Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Good News for Bad People
Yesterday, my 8-year-old son and I watched End of the Spear--the film based on the story of the 1956 martyrdom of Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Roger Youdarian and Pete Fleming at the hands of the Huaorani Indians of Ecuador.
Elisabeth Elliot's book version of the same story spurred thousands of young missionaries onto the field in the last 50 years, but at its theatrical release, the film version was criticized by conservatives for its casting (the lead was played by a homosexual actor), liberals for its supposed tub-thumping evangelism and cultural insensitivity and purists for liberties the screenplay writer took with the script. (Nate Saint was speared through the temple, not the abdomen, folks.)
If I want accurate history, I'll read a book. I have no objection to evangelistic tub-thumping. And, while I'm not too excited about a homosexual playing the part of a missionary in a movie, is it any worse than a sinner playing the part of God in a film?
I was primarily interested in seeing how Steve Saint (the son of martyred pilot, Nate) reconciled with his father's killer, Mincayani. And I also wanted my own son (whom I would typically not allow to see a PG13-rated film) to understand the price that must be paid to bring the good news to bad people.
While Elliot's Through Gates of Splendor was a missiological biography, End of the Spear most poignantly connects with the issue of violence and what the gospel has to say about it. The most important line in the film is spoken when a young Steve asks his father Nate why the missionaries won't shoot the Huaorani if they threaten them with their spears.
"Because they're not ready for heaven."
Sure enough, even as the Huaorani run the missionaries through with their spears, one of the men points his pistol to the sky and fires--hoping that the report will scare the Indians away.
Years later, after Mincayani reveals to Steve that he was the one who killed Nate, Steve tearfully responds, "You didn't take his life. My father gave his life."
Could there be any other "gospel" more relevant today? This message is countercultural in every culture: It confronts primitive tribes of South America, radical Islam in the Middle East and even the theo-patriotic sensibilities of American evangelicals. (Recently, I heard a pastor, in support of Israel's war with Hezbollah, proclaim, "We will not turn the other cheek!")
Now, don't get me wrong. It is not the job of governments to turn the other cheek--Paul is clear that rulers do not wield the sword in vain. Sovereign nations have the right to wage war and shed blood for the protection of their citizens. But we play by different rules, for a kingdom whose King overcame through death and whose gospel has always been spread through blood--not of conquest, but of martyrdom.
Is it worth it? It was for the Huaorani people. After the death of the five missionaries, several of their wives entered the jungle to make contact with the tribe, eventually winning their trust and bringing several influential leaders in the tribe to Christian faith. Fifty years later, inter-clan violence has declined by 90 percent, and a large portion of the Huaorani have become Christians.
Whether among primitive tribes or in comfortable suburbia, the gospel works when it is applied with the same seemingly wreckless trust of five missionaries with nothing to lose but their lives.
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
