"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."

[JobK]…

You know, I could make some similar objections to Pilgrim’s Progress, if I had a mind to. But I won’t, because that’s not how literature works. When someone writes a book with gospel themes and ideas, he or she isn’t bound to simply re-writing the text of the New Testament. That’s the whole point of symbolism and allusion; it can be imprecise and indirect without being erroneous.

Why not read some of the Narnia books for yourself? You might be pleasantly surprised at the depth of the theological themes embedded within them; Silver Chair’s treatment of the doctrine of God’s Word and the sin of atheism are fascinating studies of how to make ideas at home within a narrative without causing damage to either one.

[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.

If it is helpful to some who do wish to talk about it…

I wrote about this in http://sharperiron.org/2007/12/12/harry-potter-and-the-atonement] Harry Potter and the Atonement . In the book, immediately after Harry returns from “King’s Cross Station,” Voldemort subjects him to cruciatus (pain). But Harry feels no pain. Shortly thereafter, Voldemort freezes Neville, but Neville soon breaks free and kills the snake. The point is made in the book that Voldemort’s power is lost because of Harry’s sacrifice. This is allegorical with Christus Victor view of the atonement.

I saw the movie yesterday. This aspect was diluted in the movie. Voldemort has no significant loss of power due to Harry’s sacrifice. Instead, the screenwriter chose to diminish Voldemort’s power as the bits of his broken soul were destroyed (in the books, it is clear that Voldemort cannot feel anything).

[JobK] 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.

…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.

JobK, I think this is a gross oversimplification. While the “Valar” of Tolkien’s universe do map pretty clearly to the Norse Gods, the opening story of their history (See “The Silmarilion”) clearly places them more angelically, since Illuvatar (the almighty creator at the story’s beginning) creates the world, and one of the Valar defies Illuvatar. Illuvatar will allow the evil to go on for awhile, but in the end, all will see that the evil played into the fulfillment of Illuvatar’s plan. The Valar are at the top of a rank called “Ainur” (Holy Ones), and the Maiar (Wizards) are the lowest of the Ainur, sent to Middle-Earth to serve Elves, men, and others against the evil.

There is even reference in the later works (edited by Christopher Tolkien and published after J.R.R.’s death) to the elves being startled when told that men believed that Illuvatar would come in human form someday.

Tolkien, by the way, specifically rejected characterizing his work as allegory, and would have scorned such proposals as some make about Aragorn.

[JobK] 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.

Again, while you make some important distinctions about Narnia, you miss some others.
I will restrict my comments to “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”, since it is the most clear-cut allegorically. The others are a little more extended allegories, if allegory at all.

First, regarding Lewis, it’s important to note that we’re dealing with a man who stumbled into his faith almost by accident (from a human perspective) rather than through the evangelism of a local IFB church. As a scholar, he is called upon to defend his faith from the very beginning – while his faith is still forming. This is why you will find Lewis’ theology evolving across the years of his writing and speeches. It is as unfair to characterize Lewis as pluralistic or inclusivist as it would be to call the Apostle Paul a Pharisee or Calvin an unbeliever. I’m not sure that the moment when he converts to theism or even an intellectual belief in the historical reality of the death and resurrection of Christ is his true conversion. His theological development is even more complex after he finds a true faith, as he is influenced by everything from Evangelicals to the ever-variable Church of England’s theoloies. But his development is generally toward more orthodoxy over time, as he studied.

Secondly, regarding allegory, it’s important to note that every element in an allegory (especially one geared toward children) need not point to an element in that which is represented. I think it is unrealistic to expect a technical description of the atonement in a children’s allegory like “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”. But the message that “somebody has to die because I did wrong” rings true. My foster kids, with about 2 months of church attendance, understood that Aslan represented Jesus. I did not feel obliged to lecture them on the distinctions between the two at that point in the discussion.

I think you also must not stretch allegory to expect it to symbolize any more than the author’s clear intent. People are guilty of the reverse of this with regard to Jesus’ Parables all the time. They see instruction on Capitalism in the Parable or the Talents! Don’t fall for this! Narnia does not have to match God’s created realm in every way. To be allegorical, it need only communicate points about God’s created realm through certain parallel events, people, and things, highlighting the points the author is attempting to make.

Third, regarding the idea of Aslan and omnipotence, I’ll grant there may be a problem with the fact that he is subject to the “deep magic from before time”. But Christ Himself was subject to the Law, was He not? Quite frankly, no limit on Aslan is even hinted at, so far as I can remember, other than those imposed on him by the nature of his father (the Great Emperor Over the Seas) or his relationship to him.

