Gandalf vs. Potter: The Use of Magic in Literature
In this Ask Doug clip, author ND Wilson and Pastor Douglas Wilson interact on the issue of magic in literature and the biblical lens through which we should view a world of “magical” happenings. View the video (8:06) 
All this in response to the Ask Doug question: “I grew up in a home where we were not allowed to watch movies or read books that contained any type of magic or witchcraft in them. This extended from “Mary Poppins” to “Beauty and The Beast” to “The Chronicles of Narnia.” The argument was that if power does not come from God, it comes from the devil. Therefore, if things were happening in a narrative that were supernatural, and yet God did not receive the credit for them, it was banned.
Now I’m a mom and although I understand my parents’ argument on this topic, I am curious what the opposing argument is. Many godly friends that I respect not only allow their children to view/read magical narratives, but actually encourage it. What are your thoughts on this issue? Should we or shouldn’t we allow “Cinderella” in our movie collection? Is there a difference between the magic we see in “Cinderella” versus what is portrayed in “Harry Potter”?”
I don’t quite agree with Pastor Wilson on this one for the following two reasons:
1) My understanding of Biblical instances of magic is more along the lines of CS Lewis’ explanation of them in Miracles – that is – that they were intentional “breaking of the laws of nature” which God allowed for the purpose of exhibiting his glory (and also for bringing about certain worldly ends – ie, fall of Jericho, feeding mana to the people, etc).
So I don’t see it as the same use of power as, say, the Egyptian wizards creating snakes – I understand their power to be more of a “deal with the devil” type of arrangement. Likewise “pharmakia” is (to some degree) using smoke, fire, and herbs to bring about different states of reality – whether marijuana (which should be avoided) or aspirin (which is probably ‘ok’) this power seems to be different than, say, Jesus healing the blind man.
So in conclusion I don’t think that Biblical miracles are “magic” – they are appealing to God for intervention, and him intervening for exhibition of his own glory. This is different than “necromancers, diviners, observers of times and seasons”.
2) I am not familiar with Pastor Wilson’s entire view of the Harry Potter series, but I don’t think that this series is an example of the “bad” use of magic. In Harry Potter, Magic is just an extension of the person’s own inherent ability which some have and some do not. The magical people develop and hone these abilities over time. I see this as similar to Gandalf who, as a lesser spirit, is gifted with certain talents.
Also in Harry Potter there are good and bad uses and types of magic; Harry and his friends don’t use the “bad” spells for mind control, torture, killing, etc. which are employed by the “dark wizards” who they are constantly fighting against.
Finally, though magic in Harry Potter is used to “control” the natural world, that world is still fundamentally the same as ours but uses magic for literary purposes so that the author can appeal to the fantastic. For example – people still have ‘jobs’ in the magical world – they still cook, clean, eat, drink – they do all of the normal things of life. They employ magic to do these things but all actions still take time and you have basically the same societal problems of good vs. evil, of existential dilemmas, racial tensions, etc. People get “magical injuries” and have to go to the “magical hospital” to be cured by the “magical doctor” – again – just a fun literary device, not an endorsement of “bad magical values”.
Thank you for the continuing excellent interviews w/ Pastor Wilson. I would be greatly interested to hear your response to these points.
God Bless,
ajm
Overall, a good summary of “Christian” magic. I’m glad Rev. Wilson and N.D. didn’t get into the Potter series except as a brief aside, because the Potter novels support their view of “Christian” magic and not at all the sort of sorcery he cautions against. In fact, the seventh Potter book is precisely the sort of magical anti-magic tract Rev. Wilson says LOTR is. Harry has to voluntarily lay down that “power over people” magic and triumph through not seizing the “forbidden fruit” essentially. Lots of people have made the strong connection between the Ring and the Hallows on that point.
@ Aaron
Volume 14 issue 2 of Credenda/Agenda has two great articles on Harry Potter and articles on fantasy and magic that should answer your question about Pastor Wilson’s view of the HP series. Here’s the link to the Credenda archives:
http://credenda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=133
Just an “amen” for AdamR’s comment about Harry Potter. His words closely reflect the way my daughter and I were talking to one another as we watched Doug and Nate discuss, before we read the comments.
