Danielle Tumminio’s guest-posting continues! Danielle is a contributor to Hog’s Head Conversations: Essays on Harry Potter. Her book, God and Harry at Yale will be available from Zossima Press later this year.
Hello, Harry Potter enthusiasts! Before we talk about evil (dum dum dum), I’m going to engage in the deadly sin of pride (can you name the other 6?) and say that God and Harry at Yale is now in to Zossima Press! Woohoo!
Okay, pride indulged. Now onto evil. Evil is a big thorn in the theologian’s side because it + God’s existence = logically impossible. Let me explain: Christians believe that God is all-knowing (omniscient), all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-good (omnibenevolent). If God is all these things, then evil shouldn’t exist: if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then God should know evil is going to occur and then take steps to stop it. If God is all-good, then God would want to.
And yet, evil exists.
Hmm…..
So what’s a theologian to do? Different thinkers have come up with bundles of ways why God could allow evil (theodicies). Let’s look at two because they’re different enough that they can be contrasted when we consider what evil looks like in Harry’s world. Let’s begin with Augustine. Augustine said that evil occurs because humans have corrupted values and desires. In other words, their free will is tainted toward evil things. This is something they’re born with, the product of original sin, which began when Satan tempted Adam and Eve.
Iranaeus (an earlier theologian) and John Hick (a much later one) have a very different take on evil. They say that yes, we’re born with the ability to perpetrate evil, but it’s not because we’re tainted by original sin. It’s because we’ve got a lot of learning to do. Iranaeus and Hick say that we develop as humans, and part of that development is to grow into the likeness of God. We do that by having experiences of evil and learning from them.
You might already be able to see that Augustine and Iranaeus/Hick (we’ll call them the likeness theologians) have really different ideas about why evil exists. Here’s the big one: For the likeness theologians, evil exists so we can learn and in the process of learning, become more like God. For Augustine, evil exists for a not-so-elegant reason: original sin.
Of course, there are problems for both Augustine and the likeness theologians. For Augustine, the issue is why God would allow evil to occur in the first place. For the likeness theologians, the problem is that people don’t always learn from their experiences of evil. Sometimes they’re not in a place where they can learn from them; sometimes there’s nothing to learn, and sometimes they die before they can learn.
Enter Harry and the gang. What’s interesting about Harry Potter (and you can dispute me here) is that we see both strands of thought represented. Take a character like Ron: Ron perpetrates an evil when he abandons Hermione and Harry in Deathly Hallows. He does this because he has massive insecurities (original sin?) that the locket Horcrux capitalizes on. But Ron also learns from his evil, with the help of the Deluminator. When he kills the Horcrux, it’s as if he conquers the insecurities inside himself (learns from evil and becomes in the likeness of love).
Coincidence, you may ask? I don’t think so. Here’s another example: Dumbledore. Dumbledore’s younger years were dominated by a predisposition to work for selfish ends (original sin), like when he hatches a plan for a wizarding revolution with Grindelwald because ostensibly it would give more freedom to his sister Kendra…and to him. Yet after Kendra’s death (an evil), Dumbledore learns from his mistakes and grows into the likeness of love.
So Harry Potter seems to blend the best of each strand of theological thought, which is kind of cool. Or at least I think it is. And this blend seems to explain other instances of evil in the books too—Harry’s involvement in Sirius and Cedric’s death are two examples that immediately come to mind, but I’m sure you can think of others.
Which I will now leave you to do! And until we meet again, may all be well with you!
P.S. In case you were wondering, the other deadly sins are gluttony, lust, sloth, wrath, greed, and envy.
Red Rocker on 
Joivre on 
Tom on 
Arabella Figg on 
Travis Prinzi on 
Loading ...
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
While I’m tempted (!) to side with Augustine, I’d say Rowling leans more towards Iranaeus, at least in that she places such an emphasis on choice. Tom Riddle may have had a predisposition toward evil (all those nasty childhood tricks) but it was his choices that made him Voldemort. But by the end he was enslaved by those choices.
Harry seems to have a predisposition toward the good, but that is strengthened only when he is confronted by evil and chooses not to take that path.
… It took me a while to compose this because I was so angry that your book is published. I hate how people are smarter than me and make heaps of money that I could spend better. Then I could afford this third pizza for the day. But anger is such hard and hungry work to maintain that I got my kid to type while I dictated.
Danielle, I have to say I’m super pleased to see this post. My senior thesis was called “The Last Enemy: Harry Potter and the Problem of Evil,” so I’ve done a bit of thinking on this connection, with a lot of help from Travis’ piece on Merope Gaunt and from Augustine. :]
I’d just like to add that there’s an important element of Augustine’s theodicy that I think you’ve either missed, or perhaps that your readers might misunderstand. Augustine’s famous for the original sin bit, true, but as you said, a problem remains: why let original sin happen in the first place? Augustine’s response is to say (I’m paraphrasing because this comes up a LOT in his voluminious writings) that free will is a such a good thing that the suffering our sinful and ignorant mistakes create are “outweighed.” Some have pointed out that to love requires free will, and that the ability of humans to choose and love God is that great good. Gus is really a lot more hopeful than hearsay reports would have him be. :]
I’ll have to come back to rephrase some of this, because I’ve seen it put much more convincingly, but again, thanks for posting on one of my favorite theological topics, period. :] And congrats on the book!
I’d agree with Rena Black that Rowling’s approach to evil is a touch more Augustinian than it initially appears. Evil in the Potterverse might be seen as a necessary antagonist to the conquering power of Love and choice.
Also, thanks for this post! Thinking about these theodicies through a Potter-focused lens probably would have helped me grasp them more fully during my Philosophy of Religion course last semester. Can’t wait for your book!
Very interesting post, Danielle. Thanks for explaining the theodices. I can see both strands in the series.
Snape seems to be an obvious example of someone who sins badly, becoming a death eater, and who summons the moral courage to secretly defy Voldemort by approaching Dumbledore and becoming a spy for the good side only when the one person who has ever been a shining light in his life is threatened. And even though he is still sinful in his verbal treatment of Harry at Hogwarts (wrath, envy), he nevertheless protects him physically, continues spying for the good guys at great risk to himself, and continues to love Lily and adopts her patronus as his own. If James/Prongs is the guardian of Harry’s heart, then Lily is the guardian of Snape’s. And by trying to grow closer to her light and his continued selfless efforts to rid the world of Voldemort and protect Harry and the other students as long as he can, he grows closer to God. In a sense it is the reverse of Milton’s “He for God, she for God in him.” It’s become “She (Lily) for God(ric Gryffindor?), he for God in her.”
John Granger has written in his Deathly Hallows Lectures about Snape’s death looking into Harry’s/Lily’s eyes being like Dante dying looking into Beatrice’s green eyes and being carried into the kingdom of God, which fits well with the likeness theologians strand as well as will the alchemical structure of the series. There’s a bit of irony there, because the alchemical notion of the purification of the soul, if I’ve remembered correctly, means the removal of original sin. So if Snape’s death is alchemical and a coming to God, wouldn’t it be a fusion of the two strands you discussed?
Seems to me the Dursleys exemplify all of the seven deadly sins (with the exception of lust).
Please fogive me for offering a small correction — Kendra was Dumbledore’s mother. His sister’s name was Ariana.
I’d never thought much about this, but Rowling does seem to blend the two ideas freely. Several characters seem drawn to bad choices (“tainted toward evil things”), but later learn from their mistakes and become better people. Dumbledore and Snape are the most obvious examples, but we also see this in Regulus, James, and even the Malfoys. Harry seems to go through this process in HBP with the Prince’s book (he’s curiously drawn to it) and the use of sectumsempra.
