But I think we can probably wrap up this discussion by focusing on your belief that hiring an entire team of gay porn actors to staff this film is a “what is the difference” issue. I could not disagree more with your position—and I feel certain that most evangelical pastors would agree with me on that—and thus perhaps we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I was not attempting to be rude but truthful. The term “supposed Christians” probably would be better stated as “Professing Christians”. But for the most part, I stand on what I had said previously. And I nor anyone knows if ETE staff, directors, et al are Christian or not. The fact is, they are not a Church body and that is my point.

Now, as far as homosexual porn stars portraying the whole team, what is the difference. They are hiring actors. That’s it. Like I have already stated, God utilized Chad’s exposure to non-judgmental Christians (Steve Saint) to reach into Chad’s heart with Jesus. Chad has said so himself.

As far as Chris’s comments about me, I am truly shocked that he has taken such a stance as I have preached that the Church does need to “Judge” Righteously within the Church Body regarding sexual sin and Chris has a problem with that. I would have thought, given his very liberal and inclusive view of a socialist Christianity, he would have been in agreement with my comment. I can only surmise his hatred of my stance on holiness and staunch Biblical doctrine has tainted his normally liberal mindset. But that is only my humble opinion.

I just had to respond to your response to Rev. Ron Cruise. Rev. Cruise is a relative of mine. Mr. Cruise, in my opinion, has a very confident understanding of the scriptures and frankly, that scares me. Reading from his opinion piece, it left me a little shaky, a lot of condemnation. I appreciate your example of respect, sensitivity and firmness in your communications with him. I didn’t do so well when I disagreed with many of his views. I was even considering the shame he brought to me ….as true. Thank you for showing me a good example.

Chris
San Francisco, CA.

A few quick thoughts before I address your concerns:

1. This post is almost five years old, so I’m not sure how/why you came upon it or chose to comment upon it now, nor do I expect many people to see your comment or care to respond—particularly since I basically shut the site down last month.

2. I am not at all sure who you are referring to when you express your amazement at the comments posted. I am going to assume, given your words, that you are amazed by my take on the controversy, that I’d write the things I did. If I am wrong about this, accept my apologies ahead of time.

3. The entire situation calls for context, and in fact the post you chose to comment on did not contain any comment by myself at all. Now, perhaps you chose to comment on this one having read all the other posts, and then commenting here because this was the most commented-upon post. If not—if you have not read the other posts—I’d encourage you to read them in order to gain context for my comments.

4. I am disappointed in your tone, quite frankly. Those who disagree with you are “supposed” Christians and Pastors. You call such people “hypocrites”. Are we to believe that you have the only possible Christian position on the subject, and that the very Christian faith and commitment of those who dare disagree with you is called into question (and certainly their sanctification, given that you’ve chosen to call them “hypocrites”). Some might wonder if those are the words of a very prideful man…

Now to address your concerns, it seems to me first that you’ve radically misunderstood both the situation and my take on it (again, of course, I can only speak for myself). So to reiterate, briefly: I did not judge Chad Allen, the actor. If you think otherwise, please read until you understand. My judgment was directed toward a film company and a director which makes the statement that We have chosen to tell true stories, and a common denominator of all of these stories is that they raise the question of what it can mean to live what the Bible says is true. This sounds like professing Christians to me; does it not to you? Further, this film was marketed to my church (and others) specifically BY the company much in the way a Billy Graham film would be, as a witnessing tool (and I drew, as you can read, a distinction between a film such as Narnia, made by a secular entity and then marketed by a Christian entity, and this film, made/marketed by Christians). Further, the issue isn’t having a homosexual act in a film, and that film/TV show automatically being bad. I rarely watch network TV; I sometimes watch Hollywood movies. No doubt some of the actors are homosexuals—and I could care less—because that’s not the issue nor is it what my post was about, as you’ll understand if you read carefully.

I am hopeful, of course, that Mr. Allen was truly ministered to, but unless the end justifies the means—does it, Pastor Cruise?—then that is irrelevant to the point. If the production company, ostensibly Christian, did the wrong thing in casting Mr. Allen (as I argue they did), then no amount of good outcomes changes a wrong decision into a right one.

Finally, I would ask you, if you have it in you, to answer the hypothetical I raise in one of my posts: suppose this production company had gone scouting for the best talent, and in their search had settled upon five young men who were perfect in every way to play the roles of the five missionaries, in order to share their gospel-centered message. Perfect in every way—except one: the five young men were all active in the gay porn industry. Would you object to such casting? Perhaps not—but if you would be, then the question at hand is not one of substance, but only one of degree: why would you object to five gay porn actors, but not one gay activist?

I dare you to give me a consistent and Biblical response to that question—and I challenge you to do it in a Christlike manner that does not resort to cheap shots and name-calling.