If Love's a Sweet Passion

If love's a Sweet Passion, why does it torment?

If a Bitter, oh tell me, whence comes my content?

Since I suffer with pleasure, why should I complain,

Or grieve at my Fate, when I know 'tis in vain?

Yet so pleasing the Pain is so soft as the Dart,

That at once it both wounds me and tickles my Heart

I press her Hand gently, look Languishing down,

And by Passionate Silence I make my love known.

But oh! How I'm Blest when so kind she does prove,

By some willing mistake to discover her Love.

When in striving to hide, she reveals her Flame,

And in our Eyes tell each other what neither dares Name.

"There can be only one permanent revolution—a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man."

-- Leo Tolstoy

"Whenever you see a person insult his inferiors, you may feel assured that he is the man who will be servile and cringing to his superiors; and he who acts the bully to the weak, will play the coward when with the strong."

-- Cecil B. Hartley,  The Gentleman's Book of Etiquette and Manual of Politeness 

Does God Still Speak?

That's the next question, isn't it? 

The real question is, what do you believe? For someone who doesn't believe in God at all, rationalizations will obviously be found. Just as they do with everything. When people die and see God, and come back, it's just neurons firing randomly in the brain. When someone is healed of cancer, it's "spontaneous remission". When Jesus rises from the dead, it's that his disciples stole the body and made up a story. These people are like the dwarfs in the stable at the end of C.S. Lewis's The Last Battle; they are blind because they refuse to see, even when the reality is right before their faces.

But there is another philosophy out there, too, and that among Christians. It says that all supernatural works of God ceased at the close of the Apostolic age, including His supernatural leading and intervention in our lives, and that everything we need now is contained in the Bible. That he only leads us through His written word, and not through (they usually add derisively) "inner voices and mystical experiences". This doctrine is called Cessationism, and is one of the most malignant and pernicious lies ever to infect the Church. I am of the opinion that it is the work of none other than Screwtape and his ilk. It's the cleverest and most--if you'll excuse me--diabolical thing they came up with until one of them had the brilliant idea to pretend that they don't exist altogether (which is really an extension of this idea). It robs the Christian and the Church of all power to resist them, and places them firmly under their control. The Devil is perfectly at home in many churches; he doesn't mind religion one bit, as long as it's devoid of the power of God. In fact, he rather likes it--"the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof" (2 Tim 3:5)

The story that the miraculous ceased at the end of the Apostolic era can be simply and easily proven false by a quick and cursory search of the Church Fathers. Miracles, healings, prophecy, and yes, even tongues, are recorded as still occurring throughout the first few centuries of the Christian era. I won't waste space citing them here: a quick Google search will prove my point, if you doubt me.

A variant of this doctrine says that, rather than ending with the death of St. John, (the last Apostle), miracles ended with the "closing of the canon" of Scripture in the fourth century. An event, incidentally, which never actually happened: there is nothing in the canons of the Council of Nicea, nor any other ecumenical council, formalizing or even listing the canon of the Bible. The Council of Laodicea did discuss the issue of the canon, or which books should be read in churches, but did not specify which ones those were, just that only canonical books should be read. There is a spurious later additional document which pretends to be connected to that council, and contains a list, but a) it is obviously a late forgery, as it is absent from almost all the manuscripts, and b) it is a very different list from what we now know; for instance it forbids Philippians, Ephesians, and Revelation. The canon of Scripture was not formalized until 692 in the East at the second Council of Trullan, and in the West not until the Council of Trent in 1552. And of course, neither of these was ecumenical.

I have issues with the originators and purveyors of this doctrine, in whatever form. But as regards most of those who believe it, they are for the most part sincerely believing and well-meaning people who are just mistaken. Either because they have been taught wrong, or because they have been disappointed in their spiritual lives and that has made them vulnerable to being deceived. When things don't work out, the human tendency is to say, "Well, I guess that doesn't work" and to create a theology to fit one's experience. I was one of those latter for a long time. I never formally held the doctrine of Cessationism, but I adopted a philosophy that God more or less left us to our own devices; because I had experienced so much failure and defeat in my spiritual life (due to my own fault). These people are well-represented by Lewis's character Mr. Macphee, in That Hideous Strength, who, although all these miraculous occurrences are happening all around him, stodgily sticks to his philosophy that it's all superstition and hogwash. But he's still basically a decent man, in spite of his error.

But let us leave aside, for the purposes of this discussion, the other questions of Cessationism; that is, the continued occurrence of signs and wonders, healings, tongues, prophecies, and the like, and focus only on whether God actively speaks to and leads us or not. Because, really, it is not necessary to believe in the former in order to accept the latter. Indeed, that was the position of all the the historic churches until the advent of the charismatic renewal caused them to take either one side or the other. The Roman Catholics, for instance, have always accepted the existence of miracles, apparitions, mysticism, etc.; but they did not formally acknowledge the validity of the continued charismata from around the time of Augustine and Chrysostom until Vatican II. It was only in the Calvinist churches and those heavily influenced by Reformed theology that the aversion to "superstition" was held as a formal doctrine. And then later, when the "Enlightenment" decided that nothing existed beyond the material, its poison seeped into the Church, as such venomous philosophies of the world, sadly, always do. Anyway, let us examine the question, then, in that light.

