I read about this movie briefly in WORLD magazine this morning (or was it afternoon? Today was my sleep-in day, so I'm not sure.) This story has always aroused a conflict in my heart. Today that conflict may have been resolved.
Why did those five missionaries face certain death when they had young families that needed to be supported? I admired their martyrdom, of course, but I didn't understand. Doesn't the Bible say that it is better for a man to remain unmarried so he could continue in ministry without the burden of wife and child? Why, then, if they already formed the commitment to family, did they continue in their plans? I also didn't understand how these wives and their children could continue reaching out toward a people that had killed their husbands. Yes, of course, it's forgiveness, but it's forgiveness that I don't have.
I realized today, however, the importance of the Gospel to these men and their families. Sacrificing anything for the Gospel is so worth it. If God had been leading these men, then there was absolutely no commitment that could hold them back. And nothing should have held them back. I realized today that, when/if I ever make the commitment of lifelong marriage to one man, I need to be willing to turn away from that marriage altar knowing that God has already called my husband to His will, possibly separating us for a time. But I need to go beyond acquiescence and support my husband whole-heartedly in his decision to follow God's will. Ouch. Hopefully I'll be ready when the time comes. (Why does it seem easier to give my own life away than the life of those I love? Maybe I'm just ignorant.)
Something else I discovered when I was talking to Nater: One of the lead actors, Chad Allen, is a "gay activist." Why was a homosexual man chosen to be the lead part? In the interview quoted on this blog , John MacArthur repeatedly calls Mr. Allen's homosexuality a sin, and the author of that blog (along with others) seems to think that this sin is the reason why he shouldn't be playing the part of a missionary and his son who are deeply respected in the Christian community. Why does this matter? If homosexuality is a sin, and it is equal (in God's sight) to all other sins, and all people sin, then it is a logical conclusion to say that any other actor would have been just as bad of a choice. Of course, the men portrayed by Mr. Allen were sinners themselves, so it would be silly to have a sinless being portray a sinner.
I can understand how this particular sin of Mr. Allen's could be a hindrance, since it is under some serious social scrutiny. However, if Christians are to extend grace toward every sinner, then Mr. Allen should not be discounted from this role simply because of his particular sin. The five missionaries' display of love and acceptance to the Waodani should be exemplified by Christians to homosexuals.