But I suspect that the academic tone of my essay has contributed to the impression of many readers that I am a snooty, arrogant, ignorant prig. For this I am very sorry.

Second, more than one poster has suggested that I should rewrite or modify my essay if I have been misunderstood. I appreciate the suggestion; but I respectfully decline. Not only would that be cowardly—because it would somehow imply that I don't stand by my opinions, which I do—but it would be a great discredit to a host of folks who have taken great time and effort to post responses to the essay: responses which would then look foolish and misguided.

So I have elected instead, with David's consent, to post this page in order to clarify a few issues. For my more severe critics, I humbly ask that you please read this response with more patience than I perhaps deserve.

THREE KEY ISSUES BEHIND MY ESSAY

First, the subject of my essay is NOT The Lord of the Rings!! Let me state that again: the opinions which I have expressed, and have received a great deal of flak for, are not about LOTR. (My comments relating to the spiritual content of LOTR are contained on several other pages on HJ.) The subject of my essay is the entire BODY of Tolkien's work. I must emphasize that LOTR is a minute sample of this body of work, and of a very different flavor, much as The Hobbit is a work of a very different flavor than LOTR. Why? Because they were written for different audiences, and for different reasons! Few of my critics, I am afraid, have recognized this point in expressing their disagreement with me. And that's okay. But we must be clear that the materials posthumously published in The Silmarillion and subsequent volumes were originally intended only for a very small and private audience. Tolkien himself did not prepare these materials, as we know them, for publication.

Second, I have been much criticized for failing to include quotes from Tolkien in my essay, and many conclusions have been hastily reached as to why that is. If you would like to understand why, then really let my first point above sink in; and then consider that I CANNOT consult Tolkien's comments in my essay. Why? Because Tolkien's relevant comments, made necessarily while he was ALIVE, almost exclusively addressed materials published while he WAS alive: that is, comments regarding the scope and intent of LOTR and a few associated items. As any reader of my LOTR pages can see, I have absolutely no issue with the comments Tolkien did make regarding LOTR. The evidence bears him out. However, there are no extant Tolkien quotes of which I am aware that can be brought to bear on the issue of the scope and intent of the BODY of his work; and none of my critics have offered any help in this direction, either, except those quotes regarding his intent to specifically create a viable mythology for England (which, by the way, rather bolsters my argument than undermines it). In the absence of such quotes, however, I can only turn to the next-best authority, his own son, Christopher Tolkien. And I believe it's clear CT agrees that there was more at work in JRR's writing than the author himself was aware of. No one is perfectly self-aware, and I think we would have to include Tolkien on that score, too. Like all of us, I think he struggled with his faith; and I think the larger body of his work reflects that struggle. Such a subject is, and has always been, a legitimate topic for scholarly debate.

Third, that Tolkien was a Christian is to me a given: an issue not even open to discussion. Hence the lack of any reference to it, defense of it, or quotes about it. I presumed that the LOTR pages would make my opinion about that plain. Apparently, I was wrong. So let me clarify a couple of points related to that issue, briefly. First, I am indebted to posters enlightening me about the specifically Catholic aspects of Tolkien's work. I am not a Catholic theologian myself, and felt it would be terribly presumptuous to tackle such issues in my essay. The references cited by posters related to this topic promise to be very enticing reading; but again, I don't see that Catholic-specific topics change my arguments in any substantial way. Second: of course Catholics are Christians!

THINGS I'D LIKE TO CHANGE IN MY ESSAY

I'd definitely not say that "the presumption is that Lewis' intense spirituality somehow rubbed off on Tolkien." (Now, I never claimed this controversial presumption as my own.) Rather, I'd state: "A popular—and grossly uninformed—Evangelical presumption that Lewis' intense spirituality somehow rubbed off on Tolkien is patently absurd. Tolkien's aims were very different from Lewis' aims: just look at the evidence." A less efficient bridge, but more understandable, and certainly less open to misinterpretation! Actually, it would be best to leave Lewis entirely out of the picture, because his presence just clouds the issues. Lewis is not at all relevant to my essay.

I would also not use the word "Universalist." At any rate, I certainly wouldn't have capitalized it. I was not thinking denominationally in the passage in question, but mythologically, and so did not intend to invoke the supposed specter of Universalism as theology. 

