Harry Potter and the Importance of Definitions
In one episode of The Cosby Show, Cliff Huxtable cuts a piece from one of Claire’s cakes, fills the gap with a towel, and slathers extra icing over the offending spot. Claire, predictably, nails him on it. Contemporary Christendom suffers from a similar problem when it comes to debate. Give modern Christians a theological controversy, and we’ll start dropping buzzwords and smoothing over the holes in our thinking. We never really want to define our terms.
And one of the clearest examples of this lack of clearness is the Harry Potter debate. Consider one article by Doug Phillips of The Vision Forum, an influential ministry for homeschool families. Phillips begins his argument with a little spoof. Attempting to parody Rowling and her Christian supporters, Doug describes the release of a “new” Harry Potter book: Harry Potter and the Lavender Brigade. The new book portrays “good” homosexuals vs. “evil” homosexuals, and purports to teach children values like monogamy, stability, and social decorum. Christians everywhere are lauding it as good fun and harmless fantasy - after all, Harry doesn’t exist in the real world, where sodomy is bad.
Phillips’ point is clear: He believes that Rowling’s books, which include “good” witchcraft, are immoral because they teach that God’s law does not apply to fantasy worlds. Allowing Harry to have magical powers, in other words, is like allowing him to be gay and then condoning his homosexuality on the grounds that the real-world rules don’t apply to fantasy. Sodomy may be wrong in our world, but in fiction, heroes are free to look like the guys from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
Later in the piece, Doug states his argument in non-satirical terms: “(1) The seriousness of God’s prohibition on witchcraft and His declaration that it is immoral to practice dark arts make it unlawful even to pretend that witchcraft is a good thing; (2) Man may not lawfully escape the righteous rule of God by entering fantasy realities in which the law of God does not apply; (3) To create fantasy universes built on propositions which are immoral is to undermine the character of God Himself or establish false gods… .” For Doug, since Scripture condemns witchcraft, and Rowling presents both “good” and “bad” witchcraft, clearly her books are immoral.
Doug argues that immorality is immorality, whether in fantasy, poetry, or biography. Just so we’re clear, Doug is correct on this point. A book that presents large-scale political murder as “good,” for instance, is a bad story, even if it’s written by beloved English novelist G. A. Henty. Doug is also right about Scripture’s condemnation of the dark arts. Read Exodus, Revelation, and a lot of places in between. Sorcery is a serious evil; if Harry Potter were to say that sorcery, as defined by Scripture, isn’t, then the book would be wrong.
But it’s Doug’s lack of clarity at the outset that renders his entire argument - lengthy though it may be - fallacious at the core. How, exactly, does the Bible define the term witchcraft? It’s obvious from the context of both Scripture and history that “witchcraft,” in this sense, refers to reliance on demonic powers or satanic intervention. Evil men and women have used demonic forces over the centuries to increase their power and curse others, and this is unquestionably wrong.
Now: Question two. How does J. K. Rowling, in the world of Harry Potter, use the term? As my friend Nathaniel Bluedorn originally pointed out to me, it’s clear that “witchcraft” or “magic” as defined in the Bible and as used by Rowling, Tolkien, and Lewis (and let’s not pretend that the latter two are somehow exempt) are two different things. In Lewis’ or Rowling’s worlds, magic is simply a gift that some people are able to use; it has nothing to do with demonism.
These authors aren’t trying to say that in a fantasy world, satanic incantations are okay. They’re simply creating their own worlds - fantasy worlds - in which “magic” exists and by definition is not satanic. Rowling hints that there are bad witches who practice “dark arts,” which might be demonic in nature - but these characters are roundly condemned. Nor does Rowling endorse relativism; it’s the villain Voldemort, not Harry, who insists that “there is no good or evil - only power, and those too afraid to use it.”
