AP reports from New York: Harry Potter fans, the rumors are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while appearing before a full house at at Carnegie Hall.

Fascinating revelation, though I'm not so sure this is good news to the activist gay community. Before there is celebration in the streets, they may want to actually read the final book in the Harry Potter series. We learn in Deathly Hallows that Dumbledore is not the kind and wise old man he has appeared to be throughout the series but is in fact a manipulator and schemer - and a very conflicted one at that. Is this an accurate representation of an archetypal gay person? Or is it a stereotype? As we've written here earlier, it turns out that Dumbledore was - as Jo Rowling has also stated - Machiavellian in his plans for Harry Potter. Even Snape is shocked by the revelation of Dumbledore's motives.

Deathly Hallows does allude that Dumbledore and Grindelwald engage in a deep friendship that is enmeshed and unhealthly. Everyone else is excluded. Their "breakup" leads to the tragic death of Dumbeldore's little sister. Grindelwald becomes one of the most evil characters ever - on par with Voldemort (who later kills him) and again, I wonder how the gay community will feel about that. It is not an idealized relationship by any means, not like the idealized relationships I would hear about during hearing testimonies at General Convention, for example, where everything is blessed and certainly not obsessive and idolatrous.

The article says this:

She then explained that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, whom he defeated long ago in a battle between good and bad wizards. "Falling in love can blind us to an extent," Rowling said of Dumbledore's feelings, adding that Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down."

Dumbledore's love, she observed, was his "great tragedy."

Before Christians jump at this news and take to the streets for different reasons, we should read the book as well. The "love" depicted in this relationship between Grindelwald and Dumbledore is destructive - it costs a girl her life and more. The 1940s wizard battle with Grindelwald parallels World War II and the atrocities committed by the Nazis. The name "Grindelwald" alludes to Grendel, Beowulf's dragon representing evil ("wald" or "vald" is German for ruler - i.e. a ruler of evil). The context of the story in Deathly Hallows is that this relationship was destructive. The character of Grindelwald is unsavory from the very beginning, as though a tempter of evil - and Dumbledore is indeed tempted - a temptation that he lives with for the rest of his life. Is this the sort of literary portrayal the gay community would like to see attached to their image? I'm not so sure. Is it compelling storytelling? Yes, it is.

Dumbledore went on to lead a chaste life, totally devoted to his role as headmaster (another typical caricature, by the way?) and to seeking the ultimate defeat of Voldermort. That was his whole life. In fact, Dumbledore reminds me very much of this guy. Just put a beard on him and you've got our guy. It isn't what we are that matters, it's what we do with who we are that makes the difference. That's what Dumbledore also said - it is our choices that matter and show us who we truly are.

That being said, I am very surprised that Jo Rowling would add the homosexual dynamic to the youthful relationship between the two titanic characters of Dumbledore and Grindelwald, for it reveals the inherent destructive nature of obsession and idolatry, which - if you read Leanne Payne would tell us is at the center of homosexual behavior. It is quite a revelation indeed. Both of these characteristics - obsession and idolatry - were terrible character flaws in Albus Dumbledore (character flaws he readily acknowledged, I might add). Harry Potter's heart was pure and his love for Ginny (who later becomes his wife) was exemplary - it encourages him and made him whole, quite a contrast to what Dumbledore knew in his relationship with Grindelwald. I am just surprised Jo Rowling would want to open up that can of worms.

Here are some more "revelations" that came from Jo Rowling's event at Carnegie Hall last night:

Jo also revealed that Neville Longbottom married Hufflepuff Hannah Abbott and she was to become the landlady at the iconic Leaky Cauldron Pub. She thought that people would find the fact of Neville's living over a pub particularly cool.

Equally large revelations were made concerning Petunia Dursley when Jo answered the question of what Petunia could not bring herself to say when Harry and the Dursleys parted ways before his seventeenth birthday. She would have wished him luck, saying: "I know what you're up against and I hope it turns out okay."

