The February 6 edition of Newsweek notes the controversy surrounding the new film End of the Spear, the true story of Nate Saint, a Christian missionary killed by Waodani warriors in Ecuador, and his son Steve, who returns to the Waodani as an adult to learn about his father’s death. The movie’s producers hoped for a “Passion of the Christ”-type turnout. Instead, many Christians have protested the film. At the behest of Jason Janz, an assitant pastor in Colorado and creator of the fundamentalist blog SharperIron.org, more than 100 pastors signed a letter addressed to the movie’s producers noting their refusal to support the film. The reason: Chad Allen, the actor cast as both Nate and Steve Saint, is a homosexual. Janz (from his blog) is quoted in the Newsweek article as saying, “This would be like Madonna playing the Virgin Mary.” The article goes on to cite other noteworthy Christian leaders — including Jerry Falwell!! — who are encouraging their churches to see the film despite the controversy.
Homosexuality is a certainly hot-button issue in Christian circles today. Indeed, the discussion is something of a litmus test of sorts, revealing a person’s theological & political leanings perhaps like no other topic. Recently, I’ve been a part of several conversations with fellow ministers about this issue, specifically how we reconcile a desire to be tolerant with our theological convictions about the homosexual lifestyle. In a recent Christianity today article, Brian McLaren argues for a 5 year moratorium for Christian leaders regarding the issue. Here’s an excerpt from McLaren’s article:
Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the “winds of doctrine” blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course.
I understand and respect what McLaren is trying to do. But would such a moratorium accomplish anything? Is silence on the issue the best response? The Christ-like response? I certainly bristle at the positions of many from the religious right whose responses to homosexuality are devoid of compassion and understanding. I find little in their rhetoric that echoes the grace of Christ. And surely silence is the best option comparatively speaking. But aren’t we called to interact with the world around us, to be conversant regarding such issues, that we might speak a word of mercy and truth? Neither the picket sign nor silence is enough for some of us.
I understand how people’s religious convictions would cause them to speak out about Chad Allen or Brokeback Mountain or gay rights or whatever. But I don’t see flocks of homosexuals coming to our churches because they’ve been convicted at our protests. I don’t see anyone coming to the side of “the truth” on the issue because they believed the picket sign: “Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.” Your decision to see or not see End of the Spear is your own business. But if you decide not to see it because of Chad Allen, I hope you’ll at least be consistent. Don’t forget to protest Walk the Line, starring Joaquin Phoenix, a former alcohol abuser. Bring your posters and picket signs to Big Momma’s House 2, starring Martin Lawrence, who admits to having smoked marijuana. And whatever you do, don’t go see Glory Road, starring Josh Lucas, who was in Hulk, directed by Ang Lee who also helmed Brokeback Mountain. (Josh Lucas was also in Secondhand Lions with Kyra Sedgwick who was in Loverboy with Kevin Bacon!)
But as for me, I think I’ll adopt a different position.
Call me crazy, but if we laid down our picket signs, others might be willing to take up their crosses and follow.
already & not yet 
You go. Great thoughts. I understand McLaren’s position. Not too long ago I preached from Romans 1 and had this unshakeable feeling that I was preaching more than what the text says. In that instance a silence would have been best–at least until I had a better grasp on the subject. But ascribing some kind of definitive silent period is a reach.I believe we can vocally and actively engage in the debate. I have always said that if Scripture is true (and I believe resolutely that it is) then it can stand up to any questions or scrutiny that we throw at it.
Good thoughts. Here are some of mine. So we don’t want to support homosexuality because it is a sin. Understandable. I believe homosexuality is a sin, and I don’t support that sin. But how should that conviction call me to act? I also have a strong conviction that I, too, am a sinner. A dirty, wretched individual- unworthy to stand in the presence of the Lord.. yet, I know He welcomes me. He loves me. I’m His bride- He chose me. But I’m a whore of a bride. Yet He loves me. He calls me to change, but He has never pushed me away. How does that conviction call me to act? It does not call me to hateful protests that makes me appear to be more holy (because that just draws people right on in doesn’t it? no) just because that is the sin that I happen not to struggle with. It calls me to love. A love that may be offense to some..that’s the kind of love Christ had. “True love is aggressive and attentive and changes things, wakes us from our stupor of danger- modivates, stings, rebukes- while still gently caressing.” -Mark Steele, flashBANG.We could really help people if we would get past our selfish pride and fears, and be willing to walk up to unclean and love them. To SHOW them what our Savior can do for them. Those are my thoughts.
