"The End of the Spear"

Or you might say that a man who can't look at a woman's breast without seeing it in a sexual context shows the moral values of that man.

 

Exactly my point. They were trying to hide from God, not other people. But they should have known that God knows all.

You're not getting the point. There was no one else to see their nakedness. The only people who saw them naked were each other. I dunno about you, but my wife and I see each other naked every day, and we don't feel shame in each other's presence.

God clothed Adam and Eve to keep them from being vulerable, to protect them. God did not clothe them for the purpose of how they look to other people (because there were no other people).

Nudity is not scripturally forbidden. Nakedness is. Nakedness is being exposed in a manner which puts the wearer to shame. In western culture, nudity is different than in other cultures.

You attempt tp accuse me of immorality falsely, and I request that you retract your accusation. There is no reason for me to have to apologize simply because I don't have a dirty mind.

 

And yet God still covered them?

 

Marcia:

==One of the main roles is played by a activist homosexual. We should not support that. The movie company knew who Chad Allen was and they even used "The Advocate" magazine (a homosexual publication) to bring him into the role. These people put money ahead of truth, morality, and God's Word. Look the simple fact is this they cannot worship God and wealth. They will choose one and hate the other (Matt 7:24). Sadly I think they have made their choice. It is not like they did not know who Chad Allen was.

___________________________________________

==I "draw the line" when a "christian" production company knowingly hires a activist homosexual. How would you feel if the local christian bookstore did the same thing? How about your church? It is no different. If this was a secular motion picture company I would still be upset since the person Allen is playing was a christian. However the fact that it is a "christian" company makes it an outrage. You must understand they did not do this by accident. They knew who Chad Allen is? My question to you is do you know who Chad Allen is? Do you think he should be playing in a christian film about christian missionaries?

______________________________________

==Yes and "calling names" is the one thing the modern evangelical world can't stand. However there are times when sin, blindness, or compromise must be called out. Notice that both Paul and Jesus "called names". Jesus called the Pharisee "hypocrites" (Matt 23) and Paul called Elymas the magician a "son of the devil (Acts 13:8-12). The point is that sometimes we must call it what it is. There are times when truth, morality, and just plain right must be defended. This I believe is one of those times. When the evangelical world is willingly opening its arms to this kind of compromise.


_______________________________________

==I really don't know how.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

The Compromise Continues

I have sent emails to several "major ministries" that have endorsed the "End of the Spear" film. Each of these emails points out, in detail, what Chad Allen supports and why I believe they should not support this film. I was willing, at first, to believe that most of these ministries just were not "up to speed" on who was in this movie. In other words that they just made a mistake. However the only reply I have recieved to this point is not leaning in that direction.

I will not, at this point, name the ministry. However what follows is a portion of an email reply I recieved today.

They said:
"Like you, we were disappointed to learn that Mr. Allen is a homosexual and an advocate of homosexual causes. We also understand why some would question his being cast in the film and (name of ministry)'s promotion of the film."

==Ok, so far so good...right? Hold on...

They said:
"For Every Tribe Entertainment, the organization that financed “End of the Spear,” to drop him from the cast would have meant a complete re-shooting of the movie as well as possible legal issues surrounding contracts, etc"

==Well the problem with this is that according to Every Tribe and Mr Allen they knew who Mr Allen was from the start. In fact at their first meeting with Mr Allen they produced a copy of a homosexual magazine (The Advocate) with his picture on the cover. They knew who Mr Allen was and they knew what his positions are. What was their response to this? He is a good actor. So they knew what they were getting from the start. This is not a situation where they would have had to recast or refilm the movie. No! They went after Mr Allen for the role knowing full well what his positions are. In fact what I find interesting, and sad, is that Mr Allen was the one with reservations about agreeing to the film.

Read Article From Allen's Web-Site

So the above ministry is not dealing with the facts.

_______________________________________

They said:
"Bearing Fruit Communications, on behalf of the film’s producers, has issued a statement expressing the hope that the human players will not detract from the story and that nonbelievers will be confronted with the evidence of the Gospel to change lives."

