Harry Potter Posts and Links

Here are links to my posts on Harry Potter:

On Choices (and Harry Potter): Reflections on a discussion between Dumbledore and Harry near the end of the Half-Blood Prince

On Harry Potter (and Choices) I: A discussion of common Christian objections to the Harry Potter series

On Harry Potter (and Choices) - II: A discussion of why I think the books are more than just acceptable for a Christian audience

Community in Harry Potter: A discussion of the theme of community/relationships

The Afterlife in Harry Potter: A discussion of the theme of the afterlife

Power in Harry Potter: A discussion of the theme of power

Death in Harry Potter: A discussion of the theme of death

Love in Harry Potter: A discussion of the theme of love

Harry Potter - Concluding Thoughts: A response to Lev Grossman's article "Who Dies in Harry Potter? God"


Other links of note regarding Harry Potter:

Alan Jacobs' "Harry Potter's Magic" (hosted by the Harry Potter Lexicon)

Jerram Barrs' "J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter" (hosted by Be Thinking): The audio is long but worth the listen

A transcript of J. K. Rowling's Bloomsbury chat (hosted by Accio Quote!)

Chris' recommendation of the series

Harry Potter - Concluding Thoughts

As a follow-up to the series looking at the themes in Harry Potter, I wanted to make just a few additional comments, in part as a result of the post by Joshua Harris' "Harry Lives, God Dies" this past week at Between Two Worlds. Justin's post was a reflection on an article written by Lev Grossman.

In that article, Mr. Grossman claims that the world created by J. K. Rowling is signficantly different than the worlds created by J. R. R. Tolkein and C. S. Lewis. I want to look at two statements from that article and show why I think Mr. Grossman has grossly missed the point.

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!

Quote 1: Harry Potter and religion

Harry Potter lives in a world free of any religion or spirituality of any kind. He lives surrounded by ghosts but has no one to pray to, even if he were so inclined, which he isn't.

Mr. Grossman is correct that we do not see Harry going to church or praying. However, the Christian calendar is followed, including Christmas break. One could argue that many of these holidays are now cultural and not religious in signficance. But what cannot be escaped (and, to Mr. Grossman's defense this was in book 7, released after his article) is that both Dumbledore's family and Harry's family had Bible verses on their tombstones. That Harry does not recognize them as such I see more as commentary on the general lack of Biblical knowledge in our society than a denial of Christianity. Hermione, even if she does not know where it comes from, at least understands that "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" on the marker for Harry's parents is not a death eater idea, but an affirmation of life after death.

In terms of the spells Harry uses, none is more powerful than the patronus charm. This spell is used most frequently against dementors, the presence of which causes despair. In her list of influences, I have not seen Rowling mention John Bunyan, but the wizard prison Azkaban, which is under the oversight of the dementors, would be something akin to Giant Despair's Doubting Castle Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

To use the patronus charm, one thinks of a happy memory and utters, "expecto patronum." The "happy memory" can be interpreted as having faith in the midst of despair. The charm itself, in translated latin, is a call for a protector or guardian. In similar manner, a "patron" saint is one who protects those under his charge - e.g. St. Christopher is the patron saint of travelers.

In classical latin "pater" (from which "patronus" is derived) means father. "Expecto patronum" is a call for aid, therefore, to a guardian or father, or a prayer. One receives the aid when one has faith and does not despair. Some are surpised that Harry can create a patronus because of his youth. This calls to mind those who would keep the children from Jesus or Paul telling Timothy not to let others despise his youth.

How much of this is intentional with Rowling I cannot say. But I certainly think we cannot, as Mr. Grossman does, easily dismiss the possibility that there are signficant religious elements in the Harry Potter series.

Quote 2: Harry Potter and love

What does Harry have instead of God? Rowling's answer, at once glib and profound, is that Harry's power comes from love. This charming notion represents a cultural sea change. In the new millennium, magic comes not from God or nature or anything grander or more mystical than a mere human emotion.

In my post on Love and Harry Potter, I deal with the theme of love more fully. Here, I just want to place a reminder that the love that is powerful magic in Harry Potter is much more than "mere human emotion." It is self-sacrificial love. The love required to be powerful magic is anything but a "charming notion." It is a love that dies that another may live. While some may point to Harry's sacrifice in book seven - a good reference - this has been clear since book one when Lily dies to save Harry. Painting the love in Harry Potter as a "charming notion" and "a mere human emotion" does injustice to one of the main themes in the novels.

