Controversy swirls over 'gay'activist playing missionary in movie

There is at least one other discussion on this on the BB in the Baptist General Discussion. The Washington Post had a write-up on the movie today (they had a review as well, but this was an article about the making of the movie and about Steve Saint). It seemed the article focused on the fact that Steve Saint is not a missionary like his father but just goes to Ecuador to help the people there with various projects.

The movie is not really about the 5 missionaries who were killed, so how big is Chad Allen's role in the movie, since Nate Saint gets killed early on?

If anyone sees this, please post comments here. BTW, the Post gave a bad review to the movie, saying that it was not very well-done and the jungle looked like a cheap backdrop, but they did say the documentary at the end showing Steve Saint and the guy who killed his father was good.

 

I saw End of the Spear at a screening a couple of weeks ago. The movie is well made, but I had a huge problem with the script.

If you go in with no previous knowledge of the events that took place 50 years ago, you will leave the theater never knowing if these missionaries were Christians. There is no mention in the movie of “Christ”, “Jesus”, “Christians”, the “gospel”, etc. For all we know, these missionaries could have been Mormon or some other cult.

The closest they ever come to sharing the gospel is when one of the missionaries tries to explain why the other missionaries didn’t fight back when they were getting killed:

“Wazoo wazzoo (or whatever word the savages used to describe their diety - sorry I don’t remember) had a son, and Wazoo Wazoo’s son was speared, but he didn’t spear back.”
Read rest of article here.

 

SFIC, thanks for your comments. That is interesting in light of the fact that Steve Saint would not have been there at all if it hadn't been for his father's martyrdom.

 

My concern is this. If Christ is not mentioned in the movie at all, nor the gospel, what is the message the general public will get?

Chad Allen made a statement that he wants to 'bridge the gap' between homosexual and christian communities. I can see from the screening that the gospel was not preached in the movie, so what exactly is the bridge being built leading to?

 

Who is the author of this comment/article?

When did we start looking to blog comments for guidence and direction?

I think each of us should make up our own minds to see it or not. If you're going to see it, then we should hold your opinion until we have seen it so we can rate it accordingly.

If you're not going to see it, then spread the word why you're not seeing it and let everyone make up their own minds.

This is truely unreal. There are two or more threads going about this movie, there are people cross posting, and double posting the exact same posts in both threads. A moderator needs to conbine these threads.

How much can you beat something down without even seeing it first?

Jamie

Jamie

 

Don't need to see it. reviews tell the story. If people who have seen it say that it does not mentiion Christ or the Gospel in it, then I would say it is not what many claimed it was.

[ January 21, 2006, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: standingfirminChrist ]

 

And that's ok. I can respect that, however, quoting comments from another blog I find it too much.

We have gone from the gossip around the clothesline/water cooler to gossip around the web IMHO.

Did the film company make a mistake for casting Mr Allen? Did they know it would cause this much fuse? Was that their intentions? Is the movie good without all this fuse? Who knows... Everyone gets to decide. My problem is when we start quoting unknown people from comments from blogs as truth.

Again, I respect your right not to see it, I just feel we should watch how and who we quote.

Jamie

 

The movie showed the Waodani tribe changing from savage killers to a tribe that was not savage. But, with no mention of Jesus Christ in it, it leaves a lot to be desired. A big thumbs down.

For a christian movie company to put out a film that Southern Baptists are cheering and rooting as being christian, and not revealing one time Christ, the Gospel, or christianity at all tells me many do not even know what christianity is at all.

 

The film was well done and powerful. But I am speaking as one who knows the Gospel. But you are right, diggin, I am not sure if it will have the same impact on folks who are not as familiar with the Gospel since Jesus is not mentioned directly or no details are given. But if one has a passing familiarity, which most do, they will feel the impact.

Marcia, I am glad to report that the Movie does not follow the book in this regard. It concentrates on how the tribe was converted from there point of view. It did not go into Steve's role, except that he got some answers about what happened that were not known before. It turned out to be a great movie, but we could have avoided the distraction if they would not have chosen an activist to play the lead role.

