Comments on: Gandalf vs. Potter: The Use of Magic in Literature

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 26 May 2011 06:07:07 +0000

I’d add an observation which can be taken as you like. As someone who has been in both publishing and worked with children for a long time, regardless of what you call it, few things have encouraged a fascination with magic, witchcraft, and the occult among younger and younger people than the Harry Potter books and others like them. Personally, I generally enjoy the stories and have the freedom in Christ as an adult to read/watch them or not (and guide my children as I see fit). But more and more I see pre-teens as young as 5 or 6 years old become increasingly fascinated with wizards, witches, and all that stuff and they simply don’t have the wisdom or experience to discern most of what we are talking about here. That said, most of the parents don’t seem to either. That all means something. We can debate the finer philosophical points all we want, but let’s not do it at the expense of ignoring some of the negative influences these things may have on some people. We may have messed around with the ouija board, but many kids are “playing” with far worse today and developing unhealthy addictions or even seemingly benign sensitivities to such things, which can be even worse. (forgive any typos. I’m on the auto correcting iPad)

By: Ask Doug: Magic in Literature (part 2) — CanonWired

Ask Doug: Magic in Literature (part 2) — CanonWired — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:55:50 +0000

[...] and quite a few follow-up questions. If you haven’t viewed the first segment, you can find it here. In this follow-up segment, Doug and N.D. respond to some of the comments and questions that the [...]

By: Weston

Weston — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:16:21 +0000

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.

By: Skylar Hartman

Skylar Hartman — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:49:24 +0000

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.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:22:42 +0000

Sorry…I meant to say “who THE source of magic is.”

By: Jessica

Jessica — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:20:55 +0000

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.

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:45:38 +0000

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?

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:49:53 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 03:54:34 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:01:40 +0000

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.