The Lord of the Kingdom

I’ve only seen the movie once and that was a long time ago. All I vividly remember is a single scene in it, the one where Marlon Brando and Karl Malden are having a conversation: Brando is in jail; Malden is the sheriff.

The movie is “One-Eyed Jacks,” the only movie Brando ever directed - but the direction is really beside the point, other than making for good trivia. The story is what is important and, in particular, that one scene I remember. The plot goes something like this:

Brando and Malden rob a bank in Mexico, making off with a small fortune in gold. All is well for a little while but, in time, the Mexican federales track down the duo and shoot it out with them. Brando’s horse is killed and Malden takes off to find another ride for his partner. Away from the fray, however, Malden thinks better of the rescue and betrays Brando, riding away with the gold. Brando is captured and sent to prison; Malden escapes and heads to California with the gold from the heist.

After five years in prison, Brando escapes (or is released - I can’t remember) and sets out to find Malden and exact his revenge. Malden - who has “changed” during the time his former partner has been in prison - has settled in California where he is not only wealthy and married, but also highly respected and in fact the sheriff of the town.

Coming to Sheriff Malden’s town, Brando and his gang attempt a holdup but, when it fails, he is publically whipped by Malden; part of Brando’s salacious revenge is to seduce the sheriff’s stepdaughter. When Brando’s gang attempts another holdup and accidentally kills a child, Malden sees an opportunity to eliminate his former partner (even though, if memory serves, Brando was not with the gang when the killing happened).

It is while Brando is in Malden’s jail that the memorable dialogue takes place; indeed, it is from this scene that the title for the movie is taken. Malden is a well-respected man about town but, in the privacy of the jail, lets Brando know that he intends to kill him and remove the threat of being exposed. Unfazed by the favorable, naïve impression the locals have for Malden, Brando responds,

“You may be a One-Eyed Jack around here, but I’ve seen the other side of your face.”

I was eleven years old when the movie came out in 1961; I’m sure I did not see it in the local theater. I first recall watching it on television sometime during my teen years and Brando’s statement to Malden - along with another useful line: “Get up! Get up, you scum suckin’ pig!” - has stuck with me for forty years or so.

For those not familiar with Western playing cards, One-Eyed Jacks are playing cards; specifically, they are the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Hearts. Only a profile is shown of these two knaves, rendering the other side of the face invisible and unknowable; hence, “One-Eyed Jacks” refers to people that do not allow themselves to be fully known and carefully control what is accessible and knowable to others.

Exactly why the notion of “One-Eyed Jacks” has stuck has to do with my upbringing, which is not the subject of this post. Suffice it to say that my father was quite a One-Eyed Jack himself and the movie helped me make some sense of an otherwise confusing situation. Regardless of its origin, however, the concept has given me a perception and perspective that has not failed or abandoned me over time, although there have been unfortunate periods of time when I have failed to employ or have abandoned it. I’ve always regretted such lapses in retrospect.

Jack of Diamonds, Jack of Clubs, Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ was anything but a One-Eyed Jack: He was exactly what He was, although He may have appeared differently to different eyes. There was (and is) in Christ an integrity unattainable by any sinful human being, an integration of the total personality, and an awareness of motivations and behavior beyond comprehension. What He did was ever in harmony with what He felt and thought; what He thought with what was done and felt; what was felt with deed and thought. As the writer of Hebrews told us, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (13.8).

Like the Jack of Diamonds and the Jack of Clubs, both sides of Jesus Christ’s face were visible at all times: He hid nothing that needed to be or should have been revealed.

Without question, any apparent inconsistencies or incongruities were not in Him but rather in the eyes and ears that beheld and heard Him. He was a window through which God could be seen (Jn 1.18, 12.45, 14.9); in Him the Image of God was displayed without the distorting effects of sin (Col 1.15, Heb 1.3). God was present in Jesus Christ for anyone to see: this was one aspect of the example He lived for us.

Sadly, this is not the example many any of us are able to follow with total success. Whereas Christ was without sin, Christians continue to “have this treasure in earthen vessels” (2 Cor 4.7) and cannot reflect God without distortion. This is inevitable in this lifetime, with only glimpses of Him manifested in and through us by His grace: our new selves are in the process of being renewed in the image of Christ (Col 3.10), but it has not been and will not be realized this side of heaven. This inability to perfectly reflect the image of God, however, does not relegate all Christians to the status of One-Eyed Jacks.

As alluded to above, there is more to being a One-Eyed Jack than simply failing to perfectly reflect at all times the divine nature of which we have become partakers (2 Pet 1.4). Being a One-Eyed Jack requires conscious, deliberate efforts to present a carefully prepared face to the world while hiding or veiling the rest for the purpose of controlling the perceptions of others. This is what Malden did in his town and what countless Christians have done and continue to do in the church for years. There is a nascent and ineluctable evil in being a One-Eyed Jack, an intransient and intractable vestige of our Adamic nature.