Let me use a random fictional example of my own. Let’s say the Bible condemned windsurfing. Windsurfing is wrong, and no conscientious Christian can attach a sail to a surfboard and glide through the water. Now let’s suppose that a later author comes along and writes a novel about skateboarders who do tricks on their concrete halfpipes. This author calls what the kids are doing “windsurfing,” even though the resemblance to actual windsurfing is only slight. Needless to say, Christians begin to condemn the book because of the clear biblical law against windsurfing. But the practice in the fictional work is not windsurfing as previously defined. So while we might take the author to task for creating confusion, labeling the book “immoral” is out of the question.
Rowling, Tolkien, and Lewis are authors - creators. They have as much right to come up with a fictional idea of magic (which does not hold true to real-world satanic magic) as they have to create a fictional idea of talking animals (which does not generally hold true to real-world animals). As Gordon Clark, one of the twentieth century’s greatest philosophers, insisted, any author has the right to define his own terms as he pleases—provided he defines them clearly and uses them consistently.
Phillips’ argument is a classic example of what logicians call “false analogy.” At worst it could be termed a circular argument. Doug’s spoof comparing Potter to homosexuality is unfair; it assumes at the outset that Rowling’s representation of “sorcery” is satanic and unbiblical. But this is what he was supposed to prove.
Which reminds me of a story. Once upon a time, in a fantasy universe, there was “good” circular reasoning and “bad” circular reasoning…
Posted on September 24, 2007 12:00 AM
Comments
thank you for clearly putting into words a feeling that i could never quite grasp. i never felt bad about reading harry potter, but i couldn't explain my feelings well enough for people who disagreed to see where i was coming from. not that this will necessarily help...but at least now i understand better why i think the way i do.
Posted by: Kate | September 24, 2007 9:17 AM
Well said. You know, when you�re hardwired for sin, serving a holy God is tough enough without all the skittish, nit picking, fear-based extra requirements many well meaning Christians add to this journey.
Personally, I can take Harry Potter or leave him. But, since my wife and kids are nuts about these books and films, I�ve seen most of the movies and bought all the books. If anything, the films I�ve seen are not only fun, but they pint a rich portrait of how drastically God changes our lives. Harry was in a tight spot before he discovered his true heritage. So was I.
If you�re on the fence about Harry potter, I say lighten up. Watch one of the movies or read of the books. I�ve seen these movies and I�ve never even thought about casting a spell on someone.
Posted by: Will Fifield | September 27, 2007 1:39 PM
First of all, Harry Potter is one thing and one thing only, literature. It is a story about "fantisy". That was the key word... "fantisy". I find it funny that some Christians have a hard time dealing with that. I have to agree with Will on this one, lighten up and enjoy the story.
Posted by: Erik | October 1, 2007 12:29 PM
People said the same thing about 'Star Wars' when it came out.
Thanks for the insight here. I like a lot.
Posted by: Just Matt | October 3, 2007 9:28 AM
Let me offer information that suggests that logic alone is not sufficient to decide this issue: In this case, we have overlooked the influence that the Harry Potter series has had in introducing children to REAL witchcraft; of desensitizing children to the evils of REAL witchcraft. There is a difference between Rowlings and Lewis, if you have the inquisitiveness to search it out. The difference is in the effect it has on readers, in formulating their thinking and behavior in the real world. And the difference is damning for Rowling. Just as the liberal arm of the Presbyterian church has become so desensitized to immorality that they have ordained homosexual ministers and now are actually debating same-sex "marriage", so the seductive arm of liberal literature has desensitized most of today's children to the dangers and evils of sorcery. Look at all the witchcraft-related books in the children's section of your local library, or in the library of your local middle school, and you'll see books you didn't see 10 years ago. You'll see books on HOW TO PRACTICE WITCHCRAFT available for your kids to check out. Books that were spawned from the interest generated by the Harry Potter series. One thing you need to understand about fictional literature and children - children have open minds, not having learned to think critically. It is important that they be given the right kinds of things to read. Witchcraft in the real world is not something to be played around with. It is not innocent. So what do you say when the 8-yr-olds in your neighborhood are not playing tag or kick-the-can, but are instead playing a game of make-believe where they are students at the Hogwarts school of Witchcraft and Wizardry? Do we applaud them for this acting out of their imaginations? We fail to understand that the acting out process of children is part of their mind's development; paradigms that children become accustomed to acting out, will in adulthood be their nostalgic bedfellows. The acting out of fantasy formulates a child's way of interacting with and reacting to the real world.
