Foregiveness and Redemption: Lewis, Christianity, JKR, and the Potterverse

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 128255

We have had a lot of discussion recently (and always) about Snape's 
guilt and need for redemption, or his lack of guilt as the case may 
be.  We have had similar discussions about Percy Weasley  I would 
like to join this with the speculation that Rowling might be writing 
from some kind of Christian perspective.  I don't know that she is, 
but let's assume it for the sake of this discussion.  Truth to tell, 
I rather suspect the HP series IS closer to Christian allegory than 
to Joseph Campbell, but time will reveal the answer.

If she is writing from some Christian perspect a la C.S. Lewis, this 
brings up interesting points about redemption.  From that 
perspective, redemption comes from foregiveness.  Now, and this is 
very important, foregiveness is NOT something that is earned through 
any kind of behavior or action.  It is something that is freely 
given, no strings attached, when a person repents (which, in this 
perspective, means to express genuine sorrow and remorse and genuine 
intention to turn away from sin).

The status of good behavior, and particularly of specific acts, 
under this perspective is rather problematic.  Good actions, IN AND 
OF THEMSELVES, are not very important.  One does not earn redemption 
in return for actions.  Thus, Snape's saving Harry, IN AND OF 
ITSELF, is not really important in this view.  

Good actions may, of course, be a SIGN of repentence.  That is, when 
one turns from sin one will, naturally, act in a different way.  
However, the actions THEMSELVES are not the bringers of redemption, 
and may be misleading.  One can perform good acts for many reasons.  
It may be because of genuine repentence.  It may be because of a 
misguided belief that one can "earn their way into Heaven."  It may 
be as a sign of pride, to prove that one is morally superior to 
another person.  It may be as a form of self-preservation.  The acts 
themselves are irrelevant, as far as the moral status of the person 
is concerned.  What is relevant is the source from which the actions 
spring.

That means that Snape, under this view, can't be evaluated until we 
have more information.  If his actions spring from genuine sorrow 
and a desire to do good, he is redeemed.  If they spring from 
another reason, EVEN A DESIRE TO EARN REDEMPTION, then he is not a 
redeemed character.  This may not seem fair, but it is the way 
things run under this kind of belief system.  Snape's actions in 
saving Harry and spying on Voldemort (if that is what he is doing) 
are not important in and of themselves.  What is important is the 
source of those actions.

At this point, we just don't have enough evidence.  Snape may well 
prove to have been genuinely redeemed.  On the other hand, his 
actions may prove to have been misleading with regard to his moral 
status, as is often the case in real life according to this kind of 
Christian view.  C.S. Lewis illustrates this himself in his 
book "The Great Divorce," where he shows a murderer who was 
nevertheless truly repentent in Heaven, and a pillar of the 
community motivated by desire to prove his moral worth in Hell.  In 
other words, we may yet see Severus redeemed, but it is also 
perfectly possible that Severus will turn out to be one of the 
damned, his good actions notwithstanding.

This brings up a point people often argue about.  What if a person 
is not penitent because they genuinely feel they are not wrong?  
This applies perhaps more to Percy than to Snape.  Shouldn't Percy 
(or Seamus or Cho or even Umbridge) get a break if they honestly 
believe themselves to be in the right?

The answer, in this perspective, is a flat NO.  There are two 
realizations that lead to the beginning of wisdom.  1.  There is a 
God.  2.  You ain't Him.  Your own understanding is not important.  
What is important is whether you are acting in accordance with God's 
edicts.  The Court of God has no appeal, no rules of equity, and no 
patience for arguments about technicalities or interpretations.  You 
are in accord with God's edicts or not, and if you aren't your only 
recourse is genuine repentence.  If you aren't able to do that -- 
well, the results won't be pretty.  Once again, C.S. Lewis 
illustrates this in "The Great Divorce" when he makes a "plea in 
equity" to an angel, who replies "I am sorry.  However we will not 
allow middens to be built in our gardens because there are those who 
cannot abide the smell of roses."

So, under this way of thinking, is the fact that Percy/Seamus/even 
Umbridge acting out of genuine belief important?  No, it is not.

So, how will all this end up, if JKR is indeed operating under this 
kind of rubric?  I'm afraid it may end up at a place that a lot of 
people will think of as rather unfair.  Snape MAY (but not 
definitely WILL) end up being seen as damned despite his good 
actions, and despite even sacrificing his life to defeat Voldemort, 
come to that.  Others who acted out of the best of intentions and 
with genuine belief may end up being condemned as evil.  That is not 
to say that Percy/Seamus/even Umbridge WILL end up this way, but it 
is perfectly possible under this belief system.

Just a little intellectual exercise.  Comments, additions, 
arguments, etc. would be welcome.


Lupinlore