Richard Abanes Q&A part 2
Carla: I have a few theories on the emotional attachment to Harry Potter.
First, I think in human nature it's very easy to get caught up in the "us vs. them" attitude, which as Christians is something we need to try to resist. But yes, I've seen it on both sides. And on far sillier subjects than religion...so glad I missed the shipping wars.
Second, I think many of the dedicated fans become dedicated fans because they put something of themselves into the world. Part of the reason I got involved with the Harry Potter fandom was out of fascination with all the creativity. Many of the dedicated fans draw, write, roleplay, or costume...or in the case of people like John Granger find parallels to spiritual or even personal issues reflected in the books. (I've found a similar pattern in my time in the Star Wars fandom.) I'm betting this personalizing of the world and people putting a bit of themselves into it explains a lot of the emotional attachment.
Third, I think a lot of people read fiction (fantasy in particular) to find a comfortable escape. When something threatens or appears to threaten that comfort, we can become defensive.
Oddly enough that last point makes me think of one of the two Bible verses that Rowling uses in Deathly Hallows "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" - Matthew 6:21. There's a temptation to get too caught up in things of this world, even books and fandom, and we can lose our perspective.
Following this thread of putting ourselves or bringing ourselves into the world. I'm wondering if one of the big reasons we have Christians interpreting Harry Potter so differently is that they're coming from different places. Francis Bridger, who teaches ethics, loves the "moral complexity" of the books. John Granger who is an English Professor, who I think specializes in Medieval literature, draws on the literary parallels to older texts from that period, many of which were heavily influenced by the Christian Church. And then on the other end you have Caryl Matrisciana, who has spent a lot of time with occult studies, and therefore sees all the occult parallels.
You've been an active fantasy fan for a while, but you also know a great deal more about the occult that the average Christian, how much do you think that influenced the way you perceived the books?
You raise some good points and I agree with most of them.
I would only add that too many individuals are NOT using their expertise in certain areas of study to bring out points in HP that might otherwise go unnoticed by persons less educated in those specific areas. If this is all they did, then their musings would be perfectly acceptable. But what they are actually doing is using their knowledge (and I might add, some extraordinary creativity) to invent details/references that are simply not in the books, and then they are reading those details/references into the text to make it say what they want it to say. In this way, they can turn HP into whatever they want it to be: i.e., something that fits very nicely into their fields of specialty. This is not an appropriate way to interpret or study literature.
Endless examples of such shoddy scholarship can be found in the linguistic acrobatics performed by John Granger who has found all kinds of Christian meanings in words, names, and places throughout Harry Potter. For example, in his book, Looking for God in Harry Potter, he gives his interpretation of the name Harry Potter, expressing quite confidently what it truly means. He states: "The Cockney and French pronunciations of Harry’s name tell us what his name means. . . . Arry with a long ‘A’ suggests the word ‘heir' . . . If Harry means ‘Heir-y,’ then what is our Harry ‘Heir to’ or ‘Son of’?…The answer to that is in the biblical use of the word ‘Potter.’ . . . Potter can be used as a synonym for ‘God’—and thus Harry Potter means ‘Heir to’ or ‘Son of God’ . . . Harry Potter is ‘son of God.’”
Is this true? Can it be? Does that interpretation come from anything that has been directly stated or even intimated by J.K. Rowling? In a word, no. Instead, Rowling has given us an explanation that is not only far simpler, but infinitely more obvious and sensible: "'Harry’ has always been my favorite boy’s name, so if my daughter had been a son, he would have been Harry Rowling. Then I would have had to choose a different name for ‘Harry’ in the books, because it would have been too cruel to name him after my own son. ‘Potter’ was the surname of a family who used to live near me when I was seven. . . . I always liked the name, so I borrowed it" (J.K. Rowling). This is but one of many instances where Granger has concocted some outrageous interpretation of a word or phrase in HP. I document several more examples in Harry Potter, Narnia, and The Lord of the Rings. He has been confronted by not only this instance of poor scholarship, but also other instances, and as far as I know, he has not retracted any of his interpretations that contradict Rowling's own words. What he has done, however, is to attack me personally, by calling me not only ignorant, but someone who has resorted to lying; specifically, lying about the popularity of my own works. Odd. Quite odd. I am left asking myself: What is the point of it all? What is the point of exalting these stories to the level of a Lewis or Tolkien, if truth itself is placed at the side of the road, left under a rock to rot in the dark.
