I'm still taking questions.  We're doing this question by question over e-mail, so it's a slow interview, and I'm not sure how long it will go.  This is my first one, and I'm just trying to keep something like a logical flow to the whole thing going.

---

Carla: So why don't we start off by having you give us a little background on yourself and some of your past and current projects.

Richard: Anyone interested in reading at length about my background can visit the wikipedia article on me. The abbreviated version, which I'll give here, is fairly straightforward. For many years I worked as a professional singer, dancer, and actor around the New York and L.A. entertainment scene. I performed on Broadway in Dreamgirls and toured with A Chorus Line, for example. I also starred in a couple of ABC Afterschool Specials, did several national TV commercials, and was the lead actor in a PBS Special on The Constitution, hosted by Bill Moyers. It was through these experiences that I gained my understanding of show business and related matters (e.g., script writing, directing, choreographing, cinematography, lighting, etc., etc., etc.).

I left that career in hopes of becoming part of something that had more eternal value. I ultimately landed a job at the well-known Christian Research Institute founded by the Dr. Walter Martin, and while working there I began my studies on cults, the occult, and world religions. One thing led to another, and through a series of fortuitous events I sort of fell into writing full time. That was back in 1994, the year of my first book, Prophets of the Apocalpyse: David Koresh and Other American Messiahs (Baker). Now, as of 2007, I have written/co-authored nearly twenty books, including my 1997 American Militias: Rebellion, Racism, and Religion, for which I won The Myers Center Award for the Study of Human Rights in North America for my "outstanding work on intolerance in North America." That was the same year I also won the Evangelical Press Association's "Higher Goals In Christian Journalism Award."

The most recent volume to be released is my first novel, Homeland Insecurity (Harvest House) co-authored with my wife, Evangeline. I am extremely excited about this book because I feel it has some very important messages to impart about the ongoing serious problems in America of domestic terrorism, racism, hate, intolerance, ignorance, and anti-Semitism.

Yet-to-be-released is our second novel, at this point titled Celia (Harvest House), about the struggles of a twenty-something girl from California who tries to commit suicide, but fails, and then must try to get her life back together.

Coming out in February 2008 (before Celia is released) will be a volume I have written for Hachette Book Group titled He is Risen: Reflections on Easter and the Forty Days of Lent. This will be a kind of mini-devotional for the Easter season that discusses all sorts of fun, enlightening, and edifying things--from the origins of Easter baskets, colored eggs, and sunrise ceremonies, to proofs for the resurrection, to the use various foods around the world in commemoration of Easter.

 

Carla: Before we narrow in on Harry, could you give us a little background on your occult studies?  I think I've seen you referred to as an expert on the subject.  How much time have you spent researching and what sort of methods have you used?

Richard: I've studied the occult for many years, going all the way back to when I was a teenager who found occultism a fascinating area of religious belief—one rich in symbolism, history, lore, and legend. Like J.K. Rowling, I used to read everything I could get my hands on related to the occult because it was so very interesting, much more interesting, I thought, than many other religions. Of course, when I became a Christian in early 1979, my view of occultism changed. Although I continued to have a healthy respect for it as a major influence in the world and still found it intriguing as a belief system with a long and colorful history, I understood that the God of the Christianity frowned upon occult activity and that he had laid out precisely how he felt about it in the Bible.

As a result, my studies of the occult waned for many years, until I started working at the Christian Research Institute, which afforded me a spiritually healthy outlet for my interest in the occult, and indeed, all forms of religious expression. So, I once again started studying the occult, but this time from a more analytical/researching/academic angle, going under the tutalege of various senior researchers at the Christian Research Institute, as well as others in the field, including Bob and Gretchen Passantino (my good friend and mentor, Bob, has since passed away).

I eventually collected a vast library of occult-related volumes penned by occultists themselves, as well as books on the subject by scholars who had written extensively on it. Between these two sources, I tended to lean (and still do) toward what occultists say in their original writings since they are the ones who actually partake of occult rituals and believe occult teachings. I will always, in fact, favor original documents over secondary remarks, which is why in my book Harry Potter, Narnia, and The Lord of the Rings, I quote so extensively from real occultists, pagans, Wiccans, etc. etc. etc.

The method I use is to never, and I mean never, build a case for anything complex based on one isolated statement. But instead, I try to amass as many statements as possible by a certain person or group on a particular subject. Of course, when you only have one statement, then you only have one statement. Nothing can be done about that. But generally speaking, whenever a person or group says something about a given issue, then they have probably talked about it elsewhere. I will, however, add that sometimes when an answer given by an individual is very, very plain, then that is sufficient.

For example, if you ask me: "Richard, why did you start dancing as a teenager?" And I answer, "Because I loved the way I could express emotions, stories, and thoughts using the movements of my body." Then, that is a fairly plain statement and can be taken at face value. It would be absurd for someone to come along and say, without any proof whatsoever, "Richard started dancing because he read about dancing in the Bible and wanted to emulate the actions of King David in Israel." But this, of course, is exactly what I see happening with regard to Harry Potter and those who say it is a series of Christian novels intended to baptize the world into the Gospel. (Sorry, didn't mean to bring that up so quickly. But the analogy just seemed to sort of fit.)

So, back to the question at hand about my occult studies and my methods, I suppose the bottom line would be that I have always relied on, and continue to rely on, what occultists themselves have taught and believed--not necessarily what observers from a distance think occultists teach and believe. We must set aside our pre-conceived notions about things if we want to discover the truth about any given subject, and also set aside our personal agendas, desires, and emotional needs in order to arrive at a conclusion based on facts, rather than a conclusion based on our own fantasies (as comforting as they may be).



Carla: You've written 3 books I believe on or at least heavily involving Harry Potter.  I know the first one written after the fourth Harry Potter book, Goblet of Fire, was released.  Could you give us a bit of a time line on your involvement with Harry Potter?  Like when and why you picked up the books to begin with, when you decided to write your books, etc.

Richard: Actually, I haven't written three books on Harry Potter, not technically speaking—or, rather, not in the way that I, as a writer, would consider them three entirely separate projects.

My first "book" on the issue was Harry Potter and the Bible (2001). For better or for worse, it established me as a critic of the HP series. Much to my shock and disappointment, some of what was contained in that volume was misunderstood by readers. If I had it to do all over again, I'd re-phrase a number of things in the text (a task that I ultimately took up, but I'll get to that). As for how I decided to even write the book, I only authored Harry Potter and the Bible because I was asked to do so by Christian Publications. Up until that point, I had no real interest in Harry Potter and hadn't even read any of the volumes. So I really had no pre-conceived ideas about Rowling or her work.

