Skip to content

Horror as a literary genre (review)

20 March 2018

HorrorHorror by Mark Jancovich
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

This is a very disorganised book.

It begins with a discussion of the 1984 Video Recordings Act in Britain, and the issue of censorship, and then eventually notes that the Bill was “the culmination of a popular campaign against the so-called ‘video-nasties’… No clear definition of the ‘video nasty’ existed but it was generally accepted that they were examples of pornography and horror.”

But Mark Jancovich gives no clear definition of pornography or horror, at least not at the beginning, so at first sight the book appears to be about censorship. I can’t help feeling that much of the material in the first chapter, titled “The horror genre and its critiscs”, could have been relegated to an appendix. There is a lot of information about the critics, but very little about the horror genre itself.

The author then goes on to trace the development of the genre in various historic periods, beginning with late 18th-century Gothic novels, in relation to the prevailing social conditions at the time and place that the particular works were written. He also usually begins with the social conditions, and then mentions the works of horror fiction that were produced in the period, or some of them.

Sometimes the description of social conditions appears quite accurate, at other times it seems rather flimsy, resting on nothing more t5han the assertions of the author. Also, the linking to the social and cultural conditions is patchy, and sometimes seems very unconvincing. Dracula, for example, is presented as a symbol of capitalism in a rather shallow analysis. A much better one appears in Vampires, mummies and Liberals. Of course a book dealing with an entire genre can’t go into the same amount of detail as a monograph dealing mainly with one work, but still it could have been more convincing.

Between the world wars of the 20th century Jancovich speaks of “Fordism”, which I assume derives from Aldous Huxley’s Brave new world, though he doesn’t mention it. In a way that could also belong to the horror genre, as could Orwell’s 1984 and Golding’s Lord of the Flies — they certainly inspire horror in the sensitive reader. But they are not mentioned, and H.P. Lovecraft is only mentioned in passing. By the end of the book there is still no satisfactory definition of horror as a genre.

View all my reviews

Postfiction/Truth? Literary Coffee Klatsch

8 March 2018

At our literary coffee klatch today all the books we mentioned were non-fiction.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s the first time since we started two years ago that I can remember not a single fiction title being mentioned.

But that’s OK. “Truth,” as G.K. Chesterton said in one of his fiction works, “is always stranger than fiction, because fiction is a product of the the human mind and therefore congenial to it.”

Duncan Reyburn mentioned that he had been reading books by Jordan Peterson, but I didn’t manage to note the titles he mentioned, but perhaps the main one was Maps of Meaning.

Peterson was a psychologist, and had an interesting theory of memory — that the purpose of memory was to enable us to avoid our mistakes of the past and behave differently in future, instead of, as Freudians tended to encourage us to do, blaming our father or mother or childhood trauma.

That reminds me (which I didn’t mention at the meeting) that I’ve been reading quite a lot about psychoanalysis and literary criticism recently, and especially the role and influence of Jacques Lacan. David Levey wasn’t able to be with us today, but perhaps another time he can tell us about the Lacanian factor.

Duncan said he had also been reading Nietzsche and was interested in his idea of ethics as revenge. Nietzsche regarded Christianity as a religion of slaves because it took away from slaves the desire for revenge against their masters.

But psychologists like Jordan Peterson said memory was to enable us to compare our present with our past, to compare ourselves not with other people, but rather with our past selves. This reminded Val and me of the Prayer of St Ephraim, which we say frequently during Lent:

O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair, lust of power and idle talk.

But give rather the spirit of chastity, humility, patience and love to Thy servant.

Yea O Lord and King! Grant me to see my own transgressions and not to judge my brother, for blessed art Thou, unto ages of ages. Amen.

