Ex Libris

“We have effectively pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified him ‘meek and mild’ and recommended him as a household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies.”

- Dorothy Sayers, Letters to a Diminished Church 

** THIS POST DISCUSSES PLOT ELEMENTS OF THE HARRY POTTER STORY. SO, SPOILERS**

Character Names Reveal Christian Truth

I thought, since some of the literary interpretations rely on Rowling’s names and animal characters, we would address these first.

Often the names of characters are laden with subtle Christian meaning, besides being enormously creative and fun. J.K. Rowling was classically educated, and basked in the great literature of Western Civilization, and even studied the great medieval theologians (Augusine, Aquinas, etc.) and ancient writers (Plato) in the original languages.

The Griffindor Quidditch Team

Beside’s Harry, whose name gets its own section later in this post, and the Weasley Twins, our side characters are the three chasers and the keeper, who are (in order) Alicia Spinnet, Katie Bell, and Angelina Johnson.

Now, when we meet Griffindor and Slytherin for the first time in Sorcerer’s Stone, we discover that Slytherin has been dominating both the Hogwarts House Cup, and has won on the Quidditch field for seven years in a row (Sorcerer’s Stone, p . 152, 304). But now that Harry’s on the team, they hope the tides have turned, and indeed, Slytherin’s winning streak is shattered, particularly in the House Cup at the end (SS, pp. 305-309).

But to the names. Once we look at all the names, we realize that the Griffindor Quidditch team is a flying symbolic cathedral. A Spinnet is an organ, popular in many churches, a Bell is obvious, but also a popular church piece, and then, an Angelina is an angel statue, made of stone or wood, popular in older English churches. Finally, the Griffindor keeper is Oliver Wood, and Olive Wood is used for devotional carvings in churches in older Christian traditions. In addition, the fellow whe replaces one of the Weasley Twins asa beater in Order of the Phoenix is named Kirke, the German name for “church.”

Other Names

Filch, the Hogwarts caretaker, has a cat named Mrs. Norris, who is also a character in Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park (Rowling’s favorite writer is Austen), Trelawney and Flint are named after the famous Robert Louis Stevenson characters, Seamus Finnegan is likely a tribute and reference to James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake.

It is probable that Cedric Digory is named after another famous Christian writer’s character, that of C.S. Lewis’s Digory Kirke (I think that the fact that these two names both pop up is a sure signal this is what Rowling was doing).

Harry’s Parents and Patrons

Harry’s parents are named James and Lily Potter, and both names are significant. Rowling works a lot with alchemy symbols, which has a long and rich literary tradition used by such greats as Shakespeare, T.S. Eliot, C.S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien, to Chaucer and Joyce, and others. This is not as esoteric as it may seem, and has a strong place in Christianity, the three stages of alchemy paralleling the stages of Regeneration, Baptism, and Glorification. We will have a whole post on this.

But Saint James is the patron saint of alchemists and was also the brother of Christ, the only sibling of Christ to recognize Christ as the messiah in the New Tesatament and after the Ascention was made Bishop of Jerusalem.

The lily is a symbol of the middle stage, and represents purification, and so is the name Luna (Luna Lovegood pops up in Order of the Phoenix, which is itself significant). The Lily is symbolic of spring and renewal, which is why they are associated with death - they are the flower of Annunciation, of the Resurrection, life after death, and of the promise of Christ’s second return.

Harry’s School Friends

Hermione is the feminine form of Hermes, who is both the Greek messenger god Mercury (which also can represent the middle stage), was also the name of a famous medieval alchemist.

Godric, the name of the founder of the House of Griffindor, is also a saint, named after Godric of Finchale.

“Godric is perhaps best remembered for his kindness toward animals, and many stories recall his protection of the creatures who lived near his forest home. According to one of these, he hid a stag from pursuing hunters . . .” - Wikipedia.

