Pensees: Five Martyrs Died Fifty Years Ago Today

Bob you need to go on family life .com and listen to Dick Rainy interview Steve Saint and the warrior who killed his dad. It is two 20 mim clips listen to the last one all the way through because you think he is done giving the ann. etc but the last two mins. of day two are the best. Happy listening. have a great Lord’s day.
U. Steve

Nate Saint’s son has just written a book chronicling the events that took place and how he and his family moved back to Ecuador after a successful career had been established. I just received my copy yesterday and can’t recommend it yet, but it is called The End of the Spear and is available through the link below.

There is a major motion picture release coming out soon called by the same name. My wife has seen the trailer. We’ll have to see what Hollywood does to this story.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0842364390/qid=1136727251/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4577498-4530325?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

I saw the film last Thursday at a pastor’s screening. Janz is going to blast the film at SI. While it has some association problems, I actually think it is a worthwhile film and can be a great encouragement to Christians and certainly a discussion starter with unbelievers. I’m sure there will be much discussion after his post. The film itself was very well done. It is an extraordinarily moving film. Steve Saint produced it.

Thanks, Uncle Steve, for the link. I encourage everyone to listen to the interview. It is moving, particularly the end of the second portion, as my uncle said.

Brian,

I am interested in Janz’s report. I am also anticipating the film.

I don’t know about the “End of the Spear” film, but I recently saw the “Beyond the Gates of Splendor” DVD and was extremely disappointed. Besides the inappropriate nudity, this documentary basically ignored the role of the gospel in the transformation of the formally violent tribe.

I did notice that the trailer at EndoftheSpear.com had no mention of the Gospel as the key to the tribe’s transformation. It mentioned “forsaking violence” which seemed almost a euphemism for conversion.

I am always disappointed when Christians try to “evangelize” without the Gospel. That is probably what will happen with End of the Spear.

On the other hand, it might be a good movie just as a movie and nothing more….

There is no doubt that the producers want to use this as an evangelistic tool. I think that goal will largely fail if Christians are not able to “fill in the blanks.” I think it is a better movie for Christians than non, although it may raise questions in the unbelievers’ mind. The producers said that they wanted to tell a story rather than be “preachy.” That betrays their motivation; however, the film is a powerful retelling of the story. I want my children to see it and remember and be stirred to service for God as a result.

i highly recommend the documentary-style film (beyond the gates of splendor) but not the end of the spear.

Joy,

Have you seen “End of the Spear”? If they had had a pastors screening here in Rockford, I might have gone to see it.

Also, I think it is interesting that you “highly recommend” the same documentary that “extremely disappointed” Andy.

Since I respect the opinions of both of you, I’ll have to check it out myself. Andy gave a brief reason or two for his disappointment. What are yours for your recommendation? And for the non-recommendation of the movie?

Just very interested.

my “but not” refers to the end of the spear film. i haven’t seen it, and am not thrilled about it based on the preview—while the cinematography looks promising, what little of the story/casting/details you can see from the preview appear to me to be sensationalized. at any rate, in contrast to not recommending the latter movie, i meant to say that i do recommend the documentary-style movie. it’s not perfect, but it’s not so apparently hollywoodified.

i acknowledge andy’s mention of the emphases being out of whack (though i do think the Gospel’s power was evident in the story), but i didn’t feel like they added to or twisted the truth there. perhaps “highly” is a little strong, since i probably wouldn’t enjoy watching it in mixed company (although most have already seen most of the photographs that were used). i liked the interviews. i liked the sociological/historical record thrown in that testified to the truth of the spiritual impact of missionaries’ testimonies and the ongoing influence of their families’ work. i liked the concreteness that the piece brought to some of the more sensationalized/idealized pictures our imaginations can tend to create.

if you want to know more about the book upon which the newer movie is based, maybe you could read todd wood’s review on SI. i haven’t read the book, nor todd’s review.

my hesitancy to recommend the newer movie has less to do with a dashed hope for clear and specific revelation, and more to do with a distaste for non-authenticity and general cheesy-ness. aucas who do not look a thing like the real aucas, emotionally-embellished vignettes, that sort of thing. i might like it. i might not. but i haven’t seen it yet, and i mentioned it only to contrast it to the fact that i do recommend the other.

