Pages

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

An Unanswered Question


In the comments on my initial post, I posed a question that has not been answered yet.  It’s not overly surprising given that really none of my posts have been answered yet at all by those who made the charges against Wood, Malone, and McCray (although I’m grateful for the readers of Triablogue who have discussed them nonetheless), but I wanted to highlight this particular question because I think it is important in determining consistency, which is not only important but also is a primary focus of those who have been attacking the videos.

My specific question was this: 
…have you ever watched a movie or TV show where a character was murdered in the show? Murder is sick and perverted. Was the movie or TV show sick and perverted because it happened to one of the characters? I mean, I'm not talking about gorey [sic] movies. Think about John Wayne westerns where the bad guy kills someone which is why John Wayne has to go after him.
Is that immoral? Or do you give it a pass. Because it seems to me that murder is actually a sin…
When a murder is staged for a play, movie, or television show, we do not condemn that as sin, because it’s obvious that the actual actions that are being done are not, themselves, sinful.  For example, pulling the trigger of a prop gun aimed at another person, having a blank go off, and even simulating blood on a person’s shirt, are all actions that are not sinful.  But these non-sinful actions are metaphorical representations of an actual sinful action.  They do not somehow take on sinfulness simply because the actual action would have been sinful, because no one committed the actual action.

If we do not condemn videos that show murders, or theft (such as a bank heist), or even movies that contain jaywalking (for we are supposed to obey non-sinful laws) then what is the basis by which we condemn Wood’s videos?  Again, the two videos that are getting the most flak over are the urination video and the breastfeeding video.  But the actual actions that they did are as follows: in the first case, they squeezed apple juice through a squeeze bottle.  In the second, they drank cow’s milk while sitting in front of a fully clothed woman.  Clearly, neither of those actions are sinful themselves.

But equally clearly, those actions are representing other actions, which some people might claim are sinful (I still have not seen any actual evidence that they are sinful, but that’s a different topic).  The actors are simulating urine and breast milk respectively.  Yet if simulating a murder does not make an action immoral, then why would simulating urine or breast milk make an action immoral, even if the urine and breast milk were actually sinful in and of themselves?

But I’m actually going to up the ante a bit.  What is the most grievous sin you can imagine?  And yes, it’s okay to put on your Sunday school caps, because the answer is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  So, I ask: is it sinful for movies like the Jesus movie, or the Passion of the Christ, to depict the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on the cross?  The perfect, unblemished Lamb of God being put to death at the hands of sinful man—there is no greater sin possible!  If simulating that does not transfer guilt onto the actor, then what would?

Consistency demands an answer here.  If you oppose Wood’s video, do you also oppose every single form of media that depicts sinful actions?  If we go to your DVD collection, are we going to find movies with any violence in them, including minor violence (after all, it is sinful to unjustly strike another person)?  Will we find books on your shelf that have characters who lie?  Will we find video games with characters who are evil in them, even if just the ones that kidnapped the princess who’s at the end of the level?

Are you consistent?  Do you condemn all those things?  Do they offend you, or is it only your brother in the Lord who you feel offense toward? 

Are you consistent with your judgment or not?

25 comments:

  1. One reply I can imagine is: "But we are talking about presenting the gospel, and doing apologetics in service of the gospel. Wayne movies dont do that," or something on these lines.

    White talks about flowery expressions like "adorning the gospel with good behavior" etc...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another reply can be, "Yes we find the depiction of all sin, sinful, but we dont explicitly go after those movies, unless we have to, as they are not made for evangelistic purposes."

      Of course, in this case, as you mentioned, it would be interesting to know the contents of their DVD collection, or their online watch-history. I guess watching sin, would count as a sin.

      Delete
    2. James wrote: "I guess watching sin, would count as a sin."

      I think it's a general rule with (many?) exceptions. For example, if you are a prosecutor, sometimes you have to watch some pretty sinful videos in order to bring about charges against the defendant, and that wouldn't mean you are sinning by seeing that video. Also, I saw Nick Berg's beheading video at the start of the Iraq war, which clearly was a sinful act that Zarqawi committed, but I do not believe it was a sin for me to have seen that video. (If I was deriving some kind of perverted pleasure out of it, or using it as passive entertainment or to promote people doing more of it, that would be a different story.)

      Delete
  2. I would add the caveat of course, that the sinful actions being depicted should not be CELEBRATED or GLORIFIED.

    This is related to a fallacious argument often brought up my Muslims attacking the Bible - "It cannot be God's word because it promotes evil deeds!" Uh no, it RECORDS evil deeds, but does so either as an objective statement or condemns them - unlike the Quran and Hadith which DO promote intrinsically evil deeds as permissible or even obligatory.

    Actually, reading your post brings to mind the upcoming sequel to Mamma Mia!... If it's anything like its predecessor, this will mean lots of good Abba songs and also lots of absolute degeneracy that is fully celebrated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that is a good point, Scott. I think that fits with the general point I'm making as well, which is that if the actions of the actor are not actually immoral then we do not judge the *simulation* of an otherwise immoral action as being itself immoral.

      In the instance of someone glorifying the evil, that would fit the moral criteria of enticing another person to sin, which would be a sin. The actor at that point would therefore be sinning and I would not hold that production to be guiltless.

      Delete
  3. As I tried to explain to the head of several Christian schools this past winter, acting out murder on stage needn’t require hatred in one’s heart or the actual taking of innocent life. Whereas taking God’s name irreverently on stage is to take God’s name irreverently. The head of schools, a Reformed pastor no less, didn’t see it that way. From the context of what I’ve pasted below, you’ll be able to glean the consequences of people not drawing better distinctions. It was written for another purpose which I needn’t elaborate upon. The snippet pertains to my daughter.

    “A few months ago, my youngest daughter was awarded the lead in her high school play, “Hello, Dolly!” This is the same daughter I took to see Streisand two years ago. My little Addie was going to play the part that Barbra made famous, the part of Dolly Levi. You can imagine how thrilling this was for a sixteen year old, especially in her final year of High School.

    After reading the script, Addie asked the director whether a few lines could be rewritten. Lines that would have Dolly take God’s name in vain. The director would not accommodate my daughter. Addie had to turn down the part because she would not compromise her convictions on the Third Commandment.

    The three performances were last week. Lisa and I watched our daughter on stage, as an extra with a relatively small part, beaming each night as she supported with all she had the cast and the star of the show, a friend of hers. Watching Addie in the various ensembles as Dolly delivered her punch lines and sang those wonderful show tunes was a sight to behold. Addie was radiant while her friend took the limelight, up through curtain call when Dolly took her final bow before a cheering audience. Addie enjoyed just being with her friends on stage. That was more than enough for Addie.

    Addie has been an amazing example to the few who knew what had actually transpired. I couldn’t be more proud of her, or humble to be her father. She has turned out to be the young woman Lisa and I had always prayed she’d be. One who would seek God’s glory, not her own, and joyfully submit to whatever God might ordain.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God bless Addie, and thanks for sharing. :)

      Your reply should serve as a reminder to Ryan of the AO Ministries who was wondering if Ezekiel could be satirically played out. Yeah, (rolling eyes) mocking a prophet of God! Why didn't any Christian think of that before. Someone forgot to read Numbers 12 (and Numbers 12 does not even talking about mocking Moses, but merely opposing him).

      Delete
  4. Part 1 -
    My answer is yes; I watch some movies like that. Movies that have a good story and plot and are the basic human drama of the battle of good vs. evil are reflecting the drama of the Bible. The first 2 chapters, there is no sin; then sin enters and the rest of the drama is the battle of Good (God) vs. Evil until the 2nd coming of Christ (Rev. 19) and Judgement Day (Rev. 20). The human enjoyment of a good book with a good plot is reflecting the image of God within them and the desire for the drama of the Bible to be played out. As Doug Wilson says, "the hero slays the dragon and rescues the princess" (and they live happily ever after) (God and Christ and the Holy Spirit working in defeating evil and the dragon and winning the Bride (the Church) and sanctifying her - the marriage supper of the Lamb, wedding, the Bride made ready, etc. - Rev. 19-22

    Why do most people enjoy good dramas and movies that have an intricate plot but where the good wins or justice is done in the end? Because of the image of God within them. The movies and books that are meaningless or promote nihilism or where evil wins or does not have a conclusion - usually people don’t like those. (or are frustrated at not having a conclusion or not seeing justice done) When justice is done at the end; we love that. Because that is the plot of the Bible. Justice will be done. (Rev. 20:10-15)

    The plot is dramatic and has lots of murders and wars in this drama / battle and even has adultery (David), drunkenness (Noah) lying (Abraham) jealousy, rivalry (Cain and Abel; and the wives of Jacob) and lots of killing and murder and war (Cain, David, book of Judges, Joshua, Kings, etc.)

    The depiction of murder is not wrong because the depiction of it is itself showing it to be wrong - as Scott Thong above mentioned.

    In historical narrative, in the Bible, God records the sins of mankind without approving of those sins (and in fact condemning those sins) and writing the story in such a way that you know it is sin and condemned by God.

    So, yes, I changed my mind on Wood's videos but still admit I don't like the adult breastfeeding scene, (although I think it is a matter of taste and style - like Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8 kind of thing) - I don't really like the urinating scene either, and some of the other stuff either (some of it is sort of like the movie “Dumb and Dumber” - yeah, I watched it and parts of it are very funny) but I guess that is the point - it is showing how disgusting these Hadith are in a very dramatic way. I still don’t like Family Guy or South Park type humor, but I guess this all boils down to a matter of taste. I don’t like nose rings in women or tongue jewelry or giant black tattoos that cover the whole arm either, or rap music or disco music, or opera either, and I don’t like most country music either, etc. - but I cannot say those things are sin in themselves.

    Continued

    ReplyDelete
  5. Part 2 -Since so many Muslims have said they appreciate it and it helped turn them from Islam and many of them also some eventually came to Christ, then that is good, IMO; since I agree with Peter Pike's point in previous articles and David Wood that turning people from wanting to take over the world in Jihad and Dhimmi-ism and suicide missions and killing innocent people -turning people from that is a good thing as far as society goes, even if they go to hell later and never repent - that is up to God and His sovereignty over when or whether He is going to cause regeneration or not, whether they are elect or not.

    I also have always believed in evangelism as a process - (see the video of Al Fadi explain to David Wood his process of coming to Christ - that is usually how it goes) although regeneration is NOT a process (it happens at a mysterious point in time in the heart, which we do not see - John 3:8, 2 Cor. 4:6), evangelism, pre-evangelism, missions (learning another language and culture and being with people from another culture, and the whole mess of discipleship and counseling and church planting ) is a process, a long and arduous process with lots of suffering and lots of messy things and mysteries that God allows. (church splits, betrayal by people who we taught for years and later rebelled and broke away and started another church, etc. - heart breaking stuff)

    Another thing have I noticed in all these years of dealing with secular former Muslims who are turned off by the Iranian Islamic government or have become pure secularists / agnostic / atheists - those that have deep bitterness against the government are coming to Christ for the wrong reasons and God eventually saves some, but many of those types never get over their anger and deep bitterness and resentment and eventually leave the church, and are examples of 1 John 2:19 and Matthew 7:21-23.

    Many Iranians turn away from Islam, etc. and have anger and bitterness against their government/regime and all the dumb Hadith stuff that David Wood has exposed. (The Persians / Iranians call that stuff "the backwards culture of the dirty Arabs) There is a lot of ethnic hatred between the 2 groups and many Iranians have always had problems with the Arabs because the Arab Muslims under Omar started the Jihads against the Persian Empire in the 636 / 638 AD onward and subjugated Persia for Islam . One of the reasons that a later Shah (King) of Iran in the 1500s decreed that they would become Shia is because they did not want to be like the Arabs or the Ottoman Turks. They became Shia just to spite to be different and rebel. Modern, educated Iranians / Persians hate all the backwards stuff in Islam and they are embarrassed about it.

    One thing that Dr. White is right about, the secular / atheist / agnostic "Muslims" are harder to witness to in that now they no longer believe in miracles or revelation or God's Scripture and they use liberal writings and material to attack the Bible also. Many secular Iranians in Europe and America are much more difficult to talk to - the Muslims and nominal Muslims who still believe in God and revelation and Scripture are easier to witness to, etc.

    But Wood is right to want to turn Jihadists away from violence and killing and subjugation and enforcing others in Dhimmi-ism.

    I can see some of Ryan’s point about having wisdom in doing satire (quoting Doug Wilson), but I also see Wood’s point too. So, for me, it is both / and, at this point, but each one working in their field of strength. The kinds of Muslims that Dr. White debates are different than the ones that David Wood is reaching. Wood’s material makes hard core Muslims angry and Dr. White’s stuff does also, but they put their anger into study and debate and defending Islam, or making videos seeking to answer, refute, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought Ryan's article to be helpful. I'm afraid that the Wood method can be helpful, but it can allow immature people to get out of hand. Which goes to White's point, that apologetics should be done by someone in an accountable relationship to a local church.

      Delete
    2. That's a good point - local church accountability.

      Delete
    3. It has been insinuated by White, and I keep seeing people rehashing the same position, that Wood is not accountable to his local church. I wonder where do such people get their information from.

      Wood himself confessed that he is accountable to his elders in the general sense, but he did not run the script by them. White apparently wanted him to, which I find bizarre. How is that kind of subjection to church authority different from Catholicism? Wood also gave an example (a person in military seeking guidance from his pastor on his objective) of how strange this sounds.

      Third, if his elders find it objectionable, they will deal with him. Why is White assuming that elder's role?

      Delete
    4. Geoff wrote:
      ---
      I'm afraid that the Wood method can be helpful, but it can allow immature people to get out of hand.
      ---

      True, but that's true of everything that can be done in Christian freedom. It is important to remember Romans 14:16 in this too: "So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil."

      Geoff wrote:
      ---
      Which goes to White's point, that apologetics should be done by someone in an accountable relationship to a local church.
      ---

      I would say that every Christian needs to be in an accountable relationship in a local church. In that sense I agree that "apologetics should be done by someone in [such a] relationship." The problem is, White seems to be implying that Wood ought to run everything past elders before doing anything.

      That's not oversight. That's submitting yourself to a dictator.

      Church oversight is satisfied if, when you do something sinful, they bring about proper and just means to address it and bring about repentance or excommunication. It is not asking them for permission before you are allowed to do anything (although sometimes it might be wise for you to bring it up to them preemptively).

      There's also a difference between a brand new Christian and a Christian who has been walking with the Lord for a long time, as well as differences between those who have a proclivity toward certain sins (e.g., if you're a thief, you might want the church to examine you thoroughly before you become treasurer). But if you've been walking with the Lord for some time, why presume that you're going to be sinning? Be open to correction, but you don't have to seek permission before you act. We don't need the church to micromanage us.

      Delete
    5. For that matter, does James White run every debate opening statement by his elders before he does a debate? Does he run every topic he's going to address on the Dividing Line through them before he does his show?

      Or does he just do it on his own, knowing that if they have problems with it they will contact him?

      Delete
    6. I wrote:
      ---
      Or does he just do it on his own, knowing that if they have problems with it they will contact him?
      ---

      Just to be clear, I suspect this is the case (I could be wrong, but I suspect not simply because the vast quantity of material White produces seems difficult to preemptively approve). Furthermore, this is sufficient to establish the fact that White is accountable to his church.

      And as James McCloud pointed out, Wood has said he's got that exact type of accountability with his church too.

      Delete
  6. To push back a little, I can imagine depictions of murder which do cross the line.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Slash and gore and horror type stuff and demonic type stuff is not good. (IMO)

      Delete
    2. Geoff wrote:
      ---
      I can imagine depictions of murder which do cross the line.
      ---

      Yes. But the moral question remains: what is the moral basis by which a depiction crosses the line?

      I can imagine those, such as mentioned above, that glorify it to do so. Those that entice others to murder would. But in each of those, the actor is actually sinning. Is there ever a time when the actor is not sinning, but his depiction itself is sinful? I do not see any instances of that. If you can imagine one of those scenarios, please let me know, because I would find that relevant here.

      Delete
    3. Ones that are explicitly and needlessly gory, even if they aren't glorifying it, could fall under that category.

      Delete
    4. Possibly, although my view is that if something is needlessly gory it's because they are trying to glorify it. That could just be semantics between us on that.

      Delete
  7. The kinds of Muslims that Dr. White debates are different than the ones that David Wood is reaching (in the videos); but I realize that Dr. Wood also debates some of the same Muslims - Shabir Ally, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've not had the time to go through the comment section on previous, related posts. Has any else seen a parallel between what Wood is doing and what various pro-life groups who show the images of actual abortion victims do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vocab mentioned that in his response video. I think it's a good point too, but it wasn't one they dug into very deeply.

      Delete