This is interesting, because it confirms that Rowling indeed named Godric Griffindor for St. Godric. Harry’s parents went into hiding, and lived in secret in Godric’s Hollow, a place Godric Griffindor had himself lived. Harry’s father was an animagus, who could turn into a great stag. This stag, Harry’s father, was on the run from Voldemort and his followers, and was hidden in Godric’s Hollow (the Stag is also a classic symbol for Christ).

Neville Longbottom’s name is particularly interesting. Neville himself is considered of little worth in the wizarding world, he himself acknowledges that he’s barely more than a Squib in Chamber of Secrets. Neville means “the nowhere man” and Longbottom means “fat ass” and also “long on the bottom of the pile.” Yet Neville’s strange connection to Harry through the Prophecy, and his great successes while a member of Dumbledore’s Army, and his integral, heroic victory over Nagini, Voldemort’s huge snake, at the great, epic climax of Deathly Hallows, and his brilliance and respect afterward both certainly reinforce Scripture’s testimony (Matt. 20:16; Mark 10:31).

Dumbledore

Dumbledore’s first name is Albus, which is both a literary symbol of the second stage of the alchemical process, and means “glorious, resplendent, radient,” and Dumbledore itself means “bumblebee.” The bee is a traditional literary symbol for the soul, and often moves in swarms, or clouds, harkening us back to Scripture’s picture of the spirit (John 3:8). And so put together, Dumbledore’s name means “glorious soul,” (see Matt. 17:1-9) and so it is no surprise that he is the advocate of all magical and non-magical peoples who are downtrodden and enslaved (such as house-elves).

Voldemort

Voldemort’s birth name was Tom Morvolo Riddle, which is explained to Harry by Riddle’s soul, can be rearranged into “I am Lord Voldemort” (Chamber of Secrets, p. 314). Tom has a strange enigma, his odd connection to Harry (Thomas in Aramaic means “twin”), but Voldemort’s conflict goes deeper within him than that. The name Voldemort literally means both “the flight of death,” and “the flight from death,” showing Voldemort’s greatest fear and his greatest conceit. Voldemort has spent his life fleeing from death through the use of forbidden dark magics, and it is death that he fears the most.

“There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!” snarled Voldemort.

“You are quite wrong,” said Dumbledore . . .

- Order of the Phoenix, p. 814

Voldemort spent his brilliance trying to escape the clutches of death through magic, through his own power. Yet, at the same time, the curse that we ever see Voldemort using ninety percent of the time is the killing curse of death, “Avada Kadavra.” So we see Voldemort’s arragance revolves around death as well, he sees himself as both the “flight of death,” the angel of death, who delivers people to the place he fears the most, the afterlife, on his own personal “flight from death.” We see Voldemort using a power he doesn’t understand and thinks he has mastered, while all the time being deathly afraid of the very curse he uses on others without discrimination.

The Malfoys

Lucius Malfoy’s name is quite evil, just as the whole family seems to be. Lucius easily suggests Lucifer, and his wife’s name is Narcissa, named after the Narcissus plant. THis is where the term narcissist comes from, which means “love of self.” Their son, Draco, is Harry’s nemesis at school, and to no surprise, either, the name Draco meaning “dragon” in Latin (and see Rev. 12:3, 4, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17; 13:2, 4, 11; 16:13; 20:2).

The name Malfoy means “bad faith” or “faith in evil” in French and this they certainly have, right up until near the end of Deathly Hallows, when their faith in Voldemort is truly shattered.

Harry Potter

There have been many suggestions for what the name Harry Potter means, each one less likely than the one before. However, there are some basics we can examine.

The word Harry most commonly means to “harass, annoy, disturb.” There is certainly some truth to this name, as Harry is harassed, annoyed, and disturbed by his years at Hogwarts, and he certainly harasses, annoys, and disturbs others as well, not including Snape, Draco, and Voldemort. Mr. Dursley, at the beginning of Sorcerer’s Stone thinks Harry’s name is “Harold,” (SS, p. 5) which is significant because it is the name-form of “Herald,” or “one who announces,” and is also related to royalty.