Information on the original Order members was also revealed during tonight's event. Jo related the fact that Remus Lupin, prior to the third book, was unemployable because he was a werewolf and upon his graduation from Hogwarts along with James and Lily, was supported by James using their own money. In addition to this she shed more light on the early days of the Order, saying James, Sirius, Remus and Lily were full time Order members. "Full Time Fighters," as Jo put it.

Jo also went into further detail about the many portraits in the wizarding world and their occupants. An occupant can only move freely to other portraits in their dwelling or to another portrait in which they are depicted. She also revealed that Harry himself made sure that the portrait of Snape made it into the Headmasters Office

Here's more from the transcript:

Q: How did you decide that Molly Weasley would be the one to finish off Bellatrix?

I always knew Molly was going to finish her off. I think there was some speculation that Neville would do it, because Neville obviously has a particular reason to hate Bellatrix. ..So there were lots of options for Blelatrix, but I never deviated. I wanted it to be Molly, and I wanted it to be Molly for two reasons.

The first reason was I always saw Molly as a very good witch but someone whose light is necessarily hidden under a bushel, because she is in the kitchen a lot and she has had to raise, among others, and George which is like, enough... I wanted Molly to have her moment and to show that because a woman had dedicated herself to her family does not mean that she doesn't have a lot of other talents.

(BB NOTE: Again, this flies in the face of modern cultural teaching when the "traditional homemaker" is the one that destroys the most evil character (second only to Voldemort) in Harry Potter's life.)

Second reason: It was the meeting of two kinds of - if you call what Bellatrix feels for Voldemort love, I guess we'll call it love, she has a kind of obsession with him, it's a very sick obsession ... and I wanted to match that kind of obsession with maternal love... the power that you give someone by loving them. So Molly was really an amazing exemplar of maternal love. ... There was something very satisfying about putting those two women together.

How different would the last two books be if Arthur had been killed in the middle of book five?

I think they would have been very different and it's part of the reason why I changed my mind. ... By turning Ron into half of Harry, in other words by turning Ron into someone who had suffered the loss of a parent, I was going to remove the Weasleys as a refuge for Harry and I was going to necessarily remove a lot of Ron's humor. That's part of the reason why I didn't kill Arthur. I wanted to keep Ron in tact ... a lot of Ron's humor comes from his insensitivity and his immaturity, to be honest about Ron. And Ron finally, I think, you see, grows up in this book. He's the last of the three to reach what I consider adulthood, and he does it then [ when he destroys the horcrux] and faces those things. So that's part of the reason. The only other reason I didn't kill Arthur was that I wanted to come full circle. We started with an orphan, someone who lost their parents because of the war. And so I wanted to show it again. ... Even though you don't see Teddy, I wanted to express in the epilogue, that he gets an even better godfather than Harry had, because Sirius had his faults, I think we must admit. He was a risky guy to have a s a godfather. Because Teddy gets someone who really has been there, and Harry becomes a really great father figure for Teddy as well as his own children. I hasten to add that I didn't kill Lupin or Tonks lightly. I loved them as characters...so that hurt, killing them.

Yes! J.K. Rowling tells MTV (of all places!) that the scriptures Harry Potter reads in Godric's Hollow "almost epitomize the whole series"

And what are those scriptures?

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."
-I Cor. 15:26

"Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
-Matthew 6:19

BB NOTE: When I read those verses for the first time in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows I was sitting outside on the deck of a friend's house. I sat back in my chair - the verses in the book do not refer to the scripture - but I recognized them right away, including the verse from Matthew as being the words of Jesus. I remember trying to hold back the joy. Others were around me still reading and hadn't yet come to the chapter. I had to hold back the delight - what a surprise, what a delight, what a gift. J.K. Rowling is now speaking openly about how her Christian faith influenced the writing of the Harry Potter series. To her "the parallels have always been obvious." But it took a while before Christian believers began to read the stories for themselves, scared off as many were in the beginning by the so-called witchcraft. But once Christians began to read the stories for themselves, well, it sure did look obvious. What a surprise! Her imagery is Christian, blatantly so and it may have escaped so many because so many don't know that imagery - Harry Potter fell upon an unchurched world. Here in this article, Jo Rowling shares that Harry's journey matches her own - which is probably why the books are so real. Read on:

'Harry Potter' Author J.K. Rowling Opens Up About Books' Christian Imagery

'They almost epitomize the whole series,' she says of the scripture Harry reads in Godric's Hollow.

