BATMAN: DARK KNIGHT VS. FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY’S DEMONS – Exhibit 7

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Demons essentially accomplishes that at which Christopher Nolan’s Dark Night aims but fails miserably. Where Dark Knight inhumanly forces dialogue from philosophy books into the mouths of actual, flesh-and-blood characters, Demons has characters living, enacting, embodying, and discussing philosophical ideas.

There really is no hero in Demons – which is better, or closer to reality. The whole reason it has that title is because you also might not notice the demons otherwise. By contrast, in Dark Knight, it’s just the opposite. The demons are exposed out in the open. And, in Dark Knight, the hero is just as obvious – which feeds into false fantasies. Everyone loves Dark Knight, though. And, without getting into specifics of the film, it’s difficult to connect my words to what I see in the film, to communicate what I mean.  So, I went looking for scenes that best reveal my frustration with Batman: The Dark Knight.

Exhibit 1 – linked here – was HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS AND IDEAS
Exhibit 2 – linked here – was PRIVACY RIGHTS VS. THE COMMON GOOD, OR FREEDOM VS. DESPOTISM
Exhibit 3 – linked here – was EXISTENTIAL ALIENATION AND FREEDOM OF SELF-RULE
Exhibit 4 – linked here – was A SCHEME TO DESTROY SCHEMES VS. REALITY REVEALING THEIR FUTILITY
Exhibit 5 – linked here – was FALSE HEROES VS. TRUE HUMANITY
Exhibit 6 – linked here – was DISPLAYING VS. RE-VEALING

Exhibit 7 – HEROES MADE IN THE IMAGE OF IDEAS 

The above image is from this scene – linked here – in Batman: The Dark Knight.

“It’s not about money, it’s about sending a message.”

– The Joker

By contrast to what we see in “Dark Knight,” the following is from Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Here, the action starts with Pyotr Stepanovich speaking. He is the ring leader of the group of radical liberals operating in the province. Kirillov is an associate.

“That’s another turn of affairs. It seems to me you have two different causes mixed up here; and that is highly untrustworthy. But, excuse me, what if you are God? If the lie ended and you realized that the whole lie was because there had been this former God?”

“You’ve finally understood!” Kirillov cried out rapturously. “So it can be understood, if even someone like you understands! You understand now that the whole salvation for everyone is to prove this thought to them all. Who will prove it? I! I don’t understand how, up to now, an atheist could know there is no God and not kill himself at once. To recognize that there is no God, and not to recognize at the same time that you have become God, is an absurdity, otherwise you must necessarily kill yourself. Once you recognize it, you are king, and you will not kill yourself but will live in the chiefest glory. But one, the one who is first, must necessarily kill himself, otherwise who will begin and prove it? It is I who will necessarily kill myself in order to begin and prove it. I am still God against my will, and I am unhappy. because it is my duty to proclaim self-will. Everyone is unhappy, because everyone is afraid to proclaim self-will. That is why man has been so unhappy and poor up to now, because he was afraid to proclaim the chief point of self-will and was self-willed only on the margins, like a schoolboy. I am terribly unhappy, because I am terribly afraid. Fear is man’s curse… But I will proclaim self-will, it is my duty to believe that I do not believe. I will begin, and end, and open the door. And save. Only this one thing will save all men and in the next generation transform them physically; for in the present physical aspect, so far as I have thought, it is in no way possible for man to be without the former God. For three years I have been searching for the attribute of my divinity, and I have found it: the attribute of my divinity is Self-will! That is all, by which I can show in the main point my insubordination and my new fearsome freedom. For it is very fearsome. I kill myself to show my insubordination and my new fearsome freedom.”

His face was unnaturally pale, his look unbearably heavy. He was as if delirious. Pyotr Stepanovich thought he was going to collapse right there.

“Give me the pen!” Kirillov suddenly cried quite unexpectedly, in decided inspiration. “Dictate, I’ll sign everything…”

– from Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Part Three, A Toilsome Night, pp. 618-9

We watch this scene from “The Dark Knight,” and we think, “Who would ever burn a pile of money like that, just to prove a point?” We read this scene from Devils, and we think, “Who would ever kill themselves like that, just to send a message?” Both actions are narrative exaggerations to make a point. The difference is this. Dark Knight is itself about sending a message. An idea. Demons is about the character. The humanity. That’s why The Joker is an absurdly inhuman villain no one can identify with. And yet, as Joker’s ideal double, Batman is an absurdly inhuman hero for everyone to identify with. By way of contrast to that entire framework of relationships, Kirillov is a human trying to make a point, with whom we can, despite the absurdity of his contemplations, almost identify.

Christopher Nolan over-exaggerates the messages, the ideas themselves, to the point of forcing them out into the open. This renders them both unrecognizable to actual human experience inside the lived limits of the horizon and irrelevant to our use of ideas in speech and thought as we actually try to navigate our real-life environment. I suppose that’s fine, insofar as the world of the film is a universe into itself (though it’s not). The problem is, such exaggeration of ideas themselves to the point of irrelevance means Nolan thus also misses the “demons” who are actually predominantly at work in our context. He presumes to vaguely shatter certain vague fantasies. What he is really doing is upholding and reinforcing distortions to our humanity like individualism, the authority of the police state, mass consumer spectacle, capitalist dependence on base desires, and supposedly universalizing disincarnation. And, of course, it is false heroes who “send the message” of false fantasies.

Dostoevsky’s insistence on staying inside the limits of embodied humanity actually renders him more capable of discerning the realities we face in our daily lives. Nolan’s work, on the other hand, serves simply – and basely – as a spectacle from a distance. And it puffs us up into the transcendent position and place of abstracted, disembodied ideas or “messages.” These “messages” appear in the likeness of the symbolic hero of Nolan’s narrative, who, as Dostoevsky helps us realize, does not actually exist.

Fundamentalist Christians are not the only ones who presume to impose disembodied ideas down onto reality from above. It’s a temptation we all share. And, we all presume to do it from atop some Temple. It’s just that Christopher Nolan is standing atop a slightly different, though practically related and interwoven temple, from the one I grew up in.

“Dostoevsky called the novel Demons, we would suggest, precisely because the demons in it do not appear, and the reader might otherwise overlook them. The demons are visible only in distortions of the human image, the human countenance, and their force is measurable only by the degree of the distortion.”

– Richard Pevear, foreword to Demons (p. xiv)

Christopher Nolan makes humans in the image of disembodied ideas. Fyodor Dostoevsky helps us embody a fuller and truer humanity.

BATMAN: DARK KNIGHT VS. FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY’S DEMONS – Exhibit 6

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Demons essentially accomplishes that at which Christopher Nolan’s Dark Night aims but fails miserably. Where Dark Knight inhumanly forces dialogue from philosophy books into the mouths of actual, flesh-and-blood characters, Demons has characters living, enacting, embodying, and discussing philosophical ideas.

There really is no hero in Demons – which is better, or closer to reality. The whole reason it has that title is because you also might not notice the demons otherwise. By contrast, in Dark Knight, it’s just the opposite. The demons are exposed out in the open. And, in Dark Knight, the hero is just as obvious – which feeds into false fantasies. Everyone loves Dark Knight, though. And, without getting into specifics of the film, it’s difficult to connect my words to what I see in the film, to communicate what I mean.  So, I went looking for scenes that best reveal my frustration with Batman: The Dark Knight.

Exhibit 1 – linked here – was HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS AND IDEAS
Exhibit 2 – linked here – was PRIVACY RIGHTS VS. THE COMMON GOOD, OR FREEDOM VS. DESPOTISM
Exhibit 3 – linked here – was EXISTENTIAL ALIENATION AND FREEDOM OF SELF-RULE
Exhibit 4 – linked here – was A SCHEME TO DESTROY SCHEMES VS. REALITY REVEALING THEIR FUTILITY
Exhibit 5 – linked here – was FALSE HEROES VS. TRUE HUMANITY

Exhibit 6 – DISPLAYING VS. RE-VEALING

The above image is from this scene – linked here – in Batman: The Dark Knight.

