Dumbledore is Gay: Welcome to the Culture War

October 21st, 2007 · 130 Comments · Albus Dumbledore, Hogwarts School of Theology, J.K. Rowling

by Travis

Update: Comments at HogPro by Bob Trexler and Amy Sturgis are well worth your time.

If you’ve not been exposed to the “Culture War” before, welcome. J.K. Rowling has given you your introduction. I am hoping that after reading this post, you’ll run from the Culture War as quickly as I have. By “culture war,” I’m referring, of course, to the lines in the sand drawn around morality issues, usually involving some version of the Christian faith.

And there is no topic more likely to draw out the culture warriors that homosexuality. What you’re about to read is a stream of consciousness…it represents my developing thoughts on this discussion, and I hope it will be helpful. I try to play the objective moderator for most difficult discussions here…I’ll be stepping slightly out of that role here and there throughout this post and showing my hand a little more than normal. Stick with me, and I’ll be looking forward to your helpful comments and corrections (which I’m sure I’ll need).

If you’ve been following the discussion under my initial post on the subject, you know it’s been pretty heated. We’ve had quite a variety of comments and opinions:

Adamant assertions of the sinfulness of homosexuality, with accompanying assurances of hellfire.
Elation at Rowling’s revelation, accompanied by belief that she is making a much-needed move toward the acceptance of homosexuality in our culture.
Speculation that Dumbledore believes homosexuality to be a sin, and was therefore celibate for the majority of his life.
Outright anger that anyone would be so dumb or hateful as to think of homosexuality as a sin, with accompanying promises to never return to this website
Reservations, concerns, and frustration
Calm, reasoned responses
Accusations of hypocrisy from just about everyone about pretty much everyone else
And then there’s that one guy who’s absolutely giddy that he now has what he believes to be ironclad proof that Rowling will be going straight to hell without passing “Go” or collecting $200.

It’s scary in that thread. As someone who wants to run a discussion group where all opinions are welcomed, I’m trying my best not to delete opinions, but to warn about personal attacks. But let me say this to all: Please watch your tone, and do everything in your ability to communicate with grace.

Now, on to the analysis:

Rowling’s Author-ity

Ever since the end of Deathly Hallows, I’ve wondered just how much some of Rowling’s characters had gotten away from her. This happens to authors; as they write, characters take on a life of their own. If the author doesn’t recognize it, s/he can end up writing an incongruent character, and that is troubling to the reader. The discussion immediately after Book 7’s release was surrounding Severus Snape, and I think it is fair to argue that there’s an extent to which Snape ran away from Rowling. This brings up important questions about how we, as readers, should approach her canonical works as compared with her interview statements.

And that brings us to the first point I want to make: What Rowling says outside the canon does not have to affect your reading of the story. As Alastair commented:

One of the things that I most love about a good book is the manner in which it creates a space within which our imaginations can play, the ambiguities giving us the option of reading the book in many different ways. When an author settles ambiguities like this I feel cheated. It is Rowling’s task to write and it is our task to read; I wish that she wouldn’t do our part for us.

So that means this: We do not have to divide over Rowling’s revelation. There is absolutely nothing in the text itself that communicates anything clear about Dumbledore’s sexuality. Even as we continue to disagree on the subject of homosexuality, we can remain Potter fans together and continue to read the books as we see best. It is our task to read. Our imaginations can play.

Dumbledore’s Sexuality: Planned? Publicity?

It’s almost impossible to know whether or not Rowling’s statement about Albus’s being gay is something she thought and believed all along, or another example of her continually shifting views about her characters. (Where does Ron work again? When did Grindelwald die? Is Snape a hero? You get the picture). I think we can at least assume this much: if she did believe Albus to be gay prior to Book 7, she wasn’t going to say anything about it until after.

But the bottom line here is, it’s impossible to know whether she had planned this long ago, if it’s a recent change of mind, or a publicity stunt. And it probably doesn’t matter.

Update: Be sure to read this comment by Amy Sturgis, who was there. She makes it really clear, by providing context, that this was no publicity stunt.

Culture Wars: Navigating the Reactions

All the typical Culture War weapons are in play: Anyone who thinks homosexuality is OK is hell-bound and dangerous to our children. Anyone who opposes it is intolerant and hateful. I have things to say to both groups, but the take-home point is this: It’s never as simple as that, folks.

Note: In what follows, I’m using the terms “liberal” and “conservative” as they are generally used to define the sides of the Culture War. You’ll see later that I call on readers to abandon Culture War categories altogether.

To the “liberal” among us…

I’m starting with those on the side of the Culture War who might call their side the “Tolerant” side. This is the side that believes that anyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin is “hateful.”

I’m going to try to tread lightly on some very sensitive ground here. I think it’s important, though, for a Christian to be able to explain the homosexuality-sin issue in a way that brings understanding. Whether you agree with any of this or not is quite beside the point right now. I’m simply trying to help us understand each other better. Please, please be clear with me about anything in what follows that I’ve written poorly or that bothers you. Let’s all try to understand each other, rather than hiding in trenches and throwing grenades. (One important note: I’m using the term “Christian” in this comment as shorthand for what the Culture Wars call “conservative,” or what might be called “historical Christianity,” which, until very recently in the overall scheme of things, unanimously believed homosexuality to be a sin.) I need to learn as much as anyone else, so I’m hoping to inspire thoughtful, helpful, charitable discussion.

It’s been charged that it’s ok for a Christian to believe homosexuality to be a sin only if that Christians holds the opinion privately. To speak it publicly is to offend, and therefore to be in the wrong, and “intolerant.”

The problem for the Christian is this: to believe something is a “sin” doesn’t just mean, “You’re bad.” Christians believe all of us sin, and are indeed sinners. So to name one specifically isn’t to say, “You’re bad and I’m not.” And further than that, the Christian believes sin to be soul-damaging. If I saw a friend of mine committing adultery, it wouldn’t be intolerant for me to call him on it. If a friend saw me doing the same, I’d need him to call me on it.

So it’s impossible for the Christian to detach belief in something as a “sin” from everything that “sin” means.

Furthermore, the Christian cannot see sexual orientation and race as parallel issues. The Scriptures are very clear on race: Christ died for those of “every tribe, language, and nation.” The central redemptive act of the Christian story was one of racial reconciliation. There is no biblical precedent for racism, nor any indication that being of a certain race can be construed in any way as a sin. Not so with sexual morality. The two issues are vastly different for the Christian who believes the Scriptures are authoritative.

To the “conservative” among us…

I need to ask really important questions to those who have been entirely turned off to this series by Rowling’s recent statements: Why didn’t you turn away from the series when good characters committed sins in the canon itself? Why didn’t you feel abandoned by Rowling, betrayed by someone you thought was on your side?

The problem is this: because of the culture war mentality of American Christianity, whether we admit it or not, we’ve elevated this sin above all the others. While commenters did discuss at length issues like Dumbledore’s lying, Harry’s crucio, and the like, there were no Christians feeling betrayed and wanting to abandon the series altogether as a result of those things. And they were in canon. But as soon as Rowling makes this outside-canon statement, there’s a major blowup.

