Creation and Christian Meaning: Rowling and the Biblical mode (cont'd)

I thought an example might help explain why although Rowling once said she consciously was not trying write a "Christian work", I think her work is also consciously Christian. When you study the Genesis creation accounts accurately, the point of the human author is NOT creation Ex Nihilo. The emphasis of "out of nothing" comes from Christian Theology in a later stage. The emphasis of the language used in Genesis is the contrast between chaos and order, or between meaninglessness and meaning. The verbs used for creation mean more of an idea of bringing being by bringing meaning and order. Now, if you asked an Israelite reading that passage, "Well, where did the material that was in chaos come from? Is it eternal like God?" The Israelite or Jew would say, "of Course not ... obviously God made it, there's no other explanation. But Genesis is not telling that part of the story, it is telling the story of how God gave order and meaning to the evil chaos of the elements, how He covenanted Himself to the world and us by saving us from the chaos of the primordial waters." Rowling is a bit the same way I think. She said (I think I heard this on one of Fr. Roderic's HP podcasts) that she is consciously not trying to write a Christian work (which, I would argue, since the time of Bunyan, if you say "I'm writing a Christian work" you're universally taken to mean "I'm writing a fairly wooden allegory of the Bible"). I think if you asked her "well then where do you think the truth that is in your books comes from? You think there is a different source of truth that is contradictory to Christianity don't you? You really are a Wiccan aren't you?" she would say, "No ... of course the source of the truth is Christian, of course the ultimate source is in the Bible." (Rowling is an educated woman, I highly doubt she could know of Nicholas Flamel and not know he was a distinctly Christian alchemist, or of the Christian sources of the images she uses ... she is admittedly a huge fan of the Chronicles of Narnia; I don't see how she could not know that Aslan is an allegory of Christ) I think that, like Tolkien, she has a healthy aversion to having allegory be the underlying structure of your work, or even being perceived that way (Tolkien himself admits of using allegory in the LOTR, but in limited instances where it has a specific job to do and does just that job, like Bombadil being an allegory of raw nature). She is writing her own story for her own era and that is her emphasis. I think she is very conscious of the fact that the truth in her stories ultimately comes from the Truth (the Way, the Truth and the Life). But what her story is in its distinctness is still a story about a boy who lived under the stairs and never knew he had magical powers; the story of an idea that really struck the fancy of a (then) single mother who had studied classics and taught French in Northern Europe at the very end of the second millennium of the Christian Era. A woman conscious of her Christian heritage, maybe also a little bit of a Goth and also a little bit aware that in the current setting "Christian writing" get equated with "bad writing." An author more familiar with the medieval alchemical structure than with the genre forms and specific typologies of Scripture, so what would you expect her to use? (you can't expect every author to be an expert in everything ... the human mind can only hold so much and she is good and very well researched on Christian alchemy).