I present to you an idea that has given us a reality that is undeniable.
In this that I present to you, I ‘sutured’ the “extra Christian/ pure heathen” Theology that Tolkien understood through his immense studies to a Biblical-exegetical platform. In this paper, I will sometimes use Biblical and Tolkenian terms interchangeably to show the ‘trueness’ of Tolkien’s philological exercise within his writings. As a linguist and a Theologian, I find Tolkien’s writings to be more “orthodox” than most “orthodoxies” I have studied. Mainly, Tolkien was a believer in LOGOS, as Christ, the Narrative, the history of the words by which support the Narrative and return to their semiotic relation to LOGOS. There was, is, will always be only ONE TRUE STORY.
Though Tolkien did not do allegory or make political notions in his writings, he was adamant about the danger of slovenly approaches to philology. For sure, communism, fascism, bad socialism necessitated an Orwellian “speech” that allowed for the disenfranchisement of mind to word to social effect and the reconditioning to ‘function’ without semiotics of self expression, one to another. Therefore, it is obvious to me that utilitarianism begs for philological indifference. This is not a new system, but an old one. Such key – code relationships of language that give power to the Monarch did just this very thing. Such a story alludes to Babel, “Let us make us a Shem (one language for “order”) *lest we be ‘scattered abroad’ “. Unification through a type of speech which has not naturally ‘come to be’ begs the question, “who is attempting to make the “new logos”? This is where “nature, Ea, cosmos, Logos” shows themselves to be our guiding friends.
As “The Ring” circles back on itself, it refers only to itself. It’s purposes might be needed but only to serve. When one is bound in ‘circular-self referring logic’ …one can only do what one is limited to do. The Buddhist “Nirvana” gives us that idea that “we are that”—-i.e., we are our own gods, we reference ourselves, etc. Isn’t this a hell to think that ‘you are it’? That this is all there is to the answer of life and meaning? As to the ‘ONE RING BINDS THEM ALL’ —-we have the total sum of Dark Shadow logic laid out by Sauron, a type of Melkor/ Satan. That is, whoever can ‘bind all’ with a self referenced/ relativistic/ circular motioning cycle wins all. In theory, the fight is over. If “all” *speak* the new language by which utilitarianism to the highest order and know only their ‘limitations as free will’ then, they can act ONLY on their repetitions which give only the same reason. There would be no other theme to take them ‘out’ of such a conundrum. This is what Tolkien inevitably was guided by WORD and Narration to write. IT addressed the world as to the imminent dangers of philological disenfranchisement and the sequential dispositions to fall into a pragmatic function to the bigger brother, will of another, …..Shadow Logic.
In contrast to utilitarianism via ‘pragmatic approach’ to the Primary World, the opposite case concerning the freedom to be ONE and express uniquely is solely a God to humankind condition. We see the freedom as did the Ainur to subcreate from the authority of the infinite strings of their Creator God. As I will state later, the Ainur, as well as us with God, are “Free” to act the more we are bound on the infinite strings of God. The less we are of our limitations and repetitive unfounded natures that have their termination, the more we can “act” on infinity with the Infinite God who created ALL POSSIBILITIES.
ANOTHER BIBLICAL PARALLEL
Theological question: If you sin in the secondary world, what would the consequences be to the written character and the author who holds the pen? Who sinned? What err was there? What does erasure, dismissal, and ‘hatred’ mean? Is judgement therefore abolished and the character written anew in the Image of the Author?
My interpretation and quoting of Mark 10:27: Jesus had just established the limitations/ the impossibilities of man to enter into heaven due to his sin, not just in the physical act, but maybe more importantly, the mind – i.e.,Tolkien’s Secondary World. The apostles then asked Jesus, “Then, who can be saved —-if man, the written character in the play by the Author, cannot make the effort to strive into heaven by his illusory ‘free will’ ?” Jesus said, “With men’s illusory will it is impossible but with GOD all things are possible.
Illuvatar told Melkor (the Prince Satan) that he, Melkor, would fulfill a more beautiful design for Illuvatar even if Melkor thought he was doing his will against Illuvatar. That Melkor would THEN become more heightened to ‘his will’ not being existent. This is “hell” for the rebellious creature. Hell is only found in the predestinated ‘striving’ of their will against the Prime Maker. Is this not a Theological point that surpasses the rigid and judgemental-non-gracious “predeterminism” of Calvinism?! There is still love found in Illuvatar’s voice while HIS instructions are True and HIS Theocracy stated firmly. This is also the opposite of “judgement” against those who do not the will of Illuvatar (GOD). Rather, “the Design” is expressed is Illuvatar’s statement: “THAT ALL MAY KNOW WHO ILLUVATAR IS”. This is where I believe George MacDonald’s “Christ centered death for ALL” comes into play: *Only malice shall go to hell, not the one for whom malice lived it’s life out upon until Illuvatar’s (GOD’s) WILL was DONE* EA!!! = “Let it Be” = Yah.
