Babylon & Harry Potter

Seeing the news that J.K. Rowling will likely kill off Harry in the final installment of Harry Potter got me thinking about magic, fantasy, and imagination. Sometime you will have to ask Andy about his hypothesis concerning the ending of Harry Potter (keep in mind he's never read the books, and as I'm explaining the sixth one to him, he says: well, duh. Harry has to die. He's the last Horcrux! Needless to say, I was humbled). I will often jokingly say in my courses that Harry Potter is the Anti-Christ, but I've found a bit of proof to (somewhat) back myself up. I'm currently reading through Isaiah, and chapter 47 talks about the fall of Babylon. Interesting stuff:

In a moment, in one day:
The loss of children, and widowhood.
They shall come upon you in their fullness
Because of the multitude of your sorceries,
For the great abundance of your enchantments. (v. 9)

Stand now with your enchantments
And the multitude of your sorceries... (v.12)

MacArthur notes that, in relationship to Rev. 18:23, the magical practices of Babylon in the past will also characterize the Babylon of the future. This is why I think that books like Harry Potter - and the entire occult/"teen witch" phenomenon - are desensitizing people to the wrong type of 'supernatural' (though it's not supernatural because it's all about man's ability). Thus, when someone shows up claiming to do miraculous and magical things in the End Times (or near them - I always get confused with the Pre-Post-During-Trib-something), it seems we will be far more accepting than, say, the Rationalists of the Enlightenment. It reminds me, once again, that our imaginations are a HUGE battleground in many ways. As Stratford Caldecott says, "the question of imagination has become one of the key issues of our time. We are living in a crisis of culture, which is also a crisis of imagination" (and here I would insert - ultimately a crisis of truth).

I'm still a big fan of fantasy books, but that's because there is a key difference between the Harry Potter magic (really Magick) and something like Tolkien or Lewis, where magic is never "hocus-pocus" but part of the supernatural realm (don't forget that Gandalf is an angel, not a man - technically a Valar - and Aslan is not simply a lion). The magic in Lord of the Rings or Narnia creates - it is essential to understand that. It is supernatural, and it points to the ultimate creative, restorative, and primary power of God (hopefully). It is not for man to dabble in (the Hobbits dislike magic, and they are a sort of idealized, pre-industrial man). NO human in The Chronicles of Narnia has magical abilities (though they might have special gifts given them...should get you thinking allegorically...), and if ever a human (or any being!) attempts to have powers not natural to them - to overstep their bounds - with either Tolkien or Lewis there are catastrophic consequences.

Conversely, Harry Potter's magick (or Sauron's or Saruman's or the White Witch's, to name a few) seeks control. It subverts nature to our desire (i.e. when Harry wants a feather to fly, he states "wingardium leviosa." His desire makes a change in the physical world). This is making us into little gods! God's desire and will changes things, not ours! This is, as Chesterton says, "the abuse of preternatural powers but not supernatural. It was founded on the profound maxim that the devil is the ape of God. Magic was a monkey trick of imitation of the divine functions." Thus the orcs are mockeries - they are a twisted form of creation, because no one and nothing can actually create except God. This evil kind of magick - domination - is about control, power, and pride. It is ultimately twisted and relative - no wonder it appeals to so many. And it is the prevailing magic of Harry Potter - completely relativistic. After all, what exactly is the difference between Harry and Voldemort?