From there we drifted into discussing the judgmentalism one encounters on social media. Post a link to a news item about an outrage in Yemen or an atrocity in Syria, or a terrorist attack somewhere else and people rush to condemn or exonerate those who committed it. I thought of the election of Donald Trump as US president — after his election, but before his inauguration, people were calling for protest marches, not against anything he had done, but against things that they thought he was about to do. And even if he later did the things they feared, it was the man and not the deeds that they condemned. We have got judging our brother down to a fine art. The maxim Love the sinner, hate the sin is conveniently forgotten or even, by some, denounced as evil in itself.

And from there we went on to labels — we love “one size fits all” labels. Duncan mentioned a student of his who wanted to write a thesis on something or other “and religion”. Duncan asked “Which religion?” but the student hadn’t thought of that, but eventually said “Christianity”, and Duncan asked “Which Christianity?”

I noted how the label “Evangelical” is plastered on anything and everything, and the snide criticisms of Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng when be was appointed because he was an “Evangelical”, but when, unlike Trump, he didn’t do all the things he was accused, like Trump, of being going to do, no more was heard of his Evangelicalism. His Evangelicalism was responsible for the bad things he was going to do, but didn’t, but not for the good things he actually did.

One aspect of labelling people is seen in IQ tests, and Janneke Weidema mentioned The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould. Janneke said that IQ tests had originally been developed to find weaknesses in children’s problem-solving skills so that they could be remedied, but had eventually ossified into a kind of permanent classification system for children. Val mentioned having done an IQ test in Grade 6, and years later finding out that it was in her UIF (Unemployment Insurance Fund) file at the Department of Labour.

I mentioned having had IQ tests done by the Scientologists (for a fuller account of that see here) and how they conned people by promising that their Personal Efficiency Course would improve IQ. We returned a couple of weeks later and asked to do the tests again, but without doing the Personal Efficiency Course. Sure enough, our IQ scores had improved by about 5 points each, as we expected they would, because IQ tests measure one’s ability to do IQ tests, and practice improves performance.

We discussed other kinds of personality tests, such as Myers-Briggs and Enneagrams. Perhaps there is more that could be said about that, but it didn’t relate much to books and reading.

At this point Duncan had to leave and Tony McGregor arrived a bit late to join us.

We moved on to discussing a topical hot issue — land expropriation without compensation.

It had produced a lot of emotional rhetoric on all sides in South Africa, and, rather surprisingly, some very sensationalised and twisted reports in several overseas publications.

Janneke said one needed to appreciate the history, which was much more complex than many people thought, and for this she recommended Die Derde Oorlog Teen Mapoch by Hans Pienaar, where the “Boers” were not settled farmers at all, but nomadic marauding hunter-gatherers and cattle rustlers, making war on settled agricultural communities.

Going from the north to the south, Tony McGregor recommended Frontiers: The Epic of South Africa’s Creation and the Tragedy of the Xhosa People by Noel Mostert.This describes the nine Frontier Wars in the Eastern Cape, and again gives the history of some of struggles over land in that part of the country.

Another book that I suggested was The rise and fall of the South African peasantry by Colin Bundy. That sparked off some reminiscing, because Tony McGregor had grown up with Colin Bundy at Blythedale, and they had played together as children. And I had been at university with him and we had attended History and Philosophy classes together, and he went on to become a professor of history.

Bundy’s book also belongs to the “truth is stranger than fiction” variety, because one of the fictions believed by many white South Africans (the result of careful indoctrination by the National Party’s “Christian National Education” system) is that black farmers were primitive and backward and that white farmers were progressive and efficient.

During the 19th century several attempts were made to settle white farmers on the land in South Africa. Immigrants were brought from Britain, given land to cultivate, and made a hash of it. Many were from towns and knew little or nothing about farming, and were unfamiliar with the conditions. As a result many migrated to the towns and got work there, or sought their fortunes in various diamond and gold rushes. And it was black peasant farmers who settled around the white towns and provided their inhabitants with fresh vegetables, eggs and dairy produce. And it was black farmers who were later forced off the land by the white farmers’ influence in political circles.

