Harry Potter and "the Death of God" - by Michael D. O'Brien

Editor's Note: LifeSiteNews.com, the news service which first put online the letter signed by Cardinal Ratzinger - now Pope Benedict XVI - against the Harry Potter books, is proud to present Michael O'Brien's latest essay on the Potter series. The author, North America's foremost Potter critic, has written many articles that analyze in detail the Harry Potter novels. Here he reflects on the significance of the series as a whole.

Well, July 21st has come and gone and the world is muggling onward. The date, of course, was the publication day of the seventh and final volume of the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The previous six books have been translated into an estimated 66 languages so far, and have sold close to four hundred million copies, a figure that will continue to swell as sales for this consummation of Potterworld continue, and various new editions are released - the boxed sets, the leather bound special editions, the audio books and digital-with-images, et cetera, et cetera. Moreover, the fifth film was released on July 11th, and doubtless two more films (and perhaps spin-off sequels) are to follow. All told, it is the grandest trans-cultural event of epic proportions in the history of mankind, rivaled only by the Bible.

I use the word rivaled with some consideration, not only because of the impact of the series on the modern world, but also because of the worldview it so powerfully implants in its devotees. In short, the series is a kind of anti-Gospel, a dramatized manifesto for behavior and belief embodied by loveable, at times admirable, fictional characters who live out the modern ethos of secular humanism to its maximum parameters.

It is all about us. It is all about the late-Western preoccupations of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, man as knower. More precisely, it is all about Homo Sine Deo, man without God, who, in order to find his identity in a flattened cosmos, must pursue power and knowledge at all costs lest he be blasted into non-being by a killing curse. He feels abandoned, alone, and believes, therefore, that he must rely upon himself - though he will bond, to a degree, with those who assist in the revelation and development of his hidden identity. The stakes are the highest as he seeks this ultimate holy grail, for his mortal life is at radical risk. There will be deaths along the way, plenty of them, and in myriad manifestations.

Lev Grossman, in the July 23, 2007, issue of Time magazine, writes, "If you want to know who dies in Harry Potter, the answer is easy: God." In this he has expressed the core problem with the Potter series. There is much that could be written, and has been written, about the specific problems in the books. Without neglecting the valid point that good fiction need not be overtly Christian, need not be religious at all, we might ponder a little the fact that the central metaphor and plot engines of the series are activities (witchcraft and sorcery) absolutely prohibited by God.

We might also consider for a moment the fact that no sane parents would give their children books which portrayed a set of "good" pimps and prostitutes valiantly fighting a set of "bad" pimps and prostitutes, and using the sexual acts of prostitution as the thrilling dynamic of the story. By the same token we should ask ourselves why we continue to imbibe large doses of poison in our cultural consumption, as if this were reasonable and normal living, as if the presence of a few vegetables floating in a bowl of arsenic soup justifies the long-range negative effects of our diet. Leaving aside a wealth of such arguments, let us consider Lev Grossman's insight.

"The death of God?" many a reader will respond. "Surely he is making too much of the matter! Aren't we discussing a single phenomenon in a vast sea of cultural phenomena? And aren't there a lot of positive values in these books and films - even some edifying moments of courage and sacrifice? And isn't it all about love?" Yes, in a sense it is. But what kind of love? What kind of sacrifice? And for what purpose?

The series is also about the usefulness of hatred and pride, malice toward your real or perceived enemies, seeking and using secret knowledge, lies, cunning, contempt, and sheer good luck in order to defeat whatever threatens you or stands in the path of your desires. It is a cornucopia of other false messages: The end justifies the means. Nothing is as it seems. No one can really be trusted, except those whom you feel comfortable with, who support your aims and make you feel good about yourself. Killing others is justified if you are good and they are bad. Conservative people are bad, anti-magic dogmatists are really bad and deserve whatever punishment they get (hence the delicious retributions against the Dursleys). The ultimate cause of evil is rejection of magic: the arch-villain Voldemort, for example, first went off track when he became a dysfunctional boy abandoned by his anti-magic father.

