"It's no secret that the Harry Potter storyline about both good and evil wizards has fueled global teenage increase in Wicca and the occult."

@Ron HA! make sure your spell doesn’t turn the Mormons into fairy princesses. That could mean a lawsuit, or a broadway musical!

I think we need to keep in mind that “fools make a mock at sin”. Witchcraft is undoubtedly sin. The presence of the occult elements in entertainment should not be taken lightly. I don’t think we need to launch protests and march on Washington, but we also shouldn’t dismiss it as harmless just because it is in a cartoon or presented as fantasy. We don’t know what will be a particular stumblingblock to a child or a new/weak Christian, so discernment and honest communication is always always always important.

The first book with occult elements that I ever read was http://www.amazon.com/Candle-Her-Room-Knight-Books/dp/0340253398/ref=sr…] A Candle in Her Room . I was 9 years old, and it affected me deeply- I remember every bit of it to this day. I was terrified and thrilled at the same time. I kept seeking out that feeling in my reading choices. Not a good dynamic for spiritual growth.

I not only want to know what my kids are reading, but why.

Edited to add: The “fools” comment is not directed at previous responses in this thread, but at the portrayal of witchcraft in fiction as fun or frivolous.

Susan,

Do you think there’s a difference when the magic portrayed in literature or movies is happening in a clearly different fantasy world than our own? That somehow makes a difference in my mind. So: Twilight (which I despise for all kinds of reasons) happens in our world at a real school with real kids. In fantasy like the Lord of the Rings, there is an entire detailed and constructed world that will not confuse people that it’s somewhere present on earth.

Additionally, did you watch the videos I posted above about magic with Doug Wilson? I wonder your thoughts on the difference between high tech and magic? Is magic really manipulating the physical world to get an enhanced, powerful effect? The line can be blurry. If we brought an iPad back in time to the Puritan era, they would clearly dunk me in the river for magic because what I would be holding is impossible to understand.

Shayne

Wasn’t it Arthur C. Clarke that said “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”? The caveat is that high tech won’t violate the laws of physics, while by definition magic must do so.

I did watch Mr. Wilson’s videos (while washing dishes, so he didn’t have my undivided attention) and from what I heard, I mostly agree. It isn’t the presence of magic or sorcery, but who wields and why, and what is the source of their power? Biblical miracles all give glory to God, while most modern depictions do not.

I have to stop here and say that just because there are what we call ‘objectionable elements’ in media doesn’t mean we (my family) won’t watch/read it. There is more than one kind of reading/viewing, and we study some literature for its cultural impact or historical significance. The only elements that we absolutely will not tolerate are nudity of any kind and sexual situations (whether simulated or discussed).

So back to the point- I think we have to realize that one can’t mindlessly enjoy books or movies. It is essential, especially with children, to point out the right and wrong and learn to properly critique what is being portrayed. Any time the bad guy is a sympathetic character or the hero uses immoral or unethical means to reach his goal or resolve the conflict, our Discern-O-Meters head for the red zone. That would include how and why occult elements are being used in a story.

Magic can mean an illusion or a paranormal activity. So tech could be magic if it creates an illusion of reality.

I think the difference between tech and magic is the source. Magic is not physically possible in our universe and the source is always supernatural. High tech generally follows the rules of science. Where it doesn’t abide by the laws of physics, it becomes fantasy, but is not necessarily magic/occult. Star Trek is a good example of that- a transporter or time travel is not possible, but they are explained in the story as being ‘scientifically’ possible. ‘Magical’ powers are also given a ‘scientific’ explanation in superhero fiction like Spiderman and X-Men. An illusion has a natural explanation, so it isn’t truly magic.

Cellular technology seems ‘magical’ to my mother (who is 84) because she doesn’t understand how it works„ and she actually fears it to a degree. But it certainly is not magic.

Arthur C. Clarke’s famous law was “Any technology, sufficiently advanced, would be indistinguishable from magic.”

The delightfully funny corollary some wag created was “Any technology distinguishable from magic is not yet sufficiently advanced.” This explains why people who are not technically informed become frustrated with their PC or Cell Phone not doing what they want it to. The whole thing seems magic to them, so why shouldn’t it do as they will it to?

These observations, though, also betray a blurriness in our thinking on the issue. It might seem to some who are not spiritually informed that “magic” might be just another form of technology — that it is the manipulation of forces our science does not understand. They might reason that “Magic-users” are people who are learning to manipulate these forces through trial and error, just as a village wise-woman in old England might stumble on a herbal cure that genuinely worked for a reason that we now know to be valid scientifically.