My second "book," which I titled Fantasy and Your Family (also Christian Publications), was put together as a sort of follow-up to my first book. I was actually hoping that people would replace Harry Potter and the Bible with it because it contained updated material and clearer explanations of what I was trying to say in Harry Potter and the Bible. Unfortunately, my second book fell through the cracks, so to speak, from a marketing standpoint (sometimes that happens), and sold virtually no copies.

Finally, around late 2004, Harvest House gave me the opportunity, if I wanted it, to release something on Harry Potter since it was still a very hot subject. I agreed and took the text from Fantasy and Your Family, updated it and clarified my thoughts even further, then published that together with additional material on related subjects such as Philip Pullman's works and the movement spawned by John Granger to read the HP books as a blatant Christian allegory meant to baptize the world into the gospel via literary devices and symbolism. This final "book" of mine, of course, is Harry Potter, Narnia, and the Lord of the Rings, which at this point, is the only work I stand behind when it comes to the issue.

I view all three volumes as a continuous stream of my thoughts on the HP phenomenon, especially the tie-in to Fantasy and Your Family, which almost reads as a kind of first draft version of the much richer Harry Potter, Narnia, and The Lord of the Rings.

And I want to say at this point that I have been extremely offended by the ongoing accusation being hurled at me by professed Christians (fans of HP) regarding my motivation for writing about Harry Potter. I cannot count how many outraged brothers and sisters in Christ (so-called) have asserted (without ANY proof, I might add), that my sole motivation for writing about HP has been to get wealthy and ride the coattails of Rowling, capitalizing primarily on people's fears and resorting to lies and misrepresentations to thicken my wallet. Such serious  allegations have been so vehement and mean-spirited that I still find it difficult to express in words how deeply I have been hurt by those who claim to be in God's family.

These same individuals have also alleged that I have basically done nothing but make a career out of bashing Harry. The truth of the matter, however, is that my dealings with the whole HP phenomenon has been minimal at best when viewed in light of how many books I have written and how many other areas of ministry I have worked. Since the 2001 release of Harry Potter and the Bible, for example, I have actually produced (in addition to the aforementioned books on HP) a total of SIX separate volumes covering a wide range of subjects:


Clearly, HP is a minor aspect of my entire career as a writer. I can also say with the utmost confidence that nothing, so far, especially Harry Potter, has made me wealthy. Criticizing Harry Potter is not my life, my ministry, my calling, or my obsession.

And I would also like to get another thing cleared up—I am not, nor have I ever been, a Harry-Hater (which is a fairly nasty epithet now commonly applied by HP fans to anyone who doesn't happen to adore HP or Rowling as much as they do. Sadly, it has been used with particular negativity by Christian HP fans for anyone who does not agree with the proposition that HP is a series of Christian novels per the baseless theories of John Granger, author of Looking for God in Harry Potter).

People on all sides of this HP issue have gotten far too emotionally whipped up, in my opinion, and I can only shake my head, rather befuddled as to why.



Carla: I imagine it's similiar to the feeling of befuddlement I feel over people get whipped up about football teams.  I think a lot of people tend to over simplify and assume you either "love it" or "hate it".  They miss what Professor Snape would call subtle distinctions.  With something as long and involved as the Harry Potter, you're going to have people who "value the books over all, but have some objections", people who "object to the books in general but can see some points of value", and several shades in between.  (Back to this point in a moment.) I know you haven't read Deathly Hallows yet.  Have you read any of the books after the first four?

Richard: Yes, I read Book 5, thinking that perhaps I needed to keep up with the series. But I soon afterward that I just didn't care that much anymore about the issues to keep up with the story through book 7. From a ministerial perspective, I had said pretty much everything I had to say, and it was time to move on. From a purely entertainment viewpoint, I knew I would rather spend my time reading other books or playing video games. So I decided at that point to skip Books 6-7. I figured I'd just catch the movies on TV. My life never did, and never would, revolve around Harry Potter.



Carla: Do you find the books themselves or the tendency of some people to try to white wash them more disturbing?

Richard: Good question. Hands down, I find more disturbing those people who misrepresent both the series and Rowling. In my view, the books are what they are. Rowling accomlished a fairly amazing literary feat by creating a complex story like that and tying together so many disparate plot threads, while at the same time infusing her tale with so much from mythology, the occult, history, fairy tales, and even various religious traditions (yes, including Christianity). Harry Potter is a tapestry of sorts, highly derivative. Rowling borrowed a lot from previous works and re-crafted it into a brand new tale—brilliant. I always try to give credit where credit is due. And that is where Rowling deserves credit. She's very talented.

So, in summation, what Rowling has authored is far less disturbing to me than what is coming from people like John Granger, Connie Neal,  John Killinger and their ilk. They have such a strong personal agenda to Christianize Harry Potter, it is a little frighteningt. I can't for the life of me understand why they find it so necessary to make Harry Potter Christian. But it shows a willingness to skirt the facts (including statements made by Rowling herself). Such a willingness demonstrate, at least to me, a capacity to utterly ignore truth. I have to ask myself when I listen to these people: "Where else might such a capacity for overlooking truth come out?" And that is what is even more troubling.

This is not an unreasonable question for me to ask since everything a person does is inter-related, at least according to what I have seen of human behavior. What is also amazing to me is how, when faced with evidence that contradicts their established pattern of belief or pet theories, these individuals won't even attempt to address that contradictory information, but they will instead resort  to either: a) ignoring the information entirely; or b) personally attacking the one presenting the information. Their mind appears to be on a loop that keeps repeating like an mp3 file set to infinite play. They say the same things over, and over, and over.

I assumed when I wrote Harry Potter, Narnia, and the Lord of the Rings, that I might be able to break that loop by actually quoting J.K. Rowling herself, where she explained exactly what she meant by certain statements, how she arrived at the creation of certain words, and what the overall themes for the books were. Much to my astonishment, the Christian HP zealots proceeded to ignore even her! Then, almost as if to channel whatever intellectual disconnect they must have been feeling inside, they focused on me, and began engaging in character assasssination. I've been left taken aback, mouth ajar, aghast at the how deftly some people can close their eyes to what they do not want to see. It's been an emotionally and spiritually difficult thing to watch and be a part of.



Carla: You've never advocated banning the books.  If I remember correctly, you've never even tried to tell people not to read them.  So what would you like to convince people to do in regards to Harry Potter?  Or maybe a better question would be how do you suggest that Christians approach the Harry Potter series?