[JobK] 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 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…

JobK, I’m not sure what you are asking here. By the time I craft an allegory that fulfills all of your expectations, it would be indistinguishable from Scripture, other than the changing of a few names and places. That would not be a work of literature. That would be altering Scripture.

Right. That’s what I was thinking but didn’t have time to write. :)

Does a novel have to say something distinctively Christian to be an excellent work?
Personally, I don’t think the novel form is well suited for preaching ideas, Christian or otherwise. Writing allegory without doing a hatchet job of the form is a trick very few can manage. Lewis pulled it off. Tolkein didn’t try. His work is of no less value as a novel for not trying to preach Christian themes in allegory. It’s not what novels are for.
We don’t judge painters for creating a beautiful landscape or still life and failing to include any crosses or churches in the painting, do we? Why not? Because a painting can be a beautiful and worthy thing without being distinctively Christian in “message.”

I think that for fiction to be satisfying, it has to be consistent with sound doctrine and Biblical principles. IOW, themes of courage, honesty, redemption, sacrifice, justice… are always satisfying to the reader/viewer. But when the bad guy gets away and the innocent is not rescued and the hero dies, readers are, generally speaking, left feeling unfulfilled and sometimes outright cranky. As cheesy as it sounds, we want the bad guy punished and the good guy to get the girl. This is consistent with Scripture in the sense that Satan will get what’s coming to him, and Christ will marry His Bride. Theological themes may not jump off the page or the screen and smack us upside the head, but they are there nonetheless, whether the author intends them or not.

That is how, IMO, we should teach kids to filter fiction- “How do the events and themes in this story reflect Scripture?” “Where do they violate Biblical principles, and how does this affect your view of this story?” Stuff like that.

So when we critique the HP story arc, we don’t need to see obvious Christian symbols, but we can decide if evil-doing is being rewarded, if the ends justify the means, etc…

I read an author interview (if I remember where I’ll link to it) where he talks about what is labeled as horror/paranormal and how those elements are portrayed in fiction. If I remember correctly, he was advocating that much of the violence can occur ‘off stage’ and the supernatural elements alluded to more than explored in graphic detail. Just as in a romance, you can have a man and woman walk to the bedroom hand in hand gazing into each other’s eyes, and you get the picture. Details are not necessary. The author described graphic details of violence, the occult, and sex as being ‘word porn’.

We see a good example of how this can be accomplished in Scripture, where there are quite a few ‘objectionable elements’, but we are never treated to a blow-by-blow account of any depiction of violence or sex. The incident with the witch of Endor shows how we can get the point across without explaining how she used eye of newt and toe of frog and turned around three times reciting incantations… Never underestimate the ability of the reader to fill in the blanks. Too much detail is literary self-indulgence.

A bit of a ramble there, but I said all that to say I don’t object to the presence of the occult in fiction, but I am concerned about how it is portrayed and how much detail is included. Therein lies the slippery slope, IMO, from titillation to fascination.

I don’t think I disagree with that generally. There’s definitely a maturity factor with the reader and the HP stuff has been aimed at a pretty immature group.
I see something too in the concern about too much detail. Some fantasy fiction writers excel in developing a “magic system” much as Tolkein excelled in his fictional “world creation” (complete with long histories, languages, cultures). And when these writers are good at it the results are quite fascinating in their own right. To me it’s analogous to what virtuoso musicians achieve. But there is a kind of seductive power in ingenious “magic systems” and fantasy fiction in general because we (as in human beings, regenerate or otherwise) have eternity in our hearts yet cannot satisfy that longing. (Eccles. 3:11)
So the longing—which is ultimately a longing for God—can run away with us in a variety of ways. For some, it’s an obsession with a particular “magic system”— I have seen adolescents do this… and get over it. But I’ve not always seen the getting over it part.
And then you have your folks who are not quite clear on the difference between fantasy and reality in the first place. For these, life itself is dangerous but fantasy fiction is doubly dangerous because, for them, it’s all/mostly real.

Oops, meant to add this under the quote above:

Dan, don’t spoil the movie for me. I haven’t seen it yet. The book was beautiful in the parallels with Christ’s atonement. Obviously it’s not perfect, but it makes people think and can be a bridge to talking about the concept of substitutionary atonement.