Behold The King!

Excellent post. Faramir is possibly my favorite character in the cycle. The chapter describing his interaction with Frodo and Sam in The Two Towers is, to my mind, one of Tolkien’s most glorious triumphs of the whole series, and I found that his portrayal in the cinematic releases of the movies bordered on criminal. He was redeemed somewhat in the extended versions, and even though I can understand what Jackson was trying to accomplish in the movies by how he portrayed Faramir, I still wish he could’ve found another way to do that.

I freely confess that I am a complete nerd when it comes to all things Tolkien. (I’ve told my wife that if we ever have daughters, their names will be Luthien and Lorien, respectively.) I maintain that the two most amazing works of fiction are Tolkien’s Silmarillion and C. S. Lewis’ Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold.

Thanks for the post, Tim!

No disrespect to Brian Thornton (and I’ll admit that I didn’t make this clear enough in my own post), but Tolkien’s elegant depictions of Christian truth are precisely what make LOTR (and indeed all things Tolkien) great. In particular, it’s the distinctly Christian ethic of Faramir that makes him such an endearing character.

Faramir’s faithful stewardship is what makes him more heroic than his father Denethor or his brother Boromir. As such, it’s entirely apropos that Tim should employ Tolkien’s depiction in the blog entry, and with all due respect to Mr. Thornton, it might behoove him better to reply to what Tim actually says in his post, rather than what csheidler says offhandedly in a comment about Tim’s post.

As far as I know, neither Tim nor myself holds Tolkien’s work (no matter how marvelous we both feel it to be) to be in any sense inspired. From reading Tim’s blogs, it’s clear that he and I agree that Scripture Alone is our Inspired Authority…that does not mean, however, that it’s inappropriate to recognize it when other writers express the same truth even though they’re not writing under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I was disappointed not to see any direct reference to this very important subject from the Bible…instead, the only example given was from LOTR.

But I fail to see why a direct reference (“as you can see in Chapter X, Verse Y of The Book of Z”) is needed here. For starters, the majority of Tim’s audience is undeniably Christian, and I think it can safely be assumed that said audience is competent enough to know what he’s referring to here.

Your point would be slightly more salient were Tim’s audience strictly non-Christian, but even then I don’t know that direct Scripture references are necessary to examine what Tim’s getting at here. CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity, for example, is an excellent apologetic directed at lay masses that makes very few (if any) direct references to Scripture. And yet, as I’m sure you’re aware, it’s had a tremendous amount of success since its inception in guiding people (through the Holy Spirit’s ministry, of course) to faith.

In fact, John Calvin himself often does the same (admittedly, however, not to this extent), referring often in Institutes of the Christian Religion to Greek and Roman mythology as an indirect means of showcasing God’s Truth. In I.V he embarks on an extended discourse in this manner, citing Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, and the pagan author Cicero.

If it’s good enough for Calvin and for CS Lewis to employ this tactic, is there any reason Tim should not?

If I am correct, Brian is not suggesting that such paralells are wrong to make, but that as a culture at large, we rely on more of these comparisons to movies than the Word….I agree that there can in some cases by interesting contrasts and parallels, but they do often times blur the truth.

Then perhaps the question we ought to be asking here is not whether or not it’s acceptable for Tim to use such methodology (we seem to be in agreement that it is), but whether or not in this particular instance that methodology succeeds. (I happen to feel that it does.)

Likewise, maybe this is a good discussion to illustrate the need for us to appraise each use of that methodology on a case-by-case basis. I’ll fully agree (even not having read Eldridge) that there are numerous ways someone can use this method poorly…but it seems to me that to abandon the entire technique because some have used it awkwardly (even, I’ll concede, unbiblically) would be to throw the methodological baby out with the methodological bathwater. (Sorry, that’s just such a cool-sounding word!!!!!)

Any thoughts?

Good, moral things said apart from Scripture and without the cross of Christ as the basis are nothing more than pagan religion.

In that case, your entire argument against Tim’s methodology has been nothing more than an exercise in pagan religion. You yourself have made no direct reference to Scripture and have not offered the Cross as an example of anything pertinent to Tim’s post.

