What Christian imagery was in the LOTR movies?

Ent said:

There is absolutely no doubt he was often clueless about what he had left behind him... though he 'labored over every word."
And there are several reasons he 'labored'... though I've also no doubt even he did not understand what some of those reasons were..!

When one is an instrument of Providence, it is most often true one neer realizes it. Or if they do, it is well after the fact...and frankly, is generally pointed out by others.

Click to expand...

This is very true! Within Tolkien's stories, the characters did not understand in the moment or realize how they were being so wonderfully used for the glory of Eru. Tolkien himself doubly did not realize how he was being so wonderfully used for the glory of God.

Indeed. But we must be cautious how far we tread down that path lest we stray down forbidden pathways into tunnels and caverns of delight to some, but not all.

Here is one PJ failed to remove from his work, though he portrayed it incorrectly.

Pippin as an agent of Providence is shown thus:
"Moved by a sudden impulse he groped for a loose stone, and let it drop."

Tolkien's syntax... 'moved by a sudden impulse...' again demonstrates it is not from 'within' him, but from an agency outside of him. (Providence.)

In spite of the company's efforts at quiet in their desire to get through undetected, things NEED to happen in Eru's plan. Indeed, the Balrog MUST be brought into the scene, and his actions brought to bear on the results.

So Pippin is an instrument of Eru's plan.

Why does the Balrog need to be engaged? Because the Balrog is NOT 'unfortunate' as Gandalf says when he's weakened and 'falters' later.... The Balrog is ALSO Providence.... and Gandalf's death essential... as Gandalf MUST be removed, and returned as The White, now prepared and enabled for the next essential task... the confrontation with Saruman.

Gandalf the Grey was inadequate to the task.

(p.s. - this is also why, when Gandalf recovers from his 'falter', he first says 'this is a foe beyond you... I must hold the narrow way." then says calmly to the Balrog 4 times... 'you cannot pass.' Three times at first... the 'number of perfect wholeness'..... then the 4th as a reminder after the Balrog doesn't choose the 'way out' tGandalf offers him, o avoid further trouble in the situation. (A bit of grace into the moment, and much more.))

The 'narrow way' is of course a direct reference to Scripture... but Gandalf recognizing he must hold it indicates while he does not know WHY, he understands what is unfolding is all part of a bigger plan.

There is so much in this Moria scene itself books could be written about it... (and it will play largely within mine.) (The whole issue of the providence of the Watcher in the Water slamming the doors shut, 'closing the door behind them' forcing them onto just one path is key as well. Gandalf at last understands this after he 'falters' and 'recovers his strength' - a coupled phrase we totally miss the point of unless we understand the depth of meaning of 'falters' and 'recovers' and how Tolkien has employed them, I believe.)

I'll shut up now.

Ent said:

Pippin as an agent of Providence is shown thus:
"Moved by a sudden impulse he groped for a loose stone, and let it drop."

Click to expand...

So interesting! I never caught that moment before. I always associated Pippin not necessarily as an agent of Providence but the vessel in which brought about crucial happenings (and now I think about it, this is just the same thought though phrased differently).

Indeed, as is clearly evident, the Balrog was necessary to be brought in, and the event of Gandalf and the Balrog was certainly part of the intricate weavings of the plans of Eru!

Glorfindel Goldtress said:

Balrog was necessary to be brought in, and the event of Gandalf and the Balrog was certainly part of the intricate weavings of the plans of Eru

Click to expand...

"ALL things work together for good to those who..." "...has used even the base things of the world... and the weak..." &c.

Balrog essential 'baddie'... among Melkor's greatest works.... but a tool in the hands of Eru to achieve the final results... and Melkor is specifically told he himself will 'see' there is nothing he can do not folded in as a part of Eru's ultimate resulting good.

All part of 'do your worst, Melkor. You'll see in the end..!!"

Ent said:

This thread is particularly difficult for me to speak to, due to my decades of study in the arenas of the will, Providence, and the outworking of plans according to predesination (and what that really means). So with great effort, I refrain from much elabortation here... and try to remain silent.

But here you hit on something I can/will speak to...ever so briefly. (In Paul Harvey's words, once again you've 'hit the nail with your head.' 😁)

I recently reviewed one of our writers' sharings, and commented: "nice play holding back on the revelation of what exactly was killing him until well into the scene."