There’s a major hypocrisy there. We need to step back and spend a good amount of time examining ourselves, to discover the internal sources of this hypocrisy.

Abandon the Culture War

In order to have any genuine, non-hurtful discussion about this, we’re going to have to take a step back, take several deep breaths, and abandon the categories of thinking that our culture has trained us in. We’ve been in Culture War boot camp since birth, and the time has come for you and I to go AWOL. One commenter is so immersed in the Culture War mentality that he was absolutely beside himself with laughter about this whole thing, completely giddy that Rowling has given what he considers ironclad proof that … what? … that he was correct in his assertion that Rowling is not a Christian. Folks, that’s really disturbing. If you genuinely believe that Christ alone saves, and you know the consequences of not believing, there’s nothing appropriate about laughter in that situation at all.

To abandon the Culture War, we have to adopt an attitude of love, despite disagreement about a very highly-charged and deeply personal issue.

Rowling, Postmodern?

As I’ve said before, this revelation comes as no surprise to many of us who have been arguing for years that the Harry Potter books contain deliberate and distinctly Christian elements. While I might be hesitant to call the Harry Potter series “postmodern literature,” it is most definitely influenced by what I might want to call “Pop Postmodernism,” which is usually some form of the tolerance doctrine. Question authority. Don’t be intolerant. Don’t be judgmental.

Christians have a problem of responding to this by saying something arrogant like, “Yes, I’m going to be intolerant, because Jesus told me to.”

Welcome to an exercise in missing the point. Jesus claimed to be the Only Way, but he didn’t tell you to be an ass about it. Quote all the Scriptures about homosexuality. Go ahead. Be a jerk. There was once a group of Pharisees who quoted Scripture to Jesus about the consequences of the woman caught in adultery. Remember how Jesus responded to the arrogant Scripture-quoters?

It’s no surprise whatsoever that Rowling, an advocate for tolerance, and heavily influenced by cultural postmodernism, would be accepting of homosexuality. I don’t believe the explanations that Rowling has given us an example of a person who realized being gay was wrong and so chose celibacy. I think Rowling believes homosexuality not to be a sin. I might even argue that Rowling probably believes that there is great value in other faiths. “Hogwarts is a multifaith school.” Remember, tolerance is key for Rowling.

The problem I’m having with my Christian brothers and sisters is the way in which so many are sitting up nice and high, evaluating and judging Rowling’s version of Christianity, which she freely admits she struggles with, and condemning her for it. Rowling is not a preacher. She is not an ordained minister. She is not writing theological treatises. She is a writer, struggling with her faith, and giving us a story that tells that struggle. She never claimed to be an evangelist, and she’s been quite clear in saying that she was not setting out to do what Lewis did with Narnia.

There is no checklist. Every Christian believes something incorrectly, and every Christian still wrestles with sin, with theology, and with faith. I’d urge my fellow Christians to keep in the very front of your mind that it is always by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Drop the checklist. No Christian has to pass your test.

I’m going to close this with an excellent comment by revgeorge, and then turn it over to you, my brilliant commenters. We’ve worked together through a lot of tough discussions here at SoG before, and this is probably our greatest challenge yet. I’m optimistic we’ll get through it. Thank you, all.

revgeorge:

To say that one cannot profitable read something just because the author is not doctrinally pure is really a stretch. Being a Lutheran minister, I certainly care about doctrinal orthodoxy, but I read lots of stuff that isn’t just from a purely Lutheran background.

To follow the logic of some people here, I couldn’t read anything by Tolkien & extol its Christian elements because Tolkien was a Roman Catholic & thus his theology is deficient. Nor could I read anything by Lewis & extol its Christian imagery because he was an Anglican. That’s just bunk.

Apparently some people think the only book Christians can read is the Bible, otherwise we risk falling prey to some kind of false spirituality. Well, the world is full of false spirituality, which is why we cannot read or watch or listen to anything uncritically. But we can read, watch & listen. Which is why being well grounded in the faith helps to keep us from being lukewarm.

At least Granger & Prinzi critically analyze the content of the HP books. Which stands in stark contrast to how books by Warren & Osteen & the Left Behind series are often treated by evangelical Christians. To listen to some of them talk you’d think those author’s books sprung from the very hand of God Himself!

So, the Harry Haters will never be satisfied. If JKR would espouse a perfect view of orthodox Christianity, live a spotlessly clean lifestyle, & get God’s approval from heaven, people would still criticize her & the books.

Share and Enjoy:

Tags:

130 responses so far ↓

1 Wendy // Oct 21, 2007 at 2:49 am

Travis, I just want to say, that you and revgeorge have articulate so well what I was wanting to say (in the previous post), but as usual, failed so badly in doing so. Can I confess jealously, right now, of anyone who can articulate a common sense answer to such controversial issues?
2 jo (jkr2) // Oct 21, 2007 at 3:09 am

what a lovely, well articulated kick in the pants. well done, you.
3 Amy H. Sturgis // Oct 21, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Well done indeed.
4 Mia // Oct 21, 2007 at 2:01 pm

It [i]is[/i] pretty scary in the other thread… But there are some thoughtful and gracious responses by Travis, revgeorge, Reyhan, Matthew and others to whom I want to say my heartfelt THANK YOU. Excellent post, Travis!
5 Johnny // Oct 21, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Brilliant Travis. I agree that we need to abandon the culture war and take a step back and discuss the issues in an attitude of love despite the disagreements as you said. Good stuff.
6 Richard Abanes // Oct 21, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Travis,

I do hope that you weren’t referring to me as the “one commentator” thinking it is funny that Rowling is not a Christian and the other aspects of this “one commentator.” My amusement is at the whole situation: the original book/posts by John Granger/others like-minded, the subsequent fighting, and now the backpeddling with regard to Rowling, her books, and message, etc. And even that is a nervous laughter — kind of the way people laugh when something is so tragic, terrible, and pathetic that all you can do is laugh to relieve the stress. This whole Rowling thing has been a terribly painful eye-opening experience to me, TBH, and now the “Albus is gay” revelation just caps off the absurdity of what has been a very long, drawn out, ugly conflict among so-called brotehrs and sisters in Christ. If anything is laughable here, it is so many of the actions, words, arguments about Rowling and HP over the years. I, for one, will be very glad when I am old and HP is nothing but a distant memory.
7 Linda // Oct 21, 2007 at 3:02 pm

I’ve never commented before here, but this one required it of me. Thank you, thank you, and thank you for addressing the culture war that currently exists and that JKR’s announcement will exacerbate. You’ve blessed me today. This post is a must-read.
8 reyhan // Oct 21, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Was that who I think it was?

Travis, I’m one of those who argue that the canon stands by itself - the author’s comments before, during and after have little or no significance beside the printed word.

I have also said that Dumbledore’s sexual orientation makes no difference to anything of importance. It just doesn’t matter to the plot, the outcome, or the message.

I would go further, actually, and say that the two interlinked sub-plots: the hallows / Elder Wand, and Grindelwald and the death of Dumbeldore’s sister are fairly secondary to the main story. If I were the screenwriter or editor for the movie version, they are amongst the things I’d think of pruning drastically, in the interests of telling the main story. Sort of like excising Saruman’s death scene in LOTR:RoTK. Christopher Lee was livid, but it didn’t really hurt the story, did it?

