Coming Soon: The End of the Spear
My friend Randy Brandt, who blogs at Contend 4 The Faith, has written a short article speculating on whether or not the producers of the upcoming film The End of the Spear have committed financial suicide with their casting. Let me fill you on the controversy.
But first, here is a brief synopsis of The End of the Spear: “A savage killer from a remote Amazon tribe becomes grandfather to the grandchildren of the North American man he killed. End of the Spear is a dramatic feature film based on the true story of the documentary film Beyond the Gates. The screenplay for End of the Spear was written from the perspective of Mincaye one of the Waodani tribesmen from the spearing raid that killed five North American missionaries.” The missionaries are Nate Saint, Pete Fleming, Jim Elliot, Ed McCully and Roger Youderian. This story has previously been told in both books and film. It is a powerful story and one most Christians are glad to see on the big screen. It seems that the film is well-made and faithful to the actual events.
However, as Randy points out, controversy is brewing. “A controversy is growing as the movie’s January 20 release date nears. It revolves around actor Chad Allen, who plays both Nate Saint and Steve Saint in the movie, with the Nate Saint role being a key part of the story.” The actor’s site tells us why this actor might cause some controversy in Christian circles. “Courageously, in the October 9, 2001 issue of The Advocate, Chad came out as a gay man. He also acknowledged past problems with drugs and alcohol. He also has spoken to a number of groups and at events about gay rights issues including taking part in a forum on Larry King Live on the issue of gay marriage.” Allen has spoken at Youth Pride events and has acted in a production called Corpus Christie which is described below:
“The play, set in modern-day Texas, features a hard-drinking gay named Joshua and 12 other gay male characters, most of whom bear the names of Christ’s apostles…Different from other boys because he is a homosexual, Joshua grows up in isolation and torment, an object of scorn. He flees Corpus Christi in search of a more accepting environment, gathering along the way of a group of disciples who are bound to him by his message of love and tolerance.
According to Time magazine, McNally’s play is “a serious, even reverent retelling of the Christ story in a modern idiom — quite close, in its way, to the original.”
Randy also points to an article which describes his obviously New Age spirituality:
Two years ago, (Allen) co-founded his production company Mythgarden, with Robert Gant and Christopher Racster. “We’re working to bring the next generation of gay and lesbian storytelling to the screen, and we’re really excited about that.” Their upcoming project, Save Me, takes place in an “ex-gay” ministry that’s run by Judith Light, in which Allen and Gant begin a relationship. Also coming up is a project called The Way Out, which they are co-producing with David Duchovny. “It’s the story of two gay men who fall in love in a senior citizens home, and it looks at the issues of elder gay housing. It’s a fantastic love story.”Allen also stars in the upcoming film End of the Spears, based on the true story of a group of Christian missionaries that make contact with the Waodani, a notoriously violent Ecuadorian tribe. Having grown up in a Roman Catholic family, Allen saw this project as a challenge he wanted to undertake. “There were a lot of people on both sides that weren’t particularly interested in me doing this movie. I am from a Christian background, but I have a personal spirituality that spans the distance from Buddhism to Hindu philosophy to Native American beliefs. That aside, this movie is about the power of love. I knew it was an opportunity to bridge these two disparate communities that are believed to be enemies- the gay and the Christian communities.”
Thus the question is, did the producers of this movie take too great a risk in casting a known homosexual in the role of the Christian hero? Will Christians refuse to watch the movie because of this actor? And further, should Christians support such a film or should they avoid it?
To be honest, my first reaction to this controversy was sheer frustration. Millions of Protestants were only too happy to watch a devout Roman Catholic portraying Jesus in a film written and produced by an even more devout Tridentine Roman Catholic - a film that really did little more than recreate the mass and the stations of the cross. Is it possible that many who were only too glad to watch a Catholic portraying our Lord and were willing to label Mel Gibson a great man of faith, are the same ones who will be protesting a homosexual portray a missionary? Is there not a great inconsistency here? Should we not hold that theology is of foremost importance?
And so, like Randy, I will ask you: Do you intend to see this film? Do you feel that Allen’s involvement in the film will damper your enthusiasm for it? Did the producers of this film fall upon their own spears?
Comments (175) »
1. wayne
January 11, 2006
3:36 PM
I’m more concerned about the quality of the movie … given all those cheesy Christian movies that get made with the obligatory “pray the prayer” salvation scene and the Christian jargon.
2. aaron
January 11, 2006
3:59 PM
I would be more concerned with issues such as:
- How does the movie portray God?
- How does it portray salvation/regeneration if it touches in that area?
- What is it saying about evangelism and Christianity in general
As far as this “controversy” goes, it would seem that to be completely consistent we ought to avoid supporting anyone living a life of sin. No more buying groceries from a store owned by an un-regenerate sinner. In fact, we should not watch or support any movies that have non-Christians playing a prominent role in the production. Why do we single out one sin (homosexual behavior) as if it is the only sin abhored by God?3. Carla
January 11, 2006
4:34 PM
Tim… this one is going to get strange, quickly.
Long before The Passion came out, I knew exactly what it was about based on reading statements from the cast & crew for about a year beforehand. Whenever I tried to tell people what it was about, they poo-poo’d me and claimed great claims about it being “the greatest evangelical tool… blah blah blah”. It was astounding to me to see how many, and which of the most notable theologians and scholars in our day, hail this movie as a great thing.
As we all know, the great claims fell flat and more than a few folks ended up retracting (if only verbally) their claims.
Now this flick comes along. I’ll be completely honest here and tell you that had I NOT known anything about the cast & crew of this flick, I would have loved to see it.
But because I do know, I can’t pretend I don’t know, and passively approve it by paying to see it. It actually makes me sick, knowing what I know about this movie - and what’s more - knowing how many are already eager to run and see it.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t have it in me to know things like this, and just disregard them for the “quality of the story” or to appreciate the film ASIDE from the garbage.
My 2 cents. (and by the way, I cannot access the forums, has Phil been by again today?)
4. Brad Williams
January 11, 2006
4:38 PM
I actually have concerns because of the “pre-movie” movie that I viewed. It was the ‘story behind the story’ type of thing. As I recall, Jesus was not mentioned in the ‘behind the scenes’ look at all. Scripture had minimal and only passing reference. It has been around a year since I viewed it, so my memory is a little rusty. What I do recall is being very dissappointed and finding it so underwhelming that we did not show it to a discipleship group as we had planned.
5. Libbie
January 11, 2006
4:52 PM
Yep, I’m with Carla. As usual. I am a Carla fan. lol
I heard about it, and given that the story makes me well up with tears even when I read a synopsis, I was really excited. But it does make a difference to know that one of the actors has quite a subversive intent in playing this part. You can’t un-know that, sadly.
But, my, what a good point about the Passion movie. I was actually mildly interested when I first heard about that, and then halfway through the build-up, I solidified my convictions about images of Jesus Christ and decided not to see it, against my inclination. What I subsequently learned about the film made me glad I’d not messed my internal world up with it.
6. Ben
January 11, 2006
5:15 PM
I’m with Aaron on this one. I’m more concerned about how it represents doctrine and God than who’s doing the representing. I’m still going to take my youth group to see this movie.
7. Patrick Lacson
January 11, 2006
5:27 PM
If it helps, here’s a personal account of the Nate Saint story by his own son Steve Saint at Piper’s 2005 pastor’s conference. Steve Saint talks about the movie but more importantly about his how his dad the others died in this amazing mission trip.
http://www.desiringgod.org/newsevents/dgmnational/2005/
As for the movie itself I’ll probably wait until DVD since getting sitters is few and far between these days ;) —Patrick
8. Sam
January 11, 2006
6:03 PM
I was at the Grace Community Church’s conference for Pastors and saw the man that killed the missionaries. There is no doubt that the man is a regenerate man. His story was captivating. They had returned to the site where the attack happened and were able to retrieve a frame from a small airplane. I think that added to the mysteries of the weekend. I think Phil Johnson could probably attest to the items being at Grace that week.
It is disappointing that they sold the rights of a story off, one in which so many missionaries have been sent out from.
At the same conference, Steve showed a video that laid out the outreach that this tribe is trying to do in their own jungles. It was very encouraging to see the fruit of this one man’s conversion.
9. Larry
January 11, 2006
6:28 PM
My concern is the presentation of the gospel. I have read someone who saw it that said it didn’t mention Christ. That is the crux of the whole story.
The intro DVD I received in the mail sparked my interest since this is one of my favorite missionary stories. It also sparked my concern since the interviews seemed to focus on the violence factor of Columbine, etc, rather than on the sin issue.
