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:
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/news_events/dgm_national/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
In the precious holy name of Jesus, my dear brethren, let us “rejoice always, pray without ceasing; in EVERYTHING give thanks; for this is God’s will for (us) in Christ Jesus.” 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18
“The tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell. For every species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human race. But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Nor can salt water produce fresh. Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. Jaes 3:5-13
‘Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.” Galatians 6:7-8
“’For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” Isaiah 55:8-9
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who set its measurements since you know.” Job 38:4-5
“O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thoughts from afar. You scrutinize my path and my lying down, and are intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, You know it all. You have enclosed me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it. Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, Even there Your hand will lead me, And Your right hand will lay hold of me. If I say, “Surely the darkness will overwhelm me, And the light around me will be night,” Even the darkness is not dark to You, And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to You. Psalm 139: 1-12
Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul! I will praise the Lord while I live; I will sing praises to my God while I have my being. Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish. How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, Whose hope is in the Lord his God, Who made heaven and earth, The sea and all that is in them; Who keeps faith forever; Who executes justice for the oppressed; Who gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets the prisoners free. The Lord opens the eyes of the blind; The Lord raises up those who are bowed down; The Lord loves the righteous; The Lord protects the strangers; He supports the fatherless and the widow, But He thwarts the way of the wicked. The Lord will reign forever… Psalm 146
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. 2 Peter 2:4-10
Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.” But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil. Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin. James 4: 13-17
Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures. This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. James 1: 16-27
Grace and peace.
91. sally apokedak
January 21, 2006
6:24 PM
Pastorway, if you would go to see the movie you may find that gospel is preached and that Christ is mentioned.
God’s son is mentioned.
His selfless sacrifice is mentioned.
His love is more than mentioned, it is modeled in the lives of the men and women and children who sacrificed so greatly for the sake of the Waodani.
This is a story. A fictitious account. Steve Saint wrote it and he has made no bones about that. It is a story not about his father and the other four but about the Waodoni and why they killed and what turned them from killing. The producers have not, as far as I know, ever claimed that it is the gospel. It’s a story. Written by a Christian, produced by a Christian. That’s all.
If you want a movie about the missionaries and one that preaches the gospel then make a movie about that. This movie wasn’t about that.
Did you see The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe? It was a decent movie that teaches something good instead of teaching revenge and ugliness. Aslan gave his life as a sacrifice for one who was unworthy—was that better than having a movie where some action star kicks butt? Well that’s what this movie, End of the Spear, is about. Sacrificial love. That’s all. Who says it has to mention Christ?
You know what is great, though, is that Christ is being mentioned. In newspapers across the country people are writing about the five missionaries and how they gave their lives in the service of Christ. That wouldn’t be happening if this movie was not in theaters.
Why would you hold your Christian brothers to such a standard? Why must they preach the gospel in every film they make? Do you also make Christian shoemakers print Bible verses on the soles of every shoe they make? It’s not like these Christian brothers have made a porno film or something. They made a big, beautiful film that glorifies God. I can’t believe you would hate it.
What if Jesus were here telling you the story of the unjust judge or the story of the prodigal son? Would you refuse to go and hear him anymore because neither of those stories contains the gospel? Yikes! Jesus has not required Mart Green to preach the gospel in every movie he makes. It simply is not commanded anywhere. What right do you have to demand such a thing?
92. carl
January 21, 2006
6:39 PM
Sally you continue to amaze.
So, god’s “son” is mentioned? What god and what is his son’s name? Must be a fake god and a fake son? Oh lets all hurry out and go get saved by these 2?
This movie is being promoted as a christan movie and as the account of what happened to the 5 actual missionaries using their names
You said Sally and I quote”This is a story. A fictitious account. Steve Saint wrote it and he has made no bones about that. It is a story not about his father and the other four “
You are not even being honest with yourself and that is sad.
It glorifies a god not THE GOD. SHame on steve saint for SELLING his testimony and not have the courage to NAME the JESUS he claims to believe in in hss movie
93. sally apokedak
January 21, 2006
6:56 PM
What have I said that is dishonest? This story is about the Waodani, not the missionaries. That has been stated clearly in many interviews I’ve heard. It is the story of the Waodani. Why they killed, and why they stopped killing, basically.
I did not mean to say that it had nothing to do with the missionaries, but at the heart of the thing, it is not their story. I keep hearing people complain as if it should be their story. But that’s like going to The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe and then complaining that it’s not The Lord of the Rings. Two different movies.
And End of the Spear is not Through Gates Splendor. Is that not allowed?
94. Lee
January 21, 2006
7:26 PM
Sally, the movie deals with both the missionaries and the Waodani pretty equally, both in terms of screen time and plot. If I had to choose which side got more attention in the film, I would say it was the missionaries.
95. sally apokedak
January 21, 2006
8:09 PM
Lee, the movie does not deal with the missionary story in the depth that it deals with the Waodani story. Nor was it intended to.
Mart Green, in Christianity Today says:
***
I ended up calling Steve Saint. I said, “I’d like to come talk to you.” And so June 14, 1999, two years to the date after I heard Steve speak, I’m in his home asking for rights to do the movie. And he says, “Well, if you’re going to tell it from their point of view, you need to ask the Waodani.”
***
I’ve also seen several interviews with Steve Saint who says the story is from the pov of the Waodani. It is the Waodani story not the missionary story.
I’m a writer—not great one, unfortunately, so you’ve never heard of anything I’ve written =0) But just because I don’t pull it off well, doesn’t mean I don’t know how it should be done. And one of the first things writers learn is that when you are telling a story from one person’s pov you are not allowed to use words that person doesn’t know. So if I am telling my story from a native Alaskan kid’s pov I would use some words and not others. I wouldn’t have my kid speaking like a college professor.
In this story the gospel is given in Waodani language. We hear that God’s son was speared and he would not spear back so that the ones spearing him could live a good life. We are told that the missionaries know what God wants because God has left carvings. We are told that the Wadani must leave their lives of spearing and follow God’s trail.
This is because the movie is written in the Waodani point of view. It is their story. It is how they saw the missionaries not how the missionaries saw themselves.
Steve Saint did not really keep it the Waodani POV completely, I’ll admit. But his intent is not unimportant when we judge this movie. We must judge it against what it was intended to do not against what Elizabeth Elliot intended when she wrote her story.
96. carl
January 21, 2006
8:27 PM
Sally you move the topic of discussion around so much a person can’t have an honest discussion with you.
Here is the issue in plain english
They claim this to be a Christian movie - it is not. IN order for it to be a Christian movie it would have to at least once NAME Jesus dont you think? you said it said it is about god and god’s son? What god? Odin? Zeus? and what son? Thor? Hecules?
Churches have been sent promotional material stating that this movie is an excellent evangelical tool. For what god? Zeus? Odin? Allah? A non-Christian going to this movie will NOT know.
Now wrap up all that non-existant information and say its a Christian movie. Now add to that the star whose life style is absolutely contradictory to Christian faith and say “this is a Christian movie”
So now the world is going to go to what is actively promoted as a”christian movie” and say wow! I don’t know what god these people worship or who his son is or why these people in the movie feel they should lay down their lives for this god and his son
but cool you can even be homosexual and be associated with being a “christian”. How all inclusive
tell me more.
To answer your question, No it is not allowed to call a movie like this “christian” movie. In fact it is quite offensive. It is not an evangelistic tool to the God of the bible. Its a feel good movie with no direct like to ANY faith.
Why no mention of Jesus’ name in this movie? To offensive? Was Steve ashamed to use it? Was the production company to ashamed to use it? They have no problem calling it a “christian movie” but they can’t bring themselves to say by whose name these waodoni people were saved.
Open you eyes Sally.
97. carl
January 21, 2006
8:38 PM
Matthew 10:33 says, But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Luke 9:26 says, For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels
The Bible is clear…
Acts 4:12 says, Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
Romans 10:9 says, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved
98. sally apokedak
January 21, 2006
8:46 PM
Oh, Carl, May God bless you richly. The God of the Bible, the Maker of Heaven and Earth, the Father of our precious Lord Jesus Christ who died that we might go boldly before the throne of mercy … may that God bless you richly. =0)
99. carl
January 21, 2006
8:51 PM
Sally,
Good to see you admit your error!
100. sally apokedak
January 21, 2006
9:07 PM
lol
well at least you have a sense of humor. That’s one thing going for you. =0)
101. Jeff
January 22, 2006
12:58 AM
I took my family to see the movie today. Outstanding, powerful, unforgettable. The gospel, Son, redemption and heaven all were presented powerfully – contrary to what some Christians reported who saw early screenings. Maybe it wasn’t packaged as a Baptist sermonette, but the good news of Jesus Christ was very, very clear. I am puzzled why so many Christians are ripping this film just because Chad Allen plays a role. Maybe God will use this film to get his attention. Who knows? Some Christians are so bent on winning the culture war that they’ve blinded themselves to Jesus’ original mission – redeem the lost. Messiah did not win the culture war during His earlthy ministry, so why should we? Jesus said simply, “Follow Me.” As believers we should be a reflection of His attributes – grace, meekness, lovingkindness, mercy. Not all this mudslinging and anger. Who would be drawn to that? Why are Christians today so easily offended? At the conclusion of the final scene, this movie had such an impact on the audience that you could’ve heard a pin drop. No one stirred or got up as the movie credits rolled. I thank the Lord I had an opportunity to see this movie. I won’t forget it.
102. Lee
January 22, 2006
3:45 AM
Jeff,
You may have been able to hear a pin drop because there were only 12 people in the theater. : ) See note on poor box office earnings below. By the way, do you work for Every Tribe? You said that the gospel was “presented powerfully”. Actually, the gospel doesn’t exist in this movie (I mean the gospel of Christ, that is).
Sally - It’s good to share thoughts with a fellow writer!
I must take issue with something you said. Since the movie makers control everything you hear and see from the 1st scene to the last, their good intentions - even if they really had them - mean nothing. The only thing that matters is the finished product.
The movie makers may have had an initial plan to tell the story from the Waodani pov… but that is certainly not how this movie was made as evidenced by the several scenes where just the missionaries are talking amongst themselves, inside their homes, with no Waodani for miles and miles. Some of these scenes take place long before 1st contact with the Waodani.
During these scenes, of which there are several, there would be no way to tell the story from the Waodani point of view - simply because the Waodani weren’t there.
If you and I and several on this board were all together in a room talking - with no Waodani is sight - I bet we would mention Jesus, Christ, Christianity, salvation, the Bible, Heaven, etc… and I bet we would mention it over and over again even in our most casual conversations. And, I’m sure those wonderful, dedicated missionaries did too - over and over again.
But not in this movie. The movie makers went out of their way to scrub all - ALL - such references. That was their true intention to do so. And I have to ask why.
I believe I know why. I believe they thought they would bring in larger audiences and more ticket sales by de-Christianizing the movie. I believe they compromised for gain - but it certainly has not worked:
In it’s opening night - Friday the 20th, “Spear” brought in 1.6 million dollars. “Hoodwinked”, a movie that is doing terribly in box office sales - in that same night beat them making 2.1 million, and it’s been out for 36 days.
