Last week I posted an article in which I pointed out that Chad Allen, the actor who plays Nate and Steve Saint in the upcoming film The End of the Spear is homosexual. In the article I simply posted the information without providing much commentary upon the decision of the producers to cast a homosexual as a Christian missionary.
There has been a lot of discussion about this article (65 comments and counting), showing that this is a contentious issue. Justin Taylor recently posted a short article in which he took issue with people somehow judging the movie based on a casting decision. "I have trouble seeing the big deal here," says Justin. "Film acting is a sophisticated form of make-believe. Good-looking people who talk and memorize well are paid lots of money to act out stories. In my mind, the main issue is whether they do a good job with the task."
Taylor draws a tidy little line between the actors and their roles. He suggests that what actors believe is irrelevant to their roles within the films they create.
"Most of Hollywood is out of step with most of America. But at the same time, most of us simply don't care about the political or moral views of Hollywood. What does Sean Penn think about the Iraqi insurgency? What does Alec Baldwin think about the President's legitimacy? What does Tim Robbins think about civil liberties? What does Barbra Streisand think about the ethics of House Republicans? Few care! Most of us want to send them a copy of Laura Ingraham's appropriately titled book: Shut Up and Sing."
This is, to some extent true. But Justin is missing something important here. There are plenty of people who do care what Sean Penn believes about Iraqi insurgency, what Alec Baldwin thinks about the President's legitimacy and what Tim Robbins thinks about civil liberties. The very fact that Taylor can list these people and the issues they stand for shows that people care! The names of Hollywood bigwigs are constantly polluting adorning newspapers, magazines and tabloids. Far too many people care what these celebrities believe. Many people allow their opinions to be formed by celebrities. Penn, Baldwin, Robbins and countless other Hollywood personalities have made a stand for a wide variety of issues. Sometimes these people throw their weight behind charities or causes that do good work and behind issues that are truly important. Yet, more often than not, these people advocate what is unbiblical and even despicable. All three of the men Taylor listed advocate rebellion against God's appointed authorities.
So here's the rub: these Hollywood stars and starlets would not have a platform if we did not provide it to them. We provide them a platform when we support their films. The more popular a film becomes, the greater the platform we provide for the actors. Does no one else remember how often we saw interviews with Jim Caviezel and Mel Gibson before, during and after The Passion of the Christ? Evangelicals provided a platform for these committed Roman Catholics to share their unbiblical theology with millions and millions of people. The success of The Passion and the subsequent popularity of Gibson and Caviezel owed almost entirely to Evangelicals. We gave them a platform. The "success" of Brokeback Mountain (it has made little money but has garnered a huge amount of attention and praise) is another example. The actors and other people involved in the production have had many opportunities to share their pro-homosexual agenda because of the platforms provided to them through the film.
So what Justin seems to fail to understand is this: when we accept a movie, and thus accept the actors who act in a movie, we provide them a platform. This may be unintentional, but it is also undeniable. So the question we must face is, What will Chad Allen do with the platform we provide him? The answer is obvious from his web site. He will plead for tolerance to be extended towards homosexuality. He will teach what he taught through a previous production which featured a homosexual Christ-like figure. Here is what he said was the message of that production:
It's one line in the play. It's early on when God is talking to his son before Joshua comes to realize himself as the son of God and [God] whispers to him, 'All men are divine.' And he [Joshua] says, 'What? I can't hear you?' And he [God] says, 'All men are divine. That is the secret that you will teach them.' [Then] Joshua says, 'What if I don't want to teach them?' and God says, 'You won't be able to keep the secret.' That's the message of the piece as I see it. That we are all capable of the same kind of divine relationship with God that Joshua comes to find.
Allen will use the platform to teach the very opposite of what those godly men believed and gave their lives for.
Taylor concludes as follows: "On a personal level, of course, I wish that Chad Allen would find satisfaction in the way that God has designed him. But in watching the film, my concern will be with whether or not he is doing his vocation well. As one commentator pointed out on Tim's site, Ian Charleson--who famously played Eric Liddell in Chariots of Fire--was gay. (He died of AIDS in 1990.) But I don't believe that the messenger is the message."
Justin goes on to toss something of a red herring, stating that Ian Carleson, who played Eric Liddell, was homosexual. Yet I do not believe that we can equate these two situations. While Chariots of Fire was made only 25 years ago, it was made in a different culture than today. Charleson was not provided a platform to share his views. At the time I don't believe that anyone knew that he was homosexual and, unlike Allen, he was not an outspoken advocate for homosexual causes.
In the comments section at Taylor's site Steve Camp asks a good question. "If Dr. Piper went home to be with the Lord say thirty years from now and a Christian based film company wanted to make a movie about his life and ministry...would you want an actor who was also a gay-activist to play John's life story?" What if Elton John were to portray Charles Spurgeon? Or what if it was your life or the life of your brother or father that was portrayed by a homosexual activist? It seems a little bit more dishonoring when it is the life of someone you know and love.
At any rate, I can't help but conclude that the producers of this film erred when they hired a known, proud, activist homosexual to portray a man who gave his life for the Lord. I just hope that we, as Evangelicals, haven't provided a platform to a person who will share a message that dishonors the One whom this movie ought to honor.
Comments (122) »
1. Shelley
January 17, 2006
10:46 AM
Some updated info from Sharper Iron
http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2249
“In addition to the numerous responses on the forums here at SI, our readers will find it interesting that we have received private correspondence from relatives and close acquaintances of the martyred missionaries. These individuals have expressed deep disturbance over ETE’s decision to include a gay activist in a leading role in the film.”
2. jason
January 17, 2006
10:57 AM
“So what Justin seems to fail to understand is this: when we accept a movie, and thus accept the actors who act in a movie, we provide them a platform. This may be unintentional, but it is also undeniable.”
Isn’t there a hint of intellectual dishonesty here? Your position, simply put, is: “Accept a movie = Accept the actors = Give (distasteful) actors a platform.” What does “accept” mean? I presume it means, a) watching a movie, b) enjoying a movie, and c) encouraging others to see a movie.
Does this bit of logic work in other situations? When we “accept” a recommendation to subscribe to a magazine, and that magazine happens to employ an immoral person who writes for the magazine, and then we recommend that magazine to others—are we “Giving the Immoral Man a Platform?” Your logic is off somewhere, and I think it stems from your desire, not uncommon, to make homosexuals (activist or closeted) out as the cultural bogeyman.
Or, assuming a pragmatic argument for the moment: would it be better, hypothetically, for the movie not to have been made at all, rather than star a gay man? You are judging by outer appearances, rather than the heart, aren’t you?
3. Patrick Lacson
January 17, 2006
11:01 AM
Tim,
I’ve been in a private dialogue with some friends about this movie and Chad Allen’s role. I admit that at first glance, I took JT’s position on this - focusing more on the vocation of the actors in fulfilling the essence of their character.
After reading Steve Camp’s powerful comments on this along with yours, I’m persuaded more on thinking it through a bit more. I appreciate your points about the open-platform that actors today have in voicing their opinions. I can see it now - as Allen is interviewed about his homosexuality and portrayal of an evangelical missionary and his response which would make so many people “ooh and awhh” by his liberal and apparent centrist position making it sound so appealing. All the while demeaning the testimony of the man he portrays in the movie.
Thanks for clarifying and making sound and wise arguments.
4. Dave Chalkley
January 17, 2006
11:10 AM
Tim, I think you hit the nail on the head.
5. Paul Martin
January 17, 2006
11:23 AM
This may sound repetitive, but I still go back to the idea that this is an item of conscience. I am not convinced that either “side” can make an air-tight case for their arguments. I have read both strings here and at JT’s site, and it seems to me that there are really only a few concrete facts to consider.
1. The movie is about Christians.
2. A homosexual advocate plays one of those Christians.
3. The film is produced by a quasi-evangelical company (although I am not so clear on that).
In issues like this one, it our duty to think in the realm of revealed truth (“true Truth”) and ask of the Biblical text which Scriptures inform our decision as to whether or not to watch the film. Reading through the comments, some Scriptures are mentioned, but there is very little in the way of direct application (i.e. Paul did not write to the Ephesians a screening guide for films). That being said, our opinions on whether we should watch or not are perhaps better made in the closet than the blogosphere.
“Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Romans 14:4-5).
If a man is convinced that he can watch the film to the glory of God, I am not convinced we have a right to condemn him. If our watching of the film is going to cause undue consternation in our friends’ lives, then perhaps we should skip it – and maybe even do something like pray together instead!
