- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (01/18)
- Next Post »A La Carte (01/19)
Dr. Mohler on Larry King Live (Recap)
- 01/18/06
- 32
As you may know, Al Mohler was a guest on Larry King Live last night, discussing homosexuality in general, and homosexual marriage in particular. The impetus for the discussion was, of course, the film Brokeback Mountain which won several Golden Globe awards on Monday night and which seems primed to walk away with several Academy Awards a few weeks from now. The members of last night’s panel were: “conservative radio host Janet Parshall; the openly gay actor Chad Allen; R. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; and Guy Padgett, openly gay former mayor of Casper, Wyoming, the city where Matthew Shepard was murdered for being gay and the state where ‘Brokeback Mountain’ is set.”
While I did not watch the discussion last night (I just plain forgot!) I read the transcript this morning. It seems that Dr. Mohler did a very good job of presenting biblical insight into the marriage debate. He said that his main concern with this issue “is not with the gospel of heterosexuality, even though I think that’s very important. It’s with the gospel of Jesus Christ and what I find lacking in the movie, the screenplay and in the short story is any resolution that really brings these persons to know why they were created and how God really intends them to live and how they would find their greatest satisfaction in living just as God had intended them for his glory.” He shared the hope of the gospel, saying “What I hope for is that persons, heterosexual and homosexual, will come to know the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, would come to know new life in him, would come to understand that sinners can find the only help that is — that is worth finding and the only salvation and solution to our problems by coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and then understanding that God, our creator, has the right to define every aspect of our lives including our sexuality.” He said that marriage is an objective reality and not something we are free to change or define as we see fit. He exemplified speaking truth with grace.
It is interesting to note that Al Mohler was defending a biblical view of marriage and sexuality against none other than Chad Allen, the actor who has been the topic of much discussion at this site over the past couple of days. Allen is, of course, the homosexual actor who was chosen to play Nate and Steve Saint in the upcoming film The End of the Spear.
Just yesterday I wrote, “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.” Clearly Allen was asked to be on last night’s panel because of his work on The End of the Spear. Sure enough, the platform he has been provided has already allowed him to share his views with a wide audience, even before the film has opened. Here are a few of the things he said last night:
- “Listen, I question myself all the time to make sure that I’m operating in the right way and the way that I want to operate in the world. And this what I’ve come to, again and again and again. It’s been where my heart has been brought. You are whole, perfect and complete right now, exactly as you are.”
- CALLER: “Chad, by whose standard do you think that it’s right to live the way you have chosen to live?”
ALLEN: “By the standard that I judge all of my actions. These days I judge all of my actions by my relationship with God of my understanding. 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.”
- “You know, I had to sit down with that same God today and say, “Do you want me to go on this show? Do you want me to speak the things that are in my heart? And if not, I’m happy not to go. Do you want me to make this movie?” It’s the same God that I go to for every decision.”
- “Steve Saint called me today, and he said, I need you to know that I’m sitting here with Mincayani. We’ll be watching you tonight. We love you. We are on your side. And I know that we have those differences, but we are walking through this together. That’s where we’re going to go.”
Without diving into the issue of whether or not it is right or good or proper for Christians to support The End of the Spear, we must at least concede the impropriety of casting a homosexual advocate as a Christian man in a film that (we hope) seeks to honor Christian men and the message that was of such importance to them that they were willing to die for it. Here is a man who shares a message antithetical to Christianity using the platform provided by a film dedicated to Christian men. He speaks of finding a “higher power that worked for me.” He declares that he is perfect and complete exactly as he is. He declares that he is a Christian, but one whose views were shaped by other religions as much as by Christianity.
Of course we would expect him, as an unbeliever, to have views that contradict the Bible. So the heart of the matter is not Chad Allen but the producers of the film who selected him as the lead actor in the film.
As I have spoken to people, observed the comments on this site and others, and read through emails, I have come to understand that many Christians are just plain disappointed with this choice. It is rare that a movie of this type is produced, a movie based on one of the most important missionary endeavours in the last century. People were eagerly anticipating seeing the film and were disappointed to find that the producers had made such an odd choice in casting. For some people this would remove any enjoyment they could derive from the film. For others it is simply a disappointment but not one that troubles their conscience. This is an issue that must be decided by the individual - the choice is between the individual and God.
So let me say this one more time just to be clear what my point is! As Christians we need to be careful who we select to represent us. It may be only a film, and Chad Allen may be nothing more than an actor playing a man of God, but the fact is that he now has a widened platform that he can use to share his beliefs - beliefs that just so happen to contradict Scripture.