Very thought provoking questions there, Danielle. I pretty much agree that Rowling’s work appears to combine aspects of both the Augustinian and likeness approaches to theology. I have a question of my own here–where would you place predestination as a concept? With Augustinian or the likeness camps? Harry’s being the “Chosen One” seems to indicate that his position is predestined, with the prophecy giving that some credence. However, since Dumbledore tells Harry that it’s the choices that he makes that are important, that looks to me that it would be in the likeness camp–that through making the right choices, Harry will become more like God. Also, are we to take Dumbledore as representing God the Father in these books? Rowling states specifically at the end of GOF that he possessed no omniscient eye, which in my view would make DD a god figure who was not all powerful. Any thoughts on that?
Danielle, great post–thank you; I look forward to everyone’s thoughts on this one.
Lily Luna, you write: “Seems to me the Dursleys exemplify all of the seven deadly sins (with the exception of lust).” I’m afraid they fulfill them all. Consider their materialistic lust, including Dudley’s birthday in the first book and Vernon’s lust for that lucrative contract in the second.
Here’s a view of evil which is interesting to contemplate. M. Scott Peck, in his book on evil, People of the Lie, considers human evil a “mental illness” (he’s not talking about damaged physical/chemical brain chemistry, but that which is rooted within us all). This concept would fit in with both views, I think: human evil=mental illness as part of our fallenness, which we either nurture or overcome through our choices.
I remember writing one of my first undergrad papers against Augustine’s view of evil. He was a pretty good guy overall though. That said, it seems like Rowling incorporates the core Augustinian idea into her view. Isn’t Voldemort, after all, sort of the shadow of Harry (i.e. minus the absence of love–Augustine’s deprivation of good concept)?
whoops, meant minus the presence of love…minus the absence would be a double negative.
Arabella – I guess I was thinking of lust too narrowly in its sexual connotation.
Hey everyone! These are incredible comments; I don’t know where to start! First off, apologies that I haven’t written sooner. I turned the draft of God and Harry at Yale in to Zossima last Wednesday and then whisked off to Las Vegas for a really fun but very un-typically Vegas celebration (no big parties, gambling, etc.). Sadly, in case any of you are wondering, I missed Jon Gosselin, though I must have been within feet of him at the MGM Grand over the weekend. Oh well. Guess that boat won’t sail. Or it sailed. I never get the phrase right. Anyway, we didn’t meet.
And that segue ways nicely into evil! In response to Fricka, I’m going to suggest the concept of Love as a God figure. Whether Dumbledore is God the Father, I will not wager a guess. So that’s the system within which I’m operating. Also, as for predestination, I would put it in a totally different category. The idea of predestination is a distinctly Calvinist one that originated in the Reformation. Calvin suggested that humans are born either predestined to Heaven or Hell, so that was his explanation both for human behavior and his theodicy. As you can see, it’s pretty different from both Augustine and the likeness theologians.
Also, Arabella, I loved your ideas about Peck’s view of human evil as mental illness. That’s neat! And apologies for the Kendra/Ariana mix up! It should have been Ariana!
You’ve all had such incredible ideas that I don’t want to get in the way of the brainstorming. You’re all thinking like great theologians!
Must run to the gym now! It’s less than 24 hours until the term starts tomorrow, and I plan on making the most of it!
Thank you, Danielle. For a summation of Peck’s opinion of what constitutes evil, you can check his entry on Wikipedia, from which the following is copied. He builds his case in his book People of the Lie, to support these points. In reading it one could, of course see Voldemort (the obvious), but it is rich in exploring evil enacted in a mundane, respectable fashion (“clean” on the outside, rotten within). In that light, I found a lot of Dursley in there. Peck’s book was why I requested a discussion of evil in HP:
“According to Peck an evil person[3][2]:
a) Is consistently self deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self image of perfection
b) Deceives others as a consequence of their own self deception
c) Projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific targets (scapegoats) while being apparently normal with everyone else (“their insensitivity toward him was selective” (Peck, 1983/1988[3], p105))
d) Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self deception as much as deception of others
e) Abuses political (emotional) power (“the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion” (Peck, 1978/1992[2], p298))
f) Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so
g) Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency (of destructiveness)
h) Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim (scapegoat)
i) Has a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury
Most evil people realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the focus of evil on others. Evil is an extreme form of what Scott Peck, in The Road Less Traveled, calls a character disorder[3][2].
