|
I want to offer you some of my musings on Harry Potter. I say "musings" because my thoughts aren't entirely settled on this matter, but I‘ve given it a considerable amount of attention (as you should, too), and want to offer what I've come up with so far.
First let me say, I've read the first book of J.K Rowling's series, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, but not the others. I've also seen the movie, so I'm speaking based on actual exposure to the material, which is very helpful in order to form an educated opinion, though strictly speaking not always necessary.
This material has come under considerable attack in conservative Christian circles, as most of you are aware, because this is a children's story about a young wizard (Harry Potter) who is getting a proper wizard's education at Hogwarts, the center for training in the occult arts of witchcraft, wizardry, spell-casting and the like.
The chief concern, from the Christian perspective, has to do with the prohibition in Deuteronomy 18 of complicity with occult practices.
There is also the concern that books like Rowling's are enchanting enough to young readers that it gives them a hunger for these experiences while at the same time presenting the occult as harmless in itself.
I am sympathetic to these concerns. One of my objections against participating in Halloween is its tendency to make light of the occult and Satan and the like so that people don't take them seriously when they should.
I also have walked out of many movies, most recently "Training Day." Though I love Denzel Washington and the film was superbly acted and was very gripping, I was deeply troubled by the blatant corruption of goodness and decency depicted and I left. Maybe the movie had a more edifying ending, redeeming itself later on, I don't know. I wasn't going to wait around to find out. I also walked out of "Bridget Jones' Diary" for its cavalier treatment of sex. And there are others. I'm sensitive to these things, is the point, and I'm always looking for the subtle but powerful messages.
So I take the Harry Potter concern seriously.
First, let me deal with an unfortunate stumbling block. Some of the Christian reaction to Potter is based on misinformation, something that is unfortunately too widespread in our circles.
There are emails going out that tell of a Satanist who said the Potter books were bringing his church 14 million new applicants, mostly children. A 9-year-old girl allegedly said, "I used to believe in what they taught us at Sunday School...but the Harry Potter books showed me that magic is real, something I can learn and use right now, and that the Bible is nothing but boring lies." The author herself, J.K. Rowling, has allegedly said, "These books guide children to an understanding that the weak, idiotic Son Of God is a living hoax."
Listen carefully, friends. If you've been forwarding information like this, you need to know that it's false. These are all quotes from a satirical piece written in a publication called The Onion. These are not true quotations. The piece is satire, a parody, fiction, a joke. You can get the details at TruthorFiction.com and read the original article yourself to see that I'm not making this up.
There are a lot of emails we thoughtlessly pass on when we shouldn't, but at least try to check them out first. This is a very bad habit we have, and I'm guilty, too. I found a mistake of my own recently I had to repair. So we all have to be more careful.
When we jump at appearances and pass on bad information, we get egg on our face and the non-Christian world then feels justified in not taking us seriously on anything.
So how do we analyze this Harry Potter business? Let's start with the Scripture. What does the Deuteronomy 18:10-12 passage tell us?
There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord and because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you.
So here are the specific things prohibited: making your child pass through the fire (which I take to be child sacrifice, but I could be wrong); divination (foretelling the future, which would include any form of fortune telling: palm reading, astrology, Ouija boards, etc.); witchcraft; omen interpreting; sorcerers; casting of spells; or a medium or spiritist; and necromancy (calling up the dead).
The command is that we not do these things, and reading Potter or seeing the movie is not an example of doing these things. So strictly speaking, we don't have a violation here.
But what of the fact that Rowling's books are thick with these elements? I agree, this makes me uncomfortable, too. Keep in mind, though, that many things are condemned in the Bible that are ordinary features of art, especially books and films. If the problem is with any literature or movie that actually depicts these things, this would even rule out a lot of things, including the LA Times and the evening news. It would even rule out the Bible which is very straight-forward in depicting evil and even graphic in many cases.
But there's another angle. Wouldn't it be fair to say there's a problem if something God calls "detestable" is presented as good, or at least as morally benign? So it may not be the topic matter itself, but the way that it's depicted. If an author depicts evil things as evil, that's okay, but if he depicts them as good or even merely as benign, then that would be a problem. This is a fair challenge and a guideline I use myself, much of the time.