Richard: My main point regarding Harry Potter books has remained consistent over the years: Like them. Love them. Hate them. Whatever. But know what they contain, not only from a spiritual perspective (pro & con), but also from an ethical/moral perspective (pro & con). Then, make an appropriate decision for yourselves and your children based on the possible effects of such content, especially on the malleable minds of young, impressionable kids.

The HP series should be approached like any other stack of books. They must be judged according to their content, neither overly condemned, nor overly accepted. Take them for what they are, not for what one may want them to be, either out of fear of them, or out of some misguided sense that because culture as a whole accepts them, we also must accept them wholeheartedly or look foolish. I see both of those extremes being displayed within the Christian community. And it's unfortunate.

I've looked at the subject, or at least I've tried to look at it, very even-handedly. When it comes to HP, it's really a fairly simple issue, at least to me. But the waters have become muddied by people on both sides of the fence who have their own agenda (especially within the Christian community, where everyone should be showing more restraint, love, and a willingness to look at the facts with an eye toward finding the truth). You have the true Harry-haters on one hand who want to ban/burn the books because they contain occult imagery and mythological references. They are not recognizing the literary merit in the volumes, nor are they seeing some of the valuable lessons in the story or the positive character traits in several of the characters. On the other hand, you have the Harry-worshipers who refuse to hear anything negative about the volumes, and have gone so far as to twist and pervert the books into what they want them to be—i.e., a blatant Christian allegory (despite words to the contrary by J.K. Rowling, whom they claim to admire so much).

Again, I have to say, that I fail to see, even after all of these years, why people have gotten so emotionally caught up in the HP series. I suppose it is indeed somewhat like radical sports fans who will actually come to blows against another person who doesn't like their team, or who says something bad about their favorite quarterback. I never really got that caught up in sports—maybe that's my problem.



I pitched this idea as a public discussion/interview, and I couldn't resist rambling a bit in this chunk.  There are two or thee places where Richard broke up what I said to respond.  I generally followed his breaks, so there's a bit of editing to try to help the flow, but everything important is still intact.  Anyway, if the flow seems awkward that's why.

---

Carla: . . . I have a few theories on the emotional attachment to Harry Potter.

Richard: First, I think in human nature it's very easy to get caught up in the "us vs. them" attitude, which as Christians is something we need to try to resist.  But yes, I've seen it on both sides.  And on far sillier subjects than religion...so glad I missed the shipping wars.

Second, I think many of the dedicated fans become dedicated fans because they put something of themselves into the world.  Part of the reason I got involved with the Harry Potter fandom was out of fascination with all the creativity.  Many of the dedicated fans draw, write, roleplay, or costume...or in the case of people like John Granger find parallels to spiritual or even personal issues reflected in the books.  (I've found a similar pattern in my time in the Star Wars fandom.)  I'm betting this personalizing of the world and people putting a bit of themselves into it explains a lot of the emotional attachment.

Third, I think a lot of people read fiction (fantasy in particular) to find a comfortable escape.  When something threatens or appears to threaten that comfort, we can become defensive.



Carla: Oddly enough that last point makes me think of one of the two Bible verses that Rowling uses in Deathly Hallows "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" - Matthew 6:21.  There's a temptation to get too caught up in things of this world, even books and fandom, and we can lose our perspective. Following this thread of putting ourselves or bringing ourselves into the world.  I'm wondering if one of the big reasons we have Christians interpreting Harry Potter so differently is that they're coming from different places.  Francis Bridger, who teaches ethics, loves the "moral complexity" of the books.  John Granger who is an English Professor, who I think specializes in Medieval literature, draws on the literary parallels to older texts from that period, many of which were heavily influenced by the Christian Church.  And then on the other end you have Caryl Matrisciana, who has spent a lot of time with occult studies, and therefore sees all the occult parallels. You've been an active fantasy fan for a while, but you also know a great deal more about the occult that the average Christian, how much do you think that influenced the way you perceived the books?

Richard: You raise some good points and I agree with most of them.

I would only add that too many individuals are NOT using their expertise in certain areas of study to bring out points in HP that might otherwise go unnoticed by persons less educated in those specific areas. If this is all they did, then their musings would be perfectly acceptable. But what they are actually doing is using their knowledge (and I might add, some extraordinary creativity) to invent details/references that are simply not in the books, and then they are reading those details/references into the text to make it say what they want it to say. In this way, they can turn HP into whatever they want it to be: i.e., something that fits very nicely into their fields of specialty. This is not an appropriate way to interpret or study literature.

Endless examples of such shoddy scholarship can be found in the linguistic acrobatics performed by John Granger who has found all kinds of Christian meanings in words, names, and places throughout Harry Potter. For example, in his book, Looking for God in Harry Potter, he gives his interpretation of the name Harry Potter, expressing quite confidently what it truly means. He states: "The Cockney and French pronunciations of Harry’s name tell us what his name means. . . . Arry with a long ‘A’ suggests the word ‘heir' . . . If Harry means ‘Heir-y,’ then what is our Harry ‘Heir to’ or ‘Son of’?…The answer to that is in the biblical use of the word ‘Potter.’ . . . Potter can be used as a synonym for ‘God’—and thus Harry Potter means ‘Heir to’ or ‘Son of God’ . . . Harry Potter is ‘son of God.’”

Is this true? Can it be? Does that interpretation come from anything that has been directly stated or even intimated by J.K. Rowling? In a word, no. Instead, Rowling has given us an explanation that is not only far simpler, but infinitely more obvious and sensible: "'Harry’ has always been my favorite boy’s name, so if my daughter had been a son, he would have been Harry Rowling. Then I would have had to choose a different name for ‘Harry’ in the books, because it would have been too cruel to name him after my own son. ‘Potter’ was the surname of a family who used to live near me when I was seven. . . . I always liked the name, so I borrowed it" (J.K. Rowling). This is but one of many instances where Granger has concocted some outrageous interpretation of a word or phrase in HP.

I document several more examples in Harry Potter, Narnia, and The Lord of the Rings. He has been confronted by not only this instance of poor scholarship, but also other instances, and as far as I know, he has not retracted any of his interpretations that contradict Rowling's own words. What he has done, however, is to attack me personally, by calling me not only ignorant, but someone who has resorted to lying; specifically, lying about the popularity of my own works. Odd. Quite odd. I am left asking myself: What is the point of it all? What is the point of exalting these stories to the level of a Lewis or Tolkien, if truth itself is placed at the side of the road, left under a rock to rot in the dark.