Then there's the adolescent romance in the atmosphere, a potent element when mixed with magic, usually latent but growing with each volume and culminating in domestic bliss for the central characters at the end of the final volume. Yes, Harry faces near-satanic evils, passes through an unceasing trial of conflict and woe, triumphs against insurmountable odds, saves the world, marries Ginny and brings forth with her a new generation of little witches and wizards. If it were a spoof or satire we might laugh. But it presents itself as very serious stuff, this festival of noxious half-truths and overt falseness, interwoven so conveniently with some positive values, some attractive role-modeling, and the timeless authorial device of an under-dog orphan as the hero/anti-hero of the series. So pleasurable, so thrilling at every turn. So deathly and hollow.

But that is the point, isn't it. If the universe in which we live is not "hallowed" (sacred, holy) but rather hollow and deadly, then we must do what we can to change it, right? There is no God, apparently, so we must be our own gods. If there is no father (as every orphan knows) than we must be our own fathers. A tough job for anyone to do, but with the help of some incredible powers it can be done. And even if there is, after all, something in existence a little more than the material world and this materialist magic, can it be trusted? Definitely not, according to the story. There are hints of other realms in the Potter series, immaterial or metaphysical dimensions devoid of any reference to a higher moral order. But these are window-dressing to the cosmology Rowling establishes.

Throughout the series there is overwhelming evidence that a Gnostic worldview is being slowly but surely presented. In fact, it is a new form of that ancient archipelago of heresies, a neo-gnosticism that borrows remnants of Judeo-Christian symbols and mixes them with cultic concepts of life and afterlife. For example, toward the end of the final volume, Harry's headmaster and mentor, Dumbledore, meets with Harry in a nebulous otherworldly zone, after Dumbledore's death and Harry's pseudo-death, before the latter's mysterious "resurrection." Yet even these and other metaphysical references are merely used to serve the author's real goal, which is the exaltation of the humanist ideal.

Such humanism cannot long survive without a "spirituality" of some kind or other - and what better spirituality for Homo Sine Deo than one which offers the thrills and rewards of the preternatural, without moral accountability to God. One might call this, paradoxically, the religion of secular humanism. In this religion, as in most other religions, the world is gravely threatened and needs its saviour. What, then, is a lovable hero to do in this situation? He must grow up, it goes without saying, and he does so throughout the seven tales by coming into the realization of his inherent semi-divine powers. These are never referred to as god-like powers because that would be a tacit admission of some kind of higher authority, and Potterworld will admit no absolute hierarchy in creation.

J.K. Rowling has stated in one of her interviews that, "My books are largely about death. They open with the death of Harry's parents. There is Voldemort's obsession with conquering death and his quest for immortality at any price, the goal of anyone with magic. I so understand why Voldemort wants to conquer death. We're all frightened by it."

Indeed there are myriad forms of violent death in the seven volumes, usually as the result of battles involving curses, hexes, and potions. The reader loses count of the human characters and other creatures who die in the series, and as far as I can remember none of them die naturally. Potterworld is death's realm, death's sovereignty, and its perpetual reign can be transcended only by using the tools of death.

Throughout the series, death and power are inextricably entwined. Moreover, death is both the ultimate threat and the ultimate solution to problems. For example, in volume six Dumbledore is killed by the evil Severus Snape who works for the arch-villain Voldemort. In volume seven we learn that Snape was a kind of double-agent, secretly loyal to Dumbledore and Harry. It is revealed that Dumbledore had asked Snape to kill him - mercy killing - and their dialogue about it sounds uncannily like justification for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

Finding out who you are is crucial to overcoming death. Gradually you discover by experience, along with dedicated study of arcane forbidden knowledge, that you are more than you think you are; indeed you have a right to the secrets that will reveal you to yourself, and reveal your worth to others. You will be loved, feared, adulated, hated, but you will never be ignored - as long as you have pluck and supportive peers, and the added powers that secrets will give you. Your innate magic powers will be released by increased knowledge and will become mega-magic when exercised. The powers must be used, of course, because there are some really vile enemies out there, and the arch-enemy is after you in a big way, and he has powers too, so it's important that you possess powers as awesome as his, if you want to defeat him. You will struggle and fall and rise again, but in the end you will triumph. You will become the saviour of the world.