One other book mentioned, which ties up with the history, but is not so relevant to the land issue, is Sir Harry Smith, bungling hero by Anthony Harington. You can find my review here.




Land expropriation without compensation

6 March 2018

Last week Parliament resolved to review a clause in the Constitution dealing that prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property, and I wrote about my misgivings about such a step here.

I didn’t intend to say any more, because others have said quite a lot, and better than I could. One of the better articles on the issue is by Mondli Makhanya The Great Land Return Lie.

It seems to me that this was passed parliament mainly as a vote-catching tactic by the ANC, with an eye on the 2019 general election. The EFF was becoming a threat to their hold on power, and by stealing a plank from the EFF’s policy platform they seem to be hoping to neutralise the threat, or at least diminish it.

Well that is one of the things that politicians do, and that is the kind of thing one must expect if the country is run by politicians. It is rather sad, though, that the ANC, which gave us the constitution that inter alia protects us from arbitrary deprivation of property should be prepared to sacrifice it for a purely temporary advantage. Playing party political games with the constitution shows how far the ANC has fallen since the days of Mandela, Tambo and Sisulu.  It just goes to show that getting rid of Zuma did not solve all the problems in the ANC.

And as many have pointed out, the obstacle to dealing with the land issue is not the constitution, it is the failure of successive ANC governments to implement policies that are already in place.

That is bad enough, but some of the other things are worse.

For example this article appeared in Newsweek, a US publication that I did not previously think of as promoting the cause of the Alt-Right Thousands Sign Petition Asking Trump to Let White Farmers in South Africa Migrate to U.S. After Country Votes to Force Them Off Land.

That headline goes well beyond spin into the “fake news” category, as does this this one from the UK Independent South Africa votes through motion to seize land from white farmers without compensation | The Independent.

These deliberately misleading headlines seem calculated to stir up white racists everywhere, so one has to ask why these hitherto fairly respected publications seem to be promoting an Alt-Right white racist agenda? One expects spin from most of the media, but these go beyond spin into fake news territory.

And sensationalist and twisted reporting in overseas media has provoked all kinds of white supremacists overseas into seeking to recruit white people in South Africa to their cause.

By way of contrast, most of the South African reactions I have read has been more sober and thoughtful. For example this Steven Friedman: Land debate is about dignity, equality – not the constitution – I don’t agree with some of the things he says — for example, if it’s not about the Constitution, then leave the Constitution out of it. But at least he couches it in terms of a debate that we need to have, and not rabble-rousing among white racists, like Newsweek and the UK Independent.

If our Constitution needs amending, then I suggest that it needs to be amended to provide more protection from unscrupulous businessmen who seek to buy politicians and take over the state. And removing the constitutional protection against arbitrary deprivation of property would provide greatly expanded opportunities for such unscrupulous businessmen to do that very thing. But contrary to the impression created by the overseas media, that hasn’t happened yet. A committee has been set up to draw up proposals for parliament to debate, and until it produces the proposals, stories about forcing white farmers off the land are at best idle speculation, and at worst malicious rumour mongering and racist propaganda.

The toxic influence of Evangelicalism on our society

28 February 2018

Hardly a day goes by without my seeing an article about how bad Evangelical Christians are, and how toxic is their influence on our society.

One of the commonest criticisms of Evangelicals is that they are bigots, and promote bigotry. But I suspect that those who accuse them of bigotry are just as bigoted themselves. As Shakespeare put it,

The evil that men do lives after them;
the good is oft interred with their bones.

But the bigoted critics of Evangelicals tend to ignore the good even in their lifetime, and treat them as the enemy.

I’m not an Evangelical (with a capital E), so I don’t have a dog in these fights. I do have several disagreements with some Evangelical theology, so I’m not making an apologia for Evangelicalism, but judging theology and judging people are two different things.