Are the Harry Potter Novels Christian?

I think that is a mistaken question, not just with Harry Potter but nearly all fiction. How would one define whether a novel is Christian or not? The question is whether or not a novel is consistent with a Christian worldview. Some might say that Harry Potter is not because there is no mention of God. As others have noted there is also no mention of God in the book of Esther, yet it is in the Bible. Like Esther, I could argue for God's providence being a signficant presence in the Harry Potter books. Just one example is Hermione's having the "Time-Turner" in The Prisoner of Azkaban.

As I hope I've shown over the last several posts, major themes in the series are consistent with a Christian worldview. Views of community, the afterlife, power, death, and love in the novels are in alignment with Biblical views of the same. These are novels, and they are not as explicit on many of the topics as the Bible is, but what is there has substantial agreement.

And while thinking about and looking at these themes is profitable, let us not lose Alan Jacobs' final note on the series in his essay "Harry Potter's Magic." The books are "a great deal of fun."

Love and Harry Potter

It was a Brit that said, "All you need is love." A smug American would later respond, "The Beatles said, 'love is all you need' and then they broke up." Which calls into question whether love is really all you need or if the Beatles didn't have it. Part of what it highlights is the ambiguity with which we throw around the word love.

To say, "I love chocolate" usually means, "please excuse my excess intake of sweets." "I love Harry Potter" means I find delight in reading the Harry Potter novels. "I love rock and roll" means you should put another dime in the jukebox, baby. "If you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the one your with" conveys one of the more common usages of the word love in contemporary society. Ellis Paul is correct when he notes that, "Love is too familar a word."

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!

Love in the Harry Potter series is more specific than the general American usage. When Dumbledore says love is the most powerful magic there is, he is not talking about a warm affection for someone else (though I don't think this element is excluded). The love that is powerful magic is a love that sacrifices. From the start of the series there is proof of this statement - Harry Potter is "the boy who lived." The question is why did he live?

Voldemort pursued the Potters with the intent of killing their son. No one was more feared in the wizarding world than Voldemort. Yet he was unable to kill an infant. The killing curse deflected back on him rendering him helpless and near death. The infant received nothing but a scar on his forehead.

When Voldemort came to kill Harry, he quickly dispatched of an unprepared James Potter, and then offered Lily the chance to flee. Given the opportunity to save herself, Lily instead gave her life in an attempt to defend the child she loved. This sacrifice placed a protective charm on Harry even greater than Voldemort's dark art. Throughout the series Dumbledore reminds Harry that it was his mother's sacrificial love for him that saved him.

This theme of sacrificial love occurs repeatedly in the series as character after character suffers or dies for another, most often for Harry. Until, near the end of book seven, Voldemort gives Harry a choice - come and die, or stay and watch others die for you. Harry knew that to complete the task of destroying the horcruxes he would have to die, so he walks deliberately to his death. Both Lily and Harry's sacrifices call to mind the words of Jesus, "Greater love has no man than this, to lay down his life for his friends."

Harry's love is also shown in a less dramatic way. For so long he had loved and trusted Dumbledore. Now he knows the secrets of Dumbledore's past. He also knows that Dumbledore knew all along that Harry would have to sacrifice himself for Voldemort to be defeated. But while he cannot fully reconcile himself in the short time he has to who Dumbledore was and the plan Dumbledore placed in motion, his love for Dumbledore "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

Love in Harry Potter like Biblical love is costly. Snape lives his life constantly being suspected as a traitor by most, especially Harry. All out of grief that he betrayed his one true love, Lily, to Voldemort. While many of his actions are not excusable, how terrible a reminder must Harry have been. The boy who looked and acted like his father, but with his mothers eyes. The boy whose scar was a reminder of Snape's own betrayal of Lily.

But he does what is required of him to protect Harry and the others from Voldemort. Like Harry, he follows Dumbledore's plan even when it does not make sense. His actions are a testimony to the fact that his love was genuine, and his regret real.

So in greater and lesser ways, love displayed in the series requires setting aside personal desires, even personal needs. Lack of love and the inability to understand love I think defines Voldemort even more than his fear of death. So, in Harry Potter as in the Bible, love is not all we need, but without it we are nothing.

