Squid Game as Anti-Gospel Lecture Series

It has long been argued that everyone is a theologian promoting through their actions, words, products, and attitudes something about whatever god(s) they either do or don’t believe in and that god(s)’s relationship to the world and those in it.  If this is true, then some of the most influential theologians today are not lecturing in the academic commons of universities or seminaries; instead, they are those directors and creators of viral videos and/or tv/streaming series that enjoy wide acclaim, accumulate countless views, and are reiterated by cultural memes, satires, commentary, and popular discussion. Believers living among such voices must not only be aware of such implicit and explicit theologies that are celebrated and revered in our culture, but they must also be prepared to point people who don’t even realize they are being lectured to toward true biblical theology by correcting where competing theologies get it wrong and communicating in compelling ways what is right concerning the Lord God and his relationship to the world.  

Enter Squid Game—an immensely popular new (though now considered only relatively new) Netflix series that secured the record for the biggest series launch when it eclipsed 111M views shortly after its release. What have over a hundred million viewers taken their time to observe? The answer is a nine-episode Korean thriller that follows Seong Gi-hum—a desperate man who has hit rock bottom—and hundreds of others who are equally destitute as they compete in an extreme series of games for the equivalent of about 38 million dollars (US currency). What becomes clear early in the series is that only one person can win the prize money and those who lose any of the competitions end up paying with their lives. For a host of reasons, I cannot warmly recommend viewing this series to those reading this. However, assuming some will and don’t want to have anything important exposed, I must mention that I will be revealing things about this show in the remainder of this discussion that might spoil elements of the story (grim and uninspired though it may be).  

Given that hundreds of millions of people around the world have watched this series and have also, no doubt, been introduced to, if not, influenced by the implicit and explicit theology that it consciously or subconsciously promotes, I could not help but seek to expose its narrative for what it is (at least in part)—an anti-gospel message—with the hopes of directing people to a vastly superior story.  

The Gospel Narrative 

Before one can understand how Squid Game portrays what might be described as an anti-gospel narrative, she must first come to grips with important elements of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel message begins with a perfect world that God created. In this world, the Lord’s most special creations—human beings—were uniquely designed to relate to him personally and gloriously. However, shortly after God completed his creation and established proper boundaries to keep it that way, mankind disobeyed God, allowing sin to infect everything about the human person and the world that he/she inhabits. As a result, the creatures that were made to relate meaningfully to God were separated from him (both in life and in death), became indebted in their own iniquity, and were rendered woefully incapable of achieving, working, winning, or paying their way back into the Divine’s good graces. It was in this desperate situation that the benevolent Creator of the universe decided to enter the broken world in a most special way—through his Son Jesus (God made flesh). This Jesus lived a perfect life, was punished for the sins of others when he was crucified on a cross, and rose again three days later, paying the sin debt that humanity owes and defeating the power of death for all who would trust in him. Placing faith in Jesus’ person and work results in reconciliation with God and eternal life (where wrath and punishment because of sin once ruled). All this is made possible through grace for those who believe. One day, the same Jesus who came to die will return to reign with his people in a new heaven and a new earth for all eternity. This is the greatest story and it communicates an accurate understanding of God, the human person, sin, redemption, and hope found in Jesus Christ.  

The Anti-Gospel Narrative of Squid Game 

The gospel narrative and Squid Game’s narrative begin in much the same way. Both depict people in over their heads in immense debt (the gospel involves debt to sin and for the game participants it is mostly monetary debt to creditors or loan sharks). The theme of resulting desperation rings true in both stories also as we see people seemingly unable to have their very real issues fixed in their own strength. However, something intervenes to provide an answer for the sorry figures in Squid Game in the form of an opportunity to win liberation from their problems in a series of games. Throughout these games, it is the cleverness and ability of the players that takes centerstage and their personal strength is awarded with opportunities to advance closer to victory. Along the way, those who can’t compete well die (with the kind of violent efficiency that seems to undervalue human life altogether). The main character—who I guess you might call a protagonist—is thrust into this scenario and ends up as the last man standing, winning the vast sum of money and “freedom” from the crippling debt he owed. However, though victorious, Seong Gi-hum can’t enjoy his winnings as he remembers what he and others were made to go through to earn it. He wanders for a year or so and finds himself in much the same position he was when the story began—bitter and depressed. As time progresses, the viewer and Seong Gi-hum learn that the game’s creator had entered the competition as one of the contestants—not to save the contestants, but to observe the competition firsthand. This creator is eventually taken out of the game in a clandestine way, sparing him the pain of a violent death in the dystopia that he himself created. It is also revealed that the creator of the game is terminally ill and desired one more cheap thrill at others’ expense before he died. The games have become a tradition in which the creator invites the super-affluent to make large wagers on players and the outcomes of individual events throughout each year’s competition. This tradition appears poised to continue even after the creator dies. The show is a pessimistic look at humanity that glorifies horror and exalts the human capacity to work his way out of trouble. However, even when such a victory is attained, viewers also see that it cannot be enjoyed by the one who has worked so hard to win.   

