Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author, and book reviewer.

Tim Challies

Challies on FacebookChallies on Twitter


February 07, 2006

There are many who consider Janet Leigh’s murder in Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho to be the most terrifying scene in the history of film. The setting, the mood, the music and the camera work combine to create a scene of absolute terror. Her screams were impressed upon the memories of many who watched her macabre death on the silver screen. Since 1960, when the film was produced there have been tens of thousands of horror films made, but in the minds of many who enjoy such films, few of them have begun to approach the brutal genius of Hitchcock’s film.

The horror genre delights in the scream. Bloodcurdling screams are common in horror films, and filmmakers are constantly looking for ways of making them seem more genuine, more heartfelt, more terrifying. I remember reading of a film in which the director had the actors sprayed with the remains of a slaughtered pig during a particular scene in order to be able to capture real disgust and surprise. He wanted to evoke in his actors a pure terror and hoped that would translate to horror in the hearts of those who later watched.

The makers of horror and suspense films are always looking for the ultimate scream.

So I wonder, what would the ultimate scream sound like? If we were to create the most horrifying setting, the most horrifying villain - if we were to make the situation just right, what would that scream sound like? Would it be a wordless scream, or a scream that would express the reason or meaning behind the horror?

I went looking this morning and I found the ultimate scream. It is a scream that I am sure represents the most agonizing, terrifying, painful scream in the history of humanity. And that is no small statement for people have suffered terribly and brutally through the long history of humanity. The ultimate scream, according to Scripture, sounds like this: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

It is probably not what you would say, is it? I don’t know of too many people who would die with the words of Psalm 22 upon their lips. It doesn’t sound too terrifying, does it? Yet it represents the low point of humanity. It was Jesus who uttered those words, and He did so in the midst of pain, torture and forsakenness such as no one else in the world can know or ever will know. R.C. Sproul says, “This cry represents the most agonizing protest ever uttered on this planet. It burst forth in a moment of unparalleled pain. It is the scream of the damned — for us.” The scream of the damned. Jesus Christ gave a cry from the midst of unspeakable agony. He gave the very cry of the damned.

God the Father looked down on His Son, hanging on the cross, and saw not His beloved Son, but “the most grotesque ugliness imaginable.” He saw the sins of all who would be saved resting on that one Man. He saw all the sins that I have committed. He saw all the sins that you committed. He saw all of the sins of all of the elect resting upon one man. Jesus Christ, bearing our sin was removed totally and completed from the presence of the Father at that moment, for God cannot allow sin to remain unpunished. He turned His back on His Son. He completely, utterly forsook Jesus Christ.

And so Jesus cried out in his forsakenness. He cried out in His pain and His agony, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me.” He was alone and rejected. He willingly took this upon Himself for you and for me. He cried out with the ultimate expression of pain - the scream of the damned - so that we could have life.

I hate horror films. I have seen only a handful of them in my life, and have not seen one since my teenage years. I despise them. And perhaps this is why. The filmmaker may attempt to capture terror in its purest form. He may attempt to create a death that is surely more horrible than has been captured on any film. He may attempt to capture a scream that will remain in people’s memories for many, many years. He may succeed. But he will never be able to capture, or even approach capturing, the horror of the cross - the greatest horror humanity will ever know.

February 06, 2006

“Freedom Go To Hell,” reads the sign. “Europe You Will Pay. Your 9/11 Is On Its Way,” and “Be Prepared For The Real Holocaust” read others. Other signs list verbs prescribing the punishment for one who blasphemes the prophet of Islam: behead, slay, butcher, exterminate, massacre, annihilate. All this from the hearts and hands of those who claim to follow the religion of peace. And all of this over a series of cartoons.

February 03, 2006

European history makes for a fascinating study. Understanding the intricacies of nations, borders and rulers could easily be a life-long pursuit. The history of the continent is filled with claims, and counterclaims as one person sought to prove himself the legitimate heir to a kingdom over another. There are many who sought to claim thrones and kingdoms and these claims had to be settled through lengthy and detailed examination. Generations, kingdoms, marriages, and thrones had to be examined to understand who has the rightful claim to a throne.