HOLLYWOOD — It deals extensively with souls — about keeping them whole and the evil required to split them in two. After one hero falls beyond the veil of life, his whispers are still heard. It starts with the premise that love can save you from death and ends with a proclamation that a sacrifice in the name of love can bring you back from it.

Harry Potter is followed by house-elves and goblins — not disciples — but for the sharp-eyed reader, the biblical parallels are striking. Author J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books have always, in fact, dealt explicitly with religious themes and questions, but until "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," they had never quoted any specific religion.

(SPOILER ALERT! The rest of this story discusses the conclusion of "Deathly Hallows.")

That was the plan from the start, Rowling told reporters during a press conference at the beginning of her Open Book Tour on Monday. It wasn't because she was afraid of inserting religion into a children's story. Rather, she was afraid that introducing religion (specifically Christianity) would give too much away to fans who might then see the parallels.

"To me [the religious parallels have] always been obvious," she said. "But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going."

Indeed, at its most simplistic, Harry's final tale can in some respects be boiled down to a resurrection story, with Harry venturing to a heavenly way station of sorts after getting hit with a killing curse in Chapter 35, only to shortly return. (Read how Rowling revealed the characters' fates to the "Harry Potter" movies' stars here.)

But if she was worried about tipping her hand narratively in the earlier books, she clearly wasn't by the time Harry visits his parents' graves in Chapter 16 of "Deathly Hallows," titled "Godric's Hollow." On his parents' tombstone he reads the quote "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death," while on another tombstone (that of Dumbledore's mother and sister) he reads, "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

While Rowling said that "Hogwarts is a multifaith school," these quotes, of course, are distinctly Christian. The second is a direct quote of Jesus from Matthew 6:19, the first from 1 Corinthians 15:26. As Hermione tells Harry shortly after he sees the graves, his parents' message means "living beyond death. Living after death." It is one of the central foundations of resurrection theology.

Which makes it a perfect fit for Harry, said Rowling, who was talking about those quotes for the very first time.

"They're very British books, so on a very practical note Harry was going to find biblical quotations on tombstones," Rowling explained. "[But] I think those two particular quotations he finds on the tombstones at Godric's Hollow, they sum up — they almost epitomize the whole series."

As the one to bring together all three magical Deathly Hallows, Harry, in fact, becomes the "Master of Death" by novel's end, able to bring back the spirits of his parents, his godfather, Sirius Black and his old teacher Remus Lupin. It's a conclusion that ends Harry's three-book-long struggle over questions about the afterlife, which begins when Sirius falls through a veil connecting this world and the next at the end of "Order of the Phoenix."

"Deathly Hallows" itself begins with two religiously themed epigraphs, one from "The Libation Bearers" by Aeschylus, which calls on the gods to "bless the children"; and one from William Penn's "More Fruits of Solitude," which speaks of death as but "crossing the world, as friends do the seas." No other book in the series begins with epigraphs — a curious fact, perhaps, but one that Rowling insists served as a guiding light.

"I really enjoyed choosing those two quotations because one is pagan, of course, and one is from a Christian tradition," Rowling said of their inclusion. "I'd known it was going to be those two passages since 'Chamber' was published. I always knew [that] if I could use them at the beginning of book seven then I'd cued up the ending perfectly. If they were relevant, then I went where I needed to go.

"They just say it all to me, they really do," she added.

