This article is written by Dr. Jeff Myers and is sponsored by Baker Books. In his new book, Truth Changes Everything, Dr. Myers tells the fascinating stories of Jesus followers who lived for Truth and transformed their world in times of crisis. These determined and often quirky figures led the way in human dignity, science, art, medicine, education, politics, justice, and even the idea of meaningful work. If you sense that we live in hopeless days, it’s time to discover how Truth changes everything, everywhere, all the time. Preorder Truth Changes Everything wherever books are sold.

Caleb was forty years old when Moses tasked him, along with Joshua and ten other men, to spy on the land of God’s promise. Numbers 13 lists all their names, but we remember only Caleb and Joshua. The ten forgotten spies surrendered to the enemy of despair without even drawing their swords.
These ten fearful spies announced that the Anakim, the people of the land, were giants living in fortified cities. This was a fact. Yet it shouldn’t have mattered: God had promised that the children of Israel would inhabit the land. Even though the spies had seen God’s miraculous acts many times, fear overruled their faith. God’s chosen people consequently traipsed around the desert for another forty years.
Fast-forward. After forty years of wandering and five years of settling in the promised land, Caleb appeared before Joshua and said, “I am this day eighty-five years old. I am still as strong today as I was in the day that Moses sent me; my strength now is as my strength was then” (Josh. 14:10–11).
How many octogenarians can honestly make the claim that Caleb made? How many people of any age maintain readiness for the battles they face?
What Caleb said next is even more astounding: “So now give me this hill country of which the Lord spoke on that day, for you heard on that day how the Anakim were there, with great fortified cities. It may be that the Lord will be with me, and I shall drive them out just as the Lord said” (Josh. 14:12).
“Give me the land where the giants still are,” Caleb said, in essence. At age eighty-five. Every day for forty-five years Caleb honed his skills, telling himself, “God promised that the giants would fall, and fall they will. Even if I’m an old man when it happens.”
Caleb never lost sight of God’s promise. He stood in the land of giants.
The loss of Truth is a giant-sized problem in our day. Its real-life consequences are severe. Seventy-five percent of young adults say that they are unsure of their purpose in life. Nearly half are counted as having one or more types of mental illness (such as anxiety and depression). Fully half of young adults say that there is “no absolute value associated with human life.”
We are tempted to say, “Truth has been lost. History is at an end.” Yet the testimony of Jesus followers who changed the world is one of hope. We can understand the times and know what course we ought to take (1 Chron. 12:32). Faith can triumph over fear.
In the past, Truth changed everything. It can do the same for us amid the unique challenges of our current age. We, too, can find Truth and share it without fear, whether around the water cooler, at the Thanksgiving table, in the laboratory, or in the halls of power.
Now is the time to take an unflinching look at what Truth is and why it is under attack. Now is the time to sit at the feet of Jesus followers who, in times of great crisis, stood for Truth. Now is the time of choosing for our own age. If ever we needed Truth, it is now.
 

I first encountered The Lord of the Rings during the loneliest year of my childhood. My family had moved, my friends had been left behind, and I was lonely. The one friend I did make that year was an avid fan of the books and pleaded with me to read them. I did so and quickly got swept up into a world that transported me far beyond my problems. That was the first, though certainly not the last, time I read my way through the series.

And though I’m not one of those super-fans who knows every fact of this fictional world (or, like an uncle of mine, who has gone to the trouble of learning Elvish), I do appreciate the books and the films that were generally faithful to them. And it’s probably for that reason that I have been dreading the long-awaited series. I have been dreading it because, as much as I love what Tolkien created, I have long feared that this series would make a mockery of it. This is, after all, 2022. And the series is made, after all, by Amazon. That’s not an encouraging combination.
Before I settled in to watch episode one of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, I tried to corral my skeptical thoughts and consider this: What could make the series utterly fail in my mind? I already know it’s not truly Tolkien’s story, but rather bits and pieces of material that exists peripherally to The Lord of the Rings (i.e. the “legendarium”). I already know that while it’s generally set in the world he created, only some of what it describes ever entered his mind and flowed through his pen. I already know it means to emphasize themes that are important in 2022 but that were of little importance to Tolkien the better part of a century earlier. So what could make it completely fail? I decided this: it would fail if it was set in a different moral universe than Tolkien’s books. I could tolerate some made-up creatures and some re-imagined characters, but I couldn’t tolerate a wholly different morality.
Part of the beauty and attraction of The Lord of the Rings is that it is set in a universe in which the mythology, lands, and races are fantasy, but in which the morality rings with familiarity. It is a universe that delights us with its imaginative differences and yet challenges us with its moral similarities. Any Christian, and indeed, anyone familiar with the modern Western world, will recognize that Tolkien’s understanding of morality was shaped by Scripture. We see this in many ways, but perhaps none so clearly as in the One Ring—in its ability to control those who own it and then to drive them to destruction. You can’t see the obsessiveness of Gollum and the weakening of Frodo without thinking about a Christian conception of sin. Beyond that, what is abhorrent in our world tends to be abhorrent in his and what is beautiful here is beautiful there. Tolkien’s world is not straightforwardly Christian anymore than Lewis’s Narnia—but it is generally framed around a similar and easily-recognizable morality.
My fear with The Rings of Power is that it will borrow characters, settings, and situations that Tolkien described, but set them within a very different moral order. Particularly, my fear is that it will set them in a world that borrows the (im)morality of the post-modern post-Christian morass we’ve entered into in the Western world. This is a world in which the mighty and influential are deliberately seeking out any traces of the Christian faith and its morality and then deliberately disrupting or destroying them. If this is broadly true across society, it’s especially true in Hollywood. In this way it’s hard for me to imagine that what Tolkien considered a virtue will still be considered a virtue and that what he considered a vice will still be considered a vice. In fact, I rather suspect the opposite—that the creators will replace his morality with their own. And, to me, that would be the undoing of the whole thing—it would be treasonous. Near-blasphemous.
After two episodes, I think the jury is still out. I expect there are lots of Tolkien purists and conservative commentators expressing disgust at just about every character and every interaction, but I think it’s fair to say we still haven’t received definitive proof about the show’s morality. Hints, certainly, not not proof. That said, I expect the next couple of episodes will bring greater clarity.
Before I go further, let me offer a few bullet-point observations (that probably contain a few minor spoilers).

