"The End of the Spear"

Amen, Martin.

Romans 1 does indeed tell us God does not want us to support those who are willingly in sin.

 

No one disagrees with that. The issue here is disagreement over whether or not simply seeing this film is supporting those who are in sin.

We can disagree on that topic, but I think that at this point, Satan is faving a field day over sitting back and watching us tear ourselves apart over a stupid film. There's no reason for this. We can agree to disagree and cotinue to be brothers in the Lord with respect towards one another.

 

Johnv:

==I am amazed that you believe it is ok for a Christian company to hire a activist homosexual to star in their movie. I am amazed.

________________________________________

==I don't see the comparison. I am sure Mr Allen is a nice guy (he seems to be in interviews). I am sure he would help someone in need. That is not the issue. In fact I have already said that Mr Allen is not really even the issue here. The issue is a Christian film company hiring someone who is a activist homosexual. I expect sinners to be sinners but I also expect Christians to hold to Biblical morality. Nothing is gained by Every Tribe's decision to star Chad Allen in this movie. Nothing.
__________________________________________
We can't be, as it were, unequally yoked.

==Why not? It is a Christian company. Mr Allen makes no claims to be a Christian and he is a homosexual activist. Why would this not apply? After all Every Tribe, a Christian company, now has a activist homosexual as one of the lead stars in their big movie.

___________________________________________

==No, I think that is important. That, in fact, is the problem. People who profess to be Christians are far too willing to turn a blind eye to sin (a) in their own lives and (b) in others lives. I see this as just another example of that. We are saying it is ok for a Christian film company to make a decision to cast a homosexual activist in a leading role. By supporting this movie we are supporting their compromise. I just don't see how we can do that and no be rightly accused of turning a blind eye (compromise). I just don't see any way around it.

___________________________________________

==I can't speak to "The Lord of The Rings" films since I generally don't like those kind of movies (Narnia, etc) anyway. Also I don't believe it was made by a Christian production company (so compromise is to be expected). Sadly I do believe Falwell would have a different stance if this were Disney putting out this movie. I still think Dobson would as well but I could be wrong on that one. That said I think what I say about Falwell (who I generally like) can be said about many evangelicals who are supporting this movie. I would love to be wrong about that.

___________________________________________

==I can agree to disagree. However we are going to have to disagree because I just can't see any way around the problem here. If this was not a christian film company I would not be bothered by it. The fact that is it (claims to be) a Christian film company is what bothers me most.

You know I imagine the film is well done. It is probably a very good movie. I don't doubt that. I think it is a crying shame that Every Tribe did not pick someone else to play the missionary. There are good Christian actors out there and there are others who, while not
Christian, are more friendly to the Christian worldview than Allen. I believe, firmly, that Every Tribe made a very bad, spiritually and morally dangerous decision.

What about Christians who see the movie?

Well I will take this chance to back down from something I said a few days ago (in this thread). I think most who are Christians who see this movie have not given this a seconds thought. They probably don't even know who Mr Allen is nor about the issues/concerns around his being cast in this role. Those who are aware may not view it as a problem (as I and others do). That does not make them bad people, nor do I believe that they are ""willfully"" compromising Biblical morality (like Every Tribe Ent. has done). I just doubt they have given it that much thought. After all several major ministries have endorsed this movie and many will say, sadly, "if so and so says it is ok then it must be ok". That brings to mind several serious issues. Be that as it may....whether they mean to or not by seeing this movie they are supporting things they normally would not wish to support. It is a blind spot for them. It is compromise (willing or not). I firmly believe that.

In Christ,
Martin.

In Christ,
+Johnv [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

I'm still scratching my hed over one thing. When was it decided that Every Tribe Entertainment was a Christian company? The company's mission statement is "To create quality entertainment for a broad audience that inspires hope through truth.". I can find nothing on the company's website that says it's a Christian organization.

 

rlvaughn, I thought you might like to know this. I just got off the phone with a good friend of mine, whose parents went to Wheaton College with, and were close friends with, Jim Elliot and Nate Saint. They had been in continuous contact that the families since graduation. They even went with another group of missionaries to the same region after they missionaries ere killed. According to them, the Elliot family, as well as the Saint family, approve of this movie. I'm having dinner with them tomorrow night.