So DD’s sexual orientation is not essential, it’s not important, it’s just backstory.

If I had thought about DD’s sexuality at all - which I didn’t because you just don’t think of the Wise Old Man as having a sex life - I would have seen him as asexual, all his energy and interest devoted to war and politics, by disposition as well as because of his age.

I think that the backstory which JKR alluded to is quite consistent with how he came to be the way he is. It is also not entirely without support in the canon.

Let us assume that DD, like C.S. Lewis, could only be sexually attracted to someone who was his intellectual equal. JKR said that at a much earlier point, that DD’s weakness was that being so much superior to others, he had no one to share his thoughts and plans with. Very early on, he finds and becomes infatuated with someone who is his intellectual although not moral equal. We don’t know if his passion was returned. We do know that his passion blinded him to Grindelwald’s weaknesses, and led to a disastrous outcome. The result: DD learns to distrust his needs and feelings. He will not seek power, and he will not seek love, because those things make him less than he must be. So he removes himself from temptation and seeks refuge in academia.

The backstory works.
9 Sean // Oct 21, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Whoa, I mean, sure this post is down right fantastic, but that’s no reason for this gratuitous praise =)
10 reyhan // Oct 21, 2007 at 4:39 pm

I started my previous comment earlier in the day, and just finished it off. But I didn’t want to lose my original question:

Who wrote the second comment on this post? Just after Travis?
11 Sean // Oct 21, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Clearly it was J.K. Rowling.
12 Sean // Oct 21, 2007 at 4:49 pm

I’m serious.
13 reyhan // Oct 21, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Yes.
14 Travis Prinzi // Oct 21, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Ha! Just for clarification, “jo” (jkr2) has commented before, and no, it’s not Ms. Rowling.
15 Sean // Oct 21, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Awe, it was fun to speculate! I’m still gonna pretend it’s her.
16 Mary Jo Neyer // Oct 21, 2007 at 5:02 pm

First,I want to thank Travis for the great essay. The struggle with how to understand homosexuality and how Christ regards homosexuals is a huge one. I know the scriptural quotes, and I know individuals whom I think are good people, who are also homosexual.
My oldest daughter told me last night that Dumbledore was gay, according to JKR. I was mildly surprised, because, before the 7th book came out, I had actually thought JKR might put in a gay character because I knew there was a certain element among her readers who were eager to see a gay person-hence all the rumors about Sirius and Lupin, to which I never gave much credence.
My other thought was that it confirmed an aspect of Dumbledore which I think is disclosed in the later books, particularly. The man did not really love, or understand love. Now, I do not mean to write here that a gay person cannot love; but I did think DUMBLEDORE was deficient in the ability to love. We have discussed this previously in other posts, where I argued that Dumbledore was a manipulator, and loved his plans more than any individual. If he loved anyone, he loved Harry.
Perhaps JKR’s explanation regarding Dumbledore’s relationship to Grindelwald is meant to clarify to the readers the reasons for his Machiavellian behaviour, and his inability to believe that Snape could have loved Lily through all those years.
17 TnTexas // Oct 21, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Very, very well said! Thank you!
18 Eeyore // Oct 21, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Travis (and revgeorge), thank you again for your guidance and your patience. Now that it’s almost two days past, I’m not feeling quite the same way. More just disappointed that Rowling has made this an issue, which it wasn’t in the books. If she wanted readers to wrestle with the subject, it would have been better to include it in the text, having several of the characters struggle with it, show tolerance, etc. –that would have given readers the chance to do the same. Bringing it up now was just so out of the blue that it seems out of place. After having re-read the Dumbledore portions of DH yesterday, I found that it doesn’t change the way I feel about his character, because the way it’s written is that they were friends. That’s what I saw the first time and still do.

I had a very sweet apology from a poster on my live journal, and wrote back to her there, mainly to let her know the apology wasn’t necessary. Anytime an even slightly controversial subject is brought up on any forum, it seems to bring out the best and the worst in all of us. So my apologies to all if I’ve said something unkind or hurtful. I realize that I might have done that in trying to explain my reaction. And the giddy poster didn’t help anything either with his gloating attitude.

The only part of the Culture War that I’m thoroughly a part of is the “question authority”. Having been in high school and college in the mid-sixties to early seventies that is definitely a path I’ve traveled–and still do to some extent. And to add fuel to that fire, while most people my age were listening to the Beatles and the Beach Boys, I was listening to every folk group, singing their songs and finding old protest songs from the Woody Guthrie era. It’s music that still resonates with me. I think where I fell away from that line of thought was when everything became politically correct and rather than being inclusive as it was originally intended, it became a way to divide. Those who espouse the PC line are welcome to offer their opinions loudly and often, but to disagree with them suddenly classed people as intolerant and narrow minded. *sigh* It was never supposed to be that way. The PC view of everything has just turned it all upside down without the benefit of thoughtful reasoning. (Not so different really, than the ideas put out in the late 60s/early 70s about free love–that if you didn’t go along with it, there was something wrong with you. That was a far cry from the encouragement to question authority and to stand up for those who couldn’t do it for themselves, or to help them learn to fight for their rights through the system, without destroying it.

All that’s a long way off the subject that IS getting rather scary on the other post. But it does fit in, I think, with what you were saying about the Culture Wars. I really hope that when the dust clears that we can all return to discussing what is actually IN the books. As much as I enjoyed the process of reading a book, then hearing Rowling explain little details or give more information, now that the books are done, I’m ready for her to stop talking about them. She doesn’t seem to have a clear picture of what happened to the characters, or I think she would have included it in the books in the first place.

Oh, and one funny thing: when I was re-reading the account of Dumbledore and Grindelwald, I noticed a huge problem with her math (bigger than the ones about how many students, the ages of the Weasleys). She had said at one point that Dumbledore was 150, then he was just a bit over 100. But what I read yesterday means that he was born in 1922, making him 74 when he died.

He defeated Grindelwald 5 years after they met, which was when Albus was almost 18. And all through the books, it’s mentioned that he defeated Grindelwald in 1945. There’s no way Albus could have been over 100 years old. It also presents a problem for him having been Tom Riddle’s teacher–they are nearly the same age, but Dumbledore seems much older. So did he immediately start teaching at Hogwarts after Ariana’s death? No, never mind, don’t tell me. I’ll just read the books and enjoy them as they are.

Pat
19 Katie // Oct 21, 2007 at 5:30 pm

I agree with everyone saying basically “big deal.” I find it interesting that he’s gay, but more in a “hmm, ok, I guess that makes sense,” sort of way, rather than “Oh my, he’s GAY?!? What in the world?!?” It’s a neat little morsel of backstory, and for people who actually do read the books and discuss them with friends and online, it does help explain a bit. I wondered why Dumbledore didn’t fight Grindelwald right away when Grindelwald was so powerful, he just kind of dawdled until he couldn’t put it off anymore. At first I thought it was because they were friends, but Dumbledore didn’t seem like the kind of guy who would put a past friendship in front of the well-being of the wizarding world (case in point: how Dumbledore handled the Harry/Voldemort situation). I figured it was something “more” than that, and now that we learn that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald, that bit of the story makes more sense.