The writer responded: "tbh it was completely unintentional."

This is often the way it is... and is certainly was with Tolkien.
There is absolutely no doubt he was often clueless about what he had left behind him... though he 'labored over every word."
And there are several reasons he 'labored'... though I've also no doubt even he did not understand what some of those reasons were..!

When one is an instrument of Providence, it is most often true one never realizes it. Or if they do, it is well after the fact...and frankly, is generally pointed out by others.

Click to expand...

Have you read Fleming Rutlidge's Tolkien book on this? She covers providence quite extensively, with many examples I had not thought of.

Ugluk said:

Have you read Fleming Rutlidge's Tolkien book on this

Click to expand...

Working my way through this now.

It and 11 other books have recently been added to my library to consume as I start working on my own. I need to see what territory they have covered, and make sure mine doesn’t tread in their arenas. (I also know several of them take things too far, evaluate Tolkien’s work from their own perspective rather than his, and such. The issue is to make sure, if we want to present Tolkien, we present Tolkien as he is rather than as we want to perceive him to be. That and be clear, when we’re presenting things we can interpret from his work based on our own construct rather than his, we’re saying so clearly.

Too often people present their construct as his errantly, attributing it to ‘Tolkien’s intent’.

Ent said:

Too often people present their construct as his errantly, attributing it to ‘Tolkien’s intent’.

Click to expand...

I'm curious Ent, because you're always emphasizing this (and not to derail this thread), but what exactly is it you do to ensure you're keeping to what Tolkien's intent is, specifically? Is it possible for an inherent self-perspecive bias to creep in? How do you genuinely tell you're sticking to Tolkien?

Glorfindel Goldtress said:

what exactly is it you do to ensure you're keeping to what Tolkien's intent is, specifically?

Click to expand...

1. Do the best I can to study Tolkien’s words ‘in context’ within the work.
2. Do the best I can to study Tolkien’s letters to discern his underlying leanings.
3. Work to grasp his Catholic perspective…. And his particular perspective WITHIN Catholicism, which has several flavors.
4. Work to strip my particular scriptural understanding from myself, which substantially differs from his in many ways, to try to keep him in focus.
5. Most particularly try hard NOT to press his work and words farther than he does. (Several of the recent dozen books I’ve acquired regarding ‘his perspectives’ on things are really not. They’re the authors’ perspectives layered on top of his.)

It’s no easy task…. And there is no doubt one will always fail at the task as ‘personal bias’ is not truly eliminatable.

And often, I intentionally extend his works and words into my own realm as I share… not because they’re ‘not his too’. But because the overlap is so great it doesn’t matter.

There’s more… but this is a good start.

Ent said:

There’s more… but this is a good start.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing!

Ent said:

Indeed. But we must be cautious how far we tread down that path lest we stray down forbidden pathways into tunnels and caverns of delight to some, but not all.

Here is one PJ failed to remove from his work, though he portrayed it incorrectly.

Pippin as an agent of Providence is shown thus:
"Moved by a sudden impulse he groped for a loose stone, and let it drop."

Tolkien's syntax... 'moved by a sudden impulse...' again demonstrates it is not from 'within' him, but from an agency outside of him. (Providence.)

In spite of the company's efforts at quiet in their desire to get through undetected, things NEED to happen in Eru's plan. Indeed, the Balrog MUST be brought into the scene, and his actions brought to bear on the results.

So Pippin is an instrument of Eru's plan.

Why does the Balrog need to be engaged? Because the Balrog is NOT 'unfortunate' as Gandalf says when he's weakened and 'falters' later.... The Balrog is ALSO Providence.... and Gandalf's death essential... as Gandalf MUST be removed, and returned as The White, now prepared and enabled for the next essential task... the confrontation with Saruman.

Gandalf the Grey was inadequate to the task.

(p.s. - this is also why, when Gandalf recovers from his 'falter', he first says 'this is a foe beyond you... I must hold the narrow way." then says calmly to the Balrog 4 times... 'you cannot pass.' Three times at first... the 'number of perfect wholeness'..... then the 4th as a reminder after the Balrog doesn't choose the 'way out' tGandalf offers him, o avoid further trouble in the situation. (A bit of grace into the moment, and much more.))

