Sin/Redemption & Snape / Christianity in HP

[AyanEva]

No: HPFGUIDX 128391

This is really, really, long. I'm really sorry if I've missed any
responses or said I snipped a post in a spot where I didn't (some of
the snipping was done from memory). It's taken me hours (literally) to
gather all of the posts and type up responses. Hopefully I haven't
been too confusing. I tried put this in a logical order of some sort
so that the discussion would be easier to follow, so responses might
not neccessarily be in the order that the posts were posted. I don't
know if I was all that successful, but anyway.

If I've messed up my formatting any, please forgive me list elves, I
tried, but by this point my eyes are crossing! *rubs hands together*
Let's get this show on the road!


> lealess said:
 <snip>

> I do have trouble seeing the whole redemption angle, with reference to
> Snape.  It seems to me that redemption has to be granted, in a
> Judeo-Christian tradition, by some sort of god.  It is not something
> you give yourself, no matter how worthy your deeds or how pure your
> intent.  So will it be that Harry forgives Snape's sins, cures his
> guilt, and welcomes him into final reconciliation with the good? Or
> does redemption happen through death, especially through sacrifice,
> leading to full acceptance by good itself?  Redemption seems to be a
> Judeo-Christian deus ex machina.
> 

AyanEva responds:

Would that make Harry a Christ figure? And I really hope redemption
isn't through death, in Snape's case anyway. And I think you hit on
something important 


lealess remarked:
<snip some stuff>

> "The word "redemption" in the Old Testament is the translation of the
> Hebrew word (p�d�h), meaning "to deliver" or "to sever".  It was
> continuously stressed to the Israelites that they belonged to
> Jehovah because He had redeemed them (severed them from bondage) and
> had provided them with the land of Canaan for them to use as a gift
> from God and for His glory. For this reason, all Israel owed their
> lives and their service to God, in effect making the whole nation a
> kingdom of priests, at least in spirit."
> 

AyanEva questioned:

So, using that definition, if you're redeemed, you're delivered from
something. If we talk about redemption of Snape or any other character
in HP, what exactly are they being delivered from? Does Hell exist in
the HP world? We know that the soul exists, otherwise the Dementors
would be useless. Ghosts are people died, but didn't cross over (To
where they're crossing over? Who knows.) I'm going to guess that the
answer to the afterlife really is behind that stupid Veil in the
Department of Mysteries. Where does the soul go? And it must matter,
considering...

Slightly OT, if death is shrouded behind the Veil and it's located in
the Department of Mysteries, does that mean death is a mystery and is
it possible that we might never find out what's behind that stupid
Veil? If we found out, that may mean that we'd know where people went
when they died.


Nora said in post 128309:
<snip>

One might say, as in the legal system, that "ignorance of the law is
no excuse."

<snip>

One common theme seems to be examination of these concepts,
struggling to determine what is right and what is not and thus
exorcise the spirit of pride, which is *the* fundamental sin in
Christianity (at least some formulations of it) because it sets
oneself above God. The DEs who believe that they are right refuse
examination of their ideas, and follow a false idol.


AyanEva answers:

Ok. The "ignorance of the law" phrase makes perfect sense. However,
what exactly is the "law" that's being used in the HP series? Two
nagging questions that I have are: Which *type* of Christianity is
used in the books? For example, mainstream liberal protestant
christianity has some very major differences in the interpretation of
certain Christian ideals to conservative evangelistic christianity.
Catholicism has a number of differences to the Baptist faith. This
leads to the second question: How have the Christian teachings been
personally interpreted? The second question is particularly puzzling
since JKR makes a point of not answering it, and with good reason, in
that Vancouver Sun article. I think that's where I'm getting hung up,
what interpretation of Christianity is being used? The version that
I'm familiar with and used to practice conflicts with other
denominations. When I still practiced, mine left a lot of room for
secularism and allows for instances of a sort of moral relativism.
It's often up to the individual to interpret some of the more
ambiguous teachings and there's little issue with framing biblical
beliefs with regard to secular ideas. I think that brand of
Christianity is probably very nearly Secular Humanism.

