Modern Day Parables

[Lekcit]

JRR Tolkien never intended for the LoTR to be allegorical. He said so himself several times. Do those themes present themselves in his writings? Of course. It is difficult to live the lives they did and believe what the believed and that not extend into your writings, fictional or otherwise.

Now to this business about witchcraft, where in the Chronicles of Narnia or LoTR is witchcraft primary or prominent? I so happens that CS Lewis and Tolkien were two of the best Christians of their time. In fact, it was Tolkien that led CS Lewis to Christ and it was Lewis that first developed the idea that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.

So, were LoTR and the Chronicles of Narnia allegorical? Probably not intended as such, but as I mentioned before, a lifestyle is a lifestyle and extends to every aspect of what you do and who you are.

In Him.

[Gerioke]

1 Samuel 28: 7

Saul asks for a medium

Does this make the bible based on witchcraft?

[Lekcit]

Why So Blind? I need to use your user name as the question I ask of you.

Why are you so blind that you fail to see the ignorance in your statement. Will someone get saved by reading LoTR or the Narnia books? Never. If they do then I would seriously question them about the experience. But that doesn't make them the devil's work. Why is it that you want to speak from a position of ignorance when you discuss something. If you want to have an honest, open discussion about LoTR or the Narnia books then I suggest you go read them and then come back here ready to have a real discussion because you can't discuss something that which you know nothing about.

Go read. You might be surprised what you'd learn.

In Him.

[Gerioke]

1 Samuel 28: 7

Saul asks for a medium

Does this make the bible based on witchcraft?

No, but Saul died lost, in part, because he consulted that medium.

Regarding LOTR, Tolkien, and Lewis.

Gandalf is a Wizard. I know what some will say that he is an "Ishtari" or whatever, but the simple fact is "magic" is presented as being good and is used by "good" characters. witchcraft by any name is still witchcraft. There is nothing in these fables that can lead one to Jesus Christ, who is never even mentioned in the books, and mere ethics alone has never saved one soul.

LOTR and the silmarillion presents the following sins as "good" and "good" characters practice lifestyles involving them:

Drunkenness.

Smoking.

magic.

cohabitation.

praying to other gods.

divination.

necromancy.

All of which are sins addressed directly or indirectly in scripture.

The creation story of LOTR is plain and simple blasphemy. There is no way around that fact.

Regarding the Narnia Chronicles. No, I have not read that pagan work, and I will not read it either. I don't need to read the devil's works to know what is in it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess if you were president science fiction and fantasy would be illegal

Spelling books would be outlawed because they are not scriptural

and Charlz Schulz is in hell for conjuring up the great pumpkin and easter beagle

[nebula]

Well, since everone insists on keeping this thread hijacked . . .

There's an interesting series of articles about LOTR off the Christian movie review website called "Hollywood Jesus" (I know - strange name!).

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/

Link to the Contents page for the articles

About sorcery et al, the columnist makes this point ( for the whole article, click here ):

So the question has frequently been raised: what is wizardry in The Lord of the Rings, what did it mean to Tolkien, and what about the movie's presentation of magic?

The first two of these questions are really very easy to address. In brief, the "powers" of Tolkien's universe have a very definite hierarchy. Eru, the One, is the supreme being, a perfect correlate to the one god of monotheistic religions. Under him are an order of created, 'angelic' beings: the Ainur. Some of these, the Valar, were given the task of ordering and supervising the affairs of Arda (our Earth), and were variously described by Tolkien as analogous to the Greek gods, or Catholicism's Archangels. Others, lesser of the Ainur, followed the Valar in their work in Arda: the Maiar. These beings are of a class commonly thought of as "angels" or "demons." While not explicit in the text of LOTR, Tolkien makes it clear that Sauron himself is one of the Maiar (originally in the service of Eru, and later a follower of the rebellious Melkor), as are Balrogs and other evil spirit beings; and as are the Istari, the Wizards. So in Tolkien's world, wizards are not humans with supernatural powers; they are, in fact, supernatural beings. So in Gandalf and Saruman we have angelic representatives of the Divine: one who is faithful and one (like Milton's Lucifer, or even Lucas' Anakin Skywalker?) who has been seduced by evil.

