catapult magazine

A group of students with whom I work has been engaged in an ongoing discussion about whether things like sound and color are evil or good in themselves or whether such things are neutral and it’s the intent with which they are used that gives them some distinction. It relates, for example, to whether one can listen to a wordless song and determine just by listening where there’s evidence of brokenness in the song, without knowing anything about the artist’s intent. Does anyone have any thoughts? Any resources that speak to this issue?

Been thinking about this question for a couple days… Could you help us answer this by giving us your definition of evil?

I’m hoping to act as more of a moderator because that’s been my role in the face-to-face discussion so far. I’m not just saying that to avoid offering a definition of evil, but to allow participants to come to the discussion with their own definitions and not limit the scope so early. I will say that some words that have been used interchangeably with evil are sin, brokenness and fallenness.

Here is some input from a friend sent to me by e-mail:

do your students have any idea how enormous a question this actually is? the subject of extensive philosophical debate on meaning and how it’s determined? i think the basic issue is whether meaning is intrinsic in objects/texts or outside them (several possible locations). the former falls apart pretty quickly because different cultures experience, for example, colors differently. in china, brides don’t wear white because it is the color of death. or, again, assuming black is evil quickly demeans into thinking black people must be evil.

i come down on meaning happening in between the text and the person observing it, studying it, hopefully as part of a community. this makes conservative folks edgy because it quickly becomes subjective. much more to be said about this, and perhaps i’ve mistaken the students’ question.

In answer to the first question, I believe they do realize the enormity of the question, which is why they’re so passionate about their ideas.

Color or sounds are not evil. The term evil implies an ability to be moral. Guns, aclohol, colors, meth, and sounds can’t make choices, and hence can’t be moral. It’s why Calvinism is so perplexing (to me anyway) as a theological system. But that is a topic for another day.

I think the difficulty with the question is that we live east of Eden and this side of the Tower of Babel. We are made in the image of God (and so we are genuinely able to communicate), but the image has been marred and language has been confounded. The Lord said, "Let us go down and confuse their language so that they will not understand each other" (Gen 11:7).

I think that those who say meaning is determined exclusively or mostly by the reader (or listener) have too low a view of the image of God after the Fall. I think genuine communication by the author to the reader is still possible. Those who think no meaning is lost in translation, however, have too high a view. Language has been somewhat confused.

In addition to using words, we also use sight and sound to communicate, though without words I think sight and sound may strike us with deep and vital and wonderful impressions but precisely what is communicated is much more ambiguous. It’s "open to interpretation." This is both their strength and their weakness. With respect to communication, the problem with a wordless symphony is that you can’t talk through it.

are you saying that before the fall there was no ambiguity of language or ambiguity in general? if that was the case, then we might be led to believe that the fall was not all bad. i, for one, enjoy a good pun.

The Fall is a good place to start with this issue. I’ve had a similar discussion with people about drugs. Are the substances themselves bad or is it how they’re used? But could you say that an atomic bomb is "good" in any way? It might have potentially saved the lives of many American (and Japanese) soldiers by its use in WWII, but by killing many civilians in Japan. So how is the making of the bomb "good" in any real sense. It is only "good" in relation to other evils. So, fundamentally, it is a technology formed in a sinful world where the concept of "good" only makes sense as a lesser evil.

But we’re talking about colors and sounds, a more fundamental experience perhaps. Well, there is no such thing as a "pure" color or sound. So we can’t pretend to know what it would mean for color to be "good" in and of itself. Colors and sounds are used in meaningful contexts, so we can’t really talk about colors and sounds outside of the way they are used (see Wolterstorff’s "Art in Action" again, pp. 96-121).

Back to the Fall. God created a "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To be consistent with the biblical narrative, this must have been intended for good. It must have been "good" in and of itself because up to that point we see God accepting the creation as good. After the Fall, what was intended for good (and we don’t know how things would have turned out if mankind didn’t distort God’s good intentions) is skewed. We fall out of the proper relationships God intended (with creation, with ourselves, and with God). And so all parts of creation, including colors and sounds, are affected by our sin. They are now used to manipulate, to frighten, to keep others at a distance. They are used to hide or distract us from our being in God’s image. In short, they serve our sinful desires, which are manifested in broken relationships—ones that are contrary to God’s intended meaningful purposes.

I was talking with a Christian man last week and he mentioned to me how he needs to stop listening to rock and roll because it "revs his engine". Why is revving one’s engine always a bad thing? I can see why it is sometimes.

For him rock and roll is primarily evil not because of the words or depraved culture, but because of the sound. He thinks the beat itself is wrong for him to listen to. The sound by itself is evil.

Rock’n’roll has always been about the sound…as is all music. This is a problem among many Christians. We don’t readily acknowledge that lyrics and sound are so intertwined you can’t pull them apart. Rock is physical, bodily, guttural. The beat is definitely not of "civilized" Western European origin. Unfortunately there may still be a built-in racism against rock and its African beat in some Christian circles. Another element of the fear of the beat is its sexuality. The predominant Christian thinking on music for long periods of our history has been that music that appeals to our rationality is the best, most heavenly kind of music. Those things of the animal passions (the things that we share with animals—hunger, sexual drive etc.) are more base and not as high and lofty as what appeals to our mind. I love rock music precisely because it gets under the skin. It’s a fleshly spirituality.

Grant’s comments remind me of a chart I saw recently in a book called [i:8658e3a514]Faithful Listening[/i:8658e3a514] by John Mueller. The chart outlines markers for discerning good and evil based on St. Athanasius’ [i:8658e3a514]The Life of Antony[/i:8658e3a514] (c. 358 CE):

of God…[/b:8658e3a514] tranquil and gentle

Brings joy, delight and courage
Produces untroubled and calm thoughts
Desires divine and future realities
Removes fear by means of love[/list:u:8658e3a514]

of Evil…[/b:8658e3a514] crashing, noise and shouting

Brings dejection, listlessness and grief
Produces confused, disordered and troubled thoughts
Craves evil, has a contempt for virtue and encourages an unstable character
Brings fear and terror of soul[/list:u:8658e3a514]

There are ALL KINDS of discussion topics that could come out of this list, but the contrast between the first points on both lists is telling in the context of the current discussion. Of course a monk who retreats into the desert for twenty years would find God in tranquility and gentleness…but to dismiss the sounds of crashing, noise and shouting (inherent to many cultures much different from his own, even though he was geographically in Africa) as a sign of the presence of evil? He may have lived over 1,500 years ago, but we can see the influence of these ideas today.

I wonder what people who feel that ‘revving their engines’ is altogether evil think in reading something like Psalm 150. It’s one of many examples of the identities of God and of God’s people being expressed and affirmed in both quietness and noise. All this is to say I think we need to be very aware of our own biases (and sometimes racism) when we try to talk about what [i:8658e3a514]kind[/i:8658e3a514] of sound represents evil (if any).

Thanks Kirstin. That’s an excellent example.

Some of Augustine’s comments also show a preference for the measured tones of rational discourse (music with words) rather than music that arouses the passions (music without words). As classical music developed, the influence of Platonic ideas of temperance and control and the church’s focus on music as meditation became the dominant aesthetic. I love Bach, but I don’t use him as a perpetual reference mark for what is appropriate music for a Christian to play or listen to.

I’m reading the Psalms very closely right now and love the brashness, the noise of them, especially the psalms of distress and the ones that call for justice. And there are more than a few references to sexuality throughout…which of course really rev my engine.