I don’t think JK Rowling sat at her desk and went “Mwahahaha! I’m going to make Dumbledore gay and piss everyone off!” I think that, when she was plotting out the whole overarching story of Dumbledore’s past with Grinelwald, it just kind of fell into place that there was this unrequited love that Dumbledore had for Grindelwald. No, it’s not essential to the core storyline, but neither is the information that Neville married Hannah Abbot, or that that Harry became an Auror. No one explodes about those extra bits of information, so I don’t see why Dumbledore’s sexuality should be treated so differently.
20 jo (jkr2) // Oct 21, 2007 at 6:37 pm

hahahaha….

sorry - i forgot that it’s so long since i posted here that people would forget i’m just a little ol’ reader in australia who HAPPENS to share jkr’s initials.

not her.

sorry.
21 reyhan // Oct 21, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Bummer.

I feel like I felt at the end of Dogma when God comes in, and I get all excited, and then realize that it’s only Alanis Morissette.
22 korg20000bc // Oct 21, 2007 at 6:56 pm

From Rowling’s website. The latest diary entry reads:

JULY 18th

We are almost there! As launch night looms, let’s all, please, ignore the misinformation popping up on the web and in the press on the plot of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I’d like to ask everyone who calls themselves a Potter fan to help preserve the secrecy of the plot for all those who are looking forward to reading the book at the same time on publication day. In a very short time you will know EVERYTHING!

Well… Surely “EVERYTHING” is a huge stretch if she keeps dropping bombshells.

Why is it hard for her to leave it stand as is? Maybe she should refrain from saying she’ll answer ANY question at readings.

Matthew
23 Shauna // Oct 21, 2007 at 7:18 pm

I can’t help but think that part of the reason she is unable to just let her books speak for themselves is that she knows in the back of her mind that no matter what project she takes on next and how successful it becomes, she will never have quite this level of popularity again. She wants to give her fans what they want, and what many of them want is answers to all the questions that didn’t get addressed in the series.

Earlier Rowling said that she removed some of the original content from the epilogue because she wanted to leave an element of mystery in the books and make the ending more nebulous and poetic. I just wish she would have stuck with that plan.
24 esoterica1693 // Oct 21, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Eeyore–
That is a confusing bit about the 5 years.

But I read it as AD waiting 5 years from the start of GG’s active fighting and grab for power, *not* 5 years from when they met. IOW they met around the turn of the century, had nothing to do w/ each other for almost 40 years, while GG gradually made plans and amassed power. He started his power grab in 1940, roughly analogous to the start of the muggle WW2. AD dueled him in 1945.
25 The Boar’s Head Tavern » // Oct 21, 2007 at 7:34 pm

[...] points and questions, John. I just did a lengthy essay in response to this whole thing (Dumbledore is Gay: Welcome to the Culture War), and here is the portion in which I addressed Christian reactions [...]
26 EarlNagle // Oct 21, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Well said Travis!
And the best part was this: “I’d urge my fellow Christians to keep in the very front of your mind that it is always by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.”

Amen
27 Leslie // Oct 21, 2007 at 8:47 pm

Excellent post.

As a non-Christian and someone who believes that even the Hebrew Scriptures contain an often beautiful, sometimes appalling record by a people of their ongoing relationship with the Divine, rather than every word being straight from God, this is not a theological issue for me. (Not that I think all Christians here believe that.)

On the other hand, I have to say that sometimes, in her delight at her newfound freedom to finally be able to TALK about the characters and their backstories (the lack of which I’m sure has been very frustrating to her), maybe she might give us TOO much information.

Personally I think that, rather than being ashamed of his homosexuality and remaining celibate for the rest of his life, Dumbledore was probably appalled by the fact that he had fallen into such a terribly destructive relationship that did so much damage, and, as with his attitude to power, never trusted himself to get into another one. He could have had the same relationship with a “Griselda Grindelwald” and had the same reaction.
28 Alby Danged // Oct 21, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Rowling has mentioned that, during production of the most recent Harry Potter film, she noticed a script draft that mentioned a female old flame of Dumbledore’s, and that she dropped the director a discreet note explaining why it had to be cut.

So, this is something she had decided at least before Book 7 was published, not something that just popped into her head in retrospect.
29 Dave, the Longwinded // Oct 21, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Travis, this is one of the most measured responses to this issue that I’ve read in a long time, from any perspective. Thank you for that. It’s one I’m absolutely certain I couldn’t have written (that sounds far more arrogant than I intend).

But I do think this all sheds an interesting light on the whole relationship between authors and their work…! *wink, wink*
30 Travis Prinzi // Oct 21, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Dave, indeed. I just tried to email you, but my email’s acting funny. I’ve had a request that we open up a specific discussion on the relationship of authors to their work. Any chance you’d be able to make that an essay this week? Tie it to the current discussion.
31 reyhan // Oct 21, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Matthew, she’s been living with these characters for 17 years. Even after having written seven books, there must be a lot of backstory she hasn’t shared.

Can you honestly say that you don’t want to know any more? Do you really not wish for more, or is it that you don’t like what you already saw?

I can honestly say it makes no difference to me. There are many layers to this or any other story. There are the basic elements without which you would not have this story: Lily’s sacrifice, the resulting unholy bond between Harry and Voldemort, Snape’s undying love for Lily, Dumbledore’s loving but deceitful guardianship, the death of Sirius Black, Harry’s sacrifice and resurrection. Then there are the characters which add to the basic story: the Dursleys, Ron and Hermione, Hagrid, Wormtail, Draco and so on. Without their contribution, the story would lose a lot of its flavour and substance. And radiating outwards from these two inner layers or circles, you have more and more layers of story and detail, a whole universe of detail about who and when and how and why.

My point is, except for inner core elements, all of the elements of the story could have been different. They probably went through many transitions until JKR decided what they would look like and what they would be called. Remember Hermione’s sister who got written out? Remember the awful difficulties JKR had writing Goblet of Fire? A lot of things happened to Harry in the first draft, that never ended up happening to him in the canon.

The story we ended up with is the result of thousands of choices JKR made from the near-infinity of choices available to her. Those details are set in stone, now and forever. But in the backstory we don’t know about, those choices are not set in stone. How could they be? All the things the author has not put down in print are open to change, depending on her feelings, her perceptions, her views of life. If you think about it, would you really expect her to write the same way, or write the same story, now, as she would have 17 years ago? Ten years ago? Two years ago?

What is truly marvellous to me is that the core story she thought out 17 years ago, on that train to King’s Cross, held true and strong for 17 years and through 7 books. It is a testament to the strength of her vision, and also to the strength of the story.

Travis, you write that JKR’s characters got away from her. I think that her characters grew, as she grew. Caricatures became people, simple people became complicated, complex characters became flawed and inconsistent. A beloved teacher became a man running from responsibility, a beloved god father became a surly, immature, risk-taker, a hated, sadistic teacher became a man capable of undying love, and a hapless school-mate became a leader and a hero.

And a beloved mentor became a man who distrusted and fought his capacity for love because it clouded his vision fatally the one time he thought he had found someone he could love.