I was fairly disappointed in Pastor Wilson’s answers here. Calling miracles “magic” and then making a distinction between good and bad magic is like calling the book of Song of Solomon pornography and then saying it depends on the purpose of the “pornography” as to whether its bad or not. And I understand that he agrees that Scripture wouldn’t call what Jesus did magic, but at the same time you have to ask why Pastor Wilson would muddle the water by perpetuating the confusion.
Regarding some of his opening statements, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t read books with magic in them on Biblical grounds who then refuses to read Genesis and Matthew on the same grounds.
I grew up reading Lewis, I still love some of his books, but more and more I’m uncomfortable with his reaching over to mythology to convey Christian concepts. Read Augustine. The Greek and Roman gods are demons. The centaurs Oreius and Cloudbirth are demons. Mr. Tumnus was a demon of lust, and I don’t think “redeeming” him sends the right message.
Pastor Wilson is rightly upset about Ms Meyer’s “good” vampires. I wish he’d be more bothered by Lewis’ Christian demons.
This isn’t right, I think. To label Christian miracles ‘good magic’ is to make havoc of godly distinctions. The power of magic is fetched from another place than the power of miracles. Christians are not simply good little witches. I do not believe any Christian from the past would recognise this new understanding.
The better answer is not to – absurdly – make Gandalf equivalent to an apostle, but to simply remind the viewer that fiction is fiction; Christ’s stories contained evil, too; the measure of acceptability is what the story does with it.
Re: Potter. In the first book Dumbledore explains the power of love and sacrifice and denounces the quest for power. The magical world is simply a construct to reveal messages regarding sacrifice, love, family, courage, friendship and reconciliation triumphing over alienation. Rowling, in an interview in Time just after the release of Deathly Hallows, stated she used CS Lewis as her model to convey these Christian messages through literature. She didn’t want to be overtly Christian in the first six books but it all comes out in the Deathly Hallows even to the point where she quotes scripture directly in the context of Resurrection–”oh death where is thy sting?” when Harry comes back to life.
Alan Jacobs in his book, The Narnian, details how Lewis fought “chronological snobbery” vis-a-vis promoting the virtue of bravery in the face of modern timidity. Rowlings is doing the same thing.
Gandalf does use an “open sesame” at the gates of Moria. He is trying to figure out the magic words. and it is no big deal–it’s within the construct of the world similar to the magic in Potter.. Also, if he did mix a magic potion I don’t see the problem. Sam is given magic rope, they are given a magical healing elixir–star in a jar–, the “good” Elves forge magical weapons etc. Some of the points made in the video are not holding.
The interesting thing about Harry Potter is that almost all of the magic there is used as a replacement for technology. They don’t have guns, they shoot wands. So their guns are stun guns or slugs in your mouth guns, but it’s just a different technology. They don’t use airplanes, they grab a special object and it moves them there, etc. There may be something I’m missing – I’m no HP expert – but I think that is the general theme.
The magic that involves taking over people’s bodies, splitting your soul, is all considered evil in that world.
So perhaps we should be as wary as technology as we are of magic?
Good point! Not all the magic in HP to be sure but the juxtaposition regarding how muggles use technology and how it is used in the wizarding world is a strong theme particularly with Arthur Weasley–a great father and husband. Also, I love the contrast between the Weasleys and the Malfoys. The Weasleys are a large messy family with lots of love, feasting and tradition and the uptight Malfoys have Draco, the only-child tormented spoiled brat.
In my younger days I was wont to read a great deal of “science fiction”. One of my favorite authors was Robert A. Heinlein (who was pretty much an anti-Christian, if not an outright anti-Christ). One of his books had a quote that went something like this: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” I think a lot of the disagreements in these comments has to do with the commentators’ various wide and narrow definitions of “magic”. Just my two cents.
