« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Observations Regarding Christianity & Fantasy

By: FMeekins (Diary)  |  January 18th, 2011 at 06:10 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

If Christians are to avoid altogether books such as “The Lord Of The Rings” and “The Chronicles Of Narnia” because these stories contain wizards and witches, by definition does that prohibition also include the Bible since it too mentions witches and the like?

Like the Bible, don’t these works warn that what we categorize as magic is not for mortal beings and in many instances depict what happens to those that succumb to this particular temptation?

In regards to Gandalf, though he is referred to as a wizard, in Tolkien’s background materials, weren’t the wizards beings more akin to angels in terms of their ontology?

More importantly, for hyperpious critics to condemn these books in such minute detail, wouldn’t they have had to have read them or at least have had to study them closely?

If so, then on what grounds do they forbid you the opportunity to read these materials if for no other reason than to verify the conclusions that they have arrived at?

Rather, wouldn’t the more respectable position be to warn the reader and to let them decide for themselves?

by Frederick Meekins

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • regent2009

    If these books were targeted at people older than 21 years of age, I would agree, let people read them and decide for themselves. But these books are targeted at children, in some cases they are pushed by anti-Christian school districts. That is why politicians must stand up to these books.

    I don’t get your comparison to the bible. Surely there is a difference between a law against child pornography, and thus mentions it, and child pornography itself. That comparison is spot on here. The bible warns against wizards and witches. These books glorify it. They are the logical result of liberal nonsense glorifying “alternate lifestyles” such as homosexuality and Harry Potter.

    • roncon
      wow regent2009

      are you one of those weirdos thats agaisnt harry potter?

    • aesthete

      I challenge anyone to find a genre more welcoming to Christian themes and deontological morals than fantasy. While I love science fiction, historical fiction, thrillers, and the rest, they do not have as common themes the unadultered struggle of good v evil that fantasy novels do. It is rare to find a fantasy novel that takes a morally or culturally relative stance: indeed, the “knight in shining armor”, “evil warlock”, etc are moralizing tropes so ingrained in fantasy that they do not need further elaboration or explanation. Magic is a storytelling device that allows the author to frame the narrative and/or set the stage for the conflict at the heart of the story: like any storytelling device, it can be used poorly, or it can be used well, and plays the role that technology does in science fiction novels. When children read these books or watch fantasy books and movies, they by and large do not leave with a desire to summon Lucifer: they leave with a desire to emulate the moral characteristics exhibited by the protagonists. Mythological or fantastic tale has long been a device used to tell stories with powerful emotional impact which non-Christians might not otherwise be interested in listening to. CS Lewis and others like him recognized the utility of the format for evangelizing, for simply for telling a good yarn in a genre that was not hostile to Christians or traditional morality.

      • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

        Harry Potter is packed with Christ figures, including the title character.

        Side note: Have you read Diana Wynne Jones? Excellent writer. She’s the only published novelist (of whom I’m aware) to study under both Lewis and Tolkien. It shows.

        • aesthete

          I’ll check to see if any of her books are at my library. Anything in particular that you’d recommend?

          BTW, sorry to all for my spelling mistakes recently: I’ve primarily been using my iPhone to type out my posts, and speed-texting + stream-of-consciousness writing do not mix well.

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            Anything at the library should be good. I haven’t read a bad one yet.

            My first read was Howl’s Moving Castle, back when I heard that Hayao Hiyazaki was making it into a film (great movie, not very faithful adaptation). It’s a very fun book. There are two sequels, neither of which I’ve read.

            The Dalemark Quartet is a cycle of novels spaced throughout the history of a region called Dalemark. Nicely textured stories, and it’s interesting how she develops the civilization.

            Charmed Life is the first in her Chrestomanci series. I’ve read it and the second book, The Lives of Christopher Chant. Both very good.

            A standalone that I enjoyed is called A Tale of Time City and reminds me a bit of Lewis, but it’s probably because it centers around WWII.

