There has been much controversy surrounding the Harry Potter books. Harry Potter is a series of books about a young boy who attends an enchanted school of wizardry in Scotland. These books, four so far, have been on the very top of the New York times bestseller list every time they come out. They have also caused many kids who previously hated to read to eagerly devour the 400-700 page books.

Some Christians are suspicious of these books because they are mostly set at a school that is called Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry (whose motto is draco dormiens nunquam titillandus which is Latin for never tickle a sleeping dragon) which has caused some to believe that the books are filled with the occult and Wiccan beliefs. This argument has been waged ever since the first two books were published in 1997. Two books on the issue are Harry Potter and the Bible by Richard Abanes published in 2001 (and available at our friendly Family Christian Bookstore) and What's a Christian to do With Harry Potter? by Connie Neal also published in 2001. Both of these authors are Christians who have written for publications like Christianity Today and Today’s Christian Woman.

Neal has written What's a Christian to do With Harry Potter? because she herself seemed to be unwittingly dragged into the debate. She and her family enjoy the books, tempered with a good bit of parental guidance. Nonetheless, she was surprised at the angst that her position seemed to stir up among fellow Christians. This book presents both sides of the issues fairly, and in some ways uncompromisingly agrees with both. In the first 60 pages she plainly outlines the popularity of the books, what both sides of the controversy are saying, what the books are about, and whether or not they are simply fantasy literature.

Neal relates the way that our first impressions of something, as illustrated by the Boring figure, a type of Rorschach ink blot, effects the way we view it. People who have been warned that the books are full of witchcraft and strange demonic impish creatures (Dobby) will undoubtedly find just that when they read it. On the other hand, people who have the viewpoint that Harry Potter is children's fantasy literature will find no witchcraft and think Dobby is nothing more than a very funny elf-creature of Rowling's imagination. Neal, quoting Lewis, says that to superimpose any outside meaning upon the intrinsic meaning given in the story is to distort the author's meaning. One can only call Dobby demonic if one looks up the word elf in an occultist dictionary and see that elves are spirit-creatures who are unclean, then connect these unclean spirits to demons, then connect these demons back to Dobby, which is rather unfair to the mischievous Yoda-looking house servant. This also makes even Santa Clause and Keebler crackers dangerous. Ultimately, it results in the fact that both sides of the debate take words to mean entirely different things, making the entire vocabulary of the argument pointless.

Her main message on this subject is that the arguments over Harry Potter have not only become rather ridiculous on both sides, but it is also tearing apart the Christian community. Of course, almost any issue tends to do that, but with an issue as popular as Harry Potter the sheer numbers involved makes it dangerous. Her advice is to follow Paul in 1 Cor. 8-10 and Rom. 14-15. For her Harry Potter is right up there with meat sacrificed to idols. It's okay for some Christians but it is not okay for others and these two sides should not fight over whether or not it is right or wrong.

In general, Neal believes that the Harry Potter books are only as dangerous as the readers make them. She does believe that they have the possibility to make unhappy and maladjusted children seek out the occult. However, the books can be very safe and enjoyable to children whose parents take the time to read the books with them and explain what the Bible says about these things in real life. She includes chapters that are geared specifically to be read to children to explain what the Bible says and that witchcraft is not something to be pursued. These chapters can be extremely helpful, especially for children who have a hard time understanding that fiction is not reality. However, Neal fails to mention that her advice is far greater than just Harry Potter, almost every book in the world is dangerous to just about anyone.

Abanes has written Harry Potter and the Bible specifically to outline the ways Harry Potter is evil, why it should not be confused with LOTR or Chronicles of Narnia, and the ways today's church is slowly slipping into occultism. The back cover promises that this book will "help you make wise choices" and tell "why God says 'no' to occultism." The latter is simple enough, although Abanes never actually gets around to it, and the former is thwarted with the subtitle on the front cover The Menace Behind the Magick. With putting a "k" on the end of magic, which he continues to do throughout the entire book when he is referring to Harry Potter, he has immediately placed the Harry Potter books in the realm of the occult from page 1 and never really explains why. He attempts to say that this is because "magic" is limited to the performance of stage magicians and "magick" is the proper word for everything else. Not only is this inconsistent with the way "magic" is used in literature but he also never uses "magick" when referring to LOTR or Narnia. In this he perfectly illustrates Neal's example of how a presupposition can effect a viewpoint.