This, of course, brings me to my own perceptions of the books. More than anything else, I am a journalist. I never escaped from the occult; never had a family member harmed by witches or Satanists. So I have no axe to grind. And I also have no academic reputation to uphold; I have no need to show people how much I know about literature, or symbology, or religion. I am just a basic reporter. So, I have tried very hard to simply report the facts by: a) pointing out what is in HP; b) going to Rowling herself for the interpretation of what's there; c) quoting practicing occultists about what they see in HP that blends with their worldview; d) measuring the actions of the characters against what scripture says regarding ethics-related issues (e.g., lying, stealing, cheating, revenge, etc.). This is why I now say to people, "Please. Stop arguing with me! Go argue with J.K. Rowling. Go argue with the occultists, Wiccans, and Pagans! I'm just quoting all of them. You have an issue with them, not me."

Most disturbing to me are the people who supposedly adore Rowling as an author, then turn around and ignore whatever she says that doesn't fit into what they want to believe about her books—case in point, John Granger and his fans. To me that is the height of audacity to tell another author what she really meant by a name, a place, a theme. Another habitual practice for these same folks that I find troubling is how they will conveniently pick and choose what they see in the series that supports their contentions. For example, they exalt the various things Harry does that are good (and there are indeed many things), but virtually ignore, or at least severely downplay, the things he does that are . . . well . .  not-so-good. Again, it is pseudo-scholarship at best, and at worst, academic dishonesty.



Carla: I was a bit disappointed with some of the things John Granger said about you recently on his blog (http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=141 July 27th, 2007).  For starters, people who aren't big fans of the series won't be standing in midnight lines and snagging up copies to race through them in less than a week, much less make major changes in their position in that time. And two, even though I agree with him that Deathly Hallows made Rowling's deliberate Christian themes a bit more obviously Christian, I don't think HBP or DH either one undermines any of the main criticisms you had of the books.  The Christian influence is more blatant, but the books are less child friendly and the moral relativism is worse than in the first five, and still we have the same worries about the effect of "good witches" and using occult terms that are still active.  I can't decide if John just doesn't fully understand your position on Potter or if he's simply not giving it enough credit. All the same, I think labeling him the "Evil" Hogwarts Professor on your blog may have come off as a tad reactionary.

Richard: LOL. Actually, this was me trying to stay in the spirit of Harry Potter. You know, sort of playing along with the whole John is a professor at Hogwarts thing. In no way do I literally mean that he, as a person, is "evil." I can think of a lot of other names for him, but that's not one of them.



Carla: But sometimes, I don't think you fully understand his position either.  Partly I'm sure because he's very verbose and not being a Potter fan, I'd be surprised if you were a regular visitor to his blog, where he said not too long ago that Potter was not a Christian allegory but a story filled with symbolism.  And partly because John Granger speaks "English teacher", a dialect of English that has frustrated me since highschool. I remember from my highschool English classes that we were to leave the words "I think" and "I believe" out of our papers because that part was supposed to be understood.  This part I didn't have too much trouble, where I got annoyed with in my English classes is that we were to swap "I think" for "the author does _____".  I literally burnt-out in 12th grade, because I got sick of pretending that the author was saying a lot more than I believed the author was actually saying.  So I think the problem you're having with John Granger (and some of the more "literary" Potter analysts) is the same problem I've had for years with the way we teach literature in our school system.  It would be more honest to just let kids say "what the story means to me" or "how I interpret", rather than ask them to put meaings in the author's mouth.  However, this is a common and even encouraged practice. By plain English standards John Granger has over stretched horribly on several points, but by "English teacher" standards he's not being the least bit deceptive but merely making educated guesses.  Because Rowling's world is such an interweaving of allusions from many, many mythologies, it's an English teachers playground.  However English teacher thinking doesn't tend to leave much room for the "Happy accident". I had a friend who once made up a name for a character only to find out later it was a real word in Japanese that described the character perfectly.  I'm sure if she ever gets it published, people will think her more clever than lucky on that point. I do want to come back to discussing age appropriateness, moral relativism, and occult connections in turn, but I needed to get that out of my system.]

Richard: I wonder, however, if John is not simply engaging here in the fallacy of "making a distinction without a difference." In other words, he may not call it an allegory outright, but he instead points out so much symbolism in it that supposedly relates directly to Christianity  (divine themes, Jesus, the atonement, God, the Virgin Mary, redemption, etc., etc., etc.), that he has basically turned it into a near-allegory. He has said, and continues to say, as far as I know, that Rowling (whom he casts as a bonifide Christian on the level of a Lewis or Tolkien) has deliberately sought to baptize the world into the gospel by presenting the gospel and key gospel themes throughout her books using symbolism. And he has done this, as I have already pointed out so many times, contrary to what Rowling herself has explained. I have no doubt that there are certain places where ubiquitous Christian allusions pop up (just like in many works of great literature), but this does not make HP Christian. The series contains all kinds of allusions from numerous religious traditions, lore, history, and philosophies. John picks one of them (i.e., Christianity) and runs with it, all along the way grabbing every symbol he can in order to attach a Christian meaning to it—no matter how absurd an argument he has to construct to make the symbol fit.

I compiled a rather amusing list in Harry Potter, Narnia, and The Lord of the Rings that includes no less than five different religious/philosophical groups (besides John Granger and Christians), who have alleged that Harry Potter and its symbolism really reflects THEIR particular views: Vedic astrologers, Secularists, Jewish Kabbalists, New Agers, and believe it or not, homosexuals. LOL. That's the beauty of symbols, you can take them and turn them into anything you want! So, we are left with having to go to the source of the symbol usage—i.e., J.K. Rowling—and find out what she intended. And according to her, a great deal of what is being passed off a Christian symbols and themes are not meant to be taken as Christian at all. A prime example being the name Harry Potter (or as John Granger would have us believe, "heir-of-God").



Carla: By plain English standards John Granger has over stretched horribly on several points, but by "English teacher" standards he's not being the least bit deceptive but merely making educated guesses. 

Richard: Here is where we disagree. It is an educated guess when you have to guess. It is being deceptive and agenda-driven when you continue to make your claims in the face of the author stating plain as day what he/she meant. Rowling has declared quite clearly what "Harry Potter" means, what "Dumbledore" means, as well as what words like "Snape, "Goblet of Fire," Sorceror's Stone," and so on mean. There is nothing about which to guess when it comes to these things. And yet John Granger keeps passing his interpretations off as legitimate literary explanations of what is in the novels.