First of all, I have very serious reservations about any doctrine or theology that did not exist in the Church until fifteen hundred years after its founding. And this one did not. Calvin claimed that he based his doctrine of cessation on Augustine. But that's not what Augustine said. What he wrote, was that tongues no longer occurred as a matter of course when hands were laid on young people and new believers at confirmation.

‘In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away.’ (Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John. Homily VI, 10)

But elsewhere he wrote about the great number of miracles, especially healings, which had taken place in his time, many of which he had witnessed personally.

The other Church Father cited by Cessationists is Chrystostom, in whose writing is found a passage where he questions why some things happened in the early Church, but no longer did in his own time; specifically, in regard to the spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 12.

‘This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?’ (Homilies on First Corinthians. Homily XXIX, 1)

But again, Chrysostom himself, in other writings, reported miraculous healings that he had personally witnessed, as well as discussing various means for the casting out of demons.

So again, while it is true that the charismata, as such, as specifically practiced by the early Church and enumerated by St. Paul in his epistles, seem to have either died out or at least become far less common as the centuries passed, the cessation of all supernatural or miraculous acts of God among His people was never taught, until Calvin had to explain, in response to Catholic criticisms, why his reformation movement lacked any miracles to confirm that it was a true move of God. I tend to agree with the Catholics on this one. "For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of words, but of power." -- 1 Cor 4:20. But Calvin's new religion was exactly that: a matter of words, and not of power.

This is a very telling point, and is the same thing that has been done on both an individual and corporate level over and over again. That is, churches and individual believers create a doctrine in response  to their own observations and experiences, to explain why their lives differ from the Christian life as depicted in the Bible; why there is no spiritual power in their lives. Then they go back to the Bible, to the Church Fathers, and to Church history, and try to justify that doctrine. This is called eisegesis, and is bad theology. It means reading into the Bible a belief that one already holds, and is the primary reason for the multitude of vehement and vicious divisions that plague the Church. This is in contrast to exegesis, or extracting the meaning from the text and adopting it as one's own belief system, which is good theology.

So, then to what is really the most important point: what does the Bible say on this subject? After all, those who hold to Cessationism claim that the Bible is all-sufficient, containing everything that is needed for the Christian life. So let's see what it actually contains.

Psalm 16:7: I bless the LORD who gives me counsel; in the night also my heart instructs me.

Psalm 25:9: He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way.

Psalm 32:8: I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. 

Psalm 37:23: The steps of a man are established by the LORD, when he delights in his way; though he fall, he shall not be cast headlong, for the LORD upholds his hand.

Psalm 48:14: This God is our God for ever and ever; he will be our guide even unto death.

Psalm 73:23-24: Nevertheless, I am continually with you; you hold my right hand. You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will receive me to glory.

Proverbs 3:5-6: Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

Proverbs 16:9: The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.

Job 33:14-18: For God speaks in one way, and in two, though man does not perceive it. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men, while they slumber on their beds, then he opens the ears of men and terrifies them with warnings, that he may turn man aside from his deed and conceal pride from a man; he keeps back his soul from the pit, his life from perishing by the sword.

Isaiah 30:21: And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, “This is the way, walk in it,” when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left.

Isaiah 8:19-20: And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?  

Matthew 7:7-8: Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 

Matthew 28:20: And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. 

Luke 12:11-12: And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say. 

John 14:12: Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. 

James 1:5: If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.

This is just a sampling. There are more, throughout the entirety of Scripture. Remember, for instance, though I'm not going to provide all the verses, how in the Old Testament the people actively and continually sought the Lord's will, either through the prophets or through the Urim and Thummim of the priest, or the casting of lots as it is called. And in the New Testament, especially in the Acts of the Apostles, it is always, "the Holy Spirit led us", or "the Holy Spirit forbade us". Or how God continually spoke to them through prophets, like when Paul was warned in every city that bonds awaited him in Jerusalem. There is even at least one instance of the casting of lots to seek God's will in the New Testament: in the selection of Matthias to replace Judas.

Now, here is the Scriptural case for Cessationism:

1 Cor 13:8: Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 

That's it. One verse. Taken completely out of context, and given a highly dubious interpretation, which contradicts itself and is in no way justified by the text.

First of all, this verse is found in a chapter about love, and not about how one received guidance, instruction on church discipline, the exercise of the gifts of the Spirit, or anything of the sort. It's about how love is the greatest of the Christian virtues, and the gifts are mentioned as a means of comparison. He also mentions martyrdom and works of charity as comparisons, but they have not ceased.

Secondly, look at the context; here is the next verse, and those following:

1 Cor 13:9-12: For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

So, if Paul is saying that the supernatural works of God and the mystical life of the Christian are going to cease, either with the death of the Apostles or the completion of the New Testament, then since that event, whichever it was, we should have been able to see God clearly, face to face, and to know Him fully, even as we are known by Him. Do we? Most especially, do those Christians who don't accept that He speaks to them and guides them? And, looking back at the first verse, has knowledge ceased? If tongues and prophecy were to cease at a certain point in Church history based on that passage, then knowledge should have too.

Then, there's the issue that the last part of the passage is written in the first person. If "becoming a man," "knowing in full," and "seeing face to face" somehow mean, "having the full revelation of God in the completed canon of Scripture", and that was to occur at some point after the death of all the apostles, how could Paul have spoken of it as something that he, himself, was going to experience? Obviously, this was not what he meant: he was talking about when he (and we) are going to behold God directly in the next life. But even if Paul is referring to something that we can experience here on earth, and not what is to come in the next world, it sounds an awful lot like a mystical experience that he's talking about: seeing God face-to-face, and knowing him personally, intimately. Like I said, self-contradictory.

