Month: January 2006

I had to drop America Online years ago for spiritual reasons. Every time I would get “kicked off line” at the worst possible moment by AOL I would have a very difficult time applying Ephesians 5:4.

Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

I dabbled with instant messaging to communicate with a college-aged son. But my exposure to America Online has been from a distance in recent years. Today I found a story. about my old nemesis. Here is some of that report about a new advertising slogan that some are finding offensive.

“America Online is now acting like God – using what some consider to be His very name in a marketing pitch for e-mail, voice chat, video chat, instant messaging, text messaging and other forms of communication. AIM’s new slogan is “I AM.” A customer interviewed at the site was not happy with the marketing approach. Ian Millar wonders if any of AOL’s marketing and planning directors ever went to Christian Sunday school or attended Jewish services. (they might have but they were probably IM’ing during the service) Miller points out to AOL executives that “I AM” is the English translation of YaHWeH, the self-proclaimed name of God.”

“He is the Creator and Savior of the world,” explains Millar. “He alone is to be worshiped. To take His name in vain, or use as a common thing is blasphemy, a vulgar sin of offense. Perhaps you have not read the Third Commandment, since they have removed it from so many public monuments in the last decade. But breaking it as a means of marketing your products offends the mind of everyone who worships Him.”   (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48585)

I am sure that Mr.Millar is sincere in his convictions. But I am going to go back to one of my core questions on culural issues. Is this a battle worth fighting? I guess we need something to get exorcised over this week. The Book of Daniel is off the air and many have moved on from spearing Every Tribe Entertainment’s decisions concerning End of the Spear. A good midweek dose of righteous indignation might be just the ticket. But I think this early outrage at AOL is a bit of a stretch. Their “I Am” campaign looks to me like a clever (to them) word scramble of AIM.

 

The ads say things like “I Am Instant Messaging” or “I Am Voice Chat.”  I looked up several definitions of idol and idolatry to see if my overwhelming underreaction was out of line. The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry offered the following definitions.

An idol is a representation of something in the heavens or on the earth. It is used in worship and is often worshiped. It is an abomination to God (Exodus 20:4). Idolatry is bowing down before such an idol in adoration, prayer, or worship. Blasphemy means speaking evil of God or denying Him some good which we should attribute to Him. Blasphemy arises out of pride (Psalm 73:9,11), hatred (Psalm 74:18), injustice (Isaiah 52:5), etc. (http://www.carm.org/dictionary)

I think we might to look elsewhere for this week’s outrage. I doubt that anyone will be worshiping the new instant message program or logo. Nor do I see a blasphemous intent in their campaign. But I will continue to pound my drumbeat on this one point. If the culture opens a door, go through it. I refer you, kind readers, once again to the genius of Paul. The apostle was “greatly distressed” by the number of idols he witnessed as he walked around Athens. Did he boycott? Did he put up giant placards or lead chants? Paul walked through the open door of culture with this brilliant opening.

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.  (Acts 17 – NIV)

And Paul proceeded to powerfully lay out his message. Christian AOL users can engage others in the real meaning of  I AM. Send a message about another one who claimed the I AM name.  Here is what Jesus said in the Gospel of John.

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”  (John 5 – NIV)

The Jesus campaign packs a little more punch that “I am instant messaging.” His slogan is  “I Am Eternal Life” and “I Am Forgiveness.”

Now there is an instant message worth saving to your memory.

 

 

You may have heard the news that a judge in Viterbo, Italy has been given the unenviable task of ruling whether Jesus actually existed. That would be a great example for the Southwest Airlines commercial campaign.  Need to get away? Opening arguments began Friday in the case of an Italian priest accused by an atheist of breaking two Italian laws.  The Reverend Enrico Righi is the defendant in a case filed by an old schoolmate named Luigi Cascioli (the next class reunion should be fun).

Cascioli filed a criminal complaint in 2002 after Righi wrote in a parish bulletin that “Jesus did indeed exist, and that he had been born to a couple named Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.” Cascioli claims Righi broke two Italian laws by making this claim. The laws alledgedly broken were the “Abuse of popular belief” or fraudulently deceiving people, and “impersonation” or gaining by attributing a false name to someone.