 

I've no doubt they approve of the movie. Have they seen it? Do they approve of Chad Allen as the star of the film? Do they know Chad Allen is a homosexual activist?

 

From the CNN Larry King interview with Chad & Dr. Moehler: I remember this.

http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/

Amen.

 

Johnv---in your dinner date with your friends---please comply with LE's request---tell Mrs. Elliot it is on a "Must know" basis---and tell her that I said "Hey!" She doens't know me or nothing---but it won't hurt for you to tell her!

 

JohnV, hurry up an go see the movie. I am the only one so far who has seen it. It was an outstanding movie. I am waiting for you critique.

 

I saw the movie tonight. I wept. Anyone who says they don't see the Gospel in the movie is truly blind. I wept mostly because the movie put into perspective just how little my dedicating my life to Christ has cost me. And just how little I have to forgive. The contrast between the hurts and betrayals that I struggle to forgive, compared to what others have to forgive is great. And even greater is the contrast between what I need to forgive and the forgiveness God has given to me. And that is brought into focus in the movie.

As for Chad Allen, he did a fantastic job playing his part. (btw - he's not the main character in the movie) His personal life had no impact on his acting. I believe the Holy Spirit must have worked on his heart as he made the movie, because the story is compelling. I'm praying that he listens. Hope you're praying for him as well. If you miss the movie because Chad Allen is gay, you will miss a blessing. If you don't take a lost friend to see the movie, you'll miss a great opportunity to share Christ.

And for those of you who said there was nudity in the movie, you need to check you sources. You were misled.

 

right on guitarpreacher!

 

guitarpreacher, ther is one scene with a young girl with two tiny knots of barly developed breast. If anyone finds that sensual, I don't know what to tell you. but I found nothing sensual in the movie at all.

Chad did a fine Job acting, but I still think it was unwise for them to use him. The Larry King appearance proved that.

 

I wouldn't argue that they couldn't have done better by casting someone else, although Chad Allen looks a lot like Steve Saint. And I can't help but believe that the platform he is speaking from is built on the screams of believers. It's the contraversy we are creating that he's able to take advantage of. If we could just enjoy the movie for what it is - just a movie - and shut up, Larry King and Chad Allen would have very little to talk about.

Now, if he ever applies to IMB to be appointed as a missionary, then we'll have something to scream about. But he's just an actor (I'd say a pretty good one) and it's just a movie.

Some of you might be surprised to learn that Clint Eastwood isn't really a cowboy, Mark Hamill isn't really a Jedi, Sylvester Stallone was never a boxer or a Green Beret, in fact, the only actors I can think of that really was what they played in the movies was Lassie and Rin Tin Tin.

 

Bunyon, I know the scene you're talking about, and that girl was just a child. And you're right, anyone who would find that sensual is a sick pup.

 

I think there is cause of concern, and I hope the company wont be this foolish again, but I agree with you. It was an excellent movie, and I think you can have your cake and eat it too. Write a letter to the company about your concerns, and then go see the movie!

 

Someone needs to get his story straight. First he says he saw the movie and there was no nudity in it, that we were 'misled'. Then he turns around and say there is nudity in it.

Also, he say the Holy Spirit must have worked on Chad's heart during the movie because the story is compelling. That is a laugh. He is an actor. Actors know how to make their lines compelling. The Holy Spirit had nothing to do with it.

As to taking a lost friend to see the movie... No thanks. I'd rather take them to the house of God where they can get fed something other than a language they don't even speak.

 

There is no nudity in the manner you mean it Standingfirm. Most of us adults are not concerned with 9 yo girls. You have been talking like thier were adult women with their breasts hanging out. There was nothing like that in the movie.

 

Funny, I hear other's who saw the movie that the grown women's breast were not fully covered.

I do believe I saw a post by Diggin in da Word that told of it.

I notice it is the liberal ministers who see nothing wrong with it, yet all the conservative ministers are appalled.

 

SFIC, you are so wrong on so many fronts that it's hard to know how to even begin a conversation with you. So I think I'll just skip it since you're probably not one I want to have a conversation with. You go ahead and try to keep God in your legalistic, narrowminded box. As for me, I'll continue to marvel at his grace just how big he is.

 

Why is it that the most common epithet hurled on the BB is the "legalistic" one? Can't you people be more original? Someone has a stricter standard than you do (and we all have standards, don't we?) and BANG!! LEGALISTIC!!