“…for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.”
2 Corinthians 11:14
“On the sledge, driving the reindeer, sat a fat dwarf who would have been about three feet high if he had been standing. He was dressed in polar bear’s fur and on his head he wore a red hood with a long gold tassel hanging down from its point; his huge beard covered his knees and served him instead of a rug. But behind him, on a much higher seat in the middle of the sledge sat a very different person—a great lady, taller than any woman that Edmund had ever seen. She also was covered in white fur up to her throat and held a long straight golden wand in her right hand and wore a golden crown on her head. Her face was white—not merely pale, but white like snow or paper or icing sugar, except for her very red mouth. It was a beautiful face in other respects, but proud and cold and stern.”
C. S. Lewis, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe
Articles in this Series
See the first article for the list.
The Ambiguity of Evil
In this passage, Lewis describes the first appearance of the White Witch. She will be this book’s main antagonist and will reappear in later books (later in publication order, not in chronological order). His description is striking because he describes her face as “beautiful”. She is “great”, “taller than any woman that Edmund had ever seen”, adorned with “white fur”, a “golden wand”, and a “golden crown”. Her face was “white like… icing sugar”, and her mouth was “very red”. This description is almost positive. The first encounter that the readers have with the White Witch is ambiguous. If Lewis had not said she was also “proud and cold and stern”, we might be tempted to consider the Witch a benign queen or a kind benefactor. Or, anyhow, her beauty may entrance us into diminishing her pride, coldness, and sternness. She could not be that bad, after all.
Peculiarly and similarly, the Scriptures also describe what I will call the ambiguity of evil. Evil, of course, is not morally ambiguous. Evil is morally bad, and that is that. But evil is aesthetically ambiguous insofar as it can sometimes allure and other times repulse. Note this aesthetic ambiguity in Proverbs 5, where the immediate focus is on adultery or sexual temptation. Solomon says that the “lips of a forbidden woman drip honey” and that “her speech is smoother than oil” (Prov. 5:3). That is one side of the ambiguity. “[B]ut in the end she is bitter as wormwood, / sharp as a two-edged sword. / Her feet go down to death; / her steps follow the path to Sheol; / and she does not ponder the path of life; / her ways wander, and she does not know it” (Prov. 5:4-6). That is the other side of the ambiguity. Although the forbidden woman superficially possesses sweetness and smoothness, in reality, she is bitter, sharp, and destined to damnation.
Another passage that highlights the ambiguity of evil is 2 Corinthians 11, where Paul says, “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness…” (2 Cor. 11:13-15). Satan, the repulsive dragon (Rev. 12:9), disguises himself as an “angel of light”. Interestingly, when Satan and his servants, who are false teachers in this scenario, don a masquerade, it is not merely masquerading as good in the abstract or as good in the non-Christian sense. Of course, other religions are false and under Satanic influence (2 Cor. 4:4), but Paul talks about more than monks in flowing orange robes or imams reciting prayers. Satan masquerades as an angel of light. The Triune God is described as the “Father of lights” (Jm. 1:17), the “light of men” (Jn. 1:4), and “seven torches of fire” (Rev. 4:5). Satan’s servants masquerade as “servants of righteousness”, and righteousness is predicated of God (Rom. 1:17).
The point I want to draw out is that Satan conceals himself with a veil that is constructed of the threads of perverted and twisted Christianity. Of course, this concealment is most effective against those who are genuinely Christian or who have grown up in a Christian environment. Few Christians or churchgoers-turned-unbelievers would look at a religion like Satanism and go, “Aha, how appealing.” I am not saying that this disguise is always the case, for there are occultists, Satanists, and others who dabble in the overtly demonic. But for the most part, even a sinful man, in his radical depravity, avoids the explicitly Satanic. This aversion is not because of righteous desire but rather because of a selfish want of self-preservation.
