Mohler at the Movies

by Joe Thorn on January 20, 2006

Al Mohler, The President of Southern Seminary, has been a modern hero of mine since 1995. He and I share the same confessional identity. He was one of the reasons I chose Southern’, and the changes he brought about there is why I continue to send people to that school. I agree with Dr. Mohler in many ways, on most theological topics, and believe he has been a great help to the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. But I have found myself often approaching culture, art and film particularly, in a different way. This week he has said two things on this issue that caught my attention. One I have a problem with, and the other I think is helpful.

During an appearance on Larry King Live where the topic of discussion was Brokeback Mountain, and the issues surrounding it, he made a statement I have trouble with.

I really am horrified to think about where that story ended. You know my main concern, Larry, is not with the gospel of heterosexuality, even though I think that’s very important. It’s with the gospel of Jesus Christ and what I find lacking in the movie, the screenplay and in the short story is any resolution that really brings these persons to know why they were created and how God really intends them to live and how they would find their greatest satisfaction in living just as God had intended them for his glory.

This is a very strange problem to have with a story written by a nonchristian. It sounds like, unless the film is Christian, it can’t be good. I don’t believe Dr. Mohler believes that, but it was what came out on public TV. Should we protest the movie because it depicts brokenness, disaster, fallenness and perversion without pointing the reader/viewer to God? Must a story have the end tied up neatly with a red bow of redemption to make it worth our time and consideration? I don’t think so. In fact I believe a story like this, one without a message of redemption or hope, can still point people to the Gospel if the church will do a better job of engaging the art itself.

For example, instead of simply extracting the social issues from the story and arguing those points, we can also show the brightness of the Gospel against the backdrop of a movie that is admittedly dark. The story shows us two men who do not know how to love their wives and families sacrificially. They return to their foolish, youthful, sins/perversions and destroy their families and lives. The Gospel can be applied to the story in such a way that we recognize the brokenness and incompleteness found by the characters, while offering redemption and restoration via the Kingdom of God. The film shows us broken humanity. When addressing the art form itself, and interacting with its themes we neither ignore the artist’s creation, nor the social implications.

Later in the week Dr. Mohler wrote a piece on his blog that treats this issue, engaging culture/art, very well and he has some helpful things to say. In dealing with the controversy over End of the Spear, the story of Christian ministry and martyrdom that stars a gay actor/activist, he offers the following advice.

First, Christians must have the cultural maturity to know that many of the most famous and influential producers of cultural materials, whether in literature, art, or entertainment, have been homosexuals. This does not mean that we cannot enjoy their music, art, or performances. Christians start from the presupposition that all humans are sinners, and that every artistic endeavor is marred by sin in both its conception and its demonstration.

Second, Christians must learn the discipline of cultural discernment based upon Christian truth. We must learn to engage the culture in a way that is both honest and missiological — and we must work hard to develop a mind that brings all things under subjection to Christ, including our entertainment preferences and choices.

Third, we must avoid hypocrisy. We should not pick and choose recklessly as we condemn or praise without any obvious tie to biblical truth. We must not condemn publicly what we enjoy privately. We must not assert matters of taste as matters of principle.

Fourth, we must understand the nature of the art form and learn how to discriminate on the basis of an informed cultural understanding, not a knee-jerk reaction. Accordingly, we must understand that the very nature of acting, whether on stage or on screen, is based upon the ability of the actor to make the audience see the character portrayed, not the actor, in the performance.

Good stuff. His conclusion is that Chad Allen’s activism makes it hard for many to see the character he plays. That’s fair. People have said the same thing concerning Sean Penn. His politics and mouth have turned people off so much that they have a hard time enjoying his movies. Of course this is subjective. Some people won’t be able to get past the actor, and some will. In the end, I agree with Dr. Mohler that in the case of End of the Spear, a better choice could have been made. Be sure and check out his article. It’s worth your time.

About Joe Thorn

I am the Lead Pastor of Redeemer Fellowship in Saint Charles, IL, and author of Note to Self: The Discipline of Preaching to Yourself. Jen is my wife, and Katherine, Elias, Madeline and Kilian are my kids.

If you liked this post subscribe to the feed for more of the same.

  • Darren Fox

    I wonder if the producers of the movie ever even considered the sexuality of those vying for roles in the movie. Maybe they should have hung up a sign at auditions: “Homosexuals Need Not Apply”

    And maybe the producers of Brokeback could have used the flipside: “Heterosexuals Need Not Apply”

  • Darren Fox

    I was being facetious by the way.