But here is yet another perspective from which to consider the question: Logically; rationally; why would God spend the entirety of the Bible teaching us that the way to know Him and follow Him is directly to seek his guidance, and then completely change that as soon as the Bible is "finished". And only give us one verse, obscurely hidden and very unclear as to its meaning, to let us know that He really didn't mean everything He'd said previously--that it was only for the guys who wrote the Bible, and now He's leaving us on our own, because we've got a book to go by? It's perverse. It's illogical. It's capricious. It's insane. "Live by this book. Except, don't, because the things it says don't apply to you."

So, to sum up: The case for Cessationism is one Bible verse and two paragraphs from the Church Fathers, all taken out of context. Whereas the case for the continuance of God's activity in the life of the Church and the believer is the entirety of the Bible, the Fathers, and Church history, with the exception of certain specific post-Reformation and post-Enlightenment sects and denominations. I choose to believe the former. And, as it coincides perfectly with my own experience, I take it as confirmation that I am not, in fact, crazy or delusional, but am living the normal Christian life, as God intended.

"I believe in miracles here and now. . . .We ought all of us to be ashamed of not performing miracles and we do not feel this shame enough. We regard our own state as normal and theurgy as exceptional, whereas we ought to regard the worker of miracles, however rare, as the true Christian norm and ourselves as spiritual cripples."

-- C.S. Lewis, Petitionary Prayer

Your heart understood mine,

in the thick of the fragrant night,

as I listened, with ravished soul,

to the tones of your beloved voice

"A delightful serenity diffused itself through my heart. I worshipped the magnificence of the God of nature  and I thought of you. These two sensations always arise in my heart in the quiet of a rural landscape  and I have often considered it a proof of the purity and the reality of my affection for you, that it always feels most powerful in my religious moments. And this is very natural  Are you not the greatest blessing Heaven has bestowed upon me?" 

-- Leigh Hunt

"I am not so sure that there are no fairies, and I am only too well aware that the best 'history stories' are not true."

-- Andrew Lang

Psalm 23: The Original Hebrew Melody Deciphered

This is an even more fascinating (and deeply spiritually moving) entry on the ancient music of the Bible. Here is an explanation of how the musical notation was deciphered, by the same musician and researcher quoted in my last post, Michael Levy:

"Following the tragic destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem, the entire musical legacy of the Temple, both vocal and instrumental, seemed to be forever lost. However, the Masoretic scribes preserved (along with the biblical consonantal text itself) an ancient "reading tradition" dating back (according to themselves) to the Second Temple Era; and beginning about 1,200 years ago, they painstakingly copied that tradition out in exacting detail. The Masoretic Text is still the oldest complete copy of the Hebrew Bible that we have.

Part of the 'reading tradition' the Masoretes preserved was a series of 'accents' ("Te Amim"), which occur throughout the entire Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim) in two systems. The Masoretes did not understand the meaning or the monumental significance of these accents, and for centuries, there have been countless theories as to what their original meaning was.

Most theories have started from the assumption that they were to emphasize precise points of grammar in the text. Leaving aside all these debates, Suzanne Haïk-Vantoura concentrated solely on finding a musical meaning of these "accents".

Through countless experiments and a laborious process of irrefutable verification (using the Hebrew verbal phrase structure itself as her 'Rosetta Stone'), she finally realized that all these symbols represent musical tones: the 7 degrees of a heptatonic scale, or else ornaments of one to three notes! The accents, were, in fact transcriptions of hand gestures - which formed the ancient musical notation system of cheironomy, whereby a specific hand gesture represented a specific change in the pitch of a melody."

"The astonishing significance of Haik Vantoura's musical accomplishment , if true, is that not only does Haik Vantoura reveal to us such magnificent music of such incredible spiritual worth, but in doing so, she also revealed to us the only surviving example so far known, of the world's complete art music - written maybe 1000 years earlier than the 2000 year old ancient Greek 'Skolion of Seikilos'; the only other piece of written music from antiquity to have survived completely intact, in its complete, original form."

Of course, it is not certain that this hypothesis is correct, and there's really no way that it ever could be. But in addition to being a perfectly logical and self-consistent theory, the fact that it actually works, musically, is, in my opinion, a very strong argument in its favor. And it also is consistent with the best explanation of other anomalies which appear in the Psalms and do not appear to be part of their actual poetry, such as the frequently-found "To the director of music" and the even more frequent appearance of the word "selah", whose meaning is unsure. The best theory of its meaning is "pause", and it is thus translated in the Septuagint which, in my view, is fairly conclusive, since that translation was made during the second temple period by learned Jewish rabbis from Jerusalem. And that would, as I said, coincide perfectly with the existence of musical notation in the text.

What did Ancient Biblical Music sound like?

From the musician, Michael Levy: "Another track from my album "Lyre of the Levites: Klezmer Music for Biblical Lyre" which hopefully demonstrates my hypothesis, that the ancient musical modes still heard today in traditional instrumental Jewish music (klezmer) fit the 10 strings of a modern evocation of a Biblical lyre (kinnor) so perfectly, that just maybe, these very same distinctive scales may well have had their ultimate origins on the 10 strings of the original Biblical kinnor itself?"

