Part One: Potter's Magic by Ben Merkle

A good discussion has risen about Harry Potter and LOTR (and even D&D has been thrown in) here at work. I thought I'd pass the discussion on. I am highlighting quite a bit of the article to which I linked. I think it explains our discussion. To give background to the discussion, we have two viewpoints - mine is the same the article points out and the other viewpoint is "Magic is bad. Period." To sum up my viewpoint: Basically, there are stories of "magic" in both the OT and NT. Saul sought help from a witch of Endor (1 Sam 28:7). Paul faced a couple in the book of Acts. There are witches in Scripture who did "magic." But one can look at some OT prophets and NT apostles and say that they did "magic." So the point is not that they do magic. The point is from whom their "magic" comes. In LOTR, those who get their magic from Sauron are shown to be evil. they are NOT shown to be good. Gandalf and the elvish "magic" are from the creator which is what you learn if you read The Silmarillion. So Tolkein was not making black magic look good and good magic look evil. he was handling it biblically. That's the short of it. Read on for the deeper length of it. "An amused DJ on a local classic rock station reported on a pastor in New Mexico who had organized a Harry Potter book burning. Apparently the pastor had claimed that the books taught children to do magic. How accurate the DJ was being in his representation of the event is probably questionable, but the existence of the event points out how typical it is for evangelicals to grab the entirely wrong end of the stick. ... ... Most of the defenders of the Potter books attempt to defend them by arguing that they are more or less "harmless." And this is where the real problem with the book comes in. For the most part, the book is harmless. Not only that, but, for the most part, the magic is harmless. The magic of Potter is frequently a cheap mimicry of modern technology. Little magicians covet the latest model of flying broom (the Nimbus 2000), eat Jelly Beans that taste like ear wax, and agonize over their homework for courses like Levitation 101. In the Potter books, an encounter with magic is not an encounter with the transcendent, but merely a mimicry of the pedantic. ... ... This is where the book becomes dangerous. Magic is anything but pedantic. ... ... Potter's magic is a magic for materialists. It is a magic that comes from nowhere and leads to nowhere. It attempts to make magic a neutral category that can be approached however one wishes. Everyone gets a degree from the same school and does with it whatever he or she deems fit. But the magic itself is impersonal. Sure there is a hero and an arch-villain. But they both draw from the same neutral force. And it would seem that this impersonal force could probably care less whether either of them existed, let alone which one of them was to win. ... ... This is one of the things that Tolkien did well. His magic is always personal. The Forest of Lothlorien feels the way it does, because it is under the power of Lady Galadriel. Mordor feels the way it does because it is under the power of Sauron. One can't use magic in Middle Earth without immediately orienting oneself to cosmic powers. Every spell is biased. It comes from somewhere and leads to some ultimate purpose. ... ... Consequently, Harry Potter doesn't need to be burned, unless of course we are going to burn the bulk of our literature collections. He's a fine read for a Christian, so long as we pity all the things that the book is missing."