May 2006 – It must have seemed like a slam-dunk, a no-brainer. Take what is arguably the most famous – even iconic – missionary story of the last century and make it into a major motion picture. It could inspire Christians and perhaps even reach unbelievers with the Gospel.

That was the intent of the producers of the movie End of the Spear, released in theaters in January. The film tells the true story of five men – Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Ed McCully, Pete Fleming and Roger Youderian – who were speared to death in 1956 while trying to make contact with the Waodani Indians in the Amazon rain forests of eastern Ecuador.

Also known as Aucas, the tribe was impacted by the Gospel through the ministry of Rachel Saint, Nate’s sister, and Elisabeth Elliot, Jim’s wife, who went to live with the Indians following the murders.

The movie is also based on the book by the same name, written by Nate Saint’s son, Steve, who had lived with his aunt among the Waodani during several summers of his childhood. Later, as an adult, Steve moved his own family to Ecuador and continued Rachel’s work after she died.

End of the Spear, produced by Every Tribe Entertainment (ETE), became the passion of Steve Saint and three other Christian men: Mart Green, founder and CEO of the company; Bill Ewing, ETE president; and Jim Hanon, who directed the film.

A homosexual in the woodpile
In the opinion of some, however, the distance between a no-brainer and a boneheaded decision is as short as the distance between hero and goat. That’s what Saint and the others soon discovered as their dream of retelling the story became something of a nightmare.

That’s because they cast actor Chad Allen in the film roles of Nate Saint and the adult Steve Saint.

Allen is a gay activist whose professional résumé would make even the most tolerant Christian wince. He has not only played explicitly homosexual characters in movies, but has also publicly promoted same-sex marriage.

When the producers found out about Allen’s sexual orientation, it was after they had offered him the part, but before they had begun shooting Allen’s parts in the film. They began to wrestle with what they should do.

To his credit, when he learned that evangelicals were not happy to discover that  a homosexual man would be one of the lead actors in the missionary movie, Allen offered to back out. But Green, Saint, Ewing and Hanon all asked the actor to stay on.

In Christianity Today, Green said that although they “disagreed with Chad on the issue of homosexuality,” they told Allen “that we still loved him, and he was welcome to the cast.”

Nevertheless, ETE did not – and still has not – mentioned anything on the End of the Spear Web site about Allen’s homosexuality, his gay-themed films or his activism.

A problem with the messenger
More frustrating for many evangelicals, however, is that ETE has never admitted that casting Chad Allen was a mistake. In fact, the company has continually defended its decision.

 Green, for example, has emphasized Allen’s quality as an actor. “After someone told me that Chad appeared on the cover of the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, we just felt, ‘Hey, he’s still the best actor,’” Green explained.

In fact, Green actually claims – as has Saint – that it was God’s will. “I have total peace Chad Allen was the man God intended to act in the movie,” Green told Christianity Today.

The private life of actors – Allen in particular – thus became a central point of contention among Christians who were debating ETE’s casting decision. The conflict revealed a profound disparity in the manner in which believers approach their consumption of films and their attitudes toward the actors who play in them.

As one Christian commented online, how many evangelicals criticized the decision to cast actor Liam Neeson as the voice of the Christ-figure Aslan in the The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe? After all, in 2004 Neeson starred in Kinsey, a film that trumpeted the work of debauched sex researcher Alfred Kinsey.

Still other Christians give a pass to Ian Charleson, who played runner Eric Liddell in the Academy-Award-winning film Chariots of Fire (1981). Charleson, who was a homosexual but not an activist, died of AIDS in 1990.

Or how about gay actor Ian McKellen, who played Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings trilogy – films which were hugely popular among Christians? McKellen is an outspoken gay activist who stated publicly that, when he stays in a hotel, he pulls out the room’s copy of the Bible and rips out the pages that condemn homosexuality.

Can movies preach?
ETE has made it abundantly clear, however, that the private lives of those who work on its films are not as critical as the message of the films themselves.

Saint says, “I had been informed that Every Tribe Entertainment did not require that all the cast and crew of End of the Spear would be required to be Christians. They wanted to make a good movie that would tell this story God has written. …” (emphasis in original)

In the film company’s public statement, the filmmakers say: “The story is greater than the storytellers and it would be an enormous disservice if great stories of faith like this one were reduced to the human shortcomings of the filmmakers. We invite you to experience End of the Spear and then judge for yourself the message you are left with.”