103. Jeff
January 22, 2006
1:31 PM
The gospel doesn’t exist in this movie? What movie were you watching? : ) Granted, it was not in language you would hear at church (hmmm, maybe that’s a good thing). The Son was mentioned. The Bible (carvings) was mentioned. Forgiveness. Mercy. Creator. The narrow path (a new trail). I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie more accurately capture the heart of God than this one. I thought Sally, who commented above, said it well on her blog: Steve Saint was trained to love his enemies, just as he is now with a gay actor who portrayed his father. That expression of compassion has made Saint a target among Christians, who are spearing him verbally in their anger.
104. carl
January 22, 2006
2:55 PM
It is AMAZING to me how few people can read English these days.
Sure, Jeff there is a “gospel” in this movie, it just does not happen to the be GOSPEL of Jesus Christ.
Do you read the bible Jeff? Let me tell you what it says.
Acts 4:12 says, Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
Romans 10:9 says, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
What is the name of the son of god in this movie Jeff? Does the name if Jesus even get mentioned once? If not there is no Gospel message at all.
New trail does not mean the path of salvation. There is the dark side of the force and the light side too. Is the light side the path to God Jeff?
Heere is one written just for you Jeff and it pains me to say it…
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction
105. RosaMarie
January 22, 2006
5:46 PM
Thank you Lee, for sharing the movie profit info, or rather the lack of it. From the feedback of a number of people who actually viewed the film, it sounded like a terrible made movie, perhaps not even worthy to be called a ‘B’ movie. The television show Daniel is doing poorly too. Once the current crop of ‘Christian’ productions fail to bring in the big bucks Passion and Narnia did, we may see an ebb in such productions.
I’m hoping the best thing to come out of all of this is a growth in discernment among Believers and a ripping away of the notion that Hollywood can be a tool to bring people to Christ. I know many unbelieving actors have played religious roles but not many, if any, have turned to Christ in repentance because of it. Steve Saint and ET are sadly misguided.
106. Lee
January 22, 2006
7:38 PM
Jeff,
Don’t you care that the people on this board who see this movie will know you aren’t even being slightly honest about its content?
“Granted, it was not in language you would hear at church (hmmm, maybe that’s a good thing).”
Maybe that’s a good thing? Sounds like you have a problem with the language you’ve heard in church. That’s truly a shame. I love the language I hear in my church.
107. sally apokedak
January 22, 2006
8:34 PM
Lee, of course you are right on the POV issue. It was from Steve Saint’s pov most of all, I guess. He’s the narrator. He’s an adult and looking back.
But within that adult Steve pov we have a child Steve and we have the pov of the Waodani.
So in the parts with the missionaries we have this boy who is not interested in doctrine. He’s interested in telling us about the dad he loves. He’s telling us about how he feared for his father. This is fictionalized of course, since the real Steve was only four at the time. But I think he really nailed the kid’s pov. The kid in the story is worried about his dad not worried about preaching the gospel.
He could have had his father say to him, “Son, I won’t fight back and kill because Jesus Christ has made peace between me and God the Father and the Waodani have not yet accepted Christ as their personal savior and been born again so they are not ready to die and face the judgment of a wrathful God.” But then we would all have to report that the dialogue was ridiculous and the story was nothing more than a thinly disguised sermon.
OK. enough sarcasm. You are right that it would have been doable for them to put the name of Christ into the missionaries’ mouths in a very natural way. It wouldn’t have been easy to do it without being accused of preaching (they are already being attacked by the secular media for preaching—poor guys, getting it from all sides) but it would have been doable.
Why didn’t they inject the name of Christ into the story? I don’t know . But I don’t think I am forced to accept your theory on the subject. It may not be that he is compromising because he’s greedy.That accusation, if you have no proof, is dangerous for you to make. Jesus loves Steve Saint so much that he died for him. I think then that we should speak very softly if we think he’s in sin. We should approach him privately if we suspect that he’s greedy. We can’t see his heart. We don’t know why he left out Jesus’ name. If you think the action is wrong then say so, but you shouldn’t guess at his motives. That’s judging his heart and God has not given us that responsibility or privilege. Why not look for the best motive in a brother? Why not try to find ways to cover his offense to you? That is what Christ did for you. He covered your offense. And he saw your heart and really knew for sure what the offense was. You are just guessing about Steve Saint.
I can think of several reasons for not doing it that have nothing to do with being ashamed or greedy but I won’t waste everybody’s time by writing them. It would just be speculation on my part and I’m longwinded enough as it is.
Back to the POV issue. Even though the story wasn’t told in a strict Waodani pov the overarching desire of the writer was to tell the Waodani story from their angle. We didn’t hear the missionary women sitting around and discussing when they would go in and if they should take the baby and whatnot. There is a whole lot of the story we were not given. You are a writer so you know you have to focus, you have to have a slant, and you have to cut some good stuff to make room for the stuff you’ve decided to focus on.
This story focused on the Waodani. They were violent and murderers and along came these foreigners with guns who, instead of killing them, chose to die. And because of that, the killing stopped. Were they converted to Christianity? Most are not Christians. So says Jesse Saint on the End of the Spear site’s forum.
We may not like this story. We may have rather heard one from the missionary pov. But this story was about Waodani and why they stopped killing and that was because five men died rather than fight back. It wasn’t because they heard the name of Jesus and were all converted and lived happily ever after.
We can take this story and we can look at the types in it. We can find types of Christ. These men could go meet their enemies and walk in the jungle because God came down to walk in our jungle, and these men could die for their enemies because God the Son already died for his enemies. We can find types of sinners finding salvation. The Waodani were dying and along came some men who laid down their lives to save them. These men sought the Waodani just as Christ seeks the lost sheep. And the Waodani were called upon to decide to leave their bankrupt way of life and to accept the blood sacrifice the men made for them and to follow the pattern given by the men who died from them. In the same way we are called to accept the blood of Christ and to leave our old selfish life and to follow after Christ.
It is a rich story full of God, full of pictures of Christ, full of redemption. Not ever story has to name Christ to be a redemptive story. You know this if you’re a writer, Lee. When we write fiction we often put the message in pictures. Jesus Christ himself did this. He told stories and the characters were often pictures of something bigger.
One problem that Steve Saint has here, that I’m sure he didn’t foresee, is that he took a story that American Christians feel they own, and he fictionalized it (and also filled in the holes and told the rest of the story) and told it from an different perspective. It’s like writing a sequel to Gone With the Wind. A lot of people hate it when you mess with the stories they love. A lot of people wanted Through Gates of Splendor and they’re not happy with End of the Spear. And then, on top of that we have a gay actor. And now it’s all over. We just hate this movie.
We’re wrong to, though. It’s a beautiful story.
108. sally apokedak
January 22, 2006
9:19 PM
wow, forget my long rambling (I need an editor) and go read the third comment on this site. It’s posted by someone named Molly and I think she said some good things.
109. Lee
January 22, 2006
9:22 PM
Hi Sally,
What a kind person you are! What a pleasure!
I wasn’t guessing that Steve Saint would compromise this story out of greed. I’m guessing that Every Tribe Entertainment compromised this story out of greed. If this movie’s production process followed the pattern of most other movies, I don’t think Steve had much impact on the final result. At some point in the process, the source writer (in this case Steve Saint - the source writer of the book) gets lost and the producers, screenwriters, directors and investors take over the production.
If you are saying that the movie is accurate because the actual Waodani didn’t get converted - that they just stopped killing because of an example… then Mincayani doesn’t agree with you. He, of course, is one of the Waodani murderers who took place in the slayings 50 years ago and he is currently touring the States with Steve Saint telling his side of the story. He says that the reason the killings stopped is because of a wide-spread conversion to Christianity. The movie makers dropped the ball on this fundamental point.
Certainly there are pictures and types of Christ and redemption in the movie, but many see pictures and types of Christ and redemption in movies like King Kong and Phantom of the Opera. A Google search on this makes for good reading.
The problem with the movie is that if you don’t already know the story (and way too many don’t today), you’ll come out of the movie theater not knowing that this amazing story was Christ’s doing. What an opportunity this was… but sadly it’s now a lost opportunity.
I think it is quite easy to write lines that inject Christianity into story without sound preachy. And, it would have been especially easy in this case since doing so would have simply been an accurate retelling of history.
I actually don’t hate the movie - I saw it already knowing the story, so I walked away quite struck by those missionaries and what they did. I do, however, hate the compromise and blatant de-Christianizing of the film. That’s why I’m so glad I didn’t pay for my ticket.
Again, Sally… what a pleasure!
110. Lee
January 22, 2006
9:32 PM
Sally,
You don’t need an editor, you need to write more!! Your writing is way too enjoyable to be edited.
111. sally apokedak
January 22, 2006
11:02 PM
Another one with a sense of humor. I’m in desperate need of an editor and we all know it.
But, hey, it’s never stopped me before so allow me to launch into another one. (is there a limit to how many posts one can make on this blog?) =0)
First, sorry for saying you were accusing Steve Saint of being greedy. I do think you’re wrong to guess that the producers of screen writers or whoever made the decision (and I suspect, as you point out, that it was a joint decision) are greedy when you don’t know their hearts. But I’m sorry for wrongly accusing you of directing your comments toward Mr. Saint.
Did you read Molly’s post I linked to? I am no fan of the emergent church but I do think she has a point with the Schaeffer-engaging-the-culture-through-the-arts angle.
About the widespread conversion to Christianity, I have no idea what the truth is. I’m simply repeating something Jesse Saint said on the forum at the End of the Spear site. I’ve posted there and asked him to clarify.
Mincaye is quoted in my paper as saying his heart was dark until he learned of Christ. He says, “Waengongi used his Son’s blood like soap. He cleaned it and I saw a new trail. Then I saw it’s enough.” So for Minkaye the killing did stop because of Christ.
And if the others stopped because he and kimo stopped then it is still attributable back to Christ. But I’m pretty sure there wasn’t widespread conversion.
Regardless, my point was kind of worthless. You are free to ignore it. =0)
112. Lee
January 23, 2006
11:27 AM
How did the movie do at the box office?
($ in millions)
End of the Spear’s Opening weekend tally: $4.7 (has been out for 3 days). Advertising budget alone was $12 million.
In comparison - same weekend:
Underworld Evolution: $27.6 (3 days)
Hoodwinked: $11 (38 days)
Glory Road: $9.1 (10 days)
Last Holiday: $9.1 (10 days)
Brokeback Mountain: $7.8 (45 days)
Fun with Dick & Jane: $6.1 (33 days)
Narnia: $6 (45 days)
New World: $4.2 (29 days)
King Kong: $4.1 (40 days)
Tristan & Isolde: $3.3 (10 days)
Walk the Line: $3.1 (66 days)
Munich: $3.1 (31 days)
Match Point: $3 (36 days)
Memoirs of a Geisha: $2.8 (45 days)
113. sally apokedaks
January 23, 2006
12:56 PM
Lee,
I don’t want to copy his post because I don’t know that it’s allowed, but if you go to http://www.endofthespear.com/ and click on enter the tribe, and then go to the thread called “What about Jesus?” and go to page seven and read the third comment there, then you will see what Jesse Saint said about the percentage of Christians.
