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?