So, that's the Christianity that I would apply to the books, which
gives a much different reading than the application of a more strict
version of Christianity. In light of this, when I read it, I see that
determing what's right and what's wrong doesn't equate to pride and is
perfectly acceptable. There are some absolutes in so far as good
versus evil, like you wouldn't maliciously murder someone, but other
things are very much shades of grey. I think my Christianity was very
nearly  Secular Humanism and eventually crossed completely over, with
a fit of paganism in the middle. I've forgotten where I was trying to
go with all of this.


Nora stated:
<I think something was snipped here too>

>From my perspective, that's a very idiosyncratic reading of that
principle--which can be read a number of ways. Remember that the
followup verse is "And unto God what is God's", and God commands
one's moral allegiance: this has been/can be read as a call to
disobey an unjust law to do the righteous thing, which is what at
least some of Harry's rulebreaking falls under. JKR seems to care a
great, great deal about intent.

<snip>

There are many ethical systems which consider intent to be of
fundamental importance in ethics, and JKR seems to be flirting with
some of them. Think about the Cruciatus Curse--righteous anger
doesn't work for it, but one must *want* to hurt the other person.
Intentions directly become results.


AyanEva responds:

I agree with the breaking of unjust laws, I just failed to note it in
my post. But as to the specifics of the moral allegiance question, see
my musings above (no point in typing twice). I also agree that intent
matters a lot to JKR, and this is also where half of my brain is
pounding the crap out of the otherhalf. It's in the definition. Intent
as in the motives behind the actions? Or intent as in the intended end
result? For the word "intent," Websters lists these definitions:

1 a : the act or fact of intending : PURPOSE; especially : the design
or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act <admitted wounding him
with intent> b : the state of mind with which an act is done : VOLITION
2 : a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : AIM
3 a : MEANING, SIGNIFICANCE b : CONNOTATION 3
synonym see INTENTION

When I think of intent, I'm split between the importance of definition
1a AND definition 1b, depending on the situation. This is completely
subjective, but from reading the information that JKR has given us on
each character, when I think of someone like Snape, who seems to be
working for the good side, I can't help but read the important
definition of "intent" as 1a. The secondary 1b definition is an aside.
What's emphasized is that Dumbledore trusts him, even if he does have
the worst personality in the world. It seems like his actions, which
the books still haven't spoken of in depth, are what's important,
moreso than his belief behind the actions. When speaking of Voldemort,
I get 1b as the most important. His hatred is always emphasized as a
motivation for his actions, completely opposite from Snape whose
actions are implied to be most important rather this his visible
emotion. I don't know if this manner of interpretation is out of line
with Christian thinking or what, but it's similar to what I've always
thought even when I was a Christian. I'm feeling like I might be a bit
unethical now... :-o :-)

Nora again:
<And I'm almost certain that I snipped this spot as well>

I appreciate your perspective, but I think this is a case where
(possibly) your horizon and the horizon of the author are going to
end up radically incommensurate. The Potterverse has shades of grey,
but JKR is not exactly a moral relativist: there are things that are
good, and there are things that are evil. I suspect this will make
itself even more and more manifest, and her own moral systems WILL
show in her treatment of the characters.


AyanEva this time:

I think that there's a good chance that you're right and I hope I
don't end up completely at odds with Book 7. That would be really
unfortunate. :-(  However, I hope that I can just enjoy the books
objectively even if I don't agree with it all. But this is a lot of
fun to study! I wish my university had offered a class on Harry Potter.

Nora here:

They originally coincided with pagan holidays--probably not
accidental. However, as practiced today and in meaning, for a
believer they are, of course, decidedly not pagan holidays. (As a
side note: Wicca is maybe a hundred years old.
Most 'reconstructions' of historical pagan rituals are tenuous at
best.)

<snip>

What we have seen in the books are representations of holidays
celebrated very much in the modern real-world style, chocolate eggs
and all.