If “manipulation for the sake of imposing on other people” is evil magic and the opposite is not, then Harry Potter actually fits right in line with “proper” Christian thinking. In HP, Voldemort is trying to acquire as much power as he can to control the entire magical world, and to control even death. When he takes over the Ministry of Magic, the magical world’s political authority, the new propaganda theme becomes “Magic is Might”. The Death Eaters, Voldemort’s followers, are the racists, bigots, dictators of the story–they despise anyone they do not consider pure and they will impose this vision on the magical society. On the other hand, Harry and company fellowship with all kind of peoples, do not desire power to manipulate, and oddly enough, the climaxes of the stories usually do not come about with a “magical” victory of power over power, but usually depend on ordinary human virtues like bravery and moral courage.
It sounds like Doug and N.D. are leaning heavily on Tolkien’s definition of magic. Tolkien, in his letters, discusses what he “means” by magic in Lord of the Rings, and makes it clear that what the good guys do and what the bad guys do is not simply a difference in degree “white magic vs. dark magic” but are radically different things. The good guys create, protect, and beautify. Tolkien says this should properly be called art (or subcreation, as an author might do) rather than magic (and Galadriel in LOTR expresses her own dismay that the hobbits call what the elves do magic). What the bad guys do is seek to control and dominate the world around them, which applies to the industrialism of Saruman as much as any incantations of a witch. Tolkien recognizes a problem with the ambiguous use of the term magic for what the good and bad guys do, but says that all human fairy tales and stories have been plagued by the same ambiguity.
This idea (good magic = creation, bad magic = domination and control) also fits perfectly with the magic in Harry Potter as Chris points out above.
This was interesting but unsatisfying. Comparing magic to spears or nuclear weapons – things that aren’t inherently evil but rather tools that can be used for good or evil – misses what most people object to, namely, the question of where the power is coming from. This comparison is treating magic like technology, which despite the occaisional visual similarity, can not be equated. Somebody from the Bunna in Ethiopia may look at my TV and think it is demon possesed because a tiny man is dancing on the screen, but the fact of the matter is, it isn’t. Likewise, I could justify Harry Potter’s wand’s power by saying it is just some sort of advanced technology, but I’d bet my right hand that wasn’t the author’s intention – everybody who reads fantasy knows that. That’s the difference between fantasy and scifi – your assumptions about where power comes from when you read it. In fantasy, the source is super natural. What most people object to about magic isn’t its use, but the source of supernatural power. When this is the question the answer no longer has to do with intentions, we are told this in scripture (testing of spirits, letters of John). If it doesn’t say “Christ came in the flesh” then it’s of the enemy. If there is no neutral supernatural power, then which side am I supposed to assume Harry’s powers are coming from?
Hello, it’s me, the gal who asked the original question.
Thank you very much for your response Pastor Wilson. You’ve given me much to think about. As I’ve continued pondering this issue and discussing it with my husband, a few thoughts keep coming to mind…
If the definition of magic is “anything that is supernatural,” then of course, I rejoice in the magic of Christ walking on water, healing the blind man, etc., because I know Who the source of that magic is. Likewise, I hate the magic of the pharaoh’s servants, because I know that our enemy was it’s source.
So the question I have to grapple with is “Who is the source of the magic I see in the tales of fantasy I’m considering for my children?” How is this determined? By the author’s intent? Whether or not the moral or “fruit” of the story is good? What about the issue of our enemy disguising himself as an angel of light?
Or am I completely off-base with the thought that all things supernatural are either caused by God’s power or Satan’s power, and it therefore is important to determine who source of magic is?
By the way, my family and I have been so blessed by your sermons that are posted on this website. We are very grateful for your ministry! Thank you.
Sorry…I meant to say “who THE source of magic is.”
Hm, I’d have to say I do disagree with the conclusion drawn by Pastor Wilson. Although right in many ways, I think part of Churchill’s response is correct. I don’t think it to be accurate to equate the miracles of the Bible with magic, unless of course Pastor Wilson defines magic by other terms than what modern day civilization deems magic, let alone the definition wrought throughout centuries past.
Reading a story with murder in it isn’t murder. Any kind of magic in literature isn’t magic, it’s literature.The Bible is opposed to people channeling demons, not reading fantasy books about channeling demons. It may be unwise, but it isn’t what the anti-magic passages are about. Distinguishing purposes of magic and all that strikes me as specious.