The Lord of the Kingdom

Avallónnë. Seventh Age. - As I think about these days in which we live, about the voices that hold sway over Christendom from the pulpit, and the captivating reasonings in well-constructed books, as well as in the reams of words written here online - as I reflect on these matters, I am reminded of Tolkien’s words in The Lord of the Rings, Book III, a chapter entitled “The Voice of Saruman.”

The Riders of the Mark have accompanied King Théoden of Rohan and Éomer his nephew, Gandalf and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli to the stairs of Orthanc, the stronghold-turned-prison of Saruman, now the Wizard of Many Colors. The Riders eavesdrop on the speech of Saruman to their king.

Suddenly another voice spoke, low and melodious, its very sound an enchantment. Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. . . .

“The Riders stirred at first, murmuring with approval of the words of Saruman; and then they too were silent, as men spell-bound. It seemed to them that Gandalf had never spoken so fair and fittingly to their lord. Rough and proud now seemed all his dealings with Théoden. And over their hearts crept a shadow, the fear of a great danger: the end of the Mark in a darkness to which Gandalf was driving them, while Saruman stood beside a door of escape, holding it half open so that a ray of light came through.”

Those who would mesmerize us with words and ear-soothing tones may still be found among us, drawing us under their spell with their seductive speeches and attractive demeanor. They are strong, powerful, and popular; by agreeing with them, we reason, we will share in those qualities. Those who speak roughly or without the allurement of rhetorical skills are dismissed as unfaithful, ignorant rabble. We will give them no hearing and will hearken instead to velvet-tongued orators whose voices we find comforting.

Such modern-day Sarumans hold open a door, and from the door emanates a warm, inviting, and seductive light. But the door is only half open, and thus we cannot see that the light streaming towards us is not generated by the glory of the Son but by the fires of hell.

A few days ago I got an email from a friend that said two things: one, that he was enjoying the series on One-Eyed Jacks and, two, he has a One-Eyed Jack in his church who is causing him no small amount of grief; worse, this renegade is jeopardizing my friend’s job. My friend is the pastor.

As is usually the case, the problem is a power-struggle: my friend is the new kid on the block and is attracting a following; the One-Eyed Jack is old and firmly entrenched, resentful of anyone or anything that threatens his control over the local church. My friend is restrained by self-imposed (or God-imparted) integrity and humility; the Jack has no such limitations.

Now, if you were to ask any of my former pastors what it’s like to have me in their church, they would probably tell you that I am a headache and a pain a little lower, too. But I don’t think they would suggest that I am duplicitous (I need to find another word: I’m using that one to death) or intending to sabotage their leadership. I am a vocal opponent at times, but I am a loyal and faithful vocal opponent.

Pastors and churches need people like me - I heard Larry Crabb say it once, so it must be true - whether they like it or not. They do not, however, need One-Eyed Jacks that are trying to wrest control from the shepherd of the flock. I do not believe in a calling or that pastors are somehow anointed in the Old Testament sense, but I do believe that once a man has been put in the position of senior pastor he should be respected and obeyed. Disagreements should be handled biblically, graciously, and carefully.

Look in the mirror and remember what you see. If there’s so much as a hint or trace of a One-Eyed Jack, go to your pastor and confess. Repent of previous malicious, subversive behaviors. Ask him for forgiveness and ask how to be a positive, albeit at times critical, member of the body.

But, above all, stop being a One-Eyed Jack: although they seem to be everywhere, there’s biblically no place for them in the local church.

Before I posted the conclusion to the series on One-Eyed Jacks, I paused for a brief intercalation entitled “Saruman and the Emergent Church.” It was a reaction to and elaboration on a post at Challies wherein he takes exception to some of Tony Jones’ (one of the ubiquitous spokesmen for the Emergent Church) statements.

Doug Burtt apparently didn’t like my post (which is fine) and left the following comment:

I was initially impressed by this website (being a fan of Tolkien), but frankly this article misrepresents and insults both Tolkien and the Emergents. I am greatly disappointed.”

While the “greatly disappointed” seemed to be a tad histrionic, it was an OK comment as far as it went. I replied,

Doug:

Serious charges, if true.

