The nation's culture war struggles have once again reached into movie theaters across America. The success of the increasingly popular movie, Brokeback Mountain, a love story that involves two cowboys involved in a homosexual relationship situated in 1963 and beyond, has put the issue of same-sex relationship (and marriage) on the front burner in a hugely emotive way. And just last week Brokeback Mountain was nominated, to no one's surprise, for the Academy Award's best picture. I would not be surprised if the Hollywood moguls give it the award, and probably many more. All of this will be done with great fanfare and more cultural discussion will surely follow. (This does sell tickets for heaven's sake!)

What amazes me, in following all the debate about the values and virtues (or lack thereof) of Brokeback Mountain, is the question of who actually goes to see this movie and why. One might think Brokeback Mountain's growing success is due to activism from within the homosexual community, but such an assumption is entirely false. The people who are actually going to see this movie in droves, and the people who encourage their friends to see it, live in red state Wyoming as well as conservative and safe Little Rock. Simply put, Brokeback Mountain is being seen by multiplied thousands who live in small market towns and cities situated comfortably in America's heartland. Why? Well, the film has quickly become an approved "chick flick," attracting female viewers who love romance and feel-good human stories. These viewers then talk among their peers, telling them that the movie is really good, and then these potential viewers persuade their husbands, or boyfriends, to go see the movie with them. By this means they attract men to see a movie that most of them would naturally resist. The end result is a flood of approval for a film billed, rather cleverly by the movie's own advertising campaign, as "an intimate story of affection." The movie's tag line says it plainly: "Love is a force of nature." Well, it is "a force of nature" if you buy into the current pop-culture understanding of love, even in our most conservative towns. Personally, I think this film is much more than a passing fad. It is a clear, and more convincing, revelation of the new way sexual issues will be injected into the mainstream, and through these kinds of culture shaping events America will almost surely become more tolerant of "honest" and "loving" homosexuality. Face it, love as a force of nature always trumps morality as a force for virtue in a culture already wide open to redefining good and bad, right and wrong.

More Bad News from the World of Art
At the same time that the Brokeback Mountain debate grows, End of the Spear has stirred strong Christian reaction for very similar reasons. The homosexual issue has been injected, sadly, into this discussion as well. In this case we have a movie produced by Christians, with a decidedly Christian theme. The reason the homosexual issue has arisen with regard to this film is related to the lead actor, Chad Allen, an avowed homosexual activist. In fact, Allen is much more than an activist. He is a man who makes no bones about his lifestyle and his personal goals to change others. Simply put, he wants to alter the entire culture. And he is also a very strong religious syncretist.

Allen openly described the way he decides between right and wrong on a recent Larry King Live program, when he said:

These days I judge all of my actions by my relationship with [the] 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.

Sadly, many Christians are staying away from End of the Spear because of the Chad Allen factor. The approach various Christians have taken to this issue threatens to further divide orthodox believers in America, both in the church and the culture. This is why conservative Christian reaction to End of the Spear troubles me. This is not another ordinary hot button issue that will simply pass off the scene without further impact upon Christians who oppose homosexual sin. Let me explain.

Who is Chad Allen?
Allen is a well-known actor who has played leading roles in television programs for many years, the most notable being the program Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman. In a recent commentary, Albert Mohler observed that Allen has appeared on the cover of The Advocate, a prominent homosexual news magazine, at least three times. He also staged the play Corpus Christi, a drama in which Christ is portrayed as a homosexual involved in a homoerotic relationship with his disciples. There can be no mistake about the concerns Dr. Mohler, and others, see here. Allen is not a just quiet homosexual who minds his own business. He is a strong activist with a very clear social agenda.

So, how did Chad Allen get cast in this lead role playing the Wheaton College missionary martyr Nate Saint? Dr. Mohler describes the choice the film producers made in casting Allen as a "reckless decision." He argues that Allen's activism, and his intense desire to normalize homosexuality broadly, makes it "hard, if not impossible, to suspend belief and see him [when one sees the movie] as a missionary martyr for the Gospel." He reasons, "The distance between Nate Saint and Chad Allen is just too great." While I have really strong sympathy for Dr. Mohler's opinion, and quite often respect his trenchant insights into moral and social issues, I reject his conclusion in this case. My reasons for rejecting Dr. Mohler's approach are actually rooted in how the church becomes, or is, the mission Dei in the wider culture.

The film's producer, Mart Green, the writer Bill Ewing, and the director Jim Hanon issued a joint three-paragraph statement to Baptist Press concerning their choice of Chad Allen to play the lead role in their movie. Their statement is both gentle and sound to my way of thinking.

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.

The discussion over sin and working with sinners has been in the body of Christ from the beginning. We are glad that our lives are not being compared with Nate Saint. We don't believe we would stack up.

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 and then judge for yourself the message you are left with.

The producers have openly admitted that they were not aware of Chad Allen's homosexuality when they gave him the lead role. They also report that many actors auditioned for the part in an open screening process. Allen won the role hands down for one primary reason-his abilities. When they found out what his sexual orientation and public position were they then decided to stick with him, having made their choice prayerfully in the first place. I say, "Good for them. Integrity trumped political correctness and massive fears of conservative reaction and backlash." These gifted Christian men knew full well that this might hurt their film. They could have come up with some excuse and dumped Allen, I feel sure. But they faced the possible backlash and stuck by their decision. How refreshing such a process is in a time when both conservative and liberal opinion makers intimidate solid Christians who have to make day-to-day choices that are loaded with political implications. We all must make hard choices in the midst of growing pressures related to growing cultural/moral confusion. The growing pressure of Christians on Christians is becoming more real every day. And I say, "Shame on any Christian ministry that uses any form of intimidation to try and force its beliefs upon the church or the general public."