In Part 1 of the book he seems to have done his homework. Each chapter is a synopsis of each of the four books, followed by a critique on their magic(k), ethics, and age appropriateness. The synopsis's are accurate, even if Abanes did rename the books things like "Sorcery in a Stone" and "Goblet of Death." The critiques however are muddled. Somewhere Abanes got the idea that the books are for age 6 and up, which is completely untrue (the back of the American books classify them as Intermediate Fiction), and documents the places where the books are much too scary for a six year old, which is true and the reason why the movies are rated PG.

When it comes to examining ethical issues Abanes becomes confusing, putting events that happened in one book in a chapter that deals with a different book. He also does much speculation on what evil things will show up in upcoming books. Somewhere along the way he decides that because Harry lies and breaks school rules that Harry is an evil character and the books are not really about a triumph of good over evil but is actually the clever triumph of one evil over another evil. Connie Neal addresses this issue in her book by quoting Mark 2:23-28 and concludes that a person must follow a set of higher principles rather than a set of rules. Usually Harry breaks school rules for two reason. One is to keep the evil Voldemort from regaining his power, which seems like it would have the same effect on the world as Hitler coming back to life. The second is to save someone's life. I believe it can be agreed that these principles are more compelling than a school rule that says "no magic in the corridors." Abanes seems to believe that school rules like "no student out of bed after hours" should be followed no matter what, even if following them means letting friends die and allowing evil to be unleashed on the world.

Abanes also likes to point out that almost none of the characters are perfect role models. Good characters like Fred and George steal toilet seats and gamble (my 12 year old sister pointed out that this shows that those who gamble don't get anything in return), Hagrid drinks too much, and Snape has uncertain loyalties. Some of these good characters sometimes swear. Although in his critique he is inconsistent with other literature. Abanes defends LOTR because the good characters are never secretly bad (except for Saruman and Denethor of course) and the characters do not know that they are using magic but they do know that they follow Eru (who is only mentioned once on the trilogy). His defense of Narnia seems to be based solely on the fact that Narnia is a Christian allegory and the characters in Harry Potter are not perfect. He also states that the magic in LOTR and Narnia is not confusing to children because, unlike Harry Potter, they take place in a separate reality. I wonder how he figures this since Narnia suggest that there are fairies in this world and walking through a magic wardrobe is a little more believable than walking through a solid brick wall. I also wonder how Abanes would view The Hobbit where a wizard sends an unsuspecting hobbit on an unwanted adventure who then steals a valuable ring from an unarmed creature who then uses this ring to lead his comrades in a prison break past some "good" but very drunk elves who then nearly start a war trying to keep a hoard of treasure to themselves and then the hobbit goes home to realize that he is misunderstood by his neighbors and that his whole adventure was a fulfillment of prophecy. Of course, to anyone who has seriously read The Hobbit will find that synopsis to be selective and unfair, but anyone who has seriously read Harry Potter will find that this is exactly what Abanes has done. Neal addresses this issue well in her book and makes interesting work of Narnia, showing how to be consistent in analyzing literature.

In Part 2 Abanes credibility begins to suffer. He states that the Harry Potter books have spawned role-playing games that are, by implication, as dangerous as Dungeons & Dragons. He then relates the story of a young man who played D&D and became a Satanist and murdered his parents and was executed. It was a very touching story, although the parts describing his prayers to Satan and how he drank his own blood for lunch were unnecessary. It was never really stated why this story was there, except to imply that those who read and play Harry Potter are in very real danger of doing the same. Although I do wonder what Abanes would say about the new LOTR RPG. Abanes clearly believes that Harry Potter is leading children and teens into seeking out real witchcraft, ignoring the fact that all legitimate Wicca organizations do not accept inquirers or converts under the age of 18.

