Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 177305

> Mike:
> "If JKR started out w/a Calvinist allegory" is a mighty big *IF*. 
> This may be the way you've read these books, but I don't see them 
> that way at all, nor do I see any reason to believe that JKR was fond 
> of or wrote with a Calvinistic bent.

lizzyben:

Yes, this is my own personal interpretation. Other people might not
interpret the novels that way, and that's fine. Under this
interpretation, Slytherins are indeed the reprobate.

Mike: 
> First off, AFAIK, JKR is not a Calvinist herself. She doesn't follow 
> Calvinistic teachings. And she admitted that her Christian values 
> influenced her decisions in writing the series, especially the 
> finale. So, if she isn't a Calvinist and yet she did assign her 
> personal Christian values to her writing, how do you conclude that 
> her assigned personal values are Calvinist?

lizzyben:

JKR is a member of the Church of Scotland, which was founded on
Calvinistic principles. The official Church doctrine is contained in a
document called the "Westminster Confession", which was written in
1647 & remains church law. The Confession preaches double
predestination, salvation of the Elect, condemnation of the reprobate,
and the five points of TULIP. 

As part of my little research project, I've read the Confession - and
there's a lot of hellfire and damnation there; not much tolerance or
forgiveness. The "Elect/reprobate" split isn't just outlined in one
section; it runs all throughout the document. It is conservative,
Calvinist, orthodox Protestantism.

Church of Scotland: Church Law (Westminster Confession) -
http://www.churchofscotlandextranet.org.uk/xchurchlaw/xchurchlawconfession.htm

Some excerpts from the Confession on election & judgement:

"CHAP. III.   Of God's Eternal Decree.

  III.  By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some
men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others
foreordained to everlasting death.
   IV.  These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are
particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain
and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
   V.  Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before
the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and
immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his
will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere
free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or
perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as
conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of
his glorious grace.
  VI.  ... Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually
called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
  VII.  The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the
unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or
withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power
over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and
wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
  VIII.  The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be
handled with special prudence and care..."

The Last Judgement - 
 "II.  The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation
of the glory of his mercy in the eternal salvation of the elect, and
of his justice in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and
disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life,
and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing which shall come from
the presence of the Lord: but the wicked, who know not God, and obey
not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments,
and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the
Lord, and from the glory of his power."

I don't know if JKR is a Calvinist or not, but she is a member of a
Calvinist church, and has stated that her religious beliefs will be
apparent in the last novel. I think it's reasonable to believe that
JKR's Calvinist/Protestant beliefs influenced the HP novels in the
same way that Tolkein's Catholicism influenced LOTR, or CS Lewis's
Anglican beliefs influenced Narnia. Why shouldn't it?

Mike:
> Secondly, JKR wasn't assigning wizards to Heaven or Hell as far as I 
> can determine. Where wizards went after death wasn't defined at all. 
> In OotP, NHN answered Harry's question of where do wizards go when 
> they die with "I cannot answer." And that's it! No more attempts to 
> find out where wizards go, nor any character or narrative voice even 
> broaching the subject. It seems to me that JKR purposely sidestepped 
> any assignation, including the supposed "elect" and "damned" that 
> you've chosen to believe she used.

lizzyben:

Well, JKR said "I cannot answer" as well, because if she answered that
question, readers would know what was coming in the seventh book. She
has said that the last book would reveal what happens after death. She
DID sidestep the question for 6 books, in order to provide the answer
in the spiritual climax of the series - "King's Cross." In this
chapter, Harry "dies" and his soul travels to a kind of afterlife.
There his flaws & scars are washed away, and his perfect soul meets
with Dumbledore (God) in light. At the same time, LV's reprobate,
evil, soul is condemned to everlasting torment, agony and punishment.
God (DD) tells elect Harry that there is no help possible for the damned. 


> Mike:
> So we've gone from *IF* to WAS, I guess. How about I call this series 
> an allegory for Christ's sacrifice for mankind? After all, isn't that 
> what Harry did, willingly offer himself up for death to save the rest 
> of the WW? Therefore, the rest of the WW is forgiven their sins 
> including all the Slytherins.

lizzyben:

But they aren't. Let's assume that Harry's sacrifice & return was an
analogy to Christ. In other denominations, Christ's sacrifice saved &
protected all of mankind. But in Calvinism, Christ's sacrifice only
saves & protects *some* of mankind - the elect. That's one of the 5
points of TULIP: Limited Atonement. 
"Limited Atonement - the doctrine states that Jesus Christ's
substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those
who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not
given to all of humankind but rather just believers."

After Harry sacrifices himself, his "blood protection" saves &
protects all of his followers during the Battle. LV can't harm Harry
anymore, or Neville. During the LV/Harry duel, Harry says "I was
willing to die to stop you... I've done what my mother did. They're
protected from you. You can't torture them. You can't touch them." 

But Voldemort *can* still torture Narcissa, even after Harry's
sacrifice. Because Narcissa is not among the circle of the saved, and
so does not receive the "protection" of Harry's sacrifice. Limited
atonement. 


Mike:
> I don't read the books that way, nor do I believe JKR wrote the books 
> that way. But that is just as valid a reading, with just as much 
> validation from canon as your Calvinistic reading. If anything, based 
> on the author's own words and her own faith, it's more valid, imo. 
> Yet, I find that type of assignation ridiculous, so I wouldn't 
> espouse it.

lizzyben:

Well, given that JKR herself has stated that her religious beliefs
play a large role in the last novel, I don't see it as "assignation"
so much as "interpretation." We already *know* that her faith
influenced the events of DH. How? Where? What does the symbolism mean?
Etc. I don't see why it's ridiculous to examine religious
allegories/metaphors when JKR herself has said that her religion is
apparent in the last book.


