« Blogosphere Regime Changes |
Main
| Who's Their Daddy? »
Discerning Minds Want To Know
There once was a character named Potter
Who oft found himself in hot water.
Though some did defend, others bemoaned the trend
Keeping Potter from son and from daughter
In recent weeks, two Blog-Sistahs I respect greatly (Sora and Carmon) have had intense (though loving) disagreements about whether that current cultural phenomenon, Harry Potter, is appropriate for Christian consumption. There are a few specific bones of contention, one of the most interesting being whether we should avoid all novelistic portrayals of "good" magic, since occultic practices are specifically forbidden in the Scriptures (see Deuteronomy 18:9-11 and others).
We have never done Harry Potter, but issues similar to this are something we Christians face all the time. One that has always interested me is the question of whether we should avoid all art that depicts nudity. I have usually been in the minority when I have read discussions of this question various places online, with the usual defense of the no-nudity position being the Biblical command to be modest, with the injunction to avoid lust being thrown in there as well. Despite the importance of Christians striving to be both modest and pure in thought, I have never kept my children from seeing art that depicts nudity, as long as the intent of the painting is not meant to be lascivious. While I certainly think we probably want to avoid hanging a print of Renoir's Bathers on the wall above the bed of our adolescent sons, I have always thought that to seek to avoid all depictions of the human form in art is to run away from history.
I have a favorite novel, The PIllars of the Earth, which is a sweeping historical epic centered around the building of a great cathedral. The only problem with it is that out of 1000 or so pages, 8 or 9 of them depict graphic sexuality, so graphic that I decided not to give the novel to my husband to read. After all, I wouldn't hand him a novel with 8 or 9 Penthouse centerfolds interspersed thoughout. Yet, I still have that novel and re-read it every few years. Should I burn it because God forbids rape and fornication? This is not a facetious question at all, but rather one that I think is similar to Carmon's concern as to whether our discernment is somehow compromised if we accept fictional portrayals of behaviour which, in "real-life", we could not in good conscience participate in.
I certainly don't know the answer to this question, but I do think that the very concept of discernment carries within it the assumption that we are called to evaluate things, questionable material and unorthodox ideas included. We certainly can and should use the research and opinions of those we respect in making our determinations (who has the time or inclination to read or research everything, after all), but we have an example in the Bible of the Bereans, who "received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so". After seeing how two godly women can disagree so strongly, I just might have to get Harry Potter from the library and see for myself.
I appreciate your willingness to wrestle with this subject. It is well possible that my conscience is so seared (an allegation from one Christian) that I lack a biblical perspective on this debate. Honestly, I struggle to understand and appreciate the perspective of Christians who decry depictions of sin in literature, film and other art. This is not even getting into the issue of the human form in art, but rather staying in the realm of human behavior.
I may misunderstand my brothers and sisters who decry depictions of sin, but it seems to me that unless writers & artists depict ONLY Jesus or what they imagine pre-Fall Adam to have been like or post-glorification Christians, then the writers & artists will necessarily be depicting sinful human behavior.
That's what we do, whether humans are still "in Adam" or newly "in Christ," we sin. 100% of our stories involve sinners. I wonder if the Bible would pass muster with those who decry depictions of sinful behavior. I already see that contemporary English translations of the Bible "clean up" certain words and images. If one believes in inerrancy, why does one need to mis-translate for our sensibilities? Surely such critics are more Victorian than God, but are they holier than God's Word? They can't stand words that God inspired? Likewise, would these critics reject writing that depicts biblical scenes of sin?
Give me Luther any day. "Simul iustus et peccador" from a man who loved God, sinned boldly, and was an earthy man in every respect.
Glenn, you bring up a crucial point - "I wonder if the Bible would pass muster with those who decry depictions of sinful behavior." People forget the gruesome details of the OT (not to mention the crucifixion) all too often.
Samantha, I'm pretty much with you on this - never been interested in following the Harry Potter debates, because I consider it a conscience issue. If you (the general "you") can't deal with fantasy as such, just stay away from it, and you should know your kids well enough to make the judgment for them. Still, I'm tempted to think that I'm missing the contention of the anti-HP camp (the ones who are into arguing calmly and rationally about it, that is), and that it can't be that easily resolved.
My boys and I have read all of the Harry Potters; ripping good tales. I believe this is a matter of conscience. To me, Harry Potter is clearly and utterly fantasy, replete with fantastic creatures, beasts, effects, and so forth. It does not try for realism or confusion of fact with fantasy. On the other hand, I will not permit my teen to read the Da Vinci Code....
One of the best articles on the topic I've come across is this one: http://www.facingthechallenge.org/potter.htm
Personally I read the first book before they became so controversial. The plot is basically the Cinderella story set in a school situation. As another blogger commented recently, the 'magic' of Harry and his friends is an internal gift, rather like Superman's, not something they actively seek from evil sources. At Hogwarts, they learn positive ways of harnessing their gifts for the benefit of others. Along the way Harry has to fight people who have chosen power and glory over humility and beneficience, and have thus turned their gifts over to evil.
I was particularly struck in the first book by the way that self-sacrificing love is seen as more powerful than any evil. Good qualities - loyalty, honesty, and so on - are encouraged and rewarded.
I hate the hype that surrounds the books, but frankly all the controversy and book-burning simply added to their popularity. Ironically it's those who decried them the loudest who have ensured the fastest-selling phenomena of the century.
Thanks for your comment in return.
And I just realized looking at the book link ... I've read it too. I enjoyed it as well, but I have to admit I read it on an airplane and never kept track of it. My bigger problem (than my spousal reading choiices) is that I have an 10 year old daughter with voracious reading habits ... and vetting her reading is a growing job. At least she read Lewis and Tolkein before Ms Rowling.
Here's another fascinating article: http://tmatt.gospelcom.net/column/2003/06/18/
referencing a book which finds not just a good children's book in the HP series but profound Christian theology.
I've written a blog post myself as a result of (and referencing) yours, but trackback doesn't work on Blogger.
Difficult subject--especially for us "voracious readers." I'm in the middle of writing a post about witches and wise women in children's books, and I'd like to hear what some of you think about Mary Poppins and such characters.
One distinction that we can make is between the mere depiction of evil and the glorification of evil or evil made to sound good. Some people believe that Rowling does the latter in the HP books.
I think it could be argued that Harry Potter was being tempted to evil in the last book or two (like Luke in the 2nd Star Wars, or Frodo in LOTR), but I don't think evil has ever been made to sound good. Attractive, and the easy way out, but there are always several characters around to remind Harry that sacrificial love, honor, trust, etc are far more powerful than evil in the end. And every time Harry gets into a "why me?" attitude, he's reminded that his choices are more important than his circumstances.
I see the same kind of typing in the Rowling's book as in LOTR (which despite magic is considered Christian worldview literature). It is interesting that the protection (grace) that covers Harry is the sacrificial death of his mother - which gives him magic from the strongest source: love.
I enjoyed this post, Samantha, and I concur with your view on nudity in art.
Samantha, I confess I've not yet read this myself, but Jollyblogger endorsed a post by his friend here, a response to Doug Phillips's (of Vision Forum) critique of the whole fantasy genre.
For the record, I am not against all portrayals of evil in literature, not even witchcraft, and I am not against all fantasy literature (BTW, Doug Phillips's article is not a critique of the whole fantasty genre, just HP). However, I do think that the majority of fantasty literature, much of which is marketed to children, is written with anti-Christian premises (good is called evil and evil is good). For a book to be good literature, I believe it must generally portray a biblical reality, i.e., the heroic might be flawed but that which is noble is rewarded or acknowledged as such, that which is evil (whether explicitly evil acts or doing what the Bible expressly forbids for "good" purposes) is punished or shown to be wrong.