Two Narratives Collide 

By now I’m sure you have already identified some of the ways Squid Game serves as a sharp antithesis to the gospel message of Jesus Christ. However, in case you missed some of the important parallels between these two stories, here is a helpful list.  

Benevolent Creator Vs. Selfish Sadist 

In the gospel story the Creator is an all-powerful and benevolent God who desires to share his love for his Son in the Spirit with others—namely, human beings (Neh. 9:6; 1 John 3:1). This is why he creates them in the first place and is highly interested in redeeming them when they go astray (John 3:16). In Squid Game, the creator figure is a selfish sadist who has near-absolute control over the domain of the competition and its competitors which he manages for cheep thrills and personal gain.  

The Image of God in Man Vs. Expendable Game Pieces 

According to the Bible, human beings are fearfully and wonderfully made with great purpose, originally equipped with the capacity to reflect the Creator’s glory (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7; Psalm 139; Eph 2:10). In fact, even after the fall, God repeatedly reiterates that human life, even in its broken condition, is not only highly valued, but loved and should be treated as such (Gen. 9:6; James 3:9). In Squid Game, humans are portrayed more like expendable pieces on a diabolical board game. They are there simply to entertain those who are watching from the outside placing their bets as they would in a horse or dog race. Characters come and go with such great frequency and violence that it is easy to become desensitized to what one is seeing as human life is snuffed out with gruesome efficiency.  

Salvation by Grace through Faith Vs. Salvation by Works 

The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches salvation by grace through faith and reveals that men and women are totally incapable of doing anything in their own power to be reconciled to the Creator and repay the immeasurable debt they owe because of sin (Eph. 2:8-9). Salvation is offered as a gift from God to those who place their trust in who Jesus is (God made flesh) and what he accomplished (redemption through the cross and empty grave) (Rom. 10:9-10). The anti-gospel of Squid Game teaches that freedom from desperation and debt is achieved by personal performance in the series of competitions that have been laid out for them. It is their cleverness, agility, and effort that will see them through to the end. However, even in this series, all but one proves they were up to the challenge. The majority learn that even their best efforts aren’t enough to bring them salvation.  

Savior Sacrifices himself Vs. People are Sacrificed for a Chance 

The narrative of God reaches its climax when God sacrifices his only begotten Son to redeem people from their sin (John 3:16-17). This willingness to send Jesus and see him killed for undeserving sinners reveals the immeasurable grace and love of this benevolent Creator (Rom. 5:8). The narrative of Squid Game involves people sacrificing themselves for a chance at redemption and everyone, save Seong Gi-hum, coming up short. In fact, when the creator of the games is due to lose his life by losing one of the competitions (after inserting himself into the games as one of its contestants), it is later learned that he escapes unscathed, only to die a year or so later. In this show, people, not the creators, make the sacrifice and this they do for the sick pleasure of those betting on the action.  

Saved to Life Abundant Vs. Saved to Guilt and Heartache 

The biblical gospel teaches that those who are saved by grace through faith in Christ are given eternal life and this in abundant supply (John 10:10; 11:25). This realization brings hope and peace amid a broken and fallen world as believers anticipate a preferred future with their Lord and Savior in heaven (1 Thess. 4:13ff). The anti-gospel of Squid Game paints a grim picture of the victory it offers as the winner of the competition is plagued with grief and guilt, unable to enjoy his winnings and the security it provides. As soon as he begins to finally turn a corner, he is so riddled with the desire for revenge for what he experienced, that he seeks to reinsert himself into the games to destroy those who are keeping it going. In at least this last observation, it should be noted that the creators of Squid Game do get something right—any salvation that can be earned in one’s own strength does not last and does not ultimately satisfy.  

