The most recent version of MetroVoice (a political, conservative, Christian, local publication) features an article that spells out the evils of Harry Potter. My tendency is to roll my eyes and sigh, "O, please!" Instead, I will attempt to give a reasonable rebuttal to Ms. Kjos' poorly-written and even more poorly-framed "arguments." Warning: I'm armed with a heavy dose of serrated-edge sarcasm, so if you prefer sweet, gentle words, you may want to leave now! Warning: spoilers ahead for those losers who have not yet finished the series!! ;)
First of all, Ms. Kjos proceeds from the very faulty assumption that Harry Potter is an allegory. This alone might disqualify all her further arguments, because anyone who cannot accurately identify the genre of a piece of literature, surely cannot contribute any valuable discussion about its meaning!
She quotes 2 sources who call it an allegory. One states favorably, "Harry Potter is, and always was, a 'Christian allegory' - a fictionalized modern-day adaptation of the 'life of Christ,' intended to introduce his character to a new generation." Despite the fact that this woman is obviously a fan, I maintain that any cogent Christian who has actually read the books cannot possibly believe Harry's life parallels that of Christ. If anything, his life is symbolic of one who has been "chosen" to use his "gifts" in the service of and for the good of the "chosen people"...you know, like...........a Christian, maybe?. Imperfect...struggling to do what's right...wise in his own eyes...unwilling to listen to his elders...wanting to grasp what is rightfully his NOW...learning to trust those who have been placed in authority...learning to sacrifice himself for the benefit of those he loves... Is it just me or does this seem vaguely familiar? Can anybody say, "sanctification?"
Ms. Kjos then quotes an opponent of Harry Potter - no less than a former "temple-master" in the occult, named Peter...just Peter - who also categorizes the series as an allegory...not of Christ's life, but "a carefully written true description of the training and work of an initiate in an occult order." And, of course, who among us can deny the word of a former priest? I, along with 99.9999999% of the general population, possess no personal experience or evidence from inside the occult from which to argue against his assertion. I DO, however, smell a fallacious argument known as "ad verecundiam." This phrase refers to an invalid appeal to authority...this Peter guy, because of his experience, might (I say might!) be an expert on occult practices, but that does not make him an authority on literature! But it is on his "expertise," which asserts, "The agenda of J.K. Rowling is very real - she is writing to instill in children a familiarity with occult 'truth,'" that Ms. Kjos denigrates Ms. Rowling's work, declaring, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil..."
I have been under the distinct delusion that my children, after reading Harry Potter, are no more acquainted with the occult than they were beforehand. Afterall, their imaginations have been sanctified by the Word of God, so that they read from hope, not fear. They see a story of redemption, not an apology for satanism. They recognize parallels with the Gospel, not distortions of it. Such silly, deceived children...I guess the proverbial apple really doesn't fall far from the old tree.
Kjos' next argument against the Potter series falls out like this:
1) Harry, as a horcrux, had a piece of the evil Voldemort' s soul in him.
2) Harry (and everyone else, I might add), can only "be freed from this bondage" "by giving up his life."
3) Harry dies a "false death." (False because it's more like a "sleep...")
4) Harry comes back to life to fight because he "must rise as the ultimate victor over evil."
5) In this "counterfeit version of Biblical salvation," - the one listed in 1-4 - "Rowling prompts her readers to imagine a false Christianity that embraces the occult."
I'm not kidding! That's it!
Shame on you, J.K.! How dare you propogate such a false gospel as evil within, putting to death the "old man", while laying down your life for others in order to live and triumph over evil! There's a "dog" in our midst!
Here are Ms. Kjos' Closing Arguments:
Comparison #1: "The true Christ was holy and sinless; Harry Potter was neither." My insightfully perspicuous response: "Duh..." Her: "His life and associations model the dark evil forces arrayed against God from the beginning of time." She neither offers a defense of this assertion, nor provides any example to support it. I find this accusation, not only irresponsible, but incomprehensible!
Comparison #2: "The saving work of the true Christ was finished on the cross. In contrast, Harry killed Voldemort after his near-death experience." My even more insightfully perspicuous response: "Huh?..."
Comparison #3: "Christians are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ...but Harry shed no blood. Who cares about the facts, when the fantasy feels so good." Oops! Did she just call this a "fantasy?" Yes, indeed...and last I checked, fantasies weren't primarily...or even secondarily...or not even tertiarily concerned with FACTS!
Comparison #4: "Unlike Jesus who knelt in prayer to His Father before facing the cross, Harry met with [dead] wizards...his father, mother and special friends...before his surrender to Voldemort. These encounters illustrate the forbidden act of necromancy." Everyone nod your head and say, "Oooohhhhhh...necromancy...creeeepy." Or, you could just say, "cloud of witnesses." Whatever.
