Hoss:

I'm laughing soooooooooo hard I have tears streaming down my face!!!!!!!!!! I GIVE YOU ******************************
*****************************
for that post. That is classic. For the first time I've printed a post out. Too, too, good as somebody I know would say.

What's more, I've been touched by a message that I actually get!!!!

Give me a plate full of Green Eggs and Ham!!!!! Gimme seconds Gimme thirds.

I want to learn about the Cat in the Hat too!!! Please? (Is that about the second coming???)

Glad to put a smile on your face this morning pardner!

Help yourself to as much green eggs and ham as you want!

hey, Servant, are you serious?

'Green Eggs and Hams' is an allegory of Christ and His Joy?

man, this is the first!!!!!

i like it!
i like the way you've painted that, too!!!!

man, you even reached ole JT!!!!!!!

that was awesome!!!!!

thanks for sharing!!!!!

Hi Servant,

Thanks for that.

Hi everyone,

This discussion is really dragging in some places now. Regarding the article posted by PraiseWarrior, first, it fails to distinguish between fiction and lying, which is a distinction that has to be made if we are to accept Jesus' parables. Second, there is no witchcraft and no sorcery in Lord of the Rings. This has been made clear in past posts in this discussion thread. What superficially appears to be magic there is only the natural activity of angelic and demonic beings. That is clear to anyone who researches Tolkien's writings on this matter. Gandalf, Saruman, the Balrog and Sauron are conceived as angelic or demonic beings with bodies, in this respect not unlike C.S. Lewis' angels in his Space Trilogy. The Christian response to real-life cases of magic is that, when it is not some slight-of-hand but something supernatural happening, what is really happening is that God is tolerating (within limits) demons' utilization of their natural abilities. Angels are allowed to act on earth, of course, too, as they blinded the Sodomites, rolled Jesus' stone away, etc. This is also the explanation Tolkien's mythological fiction offers for Gandalf's actions, the powers of the ring of Sauron, etc. Is Tolkien therefore anti-Christian on this matter? No. His fiction takes a very Christian line on this subject, perhaps more than it had to given that fiction is alowed to be fictional. Moreover, the Lord of the Rings doesn't anywhere invite the readers to try anything magical.

MercyBreeze has continued to insist, again and again, that the question of Tolkien's books' Christian character has to be considered in the light of what was put on the shelves of Christian bookstores. Other considerations, however relevant, have, according to many of his posts (if memory serves), to be subordinated to this one, or left unconsidered in favor of this one. Recently he seemed to change his position from accepting Tolkien's books as harmless non-theological fiction to an enthusiastic acceptance of the view taken in the article in PraiseWarrior's post, that the Lord of the Rings is anti-Christian due to its "magic." But I think he still holds to the Christian bookstores rule.

Having addressed the magic question, I therefore invite MercyBreeze now to apply his rule more consistently: If something is not Christian unless it always made it to the shelves of Christian bookstores, then he will have to abandon his theology of Dispensationalism, a theology he as endorsed in another topic here at the WUG FF. I can think of many Christian bookstores which do not sell titles promoting Dispensationalism and never ever carried them. Most of those that do carry them, now, for a long time did not. If it's not in these bookstores, by his rule, it is not authentically Christian. Applying the rule as religiously to theology as he does to fiction (and it is certainly much more appropriate for theology), I guess he will have to go back to the early Church interpretation of the relationship between Paul and James, etc.