perhaps i was not extremely disappointed in beyond the gates because i do not hold film to real high expectations in the first place, nor regard this medium as an adequate standalone vehicle for the Gospel. i have greatly profited personally/spiritually from watching films like the hiding place, bonhoeffer, and beyond the gates of splendor. i admire adherence to truth, and i think that the Gospel should be evident and glorified in all we do, but film is not the written or preached Word and needn’t be judged according to all the standards by which we judge the value of preaching and teaching in the context of the Church. we discussed the drawbacks of genre-switches and certain media when the passion movie came out, and the debate has raged amongst evangelicals lately (sadly) over the narnia movie, as well.

sorry! ALL THAT TO SAY, no—i haven’t yet seen the spear one in its entirety, so no, i don’t recommend it. and yes, i’ve seen the gates one, and i do recommend it. sorry. yeah. i think we could all just watch it and decide for ourselves what we do/don’t prefer…. =}

quick clarification regarding this statement of mine: i have greatly profited personally/spiritually from watching films like the hiding place, bonhoeffer, and beyond the gates of splendor. one, there’s a grammar error—that is, “have profited greatly”—there, i feel better now.

two, this statement may seem to be a contradiction to the point i was making in its context—that the written and preached Word is God’s primary ordained medium for the Gospel. it’s not a contradiction—my point was that i can benefit spiritually from something without expecting it to benefit me spiritually to the degree that God’s inspired Word would, or with an equal amount of authority over my faith and practice.

it’s so with all man-made contrivances. i regard books by Christian authors (living or dead) with relative admiration in light of how they measure up to clear Scriptural doctrine, but i don’t swear by them or expect them to attain unto that kind of perfection ultimately.

(pastor, you realize i HAVE to put all these disclaimers on because you are convinced i’m obsessed over luther. truth be told, i named my car after the movie ONLY because i was originally going to buy a car off of two nuns and redeem it for the kingdom—the movie had just come out and the name luther was a joking attempt to “protestantize” my car via christening. i promise, i haven’t watched luther for weeks, and when i did, it was to watch the french version for language practice reasons only.) =}

Thank you, Joy, for those thoughts. And here is the link to the book review (which I have read) by Todd Wood.

Janz’s review (part one) of the movie will be posted on SI Thursday.

In contrast to Todd Wood, I have not had any direct exposure to the writings of Jim or Elizabeth Elliot. While I have certainly heard of their story and some of Jim’s most famous quotes, the Beyond the Gates of Splendor DVD was my first experience hearing someone from that group tell their story. I was anticipating the DVD to be as inspirational to my family as others have found Elizabeth Elliot’s books to be. I bought the DVD as a Christmas present for my wife and we watched it Christmas Eve after opening our presents.

The first part of the documentary was quite good, IMO. I enjoyed learning about the young missionaries and their families and how they ended up on the field together. That was the most touching part of film to me, especially knowing what was in store for them. After that, things got very fuzzy to me, perhaps because I don’t know the story all that well. Maybe I need to watch it again but I do not remember the DVD capturing the heartbeat of these guys wanting to give the gospel to this violent tribe. Yes they were missionaries and yes they wanted to make contact but the “why” didn’t come through to me very well.

After the guys were killed, it was very confusing to me why and how the second contact with the tribe was made. This was where I thought the love of Christ that Elizabeth and the others had for these people would come through. Maybe I was brain-dead when I watched it, but to me, the second contact was presented in such a matter-of-fact way that the viewer never gets a sense for the danger involved, the triumph of Biblical love over human revenge for killing their husbands, the desire to reach them with the gospel, etc. This was the part that really left me flat. While the DVD does explain that a great change took place in the tribe, it does not attribute that change to the gospel, or at least it didn’t emphasize it. They had these clueless anthropologists talking about how dumbfounded they were about the change but there was no commentary that explained the change to the viewer.

I already mentioned that I didn’t appreciate the nudity. Near the end of the documentary, they show a missionary child frolicking nude in the water with some of the other nude tribes children. To me, that indicated that the tribe changed the missionaries rather than the gospel changing the tribe in this area. Disappointing.

On the other hand, along with Joy, I do appreciate the Luther movie. I must confess, though, that I have never watched it in French. We will probably make its viewing an October 31st tradition in our family.

hey, this is an observation only slightly-related, andy, but i think it plays in to some of your observations about vagueness. i’ve noticed it in the gates film but also in the spear promo stuff:

i think there is a mutual respect and love between the families, but i think there are/were distinct tensions between them, philosophy-wise, methods-wise. e.e. is portrayed in the documentary kindly, yet not without some reality, and i think there’s a bit of “we think it’s time to tell the saint/others’ sides of the story now” going on in both productions. the vagueness you picked up in the documentary re: returns and further work in the tribes; i think it’s due more to that parting of opinions and eventually the parting of ways.

that kind of sensitivity to brothers/sisters and yet navigating through personal hurt/differences of opinion—it can be tricky. especially in so public a forum. these people have lived in a fishbowl (many of them) for nearly fifty years now. can you imagine?

in the big picture/in hindsight, i think everyone sees how the families’ different “takes” and paths have continued to work the best possible scenarios for God’s glorifying Himself, but they were human, and He obviously had to use them in spite of their human shortcomings and human shortsightedness. still an awesome testimony to Christ and His Bride.

Joy, I have wondered about that possibility. Not because I know anything in particular, but because of human experience. Elizabeth seems pretty “hard core,” but I wonder if others in the original team would share the same convictions.

Without trying to be meanspirited, one has to acknowledge a great divergence/split among the Wheaton graduates of that era. It could have interfered with the original team and how things later developed.

I’ve read all Jim’s journals, “Through Gates of Splendor”, “Shadow of the Almighty” and always been surprised about how homogeneous the group was. I’ve not noted (but not specifically looked at) any sort of conflicts that may have been present.

I’m speculating on differences that may have arisen after the martyrdoms. I think that even Jim’s journals reveal an under-current of philosophical change/unrest that was developing in his circles. This was the era of the new evangelicalism and Wheaton was almost at the epicenter of all that. I’d like to think that Jim would have had no part of it, but one has to acknowledge the fact that many close friendships were disrupted during this time. My former pastor (a Wheaton grad and contemporary of Jim’s) experienced exactly what I am speaking of. I don’t think it is too much to at least wonder if the homogeneity of the orginal team wasn’t affected by these trends as well as normal inter-human challenges — particularly since their leadership was suddenly taken from them.

It is speculation, granted. But it would be worth somebody’s investigation to follow the philosophical and theological trails of each of the surivors. I doubt they would be homogenous.

yes, tensions (post-martyrdom, or the seeds/setup of them previously), are specifically mentioned and alluded to repeatedly—though tactfully—in the documentary beyond the gates of splendor.

the specifically-mentioned tension was between rachel saint and e. e., particularly. but from what i have gathered around through research and through vibes during the interviews, etc., i imagine there were some differences amongst all. regard with what varying degrees of public identification these families went on to live their lives, and what different turns their ministries’ directions took.

rachel stayed with the tribes in-country, arguably “hard core” herself. =}

e.e., in her own “hard core” way, moved stateside and wrote books.

the timeline on the spear promo site is clear with facts and is careful to collate the “big picture” of all the families, including the waodani families involved.

again, i think that to be human is to differ from one another, and to differ graciously and without harm to ministry endeavors is to be exhibits of God’s sufficient GRACE.

couple examples from the beyond documentary:
1.one example of philosophy-differences is e.e.’s suggestion that she, jim, and then-baby valerie should just float down to the tribe in a canoe—unarmed, as a non-threatening approach to the waodani. her idea was voted down as dangerous, yet it might’ve been less dangerous than the approach they went with.
2.the decisions for secrecy (keeping the mission secret from rachel, for instance) and decisions post-martyrdom about the children (concerned grandparents who hadn’t seen their families) factored in to some of the later tension mentioned.

i hate to comment a third time, but if i have to make this disclaimer/clarifier, i will. i’m not saying that it’s merely human to differ and that we should handle issues of doctrinal separation with kid gloves. when i spoke highly of tactful, gracious differing being an exhibit of grace, i wasn’t referring to doctrinal issues, per se.

the tensions to which i’m referring are more interpersonal and to do with crosscultural ministry philosophy than they were doctrinal. i don’t think some of the doctrinal trends and issues about which Pastor speculates would be as cut-and-dry obvious, especially minus the leadership, who would have vocalized their stances, no doubt, had they lived.

not sure it’s possible to do more than speculate on the more theological separation issues over the years, though i agree that further research to see would be very interesting.

Lots of interesting perspectives in the comments here. If I may add one more-

My birthday is 1 February, 1956. My parents were members of a church in Minneapolis, Minnesota that played a part in supporting these 5 young missionaries and their families.

Its been a proud part of my life to know that my parents named me in Nate Saint’s memory.

I found the movie riveting and uplifting. But maybe I was just biased…