Abanes also states that anti-Potterists have been misrepresented by those who are largely ignorant on the issue and that accurate criticisms are necessary (as evidenced by the email quoting The Onion, completely reproduced and laid bare by Neal but unfortunately, and irresponsibly, completely ignored by Abanes). However, Abanes is not exactly strict on accuracy himself. He freely quotes numerous "experts" who dislike the books because they describe occultish things like pyromancy and geomancy, which is completely false. He also says that Harry can do divination (taken from Acts 16:16 which describes a "spirit of divination" that reads in Greek pneuma pythona which may be linked to the python that kept guard at Delphi which, by implication, makes Harry a Seer because he can talk to snakes) and that Trelawney accurately predicts Hermoine dropping her class, which is just silly to anyone who has seriously read the books. (Abanes main way of linking Harry Potter to occult is by stating that the books include palmistry, astrology, and mediumship/channeling, which is also silly since these things hardly appear in the books and when they do it is repeatedly pointed out how useless and quaky these things are). He also says that the movie Phenomenon promotes occultism and the Church is being poisoned with occult belief by "Christian feminists" (let's all go on a witch hunt).

Abanes often slips into tirades against RPG, Christian Feminists, and the history of Satanism. His links from these to Harry Potter are nominal at best and edge close to conspiracy theories. Ultimately his point is never defended. Those who agree with his premise that Harry=occult will agree with his book. Those who disagree with his premise will find his analysis confusing and uncompelling. Given the disorganization and plethora of unrelated information it appears that Abanes’s book was thrown together rather hastily, drawing upon the author's knowledge as an occult-watcher with very little research on the Harry Potter books themselves.

Ultimately, both Neal and Abanes make one mistake. J. K. Rowling has said many times that she finds it absurd that people think she wrote the books to promote witchcraft to students. She also says that she does not believe that the witchcraft and magic in her books actually exists. This has caused some concern for both authors. Neal believes that Rowling does not understand the power that she has written about and is ignorant of the spiritual forces in this world that may be a very real danger to children. Abanes believes Rowling herself is absurd because she does not admit the fact that her stories are full of real occultism (although he previously suggests that Rowling has studied the occult in depth, which is nothing but slanderous since Rowling has stated she is a church-going Presbyterian).

Sure, the stories of Merlin may have been based off a real Myrddin who may have been a magician in Camelot who may have been a Druid who may be an inspiration for modern nature-worshippers, but the Merlin we know today is far more fanciful than pagan. The whole history of magic is a very intricate and confusing subject, but it can be verified that what was once usually believed to be "magic" is nothing more than Roman and old Catholic superstition and only in the minds of the witch hunters did it deal with demons. For a good scholarly study of the history of magic I recommend Spellbound: From Ancient Gods to Modern Merlins, A Time Tour of Myth and Magic by Dominic Alexander published by Reader's Digest.

On top of that there are many creatures and people in the books that are based off mythologies and legends from around the world that people once believed were true (like banshees) or were verifiably made up to scare small children (like grindylows). While Abanes may view all mythology as being pagan in every sinful sense of the word (while ignoring the fact that Lewis and Tolkien enjoyed any and all mythology), the Brits enjoy these stories as good fiction and seek to emulate them. So of course Rowling believes it ridiculous that people would see her stories as full of real witchcraft. The magic in the books is about as real as a centaur because she got the idea for both from the same place. For a well-informed and enjoyable guide to the "real" people and creatures that show up in Harry Potter I recommend The Sorcerer’s Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter by Allan Zola Kronzek published by Broadway Books. Also useful, but not so funny, is The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter: A Treasury of Myths, Legands, and Fascinating Facts by David Colbert published by Berkley Books. While these books are geared towards Harry Potter they also explain a lot of the things that show up in Lewis and Tolkien.

As Neal points out in her book, Harry Potter follows the traditional fairy tale pattern. The Harry Potter books, like Narnia and LOTR, conform to the setting of mythology, legend, folklore, fable and fairy tale, placing it fully in classic children’s fantasy literature. Any critique that ignores the literary component of the books is bound to misunderstand their origin.

For a balanced introduction to the debate on Harry Potter, and some helpful advice no matter what side you choose to come down on, I highly recommend Connie Neal's book. Abanes's book suffers from too many wild assumptions and accusations to be useful. If you have already read Harry Potter and are curious as to what the relatively sane anti-Potterists are saying check out Abanes's book from a library. I don't believe that the controversy over these books will die down until long after the seventh book is published. Until then we should heed Neal's advice: don't spread deception, make personal decisions about literature that are personal, and don't argue.