This is fascinating. Well, to anyone with an interest in ancient music and/or Biblical history, anyway (guilty on both counts). In case you didn't catch it, the Jewish surname Levy means "Levite", so the musician/scholar is an actual descendant of the Levites of Israel, who were in charge of the music at the Temple.

The Real Ten-Second Tom

I've always loved the move 50 First Dates: in case you haven't seen it, it's about a man who falls in love with a woman with a form of amnesia such that she forgets every night everything that happened to her that day. And so, he has to get her to fall in love with him all over again, every day.

I always thought, though, that the premise was a bit far-fetched; I couldn't see how that type of brain injury could be real. Especially when they go to the hospital and meet Ten-Second Tom.

But it turns out it is real. This man's memory gets wiped blank every seven seconds.

His and his wife's story is simultaneously heartbreaking and inspiring. And their love is beautiful and humbling.

"Never get on the bad side of small-minded people who have a little authority."

from the movie Gifted

A Christian Defense of Harry Potter, Part II: What's Really in There?

As I said before, most of Harry's detractors have never read any of the books, so they don't know what is really in them. A few claim to have read one, or read "enough of it to judge", but to be honest, I doubt them.

If they had read the first book even, then I can't see how any Christian would have missed the fact that Harry, as a baby, was saved from Voldemort's evil killing curse by his mother's sacrifice. And that sacrifice; her laying down her life for him, provided him with a protection that prevented Voldemort or anyone being controlled by Voldemort from harming, or even touching him. Does this sound familiar? Let me help you: the Blood of Christ.

Now I can hear some of the most narrow-minded of you objecting that Harry's mother is not Jesus, and that now the book is evil because it's trying to replace Christ with someone else, and is therefore idolatrous. But that's absolute nonsense. Harry's mother is not supposed to be a Messiah: she's simply a woman whose actions resemble those of Jesus--in other words, she's following His example. Literature is full of Christ-types and Christ-like characters and actions, as well it should be. C.S. Lewis's Aslan, for example, whom Christians almost universally love. (More on this later)

Further on in the series, we begin to learn the secret power behind the mysterious protection which Harry's mother's sacrifice affords him, and indeed, the power which Harry possesses but Voldemort does not, and which he must tap into in order to defeat him. That power is Love. I was going to say that Christians need not be reminded that Love is also the main theme of the Bible, of Christ's life and teaching, and of the Christian life. But then I remembered reality, and that Christians actually very sadly DO need to be reminded of that. So, go back to your Bibles and read 1 John 4 and 1 Corinthians 13. And the rest of it, come to that.

Then, at its end, it turns out that the only way Harry can defeat the Dark Lord and free the world from his evil and tyranny is to lay his own life down for the good of others. And we're back to the same theme, but on a larger scale. Again, Harry is not a replacement Jesus: he's not represented as the Savior of the World, and he's not providing eternal life. He is a Christ-type, not a Christ; a smaller, metaphorical copy which helps us to comprehend and understand the larger original.

There are many other examples of themes which can be seen as Christian in the books: courage, hope, unselfishness, tolerance, forgiveness, self-sacrifice, goodness, kindness, friendship, forbearance, charity, patience, endurance, not returning evil for evil but overcoming evil with good. In fact, Christian virtues can be found in every chapter and on virtually every page. To cite them all would be to basically reproduce all seven books.

So what is it that so many Christians object to, mostly without ever having really read the books for themselves? Magic? No, it can't be; or if it is, they are hypocrites, because The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings both have magic, and Christians love those. Magic in this world, as opposed to a world in an alternate universe? No, because The Lord of the Rings takes place in this world, just in the legendary past.

I contend that the answer is one word: witchcraft. I believe that these Christians saw that word, and immediately, without any further examination or consideration, succumbed to a reflexive reaction of hysteria. Wizards are okay; Gandalf is a wizard. But if you say "witch" among these kinds of Christians, it's like saying "bomb" at an airport--it doesn't matter what you really meant, in what context you said it, or even what the rest of the sentence was (for instance, "I DON'T have a bomb.") The word itself causes a hysterical and extreme reaction, and I believe, now, constitutes a felony. "Witch" is okay, in Narnia, because the witch is evil. But if you use it in a positive sense, then you are seeking to lead children astray into following the Devil.

Rowling, however, uses the word "witch", not in the sense in which it was understood in the late Middle Ages, and even up into the early modern age. That is, as one who practices black magic and is in league with the Devil. She uses it in its older, and more linguistically accurate sense; that is, as the modern form of wicce, which simply meant a female practitioner of magic (being the feminine form of wicca, a male practitioner). Yes, it is the word which modern neopagans have chosen to call themselves by. But it is just a word nonetheless, and just because it is used does not mean that one is in any way associated with that group. For example, Christian Scientists: just because one is either a Christian or a scientist (or both) does not make one a member of that religion. Anyway, Rowling uses the word "witch" as the logical feminine equivalent of the masculine "wizard" because, although slightly different in origin, they are the only suitable words of that meaning still in common use in our language. So, in short, "witch" in Harry Potter doesn't mean "practitioner of black magic in league with the devil". It means "female wizard". And "witchcraft" is likewise just the feminine form of "wizardry". The two somewhat different words are necessary because there is, in our language, no masculine form of "witch" and no feminine form of "wizard". She could have coined a term such as "wizardess" or "witcher", but that would have been clumsy and jarring, and was really unnecessary except to appease the minority who are the subject of this post, and who may or may not have given her a chance anyhow. But both are used in the fictional, fantastic sense referring to her created system of magic, and not in reference to any form of real-world occultism whatsoever. (https://www.etymonline.com/word/witch?ref=etymonline_crossreference)

