Bombadillo
Freedom to NOT Wield Power
While watching the Tolkien Heads livestream for episode four of season two of The Rings of Power, Tom Hermans-Webster has an excellent discussion of how the character of Tom Bombadil illuminates a process interpretation of the character Tom Bombadil. (This is at about the 1:52 mark if you want to skip to those comments). If you are only familiar with the movie treatments of The Lord of the Rings, then you may not know about Tom Bombadil. It would take an entire essay or more to explain Tom Bombadil, but I give my imperfect summary to start for context.
Tom Bombadil is one of my favorite secondary characters in the Lord of the Rings and the wider stories of Middle-Earth. Bombadil is a mysterious being within the Lord of the Rings and within the parts I have read of him elsewhere. He is one of the oldest beings in the universe of Tolkien and his interactions show an immense amount of power with an interesting twist. Bombadil does not see his power as something to be wielded in ways that other beings would wield it. In fact, when the Council of Elrond is discussing what to do with the One Ring, they consider giving the ring to Tom because it does not affect him (we see this within the meeting of Bombadil by the Hobbits on their way to Rivendale). During the Council of Elrond, Gandalf explains Tom’s power: “the Ring has no power over him. He is his own master. But he cannot alter the Ring itself, nor break its power over others.” When pressed whether it would be wise to give the ring to Bombadil for safekeeping, Gandalf must explain why this is such a dangerous proposition. “He might do so, if all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand the need. And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe guardian; and that alone is answer enough.”
(Full access for all readers September 11, 2024 at 8 AM CDT)
The first place I encountered Tom Bombadil is with the Hobbits in the first book of The Lord of the Rings. The passages in which the Hobbits and Tom Bombadil interact are important for helping us to understand how various beings live within Tolkien’s world. We learn Bombadil loves song, feasting, the land, and the inhabitant of the land (floral and fauna). Tom’s personality and a brief look into his power can be seen in these passages. These sections are not, as some may feel, unnecessary to the story. For me, at least, Bombadil is crucial to understanding the threat of Sauron and others like him. In a world in which power is wielded in harshness, Bombadil wields power in measured care and concern for those his power may affect. Hermans-Webster points out Charles Hartshorne claims that total power over others is impotence rather than omnipotence. Hermans-Websters explanation of Hartshorne’s understanding of divine omnipotence is the ability to be influenced and influence others in freedom of becoming. This sounds very much akin to Tom Oord’s Amipotence, but I suspect Hermans-Webster may contrast those ideas with more nuance.
It is this understanding of Bombadil’s power in the world that is wielded without the aim to control. This is a differentiator between the desire of the various races of Middle-Earth to wield power, even for good, within an aim of control versus the idea of a being like Bombadil who wields power for the good of the other within that other’s freedom to respond. Our leaders and parties in the United States and elsewhere could learn a lesson from Bombadil. A lesson I believe Tolkien is telling within the context of his Roman Catholicism, but reaching back to the ancient Church and its intense mistrust of the power of Ceasar. The Church of our age could definitely learn to embrace the ethos of Bombadil.
The modern Western Church has fallen into the attitude that power wielded for good is always good, regardless of the level of control. But, the scriptures reveal a picture of a God, through Jesus, that does not control. The God of the scriptures is a relational God who is always with us, even when we believe ourselves to be separated from God. This is the God that John Wesley instinctively described, even though that picture conflicted with the prevailing view with the Church of England. Mildred Wynkoop explains the Wesleyan understanding of doctrine within the context of love.
The principle by which to understand Wesley’s doctrine is love to God and [humanity], in the biblical sense of love. Love is the dynamic of theology and experience. Love, structured by holiness, links all that we know of man. Love is the end of the law. It is the goal of every step in grace and the norm of the Christian life in this world.
This is the centering of all Christian doctrine as described in the two greatest commandments.’He said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt 22:37–40 NRSVue). Love never controls, for if it did, it would not be love. Love influences and is influenced and we see that in scripture multiple times. But what does this have to do with Tom Bombadil? I am glad you asked.
Tom Bombadil teaches us a few things about our own world as a creature of his. Bombadil does not see his own power as something which should control. Gandalf makes the claim that Bombadil could not control others because of his nature. While it would be ok to say this sounds much like the God described in Open and Relational Theology, I am not going that direction with this essay. Instead, I want to look at how power is reflected in our actions. Maybe even within what Wynkoop called our credibility gaps. Because our credibility gaps prevent us from reflecting the image of God into the world.
The way Tom Bombadil sees a ring of power can show us ways for us to view spiritual ideas. When we consider grace, sin, and other ideas, we can see them as actions rather than things. Sin is not a thing that we hold on to or that can be removed from us physically. Sin is a broken relationship that harms both us and our world. Grace is not a thing placed upon us or that covers us, it is an action by a faithful God working in our world. The action of grace allows us to see the power of sin as something that cannot harm us. The action of grace allows us to experience love and relationship with God and one another.
While we may say that we understand that sin is not a thing which gets eradicated, we use language that sounds like we believe sin to be a thing which we hold or which can be removed in a surgical strike. It is better to see sin like Bombadil sees a ring of power. Sin is a malevolent action in the world that harms. We can be freed from that power through the counteraction which is grace, but we cannot see grace as another power which controls.
Why is this important? Because our language and the words we use tell others how we see the world. There are views of sin and of grace that lead people to use power to control to stop sin. But that is just as harmful as sin itself. Using power as control, even when used for a good reason, is harmful and it reinforces the attitudes of the world’s way of doing things. Within Wesleyan-Holiness contexts like my own, there is a wide credibility gap between the claim of freedom from sin and the actions of control attempting to prevent sin. Those credibility gaps are filled by people who partner up, form groups, and act in sectarian ways, trying to control like Sauron or the humans who fell under his influence. Even if that leads to a good outcome, the very wielding of power in control harms and allows sin to perpetuate.
Wesley’s idea of Cristian Perfection is not a concept of eradicating a substance, but of enabling us to live in freedom from the effects and harm of action in sin. Like Tom Bombadil, the Holy Spirit works in the world to enable freedom from fear and sin. The Spirit also works to allow us the grace to act in loving ways cooperating with God in bringing in New Creation. Let’s live like Tom Bombadil and not like people cowering in fear of a thing which is not a thing. Let us be free from the power of fear.
“*Hey dol!
merry dol!
ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along!
fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom,
Tom Bombadillo!*”
Tolkien, J. R. R. The Lord of the Rings. Illustrated edition, Houghton Mifflin, 2021.
Wynkoop, Mildred Bangs. A Theology of Love : The Dynamic of Wesleyanism. Second edition., Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 2015. 18487659.