2 of 2

Keffer's comments no longer appear on the Focus on the Family site, but Keffer repeated a version of her argument this month in her review of the film version of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix:

Even with all the magic in the air, the worldview of Phoenix can't be called consistently occult. Like the world we live in today, it's a hodgepodge of ideas that are accepted simultaneously, even if they don't really fit together. Students repeatedly wish each other "Merry Christmas" before their school holiday begins. At one point, Snape tells Harry to pray, with no reference to whom he should pray to. And much of the magic in the film is arguably "mechanical," lending support to a naturalistic philosophy.

World magazine, meanwhile, continues the ambivalent position it has taken toward the books ever since its parent company stopped selling them through its book club in 1999.

"Although the witchcraft taught here is arguably not the same as that of devil worshippers or even Wiccans, parents were right to worry that the Potter novels and movies might make real witchcraft seem attractive to their children," Gene Edward Veith wrote about the Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire film in 2005. He continues:

True, in the Potter universe, there is a conflict between good witches and bad witches, so that a moral structure prevails. But in the first three books and movies, the conflict between good and evil is mostly symbolic. … Goblet of Fire is more mature. It does not dramatize the Muggle/Witch dichotomy, and the realm of magic is depicted not as fun but as a grim and dangerous place. … In this movie, the conflict between good and evil is genuine.

Veith still recommends that parents keep their kids from the books and films, but he does not condemn them. A 2005 review of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince similarly avoids direct criticism while telling readers that concerns that the book implicitly approves of sorcery "should be taken seriously." Likewise, the magazine's review of the Order of the Phoenix film this month refers to "objections of many thoughtful Christian parents" without actually endorsing those concerns. Meanwhile, on World's blog, features editor Lynn Vincent noted that her children stood in line at Barnes & Noble Friday night to get a copy of the final volume.

As an editor at a magazine that has repeatedly praised the Harry Potter books and films (our reviewer didn't care for the latest movie, but it had nothing to do with concerns about occult imagery or violence), I can attest that there are a number of Christians out there who adamantly feel that the books endorse evil—or are evil themselves. They have tried hard to get Christianity Today to change its view on J. K. Rowling's works, but without success (we haven't actually taken an official stance on the books since our January 2000 issue). Whether similar efforts have convinced Colson, Dobson, and some others to take a slightly stronger stance against Harry Potter is unknown. There may have been other reasons. (The books have indeed become increasingly dark and violent, for example.) Regardless, their heart doesn't seem in it. I still don't think there's a groundswell of opposition to the Potter books. But what opposition does exist, it seems clear, is originating in the pews rather than the pulpits.

Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is available from Amazon.com and other retailers.

Our coverage of Deathly Hallows includes:

The Gospel According to J.K. Rowling | The magic world of Harry Potter begins yielding to a 'deeper magic.' (July 23, 2007)

What Would Jonathan Edwards Say About Harry Potter? | How the preacher responded to pop culture's version of transcendence. (July 24, 2007)

For more articles on previous Harry Potter books and movies, see our full coverage area.

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

July (Web-only) 2007, Vol. 51