Well, since I blogged about the Christian wars, I should also blog about the cease-fire. And more than a cease-fire, I think. It sounds like there has been actual repentance and forgiveness.
Jason Janz at Sharperiron has published a Clarification on the “End of the Spear” Article. Barbara at Mommy Life posted an article by Randy Alcorn which explains how this came about. (Thanks to Molly for the link.)
This is good. This is how we are supposed to be. People will sin against us and praise God, for then we have opportunity to forgive. We will sin against others, but praise God that he brings us to repentance.
You Might Also Like
« previous kirkus top 40
subsequent » no name calling week
category: Movies
tags:
tags:
Truly good news.
Becky
I’m glad to read those clarifications, and I’m glad I saw the movie early on. It’s very good.
It has been a while since I posted my earlier comment, and I have had this nagging feeling that I should add to it. First, I affirm that I am glad that I saw that movie and that it was very good. God can, and likely will, use it for good.
But I want to add the qualifier that I still see the choice of Chad Allen to play the lead role as wrong. The studio had the oportunity to release him from the project after they learned of his lfestyle, and they chose to keep him. I think that choice was unbiblical.
Bryan, I’m glad you added that bit, since you believe it to be so. At the same time I disagree with you. And I’d like to challenge you to prove it from Scripture. If you do, then I will repent.
What do you base your belief on?
There are many homosexuals working the health care field. My husband is a quadriplegic who requires a great deal of care. At times we’ve had aids coming into the home daily to help with his care. Two of our favorite aids have been homosexual. One a man and one a lesbian. We loved these people. I told both of them quite bluntly that I thought the homosexual lifestyle is a lifestyle that leads to death, that is displeasing to God, that is sinful. I told them that people are not forced to sin–they choose it. I told them that no one required them to engage in sinful sex acts and it was wrong for homosexuals to want society to embrace their sinful behavior and call it normal and good. I didn’t mince words with them. But I still loved them. And it never entered my mind that we shouldn’t have them working for us.
So my question is where do you see in scripture that it is unbiblical to hire sinners to work in our homes or our businesses?
Acting as the principal preacher of the gospel in this movie is not the same as providing healthcare for a handicapped person.
Homosexuality is a crime for which death by stoning was commanded, and now we are allowing those who practice it to portray preachers of the gospel, and not just any homosexual, one who has a national platform to actively advance this culture of both physical and spiritual death.
This movie was supposed to be a portrayal of a sacrificial servant of God, and allowing an active God-opposer to play that part seems to me to be an insult to that cause.
You asked for Scripture. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, Ephesians 5:3, Romans 1:18-31, Leviticus 20:13 is a short list that provides us with enough warnings to realize that God will bring wrath upon such behavior. It seems unloving to me to give Mr. Allen more opportunity to be solidified in his belief that he is normal and give him another way to further his agenda to normalize his perversion.
Of course there is no verse that says, “Christians, you are not to have a homosexual acting in a gospel-oriented movie,” but in light of the passages I have referenced, it seems to me that Mr. Allen being a superior actor is not enough of a reason to overcome the warnings in Scripture.
Regarding using homosexuals in non-gospel-oriented business arrangements, many of the same arguments apply. I wouldn’t want to be yoked together with anyone who is an open, unrepentent sinner, whether he or she is an adulterer, pedophile, tax cheat, or habitual curser. And since homosexuality is a sin that brings entire nations down, this is one in particular that I would not want to encourage by engaging in business arrangements.
Of course, it comes down to how you believe the above passages are to be applied, and I can see reasons why you might apply them differently than I would. For these reasons, I have merely stated that I believe what the movie studio did was a mistake and a violation of biblical principles. I have not harshly condemned the people involved. In fact, I said I enjoyed the movie and hope God uses it mightily. I am simply disagreeing with their decision.
I hope that clarifies my comments.
I only want to call you on one thing: any nonChristian is an active God-hater. So are you saying that only a Christian actor should have played that part?
What bothers me most, Bryan, is the inconsistency of the Christians who are attacking Steve Saint and Mart Green and calling for repentance. I don’t know if you are aware. I’ve not linked to these sites because I don’t want to give the attackers free advertising. But they are under heavy attack by some. I find it hypocritical and mean-spirited.
Where do you draw the line?
Are these bloggers aware that some of the guys who work tech support for their sites are gay? How can they partner with such men when their blogs are about ministry? Isn’t their ministry tainted by the sins of those they are unequally yoked with?
If you are Christian writing a book that you hope will whet someone’s appetite for God, do you publish with Dutton? What if they assign you to a gay editor? What about in the CBA? You are safe with AMG but what about the women who publish with Steeple Hill? How can a writer who wants to preach the gospel partner with a company owned by Harlequin, which publishes porn for women and is the cause of God only knows how many divorces?