In what way or ways do you believe I have misrepresented and insulted Tolkien and/or the Emergents? The Emergents I can perhaps understand (if a compelling argument can be adduced) but I have no idea how I may have misrepresented Tolkien or insulted him.

If you have time, I would be interested in knowing more.”

Then I decided to follow Doug’s link to Boar’s Head Tavern, where he is a contributor and a site that can be narcissistic at times (but not always: it depends on who’s writing) but frequently has some good insight into the state of Christendom. Being naive, I guess, I was a little surprised by Doug’s post there:

And I suppose Osteen is Sauron…

Not only are Emergents heretics and apostates, now they are Tolkien villains.

The only thing left now is for someone to accuse Brian MacLaren of being the AntiChrist…

Even a moderately sober reading of my post shows that Doug’s post is less-than accurate, but that’s not the point. It should be the point, maybe, but it’s not the point.

I should be grateful, I guess, for the link but I was struck by the difference between his comment here at LOTK (where I could respond in my tiny little corner of the cyberchurch) and his post (which emanated from the bully pulpit that is BHT and to which I could not reply: comments are closed at the tavern). This, I realized, is exactly the sort of thing that my long, long, series - which Doug doesn’t seem to have read or, if he has read it, failed to see himself in it - anyway, the series was attempting to address this kind of person: those who appear to be something they are not while hiding what they really are.

Safe from refutation at the wildly popular BHT, Doug comes across boldly, snidely, and heroically. But in the dark corner of the cyberuniverse that is LOTK, where responses and rebukes are possible, he’s quite different: wimpy, careful, almost effeminate. Hello, One-Eyed Jack.

This is not to disparage all the contributors at BHT - I find Michael quite genuine and insightful most of the time - but is only to single out Doug as an example of a One-Eyed Jack: brave when impunity is all-but assured, but quite different when there is even a remote possibility of rebuke or being called to task.

Thanks, Doug, for showing the other side of your face here at LOTK.

Should you care to comment again, Doug, feel free. In fact, I would be very interested in how you feel I have misrepresented and insulted the two parties involved.

Realize, though, that since BHT reserves the right to take cheap shots with the comments closed, I’ll reserve the right to edit your comments if and however I see fit.

That’s fair, isn’t it? And, since I said it up front, I can hardly be accused of being a One-Eyed Jack.

PP & OJ: Christian Appearances (Pt 1)
PP & OJ: Power and Dominion (Pt 2)
PP & OJ: Húrin and Sauron (Pt 3)

This post grew in the writing. There are numerous characters that populate the pages of The Lord of the Rings, as well as many of Tolkien’s other stories of Middle-earth, and choosing two or three upon which to focus was no simple task. In the end, I narrowed the scope to three individuals: Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir, since readers of only the LOTR or those limited to the mere movies will be familiar with all three.

Nevertheless, there is one character who needs to be mentioned because he at first might be viewed as a One-Eyed Jack; upon closer scrutiny, however, he falls short of the appellation. That individual is Gollum, also known as Sméagol, portrayed as an impish, adorable scoundrel in the movies but who was, in the mythic reality of Middle-earth, a malevolent, wretched being whose pursuit of evil produced horrific results in him physically and mentally.

Tolkien provides two commentaries that shed additional light on Gollum:

Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam’s or greater, being devoted to evil, was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be ‘damnable’ . . . But we who are all ‘in the same boat’ must not usurp the Judge.” (Letters, p 234)

“For me perhaps the most tragic moment in the Tale comes . . . when Sam fails to note the complete change in Gollum’s tone and aspect ‘”Nothing, nothing,” said Gollum softly. “Nice master!”‘ His repentance is blighted and all Frodo’s pity is (in a sense) wasted.” (Letters, pp 329-330)

Rather than being a One-Eyed Jack (as are many others), Gollum is in fact a Jack with One Eye: he is reprobate, perhaps, even though Tolkien had hopes for his salvation until the inevitable unfolded. Gollum is not, as the movie might lead one to believe, a picture of a morally neutral being seeking to choose the right over the wrong; he is not, as some regard him, a “carnal Christian” in whom the Spirit wars against the flesh and the flesh against the Spirit. There was never any indication that Gollum was at the beginning any different than he was at the end: the difference was one of degree, not kind. A tortured and “pitiable” creature, to be sure, but not a One-Eyed Jack.

