non-blind” Christians?

Then 'blind' means any who disagree with this point of view, not just the amoral, and non-Christians.

That also would imply that every other perspective on the LotR is wrong.

Though this perspective can only be proven or understood by those who agree, so there's no proof beyond a fragile, uh, pardon me, blind acceptance.

{Aside: While I understand the value of faith, it was never the intention of faith to take anything that is said unchallenged without questioning the source. As I am questioning you, whether you like it or not. Otherwise we would believe anything, yes? When one sees LotR parallels, one is drawing them oneself from another source, the Bible. Or they are not accurate. Tolkien himself was no expert on theology, as I've pointed out, and would be horrified if his "ripping good yarns" were exaggerated to the point of religious cannon.}

Perhaps each perspective, including all those other than this one particular view, are so rarified that they can only be understood by their particular adherents.

This later argument would mean that there’s no commonality, and actually opposes the very universiality Tolkien sought. Likewise, the particular view that Tolkien was speaking to a uniquely ‘sighted’ Christian minority opposes his own wishes and statements, in the same way.

Is it not more likely that each individual, regardless of their religious perspective, will see the LotR from their own eyes?

[Kalessin]

Gilthalion

Thank you for your reply. Let me try to do it justice and address the various points you made. Apologies in advance for length, I have to admit I've never been described as laconic [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Your points about Good and Evil don't really apply to my post. Nor to the majority of valid contributions in the Trilogy and Bible thread. Let's cut to the chase.

You said -

"The empathy/sympathy/resonance I speak of is not a commentary on the intrinsic capacity for such things that all Humanity is granted. Rather, it is a natural phenomenon that is prima facia. "Birds of a feather flock together." "

In this instance therefore, you are asserting as axiomatic the idea that the more a reader has in common with the author the more they will appreciate that author's work.

Now, this isn't the same as - nor does it inevitably follow from - the assertion that an Orthodox Jew will understand Tolkien more than a secular humanist. The implication that there is more commonality in the (vast) pantheon of Judeo-Christian faiths and denomination than any (or all) other cultural or personal aspects of personality, education, etc. is by no means 'prima facie' and can certainly be challenged.

However, accepting a more general assertion of commonality as an inference toward empathy isn't really a problem. It's obvious. The more two people have in common the more they will probably think alike or react similarly. So, on that basis one can clearly argue that an English academic (let's say, lapsed Catholic, now atheist) with South African ancestry and an interest in languages and ancient mythology will therefore appreciate Tolkien more than, for example, an Isreali engineer with a passion for aeroplanes who happens to be an Orthodox Jew. Whether one is an atheist and the other a practicing follower, the other 'feathers' are both more numerous and more relevant to an empathy towards the author's work.

You could also argue that an English Catholic will understand Tolkien more than an American one. Or that I, being English, with some South African heritage, understand and appreciate Tolkien more than most.

I don't accept that argument. There is a difference between conjunction (or occurrence) and cause-and-effect (or axiom) when it comes to philosophical reasoning. Just because some non-Christian literary critics failed to appreciate Tolkien, while some Christian ones did, is not the basis for any axiomatic statement. There is no a priori (or self-evident) rule at work, simply because it is easily possible to imagine a situation where a non-Christian literary critic might respond more favourably to Tolkien than a Christian one. The line of reasoning is, at best, anecdotal.

Another aspect of the extract I quoted from your post is that it didn't answer my assertion. I wasn't talking about the intrinsic capacity that all human beings have either. I was talking about the actual expression of empathy/sympathy/response that is clearly affected by, and subject to, other factors than one's chosen (or culturally decided) faith or non-faith.

You then said -

"In Art, particularly Theatre, and by extension Storytelling, there needs to be a sufficient empathy with the work for the performance (or reading) to have effect"

I think you have missed out the purpose and effort of the writer/creator here. With regard to Tolkien, this seems to imply that, whatever his skill, or despite his declared attempt to create a particularly English mythos, or his conscious evocations of the universal archetypes of world myth (NOT 'good vs evil') - all that effort was wasted by him. In the end he was writing for English Catholics first, everyone else second.

Do you ever wonder what writers and artists think about this idea? As I said, the statement that "people who have things in common will have empathy/sympathy/resonances in common" is blindingly obvious. But what separates the great and renowned artists from the rest is their ability to reach out beyond their own cultural or social sphere and impact upon the experience of others. The difference between your assertion being anecdotally, or "often", true and being axiomatic, or "always" true, is massive.