Despite this strange choice of casting, I do hope and pray that God uses this film to bring honor to Himself. He can use whatever means He chooses, no matter how imperfect. I hope that He will see fit to use The End of the Spear to stir the hearts of those who see it, homosexual or heterosexual, Christian or non.
If you would like to read the transcript, you can do so here.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (32)
Great post. If I had cable I would have watched Mohler on CNN. If you come across a video file of it, would you post it on your blog?I agree with you that the producers made a horrible choice with Chad Allen playing Nate Saint. If they are evangelical Christians, they have a lot to answer for by having him in this role.In terms of Christians seeing this movie, I don’t necessarily think it’s a problem. If I want to speak honestly to unbelievers about the movie, it might be a help to have seen it. It really is a shame that the significance of what happened to those missionaries fifty years ago is being clouded over by such a poor choice of actors.Thanks for the thoughtful posts on this issue, they are an important contribution and are very helpful.
Great post. If I had cable I would have watched Mohler on CNN. If you come across a video file of it, would you post it on your blog?I agree with you that the producers made a horrible choice with Chad Allen playing Nate Saint. If they are evangelical Christians, they have a lot to answer for by having him in this role.In terms of Christians seeing this movie, I don’t necessarily think it’s a problem. If I want to speak honestly to unbelievers about the movie, it might be a help to have seen it. It really is a shame that the significance of what happened to those missionaries fifty years ago is being clouded over by such a poor choice of actors.Thanks for the thoughtful posts on this issue, they are an important contribution and are very helpful.
Tim,
It sounds as if you and I aren’t very far apart after all! The more I read the more I am bewildered of the choice of Chad Allen for the role (see my latest post on this controversy ).
At the same time, I still don’t think Allen’s casting necessarily makes the movie itself bad or something we should not see. You wrote:
“Despite this strange choice of casting, I do hope and pray that God uses this film to bring honor to Himself. He can use whatever means He chooses, no matter how imperfect. I hope that He will see fit to use The End of the Spear to stir the hearts of those who see it, homosexual or heterosexual, Christian or non.”
All I can say is: Amen!
“So let me say this one more time just to be clear what my point is! As Christians we need to be careful who we select to represent us. It may be only a film, and Chad Allen may be nothing more than an actor playing a man of God, but the fact is that he now has a widened platform that he can use to share his beliefs - beliefs that just so happen to contradict Scripture.”
Respectully, I’m just not threatened by this platform. We live in a free society where all views are welcome.
The free exchange of ideas in the marketplace is one of the most important things we have.
Shame on us as believers for allowing ourselves to marginalized while the gay agenda gets more press and more positive spin in the media. We allow this by worrying more about what those who oppose our worldview say and do, than we do about engaging our opposition in debate, and proclaiming truth in love.
Hats off to Dr. Moeller for using his platform to lovingly proclaim truth - that will always prevail - and for that reason, I have absolutely no problem with opposing views having a platform - I should welcome and expect it and rise to the challenge.
Steve Saint seems to have been hands-on in the making of the movie, and so far hasn’t indicated any disappointment with the choice of producers or actors for the movie. All I can say is, thank God for Christian bloggers who will bring up the issues-otherwise the likes of AL Mohler would never have appeared on Larry King to tell the truth.
Perhaps there will be more talented and godly independent filmmakers out there who will move to fill the vacancy that exists for quality movies. The internet and bloggers in particular can help to make their efforts successful.
So, Chad Allen dishonors God because he is a practicing homosexual? And you and I dishonor God with the multitude of sins we commit each day.
The Apostle Peter dishonors Christ by claiming that he will never betray, and then he betrays Jesus to his face. AND yet, Jesus tells Peter that he will build his Church upon him.
If we are Calvinists, we are all depraved and fall short of the glory of God. Ironic that we then qualify our sinfulness as being honorable enought or represent God or not.
In reality, this conversation is healthy, but if we fall into the belief that some people can represent our faith and others can not, we are moving toward a works based faith.
IF we believe that a committed homosexual is less honoring to God than a less-than-honoring husband, we are terribly messed up.
When we forget that Jesus hung around with the worst of sinners, the poorest of the poor, and was born in a lowly stable, we’ve really forgotten the gospel story. We’re so concerned about being right that we’ve forgotten how to live with extended arms of grace to a fallen and hurting world.
The Lord didn’t say He would build the church upon Peter.
There is no such thing as a “committed” homosexual.
