While perhaps a little off-topic for this website, I wanted to share a few thoughts regarding Part 1of this lecture on Tolkien's Silmarillion. The topic has long attracted me and in fact there are aspects of it that grow more interesting to me over time.
For many years I have been interested in both Tolkien and
Lewis and in particular how their Cosmological understandings play out in their
fantasy works. Their writings reflect the Middle Ages, the era both authors
appreciated, but some time ago I realised this question was more complex than
the intricacies of Medieval Scholastic Speculation. There are larger questions
regarding Apocryphal literature. That's easy enough to dismiss but I continue
to revisit the issue in light of the New Testament's interaction and
utilisation of certain works.
This in no way validates them or even grants these works
deutero-canonical status but they are appealed to and in fact the cosmology
they represent seems to be granted some validity by the authors of the New
Testament.
I'm still working through these questions. I have some
definite ideas but they are not easy to explain. These questions and their
implementation touch on larger issues regarding the nature of revelation,
tensions between what we might call kerygmatic doctrine and theology proper,
questions regarding 'means', and certainly hermeneutics and the nature of
duality vs. actual or proper dualism.
A few comments on the lecture:
Reeves attempts to argue that Tolkien's cosmology is not
Neo-Platonic with a Pantheistic concept of emanations and yet he readily
acknowledges it is at these very points that Tolkien's Roman Catholicism comes
into play. His hierarchies point to a concept of angelic sub-creators and/or
the cult of saints.
And yet despite Reeves assertion not a few historical
theologians would identify this tendency within Roman Catholicism as indeed due
to Neo-Platonic influence. The parallels are pretty obvious.
Reeves might pursue a different line and delve into the
Angelology of the Deutero-canonical books recognised by Rome as well as
additional apocryphal works such as that of 1 Enoch. This would be a worthwhile
endeavour but I doubt Reeves would want to explore it. The wider implications
in terms of theology, hermeneutics and indeed one's understanding of Genesis
would certainly generate discomfort and potentially destroy one's credibility
within denominational and academic settings.
Regardless, even if this avenue is pursued, the Sub-Creation
doctrine advocated by Tolkien is not a product of the Angel-Watcher stories
mentioned in these works. Nor does the New Testament reflect such a teaching in
its citation and appropriation of these works and the cosmology they represent.
In other words, the New Testament recognises certain aspects of the Angelology
posited by Enoch and yet one will scarcely find these interactions with regard
to angels and men to be positive. Not only does it result in a profoundly condemned
episode it also leads (according to Enoch) to cultural exchanges that are also
portrayed as wicked and transgressive. There's no concept of
angelic-hierarchical sub-creation, nor is it passed on to mankind.
We could explore 'principalities and powers' and the question
of the Divine Council as expressed in the Psalms and the imagery of Eden and
Har Magedon. We could discuss the multifaceted meaning of Elohim and other
terms referencing 'gods' within Scripture but once again I'm sure Reeves would
not wish to pursue such a discussion and I'm willing to be corrected, but I
doubt Tolkien was so immersed in Scriptural study to come up with that on his
own. Rather, unless someone can show me otherwise I would have to still contend
that Tolkien's influences in terms of his cosmology are reflections of Neo-Platonic
influenced Roman Catholicism and hierarchical polytheism as reflected in the
Pagan Western tradition. Rome in its focus on Catholicity has been able to
synthesise these various tendencies in a way no one else can. This is not meant
as a compliment or something praiseworthy. It's simply a statement of what Rome
represents. For Tolkien, Rome stands for Divine Truth and signifies the
Spirit's Presence on Earth.
Roman Catholicism is eclectic and incredibly broad in its
theological scope. It can accommodate both Sacral and Secular categories, which
in many ways come full circle and represent the same tendency. And yet at the
same time it can also accommodate something like Monasticism. Aquinas helped to
both clarify and navigate a rather monistic system which can nevertheless
accommodate aspects of duality. Likewise, Catholicism is able to contain both
concepts of Holy War as well as a Pacifist tradition.
The fact that Neo-Platonism tends toward an anti-materialism
and asceticism in no way contradicts the Sacralist tendency to positively
construct a 'holy' society that sanctifies every aspect of life. These
positions are antithetical but the umbrella of Catholicism allows these
tendencies to exist in various forms. The Reformation also wrestled with these
questions but answered them in a slightly different way.
At one point in the lecture someone asked if there was some
sort of connection between Tolkien and Abraham Kuyper? Obviously not. Tolkien
would have had little interest in such a figure.
So then why or how do Lewis and Tolkien seem to reflect some
of the same tendency?
Reeves argues (or suggests) they were influenced by 'the
literature', presumably of the Western tradition, and that drove them toward
this creation-redemptive/ cultural mandate type thinking.
I was surprised by this and found his answer wanting.
The tradition of Western Christendom is Sacralist. Kuyper was
not an innovator in terms of coming up with a wholly novel concept. Rather, he
developed a specifically Protestant version of Sacralism that could function in
the context of 19th and 20th century Western Pluralist
Christendom.