I do agree with Doug Wilson who said, “G.K. Chesterton said somewhere that if a book does not have a wicked character in it, then it is a wicked book. One of the most pernicious errors that has gotten abroad in the Christian community is the error of sentimentalism–the view that evil is to be evaded, rather than the more robust Christian view that evil is to be conquered. The Christian believes that evil is there to be fought, the dragon is to be slain. The sentimentalist believes that evil is to be resented...Some books we might not think of as Christian proclaim...biblical truths quite clearly. The story may or may not have a happy ending - but does it have a just ending? Is faithfulness rewarded, hyposcrisy unmasked, evil shown to be futile in the long run? Is there a note of ultimate hope, or nihilistic despair? Is evil glamorized, humorized, minimized, sympathized - the four wrong ways to treat it - or despised? Is evil presented as a psychological problem or a moral reality? Is good presented as insipid or strong? These are the questions we should be asking.”
My problem with HP centers around using witchcraft as a central theme in an approving manner as a tool for the hero of the story to achieve good ends. Not everyone who objects to HP, however, is a knee-jerk sloppy sentimentalist or anti-fantasy bookburner (though I admit to being an occasional biblioclast; when purging my 12,000+ volume library on occasion, a few volumes may have made it into the woodstove).
Camon,
Do you have an equal problem with LOTR? Frodo and Sam in particular used magical swords (glowing for Orcs); magical chrystals (glowing in the dark); elven robes that blended into the scenary in almost all of their victories and escapes. Charles Colson did a radio piece on LOTR as an example of a Christian worldview. Chuck isn't always right - but do you think he is wrong on this?
I think the essence is: is good really good (according to a Christian ethic); is bad bad; and does good ultimately win over bad.
Harry is OK.
I haven't read the books or seen the movies so I wasn't going to comment, but I agree with Carmon about bad being made to look good.
One difference with LOTR is that it is set in a make-believe world, not our world. Same with Narnia. That makes them metaphors. No one in their right mind is going to try to become a hobbit, but people (especially young, imaginative children) will dabble in witchcraft when they see other human beings (rather than orcs, elves, etc.) doing it.
I did also see a rather sensational video about HP a ways back when I was teaching at a Christian school, but even if a lot of it was overreaction, there was enough that rung true to make me leery/concerned, and especially considering their earth-shattering popularity among youth.
No, I don't have a problem with Tolkien, though I understand if some Christian brothers and sisters avoid LOTR. If you read the article on my site which Samantha linked, you will see that I link to a critique of HP which compares it to Tolkien and Lewis.
As Marla said, Middle Earth is entirely a fantasy world, and it is a world where (though not perfectly) the types echo a biblical worldview (Gandalf is the stickiest wicket, though he is supposed to represent an angelic being, according to some). In HP, the setting is a "fictional" England. England is a nation with Christian roots. If witchcraft in England is appropriate and even good, then what does that say about those in the HP England who (if they exist) are Bible-believing Christians? Do they just not exist? Would a Bible-believing Christian in that England be a good character or a bad character?
Spells, hexes, potions, etc. are part of real paganism. What if the theme of Harry Potter was heroic children at a school for educating Buddhist monks? If they do noble, self-sacrificial deeds, fighting evil with their Buddhist practices, would that make a story we could defend? Or we could change the genre to science fiction (and I'm not against that genre, any more than I'm against fantasy) and write a story with Scientology as the vehicle to portray the same things. L. Ron Hubbard wrote a story which captured the imaginations of many, and we're talking about grownups, causing them to convert to his make-believe religion.
Children are so impressionable. I need to be cautious about what I fill my own mind with...and that much more cautious about the books my children read. Literature is powerful, and using a theme of witchcraft in a positive way, when it is clearly condemned in Scripture, can be both confusing and dangerous to children.
Camon,
I see your point about Middle Earth being fantasy (although I think it is supposed to be pre-history for us). Also, the same on with Narnia (although Narnia co-existed with our world here - the children got there from here).
Certainly, Harry Potter is the weakest by far of the three examples. Celebrating "Christmas" would be one major point; the absolute indifference to "muggle" religion another one.