I went to a church school, St Stithians College, which was strongly influenced by Evangelicals, and one of the Evangelical headmasters, Steyn Krige, was thrown out for his bigotry in wanting progressive methods of education, and (shock! horror!) non-racial education, which was found totally unacceptable by the white businessmen who predominated on the college council.

Just about every sunday  night while I was at school we were exposed to Evangelical preachers, good and bad, bigoted and unbigoted, from a variety of Evangelical groups like the Mission to Lepers (now the Leprosy Mission), and the China Inland Mission (now the Overseas Missionary Fellowshp). Occasionally we would get all uptight about their bigotry, for example when they made derogatory remarks about Roman Catholics. But only a few of them did, and they were usually not invited back.

Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng

And then there is that notorious and most toxic Evangelical bigot in South African society, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng.

The media were down on him right from the start and all the bad things he did were attributed to his being an Evangelical. Now that most of the media like the good things he has done, there is not even a whisper of his being an Evangelical.

The significant thing for me is that the bad things he did because he was an Evangelical were for the most part reported in the media before he did them. They told scary stories of the terrible things he was going to do when he became Chief Justice. They tried very hard to paint the picture of an ogre judge who would assist an ogre president in his corruption. If not bigotry, that is at least prejudice.

Have a look at some of the media reports when he was made Chief Justice, and the stress on his Evangelicalism and his bad judgement.

Have any of the more recent approving media reports on him mentioned his Evangelicalism? Very few that I can think of, though here is one — Mark Gevisser’s also calls for Zuma’s resignation:

Chief Justice Mogoeng is an evangelical lay preacher, and he reached for the Bible to explain in his ruling the public protector’s role. Ms. Madonsela was, he said, the embodiment of impoverished ordinary people who do not have access to justice, “a biblical David” who represented the public against “the most powerful and very well-resourced Goliath” of official corruption.

Such language draws South Africans back to the struggle against apartheid. “The unchecked abuse of state power,” the chief justice reminded us, “was virtually institutionalized during the apartheid era.”

So yes, I think there is a lot of Evangelical bigotry around — and as much of it is directed towards Evangelicals from secularist journalists as from Evangelicals towards others.

We’re all bigoted in one way or another, but I would like to see some acknowledgement in the media that at least some of the good things Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng may have done might be because of his Evangelical conscience and not in spite of it.




Billy Graham in black and white

23 February 2018

The death of Billy Graham was followed by a flood of posts on social media, some praising him to the heavens as more honourable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim, and others damning him as a would be war criminal who urged US President Richard Nixon to kill a million people in Vietnam.

I thought I would steer clear of all the hype, and not read any of it, pro or con, until a few internet friends posted things that I thought worth paying attention to.

First was Jim Forest of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship, who met Billy Graham in 1988 when he visited the USSR at the invitation of the Russian Orthodox Church, on the occasion of the celebration of a millennium of Christianity in Russia:

At the airport waiting for our flight to Kiev, I asked Graham what had led him to undertake his first trip to the USSR in 1982 despite advice from Vice President Bush not to go. “I had been briefed at the Pentagon about what would happen if there was a nuclear war,” he replied. “I had been to Auschwitz and seen how limitless is our capacity for evil. And I was thinking about Paul saying in his first letter to the Corinthians that he was called to be all things to all people. I realized I had closed myself to the people in the Soviet Union. So I felt I had to say yes to the invitation I received from the Russian Orthodox Church inviting me to take part in a peace conference they were preparing in Moscow.”

Speaking in Kiev, he gave a vintage Graham sermon: “My grandfather never dreamed of the changes that have happened in our world — space travel, color television, travel from continent to continent in a few hours by jet airplane. But some things never change. Interest in religion never changes. The nature of God never changes.” He spoke about God’s love for each person, a love we cannot damage by our sins. Graham recalled a Moscow lady who told him, “I am a great sinner.” He responded, “I too am a great sinner, but we have a great savior.” He recalled Prince Vladimir and his conversion. “He turned away from idols and destroyed them, opening a new path in life not only for himself but for millions of others right down to our own time. God never changes, but you and I must change just as Prince Vladimir changed a thousand years ago.” He ended his sermon saying, “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”  (see Jim Forest’s book Religion in the new Russia).