Jason said: “Call me crazy, but if we laid down our picket signs, others might be willing to take up their crosses and follow.”That may be the quote of 21st century so far…As a hopeless C.S. Lewis-loving Anglophile, my favorite movie is “Chariots of Fire” (I’m still amazed that it received Picture of the Year in ’81 given its overtly Christian themes). The actor who played the “Flying Scotsman” and missionary Eric Liddell was Ian Charleson who was gay and died of AIDS in 1990 at age 40. I can’t ever remember anyone ever raising the suggestion that Christians shouldn’t see this movie or that its inspiring story was somehow sullied because Charleson was gay. Of course, this took place largely before the internet and Christian talk radio came on the scene and became adept at whipping the evangelical masses into a frenzy.You’re right, if we use this stringent standard in deciding what art is worthy of our time and attention then we might as well flush not only many recent movies but a great deal of classic literature and other art as well.McClaren is right in that we don’t understand many things about homosexuality and should be measured in our speech, although a complete moratorium is a pipe dream. As someone trained in psychology and medical science, I am not as bullish on the idea that somehow new information in those fields will solve our dilemmas–researchers in those fields are not value-neutral.I have never felt that sexual orientation was purely a “choice” that one made–the forces at play there are exceedingly complex and multilayered. But I have also never felt that any biological predisposition is an automatic free pass–there are biological predispositions to anger and other negative behaviors, but we set limits there as well for the good of society and community.These days I find myself bristling at those Christians who carry picket signs and engage in hateful speech, but equally so to other Christians who seem to be trying to go beyond biblical context to make the scripture fit their presuppositions and who feel that accepting homosexual behavior is the sine qua non of a reasonable mind.I do not have the option of “idling” on this issue with my sons–I am busy trying to teach them that this is a complex issue, that all are worthy of love and respect regardless of whether they are straight or gay. Not an easy thing to do given the phobia and milder forms of “gay bashing” that occur at the middle school and high school levels.I also realize, that when you get right down to it, that I know very little about all of this and that I need to learn and study more. Still, I am by nature suspicious of anyone who suggests that we should jettison millenia of belief on the subject for the sake of being “relevant” or “compassionate.”Sorry to take up so much space unpacking my thoughts here. I look forward to reading what others have to say too.
This has been an issue I’ve been turning around in my head for a while now, mainly because of reading Donald Miller and meeting a few absolutely amazing, loving, kind people who are homosexual.Homosexuality is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Murder and stealing are sins. Drunkeness is a sin. Lying, blaspheming, greed, extreme anger… these are all sins. Everyone is guilty of at least one of these. Why have we chosen a select few to be “worse” sins? So that we may say that we are better than others because we have dealt only with those that are “minor”? Ridiculous.On that note, if we *were* to catagorize sins, would it not be logical to make the “major” sins those that Christ spoke of directly in the gospels? If so, well, He never spoke of homosexuality. Sexual sin in general, yes, but not specifically homosexuality. You’ll never see that word in red letters.I do not support homosexuality, but I love my homosexual friends. I love my friends who struggle with drinking. I love my friends who are going too far with their boyfriend are girlfriend. I don’t preach to them (I used to), I don’t slap them with the Bible (I have before), I love them, and I try to remind them with my love of Christ’s love. When people ask me how I feel about homosexuality, I simply tell them “I think it is a sin, but I have been guilty of ones just as bad.”In “Blue Like Jazz”, Miller speaks of unconditional love… for everyone. It really reminded me of what Christians are called, in essence, to do. Everything else will follow.~Stephanie
I think the biggest problem surrounding the “controversy of brokeback” is this: We judge it because we’re uncomfortable with it. I agree with the comments you make on how we should basically stop going to Hollywood productions because they all have sin portrayed in them. I think it all boils down the tolerance issue I mentioned of how we become so used to the drug, it doesn’t phase us anymore. I believe Brokeback is at the front of the judgement by Christians because its not been all that common…yet. Sadly, it will become just as other sins and immorality portrayed in Hollywood…and we will be desensitized to that as we have every other sin.So what do we do? Do we ban movies all together? Do we stop listening to music, reading the paper, surfing the web? I don’t know why, but I’ve really been struggling with these things lately (as you read on my blog about tolerance…its not a hate blog, or an acceptance blog…but its just that at this stage, i’m so confused.