The only other thing I'd change is following the advice of all my literature professors (including Joanna Russ)—advice which I always ignored—and put my thesis statement up front.  Personally, I find that style terribly boring reading. But it would appear sound advice in this case, because most of my critics have failed to appreciate both my love for Tolkien's work, and that I in no way consider Tolkien's work as anti-Christian.

SOME PARTING THOUGHTS

First, I don't mind at all if folks disagree with my opinions, or still view the body of Tolkien's work as affirming to their faith. God is entirely at liberty to use any means He sees fit to bring his children closer to Him. But personally, I think it's a worthwhile goal to try to awaken a person or two to the idea that winning God's battles in this life is not up to us alone, and that He has provided tremendous, even miraculous, spiritual aid. 

I also have honestly hoped to help quell the reactionary conservative Christian dialog that is likely to be spawned by the films' release. Whether I have helped at all in this regard will probably never be known.

I have greatly appreciated the large number of well-thought-out and informative critical responses. A number of folk have obviously come up with some good alternatives for understanding what Tolkien's Fourth Age is really all about. 

But I must note that if one chooses to mythologically equate Tolkien's First through Third ages with the period predating Christ (which I think is quite arguable, though I don't agree), I again feel this view bolsters my statement that the T-mythology is more Judeo than Judeo-Christian. And to be very honest, if politically incorrect, I think the New Testament is quite clear in demonstrating that a pre-Christological Judaic world view is one which makes accepting the person of Jesus as the Christ very difficult! So I can't see how this argument helps those who would argue in favor of a thoroughly Christian body of work for Tolkien. Humph.

Finally, the question I have attempted to answer in my essay is this: Why did Tolkien see the need to privately invent a new mythology for his world? What problems with his own culture's mythology (which includes the mythology of his faith) is he attempting to answer for himself? And my thesis is this: for Tolkien, his world was one—outside the sacraments, perhaps—in which God's spiritual influence had withdrawn as an active intercessory good.  That's all. And for me, that translates into an impoverished Christianity, not a FALSE Christianity. I'm not trying to narrow the scope of who's a legitimate believer and who isn't. That's up to God.

I'd like to close with one explicit quote from a HJ poster, and my personal response.

Pastor Wright's comments about Tolkien's spirituality I took to be an affront to the faith and piety of a man whose Christian beliefs are much admired by me... neither Wright nor his readers care how informed he is about this friend of mine...

"I hope you can see that this is not the case, and I am seriously sensitive in not wanting to be offensive; but I do feel that unless one becomes truly Christ-like, one is simply not above reproach (including me, certainly!). And so, my remarks about Tolkien are not intended as a disparagement of the man or his faith, but as an encouragement to others to seriously deepen their own spirituality.

"I am deeply sorry where I have failed in this respect."

In humility, and in Christ,

Greg


ADDITIONAL AUTHOR'S NOTES, 2004

Upon completing research for my book, Tolkien in Perspective, in 2002—and, for the last two years, continuing to weather the barrage of complaints regarding my essay, "The Mythology of J.R.R. Tolkien"—I now add three additional observations about the now-infamous essay.

First, I have very much settled on the conclusion that Tolkien's mythology is very much pre-Christian, both by intent and by effect. So there is indeed another passage of the essay that I would, in retrospect, like to be able to revise. Where before I said, "The T-mythology posits, in fact, a post-Christian world," I would now state: "The T-mythology posits, in fact, a pre-Christian world remarkably similar to our post-Christian world: the one in which Tolkien lived, though he did not embrace it." As I noted above, however, this conclusion does not mitigate my concerns about the effects of Tolkien's mythology; they are, rather, deepened.

Second, the reasons for my concerns, and the specifics related to the development of my thesis, have now been fully documented in my book. For those who continue to object to my conclusions, I heartily recommend Tolkien in Perspective, which fully delves into Tolkien's letters, essays, and The History of Middle-earth—a project wholly beyond the scope of the pages on this website. (Such a project is really not adequately acknowledged in my notes above, either. I do not here justify my rather blithe assertion that "there are no extant Tolkien quotes of which I am aware that can be brought to bear on the issue of the scope and intent of the BODY of his work.")