In part, he said:
“One very big misconception of this story is that one of the reasons that the homicide rate in the tribe dropped by 90% following Rachel, Elizabeth and Dayumae going to Tiwaeno was because most of the tribe accepted Christ. Even now, probably under 10% of the Waodani are Christians. ”
He also said, “While I agree that the initial group mainly decided not to kill anymore, even if it meant death, was due to the gospel, this was not a tribe-wide thing.”
However, the point I was making about this is still a lousy one. The five men died because of Christ and that is what changed the situation for the Waodani. And the film could have made it clear the men died for the sake of Christ.
But it doesn’t have to. It is not sinful for the men to make a film that doesn’t mention Christ. And it’s not sinful for them to make a film with actors who are not Christians. I think it’s wrong for Christians to call for an apology and try to turn others away from seeing it and to assign evil motives tot he actions of Christian brothers.
114. Carl
January 23, 2006
1:18 PM
Give me a BREAK Sally !
They are promoting this in the media as a Christian Movie. It is clearly not.
They are doing it to drum up support from the Christian community so that they CAN MAKE MONEY.
That is exploitation. It might also be called bait-and-switch advertising.
This is not a Christian movie so they are lying. Last time I checked false witness was SINFUL.
If the shoe fits…..
115. Lee
January 23, 2006
2:15 PM
Sally,
Sounds like Jesse Saint is trying to tell us that we really shouldn’t expect much “Jesus” in the movie; because Jesus really didn’t have that much of an impact in what happened 50 years ago. Here’s what I mean:
We start with an amazing true story of Christ’s love and power using missionaries to reach out and make a dramatic impact for the kingdom.
Then, ETE makes a movie, but they de-Christianize the story.
They cast a known and very outspoken homosexual in the leading role(s) giving him a nice, solid platform on which to spread the homosexual agenda. (Sure, we love Chad Allen and should reach out to homosexuals with the love of Christ, but giving them a platform in which to spread the homosexual agenda is not the definition of “the love of Christ”.)
But then, ETE markets the film to Christians in hopes that they will boost ticket sales (this point is undisputed - I will quote the letter I got from ETE if you’d like).
But then, Christians everywhere go up in arms because they feel they’ve been slapped in the face. (I.e. Why the homosexual? Why de-Christianize the story?) There are boycotts, and Christian blogs flare up everywhere. The media catches wind of a controversy, so they jump in. It’s “the perfect storm” that movie makers dread more than anything else.
ETE ends up with a publicity nightmare on their hands. So, very much like a politician who is trailing in the polls, ETE and their supporters start saying anything to survive. Then, on ETE’s website, Jesse Saint says… (and I paraphrase) sure there were some conversions, but there weren’t THAT many. In other words, it’s as if he’s saying, “People have the wrong idea that Christ really did something amazing down there so they want to see more of Christ in the film. In reality, Christ really didn’t do that much - that’s why ETE didn’t dwell on Christ in the movie.” Unbelievable.
Here’s what’s really happened here: ETE compromised the story for gain, and they tried to pull the wool over the eyes of Christians everywhere by marketing it to them in hopes that everyone else would jump on board (Passion marketing strategy). Now, it’s all backfiring on them - as happens whenever anyone compromises, and they are going to lose their shirts on this movie, as evidenced by dismal earnings in the opening weekend.
Hopefully, a movie company who follows Christian principals will someday make a movie of this same story. I would love to see how God blesses that effort - then we would all be able to compare the results of compromise vs. no compromise.
116. rusty
January 23, 2006
3:55 PM
I was listening to Medved on the radio. The issue of Chad Allen came up as Medved was interviewing Steve Saint and an ETE person. Neither knew at the beginning that Allen was homosexual. I don’t how far into the production it was brought to light. It sounded like it was later, that a certain amount of time and effort had been invested.
Evidently, from what was said on Medved, Saint could have canned the Chadster, but opted to let it be. I wonder, if Allen could have sued, ie. discrimination??
Was it a case of ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’? Of course that would be impersonal(or unconditional) love.
Has Chad Allen ever believed in Christ? That is the issue. Sin is sin. Homosexuality is a sin along with many others. Notwithstanding, the extent to which homosexuality is accepted and catered to, reflects the declination of our great nation; following the leads of ancient Greece and Rome, not to mention Sodom and Gomorrah.
To the unbeliever, we give the Gospel, emphasizing by grace alone, through faith alone. in Christ alone.
If Chad were claiming to be a believer, then fire him for sure as in I Cor. 5:5; “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” And Chad could sue.
117. sally apokedaks
January 23, 2006
5:04 PM
Jesse, in the same post I quoted from also said, “The purpose of this movie was not to preach the gospel. It was to tell a true story of changed lives and to provoke people to ask the question, “What really caused the change.” That is your opportunity to tell them what did cause the change in Kimo, Dawa, Mincaye, Gikita, Dyuwi, etc,”
I hate even quoting him because so many seem bound and determined to put an evil construct on everything anyone related to the film says.
Lee, here’s the deal. I didn’t invite any of my neighbors to see the film, I don’t care if they see it or not. But if they do see it, it is likely that they will either hate it because bigot missionaries went down and messed with the poor, noble natives, or they will wonder what on earth possessed those men to die like that and what made the tribe change? Either way it is a conversation started.
Instead of that many Christians seem determined to use the film as a jumping off place to insult those Christ loves dearly and shed his blood for. I don’t know how many connected with this film or ETE are Christians but surely Mart Green and Steve Saint and Mincaye claim to be and I don’t have any reason to doubt them. But so many are insulting them—accusing them of traveling around like a circus sideshow, and being greedy. When you accuse ETE do you not know that you are slamming the Christian men who are in that company? I am amazed. Amazed and saddened. And I didn’t even die for them. How must Christ feel to see this ugly, ugly display?
If people feel cheated by ETE why not write to them and tell them that? Why post all over the Internet about it? Do you think it is dangerous for Christians to see the film? Why the big stink?
You say:
***
ETE compromised the story for gain, and they tried to pull the wool over the eyes of Christians everywhere by marketing it to them in hopes that everyone else would jump on board (Passion marketing strategy). Now, it’s all backfiring on them - as happens whenever anyone compromises, and they are going to lose their shirts on this movie, as evidenced by dismal earnings in the opening weekend.
***
That is a huge accusation. You don’t know why they left the name of Christ out and the story was not compromised. The story was told the way they wanted to tell it. And it’s quite possible that they didn’t try to pull the wool over Christians eyes, It quite possible that they simply underestimated the thought processes of fundamentalists. I know I have. It’s been eye-opening, man.
But what if they had done all the evil they are being accused of? Do you go to court against your brother in front of the world? Wouldn’t you rather be wronged then have the world judge this matter? What if they are preaching Christ out of greed? Christ is still being preached. (and he is, in major papers across the country and in who knows how many private conversations between people who have seen the film)
And as for your prophetic announcement, I pray you are mistaken.
I heard Mart Green say if he made thirty million he could make more films. I think thirty million is very possible and I will pray that the makes the mark because I want more films like this one.
It was a beautiful film that glorified God.
118. Lee
January 23, 2006
7:48 PM
Sally said:
“But so many are insulting them—accusing them of traveling around like a circus sideshow, and being greedy. When you accuse ETE do you not know that you are slamming the Christian men who are in that company?”
Sally, I have not accused Mr. Saint, Mr. Green, or Mincayani of anything… so we’re OK there. My daughter saw them in person and was moved - she didn’t think it was anything like a circus sideshow - and she’s savvy about this kind of thing. My comments with regards to ETE are not “slamming” Christians who may work there, for obviously any Christians who work there either didn’t have the authority or the opportunity to have any impact on policy with regards to EOTS, or else we would have seen a different movie. So we’re OK there.
“If people feel cheated by ETE why not write to them and tell them that? Why post all over the Internet about it? Do you think it is dangerous for Christians to see the film? Why the big stink?”
Well, I did write to them and tell them about my concerns - just after seeing the screening. The reply I got was nice, but I disagreed with their reasoning (see prior posts). Why post all over the Internet about it? Well, I’m not. I’m just posting my opinions on Tim’s blog, just like you are. And no, I don’t think it’s dangerous for Christians to see the film. Some may hold that view, I don’t. I think it’s sad that most non-Christians who see the film won’t know that the amazing things that took place 50 years ago came from Christ (regardless of what Jesse Saint says). So, I think we’re OK there.
“You don’t know why they left the name of Christ out and the story was not compromised.”
Well, ETE told me personally why they left Christian references out of the movie - so I think I do know. But, even though I know what they say their reasoning was, I believe it was poor reasoning (in my humble opinion). So, we’re OK there.
“It quite possible that they simply underestimated the thought processes of fundamentalists. I know I have. It’s been eye-opening, man.”
You are assuming I am a fundamentalist, and you are assuming I am a man. Well, so am I. So, we’re OK there. (Trying to keep it light here - smile.)
“But what if they had done all the evil they are being accused of? Do you go to court against your brother in front of the world? Wouldn’t you rather be wronged then have the world judge this matter?” What if they are preaching Christ out of greed? Christ is still being preached.”
There’s a lot there, so here goes: If they did all the evil they are being accused of, I still wouldn’t go to court about it, because I haven’t been wronged, and they aren’t my brother, and they (movie) aren’t preaching Christ at all anyway - which is my point, so we’re OK there.
It was a beautiful film, I agree. As to whether it glorified God? Which God? For Christians, I think it did glorify the God of the Bible (except for the whole homosexual glitch - by the way, I’ve read that ETE knew in advance and pushed ahead anyway). Unfortunately, since the movie doesn’t identify the source of all the good stuff that happens, it also glorified a lot of other gods (small g) based on what belief system theater-goers espouse when they walk into the theater. Because of this, it appeals to the masses. I don’t think that was by accident.
(By the way, Sally - when I said that nice stuff about you in an earlier post, I was being serious. It is a pleasure reading your work.)
119. sally apokedaks
January 24, 2006
2:54 AM
Lee, you don’t think that Mr. Green and Mr. Hanon had any power over the story? They are Christians, they had power over the story, they produced/wrote the story they wanted, no one held a gun to their heads. When you accuse ETE of compromising for gain, you are accusing Green and Hanon of compromising for gain.
They told you why they left the Christian references out? They told you they left it out because they wanted to compromise for gain? Because that’s what you passed on to us. Is that the reason they gave you or did you disbelieve what they said and give us your version of what their motives were? I’m not OK with that, Lee.
You ask which God was glorified. There is only one God, Lee,
He says, the heavens declare the glory of God. Day after day they pour forth speech, night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.
How do these heavens declare his glory? The don’t preach the gospel. They don’t name the name of Christ. In fact, their proclamation is not sufficient to teach anyone to be saved. And yet, God says they declare his glory.
It is possible to glorify God, to display knowledge that glorifies God, without preaching the gospel.
End of the Spear did glorify God and if you can’t see that then I’m sorry about that. The blood sacrifice, the love, the forgiveness, the repentance, all of these things when seen in man, pour forth speech. the gospel was preached in the blood of the martyrs and in the forgiveness of the families. If that’s not a picture of the gospel then nothing is.