Among these Christians, this is part of a larger sustained mass hysteria related to all things "occult", and really, in many circles, all things supernatural whatsoever, which is tragically ironic. Dungeons and Dragons. Heavy Metal music. Meditation. Any form of healing or therapy that is not scientific Western medicine. Halloween. Aliens and UFOs. Martial Arts. Some even include truly silly things, like Japanese flower arranging. Other groups go to even more ridiculous extremes, and proscribe Disney movies, fairy tales, and all fantasy novels and movies. Or having pictures of dragons in your house. Or playing cards, because playing cards are descended from Tarot cards. I came across one which includes abstract art, because it's "hypnotic" (and hypnosis is an evil form of mind-magic). Many include the practices of other Christian groups in their list: Some non-charismatics claim that charismatic manifestations are demonic (which is the exact thing that the Pharisees were saying about Jesus when he told them that the one unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit). Some Protestants view Catholic sacraments and liturgy as magic and superstition; other only include peripheral Catholic practices and phenomena, such as Marian apparitions, relics, and Stigmata. And while most Christians love the works of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, both of whom were avowed Christians, a few view even those as occult and diabolical. I could go on citing examples ad nauseaum, but you get the idea.

While we're on the subject of words, let us also address the word "occult", which comes close to "witchcraft" in inciting panic and hatred. Occult simply means "hidden". Nothing more, nothing less. (https://www.etymonline.com/word/occult)

I am tempted to be harsh in my criticism of these prejudicial fears. But let us be patient and charitable. I myself, once upon a time, was confused on certain of these issues, and even embraced a few of them, having been influenced by certain teachers and preachers when I was young and naive. Well, relatively naive.

The charitable view is that people fear what they don't understand. And the problem is that so much of the Church has taught that certain knowledge is intrinsically forbidden, so that Christians can't understand these things, and therefore must take the word of their leaders that they are bad. But the leaders themselves, in most cases, haven't studied these things, and are only repeating what they've heard. This is precisely why I have studied the occult; because I wanted to understand for myself, and form my own judgments. Same reason I study the Bible, theology, and church history for myself. Same reason I read the Church Fathers first-hand, rather than just accepting what someone else says they say.

So, rather than harsh words, I will use the word ignorant to describe the people who engage in this hysteria and fear-mongering. And while that has some unkind connotations, its true meaning is just a lacking of knowledge. And that is what is behind it: ignorance; a lack of knowledge. A lack of both intellectual knowledge, in that they don't understand the true nature of the occult, or of things which they think or fear are occult; and of experiential knowledge, in that they haven't investigated or explored these things for themselves, or in the case of Harry Potter, haven't read the books.

I don't expect everybody to have read as many books as I have. And I don't claim that in-depth study of the nature and history of magic and the occult is for everyone: it can be perilous, and requires a certain maturity and strength of character. But I do wish Christians would take the time to learn some things for themselves, rather than being led by the nose into ignorant hysteria. And I wish even more that they would be guided by Love, rather than fear, prejudice, and judgmentalism.

A Christian Defense of Harry Potter, Part I: Addressing the Accusations

I have a hard time not getting angry at Christians who talk about Harry Potter as if it's the Necronomicon, and J.K. Rowling the Antichrist.

I am a Christian. You know that. I am a serious Christian. Very, very serious. I am a Christian mystic, meaning I have a direct, personal, supernatural relationship with God, and have experienced His presence in very real ways. I am born-again. I am Spirit-filled. I am even a fundamentalist, in the original and most accurate sense of that word, meaning that I am a traditionalist in my theology, rather than a modernist or progressive, and that I believe the Bible is literal and authoritative, rather than approaching it from the "higher critical" or metaphorical point of view. And I love Harry Potter. In fact, I think it's the best thing that's been published since Tolkien.

The latest stupidity I've encountered, the one which prompted this post, came not from some hick preacher who's never read anything but the Bible, or goofy televangelist who may not have even read that, but from a Roman Catholic priest: highly educated, articulate, and well-informed on other matters. But, like the other Potter-bashers, he's obviously never read any of the books. His accusations include the ones most often recited by the other anti-Potterites, so let us use them as the basis for our rebuttal.

This priest claims:

1) That Rowling researched actual magic in order to write the books, and that she "went to witch school" before she wrote them.

2) That the spells and incantations in Harry Potter correspond to real-world spells

3) That there was a woman in Spain who decided to try the spell for fire, and burned her house down.

4) That 60 percent of the names in Harry Potter are actual names of demons.

5) That children have become possessed just by reading the books.

6) That, during an exorcism, 5 demons claimed to have inspired her to write the books.

Let us, rather than being snarky and dismissive, examine these assertions rationally.