One example will clarify my point. Mormonism, with its missionaries dressed respectably and formally, portrays itself with a Christian veneer. The homepage of their official website has the articles entitled “Learn About Jesus Christ”, “Find Meaning in Your Life”, and “Navigate Life’s Challenges” under the heading “What We Believe”.2 One could expect these articles from an evangelical organisation. Very well and good. Clicking on the “Learn About Jesus Christ” article, you do not find much that sets off alarm bells. Do it yourself. Go to the article in the third footnote. There are a few references to the Book of Mormon, vague phrases like “Jesus Christ as… a distinct member of the Godhead”, and some nice, soft photos of Jesus’ ministry. You even find statements like “The night before He was crucified, Jesus retreated to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. There He suffered the pains of every one of God’s children, including your pain. He was then betrayed, arrested, beaten, mocked, and hung on a cross to die. Everything Jesus Christ experienced throughout His life and atoning sacrifice made it possible for Him to understand each of us perfectly in every circumstance.”3 Give that paragraph to a Christian friend or family member. Ask him or her if it is orthodox.4
However, peeling away the Christian veneer, with a little digging, one will find statements that are utmost unorthodox. For instance, Elder Angel Abrea from a 1981 General Conference quotes Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. The quotation included the following from Smith: “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you…”5 Thence comes the diabolical whisper: “you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves”. Peel away the Christian surface, and you find a statement that contradicts God’s statement that “I am the LORD, and there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). The emperor has no clothes. The alleged angel of light has darkness in his heart. “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:8) cried Paul, and that could just as well apply to Moroni.
The counter to this aesthetic ambiguity of evil is not to discard aesthetics. Paul exhorted believers to focus on “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable”, and that “if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, [believers should] think about these things” (Phil 4:8). He did not leave the list at “true”, but went on to include qualities that connote aesthetics, like “lovely”. God commanded the clothes of Aaron’s sons to be made “for glory and beauty” (Ex. 28:40, emphasis mine). God is described as beautiful (Ps. 27:4). A Psalm declares that “Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God shines forth.” (Ps. 50:2). I could go on.6
The true counter to the aesthetic ambiguity of evil is to let a robust Biblical theology drive our view of aesthetics. Things are not beautiful merely because we consider them to be beautiful. One of the most dangerous things Christians can do in the realm of aesthetics is to say, “Well, you think that song is beautiful, and I do not. We can go no further”. The Scriptures speak of beauty in a real and objective sense. A song that glorifies infidelity, selfish ambition, or other vices is objectively hideous because it rejects the objectively beautiful God. And we must also not satisfy ourselves with surface-level judgements of beauty. We must not say that the Mormon missionary is beautiful or handsome, smiles a lot, and displays Christ-like behaviour (excluding the sound teaching, but who cares about that anyways), and then sign ourselves up to join a local Mormon congregation. We must not say that Eastern religions, with their melodic oms, resonate nicely in our hearts and ears and that therefore they must be true.
Real Biblical beauty is beautiful all the way down, for it is not rotten at its core, and this beauty is decided by coherence with Scripture. False religions, at their roots (or root), reject the presupposition of Biblical authority, and hence, despite a superficial veneer of aesthetic beauty, there will be an inevitable point of ugliness. The White Witch, despite being “beautiful”, was “proud and cold and stern”. Though she will offer Edmund a Turkish Delight soon, she will manifest as a venomously domineering character. Satan, her real-world counterpart, along with all the cogs in his worldly God-rejecting machine, is very much the same. Though he may have the appearance of light, weaving superficially Christian ideas into a pseudo-angelic garment, and though his cogs may appear shiny and well-oiled, an ideological and spiritual cancer is hidden in all that he does. The only solution is a rigorously Biblical one.
Footnotes
- An interesting parallel would be Augustine’s definition of evil as a privation and negation of the good, namely that it is not good and a lack of good. Christian theology has held that evil is dependent on the good, such that evil cannot exist without good, whereas good can exist without evil. But this point is ontological, whereas the point I am making regards a disguise or masquerade.
- See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/?lang=eng.
- See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/welcome/savior-jesus-christ?lang=eng.
- I believe that the statement taken on its own is orthodox. One could interpret it in a Biblical, evangelical sense.
- See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1981/10/the-little-things-and-eternal-life?lang=eng.
- See Francis Schaeffer’s Art and the Bible: Two Essays for a short work describing the relation between the Bible and art. This book is the only resource in the footnotes thus far that I would endorse.