Writers of all types are communicating : it is their craft and vision that makes their communication effective beyond cliques or ghettos. Who are we to judge the quality or depth of an individual's response to art based solely on their faith or lack of it? That is arrogance and elitism of the most sinister kind.

So, you then say -

"But to argue that there is no qualitative difference in understanding, appreciation, and empathy from one reading to the next (I suppose on the grounds that we are all Humans and should be thought of as homogenous equals), and that these differences are largely due to the independent worldview of the reader, is what I would call "flimsy." "

As far as I know no-one (certainly not me) said there is no qualititative difference between one reading and the next because we are all human. There are vast qualitative differences - what I am saying is that these result not just from one's faith or atheism, but from education, from culture, from age, experience, from self-knowledge and so on. And that any of these can be, for an individual, more relevant (or equally relevant) to their appreciation than their particular moral or spiritual faith.

Your response to Maril was interesting. You ended with -

"It tells me that a blind man does not appreciate a sunset in the same way as one who sees. I think that I can reliably report that folk of deep moral conviction will find joy in Tolkien's work that the shallow will not."

Well, I almost agree with you. Except that equally, the seeing cannot perhaps appreciate a sunset in the same way as the blind. We may not be as sensitive to the warmth of the fading light upon our skin ; we may not hear as acutely the quietening of the birds as darkness descends ; and so on.

And, finally, I would count many atheists and secular humanists as 'folk of deep moral conviction', while there are equally many practicing Christians (or others) who are shallow. And of course, vice versa.

You see, I do not feel able to judge that I am better at appreciating Tolkien than someone else because I am of a particular faith, nor do I feel the need to. Perhaps that is the key thing - that need to feel as though one can make absolute judgements of unknown others on the basis of these labels. Where does that come from? I don't know, since I don't need to. I guess that is where the real 'sensitivity' lies.

Thank you again for a challenging, provocative sally into the subject.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Gilthalion]

While I have neither time nor inclination (believe it or not) to split hairs, count angels on pinheads, strive after the wind, etc., perhaps a final response is in order.


Marileangorifurnimaluim:
If you read what my posts actually said, you would understand that I am guilty of none of the accusations you have made. I'm frankly a little surprised at your obvious hostility. You seem to be aguing with Christianity itself, or some wicked phantom Fundamentalist, rather than with the simple points I raised. You anticipate answers I would never give and argue points I never made. But I must rise to answer a question or two that you have raised...

Gilthalion, you have a circular and unprovable argument.

I think you are confusing issues. My argument about resonant worldviews producing enhanced emotional enjoyment have nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. You take my analogy too far. As I will show, the argument would be true for Buddhists if Tolkien had been one and infused his work with such a perspective.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the blind man analogy, because it has been used to demonstrate certain points about Faith vs. Unbelief. It is not an argument to be proven or disproven. It is an assertion of fact. While not provable in a controlled laboratory environment where phenomenon can be repeated and measured, it can certainly be proven to the person who has accepted Jesus as Savior. In that this is a personal matter between you and God, there is nothing I can do to convince you of it. The fact that I have not ventured an argument, does not negate the report.

...people are converted to Christianity every day.

When does this non-blindness occur?

While it was sincerely not my intention to abuse this forum for purposes of preaching, this questions (and the answers thoughtfully but errantly provided) reveal a critical misunderstanding of what Christianity really is. This is a side issue to the main point of this thread, and not central to my argument. Other Christians may disagree.

----------------------------------------

Christianity is not meant to be a religion, in the traditional and immemorial sense. Certainly, it has become that to many people. (To too many people. But I told you not to get me started on the ongoing depredations of the institutional Church. Greedy, sexually immoral televangelists, miracle-faking charletans, protectors of pedophiles, and morality nazis are not what Jesus intended.)

A religion is the quest for the values of the ideal life, involving three phases: the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or world view relating the quest to the environing universe. (American College Dictionary)

In its finest sense, Christianity is a personal sacrifice of one's self in submission to Jesus of Nazareth, believing him to be the Son of God, the Christ, the Messiah prophesied by the Jews. Theology is vain without direct communication from God. The practice of discipleship is useless without a living Master of those disciples, and the quest for the ideal is mere human effort without the intervention of the Ideal Himself.

