Influences Behind The Chosen, Part I

Introduction

Without apology, I think it is fair to ask that a show about Jesus be produced from a uniquely Christian perspective. Viewers have a right to know the influences behind The Chosen, and they have a right to critique the show accordingly. If these influences are determined to be less than Christian, whether in the screenwriting or in the acting or even in the production, we have the right to ask why Jenkins is using them. And if Jenkins has a prejudice against using Christian sources for his show and, in fact, a preference for using secular sources, we have all the more reason to examine his final product. If Jenkins has adopted the secular world's premium placed on "acting," for example, which presupposes a good actor's ability to transcend his own morals and beliefs, then he won't mind selecting actors who aren't Christian in any traditional sense of the word. And he won't mind selecting a nonevangelical to play Jesus. After all, this is only a show, according to Jenkins--even though this "only a show" portrays "the authentic Jesus," also according to Jenkins.

Like Jenkins, his fans speak out of both sides of their mouth. When Jenkins is criticized for veering from Scripture, they say it's only a show. But when critics say the show isn't Biblical, fans claim they now know Jesus as never before. "That's a Jesus I could believe in," wrote one woman recently about her atheist mother's reaction to the show after watching the third episode (from Allen Parr's video, Should Christians Watch The Chosen? My Honest Thoughts). Even if we are slow to assume that The Chosen's Jesus is competing with the Biblical Jesus, we are supposed to infer, I think, that this woman's concept of Jesus prior to The Chosen was both harsh and erroneous. But where does her new Jesus come from? He comes from 95% fiction. It isn't Scripture that has shaped this fiction. If it were, it wouldn't be fiction. What is it, then? It is Jenkins' screenwriters' imagination. I would hope, then, at the very least, that Jenkins' screenwriters have a sanctified and historically informed imagination. So, let's find out.

The Screenwriters  

And right here is where we have every right to be real: if Jenkins’ primary purpose is to evangelize, as we have examined in Red Flags within The Chosen, we would expect him to have selected screenwriters steeped in theology. One of his screenwriters, Tyler Thompson, does have a degree from Moody Bible Institute. But, sure enough, the other, Ryan Swanson, is steeped in the secular world of filming, which seems to fit Jenkins’ primary purpose to entertain, which we have also discussed in Red Flags within The Chosen. Both screenwriters profess to be Christians, but when Swanson lists The Wire, Game of Thrones, Battlestar Galactica, and Star Trek as formative influences, I sit up and say, “What?” since I can’t even flip fast enough through some of these shows while changing channels. Evidently, The Wire is a “dark, mature” and very realistic depiction of urban crime, complete with a lot of offensive language. Game of Thrones is apparently infamous for its explicit sex scenes and nudity, also featuring graphic scenes of rape and sexual violence against women. (I wish I was making this up.)

Next, I looked up Battlestar Galactica. When even AI answers my question, “Is this a clean show?” with “No, this is not considered a clean show,” I believe it. Once again, we have a heavily violent show with doubtful sexual content. Star Trek is a film series based off the original television series, but even this series is not above question in its suggestive content, and I cannot imagine calling it a formative influence in my life. Even the films Swanson is known for screenwriting, Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Drop Dead Gorgeous, aren’t exactly wholesome, innocent films (judging by the trailers I have watched). Why would I want one foot in the church and one foot in the world if my purpose is to bring people to Jesus, and why would I even bother with evangelism if my primary purpose is to entertain? This all seems like some form of spiritual adultery to me, and I do not say that lightly. Scripture expressly tells us to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather to reprove them (Ephesians 5:11).

But even if we were to assume that none of these grossly secular influences has in any way tainted the screenwriting of The Chosen (a naïve assumption, since each has deeply influenced one of the show’s three screenwriters), we have plenty of other troublesome influences to consider, each of which has been intentionally selected to broaden the show’s ecumenical appeal. In an interview with Deseret News, Tyler Thompson, says, “It’s been nice to have thing [sic] perspectives like Messianic Rabbis, Catholics, Latter-day Saints, all of these things to help, ‘Here’s how we see things.’ But at the end of the day, we are of none of those things and are just saying we’re doing our best trying to make something for you.”

An LDS influence? I guess it depends whom you ask because, when Jenkins himself has been challenged for the LDS influence on the show, he has denied its hand in the script. But when Tyler Thompson, Jenkins' co-screenwriter with a Bible degree, openly acknowledges the value of the LDS perspective, we ought to take note. Jenkins and his screenwriters also consult regularly with a Catholic priest, a Messianic Jewish rabbi, a professor of New Testament at Biola University, and an orthodox Jewish theologian. It is no surprise, then, that the show has a worldwide ecumenical appeal when these influences are intentionally crafted into the very fiber of the show.

One thing is clear: although Jenkins identifies himself as an evangelical, his chosen “Jesus” is certainly not. Not only is Jonathan Roumie an “in-your-face” Catholic, he is avowedly ecumenical. Making public his position on the Eucharist, Roumie recently wore a T-shirt at the National Eucharist Congress which quoted Flannery O'Connor's sentiments, as voiced in her short story, "The Temple of the Holy Ghost"--"If it's a symbol, to hell with it." That doesn't leave any respect whatsoever for the Protestant conviction that the Catholic belief in transubstantiation is mere superstition. "To hell" with Protestant Communion? Really, Jonathan Roumie? That's nothing but blasphemy. And that's The Chosen's ecumenical Jesus? But we will examine Roumie's influence on and off set in a later post.