Scott, I agree with you…Those of us who believe in Scripture must use it as our guide in difficult conversations such as these.Jenna, you’re right, too. All too often, we fail to love because we’re afraid. That’s surely one of Satan’s most powerful weapons. Great quote from Flash Bang.Mike, you’re well-versed in the pyschological issues at work here and you hit on the tension that I feel, too. It’s never as easy as pure choice, yet never as natural as genetic predisposition. An idling, silent position is a luxury we aren’t afforded, especially for those of us who are working with or, in your case, raising young people today.Stephanie, you’re definitely correct in your approach to loving people, regardless of their particular struggles. In reponse to your point about Jesus never making mention of homosexuality in the NT, that’s one of the major tenets of the Christian homosexual movement in our nation. All I would point out is that Jesus was a 1st century Jew still living under Torah. And Levitcal law makes it very clear that such sexual interaction is abhorent in God’s sight. Granted, Jesus spoke out on a lot of issues that the Torah specifically covered, too, but to say that Jesus’ silence on the issue is equivalent to his approval is a step most logical believers can never make.Lane, I think the tension you feel is the tension of being in the world, yet not of the world. It’s a tough place to be sometimes, but that’s where He’s put us. I don’t propose a ban on all media (because I love music and movies as much as the next guy). I just think we set ourselves up for some well-deserved potshots for being hypocritical and inconsistent when we protest a movie with a gay lead when we’re perfectly comfortable with films who’s stars are involved in equally deplorable actions. I appreciate all your comments. Keep ’em coming, because we need to be conversant about this issue.
I definitely do not think that just because Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality specifically means that He approves of it. Christians seem to try to justify or “minorize” some sins but not others, and I was pointing out their lack of logic (in most cases) in their choosing of them. I.E. If Christians were to sit down and choose the “worse” sins, one would think they would choose those that Jesus mentioned specifically, but that isn’t the case.But no, I do not claim to think that Jesus was in favor of, or was neutral on, homosexuality, no more than He was of murder.
Jason–I just wanted to let you know that I read (not watched) “Brokeback Mountain” last night. My wife and I had a “Barnes and Noble date” and I picked it up and read it in about 25 minutes (it’s a short story not a novel). Sorry B&N, I did buy coffee, hot cocoa and a different paperback, though!I guess I was left wondering…and your point is? No doubt there have been some cowboys, sailors and prisoners who have adhered to the old lyrics “If you can be the one you love, love the one you’re with.” The prose was lyrical and engaging, but it seemed like old news to me. I wondered if there was any really good reason why I should be interested in this–other than the Academy (and an increasingly relativistic society) tell me that I should be.
Mike, you should talk with Scott. He’s something of a movie buff, and he saw Brokeback…he’s seen every best pic nom since the Millard Fillmore administration…but he said it wasn’t a bad movie…one over the top scene, but otherwise he said it was OK. Can’t comment…I don’t plan on seeing it. But I take your opinion seriously, too. And you raise an interesting point: what if the film was instead about a heterosexual couple who struggled with the same feelings of yearning & affection over the years. Would we be hearing Oscar buzz? Would we even be discussing it?
Would we be discussing this movie if it was a heterosexual couple? No.Would we be hearing Oscar buzz? For some acting performances, yes. Best Picture? No.I’ve seen all the nominees except for Capote and I would give the statue to any of them over Brokeback.That said, it was a good film. The selling point is that it is groundbreaking. Although this is ground that has already been broken by HBO and Showtime it is the first gay-themed romance to break through to wide acceptance. I could wag on but I really am waiting to discuss it with someone who has seen it.