The second was Irving Hexham who posted a link on Facebook to a sermon preached by Billy Graham in South Africa in 1973, in which he said that Jesus was not white.

I was there. I heard it.

I also heard John Gatu of Kenya, who preached immediately before him, who in my opinion preached much better.

I said as much in response to Irving’s Facebook post, but that is not the full story. Facebook lends itself to the visual equivalent of sound bites — one-liners that never tell the full story. That is why I prefer mailing lists and possibly blogs for discussing such things.

And there was a story behind that sermon that deserves to be told again.

The rally at which Billy Graham was the main speaker was the culmination of a 10-day conference, the South African Congress on Mission and Evangelism.

The conference was organised by the South African Council of Churches and African Enterprise, an evangelistic (and Evangelical) organisation.

The organisers wanted to make the conference as widely representative of South African Christianity as possible, and, in particular, to bring “Evangelicals” and “Ecumenicals” together (they weren’t too bothered, at that stage, about the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, whose presence would probably be even more scary to Evangelicals than the Ecumenicals).

SA Congress on Mission and Evangelism Rally at Kings Park stadium, Durban, at which Billy Graham preached. 17 March 1973.

And if anything was going to bring the Evangelicals in, it was Billy Graham, who was a hero to most of them. So he was there as bait. The Evangelicals would come to hear Billy Graham, they wouldn’t come to hear John Gatu, no matter how well he preached.

And the bait worked.

Billy Graham Rally at Kings Park, 17 March 1973

Many Evangelicals remained suspicious, and shied away from the Ecumenicals, whom they regarded as “political” (if anyone deserves that epithet today, it’s Evangelicals, especially American ones) and too
focused on the “social gospel”.

But many overcame their suspicions and joined in.

I heard Billy Graham preach on one other occasion, at Earls Court in London in 1966. On that occasion I and those with me handed out pamphlets critical of some of Billy Graham’s comments on the Vietnam War. The pamphlets were produced by the Christian Committee of 100, of which I had become a hanger-on.

Billy Graham rally at Kings Park, Durban

I had been told by several Anglican clergy that they did not approve of Billy Graham, because they did not like “emotionalism”. The way they described it , it sounded as though he had an almost hypnotic effect on the crowd, getting them all worked up.  But I was disappointed.

I was less than impressed with his preaching on that occasion. Far from being emotional, it was rather dull and boring, and there was no appeal to the emotions at all. But on both occasions it clearly worked for some people, who went forward to commit their lives to Jesus Christ as Saviour.

For some of them it may have been a recommitment. I’ve seen many people respond to such “altar calls” again and again. An Anglican monk once told me that he did at a Billy Graham crusade. As he got up to go forward, the ushers stopped him, and said “Not you.”
“Why not?” he asked
“It’s for those who have committed their lives to Christ.”
“But I have.”
“No, it’s for those who have committed their lives to Christ today.”
“But I do, every day.”

So the Evangelical ritual of the “altar call” is not necessarily well understood outside Evangelical circles, but Billy Graham’s preaching nevertheless influenced a lot of people and, I believe, brought many closer to Christ. He was certainly the best-known itinerant evangelist of the 20th century.

So what Billy Graham said in South Africa that day may have helped some white Evangelicals to see that racism wasn’t OK for Christians, and thus he may have planted some seeds that germinated and helped in some way to end apartheid 20 years later.

But at the time it was a huge disappointment. It could have done with a bit of “emotionalism”. There were 50000 Christians there, of all races (the government had demanded that they be segregated, but they weren’t, people sat anywhere they liked). They were expecting something to happen, but it didn’t. John Gatu preached a far more stirring sermon, and perhaps he should have spoken last, and sent out the crowd as manic street preachers, and they probably would have done it.

Billy Graham started off well — saying that though we all come from different cultures and ethnic backgrounds, we are all one in Christ, and waved his arm round the packed stadium and said “This is the church”.

And then he proceeded to preach a sermon full of bad cliches and mediocre pulpit jokes. If he had taken up the consciousness of unity that was beginning to emerge, and expounded on it, something might have happened. It was ready to happen. Fifty thousand black and white Christians gathered together, of all races, all classes, sitting together. There might have been a mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit. We could have prayed and sang and exchanged the kiss of peace, and it would have been great, but it fell flat. About a fifth of them came forward for the appeal at the end. For the rest of us, there was nothing more. We could leave, so leave we did. A great anticlimax.

I doubt that more than 1% of that crowd were heathen who had never heard or responded to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Billy Graham was preaching to the choir, to the already-converted. But nothing must be allowed to interfere with the sacred Evangelical liturgical ritual of the “altar call”.

What was needed was not a call to come forward to the podium, but rather to go out,

Go down in the city, into the street,
Let’s give the message to the people we meet

… as a contemporary song (Light up the fire by Parchment) put it. That would have been a good song to sing while everyone was leaving.

The third piece is from Brenton Dickieson, who writes in his blog about Billy Graham, C.S. Lewis, and Me | A Pilgrim in Narnia. I think he comes closer to giving a balanced assessment of Billy Graham than many when he writes:

Graham leveraged early superstardom to do very specific things that shaped American Christianity for the next three generations. In particular, Graham’s insistent and consistent ecumenism, his global interest, and his unapologetic views of racial integration—even going so far as to bail Martin Luther King, Jr. out of jail—are imprinted upon post-WWII American Christianity. In particular, it was Billy Graham who shaped what is now known as evangelicalism, distinct from and overlapping with both fundamentalism and mainstream liberalism. With all the things we may quibble about, for millions of people around the world, Graham made faith personal.

Brenton Dickieson is a student of C.S. Lewis, who, like Billy Graham, influenced many Christians, not through his preaching, but through his writing. In his blog he describes how Lewis met Billy Graham, and their impressions of each other. It really is worth a read.

The spell begins to break

14 February 2018

The land of Narnia was under a spell, so that it was always winter and never Christmas.

And in a chapter headed The spell begins to break we are told that the snow was beginning to melt, and there were signs of spring.

And I was reminded of that when watching a meeting of the chief whips of the various parties were discussing the procedure for a motion of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma, and the steps that would follow that.

It seemed that a spell had broken. The country had been held in thrall by a wicked witch, where people took sides and fought each other as we saw in parliament in the past. And the spell was broken and there was quiet cooperation and agreement. The Hawks, who had hitherto seemed paralysed, turned to stone statues in the witch’s castle, suddenly began to move again, and raided the Guptas’ castle, and started making arrests.

And suddenly I became aware of how much one man had put the country under a spell. One by one people became aware of what was happening, but still he held his own party under a strong enchantment, but the drips became a trickle, and the trickle became a stream as the snow melted, and finally the witch’s sleigh has got bogged down in the mud.

Four years ago the right-wing media accused Jacob Zuma of being a witch. I thought they were just misinterpreting a metaphor, and I still think that they misunderstood  what he was saying. Then the left, in the person of Julius Malema of the EFF began making similar accusations. He was not misunderstanding a metaphor. He may have had a point.

But seeing the change in the last few hours, it seems to me that a spell certainly has been lifted. People who were scared to speak, and looked uptight and tense in TV interviews are suddenly appearing relaxed, as if a huge burden has been lifted. Suddenly the witch has lost his power, and appears quite ordinary.

Let us be careful that we are not bewitched again.


