- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostBook Review - Women's Ministry in the Local Church
- Next Post »Albert Mohler on Larry King Tonight
The End of the Spear - Further Thoughts
- 01/17/06
- 122
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.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (122)
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."
"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?
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.
Tim, I think you hit the nail on the head.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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)
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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
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
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.
"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.
The following two inconsistent statements are held by Justin Taylor and others:
1) Homosexuality is an abomination to God2) Homosexuals are accepted in Christian films.
Am I missing something?
Thanks,Alan
Ochuk,
You started one of your sentences with "If homosexuality is so bad...".
What is your position on homosexuality?
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.
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."
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.
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?
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"
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.
"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
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.
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.
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.
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
beautifully said Mike - really
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?
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
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
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.
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 :)
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
"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
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
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.