.
.
with comments by David Bruce

FUNNY
Subject: Down_To_Earth
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001
From: Kevin

This, is one Funny Christian friendly movie. Okay, the theology; is questionable. But I believe, God likes wierd humor.
Kevin
http://community.webtv.net/KevinKunz/JESUSTHEWAY

Good vs. Evil, The Never-Ending Battle II: The Social Message Of Unbreakable.
Subject: Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001
From: "Samuel Ewing"

Hello again,
I took the time to think about an issue that is of concern to me as a African American male. The following movies came to mind; Conan The Barbarian, Stargate, Marked For Death, Ultimate Soldier II, Mummy I & II, Fifth Element, No Holds Barred, and *Unbreakable. There are many other movies I could choose from but these particular ones stand out for me at this moment. They have in them significant deliberately designed elements which are consistent with the Hollywood ideology concerning men of African descent. Unfortunately racial bias towards African American males isn't a new phenomena in Hollywood. I think its time for a serious look at this matter.

When I saw Unbreakable I was reminded of the same prejudicial hostility against African American males portrayed in other movies and this is done with blatant and subtle distortions with African history as well. I will get to these points shortly. A few friends of mine also saw Unbreakable and the negative elements I spoke of was not lost on them. As a matter of fact they spoke out loud what I had been thinking.

Examples? There are too many. *In Mummy I & II the main villain's name is a slight variation on Imhotep. Imhotep was never an evil vile villain as portrayed in these movies. Imhotep was an Egyptian of African descent who was called 'Prince of Peace' because of his great practical wisdom and knowledge in the sciences that helped people. Imhotep was a genius in mathematics, medical science, architecture, administration, pharmacology, and diplomacy. He was second only to Pharoah Zoser in authority, he designed the pyramids of that dynasty, he was a surgeon that recorded knowledge on brain surgery and internal anatomy. Such were his accomplishments that even the ancient Greeks named Ascepulapius, god of medicine. This man was a hero not a villain. Hollywood's obsession with denigrating African cultures doesn't stop there. In Unbreakable itself the African American villain, Elijah Price, is shown sitting behind a mural of Egyptian hieroglyphics which fits in with his discussion on comic books. The connection of Egypt to evil is again subtly implied. In Stargate, the god Ra is portrayed as an effeminate, cruel, possibly child molesting being who persecutes a group of people who evidently represent Semites. Here again Ra, the Egyptian deity, was the Being of Light who fought against Typhon and Set (the embodiments of evil). Furthermore if anyone would care to do the research Ra was one of the epithets for the Biblical Yahweh (the God of the Bible). Contrary to popular belief the Egyptians were fully aware of the Biblical Yahweh and they were worshipping him prior to the Exodus. Egyptian people were Black African who through miscegenation with fairer skinned Semites and Indo-Europeans became similar to the multiracial descendants present in America today.

Elijah Price in Unbreakable is clearly the stereotype of AngloAmerica's fear and hatred of African American males. The reality is that African American males are hardly the threat to this society that they are portrayed to be. The questions come up. How can the projection of Anglo-America's bloody history be projected on to Black males by Hollywood? What is with the obsession to beat down these particular males if the makers of this ideology are in a superior position socially? Superior people shouldn't need to promote such imagery? Elijah Price's character is stereotypical:

1. The relationship with with his mother is clearly contrasted as dysfunctional in comparison with David Dunn and his son. The Mother-Child motif is a very basic element in the beginnings of African and African-American cultures. Historically Black women in Africa were given greater respect and social position in ancient times in comparison with their counterparts in Europe.

2. Elijah is a mass murderer. *Black males are not as a rule mass murderers in the United States.

3. He is criminally insane and his bones break easily. 'The violent black male motif.' *See above.

4. For all his intelligence he is "at the other end of the spectrum." Hiearchy. David Dunn is the superhuman white male while Elijah Price for want of a better word is clearly an inferior who needs David to confirm his own self-identity and purpose.

5. ***I want to note here that the persons who spoke to me mentioned these very points I'm bringing up because of their concern on how Hollywood consistently denigrates Black males. Elijah's infirmities also imply genetic inferiority.

Certainly, Hollywood has produced movies that lend some dignity to Black males but these are quite sparse and too few. The alternatives to the evil genius of Elijah Price in the cinema have too often been:

1. Gangsters, pushers, and pimps.

2. Brute muscle for the crime syndicate or the government syndicates (FBI, CIA etc.). Soldiers.

3. Clowns, buffoons, ne-er-do wells. How many movies has Hollywood cranked out where Black males are ridiculed, mocked, made into parodies. I think everyone knows what I mean.