Anti-Semitism, anti-leftism and anti-Christianity

5 February 2018

A friend recently posted a link to an article on antisemitism which claimed that antisemitism of the left was more dangerous than antisemitism of the right. I found the article biased and tendentious for several reasons. For one thing, the author seemed to characterise “the Left” in much the same way that antisemites characterise the Jews — with stereotypes based on innuendoes. Just as for antisemites there is no need to substantiate any accusations against “the Jews”, so for those authors there is no need to substantiate any allegations against “the Left”, because those are something that “everyone knows”.

When I pointed this out to the friend who posted the link, he said that the writer was writing about “the Left” in the American sense, and perhaps there is a great deal about American culture I don’t understand, and “Left” in the political sense means something different there. But it seems that terms like “Left” and “Right” in politics have become so meaningless as to be interchangeable, and not just in America. You pick one that you want to use to describe yourself, and ascribe everything bad to the one you didn’t pick. I’ve been aware of that tendency for some time, and have blogged about it before.

Yet I suspect that even in America there is some residue of the original meaning. Soon after seeing the antisemitism article, someone posted one of those quizzes on Facebook that purport to show whether you are left or right. Is it accurate? I don’t know, but I thought it would be interesting to do it to see what the quiz authors regarded as “left” or “right” characteristics, which can itself be revealing of social trends.

You can take the test here, and my results were as follows:

Of those I will comment that in addition to being solidly left-wing I am also solidly pro-life, meaning that I am anti-war, anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment. Most of those who claim to be pro-life are less than solidly so, and are rather full-of-holes pro-life. If you want a more accurate test to take your political temperature, try the Political Compass.

Be that as it may, very few of the characteristics ascribed to the left, either in the test or in the antisemitism article, appeared directly in the quiz questions. There was nothing about intersectionality (whatever that may be)  or “identity politics” (which sounds like a pretty right-wing thing to me). But there were quite a lot of questions about Christian values. One of a group of four that I opted for was “kindness”, because it came closest to the Christian value of love, though whether the test counted that as “left” or “right” I’m not sure, but I noticed that it does place the Christian value of forgiveness on the left.

The antisemitism article also has a significant comment on the Christian worldview — How Anti-Semitism’s True Origin Makes It Invisible To The Left – The Forward:

In addition to the belief in a shadowy group with the power to affect large-scale outcomes, conspiracy theories also reflect a worldview in which reality is the product of a timeless and cosmic struggle between good and evil. These kinds of dualistic narratives are especially enticing to groups that view themselves to be under existential duress, and as Elaine Pagels has shown, this has profoundly shaped Western culture. Jews under Roman occupation and early Christians under Jewish ostracism and gentile persecution developed theologies of the oppressed in which the devil and his demonic host squared off with God and his angels.

In the apartheid era in South Africa I, and I am sure many other South African Christians, opposed apartheid for precisely the reasons outlined in that paragraph. Because Christian theology is a “theology of the oppressed” (as the article puts it), we saw apartheid as a demonic ideology. I do believe that there is a cosmic struggle between good and evil, though I’m not sure that it is timeless. The Christian take on it is that in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the decisive battle was won by good, and we live in the last days of mopping up operations.

That worldview has been central to Christianity from its beginning, as can be seen from a historian’s account of how the Christian worldview first took root in the Graeco-Roman pagan society in which it first spread:

In antiquity, pagans already owed a debt to Christians. Christians first gave them their name, pagani… In everyday use, it meant either a civilian or a rustic. Since the sixteenth century the origin of the early Christians’ usage has been disputed, but of the two meanings, the former is the likelier. Pagani were civilians who had not enlisted through baptism as soldiers of Christ against the powers of Satan. By its word for non-believers, Christian slang bore witness to the heavenly battle which coloured Christians’ view of life (Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians 1987:30).

