[Contains some spoilers for “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight”]

Batman and Superman—other than having approximately equal popularity--are arguably as complete opposites as one can find in the comic book world.

While Superman is basically the most powerful superhero imaginable—often with new abilities appearing out of nowhere with each new comic or film that's created--Batman, we should note, has no ‘powers’ at all. 

He has neither power inherent in his genetics like Superman or the X-Men, nor any abilities obtained through miraculous and fortuitous circumstances like Spiderman or Daredevil.  While the others listed above were basically given ‘heroic’ ability by divine fate, the character of Bruce Wayne had to seek after and obtain any such heroic ability himself:  through training, technology, and—inherent in his chosen persona—a subtle psychological edge.  (Most of Batman’s opponents, including in the two most recent films, are similarly grounded in reality…from a comic book perspective, anyway)

Finding parallels to Jesus Christ in Superman’s film resume is fairly easy—and can be done even within the recent Spiderman films as well—but it may seem counter-intuitive to even ask the question about ‘gospel principles as interpreted through Batman’, considering the fundamentally dark, vigilante, anti-hero concept behind the character to begin with.

Nevertheless, the recent big-screen versions of Batman as re-imagined by director Christopher Nolan open the Batman world to a gospel discussion.  After having previously discussed Superman and the gospel, perhaps it should now be Batman’s turn.

Nolan’s vision of Batman in 2005’s “Batman Begins” and the recent “Dark Knight” has two elements that differentiate itself from the Batman of earlier decades: one natural, and one surprising. 

First off, he has rejected the gothic-yet-campy elements of the earlier films from the ‘80s and ‘90s in favor of a more grounded, realistic environment—as befits a story about a boy whose parents get murdered by a thug in an alley.

Second—and more surprisingly—he has rejected the natural direction that putting a character such as Batman into a world of dark and gritty realism would suggest: Batman is NOT a vigilante or an ‘anti-hero’.

“Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share…” says Ducard, Bruce Wayne’s original teacher from the League of Shadows.

“That’s why it’s important,” comes Wayne’s reply, “It’s what separates ‘us’ from ‘them’”.

Indeed, it is Bruce’s sense of compassion and goodness that drives this version of Batman, rather than a brutal form of ends-justify-the-means street justice that could have easily been this Batman’s stock in trade.  This is demonstrated early on in “Batman Begins” when Bruce saves the life of someone who, perhaps, should not have been saved, who then later goes on to prove the axiom that ‘no good deed goes unpunished’. ("Didn't I warn you about compassion...")

Inherent in the gospel is the twin pillars of justice and mercy.  As Alma discusses with his son Corianton in Alma 42, the principles of justice and mercy seem to be at odds with one another, even though—paradoxically--neither justice nor mercy can be allowed to rob the other one within the divine plan.

In the comic book world, the demarcations between the Good and the Bad are fairly clear.  We usually know who the super-heroes are and who the super-villains are, and rarely is there any gray area in between.

Yet that simplistic division of mankind into Good and Bad groups doesn’t work in the real world.  The conflict between justice and mercy comes because God is unable to simply divide man into the “Righteous” and the “Wicked”—if “all have come short of the glory of God”, then dividing the souls of man into what are essentially just ‘less imperfect’ and ‘more imperfect’ groups means nothing, regardless of what criteria is used.  He can’t draw an arbitrary line which says these sins are ‘small’ and acceptable, but those sins are ‘large’ and are not.

(This is the trap of relative morality, commonly seen where people freely criticize the actions of those whose morals are less than their own, but feel offended when they are criticized themselves by other people with different morals.)

Batman and the League of Shadows, led by Ra’s Al-Ghul, come from similar backgrounds.  They are ostensibly Good people who were previously victimized by Bad people.  The League’s philosophy is simple—the Bad people of Gotham must be punished.  Justice must be served.

And, yet, Bruce Wayne ends up rejecting the League’s fundamental philosophy of ‘justice only’.  While aware first-hand of the corruption and darkness within the city of Gotham, Bruce instead represents the side of ‘mercy’—the feeling that the ‘soul’ of Gotham and its inhabitants can still be saved, and that such black-and-white judgments as represented by the League are not the answer.

The Dark Knight

In contrast to the League of Shadows, the Joker—Batman’s foe in the second movie—represents a diametrically opposite paradigm shift: one that’s not black-and-white at all, but completely and utterly gray.  There is no ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’, according to the Joker--anyone, even (and especially) the “good” guys will betray their fellow men and do “bad” things under the right circumstances…which the Joker then labors to provide.  (“I’m just ahead of the curve!” he adds…)

Batman tells the Joker in one confrontation that “I only have one rule”, which, although unspoken, we know to be that Batman will not kill anyone, no matter how evil.  The Joker informs him that he’ll have to break his rule to get what he wants.

Indeed, while he doesn’t kill, Batman is pushed away through the Joker's machinations from the ideal of compassion and mercy he used to maintain—making a variety of moral compromises involving suspect interrogation, illegal abduction, and violations of privacy.  All for ostensibly good ends, of course, but originally wasn’t Batman about the ends NOT justifying the means?  Wasn’t he, in fact, proving the Joker’s theory correct?

We can see Bruce struggle with the idea of having to become a monster to fight a monster.  And, at the end, Batman gains the upper hand and ultimate victory—not by merely foiling the Joker’s plan, but by deliberately choosing to save the Joker’s life, even when there would be basically no moral complaint against him from anyone for not doing so.

Ironically, while allowing him to live, this is essentially Batman raising his middle finger to the Joker’s fundamental philosophy, and showing that even under extreme circumstances his standards can remain in force.   In the end, Batman shows that one does not have to embrace the darkness in order to fight it—and, like ‘turning the other cheek’, shows that one can gain a moral victory even without vanquishing an opponent.

Finally, at the very end, Batman comes to decide that Gotham needs a ‘white knight’—someone to look up to as the righteous ideal…and that someone is Harvey Dent, NOT himself.   When he chooses instead to take Harvey’s ‘sins’ upon himself for the greater good, we have the final piece in a fundamentally moral Batman which contrary to his dark persona is willing to sacrifice himself for others. 

So, no, Batman can never be Superman’s equal in terms of raw power, but both recent Batman films present a solid case for strong moral lessons within the persona of Batman, such that discussions of gospel principles and comparisons to Jesus Christ are not as superfluous as it may have originally seemed.

[Additional Discussion Point: when taking the fall for Harvey Dent, Batman says, “Sometimes, truth isn't good enough, sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded,”  implying that it is better for everyone in the long run to believe Harvey is/was good and Batman bad than the opposite, even though the latter is the ‘truth’.

Does this principle have any relevance or application to either controversial quote from Elder Packer that “not all truths are useful”, or Elder Oaks that “criticism of Church leaders is improper, even if it is true…”?  Discuss.]