Harry Potter philosophical camps

I read an interesting article by Terry Mattingly, the Orthodox journalist and religion writer. In it he summarizes the various camps that have developed around the Harry Potter books, or perhaps I should say the corpus. As you know, the release of the Harry Potter books triggered a large debate among various Christians about whether they should be read or not. At the heart of the debate was the claim by some that the Potter books lead children into the occult. Mr. Mattingly’s article was helpful in summarizing the different opinions that have developed. He says that the different camps are:

* Rowling intentionally wrote occult books, creating a doorway into witchcraft for young readers.

* The books are merely tempting trifles celebrating adolescent behavior and mushy morals. They were not intentionally evil, but simply bad books.

* These fables are a mixed bag, mixing good messages with the bad. But if Rowling used Christian symbolism it was as mere window dressing.

* Rowling intentionally wrote “Christian books” containing literal, almost mechanical allegories that can serve as evangelistic tools, in and of themselves.

* The books, according to Granger and many other academics, are part of a British tradition of storytelling built on Christian symbols and themes (including clear biblical references) and can be enjoyed on several levels, including as stories of transformation and redemption. Thus, the Church of England produced “Mixing it up with Harry Potter” study guides.

As you can see, that’s quite a few camps that people have divided into. The two bookend opinions are that Rowling intentionally wrote occult books and that Rowling intentionally wrote “Christian books.” All the other opinions fall between those two extremes. Sadly, the news media has concentrated on the controversial opinion that they are occult books, and has lavishly covered those Evangelical groups that have turned out in protest at the launch of every new Potter book or movie. It certainly helped to raise the sound levels when Rowling declared, in response to a question, that she could see one of the characters as being gay. It was an unfortunate response on her part, but it was to a question that came out of the blue. I sometimes wonder whether she regretted her decision later. However, this was confirmation to the anti-Rowling group that she wrote those books with a hidden anti-Christian agenda in mind.

But, like Mr. Mattingly, I think that the best explanation is the last one. British culture does have a long history of storytelling that is built not only on symbols, but also on mythical characters. From King Arthur through G.K. Chesterton’s fairy tales, through J.R.R. Tolkien’s dwarves, elves, hobbits, and ents, through C.S. Lewis talking animals, the English do have a long history of taking even pagan imagery and turning it and changing it until it fits a more Christian mindset. This mindset it so strong that it even influences those writers who are not trying to write Christian literature.

At the same time, Dr. Granger points out that the English approach is not the American approach. There is no concept of an altar call in English Christianity save in a few smaller groups. By and large, the English, the Scots, and the Welsh hold more to a growing into Christianity approach rather than a sawdust trail approach. Thus, there is often not a clear moment when a character “becomes a Christian.” An episode such as the tale of Eustace in the Chronicles of Narnia with its conversion moment is rather rare. Thus the American Evangelical reading the books looks in vain for that watershed moment which is so built into American culture but so alien to British culture. This leads to misunderstandings.

So, was Rowling trying to write “Christian” books? Certainly not in the American understanding of what it takes to make a book Christian. But, do her books reflect a generally Christian understanding? Yes, they certainly appear to, but in the same way in which a G.K. Chesterton fairy tale reflects a basically Christian understanding. Like the British, it is not forward nor does it push itself on you. But, it is there to be understood.

Nevertheless, because it is a British approach, I would recommend to any parent that they take time with their children and teenagers to carefully point out those themes because American children will not catch them as readily as British children.