4. The sidekick that gets killed, is lost without the white hero, who waits to be told what to do, who is the butt of the hero's jokes etc. etc. Denzel Washington, Sidney Poitier, and Cicely Tyson have commented about this plight. The scarcity of honorable and dignified roles for Black actors to portray.

Considering that African American consumers are a major economic force as movie-goers to Hollywood's great fortune, I constantly recommend that these consumers use a more critical eye in choosing the movies that they watch. No doubt, the effect of these movies on Black children is harmful. Years ago a friend of mine took his two sons to see No Holds Barred with Hulk Hogan. I went as well. In this movie the blonde hero, Hogan gives a severe beating to the African American villain named Zeus. My friend's two sons cheered for Hogan as he was beating down the Black male named Zeus ( a violent killer). The stereotype of the blonde Aryan superman beating down an inferior foe was so obvious to my friend and myself that we left the theater. We explained to his sons the adverse message of this movie and what it could mean for them as Black males. In Ultimate Soldier II, Claude Van Damme beats up a Black man who is superhumanly evil even though he is only a highly conditioned former supersoldier. In Conan The Barbarian, the producers rip off the African Egyptian story of Isis-Heru-Osiris. Conan is put in the place of Heru and Set (Thulsa Doom, incarnation of Set), a black man travels all the way to primordial Europe to wreak havoc on Europeans. *Note that the makers of the film clearly admitted portraying Conan as a neo-fascist Nietschean superman, using quotes from Nietsche, and the Conan character is taken from Irish legend. A number of critics mentioned the fascist element of this film and one commented that Heinrich Himmler would approve of it.

Hollywood is clearly maintaining the status quo of white male superiority over people of color. This destructive fantasy has been the visual symbol for some of the most diabolical exploits performed by such men as Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon etc. The white male superman is not a hero. He is a monster. Hollywood has yet to be more balanced in its portrayal of people of color and their heroes.

Because of my concern and frustration with this sad state of affairs I have devoted some of my time to find the history behind the legendary heroes of people of color, many of them have been deliberately distorted, represented as European when they never were. When I find this out I have presented this info to Black children so they can receive the facts that have been hidden from them.

Going back again to Conan and putting it under scrutiny the majority of Europe's history from the time of ancient Egypt to the present has been the invasion of Africa, Asia, and other people of color. The results for those people have been horrific. The real Conans invaded Africa and Asia, not the other way around. This is a very sobering subject for me to discuss but the makers of the movies have made their social ideology quite clear for years. Its time for a more factual perspective.

American culture still needs its ethnocentric heroes (Rambos, Commandos, Conans, Batmans etc.) to temporarily calm the atmosphere of fear, and help maintain the elitism that is so dear to its heart.
Sincerely, Sam Ewing
SARASWATI@prodigy.net
http://pages.prodigy.net/saraswati/

GOOD
Subject: The Score
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001
From: AL

MY SON AND I BOTH FELT THE SCORE WAS A GOOD, NOT AN EXCELLENT, MOVIE. I FELT LIKE THE PLOT WAS A LITTLE TOO PREDICTABLE, BUT THE ACTORS WERE EXCELLENT IN PORTRAYING EACH CHARACTER. THE CRITICS IN OUR LOCAL PAPERS GRADED THE FILM MUCH HIGHER THAN I WOULD. IT DID HAVE A GOOD MIX OF SUSPENSE, ACTION AND DIALOGUE.

COMMENT
Subject: question
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001
From: mike

Dear David, Do you happen to have an archived review of "Dead Poets Society?" I would like to teach it in my English class this year and I was interested in your insights.
mike

Response: Sorry I have not reviewed it. -David

FANSITE FOR MOULIN ROGUE
Subject: Your Review Moulin Rouge
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
From: Jessica

Dear Mr. Bruce,
Thank you for writing this review of Moulin Rouge. I found it very interesting. More so than the Christian standpoint, I enjoyed your examination of symbolism. I am an english major and am acutely interested in deeper meanings. I have yet to come across such an extensive examination of symbolism on my now favorite movie. I really appreciate it. I have a fansite for Moulin Rouge called Spectacular! Spectacular! and will be happy to add a link to the Hollywood Jesus Review. I want more of my visitors to see your insightful review.
Truly, Jessica

Reponse: Thank you Jessica. BTY what is your site address? -David

MORE RESPONSES TO LORD OF THE RINGS

EXERCISE IN FUTILLITY
Subject: Lord_of_Rings
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001
From: RRD

I read the Hobbit sometime in the late 60's early 70's and enjoyed it for its entertainment value -fantasy. I then read the Trilogy and invested myself in it. I loved it. I was not a Christian at that time (I am now) and viewed the story as a tale of perseverence through great hardship and strength of character. I never read any of the other books by Tolkien so I have no opinion about the origin of LOTR. To attribute any religious significance to these storys if an exercise in futility. I look forward to the films with great anticipation.
RRD

A FEW SUGGESTIONS..
Subject: Lord_of_Rings
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001
From: Sprnatral7@aol.com To: Lord_of_Rings_E-mail

The analysis is excellent!! However, I thought that I'd point out an error I noticed as well as something you may have missed. First, you said in your Two Towers analysis that the delay due to argument within the Orc camp led to their destruction at the borders of Mirkwood. They were encircled and then destroyed by the Rohirrim at the borders of Fangorn which isn't even related to Mirkwood, but to the Old Forest just outside the Shire. It's MUCH older than Mirkwood. Second, in the chapter entitled "The White Rider," Gandalf is Christlike in that neither Gimli, Aragorn, or the sharp-eyed Legolas recognize who he is even when he sits down and converses with them. Much like Jesus and the men on the road after the Resurrection, it isn't until Gandalf wishes that they see who he is.
Great site. Love it!!!
-Rob

MISTAKE
Subject: Lord_of_Rings
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
From: John

Pastor Wright made many valid points. However, he was mistaken in one regard. C.S. Lewis became a Christian in part due to Professor Tolkien. I think it safe to say that Professor Tolkien had far more influence on C. S. Lewis (who was an atheist for a large amount of the time of their friendship) and on his writings, than Mr. Lewis had on Professor Tolkien.

ESSAY ON TOLKIEN MYTHOLOGY AND CHRISTIANITY
Subject: Lord_of_Rings
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
From: Chris

As a Christian and an avid reader of Tolkien, I've always had a bit of a different spin that the one you present, though in many ways our view is similar.

You posit that Tolkien frames his theology/mythology of Middle Earth (1st - 3rd ages) is the "basis" for Roman, Greek, Norse, and Anglo-Saxon mythology. I agree with this.

However, I do not take issue that there are no characters presented as Christ figures, nor that the theology is Judaic and not Christian. To me, this makes perfect sense. As of the end of Lord of the Rings, the Third Age has come to a close, and the 4th age (the age of man) is beginning. The primary events in the Bible occur (if we use Tolkien's framework) in the 4th age. I would be more concerned if there were direct Christian parallels in Tolkien, because then it would appear he was trying to give a "true" back-story for a Judeo-Christian "myth". Since his books were confined to the 3rd age and the previous ages, it appears to me that he was trying to put the different sources of mythology into a framework which fit with a Judaic (or Old Testament) underpinning.

However, to put this into perspective, Tolkien's works were fiction, and he claimed to be a Christian. On several occasions he cautioned people not to try to dig too deeply or to take too many meanings from his works. If we ignore his warning, we'll eventually look like the people who can speak Klingon and can tell you how many bathrooms there were on the Starship Enterprise...
Chris

GREG WRIGHT'S ESSAY
Subject: Lord_of_Rings
RE: Greg Wright's essay ...
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
From: Eric

Pastor Wright:
Overall, I enjoyed your essay, (I love HollywoodJesus, and read the site often) and I think it raises some thought-provoking questions, which is the idea, of course! However, I do have a bone or two to pick with a few of your points:

First, you comment that: "the presumption is that Lewis' intense Christian spirituality somehow rubbed off on Tolkien and found its way into his work"

Considering how well-researched and thought-out your analysis is of Tolkien's construction of the mythology and it's "source-texts" I am surprised that you erred so greatly on this point. It is well-known that Tolkien's avowed and professed Christianity pre-dates Lewis', and that the two had many discussions about the Faith as friends and fellow members of the "Inklings" BEFORE Lewis' conversion.

When the two decided to write, it is an oft-repeated legend that they agreed that Tolkien's works would explore "travel in time" (i.e. - back to the "old history" of our world) and that Lewis would explore "travel in space" (i.e. - to 'other worlds' such as Narnia and Perelandra). It is well-documented that Tolkien evangelized to Lewis, and was in at least some ways instrumental in reaching him for the Kingdom in the first place. So, if either "rubbed-off" on the other I am afraid you have it backwards.

Secondly, I think you mis-interpret Tolkien's intent in using "Christianity" as a base (whether he did or not) for the spiritual realities of Middle-Earth.

You state that: "these influences are more Judeo than Christian: Eru never condescends to walk the earth in the form of a man and sacrifice himself"

But this misses the point entirely. IF the "history" of Middle-earth is considered "true" (in the context of the mythology and the stories) then it would PRE-DATE all of those Biblical events. OF COURSE Eru has not "walked the Earth" as Christ in these stories, NOR WOULD HE for thousands of years! The absence of this spiritual context is simply an example of Tolkien's consistency with the "date" of his mythology and pre-history. Indeed, the only real bone to pick, if you are looking for one-to-one comparisons with Biblical history would be with the Edenic accounts and with the creation of Adam & Eve. Otherwise, much of the "history" of Middle-Earth can (for the purposes of the suspension of disbelief) be conveniently inserted somewhere "between chapters" in the book of Genesis, including the accounts of the flood.

But, I digress. The main point here is not whether this work of fiction exactly mirrors the history of the Bible. That would be an unfair comparison. It was never meant to be allegorical in the sense that Lewis' Narnia tales were written. The point is that the presumed "omission" of the Christ-story is NOT evidence one way or another of Tolkien's beliefs or intented use of such spritual themes.

As a matter of fact, to be precise, much of Lewis' fiction uses VERY SIMILAR characters and "heavenly heirarchy", to coin a term. In his science fiction trilogy, particularly the third installment - enitled: "That Hideous Strength" - Lewis comments within the narrative on the "fading of magic" from the human experience WITHIN THE CONTEXT of a Christian worldview, and he ALSO USES "angelic figures" whose power, presence, and even ROLE in the earthly plane is remarkable similar to the way in which Tolkien employs the Valar in his novels.

My intent is not to gloss-over nor ignore the various mythological influences Tolkien used to infuse his tales with familiar tones. However, I contend that his sincere Christian beliefs did more to "re-cast" these myths in a manner that does not, in fact, conflict with the tenets of our Faith at all. Although this view of the "heavenly heirarchy" written by both Lewis and Tolkien may not exactly resonate with the American Evangelical Protestant understanding, it is not at all inconsistent with the cultural milieu of Catholics, Anglicans, and other Christian traditions from that "arm" of the Church.

In conclusion, I think it is unfair and quite simply inaccurate to characterize Tolkien's writings (and beliefs) as "Universalist" in any way, shape, or form. This is not at all consistent with what we know about the man from his other writings, his friendship and correspondence with Mr. Lewis, and, indeed from the text of his fiction as well.
Regards, Eric Walusis Dayton, OH
denarista@earthlink.net

TOLKIEN AND CHRISTIANITY
Subject: Lord_of_Rings
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
From: Mithrilian

Dear Pastor Wright
I am surprised that nobody has pointed out the obvious. The story unfolds _before_ Christ was born. Of course, there is nothing about Him in Tolkien's books. They deal with much more ancient times. His characters cannot be Christians, but the world described by him is ruled by the same laws as Christians believe rule our world. His most enlightened characters are monotheists, and the wisest of them (Finrod in "Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth") speak of a great hope, "estel" that is not an ordinary hope that stems out of our knowledge of the world, but a hope for something great and divine. What is it if not a hope of Salvation that was realised through the Coming of Christ much much MUCH later?

And dear Pastor Wright. I believe, enough people have corrected you on the point of Tolkien and Lewis that you should acknowledge it and publicly correct yourself. Your work contains interesting ideas, but this error diverts a Tolkien fan attention from them and enrages him.
Sincerely, Mithrilian

TOLKIEN AND CHRISTIANITY
Subject: Lord of the Rings
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
From: Michael

Perhaps you should have done a bit more research before dismissing Tolkien as modernist and dismissing the Christian aspects of his books. I found a number of problems with your article.

1. In your arcticle you say something about "C. S. Lewis's spirituality rubbing off on Tolkien." Lewis was an athiest before he met Tolkien. (Read "Tolkien: A Celebration," there is an article by Caldecott.)

2. You referred to Tolkien as a modernist. Tolkien remained a devout Roman Catholic his entire life. He disliked putting the Mass into the vernacular and went to confession every week. He also distrusted democracy. Not the type of person who has modernist views (froom "Tolkien" by Homphrey Carpenter).