Third, thanks to certain devoted Hollywood Jesus readers, I have successfully waded through the Catholic issues related to Tolkien's work, and have included the outcome of that analysis—at least, the portions not redundant with other writers such as Joseph Pearce—in my book. And, thankfully, Catholic reviews have been quite favorable.

I definitely cannot be accused of believing exactly the same things that I did five years ago. I thank the readers at Hollywood Jesus for their forebearance, and for the part they have played in my journey with Tolkien, and with Christ, over the last five years. It's been fun, and enlightening!


FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Many thanks to Hollywood Jesus editor Lyn Mellone for prompting some additional observations on the 1999 essay.

Why do you say stuff like, "..it's the Hobbit Frodo that saves mankind," and "the Valar had defeated Melkor, withdrawn from Middle-earth, and removed their blessed land of Aman from contact with earth," or "when Aragorn dies, his Elvish bride Arwen loses her will to live, and sacrifices her immortality"? These statements, and others like them, are not technically accurate.

I am heavily prone to hyperbole, and often overstate myself. I also frequently engage in clumsy collapsing of narrative. I tend to be more interested in the the ideas behind the details than in the details themselves, and, as a result, often misstate the details. In short, I need editing!

Even if—or, especially if—you now believe that Tolkien's work is set in the pre-Christian era, why do you still hammer on the absence of the Holy Spirit in Middle-earth? If, in Tolkien's imaginary history, Christ had not yet come, then how could the Holy Spirit have been given?

This is a good question. The wording on this from my book is: "The T-mythology presents, in fact, a pre-Christian world which is remarkably similar to the post-Christian world: one free to postulate God's removal from the world; one free to champion men as the only agents of evil, or good; one free to deny the miraculous, and emasculate the Holy Spirit." My concern is with the way in which non-Christians are free to interpret the closing passages of The Lord of the Rings. They may mistake Tolkien as celebrating the Age of Men. Tolkien himself was not so keen on the Fourth Age, specifically because it was so spiritually dark. But this is not necessarily clear just in the text of the novel. We as Christians can observe, as HJ editor Lyn Mellone does, that "Tolkien laid the groundwork to open the door for the reentry of the supernatural into the world for our age and perhaps ages to come, should the Lord continue to tarry, through the incarnation of Jesus Christ and then the presence of the Holy Spirit given when Christ went to the Father." But just as often, I get e-mails from non-Christians who wonder what the heck Christians are talking about. It's a theological issue that requires explanation. And that's the upside—if there's someone there to explain.

What do you mean when you say, "a pre-Christological Judaic world view is one which makes accepting the person of Jesus as the Christ very difficult"? Is this a slam on Judaism?

This is an observation that has nothing to do, from my perspective, with Jews and their faith. It's a comment on how poorly Christians understand their own faith. Compare with an alternate statement: if "a pre-Christological Judaic world view made accepting the person of Jesus as the Christ easy," then the Jews wouldn't have had such a problem with Jesus, would they? History shows us, though, that Jesus has consistently been a stumbling block to devout Jews accepting Christianity. So comparing Tolkien's mythology with Judaism is not, to my thinking, complimentary—if one is trying to say, "Tolkien's pre-Christian myth will naturally lead folks to Jesus." I believe that Tolkien's pre-Christian myth may rather be a stumbling block, to folks who actually are enamored of the theology of Middle-earth.

Are you serious when you say Tolkien's "world was one—outside the sacraments, perhaps—in which God's spiritual influence had withdrawn as an active intercessory good"? Are you sure that we can assume that he did not acknowledge the presence of the Holy Ghost as "an active intercessory good"?

Tolkien certainly did understand the Holy Spirit as an active intercessory good in this life, for himself and for plenty of folks. Yes. But his mythology wasn't designed for himself, and how he saw the world. It was designed for England, and how the average Brit saw the world. And the England he saw around him—remembering, now, that this was an emerging modern military bureaucratic post-Victorian state—was one which was most certainly spiritually impoverished (as Tolkien understood spirituality). Why? Because it was becoming more Post-Christian, and Tolkien was really trying to say, "Are you sure that's a place we want to go? Because, you know, we've been there before. And it was a pretty dark place to be. If we really want to return to our past, we've got to go further back than the Fourth Age. Back to Eden, perhaps."