And it is hard to find the "types of Christ" in Harry Potter we find in LOTR. Gandalf the grey dead and sent back as "The White". Frodo carrying the burden for us all. Aragorn, leading an army of the risen dead to Return as King and finally defeat Evil. It is difficult to give any such grandeur to the characters in Harry Potter. Except perhaps Harry (and I think we haven't seen the last of the dead headmaster).
Anyway, great discussion
Hey, JCHfleetguy, if you're going to post spoilers, you should warn people! :-)
I'm quite a Potter fan and relished reading the latest one last week on holiday. I think there are far more dangerous books around, but they don't get the publicity Rowling does. For instance, the book I noticed last Saturday called something like '5 easy steps to becoming a witch', packaged in child-friendly pink and purple. Or Philip Pullman's Dark Materials trilogy which is strongly atheistic and anti-church. I haven't read it, but I did see the (UK) National Theatre's adaptation last year which was pretty viciously anti-Christian.
I agree that's it's mostly a matter of individual conscience what we chose to read and let our children read. Although if my (as yet hypothetical) children are anything like me, once they get hooked on books, trying to stop them reading anything would be impossible.
What are/have been people's approaches to helping their children make wise reading choices? My parents have never banned me from reading things, but shared books featured highly in my childhood and they often suggested new things to read. On the whole I've learnt for myself what's good to read and what's not and altered my reading habits accordingly. I can't imagine my parents vetting my books and I since as a teenager I read fast, and as widely and obscurely as possible (well, still do really), I think it would have been impossible.
I think there are far more dangerous books around, but they don't get the publicity Rowling does. For instance, the book I noticed last Saturday called something like '5 easy steps to becoming a witch', packaged in child-friendly pink and purple. Or Philip Pullman's Dark Materials trilogy which is strongly atheistic and anti-church. I haven't read it, but I did see the (UK) National Theatre's adaptation last year which was pretty viciously anti-Christian.
Are they *really* more dangerous? They are certainly more easily exposed and warned against. That may make them less dangerous.
It is the subtle dangers we let slip under our radar.
I can't imagine my parents vetting my books and I since as a teenager I read fast, and as widely and obscurely as possible (well, still do really), I think it would have been impossible.
As a teen? Do you take your parents' feelings into consideration? Would you, if they objected, forgo Harry Potter?
What are/have been people's approaches to helping their children make wise reading choices? My parents have never banned me from reading things, but shared books featured highly in my childhood and they often suggested new things to read
I told my kids that they could read Harry Potter, but not until after they read "The Bible and Harry Potter."
They both opted not to read the series.
Now, that is the coolest compromise I've heard yet!
Read is in the past tense there, I'm no longer a teenager. I don't think it ever occured to me to take my parents' feelings into consideration. Perhaps that sounds strange or disrespectful. I don't mean it like that. I've never made a secret of what I'm currently reading and had my mum or dad raised an eyebrow at something I brought home, I might think again. But the way my parents brought myself and my sisters up just wasn't like that. Looking back, I think they've given us freedom to make choices and learn from our mistakes and loads of encouragement to make good decisions. None of us were 'rebellious' teenagers and we're all living Christian lives. I'm not saying we had the perfect upbringing, but I think they're proud of the way we turned out.
As far as Potter goes, we've all read it and enjoyed it. My mum's attitude is partly that someone's got to read it because that's what children outside the church are reading and teachers like her need to know what the kids they teach are reading.
I don't think it ever occured to me to take my parents' feelings into consideration.
Oh.
My mum's attitude is partly that someone's got to read it because that's what children outside the church are reading and teachers like her need to know what the kids they teach are reading.
Maybe it depends on what age. I was in a high school and they read playboy, etc.
I'm not saying that Harry Potter is a sewer, but if you take the logic to its logical conclusion, I'd say that you don't have to swim in a sewer to know that it stinks.
So, I'm thinking it's this book, it's the idea that you have to try something that everybody in the world is trying - just to make sure you know what it is.
After all, I found used condoms in the stairwell at school...I'm not going to try that either.