As for the pleasure part, I can’t say as I’ve found our discussion all that pleasurable—I really feel for the Christians at ETE and for the Saint family—but I thank you for speaking kindly with me and for your attempts at keeping things light. I probably won’t post on this anymore because I have a lot of work to do and all this blog-trotting is too time consuming. I will come back to read any reply you make to me, though.
OH btw, I didn’t mean that you were necessarily doing all those things—posting all over the internet, for instance—some of that was just directed at fundies in general.
LOL
Sorry, Just had to get one last chuckle in.
120. Carl
January 24, 2006
10:22 AM
By fundies, is it correct to say that Sally refers to the people who actually go to the Bible for answers on issues?
Correct me if I am wrong but I have not seen Sally use one verse of scripture to defend her position.
121. Lee
January 24, 2006
11:59 AM
Hi Sally,
I’m with you - for everyone else’s benefit, I’ll stop too. (Is that cheering I hear?)
When I hear what I’ve written as interpreted by your posts, I don’t like it - so it sounds like I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to communicate my position to you. I’m sorry that our exchanges have not been pleasurable for you… they have been for me. That just proves that you are the more delightful person. (The cheering builds.)
By the way, you have written a very good article on your blog “Those Whacky Christian Wars”. However, for everyone’s benefit, I won’t add my comments to your thread.
(A standing ovation!)
122. rusty
January 24, 2006
1:46 PM
Back to the actor. As correctly indicated, the Chadster grew up Roman Catholic, then went to Buddhism, Hindu and Native Indian. Seems like Allen has been involved in Paganism all his life. By all indications, an unbeliever, in desperate need of the gospel.
And he is an actor. They needed an actor, they got one. No denying, that the trend of his sin nature is particularly malignant, even metastastic in our culture. And in hind-sight, they might have found another actor. However, just as God worked it out where the death of the five was for good (many Waodani came to the point of faith in Christ for their salvaton); likewise, God can work the choice of this actor for good.
Certainly, during the filming process, including flying around in his plane, Steve Saint witnessed to Chad.
You are absolutely right: from Jn.14:6 Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man (or woman) cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
As for Allen ‘repenting’, THE BOY NEEDS TO BELIEVE. Chad has to change his attitude towards Christ; just as we all did. Sin is sin. All sins were imputed to Christ on the Cross and judged.
123. Carl
January 24, 2006
2:43 PM
Rusty,
Sorry but Scripture does not support your views. Belief alone saves NO ONE!
James 2:19 says Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. Even SATAN believes but will that save him? Nope
A person must ask Jesus for forgiveness and REPENT. Do you HONESTLY think that we can pay lip service to believing in Jesus but just keep on willfully sining or otherwise ignoring the parts of God’s word that are too uncormfortable to us?
That viewpoint is just not scripurally supported.
Chad has his own “gospel” as do many others. The feel good “gospel” puts ANYONE who believes it in hell.
124. rusty
January 24, 2006
3:16 PM
Carl,
Jn. 14:6 says it. There is only one way.
I saw the movie, it was pretty dern good. It’s easy to Monday morning quarterback about anything.
The Gospel message was there in a way the Waodani could relate to.
As Nate told little Steve in the movie, “Son, we can’t shoot the Aucas. They aren’t ready for heaven. We are.”
Such is the case I reckon (not to be too judgemental) with most homosexuals. ‘They aren’t ready for heaven’.
Yes I said MOST. Because any sin an unbeliever can do, a believer out of fellowship (with God) can likewise do.
Some of the nicest people in the world are Christains (having trusted in Christ and His saving work on the cross alone for their salvation); but at the same time, some of the worst people in the world are likewise Christains. I’m sure we all know unbelievers we’d rather hang around with, than some obnoxious believers.
Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Not by a change in attitude or cessation of a certain sin. Let’s not put the cart before the horse. The Christain way of life AFTER salvation is a whole ‘nother story.
Of course, this is NOT a license to sin. Carnal (out of fellowsihip) believers will get spanked. God knows all the facts, no one is getting away with anything.
From a human standpoint, certain sins are more shocking than others. (The old sin nature manifests differently in different people.) So people say, uh oh, “You can’t be a believer and do such and such”.
Again, God will take care of His own; they will be spanked.
125. rusty
January 24, 2006
3:32 PM
Having lived in Quito as a kid, I have been familiar with the ‘Auca’ story for a long time. Then, twenty years ago, I read Elisabeth Elliot’s, Through Gates of Splender. Since then, I’ve often wondered why a movie had never been made about this incredible story.
I remember years ago thinking that Tom Cruise would have made a good Jim Elliot. (They have a similar look. Of course in our present climate, could you imagine the controversy of that).
I’ve seen the movie and liked it a lot. I can’t wait to get the DVD. But it was great on the big screen.
Even though, the movie delt mostly with the Auca/Waodani, along with little Steve; and apart from Nate, not much at all on the other four missionaries (Jim, Ed, Roger and Pete), I think the way that the five were portrayed was effective.
There was none of the Bible thumping, or other stereotypical portrayals that we usually get out of Hollywood. Not at all. They were fun loving, yet smart; clowning around, yet serious. Reminds me of Top Gun with Maverick, Ice and Moose, etc..
Go see the End of the Spear for yourself.
126. Carl
January 24, 2006
4:09 PM
“Not by a change in attitude or cessation of a certain sin. Let’s not put the cart before the horse” - Rusty
Rusty, you err…
Matthew 9:13, “for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins
2 Corinthians 7 :10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation
I could go one quite a while but the issue is clear, You MUST repent, YOU must turn away . End of story.
This movie does not name the name of Jesus ONE SINGLE TIME. As such, there is no gospel and this is not the “christian movie” it is marketed as.
False advertising and most definately an attempt to exploit the christian market for $$$
Not a good thing to do in God’s eyes either.
127. Jeff
January 25, 2006
2:34 AM
I took two unsaved friends to see the movie today. Afterward, we had lunch together and I informed them that Christians are divided over the merit of this film. I told them believers are criticizing it because the gospel is allegedly absent. One of them looked at me funny and said, “Really? Do they think people are that stupid?”
128. carl
January 25, 2006
7:48 AM
Jeff,
Your friends are absolutely right. Anyone who would make a movie and call it christian without having the name of Jesus or any other part of the gospel in it ARE stupid!
129. rusty
January 25, 2006
11:15 AM
As Mrs. Gump told Forrest, “Stupid is what stupid does”.
Carl, the way I read what Jeff wrote, is that Christains who can’t see the gospel in the movie are stupid.
Get over it Carl, it was a dern good movie, definitely worth watching.
I’m hoping the many in Chad Allen’s current ‘community’ (alternative deathstyle), will watch the movie, if for no other reason than to support their ‘brother’; their hearts may soften. And then through the prayers of believers, along with the ministry of God the Holy Spirit (that is in making the gospel understandable to spiritually dead individuals), and most probably even another exposure to the gospel (I had multiple exposures),
some may come to the point of faith in Christ and His finished work on the cross for their salvation. There is no other salvation.
By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
130. Carl
January 25, 2006
11:51 AM
You still err Rusty… read you Bible instead of basing everything on your feelings.
Big difference
131. rusty
January 26, 2006
6:39 PM
Carl,
Feelings are inconsequential. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone (believing), in Christ alone.
The plethora of scripture attests to this: Jn.1:12, 3:16,18,36,6:35,40,47,11:25,26,20:31 Acts 16:31,Rm.1:16,3:22-28,4:5,5:1,9:30,10:4,9-11,Gal.2:16,3:26,Eph.2:8&9,I Thes.4:14,I Tim.1:16,I Pt.1:5,I Jn.5:10-13. Just to name a few.
Add a single drop of urine in a gallon of pure H2O, and the gallon is tainted. So it is with saving faith. Adding any work (lifestyle, avoidance of such and such sin, following the Ten Commandments, church membership, rituals, even Baptism) as a prerequisite or concomitant necessity to faith, likewise taints, and therefore negates the efficacy of that faith.
As in Eph.2:8&9 Paul writing to believers, “For by grace you have been saved (past tense), through faith (in Christ); and that (salvation) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of work, lest any man should boast”.
Grace and works are mutually exclusive; they cancel each other out. A gift is free. If you have to work even a little for it, then it’s not grace.
Christ did it all on the cross. The work is finished.
Unregenerate mankind in the status of total depravity, total hopelessness, total helplessness, is utterly incapable of adding or contributing in anyway whatsoever to that which Christ accomplished on the cross. All any of us could do is trust in, have faith in, believe in Christ and His finished work on the cross.
Carl, you seemed to stuck on the word ‘repent’. From the Greek metanoeo, which implies a change of mind, as in Mk.1:15 “repent and believe in the gospel”, implying a change of mind towards Christ, which immediately precedes belief (if not concurrently with it). Certainly it is desirable and preferred to turn away from sins, but to do so is not a prerequisite to salvation, or of maintaining salvation. As I Jn.1:8&10 clearly state, addressing believers, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us”. And in I Cor.3:1-3, Paul addressing believers (brethren) says, “And I brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual (in fellowship with Christ, ie.Rev.3:20, filled with the Spirit), but as unto carnal (out of fellowship), even as unto babes in Christ (carnal believers). I have fed you with milk, and not with meat; for hitherto, you were not able to bear it, neither yet now are you able. For you are yet carnal; ….are you not carnal, and walk as men?” Though ‘brethren’, they walk is as if they were unbelievers, with no witness for the gospel.
This helps to explain that most troublesome passage, Js.2:20 “But wilt you know, you vain man, that faith without works is dead?” Certainly a cult favorite, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Roman Catholics desperately embrace it, as do legalistic Christians. Such faith (without works), as James is describing it, will lead to stagnation (babes in Christ) versus maturing, and will fail to be a witness to a lost and dying world of unbelievers. Making an application out of this, for all any of us really knows, anyone (even Chad at this very moment) could be a carnal (out of fellowship) believer. But we needn’t worry about them; as discussed below, God knows all the facts, He always has; God is never surprised, no one is going to get away with anything. God is fair.
Back to I Cor., in 5:1-5 again, Paul is addressing ‘brethren’, in vs. 5 “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” Christians can die the sin “unto death”, but they cannot loose their salvation. We can’t do anything to gain salvation; Christ did it all, that’s grace, nor can we do anything loose it, that’s grace. Jn.3:16 “ For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever … in Him shall never perish, but have eternal life.” That’s grace. Amazing, isn’t it? So many sing that song worldwide, and are clueless to its overall ramifications. I’ve always liked the song Blessed Assurance, meaning confident expectation, not ‘I hope so.’