And of course, it won’t stop there. As JKR changes, the backstory will change. It’s inevitable. If you don’t want to know, don’t ask.
32 roundglasses // Oct 21, 2007 at 11:43 pm

I would like to suggest a re-reading of the truth and confession of Albus Dumbledore in the DH King’s Cross chapter, from the end of(Scholastic) pg. 712, beginning with the paragraph “The Deathly Hallows…”
to mid-page 720.

On page 713 we learn from Dumbledore that “I have no secrets from you [Harry] anymore…

On page 714 that …looking for the Hallows is the one thing, above all, that drew us together [Dumbledore and Grindelwald]

On page 715 Dumbledore confesses love for parents, brother and sister, but I [Dumbledore] was selfish…felt trapped with Ariana after his mother’s death.

Then he [Grindelwald] came…how his ideas caught me…muggles forced into subservience…glorious leaders of the revolution.

Did I know in my heart of hearts what Grindelwald was? I think I did, but I closed my eyes…at the heart of our schemes the Deathly Hallows!

Invincible, Masters of death….Grindelwald and Dumbledore (p.717)
TWO MONTHS of insanity, of cruel dreams and neglect of the only two members of my family left to me…

Reality returned in the form of my rough, unlettered brother. I did not want to hear the truth shouted at me…that I could not setforth to seek Hallows with a fragle and unstable sister in tow…

The argument became a fight…Grindelwald lost control. That which I had always sensed in him, though I pretended not to, now sprung into being….Ariana…dead on the floor….

Grindelwald fled…vanished…he ran while I was left to bury my sister,,,,(and after the infamous duel)…They say he showed remorse in later years, alone in his cell at Nurmengard. I hope that is true. I would like to think he did feel the horror and shame of what he had done…(pg.719)

I find NO reference here to any gay relationship when reading the entire text in context. Where is it? And for two months?? It just doesn’t fit because it isn’t there.
33 Travis Prinzi // Oct 21, 2007 at 11:44 pm

reyhan, yes, that’s another way to look at it. I think a little of both happened. Some of her characters grew and remained consistent. Some got away from her.

It is interesting to hear and learn backstory, but I think Alastair’s comment is correct - it’s her job to write, ours to read. I like having room for imagination. We’ll be able to have some good discussion on this when Dave finds get to get a post up on the relationship of an author to her work. That should be some interesting stuff.
34 Leslie // Oct 22, 2007 at 12:28 am

Having read over more carefully the context of JKR’s remark, I suppose that it was a legitimate revelation to make, and it certainly explains some things about the relationship with Grindelwald, e.g. Dumbledore’s hesitation to actually challenge him as well as some of his initial fascination with GG and his ideas.

My initial concern, which I still feel, is the extent to which this will distract from the real merits of the books to, as Travis says, a “culture war” thing. On the other hand, this may be a salutary experience to a lot of people who have little or no experience (as far as they know) with gays. This is the way it happens in real life to a lot of people, when someone whom they like, love and/or admire enormously “comes out” to them, or if the person is a public figure, it is revealed that the he or she is gay. They then have to face the question, especially if they have a negative view of homosexuality, whether this one fact negates all of the wonderful, positive aspects of the person’s life and personality. I would hope that in Dumbledore’s case most people would end up answering no. He is still the same humane, compassionate person we’ve all come to know and love over seven books, despite the flaws in his character that were revealed in DH. He definitely suffered and learned from his mistakes, although not perfectly.
35 labrialumn // Oct 22, 2007 at 12:40 am

Travis,
Arrogant to quote God’s Word? What an amazing declaration! God is a jerk? I mean, that -is- what you are implying.

How far do you take that? I can tell you aren’t Lutheran, for you deny the first, second and possibly the third uses of the Law!

As to the woman caught in adultery, that passage is late and spurious and that is well-known.

If you read my post on the prior thread, you know that I am not condemning JKR, but urging kindness and prayer.

But I am also not going to be unfaithful to God at “exactly those points where the world and the devil are now attacking” to quote Luther.

Scripture itself urges us to correct fellow Christians as a matter of obedience to God, and to preach the Gospel - including the problem; sin, for which Christ died in the first place. Being convicted in oneself of sin and guilt is painful, but it is necessary, there is no other way to the cure.
36 labrialumn // Oct 22, 2007 at 12:53 am

Finally, this discussion is not the way I wished for things to go. I’d rather discuss whether this report by Rita Skeeter is validated by the text, and if so, what might be meant by it. I think that revelations about AD in books six and seven, especially King’s Cross, and the whole theme or sub-theme in seven about Dumbledore’s character, character flaws and whether Harry should trust Dumbledore’s plan or not, are more interesting and germaine.
37 colorless.blue.ideas // Oct 22, 2007 at 1:53 am

Travis, you wrote a lot of good things in your essay. I hope you will take this criticism in the spirit it is meant, i.e., as a friendly and constructive critique.

In your opening statement, you express a hope that the reader will “run from the Culture War as quickly as I have.” With all due respect, your essay ends up taking a firm position in the Culture War and insults those on the other side. I don’t think you meant to do this, based upon your other posts and the totality of the essay, but that’s how it came across to me. Let me explain why I saw it that way.

1. You drew a line Culture War by the labeling one of the two camps “tolerant” and the other “intolerant”. The labels say it all: the one side practices a commonly recognized virtue (tolerance), while the other side opposes the virtue. The use of scare quotes really doesn’t help.

Hmmm. Perhaps one side could be labeled
the “hedonistic” and the “non-hedonistic.” Or maybe the “moral” and the “immoral”? Would that have been better? I think not, at least not for the purposes of the essay.

I think that, in such an instance, it is better to choose labels which either both reflect the virtues each side is claiming, or both reflect the vice or lack of virtue the other side is opposed to. In this case, perhaps the “tolerant” and the “sexually moral” might work — or (if one has to choose the negative) “hedonist” and “intolerant”.

2. “No personal attacks. Ever. This includes namecalling, insinuations of stupidity, unfounded accusations and criticisms, rude sarcasm, or attempted psychological evaluations of commenters.” A good goal. Yet, “I’m not afraid to use the word ‘homophobia’ to describe” some people’s positions.

The neologism “homophobia” is out-and-out namecalling. It has no relationship to any reasonably objective criticism, but is designed to accuse one’s opponent of having a mental problem. That and associated words function solely as growl words. Labeling someone a “homophobe” is as insulting as to call someone a “nigger” nowadays. I don’t think you meant it that way, but that is how it is often used and usually how it is often perceived as being used.

There. I’ve said my piece for now on the matter. I think that you intended to be more balanced and help bridge this great divide. You said a lot of good things to people on both sides of the divide. Evenso, the preponderance of the criticism went one way, as also did the insults. I am on one email discussion group where I would have liked to post some of your discussion. However, the insults and slant would ensure that the message would not get through. (People who are insulted a lot for their beliefs tend to become rather sensitive even to minor slights in passing.)