But while the book begins with a quote on the immortal soul — and though Harry finds peace with his own death at the end of his journey — it is the struggle itself which mirrors Rowling's own, the author said.

"The truth is that, like Graham Greene, my faith is sometimes that my faith will return. It's something I struggle with a lot," she revealed. "On any given moment if you asked me [if] I believe in life after death, I think if you polled me regularly through the week, I think I would come down on the side of yes — that I do believe in life after death. [But] it's something that I wrestle with a lot. It preoccupies me a lot, and I think that's very obvious within the books."

Read the whole thing here.

Okay, I'll try again, because I really do want to know why she would take on such Christian theological doctrines - like the atonement, which has just completely lost its meaning in the post-Christian West. How do you explain to children what the atonement is? She does a tremendous job explaining the affects of the atonement on believers, I could certainly make the case for it. Perhaps these questions will be asked when when we are sitting in a pub swashing the butterbeer, but here it is - for the record. ;-)

Perhaps it would be wise to quote Dorothy Sayers:

Official Christianity, of late years, has been having what is known as a bad press. We are constantly assured that the churches are empty because preachers insist too much upon doctrine—dull dogma as people call it. The fact is the precise opposite. It is the neglect of dogma that makes for dullness. The Christian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered the imagination of man—and the dogma is the drama.

Question: Do you agree with what Dorothy Sayers is saying here, that that the Christian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered the imagination? How were you inspired by that drama in the writing of the Harry Potter series?

A Question

So many of the questions I have need introductions. They are not just simple questions - which would do better in an interview context, with cups of coffee at Starbucks. But perhaps something could be gleaned from this:

Background: The Christian doctrine of the atonement seems to be infused through out your entire series - that is, that sacrifice is more than just dying for love but that there is real power in the sacrifice in that it protects others from the same fate (including judgment and annihilation). In the Christian doctrine of the atonement, Christ took the place of the guilty and suffered the punishment in our place, He sacrifice Himself for us. In his death and resurrection, through his “blood” Christians find redemption and life. They are “covered by the blood.” From gospel hymns to the Eucharist we see this powerful doctrine and what a surprise to see it reflected in Harry Potter.

Are we wrong to see this over and over again in the Harry Potter series? Do we not see it from the very beginning? Lily sacrifices herself to save her son and her “blood” protects him, he is “covered” by her blood - to the closing pages when Harry sacrifices himself and his sacrifice “covers” all those in Hogwarts when Voldemort’s curses no longer have lasting power on Harry’s friends.

Is this true? And if so …

Question: How did you come to write on Christian doctrines in your books - especially after the initial outcry from the very folks who would later come to love your books? Can you tell us more about your own Christian faith journey?

zr

Who will answer?

Who will answer?

FROM BabyBlueOnline.org:

I've been reticent about posting a review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, knowing that many here in the cafe have not yet read the book and did not want to spoil it for them.

If you have not read the book - and plan to - please close your eyes and scroll down. I want to raise an issue or two with those of you who have read the book.

I have been a fan of the series by J.K. Rowling from the moment I read my first book, which was actually the third one in the series, the Prisoner of Azkaban. I had put off reading the books for quite a long time, even know different members of many family gave me copies and told me over and over again how much I would love the books. I finally saw the first two movies and then picked up the third book and that was that.

I am the author of the opening essay of a book called The Plot Thickens, which is still available through Borders, Amazon, and Barnes & Noble. It is a series of essays on the Harry Potter series through the fifth book. My essay is called "Iceberg Ahoy: Why the New York Times Should Restore Harry Potter to the Best Seller List." In fact, the Harry Potter series had dominated the New York Times Best Seller List for so long that other authors and publishers were complaining (everyone wants to have #1 New York Times Best Seller on their dust jacket) and so the New York Times created a "Children's List" and stuck Harry Potter over there. But many of us who are adults and had read the series realized that this was far more than children's books. They are accessible to children in some ways, but now that we have come to the end of the series it is clear that there is an entirely new world underneath the one known to children. Like an iceberg, Jo Rowling reveals the top portion to her readers, but it what is underneath the water that really matters.