Carla: And twisting that back around, your more journalistic approach has a sort of dialect of it's own as well.  It rather demands a simplicity of conclusions, rather than a long discourse on ethics or the possible meaning of symbols that are not plainly explained by the author.  Do you think this might be part of the reason a lot people were confused by your first book "Harry Potter and the Bible", and perhaps took it as a harsher criticism than it was intended to be?

Richard: I think you have indeed hit on something here. I did not have the freedom at all, in any of my books on HP, to discuss at length some things I would have liked to discuss more fully. That is the nature of book writing. (Sigh.) There are endless volumes on ethics as well as symbolism. I could never do those subjects justice. Instead, I was forced to draw upon the plainest material/information available, and leave the end conclusions up to the readers. Sadly, as I look back on things, it seems to me that a lot of people had already reached their conclusions (for example, that the books needed to be banned/burned), then simply used my book . . . and I hate to say this . . . as kind of an excuse they to do and say what they already knew they wanted to do and say. As I have always said, I know there are Christians symbols and allusions in HP, just as their are ones from the New Age, mythology, paganism, witchcraft, and the occult. Rowling pulled from all over the literary and creative landscape. That's what makes HP a truly fascinating and extraordinary series of books—NOT that it is some Christian saga intended to prepare readers to hear the gospel.



Carla: She's really said very little about the "religious undertone" in the books, though she confirmed that there was one very recently.  One of the posters over in the christian_hpfan journal wanted me to ask you what quotes you’re referencing that discredit the idea that Harry Potter is (or involves) a Christian allegory?

Richard: This fan is approaching the issue all wrong. The question is not: "What quotes from Rowling discredits the notion that she has written Harry Potter as a kind of a Christian allegory?" The question that needs to be asked is: "What quotes from Rowling indicate that she has indeed written the books as a kind of Christian allegory?" The burden of proof, in other words, lies at the feet of those who are making any claims beyond what is apparent. To approach it otherwise, leaves us in a place of having to ask for a quote(s) from Rowling to prove that Harry Potter is not an allegory for Buddhism, Islam, the New Age, or any number of other religious traditions.

Fortunately, we do have many quotes from Rowling that plainly state the theme of her overall story and each individual book. Let's consider, for example, the claims of some Christian fans of HP who have said Sorcerer's Stone pictures Harry as a kind of Christ representative—and that this is the book's theme. But Rowling has explained that the volume is actually "about the power of the imagination." And in reference to Goblet of Fire, its theme is closely linked with Rowling's very reason for choosing that particular title: "I preferred Goblet of Fire because it's got that kind of 'cup of destiny' feel about it, which is the theme of the book."

Again and again we have her talking about such themes in a very, very plain manner—and nowhere do we have her intimating that the books are about God, Jesus, Christianity, or Christian allegorical themes. Consider the following small sample of literally dozens of statements by Rowling:


So why does it seem to some Christians like the HP books are clearly Christian-based? Basically, it is because Rowling's themes are so broad that they can be read from all kinds of different perspectives or religious traditions. In other words, it is not that she is dealing with any issues in a specifically Christian context, it's just that the issues can be folded quite easily into any context that deals with them: Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, even Secularism. All of Rowling's topics are touched upon by these varying religious/philosophical systems.

It's like five different chefs finding a table full of ingredients that they can all use to cook a meal from their particular cuisine, be it French, Italian, Creole, Indian, Chinese, or Japanese. Each chef might think the ingredients were laid out for their specific meal, but in reality, the ingredients sitting on a table are just a collection of widely used ingredients. Each chef can use them as they see fit, or in the way that they are most comfortable using them.

Rowling said as much during a 2007 interview on Blue Peter in England: "Well, there are deeper meanings in there because I'm dealing with, erm, with Death. You're, you're exploring quite, well, very big themes, really, when you're talking about life and death and evil and goodness and, and the nature of loyalty and so on. So, erm, yes, but that doesn't mean to say that, ummmm ... I don't think they're worthy books in the sense that you, you don't, I hope you don't feel that there is a moral being rammed down your throat at every page. I think they can be read as a straightforward adventure story, and you can take from them what you want. So that's probably why they work quite well for people of different ages."

If there is any doubt that the HP books are vastly different than those of Lewis or Tolkien, I submit the words of J.K. Rowling herself, who blatantly distanced her works from those of both Lewis and Tolkien:


I don't believe it can get any clearer than that! And yet these highly relevant remarks about HP have been utterly overlooked (or ignored) by legions of Christian HP fans who continue to insist that HP is an allegorical-like work that is Christian through and through.



Carla: Are there legions of Christian HP fans insisting it's allegorical-like through and through?  I mean I do know some, but they still seem in the minority amoung fans and amoung Christian fans for the series.

Richard: Hmmm. Perhaps legions would be an overstatement. I was using that word as more of a hyperbole, anyway. At the same time, I do feel it is quite a lot of HP fans. The books extolling the Christianity of Harry Potter have been selling very, very, well. And our Hogwarts Professor friend, John Granger, is the official online professor for Barnes & Noble discussions. That is a huge crowd of followers.



Carla: I think there are certainly a lot of spiritual/biblical connections that Christian fans have made to the books, which makes us wonder what's deliberate and what just came out of the bubbling.  But Rowling has said some things to make us wonder if somewhere along her bubbling process, she's deliberately playing with some Christian themes.

Richard: Oh, I have no doubt of that. Why? Because they are GREAT themes! She plays with all kinds of themes in her books. That's no surprise. She is quite clever in that respect and has been rewarded for her talents. I congratulate her for that.



Carla: Like this excerpt from the The Vancouver Sun article in 2000:


So we do have a statement from Rowling saying that 1. She is Christian and 2. Her religious beliefs are in some way connected to the books’ plot.

Richard: Yes. This is the same statement from 7 years ago that I hear repeated over and over. Along with the other 2000 remark, "Well, as it happens, I believe in God, but there's no pleasing some people!"

I have no doubt that Rowling has some Christian ideals, concepts, and views floating around in her head—just like many people in th UK and just like most people in the U.S. However, that does not make her a Christian from a biblical or logical perspective. What we need to ask ourselves is: What is a Christian? The answer, of course, is deeply rooted in one's beliefs concerning the Bible, God, Jesus, and the atonement. In other words, the foundational doctrines of the faith. Rowling has never once articulated any of her views on such issues.

You can walk through any shopping mall and ask people "Do you believe in God" or "Are you a Christian" and a vast majority will answer "yes" to both questions. Yet if you were to probe a bit further you'd find their concepts of "God," "Jesus," and what it means to be a Christian vary dramatically, not only from one another, but from the Bible.