==So now we are using homosexual activists to promote the gospel since, after all, he is a "good" actor? I can't believe they actually bothered writing that.

The very sad thing about this email is that the ministry that sent it to me is "pro-family". I believe most on this board would know this ministry, at least some people associated with it, as a pro-family ministry. That makes their support of this film, and their reply to my email, all the more shocking.

Btw...it is not Focus on The Family. Just in case some might think it is.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

Martin, it's hard to know where to reply to you first.

Jesus and Paul called unbelievers names; you are calling fellow Christians on the BB names. That is just too far.

I do not agree with a Christian company hiring a gay activist; I do not agree with the gay activist being put in this role; however, I will still see the movie because it is about those missionaries. If the movies does not glorify Christ or has objectionable material in it, then I will critique it on that basis.

You have drawn a line and that is fine; I am not telling you that you should see this movie. But you don't have to draw a line for others, much less tell them they are blind or compromising by seeing it. This is a matter of whether to boycott or not, not a matter of supporting homosexuality.

How can a movie about martyred missionaries and the spread of the gospel be the same as a movie about a homosexual lifestyle? You are mixing the actor's life with the story of the movie.

 

No one is using homosexuals to spread the Gospel. This films is not the Gospel. It's a story about missionaries. That's all. By making an implication that the movie is sharing the gospel, about the gospel, or anything of the sort, they're making too much of the movie.

I have no problem with churches/ministries promoting a movie for whatever reason, but let's not go overboard.

 

LadyEagle:

==According to Allen's website Saint and Allen were crying and hugging before it was all over:

"But by the end of production Allen was invited along with Saint and a select group of actors and producers from the film to live with the Waodani for several weeks, three days' journey from any working telephone. "When it was over," Allen says quietly, "both [Steve Saint] and I were in tears, hugging each other saying goodbye, because so much love had developed between us. It was an amazing experience"
Source

Now I am not being critical of Saint for being friends with Allen. Sometimes being friends with someone allows you to talk to them about Christ (morality, truth, etc) in ways that a stranger could not. However I think it is clear that Saint compromised by agreeing to this.

Chad Allen also was on Larry King with John MacArthur. Funny thing I think if MacArthur had more time, and no tv camera, he may have been able to lead Allen to repentance and faith in Christ. Just my opinion on how the interview went. I could be wrong though.

I am saddened by the fact that it was Chad Allen who was concerned about playing this role.

"Allen went into his first meeting with the film's producers and director with real trepidation that they and the Saint family-for whom, he stresses, he had great respect would not want a gay man representing their legacy. After he aired his concern, however, the filmmakers produced, of all things, the November 25, 2003, issue of The Advocate with Allen on the cover, in which the actor spoke of his faith and the importance of doing good works for the holidays. They had showed that issue to Steve Saint, the filmmakers told Allen. "And this man Steve Saint said that the same things that I talked about in The Advocate are the same things he fought his whole life for," Allen beams, "and it would wrong for them not to ask me to do it. That's an amazing story, right?"

See source link above.

Bottom line: We can't support this film. Allen should never have been hired by a "christian" production company to play this role. His positions are at odds with Biblical Christianity. By endorsing this film people send the wrong message. What is the message? That homosexuality is ok. How do they send that message? By supporting a film that Allen, and others, see as bringing Christians and gays closer together. Look we need to be bringing homosexuals to the cross. Not overlooking their sin so we can make a good movie.


In Christ,
Martin.

 

Marcia:

==I find it interesting that you are more concerned about me "calling someone names" than with a Christian company hiring a homosexual activist. We are called, in Scripture, to point out sin and compromise. Whether that is in unbelievers or believers.

____________________________________________

==I am glad to hear that. However keep in mind when you pay your ticket you have just supported this movie and those who are in it. Motion picture studios, theators, and actors all make their money from ticket sales. Also the more tickets the movie sales the more it will be promoted, and the more advertisers will pick it up, and thus the more money those involved will make. I cannot, I will not, give them my support. Not one cent of it.

