Eutychus

I have just set up my own wiki at PBWiki. I am an absolute novice at using a wiki, but it seems to be ideal for collaborative work. I am thinking about doing an online project on New Covenant Theology.

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.

This issue has recently been brought up by one of my church members, and I decided to look into it and give it some thought. I hope that my analysis will contribute to the conversation.

After reading the new guidelines, I would say I say I partly agree as well as partly disagree.

Concerning the position on a “private prayer language” and the new baptism requirements, here is what is now required (copied from IMB trustee Wade Burleson’s Blog The Old IMB Policies Compared to the New IMB Policies . . . ) with my comments in italics:

THE NEW POLICY REGARDING GLOSSOLALIA OR “TONGUES.”

GLOSSOLALIA

1. The New Testament speaks of a gift of glossolalia that generally is considered to be a legitimate language of some people group.2.The New Testament expression of glossolalia as a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship.3.In term of worship practices, the majority of Southern Baptist churches do not practice glossolalia. Therefore, if glossolalia is a public part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

PRAYER LANGUAGE

1. Prayer language as commonly expressed by those practitioners is not the same as the biblical use of glossolalia.

2. Paul�s clear teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding.

3. Any spiritual experience must be tested by the Scriptures.

4. In terms of general practice, the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as �private prayer language.� Therefore, if �private prayer language� is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

I think the restriction based upon private “prayer-language” adherents is unfortunate and unnecessary. The practice does not conflict with the Baptist Faith and Message, therefore they do not conflict with any official beliefs. If Southern Baptists are that concerned with the issue, they should take an official position on it. I think, however, that would be unwise. I would not be surprised if we took a survey of Southern Baptists that we would find that more people speak privately in tongues than we assume. My own experience (limited, so it may not carry much weight) is that non-tongues-speaking Southern Baptists can live with those who speak in tongues as long as they do not bring it into church services.

APPLICATION

1. This policy is not retroactive.

2. Any exceptions to the above policy must be reviewed by the staff and the Process Review Committee.

The “NEW” Policy Regarding Baptism for Missionary Consultants

POINTS TO BE COVERED DURING THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS:

1. The Individual

a. Believer�s baptism by immersion

Baptism by immersion follows salvation

b. Baptism is symbolic, picturing the experience of the believer�s death to sin and resurrection to a new life in Christ.

Baptism does not regenerate.

This is correct and Southern Baptists rightly expect that missionaries hold to these beliefs.

2. The Church

a. Baptism is a church ordinance.

When it states that baptism is a �church ordinance� I would take that to mean, at a minimum, that baptism must be administered by a person ordained and authorized to do so. Since baptism is to administered to believers, we would want the baptism to administered by someone who is entrusted with the spiritual oversight of the church. We would expect that a person who is ordained is qualified to make a judgment that a candidate for baptism has made a credible profession of faith. Not all laypersons could be expected to be competent to do so. Thus, a baptism administered by a layperson would be suspect, since we don�t know whether the layperson was competent to make a sound judgment. I think this is sound. We ordain ministers for a reason.

Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer�s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.

As to the second part of clause (a) the question is, how did the candidate understand their baptism? Point 1 covers what they now believe, point 2 (a) covers what they were taught at the time of their baptism. After all, when a person is baptized, they are making a certain kind of profession. So we want to know, at the time, was the person professing that they were being regenerated by baptism, or that it in some way infused grace (that would be the concern about �sacramental�). Baptism should be a visual, symbolic profession that I am united by faith with Christ in his death and resurrection. As Baptists, our missionaries will be expected to teach accordingly, and administer baptisms accordingly. Can they say that they themselves were baptized with that understanding, that is, is that what they were professing when they were baptized? But this could be a problem even if they were baptized in a SBC church. I think the best test is not the beliefs of the administering church, but what the candidate understood at baptism and especially what they now believe.

The word �church� as used in this context does not appear to refer to a church building. So baptisms outdoors would be valid. I have heard that the some believe this clause means that baptisms would have to be physically performed in a church building.