The solution to carnality for believers is I Jn.1:9, “ If we confess our sins (known sins of cognizance), He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (the ones we confessed), and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (all those unknown sin of ignorance, or otherwise forgotten).” And the believer is restored to fellowship. One clarification, the word ‘confess’ is from the Greek homologeo, which means to declare, to name, to cite, to admit, as in court. We privately admit, cite, name sins that were judged on the cross, and we are restored to fellowship. This is not a Roman Catholic type ‘confession’, with associated remorse and promising never to do it again; homologeo doesn’t mean that. How you feel in not the issue, we simply name, cite, acknowledge sins that have already been judged. The ‘if’ of I Jn.1:9 is eon in the Greek, that is a third class conditional ‘if’, meaning, maybe we will, maybe we won’t. Which means individual volition is involved, that is no coercion. Just as in believing in Christ; no one can be forced to believe. Of course, believers out of fellowship, will be punished; as Gal.6:7 tells us, “Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” And Heb.12:6 tells us, “For whom the Lord loveth, He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.” This is the “knocking at the door” of Rev.3:20; we “open the door” by using I Jn.1:9. Rev.3:20, “Behold I stand at the door, …etc”, is not salvation, invitation passage; it is a believer out of fellowship (in carnality) passage.
Getting back to Chad Allen and the movie.There are absolutes in this world. Homosexuality is a sin, and is absolutely wrong, just as bestiality (sexual relations between humans and animals) is absolutely wrong, and likewise necrophilia (erotic interest in or stimulation by corpses) is absolutely wrong. And no one is born homosexual, or enamored sexually with animal and/or dead bodies. Such perversions are a choice. And God detest and has judged those sins, even as He detests and has judged all other more ‘respectable’ sins.
To conclude, grace and works are antithetical. They are opposites, like black and white. One of our problems in America these days is too much gray matter, no absolutes. Absolutes might hurt someone’s feelings. But there are absolutes. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.
Salvation comes first, concurrently, regeneration, and then, we begin post salvation rehabilitation, through the consistent intake of Bible Doctrine.
After salvation, the Christian way of life is growing in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, to the mature believer, “a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”. II Tim.2:16
132. Carol
January 26, 2006
11:18 PM
Carl - you have your shorts on to tight. Take a deep breath and enjoy your salvation and quit worrying if everyone gets this “Christian” film. People are not stupid. I’m going to see this film. I am hoping to engage a non-believing Christian in conversation and share the love of Jesus using this wonderful movie as a tool - because we know these missionaries and their families are Christians and we are going to share what we know with them. I don’t care if Chad Allen, a gay man, is playing a Christian character. I hope he does a great job. I will pray for Chad to find Christ as his Savior and repent of his sin. I want us to repent of our sin of pride or whatever we are dealing with on a daily basis. We need to quit arguing about silly things and use what God has given us, this movie, (an opportunity to show what God can do with the lives of a violent group of Indians) to advance the cause of Christ and to love our neighbors.
133. Carl
January 27, 2006
10:50 AM
I do not see how pointing out God’s Word is “arguing about silly things”
But maybe that is the problem. People seem to think that God’s Word is silly?
134. rusty
January 27, 2006
11:53 AM
Carol, and Carl, and Carol,
Carol,
I think (or hope) that you misspoke (mis-wrote) your sentence above, “I am hoping to engage a ‘non-believing Christians’…” That is an oxymoron.
Carl,
I agree with you. There is nothing ‘silly’ about God’s Word.
Quite the contrary, there is nothing as important.
As Heb.4:12 tells us, “The Word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, and of the joints and the marrow, and is a critic of thoughts and intents of the heart”. Also 2Tim.3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in rightsousness; that the man of God might be mature, thoroughly furnished unto all good works”.
But Carol does make a good point, the movie can be used ‘as a tool’, a conversation starter, an opportunity to share details of the gospel that were not brought brought out in the film. All believers, as royal ambassadors for Christ, have the responsibility (privilege) of sharing the gospel to a lost and dying world.
In that light, The End of the Spear may play a role.
I enjoyed the movie, and can’t wait to buy the DVD.
135. Daniel Robbins
January 31, 2006
12:18 AM
Carl: You said: “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!”
I rebuke you! On what authority do you call rejoicing at the preaching of the Gospel regardless of form? Last time I checked, “End of the Spear” was not preaching a works salvation (which is what Paul was addressing when he wrote the anathema you quoted from Galatians). Ever read Proverbs? It says, “A prudent man covereth shame.” So what’s with all this “digging up dirt” on Chad Allen. He’s a Sodomite, and I pray he would be saved from that sin! Let me guess, you’re not going to see the movie, right? Me neither! Don’t see it and get on with being perfect. (By the way, in case you think this is a foreign concept, may I remind you that God is the one who told us, repeatedly, to be perfect? More on this in a later post.)
In Phillipians 1, Paul said he rejoiced at the preaching of the Gospel - even if it was insincerely done by people who were only trying to add to his afflictions. You tell me, is that “rejoicing at the preaching of the gospel in any form?” Whatever it is, it is a good example, and by God’s grace I will follow it. God spoke through Balaam’s ass, he spoke through the high priest who unwittingly prophesied Christ’s death for the sins of the whole world (see John 7), and he may very well use “End of the Spear” to bring people to faith in Jesus Christ.
The movie, as far as I know tells the story of those who gave their lives for the people they came to share the gospel with. It is a beautiful picture of what Jesus Christ did for us in giving his life. Knowing what I know, I will not watch the movie, but I still rejoice that the story is being told - even if not not the way I would tell it. God’s ways are not our ways. See Psalm 103.
I realize you may not have meant to, but you really made me angry with your reply. Can I recommend a consideration of Proverbs 15:1. I found both what you said and how you said it extremely annoying and inflammatory - and I did not appreciate it in the slightest.
Love, in Christ,
Daniel
136. Daniel Robbins
January 31, 2006
12:32 AM
BHE: You wrote: “Rats, when he said he disagreed….I was hoping that Carl would disagree with:
“What will bring revival is perfection.”
Yikes!”
I used to think nobody was perfect, and that we really did not have to be. Then I started to realize that that was not what the Bible said. I recommend reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and seeing if you can find “We’re not perfect, we never will be, and we do not have to be.” If you can, please let me know. Now, just by way of anticipation, I realize that “Romans 7” might come to mind (where Paul laments his own wretchedness). If it does, and I completely agree it should not be taken for granted, I offer that Romans 7 is followed by Romans 8. It starts like this, “There is therefore NOW…” (not “when we get to heaven” - “NOW”) “…no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
Romans 7 is no excuse for imperfection. Excuses are the last thing we need. We need repentance. And if we are to have that, we need revelation. I pray that God would grant it, in Jesus’ name, amen! You know, I really think our attitude of “We’re not perfect, and we do not have to be” is the attitude of the Laodiceans in Revelation 3. Jesus says to them, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Be zealous therefore and repent.” Got ears to hear?
Love,
Daniel
137. Daniel Robbins
January 31, 2006
12:51 AM
I wrote: “On what authority do you call rejoicing at the preaching of the Gospel regardless of form?”
I meant to write, “On what authority do you call rejoicing at the preaching of the Gospel regardless of form, a damnable sin?”
I trust and pray that God will have mercy on us all, and use what I wrote to you, Carl, to build you up and edify the body of Christ. I hope it was not too harsh, seeing I quote Proverbs 15:1 to you. Charity is not easily provoked, says 1 Cor 13, and neither do I want to be.
As a matter of fact, I want to - if I can by God’s grace - provide a “release pressure valve” on this issue. Some believers are seeing this movie and using it to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ (not a “salvation by works” Gospel, which I would by no means rejoice at), and therefore I rejoice. Others, like Carl and me, will - God willing - not see or use the movie - because we know the character of one of the actors. We do not have to see or use the movie. It would, in my opinion, be a sin for us to do so, seeing we would not be doing it out of faith.
I do not judge those who watch or use the movie, and I trust they will not judge those of us to stay away from it. Whether we see it and use it or not, it should all be to the glory of God.
Amen?
Love, in Christ,
Daniel
138. Soundman
January 31, 2006
7:12 AM
I’m confused…
You aren’t going to see the movie but you support the movie????
Anyway… here’s the thing. It’s true that sin is sin so homsexuality is theoretically no worse than fornication or lying, etc. The Bible does refer to it as an abomination, so it’s pretty high on the the top 10 list. Having said all that, please understand that that is NOT the reason some of have for being uset with the casting issue. I feel like it’s another attempt to push homosexual legitimacy. Hollywood did this in Chariots of Fire. I don’t care how good an actor Chad Allen is. I consider it an afront and an insult and gives the appearance of pandering to the Hollwood crowd (of all things). OK, the movie is a quality production. Great. I’m happy for them. When and if I watch it, I will be completely distracted by all this.
Lastly, let me say that I’ve read a number of these blogs and I am amzazed at how un-Christian-like the hosts are towards people who are conflicted about this movie. Why don’t you show some empathy towards them? (Please don’t put me in that camp. I don’t need it.) However, if they’re the “weaker brother” and you’re the “stornger” one, why not show some caring for them. Instead all I see is anger and condescension from you people. Talk about judgemental….. brother.
Finally, are you going to see this movie or not?
139. Daniel Robbins
January 31, 2006
7:43 AM
Soundman wrote: “I’m confused…
You aren’t going to see the movie but you support the movie????
… Talk about judgemental….. brother.
Finally, are you going to see this movie or not?”
I do not support the movie. I just rejoice to know that people are using it to share the good news of Jesus Christ with their friends. Paul did not support those who insincerely preached the gospel in order to add to his affliction, but he still rejoiced that the gospel was preached. That tells me I can trust God to be glorified in spite of means and methods I would not personally embrace.
Why all the noise about Chad Allen’s shameful lifestyle? Ephesians 5 says not to let fornication even be named among us. No one has to see this movie if they do not want to, and I do NOT plan to. But if other want to see it and take their unsaved friends to it, well, they do not answer to me. They answer to God. If their consciences are clean, I will not stand in their way. Lord, please show us how to be of one mind on this. In Jesus’ name, amen.
Love, in Christ,
Daniel
140. Soundman
January 31, 2006
9:24 PM
I’ve given this quite a bit of thought and just don’t see how I can go through with it. I will not see this movie. No, I don’t condemn others who do (like those who condemn me for not supporting it). I don’t go to any movie that has actors in it that I feel are destructive to our country. And there’s a lot of them out there, so there’s plenty of movies that I won’t even watch on television for the same reason.
I don’t know what the producers of this movie had in mind when they made their decision. I’m still not convinced they didn’t have a hidden agenda. Their answers aren’t contrite enough to convince me. So let’s just say I’m one of the weaker brethern Paul talks about and can’t eat meat sacrificed to idols.
141. rusty
February 1, 2006
3:15 PM
The Waodani word for God is “Waengogi”. In the movie it was stated, “Waengogi had a son who was speared, but he did not spear back.”
Jn.19:34&37 tell us, “But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side,…
And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced…”
Is.53:5-7 says, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth”.
Rev.1:7 says, “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him…”
Interesting (but not necessarily applicable at this time), Mic.4:3 says, “And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”.
I think that the movie accurately portrayed the sequence of events from standpoint of the Waodani, and quite effectively.
There is no other salvation, than by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Just as many (if not nearly the entire tribe) came to the knowledge of Christ, and eventual faith in Christ (and His finished work on the cross) for their salvation. So in like manner, hopefully many homosexuals, drawn to the movie if for no other reason than allegiance to their ‘partner’ Chad, might if nothing else become more open to a follow-up gospel presentation; even as the Waodani were more approachable to follow-up by the widows (with fatherless children) and sister Rachel Saint.
142. Daniel Robbins
February 2, 2006
8:23 AM
Soundman: Good on “thee” (i.e. “you” ;)), brother, and join the club. I note Paul said, power is made “perfect” (there I go with the “p” word again ;)) in … (see I Cor 12).
Love, in Christ,
Daniel
143. rusty
February 2, 2006
6:55 PM
It would have been a no-brainer, discrimination against homosexuals law-suit had ETE fired the Chadster.
Anyway, if Steve Saint can accept Allen “acting” the part of his Dad and himself, why can’t all the rock throwers.
“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”.
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
Hate the sin, love (impersonal or unconditional)the sinner.
Go and see the movie, you might be surprised. Consider all the crap that you already watch, and all the peccadillos of those actors, directors, writers, etc.., adnauseam. We all have our peccadillos. IF you don’t believe that, see 1Jn1:8+10.
144. soundman
February 3, 2006
7:33 AM
The preaching comments by Rusty are typical of the supporters of this movie - denegrating and condescending. As I said before, for many years I have avoided movies that had one or more actors that I feel are hurting the country or were produced by people who have made harmful movies in the past. Chad Allen falls into that category. Also, I’ve admitted that I’m like the people who wouldn’t eat meat offered to idols. But that’s not sufficient for supporters of this movie and it makes me question their motives.
Bottom line, I can see their viewpoint - they believe some people may get saved watching this movie. I hope they’re right. If they’re wrong, then the movie only serves the purpose of advancing the homosexual agenda, which I opposed to.
Now, I’m willing to admit I could be wrong about the usefulness of the movie. It could be a very beneficial movie… just not for me personally. If Rusty likes the movie and feels it provides inspiration for others, then great. That won’t help how I feel about t.
I have some very devout Christian friends who would not go see the Passion of the Christ because it was too bloody. While I was uplifted by it, I didn’t throw stones at the friends who didn’t go to the movie. One of them has a problem watching violent movies - period. The other friends I went with all wept.
So what is so special about this movie that causes the reactions in Rusty and people like him (or her)? It really makes me wonder.
145. mikbry24
February 3, 2006
8:45 AM
I would recommend you watch Beyond the Gates of Splendor and/or read Through Gates of Splendor. They are better than the movie anyway and will be a blessing to you.
146. Carl
February 3, 2006
11:52 AM
Daniel Robbins
If you are going to quote someone you really should do it in context.
I said “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!”
Any form of the gospel that does not line up with the TRUE Gospel (notice the capital G please) is to be rebuked.
The “gospel” in this movie bears no resemblance to the Gospel of the Bible. No Jesus, No repentance, to atoning death = no gospel.
You stand rebuked
147. rusty
February 3, 2006
3:14 PM
Soundman,
I think Mikbry has a good idea for you.
Refering to your last post. I’m with you completely, I avoid such movies as well. Iwon’t watch ‘Brokeback’. For all I know, those ACTORS may not even be in real-life homosexuals, as is (or at least has been) the case with the Chadster. However, the movie “Brokeback…” does as you say, ‘only serves the purpose of advancing the homosexual agenda’.
Quite frankly, I may be naive (most probably), thinking (or hoping), that ‘Spear’ could have any impact with people of that alternative deathstyle; certainly, I must be delusional. That level of depravity is difficult to penetrate. But as we all well know, ‘God does work in mysterious ways’, as He did with the Waodani. Who would have thought it.
Let there be no mistake about it; though it is true that sin is sin, and God hates them all, and all sins were imputed to Christ on the cross and judged, certain sins are more depraved than others (as shooting up heroin is worse than smoking maijuana). In like manner, premarital sex and adultery though sinful and tragic in themselves, are on a different level than homosexuality, bestiality, and necrophilia. This is the case quite simply, because more barriers (norms and standard) had to be breached in order to sink to that level of reprobation.
The alternative deathstyle proponants (as Chad has been) have no shame, on the contrary, arrogant pride. The homosexuals have even adopted a legitimate word ‘gay’ to advance their illegitimate(at best) movement. And regrettably most in our country have let them get away with it. Understandably, using terms such as, ‘faggot’, ‘queer’, ‘honeyboy’, ‘pervert’, etc… are derogatory; I would rather keep it clinical, simply homosexual. As the malignancy of homosexuality has taken root, no longer can one sing, “and we’ll all be gay when Johnny comes marching home”, or in any other way, legitimately use the word gay without the current all too popular deviancy being brought to mind.
But back to our movie, or any movie; with the current stage of metastasis, anyone would be hard pressed to see any production that is completley free of the taint of homosexuality.
Soundman,
This post is already long enough, to be continued.
148. Julie
February 3, 2006
5:04 PM
yes I plan to see this movie. the sexual orientation the actor is irrelevant.
149. Soundman
February 4, 2006
7:24 AM
Again, with the sermon, Rusty….
You are missing the point. Please listen carefully. It’s not that there’s a homosexual in the cast. I have purchased each of the Lord of the Rings movies and my wife and I have watched them all 2 or 3 times. We love them. Since reading this blog, I have learned that the actor who played Gandalf is gay. Now get ready… I still love the movie and I’d still go to see it. On the other hand, if Gandalf had been an blaspheming gay activist and I knew it beforehand, I would have avoided the movie. Why? Because I don’t support anyone or anything who is destructive to the country.
Again, please listen. My “policy” is NOT confined to homsexuals. There’s are lots of liberal actors I avoid like the plague. Many of them came out of the woodwork when The Passion was about to be released. I don’t watch their movies either. Period.
I was never a huge Chariots of Fire fan, but I did think it was a decent movie. Since reading the blogs, I now know the the main character was a gay actor. Here’s my take on all of this.
Hollywood says, “OK, people. I’m sick of listenening to all your whining about wanting decent movies. I’ll make you a nice little movie about a Christian athlete who enentually becomes a missionary. You’ll love it. Of couse, I could never really do that without slipping in a little subversion like using a homosexual to portray the Christian main character in the movie. C’mon, what’d you expect. This is Hollywood. We hate Christians.”
Now comes End of the Spear. All the Christians say, “Hooray! At last… a well produced movie that shows the transforming power of Christ”. Well…. maybe not. Remember, we’re Hollywood.
I’m glad to hear that you’re not going to see Humpback Mountain, or is it Bareback Mountain (I forget which). Anyway, I hear that it has homsexual soft porn in it. So of course, Hollywood thinks this is the best movie they’ve ever seen. So will I go to this movie? Do you think it ever crossed my mind to go to this movie? Will I ever go to a movie again starring Heath Ledger or Jake Gyllenhaal? Not bloody likely!
150. rusty
February 6, 2006
12:23 AM
Soundman,
I respect your reasoning. Actually, you have quite a balanced approach to the subject. Hopefully I didn’t give you too much grief. Besides,apparently you have already believed in Christ for your salvation.
If (and that is a big if) ‘Spear’ is to have any redeeming value, it would be for the unsaved. As stated in previous posts, hopefully the movie might soften hearts in preperation for a future gospel hearing. Whereby God the Holy Spirit can take that information which is accurately presented, and make it lucid and perspicuous to spititually dead individuals (totally helpless and hopeless to even comprehend the gospel), so that they understand the issue; that there is no other salvation than through faith alone, in Christ alone and His finished work on the cross.
Therefore by grace alone, apart from anything anyone might want to add, such as works, way of life, rituals, church membership, following the Ten Commandments, etc.., adnauseam.
151. rusty
February 6, 2006
4:01 PM
Soundman,
Continuing from the previous post.
I realize I left out, adding water baptism to faith alone in Christ alone. I guess that fall under ‘rituals’, however it can’t be emphasized enough, that there is nothing whatsoever that can be added to the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Upon hearing the gospel, and then comprehending it (through the ministry of God the Holy Spirit), the spiritual dead individual can do nothing at all. The options are either to reject Christ and His salvific work on the cross, or to believe in Christ and His saving work.
If anything is added to faith alone in Christ alone, then it is no longer “by grace you have been saved”, and then there is room for boasting. Again, when anything is added to faith alone, then it is no longer “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound…”, and it is not salvation.
152. Jaime Prater
February 6, 2006
4:48 PM
I don’t understand the hate and venom spewed forth towards Chad Allen.
I was born into an Evangelical Household and was raised Christian which is how I live my life now. If there’s one thing I have learned, it’s that I do not know the nature of God and I won’t begin to predict how he chooses to create his people.
The idea that Chad Allen is characterized as a sodomite is vomitous. What continues to separate Christians from the rest of the world is this ‘holier then thou’ attitude that a large porrtion of them wield to soo many which only widens the gap.
When Jesus was here he went into Matthew the tax collector’s home, not with a sword but with a smile. He sang with them, he laughed with them, and he told them a story. Most of all, he loved them. “Love your neighbor as yourself” was his decree. Is not the homosexual your neighbor? Are they not deserving of love?
Jesus did not tell us to “go make the rest of the world think and act just like you.” Rather, Jesus said “Go and tell the good news.”
There is great animosity between the homosexual community and the Christian right. I wonder why that is? Have Christians truly acted Christ-like towards them? The answer to that is a resounding NO!!
Most Christians should be ashamed of themselves for the reilgious arrogance they have exuded. I wonder how many homosexuals any of you know? Do you know them as a sea of sinners [as you should know yourself] or do you know their hearts as individuals, the way Christ would like to know them? Shame on you I say, shame on you.
We are called to love. Loving doesn’t mean agreeing, it means loving, as we are loved by Christ despite our faults. I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin, nor do I believe it is a sin to consume shellfish or to have sexual relations with one’s wife during her menstrual period. God has proven himself to be far too vast for me to believe that he only does things a certain way. Who am I to know the heart of God??
153. mikbry24
February 6, 2006
5:48 PM
Actually, we are called to make disicples. This means teaching and conveying that which we have been taught. Jesus said, “It is enough that the servant has become like his master.” Christ’s disciples have been admonished to become like, to “think and act” just like Him. If there is any animosity between Christianity and the Homosexual movement, then tough. Militant homosexuals continue on, proud in their sin, and try to push their lifestyle on society. It is not “hate” to stand for the Truth and call this sin a sin. It doesn’t mean that we hate these people, but we certainly do hate what they do and the lifestyle they are advancing. I know several homosexuals, to answer your question. I will say that Christians are called to love, but we certainly are not called to love or wink at sin.
If you don’t believe homosexuality is a sin, it is of little interest to me. My opinion and your opinion matter little when it comes to sin. God’s word, however is another matter. His word does condemn homosexuality as sin. If, in your opinion, I am “unloving” by proclaiming this fact, then I’ll wear that description with honor.
mikbry24
154. rusty
February 7, 2006
12:29 AM
Jaime, Jaime, Jaime Prater,
‘Can’t we all just get along?’
Actually though, all roads don’t lead to Rome, or to Heaven.
Love, love, love, Jaime. there is a difference between personal (or conditional) love, and impersonal (unconditional) love.
You wrote, I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin,
Romans 1:24-27 ought to suffice( but I doubt it will), “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves; who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. For this cause God gave them up to vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which is meet”.
But take light in knowing, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall never perish, but have eternal life.”
That is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. And not only that Jaime, once you are saved, you are always saved; and that’s grace. Just as you can’t do anything to earn or deserve salvation in the first place (Christ did all the work on the cross),it’s by grace, likewise, you can’t do anything to keep yourself saved; and that’s grace. Amazing, isn’t it? But what is astounding to me, is how many professed ‘Christain’,claiming salvation through faith alone in Christ alone (for there is non other salvation), yet deny the Biblical Doctrine of Eternal Security. Stated succinctly, a ‘Blessed Assurance’, and confident expectation, versus “I hope so”.
Back to Chad Allen. I certainly don’t know if Chad has ever, once in his life trusted, believed in, or expressed faith Christ alone for salvation. I would hope that Chad might have been witnessed to with the pertanent gospel information during the filming of the End of the Spear. Who knows? Of course, only God knows, and I suppose, Chad himself ought to know if that were the case.
But if (again, I wouldn’t know)Chad did believe in Christ for his salvation, then like anybody else who does the same, Chad is saved, and he can never loose it. And that’s grace. Eternal Security is not a license to continue in sin, raising hell, and thumbing your nose at God. (See my previous post #131)
155. Jaime Prater
February 7, 2006
5:02 AM
When talking about the Bible, we move into an interpretive nightmare. There are many, MANY different scholars who believe many, MANY different things.
There are churches today that forbid the woman to speak or stand in church. Ridiculous right? Of course by our way of thinking. But these divisions of Christ’s church believe what they believe and they cite the very same new testament that you and I do to back up their doctrines, which in some cases more then borders on spiritual abuse.
As far as Romans is concerned, I guess we will agree to disagree. There are a lot of things that I don’t understand about God but I love him nonetheless. I don’t understand why Jesus would choose to come into this world through a 13 year old [or thereabouts historaclly speaking] girl. How natural is that? Jesus entered was conceived into this world as an illegitimate child. Again, how natural was that? But guess what, I don’t question it because I can’t possibly understand it.
I interpret Romans very differently then most Christians. I believe definitely what Paul witnessed was a perversion, but I believe it was about idolatry and the worship of the body, not love, not committment, etc… Much of the time there were Temple male prostitutes who were very VERY young in age, anywhere between 13-18. It was believed that having sex with these prostitutes, referred to as ‘arsenokoites’ would some how cleanse them. A majority of this behaviour was pederasty.
I am not a Biblical literalists and there is far more then meets the eye the what can be understood at first glance through the Bible. Taking the Bible literally one could walk away from it with the belief that God is pro-war, pro-slavery, misogynistic, and a pretty mean entity. I believe the Bible works in a completely different way. Of course, there in lies the problem for me. Most Christians FREAK OUT when they realize that other Christians disagree on what appears to be blatantly obvious. I’m sorry, but it’s not so easy for me. God is too vast and complex for me to blow him off so easily by literate interpretations.
What exactly is unnatural? Most of you drive cars that produce lethal and toxic fumes into the air which slowly breaks down our ozone layer, damages forests, animals, and causes birth defects in babies in the womb. How natural is that? And yet you all live with it as a passable evil. I ask again, what is unnatural? What are unnatural relations bewteen two men? Does anyone here realize that the word Homosexual never once appears in the original Greek and Aramaic versions of the Bible? NOT ONCE.
There are groups of fish in the sea, that, at birth are all genetically female. A dominant female rises up from that group as the Alpha female and turns genetically male and inseminates another female. Often times these fish can then revert their sex or be both simutaneously. What does this say about the nature of God? I do not for one minute believe that God condemns pure, committed love between two people. This topic is so heavily debated yet Christ never mentioned it once, ever.
Then there’s the Jonathan and David debate [which for many on both sides, there is no debate]. At one point, after Jonathan’s death, David says “his love for me was better then the love any woman.” What did that mean? The Bible also quotes as the two of them, weeping, kissing, and then weeping more at their departure. Was it kissing on the hand or just the cheeks?
I could go on and on. But there’s a problem here, someone else, one of you could go on and on citing other passages and their interpretation of scripture to back up their beliefs. I am no idiot. I have walked with the Lord a long time, refusing to be spoon fed but rather understand God’s love and law for myself [“let no man teach you, let the spirit teach you”]. Again, I could be criticized for this.
Lastly though I look at it this way. When Jesus walked this earth, who did he criticize the most?? He criticized the religious elders and those who thought very highly of themselves. Jesus spent time with the prostitutes, the tax collectors, and very dubious people and when he was advised against spending time with these people he did not listen.
I don’t believe very many people would know Jesus if they saw him face to face. Jesus is the outcast, the beggar, the homosexual, the childless woman, the orphans… This is the Jesus I believe in. I don’t expect everyone to believe as I do, but I have not come to my opinions based on what others say, I bring my beliefs to the foot of the cross until I have that peace that passes understanding. Doubt it if you will, disagree with me if you like, that’s fine. God never said that his people cornered the market on wisdom.
J.M. Prater
156. Soundman
February 9, 2006
7:03 AM
Jamie…
Please listen carefully… I don’t hate Chad Allen. Take deep breath and re-read the first sentence. Here’s another one. I don’t hate homosexuals. Are you sure you read this part carefully? Then lets proceed.
Chad Allen produced and starred in a movie called Corpus Christi in which he portrayed a type of homosexual Christ with twelve homosexual disciples. I consider this to be blasphemous and I think it disqualifies him as a suitable candidte to play in this movie.
Apparently you love everybody. How wonderful for you. As a mere mortal, I have limited ability to love. Therefore I don’t love everybody. That’s God’s job.
Here’s another difficult concept: This is not to say that I hate those that I don’t love. Actually I don’t think about them much at all. But you know what I don’t do? I don’t pay money to go see their movies. So I guess in your mind that’s hate.
You know what I suspect? I think you think you’re a more enlightened Christian that those bumpkins who actually take the Bible literally like poor old Rusty and me. So here’s something for you to think about. Because I and others like me take the Bible at it’s word, we have a rule book to govern our behavior. All we have to do is read the book and try to do what it says. You, on the other hand have, to make up your own rules any time you disagree with the ones in the book. So what if you’re wrong? When I get to the heaven, I won’t be acccused of adding to or taking away from the scriptures. You won’t be able to say that. And yes, Jaime, Christians are accountable to Jesus and we will receive a final performance review from Him.
For you to accuse me of hating homosexuals is presumptuous and judgemental and a little bit hateful.
157. Jaime Prater
February 9, 2006
12:45 PM
Soundman…
First of all, I want you to outline exactly where I have said that you specifically have ‘hated’ anyone. Please, show me because I would like to see it.
Secondly, you accuse me of making up my own rules, and that I take offense to. The Bible lives and breathes for me and I believe it in its ENTIRETY. I delve deeper to find out more about the grace and wonder of the God behind it. Now, perhaps that makes me a nut job? I am not sure. I didn’t know that seeking more understanding was such an awful thing to do. I study context, time periods, translations and again, take my findings to the foot of the cross. The more I study the word of God the more he reveals himself to me.
I have come to some different conclusions then you Soundman, is that so bad? Will Jesus not accept because at the end of my life he will say “Well Jaime, your opinions and views did not match up to Sound Man’s, so I don’t think I can let you in.”
By characerizing me as “a little bit hateful” you make it easy to throw everything it is I have to say out the window and blow me off completely. Christs loves me no more or less then he loves you. Christ honors our spiritual journey where ever we are and I believe he wants to ask questions when appropriate and stay silent when appropriate.
I believe with all my heart that you try and do your best to please Jesus as I do. We are united as one under that banner of truth. What I can’t shake is the way Jesus was treated in his own community. He was thrown out of his own synagogue, a castaway, a rebel, and an outcast from the larger Jewish religious community for what he said and believed which coincidentally went against the grain and was misunderstood.
I suspect that there is a lot about the nature of Christ that is not in the Bible, and I suspect even more that Christ does not limit himself and how he chooses to work in the lives of his people based on the Bible. Christ speaks to his people every day in ways we don’t understand. The verse comes to mind “work out your own salvation through perserverance and trembling.” Not mine, not your brothers [you in general, not you specifically soundman], not your mothers or your children’s but yours. What does that mean though? What does it mean to work out your own salvation through perserverance and trembling? For me it means taking prayers and petitions to the cross and understanding how God is speaking to me, moving in me and loving in me.
I am human, full of flaws, sins, and mistakes and will always be. I am NEVER right about everything, and many of the the decisions that I have come to are still very much in process, but this is what I believe now. Accusing me of being hateful puts me in a box and limits everything that I say and do. I strive to be like Christ, that is my ultimate goal, but I am not afraid to point out where I believe Christianity as a whole has gone more than a bit wrong. I believe, as aforementioned, on a whole, a majority of the church at large has a lot to be accountable for and I believe, again, if Jesus was to come down, in this age, as a man, he would be cast out of these churches as a heretic, just like he was before. Jesus does not change.
Jesus consorted with and loved as a sister Mary Magdalene, he never once characterized her as a prostitute or a whore. Unlike many Christians characterize homosexuals. It’s like me calling Billy Graham “The sinner” based on his sin, and not based on the man of God he is.
God called David, a man after his own heart, David, a murderer and an adulterer. That’s right, a murderer and an adulterer God called a man after his own heart. What does that say about the nature of God? That he loves us completely despite our actions. You mentioned that Chad Allen was in a play called Corpus Christi and you mentioned that is was blasphemous. Now, how was it blashemous? Was it blashemous because sinners and those who are actually unsaved chose to portray Christ the way the unbelievers see him or is it only the homosexual aspect that bothers you? Did James Caviezel have any more right to portray Christ? Isn’t he a sinner as well? Doesn’t he pray to Mary? Couldn’t that possibly be a bit more blasphemous??
I would bet that if nothing else, Christ ministered to those men involved in the play Corpus Christi, just as its been documented that hundreds of people have been saved while watching Jesus Christ Superstar on Broadway, another musical characterized as blasphemous.
In closing, I will reference your first few words to me in your reply sound man. You wrote “Take a deep breath.” Never have I been more calm, collected and with the peace of the Lord. I have the peace that passes understanding. No storm can shake my inmost calm, while to this rock I’m clinging.
J.M. Prater
158. mikbry24
February 9, 2006
1:58 PM
No need for an outline, it was your “thesis statement” in post # 152. I quote:
“I don’t understand the hate and venom spewed forth towards Chad Allen.”
159. Jaime Prater
February 9, 2006
3:09 PM
“hate and venom” in posts that refer to him as a sodomite or something inhuman or so far below us as Christians. Yes, that is what I believe, and not from Sound Man but from “JIM” and others not all on this board. Yes, I’ve pointed out what I think is hate and venom, does that make me just “a little bit hateful”?
I have used my name, I have presented myself out in the open. I am not perfect, but these are the convictions of my conscience. To me, when some one is singled out for their supposed fallen nature and judged because of it, I believe it is venom and malicious in motive, or at least, that is my perception.
And yet this thread digresses, not on any points that I’ve made, rather on me.
Christ is our light, the lamp unto our feet. We find solace in his shadow, peace in his face. We are loved by one who was loved by none. This man was brought through wood and fire, through womb and darkness to end as such that a flower would dare not open. His power new no bounds, his face the brightest of whites and yet he dimmed and left righteousness for sorrow. I knew him, a glimpse of almighty, a blanket for all, I knew him.
I worship and abide in this Christ, this Yeshua, this son of God.
J.M. Prater
160. mikbry24
February 9, 2006
3:19 PM
The distinction has been made that it isn’t Chad Allen or his fallen nature but his activism in making that which God condemns as sin more acceptable and normal. You have disagreed with God’s word in your assessment of homosexuality. The problem (here) isn’t Chad’s fallen nature (though, of course this is a huge probelm for everyone), but that he is seeking to normalize and legitimize his sin. I would say the same things if someone were to try and legitimize drug use or alchololism or adultery or fornication or murder and in fact do so often.
mikbry24
Mike Bryant
mike@themindofmike.com
http://themindofmike.com
Don’t know how to be any more open than that! :-)
161. Soundman
February 9, 2006
8:26 PM
MIke,
You said that a lot better than I could have.
In the words of the immortal Fonz, “Perfectomundo!”
Thanks.
162. Jaime Prater
February 9, 2006
8:55 PM
I will resign this never ending debate of words with this.
I believe the Bible, I believe in every word of it. Through my studies I have come to discover some differences and some truth. You can doubt that truth if you’d like, perhaps it is for me and me alone. I do not believe homosexuality to be a sin. Period. You cannot tell a wound to heal if the wound fails to understand that it is indeed a wound. The blood will continue to flow until a bandage is brought and it is washed white as snow. Whatever you may believe
I do not judge you for your opinions and beliefs, nor do I wish to be judged for mine. It obvious that we do not see eye to eye, and that’s not always neccessary. Love and peace or else, COEXIST or else. I choose the more difficult path, and if that means being expelled by the church, then so be it. These people need love and tenderness and not bullhorns and words thrown at them. Love and peace or else.
Jaime
163. Soundman
February 9, 2006
11:26 PM
Jaime, I don’t judge people either. Again, that’s God’s job. However, your stereotyping reference to the bullhorns, etc. indicates to me that you are not nearly as open minded as you pretend to be. I have not condemned you for what I believe are scriptural errors in your position, yet you have attempted to insult me.
If you say you believe every word in the Bible but don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin, then either you don’t know what’s in the Bible or you have seriously deluded yourself. The words are clear and simple and are in the both the old and new testaments. I do not “interpret” the Bible and do not listen to others who do. I try to hold no opinion on any Biblical subject if the words in the scripture are not clear and simple enough that a child can understand them.
I find it impossible to believe that you “love
everyone” as you say. It would seem that what you really mean is that you love people who agree with you.
164. mikbry24
February 9, 2006
11:27 PM
But Jaime, does the truth not count for anything? Certainly God “demonstrated His love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” You would have us remove the phrase, “while we were yet sinners.” God is a God of love, but He is also a God of justice that does not, cannot, wink at sin. Clearly, the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sin. While I’m certain Sodom and Gommorah were guilty of countless other sins, homosexuality was certainly one of them. It baffles me how someone cannot see this from just a simple reading of the text, but will often go to great lengths to pour all kinds of eisegesis into the text to circumvent any guilt or shame to justify their pet sin. In any case, no, we do not see eye to eye on the issue of homosexuality. What people “need” is the Truth and the Truth should not be compromised simply so we can be unified. Unity is not the end-all, be-all. Jesus Christ, the Truth incarnate is the Alpha and Omega and it is only under Him and his banner of Truth that we should be unified. As the movie producers and casting people have already stated, had they known Chad Allen was a homosexual activist prior to casting him, he would not have been invited to be a part of the movie. Why do you think that is? ;-)
Mike
165. Daniel Robbins
February 10, 2006
8:48 AM
“Daniel Robbins
If you are going to quote someone you really should do it in context.
I said “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!”
Any form of the gospel that does not line up with the TRUE Gospel (notice the capital G please) is to be rebuked.
The “gospel” in this movie bears no resemblance to the Gospel of the Bible. No Jesus, No repentance, to atoning death = no gospel.
You stand rebuked”
And I rebuke you, again! Read Philipians 1!
Daniel
166. wfseube
February 10, 2006
12:21 PM
Jaime Prater wrote: “hate and venom” in posts that refer to him as a sodomite or something inhuman or so far below us as Christians.
It’s as close as dictionary.com, friend. “Sodomite” is nothing more than a noun that is descriptive of who that person is:
The users of the word are being descriptive, just as one would be if a person was described as a fireman or a welder or a computer programmer.
I’m sure you’re aware, but the word originated with Sodom & Gomorrah, the cities God destroyed because they were overrun with “sodomites”. Can you think of another situation in the Bible where God leveled a city because of a particular sin?
sometimes the truth hurts.
——
bill
167. John
February 10, 2006
5:43 PM
The mission field is tricky, isn’t it? How quickly it can become exclusionary. How easily we can wrap it into to folds of how we each were raised, which church we went to or how our parents thought about religion. To my knowledge, only one of us were raised as our Saviour was raised, only one died His death and only one was Resurrected to free us from the bondage of sin. Therefore, only one can know what is in a man’s heart, what speaks to him individually and what will touch him in a way that no other will. Would firing this man from his job have brought more souls to Christ? Would he himself have been open to the Holy Spirit had he been sent packing? The cheap seats are just that, CHEAP! I cannot for the life of me understand this kind of inner-faith bickering. If you’d like to tell the story differently, make your own darn movie. Until then, I suggest we all praise the exposure this movie brings to these amazing people and what they collectily have accomplished for the Kingdom of God. Also note that each cheap shot we take at the producers and actors of this movie, as well as at each other, only provides ammunition to those who would remove God from every aspect of our daily lives.
168. mikbry24
February 10, 2006
5:58 PM
I haven’t really seen any cheap shots, unless simply discussing the pros and cons of this situation fits the definition in which case your last post only added to the “cheap shots,” correct? :-)
Homosexuality is a sin and an active lifestyle trying to advance this sin in society is that much more egregious. Common sense would tell you (as well as the casting crew and producers of the movie) that this wasn’t the best choice to play a lead in a Christian movie. To not recognize this fact is absurd, to say the least.
169. Lee
February 11, 2006
2:05 AM
Tim,
Regarding our latest visitor - the one with the interesting twists on christianity (little “c” intended), you might either want to delete his posts, or at the very least remove the link to his site. He’s posted some pretty vomit-inducing gay porn there.
170. Soundman
February 11, 2006
9:30 AM
Lemme get these equations straight, John
Christian accountability = Cheap Shots
Accepting Biblical passages at face value = Exclusionary.
Rev 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is
the second death.”
So, this one, we can throw out, I guess…
“The mission field is tricky, isn’t it? How quickly it can become exclusionary. How easily we can wrap it into to folds of how we each were raised, which church we went to or how our parents thought about religion.”
So, I gather that no one is capable of learning anything from the Bible on their own by reading it, they are only indoctinated during their childhood. Since I am a Jew by birth and went to Synagogue as a youngster, I wonder what went wrong?
171. Daniel Robbins
February 13, 2006
1:56 AM
Hey, Carl. I have been thinking about our exchange, and the verse about “the servant of the Lord not striving” came to mind. If I have not gotten to that point yet (I hope I have not, but apologize if I have), I sure to not want to get there. Therefore, I bless thee (i.e. “you”) in Jesus’ name, and leave thee to thy master - to whom thou standest or fallest, as do I.
Love,
Daniel
172. rusty
February 14, 2006
1:10 AM
Jaime,
You said, “Love and peace or else.”
“Love, love, love, All you need is love.”
“Love is the answer, and you know that for sure.
Love is a flower, …you got to let it grow.”
“All we are asking, is give peace a chance.”
“Imagine all the people living life in peace.”
Lennon was a genius, tragic his death. Mark David Chapman should be executed; mental illness/insanity ought never to be allowed as a defense to get away with murder. Capital punishment is honoring to the victim and to the family of the victim; not to mention it is Biblical, in both the Old and New Testaments.
Perhaps I’m naïve, but I wonder how John Lennon might have reacted to (911) Sept. 11, 2001. Being that he lived in NYC and had developed a good relation with the NYPD (having bought bullet proof vests for them). I wonder how he would have felt about the “evil doing” Muslims. Sure, John was a ‘dreamer’, but I wonder. Might 911 have been a wake-up shot in the arm for Lennon.
Most of us would want ‘love and peace”, but what kind of love, and peace? Seventy-two virgins, or surrendering to evil doing Muslim suicide/homicide bombers.
Freedom comes through military victory. Peace (in time) comes through strength. And love, as 1Jn.4:8 says, “…God is love.”, and that is eternal love. But God is also perfect, eternal justice and righteousness; and the justice and righteousness of God must be satisfied. And this satisfaction or propitiation was accomplished once and for all on the cross, when all the sins of human history, past, present and future were imputed to Christ on the cross and judge. As Mike just posted in # 164, from Rm. 5:8,”God demonstrated His love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died as a substitute for us.” Christ died in our place.
And ‘peace’, continuing in Rm.5:9&10,”…being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies(not at ’peace’), we were reconciled (that is being at ‘peace’ with) to God by the death of His Son…”
173. shorty
February 20, 2006
4:23 PM
Cruel or unloving?Love costs something even death.
Isn’t it cruel that God had to send his only begotten son Jesus to die for us so that we could have eternal life? We who hated God dead in sin and rebellion? Christ came to unite us to God, our sin divides us from God and others.
The work is finished the debt is paid but we shouldn’t spit in Christ’s face and walk our own way. We may have the freedom to do so but does that make Gods hands tied? He still has the freedom as God to judge us and give us what we deserve for rejecting his grace? There are consequences. Have we forgotten the book of revelations?
If we are Christians then we not only have a Savior but a Father who leads us and guides us not by ‘feelings’ but by his word.
The incarnate word was sufficient for the disciples to follow and pattern their life after.In our day the disciples plain and simple testimonies of Christ’s teachings in the N.T.are enough for us as well . So too the O.T referred to many times by Christ. The message is profound and magnificienct but even a child understands the love of Christ on the cross.
Jesus is all God wanted to say we won’t listen if we are looking for a false Christ.
By the way what happens if the tribe decides murder is no longer against God?What if they find a way to justify that sin?What if they find murder benefits them after all? These missionaries died so God would be glorified instead of hate and murder. So all who believed would be saved by God’s grace through the death of his son.
This is not for anyone person in particular just what I have been thinking as I read through it all. If the movie does not represent that then they did not stay true to God’s love as represented in the gospel. Men’s opinions matter very little but Christ’s authority over our souls should make us have a heart of love, honor, and thanksgiving in return.
174. ali claus
February 22, 2006
1:57 PM
Hi i just love the movie school of rock because of jack black
175. sherwin
July 21, 2006
10:59 PM
i just wana say that no matter what gossips the lead stars were in, it somehow didn’t affect how the story goes and the revelation of its essence and its meaning. honestly this film (end of the spears) really struck me and had somehow affected my view on christianity as my religion….
its great and worth watchi’n for. it also tells how the societies and other cultures differ from each other in all aspects of their social systems.