“This complaint does not wish to contest the freedom of Christians to profess their faith, sanctioned by [article] 19 of the Italian Constitution,” says Cascioli, “but wishes to denounce the abuse that the Catholic Church commits by availing itself of its prestige in order to inculcate – as if being real and historical – facts that are really just inventions.”

His attorney painted a slightly different goal. “The point is not to establish whether Jesus existed or not, but if there is a question of possible fraud,” said Mauro Fonzo, according to the Associated Press. As we say here in Texas, Cascioli and his attorney know that “this dog won’t hunt.” There is almost no chance of winning with the home court advantage of the Catholic Church in a trial just outside of Rome. So what is the point of this whole charade? This is a legal means to an end. Going through these steps will allow them to bring their anti-Jesus case before the European Court of Human Rights.

The whole thing seems like a ploy to sell some books. He always makes sure he includes quotes like this one. “In my book, ‘(Use your own website to promote your book because you ain’t usin’ mine),’ I present proof Jesus did not exist as a historic figure. He (Reverend Righi) must now refute this by showing proof of Christ’s existence,” Cascioli said.

I think that most impartial scholars have little doubt that the historical figure of Jesus existed. In fact, R. Scott Appleby, a professor of church history at the University of Notre Dame said that “there is more evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than there would be for many other historical people who actually existed. Not only did Jesus actually exist, but he actually had some kind of prominence to be mentioned in two or three chronicles.”

Just a couple of examples that Appleby alludes to in his quote. Roman historian Tacitus wrote this in AD 64.

“Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .”

Not exactly a flattering portrayal of Christians or of Christ but a clear indication that his existence was real and accepted by Rome. The most influential writings of the Jewish faith also clearly state the existence of a historical Jesus.

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu the Nazarene was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.” Yeshu or Yeshua was the Hebrew pronunciation for Jesus. Early writers sometimes interchanged hanged for crucifixation or hanging on the cross. I am sure I don’t need to tell you that this notation is found in the Tractate Sanhedrin 43b. Who doesn’t know that?

For me the real question is not whether Jesus existed. That seems pretty clear to most. There is a very real question for everyone about who Jesus was and what that means in your life and mine. What the writers of the Talmud called sorcery the followers of Yeshua called miracles. The apostasy that led to the death of Jesus was called the Truth by His followers. Putting Jesus on a mock trial in Italy does not change the fact that every person must answer the question of who Jesus is. Some simply dismiss the question out of hand. Foolishness they scoff. A crutch for weaklings say others. Some struggle and look for empiracle and overwhelming evidence to support a step of faith. I find it fascinating that there is evidence to believe if you are looking for it. And there is evidence not to believe if you are looking for that. Faith ulitmately means you have to step on one side of the line or the other. Everyone of us must answer the question that Peter and the Apostles did.

One day as Jesus was alone, praying, he came over to his disciples and asked them, “Who do people say I am?”
 “Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say you are one of the other ancient prophets risen from the dead.”

 Then he asked them, “Who do you say I am?”

  Peter replied, “You are the Messiah sent from God!”

Peter’s impulsive replies often got him in the disciple doghouse but he hit this one out of the theological park. So when the million dollar question is presented to me here is my strategy.

Jesus is: 

A)    A made up figure
B)    A great teacher
C)    A crazy man
D)    The Messiah sent from God

I am going with D, Regis, the Messiah sent from God. Final Answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would not be surprised to turn on the Simpsons TV show this week and see Bart writing on the blackboard…

I will not lie to Oprah
I will not lie to Oprah
I will not lie to Oprah
I will not lie to Oprah
I will not lie to Oprah
I will not lie to Oprah
I will not lie to Oprah
I will not lie to Oprah

Whew!

 Was I the only guy sweating yesterday as I watched discredited author James Frey (A Million Little Pieces) get taken to the woodshed by the Queen of Daytime? Comedians call some laughter the “laugh of recognition.” I would call my response yesterday the “squirm of recognition.” Any guy who has ever been caught in a lie knows the helpless feeling that Frey experienced. We understood that deer in the headlight stare, the stammering, and the defeated body language. The only thing I could not relate to was having to experience this on national television with a studio audience cheering for my demise.