You have perhaps heard the expression, "you must be born again." This describes a spiritual birth that occurs supernaturally (how else) when a person believes and surrenders to the Lordship of Jesus and thus enter into his Kingdom. This is an act of heartfelt faith. That faith, in and of itself, is a gift given by the grace of God to the open, seeking heart. Blind faith indeed, though that is a redundancy, or it is not faith at all. I'm sorry if you have not experienced this, but whining about it does not make it go away, nor does it (nor CAN it) logically refute what (as you say) is unprovable. Refusing to seek it is a personal perogative, and I cannot speculate on such motivations. There are none so blind as those who WILL not see.

The other points you cite as points when "blindess" ends have little to do with the defining eternal experience of salvation and what it means to actually be a Christian.

Baptism is an act of obedience in faith, rather than of faith alone. Being dunked or sprinkled with water does not make one a Christian, though it usually results in church membership noted on paper or in a computer.

Being raised a Catholic, like Wormtongue, obviously is no guarantee of Christianity (he seems to have rejected the religion, but I would advise him to learn of Christianity from Jesus himself rather than Monty Python), or of the joys of harmony that the believer will share with Tolkien's perspective. It does not matter that the man began his work by toying with language. It ended with a great tale that is infused with his morality and informed by his perspective. If I tell you that I derive a satisfaction that you tell me you DON'T, then you waste your breath to deny what I know I have felt.

Learning the Scriptures is a good thing, but will not necessarily give you a Christian perspective, as you astutely observe.

It is perhaps here that my point is made even more strongly. The true believer, who reverently studies Scripture with an open heart will have meanings divinely revealed, and will indeed appreciate them far more than the person who merely seeks to support an antithetical view. This is something beyond the joys of harmony that I described in previous posts and should not be confused with it.

To a lesser extent, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL (I must obviously spell out and emphasize what I have so poorly communicated), this will be true of Tolkien's work (or C.S. Lewis' to a greater extent than Tolkien's) as well.

----------------------------------------

I believe that the meaning of my posts was obvious and is supported by the undisputed facts I cited and the application of common sense.

The originator of the post sought an understanding of qualitative differences in emotional enjoyment of the work as affected by individual worldview. I addressed that. If Tolkien had been a Buddhist, and had written about an adventure in a legendary Himalayan mountain range, borrowing from Asian mythology, my argument would still hold. While the Westerner might enjoy the tale immensely, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, the Bhuddist or the Hindu might enjoy it in ways that the Westerner will not, for he will see nuances of the writing that others will not recognize, or do not themselves hold to be as true as their own understanding.

How is this so difficult to understand?

For the record, I did not deny the universality of Tolkien's work. I did not deny the common Humanity of us all. Nor cn this be logically extrapolated from my posts except by willful intent. But the position that is maintained antithetical to mine falls apart when examined plainly.

A blind physicist may well have a great understanding (and appreciation) of the mechanics of a sunset. He may be able to describe in great detail the calculus of orbit and rotation, the physics of light, and the phenomenon of its refraction through the atmosphere and differences that might be measured due to various weather and presence of particulate matter. Having done so, and finding that the poor sap who had to listen while watching that sunset understood very little of what he had to say, the blind man might conclude that his own appreciation was equal or better than his hapless victim's.

And he would be right, in a fashion.

But there is a qualitative difference in the appreciation that the sighted man has for the phenomenon that the blind man will not understand, however well he otherwise understands a sunset. He does not see its beauty in the same way.

And yes, he is missing something. It is not arrogant to maintain this. I'm sorry if it offends the blind man, but I do him no favor to humour his sour grapes attitude.

It can be argued that the fellow with an undamaged optic nerve is also missing out. He does not see the elegance of the mathematics, and therefore does not fully appreciate the sunset for what it is.

If the sighted man says, "The blind man does not know what he is talking about. There is no elegance in the raised bumps on that sheet of paper," he is wrong.

If the blind man says, "This sighted fellow is simply imagining that there is beauty in what he sees," he is also wrong.

But the man who both understands the math and can see the sunset with his own eyes will have a greater appreciation of it than either of his friends.

I hope that makes my position a little more clear. Christianity is a side issue to my argument. I do not dispute Tolkien's genius, our common Humanity, or whatever truths anyone's worldview may hold.

Kalessin:
Perhaps I have sufficiently answered most of your points in the above verbosity. I thought it was understood that ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL my assertions would hold true. I went to some trouble to point out that there are naturally exceptions.

Who are we to judge the quality or depth of an individual's response to art based solely on their faith or lack of it? That is arrogance and elitism of the most sinister kind.