This, of course, brings me to my own perceptions of the books. More than anything else, I am a journalist. I never escaped from the occult; never had a family member harmed by witches or Satanists. So I have no axe to grind. And I also have no academic reputation to uphold; I have no need to show people how much I know about literature, or symbology, or religion. I am just a basic reporter. So, I have tried very hard to simply report the facts by: a) pointing out what is in HP; b) going to Rowling herself for the interpretation of what's there; c) quoting practicing occultists about what they see in HP that blends with their worldview; d) measuring the actions of the characters against what scripture says regarding ethics-related issues (e.g., lying, stealing, cheating, revenge, etc.). This is why I now say to people, "Please. Stop arguing with me! Go argue with J.K. Rowling. Go argue with the occultists, Wiccans, and Pagans! I'm just quoting all of them. You have an issue with them, not me."
Most disturbing to me are the people who supposedly adore Rowling as an author, then turn around and ignore whatever she says that doesn't fit into what they want to believe about her books--case in point, John Granger and his fans. To me that is the height of audacity to tell another author what she really meant by a name, a place, a theme. Another habitual practice for these same folks that I find troubling is how they will conveniently pick and choose what they see in the series that supports their contentions. For example, they exalt the various things Harry does that are good (and there are indeed many things), but virtually ignore, or at least severely downplay, the things he does that are . . . well . . not-so-good. Again, it is pseudo-scholarship at best, and at worst, academic dishonesty.
Carla: I was a bit disappointed with some of the things John Granger said about you recently on his blog (http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=141 July 27th, 2007). For starters, people who aren't big fans of the series won't be standing in midnight lines and snagging up copies to race through them in less than a week, much less make major changes in their position in that time.
And two, even though I agree with him that Deathly Hallows made Rowling's deliberate Christian themes a bit more obviously Christian, I don't think HBP or DH either one undermines any of the main criticisms you had of the books. The Christian influence is more blatant, but the books are less child friendly and the moral relativism is worse than in the first five, and still we have the same worries about the effect of "good witches" and using occult terms that are still active. I can't decide if John just doesn't fully understand your position on Potter or if he's simply not giving it enough credit.
All the same, I think labeling him the "Evil" Hogwarts Professor on your blog may have come off as a tad reactionary.
LOL. Actually, this was me trying to stay in the spirit of Harry Potter. You know, sort of playing along with the whole John is a professor at Hogwarts thing. In no way do I literally mean that he, as a person, is "evil." I can think of a lot of other names for him, but that's not one of them.
Carla: But sometimes, I don't think you fully understand his position either. Partly I'm sure because he's very verbose and not being a Potter fan, I'd be surprised if you were a regular visitor to his blog, where he said not too long ago that Potter was not a Christian allegory but a story filled with symbolism. And partly because John Granger speaks "English teacher", a dialect of English that has frustrated me since highschool.
[I’ve put this chunk in brackets cause I’m debating how much of this I ought to stick it in the final transcript…I get rambly…and this might not need my soap box on highschool English…
I remember from my highschool English classes that we were to leave the words "I think" and "I believe" out of our papers because that part was supposed to be understood. This part I didn't have too much trouble, where I got annoyed with in my English classes is that we were to swap "I think" for "the author does _____". I literally burnt-out in 12th grade, because I got sick of pretending that the author was saying a lot more than I believed the author was actually saying. So I think the problem you're having with John Granger (and some of the more "literary" Potter analysts) is the same problem I've had for years with the way we teach literature in our school system. It would be more honest to just let kids say "what the story means to me" or "how I interpret", rather than ask them to put meaings in the author's mouth. However, this is a common and even encouraged practice.
By plain English standards John Granger has over stretched horribly on several points, but by "English teacher" standards he's not being the least bit deceptive but merely making educated guesses. Because Rowling's world is such an interweaving of allusions from many, many mythologies, it's an English teachers playground. However English teacher thinking doesn't tend to leave much room for the "Happy accident".
I had a friend who once made up a name for a character only to find out later it was a real word in Japanese that described the character perfectly. I'm sure if she ever gets it published, people will think her more clever than lucky on that point.
I do want to come back to discussing age appropriateness, moral relativism, and occult connections in turn, but I needed to get that out of my system.]
