Some evangelicals are upset with the casting of openly gay actor Chad Allen in End of the Spear, a new Christian-themed movie made by an evangelical film company. This flick is based on a true story of how families of missionaries killed by an indigenous tribe in Ecuador “converted the tribe to Christianity, and forgave and befriended the killers.” Although the film tells an inspiring tale of redemption and grace, the Reverend Jason Janz is spearheading an effort asking the “filmmakers to apologize for their choice.” Over 100 pastors have “signed a letter drafted by Mr. Janz . . . expressing their disappointment in the casting of Mr. Allen.”
Some have even boycotted the film. Every Tribe Entertainment, the company which produced the film, has received threatening materials. Looks like some extreme social conservatives have been taking lessons from the far left. They fear that as the flick inspires people to become missionaries for their faith, it might also cause them to think differently about homosexuality. Will Hall, executive director of BPNEW.net, the news service of the Southern Baptist Convention, fears that when moviegoers realize a gay man played one of the film’s heroes, they might “get exposed to his views on homosexuality, and that would cause some of them to question Biblical views of homosexuality and every other sin.”
Well, if these extreme evangelicals didn’t make an issue of Allen’s homosexuality, most viewers probably wouldn’t have known about it. The “parade of horribles” that he imagines wouldn’t have come to pass. While a number of people do obsess about the private lives of actors and Hollywood stars, most people are just content to enjoy their work. And don’t wonder much what they do on their own time.
Not all evangelicals are getting worked up by the casting of Chad Allen. Bob Waliszewski, head of the media review department at Focus on the Family, Dr. James Dobson’s group, hopes that the flick will inspire people to become missionaries as has story on which it’s based. Despite Focus on the Family’s strong stance against homosexuality, Waliszewski finds that the message of the movie is more important than the sins of its cast: “cut what is the message of the product? And do we at Focus feel compelled to check on the sexual history of everyone in a movie? Did they have a D.U.I.? Did they pay their taxes?”
While I believe Focus on the Family is wrong on homosexuality, I do agree that the message of a movie matters more than personal life of the actors. It’s unfortunate that some social conservatives are so obsessed with homosexuality that they’ll use an actor’s sexual orientation to steer their flock away from a film based on a story which has inspired countless Christians.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Didn’t they sorta have a positive review of Brokeback as well?
I can’t help but wonder if the same complaint would be made if say Tom Cruise an outspoken “missionary” for Scientology was cast in the leading role.
I also agree that the message is usually far more important than who is acting.
I have my own word for these people, hypochristians.
They stand up for what they believe in… when it suits their purpose.
A long time ago, when I did phone support for a software product, I was asked to train a new-hire.
She came to my cube and sat down. Pointing to a photo of my partner and I she said “You know you’re going to hell right? The Bible says so.”
I unplugged her headset and said “the Bible also said that when you have your period, you have to sit outside the gates of the city… so I guess I’ll be seeing ya. Training is done.”
Hmmm, seems like a bit of a conundrum. Gay actor Chad Allen is doing God’s work by spreading the word. Yet he and his work are chastised by some because the messenger is a “sinner.” I’m no Bible thumper but something tells me this wouldn’t sit too well with Jesus.
Dan, thanks for pointing some reasonable and rational assessments being made over at the AFA. Boycotts are a hit and miss power tool in commerce and politics… I wish we had less of them because it screams intolerance rather than trying to understand your opponent and respecting their view.
#3 Jon, if you actually did what you indicate, you probably exposed your company to an employment suit. Not too prudent. I knokw, it’s nice to feel the awesome power of being a trainer in a cubicle, but that stunt was ill advised, immature, and ineffective. You had the chance to turn a convert to our side and you chose to drive a likely voter on gay rights further from understanding.
#5 Michigan-Matt — February 3, 2006 @ 11:00 am – February 3, 2006
Jon, if you actually did what you indicate, you probably exposed your company to an employment suit.
Doubtful. That is what it says in the bible. Unless he was required by his company to continue training (highly doubtful, he could very readily have terminated his portion of the training session. If the woman wanted to complain, management could have assigned another trainer.
In Atlanta you’re not allowed to discriminate on the basis or sexual orientation, and more to the point, under local law, her statement fell under the heading of “hate speech”. I was fully justified.
(and yes, the Bible does make that statement in Leviticus)
In other movie-related news, this should amuse GPW: Brokeback to the Future
#0 – It goes to show that some righty moonbats really are obsessed with homosexuality. Our lefty moonbat friends are right about that.
Our lefty moonbat friends err in thinking it matters, or that the gay-obsessed righty moonbats will ever again amount to anything.
Actually, I hope the lefty moonbats and the righty moonbats drag each other down in Manichean conflict. Then the rest of us can go on with our lives.