These observations/comparisons between the true gospel and the anti-gospel of Squid Game are important to identify given the international popularity of this show and the anticipation many have for its second season. Believers would do well to recognize that many millions of people who are viewing these episodes are not only being entertained by a provocative new show, they are also being lectured to in ways that are diametrically opposed to Scripture and what it has to say about who God is and his relationship with mankind. Now that the subversive theology of this series has been exposed, may we be ready to meaningfully engage those who have seen this popular new show and share a better, more compelling story: God’s story of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World.  


Jeffrey Dickson, PhD studied Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University where he now serves as an adjunct professor of Bible and theology. Dr. Dickson is also the senior pastor of Salem Baptist Church in Sabot, VA, where he lives with his wife Brianna and their children.

Jeffrey Dickson

Jeffrey Dickson, PhD studied Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University where he now serves as an adjunct professor of Bible and theology. Dr. Dickson is also the senior pastor of Crystal Spring Baptist Church in Roanoke VA where he lives with his wife Brianna and their children.

Summary of Chapter 2 of John Hare’s The Moral Gap

 

This chapter is entitled “God’s Supplement,” and Kant will appeal to God’s assistance to close the gap between the high moral demand and our limited natural capacities. As a pure rationalist, Kant uses Christian doctrines, but tries to translate them within the “pure religion of reason.” Hare will eventually argue that this translation project fails.

Kant thought revelation can be held to include the pure religion of reason, but at least the historical part of revelation can’t be included in the pure religion of reason. Hare sees a parallel with Kant’s treatment of ethics here: the pure religion of reason, because it is universal like the pure principles of morality, has to be shorn of all reference to individuals and particular times and places.

Kant himself was not closed to special revelation; the pure rationalist can accept special revelation; nevertheless Kant did not think its acceptance is without qualification necessary to religion. We can and should believe various religious propositions, Kant thought; we just can’t claim to know these things. It wasn’t that Kant was, in the ordinary sense, an agnostic about God. He thought there are good moral grounds for theistic belief—Kant had a narrow sense of knowledge as “grasping the infinite through the senses.”

Kant thought a person who already understands the claims of duty will find the teachings of Christianity worthy of love, even though they are not objectively necessary. “[Christianity] is able to win itself the hearts of men whose understanding is already illuminated by the conception of the law of their duty.”

Perhaps owing to his Pietistic background, Kant shows in his work a primacy on practice over theory in the life of faith, a distrust in natural inclinations, and a vision of a world-wide moral and spiritual renewal. In this light, perhaps his polemic was against what he saw as a corruption of Christianity rather than against Christianity itself. Hare counsels to avoid hearing Nietzsche in Kant’s work louder than Luther.

For Kant a “mystery” was an object of reason that can be known from within adequately for practical use, and yet not for theoretical use. Theoretical reason can’t give him what he needs in order to make sense of the moral life, and the central Christian doctrines in their traditional forms are beyond his reach as a philosopher, in his estimation. Among things inscrutable are the original predisposition to do good, the subsequent cause of the propensity to evil, our re-ascent from evil to good, the divine assistance which makes this possible, and how the ethical commonwealth is translated into actuality. There’s thus inscrutability in creation, fall, redemption, and the second coming.

Kant tried an experiment of seeing whether he could use the doctrines about these focal points as mysteries, that is, as capable of being known from within adequately for practical use. It’s an experiment of translating items in the outer circle of revelation into the language of the moral concepts. The overall aim is to make ‘scrutable’ as much as he can the core of the traditional faith. We may have to believe that supernatural assistance is available, even though we can’t use this belief in theoretical or practical maxims.

Why is belief in divine assistance necessary? The problem is this that we encounter: how can be become other men and not merely better men—as if we were already good but only negligent about the degree of our goodness? Kant was profoundly skeptical we can do away with out sinful inclinations on our own. The problem is too deep.

A revelation of the will is called for. All of us, on Kant’s view, start off with our wills subordinate to the evil maxim which tells us to put our happiness first and our duty second. We are thus corrupt in the very ground of our more specific maxims, all of which take their fundamental moral character from this one. Our happiness comes first, duty second; this needs reversal, which we can’t effect on our own.

If such a revolution is our duty, it must be possible, since ‘ought implies can’. But it’s not possible on our own, since a propensity to evil is radical and inextirpable by human powers, “since extirpation could occur only through good maxims, and cannot take place when the ultimate subjective ground of all maxims is postulated as corrupt.” The result is an antinomy, an apparent contradiction, which is solved by appeal to a “higher, and for us inscrutable, assistance.”