Like these mall walkers, Rowling can mean a host of things by what she has said. She has never expressed that she believes the basic, orthodox tenets of Christianity as defined by the age-old creeds of Christendom. Consequently, her short, non-exploratory, HIGHLY generalized responses actually count for very little beyond simply indicating that she certainly does not follow the teachings of some other world religion like Buddhism or Islam.

But I have found that when individuals WANT to believe something, all they need is the smallest morsel to feed upon. And this is what has happened, in my opinion, when it comes to Rowling. Some Christians want her to be a devout Christian so much, that they take these minimal comments and expand them to mean far more than they mean at face value. At the very least, I think it's safe to say that her religious views, as expressed publicly, are considerably lacking in depth and content when compared to those of Tolkien and Lewis, who were very plain about their faith. That, in my opinion, is not an insignificant piece of information.



Carla: Now what that connection was up to very recently was pure speculation, but I think the end of Deathly Hallows made that a bit more clear, at least on how the Christian tradition affects the plot. 

Richard: I have never, ever argued that there would not be any Christian allusions in the HP books. Of course, there are. I would expect nothing less of such a lengthy tome that pulls from a myriad of religious and mythological traditions. But that does not make the books Christian. Nor does it make Rowling a devout, orthodox believer who deliberately attempted to warm people to the gospel through her works. The whole dying, rising, self-sacrificing, savior motif is old, old, old—and popular. It existed even before Christ himself came to make that myth a reality. So, again, Rowling's use of it is far more literary, as I see it, than some kind of personal expression of her faith and desire to bring Jesus to the world.



Carla: In the Dateline interview, shortly after the Death Hallows release she said:


Which is still a far cry from Rowling saying "a yes, ha ha, they were allegories all along", but it does leave one to think that some of the religious elements were very deliberately placed in the books.

Richard: Sure. As I stated, she has clear influences on her from the Christian realm. But what does that all mean? I am merely saying—"take what she has stated, and no more." And truth be told, she has not said much. Others, however, are jumping to conclusions and taking some fairly unimpressive remarks, and declaring, "See! See! Rowling is a Bible-believing, orthodox, devout Christian!" But that is hardly what the woman has actually said. Even in the above quote on Dateline, she said she was "struggling" with "religious belief" to "keep believing." The questions are obvious. Struggling how? What exactly does she mean by "religious belief?" "Keep believing . . . what, precisely?" These are not the answers of a C.S. Lewis or a J.R.R. Tolkien. She has never even expanded on her definition of "God." She might well believe in a "God" of some kind, but what about him does she believe? Suffice it to say, we have a lot of holes in the so-called airtight quotes that prove Rowling is a Christian.



Carla: So I guess the question is does Rowling dealing with more universal themes exclude the possibility that she was doing something deliberately Christian?  If not an allegory in Lewis's style, perhaps planting the seed of certain concepts?

Richard: As I have said, you have these tremendous themes within Christianity of self-sacrifice, love, forgiveness, death, and resurrection. I can't see how any good author wouldn't want to use such themes in their works, especially fantasy, whether the author is a Christian or not. Ever read Stephen King's Desperation?? Now, THAT is Christian through and through in so many ways and with so many things. Very blatant, too. Is Stephen King a Christian? I don't think so. It must be remembered that the entire HP series is derivative—and I mean that in a good way. Rowling has managed to take from the best that literature has to offer in the way of themes and characters, and weave them all together into a brand new tale. Some of these rich themes were bound to come from Christianity, which has presented to the world one of the greatest of all works of literature—the Bible.



Carla: I'm afraid I'm not much of a Stephen King fan and haven't read Desperation, but I've noticed lots of authors/films/programs, that borrow stories from the Bible (people, names, scenarios, etc.) but lose the Christian thinking behind them.  There are lots of "end times" stories out there where the hero's main goal is to "stop" the end from coming, which says to me that they really don't get it.  So it's not unprecedented.

Richard: At the same time, while Joseph Campbell popularize the idea of the universal myth and I've heard several people say there are many stories similiar to Christ's throughout mythology, I've never seen anyone give a very satisfactory example of it.  Do you know any examples of "The whole dying, rising, self-sacrificing, savior motif" from other traditions? Oh, there are so many of them. I think the easiest reference is to just give the wiki link to the entry on this issue. Lewis and Tolkien discussed this a great deal in their writings.



Carla: But, no, there's really not much to go on to establish what flavor of Christianity she's subscribes to.  I'm hoping now that she's not worried about giving the plot away, she'll talk more freely on the subject.  Judging from other interviews, she doesn't seem to consider herself fundamentalist, but then neither does Laura Mallory...and I believe you said something recently that you don't consider yourself fundamentalist either.

Richard: Indeed.

 

Carla: I do consider myself a fundamentalist, but it doesn't seem to be the very "in" thing to be right now.  And actually it's confusing me a bit, because I'll hear people claim not to be fundamentalist, but turn around and use what I would consider to be very fundamentalist attitudes, beliefs, or arguments.  So while it might be a bit off the topic of Potter, could you tell me what you think of when you use the word "fundamentalist" and how you don't fall into that category?

Richard Abanes: I am not a fundamentalist in the negative way that the word is so popularly used today throughout the media and also by assorted Christian-bashers. It's sort of become the worst name you can call a Christian in this age of enlightenment, and has a lot of negative baggage associated with it, calling forth mental images of people who are either abortion clinic bombers or barely literate, barefoot, Bible-thumpers.

And sadly, there is indeed a kind of narrow-mindedness and ignorance of the world in general when it comes to fundamentalists, whom I would consider to be Christians that go beyond what is actually biblical and have an terrifically rigid perspective of what is right and wrong or good and evil in the world. The word, I think, would also cover how such individuals respond and react to the world in which we live. Usually it is with condemnation and self-isolation. They tend to be extremely locked into one way of thinking about all kinds of things from dancing, to video games, to appropriate ways of preaching the gospel, to what is (and what is not) acceptable music, forms of entertainment, etc. etc. etc.

So no, I am not a fundamentalist. I am an evangelical and a fairly open-minded one, at that. I do, however, hold to all of the essential doctrines of Christianity—i.e., those outlined in the ancient creeds of the church. That, by the way, is what it actually used to mean to be a fundamentalist—i.e., a person who simply held to the fundamentals of the faith. But the meaning of the word has chanegd so much, that it cannot really be used in that sense anymore by people like me, who seek to practice the kind of tolerance Jesus displayed in scripture toward others. Oh, that's another aspect of today's Fundamentalists—they are not very tolerant.