Leaving behind the nature of Gollum (a post waiting to be written, I suppose), let us turn to three individuals who were One-Eyed Jacks in both the book and the movie.

Saruman

Of all the characters in Middle-earth, Saruman is the most obvious One-Eyed Jack to the readers and viewers. His treachery goes far back, as is described in some of Tolkien’s additional books and writings, for he was ever-suspicious and envious of Gandalf. So polished was his presentation, though, that even the wise and insightful Grey Pilgrim fails to penetrate Saruman’s deception until it is too late - almost. Not until he arrives at Orthanc, having been beckoned by Saruman, does Gandalf realize that Saruman is other than he has appeared to be.

Saruman’s wizardry is substantial, greater than that of Gandalf the Grey, but it is his voice that deceives others and veils his true motives. Saruman is not in league with Sauron - in fact, he hopes to supplant him - but neither is he faithful to God’s purpose: Eru sent five Istari (wizards; incarnate angels) to assist in the battle against the growing menace of Sauron (only Gandalf ultimately fulfilled that stewardship).

Even after the fall of Isengard, as Gandalf and his companions approach the corrupted leader of the Order of Wizards, Gandalf the White warns Gimli and the others of Saruman’s powerful tongue:

‘Saruman could look like me in your eyes, if it suited his purpose with you. And are you yet wise enough to detect all his counterfeits? Well, we shall see, perhaps. He may be shy of showing himself before many different eyes together . . .

“But there is no knowing what he can do, or may choose to try. A wild beast cornered is not safe to approach. And Saruman has powers you do not guess. Beware his voice!”

Even after Gandalf breaks Saruman’s staff and casts him from their Order, the One-Eyed Jack and former wizard remains duplicitous and powerful. Having been released by Treebeard from his imprisonment in Orthanc, he makes his way to The Shire and bullies his way to dominance. After the four hobbits of the Fellowship successfully complete “The Scouring of The Shire,” they must deal with Saruman.

True to form, Saruman continues to bluster and to attempt to impose his will on the weaker hobbits. Frodo, however, has learned of Saruman’s fall (he was not present, remember, at Isengard and must have discovered from the others of Saruman’s corruption). He exhorts the intimidated hobbits,

Do not believe him! He has lost all power, save his voice that can still daunt you and deceive you, if you let it.” (LOTR, p 995)

The One-Eyed Jack, once exposed, loses the power to manipulate others.

Denethor

Not so obvious as Saruman are the deceitful ways of Denethor, father of both Boromir and Faramir, and the last Ruling Steward of Gondor. It was his duty to protect and take care of the kingdom until a rightful heir returned to claim the throne and restore the line of kings over the realm.

But Denethor, for all his appearances as a faithful guardian, has his own agenda. His hidden purposes reveal themselves slowly at first before becoming explicit in his argument with Gandalf. As Pippin and the wizard approach the hall of the Ruling Steward, Gandalf cautions,

Be careful of your words, Master Peregrin! This is no time for hobbit pertness. Théoden [King of Rohan] is a kindly old man. Denethor is of another sort, proud and subtle, a man of far greater lineage and power, though he is not called a king. But he will speak most to you, and question you much, since you can tell him of his son Boromir. He loved him greatly; too much, perhaps; and the more so because they were unlike. But under cover of this love he will think it easier to learn what he wishes from you rather than from me.” (LOTR, p 737)

Denethor’s cold and cruel disposition is revealed even more when he scornfully refutes Pippin, who fears that Sauron is soon to approach Minas Tirith:

Denethor laughed bitterly. ‘Nay, not yet, Master Peregrin! He will not come save only to triumph over me when all is won. He uses others as his weapons. So do all great lords, if they are wise, Master Halfling. Or why should I sit here in my tower and think, and watch, and wait, spending even my sons? For I can still wield a brand.’” (LOTR, p 800, italics added

Denethor considers himself a “great lord” and does not hesitate to use his own sons in battle while he sits safely in his hall. He does this, he says, even though he is still capable of battle himself. But he will not go forth in battle - as do his sons, Boromir and Faramir, as well as Aragorn, Gandalf, Théoden, and other truly great leaders. Here is a man charged with and giving the appearance of protecting a realm and its people, but who will stop at nothing - including the sacrifice of his sons - to promote his own purposes.