This raises fundamental questions concerning Christian involvement in the production of mass media, especially if the product is Gospel-oriented. What does it mean to speak God’s truth through means other than traditional preaching of Scripture? Can movies effectively communicate the Gospel, especially when, in our celebrity-centered culture, the actor is almost as important as the character he plays?

In his fine article on the End of the Spear controversy (www.epm.org), writer Randy Alcorn appears to agree with ETE’s defense of their decision to cast Allen. But after stating that he can excuse the private life of an actor and simply enjoy the actor’s portrayal in a film, Alcorn adds a caveat.

“This doesn’t apply to the man bringing sermons on Sunday mornings in a church,” he said. “His personal life very much matters, and his words lose all credibility if he has no credibility.”

But why are movies any different than preaching from the pulpit? Don’t movies – and, in fact, virtually every art form – attempt to communicate truth? And shouldn’t such a truth claim subject the messenger to as rigorous a spiritual interrogation as the one a preacher undergoes?

After all, if actors aren’t perfect messengers, neither are preachers. Is it Biblical to say, then, as Green and Saint do, that the message is what is important, not the messenger? Is this a defensible New Testament position?

Absolutely not, says Doug Phillips, president of Vision Forum and founder of the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival and the Christian Filmmakers Academy. He insists that there is a difference between End of the Spear – produced by Christians with a Christ-centered message – and movies like Lord of the Rings or Chariots of Fire, “both of which were secular productions from beginning to end that cast homosexuals in lead roles.”

Among the mistakes made by the men at ETE, Phillips says, was “knowingly and willingly closely yoking in a Gospel effort with a man in a state of moral reprobation and at war with the Gospel, contrary to the Bible’s prohibition against such. …”

In his online commentary about the controversy, Phillips insists that he is not questioning the motives of the men behind the End of the Spear production. In fact, Phillips explicitly states that ETE’s goal was “to honor the Lord Jesus Christ by bringing a Gospel message to a broad audience.”

However, that’s not the issue, Phillips says. “The issue is ETE’s objectively unbiblical behavior. ETE had a clear opportunity to do what was right by releasing Chad Allen from the project or even canceling the project for the honor of the Lord Jesus Christ,” he says. 

“Not only did they knowingly and wholeheartedly embrace this homosexual activist as their lead actor, but they are now telling the world that their decision was loving, correct and Biblical,” Phillips added. “For this reason, I believe we can objectively describe their actions as reprehensible.”

Learning from the controversy
Those are strong words, but Phillips believes that Christian filmmakers must have strong standards guiding their projects. 

In fact, those standards drive his Christian Filmmakers Academy. For example, at the 2005 filmmakers gathering, Phillips says the faculty was asked this question at a panel discussion: “How important is it that Christian producers draw from a distinctively Christian talent base when casting their films?”

The answer: “The more significant the role, the more critical it is that there is philosophical and ethical unity. The idea that actors are neutral agents – mere aesthetic technicians in a Christian production – is a myth. Primary actors represent the film to the world. … Few things could be as devastating to a Christian production than to release a film to the public where the producer has a reasonable basis to believe that his lead actor is a God-hater who could mislead thousands and disgrace the name of Christ by communicating – through his words or lifestyle – disdain for Jesus Christ and the true message of the film.”

It is obvious that Green, Saint and the others connected with End of the Spear had not thoroughly thought through these types of issues in advance of the casting controversy over Allen. From their own statements they admit to great confusion and anguish as they wrestled with the implications of their actions. 

And as with most spiritual crises, they wrestled with these issues under tremendous pressure – from the ordinary tension of producing and distributing a major motion picture to the strains within the Christian community when the Chad Allen controversy became public.

Sadly, the result has been a blunted Spear, reducing the impact of the film, not only on many of the Christians who saw the movie, but also on those who refused to see it, and  on unbelievers who observed the confusion.

The fact is that our culture is changing rapidly, and Christians are, in many respects, being overwhelmed by the choices such changes create. 

At least for those believers who do not reject the appropriateness of entertainment in and of itself, navigating through the creative whirlwind which is our pop culture can pose serious challenges.

It is therefore apparent that, if Christians intend to continue using the arts as a means of communicating the Gospel, they must begin by carefully thinking through the Scriptural principles involved. Everyone might not agree with Phillips’ position, but at least he has thought it through.

To not come to grips with these matters in a Biblical manner will only run the risk of blunting the impact of further efforts in the future.