The box office run of End of the Spear is likely drawing to a close. The backlash from a number of Christian blogs, publications, and from many pulpits accomplished its goal. Estimates are that the controversy cut the box office return by one-half to two-thirds. I wish congratulations were in order. But I am simply burdened and discouraged by our choice of battles in the evangelical community.
I should never be allowed near a keyboard when I am angry. But I hope that all who advocated a boycott are happy with the results. Your efforts kept a lot of people away from a movie that has a powerful message. I have not talked to a single person who saw the movie (and that would be dozens) who was not moved by the portrayal of forgiveness and redemption. No one that I know cared who played the role of Nate Saint. Typical response. “Oh, he was gay? (pause) He did a good job.” Just for the record…I go to a conservative church.
What is wrong with having a movie that you can take a unchurched friend to and then discuss the supernatural response from the people that this story portrays? Evangelism is planting a seed and then watering that seed. There is plenty in this movie to accomplish that task. A heavy handed gospel message would have made it much more difficult to get unchurched friends to the movie. If you can’t find enough in End of the Spear to generate a wonderful discussion of the power of the Holy Spirit and the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross then you are just not trying.
For example, how about this scene where Mincayani takes Steve Saint to the scene of the killing and he is overcome by his role in the death of Steve’s father. Because he still lives by the rules of the Waodoni he wants the younger Saint to take his life. But the young man says, “No one took my father’s life. He gave it.” This affects the Mincayani profoundly. It’s an effective and powerful scene. Are you telling me you can’t parlay that drama into a discussion of Jesus giving His life on the Cross? How about discussing the story of Waengongi (God) who once had a Son who was speared but did not spear back? Can’t find the gospel message in there anywhere?
The world is fascinated by the question of life after death. This movie clearly communicates that the warrior Mincayani believes he saw a heavenly host coming to escort Nate Saint and the other missionaries to their reward, or in the terms of the tribe, “jumping the Great Boa.” No way you can dig up a little salt to sprinkle from that scene?
I visited dozens of websites that were apoplectic that gay actor Chad Allen had been picked to play the role of Nate and Steve Saint. Most of these bloggers seemed like the Stanley Johnson character from the Lending Tree television commercial. Nice guys. Wonderful families. Lovely home in the suburbs. But on this issue they just seemed to go a little too far.
Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote this is a column posted at Sharperiron.org.
“It is disappointing enough when unsaved, worldly culture-mongers cannot see clearly on basic moral issues. It is even more distressing when professing Christians betray complete moral confusion. That is the case with the new movie from Every Tribe Entertainment, End of the Spear. ETE is supposed to be a Christian maker of Christian films. End of the Spear is supposed to be the film biography of Nate Saint, the missionary pilot and martyr who gave his life to get the message of the gospel to the Auca Indians of Ecuador.”
Comments. First of all, it is not surprising nor disappointing when unsaved, worldly culture-mongers cannot see clearly. That is called sin and that is what sinners do. That is why we are having this discussion to see how we can communicate the gospel to a world that cannot see clearly. I was frustrated by his comment that ETE is “supposed” to be a Christian maker of Christian films. That is just flat wrong. ETE is a group of Christian men and women who are committed to making good stories with a message that can be used to communicate Christian values. They are hoping that people who willing to change out of their judges robes into their “civies” will use these stories to generate salt and light dialogue.
Here is an example of how I think we are fighting the wrong battles. This was a letter that was sent to radio talk show host Janet Parshall.
Mrs. Parshall,
Thanks so much for representing the Gospel and Biblical positions on Larry King Live last night. I was encouraged to hear the truth communicated in your reasonable and articulate fashion.
However, I was discouraged to hear you indiscriminately endorse the film your co-panelist on the program Mr. Allen stars in. By allowing Mr. Allen to play an active role in creating this film, End of the Spear has, I believe, given a platform for the exclusivity of the gospel to be undermined. His activist agenda has been given a wider audience because of his connection to this story. Furthermore, the public response and perception of Every Tribe Entertainment and Steve Saint has been to defend their choice and express support for Mr. Allen, further adding to the public perception of the legitimacy of a pluralistic gospel. I plead with you to reconsider your endorsement of this film. I ask you to call for ETE and Mr. Saint to take decisive and public action acknowledging the grievous error in casting a gay activist in their film. Encourage them to take a public and prominent stand for the exclusive Gospel- to state clearly and unequivocally that Jesus is the only way, and that the only hope for anyone trapped in the bondage of homosexuality or any other sin is to repent and turn to Jesus Christ for deliverance.