What about the people who are publishing with Warner Faith? And we could go on. Most of the big Christian houses are owned by nonChristian companies who publish pro-gay, and pornographic books in their other imprints.
I don’t have a problem with what you are saying, though I disagree with you. I do have a problem with the bloggers who think they can read Steve Saint’s heart and who attribute the evilest of motives to him. They think he did what he did for the money or because he’s ashamed of the gospel. Those are the people I have a problem with.
For the rest of us, I’d just like to encourage everyone to be consistent and not hypocritical. I am fairly sure I’ll never write for Steeple Hill. I don’t want to line the pockets of a company that produces porn. Others feel that they can write for them and see themselves preaching the gospel in the enemy camp. They say, “Who cares if they make money, who cares if they preach the gospel out of greed, as long as the gospel is being preached?” I have to let them decide that for themselves, I think.
If I ever have a chance to publish a book and the catch is that the editor is a homosexual, I will still publish the book. The only way I would not publish the book is if he was demanding that I change my doctrinal stance in the book. Other than that, I don’t really care if the editor is gay or an adulterer, or a pedophile. What he is is a sinner in need of salvation and maybe as he edits my book the gospel will break in on him. That’s what I would hope. And so I assign those motives to Steve Saint and Mart Green.
Others (not you) assign the motive of greed and they say Steve and Mart are ashamed of the gospel. I wonder why they do that? Maybe they are projecting their own sin on to others. We have a tendency to do that.
First, I think we likely have a doctrinal difference, and it’s probably not a good idea to debate it here. I don’t think all non-Christians are active God haters. So I’m not saying that only a Christian could have played that part.
I think the only other question that applied to me is, “Where do you draw the line?” The rest of your more specific questions, I think, are too speculative, because I can’t answer for people who write for Warner Faith or other publishers.
I also can’t answer what I might do given the possibility of certain situations. I would have to answer when or if those circumstances come around. I can tell you, however, that I have left a high-paying job because my boss was violating ethics, so I am willing to make difficult decisions like that.
So, where do I draw the line? Simple answer, I don’t know. I take things like that on a case by case basis. I think most believers do the same. Most of us deal with sinners every day, and sometimes we have to part company with people who unabashedly sin.
I guess we all draw the line at different places. For example, you wouldn’t want to write for Steeple Hill, and that conviction makes sense to me. At the same time you would work with a homosexual editor, and I don’t think I would if I knew that about him. You draw the line of association in a different place than I would.
We shouldn’t be surprised at these differences, and I am in no position to condemn where you scratch your chalk on the pavement. I think I could, however, tell you if I disagree with with your line and do so without judging your motivations. I have a hard enough time judging my own motivations. It would be foolish of me to try to judge the motivations of others.
Again, I am glad for the movie. I plan to buy the DVD and enjoy it again. I don’t cast any shadow on the motivations or reputations of anyone associated with the film. May God use it for His glory.
Maybe I’m silly for bringing this up here, but what troubles me from both sides is the lack of respect for a man’s word. When Steve Saint said Chad could have the job, then found out he was gay, shouldn’t he have said, Oh well, the deal’s already done? Maybe that was part of his consideration that never came to light. In my opinion, it should have.
On the other side, I can’t believe how quick these … opponents of Steve’s are to tell him he should have broken his word and that he needs to repent for not breaking his word.
Uh, none of their moms ever teach them, Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I know–not Scripture, but I’m sure I could proof text it as well as some of the bloggers Sally is referring to. More importantly, I think the adage is consistent with what Scripture says about life and Godliness.
Becky
Becky makes a good point about keeping your word, and because of a family crisis I’m going through, I have thought about that point extensively. It would take too long to go over it here, so maybe I’ll write about it someday when I start my blog back up.
This debate sparked me to follow long chains in the blogosphere about the movie, and the controversy opened my eyes to more than I wanted to see. I was unaware of the extent of this new Phariseeism I saw. (for example, I found Steve Camp’s site, and his blasting of “End of the Spear” is chilling.) Basically, (and I’m generalizing) if you aren’t a staunch Calvinist and honoring the view of a certain sect of dead Puritans, you’re a heretic, and your work should not be viewed by any Chrisitian.
I can see that if my books become more popular and people learn what I believe, I would also be skewered in these places. It makes me shudder to watch the crucifixion of someone, especially when you realize the cross the person is on would be yours if someone stood up and said, “He’s one of them, too!” Even though I hold to all the essential tenets of the faith, I know from brutal experience that there are many in the church who would volunteer to drive the first nail.
Bryan, sorry you were subjected to that stuff. It isn’t pretty.
I also want the freedom to publish books someday (Lord willing) and I want o be able to not preach the gospel, the whole gospel, and nothing but the gospel. There are times we preach one point and times we preach another and none of us are going to be able to stand if people are hanging out under our keyboards ready to rip our words out of context and attack every infraction.