I found a similar concept of “claiming” in the Gospels a few days ago. I will be honest with you and admit it was one of the most terrifying passages of Scripture I have ever read. I remember as a child I found Revelation to be a dark and scary book. Visions of beasts and persecution, wrath and disaster gave my imagination much fodder to create terrifying scenarios that played out in my mind as I tried to sleep. But I can’t call to mind anything that has struck my heart with such a pure terror as this verse I read.

It comes as Jesus is preparing to leave His disciples for the last time. They are in the upper room together celebrating the last Passover and the first Lord’s Supper. Jesus is giving his disciples their final instructions, telling them that all He has taught them is about to be fulfilled. He is gentle with them, knowing that they are blinded to the reality of what is about to happen. He is kind to promise that He will send His Spirit to indwell and guide and teach them. And then He tells them that it is time to leave.

“I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me…” Jesus knew that Satan was about to unleash his full fury upon Him. And far, far worse, He knew that Satan’s wrath was nothing compared to the wrath of God that He would soon have to face. Satan, the ruler of this world, was coming. He was going to drag Jesus, like a helpless, hopeless lamb, through the streets, through the courts, and to the cross where He would be tortured and nailed and pierced in utter agony. Satan was going to do his worst. But Satan would not accomplish what he had hoped. Satan would accomplish the very opposite of what he had intended. By inciting the masses to drag Jesus to that tree, Satan would make sure his own doom and ensure the salvation of multitudes of God’s people. Satan could do nothing to Jesus beyond the physical, for he had no claim on Jesus. He had no claim on the Son of God.

The Bible calls Satan the accuser and that is exactly what he is. In Revelation 12 we read of a voice that cries out, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.” Satan delights in accusing God’s children of our sin. He whispers in our ears and in our hearts that we are unloving, unworthy and unfathomably sinful. He tells us that we are his. He has a claim on us. Satan, the ruler of this world, has a claim on my soul and on yours.

But he had no claim on Jesus. Satan could not whisper in Jesus’ ear that He was unloving or unworthy or sinful. He could not remind Jesus of sins He had committed, people he had shunned or offenses against God. He could not remind Jesus of impure motives or impure thoughts. Satan was powerless to accuse Jesus. He had no claim against Him. In John 8:46 Jesus asked the Pharisees a rhetorical question after they accused Him of being in league with Satan. “Which one of you convicts me of sin?,” he asked them. And none of them could answer. Satan is likewise unable to convict Jesus of sin. He has no claim.

But not so with us. Satan has a legitimate claim to my soul and yours. Satan can recount endless lists of offenses against God. You and I have committed grevious offenses against God. We have done so joyfully, willingly, deliberately. We have done so as a show of our rebellion against God. We have enjoyed being sinful. We have enjoyed giving Satan a claim on our souls. In a time of judgment there is no doubt that Satan can produce a list of offenses more than sufficient to prove his claim on us. It is a legitimate claim. He has ruled us and we have allowed ourselves to be ruled by him.

Terror fills my soul as I ponder Satan’s claim on my soul. My heart feels like ice. Satan, the accuser, the evil one, wants my soul as his own possession. He has a claim on it. He has a claim on you. How can you not fear as you read those words?

But praise be to God, there is more. When Satan flung Jesus upon that cross, he was unwittingly bringing about his own destruction. When Jesus’ time on the cross was complete, He cried out, “It is finished!” It was a cry of triumph - a cry whose fullest meaning we can never know. It was a cry that pierced history - it divided the history of humanity. It was the greatest, purest, most meaningful utterance the world can know. In His death Christ took our sin upon Himself. He took the accusations of Satan and bore them on our behalf. As God turned His back on Jesus, while at the same time pouring out His wrath upon Him, Jesus atoned for our sins. He entered a claim of His own in the lives of His children. My sin became His and His righteousness became mine.

The accuser has lost his claim. When Satan accuses me now I am able to know, to believe, to trust and to affirm that his claim is null and void. I am clothed in Christ’s righteousness. My sin has been removed. My guilt has been taken away. I have been redeemed. And, as the climber in triumph leaves a flag at the peak of a mountain, Jesus Christ has sent His Spirit to live within me and to mark me as His own possession.

Satan may still accuse me. He may still seek to convince me that I am his. But he has lost his claim. Jesus has washed me with His blood. He has set His Spirit within me. Jesus Christ has claimed me as His own. The terror fades as love and praise well up within my heart. Tears fall from my eyes as I know and believe that I have been claimed by God Himself.

