Sin/Redemption & Snape / Christianity in HP (was: Funerals are for the livin

[annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 128314

> Lupinlore in post 128255 says:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> AyanEva: 
> 
> Ok. I'm really hoping this doesn't come off as an attack on
> Christianity because it's NOT AN ATTACK at all! I just want to make
> that clear. I'm just having some trouble understanding the
> applicability of Christianity to the Harry Potter books, that's all.
> I've read every post on this, but I'm still befuddled. So, please 
> bear with me and keep in mind that it's not my intention to make 
> anyone mad or offend people. These are honest questions that really 
> are related to the Harry Potter series as a whole.

Annemehr:
First of all, Lupinlore began in this thread by invoking C.S. Lewis.
Let me just say that much of what he went on to write is not at all
what I understand Lewis to be saying.  Anyone who has read Lewis'
treatment of a character named "Emeth" in the end of _The Last Battle_
might agree with me.  As this is not a C.S. Lewis group, I'll stop there.

Anyway, what the relevance of Christianity to Rowling's writing will
be is hinted at in this part of an interview she did ("J.K. Rowling
Interview," CBCNewsWorld: Hot Type, July 13, 2000)

************************************
E: You do believe in God.

JK: Yeah. Yeah.

E: In magic and


JK: Magic in the sense in which it happens in my books, no, I don't
believe. I don't believe in that. No. No. This is so frustrating.
Again, there is so much I would like to say, and come back when I've
written book seven. But then maybe you won't need to even say it
'cause you'll have found it out anyway. You'll have read it.

E: But in your own life, I mean, are you a churchgoer?

JK: (Nods) Mmm hmm. Well I go more than to weddings and christenings.
Yes, I do.

E: And in your own life, would the church and that kind of
spirituality help you deal with the loss of your mum?

JK: No, actually it didn't at the time. No. (Shakes her head)

E: So you've come back to it.

JK: Yeah, I would say so. I have some problems with conventional
organized religion. Some problems. (Long pause) But
but, yes, it's a
place I would go to in a time of trouble. It probably is a place I
would go to in a time of trouble. I wouldn't expect it to provide all
the answers, 'cause I would expect to find some of those within me.

E: Right, but the institutional side of it, you know, the rules


JK: I have certain problems with some aspects of that. Yes I do.
****************************************

So, she is a Christian, and certain of her beliefs relate to how the
story goes, so she can't talk about it too much yet for fear of
spoilers.  There are one or two even better quotes for this somewhere,
but that one took long enough to find!

What I personally figure happened, was that after Jo had the idea of
Harry, and began thinking of what his story was, at some point she
decided his parents were murdered.  Enter "Evil."  Since the evil is
very evil, the good needed to fight it will be very good.  Naturally,
the Good in her books will at least be compatible with her own core
beliefs, therefore the denoument will be compatible with her Christian
beliefs. Further, it seems if she talked about her most deeeply held
beliefs too much, it would be too much of a hint about how the story ends.

People naturally seem to jump to the conclusion that Harry sacrifices
himself to save the WW, but I don't think that's a safe bet. 

AyanEva:
> I'll admit that I'm not a Christian because Christianity confuses the
> crap out of me, but the sin/repentence thing hardly seems fair or 
> very logical.

Annemehr:
Well, if you're interested, I'd recommend _Mere Christianity_ by C.S.
Lewis for an explanation of basic Christian beliefs in a shortish book
and in plain English.  Some Christians would argue with some of the
details (naturally), but it's still a good overview.  Lewis himself
was Church of England.

<big snip>

AyanEva: 
> When do you stop obeying the law? According the Caeser verse, never;
> so Percy, Marietta, and anyone else following laws established by
> society can never be wrong. But Harry breaks the rules/laws plenty of
> times, so if the Caesar rule, an important part of Christianity (at
> least in my church when I was growing up) can't be applied to the
> books. How many other Christian ideas can be applied? I would assume
> this eliminates Christianity as the main influence (I imagine it could 
> still be an influence, but not the main one), but I'm not sure because 
> the government classified my childhood church a cult and I don't know 
> what lessons were emphasized in "normal" churches.

Annemehr:
Christian belief is that the law of God supercedes the laws of men,
whenever they are in conflict. Christians would agree that "I was just
following orders" is no excuse for doing wrong (see Nuremberg).  So
Harry can break rules and still be in a Christian-influenced book
(sometimes he breaks them rightly, and sometimes he's just being a
normal, imperfect boy).

Incidentally, authorities, be it parents or church leaders or
governments, hate to have to own up to the fact that it is sometimes
necessary to break the rules. Partly, of course, it's because they
don't want you questioning them. Another part of it, though, is that
if such an admission leads to everyone questioning the rules, and
deciding on their own when to break them, eventually a slippery slope
may lead to anarchy.  And anarchy just ends up in "might makes right."