In Christ, A Pastor.
His name is not important and I do wish to throw him under the bus for sincere objections. My point is to look at the opening sentence and then what follows. Janet Parshall represented the gospel well and communicated the truth of the gospel on the Larry King show! What an incredible opportunity and she did a great job. But then comes the dreaded however. If Janet did a great job of communicating the truth of the gospel how about taking the wild tact of praying that her words would fall on fertile ground and the Holy Spirit will work in the hearts of those who heard.
I have had the privilege of sitting with some of the leaders of ETE in recent weeks. These are good, Godly men trying to fulfill what they believe is a calling of the Holy Spirit. Can we allow that perhaps God has called them to something different from your vision and can we allow that the vision may ultimately have a great impact? Can we have enough grace to offer the possibility that maybe they just made an honest mistake in casting Chad Allen? Is it possible to offer grace if you feel that it was a mistake? Can we consider that we should be praying and supporting the mission they feel called to do instead of trying to hurt them financially just because we don’t like how they made this movie? Perhaps their next project will meet your criteria. Is it possible that a Sovereign God ordained Chad to play this role because that influence will change his life and that he will have a great ministry someday? Or do you, like Job’s friends, already know what God is doing? Perhaps we are just too busy icing down our elbows from the stone throwing session to seek the Holy Spirit and pray for these men and women who are actually trying to do something unique in the arena of popular culture.
Yeah, I know. I need to get out the paper sack and breathe into it for a few seconds. But I am angry at many of my Evangelical family. I am an Evangelical but I am not a particularly proud one over this debate. You see, I live in the secular world and I know how all too well how Evangelicals are perceived. And we just added plenty of fuel to that perception fire with this ridiculous overreaction to who played Nate Saint. Have you thrown away your VHS or DVD of Chariots of Fire yet? Two key roles in that powerful movie (including the part of Christian runner Eric Liddel) were played by gay actors. Tossed your Lord of the Rings trilogy in the trash? Gandalf was played by an actor who has been a gay activist. The only difference with those movies was that we did not know or, at least, it did not create controversy in the blogosphere.
I read outraged comments from bloggers and readers who seemed to feel they owned the story of the slain missionaries because their parents had read it to them when they were kids. This is not your story! This is not my story. This is God’s story. If this particular story does belong to anyone on this planet that person is Steve Saint. If Steve Saint is okay with the person who played his Dad then I am quite prepared to quietly drop my stones and slink slowly away.
Others were criticizing making this story as a for profit movie. They did not take the time to research that half of the profits were going to tribal missions. So what is the sum total of our high minded cyber flogging of End of the Spear and Every Tribe Entertainment? Thousands and thousands of people did not see a story that could have helped them see how forgiveness looks. Maybe thousands more lost a chance to be moved by the power of redemption. The financial contribution to the tribes will be reduced and that will impact the outreach. The people who worked so hard to make this movie have been wounded by the attacks (and some of the commentary was far less than graceful) of their brothers and sisters in Christ. But I know they will press on. Because I have looked in their eyes and I have seen the conviction of their calling. I know that many will disagree with me on this issue. But I am going to suggest one thing before we react to the next “crisis” in the Kingdom. Can we stop down, pray, and see how the Holy Spirit would have us communicate. Jesus communicated the truth in love. We must seek His Spirit to do the same.
So we have won another battle. The evangelical community has won many battles in recent weeks. But my fear is that we continue to lose the war.
Jennings25KELLY
Set your own life easier take the mortgage loans and all you require.
Chris
How did this happen.. I wonder about the root of it all. The concept that as a Christian you are qualified and authorized to dictate the lives of others…who they hire, what they produce, how they market it, who is deserving and who isn’t, and who set out to "help" others make up their minds. They are so ambitious that they are in competition with God.
