Nick over at Entangled States has commented on this article from Sara Hay at StandFirm. It compares moderates with the Ents of Lord of the Rings. Since this blog covers things both Episcopal and Tolkien, how can I resist my own commentary? Sara writes:
In his trilogy The Lord of the Rings, J R R Tolkien creates a whole new
species to describe "moderates". His species are called "Ents" --
ancient and enormous, slow-moving trees, whose motto is "let us not be
hasty" and whose language requires many, many lines simply to name
their own names; each Ent name, you see, is a lengthy historic story.
You may recall from the trilogy that the elves, men, dwarves, and
hobbits are engaged in a great struggle against a dark and malevolent
"Dark Lord" named Sauron. Battle upon battle has been fought, many have
died, some are corrupted, and Sauron's strength continues to grow. But
the Ents are not yet involved. Tolkien's description of the Ents is,
quite simply, priceless, and goes on for an entire chapter. [Read
chapter 4 in The Two Towers for a description of this strange species
and of their activities.] Two hobbits meet an Ent named Treebeard and
eventually, after much 'hruming' by the Ent, he is brought to some
knowledge of the direness of his and his fellow ents' position.
As what might be considered an "Advanced Reader" of Tolkien (I DO NOT consider myself an expert), I find a few flaws in Sara's hermeneutic of what an Ent is. She claims that Tolkien creates the Ents as a type for "Moderates." Time and time again people wrote to Tolkien after the publication of the Lord of the Rings, asking about allegorical connections. Time and time again Tolkien told them he "disliked allegory wherever he could smell it." It was for this reason he disliked CS Lewis's Narnia books. He said his stories had "Applicability," meaning that the reader could draw a number of different interpretations out of it. For Sara to say she sees moderates in the ents is a use of applicability, but to imply that this was Tolkien's intention is a stretch he would not have been happy with.
But let's examine the applicability. Sara put the ents into the context of the War of the Ring, looking at them as an example of someone who is basically ignoring the world around them while important things are happening. I think this interpretation shows her own inclination as a member of the "right edge." As I have outlined in "I am an Anglican Moderate," one of the problems I perceive with the edge (on either side) is that they are convinced that the current fight (whatever it is at the time) is a fight that is over essentials and that must be resolved quickly in order to preserve the essence of what they believe in. Are the Ents really just ignoring reality, or is their vision just different? As a person familiar with the entire Tolkien legendarium, I would say the latter although if you have just seen the movies or possibly only read the Lord of the Rings, you might not think so.
The Ents are the children of Yavanna, who is one of the Valar mentioned in passing in LOTR. In Tolkien's creation myth, the one God, Iluvatar (Yes, the same one as the title of the blog which means "Hail, God!" Or "Praise God!") creates the Valar who then create the world by singing a theme he first sings to them. Yavanna is also known as Kementari, "Queen of the Earth." She guards all the growing things in Arda (of which Middle Earth is part of) and is in some ways similar to Demeter in Greek Mythology. She is concerned about the domination of her charges by the Children of Iluvatar (Elves and Men) and brings her concern before Manwe, the Lord of the Valar. When Manwe brings her concerns to Iluvatar, Iluvatar makes known his plans for the "Shepherds of the Trees" (The Ents) who will protect the flora of Arda. After their creation, the Ents are witness to the great wars between the Valar's forces and Morgoth's (Tolkien's Satan) over the Silmarils, which are powerful artifacts. During this struggle, the world is literally broken and re-made to the Middle Earth that exists in the time of The Hobbit and LOTR.
The conflict that we are witness to in LOTR is but a faint echo of this greater conflict - a much lesser thing. During the wars over the silmarils, Sauron was only a lieutenant of Morgoth. The elvish and human heroes of LOTR: Aragorn, Faramir, Gandalf, Glorfindel, Elrond, etc. are pale reflections of their ancestors Turin Turambar, Earendil, Beren, Turgon, etc. The rings of power are nothing compared to the silmarils. Bilbo and the Dwarves confront ONE dragon and Gandalf confronts ONE Balrog. Entire flights of dragons and squads of balrogs were present during the final battle of the War of the Silmarils. One of the threads of the Tolkien legendarium is a keen sense of loss of a great past.