Something about “the beam in thine own eye” sounds appropriate here…

I’d actually meant to edit that statement, but somehow that didn’t quite work…your argument isn’t pagan, but it’s certainly hypocrisy…

…If it is true that good things said apart from Scripture are nothing more than pagan religion, and if (as your posts thus far have implied) Tim’s failure to cite direct Scriptural references equate this blog entry to an exercise in pagan religion, then your own arguments, which ALSO have not cited Scripture directly, are blatantly hypocritical.

You take issue with Tim’s methodology because his lack of direct Scriptural references is something you find inappropriate…yet you offer no Scriptural teaching that supports your idea here…in short, you’re not willing to follow your own rules, and that’s exactly why Matthew 7:4 applies here.

Furthermore, the argument that Christians ought not to use non-Christian (or even thinly-veiled Christian) sources is, with all due respect, arrant nonsense. In 1 Corinthians 15:33 Paul quotes the pagan poet Menander (“Bad company corrupts good morals”) in the context of offering instruction to the Corinthians. Furthermore, he does so without making any direct reference whatever at that point to the Old Testament. Similarly, Jude makes no direct quotes of Scripture and cites apocryphal stories to support his teaching at least twice.

If your argument against this type of methodology is valid, why do we see New Testament writers employing it? Conversely, if Paul and Jude feel that they could use a technique such as this with impunity, why ought Christians such as Tim be afraid to do the same?

In what way am I engaging in straw man tactics? Unless I miss my guess entirely, your premise is that the teaching of Biblical truths is better accomplished by using the Gospel rather than cultural references. That’s fine, and on that score we are in complete agreement.

However, when you imply (as you seem to be doing) that Tim is somehow in the wrong for using cultural references rather than direct citation of Scripture, you seem to be doing so on the basis that some evangelical churches employ this technique all too often. (As a side note I’ll even agree with you there—some churches are long on analogy and short on actual Scripture.)

Your initial post in this thread implied that Tim’s use of Lord of the Rings obscured the Scriptural teachings concerning stewardship, yet you fail (actually you have not even attempted) to demonstrate how this is so.

But the statement you’ve made that I’ve taken greatest umbrage to is when you said that Good, moral things said apart from Scripture and without the cross of Christ as the basis are nothing more than pagan religion. Oops, sorry…now we are getting into an indictment of American evangelical churches… Your comment, coming in the context that it does, would seem to be an indictment of Tim’s methodology in this blog entry as well. If I’ve misunderstood you here, then I do indeed apologize.

But the fact REMAINS that your entire argument against Tim’s post is founded ENTIRELY upon your own assumptions about methodology, and NOT upon Scripture. So I suppose the question that I haven’t asked adequately enough is this: When you say that Tim ‘ought’ to use direct Scriptural references rather than cultural starting points, where does this sense of ‘oughtness’ come from? Is there a particular reason, apart from your own assumptions (which you have yet to defend), that Tim is obligated to abandon this type of methodology?

You’ve tried to say previously that you’re not against said methodology per se, but rather against what you perceive to be its preeminence (over and against simple Scripture) in mainstream evangelical methodology. If this is indeed your argument, then fine (and again I think we could agree), but that hardly amounts to an indictment of Tim, the majority of whose posts (in my admittedly short time reading his blog) seem actually to start from Scripture rather than elsewhere…and that’s why I’ve ALREADY suggested that we evaluate this on a case-by-case basis—I find Tim’s use of this method well done and effective, and he uses it sparingly rather than exclusively. Do you disagree?

So again, I may very well have misunderstood your intent in this discussion, and if so I apologize (one of the main drawbacks to posting while at work, I fear)…if your critique concerns an undue reliance on this technique in mainstream churches, I can agree with you (although my particular experience has been rather the opposite); but if you include in that argument an indictment of this particular entry of Tim’s, or if you imply that evangelicals ought to altogether avoid this type of teaching, then I find your argument wholly lacking and indeed fallacious.