1) Whether or how much research she did cannot be known for certain except for her own statements on the subject. But it can be inferred by comparing the books to real-world, historical occult texts and other historical sources. As far as her own claims, the only statement on record is that “She has told us that she owns her own personal copy of Culpeper's Herbal—that’s a 17th century book relating to the cultivation of plants and she used that to give her inspiration—for the herbology as well as the naming of characters,” (https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-magic-that-inspired-jk-rowling-to-create-harry-potter). Indirectly, there is an exhibition at the British museum of real-world magical texts and artifacts which relate to the Harry Potter books. (https://www.bl.uk/events/harry-potter-a-history-of-magic)

It is clear, to anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever of the real-world history of "magic" that Rowling did her research when it comes to things like the names of historical and literary figures such as Paracelsus, Agrippa, and Merlin, artifacts like the philosopher's stone and the hand of glory, and miscellaneous details like potion ingredients and the linguistic idiom of ancient magical texts. This, however, is not evidence of occultism: it is evidence of good writing. Research is how writers create depth, atmosphere, and believability. The above-mentioned museum exhibit confirms exactly this. But researching the details of historical and literary magic in order to create a convincing fictional world is a far cry from "going to witch school" or learning actual witchcraft (by which I assume they mean modern Wiccanism) in order to insidiously weave forbidden occult knowledge into the texts and ensnare innocent readers. Whether there is such a thing as "witch school" is debatable. I suppose it could refer to a formal or semi-formal education program for practitioners of Wicca, which do exist. All religions, even recent and made-up ones, have that. Rowling says that she is a Christian and not a Wiccan, and in fact, that Wicca is the only real-world religion not represented in Harry Potter because it and the fictional system of magic in her books "cannot coexist". (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/jk-rowling-the-only-religionbelief-system-not-represented-at-hogwarts-is-wicca-9930337.html)

But there is yet another aspect of this question to be considered. What we, in the modern, post-"enlightenment", rationalist, materialist world label broadly "magic" or "the occult" was not nearly so sharply divided by historical minds. The roots of medicine, chemistry, physics, astronomy, pharmacology, psychology, and virtually all the other sciences lie in what most now would call occultism. Healers, including Christian monks and nuns, mixed incantations with herbal lore and other medical treatments. Alchemists studied all sorts of elements and substances, not just lead and gold, and they related them directly to the influences of stars and planets. Astrologers and astronomers were the same thing. Authors such as Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Roger Bacon, and Paracelsus were both scientists and occultists, and were also Christians in good standing with their church (although the relationship was sometimes rocky). These things, such as the influence of the planets, the five elements, and the properties of herbs and stones, were simply part of their paradigm. In those days, the dichotomy was seen as being between these types of practices and black magic, usually referred to then as necromancy, in the case of "high magic" practitioners, who were usually educated, literate, aristocratic, male, and very often clergy, or witchcraft in the case of "low magic" practitioners, who were usually common, uneducated, and most often (but not always) female. The latter were much easier to catch and prosecute, just as the rich and powerful today are less frequently prosecuted or convicted for their crimes.

In this, Harry Potter's world resembles that world; that is, its paradigm is like the paradigm of the Mediaeval, Renaissance, and Classical ages. Except that Rowling's created fictional system of magic completely replaces the real-world one. The magic that Harry and his friends study at Hogwarts stands in the stead of what we, looking back, might call "white magic," but that would not be an accurate way to characterize it from the point of view of the people who lived in those ages. To be more accurate, it stands in the stead of their natural and metaphysical philosophy, and a bevy of practical applications thereof, only a very small percentage of which they would have considered "magical" in the more accurate sense of that word, that is, enchantment or spell-casting. And the black arts of those times; what they would have termed necromancy and witchcraft, is replaced in Potterworld by the fictional black arts which its author created out of her own imagination. In that world, this fictional version of the pre-enlightenment paradigm continues to exist alongside the post-enlightenment one in which we live, and constitutes the world of "muggles", that is, non-magical people. The important thing to carry away here is that Rowling replaced real-world occultism, both good and bad, with an entirely make-believe one, which only resembles the real one in external details, which similarity serves to give her fictional world depth, atmosphere, and believability, so that it can, in the readers' imaginations, fit into our own past, thereby grounding us in that world and enabling us to experience her world more fully. This is the same thing Tolkien did by setting his Middle-Earth in an imaginary past age of our own world, rather than on some alien planet or in an alternate dimension.

2) Like Rowling, and unlike her detractors, I have studied both historical and, to a lesser extent, modern neopagan magic. As an academic field of inquiry, not because I am a wizard. I have also read the Koran and the Book of Mormon, but that doesn't make me either a Muslim or a Mormon. This question can be easily laid to rest by a simple comparison of example spells from each.

Harry Potter spell: Cave Inimicum

The caster waves his magic wand, and says "Cave Inimicum". This spell hides the wizard from his enemies. "Cave Inimicum" is Latin and means "Beware the enemy". (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, chapter 14)

Most of the spells in Harry Potter follow this pattern: a simple phrase in Latin or another language, such as French or Old English, which describes the effect of the spell, sometimes humorously for those who understand the language, and a prescribed wand movement. In a very few cases, more powerful or difficult spells are more elaborate and require several steps or preparation. But a) in every case where a ritual is actually described, it is evil, dark magic. Possible rituals may be inferred for a very few good spells, but it is never actually stated that it is so. And b) those ritual spells described are entirely fictional, made up by Rowling, and correspond to no real-world spell, either historical or modern.

Wiccan spell: Invisibility Spell

For this Invisibility Spell, You will need: A small pocket mirror

Before beginning the invisibility spell, cleanse your mirror with whichever method you usually use. Smudging it with white sage is a good classic cleansing method.