I am disappointed to hear about the homosexual actor. Bad choice … extremely bad. I may not see it now. I don’t know.
10. Jim
January 11, 2006
6:53 PM
This completely sucks! I am totally disgusted…I had seen the preview on their website and was looking forward to seeing this movie.
How could a guy like Steve Saint endorse a sodomite to play him and his father in this movie? I had thought that evangelicals could be trusted to produce something in line not only with the doctrines of scripture, but also the spirit.
Does this mean that any first rate production of a Biblical theme is necessarily tainted by either apostasty or immorality? God have mercy…
Tell me this isn’t true and only a hoax…
11. Pastor Phillip M. Way
January 11, 2006
6:56 PM
It is troublesome, but the more important issue for me is one of whether or not the movie itself will be used as a vehicle to portray homosexuality in a certain light.
If they do the movie right, then there will not be any hint about this actor being homosexual - since obviously the characters being portrayed are obviously regenerate and not homosexuals. If he plays the part well, it should not matter what he believes about anything!
I remember learning that the actor who played Eric Liddell in Chariots of Fire had died of AIDS and was a homosexual. I did not know it when I saw the movie, and that is still one of my all time favorite movies. You do not get the sense in his acting that he was a homosexual. He was an actor playing a part, and playing it quite well.
Same thing is true about the actor who portrayed Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings. Knowing that did not stop me from seeing those films.
Could a better actor have been chosen. Yeah, probably.
Bottom line, if we refused to go see movies where people were not what they portrayed, then how many movies would we ever go see? They are acting. And as long as they can do a good job acting the part, then I am more than willing to let the controversy rage off screen. It is just a movie, after all.
~Pastorway
12. Tim
January 11, 2006
7:06 PM
Good point about the actor who played Eric Liddell. I just thought of that as well.
I wonder if people would be less upset if the actor playing Steve Saint was “merely” an adulterer. Or perhaps an alcoholic adulterer who cheats on his taxes…
13. RosaMarie
January 11, 2006
7:16 PM
No, I’m not going to see this movie but I wasn’t planning on seeing it anyway. As discouraging as it is to learn they hired a gay man for the part, it didn’t have anything to do with my decision not to see this. I didn’t see The Passion or Narnia either and I don’t plan on seeing them either. I think I may be done for good with seeing movies.
I remember when Chariots of Fire came out, years ago (I’m giving my age away, lol). I loved the movie and was crushed when I found out the actor portraying the Christian athlete was gay. I felt so bad for the flesh and blood missionary who lived the story and died as a POW, loving and serving God until the end.
There’s just something evil about letting a gay man portray a Christian, especially one who died for his faith. It’s like Satan gets to lob a goober at the faith and gets a free pass from Believers because he’s entertaining them while he’s doing it. But then again, I don’t doubt there may very well be hetrosexual fornicators and adulterers playing Christians in the movie, so I guess it’s hypocritical to point out this one sexual sinner when its pretty likely there others who are just as bad, portraying Christians in the film.
I don’t know. I wasn’t going to see the movie anyway but I’m still sad and discouraged they chose a gay man for the role. I don’t know that its fair to rag on Christians who protest the film because there is a gay actor involved. They have a point, albeit an inconsistent one. If we’re going to rag on any Christians, maybe it should be the ones who are silent when they see gross sin and give it a pass.
14. John Hollandsworth
January 11, 2006
7:22 PM
If I’m seeing a movie with “Christian” themes that is being produced by a non-Christian and not being marketed to Christians but has an actor who is gay, I can live with that under the banner of common grace(Ian did make a good Gandalf, didn’t he?)
But if a Christian makes a biography about the kingdom of God and casts someone who is not in the kingdom of God as the lead, then peddles it to the body as advancing the kingdom of God, that leaves a sour pit in my stomach.
15. Kenny
January 11, 2006
7:27 PM
This comes as horribly disappointing news to me as well.
I saw this movie at a test screening at the Irvine Spectrum in California in October and was encouraged by it. Although there was an obvious intention to keep the gospel theme understated, it was there, and the representation of the regenerative power to transform people from fearful murderers to a loving community was powerful.
I don’t think the point some have made above— that if a Christian would choose not to support this movie because the actor is openly gay that the same Christian should refuse to support any movie with any actors who are not believers— follows. The difference is that this movie is being made by Christians to communicate the story of an incredible missionary work of God and that Steve Saint and the other believers who producedm directed and are distributing and marketing this movie (and counting so heavily upon local churches to help with that marketing) cast a man who is openly gay to play this role. I see that as different than seeing a fictional movie character like Gandalf who is played by an openly gay actor.
By the way, here’s a link to what imdb.com lists as the last movie this actor was in, “Third Man Out: A gay detective is hired to find who has been been threatening a notorious member of the gay community noted for outing people.”
http://imdb.com/title/tt0446051/
16. Vern Hyndman
January 11, 2006
7:44 PM
Yeah, I’m thinking that if we refuse to deal with them, we might just starve the gays into better behaviour… they’ll think a whole lot less about “sex” and “orientation” when their stomachs start to rumble.
If you find that your banker or stock broker worships the money you’re investing with him, do you pull your money?
Do you check whether the car salesman you are buying from has a drinking problem?
We could catalog all of the artisans and all of the business owners we can, enumerate their sins in a matrix, and make absolutely sure that none of our support, tangible or otherwise, never reachs them. We could have a council that would evaluate their progress, and with good behaviour, eventually even drop their name off the list. Take a play or two out of McCarthy’s playbook.
What punitive action do you inflict on yourself when you sin?
Jesus says we’re not condemn for what goes into our body, but what comes out of our hearts and mouths.
How are we to be salt and light when we’re busy alienating?
-vern-
17. Kenny
January 11, 2006
8:01 PM
I was even more disappointed to read Chad Allen’s comments about making this movie in an interview with an online gay lifestyle magazine called IN Los Angeles. I won’t take up the space here. I’ve posted excerpts at braincud.blogspot.com
18. Tim
January 11, 2006
8:02 PM
Kenny - I noticed in an interview, perhaps that one, that he doesn’t seem to think making a movie about a Christian missionary is really all that much different than making a movie specifically dealing with homosexuality.
19. Kenny
January 11, 2006
8:15 PM
I think you’re right, Tim. In the article, he implies that he sees acting in this movie which is about “the bridging of two disparate communities believed to be enemies” as an opportunity to bridge the gay and christian communities (implication: that we believe we are enemies but we really aren’t)
20. Brendt
January 11, 2006
9:28 PM
Sent a trackback earlier today, but maybe I wasn’t holding my mouth right. Here ‘tis: http://csaproductions.com/blog/?p=177
21. susan
January 11, 2006
9:34 PM
Now that I have read this, I will talk to my husband about it and see what he wants to do.
Did Steve Saint know that this man was gay?
Then why oh why did he do that??
22. Randy
January 11, 2006
9:52 PM
It’s been quite interesting to read the comments here and at my site on the original article. People seem either to be upset that Chad Allen is gay, or upset that anyone noticed.
No one seems to address the Corpus Christi factor: what bothers me as much as anything is that Allen portrayed Jesus as a drunken homosexual with his gang of 12 gay buddies. Wouldn’t people be just as upset at casting a heterosexual actor as Nate Saint if that actor had recently portrayed Jesus as a drunken womanizer? I think so.
And to answer the question about a homosexual agenda—no, there’s no hint of that in the movie, unless seeing some tribesmen’s buttocks in the jungle gets construed as sexual.
23. Drew
January 11, 2006
10:20 PM
As I recall, every year at Campus Crusade’s Christmas Conference, we prayed for Brian Deacon. Who dat? The guy who played the title role in the JESUS film that has been translated into a bazillion languages and seen by a gazillion people. As it turns out, he’s not a believer, either. I don’t know about him now, but maybe this film should mobilize us to pray for Chad as we do for Brian Deacon instead of declaring the tree poisonous bfore we see the fruit.
24. Manders
January 11, 2006
11:09 PM
Here’s the thing: I’ve done some acting, enough to know that your character is definitely separate from your real life. In light of that, I’m not so concerned that Chris Allen is a homosexual so much as I’m concerned that HE IS NOT SAVED. That’s what is important; why are we so surprised when non-Christians act like non-Christians (regardless of their particular sin of choice)?
Are there movies out there where non-Christians have played Christians? Of course. And I’ve seen them. And I don’t mind, except to pray that that role would have been used by God to bring them to Himself. I hope that happens for this guy.
25. kerri
January 12, 2006
2:10 AM
Who cares what his sin is that is keeping him from Christ?!? I’ll bet all the strait actors who are non-regenerate participate in GREED which is a form of idolitry. Sin is sin is sin. There are no degrees of seperation from God! Perhaps acting the part in this film and t will be a great seed that will spring forth the faith for him to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ! While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us!
