Said JRR Tolkein, in a letter:
The ‘protestant’ search backwards for ‘simplicity’ and directness — which, of course, though it contains some good or at least intelligible motives, is mistaken and indeed vain. Because ‘primitive Christianity’ is now and in spite of all ‘research’ will ever remain largely unknown; because ‘primitiveness’ is no guarantee of value, and is and was in great part a reflection of ignorance. Grave abuses were as much an element in Christian ‘liturgical’ behaviour from the beginning as now. (St. Paul’s strictures on eucharistic behaviour are sufficient to show this!) Still more because ‘my church’ was not intended by Our Lord to be static or remain in perpetual childhood; but to be a living organism (likened to a plant), which develops and changes in externals by the interaction of its bequeathed divine life and history — the particular circumstances of the world into which it is set. There is no resemblance between the ‘mustard-seed’ and the full-grown tree. For those living in the days of it branching growth the Tree is the thing, for the history of a living thing is part of its life, and the history of a divine thing is sacred. The wise may know that it began with a seed, but it is vain to try and dig it up, for it no longer exists, and the virtue and powers that it had now reside in the Tree. Very good: but in husbandry the authorities, the keepers of the Tree, must look after it, according to such wisdom as they possess, prune it, remove cankers, rid it of parasites, and so forth. (With trepidation, knowing how little their knowledge of growth is!) But they will certainly do harm, if they are obsessed with the desire of going back to the seed or even to the first youth of the plant when it was (as they imagine) pretty and unafflicted by evils.
[via Joel W]
5 responses to “”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
i’m not crazy about the metaphor
D’you know why?
the church is not a tree. the metaphor falls down when you consider that a tree that starts off as a lacebark can’t finish up as a silver birch.
if the tree which once was good becomes idolatrous, the husbandman must do all he can to make it un-idolatrous again. tolkien sets up a false dilemma–the husbandman can either prune, remove cankers and parasites and do other minor things (which are good) or he can vainly try to change the tree back to a seed[ling] (which is bad).
perhaps the tree that started out as one thing became something else entirely. protestants are motivated not to change the mature tree into a seedling but rather change it into the variety of tree it was in the first place. less of a retroflux and more of a transflux into what should have been. of course the idea is ridiculous when applied to the maintenance of a tree.
Well, it’s at least the branches.
I don’t think Tolkien is talking about the Reformation. I think he is talking about churches who see the Early Church as the perfect model which must be returned to, and try to ignore two millenia of history. Like NTW says.
I think there is plenty of value in what Gandalf… I mean, Tolkien says. cool.