(Sigh. I hope that no one thinks me sinister or arrogant.) When did anyone judge another individual? I do find that there are some who deny the existence of the transcendent appreciation that some Christians report. There is at times a spiritual thrill that I cannot describe, infused as it seems to be with the presence of God Himself. It is beyond emotion and intellect. It is present at times when reading works that seem especially blessed. The act of committing Art (if I may put it that way), something Tolkien and Lewis referred to as "sub-creation" CANNOT be considered in whole apart from a living appreciation for the Creator. If a reader lacks this belief, and especially if he is indeed hostile to it, he may well have a profound intellectual and emotional understanding, but he simply CANNOT get the same thrill. To deny it is real is willfull disbelief, an act of faith in a worldview that collapses in the face of such a fact. Can I reproduce it for you in a laboratory? No, but the promise of Christianity is that it CAN be reproduced in your heart.

But again, Christianity is a side issue, for the assertion would be true in an entirely different sense if another worldview was at issue. Mein Kampf is better "enjoyed" by Neo-nazis and anti-semites than by Orthodox Jews. How plain do I need to make this?

You see, I do not feel able to judge that I am better at appreciating Tolkien than someone else because I am of a particular faith, nor do I feel the need to.

Nor do I. I have been forced into a digrssion on the nature of Christian experience, a side bar to my assertion of the appreciation of resonance. I do not address any individual cases, and to take it that way is reading too much into my viewpoint. There are always exceptional exceptions and classes of exceptions, but these invariably prove the rule when more completely understood. (For example, if God in his sovereignty grants Saul, the persecuter of the infant Church a visitation, then we are talking about an exceptional occurence, not a proof against a general observation that God normally leaves such folk to their fates.)

But there are some who, like the blind physicist, would deny that others experience something that they themselves cannot measure. Or like the mathematically challenged person who cannot grasp how a blind man can enjoy a sunset. Neither of them are logical, or scientific, or right.

I'm not sure that anything will be gained from more of this sort of tedious hair-splitting. I doubt it is much more fun to read than it is to write. I don't know if it is in my power to express myself any more plainly. Folk are free to continue to disagree, of course, but my assertion is simple and ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL it stands whether applied to a Christian who writes a work with great morality, or a Buddhist who does likewise, or a Nazi who does the opposite.

I do not feel slighted or take offense that I do not thrill to Hitler's prose, even though David Duke might tell me how wonderful hate makes him feel. I understand the English translation, yet I don't feel the same thing the Ku Klux Klansman feels. Even so, I don't at all disbelieve his reports of pleasure.

[Kalessin]

Gilthalion

Thank you for what I found to be an interesting post. Whatever you might think, I have a profound respect for faith and spirituality (I know this word is open to many interpretations), so I hope you will believe me when I say I found your personal reflections on the nature of your 'Christian experience' very readable, and that your convictions were well articulated. Please note also my request at the end of this (typically infinite) post.

Your main response to the various lines of reasoning in my post was the qualification -

"The true believer, who reverently studies Scripture with an open heart will have meanings divinely revealed, and will indeed appreciate them far more than the person who ... (does not - K) ... To a lesser extent, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, this will be true of Tolkien's work as well ...
I thought it was understood that ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL my assertions would hold true."

Well, this is the key point that I have been making all along. This last assertion I have no problem with - because it is inherently speculative theory. Speculative and theoretical (ie. unproven and unprovable) because 'ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL' is NEVER true. "ALL ELSE", encompassing education, culture, life experience, imagination, and so many other things that make up an individual are NEVER equal (to the same in another individual) in a way that would allow one to assume any axiomatic or a priori 'rule'.

My argument is not with your faith, or the empathic or moral depth of any Christian (or anyone else). My point is about axiomatic (or absolute) statements that are philosophically (logically) unsound which imply the superiority of one individual over another (in whatever aspect, and for whatever reason) ... an examination of history should show you why.

This point - and therefore the nub of our exchange - is not to do with statements of faith or spiritual conviction. You said -

" (being ...) born again ... describes a spiritual birth that occurs supernaturally when a person believes and surrenders to the Lordship of Jesus and thus enters into his Kingdom. This is an act of heartfelt faith. That faith, in and of itself, is a gift given by the grace of God to the open, seeking heart."

I think this is a well-worded summary, with personal and spiritual resonance, and an eloquent explanation of a particular kind (or nature) of a particular kind (or nature of) personal experience.