Rowling has tapped into the human drama, the story that is as old as the Iliad, but without Homer's deep insights into human motivation; as old as Beowulf, but with the roles confused and the lessons lost; as contemporary as The Lord of the Rings, but without Tolkien's depiction of humility, genuine virtue, and wisdom. She has taken pains to make her tale more complicated than a simplistic bad guy versus good guy scenario, more complicated even that a scenario with the frontier lines of good and evil merely shifted.

Clever and inventive, she has scrambled all the frontiers, interior and exterior, vertical and horizontal, and the only orienting factor is the fate of the dynamic ego of the central character. His is not so much a Nietzscheian "will to power" as it is the will to survive, gradually evolving into the will to identity, with power as a necessary reinforcement of the quest. But she has also made Harry a likeable boy, and a hurting boy. Most young readers will identify.

He is so very much like many young people in our times who are abandoned in one way or another, with shattered families or siblings absent through abortion, or otherwise alone because of contraception and sterilization. They have suffered from various forms of devaluation, neglect, loneliness, and some have been humiliated by bullies (other unhappy children who lack identity and have seized power over weaker children as the only available means of self-affirmation). Check out your local school yard. It's all there - the Harrys and Hermiones, the vicious Draco Malfoys and his gang of sycophants. It's the human condition and it varies little from age to age, culture to culture - wherever man rejects the saving power of grace.

Harry overcomes the multifarious evils that confront him, yet he does so without grace. We find ourselves cheering as he does it, and then go on to either passively accept these books or actively promote them as a path of liberation, a way out of the hurts, the unfairness of life, the negations of worth, the chain-link fences and enclosed compounds that would cruelly limit our beloved children, which is to say all children. Harry knows the way! This cute loser-boy evokes our instinctive compassion for suffering people; as he surmounts all obstacles we see that he's a winner - just as each of us hopes to be in his own life. Yes, Harry is you and me. We love him. And such a perfect actor for the film role! Such a sweet, brave, vulnerable face. A good boy. A nice, nice boy.

In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows we see Harry coming of age. He has matured wonderfully. He has compassion for the weak, chooses to block the fatal curses and knock the wands out of the hands of those trying to kill him and others. This is so much the case that Remus Lupin remonstrates with Harry about it and receives Harry's defensive reply to the effect that killing people is Voldemort's way, not his. He even rescues his old tormentor Draco after he and his gang attack Harry and nearly burn him up with a mishandled Fiendfyre curse.

This new development in Harry's character may be a disappointment to those readers who enjoyed his old vindictive ways, but it also reinforces the position of pro-Potter people who do not see beneath the surface appearance of the characters and plots. As the critic David Haddon points out, "Harry has fulfilled Rowling's stated belief that children are 'innately good', without need of repentance or redemption." They just need to grow up and learn to use their powers "wisely." There is no original sin in Potterworld. Just magic.

And why not, if we are locked in a claustrophobic universe, why not explore the path Harry has shown us? Yearning for the transcendent, as do all human beings, even when they deny it, why should we not be enthralled by preternatural powers offered as the substitute for genuine transcendence? Thralldom, you may recall, is an old English word for enslavement. The slave in his chains may dream and fantasize about freedom, but the fantasy does not make his chains disappear. Like the slaves of old, the enthralled of our times are left with whatever pleasures they can seize within the limited dimensions of their lives, and this usually means fugitive and secret pleasures - as the pagan realms of the past abundantly proved.

Those in thrall to Potterworld may, for a while, be pleasured and distracted from their real condition by the orgy of sensations, by stimulated affections and the rush of adrenaline, by blood and gore and fright and lore, by fabulous imagery and ingenious invention. But take note that throughout the very complex web of plots and subplots the traditional symbols of Western civilization are simultaneously used and misused, are mutated, hybridized, contradicted and even at times inverted - because in this "fantasy" world, nothing is as it seems nor is it reliable, and even the architecture of thought slips and slides, leading us wherever the whims of the author wish to take us. A poor story-teller would not get away with this for a minute. But Rowling is a talented story-teller, and the massive symphonic effect of her dissolution of civilization's basic principles is justified by many because she has entertained us and because, well, "it's all about love."