Hodges
Dave,
Thank you for your effort, I fear that this will be an ever present battle within the evangelical community. Speaking as one is not trained in the seminary (I have a bible degree from a Conservative Christian College) and not in the pastoral minsitry, but active in video production and its positive uses in churches and ministry I am frustrated by Christians who seem to miss the point. Back in the 70’s when Larry Norman was trying to reach a huge portion of our society who did not know Jesus he was widely criticized for his use of "worldly music". it took years for Christians to be able to put out music that was respectable enough to really bring in seekers with its quality. We have a similar issue today with movies. Now let me back up a step and say that the films that have been produced were done so with Godly intent and some sucess. However, why has it taken over 70 years for Christians to take a serious look at the possibilities of making feature length films that pose serious questions, lead to serious discussions and bring in seekers looking for answers. The passion of the Christ and Narnia are two of the biggest examples of blatent Christian messages, while there are a handful of others that have made a valiant attempt, including EOS. As Christians we need to be in the world reaching the world in ways that are God given, Story telling is one of those ways, and while I agree that we walk a fine line I believe that the line consists of what is the result on the screen not who played the lead charachter or who directed it. Remember the rocks crying out? Some of the most powerful images of grace, redemption and forgiveness ever portrayed on the big screen were done entirely by non-christians. Shame on the evangelical community for missing this boat and for not supporting Christians who are pursuing their God-Given gifts and passions praying that they will be blessed. A final thought, when ian Charleston was preparing for the role of Eric Lidel he read the scriptures, when anthony hopkins prepared for the role of C.S. Lewis, he read his works and the scriptures. Those seeds couldn’t have been planted with all Christian actors. I pray that I will be able to make my contribution some day in what ever way God has in store for me.
Thank you for your time.
Byron Harvey
Jeff, I’d encourage you to re-read the very first paragraph I wrote–in no way whatsoever would I begin to defend the instances you suggest–as I tried to make clear in my very first paragraph. In my posting, I spoke to the producer of the film, asking him, essentially, what he WAS thinking, and providing him opportunity to post (unedited) his own posting.
My problem is that Dave seems to lump all of us–and yes, as I also say in making clear my position, I am included among those who took issue with ETE’s decision–together. Just as Fred Phelps doesn’t speak for all those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, and Randall Terry doesn’t speak for all those who are pro-life, so I in no way condone these kinds of remarks–which I said, I thought pretty clearly.
I didn’t see The Second Chance–I don’t typically go to first-run movies, for financial reasons, truthfully, and I don’t know that the movie played around here (small town America). From what I know of it, I support it–even if there’s profanity in it.
And, finally, I don’t know who the Hollywood sins score-keepers are, but none of the things that you mention there are particularly germane to the issue at hand. If all you see are those who are mud-throwers regarding this discussion, I’d certainly invite you to my site so that you can see otherwise.
Jeff
Since Byron acknowledged that he didn’t read what other bloggers have said, perhaps he should check out how they conducted themselves before defending them. I have no idea what stance you took, Mr. Harvey, but would you consider a "joke" about firebombing the homes of the producers to be balanced and well-reasoned? Do you consider someone calling Mart Green a "tool of Satan" to be redemptive in its approach? One seminary president (the same guy who made the firebombing reference) even referred to Mart’s Christian bookstores — stores that have provided scores of thousands of Christians with resources they need for educating themselves and reaching the lost — as "Christian junk stores", if I recall correctly.
Another seminary president boldly posed the question, "What were they thinking?" I wonder if he gave the producers the courtesy of asking them what they were thinking before he struck his judgmental pose.
You’re right, Byron. The detractors have been most gracious.
And the previous poster is correct about The Second Chance. You probably missed your only chance to see it. Your first chance to see Second Chance was likely your last chance. Your only second chance will be on DVD. Theaters don’t tend to hold on to movies that gross in the hundreds of dollars for the week. You probably wouldn’t have liked it anyway…Steve Taylor included profanity (gasp!) in the script.
And I have troubling news for those who keep score on Hollywood sins: Chad Allen is gay. So was the Gandolf actor (but you didn’t know, so it’s OK). Harrison Ford is an adulterer. Sandra Bullock sleeps around. Someone is a tax cheat. Others are alcoholics. But they don’t promote it, so I guess it’s OK.
And a few are gluttons. Just like the person in the pew next to you — or behind the pulpit — on Sunday.
But we all know God ranks sins according to our perception of their severity.
Thanks, Dave, for being the real salt in this discussion.
Greg
What I am observing from these and other comments is that we Christians curse the darkness and when a company tries to do something to impact that darkness, we find ways to curse the light also.
Someone mentioned "The Second Chance". Have any of you gone to see that film? It hasn’t even grossed $500K yet in it’s third week, so I don’t imagine that will be a successful business venture, much like "End of The Spear" was not a success from a business standpoint. The same groups that attacked "Spear" have attacked Michael W. Smith and his efforts. I sincerely doubt if he will spend time and money again to try and reach into this film medium to not make profit and be critiqued in the blogosphere at the same time.
We Christians like to talk about what should be, but when it comes down to doing it, or supporting those who do, many would rather dawn their black robes and look for problems with the product or the creators.
