"The End of the Spear"

Comments on the movie can be found here.

 

==I am glad you posted that. I don't know what Mr Allen looks like in the movie but they did not choose him because of his resemblance to the missionary. If he looks like the missionary in the movie it is only thanks to lighting and make-up. Every Tribe has no excuse for casting Chad Allen in this role. None. In fact until they admit they made a serious error I will not watch even a minute of a movie/production made by Every Tribe.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

Martin,

I don't know if you read this post

Controversy swirls over gay activist...

or not, but it is also interesting. It follows with the nudity just as ETE's documentary 'Beyond the Gates of Splendor' did.

Scenes are very unchristian.

 

Don't hold your breath. I've already made a decision not to see any movie, rent any movie, or buy any movie by Every Tribe, no matter what.

 

Good Comments from World Magazine:

http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/archives/2006/01/still_see_the_e.html

January 20, 2006
"Still see "The End of the Spear"
Finally, a movie comes out that carries the Gospel as its theme, that presents Christians and even missionaries in a positive light, that shows how Christianity can transform a culture. And yet CHRISTIANS are boycotting it because it has a gay actor.

People, actors make no difference to the story! Actors are people who perform characters and recite lines that someone else has written for them. I agree that this gay actor now opening his mouth should not have been hired, but I doubt that the filmmakers knew his sexual orientation when they cast him or, since this is the first venture of a tiny, Oklahoma-based Christian company founded by a man who himself is so conservative he never even went to movies, were wise to the ways of Hollywood. If this had been made by the secular movie industry, such as those that made the Narnia movie, would there be such an outcry? If one of the actors in the Narnia movie were gay--as I'm sure must be the case--would that lessen the positive impact of the movie?

I noticed NNE commented on my story about "The End of the Spear." Lots of you commented on the gay actor post, nearly all of you saying that having him in the movie does taint it for you. But there is nothing pro-gay in the movie, nothing negative, only morality, inspiration, and truth.

Our local newspaper did not deign to review the movie, probably because of its Christian content. We can expect the secularists to ignore it. If Christians refuse to see it because of a single casting decision, oblivious to the story as a whole, then that will be the end of the movie and probably other movies with an explicit Christian message that could follow, if this one were a success. That, of course, plays into the hands of those who oppose Christianity, including the gay militants. Such an outcome would be a shame.

I hope that at least some of you will see "The End of the Spear" this weekend.

 

With the review that Diggin in the Word put in the Controversy thread, I think about one thing.

What kind of message is the movie paintiing? SBC said 'morality, inspiration, and truth.'

While there are no pro-gay scenes in the movie, I do not see how a gay activist (definitely not christian by a long shot), can be on the same set with a bunch of Panamanian actors running around in loincloths and not lust.

The movie is not fit to see, not just because of Chad Allen starring in it, but also because of the nudity in the movie. And the part where the Waodani woman looked in Steve's pants to make sure he was a boy was definitely uncalled for.

Any Christian who advocates the movie needs to read their Bible.

 

Any Christian who lusts after the movies of the world (passion, Narnia, etc) needs to re-read their Bible.

 

Agreed, Boanerges!

If, in fact, they have even read it at all.

 

You two make such illogical assumptions. Your arrogance and legalism is very sad. If you dont want to see the movie, don't. But do not make it that anyone that sees the movie has not read the Bible, etc.

 

The movies is a good one and it portrays missionaries and their work in a most positive light. The Gospel is in it. They say Wobenconnie, or something like that for God. And they talk about Wobengonnie's son who was speared for them. Yes they don't use the name Jesus, but they do give the plan of salvation in unmistakable terms. Only the most uninitiated would miss it.

I do and did think it was a mistake to use Chad Allen. But not because he is gay, but because he is an activist and is now using his role in this movie as a springboard for more activism. But the move is good. You should all go see it and support it. I think we have made enough of a stink so that Christian companies will think twice about hiring Gay activist. But we don't want to make such a stink that it hinders good christian movies like this from being made. I am sure all of you will agree with me if you go and see it.

 

Man standing for true biblical holiness is not legalism at all. In fact, God wants His children to come out from amongst them and be separate.

One could very easily argue that liberalism is very sad.

And I never said that anyone that sees the movie has not read the Bible. I said that those who advocate it need to read the Bible... if they had even read it at all.

 

First let me point out that Jerry Falwell has, sadly, endorsed this movie (End of The Spear). Interestingly enough he endorsed in part by saying, "Folks, we complain a lot about how Hollywood has become a cesspool of violence and immorality. This is our chance to do something about initiating a change in that situation". Now to be fair this was written in an email dated 1/16. However Falwell needs to withdraw his endorsement. Are we now attempting to change the "cesspool of...immorality" in hollywood by staring activist homosexuals in christian movies? Come on! If Disney had put out this movie with Chad Allen playing a christian missionary Falwell would probably be outraged. This is yet another sad example of people not carefully examining a product before they endorse it. This is becoming a epidemic in the evangelical world.