Let’s think bigger, folks and truely represent Jesus Christ and the reason for the cross.
If the movie is quality, and the story isn’t twisted for any agenda other than relaying the truth of the story…I’m going!
26. steve
January 12, 2006
3:05 AM
Well, generally I’d either check out the film based on its merits as an artistic endeavour. Given that I’m quite happy for folks to express their sexuality in any manner they choose that doens’t infringe on the human rights of any other person, then all the power to this movie!
However, I think the more unsettling question about this movie is the exoticization of a non-WASP culture, yet one more manifestation of the colonizing mentality in action. Though I’ll reserve judgment till I actually see the film, I’m quite aware of the well developed capacity Hollywood has for trivializing and reducing the ‘other’ to fit into its prepackaged entertainment scripts.
Steve
27. Steve Camp
January 12, 2006
8:09 AM
Dear Tim:
Good post here.
A dear friend of mine went to see the pre-showing of this film at her church a few months ago. She was very much looking forward to this film….
BUT, she had really nothing good to say about afterwards (my friend is usually very charitable with her comments so this came as a bit of a surprise). The absence of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the clear mentioning of Him in the film was most disappointing to her—-and now to myself as well.
The gay actor is a problem considering the major themes of this film. But I wonder why they couldn’t get bigger names to help “sell and promote” this movie? I mean, if you’re going to compromise yourself and this story, why not do with it those who can really make it popular?
I always thought that traveling with the man that committed these murders by showing him off on stage, had a bit of a “sideshow” aspect to it. The thirst for notoriety can make us justify almost anything in evangelicalism….
Grace and peace, Steve 2 Cor. 4:5-7
28. nhe
January 12, 2006
10:34 AM
A key application to “common grace” is that gospel elements can come thru in anything that image bearers create - simply because they are image bearers.
One of the more profound gospel moments that I’ve seen in any movie is actually in the recent “King Kong” film. There is a depiction in King Kong (unintentional, I’m sure) of “transcendent love” - a love higher than anything possible on earth between a man and a woman - a love that we all long for, that is awaiting the believer in heaven.
I say this to say that, regardless of the “sin of choice” of the actors in a film, and regardless of whether the gospel is explicit or implicit (some of the worst films I’ve ever seen have explicit gospel presentations - “Left Behind” anyone?)
I simply want to know - is the film redemptive? Does it stir up in me something that makes me long for something that can’t be found in this world ?(i.e. - does it inspire me to hope) or does it make want to believe in the true unseen God? (i.e. - does it inspire me to faith) or does it reject (or show the holes in) worldly notions of erotic and even phileo love and point to some larger?(i.e. - unconditional love)
I would argue that films like “Chariots of Fire” and “The Shawshank Redemption” are redemptive and worth my time because they are stories that are so well told that they bring to light the aspects that I’ve mentioned above. A poorly told story won’t inspire me, even if it intends to spur me on in faith, hope, and love.
That’s the issue sportsfans (IMHO). The reason I’ll at least wait til video release to see “End of the Spear” is that I fear that the story will be poorly produced and poorly told, and that it won’t pass my “redemptive” test.
I am not the least bit concerned about how often the Bible is quoted in a film, or how much Jesus is mentioned, or how explicit the gospel is in a film - because those are not things that make a story great or redemptive. In fact, the great films that have stirred my soul and inspired me to love and good deeds are films where the gospel is implicit, not explicit.
29. Sammac
January 12, 2006
10:43 AM
I could now no more support this movie than if I heard that a NAMBLA activist was the lead actor/producer/etc.
Thanks for the heads up.
30. NHE
January 12, 2006
11:17 AM
Quote from Sammac:
“I could now no more support this movie than if I heard that a NAMBLA activist was the lead actor/producer/etc.”
What in the world does this have to do with anything? For heaven’s sake! - expect sinful people to sin! It’s a movie! And if the movie is intended by its creators to be a vehicle for the gospel message, then their desired result will be affected by how well the story is told, not by who’s telling it.
I fear that many who post here are much more concerned about being politically conservative and legalistic in response to their culture than they are about being Christ-centered and transformative. This is far more troubling to me than anything I have heard about this film.
Yeah, NAMBLA is bad, duh! - but it is the power of God for salvation to all who would believe. Truth is not necessarily dimished by its vessel - if it is conveyed in a compelling fashion, it will be heard.
31. susanna
January 12, 2006
11:19 AM
I found Steve’s comment(#26) interesting because I have also been wondering if they will try to make a big deal about “the other.” Will they give an underlying message that the missionaries were actually just westerners trying to colonize the tribe and make them believe in their god rather than The one God? Basically, is there any underlying agenda here to show “native man” good and “white, anglo-saxon, Christian man” as evil and dominating? I must confess I have no basis for these worries EXCEPT that almost every movie that Hollywood makes now that deals with westerners coming into a native setting always seems to have this underlying message. Even Disney movies such as Pocahontus, as we all know.
Anyways, I agree with others that this movie will most likely fall so far short of the quality of films such as “Chariots of Fire,” my all time favorite movie, that it just does not really seem worth spending $8 to watch but we’ll see. I just get sick and tired of always finding out these controversial things about movies before they come out…it has just become a standard ploy, I think, for producers to make certain choices in order to get attention for movies that they fear will go unnoticed otherwise. If a movie needs a big controversy to get noticed, I think that is good enough proof to know that it is probably another poor film with a cheap draw scheme.
32. Tim
January 12, 2006
12:29 PM
Susanna - That is very astute. I think it will be interesting to see how the present the missionaries - as men who were reaching out with the Truth or as men who were just pushing their views on others…
33. dpymm
January 12, 2006
12:29 PM
Well, what a thinker this one is. I would say that if someone were to judge me by the movies I watch it would not be pretty. I am sure I have sacrificed much of what is glorifying to God by watching films that have no value what so ever. For that, I am ashamed. I have tolerated sin, for entertainment. I have gotten pleasure from things that do not in any way please God. I am a wretched sinner in more ways than these, and need forgiveness from God for it. I have been becoming more and more convicted of the types of entertainment I seek, and for a good reason. Hollywood is producing so much filth. Yet, I have looked away from the wrong, to be entertained. What joke.
I do think there is a difference between watching good film with sinful actors, and watching film with actors who love their sin. Any unsaved person, loves their sin. I am not sure whether or not we should discrimate on a particular sin over another as far as not going to a movie. So I have nothing yet to offer in that respect, but I think that many Christians, at least me, should serious rethink all the films and other entertainment medium they seek based on if it glorifies God.
This has been a very convicting read for me, probably not for the reasons Tim may have intended it to. I do not mean to lump you guys, or other Christians into my scenario. I just hope I am not alone in my shame. I ask for prayer to stop sacrificing the glory of God for cheap entertaiment. I will pray for any who ask the same.
34. Paul Martin
January 12, 2006
2:20 PM
The point made earlier regarding actors in Chariots of Fire and Lord of the Rings could be made about lots of movies - Anthony Hopkins in “Shadowlands” comes to mind. Clearly the issue is one of conscience (at least that is what I think). Hopkins portrayal of Lewis at the death of his wife brought me to tears in the theatre. I wasn’t thinking about the perverted lifestyle of the actor - I was allowing an actor to try and portray what that telling moment was like for his subject. A question: Wasn’t Chad Allen on Larry King Live with John McArthur about 16 months ago? And, if we limit films we are going to watch to Christians, wouldn’t that mean we would have to watch Left Behind? Now THAT would be enough to make me swear off the movies forever!
35. Lee
January 12, 2006
3:33 PM
I saw End of the Spear at a screening a couple of weeks ago. The movie is well made, but I had a huge problem with the script.
If you go in with no previous knowledge of the events that took place 50 years ago, you will leave the theater never knowing if these missionaries were Christians. There is no mention in the movie of “Christ”, “Jesus”, “Christians”, the “gospel”, etc. For all we know, these missionaries could have been Mormon, or even some cult.
The closest they ever come to sharing the gospel is when one of the missionaries tries to explain why the other missionaries didn’t fight back when they were getting killed:
“Wazoo wazzoo (or whatever word the savages used to describe their diety - sorry I don’t remember) had a son, and Wazoo Wazoo’s son was speared, but he didn’t spear back.”
Sorry folks… that’s all we get. Now, that may be historically accurate, but if you were involved in making this movie, don’t you think you’d want to slip in Christ somewhere?? Especially since there is an entire generation of people that will see this film not knowing anything whatsoever of the story.
