We are commanded in Scripture to test all things, whether they are true and whether they are right. In matters of eternal consequence, we assume nothing. We have examined in a previous post Dallas Jenkins’ professed purposes for creating The Chosen, the show’s enormous profits and popularity, and Jenkins’ personae of a Jesus and His “chosen” admittedly different than those of the Scriptures. In our examination, we have not only raised several red flags; we have sounded the alarm.
It should be no affront to Jenkins that we would do so. Indeed, by his own mouth, he has said repeatedly that he does not care what people think. This bravado is to be seen as courage amid “persecution,” but when it is the opinions of conservative Bible scholars that Jenkins is rejecting, we are required to look again. Without sentiment, we have not only the right but also the obligation before God to ask some hard questions about this enormously popular series. It is not necessary to examine every scene of the show in order to examine the assumptions behind the show. We believe that the assumptions behind the show generate its content as the root that bears the fruit. These assumptions have played out in Jenkins' numerous video commentaries and interviews for several years, and it is these assumptions we question here.
The first of these assumptions we have already referenced in a previous post: what do we do with the assumption that we need entertainment to entice us to open our Bibles? To this question we will hear many objections, such as that anything that causes us to open our Bibles is warranted, as the end that justifies the means. But we are on dangerous ground indeed when we presume, like Uzza touching the ark, that God needs our help to transport His Word across the rough terrain of our culture. Hebrews 4:12 says, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of the soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” The idea that the Word of God that has survived every attack upon its existence from the beginning of time now needs The Chosen to jumpstart its potency in this meta-modernistic age is abhorrent to every believer who loves the Word of God and who believes in the power of the Holy Spirit to use His Word as He will. And yet listen to any given interview with Jenkins and hear him defend the “need” for his show while not batting an eye.
Second, what do we do with the assumption that a show professing to spread the gospel should be exempt from the exercise of Biblical discernment? If the wisest of earthly kings, King Solomon, could write that “in the multitude of counselors there is safety” (Proverbs 11:14), we find it not a little arrogant that Jenkins could, with so cavalier an abandon, repeatedly reject the concerns of respected Bible scholars and conservative evangelicals who have stopped watching his show. Not one of the Lord’s Apostles would ever have acted alone in propagating a gospel that the others found flawed. This is why we have the Church. The checks and balances of leadership among believers cannot be ignored. But when the founder of the show himself dismisses almost all applications of Biblical discernment, certainly his biggest fans will do the same. Episode by episode, they are being trained by Jenkins’ own example to disregard all critics and to defend their idol as Jenkins defends himself.
One would think that Jenkins would consider criticism from sources as diverse as his base, but he does not. In fact, we cannot think of any criticism that he has not either rejected or denied altogether, whether as leveled against something he “never said” or as misinterpreting or “misunderstanding” something he did say. To that, we might request at the very least that he be clear when handling the Word of God. Yet, in Jenkins’ mind, he is always right, and he often plays the role of the underdog while attempting to regain the upper hand. Watch video after video of him responding to the critics he professedly does not care about, and you will see this to be the case. It is, quite honestly, exhausting to follow. But Jenkins has the might of his base validating the “right” of his views, and on we go from controversy to controversy. Well might we ask how anyone whose show is almost entirely fiction even has the right to be defiant in the face of his critics. Or, put another way, we actually do understand that Jenkins cannot be anything but “right” in a show he has invented himself.
What do we do with the third assumption that an exercise of Biblical discernment is, in fact, nothing but an ugly display of pharisaical judgmentalism? This assumption is nowhere more obvious than in Jenkins' heated defense of the Mary Magdalene scene that drew so much controversy. When multiple fans objected to Mary Magdalene's relapse into a life of addiction after being redeemed by Jesus, Jenkins fired back. If you have not watched Jenkins’ defense of this scene, you should: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpA5V32PpJs. It goes like this: Of course, Mary Magdalene backslid, for all believers backslide. “The notion that believers do not backslide is an affront to the gospel, for 100% of believers backslide. The notion that believers do not backslide flies in the face of everything the Scriptures say” (timestamp 2:40). “Paul himself said ‘I sin all the time; I’m rooted in sin.’ He sinned constantly” (timestamp 3:09). “Peter struggled his whole life with his temper” (timestamp 3:24). “It is biblical to show that someone who has a deep, deep struggle will still have war with their flesh after they are saved by Jesus” (timestamp 4:14). “I 100% believe that happened with all of them” (timestamp 4:17). “The concept is biblical” (timestamp 4:34). “I sin all the time” (timestamp 5:05). “That’s why He came, because we can’t be perfect; we can’t do it” (timestamp 5:19).