#7 – And for the record, Leviticus, the Bible, whatever, does NOT say “gays are going to hell.” Ever. Anyplace.
What Leviticus says is that the physical act (only) of male-male intercourse happens to be a ritual uncleanness under technical rules of the ancient Jewish religion (“abomination” in a sense technical, not ethical). Whoopee. Like I should care. Or like any Christian believer should care.
#10 cont – And yes, Leviticus prescribes death for MANY such technical violations… that would be part of WHY Christianity was invented as a replacement and became popular among the Gentiles.
Jon,
Law and scripture aside you handled the cube situation badly. Think of the good you may have been able to do by talking with her, continuing the training, and showing her that you and your partner are just regular people. Your kneejerk reaction only reinforced her misconceptions.
If I were straight, I don’t know that an off-color comment about my menstrual processes would make me any more likely to think of gay men in a positive light. A straight man simply wouldn’t have gotten away with making a remark like that — he probably would have been fired right on the spot.
I hope that being protected from insult under the law doesn’t mean we can insult other people with impunity. Even if they do air their ignoramus views on the Bible and tell us we’re all going to hell.
Oh bullcrap. She did not show the slightest sign of even being remotely willing to listen to another side of the arguement. This is the main problem with assimilationists. They think everybody can be converted to their cause if they just said the “right” words or acted in the “right” way. Nonsense.
There is no point in going up to a black widow and asking it to please not sting you because your sure that if it just got to know you better it would change its attitudes toward you and serve you ice cream and cake…blah, blah, blah. This was a sanctimoniuos pimple on the butt of humanity that needed to have it’s ego popped.
You don’t owe anyone a goddam explanation or justification for your mere existence. And who says you have to live your life for “the cause” of gay rights in the first place?
And if anyone could file a lawsuit it would be the trainer, as he is the one being harrassed, either on the basis of sexual orientation or religion, take your pick.
Thank you Calarato for your very accurate expanantion of the relevance to Christians of Maosaic Law -none.
“I hope that being protected from insult under the law doesn’t mean we can insult other people with impunity. ”
I was not aware that we have any protection form insult. You argument collapses. If this or any women is so delicate that an insult will crumple her, she needs to stay home safe in her harem. So she can dish it out, but she can’t take it? She must be used to straight boys sniffing around and putting up with her shit.
And I bet she was out on the street with her head uncovered. Harlot.
Gryph, as a corporate HR person, in that situation, I probably would have reprimanded them both. Her remark was uncalled for; Jon’s remark was uncalled for. You’re not allowed to practice sexual harassment yourself because someone is harassing you.
If you’re in a situation like that, the best answer is, “I’m sorry, but would you please explain why that’s relevant to this situation?”
And seriously, who the heck are you to make a judgment that this person will “never change” based on barely one paragraph of description?
Can I put my vote in?
I think that the response to “you’re going to Hell” was exactly right. It probably did more to get that girl to think about her assumptions than anything else would have. Not change her mind, but possibly improve her manners.
Now, unlike some, I don’t really see her statement as “hate speech” because her belief in hell has zero to do with the question of hating the people she believes are going to end up there. In fact, people with a profound belief in hell and eternal damnation often have a profound *love* for the people they believe to be damned… or else why try to save them from that fate?
Nor would I consider mentioning menstration as sexual harassment… not in that context. It was an excellent way to illustrate the inappropriateness of her statement.
Nor would I suggest trying to engage her in some “lets all get along” dialog, though I sort of wish there had been a “get back to business” part intead of “training over.”
But what is she going to do? Complain? So-and-so won’t do the training… Oh, why not?… I told him he was going to hell. Like that’s going to work. Suppose she goes to her Bible Study and tells the story… probably you got prayed for. Still, the direct result is most certainly going to be that her behavior improves. Either because she recognizes that her actions were just as inappropriate in the workplace as talking about menstration, or because it didn’t prove a useful method of evangelization, or both.
The older I get, the more I believe in *immediate* push back. Sure, it needs to be measured to the situation, but no one is done a favor by being allowed to misbehave because the other person takes all the burden of civility. In a sense it even respects the other person to recieve that little slap on the wrist because it assumes that they *can* be better.
Oh bullcrap. She did not show the slightest sign of even being remotely willing to listen to another side of the arguement.
And you know that based on……..?
Sounds mighty intolerant of you, Gryphy.
Let me put it another way. I have no idea whether this woman can “take” what she “dishes out” or not, but I’m a dyke, and I’ve had to take probably a hell of a lot more than she has. Was her remark about going to hell mean? I’m inclined to agree with the commenter who said she probably thought she was expressing Christian love in warning a sinner bound for hellfire in a bobsled.