            Her books are curious, sometimes a blend of sci-fi (or sci-fi concepts, such as time travel and parallel dimensions) with otherwise traditional fantasy worlds. Unlike Lewis, they are not religious books (I can’t remember if they even feature religions; if so, they’re incidental), and unlike Tolkien, they don’t even seem particularly informed by religion. To go to the other extreme, they’re not nasty or anti-religious, like Philip Pullman (whom i find simultaneously fascinating and repellant). They’re just really good stories.

            In this, she’s somewhat like Mervyn Peake, writer of the Gormenghast trilogy (I’ve wanted to read these for years and am just now getting around to it), but easier to read.

            (No worries on iPhone misspellings. I make them all the time. The phone’s auto-correct feature is particularly vexing at times.)

          • aesthete

            I’m always looking for new things to read, both fiction and non-. Sounds like her books are right up my alley, and like she has her own style. I always worry when someone claims a special relationship with a famous author: sometimes it turns out well (in Christopher Tolkien’s case, very well), and sometimes it’s just awful (Brian Herbert, anyone? *shudder*). Good to know that Diane Wynne is part of the former group.

    • JSobieski

      Not saying I understood it all at that point, but there is nothing. . . and I mean absolutely nothing . . . negative about the Lord of the RIngs books.

      LOR does not glorify anything besides humility, mercy, and perseverence. Although not a Christian allegory, there Judeo-Christian ethics pervade those books.

      Tolkien and Lewis were giants. Our country would be far better off if more kids read those books.

      Its clear that if you ever read the books, you didn’t really digest them fully.

    • lineholder

      I’m a Christian and I really enjoyed the books. There is an underlying emphasis on what it means to stand against what is of evil that directly correlates to what is stated in the Bible.

      So does the context of Gandalf’s refusal to try to carry the ring himself. He knew that he could be tempted by it. Even if he went into it with good intentions, it could be a means of temptation all the same. He recognized the truth that he could be corrupted by it and he chose not to put himself in temptations way.

      The hobbits, however, were a very contented people who had no desire to speak of power or control. They weren’t totally oblivious to it, as is evidenced by Frodo’s struggles as he got closer to the Mountain of Doom, but they weren’t as susceptible to it as other types of characters portrayed in Tolkien’s book.

      As long as I was the one to provide insight on various concepts presented in the book, I’d have no problems reading this with my children.

      • JSobieski

        Frodo doesn’t get the job done on his own. The hero fails. Men cannot earn their own salvation. Grace is not earned, it is freely given.

        Tolkiens stories have so many profound moral and spiritual insights. People who preclude themselves from engaging in those books are doing themselves no favors.

        Tolkien spent far more time thinking about and discussing Christianity than most people. He was a profound man whose works have a lot to offer people. In terms of being a morality play, I think his books are the best works of fiction I have ever read.

        • lineholder

          was Sam Gamgee’s inner struggles, when that small voices whispers to him that he could have given up long ago and he could be at peace. After all they had been through, it had been so tempting to him.

          But what is right stays in his mind, and he focuses on the things that he knows have to be done. He even carries Frodo as far as he can so that the Ring of Power can be destroyed.

          Maybe the analogy is off, but I see us as conservatives fighting a similar battle, JS.

          • JSobieski

            nt

    • Finrod

      Tolkien was a devout Catholic his entire life. Lewis started off as an atheist but thanks to the efforts of Tolkien and friends, he converted to Christianity (became an Anglican, which disappointed Tolkien) and became one of the greatest Christian writers of the 20th Century.

      Their books are about as far from ‘liberal nonsense’ as you can get. You obviously have never read them and are doing nothing but spewing your own ignorance. Have you never read Mere Christianity, at the very least?

  • swvapatriot

    One of the books I read this fall was “The Narnian,” a history of C.S. Lewis’ intellectual development. He was led to the British fantasy writers, such as Gordon MacDonald, who used the historical British tales of faeries, etc, to teach timeless truths by one of his tutors. He shared this passion with Tolkein and others in their group, the Inkspots.

    Anyone reading the Chronicles of Narnia or the Lord of the Rings should quickly pick up on the underlying Christian themes of salvation, resurrection, compassionate, coureageous kings, providence, and more.