Shippey captures the underlying nature of Denethor aptly:

. . . Denethor’s hall has a dais and a throne, but the throne is empty, and Denethor is sitting, with a kind of humility, on a plain chair on the bottom step, in the same ceremonial space as Wormtongue: he is a steward, not a king. It is clear, though, that Denethor’s humility masks an evident pride, as he shows in his rebuke of Gandalf, ‘the rule of Gondor, my lord, is mine and no other man’s, unless the king should come again.’ His exchange with Gandalf in a way repeats in its tone the near-clash between Aragorn and Boromir in ‘The Council of Elrond’, the Gondorian striving for superior dignity, the other party asserting superior status, but feeling no need to mark this formally.” (Author of the Century, p 100)

The Repentance of Boromir

Due to the enticing power of the One Ring and his own character flaws, Boromir son of Denethor was a One-Eyed Jack from the first moment he appears in the LOTR until shortly before his death. His confrontation with Aragorn at the Council of Elrond reveals his hidden, soon-to-be-fatal flaw: he doubts the claim of Aragorn as the rightful heir to the throne of Gondor and hints at his own ambition, courageous and good though it might be. Disgusted with the talk of what to do with the One Ring, he questions the wisdom of the Council:

‘I do not understand all this,’ he said. ‘Saruman is a traitor, but did he not have a glimpse of wisdom? Why do you speak ever of hiding and destroying? Why should we not think that the Great Ring has come into our hands to serve us in the very hour of need? Wielding it the Free Lords of the Free may surely defeat the Enemy. That is what he most fears, I deem.

“‘’The Men of Gondor are valiant, and they will never submit; but they may be beaten down. Valour needs first strength, and then a weapon. Let the Ring be your weapon, if it has such power as you say. Take it and go forth to victory!’” (LOTR, pp 260-261)

Later, as the Ring entices him beyond his self-proclaimed strength, the other side of the One-Eyed Jack’s face is fully revealed. As he seeks to gain the Ring from Frodo, he reasons (as though speaking only to himself):

We of Minas Tirith have been staunch through long years of trial. We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause. And behold! in our need chance brings to light the Ring of Power. It is a gift, I say; a gift to the foes of Mordor. It is mad not to use it, to use the power of the Enemy against him. The fearless, the ruthless, these alone will achieve victory. What could not a warrior do in this hour, a great leader? What could not Aragorn do? Or if he refuses, why not Boromir? The Ring would give me power of Command. How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!” (LOTR, p 389)

By grace, Boromir stumbles and falls in his pursuit of the now-invisible Frodo. “For a while he was as still as if his own curse had struck him down; then he wept” (p 390). Boromir comes to his senses, freed from the lure of the Ring. He repents, and the genuineness of his repentance is demonstrated in his sacrifice of his life for the sake of Merry and Pippin - even though Boromir knows that they are not in possession of the Ring.

As he lays dying with Aragorn at his side, Boromir confesses his sin.

Boromir opened his eyes and strove to speak. At last slow words came. ‘I tried to take the Ring from Frodo,’ he said. ‘I am sorry. I have paid.’ His glance strayed to his fallen enemies; twenty at least lay there. ‘They are gone: the Halflings: the Orcs have taken them. I think they are not dead. Orcs bound them.’ He paused and his eyes closed wearily. After a moment he spoke again.

“‘Farewell, Aragorn! Go to Minas Tirith and save my people! I have failed.’

“‘No!’ said Aragorn, taking his hand and kissing his brow. ‘You have conquered. Few have gained such a victory. Be at peace!’ Miinas Tirith shall not fall!’