 

Carla: Ah, well, I consider myself fundamentalist in the more traditional sense (denotation vs. connotation)...We could probably spend a long time on the subject, but if you had to give a brief answer, what would you say distinguishes Christ from the other "savior motif" examples?

Richard: Oh goodness, that's the easiest question you could have asked me. The difference is that the Christ myth was true. That's how C.S. Lewis put it. The gospels are the myth made real through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Other than that, the similarities between tales are tremendous, even down to the savior being born of a virgin!



Carla: I've noticed the strongest division between Christian reactions to the book seem to hinge on this subject.  To one extreme, some people are seriously frightened by anything vaguely occultish, and on the other side, there are Christians who seem to regard witchcraft as pure make believe and/or nothing to worry about.  I think there's a bit of ignorance in both attitudes, but I'd like to come back to real world "magick" in more detail a bit further along.  Sticking to Rowling for now...J.K. Rowling has admitted to using a lot of material that "people used to believe", basing about a third of her world on it.  But you say that she has "consistently failed to mention...a significant portion of material in her books is also based on things that people (i.e. occultists) still believe."  Do you think this could simply be ignorance on her part?  Maybe she's been studying witches and wizards in more historical text and avoiding the modern day books?
 
Richard: My shortest answer of the interview: I have no idea. : -)  I've not seen anything from Rowling that would indicate to me precisely what sources she has used for her research. But whatever sources she has studied, they are extremely in-depth. All you have to do is read HP. She details some fairly obscure aspects of occult lore, history, teachings, mythology, etc. etc. etc. She knows her stuff. To make any further comment, I'd have to look at her library, and uhm . . . sadly, I don't think she's going to let me do that. lol. I would love a peek at Rowling's library, because she seems to be a very well read person in general.
 
Though most of the magic in her world could be pieced together from Hollywood and popular myths and legends, you did bring up a few things in your book that are fairly obscure, and even some of the Hollywood input has its origins from real practices...As Hermione says in CoS "don't legends always have a basis in fact?"
 
However they got there, there are a lot of parallels (direct and indirect) in Harry Potter to real witchcraft.  You list several examples in your book, so I thought I'd ask the question from a different angle.  How is the magic in Harry Potter not like real witchcraft?
 
There is really nothing in HP pertaining to Wicca, or Witchcraft (notice the capital "W"). Wicca/Witchcraft is an official religion within the broader pagan community. Its tenets are not present in HP: e.g., nature worship, gods/goddess contact, sexual permissiveness, the Wiccan moral code (called The Wiccan Rede). Also, all of the silliness we see in HP involving magic that is much more akin to fairytale magic is certainly not from the occult: riding brooms, Quidditch, the whole concept of a Hogwarts school, etc. etc. etc. They have no foundation in real-world Witchcraft. That sort of stuff is just all make believe, nonsensical uses of fantasy "magic" to propel the story forward.
 


Carla: So the worry isn't so much that Harry Potter is an occult training manual, as that there's enough parallels that some people might use it as a stepping stone into the more "real" and dangerous areas of occult study.  What's your advice for Christians and parents who are worried about their friends or kids making that transition?

Richard: Absolutely. Very well said. This is all I have been trying to communicate with regard to the occult connection in HP. Parents MUST be active in reading with their children, and not just when it comes to HP—when it comes to everything their kids read. We know that young minds are, well, YOUNG minds. They do not have the powers of discernment (at least hopefully) of an adult. Kids, up as far as into the teens, according to recent studies, don't even have fully-matured brains. We are talking basic biology and physiology at this point. So, children need guidance. That's what parenting is all about, well, one of the things—guiding a child as they grow. In order to do that, adults must have accurate information to make well-informed decisions. This is probably why it bothers me so much when people get false information about anything, not just HP, but anything in connection to some influence on a young child. So, I suppose my guides would be these:


I hope this is helpful.
 


Carla: I think it is.  Particularly the bit about talking to your children about what they read/watch.  A parent's words can be very powerful, even if neither the parent nor child realizes it at the time.  I remember my Dad telling me when I was little that some of the things in Looney Tunes, like the coyote getting knocked off the cliff, would really hurt/kill someone if it was real.  At the time I thought "well obviously," but as I grew older I really came to appreciate that he took the time to make sure I was aware of the distinction. And material on "real" witchcraft is certainly far easier to access than it used to be.  The amount of it in my library's collection has more than quadrupled in the years I've worked there.  But in many cases all it may take on a parent's part is saying "it's not the same" or "you ought to stay away from that". I think we need to talk a bit about the real life Potter parallels that the Bible tells us to stay away from.  Witchcraft/sorcery itself, divination, and conjuring spirits in particular...well, before I get ahead of myself, what is it that the Bible specifically forbids in this area?
 
Richard: I have a whole expanded section on this in Harry Potter, Narnia, and The Lord the Rings in an Appendum at the end of the book that I titled "What's So Bad About Occultism?" Of course, I can't reproduce all of that here, but in a nutshell, what we have in scripture are several different broad categories of occult activity that the Judeo-Christian God forbids—either directly, or indirectly by showing that such actions are inconsistent with his character and/or desires. God's prohibitions against occultism are sprinkled throughout the Old and New Testaments, and include such practices as: divination, astrology, witchcraft, charms, spells, wizardry, magick/sorcery, and necromancy (communication with the dead). All of these things fit into the generalized category of the occult.

Also, we must bear in mind that dozens of other rituals and activities not SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Bible, might still fall into one of the broad categories of practices forbidden. For instance, the Oujii Board might not be listed in scripture, but it could be placed under the category of divination or even necromancy. Tarot Cards would fall into the area of divination. Channeling could be classed as necromancy (or, truth be told, just plain old gullibility, depending on what you think is going on with most channelers, if not all of them).

Of course, some of the terms overlap, having only different shades of meaning and intensity—for example, witchcraft, wizardry, sorcery, and magick. Each of these terms, basically means, practices and rituals that a person uses to try and bring about a change in reailty according to their own wills via supernatural means, or by bending the laws of nature. In other words, it is you seeking to place yourself in the position of God. This is the meaning behind the oft-quoted verse against witchcraft, 1 Samuel 15:23, "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."

There are three basic reasons for why God does not want people engaging in the occult:


Oh, and as a side point, according to law enforcement studies, occult involvement by young people has been linked to violent and criminal behavior. That is a very, very complex issue I can't really get into using this limited a forum, but it is worth mentioning.
 


