Neat! I like where this is going. And Servant. Give me MORE green eggs and ham PLEASE Lord Jesus I need more! I love that alegory very cute and VERY well put!

This example of your posting is exactly what I meant in regards to what I had asked on another thread I started in regards to the movie LOTR.

Why can't one see Christ in everything as long as it matches up to his word. No wierdness invovled! God is personal so he can speak to us however he likes especially through his word which is the standard.

Just a quick note.

I'm taking a class currently on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. You will find information about the Wizards (Istari) in the book "Unfinished Tales" and in the Silmarillion in the section towards the begining "Of the Maiar" where you will find out that Gandalf (called Olorin here) is a Maiar as was Sauron. Saruman, as a fellow wizard, is assumed also to be one.

Tolkien hated allegory and vehemently denied that his books were intended to be allegories of Christ's story in the same way as CS Lewis' books are. Instead, he presents a pre-christian fictional world designed not to conflict with Christian teachings. His characters are Types, not Allegories, as Maggie (KingdomBuilding) described above. There is a significant difference. These Types illustrate important truths about that which they typify and thus propound a Christian message in that context without creating one singular Christ figure. Why did Tolkien avoid having one Christ figure? Because he thought his books should not conflict with Christianity because he believed the teachings of Christianity came first. Praisewarrior's post implied that Tolkien exalted his works and his fictional world as doctrine greater than the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As for all the merchandising and displays and video games and figurines coming out of this movie, Tolkien would be spinning in his grave. He would have hated it.

Susan

So many differing views!! Isn't this amazing???

MMK, according to Susan, it is unreasonable to assume that Tolkien wrote with allegory in mind given Tolkien's lifelong vehemence against the style.

Susan- types? I like that better too. So do you think these characters represent angels and demons as Luke has stated? Cuz you used the word "wizard" which to me, implies magic and the like.

Hi MercyBreeze,

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I will try to reply briefly. I have a presentation to give tomorrow, and I'm procrasting just a little to deal with stress. Please say a prayer for me? I just noticed while skimming for KingdomBuilder that you wrote a long time ago that you were unemployed. Have you found work? God bless in this.

In your reply, you write, "Though I tend to hold to 'dispensational' theology, I do not consider myself to be limited by ANY theology through which another can aptly suggest that they know everything about what I believe." I didn't discuss "everything about what [you] believe." I said that I saw that you had endorsed Dispensationalism. And you did, by name. "With regards to dispensationalism, all I have ever encouraged is the concept that 'God reveals Himself over different [periods of time/dispensations].'" No, I recall that you also asserted that Paul and James, in their letters in the New Testament, disagreed with each other over a matter of theology and salvation. Such a view is not in any way a development of the Early Church's doctrine. For their theology had at its starting point that the New Testament does not contradict itself; James and Paul cannot disagree on theology at all in these writings. But such a view is what I have been told many times is unique to Dispensationalism. I only went to www.dispensationalism.com to find out how new this system is acknowledged to be, and I found it. So as far as I can tell, then, the logic of my last post, on this matter, holds strong.

"One thing you may not know about me is that I don't tend to like Christian bookstores." I admit to being surprised at this. Have you not been stating, over and over, that the chief consideration in determining whether the Lord of the Rings is authentically Christian is whether it was in the Christian bookstores all along? If that was not your point all this time, I don't know what was. "The original point was... Isn't it interesting how this mystical fantasy book has suddenly peaked the interest of Christians..." That cannot have been the point, just that something like this was "interesting." This thread has clearly been a debate - a respectful debate, and I credit you especially for this - and the topic under debate is not whether it is "interesting" that Christian bookstores started carrying these books. No, I think you have been arguing that Tolkien's books are not Christian - that they shouldn't be in the stores. The reason that you have been giving for this conclusion is that most Christian bookstores haven't been carrying it. If that is the reason, then I believe my above post holds. If that is not the reason, then, what was? And, since no one else (I think) has been asserting the special authority of Christian bookstores in defining what is Christian, why have you insisted that inclusion in bookstores is the starting point and by far the central issue to our discussion?

The arguments for the books' Christian character, incidently, have not been simply that Tolkien was Christian. I think I agreed with you on some previous page that this is not our argument, for by that argument a bridge could be called Christian in character just because the engineer who designed it was Christian. You have been presented with much more substantial arguments, esp. by Susan and KingdomBuilder - arguments which, I think, you haven't addressed because the bookstores were, according to your posts, more important. ??? Please forgive me if my memory has failed on this point.

"Perhaps you understand why on some level, I am not pleased with the compromise of Christian bookstores..." If you believe the stores are compromising something by selling the books, or by having big displays, then I sympathize with your feelings. Really, I do. But whether they are compromising something in fact has been the question all along, and your constant argument for the compromise has, I think, been that they used not to carry them. Hence my last post.