“Boromir smiled.” (LOTR, p 404)

This is an image of salvation in Middle-earth: Boromir, though failing and falling to the power of evil, nevertheless repented and returned to the true path. The victory he has won is spiritual far more than merely a temporal, physical one.

It is fitting that this series should end with the repentance of Boromir, for so ends the movie One-Eyed Jacks. It is not accidental that the title is plural and not singular: Karl Malden was not the only One-Eyed Jack; Marlon Brando, too, was a One-Eyed Jack, having deceived and lied for his own self-serving purposes earlier in the film. But the movie is a story of redemption, not merely betrayal, and in the end Brando’s character turns from his self-centered ways and seeks to do that which is right. Consequences and griefs remain, as they always do, but Brando’s character repents in the end.

Such is the offer to all One-Eyed Jacks in all places and in all times, whether in the pulpit, pew, or elsewhere: there is grace and forgiveness, predicated only upon repentance. With repentance, a great victory can indeed be won.

Related Tags: Saruman, Lord of the Rings, One-Eyed Jacks, Church, Christians, Repentance

To be a One-Eyed Jack is to wear a mask. It is to give an appearance of what one is not and to hide the reality of what one is. It is common in the world, too common in the church, and illustrated vividly in Middle-earth. It is to the latter that we now turn for examples, remembering that we should never underestimate the value of a bad example.

Four individuals from Middle-earth will be adduced to demonstrate the nature of One-Eye Jacks, two in this post and two in the last of this series; of these four, only one resists the temptation while the remaining three exemplify such duplicity tragically. The former is likely unknown to many of the readers of this blog while the latter are familiar names and characters from the Third Age of Middle-earth.

Húrin

The Helm of Hador dates back to the First Age of Middle-earth, when Morgoth (formerly called Melkor, the foremost of the Valar prior to his fall and casting out) sought to become the Lord of Arda, i.e., the earth. Sauron, Morgoth’s powerful second-in-command, created the One Ring to rule but, as Tolkien wrote in Morgoth’s Ring, the Ring of Morgoth was the whole of Middle-earth.

In Unfinished Tales, Tolkien describes the Helm of Hador:

That helm was made of grey steel adorned with gold, and on it were graven runes of victory. A power was in it that guarded any who wore it from wound or death, for the sword that hewed it was broken, and the dart that smote it sprang aside . . . Upon its crest was set in defiance a gilded image of the head of Glaurung the dragon; for it had been made soon after he first issued from the gates of Morgoth. Often Hador, and Galdor after him, had borne it in war; and the hearts of the host of Hithlum were uplifted when they saw it towering high amid the battle, and they cried: ‘Of more worth is the Dragon of Dor-lómin that the gold-worm of Angband!’”

Glaurung was the greatest dragon of the First Age and in service to Morgoth. He did great harm to the elves and men that opposed the Lord of Angband (as Morgoth’s empire was called). Hithlum was an elvish realm in northwest Middle-earth; Dor-lómin was one of the two provinces of that realm.

The Helm of Hador passed down from Hador to Galdor and eventually to Húrin; it came into Húrin’s possession when his older brother, Huor, was slain in battle. Húrin, however, did not prefer to wear the Helm:

But Húrin did not wear the Dragon-helm with ease, and in any case he would not use it, for he said: ‘I would rather look on my foes with my true face.’”

Here is a remarkable illustration of the sort of transparent character to be applauded and emulated. Although the Helm would certainly have protected Húrin in battle, he refused to use it and to appear to be more than he was. It might have served him well when he was captured and tortured by Morgoth but, then again, it might have so weakened his character (by its pretense) that he would have been unable to stand in defiance against the evil of Morgoth.

Sauron

In the Second Age of Middle-earth, after Morgoth had been chained and his mantle of evil passed to his underling, Sauron came as a One-Eyed Jack to the elves. As most know, it was the elves of the region of Eregion that forged the Rings of Power:

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lord in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die . . .”

