Luke,
Looking back through page 5 (now finally for the first time in weeks
), I can only find one post that you gave in which I did not respond back. In my abscence, I noticed that some of the follow up posters spoke to things that I would have said were I to be posting. Please confirm for me whether or not this was the post you wanted me to respond to:
________________________________________________
"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."
_____________________________________________
If this is what you would like me to respond to specifically, please confirm.
JTW is anxious to see us dialogue
, so I'd rather not keep him waiting.
Enjoy your day,
Mercy
Previous Topic
Index