And yet, Kuyper is merely a variation or re-tooling of the
old Roman Catholic adherence to Christendom, the so-called holy society or
redeemed/sanctified culture. His followers heavily expanded on this and have
continued to develop this theology toward what can only be described as a
coherent monism... ironically nearing the same type of pantheism inherent
within both Tolkienesque and Neoplatonic emanationism.
Lewis and Tolkien didn't need to read Kuyper. They were all
drinking from the same theological and philosophical well. It wasn't some kind
of thematic impetus in the literature. Rather they all were supporters of and
apologists for Western Christendom and its intellectual tradition.
At this point Reeves offers support for this Dominionist
position and argues that Evangelicals have got it all wrong and can't connect
Sunday and Monday.
That's odd. For nigh on twenty years all I have heard from almost every
pulpit, radio programme and podcast is Dominionism, the very thing Reeves is
espousing. It's the new orthodoxy and it has come to absolutely dominate the
Protestant-Evangelical world. It would seem to me that the very premise of
modern Evangelicalism as an outgrowth, reaction to and rejection of
Fundamentalism is predicated on Dominionist assumptions with regard to power
and influence in the world.
Part of the problem (I would argue) on a practical level is
that Dominionism is inherently self-destructive. It's worldly Christianity. At
this point I will be decried as a Pietist or even worse a Gnostic. Dominionism
wants to sanctify everything, make every day Sunday and in the end what happens
is... Sunday disappears altogether.
In terms of theory, there's no longer a distinction between
the world and the Church or between the holy and the common, let alone the
unholy. Antithesis while spoken of by Kuyper's various descendents becomes moot
and is eliminated. It's viewed as something to overcome, not something permanent
or inherent within This Age, that delineates the Church from the world.
The Pilgrim Church, the suffering remnant, these themes are all
but eliminated in the face of Dominionism's temporally manifested Church
Triumphant. And this is true even if the adherents of the position lower their
expectations. I am at this point thinking of the so-called 'Optimistic'
Amillennialists or Dominionist Premillennialists, positions that are not only
incongruous but simply unscriptural.
Reeves may be more or less correct in his interpretation of
Tolkien, though I must say I find his explanation of the One Ring to be
unsatisfactory, at least thus far.
The real issue is the fact that Tolkien's cosmology is
erroneous and does not reflect Scripture. Lewis, who I may address at another
time is a bit better but still falls into some of the same traps and holds some
of the same commitments.
Their works are tremendous and have had a profound effect on
my life and I'm very thankful for them. I've been reading both authors since I
was a boy and yet as I continue to reflect on their works they are less than
perfect in what they purport to represent.
For several years I've been growing a bit more critical of
Tolkien in particular as I see more of the Roman Catholic influence in his
work. Lewis the Anglican (like all of that faction) is torn between the
Reformation and an affection (if not overt Romanticism) for the Middle Ages.
I would provide and argue for a very different narrative of
Church history, one far less satisfying to the flesh, anti-triumphal, and (I
hope) un-romantic and yet one that is in no way inconsistent with such fantasy
literature with all its themes of good vs. evil, light and darkness, struggle
and hope.
I would argue that the very culture Tolkien celebrates as the
glorious West is in fact the culture that took the 'Ring' and was transformed
into a spiritual Mordor.
Interestingly both Lewis and Tolkien have 'remnant' elements
in their stories. One thinks of the underground Narnians in 'Prince Caspian'
and Tolkien's 'Faithful' in Numenor or even the Dunedain of Arnor. I must say
the exilic themes regarding the Noldor are also of interest to me.
Finally there was a potentially interesting discussion
regarding Tolkien's cosmological hierarchies and the idea of God's Sovereignty.
Reeves makes the point that Melkor/Morgoth was a creation, not an equally
ultimate Creator. Tolkien's cosmology was therefore (Reeves argues) not Dualistic
or Gnostic.
Of course there were various Gnostic cosmologies. Generally
speaking the version that many Christians wish to oppose are the forms of
Gnosticism which posit a 'bad' god tied to material creation and a 'good' God
related to the ethereal, the spirit. We should rightly reject such forms of
Gnostic Dualism, but let us not fall into an equally Gnostic Monism by way of
reaction.
While we can deny that kind of formal Dualism, we cannot deny
the multitude of dualities, tensions, and dialectics in Scripture. The latter
term I use not as a process of resolution but a transcendent framework that allows
equally ultimate categories to be true given their context. This gives rise to
what could be described as elements of antinomical reality to one's
understanding of cosmology. There are elements and aspects of creation and
God's relation to it that completely transcend the categories of experience and
the possibility of rational conceptualisation within finite mental categories.
They are mysteries apprehendable only through the Spirit and revelation...
foolishness to the world and yet Divinely-sourced wisdom to those given eyes to
see.
This road can afford some possibilities in grasping at the
tensions between God as sovereign ruler and yet One who employs means and
subordinated powers as the Scriptures seem to suggest, both directly and
through appeal to apocryphal literature. Physical extension and empirical
realities can (it would seem) exist parallel to a spiritual reality or realm
that transcends such inquiries and is only visible to those spiritually attuned
and/or those informed by means of revelation.
