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.

Devastating Review of Anti-ID Book

Jonathan Witt of the Discovery Institute has recently written a review of the book by Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross titled Creationism's Trojan Horse. Forrest and Gross argued that Intelligent Design theory is simply creationism in disguise and a covert ploy to infiltrate creationism into the public schools and undermine the separation of church and state. Witt responds to their arguments (or lack thereof), showing the desperate attempts that naturalistic materialists will go to preserve their Darwinian creation myth. Witt's review will be published in Philosophia Christi, but you can find a pdf version at:

http://www.epsociety.org/p%20517-519.pdf

Listen To Apologetics Messages Online

God exists. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who purchased redemption for his people via his perfect life, his death, and his resurrection. Salvation is given to those who trust Jesus to forgive them of their sins against a holy and righteous God. Those who refuse to trust in Christ will spend eternity separated from God in Hell. These are all absolute truths that are given to us by God in his Word. Apologetics is the defending of these truths and others.

At the Apologetics Resource Center, we strive to help churches, pastors, and Christians be equipped in the defense of the Christian faith. One recent development to aid in this process is the addition of audio messages to our website. Currently there are only a few messages available for you to stream or download, but check back often as we will be adding more.

The messages are from our Apologetics staff, Craig Branch (on defending the doctrine of the Trinity), Steve Cowan (defending the Resurrection of Christ and also arguing against the practice of homosexuality), and Clete Hux (identifying the "real" Jesus and pointing out the flaws in the Word-Faith Movement). Take some time and listen to them and share them with others.

CLICK HERE FOR THE MESSAGES

Human Organizations and the Pursuit of Happiness

God and Systems
God created material things to operate as systems and a thoughtful look at reality reveals this truth clearly. Galaxies rotate systematically, our solar system is called a “system” and operates in highly predictable ways, we also speak of ecological systems and weather systems. As to human bodies, we are comprised of a muscular system, a skeletal system, a respiratory system, a circulatory system, a nervous system, and others. God is a systematic God and has caused things to work in an orderly way. “Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven” (Job 25:2).

It is no surprise, therefore, to see human beings grouping themselves in various organizations in a systematic way. The way we choose to bind ourselves to others in official and non-official organizations is an amazing study. Consider the following: there are basically four large categories of human groupings that we observe (if you can think of more, I’d appreciate the feedback).


Four Categories of Human Groupings
First, the social category. This category speaks about our basic relationships with other people (friends, families, neighbors, clubs, schools, etc) and our particular personal characteristics. For example, if Susan is an African American female, she is in a certain racial class (African American) and a certain gender class (female), but both of these pertain to the social realm. If she decides to marry someone than she belongs to the group of people who are married as opposed to the group who are single. By the way, some of the social human groupings we are a part of (like age, race, nationality, and so on) we have no control over. Others we do (such as whether to marry someone who is older or someone who is younger).

Second, the business category. Business is basically the exchange of goods or the exchange of money for goods. We all are involved heavily in many businesses, whether through owning them, working for them, or shopping with them. Every time you shop at Wal-mart, you are effectively identifying yourself with that company and supporting them (I am not anti-Wal-mart, just making a point).

Third, the government category. We all are citizens of many governments. I am a citizen of Birmingham, AL, Jefferson County, Al, the state of Alabama, and the United States of America. (I would also add heaven). All of these are organization I identify with and support through paying taxes and in other ways. This category would include government sponsored organizations such as the military and the post office.

Fourth, the religious category. Everybody groups themselves into some religious category as well. There are many realms of this category. For example, I am a Christian. I also am a conservative Christian. I also am a Baptist. I also am a Southern Baptist. I also am an Evangelical. Someone else might be an atheist (though they might attempt to state that they are not religious but simply withholding all religious beliefs. But being an atheist is a religious position since it requires faith and it seeks to answer the same questions that religious faith does). Someone else might be a Buddhist. Of course the list could go on and one. But the point is, this category of human groupings deals with the ultimate questions of life (Who am I? Why am I here? Is there a God? Who is He? And so on).

Now, we could say many things about these four categories of human groupings (books could be written). For example, we could talk about how most organizations are not any one of the categories above, but usually a mix of two or more. A government, for instance, also runs as a business in many respects. But it is chiefly a government and the business end supports the governing end, therefore it is primarily a government.

Human Organizations and Happiness
Much more could be said about that, but I want to emphasize a very important issue concerning the purpose of human organizations – namely, that the reason all of these organizations exist is to seek fulfillment and happiness for its members. We enter into social relationships hoping that they make us happy. We open businesses and shop at certain businesses in order to obtain the things we need – which tend to our happiness. Governments exist to provide order and stability for a society – necessary elements for personal happiness. Religious groups exist for the happiness of its members (the Bible is full of language about joy and delight for example). So all of these organizations exist for the main purpose of providing human happiness. I can’t think of one human organization that ultimately exists for some other reason.

But it is important to put a qualifier here. These organizations exist for the happiness of the members – AS THAT ORGANIZATION DEFINES HAPPINESS. So at my church we have this mission statement “Our church exists to worship God by passionately believing and communicating to all peoples that God is the greatest Treasure there is and in Him there is fullness of joy.” I recognize that the purpose of my church is to make people happy by showing them the power, love, and salvation of God, thus I define happiness as knowing God and being in a living relationship with Him.

But some human organizations are terrible! Are they seeking human happiness too? Hitler’s government was an awful human organization. But even still, he was striving for human happiness as he defined it. Even if his definition of happiness was about a million miles off accurate, that is still what he wanted. Read his chapter in Mein Kempf on Nation and Race and you see his arguments that his position on these issues leads to the best end for humanity. He writes, “Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people.”

And so businesses strive to make customers happy as they define it. Governments strive to make citizens happy as they define it. People get married believing it will lead to happiness. They have kids for the same reason. Churches strive to make congregations happy (even if it means revealing their sin first). On and on we could go. There seems to be few exceptions to the rule.

Now, knowing these truths will help us understand why we join ourselves to various organizations. We are striving after happiness and fulfillment and see that a certain organization has the potential to bring us there. If you know this, you will begin asking the question (and you should), which human organization can bring me the most happiness?

PBS Miniseries "Walking the Bible"

Some of you might have seen the new PBS miniseries called "Walking the Bible." If you are searching for help with understanding these programs, you should read this short article published by Baptist Press.

EMNR Conference in Birmingham at Southeastern Bible College

Make your plans now to attend the EMNR (Evangelical Ministries to New Religions) conference to be held at Southeastern Bible College in Birmingham, AL on February 9-11, 2006. The thought provoking theme of this year's conference is A Clash of Cultures: Missionaries in the Market Place of Religions.

Craig Branch, Director of the Apologetics Resource Center will be giving a workshop on "Scientology - Criminals and Celebrities." Also, ARC Kansas City staff member, Keith Gibson will be teaching a workshop called "All to Jason, I Surrender."

Dembski - Ruse Debate on Intelligent Design

Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in Marietta, GA is hosting a debate between William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of Intelligent Design and Michael Ruse, a leading opponent of ID.