  • http://www.stevekmccoy.com/ Steve McCoy

    I didn’t see Mohler on King, but have read some of the transcript. I think you are right on here Joe.

    As to the Spear movie, I didn’t know Chad Allen is gay. I don’t think the majority of moviegoers will know he’s gay (most of us don’t read The Advocate!). And honestly, I watch plenty of movies and I’m a Christian, yet I don’t foresee having an issue believing the character because he’s gay.

    Nevertheless, I think Mohler makes some very good points in his article and is one of the better pieces he’s written on movies.

  • http://stuffoutloud.blogspot.com Larry

    Isn’t the point of Mohler’s first comment precisely about tte fact that unsaved people leave broken lives with no hope? They provide no resolution to the sin problems that come into life, break up families and create disaster.

    I thought it was a very astute comment on his part.

    How far can the church go in “engaging the culture” through movies and the arts without abandoning the Scriptures? I think we need to be careful. I also think we need to be careful about dignifying certain things by referring to them because it creates an appearance of tolerance that might cause someone to fall. Isn’t the old adage that “some things are better left unsaid”? I think some form of that may apply here.

    I can’t find any redeeming factor in a movie like Brokeback Mountain. Why would a believer see it?

  • http://pc1oad1etter.blogspot.com Nick P.

    Joe,
    I just finished reading Dr. Mohler’s blog and I thought of you and came here to direct you to it! I see you are too fast for me, not when I sleep in as late as I did today.

  • Darren Fox

    Since most of you were waiting for the endorsement of Jerry Falwell before you went to see the movie, here it is….

    Link

    I doubt he knew the dude was gay either.

  • http://www.joethorn.net Joe Thorn

    Larry,

    I don’t find the comment “astute” at all. If all he was saying is that this modern tragedy does not point people to Jesus, he is stating the obvious. I took his comment to mean that the movie is bad because it does not present the Truth (capital T). But I could be wrong. I understand he is speaking off the cuff on LKL. If I had to sit there with pink lipstick on and argue for the truth of the Gospel I would really mess up.

    You said, “How far can the church go in “engaging the culture” through movies and the arts without abandoning the Scriptures?” I think any level of compromise is wrong and should be avoided. I am not advocating that we abandon Scripture, but that we apply Scripture redemptively to the postmodern art that fills our culture.

  • http://alexforrest.blogspot.com Alex

    One of the ironies in the whole Chad Allen saga is that, had the voices of protest not been raised so loud and so often, very few people would have known the actor was a gay activist. They then could have gone to the movie and appreciated the powerful story without having to worry about moral dilemmas or the actor’s off-screen persona, or without being made to feel guilty about going.

  • http://www.stevekmccoy.com/ Steve McCoy

    Alex, funny, I had that same thought. If Chad Allen does do anything for this movie as a lightning rod, it will only be to get more people to go and gay people to go and see a movie about Christians. I say, that’s pretty cool.

  • http://thereformedbaptistthinker.blogspot.com John Divito

    As one who has been blogging on the growing End of the Spear controversy, it sounds as if we have reached similar conclusions. It also sounds like we think similarly about how believers should critically interact with culture.

    Let us watch and use movies redemptively, pointing others to the good news of Jesus Christ!

  • http://www.agenttimonline.com Agent Tim

    Steve McCoy said:

    Alex, funny, I had that same thought. If Chad Allen does do anything for this movie as a lightning rod, it will only be to get more people to go and gay people to go and see a movie about Christians. I say, that’s pretty cool.

    Only one problem here–Chad Allen is a gay activist, not just a practicing homosexual. He preaches the homosexual agenda, and really, this movie has given him a platform. His view of “God” is very misconstrued (basically he’s worshipping some god he’s made up in his mind).

    But really, I believe the End of the Spear is a movie for Christians to see. It’s a real challenge to give up our lives for the gospel of Christ. We can debate all day about Chad Allen and how well the gospel is presented in the movie when really, we shouldn’t rely on the movie to preach the gospel for us. We need to take the challenge given to us by those missionaries slain brutally on that beach.

    And as for the Dr. Mohler quote…well…I would double check the context and realize it’s the Larry King Live show. Larry is going to mess you up somewhere.

  • http://www.joethorn.net Joe Thorn

    Tim,

    I have already admitted that LKL is a place where most would be likely to misspeak at some point. Live TV. This is why I was pleased to see his article later in the week.