I was very surprised that Oprah’s initial reaction to the controversy was benign. She called the early stories “much ado about nothing” and had actually called Frey during the Larry King Show to voice her support. I had written about the author’s difficulties in a post on January 13th. At that point I wrote, “the problem with the revelations about some of  Frey’s book is the pall that it casts over all of it. An unknown writer said to “beware of the half truth.  You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.” Unfortunately Mr.Frey has called all of his recollections into question because he misrepresented some of them. Some of his descriptions are indeed powerful. But did they really happen as he describes?”

I was originally planning to do a followup post today about this story. I was going to write about the ho-hum response to the revelations and how accepting lies and calling them embellishments was a dangerous sign of our societal ills. Oprah changed my storyline when she got a good dose of that old time religion and Frey felt the fire and brimstone of the wrath of Oprah.

“I feel duped,” she said Thursday on her syndicated talk show. “But more importantly, I feel that you betrayed millions of readers.”

James Frey did betray his readers and Oprah’s trust. But more importantly he betrayed himself. I wrote in the previous post about Steven Soderbergh. He had chillingly noted that “Lying is like alcoholism. You are always recovering.”

But then I confessed that I am in the same boat as a follower of Christ. I am always recovering from the natural instincts (aka sin) that separate me from a Holy God. I must address those issues moment by moment. James Frey tried to defend lying by rationalizing that his work was essentially true and that the inaccuracies were within  “an appropriate ratio for a memoir.”  Frey’s bravado led him to write in his book that “I have been to AA meetings. … The meetings themselves made me sick. Too much whining, too much complaining, too much blaming. Too much [expletive] about Higher Powers.” Yesterday James Frey looked like a man who could have used a hug and a reminder that Jesus loves him even though the audience might not. Newsweek noted that Frey “ultimately cured himself without any sissy 12-step program.” His prescription for recovery was to rely on self. The limit to self-help is that you are relying on the same self that got you in this mess.  

I need a little more help to deal with my issues than just self reliance and determination. I need a daily relationship with Jesus to keep my ongoing construction project on track. I admit it. I cannot do it on my own. James Frey cannot either and I pray that yesterday’s demolition will not destroy him but will help him see his need for a Savior. King David was man who had to squirm uncomfortably in front of the Lord God after his sad detour with Bathsheba. But David was also described as a man after God’s own heart. He wrote these words in Psalm 51.

Who may worship in your sanctuary, LORD?
       Who may enter your presence on your holy hill?
        Those who lead blameless lives
       and do what is right,
       speaking the truth from sincere hearts.

       Those who refuse to slander others
       or harm their neighbors
       or speak evil of their friends.

       Those who despise persistent sinners,
       and honor the faithful followers of the LORD
       and keep their promises even when it hurts…

           Such people will stand firm forever.  (NLT)

Would you pray that James Frey will understand that truth? I kind of feel sorry for him today. Because as I was busy squirming yesterday I realized that it is only the grace of God that keeps me out of that uncomfortable place. It is only the grace of God that forgives and restores me when I do stumble. Paul wrote that all of us have the ability to fall flat and the responsibility to help those that do.

If someone falls into sin, forgivingly restore him, saving your critical comments for yourself. You might be needing forgiveness before the day’s out. Stoop down and reach out to those who are oppressed. Share their burdens, and so complete Christ’s law. If you think you are too good for that, you are badly deceived.  (Gal 6, The Message)

So pray for James Frey.

And don’t ever lie to Oprah!

 

 

I have been on the periphery of fame and fortune for most of  my career. My real job as a television sports director has allowed me to observe incredibly wealthy people up close. It seems that the deadly duo of money and celebrity affects nearly everyone they touch and generally not positively. I have often told my sons that the children of rich and famous parents are usually maladjusted. And that is why I have taken the burden of mediocrity on my career. I did it for them.

It is hard to imagine what celebrities go through in their lives. A life without privacy has to be difficult. The craving for celebrities in America has become a cottage industry with mulitple magazines and shows following every inane tidbit of their lives. This week Rolling Stone magazine went for shock value by picturing rapper Kanye West on the cover as a Christ-like figure with a crown of thorns on his head. Fake blood trickles down his face as he takes on the tortured demeanor of a “suffering” star. The magazine had the predictable PR release.

“Rolling Stone covers have always been an outlet for artistic expression; we certainly do not intend to offend religious groups, or anyone else for that matter.”