AyanEva, yet again:

I was never allowed to celebrate Christmas or Easter as religious
holidays as a kid because my particular church said that they were
straight up pagan holidays. You'd think I'd be able to wrap my mind
around this a little better after all of the religion courses that
I've taken, but I'm clueless (obviously) when it comes down to
mainstream Christian religion. The Wicca was definately a hodge podge
of stuff, but I view things very globally and see little difference in
the intent (first definition!) of religion in general; so it didn't
make much difference where the different bits of the religion came
from, only that each element was in agreement with the other elements.
It was the spirit of it. Hmmm, maybe that's why I can't seem to think
in terms of only one religion when I'm analyzing HP; I think my mind
just refuses to work that way. At least now this paragraph HP-related. 

Even if we knew the religions of each character, how much could we
really read into the modern celebrations of things such as Easter and
Christmas? Could we determine, from their religions, how much their
actions or the actions of others were influenced by a specific
religious belief? As such, could we determine the specific nature of
morality that's being applied? An answer to that could be that JKR is
the author, she's Christian, and she has final say on how things
should be interpreted. But then we're right back to the question of
"What type of Christianity is JKR applying?" I think that,with all of
this rambling, I'm just trying to say that the combination of
denomination and personal interpretation can make A LOT of difference. 

Just as a personal example, I gave/recieved Christmas presents and I
give out Easter candy, yet it had no religious meaning for me when I
was a Christian and still has no religious meaning for me now. It was
just something that you did out of habit. 


Geoff remarked:

What you are doing is to confuse the fact that when they came into
being, they coincided with pagan festivals for the simlple reason that,
especially in the Roman Empire, the only time that Christian believers
such as slaves could get time to hold special festivals together was at
the time of the main feast days hence they came to be traditionally
held at the times they are.


AyanEva insisted: 

Not to argue the point, because this isn't the main point of this
post, but I'll have to insist that, while the above statements are
correct, they're not the entire truth; there's a good deal more to it.
I'm not trying to offend anyone, I promise (although I seem to be
failing miserably). I'm just saying...I'm sure there's a flame war or
something about to break out in the Christianity in HP thread, but I
think Moonmyst said what I was trying to get at. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/128349
Moonmyst's post in addition to mine, I think, sums it up pretty well.
This fits in with my greater concern of the type and interpretation of
Christianity in Harry Potter. Is it a strict interpretation of all
aspects of the Christian faith, a strict interpretation of some
aspects and liberal interpretation of others, or is it an
interpretation that's more along the lines of what you would see with
secular humanism or even Unitarian Universalism?  That matters when
considering the importance of things such as "religious" holidays
(placed in quotes to indicate that their presence might not have much
of anything to do with religion). I already noted some important
differences (I think they're further up, but I've lost track by this
point).


Tonks also said:
<snip>

The HP books are so obviously books written with a Christian theme
that anyone who is versed in the theology of Christianity would have
to be blind not to see it. 


AyanEva answered:

Really, it's not as obvious as one might think. I'm fairly well versed
in the technicalities of Christian theology, but without faith, of
which I have none, it really does make it harder to understand on the
personal level that would be required in order to glean Christian
teachings from the books. There are a lot of similarities between
Christian ideals and the ideals of other faiths, so if you're not
going in reading things with a Christian perspective, it's hard to see
it as being strictly Christian: you recognize a little of all sorts of
different things in there. Like I noted in my initial post about the
books following a Christian theology, I'm reminded more of BCE
Classical pagan epics and epics from Mesopotamia. My first thought
when reading HP isn't, "Oh this is definitely Christian." If JKR's
proselytizing, it's not working very well. I know that JKR is well
aquainted with a lot of elements from different cultures, so my broad
understanding of the underlying themes of the books can't be said to
be wrong. It might not be right, but it can't be ruled out.


Tonks then added:
<snip>

That is the genius of JKR. One could say that the gospel
is being preached to all the world through these books. Some would
disagree with me on that, but that is indeed what I think is being
done.


