"The practice and description of magic does not alarm me; more alarming is the fact that we possess a category for "magic" in our heads and don't have the foggiest idea of what it means. If the use of magic in literature is to become a bone of contention in Christian circles, we at least had better know what we are talking about. ...
... Perhaps we could think of it as any means of control or knowledge which makes use of "supernatural" beings or forces. ... Such an idea is as problematic as the idea of "supernatural" itself--we so often assume that nature is an inflexible, frictionless atom billiard-table, cheerfully banging away until some observing spirit (possibly a human spirit) doesn't like what he sees and intervenes, causing a brief jumble until the machinery takes over once more. If this is the case, as Lewis once pointed out, you would be performing magic every time you move your hand or think a thought. The Christian, who believes in concurrent Providence, must also admit on this definition that everything is magical, because all events and causes are a direct exertion of the power and will of a supernatural God—but what good is a term that denotes "everything"? Furthermore, how can this view distinguish "magic" from "miracle"? ...
... As one might expect, much of the magical phenomenon in literature is merely a reflection of the culture's perception of magic in the historical sense: thus Faust and the clichéd Shakespearean witch. But we also find misfits: fairies, elves, Merlin, Galadriel—representatives of an earthy, personal sort of power over matter and spirit, proceeding from both something good in itself but capable of corruption, something intuitive, creative, and artistic, which is neither a supernatural intrusion nor a mechanical lever-pull. It is something like a creaturely imitation of God's creation, providence, incarnation, and efficacious grace. Tolkien and Lewis took great care to distinguish it from "magic," and we should pay them the complement of believing them. ...
... They are not describing heterodox sources or means of power; they are translating orthodoxy into another realm, consistent within itself, so that we might experience it afresh. ..."
10/12/2003
Part Two: The Meaning Of Magic by Jared Miller
To follow up on my last post (Part One: Potter's Magic by Ben Merkle), I wanted to express my viewpoint on "Magic". I am using the articles to express what I think because the authors of the articles articulate it better.
"The practice and description of magic does not alarm me; more alarming is the fact that we possess a category for "magic" in our heads and don't have the foggiest idea of what it means. If the use of magic in literature is to become a bone of contention in Christian circles, we at least had better know what we are talking about. ...
... Perhaps we could think of it as any means of control or knowledge which makes use of "supernatural" beings or forces. ... Such an idea is as problematic as the idea of "supernatural" itself--we so often assume that nature is an inflexible, frictionless atom billiard-table, cheerfully banging away until some observing spirit (possibly a human spirit) doesn't like what he sees and intervenes, causing a brief jumble until the machinery takes over once more. If this is the case, as Lewis once pointed out, you would be performing magic every time you move your hand or think a thought. The Christian, who believes in concurrent Providence, must also admit on this definition that everything is magical, because all events and causes are a direct exertion of the power and will of a supernatural God—but what good is a term that denotes "everything"? Furthermore, how can this view distinguish "magic" from "miracle"? ...
... As one might expect, much of the magical phenomenon in literature is merely a reflection of the culture's perception of magic in the historical sense: thus Faust and the clichéd Shakespearean witch. But we also find misfits: fairies, elves, Merlin, Galadriel—representatives of an earthy, personal sort of power over matter and spirit, proceeding from both something good in itself but capable of corruption, something intuitive, creative, and artistic, which is neither a supernatural intrusion nor a mechanical lever-pull. It is something like a creaturely imitation of God's creation, providence, incarnation, and efficacious grace. Tolkien and Lewis took great care to distinguish it from "magic," and we should pay them the complement of believing them. ...
... They are not describing heterodox sources or means of power; they are translating orthodoxy into another realm, consistent within itself, so that we might experience it afresh. ..."
"The practice and description of magic does not alarm me; more alarming is the fact that we possess a category for "magic" in our heads and don't have the foggiest idea of what it means. If the use of magic in literature is to become a bone of contention in Christian circles, we at least had better know what we are talking about. ...
... Perhaps we could think of it as any means of control or knowledge which makes use of "supernatural" beings or forces. ... Such an idea is as problematic as the idea of "supernatural" itself--we so often assume that nature is an inflexible, frictionless atom billiard-table, cheerfully banging away until some observing spirit (possibly a human spirit) doesn't like what he sees and intervenes, causing a brief jumble until the machinery takes over once more. If this is the case, as Lewis once pointed out, you would be performing magic every time you move your hand or think a thought. The Christian, who believes in concurrent Providence, must also admit on this definition that everything is magical, because all events and causes are a direct exertion of the power and will of a supernatural God—but what good is a term that denotes "everything"? Furthermore, how can this view distinguish "magic" from "miracle"? ...
... As one might expect, much of the magical phenomenon in literature is merely a reflection of the culture's perception of magic in the historical sense: thus Faust and the clichéd Shakespearean witch. But we also find misfits: fairies, elves, Merlin, Galadriel—representatives of an earthy, personal sort of power over matter and spirit, proceeding from both something good in itself but capable of corruption, something intuitive, creative, and artistic, which is neither a supernatural intrusion nor a mechanical lever-pull. It is something like a creaturely imitation of God's creation, providence, incarnation, and efficacious grace. Tolkien and Lewis took great care to distinguish it from "magic," and we should pay them the complement of believing them. ...
... They are not describing heterodox sources or means of power; they are translating orthodoxy into another realm, consistent within itself, so that we might experience it afresh. ..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment