A few years ago, I was able to read the first Harry Potter novel with a completely open mind. I had no idea what it was about, and as the cover just had a black and white photo of a steam train, there were no external clues. I was given it for Christmas one year. So I started reading it, and I enjoyed it, hooked by the mystery of the first chapter and the strange events surrounding Harry\u2019s eleventh birthday. When the revelation came that young Harry is a wizard, my eyes glided over the W-word with barely a flicker, bar the thought that hang on, surely Diana Wynne Jones had already done this stuff years ago?<\/p>\n
It was by no means perfect, mind you. It had a noticeable \u2018the end justifies the means\u2019 flavour \u2013 Harry is allowed to lie and deceive, if it furthers the plot and advances the cause of the good guys, and in the closing chapters Dumbledore uses sheer favouritism to twist the rules and give his favourite house more points than anyone else. It\u2019s annoying, but it\u2019s just bad storytelling \u2013 not something anyone goes to hell for. By and large, I thought it a good kids\u2019 novel, with characters that young readers can identify with, and whose triumphs those readers can vicariously share in. And it taught that good lies in helping others; bad lies in serving yourself; fighting bad takes courage and strength; and you have to fight it, because if you won’t, how do you know anyone else will?<\/p>\n
Then Harry became famous, and evangelical Christians started embarrassing everyone by burning copies publicly, and ranting about occultism and witchcraft and all that\u2019s unwholesome. I read exactly the same Bible as the Potter-burners, so why aren\u2019t I out there with the best of them, chucking my copies on the bonfire and quoting Exodus 22:18<\/a> \u2013 \u201cThou shalt not suffer a witch to live\u201d (KJV. The NIV has \u201cDo not allow a sorceress to live\u201d, but sometimes you really have to go with that old-time language to get the full flavour.). I mean, my spiritual antennae aren\u2019t entirely atrophied. I found the movie The Craft<\/em> to be a hideous, obscene, blasphemous mess that I couldn\u2019t recommend to anyone, and while I enjoyed Buffy <\/em>no end, bits of it still made me distinctly uncomfortable.<\/p>\n Why was that? Because, make no mistake, the Bible is vehement in its condemnation of such things. From Leviticus 19:26<\/a> onwards (\u201cDo not practice divination or sorcery\u201d \u2013 NIV), it is quite outspoken on the subject. The nicest thing you will find in its pages on the subject is where Joseph (possibly) makes a joke about divination (Genesis 44:5<\/a>): given the context, he probably wasn\u2019t being too serious. Otherwise, the Bible is resolute.<\/p>\n So yes, you can build a pretty good case against Harry, on paper. And there is the rub. It’s on paper. Any theory, whether based upon scripture or conjecture or perception, should be checked against fact. That\u2019s science, and in the best spirit of 1 Thessalonians 5:21<\/a>: \u201cTest everything. Hold onto the good\u201d (NIV). Paul didn\u2019t want his readers blindly following everything he said \u2013 he knew whatever he wrote would stand up to any kind of scrutiny. So, let\u2019s scrutinise.<\/p>\n Well, you could start by asking if what the Bible calls a witch is what we would call a witch today. Wicca, whose practitioners are called <\/em>witches, didn\u2019t exist until the twentieth century (see http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wicca<\/a>): therefore, the Biblical proscription cannot have been referring to it. What was the Bible referring to? Take a look at Deuteronomy 18:9-11<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The witchcraft of the Bible was part of a much bigger caboodle, infinitely more unpleasant than anything a present day occultist is likely to come up with.<\/p>\n Of course, I\u2019m playing with words here. Whatever the Bible means in its choice of words, the take-home message can only be that it firmly condemns any kind of occultism.<\/p>\n So the test has to be: is he? Or is he something that just happens to be described with the W-word? Because, just calling<\/em> something a witch or wizard doesn\u2019t make it so. I could call<\/em> my car \u201cwitchcraft\u201d. I could then say that I journey to work each day by witchcraft. It would not be occult to do so. It would be childish and immature and not really very funny, but it would not be occult.<\/p>\n I repeat the question: is Harry Potter occult?<\/p>\n Yes! cry the Potterpyros. It is. And they cite … well, just about anything they can come up with, frankly.<\/p>\n For instance, I was once told by someone at church, with a completely straight face, that J.K. Rowling is a witch. His source was an ex-witch he had heard speak at a Christian conference. She said Rowling shows knowledge of certain deep secrets that are only made known to the inner circle. QED.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s examine that contention. Was this ex-witch also a member of the inner circle? There are two possible answers \u2013 yes, or no.<\/p>\n If no, then how does she know what these secrets are?<\/p>\n If yes, are she (and apparently Rowling) really the only two ex-witches ever to come over to the side of light? Or could it be these so-called secrets are about as mysterious as the inner workings of the Masons, which in theory should only be revealed to outsiders on pain of death, but which in practice you will find on innumerable web sites?<\/p>\n In fact, I can and will make this confident assertion. There is not a single \u201cfact\u201d of witchcraft in Harry Potter that either Rowling did not make up out of her own head, or which you can\u2019t find in any good public library.<\/p>\n There is precedent here. In 1944, the magazine Astounding Science Fiction<\/em> published a story called \u201cDeadline\u201d by Cleve Cartmill. The story was almost prescient in its description of the atomic bomb programme \u2013 which at the time was America\u2019s most closely-guarded secret \u2013 and editor John Campbell was interviewed by some very suspicious FBI agents, trying to find the leak. (See http:\/\/www.asimovs.com\/_issue_0310\/ref.shtml<\/a><\/span><\/span>)<\/p>\n There was no leak. Cartmill and Campbell had taken the basic facts of nuclear physics that were already publicly available, done a few common sense extrapolations, made up a few extra items off the top of their heads (Campbell was a physics graduate), and mixed it all into a plausible-sounding story. They had had no idea that their own government was working along the same lines. It\u2019s what authors do \u2013 take what isn\u2019t real, present it as if it is. We trust the intelligence of our readers to work out what is real and what isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n Sadly, the trust is not always rewarded.<\/p>\n So far, in my opinion, Harry passes the test. You read the Bible, which condemns occultism. You hold the books up to its light and judge for yourself: are they occult? And the answer to me is a resounding \u2018no\u2019.<\/p>\n Not to everyone, though. The video Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged<\/em> is fairly typical of the anti-Harry arguments I have heard, and I\u2019ll summarise them here. Apologies if anyone feels misrepresented. You can buy a copy of the video at http:\/\/www.therealpotter.com\/<\/a> \u2013 the page also has links to further anti-Harry items.<\/p>\nWhich witch<\/h2>\n
So, is Harry occult?<\/h2>\n
Precedent<\/h2>\n
Arguments against Potter<\/h2>\n