Over the years I have joined reading groups and study groups and even taken courses online on the series. I've met many other fans of the books who have enjoyed unlocking the mysteries in the series. But, until very recently, I was often alone in discussions when delving into what looked more and more like Christian mysteries in the book - by the time we had all finished the sixth book, The Half Blood Prince, it seemed to me that we had another modern-day Inkling on our hands. That view was rarely shared and if it was discussed, it was often in hushed tones. The "religion" factor of the series was either neglected or overlooked.

There are some major exceptions to this and chief among them is the author John Granger, who wrote among other books on the series, "Finding God in Harry Potter." He is the moderator of HogwartsProfessor.com and he is chiefly responsible for unearthing all the Christian-style alchemical symbols throughout the book. There are others who follow in similar ways and many of them can be found at HogwartsProfessor.

In the past few months I've read lots of commentary on the books, listened to many podcasts on the books, and have listened to others talk about the books. Well, sort of. What is striking me now is how quiet things have gotten - and how quiet they got soon after the books came out.

Jo Rowling had warned us that many may not like how the book concludes (and I'm not talking about the Epilogue, but the final battle at Hogwarts). Christian imagery is all over those closing chapters, especially in terms of such weighty topics as substitution, sacrifice, redemption, repentance, and judgment. Strong orthodox understanding of classical Christianity have their marks not only all over the series, but all over the closing chapters of the final book.

I have listened and read many commentaries that are filled with the struggles readers are having over understanding what happens to Harry during the Battle of Hogwarts. There is a certain discomfort that in order to really discuss those closing pages, one is going to have to discuss classical Christian theology. The book is immensely theological and now millions and millions of people have read the book.

One of the big questions - and one of those questions that many seem hesitant to ask is - what is the theological significance to being "cover by the blood?" Christians sing about it, they participate in Eucharists, and they certainly read about the power of the blood, being covered by the blood. But what does it mean and what affect does it have on us?

What I am finding now, as the weeks go by, is silence. When the sixth book came out the response was deafening. We could point to the fact that we were left with some significant mysteries and those mysteries demanded to be solved. The series has now concluded and all is wrapped up - or is it?

There are some significant mysteries in the final book, but to begin to explore those mysteries will mean diving into significant Christian theology - not liberal progressive theology, but the orthodox kind, the traditional kind, the kind that includes sin, rebellion, sacrifice, and redemption. They aren't just nebulous themes, but are key to understanding the series. We see in these books that Jo Rowling did more than just skim through the books of CS Lewis. In fact, it seems she has read more than just The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It appears she may have also at least read The Problem of Pain, The Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, and A Grief Observed. If she hasn't, I'd still recommend readers of the series know those books. And Jane Austin as well, another Christian believer, who used satire to comment on - often humorously - on society. Jo Rowling does the same thing.

One person I know has just finished reading the book. She had read all the others and we had many fun conversations about the books and the characters. But she is not a believer, in fact, she is rather hostile to Christianity and she will not talk about this book. To secular eyes, how shocking is the book? Should secularists be worried? The greatest irony of the books is that for a long time the wrong people were upset.

There does seem to be a strange silence over the series - that may be challenged soon as Jo Rowling arrives in America for a book tour. She was asked once - and by a child, not the secular media, about her faith. By the time she gets here, though, more people will have actually read the book, had time to think about it, talk with others about it, and question the mysteries in it that are quite profound in ways that all the other mysteries of plot and character pale in comparison. Perhaps that is why Jo Rowling has made no secret of her admiration for Dorothy Sayers, another honorary Inkling, who saw mystery writing as a particularly "Christian" genre. Jo Rowling seems to have followed - more significantly and more profoundly - in her footsteps. In this mystery genre (which is far more what the series is then a simple series of children's stories) we learn about great Christian theological concepts such as generational sin, blood sacrifice, redemption, suffering, death, atonement, the human soul, immortality, heaven, hell, and the particular power of agape love. There are many many more. Having read the final book, what does it mean then to sing this Gospel song:

Would you be free from the burden of sin?
There's power in the blood, power in the blood;
Would you over evil a victory win?
There's wonderful power in the blood.