“Tonight, you’re all gonna be part of a social experiment….so who’s it gonna be? Harvey Dent’s scumbag collection, or the sweet and innocent civilians? You choose.”

– The Joker

Of course, here, The Joker is playing up and intending to reveal a false construct by which we are in the habit of mapping our world. We night think he intends to show us that aren’t as neat and clear-cut in our world as we would like to think. Or, rather, does he intend to make a display of his cynical conviction that evil is reality, that darkness does, in fact, reign? Perhaps, to justify his own life path and choices?

In any case, by the very fact of turning it into a social experiment, betrays the stupidity of this entire episode in the film. We get another glimpse that Nolan might be interested in “Postmodern” critique of modern mythologies of social surveillance, control, and progress through a neutral, objective, just, and fair justice system.

Reality is not a laboratory, precisely because a laboratory requires controlled conditions. Here, it becomes obvious that Christopher Nolan has to impose such conditions from outside embodied reality and practice in order to try to, supposedly, prophetically reveal something. By contrast…

The following is from Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Yulia Mikhailovna is the aristocratic governess of the region of Russia that serves as the novel’s setting.

“THE FÊTE TOOK PLACE…so much of some special significance did Yulia Mikhailovna connect with it. Alas, until the final moment she remained blind and did not understand the mood of society. No one towards the end believed that the great day would go by without some colossal adventure, without a ‘denouement,’ as some put it, rubbing their hands in anticipation. Many, it is true, tried to assume a most frowning and political look; but, generally speaking, the Russian man is boundlessly amused by any socially scandalous commotion. True, there was among us something rather more serious than the mere thirst for scandal; there was a general irritation, something unappeasably spiteful; it seemed everyone was terribly sick of everything. Some sort of general, muddled cynicism had come to reign, a forced, as if strained, cynicism, Only the ladies were not to be muddled, and that only on one point: their merciless hatred of Yulia Mikhailovna. In this all the ladies’ tendencies converged. And she, poor woman, did not even suspect; until the final hour she remained convinced that she was ‘surrounded’ and still the subject of ‘fanatical devotion.'”

– from Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky (very beginning of Part 3, Ch. 1, The Fete. First Part, p. 461)

Nolan critiques surveillance from outside to reveal that and how the real fault lines of society lie within all of us. Or, as The Joker would have it, that the surveillance and discipline is all in vain, since we’re all depraved anyway? In any case, Nolan artificially imposes a controlled narrative. And, in order to critique the objectification of the surveillance state, he gives us all a surveillance view from outside! He subverts his own purposes. So, he appears to be engaged in a Postmodern critique, of sorts. In reality, however, he remains stuck in a modern frame “from outside.”

As it turns out, Yulia Mikhailovna’s conceited fantasies are, indeed, later in the novel, shattered by reality. Even as the narrator of Demons, with a relatively “neutral” point of view, lays everything out before us to see all at once, the audience and characters in the story are still, however, more on the “inside” of the action than is the case in “Dark Knight.” Neither us, as the audience, nor Yulia Mikhailovna herself gets the controlled view from outside, by way of full explanation of what’s happening, that The Joker provides to his audiences, who are the characters in the action on the two boats. Like the rest of us, Yulia Mikhailovna is not living according to such a high and obvious degree of conscious, individual choice like that.

“Dostoevsky called the novel Demons, we would suggest, precisely because the demons in it do not appear, and the reader might otherwise overlook them. The demons are visible only in distortions of the human image, the human countenance, and their force is measurable only by the degree of the distortion.”

– Richard Pevear, foreword to Demons (p. xiv)

Christopher Nolan made a bad film. And, it’s bad specifically as a film, because he tries to be smart and make it philosophy. The problem is twofold: 1. Film is not philosophy, and 2. He betrays his poor understanding of philosophy. To keep to the limits of our medium helps us to work within our human horizons and thus, with whatever endeavor we are engaged, make it more beautiful. Nolan forgot that rule. That’s not at all surprising. How can he embrace the gift of human limitations when ideas don’t have embodied contours? From a Christian perspective, the issue is disincarnation.

Christopher Nolan makes humans in the image of disembodied ideas. Fyodor Dostoevsky helps us embody a fuller and truer humanity.

BATMAN: DARK KNIGHT VS. FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY’S DEMONS – Exhibit 5

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Demons essentially accomplishes that at which Christopher Nolan’s Dark Night aims but fails miserably. Where Dark Knight inhumanly forces dialogue from philosophy books into the mouths of actual, flesh-and-blood characters, Demons has characters living, enacting, embodying, and discussing philosophical ideas.

There really is no hero in Demons – which is better, or closer to reality. The whole reason it has that title is because you also might not notice the demons otherwise. By contrast, in Dark Knight, it’s just the opposite. The demons are exposed out in the open. And, in Dark Knight, the hero is just as obvious – which feeds into false fantasies. Everyone loves Dark Knight, though. And, without getting into specifics of the film, it’s difficult to connect my words to what I see in the film, to communicate what I mean.  So, I went looking for scenes that best reveal my frustration with Batman: The Dark Knight.

Exhibit 1 – linked here – was HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS AND IDEAS
Exhibit 2 – linked here – was PRIVACY RIGHTS VS. THE COMMON GOOD, OR FREEDOM VS. DESPOTISM
Exhibit 3 – linked here – was EXISTENTIAL ALIENATION AND FREEDOM OF SELF-RULE
Exhibit 4 – linked here – was A SCHEME TO DESTROY SCHEMES VS. REALITY REVEALING THEIR FUTILITY

Exhibit 5 – FALSE HEROES VS. TRUE HUMANITY

The above image is from this scene – linked here – in Batman: The Dark Knight.

“You’re the symbol of hope I could never be.”

– Batman, to Harvey Dent

Similarly, in THIS SCENE, the events in question could have meant just about anything. But Alfred forecloses on all other meanings and contrives the heroic one:

“Perhaps both Bruce and Mr. Dent believe that Batman stands for something more important than the whims of a terrorist, Ms. Dawes. Even if everyone hates him for it.”

– Alfred, to Rachel, in Batman: The Dark Knight

Well, at least Christopher Nolan is being honest that he’s turning actual people into abstract, disembodied symbols. Meh. Not surprisingly, again, the lines mostly fall totally flat. Especially the one pointed out above, in the first scene, by Batman. By contrast…

The following is from Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. The action starts with Pyotr Stepanovich speaking. He is the ring leader of the group of radical liberals. Shigalyov is an intellectual among them, who had written less a manifesto and more a political treatise. Stavrogin is a disaffected aristocrat who grew up with Pyotr Stepanovich and has hovered along the margins of Pyotr Stepanovich’s group.

Slaves must a need have rulers. Complete obedience, complete impersonality, but once every thirty years Shigalyov gets a convulsion going, and they all suddenly start devouring each other, up to a certain point, simply so as not to be bored. Boredom is an aristocratic sensation; in Shigalyovism there will be no desires. Desire and suffering are for us; and for the slaves – Shigalyovism.”

“You exclude yourself?” again escaped from Stavrogin.

“And you. You know, I thought of handing the whole world over to the Pope. Let him come out on foot, unshod, and show himself to the mob, as if to say: ‘Look what I’ve been driven to!”-and everyone will swarm after him, even the army. The Pope on top, us around him, and under us-Shigalyovism. It’s only necessary that the Internationale agree to the Pope; but it will. And the old codger will instantly agree. Besides, he has no other choice, so remember my words, ha, ha, ha, stupid? Tell me, is it stupid, or not?”

“Enough,” Stavrogin muttered in vexation.

“Enough! Listen, I’m dropping the Pope! To hell with Shigalyovism! To hell with the Pope! We need actuality, not Shigalyovism, because Shigalyovism is a piece of jewelry. It’s an ideal, it’s for the future. Shigalyov is a jeweler and as stupid as every philanthropist. We need dirty work, and Shigalyov despises dirty work. Listen, the Pope will be in the West, and we, we will have you!”

“Leave me alone, drunk man!” Stavrogin muttered, and quickened his pace.

“Stavrogin, you are beautiful!” Pyotr Stepanovich cried out, almost in ecstasy. “Do you know that you are beautiful! The most precious thing in you is that you sometimes don’t know it. Oh, I’ve studied you! I’ve often looked at you from the side, from a corner! There’s even simpleheartedness and naïvety in you, do you know that? There is, there still is! You must be suffering, and suffering in earnest, from this simpleheartedness. I love beauty. I am a nihilist, but I love beauty. Do nihilists not love beauty? They just don’t love idols, but I love an idol! You are my idol! You insult no one, yet everyone hates you; you have the air of being everyone’s equal, yet everyone is afraid of is good. No one will come up and slap you on the shoulder. You’re a terrible aristocrat. An aristocrat, when he goes among democrats, is captivating! It’s nothing for you to sacrifice life, your own or someone else’s. You are precisely what’s needed. I, I need precisely such a man as you. I know no one but you. You are a leader, you are a sun, and I am your worm…”

He suddenly kissed his hand. A chill ran down Stavrogin’s spine, and he jerked his hand away in fright. They stopped. “Madman!” whispered Stavrogin.

“Maybe I’m raving, maybe I’m raving!” the other went on in a patter…

– from Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Part Two, Ivan the Tsarevich, pp. 418-9.

So, Nolan makes people into disembodied symbols. By contrast, Dostoevsky recognizes the reality of people’s propensity to make people into symbols. And, the actual people struggle with it in a very real and human way. It’s almost as though Nolan himself is one of the characters inside Dostoevsky’s story and doesn’t realize it. Nolan presumes to dash our false illusions, while actually setting us up for false hopes in false heroes. Dostoevsky dashes our false hopes and thus points us towards our true humanity.

“Dostoevsky called the novel Demons, we would suggest, precisely because the demons in it do not appear, and the reader might otherwise overlook them. The demons are visible only in distortions of the human image, the human countenance, and their force is measurable only by the degree of the distortion.”

– Richard Pevear, foreword to Demons (p. xiv)

BATMAN: DARK KNIGHT VS. FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY’S DEMONS – Exhibit 4

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Demons essentially accomplishes that at which Christopher Nolan’s Dark Night aims but fails miserably. Where Dark Knight inhumanly forces dialogue from philosophy books into the mouths of actual, flesh-and-blood characters, Demons has characters living, enacting, embodying, and discussing philosophical ideas.

There really is no hero in Demons – which is better, or closer to reality. The whole reason it has that title is because you also might not notice the demons otherwise. By contrast, in Dark Knight, it’s just the opposite. The demons are exposed out in the open. And, in Dark Knight, the hero is just as obvious – which feeds into false fantasies. Everyone loves Dark Knight, though. And, without getting into specifics of the film, it’s difficult to connect my words to what I see in the film, to communicate what I mean.  So, I went looking for scenes that best reveal my frustration with Batman: The Dark Knight.

Exhibit 1 – linked here – was HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS AND IDEAS
Exhibit 2 – linked here – was PRIVACY RIGHTS VS. THE COMMON GOOD, OR FREEDOM VS. DESPOTISM
Exhibit 3 – linked here – was EXISTENTIAL ALIENATION AND FREEDOM OF SELF-RULE

Exhibit 4 – A SCHEME TO DESTROY SCHEMES VS. REALITY REVEALING THEIR FUTILITY

The above image is from this scene – linked here – in Batman: The Dark Knight.

“They’re schemers trying to control their little worlds. I’m not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are. So, when I say that you and your girlfriend was nothing personal, you know that I’m telling the truth.”

– The Joker

Here, we have a glimpse of postmodern critique of modern fantasies of – in Joker’s words – “control.” Again, however, it’s forced and inhuman. And, to my point, it’s a force coming down from above. It’s not simply reality playing out in a way that painfully apocalypses our idols (which is what rings true to me). We also see, as a repeat of the disembodied ideas explored in “Exhibit 1,” the “nothing personal” we’re all tempted to when engaged in discursive argument with an embodied person. So, by contrast:

The following is from Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. The character performing the action here is Lyamshin. He was a member of the group of radical liberals, They had recently committed a serious crime that shall remain unnamed (spoiler). Shatov and Kirillov were also members of the group. Pyotr Stepanovich was their ring leader. The Lebyadkins were townspeople who, for our purposes here, had a role in moving the plot of the novel along. The quote is describing Lyamshin’s reaction to knowing the authorities have tentatively sniffed out the crime.

Without even stopping at home, he took to his heels and ran wherever his legs would carry him. But the night was so dark, and the undertaking so terrible and toilsome, that having gone down two or three streets, he returned home and locked himself in for the whole night. It seems he made an attempt at suicide towards morning; but nothing came of it. He sat locked in until almost noon, however, and then- suddenly ran to the authorities. It is said that he crawled on his knees, sobbed and shrieked, kissed the floor, shouting that he was unworthy even to kiss the boots of the dignitaries who stood before him. He was calmed down and even treated benignly. The interrogation lasted, they say, about three hours. He declared everything, everything, told the innermost secrets, everything he knew, all the details; he rushed ahead of himself, hastened with his confessions, even told what was unnecessary and without being asked. It turned out that he knew quite enough and had enough sense to present it well: the tragedy of Shatov and Kirillov, the fire, the death of the Lebyadkins, etc., were all put in the background. To the forefront came Pyotr Stepanovich, the secret society, the organization, the network. To the question of why so many murders, scandals, and abominations had been perpetrated, he replied with burning haste that it was all “for the systematic shaking of the foundations, for the systematic corrupting of society and all principles, in order to dishearten everyone and make a hash of every- thing, and society being thus loosened, ailing and limp, cynical and unbelieving, but with an infinite yearning for some guiding idea and for self-preservation to take it suddenly into their hands, raising the banner of rebellion, and supported by the whole network of fivesomes, which would have been active all the while, recruiting and searching for practically all the means and all the weak spots that could be seized upon.” He said in conclusion that here, in our town, Pyotr Stepanovich had arranged only the first trial of such systematic disorder, the program, so to speak, for further actions, even for all the fivesomes- and that this was, in fact, his own (Lyamshin’s) thought, his own surmise, and “that they must be sure to remember it, and that all this must be duly pointed out, how he had explained the matter so frankly and well-behavedly, and could therefore be very useful even in the future for services to the authorities.”

– From Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Part Three, Conclusion, p. 670.

Notice how both Demons and Dark Knight are addressing questions of social control from on high. Also notice how differently the two, respectively, are addressing those questions.

“Dostoevsky called the novel Demons, we would suggest, precisely because the demons in it do not appear, and the reader might otherwise overlook them. The demons are visible only in distortions of the human image, the human countenance, and their force is measurable only by the degree of the distortion.”

– Richard Pevear, foreword to Demons (p. xiv)

Christopher Nolan makes humans in the image of disembodied ideas. Fyodor Dostoevsky helps us embody a fuller and truer humanity.

BATMAN: DARK KNIGHT VS. FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY’S DEMONS – Exhibit 3

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Demons essentially accomplishes that at which Christopher Nolan’s Dark Night aims but fails miserably. Where Dark Knight inhumanly forces dialogue from philosophy books into the mouths of actual, flesh-and-blood characters, Demons has characters living, enacting, embodying, and discussing philosophical ideas.

There really is no hero in Demons – which is better, or closer to reality. The whole reason it has that title is because you also might not notice the demons otherwise. By contrast, in Dark Knight, it’s just the opposite. The demons are exposed out in the open. And, in Dark Knight, the hero is just as obvious – which feeds into false fantasies. Everyone loves Dark Knight, though. And, without getting into specifics of the film, it’s difficult to connect my words to what I see in the film, to communicate what I mean.  So, I went looking for scenes that best reveal my frustration with Batman: The Dark Knight.

Exhibit 1 – linked here – was HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS AND IDEAS
Exhibit 2 – linked here – was PRIVACY RIGHTS VS. THE COMMON GOOD, OR FREEDOM VS. DESPOTISM

Exhibit 3 – EXISTENTIAL ALIENATION AND FREEDOM OF SELF-RULE

The above image is from this scene – linked here – in Batman: The Dark Knight.

“Does it depress you, Commissioner, to know just how alone you really are? Does it make you feel responsible for Harvey Dent’s current predicament?…You see, their morals, their ‘code’ – it’s a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be. I’ll show you. When the chips are down, these, uh, ‘civilized’ people? They’ll eat each other….You have all these RULES, and you think they’ll save you!…The only sensible way to live in this world is WITHOUT rules.”

– The Joker

Here, we have a strange mishmash of existentialism’s angst, Romanticist individualism vs. exterior social constraints, particularly-post-Enlightenment Cynicism, and gaslighting. All stated way too explicitly and openly for an actual person, should he or she be situated anywhere other than the controlled environment of a classroom (or a bad film script). Said mishmash is also missing the implications for how such a person would actually live – other than as a comic book villain, which…isn’t a thing. By contrast:

The following is from Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Here, Pyotr Stepanovich is the ring leader of the group of radical liberals. Kirrillov is an associate, of sorts. Liputin, not present during the scene, is a mutual acquaintance, and also a member of the group.

“You seem to be boasting to me about shooting yourself?”

“I’ve always been surprised that everyone remains alive.” Kirillov did not hear his remark.

“Hm, that’s an idea, I suppose, but…”

“Ape! You yes me to win me over. Keep still, you won’t understand anything. If there is no God, then I am God.”

“Now, there’s the one point of yours that I could never understand: why are you God then?”

“If there is God, then the will is all his, and I cannot get out of his will. If not, the will is all mine, and it is my duty to proclaim self-will.”

“Self-will? And why is it your duty?”

“Because the will has all become mine. Can it be that no one on the whole planet, having ended God and believed in self-will, dares to proclaim self-will to the fullest point? It’s as if a poor man received an inheritance, got scared, and doesn’t dare go near the bag, thinking he’s too weak to own it. I want to proclaim self-will. I may be the only one, but I’ll do it.”

“Do it, then.”

“It is my duty to shoot myself because the fullest point of my self-will is for me to kill myself.”

“But you’re not the only one to kill yourself; there are lots of suicides.”

“For reasons. But without any reason, simply for self-will-only I.”

“He won’t shoot himself.” flashed again in Pyotr Stepanovich.

“You know what,” he observed irritably, “in your place, if I wanted to show self-will, I’d kill somebody else and not myself. You could become useful. I’ll point out whom, if you’re not afraid. Then maybe there’s no need to shoot yourself today. We could come to terms.”

“To kill someone else would be the lowest point of my self-will, and there’s the whole of you in that. I am not you: I want the highest point, and will kill myself.”

“Reasoned it all out for himself,” Pyotr Stepanovich growled spitefully.

“It is my duty to proclaim unbelief,” Kirillov was pacing the room. “For me no idea is higher than that there is no God. The history of mankind is on my side. Man has done nothing but invent God, so as to live without killing himself; in that lies the whole of world history up to now. I alone for the first time in world history did not want to invent God. Let them know once and for all.”

“He won’t shoot himself,” Pyotr Stepanovich worried.

“Who is there to know?” he kept prodding. “There is you and me, and who-Liputin?”

“Everyone is to know; everyone will know. There is nothing hid that shall not be revealed. HE said that.”

And he pointed with feverish rapture to the icon of the Savior, before which an icon lamp was burning. Pyotr Stepanovich got thoroughly angry.

“So you still believe in Him, and keep the little lamp lit; what is it, just in case’ or something?”

The other was silent.

“You know what, I think you believe maybe even more than any priest.”

“In whom? In HIM? Listen,” Kirillov stopped, gazing before him with fixed, ecstatic eyes. ‘Listen to a big idea…”

– From Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Part Three, A Toilsome Night, pp. 617-8.

Here, you can imagine someone struggling in exactly the way Kirillov is. And, Dostoevsky still manages to tie in the implications for “living without rules” (here discussed in terms of “duty”). Kirillov says it’s his “duty” to shoot himself. Unstated here, however, is that the rules of the ancient authorities do not allow for suicide. To live “without rules” is essentially to make myself (a) god. Meanwhile, everything Pyotr Stepanovich says fits inside his character and aims, particularly in relation to Kirillov. Nothing is imposed from without.

“Dostoevsky called the novel Demons, we would suggest, precisely because the demons in it do not appear, and the reader might otherwise overlook them. The demons are visible only in distortions of the human image, the human countenance, and their force is measurable only by the degree of the distortion.”

– Richard Pevear, foreword to Demons (p. xiv)

Christopher Nolan makes humans in the image of disembodied ideas. Fyodor Dostoevsky helps us embody a fuller and truer humanity.

BATMAN: DARK KNIGHT VS. FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY’S DEMONS – Exhibit 2

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Demons essentially accomplishes that at which Christopher Nolan’s Dark Night aims but fails miserably. Where Dark Knight inhumanly forces dialogue from philosophy books into the mouths of actual, flesh-and-blood characters, Demons has characters living, enacting, embodying, and discussing philosophical ideas.

There really is no hero in Demons – which is better, or closer to reality. The whole reason it has that title is because you also might not notice the demons otherwise. By contrast, in Dark Knight, it’s just the opposite. The demons are exposed out in the open. And, in Dark Knight, the hero is just as obvious – which feeds into false fantasies. Everyone loves Dark Knight, though. And, without getting into specifics of the film, it’s difficult to connect my words to what I see in the film, to communicate what I mean.  So, I went looking for scenes that best reveal my frustration with Batman: The Dark Knight.

Exhibit 1 – linked here – was HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS AND IDEAS

Exhibit 2 – PRIVACY RIGHTS VS. THE COMMON GOOD, OR FREEDOM VS. DESPOTISM

The above image is from this scene – LINK HERE -in Batman: The Dark Knight.

“Beautiful, unethical, dangerous. You’ve turned every cell phone in Gotham into a microphone…You can image all of Gotham. This is wrong.”

Batman: “I’ve gotta find this man.”

“At what cost?…This is too much power for one person.”

– from Batman: The Dark Knight

Here, we see the philosophical question of Privacy rights vs. Public or common good displayed in a highly controlled and constructed way that is foreign to the real tensions and problems in our flesh-and-blood-lives (like, for example, why and how South Korea had a much more successful COVID response than we did here in the USA). By contrast…

The following is from Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Here, Shigalyov is one of the members of the radical liberal group. Verkhovensky is their ring leader. It being a meeting of said group, the rest of the characters mentioned are other members of the group.

The gathering silently exchanged glances. The lame teacher spitefully and enviously watched Verkhovensky. Shigalyov began to go on:

“Having devoted my energy to studying the question of the social organization of the future society which is to replace the present one, I have come to the conclusion that all creators of social systems from ancient times to our year 187- have been dreamers, tale-tellers, fools who contradicted themselves and understood precisely nothing of natural science or of that strange animal known as man. Plato, Rousseau, Fourier, aluminum columns – all this is fit perhaps for sparrows, but not for human society. But since the future social form is necessary precisely now, when we are all finally going to act, so as to stop any further thinking about it, I am suggesting my own system of world organization. Here it is!” he struck the notebook. “I wanted to explain my book to the gathering in the briefest possible way; but I see that I will have to add a great deal of verbal clarification, and therefore the whole explanation will take at least ten evenings, according to the number of chapters in my book.” (Laughter was heard.) “Besides that. I announce ahead of time that my system is not finished.” (More laughter.) “I got entangled in my own data, and my conclusion directly contradicts the original idea from which I start. Starting from unlimited freedom, I conclude with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that apart from my solution of the social formula, there can be no other.”

The laughter was increasing more and more, but it was mostly the young and, so to speak, less initiated guests who laughed. The faces of the hostess, Liputin, and the lame teacher expressed a certain vexation.

“If you yourself weren’t able to hold your system together, and arrived at despair, what are we supposed to do?” one officer observed cautiously.

“You’re right, mister active officer,” Shigalyov turned abruptly to him, “and most of all in having used the word ‘despair.’ Yes, I kept arriving at despair; nevertheless, everything expounded in my book is irreplaceable, and there is no other way out; no one can invent anything. And so I hasten, without wasting time, to invite the whole society, having heard my book in the course of ten evenings, to state its opinion. And if the members do not want to listen to me, let us break up at the very beginning the men to occupy themselves with state service, the women to go to their kitchens, for, having rejected my book, they will find no other way out. None what-so-ever! And by losing time, they will only harm themselves, because later they will inevitably come back to the same thing.”

People began to stir. “Is he crazy, or what?” voices asked. “So it all comes down to Shigalyov’s despair,” Lyamshin concluded, “and the essential question is whether he is to be or not to be in despair?” “Shigalyov’s proximity to despair is a personal question,” the high- school boy declared.

“I suggest we vote on how far Shigalyov’s despair concerns the common cause, and along with that, whether it’s worth listening to him or not,” the officer gaily decided.

“That’s not the point here,” the lame man finally mixed in.

– From Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Part Two, With Our People, pp. 402-3

Here, Christopher Nolan supposedly puts abstract, philosophical ideas inside the mouths of actual characters. It falls dead-flat and comes across as artificial, constructed, nonsensical, and thus also without direction or purpose that we can enact or use in our actual lives. Nolan thus offers zero valuable contribution to any real question of the relationship between privacy rights and the common good. No question is ever opened. The argument remains closed, and the false, easy answer foreclosed before us is in the person of Batman. Because…he’s special? In the end, Nolan simply reinforces our current predominant framework and values, makes us wish we had Batman’s power (which, none of us do), and thus emotionally manipulates us into imagining we are making the individual, private choice to become box office consumers.

By contrast, Dostoevsky openly acknowledges the absurdity of constructing reality in the shape of an idea, and the actual, flesh-and-blood characters are left laughing and observing the insanity of it. Suddenly, our world is illuminated. We are empowered to make more sense of it, and thus also to navigate our way through it.

“Dostoevsky called the novel Demons, we would suggest, precisely because the demons in it do not appear, and the reader might otherwise overlook them. The demons are visible only in distortions of the human image, the human countenance, and their force is measurable only by the degree of the distortion.”

– Richard Pevear, foreword to Demons (p. xiv)

BATMAN: DARK KNIGHT VS. FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY’S DEMONS – Exhibit 1

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Demons essentially accomplishes that at which Christopher Nolan’s Dark Night aims but fails miserably. Where Dark Knight inhumanly forces dialogue from philosophy books into the mouths of actual, flesh-and-blood characters, Demons has characters living, enacting, embodying, and discussing philosophical ideas.

There really is no hero in Demons – which is better, or closer to reality. The whole reason it has that title is because you also might not notice the demons otherwise. By contrast, in Dark Knight, it’s just the opposite. The demons are obscenely exposed out in the open. And, in Dark Knight, the hero is just as obvious – which feeds into false fantasies. Everyone loves Dark Knight, though. And, without getting into specifics of the film, it’s difficult to connect my words to what I see in the film, to communicate what I mean.  So, I went looking for scenes that best reveal my frustration with Batman: The Dark Knight.

Exhibit 1 – HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS AND IDEAS

 The above image is from this scene – LINK HERE – in Batman: The Dark Knight.

Joker: “Maybe we should stop this fighting, hmm?..”

Batman: “What were you trying to prove? That deep down, everyone’s essentially as you? Hmm? You’re alone.”

Joker: “You can’t rely on anyone these days. You gotta do everything yourself. DON’T we? That’s OK. I came prepared. It’s a funny world we live in…”

…

Joker: “Oh, you. You. You just couldn’t let me go, could you? This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You, truly are, incorruptible, aren’t you? Huh? You won’t kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won’t kill you, because you’re just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever.”

Batman: “You’ll be in a prison cell forever.”

Joker: “Maybe we could share one. You know, that’ll be doubling up the rate this city’s inhabitants are losing their minds.”

Batman: “This city will show you that it’s full of people ready to believe in good.”

Joker: “’Till their spirit breaks completely.”

– from Batman: The Dark Knight

From Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Part Three, A Toilsome Night, pp. 615-616. Conversation between Pyotr Stepanovich and Kirillov, ring leader of and member of the group of radical liberals, respectively; opening line by Kirillov. Stavrogin is another central character in the novel, who is not actually present during this scene.

“Comfort, you say?”

“Well, we’re not going to quarrel over words.”

“No, you said it well; let it be comfort. God is necessary, and therefore must exist.”

“Well, that’s wonderful.”

“But I know that he does not and cannot exist.”

“That’s more like it.”

“Don’t you understand that a man with these two thoughts cannot go on living?”

“Must shoot himself, you mean?”

“Don’t you understand that a man can shoot himself for that alone? You don’t understand that there may be such a man, one man out of the thousands of your millions, one, who will not want it and will not endure it.”

“I understand only that you seem to be hesitating. That’s very bad.”

“Stavrogin was also eaten by an idea.” Kirillov, sullenly pacing the room, did not mark his remark.

“What?” Pyotr Stepanovich pricked up his ears. “What idea? Did he tell you something himself?”

“No, I myself guessed it: if Stavrogin believes, he does not believe that he believes. And if he does not believe, he does not believe that he does not believe.”

“Well, Stavrogin also has other things more intelligent than that…” Pyotr Stepanovich muttered peevishly, watching with alarm the turn of the conversation and the pale Kirillov. “Devil take it, he won’t shoot himself,” he thought. “I always suspected it; it’s a kink in his brain and nothing more. What trash!”

“You’re the last to be with me; I wouldn’t like to part badly with you,” Kirillov suddenly bestowed.

Pyotr Stepanovich did not answer at once. “Devil take it, what’s this now?” he thought again. “Believe me, Kirillov, I have nothing against you personally as a man, and I’ve always…”

– from Demons, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Part Three, A Toilsome Night, pp. 615-616.

Here, the characters in both “Dark Knight” and Demons are “eaten by an idea.” Christian Bale is an amazing actor, but he still can’t pull off the nonsensical abstractness of, “This city will show you that it’s full of people ready to believe in good.” What is “good”? What does it look like in concrete reality? What form does it take in various contexts, situations, or relationships? Similarly, it’s too blatantly-obvious that the Joker is bent on the a priori idea of humanity being essentially evil or depraved. None of this is the case in Demons.

Also, in both Demons and Dark Knight, the characters play out a relationality that is natural to humanity. The relationship between Batman and the Joker, though, is ultimately between abstract symbols. By contrast, in Demons, the question of their relationship arises and plays out naturally and spontaneously, as it would among actual humans.

“Dostoevsky called the novel Demons, we would suggest, precisely because the demons in it do not appear, and the reader might otherwise overlook them. The demons are visible only in distortions of the human image, the human countenance, and their force is measurable only by the degree of the distortion.”

– Richard Pevear, foreword to Demons (p. xiv)

Christopher Nolan makes humans in the image of disembodied ideas. Fyodor Dostoevsky helps us embody a fuller and truer humanity.

LEARNING TO FOLLOW JESUS INTO ‘THE KINGDOM’ RATHER THAN THE WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING BACK TO HIS LAIR: Part 3 of 3

In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.

– Jesus, Matthew 7: 17

Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person brings good things out of a good treasure, and the evil person brings evil things out of an evil treasure.

– Jesus, Matthew 12: 33-35

Indian Cobra Snake, photo from HERE

Two years ago, I met a fellow Christian who reached out and wanted to follow up on conversations that he had initiated on Facebook. After two in-person meetings with plans to continue, he ghosted me. When I messaged him, he accused me of conspiracy theories around racism and of postmodern “ambiguity” that’s not in line with the “Spirit of truth.” He also told me I was “under the influence of something unhealthy.”  I responded by calling him out for some things and over-explaining myself. I mildly half-began to set boundaries, but I did not really tend to how he had treated me without dignity or respect. In other words, I “followed him back to his wolf’s lair” rather than following Jesus into his shared desires with us for right relationality.

This past weekend (Sat 5/7/23), as I was praying through the lectionary, I came to John 8: 48 – “The Jews answered him, ‘Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?'” I died laughing and realized I had been told I was “a Samaritan and demon-possessed.” The purpose of my posting here what ensued is learning, both my own and perhaps that of others. I should note that the framework I used to shape how I related to my former-friend in the conversation in question came from my intensive training in a Gravity Leadership cohort. If interested, you can see more on that HERE.

Before initiating conversation with him again, I saw on his Facebook page that, since the Insurrection attempt of 1/6, he has been actively engaged in at least one actual conspiracy theory. So, the ensuing discussion began about that. He ended up underhandedly accusing me of epistemic arrogance and demonization of others simply for telling him I wasn’t OK with his previous accusations and ghosting. You can see more of both the context and how it went in Part 1, Link HERE.

In Part 2 (link HERE), he essentially kept deflecting and scapegoating whenever I returned to the primary concern at hand, which was how he had wronged me relationally in various ways. It also became clear that his apologizing to me, in any genuine and true way, would have to mean a change of heart and mind regarding Christian Nationalism and the 1/6 insurrection attempt. We left off where I said – “I wasn’t worthy of dignified communication, because I was engaging in ‘conspiracy theories,’ apparently.” – and he responded with, “Yea, one I think is absurd and dangerous to perpetuate, still think that way.” So, to pick back up there:

Me:

“So you’re saying you’re not willing to apologize for the sake of fellowship in Christ?”

Him:

“I never apologize for saying things I believe unless I feel I did them in a bad attitude, I will make the distinction between the facts and the attitude in those cases though. Wouldn’t you agree that if I still think the same way I can’t apologize for something that I still agree with?”

Commentary: Notice the Modern Individualist-Romanticism built into the framework that shapes his way of thinking, acting, and responding. It’s as if to say, “My own individual feelings are the ground of identity and reality, to the point that they govern the definition of ‘sin’ in relation to others.” When laid out explicitly like that, do also note the utter contradiction. Anyway, I did not get into all that with him. Instead…

Me:

“Then your ‘beliefs’ trump right relationship, and your beliefs aren’t about right relationship in the first place. Further, you are willing to sacrifice right relationship with me for these ‘beliefs.’ I invited you to make a move towards right relationship, and you are declining. OK, then.”

Him:

“Do you think Jesus should have held his opinion back from the Pharisees and just went along with them? Don’t you think there are elements of worldview that make a healthy relationships impossible?”

Commentary: Here, major and very loud WFT bells and temptations went off in my head, which were asking for multiple and various responses. Mostly ranging from, “OK so I’m a Pharisee because why? And Fuck you,” to wanting to over-explain why and how Jesus didn’t have a “worldview,” to wanting also to over-explain how Black people asking for repentance from White people is not “making healthy relationships impossible” you fucking ass, mostly all involving a temptation to over-power and disempower him, and partly covering over the vulnerability of feeling implicitly accused of being a Pharisee. BTW, remember his deceitfully clothing an accusation inside a supposed question, just like the Pharisees in John 8: 48, discussed in Part 1 (link HERE)? Seems to be a pattern. Instead of getting into any of that, here was my response:

Me:

“You are suggesting that I’m asking you to compromise what you believe and, apparently, shove down your feelings about it, just for the sake of ‘getting along.’ That’s a misunderstanding of what I’m saying.

You are also implying that my ‘worldview’ is incomparable with right relationship. That’s a deflection, as well as a misunderstanding, itself based on multiple assumptions (not only about myself but Jesus).

The right relationship I have invited you into here doesn’t require compromise of or with truth in any way. Again, the questions of truth here involve that which is blatantly obvious. I was clear about that.”

Commentary: What I was asking of him did not require shoving his feelings down just for the sake of getting along. It did and would have required, however, repentance. I didn’t say that, because I can’t do all the work for him. The whole point of the invitation into relational repair is to empower him for it. However…

Him:

“But I don’t want it, why aren’t I free to move along?”

Me:

“You are. That it became clear to me that that was your desire is why I said this:

‘Then your ‘beliefs’ trump right relationship, and your beliefs aren’t about right relationship in the first place. Further, you are willing to sacrifice right relationship with me for these ‘beliefs.’ I invited you to make a move towards right relationship, and you are declining. OK, then.’

It’s very obviously what your lack of desire for right relationship means in this case. I was just pointing that out. You are obviously free to continue in that.”

END OF CONVERSATION. He never responded (which is how I figured that would go).

Commentary:

Even though there was no resolution, and especially even though I didn’t get the result I wanted out of the conversation, necessarily, I trust that God was very much not only present and at work but revealed in that. Why and how? Because my former friend’s real desires appeared out in the open. For what they really are. And I did not coerce him nor call him out. I simply invited him into right relationship with me according to what I really want and without sacrificing either my true desires (discerned in prayer) or the truth. In other words, God being present and at work doesn’t mean controlling outcomes.

Further, if I had moved more so to control outcomes by entertaining my temptations to “follow him to his wolf’s lair,” itself by over-explaining or by over-powering, then his real and otherwise invisible desires “under the water line” (“But I don’t want [right relationship]…”) would have been less likely to have been revealed.

I have been in similar relationships in the past, and some ongoing ones, in which such engagements with the truth, without my desired outcome for right relationship, leads me to lament. “Blessed are the meek, for theirs is the kingdom…Blessed are those who mourn…” I see my lament referenced in those verses as the fruit of refusing to “lord it over them” in the many ways I was tempted to above conversation. In this case, if I am honest, there is some degree of lament. I did genuinely desire relationship with him, but our apparently fruitful engagements were a long time ago now. And, truth be told, relative to other situations in which I have experienced deeper lament, we were not very close and did not have much history.

This was more about my learning how to, or practicing, becoming a peace maker rather than a peace keeper. Why I didn’t do that before, why my default was to not pay attention to my visceral response to how he was relating to me, is something that has also come to mind as I’ve been processing this. It’s really, however, a topic for another day. Suffice it to say that to practice making peace and telling the truth is also to practice healing.

So, I think this conversation with the former-friend is an example of how Jesus being present and at work doesn’t mean that Jesus controls outcomes. It also doesn’t necessarily mean I “get what I want.” But, it may mean that my tempestuous desires are sacrificed on an altar of the fire of God’s love, and thus transformed. Looking back on this conversation, I’m truly joyful and thankful.

Further Reflection 1, The Snake:

The morning after having had the above conversation with the former-friend through the course of the previous afternoon and evening, I was awoken by and because of a dream. It was set in the basement of a home I’ve never lived in before and didn’t recognize. I was a child, and I was playing with multiple other children in said basement. The main action was an Indian Cobra snake, which looked a lot like the one in the above photo and was in a very similar position, hissing and preparing to strike. I don’t remember all the details of the dream, but, at different times throughout, there were actually a series of venomous snakes preparing to strike at us children. None of the snakes actually did strike, and I was not bit.

Interestingly, snake dreams actually recur for me. The last most significant one, that I remember, was while I was processing the fact that I decided not to kiss a woman I had been interested for a long time, at a moment when she gave me the “kiss me” look. That dream was after things ended with her, and before I found out that she is actually a snake, figuratively speaking. But, in any case, upon further discernment at the time, the significance of my relationship with the snake was my vulnerability and desire for intimacy. That dream was set in the driveway of the home I grew up in. The snake struck out to bite me. I swung to kick it, kicked the wall instead, and woke myself up, afraid I had broken my toe.

But, processing afterwards, I realized that the key was twofold: 1. My relationship of vulnerability before the snake, and 2. My shame that the snake was both rising up out of and confronting.

Upon reflection, I think the snake dream this time around functioned similarly, though obviously regarding a different form of intimacy in question. The snake presents itself as a twofold figure, at one and the same time: 1. A presentation of and mirror to my own vulnerability in the face of my general desire for relationship, and 2. A figurative representation of the sneaky, deceitful, venomousness of the person I’m relating to in the given situation, as demonstrated by their repeated words and actions that I didn’t properly tend to or deal with prior to having the dream. Perhaps the snake is even a warning.

I also find it significant that, with both the woman and the former-friend, I didn’t know when I was interacting with them that they were “snakes.” And, looking back, I can see that whether or not I knew would have been less relevant in the first place if I would have tended to my legitimate visceral responses to how they were treating me. Perhaps doing so would have revealed the truth sooner? Whatever the timing, practicing that is precisely what led to the conversation with my former friend in question, as well as this blog series.

Further reflection 2, The Wolf:

My initial internal response when, two years ago, he said I’m “under the influence of something unhealthy,” was to turn to Psalm 139: 23-24:

Search me, O God, and know my heart;
    test me and know my thoughts.
²⁴ See if there is any wicked way in me,
    and lead me in the way everlasting.  

Part of what I said to him explicitly, while over-explaining myself at the time, was, “Of course I’m under the influence of something unhealthy!”

But my turn towards such examination of my heart isn’t really either appropriate or helpful if a wolf is taking the opportunity to sink his teeth into my flesh. That I need to guard against being the wolf doesn’t mean I don’t need to guard against the wolf’s attack. It also doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to.

Further reflection 2a, The Wolf again:

Notably, the wolf doesn’t necessarily think of itself as a danger to others. He just imagines either that he is defending himself or needs to eat.

This has implications for my discerning who he is and what he’s doing. He’s not going to tell me he’s surrounding me with a pack of lies and is planning an ambush of sorts. So, it’s up to me to draw out the necessary distinctions. And, actually, my compassionate curiosity as I listen for where he’s coming from and what he really wants – as compared to first plotting what I want to say and how – will help me in this.

Any other thoughts, considerations, or responses to the conversation? I would welcome them.

LEARNING TO FOLLOW JESUS INTO ‘THE KINGDOM’ RATHER THAN THE WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING BACK TO HIS LAIR: Part 2 of 3

You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns or figs from thistles?

– Jesus, Matthew 7: 16

A wolf pack hunting, photo from HERE

Two years ago, I met a fellow Christian who reached out and wanted to follow up on conversations that he had initiated on Facebook. After two in-person meetings with plans to continue, he ghosted me. When I messaged him, he accused me of conspiracy theories around racism and of postmodern “ambiguity” that’s not in line with the “Spirit of truth.” He also told me I was “under the influence of something unhealthy.”  I responded by calling him out for some things and over-explaining myself. I mildly half-began to set boundaries, but I did not really tend to how he had treated me without dignity or respect. In other words, I “followed him back to his wolf’s lair” rather than following Jesus into his shared desires with us for right relationality.

My reader may be wondering why the above photo is of a pack of wolves hunting. This is a story about just one wolf in sheep’s clothing, right? Well, maybe. But it was 81% of white evangelicals as a statistically-measured demographic group who voted Trump into office in 2016. A demographic is not an actual group of people, but the former-friend I was relating to in this story got his practiced ways of thinking and acting from somewhere. And it’s somewhere I readily recognize from experience. That’s part of why I’m writing this. It’s really not an isolated set of events. My learning about it is also my processing many things beyond it. Perhaps that’s also the case for my reader.

I should note that the framework I used to shape how I related to my former-friend in the conversation in question came from my intensive training in a Gravity Leadership cohort. If interested, you can see more on that HERE.

In any case, this past weekend (Sat 5/7/23), as I was praying through the lectionary, I came to John 8: 48 – “The Jews answered him, ‘Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?'” I died laughing and realized I had been told I was “a Samaritan and demon-possessed.” Before initiating conversation with him again, I saw on his Facebook page that, since the Insurrection attempt of 1/6, he has been actively engaged in at least one actual conspiracy theory. So, the ensuing discussion began about that. You can see more of both the context and how it went in Part 1, Link HERE.

The conversation last left off at his underhandedly accusing me of epistemic arrogance and demonization of others simply for telling him I wasn’t OK with his previous accusations and ghosting. I was tempted to either over-explain myself again or call him out. Instead, I decided to simply name the reality of what was happening:

Me:

“Now you are gaslighting me and making further accusations. I’m not OK with that, either.

Epistemic over-reach would have gone above and beyond what I actually know. Above, I simply stated what is readily observable about what has actually happened, as well as made clear where I am in relation to those realities.”

Him:

“Do I need to change my behavior for you to be at peace?”

Me:

“Specifically towards me? Yes. For me to be at peace in relation to you, specifically? Yes. That’s precisely what it is I’m primarily saying here.

I explicitly said that you and I are not at peace otherwise.”

Him:

“So I need to agree that black men are being hunted by white men seeking to lynch them and that they need to be careful because their lives are in danger from that threat?”

Commentary: Do note the deceitfully leading question here, the apparently arrogant presumptuousness. Also note that and how, if I hadn’t stuck to relational invitation, we wouldn’t have gotten to the point where his methodology became so clear like this. Also, notably, I had never said, necessarily, that Black men do need to be careful in this way. It’s not up to me to police or govern how they feel or act (which I hadn’t said). I had simply presented what they were saying. And, I said I wouldn’t have been willing to consider or engage that in the past. So, again, I was tempted here to either over-explain myself or go into Call-Out. Instead, my explanation only went as far as what had already been obviously covered and addressed, because that’s all that was needed to, in a relatively limited way, focus on invitation into right relationship with me. So…

Me:

“No. Not in the context of the specific stories in question, at least (Ahmaud Arbery’s murder, on the other hand, actually was a lynching). I was explicit that I didn’t know whether or not those (the ones in question to which you were specifically referring that I posted about) were actually lynchings (other than the one with the video of an attempted one). Multiple times, now. Including today / tonight.

I said I’m not ok with your accusing me of conspiracy theories. Those were your words, your language. I also said I’m not OK with the way you ghosted me (apparently as a result of your conviction about my ‘conspiracy theories’).

And, then I said I’m not OK with your gaslighting me by implicitly referring to my coming to you with how you (my ‘brother’ in Christ) have wronged me (‘sinned against me,’ so to speak) as epistemic arrogance and the demonization of those with whom you associate.”

Him:

“Aren’t you calling my theory about federal involvement in J6 a conspiracy theory? How can you hold me to a standard you don’t hold? If you can use that when you believe it why can’t I?”

Commentary: Notice the scapegoating here, as well as the deflection. My inner WFT alarm bells went off quite loudly this time, accompanied by the same temptations again. Also, because the difference between what he and I have done and said in this regard, this appears to be blatantly willful on his part. I again attempted to keep on track with my relational invitation.  

Me:

“In regard to the stories I posted about potential lynchings:

There wasn’t hard evidence that they were lynchings. I said I didn’t know if they were actually lynchings.

In the various stories about 1/6:

There wasn’t…or isn’t… any real evidence that either Stuart Rhodes or Ray Epps are Feds who were actually [implied, as Feds] the one(s) responsible for 1/6. But you first posted that Rhodes was, and now you’re referring to a story saying Epps is as ‘accurate.’

It’s a blatantly obvious difference.

But I’m not asking you to change your views on 1/6. That’s not up to me. I was simply and only addressing your accusation towards me, as well as your ghosting me. Though now you’ve unnecessarily, and baselessly, also accused me of epistemic arrogance and demonization of others.”

Him:

“Yes, it’s what I honesty perceive, what should I do with the fact that I’ve seen the videos of Epps telling his followers ‘we have to go IN to the capitol’ and many of his followers are in jail that he directed to break the law?”

Me:

“That’s not evidence that he is or was a Fed. That’s blatantly obvious. But, again, that’s not really relevant to what I’m asking of you.”

Him:

“So the ghosting is the biggest thing?”

Me:

“No. They don’t have a hierarchy for me, necessarily. Though the ghosting was disrespectful. It’s both the accusation (at this point, accusations) and the ghosting. It all kind of goes together. Especially since they seem integrated for you. I wasn’t worthy of dignified communication, because I was engaging in ‘conspiracy theories,’ apparently.”

Him:

“Yea, one I think is absurd and dangerous to perpetuate, still think that way”

Commentary: Here, I was tempted to full-on go off on him, to loudly and forcefully call him out on just how “absurd” and Anti-Christian this accusation is, in light of our country’s larger contextual history and ongoing perpetuation of White Supremacy / racialization. Instead, I stayed on track. I will pick up where I left off next time. Thoughts, considerations, responses to the conversation in general at this point? They are welcome.

LEARNING TO FOLLOW JESUS INTO ‘THE KINGDOM’ RATHER THAN THE WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING BACK TO HIS LAIR: Part 1 of 3

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

– Jesus, Matthew 7: 15

Two years ago, I had mostly peaceful conversation with a White Christian revivalist evangelical, both here and in person. He initiated them after observing interactions on some other Facebook page. He reported curiosity and an apparent desire for bridge building. His Facebook photos are of white, Christian family members smiling and hugging one another. He came across as affable, trustworthy, and present. He even occasionally practiced reflecting back, demonstrating understanding and care. I did occasionally get whiffs that he was asking leading questions with a grand plan to direct my thoughts towards a desired outcome. After our second conversation in person, we planned to get together again. I didn’t hear back from him for a while, so I went searching. I discovered he had unfriended me.

Turns out, he thought I had “gone too far” when I posted “conspiracy theories” about White Supremacist racism (the specifics of this will become more clear later), and that I was “under the influence of something unhealthy.” He also implied that my “postmodern” “ambiguity” was an avoidance of the Christian “Spirit of truth,” implying apparent weakness, unfaithfulness, or both.

I mildly began to half-set boundaries but more followed him down his rabbit hole by calling him out for some things, trying to over-explain myself, and forcing him to see or do what I wanted. It didn’t work (surprise, lol). What I didn’t do was pay attention and tend to the relationality of and in my visceral feelings about how he had legitimately wronged or dishonored me by making false accusations. I also did not tend to how he did not treat me as worthy of dignity by telling me openly that he no longer had plans to get together again, and why. Looking back, I see this as an extension of following him down his rabbit hole in the first place.

This past weekend (Sat 5/7/23), I was praying through the lectionary. It included John 8: 48 – “The Jews answered him, ‘Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?'”

In space of grace and safety of prayer, I died laughing. I then had a “kairos moment.” I realized I had been told I was “a Samaritan and demon-possessed.” In that same moment, I saw that he had initiated the entire conversation on false pretenses and never did have any intention of actual, mutual relationality. I also thus realized that I needed to tend to what I did not tend to before.

So, I will be posting snippets of the conversation that ensued, along with my commentary. I very much so welcome feedback on my responses. The purpose of posting is not so much about the specific conversation and relationship. I doubt I will ever even talk to him again. Instead, I am posting for the sake of learning to relate in such situations. Primarily my own learning, but maybe it will also be helpful to others?  I should note that the framework I used to shape how I related to my former-friend in the conversation in question came from my intensive training in a Gravity Leadership cohort. If interested, you can see more on that HERE.

The first thing I did after praying and realizing I needed to address what had happened was scan his Facebook profile. As it turns out, our last conversation two years ago was 6 months before the Insurrection attempt of 1/6.  I saw that, six months after 1/6, he had posted a conspiracy theory asking why Stewart Rhodes, leader of Oath Keepers, wasn’t convicted in the wake of the insurrection. Supposedly, this meant that Rhodes was a Fed and, as a Fed responsible for the “Fedsurrection.”

Referencing my former-friend’s post on the matter, I messaged him saying, “Speaking of conspiracy theories, you accused me of one of them.” Quoting him, I added, “I think there’s a way out of your confusion.” I included a government link showing Stewart Rhode’s conviction on conspiracy charges. Here’s his response:

“I’m aware, Ray Epps is the guy not Stewart Rhodes, Darren was moving in the right direction he just pegged Rhodes early on and missed, he squared up accurately once he found Epps though…”

Commentary: I wonder if that was an appropriate way for me to start the conversation in the first place. Was it? I figured that, after such a long period of time, I needed to (re)set the context, anyway, before coming to him with my relational concern. Otherwise, how would my concern even have contextual meaning? I’m still not sure that was the best or right foot to start off with.

In any case, after his response, I was tempted to either: A. call him out for how idiotic, destructive, and Anti-Christian his conspiracy theories are, or B. Get sucked down the rabbit hole of his logic and narrative so as to not upset the relational applecart. How would you have responded? Rather than follow my temptations, my attempted approach was to simply name the relational realities of the given situation. Here was my response:

“So, let’s review:

I posted stories of black people warning against and fearing what they saw as potential lynchings in the summer of 2020, surrounding the George Floyd protests and violence. I also posted an actual video of a group of white guys literally trying to lynch a black guy. The context of that was black people voicing concern that Trump’s rhetoric and actions contributed to a rising tide of racism in our country. I explicitly said then that I didn’t know whether or not those were actually lynchings (other than the video of the attempted one).

You then accused me of conspiracy theories and said I was engaged in ‘something unhealthy.’ Also, we had planned to get together again. You unfriended me and ghosted me. Never mentioned that you had decided we weren’t going to get together, after we had talked about it.

Then 1/6 happened. A blatantly obvious attempt to overthrow the country’s democratic process.

You then posted a conspiracy theory claiming that Stewart Rhodes was a Fed and was responsible for 1/6. This serves to deflect blame from those responsible, scapegoat others, as well as also thus minimize the literally deadly destructiveness and deceitfulness of it. That conspiracy theory had no real evidence, and it proved untrue. Now you’ve moved onto another, which, similarly, has no real evidence. It accomplishes the same things as the previous one but also overturns and threatens the life of the man you are accusing (which is not to say he’s innocent).

Further, the context of our conversation about racism included conversation about modern epistemology, which was, by extension, a conversation on epistemic humility. By the authority of God, you claimed to have a grasp on truth. In the process, you implied that my ‘ambiguity’ was somewhere between weak and unhealthy, or both.

So, we appear to have come full circle. You accused me of conspiracy theories and implied that my invitation to epistemic humility was not in tune with the Spirit. Meanwhile, you continue to actively promote what people refer to as conspiracy theories that don’t actually have real evidence. And, you do so in support of a movement that is bent on deceitful, deadly, destructive violence that openly and purposefully disempowers others.

I’m not at all OK with any of this. And, if our fellowship in Christ is true, you owe me an apology for how you related to me. The accusations, and the ghosting.”

Then His response:

“Is this epistemic humility? seems pretty self assured and demonizing of others. You are reinforcing my decision pretty forcefully.”

Commentary: With White Christian Nationalists, this appears to follow the rule that, “Every accusation is a confession.” Also notice how he deceitfully clothes an accusation inside a supposed question. Much like the Pharisees in John 8: 48, actually. Here, I was tempted to: A. again over-explain myself (go into way more detail than I eventually did), B. to call him out for how wrong he is for this response, or C. both. Instead, I wanted to keep the matter at hand. The invitation to right relationship. How would you have responded at this point?

Thoughts, considerations, responses to the conversation in general at this point? I will pick up where I left off next time.