January 29, 2006

King for a Week is an honor I bestow on blogs that I feel are making a valuable contribution to my faith and the faith of other believers. Every week I select a blog, link to it from my site, and add that site’s most recent headlines to my left sidebar. While this is really not much, I do feel that it allows me to encourage and support other bloggers while making my readers aware of other good sites.

The first article I remember reading written by J.D. Wetterling was a tribute to his father posted in honor of Father’s Day (you can read it by clicking here and scrolling down to the entry from June 17, 2005). I saw immediately that he is a very talented writer. He posts only once per week proving the old adage that less is more. He has written for such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times and World Magazine. His book, NO ONE…” Finding Certainty in an Uncertain World is due to be published later this year by Christian Focus Publications.

For the next few days you will be able to see the most recent headlines from J.D.’s site in the sidebar of my site. I hope you will make your way over to the site and look around.

I continue to accept nominations for King of the Week. If you have a site you would like to nominate, feel free to do so by clicking on the “suggest” button below the King of the Week box. Thanks to those of you who nominated this week’s honoree.

January 25, 2006

I have had a terribly chaotic week, the reason for which I’ll tell you tomorrow. Added to the chaos has been illness and a general lack of sleep, so despite my best efforts I just couldn’t put pen to paper this morning. I have learned the hard way that it is best not to write than to write when I’m only half awake!

However, after I watched a particularly moving DVD early this morning (a DVD I will review soon) I began to reflect on fatherhood and my children. I soon found something I had written a couple of years ago when my son, who is nearly six, was only three. This is one reason I love blogging: I am able to freeze moments in time and turn back to them and relive them, even a couple of years later. I thought I would post this article once more - one that still causes tears to cloud my eyes.

My son is three years old and has recently begun to become aware of the existence of death. At only three he has far greater capacity to wonder and to ask questions than he does to understand. This makes it difficult and as his father I struggle to try to share with him what death is and how something so terrifying and so final can be made an occasion of wondrous joy.

January 23, 2006

Over the past few weeks I have read several articles about blogging written by and for Christians. On the whole these articles acknowledge the possible utility of blogging, yet warn against investing oneself too heavily in this new medium. While many people see that blogs are probably here to stay and that they do have much practical value, there are many who remain skeptical. Based on an article he posted on Saturday, it seems that Mark Dever is one of these people, even though he now participates in the Together for the Gospel blog and two of the other bloggers on that site (Ligon Duncan and Al Mohler) blog elsewhere.

Dever wrote a little post called “The Unbearable Lightness of Blogs.” He writes:

One reason that I’ve been reluctant to enter the blogosphere is that I am concerned that blog-writing and reading only adds to a bad tendency that we today already have—a fascination with the newest, latest, and most recent. And the newest and latest also often means that which is of only immediate value, that which is passing. That is opposed to that which is enduring, and which has in fact endured and lasted. We write words here which crawl along electronically and leap out through your fingers and eyes to take precious minutes and hours that the Lord has entrusted to us. Could these small things we write really be that important?

It is true, of course, that many blogs are of very little value. There are tens of thousands of blogs that discuss the latest Hollywood fashion victims, track the plastic surgeries of the stars and do little more than provide a play-by-play of the tortured existence of today’s teenagers. No one needs to read these sites and, in most cases, no one should. I might even suggest that blogs dedicated only to what is newest, latest and most recent, no matter what the subject matter, may not have much in the way of lasting value. I think of the many sites such as Boing Boing and others like it - and these are among the most popular of all blogs - that do little more than showcase the latest and greatest gadgets, gizmos and other items that most people neither need or want. Fine, many blogs (and perhaps even most blogs) are a complete waste of time.

Dever goes on to speak about some times of fellowship he enjoyed last week when he was in London, England. “As I came home, I thought that perhaps through a blog like this, we can share something that will be enjoyable, instructive and edifying. Maybe we can model, encourage, and even partially provide that kind of fellowship.”

He could be on to something. Then again, perhaps not. I have yet to find a blog environment that models any genuine sense of fellowship, the likes of which can be compared to face-to-face conversation. It seems that the medium does not lend itself very well to that type of communication. I could be wrong, of course, but I have yet to see a really strong example. There are many blogs that allow and encourage interaction between participants, but few that create an atmosphere that approaches real conversation and fellowship.