I further believe this debate provides a great opportunity to think very deeply about a truly important missional issue. There are at least three reasons for my saying this.

First, culture has always been influenced by homosexuals, as well as by sinful heterosexuals and other morally bankrupt people. This has been true for the entirety of human history. This isn't the first truly great movie, and will not be the last movie or work of art, that includes homosexuals. The role of Eric Liddell in Chariots of Fire was played by a homosexual, Ian Charleston. Another homosexual, Sir John Gielgud, played a key role in that same Academy Award winning movie. And the role of Gandolf, in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, was played by a known homosexual activist, Sir Ian McKellen. The list could go on and on.

In an amazing bit of skewed logic one conservative Christian writer, Jason Janz of South Sheridan Baptist Church in Denver, advised people to miss the movie and buy the DVD. Demonstrating that he had no idea how films are actually made, financed, and promoted Rev. Janz suggested that the Christian film-making community (I didn't know there was such a thing) should come up with a code of ethics that will show the difference between a Christian film company and a secular film company. Janz suggested that teens will undoubtedly e-mail Allen, as they become fans of his through this movie. Then, he argues, they will be taken in by his Web site and lifestyle/philosophy. If this is really true, and I doubt it actually, it only proves how badly Christian homes and churches have prepared young people to live in the modern world.

Second, and Al Mohler wisely makes this point in his own well-written response to End of the Spear, the role and nature of art forms must be appreciated; thus we must exercise discernment on the basis of an informed cultural understanding. The nature of acting is obviously based upon the actor's ability to play a role, not upon his ability to actually be the person who is portrayed. But Mohler doesn't stop with this excellent point, going on to argue that in this case an actor was chosen who is "least likely to be able to make us forget him and see Nate Saint." I disagree and believe Dr. Mohler's response reveals the very problem many evangelicals have in becoming truly missional in the modern world. We are so deeply offended by homosexual practice and homosexual activism (thus by all homosexuals in general) that we increasingly have profound trouble in relating to actual human beings who are also made in God's image. If God loves homosexuals, and he has made it exceptionally plain how I should treat my neighbors, then I remain convinced we must all work much harder at finding out what this means in our modern context. Turning an actor into a special figure for reaction, and for many conservatives disgust, is neither helpful nor missional. Face it, homosexual people know exactly how we feel about them and they will continually test us to see if we love them as humans made in God's image. If we keep reacting in these predictable ways, as seen in how so many are reacting to this wonderful movie, we will miss another crucial moment. It would be best if we capture this moment by stopping and asking, "How does the church engage people and culture with the gospel of grace?" I can't help but think the further question must then be: "How do we treat sexual sinners in the light of the way Jesus responded to the woman caught in adultery as recorded in the fourth gospel?" The way a Christian, and in particular a church, answers these questions will have immense bearing upon its mission in coming decades. Though syncretism is a real danger for the church I am not impressed that it is the greatest danger for evangelicals. Our danger, almost completely across the board, seems to be sectarianism. We want to oppose the world so strongly that we regularly pronounce God's law and then retreat to our churches to plan more effectively how we can avoid getting too close to the world. Let's just say it plainly-this strategy will continue to miss the missional implications of Christ's incarnation and grace in the present age.

Third, the statement of the producers and directors of this film underscores another vital point. Friendship is at the heart of all true missional ministry. Nate Saint, of all people the one who should be bent out-of-shape by this controversy, takes the better road. He has developed a unique friendship with Chad Allen. He has also commented publicly that he hopes the film will allow people see that in our contact with others we all have tragic, shattered relationships and Christ is the only one who can put us all back together. Amen!!!

Should the Martyrs Have Died?
In all the fuss about the movie, another question has arisen that was first put forward several years ago by the respected, and highly-talented, Ruth Tucker, missions professor at Calvin Seminary. Dr. Tucker, the author of From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya: A Biography History of Christian Mission, one of the most important mission volumes in our lifetime, describes the five missionaries' actions in 1956 as "fundamentally flawed." She says, "To me, it would have been surprising if they had not been killed." She concludes that good was done but the actions undertaken were simply injudicious. What can we say to this response?

Professor Tucker is certainly entitled, and equipped, to make comments that should be weighed by all who care about missions. She is no lightweight critic. But Steve Saint observed that within a few years of the first contact with the Waodani, and the subsequent deaths of the five men, the tribe's homicide rate dropped by 90% and 20% had already become Christians. (That figure is closer to 90% today.)

I believe Steve Saint should be given the last word on this particular question since he knows the story better than all the rest of us. He concludes:

Where were they supposed to go to come by this cultural wisdom? No one had ever had contact. To suggest that they had not taken every precaution is ludicrous. This story has had an impact far beyond human wisdom. If they broke every rule of good solid method, then I say we perhaps need to have fewer rules.

Conclusion
My own counsel lines up with that given by Gene B. Habecker, president of the American Bible Society.

End of the Spear will speak to your head even as it moves your heart! Stunning visuals, a powerful plot, dramatic action, and spectacular scenery all combine to make this one of the must-see movies for 2006!