Magic is a fairly omnipresent feature of Tolkien's books. From Gandalf's perspective, some very simple "tricks" of his trade could be found in his fireworks, or in his ability to provide light for the Fellowship as they pass through Moria. One act of which he was particularly "proud," however, was the flourish he added to the flood that descended upon the Black Riders at the Ford of Bruinen. Elrond (through the power of one of the Rings crafted by Celebrimbor in ages past) controls the flow of Bruinen (not, as mentioned previously in the February feature, through the incantation delivered by Arwen in the movie), but Gandalf adds, through magic, the appearance of white stallions galloping amidst the foam of the flood. Of what nature is such magic? Is it akin to the miracles performed by Jesus in the Bible, like raising Lazarus from the dead? Not at all. Nowhere in Tolkien's fiction does any created being have the power of life over death. In his letters, Tolkien explains frequently that "magic," which is also practiced by the Elves in imitation of the Valar, is a form of Art. It is the ability to apply knowledge of things as they truly are in such a way that they become 'transformed' in the eyes of the uninitiated. Middle-earth's fireworks are a perfect example: "magic" to Hobbits, but perfectly understandable to a modern audience. The mithril-inlaid gates of Moria are another: the product of the elevated craft of the Dwarves and Elves, but one whose secret has simply been lost.

The columnist also explains the difference between what the movie presented and what the book actually presents. For isntance:

It doesn't take a genius, then, to see that Peter Jackson has taken some liberties in his presentation of Wizards and Magic in The Fellowship of the Ring. Two scenes in particular stand out. The first is the seemingly gratuitous "wizard battle" at Orthanc. While in Tolkien's book, the event happens rather peacefully (if with chagrin on Gandalf's part) it is wholly explainable within the framework of Tolkien's spiritual hierarchy: Saruman is the most powerful of the Istari, and Gandalf must yield to his powers while in his "spiritual space." In the movie, however, it seems that Jackson simply wants to present a WWF (Wizard's Wrestling Federation) scene for the more crass in his audience. Jackson's purpose, though, has more to do with narrative flow and audience satisfaction than one might think. Consider: Tolkien did not write The Fellowship of the Ring as a standalone novel; and his villain, Sauron, only comes into play in the full scope of the "trilogy." Jackson' movie, however, must work as standalone entertainment: and so it must have a viable villain. Thus it is that the facts of Gandalf's imprisonment even surface in the first installment. In the books, that subplot is not revealed until much later.

For me, a second key "scene" is Saruman's creation of the Uruk-Hai. In the books, Saruman's devilry all happens in the background; Jackson, however, in order to add tension to the Uruk-Hai's pursuit of the Fellowship along the banks of Anduin, brings it to the foreground in all its grisly, fiendish, barbaric creativity. And this is a potential problem: because the audience may think that Jackson (and Tolkien, by extension) believe that the ability to create is a possibility through Magic; that is, that those who practice magic, such as wizards, have powers equal to that of the Creator. Tolkien was at pains to explain that Saruman's actions were a perversion of existing creation, not an original, life-giving act. Jackson' visual treatment of the event does not make that clear; indeed, perhaps the opposite. And so it is important that we distinguish Tolkien's intent from Jackson's, and realize that some "errors" that Jackson has introduced have been at the service of narrative effectiveness.

That having been said, we can safely assert, I think, that Jackson's magic is a touch more supernatural and less "artistic" in tone than Tolkien's (think again of Arwen's incantations at the Ford of Bruinen and perhaps worthy of holding a bit more at arm's length.

[Gerioke]

I understand that saved by an angel is still on tv

is that more like a parable?

[Keith]

Touched By An Angel (not saved) finished after nine seasons. I'm sure it's still in reruns though. I used to enjoy watching this show. I adored Monica! I turned my tv off for good last July though, so no more TBAA.

As for Christian parables, you could try calling your local Christian bookstore and ask them for some suggestions. I can't think of any off-hand. I'm a parable person, too, Ray. I really enjoy them! Some of the stories posted on the Absolutely Positive board are parable-ish.

[nebula]

Errr . . . no . . . don't do any Google searches.

The first one I tried led me to a very sick site

[Gerioke]

Why So Blind? I need to use your user name as the question I ask of you.

Why are you so blind that you fail to see the ignorance in your statement. Will someone get saved by reading LoTR or the Narnia books? Never. If they do then I would seriously question them about the experience. But that doesn't make them the devil's work. Why is it that you want to speak from a position of ignorance when you discuss something. If you want to have an honest, open discussion about LoTR or the Narnia books then I suggest you go read them and then come back here ready to have a real discussion because you can't discuss something that which you know nothing about.

Go read. You might be surprised what you'd learn.

In Him.

Ray,

Sorry to have hijacked your thread and all.

[Ovedya]

*sigh*

There you go, ray.

....Just don't report any posts to me about this thread, okay? Let another moderator take care of any problems that arise from this thread. I'm done here.