But this betrays a failure to understand the forces at work. What people call magic (other than in the prestidigitation sense) is always the harnessing of occult forces via entities. The user feels they are manipulating forces, but they are in turn being manipulated by the entities. Perhaps the only non-Christians who clearly understand the distinction would be the animists, who attempt to align themselves with occult entities to accomplish their goals. Of course, their animist theology does not account for ultimate good and evil, nor an ultimately good God who has power over all of things and beings.

And, of course, this only applies to the vanishingly tiny percentage of mystic things that actually occur, as opposed to the endless recounting of stories that are usually self-deceptions.

[Dave Talbert]… My dislike of the Harry Potter series stems from the character of Harry himself as an often self-centered rebel. My dislike of the character of Harry was so strong by the fourth book that I only kept reading because my sisters hounded me about it. Harry’s character stands in stark contrast to the essential nobility (flawed as it is) of the central characters in both the Narnia series and the Lord of the Rings.

Imaginary magic and pretend wizards? Meh. Selfishness and rebellion? OK, now I’m concerned.

Interesting objection. Harry is either rebellious or independent. When his adult companions are apathetic or oppositional to Harry in his fight against evil, he certainly does disregard their “leadership.”

But I think that independence is a better term for this than rebellious.

The whole series presents independent kids. Harry is at a boarding school without much supervision in daily life. Yet the students (Hermione, especially) are really quite studious. I have always thought that was one of the big appeals of the books. The idea that kids can work and do their homework, chores, etc. without all the adult supervision.

I heard a acting coach talking on the radio several years ago. He was at an acting camp for junior high level kids. They gave the kids a project in which they had to invent a fictional character and develop him/her. Given multiple choices, about 90% chose to portray a child who was in some sense an orphan. A lot of children/teen books seem to build on this. The Narnia kids, while sometimes surrounded by adults of varying respectability, are themselves the decision makers and doers what needs doing in Narnia. They are independent.

Modern studies have born out that desire for independence peaks in early adolescence and wanes in the late teens.
I’m not quite ready to call this a criticism of the Potter books. I do think it is part of why they are popular.

[Dan Miller] Harry is at a boarding school without much supervision in daily life. Yet the students (Hermione, especially) are really quite studious. I have always thought that was one of the big appeals of the books. The idea that kids can work and do their homework, chores, etc. without all the adult supervision.

This is independence, and I applaud it rather than objecting to it. What I *do* object to is the constant breaking of rules and (later) even laws. That’s not independence. That’s rebellion.

I don’t think I said much about any of that. (But if one of X matters, it stands to reason that more than one of X matters more. I think this is pretty self evident.)
And I’m not against marketing either.

Several posts up, there was some back and forth about magic vs. tech.

I think the reason people are so comfortable w/imaginary futuristic tech. compared to imaginary “magic” is the bias I referred to in my previous post. We’re conditioned by modernism to see science as safe and supernatural as spooky. We think of “occult elemnts” in stories as being a special province of Satanic attack but do not attach the same wariness to the kind of story that rejects all supernatural reality and all religion with it.

But is “spooky stuff” more likely to be used by Satan to allure people into deceit than non-spooky stuff? I’m inclined to think that in our day, he is more inclined to use the latter.
Christians, by definition believe in the supernatural. Nothing is more toxic to Christian faith than outright rejection that “there is more” than science can observe.

So my point is just that a “creepy” story with wizards in it is not more likely to be “Satanic” than a space story with lasers and robots in it and nothing supernatural at all.

Another note: suggest studying what “witchcraft” means in the Bible. We are getting the term via translation. I have not done much digging, but I wonder if the term has any resemblance at all to the spell-casting stuff of legend and lore.

[Aaron Blumer] But is “spooky stuff” more likely to be used by Satan to allure people into deceit than non-spooky stuff? I’m inclined to think that in our day, he is more inclined to use the latter.Christians, by definition believe in the supernatural. Nothing is more toxic to Christian faith than outright rejection that “there is more” than science can observe.

C.S. Lewis, in his Screwtape Letters, has the demon Screwtape reflecting on how the mixture of a scientific worldview with vague superstition in mankind is a high goal of the demonic world.

Screwtape says, “I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalize and mythologize their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, a belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy. The ‘Life Force’ … may here prove useful.” He goes on, “If once we can produce our perfect work—the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls ‘Forces’ while denying the existence of spirits—then the end of our war will be in sight.”

More relevant to the main thread of discussion here is what Lewis puts in the preface of most editions: “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors, and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.” I’m sure that, based on the later content in the book, he would say that the “Materialist Magician” would incorporate the dangers of both.