Cast your circle and call upon any guardian spirits that you feel inclined to call upon, or call upon the God and Goddess if you wish. Some ideas for gods and goddesses that would be suitable for this are: Hecate, Isis, Odin, Freya, Thoth, Circe.

Next, hold the mirror facing away from you, and with your arm outstretched, start slowly turning around widdershins (anticlockwise).  Turn three times, and while doing so, visualise the aura of invisibility being created: in your mind’s eye, see a shimmery silver-grey light surround you. See all the objects within this aura of light turn blurry, and eventually  taking on a reflection of the surrounding area. Visualise everything within the circle of your outstretched arm becoming merely a reflection of the surrounding area, so that you cannot be seen.

Once you have turned around three times and visualised your area of invisibility, repeat the following incantation:

Though they look, they shall not see,
Magic mirror, grant me invisibility.
An it harm none, So mote it be.

Thank your guardians, and close the circle.

Now, whenever you want to be invisible from the sight of other people, carry the magic mirror with you. The spell will be stronger if you take time to perform a quick visualisation of the aura of invisibility surrounding you before placing the mirror in your bag or pocket.

When you are out and about with your invisibility mirror, take care to keep your movements still and calm, and do not look anyone in the eye or touch them. Do not speak, and be as silent as possible.

You will not be physically invisible, but the people around you will tend not to notice you, especially if you are not in their direct line of vision. The aura of invisibility will obscure you from their vision and make it seem like you are not there.

(http://wiccanspells.info/invisibility-spell/)

Historical spell: How to Render Oneself Invisible

OF THE EXPERIMENT OF INVISIBILITY, AND HOW IT SHOULD BE PERFORMED

IF thou wishest to perform the Experiment of Invisibility, thou shalt follow the instructions for the same. If it be necessary to observe the day and the hour, thou shalt do as is said in their Chapters. But if thou needest not observe the day and the hour as marked in the Chapter thereon, thou shalt do as taught in the Chapter which precedeth it. If in the course of the experiment it be necessary to write anything, it should be done as is described in the Chapters pertaining thereto, with the proper pen, paper, and ink, or blood. But if the matter is to be accomplished by invocation, before thy conjurations, thou shalt say devoutly in thine heart:--

SCEABOLES, ARBARON, ELOHI, ELIMIGITH, HERENOBULCULE, METHE, BALUTH, TIMAYAL, VILLAQUIEL, TEVENI, YEVIE, FERETE, BACUHABA, GUVARIN; through Him by Whom ye have empire and power over men, ye must accomplish this work so that I may go and remain invisible.

And if it be necessary in this operation to trace a Circle, thou shalt do as is ordained in the Chapter concerning Circles; and if it be necessary to write characters, etc., thou shalt follow the instructions given in the respective Chapters.

This operation being thus prepared, if there be an especial Conjuration to perform, thou shalt repeat it in the proper manner; if not, thou shalt say the general Conjuration, at the end of which thou shalt add the following words:--

O thou ALMIRAS, Master of Invisibility, with thy Ministers CHEROG, MAITOR, TANGEDEM, TRANSIDIM, SUVANTOS, ABELAIOS, BORED, BELAMITH, CASTUMI, DABUEL; I conjure ye by Him Who maketh Earth and Heaven to tremble, Who is seated upon the Throne of His Majesty, that this operation may be perfectly accomplished according to my will, so that at whatsoever time it may please me, I may be able to be invisible.

I conjure thee anew, O ALMIRAS, Chief of Invisibility, both thee and thy Ministers, by Him through Whom all things have their being, and by SATURIEL, HARCHIEL, DANIEL, BENIEL, ASSIMONEM, that thou immediately comest hither with all thy Ministers, and achievest this operation, as thou knowest it ought to be accomplished, and that by the same operation thou render me invisible, so that none may be able to see me.

In order then to accomplish this aforesaid operation, thou must prepare all things necessary with requisite care and diligence, and put them in practice with all the general and particular ceremonies laid down for these experiments; and with all the conditions contained in our first and second Books. Thou shalt also in the same operations duly repeat the appropriate Conjurations, with all the solemnities marked in the respective Chapters. Thus shalt thou accomplish the experiment surely and without hindrance, and thus shalt thou find it true.

But, on the contrary, if thou lettest any of these things escape thee, or if thou despiseth them, never shalt thou be able to arrive at thy proposed end; as, for example, we enter not easily into a fenced city over its walls but through its gates.

HOW TO RENDER ONESELF INVISIBLE.

Make a small image of yellow wax, in the form of a man, in the month January and in the day and hour of Saturn, and at that time write with a needle above the crown of its head and upon its skull which thou shalt have adroitly raised, the character following. (symbol omitted) After which thou shalt replace the skull in proper position. Thou shalt then write upon a small strip of the skin of a frog or toad which thou shalt have killed, the following words and characters. (symbol omitted) Thou shalt then go and suspend the said figure by one of thy hairs from the vault of a cavern at the hour of midnight, and perfuming it with the proper incense thou shalt say:--

METATRON, MELEKH, BEROTH, NOTH, VENIBBETH, MACH, and all ye, I conjure thee, O Figure of wax, by the Living God, that by the virtue of these Characters and words, thou render me invisible, wherever I may bear thee with me. Amen.

And after having censed it anew, thou shalt bury it in the same place in a small deal box, and every time that thou wishest to pass or enter into any place without being seen, thou shalt say these words, bearing the aforesaid figure in thy left pocket:--

Come unto me and never quit me whithersoever I shall go.