It seems to me that the worst thing that could happen is that our endorsement or rejection would harm the unity we share in Christ.
6. Tim Challies
January 17, 2006
11:39 AM
Paul - I agree entirely and should have made that point clear in my article. We are dealing with matters that are not clear in Scripture and thus we have to do what our conscience dictates.
7. Tim Challies
January 17, 2006
11:43 AM
“That being said, our opinions on whether we should watch or not are perhaps better made in the closet than the blogosphere.”
I’m not entirely sure whether you mean this is an issue we should not discuss in the blogosphere or whether we should merely leave to ourselves our final conclusions about whether or not we see the film.
I do think this is a valuable discussion to have in the blogosphere. I benefitted from reading and thinking about Justin’s views and hope he will do the same with what I’ve written. I’d suggest that as long as we are having amiable, respectful discussion this is a conversation that can benefit all of us.
Certainly if we begin to wage war than we should back off lest we dishonor the Lord.
Having read your post I am thinking that I should have made more clear that what I wrote was reflections on wrestling with this issue and certainly not an attempt at an infallible guide as to how we should approach the issue.
8. JohnH
January 17, 2006
11:48 AM
I guess what disturbs me is the missed opportunity. I suspect that Christians will see a powerful gospel message in the film (much like I am sure they did in Narnia), but what about the unsaved? What will they see?
Frankly, I think we can do better. I’m tired of evangelicals cutting everyone so much slack and giving everyone the benefit of the doubt (except those who point out the problems in this approach, them, they will not cut any slack). It’s killing the movement.
Also, I think this perhaps points up the fallacies in the use of narrative as the means of communicating truth. The experience will be very individual, everyone will get out of it what they want.
9. Calvinist Gadfly
January 17, 2006
11:57 AM
“I guess what disturbs me is the missed opportunity. I suspect that Christians will see a powerful gospel message in the film (much like I am sure they did in Narnia), but what about the unsaved? What will they see?”
It appears that there will not be any gospel message in the film let alone a powerful message. I don’t believe Evangelicals should get their hopes up high anymore when these so-called Christian films come out.
I am not sure what the unsaved will see, but I can tell you what they will not see or hear: a gospel message that can transform their life.
This film is a dissapointment on every level.
Alan
10. Paul Martin
January 17, 2006
12:13 PM
Tim,
I appreciate your response a lot. I guess I was feeling a certain push on both comment strings (yours and JT’s) that we have to agree on this matter… or else. There seems to be a fine line between “persuasion” and “rejection.” Maybe rejection is not the right word, but the idea that if people do not hold to my opinion on the matter then I should give them the old heave ho. Somehow I want to learn to have Biblically-informed opinions and distiguish those from Biblically-informed doctrines. I am not very good at it and have been trying to work at it.
I am all for open discussion of the matter, and I think you do that wonderfully in your post. My greater concern was the undercurrent in comments of “how can you possibly see it any other way than mine?” when it is not an issue of doctrine per se.
Each man before the Lord.
Thanks.
11. Pastor Phillip M. Way
January 17, 2006
12:15 PM
I commented earlier from your first post that this was not a big deal. Actors are paid to act and if we did not allow sinful men to portray others then we would have no movies!
But having read more about it the thing that gets me is that apparently Steve Saint was enthusiastic about having Chad Allen portray him and his father - and THAT is disturbing.
I expect secular or quasi-Christian film companies to make odd casting decisions because they are not operating on a Christian worldview. God and Mammon, and all that. But when the FAMILY of these missionaries knows who is being picked to portray them and think it is a good choice, that makes me wonder what happened between this generation and the one that came before us.
The other thing that truly aggravates me about this film goes well beyond the acting to the decision to tone the gospel down. It is for the sake of the GOSPEL that these men gave their lives and have been heroes to generations of Christians and missionaries.
Why are we surprised when a homosexual is picked to portray a Christian missionary when we do not even include in the film a clear presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? That was the theme of these men’s lives. Love for Christ. Love for the lost. And a burning desire to give everything to preach the gospel.
~pastorway
12. Ochuk
January 17, 2006
12:34 PM
Justin Taylor is right. It is NOT a big deal. If the issue is the personal integrity of actors who play roles of historical people of integrity we must address EVERYTHING, not just particular sins that we don’t like.
The problem I have with this discussion is that it 1) singles out homosexuality, and 2) draws a line in the sand that pretends to be about “standing up for what’s right.”
Yet Hollywood is filled with greedy, self-centered people who portray people who are generous and sacrificial all the time. Ian McKellen played Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings series and is also gay, yet no one said anything about that. Watching and enjoying that movie is downright hypocrisy if you are criticizing Chad Allen and his assigned role. Drawing a distinction between fiction and non-fiction, Christian and non-Christian is wholly irrelevant, because 1) you pay money to see the movie made by God-hating pagans, and 2) the content of the movie communicates the values of whatever the actor portrays.
If the characters of actors are to be judged in the making of movies about Christian history (or any other person of integrity) then you have two choices: 1) clamor for a Christian actor to play the role, or 2) protest the making of any “Christian” movie. 1) is not feasible, 2) is the only rational position you can have. All else is special pleading.
13. Ochuk
January 17, 2006
12:35 PM
Justin Taylor is right. It is NOT a big deal. If the issue is the personal integrity of actors who play roles of historical people of integrity we must address EVERYTHING, not just particular sins that we don’t like.
The problem I have with this discussion is that it 1) singles out homosexuality, and 2) draws a line in the sand that pretends to be about “standing up for what’s right.”
Yet Hollywood is filled with greedy, self-centered people who portray people who are generous and sacrificial all the time. Ian McKellen played Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings series and is also gay, yet no one said anything about that. Watching and enjoying that movie is downright hypocrisy if you are criticizing Chad Allen and his assigned role. Drawing a distinction between fiction and non-fiction, Christian and non-Christian is wholly irrelevant, because 1) you pay money to see the movie made by God-hating pagans, and 2) the content of the movie communicates the values of whatever the actor portrays.
If the characters of actors are to be judged in the making of movies about Christian history (or any other person of integrity) then you have two choices: 1) clamor for a Christian actor to play the role, or 2) protest the making of any “Christian” movie. 1) is not feasible, 2) is the only rational position you can have. All else is special pleading.
14. Alan Kurschner
January 17, 2006
12:49 PM
“My greater concern was the undercurrent in comments of “how can you possibly see it any other way than mine?” when it is not an issue of doctrine per se.”
i) Paul, thanks for your comments. I am glad to say that my response to this ordeal is, “how can you see it any other way?” It may not be an issue of doctrine per se, but it is an issue of Christian moral compunction.
ii) I get the sense today that there are some Evangelicals that want us to begin at a neutral point on ethical issues and go from there. This being an example. There is no question that this is a matter of conscience. But given what scripture teaches about homosexuality compounded with playing godly roles in Christian movies, there should not be anyone losing sleep over how to view this.
iii) When I first heard that it was acceptable to some Evangelicals for homosexuals to play roles of godly men in Christian films, my first response (and still is), “how can you see it that way?” I am very happy that my response was not, “its not a big deal,” or “I am neutral on this issue.”
15 years ago, Christian Evangelicals would not be saying these things. Trust me. We have been desensitized to the homosexual lifestyle. That is a fact. A sad fact.
Thanks,
Alan
p.s. I appreciated Tim’s “platform” argument in his post. I totally agree. My argument though is not dependent on whether this gives homosexuals a platform or not to spread their agenda—-it is still wrong either way (Which I presume that Tim would agree with.)
It is wrong even before it reaches a “platform” level. The fact that a homosexual plays a godly Christian in a Christian film is sufficiently wrong, and should puncture the moral compunction (conscience) of every Christian.
15. blestwithsons
January 17, 2006
12:53 PM
I commented earlier from your first post that this was not a big deal. Actors are paid to act and if we did not allow sinful men to portray others then we would have no movies!
I’m starting to wonder if perhaps that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Why do we need movies so desperately anyway?
(and I’ve always loved movies, by the way)
16. Dr Mike
January 17, 2006
1:07 PM
There are points in the post and comments with which I agree and others with which I do not agree. Certainly the point made above about it being a matter conscience is wise and applicable in this instance.