> > lizzyben:
> > The difference is that in the Potterverse, through magic,
> > we *do* know who is in the Elect.
> 
> Mike:
> No, we know who got sorted into Slytherin. The *only* character that 
> was depicted as irredeemable was Tom Riddle, and a case could be made 
> that he chose his path. (I won't make that argument, however) The 
> rest of the characters, including the Slytherins, were shown to have 
> chosen their respective paths. Then there were those that were 
> tricked into following LV, and once in, you can't get out. Sounds 
> more and more like LV was a Satanic allegorical character, doesn't 
> it? And still, I won't make that argument.

lizzyben:

Yes, the Slytherins chose their path. And they chose badly because
they have bad characters. I was expecting to find someone was tricked
into following LV, but actually no one was. All the Death Eaters
entered knowing what LV was about, & they chose it because they
admired & wanted to follow that path. 


> Mike:
> I've left this whole paragraph because I didn't want to chop anything 
> to make it look like selective editing on my part. I've read this 
> many times and it just doesn't make sense. "Slytherins are the 
> damned" despite all the humaness she gave to some of the Slytherins? 
> It's easier to condemn the faceless strangers, yet these characters 
> are neither faceless nor strangers? How can *all* the Slytherins be 
> condemned and yet *some* are not?

lizzyben:

It doesn't make sense to me either, & I won't pretend it does. I'm
just trying to look at this from the perspective of someone who *does*
truly believe in the precepts of Calvinism. Assuming JKR is a
Calvinist & that the novels reflect that faith (a big assumption, yes)
 how can we explain the ending?

JKR has stated that she planned the last third of the seventh novel
while she wrote the very first book. That's the planned Calvinist
allegory - 1st book ending (elect Gryfs beat reprobate Slyths, yay.)
to 7th book ending (elect Hogwarts fighters beat reprobate Death
Eaters, yay). In between, the novels had a chance to become much
deeper & more complex. And the Slytherin characters became more
complex as well, & became more than simplistic "bad guys." They
started out as reprobates, but after spending 12 years w/these
characters, JKR couldn't help giving them some depth & motivation,
almost in spite of herself. 

Draco's a perfect example of this IMO. In the 6th book, we learn how
much he cares about his family, that he's not a killer, that he's
scared & desperate about his appointed task. In the first 2/3 of DH,
Draco continues the same character arc - he hates being w/Death
Eaters, hates having to torture someone, & he won't identify the Trio.
Then in the last 1/3 of the novel, Draco suddenly shows up
in the ROR, he can't wait to capture Harry & he actively works to help
LV. Why? Well, because the outline requires him to. If it doesn't make
sense anymore for his character, oh well. JKR forced him back into his
reprobate role that he had already outgrown.

> Mike:
> Is that Calvinism or a case of reaping what you've sown? With all the 
> references to Voldemort going beyond the bounds of *usual evil*, I 
> would say the latter. And still, Voldemort will have a chance to 
> repair himself if he feels some real remorse. Yes, I know, not even 
> remotely likely, but still it was there. And, had LV had a remorse 
> epiphany, would that only mean he could leave the "train station" for 
> Hell? I don't think that was the option, since it's not much of an 
> option.

lizzyben:

Well, according to JKR, we were *shown* that LV could repent because
he had a drop of Harry's pure blood in him. Um, did you understand
that from DH? I sure didn't - yet JKR thinks that we were shown this &
we should all have reached that obvious conclusion. Right there that
tells me that she's coming at this from a very, very different
perspective. And that's what convinces me of her fundamentally
Christian POV - she sees Harry's blood as the blood of Christ. The
blood of Christ allows repentance & protects & saves believers from
damnation. So, Harry's blood could do the same for LV. Once you accept
the Harry=Christ analogy, her answer starts to make more sense. 

But of course the reprobate cannot be saved, because they are
reprobate and will not receive the calling. In an earlier interview,
she said that redemption was "not possible" for LV because he is a
psychopath. He really had no choice at all - he was predestined for
damnation.
 
Mike:
> So the most evil character in the book, the character that caused so 
> much death and destruction that he was beyond redemption could still 
> have saved himself from eternal... whatever... according to JKR's 
> formula. Yet you've decided that JKR *didn't* give him that option, 
> no matter how unlikely he would take it, because you've decided that 
> he was "damned" from birth.

lizzyben:

I didn't decide that. JKR decided that. Remember the orphanage lady
saying LV was a "funny baby" who didn't cry or want to be held? And a
child who killed rabbits. And a student who killed his family. Come
on, now. JKR tells us quite clearly that LV was evil since birth.
Because he comes from bad blood, you see. And that's not Calvinism,
that's just JKR-ism. She combines "Calvinist reprobates," with "bad
blood", and Nazis, and racists, and every other "bad" thing she can
think of.

Mike:
> I'm not seeing how you can square this theory with canon.
> 
> Mike


lizzyben:

Hope this helps explain my position somewhat. To be clear, I don't
think that HP is some sort of perfect exposition of Calvinism, or that
most Calvinists would agree w/or like what JKR did here. But I do
think that JKR is expressing her own world-view, and her own
individual interpretation of some Calvinist precepts. 


lizzyben