So, even though the prohibition in Deuteronomy is that we not practice these things that's's clear there may be legitimate broader applications in our lives of these verses, and we need to think this through.
Even with this last issue, though the way the occult is depicted there may be another legitimate qualification. Is fantasy a literary genre that we apply different rules to than we do to non-fiction or even other forms of fiction? Does "fantasy occult" equate to "real-world occult"? Before you speak too quickly, consider the ramifications of your response.
The most wonderful books I've ever read were J.R.R. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings trilogy. How does Tolkein fare by this last standard? Lots of the good guys Lord of the Rings use magic. You'll find sorcery, wizards and the like in abundance. Or what of the Christmas classic "It's a Wonderful Life"? It has magic, and people coming back from the dead (remember the wingless Clarence?). King Arthur has Merlin the magician. And what of The Chronicles of Narnia, Alice in Wonderland, and a host of Disney classics like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs?
And to really ruin your day, what about one of the most cherished "Christian" stories of all time: "A Christmas Carol," by Charles Dickens? It has many of those forbidden elements, spirits, necromancy (dead Jacob Marley coming back), divination (the ghost of Christmas future), magic, and even astral projection.
You might be tempted to say, "But the works by Dickens and Lewis are different." How so? "They're Christian authors." But that ignores the original objection. The alleged problem with Potter is not that Rowling is a non-Christian, but that her book is a children's book about witchcraft. Changing the author doesn't change that root concern, if it is a concern. If changing the author alone makes a difference to you, and if the faith of the author is irrelevant to the content of the book, then it appears that the content of the book isn't the problem, because you'd accept Harry Potter if it came from the pen of a believer like Lewis. This is a silly distinction.
"But Lewis and Dickens are different in another way," you say. "Their books have a redemptive themes and are allegorical (at least in some measure) of Christ."
So then, the issue is not the genre with its varied characters, even witches and wizards (remember, the first Narnia book is entitled The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and an enchanted wardrobe at that). The real issue is the broader message.
But by that standard it seems Potter could escape unscathed, because arguably its broader message is about courage, love, and the ability of good to conquer evil.
Regarding this point, Connie Neal makes a fine observation about A Christmas Carol in her interview for Colson's Breakpoint (and you might want to check out the article on Colson's web site at breakpoint.org). She says:
You may respond by saying, "Wait, the story is about redemption! It's about loving before it's too late!" The story is good in every sense of the world even though it is set entirely within supernatural elements forbidden in the Bible.
So how would we respond to critics? Would we say, "Divination and speaking to the dead are no big deal"? No. We say, "I understand that these spirits and supernatural powers are merely literary devices used by the author to tell a story, not a subtle attempt to lead unsuspecting children into occult practices." [emphasis in the original]
Neal is trying to take the same rule many Christians are employing to object to Harry Potter and apply it to Dickens' A Christmas Carol. If we exonerate that work in spite of prohibited occult elements because we see those details as a means to communicate a redemptive message, if that works for Dickens, why can't it work for Rowling? That's what she's getting at.
Connie Neal makes another interesting point, and here she quotes Lewis himself:
When C. S. Lewis was asked about elements within a work of fiction, he said, "Within a given story any object, person, or place is neither more nor less, nor other, than what that story effectively shows it to be." If you go with that interpretation, you are saying, "OK, I understand that the author has created a fantasy world, and I am going to get my definitions from within the story." [emphasis in the original]
I think you can see where I'm going here. It seems to me that when we carefully think through this, there is an argument that can be made that Harry Potter is part of a certain genre of literature that makes it somewhat immune to the criticisms that have been leveled at it. And, in fact, if it is not immune to those criticisms, then neither is Lewis, Tolkein, or Dickens, along with a host of others who up until this point we have not considered suspect.
Everything I've said so far has to do with Harry Potter and things like it per se. That is, can we reject Potter out of hand simply because the setting and story include elements which, if practiced by us in the real world, God would condemn?