Though the topic of evil has historically been the domain of religion[3], Peck makes great efforts to keep much of his discussion on a scientific basis, explaining the specific psychological mechanisms by which evil operates. He was also particularly conscious of the danger of a psychology of evil being misused for personal or political ends[3]. Peck considered that such a psychology should be used with great care, as falsely labeling people as evil is one of the very characteristics of evil. He argued that a diagnosis of evil should come from the standpoint of healing and safety for its victims, but also with the possibility even if remote, that the evil themselves may be cured.
Ultimately Peck says that evil arises out of free choice. He describes it thus: Every person stands at a crossroads, with one path leading to God, and the other path leading to the devil. The path of God is the right path, and accepting this path is akin to submission to a higher power.”
Peck’s writings are controversial, especially among conservative Christians who don’t care for a psychology of evil, but I found his ideas worth consideration as, at the very least, a good perspective of evil *behavior.*
Great breakdown of theodicies, Danielle!
Black Angus mentioned Voldemort’s predisposition to evil, which got me thinking about original sin and how, supposedly, we’re all inherently evil. I’ve always taken issue with original sin for various reasons (some of which readers can guess at!). The concept seems very much like children paying for the (literal) sins of the mother, which Voldemort does in many ways. He was conceived under the influence of love potion, i.e. coercion, or if you want to be blunt about it, rape– the antithesis of actual love. As not-yet-Voldy was born into an orphanage, do you think he was baptized? In 1930s(?) Britain I would assume all babies were automatically baptized, but what if he wasn’t? Perhaps the orphanage didn’t do it unless one requested or could pay for it, or it just wasn’t standard practice unless it was a specifically Christian home. If he wasn’t, Voldemort lives with the taint of original sin his entire life, and on top of that he makes choices to commit evil acts. Thus he also blends Augustinian and likeness theologian points of view.
(This thought just occurred to me: could you consider the doped drink Merope offered TR Sr. like the apple Eve offered Adam? Not a perfect metaphor, I know. Just brainstorming; feel free to debunk me. I don’t even know if my main argument was clear– forgive me if it wasn’t.)
P.S. the Calvin mention got me excited. I’ve been reading about Puritanism & Calvinism for weeks to prep my class on the trial of Anne Hutchinson. It’s interesting to see the ends to which theologians can take religious ideas. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Calvin drew his ideas about predestination from Luther, who articulated similar ideas but not to the extent that Calvin did.
Gwen said, “Correct me if I’m wrong, but Calvin drew his ideas about predestination from Luther, who articulated similar ideas but not to the extent that Calvin did.”
It’d be more accurate to say that Calvin used reason as more of a tool to develop his ideas on predestination rather than Luther who confined himself to not speculating on things Scripture didn’t make clear. It’d also be more accurate to say that it was Calvin’s followers rather than Calvin himself who took the idea of predestination out to its further limits.
Regards original sin, I’ll just say it’s not that we were all inherently bad or evil. If one takes Scripture’s account, then everything was created good. It was after mankind’s fall into sin & rebellion against God, a sin for which Adam is held accountable not Eve, that everything became tainted by original sin & thus fallen & broken. Original sin was thus not part of human nature & is not part of human nature but it clings so closely to human nature that it could be said to inhere in it. There’s a whole lot more that could be said, but I’m not trying to argue over original sin, just set out the basics of it.
revegeorge, thanks for the clarification on both points. I’m always glad you’re here when these things come up. I hope neither of is really arguing, just openly and good-naturedly discussing.
