Rod Dreher’s book, Crunchy Cons, has changed my attitude toward supporting the local economy and sustainable agriculture.  I think it is a good witness to act responsibly and to work toward the common good.  Recently my wife and I made the decision to participate in a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm by subscribing to a season of produce.  Beginning in early June, and running through late November, we will travel once each week to local pickup point and receive a box of organically grown vegetables and fruits, which will vary according to what is in season.  This means that we are choosing to forego, or at least reduce, our use of many fruits and vegetables that are available year-round.   The cost works out to about $20 per week for a “small” box, which is supposed to suffice for two adults and one or two children.  Hopefully that will leave us enough to share with others.  Will we miss blueberries in January?  Sure.  But will we enjoy sun-ripened, organic, locally-grown heirloom tomatoes in July?  I think we will enjoy that very much.

I suppose I should suppress my schadenfreude at the current woe’s of New York governor Elliot Spitzer, but as governor, and previously as attorney general, Spitzer was an enemy of the right to life of the unborn.  See this Wall Street Journal blog piece on Spitzer’s support of “women’s health.”  What a wretched euphemism!  As attorney general, Spitzer prosecuted crisis pregnancy centers accusing them of false advertising.  Schadenfreude or not, I say good riddance!

People who are devoted to the enviromentalist movement seem unable to understand why people reject what appears to be obvious evidence of problems like global warming.  For me the problem is that enviromentalists seem to buy into claims that are not supported by the evidence or naively accept certain claims as being scientifically established.  One example is the claim that plastic shopping bags are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of wildlife.  This article from the Times of London reveals that this claim is based upon “flawed science and exaggerated claims.”

Does it ever occur to the people that generate these kinds of “scientific” claims that they are harming their own cause?  Or do they not care as long as they further their environmentalist agendas?

I am increasingly concerned over the enviroment, sustainable agriculture, etc.  But this kind of carelessness and/or dishonesty makes it hard for me to commit my time or money to the environmentalist movement.

It seems that the number of theaters running End of the Spear is beginning to decline. It appears that ETS opened fairly well, probably on the strength of Christians who had planned to see it. It also seems that it didn’t have the “legs” to stand on its own. That’s too bad. My wife and I enjoyed ETS, and the folks from our church who saw the movie also liked it. It really is a story that deserves to be heard.

One failing of the movie, however, is related to just that point. The story of the five missionaries and their families who continued their mission deserves to be heard. But if a person who was unfamiliar with the story would see ETS they would mainly learn of Nate Saint and his family’s interactions with the Waodani, and particularly with Mincayani. The other missionaries are mentioned almost only in passing. I am glad our church had the opportunity to see the documentary Beyond Gates of Splendor. The documentary provides much needed background and breadth to the story. I don’t think the makers of ETS wanted to downplay the roles of the other missionaries. I suspect that they wanted a simpler, more unified, storyline.

Another shortcoming was that the movie showed so little of the evangelizing of the tribe. We hear Dayumae telling her people that God has a Son who was speared, but didn’t spear in return so that we could live well. Now Christians can see the rudiments of the gospel in that message. But I don’t think that it can be assumed that non-Christians will make the connection. In fact, I can see how many non-Christians could see this simply as a message of the power of non-violence, the power of love. We see natives who have become believers, but we don’t see how they respond to gospel message.

I’m not saying that ETS needed to be a movie where the plot is geared entirely to a moment where the gospel is presented and a someone makes a profession of faith in response. But I think more could have been done without turning ETS into a Billy Graham Evangelistic Association style film. In fact, I think one way is suggested by the film itself. When we hear Dayumae share the gospel, we are struck by the challenge of communicating the gospel in the language of culture that lacks vocabulary and even concepts that we take for granted. How, for example, do you communicate the notion of crucifixion? In Dayumae’s presentation, she describes Christ’s death as a “spearing.” Now that is a difficult decision to make; which details can be changed into a more culturally meaningful concept? I don’t think it a trivial detail that Christ was crucified on a cross. But would it take away too much from the message to stop and educate the natives on Roman capital punishment? Can that be filled in later? The reason I bring this up is that making this kind of decision is very much a part of what missionaries to unevangelized peoples have to do. It would have been interesting to show the missionaries doing just that. It would have been consistent with the story the movie makers were telling, and it would have allowed a fuller communication of the gospel to movie viewers.

