Posted on 01/20/2006 6:34:17 PM PST by Esther Ruth
Controversy swirls over 'gay' playing missionary in movie
Producers of 'End of the Spear' respond to chattering over homosexual activist
Posted: January 20, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Chad Allen on the set of 'End of the Spear' A weblog has stirred chatter across the Internet and talk radio over a homosexual actor's role as a famous missionary in the newly released film "End of the Spear," which opens tonight in 1,200 theaters nationwide.
Chad Allen – whose activism has been celebrated by 'gay' media – plays Nate Saint, one of five missionaries killed in 1956 by a notoriously murderous tribe they were trying to reach with the Gospel. The compelling story doesn't end there, the film shows, as relatives of the slain men continued the seemingly impossible venture, leading to the tribe's remarkable transformation.
The film is winning raves from reviewers, and thousands of churches and evangelical organizations are promoting it, but Jason Janz, through his weblog Sharper Iron, has sparked debate among some potential viewers about whether it was appropriate for producer Every Tribe Entertainment, or ETE, to portray a missionary martyr using an activist who blatantly promotes anti-Christian values and could use the film to further his agenda.
ETE President Bill Ewing told WorldNetDaily he was not even aware of Allen's homosexuality, let alone his activism, when the actor was chosen for the part.
However, he said, the bottom line is that "Chad gave, by far, the best audition."
"We know character and actor are not the same," he said. "The story is the star."
Ewing said Allen was impacted favorably by his experience with the film.
"We have all grown by being part of this story," the filmmaker said, adding, "We're glad our lives are not being compared to these [missionaries], because we wouldn't stack up."
Ewing said he became acutely aware the entire process of making the film was led by God and that he was just being carried along.
But ETE's office in Studio City, Calif., has been receiving calls about Allen, he said, and the reaction has been mixed.
In a statement provided to WND, director and writer Jim Hanlon explained that, "If as a film company we could only work with people who were completely sanctified then the film would never have been made."
Allen on cover of homosexual magazine.
"We do not agree with Chad over homosexuality," he said. "'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."
Nate Saint's son Steve Saint, who served as a producer, a stunt pilot and had a bit part in the film, believes it was God's plan to have Allen in "End of the Spear," according to Agape Press.
Saint admitted, however, he was shocked when he learned Allen was homosexual.
"I could feel physical pain," he recalled, "thinking [that] somebody that lives a lifestyle like that is going to depict my dad."
But after further reflection, he began to see Allen's involvement might be God-ordained.
Some Christians might be offended by Allen's role, Saint realized, but "I thought, 'What happens if I stand before God someday and He says to me, "Steve, I went out of my way to orchestrate an opportunity for Chad Allen to see what it would be like to live as your father did."' And then I could picture Him looking at me and saying, 'Steve, why did you mess with my plan?'"
The blogger Janz, whose site is a forum for theological discussion, said he recognizes homosexuals have figured prominently in other films embraced by evangelicals – including "Chariots of Fire," which starred Ian Charleson, who died of AIDS – but says this one is different because Allen is such an outspoken activist and can't help but use the film to further homosexual activism.
Janz insists Every Tribe Entertainment was aware of Allen's activism when he was picked for the part, citing an excerpt from the Advocate newsletter that appears on the actor's website.
Ewing denies that, and insists Steve Saint also was not aware. Furthermore, he said, Allen made a gentleman's agreement with Every Tribe Entertainment to not use his association with the film as a platform for promoting homosexual rights.
Some bloggers have expressed concern about Allen's appearance this week on CNN's "Larry King Live" in which the subject of same-sex marriage came up in a discussion with Southern Bapist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler.
The Advocate excerpt cited by Janz says:
When Chad Allen was first told by his agent that he was being offered a pivotal role in an independent film called End of the Spear, Allen asked point-blank, "Do they know who I am?" Allen went into his first meeting with the film's producers and director with real trepidation that they and the Saint family-for whom, he stresses, he had great respect would not want a gay man representing their legacy. After he aired his concern, however, the filmmakers produced, of all things, the November 25, 2003, issue of The Advocate with Allen on the cover, in which the actor spoke of his faith and the importance of doing good works for the holidays. They had showed that issue to Steve Saint, the filmmakers told Allen. "And this man Steve Saint said that the same things that I talked about in The Advocate are the same things he fought his whole life for," Allen beams, "and it would wrong for them not to ask me to do it. That's an amazing story, right?"
