Something being a “picture” is not to say A = C. Neither B or A equals C. Do you deny that his victory over Goliah is a type of Christ’s victory over death and hell?

Here’s what I would say:

A (Old Testament) typifies and points forawrd to C
B can serve and make space for C while we are in the economy of the world
C is the world’s only salvation

I think we’re actually pretty much on the same page here.

A = C is also the problem with invoking OT heroes. Did you really invoke the hero David who couldn’t build the Temple because he was a man of bloodshed?

To say that an OT person is a type is, according to NT usage, both to find resonance and dissonance with the work of Jesus in the NT. In this case, use of the violent weapons of this world is a point of dissonance.

As I say in a comment made today on a different post, I’m not against B. But to say B = C or A = C is, in fact, to deny the gospel.

LOTR is a deeply Christian work, and makes precisely the right point. The dawn coming at the last minute, scattering the darkness and saving the weak, the old king eschewing despair and taking hold of his courage and fearing no evil – this is virtue indeed – and anyone who thinks such sentiment is silly is blind.

LOTR makes the exact point that needs to be made – that the carnal battles aren’t utterly wicked, such that good men should stand aloof from them. The battles were their calling in their time. But such carnal power is futile to defeat evil, even though there are times where it can suppress evil (even as evil itself subverts the good intentions of that power). The victory at Pellanor IS as glorious and good as it is ultimatly futile. The true strength and true hope for victory is in the weakness of the halflings, inching toward mordor, destorying the loftiest of powers by rejecting that very power to destroy, and pouring out love and life like a drink offering in the fire of mount doom.

Thus, this so-called “useless piece of literature for Christian theology” captures the heart of Christian theology, and shows everything in right relation. It is those who would use the ring to fight evil who are those who would build the kingdom with the power of the world. It is him who would deny himself, take up his cross, and crawl into Hell who ultimately defeats it. But it is also those who do their duty with the small power providence alots to them, despite the futility of this by itself, that makes space for the true power to do its work. This perfectly captures, in my opinion, the right relationship between those who A: Would dream of building the kingdom with the power of the world (like the zealots or the religious warriors), B: Those who do their duty to maintain basic justice and peace in the economy of this world (like policemen and soldiers defending their loved ones from cruel death), and C: Those who give their lives in love for God and their enemies, declaring and enacting that the entropic economy of the world is at an end and the fullness of God has come (like the martyrs).

I think Daniel understands (though he no doubt forgets it in the heat of intellectual battle) that I fundamentally agree with him. The pacifist option is to equivocate A & B. The other nasty option is to act as if A, B, and C are just the same thing. Tolkien sees the true relationship between them, and thus he is right about his masterpiece being a fundamentally Christian work.

My point is this. If, in the context of men engaged in sparring – which involves training, endurance, courage, etc. – you then introduce Jesus as the ultimate warrior, the jury is still out on whether you have undermined the gospel. The test is what you say next. If the pastor says “Jesus is the ultimate fighter because he, at the second coming, is going to wipe the floor with everyone who isn’t one of his homies” then, yes, you’ve denied the gospel. But if you say “Jesus overcame the enemy that, with all our strength, we cannot defeat – death itself. He overcame it by enduring the worst it could do to him in self sacrifice – and thus turned its power against itself” then you have emphatically NOT denied the gospel. You’ve expressed it in exactly the terms that scripture does. And if you say to those who are the strongest, that to immitate him, their strength needs to be given to serve those with no strength, and their power to empower the least of these, then you’ve taught them as Jesus taught.

I have no clue what these guys are doing, again – I just glanced at the article and read your quotes. I don’t know which of those two approaches they lean towards, or if any of this is even on their radar screen. But your approach seems like the sort of thing that would warn against working out, because to be strong is to be weak. The paradox of the gospel is subtler than this – God’s strength is made perfect in weakness, but it is no less strength for all that (not just the redefinition of weakness). I am closer to embodying the truth if I do work out, developing my muscles to their carnal potential, and then pour that strength out in service to the weak and denail of my self and elevate them above my own well being – I am closer, than if I let my muscles idly waste away, consoling myself with the “paradox of the gospel” (and thus bury my talents in the sand).