You see, it matters not how Rowlings defines a term. What matters is how Rowlings fans generally interpret that term. I found the following book to be a fair treatment of the subject. http://www.amazon.com/Harry-Potter-Narnia-Lord-Rings/dp/0736917004 The author finds a difference between the world of Rowling and the worlds of Lewis and Tolkien.
Posted by: onthuhlist | October 26, 2007 2:46 PM
Here are my two cents:
A few years ago, I was a practicing pagan. I got involved in the religious aspect of it after watching the movie "The Craft." I thought, "Wow. Wouldn't it be cool to have power like that." And I was attracted to the mystery of it. I asked someone I knew to be Wiccan if they could give me some good information about it. They recommend a book (a "nonficitional" guide to witchcraft) and I read it. I found that what was represented in the movie was not what Wicca was really about, but I was drawn to the religion anyway.
Let me just say, however, that I had had occultic leanings for quite some time, I just wasn't sure how to articulate it.
How does this relate to Harry Potter (which, btw, I read and loved)? The stuff in the story has nothing to do with real witchcraft, whether as a religion or actual magic. Could it possibly lead an impressionable person to investigate real witchcraft? Certainly it could. I don't think they would find it appealing unless they were inclined in that direction already.
My suggestion? Parents need to be involved with what their kids are reading, being sensitive to their nature to determine what they need to be protected from. I think they need to discuss what real witchcraft versus Pottercraft is, and how God feels about real witchcraft.
I think kids pretending to be Harry Potter is no different than kids pretending to be Spider-Man. You wouldn't find them suddenly making something levitate by waving a wand and saying some words any more than you would find them suddenly able to stick to walls.
But that's just my two cents.
Posted by: Joshua | November 16, 2007 7:50 AM
that may have been the best argument i've ever heard. thank you for bringing in lewis and tolkien. it seems that often those who "hate" rowling and her books seem to forget that their paragon of christian writing C. S. Lewis wrote many fantasy books. many of these books included magic, mythical creatues, and even the Roman god of wine and reverly- Bacchus.
Posted by: megan twietmeyer | November 16, 2007 10:47 PM
great article, first off. I've been using this very argument for years. Nice to see others have figured that out, too.
In response to the above posted argument that H.P. could influence young readers toward sorcery and Wicca, "onthuhlist" does have a point. I think no one can deny that it has raised general fascination and interest in witch craft. However, to assume Tolkien and Lewis are different is simply naive. Somone compared the panic Christians have concerning H.P. to the panic felt in the 70's and 80's concerning Star Wars - good point. And truly, Star Wars has and continues to influence young (and old) minds into the New Age and a form of witch craft (using the "Force" to influence minds and inamiate objects, etc). I'd like to remind readers of the panic the Lord of the Rings raised in the 60s and 70s when the drug community would get high and read the books. His books were condemned by Christians then. Also, the world Tolkien created spawned the much questioned "Dungeons and Dragons". And yet, the Christian community (especially in the US) has fallen in love with Tolkien since the movies were released, because we have finally figured out that he was a Christian and much of His world bleeds a Christian World view (although he never intended the books to be alagorical).
I picked up H.P. BECAUSE of the hype. When the Christian community panics and our "holy gossip" starts I become very suspicious and start investigating things for myself. Apart from the definition question, my biggest pet peeve has been our inconsistency in our complaint against "sorcery". Gandalf, by any definition, can be compared to Dumbeldore. There is no way we can ignore that or imagine it away.
