Influences Behind The Chosen, Part I

The Influence of The Chosen

Even conventional wisdom would tell us that there is a significant difference between popularity and influence. Godly wisdom will tell us that popularity is to be shunned and that, when we have found ourselves popular, we can be sure our influence is short-lived. Jesus says with good reason, "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers treat the false prophets" (Luke 6:26). In other words, things that become popular usually tell us what we want to hear. The Chosen is no exception. By design, the show features a "more human" Jesus who is affable, humorous, charitable, and nearly always likeable. There is no doubt as to the popularity of Jenkins' show. In the seven years since its inception, this show has picked up over 280 million viewers in over 175 countries, with a goal of being translated into over 600 languages, so that it may reach approximately 95% of the world's population. AI tells me that, as of May 2025, this show has generated a total of nearly $140 million, with Dallas Jenkins' personal salary increasing significantly.

In addition to its now-seven seasons, The Chosen series has also spawned an impressive display of merchandize, including clothing, coffee mugs and tumblers, journals, Bible study books, devotionals, and other publications designed to coach viewers through the series. Rumors of even a Chosen Bible appear to be false, but many churches have established study groups to follow the show. An animated children's series known as The Chosen Adventures is to be released in mid-October of 2025, and Jenkins is also planning three new series, one about Joseph of Egypt, another about Moses, and still another about the Acts of the Apostles. As validation of its global influence, The Chosen has won numerous awards from faith-based organizations. Dallas Jenkins' influence in general and The Chosen's influence in particular would appear to defy expression. Popularity of this nature would also seem to insulate the show from criticism, but when criticism comes even in the objective form of Biblical "fact-checking," Jenkins virtually always leaves himself an "out"--The Chosen doesn't claim to be Scripture.

Without a doubt, the show most certainly does claim to shape viewers' understanding of Jesus--and, let's be honest, it aims to do this with 95% fiction. Those who allow their emotions to rule their intellect will find a deep and abiding loyalty for The Chosen that would speak of its life-changing influence, and how can anyone argue with another person's personal epiphany, and why would they even want to, for that matter? Unless, of course, what The Chosen is offering is something less than true. And the simple fact is that we have to find out whether the show's integrity warrants the enormous popularity it now enjoys and whether this popularity brings an influence that is truly Biblical. It feels almost as if a giant is calling out from the hillsides of Palestine daring us to slay its gargantuan power. But if David is ever to defeat Goliath, all he needs is one smooth stone. If indeed it has become necessary to go head to head with this show, God's Word will be our weapon and our shield.

If we return undaunted to the opening premise that the show's enormous popularity bears close examination, and if we place the show in a historic context of world evangelism, we find a fundamental inconsistency: The Chosen is popular among an audience of nearly 40% unchurched peoples, including Mormons and Muslims, but it remains at the heart of controversy among conservative Christians and Bible scholars. Why is this necessarily a problem? Wasn't Jesus popular with the common masses but hated by the leaders of established religion? But one question demands an answer: if The Chosen is penetrating the darkness of an apostate age with the light of the Gospel, we would expect it to reap Satanic opposition. Are we to characterize the valid complaints of conservative Bible scholars as Satanic opposition?

The fact is that none of the Apostles who fulfilled the Great Commission escaped persecution, and most faced martyrdom. If we know anything at all about evangelism across 2000 years of church history, we know that the Gospel has always sparked spiritual warfare within Satan’s territory. The Chosen would appear to be the grand exception. Not only is the show not at all unpopular among unbelievers, with this group accounting for nearly 40% of the show's viewing base, this base would appear to confirm Jenkins' ability to reach millions of people that churches cannot reach. But the old argument that if it’s too good to be true it probably isn’t leaves us begging for a reality check. It cannot be that we now live in a kinder, gentler world more receptive of convicting truth than we saw in generations of the great Billy Graham Crusades.

Yet, even if we attributed The Chosen’s enormous success to a revival sweeping the world—despite Scripture’s prophecies of a great falling away before the Lord returns, we would still have to reckon with the source of The Chosen’s controversy. If we take this controversy seriously, we must admit the disconnect between the show's enormous popularity and its true influence for Christ. A deeper dive into the true purpose for the show seems like a necessary first step in examining the influence of the show. But if you can figure out Jenkins’ true purpose for The Chosen, you are doing better than I can. If we take him at his word, his primary purpose is to produce topnotch entertainment. It isn’t even faith-based entertainment anymore, if you listen to his most recent interviews with filming gurus.

And yet if you hear him defending his controversial moves to his rumbling viewing base, his primary purpose is to bring people to Jesus. So, is evangelism the primary or the secondary purpose of the show? Or is it really the purpose at all? It has appeared that the answer to this question depends upon the context in which Jenkins finds himself, and the same goes for his most loyal viewers. The same viewers who defend the show’s aberrations from Scripture as mere entertainment also frequently attack the show’s critics as legalists and Pharisees for not embracing it. What makes me a Pharisee if I choose not to imbibe in a show that professes, at the end of the day, to be mere entertainment? Am I also a Pharisee if I choose not to watch the Great American Family channel?

Even if Jenkins' primary purpose for the show is indeed to entertain, his argument goes that this purpose to entertain ensures the show’s ability to evangelize. But he would also argue beyond this that millions who would be won to the gospel at all need to be won by watching his show. But this is a very curious contradiction. How does a show whose purpose to evangelize is secondary at best become the best at evangelizing? Perhaps Jenkins has never read the words of Paul, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (I Corinthians 1:18,22).

The Influences Behind the Show: Screenwriters

Without apology, I think it is fair to ask that a show about Jesus be produced from a uniquely Christian perspective. Don't we have a right to know what these influences are? Are the writers evangelical, or do they give voice to Progressive Christianity? To what extent does Catholicism influence the content, especially given the fact that The Chosen's "Jesus" is a devout Catholic? Are fringes of Mormonism visible to the naked eye, or have they been cleverly camouflaged while still exuding their cultish influence? If only a minority of the show's writers are staunchly evangelical, does that make the totality of the disciples' "viewpoint" skewed or balanced? What happens when we take the show's influences together? We simply have to ask whether the worldview espoused within The Chosen and even popularized by its "Jesus" in reality is tainted by influences that are not Biblical.

The facts bear out that The Chosen seems to have a closer relationship to culture than it does to The Bible. Putting together this thousand-piece puzzle creates a picture that is indeed less than Christian by traditional standards. It might be difficult, but we would have every right to argue that the influences behind The Chosen also determine its influence--or, at least, that they affect its popularity. After all, isn't that what Jenkins had in mind when he handpicked each artistic voice for his show? And right here is where we have every right to be real: if Jenkins’ primary purpose is to evangelize, 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. 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 in the world if my purpose is to bring people to Jesus, and why would I even bother with evangelism if my primary purpose was to entertain? This all seems like some form of spiritual adultery to me, and I do not say that lightly. But 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.”

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 here, one of Jenkins’ co-screenwriters openly acknowledges the value of the LDS perspective. 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 “in-your-face” Catholic, he is avowedly ecumenical rather than evangelical.

So, we have a show that professes to be ultimately evangelistic even though its script is not evangelical but ecumenical and even though 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 infectious 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.