Saint Augustine, Harry Potter, and Gadamer

Several years ago, J.K. Rowling came out with the announcement that she had always saw Albus Dumbledore as gay. Of course, this would give the anti-Harry Potter people in the Conservative Christian community more ammunition to condemn the series. Why did she come out with the announcement years after the series was published? This event forced me to face the controversy about the intentions of the author. I was taught by my own Christian tradition that there was one interpretation, a literal interpretation; and that the job of the interpreter was to determine the author’s intention. So, J.K. Rowling said that she thought of Dumbledore as gay, and if I was to follow my tradition, I would agree with her. The problem I did not see Dumbledore as gay, and I had read the series at least three times. A second problem was that I thought literature could have multiple interpretations and they all could be true. For example, a literal interpretation, a moral interpretation, and a spiritual interpretation.

            In my course on scholarly writing with Dr. Stark, one of the required readings was Hans-Georg Gadamer’s Philosophical Hermeneutics. I was glad this book was on the reading list since I was dissatisfied with the Biblical hermeneutics I had been thought. Reading this book addressed many of my questions about hermeneutics and created others. One thing he did say was that the author did not own the interpretation; in fact, once the book was published, he was on a similar level with other interpreters. This reminded me about reading Walker Percy’s interviews and the secondary literature on Percy. Interpreters often disagreed with Percy on the interpretations of his own work. Then, you have Ray Bradbury disagreeing with readers of Fahrenheit 451 that the book was about censorship. Can Saint Augustine help us solve these issues?

            Saint Augustine, in his work, On Christian Teaching, addresses many of these issues. In some sense, he both agrees and disagrees with these different positions on author’s intention. Augustine believes that a good interpretation of Scripture will lead to love. He asserts, “Whoever, then thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought” (22). This seems to imply that if the author’s intended meaning conflict with the love rule, the love rule will overrule it. Augustine distinguishes between signs and things. Some things are only things, but some things serve as signs. Words are signs that point to things. Augustine does think the intention of the author is important: “Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. . . . if his mistaken interpretation tends to build up love, which is the end of the commandment, he goes astray in much the same way as a man who by mistake quits the high road, but yet reaches through the fields the same place to which the road leads” (22). Augustine seems to think that the scripture is a thing to use, not enjoy. The purpose of scripture is to lead us to God. So, he accepts multiple interpretation as long as it fulfills the purpose of leading us to God. The goal of scripture is not a correct interpretation; instead, it is a transformed life.