When Peter claimed to represent God by telling Jesus He shouldn’t speak of going to the cross, Jesus rebuked him by saying, “Get thee behind me Satan.” Christians can claim the same authority concerning how and who represents them.
Jesus did visit the worst of sinners but when He left their homes they were redeemed sinners as is evidenced by their change of action and lifestyle. See Zachius as an example.
Randy, I agree with you that as less-than-honoring husbands, wives, employees, etc we are just as much a sinner as the committed homosexual. The difference is that the “committed” homosexual, and particularly the one in question, has called good that which God has called evil. He does not seem willing to repent.
I saw about 5 minutes of the show and Mohler never fails to impress me. He seems to be unflappable, eloquent and civil.
After reading his comments, It seems that Chad’s god is himself. One who’s standards are easy to predict and follow. I also believe that the producers made a poor choice in casting, based on the content of the movie and the fact that this is a true story. Regarding boycotting, I appreciate what Phil Johnson said: “Is it technically a “boycott” if you weren’t planning to attend anyway?”
First off, thank you so much Tim for bringing these issues to my attention. My excitement at seeing this movie was spurred mainly by Jim Elliot’s journal’s. The story is absolutely amazing. But, of course, it get’s extremely tricky when you are dealing with a story that involves love for such an evil people, the Aucas. Many times, this comes off wrong, and can pose a problem when you speak about the movie.
I’m not defending Steve Saint in any way, because from what I’ve heard he doesn’t have it right, but when we look at this story, we do need to point out that God is a God of Love—yet also a Just God. And hopefully this movie isn’t missing that.
Steve Saint said on our local radio the other day that “this movie will not offend non-Christians…” Dissapointment for me, yet still a realization that it was made by non-believers.
Lastly, looking at that quote from Chad about Steve calling him:”Steve Saint called me today, and he said, I need you to know that I’m sitting here with Mincayani. We’ll be watching you tonight. We love you. We are on your side. And I know that we have those differences, but we are walking through this together. That’s where we’re going to go.”
First of all, we don’t really know that Steve called, but assuming he did, I believe he probably said the right things. He is showing love to this man—but not love for his sin.
When I see the movie, I’m going to keep these things in mind and give an honest review. Things only seem to get worse though…
You assert that this movie has given Chad a broader platform to spread his views. And while I concede that had he not been cast in the movie “End of the Spear” he probably wouldn’t have made it onto Larry King, I don’t give him any more credence than I did before he acted in this film. There is a fundamental problem with the way celebrities are elevated in our culture as though they are somehow superior. Any platform he has is a result of the screwed up American culture which honors celebrity as though they were on the same level as Nobel Prize recipients or other persons who have rightfully earned respect. The problem of any broadened platform for Chad is the fault of those who take what he says as anything other than his own opinions, his platform is a societal problem. The producers haven’t given him a platform by casting him in this film, society has and that is where the blame should rest.
Bob Bixby over at his blog, Pensees, writes a Biblical defense of why Chad Allen was a bad choice to be in the movie.
He brings up the point that the issue is not that Chad Allen is a homosexual. The issue is Chad Allen is a homosexual activist.
Good post, Tim!
I wouldn’t mind hearing some more discussion about the comments supposedly made by Steve Saint as Agent Tim pointed out. I have never met or heard Steve Saint speak so have no idea what is his understanding of God’s grace. But the quote given by Chad troubled me:
“We love you. We are on your side.” - Based on Chad’s comments in the interview, I would have to conclude that God doesn’t love Chad in the gracious/salvific sense. And He is definitely NOT on Chad’s side.
I am probably trying to draw too much out of a small statement, especially without the context. But are we really called to “be on the side” of the unregenerate who are hostile to the grace of God? True love is telling someone of their enmity with God and utter need for His saving grace. And there is a difference between the unregenerate sinner and those redeemed by the grace of God. God’s people are not “sinners”. That is no longer their identity.. God gives a new heart so that the nature and identity of the believer is defined by the grace of God. Yes, believers sin because of the flesh, but in one sense they are no longer “sinners”.
“My concern is having churches and parachurches using this as an “evangelistic tool.”“
I’m not sure if that’s a legitimate concern or not. I haven’t heard of churches that are attempting to use it for that purpose. I also don’t know that the film has enough of a Christian message to it to even appeal to churches for evangelistic purposes.
