End of the Spear - The Only Post

I'm sure many of you have heard of the new movie that is in theaters right now called "End of the Spear". It is the story of Nate Saint and his fellow missionaries and their d eaths in the jungles of Ecuador. The men were killed by the Waodoni indians, the group of people they had been working to create a relationship with in hopes of sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. After the men's d eaths a few of their wives, led by Elizabeth Elliot, returned to the Waodoni indians and were able to share the Gospel with them, resulting in the salvation of many in the tribe, including some of the men involved in the kil ling of Saint and the other men.

This new movie has caused some controversy (mostly with Christians) mainly because a homosexual man named Chad Allen was cast as Nate Saint, the lead role. Many Christians also think that the creators of the movie purposely watered down the Gospel, distorting the real reason the missionaries gave their lives, in hopes of appealing to a wider audience.

This controvery found its way to Sharper Iron a couple weeks ago (or was it started there?). At one point a man named Evan Derrick signed onto the forums and began to discuss the issue. He worked alongside Steve Saint (Nate Saint's son who was the chief person behind the film) and the others involved in making the film. I emailed him with my concerns about the movie and he provided a very thoughtful response so much so that I thought it would be cool to post it here. Well, he gave me permission, so here is the conversation!

My first message to Evan:

Hey,
I'm sure you are being flooded with messages right now, as you are the new "expert" on the block, so I won't expect a reply (though I would love to get one!). I didn’t want to post on one of the many threads that are out there right now because I feel that they all have descended to slander and and I have no desire to be a part of that.

First I will just give my opinion (not that it really matters much) - I have not seen End of the Spear. I do plan on seeing it sometime in the near future. I did see Beyond the Gates of Splendor and was impressed by it.

Since I have not seen the movie, I have to rely on what I have heard about the Gospel presentation contained in it. At first I heard that it was non-existent. Then, as time went on and more people had a chance to see the movie, I heard that it was there, but in a "less than clear" form. After seeing your post where you quoted what the actual dialogue in the film was, I have to agree with those who said that it was “less than clear”. Let me explain. I do believe that there is more to the Gospel than what was presented in the film. Others have outlined what they believe is contained in the Gospel (though they have not been kind or loving) and I tend to agree with them. There is nothing contradictory to the Gospel in the movie, but it is not complete. I know you have said that you disagree with this, but I am not sure that this is an area that we can (and should) disagree on. The Bible is clear that we must “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” to be saved. It is more than just “believing in Christ” – we must accept all the teachings that Christ taught, and at least have a basic understanding of what actually happened at the cross. The movie does speak of Jesus and his humble d eath, but it does not speak of what that really did. The movie says that His d eath was an example to us of how we should not fight back (which it is), but that is not what the cross REALLY was! The movie does not speak of atonement for sins and that is a problem because THAT is what the Cross was all about. We get salvation because Christ atoned for us on the Cross. Merely setting us an example for how we should live would not have been enough to save us. On the Cross Christ took on our sin and imputed to us His righteousness. Without having at least a basic understanding of this, I do not believe that someone can be saved. The ultimate purpose for the cross was not to give us an example of how to live – it was to atone for our sins and give us Christ’s righteousness. From what you quoted of the movie, this is not there; therefore I cannot say that the message given in the movie is the Gospel. I don’t see how you can disagree with this (please understand, I am not attacking you. I am just wondering if I am missing something.)

Now on to Chad Allen. Of much higher concern to me was the Gospel presentation in the movie – Chad Allen was a distant second. I will not pretend to know the inter workings of making a movie. The casting process is completely foreign to me. I will not question Steve’s motives for casting Chad; I believe him when he says that it appeared late in the game and that he thought it was the right thing to do. However, I do disagree with his decision to cast him once he found out that he was a homosexual. Indeed, it does (in my opinion) give the wrong message to the world – that Christianity and homosexuality can mix. I know that neither you nor Steve believe this, but the fact is that this is happening. You have to look no farther than Chad himself, who has said that he would like this movie to bridge the gap between Christians and gays. In my opinion it was unwise to cast Chad, however, in this instance, I think that it is ok that we disagree. I do not question the sincerity of Steve or anyone else involved. However, I do believe we can be sincerely wrong and I think he was in this case. But again, we can disagree here.

So overall, I am much more concerned with the presentation of the Gospel (or lack of it). I do not believe that what is contained in the film is the Gospel. It misses the whole point of the Cross.

I really want to thank you for jumping into the fire and shedding some much needed light on the discussion. I am ashamed by some of the things that some people have written – they were not speaking like people who have been regenerated by the Spirit. I will pray for you and Steve and Chad and all who were involved in the film. May God bless you all!

-Matt Tully

Evan's response:

Thanks so much for your response, Matt. This issue provokes so many knee-jerk reactions from both sides that it is good to hear from someone who isn't prowling through forums and blogs with an axe to grind.

You made some great points, ones that even challenge me in my thinking. You are right in that the film does not explicity state the gospel in John 3:16 terms. I can agree with you on this. I have some thoughts on why this is.

Firstly, I know that Every Tribe views their films as long-form parables. When you read the gospels, Jesus constantly talked in stories. There's the man who built his house on the sand, the prodigal son, the parable of the talents, etc. etc. The parables were never explicit. Jesus never said, "The man who build his house on the sand was a sinner who refused to believe in me and have eternal life." He did make such statements elsewhere, but not when telling stories. No, the parables were meant to illustrate a point and eventually draw the hearer closer to Jesus. The parables were not meant to save people in and of themselves.

Try viewing "End of the Spear" in terms of a parable. No, its not 100% explicit. No, the gospel isn't presented in clear, unequivocal terms. It is an incredible story that points people towards truth and challenges them to examine their notions of forgiveness.

I know that the story involves missionaries who gave their lives to share the gospel with a people who had never heard. I know that begs the question, "Given the context, couldn't the missionaries' purpose been stated more clearly?" I can give you a reason for why the filmmakers didn't make it cyrstal clear, although not a justification.

Christian films in America have a bad rap, and not simply because they have Christian content. "Left Behind" and "The Omega Code" are the ones that immediately spring to mind. These are horrifically made films in almost every way. These movies are almost universally disdained within the filmmaking community at large, but not because they share the gospel. No, they're disdained because the acting is bad, the story structure is bad, the lighting is bad, the special effects are bad, etc. etc. The gospel is not served by people making sub-par movies, no matter how often it might be shared. Its almost like (and this is a bit of an extreme analogy, I admit) taking a dump in a bag and writing John 3:16 on the outside and saying, "See? I shared the gospel!" 1 Corinthians 10:31 comes to mind: "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." That includes making films and making them excellently. Christians have done a wretched job of this so far.

I know the filmmakers for "End of the Spear" despearately wanted to break that trend. They wanted to create a quality Christian film that wasn't "Christian," if you get my meaning. In doing so, I think they may have swung a bit to the opposite end of the spectrum. I'm not providing a justification, but a possible reason. Did they make the best, clearest, most amazing movie ever? No, perhaps they didn't. Perhaps the gospel should have been a bit clearer. I don't know. You have some valid points. Does that mean that the movie is anathema and should be flung to the bottom of the deepest pit? No, it doesn't. And I know that isn't where you're coming from.

Thanks for the dialogue, Matt. Its encouraging to get such a kind, thoughtful response. Hope to hear from you soon.

Evan Derrick

I am planning on seeing the movie and am excited to do so. The story is incredible! Though maybe not clearly shown in the movie, these men gave their lives for the glory of God. They were completely sold out to Him and were willing to follow Him to their d eaths. What an encouragement to us today!

Heb 11 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen....These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.