I don't need to see the movie. You know it is probably a very well done movie. This is not about that. This is not even about Chad Allen. This is about a Christian company hiring someone who's beliefs and lifestyle (very open lifestyle) are at 180 degree odds with Biblical Christianity. This is about a Christian company hiring a man who has performed in a play that has, at best, a questionable plot (Corpus Christi). I will not link to that interview/source because I don't know what is on the whole page.

______________________________________

==When you buy the ticket, like it or not, you are supporting the movie. You are also supporting a Christian company that has hired a homosexual activist. Would you shop at your local Christian bookstore if it did that? Would you continue attending your current church if it hired a activist homosexual to play the piano? There is no difference.

As for me drawing a line for others...I am just giving my views. If "others" disagree then they disagree. That's fine with me.


In Christ,
Martin.

 

Been on the BB a while. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I don't quite know what to say.

When I watch the Brady Bunch am I promoting and supporting the gay lifestyle? My answer would be yes, but not because the man portraying the father was an openly gay man. That leap is a little far even for a fundamentalist

The movie is not about gay issues or agendas. How many actors do you just not know all their dirty little secrets, so you wouldn't have the same opinon if they were named.

I think they could have avoided this particular actor if they really made an effort, but it really has nothing to do with the movie however unfortunate the decision may have been.

My children are too little for either movie, but I will say that this particular story has been one that impacted me as a young person both in reading the books and the "Beyond Gates of Splendor" movie.

Some people just feel the need to trash anything that comes about that doesn't portray their own little brand of christianity

 

sfiC,

I am beginning to question sfiC's values. Have you seen the documentary? I have. It is most definitely not "full of violence and nudity".

The tribe were among the most violent people ever known. They wore almost no clothing. Their acts of violence were described, but little was shown, and certainly their violent nature was not glorified the way violence is in many movies today. There were a few glimpses of topless women, from actual footage taken by the five slain missionaries. I suppose we should be critical of them for not putting away their camera.

If you saw the documentary and that's what you came away thinking, well, I don't know what to say. To see those natives sitting clothed and in their right mind, praising their Creator for their salvation, and instead to criticize the realistic depiction of what these people used to be, is just sad.

 

I sent evey tribe a message about Mr Allen's activism and hope to here from them. I hope more of you will send them similar messages. I think they will respond and clean up their casting procedures.

 

Martin, I agree with you. Emails from here have been flying out all day, not just to Christian organizations, but to Conservative (Family Value) Organizations.

Let us remember that Chad Allen did not seek Every Tribe/Steve Saint out to be cast in this movie. It was the other way around. Chad Allen is who he is and lives the life he chooses to live. Every Tribe/Steve Saint are supposed to be Christians and this film is supposed to portray Christians. What a disgrace to the name of Steve Saint's dear father.

As I stated in the other thread, I am praying against this film.

"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required:"

 

"The tribe were among the most violent people ever known. They wore almost no clothing. Their acts of violence were described, but little was shown, and certainly their violent nature was not glorified the way violence is in many movies today. There were a few glimpses of topless women, from actual footage taken by the five slain missionaries. I suppose we should be critical of them for not putting away their camera."------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
don't be silly.

 

I'm serious. If it is wrong to show that footage in a documentary then why was it not wrong to shoot the footage in the first place?

 

whatever

I would have to agree on the footage. It was wrong for them to shoot footage such as that. They could have come back to the states, if they had not been killed, and simply made a statement to the church that the Waodani tribe lived in this manner, rather than record it for people to watch. I think it is tastless to film such.

 

amazing

 

Standingfirm,

Those 5 men gave their lives for the sake of the Gospel. I doubt they were down there to make a porno flick. Your clearly off the reservation on this one dude. [Personal attack removed]. What were the missionaries suppose to do? Excuse me could you put some clothes on before I shoot footage? Get a life. Why don't you go read the many books that have been written about these men and there personal lives and then make that [uneducated] comment.

[Official BB Warning: Watch the personal attacks. Argue the issue but do not attack the other person.]

[ January 18, 2006, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

SannonL,

It is is nicely stated opinion. No need to be that confrontational.

 

Shannon,

I have never seen a missionary bring footage of topless women, into a church to show their work with those people.