We can just wait for Ang Lee’s next film and maybe it will be something of value to the Christian community (that’s a joke). We need to pray for and support people (companies) that are trying to shine light into the darkness of Hollywood.
Byron Harvey
Dave, allow me to comment that you’ve now gotten six responses to your post, and that, for those keeping score at home, there have been three on each "side" of the issue. For those disagreeing with you, there have been three balanced, well-reasoned responses that all seem, from where I sit, to be thoughtful and redemptive in their approach. For those agreeing with you, one calls those who take issue with ETE’s decision "Pharisees" and uses "Christian" in QUOTES to refer to us; the second suggests that it is anger that motivates us, knowing our hearts; the third fails to engage any substantive point but would rather just be sarcastically nasty.
I offer all of these responses as exhibits for our consideration…
Don
Dave,
There are no winners hear. Blaming the evangelical community for "End of the Spear’s" low box office returns is a bit like blaming consumers for not buying a DeLorean. The problem isn’t with the consumer; the problem is with the product. If the point of the movie is as you say, "having a movie that you can take a unchurched friend to and then being able to discuss the supernatural forgiveness in that story," then it is incumbent on the moviemakers to create a product that the consumer could wholeheartedly embrace. So here’s the real question. Is it a realistic expectation to think that the evangelical community should endorse "a message that can be used to communicate Christian values" where the lead role is portrayed by an outspoken gay activist? I don’t think so.
Okay, so ETE made a mistake. Evangelicals are just simply supposed to "offer grace" by "praying and supporting the mission" despite the screw up? Go out and buy a ticket anyway, because after all they meant well. Their hearts are in the right place. "These are good, Godly men trying to fulfill what they believe is a calling of the Holy Spirit." Dave, is that what you really believe? Here’s a word of advice from a total stranger. The next time you go near a keyboard when you are angry remember this, "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry." I’m truly sorry that the controversy surrounding "End of the Spear" has made you "angry at many of [your] Evangelical family." In that respect, I guess I’m one of them. But your anger is both misguided and unwarranted: misguided because it’s directed at the wrong people; unwarranted because it’s based upon unrealistic expectations.
Mark Marsden
I find that I can’t watch any film that is acted by a sinner. I can’t work with any sinner. I can’t eat any food touched by a sinner.
So I’m looking forward to Jesus next film "The Log and the Speck" where he sits next to me and feeds me popcorn.
Michael Cooper
I agree that many of us have missed the point of a powerful story, because of our concern as to the character of the actor who portrayed an individual who willingly gave his life for the Gospel.
However, my concern with this film is that it greatly watered down the message of the Gospel, and did not do a very good job of allowing the power of this event to be fully shared. It always seemed like the story was holding something back.
I have been fortunate enough to have heard the story of these men and their families in far greater detail than can be shared in 90 minutes of film.
Still, I cannot help but think that there was an oversensitivity to not offending anyone with the message that truly changed the Wadoni’s of Ecuador.
Anyway, I am looking forward to Steve Taylor’s latest effort, "The Second Chance".
My hope is that we can simply communicate the power of the gospel message in a manner that speaks to all of us who desperately need to hear it.
John Oliver
Dave,
I must say, I’m one of those who did not see "The End Of The Spear", and part of that decision was based on the choice of actor. But before I’m grouped with the knee-jerk conservatives, allow me to explain. I had been following the production of "Beyond The Gates Of Splendor" by ETE for some time, since I’ve loved the story for many years. I wouldn’t say I felt like I owned the story, but it had affected me very deeply. I was very dissappointed with the documentary, because I felt it gutted the gospel message. At a key point in the documentary – the conversion of the tribe that had killed the missionaries – an anthropologist takes center stage, and says, "this tribe recieved new information and changed." My heart sank. Of course I knew what that information was, but I was thinking of my children watching the program. They had heard the story from me, but I longed for them to hear it afresh in this program. And this? Very dissappointed.
So, that brings me to their most recent production. I was excited to see it, though somewhat cautious because of my feelings regarding their earlier production. And then, when I heard that they had chosen Chad Allen to play Nate, I was very upset. Not primarily because he’s homosexual, but because he is outspokenly homosexual, and in interviews was using this picture to promote the unity he was experiencing with these more conservative christians.
Now, I certainly believe we should be salt and light, and reach out to those who, in truth, are no worse than us, but for the grace of God, but my conscience was pricked by the knowledge I had of the leading star’s activist life-style. And I had not heard of Every Tribe’s donation of half the proceeds to missions. I almost wish – as with Lord Of the Rings, and Chariots of Fire – that I had not know about the personal life of the actor. But I don’t find those other two actors quite so active in promoting their life-style as Chad has been!
So, again, it’s not so much that Chad is homosexual, as that he is proudly promoting it, using this movie as a launching pad, and boasting of the acceptance he’s received by these christians that made the difference for me.
I’m sure there are many musicians and artists and actors, etc, whom I enjoy and have no idea of the sins they are struggling with. But that’s not the issue here. Chad is not a struggling sinner, he’s a proud, boastful sinner, who sees nothing wrong with his actions and heart attitudes – judging purely by his words and actions (he may struggle deeply inside).
And while Jesus is more than willing and able to deliver and forgive, the call is still to repent and turn from your sins. The message is not simply, "I Love You, enjoy your sin." But "I love you, turn from your sin, come to me and find life." That was the message of the five missionaries murdered that day. I wish it had been the public message of the movie – with no mixture attached to it. Again, don’t think I’m saying you have to be sinless to share the gospel. Who among us could open our mouths. But Chad’s activist agenda was just a bit too closely related to this film for my comfort and conscience.
I’m still sure that God loves those thousands who did not see this film and will still be faithful to them to bring his gospel to their hearing.
I hope ETE takes a little of the negative reaction to heart to consider not just the message presented, but the method in which it is presented, and concern not just for God’s love for the lost, but His love of His righteousness as well – which makes his love so much more amazing!
Thanks for sharing your comments!
Blessings!
John Oliver
Byron Harvey
Dave, I write as one of those bloggers who took issue with the casting of Chad Allen by ETE—but I find some of the characterizations you make to be over-simplifications. I took—and many of my responders took—what I consider to be a quite balanced position on the subject, far from ranting and raving, far from gratuitous attacking. If "cyber-flogging" went on regarding the position I took, it was from those who saw nothing wrong at all with ETE’s decision. I was called a Pharisee, a legalist, and even Satanic for raising concerns; my motives were questioned by more than one commenter who was sure that he could look into my heart with certainty. There is no place for judging motives, for name-calling, for attacks—and those who did that on both sides of the question are wrong. But is there no place for the raising of concerns? Is there no place for debate?
Allow me to address several things you say. You begin by saying that the "backlash" accomplished its goal—and then ASSUME that the "goal" of the "backlash" was to cut the movie’s take. Personally, I did not see the movie and said so; at the same time, I did not call for a boycott, and told my church that while I could not endorse it, I wouldn’t presume to tell them what to do. Can’t speak for others, but only for myself. My goal had nothing to do with people seeing this particular movie—or not seeing it. It had to do with raising the issue of how we go about honoring God in the way we as evangelicals do things.
Paragraphs 3-5 above are a big red herring. You ask, "What is wrong with having a movie that you can take a unchurched friend to and then discuss the supernatural response from the people that this story portrays?"; I ask, "who says that there is?" You launch then into three paragraphs built upon that faulty premise. While there may be some who say that, I didn’t read anyone who had an issue with such a movie PER SE.
"Apopleptic"? Please. Perhaps there were some; perhaps certain commenters upon posts (even on my site) might have fallen into that camp. But the posts I read seemed, for the most part, to be well-reasoned criticisms. Then again, I certainly didn’t take the time to visit dozens of sites, so perhaps there were more that were "apopleptic".
Personally, again, I accept all concerned at ETE as sincere brothers in the Lord, people trying to do something good, people whose future works I may well take in. I think that that qualifies as "grace". At the same time, can we not have this discussion, or must their decisions since they are "good, Godly men" be considered off-limits? Can their thinking/rationale not be discussed (particularly since some of the defenses that were raised by ETE and by Steve Saint were very dubious Biblically)? Can a discussion of this sort, as long as it is carried on in a Christlike way, not be beneficial for future decision-making? Can it not ferret out issues that ought to be considered? I tried to do all of these things—interestingly, my most commented-upon post was begun when I allowed Jim Hanon to post (unedited) anything he wanted to say. We had a gracious exchange about the subject. Further, your logic regarding Steve Saint, carried to its logical end, would suggest that Mr. Saint’s judgment is above the possibility of error; in fact, his rationale for okaying the casting of Mr. Allen was disappointing, involving dreams and imagined conversations with God that could be very easily countered (and I did).
A further issue is that you seem to make the mistake, as so many have, of confusing the sovereign will of God with His moral will. Sure, He can use all of this to His glory, because He is sovereign! That doesn’t mean that the right choices were made in casting.
