Wishy Washy

My wife bought me a book for Valentine's Day called "The Crime of Living Cautiously" by Luci Shaw, a woman of 76 years at the time of it's writing. It is a little book with some pithy thougts. Below is a quote that is a perfect example of what some would call "wishy washy" thinking. I think it is right thinking:
_________________________________

"I wish we could all learn to see stereoscopically, without the dogmatism that comes from insecurity and the fear of seeing something that may shatter our stereotypes...

Dissent, a marked difference of opinion, a fresh angle on a policy or principle, may feel uncomfortable to begin with, yet it may bring the truth of the whole into balance as no 'one-eyed' view can. Though dissent is often received with distaste or fear as an indication of disloyalty, it may very well be the most loyal of postures to take, reflecting concern for the ultimate welfare of a policy or party.

In order to feel safe and secure, many believing Christians are determined to follow rigid patterns of behavior laid down by their authorities. They fear that otherwise they will compromise the gospel. Because such patterns promise security, these believers are content to live within a fenced enclosure, coloring their lives inside the lines. They, or those who lead them, may have a predetermined agenda that configures their conclusions, obscuring the reality that lies beyond the enclosure. Legalism and literalism, focusing as they do on a single interpretation or philosophy of life, often stifle open inquiry and healthy growth."
__________________________

At the beginning of this particular chapter, Luci quotes TV news anchor Edward R. Murrow:

"We must never confuse dissent with disloyalty."

I'm reminded of the "wicked, lazy" servant in Matthew 25 who took the one talent given him by the master and burried it in the ground. Risk is not just an option for the bold and adventurous, it is a must for every servant of God. The "safe" choice of holding back and doing nothing guarantees no fruit, a branch to be cut off and cast on the fire.

Dear Prof

If you have read much of what I've posted here, you may have picked up on a hang-up of mine. I have spent most of a lifetime processing through my five plus years of immersive experience with the Fundamentalist movement. I keep trying to put it behind me, but it seems to keep coming back around to be dealt with again. A couple of weeks ago I received an email from one of my old profs, a man whom I greatly admired and respected, and still do, but there have always been certain subjects we gingerly avoided discussing when I was a student and in the decades since. My teacher sent a link to me and a dozen or so others pointing us to something we really needed to read and heed. It was Jason Janz' diatribe against "End of the Spear" dilineating in great detail that it did not contain the gospel. My esteemed professor made his judgement based on this article, not having seen the film himself and aparantly intending not to. I struggled as to whether or not to respond and if so, what to say. I finally decided I needed to do so and afterward realized its the first time I ever actually articulated exactly what I thought to any of my former teachers. If the current situation follows all previous experience, I will never hear from this man again. It is their way. But, I finally realized I could not continue to keep silent. For what it's worth, here is my response:

________________________________

Dear Mr. ------,

It was good to hear from you. It's been a while! The time passes so quickly. I just showed "Sheffey" to my Video II class and took that nostalgic walk once again. Lots of great memories!

Thanks for sending this link. I have read some of Jason Janz' stuff before and I read this. I have been acquainted with Steve Saint for about seven years now and have heard bits and pieces about the production of the film along the way. The seemingly unfortunate chain of events (I say "seemingly unfortunate" because, as Steve is fond of saying, God hasn't written the last chapter of the story yet) resulting in and surrounding a gay man playing a prominent part in the film included Mr. Janz' publication of some patently false accusations without first talking to Steve, Mart, or anyone else involved with the production of the film. (for an even-handed discussion of that particular matter, I suggest Randy Alcorn's piece http://www.epm.org/articles/end_spear_response.html) The clear violation of Matthew 18 has caused a terrible amount of grief and though Jason has since apologized to Steve and Mart the words can't be effectively called back. So I read Jason with a grain of salt.