I personally don’t see this (Dumbledore as ‘gay’) to be that big of a deal, although I recognize that many people do. It would be nice if people with different views could dialog: even if they still disagree, at least they’d better understand where others come from. Calling one side a bunch of intolerant homophobes doesn’t help.
38 Eeyore // Oct 22, 2007 at 3:21 am

Now that even just a little time has passed, I find that I’m not half so annoyed with JKR as I was. It just took me by surprise and I didn’t feel good–still don’t, actually.

So I’ve had to remind myself of what I’ve reminded others–it’s her story, her characters, and she had the vision and determination to write it and see it through. To work on something so huge (and wonderful) for 17 years is truly amazing.

Do I want all the back story? I thought I did. But when I finished DH, I found that I didn’t need it. If it hadn’t been important enough to Rowling to put it in the books, then I needed to quit dwelling on things like Madam Irma Pince and whether or not she is Snape’s mother with an anagram name. (I do wish someone would ask her, just for fun.)

Reading the question and answer about Dumbledore in the context of the Q&A part of the evening really shows that it’s the news media, imitating Rita Skeeter, who turned this into something it didn’t need to be. (And I would have loved to hear her read the chapter “The Silver Doe”–it’s one of my favorites in the book.)

Travis, I understand your point about some of the characters getting away from her. There were times that I think we, as readers, were seeing something in Snape, for instance, that she didn’t see. Or perhaps she did and it was just her masterful try at misdirection because we were getting too close to who Snape was.

Pat
39 Maria // Oct 22, 2007 at 3:46 am

I don’t think it’s fair to say that because JKR is wrong about something she isn’t a christian. I have a christian friend who is now completely sold out to god and has grown and changed over the years. She and I had debates about Jesus being the only way, whether or not homosexuality is a sin etc. she was a Christian but believed that there were other ways to God, and that homosexuality was ok. We argure about it until it went round in circles. I resolved to tell her that I loved her and agreed to disagree. Well, I prayed not that I would be shown right, but that god would help her grow in her faith. she is now one of the strongest christians I know and has studied the bible and some of her views have changed. I guess I’m trying to say that saying someone isn’t a Christian because they believe something incorrectly isn’t really fair. I wonder how many things will God have to correct us in when we get to heaven?
Maria
40 korg20000bc // Oct 22, 2007 at 3:46 am

Reyhan,

Of course I want to know lots and lots more… as long as it fits in with all my preconceived ideas!

Matthew
41 Michael // Oct 22, 2007 at 6:00 am

Travis I know you were referring to me when you brought up the group that is ‘Outright anger that anyone would be so dumb or hateful as to think of homosexuality as a sin, with accompanying promises to never return to this website’. As I enjoy your sight and have now taken my avid brake from the HP fandom in general and wish to return to it, and this sight inparticular, I won’t be going any where (those images you’ve been aksing for, for the past six months are in the early stages, BARE WITH ME, I’m more than happy to do anything for you and this sight.)

I admire you coming out and writing this second topic about Dumbledore, and think the article is a very great analysis on the various view points on this sight. I am probably in the minority with my opinions, and that’s fine. I did expect a different general over view but that’s fine as well. What annoys me most is when people come out and say that Dumbledore being gay will effect their views on the series. I don’t know how this piece of information can effect anything, especially when it’s barley even alluded to in the books.
42 Mary Jo Neyer // Oct 22, 2007 at 8:13 am

I read some of the other information JKR gave and found that her discussions of her reasons for her scenes, such as why she chose Molly to kill Bellatrix, were also very interesting. Do we need to keep on discussing “Dumbledore is gay?” I thought equally as interesting was her disclosure that she deliberately wanted to shock readers by contrasting the Machiavellian Dumbldore to Snape’s intense goal of keeping Harry alive. She remarked something to the effect that “Who would have guessed that such could be the true situation if one looked back to Book 1?” The background is information she provides helps us to understand why she chose to write the last book as she did.
43 Travis Prinzi // Oct 22, 2007 at 8:33 am

labrialumn wrote, “Arrogant to quote God’s Word? What an amazing declaration! God is a jerk? I mean, that -is- what you are implying.”

Not in the least! I don’t deny any of the three uses of the law, and if you read the post carefully, you’ll see that I do argue that Christians should indeed call a sin a sin. It’s the self-righteous attitude behind the condemnation of this particular sin, along with the hypocrisy in pointing out this sin and not others that bothers me.

colorless, thanks for your points. I’m giving them some thought, but allow me to try to make some sense of them in context:

The quotes around “tolerant” and “intolerant” - I was using the categories as they are used in the Culture War itself, and then urging folks to abandon those categories altogether. So I have a hard time seeing how those titles are insulting when I’m asking folks to abandon them.

Talking about “homophobia” is not out-and-out namecalling. I’m sorry, but as much as the term has been abused, homophobia exists, and it’s a huge part of the Culture War. I’m urging my fellow Christians to abandon the absurd over-reaction to that one sin above all others.

I’d also say in my defense that of course I’m giving more criticism to one side than the other - that side happens to be my “side,” so to speak. You don’t bridge understanding by spending a significant amount of time criticizing the other side; you spend it evaluating and criticizing your own side first. That’s what I was attempting to do.

I mean, what, really, is the problem here? Rowling made this statement, the media ran with it (they deserve their criticism for the way in which they ran with it), and then certain groups within Christianity had an over-reaction. The over-reaction needs correction.
44 reyhan // Oct 22, 2007 at 10:03 am

Let he (or she, I suppose) who is without sin cast the first stone.

I think that quote is a useful one to think about under the present circumstances. I’m not thinking of the religious conservatives who find homosexuality especially sinful, or the liberals who point fingers and say “homophobe” to anyone who doesn’t agree with them on all aspects of what is politically correct. Intolerance is not restricted to one side or the other, I think.

No, what I’m talking about is us, and our attack dogs, the media, who keep asking questions of the author, who aren’t contented with what she’s given us but want to know more: backstory, future story, motives, thoughts, feelings.

I’m also talking about JKR, who feeds the need, who won’t say “That’s all she wrote, take it or leave it, it’s time to move on.”

We, the readers, and she, the author, have this unholy and historically unique relationship. She has allowed us into her working notes, and we have taken up residence there, and assumed squatters’ rights.

Travis has asked Dave to write a post on this, and I think it will generate some fascinating debate.
45 Mary Jo Neyer // Oct 22, 2007 at 10:06 am

I just finished reading John Granger’s essay over at Hogwartsprofessor on the subject of “gay Dumbledore” and thought it was excellent. Maybe Travis can set up a direct link to it.
46 Travis Prinzi // Oct 22, 2007 at 10:27 am

colorless, I decided to remove the word “homophobia” and put in a more general statement about the need to examine ourselves to determine the source of our hypocrisy. While I still think “homophobia” exists, I think you’re correct about the potential of hurting the very discussion I’m trying to get started with the use of potentially inflammatory language. I’ve also added a caveat to the “tolerant” and “intolerant” section.
47 charismom // Oct 22, 2007 at 11:13 am

Well, some time has gone by and I do feel a little better about all this - although honestly I am still saddened by it all. I can definitely relate to Eeyore’s comments. I appreciate your thoughts, too, Travis, well said (although I do think the word “homophobia” is unhelpful).

