Religion, rings and the ties that bind…

“…and in the darkness, bind them…”

So ends the haunting poem that wraps itself around the ring of power in the Lord of the Rings series, the one ring upon which all the fates of the members of the Fellowship, and the fate of all Middle Earth, is so bound. It is not just dramatically poetic that Tolkien chose the word “bind” when describing this ring. This totem, the ring, is one indicative of the act of binding in mythology, anthropology and theology.

Biblical Binding

We bind our sacrifices, as presented in the famous “binding of Isaac” episode of Genesis 22. Jesus gave the power of “binding and loosing” to his Apostles in Matthew 18:18, granting them religious authority. We bind ourselves to those whom we owe allegiance to, whether it be the clasping position of hands that became the model of prayer or the hand-fasting of spouses.

It is no surprise that this “binding” started to have spiritual associations, coming to be the basis for the Latin word “religio,” which then became the English word “religion.” A religion is a thing that binds in many ways. As humans, the question is not if we will be bound but to what or whom we will be. This is not merely a practical necessity- Aristotle recognized that “man is a political animal.” This necessity only developed because there was a binding desire placed in our contingent nature, a nature that ultimately seeks binding with something, or Someone, beyond itself.

You can listen to the conversation on this topic here on The Voyage Podcast...

Just like it is no surprise that the most common human example of this binding is in the marital relationship, it is similarly unsurprising that the most common symbol for this binding is the ring.

Before this binding was formalized and became the word “religion” as we know it, one can find it present in some of our oldest, most popular stories that seek to communicate this same reality of human nature. Stories with magic rings always carry the sage advice Gandalf gives to Bilbo soon after he finds his, which is that “none of them should be used lightly.” It is always a matter of how they will bind the wearer, sometimes in unexpected ways.

Ancient and Modern Mythological Rings

A significant example of this unexpected binding that I remember surprising me is found in one of the seminal works of philosophy, Plato’s Republic Book II, whereupon Socrates is confronted with the tale of this ring that makes its wearer, Gyges, invisible. Gyges then embarks on a quest of debauchery, lechery and murder.

The philosophical component deals with the social contract that this character is unbound from, but Socrates recognizes that a new binding has occurred, which was the binding of Gyges to his passions, a greater slavery than the one he experienced before. There is no avoiding the binding and the symbol of the ring communicates that reality well. 

A contemporary example of a similar, malicious binding can be found near the end of the Harry Potter series when Dumbledore, Harry, and his friends discover the means by which the evil Voldemort has achieved his presumed immortality. This occurs through a “dark magic” that necessarily involves murder as a type of ritual sacrifice and the dividing and binding of one’s soul into a chosen item called a horcrux.

One of these horcruxes happens to be (but anyone who knows how J.K. Rowling constructs stories knows it is quite deliberate) a ring. Part of Voldemort’s soul is now bound to this ring, which has special protections over it that prove to be fatal for one of the characters seeking to destroy it. We also learn that because of the means by which the soul was divided and bound to this object, the soul exists but in a deformed state that suffers because it is less of itself than it was meant to be, what Aristotle and Aquinas would call a pusillanimity or smallness of soul. 

In both the ancient and modern examples, when one is bound to the spiritual death of vice or sin, there is a denigration of the person that happens as illustrated in these stories. The criticism in both is not that the subjects are bound. Again, there is no question of if, but to what or whom. It is not a question of power either as both of them certainly gain a certain power in their binding as well. One cannot deny that binding will often provide certain benefits or powers, but at what cost?

To what are you being bound?

Ultimately, to bind oneself to death will only bring death, even if it promises life. A covenant with anything contingent can only be contingent on something else and eventually unsatisfying. If there is a source of binding that is provided by the Source of life itself, then to be bound to these would similarly provide life that is grounded in this Source. I mentioned how Jesus gave the Apostles the power of “binding and loosing” and it is no coincidence that Bishops, the successors to the Apostles, wear rings in part to show their ecclesiastical authority.

While ancient myths, J.R.R. Tolkien and J.K. Rowling may have seen rings as something to bind characters in the darkness, binding itself, religion, and the rings they provide can also be a great Source of “the true light that gives light” to everyone.

The binding of the sacrifice was not only practical, but the sacrifice itself was meant to bind the people with God as evidenced by the union of the covenant renewal in Exodus 24, the Passover and the Holy Comm-union participated in at Mass. Finally, there is the binding of spouses, symbolized in the wearing of rings, which also happens to be (but anyone who knows how God constructs stories knows it is quite deliberate) the relationship Jesus uses to symbolize his relationship to the Church.