Excuse me while I turn off my bovine excrement alarm.

Okay, I’m back.

Do you really think that Rolling Stone did not know that this cover would offend religious groups? I mean, really, how could a profane hip hop artist portraying Christ offend anyone? Of course you always must safely couch everything offensive in the safe cocoon of “artistic expression.” Although I have noticed that artistic expression seems to be limited to Christian images. Apparently the creative juices don’t flow when it comes to such images of Islam or Hinduism or other religions. But that would be a topic for another day.

When I read the comments of Kanye West I just feel sad. West is probably known to most of us middle-aged white guys as the one who went off script during the celebrity fundraiser for Katrina victims. It seemed like an SNL skit as West went on and on as actor Mike Myers squirmed next to him and seemed to be looking for the director to get off the two shot so he could make a run for it. When West finished his personal rant Myers awkwardly went right back to the script.

“And subtle, but in many ways even more profoundly devastating, is the lasting damage to the survivors’ will to rebuild and remain in the area. The destruction of the spirit of the people of southern Louisiana and Mississippi may end up being the most tragic loss of all.” For reasons that I’m sure Myers is still questioning he threw it back to West.

When Kanye proclaimed that, “Bush doesn’t care about black people” the control room cut off of West and give Myers a chance to bolt and have a serious discussion with his agent.

Kanye West is a rather typical product of the celebrity media machine. He thinks he is far more important than he actually is the eternal scheme of things. 

“In America, they want you to accomplish these great feats, to pull off these David Copperfield-type stunts,” he says. “You want me to be great, but you don’t ever want me to say I’m great?”

C.S.Lewis wisely said that pride is the anti-God state of mind. There is a real difference between self-esteem born of being created uniquely in the image of God and the puffed-up pride of stars like West. Because he is cool and currently popular his influence on young men and women is a concern. But the influence of celebs like Kanye West can be mitigated by the influence of godly parents involved in the lives of their kids. And I don’t mean just talking about Jesus but actually allowing Him to live through your lives. Mitigating culturing influence means spending time with your kids, learning how God uniquely  designed them, and being authentic with your faith. It means learning how to say things like “I’m sorry” and “I was wrong, forgive me.” It means telling them you love them but showing them that love by not trying to always be their buddy.

I remember getting roundly criticized by some in the Christian community for watching Beavis and Butthead with my sons. Why would I allow them to watch such trash and why in the world would I watch it with them? Let me explain the method to the madness.

1) I knew if they did not watch at my house they would watch it elsewhere. All the kids were talking about the show so I knew enough about teens to know they would watch it somewhere. Certainly there is a limit to this philosophy but I did not feel this show went beyond that limit.

2) My involvement removed the “forbidden fruit” aspect and made it just a show and not an act of rebellion to watch. Teens love to provoke the outraged parent gene we all possess.

3) I was able to discuss with my sons when I thought the show went too far and why it did not align with our families values.

4) There were some funny moments that we could laugh about together.

The net result? Beavis and Butthead came and went. The Republic still stands. My sons survived and maintained their faith. Kanye West will also come and go. Don’t get too exercised about his foolish little cover stunt. Some day he will have to come to grips with the eternal questions that King Solomon wrestled with in Ecclesiastes.

Everything is meaningless,” says the Teacher, “utterly meaningless!”
What do people get for all their hard work? Generations come and go, but nothing really changes. The sun rises and sets and hurries around to rise again. The wind blows south and north, here and there, twisting back and forth, getting nowhere. The rivers run into the sea, but the sea is never full. Then the water returns again to the rivers and flows again to the sea. Everything is so weary and tiresome! No matter how much we see, we are never satisfied. No matter how much we hear, we are not content.

As cool as celebrity and wealth may seem this is where you will ultimately find yourself without a relationship with the Living God. The wise king agonized for chapter after chapter about the meaning of this existence. And finally he concluded.

Here is my final conclusion: Fear God and obey his commands, for this is the duty of every person. God will judge us for everything we do, including every secret thing, whether good or bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Several friends forwarded the congratulatory email they received from American Family Association President Donald E.Wildmon. The missives were probably to taunt me because I disagreed with the whole campaign.  “Because of your efforts, NBC cancels Book of Daniel”, the message read, “The sponsors dropped the program. NBC then decided it didn’t want to continue the fight.”

