That explains it.That glow coming through the window as I got out of bed this morning is the full moon.Since this is the first full moon after the vernal equinox, that means Sunday’s Easter.If Sunday’s Easter this is Good Friday.That brought to mind an article my wife sent me from The Atlantic, “Most American Christians Believe They’re Victims of Discrimination.”In this piece Emma Green explains that Christians of a certain stripe believe they’re under threat.Most people express surprise at this outlook, but having grown up in a Fundamentalist tradition I can say that this is hardly new.The narrative of persecution among conservative Christians has been around for a long time.They have a mandate, you see.A mandate to make the entire world like themselves.
Hearing the many cries of legitimate oppression doesn’t help, of course.In this linked world of instant communication and news 24/7, we’ve become perhaps too aware of just how widespread oppression is.Christians have felt persecuted from the very beginning, and they don’t like now being cast in the role of oppressor.Forcing other people to conform is no longer considered right or desirable, but Christians have a mandate.What strikes me as odd here is that we have a means of learning about this—of arming ourselves with knowledge—but we’d rather be surprised at the polls and pay for it with years of actual oppression.What is this mysterious means of knowing?The Bible.If read, this viewpoint can be understood.And if handled carefully, disarmed.
The Roman Empire, after which, tellingly, American politics is modeled, oppressed Christians.At least for a while.Then the faith became establishment.And it began oppressing.An ocean away, Christians fled here because they wanted freedom of religion.They didn’t always want to share that freedom with other groups experiencing discrimination.Especially, of course, if they could be compelled to do heavy labor without pay.Now these groups feel they’re being judged for saying “Merry Christmas,” or for declaring loudly that Sunday’s Easter.They can’t point to behaviors that in their understanding of the Bible are bad and tell people not to do them.They don’t understand that Allah is the same deity they worship, only in monotheistic form.And they get all this news while the moon is still in the sky.I look at the puddle of light on my bedroom floor and head for my writing nook.It may be Good Friday, but I’ve got to work today, getting Bibles ready to sell.
Those of us who find rationalism a bit too constricting sometimes find solace in mysticism.My reading of late, which is mostly research for Nightmares with the Bible, frequently touches on mystics of the past.This isn’t a new fascination.All the way back in college, as a religion major, I mentioned to one of my professors that I found it appealing.A frown settled across his academic face.“Mysticism is dangerous,” he said.He went on to explain that churches (he was Presbyterian, and I Methodist) had belief systems into which mystics—those who experience the divine directly—didn’t fit.A direct experience of the divine could cast doubt on church doctrine and nothing, as you might guess, is more important to true believers than dogma.
That discussion at such an impressionable age set me aback.Here as we enter (for the non-orthodox) the Triduum, or “Great Three Days” the faithful are hoping for some kind of divine experience, I expect.Many of us will spend two-thirds of it working.In any case, if nothing mystical happens why do we bother?Mysticism is equally deplored by science since it suggests something that doesn’t fit into rationalism’s toy box.A universe where the unexplained—and oh so subjective!—direct experience with naked reality threatens to undo all the neat columns and tidy formulas that describe the entirety of existence.Conventional churches tend to agree because you never know what God might do if you open that box.
There are religions that welcome mysticism.They recognize that human-built systems are only approximations—Platonic shadows, if you will, cast upon the cave wall.Mystics are those who, temporarily unchained, dare to turn around and face the fire directly.Who knows?They might even catch a glimpse of the sun itself.More conventional religions are run like businesses.You come to a certain building at a certain time.You perform prescribed actions on cue.You place your money in this specific receptacle at this specific time.Leave and forget it all until next week.Our younger generations don’t find this engaging, just as they see through the lie of the inherent fairness of capitalism.I can still see the frown of my theology professor.The old systems are falling apart even as those not too weary after work will head to Maundy Thursday services for a slip of bread and a sip of wine.The mystic, however, doesn’t know what might happen next.
When I get an idea my first impulse is to grab an envelope and pencil and start scribbling.I run around with an older crowd.Many of my generation don’t appreciate how much a single “share” can do for a blog post, or what a simple link to a page can do.I have college friends who have no email addresses and who are invisible on the web.I guess this is a young person’s playing field.I suppose one of my reasons for writing about horror is that it keeps me in the younger demographic.I don’t know too many people my age who are fans of “the genre.”Sci fi is a little more acceptable, I suppose.Still, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about why I find horror so fascinating.There’s actually something redemptive about it, at least in my reading of the material.It’s also a coping mechanism.
One reason that people tell stories (and read stories), according to psychologists, is to learn how to handle situations they might encounter.This is on a subconscious level most of the time, otherwise speculative fiction simply wouldn’t apply.I can’t recall having been in a crisis situation and stopping to think what a Stephen King character would have done in such circumstances, but I suppose that might be in the back of my mind somewhere, along with information about all the things I’ve mislaid over the years.The older you get, in a technologically rapacious society, the more things there seem to be worthy of horror stories.I haven’t even figured out the last round of devices before the new generation’s introduced.No wonder so much of horror has to do with being attacked by monsters that look innocent.Clinically engineered in a clean room.
Image credit: Pattymooney, via Wikimedia Commons
Some of the horror comes from the inherent instability of a constantly upgrading tech.My laptop’s a few years old.While a little younger than that, the device that sits on my laptop is also not fresh from the factory.The last time I tried to back up the contents, the external hard drive (new from the factory) refused to do what I commanded.While I did eventually figure it out, I wasted a good deal of my scarce free time working out how a device I couldn’t control was in fact controlling me.Younger folks grew up with this kind of problem solving drilled into them from kindergarten on.Now I find myself in a world of devices I can’t comprehend and which don’t even react the same way they did last time I bought the exact same one.I ask my fellow quinquagenarians what to do and I watch as they grab an envelope and pencil.
Image credit: David Hunter McAlpin Fund, 1944, via Wikimedia Commons
Like many I’m shocked and saddened by the fire at Notre Dame cathedral.At the same time a recurring theme of this blog has been that modern people are disinclined to pay for the past, and some analysts are saying that lack of funds for regular upkeep of the cathedral over many years are at least partially behind the tragedy.Monuments that have stood for centuries require constant care, but it’s so easy to take them for granted.Cathedrals aren’t just religious buildings.They are humanistic in the sense that they stand for our natural tendency to create great markers of our time on earth. So very human.Many human acts we wish to erase, but some represent a loss to the very soul of our species when they’re gone.
Even in this secular age the great cathedrals of Europe are on the agenda of many a traveller.My own recollections of Notre Dame have grown hazy with the years—I do recall the stolid towers and flying buttresses.Even the doubtless inauthentic but still ancient crown of thorns.The famously secular French stood in the streets and sang hymns as the fire raged.
My single trip to Paris was followed by a stop in Germany where we saw towers of cathedrals left standing even when the remainders of the buildings were gone—bombed out during World War Two.Asking a friend about it we learned that the Germans felt these skeletal churches were appropriate reminders of the horrors of war.No masses could be said in them ever again, but they stood, in their ruined majesty, as their own kind of monument to human folly.
We live in a post-cathedral world.Symbols of the unity of a nation, demanding resources beyond what could really be afforded, cathedrals served to unite.Citizens of London, it is reported, shoved bombs off St. Paul’s Cathedral during the Blitz.Religion today has been turned into a means of dividing and conquering people.It builds border walls rather than cathedrals where those of any faith might be allowed in and invited to wonder.Images of that famous spire helplessly falling amid the flames suggest the shock of the twin towers collapsing.Although the structure survives, much has been lost forever.And if people react like they are wont to do, there will be outpouring of resources to rebuild and restore, but only for a while.We tend to think that looking at the past is frivolous.Yet, my photos of Notre Dame remind me that a life spent looking back may well be the only kind worth living.
A convention in histories of the horror genre is to trace it to Gothic fiction.Gothic fiction itself is traced to The Castle of Otranto, by Horace Walpole.Having grown up reading Gothic stories along with religious texts, perhaps surprisingly I never came upon Walpole’s oeuvre.Some weeks back I happened on a used bookstore, which, by convention, had its cheapest fare on sidewalk carts.I was surprised to see a negligibly priced copy of The Castle of Otranto, which I took in to the counter.The clerk looked puzzled a moment, then asked if it was from the carts.“Oh,” he sniffed, “that explains it.We don’t carry Dover editions; they’re too cheap.”Perhaps that remark haunted me a bit, but I finally got around to reading the slim book and it left a kind of unanticipated horror in my mind.
Okay, so this was written in the eighteenth century, and set further back, in Medieval times.A spooky castle, knights and knaves, and fainting damsels all populate its pages.Religion, particularly in debased form, became a standard characteristic of the Gothic.Here a monk, an erstwhile lord, holds a secret that leads to the downfall of a house of pretenders who have claimed ownership of the castle.All pretty straightforward.Even the ghosts and talking skeletons fail to raise fear.One aspect, however, does hold horror.The three princesses in the story are completely at the whim of the men.They acknowledge as much and claim it against piety to declare any different.
It would be unfair to assert that such sexism was intentional—like most human behaviors it evolved over eons—but in this era to read it is to shudder.We have moved beyond the horror fiction that men own women and that they have any right to determine their fate.Especially in these days, it’s embarrassing to be reminded that such was ever the case.Despite the word from on high we cannot hide from history.The domination of men has been a testament to how poorly civilization has been run.Some of its benefits can’t be denied, but on a whole we see a succession of aggression and wars, suffering and poverty, generally brought on my societies that have taken their cues from patriarchical ideals.My reading of The Castle of Otranto brought this back with a force not unlike that of the giant ghost haunting its walls.Is it too much to hope that some two-and-a-half centuries might show some evidence of progress?
I’ve been thinking about categories quite a lot lately.In a world connected by the internet, it seems that traditional categories don’t stretch far enough.For example, I recently read The Paranormal and Popular Culture: A Postmodern Religious Landscape, edited by Darryl Caterine and John W. Morehead.Published by Routledge, this is an academic study.It contains some things, however, that many academics would find challenging.I can’t summarize the entire book here since there are twenty very different essays included, but I can say this is a book that makes you think about categories.Even the word “paranormal” means different things to different people.To my way of thinking it has to tip the hat to Rod Serling and that place where fiction and fact begin to overlap.
That’s appropriate for this book: there are articles about what people perceive as factual encounters with all kinds of creatures and events, as well as studies of the decidedly fictional beings like Batman and zombies.Our categories, in the modern world, tend to be inviolable.Even scientists who handle Heisenberg know, however, that we are now in the postmodern world (as the subtitle indicates) and true objectivity is beyond the reach of all.None of us stands outside the box looking in.We’re all in the middle of it, and we look around ourselves trying to figure out what is real.Another problematic category that, reality.We don’t even understand what consciousness is yet, and how can we hope to know what is really real?We all have dreams and some take them more seriously than others.
Reading books like this with an open mind is a truly po-mo experience.After finishing more than one piece I found myself having to put the book down for a while at least so I’d have a hand free to scratch my head.You see, we’ve been taught to laugh at those who believe in the paranormal.It has been the only acceptable way that rationalists can deal with that which flies in the face of the system.The internet, however, has put those isolated, ridiculed individuals into a community and the advent of reality TV (and what can be more real than what we see on the tube?) erodes the laughter factor little by little.Plumbers can find ghosts but scientists can’t.The average person relates more to the plumber, I think.It all comes down to categories.Making sense of them can, and will, impact our views of reality.
Did you ever have one of those label makers? The kind with a rotating wheel that embossed a plastic ribbon with letters that you could stick to things? Labeling is so easy! I often feel constrained, however, by the chosen labels of extremist groups.Not all evangelicals are power-hungry or enemies of human welfare.This is perhaps one of the keys to the success of extremists.Camouflage has long been recognized by evolution as a most effective tactic.I have many evangelical friends who do not protest cartoons, or ride around in Trump-laden vehicles, polluting the environment like there’s no tomorrow.The problem is what to call them since the more radical wing has usurped their nomenclature.I often think of this because I eschew labels in general, but people in a collective can do quite a bit more damage than a single disgruntled individual.Perhaps “disgruntled” should be part of their name?
Religions generally begin as efforts to help make the world a better place.The historian of religions sees, however, that over time many believers begin seeing the peripherals as the central tenets of the faith.Since I’m familiar with evangelicalism, let me use that as an example.As a form of Christianity, evangelicalism began with the Reformation.Pietist groups, freed from Catholicism’s idea of communal salvation, began to worry about their individual souls and howthey might be saved.Their belief structure eventually came to include the necessity of converting others because, if you read the Bible a certain way, that’s a requirement.Over time this outlookevolved into the idea that only one group (one’s own) has truly understood the Christian message.Once numbers grow numerous, it becomes like the medieval Catholic Church—large enough to take political power.Somewhere along the line the central message of helping make the world a better place morphs into making the world evangelical only.Or whatever label we feel constrained to use.
labels are problematic
I’m not picking on the evangelicals here—this could apply to any extremists.And it certainly doesn’t apply to all evangelicals.Religion has been part of human culture from the very beginning.A good case can be made that it is one of the basic components of consciousness itself.A person has to learn how to become unreligious.We are also political animals.Who doesn’t want things their own way?We can’t all win, however, and some religions have difficulty separating, say, a savior willing to die for others and the insistence on one’s own way no matter what others want.Like most aspects of life this is a balancing act.I grew up evangelical.I have friends who are evangelical.I don’t want to insult anybody, but what can you do when you feel disgruntled by the degradation of religion into an excuse for hate?I lost my label maker long ago and I no longer know what to call things anyway.