No kidding. Allen's casting as Saints father, Nate-and, later in the film, as Steve himself-did not pass without further controversy, especially after a contentious Larry King Live appearance with minister John MacArthur the day President Bush announced his support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But by the end of production Allen was invited along with Saint and a select group of actors and producers from the film to live with the Waodani for several weeks, three days' journey from any working telephone. "When it was over," Allen says quietly, "both [Steve Saint] and I were in tears, hugging each other saying goodbye, because so much love had developed between us. It was an amazing experience:"
Janz has posted a letter of protest to producer Mart Green and Every Tribe Entertainment, expressing "deep disappointment in your selection of a gay activist to play the role of Nate Saint in the movie."
"We believe it is our biblical responsibility to confront a fellow believer when he is overtaken in a fault," writes Janz, who says more than 100 pastors have signed the letter.
Janz points out that according to a story in the January edition of the homosexual-themed magazine Out, Allen toured the country with "gay outreach" programs. In an interview last year, Allen was asked if he had been to many "gay pride" celebrations around the country.
"I love it," he replied. "Everyone gets so uptight about people marching down the street. … I mean who cares, these people have been doing this before we could even talk about being openly gay and stuff. These people have pushed the community so (expletive) far forward, excuse my language that who cares about the shock."
A story in the November 2003 issue of Advocate magazine says Allen "began pouring his energy and time into myriad causes, including the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which helps elect openly gay candidates nationwide, and the Trevor Project, which sponsors a toll-free, round-the-clock suicide hotline for GLBT teens."
In 2001, Janz notes, Allen starred in the controversial play "Corpus Christi," which features a hard-drinking homosexual named Joshua, who is considered a Christ figure.
Ingrid Schlueter, co-host and producer for the Christian radio show "Crosstalk," heard on 85 stations nationwide, says listeners are upset about Allen's role.
She said it wouldn't have been as much of a controversy if Allen had been a "quiet actor" like Charleson of "Chariots of Fire," but "he was an activist years before this movie came out."
If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.
bump
this topic is getting a bit of attention over at this thread (posts in the 20s):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1561483/posts
Does anyone remember the movie "Chariots of Fire"? Missionary Eric Liddell was played by British actor Ian Charleson, who later died of AIDS.
Heard an interview with the son on radio yesterday. He wasn't happy with it. Director threatened to walk if he didn't keep the role.
I believe that the interview was on Michael Medved.
But don't let it keep you from seeing the film if you are inclined. It is still outside of the Hollywood system and has a positive message.
What would be interesting is to see if the experience made him think about Christianity.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006062213X/002-5134336-6796052?v=glance&n=283155
Read this book over 20 years ago, Shadow of the Almighty!
Excellent, then some.
Was really looking forward to the movie, but no way now.
How could they have let this happen!
This is a disgrace and sickening.
No way can I feel right taking my sons to this now!
I am SO sorry that I can't support this movie.
bump
Hmmmmmmmm, I would like to hear how he believes this was the Lord's plan
FReepmail me and little jeremiah if you want on/off the ping list.
Actually, this film would be a good study of how the real life of the actor can affect the viewer's ability to suspend disbelief.
I simply cannot watch Susan Sarandon, Ed Asner, Mike Farrell, and a number of other politicized actors. I keep thinking about their affiliations, and it prevents me from getting into the fantasy that the movie is trying to create.
If the political views of two major Narnia performers were well-known, it might keep some viewers from seeing the film. That's why I'd prefer not to know the performer's views and philosophies. (Liam Neeson (voice of Aslan) and Tilda Swinton (The White Witch) are vocal, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war lefties.)
He believes it because he feels the Lord did such miracles with this Tribe, that being in this movie, acting the part, may indeed bring about another miracle in the heart of this actor.
That could very well be
Well it sure can't hurt him.............the exposure! Rest assured, NO ONE involved in this movie will affirm or approve of this man's lifestyle. It does give him the chance of a lifetime.
I am not surprised. It's not like the old days when John Wayne and Steve McQueen got the leading roles.
You can't ask whether a person is gay when you hire them for a movie role. You can figure that at least 10% of the roles played will be played by queers, because the number of gay people in acting is incredibly high.
I hear the movie is great.
On a related note, I saw Narnia Thursday night. Beyond excellent. I would enjoy seeing it again. But, did you know, the Mr. Beaver was played by a gay woodchuck?
My wife has been looking forward to this film; I've actually seen one of these tribal members who on stage with the son at an event gave this testimony. But I have to agree w/ you. One wonders how the process of choosing the actors was 'allowed' to be such that this could even happen.
For it is unlikely that readers of the Advocate and the Village Voice will swamp theaters to watch this film just b/c Chad is starring in it.
But who knows ... I really hope I am wrong.
Here are some statements from gay activist Chad Allen which he made on Larry King Live this last week:
But I have to say, if they're going to speak about absolute transcendent truth, I need to tell you, I know absolute transcendent truth. I have a deep relationship with God and my understanding. It's very powerful, and it's taken its own shape and form. And I am very much at peace in the knowledge that in my heart God created this beautiful expression of my love.