Death in Harry Potter

Shortly after starting the Harry Potter series, J. K. Rowling's mother died. Rowling admits that it had a significant impact on the seriers and told Meredith Vieira in an interview for Dateline that how the characters in the Harry Potter's novels viewed death defined them. Aside from the theme of love, death is the most significant theme in the book. Some might even argue it is the most signficant theme. As such, I'm only skimming the surface of what Rowling says about death in Harry Potter.

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!

Death is present from the start of the series, and controls events that transpire in the stories past. The death of Harry's parents, James and Lily Potter, starts the series off. But the cause of that death, Voldemort, kills them in an attempt to get to Harry. Why?

Voldemort fears death. This fear leads him, in the backstory of the books and not revealed until book 6, to create horcruxes. Horcruxes are places where pieces of a soul can be stored so that a person need not fear death. The horcrux can be used to revive the person who has died. Voldemort has his horcruxes in place to protect against his demise. Interestingly, to create a horcrux, Voldemort has to kill - an exchange, if you will. To protect his own life, Voldemort must sacrifice another.

Also in the backstory, there is a prophecy, revealed in book 5, that a boy will battle Voldemort to the death. Voldemort attempts to kill Harry as an infant to prevent the prophecy. This is an act reminiscent of Herod's killing of all the children under two after the wise men do not return from visiting Jesus. Herod wants to kill Jesus, the Messiah, who Herod expects to be an earthly king and would therefore end his dynasty. But, while he is surrounded by death, Harry is "the boy who lived" (the reason why will be discussed in the following post, if the Lord should will).

Death is so significant because it is final. While, as I discussed in the post on the afterlife, something of the person continues on after death, you cannot really come back from death. Harry's parents, despite his hopes after seeing their forms at the end of Goblet of Fire, will never return to him. He has to live with the deaths of those that he loves.

And death visits Harry repeatedly throughout the series, but especially starting in book 4 with Cedric. Then Sirius dies, Dumbledore dies, Moody dies, Dobby dies, Snape dies, Fred dies, Lupin dies, Tonks dies, . . . All the deaths are to a greater or a lesser degree sacrifices to save Harry. Until Harry must decide whether he will follow their examples.

Harry has committed himself, after much wrestling, to Dumbledore's path of destroying the horcruxes. What happens, then, when you discover that Nagini is not the last horcrux, but that you yourself are a horcrux. Harry walks to his death, willing to sacrifice himself for others. For Voldemort to be defeated, the piece of Voldemort's soul that is within Harry must die. The horcrux must be destroyed.

So Harry responds to Voldemort's call, and walks out alone, under the invisibility cloak, to meet him. Harry does not attempt to defend himself when Voldemort again uses the killing curse on Harry. The first time Harry survived because of his mother's intervention. Now, there is no one to intercede.

After his sacrifice, Harry awakes in King's Cross. He is whole, not even needing his glasses. But he is not alone:

[Harry] had spotted the thing that was making the noises. It had the form of a small, naked child, curled on the ground, its skin raw and rough, flayed-looking, and it lay shuddering under a seat where it had been left, unwanted, stuffed out of sight, struggling for breath.

In King's Cross we see the contrast between what Voldemort's fear of death and Harry's acceptance of death has made of them. Voldemort is beyond help, while Harry is healthy.

It would be easy to mistake the Harry Potter series as embracing death. Is Snape's killing of Dumbleore and assisted suicide?

First, Harry did not run from death, but neither did he embrace it. The walk to Voldemort was difficult, particularly as he reflected on what would be lost. He required the support of those who had sacrificed themselves for him.

Second, Snape does kill Dumbledore knowing that Dumbledore is dying anyway. But the act is not to relieve Dumbledore's suffering, but to protect Draco. Had Draco been forced to kill Dumbledore, irreversible damage would have been done to Draco. I'm not saying that I agree with Snape's actions; I don't think they are justifiable. But the scene is not, I don't think, an argument for mercy killing.

Third, and most telling, is the graveyard scene on Christmas Eve. Harry and Hermione are searching for Harry's parent's grave. When they find the grave, on the marker are these words: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." The words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (v. 26) where he is defending the resurrection. It contains (v. 3-4) Paul's wonderful summary of the gospel: "3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures."

Whatever else Rowling may mean by using this quote, death is defined as an enemy, and one day it will end. I hope and pray that it also means that Rowling has the hope of the resurrection. That this quote is more than something in a book, but is a rock on which she can stand. I hope this is true for you as well.

Power in Harry Potter

By now you know: WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!