The elves of Eregion were great craftsmen in their own right, but from Sauron they learned even more, for he was expert in the crafting of precious things. Tolkien describes the duplicity and hidden malice of Sauron in Letter 131 (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien):

There arose a friendship between the usually hostile folk (of Elves and Dwarves) for the first and only time, and smithcraft reached its highest development. But many of the Elves listened to Sauron. He was still fair in that early time, and his motives and those of the Elves seemed to go partly together: the healing of desolate lands.”

Tolkien provides more details of the seduction by and masquerade of Sauron in his chapter “The History of Galadriel and Celeborn” in Unfinished Tales. Here the deceit of Sauron and his ability to turn the strengths of his enemies into weakness to be exploited is made more clear. After Sauron assumed “the fairest form he could contrive,” he eventually came to Eregion where Galadriel and Celeborn ruled at that time. Tolkien writes:

In Eregion Sauron posed as an emissary of the Valar, sent by them to Middle-earth . . . or ordered by them to remain there to give aid to the Elves. He perceived at once that Galadriel would be his chief adversary and obstacle, and he endeavoured therefore to placate her, bearing her scorn with outward patience and courtesy . . . Sauron used all his arts upon Celebrimbor and his fellow-smiths, who had formed a society or brotherhood, very powerful in Eregion . . . but he worked in secret, unknown to Galadriel and Celeborn . . So great became his hold . . . that at length he persuaded them to revolt against Galadriel and Celeborn and to seize power in Eregion . . .

“Celebrimbor was not corrupted in heart of faith, but had accepted Sauron as what he posed to be; and when at length he discovered the existence of the One Ring he revolted against Sauron . . .

“When Sauron learned of the repentance and revolt of Celebrimbor his disguise fell and his wrath was revealed . . .”

Several things should be noted at this point. First, although Galadriel was not deceived by Sauron’s cunning, others in Eregion saw his behavior toward her and thought well of him. Second, Celebrimbor was a good-hearted individual but failed to discern the other side of Sauron, the one-Eyed Jack. Third, when he was exposed, then the full face of Sauron was revealed to all and his wrath and revenge was unleashed without pretense or disguise.

Returning to Letter 131, we additionally learn,

Sauron found [the Elves’] weak point in suggesting that, helping one another, they could make Western Middle-earth as beautiful as Valinor [the realm of the Archangelic Valar]. It was really a veiled attack on the gods, an incitement to try and make a separate independent paradise.”

Although too involved to discuss here, Sauron also deceived the men of the island kingdom of Númenor: he gained the trust of the kings, advised them deceitful, and eventually prompted them to a revolt that resulted in the destruction of the island and the fleeing of faithful Númenoreans to Middle-earth.

The application for the church is apparent, especially with regard to those pastors or power-brokers among the flock who seek to establish their own agendas and purposes. Lost in such dominions are the purposes of God, who has provided His people and shepherds with clear instructions concerning what the church is to be about and how it is to be governed.

The desire for power and dominion, masked and veiled by a desire to assist God in the accomplishment and establishment of His kingdom, is dangerous. As mentioned above, He has told us what is required. It is our place to work and behavior in such a manner that we facilitate the work of the Holy Spirit and leave the results to God. The words of Gandalf to Denethor are appropriate here:

I will say this: the rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flower again in days to come. For I also am a steward. Did you not know?”

As I have noted elsewhere, this is an incredible statement. Gandalf is saying that even if everything fails he will not have failed if but one small thing survives to produce goodness in days to come. The wizard is expressing considerable faith in the power of Eru (God) to accomplish his purposes and remarkably humility in that he is willing to appear a failure in the eyes of others if such are the purposes of God. Should this not be the attitude of every pastor, i.e., a commitment to do all and only that which God has prescribed and proscribed, allowing the outcome to be solely in His hands? Would that it were so, for those in the pulpits and pews.

My own attempt to apply this standard has taken the following form: I have altered the words of Gandalf to personalize his faith and humility, transforming it into a statement to which I hope to aspire:

I will say this: the rule of no church is mine, neither my church home nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though my church home should perish, if anything passes through my life that can still grow fair or bear fruit and glorify God again in days to come. For I also am a steward. Did you not know?”