His points do make sense, but it seems to me that there is a major premise he assumes and fails to address. That is, can various efforts, strategies, and pieces of the puzzle, if you will, make up a proper propagation of the gospel or must each and every element contain the whole package? Also, what legitimate part can art play in propagating the gospel? It seems to me that Jason's arguments could be leveled at the BJU art gallery. He states that the gospel must be presented in words in order to be legitimate. I agree that words must be used for complete understanding, but cannot art be used to prepare the heart to receive those words and to echo them through symbol and reference? It seems that Jason considers anything that does not clearly spell out the complete theology of salvation to be a hindrance to it. "End of the Spear" is not meant to stand alone and not meant to close the deal. It's meant to be a part of a bigger picture, a broader effort to draw unbelievers into caring about what Christians live for and what we have to say. The "Beyond the Gates" documentary was produced as a companion piece for the DVD release and gives more depth, though still meant to draw someone into "the conversation" which seems to be a stigmatized concept which I can't understand as sharing the gospel one on one is powerful and perhaps more vital than even preaching. Speaking of which, Jason seems to think the strategy of making a movie is somehow antagonistic to preaching. Because of sheer manpower, cost, and time we know that movies will never replace the pulpit. These are things that should work together.

BTW, the film is not a product of Hollywood. The production company is in Oklahoma. The only Hollywood connection is the distribution deal they did to get it into theatres.

I just think it would help for Jason to step back and see a bigger picture. Using different strategies makes some of us uncomfortable I guess. If I'm uncomfortable for whatever reason, I'm glad God calls someone else to try it. In any case, if the Lord calls someone to pursue a strategy and I have a problem with it, clearly I should go to him and talk about it and not attack him in a public forum first thing.

In terms of a film being part of a bigger picture of reaching someone, I thought it curious that Jason included this quote from a lady in Ohio as an indictment of the film:

“There was a lady sitting behind me in the theatre and she seemed to be confused about the plot. It was obvious from what she was saying that she didn't know the story and didn't understand missions. She said things like ‘Why do they want to see that tribe so badly? Are they crazy?’ and ‘I just don't understand." If a film makes a lost person genuinely wrestle with such questions, it seems to me that is some valuable seed planting. I wonder if the lady from Ohio attempted to answer any of those questions.

Say, is that sign with Paul's word's still hanging up in the sound stage? Seems our definition of "all things to all men" is what is being debated here.

I urge you to see the film yourself. If for no other reason I think you will find the production values very pleasing. Also, I hope you will see the documentary, "Beyond the Gates (of splendor)" Steve has also written a companion book, also called "End of the Spear" which overlaps the documentary a good bit and basically picks up where the feature ends. BTW, the book received a very good review on Jason Janz' "SharperIron" site: http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2224

Steve has been the keeper of the story all these decades and has fended off many proposals to make a big movie of the Waodani story believing the motivation of those approaching him was off or they didn't have sufficient resources or various other things that just didn't seem right. This time he believed the Lord was in it and he got behind it. Right or wrong, the burden of the stewardship of what is arguably the most significant missions story of our time has been heavy. I know the guy pretty well. He loves the Lord deeply and is a man of character, courage, and astounding compassion born of great suffering. I can tell you he has done his best before the Lord with much prayer and thought going into each decision. I've met Mart, and though I don't know him well I saw enough to know he is a man of God. These brothers are not men to be written off lightly.

Well, those are just some of my thoughts. I heard a very wise saying once and I wish I knew who to credit it to: "In any given situation, there is always something you don't know." I try to figure out what that is if I can. Some call that being wishy-washy. I call it seeking the truth. I'm looking forward to heaven when it will all be laid out for us.

I hope the rest of your semester goes well.

Blessings on you and yours,

---

The Last, or at least The Best Word on "End of the Spear"

Randy Alcorn has posted the most sound minded and scriptural article I've seen on the "End of the Spear" controversy. My words posted previously on this subject have been true, but I confess, some were written with anger in my heart. Righteous anger? That would be a good topic for discussion. But Randy's words are the best. Please take the time to go read them:

http://www.epm.org/articles/end_spear_response.html

In case you don't have the time or inclination, let it be known that Jason Janz has retracted the untruths he had published and has appologized to Mart Green and Steve Saint.