My aggravation with this whole matter - from the film to the discussion of it - is this: Christians have largely abdicated our right and responsibilities to express ourselves through the arts, and now we complain and whine about the kind of people who have filled the void we created. What if a Christian artist - in this case, an outstanding Christian producer and/or director - had made this film? But are there any outstanding producers or directors of the quality and stature of Spielberg, Howard, or even Tarrantino? None that I know of. There is no Austen, Lewis, or Tolkien on the horizon; there is no sunrise to be anticipated at all.
We created the vacuum and the solution is not to cast stones and those who have filled it. The solution is to “subdue the earth and exercise dominion over it.” This situation points to the failure of the church, and the evangelical community in particular. We are quite articulate when talking to ourselves, but we seem to be only talking to ourselves.
That a homosexual should be in this role is not surprising: we abandoned our responsibilities and now we are paying the price for our own choices. Maybe we should light a match, as is said, than merely curse the darkness - a darkness for which we bear responsibility.
17. Spunky
January 17, 2006
1:08 PM
I’m curious, is it that this actor is playing a character that is a Christian that is offensive or is that he is gay and given a platform. If it’s the first then I see a valid point. If it’s the latter then I would expect that these same believers would do due diligence before seeing any movie or TV show.
I am not a movie goer or a TV watcher for mostly time and money reasons. I don’t have enough of either to waste in such ways. The depravity of the entertainment and the corporations that produce it just more proof. I didn’t see Narnia because it was Disney. I was definitely in the minority among my friends and fellow bloggers. So I don’t get why people would get upset with one actor but not a whole corporate stance on homosexuality. But then I don’t get a lot of what people do these days.
I agree with blestwithsons Why do we need movies so desperately anyway?
18. Carla
January 17, 2006
1:11 PM
The very idea that so many Christians don’t see the problems with this, or find it “no big deal”, speaks volumes about the state of Christendom today.
It’s disheartening, indeed.
I’ve already commented on this here . And at the SI forum.
SDG…
19. Alan Kurschner
January 17, 2006
1:15 PM
Ochuk said,
“Justin Taylor is right. It is NOT a big deal. If the issue is the personal integrity of actors who play roles of historical people of integrity we must address EVERYTHING, not just particular sins that we don’t like.”
The “what about other sins” argument seems to be the most common one floating out there.
1) This is not an argument at all. It’s a diversion based on the assumption that there are actors out there that are sinless.
2) Ochuck believes that it is acceptable for homosexuals to play godly men in Christian films. So if he is consistent and wants to address “EVERYTHING” then he would not have a problem with a child rapist playing the part of John Piper someday in a Christian film since the personal sin of the actor is just like all other sins as he suggests.
If Ochuck balks at this, then he admits that there are some sins worse than others. In other words, you have folks who want to put the sin of homosexuality on the level of “lesser” sins, but what about sins such as rape and murder?
3) Why are there some Evangelicals who are so averse to singling out homosexuality? I could be wrong but I suspect they simply have been desensitized to the homosexual culture at large. Or they feel guilty because they feel intolerant; hence, the reason they need other sins to accompany homosexuality in their judgments.
It is an interesting observation to watch of late.
Thanks,
Alan
p.s. I am not going to attempt to create peripheral arguments of why this is wrong. It is wrong in itself because homosexuality is wrong compounded with denigrating Christian history and the those that gave their lives for the gospel of Christ.
20. Ochuk
January 17, 2006
1:38 PM
Alan,
No need to talk about me like I’m not here. The situation you describe of Piper being played by a child rapist is implausible as it is irrational. If anyone is being diversionary it is you, because Hollywood is not filled with child rapists, nor is homosexuality considered a crime. You may be able to make some philosophical point about degrees of sin—a point I didn’t address or disagree with. The point I made is that singling out THIS sin—homosexuality—but not greed or divorce (two sins fairly acceptable in Hollywood), in an ironic sense, shows that the supposed desensitizing is on the side of those who congratulate themselves for “standing up for what’s right unlike the rest of Christendom.” God hates divorce does he not? Greed is idolatry last time I checked?
Secondly, you didn’t even consider the Lord of the Rings scenario. If homosexuality is so bad, then you should never let your children or friends watch it because an actor in those films is gay. To allow them is to support the supposed gay agenda. The counter-point that there aren’t any God-fearing people being portrayed in those movies is irrelevant, because the issue is the singling out of homosexuality, not whether the actor’s character passes a morality test to qualify him for the role.
21. Larry
January 17, 2006
1:49 PM
I tend to agree with Tim. It seems disrespectful to the memory of these great men to have one of them portrayed by someone so supportive of that which God calls an abomination. However, I wonder if we would be having this discussion (or at least to this degree) if the actor chosen was in a live-in sexual relationship with a woman to whom he’s not married or if he were a known recreational drug user and supporter of the legalization of pot, etc.
22. Alan Kurschner
January 17, 2006
2:04 PM
Ochuk,
“No need to talk about me like I’m not here.”
? I have no idea what you are talking about. I just quoted a selection of your text and commented on it.
“The situation you describe of Piper being played by a child rapist is implausible as it is irrational.”
So is a homosexual playing the part of a godly man implausible and irrational as well?
“If anyone is being diversionary it is you, because Hollywood is not filled with child rapists, nor is homosexuality considered a crime.”
But we are not approaching this from the world’s point of view but from God’s law. It is you that made the suggestion that homosexuality is on the level of “everything.” Hence, my belief now that many Evangelicals feel guilty for singleling out homosexuality because they feel they are being intolerant if it is not accompanied by other sins.
“The point I made is that singling out THIS sin—homosexuality—but not greed or divorce (two sins fairly acceptable in Hollywood), in an ironic sense, shows that the supposed desensitizing is on the side of those who congratulate themselves for “standing up for what’s right unlike the rest of Christendom.” God hates divorce does he not? Greed is idolatry last time I checked?”
Once again, diversion. Wny must you have homosexuality accompanied by other sins? Why can we not isolate this and say it is wrong? It may sound nice and pious but it is not Biblical reality.
“Secondly, you didn’t even consider the Lord of the Rings scenario. If homosexuality is so bad, then you should never let your children or friends watch it because an actor in those films is gay.”
I have never seen the movies by the way. Just have not had the occasion. Once again you are missing the point and avoiding this isolated issue. Why are you so averse to addressing this particular movie and situation?
You have yet to address my argument by appealing to what has been accepted by other Christians and their movie habits. We do not justify our behavior based on other people’s behavior, but this seems to be the main argument by those who are arguing that it is acceptable. They are saying, “But what about those other films,” or “what about other sins.”
I ask, what about homosexuality and God’s holiness and the intergrity of Christian history?
Thanks,
Alan
23. Ochuk
January 17, 2006
2:09 PM
Another point I want to bring up. What if the guy wasn’t a gay activist, but a Christian who was Roman Catholic? Or an Open Theist? It seems the only kind of person to play this role would be someone who chares his exact same convictions.
24. Matt
January 17, 2006
2:10 PM
In JT’s defense, he wrote his “no big deal” statement before knowing all about the interaction between Allen & ETE (see JT’s comment just below Steve Camp’s first comment on the comment page of the article referenced above).
The “no big deal” for JT is the idea that a homosexual could play a Christian in a film.
JT separates that issue from the “platform” issue and indicates that he thinks that ETE’s choice of an homosexual activist is unwise.
25. Alan Kurschner
January 17, 2006
2:16 PM
“Another point I want to bring up. What if the guy wasn’t a gay activist, but a Christian who was Roman Catholic? Or an Open Theist? It seems the only kind of person to play this role would be someone who chares his exact same convictions.”
Ochuck,
With all due respect, your getting pretty desperate to defend the accpetance of homosexuality in Christian films.
Now your equating homosexuality with doctrinal beliefs. There can only be one response to this ordeal: outrage. Oh wait…I am being intolerant and closed minded. oops.
Thanks,
Alan
26. GeneMBridges
January 17, 2006
2:22 PM
Fact: Because Chad Allen is in this film and the gay press is putting his face out there, gay men and lesbians will go to see.
Contrast this with evangelical Christians who are refusing to go.
These men gave their lives for the gospel. They did this to reach a hard-to-reach people. Now, Christians are being handed an opportunity to go to a movie theater with gay men and lesbians to watch a movie about missions. It may not relate the gospel itself, but that’s not the point, not when the men were Christians and you know the gospel yourself.
So, we have a situation in which God is actually putting us in the same room with a hard-to-reach group that, for all intents and purposes is as difficult to reach as an Amazon tribe to many in our society, and all we can do is complain about Chad Allen and talk about what a problem this is.
