La Shawn Barber has posted a response to Dr. Ted Baehr’s criticism of Harry Potter’s use of magic as opposed to Narnia’s. Baehr is the chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission, and he has offered us the typical “Narnia is good, Harry is bad” argument and, in my opinion, has supported it poorly. In trying to explain the difference between Hogwarts and Narnia, he asserts the following:

C.S. Lewis made it clear in his novels that it is wrong to “use” magic, especially for personal gain, but even when people do such an evil thing, there is a deeper magic (or law) written into the creation by the Creator to right the wrongs.

In the first place, this is a nice and convenient way of handling things, isn’t it? When Jadis “uses” magic to affect the death of Aslan, it’s wrong, but when Aslan uses magic in his resurrection, we can rename that magic “law.” Cute. But wrong. In fact, both the deep magic and the deeper magic were written into creation by the Creator, and Lewis does not shy away from using the term “magic” to describe what Aslan has done.

Furthermore, Dr. Baehr should re-read Prince Caspian. Cornelius “uses” magic to put guards to sleep so Caspian can escape his murderous uncle, and he “uses” it later to find the Old Narnians. In both situations, this is a good thing. We could argue even further here: Lewis’ magic in Prince Caspian is actually “worse” than Hogwarts, because apparently anyone can study and learn magic (though kings aren’t supposed to); but in Rowling’s world, you have to already be a magical person.

Baehr later asserts:

For a Christian, therefore, things are real, and, as shown in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, actions have consequences. When Edmund succumbs to the temptations of the White Witch, he has to pay the consequences, or Someone has to pay in his stead.

In contrast, with their occult, nominalistic ontology, the Harry Potter books propose that the world can be manipulated through magic. Things change shape; nothing is really real. Therefore, there is no need for a savior since one has merely to have the right incantations or think the right thoughts to be saved. Thus, the individual shapes the world and is in that sense: god.

This is a flat out misunderstanding of Harry Potter, and as I’ve demonstrated above, of Narnia as well. But to assert that Harry Potter teaches an occult, nominalistic ontology in which all one needs is the right spells…well, I have to wonder how closely Dr. Baehr has really read the series. The magical world has just as many problems as the Muggle world, and magic solves none of them. Indeed, it is not magic, but self-sacrificial love that is the only overcomer of evil in the books. Love’s victory over death frames the entire 7 book story: It starts with Lily’s sacrificial death which saves her son Harry, and as we learned from Half-Blood Prince, love is the only real weapon that Harry will have in his final battle with Voldemort.

Magic is the backdrop for the story, not the point. I find it ironic that Baehr would assert that the magic in Harry Potter teaches that the world is not real. Indeed, the magic in Harry Potter is an adequate and important counter to the materialism/naturalism so present in our day, and in a fantastical way, paints a clearer picture of what the world really is than a naturalist worldview.

Unfortunately, Dr. Baehr has misread Harry Potter (just as so many misread Lewis at first), and more unfortunately, many will believe him and join the anti-Potter camp without any firsthand knowledge of these wonderful stories, so filled with Christian imagery.