Next (and lastly): Pulpits, Pews & One-Eyed Jacks: Saruman, Denethor & ?

In a previous post, I looked at the “One-Eyed Jack” phenomenon in churches, i.e., the practice of presenting a particular image to and hiding the unacceptable aspects of one’s life from other Christians. The phrase comes from a 1961 movie starring Marlon Brando and Karl Malden in which Brando says to the duplicitous Malden,

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

Most readers will realize that Brando’s comment is simply a modern way of saying what Jesus had declared to the Pharisees centuries ago:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.” - Mt 23.27

One of the distinctions I made in the earlier post was that being a One-Eyed Jack required conscious, careful and calculated control of one’s image: everyone will fall short and everyone will have blind spots, but One-Eyed Jacks are aware of their shortcomings and intentionally deceive or manipulate others to preserve their image. Their house of cards is propped up by fleshly rationalizations and denials. This is a problem both in the pews and in the pulpit.

The purpose of this post is to explore how One-Eyed Jacks manifest themselves in the congregation and to offer some insight into what may motivate such individuals. This will not be an exhaustive treatment, of course, and perhaps not deal with the problem in every particular locale. But if it only serves to start a discussion or an inspection of one’s own life and the life of the local church, this post will have accomplished a worthy purpose.

In the Pews

It is easy to be a One-Eyed Jack in the pews; in fact, it may be more difficult not to appear to be one if you happen to belong to a larger church. The sheer numbers and limited interactions available in a church of hundreds or thousands make it simple to produce and maintain a certain image to the masses if that is one’s desire. Smaller gatherings, such as Sunday school classes, Bible studies, or home churches, may foster an appearance of increased intimacy but One-Eyed Jacks have little difficulty in hiding the unpleasant realities of their lives and personalities in such settings

Smaller churches, in contrast, are more difficult venues for such pretension, especially when the small church is situated in an equally small town. As much as we enjoy our privacy and boundaries, small towns and small churches have a way of seeing through us and discovering the true character - or lack thereof - of individual believers. This is due in no small part to the fact that “people talk,” i.e., people gossip.

But as in the small church along with the larger congregations, however, the same opportunity for One-Eyed Jacks is present. It often takes one of two forms: the person presents either a polished silence or a positive stance concerning everything spiritual and temporal. Silence is the easy and passive way to remain hidden and be an effective One-Eyed Jack: all that is necessary is to refrain from speaking while at the same time - and this is important - displaying a pensive or insightful countenance (as a professional counselor, I have spent years honing just such a look). Other people will perceive silence as depth, spirituality, and maturity: “Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is considered prudent” (Pr 17.28).

Hiding through optimism and a positive outlook is more active but equally effective: many people, when encountering such ubiquitous glee in the One-Eyed Jack, will assume all is well and marvel at the peace within the person’s soul. By always seeing the silver lining and totally ignoring the ominous clouds, these One-Eyed Jacks give the impression that there are no problems in life worth thinking about and certainly no problems that have been able to penetrate the boundaries of their personal fortresses. People who actually have problems that they want to discuss steer clear of these pretentious Pollyannas, suspecting that any disclosure of their struggles will precipitate a painful, clichéd response (the abuse of Rom 8.28 is a favorite), condescension (the One-Eyed Jack is obviously a “stronger” brother who, though commanded to yield and teach the weaker brother, may choose instead to shoot the wounded), or both.

In the Pulpit

It should not be surprising that it is even easier to maintain a One-Eyed Jack posture in the pulpit than in the pews. A little thought reveals why: the pastor delivers an intentional and (hopefully) carefully crafted sermon that has been prepared with certain goals in mind. This is a good thing, as far as it goes, but too often it can be an opportunity to hide the genuine doubts and struggles that all pastors face while at the same time giving an appearance of maturity and wisdom far exceeding what actually is possessed.

Let me hasten to repeat that not all pastors are One-Eyed Jacks. Personally, I think that most are not: they are either appropriately candid and honest about their Christian walk or (too frequently) so obtuse as to be oblivious to what is going on in their own lives that needs attention and/or repentance and confession. But ignorance is not intent; a mind lacking in insight is not the same as a One-Eyed Jack.

There is a third category of pastors, however, that does qualify as One-Eyed Jacks: those who are neither candid nor ignorant. These individuals choose to reject or turn a deaf ear to the rebukes or cautions of others, even - and perhaps especially - such reproofs as inevitably come from family members or staff members who know the pastor well. For reasons perhaps - perhaps - known only to them, they have cut themselves off from the Body of Christ and the flock of which they are responsible as a shepherd. They seem to prefer the deceitful kisses of an enemy than the faithful wounds of a friend (Pr 27.6), to their and their congregation’s great loss.

In short, these pastors (like many pew-dwellers) have forgotten what it means to be teachable: they seek sychophants blind to blatant shortcomings and weaknesses rather than those who will speak the truth in love - or at least utter some well-intentioned, Spirit-motivated speech in truth and love. To a One-Eyed Jack, the latter are enemies and the former are friends. It is the foolishness of Rehoboam (1 Ki 12.1-16) and Ahab (1 Ki 22.2-8).

Whether due to willful rejection of reproof or to conscious intent to deceive, such pastors are One-Eyed Jacks and typically foster the same practice in their churches. Authenticity - the Emergent Church does not have a copyright on word - is not a value; apparent effectiveness in ministry (aka “success” as measured by numbers and dollars) is what matters. The bigger the flock of sheep, the unspoken reasoning seems to be, the more Christlike and blessed the pastor must be. Need we look any further than Joel Osteen to demonstrate the foolishness of such a standard?

OK, OK: What’s the Point?

Whether in the pew or in the pulpit, the motivation for such duplicity - for being a One-Eyed Jack - is often the same. It is the twofold craving for what is mentioned in the title of the post: power and dominion; in a word, it is a desire for control to the extent that little faith is required and the twin illusions of safety and security are maintained. That is, to clarify, little faith or trust in other people or God is necessary: everything is ordered and predictable, reigned in or ruled out, safe and sterile, neutered and spayed.

Other people are managed by restrictive programs, tight control, and the exclusion of those who seem to be uncontrollable. God is managed by reducing Him to a system of doctrines that confine Him to act in accordance with the pastor’s inclinations. This does not, of course, actually restrict God but those things outside the bounds of what is acceptable are considered not of God or at least questionable.

That this should be the case is not surprising. Consider the original mandate to Adam and Eve in the garden:

God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” - Gen 1.27

The command has two essential elements: reproduction and dominion. The Fall effected both components but removed neither: God’s people are still responsible for fulfilling their responsibilities as reproductive (when married) stewards of the creation. The impact of sin on the charge to be fruitful is horrifically evident in the genecidal practice of abortion: God loves children and has given people the opportunity to participate in the creation of new life, but we have slaughtered millions in the name of convenience and comfort.

What is not so evident is the failure of God’s people to act as faithful stewards with regard to dominion. The ravaged rainforests and senseless killing of our “natural predators” (actually, they are unnaturally predatory: if man had not sinned to begin with, neither bears, lions, tigers, wolves, nor even fire ants would find our flesh to their liking) testify to our failure. More narrowly (for the purpose of this post), attempts at dominion are especially susceptible to abuse in the local church.

It was precisely regarding this potential that Peter wrote his warning:

1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,
2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;
3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.” - 1 Pet 5

This is no easy charge: on the one hand, pastors (and elders) are to “shepherd” the flock, which involves governing or ruling, feeding, nurturing, and cherishing. But they are not to “lord it over,” i.e., not bring people under their lordship or dominion. A fine balance must be achieved and maintained, a veritable high-wire act in the spiritual realm.

The temptation is to do exactly what Peter says not to do: to lord it over the flock, masquerading as a One-Eyed Jack in order to accomplish the work. The final post in this series will look at Saruman and Denethor as illustrations of two shepherds who became predators and sought to lord it over their flocks. First, however, we’ll take a quick look at someone who resisted the lure of duplicity and another who epitomizes it.

Next: Pulpits, Pews, & One-Eyed Jacks: Húrin and Sauron

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