The word Potter has two likely meanings, both deeply connected with Christianity and Christendom. The potter is one who makes pots, and this is a popular image of God’s relationship to humanity, that God shaped us in His own Image (Isa. 64:8; Jer. 18:5-6; Rom. 9:20-21). God is the potter, we are the clay, and when God is referenced in terms of His being a potter, it is saying He is Creator, Redeemer, and Judge, wrapped up in one, and is meant to point out that “vapor, vapor, all is vapor,” (Eccl. 1:2, properly translated). In other words, God made us, some to salvation, some to destruction, He can use His creation any way He likes, and is is no business of ours if He decides to smash some of His pots, and preserve others.

Potter is also remarkably close to Pater (as in “Pater Noster”), which means “father” (both earthly and Heavenly fathers) in Latin. Potter and Pater are pronounced exactly the same too.

So, putting all of this together, we find that “Harry James Potter” means “one who announces the Pater/Potter,” or an ambassador of Christ (2 Cor. 5:20), or a Christian. Harry is a symbol of fallen man seeking redemption through faithful glorification into the likeness of Christ. He is definitely fallen, as Harry has the corrupt fragment of Voldemort’s soul accidentally bestowed upon him by Voldemort the night he survived the killing curse, and even without that Harry is still far from perfect. But this fragment of serpentine soul within him begins to writhe (especially in Order of the Phoenix), and causes him to “not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate,” (Rom. 7:15). In fact, the fragment of Voldemort’s soul in Harry’s person sounds remarkably like Paul when he speaks of the sin nature as being some kind of foreign thing within him, some kind of intruder or invader: “So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me,” (Rom. 7:17).

For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. … For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! (Rom. 7:19-20, 22-25).

Harry is the “Son of God,” but he is not Christ, nor a symbol thereof. Rather, he is a son of God by adoption into the family of God, as we are all sons of God (Matt. 5:9; Luke 20:36; Rom. 8:14, 19; Gal. 3:26; 4:6). Or as the great St. Athasnasius wrote, “God became man, so that man might become God.” This does not mean we become divine, like New Agers think, no, it is merely a statement of a long-held belief in the Early Church called Theosis.

What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God, or even part of God.

- Wikipedia (above link on “Theosis”)

James B. Jordan calls this process of becoming holy a “transformation,” “transfiguration,” or “glorification” (See James Jordan, “What Did Jesus Do?: Merit or Maturity,” in The Federal Vision; his brief discussion in Through New Eyes as well). John Chrysostom called this becoming “little Christs within Christ.”

Harry is a symbol of Christ only in that he imitates Him, as we are supposed to do. Harry follows Christ even to the cross and back, freeing the captives and repressed (house-elves, etc), providing protection for those he loves (Deathly Hallows, p. 737, 738), and living in faith as “Dumbledore’s man” to return to fight again and crush the head of the serpent, just as Christ did: “The God of Peace will soon crush Satan under your feet,” (Rom. 16:20).

I’ve gotten a little ahead of myself. Oh well. We’ll be looking at all of those things in much more detail later. What we see from this, though, is that the names in the Harry Potter saga are too numerous and too perfectly chosen for each character for me to be completely B.S.ing here. The names of the Harry Potter saga were all carefully chosen to convey their meaning to the thoughtful reader, and I have not addressed many, many other names that are not particularly related to Christianity, but show a depth and breadth of literary and mythological knowledge.

In this facet of the blog, I will be discussing the Harry Potter saga and establishing that it is, in deed and in fact, Christian fiction of the highest caliber, and worthy of being shelved next to the works of C. S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.

First, I would like to briefly mention a breathtaking quote by C.S. Lewis that sums up my person experience of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but also really applies to the saga as a whole:

 The first reading of some literary work is often, for the literary, an experience so momentous that only experiences of love, religion or bereavement can furnish a standard of comparison. Their whole consciousness is changed. They have become what they were not before - what they have read is constantly and prominently present to the mind - [they] mouth over their favourite lines and stanzas in solitude. Scenes and characters from books provide them with a sort of iconography by which they interpret or sum up their own experience.