So, we have a show that professes to be ultimately evangelistic even though its script is not evangelical, its Jesus is Catholic, and its primary purpose is artistic rather than Biblical. Are you confused yet? Add to that confusion the show’s claim to historical fiction, and things just get more and more blurry. The "fiction" part I get because the show is 95% original to Jenkins and his screenwriters. What Jenkins cannot explain away are his chosen influences behind the show. Is their combined influence cohesive or chaotic? Is it even Biblical? Jenkins does not like to be asked about these influences because he is the mask for them, yet critics have rightly "called out" many an insidious influence that has left its contaminated fingerprints all over the script.

Jenkins is accountable for these influences because his choices have become a double-edged sword: the very ecumenism that would appear to preclude doctrinal bias also tends to result in a less-than-evangelical message. So Jenkins continues to juggle defense and denial from hand to hand, yet he cannot deny that each member of his enormous endeavor was handpicked for a specific reason to create an "anthology," as it were, of spiritual opinions and perceptions that would appeal to as broad a base as possible. And yet Jenkins himself remains the maverick--the wildcard--among a staff of handpicked co-producers, scriptwriters, reviewing consultants, actors, and filmers. Although these sources do indeed shape the "viewpoint" of Jenkins' disciples, Jenkins himself makes the final call. It is, after all, his idea and his self-perpetuating invention.

Jenkins Himself

Undeniably, the strongest influence behind the show is its producer and primary screenwriter, Dallas Jenkins himself. By his own admission, Jenkins has fought a vicious and repeated battle with pornography over significant periods of his life. To his credit, he has held himself publicly accountable and has repented of this destructive vice, but not without disclaimers that seem to wink at the damage such a sin can cause and not without admitting that a person so enslaved to this sin is not headed for the kingdom of God. On the contrary, Jenkins openly contends that everyone backslides, and he establishes egregious failure as the norm for the Christian life, above which the aspiring seeker of holiness cannot rise and against which the victorious Christian cannot blow the curve. His shocking video to this effect, issued in defiant reply to critics who objected to Mary Magdalene backsliding, uncovers Jenkins' theological biases without question.

But pornography is not the only leviathan with which Jenkins wrestles. Jenkins has also allowed other once-tagged vices to shape his life--vices which both he and his father Jerry Jenkins defend as not being "sin." Recently and quite unexpectedly, while researching a different topic, I stumbled onto Jenkins' shady connections with the scandal surrounding Pastor James Macdonald at Harvest Bible Chapel in Chicago, Illinois.  The more I dug into what happened there, the more I found, and it was not pretty. Dallas Jenkins was more than a little implicated in enabling his pastor's gambling addiction, an addiction which quite likely motivated Macdonald's misappropriation of millions of his parishioners' contributions. Even though Dallas eventually wrote an open letter voicing his "concerns," others regarded this letter as damage control since Jenkins himself had been involved in the gambling ring with Macdonald.

As himself the owner of an online casino, Dallas had arranged for his father and Macdonald (his father's buddy and co-author) to go to Las Vegas to enjoy their gambling recreation. The fact that Jerry Jenkins served on the board of trustees at Moody Bible Institute during this long-lived scandal raises even further questions. Whether or not Dallas Jenkins was involved in the demise of Harvest Bible Chapel, his own gambling history shows heavy involvement in online poker tournaments.  While both Dallas Jenkins and his father are known tournament poker players, they both defend their costly habits by denying that playing poker is gambling since it is a "game of skill." That even Google's AI genie refutes this point is concerning. What we do with a clear conscience needs no rationalization.

However, Jerry Jenkins also defends the amounts of his (and, apparently, Dallas's) winnings by saying that, in comparison to the large salary to which he has become accustomed, a win of $8,000 is no big deal. Can he assume that $8,000 was also no big deal to the man who lost it to Jenkins? Quite possibly, these earnings or losses over time were serious enough to cause Jenkins' buddy Macdonald to dip by the millions into his church funds. Must Jenkins normalize these behaviors to preclude being seen as a fraud or as a wolf in sheep's clothing? Could this be why he has invented his own Jesus? If we deny the relevance of these behaviors as an influence upon the content of the show (i.e., undue bias), then we also remove any test whereby we can identify a false prophet--their fruits. The argument would go, Oh, you're judging; everyone is dealing with some form of habitual sin, whether tiny or Titanic. Of course, there's no difference in the seriousness or size of these behaviors.

Conclusions

But what does Jesus--the Biblical Jesus--say? "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much" (Luke 16:10). I don't think from this that He means He doesn't call it stealing until we reach into the millions. Whether we pilfer a few thousand or a box of nails; whether we steal an undeserved reputation as "the face of Jesus," or the unsullied reputation of Mary Magdalene, this much is certain: no leftwing "whataboutism" can cancel any faithful watchman's discernment based on the authority of God's Word. And no one--not even a wolf in sheep's clothing--gets to play poker with the truth. Luke 16:10 is the stone in David's sling.

In later posts, we will examine Jenkins' choice of reviewing and critiquing consultants, his cast, his filming associations, and his viewers and endorsements, including his association with NAR leaders.