AyanEva:
<another big snip>
> However, my 
> other half says, "yeah, but what about [Snape's] seeming jealousy
for Harry's 
> fame! He might be trying to one-up Harry and that's not an honest 
> intention!" 
> 
> I don't know what to say about that, except for he seems more miffed
> that Harry's initially gotten so much attention for doing a whole lot
> of nothing, rather than being miffed for the sole fact that Harry has
> attention. I'd be mad too if some kid was famous for still being alive 
> while I was hated despite doing a bunch of dangerous work. So, it's 
> jealousy; but not jealousy over Harry being famous. It's jealousy that 
> Harry was initially famous without having done anything. If Snape's 
> teaching methods are any example, he definitely feels that what you 
> receive must be earned, not given. I imagine that Harry's automatic 
> fame, even it if wasn't Harry's fault, was a great affront to Snape's 
> sensibilities. And let's not talk about James Potter.

Annemehr:
Actually, I think it's all about James Potter.  I don't think Snape is
jealous of Harry's fame per se, but that he assumes it will make him
arrogant like James, and he's determined to squash that out of him. 
Turns out, Harry is not arrogant like James, and all Snape managed to
do was squash out of Harry and chance of him trusting Snape -- which
had very bad consequences in OoP. 

AyanEva:
> My point is this, I think Snape's intentions are explainable and pure
> enough for me because I can't make any sense of the Christian idea of
> sin and redemption. He's doing the right thing now and as long as he
> keeps doing the right thing, I can't see why it would matter so much
> WHY he's doing what he's doing, so long as he's doing it. Yes, actions 
> with intent are preferable and that's how I dictate what I do. However, 
> during a nasty and justifiable war for survival, I think
> "actions without or without intent" is somewhat relative.

Annemehr:
Yes, in a sense, the reason why Snape is working against LV is
somewhat relative.  In another sense, though, it might matter why. 
Suppose Snape is working against LV because he thinks he can supplant
him?  Then DD trusting him with so much of his strategy could come
back to bite the "good guys."

I'm actually betting DD knows why Snape is against LV, whether his
reasons are "pure" or not.  As we have seen by the Occlumency failure,
DD can still make mistakes regarding how Snape might act in any
particular situation.  I agree with you that DD might rightly work
with Snape while knowing Snape's reasons are not perfectly pure. 
Heck, whose motivations ever are?

With regard to Christian ideas of sin and redemption (which might
inform JKR's ideas on the same), I think to most (or at least, many)
Christians what matters is that you do what's morally right as best as
you understand it.  Of course, it is also important that one make a
good-faith effort to find out what is morally right.  There is the
further consideration that doing wrong is harmful in itself.  If you
do something wrong without knowing it, you are (in my and many
Christians' view) *not guilty,* however, you have still done harm to
yourself and/or others, which is what makes it all the more important
to *try* not to do wrong.

Therefore, we Christians can have sympathy for Percy because he grew
up believing in following rules and obeying authority. He was, as far
as I can tell, sincere and thoughtful about it. He was fine when his
authorities were his parents and DD, and no conflict arose until he
was offered the position as Fudge's assistant, and his father's
(reported) reaction seemed more insulting than a concerned warning
that he was making a mistake.

Then in OoP, Percy is in a very painful position as his new authority
is in direct conflict with his old ones.  I think the point at which
we can begin to say that he is "sinning" is that he ought to know that
his knew beliefs about DD and Harry are in direct conflict with what
he knows of them personally.  He does have a little "wiggle room,"
though in that it is just possible to believe DD is mistaken. What
really keeps him with the Ministry, I think, is that breaking with
Fudge would involve a huge and very painful destruction of his core
beliefs -- in other words, it may not be right, but it is easy(er).

At this point (post-OoP), of course, he knows Fudge was wrong, and
perhaps can see more clearly that he ought not to have followed him so
blindly when he ought to have been able to see better from his own
knowledge of DD and Harry.  This will be his turning point, and an
unmistakable moment of decision.

<huge snip>
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> Tonks:
> > I think that religion is very quitely in the background. They 
> > observe Christmas and Easter. Pagan wizards would not do
that.<snip> JKR is smuggling God folks!! 
> > She is teaching the children basic Christian truths, and most
> > don't even know it.
> 
> 
> AyanEva:
> 
> I know I just stated my confusion in another thread, but Christmas 
> and Easter ARE pagan holidays. And it's very much in line with what 
> pagans would practice (I used to practice Wicca, but I've mostly 
> lapsed). And this is part of the reason that I'm so confused about 
> the Christian-religion-in-the-books thing; I just don't see it.
<snip>

Annemehr:
Well, some Christian truths (as well as holidays) are shared among
other religions.  I think what JKR is writing is at least fairly
universally *understandable.*  We already see that the fandom
disagrees about which incidents in the books are right and wrong (e.g.
whether Hermione was right to lure Umbridge into the Forest).  Again,
I think JKR is very wisely and kindly keeping particular religious
*practices* out of the books.  She had Harry christened, which to me
only says that either his parents were Christian, or they came from a
Christian background and christened Harry as a matter of culture. 
That doesn't narrow down James and Lily's beliefs very much at all,
does it?

In other words, it's apparently a fact that some of Jo's basic
beliefs, which happen to be Christian in nature, inform what she means
to be "Good" in the books.  I don't think that's going to end up being
an obstacle to non-Christian readers.  We are all, of course, free to
read them as we please, for whatever we can get out of them.

Er, does that help at all?

Annemehr
who took so long writing this post that all this has probably been
said in five other replies...