The great artist - or at all events the great literary artist - cannot be a man shallow either in his thoughts or his feelings. However improbable and abnormal a story he has chosen, it will, as we say, ‘come to life’ in his hands. The life to which it comes will be impregnated with all the wisdom, knowledge and experience the author has; and even more by something which I can only vaguely describe as the flavour or ‘feel’ that actual life has for him…[it will] allow us temporarily to share a sort of passionate sanity.

C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism 

But beyond my own individual experience with the saga,which could feasibly anyway cause me to campaign for it’s Christian-ness out of some sort of personal need or uncertainty or guilt over enjoying the books, there is the testimony of J.K. Rowling herself. She has granted hundreds of interviews, and in a select few, she has discussed her own personal beliefs and how they relate to the Harry Potter story. These are what we will now turn to.

Here is what Mrs. Rowling had to say:

Harry, of course, is able to battle supernatural evil with supernatural forces of his own, and Rowling is quite clear that she doesn’t personally believe in that kind of magic — ”not at all.” Is she a Christian?

”Yes, I am,” she says. ”Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I’ve been asked if I believe in God, I’ve said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what’s coming in the books.”

Oct. 26, 2000, with the Vancouver Sun.

And:

E: You do believe in God.

JK: Yeah. Yeah.

E: In magic and…

JK: Magic in the sense in which it happens in my books, no, I don’t believe. I don’t believe in that. No. No. This is so frustrating. Again, there is so much I would like to say, and come back when I’ve written book seven. But then maybe you won’t need to even say it ’cause you’ll have found it out anyway. You’ll have read it.

- July 13th, 200, with CBS World News

Elsewhere, she has said that she is a Presbyterian in the Church of Scotland, and that her daughter has been baptized into that communion (can’t find the quote right now).

The important thing to note here is that Rowling is a Christian, and if people probed too far into her specific religious beliefs, they would have been spoiled for the events of the rest of the series (”Every time I’ve been asked if I believe in God, I’ve said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what’s coming in the books.”)

Thus, we can see that Rowling 1) believes in God, 2) is an attending member of the Church of Scotland, and 3) her faith impacts central plot points in the saga.

For these reasons, I believe there is enough warrant to analyze the Harry Potter books for their Christian content (if any they contain). This I will do in future installments of “Finding God in Harry Potter.”

So far, a bunch of FV critics have called it monocovenantal - that we believe there is only one covenant throughout redemptive history, before the fall, after the fall, and into the New Covenant, it’s all just really the same thing, isn’t it?

Uh-uh.

Critics of the FV have assumed (wrongly as it turns out - oh, those darn pesky assumptions) that the FV view of the covenant is not nuanced. Given that this controversy springs mostly from differences in perspective, this is a singularly odd problem to have. Yet it is here, and so we must clarify what we mean when we say (as we do say) that there is one covenant.

The Committee declared, practically Ex Cathedra:

The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e. views that do no merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

Not a single one of the main Federal Visionaries have ever denied “the essence of the first/second covenant framework.” This includes public statements from Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, Peter Leithart, James Jordan, and Rich Lusk. I do not personally have a problem even with the first/second covenant framework (though describing these as a “Covenant of Works” and then “Covenant of Grace,” as if there were no grace in the first or no good works in the second, is ridiculously naive).

There are clearly two covenants in Scripture, one Pre-Fall and one Post-Fall, though there is strong continuity between the covenants, enough to say, perhaps, that the covenants are one in essence and two in nature. Federal Visionaries hesitate to speak of two covenants because it can lead Christians into assuming they are completely unrelated, like a Plan A and Plan B. The Church is still recovering from the hangover of Dispensationalism, and divisions are not what we need at this moment.