In terms of who these missionaries were and why they did what they did, all that is presented in the movie is that a group of clean-cut white people went out of their way to reach out to a group of savages… and when it’s all done, the savages turn in to clean-cut people. But, we don’t know why they changed or what changed them.
I couldn’t help but think that the producers of this movie made a conscious choice to compromise and remove all references to Christ from the story so that the movie would appeal to a larger group of people. Further, in the promotional material that was sent to all the people who attended the screenings, there are numerous “We-Are-The-World” type quotes praising unity and togetherness. To make matters worse, one of the quotes the producers chose to include in their materials is from Oprah.
Great movie, but the producers dropped the ball. To be honest, I don’t really see anything that would indicate the movie makers are Christians, but I’ll keep looking.
36. Lee
January 12, 2006
3:38 PM
From me:
“For all we know, these missionaries could have been Mormon, or even some cult.”
Meant to say:
“For all we know, these missionaries could have been Mormon, or some other cult.”
37. PuritanD71
January 12, 2006
4:16 PM
Reading the article and comments have me thinking about whether to see the movie and why.
I am sadden not by a homosexual playing a role in the film, but by the why he felt he should perform it. If he was like the actor in “Chariots of Fire” (which until now did not know his sexual orientation), I would have no issue in seeing since it was not “the bridging of two disparate communities believed to be enemies” as an opportunity to bridge the gay and christian communities. It is this reasoning that is appalling to me.
I am not discouraged by non-Christians performing Christian roles as others have mentioned above and do not expect them to behave any better than an unregenerated individual. However, when an individual publically states that he as a subservient reason to take a role (outside of it being a challenge, or loved the story, etc.), it stands that then the onus is on us that if we see this movie does it make his statement true in his eyes? It seems strange that this story is getting such play while the cowboy movie is also receiving such unique press.
In other words, since Allen draws a “line” in the proverbial sand as to sucees of movie = bridging gap between gays and christians (whatever that is, probably not “loving sinner not sin”), should this persuade us one way or the other in seeing this movie?
PuritanD
38. nathan creitz
January 12, 2006
4:19 PM
Go see the movie. It’s an actor for crying out loud. I don’t agree with his lifestyle, but if he were as focused and determined in his faith as the person he is portraying in the movie then he would be in Ecuador and not playing a role of someone he’s not. The fact that he’s not Steve Saint and that he’s not Jesus Christ and that he has his shortcomings.
Check out the testimony of Times Square Church. Every year they would do a Passion play and they would do dramas retelling the story of Nicky Cruz and David Wilkerson. Several actors who were unbelievers were recruited to act the parts of Jesus, or Nicky Cruz, etc. Many actors came to know Christ as they portrayed their subjects. Let’s give the guy a chance. Instead of the Christian community condemning the guy before we’ve even seen the movie, let’s support him and thank him for playing such an important role and telling such an important story. Okay?
39. mikbry24
January 12, 2006
5:06 PM
Whoa…..I’m not sure if that was a backhanded insult at Steven Curtis Chapman or not, but let me share something with you. A few years ago I took a youth group to see Steven Curtis Chapman in concert. I had no idea what I was going to experience that evening. Halfway through the concert, they had video playing of the Newsclips and pictures of what took place with these young missionaries while attempting to minister to the Auca Indians while the band provided background instrumentals. When the video and music stopped, the story of Nate Saint and others was revisited and then the story of redemption of these tribal men was told. They brought Steven Saint out, who, of course, had returned as a child and grew up among the very men who killed his father. Steven then introduced Mincaye, whom he now calls “Grandfather.” Mincaye, through an interpreter, shared how “Christ ‘dripped’ His blood and saved him.” And how “even as they were killing the missionaries, they knew they were doing wrong.” It was a glorious night of testimony and worship to the One who worked miraculously through some difficult circumstances. To write it off as a “sideshow” seems, not only callous and truly judgmental, but also negates what is being done by God through this story of forgiveness and reconciliation. While I hope this is not what was intended by the comment Steve made, it is the only artist I know of who has traveled with Steve Saint and Mincaye. For me, it was one of those nights that brought me closer to the Lord and brought His forgiveness and reconciliation even more into focus. I am thankful for Steven Curtis Chapman, for Mincaye and Steven Saint for sharing their story and for ministering in this way. I am grieved that someone would write this off as a sideshow.
Mike
40. rks
January 12, 2006
6:28 PM
Mike,
I completely agree with you. I have nothing but good things to say about all the SCC concerts I have been to, but this one was by far the best. And it wasn’t because of him. I was blessed beyond words! I didn’ t know Steve Saint or Mincaya were there either. I was absolutely in awe of our God and Savior by the end of Mincaye’s testimony. It was the highlight of the whole evening. To this day I get goose bumps when I tell the story to people.
I loved it how they (the indians) called themselves “God Followers.” Now when I listen to that song I always think of the Auca Indians. On a side note, there is a documentary called “Beyond the Gates of Splendor” that has been released on video. It is well worth the money.
rks
41. Joanna
January 12, 2006
6:31 PM
Knowing the actor is a homosexual (which I didn’t know until now) makes a HUGE difference to me. The reason is because of the push these days for gay rights and making politically correct movies, such as Brokeback Mountain. That film isn’t even being shown yet in my area, but it’s already garnered Oscar nominations. When has that ever happened before in history? I won’t be seeing the movie. I would be thinking the entire time of the actor’s sexual orientation. Someone mentioned about our consciences-mine must be sensitive to this issue because it really, seriously bothers me. I’m sick that if Christians were in control of making this movie, then they chose this actor on purpose. I’m sure his career will take off now. Yuck. And thanks (insert sarcasm here) for telling me about Gandalf and Chariots of Fire. I had no idea there were any gay actors in either movie. We rent the Lord of the Rings once a year as a family, and now everytime I see Gandalf I will know he’s “one of them”. I feel sick. :(
42. Randy
January 12, 2006
9:35 PM
Susanna, the movie isn’t a “Hollywood” movie, as the writer/producer is a Christian who wanted to convey the story to a broad audience, hoping for a blockbuster hit. There’s no hint that the native way of life is preferable—after all, they were killing each other off.
rks, the documentary Beyond the Gates of Splendor is by the same team who made End of the Spear.
43. nhe
January 12, 2006
9:51 PM
Quote:
“And thanks (insert sarcasm here) for telling me about Gandalf and Chariots of Fire. I had no idea there were any gay actors in either movie. We rent the Lord of the Rings once a year as a family, and now everytime I see Gandalf I will know he’s “one of them”. I feel sick. :(“
This statement fully embodies exactly why the Christian voice is so often diminished and marginalized in our culture. The legalism and lack of love in this statement is more frightening to me than anything a gay person could possibly do.
If we do not call to the carpet our brothers and sisters who make such unloving and outlandish statements as this, we will continue to become a disjointed body that is daily more and more irrelevent to nonbelievers around us.
…..and by the way, why not display some good steward ship and just buy Lord of the Rings? You’ll spend more after 3 years than it costs to just buy it…….
44. Susanna
January 12, 2006
9:56 PM
I wonder if maybe we are all being misled. According to a trailor I watched, which interviews the producer and mentions how Steve Saint got through to the tribe before the start of filming, the main message is not Christ or anything close. Says the producer, “the tribe agreed(after Steve Saint telling them about the violence of Columbine)that if their story can help others stop killing and live in peace, then they would agree to do the film.” Furthermore, a tribes person said they would do the film “if this story will help your culture not live so violently.” Clearly, there are numorous reasons to doubt the credibility of this film. Just a thought.
45. nhe
January 12, 2006
10:03 PM
Mike,
If you don’t already know, the “Steve” you’re speaking to is a foundational Comtemporary Christian music artist who paved the way for guys like SCC to have the careers they have……thus perhaps Steve has observed some things in the industry from a perspective that is more informed than most of us…..perhaps then, Steve deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one……..I don’t know Steve personally, but his ministry has had a significant influence on many lives, including mine…I’ve seen both Steve C. and SCC in concert…..Steve C. blows SCC out of the water!……For example did any of you here know that Steve C.’s most famous song starts with a quote from Jim Elliot?