But the axiomatic assertion, even changed and then qualified as you have done, is problematic. If I heard the assertion that "all else being equal, well-educated people will appreciate fine art more than ill-educated people", I would challenge it on exactly the same grounds. As a loose generalisation, it might be 'anecdotally' correct, or even 'often' true. But it cannot be axiomatic.

I also notice you didn't address Maril's point that some Christians consider Tolkien immoral because of the element of 'magic'. Surely this also illustrates the logical flaws in the original assertion ... or my point about the role and purpose of the author - the skill and vision in the communicative process that allows a work to transcend 'resonant' (or "similar") worldviews. Surely Tolkien, above many, achieved that (and continues to).

You chose to address my point about the difference between one who is blind and and one who is seeing and their experience of a sunset in terms of physics/mathematics, of purely intellectual (or cerebral) inequalities. That was not the essence of my point. I was speaking about the specific perceptive act (rather than a conceptualised or rational one), in which the heightened non-visual senses of the blind person meant their experience of a sunset was as unique and valid (and could be described as equally profound) as the primarily visual experience of a sighted person. In my example, a sighted person would not have "the best of both worlds". As to whether people with sensory disabilities are missing something ... well, maybe. But we all miss things, we are all imperfect. And blindness on the inside is far more insidious - and common - than failings in the optic nerve.

Lastly, in reference to the aspect of "judging", you said -

"The act of committing Art ... CANNOT be considered in whole apart from a living appreciation for the Creator. If a reader lacks this belief ... he may well have a profound intellectual and emotional understanding, but he simply CANNOT get the same thrill. To deny it is real is willfull disbelief, an act of faith in a worldview that collapses in the face of such a fact."

My translation of your argument would be -

'If a reader does not believe that experiencing art is linked to experiencing Christianity through a deeply-held faith, he will not experience the same level of transcendent spirituality when reading works by a Christian that a reader who does hold that belief and faith will. To deny that Christians can and do experience transcendent spirituality is a false position, because it happens'

I hope that is fair. But I will try and distil more precisely -

'If a reader is not a Christian, he will not have the same Christian experience (when reading works by a Christian) as a reader who is a Christian. Non-Christians cannot deny the experience of Christians.'

Well, at the risk of reductio ad absurdam this IS, on closer inspection, a somewhat circular argument. At its heart it says 'a non-Christian will not have the same experience as a Christian'. Yes, okay, but one human being is always different enough from another human being to not have the same experience.

As you can nodoubt tell, I admit to a certain amateur fascination with philosophical reasoning (which often ends with micro-semantics). On the other hand, in the more general (or conversational) analysis of the range of influences in Tolkien's work, and the moral sensibility apparent in his books, I am not really in disagreement with much of your first post in this thread, maybe just one or two assumptions or implications. Reading back, perhaps we have painted ourselves into opposite corners, but we're probably in the same room, if you see what I mean [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

IMPORTANT : to put the whole matter into perspective ... you can read the whole of this post of mine and use the words "rich", or "white", or "old", or "Buddhist" every time I have used the word "Christian". My argument, which has to do with logical reasoning, challenging axiomatic assertion, and implications of superiority, would be exactly the same. I have no special bias or issue for or against Christianity as the particular exemplar - it's just what this thread is about.

By the way, it is worth talking. And listening. Being open-minded (and open-hearted), to any who are willing to engage in reasonable discourse. I aspire to this, and sometimes fail. Of course, I and other people seldom change their minds - or appear to, at that moment, especially when challenged. It can happen later, or unnoticed, sometimes. But the discourse itself has value, and enriches us. It's not about just scoring points. Hence my re-reading of the thread, and I hope a more sympathetic reading of your arguments. You referred above to "a final post" on this matter. But I would be gratified to at least know you had read my reply, and would naturally read any further post by you with interest.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Gilthalion]

Kalessin:

My point is about axiomatic (or absolute) statements that are philosophically (logically) unsound which imply the superiority of one individual over another (in whatever aspect, and for whatever reason) ... an examination of history should show you why.

This has nothing to do with "superiority" of one individual over another or the sad history of avarice, torture, murder, rape, destruction, and blasphemy that is part of the record of the Church. I could list what has been done to the credit of my Lord, but that would be another digression.

The heart of our difference of opinion lies in my insistence that my general observation is correct, and can be applied generally. Your argument is with application to the individual. No statistician would take the profile of an individual, compare it to a public opinion poll, and state categorically that the individual MUST have an opinion that his demographic category holds. Nevertheless, the general observation of the group holds. That's how products are sold and elections are won. But when used without cause in law enforcement against individuals, it is racial profiling and it is wrong.