After discussing the increasing “lightening” of seminary education, whereby theological studies are made increasingly simple, Dever exhorts his fellow Together for the Gospel bloggers to ensure that blogging does not become too great a priority. While I realize that his comments were directed primarily to the other gentlemen who will participate in this blogging venture with him, I do think they have a wider application and they will, by the very nature of blogging, certainly reach a wider audience. “So be sure and set aside some time to read more substantial things. Commune with the saints that have gone before. Give some time to reading Anselm and Turretin, Samuel Rutherford’s Letters or John Bunyan’s Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners. And if you still have some time, you can have some other food for your soul—side dishes—snacks—by reading this blog.”

It seems to me that what Dever has done is he has drawn a thick, solid line between blogging and other “valuable” forms of spirituality. Over on this side we have what is of spiritual value: reading the Bible, praying, fellowship and reading good, challenging books. Then over here we have what is of lesser value: blogging. Blogging is something that is to be regarded only as a snack - a light pursuit that has little lasting value. Of course I agree that we must take care that we prioritize our activities. A Christian who is not walking in close fellowship with the Lord has no business reflecting on spirituality in a public setting. Most Christian bloggers would much rather that their readers study the Scriptures rather than their blog - that the reading of a blog be only a supplement to a vibrant personal faith.

What I think Dever misses is that for some, blogging is uniquely connected to spiritual health. It is an extension to or an outpouring of a person’s walk with God. I speak out of personal experience here. The times I spend blogging are almost always connected to times of spiritual edification. I read the Bible and pray in the morning and then turn to my keyboard to reflect on what God has been teaching me. I read a good book and then write about what I have learned through the pages of that book. I read the news and allow world events to interact in my mind (and on my site) with what I know of God’s Word. I have often said that if I stopped reading and stopped spending time with God I would have to stop blogging. I am convinced that if I stall in my spiritual growth I would very soon run out of things to say. Blogging is, to a large extent, a barometer of my spirituality. And that is probably the primary reason that I continue to write. It is often difficult to gauge one’s own spiritual condition. Yet I have found that at the end of a week I can look back at what I have written and see whether I am growing or stagnating. I can see if my attitude has been harsh or sarcastic or if I am showing evidences of the Spirit’s work in my life. I can see whether I have spent my time wisely or if I have been wasteful. So for myself and for many other bloggers, blogging is a public manifestation of a private faith.

Last week, as I was reading Women’s Ministry in the Local Church (written by Ligon Duncan and Susan Hunt) I came across a few words that were outside the main text of the book, but which have already proven to mean a lot to me. Hunt wrote the following: “Writing a book is sweet fellowship with the Lord. He instructs me as I write. If no one ever reads it, His purpose has been accomplished in my own soul. I am satisfied. If He is pleased to use it in the lives of others, may He be glorified.”

For myself at least the same is true of blogging. Too often people gauge the success or failure of a blog or a particular article within a blog by how much interest and attention it gains. Sites that receive a lot of traffic are assumed to be better than those that gain only a handful of readers. Articles that generate 100 comments are deemed better than those that receive only 5. I feel that this betrays a wrong attitude. It could be that the greatest value in blogging is in the hearts of those who write. The time they spend in sweet fellowship with the Lord writing and studying should bring them great satisfaction. If God chooses to use a site or an article to touch other people’s lives, then may He receive all the glory.

So as the church grapples with this new medium - with blogging and the Internet - I would urge caution that we do not equate all blogs. A blog is merely the medium. A blog is little more than an ordered list of postings or articles. These postings can have no value or they can have great value. They can do great good or they can do great harm. We should evaluate a site on the message it brings rather than the way it brings that message.

January 21, 2006

King for a Week is an honor I bestow on blogs that I feel are making a valuable contribution to my faith and the faith of other believers. Every week I select a blog, link to it from my site, and add that site’s most recent headlines to my left sidebar. While this is really not much, I do feel that it allows me to encourage and support other bloggers while making my readers aware of other good sites.

