DH as Christian Allegory (was Classical & Biblical Quotations)

[Aberforth's Goat / Mike Gray]

No: HPFGUIDX 173478

Hi all - particularly Betsy!

I've backtracked a little bit to pick up Betsy's post - in the 
knowledge that it's old now. However, she makes a number of very 
interesting observations.

However, before I even start, I'm just curious: Betsy, have you had 
serious reservations about the religious and moral implications of 
the series all the way through or has something changed for you in 
DH? I ask because I can see good reasons why some Christians may have 
been very positive about the books' religious message until now but 
have had a severe allergic reaction since then. 

Anyway, I want to look at only two of your comments - one about Harry 
and one (indirect) on Dumbledore:

> Just on a non-theological basis, Jesus was surrounded by the 
> living, not the dead.  His disciples were there, they 
> protested when he was taken and in fact Peter attempted to 
> fight the soldiers leading Jesus away.  (A move Jesus 
> rebuked, healing the soldier Peter had wounded.)

Some similar observations came up in a discussion in a group I'm 
trying to start (not very successfully!)for discussions of fantasy 
and religion. The question was a comparison of Harry and Aslan's 
walks to their death. 

(Here's the group, if anyone is interested: 
http://groups.google.com/group/fantasy-and-religion)

However, what I noticed reading your post was a different point:

The people Harry had along with him on his walk towards Voldemort are 
people he looked up to - parental figures, comforting figures, even 
authority figures. And - in contrast to the disciples at the 
crucifixion - THEY DID THEIR JOB. That is, they didn't fall asleep, 
chop off ears, deny knowing him, run off naked and generally freak 
out. One of the central elements in the crucifixion stories is that 
the disciples blew it. And during the crucifixion itself, Jesus is 
shown taking care of his helpless mother - not seeking or finding 
consolation from her. The crucifixion narratives underscore Jesus' 
singularity and independence; DH underscores how deeply Harry relied 
on other people.

It's a *very* interesting contrast. It fits into a lot of similar 
aspects of a contrast between Harry and Jesus. Harry is alone - but 
he finds friends; Harry needs help - and he gets it; Harry is young - 
but he matures; Harry is weak - but he becomes strong; Harry is 
fallible - but he becomes wise. The contrast also fits into the kind 
of change Harry brings about: to say that all of wizarding history 
flows to Harry and from Harry (the way Christian history flows to and 
from Christ) would be absurd; but he did get rid of a nasty wizard 
and make the world a better place.

Is Harry a Christ figure? Yes. But he's a very human one - a sort of 
Messiah in minor key. 

> In contrast, Harry separates himself from his friends and 
> speaks to the dead.  He goes to his death at the orders of a 
> *very* human man, not the word of God.  

Actually, the biblical scenario is more complex - and I'm starting a 
separate post on it. But here's a very interesting line of questions: 

Whose word sent Harry? Dumbledore's. 

And if there were one character in the series that you could cut out 
of the series and paste onto the  ceiling of the Sistine Chapel - who 
would it be? Well, Dobby would look kind of cute, but there's only 
one reasonable candidate: Dumbledore. Dumbledore is the old man with 
the long, white beard. Dumbledore is a bit mysterious and 
unimaginably powerful and wise and knowing and loving. Dumbledore has 
a plan - just trust him and everything will work out OK.

But wait - Dumbledore can't be God!

Why not?

Because he isn't all-powerful, all-wise, all-knowing, all-loving! 
We've had our doubts all along, and in HP he says so himself! He 
screwed up and hung out with Grindelwald.

Well, yes - exactly. In fact, theologically speaking, that's the very 
interesting point thing in DH. The God figure turns out to be very 
human after all. It's almost as if Rowling first blew God into the 
series, then changed her mind and let the air out.

What's so interesting about that? Well, this act of deflation mirrors 
a lot of Christian thinking over the last century or so. 
The "Heavenly Dumbledore" figure has certainly been the standard 
edition throughout most of the Christian history; however, many 
Christian theologians - feminists come to mind as do less known 
movements like liberation theology and process theology - have 
objected to it. Christians of these kinds have argued that 
the "Heavenly Dumbledore" image is overblown. They have pointed out 
that this sort of thinking about God has some dangerous aspects 
(people who think they're best friends with an all-powerful God have 
a weird habit of trying to be all-powerful too). Often they have 
simply insisted that to describe something like God is far more 
difficult than we realize (there's an old theological tradition 
called negative theology, but I won't get into that!) 

Oddly enough, however, the idea of a mysterious force that we call 
love - something that is at once impersonal and indescribable (after 
all, it's a force!) and yet deeply personal – human, in fact - and 
tangible (after all, it's love!) is a kind of thought pattern that 
would fit remarkably well. 

Oh - and, btw, a very human Christ figure, who can't do it alone but 
relies on his friends - a figure who makes the world a better, safer 
place but doesn't actually turn the entire course of human history on 
its ear - that kind of Christ figure fits in remarkable well.

Any of that sound familiar?

What I'm shooting for is this: I think there is A LOT of theology 
going on in this book. It may not square with traditional Christian 
thinking, and a lot of conservative Christians will not like it at 
all. But it is there. Very much so.

Mike Gray (aka Aberforth's Goat)
_______________________

"Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have 
been bravery...." JK Rowling, The Goblet of Fire.

http://www.research-projects.unizh.ch/p8199.htm