When I said inherently bad, I meant post-fall. I’m certain you know the Scripture much better than I do, but to quibble just a little…. In Genesis, doesn’t Adam immediately blame Eve for giving him the apple when God asks how Adam knows he’s naked? God punishes Even by giving her pain during childbirth. And when God punishes Adam doesn’t he say “because you’ve listened to your wife” and then because you ate of the tree you’ll be punished? Two separate transgressions on Adam’s part, one explicitly linked to Eve. I’m a close reader, so translations obviously impact how one views the exact words. My perspective comes from reading theologians of various calibers (and non-theologians just talking about the story of the fall) who place the majority of blame for original sin on Eve, so that’s where I’m coming from.
As regards Luther, perhaps I’m thinking of thoughts on covenant of grace vs. covenant of works. In Concerning Christian Liberty he discussed, in part, by what means a man becomes justified. I was reading that yesterday, so I’ve probably got my religious tenants and influences mixed up!
Gwen, hopefully we won’t go too far off topic here, but to sum it up, Adam’s attempt to blame Eve shows the effects of sin already working up him. And the punishments they bear are not so much God’s punishment upon them but simply God’s statement of what sin will do to them. No longer will they live together in willing submission on Eve’s part toward Adam nor sacrificial love on Adam’s part toward Eve, but they will attempt to dominate one another. And no longer will things be perfect as they were before but broken & twisted, thus pain in childbearing & Adam’s toil & struggle against the earth to produce a living.
Adam bears what we could call the legal guilt of original sin because he was supposed to be the head of the household & the protector, not only of Eve, but of obedience to God’s Word. And he failed to do both. The text is fairly clear that he was right there with Eve when the serpent was tempting her.
As for various theologians, well, a lot of the blame on Eve was, sad to say, again the effects of sin. Men not wanting to take responsibility for what Adam did & conveniently blaming Eve instead & laying the greater burden on her when the Scriptures themselves lay the blame on Adam. Which is why we shouldn’t go by everything the church fathers say but only on what agrees with Scripture but then we’re getting into more dicey territory in that regard too.
Again on Luther, just to be clear, Lutherans don’t accept everything Luther wrote as being in accord with the Scriptures nor as being what all Lutherans believe. We only accept what is in The Book of Concord as being our official confession of faith because we believe it to be in accord with Scripture.
Hopefully this helps clarify things a bit.
I’m only a PCA deacon, and not a trained theologian, but I see that somebody needs to give the Reformed (Calvinist) perspective on that knotty term predestination. Revgeorge is correct as far as he goes. It’s fairly simple: God is omniscient, omnipotent and most of all sovereign. Because of original sin (explained well by Regeorge), every human deserves damnation (total depravity). They desire no fellowship with the Creator (free will). God, being perfect, demands perfection and justice. God in his infinite wisdom, good pleasure and sovereign will elects some humans for salvation. This was a decision made before time began by the Triune God not on any foreseen acts or response on the part of those elected (and not at birth as somebody said above). Election has nothing to do with what Man (or Woman) would do, but entirely from God’s own purpose. He could have damned all, or none, but chose to elect some.
Reformed churches believe that this was the original doctrine of the Church derived directly from Scripture, not an invention of the Reformation. (They believe it is Augustine’s view as well). I think I have covered it, but all the Scriptural proofs are in the Westminster Confession, Westminster Catechism and the Heidelburg Catechism.
All of this is, of course, is for whatever its worth! And it is pretty uncomfortable for some people obviously.
deacondon, thanks for the clarification. I only went as far as I did because I didn’t want to presume to speak for Calvinists. Suffice it to say that Lutherans disagree with Calvinists on the matter of predestination. But then we disagree with lots of people on lots of things.
revgeorge, you wrote, “Adam’s attempt to blame Eve shows the effects of sin already working up him.” I never thought of it that way, very intriguing interpretation. I’ll leave it there since we’re way OT and not even trying to relate this to Harry Potter!
