Pullman, Tolkien, and miscellaneous theology

[David]

Amy:

Pullman's 'Republic of Heaven'
> 
> I am not sure, and I'm not Christian, but it seems to 
> me I've met a lot of Christians who would embrace that idea as 
> perfectly compatible with their faith.  In fact, the Jesus Seminar 
> folks (who are admittedly controversial) tend to quibble with the 
> phrase "kingdom of heaven," believing that what's in the Greek is 
> actually much more egalitarian than that term suggests.  My 
> concordance is at work and I find the online ones tedious, so I'll 
> check tomorrow.

I suspect this is one of those issues that a concordance will only 
go so far in resolving.

My understanding of the term is that for us today the word 'kingdom' 
tends to imply a specific type of political government, as in the UK 
or Siam.  This is not necessarily implied by the Jesus' words, which 
may refer rather to God acting in the role of king among his people, 
who are to 'reign' with him.  So one interpretation would be that 
where the Kingdom of Heaven is effective, there is freedom from and 
power over fear, want, disease, and sin (I won't try to define this 
last term here!).

I believe though that the phrase is not one which the disciples 
could have looked up in a dictionary when Jesus first used it: as 
with so many early Christian terms, Jesus (and later the apostles) 
used existing ideas and re-shaped them into new forms which really 
meant that words were being redefined.

> Pullman's opinion notwithstanding, one does not have to worship 
the 
> Authority to be Christian.  Plenty of Christians believe that God 
> does not want to rule us but created us to be free.

One of the puzzles to me of HDM is whether the Authority is supposed 
to be a creator God.  In many ways he fits right in to the Christian 
idea of Satan as the 'God of this world' - that is, the spirit being 
(fallen angel, if you like) who exercises dominion over the world, 
dominion which was originally delegated by God for good but 
arrogated before or at the time of the fall.  Pullman IIRC never 
really explains how the worlds came to be in the first place.

  Likewise, plenty 
> share Pullman's opinion that the Church's hatred of sexuality and 
the 
> body/the physical has been very destructive and is not in keeping 
> with the essence of Christian teaching.  Pullman may see 
Christianity 
> as hopelessly out of step with his views, but I think he's wrong.

Yes, I think so too.  
> 
> I hope some Christians will weigh in.
> 
> Incidentally, I also think his views of Christianity--his residue 
of 
> anger, yes, I agree, Lisa--get in the way of his literary 
> interpretation.  He thinks Tolkien's sagas are infected with Roman 
> Catholic dogma.

That's interesting.  I wouldn't like to say that Tolkien's work 
is 'infected with RC dogma' but I can see why someone with a 
jaundiced view of Catholic teaching might see that in Tolkien.  For 
instance, Tolkien's bad characters have to redeem themselves - 
unlike Lewis' Edmund, nobody dies for them.  Very few of them do.  
Boromir appears to get 'put right' by dying in his attempts to save 
Pippin and Merry.

It's interesting too, to think about Pullman's reported views on the 
body and sexuality in the context of Tolkien.  Again, if one is 
disposed to see these things as peculiarly Catholic (and, of course, 
that is a popular view), then the shortage of feminine characters in 
Tolkien could be seen as evidence of a Catholic worldview.  The 
characters who exercise 'spiritual' power correctly are celibate: 
Frodo, Gandalf; while the 'temporal' lords get married: Aragorn, Sam.

I agree there are non-Christian (or perhaps I should say heretical) 
elements to his writing, too.  Thus the Ainulindale (sp from 
memory!) could IMO be interpreted either as a fairly conventional 
creation story (the angels merely execute God's plan as 
intermediaries) or as an almost Gnostic vision (I'm at the edges of 
my knowledge here, admittedly) in which the creation is the result 
of activity by angels who are 'emanations' of God.  The idea of 
characters such as Olorin (Gandalf) in the Silmarillion proper (or 
is it the Valaquenta? - can't remember) also strikes me as Gnostic 
in form, where an 'angelic' being takes human form.

In general I'd say that there is a very strong tendency in Tokien'd 
work for God, and his agents, to be ever more removed from the scene 
of the action, and 'ordinary people' (read: hobbits) left to get on 
with things.  The intervention of the Valar (angels) in calling the 
elves is acknowledged to be a mistake.  Although the Istari 
(wizards: more angels, this time in disguise and with limited 
powers) do just about succeed, their 80% fall-away rate is 
suggestive (Unfinished Writings).  Aragorn defines his kingship over 
the Shire by declaring that Men should keep out of it - in effect, 
the hobbits should govern themselves (so there's an example of 
how 'kingdom of heaven' and 'republic of heaven' could be presented 
as virtually identical concepts).  It is almost as if Tolkien's idea 
is that we want a proper king to rule us because only he can show 
the appropriate degree of inactivity; activists like Saruman or even 
Boromir and Denethor are always given the authorial thumbs-down.  
Apart from giving obscure signs (like the Tree to Aragorn) and 
passing the occasional final judgement (Akallabeth) the function of 
deity is to stay away.

I have rambled enough

David