Can you separate the message from the messenger? Or, in cinematic terms, how much does the “real life” of an actor (or other participant in a film) affect the perception of the film itself? In some cases, quite a bit.
Christian ministers were enthusiastic at the early private screenings of “End of the Spear,” made by Every Tribe Entertainment, an evangelical film company. But days before the film’s premiere, a controversy erupted over the casting of a gay actor that has all but eclipsed the movie and revealed fault lines among evangelicals.
[…] The film relates the true story of five American missionaries who were killed in 1956 by an indigenous tribe in Ecuador. The missionaries’ families ultimately converted the tribe to Christianity, and forgave and befriended the killers. The tale inspired evangelicals 40 years ago with its message of redemption and grace, and the film company expected a similar reception.
On Jan. 12, though, the Rev. Jason Janz took the filmmakers to task for casting Chad Allen, an openly gay man and an activist, in the movie’s lead role as one of the slain missionaries, and later, his grown son. An assistant pastor at the independent Red Rocks Baptist Church in Denver, Mr. Janz posted his comments on his fundamentalist Christian Web site, sharperiron.org. He also asked the filmmakers to apologize for their choice.
[…] Some evangelicals have boycotted the film, and Every Tribe’s executives said that they had also turned over to the authorities material that they considered threatening.
“Does anyone really believe that Chad Allen was the best possible actor for Nate Saint?” Mr. Janz asked in his Jan. 12 Web log entry, referring to one of the characters in the movie. “That would be like Madonna playing the Virgin Mary.”
Philosophically, this is bushwah. An actor is simulating a role. Judging the film based on the private lives (or even public lives) of the creative team seems to be missing the point. Though, granted, that sort of philosophical detachment isn’t always possible — Roman Polanski and Woody Allen (and, heck, even Tom Cruise), among any others, bring “baggage” to their cinematic activities.
On the other hand …
But Mr. Janz, who said he rarely weighed in on the culture wars, stood by his previous statement that “we must realize that the Christian message and the messenger are intricately related.” He wrote that Mr. Allen’s homosexuality was not so much the problem as was his open activism for gay causes, and that if a drunk who “promoted drunkenness” had acted in the movie, “I’d be just as mad.”
One Web log, nossobrii.blogspot .com, written by Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, stated in a Jan. 13 entry: “Granted, we must not overreact. And it would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men’s houses. But what they have done is no mistake. It is a calculated strategy.”
Right. An evangelical film company telling a stirring story of “redemption and grace” intentionally cast a gay man as part of a “calculated strategy.”
Though I’m glad to hear that firebombing someone’s house would “probably” be an overreaction.
It’s one thing to say that the “Christian message and the messenger are intricately linked” if you’re talking about someone preaching a message. Even though, in orthodox Christian theology, for example, a sacrament is not contingent upon the moral turpitude of the adminstrator of same, certainly there’s cause to object about hypocrisy in Christian teaching, e.g., when televangelists turn out to be lying and fornicating scumballs. Even there, you should be able to draw a line between the message and the messenger, even though it’s been tainted by the contradiction.
But an actor in a movie? He’s presumably working for a paycheck. Is the position here that the actors, the director, the production crew, the caterers, and the accounting firm that handles the production company’s payroll have to all pass some sort of Christian Virtue Litmus Test?
Heaven forgive me for agreeing with someone from Focus on the Family, but …
Bob Waliszewski, head of the media review department at Focus on the Family, said that he was saddened by e-mail messages from angry Christians who said they would not see the movie. A generation of young people were inspired to become missionaries by the true story, and Mr. Waliszewski said he had hoped a new generation would be moved by “End of the Spear.”
“Has Focus on the Family made a strong statement against homosexuality? Absolutely,” he said. “But 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?”
Mr. Hanon [the film’s director] echoed: “If we start measuring the sin of everyone in a movie, we would never be able to make a picture because none of us would be left.”
Hmmm…
Maybe they need to start wearing Pink Triangles so that we can know them when we see them.
*wonders off muttering looking for a red square to wear*
Idiots.
Let he who is without sin greenlight the first flick.
Or something like that.
Now if “we must realize that the Christian message and the messenger are intricately related.” then look at the way Every Tribe Entertainment’s people conduct themselves versus the way Mr. Janz does, particularly in regard to the messages of the movie in question — forgiveness, redemption and grace. Oh Mr. Janz, Prince of Irony.
Perhaps I’m missing something important, but it seems to me that this story demonstrates once again that many avowed Christians have forgotten how to turn the other cheek.
Technically speaking, turning the other cheek means forgiving offense against oneself, not, necessarily, against God. Nor does it mean that one has to (to draw an analogy that these folks would probably agree with) stand by while someone offers to sell heroin to minors.
Similarly, forgiveness doesn’t necessarily mean tolerance. Forgiveness, in fact, implies making a judgment. Thus, I may forgive (or turn the other cheek) if someone beats me with a 2×4, but their redemption, by God’s grace, are offered (in Christian theology) only if they recognize and repent of their offense.
In other words, being loving and forgiving doesn’t mean that you approve of everything that everyone does. If you consider an action a sin, you’re obliged to speak the truth in love (again, from an orthodox Christian concept), not to judge others, but judging the offense.
It’s a fine line, and very easy to slip in either direction (tolerating evil in the name of loving our neighbor or hating the sinner in the name of loving God).
I interpret turning the other cheek to mean not taking revenge oneself, but allowing God to work things out.
It seems to me that many Christians hate the sinner in the name of loving God as you suggest, and that they also are wont to try to take revenge on the sinner in God’s name. Boycotts, for example, seem to me to be an attempt to punish the sinner, not simply speaking the truth (and I’m not even going to get into the hubris involved in thinking that you know for sure what God has in mind and no one else does).
Hubris indeed. The Bible actually warns about that sort of thing. And about “not taking revenge oneself.”
To what extent can one claim to be “speaking the truth” about God’s will? Another tough one. There seem to be some clear fundamentals in (if we’re to take the Christian example) Jesus’ teaching. The devil (so to speak) is in the details. I don’t hold that it’s all blindingly obvious, and it is, indeed, hubris both to assert that it is and to act on the certainty that one knows God’s will in its entirety, or with complete accuracy.
You raise an interesting issue about boycotts. It seems to me that it would be acceptible to say, “Don’t support this person’s sinful activities, or his ability to so act.” It would be unacceptible to say, “Try to get this person to change their activities by robbing him of his livelihood.” Coersion and blackmail do not seem to be Christian activities (and, taking it further, leaving the possibility open that one’s actions might be interpret as coersion, and so letting folks think that might be acceptible to do, is itself un-Christian).
The old cliche is “hate the sin, love the sinner.” It’s tough to draw that distinction, but sometimes it seems that some folks aren’t even trying.