[Aaron Blumer] Another note: suggest studying what “witchcraft” means in the Bible. We are getting the term via translation. I have not done much digging, but I wonder if the term has any resemblance at all to the spell-casting stuff of legend and lore.

Studied it. And it is not easy, since so much of our lexicography is derived from usage in our language.

I made this a key point in my discussions with parents who were alarmed by the Harry Potter novels. My argument was: “Evaluate the books as you would any other fiction your children wished to read, but have some balance on the ‘witch’ thing.” We discussed at length the passages forbidding occult practice from their Hebrew and Greek words. I then pointed out that we have a distorted view of such passages because the KJV (and subsequent English translations) translates those words with the English “witch”, which has connections to a particular image in our minds that is not necessarily found in Scripture. In fact, it almost certainly never existed.

Our English word witch comes from an older word, wic, that referred to the village wise woman, who had at her disposal many herbal cures (potions) that would be mingled with superstitious explanations as to their working. These wics were brutally suppressed as Roman and post-Roman Christians came to the British Isles, because their work was viewed as linked to their pagan theology (which would be more or less true, depending on the wic in question). The confusion is that the Roman Catholic church in the Middle Ages made little technical distinction between “pagan” and “Satanic” as categories. Therefore, the village wise woman went from herbalist whose beliefs were pretty typical for Pre-Christian Britain to agent of Satan in 2 short steps. A witch was in league with Satan.

Humorously, when talking to concerned parents in our church, one of the women who showed the greatest concern was a dear Christian grandmother who is very much a leader in the herbal remedies community and who speaks against what we now call “traditional medicine”. I pointed out that by old English reckoning, she would have been the witch! She got it.

As for modern “witches”, I suspect they have fallen into their own mythological trap. They believe the church’s version (there were witches, the church burned them at the stake, etc.). That’s not to say that Satan can’t use modern “witchcraft”, bereft of historical accuracy as it is, to lure someone into the true occult.

That was very interesting. Sounds like you did your homework on the whole thing. It’s very difficult sometimes to help folks see that a word in Scripture may not actually have any equivalent in our language.

Aaron and Mike,

Great set of comments there. Very clear thinking like this sets up some guard rails for not getting too extreme in either direction. I can’t help but think of Romans 1. Both a witch and a technologist can make the mistake of worshiping the creation rather than the creator. At a basic level, that’s the sin. Where would any movie, play or work of literature be without at least some of that in the storyline?

Shayne

[Bob Hayton] Harry Potter is an imaginary tale. It is fiction. And it is quite tame given the world it creates.

I really enjoyed Kevin Bauder’s series on fantasy literature that specifically addressed Harry Potter. Christians that are fine with Narnia or Lord of the Rings, should have no principled objection to Harry Potter.

Lord of the Rings was written by a Roman Catholic. Further, J.R.R. Tolkien always emphatically denied that Lord of the Rings was ever supposed to be any sort of Christian allegory, but instead was his attempt to give England a system of mythical literature akin to that of the Celts, Norse, Greeks, Romans etc. Far from being a Christian allegory, Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings universe is polytheistic. One can’t tell so much from the most popular books, the Hobbit and the Rings books, but from the other books the Tolkien universe has a number of gods for its creators and rulers, and is also dualistic, as the “good gods” cannot defeat the “evil gods.” It isn’t quite the same as traditional polytheistic mythology, as the Tolkien gods are transcendent and not immanent, and they aren’t tied up into agricultural or astronomical cycles, fertility rituals or anything like that, but it is still polytheism. And despite the attempts to propose Aragorn as some allegory or symbol of Jesus Christ … Aragorn is NOT God in the flesh but a mere human. There is no “heaven” but rather just some magical place where its inhabitants never die, and entrance into that place is granted automatically to some (elves I suppose) but is earned by others.

Narnia: more of the same. If anything, the fact that Narnia was intended to be a Christian allegory makes it even worse than Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. First off, we have to deal with Lewis’s beliefs, which not only include Rob Bell-esque pluralism/inclusivism, but included strange, mystical/magical stuff. Explicit faith in Aslan is not required; there is no organized religious system (at least not concerning Aslan), no divine revelation or holy scriptures to speak of. Salvation is not only given to men that are made in the image of God, but to an assortment of beasts and creatures who appear to have nothing in common save the capacity for higher reasoning. Magic (or to be honest sorcery and witchcraft) is an integral part, and is used both by the “good” for their purposes and the “bad” for theirs, making it morally neutral, and moreover Aslan himself appears to be subject to the laws and power of magic. Consider his resurrection: Aslan was not resurrected through divine power, but by the power of magic thanks to his own adherence to the magical laws or rules. And what is Aslan anyhow? He is not the Word of God made flesh, and He most certainly is not a Trinity (no reference to the Father in whose Name He came and whose will He performed, or the Spirit by which He did mighty works, or how they live in Aslan and Aslan in them). Is Aslan omnipotent? Omniscient? Omnipresent? Nope. He just happens to be smarter and more powerful than his enemies. Also, like Lord of the Rings, salvation is earned by good works, by being and doing good, in Narnia.

Christians willfully project orthodoxy onto Narnia where none exists. “Oooh, Aslan died and resurrected for Edmund.” Fine, but where is original sin and federal headship? As Edmund was not the originator of the human race - or any other race for that matter - why did his “sin” have anything to do with the Narnians, or for that matter with his brothers and sisters? With no federal headship or original sin, Aslan’s act “atoned” for Edmund and Edmund alone. Further, what was it that made Edmund’s act sinful to require Aslan’s atonement to begin with? Aslan never told Edmund not to eat the Turkish delight from the white witch, nor was this behavior forbidden by anyone speaking on Aslan’s behalf or any holy scriptures. The idea that he “betrayed” his brothers and sisters … how was he to know that the white witch was evil? A ten year old boy with no prior useful knowledge of Narnia whatsoever, a 10 year old boy runs across some random woman, accepts candy from her and consents to her desire to meet his siblings with no way of knowing that what he did was wrong beyond a “don’t take candy from strangers” sense. (Even had Aslan told Edmund not to do so … who was Aslan to Edmund but a talking lion with magical powers from another world or dimension? Did Aslan present himself to Edmund as his creator and god and forbid him from eating the Turkish delight based on that sovereign authority?) This is akin to Adam - a grown man regularly interacting with God and given dominion of the earth - eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil after being warned by God that if he eats it he will surely die how, exactly? So if Edmund is an allegorical reference to Adam, then it means that Adam was innocent of any guilt and was unfairly judged and condemned. God forbid that such be so! The idea that a person can learn anything useful or true about Christianity from “Narnia” is utterly false, and it is amazing that so many people have believed otherwise for so long.

[Bob Hayton] In fact this movie should give people something to talk about, as the 7th book included the concept of substitutionary concept in a riveting way.

No it doesn’t. The reason is that only Jesus Christ could perform substitutionary atonement. None other is worthy, none other is able, for none other is able to meet God’s requirements of perfection, for none other is God in the flesh. So unless the true, actual Jesus Christ of the Bible and history is the subject and object, there can be no concept of substitutionary atonement in truth. Instead, it can only be a lie against the actual nature of substitutionary atonement because it is a lie against the nature, Person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ wasn’t just some guy who died for somebody else. Jesus Christ is the Word of God who became flesh when He was born of a virgin, died for the sins of many, was resurrected, ascended to the right hand of God the Father, lives forevermore, and will one day return to judge the quick and the dead. These Aslans, Harry Potters, the guy in “Lost” (Jack Shephard I think) … are false Christs who are not presented as the solution for the dilemma of human sinfulness before a holy God, and even if they did they would be unworthy solutions. Instead, all they do is deny the existence of the dilemma, and mock and blaspheme the true and only Solution to the dilemma. Being someone with severe character flaws (and oh yeah, A WITCH), Potter was unsuitable to die for his own sins, let alone anyone else’s. And this Potter was resurrected by magic, not by God, thanks to the sacrifice of his witch mother, not of the sinless God-man Jesus Christ. And Christians are supposed to learn about substitutionary atonement (or anything else Christian) from this idolatrous blasphemy how?

Now I am not against secular literature. But boundaries have to be drawn somewhere. If we can’t say “no thanks” to Harry Potter, then what would be the rationale for saying that anything is wrong for a Christian to read or see? If works that promote witchcraft are OK, then what is the problem with X-rated movies that are (using your words) “quite tame considering …”?

[Shaynus] Aaron and Mike,

Great set of comments there. Very clear thinking like this sets up some guard rails for not getting too extreme in either direction. I can’t help but think of Romans 1. Both a witch and a technologist can make the mistake of worshiping the creation rather than the creator. At a basic level, that’s the sin. Where would any movie, play or work of literature be without at least some of that in the storyline?

Shayne

That’s the point I brought up earlier- we tend to get more upset about occult elements, but don’t even flinch when a starship is visiting other worlds or dinosaurs are being cloned and the phrase “65 million” years is getting tossed around like it is without question.