Does this sound at all to you like those who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof (II Timothy 3:5)? If no lapse of any believer is to be judged as unbiblical, who are we to lay a finger on The Chosen? The only thing that should be judged is "this notion" that believers do not backslide. Not only do they indeed backslide, it is actually "more Biblical" to backslide than to teach that one must live a holy life. In fact, one must sin not only occasionally but habitually, for, after all, Paul "sinned constantly" and "I sin all the time." Never mind that Paul's living and dying testimony was the hallmark of a clear conscience, "void of offense toward God and toward men" (Acts 24:16). If this "sin all the time" way of living is true, we can't even call this "backsliding," for it is actually the norm of the Christian life, which has become a free-for-all.
Jenkins has thus reduced his version of the gospel to absurdity. And if you here become so depressed by Jenkins' low view of Scripture that you feel yourself sinking to the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea, you are not alone. A person cannot have read the Bible carefully even one time and invent the things Jenkins here says. We cannot help asking what Bible Jenkins reads or what he has done with the words of Christ Himself in commanding us to obey Him if we love Him (John 14:15). In fact, we wonder whether Jenkins himself has become confused as to where The Chosen ends and Scripture begins.
Fourth, what do we do with the assumption that an emotional response to The Chosen should be not only the ultimate artistic goal but also the measure of a salvation experience? Watch Jenkins’ interview with Jordan Peterson and see to what lengths he feels entitled to go artistically to evoke this coveted emotional response. In the exchange, Peterson articulates Jenkins' position as such: a valid emotional response is impossible if you already know the outcome of the story. A story's message is "genuine" only if you don't know how it is going to end. This fact precludes Jenkins' fidelity to the Biblical narrative, for that "script" has already been written, and Jenkins and Peterson both agree that the ultimate purpose is to “make a good movie,” a purpose that cannot be fulfilled with a prescribed text. This assumption not only allows for Jenkins' departures from Scripture; it requires it. If this set of assumptions sounds arrogant to you, you are not alone.
Let it be said that many a human author has confessed that he did not know where his story would take him or what his characters would do next. While Peterson perhaps means that any author creates best when he has freedom and uncertainty, this is true only on a human level. God knows exactly what He is going to do, and to this end, all things work together for good (Romans 8:28). In his Essay on Criticism, Alexander Pope rightly observed, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." I don't think we should even tread into the realm of thinking we can portray Christ, let alone improve upon Scripture's portrayal. When we as human authors begin tampering with the divine authorship of Scripture, we run amuck indeed. Even the human authors of Scripture were divinely inspired as they recorded events that actually happened, neither of which is true of Jenkins in The Chosen. But statements like Peterson's not only appear to validate Jenkins' agenda, they sneer at any attempt at fidelity when filming Biblical narrative. Jenkins even goes so far as to say that almost all Christian films are propaganda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI9X0fFEE8I (See timestamp 50:30.)
But Jenkins' obsession with an emotional response is not restricted to his sense of artistic achievements. He tends to equate an emotional response to The Chosen with a salvation experience. This sense of evangelistic appeal further feeds his sense of entitlement to cut his fictional narratives out of whole cloth. Yet, one of the most basic cautions for any evangelist is to avoid making a purely emotional appeal, and the most fundamental caution any seeking soul can heed is to know that he has not made a merely emotional decision. We do not find Jenkins' centralizing of emotion--what we could even call his exploitation of his viewers' emotions--to be genuine, regardless of the artistic advice of Peterson. Does Jenkins not remember Christ's parable of the four soils, only one of which bore fruit unto salvation, upon receiving the seed of the Word? And yet, can we argue that The Chosen even gives viewers that? How are their emotions stirred? By narratives that never happened. How is this truth? And where are they told that they are sinners who need to repent? Jenkins is alone Biblically in his sense of entitlement to make of the gospel a primarily emotional experience for the sake of artistic excellence.