The greater racial diversity of the characters obviously isn’t consistent with Tolkien’s imagination, but could be the kind of adaptation to the modern world that he would sanction. After all, I don’t think it contradicts his vision for his world (even though it was set in the context of Northern European mythology). That said, we have yet to see whether the show’s creators have merely increased diversity or whether they have also imported some form of power dynamics between the races. That will make a big difference. And then, of course, we will have to see whether they import “sexual diversity” or “gender diversity” as well. I find it almost impossible to imagine that they won’t.
There was a kind of “wow factor,” a kind of delight, in the opening scenes of The Fellowship of the Ring that seems lacking in The Rings of Power. But perhaps that’s inevitable since Peter Jackson already gave us a faithful and beautiful portrayal of Middle Earth that this new series can do little more than hope to match. Who could forget their first glimpse at Jackson’s Hobbiton and Jackson’s Frodo and Jackson’s Gandalf all converging at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring? That was a magical moment for which The Rings of Power has no answer.
People have been lauding the show’s visual effects, but I found them lacking in vitality and believability. It seems obvious to me how much of each episode was filmed under artificial lights and in front of green screens. I don’t find the lighting compelling and I find many of the sound effects distracting. But maybe that’s just me.
Here’s something new for authors to aspire to: to have people willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to gain the rights to the mere footnotes and appendices of their work. Well done J.R.R.!
I think the reimagining of Galadriel achieves the opposite effect the writers presumably desired—it makes her a weaker character rather than a stronger one. Why? Because instead of succeeding as a woman (as she does so well in the books and films) she now seems to need to succeed on the terms of a man. In order to be “strong,” she has to be physically strong—stronger and bolder and fiercer even than the men around her. It is my understanding that Tolkien’s vision for female elves may have included them being warriors, but I expect he would still have wanted them to ultimately succeed on female terms rather than male ones. So far it seems like in this show the women will act like men and the men will act like children.
Also, if New Galadriel really is going to be the central character, it’s hard to imagine her having enough charisma to carry the role. I find her character quite uninteresting and her acting quite uninspired—perhaps because she is given so little of substance to work with. But just compare her to the brilliant, haunting, dignified (not to mention feminine) portrayal by Cate Blanchett, and there’s just no comparison at all!

As I wait to learn whether the moral universe will be Tolkien’s or something new, my foremost concern so far is that the show is just not very interesting or engaging. Not yet, anyway. Go back and watch the first hour or two of The Fellowship of the Ring and see how much more it draws you into the story than the first two episodes of The Ring of Power. It’s difficult to not care after seeing the danger sweeping down upon this idyllic little world of the hobbits. It’s masterfully done and substantially superior to the series. I understand that the writers have to introduce lots of characters, settings, and plot lines that will eventually prove epic in scope, but based on the first two episodes, The Rings of Power seems to be trying to do too much too quickly.
I will give it another couple of episodes, but unfortunately to this point, The Rings of Power is just a bunch of characters I don’t care about doing things I don’t care about in places I don’t care about for reasons I don’t care about. To be honest, I am only watching it because I very much want it to succeed—I want it to entertain and delight me. But I am not holding out a lot of hope.

I am finally on my way home from a ten-day speaking trip through the West Coast and Texas. It was a wonderful time but, as always, I will be glad to be home.
Today’s Kindle deals include some excellent picks from Crossway. If I had to pick one, I’d probably go with What’s Your Worldview? by James Anderson.
(Yesterday on the blog: A Book Unlike Any Other)

This article challenges the notion that we should allow ourselves to be guided by opposition or affirmed by the lack of opposition. “Difficulty and conflict, in and of themselves, are not good indicators that our work is finished. We so easily give in to the temptation to think that if we are serving where God wants us to be, then there won’t be any opposition or difficulty. We need to be reminded that such is not necessarily the case.”

“I am convinced that electronic communication, especially social media, makes it even harder to communicate righteously. There are several reasons this is true.” Jeff Johnson explains.

Kraig remembers a particularly memorable sermon. “It was entertaining, gripping, mesmerizing, and attention grabbing. He had lots of conjecture, guesswork, and speculation. Those last three words, while accurate to this sermon, are not the marks of biblical preaching.”

Brianna Lambert: “We all crouch down at every starting line, clueless as to what lies ahead. The unknowns start with our first cry and extend to every beginning to come: The turn of the tassel, a job acceptance, the walk down the aisle, two pink lines, or an empty home. What will come of our own piece of land called life? Like Abraham, we hold only a promise.”

“Here’s the thing: atheism is more than a denial of God with our words. It can also be a denial of God with our lives – with our thoughts, deeds, and words. Atheism can also be a denial of God with what we do and what we leave undone. Each time we sin, we actually deny God and his claims over our lives – effectively denying his existence. All of us still have the remnants of the old nature, and we have to admit that those remnants stink with the rot of atheism.”

It is so important to know and believe this about sin: that it wants us isolated.

I’ve examined the evidence and have chosen to believe it’s not wrong, but right. I’ve chosen to believe it’s good and pure and true, infallible and inerrant and sufficient.

Oh, [Christianity] is a great religion to live by, and it is a great religion to die by.
—De Witt Talmage