A Few Thoughts on End of the Spear and Chad Allen

My wife and I saw End of the Spear this weekend, the movie portrayal of the life and death of Nate Saint and his missionary partners. Our first attempt was to see a matinee, but when we made it to the ticket booth, the theater had sold out. We purchased tickets for the next showing, which was also filled almost to capacity. Quite the controversy has been swirling among conservative Christians as a result of casting Chad Allen in the lead role (see Mohler and Janz), an outspoken homosexual activist. On Allen's fan site, you read the following:

"Courageously, in the October 9, 2001 issue of The Advocate, Chad came out as a gay man. He also acknowledged past problems with drugs and alcohol. He also has spoken to a number of groups and at events about gay rights issues including taking part in a forum on Larry King Live on the issue of gay marriage. He has also lent his support to a large number of charities over the years, including The American Diabetes Association, The March of Dimes, Project Angel Food, the Autistic Children's Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, AIDS Project Arizona, and AIDS Project Los Angeles."

So the controversy is over why exactly the production company, Every Tribe Entertainment, would (of all the actors out there) pick someone who has a lifestyle that is antithetical to that of the person (Saint) who he was picked to portray. What are the standards, if any, when producing movies that portray reality from a conservative Christian perspective? Of course the same controversies surrounded other recent movies such as The Passion of the Christ. Here are a few thoughts that I hope help.

The Event is Historical Fact and the Missionaries Are Heroes

This is a major point! The controversy is over the movie, not the actual historical event. Nothing changes the reality of what happen on that beach and the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ demonstrated in the lives of the Auca Indians. I encourage you to read Steve Saint’s article in a 1996 issue of Christianity Today to get a true feel of what really happen in the jungles of Ecuador. (Here is another good interview with Saint). I hope that our debates over how we should "do art that portrays Christians" does not blur the incredible sacrifice these men made. They are heroes of the faith and they evermore will be; no movie, no portrayal, no drama, no lack thereof will ever change that. They believed the all-sufficient joy of Christ was more valuable than life (Psalm 63:3). Just read some of Jim Elliot’s quotes and this becomes clear. The church has a responsibility to remember these men, their wives, and their children as they really were.

The Movie Was Moving

This movie (really the story that the movie revealed) is intense and reaches to the heart. As I watched, I found myself near to tears for a couple of reasons. Firstly, because I myself lack the love for Christ that those people demonstrated. I am not motivated to the degree that they were (and still are) in sharing the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, the movie is moving because of the intensity of the relationships between Saint and his son, his wife, the other missionaries and the Auca. The human-ness of it all struck me. When the missionaries were on the beach attempting to make contact, they were saying in the Indian’s language, “We are like you!” That really hit me, because at the core, we are all alike – sinners who have fallen short of the glory of God and who are in need of a Savior (as per Romans 3:23). I am like those brutal savages too. Chad Allen is like them too. So are you. We are all alike in this way. After the movie was over, the people in the theatre applauded.

Chad Allen Portrayed Saint Well

This needs to be said by a conservative Christian. He did a fantastic job portraying Saint, in so far as his acting is concerned. Whatever else Chad Allen might be, he is a great actor.

Why Was Allen Chosen?

This is a tough question to deal with. The producer said he did not know that Allen was gay, but really that does not answer the question, because if he had wanted to replace Allen, he could have. One has to wonder: Are there not any (at all) conservative Christians who could have played this part? The truth is, it seems the conservative Christian community has produced very few truly talented actors and actresses. One might speculate it is because we are not fame-seekers (on our best days of following Christ anyway). But for whatever reason, our community seems to be sort of dry in this area. Hollywood, as all know, is made up generally of socially liberal types. And they produce the best actors. I think this is why Allen was chosen - simply because he is a good actor. The question is therefore: Does a person’s acting ability alone qualify him / her to star in a movie that is primarily about the life of a conservative Christian?

No, there is actually a deeper question. Do we (or anybody) have to make movies at all that are about conservative Christians or Christian themes? That is the real question. And the answer is no. We do not have to make movies. The Word of God is sufficient for us as a basis of faith and practice and we, as the Body of Christ, can remember heroes of the faith through writings and lectures about their lives. Dramatic portrayal is not a requirement for us.

I am not saying that the movie is not helpful. Of course it is helpful in showing a visually-oriented people what really happened. Of course it is helpful in getting that story (which is a God-centered story) back into the minds of people. Yes it is helpful – but it is not necessary. The movie did not have to be made. Christians tend to think that since the rest of the culture makes movies, than we have to make movies, too. Well, no we don’t. We do not have to justify ourselves to the culture anymore than the culture has to justify itself to us.

And since we don’t have to make movies, the question of Allen’s pick is virtually irrelevant. End of the Spear does not change or alter the reality of what the missionaries did. It does not modify the reality of the absolute truthfulness of the Word of God. Thus, who cares who plays which part? My prayer is this – to the degree that God would choose to use this movie for His glory, may He do it. Movies are a major cultural force, so maybe it will open some eyes and do some good. (Alas, because of Allen’s personal life, it might do some bad). But no movie is needed to justify our faith in Christ.

On the Idea of Bridge Building

Allen has said that he hopes his part in the movie might be an avenue of “bridge-building” between the Christian community and the homosexuality community. Now this raises a number of flags, especially among us who are truly conservative. And indeed it probably causes knee-jerk reactions from many in the homosexual community as well. As for believers, we immediately construct a mental picture of Sodom and Gomorrah breaking our church doors down.

But what does Allen mean by “Bridge-building?” If he means that Christians must suddenly retreat from the straightforward biblical teaching that homosexuality is an abomination to God (Romans 1:24-32 for example), then of course, no bridge can be built there. But on the other hand, if he simply means: Maybe this movie will open up an avenue of discourse between the two communities, discourse that does not mean compromise on beliefs, then, hey, this is perfect from our perspective! We want to talk to homosexuals! We want to show them the love of Christ! We want to demonstrate to them the benefits of being in the family of God! (Just as Saint, Elliot, Fleming, McCully, and Youderian did to the Auca).

No, we do not have to retreat even slightly from our doctrinal creeds about acceptable beliefs and practices, but this might truly be a way to share Christ with those who so desperately need him. If this is what Allen means by “Bridge-building,” then I am all for it. Consider what Steve Saint said about casting Allen to play this role in the movie:

"Although he realized many Christians might be offended by Allen’s role in the film, the Christian co-producer says, 'I thought, "What happens if I stand before God someday and He says to me, 'Steve, I went out of my way to orchestrate an opportunity for Chad Allen to see what it would be like to live as your father did.' And then I could picture Him looking at me and saying, 'Steve, why did you mess with my plan?'"'"

And then Jesus said this: "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick" (Matthew 9:12).

Believe it or not, Chad Allen does not bite! We can sit down at lunch with homosexuals, adulterers, liars, cheaters, racists, people who have had abortions, and even murderers, and show them the love of Christ, without compromising our own beliefs and practices at all. Only the Gospel changes hearts. Movies and the people who play in them cannot change hearts. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ changes people from the inside out. Homosexuality is wrong, but telling a homosexual this will not be the primary force of change in his life. I do believe we should tell them it is wrong, since it is in fact true. That is the Law part of it and it is necessary. But the grace part says that Christ lived, died and rose again in order to forgive your sin and receive you into eternal life. If we want to see homosexuality diminish in our culture, we must fight with the Gospel.

Ephesians 6:10-15
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.