3. As far as Eru not appearing incarnate during any of Tolkien's writings, you yourself supplied the answer. Tolkien is writing a supposed mythology of the real world. Thus he pretends it really happened but predated recorded history. Of course there is no Christ-figure, for Christ hadn't come yet.

In the book "Morgoth's Ring" (in the History of Middle-Earth series) and elf-king (Finrod) and a woman (Andreth) talk about the extent of evil in Middle-Earth and how only Eru's presence could put an end to it. Yet neither can comprehend how something as great as Eru could possibly enter the world. We can, but that is the whole point.

4. You also say that God (or Eru) takes no direct action in "Lord of the Rings." Again, I think your way off base. You talk of "Elrond's dicussion of fate and providence." Well, who directs providence? In "The Fellowship of the Ring" Glidor and Tom Bombadil both state that they met "by chance, if chance you call it." The implication is that they, beings of far greater power and wisdom, do not call it chance. Elrond also says at his council that "you were called. Called I say, though I sent no message." The question remains, then who sent the message?

When Gandalf (now revealed as the White) converses with Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas about his fight with the Balrog, he says that he was "sent back." By whom? Not the Valar, because the Valar only have custody over the earth, and Gandalf had passed "out of time." Obviously Someone of far greater power sent Gandalf back. Frodo, finally giving up on Mount Doom, is carried up by Sam. The books says that either Frodo was so starved and wounded that he was an easy burden or that Sam found some new strength. It could be the first choice, but isn't probably the second? Once again, who gave Sam that new strength?

Finally the big question in "The Lord of the Rings" is: What did Gollum fall. First, he was in the position to fall, only because Frodo took pity on him before. Now, as to why he fell, there are two possible answers. One is simple blind luck or "chance." But perhaps there is a better answer. Maybe we, simple mortals that we are, would call it chance but more knowledgable beings would call it something else.

Perhaps one of the main characters in "The Lord of the Rings" is never directly mentioned, yet always present to the observant reader.

Why wasn'y Tolkien more direct? Two reasons. First, his "history" predated Revelation, thus Eru couldn't be close God (Even the God of hte Jews is an awesome power and far more distant than God as revealed to us by Jesus). The second reason is that Tolkien wanted the story to be alble to read simply as a story.

I'm sorry this e-mail is so long, but I feel that you grossly misrepresented "The Lord of the Rings"
Michael

NICE JOB!
Subject: Lord of the Rings
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
From: Jim

Dear Greg, What a thoughtful essay. It was extremely well-informed and enlightening. Thanks for writing it. The thrust was powerful and will always remain in the back of my mind. (I'm an ordained minister and missionary in Hong Kong, and have loved and read Tolkien's work for twenty years.) God bless you and your excellent site!
Jim Keddy
(p.s. Your site has been in our bookmarks for a long time, but I read your article because of the link with TORN.)

SO, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Subject: Lord of the Rings
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
From: Jeff

Dear sir:
This is the most horrible account of spirituality in the Lord of the Rings I have ever read. Misinformed as well. Lewis in fact never mentioned his "influence" on Tolkien and if you go back and read the Lewis biography you will note that it was Tolkien who was the Christian influence on Lewis. The Lord of the Rings in many ways was a dark book... written by a man who had experienced many horrors in World War I, the death of his parents at an early age, the life of an orphan, the hardship of the English in WW2 and himself was living in the fading empire of Britiain with all its loss of culture and such. His viewpoint is shaped by loss and loss is the themes in his books. Tolkien in fact was influenced by his view on the modern world: he believed we were moving into a post-Christian world. That fear is present in his book. The redemption has happened several times in his story, the miraculous has occured and now a modern age dawns that no longer will "believe". I think professor Tolkien was more prophetic than any Christian Theologian of his day. As a believer of the Lord Jesus Christ (ie a Christian) and a fan of Professor Tolkien I found your article to be lacking in understanding of the work, distorted in truth, and wholly unacceptable as a commentary.