The danger here is to overly separate the realities or set up
a false dichotomy that allows the Spiritual to exist in a way that is
disconnected from the physical, temporal and thus historical. Such a position
represents a deviation from a Scriptural hermeneutic. That's one type of error
but by no means the only possible form of reduction.
And yet the all too common Christian embrace of Empirical-Aristotelian
methodology can lead to the same one-sided type of conceptualisation, the same
reductionist view of reality. Attempts at reconciliation or a commitment to logical
coherence destroy the comprehensive and transcendental aspects essential to the
nature of such questions.
Christ as man, his identification as the Son of Man or Second
Adam plays a prominent theme in the Gospels and this is reflected in some of
the doctrinal constructs of the Epistles as well. But we could also argue this
theme is replete throughout the Old Testament in the typology and prophetic
voice found in both the Prophets and the Psalms. It is Christ as the Second Adam
defeating the forces of evil, overcoming them as the warrior that is sometimes
in focus. When contextualised thus, it would seem there is a dualist cosmology
in play. The imagery is real but exists in a subordinated category. The Kenotic
Christ 'can' or 'could' be defeated as it were. The risk is real, the struggle
fierce and yet Christ overcomes the Demonic powers, utilising the tools of
Adam... man in a soteric relationship resting in faith and exercised through
prayer. The nature of the question is somewhat reminiscent of the false dilemma
presented in the question of Christ's peccability. The question attempts to
reduce a duality that cannot be reconciled or formed into a coherent
proposition.
This is not the dualism of the Persians or the Orient. This
is a contextualised and subordinated dualism wedded to the concept of
redemption and the Cosmic War of the Seeds announced in the proto-evangelion. Antithesis is not dualism. Nor is the
contrast between This Age and the Age to Come. Both questions and issues
contain elements of continuity but primarily the focus is on dichotomy. But in
our current theological climate any hint of dichotomy or duality is decried as
Dualist and Gnostic regardless of what the Scriptures teach and that in
abundance.
Christ is certainly Fully God but fights his battles and wins
his victories as Adam... in a Kenotic context wherein he could be defeated. In
terms of soteriology it is as Adam that He wins his victories as represents His
people as High Priest.
This is but one example of duality that hints at larger
questions and a more complex cosmological framework that is both Scriptural and
yet quite unfamiliar to many of its readers and devotees.
I have strayed from the topic of these lectures but this is
precisely why I enjoy them and find them worthwhile even if I must dissent from
the lecturer's views. The questions and themes are profound and of great
significance and they come out in the works of these writers and the universes
they have created.
Tolkien and Lewis in many ways do represent Christian
thinking in their writings and yet coupled with a great deal of truth are
commitments to a system rooted in a deviation from Scripture.
I therefore enjoyed
the lecture despite numerous errors. Reeves is thoughtful, though I must say
his 'Evangelical' style can be off-putting. I think he errs in omitting the
patent influence of numerous pagan elements in the stories. Western Medievalism
wedded Northern European and Latin cultures and this union incorporated their
folklore. One cannot but see Odin, the Celts, the Nibelungenlied, as well as
Greek myth in the stories of these authors. Their influences are not
exclusively Christian and yet that said, the Western Middle Ages viewed
pre-Christian culture in a continuum with the Roman Catholicism of pre-modern
Europe. The West was (and is) viewed as God's Work, His Kingdom.
This is of course unscriptural.
It is in truth the Reformed wing of the Magisterial
Reformation that broke most severely with this tradition. And yet, for many
generations, inch by inch, the heirs and descendants of Calvin and Knox have
been creeping back toward an embrace of Western Medievalism and in fact in
their zeal to find solace in a Monistic philosophical construct, they will
exceed the unified system of Medieval Roman Catholicism, if they haven't
already.
All that said, there is so much hinted at and unarticulated.
In these writings there are layers of truth, complex ideas and questions being
raised that are only hinted at in Scripture. Their works of fantasy are
speculative and symbolic endeavours making them potentially powerful means of
communication and inspiration but at the same time this fact also makes them
potentially dangerous. So it is with all speculation.
What are we to do with Scriptural data that is unelaborated?
This is a real question and one not easily answered. Do we synthesize the data
with our knowledge of the world? Should we even treat Scripture as data? Do we
use a model of 'Faith Seeking Understanding'? Is Scripture but the first
foundation stone in an edifice that man is called to build upon?
Does this have the potential to fall into the trap of syncretism
and synthesis?
Or do we understand that Faith and human epistemology contain
tensions and that human knowledge is by necessity severely limited? Can we
embrace the ideas presented in revelation and yet at the same time leave them
in a state of non-development, something to be apprehended and yet not
comprehended this side of glory, if ever?
The broadly Christian fantasies of Tolkien and Lewis aren't
for everyone but they cannot be dismissed as merely fanciful or childish. Such
suggestions are made in ignorance. For those who find enjoyment in the stories
there is a rich and almost inexhaustible trove of ideas.