I learn from www.dispensationalism.com that "While the opponents of Dispensationalism will point out that as a system of theology it is relatively new, it is notable that there is evidence from the early church writers that there was clearly an understanding that God dealt with His people differently in progressive dispensations." This is an admission that Dispensationalism is a "system of theology...relatively new" and for a long time was not in any Christian bookstores anywhere. The opponents "point [this] out", the website says; they do not "make it up." I add that what follows in that sentence seems pretty slippery, and does not refute the opponents' objection. For the Early Church Fathers did not hold to a progression in the sense that they drove a wedge of theological disagreement between New Testament writings of Paul and James, or between Paul's theology and that of Jesus' words in the Gospels, which is what the new system called Dispensationalism means. (For that is what is particular to it.) The (different) progressive dispensations acknowledged in the Early Church had nothing to do with the recently conceived (18th century, I think?) Fundamentalist methods of interpretation, endorsed at the website as part of Dispensationalism, either. Sure, the Early Church Fathers took many things in the Bible literally, but they never made a simple system or rule of it: they took many things in the Bible allegorically (and not just some parables).

I wonder, then, what choice would MercyBreeze make given this clear application of his rule of Christian bookstores? Will he allow Tolkien into the Christian bookstores, or will he abandon Dispensationalism to become what the Early Church called "Catholic"? Very interesting. I expect that, at any rate, he will not keep on repeating his rule Tolkien's books must simply be judged by the rule that what is really Christian has (of necessity) always to have been in the Christian bookstores.

I am also inclined to ask whether the rule, pressed as hard as MB has pressed it, implies that there is a Christian authority outside of the Bible. For the Christian bookstores and their management are not part of the Bible. They are very nice people, and often show excellent judgement, but are they authorities on what it means to be Christian? If they are, then Sola Scriptura (Latin for "the only authority", the central Protestant maxim) is abandoned. (I don't mean that I am insisting on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.)

Best wishes, everyone,

Luke

Luke,

Its good to have dialogue with you again . Seems its been a while since we last chatted.

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. Meaning... you have pulled out something from www.dispensationalism.com and presumed to make assertions about the things I believe or support through a foundation or association. With regards to dispensationalism, all I have ever encouraged is the concept that "God reveals Himself over different [periods of time/dispensations]." As in, I do sincerely believe that while God Himself has remained the same yesterday, today, and forever, man has not necessarily understood the fullness of Him until He chooses to reveal something new about Himself. He has ALWAYS been the same, but we, as humanity have not ALWAYS known him with the same comprehension. That, Luke, is something I did not learn from reading a website or a book on dispensationalism... I simply came to understand that on my own. After coming to understand that aspect of truth (within my limited mind), I began to hear people say things like, "You must be a dispensationalist." Having already believed that God reveals Himself in different ways over different periods of time, I did not directly know what it meant to "be a dispensationalist." To this day, I have maintained that the closest one might come to categorizing my understanding of doctrine or truth is to call me a dispensationalist, but I have not limited myself to being solely dispensational in my life. Hence, you have chosen an argument that really doesn't invalidate the point I've asserted from the beginning.

The original point was...

Isn't it interesting how this mystical fantasy book has suddenly peaked the interest of Christians everywhere AFTER Hollywood made a movie that the world fell in love with? As in, suddenly AFTER the world embraces it... we start calling it Christian literature. That was my point. And to this point, I have not found legitimate reasons to substantiate why it had not AT LEAST been considered Christian fiction in previous years. Rather, it got popular in the world's eyes and we, as Christians, adopted it as our own model fantasy in Christian literature simply because Tolkien was a Christian.

Perhaps it is best to consider the varying works of Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith over the years. When Amy Grant began her career, she sang such beautiful Christ-like lyrics such as "My Father's Eyes." In later years, she continued her "ministry" by singing songs like "Baby, Baby" and others. Further down the road, she divorced a wonderful man of God (Gary Chapman) and married a secular music star.

Now...

We know that the song, "My Father's Eyes" is solely Christian because it is identified as such within her lyrics. Dare I suggest that "Baby, Baby" is pointing anyone toward God? But Amy Grant is a Christian Musician, right??? She sings Christian songs sometimes, so she must always be singing Christian songs, right??? I mean, logical breakdown would suggest that if you are Christian that ANYTHING you do, write, say, or sing ALSO HAS TO BE Christian too, right?

Obviously you get my drift.