    To condemn the use of wizards in these works is truly responding in an ignorant, knee-jerk fashion, and needs to read them with a different eye, the use of fantasy stories to convey Christian truth.

    A very good modern author in a similar vein is Steven R Lawhead in the Pendragon series and other trilogies & titles.

    • runner12

      influenced C.S. Lewis. While C.S. Lewis admired his works and respected him as a writer, he did have some theological differences with MacDonald. Lewis addresses some these disgagreements in story-form via his work “The Great Divorce.”

      • swvapatriot

        It was George Macdonald. Memory is a fickle thing.

        • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

          Get that nice double meaning?

  • regent2009

    “Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live,” The Bible

    So directly disobeying a biblical command is an appropriate method of promoting Christianity? Perhaps I am one of those ignorant minions clinging to my guns and religion, but that makes no sense.

    • swvapatriot

      Writing a fantacy novel which has a wizard as a character is in no way equivalent to a real person who uses the occult for personal power, which is what the OT law was about.

    • JSobieski

      Who wouldn’t want to hang out with Lewis and Tolkien in a pub discussing literature, philosophy, and great stories.

    • JSobieski

      Reading a book is not the same thing as tolerating the company of a witch.

      You do understand the difference between stories and real life.

      Writing a story about a brother killing a brother is not the same morally as killing a brother.

      Is there a commandment that says though shall not write about characters who violate these commandments?

      I wonder how many people against the LORs books were vocal O’Donnell supporters?

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      The Hebrew word Chasapth means poisoner.

      The correct translation is “thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live”

      Despite it’s flowing language, the King James version has many mistakes in it.

      Ain’t dogmatic ignorance fun?

    • Finrod

      The Bible also tells you that when you need to eliminate bodily waste, you’re supposed to go outside the camp and dig a hole for it. When’s the last time you touched a shovel?

      Also, the only character described as a witch in LotR is the Witch-King of Angmar, the greatest of the nine Ringwraiths. He is killed by Meriadoc and Eowyn in the Battle of Pelennor Fields. Tolkien didn’t suffer him to live.

  • runner12

    I think why Christians differenciate between certain books is due to the author and the authors’ intentions. Most Christians are more accepting of Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia because they share the same faith with the authors and know that they are not attempting to promote witchcraft and/or occultism. It is also worthy to note that all of the witches in C.S. Lewis’s works were portrayed as evil, not as heroines.

    Also, Tolkien in no way meant Gandalf to represent angels and or to represent anything for that matter. He detested allegories as a literary form. He and his good friend Lewis ardently debated this issue and were on opposite sides of the debate (C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia were all allegory). No doubt Tolkien’s faith influenced his writings as well as the historical backdrop of WW2, but none of his works were meant to be allegories.

    • runner12

      I really like both of these series of books. I am a fan of all classic literature.

    • JSobieski

      Very much analogous to angels and demons.

      If you read the The Silmarillion you will find a creation story that will make you think of one of the two creation stories in Genesis.

      In the Simarillion, there is clearly one being who is the creator of all things. He created the Valar, of which Gandolf is very much a low tier member.

      You are correct that Tolkien was not writing an allegory, but the points above are nonetheless quite relevant.

      • lineholder

        to read The Silmarrilion. So that’s what it is about?

        I’ll find a copy somewhere.

        • JSobieski

          Its a challenging book, but it puts everything into a historical context (historical meaning the history of the universe Tolkien creates in LOR).

          You have the origins of evil in the form of a fallen angel in the first chapter of the book.

          Great stuff.

          • lineholder

            of Lucifer into it?

            I gotta find this book!!!

          • JSobieski

            The book creates a history that makes you appreciate LOR even more. For example, the book is rich in lineages and peoples and origins.

        • aesthete

          I would recommend reading Children of Hurin if you haven’t already, if you have read The Hobbit + LoTR and are looking to delve into Tolkien’s Middle-Earth more deeply. It is more of a narrative than The Silmarillion, and a better read in general, IMO.