                                yay

That is the most excitement I can generate over that news. My take on the show was it was a cultural open door to engage unchurched people in real discussions about Christianity and particularly Jesus. The hip and not very helpful Jesus of the show was a great starting point for some discussions if have had over the past month with unsuspecting viewers. Now the watercooler talk turns to how Christians want to censor television and have no sense of humor. If you have an apologetic defense for that please let me know. I don’t.

So we won the battle. My question is simple. Was this a battle worth fighting? 

Historians will tell you that World War II would likely have been very different if Hitler had focused on the most important battle being waged in Western Europe. When he divided his forces to take on Russia he effectively lost both. I wonder if we have divided our forces and weakened the effort by trying to redeem the culture. I know our country is a mess. I understand the concern that parents and Christians have over the crap that is on television, radio, CD’s, videogames, and movie screens. We quote Scripture about the evils of sin and apply that to the culture. But I keep getting reminded that Paul’s letters were not for the anchors at CNN (Corinth News Network) to read off the papyrus prompter or for the Athens Daily Scribe to print. Those warnings were for the church. For you and me. The followers of Jesus.

We may win battles like getting the Book of Daniel off the air although I still submit that show was committing suicide. I am pretty sure NBC didn’t continue the fight because the show sucked. We may hurt the box office sales of End of the Spear by making the cast the issue and not the message. But I would suggest that the evangelical community needs to pray about what battles matter in a really important war for the souls of a hurting world. The real battle we need to be fightling is for older followers of Christ to take the time to mentor young Christians. The battle is to find Christians willing to sacrifice a little time to invest in the lives of children at church and during the week. The battle is caring enough to watch the back door of our assemblies to see who is leaving in pain and following them like the shepherd left the ninety-nine to redeem the one. The battle is loving people like Jesus even when it is messy, inconvenient, and with no guarantee of results. The real battle is awakening an evangelical community that gives an embarrassingly small percentage of the amazing material blessing most of us have received. The real battle is rolling up our sleeves and helping the poor, the aged, the helpless, and the outcasts. The Christians in this country could significantly alter most of the social ills in America if we tithed our treasure and time. But it is far easier to denigrate than disciple. Much more natural to complain than care. An email boycott does not take much of my valuable time while trying to save a broken life or marriage does. I know some Christians are doing both. But if you are making a choice of how to impact this culture I would suggest that you follow the example of the Lord Jesus and try to redeem your neighbor before the culture. Jesus was never surprised when sinners sinned. He did not angrily attack sin in the pagan marketplace. That happened only in the temple. He was gentle with sinners while strongly condemning their sin. But following His example means ceding control of my life. One of favorites singer/writers was Rich Mullins. His words from the song “Hold Me Jesus” never fail to move me.

Surrender don’t come natural to me
I’d rather fight You for something I don’t really want
Than to take what You give that I need
And I’ve beat my head against so many walls
Now I’m falling down, I’m falling on my knees

I’m singing hold me Jesus, ’cause I’m shaking like a leaf
You have been King of my glory
Won’t You be my Prince of Peace?

So we won a battle.

Whoopee.

We will never have to “not watch” the Book of Daniel again. But the war wages around us. And our battle plan is flawed. Help us Jesus to fight the right battles. May I suggest this as a starting point for your battle plan?

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”   (Matthew 28, NIV)

 

I have been reading with my usual mix of amusement, sadness, and disbelief the growing debate over the movie End of the Spear. Some in the Christian community have decided to grab the pitchforks, light the torches, and storm the gates of Every Tribe Entertainment, the production company behind the movie. In case you have been a cloistered monk until today I will give you a bit of background. Here is the mission statement from the company’s website.

• To create quality entertainment for a broad audience that inspires hope through truth. Every Tribe Entertainment grew out of the hopes and dreams of film-makers and individuals who desire to make a difference in our world and in our culture. Frustrated with the lack of quality story content in films today, and driven to provide more than just entertainment in our films, Every Tribe was founded to bring to life stories of courage and strength of the human spirit. Courage, tolerance, mercy, forgiveness, faith and love. We base our film choices on what we hope to inspire rather than what we hope to sell. This philosophy has its fingerprints on what we do and how we do it. We hope to inspire all who view our films as well as those who work with us to create them.

