Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter

[leslie41]

No: HPFGUIDX 153645

 
> Magpie:
> I'm not denying that Lily's sacrifice can be called Christ-like, 
> just as many acts in the books (and many books) can be called so. 
> But I thought this thread started because we're talking about a 
> book about magic where Lily's sacrifice, which in the books is 
> given its own context, created a magic spell of Easter Lily + holy 
> water + AK that happened to land in the exact spot where the holy 
> water was = Harry's being saved when the book's already 
> given us its own story.  Yes, the sacrifice created a deep magic 
> and that goes along well with Christianity.  Lily was given a 
> choice to die, just as Jesus was given a choice to die.  There's 
> nothing wrong with thinking of one with regards to the other.  But 
> there's still the fact that Christianity itself exists in Harry's 
> world and if the ending of the book is that Christ is the one 
> magic Harry hasn't been calling on and should I think that would 
> be very much out of left field.

Leslie41:
So do I.  I don't think Christ will ever be mentioned explicitly at 
all.  That doesn't mean that the book doesn't contain Christian 
themes and elements that add another dimension to the book.  

Tolkien's work never mentions Christ, or baptisms, or anything of 
the sort, yet he said once that Christ's face was on every page.    

> Magpie:
> If you were just talking about relating the story to Christianity 
> or that Lily's sacrifice echoes Christ's sacrifice in X way that 
> would be fine, but it seems like you're adding a very specific 
> magic into the story as part of the plot.

Leslie41:
Well, I don't think I'm adding a "specific magic" into the plot, 
necessarily. But as I said, when you add all the elements up, I 
think a pattern appears.  
 
> >> Magpie:
> >> Yes, and that brings meaning to someone who's Christian and
> >> therefore connects any good act with being Christ-like, but I
> >> don't see how it brings meaning to what happened in the story.
> >> Lily's sacrifice, in that way, would be Christlike whether Harry
> >> had been baptised or not.

Leslie41:
It brings meaning to the story in that it adds, as I said, another 
dimension to it, if one chooses to see it.  Again, one can read The 
Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and not see Aslan as Christ.  I 
don't think the movie interpretation, for example, really wanted to 
focus on that at all.  But it's there.  

> > Leslie41:
> > Sure it would!  But when we take together the other stuff that's
> > going on--the scar, her name, James' name, etc., a pattern 
> > begins to appear.
> 
> Magpie:
> And I'm saying the pattern you're referring to begins to appear 
> when you go in looking for that pattern.  Happens all over the 
> place in fandom.  James is a totally common name.  It's a nice 
> English name, just like Harry is. And a lot of the girls in canon 
> are named after flowers.  Trying to relate everything to a code to 
> the point of taking an ordinary name like James and deciding it 
> must be an allusion to an apostle who preached about good works 
> which doesn't make me think of James Potter at all) just because 
> he's in the Bible is, imo, not a reading supported by the text but 
> more like the many other fandom readings where the text is called 
> in to support the reading the author wants.  To me it goes 
> straight into the territory of Knight2King where a theory gets 
> supported by just assuming it's true and then looking for anything 
> in the text that can be said to be part of the theory.  If I saw 
> something beyond James sharing his common name with somebody in 
> the Bible I'd certainly consider it--Rowling has been known to 
> choose names with mythological significance and I don't think the 
> Bible is off-limits, but I can also see that names have modern 
> associations too and that Rowling uses them.  I'm sure she 
> chose "Lily" knowing all its associations, but Lily is also just 
> Petunia's sister, the spunky girl flirting with James Potter as he 
> pantses Snape.

Leslie41:
What shocks me is the vehemence with which readers are unwilling to 
see Christian elements or themes in the books, and the lengths to 
which they will go to disprove them.

You spend a lot of time saying that James is just any other name, 
that Lily is just a flower name.  That Rowling might have known some 
significance for them but they don't really have any biblical 
importance, etc.  

Firstly, it's patently obvious that names have meaning in the 
books.  But she's very careful with the names she uses.  Sirius, the 
dog star.  Lupin, which means wolfish. Aberforth means "to wander 
off".  Even "Harry" means "to make a destructive raid." Should I go 
on?

So if you suggest that suddenly the names "James" and "Lily" really 
don't mean much with regard to the Bible, it seems to me that you're 
the one trying to make the text fit your interpretation.

The first association that a Christian (such as Rowling) would make 
when hearing the name "James" would be the apostle.  The first 
association that a Christian would make when hearing the word "Lily" 
is an Easter lily.

I would agree with you if Rowling weren't a professed Christian, but 
she is, most definitely. 

> Magpie:
> There are lots of books that have allusions to the Christian story 
> and as I said I do assume that Harry's saving Voldemort through 
> love will fit right in with the JKR's understanding of her faith.  
> But there's a big step between that and looking for direct symbols 
> and a direct coded re-telling of the Bible.  But maybe I'm just 
> not getting what you're getting at.  What are you predicting?  Are 
> you just laying a claim to the story in the name of 
> Christianity?  Pointing out ways it's informed by JKR's Christian 
> beliefs? 

Leslie41:
I'm not at all implying that the HP books are an allegory.  Not at 
all.  What I'm saying is that the books are informed by Christianity 
and Christian themes.  

> Magpie:
<snip>
> it seems like you're offering it as a sort of key to everything, 
> and that's why people are resisting the idea rather than just 
> saying, "Neat, that illuminates that scene in a new way."

Leslie41:
I'm not offering a key at all.  What I'm saying is exactly the 
equivalent of "neat, that illuminates that scene in a new way".
But what you seem to be objecting to is even that, or at least 
that's what I'm getting.  Seeing James/Lily with an eye towards the 
Bible "illuminates that scene in a new way" for me, but you object 
to that interpretation.

So what I'm getting from your argument is that you are opposed to 
bringing in any biblical elements at all, because you are arguing 
against the very points of that interpretation.