So, we are up against the fifth question: what do we do with Jenkins’ assumption that he is entitled to add to the Scriptures without violating Biblical integrity or denying Biblical inerrancy? Behind this question is an assumption that Jenkins does indeed believe in Biblical inerrancy, but does he? Sources disagree. We can answer this question not by what Jenkins says but by what he does. And here we return to our first question: what do we do with the assumption that we need entertainment to illumine our understanding of the Scriptures? We either do or we do not believe that the Bible is complete and sufficient to lead us to the real historical Jesus who is never recorded to have said the things Jenkins puts in His mouth. The idea that these things added by Jenkins do not bear a common pattern cannot be defended. They most certainly do bear a common pattern: they were all added to make Jesus seem more relatable. And Jenkins maintains his sense of entitlement to add to the Scriptures to show this relatable Jesus for the sake of making a good movie.
But let's suppose for a moment that Jenkins is right: that he does have the right to add to Scripture, as long as he gives the disclaimer that this is fictional entertainment. We cannot forget that it is the portrayed Jesus himself who adds to God’s Word as portrayed in the show. In other words, in the show’s very portrayal of Scripture, it adds to Scripture. How can this be? How can it be that the things the show’s Jesus says from the Bible are not in the Bible? But here again we see the sleight of hand that Jenkins allows himself. It is not merely his narrative elements that appeal to our imagination and emotions that push the limits of Biblical fidelity; it is the script that reaches across cultural lines to speak our language today. And what language is that? Not English, but the idea that we need a Jesus who is relatable. Therefore, this Jesus asks Matthew to help him compose his Sermon on the Mount. He appeals to Judas to make the right decision. And if we protest that these things are not in Scripture, Jenkins and his viewers argue that we don’t know and can’t prove that they didn’t happen.
Loyal fans' rebuttals against the concern of adding to Scripture go like this: Jenkins never contradicts Scripture; he fills in the gaps with things that are likely to have happened. Anyway, it is impossible to contradict the Bible regarding things the Bible does not say. And when those things “not said” comprise over 95% of the show’s content, these loyal viewers would appear to have played the trump card. They claim that the show is not Scripture and that it does not profess to be such; that it is a show entitled to exercise artistic license as Christian entertainment. Thus, even the words of The Chosen's Jesus succumb to the precedence of Jenkins' artistic concerns.
Over against the argument of all the good The Chosen has done—as if that alone should silence its critics—we might with a sober countenance ask what harm it has done. Has the show jumped on the bandwagon that has rolled forward for the past thirty years that we may indeed add to God’s Word willy-nilly? If you have read Eugene Peterson’s motivation for creating his paraphrase, The Message, you are aware that he did so to make the Bible “come alive” for his parishioners. Wait, is the Bible dead that it needed Peterson’s help? Follow this with those hearing messages from Jesus and writing those messages in first person as Jesus Calling, and you have a generation who sees nothing wrong whatsoever with putting words in His mouth. We have long been desensitized to interpolations within the Scriptures in the guise of reliable translations. We do not need to conduct a case-by-case study as to whether these interpolated “messages” are Scriptural. The very premise that it is okay to add to the Scriptures is unscriptural.
Trace the progression of motives in altering the Scriptures and you will find first a professed desire to teach, then a hope to inspire and to encourage. Now, we see a desire to entertain while evangelizing—or to evangelize while entertaining. Which motive, we would ask, is the most insidiously dangerous? Is it not the one that hopes to entertain? Our guard is down; we are emotionally captivated; we are visually stimulated; and we either don’t know or don’t care that the Jesus before our eyes is very different indeed than the Jesus portrayed by His own eyewitnesses in God’s Word. If all the other red flags were lowered in surrender, this red flag should wave across the skies. Many of The Chosen fans simply do not care that the Jesus they see is not the same Jesus as the One in Scripture. Furthermore, they do not believe the One in Scripture was relayed to us with 100% accuracy. But even more frightening than these views is the fact, as we have said, that many fans cannot tell that The Chosen's Jesus is different than the Biblical Jesus because they have fallen to the deception.
God’s Word is the solid rock upon which we stand. It is not built upon the shifting sands of cultural whim and preference. The Chosen leaves us with a Jesus who is relatable. Relatable to what, I demand to know? Is not Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8)? But The Chosen turns him into the personality of Jonathan Roumie in a show that nurtures his followers’ unredeemed vices and pet sins. This is a progressive Jesus in an antinomian culture. I for one cannot watch The Chosen without feeling as if I have placed other gods before me and have bowed down to a graven image. I do not want to see the face of Jonathan Roumie when I pray. And I do not want a Jesus that relates to me. I want a Jesus who sets me free to relate to Him.
For further discussion of the controversy between believers, read the comments of the blog below:
Comments