Letter to Bristol: anthropophany

Reading again in the book I intend to have sent to you, I have recognized the deep contrast between JRRT and CSL, and for example RS. I could describe it in different ways, but I think that this new coinage I have tried to conceive it will be easily understandable: deus ex biblia. After CSL had gone through a theism to an acceptance of Jesus Christ (I don’t know whether there is a distinction for him between “Jesus”, and “Christ”, and which one he preferred to use, or both) JRRT wrote to him about this in a letter”Our Lord”. In other words, basically they accepted the Bibles, the churches, in one way or the other theologies God and as providence (as in provide) of salvation. So that the primary demands of man, of their anthropology, are ultimately external. And their writings, their fiction, are an external presentation of a degree of growth and development of man, which JRRT described as a sub-creator. But their – new words by me again – cacologies, cacophanies (for example, in the movie version the great eye of Sauron in LOTR) call for and present strivings of man, but externalized man. The prime elements of salvation are external, via the Bible via the church via “our Lord”. Whereas for RS, and certainly the “anthropology” I tried to present in my Chrysopylae Lectures, going back to my hero Zarathustra, are of an internal anthropology of self independent, or self dependent man.
In other words, for JRRT and CSL, the prime elements and solution of ultimate meaning and being are external, in God, via the Bible of the church or… Whereas for example, with JvG, RS, SLL, et al the demand is of self developing growth toward the transcendence. Anthropophany.
So that the fiction writers lived their lives inside of an externalized anthropology of salvation, and presented strivings, either toward human development, or some sort of allegory of Christ, a savior, i.e. in Lewis Aslan, Steiner represented, rather presented, a demand for the independent development of anthropos