Sounds good. Every Tribe Entertainment was the darling of the Evangelical community because the company planned to release a theatrical version of the amazing story of Nate Saint. He and his four missionary colleagues were murdered trying to reach the Waodani tribe of Ecuador. But Evangelicals, like a mistreated pit bull, can turn on you in a heartbeat. I know that to be true because I am part of the Evangelical tribe and my first book brought out a few of those pit bulls (when they grab on it is hard to shake them off!). The primary reason that we have released the hounds on Every Tribe Entertainment is their choice to cast Chad Allen as the main character in the movie. Allen plays the dual roles of Nate Saint and later his grown up son Steve. The choice is generating great controversy because Chad Allen is a gay activist and recently appeared on the cover of the leading gay magazine. This has caused a flood of anguish about what we should do about the movie and how we should respond to Every Tribe Entertainment. Here are my thoughts in no particular order of importance…

1)  What should we do with the movie?

Go see it.

It is a very good movie with a powerful message. Don’t worry about sin in the lives of the cast or crew. If that becomes a criteria you will never see another movie in your life. Actually, you won’t even be able to go to church! Remember the incredible and heartwarming story of Eric Liddell that was told in the movie Chariots of Fire? The role of Liddell was played by Ian Charleston, a gay actor. Does that mean the impact of Chariots of Fire has been diminished? Of course not. And I believe the supernatural message of redemption and forgiveness in End of the Spear is not affected because Christians might not like the choice of Chad Allen.

2) What should we do about Every Tribe Entertainment?

Write them and thank them.

They have put their time and treasure into making a movie that they believe in. Just because you might not like every part of it does diminish what these men and women are trying to do. My late friend and mentor Bob Briner would have been rejoicing to see a company like this using their skills and vision within the culture. His book Roaring Lambs (http://roaring-lambs.org/) was a major influence in my life. Bob once said, “It’s time for believers to confidently carry their faith with them into the marketplace so that our very culture feels the difference.” That is what the people at Every Tribe Entertainment are trying to do. I commend them.

I also know that what they are attempting is not easy and we should be supporting them as the body of Christ in prayer and encouragement. Perhaps they will take a little different approach for their next project if we (the Evangelical Pit Bulls of America…or EPBA) don’t cause them to give up and go live in the jungles of Ecuador.

3) Should Christians be concerned about a gay activist playing such an important role?

Not in the way that I suspect most are concerned.

Jason Janz wrote about his concerns at his weblog  (http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2244). He voices some issues that I would gently disagree with and discuss. Here are some of Jason’s thoughts.

“Every Tribe Productions seems to believe that there would never be a case where someone’s public and known behavior would ever disqualify him from playing a Christian missionary in a film. Does anyone really believe that Chad Allen was the best possible actor for Nate Saint? This would be like Madonna playing the virgin Mary. I propose that the Christian film-making community come up with a code of ethics that will show the difference between a Christian film company and a secular film company. If you are going to ask for our loyalty and support, you need to be willing to hear our concerns and let us know that you will protect our beliefs, not muddy the waters.”

First of all, Every Tribe Entertainment thought that Chad Allen was the best choice and they put up the money to get it produced. If we want to do a better job we could choose to drop our stones of criticism and enter the arena. I don’t believe that a company who produces a film needs to be willing to hear my concerns before they spend their money. They can always ask for my loyalty and support but it is my call as to whether it is merited. But coming up with a “code of ethics” to warrant our support is not an idea I can support. I believe if Every Tribe had done that they would have produced a film that played only to Christians and would have gone straight to video after collecting about $200 in box office revenues.

The leadership of Every Tribe issued this statement to the Baptist Press.

“We are the filmmakers of End of the Spear. We cast Chad Allen because he had the best audition of anyone else by far. We know that the character in the film and the actor are not the same. If as a film company we could only work with people who were completely sanctified, then the film would never have been made. We do not agree with Chad over homosexuality. End of the Spear is not about Chad Allen, but rather it’s about remarkable people who lived their faith against all odds, and dared to reach out at the cost of their lives.”