______________________________________________

Now on to reply to a post:

==Ok. Now we (evangelicals) are using activist homosexuals to help promote the Gospel and transform the culture? To ask the question is to show how silly the above statement is.

__________________________________________

==Ok, lets see this author pay to see a movie staring Larry Flent (sp?). The above statement is very pragmatic and way too subjective. This is a movie based on a Christian Missionary folks! Is it really "ok" or even "permissible" to support them in their decision to hire a homosexual activist to play the christian missionary? I don't think so.

________________________________________________

==Apparently this person knows very little about the FACTS of the situation. The FACT is the producers had a copy of "The Advocate" magazine, with Chad Allen on the cover, at their FIRST meeting with Mr Allen. So they knew. Also it only takes a few seconds on the internet to find out all about Mr Allen. I could go on but the "they did not know" excuse just is not realistic. No matter who is giving it.

______________________________________________

==Is all of that suppose to somehow justify the error? I certainly hope that is not yet another excuse. Anyway this is not the first movie that "Every Tribe" has made. Also being that it is a christian company they are obligated to make sure they hire people who they want representing their productions. Like it or not, they now have a homosexual activist representing their new movie.

Now were it a secular movie would I be outraged? No because lost people will be lost people. However I expect MUCH MORE from christians (and myself). However I do think that some who have endorsed this film would be upset if, let's say, DISNEY released the exact same film.

________________________________________________

==Having a homosexual ACTIVIST as one of your stars certainly is not a positive moral statement. Keep in mind this is, in theory, a CHRISTIAN production company! How low are our standards for Christians now days??? Sad.

_____________________________________________

==That is LAME. Are we aware of the FACT that Christian movies have been released in theators in recent years? How about "Left Behind" regardless of what one thinks of the pre-trib position that was a movie with a positive Christian message (an no homosexual activist stars). What about "The Passion"? Sure there are some doctrinal problems with it but it still maintains a quality position. Studios will continue to produce Christian "type" films regardless of what happens to this film. If what happens to this film teaches "Every Tribe" or other studios/production companies a lesson it will be: BE CAREFUL WHO YOU HIRE! That is a good lesson.

I hope that no Christian pays to see this movie.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

==This is sad. So now Christians who complain about a "christian" production company staring a homosexual activist in their "movie" about a christian missionary are arrogant and legalistic? Does the same apply to the Christians in the Southern Baptist Convention who boycotted Disney? Certainly it would if your logic would hold up.

Every Tribe now has a homosexual activist as a star of one of their films. Not just a homosexual but a homosexual activist! A person who has, on national television, OPPOSED the New Testament's teaching on sexual morality. This is the person Every Tribe has representing their movie.

That is sad and tragic. What is even worse is that many Christians are making excuses for their error. I knew the evangelical world was in bad shape but I never would have guessed people like Jerry Falwell would be endorsing a movie that stars a homosexual activist.

Martin.

 

Standing for Biblical holiness is one thing.

Standing for the traditions of man is a completely different thing and that is what is taking place all over the thread here.

And that is ok, everyone is welcome to their opinion. What is sad is when people act as if their standard for an issue such as this should be the standard for all Christians or they are not right with God.

 

PastorSBC1303:

==So saying that a Christian production company should not star a homosexual activist in their movie about a Christian missionary is "the traditions of man"? My word I am literally speechless.

Martin.

 

I never said that their stance was arrogant. What is arrogant is how they are stating their opinion as if that is the only right way of looking at a situation and anyone that does not agree with them is not right with the Lord and has not read the Bible, etc.

 

Did the company make a wrong choice? Yes.

Does that change the emphasis of the movie? No.

 

The content changes the emphasis though. Nudity, women looking in a man's pants to see that he is male? Sad.....

 

Ok, since we are being friendly and such, maybe it is time for me to get up on my little soapbox. Pastor SBC, it appears that you are the face of the new, young SBC Pastors. Let me give you my personal opinion of the SBC as an organization. The SBC promoted the Passion Movie. The Passion Movie mixed some Biblical account with the visions of two Catholic mystics that are not even in agreement.If the "prophets" test the "prophets", it is kind of a no brainer. Since the Bible forbids mysticism, Mel's "vision" should have been discussed as something to be avoided, not promoted by the powers to be. They not only flocked to it, but told everyone they knew to go and see it.Next the SBC was boycotting Disney because of it's pro homosexual stance. As soon as Disney offered to make Narnia, all of a sudden homosexuality was not a problem anymore. They should have checked in the Bible. It is still a sin there. A double minded man (or organization) is unstable in all its ways. Now you, as an SBC Pastor is attempting to be an apologist for a "Christian" movie that cast a homosexual advocate, who grew up Christian so he knows better, in the leading role.It appears that you may have a bright future in SBC leadership.

 

I think it is easy to treat the movie, and the hiring of Chad Allen is two different issues. You don't have to boycotte the movie to let your displasure over the hiring of a gay activist to be known.