Out of all this, only the Ents remain largely unchanged in their compass. Unlike the Elves, they don't sell out to Sauron to maintain their prideful control of their environment in Middle Earth. Unlike the Humans, they don't become consumed by a lust for power. They remain what they were created by Iluvatar to be - the guardians of the natural world. They have literally seen it all. Therefore, they are not "Hasty."
They know the promise of Iluvatar, "And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme can be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined." (The Silmarillion, Houghton Mifflin 1998, p. 17) This is remarkably similar to Julian of Norwich's revelation of the 'Great Deed" that God shall do at the end time that we cannot now fathom (Considering that Tolkien did a lot of work on translating the Ancrene Wisse this is not surprising.) This is summed up in Julian's famous statement, "All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well."
Ents are not resistant to joining the war because they are afraid or because they are slow. They are resistant because their vision is different and far vaster. The war means a lot to men, but does it to Ents? After all, why should ents care about the fate of creatures that routinely cut down their forests - little better than the orcs of Saruman and Sauron? They eventually decide to join the war after long deliberation at the Entmoot and then only in a limited fashion against their neighbor Saruman. (A necessary excursis here. One of my biggest bones to pick with the Peter Jackson film trilogy is that the ents decide NOT to help at the Entmoot and have to be tricked by Merry and Pippin into seeing the destruction before they join in. This distorts Tolkien's intention, makes the ents to appear almost as if they have a form of dementia, and makes possible application such as the one we are discussing. In the books, they are aware of the destruction of the forests. Merry and Pippin help start the ball rolling with their "hastiness," but the Ents decide entirely on their own.)
In the essay, Sara points out:
"And yet, in his description of the Ents, Tolkien is quite kind,
respectful in fact, of the Ents' basic mindset and identity. He
presents what is ultimately a sympathetic portrait."
That is an understatement. The Ents were arguably Tolkien's favorite creation in Middle Earth and certainly his most original. Tolkien was a real tree-hugger. Don't take that to mean that he was a hippy. Tolkien was a very conservative Roman Catholic in most ways. He simply loved the natural environment and decried any attempt to desecrate it. He did not own a car, and was quoted upon hearing a chainsaw at work nearby to exclaim, "Orcs!" The ents represent the primeval force of nature in a generally positive but dangerous way.
So in summary, taking into account the entirety of the ents' history in Tolkien's works, I would have to say I find the applicability of Ents to Anglican Moderates pretty unconvincing. I believe she is trying to say that Ents are just like Anglican Moderates, pretending like there is not a problem until the heroes (I guess she is considering the "right" the heroes here) point out their predicament. I don't buy her characterization of moderates, but even if I did, I don't think the metaphor works because it requires a simplistic understanding of Ents (based in the movie portrayal), and nothing is simplistic in Tolkien's works.
But she's got me thinking in terms of applicability. In my opinion, I would guess that a better characterization of Moderates might be the hobbits. Tolkien wrote that the hobbits have an "everyman" function - people who are more concerned with day-to-day lives than the great affairs of elves and men, but yet are ferocious when moved to action. (The Jackson films leave out the "Scouring of the Shire" where the Hobbits take back their land from Saruman. I certainly thought of this the day B033 was passed.)
But I'm even more intrigued by a different application - what if we think of the High Elves in Middle Earth as the "right?" "Cool!" you rightist readers (gotta be at least one) say, "The Elves are cool!" Don't be so hasty, Boom Hoom! Elves look cool in LOTR, but they have a skeezy side. The Eldar (The race of the elves) appeared in Middle Earth and were called by the Valar to live with them in Valinor, west across the sea. Most went, leaving only a few behind (Legolas' people, the Sylvan elves were some of these.) After living in Valinor for a while, one of their greatest smiths, Feanor created the Silmarils. Eventually, Morgoth steals the Silmarils and goes to Middle Earth. The Valar forbid the elves to follow after Morgoth, but Feanor and many of his kin go anyways. Feanor kills off a large part of the Teleri, who are seagoing elves who refuse to give Feanor their boats, and then sets out for Middle Earth, leaving the larger part of his contingent to get around the sea on foot. Galadriel is one of Feanor's kin, and leads her people through the "grinding ice" of the north to get to Middle Earth, losing a majority of them in the process.