(Not to mention that the same people who condemn H.P. for magic don't condemn Cindarella and her fairy godmother or other fairy tales using the same definition of magic. Which, by the way, is not a "new" definition that Rawling came up with. She simply tapped into the age-old definition of magic that we see in all of the fairy tales).
I heartily agree with those who say we must investigate these things together with our kids. Don't hand them books and never read them yourself. Be informed about what they watch, read and listen to. Discuss these things with them. Teach them to discern based on a Christian world view. Don't just teach them to leave their brains at the door and follow any pastor's teaching, any movie or fad blindly. The ability to think (and debate well) is sorely needed in our day and age.
Thank you for a well put argument.
Posted by: Carrie | December 6, 2007 12:45 PM
To be honest, I think you have made the same mistake that you accuse your opponents of: not clearly defining terms, or rather, defining them by your own unfounded definition. You assert, with no biblical citations and no other proof, that the biblical understanding of witchcraft is demonic. I would argue this is a shallow definition. Take one specific example of magic in the Bible: Saul and the witch of Endor: 1 Samuel 28. Saul goes to consult a medium, who SUCCESSFULLY summons Samuel's spirit from slumber to answer Saul's question. There is no mention of demons. In fact, good comes out of this encounter: Samuel rebukes Saul and delivers an accurate prophecy. The book of I Samuel, typical of the history books, does not decry this use of sorcery (just as these books do not decry Solomon's many foreign wives, which is also against God's law). One may interpret from the context that this behavior is destructive and outside of God's boundaries (since he thought they had killed all the mediums in obedience to God). I would argue, though, since there is no mention of demonic power in the medium's ability, it is presumptuous to argue that all Biblical understanding of magic is demonic. It just is not in the text. I agree with the other guy. Witchcraft is witchcraft. It is not simply evil because of its association with the devil. It is evil because the essence of magic is man circumventing God to access spiritual power, employing natural and spiritual forces to actively seeking one's own will through one's own power rather than seeking God's will through his power. It is man wanting power over what is not granted to him. If we remember, this resembles the original temptation of man: wanting to be like God (knowing the difference between good and evil), grasping for a higher insight than we were intended to have. This is called hubris: the opposite of the fear of the Lord. Now, I realize Harry has "gifts" and probably ought not use them to make some cute girl like him. (Which is definitely what curious middle schools would attempt to use magic for. I know because I myself cast a spell of that nature, and indeed it worked. Instantaneously. Maybe that is why I am very protective when it comes to this literature, I know the impact that the movie The Craft had on my group of friends. We all started experimenting with magic. I have seen its destructive power first hand. Since then I have been cleansed by the Holy Spirit. But don't think kids are like adults and have firmly drawn boundaries between reality and magic: that is an enculturated trait that takes years and much cynicism to produce.)
So, where do Harry's gifts come from? The Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts, but spiritual gifts may come from other avenues (look at the fortune teller in Acts). Since there is no God in these books.... where do the gifts come from? (At least in Narnia, the gifts come from Father Christmas, a Christian figure.) Just because the devil is not mentioned in the Bible (with magic) does not mean he is not involved. I would argue, just because the devil is not mentioned in Harry Potter does not mean that it is clearly not demonic. When we consider that the devil may not be some dude with a pitchfork but a fallen once-beautiful angel and now a master of disguises, and when we realize that the most dangerous evil is that which appears the most similar to good while falling just short of the glory of God, we may find that Harry Potter, while not necessarily a demoniac, maybe still be a dangerous influence on the minds of children. (As a Christian camp counselor, I have had a middle schooler tell me they love Harry and want to be a witch when they grow up. Talk about heartbreaking. And since I don't believe it's a bunch of silly make-believe, it's scary to me.)
Posted by: Megan | December 11, 2007 2:09 PM
Wait a minute, you guys believe in WITCHES? Wow, I guess it's true, there are few diffences between some Christians and old Pagans. It must be fun to think you live in a world where there is magic, and yes I think those of you who pretend people can draw power from Satan and demons believe in magic.
Posted by: Jim | January 16, 2008 8:28 AM