[quote]So, Chad Allen dishonors God because he is a practicing homosexual? And you and I dishonor God with the multitude of sins we commit each day.[/quote]
The difference is that if we are truly Christ’s, we cannot continue to sin flagrantly and boast in it, as Allen certainly seems to be doing. “]No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.” (1 John 3:6)”
[quote]In reality, this conversation is healthy, but if we fall into the belief that some people can represent our faith and others can not, we are moving toward a works based faith.[/quote]
Except that Chad Allen, by his own words, may be representing something, but it is definitely not our faith. His is the epitome of a 1 Timothy 3: “spirituality”, having a form of godliness but denying it’s power. Spirituality without accountability — it’s the way of the world, isn’t it?
[quote]IF we believe that a committed homosexual is less honoring to God than a less-than-honoring husband, we are terribly messed up.[/quote]
I don’t think anybody is claiming this. We wouldn’t a flagrantly adulterous hjusband representing our faith either.
[quote]If we are Calvinists, we are all depraved and fall short of the glory of God.[/quote]
You don’t need to be a Calvinist to fall short of the glory of God. Everyone does.
Take Care
Randy said:The Apostle Peter dishonors Christ by claiming that he will never betray, and then he betrays Jesus to his face. AND yet, Jesus tells Peter that he will build his Church upon him.
Tim Replied:The Lord didn’t say He would build the church upon Peter.
Did Randy really say he was a Calvinist and also say this in the same paragraph? I smell another thread coming on……Joel, where are you????? We are in need of a “Token Papist” to set us straight on this! :-)
I am still amazed that the issue is a homosexual actor instead of a watering down of the gospel.
It is as if the actor was not homosexual then there would be no controversy.
The discussion proves that we have lost the centrality of the gospel - and that is why Nate Saint and the others with him died. They gave their life for the gospel.
If we have indeed then lost the centrality of the gospel, then none of the rest of the discussion matters much. We are already sunk! And we are the one that have done ourselves in!
~pastorway
While I agree that Allen’s role in the movie does not make the movie intrinsically evil (he is, after all, just reading back memorized lines that were written by someone else) I cannot comprehend why a Christian movie company would hire a homosexual to play this role. Every Tribe Entertainment does claim to be christian right?
I blogged about this controversy today. It’s just one perspective of what might be taking place:
http://thesleddog.blogspot.com
As a frequent Larry King Live watcher I have seen Chad Allen on King’s show numerous times before when homosexuality was the topic of discussion.
His appearance was most likely not on the basis of his being cast for the movie but rather his activism for homosexual causes which was the main thrust of the show.
This time however he was armed with some new ammunition as a result of his association with the film. I think it is important to note this because this platform most likely would have been provided without the movie.
My biggest dissappointment in this debate and the very strong objections to Chad Allen’s role in the movie is that they are focused on his homosexuality. I wonder if this blog would have dedicated as much time to this discussion if Nate Saint’s role was acted out by a “moral” athiest. Or how about a openly heterosexual fornicator?
I am afraid that this debate is taking homosexuality and waging war on it as the anithesis of Christianity, instead of the unbelieving heart in general.
Do we think that the cultural knee jerk reaction to homosexuality in particular is the best way to present the gospel of grace to this culture? Instead it paints a picture of a religion that primarily identify’s with heterosexuality instead of the forgiveness of sins.
I hope that those who are encouraging others not to go see the movie would be equally consistant with any openly unbelieving actor, despite the form of his sin.
What is Chad Allen’s expressed opinion of the Cross of Christ? Why is that not being discussed?
I think that disappointment is a proper response to finding out that a openly lost man is acting Nate Saint’s role. I think that our preoccupation with his homosexuality is missing the point.
I sometimes wonder if the choice of casting was deliberate sabotage of a sort…
If the movie succeeds financially (and with Christians) then we have given the platform Tim so sagely pointed out. Plus we have “accepted” something we might not ordinarily accept. If it doesn’t succeed… Well see - so-called Christian movies aren’t moneymakers after all. Let’s go make something else!
I’m probably wrong… But conspiracy theories are so much fun!
My biggest dissappointment in this debate and the very strong objections to Chad Allen’s role in the movie is that they are focused on his homosexuality. I wonder if this blog would have dedicated as much time to this discussion if Nate Saint’s role was acted out by a “moral” athiest. Or how about a openly heterosexual fornicator?
I believe it would have. If you had a known womanizing heterosexual adulterer/fornicator or an atheist, I believe the same wonder and outrage would be expressed. However, it is doubtful that the movie would have served as a “launchpad” or stage to further an activist atheist or fornicator platform as these are not things that are supported in a militant-type fashion. I will side with Mohler on this as he stated last night. Apparently Bill (wsfeube) posted an article on this (you can find this in another thread).