Horcruxes or the Deathly Hallows? The choice was anything but simple for Harry. It was a choice analogous to the choice to use or to destroy the ring of power. What Dumbledore had wanted was more or less clear, so trusting him would send Harry after horcruxes. But Harry knew now that Dumbledore had a past which he had been unwilling to share (trust to) Harry.

How do you handle power? Is it to be sought and used for your own benefit, or is it to be taken only with the outmost care and diligence?

For Voldemort and the Death Eaters that is a silly question. Power is meant to be wielded, otherwise it is wasted. Power means having the ability to get what you want when you want it. For Voldemort, it was a way to overcome death and to get "respect" that he had not gotten any other way. This is community committed to the principle of survival of the fittest. You either rule the pack by force, or you walk around with your tail between your legs.

One of the big surprises in book seven is the past of Albus Dumbledore. We learn in the book that his history included a desire for power and a scheming about how this might be done. While this might have been "for the greater good," it was a vain (both in the sense of proud and in the sense of worthless) pursuit. His scheming led, however indirectly, to the death of his sister and marked him for life.

Dumbledore becomes one then who shuns power. Many wondered why he never tried to become the Minister of Magic. Some, like Dolores Umbridge, assumed he was trying to take the position. But the reality was that Dumbledore feared what he might do in that position of power. When Harry tells Dumbledore in King's Cross that he would have been a great minister, Dumbledore responds (DH p. 718):

Would I? . . . I am not so sure. I had proven, as a very young man, that power was my weakness and my temptation. It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it.

Dumbledore's wisdom in this matter is evident by two incidents signficant to Harry. The first was when Dumbledore realized that James Potter, Harry's father, had not just any invisibility cloak, but THE invisibility cloak. One third of the Deathly Hallows. Dumbledore had to examine it, and it was in his possession on the night Voldemort killed Harry's parents. Likely having the cloak would have made no difference, but the question remains, particularly for Dumbledore knowing his own motives for wanting the cloak.

Second, Dumbledore kills himself, effectively, by putting on the ring that contained the resurrection stone. Voldemort had cursed the ring (similar to the poison protecting the locket) and while he continued to live with Snape's aid, Dumbledore's days were numbered. The black hand was a reminder that death was upon him and that soon he would die. This is the reason drinking the poison was an easy choice for Dumbledore. He was dying already. Power is frequently the weakness of the great. (I'm tempted to get on a soapbox about term limits for elected officials, but I'll let you work it out.)

So, Harry's choice in book seven (and at other times as well) is the choice to pursue power, or trust his friends. When Dobby dies while saving Harry, Ron, Hermione, Luna, and others, Harry realizes what he has to do. Even though he knows Voldemort has discovered the location of the elder wand. Even though Voldemort will get that wand which could make him nearly invincible, Harry chooses to pursue the horcruxes and not the Deathly Hallows. To take the path that Frodo takes, not the path to power but the path of sacrifice. The path that will require him to depend on Ron, Hermione, and, eventually, Neville instead of the path where he could be the next great wizard.

As believers, we are called to humility. Jesus is much more than an example and much more than a teacher, but He is both. His example is that we do not grasp for power and authority in this life. The least shall be greatest. The meek will inherit. We are sheep in the midst of wolves. And as Harry finally trusts Dumbledore, we must trust our great Teacher who calls us to die.

The Afterlife in Harry Potter

What would a school of witchcraft and wizardry be without a few ghosts?

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead! (Seriously big time spoilers)

Hogwarts is indeed haunted. Nearless Headless Nick, Moaning Myrtle, and other ghosts haunt the school's halls and, well, bathrooms. As in much modern popular fiction, though, not everyone becomes a ghost when they die, most just go on. Ghosts are those who linger and do not move on to whatever waits, as in The Sixth Sense or Medium. In interviews, Rowling has said this the result of the person fearing death.

The moving portraits are not really ghosts, or even living. Harry's visit by the departed in the Goblet of Fire is not a return from the dead either. The closest one comes to this is when Harry uses the resurrection stone near the end of the Deathly Hallows. But even the stone does not truly "resurrect" the loved one(s). It merely brings them to a point where the living can converse with them. Xenophilius Lovegood, in his description of the stone's effects when used by its original owner, says:

[T]he figure of the girl he had once hoped to marry, before her untimely death, appeared at once before him. Yet she was said and cold, separated from him as by a veil. Though she had returned to the mortal world, she did not truly belong there and suffered.

