Critiquing the "Myth becomes Fact" concept of Christianity, in Lewis and Tolkien

CS Lewis's conversion, as is pretty well known, had much to do with an idea he got (mostly) from JRR Tolkien that in Christianity Myth became Fact. In other words; that various of the myths of the ancient world came true in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

This is one reason why Lewis regarded Christianity as the completion of paganism (as well as of Judaism) - because in essence it took much of paganism and transformed it by the addition of specifically Christian values - in particular "Faith, Hope, and Charity".

I was greatly influenced by this idea in my own conversion to Christianity; but have now come to regard the "Christian myth" as a misleading distortion of what Jesus actually did and taught. 

My interpretation nowadays is that Christianity is in its essence about the possibility of following Jesus to resurrected eternal life in Heaven - and that this was something new under the sun: an unique possibility; that was (at its core) neither foreshadowed nor foreseen among the ancient religions: neither among Jews nor among Pagans.  

I agree with Lewis that Christianity can be and actually was (especially in the earliest years of Jesus's ministry and the early period after his ascension) an add-on, easily adopted by Jews and Roman or Greek pagans alike...

But I think the reason for this was not because Christianity was aligned with Jewish expectations of the Messiah, nor that it was a completion of Greco-Roman Paganism - but simply because Christianity was a new idea about what happened after death. 

At least initially, therefore, a new Christian convert could (and apparently did) continue to practise his previous this-worldly religion; but with the additional expectation of resurrected eternal life after death...

Instead of (for instance) dying in expectation of the underworld ghost-life of Sheol or Hades, or returning by some version of reincarnation. 

Of course, Christianity as it became, developed and accreted very large and complex mythic elements - for example about Jesus's miraculous conception and early life, and expectation of his second coming. 

So Christianity-as-is has mythical aspects with all sorts of derivations and similarities to other mythic religions. 

But I believe that this was not the case originally, as Jesus lived and taught. 

And presumably this was a major reason why people found it so very difficult to understand what Jesus was actually telling then - i.e. they could not (or would not) discard their existing myths, such as The Messiah. 

And either rejected Jesus for failing to embody the prior myth, or adapted the prior myth to fit Jesus - or else adapted what Jesus did to fit the prior myth (as with the Second Coming, notion) 

I don't know if others agree; but in the IV Gospel I see Jesus trying to tell people something very simple and clear - which they repeatedly fail to comprehend; and this, in part, because they are caught-up in already-existing religious assumptions including myths. 

After Jesus's ascension, things could have (should have, perhaps) gone in the direction of the Christian after-death expectation being added-onto various existing religions - and then modifying their content in a kind of retrospective way (as the expectation of resurrected Heavenly life worked upon the pre-existing religion).

However, this did not happen; and instead Christianity became so elaborated by mythic elements that its clear and simple essence was swamped; but also the confident expectation of being able to choose resurrection was inverted - into the necessity to submit to the judgment of God/Christ-as-King to be-fearfully-hoping to be chosen as worthy of inclusion in Heaven. 

Only in recent generations has it become conceptually and consciously possible to understand that Christianity does not need to be regarded as a true myth; but instead Jesus's work can be recognized as a cosmic transformation, a new post-mortal possibility: a Second Creation -- accessible to those who commit to following Jesus, into and beyond the transformation of resurrection.

Initiation by participation in imaginative fiction

When we really participate in the process of reading a work of imaginative fiction, we undergo some of the steps of what is sometimes termed "initiation"

. 

A typical work of imaginative fictions starts out in the everyday and mundane world of ordinary people and perceptions; the business of survival, seeking comforts and pleasures, avoiding suffering, delaying death. 

Then (usually by identification with one or more protagonists) the fiction takes us through rising stages of expanded experience:

1. The strange and marvellous - things beyond everyday experience; perhaps experiences that induce exceptionally powerful emotions.   

2. Exceptional but normal living people - Kings and Queens, Lords and Ladies, Heroes and Heroines...

3. Animals and plants, and nature - an awareness that there are more than people in the world... Befriending animals, maybe mutually communicating; and the same with trees, landscapes; and perhaps ancient buildings or monuments... 

4. Fairies and the like - An encounter with sentient beings that are not human: such as elves and dwarves; or threatening talking-beings like dragons and giants

5. Beings of higher consciousness and spiritual power - such as great holy men and women, seers, wizards, enchanters, magicians.

6. Experience of meaning and purpose in reality - being guided by contacts, synchronicities, the workings out of prophecy; at a higher level the workings of divine providence.  

7. Experience of contact with deity - angelic beings, gods, and God. 

Not many fictions have all of these stages of initiation - and perhaps not in this "ascending" order; and fewer will even attempt to evoke a sense of participation the highest levels of holiness, ultimate purpose or the divine.   

Low level stories will be contented with adventures among the strange and marvellous, and contact with ordinary humans but of special prestige - and if they do include higher beings, then these are treated reductively: just means to a materialistic end. 

At the highest levels of imaginative fiction, there will be indications of the higher levels - whether explicitly or by implication (i.e. enchantment - the opposite of reduction, when for example experience of identifying with strange places or talking animals points at the reality of higher levels of initiation). 