You know, I made this movie with a group of conservative Christians who do not agree with my expression of sexuality. But we said to each other, I will walk with you accepting your differences and we can create together. I will give you your space to respect you fully. They don't need to take away from my freedom, I don't need to take away from theirs. And I am so proud to have done that. That's the kind of bridge-building I think we can get to.
These days I judge all of my actions by my relationship with God of my understanding. It is a deep-founded, faith-based belief in God based upon the work that I've done growing up as a Catholic boy and then reaching out to Buddhism philosophy, to Hindu philosophy, to Native American beliefs and finally as I got through my course with addiction and alcoholism and finding a higher power that worked for me.
You know, I had to sit down with that same God today and say, "Do you want me to go on this show? Do you want me to speak the things that are in my heart? And if not, I'm happy not to go. Do you want me to make this movie?" It's the same God that I go to for every decision.
I play a Christian, yes. And they're going to be saying, "This is the way you be Christian, there's only one way." Well you know what, there isn't. I'm a part of a wonderful community church here in Pasadena that has a very different interpretation of those same gospels that they are speaking of. There isn't just one way to do this, there are a lot of paths.
Baptist ping...
You know, it's really sad when well-meaning Christians fall for poor logic. There is no way this gay activist should be playing this part. Obviously the movie has now morphed into being about gay issues instead of being about the story itself. Sometimes people can't see what is right in front of them.
They knew before they hired him.
Thanks for the ping.
It's too bad.
I would have enjoyed the movie.
But, with things coming out, so to speak,
as they have, I won't spend one cent to see this.
It looks like a hijacking to me.
Gathering a collection of five in Hollywood almost guarantees at least one gay.
Good point.
But, shoving their agenda in my face almost
guarantees that I won't see their film, too.
No, it hasn't. Only people who obsess about homosexuality would see it otherwise, and one has to question why. Chad Allen is way, way off on thinking there are many paths to God, or whatever he was babbling in that interview, but I do know that no sinner - homosexual or not - ever was led to Christ by someone who hated him. Maybe we ought to try loving the sinner and hating his sin, instead of being the first to throw stones.
The news reports and interviews are enough to prove my earlier point. And this always draws the "Christian" crowd that defines Christian love as the act of pretending it doesn't matter.
Concerning the tragic death of the men, one needs to remember some history. Those 'savage' jungle dwelling tribes were not so isolated from the outside world as some would think. Consider the 'Christian' history of the previous centuries that took place in what is known as present day Ecuador and Peru.
In the mid 1400s the Incas (Peru) conquered, with great difficulty, the kingdom of Quito (Ecuador). In 1493, that kingdom was incorporated into the Inca empire through marriage. A son of that marriage, Atahualpa, became the absolute monarch.
Meanwhile in about 1522, hearing the tales of the fabled Inca empire, Spanish soldier Francisco Pizarro, adventurer Diego de Almagro, and a priest, Fernando deLuque, undertook plans for conquest. Luque procured funds for the expedition but did not live to see the final 'triumph' (really just another true story of greed and corruption).
In 1532, Pizarro, his brothers, and their army, met with Inca Atahualpa at Cajamarca. The king, after spurnning the Spaniards God was taken prisoner, and thousands of his men were killed. Atahualpa was executed less than a year later. Then the Spaniards took Cuzco and practically all resistance ceased.
Pizarro installed a puppet Inca, who was succeeded by Manco Capac, who led a rebellion, and held Cuzco under seige. Pizarro's buddy, Almagro, short changed when splitting up the spoils, had gone down into Chile. He returned in 1537, took Cuzco for himself. The Pizarros didn't like that, so they captured their old sidekick and executed him in 1538. (Some of Almagro's followers later rose up in 1541, and slew Pizarro in Lima.)
In 1539, Francisco's brother, Gonzalo Pizarro, was appointed governor of Quito. He led a disastrous expedition into the jungles of eastern Ecuador and struggled back in 1542, to find that his brother had been murdered.
So what was the native opinion of the foreigners that came to occupy Ecuador, Peru, and Chile? They no doubt saw that the foreigners were religious, yet were greed driven murderers, killing natives and each other.
Four centuries later, some men choose to witness Jesus Christ to some jungle people in Ecuador. They may have been slightly unaware of the natives view of outsiders. What is the traditions that have been handed down to these natives? They probably had heard the tales handed down from long ago (and some more recent) that made them suspicious of outsiders, to the point of preemptive strike.
I say all of this to point out that the Devil has used 'Christianity' to try and give the unconverted a bad opinion of it. Which makes true witnessing all the more difficult, even in the good 'ol US of A.
"Only people who obsess about homosexuality would see it otherwise..."