For some reason it was harder for me to deal with this issue as it relates to Dumbledore than with the people I know in real life. I wonder why. It seems that for me it is easier to hate the sin but love the sinner when the sinner is standing in front of you looking into your eyes. (After all, it’s evident to them that I’m a sinner, too.) At work I have tried never to condone the variety of sinful acts that people bring to my attention - and sometimes even expect me to celebrate - yet they do know that I care about them as people and I have good relationships with them.

But for some reason I’ve had a harder time with Dumbledore. I admit it rather shocked me at first to read about his flaws in DH, but as I thought about it, I appreciated what the books were trying to tell me about human flaws and our choices. The books certainly have powerful things to say about that!

So why am I still disappointed? Maybe it’s because characters in books are more than just people, they represent more. The HP series is so popular, it cannot help influencing young minds. Mostly that’s a good thing - so many good messages there. But I guess I am saddened that the topic of homosexuality will now subtly tinge a story that would have better off without it.

Or maybe my disappointment is just Culture War-weariness. Yesterday in church our youth pastor spoke about how the “in” thing in middle schools these days is oral sex and bisexuality. MIDDLE SCHOOL! The “mom” in me cringes, grieves, longs for it to be a different world.

Yet maybe that’s why we SHOULD be talking about these things. I would give anything to be able to shield my precious, still-innocent daughter from these issues, but I know I can’t. There must be a way to approach them biblically, and in love, but without compromise. I wish it were not so hard. I cannot over-react, and I am rightly corrected, but I also cannot be silent - I must respond to the lies which desire to seduce my child.

Anyway… I think I can go back to my re-read of DH now. It feels good to have been able to unload all of this - and read every else’s thoughts, too. Thank you. I am sure grateful for this web site!
48 Joseph G // Oct 22, 2007 at 1:22 pm

As an atheist, a gay man and no great friend of religion, I have to say I very much admire the essay above. One of my principle problems with the so called Christian conservatives is how they have elevated one perceived sin above all the others. I do not understand what makes homosexuality so much worse than many of the other things the bible condemns (sometimes contradictorily). What gives Christians the right to pick and choose what they deem to be God’s “law”?

View the gay community as sinful if you like. To be frank, many of us are hardly losing much sleep over it. I just don’t understand why it changes your perception of a beloved fictional character to find out a detail of his personality that has little bearing on the story (serving only to flesh out Dumbledore’s character in a more satisfying way). You loved him before, why do you love him less now? What has made him different? Are there no “sinful” parts of your nature? One imagines that these people who condemn, who have had Harry Potter ruined for them forever, could walk right on in to the Garden of Eden–never needed Jesus to die on the cross for them at all.

Perhaps you should spend more time criticizing yourselves and your own communities (because undeniably we have all sinned) and less time throwing stones at people who aren’t even proselytizing, but rather just making an innocent remark. As Travis said, JK Rowling has a post modern, new age philosophy–one that appeals to me more than any messages about intolerance.
49 Ginevra // Oct 22, 2007 at 1:57 pm

In preparation to discuss the separate nature of the author and the work, you may want to refer to an existing essay on Scribbulus, “If the Author Is Dead, Who’s Updating her Website”, http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/features/essays/issue9/authordead.
50 Ginevra // Oct 22, 2007 at 2:04 pm

(This comment disappeared, so I am posting again.)

Several have commented that Jo’s characters have gotten away from her and done unexpected things. I don’t think that is the case. For one, she said that she “always” thought of Dumbledore as gay, at least that is the quote by some accounts. Of course, she could have not meant that literally, but here is a better quote:

QUESTION: “During the course of the seven books you’ve written, have any of the characters developed in an unexpected way that has surprised even you, the creator of them?”

JKR: “Ummmm … sometimes characters misbehave a little bit, and want to do their own thing. But I think I know them very very well, so they’ve never really taken me by surprise. Except — I can say this because it hasn’t happened but there is speculation at one point on the internet that Neville and Luna would end up together (audience giggles). And I said, ‘No, that won’t happen.’ But you know what, while writing Seven, I started to feel a bit of a pull between Luna and Neville in a way. I started to see how that could work, but it hasn’t happened. That was an interesting thing. The moment I’d said, ‘Of course, they would never fancy each other,’ I go… I don’t know… You know, I kind of see that.”
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0720-bluepeter.html
51 Travis Prinzi // Oct 22, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Joseph G, thanks for your response. The fact that you found the essay helpful makes me hopeful that we can open up good discussion.

I’d make one clarification in response to your comment: I’d say Rowling has a “post-modern, Christian philosophy” (rather than a “new age” philosophy). As Rowling has said herself, “New age-ism leaves me cold.”
52 Mrs. Weasley // Oct 22, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Hello, old friends. It has been very insightful reading all the comments thus far, and I have only one thing to add.

I would have been equally disappointed to learn that Dumbledore (or anyone else, for that matter) had had an adulterous affair, or if Ginny and Harry had decided to live together without benefit of marriage, etc. I love hearing backstory, but I guess what I don’t love is hearing something that would never have made it into the books. One of the things I most love about these books are that the relationships are kept chaste (although she came dangerously close to making Tom Riddle an illegitimate child, but thankfully she didn’t). I remember when we were discussing, way back before Book 7 came out, the “unlikely pairing” JKR had mentioned (and boy, I guess we found out, didn’t we?!), and some people were suggesting Snape and Narcissa, etc. I commented that I hoped JKR would not have anyone falling in love with a married woman in these books, which are, after all, a children’s story. I would have been very disappointed had she done that.

I still love the stories and their message. This “revelation” won’t change that, ever. In the end, though, I’m a mom with young children who, because of these headlines, now has some ’splaining to do, before she thinks her kids are really ready for it. And for something that really doesn’t matter to the story.

It’s been lovely reading about Harry Potter again, even with this contentious subject, and seeing all the familiar names on here. Thank you, Travis.
53 revgeorge // Oct 22, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Travis, I’m glad you thought my one comment was excellent enough to include in your article. I’m just trying to help people keep some balance in all this, even though it can clearly be seen where I stand on the issues.

Other people have been able to do this too, like Joseph above who clearly stands on the other side of the issue yet can find what others say helpful.

The thing that gets me riled up is when people essentially say, you don’t even have the right to disagree with me. That’s way worse than simply disagreeing with each other.

Anyway, great article above. I’ll be happy when the thread on authors & their works gets started. I think that’s way more interesting & possibly more important than the whole Dumbledore is gay thing.
54 Professor L // Oct 22, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Drat. You took away my comment. I was listening on the podcast.

Thank you because I believe that did not describe what many are feeling about this (and yes I was disturbed by the lying, the crucio etc too! Not to mention Ariana’s story! You had me shouting at my ipod!) Because there is concern about the issue of dealing with same-sex attractions in what is marketed as a children’s book, does not mean one is a homophobe. The media taunts about Christians(made worse for me since this happened right after the desecration in San Francisco was plastered everywhere) are more what I believe people are reacting to. It just makes me tired… that’s why I wish it had not been brought up. Another commentator called it ‘Culture War Weariness.’ That says it all.

often because of the issue in the larger context–does not mean someone is homophobic.

