Friday, 24 April 2026

Religions and churches are analogous to Tolkien's Rings of Power

The Rings of Power - but especially the One Ring and the three Elven Rings, seem to describe something profound about reality. 

Sauron infuses much of his native power onto the One Ring; which gives him the ability to dominate the other Rings of Power - and, more generally, dominate the will to power of other beings. 

But, the transfer of power means that, when the One Ring is destroyed, Sauron cannot hold-himself-together anymore; he cannot sustain himself coherently as a functioning "self", but diffuses into a dark spirit of largely-passive malignancy. 


What is often missed by readers of The Lord of the Rings (but which was insightfully described by Paul Kocher more than fifty years ago); is that the Elves did something analogous with their three Rings, with analogous but inverted positive benefits; and similar negative consequences after their power was broken.  


The Elven Rings were made by a transfer of vitality from Elves-generally, into the Three Rings specifically. 

The Rings were apparently intended to focus and strengthen Elvish (or rather, specifically High Elven, Noldorian) characteristics - purity and the preservation of unstained beauty, in the case of Galadriel and Lothlorien; wisdom, learning, and healing, in the case of Elrond and Rivendell. 

(Gandalf's Elf Ring was given him by Cirdan, and thereby seemingly repurposed from its original intent.)


I infer that the Three Rings were made exactly because elvish vitality and power was already declining, as a consequence of prolonged residence in the mortal lands of Middle Earth (which was by will of Eru; who always intended that Elves gradually be replaced by Men). 

The Elven Rings were made, therefore, with the ambivalently-virtuous motivation of stopping the ongoing decline in Elvish vitality. 

And for so long as the One Ring was not being wielded; the Elf Rings worked well; and in Rivendell and Lothlorien, High Elven culture continued for thousands of years longer than anywhere else in Middle Earth - but at the price of being increasingly cut-off, encapsulated.  


But, when the Master Ring was destroyed, all the racial vitality of the Elves that had gone into the making of the Three Rings was dissipated and diffused, much like Sauron's beingness.  

Immediately; the special qualities of Elrond and Rivendell, Galadriel and Lothlorien, began to decline, dwindle, fade...

The High Elves could not longer remain High; but must revert towards the much lesser cultural and intellectual level of the "Silvan" or Wood Elves - or else migrate to the Undying Lands before this declining process could advance too far.  

*

I believe that Tolkien was here expressing a profound and general truth about the benefits and disadvantages of concentrating our innate vitality - our human qualities. 

I think that - across the large timescale of human history - there was a decline in the natural and spontaneous spirituality of humans; a decline in the immersive and passive awareness-of, and participation-in the divine.

In effect: there was an intent to stop this process of spiritual alienation; by concentrating and focusing our "spiritual vitality" into what is called religion: into religions and churches, into abstract systems of rituals and symbols. 

Religion is therefore a "Ring of Power". 


But, it turned-out that the Elven Rings, and church religion, did not stop the decline, but only delayed it. 

Outside of the increasingly encapsulated worlds of serious religion; the decline in human spirituality and Man's alienation from the divine continued... indeed it accelerated; given that the spirituality has been drained from it and poured into the churches. 

By this analogy; the various Christian revivals can be seen as the re-forging of further Rings of Power - further attempts to stop this decline by increasing the focusing and concentration.

These later Rings included (in general terms) greater demands for personal commitment, efforts at training of mental powers by new rituals or more frequent practice, increased exclusion of the secular from the sacred... etc. 


At the same time religions functioned like Rings of Power - achieving a sustained awareness and participation of the divine, in the cut-off context of "churches" and their activities - but at the cost of sucking spiritual vitality and divine awareness from the rest of life, and from humanity in general... 


An unintended cost of religion, was therefore the creation of "the secular" - what was not within the concentrated scope of religion, necessarily became secular. 

And as the underlying trend of human alienation continued; the secular realm expanded, while the divine and spiritual realm of religion shrank.


My main point is that when Man has created religion, and infused his churches with much of Man's native spiritual vitality - this means that when churches are destroyed, this focused and concentrated spiritual power is dissipated. 

Much as Sauron minus the One Ring was weaker than if the Ring had never been made; and as the Elves declined more suddenly and rapidly after the power of the Three Rings was lost than if the Elven Rings had never been...

So, Mankind's alienation from the spiritual and divine is more severe and intractable after the decline of church religion, than it would have been if we had not invested so much of our religious vitality into institutional, symbolic, and ritual forms. 


Thus; many modern people living after the (de facto) death of the churches and religions; experience this institutional loss as fatal to the divine and the spiritual - and without church, they feel that there is and can be no God, no creation. 