My biggest concern about Harry Potter is the use of magic - on of my daughter's best friends doesn't have a stable home life, wants to change it - got into Harry Potter and now she says she's a Wiccan.
If every kid reading Harry Potter had a decent and stable home life, I'd have a lot less problem with it - but I see to many kids who would love to be able to use "good" magic - just to fix their lives.
Now, that is the coolest compromise I've heard yet!
Thanks, I use it a lot.
My daughter likes "Green Day" and wants to go to a concert. She's going to have to write out the lyrics of the songs and explain what they mean to her as a Christian.
Same thing with my son and Flatfoot 56 (and - true confession time - I like Flatfoot 56)
I generally don't have a problem with teens making their own decisions - but you have to give them to tools to make an informed choice.
;-)
My daughter likes "Green Day" and wants to go to a concert. She's going to have to write out the lyrics of the songs and explain what they mean to her as a Christian
Really!? Wow. I can see the value of having a discussion about it, but setting essays? What was your daughter's reaction?
I've been pondering what I mean by not taking my parents' opinion into consideration. I'm not sure that's entirely the right way to put it. Of course what my parents think matters to me. I go to them for advice and listen to what they have to say. But I keep encountering a way of parenting in the US in which parents have to ask their permission for everything, including who to date, where they can go, what to read. It seems excessive somehow. How do children then learn for themselves? Where does independence and making good decisions for yourself come into it? What about the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them? Perhaps that's just my interpretation of it.
Oh I give up, I can't express this properly. I suspect it might have something to do with cultural differences and Christians being more on the right politically in the US and more on the left in the UK.
Really!? Wow. I can see the value of having a discussion about it, but setting essays? What was your daughter's reaction?
She said, "Okay."
Why can we write here (most of us reasonable well)? It's because we *write*. I want my kids to be able to put their thoughts on paper - it's a communications skill that is sadly lacking.
But I keep encountering a way of parenting in the US in which parents [I'm thinking this is a mis-type] have to ask their permission for everything, including who to date, where they can go, what to read. It seems excessive somehow.
Why?
I'm 46 years old and a couple of years ago I took a gentleman home to meet my dad for the first time in 25 years. Yes, I expect my dad to give me input and yes, I expect to listen and honor. I told Dad outright that if there was any reason that he could discern why I should not be dating this man - I expected to hear it.
This disconnect between Christian parents and Christian children (yes, *CHILDREN* - minors, those without life experience, those under a parent's care) leads to other disconnects. In churches across the country, I see a lack of respect and appreciation for the wisdom of those older than we are (no matter what our age). When we are told that the best way to do things is to make mistakes and learn for ourselves, the wisdom of our elders because useless (unused).
I see women's groups with younger women (and the leaders aim to keep it that way). I openly asked for older women to be sent to my group - they are full of wisdom and strength!
And yes, I do reserve the right to approve or disapprove who my kids go out with. While they are in my home, under my care, my responsibility is to guide and teach, not let them teach themselves.
At one point, my daughter wanted to date a Roman Catholic - it opened a lot of doors for discussion, Bible study, and the willingness to listen and honor (and for one of us) obey.
Oh I give up, I can't express this properly.
(THIS IS A JOKE): Try an essay.
Seriously - that's why I give Manda writing assignments - the more she writes, the better she is able to express things properly, because she has had more practice.
Tht's why I blog.
I think I will give it some more processing time and then blog. But sometimes, I just don't get American parenting! There's something that makes me go "Ick!" about it and I'm not sure whether that's Britishness, rebelliousness or just getting the wrong end of the stick.
There's something that makes me go "Ick!" about it and I'm not sure whether that's Britishness, rebelliousness or just getting the wrong end of the stick.
Dunno...
When I'm stuck in a "I'm not sure" mode, I go and check what the Bible says.
What does the Bible say about parent/child relations?
(this is not Harry Potter related, sorry)
Oh dear, we are well off topic now.
Yes, loads, it says children obey your parents. And I do, although not in the same way as I did as a child since I'm now an adult and take more responsiblity for myself.