Genuine freedom is possible only where there is genuine love. And genuine love is not possible without truth. As Tolkien once pointed out in his essay on fantasy literature, the writer who hopes to feed the imagination in a healthy way must remain faithful to the moral order of the real universe, regardless of how fantastic the details of the fictional world may be. The Natural Law which God has written into our beings cannot be entirely eradicated, but it can be gravely deformed, leading to distortion of consciousness and conscience, and hence our actions.

Healthy fiction, no matter how wildly it may depart from the material order, teaches us to love ourselves in a wholesome manner, by loving our neighbor. Indeed, even by loving our enemies - at least by trying to learn to love them, and by believing that it is right to do so. With grace this is possible. But selective love (coupled with selective hatred) does not lead to freedom. It is the feelings of love without the substance of love, the feelings of freedom without the foundations of freedom.

If God is the absent father - or the father who perhaps never existed - the hero and his readers are left only with such emotions, their hooked loyalties, their love of the self's insatiable appetites, which they feel cannot be denied without a killing curse of self-annihilation. That is why so many people cling fiercely to the "values" in the Potter books while ignoring the interwoven undermining of those very values. That is why the defenders of Potterworld exhibit such adamancy, frequently outrage, against critics. According to their perceptions, the critics of Potterworld are the enemies of freedom and identity.

Just as the rhetoric about freedom and democracy increases as the real thing declines, so too the rhetoric about "values" increases as the more real thing - that is, truth and virtue - declines. What will it take to awaken the dreaming slave from his delusion?

* * *

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Pope Opposes Harry Potter Novels - Signed Letters from Cardinal Ratzinger Now Online
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05071301.html

Other articles by Michael D. O'Brien on the Harry Potter series:

Pope Benedict and Harry Potter
http://studiobrien.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&...

Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
http://studiobrien.com/site/index.php?option=content&tas...

Why Harry Potter Goes Awry: an interview with Zenit News Agency
http://studiobrien.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&...

The Potter Controversy: or Why That Boy Sorcerer Just Won't Go Away
http://studiobrien.com/site/index.php?option=content&tas...

Harry versus Frodo
http://studiobrien.com/site/index.php?option=content&tas...

Interview With Catholic World Report: Special Tolkien Issue
http://studiobrien.com/site/index.php?option=content&tas...

The War For Our Children's Souls
http://studiobrien.com/site/index.php?option=content&tas...

Here are a few words of Jesus Christ that could be used to describe some members of the so-called religious right, those who set themselves, instead of Christ, as the arbiters of piety and the judges of the hearts of other human beings:

“All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteris and lengthen their tassels. They love place of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation, ‘Rabbi.’

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay tithes of mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity...on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.”

Jesus reserved his harshest words for the religious establishment of his day, and partied with common people. He taught us to love and to be very careful in judging others. He told us that we are be forgiven by God in the same measure that we forgive others.

Back to the gist of this thread—I think those religious leaders who have been so quick to judge Rowling and to assume they knew her heart, her character and her intentions in the writing of her books owe her a big, and I do mean big, apology. Not that I’m holding my breath.

What did Jesus talk about?

Though I'm sure you already know what Jesus talked about, we can go through it if you'd like.

The context of the Gospels often seems to depend on the tension between Jesus and the Pharisees, whose concern for rules and forms caused them to miss the real point of God's message. Jesus tried again and again to set them straight ... Confess and repent. Love God and your neighbor. Care for the poor, widows, and orphans. Become "obedient to death even death on a cross!"

The author of this wretched screed sounds exactly like a Pharisee. "Yeah," he seems to say, "all of Rowling's good guys exhibit the Christian virtues of love, self-sacrifice, servanthood, care for the opressed, etc. And all of her bad guys are servants of evil. BUT...."

And with that begins the rant above, which more than anything else shows O'Brien is more beholden to his theology than in reading the message Rowling is really sending.

O'Brien seems to have forgotten this little nugget:

Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you." (Luke 9:49-50)

You're equating Christians who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, who believe that Jesus is God and who believe in His atoning death as payment for our sins, to the Pharisees? Are you aware of what the Pharisees were? The Pharisees were nothing more than "religous" leaders who denied that Jesus was God and who participated in His crucifixion.