Afterwards thou shalt take it carefully back unto the before-mentioned place and cover it with earth until thou shalt need it again.

(from The Key of Solomon, one of, if not the oldest and best-known historical grimoires of magic)

I have included the entire texts of the spells, including the conjuratory names, believing that my readers are mature and responsible enough not to do anything silly like recite them aloud. But I have omitted the magical sigils as both unnecessary for making my point, and potentially spiritually dangerous.

3) The woman in Spain who burned her house down, although inspired by Harry Potter, did not cast a spell. She was actually trying to cook up a potion with ingredients including oil and alcohol. Nothing magical there: just plain old Muggle stupidity. (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/potter-fans-magic-sets-house-ablaze/article4128783/)

4) One of the reasons I included the names of the spirits in section 2 is so that you can compare them to the names in Harry Potter. Other examples of demonic names are found in Scripture, such as Beelzebub, Asmodeus, Abaddon, Belial, Mammon, and Legion. Also there are the names of the idolatrous gods of the Near East, such as Ba'al, Asherah, Molech, Bel, Tammuz, Ammon, Dagon, and Chemosh.

The names in Harry Potter, on the other hand, are mostly simple English names, or French, Russian, or what-have-you in the case of foreign witches and wizards. A few are creative (and usually humorous), mostly based on Old English, Latin, or other-language puns and jokes. For example, Dumbledore is an archaic English word for bumblebee, and represents something of the headmaster's character. Malfoy is French for "bad faith". Ludo means "I play" in Latin. The herbalogical textbook One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi was written by Phyllida Spore: phyllida is Greek for "green bough", and spore, I hope, needs no explanation. Other names are simply historical, such as Paracelsus and Nicholas Flamel, or literary, such as Merlin and Circe.

I have read all seven books at least ten times, and have never once come across a single name which I recognized as demonic or even pagan, except in reference to mythology.

5) and 6) are related, in that both claims are made as having been things learned by the speaking priest from accounts of Catholic exorcisms. Now, I believe in demons. I believe in possession. I believe in exorcism and deliverance. So, whether you do or not, let us examine them as though these things are real. Firstly, these accounts are hearsay and rumor; second- and third-hand stories, and furthermore are related by someone whom we have already demonstrated (by number 3, above) either does not check his facts or misrepresents them. But let us grant for the sake of argument, that these accounts are actually true, insofar as the exorcists or witnesses concerned related factual accounts. And let us further grant that the possessed, or the demons speaking through the possessed, actually said these things. There is still a major problem: demons are liars.

This has become quite long, so I am going to divide it into two parts. I will end this one, having addressed and countered each of the negative assertions made against J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter. In the next part, I will demonstrate that Harry Potter is actually full of Christian themes and moral lessons, and consider the motives of those who revile it.

"If poetry comes not as naturally as the leaves to a tree, it had better not come at all." -- John Keats

The World's Greatest Love Letters

I was watching a movie recently (which I haven't finished yet) about the love affair between John Keats and Fanny Brawne, and it got me thinking about this book, which I picked up a couple of years ago. So I've been re-reading it and reveling in its profound and sometimes heartbreaking beauty.

Some of my favorite quotes:

"I was thinking the other day that certainly and after all (or rather before all) I had loved you all my life unawares, that is, the idea of you." -- Elizabeth Barrett

"For God's sake, madam, when you write to me, talk of yourself; there is nothing I so much desire to hear of; talk a great deal of yourself, that she who I always thought talked best may speak upon the best subject."-- Alexander Pope

"In a man's letters, you know, madam, his soul lies naked. His letters are only the mirror of his heart." -- Samuel Johnson

"I have often thought it a peculiarly unlucky circumstance in love, that though in every other situation in life telling the truth is not only the safest, but actually by far the easiest way of proceeding, a lover is never under greater difficulty in acting nor never more puzzled for expression than when his passion is sincere and his intentions are honourable." -- Robert Burns

"I like the word affection because it signifies something habitual, and we are soon to meet to try whether we have mind enough to keep our hearts warm." -- Mary Wollstonecraft

"Those who have loved longest love best." -- Samuel Johnson

"In a word, I am resolved, nay, content, to be only hers, though it may be impossible she should ever be mine." -- Lord Peterborough

"In the whole record of Creation, there was nothing that was not good. Until man discovered that he had no mate."

-- Ruth Prince

Mon coeur s'ouvre à ta voix

Romeo and Juliet - What is a Youth

"What love can do, that dares love attempt."

"My bounty is as boundless as the sea,
My love as deep; the more I give to thee,
The more I have, for both are infinite."

-- Wm. Shakespeare

You'll Never Know

My Love is Lost

My love is lost.
I held it as a handful of sand, clenching my fist
to hold it there.
Yet, bit by bit, it slipped through my straining fingers.
Now, nothing but memories of every smile, every kiss,
and, above all, every word.

For ’twas not into my ear you whispered
but into my heart.
‘Twas not my lips you kissed,
but my soul.

And when I opened my tired hand and found my
love was gone
I trembled and died.
I struggle to hide my deadness.
To conceal the emptiness in my eyes,
that sparkle with tears always so close
but never come.

My mind quivers and screams, fight, fight to live
But why?
My handful of existence has vanished.
My love is lost.
My love is lost.

-- Judy Garland