The 'narrow way' is of course a direct reference to Scripture... but Gandalf recognizing he must hold it indicates while he does not know WHY, he understands what is unfolding is all part of a bigger plan.

There is so much in this Moria scene itself books could be written about it... (and it will play largely within mine.) (The whole issue of the providence of the Watcher in the Water slamming the doors shut, 'closing the door behind them' forcing them onto just one path is key as well. Gandalf at last understands this after he 'falters' and 'recovers his strength' - a coupled phrase we totally miss the point of unless we understand the depth of meaning of 'falters' and 'recovers' and how Tolkien has employed them, I believe.)

I'll shut up now.

Click to expand...

I have a slightly different take on "the impulse" that prompted Pippin to act the "fool of a Took!"
It wasn't Providence that prompted his action; it was his Took nature acquired genetically, which of course, Eru/God always has a hand in.
So yes, Providence figures in, albeit indirectly.
I am a traditional (read: orthodox) Catholic, as was Tolkien (Latin forever! Yessss! 😄).
I've done some (a bit) of reading on Providence and free will, per CC doctrine, which differs from some Protestant doctrines.

In the first place Eru/Godd has a plan, or rather an End. He knows how He wants things to END.
That is why all the bad guys in ME (beginning with Melkor) can win battle after battle after battle, can ruin everything for 100, 1000, 3000 years, and yet they're destined to lose the War. They have, in fact, already lost it, they just don't know it.

That is because for Eru all time is "the present"; He sees Past, Present, and Future as one vast panorama.
This is not only with respect to events. He sees every individual's past, present and future also as one panorama.
We, however, look at Time like a river; it flows and we only see a small part of it.
We see a log floating towards us (Future), it draws even with us (Present), and flows past us and is lost to sight (Past).
Eru sees the River of Time wholly, completely, entirely in one view.

Eru does not will evil. And He can't will it for another anymore than He can perform an evil act Himself.
He has given the races of ME free will, which means they can choose the good, choose the bad, but also choose to act amorally, that is to do something that is, in and of itself (i.e. intrinsically), neither good nor evil.
He desires that the End he has ordained be brought about in accordance with His Will, which means doing Good and not Evil.
Yet, He already knows what people are going to do.

At the time of the Quest Pippin was young (maybe 18-19 in our years), and displayed the typical impulsivity and unsound judgment of youngsters.
Pippin dropping the stone in the well was simply Pippin being his unthinking teenage self.
Of course Eru knew this about him but He let him act, just as He let Melkor act in marring the Ainulindalë.

The difference is that Pippin performed an amoral act (neither good nor bad of itself), whereas Melkor, in defying Eru, preformed an evil act.
But Eru made use of both acts to bring about His desired End. That is, despite people's willful defiance, despite appalling stupidity, despite innocent acts that for whatever reason have disastrous consequences, Eru finally does have His way, and His way (or Will) is always Good.

I know the text says Pippin was "moved by a sudden impulse", but everyone has sudden impulses, not least children and adolescents.
Indeed, the whole point in "growing up" is to learn to harness sudden impulses; the older you get, the less you give into them (at least one hopes that is the case🙄😄).
Still, Eru knew what was to result from Pippin's apparently (to him) innocuous act and so made use of the disastrous results even tho' He would have, by His very nature, desired no evil to result from the act.
So that is why I think Pippin's impulsive act was not prompted by Providence.

An interesting consideration, which I only now thought of: Let us say that Gandalf had explicitly told the company to "Stay away from the well! Do not go near it!" And Pippin, (still moved by an impulse) when no one was watching, edges closer and tosses in the pebble.
In this case Pippin has performed a deliberately evil act; an act of disobedience toward one who has legitimate moral authority.
His act differs from Melkor's only in degree, but not in kind.
Pippin's culpability would be much greater than what it was compared to how he acted in the book.
Indeed, it is my guess that Gandalf would have been "exceedingly wroth" with Pippin because he had deliberately defied him.

Recall that even with the "pilfered Palantir" episode he wasn't too hard on Pippin; he never explicitly told him not to handle the Palantir.
He does later tell Pippin that he knew he was doing wrong when he removed the Palantir from his grasp, because he had to take it by stealth.
Pippin's conscience was already bothering when he considered taking it because he had gotten a distinct impression from Gandalf (at Orthanc) that the Palantir was not any of his concern. Not explicitly stated, but still, "in his heart-of-hearts" he knew better and took it anyway.