You'd have to give me a specific example of the "hypocrisy" of the "religous right" to make your "analogy" stick. To make a credible comparison to the Pharisees, you'd have to give me a specific incident of someone you consider to be part of the "religious right" denying the deity of Christ, telling people to disregard His commandments, and instructing people to deny Him as Savior.

Make sure you get examples from the actual "religious right". Of course, that could be difficult, as the "religious right" appears to be anyone who dares to be critical of secular fads and popular culture.

Get back to me with credible examples of the "religious right" behaving like real Pharisees, and we'll talk.

Though I'm sure you already know what Jesus talked about, we can go through it if you'd like.

Absolutely. Lets go through it.

John 15:18-23

18 "If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also.

Matthew 10:34

34 Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

Matthew 5:13-16

13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. 14 You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

2 Timothy 4:2-5

2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Mark 16:15

15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

So, as we can see from the previous Scripture, Jesus said that those who believe in Him and follow Him would be hated, He repeatedly commanded those who know Him to be the salt of the earth, to preach the gospel to the world, to keep telling people about Him and what He did on the cross even when they don't want to hear it, and He said that He came to "bring a sword", not peace. While He commands individuals to love their enemies, to care for the poor, etc., by no stretch of the imagination does that mean that Christians are to remain silent in the face of that which could be seen as another skirmish in the culture war.

So if there are people, including JK Rowling, who get offended by the fact that some Christians criticize her work based on their Scriptual beliefs, rest assured that Jesus said that that kind of thing would happen and it comes as no surprise when those who call themselves "Christians" lash out at those who have the gall to present an opinion that calls into question the aforementioned claim of "Christianity."

The fact that Ms. Rowling referred to her critics as the "religious right" reveals much more about her than it does about those for whom she holds so much contempt. It's quite revealing, actually.

The fact that Ms. Rowling referred to her critics as the "religious right" reveals much more about her than it does about those for whom she holds so much contempt. It's quite revealing, actually.

She referred to them as "the religious right," because the people who object to Harry Potter on relgious grounds seem almost always to come from exactly that group.

I will speak for myself, rather than Ms. Rowling, when I say that those like Mr. O'Brien, who fits neatly within characteristics of "the religious right," often seem closer to Pharisees than they do to the "hated ones" of whom Jesus spoke.

And yet, an honest reading of the HP books yields a much different conclusion to that propounded by Mr. O'Brien. He is so clearly wedded to his own opinion that Rowling is some sort of humanist or Gnostic, that he utterly fails to notice the almost blatant Christian symbolism, especially in the final book.

So, yeah, "religious right" applies to O'Brien, and his pretty ignorant screed serves to justify Rowling's commentary on them.

You have a very convenient description of Pharisees which is, unfortunately, inaccurate.

Jesus's argument with the Pharisees is neatly summed up in passages like this one:

And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

"'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! (Mark 7:6-9)

While it is true that the Pharisees rejected Jesus, their abiding sin was not their rejection, but rather why they rejected Him. They placed their own rules, pride, and position ahead of God's commandments. That they rejected Jesus in favor of their laws, was a consequence of their pridefulness. Hence, we have those many places where Jesus plays them off against God: "You say ...; But I say...."

To any honest reader of the series, O'Brien's characterization of the HP books is rather obviously skewed and inaccurate. Somehow he fails to see that the overall message of the HP books is in excellent agreement with what Christ Himself taught; and Rowling's heroes fight against enemies who personify the sins of man and devil alike. It is clear that O'Brien cares more about theological correctness (the tradition of men), than he does about what the books really say.

The "HP is against God" argument usually centers around the presence of witchcraft and sorcery in the books. The usual tactic is to drag out the Scriptural references to witchraft, rub them in our noses, and then stalk away. And in fact that's what O'Brien does here -- and in so doing, misses the message of the books. It reminds me of what Jesus told the Pharisees: You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. (John 7:39-40)

No, HP is not Scripture, and we shouldn't lightly dismiss what Scripture says about witchraft. But at the same time, we shouldn't use a few passages, selectively chosen and interpreted, to reject a series of books, the whole central message of which reflect's Christ's teaching. To do so, is to fail in the same way the Pharisees did.