    To be honest, I am not interested in seeing the movie based on the reports I have heard (it’s not very good). Chad’s presence in the film is not a factor for me.

  • http://www.agenttimonline.com Agent Tim

    Thanks Joe. I’d point you to read my review if you’d like. I’ve attempted to consider all of the factors, including the cinematography. I believe it was not powerful enough at the beginning…etc.

    I think you’re right about Dr. Mohler. He’s come out with the article and did a radio show to clarify everything he’d said. Very wise.

  • http://www.stevekmccoy.com/ Steve McCoy

    Agent Tim, the Gospel through the Holy Spirit is powerful. A gay activist cannot stand against God, his message is foolishness when near the Gospel. We can’t change how and with who the movie was made. But we can respond to it.

    I’m also with Joe in that I’m no longer very excited about the movie because I’m not into paying a lot to see B movies. :)

  • Pingback: Fernando’s Desk » Blog Archive » Redemptive Film Analysis

  • http://www.agenttimonline.com Agent Tim

    Right on Steve. Though, as I said, I really think that the End of the Spear is a movie for Christians to see. It’s a real challenge to give up our lives for the gospel of Christ.

    If you don’t see it the theatres, maybe buy it on video when it comes out. But, as you said, it doesn’t matter. It’s not going to kill you.

  • http://www.jasonallen77.blogspot.com Jason Allen

    On matters unrelated to gay activism:

    Joe, I find your comments about your esteem for Mohler in the midst of disagreement admirable. I find myself too often dismissing people in this regard. I think, in that, you present a very pressing challenge to how I live my life now.

    Movie matters:

    I have not seen the movie yet, but from the extended trailers it actually looks like there might be a story and that it was well filmed (this is no small thing). In my estimation this is a huge step for Christians making film (notice I did not say “Christian” film). (Also, I am making an assumption about the film makers based upon what I have heard, I don’t know first hand that they are believers so forgive and correct me if I am wrong.)

    Another note:

    As I have thought about the movie it has caused me to think about Elliot and the other missionaries. I wonder if their story is exactly what it means (and looks like) for us to improvise the scriptures in our own context, living them out in ways that are real and significant. Not just mimicking or “re-doing” them, but truly making the story come alive today. Just a wondering.

    thanks.

  • http://www.joethorn.net Joe Thorn

    Jason,

    I really mean what I wrote about Mohler, though I am sure there are many who doubt it, say I am kissing up, or am just trying to ease the sting of my disagreement. But the truth is, I really look up to him. But he is a human who makes mistakes just like me (though probably less often than me). I have friends (church members) that are engaging the same issues he brings up, so I feel the need to address them and point out where we disagree.

    The story of the martyrs is something to learn from, and I think you are right in that one of the things we will learn is that sacrifice and service will look different for everyone depending on culture.

  • http://www.jasonallen77.blogspot.com Jason Allen

    After partially reading the LKL transcript and then Mohler’s blog sited above I found it rather odd that he claims on the one hand that the job of the actor (and those casting the actor) is to make the audience only see the character they portray. But Allen is the least likely, according to Mohler, to do that for us b/c he is gay? (I understand he is saying this b/c of Allen’s “well known” gay activism.)

    Mohler, however, goes on to list several key actors in some tremendous movies who were/are also gay activists. Yet this does not seem to get in the way of finding their character believable?

    Am I off on this assessment? And if not, is this just smoke screen on Mohler’s part?

    In the King transcript he says he’s not a movie critic and isn’t able to comment about the cinematography and yet here (in his blog) he is able to speak authoritatively about casting the craft of acting?

    I hope this doesn’t come across poorly, I am just very confused by Mohler’s statements. What do you think?

  • http://www.joethorn.net Joe Thorn

    I think Mohler’s beef is that this guy’s activism is front and center at the moment, and that can get in the way of a viewer’s experience. Obviously it cannot get in the way of his acting itself. So Mohler thinks the man’s activism will hinder his portrayal of the character in the mind of movie-goers. I can only partially agree. It will bother/hinder some people, but not all. I couldn’t watch Sean Penn for a few years because of what he would say/do off screen, but now I only see the characters he plays when on screen. He’s brilliant.

    I also don’t think he’s speaking authoritatively about acting or casting, but offering his opinion. In fact, I recall him saying things like, “I don’t know” and “I think” a few times when commenting on the “mistake” made in choosing Allen.

    In the end, I agree with many of Mohler’s principles when considering film, but often wind up coming to a different conclusion in the end (MDB for example).

Previous post:

Next post: