One for Sorrow

I identify as Christian (albeit in the squishy, non-hell-believing, the-Bible-was-wrriten-by-corruptible-men, United Church of Christ sense), but I usually find it really unsatisfying and and generally discomfiting when literature takes the Christ-metaphor literally--i.e., when knowingly, willingly sacrificing yourself for others becomes such a powerful force that it actually undoes reality and the laws of space and time and the universe, whatever that is. The old magic kicks in and death itself reverses, et cetera. It's not a plausibility thing, it's a using a meaningless premise for a moral argument so it becomes specious thing Because that really only works if you are Jesus or Aslan or Harry Potter (or even Lily, to a lesser extent)--when you translate that moral or philosophy into real life, you generally DON'T have the security of omniscience and a guarantee that your sacrifice will actually accomplish something, and the very nature of sacrifice is that you DON'T get to have your cake and eat it too.

(Bad fan admission: I've, er, still not actually read LOTR--it's one of those things that I understand why people love, and I'm duly impressed by the scope and scale, and I respect its impact, but when we actually meet face-to-face we just don't click. That said, even via movie-only exposure and fan commentary, I agree with what you said above about Frodo not having the reassurance of his own success, and for me, it also works because it still seems to indicate consequences for having made the sacrifice even when it does succeed.)