Nice try, but you’ll note in my post I was speaking specifically about SOME members of the religious right, those who set themselves up as judge and jury for the rest of us. They are modern-day Pharisees, attending to the letter of the law while ignoring its substance. By no means was I describing all Christians. In fact, I wasn’t describing any true Christians, because true Christians view others through a lens of love. They judge cautiously, with an eye toward correction rather than punishment. They give others the benefit of the doubt.

I am a devout Christian and a conservative Republican. I would be considered by most anybody to be a member of the “religious right,” although I, like others, dislike the phrase because of the bad reputation given us by some of our more vocal self-proclaimed leaders.

Those I was specifically referring to are those who have been so quick to judge Rowling and her books, many without even reading the books or taking any time to discern their content. I homeschool my children, and since I travel in conservative Christian circles, I have met more than my share of uptight, self-righteous, holier-than-thou prigs who need desperately to emulate their Savior by loving more and judging less.

Which of God's commandments did Mr. O'Brien violate in criticizing the Harry Potter books?

At any rate, my description of the Pharisees was not inaccurate; the Scripture you posted confirms my description. As men who rejected Jesus as God, and participated in His death, they cannot possibly be equated with Mr. O'Brien, who merely published an opinion of a work of fiction. I see no hypocrisy in what he wrote at all.

And finally, I have read books one through five of the Harry Potter series, and to be honest, I see no reflection in them of anything Jesus said or taught. That is not to say that the books were not enjoyable; they were. But while you are disparaging Mr. O'Brien for what he wrote, you do the same thing in reverse when you atttempt to tie what is in the Harry Potter books with the commandments and teachings of Jesus.

The concept of good prevailing over evil has been used in stories for millenia. Rarely have any of the stories mentioned anything about man's fallen condition, his impending fate of eternal damnation apart from Jesus Christ, and the fact of one Savior, God in the flesh, Jesus Christ, being the only hope of mankind to escape the eternal judgment of God. That is the dominating reason for Jesus' time on earth, and there is no similarities whatsoever between the Harry Potter books and what Christ did for mankind on the Cross.

Those I was specifically referring to are those who have been so quick to judge Rowling and her books...

So when you refuse to allow your children to view a certain program on television, are you being judgmental and like the Pharisees in that your opinion is that the program is unsuitable for your children? Are you being hypocritical is acertaining that the contents of the program are not suitable for your children? Why do you get to have your opinion but those who disagree with you with regard to the Harry Potter books do not?

Why is mere criticism of these books by people, who, after all, are entitled to their opinion, considered blasphemy? Are the Harry Potter books some sort of sacred screed? Some sort of new books of the Bible?

Why are so many who call themselves "Christian" threatened by the opinions of other Christians? If the Harry Potter books are so Scripture-like, the way some on this thread have claimed, then the books will stand on their own merit, and will withstand criticism, without "Christians" slamming and ripping to shreds other Chistians who have the perfect right to critique the books according to their understanding of Scripure.

It just shouldn't be a problem.

Which of God's commandments did Mr. O'Brien violate in criticizing the Harry Potter books?

The same one as the Pharisees: he clearly cares more for his theology (a tradition of men), than he cares for the underlying and very Christian message of the books.

As men who rejected Jesus as God, and participated in His death, they cannot possibly be equated with Mr. O'Brien, who merely published an opinion of a work of fiction. I see no hypocrisy in what he wrote at all.

Oh, come now. Mr. O'Brien did not "merely publish an opinion." He wrote this (and several other) screeds on why Christians should not read the books. If he is going to speak as an arbiter of Christian reading habits, his opinions should judged by the same criteria, don't you think?

And finally, I have read books one through five of the Harry Potter series, and to be honest, I see no reflection in them of anything Jesus said or taught.

Other, you mean, than love, self-sacrifice, care for the oppressed, opposition to wickedness, and things like that.... Aside from those teachings of Jesus, you mean? And your really need to read the final two books -- especially the last one. It will give you a perspective on the books that will help you to see where Rowling was headed the entire time.

That [man's fallen condition, etc.] is the dominating reason for Jesus' time on earth, and there is no similarities whatsoever between the Harry Potter books and what Christ did for mankind on the Cross.

And you see nothing about fallenness in the HP characters? And nothing about redemption, and the need of same. You're kidding, right?