There is power, power, wonder working power
In the blood of the Lamb;
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb.

Would you be free from your passion and pride?
There's power in the blood, power in the blood;
Come for a cleansing to Calvary's tide;
There's wonderful power in the blood.

There is power, power, wonder working power
In the blood of the Lamb;
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb.

The final sentence of the book is "All was well." It caused me, as I've written all ready over at Shell Cottage about this particular hymn. I write there:

What's come to my mind has been the hymn, It is Well, since it is about all being well in the midst of great suffering. Written by a man who lost his children at sea, he returns to the place where they were lost and writes:

When peace like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

-Horatio Spafford 1873

Since so much of Deathly Hallows, and the Harry Potter series is about the state of Harry's soul. When we finally get to the closing, we learn that - through the immense amount of suffering and pain that Harry Potter has endured - now all was well. His soul was restored to wholeness - he was healed.

These are topics, issues, subjects, themes of great spiritual and theological depth. It seems to me that a great opportunity is before all of us who have read the Harry Potter series - now is a season to ask questions. Millions have read the books and have questions - who will answer them?

NOTE: I continue to post over at Shell Cottage. Please feel free to drop by for a cup of tea. In my opinion, Harry's visit to Shell Cottage is the turning point of his entire life. We'll write on that topic soon, perhaps while we're waiting for word from the Bishops of the Episcopal Church.

Chapter Seven: The Will of Albus Dumbledore



4. In one of the few moments in the entire book, there is some focus on Harry and Ginny’s relationship in this chapter. After interrupting a kiss between the two, Ron berates Harry for “messing her around”. Was Ron justified in this argument, knowing what Harry had to do to defeat Voldemort, or was this a just a case of an overprotective older brother? Do you think Ginny’s other brothers would have had the same reactions?

It is interesting to compare Ron's reaction to Harry kissing Ginny to his earlier reaction to Ginny kissing Dean. I think Ron, while he may be clueless about women, gets it. In the earlier incident, Ron explodes at Ginny because I think he knew exactly what she was doing. Ron is right in that scene about what Ginny is doing (but oversteps his role as her older brother). He targets Ginny not Dean. He knows who has the real power in that relationship, and it's Ginny. He may also know that Ginny does not love Dean and he's basically recognizing the same behavior in his sister that he will later display himself with Lavender. How much Ron is aware that Harry is taking interesting in his sister is not really known, but it is possible that he is picking up on it. The irony is that Ron goes off and does the same thing Ginny is doing in his own attempt to make Hermione jealous.

In this scene, Ron switches sides. He doesn't go after Ginny as he did before, blaming her for leading Harry on. He assumes that Harry has the power in the scene, though we know that it was Ginny who took the initiative. Why did Ron switch sides and blame Harry for messing with Ginny? Again, it could be that we are able to get a deeper insight into what is going on with Ron. Ron is in love with Hermione, but has not been able to express his love to her. Now he finds Harry, who has made it quite clear he is not going to be pursuing Ginny, doing that very thing. Of course he's going to explode at Harry - some of it may be an expression at his own frustration in not being able to follow through with his own desires for Hermione. The other thing is that Ron may believe in his heart that Harry is not going to survive and that this is a cruel thing to do to Ginny to get her hopes up that they will have a future, when Ron (and not without merit) may believe it is unlikely Harry will survive their ordeal. We get a twist on that later when Ron and Hermione finally do follow through with the desire of their own hearts and Ron makes the humorous comment of basically it's now or never.

5. When Lupin and Tonx arrive at Harry’s birthday party, Harry notices that Tonx looks “radiant” while Lupin looked “unhappy”. Later, as the Minister of Magic arrives, the pair leave quickly, saying “We shouldn’t be here”. Given that Tonx is a Ministry employee, it seems odd that she shouldn’t be around the Minister. What did you think of their behavior and Lupin’s statement?

I had suspected that Tonx might be pregnant because of the way she looked at Remus when she arrived back at the Burrow following Harry's escape from Privet Drive. We have learned through her Aunt Bellatrix that her marriage to Lupin is considered to be disgusting in Wizarding Society (a view not just held by Slytherins). That view is similar to the view held, even to this day by some, of interracial marriages. Such marriages were shunned by society, black and white. For a long time those marriages were even illegal. Often those who would defend the bigoted view would use as their defense "what about the children" and how such children would suffer in society. We learn that even Tonk's parents are not happy about the marriage and of course later on we see that Tonx is targeted by her aunt personally because of what she's done.

What we see here, then, is that the couple have risked everything to marry and while Tonx doesn't seem to care, Remus - who has lived with his condition nearly his whole life - knows exactly what this means and he does love her. He does know what suffering comes not only to his wife, but to their child. Tonk's happiness and Remus' unhappiness are both born from their love for each other, showing itself in different ways.

If the Ministry finds out that Tonx is pregnant it is not clear what the Ministry might do about it - but we can imagine what might happen and so they flee. I had not thought, until I read the other comments here, that Tonx may have been sacked from her job as an Auror. Certainly the Minister of Magic is her former boss since he was the head of the Auror Department. We are seeing evidence of a subplot between Scrimgeour and Tonx - who might be made an example of what happens when one breaks the rules, written and unwritten. If we draw the parallel between Tonx and Remus' marriage and interracial marriages in the past (and in some places still today) we may see why the bigotry goes so deep.

We can also imagine that in the past Scrimgeour and Tonx have had to deal with Greyback in their roles as Aurors and Remus Lupin is an exception as to what the Wizarding World sees as what happens to people when they become a werewolf. Werewolves are a threat to society - and to children in particular - and one could make the case that from Scrimgeour's point of view, Tonx has betrayed the trust placed in her when she became an auror.

Finally, they are both known to be in the Order of the Phoenix and their allegiance lies elsewhere and not with Scrimgeour. He may see this as a threat to his own authority. This is supposed to be happy day for Harry and the last thing Remus and Tonx would want to do is spoil the party. And so they flee.

Posted at Hogwarts Professor:

I believe J.K. Rowling was married in the Scottish Episcopal Church by the Rev Canon Prof J S Richardson. But if she attends the Church of Scotland, well, that’s quite interesting - the Church of Scotland has no bishops, unlike the Scottish Episcopal Church which does. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian - John Knox and all that.

She went to a Church of England school when she was young, but I’m not sure it was the happiest of her experiences. The former Archbishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church was pretty radical - much more in line theologically with the American Episcopal Church. In fact, the Scottish Episcopal Church is very much like the American Episcopal Church in theology and politics. It is very progressive. The same cannot be said for the Church of Scotland.

There are also some cultural differences between to the two churches, especially in relation to the Scots (and their relationships with the English, even to this day). These cultural differences are in addition to the theological and political differences between the two denominations.

The Scottish Episcopal Church has been very involved in progressive Scottish national politics - in fact, I think it was one of the sponsoring institutions to bring about the creation of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Episcopal Church, from the witness of my friends in Scotland, is fairly burned out and no match for the descendants of John Knox. In fact, one of my friends attempted to go to the local Scottish Episcopal Church but she was a little late and the vicar had locked the front door, even though it was Sunday. His view was if you weren’t there on time, you should go somewhere else.

My guess is still the play is on the first name - Pius (said satirically) - and his “false piety” made him blind to the evil around him, even weakened him to be used by those he should be opposing. That certainly is a problem in the Church today.

ZR