46. nhe
January 12, 2006
10:07 PM
Correction - Steve C.’s famous song quote is actually from D.L. Moody………but alluded to often by Jim Elliott
47. mikbry24
January 12, 2006
11:26 PM
Actually, the very first Christian tape I ever owned after being saved 20 years ago was a Steve Camp tape entitled “Shake Me to Wake Me.” I have nothing but appreciation for Steve Camp and his ministry. But if the “sideshow” comment was meant for SCC, then he is way off base. I certainly am not going to compare the ministries of SCC and Campi, nor does that really have anything to do with the discussion. I can speak to what I saw and heard that night at the SCC concert, and it was a great, moving tribute to the power of God and the forgiveness found through the blood of Christ. To call that a sideshow is an affront to anyone who ever has given a testimony to the power of God at work in their lives. Or is it a sideshow simply because Mincaye is a foreigner? Is his testimony any less poignant because he is an Auca Indian who was a murderer? I guess I’m not understanding the comment, here.
Mike
48. Mark Elton
January 13, 2006
2:53 PM
Do some research on the cast of Narnia? You have a lead role played by a gay actor, yet that has been embraced.
You should also look at what the “white witch” is into. Truly you are being used by God to draw more attention to this film. Thank you and may God Richly Bless this effort.
49. Shelley
January 13, 2006
3:44 PM
Jason Janz at Sharper Iron has much to say about Chad Allen, along with these closing remarks evaluating the film itself:
http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2244
(excerpt)
“Personally, I have conflicting feelings about the viewing of the film. On the one hand, I do not want to send the message to Every Tribe Entertainment and the rest of the Christian film-making community that this is acceptable. This would make me lean towards discouraging anyone to view it in the theatre or to rent it on video. On the other hand, for those familiar with the story, the movie is powerful and could be edifying to the believer. (Don’t worry about it being a tool of evangelism. The Gospel is so hidden in the film that the chances of people getting saved are slim to none. But, that’ll be talked about in a post next week.) So, I think I will do my best to let people know of the problems with the movie and it’s production. Second, if they desire to view it, wait until it comes out on video and have lots of people over to see it in their home. That way, Every Tribe Entertainment doesn’t get as much income.”
50. sammac
January 13, 2006
3:51 PM
NHE writes:
“What in the world does this have to do with anything? For heaven’s sake! - expect sinful people to sin! It’s a movie! And if the movie is intended by its creators to be a vehicle for the gospel message, then their desired result will be affected by how well the story is told, not by who’s telling it.”
I could not disagree more.
If the movie is successful all those associated with it will have their personal lives written about in great detail, and will have a national forum to expound on their views. This man is a gay activist. I don’t want to give him a platform to promote his sick and twisted views any more than I would want to give a NAMBLA activist a forum for his sick and twisted views or a white racist activist a forum….etc.
But the problem doesn’t stop there. Society is confused about how “deeply held private religious views” should impact public behavior. What we are telling people is that our Christian beliefs do not affect our public behavior if we support this.
NHE also stated: “I fear that many who post here are much more concerned about being politically conservative and legalistic in response to their culture than they are about being Christ-centered and transformative. This is far more troubling to me than anything I have heard about this film.”
Interesting move; attempting to contrast “politically conservative and legalistic” with “Christ centered and transformative”. The truth is that these are not mutually exclusive terms. “Legalistic” in this case meaning; distinguishing between right and wrong and acting on that correct judgement”.
It is neither “Christ centered” nor “transformative” to willingly give a gay activist a forum to advertise his bent views.
And finally NHE posts: “Yeah, NAMBLA is bad, duh! - but it is the power of God for salvation to all who would believe. Truth is not necessarily dimished by its vessel - if it is conveyed in a compelling fashion, it will be heard.”
I think I know what you really meant by that first sentence! However, I think all on this thread would agree that this movie does not even attempt to present the gospel.
The message and the messenger in today’s media culture are thoroughly bound together. There is intense interest in media star’s personal lives and views. Many weak minded people are influenced by the misguided views of our “stars”. In many ways their lives and viewpoints are more “transformative” than most Christians’.
Can you imagine Jesus hiring a gay activist to portray the apostle Paul in a movie about Paul’s second missionary journey?
Sorry about the length of rant on this, guys and gals. I just think that the words “Christ centered” and “transformative” don’t go together with supporting and giving a forum to a gay activist.
51. nhe
January 13, 2006
4:14 PM
Sammac Quote:
“Can you imagine Jesus hiring a gay activist to portray the apostle Paul in a movie about Paul’s second missionary journey?”
Yes, actually I could. He (essentially) hired a Christian-killing, self proclaimed “foremost of all sinners” to be well, uh…….Paul himself!
Also, I don’t see where Christ waited for Paul to denounce his membership in the “foremost of all sinners” club (which certainly puts Paul at least in equal standing with NAMBLA members) before making Paul his choice.
If the messenger and message are thoroughly bound together as you say, then those who knew Paul in his former life certainly struggled to reconcile it with his conversion…….just as some will struggle to reconcile this actor’s lifestyle with his choice of movie roll. However, in both of these cases, God has and can continue to use a message for his purposes…….despite what negatives may be conjured up in the minds of the hearers regarding the former or current lifestyle of the messenger.
I’m presupposing that the gospel is presented in this film - I’ve heard both yes and no, so I’ll have to wait to see it.
52. wfseube
January 13, 2006
4:49 PM
NHE wrote: Yes, actually I could. He (essentially) hired a Christian-killing, self proclaimed “foremost of all sinners” to be well, uh…….Paul himself
Sorry, but that’s a totally irrelevant, absurd example. Paul was immediately transformed by Jesus’ “hiring” of him. At that point, Paul was a completely different individual, saved by Christ. The supernatural transformation of Paul on the Damascus road bears absolutely zero resemblance to what is represented here. The hiring of a unsaved, overtly-sinning homosexual to represent a saved, transformed believer is ridiculous and it wouldn’t surprise me to see homosexual groups throw this in the face of believers who oppose such behavior.
53. nhe
January 13, 2006
5:05 PM
Quote WFSEUBE:
“Sorry, but that’s a totally irrelevant, absurd example. Paul was immediately transformed by Jesus’ “hiring” of him. At that point, Paul was a completely different individual, saved by Christ. The supernatural transformation of Paul on the Damascus road bears absolutely zero resemblance to what is represented here. The hiring of a unsaved, overtly-sinning homosexual to represent a saved, transformed believer is ridiculous and it wouldn’t surprise me to see homosexual groups throw this in the face of believers who oppose such behavior.”
……but WHO did Jesus hire? How would we as believers have responded if Jesus told us what He was going to do before appearing to Paul? “You’re picking that guy???” Yeah, you’re going to transform him, but what about the bad PR about his past when he goes on Larry King? Isn’t that going to hurt our message?………Oh, I see Jesus, you can even use Balaam’s ass? OK, I get it now.
I’m not seeing a case made here for a message being diminished by a fallen messenger, redeemed or not.
54. Lee
January 14, 2006
2:05 AM
Announcing Chad Allen’s new website:
http://www.chadallenonline.com
Chad’s the gay star of “End of The Spear”. How nice of this “Christian” movie’s producers to give this openly homosexual actor a platform to spread his message to the world.
I don’t know… I’m thinking “end times”. What do you think?
55. Lee
January 14, 2006
3:57 AM
To remain as accurate as possible, this is “Chad Allen’s official fan site, while Chad checks the site regularly, it is run exclusively by his fans and friends”.
And, as we learn all about Chad’s lifestyle on the website, and along with “End of The Spear” logos, “End of The Spear” write ups, and “End of The Spear” links to buy “End of The Spear Gear”, we get to learn all about Chad’s new production company:
”Our company is entirely dedicated to turning the page on gay and lesbian storytelling in film, television, and theatre.”
Boy, thanks so much to “Every Tribe” and “Bearing Fruit Communications” for casting Chad in the Nate Saint role. It gives a whole new twist on the term bearing fruit.
Oh, and please… no “End of The Queer” jokes from anybody. That wouldn’t be PC.
56. sammac
January 14, 2006
10:39 AM
NHE says:
“……but WHO did Jesus hire? How would we as believers have responded if Jesus told us what He was going to do before appearing to Paul? “You’re picking that guy???” Yeah, you’re going to transform him, but what about the bad PR about his past when he goes on Larry King? Isn’t that going to hurt our message?..”
I would have been happy to hear that Jesus was going to transform Paul and then use him to spread the good news. The PR would have been great….Paul on Larry King talking about how Jesus caused him to repent and change and how his old lifestyle was wrong.
What I don’t see is Jesus trying to use Paul before that little matter of repentence and change.
But that isn’t analogous to what we are talking about. Can’t you see that?
57. wfseube
January 15, 2006
8:30 AM
Sammac wrote: “What I don’t see is Jesus trying to use Paul before that little matter of repentence and change.
But that isn’t analogous to what we are talking about. Can’t you see that?”
EXACTLY!!!
58. wfseube
January 15, 2006
8:31 AM
oops - my quoting didn’t work quite right - sammac wrote everything, except my “exactly” comment.