And the same worldview can be seen throughout the baptism service of the Orthodox Church. So, whether intentionally or not, John-Paul Pagano, the author of the antisemitism article, identifies Christianity with “the Left”, as the quiz also seems to do.

I also believe that Zionism is to Orthodox Judaism as Hellenism is to Orthodox Christianity. Both Zionism and Hellenism are offshoots of 19th-century romantic and secular central European nationalism, and have tried to coopt religion for their own purposes — more on that here, if you are interested. And it has generally been such secular nationalisms, rather than the “cosmic battle” worldview, that have encouraged the spread of conspiracy theories among Christians.

And this is where Orthodox Christianity, and the Orthodox worldview, tend to differ from that of both Western Christianity and Western secularism.

Western Christianity tends to be legalistic, to share the values of the Right rather than the Left, preferring punishment to forgiveness, and justice to kindness (in the left-right quiz mentioned above). It can be seen in the Western hostility to the Orthodox idea of hate the sin, love the sinner.  In Orthodox theology the Church is a hospital where sinners can be healed rather than a courtroom where they are to be judged.

But in much political rhetoric nowadays, we see that people love to hate the sinner and not just the sin. The American “right” hated Obama more than they hated his policies. And the American “left” hates Trump more than they hate his policies. They love to hate the sinner, and the sin often seems to be just an excuse for their hatred of the sinner.

One objection sometimes raised to the “cosmic battle” idea is that it is said to give people the excuse of saying “the devil made me do it”. But in Orthodox spirituality that is no excuse at all. What it does allow us to say is that “the devil made him (or her) do it”. It’s a third-person excuse, not a first-person excuse. It’s what opens the way for forgiveness and love for the sinner. As St Paul says, our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world powers of this darkness.

At the beginning of Lent is Forgiveness Sunday, when we ask for, and offer forgiveness to all who have offended us or whom we may have offended. It’s Forgiveness Sunday (a leftist value), not Punishment Sunday. And before receiving communion people acknowledge that our Lord Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first.

So there is a cosmic battle, there is spiritual warfare between good and evil, but the line between good and evil is not primarily between states, between civilizations, between political parties, between races or ethnic groups, between classes or sexes or genders. It is a line that runs through every human heart, and above all mine. Western Christian sometimes speak of “spiritual warfare” in terms that are carnal, and apply it to flesh and blood enemies rather than spiritual ones. This can be seen in an exaggerated form in, for example, the novels of Frank Peretti, where spiritual powers are depicted as altogether material. For more on this aspect of spiritual warfare, see here.

And lest it seem that I am saying that the line between good and evil runs between Eastern and Western Christianity, making “us” superior to “them”, let me quote a Western Christian, G.K. Chesterton, on this:

The whole case for Christianity is that a man who is dependent upon the luxuries of this life is a corrupt man, spiritually corrupt, politically corrupt, financially corrupt. There is one thing that Christ and all the Christian saints have said with a sort of savage monotony. They have said simply that to be rich is to be in peculiar danger of moral wreck. It is not demonstrably un-Christian to kill the rich as violators of definable justice. It is not demonstrably un-Christian to crown the rich as convenient rulers of society. It is not certainly un-Christian to rebel against the rich or to submit to the rich. But it is quite certainly un-Christian to trust the rich, to regard the rich as more morally safe than the poor. A Christian may consistently say, “I respect that man’s rank, although he takes bribes.” But a Christian cannot say, as all modern men are saying at lunch and breakfast, “a man of that rank would not take bribes.” For it is a part of Christian dogma that any man in any rank may take bribes. It is a part of Christian dogma; it also happens by a curious coincidence that it is a part of obvious human history. When people say that a man “in that position” would be incorruptible, there is no need to bring Christianity into the discussion. Was Lord Bacon a bootblack? Was the Duke of Marlborough a crossing sweeper? In the best Utopia, I must be prepared for the moral fall of any man in any position at any moment; especially for my fall from my position at this moment.