Finally, one feature of ETS that struck me was the emphasis on the angelic visitation at the death of the five missionaries. Most of what I knew about the story came from the Beyond Gates of Splendor documentary which omitted that part. I am glad that the makers of ETS did not shy away from supernatural elements of the story. Indeed, I was moved to think of these men being ushered into glory by angels.

Well, as usual, I’m a little behind the eight-ball. Everybody has commented on the End of the Spear and moved on to other hot topics. But being late to the conversation has never stopped me from putting in my two mites worth.

In this post I want to address the Chad Allen brouhaha. It seems to me that Christian filmmakers can take two approaches to making films with spiritual subject matter. I think both approaches are valid.

The first approach is that of using Christians in nearly all aspects of the work. The work is viewed as a ministry in which all participants, ideally, are Christians. I think in practice it might be difficult to achieve purity, due to the complexity of making films. But the idea is that of Christian producers, directors, actors, etc. I suppose it would extend to cameramen, “grips,” “best boys,” etc. (I have no idea of what the last two are, I’ve just seen them in film credits). I suppose the films made by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association would be an example. The idea is that Christian ministry must be done by Christians in order to be ministry.

The second approach would be one of greater participation in the secular film industry. Although the producers would have the goal of making a film with a Christian message, they would be committed to using the best artists and craftsmen available, without regard to whether they are Christian or non-believers. The goal is to make the best film possible in the belief that it is the best way to communicate the message. Another reason for taking that approach could be a strategic one. Christian filmmakers might want to work within the system to gain credibility for the film. Finally it is also a way of saying to non-Christians in the industry that Christians want to work with them, and that there is a market for good movies with a spiritual message.

It seems that Every Tribe Entertainment (ETE) has taken something like the second approach. In an e-mail communication from BearingFruitCommunications they stated:

“Right this second, people in the entertainment industry are making decisions regarding the stories that will shape our culture. With the motion picture industry down, they are asking, ‘What do people want?’ There has never been a greater opportunity for Christians to influence what kind of movies will be made. ”

Thus they claim that Chad Allen was chosen for the role of Nate/Steve Saint because he clearly had the best audition. Does it matter that Allen is homosexual? I don’t think you have to be a Christian in order to portray one in a movie. And I don’t think we can single out only homosexual sin. But what about the fact that Allen is an activist for the homosexual movement, and holds unorthodox spiritual beliefs? I think that once ETE made the choice of working within the secular system, they are committed to the “rules of the game.” Allen’s beliefs have nothing to do with whether he can play the role. And I think this was born out in the film, Allen did a good job, in my opinion.

One last thought, however. ETE also adopted a marketing strategy of seeking out the help of churches and other Christian ministries in order to get the word out about the film, primarily in distributing the Beyond Gates of Splendor documentary. Unlike a filmmaker, churches do not have the luxury of using non-believers in ministry (I won’t quibble over whether you could, say, hire a non-Christian secretary or custodian). Clearly the staff of a church must be committed to the message and mission of the church.* ETE approached churches and encouraged them to be “Ministry partners.” And for many churches, “ministry” means “ministry by Christians.” I think ETE would have done well to spell out their approach to making films. They could have explained, for example, that they would not limit themselves to using only Christian actors. Those who objected could have opted not to participate. Others who participated would not have been surprised (or as surprised) at the casting of Chad Allen.

In Part 2, I will share my thoughts about the movie itself.

*I think that includes the use of professional musicians in worship services. Some would argue that hiring a non-Christian musician is no different than hiring a non-Christian janitor but I would strongly disagree. The music of a church service is part of the church’s proclamation. In a church service, it is a proclamation on the part of the musician. It would be hypocrisy for a non-Christian to participate that way in a church service.