Stupid HTML…
59. Lee
January 15, 2006
2:27 PM
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that Every Tribe worked so hard to scrub this movie clean of any references to Christ, Christianity, or salvation. They did the same thing with their company’s mission statement:
“Our Mission: To create quality entertainment for a broad audience that inspires hope through truth. Every Tribe Entertainment grew out of the hopes and dreams of film-makers and individuals who desire to make a difference in our world and in our culture. Frustrated with the lack of quality story content in films today, and driven to provide more than just entertainment in our films, Every Tribe was founded to bring to life stories of courage and strength of the human spirit. Courage, tolerance, mercy, forgiveness, faith and love. We base our film choices on what we hope to inspire rather than what we hope to sell. This philosophy has its fingerprints on what we do and how we do it. We hope to inspire all who view our films as well as those who work with us to create them.”
Here’s what is happening before our very eyes:
A secular movie production company has made a film about a set of amazing events that took place 50 years ago to and through a group of extraordinary Christian missionaries. However, this company has de-Christianized the story. Further, seeing the recent success of Mel Gibson’s marketing approach with The Passion, they first reached out to Christian churches all over the country through an aggressive screening campaign. That’s how I was a able to see the movie. And, after seeing the movie screenings, many churches have jumped on board - but only because they sat through the screenings with the advantage of knowing what had truly taken place years ago. Most non-Christians who see this movie won’t have that same advantage.
So, by de-Christianizing the film, whatever impact it may have had for the Lord has been sadly compromised.
Think of this possible scenario: A secular publishing house sees value in the stories of the Bible. So, they publish their own version of the Bible, but they first scrub it free of all references to God. Would this be a Bible that Christians should purchase and embrace?
60. thuffman
January 16, 2006
3:01 PM
Although, I am not surprised, I continue to be disappointed in those who call themselves Christians.
To publicly tear down others, when you have NO knowledge of the facts or knowledge of motives, is not Christ like.
I DO have first hand knowledge of the Producer of this movie and many others involved. I know that he IS a Christian, who has served in the ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention, and sharing this story was done out of the love to share Jesus with others. The same thing could be said for Steven Curtis Chapman, as well as, Mart Green the CEO of Every Tribe Entertainment.
These men have sacrificed for years to put themselves in a position to share Christ with millions and their motives are heavenly.
I do, though, question the motives of those negatively commenting on this board. Sure, go ahead and question their skills in making a movie, that is fine, but to question their intent and state information as fact that is not fact…..is not of God.
I do not worry about what Satan accomplishes in this world but what Christians accomplish in the name of “Themselves”.
Many years of prayer from many people have gone into this movie. No, not everyone involved in this movie may be a Christian and I expect that will be true in your church also. Jesus warned us about being legalistic and spoke to us about sharing the gospel to the corners of the earth.
You should rejoice in the fact that this story of people giving their lives to share the gospel is being placed in theatres across America for millions to witness. Those who choose not to see it because they choose to listen to the lies spewed by others will most likely run out and see King Kong or another spiritually edifying Blockbuster hit. They will truly miss God’s blessing.
61. sammac
January 16, 2006
3:42 PM
thuffman comments:
“Although, I am not surprised, I continue to be disappointed in those who call themselves Christians.
To publicly tear down others, when you have NO knowledge of the facts or knowledge of motives, is not Christ like.”
Correct me. Have I written something here that is not true?
Is Chad Allen then, not a gay activist? or
Did the folks who cast him know nothing about him?
The official movie site proudly touts Chad’s work and his company, “mythgarden”. They seem to be quite proud of Chad’s lifesytle and work.
Are these statements incorrect? What facts are we missing that you could help us out with?
62. nhe
January 16, 2006
4:21 PM
Quote Tim H.:
“I do not worry about what Satan accomplishes in this world but what Christians accomplish in the name of “Themselves”.
Many years of prayer from many people have gone into this movie. No, not everyone involved in this movie may be a Christian and I expect that will be true in your church also. Jesus warned us about being legalistic and spoke to us about sharing the gospel to the corners of the earth.
You should rejoice in the fact that this story of people giving their lives to share the gospel is being placed in theatres across America for millions to witness. Those who choose not to see it because they choose to listen to the lies spewed by others will most likely run out and see King Kong or another spiritually edifying Blockbuster hit. They will truly miss God’s blessing.”
Actually I was very “edified” by King Kong. There is a picture of transcendent love in the movie between Kong and Anne…….he provides absolute security for her, she provides absolute significance for him…its not a “romance” but it is typology - a glimpse at love that is not of this world, but that is awaiting us in heaven. It doesn’t quite mirror “Christ and his bride”, but the film is actually a beautiful picture of transcendent love - especially the way in which this love is contrasted with the human love relationship in the film. I know that Peter Jackson (not a believer to my knowledge) did not intend this, but sometimes common grace comes thru in good storytelling.
Other than this, I agree with your comments…..God can use a “true story” about people that truly lived for Christ, even if the story is not told exactly the way we would tell it, or by the people we would want to tell it.
63. Lee
January 16, 2006
6:54 PM
Thuffman,
I am glad to hear that many of the folks who made this movie are indeed Christians. I recently exchanged emails with Jim Hanon, the writer/producer of End of the Spear, and was very impressed by his stance on Christ. I apologize if I gave you the impression that I was questioning any individual’s salvation.
Is there any way - using your contacts with this movie’s producer - to find out what their thinking was behind Every Tribe’s Mission Statement? I’m referring to it’s complete lack of any references to God, Christ, Jesus, Salvation, the Bible, Heaven, sin, scriptures, Christianity, etc. I’m having a problem reconciling between their Mission Statement and their personal relationships with the Lord. Further, when I read their promotional material and read dozens and dozens of paragraphs about their company and their goals, I still can’t find anything “Christian” there. Same with their website.
I’m serious. Do you have the kind of relationship with this producer to be able to ask these questions? Any information you can share would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
64. Jerry Mills
January 17, 2006
12:38 AM
I also have screened the movie and spoke with the producer and heard his heart for Christ. It makes me sad to hear the vitriol in this post regarding the actor’s gay perception of his identity. This is a human being who needs the love of Christ to bring healing to his very wounded soul, not shame and shunning. Remember, Jesus spent a lot of time with sinners and they liked to spend time with Him. It was the religious types He had a real problem with. Don’t blame sinners for being sinners, love them, like Christ did for us. AFterall, we’re His ambassadors, not his hit squad.
If knowing a movie has a sinner in the production causes you to cast it out that’s your decision. Plenty of sinners also work in your favorite restaurants, health club, bank, post office even. I personally don’t see how you can justify sending another letter knowing a homosexual might carry it! It’s been tainted! Oh, but since it’s a movie, well, that’s somehow different, right?
As to the merits of the movie evangelistically, Christians will be split depending on their belief of what evangelism means. To those who believe you have to lay it all out there or it’s “compromise” you won’t like this movie at all. But for those who believe that evangelism usually involves a seeker needing to ask a lot of questions and allow the Spirit to gently plant and water seeds that allow the love of Christ to win the person over, you’ll get what the producers are trying to do. I believe this is a great movie that Christians can invite any non-Christian to because it is an inspiring story that paints missionairies in a heroic light (which they are) and can lead to some great discussions about why they did it. I’d say this movie presents a great opportunity to do what Jesus did: just hang out with some sinners, get to know em better with dinner and a movie. Be a friend, Love em. Maybe that’d be the best evangelistic tool of all come to think of it. Some of you probably shouldn’t ask if they;ve everhad a gay experience though. God’s love might not be seen through your disgust and contempt.
I posted more of my review here: http://jerrydonmills.blogspot.com/2006/01/end-of-spear-opens-jan-20.htm
l truly don’t understand those who didn’t find The Passion to be an incredibly powerful spiritual experience either, not to mention a great work of art. But ah well, everyone’s a movie critic~
65. mikbry24
January 17, 2006
9:23 AM
It’s not vitriol at the individual who is gay, but the use of him, in particular, to convey the message of hope, grace and love found in Christ. Certainly sinners are sinners, but why must we have an avowed homosexual, whose sinful agenda is pushed in nearly every movie portray the part of a missionary? It is things like this that are used in an attempt to lessen the impact and importance of the issue that the Bible says homosexual activity is wrong. It isn’t really a surprise to me that the movie may be devoid of anything Christian, otherwise I doubt that Chad Allen would have had anything to do with it. The real question is, why did they make the movie in the first place?
66. Hmmmm!
January 17, 2006
9:57 AM
l truly don’t understand those who didn’t find The Passion to be an incredibly powerful spiritual experience either, not to mention a great work of art.