I somewhat understood your "dispensational" argument about my use of Christian bookstores in conversation, but indeed, "dispensationalism" in and of itself at least has a focus on theology (which is the study of God).

One thing you may not know about me is that I don't tend to like Christian bookstores. If you haven't figured out by now, I'm not a mainstream believer and do not enjoy "hanging out" in typical Christian associations. Where I have found Christian bookstores to be a great help in my life is within the sections entitled, "Study tools," "History of...", "Reference Materials." For the most part, I don't shop the fiction section of a Christian bookstore.

The only reason I stated that was to state this...

While I was wandering through the "reference section" of the Christian bookstore last year, I couldn't help but bump into the HUUUUGGGGGEEEEE display promoting LORD OF THE RINGS. There were dolls, screenplays, books, bookmarks, etc, etc, etc, you name it. It struck me as odd and somewhat discouraging in that I already knew LotR to be a HIGHLY enjoyable WORLD fantasy. As in, I already knew that the world loved it as it was... now I was discouraged to see that the Christian bookstore was taking something of the world and putting it on display as though it belonged to them alone. To this day, that sincerely disturbs me. I am not alone in that disturbance.

Over the past months and weeks, you have taught me a lot about Tolkien that I did not know. For indeed, you surfaced weeks ago that Tolkien was in fact a believer in Christ. But taking my informally established point about Amy Grant, perhaps you can see why your explanations regarding Tolkien do not invalidate my disturbance with the issue at hand...

Why now? Why not before Hollywood?

Truly, I do not and was not searching the "Christian literature" section of the store when I first noticed it... I could not help but BUMP INTO THE HUGE DISPLAY as though it was bigger than God Himself.

Perhaps you understand why on some level, I am not pleased with the compromise of Christian bookstores regardless of whether or not I shop there on a regular basis. More often than not, I now find my research materials online and avoid going into the bookstores much at all anymore (not to mention my wife and I now live in the middle of no where ).

Forgive me for being longwinded, but your post deserved a fair response.

In Christ Alone,

Mercy

Servant,

Can you do one on Star Wars now? I don't get the Green Eggs and Ham allegory . I really loved the movie and the writer and was hoping you could give me insight into whether or not the Force was God or if it was just Truth. Any thoughts?

Mercy

Hi Luke!

I hope my little allegory put a smile on your face.

For the record, I don't have any real opinion on this subject. If one person wants to see God in the books, great. If another doesn't, that's fine too.

However, there are some elements of the discussion I find interesting and occassionally I'll pop in because of it...as I did with the concept of allegories.

You also posted something I found rather interesting that perhaps you can expound upon...

Luke, I'm getting from your post that one has to "research" other writings of Tolkien (ie: outside the four ring books- including The Hobbit) to know that Gandalf, Saurumon and Sauron are not sorcerers, but spiritual beings...angels and demons. Is that correct? If I am understanding this correctly, what writings would one have to read to learn of this?

For sure, this element is not clear when reading any of the books on their own. (I've read them and always thought that they were sorcerers). But I expect that if Tolkien himself expounded on his allegories in other writings, then it is what it is. However, if someone else is stating that Tolkien's writings were allegorical, then I would say we're in the same league as my "Green Eggs and Ham" scenerio.

Please pardon my ignorance. I'll be the first to admit that I am not the most literate or well read in the forums, so any clarification you could provide would be appreciated.

Have a great night!

Mercy,

I think I'll pass on the Star Wars allegory. BTW, I've read that the "force" was actually based on a middle-eastern view of God- a God that is not personal; a God that is an abstract force without the attributes of a living being. This is consistant with the universalist religious views I understand George Lucas believes.

Servant,

*Pout*

I always cry in Return of the Jedi when Luke Skywalker overcomes the DARK SIDE because I consider my own ability to overcome the DARK SIDE by picking up a light saber :p (i.e... Light Saber = The Bible).

Mercy

I like that allegory!