But wait, before I do: deacondon, I don’t quite understand this statement: “They desire no fellowship with the Creator (free will).” The not desiring fellowship= free will? Or the fact that one can choose to pursue fellowship? All my understanding of Calvinism comes from 17th C. texts and debates, so forgive me if I misinterpret anything. The predestination part just never made sense to me as church doctrine. Church is all about (as I’ve come to understand it) acquiescing to authority, and the predestination doctrine can be used to rebel against authority. I know we’re getting into the antinomianism debate, etc., so let’s move on.
To bring it back to HP I’ll just say that Harry flirts with the idea of predestination when he hears the prophecy, but the overall message is the opposite path, choice. However, I maintain that the whole “choice is the end all be all” gets muddled in various parts of the series.
You all are doing a fantastic job of laying out theological positions without being cantankerous. Well done.
Gwen, humans have free will to do as they please, but are fallen and incapable of Salvation on their own without God’s Grace. The so-called Ultra Calvinists deny human free will completely (as do certain other prominent world religions.) I’m not trying to convince anybody of the truth of election, just trying to show what it is. My pulling it out of its context with the rest of Reformed faith was probably not a great idea.
I don’t think predestination doctrine has anything to do with Harry’s prophecy. As Dumbledore says, Harry would try to kill Voldemort whether there was a prophecy or not.
To just comment on the prophecy part, Dumbledore seems quite adamant that prophecies really mean nothing except what credence people give them. He also says, “Do you think every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecies is fulfilled?” My question always was, then, so, what’s the big deal with prophecy then? If some prophecies don’t come true, then they’re all suspect. So, I can agree with Gwen that I always thought, too, that there was a tension or incongruence in Rowling’s writing in this regard. On the one hand, choice is everything for her, but on the other hand, the way she portrays the prophecy makes it seem as if there’s something to it. After all, Trelawney’s prophecy on Peter Pettigrew escaping & returning to Voldemort & Voldemort rising again came true.
But then perhaps this isn’t on topic either. Not that that’s ever stopped us before…
revgeorge good point with the Pettigrew Prophecy. Unless I’m remembering POA wrongly, Harry doesn’t do anything as a reaction to what Trelawney says. Does he even believe it’s a real prophecy? The Harry/Voldy prophecy was made a huge deal of in OOTP; it was DD’s “big reveal,” but no, no Harry, it’s not that important. Huh?
The other place where choice is mitigated is Harry’s sorting: once we know that Harry’s a horcrux the hat’s oscillation is negated. The Voldy piece of soul confuses the hat into apparently giving Harry a choice when, without the horcrux Harry would go directly to Gryffindor and collect 20 galleons (monopoly anyone?). Yes yes, OT I know.
deacondon: “I don’t think predestination doctrine has anything to do with Harry’s prophecy. As Dumbledore says, Harry would try to kill Voldemort whether there was a prophecy or not.” So does that mean Harry is predestined to kill Voldemort? Probably not, just thought the phrasing was a little convenient for my purposes.
I always thought DD’s phrasing was suspect. He does NOT say “some of the prophecies don’t come true” or “not all of the prophecies come true.” Instead he phrases it as a pseudo-rhetorical question: “Do you think all of the prophecies in the Hall of Prophecy are fulfilled?” (or whatever). He’s a master of saying other than what he really means, as we see when he fools Snape into thinking Harry’s actually has to die and that such was his plan all along. So it could well be that all of the prophecies DO come true but DD wants Harry to think he has some choice in the matter so that he will do what DD wants him to do more wholeheartedly.
I’m guessing Dumbledore would never have told Harry anything at all about the prophecy except he found out about it through his incursions into Voldemort’s mind. And then DD doesn’t tell Harry everything about the prophecy at the end of OOTP; Harry finds out more from Trelawney in HBP.
I know precious little about theology. Do people blame Eve because she sinned first and then convinced Adam to eat the fruit? And do others blame Adam because there’s an idea that the “sin nature” comes through the father’s seed? Does the blaming Eve/Adam correlate with the Iranaeus/Augustine ideas on evil?
miles365, I can’t really comment on why people do the blaming. I should perhaps read the church fathers more closely. I know that there is a line of thinking that holds that original sin is only transmitted through the father, thus the reasoning for why Jesus is conceived without original sin is that there was no human father involved. I don’t quite buy that but there is something to it.
As for the differences between St. Iranaeus & St. Augustine, I’ve read a bit more Augustine than Iranaeus (actually I’m ashamed to admit I’ve read no Iranaeus & I need to rectify that) so I can’t really comment on that.
Wow, this discussion is amazing, folks! I wish you could all come to my class and weigh in sometime! You’ve got so much knowledge and expertise, and I’m learning so much from you! Re: Miles365, yes, there’s definitely a correlation between the way Augustine and the likeness theologians understand sin based on how they understand evil.
First off, let me say that original sin isn’t technically an Old Testament term, so you won’t see it or anything like it in that part of Genesis. It’s a distinctly Christian idea, and Jewish people don’t believe in original sin the way Christians do. Now, Augustine is a big proponent of original sin and it shows in his depiction of evil: in his framework, people misuse their free will and that results in an evil. Augustine also has a sense that Adam and Eve (originators of sin) should have known better, which means that they can be held accountable for their actions. So it makes sense that sin can get passed down the generations as a punishment for Adam and Eve’s misbehavior. In contrast, think about how the likeness theologians believe that evil is a learning process. If evil originates because of one’s sinful disposition (although often it doesn’t), then it’s not necessarily something bad or punishable. It’s part of the learning process. So this means that these theologians don’t have as strong a doctrine of original sin in the same way that Augustine does.
Hope this clarifies things! And the discussion on Calvin/Luther rocked!
Hoping to swing back to ways evil is enacted in Harry Potter (bypassing the obvious with Voldemort and the DEs), here are some thoughts about “mundane evil”:
Evil enacted for the purpose of:
Respectibility and self-image–Petunia
Respectibility and materialist justification–Vernon
Learned as norm for power over the weak–Dudley
Ambition and status–Percy
Ambition and acceptance–young Severus
Political expediency–Fudge
Political expediency, self-righteousness and pleasure–Umbridge
Protection–Peter Pettigrew
Resentment over disability–Filch
Self-righteousness–Aunt Marge
Self-glorification–Lockhart
There are more; I just can’t think of them at the moment.
RevGeorge, don’t feel bad. There’s so much Augustine text compared to Irenaeus, it’s probably ok that you have a head start on the former. :]
And I think the main takeaway from this conversation for me (aside from the great Luther/Calvin primer!) is a reaffirmation that the concept of evil in HP is distinctly Christian. I mean, what both the Augustinian and Irenaean takes (and many others) have in common is
1) the idea that evil is something God *permits,* not something inflicted by God;
2) the idea that evil is *not* something that resides in matter and that one “escapes” by entering a solely spiritual existence (dualism, Manichaeanism, diehard Platonism suggest this, for example; the Creation/Resurrection/resurrection of bodies blows it out of the water);
and
3) the idea that God permits evil because a world with sin makes possible something greater–whether that’s seen as a “learning process” or “mercy” or the Incarnation/Paschal Mystery, etc. This is the “felix culpa” (happy fault) concept, with which I must admit I’m obsessed. The Fall makes possible Christ; maybe, in this context, the analog is that the death of Lily and James Potter makes possible the final annilihation of Voldemort?
I’m done. Hope y’all had as much fun as I did. :]