Therefore, every "High Elf" in Middle Earth is there because they disobeyed the command of the Valar and presumably Iluvatar himself in pursuit of power. But wait - there's more! In the Second Age, Middle Earth is "fading," becoming more and more like the earth we know and less like Valinor. The High Elves don't like it - they miss Valinor, but there's a problem with returning. In Valinor, they are just elves like everyone else. In Middle Earth, they are High Lords, with powers exceeding those of the mortal races. They don't want to lose that. It is this pride that will be their undoing. Sauron, in disguise, convinces the Elvish smith Celebrimbor (a descendant of Feanor) to forge three rings - Air, Fire and Water, that will help the elves to "hold on" to what they consider to be the beautiful past. Air goes to Elrond and helps maintain Rivendell. Water goes to Galadriel and helps maintain Lothlorien. Fire goes to Cirdan and maintains the West Havens. He later gives it to Gandalf, which is why he is able to confront the balrog. With the knowledge he gains, Sauron is able to forge the five rings for the dwarves, nine for men, and one ruling ring that will become so problematic in the Third Age (LOTR's time-frame.) In reality, the elves are to blame for the entire thing - and in the third age, they are (With a few exceptions) sailing for Valinor, leaving the humans and other mortal races to deal with the problem.
But enough Middle-Earth history - what's the application? The rings represent a kind of prideful nostalgia. Even though Iluvatar has decreed that Middle-Earth will change and will be a land for men, the High Elves in Middle Earth are desperately trying to do whatever they can to postpone his will and maintain their favored position. I hear a lot of this prideful nostalgia when I hear people from the right talk about the "Anglican Tradition" or even better "catholic tradition" as if either were a single, unified tradition that can be appealed to easily and without condition. I can see the formation of the "Network" as a kind of forging of the rings - a way to "circle the wagons" rather than look forward to a shared and less certain future. The network people, for the most part, are middle and upper class people (with noted exceptions) who have more privilege than they will acknowledge. They are not unlike most of the remaining High Elves in LOTR, bemoaning loss, unwilling to countenance any change, and making preparations to sail away when change seems inevitable instead of fighting. It allows them to feel like a persecuted minority, rather than the power base that they are.
Note that I am NOT saying that I know that ordaining people in same-sex relationships to the episcopate is God's will, or that it is taking place in God's time. This is application, not allegory. It is by no means a perfect application, but it let me lecture on the "Dark Side" of the elves, which is something I've thought about a lot.
I suspect if I were to extend this application, I would liken the 'left" to Tolkien's race of men - hasty, impetuous and sometimes unable to see the long picture. However, that's not as much fun to deal with as the elves, so I'll leave that to someone else.
I guess the most important thing that I might impart from this application is that although the elves, humans and hobbits have very different ways of looking at the world, they are united in their ultimate allegience to Iluvatar (through the Valar) and opposition to Sauron. Melkor and Sauron's best weapon was always to sow dissention among the races and get them to turn against themselves instead of focusing on the true enemy. Time and time again it is only when the races decide that what unites them is greater than what divides them that victory occurs in the world of Tolkien's imagination.
David+
Can I please, please have one? A 
a very creative chat log for what the forming of the Fellowship might look like if it took place on a MMORPG like World of Warcraft.....
Senator Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) has used a somewhat lame Tolkien analogy to the War in Iraq. He said, "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else. It's being drawn to Iraq. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the eye to come back to the United States." Stephen Colbert breaks down the analogy further:
