Two Media Case Studies: Demons and Discernment in a Digital World

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

What does “discernment” mean in an age of AI, misinformation, curated profile grids, and more?

In the wake of the James River Church — Mark Driscoll events in my hometown, I’ve been thinking (again) about what it means to be discerning in a digital world.

Using two widely covered events as case studies in date order, here are questions I asked to discern the meaning behind media events and how to respond online.

“Little Demon,” the Show

“Little Demon” caused quite a firestorm on my Facebook feed. It is a late-night, adult horror-comedy show in which a mother impregnated by Satan and her “Anti-Christ daughter attempt to live a normal life in Delaware,” according to IMDB.

The reason it caused such an uproar among many Christians is obvious — there’s no pretense about the pagan overtones.

The common arguments of individuals in my own feed centered on the seemingly “shameless” celebration of evil, the threat to children and the descent of society into godlessness.

To assess whether the event warranted any further engagement on my part, I asked myself a few questions:

1. How does this align with the values of Jesus? Rather that applying what some call a “biblical worldview,” which in our day, is often tied to particular political positions, I prefer to focus on characteristics and attributes demonstrated in the life of Jesus. This is because it is possible to advocate for correct doctrine while being unloving or unkind toward people. “The values of Jesus” can be defined in many ways, but I first run through the “fruit of the Spirit” from Gal. 5:22–23: Does it portray and encourage love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness or self-control? For the elements that do not promote those things, are they portrayed to illustrate the human condition in a redemptive or artistic way with a purpose? And if those are met, is it genuinely “beneficial,” as in perhaps some things might be “lawful” but not beneficial as Paul says in 1 Cor. 6:12? There are more assumptions in this step, but those are the basics.
2. What time does the show air and on what network? This would give me insight into the intended audience. It aired on late-night television and streamed as an FX show. Neither of these indicates it is intended for an under-18 audience. There would be little likelihood of a child “stumbling upon” it by accident. Someone would likely have to seek it out.
3. What’s the genre? How does the shock value factor in? If the content is overtly shocking or overstated, then I consider whether or not it is satire or at least, created to provoke. To me, with such overstated themes, shock value was likely a factor. Given the answers above, it could be a satirical work. It is hard to determine without seeing it. But given that it is a late-night, non-kid cartoon horror-comedy, those factors relegate it to target a niche audience more than a Saturday at 6:00 p.m. family sitcom, for example.
4. How has it been advertised? Who is likely to come across it and to what extent can they understand the purpose? Given that it is targeted to a niche audience, I then considered how likely it would be to influence people in my communities. It depends on individual’s past online activity. Unless they’re up on the horror-comedy scene, people would not stumble across it. That is, until outraged posts started appearing on their social feeds.
5. What does it mean if a cartoon like this exists? I think this is the first question people jumped to at the time. If such a blatantly pagan show can succeed, what does that mean about our culture? As Tim Alberta noted in his most recent work on Evangelicals and political extremism, often smaller pop culture issues like this are framed by some communicators as proxy wars for the “soul” of America. However, one source notes that the show focused not only on appropriating symbols of the Christian / Abrahamic traditions but multiple other traditions as well. So in this sense, it is not a potshot at Christianity, but at religion writ large. I would take a measured perspective on the threat level of a show like this, as there is not a clear link. The success of this show could mean pagan and Wiccan beliefs are on the rise. It could mean there is an appetite to turn religious symbols on their heads. It could mean that shock value content sells. The fact is that it is hard to draw any larger spiritual meaning with certainty.
6. Does its existence pose a threat? Many assumed yes to this question, but I’m not so sure. Adding the caveat that it’s probably not an edifying show for Christians to watch, I contend that its sheer existence doesn’t pose a threat. I think it is a symptom of a much larger issue: the fact that Christianity is emptied of its power in the public square. People are searching for and finding other worldviews to answer their questions. For better or worse, reconfiguring religious symbols in irreverent ways could feel cathartic for ex-churched audiences.
7. My final question was: Who benefits from the outrage of those opposed to the show online? In this case, no publicity is bad publicity. If a group (some Christians) reject the show, those behind the show don’t lose much. Disney ended up removing the show from Hulu in response to the backlash, but it streamed in many other locations. The myriad of posts decrying its existence resulted in more exposure than it would have had otherwise. In the end, the show still went on.

What to do?

In this case, it wasn’t worth engaging for me, for the listed reasons above. I didn’t watch the show but also didn’t encourage anyone else to watch it, either.

James River Church — Mark Driscoll

The chatter surrounding the James River Church and Mark Driscoll debacle lasted for days in my own online circles. This was mostly due to the fact that the church is the one my family attended when I was aged 4–15, so many of my contacts had a direct connection to the events.

In my own assessment of whether and how I should engage in the public debate, I asked myself the following things.

1. What actually happened? Rather than relying on secondhand reports found in Facebook comments, I tried to locate as many credible sources as possible. This looked like outside credible news articles, church statements, any statements or posts by Driscoll, etc. This would provide the basic breakdown of what happened. I also tried to find video to collect details. This would ensure I understood things in context.
2. Who was involved? In this case, I was quite familiar with both players, both Lindell and Driscoll. I had a pretty solid understanding of the values and theology of each, where they overlap and where they diverge. I knew I was not the only one who had questions about why Driscoll was invited to one of the church’s most influential platforms of the year after burning so many other bridges (to put it lightly). But I also looked up Alex Magala, the performer, directly, to see if he had shared anything in response.
3. Who benefitted from the publicity? This is a helpful question to ask when it comes to any media-covered, controversial event. In this case, Mark Driscoll received national coverage at large news outlets across the country, as well as myriads of shares, posts and engagements about him and his work. There was little to gain from this publicity from Lindell, as it threatened to undermine both his and the church’s credibility. Seeing as Driscoll is a professional communicator who has built his platform on controversy, I wondered the first night if it was a publicity stunt. Driscoll has been called both “arrogant” and a “bully,” but he was ahead of his time in leveraging the internet to build a platform for better and worse. People listen to him because he is a skilled and effective communicator, even if what he communicates is (in my opinion) questionable at best. This suspicion was confirmed the next day, when Driscoll posted on Instagram about his upcoming book which featured none other than the same spirit which he called out at JRC, the “Jezebel Spirit.” Some contended on social media that he called it out at JRC simply because he had been studying it — “To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail,” they would say. To me, the fact that Driscoll kept silent about it until he could leverage a platform in front of thousands of conference-goers PLUS the book launch post create evidence to the contrary. He thrives on controversy. It just doesn’t pass the sniff test.
4. What kind of language and symbols are each using? The stark difference between the language employed by Lindell and that of Driscoll also gave me pause. Lindell emphasized a biblical process for confrontation, relaying the lengths to which he went to adhere to the process. No posts about the controversy are currently available via JRC social media at this time. However, in posting about the upcoming book, Driscoll employed the image below, a sensationalized appeal to both nationalism and fear. Drawing on the audience’s commitment to the notion of a “Christian nation,” Driscoll makes an appeal that the nation as they know it is doomed — without his spiritual expertise. As if that wasn’t enough, Driscoll also posted in his stories (of which I grabbed a screenshot) of the “Jezebel Spirit,” an illustrated, live-action image of a fire-engine red, female demon with leering yellow eyes, horns, fire and more. I am reticent to post it here because it is so provocative. This was a sensational image, a provocative image created with the intent to evoke an extreme emotional response. Those calling the church to faith and not fear do not use fear-inducing images and tactics. Ethical Christian communicators do not motivate their audiences through fear, especially of the demonic.

Image from MD’s Instagram

5. What was the public dialogue? At that point, I turned attention to the arguments of those discussing the matter on social media. Some were advocating for one side or the other. Team Mark remarked on his astute ability to call the more powerful church to repentance, applauding him and calling for grace in his delivery. Team John recalled hesitation from the beginning about Mark being invited in the first place, applauding Lindell for seeking reconciliation. Some were lamenting the old days of the church’s beginning and the descent of James River into worldly mire. Most were pleading with the outraged others to take their focus off of Mark, John or Alex completely and emphasize the lives transformed.

6. What’s my stake in this? It’s always a good idea to consider your personal bias in the equation before posting. What do I have to stand or lose based on the outcome, whether in terms of theology, relationships, professional outcomes, etc? In this case, the events did hit closer to home because JRC fills the memories of my childhood, mostly for the better. I don’t adhere to all of the same beliefs as I was taught. However, it brought into my life foundational experiences, discipleship and friendships.

7. What do I want to say? Based on my stake in the conversation, I assessed what I could possibly offer that hadn’t already been said.

8. What’s the best place to engage? At the point when I came to these conclusions, I didn’t think it would be productive to share my thoughts via Facebook with my 2k global list of friends, nor on Instagram where the controversy wasn’t a point of discussion among the real-life people I like to engage with there. However, discussions were booming in a private Facebook group of fellow ministers around my age in my denomination. The same range of sentiments reflected in the public dialogue were reflected there. As a smaller, more niche group of common stakes and interests, this seemed like the most reasonable place to engage.

What to do?

I commented a couple of insights on a couple of posts within the group aforementioned. I offered my thoughts from the rhetorical and media perspectives, like I’ve laid out here in much greater detail. I collected some of the screenshots of the posts by Driscoll and shared them in case others wanted to view the primary sources.

No one is saying these insights were groundbreaking or conclusive for others. But at least, I was able to offer a bit of my perspective in a focused, healthy and respectful time and place.

What do you think?

That’s a glimpse into my process of analyzing media and rhetoric on social media. It is an evolving process that changes depending upon the people, message, context, media, genre, etc.

In summary, the main four core guidelines I used in these cases include:

1. Refer back to credible, primary sources as much as possible
2. Identify the stakes of the players involved
3. Find focused, healthy and respectful ways to engage
4. Ask What Would Jesus Do? based on Fruit of the Spirit

What would you add?

________________________________

I’m a minister, copywriter and content writer with a global outlook and passion for people. My creative workflow is fueled by midday mocktails and post-work lap swims. I’m in seminary because I want to help people discover how digital literacy can inform their spiritual practice to thrive in a digital world.