The covenants are one in that  God does not change how He relates to humanity, which is by sheer grace and a call for obedient/penitent faith. The covenants are one in that God’s means of bringing about salvation and glorification do not change. The covenants are one in that all covenants have the five-point structure and require faith and obedience for blessings, and warn of curses brought upon the covenant members for faithlessness and disobedience (Deut. 28). Both faith and faithlessness, obedience and disobedience are given by God through His eternal and irresistible decree. There is one covenant in that man’s merit never a prerequisite nor a requirement, for salvation nor for covenant blessing.

There are two covenants in that Adam was the federal head of the first covenant, while Christ was the promised federal head of the Post-Fall covenant (Gen. 3:15), which includes the Noahic, Abrahamic, Exhilic, and New Covenants. There are two covenants in that humanity was not fallen in the first, but is fallen in the second. Adam stood in the midst of the Garden of God’s blessing and grace, while the rest of humanity stands outside looking in. There are two covenants in that in the first we were under God’s blessing, and in the second, we are under God’s wrath and curse. The Post-Fall covenant is different from the Pre-Fall covenant because it takes into account that we are fallen from grace, and is explicitly structured to return us to (and transform us beyond) that first Pre-Fall covenant.

While I heartily agree with the study committee in the conclusion they reach (anyone who teaches monocovenantalism is outside the Standards), I must express my dismay that they attacked those who continue to believe in bi-covenantalism, though their views are nuanced and focused specifically on the neglected angle of continuity rather than solely on the discontinuity. This conclusion came from power politics and a complete disregard for the glaringly obvious, as well as shamedly shabby research and study.

Christ flew. People call it ascension, but He flew. He didn’t flap. He didn’t twist and spin. He didn’t expand with heat and reduce His density. He didn’t trick the air with the curved surface of a wing. The air lifted Him up because it wanted to. It doesn’t obey us the same way. So we beat it.

Nathan D. Wilson, “Fly”

The Harry Potter series is Christian in theme, focus, and message. With the release of the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, this point is no longer possible to deny. As the book series is also clearly classic Western literature and here to stay, snuggled up next to C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, we as Christians must come to terms with the Potter saga.

To understand a little more about the Potter books, and their Christian themes, I suggest very highly that you get the following books by conservative Christians. First, get John Granger, Looking for God in Harry Potter and Unlocking Harry Potter (and his forthcoming The English Major’s Guide to Harry Potter) and read them first. Second, get these books by Connie Neal, What is a Christian to do with Harry Potter? and The Gospel According to Harry Potter. This second book was blacklisted by many totally misguided Christian bookstores early on, when it was first released. Then get a book called A Charmed Life, though I cannot recall the author now. Each of these books has their own take on Potter, but all conclude that the books do not promote occultism, and in fact are explicitly Christian.

For the immediate reading, there are a number of good internet essays on the topic. See The Christian Content of Deathly Hallows (A).

This article obviously contains spoilers and may require some background Potter knowledge.

“Of house-elves and children’s tales, of love, loyalty, and innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing. Nothing. That they all have a power beyond his own, a power beyond the reach of any magic, is a truth he has never grasped.” - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know.” - The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

I understand those who take no delight in fairy tales or fantasies. I pity you, but in truth, Harry Potter is not for you. Go back to reading stock reports or instruction manuals or whatever you do with your unfantastical mind.

- Orson Scott Card, renown science fiction writer.

Sorry for the delay, everyone.

My eye surgery was a success! I don’t need glasses any longer. All praise to God. Thank you all for your thoughts and prayers. I have been away for a while, as the recovery time took a bit longer than expected - only in the last day or so have I been able to stare at a computer screen without my eyes wigging out. Its the flickering.  But that has been passing quickly, and so I should be back to my old self again!

Let the posting resume!

On July 9th, P. Andrew Sandlin, a theologian and cultural critic I hold in extremely high regard (his book New Flesh, New Earth truly transformed my faith) attacked “covenant renewal” folks on his blog, which would be basically your local Federal Vision dept., and pretty much all “high church” fellas.