Has anyone actually *seen* this movie? It could prove to be a powerful witness to the gospel despite the fact that the actors in it are imperfect human beings, as are we all. I’m inclined to take all this head-shaking with a huge grain of salt, given that I have no indication whatsoever that any of the naysayers have actually seen the film they are so quick to criticize.
Perhaps the film should be more appropriately called, “The End Of The Schtick” where schtick is defined as a cunning or deceitful action or device, eg., “He pulled a fast one and got away with it”.Dad
Tim,
I must again share my appreciation for your accurate treatment of this issue. Some may disagree with your conclusions, but I find them a breath of fresh air amid the stench of contemporary evangelicalism. Thanks, too, for the mention in your blogspotting section. You can read my official thank you here.
Diablaazul,
I’ve seen it, and I’m a naysayer.
Tim,
I have video of Janet on the LKL - 7-8 clips. Check it out. She did great.
I am disappointed that a homosexual activist was cast in a lead role of a film based on the lives of Christian missionaries. I have three main gripes about all this:
1) This Chad Allen isn’t just a homosexual, he’s a homosexual activist. This means he does all that he can to promote and “educate” men, women, boys, and girls on the joys of homosexuality. Yes, I said “joys.” Allen claims he’s found joy and peace and wholeness in his homosexuality and he wants others to know about it and embrace and even try it out themselves. WHY would a Christian movie company want a person like this in their movie???
2) The issue at hand here is DOES THIS MOVIE PORTRAY THE GOSPEL as the Bible portrays the Gospel? Or does it water it down, miss the point, etc? Unfortunately, I don’t ever plan on seeing the movie, so someone will have to post a review about it and tell us.
3) It’s time for believers to buck up. Let the movie company know why you’re not interested in their movie. We need a backbone. We need to call a spade a spade.
4) I agree with Phil Johnson. I wasn’t going to see the movie anyway. I would rather read Through The Gates of Splendor. No homosexual activists in there :)
I have just returned from a mission trip to Ecuador and had the humbling honor of being in Shell Mera and seeing Nate Saint’s house, the hospital he help start, etc. and it saddened me greatly to hear that Chad Allen would be playing the part of Nate and Steve Saint. What is more distressing is the apparent “watering down of the Gospel” in this film by a “Christian Film company”.
But as I thought about this and read the posts reguarding the topic it occured to me that there are hundreds and hundreds of Christian churches where the Gospel is watered down, changed, and or completely deleted. Why is it surprising that a “Christian Film” company does any less? Another question in this vein is “What type of film does a “Christian Film” company produce and does it only choose actors/actresses that are Christian to play the various roles? Or can they pick others provided they are not “activists” for their particular sin? I don’t know the answer? I am just asking.
I still believe the story is compelling and who knows, it probably will lead some to “read more about it”.
It all comes down to this…
This gay actor PROUDLY revels in his homosexuality and claims his “god” approves of his lifestyle. Rebuke this garbage and do it loudly. 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?
For God’s sake, how weak some people’s discernemnt has become…
I found Allen’s comments on LKL very intriguing and have commented on them here. What I’m wondering is how someone coming from an emergent perspective would answer Allen’s position. In McLaren’s terms, Allen would be a person with “good faith” whose had a genuine experience of God, and has come to terms with God as his existential “absolute truth.” How can we dispute him? Or should we even try?
Perhaps he is simply an “honest believer with questions” who shouldn’t be “battered into submission” by proof-texts. So what leg would emergent folk have to stand on, in questioning this guy’s morality?
They’d be stuck with “conversing” and nothing more.
Admittedly, I didn’t do much research, but the trailer I saw in commercial theaters made no mention of this being a “Christian” movie, and to me that would have been very nearly a “kiss of death”. This movie was portrayed as a true-life dramatic story, and , within the violent context of the story, relatively family-friendly. I suspect that this would have had a positive impact on the trend I see beginning toward good quality movies with a high moral content, but such a big deal has been made out of Chad’s “issues” that the high quality of the story and the film-making have been buried in the process of making sure that Chad has a huge platform! If no issue had been made of Chads homosexual activism, his platform would not have been increased beyond that which he had before this movie came out - it is our outcry that has given him an enlarged platform!Dare I say “DOH!”
As a side note, I have long avoided movies made and marketed as “Christian” due to the consistent low quality - less often on the actor’s part than on the directorial and production end. On the other hand, movies and shows made by Christians who are telling a good story without letting anything other than the lives of the characters be the witness are consistently much better - eg Walker, Texas Ranger, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, and many others!