Convincing ourselves that the end justifies the means, we often fall prey to the allure of maintaining a façade in the one place where no such pretense or deception should be necessary: the fellowship of other believers. It is common in the pulpits and in the pews but it is difficult to know which usually comes first; it is not so difficult, however, to know which must come first for genuineness and integrity to pierce the façades. If the shepherd leads the sheep will either follow suit, look for less-transparent pasture elsewhere, or reveal themselves to be goats rather than sheep.

Similarly, we attempt to do the same sort of hiding in the singular place where it is utterly impossible: in the presence of God. Who among us has not come to God as we think we should rather than simply as we are? Who has not prayed “King James” prayers instead of mumbling and stumbling our way through an audience with the King? Like children trying to be good to gain approval and acceptance, we clean up our acts and ourselves before meeting with God, as though we will succeed in throwing dust in His eyes.

We do not, of course, fool Him, although we may succeed in fooling others; what is worse, however, is that we often accomplish self-deception: like the individual to whom James refers, we fail to see, recognize, or remember what we have just seen in the mirror of God’s word. We convince ourselves that we are other than we truly are.

What causes us to be so disingenuous, by which I mean both insincere and calculating? Well, the simple - as well as complex - answer is sin. The manifestations of the sin nature are numerous, but two of the more powerful and common are perhaps weakness and fear: “weakness” in that we lack the moral courage and integrity to put our lives on display without control of others’ perceptions; “fear” because we care too much about what people think of us and how we appear in their eyes. In like fashion, we fail due to weakness because we cannot accept the unvarnished truth about ourselves; due to fear because, like Dorian Gray, we cannot bear to reflect upon the real picture of our fallen nature. We choose to think more highly of ourselves than we ought instead of accepting the unpleasant and seemingly unacceptable reality of our flesh (Rom 12.3).

All of this is hardly revelatory: the shallowness and tartuffery existing in the church and the self-deception of believers have been decried by many. But I thought it necessary to delve a little more deeply into the problem, which exists first in each of us individually and then manifests itself in our relationships with others and with God.

In my next post, I will discuss and elaborate on a darker motivation for the existence of One-Eyed Jacks in the pulpits and pews of the Body of Christ. You might want to read Tim Challies post on anonymity, available here.

And, this blog being what it is, I eventually will draw from and connect it to The Lord of the Rings.

Next: Pulpits, Pews & One-Eyed Jacks: The Quest for Power and Domination

Tim Challies recently had a post entitled “The People Who Shape Our World,” spawned by Time magazine’s list of 100 influential people. Included in the list were such deep thinkers as Tyra Banks, George Clooney, and the group experts on international politics and all things presidential, The Dixie Chicks.

Tim used the article as a springboard to discuss heroism - and the lack thereof - not only in our culture but in the church. Whereas past generations had the voices and teachings of such men as Edwards, Spurgeon, Wesley, and others, our present-day millieu of Christian pop stars are not so wonderful. Tim writes,

The heroes and influencers of our culture are rarely heroic. We prefer fleeting fame to grand accomplishment, coverage to character. Sadly, it seems that this lack of discernment is seen within the church as much as without. Many of the men and women who have risen to the ranks of influencers and leaders within the church lack the godliness and character that ought to set apart those to whom we give special honor. How else to we explain T.D. Jakes, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar and so many other Christian ‘heroes?’”

There is, I think, something else to be noted and it involves one of the many critical themes in The Lord of the Rings. To understand it fully, it is necessary to first provide some background that was ignored in Peter Jackson’s movies and only hinted at in the book. It has to do with size and power, two symbolically significant matters in Tolkien’s masterpiece.

In Unfinished Tales, written by J.R.R. Tolkien and compiled by his son Christopher, an Appendix is provided at the end of the chapter “Disaster of the Gladden Fields”; the subtitle of the Appendix is “Númenórean Linear Measures.” Tolkien explains,

Measures of distance are converted as nearly as possible into modern terms. ‘League’ is used because it was the longest measurement of distance: in Númenórean reckoning (which was decimal) five thousand rangar (full paces) made a lár, which was very nearly three of our miles. Lár meant ‘pause’, because except in forced marches a brief half was usually made after this distance had been covered . . .

“The Númenórean ranga was slightly longer than our yard, approximately thirty-eight inches, owing to their greater stature. Therefore five thousand rangar would be almost exactly the equivalent of 5280 yards, our ‘league’: 5277 yards, two feet and four inches, supposing the equivalence to be exact. This cannot be determined, being based on the lengths given in histories of various things and distances that can be compared with those of our time.

“Account has to be taken both of the great stature of the Númenóreans (since hands, feet, fingers and paces are likely to be the origin of names of units of length), and also of the variations from these averages or norms in the process of fixing and organising a measurement system both for daily use and for exact calculations. Thus two rangar was often called ‘man-high’, which at thirty-eight inches gives an average height of six feet four inches; but this was at a later date, when the stature of the Dúnedain appears to have decreased, and also was not intended to be an accurate statement of the observed average of male stature among them, but was an approximate length expressed in the well-known unit ranga. (The ranga is often said to have been the length of the stride, from rear heel to front toe . . .)” (pp. 285-286)

The point of this long (and perhaps tedious) explanation is to demonstrate that the Númenóreans were a people of large physical stature. Although, as Tolkien noted, they had diminished somewhat by the time the ranga was established, they were still of unusual height even by today’s standards. The average Númenórean - such as many of the Rangers in Middle-earth - would have been 6′4″ at least and, it is assumed, proportionally built: many people above average height are tall because they have long legs, somewhat out-of-proportion to their body. The Númenóreans, too, would have had long legs but their bodies would have been proportionate, making them not only tall but physically big and imposing.

