The limits of metaphor

My post on a possible Christian worldview in Harry Potter generated a bunch of hits and several quick comments. A few comments agreed that you can find Christian worldview elements in the books, several said "naaah" - fun stories but doubtful on the Christian worldview thing, and one person in particular objected to the whole idea that there could be a Christian worldview in these books because they are about magic and wizardry, which the Bible condemns. If I read the commentor right then I think they would also disapprove of the Narnia books by C. S. Lewis and the Lord of the Rings books by Tolkien.

This got me to thinking, which is not always a good thing, but it got me to thinking about the metaphors we use to describe our Christian lives. Are there limits on what we can do with a metaphor? I think the obvious answer is yes, but it gets a little tricky in trying to see where we draw the lines.

Here's a Dictionary.com definition of metaphor:

1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare).
2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: “Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven” (Neal Gabler).

So, words and phrases can have a metaphorical sense when they represent something else, but the idea of metaphor can be extended to a story. I suppose the link would be that a story of metaphors is an allegory. After all, aren't parables kind of extended metaphors. And aren't allegorical stories in effect lengthy metaphors? Pilgrim's Progress comes to mind as an example.

What I am getting at is that there are some interesting ways we use metaphors, and there are some interestign ways that the Bible uses metaphors. For example, the Bible clearly condemns injustice, yet Jesus uses the metaphor of an unjust judge to represent God in Luke 18:1-8.

The serpent in the garden was crafty and shrewd, the embodiment of Satan, yet Christians are told to be wise as serpents. Why would God want us to emulate His eternal enemy the embodiment of evil?

In the story of the unjust judge, the one who metaphorically plays the part of God is one who embodies something He detests. Similarly, when God tells His people to be as shrewd as serpents, isn't there a sense in which He is telling them to imitate the shrewdness of the serpent in the garden, the embodiment of all that is evil and opposed to Him?

There is an easy answer to this. Most biblical scholars recognize that parables usually make one main point. The characters in the parable are, in a sense, props - props which are used to convey a main point. The characters are the metaphors. So, it is incidental that the unjust judge is a metaphor for God in this - the parable itself tells us that God is not like that and the point is that we ought to be persistent in prayer. The point of telling Christians to be "wise" as serpents, isn't to emulate Satan in his opposition to God but to tell us to be wise in how we relate to the people of the world.

The book of Hosea comes to mind in this respect. Here, the prostitute Gomer is a metaphor for God's people and Hosea is a metaphor for God. Prostitution is an abomination to the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:18, I Kings 14:24, Jeremiah 13:27, and Ezekiel 6:9). It gets a little tricky on the morality of marrying a prostitute. Priests were forbidden to marry a woman who had been defiled by prostitution (Leviticus 21:7, 14), but I suppose, if someone were inclined to argue, they could say that non-priests were forbidden to marry a prostitute. Still, with prophet, priest, and king being the three great offices of the Old Testament it is hard for me to find any moral justification for a prophet like Hosea marrying a prostitute under ordinary circumstances, because I would think that the prophetic office was to be held in the same high esteem as the priestly office. Either way, I think those who would be against something like Harry Potter would be equally against marrying prostitutes. So, you would have to object to the morality of marrying a prostitute the same as you would have to object to prostitution. Let's not forget she wasn't a reformed, repentant prostitute like Rahab, Gomer was a practicing prostitute.

But, the point is that in the book of Hosea, the prophet Hosea is a metaphor for God and Gomer the prostitute is a metaphor for Israel. The one who marries a prostitute has, at least, questionable morality, and the prostitute is unquestionably immoral and abominable. Yet, God uses this real live allegory to teach the Israelites.

My point in all of this is that if literature is bad because it uses abominations as metaphors then there is Biblical literature that would fail this test. I am speaking principially here. If the principle is "literature that makes use of characters or actions which are abominable to God is bad," then some Biblical literature must be considered bad by this principle.

Again, its easy to deal with the Biblical literature, particularly Hosea. I don't think anyone would argue that Hosea teaches it is ok to practice prostitution or marry prostitutes. The book has an entirely different purpose - to illustrate the heinous sins of God's people and the redemptive love of God.

So, this raises an interesting question. If Rowlings' characters are metaphors or devices to convey a different moral than "witchcraft is good," isn't this ok in principle? What I mean is, what if her purpose isn't to glorify witchcraft and magic but to convey a different moral? Wouldn't this be similar to what the Bible does in the examples I have listed. She is on record as saying she doesn't believe in magic or witchcraft, so one would have to believe that her purpose in writing the books isn't to indoctrinate kids into the magic arts.

Again, I'm speaking principially here. If the principle is granted, then the argument can still be carried on other fronts. Maybe, though she intends to convey a good moral, even a Christian moral, she simply fails miserably at it and ends up teaching false doctrine and immorality. Maybe, though she doesn't believe in witches and magic, she somehow unwittingly conveys an endorsement of them.

In the first case, if she unwittingly (or wittingly) conveys false doctrine or immorality then these points should be argued on theological grounds. In other words, rather than writing her off because she used witches and wizards as metaphors, we criticize her on the grounds of the morals she is attempting to teach. Criticism would have to be of the reality that is represented by the metaphor, not the metaphor itself.

In the second case, if she unintentionally leads some readers into witchcraft then we have a whole 'nuther kettle of fish to fry. At this point we have to ask the question of whether an author is responsible for the way a reader misinterprets her writings. This is not a cut and dried thing. Even though an author may sincerely intend to write something with a good moral, that writer may be so out of touch with reality that they don't realize just how evil their own writing is. In that case, the public may make the judgment that the writer is responsible for the reader's misinterpretations because the writer shouldn't have been so naive or ignorant.

But the fact is that many people misinterpret good writings all the time. How many people have taken a Bible verse out of context and used it to justify something entirely heinous? I mentioned C. S. Lewis in another comment on my blog. A lady my family used to know was in some kind of New Age or occult bookstore (what she was doing there I don't know) and she found that they were selling the Chronicles of Narnia. The proprieter of the store told her that Narnia was his introduction to the occult. The fact is that almost everyone who reads the Chronicles of Narnia finds it a great encouragement in their Christian walk. Furthermore, Lewis sure didn't intend these as an introduction to the occult. So, is Lewis responsible for the one who misuses it when thousands understand it correctly? Similarly, none of us want to get rid of the Bible because it has been misused and very few want to get rid of the Chronicles of Narnia.

So, I'm not convinced that using witches, wizards and magic as metaphors goes against the teachings of Scripture. However, that doesn't settle the argument. It's far more precarious for a human author to use such a metaphor than it is for God. When God is writing the story we know He is going to use the metaphors in the proper way to convey the message He wants. We can't be sure of this with a human author. It would be far safer for the human author to not use such metaphors, at least from a moralistic standpoint. But again, though it may be safer from a moralistic standpoint doesn't prove that it is always wrong to do so.

For example, suppose someone decided to construct a really, really good story with some really, really good redemptive themes, but it was set in a brothel. Furthermore, let's assume that the, um . . . employees of said brothel were the good guys (girls) in the story. In that case I think most of us would have a very difficult time accepting that as Christian literature. If such a story were concocted by an unbeliever we might analyze it from the standpoint of Ecclesiastes 3:11. We might say that this is an example of how God has put eternity in the hearts of even unbelievers, and they unwittingly put those redemptive themes in the story, even though it was concocted in an immoral environment. Not that we would recommend the story, especially if there was any explicit portrayals of prostitution. We might just acknowledge the redemptive themes.

However, if a professing Christian were to write such a story, that would be a whole 'nuther story, especially if the Christian were to explicitly portray the characters doing business. One would think that the Christian should know that those metaphors aren't appropriate.

This may be the angle the Potter-phobes would want to take. The books and movies clearly portray Harry and his pals "doing business," practicing witchcraft. This makes it evil, regardless of what religious themes and icongraphy Rowling uses.

I for one am not convinced of that last argument. Nothing happens in my mind when I read or hear about a kid in a make-believe world practicing magic that is quite the equivalent of what would happen in my mind if a book or movie were to portray brothel employess practicing their trade. So, I'm not sure the analogies are equivalent. And, it is a make-believe world.

Another argument against my arguments would be to say that we can't necessarily emulate the literary and artistic practices in the Bible. In Isaiah 20:1-3 God has Isaiah walk around naked for three years to make a point. I can't think of any point God would have me to make by walking around naked. I say that to say that my argument has been that since the Bible uses things God considers abominable as metaphors, so J. K. Rowling is not necessarily wrong to do something similar. An antagonist of mine could argue that what was ok for God to do to make a point is not necessarily ok for us to do.

Still, though I would never walk around naked in real life, I don't see why I couldn't write a story where a pastor walks around naked to make a point. I would have to be very careful in how I set up the context and what point I was making, but I don't see why I couldn't do that in a fictional story. If I used restrained language similar to Isaiah 20:1-3 I don't see where that would necessarily be immoral, if I started describing anatomy I think that would be going to far.

So, here we are at the end of another Jollyblogger ponderously long post - what's the point? If the Potter books are unacceptable for Christians then we must decide on what principle they are unacceptable. If the principle is that they are unacceptable because they use witchcraft and magic as metaphors, which are abominations to the Lord, then there is Biblical literature that would be unacceptable based on that same principle. Therefore, I contend that this is not sufficient to prove they are unacceptable. So, this opens the door for us to consider the possibility that Rowling may in fact be trying to convey a Christian worldview, as I talked about in my last post. She may or may not do a lousy job of it, but that can be considered as a possibility. Furthermore, this opens the possibility that, if the books don't convey a Christian worldview, as some of my commenters suggest, then the books still may fall into the category of harmless fun. I'm reminded of a comment Jeremy Pierce left on an entry wherein I proposed that we can evaluate movies from a redemptive standpoint or a moralistic standpoint. Jeremy proposed a third alternative - we might just watch them simply for the fun of it. The Potter books may still be unacceptable, but their unacceptability will have to be proven on other grounds.