I’m a Christian myself, and I deal with people like this all the time. I suppose how you choose to react to her has to depend upon what you hope to achieve. I have such a temper, I’d probably knock her on the ass and get fired, so I’m not trying to be self-righteous here. (That’s not what I OUGHT to do, but very honestly, what I probably would.)
I don’t blame this man for being angry at having been spoken to this way. And this is probably “do as I say” rather than “do as I would do.” But she almost certainly has a more negative view of gay people now than she did before this happened. I doubt if she learned anything constructive in the experience at all.
Right-wing, anti-gay Christians have a buttload of nifty rationalizations all lined up to counter every argument we have, no matter how intelligent it might be. Jesus said we’d be judged by the same standard we used to judge others, so there really wasn’t anything wrong with telling her she’d be sitting outside the city gate during Mrs. Murphy’s visit if Leviticus still applied. (I would be interested, simply for entertainment’s sake, to know how she responded to this.) Too bad it probably sailed right over her head.
I have discovered that my own temper frequently leaves me vulnerable to attack when I comment on other people’s blogs. Maybe I should begin counting to five hundred before I post anything. In any case, the way straight people tend to deal with us, when we respond to them in anger (as justified as it may be), is to attack us for being angry and use it against us. Sort of like the strategy in one of the martial arts (is it judo or jujitsu?).
It does provide sort of an entertaining mental image, as I’ve noted. I suppose a jujitsu match between the two combatants would have been even more fun.
Meanwhile, back to the subject of GPW’s essay:
Dan, you’re right. It’s wrong, very wrong, for pastors and organizations on the religious right to condemn a religious film because of the private life of a cast member. But couldn’t you have made your point without giving any credit to James Dobson’s Focus on the Family?
We may be on the same side on this one issue, but that hardly makes up for Dobson’s relentless effort to turn the public against gay rights.
BTW, while it has no real bearing on this issue, actor Chad Allen does attend a Christian church.
I’m an evangelical Christian who went to End of the Spear. I thought it was a great movie—not the best, but certainly much better than the reviews it got. Chad Allen does a great job in the movie. No one I know would base their opinion of the movie on Chad Allen’s sexuality.
But couldn’t you have made your point without giving any credit to James Dobson’s Focus on the Family?
We may be on the same side on this one issue, but that hardly makes up for Dobson’s relentless effort to turn the public against gay rights.
So, ’tis better to be wrong and ideologically correct than ’tis to be right and ideologically impure.
As I mused on Malcontent, that attitude is part of the reason we haven’t gotten very far lately.
This whole issue is going to be decided, ultimately, in favor of which side is most reasonable. Ideological purity seems unreasonable to people, and rightly so, because it forces one to march in lockstep with The Holy Cause even when to do so demonstrably makes no sense.
If Dobson and his gang begins to be seen, by the public, as more reasonable than the most-public gay activists, that is not good news for us. It means that people in the “undecided middle” will start placing even less credibility in what we have to say than they already do.
I gave credit to Dobson’s group because they’re right on this one. Just as I have in the past praised NGLTF, a group I faulted in the post I wrote right after this one. It would be wrong to paint these groups with a broad brush and see them as entirely “bad” organizations.
I have talked to a number of parents who are members of Focus on the Family and they have noted how Dr. Dobson frequently offers good tips on parenting. (And yes, some are troubled by his anti-gay attitudes.) Indeed, if it weren’t for his obsession with homosexuality, I might even commend his organization. That said, I wonder at why he (& his followers) devote so much time to gays when the focus of their group seems to be strengthening the family (which, I think, is a noble goal).
He’s right on this one. And it’s important to understand the attitude these groups have on homosexuality for what it is. But, also in noting where Focus stands on this one, we can better see the real extremism of those getting worked into a lather over the casting of an openly gay actor.
I think Lori Heine raises a great point (#23) which relates directly to my post on NGLTF’s accusation of the Christian right in the New Bedford bar attack. It is not “good news” when Dobson is seen as more reasonable than the “most-public gay activists” and that is why they need to tone down their rhetoric and not to launch into angry screeds every time they want to pin the blame for some horrible action on Christian conservatives – or take issue with the president for appointing a conservative jurist.
Yup, thats me, intolerant of jerks.
And NDT, in today’s workplace ultra-PC envirnment, you can’t even say you are going to the bathroom without being at risk of getting sued for harrassment. While I probably wouldn’t have used his precise insult, an insult was warranted.
I think Focus On The Family isn’t (I think Dobson is obsessed with gays, and his been for years – way before the same sex marriage thing became a big issue). I see nothing wrong with acknowledging them being “right” on this issue. It is a sign of good character. Kind of what I would want a judge to have.
Jesus said “let he who is without [any] sin cast the first stone.”
In relation to Jon’s self-righteous new-hire, Jesus also said “don’t be a jerk.” Or something like that. 🙂
Nice site I found … Plan on coming back later to spend a little time there.