It is these high level imaginative works that provide, potentially, the most transformative initiations.

Where does the evil of Melkor come from, in The Silmarillion?

At the beginning of The Silmarillion (1977) there is the creation story Ainulindale - which describes, in musical terms, how the universe is created; starting from Eru, The One, prime creator God. 

JRR Tolkien regarded this myth as broadly compatible with his orthodox Roman Catholic Christianity - such that Eru has the attributes traditionally ascribed to the God of Catholic theology - being wholly-perfect in goodness; and one who creates everything from nothing; is omnipotent, omniscient etc. 

The first thing Eru does is to create the Ainur; the senior angels or "gods" who later become the Valar (the senior angels) and the Maia (the subordinate angels). 

It seems that the creation of the Ainur  involves Eru dividing his "elemental" attributes and distributing them among the angelic beings; so that Vala suuch as Melkor has a link to fire (including spiritual fire), Manwe the airs, Ulmo all the waters etc. 

More junior Maia have more specific powers and responsibilities - so that Osse represents just the coastal waters of Middle Earth.  

Thus far, we can envisage the Ainur as being subdivisions of some of Eru's all-including characteristics, and with made-into a divine being that each has "agency": autonomy and freedom. 

It is from the interactions of these separated Ainur that the actual universe is made; the process being described as a great music, a developing harmony; with each of the Ainur as-if an instrument/ composer with a distinctive tone and disposition. 

These combine to make a great "improvised" symphony - which is creation. 

The problem is Melkor - who later becomes called Morgoth; who is represented as the source of dissonance in the harmony of the great music; and thereby - when that music is revealed to be creation - the source of evil and the confusion and corruption of other beings: including Ainur, and the lower orders of beings such as dwarves, elves and Men. 

More exactly, the problem is: 

Considering that Eru is perfectly good, and all-that-is comes-from Eru - where does the evil in Melkor's nature originate? 

If Eru is perfectly good, then there can apparently be no evil from-which Melkor could derive it. 

The question of Melkor's agency is secondary, in that Melkor would neither have evil motivations (such as pride) nor would he make make evil choices (such as introducing discords) unless his nature was already evil.  

For Melkor to become evil; Melkor would have to contain evil in the first place...

And yet we are told that Melkor comes only and entirely from Eru. 

The only way I can make a sort-of sense from this is to assume that when Eru's perfectly-good nature is sub-divided to make the Ainur, then this process creates an imbalance or lop-sidenness due to the incompletion of each of the Ainur.

It is this incompletions and imbalance of nature which results in the evil of Melkor. 

If this is true; it would mean that evil is a matter of imbalance - and that anything less complete that the everything-fullness of Eru is therefore evil - to some extent. 

However, I don't think that this does much more than kick the can, if Eru's nature is said to be omnipotent and omniscient; because that would imply that the evil nature due to the particular incomplete imbalance of Melkor was foreknown to Eru. 

Yet Eru chose to make Melkor the most powerful of the Ainur...

So that all the evil of the world, past present and future, was implicit from the start, in the way that Eru chose to create. 

The consequence is that the perfect goodness of Eru somehow contains all the actual evil of creation - past, present and future. Yet Eru (if compatible with the Roman Catholic understanding of God) must be one and indivisible - Eru must have no internal structure. 

(...Except in the mystical word spell of Trinitarianism, whereby the indivisible unity of God simultaneously and without contradiction is stated to contain the three persons of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But that paradoxical mystery is not an explanation.) 

An "imbalance" theory of evil is quite common, indeed it is almost mainstream. 

One ancient manifestation of this theory was the Ancient Greek proverb of "moderation in all things" - a more recent manifestation is Jung's idea that individual's need to know and embrace their shadow self and its impulses, in order to attain the highest individuation. 

Another version of the idea is that the ideal situation is a balance between Law and Chaos: too much of either is evil, and the best is some kind of middle path that includes a bit of both. 

However, such ideas are not Christian; which faith is based on conceptualization of positive goodness - the more the better; and that (while God can make the best of the inevitable evils of this mortal life) - the ideal situation (Heaven) is one where there is only good, and no evil. 

Indeed, while there is always some good in any overall-evil being, even Melkor; since to exist as a being is to be part of divine creation. 

Good is therefore mixed-into evil in all actual beings - even when a being is eternally committed to opposing God and divine creation...

But Christianity insists that there can and should be pure good, not some balanced mixture of good with evil; and good is what Christians aspire to. 

Therefore, I do not think the imbalance theory of evil can be used to explain the nature of Melkor; nor would it (I suspect) have been acceptable to JRRT. 

Given Tolkien's assumptions; the situation regarding the creation of Melkor is incoherent: it does not make sense.  

"Something has to give" among the assumptions that lead to this incoherence. 

Given that Christians cannot (or perhaps should not) give-up on the pure-goodness of God; what must therefore give way is the idea that God created everything (including Melkor) from nothing - which means from-Himself-only.

If instead we assumed that Melkor was eternally existent as a being; that existence preceding Eru's creation; then the evil of Melkor's nature need not have been created by Eru.

We can assume that the roots of Melkor's evil nature and choices were always there - they were not aspects of Eru. 

Then the perfect goodness of Eru can be asserted and explained simply and coherently.