You wrote: "If Tolkien's Christianity informs his work, then, it is an impoverished Christianity. It is a Modernist Christianity, dominated by rationality, empiricism and pragmatism. It is an ethical, non-spiritual Christianity. The T-mythology posits, in fact, a post-Christian world: one that envisions the Ascension as God's withdrawal from the world; one that envisions Satan and his servants as thrown down, and men as the only remaining agents of evil, or good; one that denies the miraculous, and emasculates the Holy Spirit. Where is Grace, or the need for grace? Where is forgiveness? Where is prayer? What we are left with is an Age in which Man is simply left to master himself"

Tolkien writes: (In a letter to Peter Hastings: The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkein, 1981 Allen & Unwin, page 187 to 193)

"You have at any rate paid me the compliment of taking me seriously; though I cannot avoid wondering wether it is not 'too seriously', or in the wrong directions. The tale is after all in the ultimate analysis a tale, a piece of literature, intended to have a literary effect and not real history.... It's economics, science, artifacts, religeon, and philosophy are defective, or at least sketchy... Are there any 'bounds to a writers job' except those imposed by his own finiteness? No bounds but the laws of contradiction , I should think. But of course, humility, and an awareness of peril is required. A writer may be basically 'benevolant' according to his lights (as I hope I have been) and yet not be 'beneficent' owing to error and stupidity. I would claim, if I did not think it presumptuos in one so ill instructed, to have as one object the elucidation of truth, and the encouragement of good morals in this real world, by the ancient device of exemplifying them in unfamiliar embodiments, that may tend to 'bring them home'. But, of course, I may be in error (at some or all points): my truths may not be true, or they may be distorted: and the mirror I have made may be dim and cracked. But I should need to be fully convinced that anything I have 'feigned' is actually harmful, per se and not merely misunderstood, before I should recant or rewrite anything. Great harm can be done, of course, by this potent mode of 'myth' - especially willfully. The right to 'freedom' of the sub-creator is no guarrantee among fallen men that it will not be used as wickedly as is Free Will. I am comforted by the fact that some, more pious and learned than I, have found nothing harmful in this Tale or its feignings as a 'myth'."

You wrote: "SO WHAT"S THE POINT?"

Tolkien writes: (In a letter to Joanna de Bortadano: Ibid page 186) "The real theme to me is something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality: the mystery of the love of the world for a race 'doomed' to leave and seemingly lose it; the anguish of the hearts of a race 'doomed' not to leave it, until it's whole evil-aroused story is complete."

Tolkien writes: (In a letter to Camilla Unwin: Ibid page 400) "So it may be said that the chief purpose of life, for any one of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all the means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks. To do as we say in the Gloria in Excelsis:.... We praise you, we call you holy, we worship you, we proclaim your glory, we thank you for the greatness of your splendour."

Tolkien writes: (In a letter to Amy Ronald: Ibid page 401-402) "I pray for you - because I have a feeling (more near a certainty) that God, for some ineffable reason which to us may seem almost like humour, is so curiously read to answer the prayers of the least worthy of His supplicants - if they pray for others... What a dreadful, fearful, darkened, sorrow-laden world we live in - especially for those of us who also have the burden of age, whose friends and all they especially care for are afflicted in the same way. Chesterton once said that it is our duty to keep the Flag of This World flying: but it takes now a sturdier and more sublime patriotism that it did then. Gandalf added that it is not for us to choose the times into which we are born, but to do what we could do to repair them; but the spirit of wickedness in high places is now so powerful and so many-headed in its incarnations that there seems nothing more to do than personally refuse to worship any of the hydra's heads...."

FEEDBACK ON ESSAY
Subject: Lord of the Rings
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
From: "Marc Louis Hebert"

Dear Pastor,
I have long been a very sentimental fan of tolkien. I am not a churchgoer but often think of myself as very christian in my heart.

I am a big fan of jesus and have read a little about the q manuscript and have spent some time musing upon who was this man, etc...

Thank you very much for bringing to light a very large number of christian spiritual connections in tolkien which helped me see maybe why his work resonates so strongly in me.

I can see you are very knowledgeable in many fields like history and I cannot discuss these topics at your level of thoroness altho i wish i could!

Anyway, I really like the fact that you are able to accomodate tolkien and not condemn him even tho he sorta cannibalises a lot of christian content. I am no expert but tolkien was after some sort of truth. I think he just threw whatever he knew into what he did best: make a story.

I read that later in life he kinda got lost in philosophical or theological works. I can see now, thanks to your web site, how he ended up shunted into these areas.

So, thank you so much for such worthwhile material. And by the way I like the general disposition of the web site. It shows plenty of care and respect towards the visitor. You guys are doing it right, methinks.
Sincerely,
Marc Hebert Moncton, New Brunswick

Your Private Comments.
I will not post these comments. What are your personal thoughts?  I also welcome your spiritual concerns and prayer needs.  I will correspond with you, usually within two weeks.
CLICK HERE
Private_Comments_E-mail

Hollywood Jesus News Letter
Receive the Hollywood Jesus Newsletter FREE.
Sign up here