The Passion by Mel Gibson is one big Roman Catholic con job. Made Gibson mountains of green backs. Big family to feed I suppose. I wouldn’t call it a great work of art but I will call it an incredibly powerful spiritial deception. Oh so many undiscerning people today, next they will be saying the sin of homosexuality is no longer sin! Calling evil good. True? The sin of homosexuality is an abomination unto God isn’t it? How many sins are actually called an abomination by God? Every single sin has the wages of death but why does God call the particular sin of homosexuality an abomination?
Remember, Jesus spent a lot of time with sinners and they liked to spend time with Him.
Which sinners like spending time with Jesus Christ? Those who are born again? Those who are not born again? Those who are unrepentant or those who are repentant? Those who are forgiven or those who are unforgiven?
67. nhe
January 17, 2006
10:38 AM
Quote:
“The Passion by Mel Gibson is one big Roman Catholic con job.”
Actually, its pretty much just a communion service - blood of Christ shed for you/body of Christ broken for you - the movie really isn’t anything more than that.
You can view that transubstantially - which many Catholics do……..or it can be used in Protestant communion services - and it can be a powerful narrative during communion reflection.
Not sure I’m buying the con job thing - its a Catholic guy with a lot of money putting a depiction of communion reflection (from his vantage point) on screen. It is what it is. Gibson didn’t apologize for it, or pretend it was something else.
Quote:
“Which sinners like spending time with Jesus Christ? Those who are born again? Those who are not born again? Those who are unrepentant or those who are repentant? Those who are forgiven or those who are unforgiven?
uh, the majority of all of the above……….at least from what I read in my Bible……………if there were hospital wards for AIDS patients during Christ’s time on earth, I’m sure he would have visited them, and those people - the majority of them - would have liked having him as a visitor………….”it is not the healthy who need a doctor”………..
68. Austin
January 17, 2006
10:18 PM
It’s bad enough that the lead actor, Chad Allen, is gay. Worse is he is a gay activist! His film company was established to bring the “next generation” of filmmaking to the gay community.
69. Jeff Smith
January 19, 2006
2:14 PM
My opinion is that the movie is made by Hollywood and the addition of another sinner to the mix, homosexual or not, doesn’t change the nature of the project at all.
If we were going to see a film produced by non-believers why does the nature of one actor’s sin change anything? If its a matter of not viewing films with unbelieving actors then don’t see the film to start with. Every sin seperates us from God with equal tragedy.
BTW, I’ll see the film without a twinge of conscience.
70. Jeni
January 19, 2006
4:17 PM
I think you are loking at this from a very legalistic point of view. The point of the movie is to tell a very powerful and VERY true story about forgiveness and grace-the truths of God’s sovreignty are intewoven throughout this movie, spanning a 50 year history, beginning with what appeared to be a tragic event, and ending in God’s kingdom being expanding. I have seen a preview of hte movie and was greatly impacted by it-I know the real Steve Saint personally and have met few wiser, more godly men. I do not know any details of any actors sexual orientation, but I know that this movie is and will contiue to bring God glory. Please do not rob yourselves of being a part of and encouraging this well-made, God promoting movie that paints Christians in a positive light (how many movies have you seen that do that?) because you are caught up on something completely unrelated. Let’s please for once ignore petty things and stick together as believers to promote GOD and HIS renown. This argument is devise to the kingdom!
71. Carl
January 19, 2006
4:22 PM
Jeni,
I posted this before but I will again
There is absolutely no credibility to a practicing, unrepentant (and proudly so per the cnn transcript) homosexual (or any other blatant and willful sinner) sharing the gospel. This is a perfect example of unequally yoking good(story) with evil(person). If an openly gay person is the front man for Christianity, God help the people whose souls will be lost by the hypocrisy of that message.
The openly gay star of this movie, states and I quote “It is a deep-founded, faith-based belief in God based upon the work that I’ve done growing up as a Catholic boy and then reaching out to Buddhism philosophy, to Hindu philosophy, to Native American beliefs and finally as I got through my course with addiction and alcoholism and finding a higher power that worked for me.”
The God of the Bible I read has no part of Buddhism, Hinduism or American Indian beliefs.
The star of the movie also says and again I quote “I’m a part of a wonderful community church here in Pasadena that has a very different interpretation of those same gospels that they are speaking of. There isn’t just one way to do this, there are a lot of paths”
The God of the Bible I read says “I am the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father but by me”. He also says “narrow is the path that leads to salvation” There is only one way and one path that leads to God. Unfortunately the star of this movie is on the path that leads to hell, not God and this is the person and the movie many churches are promoting on web pages and sermons as a good evangelistic tool.
Rebuke this garbage and do it loudly.
Jeni you say ” know the real Steve Saint personally and have met few wiser, more godly men.”
How wise can he be if he picked a gay man to portray His Godly father?
72. Carl
January 19, 2006
4:35 PM
Or better still, How many people do you think will be won for Christ by a person who says “do as I say, not as I do”?
73. Daniel Robbins
January 20, 2006
10:07 AM
“The gospel is preached, and therefore I rejoice” (see Philippians 1). Does that mean I will see the movie(s). No way! So help me God if I fail to fear God more than that. “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful workds of darkness”, says Paul in Eph 5.
But I just realized I can and ought to rejoice at the preaching of the gospel in any form - even in this case by a Sodomite. I am not a part of this world, and I look forward to getting out of it. But I want to be holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners (as Christ was) while I am here. I want to be the light and salt that Christ has said I am.
Believers, lets not see these movies, I exhort, but let’s also not speak evil of them. Let’s learn that makeup and pretense and hypocrisy (i.e. “acting”) is not going to bring revival - which we MUST have! What will bring revival is perfection. Perfection without the makeup, without the definitions we put on it - and then resign ourselves to “never being perfect”, even though God has made it clear we must be perfect.
Perfection is from the inside out, and it is a work of God. Let’s repent and submit to it, in Jesus’ name, amen! As far as the Sodomite who played Nate and his son, let the dead bury their dead (and by all means pray for his salvation), and be perfect!
Love, in Christ,
Daniel
74. Carl
January 20, 2006
10:46 AM
Daniel,
I must respectfully disagree with you.
God’s Word talks about “other”gospels.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8, 9
Chad Allen is clearly not saved. He said and I quote” I’m a part of a wonderful community church here in Pasadena that has a very different interpretation of those same gospels that they are speaking of. There isn’t just one way to do this, there are a lot of paths”
We can NOT rejoice at “at the preaching of the gospel in any form” as you say. That is a damnable sin and must be rebuked harshly!
75. nhe
January 20, 2006
11:08 AM
Rats, when he said he disagreed….I was hoping that Carl would disagree with:
“What will bring revival is perfection.”
Yikes!
76. Carl
January 20, 2006
11:22 AM
NHE,
Actually a revivial may in fact be in progress. I’m seeing a lot of TRUE Christians standing up and speaking out on the vile, distorted “gospel” Chad Allen and his supporters represent.
I have no problem calling a spade a spade when it comes to people who claim to be Christian but their actions and words show otherwise.
To quote God’s word,
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction
2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine
Titus 1:9 -13
9Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.
12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith
77. Bob
January 20, 2006
11:42 AM
check out the details of chad allen and end of the spear at http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2244
78. Scott
January 20, 2006
4:08 PM
Don’t shoot the messanger, folks. Watch the movie and make your judgment calls based on that and then comment about the actor. Maybe Chad Allen is a little New Age-ee…the message in the movie is far from his personal beliefs and that is admirable because it could have been a lot worse. The quality of the acting and the ability to tell a good story is very important. Why condemn the dude for being gay? There are people who live their daily life based on lies…they are no different in their sin than Chad is in his. Among my prayers is that Chad and any of the cast a crew come to know Christ through their own film. Ours is not to judge…Christ has already done that.
79. wfseube
January 20, 2006
4:48 PM
Scott wrote: Why condemn the dude for being gay? There are people who live their daily life based on lies…they are no different in their sin than Chad is in his.
You haven’t spent much time reading the threads on this, have you? It’s been made crystal clear that the issue is the man’s gay activism and his active promotion of his sin, not the fact that he sins. All of us, including actors are sinful in some way, but few are unabashedly proud of their sin and try to promote it as good and normal. Read the article linked in the entry above yours. It is the best summary yet.
80. Carl
January 20, 2006
5:01 PM
Scott,
First, when someone PROUDLY gets up and publically says that their “god” approves of thier gay lifestyle that is a WHOLE lot different than someone who is sinning but not bragging about it.