Carla: Indeed, I think a lot of people, even Christians don't take those things very seriously.  In part because there is a lot of "faking" going on in the occult world, some people seem to be under the impression that it's all fake.  Long before Harry Potter, they were holding seances on "I Love Lucy", and Ginger was preaching horoscopes on "Gilligans Island" (not regularly but in specific episodes).  So making light of practices that would fall under sorcery or divination has been going on for a while.  Then again, I run into Christians on the other extreme who seem terrified of the very idea of anything occultic, as though it's likely to jump out and attack them if they stand too close to something unusual.  Neither extreme seems all that healthy. In general how do you think Christians should approach/deal with the occult and occultists?

Richard: No differently than they'd approach Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Islam and the people associated with such religions. Look, we're all people trying to make our way through life, and along the way find truth to live by and some spiritual comfort for our souls—that includes Wiccans, pagans, and occultists. They are not demon-possessed murderers or baby-killers. They're just people who see things differently and for whatever reasons have found the occult interesting, enjoyable, and fulfilling.

Our job is to simply hold out what we have to offer, explain as intelligently and unoffensively why we believe what we believe, and leave the rest up to God. And, if these folks are our friends, love them, pray for them, enjoy a good barbecue with them or seeing a football game with them. This "us vs. them" antagonistic attitude that many Christians have adopted (what I call the "Onward Christian Soldiers") mentality has got to go.

Christ lived on earth as a Shepherd. He called us sheep among wolves. Referred to us as salt, light, and doves. Paul called us athletes competing as to win a prize. We are also referred to as slaves of righteousness. I don't see any of this militant, bash em over the head with the Bible, protesting with rude signs behavior among the disciples. I think this might be a kind of Western, Americanization of Christianity that I wish wasn't so featured in the media. It makes me cringe.
 


Carla: Amen. There are people though, who haven't embraced the occult, but may experience something that many people would label as occultist or supernatural.  Thanks to the film The Sixth Sense "I see dead people" has become a sort of running gag, but there are people who see "ghosts" for lack of a better term.  And while The Sixth Sense was a great film, it doesn't promote a very Christian view of dealing with spirits.  What advice would you give people in that situation?
 
Richard:  I'm going to be brutally honest here—I have yet to meet anyone who has had anything truly supernatural happen to them. What people habitually label as supernatural often have very, very, very, very natural explanations. I am highly skeptical when it comes to what I call hoogey-boogey experiences. Just like when we were kids, just hearing a ghost story around a camp fire could make us see and hear all kinds of things at night when the lights were off. As adults, we are still susceptible to tricks of the mind and ears, especially if we have been fixating on such things as demonology, so-called "deliverance," and even commercials on TV for scary movies (which can implant some pretty interesting images and thoughts in one's head). I believe that there were probably far more legitimate supernatural occurrences long, long ago. But not so much today. There are more powerful things now to distract us than ghosts—materialism, sexual temptation (can anyone say internet porn), greed. You will find far more in the Bible about combating our own natures/selves than about demons and such. So, I don't think I would have any advice for people in "that situation" since I don't really think there are that many people in "that situation." I would say look for natural explanations—you’ll probably find them.
 
 

Carla: I know you’re busy, but anything else you'd like to add before calling it a wrap?

Richard: I suppose I'd just like to say, with regard to the HP series—THEY'RE JUST A BUNCH OF BOOKS!

People need to stop getting so hyper-crazy about them, either positively or negatively. Interestingly, the arguments I've seen between folks screaming either for or against HP have had much less to do with the books themselves, than they did with some other issue; some other emotional agenda or venting.

Zealous Christian fans of HP, for example, for some reason feel compelled to MAKE the books Christian and see virtually every word/phrase as a hidden Christian symbol. It is almost as if they cannot emotionally deal with the fact that perhaps such a popular, well-loved book series is NOT Christian. And so the solution is obvious—interpret them as Christian. Problem solved, regardless of what the books truly contain, or what the author J.K. Rowling herself has said about them.

Then, on the other hand, you have secular lovers of HP, who see absolute fire-engine red whenever they hear any Christian raise a concern about HP—either about its occultism or its morals. No matter how mildly, or reasonably, or calmly, or thoughtfully such concerns are voiced, the secular HP fan launches into an anti-CHRISTIAN tirade yelling about: 1) how stupid organized religion is; 2) the horrors of the Crusades and witch hunts; 3) televangelist scammers; 4) Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson (I kid you not); 5) something terrible they experienced in church as a young person. HP critics and criticisms become a focal point for their anger and bitterness, and boy let me tell you, they let it out. Problem solved, regardless of what the balanced critics of HP are actually saying, or how reasonable they are being.

And, of course, you then have those people who are true Harry-Haters, who think that the books are going to turn a whole generation into Satan-worshiping, demon-possessed, card-carrying Wiccans. These are the same folks who want the books banned or burned to show that "we good Christian Americans won't have anything to do with the unfruitful works of darkness" (paraphrase of many statements I have heard). For such people, HP represents everything that frightens them in the world; everything that they don't understand, or feel in some way threatens them, their loved ones, their home, their faith, their country. Like Russia/Communism during the Cold War, HP becomes the big enemy that must be vanquished and ever-watched. And, truth be told, making a loud stand against it and trying to fight it probably gives them a sense of purpose and meaning; their "stand for righteousness" makes someone feel that perhaps their voice is being heard and they are having some impact for good (or for God) in the world. Harry Potter, therefore, is demonic, demonic, demonic. STAY AWAY—EVERYONE! Problem solved, regardless of whether or not a fair assessment of the books are being made, or whether one's actions are actually misrepresenting Christ by making Christianity look like a repository for . . . . well . . . . nut-heads.

So, you see, much of what we see going on goes way beyond HP. It's actually a rather fascinating study of human behavior, thoughts, and emotions in response to the same stimuli. Hmmm, I wish I would have been a sociologist. It probably would have made this whole HP experience for me much more enjoyable. Trust me, it has not been enjoyable. I have been berated and attacked by people from all three camps I describe above:


SIGH.

I will close with something I said much earlier in this interview about HP: "Like them. Love them. Hate them. Whatever. But know what they contain, not only from a spiritual perspective (pro & con), but also from an ethical/moral perspective (pro & con). Then, make an appropriate decision for yourselves and your children based on the possible effects of such content, especially on the malleable minds of young, impressionable kids."

Oh—and CALM DOWN. lol. So, there you have it. My take on HP. I hope everyone enjoyed the read.