          • lineholder

            I’ve got some time off coming soon and need to unwind a bit. This will be a great way to do it.

          • JSobieski

            Not something one can kick back and relax to.

        • Finrod

          Well, ok, not me personally, just the character (Finrod Felagund) that I took my online name from. While it has a few different pieces, it’s primarily about the Creation of the World and the First Age (Lord of the Rings is the story of how the Third Age ended, with the exception of the very beginning of the movie where Sauron is initially defeated, which is the end of the Second Age). Galadriel is in it, she’s Finrod’s younger sister, actually.

          Fair warning: The Silmarillion is a much tougher read than Lord of the Rings. It’s been fairly accurately compared to the Old Testament as far as reading difficulty goes; I had to read it four times before I really started to understand it. Tolkien literally spent his entire life writing it; the early bits date back to 1918 or so, and he still hadn’t finished it the way he wanted to by the time of his death in 1974. His son Christopher put it together and published it four years after his death.

          One thing you’ll understand after reading it is that while the Lord of the Rings started off as a sequel to The Hobbit, it really ended up more as a sequel to The Silmarillion. The story of Aragorn and Arwen makes all kinds of references to the story of Beren and Luthien, which was the original Man and Elf romance; Luthien IIRC was Arwen’s grandmother. Sauron is just the top henchman of Melkor/Morgoth, who’s Middle-Earth’s equivalent of Lucifer, being the original fallen one.

          All in all, The Silmarillion could never be mistaken for light reading, but if you’re willing to put the energy into reading it, you’ll be richly rewarded.

      • runner12

        definitely influenced his works, as did the events of WW2 (note the similarities between the Ents and those who were reluctant to fight the Nazis until it came to their own soil).

        But no character represented anyone specifically per se, if you read Tolkien’s own words (although Gandalf does bear an uncanny resemblance to an angelic being and/or prophet-like figure). There was definitely no Christ figure in his works. Tolkien was a devout Catholic and he viewed it as heresy to do so.

        It is kind of ironic that Tolkien detested an allegory and yet his Christianity so influenced his works that it almost became one. I think it is further evidence of his genius.

        (Note: I am not suggesting that Tolkien’s works were not overtly Christian, they were and are. I am just pointing out that they were not an allegory).

        This is a great debate. Love literature.

        • Doc Holliday

          I would take Harmonica, Blondie, Pike over all those wizards any day. :)

    • aesthete

      What I find interesting is how many Christians and conservatives are antipathic to fantasy, when both Christian and conservative writers have been so attracted to the genre, and for good reason! Respect for a mythologized “old way”, characters seeking to preserve an idyllic past, an explicit and unapologetic fight between good and evil: all of those concepts figure quite strongly in fantasy, and are themes that conservatives from Bill Buckley to Russell Kirk appreciated. Speaking for myself, I find your average fantasy novel (even the pulpier stuff, but especially its defining works) to be much more edifying than, say, any book in the romance section of B&N.

      • JSobieski

        My mom falls into that category. She finds it too distracting and it prevents her from digging into what are otherwise direct hits of conservative story telling. She even admits its a shame (she has heard me talk up Tolkien and Lewis alot), but its a barrier that does not look likely to fall.

        • lineholder

          that sound like fantasy and science fiction to a lot of people.

          Take the story of Daniel in the lion’s den, or Jonah and the whale, or Moses and the burning bush, or Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (sp?] in the fiery furnace. Each of those incidents in the Bible teaches a valuable concept lesson.

          Those aren’t fairy tales. They really happened. If people can believe by faith that those things are the truth, as fantastic as they might seem, then why can’t they visualize that an author could use fictional fantasy as a means in conveying some of the same concepts to their readers?

          • runner12

            I am not a huge fan of science fiction and fantasy in general. I am more of a fan of classic literature than anything else. But your point regarding the power of a story is right on.

            Jesus mainly spoke in parables to illustrate Truth. He was keenly aware that humans are attracted to and relate personally to stories. If God recognized the power of story then there must be something to it!

            (Now their is a caveat to the concept of story, in that it depends on who is telling the story. Stories, like most other things, can be used for good or for ill).

          • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

            …and, hopefully, you can discern that, and reject those authors whose ideas are poison.

            I find having such “moral radar” or a “moral poison detector” especially important with respect to movies. So many movies these days look pretty but are totally toxic in terms of the ethos that permeates them.

            I have found the movie rating system to be pretty useless. An “R” movie such as “Traffic”– which is loaded with sex, drugs and violence — makes hugely important moral points, and I have no problem with my teenagers watching it, for they will learn important lessons in a very powerful way that will really stick with them.

            Many “PG” movies, on the other hand, are absolute poison in more subtle ways — unlike something gritty like “Traffic,” they never show any negative CONSEQUENCES to people’s poor or immoral choices. They portray homosexual behavior, premarital sex (including even on the first date!), etc., as perfectly normal and acceptable. The people who do these things are portrayed as very nice, likeable people, and their immoral behavior “no big deal.” I think this is much, much more dangerous. It’s like the frog in the water being brought to boil so gradually that he doesn’t realize he’s being killed…

          • aesthete
          • runner12

            I could not agree more.

        • aesthete

          I can’t imagine myself without the experience of having read Tolkien, Lewis, Heinlein, Asimov, or any series of writers in those genres, but I’m sure I would have been the poorer for it. It’s understandable that fantastical elements could interfere with the enjoyment of the story for some people, though — I know some people who got distracted by Hitchhock’s use of the surreal, so it’s not merely a problem in scifi and fantasy (though it manifests itself more often in those genres). At any rate, I’m grateful that Harry Potter, LoTR, etc have made the genre more palatable and mainstream.

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          I loved Science Fiction, heroic fantasy, comic books. But I certainly did know they were a vehicle to convey ideals. Roddenberry used the old Star Trek to push progressive social reforms.

          “A Clockwork Orange” brought up the question of control vs free will.

          Comic books taught a moralistic message that with power came responsibility.

          Unfortunately, most people are very literal minded. I love sports, but I find that the average sports enthusiast, especially former jocks, do not like any sort of speculative fiction and are repulsed by it. The same goes more or less for people who are career driven.

          I could never live in such a black and white world. It is too boring.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx
          • aesthete

            Can’t help thinking that the third book in the series is particularly apropos today.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            and always remarkable to me in that most of the trilogy was written during the darkest days of the war, yet its apocalyptic evil derives not from a projected German occupation but rather from the slow and methodical machinations of an English physicist, politician, and assorted technocrats, bureaucrats and administrators.

            Which reminds me of this reference.

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            Have you read Charles Williams? He was one of the Inklings (something of a latecomer, I think), and That Hideous Strength was heavily influenced by his modern-day fantasy stories. I read one years ago and found it a bit harder to enjoy than Lewis, but CSL and T.S. Eliot were huge admirers (Tolkien was not). Anyway, from what I understand, Williams wrote some pretty excellent Arthurian fiction.

            On another, related subject, have any of you read Tolkien’s The Notion Club Papers? It sounds like a really odd story, a time travel/dream sequence (unfinished) novel connecting Middle Earth and modern England. I’ve not read it, but it sounds fascinating for Inklings fans.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            …after a 30-year hiatus as part of the Lewis book club I’m a part of. Certainly have a better appreciation of Lewis’ creative genius than when I was a new believer. Quite a keen observer of the fashion of the day and able to make a pinata of it.

            Overall, Lewis’ fiction seems to penetrate deeper than his non-fiction, as he is very successful in that mode to get past defenses. In any case, Lewis’s still among the most readable of orthodox Christian authors (with some lapses, of course, but that’s true of the human condition). Several of his essays, which tend to be lesser known, pack quite a wallop

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            but was often overmatched whenever he tried to reason his way into systematics; I attribute that largely to the dismal state of the CoE at that time: he was largely self-taught in theology and even so went beyond what many parishioners were regularly hearing. His inability to embrace sola Scriptura, however, does require one to proceed with caution through much of his non-fiction.

            His fiction, though, continues to age very well.