AyanEva quipped:

I really hope not; I'll have to stop reading HP since I don't like
being preached to! Just joking; mostly. I think there are certain key
principles that JKR is trying to get across, but they're not exclusive
only to Christianity. As for why I don't think they're exclusive, see
my previous response above. 


Nora again:
<snip>

Some would like to put JKR as an Inkling, together with C. S. Lewis
and J. R. R. Tolkien, both authors where the Christian influence is
really obvious. Since I'm a believer in her comments panning out,
that one up at the top is very, very suggestive.


AyanEva wondered:

Lewis, I knew about, but I was clueless about Tolkien. Although, now
that you mention it, I can see it. I think you're right about JKR's
comments panning out, but just how they pan out and what
interpretation is used is still a total mystery to me.


Lupinlore added:
<I think there was a snip here>

To answer some of the questions, let me also acknowledge there really
is no generic Christianity. The religion has thousands of variants,
some of which violently disagree with one another. Let me answer from
the perspective of my own branch, Eastern Orthodoxy (which has some
strong similarities with High Church Anglicanism, as both are very
influenced by Patristic sources).


AyanEva agreed (and then disagreed):

This is a great, short version of most of what I was trying to say.
But I came to a different conclusion than your following statement.


Lupinlore explained:
<snip a whole bunch of a really good post>
 
So, to bring this back to Snape and others, once again all this means
is that in the end what Snape does may not turn out to be nearly as
important as who Snape is - or even more importantly, who Snape has
chosen to be. Is he one of the good guys? If his actions spring from
the right source, yes. If they don't, no. If he saved Harry because
he believed it was in accord with the Good, he is one of the good
guys. If he saved Harry because he owed it to James Potter, he is
not. If he fights Voldemort because it is right to do, he is one of
the good guys. If he fights Voldemort to prove he is a better man
than James Potter, he is not one of the good guys.

Harsh, but possible.


AyanEva said:

It certainly is entirely possible that things will pan out this way,
but, as you noted, that's still only the interpretation from one view
of Christianity. There's also very clear cases in Christianity where
what you did mattered more than what you felt. What was it called in
the Roman Catholic (or maybe Anglican) church where'd you pay money to
absolve you of your sins? It was the worst about the time of Martin
Luther maybe? It's a really simple name and I just can't quite think
of it. Keep in mind, that I'm not saying that agree with the whole buy
your way out of sin thing; I personally prefer that you have both
definitions of "intent" in equal measure when doing something and you
shouldn't be able to buy your way out of anything. But I'm willing to
let that specification slide in certain circumstances where you're
fighting an even greater evil. It's the relativity issue again and one
that hasn't truly been proven to be absent from the HP universe. Sure
I haven't proven that Harry Potter IS relative, but it's not been
disproven either. (see the socks and hats argument in my initial post
128302) 

So, here's my effort to sum this up - When not speaking in a global
sense of good versus evil, I don't think strictly modern, sacred
Christian underpinnings, as defined by a specific interpretation of
Christianity, which excludes a more secular relativism, are a
definite. I also don't think that cultural and religious elements from
other religions, geographical regions, and time periods can be ruled
out. I'm sure there's a Christian influence, but when I read HP, what
I recognize immediately are elements that are much older than
Christianity or in conflict with other types of Christianity. Thereby
making no element definitively identifiable as belonging to one
religion/culture or another. And we're not talking about the practical
facts of location (scotland/britai), race, etc. Keeping in line with
the whole discussion, I'm referring to morality and it's definition,
and in turn, redemption, the importance of actions, and the
interaction between "good" and "bad."
The general idea of good versus evil is obvious, but again, that sense
of right versus wrong isn't exclusive to Christianity and has varied
definitions and degrees depending on what perspective you view it
from. Just knowing that JKR is Christian doesn't really tell me a
whole lot. 



AyanEva (Who can no longer bend her wrist and hopes that she won't be
on anyone's "bad" list after all of this)