WAS TOLKIEN’S WORK AN EXTRA CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL TREATISE OR A WASTE OF TIME?
The questions might arise, “why would I waste my time on ‘fiction’? I’m too busy with the ‘real’ world, so, how could I possibly have the time to embark on a child’s occupation? What is key here is the question: ‘what kind of Fantasy’, or, ‘how do you define Tolkien’s Fantasy world?’
The answer lies in the root or cause by which true Fantasy can be upheld.
Tolkien knew that the classical sense for “word (logos)”, —as ‘classifier’, ‘categorizer’, ‘organizer’ and the suffixial “—ology”— , which could be technically be identified as LOGOS, VERBUM or WORD. All 3 of these terms carried with them a corresponding and consequential Narrative. WORD, by Tolkien’s meaning, must be taken in the infinitive, more or less, due to its ‘out of tempo’ and ‘non-spatiality’ sense. Contradistinctive to WORD, the NARRATIVE expresses the ‘reeling out’ of the WORD (which was already ‘done’) into limited tempo and limited space for “the Story” and its meaningful end. The “NARRATIVE” IS the WORD in time and space—-meaning, the NARRATIVE IS HOLY AND WITHOUT CONTRADICTION.
It is this TYPE of LOGOS that rectified the Reasons for the Biblical Old Testament, the Reprise from the letter of the law, the ensample by which we must follow unto death-though we are incapable of fulfilling Christ’s title, and the “SENSE” that Europe received from the Gospels, ordering out even the pagan’s hope of an *a-moral* Pagan God that has now come. SO, not JUST to the JEWS, but to the minds of the heathen (the Ethnos), did Jesus Christ make “SENSE” to them and by the SENSE could there be hope here and after this life.
Tolkien, as some writers have said, was a ‘true pagan’ Pagan, by root definition means, “page”—-“on another page; over there; past the *peg* by which you should take heed before crossing into”. He was a Christian, a Roman Catholic, and, without insult and only praise—a true pagan. Tolkien observed the Heathen and their archetypes for meaning. Tolkien knew how to thread the Christian Hope, the Christian Reality with the Heathen’s Hope and their Realities. Tolkien saw ALL things as ONE big Gospel that could only be held in a presentable substance called “EA”. Otherwise, all such *ideas* are left up to endless debates. EA allowed for the walls to come down and to see with clarity the unfolding and unfolded NATURE of Illuvatar (GOD). A true amalgam, all which pointed to the Christ idea, had been codified and delivered post Mortem thanks to J.R.R.’s son, Christopher, who finalized the Silmarillion for his father using his father’s notes, histories, and a little savvy that Christopher had acquired from knowing his ingenious father.
CONCLUSION: WITHOUT ‘EA’, WE COULD NOT HAVE A PRESENTABLE THEOLOGY WITHOUT WALLS. TOLKIEN’S THEOLOGY WITHIN THE SECONDARY WORLD WAS ‘CHRISTIAN’ BEFORE ‘CHRISTIANITY’ WAS A RELIGION
In Colossians 1:17 it states, “He (Jesus Christ) is before all things, and in Him ALL (Greek: “panta” – literally, ‘everything’) things hold together”. It is ‘soft algebra’ to replace Jesus Christ with WORD here (as did John the Beloved when he tells us in John 1:1-ff “that the WORD *became* flesh and dwelt amongst us” What was the WORD before *it became*? It is not a question but an Archimedean Greek ‘heureka’ moment (“I have found it!”) to see the pattern by which Tolkien was forced to follow—- the formula from which the WORD (All/ Done/ IS/ Yah) became (engeneto) the actuation-Jesus, then to CHRIST (fulfiller and complete) to WORD to Christ again, ….all being in ‘agreement’ a-tempo, tempo, spatial, or non-spatial. For no literary mechanism can alter the consistency and force of WORD or LOGOS (being the same). Therefore, is Jesus not the NARRATION and is not the WORD actually Jesus in HIS Pre-incarnate existence in eternity? Shall HE not return again as HE said HE would? I believe that Tolkien’s entire works proved the force of LOGOS. I believe Tolkien’s works were an ‘extra Christian’ theological treatise. I feel that Tolkien drew from nearly limitless sources in order to show that there is no order but LOGOS. I believe that Tolkien’s Narrative, in full, FORCES us to reckon our sights on a Christ figure, types, shadows, that emerge through the distilling process of pure philology. Such was his work, I believe.