The same one as the Pharisees: he clearly cares more for his theology (a tradition of men), than he cares for the underlying and very Christian message of the books.

I re-read the article and saw no theology but a lot of opinion, most of which Mr. O'Brien backs up with examples. When Mr. O'Brien says, for example, "Without neglecting the valid point that good fiction need not be overtly Christian, need not be religious at all, we might ponder a little the fact that the central metaphor and plot engines of the series are activities (witchcraft and sorcery) absolutely prohibited by God.", that is not a "theology of men", but absolute truth from the Word of God.

Mr. O'Brien's statement: "Such humanism cannot long survive without a "spirituality" of some kind or other - and what better spirituality for Homo Sine Deo than one which offers the thrills and rewards of the preternatural, without moral accountability to God" nails perfectly the fact that there is no mention of God in any of the books, and no "higher power" to which the characters have to answer. So far, I see no "theology of men" in the article, but a few unfortunate facts about the books.

It's a matter of perception as to whether Mr. O'Brien should be taken seriously or not. I am a Christian and Mr. O'Brien is not an arbiter of what I read; I choose for myself what I read. I am not threatened by Mr. O'Brien's opinion, and anyone who is has bigger issues than Mr. O'Brien's critical article about the Harry Potter series. It's my opinon that pornography that degrades and dehumanizes women should not exist; that is my opinion. Is that going to matter to anyone? Does the fact that I have an opinion make me an "arbiter" of what other people look at? Are people who read pornography threatened by my opinion? Does anyone care? Why the uproar over Mr. O'Brien's opinion?

Wiccans will profess to love, believe in self-sacrifice, will contribute to charities dedicated to caring for the poor, and sincerely consider themselves "opposed to wickedness". It's easy to be in favor of all those things- it's one of the easiest things on earth. Where in the books are the Christ-proclaimed truths of unregenerate man spending eternity banished from God, where in the books are the Christ-proclaimed truth that man is unable to save himself, where in the books is reflected the Chist-proclaimed truth that man must die to himself if he is to be Christ-like? Those truths, given to us by God, do not exist in the books. To get right down to it, the Harry Potter books are simply about some kids who are witches relying on their own wisdom, their own abilities, and their own supernatural powers to defeat other witches around them. The books in no way, shape, or form are anything remotely akin to the Holy Scriptures.

And you see nothing about fallenness in the HP characters? And nothing about redemption, and the need of same. You're kidding, right?

Who was the sinless, blameless, perfect character who represented God in the Harry Potter books? At what point does that character tell the others if they die without believing in his or her atoning death on a cross they will spend eternity apart from God?

There is "fallenness" in the books, but the fallen characters save themselves. They attend a "school for witches and witchcraft" to quote Ms. Rowling, they have to contend with witches who have embraced the actual occult instead of skating on the edge of it, and none of the fallen characters, including the "good" witches Harry, Herminone, and Ron, turn to any kind of Christ-like character to save them. They are responsible for their own salvation, and in the end, do not need anyone but themselves to save them. That, tragically, is the message in the books and it bears no resemblance at all to Biblical Christianity.

Literary criticism is perfectly acceptable. Literary criticism from a religious viewpoint is perfectly acceptable. Literary insanity and hyperbole to the nth degree is not. The author of this piece asserts, among other things, that Rowling has “killed God.” I don’t know about his god, but my God is much stronger than any fictional boy wizard.

O’Brien does much harm to his cause, indeed to all Christians’ common cause, which is attracting non-believers to our faith, by his ill-informed, over-the-top hyperventilating. He appears in this article to be exactly the sort of wild-eyed ignorant fanatic that the left believes all Christians to be. Way to perpetuate an unfair stereotype, O’Brien.

I’m not threatened by the informed opinions of other Christians. I am disgusted by the uninformed opinions of those who seek to deride without discernment. Since HP has been wildly successful and Rowling is rich beyond the dreams of avarice, it would appear that the strident accusations of the self-appointed Christian opinion makers hold little sway with the general public.

Is O’Brien entitled to his opinion? Of course, as are all the HP naysayers. And I’m equally entitled to wish they’d get a grip and stop making themselves and other Christians look ridiculous.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.