The message of the gospel in this movie is lost completely by a messenger totally opposed to Scripture. Would you invite an unrepentant, convicted pedophile to lead a youth group at your church? How about inviting an unrepentant, convicted rapist to lead single women at a church bible study? Better still, how about an unrepentant, convicted embezzler to be the treasurer of your church? Why then an unrepentant, flaming homosexual as a messenger for Christ? How weak some people’s discernment has become.
“Why condemn the dude for being gay?” BECAUSE GOD DOES! Homsexuals are an abomination to God. Few sins in the bible are referred to by God as abominations…..
Does anyone know the musical melody of the Madonna song “Like a Virgin”? Suppose I take that same melody and put Christian words to it. If I were to play you my “new” song, upon hearing the opening melody, are you going to be thinking about my new words of the old melody? How similar to Chad Allen giving a Christian message. Unless he repents of his sin, it is impossible to look past his current spiritual condition and that overshadows any message he might give in ANY movie
Ours is not to judge? Better read your bible Scott….
We are commanded to rebuke those in error. How do we know when someone is in error unless we JUDGE them to be?
We are commanded to DISCERN right from wrong. Discernment requires JUDGMENT.
81. Jeff
January 20, 2006
8:37 PM
Whatever happened to the old adage, “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.” The Christian blogosphere seems to hate the sinner, too. What a terrible witness to the world. I do not condone Chad Allen’s life choices. Rebellion is the enemy of our Lord. But I’d say the majority of posts and comments left by Christians this week regarding Allen’s role in “End of the Spear” is devoid of mercy and grace. Very few have talked about praying for this lost man. Instead, Christians are more concerned about how this sodomite might smear the legacy of your martyr. What unsaved person out there – hearing all the bitterness and anger and criticism – would want to join this elite little club?
Should not we follow the example of our Lord Jesus Christ? In Matthew 9:9-13 He and His disciples sit among tax collectors and sinners, which draws a complaint from the self-righteous Pharisees. But the Lord reproves them: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” Chad Allen needs the Physician. He doesn’t need all the modern-day Pharisees crying and complaining to the media. If they are not careful, they will be the ones smearing the name of not only the five martyred missionaries, but Jesus Christ Himself.
82. dan
January 20, 2006
10:53 PM
Sad, so sad that so many condemn the film without giving it a chance. What this film gives is opportunity for Christians to go out and share our faith with friends and family. People probably won’t get saved from watching this film if we keep our mouths shut about being transformed by a relationship with Jesus Christ. There are several moments in this well made film that can speak to peoples hearts about the love of God and redemption of Christ. I just took a group of 50 students and parents from my church to see this film and they were moved and inspired by what God did in redeeming this tribe through His one and only Son Jesus. Praise be to God. Is it sad about Chad Allen being a Gay Activist? sure. Do we need to pray for him? You bet. It’s time we did a little less whining and a little more winning people to the Kingdom. Do we need to stand taller as Christians? You bet. Its time to get to work because “the fields are white with harvest.”
83. Carl
January 21, 2006
9:27 AM
What twisted views of scripture you seem to have Dan and Jeff…
Chad Allen has no desire for the word of God. He has openly stated that he wants to see reconciliation between the Christian community and the gay community. God’s word does not alow for that.
2 Corinthians 6:14 says, Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
Chad is PROUDLY gay. if he was a proud murderer, a proud thief, a proud fornicator or a proud atheist. A proud sinner is EVIL. Chad clearly has some understanding of scripture and yet he still flaunts his clearly UNSCRIPTURAL lifestyle and actually states that his “god” approves of his lifestyle
Isaiah 5:20 says Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
GOD HATES people like this. How does does GOD SAY Christians are to treat people who willfully continue to do what Chad is doing?
Romans 16:17 clearly states - Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
I see nothing about embracing a willfull sinner who continues to do so without repentance. We absolutely should pray for them. But we also must strongly rebuke them until the repent.
Now with that in mind, Would you invite an unrepentant, convicted pedophile to lead a youth group at your church? How about inviting an unrepentant, convicted rapist to lead single women at a church bible study? Better still, how about an unrepentant, convicted embezzler to be the treasurer of your church? Why then an unrepentant, flaming homosexual as a messenger for Christ?
After they repent, possibly. But before? Surely you jest!
84. sally apokedak
January 21, 2006
3:50 PM
I saw the movie yesterday and loved it.
I hate homosexuality, and hate even more that Chad Allen produced and starred in Corpus Christie. But I didn’t even think of that during the film. It was so good, so moving, so blatantly full of God’s grace and power.
In my newspaper this morning, Mincaye is quoted as saying, his heart was dark until he learned about Jesus, and that “Waengongi [the Creator] used his son’s blood like soap. He cleaned it and I saw a new trail. “
I posted about the gospel message in the movie on my blog and I won’t repeat myself here. But why don’t we take this wonderful movie and discuss how Mincaye was washed by the blood of Christ instead of speaking about how Chad Allen hasn’t been? Why not glorify God, the all powerful, the long suffering, the merciful God, has deemed it good to cleanse the murderer’s heart? What a joy, what a pleasure to serve such a good. And I’m so thankful for this movie which reminds me of all these things.
85. carl
January 21, 2006
4:03 PM
Sally,
How many times in this movie is the name of Jesus uttered?
How many times do you see people pray in the name of Jesus?
How many times is the gospel proclaimed? (i.e virgin birth, Jesus’ death and ressurection)
How many times is sin defined and the need for repentance explained?
86. sally apokedak
January 21, 2006
4:30 PM
Carl, Carl, Carl,
heh heh
I don’t think the virgin birth, the death and resurrection are mentioned in every sermon I hear, even, so why would I demand that every film made by Christians must include these things?
As I said in my blog, “No, in the movie we are not told that Christ bore their sins. There is no explanation of the Trinity, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, the propitiatory nature of Christ’s death, or Adam’s original fall. We don’t hear about the resurrection and no one prays the sinner’s prayer. It’s a movie not a catechism, after all.”
Jesus was not mentioned by name in the film. Nor did the missionaries say they were willing to give up their lives because Christ had died for them and they now wanted to take the gospel to all the world.
Jesus was mentioned as God’s son who was speared but refused to spear back. He did this so that the men who speared him could live a good life.
In one scene Nate Saint said to his son that he would not kill the Waodani in self defense because he and the other missionaries were ready for heaven and the Waodani were not. That is a clear statement that some people have peace with God and some are at odds. And it was clear that the missionaries wanted the Waodani to live physically until such a time as they were living spiritually.
The Waodani people were told that they must quit spearing because God hated spearing. When the Waodani asked how the missionaries could know what God said, they were told that God had left carvings (the Bible) that told what he wanted.
No one was told that he had to confess with his mouth that Christ is Lord or believe in his heart that God raised him from the dead. And yet, there is also no doubt that several men and women were willing to lay down their lives to serve their enemies because God loved them. There is no doubt that the missionaries loved the Bible and translated it for the Waodani.
Seeing it as a Christian I could fill in any holes. I knew why the men gave their lives. But a nonChristian seeing it would see this—some men really believe the God of the Bible wants them to love others more than they love themselves.
I think that is enough to call to a nonChristian, to make him want to learn more, to make him hungry for that kind of love that would sacrifice so gladly. Or is will make him scoff. All depends on what God is working in his life.
87. carl
January 21, 2006
5:14 PM
Sorry Sally,
That is not the message of salvation that the Bible commands us to preach hence it is useless and does not profit any man.
John 14:6 says, Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
No Jesus? The the message is irrelevant.
88. Pastor Phillip M. Way
January 21, 2006
5:28 PM
WRONG ANSWER:
Quote: Jesus was not mentioned by name in the film.
Then where is the gospel????
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)
I have read several reviews of the film and they all have indicated that the gospel is not present and that Jesus is not mentioned by name.
Are the producers that ASHAMED of the gospel and of Christ??
This is at the heart of the matter for me - all the rest of the controversy aside, as I have even stated here in comments - it is about whether or not the GOSPEL is presented clearly and boldly.
Why is that important? Because that is precisely why the missionaries GAVE THEIR LIVES, and that is exactly why the TRIBE WAS CONVERTED. It is about theGOSPEL. To sell the gospel short means the movie is good for nothing but mindless entertainment.
It should not be called a Christian movie at all. It is empty. For it is the GOSPEL that is the power of God to salvation…….
~pastorway
89. carl
January 21, 2006
5:37 PM
Oh and puhleeeeez!
There are a lot of movies where people lay down their lives for others. That act alone does not make one Christian. Obi Wan Kenobi did it for Luke Skywalker. Guess that means Obi Wan is a Christian?
90. His alone
January 21, 2006
5:47 PM