He wrote,

Legalism in liturgy tends to occur when one erects (= invents) a liturgy from a deductive or “theological” reading of the Bible text and … argues that this is the Christian (”Biblical”) liturgy and all others are substandard.

I think we need to immediately point out how bloomin’ odd this statement really is. Sandlin is saying that people who erect a liturgy from “deductive or ‘theological’ reading of the Bible” are legalistic. But I would like to ask, “How else precisely is someone to develop a proper liturgy than by ‘a deductive or ‘theological’ reading of the Bible’?” It makes one wonder precisely what Rev. Sandlin uses as his liturgical standard at his church, if deductive and theological studies of the Bible are “legalism.” Maybe he gets his liturgy by askin’ the boys down at the Cracker Barrel? What method of Bible reading should we employ in developing our liturgy if both deductive and theological are out (and there aren’t many appealing choices once those are taken off the ballet)? Rev. Sandlin’s?

The question Rev. Sandlin needs to answer is whether or not there are appropriate methods of worshiping God as directed in the Bible, or are we just up to our own ideas, tossed out willy-nilly and applied without any real thought? In other words, if I said it was appropriate to worship God by employing cheetoes, beer, and a fresh episode of The Simpsons, how exactly would Rev. Sandlin say this is bad? What standard is he appealing to? And if his answer is “the Bible,” then we must ask him, “Would you like the Deductive Burger or a side order of theology with that?”

As to the protest about liturgical folk (and here Sandlin is including low, high, and middlin’) thinking one another’s liturgy is substandard, I can only answer via: “Duh!” Everybody thinks they’ve got all the answers, and incidentally this includes Rev. Sandlin, who is the guy terryhooting about the whole mess. Aren’t they allowed to think what they want?

I’m sure Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, James Jordan, Rich Lusk, and other covenant renewal folk think other forms are substandard, but you also never see them being schismatic or haughty about it. But what you do see is Andrew Sandlin calling everybody legalists for having a liturgy.

Sandlin continues,

To insist that Our Way - a way on which 90% of the church historic could not agree - must be The One and Only Way to the Exclusion of All Others is an embarrassment to the thoughtful and historically alert among us.

Here, I think, Sandlin overstates his case. 90% of the church historic couldn’t agree with, oh say, being high church? Shall we do the math on this one? Shall we look at the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Church of England, Church of Scotland, and Episcopal communions for just a brief vote on whether or not high church liturgy is preferred? Now shall we add up all the members they’ve had through the centuries, and count ‘em up along with the Covenant Renewal folk and all other high church persons I’ve neglected to mention and compare that with the sole total of all low and middlin’ protestants around the world? Yeah, I’m pretty sure low and middlin’ would lose that one. (Please note that I do not agree with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox liturgical practices, yadda and so forth, with appropriate qualifications. The point is, they’re high liturgy.)

As to exclusive liturgical priority being embarrassing for the historically alert, hasn’t Sandlin read For the Life of the World or The Shape of the Liturgy? For all the rucus and the differences, there has actually been surprising continuity, and that continuity has tended to be upper-middlin’ to high.

And isn’t Sandlin himself among the ranters, yellin’ and wavin’ and getting red in the face about liturgy that is not identical with his own? Can we not turn his very statement back on him? Surely he is the one who is saying, “My Way - a way on which 90% of the church historic could not agree - must be The One and Only Way to the Exclusion of All Others”? Or is he magically immune to this kind of reasoning because he is actually right? And the cycle just starts over with Sandlin’s voice added in.

Unfortunately for Sandlin, and low and middlin’ church folk, the high church liturgical model stands mid-stream in the history of the church. The Covenant Renewal movement itself proves itself to be mostly Biblical (I think some of it is just summoned up from the ghost of 19th century idealism, primarily in the area of church music) and tries to worship as God has directed throughout all of Scripture - OT included.