I guess my final beef with your posting is that there is a pervasive "end justifies the means" context. You cite numerous "negative" consequences that flowed from the decision of some of us to raise these issues. You seem to strongly suggest that such issues ought to be glossed over/kept to ourselves so that a greater good can be accomplished. But the end doesn’t justify the means…we cannot justify just anything done in the name of "evangelism" or "tribal financial support" or whatever good cause.
I agree wholeheartedly with speaking the truth in love…but it seems as though some want to smother the truth for the sake of…whatever. I believe that long-term good can certainly come out of this discussion. Hopefully, there are some (ETE?) who will take a second look at HOW we go about sharing the gospel—and that goes for all of us, whether we make films, or preach sermons, or write books, or blog, or… The body of Christ in America is badly, badly, badly in need of learning discernment. If this discussion advances the cause of discernment—which IS at the heart of MY "goal"—then a great good will have been done.
Bridgette
Did you catch Tony Campolo on The Corbert Report the other night?
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml
I think he made a point for folks to pick up a Bible much more than the attacks evangelicals are known for…..
I don’t understand how we are supposed to share the love of Christ with a heart of anger
Edge
Dave,
I disagree … "we" didn’t even win the battle on this one.
I’m more disheartened than angry.
Activism is great when it accomplishes something with a positive and lasting effect, but what was the lasting effect here? Was the message of Christ advanced with the objections that were raised? I’m sure I will take some heat for this comment, but I feel like the modern day Pharisees won this battle. Weren’t they the ones that objected to the crowd Jesus chose to hang out with … I believe they called them "sinners" (and don’t we all fit in that category … Romans 3:23)
I’m not sure, but I’m betting that there were other "sinners" besides Chad Allen who were hired for the making of this movie … camera operators, gaffers, production assitants, etc. Is it possible that by being involved in the making of this film that these people were exposed to the message of grace and redemption that can only come supernaturally through Christ? I think that goes without saying. I can’t speak to their response to that exposure .. some may have received it, some may have cynically rejected it .. I don’t know. My hope is that the presence of ETE staffers and other believers involved in the picture had a positive effect, along with the knowledge that this was a true story of how the love of Christ was extraordinarily lived out through these missionaries and tribesmen. My fear is that the scathing objections from "Christians" made these people think of the story in the movie as simply a nice story about what Christianity pretends to be, but that real Christianity is about a moralistic standard.
I hope more "Christian" companies like ETE will emerge and make it a part of their mission to hire the BEST people for the job, not only the people who meet the moral standard. There are a lot of creative and talented people out there looking for work. What a ministry opportunity it would be to simply bring these people into an environment that will truly show them the love of Christ while they work on a project that advances the message of Christ.
And in the process, how about dropping the stereotypical identifiers like "Christian maker of Christian films" or "Christian artist". A friend of mine who is a ventriloquist has identified himself not as a "Christian entertainer", but "an entertainer who is a Christian". We need more of those. My hope & prayer is that through this experience, Chad Allen and others of his profession will become actors and entertainers who also happen to be Christians.
Greg Linscott
You said:
————–
<i>If Janet did a great job of communicating the truth of the gospel how about taking the wild tact of praying that her words would fall on fertile ground and the Holy Spirit will work in the hearts of those who heard.</i>
————–
Hey, my friend.
I’ll out myself as "The Pastor." But thanks for not throwing me under the bus- I honestly do appreciate it.
What disappointed me about Mrs. Parshall’s statement at the end of LKL about EOTS and complementing Chad Allen is that it was really unnecessary. She and Dr. Mohler had done a great job speaking the gospel clearly- but those last statements she directed toward Chad really muddied the waters as far as the gospel was concerned. Dave, God tells us in His Word that He changes lives and sets us free from the enslaving power of sin- "such <u>were</u> some of you."
We are losing "the war"- and the loss of ground happens when we blunt the edge of the sword of truth. We should not be abrasive for abrasiveness sake- but neither should we be ashamed of the gospel.
And, for the record, I did- and have been- praying that God would use the efforts of Mrs. Parshall, the EOTS film, and so on- in spite of my concerns (and what I believe were terrible errors in judgment). My hope is that in future efforts, though, that we <u>all</u> will be bolder in our witness in affirming the transforming truth of Jesus Christ and the ministry of reconciliation He has committed to we, His saints.
In Christ,
Greg Linscott
Pastor, Faith Baptist Church
Skowhegan, Maine