When Harry uses the stone, we are told that those who return to comfort him are "neither ghost nor truly flesh . . . Less substantial than living bodies, but much more than ghosts." In returning it is noted that Sirius is younger than when Harry knew him, apparently returned to the prime of his life.

The closest we get to the the actual afterlife in Harry Potter's universe is in the chapter "Kings Cross." There Harry has a final (presumably) conversation with Dumbledore. This is some kind of limbo, where Harry is given the choice to go on or to go back. In the book one could take this as all occurring in Harry's own mind, but interviews with Rowling indicate something "real" is happening. The figure on the floor is what remains of Voldemort and she calls it "a kind of limbo."

But Rowling does not touch on what the afterlife is like. Apparently the soul continues (otherwise, Harry could not call them back even partially) but little else is known. This is fairly typical in fiction. There are ghosts in Tolkien's works, and little is said about what happens when someone dies. Writers of fiction, with a few notable exceptions like Dante, have tended to avoid attempts at describing the afterlife. It is the great mystery that they cannot reveal. It is beyond a veil they dare not cross.

This stands out in the Harry Potter series in part because death and dealing with death is such a major theme. But as in real life, death is a wall that cannot be breached. Even in Bunyan's great Pilgrim's Progress, little is said about what life is like across the river.

But there is an affirmation of the afterlife. This occurs at Godric Hollow when Hermione tells Harry, regarding the inscription on his parents' grave ("The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" - 1 Corinthians 15:26), "It means . . . you know . . . living beyond death. Living after death." Harry's parents, and those who knew them, have a hope beyond this life.

Whether it is like the hope of the Christian we are not told. For believers, there is not only life beyond this, but life where every tear is dried and joy ever blossoms. Those who have gone on before Harry seem to this settled peace. But even the Bible tells us that eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard what God has for us in heaven. Maybe, therefore, it is for the best that writers of fiction do not try to peer through the veil.

Community in Harry Potter

WARNING: There be spoilers ahead!

Community seemed to me the best word to describe the idea of relationship as explored in the Harry Potter series. At the basic level of community, the novels are about an "invisible" society (community) consisting of those who have magical talent. Their secret is kept by a "law" that they cannot reveal themselves those outside this society. There are some necessary exceptions, as when there is a witch or a wizard that is a member of a family that would otherwise not be part of the "magical" society, e.g. Harry and the Dursleys. Other exceptions include the Prime Minister. But largely this is a community hidden within normal (the "muggle") society.

More interesting, though, are the communities within this society. Especially prominent is the contrast between the community that surrounds Harry and the Death Eaters, Voldemort's "community." Dumbledore's assertion is that part of the flaw in the character of Tom Riddle that makes him Lord Voldemort is that he really has no friends. The Death Eaters may reverence him, like Bellatrix, or they may fear him, the majority of the Death Eaters, but they are not his friends.

In contrast, Harry is defined by his community. In the first book, the sorting hat, which is supposed to choose to which "house" (school community) the first years will belong, leaves the choice up to Harry. Harry's choice of Gryffindor places him in the company of Ron and Hermione, the two friends who will, with the occassional fall out, be his friends throughout the series. While each retains their individuality and personality, they are shaped by their relationship.

The contrast in this regard between Harry and Tom Riddle/Voldemort is striking because of their similarities in other areas. Both Harry and Voldemort lose their parents shortly after birth. Both are brought up in situations where they are unloved, Voldemort in an orphanage, even though his father lives, and Harry by the Dursley's, his aunt and uncle. Both are to some extent feared by those around them. This is obvious in Voldemort's case, where the orphanage is glad to see him go. In Harry's case, the Dursley's are shown to have worried that he would inherit his parent's talents.

Both boys find their first real home at Hogwarts and both fall under the watchful eye of Albus Dumbledore. But Hogwarts is home for Harry because Ron, Hermione, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Neville, Luna, Ginny, and others there who are his friends. For Voldemort it was home because he was able to hone his power. There he begins to get the "respect" he believes he deserves. His plans are being put in place before he ever graduates from Hogwarts, evidenced by his research into horcruxes.

Voldemort's "community" then is only a group to serve his ends and desires. But Harry befriends the wizarding world's outcasts - Hagrid, a half-giant, Hermione, a mud-blood, and Lupin, a were-wolf. He also befriends the ridiculed - Neville and Luna - and the overlooked - Dobby and other house-elves (this is one of those areas where Hermione influences Harry and Ron over the course of the series).