As I say, I did not come to argue/debate, but to make an observation (and to discuss it if need be, but that surprised me). Folk are free to disagree. If you want to argue that until polls are conducted to verify or to disprove my assertion, it is merely a theory, that's fine. My assertion or theory is verifiable (though not provable in a scientific sense) if a valid poll is conducted with accepted statictical practices. I believe that you will GENERALLY find that with any given work of literature, folk who share worldviews with the author most closely will find resonances that enhance their appreciation above those with divergent worldviews. A poll could control well enough for demography so that the assertion could reasonably be shown to be correct or incorrect. But an argument about the nature of the observation I make will not make a difference. Folk who think as I do will continue to. Folk who don't, won't. Everyone else is asleep by now.

I'll read the rest of your post now, because I appreciate your forthright effort, but I'm not sure if much else is served. (I thought my last post was my "final" post!)

I also notice you didn't address Maril's point that some Christians consider Tolkien immoral because of the element of 'magic'. Surely this also illustrates the logical flaws in the original assertion ... or my point about the role and purpose of the author - the skill and vision in the communicative process that allows a work to transcend 'resonant' (or "similar") worldviews.

Sorry. I'm really not up to giving every point a response. There is a lot here!

To Maril's point: I've argued against these people myself, on the radio, before doing my Tolkien Reading last year at the Public Library. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Exceptions are expected and noted. Take a poll. This isn't science or philosophy. This is statistics.

To your point: I would say, that the transcendence of the work is testimony to the depth of Truth that the work embodies. (This is also irrelevant, except perhaps as corroboration of Tolkien's conviction that his worldview was closest to Truth.)

Your entire argument about the blind men is based upon an unprovable notion that the blind man's sensory appreciation of the sunset is somehow "equal" to the sighted. This is another difference of worldview, and irrelevant to my point. Some minds revolt at consideration of the possibility of inequalities. Some look for nothing else. Everyone else lies in between. (As I'm sure you and I do. I think by the time you got to the end of your argument, you saw that.) I think that this is one of the sticking points for a lot of people. Unequal attributes, situations, etc. do not necessairly imply inferiority or superiority. To say that 99 is greater than 98 does not mean that one number is "better" than the other. 99 is only numerically greater than 98, not superior. They are still both whole numbers and indespensible.

'If a reader is not a Christian, he will not have the same Christian experience (when reading works by a Christian) as a reader who is a Christian. Non-Christians cannot deny the experience of Christians.'

Well, at the risk of reductio ad absurdam this IS, on closer inspection, a somewhat circular argument. At its heart it says 'a non-Christian will not have the same experience as a Christian'. Yes, okay, but one human being is always different enough from another human being to not have the same experience.

That is a fair enough interpretation, and more clearly expressed than I managed. I am not even an amatuer philosopher! But I maintain that I am not really ARGUING my point, but merely ASSERTING it. This may be frustrating to those who relish philosophical (or theological) debate, and I'm sorry, but as Maril pointed out, there is no way for me to actually prove my point in any satisfactory sense.

Even the hypothetical poll I speak of could be argued. It would merely serve to either corroborate or discredit my assertion. It can't be proven or disproven philosophically.

I only report that it can be experienced, and therefore statistically measured as a matter of opinion.

IMPORTANT : to put the whole matter into perspective ... you can read the whole of this post of mine and use the words "rich", or "white", or "old", or "Buddhist" every time I have used the word "Christian". My argument, which has to do with logical reasoning, challenging axiomatic assertion, and implications of superiority, would be exactly the same.

Exactly. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

By the way, it is worth talking. And listening. Being open-minded (and open-hearted), to any who are willing to engage in reasonable discourse.

Can't really disagree with that. And I hope that's why I made the effort. Thanks for an interesting discussion! I will pray that your open mind and heart has an opportunity to find that in the "varieties of religious experience" (I actually read it) reports might be confirmed that seem to Wormtongue fantasy (and foolishness), and to Maril arrogance (and far worse).

Then you can go back and read Tolkien and see if you, yourself, do not experience what I report! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Gilthalion ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

My thanks to everyone who took the time to read and think about this question. This is not an easy issue, and this was one case where I felt more comfortable reading and learning rather than overtly joining in the discussion. Very different from my usual big mounth and/or loose pen. You have given me much to think about. sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[The Barrow-Wight]

I'm getting complaints about the tone of this conversation. I don't like complaints, so I'm closing the thread.