Kant divides divine assistance into work of the Father, Spirit, and Son. Each person of the Trinity answers to a different difficulty arising within practical philosophy. Singular reference is removed by thinking of God the Son as humanity in its moral perfection, the Holy Spirit as the good disposition which is our comforter, and God the Father as the Idea of Holiness within us.

Regarding God the Father, three things must be held together: first, God is just and not indulgent; second, rational but finite beings never reach, at any point in their infinite progress, to holiness of the will; and third, God gives us (rational finite beings) a share in the highest good which is only justly given as a reward for holiness. How can they hold together?

Kant appeals to the world of experiences versus the world of things in themselves. After the birth of the new man, the heart, as seen by God, is “essentially well-pleasing to him”—even though all we can ever experience is gradual improvement, infinitely extended. God judges us as a completed whole “through a purely intellectual intuition.” Intellectual intuition in Kant’s doctrine is productive—God isn’t passive, he makes it so. When God looks at us, he sees his Son, because he is imputing to us his Son’s righteousness. Luther’s influence on Kant on such scores is obvious.

God the Son is translated as humanity in its moral perfection and God the Father as the Idea of holiness (the idea of a morally perfect life). The work of God the Spirit concerns primarily our present experience, while the work of God the Father concerns our fitness for future reward. Hare thinks Kant was attempting to provide a doctrine of the assurance of salvation. As we can’t see our disposition directly, we can see it only indirectly via actions. If there’s an improvement in those, we can hope there has been a revolution in our inner disposition.

Another troublesome triad arises; consider the tension between these three propositions: (1) God is just, not indulgent; (2) We humans have all lived under the evil maxim; and (3) God gives us a share in the highest good which is justly given only as a reward for holiness in an entire life.

Kant’s solution maintains all three, once more, by means of the distinction between the world of experience and the world of things in themselves. Vicarious atonement plays an important role in the Christian account, but two problems attend it before it can enter the domain of reason. The first is the objection to historical reference, and the second is that there is no transmissible liability for evil, which could be handed over to another person like a financial indebtedness. Hare will take up the second point in a later chapter.

What Kant does is translate God the Son as the new man, humanity in its complete moral perfection. The new man suffers sacrifices (remorse, self-discipline, reparation) vicariously, on behalf of the old man, who properly deserves them. It is thus, as in the traditional doctrine, the innocent who suffers. What God sees (by intellectual intuition) is revolution; what we experience is reform. We can’t see by introspection into our own hearts. We experience merely the outworking of the revolution in a gradual process of reformation which, Kant thought, we will not at any time experience as complete. We are still sinners so we’re still capable of subordinating duty to the inclinations, even though we’re moving in the direction of not being able to do so (which is holiness).

Hare considers Kant’s translation project a failure overall. Hare thinks it doesn’t give Kant “mysteries” which allow him to solve the antinomy within practical reason produced by the moral gap. In large part Kant’s failure pertains to his affirmation of the Stoic Maxim, which says a person must make or have made herself into whatever, in a moral sense, whether good or evil, she is to become. But this stands in rather obvious tension if not patent contradiction with the other part of Kant’s moral system that said supernatural assistance is needed. His failure was to show how we can appeal to such assistance given the rest of his theory, and in particular given the Stoic maxim. He had to show that he can appeal to such assistance given the rest of his theory. This is what he failed to do.

One illustration of the failure can be seen considering the work of God the Father. If the notion of extra-human assistance is retained, now Kant has additional resources to show the possibility of a revolution of the will, but can’t continue to insist on the Stoic maxim. If divine assistance is rejected, how can our fundamental disposition come to be characterized by the Idea of holiness as instantiating humanity in its moral perfection? How is this possible given the radical evil of our nature?

The reason for Kant’s failure? When he came to the project of seeing whether the doctrines of Christianity lead back within pure rational religion he carried this out in a way that does not make reference to extra-human assistance. This was true of all of these things: election, call, atonement, justification, assurance, and sanctification.

The incoherent result? Kant’s own account within the pure religion of reason assumed that we can by our own devices reach an upright disposition; but Kant was not justified, in his own terms, in supposing that we can do so. What produces this result is that Kant has subtracted from the traditional understanding of God’s work in salvation any mediating role for anything that is not already human.