I was reading this last night.
Proverbs 1:8-9.
8 Listen, my son, to your father's instruction and do not forsake your mother's teaching.
9 They will be a garland to grace your head and a chain to adorn your neck.
(I remember a book of sunday school activities that paraphrased v9 as 'a lovely hat' which made me laugh, but I digress.)
I'm not saying children shouldn't obey or that parents don't have a responsiblity to love, care for and discipline their children and to bring them up to know God. Clearly that's what the Bible teaches. But I do think the dynamic of that relationship works out in different ways.
Perhaps being neither a child (in the sense of being a minor) nor a parent my vision is blurred. It's certainly coloured by the fact that I will soon be moving properly out of my parents' home after a few post-university years of living at home. At the moment any children I might have are entirely hypothetical. I know I've much to lean from people who are older, wiser and more experienced to prepare for when and if that time comes.
Yes, loads, it says children obey your parents. And I do, although not in the same way as I did as a child since I'm now an adult and take more responsiblity for myself.
I know that these relationships evolve, but what I was responding to was your 'ick" response to American parenting - "asking permission, etc."
Are you curious about whether the "ick" is a flesh reaction or a "God thing"?
Are you curious about whether the "ick" is a flesh reaction or a "God thing"?
Yes. I suspect the former, but I want to know why, and whether that's OK because it's partly cultural or something I need to work on because it's me being rebellious, or a result of me projecting my parents' faults onto all parent-child relationships.
Yes. I suspect the former, but I want to know why, and whether that's OK because it's partly cultural or something I need to work on because it's me being rebellious, or a result of me projecting my parents' faults onto all parent-child relationships.
I believe that God's Word transcends cultures.
- being rebellious should always be looked at very carefully. It took many adult years for me to be able to talk to my dad about my not following his lead in alcohol use (I have a drink once in a while and he's a religious teetotaller). I was able to verbalize why I believed moderate use is permissable and asked him to show me why (in the Bible) he believes it is not.
- I look to my parents for approval and sometimes we go overboard. The joke around my house is that I "ask the kids not to do anything that will make Grandma mad at me." This truly is a joke, since my daughter has her nose pierced and my son has severely spiked hair...
I sometimes have a tough time sorting out my own "laws," (inherited from my parents) and God's "Law." For instance, right now I'm dreading (just a little) telling my mom about my new tattoo. Am I convinced that getting it was wrong? No, not at all. Is my mom still likely to bother me about it? Likely, yes.
So, if your parents have faults that are outside God's plan, it's not rebelling against parents, it's obeying God first.
If your parents just have the normal faults that all parents have, that's another story - but age plays a big part also.
I am involved in a discussion in my men's group on submission. It seems that we forget both sides. Wifes are to submit; but the husband is to submit to God, care for his family as God cares for him, and give his wife control over his body. Its easy for husbands to hear the first and ignore the rest. I have often joked that the strongest secular feminist in the country would gladly submit to her husband if he REALLY did the rest of it.
So kids are to submit to their parents; but these should be parents in the relationship above. Husband submitted to God and caring for his children as God cares for him. Wife submitted to her husband; but neither the wife or husband denying the other. All of this should play out in front of the children, who would certainly have every reason, other than just the law, to honor and respect such unusual parents.
Then there is the verse I couldn't just now find about fathers not making their kids CRAZY.
Ah there they are:
Col 3:21 Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart
Eph 6:4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
You moms are however free I guess :)
Then there is the verse I couldn't just now find about fathers not making their kids CRAZY.
Does that mean it's okay for mothers to make their children crazy? (lol).
only a minute apart...lol
I'm torn. I can't decide whether to
(a) point out that Conservative Christian American Parenting (TM) is not the same as American Parenting (TM), and a lot of Americans (e.g. those where I come from) would probably share Pigwotflies's opinion about the former; or
(b) point out that judging from what I see around me, and the sort of things discussed in the papers, British children and teenagers could really stand a heavy dose of consistent discipline.