‘While I still think “homophobia” exists, I think you’re correct about the potential of hurting the very discussion I’m trying to get started with the use of potentially inflammatory language. I’ve also added a caveat to the “tolerant” and “intolerant” section.’
55 SuprKufr // Oct 22, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Wow, this thread and the one that preceded it are amazing and very telling.

I am a gay man, and I was elated when I found out that Dumbledore was gay. Why is this? Because I believe that this will only help gay people around the world and particularly in the USA. When I mean help gay people, I mean that it will inspire people to see gay men as positive role models and people to look up to rather than sexual freaks who should be shunned, prosecuted, or killed by AIDS. In other words, I believe that it will lessen some of the abuse that gay people receive at the hands of Christians.

What I find very interesting about the responses is that they do, in fact, show the depth of disgust and animus that many Christians feel toward gay people.

For example, labralium wrote, “sin against the infinite God has an infinite price, and there is the depth of depravity against God’s creational intent, and hatred against God Himself” in regards to what gay people do, reminding us that “not all sins are the same”. In other words, being gay is the most evil thing one can do, as it is sinning not only against god but against his “creational intent” and is tantamount to “hating god”.

Carla Lute wrote, “The sin [of homosexuality] occurs when we allow ourselves to fixate on them sexually…and this goes for hetero relationships as well I believe.” In other words, two men loving each other is just “fixating on someone sexually” and has no meaning outside of that.

Johnny wrote, “I admit I was bothered by this news, but we do not know the extent of Dumbledore’s homosexuality.” In other words, he wants to figure out just how bad the homosexuality was. I.e., maybe it was just some experimentation and nothing “serious”.

Trish writes, “If you accept Dumbledore as a homosexual character, you do have to look at much of the story differently, particularly his relationship with Harry in book 6. That isn’t actually pedophilia, incidentally, considering Harry’s age, but it does tend to make one wonder–and puts an unpleasant spin on Harry’s wish in book 7 that Dumbledore had loved him.” If a young girl were to say, “I wish my daddy loved me”, would Trish think impure thoughts about that question? She’s essentially admits to a belief that gay men cannot love male children without wanting to have sex with them.

The whole thing is fascinating and revelatory: Christians do not love gays. Christians think gays are disgusting garbage, and Christians *want* gays to be trash. This is precisely why the Dumbledore revelation is so upsetting to them. A gay man is now being portrayed as a positive role model, and, in particular, a positive role model to children.

That violates Christian morality in a huge, huge way. Christopher Hitches can write a book about god being not great, and Christians can handle that. That’s not such a big blasphemy. But if you portray gay people as kind, loving, and virtuous, then that is like shanking Jesus Christ and will not be tolerated, as many, many comments have shown.

Furthermore, I object to the notion that I have to accept Christian criticism of homosexuality as a legitimate expression of their faith. They can easily reform away that part of their faith if they so desire. The key, of course, is the desire. They *want* to dislike gay people. It makes them feel pure because they can avoid the sin which they aren’t tempted by and thus don’t commit.

Notice that gluttons, liars, and adulterers don’t receive the abuse that gay people get. Do you wonder why? Those *are* sins, after all.
56 RenaBlack // Oct 22, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Travis,

Well done.

I wish the defensiveness and polarization of the “Culture War” could give way so we could finally have a counter-culture of unified Christianity–orthodox, sin-correcting, humble, loving, and all things Christlike.

You’ve done a lot to aid that transformation, if even on a small scale.
57 Bob // Oct 22, 2007 at 6:35 pm

She obviously made it up to get attention. Why can’t anybody see that?

And anyway, characters sinning in a book, that’s one thing, but the author stating something about a character and pretty obviously condoning it is another (and please no BS about her not condoning it, thanks).
58 Travis Prinzi // Oct 22, 2007 at 7:47 pm

Bob, go back up to the essay and read the link to Amy Sturgis’s comment. This was not a publicity stunt.
59 Travis Prinzi // Oct 22, 2007 at 8:43 pm

Suprkufr, I very much agree with your comments about the hypocrisy of Christians when it comes to the way certain sins are treated (as is evident from my essay).

I can’t agree with your comment that Christians can simply “do away” with that part of our faith, because to do that, we have to “do away” with the central element of biblical authority, and if we do that, we have to abandon our faith altogether.
60 Black Angus // Oct 22, 2007 at 8:52 pm

The ‘revelations’ of the past fortnight should give us a helpful insight into how much we have invested in the Harry Potter series, especially as Christians. One week ago ‘Rowling discusses Christian content!’ and it was high fives all round: we had been vindicated! Take that Harry Haters!

Then all of a sudden: ‘Dumbledore is gay!’ and we gnash our teeth in anguish. Our triumph is so short lived! He-who-must-not-be-named comes out of hiding and lobs smug grenades (Richard! You were so quiet for so long! Where were you?).

If our happiness or otherwise hangs so largely on whatever might come out on this tour we need to take a few breaths and back slowly away from the computer.

SuprKufr, thanks for the telling comments. It makes them feel pure because they can avoid the sin which they aren’t tempted by and thus don’t commit is spot on. As a Christian I am happy to admit I’m a sinner (but the fella next to me is worse!).

‘The LORD is compassionate and gracious,slow to anger, abounding in love.’ May God’s people be more and more like their Father.

‘Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—
of whom I am the worst.’
1 Timothy 1:15
And that means me.
61 Scott // Oct 22, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Travis, actually there are a lot of churches and whole denominations that DO change their faith. That’s why you find Christians on both sides of this and other issues. In some respect, this really comes down to the old issue of the infallibility of the Bible. If you believe that the Bible is the very foundation of Truth, then you can not ignore parts of it that condemn homosexuality or pride or lying or any other sins. Many people actively ignore those parts of the Bible. Many more people claim to believe those parts, but live as if they do not.
We are all fallen and imperfect.
62 Travis Prinzi // Oct 22, 2007 at 9:18 pm

That’s sort of what I’m getting at. You can’t change views on the one thing without changing your views on a more fundamental issue of the faith.

But it was probably too much to say, “We have to abandon our faith altogether.” Christ alone is still the key.
63 revgeorge // Oct 22, 2007 at 10:12 pm

No, Travis, you were right to say that we’d have to abandon our faith altogether. Because once you start simply changing one part of what you believe to accommodate other people’s expectations of what you believe, then you’re pretty much left with nothing. We have to get rid of anything that people don’t like or don’t understand, so bye bye any miracles or Jesus’ bodily resurrection or His exclusive claims that He alone is the way to the Father.
64 revgeorge // Oct 22, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Scott, actually people don’t _change_ their faith so much as they ignore what their faith or in this case the Bible teaches. They either have to outright ignore what the text says or they have to rationalize away what the text says.
65 revgeorge // Oct 22, 2007 at 10:20 pm

SuprKufr wrote,

“Furthermore, I object to the notion that I have to accept Christian criticism of homosexuality as a legitimate expression of their faith. They can easily reform away that part of their faith if they so desire.”

Uh, why is it only Christians who have to reform away what they believe? Who made up that rule?

Here’s one of my points again. When people don’t want to debate they automatically go to the default of saying that someone doesn’t even have the right to