That is not true.
They decided to publicize the film in this manner.
They shouldn't be surprised if some who would have
otherwise seen the film decline to do so now.
Of course, we need to love the sinner, while hating
the sin.
But, that doesn't mean we should condone their conduct.
Quite the opposite, IMO.
It's a beautiful film...very emotionally wrenching. I had no idea that the fellow was gay...he's an excellent actor.
He can change..and repent. He needs a chance and guidance.
That there is a gay actor in the film about missionaries is less than irrelevant. God is greater than one actor's sin, and I trust Him to use this movie for good. Good grief, what if one of the actors in the Passion of the Christ was homosexual? Does that negate the worth of the entire movie? I think not.
I wonder if some here have decided to see only those movies starring only actors who are more holy than they. Good luck with that.
You're quite correct, their stance is quite pathetic. I couldn't care less that the actor was gay, nor could I tell while watching the film. People should focus on what matters...geez...it's a beautiful film.
Thanks for your comments. I look forward to seeing "End of the Spear," having read Elisabeth Elliot's moving account of her husband, Jim's, death.
Because fans of Chad Allen can go to his website www.chadallenonline.com to be indoctrinated about gay activism. Imagine someone struggling with life and they decide to go online to this website because they admired Chad’s acting in a movie or TV show of his. Maybe they are effeminate or have same sex desires. They can easily be linked up with PFLAG and if they are in public school PFLAG or GLSEN will direct them to a gay club for advice. Chad Allen’s website has an address for fan mail or you can be put on his mailing list. He will send you info on gay pride events, etc. Does this all sound far fetched? Not when you are dealing with a gay activist.
Here are a couple of examples of what is found on Chad’s website:
Chad appeared on the Larry King Live show on January 17, 2006 - 21:00 ET on CNN. This is the second time Chad has been at the table talking about gay-marriage and standing up for what he believes is right in his heart – that everybody deserves to love who ever they may choose. Here are a few responses to Chad’s appearance and what a wonderful group of responses it is. I think this is the pure energy of love that Chad fights for when he decides to go on national TV and stand up and speak for the millions of people who shares his views in this world. Enjoy the read.
Website links found at chadallenonline.com:
Good Causes:
• Kruks/Tilsner Transitional Living Program - Chad's favorite charity
• The Trevor Project
• The Human Rights Campaign
• Don't Amend.com
• PFLAG
• Rainbow World Fund
• Lambda Legal
• ACLU
Exactly!!! Thank you so much, bulldozer. Well said!
Satan seems to be in control of that whole situation.
Of course the film is moving and beautiful, so is a full grown lion or tiger. The producers know they can't do a sloppy job.
About 18 yrs ago, I was an aircraft mechanic, working on small planes. I remember seeing a used Cessna show up one day that look just great.......on the outside. We were to inspect it for the sales department. After removing a few wing access panels, the reality was obvious. Corrosion, and lots of it. We showed it to the sales rep. He turned pale, mumbled something I won't repeat, and walked away, shaken. He had just flown that thing over 800 miles. It was grounded, wings removed, and sent away to be rebuilt.
If ANY aspect of the film is corrosive to Christianity, then why see it?
From what I understand, the book tells the story quite well.
Is that what most Americans do? Look up actors on the internet so that the actor can influence their life? Doubtful....Isn't this the same argument lefties use when talking about gun control or any other "control"? If we could save "one" life, it's worth banning it.
Your argument is that because some "minority" of people who look this guy up on the internet, who might also have some problem, might be effected by the information on his website. Sorry, but that kind of person could probably be effected by bad weather. The movie has nothing to do with this...and the message is always more powerful than the messenger.
No aspect of the movie is corrosive to christianity. It portrays the story accurately, but I would always agree that a book tells the better story.
There are a lot of teenagers and such who are apart of fan clubs of actors, actresses, musicians, etc. How can you deny there isn’t such a thing. Why does Chad Allen’s website address his fan base if it didn’t exist? Chad Allen has a following of fans.
One was a porn star.
All they had to do was hire Kirk Cameron or Stephen Baldwin, give ;em a crew cut and call it a day.
Now they have a very active sodomite who promotes sodomy as the star of the film.
YES teens will look him up on the net.
YES they will now be opening portans to a satanic world of homosexuality.
The film will not get my money.
Who's throwing stones? The guy is a sodomite and that is something that I don't want my children exposed to, no matter WHAT the movie is supposed to be about!!!
No viewer, not even your children, would have any idea from seeing the movie that one of the actors is a homosexual. It's not like a) Chad Allen's going to attack them; or b) he could do it through the movie screen.
Do you keep your kids locked up in the house, too, so they never will come into contact with any sinners anywhere? Oops, I guess that means they couldn't go to church, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.