This paper was given at the CASE seminar "Creation, redemption and Lord of the Rings'. The first two papers are available in the PDF of Case #4 magazine and should be read in order to understand the context of Dr Birkett’s comments.
Salvation from what?
We cannot really compare salvation in Middle-earth and in this universe, because in Middleearth death is not a punishment, it is a gift. Men have trouble understanding this in Middleearth, and it's not surprising, seeing that death is a horrible rupture in human experience. Consider Arwen when Aragorn dies. But in Middle-earth it's not meant to be a curse. It's an escape to a new adventure, totally unknown, but must somehow be good since it's Iluvatar's gift to man. It's one that the Elves do not receive; they live as long as the world lasts, even if they "die', which just means they go to a different part of the Blessed Realm.
So redemption is a much more minor and specific concept; within a person's life, there may be redemption from bad character or wrong choices, or disgrace of some sort. Overall, there is a feeling that the whole of Middle-earth needs saving from its vast sorrow; but that is a more basic problem, with which we will deal at the end.
Salvation through tradition
Lord of the Rings champions a number of Catholic ideas. Those who "win' are those who have a deep respect for and knowledge of tradition; the losers are the skeptics, the modernists, those who forget the power of the goodness of nature.
So on the good side, the winners, we have the Elves, steeped in tradition and remembering the old customs, the old lore. The Ents remember and recite old learning. Gandalf discovers the significance of the ring through searching the old scrolls in Minis Tirith. Denethor, on the other hand, derides his search into ancient things.
Theoden describes the waning of the Rohirrim through forgetting the past, "Songs we have that tell of these things, but we are forgetting them, teaching them only to children, as a careless custom". They have forgotten any real knowledge of Galadriel or the Ents, right on their borders.
On the other hand, Saruman has shaken off his traditions, even his colour, and turned to new technology. It is highly symbolic that in order to build his machines, which ultimately fail him, he tears down all the ancient trees. We are told in the book that in doing so he is merely copying Sauron. Over and over, respect for the old, for creation, for traditions passed down and almost forgotton, is seen as wiser and more powerful than the showy new ideas with their veneer of rationality.
Salvation through free will
I don't know how official Catholic doctrine treats free will these days, but certainly Catholic writers have upheld it strongly (e.g. Chesterton). It appears salvation is always possible. Free will is upheld; it is always possible for people to change, if they try hard enough. Although history, (presumably the intervention, at whatever time, of Morgoth) and bad choices can direct a person's life down a wrong path, along which it becomes increasingly harder to change, change by personal decision is always possible.
Gollum chose his own damnation when he took the ring. The ring exerted power over him, and tempted him, but Gollum's choice to begin his ownership of it by theft and murder made its domination of him worse. Nevertheless, even though the original creature was already sneaky and treacherous, there is the hint that Gollum could be redeemed into something good, if he chose. He even argues with himself over it, the good Smeagol arguing against the evil Gollum. Frodo sees the possibility for redemption in Gollum, even if Sam does not; and there is a point where we see the genuine desire for goodness as Smeagol looks at the sleeping Frodo. But he is not strong enough, or the desire for goodness is not strong enough. He chooses to be Gollum, and betrays Frodo, even though ironically in doing so he saves Frodo and Middle-earth.
Boromir also felt the evil power of the ring, and gave into it. But in the end his strength of character overcame the evil. He recognised that in coveting the ring, and attempting to overpower Frodo to obtain it, he was doing wrong. He dies defending Merry and Pippin, and his innate courage and nobility is allowed to dominate. The film adds a nice touch when he acknowledges Aragorn's kingship as he dies"”Boromir finally puts power aside as a personal
goal, and is prepared to submit to one who has a greater claim on it.
Galadriel provides an example of a kind of salvation, although she also shows the difficulties with this concept in Middle-earth. She shared in the closest thing that Middle-earth had to original sin"”leaving the Blessed Realm with Feanor. He was the most talented and powerful of the Elves, and created the Silmarils, jewels which held the light of the two wonderful trees which were the light source of the Blessed Realms, before there was sun or moon. When the trees were destroyed by Morgoth, the Satan figure, the other Eldar (angels or gods) wanted Feanor to break the Silmarils so they could replace the light. Feanor refused, knowing he would never create such a great thing again. Eventually Morgoth steals the Silmarils and flees to Middle-earth, and Feanor vows revenge and leads his clan out of the Blessed Realms, in defiance of the Eldar, to recover his silmarils.