A Christian worldview of community is defined by our belief in the Trinity. God has existed forever as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To the extent that we continue to bear the image of God, we are therefore beings who find meaning and purpose in relationships because we reflect that eternal relationship.

The Bible tells us that forgiveness and understanding (which is to say love - but we will discuss that particular virtue in a later post, if the Lord wills) are therefore essential to a healthy community. But these virtues are obviously lacking from Lord Voldemort and the Death Eaters. They are a community, but that community is far from healthy because the virtues necessary for a healthy community are lacking. They represent the worst societies man has produced (many have noted similarities between the Death Eaters and Nazi Germany).

While Harry's community is not reflective of the perfect communion of the saints in heaven, it does repesent a community where the values of the kingdom are esteemed. Harry's relationships, like those of believers in this present age, are not perfect. Dumbledore does not share with Harry all that Harry would desire, hiding his past failings. Ron leaves Harry and Hermione for a time in the Deathly Hallows out of frustration. As with our fallen world, the relationships and community in the novels require work. But they work because kingdom values, a reflection of the character of the Triune God, are part of the lives of stories heroes. There are good lessons about friendship, forgiveness, trust, and love in the Harry Potter series.

On Harry Potter (and Choices) - II

This post contains no spoilers.

In the previous post I acknowledged that one could chose not to read the Harry Potter series based on the fact it is not gospel focused or the fact that it focused on witches and wizards. However, if you do the former to be consistent you would reject the majority of all forms of fiction. For the latter, consistency demands you reject all fiction that depicts magic in a positive light, including Tolkein. The arguments for why I think neither of these is required is more complex than I can explore fully in a single blog post, and I'm not sure I have the passion for a series.

But if you chose to read fiction, and you're willing to accept Tolkein, Lewis, etc. then I think you have to accept Rowling as well. Given my professed and obvious love for Stephen King novels (my avatar is Roland from the Dark Tower series, King's magnum opus), I obviously don't see an issue with reading this kind of fiction.

One key question in reading fiction is the presented worldview. While I don't think we have to agree with the worldview of the novel/short story/movie, we do need to be aware of it. In the case of the Harry Potter series, it is certain worldview elements that I think make the series not just acceptable for Christians, but, rightly viewed, makes reading the series beneficial.

There are five key themes that help define the worldview of the Harry Potter series. These five are:

1. Community
2. Afterlife
3. Power
4. Death
5. Love

Items (1) and (5) are closely related, as are items (2) and (4), but there is enough distinction I want to deal with them separately. Over the next several posts I will discuss each theme of the series, and why it is in accord with a Christian worldview.

Please note that I'm not arguing that Rowling, intentionally or otherwise, set out to create a world that had a Christian worldview. She knows her intentions and I've not heard that she has made them public. Whether the work as a whole has a Christian worldview will likely be debated for decades. But on these key elements, I think there is much in harmony with the Christian worldview.

Compared, for example, to the Dark Tower series, Harry Potter is much more in accord with the Christian worldview on death. Death, as Rowling makes clear early in the Harry Potter series, is final and people do not come back they "go on." In the Dark Tower series, death is not final as Jake Chambers and Father Callahan know too well (except on keystone earth, but that's another discussion). Which is not to say there may not be elements in the Dark Tower series that are closer to the Christian worldview than similar elements in the Harry Potter series.

All that to say that these five themes, while critical to the Harry Potter series, do not de facto give the Harry Potter universe a Christian worldview.

On final word, in the posts that follow there will be spoilers. I'm not sure how I discuss these themes without reference to how they play out in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. You have been warned.

On Harry Potter (and Choices) - I

Not quite a week after getting "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" I have finished the book. While I will avoid any major spoilers for those who are or plan on reading the book, there will be discussion of themes and ideas in what follows that may reveal plot elements. You have been warned.

I am not about to argue that the series in general or any book in the series in particular presents the gospel. From that sense, if we are gospel focused, one might argue that investing time in reading the series is not profitable. While I think that is an extreme position (I heartily recommend the answer from D. A. Carson and Tim Keller on what causes fragmentation in the church today - bottom of the list as of this writing) that would lead one to nearly all fiction, whether written or otherwise, I see it as a defensible, though not correct, position.