I am praying for God to bless the efforts of this company. I believe their mission is sincere. Even if they made a mistake in casting Chad Allen I still believe that the awesome and sovereign God can use the power of this story in the lives of many viewers. My God is the same God who told Isaiah,  “My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.” His plan will be accomplished. And imagine the uproar and further damage between evangelicals and the gay community if Every Tribe had dropped Allen after learning of his advocacy.

The Baptist Press continued in their story about the End of the Spear controversy.

“The producers have said they were not aware of Chad Allen’s homosexuality when they gave him the role of Steve Saint in the film but decided to stick with him once they were told of his sexual practices. Saint, who has befriended Allen, hopes that the film will help people see “that all of us have tragic, shattered relationships in our lives and that God is the one who can put them back together in incredible ways.”

“If Mincaye and I can be very close friends, be family, love each other, and my kids and my grandchildren can love Mincaye and his family -– if that can happen out of the tragic relationship that we started with –- then maybe it’ll give people hope that their strained relationships can also be reconciled and that, better yet, God can be part of the answer,” Saint said in an interview with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association’s Decision magazine.”

As for Chad Allen I have a very simple strategy. I am praying for him. If we believe that his beliefs and lifestyle are unbiblical then how about challenging the body of Christ to pray for him? I am afraid that the firestorm that has greeted his role in this movie has not caused Chad Allen to want to reevaluate his syncretic view of faith and embrace the liberating truth of the gospel. He has had the privilege of portraying a martyr for our Lord Jesus. But he is merely an actor. Chad Allen is not Nate Saint. I find it an amazing irony that the word hypocrite comes from the Greek word for actor. Hyprokrites means one who plays a part, an actor. Perhaps all of us should take a moment to see if the actor who is the real problem is the one in the mirror. I am a sinner saved by grace. Pray for me. Pray for Every Tribe Entertainment. Pray for Chad Allen. Pray that our Evangelical agenda will not keep away those who would be touched and even changed by this story. And pray that every Christian will hide this truth in his or her heart…

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.  (Romans 3, NIV)

 

 

 

H.L.Mencken wrote that criticism is prejudice made plausible. I have a suspicion that recent reviews of  End of the Spear have revealed as much about some critics prejudice as they have about their views of the movie. And it is very possible that it is my prejudice that makes me suspicious. The movie opened Friday to criticism on both sides of the cultural divide. Many in the Christian community were critical of the “soft” presentation of the gospel message. Many secular critics were appalled at the overtly Christian message. Hmmmmm. Others in the Christian community were apoplectic over the casting choices in the movie. We will address that tomorrow. Today lets take a look at the critical reviews of the movie End of the Spear.

I have said before that if I had heard a preacher tell me that hell would be eternity spent with movie critics I would have hit the altar much sooner. These people really seem to be unhappy campers. The following is a sampling of some of the critics with my comments inserted parenthetically.

TV Guide’s Movie Guide wrote, “this ersatz jungle adventure is really a thinly disguised Sunday School lesson in faith, charity and the savagery of life without Christ.” (Yes, that would be because that is the story of the book on which the movie is BASED…sorry for raising my font voice. The reviewer makes that very point in the next line) “Based on the true story of Steve Saint and his father, Nate Saint, one of five American Christian missionaries slain by members of an Amazon tribe in 1956”… (So if the movie were based on a not true story then a Sunday School lesson could be fairly criticized. This is the story of  Christian missionaries sharing Christ and getting killed. It seemed important to the story to me that faith work its way in there at times. This makes as much sense as critiquing Glory Road with the same approach. This ersatz basketball adventure is really a thinly disguised affirmative action lesson in racism, courage, and the insensitivity of whites in the sixties. Glory Road is based on the true story of the Texas Western basketball team. End of the Spear is based on the true story of five missionaries. You can hate their mission or their methods but that doesn’t change what the bleepin’ story is about. Whew…I feel better. Next reviewer please.)