I wonder, however, if John is not simply engaging here in the fallacy of "making a distinction without a difference." In other words, he may not call it an allegory outright, but he instead points out so much symbolism in it that supposedly relates directly to Christianity (divine themes, Jesus, the atonement, God, the Virgin Mary, redemption, etc., etc., etc.), that he has basically turned it into a near-allegory. He has said, and continues to say, as far as I know, that Rowling (whom he casts as a bonifide Christian on the level of a Lewis or Tolkien) has deliberately sought to baptize the world into the gospel by presenting the gospel and key gospel themes throughout her books using symbolism. And he has done this, as I have already pointed out so many times, contrary to what Rowling herself has explained. I have no doubt that there are certain places where ubiquitous Christian allusions pop up (just like in many works of great literature), but this does not make HP Christian. The series contains all kinds of allusions from numerous religious traditions, lore, history, and philosophies. John picks one of them (i.e., Christianity) and runs with it, all along the way grabbing every symbol he can in order to attach a Christian meaning to it -- no matter how absurd an argument he has to construct to make the symbol fit.
I compiled a rather amusing list in Harry Potter, Narnia, and The Lord of the Rings that includes no less than five different religious/philosophical groups (besides John Granger and Christians), who have alleged that Harry Potter and its symbolism really reflects THEIR particular views: Vedic astrologers, Secularists, Jewish Kabbalists, New Agers, and believe it or not, homosexuals. LOL. That's the beauty of symbols, you can take them and turn them into anything you want! So, we are left with having to go to the source of the symbol usage -- i.e., J.K. Rowling -- and find out what she intended. And according to her, a great deal of what is being passed off a Christian symbols and themes are not meant to be taken as Christian at all. A prime example being the name Harry Potter (or as John Granger would have us believe, "heir-of-God").
Carla: By plain English standards John Granger has over stretched horribly on several points, but by "English teacher" standards he's not being the least bit deceptive but merely making educated guesses.
Here is where we disagree. It is an educated guess when you have to guess. It is being deceptive and agenda-driven when you continue to make your claims in the face of the author stating plain as day what he/she meant. Rowling has declared quite clearly what "Harry Potter" means, what "Dumbledore" means, as well as what words like "Snape, "Goblet of Fire," Sorceror's Stone," and so on mean. There is nothing about which to guess when it comes to these things. And yet John Granger keeps passing his interpretations off as legitimate literary explanations of what is in the novels.
Carla: And twisting that back around, your more journalistic approach has a sort of dialect of it's own as well. It rather demands a simplicity of conclusions, rather than a long discourse on ethics or the possible meaning of symbols that are not plainly explained by the author. Do you think this might be part of the reason a lot people were confused by your first book "Harry Potter and the Bible", and perhaps took it as a harsher criticism than it was intended to be?
I think you have indeed hit on something here. I did not have the freedom at all, in any of my books on HP, to discuss at length some things I would have liked to discuss more fully. That is the nature of book writing. (Sigh.) There are endless volumes on ethics as well as symbolism. I could never do those subjects justice. Instead, I was forced to draw upon the plainest material/information available, and leave the end conclusions up to the readers. Sadly, as I look back on things, it seems to me that a lot of people had already reached their conclusions (for example, that the books needed to be banned/burned), then simply used my book . . . and I hate to say this . . . as kind of an excuse they to do and say what they already knew they wanted to do and say. As I have always said, I know there are Christians symbols and allusions in HP, just as their are ones from the New Age, mythology, paganism, witchcraft, and the occult. Rowling pulled from all over the literary and creative landscape. That's what makes HP a truly fascinating and extraordinary series of books -- NOT that it is some Christian saga intended to prepare readers to hear the gospel.
Carla: She's really said very little about the "religious undertone" in the books, though she confirmed that there was one very recently. One of the posters over in the christian_hpfan journal wanted me to ask you what quotes you’re referencing that discredit the idea that Harry Potter is (or involves) a Christian allegory?
This fan is approaching the issue all wrong. The question is not: "What quotes from Rowling discredits the notion that she has written Harry Potter as a kind of a Christian allegory?" The question that needs to be asked is: "What quotes from Rowling indicate that she has indeed written the books as a kind of Christian allegory?" The burden of proof, in other words, lies at the feet of those who are making any claims beyond what is apparent. To approach it otherwise, leaves us in a place of having to ask for a quote(s) from Rowling to prove that Harry Potter is not an allegory for Buddhism, Islam, the New Age, or any number of other religious traditions.