Comparison #5: "Any comparison between the world of witchcraft and the Kingdom of God is meaningless." Alrighty then...comparison #5 contains no comparison to refute. However, she does go on to make this statement: "Harry's actions are accomplished in an occult context that is abhorrent to our Holy God," which I would be happy to dismantle. How hard is it to imagine that the "context" at Hogwarts is not the abode of Satan, but symbolizes instead, the Church! It's students/"disciples" are "on the inside," some by virtue of birth ("covenantal succession"), others have been "chosen" and "brought in" from the Egyptian/Gentile/Unbelieving/Muggles who don't possess the magical power/Holy Spirit. These chosen ones "draw near" and learn from their elders how to use their "gifts" wisely, then go back out into "the world" in which they are not really citizens, but sojourners. Some "on the inside" are unfaithful and misuse their gifts for self-glorification and personal power. There are "false teachers" inside who lead some astray. Muggles cannot enter Hogwarts...and their lives are dull, not because they are without satanic power, but because they lack the real source of life...they are unbelievers without the Spirit. Those students/disciples who are faithful, ultimately learn to care for others more than themselves, looking out not only for their own interests but also for the interest of others and in the end they are exalted. Those who despise others, living for themselves, are brought low. And those who would destroy Hogwarts are ultimately destroyed themselves!
Ms. Rowling may not have intended the symbolism I have imposed on her story, but my point is that the story can easily be interpreted as blatantly Christian, especially if you believe her confession. At the very least, if her intentions were satanic, we know that "food sacrificed to idols" can be eaten by us, if sanctified by prayer and received with thankfulness, right? If she is deceptively leading us to the occult, let's "confuse the enemy camp" and "plunder the Egyptians" by demonstrating that all truth is God's truth; that all stories are His stories; that even those who don't want to, sometimes accidentally reflect the Image in which they were created!
12 comments:
I was waiting for my kids at Awana last night and picked up the MetroVoice from the literature table. I saw this article, scanned it, and just placed the paper back on the table.
You should send your rebuttal as a letter to the editor.
Yeah, I agree with Jennifer. Submit it. But I bet they won't publish it. Whenever I see a stack of MVs at the church I always chuck them.
I think chucking is quite appropriate! I don't usually have occasion to read this publication, but a friend handed it to me and asked for my opinion of the 2 articles on HP. Being the type who doesn't really like to assert my opinions, I hesitatingly obliged! ;)
Good comments, Lori. As I read your comments, I had a couple questions. First, do you think assessments like those from MV are a product of a shallow kitch mentality in our pop evangelical culture that can't think of anything unless it has a bible verse attached to it? All you see in the way of "good christian art" these days is some depiction of Jesus with a bible verse stuck onto it. C.S. Lewis rightly saw the Lord of the Rings as a new creation and gave it the respect as such. Some can not do that for Harry Potter because thay can't think outside the allegory paradigm. So my second question might be, how do you think MV would describe Lord of the Rings given the false assumption that it was an allegory? Erin, Cassie, Jenny?
Dave Linton
Dave,
I tend to think this some measure of this mentality is a product of fear...I would contend that much of the evangelical world does not expect the Gospel to transform the world in any real way; therefore, that which comes from outside our known circles or is not immediately perceived as Christian (Biblical quotes, as you said), is to be feared and shunned.
At the same time, there is a rather odd phenomenon attached to Harry Potter. I have found many families, well-acquainted with literature and whom I would not characterize according to the previous paragraph, who either avoid or reject HP. These are parents whose children read Lewis, and Tolkien and even some other modern fantasies (Eragon...)which are not "Christian," but they find Potter unacceptable. None of them have ever explained to me why the wizardry or witchcraft in LOTR is acceptable, but HP isn't. I do know that in those cases, none of them have read the books yet!
A certain Idaho pastor, whose initials are NOT P.L., once argued that the difference was that in LOTR, the heroes are attempting to get rid of that which brings them power, while Hogwart's students are seeking to gain power. If that were the case, I might find something useful in that argument, but after reading the books, I believe that must have arisen from an early and hasty assessment.
I don't know where the MV crowd might come down on Tolkien, but my guess, is the latter. Gandalf...GOOD! Harry...BAD!
Thanks for visiting!
"A certain Idaho pastor, whose initials are NOT P.L., once argued that the difference was that in LOTR, the heroes are attempting to get rid of that which brings them power, while Hogwart's students are seeking to gain power.
If that were the case, I might find something useful in that argument, but after reading the books, I believe that must have arisen from an early and hasty assessment."
Indeed -- the final resolution of the first book indisputably puts that idea to rest. The "good" Hogwarts students are seeking to deny the Stone to Voldemort, and as it turns out, Harry is able to this only, and as specifically states, because he does not seek to use it for himself.
I believe the person who said that is confusing seeking to be fully equipped for service, with seeking to gain and use power. I think the faulty presupposition here is the one that keeps coming up -- that for Potter-wizards, magical ability is some kind of external "power." Actually, within the system, it is only natural/God-given gifting to be developed.
I agree completely!
hmmmm.
Dave,
What is THAT supposed to mean?
Wow! I was just catching up on some of Mark's links, and was like, hey, that looks interesting, and read the entire post thinking, yeah, she's got everything just right (I almost had a conniption when I saw the MetroVoice article, but then put it out of my mind), and then got to the bottom and realized who you are! I didn't know you blogged, Lori. And so very cogently. Perfect rebuttal. *bookmarks you*
Thanks for stopping by, Jandy! And for the complimentary bookmark! As you can see, I'm new to the blogging world, but have found it quite enjoyable and even addictive!
Lori,
Sorry it took me so long to get back. It means I am thinking. It doesn't happen often, so I have to make a sound.
Post a Comment