Others would argue that it is not that the books are fiction, but that they deal with magic in a positive light. In the series, there is normal magic that is acceptable and then there are the dark arts. Many Christians would argue that the Bible knows nothing of "white magic" and that all magic is "dark" magic. In his book A Visit to Vanity Fair Alan Jacobs includes an essay titled "Harry Potter's Magic" in which he lays out a case for why the series is acceptable reading for Christians even though witches and wizards are the focus of the series. The normal magic in the Harry Potter books is not typically divination, but is a cousin to technology. Instead of a dishwasher, one uses a wand to clean dishes. But there is also a recognition (one significant scene in the last book stands out in this regard) that some tasks call for doing the hard work instead of taking the easy (magical) alternative.

To consistently reject the Harry Potter series because of magic requires that one also reject Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. There is no legitimate argument that there is a substantial difference between the magic in The Lord of the Rings and the magic in Harry Potter, between, say Gandalf and Dumbledore. Lest we forget, in Tolkein's work Aragorn brings an army of the dead to fight against Sauron's forces.

So one could reject Harry Potter due to series focus on magic. One might be concerned that the series would make readers want to investigate wicca or other occult practices. However, doing so would also require that all books containing a positive view of witches, wizards and magic likewise be rejected.

I understand the basis of the argument, but do not agree. These novels (both Rowling's and Tolkein's) are clearly fictional works, as evidenced by the names of most of the characters in the Harry Potter series. Also, as Jacob's noted in his essay, in Harry Potter's world you either are born with the ability to do magic or you are not. One does not acquire the talent to do magic through investigation or practice. The seeming majority of the world simply cannot do magic.

I have dealt here with some objections as to why Christians should not read the Harry Potter series. I will continue with a discussion of why I think there is benefit in reading the series. But one final word: if your conscience tells you not to read the books, do not read them. Any benefit is not worth an offense to your conscience. If you have a friend who does not think they should read them, do not push them on your friend and thus become a participant in offending your friend's conscience. Finally, I encourage those who do not think Christians should read the books, do not look down on those that do read. You may, gently and in love, present why you think we should not, but do not let it become a wedge.

On Choices (and Harry Potter)

Reading the following quote the other day, it struck me as a great description of the difference between a Biblical understanding of predestination and a functionally pagan understanding that turns predestination into fatalism:

It was, he thought, the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high.

The context of the discussion is between a professor and a student. This particular student has been singled out to have a significant future, which he feels has trapped him. The professor is trying to show the student that what seems inevitable is still the result of choices of all those involved.

Sometimes, in reaction to a preceived rejection of God's sovereignty by those not in the Reformed camp, we go to far and effectively deny the reality of human choice (free will is such a loaded term I'll avoid it for now). But the Bible is clear that we make our own choices. So whatever the future holds for us is not a fatalistic future.

What this means is we can either actively engage the world around us, which is what the Bible calls us to do, or we can passively let life happen to us. A Biblical view of sovereignty does not encourage the latter (whatever will be, will be) but instead encourages us in the former that God is able to take even our failures and ultimately bring about good.

Continuing the quote:

Some people, perhaps, would say that there is little to choose between the two ways, but Dumbledore knew - and so do I, thought Harry with a rush of fierce pride, and so did my parents - that there was all the difference in the world.

- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince p. 512

I was not expecting theological statements from a Harry Potter book, but this fits well a Biblical approach to predestination. What the second part of the quote makes clear is that it matters immensely whether we are fatalistic in our understanding of predestination or whether we believe we are participants in what God is doing.

Yes, I understand that their is a huge gap between Biblical predestination and the fictional prophecy in the Harry Potter books. But Harry has been struggling with a fixed future, the way many of us, or at least I know I did, struggle with what it means that God has already foreordained everything that comes to pass. Some today have reacted so negatively to this idea of predestination that they have become open theists, denying that God knows the future.

But the Bible says both that God knows (and ordained) whatever will happen and that our choices are signficant. What I hear in Harry Potter's thoughts is an echo of the Biblical statements that God works in us to will and to do; that human actions can be meant for evil, but God means them for good; that we are to make our calling and election sure; that both God and Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh's heart, etc. Predestination does not deny that we make choices. It means that God has woven those choices into His plan in a way too mysterious for us to understand.

PS: Yes, I'm somewhat anxiously awaiting the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. On why I don't think this is inappropriate for a Christian, I'll blog about later.