Galadriel, Feanor's niece, willingly followed her uncle in the same spirit of revenge. If you have read The Silmarillion, you know that disaster upon disaster followed, with Elves fighting each other for the first time, terrible slaughter and loss. Feanor died without ever recovering his Silmarils, his family was mostly killed. The poison of revenge and treachery continued down the generations, and most of the wonderful cities and works that the Elves created were eventually destroyed by this cycle of revenge. The Silmarillion is one long story of decline. The Lord of the Rings similarly always struck me as very depressing, all about glory lost and decline. True, with the defeat of Sauron, there is new hope for peace and prosperity, which is even achieved in Aragorn's lifetime; but it is on such a lesser scale.
Galadriel repented along the way of her part in the cycle of revenge. She married Celeborn, and became a peaceful figure. In that sense, she was redeemed; she managed to escape the cycle of slaughter, and did not take personal revenge for her wrongs. But she is so sad. It is not redemption to new life, but to lifelong regret. Even returning to the Blessed Realms seems a defeat of sorts. They have nothing to hope for, and even though their lives will be blissful, they are simply waiting for the end.
Aragorn's redemption of the line of Men is also a sad example. Aragorn is in some ways a Christ-like figure. He resisted the evil that was the bane of the men of Numenor. They had had so much; they had been rewarded for helping the Elves overthrow the original enemy, Morgoth, Sauron's boss, with the wonderful realm of Numenor, an island near the Blessed Realms. They were given gifts of great skill and long life. They built all the wonderful works we read of in Lord of the Rings; the cities, the huge statues, Amon Sul, Isengard and so on. But Sauron, claiming he was repentant, was with them, and persuaded the kings to defy the Eldar by attempting to sail to the Blessed Realms. So Numenor was destroyed, and only Elendil, Isildur's father, escaped with his clan, having mistrusted Sauron all along. They arrived at Middle-earth, and made Gondor a royal city. The battle that is the beginning of The Fellowship of the Rings film followed, and Elendil was killed by Sauron. Isildur survived, but fell to Sauron's temptation, deciding not to destroy the ring. It killed him and the decline of men followed.
Aragorn is Isildur's direct heir, and manages to resist the temptation to power that the ring offers. He is faithful all his life, undergoing great suffering and never wavering from his ideals (unlike the movie, which changes his motives somewhat). Aragorn triumphs over evil and restores the kingship. He is the redeemer of Man, and his personal reward is Arwen. But he still dies, and he cannot guarantee that his hard-won victory will survive. His son who becomes king may well be greedy, or arrogant, and fail his people. Moreover, the redemption that Aragorn has won is hardly to be compared to the original glory from which Man fell. He restores one little city.
What contrast to this is the Bible's redemption, which is far greater than the original state. In literary terms, we begin with two people in a garden; we end with a magnificent jewelled city, filled with life and light, living water and trees, and all the tribes of the earth. It is guaranteed to last forever, and there will be no evil or suffering. It will not be ended by death, for death is overthrown; since in the Bible, death was never seen as a gift, but as evil, a punishment for sin. With sin overcome by Christ, and people transformed by the Holy Spirit, the curse of death will be lifted.
But in Middle-earth, we see salvation only within the world. We do see people who made evil choices, in a cycle of revenge inherited from their fathers, choosing to perpetuate it rather than forgiving wrong and stopping the slaughter. We do see people who were tempted by Morgoth, or Sauron, or the ring, who gave into temptation or resisted it. Their punishment for their evil choices, or reward for their good choices is within their lifetimes. They always have the capacity to repent and choose good.
This is not the gospel. It is a lesser view of sin, and too high a place for free will. When we make the choices that destroy our lives, the Bible says we are incapable of restoring ourselves. Most of all, when we choose to ignore God, we do not have the option of restoring the relationship; the initiative must come from him. It requires the intervention of the Holy Spirit to enable us to come back in relationship with him, and begin to act in a manner worthy of him.
Conclusion: Sin and salvation in Middle-earth
In Middle-earth, sin is not really a problem. There is no sin in biblical terms, that is, the rejection of God as God. There are sins, such as breaking of faith, murder, deception and so on. These can all be overcome by personal choice; but they will never be ultimately overcome. I have read that Tolkein, while hating the idea of religious allegory, saw his work as a deliberately Catholic comment on a pagan world. Middle-earth is essentially pagan; the one god, although he exists, is very distant; worship is mainly given to the host of lesser gods, who interact as characters with the people. It is also a world that is hurt, by Morgoth and his evil, and will continue to be hurt. It needs salvation. But there is no Christ; there is, ultimately, only sorrow.