For heaven’s sake, what’s done is done, and this is the route God has ordained this film be produced. Now, do I think Chad Allen was the best choice, No. Do I agree with what he has to say? No. Would I have chosen him, No.
On the other hand, if Chad Allen an A-list gay celebrity? Or is he the guy that HRC gets to come and speak when the A-list guys cancel? I assure you, it’s the latter, not the former.
On the other hand, would gay men and lesbians, a hard-to-reach people group have gone to see this film without Chad Allen or another openly gay actor in it? Probably not, so I have to wonder if this isn’t a providential working of God that will show our short-sightedness if we don’t latch onto it.
In my opinion, not to use this opportunity to reach a hard to reach people, which is what this film is essentially portraying would be as much a disservice to the memories of these men as Chad Allen’s use of this role to promote his social and political agenda, if not moreso.
Christians used Narnia as a vehicle for evangelism. Why not this film? Why not use it as a point of contact with the gay community to bring some light into the darkness to discuss the gospel with them? They’ll be going to see Chad Allen in a film with a Christian message. Use it to teach them what that message is really about.
So, rather than refraining from seeing it, go. Then reach out to the men and women around you. What’s trendy today is gone tomorrow in the gay community, so this point of contact will not be with us long. Use it.
Phi 1:15 Some, to be sure, preach Christ out of envy and strife, but others out of good will. Phi 1:16 These do so out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; Phi 1:17 the others proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely, seeking to cause me trouble in my imprisonment. Phi 1:18 What does it matter? Just that in every way, whether out of false motives or true, Christ is proclaimed. And in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice.
I have commented on this here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/01/unregenerate-and-gospel-art-redux.html
27. Ochuk
January 17, 2006
2:26 PM
Alan,
I’m affraid you are not seeing the point. I am not appealing to God’s law or human opinion to make or break a case for the morality of a gay activist playing the role of a Christian. I am arguing for consistency in the application of morals standards. Do you think it is defensible and biblical to single out homosexuality yet not address greed and divorce? Simply because you think homosexuality is worse doesn’t excuse you from confronting those other sins. I’m sure you agree with that, and that is precisely why I want you to be consistent in your condemnation. Perhaps you are.
28. Ochuk
January 17, 2006
2:29 PM
“Now your equating homosexuality with doctrinal beliefs. There can only be one response to this ordeal: outrage. Oh wait…I am being intolerant and closed minded. oops.”
You missed the point again, Alan. The point was that people can cry foul no matter what, much like they did with Mel Gibson and his Catholicism.
29. Alan Kurschner
January 17, 2006
2:32 PM
The following two inconsistent statements are held by Justin Taylor and others:
1) Homosexuality is an abomination to God
2) Homosexuals are accepted in Christian films.
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Alan
30. Lee
January 17, 2006
2:53 PM
Ochuk,
You started one of your sentences with “If homosexuality is so bad…”.
What is your position on homosexuality?
31. Ochuk
January 17, 2006
2:58 PM
Homosexuality is a condemned sin. The sentence in question was to drive home the point that if abstaining from movies with homosexual actors is moral then there are other movies that must be added to the list.
32. Alan Kurschner
January 17, 2006
3:09 PM
Ochuk,
Those are valid questions and should have a thread of their own. But in this post thread we are addressing the question of whether homosexuals should be accepted in Christian films.
Again, the “other sins” and “other movies” questions should be reserverd for another thread and not confused with the question at hand. I have yet had someone address my arguments that I originally posted on Justin’s site.
We should not have to feel guilty by singleling out homosexuality and the situaition in this film.
Thanks,
Alan
p.s. This is like the third or fourth time you have brought up irrelevant topics,
“The sentence in question was to drive home the point that if abstaining from movies with homosexual actors is moral then there are other movies that must be added to the list.”
33. diablaazul
January 17, 2006
3:09 PM
So … it’s ok for evangelical Christians to listen to music by self-professing Christians, many of whom have wishy-washy theology, some of whom have had affairs or been remarried after divorces. It’s ok for us to watch actors who live lifestyles that are completely antithetical to all that we profess - as long as they aren’t gay. Sure. That makes sense.
And I can’t tell you how horrified I am that Catholics had the gumption to make a movie about Christ’s Passion. Why, they don’t know the first thiing about that, do they? We all know Catholics don’t crack their Bibles unless the Pope tells them to do so. We couldn’t possibly find anything to affirm and celebrate in a Catholic presentation of the Gospel story.
Whatever.
34. mikbry24
January 17, 2006
3:13 PM
I think the difference here is that we don’t see people having “greed pride” parades and “divorce pride” days at theme parks. My point is that while we are against sin in general, there is a battle being waged for the minds of humanity concerning homosexuality right now. While divorce has become more commonplace and “acceptable,” if you will, it is still not something most people want to deal with or go through….and greed, well, everyone hates greed, right? Just ask all those liberal Hollywood types about the 1980’s and you’ll hear their “greed mantra.” The difference with homosexuality is that there is an effort being made to make it “normal,” to make it acceptable and that no one should have any problems with it or be able to speak out against it. While I don’t necessarily hate other sin any less than homosexuality, I do hate that homosexuality has become more militant and vocal, and therefore is a huge issue on the frontline right now.
Mike
“I’m straight, don’t hate, get used to it”
35. Ochuk
January 17, 2006
3:20 PM
Alan,
Thanks for responses. We will have to agree to disagree on this one, seeing how i believe my “irrelevant topics” are very relevant.
Just a question for you: What do you mean by “Christian movie?” Is this movie being made by Christians (I honestly don’t know)? Is analgous to Christian music? It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that is a secular movie made by a secular studio by non-believers about Christians.
36. Alan Kurschner
January 17, 2006
3:33 PM
“Just a question for you: What do you mean by “Christian movie?” Is this movie being made by Christians (I honestly don’t know)? Is analgous to Christian music? It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that is a secular movie made by a secular studio by non-believers about Christians.”
Ochuk,
It is irrelevant. It is a Christian movie because it represents our Christian heritage based on the missionary efforts of those who have died for the gospel of Christ. But it is acceptable for you that homosexuals play the roles of missionaries who died for the gospel of Christ.
If Christians see this movie, I am not going to think evil of them, but I certainly will know that they do not have Christian maturity in discernment on this issue.
Thanks,
Alan
37. Lee
January 17, 2006
3:40 PM
Ochuk, I have no problem drawing a clear distinction between “Christian movies” with gay actors, and non-Christian movies with gay actors.
But to your latest point, I believe you are partly right about this being a secular movie by a secular studio about Christians (not sure about the “by non-believers” part).
However, this company went out of their way to approach Christian churches and give screening audiences the impression they were a Christian movie production company. Now, that strategy seems to be back-firing on them a bit and mostly due to great blogs like Tim’s.
They’ve employed a rather twisted marketing campaign and Christians were their main target. This is a movie I have no problem avoiding.
38. nhe
January 17, 2006
3:45 PM
Wow, this really is a facinating discussion - and a complex issue. It’s complex because you have (in appearance) two diametrically opposed things colliding - a Christian produced movie about arguably the most significant 20th century missionary event in Christendom colliding with a decision by the Christian producers to cast a homosexual in one of the lead missionary roles.
Have I framed that correctly? If so, this is a big-time polarizing issue! Christians are going to disagree on it. THAT’s OK!! We’re still on the same team - that’s cliche I know, but I think we forget when we get passionate about an issue like this that divides us according to our views.
I really don’t think there’s an emphatic answer that can be supported with Scripture as to whether the producer’s decision is honoring or dishonoring to God.
My position falls in line with those who have given the examples of “Chariots of Fire” and “LOTR”. I watched God use those films to bring about dialogue with non-Christians that brought them to Christ. Was that Peter Jackson’s or the “Chariots of Fire” director’s intent?……nah, but God used those films, despite the fact that they had gay actors playing lead roles.
That’s the higher value for me. Thus, it really doesn’t matter whether a film is Christian produced or not. I want to know - can God use it for redemptive purposes? How do we determine that? - that’s another issue that Christians are divided over.
I would argue that there have been secular films that God has used more redemptively than the “Left Behind” films. Therefore, I get a little more miffed by Christian producers putting out a lousy end product than I do about who they cast in a film. I would be more ashamed (in front of non-believers) to allign myself with the same belief system of the “Left Behind” producers than I would the belief system of the “End of the Spear” producers…..and this is not because I’m being unbiblical, its because of where I place the higher value for me as a Christian.
Issues like “Casting a gay actor is dishonoring to the family of Nate Saint” and “Chad Allen will use his platform from this film to promote his militant gay agenda” are important issues, but to me, they are secondary.
Justin Taylor is right (IMHO) - casting a gay actor wasn’t wise, but it wasn’t wise for peripheral reasons. The central issue is how God uses the film for His purposes - and I’m not overly concerned about who plays a roll in a movie to achieve those purposes.
39. Ochuk
January 17, 2006
4:34 PM
Well for my final thought of the day I must agree that, “it is acceptable for [me] that homosexuals [can] play the roles of missionaries who died for the gospel of Christ” if they do so with excellence.
40. Mike
January 17, 2006
5:02 PM
I’ve restrained myself from posting on this topic several times ranging from Tim’s original post, Justin’s post and Evan’s over at triablogue. The reason is simply that I think there are strong points in both directions and any position that I would take is going to draw strong (and possibly warranted) criticism.
Having said that, I’ll now attempt to express my thoughts.
First, I think that I must commend Tim here. He is one of the few Evangelicals (in my mind) who is being consistent on this issue. If we are going to have problems with the End of the Spear then we must also have problems with The Passion of the Christ. In fact, I’d be tempted to say that the criticism of The Passion may be stronger because the director is going to have more impact on the firm than an actor. Whatever the case, consistency is good.
Second, I think everyone can admit that the choice of Chad was not the best. He is not some stellar actor who was the sole option to fill such a difficult role. Rather, any of a number of Actors could have been chosen and to pick a Homosexual Activist was not wise.
Third, we should all be able to say that the greater disaster is the fact that it seems that there is not a clear Gospel presentation here. If the Gospel was preached then we would have to deal with the issue of a Non-Christian being part of portraying the Gospel message but at least we could rejoice in the fact that the Gospel is preached. When we lose the gospel, all redeeming (no pun intended) aspects of the firm are drastically reduced.
Fourth, we must be able to draw a distinction of a distinctly Christian “good” and a civil “good”. As Calvinists (which I presume about 75% of Tim’s readership is) we recognize that in the midst of Total Depravity humans can still perform civil good. By this I mean that a Christian who considers Abortion to be murder MUST be in favor of seeing a Pro-Life Jew take a stance against abortion. As Evangelicals we must be able to confess that on the one hand we would be an enemy of the Gospel, but on the other he is committing a Civil good. Similarly, there are some movies that have absolutel zero Christian flavor to them. However, they manage to present a good story plot with well developed characters without the need of vulgar language, nudity scenes, etc. A Christian, in my opinion, ought to support such a movie because of the Civil Good. It is movie that rivals against the other movies of the day who would suggest that the only way to be entertaining is to have vulgar lanaguage, sex scenes, etc. We can draw the same parallel in music. A song that actually demonstrates talent and is liked by teenagers that is not distinctly Christian but not distinctly hostile to Christianity is going to be better than the rivaling music that is litered with drug, sex, drunkeness, etc.
So then, from this we must draw the principle that we can support things that are not particularly Christian if they advance a world view, an ethic, etc. that is more beneficial to the Christian than the rivals of the rest of Society. An example would be Intelligent Design. It is not necessarily a Christian movement and a Muslim teacher could probably teach it and even with some Muslim spin. However, I would say that Christians ought to support such a movement because it is closer to a Christian worldview than the rivaling Darwinian Evolution/naturalism.
So then, how does all of this relate back to “The End of the Spear”. I think Christians should be upset that the directors and cast-members did not choose the best options. I think we could even write to the company and express our concerns. I think we ought to be distraught that a historical event that was all about the Gospel is being portrayed in such a way that will not have the Gospel present (from what I have heard). However, at the same time I think that we can thank God that something that is more similar to a Christian worldview is being presented with great sucess. We can rejoice that the movie is not going to be the typical blockbuster hit that is about a teen who drops out of high-school, looses everything from booze and drugs, marries a prostitute, and finds happiness from the fact that his wide “accepts” him in the midst of this. I think we can rejoice that both movies may have some pro-homosexual support but one movie (brokeback mountain) is going to present Pro-homosexual themes while the other (End of Spear) is going to present Pro-redemption themes.
Hopefully I have expressed my thoughts with some clarity. I would agree with Tim’s update that this is also a matter of Christian conscience and legitimate Christians can have substancial disagreement on this issue.
In Christ alone,
mike
41. nhe
January 17, 2006
5:34 PM
beautifully said Mike - really
42. susanna
January 17, 2006
5:36 PM
According to a biographic website, Ian Charleson from “Chariots of Fire” read the bible from start to finish before playing the role of Eric Liddle.
Just a thought, but I wonder if Chad Allan has taken his role so seriously that he would do the same. If so, at least though he is a homosexual and unbeliever, he would be familiarizing himself with God’s word and be able to identify to some degree with the powerful word/message that drove these men. Also, it would show that he saw this role as something worth putting his whole self into as Charlson clearly did which could even testify to an unconscious honor for God, not to mention the slain missionaries he is helping to represent.
I have my doubts though that Allan has read the bible from start to finish or done anything of the like. I guess I feel this way because I doubt many unbelieving actors would go through such effort and have such an interest in familiarizing themselves with a God they do not acknowledge. This could be an unfair assumption though but definitely something I found interesting to consider, especially since there is now such a parallel between Allan and Charleson.
Any thoughts?
43. Hmmmm!
January 17, 2006
5:56 PM
It’s disheartening, indeed.
Sure is! But it is not surprising, considering the state of the church today. No fear of God and no holiness of God. Too many professing Christian’s are so busy watching “LOST” they have lost the will to discern. Professing Christian’s in the west are amusing themselves to death! How many Christian’s in the west now, will still speak out God’s Word, boldly and firmly and crystal clearly, calling the sin of homosexuality an abomination unto God, not afraid of being arrested and cast into prison for speaking out the truth? You can call adultery or fornication sin and no one bothers that much about it but as soon as you say homosexuality is sin the demonic forces of hell breaks loose, and who wants all hell blasting their way? What are we frightened of? Death? Are Christian’s in the west turning into wimps, jelly fish, sissys and mice?
Where have all the flowers gone?
Where have all the courageous men and women gone?
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much information that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distraction.” In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. ~ Neil Postman “Amusing Ourselves to Death” pp. vii, viii
44. Alan Kurschner
January 17, 2006
6:14 PM
Hmmmmm said,
“Sure is! But it is not surprising, considering the state of the church today. No fear of God and no holiness of God. Too many professing Christian’s are so busy watching “LOST” they have lost the will to discern. Professing Christian’s in the west are amusing themselves to death! How many Christian’s in the west now, will still speak out God’s Word, boldly and firmly and crystal clearly, calling the sin of homosexuality an abomination unto God,…”
Well said. Is there any topic left that we should be indignant about? That homosexuality is creeping into our Christian culture does not outrage people is very telling. We need to be intolerant toward such notions as homosexuals playing in Christian films.
Once again, this would have never been even a consideration 15 years ago in Christian circles! Oh wait…we have been more enlightened.
Homosexuality is killing the family unit in this country and is a mockery of God’s purposes. To send a message to film companies and producers, not one single Christian should see this movie.
Doctrinal disagreement on Calvinism, etc….fine. But on this…shame on those who think it is acceptable.
Thanks,
Alan
45. wfseube
January 17, 2006
8:20 PM
mikbry24 wrote: The difference with homosexuality is that there is an effort being made to make it “normal,” to make it acceptable and that no one should have any problems with it or be able to speak out against it. While I don’t necessarily hate other sin any less than homosexuality, I do hate that homosexuality has become more militant and vocal, and therefore is a huge issue on the frontline right now.
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head, Mike. I wrote an article about this a week or so ago. We are indignant about homosexuality because there is an active effort to normalize this abhorrant behavior. It’s too late for divorce and greed - they’re already normalized beyond hope. We need to draw the line on this one before it’s too late.
46. Steve S
January 17, 2006
8:32 PM
Alan wrote in an earlier comment responding to Ochuk: But it is acceptable for you that homosexuals play the roles of missionaries who died for the gospel of Christ.
The person you should really be taking issue with, Alan, is Steve Saint. It was apparently ok with him for this man to play his father and himself.
From this standpoint, Steve Camp’s admonition to someone else about (to paraphrase) “How would you feel if this was about your father?” is a moot point. Apparently, it did not bother Nate Saint’s son.
steve :)
47. Alan Kurschner
January 17, 2006
8:43 PM
I admit, I was naive. I underestimated the degree of many who have desensitized moral compunctions (i.e. consciences) on the inroads of homosexuality to our Christian culture. I am not being funny. I am dead serious.
I have received some email today saying that I am intolerant and rude. If stating my case bluntly is taken as rude, so be it. Further, I want to be known as intolerant on this issue. I don’t believe in giving an inch to the cause of homosexuality.
I am truly saddened that there are those who think it is acceptable for homosexuals to play in Christian films. This should not even be some round table discussion, but this is the state of the Evangelical church. This just disturbs me greatly seeing the frogs in the pot slowly capitulate toward the homosexual culture.
Thanks,
Alan
48. Alan Kurschner
January 17, 2006
8:51 PM
“The person you should really be taking issue with, Alan, is Steve Saint. It was apparently ok with him for this man to play his father and himself.”
It just demonstrates that it is bad on every level of this film.
I did not even see the Passion because I believe it was Catholic propaganda. It behooves me that Christians are so enamored by film, and so quick to concede (rationalize away) their values for a glimmer of Hollywood.
Thanks,
Alan
49. Carla
January 17, 2006
11:04 PM
Alan said:
“I have received some email today saying that I am intolerant and rude. If stating my case bluntly is taken as rude, so be it. Further, I want to be known as intolerant on this issue. I don’t believe in giving an inch to the cause of homosexuality.”
Alan, for what it’s worth, you have not only my support on this one, but my complete agreement. I’m getting the same messages, so go figure.
SDG…
Carla
50. Lee
January 18, 2006
12:59 AM
Alan, I just went back and read through all of your posts. I don’t see “rude”. Certainly, I see “intolerant”, a very good thing in this case.
I wonder how many people thought Jesus was intolerant when He drove out the money changers.
51. nhe
January 18, 2006
10:24 AM
Quote by Allen:
“I admit, I was naive. I underestimated the degree of many who have desensitized moral compunctions (i.e. consciences) on the inroads of homosexuality to our Christian culture. I am not being funny. I am dead serious.”
I don’t think you’re intolerant and rude Allen, but I do wonder - what are you doing with this “sensitized moral compunction” you have? All I have seen you use it for is to point out the DEsensitized moral compunctions in others. I suppose that’s one use for it, but there should be others if it is to be redemptive for the cause of Christ.
I have befriended several homosexuals over the years and have shared the gospel with them and confronted their sin in the context of the friendship. One has turned from his lifestyle and come to Christ. I say that not to pat myself on the back (the Lord knows I didn’t do anything other than “engage”) rather, we affect change by representing Christ to the lost, not by pointing at them from a lofty perch.
If you’re not “engaging” homosexuals directly as Christ would (in my opinion) then you’re “pointing a finger”. I don’t see the value in that. If you are engaging them in truth and love, then I stand corrected, please forgive me.
Proclaiming the depth of depravity in homosexuality to a Christian audience in a Christian forum like this is “preaching to the choir” - you’re words are true but they’re not spurring me on.
I fully admit that at times I err on the love side of truth and love, thus I no more condemn those who err on the truth side. We should mutually encourage one another to strike the balance.
52. Steve S
January 18, 2006
11:34 AM
Just for the record, when I posted my comment to Alan, I was not voicing any particular side in this issue. I was simply making the comment that, if someone chooses a gay actor to portray their father and themself (Chad plays both Nate and Steve), it’s pretty hard for us to talk about all this in terms of what this is doing to the memory of these men who gave their lives for the Gospel. The issue really should be addressed to Steve Saint personally.
(And by the way, the way I understand it, this movie really is more about the Madaoui [sp?] tribe and their relationship to Steve Saint, and only launches off the murder of the 5 men, so I’m not sure it’s fair to characterize this as a story ABOUT those 5 men and their mission. By the way, does anyone have any idea where Steve Saint is in his spiritual walk or theology? I haven’t a clue.)
My personal feeling is that I think that the producers could have made a different choice. I wish they had, to be honest. But I still don’t quite see the logic put forth by Alan and others that this is any different than the other examples given (i.e., Chariots of Fire, LOTR, or even the non-Christian actors in Left Behind).
I can’t argue FOR the inclusion of an openly gay, activistic actor in a “Christian” film, but I’m not sure I can follow the logic put forth by Alan and others against this movie. I’m reading and following, though, hoping to understand.
steve :)
53. Me and My House
January 18, 2006
11:45 AM
Alan,
I agree with all your comments here. This is an issue. And it shows the state of the church in (not) being (having?) Light. The issue of Chad being an activist does come into consideration for me. He is using the movie as a platform for his agenda (unlike the actors in COF or LOTR - as far as I know).
It seems to me this is just another way to play Christians as a bunch of patsys. Make a movie about a Christian, so they will come out in droves and spend their money. But don’t present the Christianity/Gospel in truth. And choose someone that will use the platform to advance a anti-Christian viewpoint.
Actually, it seems to me that this has been the focus lately on the several popular so-called “Christian” movies. Christians praise the fact that these movies are doing well, because they are about Christians/Christianity - or somehow might be construed as such - or were by an author that professed some sort of Christianity. Christians are making them into blockbusters. Christians that probably wouldn’t otherwise go to movies. The industry dipped into a pocket they wouldn’t normally be able to reach. Yet, the movies aren’t true to the truth. Nor can the actors have an understanding of the person they are playing.
If an adulterer plays an adulterer on the screen, no big deal, and I (and hopefully other Christians) won’t support the movie. But if a adulterer, drunk, homosexual tries to play a great hero of faith, and present the person’s faith realistically - it just can’t be done. And to the extent it is passed off as good, it is deception.
IMO, which matters to no one, I’m sure, let the homosexuals go see this movie. If it sparks an opening to discuss Christ with them, and lead them to salvation (by the true and uncompromised gospel) and out of their sin, great. More than likely, I think they’ll see it as they see everything, a great mixture of Christianity and homosexuality being perfectly compatible. That’s what our society is all about, mixture - everything being OK and co-existing in (inconsistent) harmony.
But as a Christian my money won’t suppport such a work.
54. Lee
January 18, 2006
12:57 PM
Steve, to my recollection (about 2 months old now), the movie spends equal time with both the missionaries (prior to the killings and with the missionary families who go back in after the killings), and with the Waodani tribe.
Sadly, there is no time - zero time - spent identifying the missionaries or their message as Christian, unless the movie makers made changes based on the feedback from the screenings.
I doubt it, however, based on their company’s staunch don’t-mention-anything-even-remotely-related-to-Christ stance in their promotional materials, website, and Mission Statement. They don’t even attempt to throw us a bone.
55. Lee
January 18, 2006
2:53 PM
If you go to the End of the Spear website and sign up you’ll be able to review their own blog. Under the topic called “Chad Allen”, you’ll read the following post from ETE’s Dave Sutton:
~~~
“Dear visitors, We set up the forum part of the End of the Spear site to be a free flowing exchange. It is designed to be self policed and organic. Chad Allen’s inclusion in the cast of the film has been one of the topics, but because of the nature of many of the comments we believe we should not host this topic any longer.
Chad Allen was invited to play the parts of Nate and Steve Saint because he was the best actor for the roles. Every Tribe Entertainment does not require those working with us to conform to our understanding of scripture.
With every film we make we believe the story is the star. We invite and encourage discussion of the questions this story raises in the hearts of all who experience it.
Every Tribe Entertainment”
~~~
Then, however, they let one posting remain on the thread. Not surprisingly, it was pro-movie comment:
~~~
“Wow incredible story and website…..it would help advance the Kingdom if personal agenda’s were set aside by those self-anointed to the throne of judging others. Hmmm….. Jesus was inclusive. The world calls the qualified. Father qualifies the called. Rock on Chad!”
~~~
They are so obvious. I just shake my head in amazement. Something is very wrong over at “Every Tribe”.
56. Hmmmm!
January 18, 2006
3:15 PM
Doctrinal disagreement on Calvinism, etc….fine. But on this…shame on those who think it is acceptable.
Keep up the good fight of faith. The sin of homosexuality is an odious abomination unto God. Chad Allen and his ilk should be trembling like a leaf and jumping at their own shadows in fear! One day they will!
I have received some email today saying that I am intolerant and rude.
Intolerant of evil? Yes!!! Rude? NO!!!
It is not flesh and blood we are battling but they use flesh and blood to battle us.
……For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ…….
57. Alan Kurschner
January 18, 2006
4:08 PM
Quote by nhe,
“If you’re not “engaging” homosexuals directly as Christ would (in my opinion) then you’re “pointing a finger”. I don’t see the value in that. If you are engaging them in truth and love, then I stand corrected, please forgive me.”
I forgive you. You have made a leap from my saying that we should not have homosexual actors in Christian films to somehow I don’t witness to homosexuals in love. I don’t see the connection. You have absolutely no warrant to make judgments on my personal witnessing. I don’t have to explain my personal witnessing life to justify the argument on hand.
“Proclaiming the depth of depravity in homosexuality to a Christian audience in a Christian forum like this is “preaching to the choir” - you’re words are true but they’re not spurring me on.”
Not everyone is part of the choir here.
“I fully admit that at times I err on the love side of truth and love, thus I no more condemn those who err on the truth side. We should mutually encourage one another to strike the balance.”
That is a false dichotomy. It is loving to rebuke our fellow Christians when they begin to accept homosexuals in Christian films.
Thanks,
Alan
58. nhe
January 18, 2006
6:19 PM
Quote by Alan (sorry for mispelling your name earlier):
“That is a false dichotomy. It is loving to rebuke our fellow Christians when they begin to accept homosexuals in Christian films. “
now my friend, you ARE being rude……..rebuke is corrective with relationship to sin and the central truths of our faith. We’re not talking about foundational truth here. WE’RE DEBATING THE WISDOM OF A DECISION!!!! That’s all.
As many have said here, you haven’t proved your point well enough to demonstrate that there is anything to correct.
As I stated before, you’re pointing a finger again. Which Christians have “accepted” anything about homosexuality? What does that even mean?
Yeah, homosexuality is wrong. Yeah, this guy wasn’t the best choice - not one person here disagrees with that. I’d still maintain that a film (Christian or not) can have redemptive elements that God can use regardless of who’s in it. You haven’t sucessfully convinced me otherwise.
I really thought we were merely in debate mode here. When you come to rebuke in areas that are not “major” (innerancy of Scripture, salvation by faith in Christ alone, confronting a friend in adultry, etc.) you’re deifying your gleened wisdom from your interpration of passages that do not speak directly to the issue at hand.
Bottom line Alan - take a deep breath…….ready?:
Its ok for me to believe that its more important to ask the question - “is the Christian film redemptive?” than “who’s in the Christian film?” - and for me to correspondingly believe that these two questions do not have to be inextricably linked.
59. Mike
January 18, 2006
6:52 PM
I really thought we were merely in debate mode here. When you come to rebuke in areas that are not “major” (innerancy of Scripture, salvation by faith in Christ alone, confronting a friend in adultry, etc.) you’re deifying your gleened wisdom from your interpration of passages that do not speak directly to the issue at hand.
Although I may inclined to hold your view (even though Alan does make some good points), I must say that I do not believe this to be a correct statement. Unless it can be shown from Scripture that only “major issues” can lead to rebuke then I must reject your comment.
Also, I can assure you that Alan does believe this to be a major issue. In and of itself it might not be “as big”, but with the recent acceptance by the Church to allow secular influences (being conformed to the world if you will) infiltrate the church (and thus Christianity) it is a big issue.
The only reason that I would disagree with him is because I reject the notion that it is a Christian film. You can see my argumentation for that at Triablogue (Alan’s post). However, that is clearly an open debate. I can see why we would be inclined to view this of a Christian film (it is supposed to be about the Evangelization of a lost people group). If it is a “Christian film” then I would jump ship immediately and say that Christians must object. It would then immediately jump to a major issue (at least in my mind). The reason is because the purity of the church, the purity of the Gospel is an essential issue. Paul makes this exceedingly clear in the Gospel to the Galatians.
In Christ alone,
mike
60. Alan
January 18, 2006
8:08 PM
Quote by nhe:
“now my friend, you ARE being rude……..rebuke is corrective with relationship to sin and the central truths of our faith. We’re not talking about foundational truth here. WE’RE DEBATING THE WISDOM OF A DECISION!!!! That’s all.”
Your mistaken. Rebuke can vary in degree. I am appalled at the tolerance that Christians have toward this issue; hence the rebuke. Further, being rude is screaming in text which you have done.
If you are offended by that then it just continues to demonstrate that there is a disturbing issue that is coming to light in recent weeks in Evangelicalism on the acceptance of homosexuals in our culture.
“As many have said here, you haven’t proved your point well enough to demonstrate that there is anything to correct.”
Again, your mistaken. Most have evaded my argument by diverting the issue toward irrelevant points. This really boils down to how much a believer hates sodomy. I hate sodomy. Can we still say that today as Christians? oh wait…I am unloving for saying that. I have to address “other sins” in order to make such a judgment, right?
“As I stated before, you’re pointing a finger again. Which Christians have “accepted” anything about homosexuality? What does that even mean?”
You pointing a finger at me by saying that I am wrong. You have a tolerance for homosexuality in which it is acceptable for homosexuals to play roles in Christian movies.
“Yeah, homosexuality is wrong.”
No, its not just wrong. Its vile. And it should not be tolerated.
“Yeah, this guy wasn’t the best choice - not one person here disagrees with that. I’d still maintain that a film (Christian or not) can have redemptive elements that God can use regardless of who’s in it. You haven’t successfully convinced me otherwise.”
What are the redemptive elements in the film? Please cite these. Actually the burden of proof is on your shoulders not mine. Demonstrate why Christians should tolerate something that God hates so much.
“I really thought we were merely in debate mode here. When you come to rebuke in areas that are not “major” (innerancy of Scripture, salvation by faith in Christ alone, confronting a friend in adultry, etc.) you’re deifying your gleened wisdom from your interpration of passages that do not speak directly to the issue at hand.”
Christians tolerating homosexuality in any form is warrant for rebuke. No apologies here. It is so easy to give in to political correctness and just go with the flow as many Evangelicals do. Sometimes they get weary and rationalize why we should accept this. But we must not give an inch to homosexuals. I am so tired of the wimpyness we have in Evangelicalism. And its about time that we start standing up to other Christians who think they are “pious” and “tolerant” and “loving” on this issue.
“Bottom line Alan - take a deep breath…….ready?”
That’s funny… the devil told me the same thing last night.
Thanks,
Alan
61. Brandon Jones
January 18, 2006
8:21 PM
Here is one (considering Chad Allen as an element of the film):
Did anyone see the Golden Globes (which also happens to be a great predictor of the Oscars)? All of the top awards went to films promoting the gay agenda if you will (Brokeback Mountain, Transamerica, Capote, etc). Being the year of film in the homosexual community, having Chad Allen in this Christian film opens a great door to share the Gospel with those that desperately need it. Perhaps the movie doesn’t overtly do it, but if all Christians just immediately boycott it, we miss a great opportunity to share with these people because you can bet they’ll stand behind their current poster boy and go out and see it (there is evidence of this already with Allen’s interview on CNN). If none of us are there, who will be ready to listen for opportunities to share God’s truth? Who will be ready to stand for what those men in Ecuador stood for before the homosexual crowd?
I realize some of you probably have your mind set in stone in regards to whether or not you should go but I for one will be there ready to share, given the opportunity.
62. Lee
January 18, 2006
8:28 PM
You don’t have to see this film to witness to homosexuals, nor does missing the film mean you’ve missed an opportunity to witness to homosexuals. If you are determined to witness to the homosexuals who see this movie, you can always wait outside in the parking lot. That way, you get to witness to homosexuals, and you won’t be giving your money to Every Tribe Entertainment.
63. Brandon Jones
January 18, 2006
8:38 PM
You are missing the primary point but whatever. I didn’t expect to change any minds.
I’m gonna go ahead and echo what Ochuk said:
and continue on with the evening.64. Alan Kurschner
January 18, 2006
8:40 PM
Brandon Jones said,
“Being the year of film in the homosexual community, having Chad Allen in this Christian film opens a great door to share the Gospel with those that desperately need it. Perhaps the movie doesn’t overtly do it, but if all Christians just immediately boycott it, we miss a great opportunity to share with these people because you can bet they’ll stand behind their current poster boy and go out and see it (there is evidence of this already with Allen’s interview on CNN). If none of us are there, who will be ready to listen for opportunities to share God’s truth? Who will be ready to stand for what those men in Ecuador stood for before the homosexual crowd?”
This is an prime example of what I have been talking about. Desperate attempts to justify the encroachments of homosexuality. Sure, when God ordains evil there will be good purposes that come out of it. But we are not to use that evil to justify its existence.
Brandon, the logical inference from your argument is that it is better to have a homosexual than a hetersexual play this part for the kingdom of God!
Then you should not object to a sodomite playing the role of John Piper someday in a Christian biographical film. (BTW, this question has been asked a few times already here and on JT’s site, and I have yet to see an answer.)
Thanks,
Alan
p.s. What I meant by redemptive elements in the film was where exactly is the gospel in the film.
65. Lee
January 18, 2006
9:05 PM
Actually, witnessing to homosexuals was your only point. Further, you were concerned that if Christians didn’t attend the movie, there would be nobody ready to witness to them. What point am I missing?
66. hespenshied
January 18, 2006
9:21 PM
Quote by Alan:
“Christians tolerating homosexuality in any form is warrant for rebuke. No apologies here. It is so easy to give in to political correctness and just go with the flow as many Evangelicals do. Sometimes they get weary and rationalize why we should accept this. But we must not give an inch to homosexuals. I am so tired of the wimpyness we have in Evangelicalism. And its about time that we start standing up to other Christians who think they are “pious” and “tolerant” and “loving” on this issue. “
Huh?…….I mean seriously, what are you talking about? It’s a movie Alan. I’m sure that I’ve watched movies (maybe even “Christian produced” movies ) before with people in them who are gay……do I have to go back and denounce having seen them, or worse - having enjoyed them? Will that make me less of a wimp? Where am I being tolerant of a lifestyle choice? Really, you should be specific - you’ve lost me at this point.
If your role here is to remind us what an abomination homosexuality is then mission accomplished sir!!!
(I just thought we were talking about the pros and cons of casting a gay guy in a Christian movie).
67. Lee
January 18, 2006
10:05 PM
From everything I’ve read, Alan is simply standing up for Godly principals. Sad that he’s had to on this board.
68. diablaazul
January 18, 2006
10:31 PM
Lee - the word you’re looking for is “principles.” And as far as I can tell, Alan is standing up for good old fear and contempt of homosexuals (read: homophobia), not godly or biblical principles. His argument boils down to “his lifestyle is vile, therefore he should not be in a Christian film.” Well, unless Alan is willing to speak out against any other actor in Christian films who happens to engage in vile actions/lifestyles (not just homosexuality), I fail to see how his vociferous opposition to Chad Allen is anything less than textbook homophobia. And that’s what we’re defending as godly principles? Sad.
69. Lee
January 18, 2006
11:07 PM
Diablaazul, thank you for pointing out my mistake, but that doesn’t strengthen your argument just as it doesn’t strengthen mine to point out that the punctuation you’re looking for is “his lifestyle is vile;”
I don’t know Alan, but I’d bet he is very willing to “speak out against any other actor in Christian films who happens to engage in vile actions/lifestyles (not just homosexuality)”, but I’ll let him speak to that.
Alan has spoken out here against casting a known homosexual in the roles of Nate and Steve Saint, and you claimed he was engaging in “homophobia”. This is usually a reaction reserved for homosexuals to attack those who take issue with homosexuality.
Are you a homosexual? No need to admit it here. If you are, we love you, but the Bible says that you are sinning when you practice homosexuality. However, giving your life to Christ can free you of your sin and reserve a place for you in Heaven.
70. Jesse
January 19, 2006
6:56 AM
Cal Thomas, nationally syndicated columnist and a Reformed Christian (Evangelical Presbyterian Church), writes in a very recent column devoted to End of the Spear:
“[I]t is the finest film of its kind I have seen. “
“This is about the power of true forgiveness. It is unlike anything one sees in contemporary culture.”
“All films carry messages (“Brokeback Mountain” is not just a movie about cowboys). In recent years, with some notable exceptions, many of those messages have appealed to our lower nature. “End of the Spear” is not only a true story, but also a compelling one. For those, like me, who have longed to go to movies that are uplifting instead of bottom feeding, this is one of the best. “
“This is a story that is not only worth retelling, but is worth emulating.”
Nowhere does he mention anything about the sexual orientation of any of the actors. He’s focused on the actual message (as opposed to the messenger) and found it to be on point.
That’s not to say he’s necessarily “right” in his endorsement of the movie, but in exercising his Christianly conscience regarding this issue, he’s enjoyed the movie and lauded it for its central message, a message he believes has been accurately conveyed.
Anyway, here’s the link to the entire article. Kind of refreshing reading after some of the stuff I’ve seen on this message board.
http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/calthomas/2006/01/18/182755.html
71. Candyinsierras
January 19, 2006
9:38 AM
Hmmm…I’ve been thinking. Do you think we can get Michael Jackson to play George Mueller (started orphanages for children) in a movie?
72. Ian Clary
January 19, 2006
9:43 AM
Hey, have you seen Farah’s review of End of the Spear at World Net Daily?? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48388
He doesn’t even mention this controversy. Sorta weird.
73. wfseube
January 19, 2006
11:39 AM
Tim points to this article today. It is required reading for anyone on this thread of discussion. It makes the point that several of us have - the issue is that Allen is an homosexual activist who is actively promoting his sin. The issue isn’t that a sinful person was cast in this role. It is that that person promotes it as right and normal behavior, directly in conflict with God’s word.
Those of you who thinks it’s OK for Allen to be in this role, read the article and then try to defend your position. It is indefensible.
74. mikbry24
January 19, 2006
12:33 PM
I have corresponded with Mr. Farah regarding this. I appreciated his review of the movie, and also noticed he mentioned nothing of Chad Allen. I don’t think he was remiss in not mentioning it. I asked him, “Do you feel as though it was a wise decision to have him (Chad Allen) play the role, giving him a platform on which to build his activism, or do you feel as though it doesn’t really matter?” He did respond by saying, “I would never have permitted that if I were involved in casting the movie.”
Mike
75. Carl
January 19, 2006
12:50 PM
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 homosexual nonsense and do it loudly!
76. nhe
January 19, 2006
12:54 PM
wfseube:
I’m scrolling up. Not one person says it is OK for Allen to be in this roll, not one. We all conclude that it is an unwise and very unfortunate choice by alleged Christian producers.
The debate here is over “why it is not ok”. Several of us are bristling at the notion that it’s not ok because homosexuality is an abominable sin, or because Allen is gay activist (neither of these is disbuted here either). Here, the sins of homosexuality and activism to promote sin are being highlighted - by you and many others.
You guys make good points, but the bottom line for me is this question - is the fact that Allen is a gay activist going to affect the redemptive aspects of the film and how God chooses to use them? You can make the case that the answer is yes, but I don’t agree, because to agree is to (IMO) to call God’s sovereignty into question.
The reason for me that it is not ok for Allen to be in this role is because it is an unwise choice. It is unwise because there are plenty of other choices out there among actors who don’t so publically justify their sin. What that sin is, and how “activist” the public justification of that sin is not as important.
It is also unwise because (one would think) that it is dishonoring to the family members of these Godly men, even though Steve Saint doesn’t appear to feel dishonored.
Regarding gay activism - activism gains a foothold and a voice by agitation and control. The gay movement is very good at this. Rather than dwelling on how upset I am (and it does tick me off) about the voice they have, I prefer as a Christian to study their activism methods (which are very shrewd and measured) and learn from them so that I can meet them step for step when given the opportunity, as Al Moehler did.
I hope I’ve accurately framed the alternative to your position by identifying the real topic here. I don’t see need for rebuke or concern over the Christian worldview of anyone here…….the nuances of each Christian worldview vary, but they’re nuanced according to our gifting and experience in our walk with Christ.
77. Lee
January 19, 2006
1:02 PM
Carl,
Well said. You have made a stand for Christ here… and as is usually the case when we make a stand for Christ, an attack is sure to follow. Be ready for posts that will attack you as they did Alan. I have a suspicion there are homosexuals here posing as Christians. Again, we love them just as Christ loves them, but we hate their sin.
78. Carl
January 19, 2006
1:11 PM
Lee,
I don’t answer to anyone except God. Anyone who wants to attack my stand for God will find themselves answering to God one day.
All unrepentant practicing homosexuals have a one way ticket to hell. The same applies to any sin that is blatantly not repented of. Proud unrepentant murders, liars, adulterers, thieves… all go to hell. Don’t believe me? read the bible.
Any detractors from this view should take it up with God not me.
79. Lee