Deimos said:

I have a slightly different take on "the impulse" that prompted Pippin to act the "fool of a Took!"

Click to expand...

A VERY nice (succinct) presentation and explanation of Tolkien's Catholic perspective on providence and free will.
We are, in fact, not too far apart perhaps.

I'll review the text again, and the syntax, allowing for the amoral act (a key element obviously), the Providence being the events 'resulting' from the act rather than a 'causative' (intervening) Providence.

Certainly we agree about 'all time being the same' to Eru, knowing and Providing for the end from the beginning, etc.

And thanks for bringing in the similarity to the Palantir event, where the impulse was quite literally overwhelming for him.

The question for me lies in the syntax and Tolkien's probable intent with it, and whether Eru was 'employing' Pippin's youthfulness, impulses and urges to, in the one case, prepare Gandalf for Saruman, and in the other, prevent the disaster of Gandalf attempting to use the stone himself.

(As Eru knows our innermost thoughts at any given time in Tolkien's Catholic view (and mine) he would have known Gandalf was considering the issue.)

Anyway, we push into some of the depths here of how Providence works.

Is it 'reactive' only, or at times 'proactive'? Is it dependent on the nature of an act, being moral or amoral, etc. ?

Gandalf's 'reaction' to Pippin's pebble and palantir problems, has little to do with their 'cause' and the action of Providence in my view. Providence deals with the actions themselves and how they are used to 'work all things together for good'. Providence itself doesn't deal with the issues of 'judgment'.

I'm going to print out your post and give it some serious thought. (It's also why I've acquired the other books I've acquired. To cover the territory carefully, and where I need to change my understanding, be sure to make those changes..!)

You remain a gem to the Forum, sir Deimos..! Thank you.

Ent said:

A VERY nice (succinct) presentation and explanation of Tolkien's Catholic perspective on providence and free will.
We are, in fact, not too far apart perhaps.

I'll review the text again, and the syntax, allowing for the amoral act (a key element obviously), the Providence being the events 'resulting' from the act rather than a 'causative' (intervening) Providence.

Certainly we agree about 'all time being the same' to Eru, knowing and Providing for the end from the beginning, etc.

And thanks for bringing in the similarity to the Palantir event, where the impulse was quite literally overwhelming for him.

The question for me lies in the syntax and Tolkien's probable intent with it, and whether Eru was 'employing' Pippin's youthfulness, impulses and urges to, in the one case, prepare Gandalf for Saruman, and in the other, prevent the disaster of Gandalf attempting to use the stone himself.

(As Eru knows our innermost thoughts at any given time in Tolkien's Catholic view (and mine) he would have known Gandalf was considering the issue.)

Anyway, we push into some of the depths here of how Providence works.

Is it 'reactive' only, or at times 'proactive'? Is it dependent on the nature of an act, being moral or amoral, etc. ?

Gandalf's 'reaction' to Pippin's pebble and palantir problems, has little to do with their 'cause' and the action of Providence in my view. Providence deals with the actions themselves and how they are used to 'work all things together for good'. Providence itself doesn't deal with the issues of 'judgment'.

I'm going to print out your post and give it some serious thought. (It's also why I've acquired the other books I've acquired. To cover the territory carefully, and where I need to change my understanding, be sure to make those changes..!)

You remain a gem to the Forum, sir Deimos..! Thank you.

Click to expand...

Thank you. You are too kind.
You have prompted me to consider something else about free will (Cath perspective.).
"I'll get back to you on that"...(as they say 😄)... later, after I organize my thoughts.

Deimos said:

after I organize my thoughts.

Click to expand...

Please teach me how to do this...!!!

Ent said:

Please teach me how to do this...!!!

Click to expand...

I take a mental "triangle" and rack them like billiard balls on a pool table. 😁

Who breaks? 🤔

Squint-eyed Southerner said:

Who breaks? 🤔

Click to expand...

Cthulhu.

"Today's special is Eggs Cthulhu, the list of ingredients of which would drive any mortal to insanity."

Waitress at HP's Restaurant, in Practical Demonkeeping, by Christopher Moore.