 

Could it be that God is sovereign and He somehow wants to use the influence and experience of making this film to bring Chad Allen to salvation? To make him open to hearing the gospel? Just a thought.

 

But if the Gospel is not mentioned at all, how is chad to come to salvation?

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Romans 10:14,15

 

We don't know what conversations took place behind the scenes during the filming of the movie. I don't know, but I bet that Steve Saint was called upon to explain in detail why the missionaries were there, what they were trying to accomplish, how the surviving family members went to live with the indians, how they came to receive Christ and the change that being saved brought about in their lives.

 

Somehow, from seeing reviews, and the fact that Christ was not mentioned once in the movie, I kinda doubt it.

Call me skeptical, but Steve Saint endorsed the movie. Don't you think he would have wanted the gospel mentioned in it?

 

Like I said I don't know what conversations took place behind the scenes. However, I do know that actors have to do a great deal of background research in order to get into their characters. I would imagine that each of them read all or parts of Elizabeth Elliott's Through Gates of Splendor, and had interviews with the surviving family members etc.

I can't explain why the film company chose not to mention Christ in the movie.

 

The fact that Christ is not mentioned at all in the movie, even though it is supposed to be a Christian movie company that produced it tells a story in itself.

Many that call themselves Christians do not share the Gospel for fear of offending someone. This is the picture I am seeing. ETE did not include the Gospel for fear of offending someone. Either that, or they may not be the Christian company they claim to be.
We already know they picked Chad Allen after seeing him in a gay magazine. Still cannot figure why a company that is supposed to be Christian would be flipping through a gay magazine in the first place.

 

The gospel was in it, clearly. I am sure if you see the movie, you will see that clearly. But it is not wise to use gay activist in christian films in spite of any possible converstions that might come out of it. Why don't we just make him a decon, so that he might become saved.

 

When people go in and watch the movie and come out saying there was no mention of the gospel, no mention of Jesus Christ, no mention of christianity whatsoever, it is clear that the Gospel was not in it. Good morals and values may have been in it. But our righteousness is as filthy rags. Our good works will not be what pleases the Father. Jesus Christ must be in all that we do. To teach good morals without teaching why we must live those morals and who gave us those morals is not teaching the Gospel.

It is not wise to buddy up to the world and sin.

One must be qualified to fill the office of a deacon. One does not just become a deacon so that he might become saved, One who desires the office of a deacon had better be saved long before being placed in that position.

 

Moderator Note: To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to combine threads plus different moderators moderate different forums. We don't keep a master list somewhere of what is posted where.

Lady Eagle
Moderator

 

In an answer to Bunyan's comment about the movie being a christian movie, let's look at the sexual content in this movie:

In an effort not to arouse and still give realism to the story, producers chose to clothe the Waodani tribesmen in loincloths that cover their privates but leave legs, torsos and backsides in open view.

Women wear what is supposed to be skirts and grassy, interwoven tops that cover most of their breasts. A young girl's developing breasts are fully exposed in the movie End Of The Spear.

Naked children play in the water, though the evening light hides most of their nudity.

A couple of the missionaries strip down to their boxers when meeting the Waodani in order to appear more like them. It's not "comfortable" viewing, even by Hollywood's standards of onscreen—PG-13—modesty; nor by christian standards.

A Waodani girl reveals she's pregnant by one of the tribesman. A young, in-love couple expresses a bit of physical affection. An incredulous woman grabs Steve's waistband and looks down his shorts to make sure he's a boy.

I can truthfully say that the movie is far from being a Christian witness.

Waengongi is referred to as having "marked His trail with carvings", which is supposed to mean God left His Word, the Bible. While this is true, we are in America, not in the jungles of Equador. 'Jumping the boa', and ' Waengongi's son was speared' mean nothing to an English viewing audience. If we were Auca'a (which means 'naked savage'), we may understand what these terms meant, but we are in America.