Post-religion; experienced-reality has been drained - abruptly and very fully - of purpose and meaning; and therefore of lasting personal significance. 

Although some churches/ religions sometimes did an effective job for many centuries in some places in sustaining contact with the divine and spiritual realms; because the spiritual and divine was thereby concentrated, focused, protected by the structures of church and formal religion - it now seems that when mankind's innate consciousness changed, and these social structures lost their power and integrity - then we are left worse-off than we would have been if churches had never existed. 


The churches functioned, therefore, analogously to the Elf Rings in their intent and effect; and in the consequences after the power of religion first declined and then was destroyed. 


4 comments:

  1. An irony for Tolkien is that art also works this way, and many artists are personally and proximately much worse off after creating their great works. Dostoyevsky I believe lamented this particularly, saying something like “I can only be devout while writing and afterward I’m an atheist.” But I find it hard to believe that art is a mistake and so I doubt religion is either. We live in a reality with an expiration date is all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Mia - Put it this way: Art is not always and everywhere a good thing (either to do, or to engage-with) - indeed there are very many exceptions.

    With Christianity, and The West - I think that culturally decisions were made at various times and places to strengthen this particular focused and encapsulated mode of engagement with the divine and the spiritual.

    I am of the opinion that such a decision happened very soon after Jesus ascended - and a choice was made between the personal-family spirituality of the Fourth Gospel; and the priestly-church religion of Paul, Peter, Luke and Matthew.

    But there have been several others across the centuries of which I am aware.

    Often the decision was made to revive and strengthen "participation" by some particular method and practices.

    Such decisions seemed to have significant benefits, in some times and places, (not in others); but I think that these benefits were of the nature that costs were also inevitable over the longer term.

    Put it differently - all the present ideas for strengthening churches and their practices constitute a concentration of spiritual vitality that inevitably deplete other possible directions. And, once acted upon, the effect is "permanent".

    Imagine being the heir of a religion (not necessarily Christian, also others) in which many generations have had their lives prescribed - then the religion fades, is corrupted - or people find themselves unable to believe it. You then get the millions who are "ethnically" religionists, but without the church prescription of a devout life.

    In some places and situations, this leads to an increasingly extreme cultural commitment to evil.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think my strongest counterpoint as a Catholic is the Eucharist. The Church and its Priesthood permit me to consume the living Flesh of Jesus Himself every Sunday. Precisely what good this does me I do not know - that's up to God, but I believe it has helped me to resist spiritual corruption during my time of trial.

    As far as Tolkien goes, he seems to have intended his description of lembas bread to evoke the Eucharist.

    I agree that churches can fail their members, and that we need to cultivate personal holiness (with God's help) so that we can persevere in holiness, even when our leaders (spiritual or temporal) are imperfect.

    But I believe that receiving the Eucharist is an incomparable way of doing that.

    This does not necessarily negate your broader point, except to show that concentrating holiness need not be zero-sum - the holiness of the Eucharist is infinite, so it cannot have been subtracted from us.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Ben S - I think I take your point. And I have experienced that to some extent, during the couple of years I practiced as an Anglo-Catholic participating in Mass more than once per week.

    But I feel that the RCC has been too categorical about the Eucharist - isolating its practice and meaning, making it so objective an "event" as to become (or be stated as) indifferent to human participation - explicitly deleting the individuality and intentions of the participants.

    By my understanding, this was itself a response intended to deal with the historical process of alienation of Man from the divine. I mean that the question of exactly what happened in the Eucharist would not (could not) have occurred 1000 years earlier - nor could the philosophical explanations devised by Aquinas and the scholastics.

    Further, there is a problem about the actuality of the RCC here-and-now that makes it impossible honestly to be so objective and impersonal about the Eucharist. If the church is dominated from the very top and all the way down by people who are - in effect - *imposters*; the church has then been replaced by another actual organization.

    There surely comes a point (and some sincere and informed Catholics believe that this point has been passed) when the minimal conditions are not being met: the Pope is not a real Pope, nor Bishops, nor Priests - and the laity so falsely informed that they are not even trying to do what was done 200 years ago.

    In a nutshell, and to broaden the point - I do not feel we can act as if the practice of Christianity is objective, because it is not. Every Catholic has actually made multiple personal discernments about what is real and valid among persons, doctrines etc; and what is not. And they must keep making such discernments as the pressure of errors, corruptions, and subversions continues to operate.

    IMO it is possible to continue to practice traditional Roman Catholicism (or other denominations) in a good spirit; only if the essential and unavoidable role of personal discernment is honestly - and indeed - explicitly acknowledged as integral.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. "Anonymous" comments are deleted without being read.