A Hobbit, A Wardrobe, and a Great War...

[joshuabgood]

... In fact, the Scouring of the Shire is essentially arguing that the heroics "out there" enable the "small" heroics. Gandalf points says that hobbits' participation in the War of the Ring was preparing them to lead the fight back home.

You have lain your finger exactly on the point I actively disbelieve. Churchill is sometimes credited with a statement that "good people sleep soundly because rough men do violence on they behalf." I think the message of the incarnation, resurrection and ascension is roughly the opposite of this solteriology of violence.

In the world Jesus left coersive power, death and disease are all disarmed and rendered impotent by the sacrificial love of Jesus. We simply do not need rough men to do violence on our behalf because Jesus has that well in hand and he does not need heroically violent people to carry it out. He may use them but that is only because they have chosen that path, if they had chosen differently he would accomplish his plans another, better way.

Exactly...the shed blood we trust in for our safety/salvation is not that of the marines, but rather the Lamb.

[JohnH]

The Lord of the Rings is not a Christian allegory, promoting an Anabaptist New Testament worldview.

[Coifi]

... In fact, the Scouring of the Shire is essentially arguing that the heroics "out there" enable the "small" heroics. Gandalf points says that hobbits' participation in the War of the Ring was preparing them to lead the fight back home.

You have lain your finger exactly on the point I actively disbelieve. Churchill is sometimes credited with a statement that "good people sleep soundly because rough men do violence on they behalf." I think the message of the incarnation, resurrection and ascension is roughly the opposite of this solteriology of violence.

In the world Jesus left coersive power, death and disease are all disarmed and rendered impotent by the sacrificial love of Jesus. We simply do not need rough men to do violence on our behalf because Jesus has that well in hand and he does not need heroically violent people to carry it out. He may use them but that is only because they have chosen that path, if they had chosen differently he would accomplish his plans another, better way.

I do not think that the Lord of the Rings is about a "soteriology of violence" as you call it. The protagonist is actively against picking up another weapon on his return journey. This is even amidst the events of the Scouring of the Shire. Furthermore, the most laudable action taken in the entire book is the mercy shown to Gollum by Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam. I think I am being misunderstood along with Tolkien.

People tell "laudable" stories about war, to provide justification of what they know is hell, to some how make it all make sense. And all these "laudable stories" of course need "demons" and "orcs" or "the enemy" to make them laudable.

Is not the mercy of Frodo, Sam, and Bilbo laudable? Was that not an action taken in war? This is what I am referring to. Similarly, are not the actions of Desmond Doss laudable (Hacksaw Ridge)? It is significant that Tolkien, a war veteran, comes to the conclusion that these are the most laudable things one can do in war ("the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many"). I fail to see how this would be disagreeable to an Anabaptist.

As an aside, I thoroughly agree that you need "demons" and "orcs" to make violence laudable. If it were not for the element of spiritual warfare in the book of Joshua, it would be a detestable book.

[joshuabgood]

Is not the mercy of Frodo, Sam, and Bilbo laudable? Was that not an action taken in war? This is what I am referring to. Similarly, are not the actions of Desmond Doss laudable (Hacksaw Ridge)?

Yes mercy is laudable...even when in it happens in war. My comment refers to the war violence itself.

[barnhart]

... In fact, the Scouring of the Shire is essentially arguing that the heroics "out there" enable the "small" heroics. Gandalf points says that hobbits' participation in the War of the Ring was preparing them to lead the fight back home.

You have lain your finger exactly on the point I actively disbelieve. Churchill is sometimes credited with a statement that "good people sleep soundly because rough men do violence on they behalf." I think the message of the incarnation, resurrection and ascension is roughly the opposite of this solteriology of violence.

In the world Jesus left coersive power, death and disease are all disarmed and rendered impotent by the sacrificial love of Jesus. We simply do not need rough men to do violence on our behalf because Jesus has that well in hand and he does not need heroically violent people to carry it out. He may use them but that is only because they have chosen that path, if they had chosen differently he would accomplish his plans another, better way.

I do not think that the Lord of the Rings is about a "soteriology of violence" as you call it. The protagonist is actively against picking up another weapon on his return journey. This is even amidst the events of the Scouring of the Shire. Furthermore, the most laudable action taken in the entire book is the mercy shown to Gollum by Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam. I think I am being misunderstood along with Tolkien.

I truly enjoyed the series and like you, I find a lot there to appreciate. I wouldn't say it is "about a soteriology of violence" as if that were the main point, rather it contains an implicit soteriology of violence, as Jazzman artfully hinted at. At it's core, it projects a world where active power and violence are necessary to allow a flourishing society.