Will Rowling’s Interview Silence Critics?

Without having read the Harry Potter books, I still can’t help but feel the critics are off base. I’ve seen it far too often: a knee jerk reaction by some (often well-meaning) Christians asserting that every fictional character with a wand or a spell book is unarguably evil. Is it any wonder that the tale of the boy wizard was portrayed as Witchcraft 101 and, once again, the Church found itself on the “banning” end of banned books.

So I’m wondering if J.K. Rowling’s latest interview (with MTV, no less) will change that.

The headline reads:‘Harry Potter’ Author J.K. Rowling Opens Up About Books’ Christian Imagery. According to the article:

It deals extensively with souls — about keeping them whole and the evil required to split them in two. After one hero falls beyond the veil of life, his whispers are still heard. It starts with the premise that love can save you from death and ends with a proclamation that a sacrifice in the name of love can bring you back from it.

Harry Potter is followed by house-elves and goblins — not disciples — but for the sharp-eyed reader, the biblical parallels are striking. Author J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” books have always, in fact, and questions, but until “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” they had never quoted any specific religion.

How can a series that deals “explicitly with religious themes” be considered so objectionable to so many religious people? I have to wonder if the answer isn’t in those words “sharp-eyed reader.” Could it be we’re on the lookout for red flags, rather than more nuanced elements of theme and worldview? In this way, flying broomsticks automatically override even “a sacrifice in the name of love.” Who cares if a man lays his life down for a friend (Jn. 15:13), if he wielded a wand, it’s moot.

Being up front about the “religious themes” was Rowling’s intent from the beginning. Then why didn’t she?

That was the plan from the start, Rowling told reporters during a press conference at the beginning of her Open Book Tour on Monday. It wasn’t because she was afraid of inserting religion into a children’s story. Rather, she was afraid that introducing religion (specifically Christianity) would give too much away to fans who might then see the parallels.

“To me [the religious parallels have] always been obvious,” she said. “But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going.”

One of the reasons I often hedge against the genre of Christian Fiction is the predictability — Christians expect stories to resolve neatly or, at least, embody a well-defined Christian theology. For me, this narrows the narrative outcome immensely; we plummet towards repentance, restoration, and revelation to the delight of all. Rowling seems to be stating as much here in that once fans began to “see the parallels” it would indicate “where we were going.” This is why she “never quoted any specific religion” until the final book of the series, wherein she quotes two verses from Scripture. To do so before hand would be to “give too much away”. Giving too much away is one of the inevitable outcomes of being pigeon-holed as a religious writer.

But it is her admission of faith that most intrigues me about J.K. Rowling:

“The truth is that, like Graham Greene, my faith is sometimes that my faith will return. It’s something I struggle with a lot,” she revealed. “On any given moment if you asked me [if] I believe in life after death, I think if you polled me regularly through the week, I think I would come down on the side of yes — that I do believe in life after death. [But] it’s something that I wrestle with a lot. It preoccupies me a lot, and I think that’s very obvious within the books.”

That, by the author’s own acknowledgement, “Harry Potter” deals extensively with Christian themes may be somewhat ironic, considering that many Christian leaders have denounced the series for glamorizing witchcraft. When he was known simply as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope himself condemned the books, writing that their “subtle seductions, which act unnoticed … deeply distort Christianity in the soul before it can grow properly.”

For her part, Rowling said she’s proud to be on numerous banned-book lists. As for the protests of some believers? Well, she doesn’t take them as gospel.

“I go to church myself,” she declared. “I don’t take any responsibility for the lunatic fringes of my own religion.”

Did she just call the pope part of the “lunatic fringe”?

Anyway, I’m wondering if Rowling’s open profession of faith, and her claims to have incorporated explicit Christian imagery and intent in her book, will alter the critics’ views. Frankly, I doubt it. I’m afraid Christians bring their own cultural / theological lenses to literature and, no matter how narrow those parameters are, they demand every book or author fall within their confines. Perhaps Rowling did not clarify her “religious imagery” to everyone’s liking. Nevertheless, by stating her purpose as “explicitly religious,” aren’t we obligated to, at least, be more “sharp-eyed” and less quick to judge?

I wonder if the Christian writing community isn’t passing up a great opportunity here. While Rowling probably wants to distance herself from Christian Fiction as it’s now constituted, her admission could establish her as a wonderful ally. Instead, one of the best-selling authors of all-time, a professing believer, whose gazillion-selling books are laden with Christian imagery, will probably get the broomstick.