Fortunately, we do have many quotes from Rowling that plainly state the theme of her overall story and each individual book. Let's consider, for example, the claims of some Christian fans of HP who have said Sorcerer's Stone pictures Harry as a kind of Christ representative -- and that this is the book's theme. But Rowling has explained that the volume is actually "about the power of the imagination." And in reference to Goblet of Fire, its theme is closely linked with Rowling's very reason for choosing that particular title: "I preferred Goblet of Fire because it's got that kind of 'cup of destiny' feel about it, which is the theme of the book."
Again and again we have her talking about such themes in a very, very plain manner -- and nowhere do we have her intimating that the books are about God, Jesus, Christianity, or Christian allegorical themes. Consider the following small sample of literally dozens of statements by Rowling:
- "The book [Sorceror's Stone] is really about the power of the imagination. What Harry is learning to do is to develop his full potential."
- "Dealing with bereavement is a strong part of the books. Dealing with loss. . . . But it's a strong central theme - dealing with death, yeah, and facing up to death."
- "Civil rights becomes a theme in Goblet of Fire."
- "Death is an extremely important theme throughout all seven books. I would say possibly the most important theme. If you are writing about Evil, which I am, and if you are writing about someone who is essentially a psychopath, you have a duty to show the real evil of taking human life."
- "The theme running through all seven books is the fight between good and evil."
- "One of the biggest themes in the book is Harry's conquering the dementors. And the dementors for me were about depression, and not just sadness."
So why does it seem to some Christians like the HP books are clearly Christian-based? Basically, it is because Rowling's themes are so broad that they can be read from all kinds of different perspectives or religious traditions. In other words, it is not that she is dealing with any issues in a specifically Christian context, it's just that the issues can be folded quite easily into any context that deals with them: Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, even Secularism. All of Rowling's topics are touched upon by these varying religious/philosophical systems.
It's like five different chefs finding a table full of ingredients that they can all use to cook a meal from their particular cuisine, be it French, Italian, Creole, Indian, Chinese, or Japanese. Each chef might think the ingredients were laid out for their specific meal, but in reality, the ingredients sitting on a table are just a collection of widely used ingredients. Each chef can use them as they see fit, or in the way that they are most comfortable using them.
Rowling said as much during a 2007 interview on Blue Peter in England: "Well, there are deeper meanings in there because I'm dealing with, erm, with Death. You're, you're exploring quite, well, very big themes, really, when you're talking about life and death and evil and goodness and, and the nature of loyalty and so on. So, erm, yes, but that doesn't mean to say that, ummmm ... I don't think they're worthy books in the sense that you, you don't, I hope you don't feel that there is a moral being rammed down your throat at every page. I think they can be read as a straightforward adventure story, and you can take from them what you want. So that's probably why they work quite well for people of different ages."
If there is any doubt that the HP books are vastly different than those of Lewis or Tolkien, I submit the words of J.K. Rowling herself, who blatantly distanced her works from those of both Lewis and Tolkien:
ON C.S. LEWIS: "Really, C.S. Lewis had very different objectives to mine. When I write, I don't intend to make a point or teach philosophy of life."
ON J.R.R. TOLKIEN: "I think--setting aside the obvious fact that we both use myth and legend--that the similarities are fairly superficial."
I don't believe it can get any clearer than that! And yet these highly relevant remarks about HP have been utterly overlooked (or ignored) by legions of Christian HP fans who continue to insist that HP is an allegorical-like work that is Christian through and through.
Carla: Are there legions of Christian HP fans insisting it's allegorical-like through and through? I mean I do know some, but they still seem in the minority amoung fans and amoung Christian fans for the series.
Hmmm. Perhaps legions would be an overstatement. I was using that word as more of a hyperbole, anyway. At the same time, I do feel it is quite a lot of HP fans. The books extolling the Christianity of Harry Potter have been selling very, very, well. And our Hogwarts Professor friend, John Granger, is the official online professor for Barnes & Noble discussions. That is a huge crowd of followers.
Carla: I think there are certainly a lot of spiritual/biblical connections that Christian fans have made to the books, which makes us wonder what's deliberate and what just came out of the bubbling. But Rowling has said some things to make us wonder if somewhere along her bubbling process, she's deliberately playing with some Christian themes.
Oh, I have no doubt of that. Why? Because they are GREAT themes! She plays with all kinds of themes in her books. That's no surprise. She is quite clever in that respect and has been rewarded for her talents. I congratulate her for that.
Carla: Like this excerpt from the The Vancouver Sun article in 2000:
Harry, of course, is able to battle supernatural evil with supernatural forces of his own, and Rowling is quite clear that she doesn't personally believe in that kind of magic -- ''not at all.'' Is she a Christian?
''Yes, I am,'' she says. ''Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books.''
So we do have a statement from Rowling saying that 1. She is Christian and 2. Her religious beliefs are in some way connected to the books’ plot.
Yes. This is the same statement from 7 years ago that I hear repeated over and over. Along with the other 2000 remark, "Well, as it happens, I believe in God, but there's no pleasing some people!"
I have no doubt that Rowling has some Christian ideals, concepts, and views floating around in her head -- just like many people in th UK and just like most people in the U.S. However, that does not make her a Christian from a biblical or logical perspective. What we need to ask ourselves is: What is a Christian? The answer, of course, is deeply rooted in one's beliefs concerning the Bible, God, Jesus, and the atonement. In other words, the foundational doctrines of the faith. Rowling has never once articulated any of her views on such issues.
You can walk through any shopping mall and ask people "Do you believe in God" or "Are you a Christian" and a vast majority will answer "yes" to both questions. Yet if you were to probe a bit further you'd find their concepts of "God," "Jesus," and what it means to be a Christian vary dramatically, not only from one another, but from the Bible.
Like these mall walkers, Rowling can mean a host of things by what she has said. She has never expressed that she believes the basic, orthodox tenets of Christianity as defined by the age-old creeds of Christendom. Consequently, her short, non-exploratory, HIGHLY generalized responses actually count for very little beyond simply indicating that she certainly does not follow the teachings of some other world religion like Buddhism or Islam.
But I have found that when individuals WANT to believe something, all they need is the smallest morsel to feed upon. And this is what has happened, in my opinion, when it comes to Rowling. Some Christians want her to be a devout Christian so much, that they take these minimal comments and expand them to mean far more than they mean at face value. At the very least, I think it's safe to say that her religious views, as expressed publicly, are considerably lacking in depth and content when compared to those of Tolkien and Lewis, who were very plain about their faith. That, in my opinion, is not an insignificant piece of information.
Carla: Now what that connection was up to very recently was pure speculation, but I think the end of Deathly Hallows made that a bit more clear, at least on how the Christian tradition affects the plot.
I have never, ever argued that there would not be any Christian allusions in the HP books. Of course, there are. I would expect nothing less of such a lengthy tome that pulls from a myriad of religious and mythological traditions. But that does not make the books Christian. Nor does it make Rowling a devout, orthodox believer who deliberately attempted to warm people to the gospel through her works. The whole dying, rising, self-sacrificing, savior motif is old, old, old -- and popular. It existed even before Christ himself came to make that myth a reality. So, again, Rowling's use of it is far more literary, as I see it, than some kind of personal expression of her faith and desire to bring Jesus to the world.
Carla: In the Dateline interview, shortly after the Death Hallows release she said:
JKR: Well, there-- there clearly is a religious-- undertone. And-- it's always been difficult to talk about that because until we reached Book Seven, views of what happens after death and so on, it would give away a lot of what was coming. So ... yes, my beliefs and my struggling with religious belief and so on I think is quite apparent in this book.
MV: And what is the struggle?
JKR: Well my struggle really is to keep believing.
MV: To keep believing?
JKR: Yeah, I have-- I have-- Yes.
Which is still a far cry from Rowling saying "a yes, ha ha, they were allegories all along", but it does leave one to think that some of the religious elements were very deliberately placed in the books.
Sure. As I stated, she has clear influences on her from the Christian realm. But what does that all mean? I am merely saying -- "take what she has stated, and no more." And truth be told, she has not said much. Others, however, are jumping to conclusions and taking some fairly unimpressive remarks, and declaring, "See! See! Rowling is a Bible-believing, orthodox, devout Christian!" But that is hardly what the woman has actually said. Even in the above quote on Dateline, she said she was "struggling" with "religious belief" to "keep believing." The questions are obvious. Struggling how? What exactly does she mean by "religious belief?" "Keep believing . . . what, precisely?" These are not the answers of a C.S. Lewis or a J.R.R. Tolkien. She has never even expanded on her definition of "God." She might well believe in a "God" of some kind, but what about him does she believe? Suffice it to say, we have a lot of holes in the so-called airtight quotes that prove Rowling is a Christian.
Carla: So I guess the question is does Rowling dealing with more universal themes exclude the possibility that she was doing something deliberately Christian? If not an allegory in Lewis's style, perhaps planting the seed of certain concepts?
As I have said, you have these tremendous themes within Christianity of self-sacrifice, love, forgiveness, death, and resurrection. I can't see how any good author wouldn't want to use such themes in their works, especially fantasy, whether the author is a Christian or not. Ever read Stephen King's Desperation?? Now, THAT is Christian through and through in so many ways and with so many things. Very blatant, too. Is Stephen King a Christian? I don't think so. It must be remembered that the entire HP series is derivative -- and I mean that in a good way. Rowling has managed to take from the best that literature has to offer in the way of themes and characters, and weave them all together into a brand new tale. Some of these rich themes were bound to come from Christianity, which has presented to the world one of the greatest of all works of literature -- the Bible.
Carla: I'm afraid I'm not much of a Stephen King fan and haven't read Desperation, but I've noticed lots of authors/films/programs, that borrow stories from the Bible (people, names, scenarios, etc.) but lose the Christian thinking behind them. There are lots of "end times" stories out there where the hero's main goal is to "stop" the end from coming, which says to me that they really don't get it. So it's not unprecedented.
At the same time, while Joseph Campbell popularize the idea of the universal myth and I've heard several people say there are many stories similiar to Christ's throughout mythology, I've never seen anyone give a very satisfactory example of it. Do you know any examples of "The whole dying, rising, self-sacrificing, savior motif" from other traditions?
Oh, there are so many of them. I think the easiest reference is to just give the wiki link to the entry on this issue. Lewis and Tolkien discussed this a great deal in their writings.
Carla: But, no, there's really not much to go on to establish what flavor of Christianity she's subscribes to. I'm hoping now that she's not worried about giving the plot away, she'll talk more freely on the subject. Judging from other interviews, she doesn't seem to consider herself fundamentalist, but then neither does Laura Mallory...and I believe you said something recently that you don't consider yourself fundamentalist either.
Indeed.
Carla: I do consider myself a fundamentalist, but it doesn't seem to be the very "in" thing to be right now. And actually it's confusing me a bit, because I'll hear people claim not to be fundamentalist, but turn around and use what I would consider to be very fundamentalist attitudes, beliefs, or arguments. So while it might be a bit off the topic of Potter, could you tell me what you think of when you use the word "fundamentalist" and how you don't fall into that category?
I am not a fundamentalist in the negative way that the word is so popularly used today throughout the media and also by assorted Christian-bashers. It's sort of become the worst name you can call a Christian in this age of enlightenment, and has a lot of negative baggage associated with it, calling forth mental images of people who are either abortion clinic bombers or barely literate, barefoot, Bible-thumpers.
And sadly, there is indeed a kind of narrow-mindedness and ignorance of the world in general when it comes to fundamentalists, whom I would consider to be Christians that go beyond what is actually biblical and have an terrifically rigid perspective of what is right and wrong or good and evil in the world. The word, I think, would also cover how such individuals respond and react to the world in which we live. Usually it is with condemnation and self-isolation. They tend to be extremely locked into one way of thinking about all kinds of things from dancing, to video games, to appropriate ways of preaching the gospel, to what is (and what is not) acceptable music, forms of entertainment, etc. etc. etc.
So no, I am not a fundamentalist. I am an evangelical and a fairly open-minded one, at that. I do, however, hold to all of the essential doctrines of Christianity -- i.e., those outlined in the ancient creeds of the church. That, by the way, is what it actually used to mean to be a fundamentalist -- i.e., a person who simply held to the fundamentals of the faith. But the meaning of the word has chanegd so much, that it cannot really be used in that sense anymore by people like me, who seek to practice the kind of tolerance Jesus displayed in scripture toward others. Oh, that's another aspect of today's Fundamentalists -- they are not very tolerant.
Carla: Ah, well, I consider myself fundamentalist in the more traditional sense (denotation vs. connotation)...
We could probably spend a long time on the subject, but if you had to give a brief answer, what would you say distinguishes Christ from the other "savior motif" examples?
Oh goodness, that's the easiest question you could have asked me. The difference is that the Christ myth was true. That's how C.S. Lewis put it. The gospels are the myth made real through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Other than that, the similarities between tales are tremendous, even down to the savior being born of a virgin!
I'm still taking questions, and mary_j_59 , I hope we cover the questions you had as we go.