There is a legitimate point of debate between Christians and we should be charitable to those who disagree, but I think my provisional answer is "No, we're not obliged to reject Potter out of hand." But I could be wrong.
However, even if I'm right it doesn't mean we should look with a blind eye on some of the particular things we find in Rowling's books.
The children lie. They are disobedient. They go into restricted areas, sneak out at night on adventures and the like. In isolation, clearly these are not good things for children to do and we should be wary of these messages. (However, there is virtually no story about kids on adventure from "The Goonies" to Huck Finn that don't have those features. Foundational to the children's adventure genre is that the kids are in "forbidden territory," in some sense.) Keep in mind, though, in "The Sorcerer's Stone" there were also punishments for this behavior when the kids were caught.
Another caveat. Any given child may have more vulnerability to the story's elements than another child, either because of a delicate spirit (he gets frightened more easily), or an unhealthy curiosity for the supernatural that you don't want to encourage in any way, and you would therefore stay away from a whole host of things that would be no problem with another child.
Individual background, age, maturity level, etc. are all factors. I have no problem, for example, with any Christian adult seeing the Harry Potter movie. Very young children, definitely not. If they're not old enough to read the books, they're probably not old enough to see the movie.
I'm presuming (though maybe mistakenly) you're already actively involved with your children's choice of reading and viewing (especially TV, which is much more dangerous than Harry Potter, in my view, even on the most conservative analysis of Potter). Therefore, you'll be taking time for analysis and education at some level about the content of what you let your kids see and the messages expressed or implied in the material.
So, there's something to think about. In spite of the knee-jerk reactive element, Christians are raising some legitimate questions about Harry Potter. In our assessment we have to be careful we're not relying on bad information (the mistaken quotes), or poor reasoning, ("Narnia is okay because Lewis was a Christian"). We want our biblical assessment to be sound, as well as our application of biblical principles to this issue. We have to ask if there's a legitimate distinction of literary genres, and if the rules we adopt for Potter are being consistently applied to other works we've previously considered benign, or have even cherished (like Dickens' A Christmas Carol).
Maybe some of you think I've let Potter off too easily and maybe I have. It's a judgment call. So this is where I have to invoke another principle for us to keep in mind as we work through this.
The guideline is found in I Corinthians 8, and Romans 14, but is summed up in a sentence in Romans 14:3 in which Paul refers to the difference of opinion between first-century Christians about eating meat sacrificed to idols. He says: "Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him."
Those Christians who have given some thought and Scriptural attention to this who think that Harry Potter is not a problem, should operate within that conviction, but should not look down upon others who don't share their view. They shouldn't flaunt their view or speak derisively of those who differ, who do so in good conscience. Those who have done the same reflection but feel differently and think Potter is a problem, should follow their consciences too, but they should not judge those who see this as an area of liberty.
Let me close with a twist. To show that Potter could also be read as a redemptive analogy, let me read Connie Neal's deconstruction of the first book (now the movie), Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, which she used with a neighbor to witness to him about Jesus Christ. Soon after, when his own wife died, the neighbor became a Christian. This clearly was not Rowling's intent in writing the story, but it does show how even Harry Potter can be used to share the truth. Here's what she said:
You have a wizard who went bad. He came into the wizard world and he had the curse of death. He is wielding this curse of death and everyone is in terror because no one is safe. He uses this curse of death to kill Harry's dad. He throws the curse of death at Harry, but Harry's mother jumps in front of this curse. She takes the curse of death, and she dies in Harry's place. The evil wizard then throws the curse of death at Harry, who is a baby at the time, but something has happened. The curse rebounds on the evil wizard; it breaks his power, and Harry lives. How did he live? His mother laid down her life. She took the curse that was meant for him.
At the end of the story, Harry has a showdown with the evil one Voldemort and Voldemort can't even touch him. Harry says, "Why couldn't he touch me?" His mentor replies, "Harry, to have been loved as much as your mother loved you, that kind of love stays with you forever, and it gives you protection that remains forever."
I don't know about you, but I think that's being a creative ambassador for Christ. | 