E! Online wrote “There are also some slayings, which are not met with retribution from the good missionaries – the savages aren’t “ready for heaven” yet, you see –  and that’s the big message. In this particular tale, turning the other cheek, while lovely, is heavy on the sincerity and light on the subtlety–and it’s a relief when the End finally comes. (I think the  “good missionaries” is a cheap drive-by  shot. Again, whether you agree with the missionaries or not they did put their lives at risk for a cause and they did not seek retribution. Should it be surprising to anyone that a Christian missionary would believe that Jesus is the big message and the way to salvation? That has not been a hidden agenda and, again, that happens to be the theme of this particular story. I thought the line about “turning the other cheek, while lovely” was condescending but amusing.  Perhaps the Sermon on the Mount could be reworked to reward such a noble idea. And Jesus said if,  “if someone strikes you on the right cheek, it would be quite lovely if you could possibly turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, it would be really sporting to let him have your cloak as well.” )

The Washington Post opined that “although the film invests time among the tribesmen, it never really explores the idea that one man’s missionary work is another’s ideological aggression.” (That would be a fair and interesting question. For another movie! This is Steve Saint’s story of his father. That story did not include Nate Saint wondering if his zeal to communicate with the Waodoni tribe was an “ideological aggression.” Trying to force that into this story would be disingenuous. Here comes my favorite review of End of the Spear. This one comes from Mark Holcomb of the Village Voice. Get out your bitterness mop and bucket…we have a cleanup on aisle four).

Coy crypto-Christian claptrap masquerading as feel-good ethnography, (Whoa…look at his gigantic vocabulary! I think I get what he means with this odd grouping of descriptive words. If I may interpret for my fellow Red Staters…the script is kind of teasingly deceptive and secretive in it’s message yet pretentious. But by definition ethnography is the scientific study of human cultures. I don’t think that End of the Spear every intended to be that type of movie. I think Holcomb might have picked a better fifty cent word for the finale) End of the Spear is part missionaries-in-peril potboiler – sans pot – and part Bush-era evangelical screed  (That is rich. And the award for most creative way to somehow work in a shot at George Bush totally and irrelevantly from left field goes to Mark Holcomb. Where did that come from? And why?) It’s the kind of oversweet cinematic Kool-Aid they used to force-feed us in Sunday school, a dramatic retooling of Beyond the Gates of Splendor, a documentary also directed by Jim Hanon that was marketed to churches. (Dude, sorry you had a bad experience with the flannel graph Bible stories but what does THAT have to do with this movie?) Both films tell the story of five American missionaries who were murdered by members of a remote Ecuadorian tribe while trying to establish contact with them in 1956, and of the subsequent conversion of said tribe to a less self-destructive lifestyle. But Spear is up to more than just grade-B jungle thrills, and its Davey and Goliath dogmatism (Okay, how could Goliath have been anything other than dogmatic? Just curious.) comes through as loud and clear as the sinister subtext behind its message of nonviolence—that the world’s nonwhite, “undeveloped” cultures continue to require prophylactic doses of Yank benevolence in order to survive and thrive. (I’ll bet he is still chuckling about working prophylactic into the Christian movie review.)

I can only speak for myself. I don’t view my faith as having a color. I simply have found a relationship with Jesus Christ that I want to communicate with others. I have no desire to force it on others. Jesus never did. His message was always communicated with love and gentleness. I wrote about the Unbelievers Bill of Rights in my book When Bad Christians Happen to Good People.

To be fair not all secular critics were nearly this harsh about the movie. The New York Times called the movie inspiring and several other critics were at least partially positive.

I thought that End of the Spear was a very good movie. It is not perfect. The story of forgiveness is awe inspiring no matter how much you might critique the script, actors, or production. Entertainment Weekly wrote that “the movie, which is atrociously scripted and edited, carries out the mission for them (the missionaries), turning Mincayani, a surly and handsome Waodani leader, from killer to saint without making psychological sense of either.” That conundrum is the very crux of this story. There is no psychologically sensible explanation for these events. There is an amazing and supernatural element to this story. Could I do what Steve Saint has done? Could I have remained in the Ecuadorian jungles and still desired to help that tribe like the wives of the slain missionaries? Could I forgive the man who took my father away in my childhood? Could I forgive my father for putting himself in such a position? Would I hold fast to the faith that caused him to do that? Those are questions I asked as I left the theater. For Steve Saint to forgive, befriend, and live with the man who murdered his father is an act of grace, strength, and redemption that humbles me. I think he has earned the right to have his story told the way he wants it told. As Eleanor Roosevelt famously noted, “Do what you feel in your heart to be right. You’ll be criticized anyway.”