Just for confirmation, is it true that you believe what PW's article says, that the Lord of the Rings is not theologically neutral literature, but actually anti-Christian and occult?

Probably I seem to demand a lot of patience. Thanks for your patience, and have a great night. Thanks for your time.

Yours in Christ,

Luke

Hi Servant,

I'm sorry, there are two books which, I think, could provide me with references for you from The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, but I don't have either on hand. I have the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but with a presentation tomorrow, I don't have time to skim through them. I'm a Tolkien enthusiast, but not a Tolkien expert, so no quote comes immediately to mind. The Tolkien Companion and Master of Middle Earth are useful on this topic. Maybe Susan has them or can offer some thoughts?

My only limited thoughts for now are, first, that I think we have all perceived that Gandalf, Sauron, and Saruman are considered distinct from the race of men, of Elves, of Hobbits, and all other mortal races in the books. Second, Gandalf's body, we learn from the second book, is destroyed by the Balrog; he takes a new one. Sauron's body is said, even in the first movie, to have been formless for a long time. This is more consistent with our notion of angelic beings than with men. Third, when we talk about witchcraft and sorcery, we are talking about ordinary people somehow tapping into unseen powers external to them. Gandalf, Saruman, Sauron, etc., seem only to be using powers intrinsic to their natures. Sorry I can't do better now.

Thanks again for the Dr. Seuss!

Best wishes in Christ,

Luke

Servant always out to get me :p

Suppose Susan is right; suppose Tolkien did hate allegory. Should this fact change the way we analyze the work? Using a completely formalistic approach, no. Using a mythical/archetypal approach, yes. It really depends on the method of interpretation.

Like "Green Eggs and Ham", all literary interpretations are subjective. The only trick is to convince someone of their validity (although the other person's opinion is also subjective). It's silly if you give it too much thought.

My point exactly. MMK, believe it or not, we are in agreement!

BTW, if by "out to get you" you mean I have a burden on my heart for you, you would be correct.

To All on this page,

I think that the whole contreversy is absurd. I haven't seen any kind of research on the amount of children reading, but if a story gets kids into reading a book about wizards, witches, dragons, unicorns, or green eggs and ham then by all means let them read it. I personally would rather have my child reading a Harry Potter book or Tolkien or Dr. Suess than to be looking a some pornographic web site on the internet.

To Me anyting that sparks a childs imagination should be used to its most capability. The fact that some people are to scared for kids to use there imaginaation is totaly absurd, for the kid who uses it is gaining knowledge and I've always heard that knowledge is power.

Knowledge is the key to the world.

He told him, "You may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden, except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day."
(Gen 2:16-17)

DX,

Not all knowledge is good knowledge. I'm not making any judgement on this particular subject, but your post implies that all knowledge is good. And I disagree with that, due mostly to the fact that one has to take into consideration the age of the reader. If you do not have children, perhaps this might be difficult for you to grasp, but nonetheless, it is true.

As a Christian parent, there are simply things that I do not want my child exposed to and will fight tooth and nail to protect them until such time they can decide for themselves...and let's face it, when your talking about LOTR or Harry Potter, for the most part we're talking about children, or, more accurately, adolescent youth.

Hi DX,

As you know, I see nothing wrong with children reading Lord of the Rings or fiction in general. It's very good that they read. I haven't looked at Harry Potter. Some say it's harmless; others say that it proposes to children that magic is something they really should be doing, i.e. placing curses on people, etc. If it is true that it proposes such activities to children, I think that's a legitimate cause for concern. But one has to be careful in determining whether this is indeed proposed. Again, I can't say if it does or not, since I haven't read the book or even seen the movie. I can say this: Harry Potter is debated by so many people and to an extent that no other children's books are debated. For this reason, I would read the book to find out before I gave it to my child to read.

In fact, this reminds me of another question for MercyBreeze. He has asked, why was Lord of the Rings not in Christian bookstores until now? I ask, why were most people not concerned that Lord of the Rings might be witchcraft literature until Harry Potter? It's not that it hasn't been widely read and known and loved by Christians - it has long been seen, by Christians and secular people alike, as a wonderful, classic work of literature. Why only now the doubts about it? Especially, why only now, just at the time when all the Christian bookstores are endorsing it? Just wondering.

Best wishes,

Luke

i really believe that lotr is being endorsed so much now because the movies doing much of the advertising for them. it's good business is the way i see it. it's considered common knowledge that tolkein held christian beliefs so it's not too far a stretch to call it a christian work. however i think he wrote the book because he was a first and foremost, a writer.

as for harry potter, i have no clue how it could be seriously debated to prove it endorses real witchcraft. ive read the books and it's seems to me that all this sorcery is fantasy and nothing more. it's not a christian work by any stretch but it's a fine childrens novel and i think it's good to see the words children's and novel put together since kids dont seem to dig c.s. lewis and the phantom tollbooth as much as they used to, and it seems to be a real challenge to encourage kids to read books thicker than thier hands.