Baptism/Christianity in HP

[Tonks]

No: HPFGUIDX 153701

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:

> Speaking as a Christian I think that we need to be careful about 
how we expect people of different denominations to interpret 
something such as baptism. 
> The suggestion has been made that baptising a child with holy 
water seems to leave some sort of "imprint" (for want of a better 
word).
> In the UK, the only denominations who are likely to use holy water 
in the first place are Catholics and high Anglican churches. (Snip)
> Baptism merely marks the bringing of a child into the church to 
ask for God's blessing on that child; that he or she will be guided 
by those around them and that they might gain real faith as they 
grow. It does not make a person a Christian.
> 

Tonks:
It is true that the child, once of age, has to publically affirm 
their faith, which is what confirmation is about. However baptism in 
the Anglican church, which I suspect that JKR may be have in her 
mind as a model, is more than a dedication of the child.

The rubrics (instruction) for Baptism as found in the Episcopal Book 
of Common Prayer (1976) used in the Episcopal (Anglican) (both high 
and low) church in the U.S. says:

"Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into 
Christ's body the Church. The bond which God establishes in Baptism 
is indissoluble."

As others here have pointed out a Godparent must be a baptized 
person themselves.

At the baptism of a baby or young child, the parents and Godparent/s 
take a *vow* which includes denouncing evil and agreeing to help the 
child grow in the faith.

The baptism itself is called a covenant.
 
When the priest prepares the chrism (oil) he/she says: "Eternal 
Father, whose blessed Son was anointed by the Holy Spirit to be the 
Savior and servant of all, we pray you to consecrate this oil, that 
those who are sealed with it may share in the royal priesthood of 
Jesus Christ
"

After the water and chrism have been applied (in some cases the 
child can be total immersed in the water if the parents wish), the 
priest says "(name) you are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Baptism and 
*marked* as Christ own forever."

I think that Lily and James wanted Harry baptized not only because 
they would have done it anyway, but because they wanted Harry to be 
protected.  Baptism does not protect the body, it protects the 
soul.  Remember when DD tells Harry, I think somewhere in HBP, that 
he is special because he has never even been tempted to the dark 
side? Even with his connection to LV, Harry has never been tempted 
to the dark side. In canon, of course, there is no evidence, yet at 
least, that his baptism helped him, but it could have.  I think that 
Lily's sacrifice saved Harry's life, but IMO, it may have been his 
baptism that has protected his soul. But we don't know yet.  
-----------------------  
Now back to the issue of Christian Symbolism in the books:

IMO JKR is telling the Gospel story without any obvious references 
to Christianity in the story except to have them celebrate Christmas 
(which they do in a secular way) and Harry's "christening" (which 
she is careful not to call a Baptism). People here have pointed out 
the absence of any reference to Christianity in the books even in 
places you would expect them to be, such as a funeral. I say that 
sometimes the absence of something entirely, especially in places 
you would expect it to be, says sometime too. Especially if such 
absence is conspicuous.

What I think JKR is doing and I applaud her for it, it needed to be 
done, is to take the basic teachings of Jesus and put them into a 
story where we see it acted out. It is not preached to us like some 
wacko TV minister, it is not yelled at us from a street corner and 
it is not filtered through the biases of different denominations. 
She has taken out all of the roadblocks that cause many people to be 
turned off by the message. It is presented in its purest form for 
all to hear. I think that is a good thing.  

I don't think that you can say that this symbol=x in the story in a 
straight line sort of way. She doesn't write that way. And I don't 
think that she means for the average man/woman/child in the street 
to catch her at what she is doing. She is `crafty' that way. 
She is, as someone here said, `not talking to the choir'. She is 
talking primary to children and teaching them (as the teacher she 
continues to be) basic moral lessons. What some of us are saying is 
that her lesson plan was taken from the Gospels. And before you say 
it, I will
  Yes, it is true that Christianity does not have a 
monopoly on morality. I am not saying that it does. If she were 
Buddhist she would probably be taking her ideas from the moral 
philosophy of Buddhism.  

As I said I don't think that she wants the average reader to see 
what she is doing. She only wants them to get the message. But she, 
for the sake of the choir, has inserted a few clues that there is 
something more here than just a nice story with some moral value. I 
guess you could compare her writing to the book of Revelation in the 
fact that Revelation was written in code. And the code was buried in 
the story so that anyone else reading it would not see it. (and as 
to Revelations that IMO also applies to us today, only the early 
Chrsitians knew what that coding meant, we IMO, do not.)

Tonks_op