Tolkien adds,

Elendil was said to be ‘more than man-high by nearly half a ranga‘; but he was accounted the tallest of all the Númenóreans who escaped the Downfall (and was indeed generally known as Elendil the Tall).”

Even if we reduce Elendil’s height to more than man-high by one-third of a ranga (since he was not quite half more) he would still have been 7′6″. Now there are a couple of ways to be 7′6″: one could be Manute Bol, the NBA center from Sudan. Manute was 7′6″ and weighed 200 pounds (shown here with 5′6″ Muggsy Bogues). Somehow I don’t think that’s what was in Tolkien’s mind as he thought of Elendil. Elendil and the Númenóreans were fierce and feared warriors that were capable of tremendous feats of strength and great triumphs in battle. Manute, whatever else may be said of him, is hardly fierce or feared.

It is more likely that Elendil and all the Númenóreans were normally proportioned, i.e., having arms and legs that were appropriate to their torsos. That would make Elendil more the size of the late Andre the Giant, although presumably without the extra weight Andre carried in his later years. When in his prime, Andre likely tipped the scales at a svelt 450 pounds or so rather than the 500-plus he weighed towards the end of his life. In the photo on the left, he is playfully choking to death Hulk Hogan, who at 6′8″ may be about the size of Aragorn. It is to be remembered that Aragorn was the Dúnadan and in him the blood of the Númenóreans ran true and strong. Thus, Strider - who went about “at a great pace on those long shanks of his,” according to Barilman Butterbur - would have been an imposing and impressive figure, taller than most visitors to The Prancing Pony in Bree.

But even if Aragorn were “only” a normal-sized Númenórean at 6′4″, it is likely he looked quite different than the movie portrayal of him. Viggo Mortensen is a fine actor and did a good job as Aragorn, but Viggo is 5′11″ and somewhat slight of build. A better image (only with hair) might be the 6′4″ Bill Goldberg, former football player and dominating wrestler for a brief time. The sight of Goldberg might put fear into a foe’s heart, whereas Viggo’s less-than intimidating appearance and countenance might have just the opposite effect, actually giving them hope when seeing his normal or smallish stature. “Araberg” could do battle with an Uruk-Hai whereas Morensen is a bit of a stretch. And Tolkien wanted his myth to be believable.

All that has gone before is simply background for the point I wish to make in this post. The point is not one that is novel or original with me, but it is an important one that bears repeating. Despite the size of the Númenóreans, the power of Gandalf, the immortality and power of the elves, and the gritty determination of the dwarves and others of Middle-earth, it is none of these who actually shape the world of Middle-earth.

While the mighty - Gandalf, Sauron, Aragorn, Éomer, the Nazgûl, great armies and powers - are involved elsewhere, the fate of Middle-earth is determined by the small, weak, and overlooked. It is Frodo, Sam, and even Gollum - the least powerful characters in the story - who strike the deciding blow. Frodo is faithful in his mission, Sam finally gains compassion for Gollum, and Gollum unwittingly destroys himself and his precious, thus assuring the downfall of the mighty Sauron and the changing of Ages in Middle-earth.

Even Merry and Pippin, who seem to be incidental to the Fellowship at the beginning of the quest, make a major difference in the outcome. It is their capture and subsequent escape from the Orcs that brings the Ents into the fray; the Ents not only destroy Isengard and imprison Saruman but also facilitate the victory at Helm’s Deep. All because of two heroic hobbits who chose to be faithful to a friend instead of staying home.

Time will undoubtedly sell a lot of copies of their issue about “people who shape our world,” but it is only an illusion. They are not the truly great or even significant people. It is, rather, each individual Christian who is faithful in her or his walk with Christ that makes a difference. Most of us are simply hobbit-like people, unnoticed by the “movers and shakers” of Christendom, but it is the faithfulness and trustworthiness of the “halflings” in the Body of Christ that will shape and mold the future.

The history of the world ultimately is in the hands and mind of God, regardless of what Open Theologians might profess. Important things happen, not in the visible world but, in the unseen spiritual world. God has a purpose and that purpose will not be thwarted; this is obvious to anyone who reads the Bible cover-to-cover without imposing their preconceived doctrinal biases upon the text (impossible, but still to be attempted).

What is just as apparent is that God, like Tolkien in Middle-earth, will work through unexpected means to accomplish the great events of the future. In God’s case, it seems He always chooses that course or individual through which He achieves the greatest glory.

There are no “little people,” as Francis Schaeffer wrote, in the eyes of God and it is usually through them and not the “famous” or “powerful” that He accomplishes His purposes.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,
29 so that no man may boast before God.” - 1 Cor 1.25-29 (NASB)