I apologize that I am a little late with announcing this, but I had one of those busy weeks! However, I did put the link to this week’s recipient in the right sidebar on Tuesday as I always do. This week the King for a Week honor goes to Fide-O, the blog of Jason Robertson and Scott Hill. I believe I first became aware of the Fide-O boys when they engaged in a virtual tussle with Richard Abanes right about the time that he and I were also engaged in debate. I have since come to enjoy and appreciate their writing and their collective wisdom (though, like many of these other blogs, I have no idea why anyone would wish to purchase a t-shirt emblazoned with their logo!). Their emphasis seems to be, similar to mine, exploring the relationship of biblical, Reformed theology to modern evangelicalism and current events.

For the next few days you will be able to see the most recent headlines from Fide-O in the sidebar of my site. I hope you will make your way over to the site and look around.

I continue to accept nominations for King of the Week. If you have a site you would like to nominate, feel free to do so by clicking on the “suggest” button below the King of the Week box. Thanks to those of you who nominated this week’s honoree.

January 20, 2006

Our culture has an obsession with underappreciation. Everywhere you look there are discussions about this topic. I cannot think of many subjects that are discussed more in the sports world; there are always and forever discussions about which player is the most underappreciated or which position generates the lowest amount of recognition. Look around and you’ll soon find discussions of songs, films, actors, blogs and books that are underappreciated. It seems that we are always looking for the next breakout hit, the next breakout actor or song. We’re all looking for people who are just a little bit better than we might surmise from their current position. We’re looking for people who we feel deserve better.

“Appreciate” is one of those multi-faceted words. It has several meanings, yet most of these means are insinuated when we use it. The most common meaning is “To recognize the quality, significance, or magnitude of.” I can also mean “To be fully aware of or sensitive to; realize.” Yet it can also suggest “To be thankful or show gratitude for” or “To admire greatly; value.” So when we declare our appreciation for a film, for example, we are suggesting that we recognize its quality and the magnitude of its contribution to our lives or to film in general. We are thankful for it and admire it.

Of course when we seek something that is underappreciated we are looking for something that has quality and significance, yet does not receive the recognition that we feel it deserves. We find something we admire and seek to recognize it before others so that they, too, can come to know and appreciate it. We are suggesting that something has not gotten the praise it deserves.

Though I have never met him, C.J. Mahaney is a man who has had a profound influence on my life. His books and sermons have made a deep impact on me. They have challenged me on a level that I am not often challenged. But there is something that has probably had an even deeper impact on me. Whenever I hear people speak of C.J. I hear things that affirm that he does not just write good books, but that he lives what he teaches. People who spend time with him continue to say that he walks the talk. He is the real deal. I admire that greatly. I’m sure we can all think of times that we have found ourselves disappointed in the reality of those we admire. Far too often people present themselves in one way publically, but in another way privately.

I think that the ministry of C.J. Mahaney would be considered underappreciated by many. But I also think he wants it that way. Ask C.J. how he’s doing and he’ll always reply, “Better than I deserve.” And isn’t that the truth? With that little phrase he preaches the gospel to himself and others, and allows himself to focus on what is true: that he has received far more than he deserves. He has received more talent, forgiveness, love, and appreciation than is his due. When peering into the pages of Scripture, he sees that, despite all he has done to advance the kingdom, despite all the praise that he receives, he is overappreciated. He deserves nothing, but gets so much more.

As I have pondered underappreciation, I have come to see that this is exactly where Christians ought to be. Yet far too often we seek to raise ourselves or other people to a level that is simply too high. It would be interesting to know how some people become popular within Christian circles. Sometimes we look at the men (or women) leading huge churches or massive, international ministries and can only wonder how they achieved such a position. So often it seems that they have forsaken the gospel and sound theology, yet somehow have been propelled to great heights. Surely there are people with greater talent, greater gifting and more holy lives laboring throughout the kingdom. They may preach from the pulpits of tiny churches far from the lights and the cameras. They may labor overseas as missionaries in near-total isolation. They may drive the buses or taxis you took to work this morning.

Jesus taught us “blessed are the meek.” The meek are the humble, those who show humility and submission before God. They are the underappreciated, yet those who know that in reality they are overappreciated. They have nothing to offer God, but have been accepted by Him. They are aware of the signifance of the gift that has been given them.

Blessed are the underappreciated.

January 18, 2006

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.

January 17, 2006

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.